HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-02-1997 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
July 2, 1997
Augusta Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, July 2, 1997, the
Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta Commission.
Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Randy Oliver,
Administrator; and Ms. Lori D'Alessio, Acting County Attorney.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to
the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Well,
actually, I guess today we can call it Augusta City Commission, can't we?
Didn't the name change yesterday? So welcome to the Augusta City Commission
meeting. We're going to have the Invocation by the Reverend Tom Shores,
Pastor of the Woodlawn United Methodist Church, and if you'll remain standing
we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
THE INVOCATION IS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND SHORES.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank
you, Reverend Shores. Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions?
CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We have corrections of three items:
Item 29 was actually referred to the Commission with no recommendation, it was
a two-one vote; Item 45 was a reversal of figures, should have read at a cost
of fifty-eight thousand but not to exceed sixty thousand to conduct an air
service market survey at Bush Field; and Item 46 should have read five hundred
dollars. Items 1 through 5 are a request for addendums to the agenda.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. TODD:
Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: My question, is it essential -- to the Administrator, is it
essential that we do all five [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: I can clarify that, Commissioner Todd. Item 1 is a
referral from last week that was left off the agenda; there is no need to do
Item 2 except that will delay disbursement of those funds; Item 3 needs to be
considered; and 4 can wait; and 5, we put that on because we're trying to get
the landscaping done that was previously approved. And that's a right-of-way
mowing and maintenance agreement with Georgia DOT for those intersections, and
that's needed before we can proceed with going through the permitting process.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve by unanimous
consent all of them.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr.
Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: My vote is no. I've -- last two weeks I explained to the
way the agenda read, and this should have been in last week's agenda, but
since it's not you don't have a unanimous decision to add anything.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Further discussion?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know what that does to Item Number
3.
MR. OLIVER: I'm not sure, but I'll have to find -- we'll find out and
tell you by the end of the meeting. We may need to ask for Item 3. We just
got that within the last couple of days. Is North Williamson here?
MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes.
MR. OLIVER: Item Number 3 is approve millage rates in tax digest. Is
that required to be done today or can we wait till the public hearing on the
15th?
MR. WILLIAMSON: That should be sufficient then because the Board of
Education has not approved that rate yet.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: What was the answer there?
MR. WILLIAMSON: It is not necessary to take it up today.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we just -- make a motion that we do
the corrections to the agenda and none of the additions.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I have a motion by Mr. Todd. I need a second to
Mr. Todd's motion.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's
motion to add just the corrections, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please?
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 1 through 12 were
approved by Finance on June 23rd.
[Item 1: Motion to approve prior years - 1995 and 1996 in the amount of
$258.60 to Fredrick R. Abbott for overpayment of taxes on Map 31-4, Parcel
47.86.
Item 2: Motion to approve refund prior year taxes - 1996 in the amount
of $129.30 to Cynthia Williams for overpayment of taxes on Map 72-3, Parcel
107.
Item 3: Motion to approve Change Order Number One in the amount of
$35,940 with Awesome Pyramid Contractors, Inc. for the Laney Museum from
allocated funds for the project in Special 1% Sales Tax, Phase III.
Item 4: Motion to disapprove Agreement between Immaculate Conception
School and Wilbert L. "Butch" Gallop.
Item 5: Motion to approve $32,833.00 annually to install and maintain a
Home Page/Intranet for Augusta-Richmond County.
Item 6: Motion to approve a request from Sandra M. Wright (Risk
Management) to purchase 2 years 5 months prior years service in the 1977
Pension Plan.
Item 7: Motion to approve request from Winona M. Hendrix (Fire
Department) to purchase 6 years 4 months prior years service in the 1977
Pension Plan.
Item 8: Motion to approve request from Larry J. Coburn (Soil
Conservation) to purchase 12 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977
Pension Plan.
Item 9: Motion to approve waiving 1996 ad valorem taxes for Augusta
Boxing Club.
Item 10: Motion to approve Change Order #6 decrease the final
construction contract amount for the Senior Center by $7,280.00 from
$500,834.00 to $493,554.00.
Item 11: Motion to approve adjustment to Daniel Field Budget in the
amount of $10,498.00 to pay for work performed by Georgia Power.
Item 12: Motion to approve a request for $3,000 to purchase an HP
Laserjet 5si printer to be used in the Delinquent Tax Office for the Levy
program.]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to bring this to y'all in the form
of a consent agenda.
MR. BEARD: I second that.
MR. OLIVER: I'd like to note on Item 5 that $25,000 of that $32,000 is
a lease that will be coming back to the Mayor for signature and subject to the
County Attorney and the Administrator's approval.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Which item was that?
MR. OLIVER: Five.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Did y'all understand that, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: No, we need some explaining done about the twenty-five
thousand.
MR. OLIVER: Item 5, the total is thirty-two thousand, eight thirty-
three annually, and on talking with Mr. Rushton today, of that amount, twenty-
five thousand of it will come back in the form of a lease. It's part of the
thirty-two, but there will be another document, and I just wanted to make sure
that it was clear that that document will come back. It'll be subject to the
County Attorney and my approval prior to forwarding it to the Mayor for
signature.
MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Mayor, one other item on that Number 5. Jim Wall
wanted y'all to know that he does have one concern about putting all of the
Superior Court Clerk records on the Intranet and we may have to maintain some
of those on the microfiche. Just wanted you to know that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver, based on what you said, is our net cost seven
thousand dollars?
MR. OLIVER: No, it'll be thirty-two thousand, eight thirty-
three. It'll be twenty-five thousand in the form of a lease payment, and then
the remainder of it will be for wiring and software and those types of things.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next
item, please?
MS. D'ALESSIO: Administrative Services portion: Items 13 through 17
were approved by Administrative Services on June 23rd.
[Item 13: Motion to approve NHD Director's recommendation of bid award
of Facade Restoration contract to MAU, Inc. in the amount of $29,975 for the
structure located at 519 Greene Street.
Item 14: Motion to approve bid award of Facade Restoration contract to
Clifton Construction Company in the amount of $56,606 for the structure
located at 1102 Laney-Walker Blvd.
Item 15: Motion to deny request of Judith S. Schmidel for forgiveness
of housing rehab program conditional deferred payment loan in the amount of
$9,831.60.
Item 16: Motion to approve agreement between Augusta-
Richmond County and DFACS to provide for mailing of Food Stamps by Systems &
Methods, Inc.
Item 17: Motion to approve a petition for retirement from Hammond I.
Peebles, Jr.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 13 through 17 be considered as
a consent agenda.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 18 through 31, with the
exception of 29 with the correction of no recommendation, were approved by the
Engineering Services Committee on June 23rd.
[Item 18: Motion to approve payment in the amount of $14,035.94 to
APAC-Georgia, Inc. regarding the installation of steel casing pipe with 24"
DIP carrier water pipe under concrete box culvert at 13th Street and Walton
Way.
Item 19: Motion to approve to execute Consent Order and pay stipulated
penalty of $8,000.
Item 20: Motion to approve contract for materials testing services with
CSRA Testing and Engineering at a cost of $3,500 per month on a month-to-month
basis.
Item 21: Motion to approve contract with Conestoga-Rovers & Associates
in the amount of $1,300 for testing and coordinating and with Laidlaw
Environmental Services, Inc. in the amount of $4,200 to transport and dispose
of 18 55-gallon drums of soil contaminated with mercury.
Item 22: Motion to approve reimbursement of $7,101.81 to the Richmond
County Board of Education regarding the requested installation of 24" steel
casing underneath the three new entrance drives to the Hephzibah-McBean
Elementary School site for future water line crossings.
Item 23: Motion to approve contract with low bidder, Beam Pavement
Maintenance Company, Inc. to extend roadway and utilities to eight lots west
of Goodale Landing Subdivision at the cost of $138,472.55.
Item 24: Motion to approve the execution of annual Air Sampling
Contracts between Augusta-Richmond County and the Environmental Protection
Division for a period of July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 with an annual
compensation fee of $9,500.00 to the Local Government.
Item 25: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number One
with funding for the Cook Road and Glendale Subdivision Improvements in the
amount of $2,021.00 from Allocated Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III
Funds, Capital Project Budget Number 57-8403-096 and approve to let for bids.
Item 26: Motion to approve Change Order Number One for Boykin Road
Drainage Improvements Project Number 51-87775-094 with Mabus Brothers
Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $41,820.38 which will come from
Project Contingencies.
Item 27: Motion to approve 5-year Lease Agreement between Augusta and
West Augusta Little League.
Item 28: Motion to approve separating the Forest Park Subdivision
Drainage Improvement Project into Phase I and Phase II. Also, approve Capital
Project Budget Amendment Number One in the amount of $151,088 which is
allocated within Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III for 1997, the
additional engineering by W.R. Toole Engineers for $4,987.50 and the right to
let for bids Phase I (Detention Pond) as an emergency project.
Item 30: Motion to approve for an easement from Augusta-Richmond County
to BellSouth for placement of telephone cable and equipment to serve
subscribers in the Walton Hills Subdivision.
Item 31: Motion to approve agreement between BellSouth Personal
Communication, Inc. for placement of antennas on the water towers.]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept those items as a
consent agenda.
MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, ma'am?
MS. D'ALESSIO: I'm sorry. On one item, this is Number 31, BellSouth
Communication and the antennas on the water towers, there have been two
requested changes from the time that this was considered by the committee.
One: Commissioner Todd had wanted to be sure that there were provisions in the
agreement that if we needed to do any maintenance on the towers, that that
would be handled, and we have added a provision in there to cover that. And
the second is that one option on the Deans Bridge Road tower, there's a
request that we extend that from sixty days to ninety days in order to address
some environmental issues that were brought up at the committee meeting.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that those amendments be added.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What about 29, did we pull that one out?
CLERK: We'll take that one separate, yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known --
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. What are the concerns that Mr. Todd
is asking about? We don't have those concerns [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, they're in the minutes of the Engineering Services
Committee. And I apologize that, you know, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem had to go to the
Planning and Zoning meeting, but basically it's just to assure that when we're
getting ready to obtain our towers -- water towers we don't interrupt their
service or they agree to a interruption if it's necessary in order to drop the
grating to sandblast the water towers, et cetera.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I have a question, just clarification on Item 33.
Is there going to be a Public Services meeting that will deal with this, a
special meeting?
MR. POWELL: Yes, Mr. Zetterberg, that meeting has already been
scheduled and Ms. Bonner can read the date to you. I think it's Monday before
the committee meetings.
CLERK: At twelve noon. But we haven't taken that item yet. The
consent is from 18 to 31.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I thought the motion was that we were going through
Item 31.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We are.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I thought it was 33.
CLERK: No, sir, 18 through 31.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion on Items 18 through 31, minus 29?
All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item
29, please?
CLERK: Item 29 is to approve Change Order Number 3 for East Augusta
Drainage Improvements Project Number 55-8177-094 with Beams Pavement
Maintenance in the amount of $5,124.05 which provides for a fifty-fifty split
with the contractor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell.
Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask this to Mr. Powell. Why is it a
fifty-fifty split? I mean, are these people contributing fifty percent to us?
MR. POWELL: I'll let Mr. Goins, if he's here, explain it to you, Mr.
Kuhlke.
MR. GOINS: This item involves fence replacement by Beams Paving. After
the fences were originally put up, vandalism and other items contributed to
the fencing needing to be replaced. And the original motion was that we pay
for the fences in their entirety, however, it was requested this be a fifty-
fifty split with the contractor.
MR. KUHLKE: Is the contractor agreeing to that?
MR. GOINS: I don't know that at this point in time.
MR. KUHLKE: Well, why would we make the contractor do something when
vandalism was the problem?
MR. GOINS: There are provisions in the contract that require that the
contractor reinstall items that are damaged during the time that the contract
is in force. However, because these are acts of vandalism, the thought was
that the cost could be shared between ourselves and the contractor, and that's
the reasoning behind the fifty-fifty percent.
MR. OLIVER: According to the contract provisions, risk for
loss was with the contractor. I would also note that in that change order
I've figured about seventeen hundred dollars of it was overhead and property.
And so we felt that there was some vandalism in excess of what we felt the
contractor could reasonably anticipate, however, that the contractor bore some
percentage of the risk of loss for that, and we felt this was a fair
compromise.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. HANDY: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask Mr. Goins a question
about the wording of Item Number 29. If Mr. Kuhlke had not asked the question
we would have never known this was for a fence, so why just put a change order
and don't tell us exactly what the change orders are and then we start asking
questions. If all that had been on the agenda, then we could have saved some
time without asking questions.
MR. OLIVER: Commissioner Handy, I think that that's a valid point,
however, sometimes in change orders it covers a multitude of items, and to
individually list that becomes a little bit -- becomes a little bit long for
the actual agenda item. But we're open to do that in a better manner.
MR. HANDY: But it can be put to the side. If you can have an attachment
to it, whatever it is, if you think it's too long to put on the agenda. But
it would help us if we knew what it was. This is just saying change order for
a certain amount of money and that's all.
MR. OLIVER: It's contained in the backup on Item Number 29, but we'll
be glad to do that if you'd like.
MR. HANDY: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: I was just going to point out to my colleague--and I know we
all been out of town this week and probably haven't had an opportunity to look
at the agenda book as close as we normally would--that's in 29 in the backup
material that explains pretty much what the project is.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 32, please?
CLERK: Item 32 is a motion to approve $3,500 to Cranston, Robertson &
Whitehurst, P.C. for easement plats that were prepared for the Fleming Heights
Area Water and Sanitary Sewer
Improvement. No committee recommendation.
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd?
CLERK: Todd, yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think that the bottom line is that we're
going to go out for competitive bidding for proposals for professional
services on any other project that's out there [inaudible], and I think that
we need a new one on this one.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 33,
please?
CLERK: A motion to approve a report on Pockets of Unsewered Area. No
committee recommendation. For a point of information, subcommittee appointed
by the Engineering Services Committee will meet on Monday, July 7th at twelve
noon.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we refer this
item back to the subcommittee.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, I make a substitute motion that we
approve it.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Todd, and
we have a substitute motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke.
Discussion on either motion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from Mr. Hicks how this
list was prepared, if there was any Commissioner input, if there was any input
from any other outside agencies, and if this is completely his department's
recommendation.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Hicks, can you answer that for us, please?
MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. Sometime back we were asked to investigate
pockets of unsewered areas that existed in the former city and former county
service areas. We prepared a list and a map at one time, and then we were
asked to come back with some ranking system for those pockets of unsewered
areas. So we went back and took all sixteen of the projects and we used the
criteria of number of years of payback, number of customers, and Health
Department comments insofar as degree of difficulty that they have observed
out in those areas; that is, complaints regarding septic tanks. We gave each
of these criteria equal weight. The top ranked one in each category received
ten points, and you went down, nine, eight, seven, six, so forth, among the
various projects. We then totaled the points for each project and arrived at
this possible ranking. Even -- and this was the report that we presented to
the Engineering Services Committee.
There was no outside agency involved other than the Health Department.
We did ask their comment regarding what areas they considered to be worse than
others. Their comment was that the areas north of the Gordon Highway were the
worst ones because the area there was more clay in and then south of the
Gordon Highway it tended to be more sandy. And then among those they ranked
them one, two, three, four and five, and then the rest of them were just equal
ranking below the Gordon Highway.
So this is the way we did it, and no Commissioner had any input, nor did
anyone else; it was just strictly an inhouse ranking. Anyway, we had prepared
a list of the projects with the point assessment to be handed to the
subcommittee. We had originally thought that the subcommittee might be going
to meet this morning. We had it ready to be handed out and discussed.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Hicks, would you again define pockets of areas?
MR. HICKS: Yes. There is one area in here that might be a bit on the
iffy side insofar as a pocket, and that would be the Sharon Road project. It
borders on pocket or extension. But, generally, pockets are those areas where
you've got sewer service all around and, for whatever reason, sewer service
never was extended to those remaining houses that were in a certain area.
That constituted a pocket as opposed to areas that are on the edge of the
system where as the system extends out we just need trunk lines and whatnot
constructed to serve it. A pocket is in a generally developed area where
you've got sewer all the way around, and that's as opposed to totally
unsewered areas.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Just a second, Mr. Todd. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I guess I have two questions. The list there, have we been
given -- some time ago I assume we were given that list, but we don't have it
here in the book or we don't have it at the present time?
MR. HICKS: Some time ago that list was prepared and was turned in, but
there were no rankings, it was just these are the areas.
MR. BEARD: But you have ranked them now?
MR. HICKS: Yes. It's a preliminary ranking. And, of course, anytime
you use criteria and arrive at a point-assigned ranking you can have
differences of opinion as to whether or not one criteria should be weighted
more heavily than another. We weren't prepared to do that. We felt that each
criteria bore the same weight, so we assigned each one the top value of ten
points and went down from there. And we do have that ready because we were
going to, like I say, present it to the subcommittee and to whoever else was
at that subcommittee, but it could be handed out.
MR. BEARD: Who comprised the subcommittee?
MR. HICKS: Sir?
MR. BEARD: Who are the subcommittee members?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Beard, the subcommittee consists of myself,
Commissioner Bridges, Commissioner Kuhlke, and Commissioner Todd.
MR. BEARD: And you will meet --
MR. POWELL: We're scheduled to meet Monday at twelve o'clock prior to
the regular committee meetings.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make at least a couple of points
of interest. In the Engineering Services Committee book there was no mention
of criterias, we had a ranking, and my concern with Mr. Oliver -- and I called
Mr. Oliver in reference the rankings later and how do we arrive at the
ranking. I suggested to Mr. Oliver that certainly we should use the Health
Department matter as far as the problems in the area as one of the rankings,
the payback, you know, and the number of individuals that it's going to serve,
and that in some cases we -- unless we come up with a source of funding like a
future one-penny sales tax or something like that, that we should not go on
because there's no way that there would ever be a payback for doing them, and
this is a user's enterprise fund service and that certainly it should pay for
itself at some point. We can't demand that individuals -- other individuals
pay for the service -- unreasonable service for individuals that is not
willing to pay for it themselves by having an additional assessment put on.
The other issue here is the money for the expansion and renewal and
whether those monies was coming from the revenue fund or whether it was coming
from the renewal and expansion fund that was set up, I believe, several years
ago and everybody started to pay in it on January 1, 1996, or when we -- at
least at the point that we equalized the water rates in Richmond County that
it's become one fund. I have a question to the County Attorney in that can we
take the funds that was collected prior to December 31st, 1995, or January
1st, 1996, and use them on the overall system as far as expansion, renewal, et
cetera, in the sense that the individuals or users or consumers that's north
of the Gordon Highway did not pay into that fund.
So there's a lot of questions that we need to answer here. We need to
cross some T's, dot some I's, and I think that's appropriate that the special
committee consists of the individuals from Engineering Services Committee.
And I think that certainly we will agree on criteria, and the criteria that
we've been told that they use, I was told earlier in the week by the
Administrator that this was criteria that was used. We just want to assure
that this is what we're doing and that we're correct and legal in everything
that we're doing. As Vice-chairman of the Engineering Services Committee I
have two responsibilities, one is the landfill and the other one is
wastewater. I can assure you that I'm proud of both of those responsibilities
and I will do whatever it takes to make sure that they are done fairly and
equitably for everybody. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, since we're getting into whether or not
we're going to reallocate expansion funds: First off, I believe everybody in
the county pays the same rate for water. I believe everybody pays into this
expansion fund. Second, I also believe that we have an obligation to provide
sewer to every customer in Richmond County that wishes to obtain it. I think
that if we have a renewal and expansion fund, also I think that the people
north of the Gordon Highway that did not pay into the renewal and expansion
fund south of the Gordon Highway ought to be reimbursed for the water system
that is pumping water, where we're combining these two systems, where we
opened up the spigot to let the water flow so we can move water further south
to help relieve the lack of water where we're having to go from wells.
Now, maybe what we need to do is transfer some of that twelve/sixteen
million dollars everybody in South Richmond County gets -- or this Commission
gets concerned about that we aren't using in South Richmond County for
expansion. We've had a number of projects last year -- I believe almost two
and a half to three million dollars of expansion in South Richmond County in
the water system. Sure, there was ten million dollars that was spent on the
wetlands, but that, if I'm not mistaken, is being reimbursed by the one-
percent sales tax. So if we're going to cause a difference on how the money
got into the account, we -- we are not consolidated if we're going to point
fingers at one side of this county to the other side of this county.
I don't think that's what this is about. I think the motion is about
providing services to citizens no matter where they live.
I notice this list of expansions in the unpocketed sewer areas are both
north and south of the Gordon Highway. Admittedly the largest number of
customers are north of the Gordon Highway. In fact, a third of them live in
my district. But the problem is these subdivisions were built in the 1940s.
These subdivisions were not in the city limits. These subdivisions were not
extended sewers. These subdivisions are well-developed areas. These
subdivisions are areas where we have septic tanks that need to be replaced,
and they need to be on our sewer system. These are our citizens no matter
where they live. And I'm not trying to cut anybody's expansion, I want to see
all this county expanded, but I certainly don't think we need to exclude an
area of this county from expansion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming around. Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, to exclude anybody from expansion was not the
subcommittee's agenda. The subcommittee was wanting to look at some concerns
that we had. We've also got some areas that have not been put on this list
where we actually have raw sewage running down the streets and the kids
walking through sewage to get on the school bus. But it ain't on this list.
And we want equality, Mr. Brigham, but why isn't it on this list is our
concern. You know, back when I ran I had to deal with emergency paving. I
had Commissioners wanting to do emergency paving all of a sudden. Had people
out in the country there that hadn't had a dirt road, hadn't even seen a dirt
road unless it was a state route. And this sends the perception to me that
this is nothing more than emergency sewer.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may make one other point in reference
permission.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead.
MR. TODD: When we look at the Rae's Creek trunk line, and if we're
going to add anything there, before we approve it we need permission from EPD
because we're currently operating under a consent order as far as any future
taps on the Rae's Creek trunk line. Now, I would assume that, you know, we're
maybe talking about not putting anything on there until we finish the work,
but I just want the Commissioners to be mindful of the fact that this is one
of the issues that we got to consider when this special committee meet, that
we got to have permission from EPD to add anything to the Rae's Creek trunk
line, and under no circumstances will I vote to add an additional tap until we
have EPD approval.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm sure glad the political charge of this
is nothing but emergency sewer come up. This is something that I've worked on
for two years, Mr. Powell, it wasn't just starting. We started off with
Vineland. We did that one, and we -- I didn't notice that all these projects
were in one given area of the county. And this is certainly not a major --
we're going to do emergency sewer treatment. These people need relief. I got
the Board of Health to pass a resolution. They are concerned about the same
thing. This is a health issue. This is a issue of providing services. This
is -- you know, I think the first thing that -- one of the few things that was
in the bill that we've even acted on is a universal water rate and fee
structure in the utilities department. Now, let's provide some universal
services.
MR. POWELL: Amen, Mr. Brigham.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Also, as for what areas were not included on that list,
Mr. Hicks started this list six months ago and everybody on this Commission
was asked for input. I don't know how anybody got left off. I know I inputed
areas I don't see on this list, too.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to echo some of Mr. Brigham's concern because
this effort, this project of pockets of --
MR. HANDY: I can't hear you, Rob.
MR. ZETTERBERG: This effort of pockets of areas that do not have sewer
service has been floating around and bounced back and forth out of the
Engineering Services Committee on multiple times, and we'd just like to bring
this to fruition. If you wanted to have a Public Service meeting a long time
ago I think that you should have said it, and we would have been more than
happy to have a Public Service meeting. These are needs of the community,
we're trying to address these needs. Most of them happen to be in District
Three and District Seven. We're not trying to short cut anything, but it
appears we're somewhat getting slow-rolled on this. And also my concern is
the same thing in the Engineering Services Committee about unpaved roads.
Been working on it for months and can't seem to get it out of your committee,
and I want to see some action done. So what I'm going to do is call for the
question right now, and if we can pass it with six votes, then fine. And you
can have a subcommittee meeting, one that you should have had months ago. So
let's call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first. Do y'all need it read,
gentlemen, so you know what you're voting on?
SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS: Yes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read the substitute motion.
CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham was to approve, seconded
by Mr. Kuhlke. The main motion by Mr. J.B. Powell, second by Moses Todd, was
that the item be referred back to the subcommittee. The substitute motion is
first.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's -- excuse me, Mr.
Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand.
MR. HANDY: Excuse me. What was this motion to approve?
CLERK: To approve the list, the unsewered list.
MR. HANDY: Where is the list?
MR. ZETTERBERG: The list that's been given to us.
MR. HANDY: No, the old -- the original list. But it wasn't prioritized
then, but now it's prioritized, so where is the list that we're actually going
to be voting on as to which goes first?
MAYOR SCONYERS: You won't get that until the committee meeting Monday.
MR. HICKS: Mr. Mayor, gentlemen, it was prioritized -- it was
prioritized in the agenda item. It's that same priority, Commissioner Handy.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Handy, it's the same streets -- I'll read them off
as it's prioritized on the list.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't have time to read them off. I'm sure he's got
that in his book. We [inaudible], so let's vote it up or down.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. It's not in the book.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Excuse me, I'm sorry, I misunderstood him.
CLERK: It was in the committee book.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: It was in the committee book, but it's not in the
agenda book.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Are y'all ready to vote?
MR. TODD: Everybody's not on the Engineering Services Committee, so
they did not receive the list.
CLERK: No, it was in the entire book. Everybody got a copy in the
committee book.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
[VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN] MR. HANDY: I'll be present.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to qualify my vote, EPD concerns.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. So we got four to four; is that
what you count?
CLERK: I didn't see any of them on this side. Can we --
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: So we
got five-three-one, that's a no vote. Back to the original motion by Mr.
Powell. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to refer it back to committee,
let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. HANDY: Present.
MOTION FAILS 5-3-1. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, it's going back to committee anyway whether we
have a no vote or not. Next item, please?
CLERK: Under the Public Safety portion of the agenda, Items 34 through
42 were approved by Public Safety on June 23rd.
[Item 34: Motion to approve the appointment of Terrell L. Washburn to
the Local Emergency Planning Committee to fill the unexpired term of Joe
Muller, ending April 1998.
Item 35: Motion to approve Ordinance revising Title 6, Section 6-6-47
of the Augusta-Richmond County Code regarding issuance of "Going Out of
Business Sale" Licenses.
Item 36: Motion to approve the organizational chart for the Augusta-
Richmond County Fire Department.
Item 37: Motion to approve the Promotional Process in the Fire
Department, to eliminate the awarding of points by the Fire Chief and to hire
a consultant to administer the promotional test with the Administration
setting the parameters for hiring the consultant.
Item 38: Motion to approve Capacity Agreement for FY 1998 with Georgia
Department of Corrections for one (1) year and the Administrator to perform a
cost analysis regarding State inmates being housed at the Richmond County
Correctional Institute.
Item 39: Motion to approve $556,800.50 (Sheriff, $519,900.50; Central
Services, $36,900) for the purchase of furniture and other necessary equipment
in order to occupy and operate the Augusta-Richmond County Detention Center on
Phinizy Road.
Item 40: Motion to approve Lease Extension Agreement between Bell
Investment Company and Augusta-Richmond County for one year (July 1, 1997 to
June 30, 1998) at a rental of $1,500.00 per month with a one (1) year option
to renew.
Item 41: Motion to authorize the Emergency Bid Process for the
purchasing of Jail Locks for the 4th Street Jail Facility.
Item 42: Motion to approve amending the capital budget to purchase
$10,000 in furniture and computer equipment to support two new employees in
the Law Clerk Office and $2,600 in computer equipment for the new Equal
Opportunity Employment Officer.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to recommend these to the
Commission as a consent agenda as passed by the subcommittee.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's Items 34 through 42?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask for Item 36 and 37 to be pulled,
please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, 36 and 37 will be voted on by themselves. That
was a motion by Mr. Brigham. Who seconded Mr. Brigham's motion, please?
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Zetterberg? Okay.
MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Mayor? On Item Number 40, the agenda item shows the
contract being one year, the information itself does, and in the list of the
agenda there is a one-year option to renew that Jim is talking to the folks
about. So that is a little different than the item itself, but he wanted to
make y'all aware of that.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Wall told me last evening--I must have talked to him
after Lori did--that the lessor was only willing to go with a two-year
agreement, and we discussed it and felt like that was something we were going
to have to work around. But they were not willing to go with a one-year and
one-year option, rather they wanted to go with a two-year. So what we're
going to have to do in our planning process is to go with a two-year to
procure a site to construct a fire station and then make it work.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: So you're recommending a two-year?
MR. OLIVER: I'm recommending a two-year.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Does everybody understand that, that Item 40 is a two-
year instead of one with a one-year option? Discussion, gentlemen, on Item
34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 36, please?
CLERK: Item 36 is a motion to approve the organizational chart for the
Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move for approval.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke had his hand up first, Mr. Brigham.
MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, on that particular item -- first I want to
commend Chief Few for the work that he's done, but I do want to make a couple
of comments. Number one, there's just one thing, Chief, that I saw on your
organizational chart. In your plan of action you call for the Special
Operations Officer, Administrative Assistant, and Resource Officer reporting
directly to you. In looking at the organizational chart, if I'm looking at
this correctly, the Special Operations Officer is actually under one of the
Chief Deputies, and just for a matter of clarification you might take a look
at that.
The other thing that I -- and I intend to vote positive on this item.
But you also indicate in your action plan that you do not see any reason for
any increase in your budget as a result of the new organizational chart, and
so I will be offering an amendment to Mr. Brigham's motion that we approve the
organizational chart with any clarification changes that you might need to
make, but provided that this organizational chart remains cost neutral.
MR. OLIVER: I have had personnel in the Finance Department check this
at length, as Chief Few is well aware, and it is cost neutral.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll accept the amendment, though, as far as being
the seconder of the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I have an item of clarification. I
was interested to read the comments in the newspaper this morning
in the editorial, and I had attended the meeting and I certainly didn't get
the same information in the meeting that I read this morning. Would you care
to comment at all about the Resource Officer? My understanding, it had
nothing to do with being just a media officer.
CHIEF FEW: No, absolutely not. In the Fire Service now there are a
number of grants that we'd like to obtain in our Fire Department now. We
haven't taken advantaged of any grants in this department. As we start moving
to a little bit of a community-based Fire Department we need to be able to
obtain some of those grants. We need somebody to write in also.
In addition to that, when we had our retreat one of the biggest problems
that we saw in our department is we didn't have communication from the top to
the bottom. I think even as the Fire Chief it's been somewhat different
because I'm putting more pressure on the firefighters organization than
anybody, because now they are saying, hey, somebody got misinformation and
doesn't understand that. So I imagine probably the chairman of the -- of that
firefighters organization is probably saying that I'm working him just as hard
as I'm working one of my staff people because he's been trying to clear up
some of the misinformation. That is a needed position. It is a cost neutral
one. The only thing we're doing is we're allowing some people to streamline
our department.
MR. ZETTERBERG: It's my understanding also that that position works
closely with the school programs?
CHIEF FEW: That's correct. We're going to have a -- we have a school
program that we're going to try to get the word out. In addition to that,
we're going to have to make some major changes in our department, even with
our fire forces and stuff, the locations of our stations. We got to have
somebody in the community making sure they get the information right and
correct.
MR. ZETTERBERG: This is not an added position; it's the way you, Ronnie
Few, chooses to use the people within this organization?
CHIEF FEW: That's true. In fact, right now--I think the Administrator
can tell you--we are actually running under the budget as far as cost. And I
don't see any -- I see in the future it's going to even streamline some
additional funds, that we're going to clear up some additional funds on the
top administration part of the department.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Am I understanding on the promotional -- the promotion
test is really one of your key areas, that you wanted to align the test of
what they're trained to do and there was a problem in that today?
CHIEF FEW: Someone mentioned that, and I think that -- I
brought an excellent consultant into the retreat, and two or
three weeks ago, believe it or not, the chairman of that firefighter's
organization and I spoke together and I told him I was going to bring somebody
in different. I think somebody got misinformed. But let me just say this,
that because of the different terminology and the different -- and the reason
that we're in here in south -- I mean, in Richmond County and the south, to do
a canned test would not do justification to our employees, and I think that
it'll be -- we need to do a task analysis and look at those things that we do
on a day-to-day basis and then promote on a day-to-day -- on those operations
that we do and people are familiar with rather than give some operations that
they are not familiar with, and the terminology.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And you also understand that if we're going to bring
consultants in to help us in planning your programs, we do that on a
competitive basis and you're not at liberty to bring in whoever you want to
do?
CHIEF FEW: Well, I would like to do that, but you may not want me to do
it that way. But I'll try --
MR. ZETTERBERG: Sure, and I understand that. You go to a lot of
places, you meet a lot of people that can do support. But clearly in the
public's best interest, that we go out for contracts, we do it on a
competitive basis, and who wins it --
CHIEF FEW: That'll be fine. I have no problem.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, it just kind of unnerves me at this point that,
you know, we're going to knee-jerk to anything that the paper says or anybody
else saying. We were in that committee, we heard the report, and I think that
we brought a man in here with progressive ideas, innovations, to do a job, and
here we're going to start questioning him on every little thing that --
misinformation that comes out or whatever information that's been distributed.
We were in the committee, you've seen his report, and I think it was an
excellent report. Why are we going to haggle and hassle him at this time? We
brought him in here to do the job, and I think he should make recommendations
and he should be given the leeway and the latitude to do some of these things.
And I don't think he's moving too fast. I think we need a progressive Fire
Department [inaudible], so why are we haggling and hassling over this little
tidbit?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'll get back to you. Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Chief, I too would like to commend you for the work you've
done in your organizational chart and your action plan. I do -- I did agree
with the action plan, and I haven't
read it as thoroughly as I'd like to, but I'll do that in the
future. I did notice two things that concerned me a little bit. You put a lot
of emphasis on EMT training, and I understand that for the ones that arrive at
the scene the first time, and emergency preparedness. My concern is with the
Fire Department itself. I know there's -- as you said, there's a lot that's
lacking there that needs to be improved. My concern is that we want a good,
efficient Fire Department, and that's where the emphasis needs to be. We do
have people that do emergency preparedness and we have an ambulance service
that can be at any fire within five/ten minutes, so we've -- you know, my
concern is that you put the emphasis on the fire, on the training in fire
prevention, you know, inspection, that type of thing, because that's what I'm
hearing, that's what I get the phone calls on.
CHIEF FEW: I'm certainly looking at all those things, but I do think
that firefighters need to be cross-trained. And I would not like for them to
go to a fire and then pull someone out of a house and then have to wait for
somebody to come and administer CPR or some emergency medical techniques or
something on somebody. And I want to make sure that we have a department
where we don't have to be dependent on another service, but at the same time I
understand we have two different services.
MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, and I understand that. I don't have any problem
with, you know, first arriver type thing doing that. I guess what I'm
thinking about, in reading your action plan I see a lot of emphasis on that,
and I don't want to get into a jack-of-all-trades type responder. My thinking
is I want a firefighter that knows how to fight fires, how to save the
building and the people as well.
But on your organizational chart, I guess I really don't -- I'm not as
familiar with -- I don't know what we're going from to go to this. I don't
really have any problem with it. I do have a problem with the Resource
Officer. I think when you and I met before we discussed this. And basically
on the job application for that position I see here a requirement that it be a
liaison between agencies and the news media as official spokesperson for the
department, and to me that's a department head position. That's the
Administrator, that's the Mayor. I don't want to get in the situation where
each department wants a person that's in -- a middle person between the news
media and the department. I think, you know, that's the department head and
the Administrator's position.
So I'm not going to support the Resource Officer. I think you've got
the votes to pass the organizational chart and I'm not going to vote for it
because of that. I don't think that's a necessary item there. But I do
commend you for the work you've done and for your action plan. I think it's
very favorable, very positive for the future of this county.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to commend the Chief for his
organizational chart and relinquishing the twenty points that the
Chief had to decide who was going to be promoted and going to professionalism
instead of politics or politicism as far as promotions and who was going to be
hired, et cetera. I think that this is an aggressive move. Certainly it
weakens the position of Chief, in my opinion, to not have that power. And I
think that when you give up something you expect to get something, you know,
and I think that what the Chief is requesting is a Resource Officer.
And the Resource Officer position, that dealing with the media would be
a small task and the -- or answering any questions if the Chief is not in
place, et cetera, but that person's largest task is going to be, you know,
doing things aggressively in the community and with the schools as far as
making sure that there's interaction between the community and Fire Services.
And I think one of our problems is that Fire Services is so different from
any other department of government in the sense that -- the hours that they
work, et cetera, that sometimes it's kind of hard to catch on.
I'm not from a firefighter family. I have some good friends that had a
dad that were a fire chief in another town in North Carolina. I think that
community involvement is essential; I think to have the education out there as
far as the escape routes and a plan; I think to have firefighters trained to
do first responders whether they arrive on a accident scene, a person falling
out of a tree, going to get the person out of the tree, or whether it's a
house fire, that they need that first responders training. And I also feel
that police officers need that first responders training because oftentimes
they're going to arrive.
It concerns me when we deal with corrective action and the deficiencies
that we wasn't making reports to the state like we should in some other areas.
I understand that we're changing the paradigm, you know, we're changing the
way that we think and the way we deal with fire and that most folks don't like
change. I'm one that, you know, I've had training to accept change, and it
wound up the change was that I lost my job, that it no longer needed me, so I
can understand why some folks would, you know, resist change. But I'm for
change when it's good, and I think most change is good. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Coming around. Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. I hope that I wasn't misunderstood when I was
talking to Chief Few, that apparently Mr. Beard thought I was mistaken. I'm a
hundred percent behind you, and I was very curious about the article that was
written because that's not the information that I received. Mr. Oliver has
been kind enough to give us a job description of this, and then find out that
buried within your job description it does reflect that this individual would
provide liaison with the media. And that's just a subset of his duties, and
apparently that's the one they chose to talk about. But clearly I think that
you're not adding
anybody to the Fire Department, you're choosing to assign individuals
different tasks, and I applaud you for doing that.
I do have a comment on emergency medical treatment. We now pay six
hundred thousand dollars a year for that contract with University Hospital. I
can appreciate the fact that you would like to have your firemen cross-trained
with emergency medical care, but I'd prefer that be revenue resource as long
as we're paying all that money for ambulance service. So let's just make sure
that if you do that training we don't add any monies to the budget to do that
part, because we're already spending an awful lot of money with the ambulance
service. And I do know that there are fire departments across the country
that are in the EMT business, and I know that that's potentially an option
downline that possibly that could concern, but I don't think it's something
that you take on a big mission today, and I think you would probably end up
needing board approval to take that on as a major mission of the Fire
Department. If you want to do first-aid training as part of your day-to-day
training program, I think that that's --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Chief, first of all, I want to commend you on the amount of
work that you've accomplished in a short time. I think you're doing a good
job. I had one concern, just as Mr. Bridges did, and that's the essential
duties of this person to serve as liaison between the agencies and the news
media. I understand what you're trying to do, but we had a problem here when
I first came on the County Commission before we consolidated where every time
that the media would run out to a department head or to someone who wasn't a
department head they were making comments to the press.
Well, the information that they were getting was just bogus information
in a lot of cases, and we went back and reworked that to where the
Administrator, the Mayor, or the Mayor Pro Tem were the liaison between the
government and the media and the Commission itself. That's my concern, is
that maybe some misinformation could get out concerning things. Sometimes
people just run out and say something before they have the facts, and that's a
major concern that I have. I would like to see that portion come through the
Administrator preferably to the Commission or to the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem.
The second thing that I want to address is a point of information for
Mr. Zetterberg. We entered into a contract with Rural/Metro. We were paying
seven hundred thousand dollars a year for emergency management service. Over
a period of three years that will be phased completely out so that we won't
pay anything to Rural/Metro. And that's just a point that I'd like clarified,
other than that we're going to continue with the seven hundred thousand dollar
a year payment, which just isn't the case.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Since everyone else I patting Chief
Few on the back, I need to pat him on the back also. But I'm not going to pat
you on the back and say you're doing a good job, I'm saying you're doing what
we hired you to do. That's what I'm going to say, you're doing what we hired
you to do. And, also, I'd like to say to my fellow Commissioners that we have
been talking about this at various meetings, about EMT, when we had the old
county fire department, long before we merged into the city. We always talked
about that, but it never got underway. And it's not because of who had the
opportunity to implement this particular program prior to you coming, it's
just a lot of people get complacent in their jobs and they just like certain
things to do and they leave the rest alone, but a lot of people doesn't want
to reach out there and do some innovative, creative moves. So I would just
like to say continue doing what we hired you to do, and then when six votes
come up, then we'll let you know otherwise. Thank you.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I call the order of the day [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
[VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN]
MR. KUHLKE: I had offered an amendment, and I think it was accepted, to
Mr. Brigham's motion.
CLERK: Well, Mr. Todd did; Mr. Brigham didn't, who was the maker of the
motion.
MR. KUHLKE: Just that it was proven that the organizational chart --
that it was cost neutral. And Mr. Oliver said --
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I have no problem with that amendment. I think he said
it would be cost neutral, so I have no problem with that. Of course, now,
when it comes down to rearranging the stations and a recommendation come back
to put another station somewhere or buy another station, that's a whole
different issue, and I don't want to get that confused in what we are doing
here today. That that -- talking about being cost neutral. That's a
different item; is that right?
CHIEF FEW: That's true.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay. But I just want to -- for the record, I just
want that -- but we're talking about this budget here, causing no problem on
this budget.
MR. KUHLKE: Just the organizational chart.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Right. Okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The manpower.
CLERK: Yes, personnel.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, did you have something?
MR. TODD: It didn't pass, is my understanding, and I think that the
legislators are passing creative legislation per one-penny tax and what we can
use it for that would enable us after Year 2000 to do some things with one-
penny as far as doing stations. I just wanted to make that point of
information.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2. [MR. MAYS OUT] MR. POWELL: And I'd
like to clarify that the reason that I didn't support it was the one part of
the job description of liaison between the agencies and the news media.
[inaudible]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 37, please?
CLERK: Item 37: A motion to approve the Promotional Process in the
Fire Department, to eliminate the awarding of points by the Fire Chief and to
hire a consultant to administer the promotional test with the Administrator
setting the parameters for hiring the consultant.
MR. OLIVER: And that contract would have to come back to you all for
subsequent approval.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I know it was mentioned in reference
competitive bidding on five thousand -- competitive proposals for five
thousand dollars, and I was thinking that -- I'm not against competitive
proposals, but I was thinking that that would be an amount that the
Administrator and the Mayor could approve. Haven't we just changed something
recently on the dollar amount? And is that ten thousand now or something like
that?
MR. OLIVER: It's ten thousand dollars as long as it's budgeted. We
have to get at least three written quotes.
MR. TODD: Yes. So, therefore, I don't want to get into this thing on
putting restraints here that we don't have other places. I think that if we
want to make sure we're competitive, then let's make sure we're competitive
with some of these hundred
thousand dollar engineering basin contracts.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Chief Few, only one comment. Again, looking through your
action plan and so forth, and being semi in the contracting business, it
appears to me that there is a move towards a little de-emphasis on plan review
and maybe a little bit of diversity from the standpoint of plan review. To
me, having experienced the difficulty sometimes in getting building permits
and so forth, where your department is interactive in that, all I want to do
is to emphasize to you that I think that that is an important area within your
department and that I would hope that you would allow the appropriate manpower
and time and expertise to work within that field. Just wanted to make that
comment to you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Chief, how many times a year are you going to hire a
consultant for these tests?
CHIEF FEW: Mr. Mayor, I don't think we will probably have promotions
but once a year. It's too costly to bring somebody in, you know. I think we
need to just get a list that'll stay pretty in force about a year so that we
can go progressively down the list, and then we won't have someone coming in
every six months. I think one year is a good number for the length of time
you keep one in service.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. I thought I understood what you wanted during
the committee meeting and I approved it to come to the full Commission. Would
you please explain again what your intent is, and tie it to the fact that you
want to give up your previous authority to award twenty points and what you're
trying to do with the test. I'm of the impression that you're trying to make
this fair for all and the test reflects what people are supposed to know, and
then tell me why we need a consultant to do this.
CHIEF FEW: Okay. Let me go through a little bit about what we did here
last week on just the hiring of a few firefighters. In the past we gave a
test, and then the Chief came back and he picked through the list of people.
I don't want to do it that way. I want a fair and equitable way of hiring
people. So what I did was put a process in place and let the firefighters
deal with the grading. And we got people now in the department that all of us
put our stamp on and said that we got a fair and equitable way of hiring
people, that none of knew who was going to come out on the testing process.
When you award me twenty points to give to anybody for a promotional process,
you're awarding me the right to go ahead and just choose the people that I
really want because there's, you know, need in putting the testing process
together that way.
What I'd like to see is a consultant come in--not give me a
copy of the test, and nobody in that department--and look at the tasks that we
perform on a daily basis in every rank class and then give a test, you know,
and all, a good, quality test. And whoever comes out on that testing, we'll
promote off that list in rank order of one, two, three, four, five, six. And
that's pretty much how I look at it. Because, I mean, I've been through
testing process and I've been through assessment process, and I want to be
treated fair. And firefighters need to know that the chief is going to be
fair to them, and if they can make it on their own merits without knowing
anybody, that's a lot -- a problem we've been having in the department, as
I've listed them at the retreat, is there's just too many politics in the
department, which I'm going to try to put two or three of them into politics
and hire some firefighters.
MR. POWELL: That'd be a good idea, Chief.
CHIEF FEW: This will be a fair -- I can assure you that we will pick
somebody that's going to be fair and equitable to everybody and that nobody
has a problem with. The only thing now, you just got to make it on your own
merits now, you won't have any help anymore. I don't know them and I don't
owe them.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And I applaud the way you're going about this, and I
think it's very refreshing to hear that. My only question is, are we going to
test -- we test every year and we're going to hire a consultant, and what does
the consultant do?
CHIEF FEW: He's the custodian over the testing process. He makes sure
that the test is a valid test; that is, duties that they perform on a daily
basis. They don't get anything --
MR. ZETTERBERG: So on a yearly basis what happens is that he examines
the training tasks. Does he write the examination?
CHIEF FEW: Well, yes, you know [inaudible].
MR. ZETTERBERG: He writes the examination and he administers the
examination?
CHIEF FEW: Right, in conjunction with the Human Resources Department.
And we'll work with the Human Resources Department. I'd like to have somebody
-- we did that on the hiring process, and I want to keep somebody as a
liaison. I think the Human Resources Department needs to be a part of it.
Now, if we're comfortable with someone in Human Resources making the test
after this first time, then that's fine, but I don't think we got the
expertise right now to give a Fire Department test.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I would agree with that a hundred percent, but I
guess I'm just coming from my base of experience. In a former life I was in
the training business, and internal to
that organization, we had people who did that, who constructed,
did task analysis, designed tests and administered tests, and in the end
they're internal to the organization, they know what the standards are. And
I'm just wondering why every year we've got to go out to have somebody do
that. Frankly, they'd be doing it after the fact, and I -- frankly, I'd
rather have you give this -- that kind of a task and training to the guy that
you wanted to do the media work and --
CHIEF FEW: No, I want it taken out of the Fire Department, because
that's generally in the training department that we use that, and the training
department puts a lot of that together. I don't think we need to do that in
the Fire Department. I've seen over the years that people are just too
uncomfortable with that.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Is this done in other fire departments?
CHIEF FEW: Oh, yes, all fire departments. All good fire departments.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So this is not just --
CHIEF FEW: No, this is not anything new at all.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Well, then that's fine. That's fine.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Chief, I just have one question for you. Are there any
type -- a national standard test that you can go with? I know I'm in the
electrical field, and Mr. Handy also, and I know we have a set test for the
state of Georgia. I think each state has a different one that -- it's one
size fits all, I mean, and that's -- is there a national organization or a
national testing?
CHIEF FEW: No, you -- we've got standards that we have in the books.
Let me just say this, if you're up north -- if you came from the department I
came from now, I could take Chief Atkins up there and he couldn't even know --
he wouldn't even know how to lay the trucks out in the fire. See, we do a
reverse lay; they do forward lay. There's so much difference between one
region now. Up north they [inaudible], they do things so different. So you
go get a standardized test from somebody wrote one up north and you'll get
what you got, what they were complaining about, that it was a test that nobody
knew anything about. We call fire engines fire machines down here. You won't
see fire machines on a test, but that'll confuse the person who's taking that
test when he sees the different type of terminology. Now, it's going to get
better in the Fire Department because we're going to get a good training
department, and we'll get that training department and we'll get up on
standards right now. We're not there yet, so what we got to do now, we got to
bring
somebody to do the test. We'll reevaluate it. If we don't need
a person to come in and we think we got somebody competent -- but
I don't like to do it inhouse because you got some discrepancies there about
fairness. I'd like to just get somebody else to come in and do the test and
then nobody can complain. I can tell you what, when they earn that rank that
they get this next time, they'll know they earned it.
MR. POWELL: The reason I was asking that was what about the
organization in Forsyth, the training center there, does it give any kind of
test or have any kind of set standard test, is all I was wanting maybe for
this area.
CHIEF FEW: No, the only test you can get from them is the National
Professional Qualification test. You'll see all our new recruits come in now
in our department, in addition to going through our training program they will
now go through a National Professional Qualification training program, which
is NPQ. But they don't use that a lot in the promotional process. They don't
even want you to use that one.
MR. POWELL: Okay. That was all I wanted to know.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do y'all need the motion reread, gentlemen? Do
y'all know what we're voting on?
CLERK: The motion was to approve the promotional process, by Mr.
Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 43?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Items 43 through 46, with the noted corrections of
Items 45 and 46, were approved by the Public Services Committee on June 23rd.
[Item 43: Motion to approve amendment of Scrap Tire Cleanup (STPC) 121-
16 Grant Contract with Georgia Environmental Protection Division to amend
contract amount from $20,055.00 to the final dollar amount of $53,739.83 after
proper documentation has been received by the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division and the sites have been checked.
Item 44: Motion to approve Ordinance revising Title 4, Section 4-2-26
of the Augusta-Richmond County Code regarding interference with garbage
receptacles.
Item 45: Motion to approve Agreement with AirTech at a cost of $58,000
but not to exceed $60,000 to conduct an Air Service Market Area
Analysis/Economic Impact Study pertaining to the
Augusta-Richmond County air service market area.
Item 46: Motion to approve renovations (materials only) at
a cost of $500.00 to dorm building at Augusta-Richmond County 4-H
Camp.]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve them by unanimous -- by
consent agenda, excuse me.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do we have a second, please?
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in
favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: 47?
CLERK: 47 is a motion to approve the Home Rule Amendment (Ordinance) to
amend purchasing procedures. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission on
June 17th.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion,
gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 48: A motion to approve to increase compensation for
employees falling below the minimum of the range to the range minimum of the
proposed pay plan and provide a 3.5% increase to all eligible employees across
the board effective the second full pay period in July. Employees hired after
July 1, 1996, would not be eligible for an across-the-board increase, but
would be adjusted to the minimum of the range, if applicable.
A) Eliminate all car allowances with the exception of contract employees
and Constitutional Officers and the positions identified below until pool
vehicles are available: Director of Recreation and Parks, Director of License
and Inspection, Assistant Director of Public Works, License and Inspection
(Inspectors Only), Assessors (Field Assessors Only), Director of Housing and
Neighborhood Development, Director of EMA, Rights-of-Way Agents, Construction
Inspectors. All other employees driving their personal vehicle on Augusta-
Richmond County business are to be compensated according to the Internal
Revenue Service guidelines ($.315 per mile).
B) Implement take-home car policy to coincide with payroll
changes.
C) Eliminate supplemental salaries provided to employees
above the salary maximum with the exception of Constitutional
Officers and contract employees.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: We're dealing with the car take home, and I would assume that
we're not dealing with any of the car take home as far as the Sheriff's
Department go, Mr. Oliver?
MR. OLIVER: We are not. The Sheriff has his own policy as it relates
to that. As I understand it, the Sheriff has an Indianapolis type plan.
MR. TODD: Yes. The opportunity to comment on it again publicly, and I
know we dealt with this a few months back and set a policy that the Sheriff
agreed to, but it's disturbing to me to see the Sheriff deputies using Sheriff
cars, uniforms, and weapons to pull private-duty security. And we're not
talking about the nightclub situation where there may be some benefit to
having a deputy there for entities that, in some cases, our citizens have
problems or complaints, and I'll go on and mention the Hyde Park situation.
And certainly this may not be relevant to this discussion, but I think that
when we have individuals using a car to enhance the opportunity to hold a job
somewhere else, we need to look at that and weigh it out and see whether we
need to charge that person for the use of that equipment, car, et cetera. And
I am not anti-Public Safety. I think that we need to -- and I'll discuss what
we need to do when we're dealing with salaries as far as salaries go and as
far as Public Safety go. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to answer that, Mr. Oliver?
MR. OLIVER: The Sheriff's Department has a policy that they permit off-
duty officers, so the public understands, to do off-duty type assignments
which they get compensated directly by the business or whomever they're
providing the service to. As Mr. Todd indicated, their policy is they permit
the use of Augusta-Richmond County vehicles and they are there when they
perform those services. And I don't -- I mean, I see that as an issue -- I
frankly don't necessarily see that as an issue tied to this, and it may be
something you all wish to address, but I think it can be addressed
independently of this particular item.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to enter a motion that we institute the
policy proposed to us by the Administrator whereby there's three and a half
percent put into a pot with each department and the administration of those
raises be handled by
the department head and we bring all people below the minimum up to the
minimum, that we eliminate all car allowances except as
outlined in the agenda book, and we implement item B and C in the agenda book.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MR. BRIDGES: I'll second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly there is a couple of areas I have
problems. One, it would -- you know, and I would assume, Mr. Oliver, we're
dealing with the directors also here, all directors that come in after '96 --
January 1, '96, that they are froze in place, and I have a problem with that
and would like to not do the directors at this time. But the other area that
I have a problem with is the incentive pay. I think that we could do a
possible split, one and a half percent across the board, one and a half
percent incentive pay, and at the same time set up a committee which would
comprise of the Administrator -- the department head would make the
recommendation, the Administrator and the Equal Opportunity Officer would
evaluate and decide which person get the incentive pay.
I think also -- and I'll go back to the CPEP it's called, Craft
Evaluation Performance -- Craft Performance Evaluation or whatever at SRS.
You know, you can look at your employees like a cone. All of them are not
going to fall at the top, but some of them falls to the top because they go
fishing with the supervisor or they brown-nose with the supervisor, et cetera.
So the Chief talked about fairness a few minutes ago, and I don't think that
necessarily a politician should be involved in it, but I think that a
committee comprised of the Administrator and Equal Opportunity Officer to
decide who get it, with the department head making the recommendation, and
that you got to have some criteria as far as the evaluation go, you know,
other than who's buddies with the department head or who's son or daughter it
is, et cetera, if we're going to do it and do it fair.
Now, I know that it's hard to argue against efficiency performance pay,
but I have a problem if we can't get all the politics and the brown-nosing out
of it, and that's where I'm at on it. And I'd like not to do a substitute
motion; I'd like to see whether the maker of the motion and seconder of the
motion would accept that as an amendment to do the committee and also to do
the one and a half percent performance pay, one and a half percent incentive
pay, and purge directors out of this one and we'll deal with the directors at
a later date.
MR. KUHLKE: No, sir.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd make a substitute motion then to do the
amendment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Restate your motion, Mr. Todd.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the substitute motion is to give a one
and a half percent across the board, one and a half percent incentive pay to
the department heads, with the department head
making a recommendation to who would be considered, and the Administrator and
the Equal Opportunity Officer being the person to evaluate and to give final
approval.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: What about the other half percent, what are you going
to do with that?
MR. TODD: One and one half percent, Mr. Mayor, would go to across-the-
board pay raise, one and a half percent would go to the incentive pay. And I
guess we're talking about three and a half percent total?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. You've got a half percent left.
MR. TODD: Well, I'm not sure that you're going to have any money that's
going to be revenue neutral in the sense that if we give a flat one and a half
percent across the board, we may need additional money. So I'm not sure
there, so I wanted to at least have that flexibility.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second Mr. Todd's motion to get it on the floor
for discussion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Is Butch
here? Glenn--that's all right--do we have the money for the three and a half
percent?
GLENN: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: You and I have already discussed that. We do have the
money for three and a half percent. Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I have a question and maybe Mr. Kuhlke can
clarify it for me. There are two hundred and twenty employees that now have
car allowances. Those car allowances basically were given by mostly -- well,
both the city and the county. But those were basically given because they
couldn't give salary pay increases, so the car allowances became a way of
increasing the wages of the employee. Now, if we did away -- in my opinion,
that's lousy public policy. And I think what they did was they circumvented
that, and I'm not too sure even about the legality of that and the
considerations of paying FICA taxes and all those other things were done. But
if you did away with car allowances right now, with the three -- how would the
three and a half percent provide equity for making up the loss?
MR. KUHLKE: It won't.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Then it would not do that at all, so that
-- my concern is that this is probably the more complex part of
this whole thing. And the car allowances, we ought to consider
the items separately to figure out how the best way to do that.
I know that if I was an employee of the city and somebody said, well, we can't
give you a raise but we'll give you a car allowance, and I had that car
allowance for five years, or even in some cases longer, well, you better
believe that's compensation. And I think you'd even find the IRS would have
said it's salary and not just a car allowance.
So I think it is a problem for us and I think if we don't address it, I
think there's going to be some very, very unhappy and disillusioned people.
I'm not suggesting that they get car allowances plus three and a half percent,
but I'm saying that the three and a half percent is -- somehow you need to
work that figure for car allowances, and the figure that you then adjust is
the three and a half percent and it would be less than three and a half
percent available. Maybe Mr. Oliver can address that part.
MR. OLIVER: Let me explain, and I think the best way to explain would
be an example. Those particular issues need to be addressed on an individual
basis, and by that I mean -- we have one individual, for example, that gets a
car allowance of three hundred and fifty dollars a month, drives about fifteen
or eighteen thousand miles a year, so consequently the three hundred and fifty
dollars a month roughly equals the car allowance they're getting. So to them
it's not additional compensation. Clearly you have other people, however, who
are getting some amount of car allowance who never leave the office, and to
them it's totally compensation in their pocket that they don't have any
additional vehicle expenses to support.
The proposal that we had previously put forth was to give the department
director the latitude within the three and a half percent to evaluate those
individual factors, and to those individuals who merit the increase, who
deserve the increase because of a car allowance, because of performance,
because of whatever. Because the city had some similar things as it relates
to giving out free gas and things of that, and that could be argued to be
compensation and we took that away. But it would give the department director
the latitude to give the people that were in those unique circumstances a
little bit more, if you will, to compensate them for that additional
compensation.
But as I say, I don't believe that that can be handled directly across
the board, because while you have some people that sit behind the desk, never
drive and get a car allowance, some people that drive considerably and get a
car allowance, it barely covers it. You also have, obviously, varying shades
of gray in the middle, so, again, I think that's something that has to be
reviewed on an individual basis.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, my concern is on an individual basis. We're
leaving it in the realm of being very subjective, and we can't get away from
that. And so I think that incrementally we
have to figure out policy decisions that provide equity and fairness in the
compensation system, and I just think this broad-
brush treatment doesn't really get at the heart. I think when
people -- first of all, I don't think supervisors ought to set
compensation levels. Those ought to be set by the board, or in
this case by the Commission.
And so when you give it in the hands -- now, I think incentive pay, if
this Commission wants, as policy, to provide a pool of money for incentive
pay, then I believe -- then that is good, except the fact that I wouldn't
approve any incentive pays unless standards are established for incentive pay;
that the role of maybe the Recreation Department and the mission is this, in
order to achieve that there should be measurable goals and standards that we
establish, and then in all fairness people can be compensated for doing it
above the standard. And I don't see any other fair way to do that, so I
think we really got a lot of homework to do inside this to make it fair and
equitable, and I'd hate to vote on anything but bringing up people to the
minimum today. I think bringing them up to a minimum today would go a long,
long way in solving the problem. I'd like to entertain the fact of maybe a
split later on, but I still think there needs to be some homework and we all
really have to understand what we're doing. And I'd really like to see the
pay and compensation program of the City of Augusta established by policy and
not left to the individual whims of department heads, and I think that they'll
appreciate that, too.
MR. OLIVER: The vision in the budgetary process that we're getting
ready to embark upon is to develop goals and objectives for each department;
then if that department makes those goals and objectives, if the incentive pay
increase is, say, three and a half percent, that department would participate
in the three and a half percent. If they did not achieve those goals and
objectives, that department would get -- would not participate in the three
and a half percent, and it will truly do that.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And I'd be more than happy to support that initiative
once the goals and standards are developed.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, on this proposal, in part A there, I can see a
number of things happening here. And I'm all in favor, I want to say, but I'm
all in favor of bringing up all the employees to a minimum standards. My
problem here is kind of with this -- what to do with this three and a half
percent that we keep talking about. Incentive pay, I just don't feel that we
have reached the stage at this point where we can turn this over to our
department heads. I don't think we have given them enough training or insight
into this.
I think this is going to take a lot of time to do this, and I think that
we're going to have to figure out a way to -- I know that all of our employees
will want some type of raise, and right now I'm kind of looking at maybe
something with one and a half
percent for across the board and dealing with the two percent at
a later date. I can entertain that type of thought. I would also like to see
possibly what effect -- the second option would
be to go to three and a half percent just across the board for everybody, and
I would like to ask the Administrator what type of equity would that give
among our employees. Is that, so to speak, muddying up the water a little bit
more or bringing about a more unequitable way of doing this?
But I think we're going to -- I don't see going with the -- I want the
incentive pay, but I don't think we have reached it at that point, so I think
that we're going to have to look for some type of compromise with the three
and a half percent. Most of the other things here I think I can buy into, but
that three and a half percent, we're going to have to work out something on
that. And if it just means today bringing up everybody to the minimum and
working out this at a later date, I think I can buy into that, too.
MR. OLIVER: Commissioner Beard, to answer your question, the roughly
twenty percent of our employees that will be affected in some way by coming up
to the minimum, so if you bring people up to the minimum you'll have eighty
percent of your employee base that will not be affected. As it relates to
your question as to doing a three and a half percent across the board, the
three and a half percent across the board, in my opinion, will promote
additional inequity, and the reason that I say that is typically these would
be people that are currently within the salary range. Typically you will find
people within the salary range from the old city tend to be at the lower end
of the salary range and people from the former county tend to be in the higher
end of the salary range. So if you have a disparity, for example, where you
have people there -- and I'll use years of service, and I don't think that
that's a good barometer to use because clearly just because someone's been in
a job ten years or two people have been in a job ten years doesn't mean they
necessarily perform the job equally well. But if you have a disparity there
and you add three and a half percent to both of them and they're at different
compensation levels, then the difference between those two employees gets
greater and is magnified.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question to Mr. Oliver. Are you against then
any across-the-board increases or were you just specifying the three and a
half percent?
MR. OLIVER: I'm really speaking to the three and a half percent. I
think that there are two things here, and I think we as managers could live
with the split. I think it implements or begins to implement a pay for
performance but yet provides some latitude to do some equalization responsibly
and equitably. Will it take training on our behalf to make it so that the
department directors do things equitably and properly? Clearly it will, but I
think it sends a clear message to our workforce that we expect pay for
performance. It's also a trust issue between the managers and the elected
officials because you have to trust us
to do it right and do it well.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, do you want to say something?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm kind of unclear. I mean,
we've had a lot of dialogue here and this thing has jumped back
and forth three or four different ways. And to be honest with you, with the
amount of confusion right now it would be hard for me to support either one of
the motions.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, do you want to say something?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I had the opportunity on Monday to
speak with the consultants who helped us put this government together from
University of Georgia, and I explained to them what we was trying to do and
what we're probably voting on today, and they came right out and said that we
-- their opinion is that we do not have the people in place--talking about our
department heads--to implement this without the training. So that part is out
far as the three and a half percent, giving it to a department head to decide
what to do with the money. I mean, they strongly urge that we do not do
anything like that because it takes a lot of training and you have to know a
lot of dos and don'ts in there and all to separate that.
But it was my understanding that we was going to bring everybody up to
the minimum and then we was going to offer the three and a half percent across
the board. And I've heard one and a half, which I just heard today, and I
heard one and a half again with a half percent hanging out there, so -- also,
they also explained to me that during attrition that we're going to lose
people, they're going to be retiring, and then eventually we'll get caught up
where we were.
But just remember that Rome wasn't built in a day, and all of a sudden
we're going to come up here now and get a pay study and try to change all the
inequity and all old at one time. You can't do that. You're going to have to
put something in place now and then maybe come back next year or another year
and finally you may get what you're looking for. But as I speak and as I
stand here today, my vote is for the three and a half percent across the board
and bringing everybody up to the minimum. Now, that's my vote, my one vote,
and that's what I'm looking for.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when we're talking about having money for a three
and a half percent incentive pay, I want my colleagues to understand that all
of the employees is not going to fall there and everybody get an incentive.
Some of them are going to fall there, there, and at the top. If we're talking
about five percent of our employees getting a three and a half percent, we may
have money in the budget. That's a unknown as far as that go. We don't know
how many is going to fall up there.
Now, if we're going to do -- if we're going to take measures
to assure that all of them don't fall here and everybody bust their butt --
and I would assume that we're talking about the
next ninety days and that we're not going retroactive with this thing, that
it's based on what you do from this day forward to be fair, then if everybody
work hard and everybody falls here, then we got problems. So I don't have a
problem and I'm going to withdraw my motion as soon as Mr. Kuhlke can make a -
- amend his motion, but I want everybody to understand what we're talking
about.
And if we can get personal again, I needed to fall there to keep my job.
Because I didn't brown-nose I fell somewhere down here and I'm without a job.
And that's what I want to assure don't happen here, and that's the reason for
the committee, that the -- I like what Chief Few said, "I don't know you, I
don't owe you," and that's, I think, the way it's going to be with the
Administrator and the Equal Opportunity Officer. They're not going to know
the employee and they're not going to owe the employee, and we'll have some
fairness in there. I'll yield to Mr. Kuhlke.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor and my fellow colleagues, what I would like to do
is to amend my motion. First of all, we spent eighty or ninety thousand
dollars with a consultant to work with us.
MR. HANDY: Ninety-three.
MR. KUHLKE: Ninety-three. And we came up with, I think, what is a good
plan. Nobody likes to change, but I think it's time for us as Commissioners
to bite the bullet and make something happen. What I'd like to do is to amend
my motion to provide for a one and a half percent across-the-board pay raise
for every employee; take two percent, put it in the pot of each department for
distribution for pay for performance; to implement immediately bringing
everybody up to the minimum; to allow the Administrator, along with the EEOC
Officer, two months to develop the process by which pay for performance will
be administered; to eliminate all car allowances with the exception of those
that are exceptions in the report; to pay people that use their vehicles
thirty-one and a half cents a mile that are not under a car allowance; to
implement the take-home car policy to coincide with the payroll changes; and
to eliminate supplemental salaries provided to employees above the salary
maximum with the exception of the Constitutional Officers and contract
employees.
When we do that, we will have started. And obviously we're going to
look at this on an annual basis, and changes will be made as they need to be,
but I think it's time for us to go ahead and quit putting this stuff to the
back and we need to move ahead. So I offer that as a substitute to my motion,
and I'd
asked Mr. Bridges if he would consider seconding that motion.
MR. BRIDGES: [inaudible]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw my motion to allow for that
amendment and that motion to go forward.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, does everybody understand Mr. Kuhlke's
amendment to his original motion? Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: I think I understand his amendment to it, Mr. Mayor, and I
probably am going to vote for it. Let me first apologize to you, my
colleagues, and to this audience. One of our very close friends, Major Lee
with the Sheriff's Department, his sister's funeral was at two o'clock.
That's where I was and I was just able to get here. A couple of questions
that I would like to ask since they are in the motion dealing with salaries,
car allowance -- and, Bill, it is a kind of long motion. Sounds like we
reversed Bills today and you got one of my motions in there.
But Mr. Zetterberg a few minutes ago brought up something in reference
to--since car allowances are in there--the legal glitches. And this is
something that we've dealt with in past governments as to where we are on
these car allowances. I know for years you've had various employees, for
instance, and probably justifiably so, who said that people maybe who never
leave the courthouse or departmental building other than to come there and to
leave there, maybe the only place they use the car at. That's not necessarily
true in every case, but what I'm concerned about is the legality as to where
those have been given. I do think that question needs to be answered if we're
going to deal with car allowances today, if it's been given in lieu of salary
and we're striking it. Are we on sound legal ground in terms of where we may
be doing that and it's been given in return for salary.
The second question is that if we're dropping down from the three-point-
five to the one-point-five -- and I've never been one throughout seventeen
years that's been a favorite son of across-the-board raises because--my record
will show that--because most of the time there are already inequities in
government. When you deal with it across the board, to a certain extent it
means the gap gets wider. Because three and a half or one and half, I don't
care what the percentage is, for somebody who's at the top -- when you put it
down again it only gets wider, it doesn't catch anybody up.
Now, I'm wondering if this one-point-five and those numbers is going to
bring those minimum folk up in doing that. Or with all the computers that
we've got, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Administrator, and all this new technology, is it a
lot simpler to take these twenty-six hundred folk -- and maybe we ought to
argue about where the breaking line ought to be and deal with one large pot of
money and deal with it in real money, and have a range that breaks in there of
a few thousand dollars and deal with it in terms of -- as an example, if the
pay raise is going to be two thousand dollars, then let it be two thousand
dollars in money. For those who fall in a certain category, it falls in the
one thousand dollar range or fifteen hundred. But when you start dealing with
what's under twenty thousand dollars at one-point-five and what may be over
forty or forty-five at the same percentage, then the numbers then do not
equate. And if you're trying to get rid of certain inequities, dealing with
it -- I don't care whether you're widening it by ten percent, five percent,
three-point-five percent or one-point-five percent, you don't cure that
inequity unless you're going to deal with one heck of a large percentage or
you're going to deal with a certain sliding percentage where you may deal with
those at a certain level at one percent and then you deal with those at
another one at a lower percent if those salaries are higher. That's just my
personal observance with it. I do think we ought to move on with something,
but I'm wondering whether the one-point-five even brings folk up in many of
those minimum categories.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Lori, do you want to answer the first part of that
question about the legality of it?
MS. D'ALESSIO: To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what -- that may be
an Internal Revenue question, and I don't know the answer to it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Oliver, it's my understanding that the salary study put
folks where they should be as far as a entrance level and dealt with some of
the individuals where they should be as far as [inaudible], and there is some
folks that's getting a raise per the salary study. And if that's the case,
will those individuals also get an additional raise that we're giving here now
as far as the one and a half percent?
MR. OLIVER: No. What the salary study did was it established what the
average person performing that typical job did. So in the case of our meter
reader, it established what the average meter reader got. Then it went on to
establish what the entry level for that position was, a person that met the
minimum qualifications to do that job. And then it established the top end of
that position, what the maximum salary or what the maximum the job was worth.
Those were the three points that it established. What I said all along, and
I firmly believe this, is that they should get the greater of coming to the
minimum or, in the case of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, one and a half percent. I
doubt that there will be many people that fall in that no-man's land, but it
is possible.
One of the clarifications, however, if you all are going to consider
this motion, is I think we need to decide if we're going to give people that
were hired yesterday, for an example, an additional one and a half percent or
if there is a cutoff date after which we aren't going to give that kind of
adjustment to. The other one is dealing with people that exceed the maximum
of the range, and my recommendation would be that people that are exceeding
the maximum range or what we are saying is the maximum value of the job not be
afforded any increase at all, however, their salary not be reduced.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Will there be a period -- and I guess what I'm getting to is
that I realize we're in a new government and new Administrator, and I think
everybody has done a herculean job to try and put this together, but primarily
better than ninety-five percent of the people that work for this new
government came out of the two old ones, and it's kind of like in some cases
we've been there, we've done that. And what I want to see us do, if we're
going to pass this motion as it is, I would hope that there would be a period
that would not be a hang-on period.
And I think employees know exactly where I'm coming from when I say
this, that those that may fall in that crack period, or if we're going to have
a grievance period to deal with adjustments, that we set a swift maximum
period for doing that. And my reason for saying that is that coming out of
the old county government, and the salary study which was very beautiful and
touted the same way that this one is being touted -- and a lot of you weren't
here, but by the time consolidation got on those heels many of the folk who
still had grievances from the old one that were never brought into place are
still around, in the same predicament that they were when we paid X number of
thousands of dollars with the University of Georgia dealing with the past
salary study.
Now, we've been studied a whole lot. Now, what I want to see is that if
we're going to get time for implementation, then we know exactly where we're
going. And this is no fault on Human Resources, because a lot was lumped on
them at one time. We changed directors, and before John and those probably
could get in to deal with everybody they were having to set standards for what
was going to bring us through a consolidated period, so many people never got
a chance to even have their so-called day in court. They were basically left
behind. Now, obviously you can't make it perfect for everybody, but if you're
going to come along now -- and as I say to many people, this consolidated
government, it had a starting date. Many of these folks were here long before
many of us were, waiting around through a bunch of those different studies,
some in another government that dealt with being laid off, laid out, never
given raises, and we're talking about now coming in with one sweeping
proposal. I realize this is not Cinderella, but, gentlemen, it ought to be as
close as we can possibly get it and not having to go back for the next three
to four months and deal with folk almost to a point where you got a new
Commission dealing with something else and saying you're still correcting
salary inequities. Because this has happened. It's alive and well and real.
And if some of the Commissioners don't believe it, all they got to do is ask.
There are no secrets in this courthouse, they aren't kept very long. So some
of them are still going through the old University of Georgia study. They
didn't ever make it. It never got to them, never reached them, nobody ever
heard them. Some folk who helped put it together and were around to see their
departments flourish, they have now ridden off into the sunset with their big
parting raises, and they are gone and these folk are still here. So what I'm
saying is if y'all got this where you got it a hundred percent to where you
want it, or close to it, then fine. But if not, at least set a date in here
that you're going to hear these folk, because you're going to have some in
there. You've got the rumblings that's there now already, and probably some
of them with some justification. And the only thing I'm saying is just lay a
format for doing that and don't let it fall where the other one fell to a
point of where it never reached some folk.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mays, to address your question as it relates to the
appeal process, there was a memo given to the department directors at last
Thursday's staff meeting. From the date of approval of this plan there is
fifteen -- there are fifteen days for them to appeal the position. Now, let
me explain what I mean by that. The salary range, for example -- and I don't
know what it really is, but a meter reader is sixteen to twenty-four. If a
meter reader or Mr. Hicks believes that that salary range is improperly set,
they have the right to send a memo in basically saying, okay, I went out,
checked these six other jurisdictions, checked Georgia Power or whatever, and
this is what their meter reader gets paid and, therefore, I believe that the
range is incorrect. Mr. Hicks would have to endorse that. It will be sent to
Human Resources, to the consultant; if it's not resolved at that level, it
will then go to the Personnel Board.
Now, one thing I would like to make totally clear, though, the only
thing that is appealable is the range, the fact that the range is sixteen to
twenty-four. Sixteen is the minimum we say the position is worth, twenty-four
is the maximum. Where a person falls within that range is a different issue.
All we're saying is that the salary was established fairly. And the fact is
there was a more equitable way to perhaps put people in the ranges, but it
would've taken some six million dollars to do that and obviously we didn't
have it.
MR. MAYS: Let me just ask one quick question, Randy. And you've used
Max for a reference, and he's a very fair person. But just hypothetically, if
a Max Hicks does not endorse that, where does that leave that employee?
MR. OLIVER: They could appeal it directly to the Administrator and then
we'd take it from there. But, again, the only thing they can appeal is the
range. If they're in the sixteen to twenty-four range and they feel they
should be at twenty-four rather than sixteen, they can't appeal that. If they
think that the range should be eighteen to twenty-six, that they can appeal.
MR. MAYS: Okay. Very clearly put. I just wanted it to be clear for
the record because -- and I don't think that would happen necessarily with
Max, but I know where we've had some hatchet situations in the past and I
wanted to make sure that there were no middle people that if someone had a
legitimate complaint or gripe, that they did have a recourse of doing it.
Because -- and I see some of you shaking your heads, but, hell, I know it
happened and some didn't sign off on it and folk never got a chance to go to
the Human Resources Director.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll be as brief as I possibly can.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We'll come around one more time, gentlemen, and
that'll be it.
MR. TODD: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. HANDY: You never came on this end since Mr. Kuhlke. Come around
again, you never been here.
MR. TODD: I'll yield, Mr. Mayor, to that end.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is addressed to Mr. Oliver.
The information in this particular item says that any employees hired after
July 1, '96 will not be eligible, but this is July 1, '97. That's been a year
ago. And in your statement earlier you stated that because a person been here
two years, four years, five years, ten years, whatever, I don't know exactly
how it was, it doesn't make that person any different because the one who been
here the less could work better than the one been here ten years. So what is
the reason of putting anybody hired after July 1, that they're not eligible?
MR. OLIVER: We just felt that there should be a cutoff. And if the
Commission feels that a more appropriate cutoff date is better, that's fine.
For example, you know, any person hired within the last two months or six
months or whatever. It was just management's feeling that those people should
not be eligible for an increase, that the priority should be on people hired
before July 1st of '96.
MR. HANDY: But we're all as one, so it doesn't mean -- if he's been
here one day, he's still an employee of Augusta-Richmond County. Everybody
getting raises, so he should be eligible for that raise.
MR. OLIVER: And I hate to single out examples, but, for example, we
recently hired a Director of License and Inspection within the last month or
two and we negotiated that salary and I, candidly, think it would be unfair to
give a person such as that an additional one and a half percent because they
were just hired.
MR. HANDY: But the study was going on during the hiring, so he
shouldn't be penalized because a study was going on that was done prior to you
hiring him.
MR. OLIVER: I understand that. But as long as the salary that was
negotiated was within the range, we're saying we were in the ballpark for what
compensation was for that position, and as a practical matter that
compensation was within that range.
MR. HANDY: Okay. One other question of the -- on the car allowance and
then I'll be finished. Why do we have to have car allowances, period? Why
couldn't we just pay everybody thirty-one cents a mile?
MR. OLIVER: That's a very valid question, and I think there -- there is
some validity to that, but let me explain the unique problem that we've got
there. We have certain people, and I think wrongly so, that currently go out
and either do appraisals or tax assessments or go out and do inspections for
building inspections and things like that. They currently use their vehicle.
I think that's inappropriate for a number of reasons. Because when you drive
up to a residence or a business, the person doesn't know where you're coming
from and it can create problems.
We believe that ultimately we should have pool vehicles for those
purposes; however, we did not think at this point in time that it was
appropriate to eliminate those car allowances, you know, just across the board
and make them be reimbursed at the end of the month. I can support that if
you want to do that, though. I have no problem with that.
MR. HANDY: The reason why I ask that [inaudible] when we hired you. It
was -- originally we had car allowances, and then somehow or another it got --
I mean, a car, and then we negotiated around to give you a car allowance. But
we have a Park Avenue top-of-the-line car that the former Mayor had, and then
we have another one that Mrs. Beazley had. Now, those two cars does not fit
in our fleet line as regular cars that everybody drive, but we have department
heads driving those expensive cars around there, where one of those cars you
could have been using or somebody else could have been using. And that's what
bothers me about these car allowances.
MR. OLIVER: I don't disagree. I don't disagree at all. And, you know,
obviously if that would have become what I call a deal breaker, that would've
been something that I would've had to made a decision on whether it was worth
it to me. And I would've taken the car.
MR. HANDY: Well, you know, what I'm trying to -- I hope you understand
what I'm saying. You have to be able to do yourself what you ask everybody
else to do. That's all I'm saying. And this pay raise that everybody is
talking about of one and a half percent, that's not what you're recommending.
That's not even what the consultant recommended, but now we got Commissioners
going down to one and a half percent just to try to get something going.
That's still not going to satisfy the employees.
We have three issues here. We have the department heads who's ranked
from one to five, we have the regular money for the regular employees bringing
them up to the minimum, and then three and a half percent across the board,
and then we got a car allowance, and I don't see how in the world we get all
three of these things in one motion. Now, that's done nothing but confusing
the whole situation. We got to take one at a time: car allowance, bring them
up to the minimum, and then the department heads. So we still got problems
with what we have here.
MR. OLIVER: I understand the complexity of the issue. The difficulty
is they all, at least to some extent, are interrelated.
MR. HANDY: Okay. I'm finished with it. I'm going to vote just like I
said five/ten minutes ago and that's it. And that's not on the floor, I
haven't heard anything came close to what I'm saying, so evidently I'm not
going to vote for this particular issue.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is it my understanding that the recommendation
here as far as what's in the petition and communication from the consultant we
paid ninety-three thousand dollars is different from what we have here? And I
guess my second concern is did the consultant make the decision that
individuals hired in after January 1, 1996 shouldn't be considered for any pay
raise, incentive pay, et cetera, or was that department heads that was here on
board before 1996 made that decision? And I guess three is -- and I'll assume
-- well, I know these questions are to Mr. Oliver. And the Sheriff's
Department, are they included in this one and a half percent and two percent
incentive pay, and are we doing anything to close that gap between a officer
that's been on board two to four years and a officer that's been on board ten
to twelve years?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver?
MR. OLIVER: As it relates to the July 1st, that was something was
discussed at staff meeting, and I think that was the consensus, frankly,
between the consultant and staff. As it relates to the four years versus the
ten years, what we had anticipated was, in that particular case, that the
Sheriff through an incentive pay system would address those issues. You all
can better address the ability of the Sheriff and the willingness of the
Sheriff to address those issues on that. Does that answer your questions,
Commissioner Todd?
MR. TODD: No, but it raises another one. My training in total quality
management is that when you have a consensus everybody agree or buy into it
and there's no objections to it. Now, were there any objections from the new
employees, and especially the directors, and I'm assuming they were at the
department head meeting.
MR. OLIVER: There was none addressed in the meeting, there was one
addressed to me individually. And it was a consensus, not a unanimous
consensus.
MR. TODD: It's my position that when it come to how we treat our
employees, that we are ultimately responsible how those employees is worked or
used--that's the department heads--whether that department head is a
constitutionally elected department head or an appointed department head. And
I think that we have a responsibility to make sure that there is equity in the
pay, and not just for the appointed but for the Constitutional, too. Do we
allow -- and this is to my colleagues and the Mayor, and I guess I'm going to
shut up. Do we allow the Clerk of Courts, which is a constitutionally elected
officer, the Tax Commissioner, who's a constitutionally elected officer, and
all the other constitutionally elected officers to set their salary range and
their pay scales, et cetera, as far as what they're going to pay their
employees and whether they're going to get the one and a half percent, et
cetera, or across-the-board raises and what they're going to make?
And we hired a consultant. That consultant should have looked at the --
and did look at police officers and set a starting rate, and he -- I assume
there's a top range and there's a middle range. And we should assure that
those department heads, whether they're constitutionally elected or appointed,
have those individuals at that point. And if we don't do that, in my opinion
we're not doing our elected responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Coming around. Mr. Mays? Mr.
Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah. I share Mr. Handy's point on car allowances. I
think that -- I would have like to have seen that separated out, but we might
not have a choice today. I'd like to ask Mr. Kuhlke a question. On the one
and a half percent across-the-board increases, does that include people who
are already over the max range, the max salary?
MR. KUHLKE: I believe that--Mr. Oliver, correct me if I'm wrong--that
people that are already at the maximum, it does not include them.
MR. OLIVER: That would be what I would recommend.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay, so -- but that doesn't, and I think it has to
specify that if you want -- and I'd like you to modify your --
MR. KUHLKE: I'll do that.
MR. ZETTERBERG: The second part is that I do share -- have some concern
about the two percent. And everybody has to understand, the two percent
that's being recommended for incentive pay, a part of that -- and my problem
is I don't know how much of that two and a half percent will be eaten up by
people who have car allowances today. The supervisors will be obligated to
their employees to try to make up that problem of doing away with car
allowances. Part of the performance pay will be eaten up in that, so you
really truly won't get a two percent pot of incentive pay. That's a concern.
But my problem, because I haven't seen the figures at all, I really
don't know what that figure is. And so I have a hard time saying yes, I'll
vote on that, and I don't know what to ask you to do in a substitute motion.
I'd frankly like the two and a half percent not to be included at the moment
until we could further study that issue and it's relationship to car
allowances. And maybe we'll find out in the end that it doesn't mean a hill
of beans, but right now -- if you're going to put two and a half percent out
there for incentive pay, I want to make sure it all goes for incentive pay.
Plus, I'm also very concerned of giving incentive pay for standards we don't
even know what they're going to be.
MR. KUHLKE: But I think, Mr. Zetterberg -- it's two percent, first, not
two and a half percent.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Two percent.
MR. KUHLKE: And then we set sixty days for the EEOC Officer and the
Administrator to work with the department heads to develop the criteria to
award incentive pay or pay for performance.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I don't think that makes a difference. What I'm
talking about is that if Mr. Beck in Recreation has somebody that gets a car
allowance and that's four hundred dollars, maybe Mr. Beck will say, well, the
board said you can't have the car allowances anymore, so we're not even going
to consider that. That might happen. But on another hand, one other
department head says, hey, that was salary, so what we're going to do is I'm
going to give you that four hundred dollars over here in salary. And it's
going to be a very difficult thing to rationalize within the government, so --
MR. OLIVER: I would expect within our direction, and the EEO Officer
and myself will work on that, that we will come up with a number of factors
that they should consider, and one of the factors they should consider would
be, you know, something of that nature. And, again, I -- admittedly it's
going to reduce the ultimate amount of the incentive if you consider, you
know, depending upon [inaudible].
MR. ZETTERBERG: I mean, as long as everybody understands that that will
-- that two percent incentive pay will not go for all incentives, for people
who deserve to be compensated for above-average employment. So, frankly, at
the moment I'm really not too sure what to do.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I tend to agree with Commissioner Zetterberg there that we
have a lot in this, and I think that some of it needs qualifying here. I've
got just a couple more questions that I need to ask the Administrator and
maybe he can qualify those for me. The directors, I'm a little concerned
about -- you know, they had this range and I think that they were given the
opportunity to appeal this. Am I to understand that this -- the directors are
included in this motion also as far as their ranges are concerned or has that
been --
MR. OLIVER: As I understand the motion that's currently proposed, that
is the case. Now, I would caution everyone that three and a half percent is
the total amount of money that we have; okay? So if we're going to do
something different we need to change the allocation of the pot. There isn't
any more. But, again, the range -- you know, you've got two issues -- and we
got it with some of the directors, too. There are two issues. Number one is
what is the range; is the range fair and reasonable for that position? And
then the second part of that question is where is that particular director or
employee within the range? And they are independent questions and they would
be addressed through some kind of, you know, incentive.
MR. BEARD: But if we don't have the money, how -- you know, you keep
saying we don't have the money, that it's all there. And we go on and approve
this today, then there is no need or concern for an appeal.
MR. OLIVER: Well, here's the thing, Commissioner Beard -- and I, to a
large degree, believe that the directors and top management should be dealt
with the same as everyone else in the organization. But what that forces
myself or the department director to do is to take the funds that they've got
available and distribute them, and they have some responsibility in this
distribution. If you as elected officials tell them how to distribute them,
it becomes too easy for the manager to say, well, I would've given you more,
but the Commission wouldn't allow me to.
MR. BEARD: Well, you know, that may be right, but my point now is I
have a problem with the working out of the incentive pay situation with the
managers and giving them the opportunity to do this and giving them the
training, and also the evaluation process that you and the EEO Officer would
do given a length of time on that. But I am concerned about lumping all of
this together, then you tell people that they have an appeal process that, to
me, it really does not exist because, you know, you don't have the funds here
for them.
And my point now would be after -- I guess the more and more we discuss
this, the more and more people get confused on this. But we do want to do
something, and I think that, you know, if we -- we need to separate some of
this and bring everybody up to the minimum and deal with that one and a half
percent raise and giving everybody that, and maybe looking at the date that
[inaudible]. That's what I would look at.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call the question.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, you haven't been back around to this side.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, I overlooked you, Mr. Brigham.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's all right.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, and then we'll call the question.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: A couple of things. And they've been reiterated, but
just for the record I'd like to enter it, because if you take away -- the car
allowance is some of the things that was given by a previous group, whether it
was right, wrong, what have you. That's not the issue we're talking about.
You're really talking about reducing a person's pay. And I don't know, our
Attorney said that we have to look at the IRS to talk about some of these
things, but how clear are we on them as far as when we start maybe reducing a
person's pay? Am I correct in that?
MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, my understanding is for income tax purposes that
might be counted as part of your salary, but here in this context I think it's
more of a benefit, a benefit in addition to your salary.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: The bottom line on that, it would mean that an
individual could take home less pay after whenever this is put into effect.
MS. D'ALESSIO: Yeah, that's -- I believe that's what they're saying.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: And to me, that -- I don't know how much problem that
would create, but it seem like to me that that puts us in another area where
it creates some problems. And look like to me, Mr. Mayor, and to my
colleagues, [inaudible] about three or four different issues. But if we take
the people who are at the lower end and give them the amount that -- whatever
the figure is, whether it's two and a half or whatever, bring them up, then
come back at a later date and get some clear-cut answers to some of the things
that have been delineated here, seem like to me that that would be a better
way today to go about it, not trying to put all this, you know, in this one
soup pot today and maybe that would help.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, right now we have one motion on the floor, Mr.
Brigham, so why don't you make a substitute motion that we just bring it up to
the minimum and then vote it up or down and we'll go from there.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I would like to put that in the form of a motion, Mr.
Mayor.
MR. HANDY: I'll second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That all we do is bring the ones that are below the
minimum up to the minimum today --
MR. HANDY: And forget about the department heads and the car
allowances.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: And come back with them at a later date, yes, sir.
MR. OLIVER: One comment just so you're aware. I want to reiterate that
that will affect about twenty percent of our people. Those twenty percent of
our employee population will be very happy. Eighty percent of the people,
however -- and I understand why the motion was made and I respect that.
Eighty percent of the people, however, will be unaffected and, hence, they may
be less happy.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I think either way we're going to have some unhappy
troopers, but I was just wondering if this could be a start, you know, in the
right direction. That's all I'm saying.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MR. HANDY: Can I say one thing before we call the question? There's a
question I want to ask --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, one more comment.
MR. HANDY: We haven't looked at it, Mr. Oliver, without any ranges, one
and a half or two percent, three percent. How many would it affect bringing
everybody to the mid point and just -- no raises, just bring everybody to the
mid point?
MR. OLIVER: Well, here's the thing that you -- I can partially answer
that question. In our organization as a whole, the organization as a whole
based on their current mid points and their old salary ranges is, on average,
seven percent above the mid point. So what that tells me is we have a
workforce that's been here quite a long time. Okay, so if you brought them to
the mid point, there are going to be a number of people that are going to be
unhappy because the majority of our workforce is above the mid point of the
range. We did an exercise which was called Comparatios, which means that if
you were at the mid point of your old range, you would move to the mid point
of your new range. If you were at the seventy-fifth quartile of your old
range, you'd go to the seventy-fifth quartile of your new range. The
difficulty with that exercise was the cost was six million dollars we could
not afford. That is clearly the fairest way to do this, that is without
question about that, but the economics made it so that could not be done.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like the substitute motion read again.
MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion is to bring all those people
below the minimum up to the minimum and that's it, and the other will come
back at a later date.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And then come back?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't you reread the motion, Ms. Bonner, so
everybody will know exactly. Read the substitute motion and the original
motion.
CLERK: The substitute motion was to increase compensation for employees
falling below the minimum of the range to the range minimum--that was the
substitute motion by Mr. Henry Brigham--and bring all the other facets, the
car allowances, the department head classifications, and all those items back
at a later date.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Why don't we go ahead and vote on that one right now.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, was there a figure in there [inaudible]?
CLERK: Just of the proposed salary range -- salary study. Everybody
come up to the proposed salary study minimum range.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, [inaudible]. Let's vote on this before we
get confused.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I wonder if we could -- could I ask one question, Mr.
Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: One question.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I wonder if Mr. Brigham would consider amending his
motion to add a one and a half percent across-the-
board pay raise, bring everybody up to the minimums of the range and a one and
a half percent. Because the sticking point -- that does not seem to be a
sticking point at all. The car allowances, the arbitration of salary ranges,
the use of car allowances seem to be a problem, but at least the board could,
at a minimum, demonstrate to the employees of the city that we are willing to
increase their pay at this time but we want to have time to work out some
technicalities. And I'd like you to consider that, Mr. Brigham.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor? I guess while everybody [inaudible] -
MR. ZETTERBERG: And also -- also I think we need to, if you did that --
and that's a very good point. Anybody hired after -- give me a date.
MR. OLIVER: That's a policy decision.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So do we have to debate the date now then?
MAYOR SCONYERS: What was the probation period?
MR. HANDY: One year.
MAYOR SCONYERS: One year of probation period, right. So --
MR. ZETTERBERG: One year of probation period.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. So that's effective one year back.
MR. ZETTERBERG: That'll be fine, one year back. And that would be my
substitute -- asking if you would amend.
CLERK: Are you accepting that?
MR. HANDY: Well, I didn't say anything. I haven't heard anything yet.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, are you digesting that?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I heard him, and I think that's a consideration. You
had one down here [inaudible].
MR. MAYS: When I asked that about those numbers, if we maybe lessen the
pool that was to be deferred and maybe went to two or two-point-five, place
one in the deferment instead of the three-point-five that was recommended, but
go ahead and bring everybody up and then still deal with the raise at least on
a two-point-five and defer everything else.
MR. HANDY: I can live with that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham got his pencil out. He's doing some sharp
figuring on that.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I accept it, I think that sounds good. And then at
that time maybe Mr. Oliver -- at some point the people who are in the eighty
percent -- which I guess we'd know at that point what we can do for them since
that's the next biggest point. But I think today, gentlemen, maybe we ought
to start somewhere, and I think this would be a good place.
MR. MAYS: Well, I think this still gives us the raises in there, but it
also still gives us one percent to deal with those incentives that are in
there. Because I hate like the devil to think that somebody brings forth an
incentive and maybe shows the department how to save money and then we nix
that altogether. I think, you know, one thing, whether -- in the old federal
government days where people actually were rewarded for bringing in ideas to
save money, and I think those should be the real incentives when you're
talking about what incentives do, not necessarily because you're there and
because you occupy space and you breathe and you come to work every day.
That's not necessarily an incentive, and I think -- but it still gives you
some in there in an incentive pool to work out of without exhausting what
you've got, but it still goes ahead and gives them raises at the same time.
MR. OLIVER: I understand and respect what you're doing, but I need to
make one comment. By leaving one percent for what I consider to be
extraordinary or performance adjustments due to whatever reasons that may be
determined, that's not sufficient to do anything meaningful, and at that point
I believe it's valueless and I'd just as soon see you do it across the board.
MR. HANDY: Amen.
MR. ZETTERBERG: It really doesn't --
MR. H. BRIGHAM: With the lower end or?
MR. ZETTERBERG: One and a half would -- it might be better than two and
a half if you want to have an incentive program.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: It's got to start somewhere.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, it's your call. We're waiting on you.
You tell us what you want to do.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like for you to vote on the motion, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, I mean, you've got to tell us how much money.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Oh, how much -- well, the suggestion that was made a
few minutes ago, I think we said for two and a half now. Then Mr. Oliver said
one percent wouldn't do them any good, but it might can do some good somewhere
down the road, I don't know. Somebody may enjoy having one percent. So if
that's the sticker, then we'll go back up to three and a half for the lower
end.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Ms. Bonner needs to know what the motion is going
to be, so.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay. Well, two and a half.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Two and half. Okay. All right, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Okay. The motion is to increase compensation for employees
falling below the minimum of the range to the minimum of the range and to give
across-the-board increase of two-point-five to other employees; and deferring
all other facets, i.e., the car allowances, classifications, for a later date;
and this would not be inclusive of employees hired after July 1st, 1996.
MR. OLIVER: One thing I want to -- because it's important we get all of
the details correct. What about people falling above the range, should they
get the two and half or not get the two and a half?
MR. BEARD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the --
CLERK: The employees falling above the range, should they or should
they not be given the two and a half percent?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, if you're going to put that in, how about the
directors, too? [inaudible]
MR. HANDY: No, Lee said he was going to put that in there. He was
asking the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Okay.
MR. HANDY: Did we have a discussion on that?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir?
MR. TODD: It's my understanding that the pool of money is enough money
to give the two and a half, and I'm getting tired and I've done got -- you
guys have done beat me down to the point that I'll vote [inaudible]. I
haven't had a lot of sleep in the last week, so let's call for the question
and have a roll call vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Do y'all want the motion reread one more time so
we know exactly what we're voting on?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, please?
CLERK: The motion is to approve to increase compensation for employees
falling below the minimum of the range to the range minimum and to give a
three -- and to provide for a two-point-five percent increase to all eligible
employees across the board effective the second full pay period in July, with
the exception of employees hired after July 1st, 1996, and to defer car
allowances, implementation of take-home car policies, elimination of
supplemental salaries, and director's classifications.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, I think we're going to do a roll call vote on Mr.
Brigham's motion.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: No.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: No.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: I hate like hell to vote against part of my own motion, but -
- you know, y'all are getting like American Congress now, y'all got some mess
thrown in here that don't need to be in here. But in order to get the -- you
got the folk in here hired after 1996, just a point of order?
CLERK: They're excluded from the two-point-five.
MAYOR SCONYERS: It goes back one year.
CLERK: One year probation. They're excluded from the two-point-five.
MR. BEARD: Now, you're the one that brought in this two-point-five.
MR. MAYS: I brought in the two-point-five, but I didn't bring in the
deal about the 1996, because I think it's an element of fairness and I think
everybody in here knows what I'm getting to about it. We made some incentives
to go out and hire in a recruitment process and now we're getting to a point
of where we talked about in 1996, of that being a penalizing date, and
departmental managers --
MR. TODD: [inaudible]
MR. MAYS: No, you didn't. That's in the motion, Moses. You better
check.
MR. BRIDGES: Call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a yes or a no, Mr. Mays, please, sir.
MR. MAYS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No.
MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, go back to the
original motion.
MR. TODD: I'd like to have the original motion read, Mr. Mayor.
CLERK: The original motion was to provide for a one-point-five percent
across-the-board raise to every employee; give a two percent pot of monies to
the department head to administer pay for performance; bring all eligible
employees to the minimum of the range; direct the Administrator and the EEO
Officer, along with the department heads, two months to develop the process
for a pay for performance plan and how to administer, excluding employees over
the top of the range; eliminating car allowances with the exception of
Constitutional Officers; and to provide for car allowances as directed: the
Director of Recreation, License and Inspections, Director of Public Works --
as listed; and to implement the take-home car policy; and to eliminate
supplemental salaries provided to employees above the maximum, with the
exception of Constitutional Officers.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of that motion, let it be --
MR. OLIVER: [inaudible]
CLERK: Yes, and the hired -- okay, yes, sir. Now, that also included
employees hired after July 1st, 1996, would not be eligible for the across-
the-board increase.
MR. TODD: Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Let me qualify this, because I see what Mr. Mays is talking
about and I think most of us had not caught that '96 there, or '97. And I
don't have a big problem with this if that could be included to '97, but if
it's not included in the motion, then I'm going to vote no.
MAYOR SCONYERS: It's not in the motion. Is that a no?
CLERK: Yes, sir. That's not included in the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, I mean is his vote no?
CLERK: Yes, sir. He said if it wasn't included. Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: No.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: No.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: No.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Gentlemen, like I told you a few minutes ago, yes.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
MOTION CARRIES 6-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please?
CLERK: The next item is a communication from the City of Blythe
requesting consideration in disbursement of HUD funds for the Community
Development Block Grant and HOME Programs.
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is this the '97 money or for '96 money -- I
mean '97/98?
MR. POWELL: '97. We wanted to go ahead and do '97, I think it is;
isn't it, Keven? Yeah, it's '97.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: This is for next year? Is this for money that we're
now applying for?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Keven, can you address that, please?
MR. MACK: We're planning for the '98 monies now.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding the City of Blythe can
apply for these funds directly from the community department agencies and they
have not done so. I think they ought to do that before we are allowed to give
away funds for other areas of this county first.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, they do have two options: one is to go to the
state, and I understand the competition; then the other one is to do it
through us in the sense that we are, I guess, a consolidated government. We
cannot give them '97 money because they wasn't included in the demographics,
per my understanding, or the application for funds for '97. If we're talking
about '98, then I see that as being doable as long as we use their
demographics as far -- as long as their blighted areas is shown and we do it
on the basis of low income, middle income, and blighted areas. Is that my --
is that your understanding, Mr. Mack?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir. But I need to make you all understand that these
funds are awarded on a competitive basis and the chances of Blythe or
Hephzibah receiving these funds--and I'm not making the decision for the
Department of Community Affairs--would be slim and none -- slim to none.
MR. TODD: Would that have to do with the number of population as far as
blighted area go, and as far as this government spending money in the City of
Hephzibah or Blythe, wouldn't we have to do it based on that same
qualification as far as blighted areas, the low income, middle income?
MR. MACK: Well, there are two ways: the monies can be awarded based on
blighted areas and they can also be awarded based on the income -- low to
moderate income. In other words, the higher your percentage of low to
moderate income individuals and families, the greater your chances are of
being granted funding.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, to the Director, where do the City of Hephzibah
and Blythe stand as far as average income, low to moderate, are they above the
rest of the county or are they below the rest of the county?
MR. MACK: I'm not sure about the City of Blythe, I think that they are
probably somewhere in the middle. But for the most part, I think Hephzibah
would be somewhere on the upper end.
MR. TODD: Well, let me rephrase my question -- let me rephrase the
question then and I think I can get the answer. What's the minority
population of the City of Hephzibah and Blythe compared to the minority
population of the City of Augusta?
MR. MACK: I don't have those figures in front of me, Commissioner Todd.
I can go to the Planning Commission and get those figures.
MR. TODD: Yes. I don't think either way we go it's going to hurt the
consolidated government that bad. One thing that I don't want to do and I
will not vote for is to punish the City of Hephzibah and Blythe because they
didn't support the consolidated government, and the reason I won't do that, if
I did it -- if I do it I'd be a hypocrite because I did not support it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor -- Mr. Mack, it's my understanding that the
means income for both Hephzibah and Blythe is greater than the City of
Augusta; is that true or untrue or do you not know?
MR. MACK: I think that the -- I'd rather not speak on that because I
don't have those figures in front of me. You know, we can -- we have time to
bring those figures forward to you if you'd like them.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. The other thing that I got a concern with, I
didn't know poverty had a color to it.
MR. MACK: I'm not going to speak to that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is that your understanding?
MR. MACK: You said property?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Poverty does not have color associated with it.
MR. MACK: It does not.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So it doesn't necessarily depend on what kind of race
percentage of an area whether or not they would qualify for funds?
MR. MACK: No, it doesn't.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: But also, now, if we include Blythe and Hephzibah into
these funds that we disburse in the City of Augusta, we cannot include their
population; is that true or untrue?
MR. MACK: Let me answer your question this, and I hope -- if I don't
answer your question you can ask me in another way. From my understanding,
the funds were awarded to the City of Augusta and this consolidated
government, excluding the populations of Hephzibah and Blythe. Is that your
question?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's pretty much my question. Now, are they eligible
to apply for funds?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir, they are.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And would we receive more funds maybe if they applied
for it?
MR. MACK: You mean would --
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Could we possibly receive more community block grant
funds if they applied for it?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Could your department help them apply for those funds?
MR. MACK: I guess we could. But for the most part, those
municipalities normally apply for those funds on their own.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: But your department has greater expertise than those
municipalities have, I assume.
MR. MACK: Yes, sir.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So if you was to help them apply for it, there's a
possibility they could gain their own direct community block grant funds; is
that not true?
MR. MACK: That's correct.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Thank you.
MR. MACK: But I must add that the chances of them receiving those funds
are slim from the state.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask the maker of the motion if he
would consider an amendment -- or let me make a substitute motion.
Considering that there may be a possibility of Blythe receiving their own
community block grant funds and that we do have the department under Mr. Mack
that has the capability of assisting them in applying for those funds, before
we make distributions of the funds in the city, the possibility of letting
Keven's department assist the City of Blythe to apply for those funds and see
what results we can get there; and if in fact they don't get any funds, then
maybe we revisit this for some distribution of funds into that area.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second Mr. Kuhlke's motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: I'd like to ask Mr. Mack a couple of questions. Mr. Mack,
number one, aren't all of these areas we're talking about members of our local
RDC?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYS: Whether it be on a federal or state level, isn't assistance
provided there as well?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYS: Particularly in a lot of cases of small communities?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir. For the most part, the RDC basically assists the
smaller communities in applying for these funds.
MR. MAYS: Okay. I made it clear at the last meeting any Richmond
Countian inside the county border lines I did not want to see discriminated
against. But also isn't it true what we were expecting to come in in federal
block grant monies based on consolidation, aren't those figures far lower than
what the publicity was touted to be?
MR. MACK: Those figures are far lower than what we anticipated.
MR. MAYS: Into the seven-figure bracket; am I correct?
MR. MACK: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYS: Okay. I just wanted to know that before voted.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say that, you know, I don't have
a big problem with the staff over there assisting, but you are asking them to
take on an additional burden. And although -- you know, going outside there,
I really don't think Mr. Mack has the staff. They're pretty well understaffed
over there, and maybe be going out -- and you're going to ask them to go out
into two other communities. And when you really look at it, you know, ether
we ought to just go on and -- I don't think you're going to have that much
money available out in that area because of the population of that area.
Also, the second point is where does Hephzibah start. Does it start at
Tobacco Road or does it -- are we talking about the city limit or that kind of
thing? Where does it really start out there when we're talking about
Hephzibah out there?
So I think that instead of just increasing the burden of assistance on
the local staff here for Community Development, I think that maybe we ought to
just work it one way or the other, vote it up or down, and either we're going
to give them the money or don't give them the money at this time, whichever we
feel about it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, we were asked to go back last time by
Commissioner Kuhlke and get a resolution from the City of Blythe. The
majority of this money -- we understand the majority of this money is going to
go to the borders of the City of -- old city limits of Augusta and we're not
fighting that. What we're trying to do is -- it's kind of misleading the way
it's on the agenda. This money is for the City of Blythe. Well, my concern
isn't so much as with the City of Blythe government, my concern is the
isolated cases that are the citizens of the City of Blythe who are going to
slip through the cracks.
And sure enough, they may not have supported consolidation; they didn't
get the opportunity to vote on it. But this is not so much as for the city
government of Blythe, I'd like that clarified, this is for the city residents.
And there are only a few cases and we're probably not talking about but a few
thousand dollars, if they even qualify. All we don't want is the door slammed
in the citizens' face. We're not advocating this and pursuing this for the
city government of Blythe, we're looking out for the citizens who are also
citizens of Augusta-Richmond County, and they pay taxes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Ys, sir, Mr. Mayor. I would like to suggest we do either
one of two things: talk to our legislators, either Burke County take Blythe
or either Richmond County take Blythe. Either one. Because what little bit
of people left at the line, it doesn't matter. So either we should give them
Blythe or either Blythe should come into Richmond County, because there's not
that many people across the line either way to make any difference. So that's
something we need to look at.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, in response to one of the questions that was
brought up as far as the income of that area, I understand that there was a
study done in about 1990. And I don't have a copy of that, but I've been
talking to some people who have viewed that documented, and my understanding
is -- my understanding is that for the 30815 ZIP code, which is everything
south of Tobacco Road, that that's the highest per capita income in ZIP code
in Richmond County, and that includes Hephzibah and Blythe.
Another point is the City of Hephzibah Council will be meeting next
Monday, so they'll bring back a similar one at the next meeting. We're voting
on Blythe today. I'd like to reiterate that what we're looking at here is
individual homeowners who may have applied to our housing development
authority for assistance. We're not talking giving money to the governments
of these two entities but for individual homeowners who may have problems with
poor living conditions that could be -- that they could be assisted in.
As far as in regard to whether or not these people were included in the
population in applying for these funds, obviously they were not, but given the
income of these cities I'm not sure you would want them to be. If it
increased the mean income, then my thinking would be we'd probably not have
any new funds available as if we had not. So I would hope that the gentlemen
of this Commission would support this motion to allow the residents of Blythe
to apply for these funds. And once again, we're not -- we're probably not
talking but a few thousand dollars, ten thousand dollars, something in that
regard. We're certainly not talking about punching a hole in two-point-nine
million. But I would hope we'd vote it up one way or -- up or down and I hope
you'll support the motion.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll withdraw my motion, Mr. Mayor.
MR. MACK: Let me just mention one other thing in terms of the waiting
list. Even if the Commissioners voted in favor of this, we have a waiting
list of about one hundred and ninety people, so it would be sometime within
the next two, maybe three years before anyone from Hephzibah or Blythe would
even be affected.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Mr. Mack a question before we leave
Blythe?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Sure.
MR. MAYS: And this came up, Keven, yesterday in the early session at
GMA, and we were taking a poll in that particular meeting of population. And
I guess one of the questions -- Savannah people and Augusta people were the
only people there in terms of that particular meeting of large populations.
They were down from about three fifty to five hundred probably to a maximum of
about five thousand.
What I'm getting to [inaudible], and maybe I'm optimistic about this. I
think to a certain extent some of the smaller outlying areas -- and I have no
problem with what you may be able to deal with in assistance, but I think
competing in that same pot, I think they are leaving possible monies on the
table if you don't ever go after them. And there were communities there that
are the same size as Blythe, same size as Hephzibah, that have done remarkable
things in Georgia in their communities that have worked through similar groups
as that. And whether they've gotten support from the larger city or group in
that metro or not, you know, those groups such as their regional development
council have seen to them getting the time, centers and other things that
maybe out of that pocket we've not gotten on a larger scale.
So I think to a certain extent not -- and this is not to discourage them
from coming to that part of it, but I think they're actually leaving some
things untried on the table. Now, I'm not saying coming to us with a
resolution is a wrong thing, but I just think it's a better thing if they had
not pursued certain other avenues. Because there were a lot of happy people
in that room, and that both GMA's group, Mr. Mayor, and through some of them
that -- whether they've been through ACCG's arm, those little communities have
worked tough in there, have gotten centers built, they've got other things
built. And what I'm looking at is that that [inaudible] some things I know
they want to do in Blythe there with the recreational monies.
I just don't want to leave anything out there on the table. Rather than
getting into that war and competing where they were not in the equation with
CDBG monies, if y'all could give some help, and that would possibly push them
some and encouraging Tim and those maybe together to work with it and going
after a different pot, then maybe that's not even been done. And, you know,
maybe they have done some things, but I think they are the ones that need to
say what they've applied for and been turned down or where they stand with
some of those avenues, because I still think there's some money out there that
they are not going after. And the reason why I say that, there were groups
there of their same size and they weren't in the mix.
MR. MACK: Well, let me respond to that, Mr. Mays. Most of you all know
I worked at the Regional Development Center for about sixteen years before I
came into the former county, and at one point the regional development centers
were involved in housing. But from my understanding, they decided to get out
of the housing business, and so did most regional development centers that
were area planning development commissions at the time. But I will tell you
this, one of the reasons that I understand that they got out of it is because
housing and the housing rehabilitation process is so complex that -- you're
dealing with so many processes that, you know, they just decided to get out.
Another thing is that RDC's are prohibited from getting into the involvement
of direct services, and that's one of the prohibitions against RDC's and one
of the other reasons why I think they elected to get out of the housing
business.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. MAYS: Somebody told a tale then, Keven.
MR. TODD: Over a number of years the former City of Augusta--and I
think this is relevant to a population of less than fifty thousand--received
money directly from the federal government, and it was supposed to been at
least fifty thousand or above. That's water under the bridge. They basically
used the population of the metropolitan area for most of the federal grants
they got direct. But certainly the population of Richmond County would've had
to been used to receive money direct, or we're in big trouble, and I'm not
sure that we're not in big trouble. I think that we spent money historically
not quite proper and I don't know how we can justify it. The money is
supposed to be spent in the blighted areas and to create low to moderate
income jobs, which you can do that on Riverwalk if you do your paperwork right
and your numbers are right, et cetera.
I think we have problems in all areas. I don't think that the City of
Blythe -- and I'm not familiar with a hundred percent of the Burke County
side, but if we're talking about Richmond County side I don't think they have
a lot of blighted area and I don't think they have a lot of low income
residents, a few. If I'm looking at the City of Hephzibah, I don't think they
have a lot of blighted areas, I don't think they have a lot of low to moderate
income, so I don't see what this is going to hurt to include them. Their
population has probably been counted anyway. I would almost bet you if I
looked at numbers -- in order to quality now I think you've got to be over two
hundred thousand to go direct. So if that's the case, if I'm looking at the
census numbers, then I don't think we quite make it. There was a projection
of 1994 or '95 that said we were somewhere around, I believe it's a hundred
and ninety-six thousand or somewhere there in the entire county. So we may
need to include everybody and count everybody. But I'm going to vote for this
motion because basically I feel that it's not going to have a negative impact
against the blighted areas. And if I was worried about whether the money is
spent in blighted areas in the inner-city, I would worry more about what's
been spent on Riverwalk and what's been spent from here to Broad Street versus
what's been spent where it was supposed to go and what we put the application
in for and those folks that we used to get the money, but when the money come
in we didn't share the money with them. I would be concerned about that
versus the other, and I'm talking about pre-1996 -- January 1, 1996. I think
it's important to understand that there is individuals trying to or may have
already filed [inaudible]. There is individuals that is concerned and have
wrote to HUD IG from that side. And there is individuals that's going to make
darn sure that this body spend the money for what it's supposed to spend it
for, and that is for blighted areas, low to moderate income creating jobs, and
for zone enforcement. There's criteria that it's supposed to be used for,
that's what it should be used for, and if Blythe qualify or Hephzibah qualify,
then so be it.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, MAYS & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 49, please?
CLERK: Item 49 is appointments to various Authorities, Boards and
Commissions. Mr. Todd would like to place in nomination on the Richmond
County Public Facilities Oscar Eugene Sims. And you also have a letter from
Mr. Edward Goode, Coordinator of the Indigent Care Office, recommending Sam
Cruse be appointed to a three-year term on the Indigent Defense Tripartite
Committee.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: My question to Mr. Oliver, as far as the Indigent Defense
Committee, do we have any say as far as the nominee or does that come from the
courts?
MR. OLIVER: I can't answer that question. I think that communication
went directly to the Mayor and Ms. Bonner and I was not aware of that until
today. I'd be glad, if you'd like to defer that for -- till the next meeting,
I'd be glad to look into that for you.
MR. TODD: I'm going to make a motion that we approve Mr. Sims and defer
the other one until the next regular Commission meeting.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? Do we have a
second?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, I'll second it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 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: Next item?
CLERK: A) Appoint three members to the Economic Opportunity Authority.
EOA recommends Reverend Ted Dennis, Mr. Oscar Brown, and Ms. Jackie Harris.
MR. MAYS: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham [sic], seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, how are appointments made to this? Do they
make their own appointments or do we get the opportunity to do that or?
MR. OLIVER: You can -- that is in the background material. One of the
questions that we raised in the background material is -- what they have done
is, this is a voluntary agency, they have elected to request six public sector
nominees or members to that agency, and those have previously fallen to the
City of Augusta to appoint. You all are under no obligation to appoint anyone
to this board. That's a decision that you all make. I mean, obviously there
are times, depending upon what the board is and what they stand for, that
that's in your best interest. As I understand it, you can appoint anyone you
believe to be most appropriate to fill this position.
MR. BRIDGES: This is a voluntary board, though, it's not a government -
- it's not an entity of the government?
MR. OLIVER: No, it is not an entity of the government.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think this somewhat falls in the area as some of
the other boards that's not a point of the -- part of the government. And,
you know, you got Soil Conservation and some other ones out there. This is a
board that do a lot of good. We had a problem as far as the entity go several
years ago that involved a director that it's my understanding is no longer
there and we stopped funding this entity. And I don't think there's any
request here for funding, I think basically they're requesting board
appointees. They receive most of their money
from the federal government, if not all of it, and maybe some from the state.
They do a lot of good in Project Head Start. They have probably one of the
best Project Head Start facilities or programs in the state. And so certainly
I'm going to support the nominees.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I hate to correct you, but that was Mr.
Mays' nominations, not mine. The other thing is I -- since Mr. Todd spoke I
got some of my answers. I wasn't real sure who funded this organization, and
if we funded it I would be more concerned over making appointments and of not
knowing how they spent the money.
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: Next item, please?
CLERK: The next item is a discussion regarding replacing the Audit
Committee with the full Commission and direct the Internal Auditor, the
Administrator and staff to prepare a three-year audit work plan.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver, do we even have an Internal Auditor?
MR. OLIVER: I sent out a communication to you approximately a week and
a half ago. Based on our last legal meeting you had requested that I talk
with Baird and Company, which I did. In that communication I indicated to you
that they were not receptive to what you had proposed, and so I think that
kind of closes the chapter on that issue unless you want to come back and make
an alternate offer. I think -- I left it with Mr. Cosnahan that he would have
to take whatever action he deemed to be appropriate for his company.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we table this until
after the legal session.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to table, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we might as well
table 51, too, hadn't we?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Matter of fact, why don't we just table all of these
until after the legal meeting and come back and do that. Is that all right
with y'all, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, I'll amend that motion to do --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Now I need a motion to go into a legal
meeting.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING, 5:05 - 6:30 P.M.] CLERK: ...we have Items
52 and 53.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all want to adjourn before we have the rest of the
items? I didn't hear a second, Mr. Todd.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second.
MR. HANDY: If you need a second, I'll sure give you one. Yes, sir, we
need to go back and pray about this one.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got a motion and a second to adjourn.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. OLIVER: Do you want to formalize anything on the Internal Audit?
MR. HANDY: No. Don't want to do nothing.
MR. POWELL: Let's take -- let's vote on it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of adjourning, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
[VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute, somebody didn't vote. Did I miscount,
Lena?
CLERK: No, sir, they didn't. That's all that went up.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's a no vote. We got a meeting, let's go on. Item
50, please?
CLERK: Item 50 is discussion regarding replacing the Audit Committee
with the Full Commission and direct the Internal Auditor, Administrator and
staff to prepare a three-year audit work plan.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MR. HANDY VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 51, please?
CLERK: Discussion regarding assignment of work to Internal Auditor.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion, since we've had a
conflict for a while, that we reinstitute our relationship with Cherry,
Bekaert and Holland, with Kip Plowman being the representative for that firm
to provide the internal audit service for this government.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke, do I hear a second?
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is there an escape clause in this contract we're
fixing to draw?
MR. KUHLKE: It already is.
MR. TODD: So we're going to assign work or we're hiring them -- they're
already on board, so we're going to assign the work to them to do?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Ms. Bonner, will you read the motion for me? I want to make
sure that I understand.
CLERK: The motion is to engage Cherry, Bekaert and Holland, with Kip
Plowman being the key person.
MR. KUHLKE: I think they're already engaged, I believe, at this point.
MR. BRIDGES: We're just reaffirming that.
MR. KUHLKE: We're just reaffirming that, Lena, with Kip Plowman as
being the representative from that firm.
MR. TODD: So if I understand the motion, it is to assign the work to
Cherry, Bekaert and Holland, with Kip Plowman being the key person they'll --
MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I don't understand the necessity of that. I
thought we already had an agreement with Cherry, Bekaert and Holland that
already stated all of this, and I don't understand why we're having to
reaffirm this.
MR. KUHLKE: Because it's been kind of cloudy, Mr. Brigham.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, the last vote of this Commission, we haven't ever
rescinded that agreement.
MR. BRIDGES: I think the key person provision is -- might not have been
in the original one. Although it was in the motion and debates, I think that
was deemphasized.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. We can either vote it
up or down and move on, at least from --
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. As I read the agenda
item, it is to -- regarding assigning work assignment, and the wording seem to
go a little further. If I have the understanding, if it don't go any further
than assigning work -- doing that work assignment I can support it. If it has
to do with modifying or amending an existing contract, then I cannot support
it, period.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Todd, why don't you make the motion, then I'll second
it; okay? I just want them to go to work. I think in Item Number 50 we're
going to get a three-year plan developed for us. What I want is an Internal
Auditor to go to work, and -- based on the plan that we develop and approve.
And if it's just continuing with the existing contract we got, with Mr.
Plowman representing Cherry, Bekaert and Holland, that's all I'm interested
in.
MR. TODD: Will you accept an amendment to just -- you know, just assign
the work to Cherry, Bekaert and Holland?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Just a question. For the record, we sent Mr. Oliver
out to get some information, and I think for this record he ought to give us a
report on what happened in that.
MR. OLIVER: I did a written memorandum to you all, but let me summarize
that for the record. At your request in the last legal session, I contacted
Mr. Cosnahan with Baird and Company regarding the possibility of extending the
internal -- as a compromise, extending the internal audit contract through
this year and then providing for a termination provision in the contract that
would run through next year, but with some form of a termination provision,
either thirty, sixty or ninety days as it relates to being able to get out of
that contract as directed. Mr. Cosnahan indicated that their firm would be
unwilling to do that, and so I indicated based on my discussions with this
group that, you know, we would not be in a position to proceed in any manner.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, HANDY & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 52, please?
CLERK: 52. Are we skipping 52?
MAYOR SCONYERS: No, I said 52. I'm sorry.
CLERK: Okay, I'm sorry. Ratify the Grant from the Georgia Department
of Community Affairs in the amount of $80,000 and authorize disbursement to
organizations.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Beard.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 53, please?
CLERK: 53 is a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held June 27th.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion to adjourn?
MR. TODD: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
[MEETING CONCLUDED]
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 the Augusta
Commission held on July 2, 1997.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission