Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-03-2001 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER December 3, 2001 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:01 p.m., Monday, December 3, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. Present: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Nancy Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission The Invocation was presented by the Reverend Small. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, are there any additions or deletions to the agenda? The Clerk: ADDENDUM AGENDA: 1. Consider request from Commissioner Shepard for additional items for the 2002 Legislative Agenda. (Item 30) Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard, so we will consider that item when we consider the Legislative recommendations. Let’s go ahead with the proclamation. PROCLAMATION: Naval Reserve Day in City of Augusta The Clerk: We have a proclamation. This is in recognition of Naval Reserve Day. Whereas, the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Augusta, Georgia, and its Naval Reservists, have been a vital part of our community and the national defense in their current location on Central Avenue since 1947; and Whereas, the Naval Reserve has been in existence since 1916 and has provided personnel for events ranging in time from World War I, World War II, the Korean Conflict, the Berlin Crisis, Vietnam, the New York Postal crisis, the Gulf War, to Operation Noble Eagle, the War on Terrorism; and Whereas, 40 Naval Reservists from the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Augusta, Georgia were activated for the Gulf War; and Whereas, our Naval Reservists contribute daily to our community and national defense through community service and providing peacetime support to their [inaudible] commands and joint support to Fort Gordon during periods of inactive duty training and active training; and Whereas, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center, Augusta, Georgia, is holding an open house for the community Monday, December 3, 2001; Now, therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, Georgia, do hereby proclaim Monday, December 3, 2001 to be Naval Reserve Day in our City and ask all citizens to join in paying tribute to our Naval Reservists. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta, rd Georgia to be affixed this 3 day of December, 2001. Mr. Mayor: Our congratulations to you and the men in the Naval Reserve unit, and if you want to explain the visual aid [inaudible]. Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. We had an Army-Navy football game Saturday to benefit the Augusta, Georgia Food Bank, and the score of the game was 19-13. Sorry that we beat the Army, this being an Army city, but it was a good football game. Sorry you missed it, Mayor, I’m sorry you were sick this weekend, but it was a fun-filled day for not only our Naval Reserve and their families but for the Army as well. We collected over 500 canned goods, and we would like to turn those canned goods over to you. That’s just a token of some of the canned goods that we turned over. But we will bring all the rest of the canned goods down here, sir, and give them to the local community. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ll see that those go to the Golden Harvest Food Bank. Thank you again, and congratulations. (A round of applause was given.) Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead with the consent agenda. The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items through 1 through 23B. For the benefit of any objectors, I’ll read the requests for the alcoholic beverage petitions. 4. Motion to approve a request by Janet C. Deritis for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Joe’s Package Shop located at 3001 Peach Orchard Road. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) 5. Motion to approve a request by Kim Park for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Top Lounge located at 2925 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a Dance Hall. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) 6. Motion to approve a request by Carolyn Youngblood for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Richard’s Place located at 2416 Windsor Spring Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) Are there any objectors to any of these requests for licenses? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. PUBLIC SERVICES: Motion to approve the firm of Cheatham, Fletcher, Scott & Sears for $27,050 1. for design services for the building additions to Doughty Park and McDuffie Woods Community Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) 2. Motion to approve lease with the FAA for space for a single Frequency Outlet located in the Control Tower. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) 3. Motion to approve contract with W.K. Dickson, Inc. to provide engineering services for an FAA funded project for pavement maintenance at Daniel Field. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) 4. Motion to approve a request by Janet C. Deritis for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Joe’s Package Shop located at 3001 Peach Orchard Road. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) 5. Motion to approve a request by Kim Park for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Top Lounge located at 2925 Peach Orchard Road. There will be a Dance Hall. District 8. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) 6. Motion to approve a request by Carolyn Youngblood for an on premise consumption Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Richard’s Place located at 2416 Windsor Spring Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 26, 2001) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 7. Motion to approve retirement for Thelma Rowe under the 1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 26, 2001) 8. Motion to approve execution of the “Certificate of Intent to Adopt the GMEBS Master Defined Benefit Retirement Plan for Compliance with GUST”. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 26, 2001) 9. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of a certain unsafe and uninhabitable property in the South Augusta Neighborhood: nd 2459 Ridge Road (District 5, Super District 9) and waive 2 reading. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 26, 2001) 10. Motion to approve the First Amendment to the 1998 Augusta Money Purchase Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee November 26, 2001) FINANCE: 11. Motion to approve expending mosquito control efforts to utilities and public works employees by working with the RCBOH (Board of Health) to train if necessary city employees to dispense larvaside pellets. This would involve the purchasing and distribution of these pellets for city use. This would give the city 12-month a year coverage for mosquito control at a cost of $12,720.00 and would be included in the 2002 budget. (Approved by Finance Committee November 26, 2001) 12. Motion to approve Contract for Sale on 2206 Golden Camp Road. (Approved by Finance Committee November 26, 2001) 13. Motion to abate taxes for 2001 on property donated to the City for the Canal Multi-Purpose Trail. (Approved by Finance Committee November 26, 2001) 14. Motion to abate taxes for 2000 and 2001 for property of Springfield Village Park Foundation. (Approved by Finance Committee November 26, 2001) 15. Motion to approve revision of the Government’s minimum capitalization policy from $500 to $5000 to be effective FY 2001. (Approved by Finance Committee November 26, 2001) 16. Motion to approve paying 2002 annual association dues for ACCG, GMA, NACO, CSRA Conservation & Development and the U.S. Conference of Mayors from existing funds. (Approved by Finance Committee November 26, 2001) 17. Motion to approve a request from the Department of the Army regarding City sponsorship of the 201st Military Intelligence Battalion’s Holiday Party in the amount of $1,019.00 funded from Commissioner Other Account. (Approved by Finance Committee November 26, 2001) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 18. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 17-1, Parcel 98, which is owned by Charles H. Hutto, for a temporary construction easement in connection with the Warren Road Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 26, 2001) 19. Motion to accept proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $26,450 for professional engineering services in association with the installation of raw water meters at various locations. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 26, 2001) 20. Motion to approve Change Order Number 3 to the Colony Park Sanitary Sewer Extension Project’s construction contract in order to establish unit prices for additional items at an estimated cost of $25,300.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 26, 2001) 21. Motion to approve Change Order Number 1 to the Skinner Road Sewer Project’s construction contract in the amount of $18,184.20. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 26, 2001) 22. Motion to approve execution of Water Services Agreement between Augusta Energy LLC and Augusta, Georgia and Lease Agreement between Augusta Energy LLC and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 26, 2001) 23. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta Richmond County Code Section 5-2-45 so as to establish a rate classification for co-generation facilities utilizing reclaimed water. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 26, 2001) PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 23A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held November 20, 2001. PLANNING: 23B. AMENDMENT ZA-R-147 - A request to concur with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of Augusta-Richmond County, Section 8- 4, accessory buildings in single-family residential zones. (Approved by Commission November 20 - second reading) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: I move to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. It’s been seconded. Do you desire to pull any items, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: On item 23, could we include in the consent agenda to waive the second reading? Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to waiving the second reading on item 23? Any objection? None heard, so we’ll include that in the motion, Mr. Bridges. Anyone like to pull an item? Mr. Beard: I can’t believe that. Mr. Mayor: I can’t believe that. Make sure nobody has forgotten something. We will go ahead with the consent agenda on the motion to approve. All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, the Sheriff is here with us. If we could move ahead to item number 26 so we can get him back on the road on patrol. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY: 26. Discuss cost comparison for the Sheriff’s Office, Road Patrol Division on whether unassigned vehicles are more economically advantageous to the citizens of Augusta. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee November 26, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sheriff, would you like to make some comments on this? We had a pretty health discussion in committee. We’ll let you go ahead and then we’ll -- Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I’ll open up this. Mr. Mayor: All right. You can be the opener, he can be the closer. Mr. Kolb: At the Public Safety Committee meeting of last Monday, we presented a report to the committee and subsequently to this Commission relative to the issue of hot seating cars as opposed to assigned vehicles. Basically the conclusion of the repot is that hot seating in the long run in terms of all costs considered is a more expensive proposition than actually assigning vehicles for officers to take home. We save primarily in the area of overtime. And once the overtime is calculated into the operation of the vehicles, it appears that the assigning of vehicles is more cost effective. The committee had no recommendation, wanted to bring it to the full Commission. We are recommending that we not change the policy at this time, even though it is at the Sheriff’ discretion. I turn it over to the Sheriff to make any further comments that he may want to make. Mr. Strength: Thank you very much. Before I start, at the subcommittee meeting I went over these things, very important items. All Commissioners were not there. But some of them were and the ones there, I apologize to having to go over these same things again just in a matter of days. Inasmuch as parking or hot seating our uniform cars, every few years, of course, this comes up. And somebody thinks it will possibly save money for the community. We’ve tried it twice in my 25 years with the Sheriff’s office, and it was total bedlam both times. We went through the hot seating and parking of our marked vehicles. It doesn’t work and it definitely doesn’t save money. A study was done on this, not by us but by Mr. Ron Crowden to show that in the long run it costs the taxpayers money. Some of the reasons I’d like to go over why we should not park these vehicles, especially now, is number one, visibility of these patrol cars in the streets. At any given time, coming and going from work, these guys meeting at the substations are in the street. There are four different details at certain times in the street to give us visibility. Cars parked in neighborhoods when these guys drive them home. You would not believe the number of calls I got since this issue came up that I got from citizens saying look, we want these cars parked in our neighborhood, we feel secure and please fight this and don’t let it happen. Without a doubt, everybody here knows that visibility of these police cars is a definite deterrent. Working special duty with these police cars -- of course, they work special at different places throughout the community. These people, these officers are hired for two reasons. Number one, to definitely keep the peace. Number two, because there is a patrol car there that does help keep the peace. These guys work malls, they work the bars. In anything that happens while this officers is working there in that car, even though he is off duty, he is responsible for taking care of that situation. If we didn’t have that, we would have, every time a fight went out in a bar, we would have to send our working cars out. We don’t now. They can stay patrolling in neighborhoods and the people that are working these specials can handle it. Same thing in the malls. Anything that happens from a fight to a wreck, those guys there off duty, with that car, handle those situations. Therefore, not having to stop our uniform duty and go over there. We don’t have enough cars as it is now to answer the calls that we are getting. We sure don’t have enough cars to start going to these bars, malls or wherever these guys are working special to handle calls there. Now of course when they go there and take somebody to jail, that car is out of service, and at any given time we could have 60% to 80% of our cars out of service handling calls like this that guys that are doing it now that are off duty working these specials. We can now monitor with our system now, we can monitor the upkeep on these cars, how they are taken care of, are they being serviced on time, we don’t have to figure out which four or which eight people have been driving that car that didn’t get it serviced, that are not keeping up with the wear and tear on it, that’s not taking care of that car. If we assign them, we know exactly who to go and who to hold responsible for that vehicle. In hot seating cars, the wear and tear is tremendous. You keep a car in the street around the clock, somebody is always jumping in and driving it. I can remember when we hot seated them many years ago, there were so many cars in the shop, the shop could not keep up with them. The amount of money being spent on these vehicles was just astronomical. Many times -- of course I was in uniform back then -- but we would go to the substations in our personal car to pick up a uniform car, didn’t even have one ready because they were in the shop down, and we had to wait on details to get off the street to get back in service. We don’t have that problem now. Without a doubt, we need these cars for emergency call-in. If these cars are taken from the officers -- and it will just be human nature, if we called them for emergency, they’re not coming. They’re not going to get in their cars and drive down. You folks can remember the terrorist attack. Immediately we had to do certain things. We did not have enough cars in the street to do what we were requested to do. We called people in, and within a matter of 20 minutes, we had 26 units at different sites -- airports, water plants, schools, chemical plants. Remember the tornado that set down not long ago, last year, in south Richmond County. Immediately we had to call in guys and they were there. It didn’t take long. I have to call them in every day now to have them come in to fill a slot because we don’t have the manpower to even work the shifts, to work the beats out on each shift. If you park them, there’s no way to secure them. I don’t know where -- maybe somebody had something in mind that we would park them at this one location. I don’t know how they would be secured. I don’t think they would. I think we would still have vandalism and theft from these vehicles. A big issue here is the overtime. It would cost the county $1.6 million in our calculations to park these cars. Today, those guys are coming to work, when they have that car, they get in that car and they come to work at 5:45 in the morning or 5:45 in the afternoon. Of course, they’re not being paid until they go to work at 5:45. Now if we park those cars and we’ll say out here in the parking lot out here, when we tell that man to still be there at 5:45, when he gets in his personal car and drives down here, he’s on his own time. But when he gets in that police car down here and then has to travel to the substation, he is on overtime at that point because we told him to be there -- to pick up this car and be there. We did check that with the Fair Labor Board again to make sure that the understanding was right. They say absolutely you will pay them. We don’t have that now, and I don’t think the county has $1.6 million for this. We have checked a lot of agencies in the state of Georgia. I would venture to say -- we’ve not checked them all because there are thousands and thousands of police agencies in Georgia -- I would go out on limb and say at least 90% of those agencies have take home policy. It is the right thing to do. It would be ludicrous to even think about parking or hot seating these cars. It’s not the right thing to do for the community, for the safety and the security here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Sheriff. Mr. Kuhlke had his hand up and wanted to be recognized. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we approve the current assignment vehicle program for the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Okay. Did you want to discuss it, Mr. Kuhlke? All right, Mr. Beard, then Mr. Williams, and then we’ll come back this way, Mr. Mays. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I personally don’t have a big problem with the take home policy, but out of the discussion that -- and this was not mentioned -- out of the discussion in the subcommittee meeting, I think we were asked -- another problem came up and I’m sure the Sheriff is aware of this and remembered this, concerning the out-of- county policy that exists. And I would just like to hear -- we were supposed to get a number of those deputies who are taking cars out of that. And I would just like to hear that and maybe possibly included in that motion the possibility of looking, the Administrator and the Sheriff working together to come up with some type of future policy or even hear what Commissioners or how Commissioners feel on that. I think that needs to be included in that. That was asked to come out of the committee. That came out of committee, and I think that needs to be taken up also. Mr. Strength: Let me address that. Mr. Beard, we did discuss this at that meeting. Going out of county right now are 52 units. We have a seven mile limit on anybody -- they cannot go out of state period. But we have a seven mile limit for our cars from the county line into Columbia County, Burke County, Jefferson County. We’ve got 52 that go out of county right now. 50 of those 52 are closer to our substation than any of our officers that live in Blythe, McBean or Hephzibah. Commissioner Mays brought that up, and he was involved when the decision was made some time back. The units that specially live right up here in Columbia County can respond and be on site at our substation much quicker than we’ve got officers that live in Richmond County and Blythe, Hephzibah and McBean. Mr. Mayor: Anything further, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: No. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I was at the Public Safety meeting that the Sheriff is talking about. And we asked him to bring us a number of how many take-home cars, and I think, if I’m not mistaken, that was involved in this. My personal interest is not to take the cars away from the officers. We’re talking about pay raises and giving money. We’re talking about how much money it costs to keep a car. When you assign every officer to a car. I need to ask a question right here and then I got another comment. Mr. Sheriff, are you aware of the Richmond County deputy cars that work the mall, that drives around the mall with the mall stickers on them saying for protection of Augusta Mall? Mr. Strength: You said has a sticker for Augusta Mall? Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Strength: No, sir, I am not. I am very much aware of special duty there at the mall. Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, I’m speaking of that in one incident. But also take home policy. If we could afford to, and I heard you many, many times that the deputies need the car and how much cost it would be. But when you buy a car for $35,000 and give it to each deputy and he takes that car personally and he takes that car home, that car used for 12 hours, those are vehicles that are special ordered to do special work, just like a deputy I think is a special person. He’s trained. These automobiles are built specifically for that type of work. And what you call hot seating may sound like it’s bad, may sound like it’s something that’s going to tear up something cause of the word is “hot” there, but we know that the cars don’t run 24 hours. There are some taxicabs that run total 24 hours a night, all night long. And I understand that. But when you come saying that you need money for these officers to advance and to do something for their families and then we going to give these officers those cars as well, we’ve got to make some sacrifices somewhere. My take is that it will be cheaper to assign those cars to change shift when the officers change shift, rather to assign a car for everybody. Now we’re not up here cause we just want to pull those cars in and take those cars back. But I just think you’re talking about how much money it will cost. Commissioner Cheek and I went to the service shop that maintain our cars on Monday morning. There’s 300 police cars on Monday morning there. And you’re talking about the records. You mentioned how you can maintain and see what been happening. When we visited that location, there was no documents. Nobody had any records. They was in the process they said, and it’s been a year ago now, but I have not had reports since this, but this was a process they was going through to put those records on computers. There was something about the computers, the system was different, and maybe Mr. Crowden, maybe Mr. Ron Crowden, if he’s here, he can address that. But over 300 cars, there wasn’t any records to tell us when the maintenance work was done, not only just maintenance work. No one talks about the wrecked cars that we got on the side that’s parking there at that same location. All I want to know, Mr. Sheriff, we’re trying to do what’s right for the citizens of Richmond County. We need police. We need protection. And you will always need that. If there wasn’t any terrorists, if there wasn’t anything but just human nature, we’re going to need officers. And I don’t think none of these Commissioners would sit here and say that we don’t. But I just think we need to look at this very, very closely and try to do what we can to save money for the citizens of Richmond County. If they need raises -- you talking about working specials. No one mentioned what the rates are for the hourly work that the officer performs when they off in your patrol car, in your uniform. I’m not against that. I think they ought to do whatever they can to support their families. But we sit here and talk like we got plenty money. We do not have plenty money. And we need to do some things differently to save some money for the citizens of Richmond County. And that’s been my take on it. So I’m not trying to pull the car from the officer but I disagree very, very highly. I think there is a lot of cities that do change shifts and change cars the same time. If we get progressive and do some things differently rather than park the cars at a different location and have officers report at a different location, may be on us, may be as Commission we got to come up with a situation that we can do that. Mr. Beard made a suggestion. Maybe the Mayor, the Administrator and yourself, can sit down and come up with something we can work some things out. But everybody don’t seem to want to save money. All we seem to want to do is spend. And if you sit in this seat, Mr. Sheriff, I think you understand what I’m saying. Mr. Strength: I cannot address what records Maintenance has got. I have no control over the Maintenance Shop. That’s y’all. So I cannot address that. Without a doubt I can address the cost and the savings that you are interested in for the community, and I promise you we are, too. Because in January, if you’ll remember, we cut $1.3 million. Without a doubt I wanted to work with the Commission. Mr. Williams: Mr. Sheriff, let me interrupt you one minute. One more minute. Mr. Strength: Yes. Mr. Williams: You said you cut $3.1 now? Mr. Strength: $1.3 million. Mr. Williams: $1.3 million? Mr. Strength: Correct. Mr. Williams: And that was 3%? Mr. Strength: 3-1/2%. Mr. Williams: 3-1/2%. Well, how much was your total budget? Mr. Strength: I don’t know, close to $36 million. Mr. Williams: Well, if 3% was that much, then your budget had to be up there, wouldn’t you agree? Mr. Strength: I would think it was $36-37 million, but I don’t think we understand -- my budget wouldn’t be that if we worked 8-5. We work around the clock, seven days a weeks, 365 days a year. And I don’t know if that’s taken into effect, I mean taken in or out of context here. But we have two jails to operate, I can’t mandate not spending money on inmates. We have to feed them, we have to house them, we have to clothe them, we have to handle medical, and I have no control over that. As long as we’re doing out job of putting people in that jail that violate the law, that’s going to skyrocket. I can’t control it one bit. Certain things we have to do by federal law, as you well know. So we can’t control that. But if you will check throughout this country and check public safety, I think you will see the percentage of every budget will be up there for public safety for that reason. Now you made the comment that you wanted to save money. As I started a while ago, we do, too. I have not problem with that and think that’s the right thing to do. But this study was done, not by us, showed that we’re not going to save money. We are fixing to cost money by doing that. I think you have a copy of the study. Mr. Williams: Okay. And that study was done in 1997; is that right? Mr. Strength: No, the study was done three or four weeks ago. Mr. Williams: Mr. Crowden -- is Ron here? Mr. Crowden: There were two studies. One in ’97. I used the same formula which I did in my latest study here representing [inaudible]. I started this study in August of this year. Mr. Williams: So you used the same study that they did in ’97, you’re saying? Mr. Crowden: I used the same criteria for calculations that they did in ’97. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have anything else. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me say this, and maybe this might change the tone of this a little bit. First of all, I’m going to support the motion that’s on the floor, and I want to make sure, and I guess in its entirety that means it stays where it stays, including the radius limit that’s in there; am I correct in that, Jim? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: Okay. I wanted to make sure that that was there. The other thing I think that we need to bring out is the fact that I’m glad that this is coming to a head and hopefully will be behind us in this meeting as we head into a budget season. Because we’ve had correspondence from the Sheriff, and I think he’s concerned, we’re concerned in reference to what we used to call at one time, particularly on the old APD side, that revolving door situation where we became the training ground. I know, Sheriff, you know exactly what I’m talking about, to where we spend thousands of dollars, we get folk trained, and then opportunities come open, and it’s human nature for those people to want to take advantage of those opportunities and rightfully so, and particularly the young that have not been within the system that long. We cannot at this point in time, in our budget sizing, deal with some of the monies that we may want to do on some things with, but I think if we make a backwards move by changing the formula on this take home situation, where it is right now, that would really be a backward step. Because where we can’t do it on one hand to do some of those things to maybe prevent what we have talked about, I think it does afford the opportunity for a lot of them to be able to still deal with their income, to be able to provide an intangible source of protection for people in this county, and you’re brought out my point in reference to where some people may live to a point you could be in another county, but you can still be further away and never leave home in your own jurisdiction. So I hope that we’re all clear on that. I’d like to see us go ahead on and continue the policy of where we are. I think that rather than getting back to maybe this car argument again, one of the more fruitful things might be, Mr. Mayor, and I know it’s on our list in terms of looking at the presentations to the Legislative Delegation, but we’ve got to have flexible means of dealing with finance, and particularly public safety. That’s a necessary item that we are going to have to have, whether we like that or not. And I think that in lieu of the fact that we have a tax cap on us, we’ve got Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights, nobody wants property taxes, we’re going to have to deal with some flexibilities of operational monies that can be done, I think, and y’all have heard me more than once say this, I think it’s a real good secret of being consolidated. It’s about time that we try and deal with legislation on the state level that will put us into that realm whereby we will have the option in this county in order to do that. There are only three of us -- Columbus Muscogee, Athens Clarke, and Augusta Richmond -- and it would give us the opportunity at that time to be able to deal with generating other funds, rather than to get into these dog fights in terms of things that are necessary. I remember when we put those folk there, Sheriff. Your predecessor asked us to do it. I was one of those that supported it wholeheartedly. I supported it in last year’s budget. And every now and then, regardless of what some folk say, I do lose. But it’s a point where we are going to have to have, I think, operations to stay where they are, and I hope that the majority of the Commission will support Mr. Kuhlke’s motion in terms of leaving the policy intact and where it is, and that we channel our resources and efforts rather than trying to say maybe fight from within on this situation of trying to find means that will help us to finance public safety and to be able to do some of those creative things that we need to do so that we can keep those operations where they are. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Jerry Brigham. Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Sheriff Strength, for coming down. As you know, during the committee meetings I’ve had very strong feelings about potentially hot seating and the reduction in costs. This, to me, is an exercise that everyone will have to go through eventually in large cost items to determine whether it is still the best business practice, and it’s something that we’ll go through periodically with every agency within the government, and it makes sense to do that. As I said in committee meetings, I cannot vote against keeping the cars in the hands of the deputies in light of the fact that it is additional compensation for them, as well as enhancing the community safety. I do ask, though, of your and other constitutional officers to look at people within our departments that continue to go from home to work at the same building over and over again, without being called in or without having emergency response duties, to look at maybe taking those vehicles away and pooling them or allowing them to use then when they come to work. And this is true for RCCI, the Fire Department, everyone else. I have a real problem with people driving cars to and from work just because it’s been the way it’s been done. And the county government had a problem with that for year. But in any event, I support the measure offered by Commissioner Kuhlke. At this time I think it’s the very best that we can do. I would hope that we would keep all the information that you gave us at the committee meeting in the form of a formal report because until that meeting we were all operating on the assumption that there had never been a study done before and formalize, it was more word of mouth. Mr. Strength: Yes, sir. Mr. Cheek: I wish you the best in your efforts. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham. Mr. J. Brigham: Sheriff, first I’m going to tell you I’m going to vote for the motion. Mr. Strength: Thank you. Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. Get that part out of the way. My concern, as it was in committee, is still carrying the cars outside of the county. I believe you have told us that it is more important to have car unoccupied, parked on the side of the street, in Richmond County, for safety purposes, than to have it sitting in a garage, driveway or somewhere else where it’s visible to the public. Mr. Strength: That is important, and we do that. You and I discussed it. Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, sir, we have discussed it. My point is if we’re not allowing other county employees -- I want these deputies to carry cars home with them. I just don’t want them to carry it outside of Richmond County. I want them to stop and let us receive the benefit of the neighborhood seeing those cars parked in Richmond County neighborhoods, not Columbia County neighborhoods, not Burke County neighborhoods, not Jefferson County neighborhoods. I wanted to reiterate that point with you. I’m planning on voting for that motion, but that is my concern and I don’t feel like the Columbia County taxpayers are going to support you in the protection that you’re providing them by allowing those cars to be parked in their neighborhoods. Now I know the Richmond County folks, if you park them in their neighborhoods, are going to support you. Mr. Strength: Absolutely. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? Mr. Henry? Mr. H. Brigham: I sure would like to support this. I was chairman of Public Safety at the time we got the famous 58 deputies. I think we all remember that. But I certainly am going to support this motion. And I want my predecessor to [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. H. Brigham: I’m going to support this. The main thing is, like my namesake said, they don’t want them to go out of the county. Now how we work that out with the 52 cars that’s going out of the county, I don’t know. And I’m sure you will come up with a method. Mr. Strength: I will address that, Mr. Brigham. Mr. H. Brigham: If so, I think that will make life easier for all of us. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just quickly, as a final reply. I think while we are talking about the out-of-county issue, that while in one sense they may be in neighborhoods that are in another county, I do think we need to keep in mind that the protection of that neighborhood, since it may not be under the jurisdiction of the Sheriff in some other county, should not be the only means that we consider in terms of when the vehicle goes out. If it’s in terms of the fact of those people being able to respond to emergencies, being able to get back in to where they are, and in terms of the compensation which we would have to deal with, that is a situation whereby I think the over the county line, which may be five minutes, but the trip to the end of the county line may be in terms of 15-16 miles from the substation. So it’s not just in terms of where you look at it as far as the protection of the neighborhood. Obviously they have no governing jurisdiction or arrest power there. We all know that. But it’s also an issue of response and being able to get back in and to be able to utilize them for that purpose. And I think that’s not only true in Richmond County, but it’s true in jurisdictions across the state. And I think the only way that you can get around that if you’re going to have a take-home policy per se -- you can institute it, yes, if you decide to do it, but I think you also must remember that the constitution from the standpoint of protecting people of where they live, that’s something that you cannot enforce. You encourage it, it would be nice if everybody lived in the town where they worked, but I mean certainly there are people -- and I don’t have any disagreement with that, but there are certainly that make more than our people in public safety do that don’t live inside of Richmond County. And we may say well, they don’t take the car home over there, either, but they may not be called to respond to deal with some of the things that those persons are, and I just wanted to add that, Mr. Mayor. That’s not just a one provisional situation in terms of where they go out. Mr. Mayor: All right. Are we ready to vote on Mr. Kuhlke’s motion? All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we have a number of people here from the ambulance service, so let’s go ahead and take up item number 27 now. The Clerk: 27. Discuss ambulance service contract. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee November 26, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, you want to report from your committee, or Mr. Kolb or Mr. Wall, do you want to give the report? Mr. Wall is? Okay. Mr. Wall: What you have before you is a continuation of the -- well, actually, there are two agreements. One, you have a continuation of the existing ambulance contract. This would carry forward for an additional 12 months at the same rate of $50,000 per month. The question was asked of me why the $50,000 is not there. Since it’s a continuation, the existing agreement has $50,000 and so that is just carried forward. This would be for a one year period through December 31, 2002. It does have the reporting requirements included. That’s a new article, Article VII, or new provisions which would be in Article VII which would be the monthly reports that we’re requesting. Also, you have before you an Emergency Medical Dispatch Services Agreement. You will recall we currently have an Emergency Medical Dispatch Agreement. This would carry that agreement forward, with certain modifications; the modifications being that we would pay $36,000 per month as long as Rural Metro is doing the dispatching. At such time that we’re able to take over emergency medical dispatch, one of two things would happen. If we utilize the UHF system that they have and a patch, then since we would be utilizing their antennae and that we would only pay $10,000 per month. If we do what I think is anticipated, which is that they would be furnished with 800 [inaudible] system radios that would be used for the 9-1-1 dispatch, then that cost would go to zero. And that would be done at any time we’re ready to take over the emergency medical dispatch upon 30 days’ notice. The cost would drop from $36,000 per month down to either $10,000 per month or down to zero. And as I explained at the Ambulance Subcommittee meeting, on a long term basis, I think it is the desire of the Administrator, as well as 9-1- 1, and the feeling that emergency medical dispatch should be done out of our 9-1-1 center and that we should take over the emergency medical dispatch, so therefore the purchase of the radios would be a long term investment. It’s something that we would need, and it’s something that would benefit. So it comes as a recommendation from the Technical Subcommittee. The committee last week made no recommendation. But it is our recommendation that both the ambulance contract, as well as the Emergency Medical Dispatch contracts as presented to you be approved. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Brigham, co-chairman of the committee? Mr. J. Brigham: I’m going to make a motion that we approve the contracts as presented. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second the motion. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Just one second, Mr. Williams. Go ahead, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we not honor that extension, one-year extension. I’ve got a couple of questions I need to ask if I can get a second. Mr. Mayor: Your motion is not to extend the contract? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that for him. Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Williams. You had something? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask a couple of questions. First of all, I have no special interest in any ambulance service, about who do this contract or who don’t. But I think we need to quit playing around and put the pen where it need to be pointed to and that’s the better service or the best service we can get for the citizens of Richmond County. We do know that Gold Cross has an ambulance service and a helicopter service that go with that. People out in south Augusta who lives in extreme south out there is really in a bad situation. And I’m really disappointed because we have not even negotiated to talk about a better service or what we can get. It don’t matter to me who get the service as long as we can provide the best service for the people in that area. And we been talking about this for almost a year now and we have not come to turns enough to even sit down and talk about who has what and what it’s going to cost us. Instead, we want to do the same old thing. We been doing the same old thing for 45 years around here and it’s time to do something different. Something that’s going to benefit the people of Richmond County. And I just don’t understand why we have not sit down and negotiated to see what was or who had or what would be better for the people of Richmond County and what it going cost us. Rural Metro may be the best thing we can get. But I can’t sit here and vote for a agreement or extension on an agreement that we have not even negotiated with another company who is right here. So maybe the Administrator can tell me why we have not sit down and negotiated with them to find out what can be brought to the table or what they do have to offer or maybe even what they don’t have to offer. But I think the people in Richmond County need to have every advantage that they can when it come to safety. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in response to Commissioner Williams’ questions, why we haven’t negotiated with Gold Cross, there are two very clear -- Mr. Colclough: Mr. Kolb, we can’t hear you on this end. Mr. Kolb: There are two very clear reasons why we have not contacted any other ambulance service other than Rural Metro. First is that Rural Metro is the only ambulance that is authorized in this zone to do emergency ambulance service. In other words, they’re the only one designated by the Region VI Council. Number two, when we first embarked upon the plan in order to receive ambulance service, we negotiated with Rural Metro on a very short term basis in order to collect information from them so that we could prepare a request for proposals to be sent out this spring. At that time, we would look at other ambulance services coming in and then open up the zones to the successful low bidder of that particular contract. So those are two clear reasons why we have not done so. Mr. Williams: But Mr. Kolb, and I think I was a part of that subcommittee, we allowed and we asked you to go out and to see -- now you’re talking about designation and who was designated to run the ambulance service in Richmond County. That’s one issue. But the issue we asked you to do was to negotiate, not to sign a contract, but at least to let us know what we had to deal with, what we could have dealt with. I mean being a licensed person or a licensed company to do one thing is one thing. But to go out and to see what’s out there for the Commission to know is what we asked you to do. And we’ve delayed it from here from the Emergency Management Services at our committee meeting, gave us some good information about some things that we thought we was doing. As Commissioners we met and voted, not just voted, but we signed a letter to try to get some things done that we thought was going to take six months to a year, happened less than 30 days. But it seem to be that we doing things in the back room and then we want to come out in front with it. And we need to be straight up. We need to do things, do whatever is right, and if I ask you to find out, negotiate -- not just me but the Commission -- on that subcommittee, asked you to negotiate, even extend a three months contract and negotiate to find out whatever was out there for the people. We got -- when you talking about traveling, and I know we’re growing with automobiles and transportation, but when you talking about coming from south Augusta to the inner city to the hospital, and all our hospitals centrally located, just about the same place, and you can negotiate with a company that’s got a helicopter that going to be of great service to transport people and save lives, and we won’t even consider that? Something wrong with that picture to me. And I hadn’t heard any reason yet why you told me why you did not talk with them to at least find out what was going on. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? You want to respond, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: I wanted to respond. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. And then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Williams, I disagree with you. I was instructed by this Commission to negotiate a contract with Rural Metro for the short term, and as a part of that plan was to prepare us to develop an RFP that would go out where we could take competitive bids from various ambulance services. That was going to occur next spring. As it turned out, we did apply for open zoning in August. Open zoning still has not occurred yet. That process, they tell me, takes anywhere from three to six months. Even though we can do it now at any time, we are not prepared to do open zone requests until we have decided which ambulance service we want to utilize. Mr. Williams: Mr. Kolb, help me out here cause I’m a little fuzzy. But did we not go out and do a six months extension? We came back with a two year; we turned the two year down. Did we not go with a six months extension on the ambulance service back then to try to do just what you said? Mr. Kolb: No, we did not. Six month extension as of June 30 through the end of this current year. That six month would end September 30. The action that was taken in August authorizes to negotiate up to one year for an extension of the ambulance service [inaudible] or contract. Mr. Williams: But that six months, when we did that in June, you say; is that right? Mr. Kolb: No, you did that last spring before I arrived. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Kolb: You extended -- Mr. Williams: The six months to the end of this month; this is December? Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Williams: Okay. And at that time were you not supposed to go and negotiate with another ambulance service to see what was out there to be offered? Mr. Kolb: No. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Jim, on the contract we’ve got in front of us, what is this going to cost me? Am I right in saying that our fee is going to be $50,000 a month plus $36,000 for the 9-1-1- emergency medical dispatch until such time as we take it over and it drops to $10,000? Mr. Wall: Either $10,000 or no charge. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Wall: The first modification of amended and restated management services agreement, that’s $50,000 per month. Mr. Bridges: That’s $600,000 a year there. Mr. Wall: $600,000 a year. The other one -- and that’s what we’re paying currently, is $50,000 per month. Have since July of this year. Mr. Bridges: Right. Mr. Wall: The dispatch agreement is $36,000 per month with provision that once we give them notice, depending on which route we go, whether we utilize the UHF or whether we utilize the 800 [inaudible] system, it will either go down to $10,000 or at no further cost. Mr. Bridges: In this contract, what will Rural Metro be doing? Will they be doing anything different or anything less, provide any less service than they are right now? Mr. Wall: They will not be providing any less service than what they are doing now. They will be -- the main change is that they will be reporting and we’ll have some tracking information to assist us in developing the RFP. Mr. Bridges: And George, as I understand this, really at this point, due to the zoning, Rural Metro is the only option we have unless we want to do it ourselves? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Bridges: And what we’re moving toward is having open zoning, meaning Rural Metro, Gold Cross, whoever can come in here; or are you designating who can be in the zone? Mr. Kolb: No. We will do an RFP to any and all ambulance services who want to respond to it. We will then, through whatever process, select the ambulance service that we think will provide the best service, and then open zoning would occur at that time. So that that particular service could be qualified and designated the zone provider. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Wall, can this extension be broken prior to December 31 of next year if we have already settled on a company and gotten that company authorized through the Council? Is there an early out to this one year extension? Mr. Wall: Not on the emergency medical part. There is on the dispatch. But not on the -- on the ambulance service, it’s a 12 month contract. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Since we’re doing it this spring, there would be contract negotiations that we have to enter into. We have to get approval from the Commission. And also that service would have to gear up. We think that may take [inaudible] months. Mr. Mayor: So if there is any change at all in provider, it would not come until January 2, 2003? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Give us plenty of lead time. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of things I’d like to say about this. And I know that the time line is getting short now and I think we have to put our people and the service that we’re going to give our people of this city first priority, and that is making sure that they are covered in any type situation. But there are two questions that I would like to ask and maybe so it will go on the record. And I know you answered some of this for Commissioner Bridges. But as I see the figures here and you said, Jim, that they weren’t doing any more or any less, but we’re jumping from $50,000 to $86,000; is that correct? And I know kind of where you’re coming from on this, but since you answered the questions they’re not doing any more or any less, but yet instead we’ve got a $36,000 addition here, and maybe you can explain that for the record. Mr. Wall: All right. The additional $36,000 is for the dispatch agreement. When -- going back through the history of this, University Hospital had its own dispatchers in the 9-1-1 center prior to the contract being entered into, the one with University Hospital and Rural Metro. Rural Metro, when they took over the provision of ambulance services, they requested to be allowed to establish their own 9-1-1 center and an agreement was entered into where they became a secondary PSAP, public service answering point. And there was an advantage to the county in having a second PSAP location, and they had a different software package insofar as GIS, and so they moved to another location. We have not paid for any emergency medical dispatch since Rural Metro took over. And so that is the change. We would be paying $36,000 per month for the emergency medical dispatch function until we could bring that back in house. Mr. Beard: But Jim, if they aren’t doing any more or any less why -- I still don’t quite understand that. You know, if you’ve got a contract, we’ve extended that contract for over a year, we’ve extended this last from July up through December. We had extended it prior to that, as I understand. But if that is happening, why do we have to -- now that’s one part I really don’t understand that we have to pay instead of $50,000, we’re paying $86,000 a month for this. That’s kind of fuzzy with me, because I figure that if you’re not doing any more or any less, then you’re taking advantage of the situation here at this point. My second thing would be I think for the record, and I now we have to make some decisions soon because the time is running out, for the record will there be RFPs that are being sent out, I would like a time line on those for the record, and would it be inclusive of other carriers out there who may want to respond to that? Mr. Wall: I’ll let Mr. Kolb respond to the time line, but I’ll tell you my thoughts. First of all, both the emergency medical dispatch contract and the ambulance contract expire December 31, and so it was a matter of the negotiations of renewing both contracts, both the ambulance provider contract, as well as the emergency medical dispatch contract. From Rural Metro’s standpoint, they’re looking at their overall revenue, their overall costs, and so it was simply -- you know, that is a cost to them to do the dispatching. So that’s the reason that there is the additional $36,000. And we looked at the figures and I think the figures justify their charging that. Insofar as the RFP, yes, it is going to be open, and we’re going to solicit proposals not just from Rural Metro and Gold Cross, but hopefully as many different providers as we can so that we get the best proposal that’s available. Time line. Mr. Kolb mentioned the time line in the committee. Understand that one of the things that we get by virtue of this contract if it’s approved is additional information concerning response time. If we don’t utilize that information as part of the RFP, we’re not really getting what we’re asking for. I mean it would be nice to know information, but it would be better to have this information and build it into the RFP. So it’s going to be up to the Technical Committee to develop the standards and to utilize as much of this information as gets reported to us in the development of the RFP. Mr. Kolb has mentioned, I think, by April 1 we’d be out for RFPs, and maybe that’s the deadline that we need to implement. Certainly we need to have a time line so that we have a contract as far in advance of January 1, 2003 that we can so that everybody knows and it doesn’t become an issue. But my personal feeling is that by June is when we ought to go out for RFPs because that way we’ve got five months of information hopefully. Mr. Beard: You know why I’m asking for time lines. Because we’ve had so many instances wherein at the last minute, just like we’re doing now, we’re coming up with we have to act because it’s a last minute situation where we’ve looked at studied for a year, two years on different subjects, and we have not come up -- we still not there, and I think this is one way to put on record the accountability if we are going to approve that today, whatever it may be, I think it should be on record that we have a time line so that when we look back at the minutes, this time next year when we’re arguing about it and trying to discuss it and have not reached decisions on this, we can reflect on the record and see that at one point in time it was, for the record, it was there, and the time line was there. Because we have to start using these time lines. And on every issue we’ve had, we’ve had an area where the time line has not been continued. And that’s to me is accountability. And I still think that although I don’t know which way this is going today, but to me I think that with Rural Metro has taken advantage of the situation because I think if what you’ve said is true that they are doing the same thing they’ve done the last year or two, and still will, but there is an additional $36,000 charge, then I think there is something that is a little wrong with that. And that’s out of line. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For Mr. Kolb and Mr. Wall, how quickly could the 9-1-1 dispatch function be taken on and that would eliminate the $36,000 a month? Mr. Wall: Mr. Wasson might be the better one to answer it. He kind of chastised me the other day saying it could be done in three months. I think he thinks it can be done in three months, he just doesn’t want to be held to that. Mr. Shepard: Could he address that? I mean that would eliminate that item of expense, would it not? The $36,000 a month. Mr. Cheek: $26,000. Mr. Shepard: I thought it said if 9-1-1 was dispatching, the cost to the county was zero. There are three levels, $36,000, $10,000 and zero? Mr. Wall: It goes to $10,000 if we use the 800’s radios. It goes to zero if we use 800 radios. If we use the UHF, it will be $10,000. Mr. Mayor: Phil, can you answer the Commissioner’s question? Mr. Wasson: Yes, sir. Commissioner, I can let you know that you can anticipate by April 1 the Augusta 9-1-1 center would be ready to go into EMD, emergency medical dispatch, and take over the dispatch. We’ve been planning this process for some time because we knew eventually it would get to this. I’m waiting on some figures as far as a radio. That’s the reason when I looked at the contract this morning and saw $10,000 for dispatch, I knew another plan that we had talked about, and Mr. Wall and I had a conversation about that regarding 800 mhz, and that’s how we got the zero in there. So there are some figures we’re waiting on, that I’m waiting on Information Technology to give me as far as a radio, but by April 1 we should be able to take over EMD. Mr. Shepard: Still let me follow that up. This Commissioner wouldn’t know a mhz from an EMD, but by April 1 you’re telling us that we could then be at the zero level on this contract? Mr. Wasson: It would be a possibility, yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: Okay. And then the question I want to ask, is the substitute motion has no alternative after January 1, 2002. Maybe Mr. Williams or Mr. Kolb could speak to what we would do if we approved the substitute motion. I mean what would our people do? Are we going to -- what are we going to do for ambulance service under the substitute motion as of January 1 through January 2, 2002? Mr. Williams: If I can get my second to -- if I can amend my motion to add in that, Mr. Shepard, that the county would take over the ambulance service and do a contract with Rural Metro and Gold Cross for an extended amount of time and save us a lot of money when we could do our dispatching from our 911 Center. We talking about $36,000 additional money. Now I think we could -- we as Richmond County could go into the ambulance service business and contract with the two services for an extended amount of time. Mr. Shepard: And what about -- is this, Jim or George, maybe Donna if she’s here -- I can’t see her -- but have we budgeted the impact of this? I mean for sure we’ll have a $600,000 impact, then it may have up to three times $36,000 if we got out in three months, wouldn’t it? It would be $102,00. Mr. Mayor: Would the $36,000 come out of the 9-1-1 fees? Mr. Kolb: We’re not proposing that it would come out of the 9-1-1 fees. It would come out of the Fire Protection Fund. And yes, in the new budget for next fiscal year, we are making provisions for -- I think we put in six months of dispatch just to be on the safe side. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, before we get into that part of the discussion, let me ask. Is there a technical reason why regardless of who was doing it, in the 9-1-1 center, George or Jim, that we would not charge that off to 9-1-1? And I mean neutral of anybody. To a point they’re in the center and we’re dealing with dealing with the money. I’m getting to a point there that regardless of who is under contract, whether it’s the current provider, somebody else, or another situation we haven’t seen. But I mean why would we not deal with that under 9-1-1 money provisions? Now -- Mr. Kolb: You could. Mr. Mays: Well, then how is a decision been made administratively to say that’s what we would not do? I would think you would bring it to us and you would say make a decision first, Mr. Administrator and Mr. Attorney, as to where the funds would come out of. I think in fairness to everybody concerned, if we’ve got a pot that’s going into 9-1-1 and those people are going to be housed in 9-1-1 through it, then that should be the first place you should look. Now if the funds are depleted or exhausted, then I think you should look over into Fire Protection, but then that’s misleading to a point if you’ve got his now to say you’re going to have a contractual company regardless of who it is, if the people are going to be stationed there under Mr. Wasson’s direction in 9-1-1, then the monies available should come from 9-1-1. I guess I’m going to start my argument backwards. I do that a lot. Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, I think that’s part of the budgetary process. When y’all approve the budget, it will either be included in one budget or the other. Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Mr. Wall: That’s a decision for y’all to make. And I think that Mr. Kolb was expressing his -- Mr. Kolb: Recommendation. Mr. Wall: -- recommendation that he felt it should come from Fire Protection. Mr. Mays: I’m just trying to get a sensible answer as to why would we be over into Fire Protection dealing with it. We’ve had this argument age old that a lot of things that have come out of departments where the use is not there that are having to pay for them. Now if you’ve got the 9-1-1 money there to deal with it -- we went through this argument in terms of splitting. This is how we ended up in terms of eliminating our fire people from 9-1-1 in the beginning prior to Mr. Kolb. I realize he inherited some things. But this is still Augusta. The city didn’t move regardless of what Administrator you had. And I’m just saying how you have a made-up mind to a point, but we’ve not decided what [inaudible] of funds you’re going to get it out of. I mean I’d much rather hear that there is an option A or B to do it. But it could of gets in my craw when I hear something has been decided before this Commission has made a decision on it. That’s the only point I’m making about 9-1-1 money. And that’s absent of whoever the provider is. Because Fire Protection money is already stretched to the limit, it’s over, it’s over a bad formula period. So it’s at its max right now in terms of what you’re dealing with. Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Mays, again, all I was indicating is that my recommendation at budget time would be for it to be charged to the Fire Protection Fund. First, and there are two reasons for that. First of all, you eluded to. I don’t believe that the 9-1-1 Fund will be able to support paying those dispatch fees. Number two, EMS is a Fire Protection Fund eligible expense, because the Fire Department will be a part of the EMS cycle of provision of services. So I believe that it would make more sense to put all of that in one place and be accounted for in one place. But it is an option. If the Commission chooses when we bring the budget forth, if you choose to put it somewhere else, we can do that. It’s not a problem. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, did you have something you wanted to say about the contract extension? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Part of the contract extension deals also with the money in 9-1-1, and I’m not through, quite frankly, with 9-1-1 yet. I mean he’s responded to a point and he said why it made sense. If I might, I’d like to make provisions as to why it doesn’t make a lot of good sense. When we moved the people, there was a compromise in terms of the Fire Department giving up its folk so that we could get under one situation there in 9-1-1. The monies were there always to do it. It was just an argument, quite frankly, as to who they were going to be split from. So you have 9-1-1 monies, Mr. Administrator, that can be used. I think in terms of looking at it from the standpoint of Fire Protection and your dealing with it, if there are two sources that you can deal with, I think if you have an option of using one, which you would not be able to use in some other parts of fire service, it would make more sense from an ignorant perspective if you would use the money that is there that you have that is eligible to be used for 9-1-1 since they will be over in the 9-1-1 center. That’s my point, Mr. Mayor, on 9-1-1. And I’m through with it obviously. We’ll make that decision during budget time hopefully and that will be an opinion and it would not be a dictation. The point that I would like to make, two or three of them. First, I think at some point very soon, and hopefully this will occur over the course of this year, that we can get into, quite frankly, and I realize contracts have dates that one party or the other can cancel out of, people can get tired of the city, or the city can get tired of them. But I think that at some point, to the satisfaction of the citizens first that we serve, the people that will work under the jurisdiction of an ambulance contract, the quicker we can get to a long term contract so that folk know where and how they are working is the only thing that I tried to deal with from the very beginning of this whole thing. Prior to George Kolb and after George Kolb. No offense. Nothing personal to anybody. Mr. Wall and I, you know we’ve been down this road a bunch of times. Mr. Mayor, you know where you and I were, maybe one of the biggest [inaudible] you had, I’d at least got a second, but if it had been our provision to do it, we would have been out for RFPs a long time ago, not just of having this argument circle, or the so-called argument with Gold Cross and Rural Metro, cause most of these folk know each other and work with each other anyway. But the point being realistically is that had we done this on a short term contract, moved ahead to deal with proper RFPs, this would have been a situation that would have been over and done with. We’re constantly into these little itty bitty, short term extension of where something changed, the language of it changes, folk looking back in terms of job security, folk in the community looking back in terms of overall security as to who is going to provide it, and I think we, quite frankly, have been negligent to a point of getting us off square one and doing it. Here we are today, Mr. Mayor, with a contract, and I’m no hypocrite -- folk ain’t got to like what I say. That doesn’t bother me there. But I’m going to tell the truth but I ain’t going to say it but one way and don’t care what side of town I’m on when I say it. But I said in committee meeting the other day that if I was presented a contract, regardless of whose name was on it today, and I feel as though if this contract had been negotiated from the standpoint of several months, here it is today, something that is this important -- you may say well, okay, Willie, this isn’t but two or three pages that you’ve got. This should have -- that’s on the agenda today -- this contract should have been ready, it should have been prepared, it should have been in the booklet for us to peruse, look at it, deal with. I don’t deal with business or anybody from the standpoint you come in and you hand me something when I walk in in terms of a contract. It’s not fair to the people making the decision, it’s not fair to the provider who is holding the contract, it’s not -- first of all -- fair to the citizens of this community when this is handed out in this manner to come in. Now I made the argument the other day that if we have not set standards already, and obviously standards are supposed to be the so- called driving force. Well, we’ve not set standards. I heard from the Administrator saying the other day that one reason we started off with two years was because we need two years to set standards. If we waited two years to set standards, you would constantly have Rural Metro on a jerk chain, because you’d be constantly coming back with these little mini-contracts, you’ve have no open system to see what’s in the market place whatsoever, and it would keep everybody totally confused. I think if you’re going to vote on a contract today, Mr. Mayor, it ought to at least contain the provisions in the motion to deal with some deadlines to instruct the Attorney and the Administrator according to the city code which I believe is our governing rule of law, and if it cannot be done or if there is some legal means that it can’t, then they bring it back to us. But if it’s just strictly from the standpoint that they think it can’t be done, that does not cut it. And I think to the point that you keep saying well, it’s going take another year, it’s going to take this to do it. If you add up all the time, and I’m going to ask the Clerk so it will cut some time, Mr. Mayor, that my reference comments from other minutes be a part of this official meeting so that that will not have to go into that. But I have been critical from the standpoint -- I’m hearing this today about dispatching and where this has been. I raised that issue 2- 1/2 years ago to a point of monitorship. It was not anything that was aimed at the current provider. It was one that if you were going to check policy, if you were going to have a check and balance system, then I said at that time, as some of you remember, that we did not need to make that move, that we needed to have a check and balance system that we could control. When we first did this merger, and since I’m like Garfield, I’m supposed to resemble this whole thing, let me go on and bring that out. The most critical person that I probably dogged out when this whole merger was made was [inaudible], because my concern at that time was two things: one, that this absent of a subsidy deal could not work, and my concern was for the working people that were there under University Hospital’s ambulance service, whether they were going to be protected, and whether or not this agreement was going to [inaudible], and whether they were going to be working. So if there had been so much collusion I don’t think I would have, Mr. Mayor, beat the hell out of a friend like I did, and he left with a bunch of bumps and bruises on him. So my interest in this has not started two years ago, it started when this whole thing first was being done. But I think to keep continuing it and to deal in these little measures without bringing some closure, regardless of who gets it, I think we are fooling ourselves, we’re doing the people that we serve a disservice, and when I keep hearing about what folk can’t put together in a certain time frame, that this cannot be done before this happens, then my comment to that is that maybe we need to find somebody that can make it work in the time frame. Because when you put a time date on anything, we’re right here talking about building judicial centers, building this, putting this into operation, but yet something this simple where folk all around us are making decisions and it does not take them until forever and a day to do them, then I think that we have been negligent in doing that, I think it’s unfair to the people we serve, I think it’s unfair to the current provider, and I think it’s unfair to anybody that want to enter the marketplace, and I will end, Mr. Mayor, by saying this. I have heard a lot about what the Technical Committee is going to put together. I want to state, as I did in committee, for the public record, I am so glad that in the [inaudible] since we’ve not put together any standards and it’s going to take further down the road to do it, I think the general public should know that in that point of a Technical Committee -- and this does not involve the rank and file of the current provider at all, but it does need to be brought out to the fact that one of the things that was dealt with in this situation was the fact that the attempt to deal with a franchising measure, which the government of this city would opt, Mr. Mayor, to get into the business of running other folk out of business by encouraging those who were at the table, not only to deal with the 9-1-1 response, but to channel the private business to a certain direction so that a certain company could become afloat. That was done, and I praised the Attorney for being one person in the room who understood the law and knew under Georgia law that that act of franchising attempt was totally illegal and could not be done. But that company, it was tried. It was tried. And it failed only because it was illegal in order to do it. But I think that this government has no business over into the point of dealing only contractually with people that we deal with a contract with, not in terms of trying to be into the business of directing and soliciting and doing anything else. That came out in that particular meeting and it might be interesting to some of you that have written other stories that if you would dig to a point, since it was admitted in committee by the Attorney, that that happened, and he ruled it out of order to check under the Open Records Act to see where those minutes are located if that was discussed in terms of franchising in a contract. And Mr. Mayor, I will shut up. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard had his hand up. Let’s hear from Mr. Beard and then we’ll go ahead and vote, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, you told me you’d get to me before Mr. Beard. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let Mr. Williams go ahead, Mr. Beard, and then we’ll come back to you. Mr. Beard: Okay. Mr. Williams: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: I just had a couple of comments, and one of them was when the present provider was in the 9-1-1 center and opted to get out of that center, were they charging us after they got out of that situation? They was not charging us? Mr. Wall: No, sir. Mr. Williams: And when they was in that center, there were offices they was using? Mr. Wall: I’m going to have to ask somebody, maybe Mr. Wasson. I don’t remember whether Rural Metro actually operated out of the 9-1-1 center or whether when the contract was taken over by Rural Metro, whether that was a simultaneous move, and I don’t remember. Mr. Wasson: It wasn’t quite simultaneous. They did operate in there for a very short period of time until they got their center up on Wheeler Road finished up and the [inaudible] equipment in, but they did operate in that center for a short time as a contract agent for University Hospital. Mr. Williams: But during that time that they operated, they was not charging us; is that right, Jim? Mr. Wasson: That’s correct. Mr. Williams: So -- and I guess what I’m saying is, Mr. Beard mentioned they are doing no more, no less, but we’re talking about $36,000 a month more. I mean I can’t figure that. I can’t get that to come into play why we’re even agree to come up with $36,000 for the same service that we ought to be getting now and extending a contract, not doing a new contract. But extending the contract. Can anybody give me [inaudible]? Mr. Wall: Well, I mean, we’re not prepared at this point to do the emergency medical dispatch. We don’t have the program and the training, etc. So someone has to do it. And so we are contracting with them. Mr. Williams: So Jim, this wouldn’t be an extension then, it would be a new contract cause we going to add something in that virtually wasn’t there before; is that right? Mr. Wall: Well, in that sense. But I mean they are currently the secondary piece there and we’re extending that agreement, but the compensation is something new; that’s correct. Mr. Williams: Okay, so it would be a new contract, it wouldn’t be an extension cause the extension would be of the old what we had already. And my last point, Mr. Mayor, and I’m going to be quiet, is I’ve got a lot of people in my area who have been very unsatisfied, not with the service, but with the cost of Rural Metro to be handled from one point to another point. I’ve got a lot of people that’s very, very dissatisfied with the amount of funds or amount of money they have to pay to the ambulance service for what they do. Now I met with some of those people, and I’ve talked with them and I explained those situations, and I was told that it was operating in the red, that it wasn’t really making any money, they was, it was going down. But I’ve got a lot of people that are not satisfied, not with the service, but with the amount of money that they are charged, not even factoring in what the city had been paying for that type service. And I think that we need to look at this very, very closely because there are a lot of people that’s being affected by what we do as we sit on this council. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Then we’ll vote. Mr. Beard: Okay, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for -- and I’ll be very brief. We have two motions, I believe, on the floor, and I have problems with both of those motions. And I probably wont support either one of those. I think that in the contract, number one in the contract, I’ve often said this many times that we do need time. I don’t see coming in here and in a few minutes voting on each contract that is being put before you. I think it needs a little working and time of time lines. And I think that in that we are dealing with the $36,000, then if we’re going to be out of that in April, then I think that need to be included in there. Maybe I’m off on that. But I do think that that need to be included in that so that we’ll know the time lines, we’ll know what we’re dealing with, and I think that’s part of what need to be done at this point. I think we have to consider our citizens, and I reiterate that again, that we have to consider our citizens and their needs, and I know we are at a point in time that we’re out of time like we’ve done in most cases, but I do think that a better job could be done on the contract than it is, and I think we need to, if we going to use Rural Metro for another year, then I think this needs some work done and that’s why I’m not going to support either motion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke had called the question on the substitute motion, so we’ll move ahead on that. That’s Commissioner Williams’ motion not to extend the contract with Rural Metro. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Mays abstains. Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No. Motion fails 2-7-1. Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion to approve the extension of the contract. Is there any further discussion on the original motion? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Just to kind of echo what’s been said by several of the Commissioners, I would like to see us establish a time line and even post it in a major intersection of one of these hallways where we can track the progress of such major things like our ambulance service, getting the RFPs out, getting them back, and so forth, with milestones along the way, and I hope we’ll consider that. I don’t think we have enough time presently to do anything and here again we’ve waited to the last minute, as has been said. But we’ve got to get out of this repeated cycle of emergencies every meeting, especially when they’re avoidable. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, a quick question. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Mays: If we are going to vote on the finalization of the contract that we’ve just gotten, is there anything that the maker of the motion or the seconder of it, them together, in terms of any amendment that we’ve discussed about when we would deal with the possibilities of going for RFPs, but I think even with the dealing of a year’s contract, we’re not going to -- if we’re going to vote on a contract that’s being handed today to deal with a permanent situation of how we operate for the next year, but we’re not going to put in any time lines within any motion that are on the floor to deal with when we will actually go out and deal with seeking this. And I guess what I’m asking is that not in anything? I know it’s not in the other one that we just voted down. Is there anything in this one that contains any date? Because what my fear is, is that we constantly move, we’ll be back again six to seven months, and that we’ll be back into another cycle of another temporary extension of a contract and that’s not fair to the citizens, it’s not fair even to the current provider to be in that time of holding pattern. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I would suggest -- the time line is not part of the motion, but it is a part of the record of the proceedings today, the time line has been laid out by the Attorney and the Administrator, and I would suggest that the appropriate Commission committee receive regular reports on the execution of the time line so that we can have adequate ambulance service for our people on January, 2003. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might finish, trying not to be too hard-lined about what happens -- but I guess after 22 years in this chamber, I’m convinced all the dialog that one says in the world is good. It’s good for minutes and records, it makes good tape, it makes a lot of paper. But if it’s not contained in a motion, if it’s not voted on, it really means nothing. Case in point. We asked in the gist of the motion that when the extension of this thing was done the last time, that as a government we could go out and we had no restrictions in terms of talking with anybody. Which you don’t have to admit that, but it’s there in the record. There is nothing that prohibits anyone in this government from having conversation and in terms of particularly the Administrator of finding out what’s there in the marketplace. There is a difference in when you submit a zoning request and when you are there to deal with RFPs. But there is nothing illegal about that, and I think, Mr. Wall, I asked you that, and were we not on record to a point that you gave us that okay, that that could be done in terms of this government having the conversation to seek in the market place and you answered in the affirmative, without me having to go back into the minutes to dig them? I read them before I left home. Mr. Wall: You are correct. But that was also contemplating that there would be time to go through the open zoning process and that was something that was very much an issue, and this was months ago that we had conversation, but you’re right. Mr. Mays: And my only reason, Mr. Mayor, for saying that, to a point is that if it’s going to be every time conditional, conditional, conditional, they’ll stay on a string and we’ll stay on a string, and at some point it needs to get into a long-term situation of where the original one started with so that we can give the folk, whoever it is -- if it’s our current provider -- but we can get into a situation of having something there of say at least a 36-month type contract to work out and then folk know what they are working on. That’s the only thing I’m trying to get at. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, if it would make it simpler and it would get me six votes, I’m willing to put a June 1 RFP deadline in my motion. Mr. Mayor: Is that to solicit them or receive them? Mr. J. Brigham: That is a proposed amendment to my motion. Mr. Mayor: ?? when they’d be due back in or when they’d go out? Mr. J. Brigham: That’s when they go out. st Mr. Mayor: On June 1. st Mr. J. Brigham: On June 1. Mr. Beard: And what about the $36,000? If we do that in three months, I mean -- Mr. J. Brigham: I think that’s the way the contract is written. As soon as we can stst get out of that. If we can get out of it February 1 and go to zero, if it’s April 1, it would go to zero as well. Mr. Wall: Only requires 30 days notice. As soon as we know we’re ready to go, or have a definite date as to when we’re ready to go -- Mr. J. Brigham: I’m sorry, Jim, I didn’t want to extend it any longer than it was necessary for that. From what I understand from what the 9-1-1 director said, we can do stst it by April 1. If we can do it by March 1, I’m willing to accept that. I’m willing to st accept it if he can do it by February 1. I’m putting deadlines on it. He’s shaking his st head over here. I don’t want to say we’re going to do it by April 1 and we’re not ready st and it’s May 1. Cause I think we need to do it as quickly as possible. rd Mr. Wall: And it could be April 3. I mean it’s a pro ration provision in here. So I mean the system is built in there. All we’ve got to do is give a 30 day notice. st Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include the June 1 date to send out the RPFs? No objection is heard. Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I guess in the words of Elizabeth Taylor, I’m hearing what time it starts, but I don’t hear what time it ends. Mr. Mayor: You need to look at the gentleman next to you. Mr. Mays: I’m looking that way cause there’s more folks going that way than coming this way. And what I’m saying is we have a bad -- Mr. Mayor: Negotiate with the man next to you there. Mr. Mays: We have a bad history of starting a process to say we’re going to do something and go out for it in June and it may be next June before we reel it in. If you’re serious about dealing with it, I think it ought to be an opening date, it ought to be a closing date. And I don’t mince my words in saying that if there’s an opening and a closing date, and that’s irrespective of where it goes, that if you who you get the handle it, that it needs to have an opening date, a closing date, that’s what we pay people for. If they can’t perform with it, then get somebody that can perform and do it. This does not need to keep occurring. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Mays, just a moment. Mr. Brigham, you want to put another date in there? th Mr. J. Brigham: From what my Purchasing Director tells me, June 30 is st going to be the closing date on those RFPs. They’re going to go out on June 1 and th they will close on June 30. And I believe that’s what I’m hearing. That’s 30 days. Mr. Mayor: You want to write that into the motion, Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to writing that into the motion? Anything further, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. After we get them in, on what date will we take action? Will they be sat on, will they have to do like I’ve had to do some things in terms of when we move contracts for moving money, when we vote on it in one month and we have to deal with it five months down the road to do it? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, when [inaudible]? Mr. Mays: A plan of action date, approximate dates of saying no longer than or before than, and I hate to be this picky and messy, but to a point of where I’ve been through this headache this week and all the accusations that have been made, I’m going to be that specific with it, because I think it needs to get down to business and get down. When you don’t put dates on things and vote on them and finalize them, they are left to trip and nothing gets done. Ever. Mr. Mayor: What do you need to negotiate the contract? 45 days? 60 days? 30 days? Two weeks? th Mr. Wall: June 30 is on a Sunday. The committee has got to review those to come up with a recommendation, and I think that y’all are going to have to make a decision, I suspect, before we know exactly what that contract is going to be. Because I think you’re going to have different alternatives about what level of service you want. So I think in July, y’all -- my anticipation is that you would approve -- at the second meeting in July y’all would approve which direction we’re going, and then it’s up to us to bring a contract back in 45-60 days. But I think we can -- I think a report could be made to you at the second meeting in July as to the recommendation about the direction that we go. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, if it would make it simple, I will include we’ll have a report back from the Administrator to the full Commission for the second meeting in July as an amendment to my motion. Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding that to the motion? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I don’t have any objection, but I do want to make a comment here. And my comment is that -- Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. Mr. Mays has the floor. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Want to make sure Mr. Mays is satisfied before we move on. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, this just changes the whole complexion of it, but what it does is, to thank my colleague to the left -- Jerry’s been involved with this more than anybody else has, and it has not been an easy task in terms of chairing the subcommittee or working with it. And he will not be with us when we do finalize whatever we do on next year, and I’d just like to thank him for the service he’s performed in terms of chairing that particular committee. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just -- with all these date and figures they been th throwing out here, and with my 9 Street math, [inaudible], we going to be right back to the end of the year, three months from the end of the year from what the 60 days Jim just proposed in the time frame that Jerry give out; is that right? I mean maybe I was adding wrong. Maybe somebody else can -- Mr. Wall: In the meeting in July, y’all are going to make a decision about what level of service we can afford. Mr. Williams: And then it going take 60 days? You say it going take 60 days to negotiate it; is that right? Mr. Wall: Well, I said 45 to 60 days. That’s August, September. End of September. I mean you’ve got a contract that gives plenty of time for transitioning between 2002 and January 1, 2003. Mr. Williams: So you say I was right, Mr. Wall, that it going to be right at three months? Mr. Wall: Depending on what date you use, but yes, by the time -- I mean conceivably I’ve said 60 days. It might be 30 days. It might be less than that. st Mr. Mayor: And conceivably the RFP could be ready to put out before June 1. Conceivably. Is that right? Yeah. Mr. Williams: That’s all I have, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further questions? So we have an amended original motion on the floor. Does anybody need to have the motion read back to them? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I was about to say I think that everything has been included in that motion, from what I’ve heard that could be, and this is what I asked for at the beginning. Some time lines on this so we could get specific points. I think it’s something that we all can deal with at this time, and we have to think in terms of the citizens of this community and put them first, so I think -- I had said I would not, and I would not have supported the motion in its original form, but since we’ve got the time lines that I requested, I feel that I can support this. Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and call the question and then move ahead with the vote. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have the motion read back, please. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams. Madame Clerk, if you can read the motion back. The Clerk: The motion was to approve both the ambulance service contract and the emergency medical dispatch contract for a period through December 2002, and that RFPs go out by the first of June, to close at the end of June, and that a report be made back at the second meeting in July as to what the Commission wants to proceed at that time. Mr. Mayor: All right. Everybody understand the motion? All in favor of that motion, then please vote aye. (Vote on original motion with amendments) Mr. Mays abstains. Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No. Motion carries 7-2-1. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kolb, I trust that the staff will be cognizant of this time line and if there is any deviation that you’ll promptly inform the Commission. Mr. Kolb: Yes, we will, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madame Clerk, let’s go back to item 24 and we’ll move along with the order of the day. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, can we do 24 and 25 together? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, we certainly may. We’ll take just a moment here to let the folks leave who desire to leave the chamber. Certainly they’re welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, I’ve been asked to announce that the Planning Commission, which is ordinarily held in this room, is being held in room 602 down on the sixth floor, so if there is anyone here that needed to attend that meeting, that’s where it’s being held. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ll take up items 24 and 25 together. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. The room number is 605. Mr. Mayor: Planning Commission is in 605. Go ahead, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: APPOINTMENTS: 24. Consider the recommendation of the County Director regarding the reappointment of Mr. James Kendricks to the Richmond County Board of Family and Children Services for a five-year term ending June 30, 2006. 25. Consider the recommendation of the County Director regarding the reappointment of Mr. Hugh Connelly to the Richmond County Board of Family and Children Services for a five-year term ending June 30, 2006. Mr. Beard: I move for approval. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion for approval. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is 28. The Clerk: FINANCE COMMITTEE: 28. Motion to approve to provide a $50.00 bonus payment to each full-time employee. Mr. Williams: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. The figures are in your back-up information. This is consistent with what we’ve done each year previously, and it extends to all full-time employees exclusive of elected officials. We have a motion for approval and a second. Discussion? Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry? Mr. H. Brigham: I was wondering, does this only include the full-time employees? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. That’s all the Commission has done in the past. Mr. H. Brigham: I wonder if there has been a work-up on how much it would be for the part-time employees. Mr. Mayor: We did not get that information, Mr. Brigham, because that had not been the precedent that was set by the Commission, so we didn’t have the staff put that information together. Mr. H. Brigham: We may need to look at that. I would like to at least look at it [inaudible] look after our part-time employees. Mr. Mayor: Perhaps we can bring those figures to the next committee meeting. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, for a point of order, that was done for part-time, wasn’t it? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I was just informed that you did give a bonus to part-time, but it was in the amount of $25 per employee in the past. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kolb: But we don’t have those numbers today. Mr. Mayor: Are those figures included? Mr. Kolb: No, those figures are not included in the number you have. We don’t have those available. We have to work those up. Mr. Mayor: Did you want to put that in the motion? Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Can we go back to the motion maker? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add part-time. Mr. Mayor: Is there objection to adding the part-time people to the motion, the part-time bonus being $25.00? No objection here. We’ll continue our discussion. Anything further, Mr. Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. To quote my colleague on my right, Mr. Williams, we always said we do not have plenty of money and we’re basically going to have to go into Contingency for this money. I would hope that in future years we would look to something other than just a straight bonus, that we would look to pay for performance which is tied, to be paid at this time, something that rewards government efficiency, something that rewards individual ideas that have eliminated waste and abuse from this budget, from this government. If we’re serious about total quality management, this is the kind of thing that we should reward our employees with, and the time of the payment should come about Christmastime. I think that when we reward everyone, we reward the employees that have been productive, as well as the employees that may not So I would hope that in have been as productive as some of the other hardest workers. future years we would move to some sort of system that is based on performance and something that’s truly based on efficiency and total quality. If somebody has given us a total quality job, they should certainly be rewarded. This is just not an appropriate reward system, and if they could save $2, I don’t mind sharing the savings and give them $1, but I think this is just, to blunder bust this here again without thought again this year is the wrong approach. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek? I Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have to agree with Commissioner Shepard, and what would like to see us do with this particular year’s bonus is to affix to the motion, if the maker will have it, the caveat that next year’s 2002 bonuses be contingent upon the employees of this government making its 2% energy reduction that we have set as a target. That will pretty much give them something to shoot for and it will help us recruit allies to our cause. I believe with this 2% reduction and the cost figures, we could probably pretty much pay for the bonus out of those. But I’d like to have that added to the motion if the maker will have it. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask the Parliamentarian a question, if I may, Mr. Cheek. Is that an acceptable amendment to the motion, because that goes to bonuses for next year, and the issue on the floor and the motion is for a bonus for this year. Mr. Wall: Well, he’s dealing with the policy about giving bonuses, and you’ve had expression concerning going to a merit system versus tying it to some other factor and so I think it’s an acceptable condition on awarded the bonuses this year. Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any objection to adding that to the motion? No objection. Anything further, Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: No, sir. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we haven’t added that yet, have we? I think I made that motion. Mr. Mayor: It’s not the discretion of the maker of the motion whether it’s amended. It’s up to a majority of the Commission. Mr. Williams: I understand. I understand, Mr. Mayor. But I’ve got a comment is what I’m saying. Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead. I just recognized you for comments. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. What I’d like to say is that I agree with Commissioner Cheek and I also agree with my colleague Commissioner Shepard. But if we do it on the energy saving or what we done to conserve and not on performance, there are some people that are going to be in a situation where they not going -- their working environment wouldn’t allow them to participate with this bonus if we use only the conserving part. But if we use the performance part as Mr. Shepard has said, and I agree with my colleague. But we need to consider everybody cause there going to be some folks say I didn’t have the opportunity to do that, so they automatically out. So we going to go on performance, and what they, you know, what the performance projected, then I think we need to do it that way rather than saying, you know, because of the effort of saving energy and going those cost saving things to us around the city. Just my comment, Mr. Mayor. I’m just one vote. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments? Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, while Santa Claus is coming, I think we ought to include a $10 rebate to every tax payer in Richmond County, too. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, did you have something you wanted to say? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor, I understand a 2% energy reduction, but there needs to be a base line. Do you want to use December or January, November? Mr. Cheek: We can use the yearly average for 2001 and then compare the kilowatt hours and units, therms, or whatever to next year’s figures at the end of the month. Mr. Kolb: Which month? Mr. Cheek: End of the year. We can do this -- end of year review could be done at the end of November, and that will give us information for this time next year. Mr. Kolb: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All in favor of the motion -- excuse me, Mr. Bridges. I didn’t see your hand up. Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am in agreement with Mr. Shepard. I don’t think -- we’re pulling this out of Contingency. We need the money. I mean we don’t have a lot of money as has been stated up here before. I feel like I’m, in doing something like this, I’m playing Santa Claus with the taxpayers’ money and I’m not going to do that. Our counterpart in the county, the school board, does not give bonuses at year end to their employee, and they handle a much larger budget than we do. I think we’re not establishing -- I think our employees would much rather move in the area of having their salaries looked at, and we need to do that, and we’re moving in that direction. And I think that’s an area that they would look favorably in as opposed to an across-the-board bonus. I just don’t think it’s sound fiscal policy for us at this time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, was your hand up? Mr. Beard: I’m going to pass. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, then please vote aye. Mr. Bridges, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 6-4. Mr. Mayor: Item number 29. The Clerk: PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 29. Consider setting up a Tickler System in the Clerk of Commission’s Office. (Requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. From all the discussion today, maybe this is an idea whose time has arrived as well. I have it in my office and I’m sure that we’ve seen these type milestone type charts that plot the progress of various projects. I talked to Lena on several occasions and realize she’s on personal leave and going to NLC, the function of the Clerks, or the Clerks’ function this week, and she enthusiastically supports this, and if we want to try to keep track of some of the goals and milestones that we set, I think the appropriate thing is to set up something, our document known as Commissioners’ calendar. I mean we are already dealing with the rescheduling of meetings, and to me it doesn’t have to necessarily be a computerized system, it can be a paper calendar. I mean 25 years ago I certainly used a paper calendar to keep up with things that are going to happen, cue dates, and due dates, and deadline dates, and if we are truly interested in projects, I think we can designate in our motions that our Clerk keep up with the important things that we want to see move along. For example, going back to the contract that we approved about ambulance service. You would have three entries: the RFP was due on June 1 or due out. It was due back in June 30 and due back to us the second meeting of July 2002. I would help if we truly move to some sort of criteria based bonus that we would have the criteria discussed well in advance, and this would be a way of doing things not at the last minute. It would be a way of systematizing what we have been talking about, if we are truly interested in systematizing it. And I think it ought to be maintained in our Clerk’s office, where we keep up with it, where the Mayor can keep up with it, and that we adopt some sort of system, at least adopt the concept today, and when Lena comes back let’s refine it and see if we are going to maintain it on a paper calendar, on Outlook, or whatever, but it’s not all that difficult and it would be a way -- we complain we ‘re always doing things at the last minute. Well, this would be a way to do things in a more timely fashion and not do everything at the last minute. So if we’re truly serious about doing something, with more time to discuss it, with more time to see the problems coming, I think we need some sort of system in our own Clerk’s office to help us keep track of all that. All the deadlines that we set, the thing we ask people to come back to us with, all that good stuff. And I would just hope that -- and I’ll make as a motion that we adopt a tickler system in concept that Lena puts together and brings back to us at the first of the year so that we can start keeping up with these due dates that we establish. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any further discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: In terms of this particular item, Steve, were you [inaudible] the potential purchase of any particular software equipment or anything to deal with this? Mr. Shepard: Well, really, Mr. Mays, you can technically get away with a paper calendar and you can probably get that from somebody. But I think Outlook, which I think we have, and that’s why I said let’s do it in concept today, so if we want to buy some kind of scheduling software, we could do that. But my thinking is that some variation of Outlook or the miles stone programs that I’m sure they use at SRS, I think CH2MHILL uses it for the tracking of the water bond projects. We get all the little bar charts that have come out about monthly. Probably the Public Works Department has something. So that’s why I thought we’d let her shop around, see we may have something already in house to do the job. But there are very commercially-reasonably- priced versions of these type date-minder software that can be purchased. So I don’t think it’s a big ticket. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, my reason for asking the question is that I have no problem in supporting things that are going to -- that the Clerk’s office may need. In fact, whenever I introduce any of them, whether it’s the Clerk, whether it’s Ms. Morawski, our Deputy, or anybody else there when I’m out in public, I always make sure that everybody knows that that’s the best Clerk of Council’s office in America and they are looking at it. But I remember when we came back from the management study and I don’t want to be confused on it, but that we were presented with the particular situation, at the time, you know, when we were looking at possibly the elimination of verbatim minutes and some other things, and cost cutting ideas were put in. But then on the other side of those cost cutting ideas were things that were going to deal with an astronomical amount of money. And I remember the time the Clerk was looking at some of those things, and for what it was going to cost versus what they were dealing with, and with the I would say above super efficient job that they do in there, what I would really like to see us do -- and I don’t have a problem with the concept -- but I really think the item needs to go over into Administrative Services and we need to let it come back and let the Clerk make the presentation out of her office and in her domain. I understand what you may use and I understand the tracking and progress of it, but I could of would like to hear that coming out of that office because you’re saying, you know, what’s she’s pushed for to want, and I have the same -- I’m not trying to put the Clerk on the spot, but I asked, when I saw this, you know, what was it about, you know, and I, you know, I wasn’t met with a lot of detail with it. So if it’s going to deal with the Clerk’s office, I believe in getting ahead, too, Mr. Finance Chairman, but I think maybe the Clerk needs to be the person who introduces that and brings it back to us and I think the proper place to do it -- and I know I’m going to make a substitute motion that it be you’re a stickler for committees, referred to Administrative Services or Finance, either one of you gentleman can take it, but I think it needs to go through the Committee process and brought back. Mr. Beard: I second it. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays -- if, I could, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: I have no problem, it can go to either of those committees. But I think the Clerk acts as the Clerk of this entire body and not just one committee, and you know, it can go to the committee. That’s fine. Here again, I think we all will have to take some responsibility in putting entries on that system but I have heard particularly over the last few weeks the complaint that we’re always doing things at the last minute, we don’t keep our administration and our delegation of deadlines timely, so we can go through either committee. It suits me, we can take it to Finance if you like. I don’t care. But that’s the -- the reason for putting it here is because I think we all share the Clerk and this is the committee as a whole that deals with Clerk issues so we can go either way, that’s fine. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Mays: If I might respond. And I agree. I probably can support that, Steve. My only reason for saying let the Clerk make her own presentation is because -- and maybe I might differ a little bit. You mentioned that it could be done, you know, on a calendar on the way or wherever. But I know just from the last two years anyway, I can speak, I’ve probably have had maybe different level of workload, and you know, I think some of the things we point to as Commissioners about deficiencies of things getting done rests not with what’s on the schedule of minutes and the things that come through the Clerk’s office, they are in terms of where they are not carried out to a point -- I’ve been able to track what’s not been done. I’ve not had a problem of what we put on in terms of motion. I can go back and get it. I can call down there. And I can pretty much get anything I want in a very quick period of time. The problem lies in the fact that it’s not being executed, and I don’t think that’s over in the Clerk’s office section. I think that’s in terms of where we put the vote on this floor and we ask whether it be done out through it. My problem is not -- it’s the floor what’s done and the information is there, and they do an excellent job of dealing with it. Where I think if we want to jack up and deal with something, then we need to deal with who we assign the duties to, whether they go out through the Administrator, down to the department heads, and that flow. And so I would much rather, because indirectly it seems as though there is some level maybe of deficiency inside the Clerk’s office that does not exist. And I think if we want some efficiency done, then maybe where we need to start evaluating is not on that end of the hall. If we going to do that for the Clerk’s office, then I think the Clerk needs to be here to make the presentation. And you’re right, this is the committee of the whole, so maybe it doesn’t need to go to a committee, it can come back before the full Commission. But I think the Clerk needs to be the one that make that presentation. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we may already have adequate tracking software in place that’s used within the city. We have Microsoft projects and [inaudible] currently used by Public Works and Utilities personnel. This can be as detailed as you want per project. And you can assign mile stones, color coded, post it large, small, you can send it by email from department to department. That would -- I would hope that we would go to a government standard planning software, tracking software that everybody uses for that portability issue. But those two are readily available. They’re used within the industry. I would like to see us assign individual departments that are responsible for these action to the projects list. But this is all very doable. I would also like to see us post a very large schedule right up here in the hallway somewhere where we all see it and we all remember that certain things are due on certain days, and perhaps those responsible for getting them to us will recognize that those due dates aren’t the dates you start making excuses, those are the dates you deliver the product. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item 29 may have the wrong word on it. It says Clerk. I’m in agreement with Commissioner Mays. I get a calendar the first of each month with all of the meetings and activities that we are supposed to attend and what we supposed to do. I’ve had no problem with the Clerk’s office as far as getting information or getting what I need from either of the Clerks in that office, and I want to say publicly that they do a great job and I think they got a heavy workload. Maybe we need to shift this tickler to the other end of the hall, to our Administrator’s office or to the secretary in that area. This is where I think the ball is being dropped at, and not just today but on a number of occasions. But as far as the Clerk and performing and doing their jobs, those ladies, you know, is outstanding. I mean nobody’s perfect, and I’m sure they got plenty of errors, but every month I do get a calendar, Mr. Shepard. I haven’t got to modern technology, to the advanced stage of a lot of other people. I’ve got a fax machine and the Clerk got it working there. I mean, but I’m just saying that I think maybe that system may be a good system, but it ought to be put in place somewhere where it’s going to do the most good. Right now -- and it may be an addition to them, it may be something they really want or something they really need. But I haven’t heard any complaints and I have seen nothing but progress come out of that office and I just think maybe we got the wrong end of the hall where we lining this up to go to. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays, this was not implied -- an expressed or implied criticism of our Clerk’s office. In fact, because I’ve been impressed with some of the things that they do, that’s why I was recommending them in this motion for these additional duties, which I don’t think will impair their operation at all. What I think is they are very capable of doing it, and we do get the Commissioners’ calendar generated from them, so this was sort of an extension of that in that I wanted to put things on there that are a little more detailed. Mr. Cheek indicated that [inaudible] or project tracker or whatever it was software could do it, but I don’t think, Mr. Williams, we’re seeing information on the Commissioners’ calendar currently such as detailed information about when RFPs are due out, due in, or when something is coming before the Commission. I think we’re seeing when meetings are changed, and I’m grateful for it, because if I hadn’t looked at the last Commissioners’ calendar, I wouldn’t be here this afternoon, I’d be over here tomorrow and y’all would be in Atlanta, those who are going to NLC. So I mean we have the vehicle to communicate with. I just think we ought to expand it a little bit, and I just want to move this forward and not have this last-minute situation that we’ve all complained about it seems like, you know, with increased frequency lately. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor that would send this committee for further consideration. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Kuhlke votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: The Chair is going to declare a five minute recess and then we will come back in here and resume with our business for the day. (RECESS) Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with the order of the day. Item number 30. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATOR: 30. Discussion and consider approval of Augusta, Georgia’s 2002 Legislative Agenda. Mr. Mayor: We will include the addition of the Addendum Agenda, those items from Mr. Shepherd’s items. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to move that we go ahead and approve this list and that if anybody has additional things that they may want to add to this list that they get this to the Administrator by Thursday of next week prior to our meeting. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Second. Mr. Beard: Are we open for discussion yet? Mr. Mayor: Just one second. I want to make a technical correction on page seven. There’s one item I put on there about eviction law change. That first sentence should read personal property left behind at the time the eviction is final, rather than just at the time of the eviction. I’ll notify the Clerk to have that correction made. Mr. Kolb: Final? Mr. Mayor: At the time the eviction is final. All right, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I guess I have a little -- we’re on the Legislative issue now? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. And there’s been a motion to approve. Mr. Beard: The only thing I have -- we have some items we talked about adding, as Mr. Kuhlke said, which I don’t mind the addition of items, but I do have a lot of questions about my being a part of some of the items that are on here. And specifically, some that are listed here. Mr. Mayor: I think that’s why we have these before us today, Mr. Beard, because we had solicited input from all the members of the Commission, and so the compilation of that solicitation is here before us. Mr. Beard: The only thing, Mr. Mayor, I think that those things, the format should be identified as to who is asking for this, because I’m not asking for all of this. And I don’t want to be recorded as asking for this. Now if those people who want to be identified in asking for these things, then I’m going to suggest that we do a format and list those people who requesting this. That’s what I’m talking about. Mr. Mayor: Who -- Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t have a problem amending my motion that way if you’ll accept it. Mr. Beard: As long as we got something identifying those that are asking for this, that’s fine. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, who put this together? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I put it together, a compilation of all the requests that came in. The reason why I did it in this format is because we will give this our Legislative Delegation, and I assumed that it would have been the position of the entire -- Mr. Beard: You can’t assume that, Mr. -- Mr. Kolb: Well, that’s why it’s a working draft. Mr. Beard: Okay. Mr. Kolb: And you can prioritize the issues, you can -- Mr. Beard: I’m not even interested in prioritizing. There are just some that I don’t want on here saying that I, that it came from me. And when we vote on it as a body, it means that it came from me. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, would be it be acceptable to you if Mr. Kolb indicated by each item on this list which Commissioner or Commissioners or Mayor requested that item by name? Mr. Beard: That would be fine with me. Mr. Mayor: Would that address your concern? Mr. Beard: That would address my personal concern. Mr. Mayor: All right. Can you do that, Mr. Kolb? Do you have the record of who requested each item? Mr. Kolb: Either that or my memory. I think I have a record of it or the Clerk’s office does, also. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard: Am I to understand, then, that when this is presented to the Delegation, it will go in that form? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Beard: Okay. In the form that I just requested. Mr. Kolb: Where each person that is asking for -- Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Kolb: Yes, we can make it that way if it’s the Commission’s wish. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Just as a point of information, would it not be maybe easier and less headache for George if he puts in both the names by each item, the names of those Commissioners that object, rather than having to go back through memory and working back and forth between the Administrator and the Clerk as to who supports those issues? Mr. Beard: How will he know who objected to them? How would he know who is objecting to those items? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? Mr. Beard: It look like he would better understand who gave him those items than those who are objecting. Mr. Bridges: I just think you’re going to have fewer objections. I mean just -- basically saying that’s why it’s a working document, just say hey, I object to those, and you know, put your name down, so that the Delegation would know. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: For the last couple of years, the Legislative Delegation has requested a resolution on the issues that we wanted presented. And so I suspect that coming out of the meeting to be held next week that certainly these things they will indicate they can help us with or indicate they can’t help us with, and then at that point resolutions would be put on the Commission agenda and y’all vote up and down and then you’ve got a record of it. I agree with Mr. Beard, I mean y’all -- in what form these things are going to take, you may not be in a position to vote that you’re in favor of it. Some of these ideas may be presented that you haven’t really heard discussion about at this point. So I mean think if this just is presented as a composite list of ideas that have been discussed by various Commissioners or department heads or individuals, that it be presented in that fashion, and then when the resolutions are passed or presented, you either vote for them or against them. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: I want to ask a question. Jim, we will be able at that time to do as we do with our consent agenda, to pull off an item for discussion or just go down the line for discussion? Mr. Wall: When the resolutions are presented? Yeah, we can put them all as part of a consent agenda, vote it all up or all -- Mr. H. Brigham: Pull off what we want to. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry, are you finished? Mr. H. Brigham: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I’m going to make a substitute motion then. I think one has already been made; right? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard: That the items be formatted as I just stated a few minutes ago. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Let me, let me maybe, cause I think the -- well, I just wanted to ask a question in reference to this situation of sales tax for public safety in consolidated government. Mr. Mayor: Which item is that? Mr. Mays: Inside the -- Mr. Mayor: Page number at the bottom, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Page three. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: And he’s correct. The reason I was asking about it, Mr. Mayor, I don’t have objection with that, in fact I made comments to it earlier today when the Sheriff was making his comments in reference to flexibility in sales tax and dealing with public safety. But one of the things that I wanted to make sure of, and I have been talking that a lot, and it didn’t just start because, you know, several of us were talking and when we were looking for a way to possibly even have to deal with the item of indigent care. What I’m looking at on this is I that I think public safety should be inclusive, but I don’t think it should be limited to public safety. I think maybe what will be better is to have flexibility within the current sales tax as it relates to consolidated governments, then we decide, whether it be by referendum or other means, whether you’re dealing with public safety, whether you’re dealing with transportation, some of those other items in there that we’re able to get certain capital needs, even if it’s from state and federal government but we don’t have monies in order to deal with certain operational needs. So I just wanted to make sure that we were not limiting ourselves to the discussion as it was going to be surrounding that particular item. Because -- Jim’s correct. I have talked many times about it and probably public safety may be at the top of the list. But I just didn’t want them to start off thinking that that was our only item that it could be in there. Because, for instance, as you well know, Columbus, Georgia has a 3 mill property tax dedication to hospitals. They would like very much to get rid of theirs. So if we’re just talking about public safety only I don’t think you’re going to get their support per se just jumping on, just to say public safety. I think maybe to generalize it more and then allow by referendum the counties that it affects to go in and to fine tune it and to be able to put it on ballot to do it. That’s the only thing -- and I’m not really objecting, but it’s more of an observance in there that I think we need to look at it and not limit ourselves to a particular box. That’s all. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can just respond to Commissioner Mays. I think he’s got a good point there. However, on page eight, we do have a category of transportation where we are talking about the sales tax being added to motor fuels. So we -- I understand what you’re saying about general, but in some cases we are trying to be specific and targeted toward specific needs of the municipality. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor. And I guess in a lighter note, I think the Administrator is moving very well in terms of where that thought process is going. I think from a Georgia perspective, that low fuel tax, it looks very good because [inaudible], but if you can get that one through the General Assembly, I think you can chisel Stone Mountain down to get it into enough size to put [inaudible]. It’s one of those that nobody in the Legislature really wants to take on, and that’s more or less -- and I think it’s good we keep that one on there, but I think it’s going to fly better over into sales tax under flexibility, if you put it in there as well, rather than just under motor fuel, because the last three governors have looked at it and it’s become a highly partisan article, and in Georgia it’s one that nobody is going to make a move on. The Republicans going to blame Democrats, the Democrats going to blame Republicans, and they going to end up with a low motor fuel tax and it’s not going to get anywhere. So that’s just kind of [inaudible] welcome to Georgia [inaudible]. But you’re right, that is the place to look. People have agree on both sides of the aisle to do it, but it’s just one that nobody is going to really move on in terms of getting something out of it. I think your best bet is getting three counties out of 159 to agree on having a flexible [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Beard to present this to the delegation with the notation of the sponsor of each one of these items on here. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, point of order. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard’s amendment to Mr. Kuhlke’s motion? I think that’s -- is that what we’re doing or is this a substitute motion? Mr. Mayor: He made it as a substitute motion and it was seconded. Mr. Beard: I didn’t [inaudible] except amendment. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute on the floor. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll accept your amendment. Mr. Shepard: He accepts that amendment? Mr. Kuhlke: I did. Mr. Shepard: So the two motions are then identical, are they not? Mr. Mayor: They are now. Mr. Kolb, when you redo the compilation, you would include the addendum item on the agenda from Mr. Shepard. Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: That would be included as part of that. Okay. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. (Vote on original motion with amendment) Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 31. The Clerk: 31. Consider the recommendation of the Administrator regarding the appointment of Fire Chief. (No action vote Commission’s November 20 meeting requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, at your last full regular meeting I presented the name of Al Gillespie, who is the current chief of Yakima, Washington to you as my recommendation for the next fire chief of Augusta, Georgia. Subsequent to a no action vote, this has appeared on the agenda again at the request of Commissioner Shepard. I have asked Chief Gillespie and his wife to be present in Augusta over the weekend and gave Commissioners who wanted to the option of sitting down and talking to Chief Gillespie. And he is here today. Again, I would submit his name for confirmation by this Commission to the appointment of Al Gillespie to the position of Fire Chief. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to that effect? Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion and a second. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And to the applicant who is here, we are certainly glad to have him in our fine city. I’ve got a problem, Mr. Mayor, with the process. I stated the last time when this came around that I did not have a chance to interview the fire chief. Not the fire chief, but the three finalists. And the process in 1996, when the city and county merged was supposed to been where the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the Administrator or whoever is acting in that position at that time would look at all of the applications and narrow it down to three people and bring the Commissioners the final three people. And we would make a selection from those three. And although our candidate was in town, I did not make it my business to come and sit down and talk with him because I felt like I could not make a selection from just one. I’ve got no problem with him, I don’t know anything negative or anything that I shouldn’t, that I could bring to you today, but I know the process had been working and had been set forth and we need to continue that. When you bring one person in, then you telling me as a Commissioner this is who you need to select from. There was three candidates and I think one dropped out before. I didn’t get a change to meet them three and then it got down to the two, I didn’t get to chance to interview those two. And now I come here today and I had the opportunity to come and talk with him, but I knew that if it was just one candidate in the office that I wouldn’t be able to make a selection, I wouldn’t have any other choice. And I can’t support that [inaudible] today and I would not support it until we do the process as has been laid out for this government and that is for the Commission to look at the three final candidates and make that decision. That’s not a administrative decision. That’s not even the Mayor’s decision. That’s not even all ten Commissioners. It’s going to take six votes. Not five, but six. That’s all I have to say, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, Mr. Williams and I had a discussion concerning the policy that was adopted prior to having a permanent Administrator on board, which was done back in 1996. We had a project manager, Mr. Carstarphen, who was on board. At that point, a process was put in place where the project manager and the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem, along with the Citizens Review Committee, would review applicants for department head positions. Subsequent to that, you adopted a policy as to the powers of the Administrator, and part of those powers is to make a recommendation concerning the department heads, and it is my opinion, Mr. Williams, that that process that was implemented with the project manager, Mr. Carstarphen, is not applicable to the current process. The Administrator is the one who makes a recommendation. Yes, it takes six votes. Y’all either vote it up or vote it down insofar as the recommendation. But I do not agree that that policy is in place, because again there was no Administrator, and it speaks in terms of project manager, which we no longer have. Mr. Williams: And [inaudible] project manager, we put the Administrator in that position, Mr. Wall. Have there been anything to change that since then, though? If that’s not in place and we don’t have a project manager, we do have an Administrator. So with that given, has something else been written to change, to say that we do -- and he’s got a right. No one is denying that he has the right to make a recommendation. And I think each of our previous Administrators made recommendations. We as Commissioners select to do even the same or different. That’s a prerogative of the Commission. We are not ruling out his authority or his position as making a recommendation. But how can you ask me to make a selection from one person? I mean that’s no possible. Mr. Wall: You’re not being asked to make a selection. Mr. Williams: Well --- Mr. Wall: You’re asked to either approve or disapprove his recommendation. Mr. Williams: I need to call Mr. Shepard to get the attorney phrase on this. When you’re speaking in attorney form, Mr. Wall, we know words -- I mean you can play games with words. But to make a selection or make a choice, and there’s supposed to been three persons that we decide from. One dropped out. Mr. Wall: The three person comes about only as a result of Georgia law requiring us to release the names of the top three candidates at least 14 days prior to the selection. The powers of the Administrator call for him to make a recommendation. And that recommendation comes forward to you as a Commission to either approve or disapprove. It’s not to pick one of the three. It’s to either approve or disapprove. If it’s disapproved, then the Administrator has to go back and make some different recommendation. Mr. Williams: Mr. Wall, you was here when I got here, and I’m sure you remember that the selection process when we had three candidates in, and if you just want to specifically use a fire chief when all three fire chiefs came in, we met in the committee room. Those who wanted to had an opportunity to sit down and talk with all three. All three names was on the ballot. The Administrator, our previous Administrator had a recommendation. And the Commission voted for whichever. But they had an opportunity and I understand what you’re saying about selection. You talking about word game again. I’ve got no problem, Mr. Mayor, and I think we can talk about this all day. I’d like to call for the question now and ask to call for a roll call vote. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams, but the Chair rules there has not been adequate discussion on this because some other Commissioners would like to speak. I’ll give Mr. Shepard that opportunity now. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. There is some readiness, Mr. Williams, to speak. And I think, Mr. Mayor, and fellow Commissioners, it’s really not a problem of process but the issue today is has our Administrator made a good recommendation, and I think that some of us wanted to see for ourselves, to speak with Mr. Gillespie and his wife, who came down with him, Sunday and to see for ourselves what the product of the Administrator’s process had been. And I think, gentlemen, quite frankly it’s a very good product. I took it on myself to meet with him over the weekend and I understand he made himself available to all comers this morning here, and I think you were remiss if you didn’t take advantage of the opportunity to meet with him. But that’s your prerogative. But I think this gentleman has the credentials, both the experience and the education to make a good fire chief in Augusta Richmond County. He has -- I asked George, I said what distinguished him in your mind from the other candidates? He said well, the management experience that he had. He has commander control experience, he has experience in a diverse community, which I think is important to all of us, and importantly, in light of what happened with our last chief, I think he has strong family support to make this move, to make this commitment to his career and to our community, and that commitment is here in the person of his wife Sunday who is sitting back there. So I enthusiastically support Mr. Gillespie, Chief Gillespie, and I hope that we will certainly vote that way and I certainly share, Mr. Williams, that we all go on record today, either we’re going to move forward or we’re going to delay, and I hope that we will move forward and make this choice, strengthen our Fire Department, professionalize our Fire Department, and get this issue off the table so we can move on. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Anyone further? Mr. Williams: If I can respond to Mr. Shepard just one minute. Mr. Mayor: All right, go ahead. Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard, and I think we all agree that we probably got a fine candidate, a fine person to be able to do the job. But I think that we also need to look at our process. The first fire chief or the first candidate was someone that the Administrator brought to us with a recommendation that changed his mind for whatever reason, he’s not here. And when we asked that question, then it wasn’t a first candidate. Now we’re on candidate number two. We as Commissioners, myself as Commissioner, I would like to sit down with all three candidates, not at the same time, but interview each one differently and then make a selection from that. I think it’s unfair we don’t have and I’ve been saying this from day one when our Administrator got here, we do not have a management style of government. A manager can hire and fire who he wants to. We have a administrative style of government. And I don’t know what that’s going to take to get people on this panel and our Administrator and his office to understand that. We do not a management style of government. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, let me ask you this. Are you saying that the selection process is flawed if the Commissioners are not invited to interview the finalists for a position? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I am. I’m saying -- Mr. Mayor: And you say that is true in this case as well as in every other case? Mr. Williams: No, sir, I did not say that. I said the last fire chief -- Mr. Mayor: Why would it, why would it -- Mr. Williams: Wait, Mr. Mayor, you asked me a question, now you going to give me a chance to answer it? You going to the court room, let me know, I need to get my attorney to come in. Now if you ask me a question, let me answer that question. My question was the last fire chief we hired, we all had the option, those who choose to come down and sit with the ladies and gentlemen and question them and look them face-to- face, we had that option. Awe voted. This time we have not had that privilege to sit down with all three candidates. We are being given -- first of all the first choice who changed his mind or backed out for other reasons, now we with the second choice, and the first choice was the only one the Administrator had talked to with any substance. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams, so you’re saying it’s not fair to the Commissioners if they’re not allowed to interview the candidates that are being selected? Mr. Williams: I’m not going to speak for the other Commissioners, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to speak for myself. Mr. Mayor: So you’re saying -- Mr. Williams: I’m saying that it’s not fair to me to sit here and make a selection from one person. If I’m going to make a selection, I need a selection to make one from. Mr. Mayor: So you’re saying it was not fair to the Commission when we hired the IT Director because the Commissioners were not invited to interview the three finalists for IT Director; is that correct? Mr. Williams: The department head had an opportunity to talk to those, in fact the recommendation was made and we went against the recommendation. We had an opportunity. Mr. Mayor: The Commissioners were not invited to interview -- Mr. Williams: The Commissioners had an opportunity, Mr. Mayor. I was gave, given an opportunity to come in and interview with IT Director. Mr. Mayor: With all three? Mr. Williams: With all three. Now if you want to talk about everything, Mr. Mayor, let’s talk about some of the other things that we’ve done that we wasn’t invited on. Now if you going do that, Mr. Mayor, let’s be fair now. Mr. Mayor: That’s what I’m trying to do. Mr. Williams: But you’re not doing that. You’re not -- Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: You’re not doing that. Mr. Mayor: We need to be consistent. Mr. Williams: But we’re not being consistent and I said it a hundred times that we don’t play with the same ball. Every time the ball bounces, then we get a lead ball. And I’m sick and tired of that. If you going to play ball, let’s use the same ball all the time. Jim, you smiling, but you heard me say it a million times, hadn’t you? We do not play with the same ball all the time, just when we want to. And this process is not right. I’ve got nothing against this fireman. He may be the best thing we ever could get in here. And I would love to have him. But I’m not going with this process. I’m not. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Apart from the process, this particular candidate -- I read his resume and was impressed and had a chance to talk with him earlier today -- he is as best as I can tell custom fit for the Augusta area. Yakima’s proximity to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is similar to our proximity to Savannah River. He’s got experience with the chemical industry, with the chemical industry, haz mat teams, emergency response. In fact his family team actually brings a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience to the Augusta area. I know that there are some concerns about process and ironing these things out straight once and for al, but I don’t think that’s something we can accomplish today. I support this candidate and the decision made by the Administrator. I think it’s an opportunity for us to move forward and then at that point we can correct problems that we see with the process. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just have a couple of things that I need to say, and I’m not going to talk about process, just going to talk about a couple of other things. I have not had the opportunity to speak with him, but from the resume that I’ve seen, I am also impressed with the applicant. I think he probably would make a very good fire chief for this city of Augusta. And I’m just sorry that someone, my colleague, Mr. Shepard saw a need to put this back on so soon before everybody could get prepared for this. And maybe if that had, some things could have been worked out, we wouldn’t be going through this process right now, as what we’re going through. And I’m sorry that the, apologize that the candidate has to sit through this procedure. But I think it could have been differently. I must admit I didn’t talk to Mr. Shepard about this and maybe I should have and maybe we could have avoided some of this that we’re proceeding with now. But the thing, probably at another time I probably would vote for Mr. -- vote for the applicant. I’m not going to do it today. And I’m not going to do it simply because I think there are some priorities that we need and some things that need to be worked out, and I think we as Commissioners can work that out. We’ve got a budget that’s coming up before us. We got -- and that should be the first priority. I know we need a fire chief. I know we need a deputy administrator. And I probably can go along with all of these things at some point in time. But let’s put priority first and let’s get first things first and I think if we had waited another meeting date or a little later, I think all of this could have been worked out and we wouldn’t have been going through this procedure. But right now, I think those things would have to be worked out, as far as I’m concerned, prior to doing this. We’re talking about, we just talked about a few minutes ago about finance, and what we could afford and what we couldn’t afford. And there is no other ulterior motive other than I think we should prioritize some of this and work from that standpoint, and if this had been left off I don’t think we would have been through this procedure as we are now. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Well, thank you Mr. Beard and Mr. Mayor. I think I have, along with the prerogative of every other Commissioner, to put items on this agenda, and I think this is some issue that we need to keep in front of this community. The Administrator has seen fit to bring this forward, not this time, but the meeting beforehand. I think it’s something the community cries out for action on, and not inaction. I think he’s brought us a good candidate, and it’s something that you may feel sorry about, and that’s your prerogative, but I think that it’s important that we go ahead and address this at this time. The Administrator is soon going to bring us the budget, and he is not ready with that, but he has been ready with the fire chief and he has been ready with the assistant administrator, and I think we need to -- if we’re going to support this Administrator, let’s support him. I mean he’s brought a good candidate here, and if the process is flawed, we’ve still got a good candidate, which we all apparently agree that he’s a good candidate, that he’s “a good fit” for the Augusta area, and let’s -- we’ve talked about many times, you and I and all the Commissioners and the Mayor, to move forward. This is an opportunity to move forward. We can talk all we want, but our votes will speak the loudest of all. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: I think that the main thing is that if we got to do our budget, if as much effort had been toward getting someone in our finances -- I know we had the head hunters out and they been out two or three times -- but it seems to me if that issue could be settled, that would be a [inaudible] today, but a positive vote on this tomorrow if necessary. It might be, and my last words of wisdom as I’m leaving out, if Mr. George would take a hint of that. I know he said he’s got the head hunters out and they’ll be bringing them back at a certain point. But what we have, what I have been trying to say is that let’s get the finances straight. And nobody’s mentioned the $98,000 that he’s going to pay. That may not be much, but that’s something. And [inaudible] raised that about the $98,000 that would be for your deputy, or $95,000. But when we bring this $98,000 item, and I’m sure that that’s going to [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me clear one thing about the process, and then a comment in reference to where we are today. Let me say something I think in one side of this in defense of the Administrator. When the Administrator came on, there was a move amongst and a discussion was out, I remember it being probably one of the first articles that was written, in reference to giving the Administrator the full hiring and firing power of this city, and that was brought out by some people. Memories got real short, because the first selection that the Administrator pretty much made on his own, he was darn near crucified for it by some of the same folk who said give him all the power. The very first day he was standing around this chamber. So I’m going to take up for him on that particular issue. I mean before I could get out of here and get to talk radio, it was all over and in print the next day in terms of what happened, because of the selection that he made. I think it was a move that was not necessarily done by vote, but I think you, Mr. Mayor, and I both agree to point that there could be some spirit of compromise in there of a allowing his leadership to flow. The Mayor and I particularly did not get so much involved on these, putting together the names and the search process, because while that’s not full hiring and fire power, it’s at least allowing that particular Administrator to move forward and to try and make some decisions on his own, and to bring some things to us in the process. Where I have a problem personally, Mr. Mayor, and it’s not with that process in there, because the two people being pointed to other than the Administrator would be you and myself currently. You will have your job, I won’t have mine after January. But the point is I think that’s one if it can be worked out amongst the three of us and we decided to let this flow, mainly by kind of taking a back seat and of moving that along. My problem personally was not in terms of whether I saw a candidate or candidates face to face, because if we’re going to let the process flow, then okay, let’s try and let it flow. My problem has been with consistency, and I have not changed on what my private conversations and my comments on the record, and again, Ms. Morawski, my comments that reflect this, I ask that they be going over to this so that I won’t have repeat them. They are there on the other meeting. They don’t need to change. But what I’ve said, both on the record, off the record, to the general public, to reporters, anybody that’s asked me about this issue, has been I thought that from the very beginning on the situation that the current Administrator inherited, that a decision first needed to be made about our finances. I even said, Mr. Mayor, to some folk the other day I kind of know how Larry Sconyers felt a little bit when folks promised him about River Race and everybody disappeared and didn’t know anything about it. Now I’m going to say this about some of my colleagues in defense of the Administrator. While some now forget so readily what their comments were to this particular Mayor Pro Tem, but there were folk who were around and saying when and what’s he doing? Why are we not concentrating on finance? When he first brought the other deputy candidate forward, they were saying his concentration is in public safety, it’s not in finance, doesn’t he know he needs to get that straightened out first? That was what folks around this same table were saying. Now I’m not going to call roll on you cause you know who you are. Deep down, when your gut goes in a little deep, you know, it goes to your head when you think about it. So we don’t have to go there. We big boys. But to a point that was what the gripe was, that that be settled first. And my other point in dealing with Finance is that when I had heard that we may possibly, and I brought this up the last time, if we are going to -- and I won’t demean in terms of saying negative things about requirements or standards -- but I think it is important for the record that one, while the candidate that we have for fire chief is probably and excellent candidate and meets those requirements we put out there, and I think timing in any political move is very, very important. It’s the principle of where this, of where the results of the process have gone. Because we’ve emphasized about Finance, we’ve spent head hunting money, we don’t have anybody. And I even said at the last meeting that if we were not going to put a CPA, and I asked this publicly, I’ve asked it privately and publicly, but with us having to deal with private CPA firms, with us having to deal with money management, I have said if we were going to drop the requirements on that directorship, then we needed to be very, very careful in doing that because if we start to waive or the advertisement is different, then what is to say for people who have applied even for this job, that if they come along and you hire a Finance Director where that has been waived? I think that needs to be a definitive decision made to stay where we are, and if there are problems with getting the money we need to make that decision on where we are going. But now we’ve not done that. If we’re going to move down in the requirements, then we need to start the process of strengthening the good people that we already have. And I’ve made that comment two weeks ago. That’s not changed. None of this has gone into all the hullabaloo that I’ve read in different places of citing of folk coming back and all the other stupid things that have been written into this process. None of that makes a difference with me. It’s all been the integrity of where we are going. And I think if it’s going to be -- if changes are going to be made, then let’s say so because I think we put ourselves, and I’ve discussed this with Mr. Wall, if we’re going to move down in one area of standards or requirements, then while you have a top candidate that’s over in here, what happens in your overall process of department heads that if you advertise one month for a CPA being required, you decide that you’re not going to do that, then what happens to folk who may have headed up departments and may be absent of a college degree? And you’re moved in one department but yet you’ve not done it in others. One that deals with your local people that have done and it deals with people nationwide that did not even meet the top 50 that have headed some of the top departments in this country. So I think that’s something that does need to be answered. That’s a question that has not been brought forward, and I’ve not gotten an answer out of it yet. So those of you who forget that you came to me with the crocodile tears and you wanted to know when we were going to get a director of Finance, what are we thinking about, we’ve not had a hearing, we’ve got to straighten that out, we’ve got to get somebody -- yes, I don’t think we ought to chance maybe losing a good candidate, but at the same time we ought to know where this whole flow is going. And I’ve not heard that yet, and that’s why I cannot cast a vote. I will not vote negatively against the Chief, because I think we’ve probably got one good one in. I agree with Commissioner Beard and Commissioner Brigham, if we can get some things settled on some other directions in here, with these other two, I think we can move forward. This is not only with a vote of six, I think you can move forward with it unanimously in terms of doing that. But I think until some of us hear where that’s going to be and what we’re going to do with it and also in terms of reorganization. One of the problems that you all talked about. You say we’re stalling on the deputy. We know why we’re stalling on the deputy. Let’s be real honest with each other. Part of the reason you stalled is you’re looking at it right out there. You made a decision based on the fact the question was not so much what George wanted to do with the person being brought in, but whether or not you were going to give the current person that’s in the assistant’s position twenty-something-more thousand dollars, and the question was raised by most of you that are you going to give that one twenty-something-more thousand dollars to do the same thing he’s doing now? Let’s be real honest. Let’s don’t play games. It’s too close Christmas to play games. So let’s be real honest about it. And I think that needs to be said in terms of whether or not you are going to have lateral movement in that department, whether you’re going to be asked to carry it to, whether you’re going to be asked to raise another one -- those are the things that I think need to be spelled out. That’s where I’m coming from with it, and it’s nothing against the Chief in there and I wouldn’t dare vote against it, but I cannot case a vote period, Mr. Mayor, in terms of doing it, and I think if we get those ideas straightened out, I think we can have a pretty much darn near unanimous Commission in where we move with this issue and a couple of others. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Mays, as Finance Chairman, the soonest available opportunity that the recruiter had to bring us candidates was today, and we have interviewed them in a process which George started, so I just bring you up to speed. I didn’t get to tell you beforehand. I expect on the next Commission agenda you will have the privilege of voting on a Finance Director. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might reply in response. I knew you had those interviews. Like I told, when I retire I’m going to write that book “Ain’t No Court House Secrets.” I know what time they came in and what time it started. I’m just glad to see them start. And again, I wasn’t, I wasn’t enthused about coming to see and look over George’s shoulder with him, but to me it’s still a matter of principle. I’m going to see us hire somebody before I cast a vote in any of those other areas. And I can be the lone wolf in casting the vote that I do in terms of abstaining, or it can be in a majority or a minority. I’m not really caring. But I based it on the principle that I set and I’m not backing off of that. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to say something. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: I hear my colleagues talking about they are not ready to do anything, and we’ve gone from the Fire Chief to the Finance Director. And I a chance to meet Mr. Gillespie today and he’s an excellent candidate. And they want to delay, and we may not have a candidate after today. It’s not finances. We’ve got a budget. We’ve got a Fire Department. We’ve got the finances for that department. And it certainly isn’t finances when we can approve $150,000 for, you know, bonuses for Christmas. Obviously, we’ve got the money. So I think my opinion is that we’re passing up an opportunity to fill a position, possibly two positions, that would have a significant positive impact on this community. I think the whole thing behind this is we want to delay this so that Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Beard can get their fingers in it, and to me that’s micro-managing. Any way you want to look at it, it’s micro-managing. And I think it’s sickening. I’m embarrassed. I’m embarrassed for this community. And that’s my sentiment. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can respond. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek had his hand up. Mr. Cheek will speak. Mr. Cheek: I wish we would come up -- in deference to what Bill said, I wish we would come up with a universal interpretation of what micro-managing is. I don’t think most people in Augusta do. Anyway, this is a situation that we have all watched for a year now. We’ve gone through a couple of trials of finance directors. We’ve found out that we needed to offer more money and several other things to get qualified candidates. HR, along with the Administrator, has come back to us more than once. Can that process -- should it have been a little bit more timely? Absolutely. Was it the best we can do? I don’t think so. But the thing is we’ve all heard today that we have candidates here now for Finance director. Some of these -- and I’ve been hard on Human Resources for not being able to do more than one thing at a time and they’re producing candidates for several of the different departments that we need them, and they’re just falling mature at different times. I think if we handle today’s vote and get this candidate in office over at the Fire Department, then we’ll be able to move forward with the Finance and the Deputy Administrator in pretty short order. Having met all the concerns that these Commissioners, all of us have about future selection process -- but we’ve watched this for a year and it hasn’t been for lack of good effort on the part of the Administrator and some of the staff that we are where we’re at. The market, and what we are willing to pay, just wasn’t enough, and some of the negative press we’ve gotten has deterred some folks. But today we are asked to vote on a Fire Chief candidate. It’s come mature a week before our Finance Director. That’s just the way things fall sometimes. I just hope we won’t -- I hope that we’ll take this opportunity to support this candidate and next week support a Finance Director and move on with the business of the city. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, since I was -- I highly resent the remark that Mr. Kuhlke has made. You know, I’ve seen this coming to some low things on this Commission, but I think the one that he just pulled a few minutes ago in saying that I was behind this or whoever else he wanted to implicate behind this, you know, I would hate to think that he had -- that I had that kind of power to defer the selection of a Fire Chief when we’ve got ten Commissioners and a Mayor and an Administrator here. I resent that very highly. I have no motive in doing this. I think Commissioner Mays has pointed out very firmly how we are on different situation, how we act on different situation, it’s like you going to get it, you going to have a fire chief when we want you to have one, you cannot make any remarks, yes, you have to do what we ask you to do, and that’s the interpretation I’m getting from that. And why he would want to bring that to this level in this type of argumentation on the council floor, I really don’t know. But, Mr. Kuhlke, I really resent that and I think you’ve come to a pretty low situation in this. You know, all we have to do is vote. We don’t have to personalize anybody. We can vote. You, you’ve reneged on a lot of things that you didn’t want, and I don’t think -- and you’ve won some things on the floor, and I don’t think anybody has gotten to this point to say it didn’t go or it did go because of you. And I resent that very highly. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, want to respond to Mr. Kuhlke. Not really -- I just like to have my minute cause what Mr. Kuhlke said don’t make or break me. Mr. Kuhlke’s been on this Commission a lot longer than I have been here and probably a lot longer than I plan to be here, but he’s done some things that he need to look at himself. I been accused, along with Commissioner Cheek, of micro-managing. But if ain’t nobody doing nothing, micro-managing better than no managing at all. And whether you appreciate or whether you can understand what I do or not, Mr. Kuhlke, really don’t make a hill of beans to me. I think that was really low. I think what you said was out of order. I think that that’s your opinion and you ought to keep it to yourself. But as far as me, I have no problem with our candidate, but I’m not going to support it and I hope that the situation gets where we can get back to what we supposed to be doing. We keep talking about moving and advancing, but we want to do it in the back room. And I’m not doing it in the back room any more. I told you them good old boy days is gone. Mr. Mayor: Let me, before we move on, let me read from the rules of the Commission. In discussion, a Commissioner may condemn the nature of likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms but must avoid a discussion of personalities and under no circumstances may he/she attack or question the motives of another Commissioner or staff. The issue, and not a person, shall be the item under discussion. And I would remind the Commissioners of that rule and let’s try to abide by that, please. All right, Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, we’re taking apples and oranges and making fruit salad out of it, sitting up here. If people don’t think we are micro-managing, all they need to do is look at our votes the last week. We are micro-managing. We’re doing it as a group. And there a people up here that are not going to vote for anything, and I’m embarrassed for that, to this community, that we can’t elect the best qualified, that we got to elect a political appointment that there is no other way selected than just to be chosen completely by compromising everything out by dragging of months. That is ridiculous. We ought to be able to vote on people up and down. We’ve got a good, qualified candidate. I voted for the Technology Director. I’m going to vote for this Fire Chief. If I’m here when the Finance Director comes and it’s the best candidate, I will vote for him them. If I’m not, I would sure hope my successor will. I suspect that we need to vote for people and qualities, not on positions and what position is being filled at what time. I think making fruit salad out of this Commission is ridiculous. Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead with the vote. And the motion is to confirm the hiring. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll call the roll. ROLL CALL VOTE Mr. Beard: No Mr. Bridges: Yes Mr. H. Brigham: No Mr. J. Brigham: Yes Mr. Cheek: Yes Mr. Colclough: Present Mr. Kuhlke: Yes Mr. Mays: Present Mr. Shepard: Yes Mr. Williams: Present Motion fails 5-2-3. Mr. Mayor: Thank you Madame Clerk. Let’s move along then to item number 32. The Clerk: 32. Consider authorizing the Administrator to offer up to the midpoint of the salary range for the position of Deputy Administrator. (No action vote Commission’s November 20 meeting requested by Commissioner Shepard) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, anything further on that today that you want to mention? Mr. Kolb: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there a motion, gentlemen? Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second on item 32 for approval. Is there any discussion? All in favor, then please vote aye. Mr. Beard votes No. Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough abstain. Motion carries 6-1-3. Mr. Mayor: Next item, number 33. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS: st 33. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the January 1 regular meeting to January 2, 2002. Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Shepard: Approve. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, then please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do we have anything? Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Is there any further business to come before the Commission? We’re adjourned without objection. Thank you. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Nancy W. Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy 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 December 3, 2001. Deputy Clerk of Commission