Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-16-1998 Regular Meeting Page 1 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS (Continued from December 15, 1998) December 16, 1998 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:30 p.m., Wednesday, December 16, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Powell, Shepard, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Colclough, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney. ...yesterday, but it's a continuation. MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, I believe this is where we were yesterday? Yes, sir. We're on Item 61, discussing adopting CLERK: the budget. Mr. Mayor, I make the same motion I made MR. KUHLKE: yesterday, that we adopt the original budget, with a resolution attached to that budget that we recommend to the Convention and Visitors Bureau Committee that $50,000 of that one-cent sales tax fund go to the Museum and $50,000 goes to the Sports Council. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, is this the only item that we MR. BEARD: will be taking up? There was one that we did not complete yesterday, and that was Item Number 55, and I'd like to ask the Attorney if we can deal with that. Well, a motion to reconsider any item that MR. WALL: was on yesterday's agenda would be appropriate because the rules--and I think I may have misled some of you yesterday. The rules provide that in an adjourned meeting, only business which would have been proper to consider at the immediately preceding meeting may be considered and acted upon at the adjourned meeting, and that adjourned meetings resume business under the same rules, limitations, and rights as the immediately preceding meeting. And so, therefore, a motion to reconsider any item that was on yesterday's agenda would be in order. Mr. Mayor, one other thing, and this might be MR. MAYS: Page 2 different from Commissioner Beard's. Prior to voting on the motion--and I'm sure that there will probably be a substitute motion made of some type anyway because I think that's what basically led us to this meeting today. And obviously if we were probably going to pass the motion that's on the floor, it would have been passed last night as is, and obviously that was not done, so that's why we're here today, so I'm sure that--at least I'm hoping that there are not six votes to pass it. But prior to getting into discussion by Commissioners, one of the things that was done yesterday evening was the fact that a lot of people were here that are back today in reference to discussing their particular projects, and it was late in the day. We asked just a handful of people that were remaining if they wished to go ahead and have some input or be heard yesterday or did they want to come back today. It was the general consensus that the people that left left with the attitude, because of the way the Commission had not made a decision, that they would be heard today, and those that were remaining last night said that they were going to come back, and I think that's evident by the number of people here. And I just wanted to express that to you, that I think probably we need to maybe examine that process prior to even taking a vote on the motion that's on the floor or even a possible substitute motion to hear those entities that are represented here at this time. Because that was their purpose in terms of coming back, because they didn't know what way we were going to go, and it was obvious that--and I might as well say it because we were going to make adjustments hopefully in reference to indigent care, and that meant there might be some possible things on the table at that time. So I think that's why the return of those folks, you know, are here. Mr. Chairman, I'd like a clarification on MR. POWELL: what the motion on the floor is. The motion on the floor is to approve the MR. KUHLKE: original budget presented to this Commission by the Administrator with the resolution that I outlined attached. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a MR. POWELL: substitute motion that we approve the budget with the amendments of adding a 50 percent increase to the Building and Inspection fees, also that we take the funds that are in the Sheriff's lapsed salary account and $100,000 from the Coliseum Authority and fund that to indigent care. I'll second that motion to get it on the MR. MAYS: floor. Mr. Mayor, I don't have a disagreement with MR. BEARD: those figures that Mr. Powell has thrown out, but I would like Page 3 to add to that--that's okay, I'll withdraw mine at this time. Mr. Chairman, being as the amendments MR. POWELL: affect the indigent care for University Hospital, I would like to have some comments from University Hospital. Gentlemen, I feel like I'm at a deficit. MR. PARKS: We're throwing around terms and I don't know what the numbers mean. I have no idea what--I appreciate your motion, Mr. Powell, to try to fund some additional monies for University Hospital, but I have no idea what we're talking about. The only numbers I'm aware of are the numbers that were provided by Mr. Oliver to us in public, which was $1.6 million, and I told you that that was unacceptable. So I have no idea or frame of reference of what we're dealing with here. Mr. Parks, what we're talking about doing MR. POWELL: is funding you an additional $900,000 to $1 million. That would bring it up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 million. Based on that, that does give me a frame of MR. PARKS: reference. I do have quite a few comments I'd like to make to the Commission. First of all, I appreciate the work that's been done by the Commissioners to seek this additional funding, and we appreciate it. I'd like to remind the Commissioners that $2.5 million brings University Hospital back to the funding of two years ago. Four years ago that funding was at $5 million. Even if we return to the funding of two years ago, which is what you are proposing to do, Mr. Powell, the indigent care cost load is growing. I told you before it's gone from $4.1 million last year to $4.5 to $4.8 million is our projection for this year. In '99 I think it will grow even more. University Hospital has been unwavering in our commitment to these patients, but we've also been unwavering in our request for $3.5 million. Two months ago we met under Mr. Lee Beard's guidance with the county Finance Committee, and several of you have met with me privately since then and you've asked me what is University Hospital's bottom line. I have always told you and I've never strayed from it that that bottom line is $3.5 million. How do we arrive at the $3.5 million? Again, we project our costs to be about $4.7 million in 1998. We've gone through already and discussed with the medical staff, with employees, with volunteers, additional changes that we can make to our pediatric clinic and our medicine clinic. We think if the costs were to stay at $4.7 million, with the changes that we've made we can reduce $1.2 million worth of costs and still provide a level of service that's acceptable to the residents. So you take 4.7 and you deduct that 1.2 million, that's how I got $3.5 million. Mr. Jerry Brigham, Page 4 you mentioned, I think it was Monday a week ago, that--and I remember the quote, "Richard, we're seeking middle ground just like you are." But I think what some of the Commissioners forget is $3.5 million is our middle ground. We were at 4.7-- we're going to be at $4.7 million. We've already cut $1.2 million, and the $3.5 million I've put on the table since day one is our middle ground. In reference to the $2.6 million offer, I will give the Commissioners an option. Our organization is willing to work with you on an interim basis, with the county, and we will sign a new contract, and that new contract would be at our full cost up to the $2.5 million. So what does that mean? If you look at it on a monthly basis, we're incurring a cost of about $400,000. You pay us about $100,000 a month right now. If we look at a full-cost methodology like that of $400,000 a month, that comes to about, in my calculation, about five to seven months worth of funding to University Hospital. I think that would give the Commissioners additional time to see the results of some management study you talked about last night or other additional cuts that you would be willing to make to bring forth the additional million to fund us at $3.5 million, which has been our middle ground. I guess the point I'm trying to make is what if we agree to the $2.6 million and our indigent care requirement next year goes to $5.7 million. We gain nothing. We're still in the same situation we're in now. And I've told you from day one we will not expose our hospital to any more financial risk by taking a capped reimbursement level with a full-cost exposure that's open-ended. We just won't do it. We're living under the certification rules that you and us agreed to mutually. That's the most stringent criteria we have to live under. It's tougher than Medicare, it's tougher than Medicaid, it's tougher than any third-party payer we deal with, and we still don't cover our costs. So while I appreciate the offer, Mr. Powell, I would have to tell you that our hospital will not sign a contract for $2.5 million, and I'm sad that the Commissioners don't see that there is a higher priority for your constituents' health care than what you have proposed. I'm certainly open to questions or comments if you want to get into some discussion about different options, but--we appreciate the efforts that have been made on many of you individually to come up with that kind of funding, but, quite frankly, it's just not sufficient. Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, what MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to introduce to you, and I put it in front of your place there, a proposal that I came up with that would reduce the budget by $2 million and would accomplish what University Hospital is trying to get us to do. There are a lot of things on there that took a lot of soul searching, but I think we as a Commission need to decide from a priority standpoint what's Page 5 the most important thing for the citizens of this community, and that is do we provide funding for indigent care or do we provide the other services that are outlined on that list. And I know that most of you haven't had a chance to look at it, but that is an alternative solution to look at. Mr. Kuhlke, some of us had a chance, not to MR. BEARD: study your list but to look at it, and it's a very ambitious list here and I don't think it's something that we can decide on tonight. I think I would go back to my suggestion that if we're serious about this and want to make a contribution and some help here, we can extend it--as was told to us last night, we can extend the budget and come back on the 28th and make a decision. This would give people time to study the difference. And we have several of them that's been running around all day today and we have several items to consider, and I think--I'm not making that in the form of a motion, but I make that as a suggestion. Mr. Mayor, one point of information for the MR. OLIVER: public and the Mayor and Commission. At $2.5 million in indigent care reimbursement, that represents approximately 14 cents of every property tax dollar that's collected by Augusta-Richmond County from its residents. If it's increased to $3.5 million, that represents almost 20 cents or 20 percent of every property tax dollar from Augusta-Richmond County residents that comes to us. Well, we're at an impasse here. It appears MR. BEARD: to me that we have a million dollars on the table here tonight. If we're going forward from that, I think the million dollars here, most of the Commissioners could live with that tonight. To go further, I think we would have to really look at it, and I go back to my suggestion. Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I'll withdraw my MR. POWELL: motion. Can I just address the Commission one more MR. PARKS: time? Are you saying then that the option of a cost contract beyond December 31st is not an option for some period of time until additional funding could be found? As your Administrator, I cannot recommend MR. OLIVER: that. That would be financially imprudent and would set us up for financial problems in the future. I think you're asking the hospital to do the MR. PARKS: same thing. You're asking us to be financially imprudent by taking a contract that is exposing us to a full-cost risk. Page 6 I was going to say to Mr. Parks that, you MR. KUHLKE: know, I think Mr. Oliver is absolutely right. For us to obligate ourselves for unknown funds in the future, considering other things that we are having to consider, would be totally--from a fiduciary standpoint would be disastrous on our part, and I don't see how in the world we as a body can obligate ourselves to that. Well, again, just to clarify my alternate MR. PARKS: proposal, an option was that we would accept a full-cost contract up to $2.5 million, and then we would deal with the service level hoping that you would-- I think the problem with that, Mr. Parks, MR. KUHLKE: if you're looking at full-cost reimbursement of $400,000 a month, in May if we can't come up with additional funds, then we face the situation that we face right now. And what I'm saying is that, you know, for us to go that way--because, you know, very frankly, while everybody feels like indigent care is very important, from my standpoint as a Commissioner I think very important is to maybe transfer these funds that we've got available to relieve the water and sewer transfer fees. Certainly it'll have an impact on our budget. Mr. Mayor, you know, priorities always exist MR. MAYS: from, quite frankly, what position you sit in. Mr. Kuhlke has come up with $2 million, and I think probably we could have ten sheets here tonight with $2 million. As Chairman of Public Services and what Public Services takes under its umbrella in terms of Recreation and Parks, in terms of Public Transit, all the things that probably historically I've had to raise a whole lot of cain about from old city government to county government and now in this consolidated government, because it's usually been first on the hit list. When I look at this list here, the numbers look great. But when I look at the source of where they come from, they basically come out of one department. They basically affect the type of services that are rendered when you start looking at what's done for senior citizens, when you look at Rec/Parks that are there, when you look at the Housing Authority, when you look at Summer Youth programs, when you look at everything. What this basically says to me is that folks who will support this list are basically saying to you if you want to help indigent care, then we're going to balance it out for you on a scale, but you're going to take some other indigents in some cases and you're going to balance them off with it. We're not going into any other areas that may be sacred cows. Now, I don't mind when you start going across the board and dealing with what may be dear to somebody, but then let's get some relatives on a list if we're going to deal with $2 million, my friends, and go down with something that's dear to everybody, Page 7 not something that's just basically going to come out of a certain area. In the case, Richard, where we're looking at trying to put this million together, quite frankly, we understand where your middle ground is. This was probably our middle ground. To get us even to a million was a difficult struggle in terms of arm-bending to get to this point tonight from this Commission. So we've got a double whammy on this side, too, so I don't really see us--quite frankly, if this is going to be where the cuts are going to be coming from, then, my friends, I think we're going to have a very long Christmas. We're going to have to discuss some things, quite frankly, and it may take us some meticulous time to go through some other departments and say who has something else to give up as well. Obviously it cannot come from all the numbers that basically look the same. When I go down the code in here, I see Rec repeated nine or ten times when I go through some of the same entities. As a Commissioner, just like Mr. Kuhlke and his Super District, I represent four districts, too. And again I repeat, priorities sometimes are from where you sit. This is not an acceptable list, not for Willie Mays but basically for constituents that I serve and from people that have asked certain services for this city to continue to provide. Part of that does deal with indigent care. And maybe that's not important to a lot of folks, but I think if you're going to sway from the agenda why people elect you in the first place, then you shouldn't try and represent them. And so I can respect my other colleagues and where they want to deal with taking money from. The only thing that I'll say is that you respect me, too, and you respect others who have to provide those needs. Because so many of us are not in boardroom places where our constituents turn to us for help. The only place that they know to go is basically city government, and that's why we're in this dog fight tonight. And I don't see us getting past this impasse, gentlemen. Unless somebody who represents one of these districts that has to deal with Mr. Parks' ZIP codes that affects a lot of indigent care folks and how we put this together, I don't see that happening. I will certainly take your proposal back to MR. PARKS: my board. It's very timely, we have a board meeting in the morning. And if the board chooses to instruct me to sign such a contract, then we would. But I will be glad to take that proposal back to our board tomorrow. Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn the MR. BEARD: meeting until the 28th. Well, we've got a motion on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's vote on the motion first. Any other comment on the Page 8 motion? I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. Randy, in MR. BRIDGES: that Mr. Parks is saying he can't go with the $2.5 million, what is our obligation as far as our--in other words, the $1.6 that we have already, what is our obligation as far as our clinics or whatever that money would be used for? Right now our contract is with University, MR. OLIVER: and all the services for indigent is provided through University Hospital. We provide no services directly. Well, I mean, University says they're not MR. BRIDGES: going to sign the contract, so what is our--what are we left with as far as our-- You as a Commission, as I understand it, MR. OLIVER: and Mr. Wall can chime in, have no legal responsibility for indigent care; rather, indigent care is a moral responsibility. I understand that, but we've got some MR. HANDY: clinics and whatnot. Is that an expense that's already covered in the budget or is that something that-- No, that currently is covered out of the MR. OLIVER: amount that's given to University Hospital. Okay. So that amount we would still be MR. BRIDGES: obligated to regardless of whether we have an indigent care contract or not? It's a moral decision that you all have to MR. OLIVER: make. I mean, we don't have a legal responsibility to provide that service. It would be whatever the Mayor and Commission decided what that responsibility was. What amounts of money are we talking about MR. BRIDGES: as far as these things go? Well, I mean, my suggestion would be--we MR. OLIVER: can do some numbers on that, but I believe the 30906 clinic, which $200,000 is being given to Beulah Grove to do that facility, is funded under the indigent care-- 30901. MR. HANDY: --30901, I'm sorry--is funded by the MR. OLIVER: indigent care trust fund. I believe that that is required to be funded by it for three years. Mr. Parks could correct me if I'm wrong in that regard. The 30901 clinic, I believe, has Page 9 passed the three-year point, and so consequently it is not funded by the indigent care trust fund. I guess what I'm trying to get at is it MR. BRIDGES: costs them a certain amount of dollars for those clinics. I mean, that's not all that indigent care pays for is those clinics, and I thought we had about a $600,000 expense there. I've heard them throw some numbers out, but MR. OLIVER: I don't know. If you would like, I'll be glad to get some proposals for costs to run those clinics. Yeah, I'd like to see that. And until I MR. BRIDGES: get that I really can't make the motion I wanted to, so I'll just see what the other comments are. Is the consensus of the Mayor and MR. OLIVER: Commission then you'd like me to get proposals from other potential service providers for operation of those clinics, or at least the 30906 clinic? I'd like to see that, yes. I don't know MR. BRIDGES: how the other Commissioners feel, but I think that's where we're at, from what I'm hearing tonight. Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask a question or MR. SHEPARD: two of Mr. Parks. Mr. Parks, certainly the changing environment in medical care has resulted largely in this deficit situation. You have HMO services driving the medical providers economics now and you don't have private-paying patients that subsidize like you used to have under the health insurance plans subsidizing indigent care or other patients. That is partly the problem; is that correct? That's partly the problem. But if you MR. PARKS: recall-- And certainly that's not the fault of this MR. SHEPARD: Commission. I mean, it's really the changing medical economic situation that's driving the hospital's situation to a large degree, is it not? You're absolutely right. But I want to MR. PARKS: remind you that we have incurred $5 million worth of Medicare reductions this year, we've incurred $3 million worth of Medicaid reductions, and you reduced our funding by 50 percent. And while it's not your fault, it certainly is the Commission's responsibility that you've reduced our funding from $5 million four years ago down to $1.3 million now, and the indigent care problem is growing. And I would like to Page 10 correct Mr. Oliver that the 30901 and 30906--30901 is indigent care trust fund money, we've talked about this three or four times before, that we get disproportionate share money from the state from Medicaid. We're under that for three years. Fifteen percent of that money we put back into primary care. And then 30906 is ready to come up sometime in March. 30906 is going to cost approximately $539,000 next year. 30901 has 4,000 visits a year, we're expecting 9,000 visits at 30906. Once the disproportionate share money runs out after three years, the hospital will incur the expense to run those clinics, not the county. So based on the numbers you just provided MR. OLIVER: then, the cost to run those clinics in total is about $1 million a year. Mr. Parks, did you say that the clinic in MR. KUHLKE: 30901--does that run out this year or next year? It runs out July 1st. MR. PARKS: Of next year. But the 30906, you've got MR. KUHLKE: three years on that, right, where the trust fund takes care of that; is that correct? That's correct. MR. PARKS: So really next year we're only talking MR. KUHLKE: about a half a year's cost on 30901 and no cost on 30906. Is 30906 open yet? No. Probably the first quarter of next MR. PARKS: year. But you've got to remember the bulk of the cost is inpatient care. But I'm talking about the clinics right MR. KUHLKE: now, just trying to get a handle on it. And am I correct in saying that--did you say that pharmacy cost this year is about $700,000? I'm doing this from memory. The pharmacy MR. PARKS: cost for indigent care is about $565,000. That is purely acquisition cost, that is not--we do not charge the county for inventory carrying cost. We do not charge the county for pharmacists that actually dispense the medications or their benefits. We do not charge the county for distribution costs. If you're looking at $500,000 for 30901, MR. KUHLKE: next year approximately that's going to be $250,000; is that right? If it ends up, you know, the state funding ends up in July, it'll be about a half a year? Page 11 Well, one of my staff just instructed me the MR. PARKS: funding runs out in April. The cost of 30901 is about $250,000 a year. And about $600,000 for the pharmacy, and MR. KUHLKE: then for the next three years 30906 is no cost; is that right? Right, but the disproportionate share funds MR. PARKS: are decreasing every year. But basically no cost next year because MR. KUHLKE: they're going to be-- For the primary care portion. MR. PARKS: Okay. So for 30901 and the pharmacy we're MR. KUHLKE: looking at less than $1 million? If you're looking in terms of 1998 dollars, MR. PARKS: approximate numbers, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I would ask Mr. Wall if a MR. SHEPARD: substitute motion is in order at this time. As relates to the budget, you've got a main MR. WALL: motion and a substitute motion. No, sir, I withdrew my substitute motion. MR. POWELL: All right. The substitute motion has been MR. WALL: withdrawn, then, yes, it's in order. Mr. Mayor, I'd make a substitute motion MR. SHEPARD: that rather than hit the Coliseum Authority for $100,000 as Mr. Powell proposed, that we reduce that to $50,000 and find the other $50,000: $40,000 in Commission Other, which would take that down to $10,000, and $10,000 from the Mayor's Contingency Fund, which would take that to $50,000. That would restore, I think, the other $100,000. That would bring us up to what I think is the best we can do tonight, and I think we need to send a signal tonight, in light of the fact that there's a board meeting in the morning, that we are willing to go this far, and that we can pass the budget with that adjustment made by virtue of the substitute motion. It's just slightly different from what Mr. Powell said. Can you give me those figures again? CLERK: I would reduce the Mayor's Contingency MR. SHEPARD: Page 12 Fund by $10,000 to $50,000, I would reduce the Commission Other from $50,000 to $10,000, and that gives me an additional $50,000. And rather than take $100,000 from the Coliseum, I'd take $50,000 from them. Do I hear a second to Mr. Shepard's MAYOR SCONYERS: motion? I'll second. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, if we pass that motion, are MR. J. BRIGHAM: we going to hold this meeting open to find out what University Hospital does? Mr. Mayor, let me ask Mr. Shepard because MR. KUHLKE: I'm a little bit up in the air on this thing. It seems to me that if we pass this budget as it is with this $900,000 going to University--and I'm supportive of that, but then I hear from Mr. Parks that there is some heartburn and they may not be able to sign a contract with us and they would like to see a contingency added in there whereby we commit ourselves to provide additional funds if they come available next year. I'm wondering if the maker of the motion would maybe attach to his amendment that--I'm wondering if you would attach to your amendment that this budget be proposed contingent on University Hospital entering into a contract with Richmond County as of January 1. Can we do that? You've got to adopt a budget. Now, you can MR. WALL: come back and amend it if they reject it and y'all decide you want to revisit it. Then you can amend the budget, but you can't make it contingent. I think I prefer to go the amendment MR. SHEPARD: route. Okay. That's fine. MR. KUHLKE: I would just hate to see us--because once MR. BEARD: adopt the budget here tonight with that [inaudible] we are kind of through with it; right? Well, you can come back and amend the budget MR. WALL: at any time, either at the end of this year or at any time next year. So the budget is always subject to amendment. And if there should be funds coming from a MR. OLIVER: tobacco settlement or whatever-- We also know that's going to be difficult to MR. BEARD: do. Page 13 Mr. Mayor, since we're proposing it, I MR. J. BRIGHAM: think we ought to hear from the Coliseum Authority if they want to say something. Mr. Mayor, before they come up, you know, I MR. KUHLKE: can embrace Mr. Shepard's motion, so I will withdraw my original motion. So we have one motion made by Mr. MAYOR SCONYERS: Shepard. Any other discussion on Mr. Shepard's motion? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's motion--do you want to read the motion, Ms. Bonner? The motion was to approve the budget with the CLERK: amendments of 50 percent in Building and Inspection fees, the Sheriff's lapsed salary account, $50,000 from the Coliseum Authority, reduce the Mayor's Contingency Account by $10,000 and Commission Other to $10,000. Mr. Mayor, we have one motion on the floor? MR. MAYS: Yes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Bill asked a minute ago in reference MR. MAYS: to the Coliseum Authority, their representatives. Since it looks like if that motion--if that motion passes, you would be one of those entities that would be cut. You're in a marriage position, you're speaking now or forever holding your peace on the $50,000. I see Tim. I'm Tim Mirshak and I have just one vote MR. MIRSHAK: on the Coliseum Authority, so I can't speak officially. We are concerned that a cut at this time will start us down the slippery path where we are the target each time the Commission is faced with a tough budget decision. We have just committed a million dollars, as you know, we believe with the support of the Authority, to fund improvements at the Coliseum. We have a 25-year old aging building. Our private management company, which is doing an excellent job, however, is bringing to us every month major repairs that need to be made in this aging building. We would just ask you to keep all of that in mind, and that if this--if Mr. Shepard's motion passes, that this not be the first step in many steps that cause us the inability to operate that facility and maintain it to fulfill the function for which it is designed, for the public enjoy- ment of the citizens of Richmond County. Mr. Mayor, the other part of my question was MR. MAYS: going to be these things are never peaceful or painless, but if we're grabbing--and this is the only thing I always have a Page 14 problem with, grabbing numbers out of the sky when you start to cutting. Because, you know, I'm looking at where Steve went, and it's good to go from 100 back to 50. You know, I can see it's on here that we get sales tax money in the millions of dollars, you know, and we not touch it. And I'm not saying to go that route, but what I want to ask either Randy or particularly J.B. in this case, and I'm searching for information now, when we left last night we were not even talking about dealing with those fees, and that was one of the things I talked about coming back to try to deal with some creative numbers, wouldn't hurt a whole industry and to deal with it. If we're dealing with $300,000 in the fee structure, and I heard during the day you were talking about a different figure, we went back to three in terms of getting to something liveable. What's the impact out of that fee structure if you dealt with the 300, and instead of dealing with the Coliseum's situation of which you're probably going to be returning to to face with them again. If you're going to deal with fees and you're going to get mad with some fees, what's the difference if you were talking about 600,000 to going ahead and dealing with 400 instead of 300. That way you're not dealing with anything that you got on the budget that are there and you're dealing with it totally out of one set of fees. And it still may be that you have to return to deal with the indigent question again, but if that's what it's going to take, Steve, to get where you got something on the table for their board to look at, this then would not bother any of those entities that you've got in place, Coliseum, Arts, nobody out there to deal with that, and deal with it totally on the fees. And I'm asking if that $100,000, if you went from 300,000 to 400,000, finding it out of that one source to deal with that type of increase and keep those things in place, and it would still give you the same amount of money that you're going to have in trying to put the $2.533 million together. If I could address that. Under this MR. SHEPARD: proposal, it would only require the increase in building revenues to go up $50,000 because the other 50 is found in our own accounts, the Mayor's Contingency and the Commission Other. Well, it would only be 50 from the Coliseum MR. OLIVER: Authority. The proposal, as I understand, that's on the table provides for an increase in the Building and Inspection fees that would generate $300,000. That is a 50 percent increase. I have passed around a sheet that compares us against what is called the Georgia DCA numbers, or recommended numbers, and compares Augusta against Columbia County, Columbus, Macon, Gwinnett, and College Park. Obviously if you go up on those fees somewhat more than that, those numbers will change. The number in the left column is the cost per thousand as it Page 15 relates to various structures, then under each column is that, and the pencil figure is the cost that's proposed at a 50 percent increase. To answer your question, Mr. Mays, we would need to increase those fees about 67 percent instead of 50 percent to eliminate the $100,000 completely. Mr. Oliver, if you did that, would that not MR. KUHLKE: put us at the highest point of all those counties that you have read out that we are compared to? It would tend to put us higher within the MR. OLIVER: range. There are some that are significantly higher. Specifically, Macon and Gwinnett appear to be the highest. But that is a possibility. It's a decision that has to be made by the Mayor and Commission. Mr. Mayor, my reason for asking that wasn't MR. MAYS: to be argumentative, it was strictly to get out what you just got out then. What I'm saying and why I was trying to extend this further in looking at other departments, we came $300,000--not in one night, we came $300,000 [inaudible] in a tiny little circle before we left this room. That's what I'm talking about about going back and finding monies. If you dealt with that in one fee structure that took on a 50, have you looked at maybe not dealing with a 50 and in dealing with some other areas on fees that wouldn't take that type of impact and would be able to shoulder that burden and then you not cut from the basic services that you've got. I mean, you've come this far today, and you came this far in less than an hour. You did that before we hit the elevator, Randy. That's not exactly correct because the memo MR. OLIVER: that I faxed to you all on Monday, and it's something that we worked on the end of last week, or we worked on last week and faxed out Monday, provided for those numbers within that, so those numbers were out Monday. As I mentioned in that memo, however-- Well, if they were out Monday, why didn't you MR. MAYS: bring it up last night then? I believe that there was a lot of MR. OLIVER: discussion going on as to whether you wanted to proceed and to look at individual line items, and we never got to that detail. We also looked at, as mentioned in that memo, the possibility of increasing liquor taxes, and we determined that liquor taxes were capped out. Something we could look at would be alcohol licenses, however, the alcohol license revenue for '99 because of the billing cycle we would not change. By changing that, we could only change it for 2000, so we would have no impact on that to increase those permits, Page 16 or a minimal impact to increase those licenses at this point. Those were the only items we looked at. Mr. Mayor, I would like to apologize, MR. H. BRIGHAM: but I had thought last night that I could not be here, but I did come down to try to get in on a portion of this. And I'd like to ask one question about a motion that I heard, and I think it's been withdrawn. Mr. Kuhlke has some figures over here that if we went back and approved that, and Mr. Parks said that they're going to meet tomorrow morning, take that to the board [inaudible] come up with almost a million dollars and still see--and I think Jerry Brigham mentioned something about the possibility after they come back and see what we could possibly do. Mr. Powell, you withdrew it; is that right? No, sir. I withdrew my motion, but Mr. MR. POWELL: Shepard has amended it somewhat, but it's still virtually the same motion. It seems like to me that if we could MR. H. BRIGHAM: get off dead center--and that means, Mr. Wall, we'd have to come back at a subsequent time. Can we do that as long as we- - If you adopt a budget tonight, that would be MR. WALL: the budget. If University Hospital comes back and says that they will not sign the contract at the $2.5 million, then you would have a choice of proceeding with the budget as is, recognizing that you've got $2.5 million in there for indigent care and attempt to contract with some other entity or try to work out some contract that would be acceptable to University Hospital for the $2.5 million, but that would be the maximum that would be spent, or you could come back and amend the budget to find additional revenues or cut expenses in other areas. And you can do that either before the end of the year if you want to keep--hopefully have an indigent care contract in place on January the 1st or you could come back sometime next year. Mr. Mayor, I know we all want to move off MR. BEARD: dead center, as Mr. Brigham has said. And I'm still going back to the point that Mr. Parks has said that he's going to meet with his board in the morning, and I know a lot of us want to get this over with, but I think this is just too important to try to rush this through, even with Mr. Shepard's motion. I think that Mr. Parks should have an understanding tonight that we--what we have on the table, but I'm just--and it's going to be difficult for him because I'm not going to support Mr. Shepard's motion on this because I still think that we have time to work this out. And my rationale for that Page 17 is that I know from experience that once we adopt this budget, that is it. Now, we can talk about we'll come back and look at it and this kind of thing, but I think once we adopt it tonight, that will be it. That's why I'm still in favor of as soon as this motion get over, one way or the other, that we ought to come back and do this at another time. And I think that we will have time to look into this and in a couple of days we'll come up with a million dollars. And I think if we look some more, there are some possible things that we can all agree on. So that's my position. Mr. Mayor, this is to Jim. If we adopt MR. BRIDGES: this motion, part of that motion is to increase the building revenues. Are we asking you at the same time, and maybe, Mr. Shepard, this should be part of the motion, to adopt a resolution or ordinance or whatever to increase those fees? It would take an ordinance to increase the MR. WALL: fees, which--I mean, I had assumed that I would prepare that and bring it back at the first meeting in January. And assuming that y'all waived the second reading, you could adopt it immediately. Does that need to be part of this motion, MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Wall? I mean, in other words, we go ahead and we approve this, and then we get out on the floor to actually do it and it not be done. You know, I've seen names signed to letters that we're going to vote this way, then get out on the floor and it not happen, so. Well, the way that I understood the motion MR. OLIVER: was the $900,000 was to go to indigent care from these sources. So that 300 is tied to the 900, and so I think it's all tied together. Mr. Shepard, could I ask you maybe if you MR. KUHLKE: would amend your motion to include the resolution that I had in my motion? You can and I will accept that amendment. MR. SHEPARD: I'll also accept the amendment that Mr. Bridges recommends to have the ordinances passed that appropriately reflect the increase in these revenues. It's my understanding that the budgeted MR. KUHLKE: $300,000, this would really not go into effect until April, so-- We proposed it, based on our numbers, that MR. OLIVER: it went into effect April the 1st. And the purpose of that was to give people that had contracts that were currently in Page 18 effect that they had calculated prices for an opportunity to not have to bear that increased cost without having the ability to pass it on to the ultimate purchaser. If we imposed it earlier, the revenue would go up somewhat. But, here again, you have the lag time MR. SHEPARD: built in. This is three-quarters of a year of collections, Randy; is that right? That's correct. That's what we based our MR. OLIVER: estimate on. Because we didn't feel that it was fair to put it into effect immediately where someone may have a contract, they've already calculated a price, and they could be adversely affected due to an action taken. This would give them time to plan. Just briefly and I'll be through, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: My past history tells me--and I know Steve has the best of intentions in his motions, and the world is full of them, but in this chamber when you put something in writing and you take a vote on it, it's one of the most difficult things on the face of this earth to undo. And what my fear is we've expressed an offer that many of us are not able to get along with that in reference to indigent care, but at least where we got it, I think that gives them where we've gotten from a day ago to take back to their board meeting in University. What my biggest fear is, if the vote is passed, then that locks in. We keep talking about making amendments, we talk about things undone, but for those persons that it has been a teeth-pulling experience to maybe understand that we should do anything in indigent care, my fear is that we will never get six votes. Let's just say if University--if it's unacceptable in their board meeting, we have nothing then to search for with at all to deal with any indigent care package unless we can deal with six votes to undo that. The late Bob Daniel used to put it better than anybody else. He said, "Son, when you come to the county, learn how to count, and it's the majority of what that Commission does." When you seal your fate by a vote, it takes a majority vote to undo that fate. If you keep that cycle open--and this is the only thing that I'll say to my colleagues, particularly those that will hear greatly from those that are served in those ZIP codes by that indigent care, is that if the talks remain open, it forces all of us to have to deal with the numbers. You seal your fate, you lock it in, you'd better find yourself a good friend and a prayer because you may not get it off the floor of this Commission. And I think we've done it in public, we've expressed what our numbers are, there's not some hidden agenda where we have to go back on it and say we didn't do it, it's on tape, it's before media, so it doesn't have to be voted on that these are what our numbers are. So I think to do the motion and seal it Page 19 in is our worst fate. It gives us the option--just as what we've done in a day, think of what we can do in three or four if we really have got the backbone in order to do it. And that's where I stand on it, and I hope the motion will be defeated. Thank you, Mr. Mays. All in favor of MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Shepard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, HANDY & MAYS VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 5-4. Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn the MR. BEARD: meeting until the 28th. Do I hear a second to that motion? MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that to adjourn [inaudible]. MR. H. BRIGHAM: Adjourn this meeting, that one item--well, to MR. WALL: resume the meeting, excuse me, not that one item. Is that your motion, Mr. Beard? MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. The only thing I'll leave open, MR. BEARD: if there is a date before the 28th that we can do it, that will be fine. Mr. Mayor, I really don't want to meet MR. J. BRIGHAM: the 28th. If we're going to be at an impasse, I don't want to be at an impasse on the 28th. Give me a date. MR. BEARD: I don't care as long as it's this week. MR. J. BRIGHAM: How about Friday. They're meeting MR. KUHLKE: tomorrow; right, Richard? We're going to know something tomorrow, aren't we? Yes, sir, they meet tomorrow morning. MR. PARKS: So Friday or Saturday. Let's get on with MR. KUHLKE: it. I mean, we're sitting here as a body and we're letting indigent care dictate the budget of this county. Think about it. And we have in good faith raised a million dollars to go towards indigent care. I have to respond to that as the other Super MR. MAYS: District Commissioner. We're not letting indigent care, Mr. Page 20 Kuhlke, dictate this budget. We allowed one person's priorities back when we gave away $7.5 million in this city when we could have negotiated a cash deal to get us $3 million out of it. We weren't that conservative then. You know, you're blaming this on one issue. It gets back to priorities, because it may not be important with some people, it is important with others. It's the same argument I heard when we were dealing with law enforcement in which many communities were crying out that we give them better protection. Those of you, hell, who didn't need it, you didn't want it. Those of us that were living in some of those, gentlemen, that had to have some protection, we provided it. And thank God we got six votes to do it. So I don't want to hear that about one issue protecting something. Could we get your motion amended, Mr. MR. POWELL: Beard, that the Mayor set the time and the date for the meeting? That'll be fine with me. MR. BEARD: Mr. Wall, as the Parliamentarian, can they MR. OLIVER: do that? I mean, I thought it had to be a time and date certain. As long as it's part of the motion that the MR. WALL: Mayor set the time, that's appropriate. Hopefully it'll be long before the MR. J. BRIGHAM: 28th. The Mayor can appoint it. We're leaving it MR. BEARD: to him. He can call us when he-- Well, we need to find out when we can MAYOR SCONYERS: get seven people together. Friday and Saturday is fine with me. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Why don't we let Ms. Bonner poll them MAYOR SCONYERS: all and see when they can be here, then we'll set it. Is that fair enough? That's fine. I accept that. MR. BEARD: All in favor of the motion to adjourn MAYOR SCONYERS: the meeting until such time as Ms. Bonner can set the date, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MESSRS. J. BRIGHAM, BRIDGES, KUHLKE & SHEPARD VOTE NO. MOTION FAILS 3-4. Page 21 Mr. Mayor, yesterday I stayed here longer MR. KUHLKE: than I wanted to, but why don't we stay here until we can get something settled on the budget. I don't think we can stay here tonight, Mr. MR. BEARD: Kuhlke. Mr. Wall, can't they pass a tentative MAYOR SCONYERS: budget? Didn't we do that one other time? We used to have a provision where we would MR. WALL: adopt a tentative budget before the year end, that's what the state law requires, and then we would adopt the final budget during the month of February. At y'alls direction we changed the ordinance to require a permanent budget to be adopted by the second meeting in December, and we're still in the second meeting in December. Well, based on that, we've got to do MAYOR SCONYERS: this today. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to go out to the MR. HANDY: hallway a minute. I'll be right back. Well, I don't think anybody ought to MAYOR SCONYERS: leave the room until we-- No, I got to go. I don't mean I need to go, MR. HANDY: I got to go. Why don't you wipe the slate clean, Ms. MAYOR SCONYERS: Bonner, and we'll start all over again. Mr. Mayor, do you want to take a five- MR. J. BRIGHAM: minute recess? If we take five, it'll be 20 minutes MAYOR SCONYERS: before we get everybody back in here. When Mr. Handy comes back, we're not leaving the room, we'll do something. I have a spreadsheet on the computer, Mr. MR. OLIVER: Mayor, if that in any way would be helpful. I'd like to see it. MR. BRIDGES: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. MAYOR SCONYERS: What the left column shows, Mr. Mayor and MR. OLIVER: Commissioners, is the amounts that were proposed in the memorandum that I sent out Monday. It does not incorporate Page 22 any of Commissioner Kuhlke's suggestions. What is included in the right--and I can change that any way that you want. The motions that have been discussed today had the lapsed salaries from the Sheriff's Department; $20,000 from the Mayor's Contingency, which would lower it from 60 to 40; $10,000 from the Commission Other, lowering it to 40 also; $100,000 from the Coliseum Authority, the alternative that was voted on was $50,000 from there; and then $300,000 in the building permits. Randy, can you change it to fit the MR. BRIDGES: motion, because we had five votes for that. I can change it any way you would like and MR. OLIVER: I will be glad to do that. I think that would be more appropriate MR. BRIDGES: than what you see there. Okay. I will be glad to do that. MR. OLIVER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I'm back. I feel a MR. HANDY: lot better, too. Thank you, Mr. Handy. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, that conforms with the motion as I MR. OLIVER: understand it: $20,000 coming from the Mayor's Contingency; $40,000 coming from Commission Other, lowering it to $10,000; $50,000 coming from the Coliseum Authority; and $300,000 coming from increased revenues from building permits, making $920,000 in the budget. We had originally proposed indigent care contribution of $1,593,750. That would bring the total indigent care contribution to $2,513,750, or $13.70 of every property tax dollar collected in this county. Mr. Oliver, that brings up a point I'd MR. BRIDGES: like to know. You know, we've seen these comparisons of who pays indigent care, and so do in some counties or cities and some don't. Where do we stand in regards to what percent of the property tax goes to indigent care? We did not do the analysis that way. We MR. OLIVER: got numbers from the Georgia State Health Planning Agency. The most current data that we were able to obtain was for '96. It showed Fulton County by far being the highest contributor to indigent care. Muskogee was third, Bibb was fourth. In 1996, Richmond was 12th. If you adjust it for the 1998 contribution, we would have been 16th. Cobb County, by contrast, looking at the larger counties, was 19th and Gwinnett County was 32nd on the list. Thirty-five counties in the state contributed to indigent care, according to that Page 23 report. Is it possible to get that information MR. BRIDGES: quickly, say tomorrow, of where we stand in regards to property tax? We will try to do that. We just need to MR. OLIVER: contact--I mean, maybe Mr. Sears' office has the tax rolls for the various counties, or Mr. Saul's office. We'll try to get that. I cannot tell you that. If we have the tax value information, we could compute that. I've just got a question for Randy. Randy, MR. HANDY: why are you using a percentage of the property tax revenues? I mean, that don't give us any more money, so why are you-- Just as a frame of reference, Mr. Handy, MR. OLIVER: that's the only purpose. I mean, why? I mean, you're muddying the MR. HANDY: waters when you throw up that. You're saying this amount of money is the taxpayers' money and then this is coming from our so-and-so. I mean, why would you do things like that? It's gone. MR. OLIVER: But you put it out there now. That's what MR. HANDY: I'm saying. You know, we're here trying to come together, not get everything all screwed up worse than what it is. Well, I think it's a good measuring tool MR. BRIDGES: for measuring it, because what--you're not really comparing apples to apples if you're just throwing dollars out for this county or that county. I mean, this way it puts it in regards to where the revenues are coming from. It's not going to give us any more money. MR. HANDY: I know it's not going to give us more MR. BRIDGES: money, but it's a tool for measuring [inaudible]. Well, I think, Mr. Handy--and I'll fall MR. OLIVER: back to the Library because I believe perhaps that's a sensitive but less sensitive issue, if you will. As you recall, our tax rate is 126th in the state, but our contribution for libraries, as I remember, is 32nd roughly, or 38, something in the 30's. It's difficult to be number one if your tax rate is 126 in any given category. That would be the only frame of reference. One other question, Mr. Mayor. We all know MR. HANDY: Page 24 that the majority of our tax dollars goes to the Board of Education. That's true, 74½ cents of every dollar. MR. OLIVER: Right. Well, why don't you show that up MR. HANDY: there instead of this is where this goes and this is where that goes. I have that slide also, Mr. Handy. MR. OLIVER: And then that way we'll be--you know, we'll MR. HANDY: be all together, you know. Mr. Oliver, all the monies is on board; MAYOR SCONYERS: right? We don't have any more money from any other sources other than what we have proposed today? Not unless there is a decision, you know, MR. OLIVER: to increase revenues in another category or decrease expenses in some area where we make a service level change. The one thing as I mentioned the other day, Mr. Mayor, was the management study will be coming out, we would expect, in January. It will be given to you and hopefully a meeting set up for late January or early February to look at recommendations they will make. The magnitude of those recommendations we have not budgeted, and we feel that it would be financially imprudent to budget those until decisions are made as to how to proceed. And that's going to be sometime in MAYOR SCONYERS: January? Yes, sir. MR. OLIVER: Gentlemen, I think if you go ahead and MAYOR SCONYERS: pass a budget today, then you can come back and amend it. And that's the same thing we used to do. We used to pass the tentative budget, then we came back in February or whenever to pass the permanent budget. And I think the only way you're going to get anything accomplished is to do that, and then you can come back and amend it. It's the same thing we were talking about. I mean, you're going to have to face the same facts no matter when you do it, either now or a few months from now. Two questions for Mr. Oliver. Mr. Oliver, MR. POWELL: in your budget, your proposed budget, the savings that came in yesterday, the $125,000 with KMC Telecom, have you used that number to budget or-- Page 25 It was budgeted that way, Mr. Powell. MR. OLIVER: Okay. The second question: When we MR. POWELL: privatized the ambulance service to Rural/Metro, the savings that we've gotten from this point on--when I voted on that thing I was under the impression, let's say, that it was to have a weaning process similar to what we've done with the water revenue fund. What have you done with respect to that? That contract, if you recall, for the first MR. OLIVER: three years was--it's a five-year contract. For the first three years it's $600,000. The contract is with University, they subcontract to Rural/Metro. The first three years of the contract expire on June the 30th--or the first three years is up June 30th. We budgeted a half a year or $300,000. We gave that $300,000 to University when we increased the amount from $1.2 million to $1.5 million. It's on Page--I don't know if you have your budget book, but it's in Section 6. 6-8. MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, 6-8, Account Number 4602. Now, I MR. OLIVER: might add that there is a question in my mind as to whether they can continue, but they have a contractual commitment to do that--to provide that service without subsidy, but that is their legal obligation. You know, my memory fails me sometimes, but MR. POWELL: it don't fail me very often. Look here, I thought that we had a weaning process built into that contract to where it started out at $600,000 and when we got to year three it was to be zero, but it was to be cut along that path. That was my--I was not here when it was MR. OLIVER: done and that's what I heard also, but I think Mr. Wall can address what the actual legal document says. Well, two things. When they first came to MR. WALL: the Commission and made the original proposal, you're exactly right, there was to be a weaning process over a three-year period. Then when they came back with the final contract, and during that presentation it was--because of the change in the capital requirements or whatever, the agreement provided in the discussion at that time was at the end of the third year they would go to zero. But the original proposal was a weaning over three years, but then when they brought the contract back it was the first three years we paid them $600,000. What did the vote that was taken--when we MR. POWELL: took the vote on the contract, what was the agreement? Page 26 $600,000 for three years and then go to zero. MR. WALL: It was not a weaning process in the vote? MR. POWELL: No. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I don't see how Mr. Parks can MR. BRIDGES: go back to his board without knowing whether or not he's going to have $2.5 million there to offer them from us. I mean, he can go over there tomorrow and meet, they approve it, and we come back the next day and some of us might have found things we disagree with. So in regards to him having something he can go back to his board with, I would like to reintroduce Mr. Shepard's motion verbatim, and I'd do that in the form of a motion. Second. MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, my remarks are the same, so the MR. MAYS: record can just state it. If we're serious about holding at those numbers, it's on tape, it's before cameras, it's before witnesses, that doesn't have to change. What I remind my colleague, just like the question that came up a minute ago, what did the contract say, something we did a year ago. Nothing to do with this, but things change. What you vote on and what's written is what's gospel truth, not what you think it is. This way, if you're honorable people, it keeps open at the 2.5 that you got on the table. They take it back, it will be accepted or rejected. If it's rejected, we got a whole new ballgame anyway. We're going to have a fight to decide whether we'll deal with any of it at all. That's where your fight starts or not, not whether you take a vote on this tonight. And with all due respect, Mr. Mayor, you're right, we did go ahead with budgets in the past that both you and I and some of my other colleagues were associated with in the past. But, also, that was before we got into a bail-out situation of where we consolidated in order to come in with Operation Rescue, and we were dealing with a county government that had $4 million in surplus money and it wasn't a situation where we were locked on zero. We had some monies to come back to, so therefore it didn't make it as difficult. We had money down there, so we came back to make an adjustment, then we were not going to have to eliminate something else and pick and choose. This is a different situation, we have a budget that's locked tight. So when you come back to review, it means somebody has got to change their mind about something they've already voted for. And that's my only thing of allowing them to do that, deal with it Friday morning, because we either got an agreement or we don't. And then if we come back Friday we Page 27 know what we're working on. Because if we don't have a contract, it means we got to decide creatively what we're going to do with indigent care in this county, period. And what I'm worried about is not so much what they decide, Ulmer, or not what the dog fight is here. What I'm worried about is we lock in, there is no contract, and we get folks saying we don't have a legal responsibility. And then, quite frankly, six of us have got to come together to do that, and I don't know whether or not we got six, and that is my fear. And I've been here long enough to know how to count, and I'm afraid of what that count could be. I think we ought to keep it open, let that board decide in the morning whether we got something to play ball with or whether we don't, and then we come back Friday, we got a possible agreement or we've got to work to decide whether or not we're going to support it and give it a dollar, whether we're going to decide whether folk go to any hospital they want to go to, and decide whether hospitals turn them away. We compared about what other counties do, Mr. Mayor, but there are other statistics we've not added in. Yes, we're the second largest city, but we're also the largest metro city in Georgia with the highest unemployment rate that's there. I'm not so much concerned about what Gwinnett, Columbia, or anybody else does, I'm concerned about what we do. Our folk are in a certain predicament that cannot change regardless of anybody else's predicament. We've got to deal--like Booker T. Washington said, you got to cast down your buckets where you are, not where somebody else lives. We got to deal with what we've got, and I think that's the decision we have to make basically on Friday as to whether we're in a ballgame or not and whether or not we've got something to work with. I hope we keep it open, and, again, I hope we still reject the motion. Mr. Mayor, I need to ask Jim something. MR. HANDY: Jim, is it possible to make a substitute motion to add Ulmer's motion into my substitute motion by passing the budget subject to University Hospital accepting that agreement? No, sir. That's the question that Mr. Jerry MR. WALL: Brigham asked, making it contingent. The ordinance requires us to adopt a permanent--to have a final adoption of a budget. Okay. I want the budget passed. University MR. HANDY: wants some more money, but we've given them all we have, or we told them that's all we have; okay? And he said he would like to carry that back tomorrow and take it to his board. So why can't we continue this meeting until after the meeting tomorrow and then make--if they accept it, fine; if they don't, then we can finish. I mean, why do we have to vote on something when we still don't know whether they want the 2.5 Page 28 or not? You need to address that to the other eight MR. WALL: Commissioners that are there because they are the ones that have to vote on that motion. Well, I do not like to vote, as they say in MR. HANDY: Washington, D.C., party lines. This is Democrat and that's Republican. So I don't know which one I'm going to be tonight, Democrat or Republican, but we're fixing to vote party lines. So if we're going to vote party lines, we're not passing no budget and we're not passing what Mr. Shepard wants, so we're wasting time. We're going to have to do something, so somebody is going to have to bend. Somebody is going to have to give. And there's not enough votes to do anything either way, so someone is going to have to say we'll wait till tomorrow or else we'll be here all night. I mean, there's no other way around it, there's not enough votes here to do anything. If somebody gives and votes for the MR. BRIDGES: motion, that's six votes. But we're voting party lines. MR. HANDY: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in MAYOR SCONYERS: favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting. MR. BEARD, MR. HANDY & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT OF ROOM] MOTION FAILS 5-3. I'm open to make any changes in the spread- MR. OLIVER: sheet the Mayor and Commission may so desire. Mr. Mayor, could I make a statement? This MR. HANDY: is about University Hospital now. I really hate that we're in this predicament because I had two kids born at University Hospital. I've never had an opportunity to go there myself because I mostly go to the VA Hospital. I want to help University, but we don't have but $2.5 million, Mr. Parks. And you could help us a lot by saying that you will take it, or else you go call your board members or get a conference call and ask them would they accept it, and then we could go on about our business. Because we are in a predicament here that we don't have any more money and don't look like anybody is going to bend to give you any more money. And I know you said you need 3.9, but, you know, have you ever thought about faith and just reach out on faith and hope that something else will come later? Page 29 Mr. Handy, we've been reaching out on faith MR. PARKS: for the last five years and you see where it put us. Well, what can we do, Mr. Parks? MR. HANDY: I'm a little confused in your budget. I MR. PARKS: read from Page 2, the second paragraph under financial condition: "We expect to complete fiscal year 1998 with revenues in excess of expenses by approximately $3 million after adjustment for excess health insurance costs. The budget provides for the placement of $1 million of the excess in contingency for 1999 and $1.5 million for capital, with the remaining amount used to increase reserves." I'm under the impression--and I could be wrong. I don't deal with your budget every day, I deal with my budget every day. I'm under the impression that your Administrator has recommended that half a million dollars go into cash reserves and another million, as it says here, for contingency in 1999. Now, to me, that's a million and a half dollars. I'll restate our position, a $2.5 million contract is unacceptable. I will take that to my board tomorrow, but I think I know what their response will be. I'm not going to speak for them, but I think that's what their response will be. I'm just curious about my comment, though. Is that an avenue for funding? If Mr. Parks wants to work on our budget, MR. OLIVER: I'd be glad to discuss their advertising budget, but I don't think it's appropriate for me to voice my comments relating to that. This budget is necessary, it's prudent. We are way behind as it relates to capital. If you don't budget those funds and we don't continue to upgrade our capital side--sure, you can take that this year, but I will guarantee you that next year we will be short in revenue and we will need a property tax increase to make it up. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Lee, do we have a--can we MR. HANDY: take a break a minute and let Lee and the Mayor get together and talk about some things? Look here, I'm a lame duck, I don't MAYOR SCONYERS: need to take a break. I don't think you can go nowhere until we MR. HANDY: pass this budget. No, sir, I can go home. MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm trying to keep you here, Mr. Mayor. MR. HANDY: No, you don't want to keep me here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Page 30 Somebody [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor, can we hear some proposals MR. J. BRIGHAM: of other departments [inaudible] if we're going to sit here and--if the budget is not acceptable, let's find out what on the other end we can find. Is there any consensus as it relates to MR. OLIVER: internal audit? Are we going to hire an internal auditor or MR. KUHLKE: are we going to-- That position is currently being MR. OLIVER: advertised. If you recall, we went through that process once before and the decision was made at that time to continue on a contractual basis. That's a decision that'll be made when that position closes, and I don't recall the date. But that is $180,000. I would say this, though, a good internal auditor will save you that money. Youth employment program is roughly $40,000, Augusta Tomorrow is about $44,000, the Arts Council is $145,000. I will say this in defense of the inmate fund revenue from the Sheriff, he's already giving us 70 percent of that revenue. And these funds he is using, you know, to do things within the Sheriff's Department, and I think he would be hard pressed to give up those funds. Historic Augusta is a relatively small amount, $16,255; the Golf Hall of Fame is $68,000; Central Avenue bus route, I have discussed briefly with the consultant various things. They're recommending three routes be combined into two and this is one of the routes they're recommending combining. Transit-- Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. If we change a route, MR. HANDY: don't we have to have a public hearing and go through all that stuff again? You can't do that, can you? As I understand it, as long as you change MR. OLIVER: less than--your change represents less than 10 percent of your ridership, no, you do not, Mr. Handy. As long as it does not represent more than 10 percent of your ridership, nor does it affect multiple counties. Mr. Johnson and I have talked about that. Mr. Johnson was here earlier, I don't know if he stayed around or not. I'm here. That is correct data, and MR. JOHNSON: really it is one-fifth of the ridership. So, for example, if you eliminate the transfers, that is going to affect one-fifth of the ridership. But let me interject here that both of those proposals was made and we had hearings on those two things, and the Commissioners that was here saw what the impact and what the people wanted at that time. Matter of Page 31 fact, it was so rough that you asked me to come back and I did remodify my original proposal to eliminate it, and now we are running that Central Avenue route for eight hours because that was the wishes of the people that came to the hearing and that, in turn, was the wishes of this Commission. Okay. Thank you. MR. HANDY: Now, if there is anything anybody would MR. OLIVER: like me to insert, I can clearly do that. Would you clarify eliminating transfers? MR. POWELL: This was a proposal that Mr. Johnson had on MR. OLIVER: the table sometime back. If you recall, there was a public hearing. I know Mr. Mays was in attendance. We currently charge, and correct me, Mr. Johnson, if I'm incorrect, 35 cents per transfer. The rates on the bus service have not been increased since--I think it's 1990, '91, something in there. What Mr. Johnson had proposed, for several reasons, was to eliminate the transfer and make it the regular 75 cents instead of the 35 cents. Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr. Johnson? No, that's all I wanted to know, just a MR. POWELL: clarification. I don't think that's going nowhere. Mr. Mayor, may I suggest we [inaudible] MR. J. BRIGHAM: and see if anybody wants to eliminate anything else that's not up there already that's on a category-by-category basis? Sure. Absolutely. MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't see anything I want to MR. J. BRIGHAM: eliminate [inaudible]. Let me ask in the franchise fee area, do we MR. POWELL: have any room in there? You mean increasing the percentage or do MR. OLIVER: you mean as it relates to the revenue projection? Well, I'll pick C. You give me A and B and MR. POWELL: I'll take C, which is both of the above. We believe that the revenue projection is a MR. OLIVER: good one at two percent increase. Mr. Wall, I think, could better answer whether the percentage could be increased. I mean, we've signed franchise agreements, MR. WALL: which is, in essence, a contract for varying period of time. Page 32 And, you know, all of them have been renewed. The only one that is outstanding is BellSouth, but my recollection is the existing one for it goes into the year 2000. I'm sure it does not expire next year. How long do these things run, Jim, 10 years MR. POWELL: or longer? I think most of our cable franchise MR. WALL: agreements are for 10 years, if I recall correctly. What about the power company? MR. POWELL: I'd be guessing, to be honest with you. MR. WALL: I would note that I believe the franchise MR. OLIVER: agreement permits if there's a new carrier that comes into the market, you're permitted to renegotiate them all. I was just about to ask a question MR. HANDY: pertaining to that line. KMC, do we have a franchise agreement with them? Yes, we do. MR. WALL: We have one with them. We have one with MR. OLIVER: Knology also. Right. But, I mean, the one with KMC, it MR. HANDY: doesn't change since we changed the contract the other day, it's supposed to-- Well, their revenue will increase, which MR. WALL: would affect the-- But BellSouth's will go down by the same MR. OLIVER: amount, so we'll be revenue neutral as it relates to franchise fees. But Knology, they haven't even started MR. HANDY: service yet, so you're not getting any money from them. Again, I see that as a competing force. MR. OLIVER: And, if anything, that may drive the revenue down a little bit because if they cut the fees, then we'll get less revenue. We have projected a two percent growth. We think that's a pretty close projection. Mr. Mayor, I don't think we're going to MR. KUHLKE: make any progress. And with the hospital meeting tomorrow, I'd like to propose that we adjourn this meeting and reconvene Page 33 at four o'clock tomorrow afternoon, and that will give the hospital--and then we'll have something to talk about. I'll second that motion. MR. HANDY: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to MAYOR SCONYERS: adjourn till tomorrow, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please. MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County held on December 16, 1998. Clerk of Commission