Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-30-1997 Called Meeting CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS December 30, 1997 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m., Tuesday, December 30, 1997, the Honorables Freddie Handy, Mayor Pro Tem and Larry Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, Commissioners 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. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Before we get started, the Mayor is absent because he is attending the funeral of a dear friend. Ms. Bonner, do we have any deletions or additions, please? CLERK: No, sir. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Okay. Ready for Item Number 1? CLERK: Item 1: S-554, AUGUSTA EXCHANGE, PHASE II, FINAL PLAT, request for concurrence with the Planning Commission to approve a petition from Southern Partners, on behalf of Timberlake and Abernathy, requesting final plat approval for Augusta Exchange, Robert C. Daniel, Jr. Parkway, and Wheeler Road, consisting of eight lots and a new roadway, Exchange Drive. Approved by the Planning Commission December 22, 1997. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move to approve. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Any discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, vote by the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 2: Motion to approve amendments to the 1945 and 1977 County pension plan to conform to the 1949 City Pension Plan, so as to make investment policies uniform. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move to approve. MR. BRIDGES: Second. Randy, as I understand this, this strictly effects in the investment plans and we're not trying to combine these pension plans or make them one, they all will remain on their own funds? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. All it does is standardize the investment policy among the plans, but each plan stands on its own merits. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, vote by the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 3: Motion to approve a Resolution exercising the option to extend term of Public Purpose Lease with Richmond County Public Facilities, Inc. for a period of one year (COPS issue). MR. J. BRIGHAM: Move to approve. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. WALL: Under the COPS issue we're required annually to renew the lease, and it's a part of the documents just indicating that the money has been budgeted for the lease payments for the coming year. And this is something we've done each year and need to do again by year end. Recommend approval on it. MR. TODD: The Public Facilities Committee has met and they are in support of this? MR. WALL: Well, the Public Facilities Corporation, the board of directors of it has not met, but it's up to this body. We're the ones that would be renewing the lease. MR. TODD: We need them to meet. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor, vote by the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 4: Motion to approve an Ordinance amending the Augusta- Richmond County Code to provide a 1-cent increase in the Hotel/Motel Tax and to amend the contract with the CVB to provide for distribution of the increase. MR. KUHLKE: I so move. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. WALL: Let me just point out that insofar as the committee makeup is concerned, that that has not changed. However, as a result of discussions this morning with Barry White in order to clarify some of the language and to make the terms consistent with what is in the bylaws for the CVB, the staggering of the terms, that language has changed a little bit. With the two Commissioners, they're on the staggered terms already under the CVB board of directors, and so that change was made. Also, since the Mayor Pro Tem is selected annually, there was some ambiguity in that sentence and that was clarified. But the membership did not change from what you had, but that language was corrected a little bit. MR. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners all, and public all, I'd just like to remind the Commissioners and everybody else that whatever is done today is not going to be satisfactory to a large segment of the population regardless of what you do. So if there's no way other than to do whatever you're doing today, I just want you to remember, whether you are positive or negative with it, that what you are doing is supposed to be serving the community. And if you in good conscience think you're serving the community by doing this, then you ought to go forward. If you in good conscience got any question as to whether you're serving the community, you ought to hold it up until you make up your mind clearly. Now, as far as I'm concerned, there's too many loose ends hanging in this government for us to take and draw -- you or me or anybody else to draw any conclusions that this is going anywhere towards straightening any of them out, that we are already obligated for so damned much money till it's pitiful. And unless we can find a way to get a handle on it -- you got a budget that you got to approve and you got a lot of other things going on. And if you do this, then you're going to be living with it. All of you up here except Mr. Zetterberg, and Steve Sheppard is standing over there in the corner, are going to be here for the next two years and half of you are going to be here for the next four years, so I'll remind you that it's going to come back to haunt you if you don't take and handle it and be able to justify what you're doing. And it's just around the corner, and soon as you try to implement it you're going to have some flack from some corners. And if you want that flack, then hit it. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak against this motion. There's been a lot of discussion on this tax back and forth, and I don't have a lot of problem with how it's going to be distributed and who's going to make up the committee or anything like that. I think if it passes, I think that's a good distribution as far as that goes. My problem with this is the tax itself. We've heard a lot about this is a tax that doesn't hurt. There's no such thing as a tax that does not hurt. I mean, it just doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a free lunch. And we don't need to fool ourselves, we are not taxing tourists in this case with this tax. In some of the previous hearings, one of the representatives of the motel industry said that of the leisure travelers that stay at his motel, it's probably about twenty- five percent of the total, which means that the other seventy-five percent is made up of those that are involved with industry or trade or sales or in town for the week or weekend or whatever to conduct business or for other reasons usually involved with this. And so this is really -- more than anything, it's a tax on industry, it's a tax on business. It's not a tax on tourists, not yet. We don't have the number of tourists coming to Augusta yet to justify this as a tourist tax. So what this does is, if a salesman is coming into town to try and sell you something in your business or in my business or whatever, we're just increasing the cost of his doing business and he's simply going to pass it on to us. So all we're doing is we're funding this tax ourselves. I mean, the consumer is the one that is going to pay for this. It's not going to be the tourist passing through because we just don't have the tourists coming to Augusta yet. We will one day. I mean, we'll be there, but we're not there yet. We've heard a lot of discussion about Miami has a motel/ hotel tax that's one point higher than ours, and Jacksonville and Atlanta and these other places, and so we need to raise our tax up so we can meet them. Maybe rather than following these other municipalities, maybe we ought to institute and see if we can't cut our motel/hotel tax and see if they'll follow us, see if they'll emulate us, rather than -- I just don't see the rush to emulate these municipalities that are bent on increasing taxes, be it motel/hotel or whatever. And what I fear we're doing here is rather than helping ourselves as far as tourism goes, we're probably hurting ourselves because we're increasing the cost that those people that we want to pay for this tax, which is tourists, will have to pay if they come here. And we've got on the agenda another item to discuss of whether to impose an additional excise tax on rental vehicles such as out at Bush Field, and so what we're discussing here today is these two taxes. So we've got somebody, they're going to fly in from wherever and they're going to land at Bush Field, they're going to rent a car and they're going to go down to the motel and they're going to stay there a night or two, and we're going to put a couple of additional taxes on them if both of these measures pass. So basically the message that we're sending out to these people: if you want to come visit us, we welcome you, but be prepared to pay for it. So at this time I don't think that this is a good measure. I don't think it's wise, I don't think it's judicious, I don't think it would be prudent of us to place this tax on industry or an additional hinderance on tourism at this time, and I hope my colleagues will vote against it. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of the motion, vote by the usual sign. MR. BRIDGES, MR. HANDY, MR. POWELL & MR. TODD VOTE NO. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION FAILS 5-4-1. CLERK: Item 5: Motion to extend option agreement for the sale of Olde Town properties. MR. WALL: Gentlemen, y'all had previously granted an extension of the option to close out the sale of the Olde Town properties through December 31. There is still considerable discussion going on with the state insofar as the tax credits and the ultimate documents that will be agreed upon. The Limited Partnership Group has agreed to pay an additional $5,000 to extend the contract period until March the 5th. We need that additional time to try to bring this thing to resolution and get everything worked out, and we recommend approval on it. MR. BEARD: I so move. MR. TODD: I'm going to second it to get it on the floor, but I think we need to start looking at the possibility of [inaudible]. MR. OLIVER: Commissioner Todd, they have been working diligently on their financing and they have gotten commitments from the state. We have not seen the written commitments, but we've gotten verbal assurances relating to the financial commitments and also relating to the tax credits. Frankly, we believe that it's just a matter of the details being put together. What Mr. Wall and I are communicating to them is that we desire some earnest money, but we anticipate and we plan for this to close by -- I believe it's March the 3rd, isn't it, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: March 5th. A simultaneous closing with the state is what we're anticipating. MR. TODD: What is this costing the county government? Are we still making payments? MR. WALL: Yes, we are currently making payments. I mean, we're paying $200,000 annually that we are hopefully going to get out from under. MR. OLIVER: But I will say this, the appraised value of the property is less than the mortgage on it. We would hope within the next week to ten days to have a final agreement. We got an agreement in this morning, but we have not had time to work the details out in that agreement, and so we can't provide it to you. But, you know, at initial glance we believe it's close to what we thought it was going to be, but we need to make sure all parties including HUD agree. And all we're asking for is to extend to give us the opportunity to work those details out and to secure HUD approval as well as the opportunity for this particular firm to get the final approvals on the funding from the state. MR. MAYS: I guess part of my question is to Mr. Oliver. I hear we cannot necessarily get, whether it be individuals or another entity [inaudible], but one of the reasons I would say that maybe some others backed off of that situation, and one of the concerns, and I know Lee probably has met more than anybody else in reference to neighborhood associations on keeping that Olde Town. With the delays that are there, are we pretty certain that we're going to be able to close out? I know some of the questions that have been presented to us in terms of other options, particularly -- and they are quite concerned about it, and I'm just wondering, you know, if we agree to another extension going into that, you know, worrying about not only, you know, who was in and the status of being able to maintain those properties, but also from investment standpoint whether or not we, you know, plan to -- you know, even with them, you know, helping in that process, are they being informed as we're moving along with this, because that was one of their concerns, you know, that they felt kind of out of that process, and they pretty much had backed off probably from criticism if it was going to be closed out and that was the only way, you know, that we were going to go. But, I mean, for one thing, with another delay in there, you know, if we should not at least from a communication basis, you know, work with their president in terms of what's going on, you know, with this thing, because there are some serious concerns about this thing, whether or not it's a history repeat in the making. MR. OLIVER: We can arrange a meeting with the neighborhood association to present, you know, the plan update. The reality is, because of the federal tax code and the tax credits that are available on this property, that doing a commercial venture this way is really the only financial way to do it, and it's set that way because of the code. MR. MAYS: That would be helpful. MR. OLIVER: Okay. We'll do that. MR. WALL: There are some details that are going to have to be worked out with the state, and I think that that's probably going to require a face-to- face meeting with them in order to coordinate the closing. As Mr. Oliver indicated, we got in this morning a draft that would basically incorporate some amendments that would be needed in order to -- amendments to the existing agreement that would be needed in order to carry out the financing package that we're talking about. We have had numerous meetings. I think they're acting in good faith. I think they would acknowledge that we're acting in good faith. It is just a complicated matter to bring to a conclusion with the tax credits and the documentation that should have been in existence from the previous manager that has slowed the process down somewhat to determine what benefit, if any, could be obtained through that. And the state was somewhat slow in giving their assurances, there's some additional assurances that they need, and we're all working toward the same goal, but it has been a time- consuming process. MR. BEARD: What I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is that, you know, we haven't had a whole lot of people knocking down the barn door trying to get this property. Wherein I do agree that the neighborhood associations down there need to be informed of where we are, but we do think that this is a good opportunity to really make a win-win situation for everybody down there. And I think that -- you know, we're asking for a month or two, and this is not necessarily going against the grain to do that when you have the final sale and the amount of money that is being spent out annually on this property, the deterioration of that property. So if we have people who are interested and we think that we have an opportunity to advance this sale, I really think that we should give them the opportunity to do that. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I want to make a substitute motion that we get a final contract by the end of January, 31st of January, and we close it on March the 5th. If we haven't got a contract by the end of January, that we look for other options. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion. Mr. Mayor, I'll make mine short and brief on the substitute motion. We've been working on this issue I guess around a year and it's cost us a lot of money. The figures that the Administrator and the County Attorney has given us is almost a quarter of a million dollars, and it's time to move on with [inaudible]. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Mr. Brigham [inaudible] 6th is that Friday, want to make it the beginning of the week? MR. J. BRIGHAM: I said the 31st of January to get a time track. They asked for the 5th of March. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: 31st of January is on Saturday also. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, if you want to, we'll make it the 30th of January. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Okay. We'll have to make it the 30th because the 31st is a Saturday. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Chairman, could I hear from some of the staff as far as their recommendation on the substitute motion, maybe George Patty or whoever is handling that? MR. OLIVER: We don't see that as a problem at all. Mr. Patty, Mr. Wall, and myself have been the three principal parties involved, and I don't see that as a problem. I believe Mr. Sherrouse is here representing the development company. And I don't see a problem -- the most difficult part of this approval to get is going to be a definitive delinea-tion from HUD agreeing to what we're proposing, but I think it's doable. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: All in favor of the motion, vote by the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT] CLERK: Item 6: Discussion of appointments to the Richmond County Board of Health. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Chairman, as y'alls representative on the Board of Health, I'd like to nominate Harvey L. Johnson and Jack Padgett, Jr. to the two vacancies on the Board of Health. MR. TODD: I'll second that motion. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I just want to ask one question. Mr. Brigham, you said there's two vacancies? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And they're nominating these two people? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Both of them are new people that's going on? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: All in favor of the motion, vote by the usual sign. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS; MR. POWELL OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, let the record show that because of pending litigation, that I will refrain and abstain from voting on any of the nominees in order to maintain a neutral balance and no presence of conflict of interest, even though I cannot say the same about some of the activities of the Board of Health. Thank you. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Well noted, Mr. Mays. CLERK: Item 7: A Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to make no changes in the Consolidation Act without a prior Resolution in support of same by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. MR. BEARD: I so move. MR. KUHLKE: I second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak against this resolution. I would like to, though, commend Mr. Beard for his initiative and attempt to establish some dialogue between the Commission and the legislative delegation, but I don't think we need to do that with this resolution. I think any of the ten of us could ask that we be allowed to speak with the delegation. I believe they will be happy to do it. Of course, we're doing that Friday and I think we could have done it much sooner to get any disagreements we may have ironed out before they go back into session. And I don't really have a problem with the resolution itself other than it could appear or could be interpreted as being somewhat confrontational with the statement that they are not to act without a resolution having been adopted or action taken by us as a Commission. The legislators are elected just like we are, they serve constituents just like we do, they listen to those constituents just like we do, and they act on that. And every one of us up here has contacted individual legislators and campaigned for particular issues that come to the legislative session. There are some changes to the Consolidation Act that the legislators cannot do without a referendum from the people, based on what I under-stand from the Georgia Constitution. We can make some changes to it, based on our rights as a Commission, and they obviously have the right to make some changes that they see fit. Basically, they created us, and I don't think we need -- I think we need to have a dialogue with them and I think we can do that by taking the initiative ourselves. I don't think they have to have a resolution from us before they can take action as an elected representative, and I would ask that we not support this resolution as proposed. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly feel that they are elected and we are elected. We are the lowest form of legislators, I guess, in the sense that we're a city; and in the sense that we're a dual city-county responsibility, we're the second layer, you know, so we're the two layers of legislators under a legislative delegation. We're also constitutional officers as far as being city-county commissioners on the county side, and we are a dual government. And it's my opinion from what I've read of the State Constitution -- and depending on whether you're speaking on a consolidated government or a reorganized government it make a difference. They got to come to this body and have a resolution from this body in order to do it. Now, this body, nor the former city, has a resolution calling for a reorganized government, but they blessed us with one anyway. We've got that to deal with, and we're going to deal with this budget, and we've dealt with taxes and we've dealt with equalization of pay, equalization of water rates and everything else. Well, I don't want to be blessed with anything else that don't come from this level of legislative government. I feel that they have a responsibility regardless of which one they go by. One, they got to have a resolution; the other, they got to give us a notice that they're going to take certain actions. And as most of us know, those that work with other delegations throughout the state as far as county delegations and city delegations, we usually come out better when the local legisla-tors go to Atlanta and do nothing as far as local legislation go. There's been some comments in the past about a former legislator we had that never passed a bill. Well, I thank God for that legislator that never passed a bill that put a mandate on a local government and, you know, we need more like that. They need to listen to us. We know what works best at the local level. If they're talking about statewide legislation, then --that's what they're elected for, to go to Atlanta and pass legislation that affects statewide issues. I lobby them on statewide issues from ACCG Environmental Committee and help some of the other committees lobby them. We lobbied them for state-wide legislation on per diem for housing state prisoners, et cetera, and working on it again. Mr. Mays was chairman of the Public Safety Committee when we were able to get them to increase that to 12.50 and we're trying to go, I guess, to fifteen now. That's where the state legislators should go and listen to individuals and constituents and deal with statewide issues, and any other issues should come to the local level from the constituents and go up from the local level to the next level of legislature. And they have no more right to go and pass local legislation that's going to affect our ability to govern and to operate this government than the federal have to pass legislation that's going to impact or have a unfunded mandate on state government, and I'll tell them that when we meet. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, vote by the usual sign. MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. POWELL VOTE NO. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. CLERK: Item 8: Motion to approve the Augusta Golf Course Improvement Plan in the amount of $1,731,804 (with debt services paid from golf course revenues), to hire James G. Swift & Associates for all professional services for the project in the amount of $137,014, and to approve a Resolution of intent to make capital improvements financed in the form of tax exempt revenue bonds. Approved by the Public Services Committee subject to an adequate and acceptable revenue bond package. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that we approve the improvements at the Augusta Golf Course, and that we hire James G. Swift & Associates to do the design work, but that we handle this through a revenue bond financing -- that we handle the financing of this project through a COPS program. The reason that I make that motion is that it's difficult to put together a revenue bond package with a golf course that we have inconsistent income and you really can't pledge that and it's very difficult to place it with either a banking institution or a brokerage house. So I'd like to make that motion and include in that motion that we ask the County Attorney to proceed with all of the legal work required to finance this through a COPS financing program. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'll second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Chairman, I've got some questions, I guess of Mr. Wall maybe. The COPS issue, there was some abuse of that admitted in the past, and I understand the legislature put some curtailment on how much or what length - - how many dollars per issue you could do or what length of time you had to pay it back. Am I mistaken in that? MR. WALL: There was a proposal to limit the COPS issue to a million dollars, where you couldn't do it in excess of a million dollars; however, that has never passed the General Assembly. It was proposed, but it has not passed. MR. BRIDGES: What length of time are we looking at as far as paying this back if this is issued? MR. WALL: Fifteen years. MR. POWELL: Mr. Wall, you say the certificate of parti-cipation is for fifteen years. What is the amount of interest that we get accrued on that? MR. WALL: I don't have that information because we have not pursued tying down an interest rate at this point in time for a COPS issue. There were discussions insofar as revenue pledging and doing it as a revenue bond, and there was a range given of interest rates that might be available under that scenario; however, we have not -- I have not gone to the point of discussing with local banks what interest rate they would commit to insofar as a COPS package is concerned. MR. POWELL: So, in other words, what's being proposed here is you're asking us to take out a loan and we don't even know how much we're going to have to pay back? MR. WALL: Well, as I interpret the motion, the ultimate details would be brought back to you for approval and, you know, the resolution and all the documents would be subject to your approval at that point in time. So this would not be the final action that is necessary to carry it forward, it would just initiate the process in order to work out the details and draw up the paperwork, et cetera. MR. ZETTERBERG: I just wanted to ask Mr. Beck, have you done any more work on that revenue stream, what it looks like and how the revenue stream makes the COPS a viable option? MR. BECK: Yes, sir. Guy Reed, our new manager and head pro, is here too, and he has informed me that as of today we do have revenues in excess of 450,000, which in our package we had projected 420,000 so our revenues are looking very good. Mr. Powell, in our proposal we did base that on eight percent interest, which we felt like was a high yield. MR. OLIVER: It's about 170,000 a year, roughly speaking. That's principal and interest. MR. KUHLKE: In the discussions with the banks, Mr. Powell, with the revenue approach they were talking somewhere in the neighborhood of about six percent, which is about two and a half percent less than what Mr. Beck [inaudible]. But that was a situation where they couldn't really give us the best rate because of the situation not being able to pledge the course. So I think if you go with a COPS program, that you would be looking probably better than that. But my motion, Mr. Powell, just says to approve it and for the County Attorney to come back to this body with a final recommendation in regards to the COPS so that we have all of the details. MR. MAYS: And I cast the vote in committee to tilt it to get it to this point, and we were concerned about keeping the project alive. One of the things I think that we've got to be very, very clear on is that whatever is presented, a certificate of participation program -- and Mr. Bridges mentioned earlier in reference to the abuse, and one of the things that came up about the proposed legislation there was defeated in committee and it never came out that was at that time introduced by our own representative of -- Senator Don Cheeks. And I sat on the joint ACCG-GMA committee that met together to fight that resolution mainly because there were other cities and counties outside of Augusta, Georgia. It was a different world and everybody in those governmental associations didn't feel that way. But one thing that was clear in the language of it, even to those of us who supported keeping the COPS issue alive and fighting the limitation on it, was that we be very clear on what we were doing and to make sure that those criticisms didn't pop up again. I'm glad it's to this point, and I said out of committee I'd keep it alive with my vote to get it here. Now, I'm going to reserve voting until it comes back on what you've drawn up for this reason. When we were talking about spending four million dollars at that time, which would have built the Board of Health in the Twiggs Street properties, on vacant land and tearing down two to three abandoned houses and an old fish market -- and the properties at that time were going to cost less than a half million dollars to buy, and the Board of Health could have been built at that time for better than four million dollars. The County Commission at that time, along with the city at that time of not buying the properties -- because they were to buy the property, we at that time would have provi-ded the building and provide the funds. I'm saying that to say that we're not the only ones who have memories. People have memories, too. Now, if we're going to do this thing on COPS, we need to do it right. We ought to remember what we said a few years ago, too. We were advised at that time that in terms of putting certain things under COPS, Jim, that there were things that were deemed suitable that would go in that people wanted to do. Now, we're doing a Board of Health right now that the building alone -- that project is going to cost seven million dollars, three million different than if we had put it in with the COPS project along with the jail. And I argued until I turned pink, and that's a hell of a lot of arguing, and I lost that battle, as y'all remember. And Henry supported me on it, but we got the devil whipped out of us, and three million dollars later, three to four years later, now we deal with putting a golf course in certificates of participation. Now, out of necessity of what you would have, I'm sure that a place of public health would be around just as long as a place to play golf. Now, I look at the prudency of where you deal with that money. Now, I'm not saying that this is a bad direction if we can't go anywhere else other than to get the funding, but I just want my colleagues to know that more folk listen to what we do other than the dummy that's arguing with you today. We're three million dollars different for not putting it in with the jail, even though the jail had delays, but I think there were positive things in putting it into that COPS project because you can attest to the fact we opened five months early, two million dollars under budget, and we had a way in order to pay for it. And I just want that put in there for the record that I don't want to see us as a government juggling and playing games with what projects we do with certificates of participation and as the winds change and the choices change we put in what we want to put in and then now all of a sudden it's a easy way in order to do this. Well, out of one of the most --and I guess probably, yeah, maybe I will be a little personal about it. Tearing out one of the most historical areas of this city and displacement of a total neighborhood in terms of what you're going to acquire for a million dollars, when we could have taken vacant land at that time under a COPS project right down the street and bought it for fifty-five percent less than what we're doing on Laney-Walker right now, and three million dollars difference in the total project if we had put that in. But we were told that we could not do that and it was unacceptable. I find it a little hard to stomach sitting here today, and I was sitting in the same position then, being told today I can do this for a pleasure source, but I couldn't do it then as a point of necessity. Mr. Mayor, that's all I want to make for the record. I'm going to abstain from voting for it. I'll refrain in terms of where I'll cast my vote when the County Attorney brings it back, and the Administrator, of how this is put together. But I would be very remiss in my job if I did not bring that up and remind people of what took place at that time and the amount of money that we have spent on what we said we could not do, and yet today we're probably about three and a half million dollars difference in the same project that we could have saved. MR. J. BRIGHAM: This is a matter of financing and a matter of financing of this organization. It is not, in my opinion, a choice that I want to make. If we look into the tools that we have to work with, we have very limited options, and Mr. Mays and the rest of my colleagues know this. I think that this community wants to support public golf and I think they want to have a respectable public golf course. They either want to wait and do it in the future or they want it now. Well, if we want it now, we're going to finance it. If we want to finance it, this is the only tool or method that I know of that's in our bag of tools to choose from. This is not a course of action that I want to take. I'd much rather go the revenue route. In fact, I would vote the revenue route right now. I'm voting for this route because it's the only route that I have open to me. But I think this is what this community wants. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. If I'm reading it wrong, then I'm willing to back up and change my vote. But if they don't want it, then we don't need to do it. We can wait. We might get it in 2005, we might get it in 2010. We know that golf is the up and coming game, we know that golf is known worldwide, and we know the name of Augusta, Georgia, is associated with it throughout this world. And, yes, we've got the Cabbage Patch. That's our one municipal golf course. That's the only public golf course we've got. Now, we can either upgrade it or we can leave it like it is. Everybody wants to keep talking about how good and how great Augusta, Georgia, is and what we are known for and what we're attracting people. But we're known for golf and we attract golfers, and if we had to depend on our municipal golf course for bringing tourists to town, it wouldn't do it. Now, if we're going to finance it, let's finance it. If we're not going to finance it, put it off for the future, let's do that, let's don't keep dragging this thing on. And that's the way I feel. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to put in perspective what brought about the proposed legislation to limit governments --or do away with COPS and limit governments. I think Mr. Mays and Mr. Bridges probably had it somewhat close, but not the real reason, and I'd like to put that reason out there. I also, with Mr. Mays, worked with and I guess lobbied against, made a lot of long distance phone calls, against the original COPS. I met in Washington, D.C., with a bond attorney, John Mobley, probably the legal authority in the state of Georgia, on it. And it's my understanding from conversations with Senator Cheeks, if I recollect, and others that was opposed to COPS, was that they felt it was a way to circumvent taxpayers that would have the obligation of the debt and not go out for a bond referendum. Well, that was the issue. And I think that we can clear that up on this issue of whether we go out by having some public hearings. That possibly should be in the motion, that we do two public hearings, even though we're not required to do by law. But most COPS issues never come before the public in this setting. Usually, you know, it's done -- and there's a vote on it, but usually that vote, you know, is something added to the agenda and it's voted on without most of the public knowing about it. And it's certainly not done at a budget hearing like we're having today when we have a lot of interested parties attending. So that was the issue and that was the concern. I could have supported legislation calling for a public hearing just like you have for a bond referendum by the voters and not tie the government's hand on doing a COPS if the government had a emergency situation where they need to go out for a certificate of participation. Now, that was the difference, you know, at least where I stood on that issue when I debated it then and when I debate it now. I'm not opposed to using a COPS, period. I do think the public need to know what we're doing and why we're doing it. I think that we possibly need public hearings to communicate, and from that point I don't have a problem with it. MR. POWELL: I think what we're looking at here, gentlemen, is necessity versus luxury. We're talking about 1.7 million in taxpayers' money. Last week we had the whole community up in arms because we were fixing to raise taxes. Now we're going out here and -- one of my colleagues has referred to a certificate of participation as a tool. Well, I'm not going to use that tool because I don't have it in my toolbox. I think what we need to do is if we want to spend money on a luxury, let's take it out here to the public. Let the public approve whether or not they want to go up on -- make this expenditure and be responsible for this debt if everything goes south out there. And let the public decide. Let's take it out there to some town meetings, let's get some public input, but don't take the public's credit for it and just use it at will and then say here's the bill. When I was running for this office, one of the things I pledged I wouldn't do was vote for a certificate of participation. I've been here three years and I haven't done it and I'm not going to start today. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like a clarification of why, Bill, you want to go with the COPS rather than the revenue. What was the purpose again? MR. KUHLKE: Two reasons. One is that we were having a lot of difficulty in trying to work it as a revenue bond because, under the scenario we've got, we can't pledge the property; and, consequently, the banks have no security, the brokerage houses could not give any security to people that might purchase the bond. And I think the other thing, and this is something that may happen or may not happen, but a revenue bond cannot be repaid from sales tax revenue. A COPS can, or a general revenue bond can be repaid by COPS. In three years we will be going into another issue of the sales tax. The possibility does exist at that point that you may be able to pay this COPS off. But I'm not presenting it that way because that's speculation that we'll have an extension of the sales tax. The other thing is that the income stream that Mr. Beck and Recreation Department presented to our committee shows that the -- while Mr. Powell said the taxpayers are paying this off, the income stream from the golf course will amortize the COPS note over a fifteen year period of time. So the worst case scenario, if you wanted to look at it this way, is that we would be in this COPS for fifteen years for the golf course. So that's the reason -- MR. BRIDGES: But the income is coming from the golf course. It's being paid from that revenue and not from the General Fund? MR. KUHLKE: That's right. Now, those funds, and Mr. Oliver can correct me, if you go through a COPS program, all of the income comes to the General Fund. And then, of course, the city, what they do is -- if that particular golf course goes into Public Facilities, Inc., then we lease it back, all of the funding comes to the General Fund and then we pay that out of the revenues of the golf course. So that's the reason to go with the COPS, because it was difficult to go -- it was almost impossible to go the other way without paying an extremely high interest rate. You get your best interest rate through the COPS program. You pay a little bit more up front because of legal costs, but in the long term you come out better. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Beck can give the exact number, but we're more than $170,000 to the good. MR. TODD: I'll make mine very brief, Mr. Chairman. I pointed out why the public and the Senator had a problem with the COPS, but if you're dealing with a enterprise fund you can do a revenue bond without going to the voters. We have that right now, okay? And it's my understanding, and I hope that this is included in this motion and resolution, that we're designating the golf course as a enterprise operation just like the Landfill or Water Works. And when you have that, you don't need to go out for a referendum to borrow money. This body and the trustees sitting here can do that, and I wanted to point that out. But I still would like to, you know, see whether the maker of the motion and the seconder of the motion will accept an amendment that we have at least two public hearings. MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that. MR. TODD: Thank you. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Todd brought up the point that the golf course be an enterprise fund, and I think that's important for the public to understand. We're not going to be taking these monies out of general revenue. The golf course as an enterprise fund, we're not putting money into the golf course -- public money in. It's going to be self-sustaining. The money to pay off the improvements will be done by the golf course, so it is not a drain on public taxpayers' money -- as long as everything is okay. I think conservative estimates would say that golf has a future in our country and I believe the improvements in the golf course would significantly enhance the revenue stream. And there's nothing inherently evil in COPS, as some people might would like to make it out. I mean, it's just a financing tool, that's all it is. And it can be misused and it has been misused, but certainly this project is not one considering the golf course is an enterprise fund. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mine is in the form of a question to Mr. Beck. You might have said it, but I've heard several figures being thrown around. I imagine this is one of the better years you've had. You said it was possibly $450,000? MR. BECK: Yes, sir. We've taken in revenues in excess of 450,000 this year. Our net revenues, revenue over expenses, is approximately 175,000, and it's those funds that we will have on an annual basis that will retire this debt over fifteen years and still give us a capital fund for other types of equipment needs that we would have to operate the course. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Has there been some improvement going on out there, ongoing as it stands now? I think that's important. What is was two years ago, say, and what we are doing at this particular time. MR. BECK: Yes, sir. I would say probably the biggest improvement is how our staff has managed the course. It's been a tremendous improvement in management. As far as the course itself, there hasn't been any improvements other than, I think, just the maintenance of what's there has improved. And it has brought some more people out to play the course just in the condition it's in now. With these improvements, we feel very strongly that it will improve golf and will bring in the revenues to support it. MR. TODD: Call for a roll call vote, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Roll call vote, Ms. Bonner. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Madame Clerk, would you let my vote be recorded as present. Since I got it to this point, kept it alive, and led the fight to keep it public, now I'll leave it to these other fellows to draw the document and put it together and I'll vote when they bring it back. Thank you. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1. CLERK: Item 9: Motion to approve a request to submit a pre- application for federal assistance for a project to demolish the golf course clubhouse. MR. TODD: So move. MR. OLIVER: I would suggest you may wish to consider postponing 9 and 10 until Number 8 is a completed transaction. MR. KUHLKE: They're tied together. MR. TODD: No problem. I'll move that we postpone until we can tie them back together. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Well, why don't we just go ahead on and table that and still tie them together. It's subject to Number 8, we can't do it anyway, so we'll go on and move it out of the way. MR. TODD: So move. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. CLERK: Mr. Todd, would that include Item 10, too, your motion? MR. TODD: Yes. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I'll vote present on that one, too, in case some fool decides to tear down the clubhouse we got and they don't get the plan worked out, and then somebody decides to make us put in one anyway. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: All in favor of the motion, vote by the usual sign. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. CLERK: Item 11: Alcohol Hearing for Coconuts NightClub, 469 Highland Avenue, Augusta, Georgia, regarding review of Alcohol License and the possibility of probation. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: State your name. MR. BROOME: Charlie Broome. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Address? MR. BROOME: The business is 469 Highland Avenue. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: And your address personally? MR. BROOME: 3522 Mount Vernon Drive. DETECTIVE BERRY: We had this put on the agenda. We need some help [inaudible]. Myself, I have run up there several times and spoke with him about a number of fights that was happening at this location. They had approximately nine or ten fights from November the 6th through December the 7th. Also, we received information that underage individuals enter through the back door of the business. On December the 10th we sent an individual to the back door. He was under age. He went inside and purchased alcohol from three different bartenders. At that time they were cited -- they were cited a couple of days later, the bartenders were, and therefore we requested that it be placed on the agenda and brought to your attention and, you know [inaudible] put them on probation for, you know, at least a year. MR. TODD: Is this the first time that they've been cited? DETECTIVE BERRY: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we give them one year probation. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. BROOME: On the fighting situation, we have doubled our security the past month inside and out, and we changed our dress code, which is -- there's a lot of undesirables out there. And I attribute this to the bigger crowd that we've started getting [inaudible] more or less just doubled our patronage. And we've did everything we could, and Mr. Berry can tell you that, everything possible to stop the fighting. As far as going in the back door he's talking about, we had deputies back there, they walked off and left the back door. That's how they got in the back door. We have deputies on the front and the back door, two deputies -- one deputy on the front door, one deputy on the back door, and two deputies roaming the crowd to keep control of the crowd, and we haven't had any problems in the last three months. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question would be in the sense that the deputy worked for the owner on a special, did the owner fire the deputy that didn't do his job? MR. BROOME: That's easier said than done. MR. TODD: Well, I'm not making the motion because of the fights. You know, I've been in a few of them myself [inaudible]. But there is not an excuse for the minor coming in the back door and the minor being able to purchase alcohol once the minor get in, and that's the reason for the probation for one year. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question for Jim. We passed a resolution or I thought we passed a resolution that in instances like this, first, second, third time, you go through -- MR. WALL: One year probation on the first offense. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Okay, if no other discussion, prepare to vote. Vote by the usual sign. MOTION CARRIES 10-0. CLERK: Item 12: Motion to approve KMC as account manager of our current BellSouth services. This is a "conversion as is" and all services will remain the same. This will result in a savings of $205,256 over the next 12 months. MR. KUHLKE: So move. MR. ZETTERBERG: Second. MR. BRIDGES: I'll just make a substitute motion that we approve to continue with BellSouth as our communications manager. MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion. MR. MAYS: What I was going to ask, just on a point of order, and I guess my question is about Item 12 and Item 14. Are they a part of the configuration of the budget number that we are going to have to deal with, approve or not approve? And I'm just wondering whether or not, you know, in terms of we got to deal with 13, and are we factoring numbers coming out of Items 12 and 14 into what we've got to deal with on 13 and whether we can handle 12 prior to handling 13, just as a point of order. I'm just asking the question. MR. OLIVER: That's a good question. The budget is predicated on accepting the greater savings and also on proposing the three percent excise tax on vehicle rentals. If those actions do not take place, then we have to make additional cuts within the budget. MR. BRIDGES: I want to speak to the -- ask for support of the substitute motion. Southern Bell has been part of this community for a long time. They've been very active and supportive of the community and of the -- have been very congenial with the Commission any time we've requested their aid and assistance in the past. Now, a question came up yesterday when we were in the Finance meeting concerning a three percent franchise fee on Southern Bell's lines out to the county. The question was raised does that have anything to do with this motion. Well, technically they're separate, but I think Southern Bell's willingness to have the three percent imposed on them countywide when they know by tariff regulations or laws or whatever, that they could have fought that. Might not have won, I don't know if they would or not. But they were willing to be supportive of us in this case and add an additional $700,000 a year to our budget as revenue. We're discussing here adding over a three year period $100,000 each year. Now, I think we have to look at cost and I think what we're looking at here is a savings either way, and I think the franchise fees in particular is a great savings, but I think we have to look at service as well. I don't see a benefit in having a middle man, adding another level of contact or, if it was not in government, a level of bureaucracy involved in a service. I think we've got to look at service. We're going to maintain Southern Bell as 911, yet Sheriff and Fire and --those are emergency and very necessary communication services as well, and I think we have to look at what we're going to get for our money. Sometimes on paper it may look like you're saving money, but when you actually get out there and have to work with something and deal with something, it can wind up costing you money. So I think the community is better served by maintaining Southern Bell and I think the county would be better served. We'll still have our same contacts we've had in the past which we have known and used and have been supportive of us in the past, and I just hope that the Commission will agree and that we'll support the substitute motion. MR. BEARD: I have mixed emotions about this, but when you get to the bottom line it's a matter of finances. We are appreciative of Southern Bell and the work that they've done in this community, but when we look around at all the other agencies that are here and we're going to ask later on to cut those agencies and cut out some things for them and some of these people who - - when we look at Transit and other agencies that we're going to have to deal some real deep cuts in, and here we have an opportunity to kind of get the budget in order. And we have been assured -- I was the one who asked the question yesterday about the franchise fee. We've been assured that we're going to have continuous service, no disruption in service. I think both parties agreed to that, as I heard from the speakers in the past. So I think we have to look at the bottom line, and the bottom line to me is the savings that will occur in this instance. MR. ZETTERBERG: As a business man, I have no choice but to vote for the low cost bidder as long as the service remains the same. No choice whatsoever. And I frankly think it's irresponsible for anybody not to vote for the low cost. You're not representing the taxpayers unless you vote for this one, you're representing Southern Bell. Granted they have done a lot for the community. The truth is that Southern Bell and the telephone industry has submitted to the Telecommunications Act. That act was designed to drive the cost of telecommunication services down and hopefully open up the business for the rest of -- Southern Bell, frankly, will be advantaged in the long run by KMC coming into this community to do it. It's more evidence that they need to get into the long distance business. So I don't have any great sympathy for Southern Bell in this case. I think the taxpayers are the winners and I think the consumers are going to be the winners of the Telecommunications Act. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, it seems like to me the question Mr. Mays asked, is this going to be budget-driven as far as the $200,000, it seems to me we should go to the budget and then come back to this. But I want to ask Mr. Oliver the reason again, the pros and cons, and what's your recommendation at this point? Is there some rationale for it? MR. OLIVER: Well, I think Mr. Rushton can give the details of the recommendation better. And while we agree that Southern Bell is a tremendous asset to the community, we have to remember that this is a diminished rate of issue and that KMC has purchased space on BellSouth's equipment, if you will, because of the Telecommunication Act, and they've been able to purchase that at a favorable price and they are going to be selling us part of their space on that equipment. And they are trying to establish a market niche and so, consequently, we don't see any change in the level of service that we're going to get, so we believe that, again, this is thought through. MR. KUHLKE: I'm going to support the staff's recommendation. MR. MAYS: On my point of order, I guess we're moving ahead with 12 anyway. I'll ask this then: With the possibilities of the increase without a challenge -- and I made the statement before in terms of how we deal with professional services, and when we're dealing with whether it's a sealed bid or whether it's bid quotes or just dealing with plain numbers, I'm looking at the net of the money. Now, it's true we're looking at -- if this is a part of the budget package and if we're looking at what we are saving on this particular item, but if we have negotiated from the standpoint of what we're getting in the overall net without challenge, are we not programming what we're going to get in off the franchise fees into the budget as well? And if we are, then I think we need to look at the net bottom line and not what we're looking at in the net off this. Because if so, then --and I don't think you're having to say that because you ask for the net, Rob, that you are under hostage by any particular company, I think you're under hostage by the numbers. I think you ought to look at what the total figures are, and if the total figures come out in the franchise agreement in terms of the fact that if you may be saving two hundred on Item A but you may be gaining six or seven on the other and the net brings you out to close to a half million, then I don't think you're being irresponsible, I think you're looking strictly at numbers and companies don't make a difference. And I think that's what we have to do if we're going to consider every-body's numbers as a part of the budget, and that's why I asked the question of what was going to be figured into this budget. If we're going to do 12 and if 12 is part of the budget, then we ought to look at every aspect of the numbers in 12. If we're not counting what's going to be in franchise numbers in there, if it's out of the picture, then we're strictly dealing with what's on one item and in the savings and are we looking at what we are talking about in terms of overall net figures of franchise numbers and with this part of the agreement. MR. ZETTERBERG: What did Mr. Mays say? MR. MAYS: As farewell gift to you, what I'm saying is what the hell is the bottom line on the numbers? Is that plain enough in military language for you, Rob? MR. OLIVER: We have budgeted a three percent franchise fee on BellSouth. Mr. Wall can address this better, but it's my understanding from a legal perspective that that three percent franchise fee will be collected independently of whether this contract goes forward with BellSouth or not and it's not tied together. MR. WALL: And that's correct. MR. BRIDGES: Well, like the late Richard Dent used to say, politics is the art of compromise, you know, and I think y'all did a good job of compromising. You know, it's the art of it, it's not the prostitution of compromise, and I think if you play with the numbers enough -- we're looking at trying to get numbers from wherever we can at this point. It doesn't matter whether you're collecting them in a pot, by check, whether it's one item or two items. If the bottom line says that you're getting in more money, then obviously I don't think in the Administrative Office or in the Finance Office that y'all are sitting there ignoring what you're going to get out of franchise fees. That's all I'm saying, figure the numbers fairly. Sure, you may be collecting them differently, may collect one out of right hand, one out of left hand, but they all still got to go down in this can because they got to figure into what we've got on hand to spend. And I'm just saying that from a, you know, Ninth Street boy out there struggling. You know, you put it one pot. Doesn't make any difference how many, you know, sacks you get it out of, you know, it's all got to go in one together to pay your bills. Now, if you're telling me you're not going to count what you're getting out of franchise fees, then you're telling me you're not going to use that money, and I can deal with that. That makes Rob's argument crystal clear, that you're dealing totally with the savings alone. But if you're talking about total money, then you got to pay all of it together, and I think that's where the compromising comes in to how you juggle money and you make it work. That's all I'm asking there. If we're ignoring it, we're ignoring, but I'm just talking about total money. I know you can't figure them together strictly from the legal point of it. This has been the most creative city historically, you know, in America. You know, we create a lot. Create a heck of a lot. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I don't know -- I'm not a Ninth Street accountant like Mr. Mays, but I ain't never seen a Ninth Street accountant ever leave $100,000 laying on the street. What we're talking about is the -- if I understood what Mr. Oliver said, the franchise fee is in there and we're going to collect it. Whether it comes from KMC or Southern Bell, somebody is going to collect three percent on the telephone bill. Is that right, Mr. Oliver? MR. OLIVER: That correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So we're talking about $100,000 that we're going to save on the phone bill; is that what we're talking about? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. We view those as separate issues. MR. J. BRIGHAM: They are separate issues. So we're talking about $100,000. It's not a million, it's not nothing else, it's $100,000. A difference between $205,000 and 103,000, is that what we're talking about? If it is, then the answer is very simple how we need to vote. And I've heard all the arguments. I understand the importance of Southern Bell to this community and I appreciate the importance of Southern Bell to this community. But I got some people that sits on this board who don't want to raise any revenues, but they don't mind spending the money. Now, we've got to cut both. We've got to either cut out expenses or we've got to raise revenues. You can't do both and can't make anything balance if you don't do this. I've practiced accounting all my life that I've been an adult and the formula is real simple. Real, real simple. Assets, that's the only thing you own, you're either borrowing the money on it or you own it. Liabilities or equity, that's what determines it. And you take your revenues and subtract expenses and determine if you have a profit. But if we're trying to make revenues and expenses equal, then we're either going to have a loss, which means we're going to go back and borrow some money to make up the difference, or we're going to have to raise some revenues or cut some expenses out. People don't seem to be willing to cut expenses and they don't seem to be willing to raise revenues and we can't borrow money. Now, somewhere along in there we've got to make it work. So we're talking about $100,000 and it's cash and it's laying on the street, and either we're going to vote for it or we're not going to vote for it. But if we're not going to vote for it, let's be willing to cut some expenses, or even find some other revenue. You can't do both, you've got to do one or the other, and I think this thing has been beat enough. MR. TODD: I guess, you know, maybe I'm acting like a con-servative now. I've been sitting around them or hanging around them too long. There was even a rumor about a year ago that I was going to change parties, but that was a rumor. You know, I'm not an accountant or CPA, you know. Some folks say I'm not even a very good business man. I'm an amateur politician, but I think I know something about using leverage. And going back at least two years we should have worked out the franchise agreement, and I don't think it got worked out until I said we shouldn't deal with changing the contract until we have a franchise fee worked out because that was several hundred thousand dollars that this government was missing. Now we have one worked out, I understand, on the eve of voting on the contract. And I'm not saying one influenced the other, but I will say this, is that we're entitled to a franchise fee of $700,000 for 1997, and we're starting to collect January 1, 1998. Perhaps what we should do is stall this contract again and not vote on it, or deadlock it, and go back and tell them we want our money from last year. I do understand leverage. And, you know, we had folks say, well, one don't have anything to do with the other, but it took us less than two weeks to get this thing agreed to where it took -- you know, we were working towards it for two years, so one do have something to do with the other. And when we talked to Southern Bell about not moving their operation to Columbia, South Carolina, and they decided to stay here, it was this government that went to them, you know. And I know there was a public outcry to keep the local service office here and say, hey, keep those employees here and keep the jobs here, keep the service delivery here so we can walk in a Southern Bell or BellSouth office and pay the bill and that we don't have to write letters to Columbia or call to Columbia, South Carolina, that we can do it here. Now, we spend money to grow jobs in this community. We spend anywhere, I guess, from four or five hundred dollars down depending on how many folks is coming and what leverage money is needed or incentive is needed or what we do. Well, we done this without spending a dime so far on keeping the hundred and fifty employees or most of those employees here. Some of the service folks would have stayed here anyway. I'm ready to vote and I'm ready to vote to save the money. I don't have a problem there. I wanted to make the point that it do count what a entity do in your community and it do count, you know, if you keep jobs here and you don't have to spend that money for incentive money or leverage money. Now, all I would do is call for a roll call vote and let's go on and do it. I think it would probably be in our best interest if we not took action on this, left everybody hanging and say we want our $700,000 from 1997, or at least some of it. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Go ahead, Ms. Bonner. Roll call vote, please. CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Ulmer Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell, to retain BellSouth as the account manager. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MOTION FAILS 6-4. CLERK: Original motion, to approve KMC as the account rep. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Present. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Present. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 6-2-2. [MAYOR SCONYERS JOINS THE MEETING.] CLERK: We will now take Item 14. Item 14 is a motion to approve an Ordinance imposing a three percent excise tax on vehicle rentals. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. MR. KUHLKE: I second. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to speak to it, but I'd like to hear what these gentlemen have to say first. MR. WATERS: Thank you, Mayor, Commissioners. I'm Bill Waters. This is another one of these smoking-mirror tax increases on local citizens. I think you're thinking that we're going to tax tourists coming through the airport just like the motel/hotel tax. That's not the case. Mr. Handy is a customer of mine, the Mayor has been a customer, Willie has been a customer, Moses has been a customer. I got Boy Scouts, churches, Girl Scouts. We got all kind of poor people, Salvation Army. Bob Richards operates over two hundred cars in this town, Bobby Jones operates close to a hundred, I got three hundred. Your taxing the local people. Now, if you want to tax local people, let's just vote a local option sales tax and let's let the people vote on it. That's all you need to do, because you're not going to tax the people coming through that airport. This is a Ted Turner bill and it passed two years ago in the Georgia Legislature. Ted Turner wants a new stadium, so he gets the legislators in Atlanta to present this bill and pass this bill. This money is to be used to build a sports complex for Ted Turner. Well, now the local counties are jumping on it. If anything, take the three percent money and give it to the golf course and don't buy no COPS bond or anything else you want to buy. That's dumb. Put it on sports. But my suggestion to you is we don't need this tax. It's just another doggone tax to the local people. Thank you. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to thank that citizen for what he had to say. I totally agree with him. I didn't realize we were taxing the local people, I thought we were just -- MR. WATERS: That's exactly what you're taxing. MR. BRIDGES: I thought we were taxing people that are coming from out of town. I was opposed to it because of that as well. The point we're talking about here once again -- we just made a tax on industry with the motel/hotel tax. People fly in from Atlanta or wherever, they come into Bush Field, we think that's all we're taxing, but as this gentlemen pointed out, it's not. But even if it were, even if that were all we were doing is taxing tourists and businesses coming in here, we're still passing that tax on to ourselves indirectly because all those businessmen are going to do is compensate for that tax by increasing the price of their product, which we pay for. So we, the consumers of Richmond County, are going to be the ones footing this bill. I mean, already some-thing around fifty or fifty-five cents out of every dollar goes to pay for a tax of some kind. I mean, it's outrageous. And there's a point where you have diminishing returns, and I think we've far exceeded that point. The more taxes we add on ourselves or others, or supposedly others, the less money we're going to generate and have coming in. And this may seem like a money generator, but when you reach a point of diminishing returns, is it really? Many times you collect less tax with a higher tax than you would with a lower tax, and that's one of the laws of economics concerning what we call the lack of curve. So you can get that tax so high that you're actually decreasing the revenues. And I think this tax would be detrimental to us locally. It probably wouldn't bring in as much as we think it would. But at any rate, we would be the ones paying for it, so it's just a tax -- it's another tax on ourselves, and I don't think we need to vote for that. MR. WATERS: May I interject one other thing, Mr. Mayor? If you pass it, there's ways around it for us. All we have to do is move to Columbia County. Now you're going to lose that two percent local option tax you're getting already. Already Enterprise is in Columbia County, Economy is in Columbia County; I got a location I can go put up tomorrow in Columbia County. So we're collecting all the Columbia County tax and give it to them and still do business in Richmond County. So what are you going to do? I pay five/six thousand dollars a month in sales tax now. You'll lose every bit of that. And the other companies will do the same. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, as the maker of the motion, we were looking for a way to, you know, bring in some revenue. And we've known about the enabling legislation or the statewide legislation for approximately two years to do this. We haven't had a need to do it, and I don't believe in unneces-sary taxes. We haven't had a need to do it in the past, so that's two years of opportunity lost, if we were doing it just to raise taxes, that we could have brought in approximately a million dollars. But we don't impose taxes just for the purpose -- [End Tape 1] -- I still lease cars occasionally, and more than occasionally I live in hotels, you know, and motels. Usually it's not the Radissons of the world because I'm working and I have to watch the bottom line, so I understand that argument, too. And occasionally I fly and rent cars for work purposes or business purposes, so I understand that argument. But this is a year when we are having some financial difficulties and we need to look at the options. The option, gentlemen, as I stated, is that we can impose this tax and use the money for a designated source, and that's what we're proposing that we do. And certainly I would like to encourage everybody to stay in Richmond County, but I understand that this is a global economy and everybody is not going to stay in Richmond County. And our friends in Columbia County, Aiken County, certainly is going to welcome anybody that want to move there. And, you know, I believe that Mr. Waters already have operations other than Richmond County and is doing well in all of them, and if he chooses to move to Columbia County, I wish him well there. You know, I'm sure that somebody will step in the market here. And as I said, gentlemen, this is a global economy. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Waters, I am in business and certainly don't like to pay taxes, just like you. We're struggling with the budget right now, and the projection as far as the three percent tax on revenues is $436,000. Going through this budget process we've had to cut internal agencies, we've had to cut external agencies, we're talking about cutting the hospital a million and a quarter for indigent care. What would you suggest that we do to balance this budget? I mean, we're looking at revenues. We've looked at everything we can possibly look at. Do you have a suggestion? MR. WATERS: Sure, Bill, both you and Larry and everybody else. I'm in the car rental business. At one time I had eleven stores. I had two of them that wasn't making it, so what did I do? I shut them suckers down. MR. KUHLKE: So Public Transit, if we shut it down we'd be okay? MR. WATERS: If it don't pay the price, get rid of it, cut it back. That thing's been ran, Public Transit, under the City of Augusta -- I could have run that thing ten years ago and made a fortune for it. But they had people down there --Bill Revelle, I think his name was. He was the biggest idiot in the world, you know, and he ran that thing and, Good God Almighty, they couldn't make a dime. And you have done everything to that Transit system. You've put advertising inside, advertising on the outside, you painted the buses all these stupid colors to raise money, all these bus stops out here with advertising on them. Hey, you ain't got the answer yet. So why go to me and other people in this county and tax us to support the Transit system? You're not making no money with them now and you done all this. This is just more money down a rat hole. Now, I really don't care if you tax the rental vehicles. It's not going to cost me one nickel. I'll collect it and give it to the county. But I care about everybody else around here that's got to pay for it, and your kids, the churches, the schools, and everybody else that can't raise money. I got people coming in my store saying please help me out on a trip to Disney World, which I take ten underprivileged kids. Churches, we give a tax exemption. That ain't worth a flip to me, I got bills to pay just like you do. And If I don't make a profit, I'll shut the sucker down. So, you know, cut it back or shut it down. Find ways to get revenue. This is not the way to do it. If you want to tax people, the best tax is a one-cent sales tax. Put another tax on the sales. Next week you'll be taxing Larry Sconyers and all the barbecue restaurants. You know, let's do that. This is no way to look for revenue. MR. MAYS: I said this prior to you coming in, Mr. Mayor. This is just one of the reasons I wanted to move 14 prior to 13, is because we got a guesstimate plugged into balancing this budget. Let me say this: you know, the thing with Public Transit -- and everybody knows where I stand on that. The thing that worries me in reference to this particular tax, in order to balance that out -- and businesses are like animals. We've been trying to find defensive mechanisms to fight back, whether it's the Federal Trade Commission on mine it's the local leverage on yours. I will say this in defense of it. There are very few of them, and you can count on your hands and toes and have some appendages left over of the ones in this whole country that are making money. The thing that's different about it, I do think that they affect the lives of many people that can't get to and from work and other places in any different mode. I think if we are promoting this so-called, and y'all have heard this speech enough, the second largest city and it's not as big a dot on the map, and then we turn around and we massively gut Public Transit. Now, where I agree with you on it, Bill, is that I'm not sure in terms of that defensive animal, whether it's you, whether it's other dealerships in terms of moving those vendors. The only thing is you can't move the airport, but there are people that have been basically staying long enough and [inaudible] renting that car and having it brought to them if you're in another county or if you're in other state. I'm worried as to whether or not the cuts that we are taking in Transit can actually -- and I appreciate the Convention putting this in as a suggestion, the Administrator and Finance are working it in. But where I'm caught as chairman of this committee is that I know the difficult fight that I've had in terms of convincing, and I won't say this too quick because -- and I thank my colleagues for helping me back when, old Commission, when we didn't want to do anything. And you're right about the way the city ran it. We just recently starting putting in money from the old county in order to make this thing work. But I think in a viable community you've got to have a Public Transit system. The question is, now, is this the answer to make up the subsidy and whether or not you can guarantee that this particular tax is going to bring that amount of money in. Now, of the defensive animal puts up a big enough defense to move, shift around, go other places and the revenue is not there, then Willie is back in a position, and others, of making the argument where then do we get the money to deal with Transit or do we make further cuts in Public Transit. Now, that's one I don't want to face. Even the one that's before me scares me a little bit in balancing it. And I guess that gets us back into whether we get to the truthful answers again about what consolidation was about. It gets back to a game of numbers and color of money, what was put into the bill. You know, we've rolled back a lot of money out of it, and when you take money away from a government without a way of putting it back and expect to deal with the same level of services, hey, something's going to have to give in. And I don't mind saying I'm going to fight for Public Transit [inaudible] as to whether or not this tax, and we're looking at the full potential of it, whether it will come to maturity or whether or not we're going to have to deal with some other money to deal with Public Transit, and I'm not so sure that we're not going to have to revisit that one if this is where the dedication of those funds, you know, are going to come from. And that's where I am on it. But I publicly support it, I have supported it. You're right in terms of that money. The funny colored buses, you know, some of us were left with having to support that because for years the city cut out advertising on the buses, and I guess thanks to Mr. J.B. Stone in parts of Georgia, that was what brought about taking advertisement off. But we felt we could control that and we started bringing it back because other communities were making money. Ours weren't doing anything. It's only a small amount of money, but we're trying to scrape for every darn thing that we can. Now, whether riding this on the back of one industry can make up for that deficit, I question that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out in the budget that we're making significant cuts on routes and Saturday service, and I believe that the cuts is somewhere in the neighborhood of $366,000, if I'm looking at the reductions right. We also inherited the situation of approximately four million dollar deficit in Transit from the way that the former city kept their books or done their creative accounting, et cetera, that I understand the department of auditing for the State Department of Transportation is telling us that we got to take corrective action on. And we're having to do that and I would assume that we're going to do that over a period of years. I would also assume -- well, I will push for, if I'm here in Year 2000, to put the Transit in the one-penny sales tax like Mr. Waters has suggested, like Savannah did a couple or three years ago. We can only do capital outlay out of the one penny and we would be able to do our portion of the capital outlay out of the one penny. But our problem is not necessarily capital outlay, our problem is operations, and I don't know whether this four million dollar deficit is operations or capital or both, but certainly we have a problem. And I agree with Mr. Mays, now, there is no transit in this country basically that runs and make a profit. Some come close as far as mass transit on breaking even. And I am a supporter of Transit, I'm not a supporter of empty buses running up and down the road. And I think Mr. Jerry Brigham brought to us that we should have a monthly fare that we can purchase, and that's in the budget, too, that we're going to that finally, that we'll have a monthly fare that we can purchase. So we are doing things to get the situation under control as far as Transit go. The advertisement in the bus stops was put in free by a vendor to be able to do the advertisement to bring Transit in X amount of dollars. It's at least several thousand. The advertisement on the buses bring Transit in money. So we're trying to balance the situation in Transit, and this -- it seems that the opposition is not necessarily to the tax, because I heard earlier, you know, maybe we should take the tax and give it to the new golf course, and I'm sure that there's other folks out there that's waiting on this vote here saying maybe you should take that tax and give it to us so it's designated to us. I see some heads bobbing. MR. WATERS: I was in Atlanta when this bill was passed, and I'm not questioning Mr. Oliver's research on the law because supposedly -- like I said, it was a Ted Turner law and this money was supposed to be used for sports only, like golf courses, stadiums, and ice arenas and basketball courts and so forth. Now -- and I got the law in my office, I just didn't bring it, but we need to look and see if that law says it's supposed to be used for sports events only. MR. WALL: It does not. It doesn't say that. MR. WATERS: It does not? Because I have the law. I was in Atlanta the day that bill was passed, and the Ted Turner bill was what they called it. MR. TODD: And we have the Ed McIntyre bill and I think we have some other bills because certain personalities were involved, and I don't have a problem with that. If you look at that open law bill, as much as it reference Billy Morris it's probably the Billy Morris bill. MR. WATERS: I just want to make sure we don't direct the money somewhere it ain't supposed to go. MR. TODD: Yes, sir. But the money can be source designated and it's up to the local government where it go, from my understanding, as far as the law go. And this is the first reading, and there will be another reading, which is required by law as far as public hearing go, and we'll make a final decision on it next week. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, we did not have a copy of the ordinance in your agenda book, and we'd like to clarify insofar as the purposes for which the tax can be used and the way that the ordinance is drafted. And as Mr. Todd stated, this is the first reading of this ordinance, and it would require two readings in the event that it will pass. Basically there are three general categories that the tax monies can be used for. One of them is tourism, promotion of industry, and things of that nature. The second category is convention type facilities, recreational type facilities that you're talking about, and facilities that are used in connec-tion with those type of convention facilities. And then the third one is public safety as it relates to something for which debt has been incurred or as it relates to the convention and recreational type facilities. What we're proposing that the tax be used for and designated for, because as Mr. Todd pointed out, you do have to designate in the ordinance that imposes this tax the purpose for which it is to be used, is that it will be used for the parking facilities of the Greene Street, the Riverfront parking facilities, and the National Science Center. We are currently funding those out of the general budget, so it's a substitution of dollars. By allowing this money to be used for those purposes, you free up dollars that are a part of the general budget to be used for the Transit and other things. So it would go toward those that are permitted purposes under the ordinance, et cetera, and I just thought I needed to explain that. MR. WATERS: In Atlanta, Georgia, eighty percent of the rental cars in Atlanta come through the airport. So you're not hitting the taxpayers in Atlanta, Georgia. Them figures don't hold here in Augusta, Georgia. Between the local operators: Bob Richards, Bobby Jones Ford, me, Enterprise, Economy, we probably do eighty percent of the business in this county and the airport probably does twenty. I talked to Al McDill this morning. If they don't get the airport to fly more planes, more passengers to get the fares, they're going down. I mean, that thing goes down every year, y'all know this. And their revenue is going to decrease, our revenue increases because of the population, more activities, and so forth. If you want to tax the people, fine. I've got no problem with that, go ahead and tax them, because all I'm going to do is pass it on to Willie Mays, Freddie, Mayor, anybody else, the Sheriff, anybody, and I'm just going to collect the tax from them. But these are the people that's going to pay this darn tax, and I don't think they want to pay no tax for no parking garage downtown on Jones Street. I don't want to pay it. I'm sorry, I just don't want to pay that tax. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I guess that still bothers me technically is that if we're going to deal with a budget today and we're dealing with an ordinance to deal with a tax still to balance that budget -- and I guess I'm just throwing the question out on the floor to anybody that wants to deal with it. Regardless of my feelings about Public Transit, and I'm in support of it, but where then does that put us if the taxing ordinance is there to balance the budget and, say, the second reading of this ordinance -- it passes today, it fails the second time, then where are we then? Are we back to the drawing board to find that additional $400,000 in terms of doing that? Because I think what's going to happen -- and I'm kind of making this prediction like I made the same one about folks getting up in arms when we dealt with the original ordinance on the restaurant as it related to Cafe DuTeau. A lot of politics happens, particularly -- you're talking about a new year, but you're going to deal with some old year problems between the end of the year and the new year as to how those animals build up the defensive mechanism when you're talking about a business industry, whether or not you talk about an possible exodus from this county of some businesses, and then you do have to realize the legitimacy there of not only losing what you may predict on the $400,000, but then you can get into the possibility of estimating -- let's just say if you talk about a thirty percent leaving of those businesses there, not just of the revenue off of that three percent imposition, but then what happens with the rest of the dollars that they do generate? Are you then dealing with a negative? And I'm thinking it still gets us back to a point of where we're looking at how we're going to legitimately close this two million dollar gap. I think it's going to have to be in solid money and not in questionable money. That's just my observance of it. And I don't see how we can legitimately solidly nail down Item 13 today when we're talking about dealing with some other things two weeks from now that's going to balance it out, and that's just my observance of it. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, can I make a comment on that? Just as a point of information, and the Commission's direction to myself and staff was very clear that you did not want any increase in ad valorem taxes, but if that was something that the Commission wanted to do, you would not actually impose an increase in ad valorem taxes until late summer. Consequently, your dilemma may be the same, Mr. Mays, in that while you would approve it in the tentative budget, the actual adoption of a millage rate would not come till then, and the possibility always looms that the Commission may decide to adopt another rate. So consequently, if the Commission in two weeks decides not to impose this particular tax or any other tax, then we would have to go back to the budget and find four hundred and some odd thousand dollars in additional cuts. MR. MAYS: Well, I guess that's why I'm hoping then that we put everything out on the discussion today in terms of the capital outlay money that's in there and then realistically debate whether or not we're going to deal with a mill or not. Because I think if we're going across town trying to figure out a way to get money from this particular industry, this particular industry, a little bit from another particular industry, a tax is still a tax. Do we then legitimately have to face the -- and if boils down to a point of what picture of ourself do we take and the image we set of the city. And I think you all have done a herculean job, I commend you for it. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not debating what we've got on the table to eat, but what I'm saying still is I think the realistic possibility -- and you were right, I think the majority of this Commission did direct that, but I've been trying as one individual, one vote probably in a minority looking at it, and I mean a minority in terms of numbers. I did a call-in talk show on Saturday morning. Everywhere I've spoke over the last two to three weeks I made the issue of the budget, people calling in to this Commissioner, calling the Mayor, calling others, and saying what level of services do you want this city to provide. We have had things that have been mandated to us, it's already been discussed, about a bill, a reorganization in this government, that where the bill actually called for two things that cost money: one, the retention of jobs and no downsizing as well as the equalization of water revenues. Regardless of what the old city did, we still are putting monies back out of there that we lost and that we're going to lose out of this budget to seven figures of it. Three million have already gone by, we'll deal with another one and half this year in doing it. That's money gone. Now, you can't run it to the same level. Now, it's true, yeah, you've got to deal with whether you want to cut the services, and can we or do we want the further and deeper cuts. And the question comes in, do you take the criticism of the deeper cuts of what you've put together in this so-called great government to end all duplication of services and now that we got consolidation somebody will ride in like a knight on a white horse and all our problems are over. Well, we still got the growing pains, we still got to make it work, we got to put it together. Also in the budget document that Finance put together, I think the general public should know, and I've only probably said it once in print in terms of looking at those metro areas across the state. And I'm not saying this to advocate what we should do on Item 13 to make it close that gap or to say just increase taxes because you may have the right to do it to the level of where you got it in the cap. But when you look at the major metro areas, we wanted this snow job of being this second great city now. Only Columbus-Muskogee, that's been consolidated for a quarter of a century, has a millage rate that is lower than Augusta-Richmond County, and it's by four- tenths of a percent. I think they are probably at 25.7 or 8, we're something above 26. It's not even a whole dot there. But everybody else is far and above. Whether you're talking about Gwinnett, Clayton, Dekalb, Fulton, Bibb, Chatham, all of those, you have a gap in there of where you're dealing with with Richmond County. And I think we ought to realistically again tell the truth, and the bottom line is, if we wanted to be a city basically where we perform constitutional services -- we have courts, we have law enforce-ment, and I'm a strong supporter of it, but if that's what we want and if that's all that we want to do, then I think we ought to massively cut the devil out of it. But I think if we still want to be able to provide some of those human services, we still are going to have to look at the realistic possibility -- as my good friend in the other Super District said recently at a civic engage- ment that he was in, that the possibilities of us seriously looking at how we close that gap might be within the possibilities of that tax increase. Because when you present what the city is going to look like realistically to people, what they're going to have, what they are not going to have, and the difference of what they will actually pay for it, then I think you'll hear a different argument, rather than us trying to do all these little sneakaroo taxes with three percent here and five this industry, you know [inaudible] of really seriously looking at it and either having the intestinal fortitude to do it or just say we're going to cut it, wax it, and don't do it. But it's on the board there and I think the numbers across the state speak for themselves, and that's a hidden point that has not been made a fact of in any loud forum anywhere of what we've been expected to provide. None of them have done it. Even our great Athens, they still got folk riding on a fire truck from two different agencies making different salaries. We tried to equalize it in one year. They've got different law enforcement agencies. The sheriffs have still not done that. We tried to do a heck of a lot in a short length of time to bring together and to try and make it equal. It's not been perfect, but we have tried. And I think the bottom line is, you know, we were mandated to put this darn thing together and make it work. Now if we got the courage to finance the growing pains of consolidation, the long-run effect of it, I think, is going to equal out. It can save, it can be a cheaper government, but in the initial stages of where we are this thing is going to cost some money. And all those folks that have disappeared that were handing out pamphlets and were being interviewed and catching a sound byte here and standing before the monument and in front of the Chamber of Commerce, they're all gone now. There ain't nobody. It boils down to this eleven to have the courage to deal with that or to just leave it alone, and I think that's where we are as opposed to dealing with all these piecemeal things. It may work and it may not work, and then still may have, as in Bill's case, an exodus of those businesses that could cause you a further loss in terms of the revenue that you may be projecting to take care of it, and that's the way I look at it. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. Roll call vote. CLERK: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, was to approve the ordinance imposing the three percent excise tax on vehicle rentals. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MR. MAYS: You've been waiting on this one. MR. POWELL: Be careful what you wish for, Mr. Mayor, you just may get it. MAYOR SCONYERS: [inaudible] don't want to vote. Well, we've got to balance the budget to take care of [inaudible]. MR. BRIDGES: You can abstain, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's not a bad idea. I think I'll vote present like y'all. MOTION FAILS 5-5-1. CLERK: Item 13: Presentation, discussion, and adoption of the 1998 Permanent Budget. MR. OLIVER: The first thing I would like to do is just refresh everybody's memory as to where our money is projected to go. In the current year we're projecting that on operating and capital, Public Safety will be about 47 percent; the Judicial will be about 8.6 percent; the Tax Commissioner and Assessor's Office, about 4 percent; Health and Welfare, about 4.4 percent; Debt Service, 2.6 percent; Contingency, 3.6; and then from that point on, those basically represent the departments under the control of the Mayor and Commission. As you can see from the pie chart, the constitutional officers and debt service represent about 70 percent of the budget. If we look again -- and, again, this is just to refresh your memory. The departments under the Mayor and Commission have cut 4.6 percent, with the exception of these two. The direction of the Mayor and Commission was we wanted to increase training, we wanted to increase our automation capability, because in the end it was felt that by doing that we would be able to achieve efficiencies overall in the long term. So consequently, we have cut approximately 5 percent here. Overall administration costs are down about 2 percent. If we go to the Constitutional Officers, this is a comparison between '97 and '98, Law Enforcement is up about 26.8 percent, Superior Court is up 9 percent, State Court is up about 40 percent, and so on. As you come on down, the total increase by the Constitutional Officers is about 20.9 percent, so we've had an 21 percent increase almost in those expenses. As it relates to the outside agencies, with the revised budget we've cut the Health Department 5 percent, as shown in the budget letter which I'll go over in a minute; the Library, we're proposing to leave that unchanged; DFACS, excluding the indigent care, we've left that alone; the Planning Commission is cut to 5 percent; the Appeals Board has gone up just slightly; and so on. We don't have any major changes in that area. We have continued to budget our obligation as it relates to ambulance. We have now moved Bush Field debt service over to the former city because that was money used in the former city. We are proposing to cut indigent funding by about 1.3 million dollars. We're proposing to cut DFACS the money, and I'll go over what the adds-back were, but this is just to refresh your memory regarding the cuts. All the outside agencies we cut 20, with the exception of the Arts Council. We're now proposing 50, and indigent care we're proposing 50, and it's basically a financial consideration to again try to define what the role of government is within our community. Now, if you recall, the last time that we were together we had about a 2 million dollar deficit. This identifies what we have proposed. As you're aware, based on the prior action, the decision has been made not to impose the 3 percent excise tax on rental cars, so while we had a budget coming in, we're currently out of balance $436,000. We have also budgeted full funding of the Juvenile Court for a half a year, the state's year starts July the 1st. We believe that we'll be successful. There, again, is no guarantee in that. We are comfortable, however, if that by some chance didn't occur, that there's probably a way that we can do that through additional cuts during the year. However, we are the only Juvenile Court in the state that's not fully funded, and Bibb and Columbus-Muskogee were fully funded within the last two years, and we believe that that's the equitable thing for them to do. Mr. Collins had a discussion with the Sheriff's Department this morning, and I think we've reached a general agreement where they'll provide us 75 percent of the phone revenues, and I think that part of it will work. Now, as you can see -- and I can go ahead and in a minute I'll turn that number to zero and it'll recrank it. But we will be out of balance $436,696, but let me go on down. The net of the Transit additions of service back, and a large part of this is because the change in the subsidy has never been dealt with and the city just let the debt from the Transit system grow. And as Commissioner Todd mentioned and as indicated in the budget backup, the deficit in Transit is 4.4 million. Well, deficits are one thing, but not having the ability to repay those deficits are another thing. We have also proposed to add back the DFACS based on the budget. There were some discussions that were other services provided by DFACS other than indigent care, and so we have proposed to put $50,000 back into the budget, which we may not be able to do depending upon what the desires of the Mayor and Commission are as it relates to compensating for the 3 percent tax on rental cars we proposed. We propose no further cuts to the Coliseum Authority. We were giving them $300,000 in alcohol tax. We've cut that to 240,000 from the original budget. It's gone down 60,000. We're proposing to phase that out over a five- year period. The revenue, however, remains the same because we're projecting that the total revenue they receive will remain constant because of the projected growth in hotel/motel. We have not proposed at this time to further reduce indigent care below the 50 percent that we've already proposed. Again, that may be something that we have to revisit based upon other actions. As I mentioned, we cut the Health Department $74,917, the same as all county depart-ments. Upon a close or an indepth review, they have proposed an 8 percent increase in salaries, and that, we believe, is more than it needs to be and we believe that that needs to be cut. We've also proposed to freeze the Sheriff's administrative costs at the '97 levels. Again, in an effort to balance the budget without a tax increase. We propose to cut the funding to the Arts Council to 50 percent of last year. We had previously proposed a 20 percent cut. Again, it's a question of what the Mayor and Commission view as essential services: are police, fire, potholes and that type thing more important than other types of services. We've reduced the Sister City Program from $35,000 to $5,000. We are going to require the use of regular gas in all vehicles that will burn regular gas, as determined by the Fleet Manager. We project that will be a savings of about $100,000. We've proposed to totally eliminate funding for Amendment 73. That's an additional $60,000. Previously we proposed to cut it 20 percent. The phone contract change you approved earlier, that had previously been budgeted. We have not cut the Summer Youth Program based on the decisions made. We would suggest that that program be eliminated, and the cost of that is $39,900. We moved the Bush Field repayment to the urban services district, so therefore that does not affect our countywide issue. We had talked about reducing the Human Relations Commission 5 percent below '97 levels. Based upon our figures, it was going to be about an additional $16,000, and at the time that this budget was developed we did not feel that that was appropriate. And we're proposing to take an additional quarter of a million dollars out of the capital reserve account. We have calculated that reserve, we believe that'll still leave us about two million dollars. Commissioner Bridges made a good point. He quoted the numbers for me and he is correct, that there's a difference of 200,000, but we had previously budgeted 200,000 from the General Fund to pay for the Transit cuts, and that's the reason why. So what I would propose that we do is we change this one to zero and we take the Summer Youth Program out, and we need to further look -- we are at that point out about $400,000. MR. BRIDGES: Which one did you change to zero? MR. OLIVER: The rental car tax that we had proposed. The excise tax would now -- based on the action taken, we've now turned that to zero. We would suggest, subject to your all's concurrence, that we eliminate the Summer Youth Program in an effort to bring us into balance. There were a couple of other suggestions that were offered by various Commissioners or people, and let me tell you what they were. The Wellness Program, so you know, we are spending about $30,000 a year. It's based on participation and a sliding scale. We reimburse up to $32 per month per employee who goes at least fifteen times a month. The national literature indicates that during the long term you will save that cost in your health insurance costs, however, that's a policy decision and you're never going to be able to prove or really disprove that based on one specific group. It's something in the total. MR. TODD: I need to know whether a Commissioner made the recommendation on the Wellness or did the editor of the daily paper? MR. OLIVER: I candidly felt that since it was in the paper, that I should have those figures available. MR. TODD: Right. Well, the paper don't set policy here, and -- MR. BRIDGES: I'll recommend it. MR. TODD: I think I heard it was in the daily paper. MR. OLIVER: It was. MR. TODD: There is a list that was given the last time in between and -- you know, if my colleague is making a recommen-dation now based on his influence by the daily paper, then certainly I'd be willing to accept that. But basically what I'm saying is that it's this board's responsibility. We are the trustees and not the daily paper or the editorial page, and I'm not going to vote on a budget or support a budget where the influencer is the editor of the daily paper, the weekly paper, or the monthly paper or the yearly paper. MR. OLIVER: All I'd like to try to do is to provide you all the options that I may be aware of, and there may be ones that have not been thought about. One Commissioner suggested the Augusta Boxing Program as being something that should be discussed, and I've got those numbers. Salaries and wages is 40,701, other expenses is 15,200, total is 55,901. Someone else suggested elimination of the quarterly publication, and we budget about $22,000 for that. The Human Relations Commission, if we took them back to 5 percent of '97 levels, that would be an additional $16,555. Now, for your all's benefit, if we cut other outside agencies, for every $1,000 we would have to cut them .14 percent, so -- let me give you a number on that. For every one percent we cut them, other than University Hospital, and let me give you the list, and the Arts Council, which we've already cut 50 percent, so I've excluded those. It would equal $7,142. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question to Mr. Oliver is that is that all the requests or proposals that you have as far as possible cuts? I know because of the rental car tax, if we're going to balance we got to cut some other areas. And I believe that I made a proposal that we look at Commission Other, which was a significant amount; and the Mayor's Discretionary Fund, which is, you know, a significant amount; and I don't have a problem with ownership of the ones that I proposed that we cut. County Attorney, which was a significant amount. I think if we're going to get serious about this thing, then we need to put everything out there. And I don't intend -- I think that we got to have a tentative budget by midnight; is that correct? MR. OLIVER: By midnight tomorrow evening. MR. TODD: By midnight tomorrow evening? Well, I'm going to tell you, gentlemen, I don't intend to be here till midnight tomorrow evening, and so I think we need to get serious about what we're doing and go on and do it, make it happen, and bite the bullet. MR. BRIDGES: Randy, in looking at some of the detail in here, there's something about Concern Program where -- and my understanding of that, that's where employees are having financial problems or marital problems or whatever. MR. OLIVER: It's for referral for drug, alcohol, mental health, you know, those types of things. If a supervisor runs into an employee that's having difficulty and it's causing either personal or job-related stress, they can be referred to that particular program. MR. BRIDGES: Are we paying a private company to handle that for us? MR. OLIVER: Yeah, there is a company that we pay for that, and it's so much per person. It's about $35,000 a year. MR. POWELL: One place that I'd like a clarification on again, Randy, and I know you probably covered it, but the amount of funding for the -- the amount that we're overfunding the Coliseum Authority, has that been looked into? MR. OLIVER: What was proposed was, as with all the outside agencies -- and this is a policy decision we were going to get to later. We would propose that on the Museum, the Mini Theater, the Arts Council, the Coliseum, and all the other outside agencies, that they be phased out over a total period of four more years, so 20 percent a year, and that was originally what we wanted to try to set up as a strategy. We cut the Coliseum Authority 20 percent, from 300,000 to 240,000. We have no legal obligation, as I understand it from Mr. Wall, to fund them that additional 240,000. If the Commission wants to take that away from them, that is your prerogative. MR. POWELL: Well, that's a quarter of a million dollars, and I think we're looking for money. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: And I'll make a motion then if Mr. Powell will second it. MR. BRIDGES: And that 240,000 is over and above what we're legally bound to give? MR. OLIVER: As I understand it, and I'm sure Mr. Wall is here, we are legally obligated to give them hotel/motel tax and nothing else. And if we plug the 240,000 in here, that will obviously go a long way towards the 400,000. MR. BRIDGES: If we put the 240,000, we got the 40,000 from the Summer Youth Program -- and I'd like to see the Health Central brought in there, too, for 30,000. Mr. Todd, the paper didn't tell me to say that. I was opposed to that when it first came up about a year and a half ago, so if there was an originator on this -- if anybody is telling anybody what to do, I'm telling them what to do, if you want to word it that way. MR. OLIVER: If it's permissible, Mr. Mayor, if we could go one at a time and get a yes or a no, I'll plug it in and then we'll see how much more we have to whittle away with. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with that process as long as the Augusta Boxing is in there and some others that I put on the table. Now, it's easy to decide what's important to you and say let's cut those, you know. That's easy. Or to take what's important to you and others and put it on the list. And I would just like for the Administrator to read my list because I think my list have a lot of what was important to me and others. And this cutting -- I don't discriminate, you know, it's basically cutting red from the budget. And when we agreed to fund Augusta Boxing for one year for the Olympic Box-off, it was supposed to been for one year, and we wasn't putting a full-time staff person in Augusta Boxing forever. That's been a volunteer position, it should go back to a volunteer position because we don't have the Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia, and we don't have Box-off this year. But Augusta Boxing is important to some folks on this board because maybe they have family members that participate in it. So let's put it all on the table. And I may not have the same influence with the Administrator or have the same influence with the daily paper, but I think I got a equal vote here and I want it all on the table as far as the cuts go if we're going to debate cutting. And I don't have a problem going line item, I can live with that, but all I'm saying to the Administrator, let's not keep some things off the list and put other things on the list and never debate those issues that you -- that is put on the list by certain individuals. MR. OLIVER: Well, I'm more than willing to go with any option, and I'll be glad to read Mr. Todd's suggestions. The Mayor's Discretionary Fund, 50,000; the Sister City Program, 17,500, which eliminates that program in its entirety; the Attorney, 100,000; Commission Other, 72,000; Commission, 50,000; county publication, 30,000; youth employment, 39,000; Indigent Defense, 20,000; Human Relations, 20,000; Recreation Fun Zone, 50,000; Boxing, 50,000; and Greater Augusta Arts Council, 100,000. Those are his suggestions. Are there any others, Mr. Todd, I may have missed? MR. TODD: No, there is not, but certainly -- you know, going by line item, then certainly I'd like the opportunity to put those out there and do line item on them, too. MR. ZETTERBERG: Two weeks ago I gave the Mayor and the Commission and Mr. Oliver some forty-some suggestions on cutting the budget, and I haven't even heard anything about those being included in the discussion. MR. OLIVER: Well, some of the suggestions you made are what I call short-term and some of them are much longer term. Like, you know, paying employees once a month was one suggestion. Obviously there will be savings, but that's something that would be hard to evaluate and throw forward with a concrete number today. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, one of the things I'd like to see us do right away today, something that I don't believe we've done as a body and as a policy issue, is declaring a hiring freeze. I know what action you've taken, Mr. Oliver, but I think as a body, I don't believe we've ever taken that action, have we? MR. BEARD: I think all of us will have a number of items and we'll probably be here for some time expressing that. But I think the thing to do, I would like to see a line item of those things that are presented here, and it would be my suggestion that if we have not reached the cut at that time, the 400,000-plus that we need at that time after we go line item, then I suggest we take up those that other Commissioners have presented and go from there. Because if we're going to go -- I mean, Mr. Zetterberg has a list, and I think every Commissioner up here has presented something to you at one time or another. And if we're going to go that route, then I think we'll be here for some time. But I think that if we just take the items line item and decide on what is agreeable by this body to cut. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Wall indicated that we're obligated for 30 percent of the beer tax to the Coliseum Authority and -- MR. WALL: And three cents of the five cents of the hotel/ motel tax. We've been paying like 50 or 60 -- I've forgotten the exact number, but around 50 percent of the beer tax. MR. POWELL: I think we're overpaying it somewhere around a quarter of a million. MR. OLIVER: I thought it was 300,000, but we'll know that in a moment. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Oliver, I'd like for it to be added to the list, and I know that it was voted down earlier, but I'd like for us to revisit the one- cent sales tax -- or hotel/ motel tax. Because it's my understanding that in the first year that would generate $385,000 and that maybe those taxes would be used as -- if we would request going through CVB that those funds be passed to the Museum. That would almost offset the $400,000 we've got designated to them. And if that were done and if we were going to phase it out over a period, that you wouldn't need but $10,000 more to balance the budget. MR. OLIVER: So what you're saying is that if that amount of tax was 400,000 and the Museum was 400,000 the next year, that the Museum would drop to 300,000 and we'd maybe have 100,000 to reallocate; is that what you're suggesting? MR. KUHLKE: Right. You know [inaudible] but I'd like for it to be on the list maybe that we can discuss further. MR. OLIVER: That was in the previous -- I have a line item for hotel/motel. That's fine, we can do that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, maybe I look at the big picture and that's my problem, but I'm not [inaudible]. But this Commission sat by for the last six to eight weeks, or maybe even a little longer, and let the Coliseum Authority negotiate for ice hockey, to bring it to town, with the full understanding that the quarter of a million dollars that we were overpaying them was going to be used to pay for the approximately million dollar track at the Civic Center. Now we are going back and we're saying, well, we'll cut that fund. When we cut that fund, we kill that deal, and as long as we understand that I don't have a problem with what we are doing. But, Mr. Mayor, when we cut that fund, we kill that deal. Now, back as far as two years ago I recommended that we, you know, reel in that quarter of a million dollars, almost $300,000, back when we had no good reason and logic for some of the things they were doing over there as far as expendi-tures, you know, painting walls that's been painted a few months before, and this Commission flat refused to do that. Well, I understand the pressure to do it now, but, understand, you kill the deal. I can live with or without ice hockey. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Have we gotten to the point, Mr. Oliver, where we talk about the $497,000 cut from DFACS? MR. OLIVER: As I previously mentioned, we're proposing to restore $50,000 to DFACS of the 497,000. A portion of that 497,000, a large portion, I can give you the breakdown, was for people who did indigent care certification. We believe that if you cut the amount going to University for indigent care 50 percent, performing that certification is no longer necessary and that the money can be better spent. But at this point we're only proposing to give $50,000 back to DFACS, and that would be used -- the Mayor and Commission need to decide how they want to allocate that money to DFACS. MR. H. BRIGHAM: It's my understanding that there was some negotiations in the last few days that that might have been raised to 144,000. MR. OLIVER: Well, the total amount, including the various programs, is 144,000 and something. Let me read you what the breakdown is. Remember, it's broken into a couple of categories. Here's the breakdown of that. So you know, it's 144,061: 50,000 is what we restored -- or suggested for that; food stamps are 59,061; the child abuse shelter is 25,000; and the Safe Homes program is 10,000. And I think DFACS in those cases acts as a conduit. The total is 144,061. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And if we're restoring them back at least 50 percent -- I notice we did cut the Arts Council for 50 percent, we cut into the University Hospital 50 percent. And I think that they had some prior knowledge when I said this, you know, if we're going through this process of phasing out over a period of time, I can perhaps live with that, but if we're just going to say that today or next week or whatever you are completely cut off, I was just wondering if that's the route that we will have to take. If we restore 50 percent, where will be then? MR. OLIVER: I think that there's a slight difference, because from DFACS we're buying a service and we are basically saying that we no longer need the service, where the Arts Council and those people, forgetting the social arguments of the value of the service and the need to the community, will still ideally be providing the same level of service, and I think that there's a difference. 50 percent would be 248,000 and we'd have to cut up with about another 200,000. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'd like us to put that back on the table for consideration, because we've got to find [inaudible] so I'd like to put this back for consideration. Did I understand you to say that the telephone situation with the Mayor and with the Sheriff has been -- MR. OLIVER: It's my understanding from Mr. Collins that the Sheriff's Office has agreed to 75 percent of the revenues from the pay phones that are currently installed in the jail, and we believe that that is essentially a wash based on what we project the income to be and we're comfortable with that. I believe the Sheriff has one item he's been requested to cut $300,000, and I think he wishes to speak to that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: What would that do to the $210,000 that was cut out over there? MR. OLIVER: We believe that we'll still get that revenue with the new cost-cutting arrangement. MR. H. BRIGHAM: The question was, Sheriff, the 75 percent, what would that do, and would the $210,000 be completed eliminated? Have we all reached some kind of agreement or compromise on that particular situation? SHERIFF WEBSTER: We did. We give him 75 percent of the telephone income from the jails and we keep the 25, which would give him 210 -- it'll be 210- plus. We don't know because we opened up a new jail and it should be more than that. But there's additional phones that's been added out there, so it should go up from there. On the next item there's $300,000 left. We thought that on the mobile terminal, that we would -- $350,000, it was being paid cash for. We found out now that this is going to be on a lease program. If it's on a lease program, only way we can come up is to delete that from the item. It would be $80,000, I believe that is correct. MR. OLIVER: That's correct. SHERIFF WEBSTER: All right. We had 15 cars that was going to CID, and I think that Harry came down on it if we bought smaller cars, and these 15 cars would be $180,000 that you would save on those. Then you got the food itself at the jail, which would be $20,000 at the downtown jail, and we can reduce $20,000 at the Phinizy Road jail. It's going to be hard. I'd like to go back and tell you, though, when you gave us the 68 people, I went straight back and then brought --David and Glenn and those came down, and we sat down there and talked and I made a cut on budget. And I proposed it myself, and I cut 40 automobiles out of that budget we had, 40 that we needed, and it came to a total of $996,816. So I think with the telephone company and with the proposal that we made here as far as it concerns, if they can go along with leasing the 15 cars, is that possible? MR. OLIVER: I admire the Sheriff and I would argue this in his position, okay? And I agree with him, but let me tell you the issue with the leasing. With a lease, if you're short 300,000 in operations and you finance it, even though it's for cars, over a three year period your payment at 5 percent would be $104,917 for '98, '99, and 2000. That would alleviate your problem in '98, but you would still have your $300,000 shortfall you have to make up in '99 and 2000. So the net operating deficit, and I have a slide to this effect, in '99 and 2000 that you'll have to deal with as a time bomb will be a $404,000 deficit, and what we're doing is financing our future. SHERIFF WEBSTER: All I know is that when the lease agreement came up a while back it was supposed to be a savings program, back when I think Butch McKie came up with the leasing program. And I thought it was still [inaudible], but it must not be, so it was just something that -- we can make a proposal on that. I've cut every way I can. This is as far as I can go as far as a cut is concerned. I'll be glad to do that. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my concern is, on cutting the food, is that we are somewhat under, I guess, court order or judge's supervision on conditions in the jail. And this would not, as far as conditions go, change conditions? That would be my only concern about that. SHERIFF WEBSTER: Well, there will be things at the jail that we probably could -- that maybe something won't transpire, won't have to spend money, and we will transfer that money over to it. I know it's going to pretty much have to be there, but we'll find a way somewhere to get that 20,000 in there. That would be $40,000 from both of them. And if we keep the popula-tion down, the population will be the biggest bearing on it. MR. TODD: I would hope, Mr. Mayor, that Mr. Wall will make a report to the judge what we're doing on that side and get maybe the plaintiff attorneys' blessing and the court's blessing on it. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver, [inaudible]. MR. OLIVER: That's fine. Do you want to take it from the top as it relates to the hotel/motel and the 388,000 against the Museum? MR. TODD: If we're going to do a reconsideration on the hotel/motel, then let's do a reconsideration on the tax on the cars. Both is going to be first reading. MR. BRIDGES: Are we going to have a vote on the reconsi-deration? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: I was going to say, we can't have a reconsideration on anything unless we agree, and you don't have the agreement here, so we need to leave things alone. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe that the requirement for a reconsideration is a majority vote, and I see the Parliamentarian shaking his head, so I'm going to make a motion that we do a reconsideration on both for first reading. That's in the form of a motion. MR. KUHLKE: Can I make a substitute motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's find out from Jim what we need to do. MR. WALL: It would take a motion to reconsider and it would take a majority vote to pass that to bring that out and back up. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd made a motion to reconsider. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'll second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Todd if he might amend his motion to reconsider the three percent on the rental cars and then we make another motion on the reconsideration of the hotel/motel tax. MR. TODD: I don't have a problem on separating them. MR. KUHLKE: What you're asking for is the three percent on the rental cars at this point, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion to reconsider, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. [MR. ZETTERBERG, MR. TODD, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. MAYS VOTE NO] MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we pass the rental car tax, first reading. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second to get it on the floor. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I seconded Mr. Todd's motion to get it back on the floor for reconsideration. What bothers me about it, if we're going to go ahead and move with that right now I really wish, in the essence of fairness, he would wait for this particular reason: I voted even though I chair that committee and probably fought harder than anybody else in making sure Transit gets its money. And I'm looking at the way that some of these hostage items are posted up here. Now, the first thing we started doing was we started getting back into Summer Youth Program and everything else once we decided we wasn't going to do the particular tax on rental cars. Now, that at first was dealing with Transit. And I didn't want to get into the nastiness of some things that are adding onto that list, but -- I don't mind the reconsideration and voting to get into totaling money, but I think we ought to go through this list and start dealing with some particular cuts in there first, Mr. Todd, and then deal with that on the tail end of it. Because it looks as though if we're going to restore that and then we're still going to come back in here and start the slicing -- and you made the argument about your items not being on there to be considered and, you know, the Administrator read them in. But, I mean, there are some in there that we've discussed before, whether it be Augusta Tomorrow or some others that are in there. They are smaller, but, I mean, you know, I've not seen where that's been dealt with. And I got a craw there. If we're going to eliminate the possibility of the Summer Youth Program, then let us be a partner in Augusta Tomorrow like everybody else but not financing a total salary over there indirectly, because that's what that deal is. So let's just cut the other 44 out of that. I'd rather see us play with these numbers first. Yeah, let's reconsider, but we got more than even dealing with Transit. You know, I listened a minute ago to the logic of us having arts, and I've been a strong supporter of it. I got a problem with that 50 percent of where we're dealing with that cut, Mr. Mayor, but when we're talking about the fact that, one, we might have one that we aren't going to have, I'm wondering if poor people who need medical care are going to disappear from the face of the Earth but we're still going to have arts, and it seems as though that was the reasoning of how we're all of a sudden not going to have to deal, you know, with indigent care, as though it's going to go away. So I think we ought to play with some of these numbers first and battle over them before we start getting back into the restoration of those taxes. I don't mind going ahead with the reconsideration, but I think we ought to deal with some numbers first. MR. KUHLKE: I'll withdraw my second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, point of order, that we need a vote by the board in order for the seconder of the motion to withdraw. MR. WALL: Once the motion is made and seconded it belongs to the Commission, and absent unanimous consent, you have to have a vote to allow the motion to be withdrawn. MR. KUHLKE: Was not the first vote to reconsider? MR. WALL: The first vote was to reconsider, so that passed. MR. KUHLKE: So that number would go up on the board at this point, the projected number; right? MR. WALL: Well, the projected number for discussion, but, I mean, the ordinance has not been voted on. MR. KUHLKE: I understand. I understand. MR. BRIDGES: Has a motion been made to vote on the tax itself? CLERK: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: I call the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's do a roll call. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to hear the motion read, too, so we all understand it. CLERK: The motion was to impose the three percent tax on the rental vehicles. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: It only hurts when I sit down. Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MR. BRIDGES: Is the budget balanced then? MR. OLIVER: Yeah. We're back in balance, provided -- you know, subject to your all wanting to do a reconsideration to give other people money that are currently not provided for in the budget, that balances the budget. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider the one-cent hotel/motel tax with a different distribution of those funds, those funds being -- that we request through the CVB that those funds go to offset the funding of the Augusta-Richmond County Museum. MR. OLIVER: To be phased out over four years? MR. KUHLKE: To be phased out over four years. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. [MR. BRIDGES, MR. POWELL, MR. HANDY VOTE NO.] MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve the first reading of the one-cent hotel/motel tax, and that a request be made through the CVB that these funds be passed through to the Augusta-Richmond County Museum to offset the funds that are coming out of the General Fund, and that those funds will be reduced 20 percent a year over the next four years. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. MR. OLIVER: Let me ask one question. I talked with Mr. Wall. I don't want to request it because that could put us in a compromising position. MR. KUHLKE: How about direct? MR. MAYS: I know the Commission would like to make a decision, but in other areas whereby us paying that money out of the General, on some of the cuts that are there that we seriously want to still consider, then is that going to be back on the table in terms of returning to restoration what --and I know we still got a fight of it, but whether it's with indigent care, whether it's with DFACS, whether it's other items -- and if we're going to do a transfer, in all fairness now, are we going to come back and deal with the reconsideration of some of those that we made some seriously strong cuts in there from 50 percent or in some cases boil back down to zero? And I think this is a good proposal. It was one, you know, that Bill particularly had dealt with the leadership on some two weeks ago in terms of how we would deal with that distribution of moving some of those funds. But at the same time, if we're going to deal with that, some problems that we got aren't going to go away. Are we going to revisit that or are we going to just deal with this transfer? MR. BEARD: I would like to see those items considered that Commissioners want to consider as a line item and consideration, and I think it's only fair that we do that. If we're going to consider some, we're going to have to consider all those that Commissioners would want to put back. MR. OLIVER: Well, let me say this: if Mr. Kuhlke's motion is successful, that will put us at a $388,000 budget surplus, and obviously reconsiderations can be considered as well as additional cuts depending upon what the pleasure of the Mayor and Commission is. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess I need to filibuster until Mr. Kuhlke get back. I think Mr. Kuhlke have a good plan, that we have a obligation to support the new museum that's not necessarily owned by the taxpayers, but certainly do a service delivery to the taxpayers and through the school system and through children and even enhance the situation as far as tourism go. I think -- Mr. Kuhlke is back. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a substitute motion to Mr. Kuhlke's, in that along with the motion that he made, that he also reconsider other items that other Commiss- ioners would like to get involved in since there seems to be a surplus. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I second the motion. MR. BRIDGES: I've got a comment on that, Mr. Mayor. It sounds like Amendment 73 again. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Or maybe Summer Youth could be. MR. MAYS: Maybe Augusta Tomorrow or Today. MR. BEARD: Include in your motion that it would be in addition to that. The motion was, I believe, that you said reconsider the hotel/motel tax in the vein that you made your motion. MR. KUHLKE: I think we voted to reconsider it, then I made the motion to pass it. MR. BEARD: Well, that motion still stands, and I wanted the substitute motion to include also that we reconsider those items that some of the Commissioners wanted to do also. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order. Is the motion germane? You know, I'm trying to connect the two. I would support my colleague's motion to reconsider line item by line item any issue that a Commissioner want to put up and reconsider as far as funding go, but I'm trying to make the connection between the two motions. MR. WALL: And I think Mr. Todd's point is well-founded. You need to vote on the -- MR. BEARD: Well, I'll make the motion after this. I'll withdraw that. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just a point of order. Jim, how are they in some ways not connected? MR. WALL: Well, the purpose of Mr. Beard's motion is, if the hotel/motel tax is passed and the money is routed, then that is going to create a budget surplus. So it's a separate issue as far as what you do with the budget surplus, and so that is a separate issue from the passage of the hotel/motel tax. You need to vote on the hotel/motel tax first as an issue, then vote on the distribution of the balance of the funds -- the surplus. MR. MAYS: I understood that, but I'm saying this is a game of political chess and honesty. We know what we're trying to do, we're trying to -- we got an obligation to the Museum and we're trying to go ahead and find another source to legitimately do it, and at the same time we've got some items of critical need that have been sliced. And I think what we didn't want to do was to -- and I still will support it regardless of what happens with the substitute motion. But I think in that element of fairness -- we just seen one that popped up a minute ago for reconsider-ation. We got it passed and put a choke hold on it to balance the budget, but I think we just want to make sure that we return to some of these where you've got a 75 to 50 percent cut in them. And I do think they are germane because when you have -- and I beg to differ with you. If you're finding a source to creatively keep another source alive, then you're moving that money into an arena then where you've got something else hopefully, not just to throw away, but you got another avenue there to be able to do some other funding. MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, I would agree with you if you're talking about using the hotel/motel tax to fund some of these other things, but we're not. You're using funds that are freed up as to the hotel/motel tax, and that's what I don't think is appropriate to do because it's not related to this motion. Now, if y'all want to withdraw that motion and say in the event that there is a surplus, that you go back and reconsider the items that have been cut and vote on that first, then vote on the hotel/motel tax, then you can accomplish the same thing. MR. MAYS: Okay. And I guess what I'm getting to, there are entities that were in the original distribution that was searching for some funds that were possibly going to use the one percent money out of the hotel. Now, if everything else is back on the table and we're supporting some of those, but if they get caught into the means of where they are doing tourism, too, and we slice those as opposed to dealing with some of the other cuts on there, that's where I'm trying to tie the two of them together to a point then that [inaudible], whether it's Sports Council or whether its' anybody else who's doing [inaudible] that aren't related to the one percent money, which is another area. MR. BEARD: We'll call for the question. We'll go forward. MS. LUKAGE: I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time to talk about this. My name is Mary Beth Lukage, I am the super-visor with the indigent care program with DFACS and the hospital, and I am a Richmond County citizen, and so I pay taxes. The indigent care program is a very vital program. I don't know if y'all realize it. There's nothing else for these people. Nothing. We check to make sure they're not eligible for Medicaid, Medicare. There's nothing, there's nothing else. I have a letter from one of the people that we served. I'll just read just a little -- MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I believe that right now is not the appropriate time to talk about that. I mean, we've got a motion on the floor. I believe the question has been called on a motion on the floor and we need to get that maybe out of the way first. Am I correct, Mr. Mayor? You'll have a chance to speak on that, but I think we need to take care of the business that's on the floor right now. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I just have one point. I would agree with Mr. Kuhlke on the timing of this, but I don't want to be a part of having any citizen shut off over this budget issue. We've already had a big problem with that last year and I'd like to make sure that anybody -- after we get this thing wrapped up, that anybody who has an objection has an opportunity to stand up and state what their objection is. MAYOR SCONYERS: As a matter of fact, as soon as this motion is over we'll deal with that, okay? MS. LUKAGE: Thank you. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need the motion read, gentlemen? Do y'all know what we're voting on? MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, I'd like to hear the motion. CLERK: The motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd, was to approve the one-cent hotel/motel tax and direct the CVB to distribute the money to the Augusta-Richmond County Museum to be phased out 20 percent per year over the next four years. [End of Tape 2] MR. OLIVER: ...understood the motion, and correct me if I'm wrong, but let's assume 388,000 and 400,000 are roughly the same. But when we decrease to 300,000, then it would be up to the structure that was in the prior ordinance that you all were considering to decide how that 100,000 could be best allocated to the remaining entities within the community based upon, you know, how they [inaudible]. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: But you can't do that. You can't pass something to say to give it to the Augusta-Richmond County Museum and then you're going to turn around after getting a surplus, then you're going to decide where the rest of it go and what agency it goes to. How can you do that? MR. KUHLKE: I think these funds on the hotel/motel tax, Mr. Handy, correct me, Mr. Wall, if I'm wrong, it has to go through the CVB board. Am I correct, Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: It has to go through there unless there is a governmental entity for which there was an agreement in place basically prior to 1987. And one of the things -- I mean, I was not aware that this was coming up today obviously insofar as using it for the Museum, but it may be that y'all can send that money directly to the Museum and not pass it through the CVB. But that's something that would have to be looked at and researched. But if you pass this where it's phased down, then the first year the CVB would be the pass-through and the money would go to the Augusta-Richmond County Museum. After that you would have a surplus of funds that -- I mean, either it would go as proposed in the contract where it would be utilized for these other agencies through a committee -- but that was not a part of the motion that you made, so basically at that point it would be up to the CVB as far as how they spent the additional money. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: If you're going to do that, then you you can go back to the original motion and pass it like it was. I mean, you've kind of come through the back door with something and I'm sitting here [inaudible]. MR. KUHLKE: No, Mr. Handy, listen to what I'm trying to do. What I'm trying to do is if we divert these funds to the Museum -- we're paying the Museum out of the General Fund right now. The one-cent hotel/motel tax is new money and it frees up $388,000 out the General Fund. That's what Mr. Beard is talking about is we revisit some of these things that we're talking about cutting out, that we may be able to enhance what we've cut or either add back some things that we're talking about cutting out. What I would like to do, to clarify, is to amend my motion to state that as the surplus comes available, that those funds are administered by the CVB board subcommittee as outlined -- I believe, Mr. Wall, it's in the contract. MR. WALL: In the contract. MR. TODD: And I will accept that amendment, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: But what I'm saying is, Mr. Kuhlke, why would you need to do that? You could just leave it like it is. The Augusta-Richmond County Museum is going to get money anyway, so why are you saying that you're going to pass a tax for the Augusta Museum and then you're going to say all the surplus, you're going to put it back in the fund to the CVB and give it like you wanted to give it in the beginning. I mean, who you think you're talking to today? MR. KUHLKE: What we're trying to do is balance the budget this year. This is the way to do it. But on the long term, it accomplishes two things: it's going to help us on our budget every year for the next four years and it's going to help us to the tune -- MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: And it's going to help those who we wanted to help in the beginning. That's the same thing they're talking about, Kuhlke, so what's the difference? Tell me what's the difference in what you're doing now other than what I'm saying? MR. KUHLKE: Well, the difference is that the money -- the distribution of the money, I don't know where it would go the way it was presented to begin with. What we're doing now is directing the money to a specific organization that we are already funding and we are relieving ourselves of that obligation out of the General Fund, and that's the difference. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Okay. And once that money -- you got a surplus, then what? MR. KUHLKE: Then the subcommittee, as outlined in the contract, would administer to other agencies that apply for those funds for the promotion of Augusta. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Right back where you were in the beginning. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I understand what we're doing, if I follow the money trail, we've created a $380,000 surplus back into the General Fund that we possibly could use down the road for some of the entities that the representatives are sitting out front that's looking for additional cash. And I want to commend Mr. Kuhlke for his fast thinking on his seat. MR. H. BRIGHAM: I know Mr. Wall has ruled that you couldn't put a substitute motion in here, but what would happen if Mr. Beard's motion become an amendment if Mr. Kuhlke would accept it? Because I'm kind of like Mr. Mays, a lot of times once we get one of them, then we kind of forget about a lot of the other things that -- or other folks that may be here and need some help. And would that be permissible if Mr. Kuhlke would agree to it? MR. WALL: The problem is that they relate to two different issues. And, again, if you want to vote on Mr. Beard's proposal first as a separate item, say in the event a surplus is created in the General Fund, then we will go back and revisit the items that have been cut and then vote on that if there is a surplus, and then vote on the issue about the hotel/motel tax, creating it, then you can accomplish the same thing. But I don't think you can tie the two motions -- put it all in one motion. MR. MAYS: I think maybe what's confusing, I don't think we're talking about where the surplus goes and where you tie it in. I think what we're talking about is using the hotel/motel to create a shift in money that you still have available then in General Fund. You're not talking about where the surplus is going out of there, you're talking about what you are leaving to help mix up some of where the percentage of those cuts have gone that are still left out there, because then you freed it up then to make a decision on. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Thank you, Mr. Mays, that's what I was talking about right there, not putting back in to distribute back to CVB, but frees up whatever left for the other money. Now, it can't be when you put it in CVB to do it, you need to do it with that list up there and put it where we want to put it. MR. OLIVER: I believe that you can modify any item until the budget is adopted, so I think that it isn't an issue. I mean, regardless of what happens, you can modify -- until you adopt the budget, you can modify anything you would like. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I just want to make one comment. The bottom line, the central issue here is we're talking about an increase in tax. It's a tax on industry, it's a tax on business, and it's an indirect tax on the consumer, and that's central to this whole thing. I mean, we can talk about how we want to distribute it or who gets it and whatever and how we're going to do that, but what we're talking about is a tax increase on the consumer. MR. BEARD: I call the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion -- CLERK: Do you want a roll call, sir? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yeah, why don't we do that. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays out. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 6-3. [MR. MAYS OUT] MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that we consider line items that those Commissioners would want to consider at this time and deal with any surplus that we have. MR. TODD: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: I have a question. Which line items? Are we going to be free to add things? MR. BEARD: Yes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if the maker of the motion will accept, I think that we need to -- once a Commissioner add something, then it should be closed and we should move to the next Commissioner versus back and forth. MR. BEARD: That's all right with me, Mr. Todd. MR. BRIDGES: Are we talking about adding deductions? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe that we're talking adding surpluses, or using the surplus, and I think that we -- and it just limit to the surplus and we'd cut off there. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, what was the intent of your motion? MR. BEARD: I said that we would consider those items that -- the line items that Commissioners wanted to present in reference the surplus that we have and make a decision on those. MR. POWELL: Is that for cuts as well? I mean, if we're going to leave it open, let's leave it open for positive or negative here. MR. BEARD: Well, you know, six votes will determine what we're going to do here. MR. BRIDGES: What's the motion on the floor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Read Mr. Beard's motion, please. CLERK: Mr. Beard's motion was to reconsider those items Commissioners presented reference to the surplus, the line items to be added with regard to the surplus. And that's to add or deduct. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 7-2. [MR. MAYS OUT] MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Oliver, let me ask you one thing. The monies that we're talking about, these are all proposed monies? MR. OLIVER: Everything that's on the table at this point is proposed until it's adopted by the Mayor and Commission. MAYOR SCONYERS: This will not come out of hard dollars? MR. OLIVER: No. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I just want to make sure everybody understands that. MR. OLIVER: But if we add one, we have to take one away, okay? I mean, once we use the 388,000. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. That was the point I was wanting to make. Ma'am, did you want to come back? MS. LUKAGE: Okay. My name is Mary Beth Lukage and I supervise the indigent care unit at the hospital. I have seven employees and me. It's a very vital program. There is no other medical sources for these people. The hospital has said that they're having a hard time and will be having a hard time to continue to provide the level of service that they provide now. And we do certify a lot of people. I have a letter to read, just very short. This says, "My son and I have no kind of medical coverage because we couldn't afford any. My husband died and left us barely getting by. We never had to live this way before. Due to my health, my medical coverage was terminated. My son also had no medical services. Now through indigent care we can get medical attention when we need it." It is a very valuable program. With Family and Children Services being a part of this program, we have the resources to look and see if they are eligible for something else. We help these people in the community. We can help them get food stamps, we can look and see if they're already getting Medicare or Medicaid or we can help them get Medicaid. I think that it's valuable that we are there. And even more personally, you're talking about cutting this money to DFACS, which is a huge sum, it's not just ten percent. I mean, I don't know if we're an outside agency, but this is immediately. This means I won't have a job by Friday, and this is eight people. Plus, you know, I just want you to think about the impact of cutting all of that money this quickly, even if, you know, there was a waiting period or a period of time. The hospital does not have any processes in place to take care of this, so they would not know how to certify these patients [inaudible]. I just think that you need to consider this DFACS money being cut so drastically if you can. MR. ZETTERBERG: My initial understanding was that the $500,000 that we gave was for certification. I guess I, along with some other people, were very surprised to see that $500,000 was a multifaceted program. What does it cost for these certifications? MS. LUKAGE: I believe that the budget that Ms. Johnson had recommended to the director was around $113,000 to cover the staff at the hospital to keep that program intact. MR. ZETTERBERG: So 113,000, not 500,000 that some of us might have thought was the cost? MS. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. It was never 500,000 in the beginning. Only 324,000 of the money that was initially requested was indigent care in the first place. As I said, when we had the earlier meeting this month, $157,000 was for Child Welfare and close to 10,000 for other administrative costs. So the total portion was never indigent care in the first place, but just to maintain the eight workers at the hospital it would be approximately $113,000. MR. OLIVER: Here is the exact breakdown: administration and salary supplement, $9,890; child welfare, 157,500; indigent care, 324,571. The initial budget request was for 491,961. They have subsequently modified those numbers and are still requesting the 9,041, a slight decrease; the 157,500; and they decreased the certification to 112,896. To be fair, and I don't know if there's a representative of University Hospital here, the question becomes to University Hospital, if there was $100,000 to give to either University or DFACS, could it best be given to University or best be given to DFACS, and that's a decision that the Mayor and Commission will have to make based upon the input of these two agencies. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a slight problem with an appropriation or a request for appropriation for 300,000 and the actual cost is 113,000. And what the intent of the other funds or what the history as far as the audit go on this of the past use and, you know, whether we got so good with certifications and weeding folks out that we last year past spent 300-plus and this year the need is 112 or 113. Now, I know that if we're cutting the amount of money that we're spending, then we're cutting the need for certifications, and I would buy into the argument that what we need to do is to --if we got a cap on it and we're not going to exceed that cap no matter what, then we cut the certifi-cation folks to a certain number, you know, maybe one or maybe two instead of eight, and let them continue to do that and work that out. I know there's some other issues as far as DFACS go. You know, I guess everybody know that I'm a union pipefitter. I'm very familiar with ROF you know, I receive them -- I received one, I believe, last Saturday. You know, we have a grievance process and we have a union, we pay dues, you know. But when it's a matter of ROF, I don't have a argument. We don't have seniority, we don't have the right to a job. We move on and hopefully the person that represent me that I pay dues can find me another job. I would like to think that the cost of the certification process, Mr. Mayor, and the cost of the opportunity that was given to eight individuals to work for two and a half to three years, that they would improve their skills or at least improve their resume to the point that certainly they can go out and find a job in the job market. It is not this government's responsi-bility to supply employment for the citizens of this county. That's the private sector. We employ a lot of employees. We employ approximately, you know, 2,400. It's our responsibility to grow jobs through the private sector so the job market is there. And with the unemployment rate as it is statewide and where it's at in this county at this time and where it's at at the national level, I certainly don't see why we should fund jobs just for the purpose of keeping someone employed. I think we should fund jobs based on the service delivery need of this government, and it was that service delivery need that prompted us in this earlier negotiation with University to hire the eight individuals. And there is still unanswered questions on how we went from 300,000 to 113,000, and some other issues as far as DFACS go, and I certainly want to hear from someone representing DFACS on them. I understand also that we have changed directors and we've changed comptrollers, but that don't make it right if it was done wrong. MR. KENDRICK: Mr. Mayor, may I respond to Commissioner Todd, please? As a member of the board of directors of Depart-ment and Family and Children Services, you're right, $324,000 was the money we requested. However, since we knew that you all was going through the financial crisis that you are now talking about, we came back and did some severe cuts of our own in order to help you reach that goal. Keep in mind that these dollars -- that $112,000 [inaudible]. That $112,000 is really $224,000. Fifty percent of it is paid by the state. That is what we employ eight people for, $112.000. That's what it's costing you as a Commissioner. MR. TODD: Well, my question to Mr. Kendrick would be --and I think he's the Commission's appointee to that board. MR. KENDRICK: That's right. MR. TODD: And we certainly appreciate the job that y'all have done over there. But my question is, was the State paying 50 percent of the $300,000 and was the real number $600,000? MS. JOHNSON: The state was. It was a cash match for all positions prior to this amount. MR. J. BRIGHAM: How many people do y'all have now? MR. KENDRICK: We've got eight people. MR. J. BRIGHAM: How many did you have last year? MS. JOHNSON: Seventeen. There were Outreach workers. The original deal cut before my coming -- and maybe you can enlighten me more of that because I entered into the situation. And so there were Outreach workers that were part of -- that were doing some outreach, going into homes, talking to people about Medicaid. That's how the seventeen came to be. The number that's actually at the hospital is only eight workers, and that's why we're asking that only those eight be funded. MR. TODD: That's certainly a clarification, and we certainly appreciate that clarification. MR. BRAY: I think there are a couple of ramifications that need to be considered with this certification, and a basic question is what is the Commission's position going to be on certification from this point on? Three years ago the Commission developed this certification process, put it in place and funded it. As you now reduce the amount of money that's there to serve people, there's certainly not going to be that many people that we're going to certify or help. It'll be a lot less. So you've got to decide if you want to continue the same certification process that you had or decrease it. That's sort of a fundamen-tal question [inaudible]. I can tell you that the DFACS workers have done an outstanding job over these years in helping people find other sources of help, not only in helping certify them based upon the criteria that's in place for Richmond County indigent support, but they have worked very hard in finding people other means of support, particularly through the Medicaid program. If that service goes away, I can assure you that University Hospital doesn't have the money to fund eight people to go in there and pick that up and do it. We can't do it with the kind of cuts we're already getting. So I think you're going to have to decide the importance of that activity and the necessity for it. So I think there are several questions, but I can tell you that it's been a very helpful process to us at the hospital and to the people we serve, and I salute the DFACS people for the work they've done. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Bray, I may be the only one on the Commission, but it's my impression -- and if we weren't going through this process we probably wouldn't know, but it was my impression that once we cut it in half to a million two fifty, that we were going to eliminate the certification program all together, and then by doing that we were going to save $491,000 a year. And unbeknowing to me, the other things that we were funding in there such as the food stamp program and so forth, so I'm getting a little bit educated myself. But in my estimation, just speaking from the standpoint of where I sit right now, is if we're going to cut you to a million two fifty we don't need the certifications. We know that you've got more than that indigent care, so why spend the money to do anything? MR. BRAY: That's a question I think you've got to decide, Mr. Kuhlke, because in the past you've been very concerned about making sure that we serve only Richmond County residents and that we certify those people [inaudible] and I think you've got to decide, you know, what restrictions do you put on that money from this point on. And there is certainly going to be a point of diminishing return because, you know, we're looking at a much less amount now than we were, you know, three years ago or four years ago. There's just so much you can put in there, you know, to make it worthwhile. MR. TODD: It seems to me that if you were cutting the money, it seems to me that it would be in the best interest of the indigents to have the money going to indigent care versus certification. And if we want the safeguards to ensure that we don't have folks committing fraud, then I think there is laws that take care of that. All we need to do is to do a ordinance or whatever we need to do, and if they go down there and they're committing fraud, that we put them in that jail that we really don't have room for them in and deal with them that way. We can take civil action against them or whatever. Because the only way they can get it and not deserve it, if they have means to pay. If they have means to pay, then we should go after them in a criminal and civil action. And that should be the same policy for Indigent Defense, that if they commit fraud in receiving it, we should prosecute them or at least have an administrative hearing and deal with those that cheat in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, welfare. So, you know, I don't see the point, I think that we need the regulations and we need the laws in place and then deal with them if they cheat or if they commit fraud. MR. J. BRIGHAM: It's my understanding on indigent care, the only way we can spend money -- and maybe I'm wrong, maybe Mr. Wall will correct me, that the only way we can spend money for indigent care is unless we got a certified person that's indigent. I believe that's the state law. So if we're not going to certify them as indigent, we just saved another 1.3 million because we can't spend it unless we got a certification saying they're indigent. MR. WALL: Well, it's not up to the county to do the certification, though. I think in this situation the burden is lie on the hospital to determine the eligibility. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I believe the state law says we've got to vote on people that are indigent. MR. WALL: On a list? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. That's the way I read it. MR. WALL: I'm not sure that there is a list that has to be voted on. MR. BRAY: Mr. Brigham, let me just say if you're going to require the type of certification process that you've had in the past, I would ask that you fund the DFACS people to continue that. Don't put that burden on the hospital on top of all the other cuts that you've already hit us with. We can't do that. I mean, I'm just being honest with you now. You know, you go back three years ago and you know how much reduction we received then, and we were not prepared for a 50 percent reduction right now. Maybe you're never prepared for it, but we certainly weren't expecting it. And to ask us to go through an expensive certification process on top of that, again, we're going to get to the point where you just can't justify it. So if you're going to require that as a Commission, then I'm going to ask you to fund that through DFACS as you have been. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I supported the process that we put in place, and I don't believe in just fighting folks to be fighting. Don knows we've been on the same side in some battles and been on some different sides in some battles. But I think the neutral position of DFACS worked well for everybody. It worked well for this government, it worked well for University. You may say, well, were we supposed to be in that business of helping University. Well, the point is, if it works well for the government, I'm not really that concerned about who else pays to University or a indigent care provider as long as that process is legal and proper. I think that's where a lot of our people at DFACS came into play. And to go even further with it, I think when you stretch those tentacles into other areas that people can receive help and to get certified in as well as the other options that they may bring when they bring a health problem, a lot of those things go into as well as preventive care. You're talking about what you're getting into debt in dealing with the Health Department expansion, even that's not coming into play in this year, but those are ways I think that this program has saved to that point. Now, if we're going to be in that business, I think it's kind of contradictory if we put a plan in place to save money from the standpoint that we make sure that the proper people are being serviced by it who use it, then we come along two to three years later and we wipe it out. The common denomi-nator in this process -- yes, the bottom line is money, but the common denominator is do folks who need health care and in many cases that cannot provide it, do they disappear from your community. Do they vanish? Do they go away? Will those numbers decrease? Will they just automatically not be there anymore? That answer is no. They're still going to be there. And I think the argument can be made on the other side that while we've had our battles in the past of getting to a point where we reach an agreement and where a hospital has provided good service where you have a neutral party doing certification where we paid -- or make sure what's paid is allocated, you know, out of the indigent care fund, I think that's a process that has worked. Now you come along and what do you do with the drastic reductions? Are you to turn that care down? Are you to work out a deal with somebody else? I don't really see anybody coming to the mike, Mr. Mayor, or writing us letters right now at this point on a budget that we got to deal with by midnight tomorrow night as any great takers with open arms and say we're going to take over this particular program. I think if you're going to have it on any level, then if the certification process has worked, then why then do you back out of that darn process at this point? If that was the level that we put in that we agreed on, do you now go back and say, okay, because we cut the money we're sending, does that make it now easier to control and does it make the numbers of those folk go away? Health care in a lot of those cases where those other services are provided in terms of where you send folk are living witness to where and what the high cost of health care can do to you. I know what it's like to have so much money so they say that you can't qualify for any-thing and to a point that you are not indigent to the standpoint that you qualify under certification but it will turn around and break you in the process. I think this process has helped to direct a lot of folks that not only qualified for the certifica-tion to deal as indigents, but also directed their paths into other sources of care ultimately that took a burden off of this government. Now, a statement was made about where you deal with them in fraud. Anybody who is going to cheat on health care, I don't necessarily want them going to jail because then you turn around there, if you weigh the cost, you're going to pay for them there. Every time they get a toothache you're going to pay for it. If they want a bright smile, you're going to buy some teeth. You're going to pay for the best and highest care of where they are there, so that's not necessarily an answer. So I think there's got to be a common-sense balance in what you deal with with it. I think a reasonable cut in what you're doing and what we're asking everybody else to do. But I think if you're going to put a program in place that has worked and then you totally snatch it out completely, then, you know, I think the average citizen will say, well, why in the devil did you do it in the very beginning. And I'm not saying that it can't work at a lesser level, but I think if you're talking about some of the massive things that I've heard of in this area, folk who need health care -- you know, you can go to somebody's, you know, house and visit, you can go to free lunches, free church anniversary, you can find something to eat. But from the standpoint if somebody is sick, they're going to seek treatment somewhere, and it's a matter of whether or not we have somebody in place to deal with it equitably and to make sure that the proper agencies pay their fair share of what's to be paid. If I was representing -- and we've had our battles, we've been on the same side, been against each other, and I'm going to shut up when I say this. If I was representing University and you cut me out now, and you dealt with this in DFACS and you cut that program off, and you drug me back in here three years from now and want to argue about indigent care and who was ineligible and what you paid, and then you turn around and dismantle a program that you put together, then, you know, I'd laugh at you for totally doing it. And that's where I'm going. I think we ought to make a serious effort to try and deal with some of this, particularly in terms of where, you know, we made a commitment, not necessarily of what's by law. There's a lot of things that aren't by law. You don't have a gym and a recreation department by law. You don't have to have a transit system, per se, by law. There's a lot of things you don't have to have by law, but if you're going to run government, if you're going to provide hopefully for needs of people, then you do some things that aren't necessarily spelled out by law. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion that with the creative financing that we just found, thanks to Mr. Kuhlke -- and we were not allowed to make an amendment to that motion and our Attorney advised us that we could make a motion at this particular point. I would like to make a motion that the funding level of DFACS will be no less than -- the percentage of funding level will be no less than the Arts Council or any other agencies that were cut in half, and I don't know what that exact figure would be. MR. OLIVER: Fifty percent. Okay, we can work that out. Fifty percent of what they got last year then in totality? MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's correct. MR. OLIVER: All right, we can work that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's my motion, Mr. Mayor. MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion to get it on the floor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we take, out of the $380,000, $200,000 and put it towards indigent care, that's for the patients and medical doctor care; and we take $56,000 from the certification program and put it towards indigent care; and that we operate the certification program with four individuals. And that's in the form of a substitute motion. And that would leave $180,000 from the $380,000 surplus. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second the motion to get it on the floor, but I got a - - that's not exactly [inaudible]. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, are we going to have it reread or do I need to restate it? MR. KUHLKE: Are you saying that we apply a certain amount to increase indigent care? MR. TODD: Yes, to a quarter of a million dollars, or $256,000, and to cut the certification staff by 50 percent, and our share of that cost for funding that would be $56,000. A total of 56,000 to DFACS for funding the certification staff. This have nothing else to do with any other funding at DFACS, this would be the certification staff only at this time. And if we want to do something else, we have $180,000 to do it with. With a quarter of a million dollars going back to University for indigent care. And, Mr. Mays, I listened to you, and I've been criticized for not having the art of compromise, and I think if I can do it on this one I probably can do it on most others. MR. KUHLKE: How much does that total up to, Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: It totals up to $256,000 for indigent care and $56,000 for certification. I guess I'm wrong on my bottom line on what we have left. I would need to take $56,000 from the 180,000, which would leave, I believe, 124,000; is that correct? MR. OLIVER: What about the 50,000 we proposed to restore? This would be total with the exception of the food stamp component of 59,000 and the Safe Home? MR. TODD: Well, I'm not a CPA like you, now, so slow down a little bit. The $50,000 that we restored, was that restored to indigent care certification or was it restored as administrative for DFACS? What purpose is it to be used? MR. OLIVER: It was not tied to anything, and all I need to know is is that inclusive or exclusive of that 50,000? And I think we need it to be exclusive of the 50,000. MR. TODD: Exclusive is the motion. MR. KENDRICK: I'm not sure I understand. Before you take your vote I would like to be clear. I don't know whether you all are or not. Commissioner Todd is saying 50 percent of indigent care. Am I understanding you right? MR. TODD: No, I didn't say a percentage. MR. KENDRICK: You said four people. That would be half of what we got now; correct? MR. TODD: Right. The individuals certifying, 50 percent. MR. KENDRICK: And what about the rest of the categories like welfare, food stamps and -- MR. TODD: I'm not speaking on that. I'm dealing with this issue now, indigent care and certifications. And we have a little money, I think, left. It's a little less than what I said at first, but I believe that the number is 124,000 that we can deal with some of the other agencies, and I would guess that would include possibly DFACS. MR. KENDRICK: May we respectfully request that you all allow $275,000 and we'll make do with what we got? And that's a substantial cut from what we had last year. MR. H. BRIGHAM: My motion came close to that. I said 50 percent, or no less than what we did for the Arts Council, no less than what did for indigent care. I know Mr. Bray wants some more, but I think that if we could do this, this would keep us all in the ballpark. MR. OLIVER: Under Mr. Brigham's proposal I can give you the number. I've worked that out. This year they got $491,961 for child welfare, indigent care, and administration. They also got $59,061 for food stamp certification, and then they got $25,000 for child enrichment and $10,000 for Safe Homes, making a total of $586,022. MR. KENDRICK: Now, that's food stamp distribution, not certification. We don't certify food stamps. In other words, the state provides the stamps. The county's responsibility is to distribute them. MR. OLIVER: And 50 percent of that is $293,011, so we're fairly close. MR. BEARD: Do we have a motion on the floor for that? MAYOR SCONYERS: We got two of them. MR. BEARD: Okay. I think we should hear what the motions are and we could move forward. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Kendrick, you are saying that if you get the -- is it 293,000? By getting those funds, that you would continue the programs that you are already funding, including the certification program? MR. KENDRICK: We may not be able to do -- I'm sure -- I can honestly say we can do some, maybe not at the level that we are now doing, but we could do something in that regard, okay? We're going to have to go back and -- you've got to remember, you're cutting us by half here and there's no way -- MR. KUHLKE: I understand. But I would think that with the amount of money that we have cut University Hospital, that you wouldn't need as many people as you have there anyway. But I just want to understand that DFACS, if these funds were appropriated, that DFACS would maintain the certification at the hospital. MR. KENDRICK: That's right. That's right. MS. JOHNSON: At what level, we're not certain, because we'll need to rework the numbers. We can work the numbers from the 293,011 and we could look at it from that perspective, but in terms of what commitments and terms of what level -- because we obviously have some other line items as well, but we will make every commitment to do that because we're really committed to the program. MS. LUKAGE: And I was also going to say that even though the funds are cut for the hospital, all the same patients are still there, so you're still looking at 4,500 people a year. We're getting 450 applications a month. So even though the funding is less, the hospital doesn't just say just certify them until we reach that point and then we don't need it. We keep certifying these people all year because the hospital writes that off because they have no other funds. MR. OLIVER: I'd like to make one clarification to make sure that everybody understands this, because this issue came up with Ms. Johnson last week. And there's a question in my mind, but as long as everybody has the same understanding, that's fine. But this number that we are proposing, which is $293,011, includes the issuance of food stamps for 1998 and that no additional money will be authorized for the distribution of food stamps, because that issue is different in these documents. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that there is two motions on the floor, and I don't know whether we're debating the original motion or substitute motion. And I think it's important to understand that if we're backing in, Mr. Mayor, all of the money on the DFACS side for certification and other, then we're not backing in any monies at this point for indigent care, and, you know, it don't make any sense to this old country boy to pay for certifications after you run out of money. It makes sense to me to spend the amount of money for certifications, you know, whether the person is there all year or there six months until we run out of money as far as what we're going to spend. Then as far as a write-off or a value added to University or anyone else after we spend that, it's their responsibility to pick up at that point and pay for certifications because they're receiving the value added for the write-offs or ever how they handle it or the certification to the indigent trust fund that they spent that money properly. It is not our responsibility and I agree with my colleague here. But what we're doing now, we're just backing money back into the DFACS side of it and we're not backing any money back into the indigent care side of it, and what I'm trying to do is be as objective as I possibly can here and do it where the needs are as far as indigent care. And I know there is other issues such as the child enrichment, et cetera, and I think that possibly we should have dealt with those separately. But if it's the will of this Commission and my colleagues to go with this dealing with DFACS and not worry about indigent care, then I guess I can, you know, not necessarily buy into it, but vote on it up or down. MR. OLIVER: Assuming Mr. Brigham's motion passes, just to keep a running total, we're $289,050 to the good. MR. H. BRIGHAM: The intent was -- we didn't say to the Arts Council you've got to spend it in a certain way. I think that if they take it back, massage the numbers, then come back to Mr. Oliver or to this Commission and say this is how the money will be spent -- and I think that we are fooling ourselves. We can sit up here and micromanage one of the largest departments in this city with millions of dollars, and maybe more than that, I don't know, and I think that we ought not to do that. I think we ought to allow -- if we're going to vote on the half, if that's the vote we can get, then let them come back to Mr. Oliver or to us with some kind of plan how they can best use it, not us sit here and try to dictate to them what's the best way to use it. Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the two motions, the substitute motion first made by Mr. Todd. CLERK: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, out of the surplus of $280,000, $240,000 to be restored to the University indigent care, $56,000 taken from the certification restore it to the indigent care, and to reduce the certification personnel by four. MR. BRIDGES: Randy, I want to understand, when we increase the taxes, how much excess money did we have? MR. OLIVER: $388,000. MR. BRIDGES: All right. And Mr. Todd's motion is to take $306,000 from that? MR. OLIVER: It's my understanding that Mr. Todd's motion was to restore $200,000 to University and to give $56,000 to DFACS for four employees to do certification. And what I had to do was to net out the $50,000 we were proposing back, so under his motion there would be a net increase of $206,000: $200,000 to University and $56,000 to DFACS. MR. ZETTERBERG: So the surplus is what? MR. OLIVER: Well, I worked the other figures on Mr. Brigham's motion and I can do it either way. MR. BRIDGES: I think we need to know what the figures are on both motions. MR. OLIVER: Under Mr. Brigham's motion, the restoration is $148,950 and all of it goes to DFACS. Under Mr. Todd's motion, the restoration is $206,000: $200,000 going to University and $56,000 going to DFACS. MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first, gentlemen. Roll call vote. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy: MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MOTION FAILS 9-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion made by Mr. Brigham. CLERK: Mr. Brigham's motion was that the funding level for DFACS be no less than the cuts for the Arts Council and other outside agencies, which was at 50 percent, percentage-wise. MR. TODD: And what dollar amount, please? MR. OLIVER: The total funding to DFACS for budget year 1998 would be $293,011. In additional money, it's $148,950, and that includes the $50,000 that's in there. MR. BRIDGES: So that leaves us about $240,000? MR. OLIVER: That leaves us $289,050. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's provided all those funds come in. MR. OLIVER: Everything is contingent upon that, yes, sir. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, could we go to the order of the day? MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead and call it, roll call vote. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 9-1. MR. POWELL: I'd like to hear from the Sheriff's Department on the cuts that we made there one more time to get a clarification on this because I want to make sure that we've got all of our public safety covered. I just -- I'm not sure of that as far as these numbers are concerned. MARY ANN GIBBS: Mr. Mayor, the Sheriff had to leave for another appointment and wanted me to express his concerns. We found out yesterday that we were definitely being frozen at the 1997 level, which is a shortage of $300,000 in the Sheriff's budget, realizing that the Sheriff had already made cuts of 1.2 million. I can't operate on the 1997 levels. And I think all of you know me well enough that I do not pad our budget, that we try to take into consideration certain formulas for our inmates on housing and feeding, clothing, medical care, and so forth. With increasing the population up 200 - - the projection is 200 more this year. And adding the additional deputies, our arrests will be up. We cannot operate with that. So we went back and we were looking at ways that we could cut our budget $300,000. so we looked at our mobile data terminals, which in your budget is listed as $350,000. These are the computer terminals that we were trying to start to put into our cars that they could access UCIC and NCIC. We are light years behind in technology, but this would be a luxury for us at this moment, so we opted to take those out. But we did not know, neither did ITS know, that these were in the budget to be leased, so that we would only save $80,000 if we took out these mobile data terminals. So we started scrounging around for the rest of the money that we could save. We looked at the option, as the Sheriff mentioned earlier, of leasing 15 of the cars. We only wanted to lease 15. That would have saved us $180,000 toward our $300,000 shortage, and then looking at taking $40,000 out of our regular operating budget, which would give us our $300,000. I understand that you don't want to lease. There are some things we can lease and there are some things that we can't lease obviously since we're going to be leasing the mobile data terminals. I'm telling you I can't operate. And we're going to operate one way or the other. We're going to operate in the black or we're going to operate in the red, because we have to house prisoners. I just need a way that you can tell us what we need to do. MR. BRIDGES: Mary Ann, how much do you need? You need $180,000? MARY ANN GIBBS: I need $180,000. And that -- I would be taking out my mobile data terminals and taking $40,000 out of my operating budget. MR. OLIVER: The 40,000 I don't have any trouble with at all. The lease -- as I've previously mentioned, I could have eliminated our total budget deficit by leasing all of our capital equipment. The problem, however, is that I would have built a time bomb into our budget process in subsequent years. MR. BRIDGES: That's not what we're talking about Randy. We're talking about if you add the -- if she gets the $180,000 she can buy the cars and not lease them. MR. OLIVER: And I have no -- as I understood it, you're taking 40,000 from operating, Mary Ann? MARY ANN GIBBS: Right. MR. OLIVER: And I have no problem if rather than cutting the 300,000, if they only cut 40,000, making that 260,000 and doing a restoration for the 260,000 if that's what the Mayor and -- MARY ANN GIBBS: We were told by Finance that we had to cut $300,000 off of our capital and/or operating budget to be able to have our existing 1998 budget. I'm saying I cannot operate on the 1997 level. Because of the number of arrests, I am paying three times the amount of [inaudible] we started first of the year because of the update in technology. MR. ZETTERBERG: Are you changing any of the ways you operate or are you just saying I'm going to operate exactly the same way in '98 as we did in '97? MARY ANN GIBBS: No, sir, we have changed. Mr. Zetterberg, we have changed many, many, many things. One thing I have changed, on our suppressions units, we no longer put them in regular uniforms because they get torn all the time. They are in regular fatigues because they're in high-crime areas. That's one way we have done it. We are buying in surplus, but when things break we have to have them repaired. We have to process prisoners as they come in, and that is where the bulk of our monies come from, housing prisoners and processing them. MR. BRIDGES: But, Randy, I want to make sure that you and I are on the same wave length here. If we put back -- from the 300,000, if we give her back 180,000, she could buy the cars, no leasing anything? MR. OLIVER: That's correct. And they give up the data terminals and save 40,000 within their operating budget. MR. BRIDGES: Okay. I so move. MR. POWELL: Second. MR. TODD: I think I sat here and heard the Sheriff say that he was okay with the budget with what he outlined. Now we have a change in the public safety budget. And the Sheriff has also stated to me on several occasions that he never asked for anything he couldn't justify. I think the difference here is that we're going from the concept of not -- no residual value on these cars [inaudible], and I guess I need to hear, you know, where the value is for the government. You know, we can depreciate, et cetera, so where is the value added in owning versus leasing? MR. OLIVER: Well, the value of leasing is that it permits you, if you have a capital expenditure like a home, for example, to purchase the home and pay for it over time. The difficulty with leasing police cars is the fact that we basically turn them over roughly every three years. So if we continue the philosophy that was used last year where we leased half of our vehicles, then we would make lease payments for -- I'm sorry, not half the vehicles, but if we took half of our capital revenue and applied it to lease payments and we did that same thing again this year, which would have elimi-nated a large portion of the budget deficit, we would have no money next year to buy cars. And so in the long term it's not good public policy to lease those vehicles unless it's an ongoing -- it's an unusual expense, if you will. If you're going to have to replace a third of them a year, it's better to set up a vehicle replacement policy, and that's what we're trying to do. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, what I think Mr. Oliver was trying to say, to help Mr. Todd out, was that he's not opposed to leasing them if we put the whole three-year payments into this year's budget. Is that basically what you're saying? Same thing, isn't it, whether we buy them or lease them? MR. OLIVER: As long as we make sure that we have the money in subsequent years. But the way the lease program was worked last year, we'd only have enough lease payments for this year and next year, and then in the third year there'd be no money available to do anything and we could buy no capital. So it wasn't well-founded in its logic. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Right. What I'm saying is basically you don't care whether we pay for them or lease them as long as the money is [inaudible]. MR. OLIVER: Right. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mary Ann, my question to you is what were you going to do without if we had not found this extra money that you now want part of? MARY ANN GIBBS: We'd be operating in the red. I'd be sending purchase orders over to be paid that we didn't have the money to pay. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So y'all basically weren't going to take a budget cut anyway, y'all were just going to send us -- MARY ANN GIBBS: No, I didn't say that, Jerry. You have bills when you're under a court order that must be paid, and we're under obligation to send those over. Yes, we try to run a tight ship and cut wherever we can, but when my bill comes in from Scana that's $20,000 a month, I have to pay it. And what I'm saying to you is that I can't operate under last year's figures with an increase of 200 population and more deputies on the streets and inflation on my film and the technology things. MR. BEARD: You know, this is a tentative budget, and we've just about balanced it. You know, I'm thinking of the possibility of looking to the future and maybe doing something down the road. There will be some fees incurred and that kind of thing that maybe could be helpful. But, to me, with all the cuts that we made, and I think that all we have done for the Sheriff's Department lately, I have difficulty with this particular aspect coming back up at this time. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll make it brief. I believe that we got a few hundred thousand dollars worth of traffic tickets from the former city that our constitutionally elected officer has chosen not to pursue, and [inaudible]. But certainly if they would pursue that, if we haven't run out of the statute of limitations, they probably would have enough money to do what they want to do. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Move the order of the day, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the motion, please, ma'am? CLERK: The motion was to restore $180,000 to the Sheriff's Department, deleting the data terminals and $40,000 from the operating budget. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: I'm going to vote no at this time. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MOTION CARRIES 6-4. MR. TODD: Here at this time, Mr. Mayor, I think it's appropriate to, and I'm making a request to the Mayor's Chair to recognize Mr. Tom Watson, I believe it is, he is a citizen, and that we give him four minutes to comment. MR. WATSON: Thank you for allowing someone who pays the taxes to speak for four minutes. We've heard from all sorts of government agencies up here who don't want cuts or more money, so I thank you for allowing someone who produces the revenue to pay for all these things to talk about it for a moment. I know you can't wait to hear all the accolades I have for you concerning the budget and Commission business in '97, but while you wait for that let me make a few observations. I think the people that were elected who we thought had the most common sense, we have yet to see that materialize, and the people that were elected who we thought had the least common sense had the most, and it's made for some interesting marriages. You spent millions to save little, and it appears that most of you enjoy that because it involves influence peddling, which leads to a bigger issue, which is severe lack of public trust, and I think you're going to have to address that next year because of what hasn't been addressed well in the past. Regarding the money, you continuously want more and more to provide more and more. It's always more, more, more. People don't want more for more and people don't want more for less or less for more. Why don't you ask if people want less for less? They want government out of their lives. You don't have trouble getting money. Okay, we'll use the one-cent sales tax and we'll take public dollars and advertise to get it passed. That's illegal, gentlemen. You still haven't admitted that. I took you to Atlanta on that to get you out of the influence peddling, get you somewhere where you don't have any political influence, and I'm a layman and I beat your legal department on that three times. And you still won't admit that it's wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised to see you do it again. I have not seen one person admit that that was wrong despite the fact that the Ethics Commission found you in violation. It's amazing to me. What do you want to do when you need money? Okay, we'll do one percent. If that doesn't work, well, we'll get the property taxes up. No, that's too touchy, let's raise the assessments. I had a 30 percent increase in my property taxes in one year and there weren't even any sales in the neighborhood. Because you can get money any way you want, let's just redo assessments. And then you have an equalization board. Who's on that equalization board? Nobody but government employees or people who receive money from the government in some way, retirement funds or what-ever else. What do you think they're interested in? They're interested in more revenue, more revenue, more revenue. That's what you're interested in, you're not interested in less for less. I will have to say that I commend you for cutting University Hospital. You know, two of their executives -- two or three of them make as much money as the neurosurgeons at MCG, and they're sitting here talking about it's so bad, we need money, we need money. And then you come up with this COP, certificate of participation. Well, that's nothing but taxation without representation and you know it, and I'm very surprised to hear that from Mr. Kuhlke. Very surprised to hear that. That is just amazing to me, I do not understand it. And there's nothing wrong with that golf course the way it is. And besides that, you're going to raise fees and then the indigent kids that go out there to play aren't going to be able to play. I don't get it, gentlemen. Then the Sheriff's Department, thank you for not giving him everything he wants. I thought he just had a blank check. He's had a 56 percent increase in two years. He's had a 26 percent increase in one year. And, great, now he wants to lease some cars. So what you're doing is you're going around and you're snacking around the table, you're not taking any big bites. Take some bites out of the government, not out of us, because we haven't got anything left to chew on. We're producing the revenue and we got nothing left for you to chew on. Get used to it, it's not going to get any better. There's going to be federal cuts that's going to put more pressure on you to spend more money. Create more revenue, let's have some more taxes. One guy gets up here and talks against a tax, you tie the vote, he walks out of the room, bring it up, pass it again. Hey, there we go, three percent, there's $300,000. It's about time to go home, now we got a surplus, now let's vote how we're going to spend that money. I swear, I don't know, gentlemen. And then your legal department. It says in the consolidation law that you're supposed to have an inhouse legal staff. You don't have it yet. Why? Is it because the legal firm that represents you gave you contributions to your campaign? I hope not. Is that true? I hope not. Ask yourself that question. Is it because -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I'd like to answer that, Mr. Watson. Nobody gave me that. Nobody gave me a contribution for anything. MR. WATSON: Good. Well, there has been contributions made by the county legal firm to other candidates. Go downstairs and look in the closet, you'll find it. At any rate, why have you not got an inhouse legal situation and why have you let it go this long? I hope it's not because you're getting contributions. I hope it's not because your legal department represents you in private affairs and then up here in your government affairs, and these have a conflict of interest. MR. ZETTERBERG: I think the reason why is -- the reason why, at this particular moment most people on this board are very happy with the quality of legal advice that we get. And I would concur that we should look at ways to reduce the cost of legal advice, so I support you in that, but I think the board -- I'd be more than happy in my waning hours to just tell you that we are very happy with the quality of advice and counsel we get from the Commission Attorney. MR. WATSON: I just hope it's not hard for you when it comes to a vote to say, well, you know, they represent me in my legal affairs personally and also in government and [inaudible]. MR. ZETTERBERG: Who do they represent on this board? MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, a point of order, please. I think four minutes is up. MR. WATSON: And, gentlemen, I tell you, those of you who want more money for your job here, I think you got to -- better reevaluate your day job because nobody made this a career move. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Mayor, my name is Ellis Johnson and I've been here since two o'clock, and just give us one minute to say what I have to say. I am an officer of the Greater Augusta Arts Council and I have with me Ms. Brenda Durant, who is our executive director. And we are aware of the fact that the proposal is to cut us by 50 percent, and our budget, of course, is something like $185,000, and we just want to speak to that for just a moment, please. MS. DURANT: What happens when the Arts Council budget is cut? The budget is cut for 17 arts groups as well. Mr. Zetterberg asked me last night if I thought the average citizen would support the Arts Council. I think so. If this average citizen realized it cost him 93 cents a year to keep the Arts Council alive, and if he sat around the dinner table and told his children he wouldn't pay for it any longer, what would his children say? If his children attended John Milledge Elementary, Joseph Lamar, Monte Sano, or Rollins Elementary, they'd say, "Please don't stop those volunteers from coming into our class-room every month sharing a story with us, showing us a picture, and letting us work on an art project. Daddy, please, this is the only art we get." If his child attended the student production of the Nutcracker this year, you may have passed the school buses parked on Broad Street, they'd beg, "Please, Daddy, pay the 93 cents." If they enjoyed the Jazz Project coming to school and playing the saxophone right in their classroom or took a trip to the Gertrude Herbert or saw the Mini Theater put on the Johnny Williams story, they'd say, "Please, Daddy, pay the 93 cents." If a child had attended the three-week summer arts camp at Ursula Collins Elementary, experienced visual arts, drama, and dance for free, they'd ask for the 93 cents. If this child was lucky enough to attend Garrett Elementary or Windsor Spring with our part- time dance, drama, and art teachers in the school, they'd say pay it. Let's talk about art teachers in schools. Out of 38 elementary schools, only three have full-time visual art teachers, four have part-time, the rest have none. What happened at Garrett Elementary when the arts were added to the curriculum? Attendance improved. This is pretty amazing. Kids came to school when dance and drama were added. That's very strong. If we can get the kids to school, who knows what might happen. A teacher might just make that lightbulb go off, a child might become a student. I'm not saying we're producing the next Paul Newman or the next Jessie Norman, but we might produce the next city comptroller or a Westinghouse researcher. We might produce adults comfortable walking through the Morris Museum on a free Sunday afternoon or buying a five dollar student ticket to the Augusta Jazz Project. Art enhances education. Students who study the arts are 100 points higher on the SAT's than those students who do not participate in the arts. Schools with a strong arts program deliver such benefits as increased student motivation, better attendance, increased graduation rates, and development of creativity and problem-solving ability. The arts teach skills necessary for the workforce of the 21st century. The arts should be accessible to all Augustans. What about government support for the arts? Cities with really viable arts are well-supported by their cities and counties, says Paul Lebon for the Georgia Assembly of Community Arts Agencies. Governments of 56 states and territories together spend about 300 million dollars a year to support local arts projects while nearly 4,000 local governments have put up as much as 700 million dollars. Why? Art is good business. Investment in the arts attracts business to communities and results in tangible financial returns. For each dollar invested in the arts, more than 13 million in economic activity is generated. In Metro Atlanta area alone, arts organizations generated over 625 million dollars in economic activity in 1992. The arts spur community development and revitalization of neighborhoods. The arts enhance quality of life and give us civic pride. The arts industry provides about 1.3 million dollars per year nationwide, with a 314 billion dollar economic impact. One out of every three students may later be employed in an arts-related occupation. In Augusta the Chamber of Commerce says Augusta competes for economic development [inaudible], nationally, and throughout the world. A very important consideration for any prospect contemplating a major capital investment in the community is the quality of life that Metro Augusta can provide. The availability of the arts and the support that the community commits to the fine and performing arts groups is always a strong indication of any community's culture and quality of life and its ability to retain existing industry and attract new economic development. Man does not live by bread alone. Recently a computer chip industry visited Conyers, Georgia, twice. They were looking for three things: a school of engineering and quality of life to include arts and culture close by. They did not move to Conyers because the culture was in Atlanta, over 30 minutes away. Augusta arts groups do not support ourselves solely on the city government money. We apply for grants, we call on sponsors, and we hold fundraisers constantly just to keep operating. Support for the arts comes from a combination of sources. We ask that the city consider the value of what we do for so little and reconsider a 50 percent budget cut for the Greater Augusta Arts Council. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might. We've had somewhat of a little bit of a sidebar discussion on this end, the two elderly representatives of eight districts combined, four that I do and four of Mr. Kuhlke's, and I hope we'll be joined by other members. If I'm in order, I'd like to make a motion that we, at least on the Arts Council, do a restoration to where the cuts are I believe on the 20 percent level with the rest of those agencies. That will not get us to where the full budget operations were, but I think that will bring us back at least to a respectable level in there and hopefully maybe by the middle of the year or with other efforts that they may be able to do privately to be able to try and come back to those numbers, and I so move in that order. MR. KUHLKE: Second. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, where I support the arts, I think that it's important to understand the significant gain the Greater Augusta Arts Council made during consolidation with the 90,000-plus that was coming from the former county and what was coming from the former city as far as [inaudible]. I don't have a problem with the arts, but I did listen closely, and I think that probably most of what was said was probably correct. [inaudible] We basically are plugging back in monies, and my question is whether Summer Youth is in or out. We know what we receive as far as Summer Youth goes, and I guess there are some other issues as far as whether it's in or out. We had the discussion earlier on of prioritizing entities and service delivery and what was important to different folks and how they got in the budget for cuts or now how they're getting in the budget for restoration. And if we do a restoration to the arts, do we go back then and do a restoration with that amount to Mr. Kendrick's, you know, sacred cow, the DFACS. So we just made the decision based on what we're doing with the Greater Augusta Arts Council that apply to DFACS. It's easy to spend money, it's easy to give money away. Approximately three years ago under a different director I made a recommendation, maybe four years ago, to increase the spending in the arts by [inaudible] and reprogram into the other arts organizations throughout the community. But I think if we look at the budget and what they were receiving before consolidation and we look now, I think that we're going to see at least some growth there. And I can supports Arts in the Heart of Augusta, I can support all the other things that they put on, but I think it's time for this organization also to start looking towards weaning off from the public trough as far as funding go and the board at the Greater Augusta Arts Council start taking some of those funds that they receive to put on events and to generate money and to make money to put on their events and to do whatever reprogramming, et cetera, as far as supporting arts. So that's my position, and I guess that I've argued in favor of not increasing, and that would be my vote. [End Tape 3] MAYOR SCONYERS: What was the motion, Ms. Bonner, to restore it back to how much? CLERK: The motion was to restore the Arts Council at the 20 percent funding cut level. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, let's get the figure so we'll know exactly where we are. We've got $11,000 left? MR. OLIVER: $11,050, assuming the Arts Council passes. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Well, let's pass it and then let's go home. We're going to keep the rest in the budget. CLERK: Are you ready, Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, ma'am. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: He's out. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION CARRIES 8-1. [MR. POWELL OUT] MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt the tentative budget as defined now. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Second. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I would like to just be recognized before we get out tonight, if I can. In all fairness to the taxpayers and to certain individuals on this board, there are a number of other budget items that were recommended for reduction that cannot be -- have not even been included yet, and I would like to be able to offer up some savings of close to a million dollars and we take a look at those things tonight. Just to go ahead and balance the budget right now when there are so many other things on the table that we could do, and I'd like permission to go ahead and read a few of these off. I want to reduce the workforce personnel budget by another $500,000. I want to implement a hiring freeze to say now so that we avoid creep in the next year. That we identify all unnecessary assets, to include real estate that can be disposed of. We cut the vehicle use by the city employees by $50,000. We cut the Commission travel budget by 25 percent. We discontinue the summer hire program. We reduce the Mayor's discretionary fund by 20 percent -- 20 percent seems to be a fair number for everybody. We request the court system, the Superior Court, to look at the potential of instituting electronic monitoring to save the difference between costing us $40 a day to house a prisoner in the jail versus $7 or $9 by electronic monitoring, and that would be for all nonviolent pretrial misdemeanor and nonviolent sentence prisoners using electronic monitoring. I recommend that we transfer the litter patrol, six marshals, to the Sheriff's Department to use against the 68 deputies and instruct the Sheriff that we expect the Sheriff's Department to enforce litter laws and regulations like he does every other law in the city. Those are at least five or six of the items that I'd like to be considered, and I'd like you to consider and vote on those tonight. I don't see why we should be satisfied as a government to just be -- for balancing a budget. What's wrong with reducing the size of the budget? What's wrong with taking that kind of money and put it -- this government is starved for capital. You wouldn't run a business with the level of capital you have in this organization. Maybe this is the kind of money we could do a more productive -- we could become more efficient and possibly the next time around we could reduce another 100 people. So I would love you to start right now, and I'd like to make a motion that we install a hiring freeze as policy for 1998. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Zetterberg, when you say a hiring freeze, you mean unfunded positions? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes, sir. MR. KUHLKE: I'll second that motion. MR. BEARD: Don't we have a motion on the floor? MAYOR SCONYERS: I was just fixing to say, gentlemen, we've got another motion on the floor. We need to bring this up after we settle this other motion. MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, the only reason I asked that is because I think there's still an awful lot on the table. And if you all decide that you want to close this issue tonight based upon these kind of things that we've done, I think you're making a big, big mistake. And I think there's lots of money out on the table that could be reasonably attacked so that we could demonstrate to this government that consolidation doesn't have to cost all the money that it's cost so far. I'd like to make a substitute -- my motion a substitute motion. Thank you, Mr. Sconyers. MAYOR SCONYERS: But it has to be connected to the motion that's on the floor. MR. ZETTERBERG: The substitute motion -- maybe I need some help on this. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, it's the substitute motion that would -- MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, all he'd have to do is vote down the existing motion and then we could go on. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, that's what I was trying to get around to. It'd be simpler to do it that way. But, I mean, if he's going to make a substitute motion, we've got to have one that's connected to the main motion. MR. WALL: I think that is related to it because, I mean, you're talking about the budget item. This is a budget issue, so I think it is related to it, so I think it's in order. MR. ZETTERBERG: I know Mr. Todd also has a number of items that he would like to propose for cost reduction, and I don't know if you want to go after those tonight, Moses, or not. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, is there a second to the substitute motion? CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke. MR. TODD: If I may be recognized, Mr. Mayor, for a point of discussion. My colleague is right that I had several cuts that I proposed, and I think one of them has already been voted down, so that somewhat tells me of the mindset of my colleagues as far as those proposed cuts go. But at any rate, you know, unless we're accepting -- offering an amendment, I don't think it would be appropriate to maybe do those cuts in the sense that each Commissioner have a problem, so I'll debate the motion. Mr. Mayor, if we sat here and done the additional cuts that's on this list, which would be 500,000, or the million dollars in additional cuts that Mr. Zetterberg proposed, that would mean that we would sit here another three or four hours and spend that money because we have folks sitting out there that want some of that action, that want some of that money. I don't think Mr. Bray has left yet, he's over there, and I'm sure he would want some of it if we're talking about a million dollars. The Fire Chief. And it could go on and on. And I would probably even come up with a sacred cow myself or a pet peeve that I want to spend some of it on. And I'm not making light of your motion, Mr. Zetterberg -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't want anybody spending. I want to draw a line in the sand and that's as far as we go. We've already approved everything else. MR. TODD: I think that what we have in this budget is not exactly what all of us would like to see in it, but it's a compromise budget, and certainly we will work towards doing better next year. I would prefer to see an amendment to the budget motion to pass the budget that we will put on a hiring freeze because we haven't done that. We've talked about it at the boathouse at least two months ago and we haven't done it. Mr. Oliver has done a job as far as trying to streamline where we hire, but he cannot be successful with the department heads if every time he say no, we don't need to hire here, and the department heads go to the chairman of the committee or to six Commissioners and say yes, we're going to do it. If we establish a policy, Mr. Mayor, that we have a hiring freeze on and we're not going to put on any new employees on the operations side, then we can assure, Mr. Mayor, that the five percent that we cut on the operation side will stay there. But I'll guarantee you right now, you know, that within six months we'll spend the five percent that we allegedly saved on the operations side. And I think it's unfair to deal with the Mayor's discretion-ary Fund without dealing with the Commission's discretionary fund, so this $72,000 Other Commission, I think that's a Commissioner's discretionary fund. I don't follow every line item and I haven't been told so, but I'll raise the question of Finance at this time. Mr. Oliver, is this a discretionary fund, the $72,000 Other? SPEAKER: 22,000 of that is the insert, 50,000 is a discretionary from the standpoint of additional spending that y'all might require. MR. ZETTERBERG: And I had asked for a 25 percent cut, but I'll settle for 20 percent. MR. TODD: Yes. And I don't think the substitute motion is going to pass, but certainly if we're cutting one, we should cut the other. And on my list I cut each to zero, or at least each -- would cut one 72,000 and one 50,000, and that might have left 10,000 in the Mayor's discretionary fund. But when we're cutting government and cutting service delivery, as Mr. Mays says, and spending money discretionary when we're cutting outside agencies, then we have a discretionary fund we can go back to and ante up or give to outside agencies when it's probably -- if we're spending discretionary funds or if we have pack rats coming in, it should go to things that we need to do and where there's a need for such as the foster children's needs in this community or Safe House or things that most of this community can support. And I'm arguing in favor of the original motion, not the substitution, but I wanted to point those things out. And I have some wins, I guess, in this budget. Amendment 73 is a major win for me, no tax increase is a bigger win for me. And, gentlemen, thanks, it's been nice working with you this year, and I think that we've done a wonderful job overall on all issues and especially the budget. Thank you. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Mr. Mayor, we call for the question, please. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. CLERK: Substitute motion by Mr. Zetterberg was to institute a hiring freeze for unfunded positions. The original motion was to adopt the tentative budget. MR. ZETTERBERG: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to modify mine if I could. If we can't get to these other tax cuts, we're going to -- I'd like to get somehow - - MR. OLIVER: We're not legally permitted to employ anybody into an unfunded position. If you put a hiring freeze on, it would be a hiring freeze on funded positions. MR. ZETTERBERG: Funded positions. Funded positions. MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification. Rob was right about some things left hanging, but I'm just asking a question from a different perspective. I just want to make sure on a couple of things, particularly where we had talked about -- and we mentioned in the substitute motion in reference to the hiring freeze. But in terms of jobs that were proposed to be cut that were in there in those positions, and then dialogue in it, we had a lot of different plans. Where do we stand on that in reference to this particular budget? Because we never got to that point tonight. Is that in there or out of there in that 60 folk? Are they there, are they not there? I mean, where are we there? MR. OLIVER: As I mentioned before, the 64 positions are in there. We've made accommodation to move people into open positions and that type of thing. There will be some temporary people, however, that will be -- as a result of this will possibly be laid off if we can't find other places for them. What I would propose is that three weeks from today we bring back the final budget to you in accordance with the instruction that we got this evening so that you can adopt the final budget based upon what you've outlined. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Do you have any idea how many that would possibly be laid off? And some were Recreation, I understand. MR. OLIVER: That sixty-whatever included part of the DFACS numbers and some other things, and obviously you've restored some of that and I don't know totally what they're going to do. And there are some in Recreation, that's true. And those, again, are part-time positions that work like 2:00 to 6:00 and 2:00 to 5:00 and things like that. MR. H. BRIGHAM: And my other question is probably to Mr. Zetterberg. What about the public safety areas: fire, police protection. Did that motion cover -- MR. ZETTERBERG: Let me say, my disappointment is the fact that this piece of paper was given to y'all to be included in the discussion, and my understanding was that all of these line items would be included for discussion by this body, and I find myself at the end of the evening with people who are satisfied with a balanced budget and these things not being included at all. And I think they are very viable things, and I would hope that if you're not going to address them tonight, you might take them into '98 and -- one thing I have learned about the government is that there's a lot of places -- I wish I could buy Augusta, Georgia, because under the present budget I could make a lot of money. MR. OLIVER: And there were a number of suggestions that are very good suggestions. The difficulty was that within a short period of time they weren't able to be implemented. MR. ZETTERBERG: I understand that, but -- that's why I appraised at least six of them into quantitative measures: like reducing personnel costs by an additional $500,000, giving the six litter patrol deputies to the Sheriff and having him do his job as a law enforcement officer -- total job, and cutting the Mayor's funds by 20 percent, our discretionary funds by 20 percent. And those are quantitative items that we could vote them up tonight or we could vote them down. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: We called for the question a little while ago, now we're back in discussion. Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to understand the motion. My understanding is this includes any public safety officers that might leave, we do not hire them back? MAYOR SCONYERS: No, that's not true. MR. BRIDGES: That's my understanding of the motion. MR. MAYS: It's a funded position, and it doesn't specify, so it's anywhere and anybody regardless of the service they perform. That's what's in your motion. I don't know whether that's the intention or not. MR. ZETTERBERG: I'm not trying to block the motion that put the 68 deputies in. I'm trying to get at any of those other things that we have not voted on, that we go into '98 with a policy to freeze hiring for any positions that we have not recognized and built into the budget up to today. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. I think he's trying to make sure that we don't hamper the Sheriff and not -- if somebody quits, we need to make sure that the Fire Chief or the Sheriff has a right to replace that person, or else we're going to have a problem. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that, but I'm being realistic here. And I'm going to be sitting here next year faced with that problem and Mr. Zetterberg is going to be [inaudible]. You know, I think that the folks that's going to be here is going to vote for the budget and not the substitute motion, and then if we need to do additional streamlining, Mr. Mayor, we'll do it in 1998, and I think that's what Mr. Zetterberg is recommending that we do. I cannot support the substitute motion, I can support the original -- the balanced budget, and I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Ms. Bonner, call the roll. CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: No. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: No. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: I'm going to vote yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: No. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes. MOTION FAILS 8-2. MAYOR SCONYERS: Back to the original motion. CLERK: Yes, sir, that's to adopt the tentative budget. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I got one question I need to ask, this is very important, about this tentative budget. Mr. Oliver, that position you had in there, Assistant Administrator/ EEO, that's in this budget? MR. OLIVER: As it stands right now, it's in the budget with the modifications that you made. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yeah, but we got a problem with that. You can't have two positions like that. You can't be a EEO Officer and Assistant Administrator. MR. OLIVER: And if you want to take that out of there, that's your prerogative. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: That can't work, Mr. Mayor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we take that out. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, wait a minute, there's a motion on the floor. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: If we got a item that we got to discuss, we got to take it out. MR. ZETTERBERG: Let's go with the motion on the floor. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute -- well, we got a substitute motion on the floor, don't we? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: That was voted down. We need a substitute motion. Make a substitute motion, I'll second it for you. MR. BRIDGES: If one substitute motion is beaten before we vote on the original, can you put in another substitute? MR. WALL: Yes. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we separate the EEO Officer position from the Assistant Adminis-trator and that we -- we were budgeted before for the Assistant Administrator position, and let Mr. Oliver find the funds for that. That's in the form of a motion. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: I'll second that. Just as long as you separate the two and we're not going to do anything with that position right now, that'll be fine with me. MR. MAYS: If the maker of the motion will accept an amendment, I'll cure Mr. Oliver's problem for him and find the funding for his Assistant Administrator. I think if he needs that funding and if he feels he needs to fill that job, then fine, but I am in favor of separating those positions and keeping them independent. If you want to do that, it gets me back to what I've been asking all day about one particular --and you're going to say I'm picking on somebody. But if the maker of the motion wants to accept the funding from it, we could be a partner in Augusta Tomorrow and you could take the difference in that salary and plug it into the Assistant Administrator job and you got it. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Keep it at the, what, $13,000 salary? MR. MAYS: Keep it at 13,000 and take the rest of it, since it's a private boys club anyway, so let's keep it that way. MR. TODD: I'll accept that amendment. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. MR. MAYS: If you need some help, then you got you some funding to get you some help. MAYOR SCONYERS: Is everybody clear on the substitute motion now? CLERK: The motion was to adopt the tentative budget, excluding the EEO Officer/Assistant Administrator, to keep those positions separate, and to reduce the Augusta Tomorrow funding to $13,000. MR. TODD: And let me make clear, Mr. Mayor, that 13,000 -- or 13,500 is what the other partners paid and basically what this government paid up to the consolidation in someone -- inserting in the budget a salary for a position that they were going to fill. And I don't want to get into personalities or call any names, but I just want to state the facts as I know them. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? CLERK: Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: No. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: No. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: No. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: No. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, you get another crack at it. MAYOR SCONYERS: No. MOTION FAILS 6-5. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's go back to the original motion. MR. J. BRIGHAM: I call the question on the original motion, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: We're not going to separate the EEO? MR. TODD: Well, we're not going to balance the budget, Mr. Handy, if my vote is depended on to balance the budget. We'll come back down here tomorrow or we'll stay here until whenever. MR. POWELL: Well, I'll have my wife bring some supper down here. MAYOR SCONYERS: No, we're going to [inaudible] this motion that's on the floor. CLERK: This is to adopt the tentative budget. Mr. Beard? MR. BEARD: This is to adopt the tentative budget? I was out of the room and I need some clarification. CLERK: Yes. This includes the EEO Officer/Assistant Administrator. MAYOR SCONYERS: Understand, we can come back and take that out, that's no problem; is that correct? MR. OLIVER: You can modify the budget any time you want. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's not locked in. The only thing we're locking in is the budget. MR. TODD: Well, Mr. Mayor, may I discuss the original motion? MR. BEARD: Let me just ask Jim one question. Can we come back after this vote tonight and discuss and deal with the EEO Officer/Administrator? MR. WALL: All y'all are doing tonight is adopting a tenta-tive budget. You will have to come back and adopt a permanent budget, and you can come back and modify that budget. So, yes, you can. MR. TODD: It's my understanding, Mr. Mayor, we had discussion on the motion that we dealt with first, and that was the substitute motion, and -- MAYOR SCONYERS: No, sir, Mr. Todd, we've done discussed everything up here tonight. We're not discussing it anymore, now, we're going to vote it up or down. Read them out. MR. TODD: Well, you got to have six votes to come back and change anything. If you don't have six willing votes now, you won't have six willing votes later. MR. BEARD: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Beard, yes. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham? MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Handy? MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke? MR. KUHLKE: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: No. CLERK: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Yes. CLERK: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I vote on principles, and that's going to be no. CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: No. MOTION CARRIES 7-3. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn. MAYOR PRO TEM HANDY: Amen. MAYOR SCONYERS: That's non-debatable. [MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M.] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of Augusta-Richmond County Commission held on December 30, 1997. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission