Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2004 Called Meeting CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS May 6, 2004 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:30 p.m., Thursday, May 6, 2004, the Hon. Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Sims, Williams and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Absent: Hon. Beard, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. Mr. Mayor: We have a quorum present in the Chambers and we’d like to move ahead with our special Commission meeting. I would like everyone to please rise, and Commissioner Jimmy Smith has an invocation that he read at the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast that we’d like to ask him to offer again for us, and then if you would remain standing, I’d like to ask Mr. Cedric Johnson, the Chairman of our Bush Field Aviation Commission, to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. The invocation was given by Commissioner Smith. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, please be seated. We have, for those who came into the chambers expecting to attend a SPLOST workshop, we have a called meeting of the City Commission which we need to dispose of first, and then we will move into the workshop. We have two items on the agenda today. Is there a motion to take these two as a consent agenda. Ms. Sims: So move. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: Would anybody like to pull either item from the consent agenda? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: You want to discuss either of these, want to discuss them separately? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. 1 Mr. Mayor: All right, then we’ll pull items 1 and 2, and so the consent agenda motion will die because there is no action to be taken. All right, we will take up item number 2 since Mr. Wall is over here on the clock. 2. Consider Interlocal Government Agreement between the Augusta Canal Authority and Augusta. (Addendum Item 1 on Regular Meeting of May 4, 2004) Mr. Wall: Thank you. This is the intergovernmental agreement that will allow the financing of [inaudible] work improvements in the Augusta canal, the contract which y’all approved back in December subject to [inaudible] design and [inaudible] work began earlier this year. And basically this is for $8 million of work that is being done, actually $6 million for the -- $6.35 million [inaudible] work being done, which is substantially less than what it would cost to do the same work if we were to bid it out as a stand-along project. The $8 million comes about because of the [inaudible] that are included on the budget [inaudible] including Cranston, Robertson and Whitehurst [inaudible] supervised the work, capitalized interest for two years [inaudible] hopefully this debt will be retired by SPLOST funds in the next phase of SPLOST, contingencies insofar as the railroad is concerned and the right-of-way costs, and that comes up to $8, 250,000. We received $250,000 from Atlanta Gas Light as part of a settlement, so that will be credited [inaudible] $8 million. And we ask for approval of this. The intergovernmental agreement calls for interest on the payments, until the year 2007 until the time [inaudible] at that point. If not, it will be amortized out until it’s paid for. And I’ll be glad to answer any questions. [inaudible] the Canal Authority has already approved the intergovernmental agreement and ask that we approve it. Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions for Mr. Wall? Any comments? Gentlemen? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Just two comments. Number 1, on the voting procedure, if the Clerk would so note as I have done concerning this particular issue and other items related to Atlanta Gas Light and contamination of the canal and surrounding properties, for the record I will abstain because of the conflict that start within referenced property to our church at that particular time. That’s item number 1, and I’ll be consistent. I’ve not voted over the years on any of those properties. However, I have had some discussion and some caution, and my item 2 is the fact that as we close this down and because of the amount of money that we’re talking about of $8,000 -- not $8,000 but $8 million before we bring this to its finality, my question is, and it’s not necessarily to Jim. But it’s kind of one of those to whom it may concern, within the City. Are we, are we thoroughly secure -- and I’ve asked this in committee, I asked this when we approved the bond side of it, and for the record I’m going to ask it again, because I’ve had my share of tricks. Not by anybody from our side of the fence, but I’ve had them long enough and more than I want to deal with, with this particular subject, this particular item of things just happening to pop up. Are we thoroughly satisfied with the check-off on the value of work from our side of the fence, that we are getting for paying $8 million into this project for the difference in it? Do we have independent data, not anybody else’s 2 data, do we have independent data that we have paid for of folks who are assigned to us and to make sure that we, as we enter into this for the indebtedness to be paid, whether it’s through sales tax or be it through other monies that the City of Augusta has, are we certain and have we done an independent analysis that we are getting our bang for the buck in here independently on this part item? $8 million is a whole lot to depend on somebody else’s data, to be used, and particularly with all the things that have gone down in this project. And I’m only saying that for the record, and I just want to make sure that’s it entered, because if it’s -- I for one don’t want to see it pop up, but to a point that if it is, I want to make sure that we’ve crossed every T and dotted every I from our side of the fence into it. Because I think that is, that is very important to make sure that that’s done. Mr. Wall: And the answer is yes and we have that in writing from Cranston, Robertson, Whitehurst [inaudible] would cost the government in excess of $15 million and so we are getting, not counting financing costs, we’re getting $6 million, $8 million, however you want to measure it, worth of value -- or $15 million worth of value for $8 million. Mr. Mays: Okay. And, and I think you know where I’m coming from on this, but I’m going to ask, and I told y’all some months ago I was going to ask it when this time came to do it. I, I understand that that, that that’s being verbally said, but do we have the agreement that’s intact of their opinion from a professional side that is signed, that the responsibility for the amount of that money for $8 million is done by somebody other than folks at Georgia Natural Gas and who work for Georgia Natural Gas? On our side of the fence, is the responsibility being [inaudible] professionally, that there is somebody that answers independently for that, either for the City of Augusta, that we depend on? Mr. Wall: Well, Cranston, Robertson, Whitehurst is the one who developed the [inaudible] plan. It is their study [inaudible] being developed plan. They have reviewed the plans [inaudible] work is being done by Williams Environmental. [inaudible] their opinion on the value of the work that is being done. And that’s all we can expect them to do. [inaudible] Mr. Mays: And that’s all I really want, but I want to make sure of that and I want to state publicly the reason why I’m asking that is because when we started the series of discussions, it was a guarantee that that would be done, but there was some, some shucking and shuffling to a point of whether or not that was going to be on paper or where that was going to be in the air. And I want to make sure it’s on paper for $8 million. And I’m not, I’m not going to have to vote on it anyway. Mr. Mayor: Well, it was delivered in writing, Mr. Mays, and a copy of their letter went to all the Commissioners last year when that same, when the question you’re asking today came up earlier -- they sent us a written communication from Cranston Robertson and a copy was distributed to all the Commissioners at the time. 3 Mr. Mays: I just want to make sure of that but I also think, Mr. Mayor, if you are going to make that public, make sure of the fact when we discuss that, the time -- I know well it was brought up cause I’m the one that brought it up, and at the time when it was brought up there was no letter and at the time nobody wanted to be responsible for it other than Williams and Georgia Natural Gas. And I was determined that that was not going to be, particularly in the neighborhood that I live in, another situation of Hyde Park, Virginia Subdivision, of dealing with an environmental situation over there, whereby we were dependent upon somebody else’s data. And that’s why I’ve made sure and wanted to make sure that every step of this record -- I know part of it is a repeat, but to a point in there I said I was going to ask the same question and making sure. So it’s not argumentative that I ask it. It’s just a matter for the record and when you’re dealing with $8 million and a bond issue, I think you should be secure in terms of what you ask for and how that’s being done. Because at some point, when none of us are here, if something does happen, it needs to be able to go back and to protect whatever Mayor and Commission and Attorney that’s in place at that time to say that everything was done on behalf of this City to protect the interests of the people who were there in that contaminated state. And not dependent upon what was brought about by somebody else. So you’re correct, it’s there, but I’m putting that there for the record and I just wanted to make sure it’s in. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Anything further? Mr. Boyles and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Do both of our legal counsels concur in this, this agreement, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Wall? Mr. Shepard: This is one of the matters that I delegated to Mr. Wall. We reviewed it, and I ratify his recommendation. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, in light of that, I would like to move that we approve the Interlocal Government Agreement between the Canal Authority and Augusta. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Ms. Sims: Second. Mr. Mayor: There is a second. All right. Further discussion from Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. With the $8 million being a great magnitude of money and a lot of discussion been talked about from the Williams side of it, the Atlanta Light & Gas, Jim, you, you, you feel comfortable with this agreement, you feel good with this? Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. I drafted it. 4 Mr. Williams: Okay. Well, that’s something else. With the Mayor just stating that there was a, a, a, a letter sent out to all the Commissioners in writing, but was there a contract in writing? We get a lot of stuff sent to our mailbox, stuff that says what’s going be, but is all this in the legal -- and I can’t quote Commissioner Mays -- but that, that, that does bother me is when you crafted it Jim, is all that Commissioner Mays was concerned about, is covered in this signed, so if any event somebody comes back 10, 20 or whatever time to approach it, it, it, it’s written down somewhere? Mr. Wall: It’s written down in the letter that was circulated the value of the work we were getting, as far as $15 million. Mr. Williams: But is it an agreement, is it signed agreement? Mr. Wall: There is no -- Cranston, Robertson, Whitehurst is not a party to this intergovernmental agreement, nor would is it appropriate for them to be so. What we have is the same thing you would get from an attorney or a doctor or an engineer, which is in their opinion, just like I’m giving you my opinion that this agreement is a good agreement, a valid agreement, once executed, appropriate for the transaction. That’s the agreement we have. Now Cranston, Robertson, Whitehurst has an engineering contract with the City of Augusta for which they designed the aquatics center, for which [inaudible]. That is an agreement which calls for them to exercise their professional engineering [inaudible] do that, and as part of that they are called upon to estimate the cost [inaudible] that project, which they did. [inaudible] land was originally developed and as a part of this. And so to the extent that there is a [inaudible] agreement with an engineering firm to use professional engineering practices and to use [inaudible] insofar [inaudible] the cost of it, there is a contract. There is no contract on this that say this is $15 million worth of work that you’re getting for $8 million. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask one question that might clarify this for you, and then I’ll go right back to you. Is not the scope of work and the cost sharing spelled out in the settlement with Atlanta Gas Light and the contract we have with Williams and all that is delineated in that, and those documents have been approved by the Commission already? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: And all this does is fund those agreements that the Commission has already made? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, go ahead. Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m just a little leery when, when, when that kind of gift comes in and then nobody will put their name to it. If it’s that, if they’re that generous 5 and if they’re doing that kind of work, unless it was going to bind them to some legal reason for not doing it, I can’t see why, and that’s why I rely on Steve now, Jim, to, to, to, to help us out, but I can’t see why they wouldn’t put that in to, to say that. I mean I don’t want to hold the project. This project been going on for quite some time. We’ve had problems before. We started off with one amount at one time and then we come back, we wasn’t getting that and we was going to do all this other stuff. Then we didn’t get that. Now we saying we going to get it this time. But I don’t want to hold it, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to bring those comments out. Like Mr. Mays said, I wanted to be on the record that we did question those things and ask for some explanation or some document [inaudible] be binding. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: One other thing in finality I think should be included in the record. And I agree, it’s time to move, it’s time to close it. But there was one particular thing that I left out of this, and I think the Commission on the advice of the Attorney ruled that there was not conflict. But I wanted to make sure because, and I said this at the time, I have the utmost respect for the professional people that are doing the work on our side of the fence in every category. But I thought that the questions needed to be asked and needed to be put in place since we are finalizing this thing, Jim, because the point being we’re being asked to come up with a sum of money that the City of Augusta bears. You’ve got a firm that has the contract that has the design work in order to do it, and you’ve got a member of that firm that’s also on the canal side of the board of it, which is also handling money. Now we are asked to match off what’s being done in that procedure. And I wanted to make sure that there was a degree of independence struck between that. Now at the time I think you ruled that there was no -- and I don’t know if you ruled -- one of the Attorneys ruled that there was no conflict. Fine. It was done through the proper channel and brought there. But I think you have some lines that do cross from the standpoint if they are clear of conflict they definitely need to be recorded on record, because if you’ve got three funding sources going into this deal to close it out, one out of litigation, one out of Canal Authority money, and then another one out of City money which is obligated, and then you’ve got a firm with a contract and then you’ve got part of the firm sitting on there which deals with the board of where they issue funding, and then the City issues funding and then the firm’s working for us by contract. Now all that may be clear, but that needs to be on record for public consumption and that’s why I’m bringing it out. Not in any form of accusation. People there are long-time friends of mine. But this is about business, it’s not about friendship. And I made the point of asking it then, and Mr. Mayor, I’m just putting it into the record today, and to a point that the responsibility flows where it should be. But there are sources of funding in which we’ve got a contractual person that’s in there, that sits in a matter of making certain decisions that’s over in there, and when [inaudible] determine that figure, then that may 6 mean hypothetically if somebody asked the question, and that’s why I think it’s so important that the value be stated and be stated by the firm, because if in the end let’s just say to a point that maybe we shouldn’t be paying $8 million, maybe somebody else should be paying part of the $8 million, be in the Canal Authority or be it Georgia Natural Gas. And that’s why I’m bringing those questions to put them in there, into the record, and that’s [inaudible] and the Attorney, since having ruled that there is no conflict in there, I just want that as a part of the record, which is so stated today in terms of that being done. And y’all have done that, and I have no problem with it, but I would be derelict in my duty for not bringing it up and pointing it out in there. And that was my reason for doing it. Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? We have a motion on the floor to approve the agreement. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams abstain. Motion carries 7-2. Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 1 on the agenda, Madame Clerk. 1. Discuss use of private security forces at Augusta Regional Airport and alternative thereto. Recommendations for approval: 1. Memorandum of Understanding between the Richmond County Marshal and the Augusta Regional Airport. 2. Adopt budget resolution amending the Airport budget to provide funds to pay for this resolution. 3. Amend Marshal’s personnel schedule to include proposed security personnel to be included on the Airport’s personnel schedule. Mr. Mayor: I believe there was a discussion of this Tuesday and this is a continuation of that, is that correct, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. This is an item that was discussed in legal, we were not able to have it added to the agenda. It has become one of two subjects of this special called meeting, and to recap for you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and members of the Commission, the events that are relevant here. Chief Cole at Bush Field -- excuse me, Augusta Regional -- received a letter from the Georgia Peace Officers Standards and Training Council which questioned the employment of law enforcement officers at Augusta Regional through a private security provider. And we took the letter to the management of the airport -- actually, the management of the airport furnished it to my office. We then had a series of discussions about what to do about this withdrawal of the agency certification, what they call the Bush Field Police Force Agency certification. And in the course of those discussions, we learned that the airport had been engaged already in discussions to remove the private security provider and to place these law 7 enforcement duties in the office of the Richmond County Marshal. The relevant legality is in the Code of Federal Regulations, which talk about what kind of law enforcement support the new Transportation Security Regulations require. And I have discussed that and cited the CFR Sections for the benefit of the Commission and the, the most pertinent part states that each airport operator must ensure that each individual used to meet requirements of Section 15-42.215 have the authority to arrest, excuse me, with or without a warrant while on duty at the airport for the following violations of the criminal laws of the state and local jurisdiction in which the airport is located. And one of those factors or one of those tests is a crime committed in the presence of an individual, and the second is a felony when the individual has reason to believe that the suspect has committed it. We researched the authority of the Civil Court Marshal, the Richmond County Marshal, excuse me, and we looked back on the enabling statutes there. That Marshal and his deputies clearly have that authority. We, in light of the pending transfer of these positions to the Marshal and the endorsement of this concept by the Board at the airport, and I just passed out the minutes showing that they were on board with this process, the prevailing thinking was to go ahead and address this problem permanently on what I refer to as an accelerated basis. And that accelerated basis is to approve in this body today a memorandum of understanding, which is the last attachment in the package. The first attachment was the letter that Chief Cole received. The second attachment is a budgetary resolution which basically would have a funding of this, of this detachment, and there would be a requirement that there be a detachment of the Marshal’s Department assigned to Augusta Regional Airport. The letter of POST is a little unclear as to when they’re going to withdraw that certification. It’s going to be sometime tomorrow, whenever the close of business is determined. But we went ahead and anticipated a very specific start date of this, and we request that the Commission approve the memorandum agreement between Marshal Smith and this body and the Airport Commission, the Augusta Aviation Commission, so that sworn law enforcement officers working for a public entity will be available on an uninterrupted basis at Augusta Regional Airport. And we basically have an agreement, a memorandum agreement, that extends from today until the end of December of this year. It renews annually, but either party can cancel or terminate on sixty days’ written notice, so there is some flexibility there. The Marshal is very much willing to enter this agreement. I would commend it to you. It’s the work of, on an accelerated basis of the administration, the airport, and my office. And so therefore, I would ask that this be favorably considered and the budgetary numbers we had inserted by Mr. Kolb and our Finance Director, Mr. Persaud, and I would say that to make absolutely clear that we are in compliance with the TSA Regulations, which have been enacted after 9/11 for the Transportation Security Administrator Regulations, that we pass this, approve this memorandum of understanding this afternoon and there would be a continuous sworn law enforcement presence on the airport without interruption tomorrow. And I’ve tried to furnish backup material that indicated the timing of this. This was not something that’s laying around. It’s something that’s been given priority attention by the airport management, by the administration, by my office, and as you can see from the date of the letter from the Peace Officers Standards and Training Council. So if I can answer any questions I’d be happy to do so. 8 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, the Commission, if you look at the backup and you go down to recommendations, the Commission would need to have a motion that would incorporate those three recommendations in order to complete the action today; is that correct? For the proper form of the motion? Mr. Shepard: Second page, yes. Mr. Mayor: Under recommendations? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, I would ask that that recommendation either be read into the record or adopted by reference by one of the Commissioners. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right. Now just one other point before we get into discussion from the Commission. I see the Sheriff here. He’s not a party to this. Sheriff, I don’t want to keep you here unless you want to be here. Is there something you wanted to comment about this or anything? Mr. Strength: I would just asked would I come to this meeting and I’m just part of the group. Mr. Mayor: Glad to have you hear. Thank you, sir. Okay, let’s start with the Public Safety Chairman, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This was something that was brought to Commission to be added on. I’ve got a couple of questions. I guess I’m quoting Commissioner Mays, there’s no courthouse secrets around the courthouse. This has, this is something that’s been floating around or something that’s been said several times, several different entities. But I need for somebody to tell me why was it brought the way it was brought and why it was brought in such a abrupt manner and, and, and it been talked about I know in my presence with some people for at least 30 to 40 days ago. But I’d like to know why was it so abrupt I guess is my first thing. Why, why the urgency to do it by closing time tomorrow? I men I can understand the reason it need to be done. I can understand the change you want to make. But I don’t understand the urgency and why it was brought to this, this level. Mr. Shepard: The Chair -- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Williams, here again, the letter that was brought to th my attention was dated April 27. I think I received it late on the evening of the 28. The -- I believe at that time your agenda had, had closed so it would have to be an add-on item. I wanted to discuss this matter in legal prior to bringing it onto the floor and we did so. Here again, it’s something that has not been in my office but for a week, so I -- it was something of a priority nature, and here again, if you’ve been aware of it for weeks, I 9 can’t say that I have. But when I was made aware of it and also was made aware of the plans to go to a public entity security arrangement with sworn officers, it just quite frankly made sense to me to recommend to this body that the processes which the airport had contemplated -- and Buster can correct me if I’m wrong -- he was going to implement in the August time frame simply be accelerated so that there was no question that we were in compliance with TSA Regulations. So that was -- if you characterize that as abrupt, well, Mr. Public Safety Chairman, I haven’t had it that long. And I believe that I have had at least one discussion with you that it was, that it was forthcoming and that, that was I think after the SPLOST meeting last week. So I’ve tried to involve the Commissioners in a timely manner and I have tried to give you as much backup to this -- this is a situation that I don’t think we want to be compromising of the security at the airport. So if you feel it’s abrupt, you know, it’s something that had to be done, so we did it rapidly. Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard, you right, we did discuss this and I explained to you when we talked the same way, you know, my feelings about it at that point. And I’m not opposed. I just think if that was a, a serious [inaudible] that been talked about for some time that it should have been brought to Public Safety. We should have had time to discuss this before it gets to, gets up against the wall again. And, and everything in this government seem to get up against the wall before we’ve got to do something and then we’ve got to do it right now or we going -- the sky’s going fall. And I really, I really don’t understand this. What, what -- Mr. Shepard: Let me mention this as well. I did talk to the POST agency, and at one point they were willing to extend the deadline, as given in the letter to Chief Cole, and then within two hours they had determined that they were going to stand by their letter to Chief Cole. So quite frankly, had an extension been granted we wouldn’t be in a hurry-up mode. I mean we would have had -- I was suggesting to the end up the month, the end of May of this year. But that didn’t seem to suit and with the airport having passed the resolution that they passed, I felt like -- my recommendation to the administration was to move ahead with their plans to have these officers employed by a clearly public entity. Mr. Williams: My next, my last question for right now, and I’m going to yield to Mr. Cheek, I guess, he’s got his hand up. But what effect would this have if we gave those positions for a period of time and then ended at a period of time? I mean how can, are we going to hire temporary? I mean I’m, I’m really confused. Once you set a position, can you turn around in 30 days, 90 days, 12 months and say -- Mr. Shepard: Well, for stability and to address this, the agreement presently addresses the period of time from today forward to the end of the year. There is a 60 day non-renewal clause, if this does not work out. But I just can’t stress too much that we should have these individuals under a clearly public law enforcement authority. Here, the discussions have been in the presence of the Marshal, who is willing to undertake these responsibilities, and also the Sheriff, who has been -- he’s here with us today, he sat in all 10 the discussions. The coordination has been there with his office. I think that we have an agency that is capable of stepping forward at this time and stepping forward with the, with certainly the concurrence of our Sheriff. But I’m just saying, you know, you have an opportunity later in the year that if for some reason this does not work out, you know, we can revisit it. But I think that the decision is, is it’s time to act and time to have no question that Augusta Regional Airport is secure from a valid law enforcement status. Mr. Williams: Well, it sound like some, you know, some enforcement people have had a meeting and, and talked. You say the Sheriff has sit in on some meetings and he was privileged to this. In my little checking, checking with Savannah and Columbus, Savannah has a 14-man agency on their property that is governed and run by them. Columbus has got a joint facility with their fire department where their fire department and police department is, is cross trained to be able to do multiple things together, where they still secure and protect the safety of the entire airport and its surrounding. I’m going yield. I see Commissioner Cheek had his hand up. I got another question or so but I’ll wait to see what the other Commissioners have to say, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy was the only one who had his hand up on that end. Mr. Cheek : Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. In light of our lengthy conversation the other night on this issue and the developments with staff, our Attorney, and other folks doing due diligence on this, also in light of the excellent job that we’ve seen from our Marshal’s Department, the body named to take this position, I guess knowing, too, that the TSA and other agencies are going to do nothing but further tighten security and reporting requirements and licensing requirements for law enforcement And protection agencies, I see this as a prudent move. It is going to secure the airport. so I’d like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve this incorporating the three recommendations mentioned by the Attorney and go ahead and move forward on this and put it behind us. Mr. Colclough: I’ll second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion in reference to, to what’s been recommended in the memorandum at this time? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hankerson is up -- Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And then you, Commissioner Williams, and then, then myself. 11 Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’ve got a couple of questions I wanted to ask, and that’s about the financial impact. What kind of financial impact would this be in the future, as far as pertaining to Augusta Richmond County budget? And also whether or not the vehicles, the vehicles are needed, also? Will that be additional vehicles? Because I think now that -- I’m not sure whether the private firm owned the vehicles or do they have vehicles or need them? By being marshals now, will that be additional vehicles needed or any other expense in here, and what kind of financial impact that we must be prepared for next year? Mr. Boshears: [inaudible] they are airport owned. As far as budget impact, the dollar amount that we’re estimating as far as per year for the Marshal’s Department is about the same thing as we paid Sizemore. We paid Sizemore in 2003 a little over $500,000 in contract labor, and the estimate for marshal services is $496,000. So the dollar amounts are about the same as far as what we’re spending, what we’re paying. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. One other question. And I guess this be pertaining to the Marshal. Steve. What kind of impact will this be as far as your, your manpower? The equipment to add on. Mr. Steve Smith: If you approve this today as has been submitted to you, it’s not going to affect the current operations of the Marshal’s Department in any way. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Okay. So you have the men to send out there? Mr. Steve Smith: We’ve looked, actually we’re going to, actually we’re looking at the current manpower at the airport now, trying to figure out how we can blend them in and hopefully keep them on the job now, since they’re already experienced. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: George, if you need to get in -- Buster was the mic, and that’s why I yielded. But if you need to get into that, then I’m going to recognize Commissioner Williams. Mr. Kolb: No, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Boyles? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Commissioner Hankerson asked one of the questions I wanted to, to, to find out about the impact, as far as the additional equipment, as far as automobile, uniforms, insurance, everything else that going incur. Then I need somebody answer me how can we at the end of this change or cut off those employees that we brought in and hired for a temporarily situation. I mean how. I mean maybe Ms. Pelaez can tell me, from HR, somebody. 12 Mr. Kolb: I’d like – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: She’s coming, George, but I don’t think we’re necessarily heading in that direction. But go ahead, between you two. Ms. Pelaez: Actually the [inaudible] will be [inaudible] governmental employees [inaudible] airport so it is not as if the – it’s not as if [inaudible] and the we go to a contractual situation. They will be permanent employees. Mr. Williams: Okay, thank you, Ms. Pelaez. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to make a substitute motion. In light of what’s happening, what we need to do here, I want to make a substitute motion that we allow the Marshal’s Department and the Sheriff’s Department to use their employees to be hired for the airport at whatever time or whatever necessary entity. We’ve got people who work specials and work part time and work – this would probably be even a greater impact on their wallets to work part time to cover the airport when there is a need. And if that’s 24 hours a day with as many sheriff and as many marshal we got, I think that would be – and able to complete that for the remaining of the year to give the airport time to set up their program to have their, their, their own law enforcement service. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there a second? Once, twice, there is a no second. The only motion currently that’s there is a motion that’s on the floor in reference to the memorandum. The Attorney had his hand up there for a moment. I yield, cause I’ve got a question or two. Mr. Shepard: I don’t need to address it now, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I mean if – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. My question really, I hope it’s kind of simple. When we, when we left the other night, and let me start out by saying this. Once – my main concern of wanting to make sure we get whatever it is that’s done is first and foremost, regardless of who provides the security, is that the Augusta Regional Airport is safe and is in compliance in terms of whatever needs of public safety are there and met by law. And I think that should be our major concern. I think the board out there has taken some action recently to do something different with their security and that’s somewhat of another issue, because I think they’ve got some dates and times that there is a slight gap period in terms of their doing that. However, it did come up in the course of the discussion in reference to the gap time, and I guess what I’m trying to do, Steve, I know we got – you got to be thorough and covering all the legal language of putting the three to four to five pages, but I kind of just wanted to narrow it down in here to where those recommendations are that’s on the record, as to where or how different or is there anything in the language that’s here that’s different from the spirit of where we left out of the legal session the other night. And that’s not to tell the airport’s board what to do at all, because the budgetary responsibility as far as paying whoever is out there is going to end up coming out of their pocketbook and they’ve got the money in order to provide it, 13 and to provide it adequately. But I wanted to know is there something different in the language of where we were going. Because – and I’ve stated this publicly with the Director and staff and some board members, including the chairman that’s here. There was a concern the other night of making sure that when we move, now this was not to, to redirect anything that you all had done in committee action, but to make sure that even from the protection on the City side, that if we were going to move in whatever temporary fashion that we went into, in order to make sure that this element was taken care of, that we were not expanding a work force per se. Even though you all will be paying for it. That we would not be expanding, in the event, let’s say hypothetically the Airport Commission changes its mind between now and the contractual date that you all may have with the Marshal’s services, to a point then if [inaudible] we were hearing different conversations the other night. One was on temporary hires and one was on permanent hires and whether or not we were going to be employing some people at this point in time out of the Marshal’s service, and of adding to that side of it, and we wanted to make sure we were clear, while not restricting a time or hands of the Airport Commission at all, but of making sure that we were not making some permanent hires on a temporary basis that could hypothetically say, for instance, in 45 days be turned around and would not necessarily be needed. Now I know the Marshal could stand to probably use the folk if they were put on [inaudible] y’all or somebody else, but the point being that was a concern that we talked about in reference to our side of it as to how we were dealing with this. And I just need to know is there some difference or differentiation between what we’re fixing to vote on and how that was achieved in terms of – I want us to be able to put this to rest today, get the airport in a protected position by whoever is dealing with it. Obviously that’s going to come out of public law enforcement. And if the Marshal’s Department is the assigned department, I have no problem with that, either, but I do think from the standpoint that those of us who raised that question the other evening, that we need to, we need and answer on that. Because you know, we left and we could not vote, and there was a consensus that you all meet, and you all did that, and I think did a very good job in terms of doing that. But I just think there needs to be, before we vote, there needs to be clarity on whether or not something is the same, almost the same, or drastically different. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, you directed that to me, and my answer is that it is in the spirit of what we were doing the other evening. The, the guidance that I received from the gathering of the persons actively involved in the day-to-day airport operations that – the Director, Buster Boshears. We also talked to Tim Weeger, who is with us today. Chief Cole is here today. We talked to the Sheriff, as I previously indicated. We talked to the Marshal. The administration was involved. We consulted, we consulted the regulations. It just appeared that the airport was on track, from what I understood, and we got you the minutes of the meeting. The airport was on track for this in the future. And this just seemed like a, a, a consistent way of addressing it as they had intended to address it. That’s the way I look at it Mr. Mays, so if we could go ahead and do it now, that would be something off the plate of this Commission and the Airport Commission. So I see it is consistent with the spirit of what we tried to do the other night. I don’t know how other to answer your question. 14 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. And that answers mine from that point. My last question probably would go the Marshal from the standpoint that if, if the permanent side of it goes to the Marshal’s Department, obviously whatever advertising is done to place persons, depending upon where persons come from, whether they be from some existing entity that’s there and those go into where [inaudible], Steve, obviously there’s a time factor that’s evolved here that they can’t wait until, until the August contractual date for the airport to make this transition. Because even if the, if the POST situation had not come about and this had been moved, there was going to still have to be some [inaudible] of time in order to put an additional work force together. My question at this point would be knowing that and it would be your shot to call, but I’m sure to a point that in light of the security that you would have to provide, that would be there, that if you are going to have to move certified people and are moving them, say like ASAP, that was going to have to at least come from existing work force, I presume that you’ve got on board right now, regardless of how you move them. Am I correct in assuming that? Mr. Steve Smith: You are correct in assuming that if we were not able to have adequate personnel using the personnel that are out there already [inaudible], but we had a situation arise, we had a situation arise that if we had not had adequate personnel the Sheriff and I had already worked out to make sure that between my department and his department we had the security at the airport adequately covered. Does that answer your question? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, let me expand on it a little bit further. What I’m asking, too, is that from your standpoint since this seems to be probably where it will be moving probably more on your ground than his and obviously him having [inaudible] and the backup [inaudible] you all support each other, but I’m assuming the people that you would have that would be going to them, particularly on a temporary basis, would be out of an existing experienced pool that you’ve got in place right now. And I’m just asking. Mr. Steve Smith: Are you asking temporary or permanent? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I’m assuming that what we’re doing today is cure their problem as it is right now, and how we classify that, whether it’s temporary or permanent. But I mean whoever goes there, I mean I’m just assuming that it wouldn’t be who you’re waiting to get hired, it would be who you already got on board. Mr. Boshears: Mr. Mays, I might can answer that. In our – the original plan before we received the letter from POST, our implementation date was in August. We, our plan was to bring it before this Commission this month, in May, and we had in fact already prepared agenda items to do that. And then that would have given us about a three month period to go through the hiring process. What the Marshal has agreed to do was interview airport personnel. He didn’t promise to hire them, but he agreed to interview and any that met his qualifications he would hire. Other than that, go through the regular hiring process to fill the remaining spots. 15 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going, I’m going to support what you need. I’m just trying to, mainly from an information standpoint, just seeking to a point what you were going to do in reference to August and what you got to do now are obviously two different things. And if you moving right now, I’m just trying to find out if, if, if this is passed, and I know you all have worked together in terms of your two agencies where you’ve got backup and you’re dealing with that. But what this says is to, to [inaudible] three items, this gets you out of what you in. But it doesn’t say how many, what their status is going to be or anything else. And that’s what I’m really trying to get cleared out. Because when you say a memorandum of understanding, it’s supposed to be just that. We’re supposed to understand what’s in the memorandum. I’m trying to get clear from a standpoint that if I vote did I give you what you really need. And I guess Ms. Pelaez [inaudible] in terms of permanent status, that we answered that part. But I’m still just a little bit unclear, not from a standpoint of opposition, but just from a standpoint, I guess, Steve, just really in the final analysis, what are you doing down in, in, in the bottom of this? That’s all. That’s all, that’s all I’m asking there. It just needs to – I think if we can sharpen that pencil just a tiny bit. I don’t think you got a problem how to [inaudible] with it at all, but it’s still just a little unclear of what we leaving you with. I think they are going to take care [inaudible] but I just want to make sure what’s the next step involving the temporary side of it, absent what y’all want to do with your August situation of handling this right now. And maybe the question I should be asking is, is there anybody that you have got on board, and I know this is a nameless situation, but is there anybody that you’ve got on board that’s there that can do anything from a certified standpoint of where you are, or, or, or say, is everybody in place there totally void of being able to run anything on a certified basis? Mr. Boshears: The Marshal, back during Masters week, sent two or three of his deputy marshals out to the airport and they went through the security training at that time, so he already has people on his staff that are security trained at the airport. So that, as far as there being people that are ready to move in out there, he has three, three people that can come in right now that meet the requirements of TSA and be security officers at the airport. As far as the manning, as part of our agreement, we have a manning [inaudible] that he’s going to do with 11 deputies, a chief, and one secretarial person. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I just wanted to make sure when we left here that we were taking this in the direction that you needed to go. And from the standpoint of where we are going to have to end up dealing with, with the Marshal’s Department that what is the next step from the County’s side of doing? Because the impact of it totally comes out of the airport side of the budget, and that’s not a question to a point of where we were dealing. We were concerned about the other [inaudible] and I thought we should ask the question to a point if this was something that was going to be done temporarily, and you all may change your mind about the rest of it, that we need to know if we, if we, if we picked up and put on some permanent folk, even if we classified them as being temporary, [inaudible] that Richmond County had, that we had created, that you might say they belong to y’all, they don’t necessarily belong to us, because, and I use Don’s 16 name as an example on that. I [inaudible] use Grantham Security as a hypothetical. But I just wanted to make sure [inaudible] – were you fixing to say something Mr. Chairman? Mr. Johnson: No, I just wanted to make sure you did understand we did have a number of requirements that TSA requires us to have and we will be staffed at that level. And just what Buster mentioned, but I wanted to make sure, we wasn’t just pulling numbers out of hat for so many people, but we do have a level that we need to be at. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But the plan that’s on the table today takes you all where you need to go? Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gets you where you need to work from, and from a professional standpoint that if it’s back up, just like we’ve always backed up other things, I mean it’s not, there’s nothing new on the backup and may be were law enforcement’s covering and you all are doing the backup for them, for the Sheriff’s Department and the Marshal’s Department doing the backup of it, but I just wanted to make sure before we left that we had that secure and that we had a public answer to put this to rest today, that everything goes on as normal and it goes on under the basis of how we certify in order to do it. That’s where we need to go? Mr. Boshears: The plan we’re asking you to approve is the one we would have asked you to approve in a more orderly fashion that what we’re forced to do today. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And we realize, we realize this, this hits y’all. Y’all had to deal with it in terms of bringing it to us and it was not one where the knowledge was there of dealing with anything else, and I think whether we, whether we know all the ins and outs of who should inspect who and when and the details of it, I think the Commission’s main concern was the fact that if there was a compliance issue and if we had the responsibility, even though it was your money to deal with, we wanted to make sure that we did what was proper and legal and that people, be they patrons, be they employees, whatever the case might be, a visitor passing through, dropping somebody off, that whatever goes on on the grounds, that we have done what we were supposed to do to provide adequate security and making sure that got done. Commissioner Williams and then [inaudible]. Anybody on that end other than Marion? Okay. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Boyles: After his questioning. That might tie together. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Williams: The first thing I’d like to say is if anything of this magnitude that concern public safety, I would truly ask again that the airport, the Marshal, the Sheriff or 17 whoever that got to come before this board concerning public safety would direct this type, anything of this magnitude, anything of this importance to the Public Safety Chairman of the Public Safety Committee so we can at least be knowledgeable of what’s to be take place and we won’t be left out of the loop. Cause if it get to this table again, as Chairman I’m going to send it back, that it would not, if it don’t come through Public Safety. This is very important. My question is, though, and I heard that the employees out there would be considered for employment. But [inaudible] considered for employment and have not been certified – not certified, don’t have the arresting powers, I mean how can, how can you use them until they go through whatever is necessary to go through because they, they don’t the powers now. That’s my first question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Want to answer that, Steve? Mr. Steve Smith: From my understanding, a majority of the officers, if not all of them, have been certified, been through basic mandate school. And the catch here is they can’t arrest anybody, even though they’re certified police officers, unless they work for an agency that is authorized to swear them in and they can make an arrest. Once POST pulls the plug, if you want to say that, tomorrow, they will no longer have that authority. Tomorrow is the last day. And if we’re able to transfer those employees or hire those employees or however you want to term it, we’re able to put them to work for, once we hire then we can swear them in and they have the same authority they had yesterday. Mr. Williams: How many people are we talking about? I mean all the conversation and nobody said yet how many additional people we, that, that’s going to be taken in [inaudible]. Ms. Steve Smith: Using the requirements of TSA, total positions of certified officers – I’m sorry – one chief of police and 11 deputy marshals. That’s on the certified police officers. Mr. Williams: In all the information that everybody got in their pockets and wallets and under the seats and everywhere else, have nobody thought enough to share that information with the Public Safety Committee so we – I mean, it just don’t smell right. I mean that’s the only way I know how to put it. My, my, my, my, my question [inaudible] it’s going to be 12 men; is that right, Steve? Mr. Steve Smith: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: 12 men. Okay. Mr. Steve Smith: 12 certified officers. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Boyles? 18 Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I could just ask a couple of questions, just for clarification, I suppose. Did the rules change, Mr. Boshears, when, after, I guess after 9/11, all that happened and the TSA was created did the rules actually change when the TSA took over compared to what was always out at Augusta Regional? Have they come up with a different set of rules that we didn’t have before, that you didn’t have before? Mr. Boshears: Yes. Mr. Boyles: So the rules changed? Mr. Boshears: It does require that arrest authority. That’s the big kicker, is having the arrest authority. Mr. Boyles: So the company you had out there, I would assume, it’s written across the top here, the name of the company you had out there, but they didn’t have anybody that was POST certified? Mr. Boshears: They are all POST certified. They have all been through training and they all have arrest authority through the Sheriff’s office. Mr. Boyles: Through the Sheriff’s office. So in essence what we’re doing – I thought I heard Steve say, the Marshal say that we won’t be bringing on any additional personnel? Did I hear that right, Steve, that you won’t be bringing any additional personnel? Mr. Steve Smith: This will not affect the Marshal’s Department as it stands now. Mr. Boyles: As it stands now? Mr. Steve Smith: Yes, sir. This is, this is a whole new division, if you will, of what’s going to be out there, the airport detachment I think is what’s mentioned in the memorandum. Mr. Boyles: It’s called chief or something, select a new chief in the future, I think it says here to manage the Marshal’s Department [inaudible]. Am I basically correct in saying we’re basically – you’re going to contract with the airport and then you’re going to subcontract the employees that are already there? Mr. Steve Smith: Yes, sir. This memorandum of understanding or agreement or whatever it is addresses an agreement between the Marshal’s Department and the airport to provide security for them. These officers will be employees of the Marshal’s Department and Richmond County, Augusta. Mr. Boyles: So they’re no longer Bush Field – 19 Mr. Steve Smith: Correct. Mr. Boyles: -- employees. So I’m losing my math somewhere about how we’re not adding new – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: They, I think, and I yield to the Attorney and he can correct me. I think it’s like any other three part contractual agreement we’ve got. Technically speaking, they fall under, will fall under the elected official who handles that division of law enforcement. They come under the system for the purposes of the paperwork and other things of being a part of Richmond County Marshal’s service, but whatever their bottom lines falls in terms of, in terms of pay, equipment, the other things that go with it, it comes out of the airport’s budget and not any penny of it out of the City of Augusta, Georgia, and so it’s strictly on the contractual transfer agreement, and I yield to Steve on that. I may have missed something in there. Mr. Shepard: No, I think you’ve summarized it very well, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, but Mr. Boyles, to answer your question, regulations which Bush Field, excuse me, Augusta Regional now has to comply with were published in the Federal Register after 9/11 and they were published February 22, 2001. So that may be viewed as a long time ago or not so long ago, but that was – these regulations were promulgated under the Transportation Security Administration Act, and that’s what, that’s when they came into being. So they haven’t – for years and years and years – they haven’t been the same, that’s my point. Do you understand, did I answer your question? Mr. Boyles: You did. Mr. Shepard: Okay. Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Real quick, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson: I wanted to try to clarify something, Mr. Boyles. The people we have out now, at the airport now, security, are contract employees. We hired them through a agency, so they are not permanent employees now. I wanted to make sure that that was understood. Mr. Boyles: Okay. I understood they were through this agency that’s listed on the paper here. Mr. Johnson: That’s correct. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions from the left? 20 Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] I kind of got a little bit lost in the benefits, the security that’s working there now do not have medical benefits and so forth, is that right? So are you all taking on that cost? Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir, that was one of the concerns – about a year, year-and-a- half ago, we had people working out there that did not have benefits under the temporary agency that they previously been under. We did, as a Commission, decide to pay for some benefits for those employees that are working. But basically they didn’t have, they didn’t have benefits. We were paying for the little bit of benefits that they were receiving through the temporary agency. Mr. Hankerson: So now you’ll be paying for all the benefits? Mr. Johnson: We will be paying for all the benefits. Mr. Hankerson: Not coming from the Marshal? Mr. Johnson: Not coming from the Marshal. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Mr. Johnson: It’s going to come strictly from our budget. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions on the right? Mr. Williams: And, and the pay scale would be the same as the pay scale for the Marshal Department now? We got it different with the fire department which is out there, and the City fire department here, is that, all that’s clear or – I mean where’s that at? Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Williams, to the best of my understanding the pay scale would be in line with what the Marshal is paying, based on seniority and everything else. Mr. Williams: Okay, so it’s not going to create a snowball effect with what the airport pays versus what the Marshal pays here, then it comes, roll right back in this chamber here, is that right? Mr. Johnson: No, sir, it shouldn’t be. Because the fact that they are working for an agency, we pay a higher premium but the people that are actually employed get a lot less than what we pay. So there shouldn’t be any effect here. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further questions from the right? [inaudible] left, right and dead center. And we’ve had discussion on it, we’ve heard from the airport, the 21 director, the chairman, we’ve heard from the marshal, we’ve spoken on it, and I think the main thing at this point is there’s a motion that is on the floor that will hopefully get us into an agreement whereby the most important thing that we are doing is that this security does not stop, that we are in compliance with everything that we should be, and that we meet the deadline for doing it. All in favor of the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. Mr. Williams votes No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the two items this meeting was called for, and on that matter we stand adjourned. Thank everybody for coming. [MEETING ADJOURNED] 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 May 6, 2004 ________________________ Clerk of Commission 22