Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS April 15, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, April 15, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, and Freddie Handy, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Randy Oliver, Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney. MR. HANDY: We will have our Invocation by the Reverend Robert Anderson, Pastor of the Pine Grove Baptist Church, after which we will have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Reverend Anderson? THE INVOCATION IS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND ANDERSON. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS RECITED. MR. HANDY: Ms. Bonner, do we have any deletions or additions, please? CLERK: Yes. Mr. Mayor and the Members of the Commission, we have a request for six addendum items: one being a Delegation, Mr. Joe Eckert of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield to present the Commission with a print of the Old Government House; two is to approve a bid from Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton regarding Excess Workers' Compensation Insurance with a $300,000 Self-insured Retention at a cost of $65,788; three, to approve the continuation of the Public Officials and Excess Employment Liability Coverage with Coregis Insurance at a cost of $52,081; four, to approve a Resolution with The White Oak Real Estate Development Corporation for exclusive right to negotiate for purchase of Olde Town Properties for 120 days for $5,000 and provide necessary letters of support to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs; Delegation, Ms. Ruth Crawford to present the Commission and Mayor with a book entitled The Memoirs of a Georgia Teacher Before and After Desegregation; six, a Delegation from McDowell Street residents regarding tree removal. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move by unanimous consent that we approve the additions, and also include moving the appointments from where it's at to the first item on the agenda. MR. HANDY: Do I have a second? MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. HANDY: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor, vote by the usual sign. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: What appointments is Mr. Todd referring to? MR. HANDY: I have no idea. Mr. Todd, would you like to explain what appointment you're referring to, sir? MR. TODD: Appointments to the boards and authorities. Everybody's supposed to have them ready. MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I don't have any problem with going ahead and moving on them. The only thing that I would like to say is that those that are ready -- and I think that's good. I have no problem with it of going ahead and voting. I know today is the day we're supposed to have them. I have some that have backed out and that I'm reconfirming, and I'm trying to balance out a district that's covering close to 100,000 people in mine and of making sure that every district has some representation in Super District 9. I would like permission of this Commission to present mine at the first meeting in May. MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, are you ready to -- yes, sir, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: My only comment, Mr. Mayor, is whether or not it would be worthwhile for either the County Attorney to look at the submittal of people to see if we have any potential conflicts in there from the standpoint of duplication and to possibly give the person that's made the appointment an opportunity to put somebody else in that position. So, to me, it appears to me that until that's done it may be a little bit premature to go ahead and approve on these appointments. I'd like to hear from the Administrator in regards to that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MR. HANDY: Yes, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the last item on the agenda is the appointments, so this issue is not whether we're going to do appointments or not, we're going to do appointments. This issue is when we're going to do them, whether we're going to do them in the end of the agenda and hold folks here that's here from business and industry to, you know, participate or whether we're going to do it now, and I say that we do it now at the front of the agenda, and I certainly would respect the courtesy of my colleagues. And I think that if there is a conflict, then the person would be most gladly to resign from the position. The individuals that I'm appointing is very qualified individuals and they come from business and industry, and certainly I'm not willing to delay it past this day. I would just say to the individuals that I'm appointing that you will be nominated. You may leave if we don't approve it to put you at the front of the agenda to go back to your business, and we appreciate the industry letting you come. I'm tired of the, I guess, block-and-delay tactics that this board pulls. We can't even hire someone for this. And this is not personal, but I'm sick and tired of it, and I could have stayed in St. Mary's, Georgia, today if we're not going to go on and get on with business. MR. HANDY: Any other discussion? MR. MAYS: I want to reiterate what I said, Mr. Mayor. I do plan to vote for the confirmation of all of my colleagues' appointees they have, I only asked permission for those in District 9 to be voted on in the first meeting in May since it covers four districts. And that's not to delay anybody else's appointments, it's only to delay mine, because I have some people that were going to be appointed that will not be able to serve and I want the opportunity to get someone else to fill that space and I'm not through with all of it. But I can vote on anybody and everybody else's. I'm not asking that the whole thing be done, I'm just asking for the ones that I have, that's all. MR. HANDY: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to echo that same sentiment that Mr. Mays has. I'm not quite prepared with all mine either. MR. HANDY: Okay. Any other discussion? If not, those in favor, vote by the usual sign. This is for the additions to the agenda. CLERK: And moving the appointments-- MR. HANDY: And moving the appointments up. CLERK: --up to Item 1. I think it's listed as Item 47 on our agenda. It's Item 47, moving it to Item 1 on the agenda. MR. HANDY: Everybody understand? Okay, can I get a vote now, please? MR. POWELL: All in favor? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. MR. HANDY: Mr. Todd, we're handling it, thank you. Okay, all in favor of the motion, vote by the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. HANDY: Next item, please? CLERK: The first item on the agenda is appointments. The following Commissioners have submitted the nominees of the following: Mr. Moses Todd has submitted for appointment to the Aviation-Daniel Field Commission Board, Michael R. Cooper; Board of Zoning Appeals, Ms. Emmastine McKie; Personnel Board, Ms. Debra Howard; Riverfront Review, Cheryl B. Corbin. Mr. Rob Zetterberg, District 3: appointment on the Animal Control Board, Margaret Brown; Board of Zoning Appeals, Jewel Childress; Consolidated Historic Preservation, Ross Snellings; Human Relations Commission, Timothy Moses; Personnel Board, James Walton; Planning Commission, Nick Dickerson; Tree Commission, Dr. Vendy Hooks. Jerry Brigham, 7th District: Board of Zoning Appeals, K. Glenn Watson; Consolidated Historic Preservation, Dewitt R. Dent; Planning Commission, James Randal Hall; Riverfront Development Review, Cleonard G. "Sonny" Pittman, Jr. Lee Beard, 1st District: Animal Control, Archie Shepherd; Aviation Commission-Bush Field, Betty Beard; Board of Zoning Appeals, Jacqueline Fason; Consolidated Historic Preservation, Dr. Charles Freeman; Human Relations Commission, Walter Thomas; the Library Board, Juanita McIntrye; Personnel Board, Colis Ivey; Riverfront Review, Bernard Johnson; Tree Commission, Butch Gallup. Appointments from the 10th District, Commissioner Bill Kuhlke: Animal Control, Dick Gayle; Aviation Commission-Daniel Field, Bray Boardman; Board of Zoning Appeals, Don Grantham; Consolidated Historic Preservation, Eleanor Watts; Human Relations Commission, Hardy Davis; Trustee Board for the Library, Don Sutherland; Personnel Board, William Mayfield; Riverfront Development Review, Dr. Charles Freeman; Tree Commission, Annette Harland. 8th District appointments, Ulmer Bridges: Animal Control, Kenneth E. Walters; Aviation Commission-Daniel Field, R.A. McElmurray, Jr.; Board of Zoning Appeals, Hardy Davis, Jr.; Human Relations Commission, Michael G. Elliott; Personnel Board, Robert W. Silas; Planning Commission, Hugh Fulcher, Jr.; Riverfront Development Review, W. Oellerich, Jr.; Tree Commission, Sid Mullis. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the appointments. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I have some more over here. MR. TODD: Oh, I apologize, and I withdraw the motion till Mr. Brigham finishes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while we're waiting -- CLERK: On the -- I think this is it. Does anyone else have any appointments to submit? This is from 5th District appointments, Commissioner Henry Brigham: Aviation-Bush Field, Joe Scott; Aviation-Daniel Field, Chuck Whigham; Board of Zoning Appeals, George Mitchell; Consolidated Historic Preservation, Emma Bass; Human Relations Commission, Dave Mack; Personnel Board, A. Ferguson; Riverfront Development Review, Nadine Watson; Tree Commission, Lucretia Miller. That's it, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? CLERK: No, you didn't get -- who seconded Mr. Todd's motion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the appointments or nominations on appointments for various boards. MR. HANDY: Do I have a second? MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. HANDY: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would like to reserve the right to name somebody to the Animal Control at the May meeting. I have searched high and low and I still haven't got anybody for that board. CLERK: I think those that weren't appointed today you have the right to appoint later. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay, so that's -- that's the ruling? We can add where we didn't -- MR. HANDY: Yes, that'll be fine. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: There was a conflict on this, a person being appointed by Mr. Kuhlke and myself, and I will withdraw mine and add later to it. MR. HANDY: Okay. Any other discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question to ask the Attorney. Jim, if I see something I think may be a conflict but it's not my appointment, can I still vote and not be in any kind of legal jeopardy here? MR. WALL: You can, but -- MR. TODD: Are we in discussion, Mr. Mayor? MR. HANDY: Yes, we are. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think certainly it would help if we read our own procedures, and maybe that would help facilitate and keep us moving as far as the appointments to boards and authorities. MR. HANDY: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Any other discussion? If not -- MR. BEARD: One more, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to withdraw the Bush Field appointment and reserve the right to appoint that later. MR. HANDY: Okay. Anyone else? If not, all in favor of the motion, vote by the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MR. HANDY: Now that the Mayor has arrived, I'm going to turn this back over to our Mayor, the Honorable Larry Sconyers. Thank you very much. CLERK: We're at the Delegation portion of the agenda. Mr. Joe Eckert of Blue Cross/Blue Shield. MAYOR SCONYERS: Joe just left. Let me [inaudible]. This was commissioned by the folks at Blue Cross/Blue Shield and presented to the city, and it's all right since it just happens to be the home on our seal. They commission one every year and present it to the city, but I thought this was especially special this year. So when he --and he just left, I'm sorry, he thought we were going to be tied up with the appointments for a while [inaudible]. CLERK: Delegation: Ms. Ruth Crawford. MS. CRAWFORD: I called on the Commissioners here and I set out to do two things last year, and I'm a very happy person. One was to get the Shiloh Community on the historical record, which y'all are successfully doing, and I also wrote a book, The Words of Fire. And I wanted one of the first copies to go to Mayor Sconyers, but I wanted to do it at a time when I wasn't begging for Shiloh, and I found out that time will never exist so I decided to come today. And I want to present this, and I wanted to hear my special student, Mr. Handy, also over here. Mayor Sconyers, I have a book entitled The Words of Fire, and I wanted to present this to you today and I want you to read it. It has to do with happenings in Augusta and it has to do with race relations, which I think we don't ever get too far with. And since I had to do it, I want -- I'll just continue for Shiloh. This is why you did not get this book in December: I wanted to bring it when there was no discussion, but that's not going to exist. So to Mayor Sconyers I'd like to present this book, The Words of Fire, and I want you to read it. Thank you, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you very much. CLERK: Next we'll have a delegation of residents from McDowell Street regarding tree removal. MS. RYAN: Commissioners, my name is Catherine Ryan and I'm a resident of McDowell Street. Myself and some of my neighbors are here today regarding the addition of a tree policy or ordinance in Augusta-Richmond County concerning removal of trees on city property and rights-of-way. Y'all may have all read or heard on the news lately about the unfortunate incident that took place at 2135 McDowell Street in which a healthy tree of some considerable years was removed due to pressure from a resident there. I believe y'all all have a letter in front of you from Roy Simpkins concerning the event. What we'd like to propose is that in the future, that any tree that is on a city property or city right-of-way, if it is not diseased or if complete removal is requested from a citizen, that there be a notice published and then there be a fourteen-day waiting period, after which there would be a hearing in front of the Tree Committee, and in that time the citizen requesting the removal would have the right to be heard as well as any other interested party. I would just tell you that, first of all, I'm a lifelong resident of Augusta-Richmond County, and the majority of my life I've lived on McDowell Street. My parents live on McDowell Street and I've lived there with my husband and children for seven years, and this tree was priceless to us. All our trees are priceless to us. If you look around the older parts of our city, one of the things that makes them so beautiful is our old trees. They cannot be put back. If y'all plant a tree in the place of that one tomorrow, which I hope you will do, it will not be anything like the one that was there in my lifetime. I will never see that again, nor will any of the other residents. I think this was handled extremely poorly, and maybe that's another subject. But what I would like to make sure of is that instead of doing a lot of name-calling here today about who did what and who should have done what, I think it's obvious that a mistake was made, and we want to make sure that this is not done in the future. Thank you. MR. MacEACHERN: My name is Dan MacEachern and I live at 2134 McDowell Street, directly across from where this tree stood. We were never notified that this tree was even being considered to be cut down. Being a Summerville resident, if we even erect a fence we have to let people know and go through the proper channels. I feel that this tree did not go through the proper channels. We, in fact, followed procedure. We asked that a stop be put to this. We were told that it would not be worked on any more until we met before the Commission, and on Wednesday during the Masters the tree was cut down, and I personally would like to know where that happened. We were told that nothing more would be done with that tree. I have in my hand over a hundred and twenty signatures that was against the removal of this tree on seven pages of a petition. There's about sixteen or seventeen more pages that are out in the Summerville area. I can't find one person that was in favor of that tree coming down. Not one. As we speak it's being ground up. As my neighbor stated, that tree will never be there again and whatever is put in its place will never be there. There are trees on that street that have rotten branches that don't get even looked at. After a windstorm you can drive out there in the street and you will drive over them. But yet this one healthy tree -- and it's a tree that I call a non- alphabet oak because it has its perfect shape. There's only about eight of them on that street; the rest of them all look like W's and Y's and everything else. I think it's a shame that we went through the proper channels to get this tree saved--and it could have been saved even with half of it gone--and that we were not listened to. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we receive the comments as information and pass it on to the Tree Committee -- Commission. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second that, but I think that I'd like to have Mr. Oliver address the committee who has appeared before us to tell us what actually is happening in this case. MR. OLIVER: I've talked with several residents in the area, and I agree that I think it was a mistake and short-sighted to cut down the tree. What we have proposed and I've discussed with these residents about doing is coming forward with a policy. It will be on your next committee agenda. The policy basically will parallel very closely what you just said, with I think one extension, and that would be that if a healthy tree is desired to cut that down -- now, this would not apply to a diseased tree or one damaged by a storm, but a healthy tree is desired to be cut down, it would require posting for fourteen days at that particular site in the same manner we do zoning. And then it would come before the Tree Commission, who -- the Tree Commission would make the decision as it relates to what they felt was the most appropriate. The one comment that was made by a member of the audience was to notify the neighborhood association. I think that's a great idea and we plan to write that in there. It would only be after that particular point in time that a tree could be, you know, removed if it, again, was not diseased or damaged. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I sat here, I guess, less than two years ago and we passed a resolution calling -- or ordinance calling for a Tree Commission, and also we approved a tree ordinance that that Tree Commission presented to us that the County Attorney worked with the Tree Commission on. I think if someone violated that ordinance, then certainly that may be a issue for us to deal with here. I think we need that Tree Commission that we appointed back then, that we're expanding now under the new ordinance on appointing a person from each district, to look into this matter and bring us a recommendation back, and I would assume that the County Administrator is going to work with this commission. I guess that -- well, I'll go on and say it. There's probably other tree huggers on the Commission, but certainly, you know, from being the first Environmental and Ecology Committee chairman and the person that work on most of the environmental issues, I guess I'm the professional tree hugger on the Commission. And I sincerely believe that the procedures should have been followed as far as this tree go, but within a mile of where this tree was cut down we had a human being shot down, shot fifteen times, and I would wonder where the outrage is, you know, as far as that go. I can understand wanting to see this tree, you know, stay there, but there is going to be situations where makes no difference how much we love the environment or how much we love trees, that we're going to have to remove trees from public rights-of-ways for public safety and other reasons. And I think that if we come in here and we think that we're never going to have to cut a tree down in this tree city--we are an official tree city in Augusta--then we're kidding ourselves. We're going to have to from time to time remove the old growth and plant additional trees. And I can understand the sincerity of a tree, but I think the outrage should be in some of these homicides that we're having in this community, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Coming on around. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. I'd like to, just for the record, ensure that -- or at least put in as a comment that rather than a policy, that this be stated in an ordinance so that we can ensure that any removal by anybody, whether it be government officials or by individual citizens or other companies, that it would become a violation of law rather than a violation of local policy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming around. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like Mr. Oliver in his process of trying to put this thing together with this Tree Commission, that they also address my concern, which would be roadway projects and stuff that we couldn't slow down for. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: Could you delineate -- I didn't understand what you meant slow down. You mean as it relates that we don't want to impede being able to do new roadway projects? MR. POWELL: Right. I wouldn't want this thing to -- MR. OLIVER: I agree with that. MR. POWELL: I mean, I support what the people here are trying to do, but I also am concerned with it slowing down road projects and utility projects, so I think that needs to be addressed somewhere in your dialogue. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, we need to have a motion to receive as information the prior two, don't we? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Todd, would you include those in your motion, to include the other two delegations? MR. TODD: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Next item, please? CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 1 through 6 were approved by the Finance Committee on April the 7th. [Item 1: Motion to approve the abatement of all 1996 taxes, penalties and interest on the property located at 4344 Deans Bridge Road. Item 2: Motion to approve request to waive property tax penalty in the amount of $455.88 on 4104 Windsor Spring Road (Hardee's), Hephzibah, Georgia, for tax year 1996. Item 3: Motion to approve request to waive property tax penalty in the amount of $456.02 on Highgate West, account number 2004139, for tax year 1996. Item 4: Motion to deny a request to waive property tax penalty in the amount of $352.56 on 2525 Peach Orchard Road for tax year 1996. Item 5: Motion to release from a lien for demolition charges on property located at 3524 Windermere Drive from lien for demolition charges in return for a lump sum payment of $500.00. Item 6: Motion to approve to hire up to 66 students at a cost not to exceed $42,000 for "Summer Youth Program 1997".] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee is going to bring Items 1 through 5 to y'all as a consent agenda. MR. BEARD: I second. MR. BRIDGES: Is that Items 1 through 5, Jerry? MAYOR SCONYERS: Items 1 through 5. I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 6, please? CLERK: Item 6 is a motion to approve to hire up to sixty-six students at a cost not to exceed $42,000 for the "Summer Youth Program 1997". Approved by the Finance Committee on April the 7th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out what this program is about and get it straight for the record. The -- and get the facts out. This is a summer youth program where we hire sixty-six students from Richmond County. We try to do it by districts, and at the same time the requirement is these students be drug-free and hopefully A/B students, but not necessarily have to be A/B students. They've got to be students that's in school, that's continuing their education. But the up side to this, Mr. Mayor, is that these students is not, as the editor of the daily paper stated, sons and daughters and friends of sons and daughters of the Commissioners. I know no one that is appointed from District 4. I usually get a letter after they finish their tour with the city thanking me for their appointment. The appointments is handled by the Assistant Administrator. He usually -- my only instructions to him is to try to make sure that we don't pick them all from one community, that we spread it out through the districts; that they are drug-free; they're in school and doing well in school; and that if we have more than six applicants, that we, you know, put them in a hat and he draw out six or have someone to pull out six. I don't think you can get any fairer than that. The other point that I'd like to make here, the significance of what we're doing is that almost any department you walk into in county government have individuals that need to take their vacation time, and these students oftentimes is the replacement person for the individual that go on vacation. The individual that's going on vacation on the average is making ten dollars a hour. We're doing the replacement with roughly, with the new minimum wage law, four dollars and something per hour, so I think we're saving the taxpayers money. We could go out to a job shop and hire replacement folks to come in and replace folks when they go on vacation at probably a rate of eight to twelve dollars a hour. Well, we haven't saved anything. The job shop certainly has made a great deal of money off of it. And the other point is, is that we have folks in various departments that works overtime they're supposed to get comp time for, but they can't take it. They can't even take their vacation time. If we look at the Tag Office, I think there's more than a thousand hours accumulated there during tag season. We have individuals from age sixteen to whatever, twenty-five or so, up to graduate school. Some of our applicants is going to school at University of Georgia, Mercer, different university systems throughout the state, and we get some very qualified folks. We just don't get folks that can answer a phone or pick up the paper out their in the yards, we get some very qualified folks, and occasionally we hire one of those individuals. After they graduate or whatever, they come back and put in applications to work for Richmond County. We're doing nothing out of the ordinary. Private sector do the same thing through co-ops, et cetera. Where do a kid get a chance? That's my question, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Coming on around. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to vote against this. I did last year. I think last year it cost us $38,000. To this date I haven't gotten any kind of report on what the success of the program was. To me, I think it's another form of give-away. I think if we were going to get involved in this, we ought to be involved with the private sector through a co-op program that would have some validity to it, and so I would urge my colleagues not to support this program. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I certainly would like to highlight about three points that Mr. Todd made. One of them is the drug-free situation, and when we hire them they are required to be drug-free. And you may say that, sixty people, that's not enough; but the way things have happened over the last three or four weeks in this town, we've had some extremely positive things, but we've had some bittersweets along with that. I would certainly put out that point as one. The other is this idea where we have people --and I don't know, I guess the accounting department can tell us this, these people have worked -- have a lot of overtime. We can get rid of some of that. And the same thing with the people on vacation. Those are the three points that I --salient points that I think that would benefit as far as these young people are concerned. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I can wait till it swings around again. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, that's all right. I'm sorry. Go ahead and then I'll come on around. MR. MAYS: The thing I was going to say, and I'll try to be very brief, a lot of it deals with exposure and the opportunity for young people to interact with their government in terms of working. I had hoped by this time in '97 that this small amount of money, even though we should be prudent and conservative with what we do, that this wouldn't get into a money hassle this year. One of the proudest moments I guess I had as an elected official was when we were at Augusta State University and the President was here, and the young lady that was there, Tonya, who introduced him was one of my student appointees out of this same program that we sent to Danny Craig's office and she worked there that summer. You've had young people from all types of talents whether it be academic, whether it be a combination of athletic and academic, the average student being there, whether they're on a collegiate level or high school level, in our Recreation program and part of the students that were there. Probably the most recruited defensive back in this whole country that all of us would be glad to stick our chests out and say, yes, he came through Rec's program: Dieon Grant from Josey High School going to University of Tennessee. Maybe all the students aren't publicized as much, but a lot of these young people, particularly the ones that maybe are not in the newspaper or not seen, are given an opportunity they would not have. I think it's nothing to block the private sector from still doing its thing, because obviously there are so many more that could be adopted in various other types of creative programs. But I think from the positive feedback that we have had, I think for what they have produced in terms of asking the people that have had to supervise them, I think you pretty much will get, up and down the line, more than favorable reports on the young people that have been put in, and probably in terms if you took the percentages it might be higher than the adults in some cases that are higher than some places. But I think to do away with it or to even question it at this point -- I think it's been a very successful program. I'm probably a little bit more prejudiced because in Rec we deal with an expanded program of young people, and the only thing I'd like to say is that we probably just don't have enough slots to put young people who need something positive to do during the summer months. And the alternative is that I know we can't hire everybody. We don't have a position for everybody. I tell you what, I passed some folks on the way to this courthouse today. They didn't have a sign around their neck, they didn't advertise what they were necessarily doing or what they were selling, but I guarantee you they got a place for some young folk. They keep a place. And we're just doing a small part, I think, in this case to try and combat that. They've got some negative products they sell and try and turn positive lives into negative ones. This is, I think, just a small way that we can contribute to some positive exposure from government and of giving young people that opportunity to work within a governmental setting and, as Moses said, in a lot of cases have even come back to be productive employees in a very short period of time, and this has not been a program that's been in place that long. So I think its track record speaks for itself. Obviously the need is there, and the bottom line is if we could do more, then we should be doing more. We can. But I would hope that we don't reinvent the wheel with this one on $42,000. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to offer a voice of dissent on this particular issue. I think it's -- one of the problems, it hasn't been really thought through. What are the objectives of the program? What do we expect to get out of it? What do we expect the student to get out of it? What type of activities have we entered into with the private sector to see if the jobs aren't available out in the private sector? There's not a fast-food restaurant in this town that couldn't use more people. This program only takes a young person into the government for four hours a day during the summer for about, what, a six-week period of time, where a young person could be going out in the private sector and getting an eight-hour job during the summertime, but we're deluding him into thinking this is a good deal. I don't think this is a good deal, and I wouldn't want one of my kids performing four hours a day in a job. I think there's a lot more work out there than we give the government -- that we give our economy credit for. And so I would -- I may or may not be here the next time this board deliberates on this issue, but I would think that we would be well- served if we thought out this program in detail, we put it in writing, we make sure that we know what we're getting into, what we expect to get out of the program, what we expect students to get out. If it's a lesson in civics, then we ought to be right up front and try to convey that kind of message. But right now it's just an ill-conceived program, $42,000, we have no idea what we're going to get out of it, what the objectives are or anything, and I just don't want to support a program that's that ill-defined. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think enough has been said. I'm ready to vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, once again I'm like Mr. Kuhlke, I voted against this last year and I've watched the price go up by $4,000. I think it's a government give-away on our part. I think the $42,000 can be better utilized in other areas of our government. We've got employees, full-time employees, who start out at $11,000 and we could use this money to better their salaries as opposed to hiring sixty-six students to work for six weeks for twenty hours a week. An argument's been made that this is going to be used to benefit those that are going on vacation. We've got twenty-five hundred employees, and there's no way I believe that sixty-six part-time students is going to alleviate the vacation problems that we have with people wanting to take vacations. I think vacations is something that department heads need to plan for. They need to plan for it by cross-training their employees, they don't need to plan for it by bringing in temporary students for a short period of time. I don't think this is -- I don't know the results of the previous summer's program. I hear generalities of how it was good or how it was bad depending on who you want to talk to. But once again, I think it's something that we could better utilize the funds in other areas of government and I hope we vote against this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I'd just like to make a statement based on the article that was in the paper. And in my computer I keep a database on all the students I use every year, and I try to go out and get those with single parents and those in school, those who's trying to make a difference in our community. And here we are fussing about 40/60 thousand dollars and we have individuals come to this government looking for millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and those same people that are looking for all that money to support their programs are the ones that are complaining about this $60,000. Now, if we want to start complaining about money, we just cut off all the money and then we make sure that you have a legitimate reason to ask for some money. Because 40,000 or 60,000 dollars is no money to be all this discussion about when people come in for hundreds of thousand dollars. And they just say I want 400,000 to 500,000 and this Commission just jump and give it to them and don't ask any questions at all, and we don't know what that money is going to do. They put a proposal up and say what it may do or what they speculate is going to happen, but nobody knows. And I don't think $60,000 is enough money for us to be concerned about when we give away three and four times that amount of money. So if we want to set a policy here today, and since Mr. Zetterberg say he like to see policies and everything, then we just set a policy about all the money that this government contribute to all organizations and then see how that go. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, KUHLKE, POWELL & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item, under Administrative Services portion, Items 7 through 9 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on April 7th. [Item 7: Motion to approve Fleet Management Policy. Item 8: Motion to approve Resolution designating new Check Co-Signer and Alternate Check Co-Signer in connection with all Community Development activities. Item 9: Motion to approve the Runout Administration Agreement between the City of Augusta and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Georgia.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 7 through 9 be approved in a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard. Do I hear a second, please? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we pull Number 7? MAYOR SCONYERS: Pull Number 7? MR. BRIDGES: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Items 8 through 9 then. Do I hear a second to Mr. Beard's motion? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. I have a motion that Item 8 and 9 be approved. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question on Item 7. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we pulled Item 7. MR. ZETTERBERG: Oh, you did? I'm sorry. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve 8 and 9, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 7, please? CLERK: Item 7 is a motion to approve the Fleet Management Policy. Approved by Administrative Services on April 7th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we approve. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, during the Administrative Services Committee I asked for some -- maybe some different scenarios that we could look at as far as cars going outside of the county, not across -- outside the state but outside of Richmond County, because we do have employees that live outside of Richmond County and sometimes it's more economical for them to take the car home with them and go to their job site, or if there is a -- as an example, we recently had a sewerage line break on Lumpkin Road. The gentleman that came to it right away lives in Columbia County and had been -- those are emergencies. We need to get the people there as quickly as we can, and he had to go to a county building, pick up his vehicle and equipment and, you know, blah, blah, that kind of thing, and then you're wasting precious time. I just wondered if we have some other -- Randy, if we have some other scenarios or things that we could consider in that, or is this -- do you think this is the best philosophy [inaudible]. MR. OLIVER: There are typically three approaches to a vehicle policy. One of them is to restrict it geographically to in-county or in-city. I've seen that. The other -- the second scenario that I've seen is to make it geographically a certain number of miles from a common point; for example, ten miles or twenty miles or whatever from, say, this building. The third approach that I've seen done, and as I understand it's used by the Sheriff's Department presently, is a certain number of miles across the county line. Obviously that may in one case, you know, be a considerable distance farther than in another case. But I've seen all three of those approaches used. I understand the response, you know, issue concern. It's really a policy decision, and it is what you all think is best for our vehicles as well as, you know, the taxpayers of this county. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll yield to Mr. Brigham. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm sorry, Mr. Todd, go ahead. I didn't see your hand. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, certainly we come a long ways in the last two or three years as far as the policy on vehicles as far as fleet management go. When I first come here, anyone that wanted a vehicle basically had a vehicle and was driving it home, except for Commissioners. And I wasn't jealous of that, you know, but I thought that it wasn't a way to conduct business, and businesses don't conduct business that way, and we got it down to a certain number. And we had quite a bit of debate for that policy change because there was some wanted to keep it like it was; there was some obviously like myself that wanted to tighten up more. And so we're back again with the policy as far as vehicles go. And I can assure you that when we're talking about what the taxpayers talk about, some of the things that we argue about they don't talk about, but this is one where they do talk. And they are concerned about the use of vehicles and whether the use of vehicles is in lieu of salary or whether it's an extra and whether the person is actually, you know, fairly using it, this vehicle, if they see it up at the lake or Clark Hills or they see it in various places outside the county and some places in the county, like at the mall or the grocery store, et cetera. And I think that this is a good policy that the Administrator has come up with. It's a workable policy. And I'm sure that if there need to be an exception to a policy and it's a legitimate exception, that the person that want to take that vehicle somewhere will come to the Administrator or will come to this board and get that variance. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my concern that I'd like to address to Mr. Wall is about the liability involved. I believe we do not carry liability insurance on these cars, that we are self-insured on these cars? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. It is my firm belief and opinion that these cars ought to remain in Richmond County, that all cars ought to remain inside Richmond County unless you're on the county's business and have to exit the county. I think we ought to have it in one place and one place only. We are the ones that are responsible and it's our taxpayers that's going to pay the liabilities if we have a problem, and I don't want to have a problem somewhere else that is not there on public business at that time because an employee wants to drive a car home. I think we need to have it where they stay within Richmond County. These are taxpayer provided vehicles and they are for uses and services to render to those taxpayers, not to provide people transportation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I see Mr. Hatfield sitting out in the audience, and the only thing that I want to know -- I think that the Sheriff's Department has a specific policy in regards to the Sheriff's vehicles, and I understand that -- I don't know what you call them, Sid, but your substations, let's say, that there's not necessarily parking available in some of those areas, and to bring those vehicles, say, down to the Law Enforcement Center and park and go back would cost the taxpayers more money if we didn't allow some of those deputies to utilize those vehicles that may live out of this county. But I'd like for you to maybe address that. And the other thing is that I notice that in the smoking policy -- and while that might sound silly, but if we have deputies that smoke and they're on the job and they're cruising to smoke a cigarette or something, to have to stop the car and get out of the car seems even more silly. So could you address those two issues for me, please? CHIEF HATFIELD: Indeed, Commissioner. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, typically we have a seven-mile limit in place within our department. What I'm specifically saying is outside of Richmond County. The Richmond County line, if we look south to Burke County or if we look west to Columbia County, the seven-mile limit exists. We've had that in place for quite some time and it works very well for us. We're simply saying that a vehicle belonging to the Richmond County Sheriff's Department may exceed that county line for a maximum of seven miles, not beyond but seven and within. This is a twofold, possibly triple-fold benefit to us. We have on-call availability of marked patrol vehicles for any event that may occur that we may need to call out twenty-four hours, seven days a week; and it makes available plainclothes personnel. And as most of you know without me indicating, there are many incidents that are occurring and oftentimes we do recall people to do this. So again, quickly, the seven-mile limit is in place. We review this periodically. It is not, I assure you, not any form of abuse at all. There's a very minimal number of people who do this. I think the majority of the personnel live within the county; very few are outside. But, again, that maximum is a seven-mile radius. Please feel free to check. There are other agencies that we've done research with. Specifically one comes to mind, the Department of Public Safety; particularly the Georgia State Patrol has a radius in place. I believe theirs is thirty-something miles from their post. So what we're saying, typically--our north precinct substation being Daniel Village, our south precinct substation being on the Gordon Highway--typically within the county and seven miles outside makes available this immediate response of all these personnel. Quickly a response to the smoking statement you referred to. We certainly have no problem with any matter addressing the smoking. We already have in place a policy in our department, and it has been for quite some time -- years, I stand corrected, and maybe even more. We do not allow department personnel in uniform in the presence of the general public to smoke. If we see that, if we address that, we discipline, quite frankly, according to that. Now, the Sheriff would have me tell you, please -- and all of you know that these people typically work twelve-hour days. They work 6:00 A to 6:00 P or 6:00 P to 6:00 A. Twelve hours is a long time in a police vehicle in constant response to incidents happening in the street. These people, one, not -- having those who smoke not having the opportunity to do it in uniform in the presence of the public get that little relief factor back in that automobile. A lot of these people don't smoke; some of them do. He is not opposed to that at all. We're not opposed to that at all, but we're just looking for a happy medium somewhere in there to give them a little stress relief factor of some that do smoke. I hope I've answered both questions. If not, please -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, my question would be to the Chief. On a twelve-hour shift, how many hours can an officer put behind the wheel before he have to get out from behind that wheel? CHIEF HATFIELD: Mr. Todd, typically twelve hours, sometimes he can't get out from behind that wheel. Now, I can't tell you every man, every woman, and every day is going to do that. They are available, if you will, for a thirty minute lunch break period that we give them, but there are oftentimes men and women in these cars -- and I invite you to check this. I'll make the records available to you. There's oftentimes they get no lunch break. They don't even get out of the car based on over two hundred thousand calls that we answer a year. MR. TODD: Chief, I've had the courtesy to ride with some of your men and ride with men from other departments, so I would certainly beg to differ. If you had something -- I understand if you had something happening like that [snaps fingers] for twelve hours, but how many cases do you have like that where you have a day where you don't slow down in twelve hours? CHIEF HATFIELD: I couldn't answer it for you. I don't know how many cases, I honestly don't. And I don't know about other departments as you referred to when you just made the comment I've had occasion to ride with other departments. MR. TODD: Chief -- Mr. Mayor, I've also had the opportunity to ride with Richmond County Sheriff's Department on more than one occasion. CHIEF HATFIELD: I'll try to work those numbers up for you, but I'm not -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke wasn't through, gentlemen. MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, I wasn't through, but Mr. Todd had some good questions. And my question, I guess, to Mr. Oliver is: The present policy that the Sheriff's Department has in force regarding the seven-mile limit outside or over the county line, is this in conflict of what they presently have? MR. OLIVER: It is in conflict with that. I'd make two observations on that, and one question I have for Mr. Hatfield, and this was distributed to them for comment. Do you permit your deputies off-duty to use the car for personal use at all? A lot of places do as a deterrent, because one of the reasons you let police officers take vehicles home is to serve as a deterrent; the belief being, and rightfully so, I believe, that if there's a police car in the neighborhood it offers an element of protection to the people that live around them. Obviously there is less of that element if they're outside the county because that car isn't there, but as Mr. Hatfield pointed out, the -- you know, the response time is an issue. But it is in conflict, yes. CHIEF HATFIELD: In definition, that is one of the specific reasons they do take them home. The visual of the automobile being in the neighborhood, parked in the driveway, parked in the front of the house, it lends itself to not only the on-duty cars that are physically in the street at the time, whatever the day or hour may be, but these going to home or coming from home are also available. If they see incidents or are called to the incident, they are required to stop right then and respond to that, so it may well be some off-duty person going to home or coming from home. MR. OLIVER: And if it's the desire of the Commission, we can just modify the policy to say, you know, the Sheriff can go seven miles beyond or something like that, whatever your pleasure is. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer an amendment to, I think it was Mr. Todd's motion, that we do amend this particular policy as it pertains to the Sheriff's Department. And I'd also like some consideration, if it's something that would create a problem in that area, concerning the smoking. MR. BRIDGES: Is that a substitute, Bill? MR. KUHLKE: I guess -- did you make a motion, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with the amendment on the seven miles. I think that at least -- we don't get the full benefit of it being in the county parked, but we get benefit in the sense that it's going out or coming in. And I notice that methodology with some of the law enforcement is that they not just only meet out of county with other law enforcement officers and patrol back in to give them advantage of coming across the county line, but they do it across state line, and I wouldn't want to do anything that would impede on that, that if the officer that's patrolling East Boundary see a need to drive to South Carolina and park and follow someone back across that's speeding a hundred miles an hour. The smoking issue, I guess the Health Department have that hot enough. And I don't want to impede on a person's right to smoke, but I certainly would want to hold them accountable for that vehicle, and that vehicle that that officer that smoke drives, when it comes to a return value as far as that lease vehicle shouldn't be any less than a vehicle where a officer don't smoke. I would, you know, hold the Sheriff and the Sheriff's Department accountable for that as far as -- and if it's abused, then it would be my position to put restrictions on it. CHIEF HATFIELD: If I may for the record, it is absolutely forbidden to go out of county out of state. We do not allow the vehicle to cross the state line into South Carolina. MR. OLIVER: This would only be applicable to out of county but not out of state because we have a liability problem, but you're saying that's consistent. So if that's understood, Commissioner Kuhlke -- MR. KUHLKE: Yes, I understood. CHIEF HATFIELD: And may I, gentleman, just at this point while I've got a chance, may I address something of concern that we looked at in review of the policy? I think it's asking that we notify the County Administrator --we have no problem with this, but we just want you to see what possible problem it could be for us. We will certainly respond to it the best way we can, but it's asking that we file a twenty-four hour, I think, request to go out of county in one of the vehicles. A lot of times we work hour by hour doing that. As an example, recently we used to transport young people to Georgia Regional Hospital for mental evaluations and et cetera, et cetera. We are not allowed to do that anymore. We have to transport these people to Sandersville, Georgia, and we might not get any more than a thirty minute notice of picking up a young person at University Hospital outpatient clinic and having to take them to Sandersville. We just want you to be aware we wouldn't be able to file that. But I think that may be -- MR. OLIVER: We exempted you all from that. I'm sure we did. CHIEF HATFIELD: I was fixing to say I think that may be excluded in one of the criterias. MR. OLIVER: We excluded that. We excluded Public Safety vehicles. CHIEF HATFIELD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Just one question as information, and you might have discussed it. Does your policy -- and maybe Randy can answer this. Does the policy address the business of going out of the county or is it silent on that? CHIEF HATFIELD: It clearly identifies not out of the county, and if so, within the seven-mile limit. Yes, sir. And we know who those people are. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So we don't say they cannot do it, but they must stay within that seven-mile radius? CHIEF HATFIELD: Yes, sir, they cannot exceed the seven-mile limit. We know who they are. They're identified, and the supervisors do a very good job in addressing this on a daily basis. Keeping the vehicle clean, keeping the vehicle fueled -- if the guy gets out and somebody gets in the next day, it's clean, it's fueled, it's ready to go to whatever need we might have. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Is there very many, Chief, or just a small percentage of them? CHIEF HATFIELD: It would be a minimum amount. Very few. There are more who live in than out. MR. H. BRIGHAM: You have seven hundred men, seven hundred fifty men, so about -- CHIEF HATFIELD: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: About three hundred of them? CHIEF HATFIELD: No, sir. Outside the county? No, sir, I don't think we have that many, not that drive cars. We may have that many -- and honestly I don't know. I wish I had brought that number anticipating that question. We may have that many in total employment living outside, but not that many who actually drive the cars. If you take into consideration jail employees, 911 employees, record bureau employees, some of those live outside, but they don't drive the vehicles. MR. OLIVER: Page Eight says law enforcement vehicles--this is talking about out of county--including the District Attorney are exempt from this provision when executing official duties, transporting -- prisoner transport, investigations, et cetera. CHIEF HATFIELD: Thank you. Thank you very much. That solves our concern. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I do think it's a good policy, and I would like the understanding that, you know, this is only pertaining to the Sheriff's Department and not others. This is -- and, you know, wherein I can recognize the seven-mile limit, but, you know, to me it should be encouraged that people -- I have a small problem -- I will probably vote for this, but I have a small problem with cars, city cars, being taken outside of the county because then you are protecting other people in the neighborhoods outside this county. And I do have a small problem with that, and I'm sure that y'all are going to encourage in the future those people who are living outside the county to maybe make some arrangement to get inside the county or work toward that; or in future hiring you ought to consider people in this county because I think those people should be taken care of first, and I'm sure you can find enough people in this county to be hired and not go out of county. MR. WALL: Let me comment. That's against Georgia law to require them to live in the county. There's some code sections specifically says you can't -- MR. BEARD: It may -- we can't require that, but I think in the hiring processes we can look at that. CHIEF HATFIELD: We've been instructed we cannot. Now, if there's some verity in that, I'll be happy to address it, but we've been specifically instructed we cannot. MR. WALL: You can restrict the cars, but I don't think you can restrict the hiring practices. CHIEF HATFIELD: We cannot, not according to Fair Labor and Standards. I'm trying to work in policy with them now. But I will address it as best I can and do that. It's a point well taken, but I've just been specifically told I cannot do that. MR. WALL: I think it's improper. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I don't have a question for Sid, but this pertains to the policy in general. I see a lot of our vehicles off duty, someone driving, taking the kids to school, picking them up, and I think this would be a good policy. This is nothing new to the Sheriff's Department, this is regular -- our regular employees, and I hope that we will pass this policy. And also we need to look at -- I don't know whether you addressed this or not, Randy, I haven't really looked at the complete policy, but we have some people that have cars that never even leave the courthouse and they got cars and then we also have people who have car allowance that don't need car allowance, and all this should be put together. And I think the question Jerry brought up about our insurance, it may be cheaper to give them a car allowance and we stop buying all these cars and letting them drive them, because we have to buy the tires, put the insurance on them, which we're self-insured, and we have to be responsible for all those cars. And there's a lot of people that's working for this government that has a new car and don't even have to worry about ever buying a car for themselves, but it's costing all the taxpayers. So we need a policy, and if this policy is not strong enough as it stands now it needs to be strengthened later, because we do definitely have abuse of automobile and car allowances in this government. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any trouble supporting the fleet policy as amended. I think it's something that's needed. I think it's a vast improvement over what we had in the past and I'll support it. I would like to say that we already have vehicles other than Sheriff's cars, it's my understanding, already going out of county to pick up parts or deliver parts or for something for repairs, picking up, you know, different supplies. So we're going -- I don't want us to hinder that in the future if that's our practice. I'd like for us to do business in Richmond County if at all possible, of course, but I would hope the Administrator in approving any car that out of emergency may need to go outside of the county, if he'd consider some of the discussion here today. MR. OLIVER: That's covered. Let me make one comment to what Commissioner Handy said. Immediately what's going to happen on adoption of this policy is all cars will be decaled, with the exception of the Mayor's car and with the exception of undercover police cars obviously. That will take place immediately. This policy does address car allowances and take-home cars, however, that part of it will not be phased in until the classification compensation study is done. Some people have indicated, and I believe that to be correct, that when they were originally recruited by the county or as part of their employment, that they were given these as an additional benefit. That study will bring them to whatever the market is based upon that point in time, and at that point then we will make sure that cars are only given to those people that are appropriate and need them in performance of their duties. MR. HANDY: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to put this out for information. Our [inaudible] where the Waterworks are at in Columbia County, and also we have the sludge trucks that go into other counties, too, so I'd like for also people to consider that when they put the policy together. MR. OLIVER: The policy states drivers of vehicles may drive out of the county boundaries when the department mission requires this. This would be, of course, routine requirements of the respective department; the out of county travel notification form is not required. So I think that's taken care of both on the parts side and in the instances you mentioned, Commissioner Powell. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Do y'all need the motion reread, gentlemen, or is everybody familiar with it? CLERK: The motion was to approve, by Mr. Todd and seconded by Mr. Handy, with the amendment by Mr. Kuhlke to amend the policy to exempt the Sheriff's Department for out of county use and smoking requirements. Seven- mile limit for the Sheriff's Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CHIEF HATFIELD: Thank you, gentlemen. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10, please? CLERK: Engineering Services: Items 10 through 29 were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on April the 7th. [Item 10: Motion to approve counteroffer of $2,700.00 to acquire an easement consisting of 1,584.58 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement and 792.29 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement from Richard Vinke and Leo Ghitter (Tax Map 87-1, Parcel 219.3). Item 11: Motion to approve counteroffer of $5,322.00 to acquire an easement consisting of 2,838.54 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement and 992.57 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement from Pressley Rhoads (Tax Map 86-4, Parcel 84). Item 12: Motion to approve counteroffer of $1,350.00 to acquire an easement consisting of 1.525.15 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement and 519.6 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement from Delbert K. Palacz and Anita Palacz (Tax Map 86-4, Parcel 88). Item 13: Motion to approve counteroffer of $3,820.00 to acquire an easement consisting of 5,882.12 sq. ft. of permanent utility easement and 1.942.89 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement from Harold M. Boardman (Tax Map 87-3, Parcel 3). Item 14: Motion to approve counteroffer option of $1,000.00 to acquire easement consisting of 927 sq. ft. of permanent drainage and utility easement and 656 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement from Daisy Dell Thompson (Tax Map 71-1, Parcel 211). Item 15: Motion to approve condemnation of 420 sq. ft. of land at 3820 Southfield Drive (Tax Map 167, Parcel 298) in connection with the above project which is owned by Dawn H. Buchanan. Item 16: Motion to approve bid award of construction contract to the low bidder, Hudgins Special Services, in the amount of $784,648.00 regarding the removal of the elevated water storage tank at Augusta State University College. Item 17: Motion to approve deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolutions for Woodberry Subdivision, Section I. Item 18: Motion to approve deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolution for Breeze Hill Plantation Subdivision, Section III-C. Item 19: Motion to approve deed of dedication, maintenance agreement and road resolution for Montclair Subdivision Additions. Item 20: Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $3,000.40 for Blair Construction, Inc. regarding the construction of Louisa Road 8" Water Line Extension. Item 21: Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $26,572.00 for J.D. Haire Construction Co. regarding the construction and relocation of 12" Water Line for the proposed Belair Road Extension Project. Item 22: Motion to approve a request from the Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity regarding the designation of two handicapped parking spaces for church parishioners. Item 23: Motion to approve bid award to B/E Electrical Contractors at $84,980 and approve the contracts subject to signing and proper bonds for the Traffic Engineering Improvements, Phase I Project. Item 24: Motion to approve bid award to APAC-GA, Inc. in the amount of $168,212.00 for Alternate "b" (High Density Polyetheline Pipe) on the Sand Ridge Storm Drainage Improvement Project and approve contracts subject to receipt of signed copies and proper bonds. Item 25: Motion to approve petitions for the installation and maintenance of street lights in various areas. Item 26: Motion to approve the hiring of a Civil Engineer with Environmental background. Item 27: Motion to approve Engineering contract with ZEL Engineers to provide for professional services regarding licensing the Augusta Canal. Item 28: Motion to approve and execute encroachment agreement with Georgia Power Company allowing Augusta-Richmond County to construct and maintain a detention facility on Georgia Power's right-of-way as part of the Tanglewood and Kingston Subdivision Drainage Improvement Project. Item 29: Motion to approve condemnation of permanent drainage and utility easement containing 2,285.67 sq. ft. and a temporary construction easement containing 751.08 sq. ft. at 2409 Peach Orchard Road (Tax Map 86-4, Parcel 80) in connection with the above project which is owned by Edward J. Streeter.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] CLERK: Public Safety, Items 30 through 32 were approved by the Public Safety Committee on April 7th. [Item 30: Motion to approve renewal of License Agreement with Tower Broadcasting Corporation of Georgia for Marshal's Department tower located at 2400 Barton Chapel Road. Item 31: Motion to approve Proposed Policy for Street Renaming (with 66% of property owners to sign petition request). Item 32: Motion to approve 59 new positions (Executive Summary) in connection with the opening of the new Phinizy Road Detention Facility at a cost of $463,097.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, these items were voted on in committee and I'd like to bring them to the full Commission for approval. That's a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] CLERK: Public Services: Items 33 through 38 were approved by the Public Services Committee on April 7th. [Item 33: Motion to approve a recommendation by the Interim Director of License & Inspections that alcohol beverage license transfers be approved by the County Administrator after meeting the requirements of the alcohol ordinance and have the necessary approvals. Item 34: Motion to approve Capital Expenditures for Change Order #2 with Continental Construction Co., Inc. on the construction of the addition to Hangar 5 in the amount of $25,463.00. Item 35: Motion to approve bid award to low bidder for one (1) Backhoe/Loader from Southeastern in the amount of $38,949.00. Item 36: Motion to approve bid award to lowest qualified bidder Jenkins Ford in the amount of $20,523.00. Item 37: Motion to approve bid award to low bidder Bobby Jones Ford for one-half ton pickup in the amount of $13,993.30. Item 38: Motion to approve a special event request by Nancy C. Nelson for a special event one (1) day May 5th, 1997, consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with Safe Homes of Augusta, Inc. at Rio Bravo Cantina located at 2821 Washington Road.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Before making a motion I'd like to allow any Commissioner to -- if they want to pull anything out of it [inaudible] a bunch of pull-outs, I'll allow that before even making a motion. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Number 33 for discussion. MR. MAYS: Any others, gentlemen? CLERK: Correction on Item 38, no Sunday sales. There will be no Sunday sales. MR. MAYS: All right. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Items 34 through 38 as a consent agenda, voting on them as one, and let the record reflect that they were voted on individually. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Mays. Do I hear a second, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Brigham? CLERK: Yes, sir. Henry. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Mr. Turnage, I believe, from the Sheriff's Department wanted to discuss Number 38, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. TURNAGE: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, this came up last week. Unbeknownst to our ourselves and the License Department also, this was done on behalf of the Safe Homes of Augusta. Initially we were against this license; however, once we found out that Safe Homes was involved in it and they were going to benefit from the proceeds and the application was made in their names, we agreed to approve this license with reservations. Basically what we don't want to happen is large crowds gathering in parking lots, beer tins, et cetera. Last Wednesday during the Masters Tournament I had fifteen hundred people in the parking lot of Flash Dance up there in National Hills and it took me two and a half hours to get it cleared out. I definitely don't think we need to look at doing something of this nature during the Masters week; however, we did approve this, and I think we should see how this one goes and reflect on any ones in the future. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any questions? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No, Mr. Mayor, I certainly quite agree with the Sheriff's Department on this one and can support it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 33, please? CLERK: Item 33 is a motion to approve a recommendation by the Interim Director of License & Inspections that alcohol beverage license transfers be approved by the County Administrator after meeting the requirements of the alcohol ordinance and have the necessary approvals. Approved by Public Services on April 7th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges had his hand up over here, Mr. Todd. MR. BRIDGES: I'll go ahead and take a motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. KUHLKE: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor, and mine is very brief. I think Mr. Walker may want to address that. And there were some concerns [inaudible]. And naturally anytime things involving alcohol license, particularly if they relate to neighborhoods, there's going to be a concern. And one of the strong sentiments that we kept intact is that these things would be done, you know, on an individual basis so that they can be monitored that way so that we can make sure we cross every T, dot every I. It was not taken lightly to deal with this particular subject administra-tively. Mainly in the essence of the interest of time only a certain amount of these transfers will be done and not everything that will come through us, and I think Mr. Walker can give the full details of the particular cases that will be handled under this provision and only those particular cases only. MR. WALKER: Thank you, Mr. Mays, Commissioners. This is only for transfers from one person to another. The location has already been approved by the Commission or the ownership has been approved. There's no change in the ownership, there's no change in the location, only a transfer. For example, we've got one coming up with Jerry's Catering where the lady left town. Jerry's Catering is at the airport. They've already got a license, the location has been approved. It would just be administratively transferring from the old applicant who's leaving town to the new applicant who moved in [inaudible]. It'd only be just transfers; no change of ownerships, no change of location. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Going a little bit further than that, when you do that transfer, the person you're transferring it to, a background check and so forth is done on that particular person. You go through that process, do you not? MR. WALKER: We go through all the process up to bringing it to the Commissioners. It goes through our department, the Sheriff's Department approves it, and it would not be sent to the Administrator until the Sheriff's Department has approved it or disapproved it. MR. KUHLKE: And the only one that the Administrator would be able to go ahead and approve would be those that pass muster for -- with everything? MR. WALKER: That's correct, yes, sir. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I just have one question, because this question has been posed to me. Will the neighborhood or the people in that vicinity, would they be aware -- how would they be notified that this is a license change? And I'm asking this because many have been asking me that. In license changes it may be people that they don't want to come into that area. How would that be handled? MR. WALKER: It'd be handled like it's handled now. They are not notified -- if it's a transfer they're not notified now. If it's a new ownership they have to advertise through the paper, or a new location. But as far as just transferring it, I own the store and I'm just changing managers, it wouldn't -- they're not -- we're exchanging managers. MR. BEARD: We don't have to go through notifying the neighborhoods on that. Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Walker, but now if we're transferring it comes before us and the public sees the agenda and they can come voice their concerns about it. Will they have that same opportunity if the Administrator is the one doing it? MR. WALKER: No, sir, I don't believe so. It wouldn't be advertised anywhere at all, it'd just be transferring from one person to another. The ownership still would've already been approved by y'all and the location is approved. MR. OLIVER: You have to remember that what this proposes is this would only be in the case of a transfer where you're transferring it from Party A to Party B. Both parties would have met the minimum qualifications of the Sheriff's Department. Their background check would've had to met those qualifications. So you're right from the standpoint as it relates to, you know, the public having insight, but you have to remember that when it comes before the Commission, you may be in a tenuous position if you turn somebody down if they pass the Sheriff's background check without having a bona fide reason to do that. Mr. Wall can speak to that more clearly. MR. WALL: And that's certainly true. I mean, if they meet the qualifications, including the background check, the moral character, and all the financial information, et cetera, I mean, you would have a difficult time. And so these are the -- those that meet those qualifications are the ones that the Administrator would be approving. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that this is not a transfer from one owner to another owner but transfer from one person in management to another, and if the problem is that -- if the citizens which don't want us micromanaging now want us to micromanage so they can see where the license is going, if that's the problem then we can put it on the agenda to be approved by the Administrator the transfer of these license and they would have it on the agenda. I don't think the argument is -- or this debate is about what's on the agenda but what we have to deal with in this meeting. We're going three and four hours in a meeting that should take probably two hours, and if I didn't have to talk so much it'd probably take a hour. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 39, please? CLERK: Item 39 is to consider a request from the Augusta Boxing Club for $25,000 bid money with regard to hosting the 1997 USA Boxing Women's National Championship. MR. MORAETES: In light of Commissioner Todd's last statement, I'm going to be very brief. I want to thank you for meeting with me -- or having me come here today, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Commissioners, and I also want to thank Ms. Bonner. She's been inundated with faxes for the last five or six days, and I appreciate her going through all of the information we sent her. I'll be -- as mentioned, I am going to be brief. I've got a pocket of support here that -- of persons that are reflecting my proposal, and as opposed to them getting up and saying something I can just make a brief statement as to their involvement and I can kind of wind this up and show you how it all fits together. First of all, a young lady here, Laura Luther, is eleven years old. She goes to C.T. Walker. She's been in the Augusta Boxing Program since she's been a little girl and she has aspirations one day of being in the Olympics and representing Augusta in the Olympics. Also, I've got Ms. Simone here, Debra Simone. She is a volunteer in our organization. She also participates in our adult boxing program. She has a Ph.D. in--it's hard to pronounce-- Reproductive Endocrinology, so she is a great asset. And she works as a tutor for the children in the program, but she's also involved in the boxing program as being a participant in the boxing program and, as you can see, as being a lady also. Also, Mr. David Jones, who -- I came here today with just one hand, not two hands turned out, thanks to Mr. Jones, who is the General Manager of the Sheraton. He's agreed to assist us in our proposal to the tune of -- in excess of $10,000, which will be able to assist us so that we would have to ask for as little possible money as we have to. But Mr. Jones is one of the corporate sponsors of the Augusta Boxing Club, and he's agreed to -- as you can see from your proposal, we're required to provide fifteen rooms for seven nights, and he is providing that at no charge for the county so that we can fulfill some of the obligations of the proposal. And also I have Mike Carlson, who is our club's attorney, who is also -- works in a local area instructing a lot of females that are involved in competitive martial arts, which is what a lot of the participants in this national championship tournament would be. And last but not least, Command Sergeant Major Al Robinson, who brings a tremendous amount of credibility to my proposal as he -- as most of you are probably aware, he was in the Olympics as an -- he's a full-time lifelong resident of Richmond County, he was in the Olympics as an official, and he has agreed to be the chief official for this proposal that I'm making, the national championship. I was in Colorado Springs about a month ago and I was talking to the International Olympic Committee, and they had advised me that the tournament, the first ever United States Women's Amateur -- understand this, amateur, not professional; not WCW, not mud wrestling, not ultimate fighting championship, amateur -- clean amateur boxing tournament was going to be available. It would be televised nationally on ESPN. It would be an opportunity for Augusta again, which we have in the past through the sport of boxing, to become a part of history as far as this sport will one day be in the Olympics -- the women's participation will be in the Olympics, and we're hoping that one day we'll be able to get started with this program being in Augusta, Georgia. But I was advised that the national championship is available. The casinos -- a couple of casinos and cities have pulled out because it's a four- day tournament -- it's planned to be a four-day tournament. Very few programs in this country can put on four-day tournaments because of the logistics involved. My proposal, as you -- if you've got that, some of the paperwork from Ms. Bonner, is that we hold the tournament a two to four-day period at the Warren Road Gym and the finals at the Bell Auditorium, with it being earmarked for telecast on ESPN. And in addition to that, besides making history and bringing a lot of tourism into the Augusta area, it is -- to me, I'm very proud that the U.S.A. Boxing -- our contacts with U.S.A. Boxing and our friends at the Olympic Training Center have agreed that if we were able to fulfill the obligations of the bid sheet, that we would be able to have this tournament. There's no speculation as far as the acquisition of the tournament. And I have been working the last two weeks. Like I say, I'm not coming to you with both hands out. I've got the Medical College of Georgia, which has already proposed to provide all the medical attention for all the athletes and coaches. We've taken care -- Dr. Marion Durst has agreed to take care of all the dental needs. All of the vehicle transportation needs have been donated by Mark Maddox, formerly of Bob Maddox Dodge. And in particular, the hotel reservations for the U.S.A. Boxing staff is being comped by the hotel. So I've tried to cut it down as much as I can and still offer Augusta a place in history, numerous aspects as far as tourism to our area, and also keeping with the theme of the Augusta Boxing Club to enhance the lives of youth in our community, which is something that sometimes directors and administrators get away from. But as far as Ms. Laura Luther here and her desire one day to be in the Olympics -- as mentioned before, this is the ground floor level of potential Olympic competition for females. I think that any statement made in any negative way in reference to females participating in amateur boxing without reference, without knowledge, without experience, is not fair just to the sport, it's not fair to women that participate in all types of athletics. And that's about all I have to say. If you would have some questions or comments -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. OLIVER: There's some information I think I need to provide at some point. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. MR. OLIVER: I talked with Mr. Beck, who is our Parks and Recreation person, Tammy Stout from the Sports Council, and here's some information for you. She indicated that several months ago they had a discussion. The Sports Council at that time didn't -- they felt like they had some other things that were of more importance to them, and so consequently they couldn't participate. She indicated, however, that last year there was an Olympic -- I believe it was an Olympic event or in preparation of that where the city funded sixty thousand, the county seventy-five, for a hundred and thirty-five thousand. It was a three-day event, it was high-profile. There was one local participant, which was believed to generate interest. She indicated that participation was less than they would have desired, and consequently they didn't think it was as successful as they could. I also looked at funding because I think funding is the key issue in this. We had already given $50,000 to River Race Augusta for an event that was subsequently not held this year. If we can get that fifty thousand back I think that I could recommend proceeding with this, or at least the twenty-five of the fifty to go towards this. I think, though, I would be hard pressed to recommend taking $25,000 from contingency for this particular event because that's our cushion against rainy days, but that's the only other place we could take it from would be General Fund contingency. Again, we are trying to contact the River Race Augusta people to get what money was advanced to them back, and I don't know what the likelihood of that is. MR. MORAETES: Can I respond? In reference to -- with all due respect to Ms. Stout, she has recently tried to acquire a national badminton tournament. I've got nothing against badminton, but as far as I'm concerned the magnitude of this event is far more outreaching than a national badminton tourna-ment. Also, you can look at it as far as the monies that the county put it, but let's look at it also --and Barry White can substantiate the fact that it brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars of tourism into the Augusta area, number one. Number two, as a result of the success of the Box Off, the actual success of the tournament itself, the United States Olympic Team came back to Augusta as a result of this money we put in for a three-week period and put an untold amount of money again back into the Augusta economy, and at which time we took the Olympic team to every single youth group, every single hospital, every single medical program in the area. As a result of that, the success of that, in working with the Radisson the 1998 Olympic Boxing Convention is going to be held here in Augusta in 1998, which will bring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the local area. With all due respect to Ms. Stout. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, did you want to say something? MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, my position is that I don't think that I should make this decision on what I think girls should or should not do. There was once upon a time when folks thought that blacks should not do certain things and be able to participate in certain areas of sports, and we've overcome that hurdle and I think it's time to overcome the hurdle of what girls can do. I think the mothers and fathers of those girls should make that decision and not this board. So I certainly don't base the decision on what I think they should or shouldn't be able to do, but I base the decision on promoting Augusta, Georgia. We give away approximately a quarter of a million dollars a year, $75,000 through Amendment 73 to promote Augusta, Georgia. We give it away to nonprofit entities that say they're in that business, but they do little to promote Augusta. About the only free advertisement we've gotten recently was I guess the Friday before the Masters five minutes of Rush Limbaugh talking about coming to Augusta and yesterday evening thirty minutes of Rush Limbaugh bragging about Augusta and coming here. But he couldn't get Martinez right. He called it Martinez, I think, or something like that. But they got lost, so we got thirty minutes of free advertisement nationwide. You don't get this kind of advertisement free; it costs. If you look at Virginia, you know, and some of the cities in Virginia, they spend millions of dollars a year advertising their cities around the Beltway in Washington, D.C., for a good place to come visit or to bring your corporate headquarters. Augusta, Georgia, you only hear about it one time a year and that's when we are blessed to have the Masters here and we go worldwide. This is another opportunity, and if for no other value than to get on national television or world television, I think it's worth the $25,000 that we'll spend. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I personally think before we go out spending $25,000 that we don't have to start with, that we need the endorsement of the Sports Council. If they're not willing to endorse this event, I don't think we need to be spending public money on it. The other thing that I am concerned about is, with other operations that we voted on just today, at least we had money identified in the budget that we are using. This is like every other thing, we go to contingency. And the contingency, as Mr. Oliver said, will deplete itself and I don't think we need to be doing that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I don't want to leave Tom defenseless because I think we're here to deal with the present and not deal with the past, but I think that every mule ought to carry its own backpack. And, you know, the thing that bothers me a little bit is that, you know, when we get an unfair injection -- and I know that what was presented to Mr. Oliver was on stats and I think that's his job to lead and to guide us specifically on what may be the pros and cons on a particular issue, but I think he's clearly articulated the other outside monies that were brought into this community with that particular event. I think down the road where this can lead us with this particular sport -- you know, we're talking about tourism and of that becoming our main products. Now, we know that golf is our bread-and-butter issue. We're dealing with the Golf Hall of Fame within walking distance from here. But I think that we ought to be broadminded enough and receptive enough that if -- and I say this, I hope, as a avid sports-minded person, and even the events that I don't participate in or may not even like, that I'm receptive enough to want to say that I think that, you know, one entity should not necessarily be the Bible on a particular event or events because of possible personalities, and I won't carry that part of it any further. But I think that when you're talking about -- and this is something that we're probably going to have to look into for the future, Mr. Administrator, but some of the events for this community to tackle and to get to--this was brought up in our committee last week--in terms of the possibilities budgetarywise of looking at seed monies where we're dealing with these bids, whether there's something there in boxing -- [End of Tape 1] -- division of SCC tournament. Best basketball in this country for women. Pat Summon right behind John Wooden in terms of coaching ability. They're winning national championships. Albany, Georgia, has already hosted the SCC; Chattanooga, Tennessee, got it. Some of the things that are being done are not necessarily going to come through the eyes of just a few individuals and what their ideas might be. Now, I think we have to look -- if we're going to walk that walk, we need to, from a governmental standpoint, look at the possibilities when we're talking about next year of this whole pot of money not just with what Tom Moraetes or a group may do or what the Sports Council may do in reference to seed monies of landing different types of events. We're going to have to go next week, and our director -- and I want to praise Recreation for stepping in last year. We incorporated early on of putting Mr. Moraetes into the full-time Recreation program, which probably if we had not and sent him packing with state employees, we probably would not have landed the Olympic Box Off. And in all fairness, the event that was held at Georgia Tech prior to the Olympics that brought in world class boxers, some of them who fought in the Olympics, did not outdraw Augusta, Georgia. There were less seats filled in Alexander Memorial than there were at the Augusta-Richmond County Civic Center. You take a gamble in some cases. We had more people there at the semi-final event, which is not being stated, and I think that if you'd had, yes, Brandon Mitchell fighting that night in the finals, of which he got robbed the night before, yeah, we probably would've had a full Civic Center and those stats would have flipped around. So I think that is very unfair for the Sports Council to label that particular event by proxy and of sending that type of information, particularly not in person to do it, and to say that that was not successful. I think that in terms of what it did bring in and the notoriety of what we were trying to put together, the only semblance other than having the torch going through this community -- and we can say that we drew more people percentagewise than any community in this state of following that. I think that helped us tremendously. It's the only thing that we had close to an Olympic event in doing it, but it was done because people came together from government, from the medical community, the sports community, media folk, everyone who participated in doing it. We're going to have to look at that being a part of a budgetary item to either deal with it or, quite frankly, gentlemen, not deal with it. Because when we send folk out, whether it's Tom Beck dealing with state games, whether it's Tom Moraetes in boxing, whether it's others who wish to bring in -- we got a Civic Center, we got Augusta State University and its facility, we're sending in and probably have the best all around high school basketball in this state for the last forty-five years. We're not hosting any division of Georgia High School Association basketball. They've been -- two out of three years you've had Augusta finalists, Westside and Josey. You had this year, thankfully, in young ladies basketball Richmond Academy and Josey for the championships that were there. All folk leaving here going somewhere else to spend some money. So everything does not live and die across that way in walking distance of what they may want to put here and put on the agenda. Maybe it's high time that we maybe do a little bit more variety of seasoning in what's there in that council to bring everybody's attention level to sports that can draw and can make money for this community. When you can house people three to four days on an eastern coast city, that's money. Hate to use the expression: they're trapped here, they can't go no where else. They got to eat here, they got to sleep here. Even with what David is donating, there will be folk who will be paying. This may not be the jewel crown to draw for this event, but if you're going to bring in and have a convention that leads up to it, then that's where you make your money in terms of the investment that you put in now in order to be able to land a better convention down the road at a year later. You make it back four times over. So if we're going to be small-minded and only take what history has provided for us and let that be the only event that we have and continue to rest on that while the rest of the world tries to move on and to attract other things, then I think, you know, going from a little dot on the map to a big dot on the map really won't accomplish too much if we don't change our ideas and our mindset about what we do. MR. MORAETES: One thing to clarify also is that Mr. Jones is taking care of the support staff, but all the participants coming from all over the United States, and the numbers are before you, are taking care of their own expenses as far as their meals, their hotel and things like this. So these will be monies that the county will be able to generate. He's taking care of the support staff. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, would you look this way next time around? MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. MR. HANDY: Okay. I need to make a statement here, and I'm going to tie it in with what I said about an hour ago about these give-aways. But if the Sports Council is not sponsoring this or in favor of this -- and they are in the sports business, that's what they're for. We know how Mr. Moraetes love boxing. That's all he loves far as I'm concerned right now. That's what we're talking about, okay, and so you know he's going to support this. Mr. Mays is my friend, but we're not talking about friendship right now. He's over Recreation, so he's going to support what Tom's wanting. But why are we here debating whether or not we're going to spend $25,000 for young people, especially females, to be boxers? Now, I'm not saying I'm against female boxers, but I wouldn't want no female getting beat upside the head and face. I see how these men look when finished when they get beat upside the face, why would I want to look at a woman like that for? You know, I'm not here trying to tell the females what they should or should not do, but I'm telling you, a woman beating up against another woman with a boxing glove and the way they're going to look when they're finished, I wouldn't want that woman. This is what I'm saying, so we are supporting something that's deteriorating instead of making it better. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Tom, I'm probably in trouble. Somebody asked me a question on TV earlier on, and prior to hearing all -- getting all the information on it I said that I was probably opposed to this. Do you happen to have a pro forma available on this that would give the total financial impact or the cost and other sponsorships that the participation that you expect from the community as far as viewing these matches? And also, how long is ESPN going to televise this? I notice the -- I think the dates are the 22nd through the 29th? MR. MORAETES: The dates are flexible. MR. KUHLKE: The dates are flexible? MR. MORAETES: Yes, sir. They're televising the finals. MR. KUHLKE: The finals? And how long -- I mean, is that just one match or? MR. MORAETES: Normally -- I can just go by past experience as far as international matches, which is what this falls in line with. They televise anywhere from two to three hours of the actual competition, and -- MR. KUHLKE: I mean, do they show two or three hours? MR. MORAETES: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We just had the national championships in Colorado Springs and they ran from nine to eleven. And that was the men's national championship. You know, as mentioned in my paperwork, you know, I do have -- this is sanctioned by the United States Olympic Committee. Understand this, this is not sanctioned by Don King, it's not sanctioned by professional or -- by the United States Olympic Committee; okay? They're the governing body that put their graces on this sport. And it is the first ever, and that's one reason why the price on it as far as national TV matches is so low, and so hard -- it's almost impossible for me, as stated in some of the dialogue, to give you figures on this other than the fact that our community --the participants themselves are adult age. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Do you know the timing of the televised -- is it at night or is it during the day or? MR. MORAETES: The timing is always at night with ESPN. MR. KUHLKE: Always at night? MR. MORAETES: Yes, sir. It would be delayed. It would be a delayed telecast, which is what my request was. It was delayed. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. I kind of concur to some extent with Mr. Handy. You know, one of the problems that I have sitting on the Commission is that we've got the Augusta Boxing Association, which I've tried to support over the years, we've got the Sports Council, we've got other organizations, and coming from one organization back to me as a Commissioner without the coordination of all of the things that are going on in this community, it creates a problem for me in supporting one activity that we don't seem to have the support of the Sports Council, which is in a way our official arm as far as sports activity in the community, so I do have a problem with it. I guess I'm opposed to some extent to women's boxing. I'm just saying that, I've said that, and I'm probably in trouble. I raised two daughters, so I know they beat up on each other, and I know that happens, but I don't know that I have enough information that I could support this at this time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, everybody hasn't finished yet, Mr. Todd. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with whatever ladies want to do. If they want to do it, that's fine with me. The only thing I have a problem with with the finance, I wonder where we're going to get the finance and where is it going to come from. At this time I would like to suggest to the group that we go on with providing the twenty-five thousand contingency upon getting the money back from the River Race. I don't think we should go otherwise with it. Now, if we can get it back from there I would be willing to support this effort, and I would like to make that in the form of a motion. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll accept the amendment to the motion and call for the question. MR. HANDY: We can't accept the amendment and call the question. Got to have discussion on that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: We haven't finished yet, Mr. Todd. You had your speech, somebody else will have theirs. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Is that what you want to do? MR. HANDY: How about the discussion on the amendment motion just one more time. Mr. Beard, I'll agree with you as far as supporting it, but why are you saying if we get the money? If we don't get the money, then what you going to do? So why not let's get the money first and then decide what we're going to do, then we'll have the money in hand. MR. BEARD: It's the same thing. MR. HANDY: No, it's not the same thing, because I don't think you'll get that money back from [inaudible]. MR. MORAETES: We are at the eleventh hour in this, as you can understand. This tournament is earmarked for June or July, and to promote this thing I wanted -- if I'm going to be involved in it and if Richmond County wants -- if they want to be involved, I'm sure they want it to be a success. We are at the eleventh hour as far as promoting this thing, getting the word out to the entire nation and also to all the world news media, so that's another aspect of my proposal is that we're probably past the eleventh hour. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my question is, if we're going -- I don't have any problem with the amendment; in fact, I can support the amendment. But I want to know how do we know we have the money in hand to pass the money along? If we don't have the money in hand, then where is the money coming from? I need to know that so I can either -- so I can make a logical decision in how I'm going to vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: Randy, did you want to say something? MR. OLIVER: The only thing I can suggest -- and I don't know what the likelihood of getting that money back is. We have advanced that money. I mean, you know, we can -- if you all decide to proceed that way we can, you know, contact Mr. Moraetes or give him an update as it relates to whether we have the money in the bank and that we won't disburse any money until we do have the money in the bank. But obviously we could get the money back next week, we may never get the money back, and I can't answer that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be very senseless to sit here and give Mr. Moraetes and his group false hope if we don't have funding, and I hate to see us vote on passing money off on contingencies. Either we need to do it or we don't need to do it, and my problem is if we're going to do it we need to have an identified source of funds and it's got to be something besides contingency. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend my motion again to go for the $50,000 to whomever we gave it to. We darn sure shouldn't be flim-flammed by somebody that couldn't or didn't put on a event here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, why don't you read the motion so we know exactly what we're voting on. CLERK: The motion by Mr. Todd, second by Mr. Henry Brigham, was to approve the request, accepting the amendment by Mr. Beard contingent upon the money being recouped from River Race Augusta, and Mr. Todd's amendment that we definitely recoup the $50,000 advanced to River Race Augusta to sponsor this event. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Moraetes, how soon have you got to have this money? MR. MORAETES: Having the money -- I don't have to have the money anytime soon. I've got to have the word to Colorado Springs within the next - - certainly the next week that we will come up with the money. And because of the logistics involved in the news media, and I don't have to, you know, explain that. I don't need the money until the tournament. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. I want them to understand, though, you don't want to be hung out on a limb. MR. MORAETES: Absolutely. MR. HANDY: You need the money then. You need the money now. MR. MORAETES: I need the authority. I need the authority. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I'd like to see us do -- and it's obvious, I think, from a vote standpoint that the only way that this is going to get supported financially is that we're going to probably have to do some recoup money. Is it possible then for us to agree in the current language of the motion or if something to be added to it, that we vote on that, allow the Administrator to be able to work that out if that money can be recouped, rather than to get back into this public forum for somebody trying to put together an event? I think in all the best spirit of what's happening here, rather than to be on televised news, to go out and to further news situations and get it to shot down. Because if you're looking to get something else -- I mean, other cities -- I mean, it was said by one particular city about Albany, and the reason why they took their meetings off was because they started losing some conventions. Surrounding areas were putting their film on tape and taking it there and saying, hey, this is what you're going to get here. I think let's settle it today and go ahead on, and if Randy can work that out, to do it. If he can't work it out, then it'll be done, but then it won't have to be back here in a situation again begging it down. And I think somewhere in the future some of us -- if we're going to look to the Sports Council to be the guiding force for dealing with sports, then maybe we need to deal with that in terms of all sports. And the Council maybe needs to look reflective of this community and look at all the sports that are out there that can make money and that cities our size are making money while we are not going after certain events because they are not on certain folks' agendas and deal with that in that manner. But I think as far as Tom is concerned, let Randy handle that and don't even come back here with it no more where this doesn't have to be a televised event in itself. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. MR. MAYS: I call the question, Mr. Mayor. CLERK: Mr. Todd accepted that amendment? MR. TODD: Accept the amendment, friendly. MR. HANDY: [inaudible] blank check? MR. MAYS: Well, what I'm saying, it's not going to come from anywhere, my Finance Chairman, other than if the Administrator can recoup it. I think that's the general agreement then. MR. J. BRIGHAM: But if we're going to spend the money -- we're giving this man a $25,000 commitment on a blank check and we don't have no money in the bank. MR. MAYS: Well, it's based on his recouping the money that folk walked in and got on one of those events that we didn't necessarily check on because they just normally come and they are respectable people. They got it and gone, you didn't have an event, and ain't nobody returning nothing. I think a simple call -- we know who we gave it to. It's a simple answer, they either got it, spent it on legitimate promotions -- the money is either gone or it's still there. He ain't got to go to the moon and back to find out where that money is. Now, we dealt with this in committee last week now, and we've had a week now to deal with it. We got -- if he ain't got a week now to make a decision, seventy-two hours we ought to be able to find out where that goose that laid that golden egg went. It's either gone or it's not there and the issue will be over, won't have to come back here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, KUHLKE & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MR. TODD: My colleagues done a good hand on -- I mean a good job on the blocking and delaying, but it didn't really work. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Items 40 and 41, and a recommendation from the Planning Commission to take these items as a consent agenda. They were approved by the Planning Commission on April the 8th. [Item 40: S549 - Charlestowne Subdivision - Phase I - Final Plat - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Charlestowne Subdivision, Phase I, Final Plat. This phase is located on the south side of Washington Road just west of I-20 and contains 21 lots. Item 41: A request from James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Bruker Company Homes, requesting a subdivision name change from Rivercrest Development Phase II to "The Fairways of Goshen". The entire phase is owned by Bruker Company Homes.] MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by who? CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 42: A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission March 18th. MR. ZETTERBERG: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: With the correction if there are any. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Zetterberg, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: 43: A Personnel Hearing, termination of employment of Mr. Walter L. Hurley from the Recreation Department. MR. ETHERIDGE: Gentlemen, this will be the last personnel hearing that comes before the board, of course. Mr. Hurley comes today and he has -- this will be his last administrative remedy through the process to appeal to the board. Mr. Hurley was terminated, and he was terminated based on violation of four separate sections of the policy manual: Section 11-B, Number 4, excessive tardiness; Section 11-B, Number 6, insubordination; Section 11-B, Number 12, Section 11-B, Number 18, offensive conduct and offensive language. The packet that was provided to you contain the memos from his supervisor, Ms. Moody, and from Director Tom Beck from Recreation Department and then at the time Assistant Director. We have sat down with the Assistant Administrator and we've offered to put Mr. Hurley back to work, transfer him to another position, and he was not in favor of that. The Personnel Board heard the grievance. They also offered to transfer Mr. Hurley to another position also and he did not want to do that. So here we are today in front of you at the Commission and we would ask that you concur with the Personnel Board with the termination of employment. Mr. Hurley is here today and he has some witnesses, and I don't want to take up none of his time, but we do have Mr. Beck and Mr. Howard here to clarify anything that needs to be clarified in regard to the termination. With that, do you have any questions? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is that is Mr. Hurley willing to take a bust-back today and go back to a nonsupervisory position? And that's the only question I have of anyone. MR. HURLEY: Before this Commission I would like to say no, because they offered me a position that was putting me back into an entry level position where I was told I would never move up, and it was an insult. They wanted me to take a job as a janitor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the other question I have is what position did he -- did Mr. Hurley leave from to take the supervisor's position? MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Hurley left the position -- let me make sure I got the title right. He left the position as maintenance repair worker in the Recreation Department and he was moved to the maintenance coordinator. He was offered to return to the maintenance repair worker -- is that not right, Tom? Let him clear me up here. MR. TODD: Is he willing to take -- Mr. Mayor, is he willing to take that position as we speak to where he was promoted from to go back there on a bust-back, and that's my question. MR. HURLEY: Yes, I am. I've stated this several times. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move then that we overrule the Personnel Board, the Administrator and whoever else, and put him back to the position that he was in; and if we need to promote somebody else up through the -- from the ranks, that we do so. That's in the form of a motion. MR. ETHERIDGE: I would like to ask some questions about that now, Mr. Todd. What are we going to do with the individual that is -- that we've hired and put in that position? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I made a motion. I'm waiting on a second. MR. HANDY: I'm going to give you a second, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beck, do you want to make a comment, please? MR. BECK: Mr. Etheridge brought the only comment I would have. The position Mr. Hurley went into, we promoted someone into that position and that person is doing a good job right now for us, and what would happen to that person? The position that we put -- we offered to Mr. Hurley, and both the Administrator's hearing and the Personnel Board made the same offer, is a full-time job that is nonsupervisory. One of the main reasons, along with some of the other issues that came up, is Mr. Hurley is not a supervisor. He was given fair warning and fair opportunity to improve his supervisory skills and could not do so. Part of this grievance negotiation, if you will, was to offer him a entry level job although still taking into consideration his years of service. He was going from one grade down to another grade but keeping in mind his years of service also. And so he was offered that and has chosen not to do it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if we're ready for discussion, I would suggest if we don't have it in the personnel procedure, that we come up with a procedure that --where we do bust-backs, and when we do one, then you do the other one. The person that's in that position would basically go back to where he was at before, et cetera. Now, that's the way industry do it. I think it's -- if industry do it that way, then certainly Fair Labor Standards approved it, and I don't think -- I think it's a insult for us to offer someone a entrance level position. And unless we changed the personnel policy, I believe the requirement is, or should be, it used to be, that if you take someone and move them back, that you got to pay them the current salary for one year. Now, we know that with some folks it's been done that way, with others it haven't; but if we're going to be about fairness, then we should be about fairness. And if we don't have a policy to do that, then that's not Mr. Hurley's problem, that's our problem, Mr. Mayor, and that we should have a bust-back procedure. Everybody that you promote up to management is not capable of managing and from time to time you're going to have to put them somewhere else. Now, if the argument is for insubordination or for any other line item specific that you are firing this man for other than he's not capable to supervise, then I might could give some consideration to it, but not because he is not a manager. MR. BECK: If I could respond to that. That was actually the recommendation -- Mr. Hornsby may want to speak to that. That was the recommendation when we went through that part of the grievance procedure that Mr. Hornsby came up with. My recommendation, and I think he'll vouch for this, was that the termination stand, but in lieu of trying to work this thing out I went along with what Mr. Hornsby was recommending. I still stand by the termination. This was one of the factors that was put in his termination letter, but there were many other factors that were brought out as far as why he was terminated, so that's my position on it. MR. HORNSBY: If I may, Mr. Mayor. He is correct, in the hearing itself it came out and there were several charges against him -- Mr. Hurley. But the thing that stood out in it that I saw from the evidence that was presented at that meeting was the fact that he was promoted into an area in which he couldn't handle. And there was no other position available, so we recommended that -- what was being brought out was a drop in step -- in grade but keep the same step. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, in light of Mr. Todd's comments, I'd like to read to you the promotion policy as contained in the personnel policies and procedure. And there was a lot of discussion and a lot of thought that went into this at the time the new personnel policy was written last year. But basically what it says is that individuals promoted or advanced will serve on a probationary status for a period of one year from the effective date of the promotion, and if during that probation period it is determined that the promoted individual cannot adequately perform at the promoted position, then that employee will be returned to his previous position if that position has not been filled. If that position has been filled, then the employee will be placed in another available position with the government. If, however, there are no positions available, then the employee would be laid off. So that's the policy that was applied in this instance. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, will the -- your last two comments, was it laid off? MR. WALL: It says laid off. MR. TODD: There's a big difference, Mr. Mayor, between laying a person off and firing them. MR. ETHERIDGE: I'd like to comment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Todd, I think the issue is a little confused here about this. Mr. Hurley was terminated based on violation of several policies -- four policies. He was not terminated simply due to the fact that he could not perform a particular job. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, then why was that ever brought up? I wasn't invited to the personnel hearing by Mr. Hurley or anyone else, I just happened to be in the building the day that it was going on, come in and sat down on a few minutes of it. What I heard as far as the context of that meeting, it was very wrong in the sense that this individual could not perform as a supervisor. Now, the -- and I've looked for, you know, where this person was wrote up at. I read the letters, you know, but certainly I'm sure the Personnel Board got the information as far as this person was wrote up for this or that or the other and that he either signed or refused to sign. But, you know, the bottom line is that it should have never been introduced as evidence in a personnel hearing his abilities to supervise if that's not the reason that you're firing him, and I -- and certainly I think it weighed in on the Personnel Board that we got a person here that can't supervise. Anything that is not admissible shouldn't be said in those hearings. So if we're telling this now that, you know, it wasn't considered or it wasn't a -- didn't have a bearing on it, then it shouldn't have been said. It should have been disallowed in the hearing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, I'd just like to make a statement. Based on what I know about this particular case, if he was terminated in January and it's just April, what day that that position was filled with somebody else? MR. BECK: His position has not been filled, the one he was terminated from. The position that was in question, and correct me if I'm wrong, was the position that he was promoted from. MR. HANDY: That's the one I'm talking about. MR. BECK: That was filled last June when he was promoted to the position he's in now. The position he's been terminated from is still vacant because this is still pending. MR. HANDY: Okay. If what I heard right that Jim read in our procedures, then find a place in the government. It didn't say he had to go back to Recreation. And we have a lot of openings. We've been advertising for the last three or four months, so plenty of openings. And it might be a better job than what he had and he could get from under that pressure with those people that he's working with. And so why wasn't he offered one of those jobs? MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Hurley -- at that particular time we met with Moses McCauley and talked about some jobs that were available at the time. MR. HANDY: Okay. Also, the things that I've seen that Mr. Hurley supposedly allegedly done or violated, that was all concocted and put together come January 1 of this year. There's nothing that I've seen now. There's nothing I've seen from January -- from December the 31st of '96 back that caused him to be terminated today. MR. ETHERIDGE: There were two letters in the package that you should have received that would've had a letter dated 9/16/96 and one dated 10/4/96. MR. HANDY: Right, and he got promoted June of '96. MR. ETHERIDGE: That's correct. MR. HANDY: Right. That was two letters. But basically the reason why he's getting terminated was from January 1 up until January 31st. Those are the items that you all used to make a case against Mr. Hurley. MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, I disagree with that, Mr. Handy. The situation with Mr. Hurley was an accumulation of things that started back insofar as -- back in 1991 insofar as his excessive tardiness and his performance appraisals. There were some comments made in there about that as far back as 1991. There were letters, like I say, in 9/16 of '96 and 10/4 of '96 from his supervisor and at that particular time Assistant Tom Beck. Things occurred in January of this year, 1/23/97, 1/30, 1/29, and those things were an accumulation of things that added to that. Mr. Hurley was not terminated based on the sole fact that he could not supervise some people. MR. HANDY: Well, I didn't say that. But, okay, it took you from 1991 to 1996 to know that he had violated the county policies, but still kept him working. Why did you keep him working? Why was it now is the time to fire him when you say he violated it back in '91 you had the things on his record? MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, that would be my understanding. Mr. Beck would have to address this, but it was my understanding they tried to work with Mr. Hurley during that period of time and these things added to it and resulted in his termination. MR. HANDY: Why you're not trying to work with him now? I mean, how do you know -- okay, what I'm telling you and what I'm saying right here today is that if a person does something out of the ordinary on the job, there's a reason. There's two sides to every story. Someone could have provoked him into doing what he did. So why wasn't that checked out to see -- why wasn't he transferred to another job if you wanted to work with him? Why kept him there under all that pressure with that person that caused him to have the problem that he having right now and not try to help him? If you wanted to help him, you would've moved him from there from the beginning. You would've moved him out of that situation if you wanted to help him. But you did not help him, you put him there and let him hang himself, and that's all I have to say. Because he started hanging himself January 1, and to me it looks just like a setup. You put him there and put him in a position that he could not win either way. MR. BECK: Mr. Handy, I respectfully disagree with that. Mr. Hurley -- I hired Mr. Hurley in 1982 as an employee here so, you know, from a personal standpoint Walt has always been a good friend of mine. But Walt had deficiencies all along. One of the main ones that was brought out was his tardiness situation. That is an area that we -- because actually Walt performed some good duties, that was an area that we did try to work with him on. The problems that came up with Walt that caused his termination started basically in September with that first letter and carried all the way through January that culminated in his termination. And so that's what got Mr. Hurley, not the previous findings. MR. HURLEY: I'd like to comment on that, please. My past record shows nothing but outstanding performance. And in the past when they did evaluations with the Recreation Department, they had this thing about never giving you a high score. They would always throw out the high score, and they would always try to find something to put on there to make it look as though they didn't just pad the thing in your favor. And at times I did come in a few minutes late, and I explained to my boss at that time, which -- and who understood because I did have something going on, and he never suspended me, he never counseled me. If my record was so bad, how come there was no record of suspensions in there in the past? There's nothing in there but good comments except for the fact that he said I needed to work on reporting to work on time more often. And as for what he said that happened since Ms. Moody been there, this whole thing was just a stacked up -- it was stacked up against me, because it turns out that Mr. Beck never really wanted me in the position anyway. He made that comment in the last session I had before the Personnel Board. And it just shows that when he got in the position to get rid of me, he did. And they set this thing up because I had some things to say about Ms. Moody and they didn't want them said. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, do you have something to say? MR. HURLEY: And -- may I continue? I can handle the tardy thing right now, but like I said, there's no past documentation on me being tardy other than the comments made in my evaluation. And I'd like to ask Mr. Beck, like you said, if I was so flagrant at it how come I was never suspended or counseled or anything like that? MR. BECK: The only thing I can answer to that is the supervisor that he's talking about that worked these problems through him, that supervisor has also been demoted out of that division also. And we have new management down there and Ms. Moody, who is now operations manager over that division, recommended Mr. Hurley for this position initially in June. MR. HURLEY: All right. Let me address another issue concerning tardiness, concerning the time clock that we have there. There was a time clock placed in our shop there after Ms. Moody took over the position. There's no other time clock in the Recreation Department, and for what reason she wanted one I'm not sure, but the clock has never kept good time. The clock is always fast. We're always complaining about it, and the guys from time to time complain, complain, and no one changed it until they get ready. And a lot of this time -- so-called time that I was late I was not late, it was because the clock was fast. That clock -- there are guys here to say it's been as much as fifteen minutes fast; I've seen it twelve minutes fast. I was always there within the first two to three minutes of what I was supposed to report time. Another factor in it was that when they came in there, and as part of I think the setup, they changed my reporting time. I was to report to work at eight o'clock. My reporting time was changed to seven forty-five in, you know, in the pretense that it would get the men out faster, and it really don't help them because they're not going to do anything until eight o'clock. And when I asked how would I be compensated for it, I was told that I wouldn't be, that I was to take an extra fifteen minutes for lunch. I said, well, I don't understand that because I don't know of anyone else in the county that gets a forty-five minute lunch break. And the third point I'd like to make concerning that clock, like I said, it was never -- it was never correct. When I got there a lot of mornings I looked and I said, well, this don't make no sense because I know I left home in time to get there on time, but the clock showed that I was one minute, two minutes, three minutes late. And when I looked at my watch and I saw that it was fast, I tried to tell the person that controlled the key to the clock, you know, to adjust it, and they wouldn't move then. They wouldn't do it until everybody started screaming and hollering around the place, and then they'd finally decide to change -- adjust the clock. I was no where near tardy as much as they say. I have here my pay vouchers from the period of time that Ms. Moody was there, and they do not reflect the flagrant tardiness that they say that I had. If you want to review this thing, there are about three or four of them here that total up to amount of units, not even a hour where I was docked because I punched the clock and the clock showed that I was late those minute or two minutes or whatever it was. And they total up -- there's one here that says -- MR. TODD: May I see those, Mr. Hurley? MR. HURLEY: And if I was late, how come there's no documentation of it? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Hurley, it seems like we have a recommendation from your supervisor or from the Personnel Board to uphold your termination. It appears to me that where you were you're not wanted. There obviously has been something offered to you that you don't appear to want. Most of the time these things come to us they're cut and dry, you know, you -- most of the time you're terminated completely. Are you -- and so there appears to me to have been some attempt to offer you continued employment. Do you not --you're not interested in what they have offered to you at all? MR. HURLEY: No, sir, I'm not, because they offered me a position that would put me back as a pay grade seven, an entry level position, and they wanted me to go into a new facility they are building as the janitor and mopping the floors. Which I'm not above mopping floors, but I think it was just done to prove a point and to intimidate everybody else that they can do what they want to anyone. MR. BECK: I'd like to respond to that, if I may. That was the only position in maintenance we had. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Etheridge, are there any positions in government now that would be comparable pay-gradewise that Mr. Hurley can handle that he may be able to be transferred to? MR. ETHERIDGE: There are several positions that are posted today, Mr. Kuhlke. I have not looked at them as far as comparison to what Mr. Hurley was doing, so I can't give you a definite answer on it, but I do know there are several job positions that are open. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Kuhlke, are you through? MR. KUHLKE: I'm finished. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I just wanted to ask one question. Are you being paid now while you're off? MR. HURLEY: No, sir, Mr. Brigham, I'm not. I'm collecting unemployment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Howard, did you want to say something? MR. HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Sconyers. First of the year I went into the number two position as assistant director of the department, and I've tried to talk with Mr. Hurley based on some problems which we was having down at the shop. And on one set morning a young lady called me from the shop. She said, Mr. Howell, you need to get down here; she said there's a uproar down here. And I went down and there was an argument between two employees. And I saw I wasn't going to make anything happen there, so I asked everything to just stop and I invited Mr. Hurley and Mr. -- and Ms. Moody up to my office. I tried to work out things with Mr. Hurley and what have you, and you should have letters there where insubordination and what have you. Mr. Hurley was insubordination to me in my meeting. I went back down, did a full investigation, met with Mr. Beck. I agree with Mr. Beck, with our department, that Mr. Hurley needs to be terminated. If Mr. Bennett, who was the operation manager at that time, had have did his job Mr. Hurley would've been gone a long time ago. I was program manager for ten years and I did not allow things like that to happen in the program division. I just want to say about the ex- director that things didn't go over right, that the individual that we had to demote should have been on top of certain issues in the operations division and Ms. Moody should have had to deal with what she had to deal with when she took over as operations manager. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I don't think the question has been brought before about insubordination, and I don't think it should be brought up here now because that's not what we're dealing with. What I've seen on this paper has been rather frivolous stuff and it could look like somebody was out there to count every minute and every second. And, you know, we've dealt with this before in other areas, and I just don't see where this man should be punished for the things that I've seen on this paper. I do agree that he should be given another position, and I think that if Mr. Etheridge can find that position for him he should go on and do that and let's move forward. And I think that the Recreation Department itself, the managers and the director, ought to be very careful about what they're bringing forth to us if it's a lot of things where people are walking by hearing and overhearing conversations that they shouldn't be hearing and just keep the nit-picking -- and this is what I see, a lot of nit-picking, and I think that they should be a little more cognizant of that, and I do expect that from Mr. Beck and Mr. Howard. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I've been just trying to figure out really why Mr. Hurley is being terminated based upon the information that's come out here, and tardiness only happens to be one of them. But I've read over these things and I've said to myself if Mr. Hurley was working for me he'd be terminated. Continually leave job assignments incomplete; as a foreman you do not see that maintenance workers are out of the shop by eight thirty; when given job assignments you repeatedly question your supervisor; observe you and other maintenance workers playing cards with money on the table during work hours; and it goes on and on. Mr. Hurley, you just haven't been a very good employee. MR. HURLEY: Sir, as I said, those charges there are just a bunch of stuff that they stuck together to try to make this look legitimate. As far as the things that you said here so far [inaudible], but I'll give you, for instance, that so-called card game. We were -- it was a day where it was raining, there was no one able to do any work, and it was a day we had planned sort of a luncheon for the inmates that we have working for us. And we prepared everything, but they wouldn't let them out of the camp because the day was so bad. So we had our lunch and everyone scattered a bit for a while, and then about -- I'll say about three o'clock when they came back in I got them to help me clean up the shop. We started putting everything away and someone pulled out some cards, and it was just a nickel a game, which Ms. Moody came in and saw us playing and she said everything's all right. Now all of a sudden she wants to enter this into a charge after she told us there was no problem because we can't do anything anyway. And besides that, it's discriminatory for them to cite me for this when they had a office pool where there was money bet on the Super Bowl. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, Mr. Hurley, you keep rationalizing all of these things. Every single one of these things, they're all grounds to be fired anywhere. All of a sudden we want to make sure that we protect everybody that comes to work for the government, doesn't have to play by the rules, doesn't have to do the things they're supposed to do, doesn't have to report on time. MR. HURLEY: As I said, the tardiness is not flagrant as they say. I followed the rules. And as far as my missing assignments, most of those problems were created by my bosses. MR. ZETTERBERG: They always are. That's been my experience, they always are created by the bosses. MR. HURLEY: And I can explain every last one of them, but we don't have time to go into it. I can explain every last one of those. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm sure you can. MR. HURLEY: And I got witnesses to prove it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Zetterberg. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I really think we could be into the next week, and I think probably Mr. -- regardless of what's done with the recommendation, I think it's obvious that Mr. Hurley's days probably at Recreation are over. I'd like to go ahead on and make a motion that we continue his hearing based on one grounds, that we allow Mr. Etheridge the time--I know he can't stand here today and guarantee job placement into another area --that we allow the Human Resources Director and the Administrator to look for a comparable position in another department that this gentlemen could be moved into, and that we bring this back for a final decision in reference to it if that cannot be done. But I think with what we've got here, it's obvious that this is not going to work in that particular department. Some of us were not here in 1991. I think we're trying to support management on all levels when we can. I do think that when we promote people -- and I'll say this very candidly. When we promote people we should look very careful when we elevate folk, even during probation periods, to make sure--and all the time you can't guarantee this when you promote a person-- that if certain things in terms of management skills -- and if that's the highlight --and I stand to be corrected because maybe -- maybe we ought to clarify what are the official specific charges, if there are more than one. But if it's due to the fact that Walt is not management material, then sometimes we have to look at where we get the recommending from. And I'm going to leave that alone, but it's something that we ought to look at sometime. Now, this is not going to work there. I've been in government long enough to know that when you may have workers that have been able to perform at certain levels in what they were doing -- I've seen people that have been able to work inside of buildings very --outside of buildings very well, couldn't do a darn thing on the inside. You find a way to keep them on the outside [inaudible] move on the inside and couldn't clean worth a what, but you work those situations out. I think you've got a situation here whereby at least if you've got an agreement for an employee -- and I know he's at our mercy to do what we need to do, but I think if you've got an agreement for somebody to be transferred -- and I've heard probably enough about this over the last few months, all of us have, than maybe we even want to hear in reference to what's been offered, what's not been there. Maybe today it's been the only one that's on the table to find a comparable job that's there. Because if you leave somewhere, every person that's been promoted, old city, old county, that couldn't perform was at least -- unless there was some very dire straits negatives there, in a lot of cases were given a chance to go back. And I realize that position has been filled. Obviously that can't be done. But I think this one has been strained past the point that you do irreparable harm to everybody keeping him in that particular department. I don't think he's going to be able to function there, I don't think you're going to be able to deal with him from a management standpoint, and I think that the best thing to do while you do have some openings and possibly the possibility of being able to place Mr. Hurley somewhere else, we need to allow the Administrator and Mr. Etheridge the opportunity to do that and to try and get that transfer. It's not reinventing the wheel, it's something that has been done before. People end marriages in divorce, they end relationships, but it doesn't necessarily mean that one person's life has to be terminated because you separate them and you put them in a divorce. Sometimes those personalities just aren't going to work. And I think if you can put him somewhere, I think that can be a workable means to be able to -- the department can function and go on, he's out of that department, he can then work somewhere and then go on with his life. MR. BEARD: I'll second that, Mr. Mays. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. MR. HANDY: And, Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first made by Mr. Mays. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion -- MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear that, Mr. Mayor. CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Mays was to continue this hearing, allowing Mr. Etheridge and the Administrator to look for a comparable position in another department, and to bring back for a final decision if this is not achieved. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beck? MR. BECK: The only thing I'd like to get clarified, what happens -- I mean, we've done without being able to hire anyone in his job, and we've got our busy --busiest time of the year coming up in maintenance and we've not been able to fill his job during this whole grievance procedure, which I understand and that's the way it should be until there's closure to it. With this motion, what happens with that? Will that still have to be held pending a final decision? MR. MAYS: Well, I think his job, the one that we normally put people back to, is gone from what I heard. That's gone, so that's not an issue. I think where you have a vacancy at is one that -- he probably would rather just be terminated than go back -- than go into an entry level anyway. I don't think that would stop Rec's proceedings of going on. I think you have to go ahead and move with what you're going to deal with with Rec. What I'm basically trying to do is to get Mr. Hurley out of that department as we have done for other employees in the past where the personalities may clash as to a point that you may still be able to salvage a good long-time worker's life. Be able to let that person work somewhere else, get a whole other start in a different department, and that department move on with its normal operations. I think -- I may be wrong, Jim, I don't know where that stands legally and what you got with Human Resources, but I think it's not a question so much in my motion that would hold up anything in Recreation because I'm trying to get him out of there. MR. WALL: Well, I understand the intent of the motion is hoping that they will find a position, but if there is not a position, Mr. Beck's question is that if you would come back to the hearing where conceivably the decision of this Commission would be to reinstate him in the supervisory position, and that's the position that Mr. Beck is currently holding and unable to fill because of the pendency of this appeal. MR. HANDY: I doubt if we'd throw him back to hell, Jim. That'll never happen. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? Are you finished, Jim? MR. WALL: Yeah. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the Recreation Department can temporarily fill this position, but in all reality, I think we all realize it, that they may not be able to permanently fill this position until the Supreme Court of the United States say uphold this termination. There is a process, and we know what the process is. If we don't, then we need to attend some of the classes to learn what the process is. So that position cannot be permanently filled, unless you just want to pay him and let him stay home, until the appeal process is finished. As I looked at the pay vouchers I did see some tardiness, but I seen a lot of comp time, I guess you call this. Is that what I'm looking at, Mr. Beck, that he have time built up that he worked where he didn't get paid overtime? And it seems to me that when you have someone with that much comp time, with that much overtime -- I mean with that much possible worked overtime, with that much leave time, that you can do something and utilize some things versus being wrote up for tardiness. I work for a living, I carry a lunch box, I believe in the fair standards; I also know that if it's true that it was only two to three minutes, then you cannot penalize a employee unless it's excess tardyism for two to three minutes. That's the Department of Labor. It seems to me that what we need to do -- and you can also hold him over that two to three minutes, you know, without paying him. It seems to me what we need to do is to learn our own procedures. We fired the man when the procedure says we should, you know, should lay him off. When you fire a man, you put him in a position where he can't draw unemployment. It seems to me that the intent here was to punish this man, even to the extent of what was offered when you offered him a replacement position. And I'm going to -- I think you know how I'm going to vote, and I think you know how I feel about fairness. And even though there was some reprimands here, they only happened after 1997. It seems to me that there was some case building here. And I say, you know, tell me it's not so, but it seems to me that it is, that any rational person would see that. Now, it also seems to me that there was enough happened that was reconstructed and put together to fire this gentleman probably a dozen times. Because you missed the opportunity don't mean that I'm going to do it wrongfully here today. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Let's vote, gentlemen. Mr. Mays' substitute motion. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion -- we all know what it is now; right? MR. KUHLKE: Are we just concurring the decision? MAYOR SCONYERS: No. Reread it. CLERK: The substitute motion is to continue the hearing, allow Mr. Etheridge and the Administrator to look for a comparable position in another department, and to bring back to this Commission for a final decision if this cannot be achieved. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Simply put, if they find him a job he won't come back, he'll be employed with the county; right? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. KUHLKE: And that returns to Mr. Beck the ability fill that position? MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question, Mr. Mayor. We only have one option? Is there another option on the floor? Will there be another vote? If this vote does not pass, what happens? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd withdrew his motion, so this is it. MR. ZETTERBERG: So nothing happens? CLERK: You have to make another motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay, that's all I'm asking. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, 44, please? CLERK: Next item is an update on the privatization of Augusta-Richmond County's Sanitation Department. MR. GOINS: I was asked to prepare a status report of the privatization of the Sanitation Department. This department was privatized approximately two months ago. As you would expect in any transformation from a public service to the private sector, there were a number of minor problems. One of those problems was the introduction of the roll cart service. The assembly and distribution of some sixteen thousand carts was -- proved to be a time- consuming effort, consequently, those carts were not delivered in a timely manner; however, all those carts were delivered in about a month and a half. All the carts are out at this point in time. Another area of concern was adhering to existing ordinances about yard waste. The decision by the Commission to employ route inspectors which were able to render opinions as to the yard waste as problems became evident between consumers and the contract haulers, and this seems to be working out well. Also included in your package is some information that was distributed with the carts, or an example of information that was distributed with each and all the carts. This gives information to the public as to what could and could not be put in the carts, the times of pickup, recycling, holidays, so forth and so on. Also provided in the package is information about the distribution of equipment that was sold. And I'll be glad to answer any questions if I could. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Goins, I've had a couple of people that have called me about the leaves and the limbs that they put on the streets, and their question was is that the requirement is to bag up the leaves, put them on the street, and then they get picked up, and then they have to take -- we take the leaves out of the plastic bags and get rid of them. And two suggestions have been made. One is would it not be cost beneficial for us to have -- I'm going to call it a vacuum cleaner for the lack of really knowing what it is. That when you go through you vacuum -- people stack the leaves up, you go through and you vacuum them into a container; and the same way with small limbs and so forth from the standpoint of using the chipper. I've tried bagging some limbs up. That's a chore. MR. GOINS: You're not required to bag limbs up, Mr. Kuhlke; you are required to bag up leaves. You can also use your old container that you used to use to put your trash out, so you have the option of an old container or bagging. Obviously the purpose of bagging leaves is so that they will not be blown around, that kind of thing. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I requested that this be put on the agenda because there was some concern and we wanted to update the Commission and the community. I had the pleasure of working with Mr. Jerry Brigham, he chaired this committee, and certainly we look at this as a success. And one of the other reasons that we would not want the leaves in the street, if we're going to look at it from an environmental position, is that the leaves get into the storm drains, water, et cetera, and we have a responsibility to hold the storm water to a certain level. And if we have the leachate and leaves and things like that in it, then we have a negative impact there. For the average person that's probably not a big concern, but, you know, certainly for EPD there is. I want to commend my chairman of that special committee, Mr. Jerry Brigham, and the other staff that worked on it because I think this is truly a success. If we accomplished nothing else -- and we didn't save a lot of money, although we didn't spend any additional money, I understand, other than what we was already spending. We accomplished packaging the leaves and trash at the curbside to make the Garden City hopefully look like the Garden City, and I think that's a success. Now, there was some concern about the size of containers, and I understand, Drew, that the haulers is working it out with the senior citizens where if they need a smaller one they can get one? MR. GOINS: That's correct, sir. The initial contract called for ninety-five-gallon cart containers, and the individual haulers are working with the elderly folks and providing for them smaller containers, and this is being done as a courtesy measure by the contract haulers. MR. TODD: And also may I say before I make a motion we accept it as information, we have a package from NACCO on solid waste handling and a video. If anyone would like to see it, it's available in the Commission conference room. And I'm going to make a motion that we receive this report as information. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. The biggest complaint that I've received in my district is over the bagging of the leaves, no question about that, and I get a lot of calls on it. People aren't very happy with that. People are complaining it takes so long to do, it's a very cumbersome task. I'm not too sure what the answer is because I understand the problem with the storm water. There is one issue, though, that has come up. People who come in, landscaping people who come in or yard maintenance companies that come in, are we prohibited from picking up what they -- MR. GOINS: Your existing ordinances that were passed July of 1996 do not allow for the placement of leaves and limbs by a contract hauler on a city right-of-way. They are to dispose of the material, which they receive compensation for in the manner that -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, what's happening is that they are now charging the customers more money to take it off. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me if I have a yard man and he cuts my grass and puts the waste material in a bag and puts in on the corner or if I cut the grass. What's the difference? MR. GOINS: Well, the difference is that's the way the ordinance is written. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, but I'm just asking if we might think about that. MR. GOINS: If you so desire to change the ordinance, that's your prerogative, but we can only enforce the ordinances as they are written. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'm just trying to determine why we put it in there. I regret voting for it, if I did, but I am bringing up an issue that has come up, and it just doesn't make sense to me. If you can make it make sense, maybe I'll be able to accept it. MR. GOINS: Let me describe a scenario for you. There may be someone in the landscaping business that may have three accounts: two of them are outside the old urban service district, the third is within. Where do you think that his grass and leaves and limbs might end up? MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I don't know, but I'm being penalized by -- because he's doing that? I mean, that ought to come under another set of the laws, but not penalize me or one of my constituents who has a yard person come in to do it. It just doesn't make sense, Drew. MR. GOINS: That would just be one scenario that -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I understand that that's maybe the rationale. It just doesn't make -- it doesn't make any sense to me. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: If the leaves is packaged properly and usually if the limbs is packaged properly, the hauler is going to pick it up because the hauler don't have a way of knowing where leaves or limbs come from. But what we're trying to discourage is from folks that own property in the city limits that clean up property elsewhere putting things in front of their properties for the taxpayers in the urban service district to pick up and those commercial workers from hauling it in there. If they get caught we got a provision to take care of it. If your leaves is packaged right and if your limbs is packaged right, I don't think we're going to have secret police around trying to determine whether a commercial person done it for you or whether you done it for yourself. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, we did have a case in my district. In fact, a next-door neighbor of mine had the case where they bagged the leaves -- a company came in and bagged the leaves, and then apparently the garbage -- they had to come back -- they didn't bag the leaves. In fact, it was really kind of funny. What happened was the fellow put the leaves out there and was told that it was illegal. He says that's okay, Commissioner Zetterberg across the street, I'll take care of it. And we ended up having to tell him that he had to bag his leaves, so he brought the company back to bag his leaves, the garbage truck came back and says we're not going to take that because a commercial guy bagged the leaves. It just didn't make any sense. Finally the carrier agreed to take it. I think. MR. HANDY: With a little arm-twisting, huh? MR. ZETTERBERG: No, I didn't -- MR. OLIVER: I'd like to make one comment. I've been involved in three efforts of a similar magnitude going to a private hauler versus various scenarios, and this, frankly, is one of the smoothest that I've been involved with and I think it's going very well. Because I've experienced a lot more problems than we've experienced here, and that's a credit to the Commission and a credit to Drew. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, we certainly didn't have the problem we had last year. It's worked out pretty well. MR. GOINS: I'd also like to extend that credit to Mr. David Smith and Mr. Harry Hartley, which were instrumental in implementing this program, so it by no means was all on my part. MR. TODD: And, Mr. Mayor, may I commend the community, too, because I think they've done an outstanding job. I drove through some places as late as today that I didn't think folks would put leaves in bags and they're in bags, so they're doing an outstanding job. There's only a few, probably less than five percent, that is being hard core, and they say they'd rather go somewhere where it's hot than to bag leaves. And I'm just basically sharing with them we want them to go somewhere where it's cool, but we also want them to bag the leaves. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to receive it as information, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item is a motion to approve a reward being posted for information leading to the arrest and the conviction of the person or persons who killed Mr. Robert Law, Jr. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, in light of the incident that we had Sunday, I'm told that I would probably need to not take a action on that one, but there are certain other homicides out there. And as I said earlier when we were arguing about killing a tree, where is the outrage about the homicides that we have happening in this community when we can have a gentleman, you know, shot fifteen times, several times, I understand, in the head, and there is not a outrage in this community? And I'm concerned about what's going on, I'm concerned about law enforcement and whether they have the resources or the ability or overtime to get folks off the street, whether they're calling on the GBI when we have heinous murders happen like this. I see no difference in this one and the one that wound up in the landfill, and I know that the GBI is normally called in. So I'm asking where is the outrage. And I think that we need to put a standard reward out, you know, of X amount of dollars--I didn't put out a dollar amount--that when we have a homicide in this community and if that homicide is not solved in the first forty-eight hours, that we have an assistant to the Sheriff's Department for a reward for the person that committed that homicide, and I don't care who that person is that's the victim. That's the way it should be, because I can assure you what's in my community today will be in your community tomorrow if we don't put a stop to this madness. And it seems that folks feel that they really don't have to fear law enforcement, that they really don't have to worry about that. And I hope to God that the homicide that happened Sunday wasn't individuals taking the law into their own hand, but that's what I'm hearing, it's a good possibility that it was. And that when we become a city of men instead of a city of laws that we go by where individuals go out and take law into their own hand, then I say God help us. And I'm going to make a motion that we establish a $500 reward for any homicide that happen in this city that's not resolved in forty-eight hours. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: Being in the business I am, I guess I'll definitely second it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is something I think that can be coordinated definitely with law enforcement. I'm not going to let my mind play with some tricks of imagination, I'm going to be very polite about something. But in some cases and where there may not be the interest level for people to come forward, and we may deem that for whatever reasons, I think that if it helps in so-called street language to make somebody roll over on somebody else when you got a homicide, from the standpoint that regardless of who it may be or why it may be committed a murder, it's a murder by any stretch of the word. And I think if the only thing that it -- if this does, will prevent maybe in terms of cases of retaliation of leading to another one, and then you get into that see-saw battle of what could happen and what could escalate. Then I think if nothing else, that if that helps law enforcement to be able -- on a timely basis to be able to get informants to come forward, then I see nothing wrong with that process. I do think it needs to be coordinated with them so that we are working hand in hand with what we do, as well as with other organizations that are concerned about homicide activities, whether it's Ms. Thurmond's organization or any other support groups that are out there. But I do think that when you have general street talk of where any suspect or suspects may be and people continue to roam, then if this leads to helping to be able to deal with that, I don't see anything wrong with that. Now, if it's legalities that have to be dealt with, then, you know, that's something of a different nature and maybe we can creatively deal with that. But if a reward deals with getting someone else off the street before a retaliation situation -- I'm not saying that that's what the case may be, but obviously when you do something in public and, you know, you do it in such a large crowd and then all of a sudden it gets the advantage and disappears, and yet people can know who and where and folks still let him get off the street, then I think we have to deal with certain different types of measures in order to make folk cooperate. And, you know, I'll yield to the Attorney. I know he's looking at me about the legalities of it, but I think you've got to deal with some things that deal with the times, unless it's an attitude, which I hope is not coming into play. And I'm going to shut up, but, you know --and I won't say what's being said in some quarters, but I think that that's a small price to pay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mayor, what I was going to comment on, the General Assembly considered some legislation this year, and my recollection is that it did pass. And my recollection also is that before the local government can create a reward, that the Governor's Office has to first create a reward. And what I would ask is that as opposed to you adopting a policy today, that allow us to bring that back before the Public Safety Committee to make a recommendation as to a policy. MR. TODD: I'll so amend my motion, Mr. Mayor, to do that; to send it to Public Safety. But I want it understood that I am outraged. And you probably haven't seen me -- I've tried to hold it in, but you probably haven't seen me in recent years, you know, this outraged about any one thing. And I'm of the belief that if someone shot me down in the streets of Augusta, that unless the person that committed the homicide turned himself in, that there's a good likelihood that he would not be caught, and that disturbs me. When someone can hijack a vehicle, he's got warrants out on him for burglary, and certain individuals is told where he's at and they can't pick him up, that disturbs me. When individuals call me and say there's a gentleman walking around on the streets that done the homicide at Mill Street, and when I call the Sheriff's Department and talk to a lieutenant over there in Ronald Strength's office and this individual is not picked up in two weeks, that disturbs me. And I want it understood that this Commissioner is ticked off. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. MAYS: I'll agree to the second on the amendment, Mr. Mayor. The only question I wanted to ask Mr. Wall, in reference to the Governor's I guess maxim in that particular situation, could the committee also study the possibility that if that is not done, that rather than getting caught up in the state's language or something, since we have support groups that are out there specifically dealing with these homicides, that we might also look into the fact that if a conduit is used legitimately such as, you know, Blacks Against Black on Black Crime of dealing with that, which is a name in essence but you have people of all races that are working with that particular group, that rather than waiting around, you know, to deal with that effort, that that could also be considered as a pass-through measure so that they could work in terms of conjunction with the Sheriff's Department in doing that. MR. WALL: I mean, certainly I think that that's one opportunity. We also have some victims rights groups that are advocates, and so I think there may be some other methods to do some things, but this general law doesn't specifically address [inaudible]. MR. MAYS: But I meant in terms of the fact that -- and this gets back to where we're talking about where we deal with money, and we're not talking about [inaudible] we're talking about helping to solve crime, whether it's matched out of drug monies or whether it's in terms of whether you deal with it with using it as an incentive to help to deal with case solving, for dealing with narcotics or whatever. From a governmental standpoint, you know, it would seem to me that if we -- rather than getting tied up in the bureaucracy of what may or may not happen out of the Governor's Office, that some things -- I think when you talk about of always wanting our control from Washington to be back at home in the state and for the state to give it back to us here, I think it's an excellent opportunity of local control, that if that doesn't happen, that you have an excellent opportunity to work with assistance groups to be able to do that, and they would, in turn, not just be on the loose and solving crimes but working with, you know, the law enforcement agency. MR. WALL: Yes, sir, and that's what I was saying. I think that we'll look at that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are we ready to vote now, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 46, please? CLERK: A motion to approve a Retirement request from Pauline Q. Willis, Tax Commissioner's Office. MAYOR SCONYERS: I need a motion, gentlemen. MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Second. What's different about this retirement? MR. OLIVER: There isn't anything different except that the Tax Commissioner's Office, for whatever reason, waited till the last minute. And the lady is retiring and they wanted to get her check, you know, in time to meet the retirement schedule, and they were just slow in doing it. That's the only thing that's different. MR. ZETTERBERG: Is there a reason why this comes before the Commission? MR. OLIVER: I want to change that policy. I think that there's absolutely no need because it's an actuarial based thing and it's based on age and requirements, and we will change that within the next month or two. MR. HANDY: I think that's why I was a little hesitant. She can retire when she gets ready to. MR. OLIVER: Well, as the Attorney has pointed out, you are the trustees of the plan, but I think we can come up with a better way to do this. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 47, please? We already did 47, didn't we? CLERK: Yes, sir. If we can go to the addendum agenda, Items 2 and 3: Item 2 is to approve Employers Retention Insurance for Workers Compensation Insurance at a cost of $65,788; Item 3 is to approve the continuation of the Public Officials and Excess Employment Liability Coverage with Coregis Insurance at a cost of $52,081. MR. HANDY: So move, unless you got some discussion. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 4 on the addendum agenda is to approve a Resolution with the White Oak Real Estate Development Corporation for exclusive right to negotiate for purchase of Olde Town Properties for 120 days for $5,000 and provide necessary letters of support to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from their representative. MR. SHERROUSE: Thank you. I'm Dayton Sherrouse and I'm representing the planning group. I was approached by them a little over a week ago. They were looking for some development property within the City of Augusta and I showed them several sites. They were particularly interested in a site down on Twiggs Street. We thought it had possibilities until we found out that even though it was a multi-family project it was not zoned, and a threshold requirement was that it be zoned and we couldn't get it done by the deadline for submission to the state, which is Monday at five o'clock. I was talking to George Patty and he mentioned to me about the property that the city owns now down in Olde Town, the Olde Town properties, which was about fifty units. I took them down there and showed them that property and they're very interested in it, and due to the time constraints that's the reason we asked that it be put on the agenda today as an addendum. The application to the Department of Community Affairs has to be filed by 5:00 p.m. this coming Monday and there are a lot of hoops to be jumped through between now and then on their part and on yours as well, including getting an appraisal, which there's no appraisal on this property. This property, as you may be aware, has several problems associated with it. It's got, of course, a first mortgage with the Knox company; it's got a HUD Section 108 loan which was in arrears, which is the reason the city foreclosed in the first place; and the owners are interested in acquiring all the properties, rehabing them back up to standard again, working with the Department of Community Affairs to get the tax credit issues straightened out, working with HUD to get their interest resolved. These folks have a lot of history in workouts of problem projects or developments all over the country, and it appears to me it's an opportunity for the city to dispose of the property that's been a problem for them, getting the project -- or the development back on the tax rolls, and solve a long-standing problem that the Commission has been dealing with for some time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we go with the recommendation and approve it. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. OLIVER: I would note that on this, what it provides for in here-- because we don't know the price, we are presently getting it appraised--we give them an exclusive option to negotiate for $5,000 for 120 days. We will get an appraisal done and we will bring back, assuming we can come to a meeting of the minds, a proposed agreement to you all for consideration. At that point you can either determine that is in our best interest or not in our best interest. But as Mr. Sherrouse has said, the key there is we need to -- they need to get in line for tax credits through the state allocation process and that deadline is the 21st. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think this could be a golden opportunity for the city government if we have a company that's a viable company that's interested in developing those properties. And also, I regret that we missed the opportunity on Twiggs Street because, you know, certainly that needs someone to develop it. And I would encourage Planning and Zoning, if I'm thinking correctly and that's multiple family, it's just not zoned, to let's get with the owner and tell them to zone it or let's take it down. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Dayton, I know you probably just got this. Has there been any contact with the community of Olde Town [inaudible]? MR. SHERROUSE: I have not. We -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: I know we had very much concern from that community about those [inaudible], and I'm not going to say that's going to reflect in my vote today, but I'm going to make a suggestion that you make contact. MR. SHERROUSE: Yeah, I think it would be very difficult to deal with fifty individual -- potentially fifty individual property owners, given the complex federal financing arrangement that's hanging over all these properties. To handle them individually it would be very difficult. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Let me ask Dayton something. Dayton, are you working as a consultant for this firm or representing this? MR. SHERROUSE: Right. MR. KUHLKE: And are they financially sound? MR. SHERROUSE: Yes, they are. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think this is going to be a very good opportunity for all of us, especially the city here, and since there is steady -- that this company is financially sound, I think it's a very good movement. I do understand the problem there of -- that the people are having in Olde Town, but I think we also have to remember the city. And we've been trying to do this for some time, and George has been working with this, and I think it's time for us to move on and I think it's a good proposal and this is an opportunity for us. We've had several people to come in and express an interest in this and the deals have fallen through, and so if this could be worked, I think we ought to take this opportunity to move forward. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. I just want to -- I was going to ask a question the same as Jerry did about the people down there, because we have had some people that didn't want it selling as a group and wanted it individual. And just if you are the consultant, I would suggest to you to make sure you try to make contacts and make the people in that area kind of happy and -- because there is a lot of people that really don't want it selling as a group. And I'd just like to add to what Randy said also, is that no matter what the price come out to be we don't want to go in the hole, we want -- whatever that White Oak has money is to pay the whole thing off and then some extra for us versus just trying to break even also. Okay? MR. SHERROUSE: [inaudible] MR. HANDY: If it ain't going to happen, then we're not going to sell it then. Not with my vote, that's what I'm saying. [End of Tape 2] MR. H. BRIGHAM: ...as far as getting that zoned out there. Because if they would come in and look at it, I think it would be a good project for us. I know they are separate now, but they could be a part of the total package. MR. PATTY: Oh, I think I can respond to that. I do want to say one thing about Olde Town. That property was back-zoned back in 1980 when, through a series of hearings in the neighborhood, the decision was made that all the residential portions of that area would be zoned R-1 so that multi- family buildings like that, when they were --by attrition when they went away, then -- so that the development that came in it would be single-family. Now, looking back, frankly I don't know if that was a good decision or not, but that's the reason that that property is zoned R-1. It is a legal nonconforming use and it can continue to be used as apartments, but it does have R-1 zoning. And because of the time that the development company came in here, there wasn't time to have that zoning changed. If there had been, obviously the community would support it because the rehab that was being promoted and they could have put in an application for that property. The zoning can certainly be changed, but there just wasn't time to get this application in by April 30th. As far as Olde Town, I just want to say two things. One, this company that Dayton is representing was on the original list provided to us by the consultant as a company that's got the ability to do this deal. And in talking to them, I've got a real good feeling that they've not only got the ability to go to the state and get these new tax credits assigned to the property but they've also got the ability to go to HUD that we don't have, frankly. We've written letters to HUD asking them to answer what I consider to be simple questions about this property; they won't or can't do it. I feel like these people can go up there and get those answers and probably get them favorable, which would be favorable to us and them. I'd highly recommend that you approve this. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Dayton. Thank you, George. Next item? CLERK: Item 48 is the appointment of the Director of License and Inspections. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to do that since Mr. Powell is not here? Do y'all want to take that off or do it where he's out? MR. KUHLKE: I think so. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Randy? MR. OLIVER: We have two candidates. As I mentioned in correspondence to each of you, Steve Zeit withdrew. He had another job opportunity that was far greater than we could even begin to match. We have -- the two remaining candidates are Rob Sherman and Stewart Walker. In that regard, we were also asked by Commissioner Todd to look at what the minimum qualifications were as it related to the ten-year experience requirement, and I passed those along to you. And it's -- you want me to make a recommendation; is that -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I guess we can -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may comment. My position is that there was some language left out of the ordinance in going from the old government to the new government, and I'm satisfied that the -- all the qualifications have met; that a typo or oversight or whatever, there was one paragraph that was dropped, and I'm ready to move ahead with it. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just have one question to ask. Now, I heard what Mr. Todd said, but are both of these people qualified at this point since there was a question about this? MR. WALL: If I can answer that. If you look at Mr. Sherman's resume, which I've been furnished, and as a part of the -- and those requirements that were incorporated into the new code were from the standard building code, and that's where those requirements, the ten years of experience, come from. And so the language that was used in the code came from the 1994 edition. Mr. Sherman's experience includes work in the inspection area that is included in a -- in the definitions and the qualifications as in the code. Now, with respect to Mr. Walker, y'all had the opportunity to interview him and have had the opportunity to flush out the resume that's attached -- or that's been furnished. When you look specifically at his resume, what you see is experience insofar as building licenses, et cetera, as opposed to work dealing directly with inspection and code enforcement, and so I'm going to have to leave it up to you because I was not involved in the interview process. I don't know to what extent information may have come out in that interview process that would have reflected on what experience that he may have had. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I have the pleasure of knowing both Stewart Walker and Rob Sherman. Stewart and I grew up together, Rob and I go to church together. But I tried to look at this position as objectively as possible and to look and see who I think probably has the best qualifications to take this position, and I'd like to enter a motion that we appoint Rob Sherman as Director of License and Inspections. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MR. MAYS: I'll yield to Mr. Brigham. He's a day older than me. MR. H. BRIGHAM: You've been on the city and the county government, I'll yield to you. MR. MAYS: Okay. I think you've got two good people before us. One thing that kind of impresses me a little bit through my ignorance is that we're down to two people, and maybe this is through not anyone's fault but just as a victim of how this thing is written. I'm wondering if a point -- we're talking about the license area on one side and we're talking about building and inspections. I'm wondering if we've grown to an area, one, where maybe--and I'm in a minority on this, too--probably where we've gotten in Public Works to maybe where we've grown to a point that maybe we need a Department of Engineering and maybe we need a Director of Public Works to perform those functions and we've grown to a point that maybe professional engineers need to be by themselves. But getting back to the one that's on the table, you know, I'm hearing slightly in one ear that if we -- we got two candidates, but, you know, if we got them ranked to where they are one, two, and three, and one's dropped out, but that one maybe technically is not fitting the bill for what's written there, then how did that get to the point of where we are now fixing to vote on it? Because I think when you get to that point, to a certain extent everybody needs to kind of be darned near shoulder to shoulder in what we're doing or close to it. I'm going to probably -- I don't know, you know, we have our own independence of voting, and if mine fails I'll probably vote for a motion to make whatever we do unanimous. But, Mr. Mayor, I'm going before - - since we've not voted to close the nominations, I'm going to place in nomination the name of Stewart P. Walker, Jr. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to just make a comment. I think if Mr. Walker is there and things haven't fallen through for a year, now all of a sudden he's not qualified, I'm just wondering where did we fall down on the job? I don't know. I know Mr. Sherman is a good man, I think he'll do a good job in Planning and Zoning. But I was just wondering if it hasn't fallen through in a year, then where are we? But with that, I move that the nominations come to a close on the subject names. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Let's take them in the order they were presented. Mr. Sherman first. Do y'all want a roll call vote? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Ms. Bonner, do you want to -- CLERK: Yes, sir. Roll call vote, Mr. Rob Sherman for the position of the Director of License and Inspections. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Present. CLERK: Mr. Powell out. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we make it unanimous. MR. MAYS: I'll second that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, gentlemen. Any discussion? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: 49: Discussion of the Director of Public Works position. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask that we put this on hold since Mr. Powell is gone to see about his first baby and since he's the chairman of that committee before we try to make a decision and give the chairman an opportunity to be here. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Sir? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I want to make a substitute motion. I want to make a motion to go on and advertise this position nationally. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that. MR. HANDY: If you want to, I can accept that in my motion and we can save all that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That'll be fine. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we have a motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Beard. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. If you'd let me get through making my statement. I don't ever interrupt you, do I? MR. TODD: Well, I'll apologize, Mr. Mayor. You hesitated, and I didn't mean to interrupt you. MAYOR SCONYERS: With the amendment and everything else that goes with it, all in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I've got one personnel matter that hopefully won't last more than ten minutes, maybe less. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion to go to -- MR. HANDY: So move to adjourn for legal meeting, personnel matters. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Is that a recess, Mr. Mayor, or adjourn? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, we're just going into a legal meeting. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:35 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 April 15, 1997. ________________________ Clerk of Commission