Columbus, Georgia

Minutes



COUNCIL BRIEFING



Meeting

December 9, 2003



Members Present: Mayor Pro Tem John J. Rodgers (arrived at 8:44 a.m.) and

Councilors Wayne Anthony, Glenn Davis, Berry Henderson (arrived at 8:43 a.m.),

Charles E. McDaniel, Jr., Evelyn Turner Pugh and Nathan Suber. Also present

were Mayor Robert S. Poydasheff, City Manager Carmen Cavezza, City Attorney

Clifton Fay, Interim Finance Director Angela Cole, Revenue Division Manager

Craig Strain and Human Resources Director Tom Barron.



Members Absent: Councilor R. Gary Allen, Julius Hunter, Jr. and Evelyn Woodson

were absent.



*********************************** ********** **********

*******************************



City Manager Cavezza called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. in the Council

Chambers Conference Room, Plaza Level, Government Center.



Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance:

City Manager Cavezza advised that on the agenda tonight, there is the first

reading of the proposed changes to the alcoholic beverage ordinance. He

recalled that the review began last week but was not completed. He suggested

that we continue the briefing on the proposed changes today. At the last

meeting, City Manager Cavezza pointed out that we had completed the sections up

to Section 3-8, which was the Approval and Issuance. (A copy of the proposed

amendments to the alcoholic Beverage Ordinance was filed with the Clerk?s

Office and are hereby made a part of these minutes.)



? 3-8. Approval and Issuance: The change is for the applicant to come first

to apply for the alcoholic beverage license before they purchase the facility;

then, once the facility is purchased, the individual would come back to have

the alcoholic beverage license issued and the payment is made.

? 3-9. Transfers: If a transfer occurs due to the death of the owner, there

would be a time factor imposed regarding the length of time to transfer the

license. At the present time, a time factor is not addressed. If a time

factor is addressed, the representatives will not be lackadaisical in

presenting the proper paperwork in order to transfer the licenses accordingly.

Craig Strain added that the individual has 60 days to make the transfer.

? Section 3-10. Renewals: It is recommended that this section explains the

term ?new owner? In order to expound on who would be categorized as a ?new

owner? under this terminology as explained in the recommended 3-8(e).

? Section 3-11. Revocation: When the license is revoked, it cannot be

transferred to someone else within the family.

? Section 3-12. Regulations for the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption

on the premises -Generally. The recommended revision is to address the

collection of the ten percent rental fee only if the event is held on any

public right-of-way. The current ordinance states that the ten percent rental

fee will be collected for any catered event held on or off public right-of-ways.

? Section 3-16. Person under legal drinking age prohibited in certain

for-profit establishments: exceptions; ?brown-bagging permit: Those

individuals that have a brown-bag license now; then, they are grandfathered

in. This revision would eliminate brown-bagging, and there would be no

transferring of brown-bagging licenses.



State Court Solicitor?s Office:

City Manager Cavezza advised that State Court Solicitor Ben Richardson would

like to give salary supplements to some of his employees in the amount of

$16,960.00 total and use the Victim Witness Surcharge to do it, which he now

controls. At this point, City Manager Cavezza expressed his concerns with the

request.



State Court Solicitor Ben Richardson, maintained that he has spoken to City

Attorney Fay, who has advised him that the salary supplement would be a legal

purpose for the use of the surcharge. Explaining his reasons for the salary

supplements, State Court Solicitor Richardson emphasized that he has two

employees that have dual roles. He continued to speak of the number of cases

involved. In conclusion, he pointed out that he has control of 30% of the

surcharge and the District Attorney has the remaining 70%. He stated that he

basically wants to transfer some money from one account to another account.



In response to questions regarding projections of the increase in surcharge

fund, State Court Solicitor Richardson determined that if his assessment is

wrong; then, he would tell these two employees that if the money dries up;

then, the monies may not be available. He contended that the employees

understand this process.



In comparison to the similar positions in the District Attorney?s Office,

Councilor Suber asked if the salaries would be commensurate, at which time,

State Court Solicitor Richardson agreed with this statement.



When City Manager Cavezza was asked for his view on this matter, he spoke of

previous meetings where the District Attorney and the State Court Solicitor

have been asked to bring forth a combined Victim Witness Program. He pointed

out that there is no decision to be made by the Council today, but he would

bring this back for Council to make that decision.



State Court Solicitor Richardson spent approximately ten minutes responding to

various questions from the members of Council.







Workmen Compensation:

Councilor Suber asked questions regarding the workman?s compensation plan.

Specifically, he asked if a person could be sent home for ninety days without

it going through Human Resources, at which time, Human Resources Director Tom

Barron replied that if a person is out on workmen?s compensation then they

cannot fulfill their duties. Councilor Suber wanted to know if some type of

light duty could be assigned during that time. Human Resources Director Barron

explained that in this situation, the HR Department works with the Department

to find work that could be performed by the individual.



*** *** ***



Meeting adjourned at 8:59 a.m.





________________________

Sandra T. Davis, Deputy Clerk of Council