Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS April 1, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., 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; Randy Oliver, Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. We'll have the Invocation today by the Reverend Joseph Pritchett, Bethlehem Advent Christian Church, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND PRITCHETT. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any additions or deletions, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mayor and Commission, we have a request to delete Item 24, to be postponed until the May 6th Commission meeting; Item 36, to be postponed until the next -- that should read the next Commission meeting, which is April 15th. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, would you read Item 24, please? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd wants you to read Item 24, please. CLERK: Yes, sir. Item 24 is a motion to deny a new application request by Sun OK Paye for a retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with the B.C. Mart located at 2749 New Barton Chapel Road, District 4. MR. TODD: Is that all of the deletions and additions, Mr. Mayor? CLERK: That's on your printed agenda. We have one request for a proclamation to be added to the agenda that's not listed on the printed addendum agenda proclaiming Fair Housing Month in Augusta-Richmond County for the month of April. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I will so move by unanimous consent, with the exception of Item Number 24, and that's in the form of a motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd. Do I hear a second? MR. MAYS: Second. That's the deletions? MR. TODD: And additions, with the exception of Item 24 would stay on the agenda. MR. MAYS: I think what he was asking, Mr. Mayor -- we had only gotten through the deletions. CLERK: Right. I hadn't -- yeah, I hadn't read the additions. MR. MAYS: And had not gotten to the additions. And that's why I was just asking him was his motion, on a clarification, just in dealing with deletions or dealing with additions. CLERK: The additions were: A motion to approve the condemnation of 12,691.86 square feet of permanent drainage and utility easement on property of Bankers First Real Estate Development; 2 was a motion to approve the condemnation of 2,783.93 square feet of permanent utility easement on property of Ralph Dillman; 3 was to authorize 75 new positions in accordance with a schedule for 837,737 for the Sheriff's Department in connection with the opening of the new Phinizy Road Detention Facility. MR. TODD: Motion still on the floor, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I have a second to Mr. Todd's motion? [No response.] I don't have a second to his motion, however, it takes unanimous consent to add or delete; is that correct, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we accept the additions and deletions to the agenda. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell. Do I hear a second to Mr. Powell's motion? MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you're going to have a problem with Number 24, and I would hate to have no action on the other ones till next meeting because of Number 24. There are citizens, Mr. Mayor, that come here for this hearing on the application, and certainly if I'm going to entertain the thoughts of voting in the affirmative I certainly would want to hear from those citizens and want to hear the reasons why that the petitioner is not ready to go. The petitioner knew the process from day one. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, do you know why this was withdrawn? MR. WALL: I was contacted yesterday and notified that a letter had been sent to the Clerk's office. It is attached there where Mr. Huggins indicated that he had just been retained. Mr. Huggins called me this morning to indicate that that letter had been sent and saying that he needs time. I might point out that depending on the action that is taken, if he were to be denied -- or the applicant were to be denied there would still be a hearing, and so they would still be afforded the opportunity to come back at a later time if they chose to do so. That's assuming that the license returned. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, is that clearer for you? MR. TODD: What was the date of the letter? MR. WALL: March 31st. MR. TODD: And that's yesterday? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. TODD: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I would certainly like to hear from Reverend Blair or Reverend Hankerson, because we have individuals that's going by our written agenda that's come down here to address this issue, and I don't want to inconvenience those community leaders that's here to address the issue. And I'd want to know whether there's any -- whether they would have a problem with it being delayed until May, Reverend Blair or Reverend Hankerson. MAYOR SCONYERS: Are they here? REV. BLAIR: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We've been down this road before and done that, and this has been going on for four or five years, sir. And what we are interested in, sir, the Barton Village area here, within one square mile area we have 17 establishments that sell beer, wine, liquor, and others. So therefore, sir, we are looking after the betterment of the welfare of the citizens of the community. We have here, on the initial count, about 300 protestors against -- objectors against a new establishment selling alcohol beverages in our community. We have enough problems, and it's not going to be a positive impact on the community. This business establishment is adjacent -- across the street from Bi-Lo shopping center. We have problems with that traffic, Deans Bridge Road and Meadowbrook Drive and Barton Chapel Road. And there's not a need in the community, Mr. Mayor, gentlemen, for another beer/wine/liquor establishment. And we just hope you would give us some consideration because we've been living in this community, we work hard, taxpaying citizens trying to obey the law, do the best we can, so we need some help. Thank you, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Reverend Hankerson, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, basically what we're asking them is if they want to not put it off and come back [inaudible]. REV. BLAIR: Well, sir, it doesn't matter how long it might be delayed. The demand is still going to be there within the community not to establish another beer drinking/selling liquor joint in our community. It's going to be there whether we delay next week, next month, or next year, sir. We'll still be there in the community. Thank you, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Reverend Hankerson? REV. HANKERSON: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with it being delayed to May 6th. Representatives of Barton Chapel area and president of the neighborhood association, May 6th we'll be back at that time. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll withdraw my objection then and we'll go on with the agenda. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while we're discussing items, I'd like to hear a little bit more discussion on the necessity of doing Item Number 3 today. MR. OLIVER: The Sheriff's Office -- we have been working with the Sheriff's Office for several weeks on Item Number 3. The Sheriff's Office called this morning and indicated that it was essential that they hire, according to the schedule that's in the back of page two, the 16 deputies within the next week or two. To do it previously, it was my understanding it was agreed it was going to go to the Public Safety Committee, which I would have preferred, but they indicated to me that there is a critical need. Part of the delay in proceeding with this item was I wanted a total staffing plan for the facility, because they had come forward with 16 new deputy positions some six weeks ago, but I felt that it was critical to have the total staffing plan in place. I would note as it relates to that, that this reflects a savings in the current year of 362,263 of our budgeted amount and continues to keep the personnel to supervise community cleanup and care. I would also note that this provides for the closing of the stockade upon completion of the Phinizy Road facility and moving of the inmates from the stockade to that facility. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would ask that this item be amended to only hiring 16 deputies and that the other remaining deputies be forwarded to Public Service -- Public Safety for the committee's process to work. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, is that acceptable? MR. POWELL: Would Mr. Brigham please restate that? I didn't quite hear it. SHERIFF WEBSTER: I didn't either. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I understood that you needed 16 deputies right now. SHERIFF WEBSTER: That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I wanted to go on and give you 16 deputies right now and put the other -- the remaining part of the 75 through the committee process so that we can do it through normal channels. SHERIFF WEBSTER: That'll be fine. Everything that was said is in order. We go along with it 100 percent. We just appreciate your cooperation. We need the 16 now because the facility down on Fourth Street and Walton Way is just about completed. We need to get those people trained because we will probably move in there sometime in May. And the rest of it, we won't move in there until next year, so it'll be at a later date that we'll need those people to train those people to prepare for it. And we were -- you're closing the stockade. We knew the stockade would be closing, you know, when we close that facility, so everything's in line. Everything that has been said is up to par with us. We thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please? CLERK: Delegation: Mr. Dan Drake, reference to the Weed and Seed Program. MR. DRAKE: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. I bring greetings from Janet Reno, Attorney General, and from Mr. Donnie Dixon, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia. Here today to represent the Weed and Seed project that we've been here for the last couple of years working with the good folks down in Barton Chapel trying to get it on board, trying to go. We're extending an invitation to the Commissioners and the --anyone else that would like to come down and look at the project we have in Savannah right now to see what it is --how it helped that area, that city, that community, and the law enforcement. And we extend that invitation to you as a group. We've made preparations for transport down and back. We're sorry that we can't do it on a St. Patrick's Day, but two days after St. Patrick's day, after 450,000 people showed up and I don't know how many kegs of beer, it's kind of hard to find anybody that first week. You kind of know what it's like after you have the Masters up here; you're still finding people in the bushes and stuff like that. So that day kind of fell through, but if we could, sometime in April we would like for you to come down, and we've got four possible dates to do that. And we would introduce you to all the people in the Weed and Seed project, including government, law enforcement, community services, a tour of the Weed and Seed project area, and also of the Safe Haven, which is one of the two models for the United States for Safe Haven for the Weed and Seed area. We have handouts here for all of the Commissioners to look at so it'll give you some idea of what the Weed and Seed project is about. Basically what it is -- and we have four components: we have the law enforcement component, which would be the sheriff and his department; the community policing, which is a bridge between the law enforcement and the community; then we have the prevention, intervention and treatment for various abuse problems that we have in the community: unemployment, school dropout, teen pregnancy; then we have the neighborhood restoration. Now, in Savannah we have a real problem with historical significance of a lot of buildings there, and before we can move on removing some of these they have become eyesores and become dilapidated havens for drug dealers, prostitution, gambling, and other criminal activity. We have worked real hard to remove some of these from the area, and it has worked -- it is beginning to work. The police -- the law enforcement is accepted more readily in the community now. One of the reasons is because of community policing. From actual surveys we've found out--which it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out--a police officer on foot that can walk up and shake hands with one of the people in the community is a lot easier to talk to than one in a car doing 35 or 40 miles an hour down the highway. These are some of the things we've been working on. We would like the opportunity for the Commission to come down, see what the program is like, and we would like for you to sign off and say yes we will, we want to support it. The invitation is there. The four days that we've got set aside for your convenience, and the order or preference would be April the 17th, April the 23rd, April the 14th, or April the 24th. One of those four days if you can do it. Contact Mr. Smith or Mr. Colclough and we'll make arrangements for transportation for the entire group to Savannah and then return that afternoon. If you have any questions, I'll be more than glad to answer your questions. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I had an opportunity to visit the [inaudible] Weed and Seed in Andover, Maryland, about a month ago on a Saturday afternoon and was very impressed with that. And I think that was one of the pilot projects that the Attorney General kicked off, and it's working real well. And I understand Savannah is working good and I'm looking forward to the Savannah visit. Certainly if we can do the Weed and Seed projects and get the grants for the Sheriff's Department and for the community, I think this will [inaudible], and I think you know that I'm supportive of [inaudible]. MR. DRAKE: I appreciate that. MR. OLIVER: I have one question just to clarify for the record, because there have been a number of discussions in this regard. Assuming that we like what we see and the Commission is supportive of that, what kind of commitment, particularly financially, are you looking for from us? Is it just in-kind services? Is it some kind of financial commitment? What would you expect our level of involvement to be? MR. DRAKE: It's a three-year program. There are no matching funds. This one, the total amount for each year is $750,000. That comes from the Department of Justice Weed and Seed Executive Office. $250,000 is from asset forfeiture money and money that we've taken away from the bad guys and we turn around and give it to the Sheriff. That's for him. There's $250,000 a year. The remaining $500,000 goes into the community services side of it. And, again, that is $750,000 max for three years: 750,000, 750,000, 750,000. After the third year we hope that you see the programs that's being used here, you're able to expand them through the entire county. After the third year it's up to the local government to decide which ones that can be used, have been successful, and then pick them up and go on from there. The City of Savannah anticipated that there would be a sharing obligation on them to come up with some of the money. It's not there. It is strictly if money comes in. What has to be in place now and what we're looking at now is what do you have here in Augusta-Richmond County that's working. And it's a surprise to a lot of people how many different things are going on in this community that a lot of people didn't know about, and we're beginning to meet and to find out there are things that are happening on the west side and the east side and the south side that will help everybody. So that's one of the things that the grant looks at, what are you doing now and how can we help. That's basically it. But as far as obligation on your part as far as finances, none, other than what you're doing now. Any other questions? Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I appreciate it. And if at any time you have a question, please call me and I'll be more than glad to come up. Thank you, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion we receive Mr. Drake's report as information -- his presentation. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? CLERK: Next item on the agenda is a ceremonial ribbon signing for the Georgia Coalition on Donation, and I'll read a letter that the Coalition wrote to the Mayor: "Dear Mr. Sconyers: We're delighted Augusta-Richmond County has agreed to participate in the Georgia Coalition on Donation's Celebrate Life in the Garden. As you are aware, the event will feature the wrapping of a May Pole on Saturday, May 3rd, 1997, at the Atlanta Botanical Garden. The wrapping of the May Pole will symbolize the intertwining of lives through organ and tissue donation. Our goal is to raise awareness throughout the state about the importance of signing donor and tissue donor cards and sharing the decision with family members. Your county's support of this event is greatly appreciated." MR. POWELL: Move that we receive it as information. MR. BEARD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, gentlemen. We have a motion and a second. What we're going to try to do, in the interest of time, is go ahead and let them be signing it and we can move along. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of signing the ribbon, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: The next item is a proclamation: "Whereas the 12th marks the 29th anniversary of the passage of the U.S. Fair Housing Law, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended, which initiates the national policy of fair housing without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, status, or handicap; and whereas the 29th annual anniversary of the National Fair Housing Law during the month of April provides an opportunity for all Americans to rededicate themselves to the principle of freedom of choice and to reacquaint themselves with the rights and the responsibilities that are theirs under the law; and whereas fair housing is the policy of Augusta- Richmond County and implementation of that policy requires the positive commitment, involvement, and support of each and every one of our citizens; and whereas the departments and agencies of Augusta-Richmond County provide leadership in the effort to make fair housing a right that can be realized by all citizens; now therefore I, Larry Sconyers, Mayor of Augusta-Richmond County, do hereby proclaim the month of April 1997 to be Fair Housing Month in Augusta-Richmond County and call upon all our citizens to join in reaffirming that fair housing is a right that is right for all. In witness thereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused this seal of Augusta-Richmond County to be affixed this 1st day of April 1997." MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do you need a motion or that's -- Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1? CLERK: Under the Finance portion of our agenda, Items 1 through 6 were approved by the Finance Committee on March 24th. [Item 1: Motion to approve Lease Agreement with Alonzo P. Boardman, Jr., Trustee, for Riverwalk Special Events Office (#15 8th Street) for a term of one (1) year. Item 2: Motion to approve waiving of taxes on property purchased by Richmond County during calendar year 1996. Item 3: Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes to David Walkowitz. Item 4: Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes to Virginia W. Barnes. Item 5: Motion to approve purchase and bid award for four (4) Lektriever Filing Systems from Modern Business in the amount of $46,000. Item 6: Motion to approve the expenditure of $90,000 from the JLEC Contingency for the purchase of computer equipment related to the completion of the new Booking/Processing/Medical Center located at the Fourth Street Jail Facility.] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee brings these items to you as a consent agenda, and we would recommend the approval of all items. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 7: Consider a request for waiver of penalty by Lyons & Associates. No recommendation from the Finance Committee, February 24th. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think we need Mr. Wall to kind of explain the circumstances of this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: This came before the Commission earlier, and there was some confusion about the effect of the motion that was made. In essence, in the committee the request for the waiver was denied, and when it came before the County Commission the motion was made to approve the recommendation. I don't see it in the agenda book, but that, as I recall, was approved. And it was unclear whether that was to the waiver or to approve the decision of the committee not to waive the penalty, and that's the reason that it was put back on the committee's agenda, so that it'd be clear what the intention of the Commission was. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Jim, on this one, have we -- your recommendation, I believe, is to approve the waiver of the penalty and not the interest. Is that out of order with anything we've done in the past? This one appeared to be just a little bit outside the boundaries of what we normally waive penalties on. In other words, it -- the taxpayer didn't seem to have as much proof or reason for asking for a penalty be waived; it appeared to be more issuance. MR. WALL: Well, I mean, my recommendation was to waive the penalty because, again, I think that in the past y'all have given the benefit of the doubt to the taxpayer. This is another situation where the taxpayer said that he sent two checks. One of them cleared, one of them did not. And, you know, there's no way of substantiating either that he did or did not; likewise, there's no way to tell whether it's our error or not. And I guess in baseball the tie goes to the runner, and that's sort of the approach that I've used where they have put in writing their story. And, again, I've given the benefit of the doubt to the taxpayer. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd make a motion we waive the penalty and not the interest. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I was going to make that motion, Mr. Mayor, because we've done this in the past. And I guess until we stop doing it for others we have to follow suit here and do it for everybody. Because I really think that we should do a fair assessment of all of these if we continue to do it, and I was just going to make that motion that we do this. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 8, please? CLERK: Item 8 and 9 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on March 24th. [Item 8: Motion to approve the Runout Administration Agreement between the City of Augusta and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Georgia. Item 9: Motion to approve Employee Assistance Program Contract at a cost of $1.25 per employee per month (budgeted annual cost $31,500).] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Item 8 and 9 be accepted as a consent agenda. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 10, please? CLERK: Item 10 is a motion to approve the recommendation of Department Director and approval of the Administrator to authorize the hire of new employees up to forty percent above City Pay Plan until new classification and compensation study. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, maybe the Administrator would like to also address this, but in the committee meeting we were not able to come to an entire agreement on this. I do feel that since we are having the salary study that we're going to have completed in July, that unless we do it for all departments I don't think it's fair to consider one department here and start interfering with one department and not doing it for all. And I strongly feel that we should let things stand until we get the salary study and activate it in July, because in the financial condition that we find ourselves in today I don't think that we can start doing it for some and not doing it for others. And maybe the Administrator would like to address that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: Yes. At the committee I don't -- I think the thoughts of the committee were not to do any general adjustment in the Utilities Department. The Utilities Department was the one that brought this action before us, and they indicated that they were having difficulty securing qualified people because of the salaries. But in addition to that, they wanted to equalize the salaries in their department. As was discussed at that meeting, that would be unfair to Public Works, Parks and Recs, and anybody else we didn't do that -- handle the same way, and there was, I think, unanimous consensus on that part of it. The portion that there was some difference on--and if my recollection of the vote is right it was two to one--was that we do, and legitimately so, we have a case where salaries for the old county when you're hiring somebody in is at one level and salary for the former city is at a different level. And on hiring in it was making it difficult for them, and I understand and appreciate the problem. One of the things that Mr. Hicks and I discussed was that we felt that it was going to create further problems within his organization, and I think he is now in agreement that this action may even promote further problems, but this would give him and myself the flexibility to increase salaries on entry level at up to forty percent over the prior city's entry level position, which would bring parity on new hires only. The difficulty, however, with this action from a managerial standpoint is that if you brought somebody in at that forty percent over you could well have people that are working at the same salary at a lesser wage. The classification and compensation study is currently ongoing. It is on schedule. It will be back to you the first of June and we've targeted to implement it July the 1st. We don't know at this point what those numbers are. We should have a better indication of that within the next two or three weeks. I think we can -- we can work with it either way. I do agree, however, that whatever we do, we need to do uniformly. And as I say, the vote was two to one for Item 10 the way that it is, and what that would do is that if there was disparity in a salary and the department director recommended and I approved, then we could hire someone in at up to forty percent over the former city salary. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I still think that this would be unfair to our people who are already employed. I think it would create a morale problem if we're bringing in somebody and these people have been working for X number of years and they're at one salary and the people coming in who are able to make more than they are making. That's not fair. And what I'm saying at this point is that we're only a few months away from July, why bother with this at this time. And I think it would create a better morale if you left it like it is and wait until July 1 to enter into this. At this point I move that we accept this -- we disapprove this plan, Item 10. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, do you want to say something? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Basically what I want to say, Mr. Mayor, is that we are not the old city anymore, we're not the old county, we are the consolidated government of Augusta or Augusta-Richmond County. If you brought me in at $12,000 a year to be a utility -- well, let's say be a equipment operator for the Utility Department and I was working on Central Avenue and you brought someone in over on Peach Orchard Road and paid them $18,000, you would hear from me with the Department of Labor. There is such thing as fair standards. We cannot and we shall not continue to bring folks in at $7,000 in some cases difference in salary to work for what used to be the old city or old county. That don't exist anymore. We are the consolidated government. We either need to do one of two things: get salaries at one level or stop hiring. As I looked at the hiring that we were doing from March the 4th, and I believe the closing date was the 11th, we're hiring approximately a quarter of a million dollars worth of personnel, I would assume to replace personnel that has been out for a while, and there is a disparity in the salaries. And we need to do something about the disparities in the salaries and we need to do it now, because if we don't somebody is going to have us in front of the Labor Department and we're going to have problems, in my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'll second Mr. Beard's motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I got one question I'd like to ask. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: It says up to forty percent, up to forty percent above the city. So that's saying they can start from zero to forty? And then who makes the decision how much of that from zero to forty? MR. OLIVER: Here is the reason for that flexibility, Mr. Handy. Let me use just a simple mathematical example. If we had a former city salary that was 10,000 and the county salary was 13,500, for example, we would in that case go up to thirty-five percent, which would be the 13,500, rather than the forty. We believe that the worst disparity we've got is something slightly less than forty percent. In no case would it exceed, if it's the desire of this Commission. And I can appreciate even the problems it's going to put the managerial people in to do this, but we would in no case go above the county's salary grade currently. MR. HANDY: Well, that's one reason why I asked the question. If it -- that was on the floor earlier that you will probably be getting one grade higher than the other if you -- it wouldn't make sense to hire a city person and ask -- give them a certain amount of money and then make their job higher than the former county, so. MR. OLIVER: You're absolutely right, and we don't -- do not intend to do that. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we authorize the Administrator to hire all new employees up to forty percent above the city pay plan until the new classification and compensation study is complete. MR. TODD: Second, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion on Mr. Bridges' motion, seconded by Mr. Todd, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And I think Mr. Bridges' motion, if I understand it, is not just for the Utility Department but for all employees. MR. BRIDGES: That's correct. MR. TODD: We shouldn't have double standards, gentlemen, and this takes care of that. And the money is in the budget. And it's not going to come down from what the old county was paying. We know it's going to go up, most likely, and why don't we go on and do the right thing. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, while we're going to debate this one -- and obviously every time it's money we are going to debate it. Why are we going to even bother to have a study then? Let's just go on and set everybody's salary. We could have saved all that money for having the study. It's been so wise and this is so practical, we can do that right here at this meeting. If we're going to raise the minimum, why are we going to be the ones that are going to set what that minimum is? Do not the [inaudible] have any effect on this government and set what the minimum is going to be? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. What I just wanted to ask Mr. Bridges in his motion, and maybe I missed something, for a point of clarification I heard you say all employees, not just in Utilities. I don't have a problem with that. But are we going back to those existing employees that are on board or are you talking about new people? MR. BRIDGES: New hires. MR. MAYS: Okay. If you're talking about new hires, the problem I have with that is that I think, yes, they ought to be brought in at what are not slave wages, but then at what point do we ever get to the equity question of the people that are on board existing already that have fallen through the gaps, quite frankly whose salaries have never been adjusted to this time? Now, we took in and did, I guess because they were the largest two cases, of trying to deal with Public Safety first. I had no problem with that. Those were large numbers of people that we were dealing with. But if you're going to give that flexibility to new hires and you've got some people that are already down that are working, they are not going to be new hires. And I think unless you're bringing all those folks up that are stuck down there while you're dealing with the new hires, then I see this as a conflicting motion that's on the floor because you're not ever addressing -- maybe I won't say -- maybe I'm wrong saying not ever, but you're still putting off the question of addressing those salary equalization problems that not only came with consolidation but also came when the old county commission did not properly equalize some folks' salaries that were left out of focus, and we've been trying to catch that one since some of us arrived on the scene in the old county government. That one has not been caught up with. And I realize the new Administrator is inheriting this and walking into it, but we've got some people already in this workforce that are suffering as they are. And I'd have to agree with Mr. Beard that unless we're going to jointly address new hires and the question of salary equalization, then we need to leave this new hire situation alone, correct where we've got people in place, and then start dealing with new hires. Because, I mean, I agree with Mr. Todd; you know, you may have the new hires at the Labor Department, but you're going to have some old existing hires at the Labor Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: I think that the other point of that is that if we just pulled this forty percent, you know, from somewhere, I'm sure there was some kind of reason behind that. But if we get the equalization study which we paid eighty or ninety thousand dollars for, or will pay for it, in two months, don't look like to me they're going to leave the face of the earth in two months time, nor the department is going down the hill in two months time. Because if we have to raise them again, what would happen at that particular point? If the salary equalization states that these people are still below or above, how are we going to handle that? I know they realize they're new, but how can we -- MR. OLIVER: They would be further adjusted. Typically -- and there will be several approaches that will be brought as it relates to how we equalize salary. But typically if someone is below the bottom of the salary range, when you do a study such as this you would bring them to the bottom of the salary range. So if they were at 14,000 and the salary range came in at 14,500, the norm is that everyone would come up at least to the minimum of the salary range. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, he's already gotten forty percent. MR. OLIVER: In that case he would get $500 more. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So we are doing a lot of extra work, it appears, when if we just wait for the study for -- you know, just be patient for a couple of months and this seems like to me it would be taken care of in one -- I'd like to vote for the motion that states that we wait for the study. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to ask Mr. Beard, to maybe bring this thing to a closure, if he would amend his motion that we deny Item Number 10 on the agenda and that we impose a hiring freeze until the study comes back -- a total hiring freeze until the study comes back and we can take action on it. MR. BEARD: Mr. Kuhlke, for some reason I thought we had a hiring freeze on except for emergencies, and I can buy into that, you know, unless there is an emergency and we need some. We're only talking about a couple of months. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I agree. MR. OLIVER: You're going to have typical turnover, and what that will effectively do is bring back as an agenda item on a regular basis. And if that's what the Commission desires, that's fine. For example, a secretary leaves for whatever reason and we want to hire a new secretary, it would require that to come back to the Commission for consideration. MR. BEARD: I said in case of -- you know, if we leave it open for emergencies. And I think that if a secretary walked out, then that would be a case of --left immediately, that would be an emergency case that we would have to have that person, and I think that the Administrator could be given that opportunity to authorize that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. At first this started off and it was kind of simple, but they have made it real difficult to make a decision on here of what you want, and then they keep adding all those extra things that they're going to cause a problem with. We ought to just make a motion to table this one and come back next week because we don't really know how much it's going to entail. And four different versions on the table today. If you move one and you put a hiring freeze on, that's going to cripple the government. If you give them the money, that's going to cripple the government. So either way we go today we're going to lose, so I don't know what to do. It's kind of complicated right now. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Move for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Could I speak to this? In the first place, I think it's important to realize that the money is in the budget to hire these people at the old county rate from the first of the year, which hasn't been done, so you've got all that money that's in there that will not be utilized up to this point if you use the old county rate. And what we're talking about here, too, is -- you talk about a hiring freeze. Basically in at least one portion of the Utility Department that's basically what you've got, because it's so low nobody wants the job. You've got -- I'm not sure what the level of it would be, Mr. Hicks, but if you've got somebody coming in at 11,500/11,800, the old city rate, the old county for that same position is 15,500. That's a yearly salary. And one of the -- the maintenance supervisor showed me his organizational structure of about twenty people. He's got seven positions he cannot find anybody for because nobody wants to come to work for 11,800 a year, and these are positions that require some degree of mechanical competence. So basically you've got a hiring freeze there. The salary is so low you can't even get them to come and take the job and be hired. And I know some people are working at low wages now at the county level, but they're not fair wages. But we -- the Utility Department can't even hire them to pay them low wages. I mean, that's where we're at. So I think the substitute motion is something that needs to pass in the next three months to give these people somebody that they can work -- a salary that they can hire people at to do the job that's required in the Utilities Department. That is a very important -- no, it's not Public Safety, but it is a very important department, and I know when things go wrong in that area I certainly don't like to get the phone calls. And we're not asking -- what we're asking here is simply for the new hires, and it will apply countywide for the new hires to be hired -- allow the Administrator up to forty percent increase on these people as he deems necessary. And we know when the salary study comes in in July -- and that's when you'll have true equity in the salaries is -- that will determine it; that's the only time you'll ever have true equity in the county. And then allow these people to hire them and get them in there and get them working, not put it off for three more months like we're trying to do with some other positions. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, the substitute motion first. Do y'all need the motions reread? Why don't you read the -- both motions, Ms. Bonner. The substitute motion first, please. CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Ulmer Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd, was to approve the recommendation of the department and the approval of the Administrator to authorize the hire of new employees up to forty percent above the city plan until the new classification study is completed. The main motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham, with an amendment by Mr. Kuhlke, was to deny this and to impose a hiring freeze until the compensation study is completed, with the exception of hiring on emergency basis and authorizing the Administrator that prerogative. [End of Tape 1] MR. MAYS: ...I mean, we've probably had hiring freezes stacked on top of hiring freezes that have never been adhered to. I just want to know if this one -- MR. BEARD: As I said, Mr. Mays, I had thought that there was already a hiring freeze on. It was my understanding that -- I thought it was, but maybe I was mistaken about that. And I knew that we have been hiring because of necessity or because there was a need to do that, so we really don't need the amendment at this time because it's already in existence. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: A point of information, Mr. Mayor, that there is a hiring delay on that I believe is 30 days, possibly up to 90 days or something, but there's not a hiring freeze that I know of, and I'd like the records checked to show that there is or is supposed to be. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Substitute motion made by Mr. Bridges to move ahead -- CLERK: To approve the recommendation and authorize up to forty percent. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, J. BRIGHAM, HANDY, KUHLKE & MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: And the original motion made by Mr. Beard. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, POWELL, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 11, please? CLERK: Mr. Mayor and Commission, Item 8 was placed on the agenda in error. I would like, please, a motion to revoke that action and delete Item 8 from the agenda. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. BEARD: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard. Do we need to rescind it? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: So what do we need to do, rescind the action taken and then -- CLERK: And then delete it, yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: And we're going to do that all in one motion? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Does someone want to explain how it got on the agenda then and why we're taking it off? CLERK: It was an oversight, Mr. Todd. I apologize for that. MR. TODD: Is this item coming up -- CLERK: Yes, sir. It was taken off the agenda in Administrative Services and it was just picked up in error. It's to come back to committee. MR. OLIVER: It will come back to committee. The contract was not in a form that we deemed acceptable, and it inadvertently was placed on the agenda. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you. MR. POWELL: So move that we rescind the action. MAYOR SCONYERS: We already have a motion and a second on the floor. Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to rescind it, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 11, please? CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 11 through 21 were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on March 24th. [Item 11: Motion to approve bid award of construction contract to the low bidder, Wyatt Construction Company in the amount of $365,260.00 regarding the construction of our Water System Interconnections. Item 12: Motion to approve Change Order #1 for the Rae's Creek Study I/I Study with Byrd/Forbes, Inc., in the amount of $20,000. Item 13: Motion to approve Contract to prove Pilot Phase Services related to the Phase I Constructed Wetlands Project with Ecoenvironmental, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $250,000. Item 14: Motion to approve settlement of condemnation action against Julian Osbon for property located on Barton Chapel Road for the sum of $4,900.00. Item 15: Motion to approve settlement of condemnation action against Herbert L. Howard for the sum of $11,190.00. Item 16: Motion to approve settlement of condemnation action against Merry Land (Parcel 2) for the sum of $1,085.00. Item 17: Motion to approve Change Order #2 for Traffic Signals, Phase II, Project Number 55-8075-085 with B&E Electrical Contractors in the amount of $5,632.99. Item 18: Motion to approve to run water line on Cliff Ayres Road when building permits are issued. Item 19: Motion to approve various petitions for installation and maintenance of street lights in various Street Light Districts. Item 20: Motion to approve the authorization to reprogram one-cent SPLOST Funds - Phase II to Walton Way Improvements Project in the amount not to exceed $600,000. Item 21: Motion to approve Change Order to accelerate construction schedule for National Science Center Entrance with APAC, Inc. for $10,000.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept these as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. She said 11 through what? CLERK: Twenty-one. MR. HANDY: Okay. I thought you said 24. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 22, please? CLERK: Item 22 was approved by the Public Safety Committee on March 24th. [Item 22: Motion to approve two law clerks to be funded locally, subject to funding by Columbia and Burke Counties and to expend funds from the General Fund Contingency (cost for 1977 - $35,052).] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: This item was approved, Mr. Mayor, and I move for approval from the full Commission. MR. KUHLKE: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 23, please? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, before you go to 23, there was another item that came up on Public Safety, and at that time we introduced our new Fire Chief. Would you permit me to do that now? MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead. MR. H. BRIGHAM: We would like to -- I introduced him that day to the Public Safety Committee. We would like for you to meet our new Fire Chief: Chief Ronnie Few. Stand up and let the folks see you. I'd like to welcome you officially to Augusta. [Applause] Do you have any new apparatus? You may want to put out some of these fires. Thank you, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 23, please? CLERK: Under Public Services, Items 23 through 34 were approved by the Public Services Committee on March 24th, with the deletion of Item 24. [Item 23: Motion to approve new ownership request by Robert H. Anderson for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Andy's Restaurant & Lounge located at 1365 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall. District 1, Super District 9. Item 24: Deleted from agenda. Item 25: Motion to approve new ownership request by Bessie Lampton for a consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Club Apifanny's located at 2623 Deans Bridge Road. There will be a dance hall. District 5, Super District 9. Item 26: Motion to approve new ownership request by Brenda J. McGahee for retail package beer license to be used in connection with Nationals Texaco located at 2631 Washington Road. District 7, Super District 10. Item 27: Motion to approve transfer application request by Freddie E. Smith for a retail package liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with Belair Package Shop located at 3973 Wrightsboro Road. District 3, Super District 10. Item 28: Motion to approve Special Event request by Walter Clay for a special event seven (7) days (April 7 through April 13, 1997) consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with the Clubhouse located at 2567 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7, Super District 10. Item 29: Motion to approve Special Event request by Mike Smith for a special event seven (7) days (April 7 through April 13, 1997) consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in connection with 2603 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7, Super District 10. Item 30: Motion to approve Special Event request by Sandi Watkins for a special event one (1) day (April 19, 1997) consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with northeast corner of Monument and Ellis Street. District 1, Super District 9. Item 31: Motion to approve special bus route and parking locations for the weekend of April 26, 1997, regarding the grand opening of Fort Discovery. Item 32: Motion to approve funds in the amount of $12,000 to be used to correct erosion at Daniel Field to be done by in-house forces. Item 33: Motion to approve bid award to R.D. Construction in the amount of $825,275.00 for construction of the West Augusta Soccer Complex off Maddox Road. Item 34: Motion to approve the appointment of a committee of three (3) community representatives, three (3) industry representatives, and the Planning Director to study telecommunication towers for changes in the zoning ordinances.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I move that those so-numbered items be approved as a consent agenda, those requiring alcohol licenses, that the audience be checked for any objectors, and that they be approved as one. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, can we pull Item 33? MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 33. Do we have any objectors in the audience? [None noted.] All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the record to show that Item Number 28 and 29 I vote no on. MR. BRIDGES: Same here. MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEMS 28 & 29. MOTION CARRIES 10-0, ITEMS 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32 & 34. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is this for Sunday sales or all sales? CLERK: Yes, sir, Sunday sales. MAYOR SCONYERS: Sunday sales. Okay. Item 33, please? CLERK: Item 33 is a motion to approve bid award to R.D. Brown Construction in the amount of $825,275.00 for construction of the West Augusta Soccer Complex off Maddox Road. Approved by Public Services March 24th. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I was -- just in speaking to this, to me it appears from what I've read and heard about this that we're requiring certain measures to be on the outside of envelopes being bid and those measures were not met by everybody involved. and I think we're going to have some standards to come up to, And we should require everybody to come up with them and abide by those standards, so I'll just make the motion that this be rebid. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Bridges. Do I hear a second to Mr. Bridges' motion? MR. TODD: I'm going to second the substitute motion or the motion to get it on the floor -- I guess that's a motion, to get it on the floor for discussion. MR. OLIVER: I have a comment on that. If we rebid this, I would like everyone to know that it will delay obviously the award at least 60 days. The other thing is that all the bidders that put bids in the first go-round will be at a disadvantage in that someone else that may desire to bid this will -- everybody else's numbers will be on the table, so typically my experience is that it puts them -- places them at a disadvantage. And additionally I might add that the risk is with the slight change in the markets that we've seen in the last couple of days and the economy, part of it, it's a possibility that the bids may come in higher. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that everybody sitting here with me that's been here for a while know that I take the state bid statute serious, I take the procurement process and procedures serious, and I have some concerns. I've had those concerns all along. I've relied on Mr. Beck on making sure there was no conflicts of interest with kinfolks being with one firm, then the other, then the add alternates being what they were. I've been assured that they're not, that there's not a conflict. I think that it's important that we publicly air any potential conflict when you have a father-son team, one with the engineering -- architect- engineering firm, the other one with the construction firm. And I want my colleagues to know that that's one of the biggest concerns that I have, even though I can vote for awarding this bid to the company that is being recommended by a architectural company which have a relative that works for the construction company, and as long as that's clear I can certainly vote for it if there is a substitute motion made. But it was my belief all along, because of the protest, that we possibly should rebid it. Inconvenience as far as whether the children is going to be able to play soccer don't concern me as much as the process. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion to approve. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'll second that motion, but I'd like to ask Mr. Handy if he would amend his motion. I understand that there is a very small contingency in this particular project, and if the maker of the motion would amend his motion to award the contract as recommended with the understanding that there would be no further funds allocated to this particular project. MR. HANDY: And if any changes comes, where is the money coming from? MR. KUHLKE: There better not be any changes. MR. HANDY: Oh, okay. MR. OLIVER: I can't speak to the specifics of this individual construction project, but the likelihood of doing an 800-and-some-odd- thousand-dollar construction project with no change orders I think is very remote. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Then why didn't we keep the -- go with the low bid and keep the other funds in as a contingency, finish the contract, then go out as change orders or amendments to the contract to do the add alternates as far as they go? MR. OLIVER: Mr. Beck, you could probably address the probability of a change order better than I could because you know the complexity of the project. MR. BECK: Well, as Mr. -- MR. HANDY: Excuse me. Do we need to do something with the motion before we kill it? MR. KUHLKE: No, we got a -- MR. HANDY: But I didn't say anything about the amendment yet. But what I was going to ask -- what I was going to ask Jim as a legal, could we tie the contractor down for something like that, so if there's no contingency -- or either -- I reckon I'm assuming that contractor, if he don't like it, he don't have to accept the job. That's what I need to know. Are we tying the contractor down saying that there's no contingency as a way of getting rid of him and give it to another person, that's the question I'm asking. MR. WALL: Well, any change order would be subject to your approval. The problem is that if you encounter something that necessitates a change order, I mean, you wind up with a project that either is not going to be completed or completed in less condition than what you would want, and that's the problem with tying it down and saying up front that there will be no change orders. MR. HANDY: Well, I don't want to accept anything like that, though, then we'll be caught out there with a building sitting there doing nothing. So I don't know, maybe -- What did you want to say, Tom? Maybe you can change my mind. MR. BECK: Well, let me just -- Mr. Kuhlke is right. This particular job had a million dollar budget in it, but when we took the purchase of the property, the legal expenses to close the property, we ended up with a budget of right at $830,000 for hard construction. This leaves us very little contingency with this job. Although -- and Joe Johnson is here with Johnson Laschober. This particular job does not have any buildings in it. It is 98 percent grading and paving kind of job where the likelihood of change orders is smaller. Although it's not totally out of the question, the likelihood of change orders is smaller when you have a grading oriented job like this. It does concern me, but I believe -- and we obviously had no intention of coming back and asking for any more funds for this job. We know what the scope of the work is and it's inherent on Mr. Johnson and his firm to ensure that the contract is completed as awarded. MR. HANDY: Well, in that case I'll accept Mr. Kuhlke's recommendation, but I also want it to go on the record that, Mr. Beck, your reputation, mine, Kuhlke's, and the contractor's is on the line. MR. BECK: I fully understand that. MR. HANDY: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to -- I think Randy's right, if my motion passed it would put a hinderance on this project. So I'll just withdraw my motion, but in it's place pass that we award the job to the low base bid. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: So in essence you're just changing the wording of your motion? MR. BRIDGES: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I believe that will give us some money for a contingency fund if we do that? MR. BECK: It would end up being in excess of 30,000 for a contingency if you did that. If I can just mention this. Mr. Wall may want to address this, I don't know, but should we come back and have a contingency and have monies available with a contingency at the end of this contract, it's still going to be our recommendation that we do the work that was in these alter- nates that we're asking you to accept now. So I don't know where we'll be at legally with that if we come back with the base bid-der who had bidded on these alternates at a higher price now, and we'll end up spending potentially more money at the end than we would now if you accept the contract as we're presenting it now. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe our options would be at that time to amend the bid to go out for new bids on what we want to do, you know, et cetera, so what concerns me here is that, you know, the methodology that we're using. And I understand that it may be commonplace in the private sector, but, gentlemen, we cannot and shall not, per state law, operate like the private sector do. The private sector can almost give anybody a bid that they want to, whether it's lower or not, as long as they're not expending state, local or federal funds. We are bound by the bid statute, and basically what I want to make sure, that we don't get out of that gray area into the red area when it comes to the low bid process. MR. OLIVER: I think that what we decided was is that in committee we were going to put in subsequent bid specifications, that the bid would be chosen by low base bid including any additive alternates that we selected. We were going to add that language, and that would eliminate, you know, any potential misunderstanding in the future. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd also like to say that I talked with Mr. Beck, and I think Mr. Beck is planning to come back to committee next week with some wording in regards to that as well as try to build into all future projects in the Recreation area with a ten-cent contingency involved. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: I was just going to ask Mr. Bridges so that I was sure that I understood. You're saying -- your motion was to award the base bid without any alternates; is that correct? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: My question: Tom, could you refresh me on what the alternates were? I mean, we may not end up with -- MR. BECK: The alternates -- the only alternates that we could afford to stay within budget, within the scope of the alternates that were presented, were to add the must-go type lighting for the fields, which was an upgrade to the Cadillac of the lighting systems. That was $770, if I remember. The other alternate was to actually pave the parking lots. The base bid had within the bid just to crush-run and curb and gutter the parking lots. The alternate was to pave those parking lots, which even if we had've had plenty of money we would've wanted to have done that with an alternate. In this case it was the only alternate. Those were the only two alternates out of a menu of ten that we could afford within the budget, and that's what those two alternates are. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Pave the parking lot and what else? MR. BECK: Pave the parking lot and to add a different type of lighting fixture, a more efficient type of lighting fixture. MR. BEARD: Am I to understand that the company -- the other company did not have the alternates there, that this company does? MR. BECK: No, sir. The other company that was low base bid were -- they were higher on the alternates than the company that we're recommending. MR. BEARD: And that's why the committee did not accept their bid, because of this? I wasn't there, so I'm trying to get some information. MR. BECK: Well, our recommendation in committee was to award the contract to the low bidder including the two alternates, which in this case was R.D. Brown. MR. OLIVER: So that we understand what the numbers were, there was $2,000 difference between the base bids of the two firms; however, when you added those alternates in there was more than $2,000 difference the other way, and that's what changed the outcome. MR. HANDY: You had one -- the base bid is low and the regular bid is high and the alternates low; correct? MR. BECK: Yes, sir, that's correct. MR. OLIVER: That's correct. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I just want to speak to one point. Maybe Randy and Jim. I'm not sure at what point we set standards for bids or what are the medium requiring bids, but I think all this confusion can be ended if when we set standards that a utility contractor's certification number is supposed to be on the outside of the envelope and it is not on the outside of the envelope, then that envelope should not be opened. I mean, that would be my thinking. If we set certain standards and they are not met, then those bids should not be accepted even if they are lower. So, to me, a lot of this confusion could be ended if we -- if the things we require and ask for are met at that time of the bid. MR. WALL: Well, Mr. Bridges, you are correct that an addendum was sent out by the engineering firm which indicated that a utility contracting license should be included on the outside. However, the state law specifically relieves a contractor of bidding in that -- having to put that license number on a bid where 50 percent or more of a multifaceted project being bid is utility work, then that requirement is not there. And here, only 40,000 out of that some $800,000 project involved utility work. It's unfortunate that that addendum went out worded the way it was, but we do have the right under the bid documents to waive irregularities, and in my opinion a general contractor could bid on the project. His general contractor license was on the outside of the envelope, and I think that that complied with what legally was required. MAYOR SCONYERS: Randy? MR. OLIVER: Yeah, let me just add one thing to that. You need to have some flexibility in the bid process because it's not uncommon to require contractors to do various things. For example, you will say in there require their corporate seal, and contractors typically prepare bids at the last minute, change them in the parking lot and that type thing, so there are some things that they miss dotting the I's and crossing the T's, and you have to have some flexibility. Because if we started rejecting bids for minor irregularities, is what I call them, or minor deviations, I think we would create an even more difficult problem and they would view us as somewhat bureaucratic. So I think we need some flexibility; however, I think we clearly do need to specify what our evaluation process is so that it's clearly understood. This is just one of those peculiar incidents where one way the base bid wins and another way it wins with the alternates. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I won't be redundant, I think a bunch of that hopefully has cleared up some things. I do under-stand Mr. Bridges' concern in reference to the wording of that language. Ulmer, we discussed that at length in committee in reference to trying to make that clarification. I asked that it come back to our committee hopefully so that when it was out on the floor a couple of weeks ago we could get it back in committee if there was a problem with the protest, that if we were wrong legally, so that we could hear the legal side either to support it or to reject it. I think that in committee we discussed what the forms of the protest were. I believe the committee vote will reflect upon the protest, that we passed it in committee unanimously. Obviously you all do have the decision on this floor that we can -- even the ones who voted that way can change that and we can do whatever we need to do. That's my first point I wanted to make. The second one is, I think with the two motions on the floor, to go back to the original low bidder without the add alternates or to ask the bidder who wins with the add alternates to do it without any contingency, I think the main ingredient we need to maybe get to the microphone and hear from is a representative of the construction company. I'd like to know whether or not in terms of if we vote for something like that, whether or not a contractor wants to be held into that type of particular buy-in. And my reason for saying it, I was John Q. Public Citizen at the time and watching from the outside, but it brings back shades of another government and an old city fire station whereas you had a contractor locked to a point of where they were not going to accept any change orders on a particular project. It was left abandoned, and in one case they turn around renting from a sta- tion they moved out of that cost them thousands of dollars and a building that basically sat vacant for a long period of time when in essence, that government would not honor any change orders. And I really think we need to maybe hear from the contractor in that type of mode if those are the motions that are on the floor. Because you got one going back to the other one, you got one you're asking a contractor to agree to that, and I think the time to hear whether somebody can agree to that type of motion is right here and now and not down the road when they may have a legitimate change order that comes before us and we may decide that -- that's when our ideas and our IQ drops down to about five and we're not going to hear anything about a change order and you build it for whatever money you've got when knowing that it can't be done, and then the project is totally stymied because you can't move forward with it. And I don't think we ought to get down that road and have to deal with this type of complex further down the road; we ought to deal with it today. And I think if the contractor -- I think the mike is open, and I really would like -- that may be something, Mr. Wall, that you may want to deal with legally, or if it can be dealt with publicly I'd like to hear from the contractor. Because I think you're making a motion there that's very binding, and with everything else that we're doing in this government --I'm like the Administrator, I haven't seen one yet that came in for the total numbers without some type of change. It still may meet budget, may go under it, but every one of them comes back with a change. That's just common sense. Now, if he wants to get into that mode of accepting that, then that's different, but I think the Commission ought to hear from him. Because you may be looking at five or six different new people when this darn thing gets another change order, may not even be looking at the same folks. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: A couple of things I'd like to point out. One is the -- I think the Commission needs to understand that the prices that were included in the bid are only good for, I think it was 45 days. April the 13th is the last day that they can be accepted, which would be before the next Commission meeting. So if you don't want to rebid the project, you need to make a decision on the bids that are out there. The other thing is that I'm not sure that you can contractually bind a contractor not to come in and request a change in the contract. You're getting him to agree in advance that he won't come back for an amendment to the contract, which is in essence what a change order is. I mean, because he does not know what he may experience out there, and so I'm not sure how a contractor would react to that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think certainly -- I have two issues that I'd like to address. One is when there is relations as far as relatives go with the contractor, then I think that need to be declared up front, and possibly even before we award a contract -- professional service contract to a engineering-architectural firm; that if there is -- if that firm have relatives in construction firms that may be bidding, then we need to know that. I think that's important. But more important, I think, is that we -- the contractor have the right, either contractor that we award this bid to, to reject this bid as we have the right to reject all bids. So if the contractor don't want to do the work under the terms that this board set forth, then all that contractor's got to say, "Not interested." We can't force him to do the work. That's the bottom line. We should go with the low base bid. And, Mr. Beck, if you put the --if you put either/or of the two add alternates in there, just one of them, would the other contractor wind up the low bidder? MR. BECK: I believe if we just took the lighting alternate, I believe the low base bidder would still get it because it was only $770. It was a small alternate. But the other alternate, though, was ten thousand -- roughly ten to seven thousand dollars. I think the -- I believe R.D. Brown was seven thousand plus and Blair was, I believe, ten thousand. So that's where the gap came in and that's what made the bids flip-flop there with that situation. One thing I did want to add is that, you know, we can't sit here and guarantee, I guess, that something won't come up on the job. You never know what may come up on the job, and we'll just have to deal with that with the contingency we've got and, you know, work it out the best way we can. The one thing that I wanted to make sure to mention is that at no time will any of these alternates, these other alternates that come up, be considered for a change order because that, in essence, would make what we're doing here today, you know, totally wrong. Any change order that may come up would have to be dealing with some unknown that we don't know out there now. And, again, depending on Johnson Laschober, our engineers, they feel like that this job, because it's a grading based, grassing type job with no construction, is more easily able to be done with a lower contingency than a building may be. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got some folks down here had their hands up. Mr. Brigham, then Mr. Kuhlke. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, my understanding from what Mr. Wall basically told us, and maybe he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that we can't change this to a hard-dollar contract, that it's a contract that's already been bid and that we're going to have to accept it as termed; and, therefore, it means that it can be -- have contingencies added to it. Now, in my opinion, if that's the case, we ought to go to the base bid and accept that one. At least we have a contingency fund of some on that. And that's the way I'm planning on voting for this thing, unless I'm wrong. MR. WALL: Well, I guess what I'm saying is the contingency has nothing to do with the contract; the contingency has something to do with the owner. The owner is holding back some money and is not including that in the contract in the event that a change order comes forward. The contractor has a hard- dollar-amount contract that says I will build this project for eight hundred and whatever thousand dollars it is. I mean, there is no contingency in the contract with the contractor. It's just a question of how much money do y'all want to hold back in the event that the contractor comes forward -- or we come forward and say we've looked at it and we want to add something else in on the project, then we've got some additional money; or if the contractor finds stone out there underneath the dirt and all of a sudden he's got to blast and he comes forward with a change order to do that. And the money is in contingency for that purpose, but it's not a part of the contract. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I was -- I'm not putting the burden of staying within the budget on the contractor; I'm putting the burden on the Recreation Department and the engineering firm. And what I'm saying is if we've got four fields out there to build, if something comes up we may not be able to build but three, but we're not going to spend any more money than we've got budgeted for this project. So that's all I'm saying. MR. BECK: And I fully agree with you. MR. HANDY: And, Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. Substitute motion first. Do you want to reread the motions? It's been a while. CLERK: Yes, sir. Substitute motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, was to approve the bid award as recommended, and that there be no further allocation of funds or expenditure of funds toward this project. The main motion by Mr. Ulmer Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd, was to award the bid to the low base bid with no alternates -- without any add alternates. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. Substitute motion first made by Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, TODD & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 4-4-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: We have no action on that one. The first bid -- I mean the first motion, excuse me. The main motion of Mr. Bridges was to award the low bid? CLERK: Yes, the low base bid without add alternates. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN] MR. ZETTERBERG: Let me ask this: I don't want to see this project stopped obviously, and if it doesn't get enough votes -- so I'm going to have to go with the lowest base bidder to keep the thing alive, if that's what it's going to take. How many votes do we have? MR. HANDY: You can't do that [inaudible]. You vote your way and -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote on the low base bid. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, wait a minute, maybe I don't quite understand what you're saying. If the base bid doesn't work, the proposal for the -- if that motion doesn't work, then what happens? Then there's no contract. MR. WALL: There's no contract and the prices that -- MR. ZETTERBERG: And there's no project and the project is killed. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's right. MR. ZETTERBERG: So that's why I'm saying you've forced us into a position -- so now what we're going to do is we're going to accept the -- we're going to accept a -- or make a motion and accept the contract and there's no paved parking lot and no change in the lights? MR. BECK: If that's what you choose to do, that's the way we'll carry it out. MR. H. BRIGHAM: One other question, Mr. Mayor. Does that mean, in the low base bid, that could possibly change the contract; is that what you're saying? MR. OLIVER: It will change the contract. MR. H. BRIGHAM: It will change the contract? MR. OLIVER: Yes, it will. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke, do you want to add something? MR. KUHLKE: I say why don't we wait until J.B. comes back in. MR. H. BRIGHAM: He'll be back after while. MAYOR SCONYERS: What was the last vote? CLERK: Well, if Mr. Zetterberg voted -- MR. ZETTERBERG: But just by clarification. CLERK: But without Mr. Zetterberg it'll be five-three. But he's changed it; right? MAYOR SCONYERS: Five-three-one; right? MR. ZETTERBERG: Right, if -- mine is to keep the project alive. I want the project done. CLERK: So it'll be six-three. That's Mr. -- okay, if I'm correct, voting for the main motion by Mr. Ulmer Bridges to award to the low base bid without alternates: Moses Todd, Jerry Brigham, Ulmer Bridges, Freddie Handy, Henry Brigham, and Rob Zetterberg. MR. HANDY: Not Freddie Handy. CLERK: No, Lee Beard. Was it you, Lee? MR. BEARD: [inaudible] CLERK: Let's do a roll call. MR. ZETTERBERG: So I can understand this -- MR. HANDY: Can we get someone in the hall to get Mr. Powell back in here? MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor? Could I ask a question, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: Does this -- what would happen is the contract would not be -- if I -- if it did not pass, if that motion did not pass, then we wouldn't have a contract. Then that would force us into a rebid situation. MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. ZETTERBERG: And I'd like to know if we were forced into a rebid situation, Mr. Beck, what's the impact on the project? MR. BECK: We would have -- there's no way we'd be able to get the facility ready for soccer this fall, which the fall season is the main time for soccer. All of our programmatic plans right now are to implement soccer at this facility this fall. It would be very, very doubtful that we could do that because you have to have the growing season in the summer to get the fields ready. MAYOR SCONYERS: Roll call vote. CLERK: Yes, sir. Roll call vote to approve low base bid without alternates. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Is that for the substitute motion? CLERK: No, that's the main motion by Ulmer Bridges, seconded by Mr. Todd. MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I think you're changing this whole -- the whole program and you're going to get this fight every week. No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: [Mr. Powell out.] CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY, KUHLKE & MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 5-4. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 35? MR. HANDY: We don't have no soccer field; right? CLERK: Right. Item 35 is a motion to approve the minutes of the regular Commission meeting held March 18th. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Brigham. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 37? CLERK: Item 36: Personnel hearing for Mr. Keith Wells from the Transit Department. MAYOR SCONYERS: I thought that was deleted. CLERK: No, we -- no, Mr. Hurley. Mr. Hurley. I'm sorry. MR. HANDY: Item 2 of 36. MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, okay. CLERK: Yeah. I'm sorry about that. MR. WALL: Ms. Calhoun is on her way, but she's not here yet. She represents Mr. Wells. May we -- MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we go into legal meeting then for whatever reason. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to go ahead and do the additions? CLERK: Yes, sir, we can do that. A motion to approve the condemnation of property of Bankers First Real Estate Development and a motion to condemn property of Mr. Ralph Dillman. MR. WALL: These are two items that we need to move forward on and we've been unable to negotiate a compromise or a settlement on, and ask for authority to condemn. 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. POWELL OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2? CLERK: No, sir, that was -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: That was 1 and 2. CLERK: Item 3: To hire seventy-five deputies -- MR. OLIVER: Sixteen. CLERK: Well, it was for sixteen. You reduced it to sixteen. MR. OLIVER: Yeah, it's sixteen. The agreement was made to put it on -- MR. TODD: So move to hire sixteen. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know exactly what we are doing here. The heading says seventy-five. Are we hiring sixteen now and the fifty-six or so I see -- the thirty I think I see on 9/1/97? MR. OLIVER: As previously discussed -- let me give you a recap of this one. We had anticipated this going to the Public Safety Commission -- or Committee next week. The Sheriff called and indicated this morning that he needed to hire these sixteen people right away and he wanted this item on. When this was discussed earlier, it was my understanding that when we put this on the consent -- or the agenda for today it required unanimous consent. To get that unanimous consent, it was my understanding that what you all desired to do was to consider authorizing that he be able to hire those sixteen new positions effective today -- or effective April the 2nd for the operation of the jail, and then the remainder of the positions would come back through the Public Safety Commission -- Committee at the next committee meeting. MR. BRIDGES: All right. We're not going with the recommendation here to approve fifty-nine on Fourth Street then? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion to hire the sixteen, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I've got two litigation matters that I need to take up and now might be a good time. MAYOR SCONYERS: I need a motion to go into legal session, gentlemen. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion? All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] [LEGAL MEETING, 3:35 - 4:15 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, what's the next order of business? CLERK: Personnel hearing for Mr. Keith Wells from the Transit Department. MS. D'ALESSIO: This comes to you with a recommendation from the Personnel Board to uphold the termination of Mr. Keith Wells. He was employed with the Transit Department under Heyward Johnson as a bus driver. In November of 1996 his bus was involved in an accident while he was driving. As a result, Mr. Wells went to the Occupational Health Office of University Hospital. Under our substance abuse policy, after an accident if he employee requires and/or receives medical treatment for injuries, then they are to be tested for illegal substances. And I have a package for y'all that contains some of the forms I'd like to distribute. The first page of the package that you're getting is the substance abuse coverage form, which is provided to all employees when they are trained on the substance abuse policy. It specifically includes a statement acknowledging that if I'm involved in an accident I'll be subject to testing. The first page of your package is the coverage form for Mr. Wells, which he did sign. The second page in your package is the specific consent form for the test that was performed on November 20th of 1996, the date of the accident and the date that he went for medical treatment. The result of the test was a positive result for marijuana. That was done by the means of an initial test, and then a confirmatory test that was the GCMS testing that y'all have heard about before. Our MRO confirmed the positive result, and he contacted Mr. Wells to discuss the positive result with him. He verified through his discussions with Mr. Wells that there was no other valid medical reason to explain this positive result, and he confirmed the test was positive. He also informed Mr. Wells that because this had been a split-sample test, that he had the right to have the second sample tested but he had to let him know that. And that's according to federal regulations, you've got to tell him you want it done. I believe the MRO had at least one other conversation with Mr. Wells about that split sample, but Mr. Wells never did say that he wanted to have the split sample tested. And since then, through the grievance process he has told us that he did not want to have the split sample tested because if the first part of it was dirty, as he called it, then the second part of it was dirty and there was no reason for him to have the second part tested. We had a hearing before the Personnel Board where evidence was received. Ms. Calhoun had subpoenaed a witness from the collection site, who was the actual lady who took Mr. Wells' sample, and she testified for some time about the procedures that were followed. I think they went through almost sentence by sentence the personnel policy, and it was confirmed that all procedures were followed. The MRO testified, explained his involvement: that he did contact Mr. Wells, that he investigated the result, that he investigated the chain of custody, that there was no other valid medical reason, and this was a confirmed positive for marijuana. The MRO testified that the only way this could be a positive result was if Mr. Wells had taken mari-juana or had taken some kind of drug with marijuana in it that had been prescribed for him. A prescription was ruled out. Based on that evidence the Personnel Board found that the policy was followed in all regards, that the test was positive, and that Mr. Wells as a safety-sensitive employee was properly terminated under our substance abuse policy, and we would ask you to uphold that result. One thing I want to point out, another document that y'all have besides the test result is a chain of custody form. The copy is not very good, I apologize for that, but that is the best that we have. And I think the original is here if anybody needs to see that. But what you can see on that is a statement by Mr. Wells -- or signed by Mr. Wells that the specimen he provided was his and it was the one collected from him. And I think that's the most significant part of that form, and I think you can read that, but otherwise I do apologize for the quality of the copy. If anybody has any questions, I can answer those. Yes, sir? MR. TODD: The lab that was used, that's the lab that's certified by Health and Human Services? MS. D'ALESSIO: Yes, sir. It's the Smith-Kline-Beecham Lab in Atlanta. That lab is certified by the Department of Health and Human Services. MR. TODD: Thank you. MS. D'ALESSIO: Yes, sir, Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes. Have we changed labs now, different from the one in North Carolina? MS. D'ALESSIO: No, this is the one -- because he went to Occupational Health, as a result of seeking medical treatment that test goes to the -- University Health sends theirs to Smith-Kline-Beecham. The MRO can speak to that if you want to ask him specifically, but that's my understanding is that their tests go to Smith-Kline, which is a DHHS laboratory. MR. HANDY: The reason why I ask you that, you know, on the last hearing that we had you specified that those who have -- work in a sensitive position like bus drivers or something like that, they go -- they were certified, North Carolina, to do those tests. And so you're saying that we gave Occupational Health/ University Hospital the authority to send it wherever they wanted to, or that we did not go according to our procedure that we would send ours to North Carolina, if I heard you right, and that's what I'm asking. MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, what we had said in the policy was that it would be at a laboratory certified by DHHS. And what happened last time was the Virginia laboratory voluntarily withdrew its certification because it was consolidating its operations and they were transferring the Transit tests to North Carolina. Now, Smith-Kline-Beecham in Atlanta has always been certified DHHS and that's just where University happens to send theirs. As long as it's certified that way, then it meets the policy. MR. WALL: Mr. Handy, I think the distinction is that here he was involved in an automobile -- or a vehicular accident and so therefore he was at the hospital. The blood was drawn at the hospital -- not the blood, but the test was administered at the hospital, so therefore the hospital laboratory was utilized as opposed to a random screening test. MR. HANDY: Okay. My final statement then: That's not in our procedure, so that should be something added in case there is an accident, then the hospital or wherever you go should take custody of the test then. Because that's not what you read the last time. MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, what the policy says is that Augusta-Richmond County will only use laboratories certified by the Department of Health and Human Services, and this laboratory is certified by the Department of Health and Human Services. So I understand what you're saying, but that is -- that's the policy requirement. MR. HANDY: Right, but we're not using that lab, University Hospital is using that lab. MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, we're using it through University. MR. HANDY: Something this technical, we ought to be writing down what we're saying and how we're going to do it. Because just like I said before, you know, we keep coming up with drugs and -- I'm just talking now, not against or for. What I'm saying is that something is wrong with our policy and it needs to be corrected, that's what I'm saying. And then we keep finding all these flaws in certain items that comes up, no matter what it is, that's what I'm saying. MS. D'ALESSIO: And I don't -- you know, I don't see this as a flaw. But we talked about this before we came in here, and I think the MRO can speak to that; that in his profession, if you're not getting any positive results, that's when there's something wrong with your policy. If you're getting some positives, that means your policy is working and it's finding the people that it needs to find. And according to Sandy Wright, my understanding is that our rate of positives is between one and two percent, more towards one percent, out of all the eleven hundred or so tests that were done last year. MR. BEARD: Lori, what was the time line from the time that he -- that the sample was taken and also the time that he was notified that it was positive? MS. D'ALESSIO: The sample was taken on November 20th of 1996, and I believe the -- that on the 25th of November was when the result was confirmed positive by our MRO, who is here today if y'all have any questions for him. MR. TODD: My question is that it's my understanding that all of the four causes that's involved in accidents goes to the Atlanta lab. THE MRO: I think the distinction she's trying to make is you have one policy where you're doing random, scheduled, contracted drug screens through the lab you contract; the other side you're dealing with injuries, people that have to seek medical attention, and then wherever they happen to seek medical attention, it's usually routed through whatever lab system they use as long as it's a certified lab. Like they may have gotten hurt -- you know, maybe they were in Atlanta on a convention or something and, you know, they're on the clock and got hurt and it'd be done in Atlanta. So that's kind of the distinction there. MR. TODD: Okay. It was my understanding that the -- that we're not lab specific but we're procedure specific and that we're covered as far as the procedure go by virtue of the -- if you're looking at the last case, by virtue of the Virginia lab sending the sample to the North Carolina lab along with where they had transferred their certification. So I don't have a problem there, I understand what happened there. I think I understand what happened as far as if you're in an accident where you receive the medical treatment, you know, that you would be tested at that time versus a week later or whatever. I don't have a problem there. MS. D'ALESSIO: Thank you very much. MS. CALHOUN: Gentlemen, my name is Elizabeth Calhoun and I'm representing Mr. Wells today. Ladies and gentlemen -- can everyone hear me? Thank you. First of all, I'd like to talk about the policy as it exists today and point out a few problems I have run into with the policy itself before I get to the specifics as it apply to Mr. Wells' case. First of all, going to the section that calls for -- the question was asked about that calls for a person being administered a drug test, a safety-sensitive employee such as an employee such as Mr. Wells who's driving a bus, should he seek medical help, a drug test being administered whether or not he has actually been fired for a violation or not. Whereas a person, say Mr. Wells -- let's use that for an example. On this particular date the accident occurred about seven o'clock in the morning. The driver of the other vehicle ran a -- failed to yield for a stop sign, ran into the bus, which has thirteen people on it at the time, and was cited for no driver's license and failure to yield. Mr. Wells was cited for nothing, was found harmless. He was concerned--he's worked for Transit Authority for over thirteen years--for his passengers. His neck was hurting, his shoulder was hurting. He goes -- gets his passengers delivered, goes to the terminal, immediately requests to see the doctor. This is at approximately nine o'clock. What is requested, that he had any kind of test up till this point. And so he goes and sees a doctor. He's given an appointment for 11:15. He's in a lot of pain, but instead of seeing the doctor he is given forms, lots of forms to fill out. He has no fear of this, and I'll go into this a little bit later. But he is in pain, he should be treated first, not given a alcohol test and another type test before they even see him for -- concerning his injuries. Had he not gone to the physician under the policy as it exists today he would not have been tested. Now, I guess the argument can be and was made that, well, if somebody's got nothing to hide they wouldn't mind going to a doctor to see a blood -- you know, to have this done in order to see a doctor. The federal regulations, ladies and gentlemen -- and this is what concerns me, because the very first preamble or paragraph requires that we be in conformity with the federal regulations. It states that we shall comply with them, states that the person shall be seen for the injury first, and that in an instance like this anyone who is involved in a accident, after being treated, whether found -- whether they are found at fault or not, shall be given a blood test or shall be given a urine test for -- and that is what we are required to comply with and we are not doing that now. We are not doing that now, we are only saying that people such as Mr. Wells who elect to see a doctor and have to wait some two hours and fifteen minutes before even being given an appointment and then being subjected to this other before being treated, and we are not in compliance with federal regulations on that. We can't have it both ways, it's either got to be everybody that's --everybody has to be tested or nobody gets tested, fault or no fault. And ladies and gentlemen, I submit to you also that persons who have nothing to hide will be very intimidated. People who should see doctors, employees who should see doctors. And I think we've all heard horror stories about tests and samples, chain of custody. There are numerous ways that samples can get confused. They'll be -- what if it's somebody with nineteen years and a serious injury and thinking, "My gosh, what if my sample gets mixed up and I'm immediately terminated." He might not go and see a doctor when he really should, and I think -- in that sense I think our policy does need to be changed, and -- as well as not being in compliance with the federal law -- federal regulations, which could cause a loss of federal funds. Now, getting to Mr. Wells' particular situation, and there are other points I will touch on as we go. Today -- or at the very beginning of this matter when Mr. Wells contacted me and from the very first hearing I requested, and I believe it is called for, that everything -- all proceedings be recorded. That is for the protection of the government and for the protection of the individual. At first there was no record available, and when I insisted one was made available. I was assured that every hearing would be recorded, I would be furnished with a transcript. As of yesterday afternoon I have no transcripts for any of the proceedings. I did write a letter to Mr. Oliver, a copy to Mr. Etheridge, and I believe another copy to the Attorney. So I'm somewhat, as far as being specific, at a loss here. I don't have the benefit of that. Going to the first hearing, at the first hearing before one of the boards we at that point attempted to introduce, and it was not allowed that we do it, a copy of a drug test that Mr. Wells had done. I mean, he was actually shocked when he came in and told me what he had heard from -- not at first from the -- the doctor -- no one seemed to know where the actual report was from Smith-Kline-Beecham. That went on for a while. When it was finally tracked down we made arrangements for him to have a test done, and this test was done by LabCorp. LabCorp in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. That is, of course, a certified lab and one of the most respected labs. He went to his -- he had to -- there was a question of whether or not -- and he asked, I believe, Mr. Johnson or the doctor would he have to pay for this himself. They told him they didn't know. Well, of course, I said go and get it done regardless. So he -- oh, that was on the split sample, would he have to pay for the split sample, to have that sent off. They were saying, I believe, if it comes back positive you'll have to pay for it or negative you won't, but we aren't sure. He never received an answer, so he went to his own doctor, Dr. Wilhelmi, who is -- and the test was done. Not only was a urine sample done, but blood was done. It was sent on December the 4th. We had copies to introduce at the first hearing of this test, but they said they were not relevant at all to the proceeding. It came back absolutely negative for cannabis or any other drug. And this was a double test; it was in the blood as well as in the -- as well as in the urine. And I know the question will be asked. This test was done some -- not a long time, but --let's see, it was done on December the 4th. But in order to set it up -- and cannabis -- we wanted to present testimony as to the length of -- that cannabis remains in the -- it goes to the fatty tissue, and that request was also denied. Also, my initial contact -- and I'm talking about the procedure for grievances as it was applied to Mr. Wells. I inquired immediately after Mr. Wells came in if I could arrange, and it would be at the agreement of all parties, that a polygraph be given to Mr. Wells and we would bear the expense of it. I was told again that they do not honor these type of things and that it would have no bearing and I would not be allowed to bring it up at all. I thought it was relevant just in the -- just as building your evidence. We have a drug test, we have a polygraph. A polygraph was done this morning at my expense, and Mr. Wells passed that polygraph with flying colors. Ladies and gentlemen, going on further, the second hearing occurred, and on that particular date, of course, it was before the -- I believe the Personnel Board. We were told immediately prior to the hearing commencing, well, you might as well go home because we are not going to -- after this hearing we are redoing the appeal procedure, and you fall in the middle of it, so this is the end of the road. And I said, whoa, wait a minute, that's --you can't do that, that's -- I said, you know, we feel that our only chance for a full hearing will be before the Commission. And they were telling us at that -- and I realize, of course, people can change procedures, but you don't do it in midstream. Well, I believe that certain heads did prevail and we were told that I guess we would -- if the procedure is changed we would be grandfathered in or whatever and would be allowed to appeal. But that was quite shocking to hear right before you're beginning your second stage, that that's it, that there will be no third stage should you not be there -- or should you not prevail. I'd also like to point out that there almost -- at that hearing -- and I had been assured by Mr. Oliver at the -- and he was not present at the second hearing, so I'm in no way casting any doubt or recrimination on him, that any witnesses, even though the rules do provide that witnesses can come there -- I don't believe I was subject to subpoena. We were assured when I was objecting to hearsay--that was at the first hearing--that every person involved would be present at the next level should we have to go to the next level. We came to the next level, the doctor was not there. And this is the board -- and you'll have to excuse me, I'm not that familiar with the mechanics of the new government, but it's the board that Mr. Brian Mulherin is on. And the doctor wasn't there. We were told it wasn't necessary. And again I insisted. I said this isn't fair, they -- we, you know, needed some personal information here. You know, this is -- we've had nothing but hearsay. We were assured that we would have anyone present that we wanted. We wanted the doctor as well as the lady, because according to the policy regulations they had to be qualified in certain manners and to make sure especially that the chain of custody had been followed. And so the hearing -- some testimony was taken. The hearing was continued. At the next hearing the -- I had gotten a little smarter by this time and said I'd better subpoena -- I just had a feeling that we're not going to have the person who actually did the collecting there. I had my secretary have her served with a subpoena a very short time, admittedly, before the hearing, but it kind of dawned on me that I couldn't really expect her to be there. The doctor was there. There was quite a little to-do about it. I finally agreed to pay for her lost time myself out of my pocket, that she was an absolutely necessary person. This was opposed by the government. They wanted her -- they did not want her there. We went through -- and if I had a transcript I would not bore you with it, but I hope that perhaps you have a transcript. They may have provided one to you. Step by step going through the procedures, the chain of custody, I submit to you, was not followed in this case. It is required that a book be kept that Mr. Wells signed, and to the best of my knowledge there is no such book in existence. They refer you to the chain of custody. The testimony as regards to chain of custody is that someone comes by from University Hospital six or seven times a day. They also store in a refrigerator there all of the people who are -- all the samples that are randomly taken. At any given time you would have, I think the testimony was, and I could be incorrect, at least fifteen samples in there. Someone comes by, signs for them, collects them, evidently takes them to University. And as far as the shipping to Atlanta or however it gets to Smith-Kline, if there is any testing done at University, that we were not able to ascertain. We very strongly object to one portion of their report. It's the first time we've ever seen it. It's the -- I believe I was just handed a copy. We were given a page of the Smith-Kline-Beecham report. And, gentlemen, I submit, this is all about fairness. It is all about fairness, and I think we have a procedure that very few changes could be made to work so well. And -- but is this fairness? All right, the second page where it goes into -- I believe you must have been furnished a copy. This is the first time I have ever seen it. I might not even have a copy here with me. Anyway, [inaudible] the confirming portion of the report [inaudible] statement on page one was not furnished to me until today and, of course, I do feel like this very definitely denied Mr. Wells due process. Ladies and gentlemen, in summary, and I know I've taken quite some time, what we had hoped to get under the new government and under the new procedure was a -- under the policy -- we saw problems with the policy. We still thought, especially in the area of their random -- who goes -- who actually gets tested, even if they are not at fault, if they elect to go to a doctor, and then the person who is not at fault but doesn't go to a doctor, and that being in conflict with federal requirements. I have a very serious problem, but goodness knows we don't need to lose any federal funds anymore in this county. I have a problem with that. And the way that it was handled from the very beginning, from my very first conversation about -- actually trying to get in touch with the doctor. Which he did, he returned a call. I was at Dr. Tippett's office for my physical when he did call me back. At that point nobody seemed to know where the report was, whether it was in Atlanta, whether Ms. Mary Blackstone had it. We got the run-around, I feel. Very much a run-around. As far as the split sample, not at that time having access to the doctor's offices, not knowing whether they were even certified to do this, or whether -- you are very explicit, and whoever wrote your policy did a excellent job in setting out what has to be done. It follows what the federal people do exactly and the most strict probation people as far as the room and this kind of thing. But we had no idea whether that had been followed or not, and so therefore we did not know whether a contamination -- I was, of course, going on and believed in what my client was telling me, that he had not smoked any cannabis or been around any cannabis that he knew of. And I will tell you that just being around cannabis is not -- will not usually make a person go positive. But anyway, we didn't know what kind of circumstances his sample was taken under and, too, what kind of chain of custody. And as we found out at one of the hearings, it was indeed not done. And we objected also when we found out that Smith-Kline would have been used. That's why we sent ours to the lab in North Carolina and feel like ours is a much -- and not being allowed to even present that in the hearing -- if a hearing is to determine whether or not Mr. Wells was rightfully or wrongfully terminated -- I mean, are we here just to determine that, yes, we dotted the I and wrote a letter on a certain date or are we going to give this man a chance to counter, which we believe we've done beyond a reasonable doubt. We have a blood test, we have a polygraph, and to not even be allowed to present this kind of evidence, ladies and gentlemen, I submit does violate due process. And in that manner I would please urge this governing body to consider Mr. Wells, a father of two children; Mr. Wells, who admitted and I immediately told Risk Management that some eight or nine years ago he was cited for a marijuana violation. He went through treatment, and that was before his marriage, before his children, and has never been near that material again. We volunteered this information, of course. We felt we had a duty to do it. Because somebody has done something when they were much younger does not mean that they will do it again, I submit to you. One final note. I went to State Court today because Mr. Bay, the gentleman who ran into the bus, was set for arraignment and/or a plea and sentencing depending on -- or to demand a jury trial, so I hoped I could give you this information today as far as fault, whether he pled guilty or not. The case was continued. Mr. Nicholson is representing him, he was not present, and that is all the information I have on that. MR. OLIVER: I have one question before I clarify one portion of the record. In the substance abuse coverage form it says, "I understand that if I'm involved in an accident which results in my requiring and/or receiving medical attention for injuries I may be tested for illegal substances." A post-accident test. Is there a portion of that that's not understandable? MS. CALHOUN: No, sir, but I certainly think he ought to be treated for his injuries before he's tested. MR. OLIVER: I totally agree that proper treatment is essential. The one other clarification that I would make to the record regards the magnetic recording of the meeting. That was recorded from beginning to end, as you and I know. At that meeting, and we offered yesterday when you sent the letter, and I offered at that time to make that tape available to you. We never offered to make a transcript or anything of that matter, but we did offer to make you a copy of the tape if you so desired, and I am very confident that the magnetic recording of that tape will bear me out on that fact. MS. CALHOUN: Well, I wasn't -- was this made to my secretary? I was in court yesterday. MS. D'ALESSIO: I faxed you a letter this morning. MS. CALHOUN: Well, I've been in court all day, so I'm sorry. That's -- MR. OLIVER: Because we got your letter yesterday afternoon about four o'clockish, I guess. MS. D'ALESSIO: Right. MS. CALHOUN: Well, I was in State Court this morning and [inaudible], so I never got it. But that's --thank you. MR. TODD: Attorney Calhoun, I guess I have a couple of questions. As a officer of the courts, don't you have the right to have a recorder if you desire for any hearing that you attend? Just a question. MS. CALHOUN: Actually, I believe it's under the way the -- the format that the hearings will be recorded, and Mr. Oliver can correct me on this if I'm wrong. So of course, I guess I could have, but -- does it state that they will be recorded? It does not state that? Well, I stand corrected. I'm sorry. But certainly I could, yes, sir. I mean, now that I realize. But a recorder, you know, was available and the -- I remember the representation being made that the transcription would be done. I assumed everyone would need one. MR. OLIVER: We don't want to waste the money of the taxpayers in doing a transcript because clearly you and I know that a transcript is very costly. A transcript can be subsequently made if the need subsequently arises from the magnetic medium. MS. CALHOUN: Had I been so informed I would have been more than glad, as I was to pay the -- to offer to pay the lady. I've not yet received a bill. I would have been more than glad to do it. I was not asked to. I would have done it in a minute. MR. TODD: In the sense that you've stated for the record, not that it's admissible in court, that you have a polygraph and that it come back, you know, I guess negative -- well, I guess positive in the sense that the person wasn't deceiving, may I raise the concern who done the polygraph test that you have? MS. CALHOUN: Certainly. Mr. Eddie Goode. He has done polygraphs for - - well, he was with the Sheriff's Department for many, many years and now he does them as a investigator. And I was -- I had really kind of waited, whether or not it would even, you know, be -- because I am paying for it, and he was able to do it this morning. I did not contact him until yesterday and he -- I was not present, I was in State Court when it was done, and I was not even informed of the results until around one or two o'clock today by telephone. MR. TODD: Yes. In the sense that it's already a part of the record, do you have the results and the questions that was raised? MS. CALHOUN: That could -- he asked me if I would need that this afternoon. His wife is having a thyroid taken out today, and I said -- I can have that for you. It will have to be done this week. I mean, I can have the actual written results with the -- they will attach the tape and everything so you'll see that there's no fudging or anything of that nature. MR. TODD: I guess my final question is, I notice that there was some time between the two tests, the test that the county had administered and the test that your client had administered, but is that a large factor, the time? Can't you actually flush your system through different techniques or methodologies without having the ten or so days? Isn't that why you have a chain of custody from the time that you go into the men's room, a temperature check on it, you know, et cetera, et cetera, to assure that there's no dilution or attempts to flush; and that's why you can't, you know, drink certain solutions, that you only can do water or what they have at a test site? MS. CALHOUN: I have discussed this question at length with quite a few people. And I practice criminal law, and I'm getting ready to retire, but I have done it both as a prosecutor for nine years and as a defense attorney. Marijuana, cannabis, unlike cocaine or some of the other substances, and I believe any of the probation officers could tell you this, sticks to the fatty tissue in your body, so that as a general rule -- and unless Mr. Wells was extremely lucky, it generally stays in the system for approximately a -- at least a month on even an occasional smoker. It can be tested in the hair for -- and supposedly -- I was at the Medical College reading some articles about this earlier, and for up to a year it will show up in the hair. And we were discussing earlier, you know, the possibility of -- that's an extremely expensive test, having that kind of test done. But in answer to your question, it generally sticks because it sticks to the fatty tissues. It stays longer. You can flush out cocaine. Cocaine is a much shorter period. MR. TODD: And the test that the North Carolina lab done was negative -- no percentage? I know that before you consider it to be positive, that you got to test at a certain level, and anything under that would not be. MS. CALHOUN: The North Carolina test, and if I could read from that, which was administered -- I see the date given on the -- just for the record to clarify a time frame, the date given where the results were verified on the initial test was 11/25/96. If I'm not mistaken, that's right at Thanksgiving. It's either the Monday or the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. The test that we arranged was given to Mr. Wells on December the 4th, so we're talking not that long a period. And -- I'm sorry, I forgot your question. MR. TODD: My question was, was there any level of marijuana shown in the North Carolina test? And I guess also I'd want to know what was your chain of custody as far as that North Carolina test. MS. CALHOUN: It was absolutely negative. I would be delighted if the Commission would like me to distribute copies of it. The chain of custody was from the doctor -- I cannot pronounce that. MR. WALL: Dr. Wilhelmi. MS. CALHOUN: Dr. Wilhelmi's office to the lab probably by the same way we do with the GBI, by certified mail. I do not know. I can get that answer for you. I certainly would be delighted to since it was never admitted and never became an issue. I'm sorry, I should mention one other thing -- one other factor that might have some bearing. A week -- it's very important and I apologize for coming in this late with this, but it is extremely important. A week or so before this accident occurred there was a spill, a chemical spill, and there was a picture in the newspaper. Some of you may recall it. The firefighters were cleaning it up. Mr. Wells' bus route went over that. He drove over that all day long and was having headaches or problems near the end of the day. He requested to see the doctor but was informed that this was not the kind of thing that was covered because -- and I think it turned out to be ammonium nitrate or something like that and that could do him harm. And he could see a doctor, yes, but it would have to be at his own expense. MR. TODD: Is this nitrate something that would show up positive as far as marijuana? MS. CALHOUN: We know so little about marijuana. There are four hundred and forty different parts of it and we only know I think about fifty-four, what they actually do to the body, so it's not been really tested. I mean, well, they're trying to, but there are that many more. That leaves some three hundred and something parts of it that we don't know what they react to. MR. OLIVER: We have a physician with us. MS. D'ALESSIO: Yes, we do. The MRO is here. He was asked that exact question in the hearing and he can tell y'all what he told everybody then. MR. TODD: I'd like to hear from him before I make a motion. THE MRO: My job in this whole mess is to really conform to whether the chain of custody and the process of transferring the urine was adhered to with the chain of custody and sent to the lab and it's a certified lab and the whole thing that you've all heard a million times. I determined that that was true and that Mr. Wells did not have a medical reason for being positive for marijuana and reported back as a positive. The -- I've never heard of an ammonia cloud from ten days to two weeks before ever causing a marijuana test to become positive. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if the Chair will recognize me, I'd like to make a motion that we uphold the recommendation of the Personnel Board. MR. BRIDGES: I second. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I just have one thing that I would like to say in all of this. Wherein I do not subscribe to the use of any type drug, and especially a driver of a bus, I still would contend that we need to revisit our policy. And my main contention there would be the time limit between notification to the person that they are positive, and I think that should give the person the opportunity to retake this test before we would assume that the drug has left his system. And this is what I have with that, and I really think that we should revisit that. Because here we are dealing with people who've worked long times for the government, and if there is a mistake that has been made, then I think every effort should be afforded to correct that mistake prior to a termination. And the only way I can see that as being corrected is that the person be given an opportunity immediately within a certain number of hours to be retested, because mistakes are made. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I guess this is for either Ms. Calhoun or -- what's the time frame? Is this seven to nine days on a max on one collection versus the other one, on his test versus the one done at University? I guess what I'm looking at [inaudible]. Fourteen days then versus nine. What type of -- on your screening -- I'm looking at, I guess, what should be on a fifty screen and a show up of fifteen. What type of, I guess, on the system -- and that's hard to tell, I know, but on the second test of one showing up negative versus another one at that level on the tested one, would that put you in a hard predicament of dealing with that one? I mean, if you got one that's on its way out of the system versus one that might be higher limits that's in there. THE MRO: Right. I think I understand what you're asking. The way -- this is a federal drug screen, unlike some of the other drug screens you've had presented before you that are just your routine system drug screens. You actually get a level reported back on those. On the federal drug screens you don't. It's either above the cutoff or below the cutoff. Below it's negative, above it's positive, and that's how a federal drug screen works. Generally marijuana is out of your system in three to five days in a casual user. It can be in your system up to a month. Generally that's people that smoke more regularly to keep up a level where it would store in the fatty tissues and stay for a longer period of time. Does that answer -- MR. MAYS: Was that the -- I guess then, was that the reason, John, that y'all say on a test that was done independently did not consider that as a part of any of the hearings then? MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, I would say that's partly the reason, but another reason -- for example, when his test was offered at the Personnel Board hearing there was no chain of custody information offered with it, and so it's hard to take those at face value without any chain of custody, whereas we have chain of custody documents that are confirmed by the MRO. So I think that would be two reasons, and John can add anything else that he wants to, but mostly because of the time frame. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Certainly, you know, as far as the chain of custody go I would be concerned on whether the doctor wrote a order for the -- Ms. Calhoun's client to go to a lab to have a sample drawn and that lab sent it off versus the doctor -- going to the doctor's office, the doctor get the sample, and the doctor send the sample off. And that's why I raised the concerns as far as the chain of custody earlier on this sample or alleged sample that was sent to a lab in North Carolina. I have no doubt that there was a sample sent to a lab in North Carolina. My concern would be, you know, the procedure and methodology as far as the chain of custody go and when I can't see a link or whether there's a chain of custody. If I'm running for a state office and I got to take a test, I got to go to one of their labs that they require. And I don't think that we can get in the business of taking -- of allowing employees or individuals to go to their doctor to do a sample in their doctor's office and their doctor send the sample off to be tested versus a order being wrote to a lab to draw a sample. The experience that I've had outside of my workplace on doing a drug test is that Dr. Williams had to write a order, I had to go to Mullins Lab, and then they done the sample. They maintain the chain of custody. I sign off on it just like I would at work, a sticker is put around it, and it's my understanding that if that sticker is not there when it reach the lab, then the chain of custody has been breached and the lab will not perform the test on the sample, they request another sample. So I think if we understand the procedure as far as the labs go, understand our procedure, we don't have a problem understanding them, that we maintain that chain of custody. We've had other individuals terminated from county government--and this may not be relevant and the County Attorney can stop me anytime he feels like it--that have been in the court systems for approximately twenty years, and I'll leave this individual nameless. This individual was sent to take a test, turned out positive, he said he wasn't, he was terminated or resigned or whatever. I bumped into him a few days ago and he said, "Well, probably the best thing that happened to me is I got caught," and that's where I'm going to leave that. That was over twenty years of experience, one of the top individuals in county government and the court system. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yeah, the only thing I was just going to ask -- not necessarily playing devil's advocate but just giving benefit of the doubt. I was going to ask Ms. Calhoun is there anything from your physician, lab, combination of the two, that since this has not been introduced prior to -- we're dealing with this today. Is there anything that if we delayed or dealt with this at any other time that you could bring forth within your case that would possibly make this Commission deal with any other decisions other than supporting the termination? MS. CALHOUN: Yes, Your Honor, we certainly can. I'm sorry, excuse me, I've been in court all week. MR. MAYS: Don't tell Billy you said that. MS. CALHOUN: We certainly can, and if you would just give us three days I feel sure we could have it by Friday. Also, I think I should point out the sample that was taken at the request of the government was not taken at a --at the lab -- at Mullins or University, it was taken at the doctor's office. He wrote no order, it was actually -- as was done in our case, it was taken at the doctor's office. I felt that was important. But, certainly, we can verify the chain of custody. It's accredited, and the lab we used also is considered one of the best in the country. And we will verify the chain of custody. MR. MAYS: And I'm not saying that plays a difference in terms of not supporting what has been brought forth, you know, from the government. But I wanted to make sure, as I have in other cases, that since you're dealing with lives that you definitely want to protect, particularly in these cases, the general public or where people, you know, are either riding in vehicles or some may have an accident and hurt them, you know, all of those things that occur. But at the same time, you know, one individual's rights and making sure that every benefit of the doubt is given, and that's why I asked would anything that you haven't presented here today be different in terms of something bringing forth that has not already been presented, and that's why I asked that question. MS. CALHOUN: No, I appreciate it and I share in your concern. I hope I would not be standing here if I felt any different. And it can be verified. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. BRIDGES: Call the question. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a -- well, if that's -- I guess we've continued a bunch of other stuff. I make a substitute motion then, if that be the case, and I'm not saying in terms of that reflects my vote or anything, but I make a substitute motion that that allowed to be presented to this body since it had not been done prior to. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a substitute motion by Mr. Mays. MR. HANDY: I'll second it. [End of Tape 2] MR. TODD: ...Mayor, that Ms. Calhoun, the gentleman's attorney, has made all the hearings. And, you know, we went into legal session and delayed this hearing in order for her to be here, and I think that's the appropriate thing to do. Certainly she has submitted evidence. Everything that she has said is a matter of record and I would assume to be considered in the sense that I haven't heard Mr. Wall object, and that -- he usually don't bite his tongue when he object to something in a hearing. Then all that is evidence. So I think the evidence is there. Ms. Calhoun has offered into evidence that there was a polygraph test given. She's also given the name of the person that gave the polygraph test. She's offered into evidence that there was a sample sent up to North Carolina. She's also -- I guess it's in doubt about whether there's a chain of custody. My position is that she certainly had plenty of time to establish whether there was a chain of custody from sometime in December -- December 5th until the first day of April, which I guess appropriately is April Fool's Day. But certainly it's my position that we've heard the evidence. We've heard it from both sides and I'm ready to move to vote on the original motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. The substitute -- Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, just one final statement. The question was asked whether or not this test that Ms. Calhoun presented was taken in the doctor's office, and she came right back and said the same test that -- the other one was taken the same way. So that needs to be checked into. Not to say that it's going to go either way, but the whole thing of it is, both tests was done the exact same way, in a doctor's office, and the chain of custody was not followed. If you say one was not, then the other wasn't because they're both done the same way and the same type doctor. So who's to say which one was done right and which one was done wrong? And I'm not saying that I'm for drug use or not for drug use. I'm saying right now we need to listen for some more evidence, and then if you cannot get any, then we vote it up or down and go ahead on with it. But if both tests was done the exact same way, what does -- Miss Lori, do you have anything to say about that, or you have anything that you -- MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, I do, and I think the problem is that we don't know the tests were done the same way. Because at the hearing we presented our chain of custody that was signed off by the MRO. She didn't present any chain of custody, and so we don't know exactly what happened as to her test. Now, as to our chain of custody --and just to go off for a second, you know, my recollection is the same as Mr. Oliver's. We told her the tapes would be available. And I listened to the tapes before this hearing today, and Ms. Calhoun said at that hearing -- she got the collection site girl there, the actual girl who did the collection of the sample. She had her and asked her questions for a long time, and when she got through with her she said that the whole policy, speaking of the substance abuse policy, was to ensure fairness, and from what I'm hearing so far everything was done according to what was set forth and adopted by the Commissioners. And, I mean, I remember thinking at the time, well, good, she's satisfied that we did what we were supposed to do; if she's got other questions, that's fine. But, you know, I think we had our evidence there, and hers wasn't. She was never denied the opportunity to bring in anybody that she wanted to. And the girl she subpoenaed -- we said we don't think you have the authority to subpoena her, but I told her if you want to stay and testify voluntarily, that's fine, and she did. MR. HANDY: Right, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that both tests was done the exact same way, at a doctor's office, not at a certified lab, and followed the procedure -- MS. D'ALESSIO: Well, they get collected -- they don't get collected at a certified lab. The sample gets collected at a collection site, and this -- the only thing I know of in common right now is they were both done in a doctor's office. Now, I know that this doctor's office met all the collection site requirements of our policy. I don't know anything about his doctor's office: how they did it, what kind of containers they used, what kind of seals they used or anything like that. That's all I'm saying. MR. OLIVER: What was the time difference between the two tests? MS. D'ALESSIO: The time interval between -- MR. HANDY: Wait just a minute, Miss Lori. I haven't finished yet, Randy. MR. OLIVER: All right, then. MR. HANDY: Thank you. The time that was taken -- in our procedure it says a lab. It does not say at a doctor's office that is certified as a lab. Is that not correct? MS. D'ALESSIO: It says at a collection site. MR. HANDY: Our procedure says a collection site? MS. D'ALESSIO: For the collection of the sample. Now, the testing obviously has to be done in a lab. MR. HANDY: Okay. I don't have the procedure. Could you read that for me? MS. D'ALESSIO: Sure. It talks about specimen collection procedures: "The collection site shall have all necessary personnel, materials, equipment, facilities, and supervision to provide for the collection, security, temporary storage, and shipping or transportation of urine specimens to a certified drug testing laboratory." And then it goes through several pages of requirements that the collection site and the collection site person, who's the one who takes the sample, has to meet. I think there are three pages of requirements, and Ms. Calhoun went through them one by one with this collection site person who was there at the hearing. So I think you're -- maybe we're talking about two different things. The collection site just has to meet these requirements; the lab is a whole different story. MR. HANDY: You're right, the lab is the one that actually do the test. MS. D'ALESSIO: Exactly. And I'm saying that her collection site, yes, was the same. It was a doctor's office. But I don't know who their personnel was, I don't know what procedures they followed, to know that it was administered the same way. MR. HANDY: Okay. MR. OLIVER: What was the timing difference between the two tests? MS. D'ALESSIO: The dates that -- our test was November 20th. The test at his doctor's office was December 4th. You know, and there was discussion at the hearing about what that time difference made. I think the MRO has kind of touched on it again today. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with what's been presented by the county side, and maybe I misunderstood what Ms. Calhoun said. The only reason I made that motion in terms of giving that benefit of the doubt was that if a drug test that had been done by the terminated employee or proposed terminated employee had not been allowed to, say, be discussed or presented, I wanted to make sure that we covered all of that in there. Now, maybe it was, Lori, and, I mean, that may be a difference, you know, between you and Liz as to whether it was allowed to be admitted, per se, or not to be discussed. If it had not been and then we are talking about it in this frame, I just wanted to make sure that if they had something else -- not that she was going to present, but if they had anybody from a professional side, as do we, that could present anything different that has not been presented to this body already, and that was the purpose only of my motion. And I don't have a problem stating where I stand in reference to whether or not I'm not sure whether I support somebody on it or whether I don't support them on it. I don't support anybody dealing with drugs: on it, using it, selling it, whatever; but I want to make sure that our policy in itself is fair and that we've covered every ground with it. Because when you're talking about termination, that is, whether we like or not, a stigma that does follow. And there's a lot of things that are forgivable in the workplace. That is one that is probably frowned on in this day and time more than anything else. And I think when we do that on that type of release, then we absolutely ought to make sure that it's a clear breakage in terms of where we've done it. But in terms of your presentation and what we have here, I have no problem with that clarity and where it's done. But if there is a break in that question, that was what my motion was trying to cover, is to make sure that if it had been presented and denied, that if there was something different that they wanted to bring forth from a professional opinion, that they be allowed to do that. And that would not necessarily change, per se, what you might have if there be made up minds that be here already, but in terms of the fact that if there was a question that had never been presented, then they be afforded that particular opportunity to do it, and that was the purpose of that motion. MS. D'ALESSIO: To answer your question -- the MRO can elaborate on this a little bit, but I can't remember, frankly, if the document itself was admitted into evidence or not, but it was discussed at length. Ms. Calhoun cross-examined the MRO at length about his -- Mr. Wells' independent test result and whether he could read that and what it meant to him and the fact that it was a blood test as opposed to a urine test, and it was discussed at great length in the hearing. And, again, I -- you know, the tapes are here; y'all can listen to them. She was never once denied the opportunity to have anybody testify that she wanted to. MR. MAYS: Okay. I heard earlier going on where we asked about alternative drug test. It was said it was inadmissible as far as the other hearings were concerned. That was what I picked up on. You know, if that's so, then I think, you know, that needs to be said as a part of this hearing. Because if it wasn't, then, you know, I'm prepared to withdraw the motion that I got on the floor. But if it was, then I'll let my motion stand and be voted up or down. MS. D'ALESSIO: The substance abuse policy says a test that an employee goes out and obtains on their own will not be accepted for the reasons that we've talked about. And, you know, even if the Personnel Board did say no, we're not going to admit that because the personnel policy says that should not be considered, you know, I'm saying that that was harmless because it was discussed at great length. The Personnel Board heard all about it. MR. MAYS: Well, maybe this isn't the time to discuss that. I guess that's getting into another legal dealing with that. But that's been my problem with -- if we have a problem with this policy -- and obviously zero tolerance should stand, but I've said in more than one forum if I worked for y'all and you sent me to do a random, I would be particularly -- since I don't smoke cigarettes, I don't deal with drugs, the closest I may come to one is a dead body that may have a narcotic substance in it, and I still wouldn't know it. If you ever sent me on a random dealing with one, I'm going to pay for one at my expense as soon as I leave wherever I am, because the only alternative that you have with this body if you test positive is termination. And I think that when you say that you do not accept, then I think you do not leave any other option in there just in case there is a flaw. Because to do one -- you know, my only difference is [inaudible] I wouldn't wait. If I ain't on no drugs I wouldn't wait no fourteen days, ten days or five days. I'll try and find one if I had to get the title pawn, sell the car and go get drug tested within twenty-four to four-eight hours because there is too much at stake for you to deal with in terms of dealing with a job. But I think if it's in written policy that may be one thing that we need to seriously look at, because if somebody does come in with one, and this hadn't been done yet, but you get in there a situation that somebody do one on you twenty- four/thirty-six hours apart that's professionally done that says two different things, then I think that gives that person that argument if they do it in that manner. MAYOR SCONYERS: The substitute motion first, gentlemen, by Mr. Mays. Do you want to read that, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Mays, seconded by Mr. Handy, was to postpone till the next meeting. Main motion by Mr. Todd was to uphold the decision of the Personnel Board for termination, seconded by Mr. Ulmer Bridges. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first made by Mr. Mays. All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, POWELL, TODD & ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the original motion made by Mr. Todd to uphold the findings of the committee. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else? MR. J. BRIGHAM: We want to reconsider the item on the soccer field. I think that's Item Number 33. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the low bidder on the base contract on Item Number 33. MR. HANDY: I'll second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute, gentlemen, we need a motion to rescind the previous action. MR. WALL: No action was taken. MR. HANDY: I'll second that one, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: All right, we're going to take another vote. What is the motion now, Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Make a motion that we reconsider -- we didn't have a vote to rescind. MR. WALL: There was no action taken. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I make a motion that we award the base bid in Item Number 33 on the soccer field to the lowest bidder on the base bid. MR. HANDY: I second. MR. WALL: With no alternates. MR. J. BRIGHAM: No alternates. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. If the maker of that motion would accept an amendment -- and if the amendment dies I'll still vote for the motion. I would hope that in that motion that we could do two things, and this is not uncommon. If it's illegal, you stop me [inaudible], Jim. If it's illegal, hell, I guess we done done it before. But what I'd say is that the contractor on the low bid, we work in conjunction and negotiation with that contractor, that we allow those things that are not covered, since you're not doing the alternates, to at least try and work with in-house sources in terms of dealing with that paving and some other things on this project so that it can maintain its integrity. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll accept that if it's possible. MR. WALL: As long as you're not talking about adding that to the contract. MR. MAYS: No, it's not talking in terms of adding to the contract. But I know we have on other projects whereby we have had budgetary problems, we have worked within conjunction, whether it's been prison forces, Public Works or wherever, to deal with carpentry work, to deal with paving, to deal with other things in order to make the project work, so we wouldn't be reinventing the wheel to deal with this one. But what I didn't want it to do was to get lost in voting for it and then we end up with something short of what was approved on the sales tax ballot and then those of you that may remain here in office will catch the hell for putting up something that doesn't look right, particularly you fellows out in West Augusta. I'm just downtown, you know, in the ghetto trying to give you a hand. MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, I think that that needs to be a separate issue. I think that if, in fact, you want to support awarding the base bid without any alternates to the low bidder on that base bid, I think that in order to avoid litigation by any -- by all measures, we need to avoid the appearance that we have an intent to come back with that low bidder and negotiate something. I think the instruction needs to be to the Director of Recreation to look at other alternatives whether it be in-house, whether it be bidding separately, whatever the alternatives are insofar as paving the parking lot, but it should not be to negotiate this contractor over the alternates that are being deleted insofar as awarding the base bid. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That was not my intent in accepting the amendment. My intent was to use in-house sources. MR. MAYS: And that wasn't my intent of making it. If it was so stated that way, then I'll withdraw that. But I'll again stick by what I said, not on dealing with alternates on anything, but it would not be the first time that we have negotiated with contractors when we are running close in bid after they have been accepted to go back in and to work to see how we can keep the integrity of projects and narrow them down. Now, that has been done. Now, if it has been done, then I still stick by what I said; it's been done before and maybe wasn't done right to do it, but that's been done. A bunch of times. MR. H. BRIGHAM: In this case it would be changing contractors from the other bid; is that correct? MR. WALL: That's correct. The low bidder on the base bid without the alternates was Blair Construction. The low bidder to include the two add alternates would have been Brown. MR. H. BRIGHAM: So Brown had not been notified that he was the low bidder? MR. WALL: Should not have been and I assume never. MR. MAYS: Well, we've got to have -- we need to go ahead with it. It's a good project. But I'm just saying that -- and even if you wanted to -- if it makes it easier withdrawing the amendment, I've said it in public what I think y'all ought to do. But I'm just going to say this to y'all: this is a great body for losing anything. We catch amnesia about projects. I live in an area, hell, that's had amnesia for two hundred and some years and, you know, I'm still catching amnesia dealing with some stuff that's going on out there right now. But I just want to make sure that it's done properly. You don't spend on a million-dollar project, acquire the land, get up there and spend another eight hundred and some thousand dollars to ride into it on a dirt road. Just at least say we're going to go ahead on and try and do it right, that's all I'm saying. Y'all know what I'm talking about. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? MR. MAYS: I'll withdraw it, and when my good Republican friends over in West Augusta get on that dirt road up there and start calling y'all raising hell, I'm going to say, well, you know, you call them three boys up there that didn't want to get that thing negotiated down right, I tried to help y'all. But -- MR. H. BRIGHAM: They'll come back to us. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I appreciate that. MR. MAYS: All right, then. And you remember me when you come eastward, here? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll try to. MR. MAYS: Okay. All right. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. We only have one motion on the floor now? CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham's motion to approve -- award the bid to the lowest bidder? CLERK: Base bid. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Base bid. CLERK: Yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Non-debatable motion. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:10 P.M.] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on April 1, 1996. ____________________ Clerk of Commission