Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-1997 Meeting I I I PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ROOM - July 28, 1997 3:30 P. M. PRESENT: Mayor Larry E. Sconyers; H. Brigham, Chairman; Kuhlke, Mays, Zetterberg, members; Lee Beard, Moses Todd, Commissioners; R. Oliver, Administrator; J. Wall, County Attorney; Chief Few, Fire Department; Sid Hatfield, Chief Deputy Sheriff's Department; Steve Smith, Marshal's Department; Tom Snyder, Rural Metro Ambulance Service; Lena Bonner, Clerk of commission. ALSO PRESENT: Sylvia Cooper, Augusta Chronicle; Rosemary Forrest, Metro Spirit and Jennie Montgomery, WJBF Television. A Request from the Sheriff's Department for approval of $41,041.00 for matching funds (.111 of the grant amount), necessary for the procurement of a $369,740.00 grant. (Grant covers two year period) Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval. Mr. Mays: Second. Motion carried unanimously. A Request from the Sheriff's Department to aapprove purchase under State Contract #466-00-50041 for Movie-Vision system-5 In-Car Video System (in use by Georgia and South Carolina State Patrol) for 35 patrol units at total cost including installation of $127,419 ($3,470/ unit plus $150/unit installation, and eight 75' cables to make cameras portable for use in working fatalities at a cost of $719.60 for all eight cables). Project was approved for $128,000 in capital listing for 1997 permanent budget. Mr. Oliver: This is for video and as I understand it, in the DUI Units it already exist and this puts those types of cameras in all of the patrol cars that we have on the road and the Sheriff indicates that this is the best use of Law Enforcement funds. Chief Hatfield: I don't know that it would put the package in all of the cars, but it certainly would put it in a majority that we do not have at this point, to include north and south precincts. Mr. Zetterberg: So move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Kuhlke: This is coming from the Sheriff's Drug Fund. Mr. Oliver: No, this is coming from, it's currently budgeted and has been budgeted in the Risk Management Fund. What Mr. McKie is indicating on the that this could come from drug or jail funds if not approved. The jail funds aren't there and I can't speak for the drug fund, but it is budgeted in the Risk Management Fund. Motion carried unanimously. A Request from the Fire Chief to approve an agreement with Aiken I Motorcycle Sales for the use of two Kawasaki Jet Ski Watercraft by the Augusta-Richmond County Fire Department. Mr. Oliver: I think that this is a positive step by the Fire Department and I think that the agreement should be approved. However, before these units ever hit the water though, I have talked to Chief Few and he has indicated that there will be strict guidelines on how these units will be used and I will expect those to come back within the next two weeks, those guidelines. Mr. Wall: Also, as I understand it there are actually three units, and one unit is by a different company, so the agenda item really needs to reflect that it's three units. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, why are we getting these from Aiken? We have dealers in Augusta. Chief Few: Mr. Mayor, what we tried to do is get them from somebody who would donate them to us free. The agreement is, that each year they will exchange them for a brand new set so we got them from a person that made a commitment. When they heard me say something about water rescue, they volunteered. Mr. Mayor: None of the Augusta dealers would volunteer? Chief Few: I think that one of them came from an Augusta I dealer. Make sure you understand that we are not purchasing these. Mr. Mayor: I understand that. But I can't believe that the Kawasaki would do it in Aiken, but I'm sure that the parent company is underwriting this, so they should do it here in Augusta somewhere. After further discussion; Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we approve the use of the three jet skis, subject to the finalization of the policy in regards to the use of the jet skis. We also need to thank the people who are making this donation to the City. Mr. Zetterberg: Second. Motion carried unanimously.. A Request from the Marshal's Department to approve bullet resistant vests for the Deputy Marshal's as an additional safety measure to protect them while performing the duties of their position. Mr. Mays: So move. Mr. Zetterberg: Second. I Motion carried unanimously. I I I A Request from the Sheriff's Department to approve an agreement between EMS Ventures, Inc., d/b/a Rural Metro Ambulance and Augusta, Georgia allowing Rural/Metro to establish a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Chief Hatfield: What we are asking you to consider is PSAP. We presently have a PSAP in the 911 Center that is in operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is the public service answering point for all 911 calls, all emergency calls asking for assistance. Rural Metro plans to move out of the 911 Center, since they are privatized, into a new communication center. Since they are moving out of the 911 Center, we are asking you to let them have their own PSAP. They are paying for the financial implementation, the service and the management of it. But, what it means to us is that any time we receive a call for ambulatory assistance in the 911 Center we simply press a button to ring down and it goes straight to them. We are only involved in receiving the call for the ambulance request, we then convey that to the Rural Metro Service and they respond. Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Oliver: I would like to point out that the 911 fees will remain with the County. That there will be no 911 fees with that and their request will be honored for those in the future. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Todd: My concern is the liability. Are the liabilities going with Rural Metro versus if they are not answering their calls in a timely manner. Mr. Wall: The liabilities are going with them. We will have the ability to go in and see the response time in so far as their answering a call, I'm talking about answering the telephone. There are also safety mechanisms in there, where it will ring back to the 911 Center in the event that there were to be a problem. So those precautions have been built into the contract. There is also a provision for liability insurance in the amount of $2 million dollars. Mr. Todd: Which contract will govern, as far as the length of service, is it going to be this contract or the original contract that we approved between Rural Metro and the University? And does it change any of the financial arrangements in the first contract. Mr. Wall: This contract runs concurrently with the contract between University Hospital and Rural Metro. And no it does not change any of the financial arrangements. Mr. Tom Snyder: The other benefit from it would be that in the event that there is a problem at the County's 911 Center, this would be a secondary location that the Sheriff's Department and the Fire Department could move to in a very short period of time. o Motion carried unanimously. I A Request from Georgia Legal Services for approval to revise work at the Phinizy Road Detention Center in the Attorney visitation areas of the housing pods. Changes include adjustments to walls and additional hollow metal, glazing and seating. Mr. Oliver: This is a Change Order with Beers Construction Company in the amount of $29,214. It's changes that the court monitor and some judicial people were involved in and Mr. Wall can speak better on that aspect. I would note this that I would ask that this be made subject to getting a letter of cost reasonableness from the architect which I talked with Mr. Toole about but I haven't gotten it yet because there was some talk about negotiation regarding the price. Mr. Wall: This issue first presented itself last year. This was while Mr. Cullum was involved in the ligation, and one of his comments to the court is that he was concerned about the amount of space for attorney visitations. As a result of that discussion and upon Mr. Wilkerson's being appointed to represent the plaintiff's in that case we met and at that time there was expected to be a $20,000 cost savings for Beers Construction as a result of the relocation of some footings. And there was also this issue as to how to best design it. I met with Chief Toole and Les Wilkerson and reviewed plans and the architect was assigned the task of I finding some new visitation space. This is something that we basically agreed to support in the meeting that we had last year with the plaintiff's council last year and I recommend approval of it. The estimate given at the time was that there was expected to be a $20,000 off set, $20,000 cost savings from the footings and a $20,000 cost for this, so that it was expected to be a wash. Obviously, now the cost is $29,000, which is higher than was estimated, but that was a ball park figure that was given us last year. Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval, Mr. Chairman, subj ect to us having something from the Judge saying that we had to do this. I would also like the Citizens Advisory Committee input on this. And cost reasonable plans from the arhitect. Mr. Wall: The Judge never said we had to do this. The Judge approved the over all concept, he never has been furnished or asked to review the plans in details, as far as the space allocation. He's never looked at or mandated that. That was an issue that came up and Mr. Toole was in favor of it. Mr. Mays: We are getting down to the ninety day period now, does this look like, basically, the only type of change that's not, say so specifically Court ordered that we will probably see? Because I know you can't predict all these things when you're I starting out and look three years down the road. We have this thing totally back under control and rolling and I don't want somebody looking at black figures and coming down here every month . I I I with a lot of change orders. Mr. Wall: I can't say that there won't be any more, because I don't ~,ow. I have not been involved in any discussions of any further change orders. Mr. Oliver: I'm not aware of any. But I wouldn't be surprised if we did have another one or two. I will ask the architect to prepare a letter to you requesting any potential outstanding items that he foresees, because we are to that stage of the project. Mr. Mays: If it's in the building, I don't have a problem with that. But I'm saying in terms of some things that are not in that order and in the reprogramming process, then I do think that is a difference. And I think that all of us were present there, from my change over to then Chairman Sconyers, that we were so reminded by the judgement of times that we were dealing with building this jail, and not with a lot of other things that had to go in there. And I think change orders dealing with, that are in this specific court order, yes, we do have to follow them, whether we like it or not. But these other add ons that was supposedly had monitored even by plaintiffs attorneys to be changed, that's what I'm talking about. I don't think they need to be loaded on at the last minute. If they are necessities, yes, but if they are going to come on now at the last couple of months, then I think that we need to carefully scrutinize those. Mr. Todd: The bottom line as I see it is that we shouldn't let anyone, including the attorneys that represent the clients now under the disguise of court order make us add one penny to the jail project. Mr. Wall: There is no court order that says we have to add these attorneys the additional space. However, at the time Chief Toole and I met with Les Wilkerson, we went over some concerns the Judge told to go over concerns about various things; one was site distance, one was the issue about attorney visitation and there were several others. We sat down in my office and we went through those things and at the time it was expected to be a $20,000, cost savings and so far as some footings that had been drawn into the plan that were not going to be necessary. It was expected that the cost of these attorneys cells was going to be $20,000. I think Chief Toole was in agreement that this was something that could be very easily accommodated because the only thing that we were giving up was some storage space, that frankly was not being utilized. I was surprised at the $20,000, number because you were using useless space and to add this additional attorney visitation area. So it was planned from that point on that it would be coming. I don't know what happened to the cost savings in so far as the footings, whether that was in an earlier change order or whether that dropped out. But this is something that they asked for it seemed reasonable. It was something that wasn't going to cost a lot. It was going to be off set by other savings, and the architect was going to try and build that into the program. Mr. Brigham: I'll second the motion. I Motion carried with Mays voting no. A Request from the Fire Chief to approve expenditures renovations to office space in Augusta Riverfront Center relocation of Fire Department Administrative Offices at a cost to exceed $10,000. for for not Mr. Oliver: Chief Few has identified some spaces down at Riverfront Center that we have never really used, I was not aware of the space. He has worked out a situation with Mr. Mack where they will share a conference room on an as needed basis down there. He has a severe space problem. I'll give him credit, he has negotiated from $21,000 to less than $10,000, the cost of these improvements, with the people from the Fire Department doing part of the work to the extend that the property owner was comfortable with. The funds are budgeted and I would recommend approval. Mr. Kuhlke: So move. Mr. Mays: second. Mr. Zetterberg: You're not in the Riverfront? Chief Few: No, not yet. I Mr. Zetterberg: I did get a call from a constituent that wanted to know why we were putting our Fire Chief in a high price property on the Riverfront, and I just wanted to ask the question. Was there any move before you came? Chief Few: Yes, the previous identified, he understood that .when he thrust the two departments together, that then he didn't have enough room for all the staff. So what happened is, as the number got deficient, we did it out of our training department. So when we came back in, we reorganized the department then we found out that we don't really have enough space for anything. So we started looking for some space. I looked at free space. I didn't know what it cost, I look at it because it was free. Mr. Zetterberg: So the leasing agent is not going to charge us any more money for putting more in there? Mr. Oliver: We're paying for the space anyway. Chief Few: No, it's no additional cost. After further discussion; . Mr. Mays: I think that at this point if we are paying for something and it's empty, the most logical choice is to put something in it that can function wise be able to tie that department in to make it whole. The bottom line is economics. We I I I I are going to pay whether he is in it or somebody else is in it, but at this point nobody is in it, but we are still paying for unused space. Motion carried unanimously. A Discussion of funding source for "Crime Stoppers". Mr. Todd: I asked to have this put on the agenda to discuss the reward for violent and heinous crimes. I did not talk to Chief Hatfield but I did talk to Chief Strength and basically he said that he thought that it would take one man to do "Crime Stoppers". I have been out of town and we haven't gotten back together. After I put this on the agenda I learned that Mr. Howard and Ms. Thurmond from Blacks Against Black Crime had put it on the agenda to discuss the reward for violent or heinous crime. And there was some concerns from my constituents when we tried to do that initiative some time ago about what the cost would be of giving rewards. And the County Attorney had a concern about some legislation that a legislature -introduced this year in the General Assembly to prohibit Counties from giving rewards for the capture, arrest and conviction of folks that commit murders and heinous crimes. We give away in grants and we give away money in the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars and I don't think they passed any legislation against that. But we are trying to get a criminal off the street and we have legislation saying that we can't do it, which I think is ridiculous. But one way we can do this is through "Crime Stoppers". "Crime Stoppers" is usually run by your local law enforcement. Your local law enforcement is one of the entities that is designated to go through the Governor to get reward money. So if this officer that Chief Strength spoke of would be the officer that would prepare the paper work from the Governor, when we want to go to the Governor for reward money, that would look for other sources of monies to use for rewards, such as private sector, grant money, foundations or any other monies that maybe out there, including and hopefully the possibility of using some of the drug money that is seized from drug bust. Columbus, Ga., Houston, Texas and there are other cities throughout the country that uses Crime Stoppers to gather information or get folks to call information when there are crimes committed from petty crimes to the most severe crimes. So, this is a good concept, I know we will have to go to Finance for money. I am seeking the support of this Committee to support the concept and that we send it back to the Sheriff's Department to work out the details and we go to Finance the one individual that we will need to man this. Chief Strength has pretty much assured me that this will not grow into a dozen man situation, that they can man it on the weekend with the 911 answering service. During the week is when they will need someone there and that will be a person on one shift during the week. So all we are requesting is basically, one additional personnel to do this and we have fixed cost on this by doing it this way. This will cost us approximately $20,000 for a salary or whatever the starting salary is, plus benefits and possibility a vehicle to go out and interview folks. Mr. Kuhlke: I would like to make a motion that we accept Mr. I Todd's request as information, until we get all the details back. And refer this back to the Subcommittee that was appointed to look into the reward issue. I know that I'm on it and Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Todd: I've set on some committees that didn't function the way the chairman intended to, and I apologize and eventually we got the work done. And I would hope that this committee will get out there and get the work done. But because they haven't done the work I'm trying to do some myself and "Crime Stoppers" is the way to get around the concerns of the Commission offering rewards for crimes. The Sheriff's Department would offer those rewards. The funding source would be the Governors office and the funding would be private sector and possibly seized drug money. And that plays back into pretty much what "Weed and Seed" is about, taking money from criminals that they have made off the communities and put it back into those communities to weed out those bad elements. Mr. Mays: I don't really have a preference as to who the conduit is, I want to see it get done see it get established. Chief Hatfield is not in a total position and I wouldn't put him in that position to answer for the Sheriff's Department today. But it is something that 'we had a long discussion about. I think that the climate for law enforcement and for people who want to come to I together to do right period, is there they need all the support they can get. What I think the problem is and what I wanted to do was to make sure, and I think we can get this done by Tuesday, whether it's through one organization or another one, I think that with all the reinventing of the wheel that this has caused is to try and have more than one hole to crawl in. Whether it is through Blacks Against Black Crime or "Crime Stoppers" and my thing was if its going to be with every crime in dealing with a reward, then that's one thing. But I think the concentration in terms of homicides, is what we were talking about and particularly of being able to get people off the street before you start into retaliation type crime, to where you end up with a second or third death before anybody gets caught. You may say that's not good citizenship that you have to pay somebody to rollover on somebody else, but if that's the only way you can get some people, and in terms of doing that innovative type of thing, I think both the Chief and I agree that those are measures that you have to do. So, I certainly don't have a problem with it in terms of moving it on to a point that whether we do it through "Crime Stoppers", my only thing was that if you had a reward, and if that's the way that we have to get it done, was that adding on with the personnel, if that's the way that's got to come out of it to do it, then maybe, that's the only way we can get it done. I was just looking at it from an old fashioned way, that if you have $5,000 or $10,000, to put up, that they basically, from law enforcement,' would know who actually lead I them to a conviction, per say, and who they picked up, and if we had to use an outside agency as liaison in order to make it legal, then certainly no checks could be written or nothing could be done I I I unless the Sheriff's Department signed off on it period. And that was just the other alternative that I wanted to bring in there as to opposed to just saying, we hire somebody else at $20,000 to pay out $5,000 to find somebody. I realize that somebody has to coordinate everything but, quite frankly I guess in my mind I would want more than one somebody in a position that you could turn to. That's if it's going to be through liaison, if it's going to be through "Crime Stoppers" then I don't have a problem with it. But I think that we need to get off it and just move on. Mr. Zetterberg: What is the motion? Ms. Bonner: The motion is to receive this as information and refer to the reward subcommittee, and the members are Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Mays. After further discussion; Mr. Mays: Jim if we deal with this through "Crime Stoppers" standpoint, can that help get us off the legal hang-up? Mr. Wall: Yea. The prohibition and the statue is that the governing authority can only offer the reward in cases in which the Governor has first offered a reward and in such cases the amount offered by the local governing authority shall not exceed $25,000. So, if you fund another mechanism then it's that organization whatever it maybe. So I think that you can get around it that way. Mr. Mays: So if we want to kick in to do the starters with, then we can go ahead and do that, if we have the funds to do that. Mr. Wall: Right. Mr. Zetterberg: I certainly would like to hear what the of the Chief law enforcement was on this thing. When it back to Committee, I think that we would be very remised didn't include him as part of the input. input comes if we Mr. Oliver: If Mr. Wall and I may work with your committee maybe we can see if ~e can't get it back next time. Motion carried unanimously. A Request from the Sheriff's Department to Appoint P. A. Williams, Sheriff's Department to the LEPC to complete the current three year term for Major Richard Weaver, Sheriff's Dept., which will expire in April 1998. Mr. Zetterberg: So move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Motion carried unanimously. With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission bjb I I I