Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-04-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS March 4, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:08 p.m., Tuesday, March 4, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell and Zetterberg, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Moses Todd, member 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. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We're going to have the Invocation this afternoon by the Reverend James F. Bland, Jr., Pastor of the Bayvale Baptist Church, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND BLAND. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Reverend Bland. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and Commission, we have a request for one deletion: The Augusta GreenJackets Baseball Club. We have a request for addendums: Application for a Scrap Tire Recycle Event; a motion to approve condemnation along the property line of James M. Johnson for the installation of a gas line from the Landfill to Albion Kaolin; a motion to approve a condemnation of property by Daren Jones--owned--Daren Jones for installation of a gas line to Albion Kaolin; four, condemnation along the property line of Jerry S. Johnson and Patricia Johnson for installation of gas line, Albion Kaolin; five, a Resolution in support of the Plutonium Mission of the Savannah River Site; six, appointment of William F. Carson, Public Works Director; seven, a motion to approve the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Army and Richmond County for funds related to the dewater/repairs of the New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam. MR. HANDY: Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. BRIDGES: Items 2, 3 and 4, that affects the company that I have my day job by, so I'm going to have to abstain on each of those although I'm not opposed to supporting or opposing that. So I'm abstaining and would like the records to show Items 2, 3 and 4 I abstain. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was just wondering about Item Number 6. I realize that it's my fault, but I was not here--I was in town with about 50 youngsters in Atlanta's Senate Meeting last week--and I was just wondering if Item 6 had to have unanimous consent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you saying no to Item 6? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So with the exception--all the rest of them is okay with you except Item 6, Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is Mr. Todd [inaudible]. CLERK: He's absent today, sir. Mr. Todd is absent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. CLERK: Under the Finance portion of our agenda, Items 1 through 3 were considered at the Finance meeting on February 24th as noted. [Item 1: Motion to approve Resolution reaffirming the necessity of the "911" charge per month upon each exchange access facility and to increase the "911" charge from $1.15 per month per line to $1.50 per month per line. (Approved by Finance Committee February 24, 1997) Item 2: Motion to approve amendment of 1977 Retirement Plan for Richmond County, Georgia, in order to provide for immediate vesting and participation for department heads appointed as such by Richmond County, Georgia. (Approved by Finance Committee February 24, 1997) Item 3: Motion to approve request for waiver of penalty by Lyons & Associates, Inc. (Disapproved by Finance Committee February 24, 1997)] MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on Item 6, Mr. Brigham's wanting not have it on the agenda. Isn't it on the agenda already? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, it has to be added. CLERK: It was an addendum item. It's on your addendum agenda here. MR. ZETTERBERG: I thought it was in here. CLERK: No, sir. MR. OLIVER: We didn't do that till last-- CLERK: Friday. And the agenda was sent out on Thursday. MR. OLIVER: And the agenda was previously published. We'll place that on the next regular agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, Jerry? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends the approval of the actions that were taken in Finance for the Items 1, 2, 3, as a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item 2 out and discuss it separately. MAYOR SCONYERS: So Items 1 and 3. I need a second to Mr. Brigham's motion. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Second by Mr. Kuhlke. So that's Items 1 and 3. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I guess on Item 1. And if it's necessary that we've got to do that and don't have any other choice--and I know that we're not talking about a lot and we're talking about 35 cents. But, you know, the last time that we did this--and we did the reduction because of what the law said in terms of the amount of money that we were collecting. Is there nothing that we can at least suggest in terms of if we are bound by state law or something in there to--I guess while our Legislative Delegation makes all the other types of rules that they make up, that would keep us out of this see-saw battle of going up and down, up and down, with this type thing. Because, I mean, we're on 1.15 at one point, we're down, we're back up to 1.50 and we have it before us now, we're back again. And I realize where there may be a necessity when we could not--it was out of our control, but this is one of those things I think that, you know, we turn around and we get the criticism as local government in terms of dealing with this. But if we've no choice other than flip-flopping control by, you know, another legislative body, then I think in some suggestive manner that if that needs to be changed, you know, to deal with that. Because I think it makes us look in terms of the fact that at times we don't know what the devil we're doing. You know, one year it's one thing, one year it's another one, and we're bound by that law. And then if it's going to be where we're going to be constantly changing it, then maybe that's a restriction then that either we need or we don't need. And maybe I pose that to Jim. You know, I can support the motion, but I think it's getting to be old hat that it comes back and we're constantly having to deal with this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Georgia law--the general statutes covering the 911 fees has a formula in there that you cannot exceed a certain amount of surplus, and so there are parameters that you have to fall in. What happened a number of years ago was that we were in essence going to exceed that, and so the fee was reduced down to 85 cents pending the construction of the 911 facility. Once the 911 facility was started, then we entered into a contract with the City of Augusta and obligated certain funds to be paid to the City of Augusta under the contract, which was going to be at the rate of $1.50 per line. And so, again, in order to maintain that balance that was required by Georgia law we increased it to $1.15 so that we would have sufficient funds to meet that obligation. When the 911 center was completed, and because of the cost of that, again, in order to avoid going into a deficit situation it is now necessary to increase that fee up to $1.50. And, yes, we probably at some future time will have to come back and adjust that fee again because of the formula restrictions that are a part of the code. MR. MAYS: Thank you for your eloquence, sir. I can support the motion, but I think at some point it just needs to be explained from a common sense standpoint and I think legally you've done that very quickly. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. I--Mr. Mayor, thank you. I read with interest that it says according to the budget presentation, without the increase there would be a deficit in the 911 fund. Am I led to believe that the 911 fund is an enterprise fund? MR. WALL: Yes, in essence it is a separate fund and is an enterprise fund. MR. ZETTERBERG: And if one runs a deficit in something, how does one figure out how to run it profitably or break even? MR. WALL: Cut expenses or increase income. MR. ZETTERBERG: Has anybody looked at the possibility of cutting expenses rather than just raising this? I know it's a small amount, but it's just the idea. MR. OLIVER: If you recall, about two weeks ago Chief Atkins came in and requested three additional--four additional dispatchers for the Fire Department, which would have come out of 911. We are currently conducting an analysis as it relates to consolidating the dispatch function over there for the 911 center to look at what kinds of efficiencies of scale could be achieved by a combined center. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I think before I voted to approve an increase in the 911 fees I'd like somebody to do an analysis and reduce the cost of operation in the 911 facility. If then you can't do that, then I'd be more than happy to vote for increasing it. MR. OLIVER: Our budget is predicated on this increase, and so consequently we may be able to reduce it in the future. I don't think this is something--if we would've honored Mr. Atkins' request, the amount of funding required for that center would have gone up even to a greater extent. MR. ZETTERBERG: Oh, I agree with that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion for Item 1 and 3, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like for my vote to roll over from the committee meeting. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Handy, I don't--I have only [inaudible], so. MR. HANDY: Okay. I wasn't going to take a vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, vote against it. Can we have a show of hands again, please, gentlemen? What have I got, six to one, two--I'm missing somebody's hand. Six to three? CLERK: Well, some of them--yeah, they don't want to vote as a consent on that. Some of them don't want to vote for the 911 as a consent. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, let's just separate all the three items. We'll vote on them individually. I didn't think we were going to have that much trouble out of Finance's stuff. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, gentlemen, let's take Item 1. All in favor of Item 1? MR. HANDY, MR. MAYS & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Item 3? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Item 3, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2, Ms. Bonner, please? CLERK: Item 2: A motion to approve amendment of the 1977 Retirement Plan for Richmond County, Georgia, in order to provide for immediate vesting and participation for department heads appointed as such by Richmond County, Georgia. Approved by Finance on February 24th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this one be pulled. I don't--as far as bringing department heads in here and immediately vesting them in our retirement plan, I don't think that's a common practice in industry. I know it's certainly not with my company. I don't think it's really fair to those employees that we have that have put in their five years to be vested to bring someone from the outside in here and to immediately vest them. And I oppose this, and I'll make the motion that we disapprove immediate vesting for department heads appointed by Richmond County. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges. Do I hear a second? Do I hear a second to that? MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: My question is, what happens if you don't bring them into the '77 plan? MR. WALL: The current ordinance provides that they would automatically become--they would come into the '77 plan, however, their vesting would not occur until they've been employed for five years. The feeling was among many of the Commissioners that in the recruiting for department heads, and department heads only, that there was a need for an incentive to bring people who were in higher paying positions and perhaps have been in govern-mental programs, who had their own retirement plans at these other cities and counties around, to bring them in here without their having to wait five years before they became vested. And so this amendment is to allow that immediate vesting for department heads only, and it would apply across the board both for those that are brought in and those that are currently serving. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is that the only retirement plan that they would be considered under or they could participate in? MR. WALL: That's correct, yes. MR. ZETTERBERG: I understand there's a GMA plan. Is that the vesting-- MR. WALL: Well, but earlier--last year the Commission adopted a policy that the '77 plan was the one that all employees--new employees would go into. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is this something that we've promised somebody that's come on board or is somebody--who haven't we hired yet? MR. WALL: I don't know that any promises have been made. There was certainly a discussion insofar as Mr. Few is concerned about his pension, the fact that he was leaving a pension and, you know, what his rights would be under the current pension. Now, I can't-- MR. ZETTERBERG: Does this have an economic impact on the fund itself? MR. WALL: On the pension fund it would be minimal. And that was discussed in the Finance Committee, and I think Mr. McKie's opinion was that it would be nominal. MR. OLIVER: Let me explain the difference. With our current policy, if a person--if this policy was in effect and they were here five years, they would get exactly the same amount. The only difference is, if they would leave before five years was up they would get no return at all on any contributions that were made. This would permit them to take any contributions made with them at the time they leave. Currently the contribution is roughly four percent a year, so it would be four percent of salary per year potentially for anything less than the five years of whatever their current salary is. MR. ZETTERBERG: And the reason for vesting is to get people to stay longer with you? MR. OLIVER: Typically that's one of the considerations, yes. MR. ZETTERBERG: And the five year was picked for that reason? MR. OLIVER: The five year, frankly, was picked because that's an ERISA rule under the federal government's pension plans. And typically, even though we are not covered by ERISA as a government, that is the ERISA guideline under the federal tax code; so that you don't have a private company out there that may require 30 years vesting and the only person they could vest would be the president of the company. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I think my question has already been answered, but I thought that that was one of the provisions that we had made in the proposal to Mr. Few. MR. OLIVER: That was discussed with Mr. Few. It was clearly made known to Mr. Few, however, that that was something that would require Commission approval. It was something that he desired. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to deny, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE YES. MOTION FAILS 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a motion to approve. MR. MAYS: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: A motion's already been made. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, that was pulled out. MR. MAYS: It was one to deny. I'll so move that it be approved. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Administrative Services portion: Items 4 through 6 were approved by Administrative Services on February 24th. [Item 4: Motion to approve the designation of March 24-30, 1997 as National Community Development Week. Item 5: Motion to approve execution of Local Assistance Grant Agreement between Augusta-Richmond County and the Augusta Task Force for the Homeless. Item 6: Motion to approve an Ordinance to adopt Titles 6, 7, and 8 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code. (First Reading)] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 4 through 6 be considered as a consent agenda. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Engineering Services: Items 7 through 19 were approved by Engineering Services on February 24th. [Item 7: Motion to approve Change Order in the amount of $128,893.29 to Mabus Brothers Construction Company to finalize the 5th Street Separation Project and make needed improvements to the intersection of 5th Street and Reynolds Street. Item 8: Motion to approve Final Change Order for the closing in the contract for Chafee Avenue Storm Sewer Improvements in the amount of $78,838.72 to Mabus Brothers Construction Company, Inc. Item 9: Motion to approve the declaration of certain Sanitation surplus equipment and authorize sale of same. Item 10: Motion to ratify emergency repair construction on sewer line in Walton Way at a cost of $15,000. Item 11: Motion to authorize use of bond funds and bidding for 16" sewer line crossing Gordon Highway (estimated cost $225,480). Item 12: Motion to approve a proposal from James G. Swift and Associates to design improvements related to the Faircrest Pumping Station at a cost of $15,875. Item 13: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Four with funding for the Jackson Road Widening Project in the amount of $3,059.000 from allocated Special 1-Cent Sales Tax, Phase II funds, CPB#51-8301-320, and approve to let for bids. Item 14: Motion to approve the letting of contract to extend roadway and utilities to eight lots west of Goodale Landing Subdivision. Item 15: Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $117,834.00 for Eagle Utility Contracting regarding the construction of Kissingbower Road Area Sanitary Sewer Extension, Phases II & III. Item 16: Motion to approve an Ordinance adopting Titles 6, 7, and 8 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code. (First Reading) Item 17: Motion to approve allowing Alltel to locate temporary antennas on the water tank located at National Hills and to authorize negotiating for lease agreement with Alltel for permanent antenna to be located at the fire station on Washington Road at National Hills. Item 18: Motion to convey certain County property to Georgia Department of Transportation for the widening of Bobby Jones Expressway of Project Reference NH-IM-520-1 (14) - Westwood Subdivision Co. Ref. 88-004 and 84-056. Item 19: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number One in the amount of $601,000 from Special 1-Cent Sales Tax, Phase III and approve to let bid.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask that we accept this as a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull out Item Number 15. MR. BEARD: And, Mr. Mayor, 17. MAYOR SCONYERS: With the exception of Items 15 and 17. So it's going to be 7 through 19 with the exception of 15 and 17; is that correct, gentlemen? Discussion on that, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 15, please? CLERK: A motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $117,834.00 for Eagle Utility Contracting regarding the construction of Kissingbower Road Area Sanitary Sewer Extension, Phase II & III. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I just had a few concerns about this and I just thought we needed to pull it down a little bit and reconsider this item and send it back to committee, and I'd make a motion that we send it back to committee. MR. HANDY: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'm not on that committee, but I happened to be sitting in on this particular item, and I believe Mr. Hicks reported that the purpose of this change order was it was in the same facility as where work was already being done and that it was in our best interest to issue this in the form of a change order rather than going out and bidding it because the people were already mobilized at that particular site. And I'd like to hear from him on that before we vote, if you don't mind. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Hicks? MR. HICKS: That is correct. Eagle Utility Construction is already onsite. They were the low bidder for the work that's already underway down there and has been completed. They held their prices until this could be designed. It was the original thought that this area was in the construction plans that were originally drawn up, but it turned out they were not. So that's the only thing we were asking was that since they had given a good price, that we be allowed to go ahead and award the contract to them for this additional work. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd certainly like to hear why we wouldn't want to approve it. Is there-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I just thought we needed to review it a little further, but I haven't got a particular reason, Mr. Zetterberg. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a substitute motion to approve it. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion on that motion, gentlemen? Mr. Henry Brigham, you had your hand up on the initial motion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Oh, no, I was going to ask could I make a motion, but-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Any discussion, gentlemen? If not, we'll vote on the substitute motion first by Mr. Powell. That was a motion to approve. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 17, please? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I asked that that--the only thing I'm concerned about here, I would like to add one thing to this. Wherein, you know, I have no problem with this, but I just wanted to make sure that--I would like to add that provided there is no interference with any other towers in that area. And I would like to add that to Number 17, and I make that in the form of a motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard and seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No, I was just going to second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: [inaudible] that is an acceptable addition. CLERK: Sir? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's an acceptable addition to the [inaudible]. Lee's amendment is acceptable. CLERK: Is not acceptable? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is acceptable. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve with the amendment, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 20, please? CLERK: Under the Public Safety, Items 20 through 29 were approved by Public Safety on February 24th. [Item 20: Motion to approve renewal of License Agreement for Sheriff's Department tower located at 2400 Barton Chapel Road #1. Item 21: Motion to authorize staff to work with Barton Village Neighborhood Weed and Seed Program to secure a grant for Law Enforcement and Social Service activities. Item 22: Motion to approve the appointment of Bill Foster to the Local Emergency Committee for a three year term. (To fill the unexpired term of Charles Tant.) Item 23: Motion to approve the appointment of Art Rider to the Local Emergency Committee for a three year term. (To fill the unexpired term of Steve Patterson.) Item 24: Motion to approve allowing Alltel to locate temporary antennas on the water tank located at National Hills, and to authorize negotiating for lease agreement with Alltel for permanent antenna to be located at the fire station on Washington Road at National Hills. Item 25: Motion to accept the Local Emergency Planning Committee Annual Report for 1996. Item 26: Motion to approve the "Augusta-Richmond County Hazardous Material Spill Policy". Item 27: Motion to approve Resolution supporting passage of House Bill 531, thereby allowing special purpose local option sales tax monies to purchase fire equipment. Item 28: Motion to approve change order in the amount of $32,370 with R. W. Allen & Associates, Inc. for the 4th Street JLE Facility. Item 29: Motion to approve change order with Beers Construction Company in the amount of $35,311.00 for the Phinizy Road Jail Facility.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I was not here and Mr. Zetterberg handled the meeting, and would you mind making the motion, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I make a motion that Items 20 through 29 be accepted by consent agenda. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I've just got a question on Item Number 21 as far as the-- trying to secure a grant in the Weed and Seed Program. As I understand that, that's from either federal or state and also we're not putting any county funds up in this grant; is that correct? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. It's been clearly represented other than in-kind services: the use of facilities, the use of, you know, existing staff, things like that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions, too, for Number 22 and Number 23. I just was--I was questioning us supporting making appointments to the boards, and I thought we had made an agreement that the-- before the terms ran out, that people would come back up for nominations. MS. TUCKER: Do you want me to speak to that? MR. POWELL: I've just got a--just clarify for me, that's all. MS. TUCKER: Okay. You, the board here, nominates people and then they- -those nominations go for final board appointment from the head of DNR. This is under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act [inaudible]. The LEPC is a function of that federal--but I don't know if that matters. I mean, if you don't--you can nominate who you want to, but I'm saying they come down for final appointment from DNR. MAYOR SCONYERS: Pam, these are the folks that--these are the ones that y'all recommended; is that correct? MS. TUCKER: Yes, sir, because we have certain states that are--so many that are allowed for industry representatives. And we lost an industry representative and we replaced him with an industry, which is Art Rider. And on the--the one that Bill Foster is replacing, Charles Tant was kind of an at- large type of membership, because Bill is working on some safety programs with Augusta Tech with us and we need his expertise. See, the federal law requires that certain positions--we don't have a choice sometimes. If you happen to be the public health director, then you're the person that's going to be on this committee. Do you see what I'm saying? They're really mandated by federal government by position; not all of them, but most of the 24 members that we have are. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Let me clarify something for the benefit of the Commission. This particular committee was not included on the list of the boards and authorities that were affected by consolidation because it is not--I mean, it's not one of those Section 13(f) that--I mean, y'all do the nominations, DNR makes the ultimate appointment. It is controlled by federal law and is not one of those boards that would be expanded under the Consolidation Act to the ten members. MR. POWELL: That was what I was seeking an answer on, that portion of the thing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 30, please? CLERK: Items 30 through 35 were approved by the Public Services Committee on February 24th. [Item 30: Motion to approve Ordinance adopting Titles 6, 7, and 8 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code. (First Reading) Item 31: Motion to approve bid award to low bid, Mobley Construction of Georgia, Inc., in the amount of $309,719.00 for renovations to Hephzibah, Jamestown and Gracewood Parks. Item 32: Motion to adopt the Master Plan for New Lake Olmstead Park as prepared by Roger Davis & Associates, Landscape Architects. Item 33: Motion to approve bid award to National Bus Sales & Leasing for transit vehicles in the amount of $227,176.00. Item 34: Motion to approve the transfer of responsibility of operation and administration of Georgia Department of Transportation Non-Urban Transit Grant from the Recreation and Parks Department to the Augusta Public Transit Department. Item 35: Motion to authorize the Administrator or designee authority to enter into Standard Officiant contracts on behalf of Augusta-Richmond County regarding services for ARC Recreation Department activities and to make a periodic report to the Commission.] MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, those items I believe were approved unanimously, and I make a motion that we accept 30 through 35 as a consent agenda, they be approved and be voted on as one and recorded as separate. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Was that Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we pull out 32 and discuss it separately? I've got some questions on that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, that we take Items 30 through 35 with the exception of Item 32. Discussion on those items, gentlemen? MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 32, please? CLERK: Item 32 is a motion to adopt the Master Plan for New Lake Olmstead Park as prepared by Roger Davis & Associates, Landscape Architects. Approved by Public Services Committee on February 24th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the question I had on this--I don't have any problem with the plan really. I think it's fine work and I think this would be very beneficial to the city to carry this out. The question I have is we're spending 3.8 million dollars on this project and--but I don't see any cost of what it would take to maintain or staff or anything like that after the project is, you know, built. And I think too often we're going in with these ideas and plans and we're not considering the expense and the cost of what it's going to take to operate these facilities after the project is completed, so I think we need to--I'm not going to oppose this; I think it's a good idea. But the comment I'd like to make is I think we need to consider when we're doing these and maybe asking for a master plan, maybe get some idea of the cost to operate these plans after they're completed, not just the amount up to completion. MR. OLIVER: That was discussed in committee and I totally agree with you. This will ultimately come back in pieces. We actually only have sufficient funds to fund a very few pieces of this at this point. I've talked with Mr. Beck and we agree that we are going to make capital improvements that require no additions in staff at this point and not proceed with any work that would require additions in staff without doing a full cost analysis. MR. BRIDGES: So we're not necessarily approving 3.8 million dollars, we're approving the plan itself? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. We don't have 3.8 million dollars. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. I make a motion to approve, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Kuhlke, did you want to say something? MR. KUHLKE: No, Mr. Oliver answered it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor--and I better hurry up while Ulmer made that motion before he takes it back. I think it also should be noted for the public's consumption that in that long-range plan one of the ideas of getting that much information and being put together is that it was designed with also having input from the Canal Authority. And hopefully with federal funds that will be coming in for that overall project that's with the Canal, that we may be in line for additional funds and probably can even do a jump-start of being first in terms of going after some of those funds as well, Mr. Bridges, in addition to what we may put aside from one percent sales tax. So that's why it's designed in that manner, and hopefully that will entice and draw other sources of funding. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion to adopt, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 36, please? CLERK: A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission on February 18th. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: 37: A motion to appoint the Chairman of the Board of Elections to a four-year term. Nominees from the Augusta-Richmond County Legislative Delegation are: Mr. Ken Nimmons, Mr. Jim Purcell, and Mr. David Watkins. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to nominate Mr. Jim Purcell for that position. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I would like to nominate David Watkins. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further nominations, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move nominations be closed. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: We need to vote in the order they were presented; is that right, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Purcell, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE YES. MOTION FAILS 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Watkins? MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Watkins has six votes. Mr. Watkins will be the new Chairman of the Board of Elections. CLERK: Item 38 is to consider a request from Augusta Clean and Beautiful for additional funding. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we send this to Finance Committee. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham. Who seconded that, please? Mr. Kuhlke? Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to-- MR. ZETTERBERG: No, I have one item. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, Mr. Zetterberg, go ahead. MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like to just give my acceptance to increasing that additional funding for the Clean and Beautiful program. Of all of the things that we do around here and of all the problems that we've had in the past and the desire for the citizens of this community to ensure that we live in a clean and beautiful community, it seems to me kind of absurd that we're cutting almost 25 percent out of the budget for this activity. I recognize it probably will go back to committee, but I'm hoping that wisdom will prevail and that we will increase the funding for the Augusta Clean and Beautiful activities. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to echo what my colleague Mr. Zetterberg has stated. We're spending a lot of money on intersection beautification through the Engineering Committee, and I think if there's anything we can do to enhance Augusta's image as the Garden City, if it means just a little bit of adding fundings here and there in order to do it, I think it's money well spent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, as Chairman of the Finance Committee I also want to commend the Clean and Beautiful commission for a job well done. The problem, though, is it's a checkbook item. and I want to make sure that the items--the finances have been identified and that this whole Commission has an opportunity to vote to spend money in an appropriate manner and not just have an item put on and ask for funds and then we're going to just increase them. Because we have to act responsibly. I want to make sure the committee system works and that we go back and go through the financing and identify the funds and the source of revenues that these are going to come from. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Oliver, what is the amount of that request? MR. OLIVER: They were appropriated last year in the budget 35,000. If my memory is right, that's the same amount that they got in the preceding year. My discussion with the director was that they wanted an additional 15,000 for the purpose of going into the schools and basically telling students that this was not a socially acceptable thing to do to litter our countryside. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I seconded the motion, and I fully support the Clean and Beautiful commission, but I hate to see something come on the agenda that we don't have any backup information in the agenda book in regards to that. And I think the appropriate way to handle things like this ought to come through the Finance Committee, so I support Mr. Brigham's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I may support the motion, and I think that is the proper thing to do, but we do have the director here and I would just like to hear from her for a second to see--since we don't have the backup information on this, maybe she can enlighten us so that even if we go to the Finance Committee meeting we would have--be enlightened just a little bit more. MS. BLANOS: Thank you very much. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the interest and support of all of you folks. I've only been with the Augusta-Richmond Clean and Beautiful for one month, but I have come in and been a member of the community and I see the need for the work of the organization. I think we're a vital part of Augusta-Richmond County. I don't think that anyone alone can clean up the community; I think it's going to take a community to clean up the community. And whether we do this as individuals or however, I think it's most important that we go into the school systems and that we allow our children the knowledge that we have on keeping Augusta clean and beautiful, and allow them to take pride, and to allow them to grow up knowing that this is their community in whatever area of town that they reside in. Your funding to us is very important. I did submit a copy of our 1996 financial statement to Mr. Oliver this morning. I don't know that he has had a chance to review it. I have been asked to put it on the agenda before, but due to communications I did not make it there, but I've been trying to get to these meetings for two--two or three weeks now. But I do appreciate your support and I do hope that you understand that we are just not socializing your monies, or the citizens' money, we are here for a purpose and we are here to make a difference. Thank you. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. MAYS: I would just hope after--and I missed one meeting, but I--and I know that she made a very good point about no one person can do it, no one organization can do it. But I would hope after all the public hearings that we've been around this town with, regardless of the feelings pro or con about what went out with the mandatory proposal, one thing is evident: that this city does need to be cleaned up. And I would--I'm not on Finance either, but when it goes back there I would hope that in the creative measure--and we've done a lot of creative things this year. Some I agreed with, some I didn't. But I would hope that that would be one of the creative things and we can find a way to deal with budgeting for them. And I don't know whether there is any surplus money that was put in from the sale of equipment or anything else that went through in the privatization of our Sanitation Department. Since we no longer have it and there was a sale of equipment that was in there, if there is any net that could--and that may be one place that Finance first wants to look. Because that was a sale, and I hope that when you have sales that you didn't have a negative sale and that you all made some money off of it. And I believe that the Finance Chairman and Mr. Todd have been, you know, heading up various subcommittees that deal with that issue, so that's just a suggestion that I hope Finance will take in terms of the first place of looking; that those of us who reside in the old urban district, that we no longer have a sanitation department, that's now been privatized. So that may be the first place that you gentleman may want to look in terms of finding some money inasmuch as everything over there was sold and all the people are now gone. So I hope that in your selling, that you were prudent in terms of that it was a positive sale, and that may be the first place you want to look in terms of getting some money. Just a suggestion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I think this area is extremely important and it's one of the major things that we need to accomplish in the community. I respect the fact--or respect the committee system, and I would probably vote now to bring it back to committee, but I'd like to see the Mayor take some leadership in this area. We have gone out--we have a number of actions and activities that have taken place now. We've purchased a litter patrol and we have worked on an ordinance, we've got a Clean and Beautiful committee, but I also think there's a need for orchestrating this entire area, and it's--it needs some super-vision from the very top to ensure that our community projects the image that it ought to project. And I would just encourage the Mayor to take that kind of leadership and put all of the groups together and let's make an assault on what's happening in our community so that we can be very, very proud in the future of the way Augusta looks and the image that we project. MS. BLANOS: May I make one comment? I have spoken with Marshal Steve Smith and he's in agreement with me. I would like to work with the deputies that are being hired to do the litter busting. I would like to teach them to be facilitators. They would have a great impact on our school kids, going in with their uniform and, you know, the respect that children have for the uniform. So I look forward to working with all of these committees and all these contributors. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to just say that it won't happen and we won't get everybody together unless somebody takes that kind of initiative. And we've got a multi-pronged activity going on and I just encourage that--Mayor, that you might take a look at that. We've got one month to police up the city. I'm really worried about what's going to happen when Mother Nature is really making an accelerated effort out there, and we could be in trouble unless we get behind everybody and make sure that the city is clean and beautiful for Masters--and not just Masters, for the entire summer period. MAYOR SCONYERS: Be happy to do that, Mr. Zetterberg. If you'll remember, last March I tried to do the same thing and nobody wanted to participate. Jamey, did you want to say something? MR. HALPIN: Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. I'm Jamey Halpin, I'm the Vice Chairperson of the Augusta Clean and Beautiful, and I thank you very much for the support that you've voiced today. And I would like to more or less officially announce that March 29th is Augusta Cleanup Day and we hope to have all the neighborhoods, all the individuals, out cleaning up their own--their own streets and areas. There's an old Chinese proverb that says: If everyone would sweep their own doorstep, the whole town would be clean. And that's kind of what we're talking about. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, to turn it back to committee; is that correct? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item: A motion to adopt an Ordinance to amend the Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual for Richmond County so as to modify the grievance and appeals process for employees; to repeal conflicting ordinances. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission on February 18th. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 40, please? CLERK: Item 40 is discussion of the Internal Auditor's Contract. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to suggest that we go in legal session to discuss this matter. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, if we're going to do that, can we postpone that until we finish some of these other items? MAYOR SCONYERS: Move Item 40 to-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: The bottom of the agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: The bottom? Okay. Well, let's say we do 40 and 45 at the same time then. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Is that acceptable, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, that's fine. CLERK: We'll do 40 and 45 together, and we'll do the other items before we do 41, the grievance hearing. MR. MAYS: Well, you've got the grievance hearing on 41 that's probably going to take some time as well, and you've got [inaudible] I think will probably be shortened and some other short items and resolutions that we maybe can go ahead and handle them, and then with the grievance stuff and legal on the end. MR. OLIVER: He won't be here till 3:30 anyway. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Well, I guess we'll go to 42 and 43. CLERK: Okay, 42: Motion to approve the rezoning of the feet fronting on Balfour Street on behalf of William Dye. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, that should--it's 20 feet. At the time I sent the agenda item over I did not have it. It will be a strip 20 feet on the front on Balfour Drive and 23 feet on the rear property line. This is one that a rezoning request came up last year; it was turned down; a lawsuit was instituted. Through discussions both with the neighborhood and with the property owner, an agreement was reached where only a portion of the subject property would be rezoned. And this has the approval of the neighborhood and I recommend approval of it. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HIBBARD: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to note the appearance of counsel for the property owner. My name is Phillip Scott Hibbard, I'm standing in for Mr. Jimmy Findlay. MAYOR SCONYERS: So noted. Thank you very much. All in favor--excuse me. MR. HIBBARD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: 43: A motion to approve contract between B.F.I. and Augusta- Richmond County for removal and disposal of scrap tires pursuant to the contract between EPD and Augusta-Richmond County. MR. WALL: This was a grant of $20,055 that was applied for, and the county has now received that. As a part of that grant proposal there was a proposed contract with B.F.I. where they would do the cleanup and disposal of the tires at five sites, and this confirms the terms of the attachments to the grant application and makes it in the form of a contract. Recommend approval. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BEARD: What is the difference between this and the addition to the agenda, Number 1? Are these two separate cases? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. WALL: Two separate things. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 1 under the addendum agenda: An Application for a Scrap Tire Recycle Event for legal residents of Augusta-Richmond County. MR. WALL: Armand, do you want to explain? ARMAND: Yes. This is a proposal for an application for a Scrap Tire Recycle Event for the citizens of Augusta-Richmond County. The event is just for the citizens, not for the retail tire dealers or the commercial scrap tire generators. Tires that will be accepted will be passenger tires, tractor- trailer tires, and front and rear farm tractor tires. No heavy equipment tires. The event will be held during an eight day period from May 17th through the 24th. The city will be responsible for the advertising costs. I guess we could work that with Clean and Beautiful. And the grant will pay for the loading cost and the transportation cost to an approved EPD processor. The reimbursement will be based on the correctly filled out weight tickets, manifests, and invoices that are turned in to the Georgia EPD program. And the event should be held in a city/ county facility that's fenced-in and manned during the event. You will probably need somebody to check for the identification, verification for citizenship of Augusta-Richmond County, and the recommended scrap tires that will be accepted is eight per citizen. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2, please? CLERK: We'll take Items 2, 3, and 4 together. [Item 2: Motion to approve condemnation of a 20-foot strip (0.61 acres) along the property line of property of James M. Johnson, Tax Map 191, Parcel 2.2, for the installation of gas line from the Landfill to Albion Kaolin. Item 3: Motion to approve condemnation of a 20-foot strip (0.70 acres) along the property line of property of Daren Jones, Tax Map 191, Parcel 2.4, for the installation of gas line from the Landfill to Albion Kaolin. Item 4: Motion to approve condemnation of a 20-foot strip (0.01 acres) along the property line of property of Jerry S. Johnson and Patricia A. Johnson, Tax Map 191, Parcel 2.3, for the installation of gas line from the Landfill to Albion Kaolin.] MR. WALL: These are all requests to approve condemnations for--in connection with the gas collection--methane gas collection at the Landfill. We were unable to negotiate to acquire the necessary easements and need authority to condemn. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? CLERK: It was Jerry Brigham's, sir. MR. KUHLKE: By Jerry Brigham, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's okay. I'd just as soon let Mr. Kuhlke have the privilege. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: A Resolution in support of the Plutonium Mission of Savannah River Site. MR. MEADORS: Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners. I'm Robert Meadors, I'm with Westinghouse Savannah River Company. I'd like to thank you for the invitation to come and speak with you this afternoon about an item that's of great interest to us at the Savannah River Site and also of importance to Augusta and to the region, and that is the consideration of Savannah River Site for new plutonium missions. We'd like to thank you again for the support that you've given us over the 45-year history of the Savannah River Site, and we think this is a very critical juncture that's being--for the site as the Department and the Administration look forward to determining the future of the Ewing Complex and also of the Savannah River Site. You will note that many regional leaders such as the Augusta Chamber of Commerce have passed resolutions similar to this one indicating their support for the Savannah River Site, and we would like to encourage the Commission to also adopt such a stance with regard to the future of the site. Plutonium is a very serious issue both nationally and internationally. Because of the end of the Cold War both the United States and Russia are now facing the management responsibility tasks of dealing with surplus weapons plutonium and the issues and concerns of anti-proliferation and preventing that material from falling into the hands of those who would reuse it in a terrorist nature or also to reuse that in rearming both of those nuclear communities. The Department of Energy has decided to follow a dual path for the disposition of some 50 metric tons of plutonium which we have declared surplus. Those two paths are immobilization of plutonium, putting it into a form which can then go into a geologic repository, or using that plutonium in a mixed oxide fuel which could be consumed in commercial light-water power reactors and then disposed of as commercial spent nuclear fuel. The Savannah River site has the capability for supporting the Department in the implementation of either of those two technical options for dealing with plutonium. We feel that the site through its 45-year history in working with plutonium has established an outstanding safety and environmental record. We are very concerned about the health of our workers, about the health of the public, and protection of the environment. We have the capability both technically from an engineering and design standpoint to successfully execute those missions, and we look forward to your support and working with the political leaders of the state and of the nation to make that happen. I would be happy to respond to any questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I would just like for you to--I've heard in several other sessions some of the rationale of what--who are we competing against and what are our chances, and would you--are you able to comment on where we are and what are the ramifica-tions or what are our possibilities of getting this? And I'm sure the economic impact is going to be great. And our scientist is not here today. I think he's in Washington working on this. MR. MEADORS: Very good. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Todd. But please comment on this, please, sir. MR. MEADORS: The Department of Energy in its Record of Decision identified Savannah River Site very favorably. It identified the Savannah River Site as a plutonium capable site with state-of-the-art storage and process capabilities and the last remaining large-scale chemical processing facilities in the United States. So from that standpoint we are confident that we have the confidence of the Department to be able to carry out these missions. You're correct in stating that there is some competition for these meetings--for these missions. As the Department of Energy looks to downsize the complex, other sites are looking very eagerly to being able to accomplish these mission also. Specifically for immobilization, the Defense Waste Processing Facility, we feel, is very critical to the success of that part of the Department's mission. It will enable the Department to pursue that mission on a more aggressive time schedule. And the fact that this plutonium exists in a separated form has been identified as a clear and present danger by the National Academy of Sciences, so any opportunity to accelerate the pace of the disposition of plutonium would certainly give the Savannah River Site perhaps an edge in that competition. The other site which is noted as a competitor for that mission is the Hanford site near Richland, Washington. With regards to fabrication of mixed oxide fuels, there are four sites that are in the running: the Savannah River Site; the Hanford site again near Richland, Washington; the Pantex site, which is a weapons disassembly and assembly site; and also the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in--near Idaho Falls, Idaho. We certainly have the basic capabilities to execute that mission. We have the core competencies, and perhaps more importantly, the infrastructure and waste management capacity to deal with those missions. We feel that we would compete very favorably for the mixed oxide mission also. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I think we all realize the impact that this--the Savannah River Site has on our community, and I would like to move at this time that we support the resolution that is being brought forth at this time. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to support, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 7: A motion to approve the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Army and Richmond County to contribute funds related to the dewatering and repairs of the Lock at the New Savannah Bluff Lock & Dam subject to finalization of the Memorandum of Agreement. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: We met last week with the Corps of Engineers. There have been drafts of memorandums of agreement passed back and forth between the Corps of Engineers and the county, and basically I think on Thursday we reached a meeting of the minds of those that were present at the meeting insofar as changes that would be made in the MOA. Those are set forth in various paragraphs--seven paragraphs under the background: contribution by the Corps of Engineers of one million dollars; contribution by Richmond County at $500,000, which you all have already approved; agreement by Richmond County to enter into a ten-year lease agreement for the operation and maintenance of the Lock upon completion of the dewatering and repair of the Lock; four, payment by Richmond County of $500,000 into an escrow account which would allow Richmond County the use of--well, the interest on the money during the period of time that the contract was being awarded and the contract was being executed. Then paragraph number five: that the Corps--an acknowledgement that the Corps of Engineers would not obligate through a contract or otherwise more than 1.5 million dollars. Should it become apparent that the cost of that repair will exceed the 1.5 million dollars, then it will be up to both the Corps of Engineers and/or Richmond County to identify additional funding to complete that task; otherwise the contract would simply be terminated and the- -any balance of the funds would be refunded based upon a ratio of two- thirds/one-third: two-thirds federal dollars, one-third city dollars would be returned. The design of the project by the Corps of Engineers will be charged against the 1.5 million dollars. There was a great deal of discussion concerning this one item, however, they were insistent that their cost allocation is based upon assigning time to particular budget or project dollars and were insistent that this had to be charged against that. The estimated cost through the design, advertising, and award of the contract was approximately $75,000, so you're talking about $25,000 county dollars, $50,000 federal dollars. And then paragraph seven just lays out the cost-sharing ratio of two-thirds/one-third. The project is approximately two weeks, I believe they indicated, behind schedule. They're trying to get it within this fiscal year. They do not need a signed agreement at this point, but they need a confirmation that the Commission is willing to enter into that agreement so that they can get approval for these changes from their standard MOA agreement. And basically the deviations are the--a definition of the term of the lease agreement, which would be ten years, and basically that ties in with the reinspection schedule for the Lock and a normal maintenance schedule; and the escrow account. The original agreement called for us to simply pay the $500,000 over to them within 30 days of the execution of the MOA, and we would lose all the interest. The money has already been identified and been segregated, and approximately $25,000 worth of interest has already been earned on that $500,000. And so that will give you some idea of the cost benefit to the county if we have it segregated into an escrow account so that we reap the benefits of the interest on the money. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, the ten-year lease agreement, is the lease agreement with DOT or is the lease agreement with the Corps? MR. WALL: The lease agreement would be with the Corps of Engineers. MR. KUHLKE: They would operate the Lock? MR. WALL: The city would operate the Lock. Previously the City of Augusta-- MR. KUHLKE: What is the lease for? What are they leasing? MR. WALL: They are leasing the Lock to the city and the city would have the responsibility of operating the Lock. Let boats-- MAYOR SCONYERS: That includes the park, doesn't it, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: We already have a lease agreement for the park. And, yes, this would be an addendum to that park lease and we would take the whole operation. Right now we--the lease agreement that we have from the Corps of Engineers goes down to some defined line that basically is on the edge of the concrete separating the Lock. Previously the City of Augusta had a similar lease agreement that was a five-year term, and this is for a ten-year term. MR. OLIVER: We also need to have discussions with the Canal Authority as it relates to operation. It's unclear to me right now what's going to be required to operate it, and I think that clearly needs to be thought through, because I'm concerned about staffing it if there's frequent travel through those Locks. MAYOR SCONYERS: I think that that was handled through the wastewater treatment plant before, wasn't it? MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a motion to-- MR. KUHLKE: I move approval. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Motion by Mr. Kuhlke to approve. Do I hear a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: You want to go to Item 40, executive session? MAYOR SCONYERS: Might as well. MR. MAYS: So move. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? We need to go into a legal session. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL SESSION, 3:10 - 4:25 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next order of business, Ms. Bonner, please? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Before Ms. Bonner gets to that, I know we have Mr. Plowman and representatives from Baird & Company, but on Item Number 40 I'd like to move that we defer any action in regards to that particular situation until we have had the chance to get information back from our attorney regarding the contract that we have now, and I think that will--we'll get that information at our next meeting, which would be the 18th. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second? MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item of business, please? CLERK: A grievance hearing for Lynn Wittke. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: I have some introductory comments. You're here today to hear a grievance regarding the termination of Mr. Lynn Wittke. Mr. Wittke, according to the grievance, was terminated for working for and being compensated by another employer while on paid leave from Augusta-Richmond County. The appropriateness of the termination under those circumstances was the only issue before the Personnel Board. Consequently, arguments here regarding the grievance should be limited to whether Mr. Wittke's termination was justified. Is that understood by the parties? MR. MAGUIRE: We understand that. How do you wish to proceed, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: [inaudible] MR. WALL: Yeah, the appellant. MR. MAGUIRE: Gentlemen, I'd like to give you a chance to right a wrong in this situation. We feel like that he's gotten on the wrong end of the stick. I believe that you have the facts--I'm given to believe that you have the facts as to what happened. Is that true, Rob? Do you know what happened? MR. ZETTERBERG: No, I don't. MR. MAGUIRE: You don't know anything that happened? MR. ZETTERBERG: What, on this? MR. MAGUIRE: Yes, on this issue. MR. ZETTERBERG: No, nobody's advised me of anything. Why are you asking me that question? MR. MAGUIRE: Because I thought you had been advised. MR. ZETTERBERG: No, sir. I have not been-- MR. MAGUIRE: Otherwise, you know, I would not have known that. Well, let me go back then. MR. ZETTERBERG: Now, Mr. Maguire, ask the question again so I make sure I give you a correct answer. MR. MAGUIRE: Well, I wondered if you knew what he was accused of doing. MR. ZETTERBERG: I was informed by Ms. Beazley--yes, Mrs. Beazley, at a time when that happened, and I participated in no further discussions of that at all. In fact, I believe I was informed at the same time--there were a couple of other Commissioners in the room, but I don't remember which ones they were. But I've never had any occasion to discuss it with anybody else. MR. WALL: Mr. Maguire, to answer your question, we have not briefed the Commissioners in any way. We have furnished them some information, and Ms. D'Alessio will be pointing out the background behind this, and so they have not had any formal briefing of the charges or the documentation, et cetera. MR. MAGUIRE: Well, I'd like to give you some information. And I'm sure that she has briefed you and so forth, but--and I'll not try to go on and on and on, but I want you to understand, you know, what has happened. Lynn Wittke has been an employee of the government for nine years. He's been in the Information Department and served in that capacity with the city. He has had a difficult time in the last 24 months. You might recall from reading the paper and other information that he was falsely and wrongly accused of mishan-dling two computers when he worked with the city, which resulted in him being taken away from that job before the GBI completed their investigation which exonerated him. He was put back to work and went over into the new government as Information Director. He and Nancy Bonner both operated in that system until she was named interim head. Lynn was terminated by Nancy Bonner while she was interim head, and it's interesting to me to note that the permanent placement of that particular position has been named. Lynn, during the period of time and the last several years has been under a good bit of pressure. He has not had a full staff when he worked with the city, was called in on weekends, but nevertheless did an outstanding job. Had a lot of good testimony when we tried the case before City Council, and they went 100 percent in his favor. The situation, though, got worse when we got over here. He was depressed. He was taking a series of medications, some of which were Prozac, 40 milligrams a day for depression; Valium, 10 milligrams a day for depression; he was taking nausea medication, diarrhea, acid reflux, muscle spasms, stress headaches, and anxiety and sleep. He was under the care of a physician during this period of time. Shortly after he was not chosen as the Interim Information Director, his doctor recommended that he take a leave of absence. This he did, at the doctor's request. He had announced to Nancy Bonner, to the Mayor, to others, that he was going to take the early enhanced retirement. He was going to get back, if he could, into the consulting field. So Lynn stopped work on August the 12th. He came back to work on October the 21st. This is approximately ten weeks. Now, on August the 19th Lynn did some consulting work for approximately three weeks, which ended on or about September the 13th. He stayed out--he said that he did this because he wanted to see if he could make the transition and if he could get himself together and do it. He worked for a while as part-time, it didn't work, and he stopped. Now, that's in violation of the policies and procedures manual. It's interesting to note-- and it was wrong, but it's interesting to note that he was never given a copy of it, never signed off on it or anything else. He had announced his intention to take the early enhanced retirement. He did this in error. He should not have done it, but we think firing is too much for it because of his diminished capacity and because of his long years of service. Now, we think that the political connection between Wittke and Bonner and the position also comes into play, and I've been involved too much with these governments not to understand that that is a big factor. I understand that you want to uphold your Administrator's decisions when you can, but we think it's just--it's too much to do to this man to take away in his early 50's his retirement, to ruin his name, when he has done a lot of work. He had spent a lot of money when he was wrongfully accused on attorneys fees and not really been compensated back for that or any of his lost pay or anything else. I ask you to strongly consider if what you're doing is really fair. Now, I'm not trying to single out people, but why cut the feet out from one guy and give a windfall to somebody else. When you think of Steve at the airport, eight years, he's drawing $23,377 a year. Now, a good man, but did he ever--never make a mistake? James Cullum, eight and a half years; James is drawing 11,043. I'm glad they are. I think it's wonderful. Barbara Sasser, eight years, drawing $6,731. Sam Fussell, she's got six and a half years and she's drawing a retirement. All right, you're taking all that away on one act when the guy was in a diminished capacity situation. If he had it all over to do again I know that he wouldn't do that. He made a mistake, but with all those that have been--that you've had drug problems with, those that you had dishonesty with, those--and that type of thing, it's just too much to do all this. We need not to do this. Let him go ahead and do his early retirement and get his stuff and get out and go on with his life. Don't just nail him. Now, the issue here is not early retirement; the issue here, as the Administrator correctly said, is termination. But you have to consider everything that went with it. There's people who believe in this man. Why have a scapegoat? I know that there are early--other situations that have influenced this, but why take it out on this person? I've seen people do some dreadful things in the years that I've been involved as City Attorney and in the years that I've watched these governments since 1965, but I think this is completely unfair, and I urge you to reconsider the decisions and recommendations that have been made to you and not go through with this and let this man continue on and then retire. Thank you. Do I have any questions? Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I've just got one question, Mr. Maguire. What is the relationship between the people you named off? MR. MAGUIRE: And him? MR. KUHLKE: And him. What--I mean, are you talking about time of service? MR. MAGUIRE: No, I'm talking about contrast, those who had approximately the same amount of service and what they are getting as versus him getting nothing and being terminated, losing his reputation, that kind of thing. MR. KUHLKE: But they did not breach the policies of this government. MR. MAGUIRE: We don't know whether they did or not. I'm just saying that you give one group a windfall and then take an isolated instance--there have been many, many, many breaches of the policies of government over the years that we've seen and just, all right, this is it, you breached this and so you're through, and that's what I'm saying. MR. KUHLKE: Oh, okay. MR. MAGUIRE: And, plus, the policy was in the process of being rewritten, we understand, at the time. You know, the way you do this and the way business and government does it, you sign off on the policies and procedures manual. It was not done in this case. The other thing that was not done is that the policies and procedures manual itself was not followed in nth degree in all the steps. The first step was not followed here, so I want to point this out to you, and I've done it in the past and we'll do it again. If we have to go on to court, we'll do it there. But it was not followed, and you can't selectively follow--you say on one hand, well, you know, he violated the policy. Mr. Kuhlke, he violated the policy. But then you don't follow the policy, you don't have him sign off on it or make known to him exactly what the policy was. In the old government, both of them, plenty of folks had other jobs on the side, and you know them. They really weren't paid enough not to. And this has gone on for time immemorial. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Maguire, you're saying the policy wasn't followed. Would you please explain why you say it wasn't followed? MR. MAGUIRE: In the first step you meet with the aggrieved person and discuss resolution of settlement, and this was not done. MS. D'ALESSIO: If I can just address that. If you--I don't have my copy with me, but what it says is that the first step is a grievance before the Administrator, and then it says if a settlement cannot be reached at that point you move on. And that's what he's saying, is that because we didn't sit down and have formal settlement negotiations with him through Jim Wall or myself or whoever, that we breached the policy. And I don't think that's what it says, I don't think that's what it means. MR. MAGUIRE: It says department head, and there was no discussion of the problem or the settlement with him, okay, as specified in it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Also, back to the original objection you had as to other--you named some other people in saying that we're treating Mr. Wittke different than we're treating them. Can you be specific in what similar circumstances that we treated them different than what we're treating Mr. Wittke? MR. MAGUIRE: What I'm saying is that there's a group of people-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, I want specific. Because if there's not a specific corollary relationship, then how can we be treating him different? MR. MAGUIRE: Because they got a windfall. MR. J. BRIGHAM: They got a windfall, but what does their windfall have to do with him violating policy, if he violated the policy? MR. MAGUIRE: Nothing. But you've got one group you're treating one way by giving them a windfall and another one you're taking one instance, which is not nearly what other people have done and been kept on, and you're cutting him completely off and taking away all that he has. I'm not saying these people aren't entitled, but they got a money--but it shows that they did get a golden parachute, and they have less time in service than he did, and I just don't think it's fair. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Maguire, if he had not violated the policy and he had stayed on and he had took that, would he not got the same treatment? MR. MAGUIRE: I assume so, I don't know, because it didn't go through. He did apply for it, though, and no action was taken on it. MS. D'ALESSIO: Jim's given you a copy of the policy, and what it talks about is if an employee has a grievance, they submit the grievance to the Human Resources Department. The first step, as I said, is a meeting of the Director of Human Resources, the employee, the department head, and the Administrator. That was held. That was a grievance hearing with Mr. Oliver. Everybody who's supposed to be there was there. It was all discussed. And then it says if a settlement is not reached within three working days of the initial meeting the grievance is carried to step four, which is the Personnel Board. And, you know, that's all it says. I don't think that by not sitting down and having settlement negotiations, that we violated that provision. MR. MAGUIRE: You can't selectively go through your own grievance procedures is what I'm saying. You either follow it or you don't follow it, and we are saying it wasn't followed here and it should either be followed or not followed. In addition to that, he didn't sign off on it. MR. KUHLKE: How was it not followed, Mr. Maguire? MR. MAGUIRE: The first step wasn't followed. You didn't sit down with him and go through the discussion of the grievance and any settlement of it. MR. KUHLKE: He did not sit down with John Etheridge in Human Resources? MR. MAGUIRE: He did not. MR. KUHLKE: I thought you said he did. MS. D'ALESSIO: He did. John, me, Linda, Randy-- MR. MAGUIRE: That was step two. MS. D'ALESSIO: John is here. MR. MAGUIRE: Within five days of receipt of the written grievance, the Director of Human Resources will arrange an appointment with the employee, department director, Administrator, and himself/herself to discuss the problem and hopefully reach a solution. MR. WALL: And that was done. MS. D'ALESSIO: That's the grievance hearing with Mr. Oliver, which was held and we were all there. What I'd like to do is go ahead and fill in some blanks and kind of tell y'all exactly what happened. Mr. Wittke, in the Computer Management office on August 13th--y'all have got this in your package in chronological order--he sent a memo. And I think the language in the memos are interesting; I hope you'll take a look at them. His doctor insisted that he take two weeks of sick leave, see the attached note. "I have another appointment coming up. If everything is okay I'll be able to come back to work." He attaches a note from Dr. Baxley that says no work due to illness. Now, this is done again and again and again. His requests for medical leave are approved. The documents are in your package, too: the approval-- every time they're approved, every time it's extended, every time there's a written memo from Mr. Wittke, and there's the supporting documentation. Now, just as a side point, I think any argument that he might have been suffering under a diminished capacity is not very credible given the fact that he had the presence of mind to do these memos, to attach the supporting documentation, and to get them to the right people. It came to the county's attention that he was working for an outside employer, a private company, from August 19th to September 13th. He was doing the same thing that he was supposed to be doing here, which is computer work. He testified at the Personnel Board hearing that he worked for those folks four to six hours a day, that he was paid by them at the same time that he was on paid medical leave, getting a check from the county. This is a violation of at least two of the county policies. The first one has to do with outside employment, and y'all have a copy of that. There's a detailed analysis that should be done by the department head when an employee wants to work outside their regular employment with the county, for obvious reasons. The employee is supposed to go to the department head and discuss it with them, talk about what the other job is, whether or not there might be some kind of conflict. That procedure was absolutely not followed. Now, it's interesting, too, to me--and also I want you to know there's no requirement that the personnel policies and procedures be signed off by employees. That's just--doesn't exist. But the old city--and you have a copy of this--the old city also had a policy against outside employment, and it's even stricter than the county policy, and it absolutely forbids you from accepting compensation from another employer while you're being paid by the city. And in the Personnel Board hearing it was brought out that Mr. Wittke was a department head with the city, and he admitted that as part of his duties as a department head he had to enforce that policy. So he knew that this was a common thing, you're not supposed to work outside, you shouldn't do that. Based on what we learned--and you have the letter from the private company in there acknowledging, yes, he did work for us--he was placed on administrative suspension for those violations of county policy. He held a grievance before the Administrator. The Administrator upheld the decision to terminate him. We all went before the Personnel Board and the Personnel Board upheld the decision. Mr. Wittke, at the Personnel Board hearing, acknowledged that his doctor told him he should not work; he acknowledged that he wrote all those memos and supplied that supporting documentation; he acknowledged unequivocally that he did work for someone else and received a check from them; and he acknowledged that he never asked anybody or told anybody that he should have, which would be Nancy Bonner, his department head, that he intended or wanted to do this. And he and his attorney--or his attorney acknowledged that he indeed should have done that and that was wrong not to. Now, I think under these circumstances, this is a very serious offense: supplying false information, making false statements, and taking money from the county when you're getting money elsewhere, supposed to be on medical leave, and I think the action that was taken is completely justified and should be upheld. MR. WALL: Let me point out something as well in response to Mr. Maguire's arguments. Mr. Wittke will still get his retire-ment. The only thing that he is losing is his enhanced early retirement had he complied with the policies and had he been eligible for enhanced early retirement at the time. So he has not forfeited his retirement, just the enhanced early retirement package. MR. MAGUIRE: If you take the situation of some county employee works for three weeks when he announced that he is going to retire and knock them out, and then put up with as many people as you have and will have and have had who had two or three jobs who didn't comply with it, you're singling out this man. Regard-less of what you say, it's just plain not fair. And as I say, a lot of them did this and do this because they have to work two or three jobs to make a living, and we all know that. But why single him out over them? He was in a diminished capacity. He could function somewhat. He is heavily medicated now. He has had a difficult time and has been harassed here. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Maguire, I'm not sure that our policy prohibits somebody from having another job. I think the violation is somebody taking paid sick leave because they can't do the job with the county and then they go out and do a job for a private firm. That is--you know, I'm sure that there are people that work for this-- MR. MAGUIRE: Well, your policies and procedures manual says you're supposed to get permission to do other work. And, of course, I don't think anybody reads them or looks at it or whatever; but, I mean, that's what it says. MR. KUHLKE: But, I mean, a person is not prohibited from having another job. MR. MAGUIRE: But he needs to get permission to do the other job. MR. KUHLKE: That's fine. But you keep referring--you keep referring to other employees. Nobody has come to us in this regard since I've been on the Commission. MR. MAGUIRE: Well, Bill, I don't know where you've been, but I-- MR. KUHLKE: I've been right here, Sam. MR. MAGUIRE: I know that they have been here. And, you know, others-- we're not going to name names--do work other jobs, have [inaudible]. MR. KUHLKE: Well, how do you know they didn't have permission? MR. MAGUIRE: Because there's nothing on record to indicate that they do, you know, and I don't think that they actually--I just don't think he's being treated fairly on this. MR. KUHLKE: That's the whole thing, you don't think he's being treated fairly. MR. MAGUIRE: No, and I think that he--he worked three or four or five hours a day there, he ended up could not do the work, and--which was wrong. He should be penalized for that but not terminated is what we are saying. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Maguire, Mr. Wittke's doctor said no work? MR. MAGUIRE: That's what he said. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And Mr. Wittke isn't even going to obey his doctor's orders? MR. MAGUIRE: He shouldn't have done that. He shouldn't have worked, and he couldn't work. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, if he shouldn't have worked and couldn't work--he obviously did work. MR. MAGUIRE: Well, we're not saying that he didn't, Mr. Brigham. We're not-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: So then you're saying he did violate our policy. MR. MAGUIRE: There's a violation of the policy. I'm saying-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Now, what are you wanting us to do; are you wanting us to have mercy because he violated our policy? MR. MAGUIRE: No, I'm saying is to treat him with some fairness. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What do you think would be fair in this situation? MR. MAGUIRE: To not terminate him, to allow him to come back to take his early enhanced retirement, and to clear his name. I think being fired for that is too much under the circumstances. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Why? MR. MAGUIRE: Because we're talking about three weeks work at four or five hours a day over a ten-week period when a man has a diminished capacity, one who has announced that he was going to take early retirement and was going to-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: If I had announced I was going to take early retirement, I think I'd have done everything to ensure that I didn't violate any policies. MR. MAGUIRE: He should have, but you don't--but you are--but you don't have anxiety, you don't have depression. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, you don't know how much anxiety I have. MR. MAGUIRE: Well, you haven't announced it and I--you know, I don't need to discuss your medical problems. But anyway, I'm talking about the DSM anxiety. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But, Mr. Maguire, I have a real hard time--did your client actually enforce this policy in the past with other employees? Yes or no? MR. MAGUIRE: I don't think he did. MS. D'ALESSIO: He acknowledged in the Personnel Board hearing that it would have been part of his job responsibility at the city to enforce that particular policy that he was aware of. MR. MAGUIRE: He had two people--I think they have two people. Wait a minute, two people? MR. WITTKE: Uh-huh. MR. MAGUIRE: Two people, and he never did. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did he have two people that violated the [inaudible]? MR. MAGUIRE: No, I'm talking about there are two people that work with him there. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did he ever have an opportunity that he had to enforce it? That's all I'm trying to get at. MR. MAGUIRE: No. No, he never did. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So he acknowledged the policy, but he never had to enforce it; is that my understanding? MR. MAGUIRE: Talking about in the old government? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did he acknowledge the--I understood he acknowledged the policy in the first place. MR. MAGUIRE: He acknowledged that there was a policy in the old government. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That there was a policy. So he acknowledged that the policy existed. MR. MAGUIRE: But he never had to enforce it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But he acknowledged that the policy existed. I'm trying to understand whether he had knowledge or not. You said he had no knowledge. MR. MAGUIRE: He did in the old government. In the new government he had no knowledge of it because it hadn't been distributed to him. In the new government. MR. J. BRIGHAM: In the new government. So--but does it not reason that we carried forward the same policy unless you're told the policy has changed? MR. MAGUIRE: But you didn't. You didn't carry the same policy, you rewrote it, and you rewrote it at least one time. MR. J. BRIGHAM: When did we rewrite this policy? MR. MAGUIRE: When did you rewrite it? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right. MR. MAGUIRE: John, you were involved in that. When did-- MR. ETHERIDGE: I believe it was March of '96. MR. MAGUIRE: March of '96. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Was it not a known fact that we rewrote the policy by every department head in this government? MR. MAGUIRE: They were in the process of it. And the testimony was that he had requested a copy of the policy at one time right when Bonner was appointed as acting communications head, and they said we're in the process of redoing it, everybody's going to get a copy, and he never did get one. And this was in like May or June of '96. MR. J. BRIGHAM: You're saying we rewrote the policy in March and you're saying we appointed her in June and that we hadn't distributed copies? MR. MAGUIRE: He had not been distributed a copy of it, nor had he signed for one. He did not have a copy of it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, would he not think that the--would there be any reason that he would not think that a preexisting policy that was in both governments wouldn't be in the new policy? MR. MAGUIRE: I don't know. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, ask him. He's standing right there beside you. MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Brigham, this may clear it up a little bit. He did acknowledge in the Personnel Board hearing that he attended a department head meeting with John Etheridge where the personnel policies were reviewed and discussed, and he said it wasn't discussed in enough detail for him to know about this provision. MR. MAGUIRE: That's incorrect. It wasn't discussed at all. This particular provision was not discussed at all. And he never said that the entire thing was gone through in detail, and he was never furnished a copy of it. MR. WALL: Let me point out, Commissioners, that--you know, even if there wasn't a policy, to misrepresent that you are incapable of doing work and to submit forms saying that you're not able to do work, and then to turn around and go out and do work and draw sick leave is falsifying the information to the county, is basically misrepresenting--lying to the county. And that in and of itself is as much of a theft of property as taking anything else away from the government. He misrepresented his situation, his physical condition, said that he could do no work, yet he goes out and works for three weeks and gets paid for it while he's drawing compensation from the county. MR. MAGUIRE: In response to that, the doctor said that he couldn't do any work. Those are his doctor's orders. And he shouldn't have done that, but three weeks out of the ten he did on a part-time basis and tried, but he couldn't do it. But-- MR. WALL: And he kept filing a memo with the county during the period of time that he couldn't work, that--and he was working, and he kept repeating the fact and said I can't do any work, yet he was out there working. MR. MAGUIRE: Let me--he had a lot more responsibilities here than he did there. He was just doing consulting work, then he was on his own schedule and doing that type of thing. He had no overall responsibility there, which he did here. You're not comparing apples to apples. MR. KUHLKE: Sam, somebody that's drawing pay on sick leave and not supposed to work and works, are they not stealing from the government? MR. MAGUIRE: No, they're not stealing. MR. KUHLKE: They're not stealing from--they're taking the money but they're working elsewhere and making money, and they're telling us that they can't work but they are working and they are keeping that money, that's not stealing? MR. MAGUIRE: It's not stealing. I think you're not comparing apples to apples on that. I think he's--[end of Tape 1] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Maguire, I'm looking at Mr. Wittke's memo on the 6th of September. MR. MAGUIRE: I don't have it in front of me. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm sure somebody has it. It says something in here that he's not able to work. MR. MAGUIRE: The memo dated what date? MR. J. BRIGHAM: The 6th of September. MR. MAGUIRE: It says I have another appointment on Wednesday, October the 2nd. If everything goes well I'll be able to return to work on Monday, October the 7th, per attached doctor's instructions. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What's the doctor's instructions? MR. MAGUIRE: No work. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What about the memo the time before? MR. MAGUIRE: Well, he says no work. MR. J. BRIGHAM: And the memo was dated the 26th? MR. MAGUIRE: Yeah. I don't think his doctor knew that he was working as a consultant, Mr. Brigham. I think that the doctor was under the impression-- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, wait a minute. Did the doctor say no work with the exception of consulting work? MR. MAGUIRE: No, he didn't, but I don't think the doctor knew that--in fact, the doctor told me he didn't know that he was going to go out and try to do some consulting. And I think that he was taking in consideration his mental capacity and physical capacity to do the work that he was here employed to do. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to move that we accept the recommendation of the Personnel Board. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second Mr. Kuhlke's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a second by Mr. Jerry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, what's the motion on the floor? MR. KUHLKE: That we accept the recommendation of the Personnel Board. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'd like to ask Mr. Maguire a question. Sam, is there anything that Mr. Wittke's doctor could add to what you said? I'm sitting here, and based on what's been presented to us at this point, if I was going to vote to confirm what's before me--is there anything that's been related to you by his doctor under any circumstances about his physical, mental or emotional condition that would probably make me or this Commission feel any differently? And the reason why I'm saying that, I think if there is, then-- you're the lawyer, but you maybe need to take a different course or line of action or asking us something. If not, I think you're fixing to get a vote in about 30 seconds. MR. MAGUIRE: All right. John Baxley is his doctor, and he's treating him for the various problems that we discussed: anxiety, depression, that type of thing. And he told me that he thought that Lynn was completely burned out and almost totally able [sic] to function in any kind of stressful capacity; that his experience had been--when he worked with the city and being wrongfully accused and that type thing, it dragged him down; that the situation involving not getting hired for the job that he was--thought he was better qualified for and the stresses on the job had knocked him down to the point that he needed to take some time off. And that's what he advised him to do, that he was seriously depressed. And when he did that, he was at the--the diagnostic manual's definition of bad depression. And that's why he recommended he do that, and that's why he did take off. And, you know, we can--I can get further information from his doctor. He is seeing a psychiatrist in addition to that at the present time, and they think that what he's going through now can be differentiated between what he was going through then. But you were dealing with a sick person at the time, and a person with a diminished capacity, and you're holding him at too high a standard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to concur, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. MAGUIRE: Gentlemen, may we be excused? Thank you for your consideration. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: That concludes our agenda, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I'd like to take a minute and report on the meeting that we had in Atlanta today, if that would be appropriate, with the Legislative Delegation. As many of you may know, we were invited to attend a meeting with the Richmond County Legislative Delegation in Atlanta. Mr. Handy and I went up there and met with them this morning. The primary topic for discussion was Municipal Court. Mr. Ben Allen is drafting legislation which would, in essence, merge Municipal Court with State Court and provide that the sitting judge of Municipal Court would be an associate judge. There is some discussion about whether or not that second--or that position that the sitting judge would be assigned to would be a separate division which would be called traffic division or whether that will simply be left to the chief judge insofar as assignment of responsibilities. This would be in addition to the request for another State Court judge, so that you would wind up with three State Court judges. And that seemed to have the approval of the members of the Legislative Delegation that were there, and I would anticipate that that is what will come out of the General Assembly. Insofar as the Solicitor is concerned, I do not think the Solicitor's salary--they made it pretty emphatic, it will not be tied to a percentage of the District Attorney. They're simply going to assign a salary value to that position. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else? Mr. Handy, do you have anything? MR. HANDY: No, sir, that was it. That's what happened. Exactly what happened. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion for adjournment? MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:05 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 March 4, 1997. _________________________ Clerk of Commission