Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2001 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER March 20, 2001 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, March 20, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of the Augusta Richmond County Commission. The Invocation was given by the Reverend Trowell. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. PRESENTATION: A. Proclamation Harlem Globetrotters Day March 26, 2001 B. Employees of the Month Mr. Thelodis T. Jones and Mr. Brian S. Shepherd C. Proclamation April Fair Housing Month Clerk: In recognition of the Harlem Globetrotters Days: WHEREAS, The Harlem Globetrotters originally called the ?? Big Five, was founded in Chicago by A. Sapperstein, a 24-year old white immigrant from London. The original players are Inman Jackson, Tommy Bookings, William Grant, Lester Johnson, Joe Leonard, Randolph Ramsey, Walter White, and William Watson; and WHEREAS, The team played its first road game January 7, 1927, in Hinckley, Illinois. The team toiled night in and night, touring Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa the first four years of its existence. In 1980, A. Sapperstein changed the name to the Harlem, New York Globetrotters to indicate an all-black team; and WHEREAS, In 1942, the Globetrotters made an historic addition. Mr. Bob Carsten became the first and the only full-time white player at that time. On February 20, 1948, the Globetrotters defeated the World Champion Minneapolis Lakers 61-59. This win brought much-deserved respect for the Globetrotters; and WHEREAS, The Globetrotters were the first sports team to receive a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and also the first team to receive the prestigious John W. Bunn award from the Basketball Hall of Fame; and WHEREAS, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bob Hope, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Whoopi Goldberg, Jackie Joyner-Kearse, Pope John Paul II, and Rev. Jackson are honorary Harlem Globetrotters; 2 NOW THEREFORE, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim March 26, 2001 to be Harlem Globetrotters Day in Augusta, th Georgia, and urges all its citizens to join in their 75 Anniversary Celebration. IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have unto set my hand and caused the seal of th Augusta, Georgia to be affixed this 20 day of March, 2001. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: [inaudible], we really appreciate the Harlem Globetrotters [inaudible] the city of Augusta. You guys have been coming here for generations and entertaining people of this area. We really appreciate the family-oriented show that you bring to Augusta. Mr. Speaker: Thank you so much. (A round of applause is given.) Clerk: Employee of the month award. Mr. Speaker: Mayor Young, Commissioners, the Employee of the Month Selection Committee has selected as its Employee of the Month Mr. Thelodis T. Jones and Mr. Brian S. Shepard. Because of a scheduling situation, they could not be with us today, so we’ve asked Chief Bernie Mack to accept the award in their behalf. Mr. Jones has worked for the City of Augusta for approximately five years. Mr. Shepard has worked for the city for approximately seven years. Mr. Jones is a firefighter for the Engine Company #9 and Mr. Shepard is also in the same company. They were nominated by Chief Bernie Mack, and he gave us the following reasons for their nominations: On Christmas morning, December 25, at 11 a.m., Engine Company #9 responded to a Kentwood Nursing Home fire. The nature of the call was an EMS first response event. Arriving personnel entered the nursing home, were they were directed to a resident’s room. In the room, they found a nurse performing CPR on a resident. Initial observation revealed that the patient had no pulse and was not breathing. Firefighter Jones immediately assisted the nurse in performing CPR and Sgt. Brian Shepard prepared the defibrillator. After the initial shock, the patient began breathing on her own, Firefighter Jones and Shepard continued to monitor the situation until EMS responded. They further assisted the EMS in preparing the patient for transport to the hospital. Through their efforts, Ms. Mary [inaudible] celebrated a Christmas that could have ended tragically. Their quick action and professionalism allowed Ms. [inaudible] survive her cardiac episode. Mr. Mayor: Thanks, [inaudible]. Best wishes from the Mayor and Commission to these men. These guys are real examples of [inaudible] city government. (A round of applause is given.) 3 Mr. Mayor: Next item? Clerk: A resolution proclaiming April as Fair Housing Month. rd WHEREAS, On April 2001 marks the 33 anniversary of the passage of the Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended which guarantees fair housing opportunity for all Americans; and WHEREAS, The provision of fair housing opportunity for all citizens is an important goal of the Augusta Commission; and WHEREAS, The Augusta Commission, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, concerned citizens, and the housing industry are working to realize the dream of fair and affordable housing for all county residents; and WHEREAS, The Augusta Commission is proud of its efforts to further fair housing for all residents and recognizes that this can only be accomplished through forging partnerships with individuals, for profit, and non-profit organizations, the corporate community and others; and WHEREAS, By supporting and promoting fair housing and equal opportunity, we are contributing to the health of our county, state and nation in encouraging others to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Federal Fair Housing Act, and state and local fair housing laws and ordinances; and THEREFORE, Be it proclaimed by the Augusta Commission that the month of April, 2001 shall be known, designated and set aside as Fair Housing Month in Augusta, Georgia; and FURTHER, That the Commission call upon all residents and citizens to recognize that compliance with local, state, and federal housing laws, which is the equitable way in which to guarantee fair housing practiced for all citizens. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to adopt the resolution? Mr. Cheek: So moved. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Do we have any addendums to the agenda, Madame Clerk? 4 Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. ADDENDUM AGENDA: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Item 43A: Talent bank application for Ms. Mary Huffstetler regarding her appointment to the Riverfront Review Board representing District 7. CORRECTION TO THE AGENDA: Item #14 should read: Motion to approve the purchase of Four (4) Compact Pickup Trucks for the Utilities Department - Administration Division from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia in accordance with the guaranteed pricing (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-132). Motion to approve the acquisition of Four (4) Fullsize Pickup Trucks for the Utilities Department - Administration Division from Augusta Dodge in accordance with the guaranteed pricing (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-133). (Approved by Finance Committee March 24, 2001) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Motion to approve the appointments of Gloria Frazier and Jackson Usry to the Community Service Board of East Central Georgia. (Requested by the Board of Health) 2. Motion to approve the appointment of George W. Porter to the Augusta Ports Authority representing District 7. (Requested by Commissioner J. Brigham) 3. Motion to approve the amended and restated Articles of Incorporation for the Georgia Municipal Association, Inc. 4. Motion to approve letters of support on behalf of Howard Hardin Youth Ministries and the Share and Care Association, Inc. for funding from the Governor’s Children and Youth Coordinating Council. (Requested by Commissioner Williams) 5. Discuss amending the Hotel/Motel Tax Ordinance. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, [inaudible], Boys and Girls Club things? Clerk: That’s item 51. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to the additions to the addendum agenda. Mr. J. Brigham: You don’t have unanimous consent on Item #1. Mr. Mayor: Item #1? 5 Mr. J. Brigham: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any objection to any other items? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Item 5, Mr. Mayor. That’s simply because of the time element here. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any objection to Items 2, 3 or 4? Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough: Mr. Colclough: You don’t have unanimous consent on Item #2. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any objection to Item 3 or 4? None heard, so we’ll add Items 3 and 4 to the agenda today. We’ll proceed with the consent agenda, Madame Clerk. Clerk: The consent agenda consists of Items 1 through 43A. 1 through 43A. For the benefits of any objectors on the planning petitions, I will read those areas affected by the petitions; if there are any objectors, would you please signify your objection by the raising of your hand. 1. Z-01-13 - A petition from William E. Goss requesting a Special Exception to develop a vehicle parking area per Section 8-2(b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Merry Street, 195 feet south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Merry Street and Walton Way. (916 Merry Street) DISTRICT 1 2. Z-01-14 – A petition from Henry R. Smith, II requesting a Special Exception to establish a private school per Section 26-1(b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive Extension, 430 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of McKnight Industrial Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive Extension. (811 Scott Nixon Memorial Drive Extension) DISTRICT 3 3. Z-01-15 - A petition from Bishop L. A. Green, on behalf of Light of the World, Inc. requesting a Special Exception for church related activities per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located where the southeast right-of- way line of Alabama Road intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Wise Drive. (1874 and 1876 Alabama and 231 Wise Drive) DISTRICT 2 4. Z-01-16 - A petition from CSRA Business League, Inc., on behalf of Augusta- Richmond County, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One- family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Laney-Walker 6 Boulevard and Summer Street. (Fourteen (14) tax parcels totaling 1.2 acres) DISTRICT 1 5. Z-01-17 - A petition from 30901 Development Corporation, on behalf of Beulah Grove Baptist Church, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Linden Street and Roulette Lane (Nineteen (19) tax parcels totaling 2.75 acres) DISTRICT 5 6. An Ordinance to amend Title 7, Article t of the Augusta-Richmond County Code to bring said article into compliance with minimum requirements of the State of Georgia. Mr. Mayor: Are there any objections to the Planning Commission items? None are noted. Clerk: Under our Public Services agenda, for beer and wine applications: 37. Motion to approve request by George Vic Ralley for a Sunday sales license to be used in connection with Wheeler Tavern located at 3664 Wheeler Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 38. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters, Jr. for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Wheeler Road Amoco located at 3745 Wheeler Road. District 3. Super District 1. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 39. Motion to approve a request by Sona Kim Limon for a retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Korner Package Store located at 2943 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 40. Motion to approve a request by Alan Brosius for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Pump N Shop #2 located at 3755 Wheeler Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 41. Motion to approve a request by Daniel T. Perry for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with D. Timm’s Jazz Café located at 548 Ellis Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) Clerk: Are there any objections to these petitions? No objections. Mr. Mayor: None are noted. CONSENT AGENDA: PLANNING: 7 1. Z-01-13 - A petition from William E. Goss requesting a Special Exception to develop a vehicle parking area per Section 8-2(b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Merry Street, 195 feet south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Merry Street and Walton Way. (916 Merry Street) DISTRICT 1 2. Z-01-14 – A petition from Henry R. Smith, II requesting a Special Exception to establish a private school per Section 26-1(b) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive Extension, 430 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the centerline of McKnight Industrial Road intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Scott Nixon Memorial Drive Extension. (811 Scott Nixon Memorial Drive Extension) DISTRICT 3 3. Z-01-15 - A petition from Bishop L. A. Green, on behalf of Light of the World, Inc. requesting a Special Exception for church related activities per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta- Richmond County affecting property located where the southeast right-of- way line of Alabama Road intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Wise Drive. (1874 and 1876 Alabama and 231 Wise Drive) DISTRICT 2 4. Z-01-16 - A petition from CSRA Business League, Inc., on behalf of Augusta- Richmond County, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One- family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Laney-Walker Boulevard and Summer Street. (Fourteen (14) tax parcels totaling 1.2 acres) DISTRICT 1 5. Z-01-17 - A petition from 30901 Development Corporation, on behalf of Beulah Grove Baptist Church, et. al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Linden Street and Roulette Lane (Nineteen (19) tax parcels totaling 2.75 acres) DISTRICT 5 6. An Ordinance to amend Title 7, Article t of the Augusta-Richmond County Code to bring said article into compliance with minimum requirements of the State of Georgia. FINANCE: 7. Motion to approve refund of 1999 taxes in the amount of $36.86 to Teddy Grafton, Jr. for overpayment of taxes on Account 2005641. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 8. Motion to approve refund of 1998 and 1999 taxes in the amount of $310.08 to Linda P. Crawford for overpayment of taxes on Map 55-4, Parcel 198. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 9. Motion to approve refund of 1998 and 1999 taxes in the amount of $418.68 to Thelma Rainwater for overpayment of taxes on Map 33-3, Parcel 72. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 8 10. Motion to approve the purchase of One (1) Fuel/Lubrication Truck from Mays International Trucks of Augusta, Georgia for $147,171.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-048). (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 11. Motion to approve declaring approximately 40’ x 42’ parcel lying behind property located at 456 Telfair Street as surplus property and authorizing sale to Charles W. Hock for appraised value. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 12. Motion to declare surplus and authorize the sale of property located at 2441 Riverlook Drive with a minimum bid of $30,000. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 13. Motion to approve agreement between Springfield Village Park Foundation, Inc. and Allen & Batchelor. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 14. Motion to approve the purchase of four (4) Compact Pickup Trucks for the Utilities Department – Administration Division from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia in accordance with the guaranteed pricing (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-132) and four (4) Full-size Pickup Trucks for the Utilities Department – Administration Division from Augusta Dodge in accordance with the guaranteed pricing bid (lowest bid offer on Bid Item 00-133). (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 15. Motion to approve job description for Internal Auditor’s position. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 16. Motion to approve the expenditure of $4,274.50 and the original heading for the Riverwalk Plaque with the business affiliations paid for by Augusta Tomorrow. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) 17. Motion to approve seeking revenue ruling for a determination as to the deductibility of garbage fees. (Approved by Finance Committee March 14, 2001) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 18. Motion to approve reclassification of Fleet Manager to Salary Grade 55. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 14, 2001) 19. Motion to approve recommendation of Position Control Committee to abolish a heavy equipment operator position (40) and create a Maintenance Support Technician (40) position in Trees & Landscaping Department with no change in salary or grade. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 14, 2001) 20. Motion to approve contract with Behavioral Health Link’s Concern: Employee Assistance Program for a two year period April 2001 to April 2003. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 14, 2001) 21. Motion to approve the License & Inspection Department to contract with vendors for the demolition of unsafe and uninhabitable structures. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 14, 2001) 22. Motion to approve the allocation of revenues in account no. 101000000343611 that exceed $37,000 be use to fund future demolition projects. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 14, 2001 9 23. Motion to approve the reinstatement of Security Deed from Dorothy Murray to Augusta, Georgia and the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department and refund of $7,110.00 to Dorothy Murray. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 14, 2001) 24. Motion to approved HND funding to cover costs associated with the ARC Landfill fees relative to A-NIC’s March 17 cleanup. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 14, 2001) 25. Motion to approve reorganization of the Facilities Management Division of Public Works in accordance with the revised Organizational Chart. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 14, 2001) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 26. Motion to approve option to acquire a right-of-way from George S. Pruiett (Tax Map 83, Parcel 37.7) for the sum of $10,500. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) 27. Motion to authorize the Public Works & Engineering Department to continue using Analytical Environmental Services, Inc. (AES) Analytical Services to perform 2001 leachate quality testing as required by Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) at a fee not to exceed $18,000.00. Funded by Landfill Account #541-04-4210-5213118. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) 28. Motion to approve a proposal from Southern Company Energy Solutions in the amount of $171,475 to replace a manual utility transfer switch with an automatic transfer switch for the Augusta Utilities Department. (Funded by Account Number 508043410-5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) 29. Motion to approve a proposal from Southern Company Energy Solutions in the amount of $96,144 to perform lighting retrofit services for the Augusta Utilities Department. (Funded by Account Number 508043410-5413120) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) 30. Motion to authorize the Public Works & Engineering Department to continue using Environmental Management Association (EMA) professional services to perform 2001 semiannual groundwater quality assessment as required by Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) at a fee not to exceed $46,000.00. Funded by Landfill Account #541-04-4210-5212999. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) 31. Motion to approve in concept the funding of the Contract Specialist Position from the administrative allocations of the Utilities Department Bond Projects, Public Works, Recreation and Fire Department Sales Tax. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) 32. Motion to approve the Construction Advisory Board participation in the interview process but not the decision making process for the position of County Engineer. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) 33. Motion to approve the waiver of landfill fees in accordance with request from ANIC for the March 17 community cleanup (22 dumpsters) in the event that 10 HND funding is not available. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) PUBLIC SERVICES: 34. Motion to approve a request by Jim Pauline for a massage therapist license to be used in connection with Augusta Chiropractic – Massage Division located at 2321 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 35. Motion to approve the declaration of excess equipment. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 36. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s participation in the Georgia Power Electric Bus Project. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 37. Motion to approve request by George Vic Ralley for a Sunday sales license to be used in connection with Wheeler Tavern located at 3664 Wheeler Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 38. Motion to approve a request by Raymond L. Walters, Jr. for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Wheeler Road Amoco located at 3745 Wheeler Road. District 3. Super District 1. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 39. Motion to approve a request by Sona Kim Limon for a retail package liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Korner Package Store located at 2943 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 40. Motion to approve a request by Alan Brosius for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Pump N Shop #2 located at 3755 Wheeler Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 41. Motion to approve a request by Daniel T. Perry for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with D. Timm’s Jazz Café located at 548 Ellis Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) 42. Motion to approve a request by Reuben K. Walker for a massage therapist license to be used in connection with Reuben K. Walker Massage located at 210 F Robert C. Daniel Jr. Parkway. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 14, 2001) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 43. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held March 6, 2001. 43A. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Mary Huffstetler to the Riverfront Review Board representing District 7. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what is your pleasure with respect to our consent agenda? 11 Mr. Bridges: A motion to approve. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and a second. Anyone desire to pull any items? Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Let it be known I vote No on Sunday sales. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The record will so reflect that. Would anyone like to pull any items on the consent agenda? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I abstain on Item 2 [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: The record will so reflect that Mr. Brigham is abstaining on Item 2. Anyone else? The Chair will call the question on the consent agenda. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, you can record I vote no on Item 37, Sunday sales portion of it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The record will so reflect that. Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion carries 8-2. [Item 37] Mr. J. Brigham abstains. Motion carries 9-1. [Item 2] Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1, 3-36, 38-43A] Clerk: 44. Reconsideration of Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director – Finance and Administration in the amount of $65,000.00. Funded by account no. 506043110-5111110 for Salary & Wages. (Requested by Commissioner Ulmer Bridges deferred from the March 6 meeting) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Mayor, I’d like reconsideration of this. We did arrive at a sum to offer for this position. I don’t feel like it’s equitable, in line with what should be for that position, and I think Ms. Williams has given us a letter here on our desk today that addressed some of the issues that I don’t think we knew 12 beforehand, and if you’ll read the letter, take the time to read the letter while I’m talking, if you haven’t already, I didn’t realize several weeks ago that Ms. Williams had taken on some of the duties that normally would have been done in our Finance Department, but due to the personnel changes there, loss of personnel, many of those duties fell on her shoulders. She willingly was there to take up the slack there so that no accounting in the Utilities Department would go lacking, and this was a very vital issue in regards to the bonding. Even without that, I think this position and the requirements for it and the degree requirements for it and the expertise of Ms. Williams that we have there, I think that the $65,000 that’s been recommended from the staff is reasonable and equitable, and I would make the motion that we offer this position at the $65,000 as posted. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second by Mr. Cheek. Mr. Williams, your hand is up? Mr. Williams: I just want our HR person to come up and give me some insight on this position. I think we need to be paying our employees, I think we need to work with or help those people that’s working hard, but what’s our HR department point on this? Ms. Pelaez: Our recommendation has been to give her the 15% increase which is in accordance with our promotion policy, and because there has been basically a disagreement between the promotion policy and what the department director would like to authorize, that is why it’s before you. But in accordance with the promotion policy, her salary would be $57,440.89. Mr. Williams: And that’s in line with our policy, you are saying? Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Brenda, if I may ask you a question. With respect to this memo to Mr. Hicks from Ms. Williams, considering the work that she says she’s doing in this memo, is this consistent with the job description for the position for which she is applying? Would there be some consideration there that might impact the amount of money? Ms. Pelaez: Let me say this. Given that I’m not remembering this memo, but what we have to realize, and I can use me as a prime example. I am currently still doing the Economic Opportunity Director’s duties and not getting any additional monies for that. Simply because you take on additional duties does not necessarily mean that is what your job is supposed to be doing, and so if there is a need to add additional personnel, that is what we need to do, and not set a salary at a higher level simply because a person has taken on additional duties. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, was your hand up? 13 Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I was just going to ask the question, if we had advertised this nationally and gotten someone with similar credentials in here, what salary range would they be eligible for? Ms. Pelaez: The same salary range that she is in. We did advertise this position nationally. Mr. Cheek: I know that, but outsiders -- and this has been an argument before and not subject to the 15% penalty that we hold our local employees to, is it possible that we would have been paying someone from the outside more than what we’re recommending at this point? Ms. Pelaez: I can’t answer that based on the fact that I didn’t look at the applications that were put in for this position. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: But isn’t it true that we have another person in Finance which we are paying less and they’re doing basically the same duties? I’m trying to get an answer for Mr. Cheek here. Ms. Pelaez: Actually both of our assistant comptrollers, one of our assistant now Finance Director who is in the interim position, once she goes back to her current position, will be making less than the $65,000 actually. Less than $55,000. So both of them, and those individuals are both well qualified. Mr. Cheek: But that’s standard practice, I guess, within the industry if you’re in a temporary position you pay to that, and when you go back you’re -- Ms. Pelaez: No, that’s not point. My points are we’re actually going to be compensating an assistant director in the Utilities Department $65,000, whereas we have comparable level positions within our organization that will be making far less, with far more responsibility. Mr. Cheek: I guess my point is the thing that I don’t want us to do is to go into the national market of engineering services or financial services or whatever, and limit our local employees to 15% and we would be paying from the outside. Ms. Pelaez: And I don’t disagree with that. I do agree that the policy should be looked at. But as the policy now stands, we have to apply it unless this board decides to make a different decision. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? 14 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, this is one of the things that we talked about in the interview process with different candidates, and I know Ms. Pelaez is working on something of that nature, probably to come to us. Maybe she and Mr. Wall, and whether it be the interim Administrator or the new one, in the possibilities of changing that procedure in terms of percentages. But let me jump just a moment. I can understand the motion that’s on the floor and the responsibility level that’s in that position. I think that person is doing an excellent job, and I don’t have a problem with wanting to see that in the upgrade. I voted for the upgrade that came out of HR. Where I do have a slight problem, maybe I’m going to get just a little old Commissioner’s prejudice for a second. We have to look up and down that line in Finance. What I would rather see us do today, if we could, whether it’s the substitute motion or whether the maker of the motion and the seconder would amend it, we are having to do a search for our Finance office’s reorganization period. In looking at that office, number one. You’ve got assistants in that office, that quite frankly, if we’re going to get into the battle of defending responsibility, I think with where that office has been left to a point where some people said the amount of people that left, but yet the show still goes on. Folks are running it. I’ve had the opportunity unfortunately of having been involved in the termination of two comptrollers. And I’m sitting looking at the person who took over in both cases. They’re still here. And our Finance hasn’t gone crazy with her at the helm of it both times in terms of running that office. I think we need to, if we’re going to this type of adjustment, pass what HR has directed, to reel this in and maybe look at all we’ve got in there, because if we’re going to talk about morale, overall morale is important, and when you start talking about the counting of money in one department, let me remind you, that office of Finance has to keep up with everybody’s money, including the one that you’re talking about making the increase on. So I’m not knocking what you want to do there. But I’m just saying that you’re going to have to revisit where your central office is and where you’re putting that. True, that person is in an interim state right now. They’ve been in that one before. But it’s also proving something else. Maybe that person there can do a little bit more than they’re given credit for doing. Even though we may have a person there that we brought in to coordinate it. I love Al Slavens. He’s my friend. But he couldn’t do down there by himself of running that whole deal in Finance. So I think while we’re looking at it, in the fairness to it, if we are going to do this one today and take that jump over HR and then not be willing at the same time to look at the structure of the overall Finance office, I think we’re only avoiding the inevitable. We’re going to have to come back and deal with it. I’d rather see it be pulled back to a point of fairly looking at all those folk and see where we can go with that at the same time. Because I want to support you on that, Ulmer, in terms of where that responsibility lies, but we’re doing four positions maybe in there, and probably this one is very important. But to a point of where it jumps to $16,000 to $17,000 over where it was, and even with a new Finance director coming in as a Comptroller, that person has still got to depend on that internal team to run that office down there. If they all walk, you still back in a funny position. And that’s with all your money, not just one department or one area. So I’m just saying I hope that maybe we can find some mediating room in that, Mr. Mayor, pull it back and let all of it go before Finance or Administrative Services and try, and when we do this deal, raise everybody with the same parameter of what we’re looking at in 15 terms of the people that are going to be handling the finances. That’s where I am on it, and I don’t want to knock it and beat that one, but I just wish you’d kind of pull it back, get it into a realm of where you can look at everybody’s thing fairly. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in agreement with Commissioner Mays, and I had several calls from other department heads who have been feeling like they been shorted because of their pay scale, and if we don’t look at everybody’s like Mr. Mays said, we going to open up a Pandora’s Box and then going to create a bigger problem. I agree with Mr. Mays again that we need to look at those people that’s doing good work for us. I agree with Commissioner Bridges in his recommendation. But I think we got a lot of departments that’s got directors that’s way below what we’re talking about doing right here. And I feel really bad to sit here and agree or vote on this issue and not go back and consider some other places that we got some pertinent people in key a substitute positions as doing. So I just think we need to do that. If I need to make motion that we look at it all through Finance and see how we can restructure this. We talking about a new Administrator, and we need to get all heads together and try to come up with a solution that’s going to alleviate this problem cause if we don’t, it’s going to open into a bigger problem for us. Mr. Mayor: So that we don’t let it slip by, was there a motion in there, Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I made a substitute motion that we take it to Finance and look at it. My Finance Chairman, Mr. Shepard, is real good about this. And if I can get a second to that motion, maybe we can take it to Finance and try to look at the structure of all of it and try to -- Mr. Shepard: You’ve got it, Mr. Williams. Second. Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Mr. Beard: Does that include going on with raise that she out, that has been promoted, the one that HR has been -- Mr. Williams: My motion proposing that whatever the HR standards are now, because if we don’t do that we going over that, then we going to be setting a precedent. I think we need to go back and do what the guidelines call for and then try to look at everything together. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think -- I don’t have any trouble with the substitute motion in regards to everything other than this position. As far as setting a precedent, we already set that precedent of violating the, or going outside -- I 16 guess violation may be too strong of a word since we can make those decision as a Commission. But going outside of the established HR policy in regard to the Public Works Director and in regards to the last two positions under Utilities, because in order to get those employees to those positions, we went outside the boundaries established before. And I think, I think the precedent has already been set. We’ve discussed many times about the inequities with the salaries of our department heads and our professionals, our engineers, these types of positions. And we all recognize that they need to be brought up to where these positions are competitive in government with what’s out in industry, because we’re losing too many people to industry. One of our engineering positions, the salary range is from $36,000 to I think $56,000 or something like that. We had a fellow already making $65,000 apply for that position. So we’re really not in line with where we need to be in regards to that and other positions. My purpose in pointing out that Ms. Williams took on these duties that were left deficient, I guess, from Finance was to point out that we have an able and qualified person here that’s willing to go the extra mile for the position. It was not necessarily to present a solo argument for awarding the $65,000 to this position. So in closing, I think the standards that we have in HR are not fair to this position as to what it should be getting. We’ve already gone outside of the established HR policy. We know we need to review this government inside and out. I don’t think we need to hold this one position up to do that. I think we need to move along with reviewing our salary structure, particularly in regard to department heads and professional positions. I really do. But I don’t think we need to hold this one up and I would the Commission would agree and we would support the original motion. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor that would set the compensation as recommended by the HR Director and refer these salaries to Finance Committee. Have I stated that correctly, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Correct, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question on the substitute motion. All in favor, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Cheek, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 6-4. Mr. Mayor: Next item? Clerk: 45. Motion to approve closing of Goshen Industrial Boulevard. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee March 14, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you’re on top of this issue. We give the floor to you. 17 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think we should take the same action that our friends So I at the railroads have taken and we wait to see the construction of the switches. would make the motion that we hold this at the Commission level until the first meeting in April. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: 46. Discuss Commission’s appointment to the Technical Advisory Committee pertaining to the Watershed Assessment Project. (Requested by Commissioner Bridges) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item, Mr. Mayor, is important to this government because it involves the water supply that our citizens are expecting from us. And I’m trying to get to the back-up on it. But these, the -- let me get back here so I can speak a little more intelligently from this. But Parsons Engineering has requested or has recommended an appointment of a Technical Advisory Committee and a Citizens Advisory Group. I’ve made, and some of the others have made those appointments to the Citizens Advisory Group. They want one from each Commission seat, and that’s to be given to Parsons Engineering at the phone number that’s on here. I would encourage other Commissioners to go ahead with that. We don’t need to wait on our watershed studies and assessments. We need to move along with this, and I think we’re on a pretty tight schedule with this in regard to the Master Plan. I would encourage that other Commissioners go ahead and make that appointment. They are also requesting a Technical Advisory Committee, which this Commission as a whole would appoint. And those positions are in the back-up. I would hope that today we could discuss that issue and this Commission could appoint those positions that are involved there. They are asking that the Technical Advisory Committee consist of five members possessing a technical background relative to water resources. That would be engineering, hydrology, ecology, forestry, water quality, that type of thing. And have familiarity with water resources and wares. So Mr. Mayor, I would hope that today between us we could come up with five people to put on that board. And I just throw that out to the floor. If some of the Commissioners have some people they’d like to appoint to it. I’d like to hear from some of our staff that may be involved with that, particularly Mr. Hicks or people that he might recommend that we could appoint to that. But I’d just like to throw that on the floor for discussion at this time. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek? 18 Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Commissioner Bridges that this item needs to be expedited with all due speed. I have, I’m in discussion with a couple of folks for this Technical Advisory Board that teach EPA folks how to establish monitoring techniques. I haven’t reached a point to where I can make that recommendation in discussion with them and the time that would be involved. But I would hope that Parsons is following the best practices technique in industry with both of these studies and using an established boiler plate pattern for watershed assessments and so forth to proceed and not wait for a board. Adjustments can be made from Board wishes when they come on board or are up to speed. But we should not be waiting, irregardless of whether we have a committee today or next week. They should already have the groundwork laid. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Madame Clerk, the way I read the back-up here, and correct me if I’m wrong, was that the Commission in its February 21 meeting gave all of us an appointment to this body, so we don’t have to put anybody on the floor. Don’t we just have to make appointments as we do to other bodies? Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: That’s the way -- Clerk: [inaudible] asked that the Mayor and Commission make appointments to these -- Mr. Mayor: There are two boards they’re talking about. One is the one each Commissioner appoints to and then the other one is the technical people, which only has five members. Mr. Bridges: That we as a fully body appoints. Mr. Mayor: The body has to appoint that. Mr. Shepard: So that’s the distinction? We don’t have two appointments. We have one as a member and then the group has to come as a group. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, did you want to be heard on this? Mr. Hicks: I was just going to comment that insofar as those five members of the Technical Advisory Committee, as is mentioned in the back-up, it needs to come from a broad range of interest. Groups such as Commissioner Cheek had mentioned certainly would have an input, and then probably someone from an environmental organization that’s been mentioned, Sierra Club, Georgia Conservancy. Someone perhaps from the academic community, that is, Paine College, Augusta State. Perhaps some from the forestry group. Also someone maybe from the soil conservation group. So there would be different groups that would need to be represented in this Technical Advisory Committee, and as Commissioner Cheek has well pointed out, Parson is continuing with 19 the technical aspect, but the sooner these folks can be recommended and contacted, then the better it will be. But these members of this committee need to come from a broad range of interests. Mr. Mayor: May I suggest we put this on the agenda for our next meeting and everyone bring your nominations with you the next meeting? Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: That was my suggestion. Mr. Bridges: I so move, Mr. Mayor. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: If you’ll put that on the agenda, Madame Clerk, for the next meeting. Clerk: 47. Consider award of HND Neighborhood Matching Grant to Alleluia, Inc to assist them in their March 31 neighborhood cleanup. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have a spokesman from the Alleluia Community here today, which is in my District, who has been doing some great work in that area. The Lyman and Dover Street area where there is a great need for some clean- ups and some rehabilitation in that area. Will you come to the stand and give us, tell us some of the things that we’re doing. And we’re asking Housing & Neighborhood Development to grant some money for some dumpsters. They got over 200 volunteers that’s ready, willing and able to go out into these particular areas and help clean up. This is a low-income area where it’s a lot of [inaudible] residents and stuff live in that area, but they’ve made an effort to get out and do something. Bob, will you give us your name and address and stuff and explain what you do out there. Mr. Garrett: My name is Bob Garrett. I’m a member of the Alleluia Community and I live in the Fleming Heights area in South Augusta, which borders the Lyman - Dover Neighborhood down there. We have -- if you’re familiar with the neighborhood, you know that the members of Alleluia have worked since 1974 and ’75 to bring an improvement to that part of town. And as we have done that, we have found that it is in everyone’s best interest to work together, with whoever will work with us, churches, city groups, whoever, to do what we can. Now generally speaking, we have not sought any sort of support from the city government. We’ve done everything pretty much on our 20 own. Like for example, last year we had a clean-up along Lyman - Dover and the Miles area. We fielded approximately 200 volunteers on that one. Filled up two dumpsters. It took the city three days to haul off the extra stuff outside of the dumpsters that we cleaned up out of that neighborhood. We are attempting to do a similar clean-up on March 31 of this year and would like to receive whatever assistance we might be able to receive from the City to be able to handle landfill costs to perhaps do more than just clean up the trash, but begin to beautify the neighborhood some with whatever we can do. Our intent is to make it look good. Mr. Mayor: There was an issue, I think with respect to your eligibility for community development funds. Mr. Mack, I think that’s been addressed in a memo. Can you enlighten the Commission on your office’s position on this? Mr. Mack: It’s my understanding that [inaudible] has done a survey and found that there were some areas in that particular area that do meet the eligibility criteria, and I understand that you have had some discussions with [inaudible] on my staff regarding this issue. Mr. Garrett: Yes, sir. Mr. Mack: Okay. So they’re okay. Mr. Mayor: I think we had -- Mr. Bridges first. Mr. Bridges: Just a question, Mr. Mayor. Just going over the memo here. Keven, am I understanding that we need to have a motion to waive the criteria, the neighborhood criteria rule? Mr. Mack: Yes, sir. The neighborhood matching grants was established, the neighborhood associations, that’s basically to strengthen the communities by establishing neighborhood associations. So while the Alleluia Community meets the area benefit rule, you know, you all would have to waive the neighborhood association rule, and that’s okay. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mack, is the sole qualification that they are deficient in is being incorporated by the State? Mr. Mack: No, it’s not. But according to Mr. Holt, the person that administers the neighborhood matching grants program, the neighborhood associations that have been approved in the past have been certified by the state. But that’s not a requirement. And that’s not the intent of it. 21 Mr. Cheek: I just find it disturbing that we have a world-known community here in Alleluia who has brought, praise the Lord, brought salvation to that area, to my south side of town, and we can’t qualify them, we’re not enabling success. It seems to me like we’re trying to find ways to limit those that are making great contributions. I know that we can waive the rule, but it seems to me like we could come up with some suggestions as a team player to help them qualify for this and any other funds or resources they need to help reclaim that area of town. Until they came there, there was no reclamation for that area. It was lost. And we need to be partners in success in that type of thing. They need to be helped and not hindered. Mr. Mack: Commissioner Cheek, I think basically what we did was try to help organizations. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Nothing. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to waive the neighborhood association rule so that we can provide this. Mr. Cheek: So moved. Mr. Mayor: I would ask the maker of the motion to incorporate in that that we ask the Housing & Neighborhood Development Department to revisit that rule and see if we can amend that rule so that situations like this will be covered and we won’t have to come back for Commission action. Mr. Cheek: So moved, Mr. Mayor. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Just a point of clarification. I wanted to bring out a couple of points about the Alleluia Community and what they propose to do that area, which is adjacent to their residences are. They are looking at purchasing some land and trying to put in recreation and park type facility in that area where everybody has almost walked away from most of those. 90% of those people in there are probably renters. A lot of the houses are abandoned. There is a lot of drug infestation in that area, and I think they ought to be commended for their effort in what they’re doing, and I think you gentlemen need to know the type of work they’re doing in that area. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion? 22 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I guess to kind of echo what you’ve said in reference to the neighborhood association waiver. I think in addition to that you have adjacent communities. You also have some communities that some of the demographics, particularly economically, may have changed, and I’m going to fully and wholeheartedly support the motion. But I think it would behoove Housing & Neighborhood Development to probably look not only at where Alleluia is serving but I’ve discussed this with Mr. Mack with another neighborhood that was before us recently, to a point that may not be on the list that they have as a targeted strategy area right now, but because of the way some of the economic changes have gone on, it might be good to look at them ahead of time, because there are going to be rehab projects and other things that need to be done, and it would be unfair for folks to get in motion to try and do some of these and then run into maybe that roadblock as well. And I think some that maybe previously have not been eligible or that we may not have considered to be eligible might actually, if they are studied closely, really fall into that eligibility bracket, and we may need to start doing that with some of those others, both Alleluia and some that may be there in south Augusta that actually between our Housing Authority and other rental property that was once home-owned that’s now being rented out or may be in Section VIII properties to where the income levels would allow a lot of those neighborhoods now to be eligible for some of those funds. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Good point. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just again I will say this to get it off of my chest. It is troubling to me that we have to waive a rule to give someone money that’s so deserving, so deserving, that has done so much for this area. That tells me that the rules need to be looked at. And thank goodness we are going to look at them and make the changes. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Let the clean-up begin. Clerk: 48. Motion to approve bid award item #01-056 to Intellisystems. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby, is this your item? Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. 23 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: 49. Motion to approve Waiver and Indemnity Agreement by Harold E. Rhodes, thereby allowing construction of two buildings for the purpose of operating a flea market business in an area that is not serviced by City water. Mr. Wall: This is another situation where you have a business that does not have water accessible to it. However, in this case you have got the additional fact that this business formerly existed at that location or had other buildings there. This is the flea market that’s on Doug Barnard Parkway. The buildings were there, they burned, and he’s trying to build back in the same location. And as a result of perhaps changing rule or stricter enforcement of the 500 foot rule, then this waiver and indemnity agreement is necessary, and again I understand the Commission’s feelings about waiving the rules. This is an open, basically an open building. It will have three walls and all the public will be in the open section which does not have a wall, and only the clerks that are having the merchandise for sale will be behind the counter and the Planning Commission has approved the plan. Mr. Pat Claiborne is here representing Mr. Rhodes if anybody wishes to hear from him. But we’re recommending approval. Mr. Mayor: The Chair would like to hear from the Fire Chief and get his comments on the record. In all fairness. Chief Mack: For the record, two buildings already burned once. Two buildings will somewhere down the line [inaudible] again. I think you’re opening yourself to liability in case any person or a firefighter gets injured in another fire because there is not water in the area. The standing rules say that they’re supposed to have a hydrant within 500 feet of their building. [inaudible] burned the first time. If you allow it to be built again. I’m not agreeing with it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: A motion for approval, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Motion for approval. Is there a second? Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Second from Mr. Henry Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? 24 Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: When will we have water and a fire hydrant in that area on Doug Barnard? Mr. Hicks: That area is along the Doug Barnard Parkway where the 16” line previously planned would have gone by; however it has been delayed pending the construction or decision on where to locate a new water filter plant. That line will be constructed eventually. The quickest way to get fire fighting water to that facility would be to come from across the road, bore and jack under the road, and locate a hydrant on that side of the road. Now that could be done if the Commission so desired to have that as a use of maybe our [inaudible] extension funds or something that’s left over or some of the money that still remains in the ’96 bond issue. That probably could be done at the earliest, I’d say, within six months, and the reason I’d say that is it’s in an area where the DOT ran into hazardous soils in that area, so it would be one of those where I couldn’t just say we could take our people out and lay the line and do it. It might be that we’d get into hazardous soil situations. I’d want to say it would be at least six months. But it could be done. Mr. Mayor: What would it cost to do that, Max? Do you have any idea? Mr. Hicks: I’ve not estimated the cost, Mayor. I have not. But we have funds that could be allocated to do that if it were so desired to push that on it. And it would fit in then with the ultimate development in that area. The question came up, if we extended that just for that purpose and for that business, would that then open us up to other businesses who now are responsible for extending their own fire protection line and coming and saying okay, the City did it there, we want you to extend the fire line for us, also. It has its pluses and minuses. The line could be extended, but in other instances where you have larger developments, they extend their own lines to provide the fire protection. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Any other questions or comments? Would anybody like to hear from the attorney for the petitioner? Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. Claiborne? Mr. Claiborne: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Give us your name and address for the record? Mr. Claiborne: My name is Pat Claiborne. My office is in the First Union Bank Building, 699 Broad Street. 25 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] extending the line [inaudible]. Mr. Claiborne: I think my client has already offered to pay the expense of putting in a hydrant, but we had not discussed the cost of extending the line. Mr. J. Brigham: I’m just trying to [inaudible] Mr. Claiborne: I think at this point, in all honesty, he’d be hesitant to know that, not knowing the cost. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] Mr. Claiborne: Right. There’s been a business out there for a number of years, he’s brought some people out there that provide some source of livelihood to them and we’d just like to answer any other questions if we could. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Jim and Pat, the waiver runs in favor of your client, Pat, and people on the premises. How does it -- Mr. Claiborne: The waiver runs in favor of the County. Mr. Shepard: Runs against your client? You’re the indemnifying party? Mr. Claiborne: That’s correct. We’re agreeing to indemnify the county should any claim be made against the county as a result of approving a reconstruction of the two buildings without an operating fire hydrant being there. Mr. Shepard: But presumably if the uses return to what it formerly was, you would have members of the public there, potential claims there. Those claims would be covered or not? Mr. Wall: It’s covered under the indemnity agreement. Hold harmless. And again, I mean, I think the fact that this is open on one side and I think each business situation is going to have to be looked at as far as the potential for the public being damaged. And I understand the Chief’s point about they are there to protect not only people but property, but if the property owner is willing to take that risk and waives any claim, the fact that it burned down before, and let’s hope that it doesn’t burn down again, but that’s the risk that the owner is taking. Mr. Claiborne: That’s the first time in 25 years and we’re replacing it with a three-sided metal building. The front side is open. The people come up to a counter-type thing and people are transacting business on the outside. 26 Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I’d like to hear from the Fire Chief. He had his hand up. I wanted to see what his comments were. Chief Mack: I wanted to ask you, if they were going to put a hydrant out [inaudible], to have a hydrant there with no water supplied to it? Because if they are putting a hydrant out there and there is no water to it, it doesn’t do me any good. Mr. Rhodes: The agreement was that we would put the hydrant there when the line was done. We’d just put a hydrant out there. Nobody had asked us to do that. Chief Mack: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: That’s a tough decision. We talked about waiving and when you’re talking about the safety of not only property but lives, and that’s what I’m thinking about. If somebody gets hurt, I mean you can replace the material things. But if somebody lose their life in a fire, not just in a fire but get trampled because of a fire. There’s a lot of safety issues that’s going through my mind now and I’m not even thinking about the property because you can always replace those things. But this safety issue ought to be foremost on this Commission’s mind and I know you say 25 years, the first time in 24 years. But it don’t take but one time to lose a life, whether it’s 25 years or the first year. And even though this is an open area and it is exposed, Max answered the question, but I still didn’t understand. Without the water filter plant being over there, Max, even if the plant gets there, you’re talking about another two years? Are we talking about five years down the road? How long of a wait are we talking about if we go ahead and approve this? Without going under the road, from just what the structure is already lined up to be in that area, how long are we talking about? Mr. Hicks: Without boring and jacking under the road [inaudible] what size major line to put down Doug Barnard Parkway, that decision will be made, I imagine the decision where the locate the plant will be made within the next, I want to say six to eight months. Now once that decision is made, then the size of that line could be determined real quickly after that. And I would say it would be at least, if we were to stay with the 16” line, then the plans are already drawn. We could let a contract for construction of that line immediately thereafter so the line could be in place say a year from now. If the decision were made to locate the filter plant over there, then it might take a larger line. Plans might have to be redrawn and it would be someone later than that. So I’d say the earliest we’d be looking at, Commissioner, if we don’t bore and jack under the highway, if we wait on the major line to be down through there, we’re looking at at least a year away. 27 Mr. Williams: You’re saying there is a minimum of one year but probably a maximum of two years? Mr. Hicks: Yes. Yes, sir. Mr. Wall: Let me point out. As soon as water is available, they are required to sprinkle. Mr. Williams: That won’t be just that particular part; that would be everybody, won’t it, Jim? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’m searching for a reason to support the motion that’s on the floor. I don’t vote against building waivers and fire waivers, particularly if the Fire Chief and department have by Code recommended against it. I tune to the Fire Chief for professional fire advice and I tune to the lawyer for legal advice. I guess that’s why we got a Fire Chief and an Attorney. But I’m going to turn back to the lawyer for a second. I guess, Jim, what I’m looking at is in this case, we waived, even though I didn’t vote for them, we waived in some of these new cases. But where are we on any obligation to a point that with an existing business in operation that goes out because of this type situation that would say hook up to the utility if we as a government had one. Does that put us in any position to a point that in any hardship situation or where they’re coming in order to seek some relief, that they’ve been out there for that length of time and we don’t have it and it’s not a new one that’s coming to the table? [inaudible] Fire Chief, he’s got a Code he’s dealing with on his. I guess I need to get one out of the law books to a point, I’m trying to find a reason to -- I know it’s a sympathetic side in there, but it’s also one in there that I got another question after you answer that one. Mr. Wall: Well, I can’t give you much help on that, other than, it may influence the decision you make as far as whether or not to waive in this situation. But once it’s destroyed, it’s got to be built back to Code, and so the fact that the business was there before and he wants to rebuild, he’s got to meet the Code that’s in place at the time he constructs, other construction is done. Mr. Mays: I guess this other question, Mr. Mayor, would be to the petitioner’s attorney. And if there is any privacy involved in this, I can understand. But in terms of the liability, if whether it’s in that fire, or God forbid, if there’s another client, is your client totally responsible for the things that may be destroyed in that situation or is there any lease agreement or rental agreement that a person operating or subleasing out of that business would be responsible for it, and I guess what I’m getting at is when we do these waivers, other folk, third party or fourth party, don’t know the history of waivers. They know nothing about it. And if they go in and they open up, is there some level of something that you are obligated to share with them that say there is not water provision here or this has been done and this means if I rent from you at that business and I lose all 28 my goods there, then who is responsible in that situation? To a point, does your client assume what I rent at that point pays for me or is there some type of vendors’ insurance per se that they get? With no water being there, then how can they get any? I guess I’m trying to find a means and a hardship to help you, but I need to know whether or not there are some innocent folk who can’t speak in this situation that need to be spoken for. Mr. Claiborne: If I understood your question, the indemnity from my client to the county runs whether people know about it or not. Mr. Wall: But the question is is there a provision in the lease agreement with the vendors that rent from your client? I mean what does it provide insofar as responsibility for destruction of goods? Mr. Claiborne: I don’t think it addresses it. I think it just says you have the right to rent the space. Mr. Rhodes, does it particularly address that? Mr. Rhodes: No. Mr. Claiborne: If the Commissioners would like, we’d certainly clarify that. But I think most of the people there are aware of it. What we’re asking is the opportunity to resume a business that we’ve been conducting for a number of years and are actually conducting now in a more limited basis. As for the requirement for the hydrant, which we are willing to do, but it’s a Catch-22 requirement, because there’s really no line to hitch up to. So I guess we’re asking to let us resume our business and don’t hold it against us the fact that there is no line there that we’re willing to [inaudible] and we’re replacing a wooden building with a three-sided open metal building. Mr. Mayor: This is not the first time we’ve had one of these before us. We’ve, as I recall, approved a convenience store, most recently an auto parts store. We turned down an addition to the building at the carpenters’ union. And in all these cases, I still have the same question, and that is how can the party petitioning us waive the rights of a third party? If somebody is out there and there’s a fire and they get hurt in it, they’re not employed by the petitioner, there is no connection to the petitioner, they’re someone from the general public, it would seem to me they have the right to come after us. Mr. Wall: That’s the reason for the indemnity provision. And so they would have the right to state a claim, but in my opinion there is not claim against us. We’re protected in that situation. But if it were to be determined, that’s the reason for the indemnity agreement. So you’re not waiving that person’s right. It’s just an indemnification of that person’s right. It’s a waiver of the claim that the building owner may have. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to support it Mr. Mayor, and in my mind what I’m thinking of, there is other businesses that’s operating now there. This 29 is not going to be just that business. And we need some water in that area, true enough, and I think our water department, Max need to see what we can do as fast as we can, and we know the government works slow, but there are already a number of businesses that’s operating with no water in that area. And to keep this one out is not going to prevent those others from [inaudible] on. I just think we need to put some kind of mechanism in place where we can kind of speed up that process so they can put that plug there when the water is there, even if that results into boring under the road we talked about or across the street. But we certainly need to get some water there as soon as possible. It’s better to have that water and never need it than to need it that one time when it did catch on fire and it wasn’t there. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I support the motion to waive this. I think it’s reasonable. What this gentleman’s trying to do here is replace a portion of his business that has burned down. So basically the business is going on. It’s going on now. It’s a building that was there before. I think it’s reasonable that we can expect as it is an ongoing business to allow him to go ahead and replace what’s been destroyed at this point. And another point is just down the road, maybe about half a mile, there’s also another business at the corner of Bobby Jones and 56 that is in the same situation. I think we’ve waived the rights on that one as well because there’s not water there. We did it last week for a new business going in. So I think this is reasonable to allow these small, independent business people that can’t afford something like the mall to be able to operate a business and allow them to go on with their livelihood and their mode of living. So I would hope the Commission would support the waiver. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I supported the motion with that I mind, since he’s already been there, I know 20 years. I don’t how much longer than that. And if we’re already doing it for some of the businesses in there, maybe we ought to encourage Mr. Hicks to bring us back an updated time frame when we can get to this. And if there is something that we need to do, then that get us all off the spot. The Chief off the spot. Get us off the spot. And then he’s back in business again. And that’s why I say that. I call for the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. That ends the debate. We move on with the order of the business, the order of the business for the day, and that is the motion to approve this waiver. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Clerk: 30 50. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta Richmond County Code Section 6-2-5 by adding new subparagraphs (c) and (d) to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages at the Golf Hall of Fame upon approval of the Sheriff and License and Inspection Department. Mr. Mayor: Is this yours, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: It is. We have in place a procedure whereby on County parks there is an administrative process to allow alcohol sales, provided it meets the criteria of the Sheriff’s Department, etc. The Golf Hall of Fame is about to open. They will be having functions there at which alcohol will be served, and so this would add -- that is not a County-owned piece of property. And so we are proposing to amend the Code to add them so that there would be an administrative process to allow the sale there and it would be subject to the approval of the Sheriff and the Director of License and Inspection. In this case, the Recreation Department would not be involved in it. Mr. Beard: I move for approval. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I’m going to support the motion. I just wanted to ask Jim a question in terms of amending the ordinance on this one, Jim. Does it get us into any other leeway of having to amend or would we come out better with just the situation of where we gave them the right to just do it? I mean when you start changing ordinances, that’s hard for me to deal with just one situation. I’m in favor of it, and of being able to do it where they are, but I’m just looking at it in terms of where you start amending ordinances to a point that do you then down the road put you in harm’s way, you have to go back and deal with the wording where you are. Would it be better to suspend that wording as it applies to this one? Mr. Wall: No, sir. I don’t think that you want to suspend it. Again, the Golf Hall of Fame does not want the license in their name, so the licenses would be probably in a caterer’s name or some other group that would be hosting an event there. Basically what this does is allow it to be a designated location, much like what we have down on Riverwalk and areas of that nature. And I think if we want control of it and have the inspection process, it’s going to be an outdoor facility. Hopefully noise is not going to be an issue. Hopefully bands down there are not going to be an issue. Hopefully conflicts with other events that are going downtown are not going to be an issue. But this gives you some administrative supervision of that and we can bring back before the Commission if necessary. 31 Mr. Mayor: A point of clarification. For those who specifically are interested in this when you vote on alcohol sales, does this authorize Sunday sales? Mr. Wall: It would be a designated location, and if the caterer who came there had a Sunday event license, it would allow it or if someone came in and applied for a single event license that was on Sunday, yes it would. We’ve had that conversation with Charlie Strawser, representing the Golf Hall of Fame. He’s aware of Springfield being in close proximity. Mr. Mayor: That was my next question about the distance from the church across the street. Mr. Wall: And we’re aware of that and this designation. Right now with the boundaries of the Golf Hall of Fame as far as where the gardens are, where the events are going to be located, and try to be moved back toward the pond -- ??, you better take over here. Mr. Strawser: Excuse the condition of this. It’s had a little wear and tear over the last few years. Most of the big events, what we’re getting requests for right now is fund th raiser events, wedding receptions, that type of event. Most ?? 13 Street Bridge, that area. It’s pretty far away. In fact, the two wedding receptions, at this stage they’re planning on putting some bands within a tent so they will be somewhat muffled. And we haven’t had any requests yet for Sunday. Not saying we won’t at some time. But most of it’s been for Saturday evening and an occasional Thursday 5-7:30 type of thing. And so most of the time that something is happening down there, my impression so far is it’s going to be on Friday night and Saturday night. The whole site is 17 acres. Pretty far distance. Probably from this walkway right here in the middle is half a mile around, so that gives you a rough indication of how far we’re talking. We’re talking probably at least seven football fields [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: You’re saying that you’re not, you’re really not applying for a Sunday sales license but if someone comes in having a Sunday event they can sell alcohol? Mr. Wall: That is correct. Mr. Strawser: If I understand correctly, if they have your permission. Mr. Wall: Yes, if they have an event permit [inaudible], yes. Mr. Mayor: That would be handled administratively. It wouldn’t come before this body. Mr. Mays? 32 Mr. Mays: I was just going to say, Mr. Mayor, Jim answered my question in reference to the ordinance and I don’t have any problem with it. But in reference to the Sunday situation, I hope you get busy enough to a point that -- you have more folk getting married on the weekend than they do during the week, then I guess it does get us into some Sunday situations. Even though you can handle that by the special event deal, would it be better or not since it’s [inaudible], I guess I’m looking at, Mr. Mayor, sometimes [inaudible] numbers to a point of whether or not you going to get Sunday sales passed [inaudible]. Do we need to go on and deal with this Sunday thing in one time while we got this out here so that we don’t have to go back through this any more? Mr. Wall: You’re authorizing the location. You’re not authorizing sales by any particular group at that location. And again, it’s much like we have -- so that they don’t have to advertise and post the location each time that there’s an event. And so that’s what this ordinance is designed to eliminate that requirement of having them come forward and advertising, request permission to have, host an event there. So the Sunday sales and having Sunday events there is not an issue, and would be dealt with administratively, and the controls would have to be there to satisfy the Sheriff’s Department, License & Inspection Department insofar as what is done there. The hours. To be sure there was not a problem. The Golf Hall of Fame is aware of those concerns. We’ve had that discussed and I think they’re working with Springfield to ensure that that’s not a problem. So this is the first reading of the ordinance. I think we’ve involved the Sheriff’s Department, Charlie, License & Inspection sat down and tried to figure out how to address it, and this is in our opinion the best way to address the situation and I guess that’s all I can say. I urge you to adopt the ordinance. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? If that’s the best way, Jim, that we’ve got, I don’t have a problem with it. I guess what I was looking at to a point that you may not have total attendance here at all times, and if this was going to be an issue to a point that I’d just as soon go ahead and add it on, vote for it to a point of having to come back, say if you’ve got a major Sunday event that’s five months ahead and maybe another one three months, of having to eliminate that redundancy of being back over here and got to deal with that. That was my only reason for asking that question. If that’s going to allow them to be able to do it, and that’s the easiest path that we’ve got, but you know, I’m prepared to vote on it today if you need to do that and just ask the maker of the motion to amend it and just deal with it. Cause we going to get some Sunday events there. And I just looking for a way that that wouldn’t have to be another thing of being over here. Mr. Mayor: We go back to Mr. Colclough and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Colclough: And I think [inaudible] Sunday issue [inaudible] Sunday sales. Mr. Wall: And I understand that, but I mean, this ordinance has worked for all the other properties that are included under there and we’ve never had a problem with Sunday sales. So what we’re doing is tracking the same process that has worked. We’re just adding another location and removing Recreation Department from the process because this ought to be a License & Inspection function with regard to this property. 33 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I just want to know, have Rev. Martin and the Springfield Church been in conversation and is there any recourse, any problem with them? Have y’all had any dialog together? Mr. Strawser: No, sir. I’ve called down there several times and gotten the answering machine. Stopped by there. Our Sunday hours, we don’t open until one o’clock on Sunday anyway. And like I say, we haven’t had any requests for Sunday activity, and I’m not encouraging any such requests. I don’t know [inaudible]. Most of the people that want to rent this is for some type of big function and they’re just not asking for Sunday. They’re asking for Friday night and Saturday night. Mr. Williams: I just think that Rev. Martin and the Springfield family should be contacted and maybe some dialog back and forth. I have no problem. I’m not for Sunday sales but I understand growth coming to this city, coming in every shape and size, you can’t just hold, y’all come in but y’all can’t come in on Sunday. But I think the pastor down there should have -- Mr. Strawser: [inaudible] Isaac Johnson, that’s who I was trying to get in touch with. Mr. Williams: I think if you get some dialog back and forth from the pastor, cause not every service in on Sunday morning. You say [inaudible] by one. There are a lot of evening services, different stuff, too. If you just kind of communicate, I think. Mr. Strawser: We’ve been trying. We talked before about [inaudible] the attractions across the street from each other, about how we can help each other. We want to be good neighbors, not bad neighbors. Mr. Mayor: I think you’ll find him Sunday morning at 11. I’m sure he’d love to have you there. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just going to make a motion to approve. Mr. Mayor: We already have a motion on the floor. We’ll go ahead and call the question. Mr. Cheek: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: And this is the first reading, right? Mr. Wall: Correct. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of approving the motion, please vote aye. 34 Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Clerk: 51. Consider approval of letter of support for Boys and Girls Club regarding a 2001 grant application for $42,000 abstinence education grant with Governor’s Children and Youth Coordinating Council. Mr. Bridges: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: 52. Consider an Ordinance to amend the Augusta-Richmond County Code to add a new section; Augusta Richmond County Code Section 1-1-13, provide limitations upon contact between the Mayor and Commissioners with employees; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, this is your committee. Mr. Beard: I move for approval. Mr. Cheek: I am going to second that. Just quickly say, Mr. Mayor, until such time we discussed the possibility of including censure language at some point in the future. We’ve asked for that information from out staff attorney. Language that may be available in our government entities. We’re going to review that at the time that we have a new Administrator on board and get the new Administrator’s input into further developing any fire wall language that they may feel is necessary to help them better do their job and keep us from becoming involved with their affairs. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and a second. Discussion? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Jim, does this preclude any request by a Commissioner for a work order if the employee is below the assistant director level? Mr. Wall: Work order? Mr. Bridges: Yeah. 35 Mr. Wall: Yes. I mean they could not instruct an employee to go work. They would have to go to the department director or the assistant director. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Bridges: Jim, I’m sorry, I’m talking about the paperwork. The issue of a work order itself which is the process that the department uses, say Public Works uses to send the crews out there. I’m not talking about order to work, order to do something. I’m talking about can the Commissioner request a work order, a service order? Mr. Wall: You can request a service order, but it would be up to the department head or the department director to schedule that work. Mr. Bridges: Yeah. I understand that. But what I’m asking, can the Commissioner request that of somebody below the level of assistant? Can a Commissioner request them to write up a -- Teresa, maybe you can help both of us here, because it’s your department I’m thinking about. Ms. Smith: I think what we have is a terminology issue, where you’re indicating that a Commissioner requests that a work order be written. Typically when we get calls from Commissioners, it’s to identify a problem. Someone goes out and assesses that problem and if indeed a work order is necessary to do the work, then the assistant director, [inaudible], the assistant director would then issue a work order for that work to be done. And I don’t think, Jim, that that would preclude the Commission from indicating here’s a problem that needs to be looked into, and the follow-up action is to have a work order addressed. That’s the procedure that we are using now. Mr. Wall: And I agree with that. But it would preclude a Commissioner from saying, you know, I don’t care what the department director says, I want that fixed. Mr. Bridges: Oh, I understand that. I’m talking about the paperwork, cause sometimes Mike’s not there and I get Dale and that means I wouldn’t be able to talk to Dale anymore. Mr. Wall: As long as it’s a request that is to be reviewed in the normal process. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor: In other words, a Commissioner is treated no differently than a private citizen who calls in. Mr. Wall: Exactly. Ms. Smith: Correct. 36 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if I may. That sounds good in concept, but the truth is when someone’s salary is dependent on somebody that they work for, they’re going to jump up and do that job ahead of the schedule. We identified some priorities that may be placed on work order. We went so far as to do some definitions of micromanagement and some other things that are necessary to facilitate a smoother work order process. Right now, and we’re trying to help our department heads by giving them one list to work from, not ten or eleven people calling them, and the public. And that’s going to require some further work and that will require the coordination of the department heads and administrators to make that a smooth process. But that is a problem. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays, then Mr. Colclough. Mr. Mays: I yield to Richard first. Mr. Colclough: There’s an issue on the table. When do you step out of the role of the Commissioner and become a private citizen? Mr. Speaker: When you get defeated. Mr. Colclough: That’s only one way. Give me another one. Mr. Wall: I’m trying to answer the question. But are you directing it related to requests for work order or are you talking about as to this ordinance? Obviously you as a Commissioner, it excludes investigations or inquiries that are made. If you have a citizen who reports a complaint to you and you need to make inquiry, then you can make the contact for purposes of determining that. Insofar as making a request for a work order, then the process would be the same. Mr. Cheek commented about how defining levels of work orders versus priorities, and I’m not sure in what form, and I missed today’s meeting, at what point that’s going to be brought forward. But I hope I’ve answered your question. I’m not sure I have. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect to my colleagues in where they are going with this, and I think all the best intentions were intended. If they will take a little bit of an old man’s advice, I’ve served on more committees and chaired more than anybody around this table. And I think if you go through this courthouse, old city, old county, this new government, and maybe I’ve not stuck my nose in enough folks’ business from time to time, but I’ve not been an over-the-shoulder watching, meddling council member, Commissioner, whatever we’re called now. I may know what’s going on in places but that’s not my job. I knew it would set policy back in ’79 when I first got elected, and I think the committees particularly that I chaired, if you asked those department heads, you’ll find out, they’ll tell you that they got more calls from Commissioners and council members that wasn’t on the committee than they did from the one who chaired it. I say that to say this. I’m a little leery when we propose and 37 ordinance and we put the censuring and procedure and we put the punishment with it later. It’s kind of like saying if you walk out that door, it’s going to be a violation, but if you walk out that door, is it going to mean that you have to turn around and walk out the other door or does it mean that you get executed if you walk out the door? I think when you’re drawing this, and it may be an oversimplification of it, but I think you need to have something in there that says what’s the end result of the violation? I guess in plain terms, where is it leading to? To a point that hypothetically, that if you ask a question of a departmental person, even the department head, in some cases, that if you put it in here, while I think that our employees from the Administrator all the way down should be protected with every nth of the harassment laws at all times, but I think you’ve got some room, and I’d like to see first what violations you’re going to put with this. Because you can hypothetically have a situation where someone says well, I’ve been offended, I feel like I’ve been violated. You may attach this as being a misdemeanor at some point. You may attach it as being something more than a misdemeanor. Do you have then a Commissioner or the Mayor being brought up on charges of asking a particular question? Because you’ve got an ordinance that looks good. It’s a good-looking American ordinance right now. But then with no censuring procedure, no punishment or no violation method attached to it at this point, I think that’s something that needs to be debated, gentlemen, and added on one whole package. To me, this is kind of hitting me a little bit blind. And while I support in concept of keeping folks to a point of micromanaging, all that’s good, but I think to a point when you put an ordinance in place, you ought to say that when you violate it, what it does. And I’m not saying that I -- I probably could support it. But I’d like to know what it’s going to be in its entirety prior to giving consent and support and saying okay, fine, this is it. And then when you come back with it later, you add on to say well, all right, you can be brought up on charges, you may be impeached, you may be a lot of things for making a phone call or an inquiry. There’s no decision and no process outlined for what takes place after that’s been said. And I just think it’s a piece of an ordinance and it’s not an ordinance, and Jim, you can answer that or anybody else can answer it, but I can’t deal with that in that kind of way. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, we’re taking this up on a first reading today, and it comes back for a second reading; is that correct? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Mays: Let me just remind the Attorney one thing. Sure, this is the first reading, but if you’re going to change what’s there then it becomes a different ordinance. When it comes back in order to vote on it as a second reading, I stand to be corrected, you have to vote a second time on what has been prepared the first time. There is still no procedure for violation, censure, how it’s to be addressed. It just says what you’re not to do. What is the method that you get past that? 38 Mr. Mayor: You’re absolutely correct. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We talked on this subject in our meeting this afternoon before we came into here to this meeting, and Commissioner Cheek and I and I think Commissioner Shepard in a little later. We discussed about the character and the ethics of a Commissioner or any person, for that matter, and I explained to Commissioner Cheek that a lot of time we’re accused of stuff, things that maybe have to be proven or disproven, and if we’re not careful, like Commissioner Mays has just said, I mean you can walk out the door but what’s the penalty for walking out, and I just think that we have to be really, really careful as elected officials, as governing body of this city, our own character and our own codes of ethics ought to come into play somewhere. Now we been accused, well, Commissioner Cheek has been accused of micromanaging. I just was along with him. But both of us been accused of micromanaging and when we came on the Commission we have never, at least in my presence Commissioner Cheek has not done, I never have instructed an employee to do or not do something. I’ve been to a lot of departments and I’m going to continue to go to those departments because I feel like as a Commissioner we need to know what’s going on in every facet of this government and not sit here and let somebody bring us something or tell us something and we have to just rely just on that. But if you are accused of, if you’ve been pointed out being a violator, and then you’re reprimanded or you’re written up or you made a public [inaudible] because of whatever, when we signed that card downstairs to run for this office, not only did the Augusta Chronicle, but George on the news took every [inaudible] of our lives and posted it all over this city. So I think we’re under scrutiny as it is. If we’re not going to be men of honor, if we’re not going to stand and do what’s right, if we’ve got to be justified, if we’ve got to be criticized in the open and anywhere else, and if you’re wrong you ought [inaudible], but I just think we ought to have our own ethics and our own character. We ought to be leaders in this community. And if we’re going to lead as a governing body, then we ought to lead by example. You can’t tell folks what to do. They need to see you doing it. So we’ve talked about this earlier, Commissioner Cheek and Commissioner Shepard was there. We talked about if we’re not careful how we’ll have something that would really be nothing in a nutshell hanging over our heads or somebody trying to keep you at bay. I’m going to do the job that I was elected to do. I got a lot of folks who disagree with that. They want this seat. It’s going to be up in two more years. So they got an opportunity. But as long as I’m in this seat, I’m going to do what I believe is right and good for this city, and if it’s going into a department, talking to department heads, finding out what I need to find out, and if there is something that I need to get done in the District, I’m going to call the department head. And I do that today, to notify them, to get them to check into whatever the situation may be. But we need to be careful, like Mr. Mays say, how we write and ordinance and then the punishment. Now I don’t want to take anything away from the work, the hard work that Commissioner Cheek and this committee have done. I think the guidelines that we put in place are good. But if we’re not careful about the punishment or the type of punishment that we’re putting in, we may be setting ourselves up for a lot more trouble. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This was a discussion that we went around with several times. We were hoping to get some language possibly in the future at some 39 point to give us a point of reference. I understand the concerns of the members of the Commission with an incomplete document. We discussed several aspects of the responsibilities of the Administrator, department heads, and the Commissioners and the employees and how we all relate one to another, direct reports and those that report to the Administrator and so forth. Ideally a system would be developed to where we could call Augusta Cares, it would be put into a system and then we would get a report back that it was done in a week or two weeks, the same as the citizens. But that’s not the case now and without a lot of extensive reworking of the system, it will never be the case. Given the discussion today, something that we’ve also talked about and discussed, and I think I have the consensus of the other committee members, is that we can recommend to this board today this fire wall language, this new ordinance, and call the activities of the Delineation of Responsibilities Committee’s concluded. And if there is further need of action, it could be the will of the Mayor and this Commission to reconvene that committee or another committee at such time as actions are needed. But I recommend approval of this. It is a good piece of legislation. We are under governance now of a code of conduct dictated by the State and the code of ethics, although they’re not much harsher than federal language when Congress will sometimes get a public reprimand or nasty letter, unless you do something criminally wrong. But without -- I recommend that we approve this without any further action. If that be the will of Commission, we will dissolve the Delineation of Responsibilities Committee to be reconvened or reconstituted at some point in the future. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess to address -- I’m the only one of the DOR Committee who has yet to speak, and I think we did try to balance this language which we certainly have no pride of authorship in, other than it’s our best effort and counsel’s best effort. We wanted to preserve the ability in this language to make inquiry and investigation on behalf of our constituents. I think at one of the times I said we needed to be a voice for our constituents. We wanted to preserve on the other hand the chain of command within the department structure so that it could not be said in the future that a particular sub-department head worked for a particular Commissioner. I remember that came out of the Grand Jury process, and we wanted to put a stop to that, we wanted to have a chain of command under the department heads and the Administrator which ran down from the Administrator through the Assistant Administrator through the department heads to accomplish our mission and we would on the other hands as Commissioners and the Mayor set the policy of this government. And so therefore we tried to write strong language that we as Commissioners should not give an order to an employee. I think that’s one thing we all agreed on in the DOR Committee and I think we wanted to establish what were the rules and then later talk about what might be the sanctions. And I think that the sanctions can’t be retroactive, Jim, if I remember the Constitution of the United States says you will not pass a retroactive law or bill of attainder, so if the sanction which later gets recommended by anyone is viewed by this Commission as too serious or not serious enough, you’d have the opportunity to vote on it. What we’re trying to do with this language is to define or to delineate, that’s how the committee got named, delineate how we should conduct ourselves in terms of giving 40 work orders. And I think the consensus of this DOR Committee was that we as Commissioners and the Mayor should not order any employees into a project. We might report that something needs to be done and that report needs to be transmitted, as I understand it, through either Augusta Cares or through one of these entry points into the system, and we designated many because we knew that had an Administrator’s office that consists of the Administrator and the Assistant presently. We included both of those in that language as being an appropriate contact. We even expanded it to the department directors and assistant directors so there’s plenty of management points that we can interface with, if you will, and bring these constituent requests to the attention of the appropriate department. So I mean if somebody else has a better hand in writing legislation, have at it. But I think this is the best effort that we have today, and I commend it to you, my colleague. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to be real quick. And I appreciate where the Committee is coming from. Steve brought out a particular point a minute ago in reference to work orders. And if the concentration of the Committee, and it seems to me that part of that tone was dealing really with one committee, to a certain [inaudible]. If you’re talking about work orders and that’s where it’s concentrated, over in Public Works, and I guess why it may be a little foreign to me that somebody that doesn’t request to get dirt roads paved, dirt to get hauled in, I don’t go out looking for flowers, you know, it’s foreign to me how that deals with anyway. So maybe, wouldn’t it be simpler -- I think when you write language in something and you make it an ordinance, an ordinance to me is very serious, in where you’re going with it. Because it can go a whole lot further. True, it may not be the ending today, but it could be the beginning of something that could get real crazy. So if you’re dealing with a department and you’re talking about work orders, why not just vote on a procedure? And establish one. And let your new Administrator coming in, let them on the beginning do this. If it’s involving work orders, when they pick up the phone and call up and say it’s got to be placed on a committee if you want me to do anything other than that, put it on this agenda and bring it on the Commission floor. That’s simple. And let your colleagues decide it. But I think the language of drawing into the box of an ordinance leads you down a road that you don’t have an ending path to. And that’s my only comment with it. Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? We have a motion on the floor to approve this. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays, Mr. Colclough and Mr. H. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 7-3. Mr. Mayor: And this will be back at our next meeting for second reading. Madame Clerk, if we could move on to the addendum agenda, and let’s take up items 3 and 4 over there. Clerk: 41 Addendum Item #3: Motion to approve the amended and restated Articles of Incorporation for the Georgia Municipal Association, Inc. (Requested by Mayor Young) Mr. Mayor: GMA needs our endorsement of this. It makes a few technical changes in the organizational powers and also recognizes consolidated governments, and Mr. Beard has been working on a revenue committee that is going to give us a break on our dues as a result of that work. They need us to approve this resolution and file it back th with them by the 20 of April. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, just quickly. Since we’re restating, since GMA is restating its Articles, are they asking all of its member cities to go through this process? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then -- Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: That’s your pleasure if you’d like to put it off to the next meeting. Mr. J. Brigham:I would make I haven’t had a chance to read that. Just got it. a substitute motion that we postpone this to the first meeting in April. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All right, we’ll take up the substitute motion. All in favor of pushing this back to our next meeting, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Mays and Mr. Beard vote No. Motion carries 8-2. 42 Mr. Mayor: Item 4? Clerk: Addendum Item #4: Motion to approve letters of support on behalf of Howard Harden Youth Ministries and the Share and Care Association, Inc. for funding from the Governor’s Children and Youth Coordinating Council. (Requested by Commissioner Williams) Mr. Cheek: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. 53. Consider Mayor’s recommendation for position of City Administrator. Mr. Mayor: On item 53, the Chair has a recommendation, but first I’d like to present some information to the Commission in our legal meeting, so if we could jump ahead to that, the Chair would ask for a legal meeting to consider the appointment of a City Administrator. Mr. Wall, you had a couple of items for that, also? Mr. Wall: I had a real estate item. I put personnel down, not knowing whether or not we’d need to talk about the Administrator, so that’s all that is. Mr. Mayor: The Chair would ask for a motion to do that at this time. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I wonder if we could go ahead and get the other items out of the way? Mr. Mayor: If you’d like to, we can move on and do those first. Mr. Williams: Before we do that, a point of clarification, please. Mr. Mayor: I wanted to leave a little drama at the end of the meeting. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: We got a real estate issue and a personnel issue. We talked about discussing our personnel issues on the floor. Mr. Bridges, in fact, did that, and I need to know is that a legal issue, our personnel? 43 Mr. Wall: The only reason I put personnel issue down there was in anticipation that there might be some discussion concerning the Administrator. There is nothing other than that. Mr. Mayor: Only two items. One is real estate and the other is to discuss the appointment of the Administrator. Let’s go ahead, we’ll hold that motion and we’ll move ahead to item 54. 54. Discuss the rescheduling of committee meetings. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could. I have noted from various committee sessions that we are, I think, in need of more time in, in particular, three committees and I think that’s Finance, Administrative Services and Engineering Services. And I thought that one way of addressing that would be to advance our committee schedule so that Finance begins a little early, so does Administrative Services, and we try to give Engineering Services more time. The agendas of those three committees in particular seem to take longer than the last two committees, and I notice that you’re having a lot of the applicants for the licenses in Public Services show up and having to wait and be away from their businesses for longer than I think they really should. One of the ideas of scheduling the committees at various times is to convenience the folks that appear before us from the public and want to argue their cases and also to convenience our department heads and the staff that needs to attend these meeting. In my opinion, we need to work on committee structure, the scheduling of the committees, and to start discussion in light of Mr. Bridges’ comment that we should have back-up, I put together a little proposal rescheduling the committee that perhaps we may want to try and see if we give these other committees more time, which would make Finance begin at 12:30, Administrative Services begin 15 earlier at 1:45, Engineering Services would retain the same time slot, push Public Safety back to 4:15, and usually that’s been very brief. I compliment the Chairman, who sits next to me and moves that agenda very well. And then have your license folks come in at the end of the day. I think it makes a lot of sense to have these business folks that come in applying for the various licenses that come out of Public Services that they have, that they be able to come toward the end of their business day. Hopefully they can get their business done and then it goes through on the consent agenda, but to me, this would be a slight modification. We’re basically staying here anyway, and I think we need to pay attention to other folks’ schedules and even some Commissioners’ schedules that when we run over, some of us with other commitments, it happens from time to time, each Commissioner has other commitments to make. There are conflicts. There are problems. There are attendance problems. So I would commend this to start the discussion on working through a better-type committee day and would invite the Commissioners’ comments as well as the Clerk’s comments to see what, if anything, we can do about the committee days and the fact that we’re taking more time in each committee than we have presently allotted, and I think we need to do something for the convenience of the public, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 44 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. I see some Chairmen’s hands going up already. We’ll start with Mr. Colclough, whose hand was up first. Mr. Colclough: You know, I certainly agree with Commissioner Shepard. I think the Committees are very long and since a lot of business people take time out to come to these Committee meetings, I would make a substitute, I would make a proposal that we put Public Service Committee first and we can get the folks in and they can go on back to their business. If you want to make a change to the Committee Structure. Mr. Kuhlke: I second that. Mr. Mayor: We want to hear from our Administrative Services Chairman and then we’re coming around the table. Mr. Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: Not to be in conflict with my Finance chairman, but I think the timing of changing this is critical. Maybe in the next couple of hours we may get a new Administrator. I think we ought to leave something to his imagination, although we are going to be the persons who are going to be working the committees. But I think if we pull everything out from under him and not give him any kind of way, and yet we come up and talk about we micromanaging and all that stuff, I think we ought to just sit tight for a little while. We got three gentlemen who are very capable and I’m sure out of all them, some of those things that come up in Committee can be handled administratively possibly. But I just think the timing of this -- I think we should postpone this, Mr. Chairman, until after we get an Administrator. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. We’ll come around to Chairman Beard and then Chairman Bridges. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I do think that Commissioner Shepard is on target. I don’t know about his method of moving them but I think we do need to look at this. It would be my suggestion probably that a group get with the Clerk and try to figure out which would be the best way. I do foresee -- I just don’t see moving the hours but we have a number of people coming down, and especially in that committee meeting, and a lot of times they’re here around 3:30 or 4:00 o’clock or whenever that time span is and they just have to sit here. So surely it looks like we could adjust, make some adjustments here to accommodate. I’m more interested in accommodating the people who are coming down here, who have to sit here, other than our personal Commissioners. And we are getting a little long with our Committee meetings and I know that some of them take a long time, especially Administrative Services does take a long time. Maybe they should go last so they could stay here for a while if they need be. But I think it is something that we ought to consider. I don’t think it’s something that maybe we can finalize here, but I do think we need to give that serious consideration. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? 45 Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think Steve has got a good idea here. What I’d like to see, Mr. Mayor, just as a matter of suggestion, is that we throw out the ideas that we might come up with today and come back at another time and finalize it. But I know there is one committee, and I can’t remember which committee it is, that could meet at the same time another committee is meeting. I’ve note that and the people that are on the committee so we could save some time by holding a meeting of two committees at one time. That might put Ms. Bonner in a bind. I don’t know. Also, I’m wondering, a suggestion that I believe Mr. Jerry Brigham made, has mentioned to me before, is possibly holding our meetings, our committee and Commission meetings on the same day of the week, meaning we might as well just have a Tuesday busted up for all afternoon rather than a Monday and Tuesday back and forth, and that would help some of our Commissioners who are businessmen and have to plan schedules and clients and that type of thing. So those are just some ideas I would throw out, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: I might make a suggestion that the five committee chairman meet together and discuss this and perhaps they can come up with something among themselves. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to add in, like Commissioner Bridges said, if we going to meet on Tuesdays on one week and Mondays on the other week, we ought to just find a Tuesday and meet Tuesday every week. At least I know how my Tuesday is going to run and I could have the rest of the time. But when we meet different days, if we going to use Tuesday for a meeting, we ought to use Tuesdays every week, and that way we know Tuesday is designated for what we got to do. But I just thought I’d throw that in since we going to start changing. Change is always good. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would just hope, and I’m just speaking something. Everybody is already thinking but I’m going to speak it anyway. Just hope that we would consider the needs and ideas that our department heads and Clerk and Attorney and Administrator have in this process and we might come up with a better process overall if we do include them in that thought. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough, is your hand back up again? Mr. Colclough: Yes. I would like to -- I think the idea of the five Committee chairs getting together to work out a solution to this process, I’m not like most other Commissioners. I do have a job and I just can’t plan my days per se as anybody else can, so I have to work around a work schedule. I’m not retired yet, nor do I own a business. I do have an 8 to 5. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I’d put that in the form of a motion, if it’s in order, or substitute motion that we five committee chairmen meet and try to address this 46 problem and we also involve our Clerk and our Administrator and our department heads as necessary and try to come up with a scheduling that is convenient to our constituents and our citizens foremost and our own schedules also. I’m one of those working Commissioners, too, Mr. Colclough, even though I am a lawyer. Mr. Beard: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, would you agree to take the lead, then, in making this happen? Mr. Shepard: That’s the problem. When you have an idea, you take ownership of it. I backed down on Lee’s Ambulance Committee, but I’m right tied to the track on this one, aren’t it? Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is with respect to the ambulance service billing. 55. Discuss ambulance service billing process. (Requested by Mayor Pro Mays) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, the reason why I put this back on, and in the essence of time, I’m not going to make any motion on this, cause I can defer this to when the special committee meets. I would like to ask the question, though, of what will be the next date that that committee will meet on? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, it will be after April 16. There is some [inaudible] that needs to be done. I think we’ve got [inaudible] in place [inaudible]. Mr. Wall: Actually, I talked with Ed Burr yesterday and insofar as the funding is concerned, that is in place. However, University Hospital and Rural Metro have agreed to extend the date by which Rural Metro must decide whether or not to exercise its option to renew the contract or refuse to renew the contract by April 9, if I recall correctly. And so that issue is still there as far as renewing the contract. I had given some thought and have not had an opportunity to talk to you, Commissioner Brigham, as Chairman of that committee, as to bringing back the issue of whether or not we wanted to terminate the contract with University Hospital, thereby allowing us to deal directly with Rural Metro, have not put that on any agenda item yet. I think time is running out on me, but that’s still something that needs to be addressed. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, in light of what [inaudible] 47 Mr. Mays: That was going to be my suggestion. I guess the three old City boys here, Commissioners Beard, Shepard and Mays, we get to be real particular about staying in folks’ committee and following procedure, and that’s what I wanted to do with this particular committee, but having known some of the history of it, it troubles me a little bit, not from the Commission standpoint, but about some unanswered things that I don’t think time is going to be on our side in doing. I will say publicly when I needed the information from our Attorney that I still thought should be in the attorney-client privilege stage that I’m satisfied with where Mr. Wall went with that, and in terms of being able to answer some questions and a point of our own strategy that we had. So that’s not a bone of contention with this Commissioner. But I get back to a couple of things. I listed on there about the billing. And Mr. Mayor, what bothers me a little bit is I think our people, Jim quoted our [inaudible] are in place as far as the finances are concerned. That’s true to a certain extent. We voted at the last meeting to give a subsidy extension in there. Our capable folks down in finance where the bills come in, they going to pay them. But I think sooner than later, the Commission needs to make a serious decision as to whether or not the unpredictability of health care, the types of cases, you cannot predict what’s going to be in there, there is no way you can pro rate down to $50,000 evenly to say it’s going to last six months. That’s why I think the committee is going to have to get together sooner than that. I won’t disturb that process, but by the first Commission meeting in April, I will be prepared, if the committee does not plan to make a motion, to make one. I think we need to get on square one. This ambulance business is very serious, whether we do it RFP, sit down with some folk and get some numbers, but we need to quit being jerked around from the standpoint that we are going to be back where we were 30 years ago. We are back in the ambulance business whether we realize it or not, gentlemen. We better be cutting the best deal that we can that gets us from the river to three different, four different county lines. And I think it’s imperative that we not wait and see where the subsidy takes us, because hypothetically speaking, just suppose over that, let’s say 60 days period of two months, they get $200,000 worth of bills in Finance that they have to pay. And if they pay them, are we then, with the motion that we made, and we’ve given it $300,000, do we pay $50,000 and stop? Do we come back and report to us? Or do we continue to pay until we run out? And I don’t think running out gets us where we need to be. Because right now, yes, the money is in place on a stop gap measure. But we need to know what this thing is going to cost. And I guess I get a little personal with it because I was there when I told Rural Metro when we first got into this thing that it wouldn’t work this way. Kind of like the old lady, I told you so. I knew they would be back. And it bothers me with the way some things are structured there, and I won’t get into their personal business, but Jim, that’s [inaudible] but I’m concerned about the [inaudible] there, I’m concerned about the fact of where this money will take us. And the Mayor has suggested even to the point that we look, even though the Fire Department is not ready at this point, I think we need to ask internally some numbers from the Fire Department that even if it’s down the road, and those are some projections in there, Chief. I know you can’t narrow that down to exactness. But we need to be at a point even when we go to the table, regardless of who it’s with, whether it’s with Rural Metro, whether it’s with Gold Cross, whether it’s with somebody we hadn’t seen yet. But we need to be able to even to a point if we transfer to a mode down the road, what will be our obligations with that company if we decide to take it 48 over? Those are the questions, Mr. Chairman, I think we need to be getting ready to ask, and we need to ask them real soon. Because that due date is on us. We’ve got a reprieve with a band aid. But you know, we’re the ones that just put the band aids out there. We’re not in control of the band aid. We got somebody else that’s driving that ship right now, and we need to get some numbers and we going to have to make some decisions. And it’s going to cost us. So if it’s going to cost us, we better be getting the best deal that we can out there. And I know as Commissioners we’re concerned seriously about response time, the award that we gave earlier today for Employee of the Month is an example to a point of how far that department has come, that if that training had not been there, to a point maybe of what could have happened in a hypothetical situation, and with our people having that type of training, combined with us having to go back into that business, we already in it, we ain’t going back in it. We are back in it. When we gave that $300,000 and we dropped the contract, we back in business. So we better shape the best thing we can and we better try and do it, I think, over the next 60 days of getting somebody finalized in doing that. And that’s where I’m coming from on it, Mr. Mayor, but I’m prepared to work, you know, through the committee. I’m not on that. It’s just a suggestion. But when I got back and looked at the point that we gave that $300,000 to a point and everybody was happy and I [inaudible] concerned with folks who need a [inaudible] and they gone and then [inaudible] problem it. They took it and got on out the door with it. Well, then what happens when it runs out? And we’re not prepared to answer the question as a city of what happens when it runs out. And we need to be dealing with that. We need to deal with it real soon. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Appreciate that. I guess that’s just a report. Do we need to receive that as information? Mr. Bridges: So moved. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor then, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: We’ll pull our motion here back off the table here to go into executive session for the items previously stated. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. 56. LEGAL MEETING: Discuss real estate ?? Discuss personnel (City Administrator) ?? Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. 49 Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING 4:20 - 4:43 P.M.] Mr. Mayor: We reconvene the session. 57. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mayor: The first order of business, we’ll entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. Colclough: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? The Mayor will sign without objection. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: That brings us to item 53. Clerk: 53. Consider Mayor’s recommendation for position of City Administrator. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, today is an important day in the future of Augusta- Richmond County, and it’s my desire, and I hope it’s yours, too, that we will leave this Chamber today prepared to begin contract negotiations with the man who will be the next Administrator for Augusta-Richmond County. The City Code spells out the role of the Mayor in the selection process. Section I, II, III states that the Administrator shall be appointed by a majority vote of this Commission, from nominations presented by the Mayor following the Commission approved process. For that process, this body on my recommendation chose to engage the services of an executive search firm. It’s a process that I believe has served us well. It has brought integrity to the selection process and given us a number of outstanding candidates. I congratulate Dick Bennett Associates for the excellent manner in which the search has been conducted. The Mayor is charged under the Code with presenting the top three candidates for appointment. This step was accomplished a little over two weeks ago when I presented to you Mr. Hector Rivera, Mr. George Kolb, and Mr. Barry Burton, all well qualified to be our next Administrator. The Mayor is further charged under the Code with making a specific recommendation to this Commission, and I’m prepared to do that today. The City Code lists very limited qualifications for Administration. It says the Commission shall choose him based solely on his executive and administrative qualifications. Special reference, the Code states, shall be given to his actual experience in or knowledge of accepted practices in respect to his duties. He shall be of good character and be of proven executive ability and 50 experience. Under those criteria, any of the three candidates would be more than qualified to be our next Administrator. I was impressed that each of the candidates spoke passionately about developing a competent, trained and motivated work force. Closer attention to the people who work for us will eliminate a lot of the so-called micromanaging that has so fractured this Commission. All three candidates have experience in municipal finance, an area that is in desperate attention here. The candidates embraced concepts such as performance-based pay, total quality management, and zero-based budgeting as ways to improve services, maximize revenues, and reduce costs. Each has experience in public works projects and can easily get us through our public utilities master plan, our judicial center construction, and the many other SPLOST projects. Each is at a point in his career when he can provide the leadership for this government and this Commission. All have said they want this body to articulate the vision, then allow the staff to set the goals and objectives to make that vision a reality. We cannot hire all three, as much as we would like to. So today I choose to nominate George Kolb, because I believe he will do the best job. He is a seasoned veteran of city government, a government the size similar to Augusta. He has tackled those issues that we face here, including working with the private sector to grow a local economy and redevelop a declining urban center. I was impressed when Mr. Kolb told us during his interview, “I tend to be a fairly strong administrator.” He said he preferred to be collaborative but would not hesitate to be autocratic if the situation demanded that. Mr. Kolb stated emphatically management has an absolute right to direct the work force. His experience and maturity have prepared him to accept the responsibility of running our government in a fair, even handed, yet firm manner. During his interview, Mr. Kolb talked about having to deal with debates where race, rather than the community issue, became the focus. His response was to work to a process of inclusiveness. George Kolb knows full well what he is stepping into here in Augusta-Richmond County. We had a very frank discussion about this just yesterday, and Mr. Kolb says he is not only up to the challenge, but he is eager to face it. So today I ask the Commission to take the following action. Knowing that the Mayor cannot make a motion, simply a recommendation, I ask you today to elect George Kolb our new City Administrator. I ask you to authorize the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem to immediately begin negotiating a contract with Mr. Kolb and to bring that document back to the Commission for confirmation at our next meeting. Hiring Mr. Kolb is not the save-all for the issues this body faces. As appropriate, we must give him the staffing that he will need to do the job, including providing him the most competent Director of Finance that we can find. Mr. Kolb probably will not get a unanimous vote today. If he the person, though, you choose, I ask you that you give him your unanimous support. Thank you for your attention and your consideration today. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I want to echo your remarks and that they are three excellent candidates before this body, and I won’t hesitate to say that by remarks I’m not speaking in lack of satisfaction toward any one. But I have reviewed the candidates’ I credentials and I am of the opinion that notwithstanding your recommendation that would like to nominate Barry Burton from Ohio as our Administrator and I would like at the appropriate time to make a statement in behalf of that candidate. 51 Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a nomination for Barry Burton. Are there any other nominations? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to place in nomination your recommendation as Mayor for Administrator of this city George Kolb of Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any other nominations? All right, we have two to vote on, and we vote on them in the order that they’re nominated. Mr. Shepard, you’ve indicated you want to make a statement. Mr. Shepard: Again, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, in looking over this particular candidate’s credentials I was impressed by the fact that he worked as a budget analyst in previous employment. He also worked in county management. His financial background was strong. He worked with budgetary issues, he dealt with pay-for- performance, he dealt with the financial issues that I’ve had come before my Finance Committee in this particular Commissioner job that I’ve had this year. It’s come before me routinely. I noticed in his resume that his income tax rate there, which we’ll be thankful we don’t have an income tax here citywide, but his income tax rate in one of the jurisdictions in which he worked was reduced for two consecutive years, and I think that’s the kind of thing we’re looking for. We’re looking for someone who will take out resources and stretch them to the absolute maximum. He also worked with outcome- based budgeting and he worked to privatize the management and operation of one of the departments there in one of the jurisdictions for which he worked. I think that he is more accustomed and more attuned to dealing with the model that we have here, which is a city-county model, than perhaps a municipal model. He’s used to working in conjunction and in coordination with county elected officials that he does not have direct budgetary control, so I think the model would be well serviced because of his previous experience. So I would here again recommend to my fellow Commissioners Mr. Burton, and I think we do have three highly-qualified folks, and by my recommendation of one, I just see that he gets the edge as opposed to the others. I think the others are fully qualified, but when we have to pick, I think we need to pick the one with the edge. As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Burton is that candidate. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. I think it’s very true today we’re voting for a candidate. We’re not voting against someone because we have three excellent candidates. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A few years ago, this city made the decision to hire an Administrator who had a strong financial background and engineering background, believing that they could, in fact, oversee engineering and financial issues of this government. That, in my opinion, was a mistake. The track record of our finance Department leadership, weak leadership that was picked as a result of that reliance on our Administrator, is something that we do not need to repeat. We need a manager, someone who has management and leadership skills. All three of the candidates do. Mr. Kolb, in fact, has I believe a better track record at managing issues that he will face here in Augusta. I think that is probably the weakness of Mr. Burton. Again, I don’t want to 52 take anything away from all of them. They’re all advocates of total quality, something that I have supported my entire business life. But again, we need a manager. We don’t need someone that’s going to come in and micromanage, and I’m afraid by selecting Mr. Burton that we would be setting ourselves up for failure once again, just as we did in the past. We cannot repeat history, and if we do the same things as we did in the past, we are destined to repeat it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m just calling for the roll call vote. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, this is one of the best difficult decisions I think this Commission has had to make. Very rarely have we been in the position of picking a person, a company, or anybody else whereby there was no bad choice involved. I’d even speak up for the person whose name is not on the floor today, Hector Rivera. Very creative, very exciting, a lot of energy. And even that person I thought brought a lot to the table. I think, though, we need a well-rounded person. I was very impressed with the stability of Mr. Kolb. He’s been in public service government for a long time, but he’s not had a lot of jobs. At the same time, we are undergoing one of the biggest public work utility projects ongoing that this city has ever taken in its gigantic history, and bringing a person in with a background in utilities as well, and that management side, I think brings a lot to the table. While the finance issue has to be dealt with, I think we can be on track in terms of bringing in the strongest person that that Administrator will want to have. I think he said very clearly in terms of fact of the budget that it would be balanced and it would be the Administrator’s budget. I think it takes a total team. No one person knows everything. But I think in terms of balance, we’re getting a good balance in the nomination of George Kolb, and I hope that the Commission in terms of whoever we select, that we will be supportive of that person, because we are at a point in our history where we may have to move ahead, and we have to move ahead together. So this is a good decision to have to make. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to congratulate you for handling this on a real professional way. As far as I know, you have not tried to let your own personal feelings get into this. You have brought back what you thought was the best recommendation, and it so happens that I feel that was the best recommendation, too. So we certainly congratulate you and we hope that whoever gets it today will leave here this afternoon with a unanimous vote, and I move the order of the day, if that’s in order. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The question has been called, so we will go through the nominations as they were presented. Madame Clerk, if you’ll clear the voting board there. He asked for a roll call. Madame Clerk, if you will call the roll, then, on the nomination of Barry Burton. The roll call. 53 Clerk: Mr. Beard. Roll Call Vote (Vote on Mr. Burton) Mr. Beard - No Mr. Bridges - Yes Mr. H. Brigham - No Mr. J. Brigham - Yes Mr. Cheek - No Mr. Colclough - No Mr. Kuhlke - No Mr. Mays - No Mr. Shepard - Yes Mr. Williams - No Motion fails 3-7. Mr. Mayor: That brings us to the nomination of Mr. George Kolb. Roll Call Vote (Vote on Mr. Kolb) Mr. Beard - Yes Mr. Bridges - Yes Mr. H. Brigham - Yes Mr. J. Brigham - Yes Mr. Cheek - Yes Mr. Colclough - Yes Mr. Kuhlke - Yes Mr. Mays - Yes Mr. Shepard - Yes Mr. Williams - Yes Motion carries 10-0. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor : I want to congratulate the Commission. I think you’ve handled this I process well and with dignity and we have a good man we’ll be bringing on board. would ask the Commission today and will entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem to enter into negotiations with Mr. Kolb for a contract and bring that document back to you at our next meeting. Mr. Mays: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. 54 Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Attorney involved in that? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, be glad to have the Attorney involved in that. And probably have Ms. Pelaez involved in that, also. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before this body? We’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. We’re adjourned without objection. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on March 20, 2001. Clerk of Commission