Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-1999 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS April 6, 1999 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, April 6, 1999, the Honorable Lee Beard, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, and Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND WILLIAMS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. I would just like to let you know MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: at this time that the Mayor is in Atlanta. He is going with the Red Carpet Tour and he's having dinner with the Governor, so he won't be able to make it this afternoon. For the record, we just wanted to indicate where he would be today. Madame Clerk? Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the CLERK: Commission, we have a request to delete Item 45, delete Item 66, and add "Approve employee salary increases to be effective with the pay period commencing October 9th" for our addendum agenda. Who pulled Item 45? MR. KUHLKE: The IT Department came over today to ask that it CLERK: be removed from the agenda and placed on the Administrative Services Committee. Can I ask why? MR. KUHLKE: We pulled this item because it was our MR. HEWITT: understanding that all new hires were supposed to go through Administrative Services. But we have since understood from Mr. Oliver that for items to be pulled from the agenda, the committee that voted to have it put on the agenda would have to vote to remove it. No, the Mayor and Commission have the vote MR. OLIVER: to delete anything from the agenda. Page 2 It is still our intent and request to MR. HEWITT: acquire the two positions. We were just under the impression we went through the wrong committee. If I may, Mr. Beard, I'd like to-- MR. HANDY: I think he had something else. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: No, all I want to say is that I'm not going MR. KUHLKE: to vote to delete 45 from the agenda. That's what I was going to say. We're going MR. HANDY: to leave it on. Ms. Bonner, please would you go over those numbers again? What we are deleting? Item 66, regarding the CLERK: Transit service at Fort Gordon. 66a? MR. HANDY: No, sir, 66. CLERK: 66. Okay, I got it. Okay, what else? MR. HANDY: And we're adding the item regarding the pay CLERK: increases. Why couldn't the pay increase go through a MR. HANDY: committee? Why didn't it go through a committee? That was requested by Commissioner Bridges to be CLERK: placed on the agenda today. That is to--what's planned to come up. We MR. BRIDGES: were going to meet again before the next Commission meeting and then bring it forward to the April 20th meeting, but some of the Commissioners would like for it to be on this agenda, so I asked that we vote for this as an add-on to the agenda. But for what reason? MR. HANDY: Well, I think it's probably pertinent at MR. BRIDGES: this time based on the information that's there and it's ready. The Administrator has done what we've asked him to do, and this would be the opportune time to present that rather than just delay it two more weeks. A matter of clarification, Ms. Bonner. MR. KUHLKE: Item 66 is being postponed until our next meeting? Yes, sir, until the April 20th agenda. CLERK: Page 3 I think the reason for that, Mr. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Kuhlke, was that the people could not be here today. Mr. Mayor, the addendum agenda is Item 66 and CLERK: the personnel issue. MR. KUHLKE:So move. Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I don't necessarily want to MR. BRIDGES: pull Number 47, but I'd like to ask the Fire Chief a question on that if I could. That concerns the fire trucks. We haven't gotten to the consent agenda yet. CLERK: This is just to add on and delete. All right. I'm sorry. MR. BRIDGES: Are there any questions or MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: discussion? All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Next item, Madame Clerk. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Under Special Recognitions, we have a CLERK: proclamation today honoring Mr. Richard Dyson, a retiring board member of the Board of Elections. Mr. Dyson, would you please join the Mayor Pro Tem at the podium, please? In recognition of Mr. Richard Dyson's faithful service to the Board of Elections: Whereas Mr. Richard Dyson was appointed to the Board of Elections by the Richmond County Democratic Party on August 15th, 1990, to fill the unexpired term of Robert L. Allgood; and whereas upon completion of the unexpired term Mr. Dyson went on to complete two full four- year terms as a member of the Board; and whereas during his tenure on the Board of Elections Mr. Dyson assisted with the preparation, tabulation, and consolidation of 34 elections; and whereas Mr. Dyson served as Vice President of the Board and as Acting Chairman from September 23rd, 1997 to May 18th, 1998; and whereas Mr. Dyson set the example for other Board members by his demonstration of nonpartisan leadership and dedicated service of the office staff; now therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do declare April 6, 1999, Richard Dyson Day and hereby call upon and urge all citizens to recognize Mr. Richard Dyson for his outstanding faithful service to the Richmond County Board of Elections. Page 4 Mr. Dyson, on behalf of the MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Commissioners and the Mayor, we want to publicly thank you for all you do for our city and we want to congratulate you on receiving this recognition. [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] Next, the Mayor and the Augusta Commission would CLERK: like to honor Paine College, Coach Spry, and members of the Paine College Basketball Team. In recognition of the 1998/99 Paine College Men's Basketball Team: Whereas Paine College finished second in the eastern division; and whereas McDaniel Young received All Tournament Honors in the Augusta State Christmas Classic and the Augusta State-Paine College Classic; and whereas Paine College's 73-57 victory over Clarke-Atlanta University won them the Southern Intercollegiate Athletics Conference Championship; and whereas Maurice Wright was named Tournament Most Valuable Player, McDaniel Young was named to the All Tournament Team, and Ronnie Spry was named Tournament Coach of the Year; and whereas Paine College won an automatic bid to the NCAA Division II Tournament in Memphis, Tennessee; and whereas Paine College ranked ninth in the nation in the Sheraton Black College Poll; and whereas Maurice Wright will represent Paine College in the Black College All Star Basketball Classic in Baltimore, Maryland, on April 10, 1999; now therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do declare April 6, 1999, Paine College Men's Basketball Day and hereby call upon and urge all citizens to join with me in congratulating the members of the team and its coaching staff for an outstanding season. We just want to congratulate Coach MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Spry and his team. They have done an exceptional job for our city and for Paine College, and we want to thank you for all you do for our city. And we know you have done this well for years, and we're just happy to see you win the championship. Thank you very much. COACH SPRY: [A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.] Is Mr. Dave Barbee here, please? CLERK: Thank you. It's a pleasure to address all MR. BARBEE: of you today, Mayor Pro Tem and the rest of the Commissioners. I've met all of you. This sort of sets a little precedence, that something that the Republican Party had done was make a statement concerning an issue that has been brought forth by Page 5 the people and something that this Commission voted on, which was the Management Study where it would give the governing body a consolidation and opportunity to save $2.8 million for the people of Richmond County. This is a resolution that we adopted at our County Convention on the 20th day of March, and let me read this to you, this resolution. Whereas the Richmond County Republican Party has long championed the cause of efficiencies in government; and whereas the Augusta-Richmond County Commission authorized a study of staffing and operations by the Association of County Commissioners, Georgia's consultants, DMG Maximum; whereas there were many recommendations made by the consultants to reduce the cost of operating our government of Augusta- Richmond County; therefore we, the Republican Party, urge that the Mayor and the Commission implement the cost savings that will not reduce the services to the citizens of Richmond County but will reduce the cost of operations. Passed this 20th day of March 1999 by the Richmond County Republican Convention in Augusta, Georgia. David M. Barbee, Chairman. I think it's important, and that's what we're asking. We're looking at--there are some things that's happened since this study has been passed, and I said that Saturday morning all of you got a preview of this. And we're sitting here with the Governor passing something that's going to take $500,000 out of the budget. We're looking at in 12 months that you're going to come to the people of the city and ask them for a one percent sales tax and to renew that. And then we have a guideline to save $2.8 million, and it's your duty to be prudent and frugal with the taxpayers' money. And I thank you for this time and appreciate it. Okay, Mr. Barbee. Thank you for MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: your input and your suggestion. Could we get a motion to receive this-- MR. HANDY:Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to receive what Mr. Barbee just explained to us for information only. Second. MR. BRIDGES: It's been moved and properly MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: seconded we receive this as information. Are there any questions or discussion? Yes, Mr. Mayor. And I have no problem with MR. MAYS: waiting and won't ask for any personal privilege, but Item 73 is an item that I had placed on the agenda, and because Mr. Barbee came first and I guess my item came last--and they are Page 6 in the proper order--which says to discuss time and place for review of Management Study. And it's true that we have had the presentation to us on behalf of that study, and I'm glad that citizens and groups are concerned about what road we take from here with it. I can wait until after we finish everything else in terms of discussing it, but since he was here on behalf of that, I think before this day is over with we need to set some time parameter of dealing with a meeting or meetings to discuss what we are going to do with the items that are contained within that particular study. Now, I've heard that we have passed it. We have received a report of that study; we commissioned that study. But there are things within that study that I think we need to discuss as a Commission and to line-item decipher whether or not we are going with those proposals or whether or not we're going to reject some of them or whether we're going to do something in-between in terms of some type of compromise in terms of what the study says. But I do agree that we need to get back to talking about it, because the worst thing that can happen is that we implement or not implement parts of the study or all of the study or none of the study by reason of default. And I hate to see us piecemealing it, coming back with different departments weekly because of what the study said, when this Commission has not itself sat down and gone through the items that are contained in that Management Study, and we need to pick a time and a place to do so. And I had discussed that at the end of this week or we can move 73 here now, but I think at some point we need to quit talking about what the study says and what we are doing. We have not yet followed the action as to whether or not we are going to do that, and I think at some point this government has to move in that direction way one or the other. Mr. Mays, would you like to MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: [inaudible] that maybe the Administrator could select a date that we all could come in to review that? I'll yield to Mr. Kuhlke. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Oliver, I thought that we MR. KUHLKE: had previously decided that we were going to meet for three days in June: the 4th, 5th, and 6th. That's correct. As a result of the meeting MR. OLIVER: that we had in Atlanta because of the conference that was there, the consensus of the Commission was that there be a retreat set for the 4th, 5th, and 6th. And obviously this will be one of the topics, but, in addition to that, part of the strategy there is to develop a long-range--a short- and a long-range plan for where we want to be in the next year, the next three years, the next five years. Page 7 I have no problem with us on the retreat MR. MAYS: dates; but, again, I get back to what I call implementation by means of neglect. If we're going to move to June, then we should not act under the auspices that we have approved every facet of the study and that we are moving along. If that be the case, then we need to speed up the June timetable and then deal with that. If not, then we need to lay that item to rest and we need to deal with those items accordingly. But what is happening with this government, we are moving ahead with various departments as though the study has been deciphered, as though we have totally passed it, and that we are going to agree with everything that's in it, carte blanch, and that that's the way that we are moving. We've heard a lot this year about, you know, wagging the dog. We need to decide whether or not the tail of this government is going to wag here or whether the dog is going to wag the tail. We're the policymakers, we're supposed to be the dogs. Now, if we're going to decide that that's what we're going to do, then we either need to wait till June and start those parts of implementation--I realize there can be exceptions to a particular rule under an emergency, and I don't mind dealing with those exceptions and emergencies. But I think to wait until June, if we're going to do that, then let's quit having folk proceed to this microphone--and I don't care what department they come from, let them stop coming saying what the study says, because in that means it means that we are implementing before we've decided what to do. Then if we go back and we've had this much discussion on the basis before we even sit down and have the retreat, then we, in turn, regardless of party, Dave, we all begin to look like jackasses if we've implemented something that we've not talked about in its full entirety. And that's all I'm saying, either stop dealing with the going-ons of a study which has not been totally discussed or let's talk about it prior to. Now, we can't do it both ways. Well, I'd just like to make one point here. MR. OLIVER: Obviously a lot of these suggestions weren't made by the consultant in a vacuum, and a large number of them, in fact, came from your department directors because they were things that they were either in the process of working on, thought may have some validity to them, and that, I know--for example, Mr. Murphy in Public Works has been working for a couple of months on a reorganization in Public Works to make that operation more effective. So part of these things would be what I would think would be in the normal course of business. The only thing is, is that the consultant looked at it and they determined that they felt that that was a good idea and, as a result of that, they incorporated it. I think it would be a good idea to talk about the study and how to do it, but Page 8 to look at the pieces--I think it probably would be better, rather than to look at the whole thing at once, to break it into pieces. And my suggestion to the Mayor and Commission would be to break it into pieces by committee so that Recreation and Parks, for example, Mr. Mays, would go back to your committee because that committee would have the most knowledge about that particular area. Public Works would go back to Engineering Services and things like that. I have no problem with how we do it, I'm just MR. MAYS: concerned that at some point in the history we do do it. And in mentioning that about department heads, there is a concern that I would like to address and I wouldn't go into it because of those who probably would like to remain anonymous. But we talk about the suggestions of department heads, but when you've got them singing to the tune of unsynchronized canaries to a point that some of the things they read in the study that they did not suggest, I think that leaves us things that we need to sit down and talk about what's in the study. Because if they head the department and they didn't discuss it, then I'd like to know at what time and with whom--who put it in. And that's my reason for saying we need to get about the business, whether it's in pieces, one at a time, by committee, I'll leave that to you to decide. I don't have a problem when or how, but at some point we need to [inaudible]. Well, why don't, Mr. Mays, we let MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Oliver come up with a suggestion as to that, because we do have a motion on the floor we need to take care of. Mr. Mayor, are we making the motion to MR. SHEPARD: have that come back to us and deal with Item Number 73 now? Is that the intent of the motion? I'm not committed to anything being written MR. MAYS: in stone, unlike what I usually ask, Mr. Mayor, but this particular item I think the Administrator needs the flexibility. If those dates are fine with him and the procedure for doing that, I have no problem with he and his office setting that up and doing it. But I just wanted to bring it to our attention in this type of forum that while we hear so much going on about the study and the rule as such that we will be going by--and naturally when you talk about cost savings, those things should be discussed, but we also ought to weigh that against also--and I think Mr. Barbee would agree that you're talking about savings, but you also have to talk about what level of service equates with those services that are written in and whether or not those things--and some magic number just will automatically pop up $2.8 million that you have somewhere in surplus or whether or not you do a disservice in some areas by what you may be putting in. And Page 9 those are the things that policymakers, the dogs as such, need to discuss. So I'll yield with that, and whatever date that the Administrator puts together I have no problem with. I will put something together. MR. OLIVER: Okay. Do we want to put that in MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: the form of--Mr. Shepard? MR. SHEPARD:Mr. Mayor, in addition to receiving Mr. Barbee's resolution as information, I'd make in the form of a substitute motion the the original motion, but I'd also ask that Mr. Mays' scheduling concerns in reference to Item 73 be included in there and the Administrator schedule it at an appropriate time, and let's just go ahead and deal with Number 73 now by means of this motion, which would take care of both items. Well, I think 73 has been dealt MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: with. Or do you need to discuss that at another time, Mr. Mays? I have no problem with Steve's substitute MR. MAYS: going forward and then leaving the discretion, you know, with regard to Mr. Oliver doing it. I have no problem with that. That would take care of 73 is my point. MR. SHEPARD: We've talked about it, let's do it. We need a second. CLERK: I'll second it. MR. MAYS: Okay. It's been moved and MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: properly seconded. Are there any questions? More discussion? All in favor, let it be known-- Wait a minute, Mr. Beard. Why would we need MR. HANDY: a substitute motion? Because your motion didn't deal with 73. CLERK: Well, then all you had to ask is could you MR. HANDY: put it with it and amend it, then you wouldn't have to go through all this. But no one asked, so I'll drop my motion and then we'll have one motion. Thank you, Mr. Handy. Are we MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: ready to vote? MOTION CARRIES 10-0. Page 10 The next item--our addendum agenda, sir? Is CLERK: that what you wanted? Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: The addendum agenda is to approve the increases CLERK: as listed on the addendum caption. MR. BRIDGES:Move for approval. Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Bridges, I just saw this today, but in MR. KUHLKE: regards to employees, department heads, the effective date of all of these would be October of this year? That's correct. MR. BRIDGES: None of the department heads then could MR. H. BRIGHAM: come prior to that? As it says in the motion, that's a policy MR. OLIVER: decision that you all need to weigh, you know, the advantages and the disadvantages of. On one hand you have department directors that I think have done a good job. I think what is proposed here is a good thing. But on the other hand, if you treat them differently than the rest of the employee population, you know, there are going to be some people who are going to have a difficult time understanding that. But that's a decision that you all have to make based upon the merits. Mr. Mayor, for reasons of record, I think I'd CLERK: probably better read this into the record: Approve 1999 employee salary increases to be effective with the pay period commencing October 9, 1999 (checks to be distributed October 22, 1999) within the following guidelines: (A) 1.5% cost of living increases to all full-time employees employed with Augusta-Richmond County on or before September 30, 1998, including the indexing of compensation brackets; (B) An allocation of funds equal to 1.5% of each Department's ARC payroll to be used for pay for performance increases for regular full-time employees. This is to be distributed based on their job performance as recommended by each Department Director and approved by the Administrator; (C) An allocation of funds equal to 5% of all Directors' compensation to increase Department Directors' compensation as determined by the Administrator based on their job performance. The date of implementation for cost of living and pay for performance Page 11 increases for Department Directors will be determined by the Mayor and Commission. Does everybody understand that? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Any questions? I've got a question. If this is to be MR. HANDY: determined by the Mayor and Commission, then why the October date then? I don't understand that. Mr. Bridges suggested that it be October. MR. OLIVER: Actually it's October the 9th, but October for all employees is the way I understood what he said. Well, what about the statement she just MR. HANDY: read, what that mean? Or am I looking at it wrong? No, you're looking at it perfectly MR. OLIVER: correctly, and I think that's what Mr. Henry Brigham's question related to. Right. That's what we discussed in MR. H. BRIGHAM: committee. Wait a minute now, Randy. Now I'm MR. BRIDGES: confused on this statement then. So you're saying the last sentence there negates the first sentence? No, the last sentence--there is division MR. OLIVER: within the committee as to what the effective date, from what I understand from you all, should be for the department directors. Some people feel one way and some people feel another way, and that's an issue that you all have to weigh the merits of and make a decision. And the way I understood your motion, Mr. Bridges, was that they would all be effective at the same time in October. That's correct, but what you're saying now MR. BRIDGES: is the last sentence negates all that. No, not the way that you phrased your MR. OLIVER: motion. If you want--the way that I understand your motion, and here are the two options before you, would be to make them all occur at one time or to make the department director changes occur at a different time than the rest of the employee population. My motion did not intend to make the MR. BRIDGES: department directors' increase at a different time. It's all to be at one time, to avoid any confusion, hard feelings, that type of thing, from the other regular employees. Page 12 In committee I think that we were MR. H. BRIGHAM: divided on this, but I thought we left committee saying that Mr. Oliver would come back to us with some kind of recommendation that he thought that he could enforce or help rule on or what have you. Now, if that's not the case, I'm not so sure that we included that everybody ought to come in on October 1 or October 9. I think you're right, Mr. Brigham, there MR. BRIDGES: was disagreement on when it should be effective. We asked Randy to--basically that was the only point of disagreement. It wasn't over the percentage, it wasn't over anything else. My motion is to accept this with it being all at one time, on October the 9th, which is when the increases are normally given. Basically Randy really had nothing left to bring back to the subcommittee and that was a policy decision that we would have to make. So my motion was to make it effective on October the 9th. Right, because it would still have to MR. H. BRIGHAM: come back to us; is that not true? No, sir, not after today. If there is an MR. OLIVER: action taken in this regard, that would adopt it if it was passed. Well, Randy, I think the problem MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: is here that when we talk about the directors--and that's what we're concerned with at this point would be only the directors, and at that time the Commissioners would decide when that part would be enforced--when the update would be enforced, and that was the whole gist of that. And it looks like it's still in October unless the full Commission vote on that particular time when we make that decision. That's absolutely true. If you want, you MR. OLIVER: could leave that window open. But, you know, theoretically, with this language, I mean, you could be in a potential position that the others would be done and this wouldn't be, if for whatever reason this language-- Well, I think it's still a matter MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: of what the Commissioners will decide on. And we're talking about the directors. We're not talking about all employees, we're just talking about directors and ones that you would decide on. And that, again, is your prerogative MR. OLIVER: whether you wish to deal with what date you want that to be effective today or at some time in the future. Page 13 Right, because it would take the MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: whole Commissioners, the body, to make that determination. Mr. Mayor, my question is concerning MR. J. BRIGHAM: the finances, as to where is the money coming from? That's not addressed, as usual, in the motion. It's budgeted as of the October the 9th MR. OLIVER: date as part of the '99 budget. The extra 5% is already in the budget? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, because of what we budgeted. We MR. OLIVER: actually budgeted it at 3½ and we have 3 on this agenda item, so funds are available. During the committee meeting I thought MR. COLCLOUGH: that we discussed that. You know, we brought the same problem up that if we did something for one group of employees, the other group of employees would be on the offensive. I thought we discussed it in committee that, you know, the directors are a separate entity from the regular line staff, and I think we need to treat them--if you're going to hire and retain good directors, I think we need to look at that staff as a different entity rather than the line staff. And I think that they need to be compensated, you know, for what they do and I don't think--I think it needs to be left up to the Mayor and Commission on when and how they are compensated. I thought that was my understanding. My recollection is you're correct, Mr. MR. OLIVER: Colclough. I think there were two Commissioners that believe that way. Because originally this was going to come back to this subcommittee an hour before, I think, the next Commission meeting, I think was what Mr. Bridges asked for. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to get into every one of MR. MAYS: these dog fights today, but I got a few more down the road on here and I didn't want to be in the middle of all of them. But, you know, I think if we budgeted it in, you know, I'm not clear what the--and I agree with my colleague here to my left in terms of his concern of where the money was coming from because that's your first item when you're talking about what you're going to do with bringing these folk up. But if the answer to that question is that it's budgeted in, if somebody can tell me, whether it's the maker of the motion or anybody, what difference does the magical date of October make versus the magical date, quite frankly, of tomorrow or yesterday if you're doing it--and with that, Mr. Mayor, I think we need to, quite frankly, quit BS-ing about what we're talking about and Page 14 dealing with. If we're using this as a measure to rectify some situations and to bring some departmental head people with where we think they ought to be, then I think we need to quit the political game of dealing with the fall in this measure. We're hiring two new folks today probably that are very much needed in this government. We're going to move ahead and to hire them. One of my objections in terms of trying to delay this was hoping that we would get all this type stuff settled at one time. Now I see us floating back to October with this, and I'm not going to stand here today and punish a department for what it needs to get in terms of doing right now. But, you know, if this is a lamb motion that's out here--looking like a lamb and it's smelling like a skunk because you're dealing with putting something here for dealing with October, and the whole world can change with this government by the time you get around to October. We're in a dilemma as to what we're going to deal with in terms of Emergency Management. I hear talks about folk we can't miss, we got to hire folk and bring them on board with this body because they're too good to lose, but yet we keep putting off folk that we got on board and obviously in some ways not giving a damn whether they stay on or not. We're looking to having to try and deal with that right now in the case of where do we go from here in terms of with Emergency Management. Whether we stay within or whether we go to somebody else, it's going to cost us some money, and we're missing somebody because we didn't go ahead and deal with that situation at the time we should have been dealing with it. That was the reason why I'm glad we're moving ahead on Item 73 and start talking about the study because it seems as though we're bringing a bunch of this stuff backwards and playing some little political games in here. If we got some folk that we are trying to bring up to snuff that have not been brought into the system that we need to be doing, and if it's budgeted, we don't need to be playing that game of holding that out until October to deal with that. I would much rather kill the motion, not deal with it, and then kill some other things, too, at the same time today, and then maybe some folk will come to their senses. But they want to keep playing these darn games. You know, first it was money, now it's the dates, and, you know, I've been a hog too long to, you know, all of a sudden be insulted and call me a pig. I can see through what's going down here and with a bunch of other things in here. You know, you got a date up in here, then you got a sentence at the bottom that says if the dates--you know, quit playing with it and let's either do what we say where you've got some inequities or let's don't do them at all. If it's budgeted in there, you can give Mr. Oliver the authorization to put them on for the next time that payroll cuts a check. You're increasing what you're doing in IT and I'm sure the machine is smart enough to calculate that, Page 15 put it in and roll it out the next time somebody gets a check, but you're dealing with October. Can you do that? Well, let's do it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mays, were you through? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: I'm through with it. And I'm right where I MR. MAYS: was the day I came out of the hospital, because I started talking about this when I got well enough to come back and raise hell about it. And I'm still raising the same level of hell about it today and hasn't nothing changed, we're just still playing little word associated games. That's what we're doing, and y'all know where I'm coming from with it. Y'all know the persons involved, you know where the inequities are, you know what we decided that we were going to try and do. We're either going to fix them or we're going to leave it alone, but quit playing these numbers games with it. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Based on this MR. HANDY: addendum, the way it is written we cannot separate it like Mr. Bridges wants to separate it. I explained to him he'd have to make a substitute motion to say what he wants on the dates, but according to this, if we vote on this the way it's written, then it's left up to the Mayor and Commission to make the decision on the department heads and the rest of the employees will be out [inaudible]. If you can read it, that's what I said in the beginning. So if we vote on Item 1, then what you're saying is settled. But if we vote on what Mr. Bridges wants, he's going to have to make a substitute motion to state what he wants other than what is printed there because we can't vote on anything that's not [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor, let me explain the motion. The MR. BRIDGES: motion, in effect, was to make this October the 9th, which means that last sentence in here is off of this agenda. Other than that, I don't have any problem with it. That's the motion. And there is an opportunity for somebody to make a substitute motion. I keep on hearing talk about the motion. They don't like it, but they won't make a substitute motion. Well, what we have to do, Mr. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Bridges, is vote the motion up or down and then go from there. So let's have the vote on it. You have to vote the way it's written, MR. HANDY: Bridges. Page 16 I have a motion on the floor. MR. BRIDGES: The motion is what is in the MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: addendum agenda. I think we need to be clear on what everybody MR. WALL: is voting on. Mr. Handy, I mean the motion can vary from what is printed here, and Mr. Bridges has made a motion that is different from what is printed here. His motion would be that all raises, including department directors, would be effective on October 9th. Now, if you want the motion to have the last sentence on there, then Mr. Bridges is correct, there would need to be a substitute motion. Because the motion that's on the floor would put everything in effect October 9th. I want the motion to read, Jim, exactly like MR. HANDY: you asked in the beginning for us to add this item to the agenda. Which we did not exclude that line then, so when it was accepted to go on the agenda, it was accepted in whole. The item was accepted. MR. WALL: In whole, right. MR. HANDY: But, I mean, that doesn't necessary mean that MR. WALL: the motion couldn't vary from this. And all you have to do is make a substitute motion that it be as worded on the-- No, I want to leave it like it is. And if MR. HANDY: anybody change something, I'm going to challenge it because it's already written in there and that's what I voted on. We'll leave it just like the line is down there, and that's what I voted to put on the agenda. I would have to agree with Mr. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Handy now because I think when we accepted it on the agenda, we accepted it as what was written here. Well, you accepted the item to go on the MR. WALL: agenda, which was to do this, but, I mean, that does not bind you to the exact wording of this motion. I mean every agenda item that's in here, I mean, from time to time y'all make adjustments in the way that the motion is actually worded. MR. MAYS:Mr. Mayor, in light of that, if the monies have so been budgeted and are there, I make a motion that the addendum item be approved and that the Administrator be so ordered to work it into Augusta-Richmond County's closest next pay period. That's my substitute motion. Page 17 Just for the department directors; is that MR. OLIVER: correct? MR. MAYS:For the department heads. I second that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: We have a substitute motion on the MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: floor. All in favor of the substitute motion, let it be known by the usual method of voting. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE & SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. The substitute motion fails. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: We'll vote on the original motion. Next is the original motion, with the deletion CLERK: of the line, "The date of implementation for cost of living...be determined by the Mayor and Commission." MESSRS. BEARD, J. BRIGHAM & MAYS VOTE NO. MESSRS. H. BRIGHAM, COLCLOUGH, HANDY & POWELL ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 3-3-4. That motion fails. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: I call for the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: CLERK:The next order of business is the consent agenda, with the consent agenda being Items 1 through 58. FINANCE 1. Motion to approve increasing the Indigent Defense Budget by $120,000 for the Indigent Defense Council, with funds to be taken from General Fund Contingency. 2. Motion to approve authorization of signers on government's bank accounts from within the Finance Department. 3. Motion to approve the disbursement of February 20, 1999 equipment auction funds for the purpose of replacement of vehicles and equipment through the normal bid process. 4. Motion to approve Resolution affirming the necessity of the 911 and the wireless enhanced 911 charges. 5. Motion to approve bid award for $138,415.00 to Southern Power & Equipment for one (1) 50,000 lb. Hydraulic Excavator for the Public Works Department, Roads & Bridges Division (Bid #99-036). 6. Motion to approve bid award for $111,960.00 to Vic's Harley Davidson for eight (8) Police Motorcycles for the Augusta-Richmond County Sheriff's Department (Bid #99-035). Page 18 7. Motion to approve bid award for $23,962.78 to Prime Equipment Company for two (2) Air Compressors, one for the Augusta-Richmond County Landfill and one for the Utilities Department Construction Division (Bid #99-037). 8. Motion to approve $17,500 to purchase a Hewlett Packard DP640 for Accounting Department. 9. Motion to approve award to Bobby Jones Ford as the supplier of compact pickup trucks for all departments for the 1999 model year (Bid #99-016). 10. Motion to approve award to Bobby Jones Ford as the supplier of midsize automobiles for all departments for the 1999 model year (Bid #99-017). 11. Motion to approve award to Bobby Jones Ford as the supplier of passenger vans for all departments for the 1999 model year (Bid #99-018). 12. Motion to approve award to Bobby Jones Ford as the supplier of full-size pickup trucks for all departments for the 1999 model year (Bid #99-019). 13. Motion to approve waiving demolition charges of $1,900 and penalties of $552.48 on properties on Florence Street, Perry Avenue, and Tenth Street (identified in Exhibit A attached), contingent upon proposed transaction closing and a copy of the closing statement furnished to the City Attorney. 14. Motion to approve increase of Tax Assessors' Office '99 Budget by $9,030 to fund additional two (2) members of the board of Tax Assessors, as approved by the Legislative Delegation. These appointments will become effective April 1, 1999. Funded from General Fund Contingency. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 15. Motion to approve letter of support for the Augusta Association of Baptist Churches regarding the World Changers Organization for inner-city improvements. 16. Motion to approve professional services contract for Augusta/Richmond Clean & Beautiful. 17. Motion to approve $30,000 from the Augusta-Richmond County Facade Rehabilitation Grant Program for rehabilitation of the property located at 502 Reynolds Street as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Council. 18. Motion to approve Grant Agreements between the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development and Augusta-Richmond County for receipt of 1999 Community Development Block Grant funds, $2,836,000; 1999 HOME funds, $1,310,000; and 1999 Emergency Shelter Grant funds, $101,000. 19. Motion to approve for the Fire Department to contract with Atlanta Health Systems to provide a wellness program for the firefighters of the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. This will be funded by Account 274-034110- 52-11110. 20. Motion to approve renewal of Public Official Liability Coverage at a cost of $52,000. Page 19 21. Motion to approve renewal of health insurance plans (HMO & PPO & Dental) effective February 1, 2000, with a rate increase of 6% in 2000 and a cap of 7% in 2001, with an increase in the prescription co-pays for both the HMO and PPO; approval renewal of contract with Southern Administrative Services for TPA administration of the PPO and dental plans at an increase of 6% with a cap of 7% in 2001. 22. Motion to approve contract for professional services for architecture and engineering to George R. Price and Associates in the amount of $52,000 for the construction of the Augusta Mini Theatre, subject to approval of Attorney and Administrator. ENGINEERING SERVICES 23. Motion to approve replacement of carpet in the State Court Solicitor's Office by Maintenance Supply Co., Inc., at a cost of $25,337 funded from General Fund Contingency. 24. Motion to approve Environmental Management Associates proposal to perform corrective action annual groundwater sampling for two years at Raw Water Pumping Station site and prepare a final report for a fee not to exceed $2,600 to be funded from Account #506043510/5213115. 25. Motion to approve additional allocation in the amount of $38,299.21 for services of ZEL Engineers and Openaka Corporation regarding the Internal Inspection and Final Report on Inspection and Repairs of the 42" Raw Water Line. 26. Motion to approve "Pointless Pollution in Georgia" flyer mailing to Augusta-Richmond County residents. Funded by EPD. 27. Motion to approve contract with Environmental Management Associates in the amount of $19,600 to perform corrective action site assessment investigation at the Broad Street Central Shop site and prepare a corrective action plan- Part A. Funded by Account #101-04-1110/52-13118. 28. Motion to approve contract with Gallet & Associates in the amount of $9,000 to perform corrective action site assessment investigation at the Fire Engine No. 4 site and prepare a corrective action plan-Part A. Funded by Account #101-04-1110/52-13118. 29. Motion to approve contract with Environmental Management Associates in the amount of $8,800 to perform corrective action semi-annual groundwater sampling for two years at former White Road Garage & Service Station site and prepare two annual reports. Funded from Account #101-04- 1110/52-13118. 30. Motion to accept encroachment agreement between Augusta, Georgia and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. in connection with the Barton Chapel Road Improvement, Phase I. 31. Motion to approve Change Order Number One for Crane Creek Channel Improvements with Capital Project Budget #322- 04-292822369 in the amount of $100,849.90 with funds currently Page 20 available in the Construction Account of the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Project. 32. Motion to approve counteroffer option in the amount of $2,000 to purchase 175.96 square feet in fee and 794.26 square feet of temporary construction and slope easement, which is owned by Helen A. Zimmerman and Philip M. Zimmerman and their Successors as Trustees under Will of William J. Zimmerman, Jr. (Tax Map 70-1, Parcel 56.2, Project Parcel #6). 33. Motion to approve final change order in the amount of $36,339.98 to Mabus Brothers, Inc. for work completed on the Lover's Lane Water and Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project. 34. Motion to approve proposal from ZEL Engineers to provide additional engineering services related to Phases II and III of the Constructed Wetlands Project in an amount not to exceed $295,000. Funded by Account GL507043420-5212115/ JL89644340-5212115. 35. Pulled from consent agenda. 36. Motion to approve adding Mason Road Bridge Replacement & Claudia Drive Storm Drain Repairs Project to the Construction Work Program. Also, approve Capital Project Budget #323-04-299823557 for this project in the amount of $275,000 to be funded by Account #323-04-296823081 of the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III. 37. Motion to approve the Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for the Windsor Spring Road, Section IV and Section V Projects. This LGPA provides that Augusta-Richmond County will be responsible for all pre-construction activities for the project including design, right-of-way, utility relocations, and other costs as specified in Year 2000 Project. 38. Motion to authorize execution of the "Memorandum of Understanding" agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for the Augusta Canal Headgates Project (funded 80% by ISTEA Program and 20% by Account #58-8019). 39. Motion to approve the Local Government Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for the Walton Way Ext./Davis Road Improvements Project which provides that Augusta-Richmond County will be responsible for all pre-construction activities for the project including design, right-of-way, utility relocations, and other costs as specified (funded by Special Purpose 1% Sales Tax, Phases II and III). 40. Motion to approve request to hold a public information meeting to present the concept for the Rae's Creek Improvements, Phase III Project. 41. Motion to authorize engineering services for International Boulevard Extension with Brian Besson & Associates in the amount of $27,000. Authorize requesting quotes for construction of project by means of sealed bids from all contractors with active public works projects. Also approve Capital Project Budget 321-04-299821662 in the amount Page 21 of $382,000.00 for the project. Resources for the project to be allocated from Special One Percent Sales Tax-Phase III Recapture and the Utilities Department. 42. Motion to approve award of contract to L-J, Inc. to remove and prune trees on the Augusta Levee in the amount of $151,995 and authorize execution of contract documents. Resources for the contract will be provided from Account #323- 04-1260-5223114/296823081. 43. Motion to approve purchase of pumps for lift station construction to KSB, Inc. at a cost of $410,434. PUBLIC SAFETY 44. Motion to approve purchase of a mobile home for $19,900 and approve purchase of a mobile storage building for $2,666 to provide temporary housing of personnel and equipment for Station #15. Funded by Account #2740346155413110. 45. Pulled from consent agenda. 46. Motion to approve purchase of supplies to be placed in EMS bags on the fire trucks. These supplies would cost $50,000. Funded from Fire Department reserves. 47. Motion to approve the purchase of one (1) new pumper for the Fire Department from Harless Fire Equipment Company at a cost of $249,991 paid from fire revenue reserves. 48. Motion to approve a request of Southern Natural Gas to replace GPS survey monuments along their natural gas pipeline corridors within the Richmond County boundary at no cost to County. PUBLIC SERVICES 49. Motion to renew a Purchase of Service Contract between Lynndale, Inc. and the Rural Transit Program, subject to approval of Attorney and Administrator. 50. Motion to adopt Ordinance increasing insurer license fees to $150 per insurer. 51. Motion to approve bid award of Bid Item #99-021, Clubhouse Parking & Cartpaths, Augusta Golf Course Improve- ments, to the low bidder, Paveway of Augusta, in the amount of $195,391.35 and transfer $14,357 from prior year fund balance at the Augusta Golf Course. Funds received from the timber contract for course improvements in 1998. 52. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit's grant applications to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and to the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) for capital and planning funds. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS 53. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Augusta Commission held March 16, 1999. APPOINTMENTS 54. Ratify the following Legislative appointments: a) Mr. Benjamin A. Bell, Board of Tax Assessors Page 22 b) Mr. E.L. Thomas, Board of Tax Assessors c) Mr. Earnest G. Smith, General Aviation Commission (Daniel Field) ATTORNEY 55. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for "Scrap Tire Management" as required by the conditions of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Scrap Tire Enforcement/Educa- tion Grant Program. 56. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 6, Section 6-2-77(a)(9)(b), of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to revise the method of approval for Special Event Alcohol Licenses for nonprofit organizations; to make editorial revisions; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for other purposes. (Approved by the Commission March 16, 1999 - second reading) 57. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 1, Section 1-3-15, of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to revise the method of fixing salary of Airport Director; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for other purposes. (Approved by the Commission March 16, 1999 - second reading) 58. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 1, Section 1-3-7, of the Augusta-Richmond County code so as to revise the method of fixing the salary of Airport Director; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting Ordinances; and for other purposes. (Approved by the Commission March 16, 1999 - second reading) MR. SHEPARD:I move we adopt the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor, Items 1 through 58. Second. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item Number 35. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, could I get a clarification MR. BRIDGES: on 47 from the Fire Chief, if I could? Do those vehicles have something called booster reels on them, Chief, and are they necessary for those pieces of equipment? No, they are not necessary. What we'll do CHIEF FEW: is we'll have something very similar to that, which is called a trash line, which is an inch-and-three-quarter line. I don't really care for booster hoses because people use those and sometimes you underestimate the number of gallons per minute you need to put out a fire and sometimes you put people in harm's way. So to eliminate that, I went with what we call a trash line. It's an inch-and-three-quarter line. So, in your professional opinion, that's MR. BRIDGES: Page 23 not something necessary for these things then? No, it's not necessary. CHIEF FEW: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull 45, please. MR. MAYS: So that's the addendum [sic] agenda, with the CLERK: exception of Item 35 and 45. All in favor of that, let it be MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: known by the usual method of voting. MR. COLCLOUGH VOTES NO; MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1. Item 35: Motion to approve OMI as the selected firm and authorize selection committee to begin contract negotiations for cost and level of service regarding privatization of the Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant. Retaining a consulting engineer and attorney as necessary to assist in negotiations. MR. KUHLKE:Mr. Mayor, I asked to pull Item Number 35. The first thing, I'd like to commend the committee that developed the program to take a look at a number of firms in regards to our wastewater treatment plant. However, I have somewhat of a problem in immediately negotiating with one of those firms. So I'd like to make a motion on this particular item that we select the top two firms, which was U.S. Filter and OMI, that we direct the Administrator to hire a consultant to work with he and the committee in developing a scope of work that we would like to see done at the plant, to come back to us with a proposal, and that the Administrator and the consultant enter into negotiations once proposals are received; and once a firm is selected, that the Administrator and the County Attorney be authorized to associate an attorney who is an expert in the field of municipal wastewater plants. And I think that's all. Second. MR. SHEPARD: We have a motion on the floor with MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: a proper second. May I just ask you a question, Mr. Kuhlke? Why was the decision on this other--I mean you had a number of companies, I think. I wasn't part of the committee, but you had a number of companies bid. Why are you selecting just this one company? Because those were the top two firms that MR. KUHLKE: the committee selected to bring in for an additional Page 24 interview. And I think that the process that they went through--I did go to a majority of the interviews the day that they had those, and the committee did a thorough job and they selected those two as the top two firms to talk to. I just think it's in the best interest of the citizens of this community not to, at this point, tie it down to one firm. I think we need two firms that we get proposals from, and then at a certain point then we can sit down and do some intelligent negotiations. I definitely somewhat agree with Mr. MR. POWELL: Kuhlke's findings on this. I definitely can say this, we tried to do the best job that we could as a selection committee. We had some good firms that came through and we had some that we didn't feel were as good as others, and we came up with one firm that we definitely felt that was the better firm. And in hearing Mr. Kuhlke's motion, I'm wondering if you would--in your process there I noticed that you have the County Attorney and the Administrator involved in this, but what about the Waterworks Director and the Wastewater Director, do you have-- I think in the area of negotiations, that MR. KUHLKE: the Administrator, the consultant, and the Director of Utilities and his assistant should be involved in that. I am eliminating any member of this Commission from that. MR. POWELL:Well, I don't have a problem with that either, Mr. Kuhlke. I don't think any of us have time to negotiate a contract with everything we went over. But we went through this process and we asked--like I said, we interviewed seven firms and we came up with a firm that we did select, was OMI, as the number one firm. The number two firm was a company called U.S. Filter. We did feel that both were good firms, but we did see a large difference in the waste- water end of it. U.S. Filter was definitely a good company on the water side, but we saw somewhat of a weakness there in the wastewater end. What I'm going to do, Mr. Kuhlke, I'm not going to say I won't support your motion, but I'm going to bring this committee's recommendation to the floor in the form of a motion. I feel that we have to do that as a committee, bring this recommendation back unamended, and I'm going to make a motion that we approve OMI. Second. MR. BRIDGES: MR. HANDY:Mr. Mayor, I think we have a little problem here today and I think we need a legal meeting on 35, 45, and Item Number 1 of the addendum. We're here for progress, we're not here to hold anything up, we're not here to hold anything back. But we need to go in a legal meeting and discuss these Page 25 three items because I don't want what's fixing to happen to happen, so I hope everybody is listening to what I'm saying. We need to talk about some items. We need to go in legal--we need to go in executive session and talk to the Commissioners and then come back out on the floor and talk because something is fixing to screw up the whole system today. We came in here with a good frame of mind to do some positive things, but things got out of hand over one sentence that Mr. Ulmer Bridges decided he wanted to delete, and he could have deleted it before you print it out that I voted on to put it in there like that, and then Jim is going to tell me you can change anything you want to change. But then from here on, every time you put something on to add, I'm going to read everything and ask you is that what you want to vote on before I vote on it. I think we need to go into executive session, and so I ask if I can make a motion--put that in the form of a motion to go into executive session, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Handy, may I suggest that the motion be MR. WALL: to go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice as to Item Number 35? I'm not sure the other two would qualify. We'll talk about them any way you want to do MR. HANDY: it, but it will come up. I'm going to be honest and truthful with you today, Jim. Put it any way you want to. That one item, Item Number 1, is holding up the whole day. We can talk about it out here or we can talk about it back there, but it's holding up the whole day. An across-the-board pay raise is not a MR. WALL: personnel issue that I think you can go into legal session to discuss, nor do I think that the hiring of two individuals. I think you can go into executive session for the purpose of securing legal advice concerning Item Number 35. Okay. We'll do that then. I'll accept MR. HANDY: that. So I'll put that in the form of a motion. Second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So we're going to go now? MR. MAYS: That's his motion. All in favor. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. [THE COMMITTEE RETIRES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a substitute MR. POWELL: Page 26 motion that we approve OMI as the selection. I second. MR. BRIDGES: We have a motion and a second on MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: the floor. Any questions or comments? Mr. Powell, I understood from the MR. SHEPARD: committee process, which I was not a part, that certain things distinguished OMI in terms of their number of state certified technicians and some other experience. Maybe for the benefit of the non-members of the committee and for the benefit of the public, what were some of the distinguishing features that led you and your committee to conclude that this particular firm was a--not necessarily the lowest bidder but perhaps the best supplier of these complex services. Well, price never came into this process, I MR. POWELL: want to clarify that. It was a request for qualifications. You know, I don't want to get out here and bash either company, but I can tell you that the difference that we found was we asked a series of questions, how many plants do you operate in Georgia, and the reason for that was we felt the company who comes in should have a real good working relation- ship with EPD because that's where a lot of our problems are stemming from. How many certified state operators do you have was another question. Do you have wetlands experience. And, you know, we've spent a lot of money on wetlands. And the thing that separated all the companies as for as those questions are concerned was that the top two had--OMI has 25 wastewater treatment plants in Georgia. The second place company originally had told us that they had three. On the second day of questions and answers they changed that to tell us that they had one maintenance contract, which was not an operator's contract, on a wastewater treatment facility. And the other two entities that they manage were water treatment facilities, not wastewater. The other thing that set the first choice and the second choice aside was the number of state certified operators. One had 115 and the other said they had 25 or less. Company stability was another issue that we took up. One company was, in some form, a merger; the other one has never been merged in its history, which was OMI, and they are owned by the employees. As far as the wetlands, which was very crucial, the two top firms--OMI had extensive wetlands experience, the other firm had no wetlands experience that they really could, you know, brought to light. Both companies are large companies, and we felt like U.S. Filter was a good company, a good manufacturing company, but they had been--had a merger in place with one of the companies that we also--I'm trying to choose my words carefully here and not step on anybody's toes. But they were Page 27 in a merger with one of the companies--they were being acquired by another firm that we also interviewed and they didn't even make the final three or four. So that was pretty well the things that we established. Both companies had excellent employee benefits and employee training programs, and, you know, that wasn't a weakness of either one, but those were the things that really set it aside. Mr. Mayor, my concern with Mr. Powell's MR. KUHLKE: motion is simply this: it's very difficult for me to understand how you can negotiate against yourself. And the only thing that I'm trying to introduce and to accomplish is to provide some competition that will put us in a better position to intelligently look at the proposals and put us in a position that we can better negotiate with the firm that's chosen to negotiate with. It sort of like we're battling. We both want the same end result, but the approach on how to get there is where he and I differ. We had seven firms come in, I think, Mr. Powell; right? Yes, sir, that's right. MR. POWELL: And you went through the process that--you MR. KUHLKE: went through two interviews with the top two firms. And I have a hard time as a public body picking out one firm when we have the opportunity to get proposals from more than one firm. I want a clear understanding also that me MR. POWELL: and Mr. Kuhlke aren't that far apart on where we are trying to head. We have a problem--we have a little part in the path, he wants to go to the left and I want to go to the right. So there's not a big-- No, no, I want to go to the right. MR. KUHLKE: Well, I had to seize that opportunity while MR. POWELL: I had it, Mr. Kuhlke. But in our discussions--and Mr. Kuhlke and I have had numerous telephone conversions, and that's where our difference of opinion lies. And in my business, my private business, I've negotiated contracts. Mr. Kuhlke has also negotiated contracts. And that doesn't always mean that the customers are getting a bad deal, and I think Bill will attest to that. We feel like that the subcommittee has met, the subcommittee has done its job, and, you know, we brought it forward to you, so that's where we lay. Mr. Mayor, I agree with you that MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: the subcommittee has done a very good job. Since we are on that verge of not coming together, it appears to me it would be an opportune time that both of those motions would be withdrawn and give us two weeks so that you and Mr. Kuhlke and Page 28 the rest of us can get on the same wave length and come back in here in two weeks time and get things moving. And I don't know if I can get a motion for that, but that would be something that I think this body needs to consider. Where are we-- We're not going to get together. MR. KUHLKE: We're not going to get together. MR. POWELL: Do we have a substitute motion? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Yes, sir, we have a motion and a substitute CLERK: motion. We're bringing this recommendation to you. MR. POWELL: You can vote it up or vote it down and then-- And we're fixing to do that now, MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Powell, one way or the other. Let me just ask this. We're going to do the MR. MAYS: substitute motion first? Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: And for the sake that we may not have a MR. MAYS: discussion on another motion if this one passes, are there any time parameters that are on the main motion that's on the floor in reference to bringing this to a head? Because we do have some serious problems that are going on out there, and I think even though we are not--we're being fined--we have a different situation than we were under with the jail court order and dealing with different animals there from Federal Court and dealing with a state agency and also a federal agency. But, you know, I think some movement within a plan of finalization to get us to either an acceptance or rejecting point needs to be done. Where does the main motion put us in terms of a time frame? And my next question would be--I have no problem that if Mr. Wall--and this is done lots of times with attorneys within various specialties. We have a lawyer to negotiate some of the fine-tuning within the contract, but what I'm worried about in this process, if everybody is agreeing that the subcommittee did such a fine job within the ranking system of where we are, then what are you leaving for the so-called consultant to do that's going to be hired? Let's say if this motion fails and we get to the main motion, then what parameters is the main consultant going out to do then at that point? Page 29 I think I can help with the consultant MR. OLIVER: aspect. Obviously, as they say, good contracts make good neighbors, and one of the things, regardless of the approach that you all decide to do--or to use to select this contract or negotiate this contract, you have to have a clear and defined scope of services. One of the things that would be part of this negotiation would be who would be responsible for managing and overseeing the construction of the wetlands, because you don't want to be in a position that something happens to the wetlands after a contractor starts and they contend that it was because it was constructed improperly. Another point of negotiation would be what do you do on the industrial pre-treatment program. Do you want the vendor to do the industrial pre-treatment and then give you the ones that don't comply with the requirements and then you cite them for that or are you going to maintain the industrial pre- treatment program. Another item in there was--as Mr. Powell knows, there was great variability on this with the various contractors, was what constitutes a capital expenditure and what constitutes an operating expenditure. Some of them defined a capital expenditure as anything over $1,000, some of them used $5,000, and obviously that impacts your scope. So you want somebody who has negotiated, in my opinion, regardless of the approach selected, four to six of these contracts and that are over a year old. Because there will be certain things that are covered under the base contract and, out of necessity, there will be certain things that will be additions to the contract that were not anticipated. And you want to minimize those, but in return for minimizing those you also want to have safeguards in place to ensure that they get a reasonable and fair profit, but not anything that's excessive, and you just need the experience of somebody who's been there and has performed those negotiations before. And you typically reconcile these contracts at the end of each year, so you would ideally want someone that has experience that has contracts that are over a year old. Okay. Let me, if I might, Mr. Mayor, and MR. MAYS: I'll try and wrap up real quick because I may not get but one shot at this thing and I think it's important to all of us, more important to the people that we serve, how we move from here with this. If we narrowed it down out of the subcommittee--and I'm not being critical when I ask the next question. It's strictly a question and I'm searching to try and make up one Commissioner's mind. If we're talking about those things being discussed by a consultant, to me, quite frankly, you've eloquently put those on the table. Were those things not already asked by these folk that you all have already interviewed and narrowed the scope down to? And if they have, I just want to know, from this Commissioner's point of view, am I professionalizing this thing to death that if I Page 30 got to hire somebody else to help Jim and if I got to turn around and hire somebody else to help y'all, should we have wagged that dog a little differently, too? I mean we're at a point now where we've done a narrowing of scope and we're going to go back over--I just kind of want to know what then are we going to go back over. If we need that to be fine- tuned, I don't have a problem with doing that, but I'm just asking it for a point--trying to reach a conclusion with it. I would like to answer Mr. Mays' question. MR. POWELL: The first thing that we're going to do, Mr. Mays, if we decide on someone or a group today--what we were wanting to do is go back with the subcommittee and meet and come up with some definite costs of how much it's costing us to operate the wastewater treatment facility, then we wanted to come up with a scope of work of exactly what we wanted this firm to do, what we didn't want them to do, where their responsibilities start, where there responsibilities stop. And, you know, to put this off two weeks--to be honest with you, it's going to be a lot longer than two weeks before we ever get to the point probably to where we have all of our data so that we can meet and start arranging the scope of work. I don't think it's something that's going to happen overnight. I think that we're probably looking at a few months down the road before we'll even be ready to bring back any type of recommendation at all. Well, let me say this while we're in public. MR. MAYS: The cost of running that plant, chemicals, other things that you're doing, I think we pretty much know what those things are. I think the real question in this whole thing is what do you do, quite frankly, in any merger, particularly privatiza- tion of governmental people, as to what direction you are headed there with either the keeping and training of personnel or whether you're talking about the possibilities of eliminating personnel. Now, my problem with the consultant is not in terms of bringing one on, it's in terms of what scope that this Commission or that subcommittee wants to lead that consultant honestly in a direction of doing. Because I don't want to have to sit here and this coming back much down the road--let's say we seriously look at going that angle with somebody and I get numbers out here on the table that are very good numbers, they look good, but when you really examine the numbers it may not be the best thing that affects the lives of people that work for this city. Because if you want numbers in there--and I'm going to use Ms. Mary Utley's philosophy about statistics. You know, statistics are basically numbers that folks write on paper to make them say whatever you want them to say. Now, if you're going to lower the price of whatever you're doing based on that--and this is not an indictment of Page 31 any one of the groups that were there, the top two you're talking about in the ranking or any of the others that may have fell by the wayside. But I'm concerned that what we give the professional needs to seriously come from the Mayor and this Commission because I want to make sure that when we vote on something, if we decide to do it, then it's inclusive of the lives of folk that are currently there and where we go from that direction. Sure, he can come in and he can basically say we can cut here, we can cut here. You cannot cut at that plant the necessity that it takes to operate it, but you can do some things with people that makes those numbers get totally off. And if that's what I'm going to be voting on when it comes back, then I would be more confused, and maybe I'm the only one that will say I'd be confused, but I would want to know how that's going to affect me. But I think the direction that we send the consultant in, if we're going to do that, then I think that's the key to whatever we do. Because if that person is coming back to do a job--and I think it ought to also be in writing that if the consultant comes back, and maybe this might be hard to do, but I think it needs to be, if you're going to narrow it to those two persons, then a consultant needs to be in a position where they have not worked for either one of the firms that are there in no way, shape, or form, either one of them, by contract, indirectness or whatever. Because I can remember when we were dealing with the jail project we found out everybody who came here basically told us they worked on the Gwinnett County jail. And you remember, Bill, it got so that we had about 30 folk working and we started asking the question, "Well, hell, who didn't work on the Gwinnett County jail?" So you get folks that start coming in and they get in conjunction with each other and start lining up. So I want to make sure that if we're bringing somebody else into this equation, that they are being sent out to honestly bring back numbers that are there, that they're not working, quite frankly, in cahoots with anybody. And if that's what you're going to do, then let that independently be done. Because the common denominator for saving, if you're going to cut anything, remember, rests on the backs of the folk that you've got working at that plant. Nothing else is going to change. It's going to strictly have to deal with the conditions of those people. And I'll promise you right now that if--whether it's OMI or whether it's anybody else, I will not cast a favorable vote if that's where the savings are going to be done at. And I can live with us delaying today, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, to get to some other procedures if you want to deal with that. I agree with you. But before we bring on somebody--and I have no problem with the legal side of it, Jim, you can handle that side of what you're doing. But the other side about a consultant, I think when you're putting that person in that mix or that company in that mix, then they need to get a clear definition to bring us Page 32 back the true operatives that we can run this plant with and we don't mean bringing back something to us that if you immediately reduce your workforce, blah, blah, blah, this is how you can deal with it. That is not something that I think we can fairly say that we are doing a good service to the people of the city and to the people who work for us. And I just want that for the record. I can live with either one of the motions that's there. I think you did a good job in where you came out with your workings and procedures, but I do think there was some concern in reference to whether or not we were sole source without the benefit of other parameters and of where we go with other numbers. And I don't mind us going through what we have to do to clear up even the hint that that may not have been done in this process. And I can live with that motion, but I [inaudible] getting that out here with no numbers, and those numbers equate to people and that's where we look at how we're going to move with the future in terms of dealing with that plant. Okay. Madame Clerk, I believe we MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: have two motions on the floor. We have a substitute motion and a regular motion on the floor? Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. The substitute motion made CLERK: by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Bridges, was a motion to approve OMI as the selected firm. The motion as listed on the agenda, Mr. Powell? Yes, ma'am, with the amendments. MR. POWELL: And authorize selection committee to begin CLERK: contract negotiations for the cost and level of service regarding privatization of the Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant, retaining a consulting engineer and attorney as necessary to assist in the negotiations. All those in favor of Mr. Powell's MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MESSRS. KUHLKE & J. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & MAYS ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 4-2-4. Now we'll vote on Mr. Kuhlke's MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: motion. Mr. Kuhlke's motion was to select the top two CLERK: firms, being U.S. Filter and OMI; and the Administrator to hire a consultant to work with the committee to develop a scope of work to be done at the plant and to come back to the Commission with a proposal; and that the Administrator and the Page 33 consultant enter into negotiations; and that the Administrator and the Attorney authorize an associate attorney to be an expert in municipal wastewater treatment plants. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, COLCLOUGH, HANDY & MAYS ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 5-0-5. Mr. Mayor, if I'm in order, I'd like to MR. H. BRIGHAM: move that we revisit this subject in two weeks' time. Do we have a second? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, wouldn't this automatically MR. SHEPARD: come back on our agenda since there's no action? I mean we would revisit it as a matter of course? As long as somebody asks for it to come back MR. WALL: on the agenda, it would come back on. All right. All in favor of Mr. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Brigham's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:Item 45: Motion to approve $56,672 to hire two LAN Administrators to coordinate the installation of and provide ongoing support of 175 PC's and 35 printers. MR. HANDY:Move for approval. Second. MR. KUHLKE: Are there any questions, MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: discussion on that motion? Yes, Mr. Mayor. 45 is more than likely going MR. MAYS: to pass. I don't think [inaudible] that department doesn't need its folks. I don't think that at all. I abstained in the committee version of this probably a couple of times, not so much in reference to what we were doing but a couple of ways that it coincided with some other things that were being done and also as to where this motion and this hire should have originated in this process. We have a standing joke sometimes that goes around the Municipal Building, and I think in spite of the good job that my good friend, Mr. John Etheridge, tries to do over in Human Resources, I kid some- Page 34 times that sometimes when folk get hired, you know, HR might be the last place to know about it. You know, we get to wagging up here, we put folks on in various committees. Well, you all established a procedure that I believe you may have voted on in reference to new hires for this city coming through Administrative Services. Now, again, I'm not one of those that everything in the world has to be written in stone, and that was why today I had told the persons related to this item that I would agree for it to go back on the agenda, I would not be bull-headed and hold it up based on a technical- ity. But I do think--and I address this particularly to the Administrator. I do think when we make a so-called policy decision, and we're the policymakers as such sitting up here, that if that's where these new hires are going to be, then that's where they ought to start. This is one that if it should have been in Administrative Services and you're creating two new jobs, then they should have started in Administrative Services. I bring that up to say this: Everybody ought to--you know, you got a lot of hoggish things going on and all the hogs going to eat out of the same trough. Now, if you're going to make other folk come through Administrative Services that ask for new positions, what we ought to decide, quite frankly, is that--and I agree this one probably should have been in the committee that, say, would have the particular knowledge about it. I don't disagree with that. Maybe we need to look at what that policy says and maybe they might need to originally start in those particular committees and either then go to Administrative Services so that HR can be on top of it and then passed on to the Commission. But I think when we make a policy that new hires come to Administrative Services first and then end up whether it's in Engineering Services, Public Safety, Public Services, everywhere but Administrative Services, and then if some other department comes up and says they may fall under the auspice of another committee and they are directed that they've got to go through Administrative Services, then I don't think that's an even- handed process. We either need to do away with the process, let them come out of the committees that they are best served under, or they all need to go under Administrative Services, one way or the other. I don't think you ought to have policies that, well, we thought so-and-so would be the best way to describe that. Sure, no problem with that, but don't make a policy stating that you're going to do otherwise. If the policy is they come through Administrative Services, then let it be. Now, I said I wouldn't be bull-headed and be technical, let the vote go ahead on. If the folk need the folk, then get over there and let them do it. But you give the impression when you do this that you pick and choose the committee that you think you can get the most votes out of on a particular day and if the votes are there to get it out of one committee, Page 35 then they'll go through that committee today. But then somebody else comes up and says, well, you've got to go through Administrative Services. That other department head says, well, let's go through Engineering because I think I can talk to the person over there and those committee members and I can get the three votes over there. Then what you've got is you really don't have a policy, gentlemen, you've got something that was voted on and written on paper that really belongs in one of the restrooms and not as a policy statement for a board of commissioners. And I'm just saying either we need to rescind what we've got on paper and let it come under the other committees or let them--you know, do it one way or the other, but don't declare you've got a policy when you really don't have a policy at all. That's all I'm saying. Well said, Mr. Mays. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Well, I think if I can get a clear MR. OLIVER: understanding as far as what the policy is-- Let me just hear from Mr. Handy. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: What I wanted to say, Mr. Mayor, is that MR. HANDY: Administrative Services meet first, I think-- Finance first. CLERK: Okay. Administrative Services and Finance MR. HANDY: don't have nothing to do with hiring, so that fix that. They keep up with the money. Administrative Services meets first, and anything should come through Administrative Services and the other committee, whatever one it pertains to, that way we all have it the same day. That would be a suggestion, that asking them to amend our ordinance or whatever which way we put it so that everything comes through Administrative Services regardless, as well as the committee that it's on, and that will fix all that. I think we're all on the same wave MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: length. We don't need to beat this motion to death. I think we know we need it, and I think that the director and the Administrator should note down that that was wrong to do it and they ought to be more cognizant of what they are doing in the future. Okay. Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, it was my understand that MR. J. BRIGHAM: the rules were that Administrative Services would deal with the creation of new job slots and that if there were existing slots, that the current committee would handle those. I Page 36 thought that was the policy. Well, I believe these were two new MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: job slots. These are two new budgeted positions. I MR. OLIVER: would note that this was part of a--and perhaps that's the confusion here. This was part of a larger agenda item that you considered several weeks ago, and this is kind of a fall-out piece and maybe that's the reason for the confusion. We can move on with the vote. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Okay. Call for the question. MR. HANDY: And the only other thing I'm going to say--I MR. MAYS: said there were two reasons. Y'all have satisfied that about the policy. You know, I was going to make a crazy substitute motion that we just do away with whatever the policy might be, but you cleared it up that we're going to fine-tune that. My other reason is that we find it necessary--and these are necessary positions, but I still remind you we're talking-- y'all have clarified part of it today when you started talking about dealing with the state, but we're in a position right now where we've had one department head to leave, we've got one situation--and I don't believe in beating around the bush. We've got another one that I do consider important. We keep talking about who we got to save and who we got to make sure we land, you know, these kind of things. I'm going to deal with one on the table. It's not but $36,000, but it's the principle of it. It's the principle of it, gentlemen, that you need to start dealing with. Now, we sat here and we wrecked Item Number 1 today totally playing games with it. I'm still going to emphasize that. Budgeted money. If it wasn't a game, it could have been voted on and put in tomorrow. But you've got to have these two new folk, you've got to deal with the $36,000 job that you got on the agenda today, but you're basically out there now confused. You don't know whether you're going to hire from within on the Emergency Management Director, you don't know whether it's going to be dealing with the Fire Chief, you don't even know when you're going to equalize and deal with his money. That's still been all messed up and put out there and we're still playing with it, but we're still moving ahead with everything else that we want to do. And this is no disrespect to my Information Tech Director. He's doing what he should be doing, he should be trying to get in there and to fight for these folk to put them on. But while this process is moving on, we are steady acting as though some other things are just going to happen Page 37 automatically or some folk are going to forget about it. But unless I get caught up in one of them hospitals again and don't make it back out, I'm going to steady be bringing this same issue back up until we deal with it. It's going to be in committees, it's going to be on the Commission floor, and if I have to start dividing up my time, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, with some delegations of folk that I will ask to come down here and tell you the importance of some of those departments and put them from wall to wall in here and let some Commissioners hear from them about what they think on how we are doing, then maybe that's the answer that we got to go with. But constantly we're hiring new. We can't let them leave with it. What about what we've got, what about what we've lost, what about those? I'm still going to play with that. [END OF SIDE 1, TAPE 1.] We have a motion on the floor to MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: hire two administrators. What is your pleasure on that? All in favor, let it be known by the usual method of voting. MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS ABSTAIN. MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. Mr. Mayor, do you want to take Item 59 and 60 CLERK: together or separately? We can take them together. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: CLERK:Item 59: Motion to approve a request for tax refund for 1992 through 1995 for Ronald Fairburn - Map 104, Parcel 2:01. Item 60: Motion to approve refund of taxes for exemption classification error for Ernest Smith, Jr., 4321 Fairbluff Road - Map 233, Parcel 28. MR. HANDY:Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion, to get it on the floor for discussion, to approve it. I'm not saying that I'm going to vote for it after I get it on the floor because I got to ask some questions concerning the Attorney, but I need to get it on the floor to do that. Second. MR. BRIDGES: Okay, we have a motion and a MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: second that we approve Item 59 and 60. Are there any questions or discussion? Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Attorney, did you MR. HANDY: read Georgia law pertaining to a refund, how many years we can go back and how many years we cannot go back according to the Page 38 Georgia law? The reason why I ask that, I happened to be reading the paper this morning and one of our legislators-- sounded like a threat to me about he's going to make a bill about referring to something. Well, hell, we are here to implement the laws that they create, make sure they work. So if he want to go and change the tax code so we can give back 10 years, 20 years, or whatever, that's fine, but I don't need him to be putting no threat in the paper about whether he's going to make a law or not to change any bill. Because he has a right to do that and he don't have to tell it in the paper, he can just send you a notice and say I want to run a legal notice, I want to put a law in, and it'll be already implemented. But whatever the law says as of this day, that's what I'm going to vote on, and I would like for you to explain to me what I need to do according to Georgia law. The Official Code of Georgia Annotated, and MR. WALL: this is the statute that applies statewide and it applies to all counties and municipalities, authorizes in Subsection (a) counties and municipalities to refund taxes which have been voluntarily or involuntarily overpaid by the taxpayers under Subparagraph (b) of that code section. Subparagraph (b) says that a taxpayer may file a claim for a refund from the governing authority of the county or municipality at any time within one year, or in the case of taxes three years, after the date of the payment of the tax or the license fee to the county or municipality. Then it goes further to say that in the event any claim for refund is approved, the governing authority shall proceed under Subsection (a) to give effect to the terms of that subsection. Based upon that code section, I think that it's clear that there is a three-year limitation period under which the county can do it. Georgia law is that tax statutes are to be strictly construed. Absent express authorization to refund taxes that have been paid, I don't think that you have the authority to do it. And some people may view that as a harsh rule. Obviously the newspaper thinks it is a harsh rule. But it is a statute that prescribes a three-year limitation period, and absent a change in that statute I don't think that you have the authority to do it. And if you give away tax monies that you're not authorized to do, in my opinion, that is a gratuity. We have also Mr. North Williamson, MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: who represented them in the committee. I think we need to hear from him. Mr. Mayor, before Mr. Williamson--there's one MR. MAYS: thing I'd like for him to address. And I know he has what he has prepared to say--of course, North don't need no prepared text, he knows what he wants to deal with. But what I would Page 39 like him to answer while he's at the microphone, in cases where--and I'm getting a little too old to remember all my different dates, but in cases where--and I listened to what Mr. Wall has just read, but I don't know whether, Jim, you go a little further down in there to a couple of more lines-- you've got the book there and I was rehearsing some other stuff, so I didn't get a chance to deal with that. But in those cases where the Commission body--North, Henry, I guess we're the oldest two folk here--where we've gone past what the limits of the law have been in clear-cut cases where it was proven that we should have done otherwise, what statute did we follow or did we follow anything under the guidelines that anything past that limit would have to be approved by the Board of Commissioners? Well, I think that anything past three MR. WILLIAMSON: years has always been a matter of being approved by the Board of Commissioners. Up to three years has been approved by the MR. WALL: Commission before this one. That's correct. The three years has MR. WILLIAMSON: sort of been generally accepted as an out, so to speak, or to correct an error, and that's usually presented to the board by the Board of Assessors. And as a rule, you know, if it's proven to be a good case, that's generally approved by the Commissioners. In the ones where we've gone--or if there MR. MAYS: have been one or two where we went past that in those extreme cases, what rule then did we follow? And I'm going to let Jim off the hook a little bit because you weren't over here then. What I'm getting to is have we not been down this road before in terms of doing what's fair? And I'm going to shut up and let you make your presentation, but I don't think this is the first diamond that we found in the rough regarding going past that time. Well, I think, legally speaking, Mr. MR. WILLIAMSON: Wall has given you very good advice. He is absolutely correct. And I don't know when that statute was written, but in past years, pre-Mr. Wall, I should say, the Commission has on occasions granted relief in excess of the three-year period, probably based on--I don't know whether--I can't say it was based on the law at that time, I don't know, but it probably was based on advice from the County Attorney at that time and/or possibly a feeling of obligation from a moral standpoint on the part of the Commission. I can't answer that. But I do know at times they have exceeded the three years, but probably not lately. Page 40 I think we need to know what was MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: your recommendation you made. Well, my recommendation was not from a MR. WILLIAMSON: legal standpoint, but from a moral standpoint. If we collected money that we should not have collected, then I thought we ought to give it back. But at the same time, there possibly should be a limit, and I--in my way of thinking, I thought that seven years should be a maximum. In one of these cases, I think if we approved a refund for all the years involved in this particular case, it would involve just to one taxpayer 5,600 and some odd dollars. Going back the seven- year period, it would involve 2,000. I mean my approach to the seven years was brought about by the fact that I thought that would absolutely be the maximum that would even be considered, so--and I'm not saying I don't think we possibly shouldn't give it all back, but my recommendation was for seven years. Let me address my remarks to Mr. Wall. MR. SHEPARD: And I don't know if these gentlemen are here, Mr. Fairburn and Mr. Smith, but I would ask that these remarks be addressed to them as well. It was said a few moments ago that to refund more than is allowed in the statute would be a gratuity. And, Mr. Wall, as I understand a gratuity, that is something that is prohibited by the Constitution of this state. Am I not correct? That's correct. MR. WALL: And I don't think we can amend the MR. SHEPARD: Constitution of this state, I don't think the legislature can amend the Constitution of this state, I think only the people can amend the Constitution of this state and the judges can interpret. Now, do you interpret a refund exceeding the three-year statutory period as a gratuity? I do. MR. WALL: And I ask the gentlemen who are--Mr. MR. SHEPARD: Fairburn if he's here, and Mr. Smith. I don't know if they're here. If they can show us-- Would you come up to the mike? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Excuse me, Mr. Shepard. Would you state your name and address, please? To the Mayor and the committee, my name is MR. SMITH: Ernest R. Smith, Jr. Page 41 And, Mr. Smith, my question to you is how, MR. SHEPARD: if at all, do you suggest we can get around this clear provision of our Constitution that says we can't give away this money in this instance as interpreted by our Attorney? Well, my question is this: How do you MR. SMITH: accept someone who might have paid more than what they're supposed to have paid than what they thought? Well, Mr. Smith, I think everybody sitting MR. SHEPARD: up at this table took an oath to defend the Constitution of this state, and sometimes it imposes duties on us that we don't like and that's why I'm asking you to help me out if you can. How do we get around this gratuity problem? My point of view about it is the money that MR. SMITH: was paid was overpaid. I feel it should be given back, even into 1982. Because if I owed you all or owed some money I would be liable to pay this money, with a fine, or my property or whatever it was would be took, so I feel that it's no more right to receive--to give the money back that I overpaid. It wasn't that it was my fault, it was the fault of some employees that you all had working at the time. I had the proper credentials, the proper papers, but it was not accepted or was not--was thrown aside. So I don't care that it was my fault or Mr. Williamson fault. Now, this is my first coming to a County Commissioner meeting, and I'm just sitting and looking and observing and watching different things. You see a lot of clause, you see a lot of faults, you see a lot of disapprovements, you see a lot of things that shouldn't even have to be brought up in this meeting. And I'm not here to start nothing or bring up nothing, but I'm here to just correct the mistakes that you all made that I be refunded back. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. Wall, let me ask you a question. If MR. BRIDGES: we go past three years and some taxpayer decided to sue based on that being an illegal action, would we be personally liable for those monies should that case be decided as you've interpreted it? Potentially, yes, because I think the statute MR. WALL: is clear. And let me ask you again, have there been MR. BRIDGES: cases like this in which possibly taxpayers have been given additional--past the three years, and how have the courts interpreted those cases? Well, I'm not sure this directly answers your MR. WALL: question. The case that, to me, is the most egregious Page 42 situation where the court held to the three-year rule was there was an individual who owned property in one county, but it was taxed in a different county. I mean the property was not even located in the other county and the taxpayer paid that other county tax monies for an extended period of time, and I think it was like 20 years. And then he tried to get a refund, the county commission turned him down, limited it to the three years. He then sued to collect against a county where he didn't even own property, and the court said that the three-year rule was applicable, that you were limited to three years that you could get a refund. The statute deals with erroneously or illegally assessed taxes. And, yes, it was our fault. Yes, it was an error. But the law, through a series of statute of limitations, likes certainty; that at the end of a three-year period in this situation, there is certainty that whatever tax revenues you've collected are there. And Mr. Shepard knows this, from personal injury litigation two years. You can file a complaint two years and one day after somebody ran a red light going 100 miles an hour, they're clearly at fault, they're clearly in error, morally it may be wrong that the person was killed or injured, but the law says two years and that's all you can go back. So the law likes certainty. Tax statutes are to be strictly construed. It clearly was an error, the law limits it to three. If the General Assembly wants to change it and make a longer period of limitation they clearly have the right to do so, but right now my obligation is to tell you what I think the law is and the law, I think, sets forth a three-year period. MR. BRIDGES:Mr. Mayor, having heard that I'd like to make a substitute motion that we accept the recommendation of Mr. North in these cases and pay back to seven years. I'll second that one to get it on the floor, MR. MAYS: too, because it's better than the one that's out there. My question was, before I decide which way MR. HANDY: I'm going to go here, is that since we were at fault, and that's been established, the law says we only can give back three years, but just like we have a risk management account, we don't have no account, no other way we can refund the remainder of the money? We're going to abide by the law and everybody will be safe and right, but then besides that law we got other monies that we could still do. Because we was wrong and we ought to have some kind of way of refunding the money, but we're going to abide by the law like it says and we're also going to fulfill the needs of the taxpayers because we was wrong. Why can't we get that out of the contingency and go ahead on and take care of people and get it over with? We can abide by the law according to what the law says and still do what's right. What's the answer for that? I mean you're Page 43 about to get me in trouble here now telling me to vote for something and the law says you can't do it, and Ulmer done made a motion to go beyond the law, so why should I sit here and vote on something wrong when we can vote on the three years and we still can fulfill that by giving out of another forum the remainder of the money? There ain't no law says you can't do that. Well, Mr. Handy, I don't know how you refund MR. WALL: taxes beyond the three-year period without, in my opinion, violating this statute. I mean I don't know of any way. What happens to the money that goes in the MR. HANDY: tax account that don't belong to us? It goes into the general fund; right? Well, part of it goes to the Board of MR. WALL: Education, part of it goes to y'all. So y'all are going to be paying back money that the Board of Education has-- The school board already got it, huh? Well, MR. HANDY: anyway, when y'all finish with the motion, I still think that we should find the remainder of the money in some kind of kitty somewhere so we can be legal. Mr. Mayor, can you get the Parliamen- MR. J. BRIGHAM: tarian to rule whether a motion can be made that he knows is contrary to state law? Can you make a motion to violate the statute? MR. WALL: I think the motion is in order. It's my opinion that doing so is in violation of the law, but I think you can make a motion to refund the taxes. That's my advice. I can't tell you--I mean whether y'all follow the advice or not is up to you. To take it back a little bit on what Mr. MR. MAYS: Handy asked, we've got various bills that have been passed and we've got authority in overseeing them in terms of tax incentives and tax breaks, those type things. If it's wrong to deal with that, let's say we're going to follow the letter of the law by not refunding, then is there a statute that prohibits us to say that we would give future credit for an equal amount of money on taxes that would be coming in that are owed at a future date? And that's not to say that the petitioner would even agree to that, I'm just posing that just as a question since it's been made that other folk might come in. And naturally if somebody catch you where they can prove a case to where you got some monies belong to them, they're going to question you about it whether they can get it or not, and I'm just wondering if there is an illegal situation that prohibits you from giving future tax credits in lieu of where Page 44 human error has been made, that you're not refunding but you're doing it in the future. Y'all really made me look like a Scrooge. In MR. WALL: my opinion, you still can't do that. I mean, Mr. Mays, you recall a similar situation where we, in the old Commission, tried to come up with some method by which we could waive future taxes for individuals that had been flooded and otherwise, and it was my opinion then you could not do it. There's no constitutional or statutory provision to authorize the waiver of future taxes and, in my opinion, you can't do it. Of course, you know I disagreed with you MR. MAYS: then, too. I know you did. MR. WALL: I'd like to also mention something MR. WILLIAMSON: along that line if I could. If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Smith is going to receive the proper exemption from here on out, and my guess is that the exemption he's going to receive is going to virtually kill all the taxes. Is that not correct? It's supposed to, but I'm not [inaudible]. MR. SMITH: So as far as accumulating over a period MR. WILLIAMSON: of time, there won't be any. It will be virtually none. The only thing I was going to say is that MR. MAYS: you're talking about the legality of that motion. You know, we get sued about a lot of things. And I don't know what year that was in reference to that case of where that person was turned down, but I would think that in the spirit that some of us are regarded or all of us are regarded in terms of the positions that we hold sometimes if you took public opinion polls on it, you know, we might rate well below a lot of folks in a lot of different professions from time to time. And I know you get into what's called frivolous lawsuits sometimes, Jim, and the whole nine yards, but if I'm going to get sued for one--how much money are we talking about, North? We're talking about, in Mr. Smith's MR. WILLIAMSON: case, going back seven years--well, not seven years, but the four additional years would be about $2,000. You know, it would be interesting, gentlemen, MR. MAYS: to see how a jury felt about--and I know you got two sides of that argument. You got a citizen that says, "Well, this come out of my pocket, I'm a taxpayer," but you also got citizens sitting there feeling like, "How would I feel if I got Page 45 robbed?" You're worried about getting sued for doing what's right. I don't really think that lawsuit is going to be forthcoming. And maybe it might be one to get the General Assembly off its behind and correct a wrong that ought to be done. Now, we talk about setting precedence and breaking the law. I'm going to go ahead and vote to break this particular law today. And we might get sued, but there are some things I think that--you know, if you pass by that statue when you walk out the door, that scale there--and there's two scales there. One you weigh what's there in the law, and somewhere in there fairness has to come in. Precedence sometimes--and I know, Jim, you and I get into the argument sometimes off the record about precedence and which comes first, whether you deal with fairness and whether you deal with the law. But, you know, there are laws that were written unfairly, and it took precedence and sometimes court action to decide how to make it fair. If this leads us to this path, then we--we get caught with sucking in bad air, we get ranked first in this, second in that. You know, maybe we ought to get caught in the first county to lead us into the new millennium about being fair if you got something that's written there that's wrong. You had a United States government, gentlemen, that was faced with the fact of what do you do with slavery. It was law. And in certain parts of this United States it was legal for it to be upheld and another part of it that it was accepted. It was law, but was it fair? You had to have precedence set in order to change it. It took a war to deal with it. Now, I'm not saying we go to war about his $2,000, but sometimes the element of fairness outweighs what you may deal with in the other money. I'll take my chances with fairness. I'll take my chances on getting voted out on fairness. But I think this one--it leaves it then, yes, to the General Assembly to correct, and then maybe it--maybe it needs to be argued in a court of law. We argue things in a court of law based on the fact of sovereign immunity that we hide behind. We can darn near--or, hell, in cases kill somebody and hide behind that fact because it's a part of the law. But back then a part of the law does not necessarily make it right, and sometimes a government has to move to set a precedent even if it means being sued. And maybe that's where the--I'd much rather it be decided, gentlemen, on his $2,000, being sued about it, than for a mistake to be made in the umpteens of thousands of dollars and we test that case in court and we lose it and we have to turn around and pay it. So if you're worried about a lawsuit--we don't worry about the rest of them, let's deal with that one and let's do what's right. And if that's to set the precedent to do what's right, then let's set the precedent and then we let--we get sued possibly, but I wouldn't think so. Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: Page 46 Okay, the question has been MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: called. What is the first-- The substitute motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded CLERK: by Mr. Mays, was to accept the recommendation of the Office of the Tax Commissioner and pay back seven years. Could I ask one question? If you're going MR. HANDY: to break the law, why go seven years. Hell, give him all the money if you're going to break the law anyway. I mean if you're going to break the law, why stop at seven years, give him all his money back. And every other taxpayer then. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, do that, too. MR. HANDY: Well, if you've got that many out there with MR. MAYS: that many problems, then, hell, you've got another problem here, and I ain't talking about [inaudible] fire everybody down there then if you got that many complaints going to come up. We've got a motion on the floor. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: We're voting on that motion. Well, Mr. Beard, [inaudible] I'll withdraw my MR. MAYS: second, or if the maker of the motion will make an amendment to it that if we're going to break it, then I'll agree to pay all that back. I'd like to leave my motion as it is. If MR. BRIDGES: you want to give them all of it back, mine will fail and you can vote for the first one. I'm going to withdraw the second. MR. MAYS: Can he do that, Mr. Parliamentarian, if I MR. KUHLKE: don't want him to? No, sir, he can't. Once the motion has been MR. WALL: made and seconded, it belongs to the body and cannot be withdrawn. We're in the middle of voting, Mr. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mayor. The discussion is done over with. If the gallery rule it that way--wait, Mr. MR. MAYS: Mayor, you've got people withdraw seconds and firsts around here, make three and four motions at a time, and the Page 47 government don't even know what the hell way it's going sometimes. Now, how are you going to here today rule that you can't withdraw a second? Well, I agree it has been done. I have been MR. WALL: asked in the past whether or not someone can, and my answer then was not. I'll read you Rule 3.01.04: Once a motion has been moved and seconded, it belongs to the entire Commission and not to the maker of the motion; therefore-- Not to the maker of the motion. MR. MAYS: That's correct. MR. WALL: But I am not the maker of the motion. I am MR. MAYS: the seconder of the motion, I am not the maker. Now, what does it say about the seconder of the motion? Read that. If there's nothing there that says that, then there's nothing there that relates to me. I didn't make it. No, sir, the motion belongs to the MR. WALL: Commission. And the Chair may ask the Commission if there are any objections to the motion being withdrawn. If there are no objections, the motion shall be withdrawn without the need to go through that process. But the motion belongs to the Commission. I'm going to let y'all win that battle today, MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I'm going to tell you what: Every time, and I promise you this--if I make a promise to you, I deliver on it. Every time one of these parliamentary dummies decide they want to take seconds off the floor, I'm going to be the first one to bring it up and ask for a ruling, I don't care if you're voting on a million dollar project. Because that ain't ever been done before. You've been taking them off all the rest of the time. So we're going to be all right today, no problem-- But you didn't listen to Jim, Mr. Mays. MR. HANDY: Listen to what he just said. You can give it to the Mayor and the Mayor ask any objections and then he can take it off. We were in the process of voting MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: at the time, we'll just go on and vote on Mr. Bridges' motion. You want the motion read again? CLERK: Yes, so they'll know what they're MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: voting on. The motion in reference to Item 59 and 60 was to CLERK: Page 48 accept the recommendation of the Office of the Tax Commis- sioner and refund taxes up to seven years. And that's what you're voting on. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: We have to vote on that now. I ask for a roll call vote. MR. MAYS: You're getting it. Push your button. MR. BRIDGES: No, sir, I asked for a roll call vote. MR. MAYS: That's non-debatable. [inaudible] vote on both of them roll call vote. In fact, today we're going to--in fact, I'm going to promise you this, too: Every motion we make for the rest of the day I'm going to ask for a roll call vote on them, and I'm going to ask for that now while I got that one; okay? Since we're going to be smart about parliamentary procedure, we're going to vote on everything in a roll call vote. Ms. Bonner, roll call vote. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Beard? CLERK: No. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: No. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: No. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: No. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Page 49 Yeah. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: No. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BEARD, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. HANDY, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 3-6-1. Okay, we'll vote on the original MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: motion. What is the original motion? MR. HANDY: The original motion was to approve the refund. CLERK: All of it; right? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. CLERK: Roll call, Ms. Bonner. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: I'll pass right now. MR. BRIDGES: You're abstaining or passing? CLERK: I'm abstaining. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Page 50 Mr. Handy? CLERK: Yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: No. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: No. MR. SHEPARD: MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN. . MOTION FAILS 5-3-2 Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion MR. J. BRIGHAM: that we refund the last three years of taxes. That's already been done. But it needs to be MR. WALL: ratified because-- MR. J. BRIGHAM:I make a motion that we ratify it then. Second. MR. SHEPARD: This motion is to ratify the three years, Mr. CLERK: Jerry Brigham and Mr. Shepard. Mr. Beard? Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Page 51 Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: What do you think? Yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Since you're going to have to give it to him MR. MAYS: anyway, for the heck of it, no, because you ain't doing the right number. Mr. Powell? CLERK: I'm going to abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MR. MAYS VOTES NO; MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1. CLERK:Item 61: Motion to procure Internal Audit Services on a contractual basis with a firm or firms for the remainder of calendar year 1999 and discuss composition of the Audit Committee. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know whether or not MR. HANDY: the contract we have now, is it expired already? It expired 12/31 of '98. MR. OLIVER: MR. HANDY:Okay. I'd like to make a motion to keep our internal auditor until the end of '99, then we make a decision after that. So move [sic]. MR. COLCLOUGH: MR. J. BRIGHAM:Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a substitute motion that we go out for qualifications. Second. MR. POWELL: Page 52 Roll call, Mr. Mays? CLERK: Roll call. MR. MAYS: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. Is the MR. KUHLKE: substitute motion to retain the existing firm we have until the end of the year, but to go ahead and advertise? We don't have anybody performing those MR. OLIVER: services right now at all. No, sir. [inaudible] same as the water MR. J. BRIGHAM: bid, is to go out for qualified bidders and find out who we've got qualified, to not award a contract without a competitive bid. I'm not sure if the water issue is a good MR. POWELL: comparison. Are you ready, Ms. Bonner? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Yes, sir. The substitute motion on the floor CLERK: regarding Item 61 is to go out for RFT's. Mr. Beard? No. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: No. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: No. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Page 53 No. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Yes. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Abstain. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 4-5-1. And the original motion is to keep the current CLERK: auditor until the year end 1999. Mr. Beard? Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: No. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Page 54 No. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. CLERK:Item 62: Approve reimburse of $765,237 to the CDBG Program from the Suburban Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax Phase III Program (Non-Federal Funds) to resolve OIG Audit dated December 4, 1998; Assign Beulah Grove ($200,000) and New Hope ($250,000) contracts to Housing and Neighborhood Development and modify Shiloh contract as necessary to comply with CDBG requirements; Ratify R.W. Allen Contract with Beulah Grove and approve payments of funds. Mr. Mayor, I don't like 62 at all, and the MR. HANDY: reason why I don't like 62 is we don't know whether or not that HUD is going to fund this project after we do what we did. We're just assuming, and assuming means--well, everybody know what it means. Now, everybody keep talking about this HUD audit. That was something done before I arrived here, or either I was down on the sixth floor and somebody else was up here on the eighth floor when that went on. That $500,000 stayed in this treasury for four or five years and probably has grown enough interest to be used for one of these projects they want. The Mayor, Mr. Mays, and myself just had a press conference and gave away this money. Got on television, got in the newspaper. The next following Sunday I attended church and presented the check back to the church with the whole congregation sitting there, and now you're going to tell me you're going to take the money and swap it around. Well, why didn't you swap it around before we gave it away? You knew you had to pay HUD back. When we set up our budget, Randy knew that we owed HUD. He put everything else in the budget. And some of the things we can't take out as a Commission that he put in the budget, so why wasn't this money put in the budget to pay off HUD versus taking it back from these particular projects? And here's a project that we're assuming that HUD may pick up that we don't know, and I cannot support it the way it is written. And, also, why would you take and decide to give Beulah Grove their money because their project already started and still take away from Shiloh and New Hope without rescinding the motion that we had already about a month ago giving this money to each one of these organizations? Plus, this was a decision that this was tax money that could be used in the Bethlehem area, and it says nothing about HUD, and we have not rescinded either item what we're going to do, but yet Page 55 and still we're trying to give it away to somebody else already. Let me try to explain this. My responsi- MR. OLIVER: bility is to try to minimize our financial exposure and to make it so that, if at all possible, we don't have to pay back HUD anything. We have had long, protracted conversations with HUD as it relates to the best way to do this. They have agreed--and they still have to argue their points with the Inspector General's Office in Philadelphia. They have agreed that these three projects are HUD eligible. There are some very intricate rules involved in this. Of this amount of $765,237, $503,000 of it is UDAG, and the UDAG money has different rules on it. It only needs to meet the HUD public purpose requirement if it's UDAG funding, meaning that you don't have to meet what I call the little idiosyncracies of the law. It only has to comply with the public purpose. Clearly Beulah Grove complies with that in that it serves low and moderate income individuals, and there's no question about that. The remaining $262,237 has to comply with HUD guide- lines in totality. If you recall last year, Commissioner Handy, the Shiloh project, because the sales tax money was not available, went through Mr. Mack's office. And they have been complying with those guidelines, so we don't think that it's onerous at all to do that. We are proposing to take both Beulah Grove and New Hope through the UDAG requirements, which are the general public purpose, and to take the remaining amount for Shiloh through the HUD rules. The alternative of not approving this item will be HUD will come in and they will reduce our HUD allocation by $262,237 and we will have to pay back, because you cannot reduce your HUD allocation for the UDAG shortcomings, by $503,000 which will have to come out of, you know, some general fund contingency. Be it urban or suburban, that's an issue that would have to be addressed. We don't think it's in the best interest of this government to give any money back to HUD because we believe these three projects are clearly vital to the community. And while they were funded with sales tax and that was the original intent, HUD agrees with us. We've talked with Stella Taylor as well as John Perry at the HUD office in Atlanta and they agree that these three projects clearly meet the spirit and intent of the law, and they're comfortable with it and it's just a long negotiation process. All I can say is my objective was to get out of this thing without having to relinquish one cent of county money and without penalizing the low income people by cutting back our allocation of federal HUD funds in the future. Okay. Now, what happened to the interest MR. HANDY: that this money has been drawing since it's been in the bank for the last five or six years? Page 56 What do you mean, the sales tax money? MR. OLIVER: Yeah. MR. HANDY: We collect the sales tax money and it's--we MR. OLIVER: do invest it, and I believe we invest it prudently. It goes into an account called recapture; okay? And then at some point it comes back to you all for distribution toward the end of the sales tax. Now, you know, one of the issues that you always face with any sales tax is you guesstimate on what your collections are going to be. Sometimes the collections are better than you think, sometimes they're less than you think. And we have generated some money with sales tax, but--I would defer to Mr. Wall on this, I don't think we can use sales tax money to pay back bad loans that were made, you know, through the HUD program, but that would be a call that he would have to make. Wait a minute, what are you saying? The MR. HANDY: sales tax money that we have now for Beulah Grove, for New Hope, what's the plans to do with that money? All we're doing is--and I'll be candid, all MR. OLIVER: we're doing is moving money from our right pocket to our left pocket. So you're taking money that we have already MR. HANDY: in the general fund and paying off and taking that sales tax money and put it back in general fund? Here's the actual sequence of it, so you MR. OLIVER: understand, and I'll use, you know, a typical project. We have currently committed sales tax money for it. We will enter into a contract with Housing and Neighborhood Development to do these three projects; okay? They will do the three projects. The people will get the same three projects that we proposed, the difference will be we will use the sales tax money to pay HUD, to pay it back, and then we will use, in essence, different money--or the same money, just, you know, with a different label on it, to do the same projects. And the only reason that we are doing this is because we had HUD eligible projects and it gets us out of this audit finding without having to contribute any money from the general fund or reducing any of our HUD allocation. Okay. So you are assuring me that these MR. HANDY: three projects are going to get started and completed regardless? Yes, sir. MR. OLIVER: Page 57 That is an assurance? MR. HANDY: Mr. Handy, I have also talked with MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Stella Taylor and she assured me the same thing, and she has advised me this is the best way to do it without subtracting from our funds that we're going to receive next year. Then why didn't Stella tell--send us a MR. HANDY: letter, and James Perry? So why would I have to listen to you and Randy telling me what you all have talked of and then-- Because we listen on other things, MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: and we've brought other things to you without letters. But this is very important here. MR. HANDY: I'm sure it is, but I truly MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: believe that this is the best effort that we can do and maintain the monies that we are going to come in with. As Mr. Mack indicated, obviously the final MR. OLIVER: resolution of this, but they've had conversations with the IG's office in Philadelphia, rests with the IG's office, but they will defer largely to HUD. I'm only one vote. I'm not going to vote MR. HANDY: for it. You all can do what you need to do, that's what I want to say. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to--let me first say MR. MAYS: that we know that the money we owe HUD has to be paid back. I know it, no qualms about that. Regardless of how it got started, we've got to pay it back. The one thing that bugs me a little bit--and this is not with our folks or any--the Administrator and his office, Housing and Neighborhood Development. But just playing devil's advocate for a second, there were folk at HUD who approved the projects that we're now paying back from the old city. They didn't just send money and they got done, even though the old city may have said sent some things up there that shouldn't have been done or that were later recognized by HUD that they needed to be repaid on. What I just want to make sure is that--and I understand all the swapping and the left hand and the right hand. I just want to make sure--and I agree with Freddie now about the part that gets in writing because you're still talking to some of the same folk, no disrespect, that were there when the city did this other thing. There are some of us, maybe just two of us, that would feel a lot more comfortable if we weren't relying--and this is no disrespect to you gentlemen. I think you're bringing back totally 101% Page 58 the truth of the conversations you've had. But what I want to know is, is there a guarantee that if their conversations fall short and by some hook and crook in the measure, regardless of how eligible they may seem when they're going up, that if in the written orders that come down they are rejected, are you putting any money in escrow from anywhere to deal with Shiloh and to deal with New Hope and to guarantee that they end up getting done? Here's the advantage to this approach: if MR. OLIVER: the bottom falls out, we still pay the $765,237 back. We're no worse off than if we tried to do this. Now, as Mr. Mack indicated, HUD--and this is why we have to formally adopt or propose some resolution to it. Our proposed resolution has to formally be walked up the chain, and we will ultimately get a letter back approving it. It's kind of like working with the Internal Revenue Service or whoever. Ultimately there will be a formal resolution, but it has to start with us. Now, we have made them a party of the negotiation process. This thing has been faxed back and forth to Atlanta probably three, four, five times as the proposed, you know, settlement of the issue, and they have given us verbal assurance--they will not give us anything in writing until they have written assurance from the OIG, but they've had conversations with the OIG's office and the OIG has indicated that they have some level of comfort with it. But until we get that written document back, you know, we don't have anything for sure, but we're no worse off than we are today I guess is what I'm saying. I have no problem with us swapping documents, MR. MAYS: have no problem with us voting on it, Mr. Mayor, and moving ahead, but do we release monies? The only thing we're doing right now is swapping documents; am I correct? Even if we vote to go ahead with it--which I see nothing wrong with as long as we've got the guarantee to put that money back. And I'm going to say this very candidly, Randy, I think you all have done a good job of putting that together, you and Keven's office, but my real stickler lies in the fact that you're saying if it falls through, we still pay the same amount. The projects that you're talking about in sales tax were projects that were voted on, so we've got to honor those, so-- These three projects will be done MR. OLIVER: regardless of whether this deal flies or it doesn't fly. That is not a concern. That's not even an issue that's on the table. If HUD shoots this down totally or the OIG shoots it down totally, these three projects will still be done. We are committed to do those three projects. So, in essence, we are holding actual monies MR. MAYS: until they approve the documentation that we're sending up Page 59 there. The monies are there, it's just a question MR. OLIVER: of whose account they're in. We're holding the monies that would be repaid MR. WALL: to HUD, we're not holding up the monies that will go toward the projects. The projects would proceed, and so we're not holding up those monies. Those projects will be built regardless. The only monies that we're holding up is the monies that would go back to HUD. Okay. I just wanted to make sure, Jim, MR. MAYS: because I've seen shades of enough dog fights that I want to make sure that--in essence, I don't want money going to HUD. And you say, well, we put a great plan together [inaudible], months later it comes back that by some technicality they are not approved and then we got to come in here and fight with this Commission to get them back on the front burner again. That's all I want to make sure that's not being done now, and we have a great history of doing stuff like that. That's all I want to make sure that's being done, that there is a guarantee. And when you talk to these folk by phone--I'm just a stickler for what's voted on and what's in writing, that's all. These projects will be done either way, I MR. OLIVER: mean, and we will not hold them up in any way. As long as we ain't sending no money until MR. MAYS: the plan is guaranteed. Now, that's the kind of language I understand, you're holding the money until they agree on it. That's what I want to ask, Randy, Jim, what MR. HANDY: you're saying. The money that we already have allocated to Beulah Grove, Shiloh, New Hope, that money we have-- Will continue to be allocated. MR. OLIVER: Until HUD decides whether they're going to MR. HANDY: approve these projects or not? That money will still be there and they MR. OLIVER: will get that money. Be it out of sales tax or be it out of CDBG, they will get the money and I will assure you of that. I've got no problem with that. Why are we doing it then? Why can't we use MR. HANDY: our own money and get it over with without messing with this money? Page 60 Because what we are doing is we are taking MR. OLIVER: bad loans, bad projects that were done by HUD--or done by H&D in the past and we are substituting what I call good ones; okay? So if you look at it from a banker's perspective, you're substituting good loans for bad loans, and that's exactly what we're doing here. And as I say, these projects will not--you know, they will progress just as, you know, normal. Well, that's not my problem. What I'm MR. HANDY: saying, why do we have to mess with that money? Why do we bring up that money anyway if it's going to go the process you're going? Because if you didn't go through this MR. OLIVER: formality, and we've still got to amend the HUD forms, we would have to pay them back $765,237 in cash from the general fund. Okay. So where it's coming from now? MR. HANDY: And the key to it, Mr. Handy, is that it has MR. MACK: to come from a non-federal source, the repayment. We're going to hear from Mr. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Brigham and then we're going to vote on this. Well, I haven't finished yet, but you go on MR. HANDY: and hear from Mr. Brigham. MR. H. BRIGHAM:I wasn't there when he presented that check and I don't want to get crossed up in that, but I was going to make a motion. My motion is that we approve this. And I understand that Beulah Grove has progressed a little ahead of the others and that, Mr. Oliver, they already have a contract; is that right? Correct. MR. OLIVER: MR. H. BRIGHAM:That we ratify this contract, pay Beulah Grove this money and let them go on. And since the other two are not quite as far along, they would be the ones, I think, Mr. Handy, that you [inaudible]. And only on those grounds would I so move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: And that's exactly what the motion provides MR. OLIVER: for in the book. All right. We have a motion and a MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Page 61 second. What is your pleasure? I'm going to vote for it, Mr. Mayor. I'm MR. MAYS: going to vote for it because I got my guarantee. But I'm going to say this, and I don't care to whose office it falls under, whether it's the Mayor's or whether it's the Administrator's office: Don't send me nowhere else to give nobody no check with cameras there and folk taking them, and y'all got these grand plans about how you're going to pay otherwise and then we turn out, regardless of party affiliation, looking like jackasses after it's been done and have to go through this kind of process to decipher it. It gets back again that I said earlier about tails wagging dogs, dogs wagging tails. You know, get our act together about how we're going to do it. We knew at the start of this new government that we had to pay HUD back, and all of a sudden after we get out there--and I told y'all over and over everybody that ever worked for us--you know, we got folk in the lowest [inaudible] in terms of pay scale. I'll be damned if somebody's going to send me somewhere to look like a jackass presenting money and you come up with plans afterward. We've known for two years how we were going to do it, and all of a sudden after we go hand it out, then the plan come up. I got a problem with that. Don't send me out there--y'all may not mind being embarrassed. I do mind being embarrassed. I can do enough stupid stuff on my own. When I do that on my own, that's my deal with it. Let's call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. SHEPARD: Let's vote on this. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: All right. Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Page 62 Mr. Handy? CLERK: What the hell, yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yeah. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Yes. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK:Item 63: Motion to approve location of new Animal Control Facilities on ARC property immediately north of the existing location. MR. HANDY:Move for approval, Mr. Mayor. Second. MR. SHEPARD: I do have some questions. I know it falls MR. POWELL: under Mr. Handy's committee, but one thing that I would like to see us do before we go approving a site for this is maybe have some town meetings out there in the neighborhoods because I'm getting a lot of calls about this. And I know that we're just moving right down the road, but I really would like to see us have a little bit more public input on this because we do have some possible other locations, and I just want to bring that up as a point of concern that the community does have. And your concern is well taken. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: That is in your district; right? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. MR. POWELL: Okay. Well, I came up with that same idea MR. HANDY: at first, but I got shot down, so that's why I went on and did it. So what we going to do? Page 63 Are there any other questions? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: We're going to vote on this. Any other questions? Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, is there only one MR. BRIDGES: motion on the floor and that's to approve? Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: No. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. Page 64 CLERK:Item 64: Approve use of up to six intersections on May 7 & 8, 1999 for Georgia Games Fund Drive. MR. BRIDGES:Move for approval. I'll second it to get it on the floor. MR. MAYS: And I think, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we have MR. OLIVER: somebody here from the--if she hasn't left. Yes. Could we have your name, MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: address, and who you're representing, please? My name is Cindy Ball, I'm the event manager MS. BALL: for the Georgia Games, from Augusta, Georgia. And one of the things that I would like to point out is it says here up to six intersections. All six intersections have not been identified. We actually wrote a letter asking for three intersections within the Augusta-Richmond County area. Several reasons why our Friends of the Games Committee has suggested we do this during the week of May 2nd through May 8th is that is our Georgia Games week and we are going to be out in full force as far as awareness and it's an opportunity for a lot of people to participate in the fundraising efforts that they normally cannot participate in. We have several levels of sponsorships, as you probably well know. The smallest levels that--people can say I want to contribute a dollar, two dollars. It's easier if, you know, we're out in front of them and they feel good about it. Everybody wants this to succeed. It gives everybody an awareness. We're going to have Spike out there at intersections, who is a mascot. I'm going to push the awareness more than the fundraising efforts of this, and I think that we'll be able to include a lot more of the public in the Georgia Games effort rather than just saying, you know, we have our sponsorship levels. We would like to invite everyone to participate in some level, and this is just another level that people can participate in. We would note that one of the intersections MR. OLIVER: they have requested--they think so highly of you all that one of the intersections they have requested is in Columbia County, and obviously they would have to request permission to use that intersection from Columbia County. I just wanted to make this point. I think MR. KUHLKE: even if we approve this, I think you have to get the approval of the Sheriff's Department. That's correct. MR. OLIVER: Page 65 Any other comments on this? All MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: in favor of the motion, let it be known by the usual sign of-- Do you want a roll call? CLERK: I want the roll call vote. MR. MAYS: Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Yes. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: No. MR. SHEPARD: MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-2. Page 66 CLERK:Item 65: Motion to approve a contract with Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for 1998 Historic Preservation Fund Grant of $6,500 with any match made by Historic Augusta. MR. KUHLKE:So move. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that, if MR. BRIDGES: I'm reading this correctly, we are putting no money out there; am I right? That's correct. MR. OLIVER: Paul, can you tell us what this is MR. J. BRIGHAM: about? Yes. This would fund the development of PAUL DeCAMP: three national register nominations for the areas listed on the map that were in--should have been your packet. These would be-- Are these neighborhood nominations? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No, these would be additional nominations PAUL DeCAMP: affecting small areas of downtown. Is it buildings or is it [inaudible]? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, it'd be a series of buildings for PAUL DeCAMP: one, up and down Telfair Street, roughly between 5th and 12th; a small area of the Riverfront from Reynolds to the river around 8th and 9th Streets; and then another square block bounded by 10th, 11th, Reynolds, and Jones Street. I would note that, you know, if these MR. OLIVER: districts got approved, that this would put some substantial restrictions on the use and revitalization of that property to comply, as I understand it, Paul, with the-- Well, only if you kick in any federal PAUL DeCAMP: dollars for projects in those areas. And in that case, the only thing that's required is compliance with certain standards. An environmental impact statement. MR. OLIVER: Are there any other questions for MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Paul? We'll proceed with the roll call vote. Page 67 Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: I abstain. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Abstain. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. Mr. Colclough, did you have a MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: request dealing with Item Number 1? MR. COLCLOUGH:Could we bring it back up? I'll make that as a motion. Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Page 68 We have a motion and a second to MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: reconsider Item 1. Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: No. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: No. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Yes. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: No. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. I've got a question. When you said bring MR. KUHLKE: it back up, I was assuming you were bringing back up the amendment. I mean didn't we have two motions on that? This is to reconsider the item. Now any MR. WALL: Page 69 motion can be made. And I was going to make a motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Oh, to reconsider. I'll change my vote to MR. KUHLKE: yes. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MR. H. BRIGHAM:Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that we allow our able Administrator to use his discretion with department heads only in administering the raise that's in the budget already and we do not have to wait for department heads only until October 1st. That's in a motion. So move [sic]. MR. COLCLOUGH: We have a motion and a second. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Any discussion? Yes, sir. Would the maker of the motion MR. MAYS: accept an amendment to put a date in there? I agree with the able Administrator and his discretion, but the able Administrator-- Needs some direction. MR. OLIVER: You're doggone right. He got out here when MR. MAYS: it got on the floor and he [inaudible]. I said earlier we were the cause, Henry. If we're the cause, put a date in it. If Randy's got it in the budget, so direct him to put a date on it. If not, I'll make a substitute motion that it goes to the pay period that's next. Might I suggest the first of the following MR. OLIVER: pay period? I'll accept the following pay period, MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mays; is that all right? That's fine with me. I just don't want to MR. MAYS: be--what I'm saying, his discretion and then ten folks start calling him, he may make it September the 30th. Let's have a roll call vote on MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: this, Ms. Bonner. I need a clarification of the date. MR. BRIDGES: Page 70 What I understood was for department MR. OLIVER: directors it would be the first of the next pay period and for all the others it would be October the 9th as we provided for within the budget. Is that correct, Mr. Brigham? That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: You mentioned that we had the money in the MR. KUHLKE: budget. I don't ever remember approving a 5% increase. You approved 3½% across the board for all MR. OLIVER: employees. We've adjusted those numbers because of a number of factors. So you've cut the employees to 3% to come MR. KUHLKE: up with 5? Yeah. And, you know, we'll have to go back MR. OLIVER: and--I was expecting to bring this item forward in two weeks and I have not had, you know, a lot of time to do the adjustment, but that's the way that I balanced the books, if you will. I would just like to say--and some of the MR. KUHLKE: people on this Commission will take it wrong. I'm all for doing what we need to do for our department heads, but I think if this motion passes, and if we don't do it concurrently with the other employees, then we're opening a can of worms in this government, and as a result of that I'm going to vote against it. Mr. Mayor, I do have one question of Randy MR. BRIDGES: on the budget. As I understand it, you're cutting a percent from the employees across--in other words, you decreased the raise to the employees to pay for the department heads? I need to go back and adjust the numbers MR. OLIVER: and do some fine-tuning to do that. But the $50,000--I mean it's not this year that's the financial issue, it's next year is the one I've got to be careful with because it's only a partial year. But, in essence, that's what you've done? MR. BRIDGES: In essence, that's what I've done. Now, I MR. OLIVER: can probably, once I fine-tune the numbers, adjust that just a little bit. But as you all are well aware, there have been some financial issues this year that we've been dealing with that we've gone against the general fund contingency for, and we've spent quite a bit of money out of general fund contin- gency. But inflation has been extremely low, as indicated in Page 71 the-- Mr. Mayor, may I just ask Mr. Oliver, MR. J. BRIGHAM: we have had projections that we were $300,000 short on various items, that we were not going to meet our revenue. Are we just having a smorgasbord on what we can and can't do? No. If you recall, we budgeted a million MR. OLIVER: dollars in general fund contingency. The builders fee increase was not approved, that was $300,000. We've had 120-- and I'm looking at the large items that we had. In my opinion, through the month of--as of today we've probably used half of our general fund contingency. And clearly, you know, between that and Senate Bill 177 we're going to, you know, have to be very frugal for the remaining part of the year. But the one thing I will say is that our employees are the ones that make us or break us, and, you know, we need to address that the best that we can. And, you know, if we sharpen our pencil and do our thing, I'm comfortable that we can cover that. Mr. Oliver, I don't want to make this MR. J. BRIGHAM: sound wrong. My son is a sailor, before I say it. This Commission is spending our contingency like a bunch of drunken sailors [inaudible] have done it constantly all year. And I think that we need a complete review of not only our contingency, we may have to cut this to 3% just to balance the budget before the year is over with. Ladies and gentlemen, we're talking MR. COLCLOUGH: about the second largest city in the state of Georgia, we're talking about growth. If we can't pay our department heads a decent salary, then we're not going to grow. We've been talking about throwing away money, we've been talking about a lot of things, but we have to pay people a good salary to retain them. If we're going to grow, we're going to sure have to get some good people in here to grow with us. Now, we've got a good Administrator, we've got some people who know how to do this, let's give them the opportunity to do it and stop crying about the money. Let's try and retain some of the good people that we have. I just want a point of clarification because MR. MAYS: it came up in here like this was a surprise on how we were having to deal with this money. Didn't y'all have a subcommittee that addressed this to help put this motion together? Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Who were the members of that subcommittee? MR. MAYS: Page 72 Colclough, Brigham, Bridges, and MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Shepard. Who was the chairman? MR. MAYS: I was. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Bridges? Okay, no problem. MR. MAYS: Okay. Could we have a roll call MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: vote? Yes, sir. Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: No. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Yeah. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: No. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Page 73 No. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. CLERK:Item 67: Motion to approve the employment of Patricia Darlington as the Augusta Aquatic Center Director with a starting salary of $36,000. MR. KUHLKE:I so move. Second. MR. BRIDGES: We have a motion and a second to MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: approve. Mr. Beard? CLERK: No. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: He's out of the room. MR. POWELL: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Present. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Page 74 Yes. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BEARD & MR. H. BRIGHAM VOTE NO; MR. MAYS VOTES PRESENT. MR. HANDY OUT. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. Mr. Mayor, I'll be very brief. We do have to MR. MAYS: get a director over there, and I'm glad that you have finally selected one, but this still does go back to everything that we've been saying in reference to how we deal with salaries and mid points, entry levels, and the whole nine yards. I've heard a lot about this particular job and what we had to do in order to save it and to get the person there. I hope that when you finally get back to dealing with some of the people that are on the bubble that we might lose--we can't do anything about some of the ones that we've lost recently, but some that we might lose that have made their marks clear that they know how to run a department, that they know how to do it efficiently, that they have brought savings and positive recognition to this city, that we'll be just as concerned about that savings as we are this one. I realize it's only a $36,000 a year job--and, in fact, the job may pay, and I've said this many times, it may pay too little. The only thing that I'm still stuck on is procedure. We were insistent upon this being a mid level job while we were locking people in with experience in this city that had to remain at their entry levels, and it's a point of principle why I cannot support it. And I hope at some point that we'll think about saving some of those that have proven just as much as we have those that have never set foot in this darn county and worked for us. I hope we'll consider that just as equally. Thank you, Mr. Mays. Next item? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: CLERK:Item 68: Appointment to the Tax Assessor's Board from Super District 9: Mr. Jeff Padgett; Ms. Wilhelmina Brodie. There was some discussion on one of the MR. BRIDGES: previous people on here, and that person has been removed now, concerning their payment of taxes and late payments, that type of thing, so I asked Ms. Bonner to check on both of these with the Tax Office and see if there were any late payments or any taxes still owing. I don't think we want to appoint somebody to this position that--when someone goes on the Tax Assessor's Board, they need to be above board with their taxes and not be late, that type of thing, so I asked Ms. Bonner to check on Page 75 that. And, Ms. Bonner, did you--what results did you find? Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges. This information was CLERK: provided to me by Mr. North Williamson from the Tax Commissioner's Office. He stated that Mr. Jeff Padgett is clear and up to date on all taxes. Ms. Brodie owns two pieces of property. She was--the question posed to him, were they any time late or did they owe any taxes. Ms. Brodie owns two pieces of property. She was late paying taxes on one piece in '96 and on both pieces in 1997. In 1998 she was on time on one piece of the property and she owes a balance of $372.75 on the other, which was late. Was Mr. Padgett late at any time? MR. BRIDGES: No, sir. CLERK: Ms. Bonner, I think we also have MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: to note the requirements for this, and Mr. Padgett--I don't believe he is eligible for this. So I'm going to ask that you either vote for Ms. Brodie [inaudible] and I need a motion on that. Mr. Mayor, could I have a ruling from the MR. BRIDGES: Attorney on that, on what's transpired with that change? I mean I think I know, but I think just for the record-- The General Assembly this year amended the MR. WALL: statute dealing with the Tax Assessor's Board. It changed from a six-member board to an eight-member board. And insofar as the six that are appointed by the Commission, designated that three would be appointed from Super District 10, three from Super District 9, and stated that you would put into effect as quickly as possible appointing three from each Super District. You currently have three members from Super District 10, and so the next appointment needs to come from Super District 9. When was that effective? MR. BRIDGES: It was effective upon signature by the MR. WALL: Governor, which was--the new members that are appointed by the Legislative Delegation have already been sworn in. I think it was on March the 22nd. I may be off a day or two, but I think that's right. Could we get a motion on Ms. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Brodie? MR. H. BRIGHAM:I nominate Ms. Brodie. Page 76 Could we get a second on that? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: This doesn't require it, unless Jim rules it MR. MAYS: out of order. Okay. I just want to make sure MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: [inaudible]. Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: No. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Yes. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Who is Ms. Brodie? MR. HANDY: Ms. Wilhelmina Brodie. CLERK: Yeah, who is it? MR. HANDY: She's Ms. Brodie. CLERK: What district does she live in? MR. HANDY: Super District 9, District 1. CLERK: She is eligible? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. CLERK: Okay. When did we start screening people's MR. HANDY: taxes to see whether they paid or not, just to decide whether they get on board or not? Well, do a Commissioner have a right to--he has a right down to go down there and look himself, but he don't have a right to tell you to go and read Page 77 it out in public. But he could have went down there and got the same information you got on his own to satisfy himself. And we shouldn't be going down and checking people out just to see--letting one Commissioner decide whether that person should be on and scrutinizing whether they paid their taxes or not when that's public and anybody in here can go down there and see what they need. And he could have went down there and saw what he needed to make his own self satisfied without you going down there, involving you as if this whole Commission wanted to know whether her taxes were paid or not. But yes. We need to finish voting. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I believe I am in order in MR. BRIDGES: asking the Clerk of Commission to perform certain things, and I think this is included. We are voting. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: No. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Abstain. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO. MR. POWELL & MR. SHEPARD ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 5-3-2. CLERK:Item 69: Motion to approve funding in the amount of $500 to Recovery Fest, Inc. Funded from account number 101-01-3313 (Lobbyist). Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know something MR. BRIDGES: about that, what we're really voting on there. My understanding [inaudible] $10,000 MR. H. BRIGHAM: last year. It's a drug recovery group, and there's a letter supposed to be somewhere. It's in the book, sir. CLERK: Page 78 Do we have a motion on that? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: MR. H. BRIGHAM:I move. I'll second. MR. MAYS: We have a motion and a second. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Any questions? Roll call vote, Ms. Bonner. Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Abstain. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: No. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Abstain. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Abstain. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: No. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Abstain? MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: No. MR. SHEPARD: MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO. Page 79 MR. BRIDGES, MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 3-3-4. CLERK:Item 70: Motion to approve CSRA Regional Development Center's Overall Economic Development Program. MR. POWELL:Move approval. Second. MR. KUHLKE: Motion and a second. Any MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: discussion? Roll call vote. Mr. Beard? CLERK: Abstain. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Abstain. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: Abstain. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: Abstain. MR. COLCLOUGH: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Abstain. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: I don't know. It's the day for abstentions, MR. MAYS: I'll just go on and abstain, too. Mr. Powell? CLERK: Yes. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Page 80 Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. COLCLOUGH, MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS ABSTAIN. MOTION FAILS 4-6. CLERK:Item 71: Motion to approve construction easement for Qwest Communications for installation of fiber optic cable. Y'all have previously approved a permit for MR. WALL: Qwest to put in a fiber optic cable. Essentially they're going to come from the Savannah River at Sand Bar Ferry, come along the railroad track, down to Sixth Street, then along Sixth Street right-of-way, under the bridge and the trestle. They will do this in one bore. They've got a boring device that they will start on the Savannah River bank and, as it was explained to me, will not come out of the ground until it comes out on the Savannah River at the trestle. They will have a procedure where they can tell where the head of the device is, etc. They do need to park some equipment along the pension property that's located on Reynolds Street, and they have requested a construction easement in order to do that. And I have spoken to Chief Maddox and alerted him to what was being done there because of his interest in the pension, and he had no objection to it. At the time the permit was approved, you attached to that a condition that "To the extent possible, that this work will be coordinated with the hydro switches that were to be put in on the railroad." I spoke with both Qwest Communication and to the railroad, Norfolk Southern, back in February when this was originally approved, and I was told by both Qwest and the railroad that the work that they would be doing would not in any way facilitate the location of the hydro switches, and so for that reason I would ask that you approve this construction easement. MR. SHEPARD:Mr. Mayor, I'd move that we approve it with the same condition we attached to the permit. I talked to Mr. Murphy prior to this, I don't think Mr. Murphy is down here, but he said this might be an opportunity we should still look into. If it's not feasible in his discretion, I'd defer to that. But I would say that Norfolk Southern hasn't done anything to facilitate the hydro switch project that I really know of, and I would like to have that same condition attached to it. I'll second the motion. MR. KUHLKE: We have a motion and a second. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Any discussion? Roll call vote. Page 81 Mr. Beard? CLERK: Abstain. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? CLERK: He's out of the room. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Handy? CLERK: Yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN; MR. COLCLOUGH OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. CLERK:Item 72: Motion to approve Memorandum of Agree- ment between Augusta-Richmond County Community Partnership for Children and Families, Inc. and Augusta, Georgia. I did not put this on, I don't believe. MR. WALL: We put it on under you. CLERK: Page 82 Oh, did you? This is a pass-through. We MR. WALL: serve as physical agent. It's an agreement that we enter into every year. Yeah, it's fine. MR. OLIVER: MR. SHEPARD:Move approval, Mr. Mayor. Second. MR. H. BRIGHAM: We have a motion and a second. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Roll call vote. Mr. Beard? CLERK: Yes. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Mr. Bridges? CLERK: Yes. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Henry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Jerry Brigham? CLERK: Yes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Colclough? He's out. Mr. Handy? CLERK: I don't know anything about this. Abstain. MR. HANDY: Mr. Kuhlke? CLERK: Yes. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mays? CLERK: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Powell? CLERK: Abstain. MR. POWELL: Mr. Shepard? CLERK: Yes. MR. SHEPARD: MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN; MR. COLCLOUGH OUT. Page 83 MOTION CARRIES 7-2. Any other business? MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Can I ask a question, Mr. Beard, before you MR. HANDY: close out? Normally, you know, when you say this is a pass- through grant, then you go through the process of explaining who, what, when, and where. Why this one just passed on by? Nobody asked no questions. You had the opportunity if you MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: wanted to ask what it is. Right, that's what I want to know. I want MR. HANDY: to know who it is. This was a grant--here's the issue. It MR. OLIVER: came in to Ms. Bonner, Mr. Handy, but she did give it to me. It's a grant that they previously had applied for that this Commission approved. This is just a formal piece of paperwork that needs to be signed to enable them to get the grant, and it required the Mayor's signature. But who are them? MR. HANDY: It's a grant that you all previously MR. OLIVER: considered and approved. I'd have to dig that out. It's Family Connection and it went through MR. WALL: the School Board. Okay. If it's Family Connection, I got to MR. HANDY: vote for that. That's why I wanted to make sure of that. Okay, so change my vote. Change your vote? CLERK: Right. I wanted to make sure. If it's MR. HANDY: Family Connection I have to vote for it. We'll make it 8 to 1. MR. OLIVER: Well, I wanted to know. I mean some grants MR. HANDY: y'all ask about, y'all scrutinize it, and this one you just went straight on through. I thought something was up. MR. POWELL ABSTAINS; MR. COLCLOUGH OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. Is there any other business, Ms. MAYOR PRO TEM BEARD: Bonner? Page 84 No, sir, that's it. CLERK: [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M.] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta-Richmond County Commission held on April 6, 1999. ______________________ Clerk of Commission