Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-2001 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER (Continuation of December 18, 2001 Meeting) December 20, 2001 [December 18, 2001 Meeting Reconvenes] Augusta Richmond County Commission reconvened at 4:00 p.m., Thursday, December 20, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. Present: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. Mr. Mayor: We will reconvene our meeting from December 18 for continued th discussion of the budget. I remind you that we held a public hearing on the 18 on the budget. Mr. Kolb gave us an excellent presentation, and we heard from some members of the public. We had one other member of the public who asked to be heard today. Ms. Pat Morgan. Ms. Morgan, if you would come to the podium and give us your name and address for the record, please. Under the Commission rules, you have five minutes. Ms. Morgan: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Speak into the microphone so we can hear you. Thank you. Ms. Morgan: My name is Patricia Morgan. I’m at 2213 Wade Road, 30909. th Gentlemen, I would like to address the budget and the tax increase. I missed your 18 meeting because I was out of town. I believe that a budget is to do just that -- budget. Not come up with more plans to spend money you don’t have, but have to stretch the money you do have. When your accounting skills and management skills are that of a third-grader, you come up with ideas of just more money. My children always said -- when I told them I had no money left, they said well, you’ve got checks. Well, that’s, you know, real good. The government’s too big. Consolidation was to make it smaller, but again, I address the management and accounting skills. In order to have a budget, you must be ready to make hard decisions. Efficiency is the answer. Not more taxes. What you can’t afford, you don’t have. The people of Augusta understand this concept. Cut back our government. The Municipal Building alone is bulging. Parks & Recreation is top heavy. And I’m sure all of you can think of ways to cut back. I called Mayor Young’s office six times this week. Six times I got six different people. This is -- the government is just too big. At a time when people are losing their jobs and their savings are dwindling, the only thing we see is our Commissioners feuding and do little else. This is not the time, and we say no to any tax increase, small or otherwise. I have with me 82 signatures of county residents, all voters, could have more -- didn’t get started until yesterday at noon. Sorry, again, I was out of town. We all have lives. And this is just too short. I beg you all tonight to please don’t do this, do not increase our taxes at a 1 time when we cannot, absolutely, afford it. Thank you for your time. I didn’t need five minutes. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. If you’ll give the petitions to the Clerk, she’ll make that a part of the record. Thank you. And let me just say I don’t have six people working in my office. Well, we’ve been through of couple of temps this week, so that would account for that. Gentlemen, as a continuation from our legal session on Tuesday, we need to add an item and then approve it with respect to the Finance Director. So I need somebody to state what we want to add. Mr. Kolb, do you have that? Mr. Kolb: An agenda item to discuss the classification and job description of the Finance Director and consideration of salary upgrade. Mr. Mayor: All right, we need a motion to add this to the agenda. Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is that any objection? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I don’t have objection. It’s just a question. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Mays: I’m going to [inaudible] as I stated earlier. Will the motion take care of automatic change or will we need to do a rescinding action of what’s been [inaudible]? [inaudible] automatic? Mr. Mayor: Vanessa may want to be heard on this, but I would assume if we did nothing with the previous action, it would just die for last of action. Ms. Flournoy: I think by going back out again, this would supersede an item we’ve taken before. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding that item? There’s none heard. So now we need a motion to what, Mr. Kolb? What do you need? Mr. Kolb: A motion to approve the job description and a change in the salary classification of the position as we discussed in executive session. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to that effect? 2 Mr. Cheek: So moved. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Is there discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: For the record, [inaudible] executive session, which I don’t mind being made public, but [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. That takes care of that item. Now we’ll go back to discussion of the budget for 2002, and the Chair will recognize Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, fellow members of the Commission, members of the public, if you look at our budget as presented by the Administrator, there are three funds that are unbalanced, and they are the General Fund, the Law Enforcement Fund, and the Fire Protection Fund. One has a $6.4 million deficit as presented, the other one has a $3.3 million deficit as presented, and the Fire Protection Fund has a $1.8 million deficit as presented. And I wanted to share with the public some information that I have received as a result of talking with our Interim Finance Director. Basically, the Fire Fund probably has the most easily-followed explanation. The Fire Fund was subsidized and funded largely by the insurance premium tax, which was a revenue source that has decreased by $1.1 million in one year. And that is a result of the change in the Department of Revenue’s accounting, I’m told, and that has resulted in a severe impact to the funding sources to that fund. The other funding source which has been eliminated, or I shouldn’t say it’s been eliminated -- it’s been reduced -- is the LOST, which many of you will recall is the Local Option Sales Tax, which is different from the SPLOST but is a tax to reduce the amount of property tax paid by the ad valorem taxpayer, and there is a falloff in that fund. Here again, Donna, if I’ve missed these numbers -- it’s falloff of about $1.6 million. This was in -- that is where you can see the recession hitting the retail sector. We’ve become dependent in a diversified revenue environment with various revenues, one of which comes from sales tax, so when there are fewer sales at retail, there is less money to fund this government, which goes in the General Fund. So I passed out some materials which I would attempt to serve as a road map for leading us out of this problem that we have. The current Administrator’s budget, I think requires us to do too much in an environment that is really stressed. I 3 commented the other day that this is going to adversely impact the homeowner, it’s going to adversely impact the small business person. We just simply can’t afford the kind of millage increases that have been currently proposed. So I think that while there’s going to be some millage increases, they should be kept to a minimum and there should be some further cutting of the budget, and it should be targeted, both the millage increases and the cutting should be targeted. The first target, I think, of our discussion should be the Fire Protection Fund, because it’s most easily understood. Currently, if we transfer the Ambulance to the General Fund, we are able to reduce the deficit in the Fire Protection Fund to a little over a million dollars. It’s reduced to $1,045, 631. If we raise a new tax in the First Protection and target it to Fire Protection of a half mill, that basically will generate the money that we need to replace and have a slight surplus in the Fire Protection Fund. That would replace basically the insurance premium tax. The second area that I’d like to target is the Law Enforcement Fund. The Law Enforcement Fund starts with a $3.3 million deficit. I think we’ve got one security issue which we’ve not addressed. We’ve addressed this Municipal Building security in the General Fund. I proposed that we also address the funding of similar equipment and services and personnel to secure the Joint Law Enforcement Center. I don’t think we can reasonably secure the building that includes the Superior Court and the Civil Court and not secure the building that includes the State Court. We have a lot of individuals coming into the State Court at the LEC, and we have a lot of individuals coming into the Juvenile Court. So therefore I’m adding that back to Law Enforcement. I’m also adding, because I think it’s Law Enforcement related, the Marshal’s Department, transferring it from the General Fund to reduce some pressure on the General Fund, to the Law Enforcement Fund. This will result in a deficit of $4.3 million and would have to be addressed by a millage rate increase. Again, we talk that we need homeland security. Well, where is homeland security going to come from, ladies and gentlemen? It’s going to come from our law enforcement personally, quite simply. When we have terrorist problems, we’re going to look to our Sheriff first and foremost, and then for the prosecution of the people that may engage in those type acts, we’re going to certainly look to the Courts. So currently under this proposal that I’m advancing today, there will be additional millage targeted for Public Safety, and if we could find some other reductions there, I would be very appreciative if the Sheriff would work with us. I know some Commissioners have shared with me that they think that perhaps the Sheriff could find some reductions. Currently under the proposal that I’m looking at now, we would increase the millage targeted to Law Enforcement by 1.25 mills, which would basically take care of your deficit in that fund. Here again, it would be replacing the LOST money that we have lost and that somewhat went to that fund. Additionally, I have looked at some of the revenues that are coming in from our Courts, and I am hopeful that through Legislative changes that we could also address increases in revenues from the Courts in two respects. One, filing fees that are paid by litigants when they go to Court, which I think will take in certain areas statutory action at the State level, and so we can’t totally count on that. But I would like to see that as a goal. It is, in fact, a goal that we advanced to our Legislators when we met with them a few weeks ago. But currently, if you look in our budget and behind Tab 2 in the big budget book, we anticipate in the funding of the current budget, we anticipate about, for example, $5 million in monies that we’re going to receive from the State Court. If we are able to impose a surcharge down there by say 10% or if we are able to retain 4 some of those monies that are currently being subtracted from the fines in a very complex process down there, that would results, for example, in another $500,000 or half million dollars. If you go down the list to the Magistrate Court, Juvenile Court, Superior Court, Probate Court, and we could look for additional revenues from this source, which could not come from the taxpayers. I think what we have to understand as Commissioners and as taxpayers and as citizens, that we need to maintain a very diversified revenue base which comes partly from ad valorem taxes and partly from fines and fees. Mr. Mayor, if I could go on to address the General Fund, and I’m probably going to exceed my five minutes. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. The General Funds starts in the current handout with a $6.4 million deficit. The first think I thought we should do was to delete the new programs and expansions that were indicated to be $4 million. That reduces the beginning deficit to about $2.3 million. In looking at some of the new programs, there are a few things that have to be saved, and they are basically sensitive to next year’s budget environment and just where we find ourselves in the life of the community at that time. The Elections expense, for example, came in Schedule C that was part of the new programs. We needed to restore that, so some of the Commissioners pointed out to me that we should restore $150,000. We will have a one time event here that hopefully will come back in another year. It’s the Georgia Games. We have to restore that. RCCI, $122,000 additional food and medical costs. We didn’t see how we should get away without that. We’ve committed to the Marshal to secure this building, about $120,000. We need to restore that. So if you look at my add items in Schedule A, B and C, we’re adding back about $670,000 from the $4 million that was initially cut. We are reducing the General Fund. I think we’re going to have to spread some of the costs around, and we’re going to need to, for example, ask the Tax Commissioner to cooperate with us and delete his temporary tag workers. Tag season is an annualized birthday system now, and I think we’re going to ask for some help there from him, and I propose that $154,000 come out of that office. The transfer of the Marshal’s Department will save us $960,000 in this fund. And then we have a schedule of appropriations which is Schedule E, which we think needs to be cut by over a million dollars. And I’m not going to pull any punches or make any bones about it, the majority of that cut comes from subsidy of Indigent Care. I think that, quite frankly, the hospital has a $19 million profit this year, and they can help us by not having us fund Indigent Care in the manner that we have funded in the past, so we’re going to realize about $1 million in savings. All of this said and done, you still do not have a balanced budget in the General Fund, ladies and gentlemen. You have about $1.8 million short, and I suggest that that be approached without a tax increase, that it instead be approached in three ways: by finding departmental reductions in our largest departments. Last year I was the main sponsor and got the Mayor and Commission to go along with me on a 3-1/2% across-the-board reduction of all the departments. And we found that that was very difficult to achieve in smaller departments. We have some departments as small as two persons. That just -- when you impose that across-the-board, Finance and others pointed out that that was very hard for those small departments to achieve those kind of levels. So I think we look at 5 our two largest departments in the General Fund, and that’s Recreation and Public Works. And that’s going to have to be cut at least $600,000 from each of those departments. Will it mean programs and facilities? The answer is yes, it could mean. Could it mean layoffs? The answer is yes. I think we need to charge our Administrator and our departments today, department heads that are affected, to come back with us after Christmas with reductions targeted, $600,000 in the Recreation Department, Public Works $600,000, and across all the other General Fund departments it would be $666,964, to come up with $1.8 in cuts. Is this pleasant business? No, it is not pleasant business. Is it necessary business? Yes. This whole package is going to be a combination of some tax increases and some funding cuts and targets some departments that may well fare better than others, but I think we’re in a very insecure environment nationally right now. We don’t know what is going to happen. We are all cognizant of what happened on September 11. And I think if we’re going to talk the talk on homeland security, we’re going to have to pay the bill on homeland security. And that bill is going to be paid in the public safety area. So if I’m going to defend a millage increase, then I’m going to defend it for public safety. And I started out thinking that we could live without a tax increase, which would certainly be the best for this person’s budget, for a businessman’s budget, for any budget that’s here in town, anybody that does business, because they view the tax as an overheard to their business. Well, of course, we provide an important element of stability and security, which that’s really what government provides so that all of you can maintain your businesses and your homes and live your lives with an element of security. There’s one other element of the package which I want to address, which we have this from time to time, and I think we need to address the permanent funding of what I call the cultural and community funding programs. And we have a lot of deserving entities in this community, and they add immeasurably to the life of our community. I think they make it important for people to come here as locating their businesses, to locate their homes here, and I’m going to propose -- and I talked about this before the Legislature, and this body has actually adopted it as one of our goals for the Legislation -- we adopt a new penny sales tax on the hotel/motel tax that will provide adequate cultural funding for all our cultural groups, such as the Arts Council, the Augusta Museum of History, the Laney Craft Museum. Basically these penny taxes raise about $453,000. Not Ms. Flournoy, but Mr. Wall and I have discussed that there is additional -- at least from a Constitutional standpoint, Mr. Mayor, there is an additional penny available to us in Richmond County before we reach the Constitutional limit of a sales tax cap. And that penny, I think, should be made available and activated for these groups so that a pool of money could be established to take them off the General Fund but yet give them a secure sense of funding every year so that they could plan their programs and enhance our community life without burdening the ad valorem taxpayers. And I think that what we are going to have to ask our Legislators to do in this session, immediately in this session, is to pass some kind of statute that would activate for Augusta Richmond County this additional penny, and this would address a lot of the funding that has usually been requested from such groups as I’ve enumerated. And also we need to think about the Sports Council because certainly the Sports Council is going to put on the Georgia Games, and they have contributed to room nights in this community in a very tangible way. So has the CVB, so have others, but I think we have some of these groups that have been historically taking a back seat to a lot of these others, and it’s 6 time to be recognized in a cultural funding package. So in summary, I’ve really got four areas that I think we need to discuss. It’s the Fire Protection, the Law Enforcement, the General Fund, and how we are going to permanently fund Cultural funding. And it’s going to take a combination of some targeted tax increases, some severe budget cuts, and some work with these programs and some new user fees, quite frankly, from revenues that will be coming from the Courts and from filing fees. Mr. Mayor, I apologize for being overly-rambling, but I think we are going to have to proceed in all those directions at this time, being mindful that the economy is in a recession and that a lot of people are stressed in their person and business budgets right now. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard, and certainly we all appreciate the time and diligence you put into coming up with this plan. The Chair will recognize Mr. Beard. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I, too would like to commend Mr. Shepard for looking at this. I also would like to commend him for getting input from a cross-section of Commissioners. I think this is what it’s going to take. We know that we are in a hard time, that it’s going to take an effort by all Commissioners to see that we get through this budget process. I’m also glad to see that we are coming around to the point that we know that we’re going to have to have a combination of things, and no longer can we say that we are not going to do this or we are not going to have a property increase, we’re not going to do this or we’re not going to have any reduction. But I think all of us have come to the realization here that we must have a combination of the items that he’s listed here. I think the problem is going to be right now is how are we going to get to this objective and which ones are we going to do. I also think that the public should be informed as to we hear a lot of this “don’t touch the millage rate” or “don’t raise that,” “let’s cut government,” but I think we ought to know as the general public, when we start talking about $600,000 from the Recreation Department and Public Works and other departments that we are going to have to cut, I think that it’s incumbent upon us to let the public know that these are the places that we are going to have to cut and these are the things that you are going to have to lose. I’m not saying that I’m for or against what we are going to do here in those areas, but I think it’s incumbent upon us to let the public know that this is where we are going and this is what we are going to have to do. I think that the times of the economic downturn that we have now, we do understand that we are going to have to have some cuts. My other thing would be that we are going to -- each department that we’re asking here, not only the three large departments, the two large departments that we’re talking about here, but also law enforcement. I think that there are certain questions that the Commission is going to have to ask the Sheriff to cooperate with us. We talk about adding 17 deputies or jailers. I think the question should come up and I think the Sheriff should be -- when we come back again, because I’m going to say here now -- I don’t think we’re going to have a vote today, but when we convene next week I think that these departments, including the Sheriff, should be able to tell us are we talking about new [inaudible], are we talking about deputies that are going to be needed now or added now? If we’re talking about [inaudible], then we’re talking about a year to 18 months down the road. We’re talking -- we also should be talking about the scheduling of our court system, and I think the judges are going to have to cooperate with us in that. And I think -- what I’m saying is that everybody should be able to give up something, or 7 work toward balancing this budget, because we do know we have a tight budget and we are going to have to all work together, and I think that’s what I’m trying to get over to at this point. But to me, it’s not quite fair to cut deeply in some areas and not cut deeply in all areas. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve listened for over a year at the commentary from different sources about how this government has not worked to reduced the operating cost that is impacted on the General Fund. The fact that this government has both stated - - stated that it’s both fat and inefficient is a gross distortion of the truth. Many departments, including the Fire Department, have worked for years to reduce energy costs in order to reduce the impact on the General Fund. There are initiatives taking place in every department in this city to reduce the impact of operating costs to the citizens of this government. Contrary to what you may read or see, we are not fat in many departments. When you have something that is called an efficiency study where someone comes in and looks at our records and reviews our personnel and interviews them but then doesn’t make any recommendations for restructuring, that’s not much of an efficiency study, in my opinion. We have restructured this government more in the last two years. Some of these things that should have been done since the very beginning of consolidation -- our Utilities Department has been restructured, we’re operating a multi- million-dollar water system, we operated it in the past, it nearly collapsed because we did not have the maintenance, preventative maintenance budget, and the budget to increase and improve our water system’s capabilities. We did not have personnel to oversee the facilities, and it nearly collapsed, and the people of this city were incensed by it. We now are reaching a point to where we are staffed -- we’re right-sizing our Utilities, to where it will be able to manage the system, not only now but in the future. Our Public Works Department is now beginning to get a handle on the total number of ditches and detention ponds and road mileage, curbs and gutters and other things that are required, that require upkeep and maintenance. This has never been done before. We will have a handle on how much it costs to do city business. It will take time, because it is a culture change. We are working across the board to reduce the cost of operating this government. This year we adopted as a target for next year a 2% energy reduction, across the board, in order to reduce the impact of fee or rate increases on our utilities. That’s a start. We are looking at our safety program to reduce the impact to our General Fund. The minor injuries that take place on the job that produce such an impact on our general budget. This could save us half a million dollars a year. Energy could save us a quarter of a million dollars a year. We have heard through different law enforcement and judicial folks that if we reschedule the way we bring in our witnesses and our jurors to where they are not here sitting around unnecessarily, that that could be a million dollar impact on the operating cost of this budget. We are looking at all the avenues. There has been no stone left unturned. Does that mean that we have more room for improvements? Yes. And continuous improvement is what this government has adopted to do with its total quality management plan. If we do not fund the training, then we’ll continue to have word of mouth procedures and operating guidelines that have plagued this city for a hundred years. If you want a professional staff that does not migrate from Augusta to other places 8 because of higher play, we’re going to have to pay them. I will be damned if I will sit back and hear about us losing department heads because of whatever this Commission does, when the truth is they can get paid 10% or 20% more somewhere else. That’s why people are leaving. The Sheriff’s Department, the Fire Department, we’re all suffering from that. No matter how we fund the Sheriff’s Department or the Fire Department, if we don’t compensate our employees in a manner that is consistent with the market in the area, then we’re going to lose them. We’re going to put money into training and not see the retention of these employees. We’ll be training them for other people, which is what we’ve been doing for the last several years. My point in all of this is we have word from the people in our Local Option Sales Tax to build roads, improve drainage, improve recreational facilities, we’re adding fire stations. What does the public want us to do? Not staff them? Staff them with not enough people to get the truck out of the fire station and man the hoses? That would be irresponsible on our parts. I am a property owner. I don’t do business with this government. I have no other connections to make any kind of funding windfall to me for a tax increase. But the truth is, it’s been put off for ten years. We’ve seen valuation changes on our property. That’s a tax increase over the last ten years. Enterprise fees have gone up. On our utilities, phone company, electric. That is a veiled tax increase. You also look at other things. Fee increases on License & Inspection and business licenses. That’s a tax increase. We kept it to a minimum last year. Any tax increase that is required this year, this Commission will keep it as low as possible, because we pay the taxes, too. We have a fragile economy in this area, but it’s been stagnant for a long time. And I will say to you today, the public in general and this Commission, that the business practices of the past of not investing in the things that will bring the people to this area, not continuing to invest in the creature comforts, the quality of life amenities like recreation, our Canal Authority and other things, is what will have people coming to Augusta and not coming back. We’ve got to train our people, we’ve got to fund our departments. What Commissioner Shepard has done, by separating these categories, law enforcement, fire protection, is excellent. That way, the people can see where there money is going. But in law enforcement, we need to include our Court systems and other things that are relative to law enforcement. And the truth is, over half of our work force, this Commission has no control. We give our money to these different Constitutional officers and then they apply it as they see fit. We don’t have control over the 2700 employees this city has. We’ve got control over about 1700. So budget cuts in those areas are going to require pressure from the public on our Constitutional officers other than the Commission. We’ll bear the weight, but we’re not the ones that are capable of making the changes in those other areas. This is a difficult time. This Commission has been strapped with handling a problem that’s been put off for ten years. The cost of doing business is going up for everybody. What we have to do is make sure we can address the needs of the government, make sure we continue to attract people to this city in the hopes that they will locate here their businesses and their homes with things like the Arts Council is doing. We cannot neuter our Recreation Department because we do not have the mountains or a coast line. We’ve got a river and some of the finest recreational facilities in this country. That is our next ticket to bringing people to this city, is promoting that. And these outside groups are the ones that are doing it for us. To sum all this up, ladies and gentlemen, 3.2%, 3.2 mills is a big increase, sure. It’s about $6 a week. People spend more than that playing the lottery and doing other things. 9 If it’s going to keep this government stable, going to maintain a level of competent employees in the field to repair the roads, the drainage ditches and other things that need to be done, I’m going to support it. We have fought against waste, Commissioner Williams and I, and these other Commissioners. We will continue to fight against waste and improve efficiency. But the idea that this government has not been doing that is a lie and a myth. We will continue to do that through this process. All of us are challenged equally. We will see this through. But I am not going to stand by and neuter our programs to the point to where we’ll have people sitting in desks and nobody in the field to do that work. And that’s what we are looking at, that kind of reduction in service. New centers, community centers, new fire stations, and not enough people to put in them. How responsible is that? The fact that the entire city is now enjoying county line to county line the same level of service -- I would not stand by and see my District and its services reduced in favor of other areas, and I don’t think anybody else will. But that’s where we’re at. We’re either going to increase the time it takes to get work done, things repaired, improvements made, or do away with those entirely, or we’re going to fund it and have those people in place. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I been talking about and been saying about tax increase since I been here, Mr. Mayor, and no one likes to talk about that and no one really likes to pay, including myself. But I do know that if we going grow, if we going expand, we’ve got to have some money. It takes money to make money. This city is one of the greatest cities in the state of Georgia. But we re still at a minimum as far as our growth and the maturity that I see. From following Commissioner Cheek, I been accused of micromanaging. I didn’t do that, but by being with him I’ve been accused, and we’ve been trying to cut waste or to try to hold people accountable. Words that we been using quite frequently. People think that we think have arrived and got all the answers, but those things that we see, that we think that’s not done properly, not done right, where we can save some money. We had a three percent across the board last year we asked everybody to cut. But nobody was trying to hold those people accountable for their jobs. We talking about each department cutting back and trying to come up with that three percent. Yeah, I think we got a lot of waste, I think we got some areas that we need to look at, where we got services that we are duplicating. I think we got some people that’s working hard for this government, that’s not making any money, and I think we got people that’s getting paid that’s not doing a thing. And I think we as Commissioners need to hold those department heads and those people accountable. There are some things we can cut. Nobody likes to talk about the hard things. Me and the Sheriff, we had a round about those cars. I still think we can do something different about the cars and we can save those money with cars, put that money somewhere else in law enforcement. Commissioner Cheek said we don’t operate, we don’t handle those employees, in other words, we’re not responsible for those. He’s an elected official and the Sheriff does that. We always need law enforcement. If you had a law enforcement officer on every corner you would not have too many. I mean there is always going to be a need. You can always justify that. If there is a fire station on every street, that wouldn’t be too many, cause if you ever need one, they can’t get their fast enough. But 10 we got to be realistic, we got to look at some things that we can do. I mean no one wants to pull down a department. You talk about Recreation and we’re talking about how much money being spent in that. And Commissioner Cheek is right, we don’t have mountains, we don’t have beaches, but we do have nice recreation areas and we do have a nice program. And people are trying to get to Augusta and we ought to be trying to get them here, not just to visit but to move, to expand. People in Atlanta are running over themselves getting back and forth to work. If we had some kind of transportation, I’m sure people would live in Augusta and work in Atlanta. But the people in Atlanta are making money, and when you look around the state of Georgia, the Administrator told us on Tuesday that every city in Georgia except Augusta has raised taxes in the last ten years. We are behind in everything. I’m not here saying that, you know, we ought not to raise taxes, we’re not here saying we ought to raise taxes. We ought to look at it and see what they can do. What I’m upset about, what I think the general public will be upset about, is we have not held people accountable. When money coming in, we as Commissioners need to make sure that money is going to where it should be going. And if we do that, I think people wouldn’t mind paying cause they can see where their money is being put and what is being done with their money. But you know, we look at dilapidated property. In District 2, I’ve got the majority of that. We’ve got people who are going to Court and going to be fined on those cases. We don’t ever see that money in this government. That money ought to be coming back into this system so we can do more of that. That just one area. We talked about transporting prisoners and have people to move them back and forth. We transport prisoners and then we decide that case is not going to be heard today so we end up taking those prisoners back to where they was and they costing us money. But those are the things we need to look at. Those are the type thing that we need to focus on to see what can we cut out. Not only that. We talked about dilapidated properties and how many people we let live in another state, another city, and let the property grow up and we clean up their lots and we don’t do anything about it. We end up letting it go on our tax bills for years and years and years and eventually, if they decide to sell the property or anything or if they never sell the property it still sits in our doors. We need to get aggressive in a lot of ways and do a lot of different things. We need to sit back and look at what we got and then we need to work towards that. I said it before and I’m going to say it again, the tax mill we’re talking about increasing, if we don’t do that we’re going to have to cut service really bad. And if we cut services, then we going to have people complaining about not getting the services they are paying for. Nobody -- I mean it’s no easy situation. But I just think if we as Commission look at department heads and hold them accountable, so they hold their people accountable, people come to work there, some people that -- and I really didn’t look at this until I got to this position as Commissioner, but I see more city vehicles now than I ever seen in my life. Between this building and Gordon Highway, I probably can show you ten or 15, and they’re not out of one department. Just a straight drive. And sure, I’m sure they’re doing something. But we need to know what they’re doing. We need to know that they are performing the service they are sent to do. On the weekend, I see all kind of traffic engineer parked in case a stop sign gets knocked down and they’ll be ready to go put a stop sign up. You tell me what’s so important you’ve got to have a man that’s off duty driving a truck to perform a stop sign, or even a red light, I mean an officer should be there until somebody get there with the truck. But we are being taken 11 advantage of in a lot of ways. And I don’t blame the taxpayers. As Commissioners, we ought to hold us accountable, but we need to hold those departments accountable, that we be able to do those things that we need to do. Mr. Mayor, I’m not going to say anything else, but I do want the general public to know that it takes money to make money, and if we pay [inaudible] put a time line on it, if we do like our Local Option Sales Tax where we had to bring it back to the citizens, I think if people can see where their money is going, what is happening with their money, they wouldn’t mind doing it again if we need it. But we can’t stay where we are and grow. Most the people talking about historic. Most the people that’s here in the historic area, even done remodeling, fixed that place up, are moving to a new situation. Augusta is still in the same spot as it been in for the last 50 years. And we’re not going to grow unless we do something different. It takes money. If you look around your home, those people in my District are trying to strive to do better, but if you going to do something it takes money to do it. And if anybody know a better way to do it, then they need to let me know and I sure apply it, but I don’t know of any other way. If we cut services, we still won’t have the money and we still not going to have the services. We need to do a tax increase. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Williams. I recognize the Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I need about three minutes of that five. First, let me thank our Finance Chairman, whom I’ve worked with probably longer than I’ve worked with anybody up here, and I saw him on yesterday and we talked a lot during this last week on some specific things. I saw him age quite a bit yesterday and he’s aged some more because we talked about some mutually-painful things in terms of getting us to some serious talking points of where we are now, and I appreciate his direction in terms of chairmanship of that committee, not only this last year but the last two years. Since Labor Day, and particularly since Halloween, cause I guess you could say in terms of trick or treat what we’re going to get to in terms of deals with this budget. I’m glad we’ve got to this point, because this is the only true way that you can really decide in terms of what you’re going to deal with, particularly if you’re looking at an increase, and it should be, I still think, and I think that’s the consensus hopefully of this Commission, that that should be probably the last line of where you go as opposed to a first line in terms of any increase. But if I might, and not to stifle any debate, Mr. Mayor, I think really in terms of this public setting what will be more helpful tonight and particularly if we’re not going to maybe deal with a vote, I think it’s time that we probably move ahead to at least -- we know where the big bucks are, and we hear some feedback from our elected officials and department heads in terms of where we go with particular proposed cuts, what they already have in mind, what those things will affect in terms of putting dollars along with programs, dollars along with people, get to that point in the discussion so that we have something to digest over the next few days. I would like to [inaudible] because it may come up in the course of the conversation tonight, before we leave, Mr. Mayor, at least to resume some conversation, and I think we’ve made a positive step and my Commissioners to my left, who is leaving us but has done a great job in terms of working with the Indigent Care Committee in terms of trying to get an alternative of where we deal with that. But I would like to say I think that in the proposal of taking that particular item off the shelf, it is one that we are looking at, at least in a proposed form, of 12 dealing with a hundred percent of that, and I think we are going to need to have some serious dialog with University, whether it be with Mayor and members of this Commission, or whether it be other parties that are concerned about that part of the population and where it’s served, because I think there is a kick-in effort and there may still be a gap period in terms of that new proposal. So before we leave or at least get through with this whole process, I think if we’re going to move in that direction with that item, then I think since that’s one, too, that we cannot control in terms of what somebody else contributes, I think there needs to be a frank discussion with them, at least in terms of getting us through this year. And Steve mentioned in reference to Legislative changes which deal with us, with the expansion on hotel/motel, and hopefully the Legislature will take very seriously the proposal in reference to having alternatives to deal with the flexibility in terms of our sales tax as it relates to consolidated governments only. This will not be one that we can solve right now in this budget, but I think if we’re able to at least get to that this year and to deal with some things as a minimum, that will give us some starting point as to where we will deal with some of those funds. But I think, Mr. Mayor, that here particularly we know that we’ve laid out probably three big departments in here, and we look -- the Sheriff is here, Mr. Beck is here, Ms. Smith is here, Utilities is here, and I think we are looking now still at maybe another $2 million. And we can converse in terms of where we are on some of those things, but I think to a point where it needs to shift in the direction and to hear from those folk because we got a December 31 deadline, and you know, not a time to deal with finger pointing and told you so or anything like that. It’s the point where you’re running out of time, and I think to move on in terms of how that’s going to affect everybody will get us to a point. I’d like to hear where some of these dollar are going to deal with actual services, what’s going to be cut, where they are going to be cut, and for instance, Lee mentioned about the 17 new jailers, if that’s going to be a part of that, then I think we need to look at the time frame because last year I was real critical because we were going to cut what we already had in terms of law enforcement. But I think if we’re looking at it in the jail side, if we’re putting them on, then whether or not they are to be new or whether we are going to have to wait for the facility to be built to deal with it, which may not be in this budget year. So I think those are the things I know personally I’d like to hear from and like you, in a public setting, how that’s going to affect. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Was that less than five minutes? I’m just curious. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor: I am reserving Mr. Mays’ other two minutes. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] 13 Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Mr. Kolb when we get back together, I think it would be helpful for all the Commissioners to have an organizational chart and the staffing levels of every department that we are going to be talking about so we can take a look at that as we go through these projected cuts and see what impact it’s going to have. We never have had that before, but it ties together and we need to look at that. Mr. Kolb: We’ll make that happen. Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, I did not hear my colleague to the right there and I’d like to recognize Commissioner Beard. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think that most of the Commissioners that have been [inaudible] maybe want to dialog a little bit, I think that would be fine, but I think that we are not going to get to a voting process here today, and I’m going to th move that we reconvene until the 27 and at that time the Administrator bring back those instructions that he’s been given by the following Commissioners -- I think Mr. Mays and Mr. Kuhlke and others who have asked for these items, and we kind of itemize those, and we hear from those department heads, especially those that -- th the three larger departments, as what they’re going to do, and we do this on the 27. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, did you want to say something? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, for clarification purposes, in reviewing the sheets submitted by Mr. Shepard, which I think -- by the way, I should commend Commissioner Shepard for the effort and others for putting it together -- I do see some difficulties with what you have proposed. However, if we can have the broad parameter that we are looking at some type of a tax increase of around 1.755 and reshuffling of resources, etc., and a cut including personnel, we can probably put something that may be more palatable together for the Commission without, as the approach has been, to kind of meat-axe city services. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard, respond. Mr. Shepard: Well, reluctantly, George, that’s my number, 1.7. It was lower, but others have convinced me that, you know, in order to do what we have to do in this year, we’re going to have to -- that’s an adequate parameter, yes. Mr. Mayor: And this is strictly in homeland security, law enforcement and fire, not General Fund, Mr. Shepard? 14 Mr. Shepard: Well, I had allocated it because I thought it would be most effective if it went to law enforcement and fire protection. But I think, George, I don’t want to limit your flexibility. I’m telling you what I’m coming from. I’ve targeted the millage increase to law enforcement and fire protection. If you can implement some of Mr. Beard’s suggestions, I would be gratified there because that would reduce the millage. Certainly there are revenue opportunities, but I’m not sure we can count on those. But as far as parameter for you, that’s -- 1.75 is fine. Mr. Kolb: My concern is that we have that type of flexibility because I do see some inequities in here as it’s submitted, so I’d like that flexibility. And we can come back and present the impact of the cuts in the General Fund and also the reorganization that shows the impact there. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think what Mr. Shepard has proposed here is very good and I support it. I do have a concern on the proposed funding source of $1.9 million as well, George, and I think this is what you’re talking about. Rather than having us pick, you know, Recreation and Public Works out for $1.2 combined, let’s just ask the Administrator to look at $1.9 million and see where he can cut that within the organization itself. My concern specifically here is Public Works. Of course we cut them last year, and I’m not hearing from the public for a demand and a decrease in the Public Works area, as far as the tasks that Public Works performs. I’m hearing, I’m getting calls for increase in that area in relation to the appearance of the community’s weeds, roads, paving, this type of thing. So it really concerns me that we’re looking at $600,000 additional in that department. So I’d rather give the Administrator the task of trying to find $1.9 within the organization. And also, in regards to the millage increase that’s proposed, and I think basically what we’ve got here is -- in this whole budget process, we’ve seen this coming for three years, and we’re at the point today where we’re picking our poison, you know. It’s a decrease in service or increase in millage. But in regards to the proposal that Mr. Shepard has given us here with law enforcement and fire protection, I would like to see that millage on the tax bill as law enforcement and as fire protection. In other words, it would specifically be designated to those departments on the tax bill, not just this year but for years to come, and my concern is as we increase it to go to law enforcement, this year and next year it get plowed back into the General Fund somewhere. But those are my comments, Mr. Mayor, and I’d like to give the Administrator, particularly, some flexibility with the $1.9 million proposed cuts. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Henry Brigham? Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to certainly thank my Chairman and the committee that worked with him for doing a real good job. Sorry I was not there. But I would be real concerned about the cutting of personnel. To me, I think you tear up a city or a home or anything else when you start talking about cutting personnel. And although I won’t be here -- well, I will be here to vote on the budget. I’ll have a vote on that. I hope that that would be one of the last, last, last, last things, results we have before we 15 start cutting persons from the payroll. Thank you. They did a good job of bringing it back, putting it out front, the things [inaudible] and [inaudible] go about it. And I think it’s going to take a give and take on everybody’s part. And I think once we come to the table with that kind of thought process, I think we can get it done, but I think that has to be the process. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I just want to caution the Commissioners, the Commission, that when I come back with the cuts, they will be impacting personnel. There will be layoffs proposed. And if I use the first submittal [inaudible], we’re talking someone between 30 and 50 at a very minimum, and it could go higher than that. And that will be whole services in the General Fund. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: Yes, Mr. Mayor, we just -- I also applaud Mr. Shepard for putting together budget. When are we going to take a look at the budget that the Administrator put together? Mr. Mayor: That’s part of what we’re doing here today. Mr. Colclough: I’m looking at one sheet that our Finance Director put together. I also had something here that I think the Administrator --- Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. That’s -- Mr. Kolb: I will have my budget to you by Thursday at your meeting time. Mr. Beard: 2:30. Mr. Kolb: 2:30. I don’t see how we could get it -- Mr. Beard: Excuse me. Okay. I’m sorry. I interrupted you. You were asking for a time, and I apologize. I don’t mean to interrupt. But I was trying to get you some time line. If that’s available, if that’s agreeable with the other Commission members, at 2:30. And I said simply 2:30 because we have the committee meetings that morning, and we should be through around 12, as I understand it, 12:30, then you could get lunch and come back and we said 2:30. 2:30. And I’m sorry, George, I interrupted you. Mr. Kolb: Not a problem. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m wondering if we could do something different, maybe have the budget meeting -- I mean I’m a wage earner like some of the others up here, and to have committees at 10 and then come back at 2:30 for the budget pretty well 16 just destroys the day. I’d like to lose half a day if possible and just start at 8 with the budget and go to committees at 10, if the other Commissioners can work with that. Mr. Mayor: Whatever your pleasure is. We’re all going to have to work to pay these taxes, aren’t we? Mr. Bridges: Going to need these wage earners. th Mr. Mayor: Is eight o’clock out of the question? 8 a.m. on the 27? All right. Now we’ll recognize Mr. Mays. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, as you well know, and I’ve stated this to you, the Administrator, and to each of my colleagues, I will be conversing probably very closely thth with the Finance Chairman by phone. I will not be here on the 27 or the 28. Even st before we made plans to move our 31 meeting back to that date, I had made plans to be gone during the period, and in fact, I had hoped that this process would be gone during this period. And not for my personal reasons of doing it, but a point that in the element of change, if we’re going to deal with new changes, I think people need time to do it and -- well, that’s water over the dam, that’s been passed and we’re back here now with staff and everybody else stretched out to deal with the holidays and trying to meet a deadline. But I think out of courtesy, and they may not be tonight, but I think out of courtesy we’ve been trying to get different plans and proposals and talking points here today, we started in terms of this public meeting a little bit later than our schedule provided, and we’ve got folk that are here that represent these departments, we’ve got elected officials here that are going to have to give input to the Administrator that we are talking about. And just out of courtesy from the point that -- and I’ve already expressed this to Steve, I’m not planning to leave anybody hanging. I’m going to, at least in terms of [inaudible] and getting Ms. Bonner to fax it to me and I will submit a letter back to give to the Finance Chairman or to you, Mr. Mayor, in reference to hopefully reaching a consensus of where we are, but I think if there are people that are prepared to deal with these big number items -- this is something that’s been sitting on the deck for a long time. I think some of them are here tonight prepared to do it, or at least to respond even to what may have been given to them as department heads to say go and do, that they are ready and at least to say that. Now I think what you learn through this process, and history teaches us one valuable lesson, every time we have one of these hearings, we learn something else. If we going to have just the dialog from us, adjourn and dismiss, then go back and instruct George to come back with something else. But George was here the other day. And I think we to a point of where we’ve had to go back and talk and deal with that, and that’s no disrespect to him. Thought he had a beautiful proposal, he just needed some money with him. But you know where we are right now, if I’m looking in our Sheriff’s face, if I’m looking at my Rec Director’s face, I see Ms. Smith out here, I see our Utilities Director there, you know, it’s to a point if they’ve got some things to say, this is a point where you say them and you hear from them to a point that I rather -- and this is no disrespect to the Administrator -- but the folk who got to make it work, if they’re the ones who got to make the recommendations to the Administrator, to say how best I can spend these dollars, how best I can present something to you to deal with the cut, then I think if 17 they are prepared, then I think we ought to least out of courtesy hear some general discussion in terms of what they’re doing. I mean to basically adjourn and deal with a weekend of absorption in private is not going to get us any closer to where we are. I think the understanding of what they have to work with and how that’s going to impact send us better towards an understanding than it is coming back again with some concise proposal that the Administrator gives us at that point, it’s still going to have to come from the people who are sitting here. And that’s the only point I’m trying to make, Mr. Mayor, of hearing some people, from them, if they are prepared to do that tonight. Because we’re not taking a vote. We are mainly here in a learning process, but I think the more that we hear, the more that we learn, and the more intelligent and better decision that you can make based on information that these folk who actually are running these departments are going to have to deal with. Because it’s obvious they are not going to be handed everything through a massive tax increase to get done in terms of what they may want to do. So they have some ideas, I think, on their own that they have had to live with, based on what the Administrator has directed to them. That’s the only point I’m making. If they are ready, I think out of courtesy, I’d like to see us hear from them. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Mays is right. Could we hear from the Recreation Director, maybe the Public Works Director, as what effect this budget is going to have on them? Mr. Mayor: We’re going to hear from them as soon as we’re through hearing from the Commissioners. Mr. Bridges: Well, I guess if we’d be quiet they’d come on up. Mr. Mayor: Let’s see, Mr. Williams -- Mr. Mays: Well, I thought we were getting ready to take a vote to get out of here, and that’s why I wanted to get that out in the open. Mr. Mayor: No, Mr. Mays, we’re going to hear from them, but I’ve got some Commissioners who’d like to speak and this is a Commission meeting. So in deference to the Commissioners. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to reiterate what Commissioner Henry Brigham has said about the employees. We know we got to do some serious looking at some stuff, but to cut employees -- we talked about how the economy is now. What’s going to happen to those employees? I think that if we look at those employees who are not performing and made some cuts on those people who are not doing their jobs, rather than just cutting employees. We cutting 20 to 30 to 50 people, if we look at, if every department look at those people that is not performing and maybe do some cutting in that respect, we’ll end up with good employees. But if we just cut, we going to cut some good employees to go with the bad. So I mean we’ve got to do what 18 we’ve got to do. I just wanted to, you know, reiterate that and say that I think we’ve got people planting flowers, six people planting flowers, two of them working and four of them holding a shovel. We need to look at that. We need to see what’s going on. There is some serious stuff around this town and I know I ain’t the only one with 20/20 vision with these glasses. So we ought to understand that and we need to look at what’s right. Mr. Mayor: We’ll hear from some of the department heads, but let’s keep in mind we’ve asked Mr. Kolb to recommend to us $1.866 million in cuts, and he has not yet consulted with the department heads on what his recommendation will be. Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: I have, Your Honor. Mr. Mayor: You have already? Okay. Mr. Kolb: However, before I ask them to respond, I’d like to remind you that there is a municipal services list that I gave you last week, and if you have any other ideas, you’ll have a little more time to go through them to see what you want to eliminate in terms of services, please let me know. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb: And let them know. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear from -- we’ll hear from Recreation first. Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, any time that you’re asked to look at any budget reductions that’s not an easy thing to do. But on the other hand, I think it does make you look in the mirror a little bit at your operation, even maybe a little more closely than you would otherwise, and we have done so. There has been quite a bit of discussion here about personnel, and 68% of our budget is in personnel. That holds true for every large department within our operations, within the government. Our recommended $600,000 in cuts would lay off 15 employees. 15 current employees. Mr. Kolb, I’m not sure whether or not these recommendations have been given to the Commission. I’ll just go down some of the proposed list that we have come up with. th One would be the closure of the indoor rec center at Dyess Park, which is at 9 and D’Antignac Street. This again would not close the park, it would close the indoor rec center. Second area would be to lease the operation of W.T. Johnson Community Center to the 30901 Development Corporation. As you know, we have an agreement with them now, an operational agreement. That organization has approached us in the past regarding potential full leases. That would take over that particular operation there. This proposal would close the Merry Street Ceramics Shop, which also would eliminate employees. All of these cuts that I’m mentioning now would eliminate employees. The Merry Street Ceramics Shop would be eliminated. All of the nutrition programs, the Senior Council on Nutrition programs. This proposal would eliminate half of the monies that are currently going to the nutrition programs. The thought process there is that it is my belief that our department, through some shifting around of staff and re-utilizing 19 resources, could potentially run that operation ourselves, probably with the exception of the home-bound delivery of meals. The nutrition sites, I believe, could be operated with that amount of money through more of an effort of our department and these monies coming out of the Senior Council budget. This proposal also would eliminate $25,000 that would be going as a bid fee to the police, to the National Police Athletic League. Augusta, as you’re aware, was given the National Boxing Tournament for the year 2002 two years ago. We had committed as an organization $25,000 as a national bid fee, which is very consistent with these type national tournaments. $25,000 was in our budget. With these reductions, that bid fee would be gone, as well and tournament. It would not come to Augusta. This proposal would eliminate through our administrative office, it would eliminate a full time secretarial employee currently employed within the department, as well as reducing the local mileage given back for employees when they do business mileage, from around the county. We’ll just have to cut back, we’ll have to use fax machines more, and hopefully with more online computers we can communicate better that way, but it will reduce our presence of administrative staff out in the public. This would eliminate the full-time position at the Lock & Dam. We currently have had a caretaker out there that has been residing at the park and taking care of the park at the Lock & Dam. This proposal would eliminate that position and that service. This proposal also would eliminate $50,000 out of $70,000 that would going toward the Georgia Games. As you are aware, we are once again hosting the 2002 Georgia Games, as we did in ’99. Can the Georgia Games still be put on without this money? The answer is probably yes. Will Augusta’s chance of succeeding as well as we did in ’99 this year be as good without this money? It won’t be. But this proposal would eliminate that money for Georgia Games. The Boathouse Community Center -- as you know, we have on-site staff presence there. When there are functions that are held, obviously, as well as that takes care of the day-to-day operations, maintenance, set-up, the contact person there at the Boathouse -- that position would be eliminated, and we would operate that, the Boathouse, through a combination of the Julian Smith Casino staff and the Old Government House staff. There would be staff presence that would be reduced there, and our feeling is that it will not reduce revenue. I did want to mention, too, before I go any further, these cuts obviously are ones that do not affect -- or affect revenues the least. It doesn’t make a lot of sense for us to make budget cut recommendations where we’re already bringing in revenues. These are areas where revenues are not, would not impact our budget, or the loss of them. This proposal also would close the indoor pro shop and eliminate a staff at Fleming Tennis Center. We currently have one employee there that takes care of that operation, so that staff presence would be gone. Diamond Lakes Regional Park, we had $10,000 in the budget for two national bid fees, two $5,000 bid fees, that are in the budget for bids that we have gotten through the National Amateur Softball Association. Those fees would be cut, those tournaments would be lost. And then we would eliminate staff at three other current recreation centers, one at McDuffie Woods Community Center, one at Warren Road Community Center, and one at Belle Terrace Community Center. That may require some reductions as far as hours of operation, but we do not feel that it would affect revenues. All of those areas do have some revenues that do come in, and we feel like we can still collect our revenues accordingly with those reductions. And the last area is some cuts at our soccer park for some supplies. So those were the recommendations that were sent to Mr. Kolb. 20 Mr. Mayor: Let me ask Mr. Beck one question. Have you looked at adjusting your fees for participation? I notice the differential for somebody from Columbia County who participates in our Recreation programs is minutely small for the investment that we as taxpayers make in the Recreation Department. Mr. Beck: We have increased those fees next year for out-of-county residents. The only program we have a fair amount of out-of-county residents in is in youth basketball. The other youth athletics, there’s very few that we do have. But those will be increased, I believe double of what they are currently for out-of-county residential fees. We also, as part of the budget, we have -- and I did notice there was a $33,000 deficit in our revenues. We did submit revenue increases, and I’m not real certain whether or not those increases are reflected in that amount. I don’t think they are, so I believe some other revenue increases that we can feel like we can impose, because obviously our fees are not mandatory. They’re strictly voluntary whether or not someone registers for a program or not or rents a building. And these have to be collectible. We have made some recommendations, and I don’t think that those fee increases that we did bring back in, I believe, October or November -- Donna, I don’t think those are reflected. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. I’d just like Tom to clarify something for us all. We have a new Rec center in McBean that comes on line in the summer time, which we had planned to add two additional personnel to as necessary to run the center. Can we or should we be investigating not building that center? Mr. Bridges: No. Mr. Cheek: No. Mr. Kolb: Since those two show no -- Mr. Mayor: I think that’s your answer. Mr. Kolb: Since those two positions have been eliminated? Mr. Beck: Just to respond to that, we currently, as you know, have an operation at McBean, and we have one full-time staff person there and a part-timer. The size and magnitude of the new center that you have approved and the voters did in the referendum would require more staff than that, so if we don’t get the new staff, we’ll have to look at shifting other staff from other parts and there may be some other service reductions in other areas. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? 21 Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I can assure this community that if we don’t actively seek these increases in tourism, which these tournaments are, that Macon and Savannah and other folks will. This is something that helps. I know I’ve heard the economic downturns in the area and the economy and so forth. The only way for Augusta to offset the impact of the economic downturn is to continue to market and increase marketing these events which bring people to our area. They stay in hotels, they eat in restaurants, they buy things in stores, and quite frankly, we don’t have as many opportunities to increase that market share as I would like to see us have. But Recreation and these tournaments puts Augusta on the map across the country. Georgia Games. It’s a big influx of people to this area that stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, and go to stores. That helps offset the impact of the downturn in the economy to our local option sales tax, which we depend heavily on. And just for the record, whether it would ever be put forth to the public or not, Mr. Beck, we have been actively seeking neighborhood associations and other groups to maintain and manage parks for us instead of full-time employees; is that true? Mr. Beck: That is correct. Mr. Cheek: And that just didn’t happen today; did it? Mr. Beck: Three years ago. Mr. Cheek: And we’re continuing to find ways to staff and keep centers open without staffing them with personnel; is that true? Mr. Beck: That’s correct. Mr. Cheek: How many centers do we have managed now by neighborhood associations and other groups? Mr. Beck: We have six operations within our department. Mr. Cheek: So I would say that that would be a very good example of the Recreation Department continuing to maintain a certain level of service without increasing the fees to the public and on the General Fund; would you agree with that? Mr. Beck: I would agree. Mr. Cheek: That’s to me working smarter, not harder, so congratulations. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, my question is are we going to debate the budget tonight or are we going to let the Administrator come back and present us with a budget and then do the debating? 22 Mr. Mayor: He’s going to come back with some recommendation, as we’ve asked him to, but some the Commissioners have asked to hear from a couple of the Department heads, so we will honor that. Next we’ll hear from Ms. Smith with Public Works. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, can I one question of Mr. Beck while we’re here? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, go right ahead. Mr. Shepard: Before we get -- Tom, the cuts you just went through, what’s the aggregate amount of that? Do you have that handy? Mr. Beck: $647,000. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, go ahead. Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, we have also had discussions with Mr. Kolb about the services that would have to be cut or discontinued or the impact to Public Works, should be required to do additional cuts. And the information, I believe, was included in a package that you received. And basically what it entailed is elimination of the service that is provided for clean-ups after evictions, elimination of vacant lot cuttings and clean-ups, a reduction in the clean-up service that is provided to the downtown business district -- that is those maintenance-related activities, total elimination of the Print Shop and the Print Shop services that are provided, a reduction in the janitorial services that are provided at the Municipal Building and at the Joint Law Enforcement Center, as well as elimination of the internal mail delivery system. Like Mr. Beck, we also took a hard and long look at the activities that are performed by Public Works and in looking at those activities, there are many activities that are performed by Public Works that are liability-related activities. That is, if those services cease to be performed and we do not adequately maintain our system and there is damage that is incurred by citizens as a result of those damages, then we put the city in a position where we are potentially liable for those damages, and that ranges from maintenance-related activities on our storm drains, on our detention pond, and we’re all familiar with the impact that they can have associated with flooding. But I think that the personnel in our Risk Management Department can also speak to the potential liabilities associated with pot holes and their not being addressed in a timely fashion, and the potential damages associated with the impact of our not adequately maintaining our roadway system. It was for this reason that we looked at the services that are provided by Public Works that do not have those types of liability-related activities associated with them. The sheet that’s going around gives you the dollar figures, as well as the positions that would be impacted by the elimination of the services that were previously described. The total is 21 positions. The total budget reduction for the elimination or decrease in those services is $636,126. Many of the services that are performed by Public Works associated with these and many other 23 activities are activities that require a high level of labor. And looking at the total Public Works budget, we have approximately $5.8 million in personnel, approximately $4.6 million -- excuse me, approximately $3.7 million in other operating related activities, and about $1.4 million in vehicle costs and other general cost allocations. So that in a lump is where the funds for Public Works sit, and as you can see, because we are a labor intensive organization, much of the work that we do is labor related, and therefore as we reduce services, through a reduction in our funding sources, it will be necessary for us to also reduce personnel. 21. Mr. Mayor: Any questions for Ms. Smith? Thank you, Ms. Smith. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, one quick question. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Cheek: Just for the record, Ms. Smith, did we just recently roll our Trees & Landscaping Department head over as a sub-department head in your department? Ms. Smith: Well, I think that that activity is proposed as a part of this budget package. I don’t think that’s been officially voted on yet. But none of the Trees & Landscaping related activities are reflected in the budget as it stands, because the Commission has not approved that consolidation. Mr. Cheek: I just wanted to bring up the fact that we are looking to reduce our department heads and personnel levels, to reorganize to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness and that this is one of the examples of an on-going process. It didn’t just happen overnight. Just wanted to bring that up for the record. Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The biggest increase in here is for law enforcement. Sheriff, is there anything you’d like to say to the group tonight while we’re all here? Mr. Strength: Well, I’m not prepared to say what impact it would have because I thought I was going to come in here and you folks were going to say your budget is approved and that was it. (Laughter) Mr. Strength: I was going to be shocked if anybody wanted to take law enforcement officers off the street and not protect the general public. I’ll just say a couple of things. I know I do have to come back and talk to everyone. I talked to several Commissioners. After I was elected, I was in here last December and the first thing I was asked to do is look and see if we could cut 3-1/2% or $1.2 million from out budget, which 24 we did. It was very difficult. We are stretched very thin. But we did it. And we understand the position you folks are in. We understand y’all have to maintain the budget, and not just for the Sheriff’s office. You have a lot more budgets to worry about than just mine, and I understand that. But I’ve said a few things will happen if we cut that budget. I said number one, you wouldn’t see it in the first three or four months, but after six or seven months, crime was going to go up, and it did. I think Mr. Kolb addressed that in his report. He got figures from us. I knew it was going to happen. I also said response time was going to be bad, which it is. We’re not getting and responding to the calls quicker, as quick as we want to. I said we would no longer be able to patrol neighborhoods and malls because with less manpower and more calls to answer, 330,00 last year, more than that this year, with many fewer officers, we wouldn’t have time to patrol in the subdivisions because we were going from call to call to call. We answer a call every 1.6 minutes in this county. I’ve heard so many times, well, good gracious, your budget is 40%-42% of the county budget. Well, if we call around and check any large agencies, you’ll see that every large agency in this country, public safety is 42%-45% of the budget. We’re no different from anybody else. And the reason is folks want to be protected. I was elected to protect 200,000 folks, and that’s what I need to do. Not just 200,000 folks that live here, but all the folks that come in every day because of our shopping centers, because of our malls, because of their employment. We must also provide protection for those folks. Now I have worked on the budget. I submitted a budget. I submitted a budget, what it would take to run that sheriff’s office. One-third of our budget, and I don’t know if we understand it -- you know, when you start talking about budgets, we say, well, good God, we have that many officers in the street? One-third of our budget, gentlemen, is the jails. We have to house those prisoners. We have to feed those prisoners. We have to protect those prisoners. Medical cost is mind-boggling. I don’t have any control on that. I can quit feed them. We can quit protecting them. We can no longer give them medical treatment. But that won’t less. I promise that we are going to get into a lot of trouble. I’ve worked with Mr. Kolb numerous time and I promise I’m not blowing smoke up his dress. He’s a gentleman to work with. He shows me the problems, and I’m going to work with him. No smoke up your dress. But he understands the problem that we are faced with in public safety. And I’m going to continue to work with him and whatever it takes, we are going to do. We have now accepted as of January 1 of last year that we’re going to have to do more with less. And we have done a heck of a lot more with less. And there’s a strain there. The big item for me, that I’m concerned about more than anything, is loss of personnel. I met with the Public Safety Committee and in an eight-month period I think we lost 76 officers for other jobs in the area. I don’t mind losing officers to better paying jobs in a different field. I have major problems losing officers in the same field to Columbia County, North Augusta, Aiken County, VA Hospital, Board of Education. I have problems with that. We did that study, you gentlemen saw it, Mr. Kolb went over it, and has worked with me on it, and I’m very optimistic that there’s going to some adjustments there. That would be number one with me, of course, are the folks. And these folks we’re talking about salary adjustments are sergeants and below. They’re not for any of our command staff. They’re for the folks in the street, doing the job, working every single day, protecting this community. The 17 jailers we’re talking about, I think Mr. Mays addressed -- no, it is not for the new pods. We’re going to get no new pods this coming year. I’ve worked 25 with Mr. Kolb. We hope in 2003 we add one pod, 2004 add another pod at the Phinizy Road jail. Right now, we’re at 100% capacity in our jails, and we’re letting them out as fast as we can let them out on their own recognizance, because we don’t have the personnel to man it, we don’t have a place to put them. We’ve got them on the floors now. We just bought a lot of mattresses, so we’ve got people all over the floors, and what’s going to happen -- and I know I’ve talked to several of you -- I know this is going to happen, and I’ve talked to several Commissioners about it. We just in our last few years came out from under a Federal Court order. Well, they told us how many people we would have guard everybody. We are fixing to go back under it, and he’s not going to say, “Gentlemen, if y’all can, add 17 men.” He’s going to say, “Gentlemen, y’all add 77 officers at that jail and there will be an X number of dollar fine every single day it’s not there.” And it’s out of our hands. I don’t want it, and I know y’all don’t want it. We don’t get a say so in well, we don’t have it in our budget, because when that Federal Judge puts us under that Court order this next time, and they’ve been done twice to look at us, they’re very concerned about the safety of those prisoners, we don’t have the manpower to guard them. And of course, at that time we are going to get our manpower, there’s no doubt in my mind, for that jail. But I appreciate the few minutes of this time. Mr. Mays, I am working with Mr. Kolb, talked to him again today, within the last three or four hours. We are working with him. I think we are going to be able to come pretty close, if not all the way, to what he needs us to do. We are going to continue with you, we’re not going to fight on this, and we do understand what you fellows are up against. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Sheriff, I’d like to ask you one question, if I may, since we’re talking about building pods at the jail. Mr. Strength: Yes, sir? Mr. Mayor: I wonder what impact -- and maybe you could get these figures to us -- what impact it would have it we built a third pod at the Phinizy Road jail and closed th the 4 Street jail? Put all the prisoners in one facility, if we would have a significant savings in the operational cost of having two jails. Mr. Strength: Well, number one, you can’t do but one pod. One pod is going to hold 156 inmates. We can hold 340 downtown right now, and we’re probably pretty close to 400 downtown right now. So one pod would not do it. Without a doubt, in the future that has to be looked at because it’s much easier to man those pods than it is for this high rise built down here that’s a thorn in everybody’s side. Everybody that built that thing should have been indicted by now because that is a joke down there. It is a terribly constructed building. The building was built -- the old jailhouse was built in 1937 th on 4 Street. When this one was built in 1985, we built it to house 58 more people. And there was just no consideration done there. In the long run, it’s got to go to pods out there. To answer your question, it will definitely save money if everything was there, but one pod will not do it with holding just 156. Mr. Mayor: If you had four pods total. 26 Mr. Strength: Without a doubt. Right now, we have one female pod, we only have females at Phinizy Road. It holds 84, and we had 130 this morning. So they’re on the floor, they’re fighting every day, and men fight, too, ladies. It’s not just the ladies. But we have major problems with housing these inmates. And I think we’re heading for more problems. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any questions for the Sheriff? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays and then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, its not so much a question but Sheriff, I think you need to remind us, too, the Mayor had asked about the centralization of the jail -- but one thing that also comes with that, and I’m glad I was a part of stopping the other side of that tower from being built and getting to a point where we could move in an efficient manner, because when they said we were $31 million, $21 million over, we were able to build that one, we built it five months ahead of time, and we built it with $2.9 million to th spare. But I think what you need to remind us of as well about 4 Street is that it’s not just to where you can build the additional pods out there, that part of that Court order also contains the massive amount of medical facilities that has to go along with the jail. So if you move that, you’re not just moving where you house folk, you’re going to have to move a committed and inspected almost mini-hospital to one central location as well. th And that’s part of that Court order as to how we were able to transfer part of it in that 4 Street was committed to a larger medical part and you dealt with the housing, and you’ve got to separate those from those that are sentenced and those that are pre-trial. So I think in terms of us doing that, you are going to need that other space. But if we talk about that centralization, you’ve got to then talk about what you’re going to do in massively moving the whole thing. Mr. Strength: There are variables there, that’s for sure. That’s for sure. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, this is more of a comment than anything. We are speaking of centralization of all of the criminals down at Phinizy Road. One of the commitments that this government and the Sheriff’s office made to the public at the time the Phinizy Road jail was built was that it would never house violent criminals, it would always -- I don’t know what you call the lesser ones, but it wouldn’t be murderers and that type of thing there, because there was such a public outcry about the jail going in that location anyway. That was one of the commitments made at the public meetings, and through the press and this type of thing, so I think that’s another reason that we can’t move all the prisoners from -- or at least you can’t move the violent prisoners to that area because of the commitment you made to the public. Mr. Mayor: Thank you for reminding us of that, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Kolb has indicated there was some discussion some of us had had earlier about the differential in salaries for the Sheriff’s deputies, which the Sheriff just mentioned, getting lower pay up, 27 and how that would impact other positions in the city. Mr. Kolb, you wanted to address that? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. For some time now you have been asking for that, for the executive management. The Sheriff came along and asked the board for the deputy sheriffs and we all recognize that it would impact the other public safety groups and other employee groups in the organization. We have prepared a presentation for you to look at during this time if you have the -- if you want to get into it. Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and see it. Mr. Kolb: I will ask Brenda Byrd-Pelaez to begin the discussion. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we talk to the Sheriff a minute before we start that? Mr. Mayor: Certainly. You have a question for the Sheriff? Go ahead. Mr. J. Brigham: No, I just the Sheriff also needs to remind the public along with us that when we opened Phinizy Road, I don’t believe we increased anybody, staffing. I don’t [inaudible] jailers [inaudible] Phinizy Road to start with? Mr. Strength: I don’t know. I would have to look to find out. Mr. J. Brigham: I think it was [inaudible]. Mr. Strength: It was not staffed a capacity, but over the next, I think, two years -- Mr. J. Brigham: Right. But basically we did the increased staffing in your department at that with no increase of any kind of funding. Mr. Strength: Originally, I think you’re absolutely correct, and of course I think we even projected that again, we would not be housing this many people either. We had no idea that we would have -- Mr. J. Brigham: You are well ahead of schedule. Mr. Strength: We are well ahead of schedule on having folks in jail. Mr. Bridges: Jerry, do we know how many that was that were added as a result of the Phinizy Road jail? Mr. J. Brigham: I thought it was -- I thought it was approximately 100 people at that time. Mr. Bridges: I remember 120, but I don’t know the exact. 28 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a statement. At nearly 20 town hall open forum meetings that Commissioner Colclough and myself have been involved with this past year, the number one issue that keeps coming up is don’t take deputies out of our neighborhood, we want the road patrol at the same level they were last year. And that is where this Commissioner intends to make sure that we fund and try to bring those levels back up to where they were. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Ms. Pelaez, if you’ll move ahead with the pay discussion. Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Of course right now I feel like I’m in a bad Charles Dickens episode where we’re talking about cutting things, and here I am saying please, sir, may I have some more? Certainly I can concur with the Sheriff’s issue of having a rapid turnover rate. We have attempted to analyze very quickly where the turnover rate is in the Sheriff’s Department, and it is in his deputies positions, as he has indicated to you, and he is absolutely correct. At this point in time, we are lagging behind in what we are paying the entry level positions for the deputies, and indeed they are leaving. What the Administrator had proposed is trying to make us more competitive, and so in the short term what we need to do is address how to become more competitive with our deputy positions. And in doing that, what we propose is on the third page of the presentation that you were just handed, and that is to take those deputies right now to a salary level of $28,212. That is to move all of those individuals who currently are not making that salary to $28,212. We did a very rough estimate of what that would cost, and it came up to $262,825. Now in conjunction with this, note I’m only addressing the deputies at this point in time, because we’re proposing an overall proposed new pay structure that addresses not only the Sheriff’s department but it addresses the key level positions, because we are losing people within those positions as well. I’m sure, as you all have realized, that every time we hire a key level position, within the past 12 months, we’ve come before the Commission and we’ve asked to bring them in at the midpoint or somewhere there about, over the midpoint, maybe even up to the maximum. This is a clear indicator that we have a problem with our salary schedule. And the new proposed salary structure, which is the very first page of what you have essentially changes the way our pay structure is set up. Now what we’re proposing is not necessarily moving everyone [inaudible] to this new pay structure as you’re seeing it presented, but it will be done on a case-by-case basis, based upon our market analysis. Essentially what has happened is we have not moved our pay structure in according with the market analysis in a very long time. We simply adjusted with the cost of living and it has cause what we call compression. And compression is where we are not moving. Essentially, we have people who have been here for a significant amount of time who are making either less or the same amount of money as people who have been here less than two to three years. And that is causing our turnover, that people are leaving, the seasoned people are leaving with the experience that we need. So we need to look at implementing a new pay structure in accordance, also we need to look at some 29 type of longevity pay system. We were bouncing around what kind of longevity pay system to put in. Of course, there are many alternatives, but we need to not only address keeping the seasoned people, but it needs to be incorporated into the pay plan, so that you don’t have a 12-year veteran employee being compensated less than your new employee. I think the new proposed pay structure that you have in front of you, it not only makes us more competitive with the minimum salary range -- I know that in the past there has been a lot of focus on the midpoint, but frankly, gentlemen, we don’t bring in our entry level positions in at the midpoint, we bring them in at the minimum, so we need to for all practical purposes make our minimum salary ranges competitive, and that is what this proposed pay structure does. So the first, definitely the first thing that we need to do is to move the deputies to the $28,000 so that we can stop the rapid turnover and then address the other positions within the new proposed pay structure. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, go ahead. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, January 1 also we will bringing in the Regional Development Center to assist us in making sure that our pay structure is adequate for all of our employees, and to ensure that we have put into place a system that will stay current in terms of market adjustment and reward employees based on merit and productivity. So we are taking steps to strengthen our system, not only in the public safety area, but in the non-public safety areas so that we can poise ourselves to improve services. Mr. Mayor: Any questions for our presenters? Any comments? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Williams can correct me if I’m wrong. In the law enforcement targeted millage, there is some money there for the lower echelon adjustments in the Sheriff’s department and for the jailers because of the threat of the Court order, but where we are going to get the rest of the money, Ms. Pelaez, I didn’t hear that in your presentation. I guess you suggest millage. Ms. Pelaez: No. Mr. Kolb: No. In fact, you have it in your proposal. There is adequate funds set aside in this year’s budget to pay for those adjustments that you just -- Mr. Shepard: I understand that, but I’m talking about -- if we’re talking about the other equities. I mean -- Mr. Kolb: The other equities? I will be back to you next Thursday. Mr. Shepard: I’ll stay tuned. And I wish y’all the best of luck. Mr. Mayor: If you have an opportunity to provide it to us before Thursday, so we can mull over it, discuss it a bit more intelligently on Thursday. All right, is there any further questions or comments? We have a motion on the floor to recess this meeting 30 th until the 27 of December at 8 a.m. in this Chamber. We’ll go ahead and take a vote on the motion. All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: When the Clerk returns, I’ll advise her that the vote was unanimous. th So the Chair will declare us in recess until the 27. [MEETING RECESSES UNTIL DECEMBER 27, 2001 AT 8:00 A.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 continuation of the December 18, 2001 Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on December 20, 2001. Clerk of Commission 31