Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS February 18, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, February 18, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; Randy Oliver, Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County --soon to be Augusta, I think, from what I heard last week --Commission, our regular meeting. We're going to have the Invocation this afternoon by the Reverend William B. Blount, Pastor of the Greater Young Zion Baptist Church. If you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND BLOUNT. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and the Commission. We have a request for three addendum items: Item 1, approval of the 1997 Operating and Capital Budgets; 2, grievance of Jason Beard, Fire Department; approve a lease and management agreement with Value Lodge to manage the hotel at Bush Field, subject to the airport authority, the Administrator, and the Attorney's approval; to approve a final plat of the Walton Acres, Phase III, with the developer giving the county a $50,000 letter of credit to ensure completion of site improvement. And a deletion of Item 48. MAYOR SCONYERS: What's your pleasure, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion bythat was Mr. Powell? -- MR. POWELL: Mr. Bridges. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges. Motion by Mr. Powell [sic], and seconded by Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: First item of business, please. CLERK: Under Delegation, Mr. Gary Allen. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Gary Allen? CLERK: Do you want to move on? I haven't seen him. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we delete it from the agenda. This is the second time. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item of business, please. CLERK: Under the Planning section, the Planning Commission recommends that we could take Items 2, 3, 4, and 5 as a consent agenda, with Item 1 being pulled out. For the benefit of maybe we have objectors, I'll read a synopsis of the zoning matters. 2 is a request for concurrence of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from the Reverend Lillie Williams, on behalf of the Interfaith Christian Center, changing from a Zone A (Agriculture) to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business), Morgan Road. 3 is a request for concurrence to approve a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, on behalf of Midwestern Investors, changing from a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood) to a Zone B-2 (General Business), the intersection of Milledgeville Road and Barton Chapel Road. 4 is to approve a concurrence of a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, on behalf of Virginia Strickland, changing zoning from a B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to a Zone B-2 (General Business) on property on Milledgeville Road, intersection of Barton Chapel and Milledgeville Road. 5 is a final plat approval for the Woodberry Subdivision. To approve a petition from Southern Partners, on behalf of Preston Price, for property on Brown Road. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull 3 and 4 and hear from the developers on what they have planned in that they're changing from Neighborhood Business to General Business. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to vote on 2 and 5; is that correct, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke -- CLERK: No, Mr. Powell. Mr. Powell made the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell made the motion? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: And Mr. Brigham secondedHenry? -- CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 1 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with a condition, that a site plan including adequate landscaping to be submitted to the Planning Commission within five days, a petition from Carrick B. Inabnett, on behalf of Guy F. Lispcome, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a cellular communication tower as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (c) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on property located on the southeast of the southeast right-of-way line of Eisenhower Drive, intersection of Eisenhower and Washington Road. MR. AUSTIN: Gentlemen, I'm Bob Austin, I'm filling in for George Patty. And we have, of course, the Alltel people here and we have a number of objectors here on this case. It's located right on the ridge line on Washington Road. Do y'all want to hear from them or? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Austin, I think [inaudible]. MR. INABNETT: Yes. And I'd like to make a brief statement. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, my name is Carrick Inabnett and I am here today on behalf of Alltel. Mr. Austin may have mentioned, we formerly have gone before the Planning Commission and had a recommendation of approval from them, however, there has been some objections raised. And Alltel wants to work with the community and solve those objections and reach a compromise which is suitable both to Alltel and the city, and we believe that we can do that. With that in mind, at this time we would like to take this item off of the agenda, subject to potentially coming up at a later time, but hopefully not. And the only other thing I would like to offer is that there is a real need in that area for emergency 911 service. The calls are being directed over to South Carolina right now and time is being lost, so we do need to come up with a solution quickly. But we feel like we can come up with one that, again, will be beneficial to both the county and to Alltel. Thank you. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion that we allow them to withdraw without -- MR. KUHLKE: Prejudice. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I don't even like the word. MR. INABNETT: That's all right if you don't. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem voting for that motion, but is there a planned meeting per se that's being worked out? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I've been working with Alltel and with the neighbors and with the County Attorney trying to find an alternative solution to this problem, and I think we've reached some conclusions. We just need a little time to get it worked out. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 3 is a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, on behalf of Midwestern Investors, Inc., requesting a change of zoning from a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to a Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Milledgeville Road and Barton Chapel Road. MR. STRICKLAND: I'm Allen Strickland representing Midwestern Investors and Virginia Strickland, my wife. This is about five acres of land in the triangle formed by Gordon Highway, Barton Chapel Road, and Milledgeville Road. We're requesting a change from B-1 to B-2 to allow the sale of manufactured housing. B-2 is the typical zoning around us. The land on the north side of Gordon Highway is B-2, it's B-2 on the east side of us, some on the south. MR. KUHLKE: I move approval, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Do I hear a second to Mr. Kuhlke's motion? MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. MR. TODD: Will the maker of the motion accept an amendment to restrict it to new manufactured homes versus trade-outs and bringing used ones in, et cetera? We're talking about a area here where, in my opinion, that we want to at least protect the integrity of the area. And also to restrict it to this use only. Because when you rezone you open it up to a lot of different things that you can do that wouldn't necessarily be suitable for the area or the community. MR. STRICKLAND: Well, the B-2 is the typical zoning in it. The land right across on the east side of Barton Chapel is an auto repair shop. There's a nightclub on the south side. It's not changing the character of the neighborhood. And I can't speak for the potential buyer about which type of merchandise he'll be selling. MR. TODD: Will the maker of the motion accept a stipulation that it will be used for manufactured homes only, this change in zoning? MR. KUHLKE: No, sir. MR. STRICKLAND: That's the intent of it. MR. TODD: I'm going to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, that we put stipulations on it that it be used for manufactured homes only, to sell those. MR. MAYS: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on Mr. Todd's motion, gentlemen? MR. STRICKLAND: What does that mean, now? If this deal falls through and another potential user wants to use it, that means coming back here again? Is there a time restriction on it? I don't expect that to happen, but I'd like to know. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, can you address that? MR. TODD: Mr. Patty is back there. I believe he can give you the planning and zoning regulations. MR. AUSTIN: I guess if you were going to condition it, Mr. Toddit's -- presently zoned a B-1 Neighborhood Business now, I think, and probably the appropriate thing to do would be to condition it with the sale of manufactured homes and the uses that can be allowed in a neighborhood business, which is the present zoning. MR. TODD: No problem there. That's the substitute motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. KUHLKE: I want to make sure that Mr. Strickland has no problem with that wording. MR. STRICKLAND: I don't think there'll be a problem. Thank you. Any other questions? MAYOR SCONYERS: We're fixing to vote on it now, Mr. Strickland. Substitute motion, Mr. Todd's motion first. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 4, a request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Sherman & Hemstreet, on behalf of Virginia B. Strickland, requesting a change of zoning from a B-1 (Neighborhood) to a Zone B-2 (General Business) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Milledgeville Road. MR. STRICKLAND: I thought we were doing them both together. I mean, the -- MR. TODD: I did, too. This is the same property, is it not? MR. STRICKLAND: It's the same thing, it's just two different ownerships. MAYOR SCONYERS: We'll have to vote on it, gentlemen. MR. TODD: I make the same motion, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Under Finance portion of the agenda, Items 6 through 10 were approved by Finance on February the 10th, with 11 being disapproved. And if we couldokay, we'll take those items. -- [Item 6: Approval of the Resolution regarding the 1997 Annual Appropriation Requirement for participation in the Georgia Municipal Association Lease Pool Bond Series 1990. Item 7: Approval of the Appropriation Certificate regarding the Georgia Municipal Association's equipment leasing program. Item 8: Approval to send two representatives to represent Augusta- Richmond County at the Energy Communities Alliance Conference in Washington, D.C. on March 6 and 7 (includes travel, registration, lodging and per diem). Item 9: Approval of a request for waiver of penalties only from Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc. Item 10: Approval of a subordination second mortgage to refinancing of first mortgage by HUD for Landmark Apartments and agreement to other HUD conditions. Item 11: Disapproval of a request for waiver of penalty by T-Bonz Management Company.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee recommends the approval of these items as the way they came out of the committee. MR. BEARD: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Mayor? I made myself a promise a long time ago. Anybody that don't know who I am, I'm George Cunningham. Anytime I saw anything happening that I thought was detrimental to the welfare of myself, my family or the community, that I would speak out loud and clear. And then if it was within the conscience of those people that were doing it to do it, then that was their prerogative, but I at least wanted to let it be known where I was coming from. Now, on Number 8 it says approve and send two representatives to represent Augusta-Richmond County at the Energy Communities Alliance Conference in Washington. Pay them travel, registration, lodging, and per diem. I wouldn't want Charles DeVaney to represent me in anything, even for free. I have fought ever since the early '80s when I realized that there wasn't any such thing as the City of Augusta ever being responsible and taking over the government of Richmond County. And when the long, drawn out affair of annexation was carried--was tried to putrammed down the throats of these -- people, the Mayor promised those people who would vote for annexation in lieu of consolidation back in '88 and along then when we were trying to consolidate, he told them he'd give them free garbage collection if they joined the city. If they joined the city, the people in the city had garbage collection. Well, he'd already pulled some dirty tricks on some of the business people and the business people let him know loud and clear that, you know, he wasn't worthhis word wasn't any good. -- Then he went to Savannah and he and Mr. Dunbar made a deal--and all this is in writingwith the Justice Department, and the courts in Savannah agreed -- they would increase in the City Council of Augusta from eight to thirteen and keep the City Council intact, and work by hook and crook and maybe they could buy some more time to keep the citykeep the county from consolidating. -- Well, at the time I made it quite known quite loudly and clearly that annexation was not going to work because there was too many things out in the county that were already in a shape that the only thing could straighten them out was consolidation. I still feel that way and I want God and everybody to know it. I think I've got his support. And we needed this new government. We got it and we've got to make it work, but we're not going to make it work by trying to take and pay attention and bring people into things that can represent either side. And we're payingand even if we're not paying them, if we're sending them up there -- representing us, they represent us. And I always felt like that if people did as bad as Charles DeVaney's done for this communityand not as bad as his -- promises, many people and many things. I mean, y'all just got through with some deals over there on Gwinnett Street and some other places about some money loans and whatnot, and with the Town Tavern and the Port Royal thing, it ain't settled completely yet, and the downtownOld Towne situation ain't -- settled, and the deal up there next to the airport ain't completely settled. And all of that was behind the scenes dealing with where you have lawyers running a community. Now, if y'all can't find anybody any better than Charles DeVaney or anybody else that was in the old situation to where they had a different loyalty than this countyin other words, this countyMoses ---- Todd stood up here the other day and didn't want to put Chief Atkinswhich -- was all right with me, I didn't have any problem with that; I mean, whatever he wanted to dobut put Chief Atkins in. He didn't want him the Fire Chief -- because he had been in the consolidated government and been a part of it and it was all kind of, you know, hinged on this side and he was always for consolidationI mean, he was always for annexation and not consolidation. -- So, I mean, there are many, many different reasons -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. If the gentleman is going to state my position, I'd like for him to state it correctly. And I think the minutes, Mr. Mayor, will reflect my position as far as the Fire Chief situation go. MR. CUNNINGHAM: So, anyway, getting back to thatMr. Todd, I stand -- corrected if you are right, and I apologize if I'm wrong. And I think that you're only asking for trouble when you start taking and trying to revamp bringing Charles DeVaney in, because you're going to have a meeting Thursday night up here in West Augusta and you're going to have some people up there that's going to tell you about what he promised them, you know, to consolidate or annex and all that, you're going to hear some more of that. It's going to be hard enough to clean this thing up as it is without bringing these oldtrying to work these old horses back in here. -- I want to thank every one of you and I want to thank y'all. I mean, I think all of you are my friends, I'm going to stay that way with you, but when I see you doing something that's wrong I'm going to try to take and make itmake it a matter of record. Now, I hope that this is a part of the -- record, that this time and this place that I laid this foundation for coming and helping you whenever I felt like I could, because that's all I've got to do. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, approximately three years ago I came to the NACO conference in Washington, D.C., and I was told by some officials out at SRS that there was a entity having a conference by the name of the Community Energy Alliance and that it may be significant in the sense that I was involved in the plight of SRS and new missions. I think what we had going back then was the Yes New Production Reactor, Yes SRS, and participating in Complex 21 hearings and reconfiguration hearings and EIS hearings as far as SRS go, and new missions, that I should attend that meeting. I stayed over a day and went over to the meeting at another hotel, and what I found there was officials from DOE host communities and surrounding communities from all over the United States that was there supporting missions for their community. Also I found there Charles DeVaney, the Mayor of Augusta, and he was fighting hard for Augusta. It appeared at that time and thereafter that he knew all the right folks, he had the contacts, et cetera. And because of his efforts, the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, committed to SRS as being the tritium source for the nuclear stockpile for the nuclear arsenal of this country. Since then we've lost ground in the sense that the tritium mission seemingly is headed to Hanford, Washington, in that we haven't hadwe have a void in the sense that we haven't had anyone representing us -- at the table that know all the players. And I also was at a meeting in San Antonio, Texas, this year: the League of Cities. I didn't go out there so much to be at the League of Cities meeting but to go to the Energy Communities Alliance meeting and try to continue to represent this community as far as new missions for SRS. We realize that SRS is a artificial economy, that economy that we've enjoyed a number of years, that we've supported that mission. We've been nuclear friendly. But because of theone factor or -- another, including possibly the administration, who's been Secretary of Energy, and our dogmatic attack on those folks by our local press, that I think we've got the short end of the stick. And I'm talking about the editorial section of the daily paper and not necessarily the objective reporting that we get from the daily news. We've got the short end of the stick. It's time that we speak with one voice, we act quickly, and that we secure missions for SRS by whatever means necessary. And I feel that Charles DeVaney, if he's nothing else, that he's one of the best diplomats that this community ever seen. And where I disagree with him politically, we're from two political philosophies, I agree with him as far as his ability to use those contacts he have in representing this community and this project as far as SRS go and future missions. It's bigger than Moses Todd, it's bigger than Charles DeVaney, and it's bigger than Mr. George Cunningham, and I'd appreciate it if you would support this effort. And I'd also appreciate it if every Commissioner sitting here could try to find time to either fly in early for the League of Cities or stay late for the NACO conference, National Association of County Officers conference, so they can be at that meeting on the 6th and 7th of January, because this is going to have significant impact on this community if we lose the tritium mission as far as SRS go. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. H. BRIGHAM: 6th and 7th of March, Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: Yes, 6th and 7th of March. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want the minutes to reflect from the Finance Committee meeting and maybe for this record that I did recommend that Mr. Oliver attend that because I thought it was necessary that we have some direct representation from this body, and although it's not reflected on thesein this item, it was reflected in the Finance Committee meeting. And -- if Mr. Oliver is going to attend that, then it doesn't matter with me who the other parties are. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll go on and call the question for a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 12, please. CLERK: No, sir, if we could take under the addendum agenda, the approval of the Final 1997 Operating and Capital Budgets under Finance. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the operating budgets as presented to us in committee. MR. BEARD: I'll second that, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr. Lee Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like one thing established for the record, that this budget requires no increase in the millage rate. Is that correct, Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: That is correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I have one concern, and that's the lack of funding for the additional space for the GIS Department. Four years ago the Commission overwhelmingly voted close to three-quarters of a million dollars for the GIS project. We finally got that on the road making progress, but we'll never fully benefit from that progress unless we assign more programmers to the project, so I'd take exception of the lack of funding under that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote for the motion, but I'd like to express some concerns to my colleagues. I'd like to see us sometime during the year maybewhether we have to do it through recapture funds or -- whatever, but, gentlemen, we are in desperate need in the libraries. The library system in this town is going down, and I'd like to see us appropriate some more money during the year for the libraries. MR. OLIVER: If I may address that. In the budget hearing that we had Friday morning we have asked the library director and the board to take and look at allocating out their one-cent local option sales tax and how that can best be applied to meet their needs in regards to additional books. We've got an opinion from Mr. Wall that that can be used for that purpose as well as to go ahead and use it to do roof repairs. There is some 2.4 million dollars and there are four libraries. Of that, 700,000 is budgeted, I believe, for this year and the remainder of that is budgeted for 1999. And we have asked them to come back by the end of this month with a plan to prioritize that money to best meet their needs, so I think that will be taken care of. As it relates to the GIS, we have a new information systems director that's going to be coming on board. We will turn that over to him to take a look at what's needed to do the job. And he has not obviously had any input into this budget. I think there will be some changes that are required in that area. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Under Public Safety, Items 12 through 14 were approved by Public Safety on February the 10th. [Item 12: Approval of Change Order 21 with R.W. Allen in the amount of $212,080, the carryover of approved 1996 funds in the amount of $191,000 and the addition of funds in the amount of $21,080 from remaining 1996 funds within Fund 22. Item 13: Approval of the appointment of Clifford K. Rushton, Director of Information Technology. Item 14: Approval of award of contract to Augusta Fire Protection, Inc. to install a fire sprinkler system.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, these items were discussed and approved, and I'd like to move for approval by this body. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Who seconded that, please? MR. KUHLKE: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Item 15 is approval of the pest control services for Augusta- Richmond County buildings for 1997. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] CLERK: Administrative Services: Items 16 through 19 were approved by the committee on February 10th, 1997. [Item 16: Approval to change Section 12.C.4.a and Section 12.C.4.b Grievance and Appeal Procedures of Augusta-Richmond County Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual, adopted April 2, 1996. Item 17: Approval of authorization by Risk Management, as an exception to policy, to dispose of vehicles involved in accidents which are determined "totaled". Item 18: Approval of contract with Buck Consultants for the amount of $91,375 to conduct a Job Classification and Compensation Study. Item 19: Approval to authorize RFP's to select a firm to design and build incubator project at Augusta Tech.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 16 through 19 be approved. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Engineering Services: Items 20 through 29 were approved by Engineering Services Committee on February 10th. [Item 20: Approval of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $29,132.00 for Engineering Service Corporation regarding the installation and set-up of Telemetry System for Richmond County Water System. Item 21: Approval of proposal for an Organization Wide Assessment for the Utilities Department from EMA Services, Inc. in the amount of $26,400. Item 22: Approval of Change Order #1 for the Wetlands Design Contract with ZEL Engineers, with the amount not to exceed $21,220. Item 23: Approval of Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Two with funding for the Sand Ridge Storm Drainage Improvement Project in the amount of $287,000 from allocated Special 1-cent Sales Tax, Phase II Funds, CPB#55-8796-096, and approve to let for bids. Item 24: Approval of Capital Project Budget 55-8783-097 with funding of $237,500 from Special 1-cent Sales Tax, Phase II Recaptured Funds, approve the engineering proposal from ZEL Engineers in the amount of $11,500, and approve to let for bid S.R. 56 @ Old Waynesboro Road Intersection Improvements. Item 25: Approval of Settlement with Georgia EPD in the amount of $800 for an expedited enforcement order and settlement agreement for the Deans Bridge Road Landfill. Item 26: Approval of Capital Project Budget 57-8590-096 with funding of $111,000 for Traffic Engineering Improvements, Phase I, and to approve to advertise for bids. Item 27: Approval of contract with Atlantic Construction & Marine Services, Inc. to remove obstructions from canal Bulkhead Gates and set project budget of $15,000. Item 28: Approval of award and contracts to Mabus Brothers Construction Company, low bidder, in the amount of $1,372,854.60 subject to receiving contractors signed documents with proper bonds (Skinner Mill Road Extension/Agerton Lane). Item 29: Approval of award and contracts to APAC-Georgia, low bidder, at $98,677.25.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept this as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. HANDY OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: 30, please. CLERK: Items 30 through 42 were approved by Public Services Committee, and Mr. Oliver would like Item 31 pulled out from the consent. MR. OLIVER: The reason that I'd likewe would like actually 31 -- withdrawn. There is an issue between the church and the denomination as it relates to the property that needs to be resolved prior to us being able to recommend that go forward. MR. GRIER: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? MR. GRIER: I'm LeMan Grier, the executive director of the Bethlehem Community Center. There is no question as it relates to the ownership of that property. I would like to tell you as a committee and a commission what you are doing is opening up a can of worms that you don't want to deal with. Bethlehem Community Center, Incorporated owns the property that we are talking about that we've let the bid on for doing certain things. What happened in this whole situation is when I became executive director without pay for over five years to bring back to the community for what it wasI happen to be black and, in being black, the people sat at that -- boardpeople from the church hierarchy and all said we can't work with you. -- We found out that the church had in effect absconded with land, property, and not paying taxes and other kinds of things. We brought that to the attention of our board of directors. They at that point started investigating. Now, our records in Washington, D.C. on this, that other places on this. The United Methodist Church had not made an agreement with us. They pulled the money back as soon as I became executive director. We at the community that I represent will not sit back and allow the kind of apartheid stuff going on in this community and say nothing about it. So I would ask you all to look at what it was. You asked me to go get it. We searched the property. We own that piece of property -- we being my board of directors. The United Methodist Church got Goshen Plantationthree things -- happened that you need to know about, and it needs to be printed, and we'll take it wherever it has to go. In 1977 a parcel of land that was owned by Bethlehem Community Center, Inc., the forerunner to that, was sold to itself for $77,000 and the monies went to New York to be held in trust. Again in 1988 another parcel of land was sold, a large parcel of land, for $22,000 and nothing escrowed to the community. My bookkeeping system have worked up a process that the United Methodist Church at this point owes Bethlehem Community Center, Inc. over $700,000 in the monies that it put in trust and nobody can deal with it. So I wanted to let you know that. You can pull it out, but the can of worms you're opening up, it will not close that easily. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I think Mr. Wall had something he wanted to say, Mr. Todd. MR. WALL: The deeds of conveyance into the Bethlehem Community Center all provide that the property is transferred in trust to be held, maintained, and disposed of for the benefit of the United Methodist Church and subject to the usage and the discipline of the United Methodist Church, and that's in all the deeds of conveyance. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, with consent from the United Methodist Church there is a possibility we can go on with this project, but I think that's the reason that we're holding it at this time, to make sure that we don't have a problem and that when we go in do capital improvements of approximately a quarter of a million dollars for this community's use, that the properties is going to be there at least for the next 20 to 100 years for the community to use and not be sold off or something else to happen with it. My interest in this project is that it's a need in a minority community. I worked with Mr. Grier in putting the plans together, at least to get the project into one- penny sales tax. The last thing I want to do is to lose this project for the Bethlehem Community Center, and that is by the way of the church deciding possibly to sell later and/or any other reason. So I guess that it's my responsibility to look out for the interest of the one-penny sales tax, to look out for the interest of the citizenthe -- community as far as Bethlehem Community Center go, and to make sure that we're on one accord when we authorize a capital improvement of over a quarter of a million dollars to properties there. And as soon as we can get the agreementwhatever agreement the County Attorney need that those properties -- are going to be there at the community's disposal for the next 20 years or so, then I'll certainly support and make the motion to go on with the capital improvements. Thank you. MR. GRIER: One other thing, gentlemen -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute. Mr. Mays, do you want to say something? MR. MAYS: I'll yield to Mr. Grier. MR. GRIER: One other thing, I think you as a Commission are misinformed. Our attorney searched the property. Bethlehem Community Center, Inc. is a corporation, a Georgia corporation that ownsthere were two pieces -- of property with this entity. We leased the property from the church. My board refused to sign a lease that they sent back that said we had seen because we knew it was shenanigans of the global ministries of the United Methodist Churchnot all of them but some of them. -- What happened is that our attorney shows that wewe've had it -- searched. We own the property that we are talking about renovating. The United Methodist ChurchI was a Cub Scout over there and so it's another -- kind of interest. If I'll work for five years for no money, how many of you work for one year for any money to help preserve our community? This is black history, and I understand why [unintelligible] and all those people did certain things. If you aren't going to do what's right, I'll go back to my board and my legal team and the legal team in Washington and we will see what our recourses are. I heard our attorney holler, well, I did this to put this in the project. No, you didn't. When we asked for money for Springfield Baptist Church, for Shiloh Orphanage, asked you to put the money back in for Laney-Walker Museum and Augusta Mini Theater, I saw people turning red, green and blue, because this is the first time we've had African-Americans being a part of this 300 million dollar expenditure. We will not lie down for one minute to allow this to happen. Now, you need to go back and get your lawyers, whoever they are, just to search that. In trust? They took $77,000 in trust and none accrued to the black community. They took $22,000 in trust. That was a legal wayand a lot of African-Americans were sitting on that -- board when that occurred. They didn't know what was going on. We came inthey hired me. A hundred people applied for that job. They hired me and -- I found out some things that I let the community know what was going on. Now, we will look at United Methodist Church? At that property? There are two pieces of property there, gentlemen. You need to go and check it out. We and the building was made and built by commerce money. Don't open that can of worms, gentlemen. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, what I'd like to say is that initiallyand I -- still do support the Bethlehem Center project. In fact, I hope that it could be expanded beyond probably what we're talking about at the stage that it is now, the existing building that Mr. Grier and those are in right now as well as the historic building [unintelligible] there at Bethlehem Center. What I would suggest and put in the form of a motion, that to keep this project rolling and goingMr. Grier, do you have any objection with your material -- that you have legally, whether you do it in conjunction with your attorney, whether you do it, but setting up a meeting with Mr. Oliver, Mr. Wall, and the attorney representing the 501-C corporation so that that can be clear? And I think what the majority of the Commission wants to do, and I know this Commissioner does, I don't want to see it go down the tubes. I think you know where I stand on that. What I think is that we don't want to get a crazy challenge coming up about who does own it, and I think we want to get that out of the way, get it clear, and so that you can go ahead with this project and move in its entirety. And I think that's where we stand on it, and I think probably the quicker that the three folks can sit down and get that resolved and then we can move ahead with it. MR. GRIER: I have no problem with that. ASAP. MR. MAYS: I'd like to put that in the form of a motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'll second that. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's on Item 31, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: That's on 31. And I think if you've got a legal questionthis isn't the arena to clear a legal problem. And I think there -- is documentation supporting or opposing, and that can be done with the attorneys and brought back to this body in order to deal with it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all understand the motion, gentlemen? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I was going to ask what was the original consent agenda items. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to get to that in just a moment. Let's go ahead and take care of 31. MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I understand the motion, and I think that we had adequate time from the committee meeting when this concern was brought up. I brought it up to this point, and I would urge the parties that have the vested interest in this to let's get moving. Because if it is not right I'm not going to support it and I'm going to do everything I can to kill it even though it may be part of my brainchild. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all want the motion read, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Yes, Mr. Mayor, would you please? MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner, would you read the motion, please? CLERK: Item 31, motion by Mr. Mays was that Mr. Oliver, Mr. Wall, the 501-C corporation attorney to meet and to clear this matter up and report back to the Commission. MR. GRIER: I was included in that motion. MR. MAYS: Yeah. Well, Mr. Grier and/or attorney, but the main thing is that somebody representing the corporation meet with our Administrator and Attorney. CLERK: Okay. That was the motion, gentlemen. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now back to the -- CLERK: Items 30with the exception of Item 31, 30 through 42 were -- approved by the Public Services Committee on February the 10th. [Item 30: Approval of contracts between Augusta-Richmond County and Jimmy L. Ferguson, Jr., Janet Olivia Stuckey, Greg R. Pridgen, Shawn Crosby, Heather Disher, Joselyn Lawson, Torri L. Williams, Claudanett Williams, Samuel K. Bethea, Julie Bagwell, Wakia Denisce Martin, Napoleon Hooks, Archie L. Williams, Jr., and Torence F. Tammell regarding their services as officiants in Recreation Department activities. Item 32: Approval of Assignment of Contract with Shelter Ad Systems to Lamar Transit Advertising. Item 33: Approval of request by Katherine Zawacki for a game room license to be used in connection with Papapia's Pizza located at 3741 Peach Orchard Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 6, Super District 10 Item 34: Approval of request by Jerry Lee Kight for consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Town Tavern Restaurant located at #15 Seventh Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1, Super District 9 Item 35: Approval of a transfer request by Norman Smoot for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Neighborhood Food Store located at 1738 Old Savannah Road. District 9 Item 36: Approval of new application request by Mark W. Baldwin for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with California Dreaming Restaurant located at 3241 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7, Super District 10 Item 37: Approval of transfer application request by Susan Beckum Griffin for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Adams Lounge located at 1075 Stevens Creek Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7, Super District 10 Item 38: Approval of new application request by Kihwan Kim for a retain package beer & wine license to be used in connection with A's Convenience Store located at 1857A Gordon Highway. District 5, Super District 9 Item 39: Approval of new ownership application request by John Carl Black for a consumption on premises beer & wine license to be used in connection with Le Bayou Cafe located at 3328 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7, Super District 10 Item 40: Approval of transfer application request by Sterling S. Stewart for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with Wal-Mart Supercenter #1293 located at 3209 Deans Bridge Road. District 5, Super District 9 Item 41: Approval of transfer application request by Calvin M. DeLoach for a retail package beer & wine license to be used in connection with R & L Deli located at 3324 Mike Padgett Highway. District 2, Super District 9 Item 42: Approval of transfer application request by James Whitey Lester for a consumption on premises liquor & beer license to be used in connection with the Riverfront Pub located at 531 Broad Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1, Super District 9] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is Item 37 included in Sunday sales? I believe it is. CLERK: Is Stewart here? MR. WALKER: Item 37? MR. J. BRIGHAM: 37, I believe, is Sunday sales. I believe that's on the application, but I didn't see it in the caption. MR. MAYS: That's on Adams, Stewart. MR. WALKER: [inaudible] MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you looking at this one? MR. MAYS: He inherited Miller's speed. CLERK: I have the application here. I don'tyes, sir, it is Sunday -- sales. It's on the application, it wasn't on the caption. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner said that was Sunday sales. CLERK: Yes, sir, it is Sunday sales. On premises consumption for Sunday sales on Item 37. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that Items 30 through 42, with the exception of 31 which has already been voted on, be approved as a consent agenda and that the audience be checked to see if there are any objectors to the items which contain applications for alcohol beverages. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? Do we have any objectors to any of these items? MR. ZETTERBERG: Through which item? CLERK: Through 42. Items 30 through 42, with the exception of 31 be approved as a consent agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL & MR. BRIDGES VOTE NO ON ITEMS WITH SUNDAY SALES. MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEMS 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 30, 32, 35, 38, 40, 41. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Item 43: Approval of a transfer application request by James Whitey Lester for a consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Discotheque Lounge located at 533 Broad Street. 2 There will be adult entertainment. No recommendation from Public Services. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go ahead and do 44? Because both of them together, aren't they? CLERK: Okay. You want to do them both? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes. CLERK: 44 is approval of a transfer by James Whitey Lester for consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with the Joker Lounge located at 212 Sixth Street. There will be adult entertainment. No recommendation. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, before a vote is taken on this, regardlessI'm -- not sure what motion might be made, but I would like the opportunity to have a legal session and to give some legal advice to the Commission before they vote on these two items. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we go into executive session for legal advice on these two items. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to go into a legal, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go into legal session. COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL SESSION, 2:50 - 3:20 P.M. MAYOR SCONYERS: Our meeting will come back to order, please. We need a motion on 43 and 44, gentlemen. MR. KUHLKE: I move for approval, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Kuhlke. Who was the second of that? MR. MAYS: I seconded it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? Seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY, MR. TODD & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MAYOR SCONYERS BREAKS TIE WITH A YES VOTE. MOTION CARRIES 6-5. MAYOR SCONYERS: I always get to vote on the controversial votes. Next item, please. CLERK: Item 45 is approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on AprilI mean, I'm sorry, on January 18th [sic], 1997, -- with a correction on Page 12 with Powell voting no, not Bridges. MR. TODD: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard? Who made the motion, please? CLERK: Mr. Todd, I believe. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays made the motion? CLERK: Mr. Todd. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd made the motion? MR. TODD: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Motion by Mr. Todd. Who made the second? Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: I'll second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve the minutes, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 46 is discussion of the Internal Auditor's Contract. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I asked that this be put on the agenda. And what it is, is the minutes that are being passed out now are the minutes where this contract was awarded. They do not reflectthe contract does not -- reflect the minutes, it's something totally different, so I'd like to make a motion that we cancel the existing contract and issue a new contract to Kip Plowman with a 30-day cancellation. MR. TODD: I second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if I may start from this end. Mr. Mayor, I think it's critical that we have a Internal Auditor, and this dilemma had us without one for more than 30 days. We need someone to do the internal auditing of the governmental--intergovernmental departments and the quasi- nonprofits or other entities that receive tax dollars. We also need help as far as, I would assume, Sunday sales and other areas also. And I feel that it's one of the checks and balances that's called for by county ordinance, and if it wasn't important, then those that came before me wouldn't have put it in the county ordinance. So therefore I'm supporting this in the sense that it's what's in the best interest of this county government is to get this off dead- center and move forward. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, two questions. Number one, in the past who has billed the county for this function, and who can answer that question for me? The other is, what are the provisions in the present contract that we have with Baird and associates from the standpoint of cancellation? MR. OLIVER: The county has paid Baird & Company for services performed relating to internal audit. As it relates to the contract that we signed before I got here, it was executed by the Mayor, it was basicallyand I -- don't have it before me, it's a two-year agreement. It did not providethe -- second one did not provide for a cancellation provision. The one that was executed some three weeks before that provided for a cancellation provision, my recollection is, the end of each year. MR. KUHLKE: But the amendment that we passed does not provide for any cancellation agreement? MR. OLIVER: The second one and the one that we're currently under, and my conversation with Ed Sumner at GMA, no, it does not. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, my only comment, and certainly I'm not directing this to any individual or to the firm, but I know that we all got a letter probably recently where Mr. Powell, who is thebasically directed the -- function of the jail was leaving his firm. Our contract on the jail for the architectural work was with the firm, but Mr. Joe Powell was the one that did the direct work. And I frankly think that we are putting ourselves in a bad position to turn around and cancel a contract with somebody that obviously we thought we had a contract with since we've been paying them for the last few months and then cancelling a contract that we have no cancellation clause in. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, to address what Mr. Kuhlke has said, the minutes of the meeting and the intention of the motion that I made to approve this in the previous contract is not reflected in the contract. The contract is totally different from the minutes and, I mean, we've got a problem. Somebody needs to review these contracts or something on that order. But that was not my intention when I made the motion and I would just like us to put it out here and vote on it. I don't know how the other gentlemen here feel, but the intent was to give Mr. Plowman the internal audit contract and that has not been done. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? Mr. Todd, then Mr. Kuhlke. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would assume that Mr. Powell is referring to the clause onthe paragraph on the second page that's highlighted, and certainly -- it would appear that that's the way the motion was made. And if we're letting another contract, then certainly I would want towant it to not be implied -- that there is an escape clause. I would want the County Attorney, when he draw up this contract, to put in an escape clause. To do a contract for two years without an escape clause, even with Mr. Plowman, is not acceptable to me and I would hope that we could amend the motion to do that, that, you know, we have a 30-day notice or whatever or for cause that we could terminate the contract. MR. POWELL: Point of information, Mr. Chairman, that is in the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to ask this question, because it seems to me like we're getting in the same box. Are we talking about enteringis Mr. Plowman working independently on this contract or is this -- with his firm? I understand, Mr. Plowman, that you moved from Baird & Company to Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, and are you going to work indepen-dently on this? It seems to me like we're getting in the same box. MR. PLOWMAN: I think the discussion, the way it was intended and, you know, from all the discussionsand I obviously never had any intentions of -- changing and moving. But what I was intending from what y'all were doing wasyou know, you wanted to make it with me specifically, and then I was -- using the support services of the firm I was with, which has now changed. Support services would include using the personnel there, doing the billings and that kind of thing. So I guess the answer to your question is it'syou're making a contract with me and I'm using the support services of -- the firm to provide all the people and the training. But it wasthat was -- the direction that the Commissioners wanted to go. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke, was that an answer to your question? MR. KUHLKE: Probably not, but -- MAYOR SCONYERS: I think the question was, are you with another firm now? MR. PLOWMAN: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: And I think Mr. Kuhlke's question was, the billing is going to be to that firm? Is that correct, Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir. MR. PLOWMAN: Well, yeah, we each do our billing [inaudible]. MR. KUHLKE: Who will we write the check to under this arrangement, Kip? Who will write the check to? MR. PLOWMAN: Well, just providing administrative services, it will be to the firm, just from my own records. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I'd like to make a substitute motion then, that the Commissionwe void the contract with Baird & Company, that we hire Mr. -- Kip Plowman, and the contract be written such that it identifies that Mr. Plowman will use the services of his current firm. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw the original motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're down to one motion, Mr. Zetterberg's motion that was seconded by Mr. Bridges. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Just a second, Mr. Todd. I mean, we just got this motion on the floor and I think we need to find out from the Attorney exactly what direction we need to take from this point. MR. WALL: Well, I've been hesitant to say anything because it's on the record that the Baird & Company firm has done the accounting work both for me individually and my law firm sinceI guess since I came to Augusta in '74, -- and I think most of the Commissioners are aware of that prior to the last agreement. You know, you've gotten an opinion from GMA insofar as the contract is concerned, and without rehashing all the discussion that led up to the two agreementsyou know, the original agreement had Mr. Cosnahan's name in it at -- the time that I met withthe Mayor and I met with Mr. Cosnahan, and that -- washis name was taken out of the contract and Mr. Plowman's name was put -- into the contract, but ityou know, that was for the purpose of a contact. -- Your intent may have been to contactcontract with an individual. My only -- question at this point is, if we're entering into a contract with Mr. Plowman to use the support services, is there or is there not to be a termination provision. MR. POWELL: I think there's a termination30 days' termination was in -- the original motion, and I can ask Mr. Zetterberg to amend his motion to that. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to amend my motion to include a 30-day escape clause. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I can vote for the motion that's on the floor. I have no problem supporting Mr. Plowman. I'm still, I guess, a little hesitant about one thing, and it probably gets back to Mr. Kuhlke's question. And I'm wondering, probably what's more important is what is the intent of the Commission. Do we plan to hire an individual that basically uses support services or are we hiring a firm? And I think that if we are hiring the individual and we are pleased with the individual, then what may best serve in terms of clarityand I don't know whether any contractual agreement that Mr. -- Plowman may be in with his new firm that would prohibit this, but I think the clearest thing to do would be to hire him, deal with the contract, and then let him contract whatever services from his firm that he so chooses, and I think then you clear the issue then of who you hire. Because at that point what you're getting into still is that who have you got, do you have a firm or do you have an individual? And I'm not saying Mr. Plowman will be moving. And I support what he has done. I have no problem with him in dealing with the job. But I think if you're trying to get it clear, then if helet's just hypothetically say he moves again. I mean, -- then do you have Cherry, Bekaert & Holland or do you have Mr. Plowman? Now, maybe the exit clause covers that part of it, and if it does, then, you know, we can go ahead on and vote for it, but I'm just asking probably for clarity what should be done. Because I think it's the general consensus we want our own internal auditor and that person contracts out with a million people, as long as he gets the job done, then I think we're looking at that person in order to make sure that those things are done properly. And I think we came up with a question this time, regardless of what the intentions of these minutes were or what the words were, we found that basically we were using a firm and it was unclear if we had to cancel a contract. So then do we cancel the contract the next time with a firm or do we cancel it with an individual? And I'm just trying to get it clear so that we have that once and for all. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: I believe it was the intent of the original minutes and the intent of today to specifically ask for the services of Mr. Kip Plowman. Now, as far as my motion goes, I could modify that motion to say that Mr. Plowman can use the services of anybody else he wants. I'd be more than willing to do that. Your question is specifically Cherry, Bekaert & Holland; right? MR. MAYS: Well, I have no problem with either firm and definitely will vote for the person that's out there. But I guess as far as clarity, when you asked a few minutes ago who would do the billing and who the check would be made toI think if your intentions are to hire an individual, but if I'm -- hearing that the check is made to the firm, then contractually then who are you dealing with? You are hiring an individual and you are paying the firm. I think in the part of clarity maybe it should be better that you pay the individual and then let the individual deal with whoever he contracts with, if it's ABC Accounting Services, and let them handle it. But I think if your intentions are to deal with an individual, then that's who you need to hire. Because, you know, and I'm just using this hypothetically, maybe the next time it might not be as graceful a move in leaving. Now, if your exit clause covers that, Jim, I don't have a problem with it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. What I'd like to do is ask Mr. Wall for clarification on that. Maybe he could put it in the right kind of wording for us so that we avoid that problem. But I believe that the minutes of the original meeting reflected that we wanted the services of Mr. Plowman, No question in my mind that we want the services of Mr. Plowman. He's got a great deal of experience. And specifically I don't care who he uses, but I think it ought to be clear enough, and I'd like to have Mr. Wall's opinion. MR. WALL: Well, my recommendation would be that you contract not with Kip Plowman individually, that you enter a contract with his firm, Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, with a provision in there thata key-man provision, that -- Mr. Plowman is the key man under the contract that you're looking to to carry out those services, and that will solve that problem. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like toon the advice of counsel, I would like to -- modify my motion that we contract with Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, with Mr. Plowman as the key man in that contract. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, the original contract that we had, it was for Baird & Company and that Kip Plowman was the contact person. So what I'm hearing today, that the contract has been changed, and it changed fromnot even Baird & Company, from J.T. Cosnahan to Kip Plowman. And I was -- about to say before the commotion came up just then that Kip Plowman is not in business for himself, so how can we hire him as an individual without a business license, without a business, to do internal auditing? It would have to go to a firmsome kind of firm in order to do that. -- And so if we're swapping firmswe already have a firm, so what's the -- difference? So something tells me now is that ifjust for example, if Kip -- had never left, would we be taking it from Baird & Company or are we just taking it from Baird & Company and moving it to Cherry, Bekaert & Holland because Kip leaving? So we're basing the contract on an individual, not as an internal auditor, and that's what we're going by here now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Cosnahan, did you want to say something? MR. COSNAHAN: Yes, if I could just a minute, sir. The contract is with Baird & Company, not with an individual. Mr. Plowman knows this quite well. CPA firms do not make contracts with individual partners or with people that work for them. [inaudible]. That is just not done. And the contract that we have does have a mediation clause. Nobody is asking for mediation because I don't think we need any. But as of right now our firm is doing the departmental audits. I have supervised every one of those. At our January 15th meeting that we had to meet with the audit committee, included in it was License & Inspections, we have two reports for that; the RCCI, we have a report on that; and then Central Services we have a report on. I supervised every one of those. And as far as experience, Mr. Plowman I don't believe had any municipal experience until he got with us. To my knowledge, when he was with us he did not have any of the CPE [inaudible] in order to do an external audit. It's not required for internal, but in order to do an external audit you have to have so many hours per year to do municipal audits. I have that, our firm. Mr. Plowman never had it. We've got the contract, we've got all of the work papers, we intend to work. To my knowledge we're doing a good job and we'd like to keep on doing the job. MAYOR SCONYERS: Coming back to the left side. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, just a second. Coming right on around. Mr. Mays, do you have anything to add? MR. MAYS: No, Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm basically clear on where you're voting with it. But, again, I still get back to what I said originally, is that when we decided in the situation after the former internal auditor was gone and we basically got into this situation, which I think was for the better, that we needed to make a decision one way or another as to whether we were going toand obviously because of contractual tie-ups, if we're dealing -- with the person we're dealing with, which I have no problem with, that person probably because of money and everything else couldn't come to work for this county. But I don't think we ought to be making motions of where we intended to hire an individual and then we are contracting with a firm. It ought to just be simply said that we're changing firms. Because I still get back to that if the individual has got to leave that firm, then what we are seeing todayand -- I have no problem with that. But, you know, to me this was a waste of time bringing these minutes back up in terms of what the intention of the minutes were, to say, well, we intended to hire Kip. Well, then if Kip was tied to Baird then, if Kip is tied to Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, if Kip moves again he's going to be tied to somebody else, then let's just simply deal with a firm and be done with it. Because you are notregardless of what you're -- putting in the motion, you're not hiring an individual, you are hiring a firm, and I think that ought to be clarified, not leave here thinking we're hiring an individual. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Coming on around. Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yeah, I'd like to say a couple of things. First of all, my motion had nothing to do with the work performed by Baird & Company. My motion is because during that voting we specifically asked that Mr. Plowman be the one that we wanted the contract with. That later on was changed for some reason and not reflected Mr. Plowman. Again I'd like to reiterate that I believe if we take a vote we'll determine whether this board wants to keep Mr. Plowman or stay with Baird & Company, and I think we should vote as the motion has been substituted and that we go ahead and vote on it now. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver, did you want to say something? MR. OLIVER: Having worked for a public accounting firm, I have one question because I think that it's something that we need to know. It's not uncommon when you work with an accounting firm, that if you leave that accounting firm that there is some provision as it relates to accounts and accounts that you may be the accountant manager for. And this is for Mr. Plowman and Mr. Cosnahan. Is there any form of an agreement between the two parties that would preclude Mr. Plowman from continuing in this role if the board moved in that direction? MR. COSNAHAN: Yes, sir. Our partnership agreement includes a provision that anybody that leaves the firmany partner that leaves the firm will not -- take any of the accounts within a two-year period. MR. OLIVER: Do you have a position on that, Mr. Plowman? Because I don't see moving an account -- MR. PLOWMAN: That's a separate issue that would have to be decided separately. MR. OLIVER: I just think that it's something that the Commission should be aware of so that we don't get involved potentially later. MR. COSNAHAN: If I could add one other thing to the comments [inaudible] as far as the difference between the firm and an individual. To my knowledge, Mr. Plowman does not carry any separate insurance, for instance, as far as professional liability is concerned. That was all carried by the firm. All of the employees were hired by the firm. We have made an investment in the people to do the work. We have also made an investment in the equipment we use and so forth to do the work. That's the reason we wanted the two-year contract, so that we could go ahead and determine that and do some long-range planning. So we're going to be kind of caught, as you can well expect, insofar as people and equipment is concerned if you [inaudible]. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer a substitute motion that we retain the contract with Baird & Company. MR. HANDY: I'll second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion bysubstitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, -- seconded by Mr. Handy. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question if it's back over here. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just for a point of clarification, I guess, I'd just like to ask the Parliamentarian or Parliamentarian/legal opinion in this question. We've got a motion and a substitute motion on the floor. Is the original motionin light of what we have heard in these surroundings, do we -- not have to deal with firm to firm in these motions in order to make us legal? MR. WALL: Well, the -- MR. MAYS: I mean, I want somebody who the check ought to be made to, but I'm talking about what the contract is going to say. Because I want to be legal when I vote, because I don't want to deal with something where we're dealing with something 30 days down the road and we get served notice by somebody that they are still in charge or somebody else can't do the work. It ought to be clear on what we're going to leave here with. MR. WALL: The main motion is the motion by Mr. Zetterberg, which is to enter into a contract with Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, with Mr. Plowman as the key man under that contract. The substitute motion is to retain the firm of Baird & Company as the Internalor to have Baird & Company as the Internal -- Auditor. MR. MAYS: So it is firm to firm? MR. WALL: Firm to firm, with a key man in the Cherry, Bekaert & Holland motion. MR. MAYS: And we are clear on all releases of doing this one? MR. WALL: No, sir. MR. MAYS: Well, I meanyou know, I mean, if we need to deal with -- something legal in there, I mean, then we may need to. Because I'm saying I'm hearing clauses and we've not talked about clauses. Now, if there's another clause somewhere that we ain't talking about, then maybe we're in a clause that we don't need to close a clause today. MR. WALL: Well, the opinion has been rendered by GMA, Mr. Sumner, that the contract is with Baird & Company, and you have that opinion there. You have Baird & Company here saying that theytheir agreement among themselves -- as partners is that that contract is with the firm and not individually. Then, you know, you've got the other contention that the intent of the motion was that the contract be with an individual, and whether or not that would've been appropriate for Mr. Plowman to have entered into that agreement is something that I assume would have to be dealt with at some time. But to say that there are releases, I mean, I don't know what Baird & Company may or may not do if, in fact, the contract is awarded to Cherry, Bekaert & Holland. MR. MAYS: Well, I guess that's my question to a point that does the contract need to be reviewed that we are under to your satisfaction before we move forward with something different. MR. WALL: I think I would have to abstain and request that you get an opinion from someone else concerning that because of the position that I'm in and because of questions that have already arisen concerning my relationship with Baird & Company. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my preference to vote, as I said earlier when we started this thing, I have no problems with the services that Mr. Plowman has done for us. I came here basically prepared to vote for Kip in this situation, but, you know, when I'm hearingand I can respect Jim's position of where he -- is, and I think that's what he should do, but I think if we do not know contractually where we are going with a contract that we are already in and we're fixing to vote to get out from under one to get into another one and we got the Attorney abstaining, then, hell, I'm sure going to abstain with him. I ain't going to give you a vote on nothing, that's where I'm going to be with it. I'm going to vote present on the substitute motion and the original one, and then when he comes back with an opinion, then I'll have an opinion about voting. But I'm not going to give a vote on one there where he's dealing with it in that manner, and I respect that, but I want to know what's in that contract before we get out from under it. I mean, we get sued enough as it is. We don't need a darn lawsuit to pop up because we're still contractually tied to a firm and we just released them. We can't go around here voting to release from contracts and we don't know what the hell is in the contract. So I'm going to vote present. If you're taking a roll call or whatever vote y'all make on this matter, I'm justyou can record me as present, Madame -- Clerk, and that'll save time on my vote. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, thank you for calling back on me. A contract binding partners is a civil matter between those partners and don't bind this governing body or this policy-setting body. That's my position as far as any contract go. As far as the conflict go, I think there is probably more than one conflict of interest sitting here, and I want to declare that I don't do any business with Baird & Company or Cherry, Bekaert & Holland. I don't have enough money to count myself, so I want to declare I have no conflict, and I'm ready to vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first, gentlemen. Do y'all need the motions reread so we know exactly what we're voting on? MR. BRIDGES: Please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you reread the motions, Ms. Bonner, please? CLERK: Okay. The substitute motion made by Mr. Kuhlke, second by Mr. Handy, was to retain Baird & Company as the Internal Auditor. The motion by Mr. Zetterberg was to void the contract with Baird & Company and to contract with Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, to stipulate Kip Plowman as the point man, with a 30-day cancellation clause. MR. WALL: Key man. CLERK: Key man? As the key man, yeah. MR. HANDY: I think he said hit man. CLERK: Is that what it was? Three letter words, you have to watch them. MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first. Did somebody say they wanted a roll call vote? CLERK: No, he just said if we did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Kuhlke, to retain Baird & Company. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY & MR. KUHLKE VOTE YES; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MR. H. BRIGHAM DID NOT REGISTER A VOTE. MOTION FAILS 6-2-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: The original motion by Mr. Zetterberg. All in favor of Mr. Zetterberg's motion, let it be known by raising your hand. MR. HANDY & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MR. H. BRIGHAM DID NOT REGISTER A VOTE. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-2. CLERK: Item 47: An Ordinance to adopt Title Three of The Augusta- Richmond County Code; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting ordinances of the City Council of Augusta and of Richmond County; and for other purposes. Second Reading. Approved by the Commission on January 18th. MR. WALL: This has to do with Public Safety, this Title. MR. TODD: I so move that we approve theis this the first reading or -- second? CLERK: Second. MR. TODD: Approve the second reading. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Who seconded this? MR. KUHLKE: I did. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 49: A Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to sponsor legislation to allow Richmond County to assess against property the cost of reopening or repairing streets and roads as necessitated by construction activity or other activity carried on on such property. MR. WALL: Georgia used to allow for population statutes, and what you see in the book is one of the population statutes which was applicable only to counties having a population of 550,000 or more, which effectively meant that it was only applicable to Fulton County. We have had problems in the past, and there are two specific instances that I could cite to you where construction trafficvehicular traffic continually brings dirt and mud onto -- the highway. We have tried in the past to bring cases under the soil and sedimentation control ordinance with no success, and in order to clearly have authority to enact the kind of ordinance that I would like to enact, I think it may take general legislation from the General Assembly, and that is the purpose of this resolution. And I recommend approval because that would clearly give the county the authority to enact ordinances to control that situation. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Under the addendum agenda, approve lease and management agreement with Value Lodge to manage hotel at Bush Field Airport, subject to the airport board, Administrator, and Attorney approval. MR. WALL: This is something that has sort of unfolded over the last week to ten days. The Aviation Commission entered into a letter of intent last week with Value Lodge to take over the hotel that is out there, and we have been working over the last several days to put this agreement together. I think that most of the terms have been finalized. In essence, during the first and second year it is a five percent of total gross revenue with a minimum of $12,000 per year. During the third and fourth years it's seven percent of the total gross revenues and ten percent of revenues onwell, ten -- percent on alcohol and catering plus ten percent on all other facilities, and then after that there would be a right of first refusal insofar as extensions are concerned. They plan to make some improvements within the facility and obviously are anxious to get started to do those in order that they can be accomplished prior to Masters, therefore, I requested that this be added to the agenda so that it can be moved forward, subject to final approval from Mr. Oliver and finalizing certain other provisions, and obviously ultimately it'll have to be approved by the Aviation Commission itself. We feel like this is a good agreement. It gets us out of the operation of the hotel business which we're currently in through HLC as a management firm, and I recommend approval of it. MR. TODD: I'm going to so move to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second to Mr. Todd's motion? MR. MAYS: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess to the County Attorney, do we have any outstanding liabilities as far as the operation go under the old entity? And I don't necessarily need the legal details if we do, but are we holding them accountable any way if we do? MR. WALL: You're talking about with the existing management firm? MR. TODD: Yes, sir. MR. WALL: That has been a struggle. We have been back and forth, back and forth, insofar as finalizing the terms of the agreement. We're both operating under the terms of an old agreement that we sort of inherited and been trying to negotiate it. But the final agreement with HLC, the Aviation Commission has never finalized the terms of that agreement with HLC. So in answer to your question, I don't think we have any outstanding obligations that cannot be addressed. MR. TODD: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Randy? MR. OLIVER: I'd like to give credit to Al McDill, who is the Airport Director who is here, who was instrumental in negotiating that agreement. And it's through his efforts that this has come about, because clearly this is something that is beneficial to the community. MR. McDILL: Is it appropriate for me to comment? MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all right with you, Mr. ToddI mean, Mr. -- Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, that's good. Yeah, that's fine. Just meeting you, I don't want to cut you off like that. Go ahead. MR. McDILL: I'm sorry, I didn't see your hand up. MR. HANDY: That's okay. MR. McDILL: I just wanted to say it's my first appearance before the Commission. I'm pleased to be in the community, look forward to working with you. This was the number one priority of the airport commission to try to resolve this particular issue. We are subsidizing this operation to the tune of about $13,500 a month, so we are obviously anxious to get it open for Masters. But there are two reasons that we would like to resolve this issue: it's the financial consideration as well as having the full facility open for the Masters, including the restaurant. And Mr. Wall spoke to the improvements. There are some $260,000 worth of specified improvements that are a part of this contract, so. And this right of first refusal would be something that would be exercised should we put out a request for proposals and Value Lodge or whomever rises to the occasion. The other option might be that the hotel would be demolished in order to construct a [inaudible]. So those are the two things that are there [inaudible] the structure and the terms of this contract for four years. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. Who is Augusta Aviation Commission, the people that we appointed? MAYOR SCONYERS: You mean at Bush Field? MR. HANDY: I thought he said Augusta Aviation Commission. MR. WALL: That is a board and authority that ultimately, yes, you will be making appointments to. Currently the members of the commission were appointed by the former City Council of Augusta, and they have continued to serve in that capacity. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please. CLERK: Next item on the addendum agenda, to approve the final plat approval of Walton Acres, Phase III, with the developer giving the county a $50,000 letter of credit to ensure completion of site improvements. MR. POWELL: Move for approval. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion and a second. All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Next item is the grievance of Jason Beard from the Augusta- Richmond County Fire Department. MR. LONG: Members of the Commission, I'm Jack Long. I'm a lawyer, I represent Jason Beard. Mr. Beard is here following his termination from the Fire Department because of a random drug test. I have sent members of the Commission some information. I believe the facts of the case were that the testingone, that the county policy was not followed. The testing facility -- that initially ran the test was not certified as the county policy provides. The test results were not sent back to the Medical Review Officer to meet with Mr. Beard like the policy says. There are federal regulations that indicate that the mere fact that you did a test does not mean somebody tested positive for cocaine. The facts of the case were that Mr. Beardhis wife works for the Board -- of Health. They ran a test and they sent the test to someplace in Virginia which is not certified. It took about a week to get them back. When he was notified by the Personnel Department, his wife got a doctor at the Board of Health to immediately order a test. He went to Mullins Lab, somebody in Augusta that can do the same test. He passed the test, he was free of cocaine. He's a truck driver on the side. He takes plenty of tests. I believe the county has a problem with your underlying policy in that it's not consistent with the Department of Transportation policy which requires that at the time of sampling two samples are taken. If one is tested, if that's not good, then the other is sent to another laboratory, not the same laboratory. And we expect the county to try to come back, or the Personnel Department, and justify what they've done by saying, oh, we got some left over urine sample and we had this lab, Labcorp, the one that was not certified, send it to somebody else in the same company, and that's not the same thing. In other words, you don't have a backup system. But the man, as soon as he was notified, he passed his local test. I really don't know why Richmond County, the second largest city, Augusta, why we can't run tests here locally to get tests back immediately. And I'm sure my opponent would say, well, look here, urine canI mean, cocaine can go out of your system in 72 hours and it took -- almost a week to get the test results back on this man. He's been working for the government for 11 years and never had any trouble. He's passed numerous other tests. In light of the fact that the county's own policies were not followed, I would suggest that he not be terminated. I would like to point out to you even though we have a zero tolerance, the basic manual does not automatically require that someone be terminated. That is up to termination, but it does not require termination. In light of the fact that your own policy was not followed in this case, I would ask y'all not to terminate him. Any questions? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to hear from the Personnel folks and the County Attorney on this. MS. D'ALESSIO: Thank you. As Mr. Long said, this deal is due to the termination of Mr. Beard from the Fire Department. It comes to you as a recommendation from the Personnel board that you do uphold the termination. The Personnel board hearing was held and evidence was taken. That evidence showed that Mr. Beard was off duty Tuesday and Wednesday, November 5th and 6th of last year. He came on duty Thursday, November 7th. He was called in for a random drug [end of Tape 1] on that day, and y'all have a copy of that. At the Personnel board hearing Sandy Wright testified as to the procedures that are followed. At the collection site the employee goes in to be tested, and I think it's very important that y'all understand the safeguards that are in place at the collection site. And Sandy had this at the hearing and I want to show it to you now. When the employee goes in, this is the container that the collection site people use. It is sealed. Inside there is a vial for the urine sample, and there's paperwork, and there's a plastic bag. It's sealed at the time and it's opened in front of the employee. This is the vial that the urine sample is placed in in front of the employee. And as you can see, there is an adhesive strip that's placed across the top with a number on it, identification number, and with places for the initials of the employee and the date. This is sealed up and it's placed in a plastic bag. This is the plastic bag. Sandy had one at the hearing. Inside is the vial. You can see the paperwork where the sample is identified by number. This is sealed up with glue at the top, which you might can see. Once it is sealed, there also in front of the employee, the only way that you can get at the sample is to physically tear the bag apart. You have to rip it apart to get at it. It's sent like this to the lab in Herndon, Virginiaat -- that time in Herndon, Virginia. There's been a lot of discussion with this appeal on previous appeals about the fact that the lab is out of state, and I have responded to Mr. Long's communication to y'all about this particular appeal and explained that that decision was made because that lab is certified to test our Transit employees the way they have to be tested under federal regulations. Again, y'all have heard before, federal regulations, as Mr. Long mentioned, only apply to Transit employees. They don't apply to any other employees in the entire government. They are followed for the Transit employees. Parts of them we've adopted for other employees, but we don't have to do that for the other employees. The split sample that he mentioned is only required for Transit employees by federal regulations, and we do that for them. It's not required for the other employees. That lab is certified and it has what is called a gas chromatograph mass spectrometry machine, which is a very expensive, sophisticated piece of equipment that is used to do confirmatory tests when your initial screening, which is sort of crude, indicates this might be a positive. They run it through this confirmatory test which eliminates any false positives and shows whether indeed the sample is positive. We are not aware of any labs locally that have that DHHS certification so that the Transit folks can be covered there, and we're not aware of any labs locally, except possibly one, that have that GCMS testing capability, which again is the most sophisticated confirmatory test available. Mr. Beard's sample was returned from the Labcorp offices with a positive result for cocaine. The level was at greater than 1,000. The cutoff is 150. They stop testingthey -- stop showing the level at greater than 1,000. You have in front of you in that package a copy of the Labcorp results and a copy of the MRO report, and I know that y'all are familiar with the MRO. We've talked about that doctor's position before. He reviews the positive results, he reviews the chain of custody that he receives from the lab to confirm that all steps were followed, and then he contacts the employee. There was some discussion that I addressed in response to you about does it have to be sitting down face to face. The policy specifies that it has to be a personal consultation. He does that over the telephone in an effort to get to the employee quickly. He talks about whether there could be anything else that might have caused this positive result. If all other possibilitiesmedical possibilities are -- eliminated, then he confirms, yes, this is a positive result. Mr. Beard's test was confirmed positive by the MRO. You have that paperwork. The next step was that he filed a grievance with Linda Beazley, then the County Administrator. He was represented there by Mr. Long, and he volunteered and asked that he be allowed to take a polygraph exam. That's not standard procedure. That was allowed and he did submit to that exam. Before the exam, on November 14th, as Mr. Long said, he went and had an independent test done. But as he stated, the MRO testified cocaine leaves the system within 48 to 72 hours depending on a lot of things such as your weight, your metabolism, et cetera. On November 22nd he took the polygraph exam with a GBI agent in Thomson. They did a pretest interview, he understood all the questions, he gave the agent all of his answers, then he was actually connected to the machine and went through the test. There were relevant and control questions asked. To the questions "are you being completely truthful about this incident" and the question "within the last 30 days have you ingested cocaine in your body," the results of the test indicated deception. The cutoff level, as it were, is minus three. If he scores a minus 3 or greater, then it indicates deception. The answers to those questions were minus five and minus six. Based on that, the GBI agent formed his opinion and he testified to the Personnel board the results of the test indicated deception. The question was raised in the Personnel board hearing, well, could Mr. Beard have been exposed to cocaine somehow through the air if he was putting out a fire in a crack area or something like that. The MRO testified that the cutoff levels are geared in part to screen out any of those incidental exposures. He testified that, in his opinion, there was absolutely no reason for this test to have been positive except for the presence of cocaine in Mr. Beard's body. Some co-workers of Mr. Beard testified at the hearing about the type of person he was, however, none of those people are his direct supervisor in the Fire Department. Finally, at the hearing Mr. Long asked why nobody had retested the remaining sample and suggested that possibly the machine's calibration could have been off during the first test and that would throw all the other test results askew. So we did have the test redone at a Labcorp facility. This one was in North Carolina. And the retest paperwork is in your package, the MRO's report, and the lab analysis report. The lab this time was asked tell us the specific number, and that number was 5,778 nanograms. And, again, the cutoff is 150. I think that all of this evidence was sufficient for the Personnel board to reach the decision and recommendation that it made, and is sufficient for y'all to uphold and agree with that recommendation. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we uphold the recommendation of the Personnel board. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Because of the nature of this I'm going to abstain. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. H. BRIGHAM: May I ask a question? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I understand that it was stated that this test could be done here in Augusta; is that -- MR. LONG: Yes, sir. I think my opponent has just said at the last here that Augusta can do these tests. And these employeesthere's been a problem -- with the tests. You can have a confirmatory test done at another lab within 24 hours or something before the urine [sic] leaves the body. I don't know of any reason that Richmond County, Georgia, why we can't have these tests done locally. I'm tired of everything having to go out of town when we've got the best medical community probably in the country right here. So I think Mr. Brigham asked a good question. It could be done here locally. MS. D'ALESSIO: Sandy Wright may want to speak to that because she has investigated the ability of local labs. Again, we understand that possibly MCG has this equipment. We don't know if they could handle the volume of testing that we have. We know that they're not DHHS certified, which again is required for our Transit employees. We don't know of any other local lab that either have the certification or that sophisticated testing. MR. LONG: If I could respond to that for just a second. If they want to use the Department of Transportation regulations, and those are pretty much like the military, they have a backup system. You can send it to a third lab, not the same lab. There's no reason not to doyou know, one, they want to -- say, well, we want to send them all to the same lab, and they don't want to use the same testing policies, and that's the whole problem. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, one of the reasons I understand why we go out of town to labs is that, one, we want to certainly protect the chain of custody, we want to protect thesafeguard the employee from false positives, and with -- this high-tech technology and testing I feel that it do that. And certainly we get away from a possibility of losing that chain of custody with a possibility of local folks having access to local labs. I think I was probably one of the individuals that pushed for the Medical Review Officer in the sense that all of the cases wasn't going to the Medical Review Officer. Everybody know where I stand as far as protecting the integrity of the test, safeguarding the interest of the employee as far as false positives go, and making sure that we're doing the right thing for the taxpayers as far as the protection and sensitive areas of duty, protection of property and life, and doing the right thing as far as the employee go to assure that that employee is fit for duty and is not going to go out there and hurt someone else or hurt themselves. So that's my position. I think that the evidence is overwhelming here. I've never seen one to come back at this rate. Maybe we never requested over 1,000, but certainly not at this rate to come back. I participate personally in substance abuse tests. I have also volunteered to be called in at random, I don't care where I'm at, to participate in the county's at random. One thing they told me when I volunteered is that we'll call you, you know, you're not going to have the option of when you come in, and I think that's the way it ought to be. I'm tested at work. I've been tested over the last 15 years. I volunteered and took a test when I run for this position originally, and I'm tested at least one to two times a year. And I've never heard of such as far as a false positive at this level, and especially when you use the high-tech equipment that's now in existence. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. LONG: Mr. Chairman, if I could respond. If the test was that highthis man voluntarily took a test as soon as they called. He went up to -- Mullins Lab, he was clear of cocaine. You have those test results. The man was not on cocaine. Now, you know, I'm sorry the county wants to send this halfway acrossyou know, up to Washington, D.C. or something like that to be -- tested. But this man did a backup test to show that he was not on cocaine, and if they are saying he was stoned on cocaine, it would've been on him when he got the test back. He did what he could to do. The problem with this test, it doesn't protect the rights of the employee. No commercial business has such a policy as this in Richmond County. MR. TODD: Mr. Long, how can you guarantee the integrity of the test that was taken as far as chain of custody, et cetera? MR. LONG: Sir, I would justI think if you had it done at the Medical -- College of Georgia, that you could have the test taken over there, done that day, and if there was a problem, then an employee could have a backup system done immediately so that you would have that done. You don't need to send everything in Augusta, Georgia, out of town to get an expert. We've got plenty of them here. I don't know what happened. They never brought anybody down from Labcorp to testify. It was all hearsay based on some computer generated report somebody produced. In no other proceeding do you have that. You could have somebody here locally run the test, and if the [inaudible], they could be here and tell you and you could determine if they had a problem. You can't do that now. MR. TODD: Mr. Long, assure me that the test that was taken at thethat your client took, the chain of custody integrity was maintained as -- good or better than what we are given. MR. LONG: Well, as far as Mullins there wasn't any chain of custody. The urine was collected right there and tested right there, so you didn't have to worry about the thing getting lost in the mail or some multi-state lab running thousands and thousands of tests a day making errors, you had it done here. Mullins did it. This man has taken numerous drug tests because he drives on the side. He never had flunked a test. The first time the man flunked, when he finds out about it he runs down and takes one of the local labs. There wasn't a chain of custody. Nothing can get lost, nothing can get contaminated, it was done right there and tested there. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Long, that was seven days later; right? MR. LONG: It was six days later, but it was the same day that they called him on the telephone. MR. KUHLKE: But I'm just saying, the test that he took was six days after -- MR. LONG: Mr. Kuhlke, that's correct. But the point is, if they had used a local lab, thenI mean, the delay was not his fault, it was theirs. -- MR. KUHLKE: I understand. You made your point, I think. Appreciate it. I call the question, Mr. Chairman. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yeah, I had had my hand up, but I was waiting on Jack to finish. One of the thingstwo or three things concern me, probably I want -- to get an answer maybe from the county side and probably something else that I may need to get from Mr. Long as well just to get on record before I vote. One, we are talking about three tests here; am I correct? And that can either from you Lori -- MR. LONG: Well, really he's taken about a total of five or six, but I didn't [inaudible]. There are three tests, but only two collected with urine. MR. MAYS: Okay. All right. And that answered my question there. What confuses me a little bitand I'm playing devil's advocate in here for a -- second. On the higher result of the second test that was done by the county, was that done after the test that was taken by him individually? MS. D'ALESSIO: Yes, sir. That was done after the Personnel board hearing and Mr. Long questioned why it hadn't been done before. MR. WALL: The test was from the first urine. MS. D'ALESSIO: Yes. MR. WALL: The test was from the original urine sample. That's what -- MS. D'ALESSIO: It was the remaining sample, but it was a retest. MR. MAYS: Okay, out of that same sample. And you got aif I'm looking -- at these numbers correct, you got a gross variationwell, maybe I'm wrong. -- You got a 5,000 situation in one and 1,000 in another. MS. D'ALESSIO: The first one just showed greater than 1,000. It didn't tell you what the specific number was. The second time we said what's the specific number. MR. MAYS: Okay, that's what had me confused there on the numbers. Because I was looking there at 1,000 and I'm looking atif you're dealing -- with the one the individual has taken, then go back to the other one, and you're talking aboutI didn't know whether it was five times greater, three -- times greater, or what the number, you know, might be in there. My next question would beand this probably, fortunately or -- unfortunately, may not have anything to do with Mr. Beard. But I thinkI -- have no problem with our zero tolerance policy. I voted for it and I think it should stand. What does bother me, though, is that if we are putting public safety at the level where it should be, and I think it should when you're dealing with law enforcement, when you're dealing with fireand not to -- diminish Transit, I chair that committee. But if the standards are higher there in terms of the requirements of testing, and if you've got a strict zero tolerance policy, what I've basically seen is that we are dealing with this almost as a 100 percent termination matter where we are requiring maybe a more rigid situation or more active situation to be done in following the DOT manual for dealing with Transit than we are in dealing with law enforcement people, you know, and fire people. And maybe that's something that very soon we may need to deal with and to answer that, because I think it's been almost 100 percent upholding of what we've done and supported, you know, Human Resources and our attorneys in dealing with these cases. But I think if that's going to basically be the end result, particularly with those two departments, then maybe we need to make sure that we're covering all ground with that. The third question I've got that I think maybe we need to answer is that an allegation has been made that we do not have a certified laboratory doing them. Now, is that certified to certain standards or is that certified with a question mark with it? And I guess I need to know that because that's been raised in here in a public meeting. MS. D'ALESSIO: Let me address that last question first because it'll just take a second. A lab has to be licensed. This lab at all times was licensed. It can obtain greater certifications than just licensing. One of them is from the Department of Health and Human Services, one of them is from the Department ofthe Drug Enforcement Association. There are different ones -- they can obtain. This lab inthe location in Herndon, Virginia, had the -- DHHS certification. In an effort to consolidate its operations, it voluntarily withdrew its DHHS certification only and began sending all those tests that had to be done in a DHHS certified lab over to North Carolina. But that is something completely different from and above and beyond licensing, and this lab was licensed as it should have been at all times. MR. WALL: Let me also comment in response to the first question. When we talk about more stringent requirements, let's be sure that we have in mind what that's talking about. Those requirements there are for the protection of the employee. The split sample, the intervention of the Medical Review Officer, those things are there to protect the employee against false positives, against false test results. So the more stringent requirements are there for the benefit of the employee, not for the benefit of the employer. MR. LONG: Mr. Mays, if I could answer your question. On Page 18, Paragraph 2(e), this is what your regulation provides: Augusta-Richmond County will only use laboratories certified by the Department of Health and Human Services to perform urine tests for the detection of illegal substances. At the time this urine was sent up there on November 6th this lab was not certified by the Department of Health and Human Services, so I don't think the test was done in November by the lab as your regulations require. Second of all, I disagree with my opponent, Mr. Wall, about-about this. Y'all run one of the biggest businesses in Richmond County. Every time you hire and fire an employee it costs us money. That's exactly why other major businesses have policies that are not like y'all havenot because they want -- to be soft on drugs, I don't think anybody wants to be soft on drugs. But economic costsit costs the taxpayers money when you have to rehire and -- retrain an employee. You go out to Augusta Newsprint, they don't have this policy. You go out to a whole host ofFederal Paper Board. None of them -- have the same type of policy. This dual testing is designed not just to protect the poor employee but also to make sure that the business doesn't go to the additional expense of firing somebody and having to go hire and retrain somebody. Thank you. MS. D'ALESSIO: I just wanted to point out, too, one of thesplit -- sample testing is not foolproof either as far as complaints, because then you have employees saying, well, there's contamination, and if the original sample was contaminated, the split sample is contaminated, too. So, you know, unfortunately there's always an argument to be made no matter what procedure you adopt. MR. H. BRIGHAM: [inaudible] I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. MAYS: The only thingI was just going to finish with this. My -- problem is that in supporting the zero tolerance policy, I'm still there. I think where you've got it in public safety, whether an officer is dealing with protecting and backing up an officer, whether he's protecting another citizen, whether he's a fireman operating a fire machine or inside and someone else depending on him or her for their survival and life, I think that's very, very important and I don't take that lightly. On the other side of it, of that person's protectionand that's why I -- asked about that certification in terms of a match. Because I think if the ultimate result is what we use as a first tie-breaker in this situation, if it's termination, particularly with those two departments, then I do have a problem if the turn-around in thereand when you're talking about the time -- of containment within a system, that if itdevil's advocate again--if it is -- wrong and if there is a seven-day period or five-day period and it's two days or three days over a period of where it may pass out of that system, then I almost think you're operating under absolute conditions to a point that if a mistake is made, then you really don't have a grounds there where that employee has any backup on the balance of the law. Now, if it does and if I'm wrong, you know, then, you know, y'all can tell me. But, I mean, that's where I'm looking at it if that's the case, because I don't know of any of these we have reversed or whether we've done anything. We've tried to support our Sheriff and our Fire Chief in terms of upholding this on zero tolerance, but I do questionif this is the time -- limit that we've got in it and if you do have that person who may be able to produce a test within that period, I think it creates a legitimate check and balance if that person is able to do that within the given period of time on a pass-out. Because obviously unless they are borderline when they're going in, and you can have that, too, but the probability is you're going to have it in one if you've got it in the other one, and you can do it within that same day or you can do it withinonce that night and once that next morning. You're -- usually not going to get a total cocaine pass-out. And that's the part that does concern me with the program. And I've heard this, not just from Jack Long but I've heard it in defenses of where we've come up from before. And I know we have to put our best case forward when we do and commissioners are the ones who adopt policy, but I think if we're looking at termination first, then obviously the balance of thatand I believe this is still -- Americathat it ought to be accorded where that pendulum swings both ways in -- terms of that equal protection that's in there. And I just have a slight problem with that and that's not a back up off of zero tolerance at all. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Just a further comment on that. It appears to me that if there is not absolutewe're not absolutely sure, if there's some -- reasonable doubt on the questionone said that it was certified at the time, -- another said it was not. I think that needs to be resolved at some point. And I certainly feel that it ought to be looked at and visited in one of the committees so that we could come up and find out if locally here we do have persons or groups that can handle this, because that's another issue at this time. But I would hate to see this young man's career hinge on something that's not thorough. And certainly I'll take a drug test anytime. That's no problem. That's not the issue. But I do think that if we are going toand -- I haven't heard from the folks in the Fire Department. Maybe they don't have anything to say, I don't know. I don't know the question at this point. But I do think that if the issue itself has not been resolved that we are dealing with an institution that was not properly certified, if that's the word, at that particular time, then that's something we may ought to look at. MS. D'ALESSIO: Mr. Brigham, the lab was not certified at the time this man's test was run. It had voluntarily withdrawn its certification prior to the test. The point is that, yes, the policy says the lab will be certified. It voluntarily withdrew, so technically that part of the policy was not followed. But my point I think I tried to make in response to y'all earlier was there was absolutely no evidence that this made anythingmade any kind -- of a difference. The licensing was there. What absolutely had to be there by law was there. Unfortunately, they had this inner-agreement or inner-decision that they made to do the voluntary withdrawal. So that's not in dispute, but I don't think it makes a bit of difference. MR. KUHLKE: How about the retest? MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, the retest, yes, sir, was done also by Labcorp, but it was done at the North Carolina facility that is DHHS certified, which is where they've been shipping all their old Herndon, Virginia, tests for Transit folks to make sure that it is that DHHS certified. MR. LONG: If I could make one point. That's not the only part of the policy they didn't follow the rules. The rules on Page 18, Paragraph 2(g)(3) says the laboratory shall have qualified personnel to be able to testify at administrative or disciplinary proceedings. We've never had anybody from Labcorp come down so you can ask them how they ran the test, whether they had high school dropouts run them or what. We don't know anything about the quality control. Y'all are getting a piece of paper from someone that nobody knows. Nobody came to Personnel even though your policy says they're supposed to. We have no idea about the validity of these tests other than somebody writes something and mails it. MR. TODD: Mr. Long, did you give us all of that paragraph? MR. LONG: Yes, sir. I'll give you the whole paragraph. MR. TODD: Well, I'd certainly appreciate it. I'd like all the facts if I'm having to make a decision based on what you are giving me and what someone else is giving me. MR. LONG: Paragraph 2(3)(g): A laboratory shall have qualified personnel available to testify at administrative or disciplinary proceedings against a county employee when that proceeding is based on a positive urinalysis result provided by the laboratory. They never have had anybody down here from Labcorp at any of these proceedings to testify about how they run these tests. That policy was not followed. The Medical Review Officer policy was not followed. I gave you copies of federal regulations. The Medical Review Officer is supposed to evaluate the history and the drug and anything that's been ordered and then make a determination as to the results, and that wasn't followed. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor -- MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Longexcuse me. -- MR. TODD: If you would yield to me a minute, Mr. Kuhlke. I certainly would like to hear from our folks as far as what the policy says, you know, to the details of the policy. And the other point that I'd like to make in referenceI think there was some comments made by someone, I'm not sure who, -- in reference the DOT standards and the standards for law enforcement and public safety. Well, gentlemen, when the DOT act was put forward the Sheriff's Association or Policemen's Association, Association of County Governments and the Municipal Association and the League of Cities lobbied Congress not to have their county individuals as far as safety-sensitive folks included in the DOT standards for [unintelligible], and that's why we're not in there. And I agree that we should be in there, but, you know, let's call it like it is in reference to why we're not in. And in that sense, we can't give a mandatory test to a county fire fighter, we have to give a at-random. We can give a DOT mandatory test at any time that we want to, fit for duty or otherwise. And I'd like to hear from the county as far as what our policy say as far as what the lab is responsible for. MR. WALL: The policy says that they will have someone available, and that's the key words, will have available if we want to bring them down. It's up to our decision as far as whether or not we feel that they areit is -- necessary to bring them down. In this situation we did not feel that it was necessary to bring anyone down. So we did comply with policy. MR. LONG: I believe it says shall not will. MS. D'ALESSIO: The laboratory shall have somebody available to us. That's what thatif you just read it, you'll see that's what it means. It -- doesn't say the county shall have a lab representative present at the hearing. That's what Mr. Wall is arguing, that's not what it says. MR. KUHLKE: Let me ask this question, because you lawyers can get us [inaudible]. But you referred to federal regulations, and it's my understanding that federal regulations pertain to the Transit Department; am I correct? MR. LONG: That's because the [inaudible]. MR. KUHLKE: And under that, a Medical Review Officer has to be there. In the other instances, it's at our call. Am I understanding this thing right? MS. D'ALESSIO: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: Because, you know, it seems like we're going around the world. MR. LONG: Yes, sir, it is your call, but you've already called it. In other words, what y'all have done is taken some of the federal regulations and you have provided for a Medical Review Officer and you have provided that the Medical Review Officer would first review the test before they went to Mr. Atkins. That's not what happened. They send these tests to Mr. Atkins and then they send them to the Medical Review Officer. They're supposed to go to the Medical Review Officer, he is supposed to arrange a personal consultation. And I don't knowpersonal doesn't mean somebody calling on the phone, -- because it's supposed to determine whether somebody had a reason. We could all have a reason for testing positive, and it may be a legitimate reason, and that's why it's a federal regulation, sir. But, Mr. Kuhlke, your regulation that y'all have adopted provides that you will have a Medical Review Officer first get the results and then consult with the individual, and only then are they supposed to go to the Personnel Department, and that's not what happened. MR. KUHLKE: Can I call the question again? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to make a substitute motion, that based on what has been said here today in theI know you're saying that licensing -- does not matter, they did it voluntary and all that. That sounds real good, but what about this poor man that's sitting right here with his family, you know? I think to meand that has some validity in my opinion, and -- certainlyI don't know Mr. Beard. I've heard his name, I don't know him, -- but I feel that this should happen to anybody. If we have a faulty situation in this county or this city, that ought to be corrected, but I don't think it ought to be corrected at the expense of this man that's sitting right here. I think we ought to correct the situation, that it will happen in any future situation, but not to the expense of this man. And I'm not so sureand I'm not a lawyer, but all these other fellows -- are lawyers around here. But I feel that this man is being victimized because somewhere down the line we may have a situation [unintelligible]. And I would like to move that this be continued until we get some more answers on this and until it canmaybe it could come to our committee, and I think it probably -- could come before Mr. Mays' committee, and that we can further also straighten out the overall issue while we're doing it, but not to victimize this man in this particular case. And if he's guilty it'll come out. It'll still come out, but I think we ought to continue it until that time. That's my motion. MR. HANDY: I'll second that motion, Mr. Brigham. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy. That was to table it? CLERK: He said to continue it to Public Safety. MAYOR SCONYERS: Henry? MR. H. BRIGHAM: What does continue mean? That means down the line? MR. WALL: Down the line. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, that's what I mean, down the line, we look at it later on. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. HANDY: We didn't get any discussion on that motion, and I do have something I'd like to say, and my word is it'll be short and sweet. I've said in numerous meetings that there was a problem with our policy, that we should do something about it, because we're getting too many positiveswe're -- getting too many people are testing positive. I said numerous times we need to stop, look at our procedure, see whether we're doing right, then go on with it. And this is a case in point right here to tell you that something is wrong. I'm like Mr. Brigham, I'm not saying that Mr. Jason Beard is positive or negative, but I'm saying that something is wrong with the procedure that we are using and that's what we should straighten out before we start terminating people. And if he's tested positive, then he should go, because I do not condone anyone on drugs. And I'm not upholding him for drugs, but I am saying that we need to look at our policy because all of a sudden there's just too many people that's testing positive. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I do plan to vote for the substitute motion that's on the floor. And I still have not moved off of my zero tolerance policy, but I do think that while we're talking about what cities and counties have done, and even sheriff's departments, associations, and as immediate past chairman of ACCG's Public Safety and Courts Committee, it ought to be noted that a lot of local governmentsand I think our people within--whether it's Legal, -- whether it's Human Resources, they have to deal not only with the funds but they have to deal with the policies that we vote on, and they bring them to us in terms of whatever we provide the resources in terms of dealing with that with and they have to work within those parameters. But I think we ought to be honest enough to say that a lot of those policies followed by local government basically are dealt with because of cost and they are done that way to save governments money. There's nothing wrong with being prudent, but when your life, when your character is on the line it should be a two-way street to a pointparticularly in public safety where -- termination is most of the time the first and only option, then I think at least then we ought to be looking at what is the best and fairest method of doing it. And if it costs us a little bit more to be able to do that and to be able to prove itand then even I'll go a little bit further to say if we -- have got an accelerated drug problem, then I think if we have to root that out and deal with it, then that gets to that point, too. But I think if you've got a problem in there and we're not dealing with it on that basis of giving the fairest method of doing it, then I think somewhere in there we do need to look at that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Substitute motion first, gentlemen, Mr. Brigham's motion. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. POWELL, MR. TODD & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 6-3-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going back to the original motion then; right? CLERK: Yes. The original motion was to uphold the decision of the Personnel board. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd's motion? CLERK: Seconded by Mr. Bridges. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to uphold the decision, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1. CLERK: Other Business? MR. WALL: We have one personnel matter that we need to have a legal meeting on. MR. MAYS: So move we go to legal session. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Todd. All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING, 4:45 - 5:15 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on February 18, 1997. _________________________ Clerk of Commission