Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1997 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS October 21, 1997 The Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., Tuesday, October 21, 1997, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of The Augusta-Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. W. H. Mays, III, member of The Augusta- Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HOLCOMBE. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions? MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I have one deletion, and that is from the delegation from Goodale Landing. I have spoken with all the parties that are involved, and they are agreeing to meet on the 3rd of November and try to work this out, and we ask that it be deleted from the agenda. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move by unanimous consent. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else, Ms. Bonner? CLERK: No, sir, that's it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please? CLERK: The Planning Commission recommends as a consent agenda Items 1 through 15. [Item 1: Z-97-101 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Reverend Thomas Herndon, on behalf of Church of God Holiness Tabernacle, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a church as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the northeast right-of-way line of Hicks Street, 81.15 feet northwest of the northwest corner of the intersection of Tuttle Street and Hicks Street (1711 Hicks Street). Item 2: Z-97-102 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Adrian Home Builders, Inc., on behalf of Belle-Terrace Presbyterian Church, requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a medical clinic as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (k) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Golden Camp Road, 854 feet, more or less, northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road intersects with the southwest right-of-way line of Golden Camp Road (2545 Golden Camp Road). Item 3: Z-97-103 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Phyllis C. Holliday, on behalf of Victoria G. Anderson, requesting a Special Exception to expand an existing adult day care center as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (e) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the east right-of-way line of Merry Street, 135.4 feet south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Central Avenue and Merry Street (1302 Merry Street). Item 4: Z-97-104 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jimmy Blount requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the north right-of-way line of Richwood Drive, 511.29 feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Southwood Drive and Richwood Drive (2339 Richwood Drive). Item 5: Z-97-105 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve with the condition 'That the petitioner shall construct the building according to the site plan in file' a petition from Larry McCord, on behalf of Larry and Debra McCord, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located where the southeast right-of-way line of Highland Avenue intersects with the northwest right-of-way line of Damascus Road (2016 Highland Avenue). Item 6: Z-97-106 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Barbara E. Hurt, on behalf of Barbara E. Hurt et al., requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-MH (Manufactured Home Residential) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Carroll Road, 100.0 feet northwest of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of Mira Mar Avenue intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Carroll Road (214 Carroll Road). Item 7: Z-97- 107 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Reverend Rosa L. Slade requesting a change of zoning from R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Magnolia Avenue, 250.0 feet northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Oak Street and Magnolia Avenue (236 Magnolia Avenue). Item 8: Z-97-108 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a petition from Margaret Dale Lott requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residence) to Zone R-2 (Two-family Residence) on property located on the west right-of-way line of Stovall Street, 215 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and Stovall Street (1429 Stovall Street). Item 9: Z-97-109 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, on behalf of Blanchard & Calhoun Real Estate Co., requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Davis Road and Scott Nixon Memorial Drive (601 Scott Nixon Memorial Drive). Item 10: Z-97-110 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Larry Goolsby, on behalf of Tommy Mabus, requesting a change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) with a Special Exception per Section 24-2 to allow outside storage of materials on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 590 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Allen Road extended intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway. Item 11: Z-97-111 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Joseph Smith, on behalf of Grace G. Smith, requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1 (Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighbor-hood Business) on property located on the south right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road, 1,220 feet, more or less, west of the southwest corner of the intersection of Richmond Hill Road and Lumpkin Road (2320 Lumpkin Road). Item 12: Z-97-112 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Georgia-Carolina Surveying & Engineering Company, Inc., on behalf of Anne Marable Jefferson, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) on property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Old Waynesboro Road, 1,315 feet, more or less, north of the northwest corner of the intersection of McDade Farm Road and Old Waynesboro Road. Item 13: Z-97-113 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Georgia-Carolina Surveying & Engineering Company, Inc., on behalf of Robert A. Partain, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone R-1B (One-family Residence) on property located on the north right-of-way line of Hephzibah-McBean Road, 2,681 feet, more or less, west of a point where the centerline of Deer Trail Drive extended intersects the north right-of-way line of Hephzibah- McBean Road. Item 14: S-514-II - AMBERLAKE ESTATES - PHASE II - FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of T.R. Reddy, requesting final plat approval of Amberlake Estates, Phase II. This phase is located on the north side of Woodlake Drive, 977.32 feet west of Crosscreek Road and contains five lots. Item 15: S-549-II - EXTENSION OF CHARLESTOWNE DRIVE -FINAL PLAT - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from James G. Swift & Associates, on behalf of Charles Brigham, requesting final plat approval of the extension of Charlestowne Drive. This section is an extension of Charlestowne Drive off the south right-of-way of Washington Road. (Road Only)] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Move for approval. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pull Item 8. MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 8? MR. POWELL: That's okay, Mr. Chairman, just let it go ahead as a consent. I was mistaken. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell, did you want to pull Item 8? MR. POWELL: No, sir, it was Item Number 4. I'm sorry, I looked at the numbers wrong. MAYOR SCONYERS: So you want to pull Item 4? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, just for some discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So we're taking Items 1 through 15, minus Item 4. Do we have any objectors to any of the items? [None noted.] MR. TODD: My only comment would be, I guess, to the County Attorney on Number 6. Is this within the ordinance that we worked out as far as manufactured homes go? MR. WALL: I guess I need to ask Mr. Patty because he's more familiar with the details on it. MR. PATTY: This is an area that's about -- approaching 50-50 site built manufactured houses. The position we've taken in the past in there is not to approve any zoning change that would result in higher density, but as these homes deteriorate and have to be torn down, we're allowing them to replace them with mobile homes, and that's what this is. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 4: Z-97-104 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jimmy Blount requesting a Special Exception for the purpose of establishing a family personal care home as provided for in Section 26-1, Subparagraph (h) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County on property located on the north right-of-way line of Richwood Drive, 511.29 feet west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Southwood Drive and Richwood Drive (2339 Richwood Drive). MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I asked that this item be pulled off just for information purposes. I didn't see a map in the book and I was wondering if George or someone may have a map that I could just look at to kind of familiarize myself with where this is going. [Mr. Patty complies.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Under the Finance portion, Items 16 through 38 were approved by Finance on October 13th. [Item 16: Motion to approve request from Robert G. Kiser, Jr. (Recreation Department) to purchase 2 years 5 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 17: Motion to approve request from Thelma Gilchrist (Sheriff's Department) to purchase 6 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 18: Motion to approve request from Michael D. Weathers (Fire Department) to purchase 19 years 11 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 19: Motion to approve request from Dallas R. Boone (Tag Office) to purchase 15 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 20: Motion to approve request from Mary C. Kuhlke (Recreation Department) to purchase 10 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 21: Motion to approve request from Jacqueline M. Murdock (Board of Elections) to purchase 3 years 9 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 22: Motion to approve request from Katherine Zehner (Clerk of Court) to purchase 6 years 10 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 23: Motion to approve request from Ray H. Hardin (Sheriff's Department) to purchase 8 years 5 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 24: Motion to approve request from John H. Gray (Sheriff's Department) to purchase 10 years 9 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 25: Motion to approve request from James W. Shipp, Jr. (Sheriff's Department) to purchase 17 years 3 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 26: Motion to approve request from Edward C. Sealey (Fire Department) to purchase 19 years 11 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 27: Motion to approve request from Joy L. Meyer (Recreation Department) to purchase 5 years 0 months prior years service in the 1977 Pension Plan. Item 28: Motion to approve External Audit Contract with Cherry, Bekaert and Holland for the year ending December 31, 1997 at a cost of $118,000. Item 29: Motion to approve waiver of 1997 ad valorem taxes in the amount of $5,588.06 on property of Augusta Raquetball Center, 2805 Wylds Road, which is leased to J.A.M. Christian Center for use as a church. Item 30: Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes, 1996, in the amount of $781.56 for overpayment of taxes on Map 253, Parcel 9.04. Item 31: Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes in the amount of $6,035.17 on Account 1203447. Item 32: Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes in the amount of $129.30 for overpayment of taxes on Map 42-1, Parcel 2. Item 33: Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes in the amount of $129.30 for overpayment of taxes in 1996, Map 52, Parcel 446. Item 34: Motion to approve the transfer of $9,200 from the Municipal Court 1997 operating budget to the Clerk of Court's 1997 operating budget. Item 35: Motion to approve contract between Augusta-Richmond County and Georgia Golf Hall of Fame which is part of the Capital Improvement Plan of Phase III of the 1% Sales Tax. Item 36: Motion to waive 1997 property taxes on Parcels 391 and 392 of Tax Map 72-3 in the amount of $113.64. Item 37: Motion to approve amendment to professional services contract between AMCVB and Augusta-Richmond County. Item 38: Motion to approve the deletion of A.B. McKie, Jr. as authorized check signer and add David Collins on Augusta-Richmond County bank accounts.] MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's pull Item 28 out by itself, please. So we're going to do 16 through 38, minus 28. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we ask that all of them be approved by consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. KUHLKE OUT] CLERK: Item 28: Motion to approve External Audit Contract with Cherry, Bekaert and Holland for the year ending December 31, 1997 at a cost of $118,000. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: My question is, I did note that the staff had recommended that the Serotta, Maddox and Evans firm be selected, and then I've read in various papers and whispers in the corridors that we cut some sort of a deal with Cherry, Bekaert and Holland, and I'd like to see if anybody can shed any light on that, if that was true or false. MR. HANDY: Mr. Zetterberg, you was in all our meetings, so you should know whether that's true or that's just whatever you saw in the paper or -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't know that I was, but I would like to just ask that question. I might have missed it, but there is a lot of rumors that when we went through the internal audit position, that because the way it fell out some sort of a deal was cut and we gave it to Cherry, Bekaert and Holland, and I want to let you know that Rob Zetterberg did not cut any sort of a deal. I don't know if anybody else in this room did, but I certainly didn't. And I know that Serotta, Maddox and Evans's bid was $115,000, it was recommended by the grand jury and it was recommended by the staff, and I don't understand why we're making the change in the middle of the stream. MR. HANDY: Mr. Zetterberg, if you remember, I think Mr. Todd made the motion when we was trying to tie them together, and he literally stood up said that the two didn't have anything to do -- we had nothing to do with whatever Baird and Kip Plowman had to do with this, that it was a separate issue. And our Attorney informed us that it was a separate issue and all we had to do was vote on whether we wanted Cherry, Bekaert and Holland -- I mean Kip and Cherry, Bekaert and Holland or Baird and Company. It had nothing to do with the next audit, and Mr. Oliver, Jim Wall, as well as Todd kept saying that over and over and over. To answer Mr. Zetterberg's question, he was there when we did it. If he heard what we all said, then he knows what we said it would be. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to go on record as saying that I resent the accusation that a deal has been cut in any fashion, shape or form here, and I'm saying this because I was on the Finance Committee and I voted for this and I don't recall any deal being cut. People were voting their conviction, and I just resent every time someone who vote their conviction that there has to be a deal involved. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I made this motion because --there's several factors here, but all of the entities that's involved are reputable firms. By the county ordinance we rotate the external auditor, and the county grand jury make a recommendation of three firms, they don't make a recommendation of any particular firm. I want to clear that. Two, I don't govern by rumors and I don't govern by the newspaper, I govern by certain principles that I have, and I think most of you know here that I don't cut damn deals. If I did I'd probably be, you know, Mayor Pro Tem next year. MR. HANDY: I'm glad you said next year [inaudible]. MR. TODD: And so the perception that anyone may have or want to put out there to gain certain advantages don't work here. I guess one of the questions is in the sense that one firm done the external audit for one of the old governments on whether they would be starting all anew in 1996 and the number of years time line wouldn't count and that they could be renamed external auditor. My position on this is that this is professional services. The state bid statute gives me the latitude on professional services to use my discretion on who I think would render the best service, and the company named in the motion, Cherry, Bekaert and Holland, I think at this time would be that firm, and that's the firm that I'm going to support and would encourage my colleagues to support for the external audit for 1998. The other issue is a separate issue, has nothing to do with this. It don't influence, as far as I'm concerned, one way or the other. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for the opportunity to state my position. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have one other point. I want to make it clear that we have three large accounting firms in this city and they're all competent firms: Baird and Company; Cherry, Bekaert and Holland; and the Serotta firm. I have nothing against any of those firms, they're all capable of doing the job. I don't quite understand, after the staff had studied the issue and made a recommendation, why we would change their recommendation after they had given due consideration to the whole thing. And I also believe that there was some cost involved, too, and I think that the Serotta firm's bid was $115,000, although I might have made a mistake on that. But clearly there have been changes made. I'm not making any accusations because I don't know who cut a deal. I don't even know if there was cut a deal. I have just prefaced the remarks by saying there is word on the street that a deal was cut. And if you don't think deals don't get cut, I could probably cite you chapter and verse of certain deals that got cut while I've been on the Commission here. Let's not be naive in that particular situation. But, I don't know, shouldn't we hear from the Serotta firm? MR. BRIDGES: Jim, I've got a question. Does the local law that said we wouldn't use any particular firm for more than three years, does that continue to be effective as an ordinance? MR. WALL: It's my opinion that that local act of the General Assembly has not been repealed and continues in effect. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, if I could, I'd like to read a copy of the local act that provided for the three years for one firm. First it says that the grand jury is to recommend three certified public accounting firms, then it says the governing authority of Richmond County shall select from among these firms submitted to them. An accounting firm shall perform an audit of all county offices handling public funds in Richmond County; said audit shall cover the current fiscal year; no such firm shall be selected for said audit which has performed such services for three consecutive years. Now, it's my understanding that the Maddox firm performed that audit in '96 and two years before for Richmond County. Richmond County did not go away with the consolidation bill, there was no wholesale repeal of any of the actions as far as being Richmond County, and I don't think the territorial limits of Richmond County have changed as a result of that. So what I'm basing this on is the act says we're only to do a firm for three years. The Maddox firm has had that audit for three years, and now the only option we've got is Cherry, Bekaert and Holland. That's where we're headed with this. So I think, you know, based on the act and to be consistent and to basically just be right we should give it to Cherry, Bekaert. MR. WALL: And I respect your position, Mr. Bridges. I guess that from a legal standpoint I would disagree from the standpoint that I think a new period began to run January 1st, 1996, with the consolidated government. Otherwise, then you would have the position that's been advocated by some that the city surrendered its charter and Richmond County continued. A new governmental entity was created on January 1, 1996. That new entity was a consolidated government of the former county and the city. And I have taken the position and it is my position that there was a new entity created on January 1 and which would begin a new three-year period. Now, you may view it as you have stated it, that in your mind it's a three-year period, and that may be the basis for the decision that you make, but from a legal standpoint I do think a new entity was created and a new time period began. MR. BRIDGES: Well, of course, I respect your opinion, too, and rely on it. But I think what you're saying there is the distinction without a true difference. I think as long as Richmond County has been in existence--it was before, it is now--then this is what we should do. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, am I correct in saying that at our last meeting the decision was made to -- on Amendment 73, to go back, from the three-year standpoint, to January 1 of '96 as far as people being eligible for up to three years on that Amendment? Is that not what we passed at the last meeting? MR. WALL: Well, there was discussion -- the requirements that were implemented by the Board of Commissioners and then were approved by this Commission in 1996, there was a question as far as whether or not we were in the first or second year of those requirements, but those were requirements that were imposed by this Commission and it was not a part of an ordinance or a local act. But yes. MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think we've got some folks here that Mr. Zetterberg wanted to hear from. MR. SEROTTA: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. Serotta, Maddox and Evans is the name of our firm and we want to express gratitude to counsel and administration for placing confidence in our firm to perform the audit for the year 1996. That was the new government's first audit. As many of you know I helped lobby for the consolidation and many of the parts in the bill. We've served this government and its people well in the audit process. I think people know of many of the management reports that we had provided that had not been provided in previous audits. We have attempted to and we have accomplished doing the accounting profession based on the principles of independence and objectivity and integrity. Any absence of any of these functions diminishes the public confidence in the certified public accountant's ability to perform his or her engagements in a professional manner. Before we submitted a bid we checked on whether we were eligible under the law -- under the three-year rule. We were quite aware of that. We know of no ruling that said we were not eligible. We would not insult this body by attempting to make a proposal outside of that. We were informed--and, Mr. Todd, it was not by you--informed by Commissioners that we would not get the audit several months ago. We continued to stick by our situation of presenting the audit and representing the county as its independent auditors. The administration voiced support of us who have worked with us in dealing with the audit, understand what we have done to bring integrity to the county's financial statements and have worked with us. I guess the reason that we hit various sore points and the reason that we went to the Finance Committee meeting--and many of the things that appeared in the article were statements that we made at the Finance Committee meeting--was a letter that Mr. Plowman, when he was with Baird and Company, wrote to this Commission in May of 1996. Mr. Handy and I were in Washington, D.C, and he explained the contents of that letter and said based on the contents of that letter he could not recommend that the external and internal auditor be the same thing -- be the same party. I disagreed with him. I told him all the information was not there. He explained that he had read that. I talked with other Commissioners, they took that article to be the exact truth when there was some additional information to be gotten. We bid $60,000 on a particular engagement. The engagement was handed out by you the Commissioners for $180,000. It's been extended for another twelve months, that's $360,000. We have never since that time challenged the ability of the Commissioners to issue that contract. We have attempted to work with the internal auditor, whoever you select. We have asked for internal audit reports as a methodology of doing our external audit. We have not been furnished one report by any organization. We've asked for it on a constant basis. It is a part of the external auditor to review internal audit reports. We are not saying that none have been done, none have been supplied, but we have not been given them. The reason we could bid $60,000 versus $180,000, which seems to be extreme, is because there is an efficiency between doing both functions. Otherwise we as the external auditor, by not having internal audit reports, have to do more things. So that was the reason for that. We were not a party to any legal suit. We were always willing to work with whoever the internal auditor is, and we still will work with that auditor. My understanding, that whoever performed the internal audit -- and at one time there was a dispute. There were bills submitted to the county. Parties said that they did work, it is in the bills, it is on record what's in those bills and what they did. If they performed that -- and according to Mr. Plowman's letter of May of 1996, which Mr. Handy said that is going to be the rule of the county, that there is a conflict and you will not get the audit, we would continue to abide by those rules. Now, what happened here, three firms were nominated by the grand jury. Two firms, for whatever reason, chose not to make a bid. We were the only ones selected to bid. Mr. Danny Craig was informed to reconvene the grand jury and one name was added, one that we thought had a conflict, obviously you may feel that doesn't have a conflict. That's your decision. There are other firms that could have been added. Elliott Davis is a firm with an office in Augusta that specializes in government accounting. They were not added. If there is a conflict, then we ask that all firms be notified that there is a potential conflict and all be added. If we're disqualified because you think of the three-year rule, even though one firm may have done the city for thirteen years or more, then so be it. But if you're going to reconvene the grand jury to add a name, then you ought to tell everybody that names are being added. And so we think the process was flawed. Number one, we don't think we're disqualified under the three-year rule. We checked on that before ever making a proposal. And we think there is a conflict according to the May 1996. Now, in the Finance Committee meeting there was no discussion other than Mr. Plowman, myself, and Mr. Cates, who unfortunately had to discuss this in an open meeting. But that discussion -- basically Mr. Plowman stated that they did insignificant work. I would ask you to talk to the county officials, the staff, to find out whether bills were submitted and whether this work was insignificant. I think it was important, whether it's River Race Augusta -- that is a function of the internal audit to discover those things. So, in conclusion, basically we admit our ineptness in the political process. We have not tried to call any of the Commissioners to say please vote for us. We have not provided any political favors. We have been independent, we have stated our integrity to this body. You still may vote us out and may be upset with us. If our convictions of the accounting profession are wrong, then don't choose us. But we stand for integrity, we stand for correct audit. I think you'll find our audit has stood the test. We have made presentations to the Finance Committee and this body and we rest on the quality and the ability of our work. Thank you. MR. TODD: I have a couple of questions in the sense that you stated some facts but possibly didn't state the total facts. Is there a requirement by local legislation for a city government to have an external audit and rotate? MR. SEROTTA: No, sir. MR. TODD: Okay. I wanted to establish that. And the other question that I guess I have is, am I understanding you to say that you don't see a conflict in the external auditor doing also the internal audit? MR. SEROTTA: We were on record to that in 1996, but this Commission ruled that they felt there was a conflict and we're abided by those policies. There was a difference of $60,000 and $180,000, so you must have really felt that there was a conflict to award something for $120,000 more as you go to do a budget in a tight budget. So there must have been a reason you as Commissioners felt that, to award something for $120,000 more than the proposal. So I cannot argue with what y'all did, but if you felt that in 1996, we are in 1997. MR. TODD: What do you think the intent of the local legislation to rotate every three year was? MR. SEROTTA: I cannot answer, I was not a party to that legislation. All I did was -- Mr. Todd, I would not insult this body by making a proposal if I thought we were in conflict with that. We did do our homework to make sure that we were not legally in conflict. I said at the Finance Committee meeting if we are in legal conflict we will withdraw our bid from that standpoint. We've even offered some people that, because of the conflict, that we be the auditors in '97, and then in '98 you have only one internal audit firm that would be in conflict and then the rest of it would be an open process. But based on the rules that you set in '96 that Mr. Handy and I debated -- and he had a very good debate. I don't fault him for what he said to me, but he said this is what the Commission wanted was not to have this supposed conflict despite the efficiencies of $120,000. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think the intent of the three-year rule is to not let the staff get too comfortable with one firm. And I think that we can see, you know, when we go thirteen years that certainly you get quite comfortable, and I think even to the point that the firm is helping manage cash flow, and I don't think that's the role of the external auditor. I think the external auditor is to come in, do a overview of all the departments in operating the government, including checking what the internal auditor is doing, and make a report back to this body, including a management letter. Which I believe I've seen a copy of one, so yours is not the first one. We may not have gotten one every year that I've been here, I can't recall that far back, but I have a constituent that usually tells me as soon as the external audit is done that he wants to see the management letter. Because the management letter is -- or those recommendations as far as corrective action is the meat of a audit, if you don't have a finding, Mr. Mayor, of cash missing, et cetera, et cetera. That's what we're looking. And that constituent is [inaudible] and I think we all know it, and I've supplied him with that management letter [inaudible]. He was also interested in it for -- you know, this last one, and we will try to make that available. As I see it, there is no correlation between the threat of lawsuits and who was on the short end of the straw as far as the internal audit go. None whatsoever. I think the intent of the legislation was to have it for three years and we rotate it, so I will vote my conviction [inaudible]. I feel that the firm that's rotating out, if we vote that way, has done a good job, an excellent job, and I would support them three years down the road in the same position or support them in the future for internal auditor. I believe that you've got to have checks and balances. We can't hire the external auditor to do the internal audit and we can't hire the internal auditor to do the external audit. MR. HANDY: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, wait a minute, we've got some other folks here. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, based on what Mr. Wall said a few minutes ago whereby he judges that the three-year term started in January of '96 -- and, in my opinion, we've got very competent staff in this government, in the Finance Office, the Administrator. I'm not a member of the Finance Committee, but I can't quite understand how my colleagues on the Finance Committee can come back and recommend to this body paying $27,000 more to a competent firm such as the Serotta, Maddox, Evans firm. But I'd like to offer a substitute motion that we accept the recommendation of the staff and award the external audit contract to Serotta, Maddox, Evans and Company. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second it to get it on the floor, but I do have a question, Mr. Mayor. I have a very difficult time understanding Mr. Todd's logic and some of the same logic that's been articulated by my colleagues when, in fact, the external auditor for this period -- or for the first six months of this administration, or actually even longer, was a member of the Cherry, Bekaert and Holland firm. Is that correct? And in that particular case, if you don't want to commingle external auditors and internal auditors, then I would suggest that Mr. Plowman should be barred from having any part in the external audit if it's going to be given -- if you're going to find in favor of Cherry, Bekaert and Holland. Because, again, you don't want the external audit and the internal audit positions being commingled. And it just seems to me that although there was no discussion in the Finance Committee meeting, it only leads me to believe that there were lots of discussions before that meeting occurred and I find it very, very difficult to understand. And I'd also like to ask Mr. Serotta: You did say that you have not talked to anybody on this board, is that correct, about this issue? MR. SEROTTA: No, that's not correct. I have not talked to anybody about voting for us or against us. I have talked to two Commissioners who told me that we would not get the audit. MR. BRIDGES: I've just got one comment, Mr. Mayor. As far as the way we got in trouble with the internal audit, some of us were looking at hiring individuals, and that was incorrect apparently per the contract and per several legal opinions. And so I think it's basically out of order to ask any individual of the firm we select not to participate because we are picking firms and not individuals, and I think that point needs to be made. MR. TODD: I don't know whether my colleague is trying to confuse me or not, but it would be very easy today because I've been working some long hours and I drove eight hours to get back here. But if my recollection serves me correct, that Kip Plowman worked for Baird and Company--is that correct?--when he performed the duties as internal auditor. Then he left them and went to Cherry, Bekaert and Holland, which brought on the conflict with the county and the before-mentioned entity in reference a possible litigation. So I think that my colleague is incorrect if we're talking firms and not individuals, and I don't want to get into talking individuals because I don't -- I think we hire firms, we don't hire individuals and we did not hire individuals, and I think that our independent counsel of Mr. Wall and Mr. Williams informed us that we contracted with the firm, not the individual. And I think that if we're going to get in the business of restricting a firm from doing business on a certain issue because an individual they hired moves around -- professionals move, you know. I'm driving eight hours because that's where the work is and it pay more than staying here to work, you know, driving thirty minutes. You know, we have an old saying at work that confusion is money and mass confusion is more money, and I think we're heading toward mass confusion here, and we need to stick to the facts and let's try to keep the facts as they are. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first. Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Zetterberg, was to accept the recommendation of staff and award the external audit contract to Serotta, Maddox, Evans and Company. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion, made by Mr. Todd, to approve the external contract with Cherry, Bekaert and Holland. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. CLERK: Administrative Services: Items 39 through 47 were approved by the Administrative Services Committee on October 13th. [Item 39: Motion to approve the proposal by American Appraisal Associates to perform appraisal of buildings and contents owned by the Augusta Commission for the sum of $27,800 and annual update/continuous service for $2,000. Item 40: Motion to approve the 1998 HOME Proposed Budget and Projected Use of Funds. Item 41: Motion to approve the 1998 CDBG Proposed Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds. Item 42: Motion to approve elimination of requirement to have two (2) bank denial letters in order to be eligible for Economic Development loan. Item 43: Motion to approve Kelley F. Cornish d/b/a Avery & Associates Consulting Firm as the contract agency to provide management, administrative and technical assistance to the ED Loan Program at a rate of $20/hour for each applicant referred by our Department with a maximum of thirty hours per referral. As recommended by the Economic Development Loan Review Committee on September 19, 1997. Contract not to exceed $10,000. Item 44: Motion to approve the transfer of $35,000 in unused salary and wages to a new budget line item for the purchase of additional computer equipment to complete the upgrade of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department. Item 45: Motion to approve the authorization to dispose of property left over from the 1996 and 1997 surplus/salvage sales and items considered of no use to Augusta-Richmond County. Item 46: Motion to approve the 1998 ESG Proposed Budget and Projected Use of Funds. Item 47: Motion to approve $40,000 in unused salary and wages to a new budget line item for the purchase of two vehicles for use by Housing Rehabilitation Inspectors.] MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that Items 39 through 47 be considered as a consent agenda. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item 42. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other items to be pulled? Items 39 through 47, minus Item 42. All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 42: Motion to approve elimination of requirement to have two (2) bank denial letters in order to be eligible for Economic Development loan. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be pulled, and the reason I asked this to be pulled is that I don't not believe that this government needs to get into the banking business without first having people who have a denial or a loan position. [inaudible] I can see the elimination of one of the bank denials, but I cannot see the elimination of both of the bank denials. They need to have at least -- somebody that has any at all possibility to receive a loan should go to a bank first and receive that loan before they come to us. I don't think we need to be the prime lending source unless there is a bad credit history or something and they are unable to obtain lending through a financial institution. MR. MACK: One of the reasons why we asked that this requirement be eliminated is that it's basically listed in the policies and procedures, and from my understanding, and it's true, that if you have something listed in your policies and procedures you need to follow that to the letter of the law. So basically all this is is basically an additional hoop for people to jump through in order to [inaudible], so we're basically asking that this process be eliminated so that we can get on with trying to make some loans to some of the smaller minority businesses that need the funds. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mack, while I think that's a very honorable position, I still think we are not in the lending business and we are a last resort lender, and I think therefore we ought to make sure that the applicant first attempts to find lending on their own through a financial institution. And I think by having a denial in hand, I think that will bring us back to a position where we don't become a prime lending agency. MR. OLIVER: I'd like to add a couple of comments to what Mr. Mack said. I think that the denial letters give a couple of indications clearly, but someone going in for a loan, even if they're marginally on the approval side, if they want to they can get the denial letter. Typically also when a bank denies a loan it's put on the credit report of that individual that that loan has been denied. In addition to that, Mr. Mack has several bankers who serve on his committee, and so consequently if they believe that they're bank eligible, that's another factor. As a practical matter, the amount of money that we currently allocate for economic development loans is about $125,000, and so consequently the amount of money that we have to make those loans is very limited anyway. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, this was set up to help people in small businesses, and I don't see the reason why we have to make people jump through twenty different hoops to help them. The money is there to help them, it's set up for that. And we have the bankers on there. We have a committee that has established this and they will determine whether these people are eligible or not. And it is a type of self-help for those people who apply, and I move that we approve Item 42. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll second the motion. Mr. Mayor, where I can respect my colleague, Mr. Brigham, on the issue that we shouldn't be a prime source for loans, I know a lot of the banks is catching heat or criticism for denying minority and socioeconomically disadvantaged people or by ZIP code redlining loans, and I know that they want to -- they don't want to be in the business of issuing a denial letter because of that. So I think the compromise is to assure that -- we're talking federal community block grant money for small and disadvantaged business, and we have guidelines and criteria that they can't have money in the bank, they can't have certain capital, et cetera, over a dollar amount, and I think that we can make this work and still not become a prime source as far as lender go. MR. MACK: Let me address one other thing, sir -- and I respect Mr. Brigham's opinion. This can work both ways. To give you an example: from the initial group of applicants that we had to come in for bank loans, by having these bankers serve on the committee, there were two applicants bankers basically decided to pull from that list and make loans to them by themselves without leveraging the CDBG money at all. They basically said, hey, these are good applicants we'll make these loans. So it can work both ways. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Under Engineering Services, Items 48 through 53 were approved by Engineering Services on October 13th. [Item 48: Motion to approve condemnation of 0.09 acres (Tax Map 353, Parcel 5.4) for right-of-way on the McCombs Road, Section I Project, which is owned by Lynda C. Mays. Item 49: Motion to approve Georgia DOT County Contract PRLOP 1502-1 (245) C1 for their participation in the Barton Chapel Road Improvements, Phase I Project in the amount of $334,590.85. Item 50: Motion to approve a request to modify award of construction contract to the low bidder, Blair Construction Company, in the amount of $248,150.00 regarding the sanitary sewer crossing of Gordon Highway near Ft. Gordon's Entrance Gate No. 1. Item 51: Motion to approve a request to award contract to Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc., who extended a low bid of $50,567.32 for the 18" Raw Water Main Connection Project. Item 52: Motion to approve a request to award the low bid to Mabus Brothers, Inc., who extended a bid of $65,580.60. Item 53: Motion to approve the authorization to collect bids for construction on Sharon and Sandy Springs Road Water and Sewer Extension Project.] MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we accept the Engineering Services report as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 54: Motion to approve the request to approve Change Order #1 to the existing contract with Beam Pavement Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $16,772.50 for extra earthwork for the installation of street lighting. MR. TODD: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is street lights at Goodale Landing area. And it's my understanding from Mr. Beard's comment that the delegation is not here because they're going to meet and hopefully work things out, so I don't think we should hold this up, even though I voted against it in committee. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 55: Motion to approve a request to approve Change Order #2 to add a handicap ramp and driveway with APAC, Inc. of Georgia in the amount of $5,642.80 for the Discovery Center. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the Administrator. Did anyone check to see why this wasn't done when we were spending the $10,000 for the last change order, and what explanation the professional service folks had, the architectural engineers, on why they didn't put it in there and whether [inaudible] professional insurance on it? MR. OLIVER: I think Mr. Drew Goins can answer that. The $10,000 was just for expediting the project, and this contract -- the specifications and all were done before I arrived. MR. GOINS: We have two items here on the change order: one is the handicap ramp at the Science Center, the other is a driveway that's being put in on Reynolds Street in the adjacent area to the National Science Center. Originally there was not a design for the handicap ramp, but due to handicapped personnel being let out in the street at the bus turnaround we decided that it would be appropriate to put a handicap ramp in and asked the contractor to do that under his existing contract. MR. TODD: This seems to be a functional problem more so than a structural. Do we have a handicap ramp or entrance and can that bus go to that point to unload when we're offloading or dealing with handicapped folks? MR. GOINS: It's not necessarily the buses, Mr. Todd, but it's individuals that are dropping off handicapped people, and they may unload a wheelchair out of a private vehicle and then they have to mount the curb. MR. TODD: Do we have a location where a individual -- if I was going there with a handicapped son in a wheelchair, is there a location where I could offload and have access, ADA approved, to the building without spending this additional money? MR. GOINS: The dropoff point that is designated and is most often used is the new cul-de-sac that was installed, and that's the location that we're requesting that we put this handicap ramp. MR. OLIVER: There is access, Mr. Todd, through the garage; however, that access can prove difficult depending upon what the dropoff point is. But there is handicap access through the garage. MR. GOINS: You gain entrance to the garage through a set of double doors that was installed, and handicapped personnel enter the building through an elevator. MR. TODD: And in going the other route, what way would they enter the building? MR. GOINS: They can't go the other route because there are steps. MR. TODD: So they would have to go through the garage regardless of what we put up as far as offloading? MR. GOINS: That's correct. And there are two double doors at the exit of the cul-de-sac for handicapped individuals to enter the building to get to the elevator. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my position haven't changed since committee. I know that we have a minimum requirement and I think we've met that minimum requirement. We've spent an additional $10,000 to finish this project on time to open. And I may not get a second, but I'm going to make a motion that we deny it. We have handicap access to the Fort Discovery. MR. POWELL: I'll second Mr. Todd's motion. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we approve the recommendation of the staff. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. BRIDGES: I guess this is to Drew or Randy or whoever, but these funds, these are sales tax funds that are still available to construct this? MR. GOINS: Yes, sir. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I've got probably a couple of points here. The first one is, I guess to Mr. Drew Goins, is that I just can't see that when we spent the $10,000 over there why we didn't -- that wasn't inclusive at that time. And I know what you said, so this is more or less just a statement to that effect. I think, you know, the engineers and people who were planning this ought to have the foresight to know that we're going to have to have that at that particular time, and it just appears to me that that should have been established at that time. The second point would be, I guess it's to Randy or Jim, in reference to what happen if we don't establish this handicap ramp over there. MR. WALL: There's no legal obligation since there's access through the garage, so -- I mean, there is not a further legal obligation for a second entrance. MR. BEARD: So there's not a legal obligation there, so we will -- MR. WALL: Not to have a second one. I mean, there is an existing one, and so that meets that statute. MR. BEARD: Well, then I would ask somebody why are we --why is this on the agenda to add this? What's the rationale? MR. GOINS: You have people that are being dropped off in the cul-de-sac that are having to mount a curb when it would be more convenient for those persons -- MR. BEARD: There is an opening in that door there, and it's not a curb there. It's an opening there that you can go into the double doors there. MR. GOINS: That's correct, but they have to get up on the sidewalk, Mr. Beard, and what we're requesting is a handicap ramp from the surface of the street to the surface of the sidewalk just like at every street crossing. MAYOR SCONYERS: It's basically a curb cut. MR. GOINS: It's a curb cut. MR. BEARD: But I thought a curb cut was there. In the turnaround there is a curb cut. MR. GOINS: No, sir, not in the turnaround. That's what we're requesting to put in. MR. BEARD: Yes, it is. You need to check that again. We won't argue that point. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Goins, you've got two items on this change order. Do you have a breakdown on the two items? MR. GOINS: I don't know the exact number. One is about $1,500 and the other one is about $3,500. MR. KUHLKE: Which one is $1,500? MR. GOINS: The handicap ramp. MR. KUHLKE: The handicap ramp. And we just approved $27,000 more on an audit and now we're bitching about $1,500 to help handicapped people. Otherwise, Lee, I think they've got to go inside the parking deck to let the people off. MR. BEARD: Bill, I just wanted to clarify some things, that the first time -- MR. KUHLKE: The first time I think we were pushed time-wise to get the work done, and the $10,000 was because of overtime pay they had to pay for those folks to work long. Am I right, Drew? MR. GOINS: That's correct. MR. KUHLKE: And that was the reason for that. It had nothing to do with any structural work or anything else. It was a time situation. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is, are we spending the money because it's there? It's there, so let's spend it? You know, I guess we do usually debate small amounts and we spend millions, but the bottom line is, Mr. Mayor, that the Discovery, Inc. is looking for three, four, maybe five hundred thousand dollars from the government for operation. They're supposed to be raising money, Mr. Mayor, to do capital outlay with. Well, I think where we can help them most is capital outlay because it's already in the one-penny sales tax for the Discovery Center. It's in the referendum. So if you have $100,000 there that you can use, then we use it on giving it to them for capital outlay and we don't spend it here on the contract work that should have been inclusive from the beginning if it was needed. And we met the minimum requirement. So if we're talking $1,500, well, heck, they want three hundred, four hundred, five hundred thousand dollars. We don't have a source. They want operation money, they're going to raise capital outlay. I say to them raise the operation money, we'll give you the capital outlay because we have a mechanism to give you the capital outlay. And I'm going to --I guess as far as the B word being used, B about one-penny if it's not being spent wisely. MR. POWELL: Drew, my question is to you. Now, you say we're going to put a handicap ramp outside for people to access from the street into the building; right? MR. GOINS: Yes, sir. There's a cul-de-sac that's to the left of the building that is -- the original intent of the cul-de-sac was for a bus dropoff and a bus turnaround. The thought of the design engineers was that the bus could pull up to the curb and that handicapped persons could exit the bus directly onto the sidewalk surface. Well, what is happening functionally, after the Science Center opened you have individuals that are using the bus turnaround to drop off handicapped personnel. They are unloading wheelchairs on the surface of the street and then trying to mount the sidewalk. We are requesting that we put in a mountable curb to assist the handicapped personnel. MR. POWELL: Drew, now they're going inside the garage and unloading; correct? MR. GOINS: There are two double doors that were installed in the side of the building to allow handicapped personnel to enter the building and go to the elevator bank. MR. POWELL: What are we going to do if we put this handicap ramp out there and it's raining or bad weather? Next we're going to have to put a cover down through there. I mean, my concern is we're getting into a never- ending thing it just seems like to me. Every time I look up, I mean, we've got another thing coming. And it's no pun intended on you, I understand you're just doing your job, but it seems to me like every time we look up we've got the Science Center asking for some more, and that's my problem with it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think it's real interesting that normally the people that would be down here wanting to help handicapped people are all opposed to this and the people that normally would not be voting that way are in favor of it. Now, I don't understand this, that doesn't make any sense to me. I think it's all due to who is involved, and I don't think anybody wants to say that. But I think it's all due to the fact that it's a Billy Morris project at Fort Discovery and I think some people are wanting to stick it to Fort Discovery over that, and I don't think we ought to. I think this is a question of getting handicap access to a facility and I think we ought to leave it at that, and I think that's what this debate should be about, not about whether it's Fort Discovery or anywhere else on the Riverwalk. You know, they don't have to go through that building. They can go down on the other side of St. Paul's and use the ramp, go right up the ramp and right down Riverwalk and go to Fort Discovery. Maybe that's what we should do is just put up a sign at the entrance of the cul-de-sac and say if you're handicapped you've got to go down to the dirt parking lot at the other end of the street, on the other side of the railroad tracks, and go up there rather than spend $1,500 to put a curb cut in. While I'm on Mr. Kuhlke's side on this one, I do want to correct one thing. It was not $26,000 difference in the auditor, it was a $3,000 difference. You know, that's a little bit different. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to be very brief. Yes, I'm an advocate of ADA. I know what the minimum requirements are. I also know that a professional service person that is doing the architectural engineering for a place that the function is people loading and unloading, it should have been in the specs that curb cuts be there for handicapped. And the architectural engineer should have drew it in there, so therefore the architectural engineer -- his professional insurance should pay for this and not this county government. That's my position on it. I don't have a problem with ADA access. We have a minimum requirement, and I think about every street entrance out there, street corner, that our folks cut them in. And I can assure you that, you know, if we're doing the design work or whomever has done it on the rest of it have it in there, then it should be like the spaghetti sauce, it should be there on this one. MR. BEARD: I just want to remind my fellow colleagues on the other end up there that they didn't really understand whether I was for this or against this. The point was I was asking some questions about this. And, yes, I'll bitch about ten dollars if it's necessary and if I want to talk about it. Every time I talk about something, you know, it's like I'm bitching about it. But I think it's a clear understanding of why this didn't take place. There may be a possibility that I would love to see this handicap ramp there because I think it may add to the area there and it's in my district, so I may have had a few points for it. But at this point I think I have that right to question it. Whether it's a million dollars or whether it's ten dollars, I think I have the right to do that. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion by Mr. Kuhlke first. Do you want to read the motion, please, ma'am? CLERK: Substitute by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Jerry Brigham, was to approve the request for the change order to add the handicap ramp. MR. KUHLKE: And the driveway. CLERK: And the driveway. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. CLERK: Under Public Safety, Items 56 through 58 were approved by the committee on October 13th. [Item 56: Motion to approve the acceptance of the second low bidder, Kustom Electronics, for six (6) radars @ $2,995.00 each and a total cost of $17,970. Item 57: Motion to approve Purchase of Services Grant for juvenile offenders in the amount of $6,000. No local match. Item 58: Motion to approve installation of 12,200 square feet of vinyl tile flooring at the Phinizy Road Detention Facility at a cost of $13,138.00.] MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval. This was passed in the committee and I move for approval. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. [MR. BEARD OUT] CLERK: Items 59 through 64 were approved by the Public Services Committee on October 13th. [Item 59: Motion to approve a new application request, A.N. 97-54, by W.C. Cumbee for a consumption on premises beer license to be used in connection with Cumbee's Restaurant located at 4628 Mike Padgett Highway. Item 60: Motion to approve amendment to contract between Augusta-Richmond County and the Lamar Corporation. Item 60A: Motion to approve amendment to agreement between Augusta, Georgia, and Wheels Advertising of Georgia, Inc. Item 61: Motion to approve a purchase order to Norvel Hasley & Associates for $85,076.00. Item 62: Motion to authorize the Mayor to sign grant from State of Georgia in the amount of $4,600 for the purchase of 22 buoys and approve supplement funding of $736 to cover remaining cost. Item 63: Motion to approve Belair Hills Estates Neighborhood Association request to rename Flagler Road Park to "M.M. Scott, Sr. Park". Item 64: Motion to approve acceptance of the LPA Group, Inc. Amendment 2A to Work Authorization No. 2 for professional services during the construction phase of the Main Entrance Access Roadway Widening (AIP 3-13-0011-17) and Short- Term Parking Lots Project at Bush Field Airport in the amount of $149,891 (federal share $50,577, local share $99,314).] MR. KUHLKE: I make a motion that we approve Items 59 through 64 as a consent agenda. MR. TODD: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. [MR. BEARD OUT] CLERK: Item 65: Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held October 7, 1997. MR. TODD: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] CLERK: Item 66: Motion to approve the appointment of Glenn Greenway as Acting Comptroller. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD OUT] CLERK: Item 67: Motion to approve the appointment of the Construction Advisory Board: 1) Licensed Electrical Contractor, Mike Myles, 4 years; 2) Master Plumber, Larry Jones, 2 years; 3) Licensed HVAC Contractor, Larry Babbitt, 4 years; 4) Commercial Contractor, Steve Clifton, 3 years; 5) Residential Contractor, Chris Bowles, 4 years; 6) Architect, Anna Averett, 3 years; 7) Electrical Engineer, Ashley Paulk, 2 years. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. TODD: I'll second to get it on the floor. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, could somebody explain to me how these names came up? I'm just curious. MR. SHERMAN: Some of the individuals that I've recommended are people that I have known through the Planning Commission working with site plans, and others -- two or three are individuals who have come through the office out at the License and Inspection Department, and just asking around: do you know this person, would he be a good person to serve on this board. MR. KUHLKE: This particular board has been in effect for how long, and has it been inactive or -- MR. SHERMAN: From the records that I've found at the License and Inspection Department, the former board went inactive I think '94 or '95. The last person who was appointed, his term expired sometime this past summer. But it became inactive. There were no appeals and it's basically an appeals board to our interpretation and application of the building code. MR. WALL: Let me comment on this board, if I can, because Mr. Sherman and I have talked about this board. There are two things about this that y'all may disagree with us on, and, if so, I understand. First of all, you will note that there are seven members on this board rather than ten, and one of the questions was whether or not the consolidation bill --the charter that said all committees and commissions would be expanded to ten members. This particular construction board, however, is made up of individuals from each respective trade as opposed to being representative from a district, and so therefore it was my opinion that this should remain a committee of seven. The second thing Mr. Sherman asked me insofar as appointment of members, whether or not that should come from the talent bank. And my recommendation to him was that he come up with a list of names and submit those names because these are people who are familiar with the codes, who are in a position to review conflicts and to make recommendations. So it's the technical nature of this body as well as the function that they form that led me to conclude that, number one, he should come up with a list of people who are familiar with these areas and that we should leave this body at a membership of seven. MR. TODD: I appreciate your recommendation, but I don't appreciate getting that recommendation, Mr. Mayor, after we have appointments for a board. I think I made a phone call to the Administrator's Office in reference why certain state laws wasn't being enforced as far as licensed plumbers being on jobs go. When I look at this list I can somewhat see why we don't have things being enforced. I certainly would like to have some input. And I think that even though we're talking about professional scale folks or crafts, that there's probably some of those folks live every district throughout this county, and I don't see a problem with going to ten. Now, if the county ordinance that set up this board said that the License and Inspection Director will be the recommending authority to this board on the members, then I wouldn't have a serious problem with it. But if I'm buying into this, I certainly would want assurance that the state laws is going to be enforced as far as the requirement as far as licensed folks on jobs. And I'll yield to the County Attorney. MR. WALL: Well, first of all, this board does not have enforcement authority. That's the responsibility of Mr. Sherman. This board is an advisory board. MR. TODD: Yes, to Mr. Sherman -- to License and Inspections. MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. TODD: Yes, I understand that, and I'd like to have some folks over there that's going to advise that we follow the state law as far as folks on jobs, as far as our inspectors go, and I guess that's why I raised the issue here. And I thought this board were functional and it's news to me that it's not functional. And I guess I'll buy into -- I'd like to -- Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion that we postpone until we can maybe talk about an appointment or two on this board. MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't hear a second to that motion. MR. TODD: So the motion died for lack of a second then. So basically what I see is a bunch of folks that's in business in the local community or relatives of folks that's in business in the local community that is not going by the state law, and I'll press on with Mr. Oliver on enforcing the law. Thank you. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the recommendation of the Inspection Department Director. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just have a question, Mr. Mayor. Who is responsible over the License and Inspection to ensure that the laws of the state are complied with? Mr. Sherman, I believe. And that's who I hold accountable. These gentlemen here -- ladies and gentlemen are only advisors, they have no enforcement responsibilities whatsoever. And I think that what we need to do is hold Mr. Sherman responsible to this board for ensuring that we're in compliance with all of the laws. I wouldn't want to make this advisory board any more complicated than it already is. The rule that is in the act, the enabling legislation, has caused all sorts of problems in various other boards where we have tried to take people across the board and make them fit, putting square pegs in round holes or round pegs in square holes. This is a particular case where we identified by specialty people, and I trust Mr. Sherman is not going to pad that board with people who are going to cause you to break the law. MR. OLIVER: Well, be cognizant of the fact that if someone's license is proposed to be suspended and they appeal that suspension it will go to this board. MR. TODD: I guess my question, Mr. Mayor, is that only folks that hold masters licenses in electrical, plumbing, HVAC, contracting -- I would assume contracting, yes. Are those folks -- the only folks in this county are those folks that also is in business doing this kind of business? I would think not. Matter of fact, I can probably give you a dozen plumbers that have a masters license sitting here, and I'm not one of them, and I probably can give you, you know, a half dozen electricians, and they're not in business. I think that we somewhat get into a conflict when we have folks that's in business for themselves or their family members are in business giving the advice to the Director. I think it makes it difficult--you know, I would think so--to deal with certain things. But maybe not, maybe it's just my perception, you know, I don't know a hell of a lot about construction. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, didn't we have a motion on that earlier? CLERK: Yes, sir. We had a motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Todd to get it on the floor for discussion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, you can't just get it on the floor for discussion, you either got to get it on or off. Now, my assumption of that was that they were for it. CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Powell's motion was to approve the appointments and Mr. -- yes, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. So we don't need Mr. Kuhlke's motion because it's the same motion. CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. I sleep, but I don't sleep all the time. MR. TODD: And I think I qualified my statement that I would second the motion to get it on the floor for discussion, which don't indicate, you know, my support for or against. I think sometimes, you know, in the essence of time you make those seconds to go on and get it out there. I think I made my point, and I think -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, good, we can vote then, we don't need to discuss it any more. MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. TODD VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 68: Motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. James Kendrick to a five-year term ending June 30, 2002, to the Richmond County Board of Family and Children Services. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. HANDY: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question to the County Attorney, did we pass a rule on consecutive times to a board or authority and are we okay with this one? MR. WALL: This is a state appointment and I don't think that -- I mean, I know state law does not put a limitation on it. And this would be his second term, and I think it does comply with the policy that was discussed. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 69: Appointment to the Planning Commission. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I asked that this be put on. I had an appointment to the Planning Commission that was vacant, and I'd like to place in nomination Charles Dillard for my appointment. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. HANDY: I've spoken with Mr. Powell about this. We don't have a opening on the Planning Commission right now. He does have an appointment to it, but the Planning Commission consists of five members from majority and minority districts and right now the representatives that were left over from the previous commission is from Mr. Henry Brigham's district, which is a majority. Now, if Mr. Powell puts someone on there, then we'll have six-five instead of five-five. Come first of the year Mr. Brigham can reappoint whoever he choose to based on the letter that we let it go in the term of the Commissioner. Mr. Brigham's person expires December the 31st and he can put who he want to, and then if Mr. Brigham so choose to, he can put a majority or minority back on there, then Mr. Powell can put whomever he have on there, his, and then we still have a balanced board. But right now we will not have a balanced board if we add another member to that board. We will not be balanced until the first of the year. MR. BRIDGES: I'm doing this from memory, it's been a while since I looked at what was required for each of those boards, but -- Jim or Randy, maybe you can correct me, but I don't think there's any kind of particular racial requirement for that board, is there? Isn't it that each Commissioner gets an appointment and that's it; is that right? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question is, is there an opening on the board and is there a vacancy as far as the Sixth District go? Now, I know that we dealt with some appointments with being able to appoint when the person's term expired that was there, like the Airport Commission for Bush Field. There's a Fourth District appointee there, but I can't appoint someone until the person resign that was presently there or the term expire. So my question, have the term expired or is there a vacancy for the Sixth District? CLERK: There's a vacancy. MR. TODD: If there's a vacancy for the Sixth District, Mr. Mayor, then my position is that we fill that vacancy for the Sixth District. And Mr. Powell have the pleasure of appointing whomever he wants, it don't have to be by race or gender, and I'm going to support that because that's the way -- that's basically the procedures and principles that we've operated on up to this point. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to concur with Mr. Todd on this. I think we have an agreement that if there is a vacancy, that person from that district appoint the person of their choice. And I think if we're going to continue with that, Mr. Powell has that right to appoint. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to give a little point of clarification here. There are a lot of zoning matters that are coming up in my district, and I did not have a representative on there to echo our thoughts to and try to keep us some support there on the board. And me making the recommendation that we appoint Mr. Dillard, it has nothing to do with race, religion or anything else, it's just basically we wanted a representative on the board and we had a vacancy. MR. HANDY: I'm going to leave it as it is. I stated my conviction and everybody know what I'm saying. And just as soon as I get the opportunity to screw up the whole Commission I'm going to do that, and then we're going to see whether race or gender mean anything. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm probably the only one that didn't get an appointment, and I certainly hope my colleague will wait till I make my appointment before he use that S word on the rest of them. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's appointment, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. HANDY VOTES NO. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. CLERK: Item 70: Motion to approve amendment to Code regarding voting procedures for Historic Preservation Commission. Second Reading. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. WALL: Under the existing ordinance from the city that was carried forward, the chairman got the vote to create a tie and then got the vote to break a tie, so he got two votes, and this gives him one vote. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 71: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff's Department for a hearing to consider the possible probation, suspension or revocation of the license of Ivey Thomas, Kim's Package Shop located at 2228 Rosier Road, for the following violation: Furnishing alcohol to minors. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. I move that we suspend. MR. BRIDGES: I'll second that. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we give the man three years probation. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think the Sheriff is applying for a grant to deal with, you know, minors and alcohol or something like that. I try not to be a hypocrite sitting up here and I try to, you know, stay consistent, do what's fair and do what's right, and I try not to criticize my colleagues in the sense that I'm sure that they vote their convictions and what they think is fair. But I think that we've -- well, I know we had several before us in the last month, six weeks, and we kind of spanked them on their hands and we said, you know, it's okay. Even if you don't have a license to sell at all, it's okay to sell to a minor. Go on, you know, we'll let the courts take care of it. Well, I think we have a responsibility as the lowest level of legislature to govern and to set standards and to enforce our rules, and I understand we have some discretion, too. And I understand that this is an election year, but I think there's one message that we should send, and that is that we're not going to tolerate individuals selling alcohol beverages to minors. And I think this is the second offense with this gentleman, Mr. Thomas. And basically I was for suspending the other ones, I'm for suspending this one, and I'm not going to change, and I can assure you that 1999 is an election year and I won't change then either. If you come in here in front of me, I'm for stiff punishment of dealing with it. And if we're going to okay the sale to minors, then this board should say to the legislators, write a letter, call them in to change the law and let you drink at any age you want to. MR. POWELL: First of all, I don't condone the selling of alcohol to minors, Mr. Todd. Definitely don't condone it a second time. But let me tell you this: This gentleman here took over a business that we had a problem with people selling drugs on premises prior to him coming there. He's cleaned that up. And I think he's made a mistake here, a bad mistake, and I don't condone him in that. I don't think the County Commission should be in business of putting people out of business, number one. Number two, he has helped the area. I'm not saying he's doing the right thing here, but I'm saying that if we give him an opportunity for three years probation, the next time that he comes up here -- and he's in my district and I stop by his store sometimes. The next time that he comes up here I'll make the motion just to take his license and put him out of business. But I think we ought to afford him that opportunity in the good he has done in that particular area. MR. KUHLKE: I just recognized Mr. Thomas's face. He's been here a lot of times, seems to me like. But what did we do the last time, Mr. Thomas, you came here? MR. THOMAS: I was here last month. This is a continuance. You couldn't reach a consensus and I had to come back. CLERK: It was five-five. MR. KUHLKE: Five-five. You sold to minors before; am I correct? MR. THOMAS: Sir, I have never -- I have personally never sold to minors. MR. KUHLKE: Your wife did. Your wife did. MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: And then what did we do then? Same thing, one year probation? MR. THOMAS: One year probation. MR. KUHLKE: So this is the second time. Well, J.B., you want to go for three? MR. POWELL: Yes, sir, I think that would be fair. MR. KUHLKE: I mean three times. MR. POWELL: No, sir. I think if he makes another mistake we should suspend his license. MAYOR SCONYERS: Clarify one thing for us, I think some of us are confused. Have you been on probation once before? MR. THOMAS: I was on probation right after I bought this store two years ago. Two years ago I was placed on probation. MAYOR SCONYERS: For one year? MR. THOMAS: For one year. MAYOR SCONYERS: You completed that one year probation without any problem? MR. THOMAS: I completed that one year -- I've completed everything without any problems except the incident we're talking about. MAYOR SCONYERS: I just wanted to get that clarified. Go ahead now. MR. THOMAS: Okay. I'd like to make a comment. I think that all of the Commissioners are voting their convictions. I appreciate that. I think that we all know the law, we're not supposed to sell to minors, and I appreciate that. I stood down here last month and I saw where cases were violated with intent and you showed compassion, and here at 6:35 in the afternoon the policeman bring an individual in that looks old enough to buy anything in the world and one ninety-nine cent beer that I make no profit on was inadvertently sold, and you're talking about closing me up. That's not compassionate, that is harsh and unjust, and I'm being honest. But since I left last time, Mr. Moses, I've given all this some thought. As Mr. Powell stated, I did run that business -- I opened it up and it ran good and it's running good now. But last month when I was down here -- and we have some people that seem to think that I was willing to violate the law. I didn't understand that and it kind of hurt. So what I've done since then, I gave it some hard thought, and I decided to come back and ask you to vote today and that vote to be no action at all based on the fact that I have decided to sell the store. I have found a buyer. My license expires in two months, and a suspicion at this point will stop all action at that store and it won't do anybody any good, the new buyer that's coming in or myself. So what I'm basically saying is this: Even though a beer was sold at that store, it was not to violate the law, Mr. Moses, even though it's a second offense. It was a situation where we had many people in line, I walked outside to smoke a cigarette because I was selling the alcoholic beverages and I had no customers. And I stood eight feet in front of my door, looking at the door, and I saw an individual already inside the store take a beer up. My wife thought that was one of our customers, I told you that last time. I'm being sincere. And to give the good service that we always do to keep them from waiting, she inadvertently sold that beer without checking. We never disputed that, it happened. But we don't sell nor will I sell in the future because I expect to be a businessman again. But in this particular case I think that there are some feelings among us that I violated the law, and I think the best thing to do in this case is to ask you to hold any suspicion that you may have and let me sell the store, and I would appreciate that, I really would. I don't think a suspension is fair. I think probation, if I elect to hold the license, would be fair because I violated the law. But I have been punished, I'll let you know that. The state punished me. My wife has been punished, she went to court. So this is where we stand today. Today I'm standing up asking you that when I come back you may take this up again, because I plan to come back, but in this particular case I'm asking you to look at it as it was: it was a simple ninety-nine cent sale where you make no money from the start. I wouldn't do that. Look at it the next time and then you may place me on three years, Mr. Moses, Mr. Powell, because I'm coming back. But in this particular case, gentlemen -- [END OF TAPE 1] -- MR. TODD: Didn't you promise this Commission the last time you were here, or the former government commission, that this employee, even though it's a relative, wouldn't be working in the store selling alcohol beverages? MR. THOMAS: I don't know if I made that promise, but I do know what I did tell the Commission. I told the Commission I would bring that store up, I would ensure that all individuals in that store is well trained to check using all the various proper identification checks. And I want you to know my wife took -- this was done in May and my wife hasn't been in that store since May selling anything. I'm not in the store. I hired a person to run it to help me out. I also quit my job in September, I was going to work full-time. So basically my wife has been out of the store a long time. But when she made that second buy she was out of the store for good. She has not been in the store since May 27th or 28th selling anything, in that particular store. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, when I made the motion I didn't put a time line on the suspension. I will amend that motion, if the second to the motion will allow me, and do it for 30 days. But I think the message that we've got to send is that we're not going to tolerate the sale of alcohol to minors. You know, there are stores that closes for one reason or another, construction, et cetera. And I don't think it's our responsibility to assure that Mr. Thomas can get a good price and find a good buyer for the store, I think it's our responsibility to enforce the law and assure that we don't have operators selling to minors. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MR. THOMAS: I have one more thing. I'm not pushing anything. I would like to make this point, though, because I really think suspension, Mr. Moses, is harsh. If we knowingly sit here on this Commission and find people going to South Carolina and knowingly buying cheap beer and bring it back --I listened to this last week. And the Commission showed compassion. You yourself showed compassion. That is a flagrant violation of the law. Mine is inadvertent violation. The law is the law. I'm asking for compassion, that's all. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would beg the gentleman's difference, that I did not show compassion, that I voted against that. I think the minutes will reflect that. And I believe in sense that this is a hearing, Mr. Mayor, if we need to bring the tapes out and play it, I think that my argument or my line of argument was the same line of argument that I have here with Mr. Thomas and that I voted -- or made a motion to take different action than what this Commission took. I'm not criticizing this Commission. I can respect your position to use every argument that you possibly can, Mr. Thomas, but I'm saying that I think you're misstating -- MR. THOMAS: Then I apologize to you and [inaudible] Commission that they showed compassion, and that's the compassion I'm asking for today. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like to ask Mr. Powell -- he made a motion for suspension and I supported that. That was prior to my understanding of what he's trying to say. And I know that [inaudible] allow him a chance to sell, but those of us who have been in business or who go in business, it's hard enough to get into business, and certainly if he has an opportunity within the next few months to get out -- I don't know how the motion should be made, Mr. Powell, but would you support a motion to that effect? Not with saying he breaks the law any more, Mr. Todd, I'm with you on that, but if he's given a chance to -- MR. POWELL: Point of information, Mr. Brigham, my motion was to give three years probation to this individual. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yeah, but I seconded it prior to my knowing that he was trying to sell. But what I'm asking you, would you put in your motion anything to allow him to -- MR. POWELL: Well, I guess the County Attorney probably could give us the best route to go on that. MR. WALL: Let me suggest this insofar as the sale of the business. It's my opinion that the alcohol license is personal to the individual, but in the past we've run into situations where there's not been an arms-length transaction. If it is an arms-length transaction and someone comes in that is totally unrelated to the parties and unrelated to that business, then they would apply for a new license and the prior history of this individual would not affect their application. But if it's not an arms-length transaction, if it's a family member or corporation that he's a member of or something like that, then the prior history is going to come into consideration insofar as the transfer of that license. So I think you need to take that into consideration insofar as whatever action you take today may have an impact on the license of the new purchaser, assuming that he works out a sale, which may or may not happen. MR. POWELL: I guess the best thing probably, Mr. Brigham, would be for me to amend my motion to the effect that it is -- we will not carry this on as long as it is not an arms-length change-up. Is that correct, Mr. Wall? How would you want to word that? MR. WALL: Well, when the new applicant comes in, assuming that the business is sold, there would have to be a new application filed. And if that is an arms-length transaction, somebody that's totally unrelated to the business, then the prior history of this individual would not come into play insofar as whether or not y'all approve or don't approve. MR. POWELL: So that would already be in place? MR. WALL: That's right. I mean, I don't think you need to do anything other than you need to recognize that the action that you take today may have an impact depending on who he sells to. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Why I was asking is I didn't know what impact it would have, and if we could -- I know the Sheriff and his men are here, but I think that if we could somewhere down the line allow this -- you know, I'm not condoning any sales to minors. If that happens, then everything would be off, but certainly give him an opportunity to sell his business. MR. WALL: May I suggest you postpone it till the first meeting in January and give him an opportunity to sell it and see who it's sold to and deal with it at that time? MR. POWELL: I'll rescind my motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Then do you want to make one to postpone it till January? MR. POWELL: No. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, I'll make a motion to what Mr. Wall said. MR. POWELL: I'll second Mr. Brigham's motion. MR. WALL: Let me say this: Rather than the first meeting in January, since that's typically a short one, maybe the second meeting in January. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Sheriff, is selling to underage children in Richmond County a problem? SHERIFF WEBSTER: Yes, it's a problem. It's a big problem. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is the fact that we're not acting on putting probations and suspensions on these people -- is that increasing that problem or not? SHERIFF WEBSTER: It could be a bearing on it. You have to let these people know that you mean business. I think under the circumstances, if he's selling to this person, you've only got two months. But we're going to bring more before you that we're having a problem with, and we would suggest that you act harsh to the owner because it helps us. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Sheriff, several of us try to do that, but half of us are in favor of doing that and half of us have been opposed to it. MR. POWELL: I love campaign season. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I also love the record, Mr. Powell, and I was wondering where you wanted to weigh in on this issue. MR. POWELL: I'll wait my time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would like for the record to say that I'm the same SOB whether I'm running or not. MR. POWELL: I'll second that motion, Mr. Todd. SHERIFF WEBSTER: Could I make a statement, please? I have Deputy Berry here, and I wish he would step forward because he can address this question better because he's out there every night and every day seeing what's going on, and if we've got a sale to minor problem I think he ought to be able to address it. DEPUTY BERRY: The Sheriff is correct, we do have a problem with underage drinking. I received a phone call this morning, gentleman stated his son had been out drinking in a place that he shouldn't have been in, nineteen years old, went out and wrecked his car. That's the kind of problem that we hear from parents, you know, and sometimes you guys call. And we definitely got a problem with underage drinking and we can use all the help that we can use, you know. We can't sit at every place, deputies can't sit at every store, they can't walk in every club. Myself and Stoney can't walk in every club and we got to get help when we do bring them before you. You got to take some type action. We hope you would anyway. You know, we can charge them every time. I got a case in here now with fourteen/fifteen cases in it, you know. I mean, if you're not going to do anything, well, then we'll just keep making charges, we'll keep bringing them before you. It's going to be time-consuming, you're going to get tired of seeing us, but we're going to keep bringing them. Somebody mentioned something about a federal grant earlier. I'm not sure if we got it or not, but if we do you're really going to see us. Because if the places keep selling, we're going to keep buying. And I would like to address something that Mr. Thomas said. He said this person looks twenty-five. He's a little seventeen year old kid, there's no way he looks twenty-five years of age. Seventeen years of age, okay? That's all I have. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? Let's see, we've got a substitute motion; right? CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Brigham made a substitute to postpone until the second meeting in January. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham's motion was to postpone until the second meeting in January. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 6-3. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion made by Mr. Todd. MR. TODD: And that was amended to thirty days suspension, Mr. Mayor. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear the motion read again, Mr. Mayor. CLERK: It was to suspend the license for thirty days. MAYOR SCONYERS: To suspend the license for thirty days. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to suspend the license for thirty days, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BEARD, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 5-4. MAYOR SCONYERS: No action. So that means it all might can come back up at the first meeting next month. Next item. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, if I could, I'd like to just make a comment. Mr. Bridges and I have talked -- and I know that these things come to us, but Mr. Bridges has talked to Mr. Wall, and it would appear to me that on items like this, that we as a body ought to adopt a policy on anybody that violates a probation on alcohol licenses and so forth, if we can establish a specific way that we're going to handle this and not have to go through this kind of exercise. I mean, it would appear to me that it ought to be cut and dry. If somebody violates a probation, certain consequences ought to come from that. And I hope that when that comes back to this body, that you will look at it seriously, and not only would it make it more enforceable, but it won't take the time that we have had to spend on this item. MR. OLIVER: At Commissioner Bridges's request, Mr. Walker and Mr. Sherman are in the process of gathering what's done in other jurisdictions, if you will, in regard to sentencing guidelines. One of the things that I would point out, though, that just as a judge functions in the judicial arena, there are a number of different mitigating factors that you have to take into consideration on each and every case. And while guidelines are a good thing to have and we concur with that, those are factors that you'll have to take into consideration on a case by case basis. But I would expect at either the next committee or the following committee at the latest we will have that information developed. MR. TODD: When we're having special privileges, I guess, I'd request to briefly have a word. I don't have a problem and I can live with what the majority of the Commission decide to do. I do have a problem with inaction or no action or not having the courage to lead or govern, and I think that when it comes to that, then certainly I guess this would be considered as a public nuisance [inaudible]. When it comes to not having the courage to lead, then I have a serious problem with that, or the courage to take action. I think we should take action and we should live with it. I'm not always right, probably fifty percent of the time I'm wrong, but, you know, I'm not going to have a no action situation, I'm going one way or the other, and I certainly think that's something we need to look at. We can't delegate the responsibility to staff. We are the elected officials, this is our scope of responsibility and authority, let's do it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item, please? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, with regard to the next item, Mr. Sam Nicholson represents Mr. Prescott. He is in Charlotte this afternoon. He had sent a letter requesting that the matter be postponed, however, he indicated he should be back by 5:00 or 5:15. I've gotten a message during the meeting that he should be here by 5:15. We are going to have a legal matter. If we can table this and see how far we get, I would appreciate it. MR. TODD: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that we have it at the end. MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion and a second. All in favor of tabling it, let it be known by raising your hand. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 73: Discussion on the study of "Hot Seating" Sheriff's Department Patrol Cars. SHERIFF WEBSTER: I'm not here because I want to, I'm here because I don't want hot seating in these cars if there's any way possible. I'd like to give you a few advantages why I think that these cars are important letting the deputies take them home. Visibility: Visibility is an important item as far as I'm concerned. We're out there and you see more automobiles on the highways and the streets than you've ever seen before. It's because they take home the automobiles. People living in the residences, they see the visibility of this automobile in a certain place, you're going to have less burglaries in that residence. I'd like to give you just a little bit of outline on that. A lot of apartments in our community give free rent or half rent to our deputies for the visibility of that automobile in his yard, and also the person having the uniform on, and we have quite a bit of that going on. But you take that automobile away, that's going to leave. And they don't do it to give them deputies the rent, they do it for the protection of the crime that goes on in our community. On the highways, to and from appearance for court, they take care of crime. As far as having a wreck or a disabled automobile, they stop and take care of it until a car gets there. And you get on the highway to and from work, it's very important that visibility of that automobile again. It's just the visibility of it means a heck of a lot to the Richmond County Sheriff's Department. Faster response time -- and I'd like for y'all to go over some of these. A person that's on special assignment or doing something special, he can get to a call. That automobile out on the road, if he hears a call, he goes to it and he takes care of that call until a deputy gets there. Maintenance and upkeep of this vehicle is very important. When you take an automobile and you hot seat it, that means that you've got two, three, and four people driving that automobile. No way in the world one man is going to be taking care of it. If you've got one person responsible for that car -- we've got a sergeant, we've got a lieutenant, we've got a captain and a major out there making sure that that automobile is taken care of. It will last four times as long as it will if we hot seat that car, there's no doubt about that. Hot seating a car is a bad situation, and I'm going to give you some other examples later and show you why hot seating is not a good thing. Morale building: Those people driving those automobiles, they keep them clean themselves. It's not his car because the car belongs to Richmond County, but it's as if he owns that automobile because he knows he's responsible for it. He wants to keep the upkeep of that automobile, want to keep it in good condition. And this is something -- he has a car he rides back and forth to work. Deputies are not the highest paid people in the world. I'd like to thank you Commissioners for the salary situation, what you did as far as salary is concerned, because this is the first time since I've been Sheriff in fourteen years that a deputy sheriff for the last year is making a decent salary. And that automobile is an incentive for him when it's a young couple that gets married and the deputy sheriff can drive that automobile back and forth home and he don't have to have two cars, because a lot of them don't have the money to have two automobiles. And that is one of the big problems. If you take that automobile away from them, they're going to have to go out and buy that additional automobile. Another thing is the Augusta National, and I wish that some of you would call the Augusta National and talk to them on the patrols and the duties that we perform during the week of the Augusta National. I know you're saying that's just one project, but that is probably the biggest thing that happens in Richmond County. It brings in approximately thirty million dollars a year. We have sixty-some-odd people -- I think it's sixty-six people that work for the Augusta National during the time of the Augusta National when it's going on here. We have twenty-two automobiles working [inaudible]. I'd like to mention, too, the Weed and Seed Program. I told you I'd give you six deputies out of those sixty-eight for that program. If you take the automobiles, where am I going to get six automobiles to perform that duty? Added expense: As far as added expenses, I would have to let them deputies come in at least fifteen minutes prior to going on duty. We've got to have a place to park those cars. I'll say the place we're going to have to park them would be across from the jail so they'll be fenced in. They will bring their car down, replace it, get their automobile, and then go to the substation. So you're talking about fifteen minutes overtime in the morning, fifteen minutes overtime in the afternoon. On a thirteen day cycle out of a twenty-eight day cycle he works thirteen days out of twenty-eight. You're talking about twelve dollars an hour. All the deputies we've got, that's two hundred and nineteen deputies, that would be around $222,000. Mileage charge for duty, court, and subpoenas: When he comes to court, you're going to have to pay him now for coming to court and going back home after court because he won't have a county car to ride in. This is not a big sum, but we're talking about the neighborhood, and these figures may not be -- they may be small to what they will add up to. Mileage for training: Every officer has to have four hours training every month. Every twenty-eight days he's got to have four hours training, so he's got to travel here to the training range to get it. Other mileage is going to be from here to Forsyth. We have deputies going to Forsyth, which is the POST training headquarters in the state of Georgia, and they will be going there. If they don't have their automobiles they've got to drive private automobiles. You're going to have to pay them thirty-one cents a mile for each and every one of them. So that's some of the problems we think -- or advantages, we think, for not hot seating cars. I'd like to talk to you a little bit now about other places that are hot seating cars. And, you know, it's a funny thing, we always -- when we're talking about different things that happen in other counties we always check with Chatham County, we check with Bibb County, and we check with Muskogee County. Well, they're similar counties to Richmond County: about the same size, about the same population. When we checked with those three counties, not a one of them hot seat their automobiles. I'd like for you to read what Chief Deputy Grant from Bibb County says, and he'll give you a little outline of what happens if you hot seat cars. And I brought three men up here today: I brought Lieutenant Bowers, Captain Williams, and Major Weaver. All three of those people were on this department when you hot seated the cars. And I haven't spoke to either one of you in regards -- you hot seated these cars during the former sheriff of Richmond County; is that correct? Captain Williams, come here, I want you. I'm just going to pick one captain out of the bunch and let him [inaudible] and let him tell you what happened to them when they hot seated the cars back in 1982 or '83, somewhere along in there. CAPT. WILLIAMS: Unfortunately, I was a shift supervisor at the time. The setup was a little different than we have now, and my biggest problem that I had, especially day shift and midnight shift, was to put enough cars on the road on a given day to make sure that every beat was covered and all parts of the county was covered. I hate to tell you this, but there were days when I had approximately four to five cars out of eight for the first three hours, and this was a problem. When the shift changed we had to use those cars that were already being used. Some of those people were on calls. We have individuals who have to now, if you do this -- at that time they had to take all their personal property with them. Strip the car down with their property that's issued to them and plus their personal property, and put that in the car before they could go anywhere. And we have to make sure that they're protected, so we make sure they have everything they need to work with. When you do that, it's a slow process. And if we're going to take fifteen or twenty individuals or twenty cars and do that every morning, criminals are going to have a field day with us. It just can't be done. I have tried it. We tried it for about three months and it was one of the worst situations you've ever seen. And on top of that, we ended up trying to cut back on time, so we moved our muster to the garage instead of at the substation, and most days in bad weather we stood out in the rain and made those changes, and it was just god-awful. And half the cars you could not tell who drove it or who wrecked it, why it was torn up. Right now every morning when a new shift comes in, a day shift or a night shift, it's their first day at work, the sergeant on that shift will send to me every day an inventory of that vehicle, and if there's anything wrong with that vehicle that wasn't there when that officer had it at work the day before, then he's in my office explaining why. We take care of them, we do the best we can, but if you hot seat them you're going to slow down the process. I've tried it, it don't work. I don't know any place that it has worked. SHERIFF WEBSTER: Thank you, Captain. I'd also like to say that I had a chief deputy to check fifteen counties in the CSRA, and it was Burke, Columbia, Emanual, Glascock, Hancock, Jefferson, Jenkins, Johnson, Lincoln, McDuffie, Screven, Taliaferro, Warren, Washington, and Wilkes. None of those fifteen counties hot seat their cars. If you want to take a back step in law enforcement -- I know it cost a lot of money when we got those sixty-eight deputies, but those sixty-eight deputies put us comparable to Chatham and Muskogee and Bibb County in giving the people of Richmond County good law enforcement. If we take the automobiles away the sixty-eight won't mean nothing because we won't be able to give the people of Richmond County the law enforcement we're trying to give them. You pick up the paper every day -- I'd like to just stress one other little thing. Here just a few weeks ago, one morning there was a lady delivering papers--and I believe I'm correct in what I'm saying--and she had an apartment complex that she was delivering papers to, and she left her little child in her automobile and she delivered those papers. When she came back her automobile was gone and so was the child. She called 911 dispatch. And this goes on many times, but you know who the ones that got the call? It was a sergeant and private going off duty. They apprehended the car within just a few minutes. The man was arrested, the car was already seized, and the child was back with his mother. This is just a little small example. When you're riding down the road and you see a car -- and you see it very often, you've got to, because I have so many comments on it. When you see a disabled vehicle and you see the blue lights there, he's not there writing a ticket, he's there to try to protect that automobile, he's there trying to protect the citizens from running into that automobile. I know it's going to cost money, but you don't know what you're doing to law enforcement and to our county, because there's nineteen -- we're talking about eighteen other counties that we've got comparisons with here today, and none of them hot seat their cars. This is a very poor excuse against law enforcement if we okay this. You're going to set us back, you're going to set Richmond County back, and when there are complaints and you see that we're not enforcing the laws like we should you're going to say what happened. Well, I'm going to tell you why, because of hot seating the cars. Those other eighteen counties are not going backwards to yesterday, they're moving forward, and I hope you people at the County Commission will look at this situation and think real hard on it and don't hot seat those cars because you're going to do something to Richmond County law enforcement that you see is destructive. Thank you very much. Oh, could I say one other thing? There's two options. I want you to go back to the last page. And this was before Butch McKie left us, and we was talking and there was two options to purchase automobiles. And if you will look at this, one of the ways was talking about a grant, and I believe it was ACMA -- MR. OLIVER: It's the GMA leasing pool. SHERIFF WEBSTER: And he had talked about this previous to this about a way to purchase automobiles, and you'll see the figures on this right here. It's a three-year grant, and after the three years -- you will notice if you purchase the forty-six cars we're talking about it will be $313,636, the second year will be $418,181, and the third year will be $418,181. And I'm not all familiar with the grant program, I just get in the middle of them and sometimes lucky enough to get one approved. But on the grant program, if you'll look on the next page you'll notice how this grant can be drawn out. The first year you can draw seventy-five percent of it, which that would be $2,834,327, the second year would be fifteen percent and the third year would be ten percent. And the county's portion is over to the right. You can see the figures as far as it's concerned. You could draw enough money and have money in escrow from this grant program if we don't have the money. It's another situation that we could look at to buy these automobiles. MR. TODD: Sheriff, this is on the COPS grant; right? The one with the sixty-eight deputies that we approved? SHERIFF WEBSTER: That's correct. When y'all approved it I told you I'd give you six men off of that for that Weed and Seed Program. MR. TODD: And this will actually help us with the cash flow, but the end results we'll have to pay down the line? SHERIFF WEBSTER: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: I understand that. Getting back to the Weed and Seed, can't we purchase vehicles out of the capital side of it or the law enforcement side? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. There's $250,000 that can go to law enforcement capital requests out of Weed and Seed, assuming we get that grant. MR. TODD: Yes. I think that I'm probably -- you know, I brought up the issue, I guess, with you, you might have heard it before, helping us with the budget and the possibility of hot seating. I didn't know all the issues that was involved at that time. I know we've gone already to leasing a lot of vehicles in the sense there's not any need in having residual value in vehicles, you know, as far as the government go. And we were -- I guess, Mr. Kuhlke, we were just out there picking up paper helping that Pride and Progress and we talked about how you may help us, you know, on offsetting a need you had as far as some vans for hauling prisoners for work details. And, you know, I didn't know it was going to be as hot a issue as it, you know, turned out to be. I would have probably still made the recommendation or suggestion to you, and I'm glad that we got it on the floor where we can deal with it. And I also have changed my position somewhat, but probably would be in a position to support a motion to accept your report as information until we finish with the budget. I understand also that there is a need for changing out some vehicles, that there is three or four maybe million dollars worth of vehicles need? MR. OLIVER: The Sheriff's Department has requested a hundred and sixty- seven vehicles. Part of them are replacement, part of them are new. The purchase price of those vehicles is $4,145,00. If we lease those through the GMA leasing pool, the annual lease cost is $1,130,455. We currently collect for capital approximately two and a half million dollars. That, combined with our prior lease payments, will leave about $100,000 in capital available for all of the capital needs of the county. MR. TODD: Is this already budgeted in capital outlay for the Sheriff's Department? MR. OLIVER: No. As I mentioned -- and I support Sheriff Webster on the take-home car policy part because I think that is a good deterrent, but until the budget is formulated I think it's premature to make any decision, and I would like to do that. But as I mentioned, there were over ten million dollars in capital requests made. We have to prioritize those capital requests, and so consequently we may be in a position where we have to leave a car for the Sheriff's Department in service a year longer than we might like to. We may have to do the same thing in Parks, Recs, Utilities, and those types of things, but we need to prioritize before we do that. Again, I agree with the Sheriff that there are a lot of benefits to take-home. I asked Mr. Siddell to do an analysis for me just for the purposes of having it on take- home. His analysis was that when the costs were considered, that there really wasn't any statistical difference. And, you know, I just think we ought to wait till we get through the budget process and see what we can afford. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to make a motion to the effect that we receive this report as information to consider when we're dealing with the change-out of cars and additional cars, and that's in the form of a motion. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second it to get it on the floor. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask a question. Sheriff Webster, talk to me a little bit about the timing of getting this done. Does it need to be done today? I mean, is -- and it's the same question that I asked you back on the grant. If this is done within the next thirty days, does that give you adequate time? What is the schedule of the vehicles -- SHERIFF WEBSTER: The only time that we would have any problem with it is when we order the cars. Maryann, could you give me the date that we've got to order, or Harry, do you have those figures? HARRY: You need to order the cars by January the 1st to expect delivery by the end of April. Right now Ford is not accepting any orders until January 1. SHERIFF WEBSTER: I know you have to order them by a certain time or they can't -- they only build cars for a certain length of time, police cars, and that's the end of it, they stop, and that's somewhere in the spring of the year. HARRY: The sooner that we can place the request in, the better off we would be. They wouldn't start building until January, but we would be [inaudible]. If we put our name on the list we become one of the first groups to get vehicles. MR. KUHLKE: My other question, Sheriff, is I believe that built into this, of the forty-six cars there are eleven spare cars in that forty-six; am I correct? SHERIFF WEBSTER: Eleven spare cars? I don't think there will be no spare cars out of it because we've got two suppression teams that we were going to put, and that was supposed to be put into communities where crime is heavy. No, there wouldn't be any over. MR. KUHLKE: Okay. I'm just reading Harry's report where there's twenty- one excess vehicles -- HARRY: The twenty-one excess was in regards to if we went to -- if we actually went to dispatch. There would be twenty-one excess units left over after we gave the Sheriff back his amount of vehicles to his pool, then we'd have twenty-one additional vehicles. MR. KUHLKE: In getting the cars, Sheriff, is there a need to get all forty-six cars at one time or is there a way to phase in bringing the cars in? SHERIFF WEBSTER: It could be phased in. You'd have to order them all, but it could be phased in a little bit later, because the simple reason is that I probably will go to hiring those sixty-eight deputies before long. It's going to take time to hire those deputies, it's going to take time to get them certified, and I would say before I could have those deputies ready will be sometime latter part of July or August of next year before I could say I could be prepared to having those deputies accountable to give them an automobile. HARRY: Splitting any order may take the disadvantage factor in that you may not know when you would receive the cars because, as I say, January 1st is the date for everybody throughout the United States. The later you delay, the later you will receive the vehicles. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just want to make a comment. I'm in support of deferring a decision on this particular issue. I am in full accord with Sheriff Webster. I've got a lot of experience in maintenance of vehicles in my former career. The United States Army would love to be able to not hot seat vehicles, same with the Air Force in fighter planes and all those things, but it comes down to almost sometimes a practical necessity. And I would say that if we have enough money to do this and do the other things, then we ought to support the Sheriff in this case. But if it comes down to push comes to shove and we just don't have the monies there, then sometimes you have to make an unpalatable decision and this might be one of them. Clearly I would support take-home vehicles for the Sheriff, but I think in the long run we're going to have to make a -- we shouldn't stampede ourselves into this action. I think we made a mistake before when we approved the grant. I wish I had a mulligan on that one about voting on that day. I wish we could have deferred it a little bit, and I think we'd be well-served if we defer this one so that we can look at all of the figures and see how we're going to realign the budget. We know that we're going to bring on the sixty-eight deputies, and I'd just like to support deferring a decision today. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support the take-home policy of the Sheriff, and I do not support the hot seating of the cars. My take on this thing is I think we need to go ahead and start moving forward with planning our funding. I think we need to go ahead and move forward as far as if we're going to purchase or we're going to lease or we're going to get grant funding or what. Whatever we decide, I think that should be a call that we need to go ahead and start moving, because the gentleman has stated that if we don't get our order in on these cars, then we could have some delays, and certainly we don't want that. We've added sixty-eight deputies to try to give adequate police protection, and I think we need to coincide with our actions on that. And I'd like to make a substitute motion to receive this as information and direct the Administrator to go find an alternative to hot seating, to purchase or lease or grant funding these vehicles for the Sheriff to provide adequate police protection. MR. OLIVER: Is that forty-six vehicles? MR. POWELL: Whatever it takes to put adequate police protection -- MR. OLIVER: Forty-six vehicles is the number of vehicles required to support the sixty-eight deputies, I believe. SHERIFF WEBSTER: That is correct, forty-six automobiles. But I do believe, if you was talking about the hot seating, you were talking about subtracting twenty-one from the cars that's on the list now; is that correct? HARRY: You'd be looking at not just the forty-six as a whole but the entire fleet as a whole. The current fleet is a hundred and forty-one vehicles under the rank of sergeant. You would be changing that and reducing that to a hundred and twenty, which would include the sixty-eight new deputies. MR. OLIVER: Be mindful that everyone is looking at this as an all or nothing proposition, and there are alternatives in the middle. And as I say, I think the action -- you know, making a decision is better done in the context of the budget discussions because obviously this has a significant budget consequence. I really don't have a major problem with buying some number of cars in that we're going to have to do that anyway, and as long as we don't overextend ourselves I think that's appropriate. But to make a decision, you know, on the total one sixty-seven request clearly I think will cause us significant budget problems. MR. POWELL: In my motion I said for you to come up with an alternative to hot seating and to bring us back recommendations on how you want to purchase these vehicles, whether you want to purchase them, whether you want to lease them, or how you want to fund them. MR. OLIVER: Well, we don't have any choice but to go through the GMA pool. I mean, clearly we can't purchase them with cash, we can't afford it, so consequently there is no other alternative other than the GMA pool except to the extent that we would be eligible and secure the Weed and Seed Grant. MR. POWELL: I understand that, and I think that you can handle the financing as far as any way you want to do it, and I'll make that in the form of a motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And I accept the motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Can I just ask for clarification on that? What you're saying, Mr. Powell, is your motion takes away the option of hot seating ever? Your motion does not accept hot seating as an alternative somewhere between now and December? MR. POWELL: That is correct. MR. TODD: What I heard in the motion, and maybe it need to be reread, I don't know what the intent was, but the motion was to find an alternative to hot seating vehicles and the purchasing of the forty-six vehicles in question. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's why I asked the question. MR. POWELL: That's correct. MR. TODD: Well, that was my understanding of the motion, and I don't know how it could be any other way. I would assume that the Administrator have the latitude to bring back an alternative and present the hot seating methodology and we would decide between hot seating and the alternative. But I don't see a need for hot seating if we're just building them for forty-six. But if we're talking about depleting the entire capital outlay budget, gentlemen, for vehicles for the Sheriff's Department when we bought or at least leased vehicles in the last four or five years I've been here at least on two or three occasions, I don't know that there's a need to change out all those vehicles right now. So I think that's a budget issue that we need to deal with. MR. POWELL: That's not the intent of the motion, Mr. Todd, to automatically change out these vehicles at once. What my motion was, to receive this as information and direct the Administrator to go find us an alternative to hot seating these vehicles and to bring us back a recommendation on whether we need to purchase the vehicles, lease the vehicles, we can get grant funding, or whatever it takes to get the Sheriff adequate vehicles to provide adequate police protection. I don't want to get down the road here and us have sixty-eight deputies sitting over there with no way to go. MR. TODD: Yes. I don't have a problem with that, Mr. Mayor, and I'll withdraw my motion and let the motion become the original motion. MR. OLIVER: You can include GMA in there and save yourself the subsequent action for the forty-six. I mean, there's clearly no other way we can do it and clearly that's the most cost-effective. But remember that it will become a budgetary issue subsequently. And as I say, we probably are going to have to defer -- of the hundred and sixty-seven the Sheriff has requested this would fill forty-six, so there'd still be a hundred and twenty- one remaining. Of those hundred and twenty-one I think there may be quite a few that we are not going to be able to honor, because if we honor the entire one sixty-seven we would have virtually no money for any other capital needs. MR. POWELL: That's acceptable as an amendment, Mr. Oliver. MR. HANDY: I just have one question. Where did the hot seating come from anyway? When there's no other county in this area nor anywhere in Georgia where they're hot seating cars, where that concept came from in the beginning? MR. TODD: Moses Todd. I'll take it. MR. HANDY: That's the reason why. I thought so. That's all I got to say. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, where I work is a rough environment, it's a mining environment. We buy vehicles for the guys to use, and about the only trucks or vehicles we've got left running are those that we've designated to individuals. Some we hot seat, I guess you'd call it, everybody uses them. They run out of oil, they run out of water, and nobody is responsible and we can't pinpoint them. I truly believe that hot seating will -- in three years time you'll more than pay for these vehicles. And I realize we're looking at a cash flow problem here. I'm going to support the motion that's on the floor. I think it might be a little bit stringent on the Administrator and financial staff, but I think what we need to do here is rather than go to the budget first, we need to go to the budget with the idea that we don't want to hot seat these cars and we do want them taking them home. And whatever the recommendation in that regard, we need to make our decision at that time after the budget process, but I think we need to emphasize that we -- you know, at least from my part, we don't want -- hot seating is not something that in a three-year period of time would be economically feasible. MR. TODD: We have, I'm told, a wish list or at least --whatever you want to call an eight million dollar deficit in the budget. I think it's time for someone to start talking about how we're going to meet that, and that's how this come up. You know, in just casual conversation with the Sheriff it started off with vans to move prisoners around for work details, and we were looking for a way that he may help us and I suggested the concept of hot seating. And the Sheriff is a person that he's proactive, and I'm sure the reason it's on the agenda is when he looked it over and thought it over it was a bad concept, so he brought it back to us, you know, and presented his side. I appreciate that and respect that, but we still have a problem. And it's not all a pie in the sky wish list, some of it is realistic as far as the needs for capital outlay go, and we're going to have to deal with that and we're going to have to look for ways to deal with it. I know it's the responsibility of the financial staff and the Administrator, but the final decision is going to be made here and I think we've got to start talking about some of these problems and how we're going to work them out. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Oliver, let me understand something. Is this going to put a strain on our capital budget the way the deputies will put a strain on our operating budget? MR. OLIVER: It's going to put a strain on it, but in my opinion we would buy forty-six replacement cars next year anyway, so consequently, making that assumption, I think that part is doable. I want this Commission to realize, though, that we will be bringing a budget to you about the first of December for a first round. We are going through the second round of budget cuts. That budget is going to be lean and mean, if you will. It is going to include reductions in force, it is going to include changes in level of service, it is going to include efficiencies, okay, and I think everyone needs to understand that, but there will be some service level changes. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Let me go back to my original question. You said we can include the forty-six cars. That's the forty-six cars he's asking for the new deputies or are we going to replace forty-six cars? MR. OLIVER: It could well be we're going to come back and recommend that those cars -- and I cannot answer that question now. It may be we come back and recommend that those cars, while not the best to keep on the street, we may have no other alternative but to keep them on the street. MR. J. BRIGHAM: In our leasing agreement do we still pay for those cars [inaudible]? MR. OLIVER: Yes. We are currently paying -- our current leases are 1.2 million roughly a year of a total capital budget of 2.5 million a year, so we have already financed a good portion of our revenue in that area. MR. KUHLKE: I just want to make sure that the Sheriff understands that Mr. Powell's motion, the way I understand it, only concerns forty-six cars, not a hundred and fifty-some-odd cars. SHERIFF WEBSTER: Those other cars is in the regular budget. And I understand what you're talking about, but let me tell you something. We will go back and look at them automobiles we got and see how far we can go with the miles they got on them and the condition they're in and give you a report on that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Perhaps in the form of a comment, the forty-six cars you say is the only addition, is that right, and the other is already in the budget; is that correct? MR. OLIVER: No, sir, that is not correct. The other hundred and twenty- one vehicles that have been requested have not been placed in the capital budget. If we honored the entire request of one hundred and sixty-seven vehicles that we currently have, as I previously mentioned, we would have about a $100,000 of capital money to meet all the other capital needs within this government. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I would hope -- I see we have some pre-answers to a lot of things as if we have not worked through all of this, and I'm sure that we have a Finance Committee that can do this, but I would hope that tomorrow morning or the next day, that before I read in the papers where all these recommendations have come up and not give the Commissioners an opportunity to look at what's going to perhaps be recommended -- I think that's kind of a disadvantage in some ways. And, you know, if that's the procedure that this group has already condoned, fine, but, for me, I would rather have some idea of where we're going prior to reading it. I think headlines are good, but I think that if we could do that, that would be good. The other side is the positive side. Last week we stood in the Capitol, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Beard and the Mayor and others, and announced this huge plant coming to our area. Everybody was happy and jubilant: Hey, look, we're going to make it, Augusta is going to be on the map. And we come back here today with the doom and gloom that [inaudible]. And I think you all know my position on this. Somebody else mentioned them issues today, I wasn't going to talk about it. But I would hope that our thorough working -- and I'm sure you have a chairman over there [inaudible] and I'm sure we have a department that can work through with this. But I think that we should send messages out there in this community. If we are going to be the second largest with one of the largest companies coming to this town and then we're going to come back and say, well, we're not going to support these people, we can't do this, you know, we're going backwards with it. And I would hope that we would get out of the doom and gloom and see how we can offer positive constructive ways of getting some things done. I think if we did that, ladies and gentlemen, we'll be on a better frame rather than all of a sudden we got to put the doom and gloom out there first. Well, that's part of my sermon for right now. But we stood there in joy last week with the Governor talking about what a great job we're doing down here and how we can be helped, and we come back down here now talking about what we cannot do, and I think that that's kind of going backwards. Mr. Mayor, I had hoped that you were going to say something about that meeting where you stood there and told them about what we were going to do. All of these, in my opinion, ladies and gentlemen, is tied in together. We can't go backwards on one side and then talk about economic development on the other side. They don't mesh. And I think that if we can find some alternative way of perhaps doing it, then we can move forward with what we need to do, and I hope I'll be around next year to help you move forward with it. MR. ZETTERBERG: This government, from my position, is undercapitalized. There are huge capital requirements, and what my concern is that today we'll make a decision that puts handcuffs on us for tomorrow. All we're asking to do is take the information the Sheriff has given us -- on the sixty-eight deputies the Sheriff gave us the option of waiting until we could study the issue. He's given us the option today to wait till we study the issue. I don't understand why we're stampeding ourselves into a position that's going to cause problems for ourselves. I mean, I certainly don't run my business that way. Maybe that's why I'm profitable. Maybe some of you run businesses that are unprofitable. But let's use some common sense here. We don't have to make a decision today on what we're going to do. I totally support the Sheriff on hot seating of vehicles, but if it comes down to hot seating or raising taxes, we're going to get some very strong recognition over what we're going to end up doing. I think that if you make a decision today based upon the information you've got right now, that is not prudent at all, and I would like you to just keep your hands in your pocket on this one and let the process go through, let the staff build the budget, let the Administrator recommend where things are going to come from, and let this body be a policymaker. Let's not handicap the staff like we're doing today and we didn't the other day. MR. BEARD: Maybe I'm missing something here, but I think, you know, a recommendation has been made, and it appears that we've got most people around this table agreeing with that recommendation that Mr. Powell made. I don't see how, you know, each Commissioner then has to go back and discuss this when we're all in agreement. I think it's the best thing to do is wait, get the recommendation, and I don't think we have a problem with that, but maybe some people aren't hearing that. But I think that, you know, we could have moved on this, you know, fifteen/thirty minutes ago because I think we're all saying the same thing, but it looks like everybody has to make a comment on this or some other thing when we know that it is -- would be prudent here to wait for the recommendation. I think all of us understand here and most of us support that hot seating may not be the best answer. We've asked for an alternative here, so why not let the Administrator go and do what he has to do and bring it back to us and we vote it up or down. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, my concerns are this: This Commission has went out on the front line, and I supported the Sheriff in his request for sixty-eight deputies. The majority of this Commission has chosen the route of providing public safety to our citizens. Augusta is a wonderful town, but we have problems in Augusta, Georgia. We've got senior citizens sleeping in their bed at night being gunned down, and I'm not going to keep my hands in my pocket, Mr. Zetterberg, as long as that's going on. And if the Sheriff comes in here and tells me that he needs tools to do the job to provide public safety to these citizens, then my hands are definitely not going to be in my pocket. I'm going to have both hands up, and I'll vote for you if you don't want to. MR. HANDY: I just want to make a statement, and I don't want it to be taken out of context. And if anybody want to know what I'm saying, I'd rather for you to ask me about it. Now, when we was putting this new government together we went through a lot of ways -- a lot of things that we wanted: a strong mayor, a weak mayor, we want a manager form of government or we want Administrator form of government. Now, I have Mr. Oliver's contract and I've been reading it, and I've been reading it for a reason. A lot of things that is going on here is on a manager style instead of administrator style, and we don't have no manager for Augusta-Richmond County government, we have an administrator. And a lot of things like we're going to be cutting back or we're going to be firing people, we don't know anything about that. Now, if we are the Commissioners, if we're responsible for this government, then our Administrator needs to bring these ideas to us before he put it in the paper and get the people all upset about what we're going to do when we don't know what we're going to do. Just like this pay study came about. I been sitting here right now ever since the pay study been out, everybody all over Augusta just about knows who making what and here I am a Commissioner and I've never even seen the pay study yet, and everybody I hear is complaining about the pay study. What I'm saying is that I voted for an administrator. We have a Mayor to represent this government, we don't have a manager. And I would feel much better if I would get some information from the Administrator and then make a decision rather than I have to go back and counteract what's been put out there already that I don't know anything about. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I previously called for the question, but I guess as we're debating this thing I've kind of come to the conclusion that something else needs to be said. And the conclusion that I come to is we went to a retreat at the Boathouse to discuss and deal with the budget issue. We all basically come to the conclusion that we were going to have to do some cutting. We all basically come to the conclusion that that cutting would be through attrition, and we also commissioned the Administrator, I would assume the financial staff, to bring back some recommendations. Now, we tied the financial staff's hands sometime soon after I got here, I guess after the second budget, with complaints from department heads that the financial staff was cutting the budget before it got to us and we told them we didn't want them to cut it. That's why we have a wish list, that's why we have the gloom. And, Mr. Mayor, you know, I think that we have staff doing what we tell them to do, then when they bring it to us we criticize them for it. Well, I may not agree with everything the staff brings, but I can vote it up or down without criticizing it. At the point I get where I'm going to criticize it, then, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to tell them not to bring me anything else. Thank you. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'm having a problem with this, and I've talked to the Sheriff about it, and I'm going to vote against Mr. Powell's motion. Here we are as Commissioners making financial decisions for 1998, and we are supposed to be intelligent people and we don't even know what the budget is for 1998. If you did that in your household you'd be on food stamps. If you did it in your business you'd go broke. And, to me, to make this decision, which is a big decision, a big financial long-term decision, before we have an opportunity to look at what the overall budget of this community is for 1998 just does not make sense. Now, I'm not saying that. I support the Sheriff, I support his department, I think he does a great job, but the Sheriff's Department is one department in this government and we've got a big budget. And I think that we have time, that we are not restricting the Sheriff, that we can get from the Administrator and the staff what this budget is going to look like, and I think if we don't do that, then we're going to make a bad, bad mistake. MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to read the motion that I made. The motion was to receive this as information and direct the Administrator to find an alternative to hot seating, to purchase or lease or find grant funding for the necessary vehicles the Sheriff needs to provide adequate police service. MR. KUHLKE: There isn't an alternative. MR. POWELL: that's a matter of opinion, Mr. Kuhlke. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. ZETTERBERG VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. [Item 74: Motion to approve endorsement of Georgia Department of Community Affairs supportive housing request.] MR. OLIVER: The Georgia Department of Community Affairs sent us a communication. Basically what this is is just requesting an endorsement from the local government. These are pass-through funds. I requested Mr. Mack to take a look at it. Because of the timing we elected not to take this through committee at their request, and we would ask for your consideration. MR. TODD: Is there any local match? MR. OLIVER: No. MR. TODD: So move. MR. BRIDGES: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [Item 75: Motion to ratify letter of intent dated September 25, 1997, to provide $1,000 in funding for Fort Gordon's Freedom Park.] MR. OLIVER: 75 is something that just got overlooked previously. There was some communication circulated as part of a letter for some things with Bush Field on there. It included an item for $1,000 for funding for Fort Gordon's Freedom Park. This was previously concurred upon by the Commission. This is for their Freedom Park effort, and that event has already been held. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. MAYOR SCONYERS: 76 is Legal Meeting. MR. HANDY: So move. MR. WALL: To discuss real estate and litigation matters and personnel. MR. TODD: Point of order, Mr. Wall. I'd like for the Recording Clerk to be in for real estate. MR. WALL: We can take that item up first. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [RECESS, 4:55 - 5:10 P.M.] MR. HANDY: Will the meeting please come to order. Ms. Bonner? CLERK: Item 72: A request by the Richmond County Sheriff's Department for a hearing to consider possible probation, suspension or revocation of the license of Robert A. Prescott, Jr., Robbie's Sports Pub located at 2834 Washington Road, for the following violation: Minor in possession of alcohol. DEPUTY BERRY: We brought this case before the County Commission because of the incidents that's been happening at Robbie's Sports Pub and we thought it needed to be brought to your attention. Within six months, from January to July, fifteen minor in possession cases were made inside of Robbie's Sports Pub. On April the 4th Sergeant Turnage sent an undercover agent in there from CID Fort Gordon to purchase alcohol at Robbie's Sports Pub. At that time we had put it on the agenda to bring before you all and see what the problem is and see if we can get something done. MR. NICHOLSON: Members of the Commission, my name is Sam Nicholson. I'm here representing Mr. Robert Prescott, Jr., who is the license holder for the premises at Robbie's Sports Pub, which is out in the shopping center where Books-a-Million and Masters Four Cinema is. We have a defense, and we feel like a very good defense, for the claims and the charges that are being brought here today. I don't know if this is the proper time to address it, but if it's all right with you I will go ahead. We don't deny that these cases have been made, but let me tell you that people making the cases are off-duty police officers that are hired/employed by Mr. Prescott. They are on the premises at his direction, and he is directing those police officers to make cases against anyone they find inside or outside the premises that have alcohol. Now, what's happening here is that minors are able to go into the place of business and they are able to play the games and use the games, but they're not allowed to drink alcohol, and he is doing everything he can to enforce this. And I believe the Sheriff's Department and Mr. Berry will admit that all but maybe just one or two or three of these cases were made by people working for Mr. Prescott. So my question to you, gentlemen, is what else can you do? What else can you do? The case that was made about the undercover agent buying alcohol underage he has a complete defense for, but it was thrown out in Magistrate Court. The case did not hold up. So we present to you and submit to you, gentlemen, that Mr. Prescott has done about all he can do. Now, what's happened in this is that parents, I believe, are calling the Sheriff's Department, and probably some of you, complaining about this situation over there. But at some point in time, gentlemen -- and I know all of you have children, and grandchildren some of you. At some point in time the parents have to take responsibility for their children's actions. You just can't blame it on Mr. Prescott or anybody else who has a legitimate business, who is legitimately licensed, and who has police officers up there at his own expense and direction making cases and policing the very problem that he's being brought here today and challenging his liquor license for. Now, I submit to you, gentlemen, that really, if you think about this, there's nothing else he can do. He has a legitimate business out there, and the cases that have been made, he's making them. He cannot -- nobody who runs that kind of business can prevent minors inside of a facility like that, a place of business like that, to keep from getting alcohol. They've got friends that are over age that are going to get it and give it to them, and you would have to have a guardian there or police officer there with each one of these minors to keep them from actually getting it into their hand and drinking it to stop it. But he's doing the next best thing and that's making a case against them as soon he catches them doing it. Now, we just ask for you to take this into consideration not to put his license on probationary status, to give him another chance, I mean, if he continues to show the pattern of responsibility that he's showing in making these cases and policing his own place of business. We're asking you not to put him on probationary status or invoke any kind of sanction against his license for the facts as they are in this particular case. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question would be that in the cases where the owner allegedly has made cases against the minors, has the owner found out who was giving them the alcohol beverages and had cases made against those individuals or those individuals arrested? I think the ultimate responsibility is the owner. The owner have the privilege of holding that license. The owner is given the rules and the laws that governs the sale of alcohol and, you know, I have a problem separating the responsibility. I guess my other question would be whether this is an adult gameroom or, you know, anybody any age can walk in. I don't think we should have a mix of alcohol and gameroom unless it's an adult gameroom. MR. NICHOLSON: Well, that's a good point, Commissioner Todd, and until there is an ordinance or some type of law preventing minors from going into this establishment you're going to have this kind of problem. And I think he's doing everything he can do to police it. MR. TODD: What is the ordinance, Berry? DEPUTY BERRY: The restaurant part of it, that's the reason they're going in now. MR. NICHOLSON: He has a gameroom license, a restaurant license, on premises consumption license, every other license that he's paying for. MR. TODD: How many cases has the Sheriff's Department made against the undercover operator? Is this the first offense or second? MR. BERRY: This was his first violation, from my understanding. MR. NICHOLSON: One violation on the undercover officer, which happened back in April, and the case did not hold up in court. DEPUTY BERRY: I can explain that also. The reason it didn't hold up in court was the Judge told Sergeant Turnage that the licensee should have been charged instead of the bartender, and that's not the way we interpret the ordinance. We charged the bartender, and the Judge threw it out saying that the license holder or the owner of the establishment should have been the one that was charged. That's the way the Judge interpreted the ordinance. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question to the County Attorney: If it's thrown out in court, can we still take action against the licensee? MR. WALL: Yes, you can. A different standard of proof in criminal court. I mean, you've got a beyond a reasonable doubt here and it's basically a preponderance of the evidence standard, so it's a totally different standard and different sanctions. MR. TODD: In that light, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion, in the sense that this is a first offense, to put him on probation for one year. That's in the form of a motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second. MR. WALL: Mr. Todd, only in the sense that in the past, and you may have reasons for varying from it, on a first offense it typically has been a six months probation is the -- MR. TODD: I'll modify my position to six months. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll still second that. I want to ask Mr. Nicholson a question. Mr. Nicholson, what are y'all doing to prevent -- are y'all doing anything at all to prevent the sale to minors? Are you tagging minors or what's going on in that respect? MR. NICHOLSON: May I have Mr. Prescott address that? MR. J. BRIGHAM: That'll be fine. MR. NICHOLSON: Thank you. This is Mr. Prescott, who is the son of Robert Prescott, Jr. He runs and owns and operates the facility. MR. PRESCOTT: I want to start by saying, first of all, I don't condone underage people drinking alcohol whatsoever and I won't tolerate it in my place of business. I'm very strict. The measures I take are, first of all, I have hand stamps. When they come in, they're ID'd at the door. If they're underage, they get an underage stamp; if they're overage, they get an overage stamp. The overage stamp is always a word of some type, which I change them every week, so they never know what stamp it's going to be, what type ink it's going to be. If you stamp them -- say a sixteen year old goes up to a guy that's twenty-one and does his hand like that [indicating], the stamp is a word if you're overage, it'll be backwards or upside down. So that's for the officers to be able to catch them easier, first of all. Secondly, even if they go to the bar and they have an overage stamp, they get ID'd again. They cannot buy a drink just because they have an overage stamp on their hand, they still get ID'd at the bar. Thirdly, all my mixed drinks are made in either a clear plastic cup or a clear glass; okay? Draft beer is either in a white plastic cup with Budweiser on it or a glass mug. Any soft drinks or water that is served is served in a sixteen-ounce styrofoam cup, which looks so much different than any other cup I have, so therefore they can't -- even if they were to try to attempt to get it or their friends buy it for them, they're walking around in there with a clear glass. And if they know they're underage -- they can check the stamp, first of all. If they happen to have gotten a stamp from somebody by mashing their hands together it would be upside down, so there's no way they can get it that way. The other ways I do it, on the weekends when I have minors as the majority of the crowd I have, I will not serve pitchers of beer. They cannot get a pitcher of beer. Even if you're over twenty-one you cannot get a pitcher of beer and take it out amongst anybody and drink it. That prevents them from being able to get a sixteen-ounce cup, drink their Coke, get their buddy to pour it into the cup so they can walk around and drink it in a styrofoam cup without being noticed. I have two cops patrolling inside at all times. I have two cops in the parking lot all during the summer always because -- I'll have four deputies on Friday night, four deputies on Saturday night constantly patrolling and trying to catch these people and keep them from drinking in the parking lot. Secondly, I caught a lot of people bringing in their own bottle of liquor. I will not allow them to bring backpacks or any kind of big purses in my establishment because they'll sneak in bottles of liquor or cans of beer, stuff of that sort. I mean, I don't know what else I can do to prevent it except for -- I mean, I've tossed around the idea of making it eighteen and older at a certain time. But I had a case where a guy come in and he brought his child in there that was two years old at two o'clock in the morning and I told him he had to leave, he couldn't bring a child in there, and he threatened to sue me. Because I serve food he said that he had the right to bring his child in there, and he was going to make a case against me. And I said that's fine, you make a case, I'll make a case against you with DFACS or something. But this is the problem I have. I don't know if I can allow -- if they can come in there without my approval if they're under eighteen. And all the other bars are doing that, you know, all the other nightclubs it's eighteen and older. It's at Saint's, it's across the road at Plum Crazy, Coconuts, and all those places are doing it, so even if I make it eighteen and older you still have underage people in there. And the majority of those tickets also are military. Ninety-nine percent of them, I guarantee you, are all military, even the fake ID that they had listed on there. I was working with the military trying to catch whoever was making fake ID's for the military that were coming in there, and every time I caught one I was supposed to turn it in to the Sheriff's Department, and in return they were to turn it over to CID. And all the other tickets -- I mean, ninety-nine percent of them, I'm sure, are all military, and they come in and their buddies are buying for them. They're sneaking in doing this. And, I mean, I'm doing all I can do. I don't know what else I can do, and if y'all have any suggestions I'll be glad to take them. I'm doing everything I can to prevent it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: What percentage of your business is underage business approximately? Is it sixty-forty, fifty-fifty? MR. PRESCOTT: Probably fifty-fifty. The majority of my business is military, okay, on the weekends, period, and out of that group I'd say it's fifty-fifty or maybe sixty-forty. But the actual teenagers I get from -- or underage people that are actually on the weekend, there might be twenty to thirty that come in there on a given weekend. And I get a new group of military every four to six months and I have to do what I can to root out the bad ones, because they come in and they're gung-ho and they're just here and they think they can do whatever they want to do, and I got to start all over again every time rooting out those guys, the ones that are bad. And I got to let them know -- I told them, I said enforce this. I said we'll start writing tickets, the word will get around and they'll stop doing it here and I won't have near the problem I have. But, I mean, it's a problem. And I'm all the time finding something -- I'll find bottles of beer or beer cans. I don't even serve beer cans. They'll be all out in the parking lot. I'll find empty bottles of liquor sometimes in the bathrooms or over here up under somebody's car in the parking lot. And there's no way I can control all of that from happening. Not to mention there's one, two -- there's another bar and there's Hooters, there's another bar down in the corner that allows eighteen or older in. There's three establishments right there besides mine that sell alcohol, so there's no way I can be held responsible, I think, for the whole parking lot and everything that goes on. But I still am the one that's responsible for putting police officers out there for my business, because I want it to stop and I'm doing all I can do. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Berry, will you review again for me, I missed part of the -- all of the violations that you went over. DEPUTY BERRY: Well, there were fifteen violations for underage in possession of alcohol. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Were these inside the bar? DEPUTY BERRY: Inside the bar. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That's fifteen different violations? DEPUTY BERRY: Correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: All that was underage possession? Was there any contributing to the delinquency of a minor charges? DEPUTY BERRY: Not out of those fifteen. There were, I believe, four violations of -- no. None of those was involving individuals contributing to a minor, no. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, if you've got fifteen possessions inside the bar, it sounds like to me you've got somebody contributing and it's either got to be an employee or a patron. And I would think that if you've got fifteen charges, I would think you would somewhere along the way have somebody say that so-and-so gave it to me. DEPUTY BERRY: Well, I wasn't there, and -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Now, you know, I'm not no great guy to understand all this, and I don't understand it completely and that's the reason I'm asking the question. DEPUTY BERRY: The fifteen cases that I pulled up, I put them in monthly order. There was no other case numbers or other cases made on those dates where it show where someone gave this person the beer and that they was charged. These fifteen cases is individual cases, and some dates two cases were made at the same time or different times of the day. MR. BRIDGES: Those fifteen cases, are some of those his deputy that he's hired; is that what you're saying? DEPUTY BERRY: All of these are. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. Where is the charge coming from then? I mean, where is the charge coming from? If all fifteen of them are people that he's hired to, you know, stop that, where is this charge coming from? DEPUTY BERRY: Which charge? The fifteen or the -- MR. BRIDGES: The one you're charging him with, where is that coming from? DEPUTY BERRY: This one came from Sergeant Turnage. He sent someone in from Fort Gordon that was underage. MR. BRIDGES: And it was not his deputies that caught him, it was -- you caught him? DEPUTY BERRY: Correct. They purchased from the bartender. MR. WALL: And that's the point. I mean, here we sent in an undercover underage drinker who bought from the bartender there, so it's not a situation where, you know, they were served by someone sitting at the same table or brought it in or whatever, and that's the -- DEPUTY BERRY: So basically we couldn't be sure where they're getting beer from, whether they're getting it from the bartender or a friend purchasing it and giving it to them. We don't know. MR. PRESCOTT: First of all, I was there on this night when this happened. There was a girl sitting at the bar with two military guys. They were both of age to drink, the military men, okay? Next thing I know, I see all these cars pull up. It was Stoney Turnage and also a bunch of CID cops. Well, they came in and he said I want to check some people in here to make sure ain't none of them drinking, and I said fine, go right ahead. He checked every underage person in there, no one was drinking that was underage, okay? I was packed with underage people and no one was drinking. They did not catch -- except for that girl, okay? Well, she was sitting with two guys that were of age to drink. When we went outside, she said that the girl behind the bar served her, so when they brought her out -- this girl had just been hired to work for me like two days, okay? When they brought her out, I fired her on the spot right then. I fired her. I tell all my employees if you get caught serving to underage it's going to cost you $500, you're going to get put in jail, and I'm going to fire you right then on the spot, and they all agree not to do that. Now, she swears up and down that these two guys bought her the drink. Now, I personally saw this girl laughing and cutting up with these guys sitting together at the bar. She was sitting in-between two guys. Now, if she wasn't with them, she wouldn't have been sitting in-between them. When she left, I tried to question her when she come out and she had two CID guys on both sides of her and they wouldn't let me speak to her. They said I'm sorry, she's the police, and took her and put her in the back of a car, and I couldn't question her at all and I saw no one else question her. So I went back inside and grabbed the two guys. I said listen, I want to ask you did you buy this girl a drink. I said if you did you need to tell me or I'm going to get in trouble, and if you didn't I need to know because I'm going to fire this girl. They said I don't know what you're talking about, I ain't bought nobody nothing. They got up, they walked out of the bar. I asked the police, I said y'all need to talk to those two guys because they were the ones sitting with her, and they -- nobody stopped them, they let them go, okay? And the girl still swore that she never did that, that it never happened. Now, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I fired her on the spot. And it's just kind of funny to me that they wouldn't let me question her, and I don't know -- I didn't know the reason it got thrown out of court, I just knew that it had got thrown out of court. And I didn't understand why I didn't get a ticket for, why I wasn't charged with it also if the management is supposed to be charged with it, so I just didn't understand that. She was a eighteen year old CID agent, evidently. She was eighteen years old is what they told me, and they wouldn't let me speak to her and I don't understand that. I mean, maybe they're supposed to be undercover and you're not supposed to talk to them, I'm not sure, but -- I'm not saying it didn't happen. It may have happened, but why should I be held responsible for somebody I had just hired that made that type of mistake if she's the one in the wrong? I mean, I am very strict. And it makes me look bad, and I know that you just have my word to go on, but I am very strict. And I'd also like to also ask one more question. This was a CID undercover agent, this was not Richmond County, okay? Now, how many times have they tried to catch me serving or sent somebody in and I haven't served them? MR. TODD: But it seems to me that you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Your case was thrown out because you wasn't arrested and the person that made the sale arrested. We hear these every day. And I'm not saying, Robbie, that you're right or you're wrong, I'm saying that, you know, we have to go with the evidence presented and make a decision on what direction [inaudible]. My question would be to the County Attorney on the gameroom license. Is there a gameroom license here and how do we have a alcohol mixed with a gameroom license if it's not an adult gameroom? MR. WALL: Well, I've asked the same question. And I did not bring that part of the code with me, and I'm going to look at it, but I -- I don't understand that and I'm not sure whether it's separated or what, but I will be looking at it because that caught my attention as well. MR. TODD: I think that we're being as fair as -- I think in the motion I made I'm being as fair as I can be, even to modifying the motion to the recommendation of the County Attorney on six months. MR. PRESCOTT: Well, I just wanted you to hear my side. I didn't want to, you know, come up here and just not speak my piece because I know I do try to the best of my ability. And if you have any suggestions I'd be glad to hear them. I mean, I don't condone it and I don't want it happening. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I think he had a good point. Have y'all sent people in there before and not -- they've abided by the law? DEPUTY BERRY: I've never sent anyone in there. MR. BRIDGES: That's the first time you sent one in there? DEPUTY BERRY: That's correct. But you've got to remember, I only came over in '96, so. January. MR. ZETTERBERG: I applaud the gentleman's effort in trying to control it and do everything you could. But, you know, one of the problems, you have an implied risk in your business. And the very fact is that risk is because of the nature of the business, having a gameroom and serving alcohol and food, and I don't think we should share in that risk with you at all. I think we have a law that says that serving alcohol to minors -- now, the risk, that is your problem no matter what you do with it and how you do with it. But I would encourage the County Attorney to look at this situation and find out if there are other places that we find ourselves in this same catch. I know that we dealt recently with an alcohol license to a restaurant and, unfortunately, that place turned into a bar. But the very fact is that they started a restaurant with the casual use of maybe wine or drink during that time and all of a sudden it ends up in the bar on Sunday nights. And we do have some things that are real sticky, but in my particular case the risk is yours. If you're going to be in this kind of business you have to stand up and say -- [END OF TAPE 2] MR. J. BRIGHAM: What percentage of your business is from restaurant and what percentage of it is from gameroom and what percentage of it is from alcohol? MR. PRESCOTT: Broken down in sales percentagewise? Probably fifty-five percent food, another probably ten percent in games and pool, and the rest would be alcohol. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to call the question. I think that the probation is fair. MAYOR SCONYERS: [inaudible] six months? MR. NICHOLSON: Well, he thinks he can live with it. Honestly I think, in all sincerity, that he should be given some kind of consideration for the effort he has taken to try to police his own business. Now, I've represented a lot of people in the bar business throughout the years and I can sincerely tell you with no reservation whatsoever that he's done more than all the other ones I've represented put together probably. I mean, honestly. I mean, y'all probably see it, too. So I'd like to ask you for a shorter period of probation or either just to have it -- I think y'all have done warnings or something like that before, but I would ask for some shorter period of probation or either give him another chance. MR. TODD: Other than a warning, give me a recommendation on a shorter period. MR. NICHOLSON: Well, three months. I'll say he's been under this cloud for two months. MR. TODD: Yes. I guess if the seconder of the motion can modify to three months, considering what he's done, I could live with three months. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham, can you live with that? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm not happy with that, I'll be honest with you. I appreciate what Mr. Prescott is doing, but I would not want to modify my motion in any other case and I think that we've got to be hard on these cases. And I'm sorry that we've got to be hard on Mr. Prescott because I think he is doing more than the average guy, but that's the reason that I'm not asking for any more than what we've asked for in this case. And I really have a serious problem with modifying it, but I guess if that's the only thing going to pass I won't to ask for it. But I definitely want it understood that it's his problem, it's not our problem. And I'm very appreciative of what he's trying to do to avoid the problem, but alcohol and teenagers do not mix and they should not mix. And I know when I was eighteen and younger, that I probably violated that law along with several other people in this room, but that's not the question now, the question now is as we've gotten a little older and a little grayer we understand the other side of that coin. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, what did the County Attorney come up with with the adult gameroom? MR. WALL: That's in Title Six and we don't have Title Six over here with us, but I will be looking at it. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think we're going to have to review that before we approve licenses next year. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion for three months probation, let it be known by raising your hand, please. [MR. POWELL DID NOT VOTE.] MOTION CARRIES 8-0. LEGAL MEETING, 5:45 - 6:30 P.M.] [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:30 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 the Augusta- Richmond County Commission held on October 21, 1997. _________________________ Clerk of Commission