Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-1999 Called Meeting Page 1 CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS February 8, 1999 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:12 p.m., Monday, February 8, 1999, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Bridges, Beard, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell and Shepard, members of 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 HICKS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. We'd like to welcome to our meeting today MAYOR YOUNG: the members of the Augusta Aviation Commission and apologize for our late start today, but we had some committee meetings that ran over and we were unable to get into the work in a timely manner. Anyway, first on the agenda is a presentation of the Airport Terminal Expansion Plan. I'd like to call Mr. Ed Skinner, the Chairman of the Aviation Commission, to walk us through this. I might add, the rules of the Commission only give you five minutes, so the Chair will go ahead and suspend that rule arbitrarily today so we can get the full benefit of your presentation. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, MR. SKINNER: we appreciate the opportunity to present this plan today. It's an update on what we did a little over a year ago, and I think most of you saw that presentation. This is something that we have had in a long-term planning program at Bush Field for a number of years, and now we are at the point where we feel that we would like for you to give it your acceptance and approval so that we might move along. Bush Field, as you will see in one of our slides today and a lot of us know, this year is 50 years old. We've had excellent service. It's an airport that we can all be proud of. It's one of our better assets, and I think that as we go along we find that it is quite user-friendly. It has aged gracefully, but I think now is the time that we really need to prepare for the future, and this program that will we present you with today I think will serve the needs of the community for a long time. I hope that as this presentation moves along, if you have questions you will ask them. We have the professionals here today, and I'm going to ask Al McDill if he would introduce our guests so that we might get started. Al? Page 2 Gentlemen, I'd like to introduce the MR. McDILL: representatives here that we have from our consulting firm, LPA. We have the President of LPA with us, Mr. Garrett Parrish. I know you're here somewhere. Also, the individual that's going to be doing most of the presentation is the project manager, Steve Harrell. Steve is with us. And then our financial feasibility consultant, Newton and Associates, we have Chris Garnett. So without a whole lot more preparatory statements, except to say that, if you would, we would ask you to hold questions until he's had a chance to make the presentation, and I'd call on Steve Harrell. Thank you, Al. Is the microphone on? Can MR. HARRELL: everyone hear me? First off, members of the Commission, I appreciate the opportunity for us to be here and present the work that we have done. We have been working at Bush Field for the past four years, although some of that has been more quietly than what we have now, and I'm glad to have the opportunity to show you what we've done in the past and where we're going. Just to give a little bit of background, we've presented most of this material to the Aviation Commission about two weeks ago, and since then, because we've worked so closely with the Aviation Commission, we have added a little introduction part to that to help set some of the background and give some of the reasons why we're doing the project. So with that, I'll move right into the presentation. As Mr. Skinner said, this is Bush Field's 50th anniversary as an airport serving the community. Prior to that it was an airfield where World War II aircraft training took place. The airfield and the facilities were built in approximately 1942, and the terminal building as it is now, the three main pieces of the terminal building, were structures that were in place during the time when it was a World War II air base. This aerial photograph was taken about 1973, and it's significant only because it shows the terminal building approximately the same way it is today. So although for its first 25 or so years there were a number of additions and modifications made to those old World War II structures, in the last 25 years very little has been done. The existing structures that were there during World War II is here, here in the middle, and here at the end. The terminal building currently has a number of deficiencies, which I'll try to address. When we were hired in 1974 to do a study, one of the things we were asked to do was look at the deficiencies of the terminal facilities and also look at the positives that were there, and so some of these slides will show some of those deficiencies. The first is the curb area. Number one, you don't have good canopy covering the curb, so there's very little area and space along the road during times of bad weather to park and get out of the rain. That's one of the things we noted. Another was the Page 3 curb road only has one lane that goes through, so if a car stops in the road to let somebody out or let somebody get in, all of the traffic backs up. That's another problem, a congestion problem the airport had. Excuse me, did you say '74? Twenty-five MR. HANDY: years ago you were down here? He meant '94. MR. SKINNER: I apologize. MR. HARRELL: All right. Thank you. MR. HANDY: In the ticketing lobbies you can see that MR. HARRELL: it's not configured the way that a terminal ticketing area should be. It's actually turned around backwards from the curb. There is a very constrained corridor that as you come through the door you're met with a brick wall. There's a small doorway, one direction for the ticketing, another direction for bag claim. The amount of people in this lobby we're showing I think is about 11 people. One large Delta aircraft may have 100 people on it, and when you have a 100-person flight ready to go out, this lobby is congested beyond its ability to serve the people. Another area is baggage claim. Again, it's a very small space. Essentially the baggage claim conveyor is in an area that is partially corridor and partially claim lobby, and when people queue up at the conveyor to get their bags they block all through circulation. Likewise where the rental car areas are. What you're looking at is essentially a corridor. Now, you can see nobody can get through. Because there's people standing in line at the counters, it's blocked. The functional aspects of the terminal we saw, there were a number of deficiencies. The concourse: Although on a day like today it's a beautiful experience to walk outside and through the gardens and so forth, there are plenty of times when it's rainy or cold or icy. These slides show the concourse. In this location there are cones set up because the pavement is wet and it's a slip hazard. In the photograph above, these people are standing here not because it's a nice day but because the hold room door is locked. With the way the holding situation is at Bush Field, you have two separate buildings for holding space. The airlines have a separate security screening station in each hold room. Because of the manpower cost to maintain separate security facilities they keep those doors locked until just 15 or 20 minutes before a flight, so these people have moved on to where they think is their gate and they can't get in the door. And, lastly, one of the things I want to point out is Page 4 how wonderfully, first off, Bush Field has maintained the public portions of the terminal building and its facilities. They've done a great job of making them attractive and making the environment pleasing. However, behind the backdrop or behind--as we pull the curtain back, we begin to see the kind of actual facility that the terminal building is today. You can see that the areas that the airlines and the concession- aires are working in are essentially old corridors. This photograph is a little difficult to see, but there is the baggage conveyor. It runs right down the middle of this hallway, which is not only poor operationally but a safety concern as well. So they've done a terrific job of maintaining the attractiveness of the facility, but the actuality is everybody who works there and operates there, it's very difficult to do so. In addition--and some of this you may be--you all will remember. We presented a little bit of this next part about a year and a half ago where we talked about why we were doing what we were doing. But since we haven't had a chance to present in some time, we wanted to go back and cover the courses of why we're doing this. I just presented some of the deficiencies of the facilities, but let's look at the bigger picture. The aviation industry has changed dramatically since deregulation in the '70s where the government used to dictate who could fly where and when and what they could charge. When the airlines got the right to set that by themselves everything changed, and especially for communities the size of Augusta. The first thing we noticed that's happened in the last 20 or 25 years is the fact that the big airports seem to get bigger and the small airports get smaller, and in some cases around the country airports have lost air carrier service altogether. That's partially because the airlines can pull out of a market when they want or they can enter a market when they want, but the communities themselves don't have the control they once had, so the airports and the communities have to be very active in marketing themselves to improve their situation. In addition, we have been fortunate enough to be involved in a number of economic develop opportunities at other communities and other airports, and what we have found is that the airport is an essential piece of infrastructure in various communities. It is a critical component of a community's ability to improve its economic situation and attract new jobs, new industries and so forth. So that, again, is a change and a different perspective on airports that people must look at. I want to point out one more thing: airport concessions and retail space. Currently at Bush Field the restaurant, the gift shop, and the lounge is at the far end of the terminal in a location where it's hard to find, and if you didn't know it was there, you probably wouldn't see it. In recent times, airports in general have experienced increasing needs to gain Page 5 revenues from their concessionaires, and with the way the terminal is configured currently that's almost impossible at Bush Field to do. So some changes are going to be needed if we're going to be able to put the airport in a position and the community in a position to take advantage of those concession revenues. The issue of competition amongst communities for the jobs and economic development, growth, and standard of living was recognized by a lot of other communities in the southeast. This is a map of the surround- ing states and how many different communities have undergone significant terminal improvement programs in the last ten years, recognizing that the terminal programs help position their community in a way that compete with your neighbors, not just across the country. So who benefits if you go forward with the improvements? Well, the community benefits. Certainly you have improved competitiveness, and this means air service competitiveness with Atlanta and Columbia, your primary competition. You also are in a better position from your community's standpoint to improve the economic position of the community and attract more jobs. The airport plays a significant role as a gateway to your community. With the Masters Golf Tournament here in Augusta, you have the unique opportunity one time every year for some of the most powerful, wealthiest people and decision- makers in the country to come through your community and get a favorable impression. Bush Field is that front door that they see, so this is an opportunity to improve that as well. Lastly, I just want to point out the civic pride issue. I live in Columbia, South Carolina. When our community re- developed our airport a couple of years ago, it has shown a phenomenal amount of civic pride in our community. People who have visitors from out of town come visit but don't come by air, they will frequently take their friends to the airport just to let them see how nice it is, and it has created enthusiasm among the city and the community as a whole above and beyond just the matters of air service and so forth. The public is going to benefit. Certainly the traveling public is going to benefit because of the fact that you will have--you will be able to accommodate the demands of the terminal, whereas now you don't have appropriate spaces in the places you need them. You're going to have congestion relief on the road system as well as within terminal. You will have better competition amongst the airlines and, therefore, that should translate into better service. In environmental improvements, things such as the ability to maintain the air conditioning better, the fact that right now you walk outside to go to your hold room. You can provide better environmental comforts for your passengers and the public. Next, attendance. This being the airlines, the concessionaires and so forth. Right now the airlines don't have enough space. The airlines--we have done quite a bit of negotiations and talking with them about this program. They Page 6 all agree that they need more space and a program is needed at Bush Field. Their operations will be more efficient. There will be a central single security checkpoint, which now, because of the cost, it will be cut in half. And that should be able to be open full-time so that the public and the visitors can go to those gates anytime that they want to. Improve the location and increase revenues, that means the concessionaire, we'll put them in a location near where the people are going to be so that the traveling public and their guests have the opportunity to take part--or take advantage of those concessionaires. And, also, the concessionaire has the maximum opportunity to turn a profit. And, lastly, right now there is not space in the terminal for an additional airline to come in and provide more competition. With the new program there will be the ability to accommodate future airlines, and it will be designed in a way that it can be expanded easily in the future. Operational benefits: Basically we mean it will cost less to run the airport, to operate it and maintain it. We will be bringing the building then into code compliance, which currently it does not meet the current codes. There will be enhanced revenue opportunities by the airport. And, lastly, it will be playing a greater, more active role in the community in terms of its enhancement. Lastly, commission benefits: Now, when I put this slide together I meant Aviation Commission, but it really does apply to this body as well. Number one, the commission operating the airport in a way that meets the standards of this community, they'll certainly be able to accommodate that. We will be providing for future expandability so we don't have the problems you do now, which is there's no easy and simply way to expand the airport terminal without a major and costly program. The financial markets right now are very attractive to doing this at this time, and just the fact that this is a long-term piece of infrastructure for this community and that this will be a major step forward in the promotion of your community to the outside world. So the Aviation Commission recognized all of these things four years ago, and they hired the LPA group and Newton and Associates to study the facilities they have now, identify where their weaknesses were, but also to look for their strong points and make sure that any plan that we propose considered the positives. And we did not remove those while we tried to solve the other problems. We completed the terminal area study in 1996. Since then we have been reselected by the Aviation Commission to help them with the implementation of this program. And we have done some of the projects already, some are in the works, and some we are here before you to present where we are and hopefully move forward. When we did the terminal area study a couple of years ago, we came up with a number of recommendations that we looked at. Some of them were solving problems and others Page 7 were, as I said, identifying the strong points that Bush Field had and building on those. This list of recommendations is not everything that came out of the report, but it sort of wraps up the majority of them in a nice little concise list. The first one is to reorganize ticketing, bag claim, and public waiting. Right now the terminal operates exactly backwards from the way most terminals works, and the way they work appropriately to the way--in America, people drive cars with the driver on the left and the passengers on the right. Typically as you approach a terminal, you have ticketing on the upstream end of the drive, bag claim down at the far end. Right now you have that reversed and that creates some confusion. Also, you have your restaurant at the far, far end. Which, if you ever look and see how people park at the curb, nobody parks on 50 percent of the curb area because they're not going to the restaurant. They're either going to pick somebody up at bag claim or they're going to an airplane and so they want to go in a ticketing area. So you don't have good usage of your curb road and the building doesn't operate functionally the way it should. Also, we noticed that one of the strong points of Bush Field was the atmosphere and the ambience that that terminal provides. It's very unique in what we've seen around the country. We work at a lot of airports and we've been a lot of places, and we've never seen one quite like Bush Field. It has the old brick and the landscaping and the gardens, and the very intimate scale is very unique, and we think it's something that--any design that moves forward must maintain that, and what we will be presenting in a little while shows that we have considered all of that. The garden courtyard, we think, is a signature feature of Bush Field. We haven't seen that anywhere else the way you have it. And so our plans not only maintain the courtyard, but we think we have done something to really enhance that as well. Some of the other things we've talked about is an enclosed concourse corridor, single security checkpoint, the convenience of access to the restaurant and the other concessionaire facilities, a curb canopy that provides better and more coverage during weather; and, also, at the time we put the terminal study together we were thinking we wanted second-level boarding, but really what we were thinking is loading bridges. We wanted to make sure that we maintained the loading bridge capability at Bush Field, and we have done that. Lastly, there's just some other parking and roadway improvements that's on the list, and we've already actually taken care of some of those and we're continuing to work on others. In the terminal study program we actually went into every component of the terminal building and we analyzed it for space. We determined how much space you needed now and in the future in ticketing, in baggage claim, in the area behind Page 8 the ticket counters, in public waiting, and your concession space. All those key components of your terminal building, we analyzed each and every one against what you have now. When we added up all the forecasts for what you needed versus what you have now, the surprise was we found you actually had about the right amount of square footage in your terminal building, it was just allocated improperly. You had too much space in some areas that didn't need a lot, you didn't have nearly enough in other areas that needed the space, so a reallocation of space was what we were trying to achieve. We then worked with the presumption at the time that this needed to be a renovation of your existing facility. So trying to fit all of the appropriate spaces within the footprint of the existing building meant we added on here and added on there, and so we ended up with a concept that was 90,000 square feet whereas the program said we needed around 66 or 67 thousand square feet of terminal. Since then, when we were rehired to do the schematic design, which is what we will be presenting today, we have reassessed the building. We realized through a number of reasons, which I will be presenting, that a renovation is not a feasible alternative and we need to replace the terminal building. So working with that in mind and working with the airlines and working with the airport staff, we have revised some of the plans for the terminal building to where we now have a 68,000 square foot plan we're working with, right in line with what the planning program said it should be. To go over some of the reasons why we decided that a replacement program made more sense than renovation, to start with, this slide shows you all of the different pieces that this terminal building has either been or added on, in-fills, additions and so forth, over the 50-plus years that it has been standing. You can see that the original parts of the building are here, here, and here, which were the three structures that were in place when it was a World War II military training facility. Those old portions of the terminal have had major renovations three times since then, but they essentially are still the same old masonry buildings, block buildings that were put up over 50 years ago meant to serve just for a few years. It's remarkable to think that as Bush Field has served this community for 50 years or more, that you've never actually built a terminal and yet it's as nice as it has been for all these years. What does it mean with the fact that you have added on and in-filled and made renovation after renovation, what does that mean in terms of the building? Well, it means you have a building that's (a) hard to maintain, you have--I've counted over 11 different roofs on the structure itself. Eleven is not necessarily a bad thing, except for every time you try to put one roof against another that joint always becomes a problem. So creating so many different pieces that have come together and they haven't been planned from the beginning to Page 9 come together that way has been a maintenance nightmare for the airport for years. I know they continuously are trying to find leaks and patch those all the time. Also, the way the building has come together you have--there's 20-some different heating and air conditioning systems at the airport, all in differing stages of repair and disrepair. Again, in a modern facility that--that's just not the right way for this airport to serve this community. In addition, we don't have the appropriate fire protection measures in this terminal building that an assembly type building of this sort should have, and right now there's no good way to remedy that situation. Another part of our analysis was to look at the way the building is constructed. Now, the building code identifies buildings as being Type One through Type Six: Type Six being the least fire-resistive type construction, which is wood studs, that sort of thing, like your house. Portions of this building are Type Six, portions are Type Five, portions are Type Four, portions are Type Three. The code says whichever type construction you have, the lesser fire-resistiveness is what will determine what you can do with your building. With the Type Six construction that part of the terminal is, you could not have a building the size that it is now or the size that you will need in the future. With a Type Five construction and Four construction, with a whole lot of protective measures, wrapping of all your structure in fire- resistive envelopes, sprinkler systems and things like that, you could bring the building approximately to the size area that it is now, but you would never be able to expand it. Plus, when it comes down to realistically trying to protect all your structure, it would be practically impossible to do so. You would almost take the building down to the ground to try to put it back together as it is now. And, lastly, from a seismic standpoint, the building almost could not be braced to meet current codes for seismic and wind loading, which is essentially any kind of pressure that is a sideways pressure on the building. There are a few pieces in the terminal that, if you took down the majority of it, kept a few of the newer components, you could probably brace them in a way that they would meet code. But you would have so little of the terminal left, and you would be blocking up all the windows and so forth, that it just didn't make any sense. So the bottom line was the building really could not be renovated to be brought up to code for area reasons, for fire protection reasons, and for lateral loading reasons. So that led us to the conclusion that we needed to look at replacement, which opened the door to a smaller facility, and that's how we got to the 68,000 square foot plan. Just in general, this is a diagram that shows you the terminal building as it sits now at the airport. This is the terminal building, this is one holding room, this is another holding room, and the aircraft sort of string out along the apron. One of the things we've seen at airports around the Page 10 country that they don't have enough of is that they never allow enough depth between the road and the parking apron for an adequately deep building. In our case, because you happen to have a very large, overly deep apron, we found a way to take better advantage of that. Now, this is a footprint of the proposed terminal. This will be a holding area of the terminal, this the ticketing facility, this the baggage claim facility. And administration will stay where it is now because that is the newest piece of the terminal, and we think we can save that part and a part of the building that is now part of the rental car areas. This is a blowup of that floor plan, so I will explain a little bit of this to you. First off, this is the curb here. And we can imagine that to be something very nice, maybe with some brick insets, maybe a brick curb, a lot of green space between the curb and the building itself. The orange areas represent canopies that will stick out over the first lane along the road, so that almost the entire length of the curb a car can pull up to the sidewalk and be under cover and get those passengers out with protection. They then move into the ticketing area, which will be here: one nice, large, open space for ticketing. The airline spaces will be back here behind the ticket counters, and there are baggage areas back here. At this end, there's another canopy here. This is the baggage claim end. We're proposing two conveyors right now. Again, we've been in discussions with the airlines and we seem to be in agreement that that is appropriate, one large and one small conveyor. But we have one large baggage claim lobby area with the rental car booths on the opposite side so that somebody can stand at the rental car counter, watch the conveyors, and make sure that their bag is--they see their bag as it comes off. This area in the middle here are basically connector corridors, and what we're assuming--or what we are planning is a lot of windows to look out into garden spaces here and here, much like you have now except it's enclosed. Right here is a single security checkpoint where everybody would be able to pass through security. The passengers can go to their gate when they're ready, the families of passengers going or coming can go to the gates with them and sit and wait. In the concourse, out here, all the waiting for all the airlines is consolidated into one big area. And that also allows us to put all of our concessions out in this wing as well, both food and beverage and merchandise concessions. And we think placing them side by side--or we know, because we've seen it in the industry. If you put them side by side, people will take advantage of those concessions being there. In addition, we have a gate to go to the aircraft here, here, here, and here. So right now we're showing four gates. This building will be easy to expand. As you need to have gates, you can just move out this way or move out in this Page 11 direction. As you need more bag claim, you can expand this way. And as you need more ticketing, you can in-fill in between the administration areas. In addition, we're showing one small space right here, which will be left just as a shell for a future airline as the community continues to market itself and go after additional air competition. Now, as we moved from the two-dimensional floor plan to a three-dimensional building, we wanted to make sure that we took cues from your community in that this building presented itself as the character of Augusta. Some of the things we noticed around Augusta were certainly the gardens and that golf play a significant role in the image of Augusta. In addition, the Savannah River, and Riverwalk is a good component of that, but this is a city on the river and the water is a component of your image. So we brought those images of golf and gardens and the water into the garden courtyard area. This rendering shows this garden. And, remember, as you walk down this connector corridor here you essentially are walking down the fairway, so to speak. We have metaphorical fairways here and here. We have a metaphorical green with some sand traps around it. There is a water feature, which is a creek that runs through the courtyard from one side, under the connector, to the other. Again, the creek at Augusta National or the Savannah River. The water was a component that we thought made a lot of sense. And by the way, this garden courtyard is being designed--on our team is Roger Davis, who is a local landscape architect. He's the landscape architect who designed the Riverwalk. He's also the landscape architect who is doing the work for the Golf Hall of Fame. So we think we've got the best guy possible to design this courtyard for you. One additional feature that we have, in this location right here at the bend of the creek--there's a blowup here-- this is a bronze sculpture of a golfer who is about as good as I am because he has one foot in the creek and one on the bank and he's trying to get his ball out of the creek. We think there are opportunities for some sort of public sculpture or something in the garden area to really add to that whole atmosphere of the gardens. In addition to the courtyard, we have landscaping in and around the rest of the terminal. Certainly the entrance, the main center entrance to the terminal here. There will be landscaping all along the front of the building here. We've set the canopy back from the terminal building far enough so that there is a space between the building and the canopy that we can have landscaping and greenery. And also across the road there will be landscaping here. One last feature to think about is that we have actually positioned the building on the site so that the center of the main entrance into the airport property, the road as you come in before you go around the loop, this terminal building is exactly on center with Page 12 that entrance. And with the hotel operator being shut down, there's the possibility that some day that hotel may come down and that you would have that vista that goes straight down the road, you'd see the flag and then the center of the terminal building and so forth, so it's a very strong and a very powerful feeling that this community will have. Some other character images of Augusta is certainly the historical structures in town, both the original old structures and some of the newer ones that have played off those cues of traditional type architecture. And Augusta is also well known for the many fine, beautiful traditional homes, Southern type homes, all around the city. Although each of these pictures is a little bit different, you see a lot of similarities: the sloped roofs, the shaded porches, the columns. These are all features that really say a lot about Augusta, so we tried to bring those same character elements into the terminal of Bush Field. Now, here are some of the faces of the terminal building as we've designed them to date. To orient you just a little bit, this image here is the front door. In the middle, at the curb. If you can see the key plan here, we're standing right about here at the curb looking at that middle entrance. You can see the white columns, you can see the old brick, you can see some greenery, you can see deep-set porches and the sloped roofs. These are all character elements we see in Augusta in some of its finest pieces of architecture. This sketch here shows the bag claim wing. The ticket wing will be very similar. This is what you would see if you're standing under the canopy looking towards the building. Again, the same things: the white columns, the old brick. There is space for landscaping between the sidewalk and the building. You've got the sloped roof and the shade of the porch. Lastly, this view here is the view--if you're standing on the aircraft apron or if you're in a parked aircraft and you're looking back at this holding room or this concourse, this is the view you see. We have old brick, traditional style windows, a porch that actually will hide ramps that will bring you down to the apron level. It has the white columns and, again, the sloped roofs, and all those elements that say so much about Augusta. These sketches here show the terminal building as if you were standing in the garden courtyard. The top one here is a view of the side of that long connector, as if you're standing right here looking at that connector. The main terminal building is over here, with the road and the curb. This side is the concourse and the holding. And you can see a porch here where people are actually sitting out there enjoying something to eat or a drink, and they're overlooking a wonderful garden courtyard with terraced landscaping along the edge. This here is the creek as it passes under the building from side to side. There's an overlook here where people can Page 13 step out of the connector and onto this overlook and enjoy the beautiful gardens that you have. This is a view here of the concourse as if you're standing at either side of the garden, as if you're standing here or here. This is the porch beside the merchandise concessionaire, this is the porch standing beside the food and beverage concessionaire. But you could actually buy your sandwich, step out on the porch, sit at a table and enjoy yourself. This will be a very, very nice experience. I wanted to go back and say where we've been and where we're going. This is a diagram that was put together basically back when we did the terminal study a few years ago to say these are the projects and these are the steps we need to go through. What the airport has already done is demolish two of the hotel wings that were here and here. Those were originally barracks during World War II and the hotel had been using them for years as actual hotel rooms. They were torn down to make way for additional parking here and here, and the actual roadway has been widened and improved. In addition, we currently have under construction an extension of the loop road here and an additional service road back here. Those projects are underway, under construction, and will be finished in a couple of months. It's going to be finished before the Masters. What still needs to be done and what we've done schematic design and preliminary design on is expansion to long-term parking, completion of the loop road in front of the terminal, and rehabilitation of the parking lot here, which would become rental car parking as rental car vendors move their booths to that end of the terminal. This is the terminal building here in a couple of different phases of construction, and there will be some utility work that still needs to be done such as bringing in an adequate water into the airport terminal area so that we can provide the fire hydrants and the fire sprinkler systems into the building that are needed by code. So how are we going to do this? Now, this is a schedule that shows how we're going to get it constructed. Knowing that, number one, the Masters is the busiest period of the whole year at Bush Field, we need to make sure that the airport can operate, especially in that critical peak time, at those locations. So what we've shown here is essentially about a two-year construction period fitting between the various Masters. This is the Masters next year, in 2000, this is the Masters in 2001, this is the Masters in 2002. What we will do is we will essentially do construction between Masters 2000 and 2001, have a little break, do more construction in 2001 to 2002, again having a little break at that Masters, and then doing any final close-out work after that. To make that happen, we have created what we think to be a very interesting way of constructing this project, remembering that the airport terminal has to remain up and operational during the whole Page 14 time we're tearing it down and rebuilding. The way it's going to work--I'll just show you very quickly here for a minute. To make this fit within the Masters in 2000 and 2001, we're going to give a building contractor a couple of months--before he can actually begin turning any dirt, we'll give him notice to proceed. During that time period he will have to do all of his mobilization, get all of his submittals in, get all of his materials ordered and in the pipeline. Because one of the things we've found in projects we've been on is that things like steel are taking four to six months to show up onsite. Our schedule, with the Masters, would not allow that. So this way they'll get those shop drawings in to us, we'll review them, they send them and get the order placed, so by the time they are ready for steel it is showing up onsite. So that's going to really jump-start the program. Now let me move into the specific phases of construction. This is phase one. The green shows the existing terminal that will remain in operation while we're constructing the yellow, which is phase one. The first thing we're going to do is build that concourse and the connector in-between the two existing hold rooms. The airlines will continue to be able to operate out of those hold rooms, the same ticketing areas, the same bag claim and everything for one year. It will take about ten months to construct that concourse, and that'll be phase one. There will be a little bit of temporary rerouting of the way people travel, with some pathways to get in and around that concourse connector, but essentially the airport will operate as it does today. That last part takes about ten months, so we have about a month and a half then to complete phase two prior to the Masters. At the point phase one is finished, all of the holding facilities will move into the new concourse and the concession spaces will move into the new concourse, so the existing hold rooms will be abandoned. We will provide some temporary facilities. We will be modifying this hold room to be a temporary ticketing area and the other hold room here as a temporary baggage claim area, so that after the Masters is over everyone abandons the rest of the remaining terminal. The airlines will operate their ticketing out of the old hold room and the bag claim out of the other hold room. It will be tight, it will be congested, but that's going to allow us in phase three--excuse me, this is a phase two site. We will provide some temporary drop-off and pick-up at each end for those temporary ticketing and baggage claim areas. Phase three will allow us to essentially tear down the entire rest of the terminal and build it in one phase. There's a couple of things we've found that add to construction costs. One is the more phases of construction you have, the more costly the program, and the longer the program, the more costly it is. So what we've done is taken what was originally a three-year construction program and Page 15 compacted it into about two years that's going to save you money. It's also going to reduce the impact and the pain and suffering to your community during the time we are building this to really about one year between the time you abandon the main facility and when you tear it down. Phase four, after we've completed the remaining portions of the terminal, basically is to go back and tear down the pieces we don't need anymore that are still standing. So that's how we get it constructed, which starts, as you saw on the calendar, February 1 of next year when a contractor needs his notice to proceed to begin the work. So we have just under one year to do everything left, which involves not only the remaining parts of design, there is a whole lot of...[End Tape 1]...this program meets all the requirements, federal requirements, for disadvantaged business enterprise participation. The FAA has this as a requirement. We will meet all of the obligations for minority and women businesses to participate on this program. So let's talk a minute about this one-year schedule we have. Right now we are at the beginning of February, which is where we need your approval for what we've done to date and where we're trying to go, both the scope of the project, the time line and so forth. Excuse me, may I interrupt you a moment? MR. SKINNER: Maybe if we could get to the financial package-- It's the next slide, Mr. Skinner. MR. HARRELL: All right. And then if we have questions, MR. SKINNER: we can get to that. Okay. I wanted to cover just two or three MR. HARRELL: things. The blue is the design development and construction documentation for design portions of the project, and down here is the bidding. We will bid the project and then get the general contractor under contract by February 1st, so we have to issue--or advertise for bids at the beginning of November to really make this happen. So we only have about nine months really to do all the design work, all the background work and so forth. There's going to be the airline coordination, FAA. As I mentioned, the disadvantaged business enterprise program and plan needs to be developed and in place and completed. There is the financial plan, which Mr. Garnett with Newton and Associates is here and he'll present it in just a moment. And there are also a number of presentations. Here is the one we're at today, which is to present the plans as we are today to the Aviation and Augusta Commissions. There are also other times in the schedule towards the end of May, towards the end of October, where we will be bringing the information back and presenting it again and giving you all the update so that you Page 16 know where we are, where we're going, and you make sure that we're on track. So, with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Garnett to discuss the financial plan and how this is going to be paid for. Thank you very much, Steve. Thank you, MR. GARNETT: Mayor Young and Commissioners, for having us down here this evening. We have been working with the Aviation Commission since 1994 and assisting LPA in the development of the terminal area study. As Steve pointed out, the terminal area study identified some shortfalls on the existing terminal building, and the purpose of me being here this evening is just to identify the cost of the project, go over the different funding sources available for the project, the effect on the airport's cash flow, and then finally the estimated effect on the airline basic charges. Back in June of this year we began work with the Commission on developing the five-year capital improvement program for the airport. The five-year capital improvement program consists of the terminal development and other projects. As shown, total CIP through the year 2003 is a total of approximately $22.3 million. Out of that cost we have had about $5.4 million in federal entitlement funding that would be applied to the project, approximately $2.2 million in PFC's that we are going to collect during construction, and approximately $1.8 million in Aviation Commission funds. Chris, they don't know what PFC's are. MR. McDILL: I'm sorry. PFC's are passenger facility MR. GARNETT: charges. And I'll get to this later in my presentation, but a passenger facility charge is a charge that is imposed upon passengers who purchase tickets from an airport. The passenger facility charge is mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration, and you need their approval before you can impose that. Airlines keep eight cents of every PFC which they collect for the administrative expense of collecting the PFC's. The maximum PFC is three dollars per passenger right now. In addition to the cash, there is going to be approximately $12.8 million required from some other funding sources for the five-year capital improvement program. Excuse me. Could you go back to that MR. BRIDGES: chart for just a minute, please? The local funding requirements, where are you going to get the cash? Where will that be coming from? The airport reserve. MR. GARNETT: Yeah, it comes from the airport reserve. MR. OLIVER: Page 17 It's that money we're going to give back to them over a five-year period. This table presents the capital MR. GARNETT: improvement program as it relates specifically to the terminal development project. The total cost of the terminal project as estimated by LPA is approximately $20 million. It's composed of two different items, what we call hard costs and soft costs. Hard costs are bricks and mortar to actually build the facility and soft costs are engineering, architectural fees, and other non-construction items. We expect that we will be able to collect $3.1 million in airport entitlement funding during the construction to reduce the project costs. In addition, we will be collecting approximately $2.2 million in passenger facility charges during construction of the terminal project. Once we get approval from the FAA to collect PFC's, originally the plan is to deposit the passenger facility charges into the construction funds and reduce what may be a bonding requirement, and then after the date of beneficial occupancy of the terminal being we use the PFC revenues to reduce the airline operating requirement in the terminal building. Would you be--diverting your AIP funds MAYOR YOUNG: from other projects and dedicating them to this, would it hurt you in other areas? No. That's why you see there are other MR. McDILL: projects besides this terminal project. In fact, FAA will say to you that you've got to satisfy air side requirements first. Can I ask a question on the PFC? I MR. KUHLKE: believe, Mr. McDill, we talked about enplaning is around 200,000 a year? 218. MR. McDILL: 218. And at three dollars, how do you come MR. KUHLKE: up with $2 million? That's a cumulative total-- MR. McDILL: That's a cumulative total over a two and a MR. GARNETT: half to three year time period. Oh, okay. I misunderstood you. I thought MR. KUHLKE: you said-- You've projected an increase in enplane- MR. OLIVER: ments, too, I believe, from the numbers I've reviewed. Page 18 That's correct, at four percent a year. MR. GARNETT: What's the [inaudible] in 2003? I MR. J. BRIGHAM: thought we were talking about being finished in 2002. This is a capital improvement program that MR. McDILL: covers a five-year period, so we just--we factored that in there as far as the cost of the use of the funds. Any additional questions? MR. GARNETT: Go ahead, please. MR. SKINNER: Thank you. Once again, the cost of the MR. GARNETT: terminal project is approximately $20 million, with PFC's of $2.2 million, Commission cash of $1.6 million. Even with all these funding sources available, it's going to leave a shortfall of approximately $13 million, so what we have recommended to the Aviation Commission is a bond issue. You see on top right here, 13.095 is the number that was brought forward from the previous table. That's simply the local funding requirement required once you reduce it by AIP funding, PFC funds, and Commission funds. In addition to the local funding requirement, there will be additional financing costs. Investment earnings earned during the construction period [inaudible] estimated to be approximately $15.8 million. The annual debt service on that is estimated at $1.136 million for 30 years. This is our projection of the cash flow for the airport beginning in 1999 and ending in 2005. What we've done here is simply taken a look at the existing budget expenses and reserve deposits that are going to be required, and [inaudible] almost $8 million for budget 1999. We reduced that figure by $6.7 million for non-airline revenues and security reimbursements, for a total reduction of $6.9 million roughly. The minimum airline requirement would be $1.1 million in this year. We have begun airline negotiations and have set forth the rate-making methodology to the airlines. We have not reached an agreement with the airlines at this point in time, but we expect that we will in the short term. If you go and look at the minimum airline requirement of $1.1 million in the first year, divide it by the enplanements, it gives you a cost per enplanement of about $4.87 for 1999. That is a very reasonable cost for the airlines to do business at the airport. That number there is not reflective of a reduction in the minimum airline requirement as a result of the PFC revenues. If you look at the year 2003, which we believe will be the first full year of occupancy, and that's what we've used for our analysis, there will be approximately $708,000 worth of PFC revenues in that year, which reduces the minimum Page 19 airline requirement to $2,000,128, to give you a revised airline requirement [inaudible] of $1,419,000. So both instances, both with PFC's and without PFC's, the airline cost for enplanement is very reasonable, given a new facility which will enhance the visitors' perception of the Augusta airport. Why is your airline requirement leveraged MR. OLIVER: in 2003? Why does it peak in 2003, just out of curiosity? That's the first full year of debt MR. GARNETT: service. Prior to that date we are capitalizing the interest. But then in 2004 it goes down. MR. OLIVER: Yes, sir, it goes down. Because in that MR. GARNETT: year, from the year 2003--from 1999 till 2003 we are collecting various reserve deposits. And once 2003 hits we don't have to collect the O&M reserve deposit, for instance, which reduces the airline requirement as a result. Why didn't you window your debt service to MR. OLIVER: make it more constant? Is there a reason for that? I'm sorry? MR. GARNETT: Why didn't you window your debt service to MR. OLIVER: make it more--this is not an issue for here, but you could have leveled it off-- Randy, what that amounts to is that there MR. McDILL: is not an O&M reserve or any of the other reserves that are required that you're familiar with in place, and what's envisioned here is that we will fund those reserves over a five-year period. So as you see, in 2003, that reserve, particularly the O&M reserve, has been satisfied. and so the funding requirement is not as great. But the debt service is constant. So you've used the constant debt service MR. OLIVER: throughout the term, you haven't windowed the debt service any? Yes, sir, we've used a level debt service. MR. GARNETT: And, you know, as we get further along in MR. McDILL: this there may be other things that won't be considered, but at this point these are the assumptions. Thank you very much. As we can see, the MR. GARNETT: cost for enplanement in 2003 without PFC revenue is $7.40, with PFC's it's $5.60 roughly. An interesting item occurred Page 20 with this PFC application. We met with the airlines, and all of the airlines have certified their agreement with this project. I've been involved in a number of PFC applications and terminal developments across the country and never has that occurred before. Other than that, I think--if there is any questions, I'll answer them now. Otherwise, I'll turn it back to Steve. Mr. Shepard has a question. MAYOR YOUNG: Thank you. And I want to thank Mr. McDill MR. SHEPARD: and Mr. Skinner for supplying us the minutes because I'd like to go over minutes of the January 14th meeting and ask the same question that Ms. Wilhelmi did. And as I understand it, the airlines, as tenants of the airport, will be funding the bond issue. They will be paying the debt service through their tenant arrangement. That's correct. MR. GARNETT: She posed the situation of the Savannah MR. SHEPARD: airport project and she noted that United and American had suspended service there. What is the failsafe here for when enplanements drop off? How do we--don't we have to have a constant source of revenue over the life of the bonds to keep this project from falling back on the taxpayers? Yes. The rate-making methodology we've MR. GARNETT: recommended to the Aviation Commission and to the airlines over this time period has been a residual type arrangement, which means that--I am not familiar with the type of arrangement that the airlines operate under in Savannah, but in our recommendation to the Aviation Commission a residual type deal allows the airport to recover all its costs through contractual obligations from whoever the airlines are that are operating there. The carriers presently there will be MR. SHEPARD: willing to commit for 30 years to this? These are 20-year bonds, aren't they? MR. OLIVER: I thought he said 30 years. MR. SHEPARD: Thirty-year bonds. MR. GARNETT: And they would commit to a 30-year payback MR. SHEPARD: even if they pull out? Let me speak to that. There is a MR. McDILL: presumption, as Mr. Garnett has pointed out, that it's a Page 21 residual rate-making methodology. What they-- And I hope the other Commissioners MR. SHEPARD: understand that, Mr. McDill, because this Commissioner doesn't, and I don't mind telling you. All right. And it is an industry term and MR. McDILL: let me explain it. I mean, you know, they put me in charge of MR. SHEPARD: the railroads on Sixth Street [inaudible]. And you know what a hydro switch is. MR. OLIVER: Another term that is common and I guess MR. McDILL: some of you are familiar with is a single cash register concept or a shopping center concept. You take all revenues from all sources, and if it--well, let's start with the costs, fences, capital expenditures, deduct whatever revenues can be generated from certain fixed sources such as concession revenues, rental cars, parking lot, whatever--all non-airline revenues basically. Whatever remains to make us whole, to service the debt, to cover the O&M expenses, is how we arrive at whatever the cost of what the airline has got to cover. You can only do a project like this with airlines in a community this size by using residual rate-making methodology. If you get into a busy medium hub or a large hub airport, you can do compensable rate-making where they do not get the benefit of certain categories of revenue that you might reserve unto yourself. But they make us whole essentially. They guarantee the deal. They underwrite it in effect. And speaking specifically to the point of can they not pull out as, in fact--I don't know how far along they were in the negotiations in Savannah, but I've been involved in this situation or this conversation in a number of communities. And what transpires, yes, they can pull out should they choose to, but under this methodology they're obligated to exclusive- use space that they have contracted for. As far as common-use space, like bag claim areas, hold room areas, the remaining airlines sign the--all the airlines sign the same contract. The remaining airlines accept the responsibility. If they know they're going to be the remaining airline, they accept the responsibility of picking up the cost of that common-use space, remembering that the airline who perhaps departed continues to pay for his exclusive-use space until someone else, another airline, steps in behind him. But what that means is that the debt--the revenues continue to be the same. What's envisioned is that in the first year we budget these costs. We enter into an agreement with the airlines that says we anticipate that this is going to be the cost involved and we anticipate that these will be the rates and charges that Page 22 are going to be imposed that you agree to in this process. That rate gets adjusted in subsequent years. It may be reduced, it may be increased, to make the airport whole. But is there a contractual agreement with MR. SHEPARD: the carriers that will indemnify this airport and this Commission for the life of these bonds? The short answer is yes. MR. McDILL: Thank you. MR. SHEPARD: In place right now is the question. SPEAKER: No, not in place right now. MR. McDILL: Well, we do not have that presently. MR. SHEPARD: No, but-- MR. McDILL: But you do not have the facility that MR. SHEPARD: we're about--I mean, we have a paid-for facility also. That's correct. And the airlines' cost MR. McDILL: presently, as reflected on this chart, is that the existing cost is about--cost per enplaned passenger is about three dollars per enplaned passenger. And it's envisioned that in 1999 it would go to $4.87, if I can read that correctly. In subsequent years you will see that it escalates to some extent. We've given you some of the assumptions. It will decrease in later years on the assumption that passengers will increase and revenues will increase. There has been an extremely, in my mind, conservative--I've been involved in about four of these type projects. We have over-estimated expenses, we've under-estimated revenues. Is there an assumption there will be an MAYOR YOUNG: additional carrier? My expectation is there will be. MR. McDILL: No, I mean, are these figured on the MAYOR YOUNG: expectation-- No, not in these. MR. McDILL: But there is an assumption, based on what MR. OLIVER: you said, that there's a four percent increase in enplanements per year. So over five years, that's a 20 percent increase in enplanements projected. Page 23 We've increased more than that this year. MR. McDILL: No, I understand that. MR. OLIVER: Mr. McDill, I've got a resolution in front MR. KUHLKE: of me which I'm assuming is the inducement resolution. And it's up to $25 million, so can you explain that to us? I arbitrarily picked that figure, and there MR. WALL: was some discussion at the Aviation Commission. I mean, the numbers showed expected construction costs, total cost of some $22 million, and, you know, recognizing that they were talking about some of it coming out of reserves and other things. So, I mean, that was an arbitrary number. You cannot go higher than you put in the resolution, you can obviously go less, and so it was purely arbitrary from my standpoint. I mean, they don't expect to issue more than roughly 16 million based on the numbers that have shown up here, but, again, I picked that number. I don't know that I can--I can't see that MR. KUHLKE: screen, for one thing, but I'm sure that you got everything covered up there. Can I ask the question of what we're supposed to do today other than just hear the presentation? There are a number of things that we would MR. McDILL: like to acquaint you with. Jim has already spoken to the bond inducement resolution, and we can get into that in more detail if there's a need to. You will notice that Item Number 2 here is approval of the bond inducement resolution and other matters relating to the proposed funding. Approve the PFC resolution is one thing that we at least want to acquaint you with. As to whether there is any--need to be actions taken there or not, we at least need to introduce these items to you. The passenger facility--there's been an explanation of what the passenger facility charge is. It requires a resolution first by the Aviation Commission and then by this body authorizing the Airport Director as your agent to file this application with the Federal Aviation Administration. We've gone over that in some detail with Mr. Wall and he's made some revisions to it. Jim, do you want to speak to the PFC resolution any further? No. I mean, it's simply an authorization to MR. WALL: proceed with the application process, and I think we've agreed upon the language for that resolution and it would be appropriate to approve that. And I don't have a copy for you on that-- Jim, I have distributed copies of that. MR. SKINNER: Page 24 Is it in the book? MR. WALL: Yes, it's in the backup. MR. OLIVER: And we approved that PFC resolution at MR. SKINNER: Bush Field. How about this resolution for the--well, MR. KUHLKE: you don't get involved with the bond. We asked that it be passed along to y'all MR. SKINNER: to be approved. In the backup there's a request to approve MR. OLIVER: the bond inducement resolution and also a request to approve the passenger facility charge resolution. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that MR. KUHLKE: we adopt the resolution for the inducement of the bond and, unless I need to have two motions, I'd like to move that we approve the passenger facility charge resolution. Is there a second? MAYOR YOUNG: I'll second it. I've got a question, Al. MR. BRIDGES: I just want to verify. All the payback from the revenue of the bonds or whatever, everything will be coming from the airport itself, none--you're expecting no monies from the Richmond County Commission? No, sir. MR. McDILL: Has, I guess, a down-payment already MR. BRIDGES: started off or--to end it up at any point? That's correct. MR. McDILL: And knowing these type of bonds, there's a MR. OLIVER: coverage requirement. And I think, from what I recall, the coverage requirement is 120. I think it's 125. MR. McDILL: 125? Okay. So there is some latitude. As MR. OLIVER: a practical matter, Mr. Bridges, you know, because the bonds are issued in the name of the City of Augusta or Augusta- Richmond County, if there are not sufficient revenues--I mean, while we have no legal obligation, we will have a moral obligation. And we don't envision that happening, but I think it's my responsibility to point that out because our bond rating would be, you know, negligible if we didn't make good Page 25 on it. Mr. McDill, just a while ago you said MR. J. BRIGHAM: whenever one airline pulled out, the other ones would cover the costs? Yes, sir. MR. McDILL: In the worst-case scenario, if we lost MR. J. BRIGHAM: all airlines? We'd be in trouble. Let me say this-- MR. McDILL: Are there any guarantees [inaudible]? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, that contract says--will say that MR. McDILL: they will pay for exclusive-use space. But we never depend on a airline, per se. Any particular airline, per se. You know, the other airlines would love to see the other airlines go, and they don't have to take over the responsibility of that common-use space [inaudible]. They'd say goodbye and thank you for the passengers. I'm asking about the worst-case MR. J. BRIGHAM: scenario for everybody. It's the marketplace that we depend on. MR. McDILL: I understand that, that's why I was MR. J. BRIGHAM: asking the question. Okay. Mr. Powell has a question. MAYOR YOUNG: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Oliver answered my MR. POWELL: concern, which was the--similar to the same question I think Mr. Brigham was headed at, and so I can--I've already got my understanding straight now. In that regard, in regard to the bond MR. SHEPARD: inducement, would we have the right as a Commission to select the bond legal counsel to determine the appropriateness of the bonds? We're going to suggest that you select MR. OLIVER: later on both bond counsel and underwriter. Well, would the maker of the motion MR. SHEPARD: include those features in the motion, that this Commission would have the right to select and approve the legal counsel and the underwriter, and also that the airline use agreements that I was getting at be a part of the financing package to Page 26 protect the taxpayers of this jurisdiction as much as possible. Would you accept those three additions? Mr. Shepard, I was going to--yeah, I have MR. KUHLKE: no problem with the bond counsel and the underwriter. But there's one other thing in the package that you gave to us, and I'm assuming that your next step is probably to go to the A&E part of the contract? Yes, sir. MR. McDILL: Okay. Which has to come back to us for MR. KUHLKE: approval? That's correct. MR. McDILL: And, Mr. Shepard, what I was going to do is MR. KUHLKE: to direct the Airport Director that when he brings this package back to us, that at the same time he brings the airline agreements with that proposal. So is that all part of the motion? MR. SHEPARD: Well, I can make it all part of the motion. MR. KUHLKE: Well, I'd appreciate it if you would. MR. SHEPARD: I will. MR. KUHLKE: Well, would you go down the laundry list MAYOR YOUNG: again then and let's see what we've got here? I will, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE:I move that we approve the bond inducement resolution, number one; that we approve the passenger facility charge resolution; that we direct the Airport Director to present a Work Authorization #6, which is in his package for the A&E, in concert with the airline agreements before the financial--because of the financial dependency that we have on the airlines; and that this I Commission select the bond counsel and the underwriter. make all of that--does that cover everything, Mr. Shepard? Thank you. You did real well with that, MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Kuhlke. I think we have some additional discussion MAYOR YOUNG: over here. Mr. Powell? Yes, Mr. Mayor. I have one concern. We're MR. POWELL: looking at floating possibly up to a $25 million bond in what we're--we're still at the $25 million figure here. That is a Page 27 cap, I'm assuming. If we're going to go out here and do this, I would like to see us go out here to the public. I mean, we're indebting the people of Richmond County and we have not had one town meeting or public hearing on this. And I honestly feel that we need to go out and get some input from the public before we just say, hey, we're going to indebt you for 25 more million dollars, and that's the only way I can vote for this resolution. My understanding, Jim, people are going to MR. BRIDGES: purchase these bonds. We're not indebting the--these are investors that are buying the bonds; is that correct? These are revenue bonds, and the monies to MR. WALL: pay off those bonds and the investors who purchase the bonds is projected to come from the PFC's and from the airline agreements, and so correct. I mean, it is not anticipated that the taxpayers will have to pay any sum of money whatsoever toward those bonds. And I guess the--I mean, the thing that Mr. Oliver stated is that in a worst-case scenario, then conceivably Augusta would be confronted with a situation where it would have to make a choice of either defaulting on the bonds or going to general revenues. But, I mean, that is--the idea behind the airline agreements and all of that is to tie it down so that the financing is in place so that you don't have that risk. Also, the security that it's pledged for would be a part of the rating of the issue and the cost of the issue. So all of those things are considered by the investors when they buy. And, Mr. Powell, I still think that, you MR. OLIVER: know, given Mr. Kuhlke's motion, there's time to do what you said because this doesn't actually authorize the bonds. An inducement resolution only gives you the authority to what's called recapture costs, and you can go back one year from the date of inducement-- Ninety days. MR. WALL: Is it 90? Ninety days from the date of MR. OLIVER: inducement. And so the inducement resolution is an intent to issue, but it's not a formal issuance. So if you would like those public hearings to be held, I think that's something that the Aviation Commission or yourself maybe could do. May I respond to that, Mr. Mayor? We MR. SKINNER: delayed even acting on this at Bush Field till we could present it to you. We have plans to present this to the community. You approved a marketing director. We are now in the process of getting a marketing director, and obviously we would present this to civic clubs and anyone else. Even Page 28 though the taxpayers are not going to pay for it, we certainly would like [inaudible]. As quickly as we can get your approval, we'd start moving as a commission to--Aviation Commission to alert the public to what's going on and answer any questions they might have. Okay. Mr. Brigham has a comment over MAYOR YOUNG: here. My concern, and it might have been MR. H. BRIGHAM: addressed already, but I just wanted to make sure that if we're going into this kind of debt, we're talking about some expansion, I'm sure. But the question was asked, and you might have answered it, about expansion as far as other airlines are concerned and that sort of thing. And if we are into this expansion mode now, in that marketing is there a strategy to expand to other areas or carriers or what have you? I might have missed it. If I have, I apologize. May I speak to that? At one point Steve MR. McDILL: pointed out that there was space that had been shelled in to accommodate another carrier. As a matter of fact, with the existing facilities that we have we cannot accommodate another carrier. And we have like a store-front counter where American used to be, but there is no operations space for the airline to do anything but be ground-handled by another carrier, which is a tremendous disadvantage for a carrier to try to--condition for them to try to operate under. But you're not saying that you could not MAYOR YOUNG: make arrangements to accommodate an additional carrier today if someone were to choose to come to Augusta? The only way we could do that is the MR. McDILL: counter space--if you're facing the building, the counter to the left where American used to be, there's basically a store- front counter there. That's all that's there. There's no operation space for the airline to operate. In order for another airline to come in, they would have to be ground- handled by another carrier. It's not a level playing field. All right. Mr. Beard? MAYOR YOUNG: I was just going to ask: I see here we're MR. BEARD: expecting not to exceed 25 million, but if we run to the public and inform them of what we're going to do, and I think we should do that, is there a figure there that we should be utilizing at that point? We are not going to do the 25 million, are we? No, sir. We want to be speaking to the MR. McDILL: Page 29 actual cost estimates that we have in hand. What was that, 15? MR. BEARD: Sixteen, round numbers. MR. McDILL: Let me explain the 25, because there was some MR. WALL: discussion at the Aviation Commission. And if y'all want to reduce that number down, that's fine. Here's my thinking insofar as why it was done. Again, you cannot exceed the number that's included in the resolution. You can go below it. I mean, it is just a figure that gives you protection to be sure that all the costs rolled in there. Interest rates are really low right now. Now, they're talking about pulling some money out of reserves to fund that, and that is a prudent decision, and that may be the ultimate decision. But by setting that number a little higher, you give some flexibility as you get into the actual bond issuance. And, you know, if you want to tie their hands down to 16 million, I mean, you can do it. I don't recommend that. $20 million is a reasonable number, but because you were talking about total cost at 22, the 25 number made sense to me. Al, I understand the bond that you're using MR. POWELL: here, and I understand that investors wouldn't come out and purchase these bonds if they didn't feel like they were good investments. But it's still the potential liability that if all goes south, John Q. Citizen is--he's going to pick up the tab, okay? Because, in reality, we know that we're never going to walk off from these bond obligations because it would come back to haunt us at a later date when we got ready to float a bond for other projects. But I'm not totally against the expansion. I like the project, I think it's an excellent project, but I do feel that we need to have the public involved in some discussions about it. Mr. Skinner has said that he has that in his plan to move forward on, so I feel like I can support it as long as that's done. And if I may, Mr. Mayor. I really should MR. SKINNER: point out that the airport has 50 years history of revenues. The airport has issued debt before and it's paid that debt. This year we'll pay off that debt. Okay. Mr. Beard, you started to say MAYOR YOUNG: something? I was just going to tell Mr. Powell, you MR. BEARD: know, that could all be inclusive. And I know the time--we're running on a short time here on this and they are trying to get this going. But I think if we go to the civic clubs and other areas and explain this to the people, I think that--to Page 30 me, that would be sufficient. I just want to clarify, are you going to MR. COLCLOUGH: just civic clubs or are you going to the community? Clarify that for us. To the community in whatever forum we can. MR. SKINNER: We're open to suggestions. Mr. Mays? MAYOR YOUNG: First let me say that an excellent job in MR. MAYS: terms of preparation I've seen thus far. I know you don't want to overbill, but in looking at the future--and I'm going to vote for the resolution that's on the floor, but let me just ask you this in reference to the future since that's what we're talking about. Is there room for prepared growth, and I'm hoping that the growth comes, in terms of--that's a beautiful, you know, area out front there in terms of arrival. If you had to, in terms of the growth being as such that you had arrivals and departures, and I guess probably referring maybe to the front of the Savannah entranceway that they've done there with the double-decker levels, is there room in that frontage that if you got to that type of growth, that you would be able in some way to do the separate area for arriving and departures either on a double-decker or another routing to do that in? Because I think what you've got is beautiful, but I'm just saying if you got to that point are you leaving room as such that you can be able to do that with at some future date? The short answer is yes, the facility is MR. McDILL: expandable. Now, it's not envisioned to be a second-level loading facility, but the ticketing wing, you will notice where the blue administrative level is, is expandable to the right. The administrative space can be moved, of course. The bag claim can be moved to the left. The hold room areas can be moved as well. So if you'll notice the separation between the ticket counters where the concourse is in the middle, the reason that facility is not only just to accommodate the garden, the reason that is designed in that fashion is to accommodate [inaudible]. I would like to see it happen, but one of the things that concerns me is building a terminal facility and the central core of the building can never be expanded beyond a certain point. That building has this capability. In the event this city goes forward with a bridge across the Savannah River, at that point we're dealing with a whole different service area, different market area. You will see a much greater growth than what we're experiencing at this point. This facility has that capability. Page 31 I would like to point out, Mr. Mays, that MR. SKINNER: plan there you could load or unload six airplanes at one time. Plus, this hold room can be extended. MR. McDILL: Not only am I talking about what you're MR. MAYS: loading and unloading with the airplanes, but I meant in terms of your actual out-front scenic view that you planned, which is a beautiful design. But, quite frankly, I'd like to see you get cramped in a few years. I'd like to see that happen. But just from the standpoint of where--it doesn't necessarily have to be the double-decker level, but I was just concerned that even if you were going wide with it, just from a layman's point of view, that you would be able to have some space to do that with if you got on that basis to where, you know, you were being able to unload and load that many persons at one time in terms of arrival and departure traffic. Mr. Shepard has a comment. MAYOR YOUNG: Just two briefly, Mr. Mayor. I also MR. SHEPARD: noticed in the minutes that Mr. McIntire got past the renaming of the facility, and I want to commend that. I think the Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field shows a progressive step toward the marketing of the airport and also its history being at Bush Field. But I think one thing we've got to look at here, and that's why I'm interested in getting this airport on track, is that you don't have necessarily competition with other cities, gentlemen, but you have competition from jitneys now operating in and out of this community. I see them in The Chronicle, Mr. Skinner, advertising, and I understand a lot of corporations are looking to that just from an economic standpoint. So we've got businessmen, entrepreneurs right here in the community competing against our airport for the passengers that enplane here, so we need to position the airport competitively against them as well, and I want to support the resolution for that reason. Okay. Are there any other Commissioners MAYOR YOUNG: who have any questions? All right, well, let's move ahead then. We have a motion on the floor. Does anyone need the motion restated? I guess I have a question. I won't prolong MR. McDILL: this, but as concerns the LPA Work Authorization #6, am I understanding from the motion that at the time that we bring that contract to you, you envision-- We want the airline agreements to come at MR. KUHLKE: the same time. Page 32 Al, may I address that for just a minute? MR. HARRELL: We have been working with the airlines for the past several months, and obviously we have only gone so far into our design, and we have reached a point where we need to move further in the design so the airlines see more precise cost estimates, more exact design, before they can really buy into everything. So there may be some difficulty in getting airline lease agreements completed before more design has gone forward. The effect of tying it together in that MR. McDILL: fashion, Commissioner, is that we build in, at minimum, a four-month delay in being able to be in a posture to progress the negotiations with the airlines. Without those agreements, though, this deal MR. OLIVER: can't go forward is the dilemma. I think that there's been concern expressed MR. KUHLKE: about--and these are real concerns on our part. If we end up having to pick up the tickets, we're going to look very, very--and I'm talking about down the road if we have to [inaudible]. You know, it would appear to me that if the Aviation Commission feels comfortable with this, and if you have reserves at this point and you want to move ahead with your architectural part of it without our approval, but I don't think this body can approve a contract on the architectural engineering without first seeing the details of the airline agreement. I may be out of school, but I don't think that can happen. Now, somebody made the comment that y'all have been talking already with the airlines and that you weren't far away from getting an agreement, so there's a contradiction here somewhere. We're like four months, in my estimation-- MR. McDILL: and I say four months. The anniversary of our existing agreement is the end of June. I propose to have an agreement in place with the airlines--a new agreement in place with the airlines, even on an interim basis, by June 1. By that time we will have worked out the details. But in order to work out the details with the airlines, give them the hard numbers they want to see, they want to see more of the design development. What we're putting at risk here is not--at this stage of the game there are certain benchmarks where we can come back to you, you know, before we go any further. But what we're putting at risk here is the design costs, which would come out of airport reserves. But, as a matter of fact, one of the items I've asked you to consider in addition here, you have a copy of a letter, a tentative allocation of $683,074 for a grant agreement to facilitate that design. Page 33 Well, you're talking about the airlines MAYOR YOUNG: wanting to see hard numbers. I think the Commission wants to see some hard numbers, too, and that's the thrust of the motion that's on the floor. I think this: I think that my motion has a MR. KUHLKE: good chance to pass. I think if you start screwing around with it, it ain't going to...[End Tape 2]... MR. HANDY OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Also, if I may, Mr. Mayor, you have a MR. McDILL: tentative allocation letter. We have to accept this grant agreement by March 1 in order to take advantage of these funds, and that is $683,074. And, in fact, [inaudible]. Do you need a motion from the Commission MAYOR YOUNG: accepting this grant? Yes, sir, I do. Steve, does this not MR. McDILL: envision that the contract has to be a part of the--with LPA has to be in place as part of the grant agreement? It's my understanding that FAA's offer for MR. HARRELL: the money was that if you didn't have the work underway by March 1st, that the money was going to be redistributed to some other area. Let me ask Mr. McDill a question. Is MAYOR YOUNG: there a deadline by which we have to accept this grant? Is there a date at which it-- Yes, sir. March 1. MR. McDILL: March 1? MAYOR YOUNG: We can put it on the next agenda, Mr. MR. OLIVER: Mayor. There is some information from our MAYOR YOUNG: Attorney tonight that there may be some other issues involved with this that we need to consider, and so it would be appropriate from our side not to take this tonight, but let our Attorney--let's refer it to our Attorney to look at and bring it back to us at the next meeting. . MR. POWELL:So move Second. MR. SHEPARD: Page 34 Mr. Wall, will you have this ready for MAYOR YOUNG: next Tuesday? Yes, sir. MR WALL: I think we can do something in that regard. MR. OLIVER: It will be on the agenda for next Tuesday MAYOR YOUNG: then. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. All in favor? MR. HANDY OUT. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. So this will be on the agenda for next MAYOR YOUNG: Tuesday then. Move we adjourn, Mr. Mayor. MR. KUHLKE: Commissioner, I have been-- MR. McDILL: Well, we have a motion to adjourn on the MAYOR YOUNG: floor. That's a motion that takes precedence, so--do we have a second on that? I'll withdraw it. MR. KUHLKE: All right. Withdraw the motion then. MAYOR YOUNG: If I may, Mr. Mayor. I've been asked to-- MR. McDILL: since the name change has been brought up, would this not be an appropriate time for this body to entertain that name change? It does take your--before I can submit the application to the FAA for the name change, it takes your approval. MR. BEARD:I so move, Mr. Mayor. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Is there any discussion? MAYOR YOUNG: Would you put the name in the minutes? MR. OLIVER: Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field. MR. McDILL: We discussed possibly--I don't know how MR. BRIDGES: y'all came up with that, but there was a discussion at one time of getting some input from the community as to what-- possible names for that rather than us just sitting here and coming up with one or the Airport Commission. Is that something that you would entertain, Mr. McDill? Page 35 Well, I think that's an action the Aviation MR. McDILL: Commission has to answer really, but my response to that is it puts [inaudible] started out being examined by a committee. What I'm actually looking for here is MR. BRIDGES: community input, you know, in the airport. We discussed here community pride and that type of thing. And we've had the name Bush Field for a long time. I know a lot of people don't even want to change it at all, but I think if you involve the community you might get some better names than we've come up with and they'd feel like they own it. Mr. Bridges, we had--I'm still in trouble MR. McDILL: with Mr. McIntire and Mr. Newman for putting them on a committee to come back with a name to rename Bush Field. The name Augusta National Airport came up, and obviously it was shot down. I would hope that we would go ahead and approve this. We kept the name Bush Field. The complaints we seem to receive are, "Why are you taking a dead pilot's name away from Bush Field when it's been there for years?" We've retained Bush Field, but I think we need to promote the fact that this is the second largest in the state, it's a regional airport. I think this name would do that, and I would hope we would go ahead and approve that. If we put it into the public and ask for ideas, we will be ten years trying to get a name. I would hope that you would go ahead and approve it. Well, it didn't take them ten years to name MR. POWELL: the hockey team. All right, we have a motion on the floor. MAYOR YOUNG: We will call the question at this time. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MR. HANDY OUT. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. The name change is approved. MAYOR YOUNG: MR. BEARD:I move we adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn. Is there a MAYOR YOUNG: second? Second. MR. BRIDGES: All in favor? MAYOR YOUNG: MOTION CARRIES 9-0. Page 36 [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:55 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 Called Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on February 8, 1999. Clerk of Commission