HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2002 Joint Meeting
THE AUGUSTA COMMISSION AND THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION
JOINT MEETING
SEPTEMBER 20, 2002
COMMITTEE ROOM
Present: Hons. Don Cheeks, George Deloach, Alberta Anderson, Sue Burmeister,
members of Legislative Delegation and Lee Beard, Tommy Boyles, Andy Cheek, W. H.
Mays, III, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission..
Absent: Hon. Henry Howard, member of Legislative Delegation.
Also Present: Mr. Jim Wall, Attorney, and Mr. George Kolb, Administrator.
Mr. Cheeks: I’d like to start meetings on time, I expect to do that, on time, and I
hope everyone else would. That being said, we have an agenda. I haven’t seen this
resolution yet, but I’ll read it later. We have an agenda and I have a copy. Does
everyone have of the one that was sent out by Ms. Bonner? Do we need to get some
copies of what we sent out?
Mr. Beard: Everybody’s got a copy.
Mr. Cheeks: Everybody’s got a copy? The first thing I’d like to do is has anyone
had an opportunity to read the minutes from the last meeting?
Mr. Beard: I don’t think so. Not yet, unless you sent them out.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheeks: I’ve had mine for a couple of weeks. I noticed several errors in it
and I won’t take time to correct the errors page by page, but my name is spelled C-H-E-
E-K-S, and it’s confusing when we have someone on the board by the name C-H-E-E-K
and someone on the board named C-H-E-E-K-S, when you use both names and don’t
have them in the proper place and proper statement being. So I’d appreciate it where it
should be, and we recognize, I think, most of us know. Are there any other additions are
corrections to the minutes of the last meeting? If not, we’ll accept them as they are
printed with the corrections that I’ve noted. The first thing on the agenda that I received,
and I’ve talked to Commissioner Beard and talked to members of the Delegation -- I
apologize that Henry is not here -- and there is one other thing that was mentioned, that
we said we could probably handle half a dozen or so items in one Legislative Session, but
that was not to conclude that y’all could not turn in, any of the council members, as many
as y’all requested but you should prioritize them. That is in the minutes that I had stated
that. So regardless of how many you turn in. First we need to talk about on the agenda
that I have, it says -- Lee, are these in the priority that you, that y’all felt were most
important or just the eight items y’all --
1
Mr. Beard: Just the eight items.
Mr. Cheeks: Well, we’re going to take them in order if no one has any objection.
1. 911 Fees
Currently 911 fees are capped at $1.50 for local subscribers and $1.00 for
cellular users ($1.50 for those with ANI and ALI capabilities). Because of the
increased number of calls into the 911 Center, and the increased cost of
dispatching, the current rate schedule does not completely cover the cost of
operating a 911 Center. The ACCG and GMA are proposing an increase in the
cap to $2.00, and I believe Augusta would support this change.
Mr. Cheeks: The first one on my agenda that was mailed to me was the 911 fees.
Anyone, y’all want to elaborate or you have someone to speak on that?
Mr. Beard: Well, I think that --
Mr. Cheeks: Vice Chairman, councilman Beard speak, please.
Mr. Beard: You know, these are not in priority order, and as you said, we just
take them as they come. And I think, you know, we can elaborate on them or, you know,
we can go over each one and you can tell us what y’all can do and what you can’t do.
And some of these I understand are items that would cover the whole state, some of them
are local. And if you want to, that’s just a suggestion that y’all tell us, you know, what,
how you can handle these.
Mr. Cheeks: All right. Let me tell you, I did take the time -- I’ve been the last
two days in Atlanta -- to ask the Legislative Council their opinion on each item and
where we stood and what we could or could not do as a local Delegation. And if say
something that y’all disagree, George and Henry if he comes in, y’all speak up. If my
memory serves me correctly, six years ago that we were operating a 911, $.15 and we had
no reason to go to $1.50 even unless we felt that it was being spent in that department at
that time. It wasn’t, and I did not push the issue and allow it because it was going, I was
told, to the Sheriff’s Department at that time. Now I’d like y’all to explain to me how or
why we are asking for it in six years from $.15 to $1.50, what’s the need of that?
Mr. Beard: Jim can explain that.
Mr. Wall: The reduction to $.15 was for a limited period of time. You may
recall, Senator, that there was, there were discussions going on between the city and
county concerning building a new 911 Center, and we had been collecting -- and I don’t
remember the exact dollar amount, the number that comes to mind is $1.35, and I may be
in error on that -- prior to reducing it to the $.15. There is a cap on the maximum amount
that you can accumulate in a 911 fund, and we were on the verge of exceeding that
amount that we could accumulate because the city and county at that time were debating
about where it should be located, whether it should be located downtown, whether it
2
should be located up on the higher parts of the county, etc. And there was also some
litigation that was being threatened and subsequently was filed, and so we had to, the
county had to reduce the 911 fee down to $.15 in order to stay under that limit. Once we
began the construction of the new center, had to buy the new equipment, had to increase
the staff, we raised the limit back up to the $1.50 where it had been. We are operating at
a deficit within 911 in the sense that the General Fund is having to supplement the
salaries of the 911 dispatchers, and so that is the reason that we have requested the
support for the Legislation to go up to $2.00.
Mr. Cheeks: I need to tell I did not know that we had gone that far. I was a party
to the action that was going to file suit, but I didn’t know that we actually did. But I was
a party to it and that’s why I discussed in a Session of the General Assembly because I
knew what figure had been given to us and it was collecting more than it was costing.
And that’s what the law says, if you will. Now the Code section which this is under, Jim,
and you need to check it, 46-5-134, it takes a General act to change it.
Mr. Wall: Understand.
Mr. Cheeks: You cannot do it locally. And I’d like to recognize Rep. Alberta
Anderson. She came in, for the record. She didn’t sign the sheet. Pass it over so she
can. But the $1.50 Code is the maximum that can be charged. Now with that being said,
you need to find either -- if y’all would like after this meeting, if that’s going to be one of
y’all’s top priorities, we need to ask that someone in the Delegation and the Chairman,
whoever that may be this coming year, will certainly do as, I think, feel like and should
be -- as Past Chairman Jack Connell has done -- he will assign someone to take care and
handle the local legislation that comes forward as an individual. And if that being done,
then I wanted to say on the onset what we are going to do, you know, statewide, any one
of us can do, but locally we’ll have the person that’s going to handle the local legislation,
handle it all, with all of our signatures hopefully attached. Yes, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Senator, I agree with you, it does take statewide legislation, general
legislation. The statement that was provided is that the ACCG and the GMA have been
supporting a change in the funding up to the $2. In speaking with Jim Grubiak in
preparation for this meeting -- Jim being the Legislative Council for the ACCG -- my
understanding is that there has been some opposition within the industry, the cellular
industry in particular, concerning the increased fee. My understanding is that there was
no legislation actually drafted this past time. However, he was going to try to get to me,
and I did not receive it in advance of the meeting, some kind of report from their office
about where they stood with the discussions with the industry. But we recognize this as
general legislation, but we believe that it should be an option for the county, and that’s all
it is because each county has to adopt the resolution. You have a cap on the amount of
fees that can be accumulated so that you have guard against charging excess fees and
limitations on how it could be spent, so it cannot go into the General Fund, and so
therefore, since we in Richmond County are not able to completely cover the cost of the
911 Center with $1.50, we are asking that y’all support the statewide introduction.
3
Mr. Cheeks: Should it be introduced.
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheeks: Well, with that being said, you’re going to run into a lot of
opposition from the members of the General Assembly for this reason. You’re asking us
to pass a tax back on local people on the telephones that most of them have to have --
elderly people. I’ve just been there long enough to know when you do that, you run into
a stiff back. I’m not saying that the county and city representatives cannot do it, but I
want you to know that’s not going to be an easy sell when you start talking about the
General Assembly taxing people locally for what local people are supposed to [inaudible]
for their government. And if anybody, members including Alberta, if y’all have anything
different than that, if you feel different, please speak up. But I’m just saying that’s not
going to be a easy sell, trying to tax senior citizens, people that need the telephone, to
raise it unless you can absolutely substantiate that you cannot operate statewide on $1.50.
Mr. Wall: And I guess my reaction is if you can emphasize the fact that it’s still
up to the local government --
Mr. Cheeks: It is.
Mr. Wall: The local government is the one who has to implement any change,
and so therefore from y’all’s vantage point, y’all are not increasing taxes.
Mr. Cheeks: But we’re allowing it. There is very little difference. All right.
Anything anybody else would like to speak about item 1? Item 2 on my agenda says
sales tax for public safety within consolidated governments.
2. Sales Tax for Public Safety Within Consolidated Governments
A. As a result of there being only three consolidated governments in Georgia, it
has been suggested that the provisions for SPLOT could be amended to allows
SPLOST funding to be utilized for public safety departments, rather than being
limited to Capital Outlay Projects as currently exists. These provisions would apply
only to consolidated governments, hopefully eliminating some opposition from other
legislators around the State. There is a logical nexus of being allowed to use
SPLOST funds for public safety, since out of county residents are coming into the
county to generate sales tax, and also are contributing to traffic control issues,
vehicular accidents, etc., necessitating greater public safety involvement.
Mr. Cheeks: Again, seems like everything y’all are picking is general law to
allow this and y’all knew that cause you’ve said so. I don’t feel that, I don’t know how
powerful the three consolidated governments in this state would be to get the remaining
180 and 56 in the Senate and the House to go along again to allow it. I would personally
feel there would be no real tough sell on that one, you know, because if the three
governments, local governments are requesting it, and again it’s something that you are
requesting, and of course we know that once, if we grant that right, we know it will be a
4
package coming forth pretty shortly on it. But I see no reason -- you’ve already got it,
and how you spend it I think should be left up to y’all, and all you’re really asking -- and
correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Beard or Andy -- all you’re really asking is how you can
expense the funds that you’re collecting. Isn’t that what you are asking, Jim?
Mr. Wall: It is.
Mr. Cheeks: So I don’t see a real problem, although I do want to point out,
according to Legislative Council, again it will take a general law, a General act, to
implement that. Yes, sir, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Senator, we do understand that, and it’s something that through GMA
I know in a couple of instances we have tried to pull the three governments together
because we were a unique thing to the entire state. And we’ve had, like in meetings
where we are having those three people, governments, rather, get together and come up
with ideas and things that we thing would be pertinent to those three governments. So it
is being worked on and I guess what we’re asking here is to just have some support from
the Delegation on this.
Mr. Cheeks: I don’t think you’d have any problem, but I’m not speaking for any
member of the Delegation other than myself. I don’t think that we would try to interfere
with how y’all spend your SPLOST money, and if y’all felt that as where the need is, and
I think we all agree with the use of road construction money. I don’t think that would be
a real problem, but I did want to point out that it will be general law. Tommy, you had
your hand up?
Mr. Boyles: Yes, sir, I did. Thank you. I was just wondering how, we look at
item 2 as we’re talking about, would there be any way that the funds and the fees could
go together to go back to item 1 sometimes? The proposition that we’re asking for in
item 2, section 2, we’re asking for it for the public safety of the community. Would there
be some way possible legally that it could also be used to maybe offset some of the 911
costs, since you’re projecting it or saying that it could be coming down as a tax increase?
It may take legal counsel or somebody to decide that. I don’t know. I’m just wondering.
Just a thought process. Do we have that ability or capability to do that?
Mr. Cheeks: Under item 2, I mean, you know, you’re not increasing the tax to
people, to use that money and allowed y’all to do it. You’re actually just asking for
another place that you can spend it. Am I not correct, Jim; is that what you’re really
asking under item 2?
Mr. Wall: That is correct. Current law limits it to capital expenditures.
Mr. Cheeks: We’ll have to pass a general law to let it go for improvements. I
don’t know, to answer your question. Again, I will have to seek legal counsel, but if you
would, Lena or somebody or you personally, if you will get that -- you know, put that
into the form of a question to me, I’ll get an answer to Jim. Or Jim, you can do either
5
one. If y’all really are, after today, if you’re thinking seriously about you really want to
combine them. But it’s two separate animals.
Mr. Boyles: It’s two animals. I realize that, but while we’re talking about public
safety in item 2 and we’re also talking about it in item 1, so if there is a way to do that
that’s legal and can be done.
Mr. Cheeks: Yes, Jim?
Mr. Wall: I just passed something around and attached to that are two resolutions
from Columbus. The 2000 resolution as well as the 2001 resolution, which has sought
similar legislation, although theirs is different in the sense that it asks for 15% of the
SPLOST monies be used for operation and maintenance. And I have other resolutions
that go back to 1991, I think, but I didn’t attach all of those. But I think that the
Columbus Delegation, I would hope, would be supportive of similar legislation that
would allow it to go forth, that consolidated governments would have their own
discretion. I also attached the Code section that applies just to consolidated governments,
48-111-1, which demonstrates that consolidated governments have been treated
differently insofar as SPLOST collections are concerned, and so therefore there is
precedent for it, and I think by amending that Code section, which eliminates the time
period for consolidate government, that perhaps that could be used as a vehicle for
changing the purposes of that way perhaps there would be less opposition from the state,
is there is any such opposition, and you would limit it to consolidated governments.
Mr. Cheeks: To consolidated governments. Jim, again, you know I have always
worked very closely with you on what y’all propose, and not knowing who may Chair the
Delegation, I’m sure whomever, you know, you can send those ideas, those things, cause
it’s general and we’ll take it under advisement to the Delegation, and we’d like to have
those early on so the Delegation can form their opinion prior. And that’s what I thought
this meeting was for, so that we can get familiar with what you’re going to be asking,
whether it’s statewide or local. I’m trying to get two different agendas, two different
avenues of thought. So things of that nature, if you will, if you will -- and since I’m
serving as Chairman of this committee, if you will get it to me, I will see that each
member of our Delegation get it, just to familiarize ourselves so that we will know what
y’all are asking us to do. And then, you know, we won’t be blindsided. And again, I’m
not limiting the items that y’all send to us. I’m just simply saying don’t overload us,
because you won’t get much. But statewide and local is two different categories, and we
would not be able to carry a whole bucket statewide. I mean because there are other
Delegations that are going to have their legislation. Hopefully this is one that there will
be three Delegations highly interest in, and I think you would meet with success on that.
But again, you need to work with me or whoever for the time being, and then whomever
is Chairman, to do that. Okay?
Mr. Wall: Be happy to.
Mr. Cheeks: Is there anyone else? Yes, George?
6
Mr. Deloach: Jim, the other consolidated governments, are they with you on this?
Have y’all --
Mr. Wall: I have -- go ahead.
Mr. Kolb: I was going to raise this as a point of information. I understand your
point about statewide versus local issues. In answer to your question, late last Session,
this resolution was presented by Columbus and they called us and we told them that we
would support them in getting this through, but I recognized at that time it was too late.
But I think the point is that we’re expressing support for this.
Mr. Cheeks: If it comes back.
Mr. Kolb: Exactly. And we plan to participate in debate with Columbus and
Athens Clarke.
Mr. Cheeks: Thank you. Anyone else have any discussion on that? Okay, I’ll
recognize, we have another member of the Delegation.
Ms. Burmeister: Oh, I’ve been sitting back here in the corner.
Mr. Cheeks: I didn’t see you.
Ms. Burmeister: I know. That’s okay.
Mr. Cheeks: Okay. You can’t vote, but we welcome your presence. Item 3 on
my agenda says additional transportation funding.
Additional Transportation Funding
B. The General Assembly should allow Consolidated Governments to add an
additional one percent sales tax on motor fuel products for road projects or an
outside for public transportation.
Mr. Cheeks: Again -- let me find that, got it some place on here -- anytime
you’ve got any taxes it’s a general law. You’re not going to pass a law locally to tax. So
again, that falls under the same category. I think it goes back to what you are just talking
about. If y’all want to put that in a package for all three consolidated governments to be
looking at, Jim, but do it as item 1, item 2, item 3, and I think we could. But whether
they do that or not, give you another 1% sales tax or something, again, that’s going to be
a tough sell. Using the money that you’ve already collected, that people voted on,
spending it to y’all’s discretion is not going to be a tough sell. But when you start talking
about adding taxes, people get a little nervous. So that’s something that y’all might have
to consider as a separate item also. Next on my agenda was -- no, that was B under A, so
it was the same. I apologize. All right. Surcharge on filing fees.
7
2. Surcharge on Filing Fees
Consider an increase in filing fees for Superior, State, Civil, Juvenile and Magistrate
Courts.
Mr. Cheeks: Filing fees are set by general law again. So it would take a general
law to change any filing fees or whatever we allow the Courts to charge. Y’all remember
we allow you to put a fee on for retirement for policemen and et cetera and et cetera, but
that’s general law so it goes back, Jim, under your general law, filing. If you want to try
to attach that. Your Courts, you need to have the approval of the Courts because the
Courts are going to be involved in how we are going to -- excuse me, I see two hands but
I happened to see his first. Yes, Jim?
Mr. Wall: As y’all probably know, the State Bar of Georgia, as well as the
Supreme Court of Georgia, has appointed a blue ribbon committee that is looking at
funding for indigent defense, and I think they met this week, as a matter of fact, but I
could not -- it was last week. I’m sorry, last Thursday or Friday. And I don’t know the
results of that meeting, but they are looking at ways. I know Speaker Murphy has
proposed using fines. And we’re opposed to that. That would drastically impact
Richmond County. And so I don’t know what the blue ribbon committee will
recommend, and we will be following that. That is on our agenda.
Mr. Cheeks: You will keep that in your mind when you write to us about it?
Mr. Wall: I will. And I will keep the Commission abreast of what’s going on.
I’m hopeful that we can support whatever that blue ribbon comes up with. But we would
ask that you not the use state fine, the county fines to go into a state pod and fund it on a
statewide basis. That would not be good for us.
Mr. Cheeks: I don’t think it would be good for the large counties. It would be
great for the small ones. [inaudible] and I represent some of both [inaudible]. Any other
discussion on that? Did you want to add to that?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. In addition to what Jim is saying, we are beginning to see
costs coming from the Courts in terms of trying to implement the results of Alabama vs.
Shelton. There is more requests from the Courts themselves for more court reporters,
there are requests from indigent defense for more attorneys and investigators, and so I
don’t, as the recommender of the budget, I’m not sure where these funds are coming
from, so any help in this area in terms of recognizing that there is an increased cost on the
governments would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. Cheeks: Well, let me say along that line, we know in Atlanta that indigent
costs in the Courts is really increasing, and it’s going to continue to increase. We know
that’s a problem for local governing bodies with the high amount of money it’s taking
and the more people we’re required to furnish protection, I call it, for. So we do have --
you have our ear. And whether you’re going to get any results or not, I don’t know. But
we know what’s happening, and we also know that we are building more prisons and we
8
also know that it’s costing us more, and hopefully this year -- and I’m just throwing this
out -- hopefully we’re going to get an increase for the counties for keeping -- the daily
upkeep. Cause we are still losing money and we’re saving the state money and we should
-- and maybe that might help the situation a little bit, if we can get that pumped up. I
don’t know, but we do know the problem and we are talking about it, in fact day before
yesterday it was discussed in a meeting I was in. Anything else on item 3? All right,
item 4, according to my agenda, is state appropriations for the Augusta Museum, Laney
Museum, Golf Hall of Fame.
4. Solicit State Appropriations
Augusta Museum, Laney Museum and the Golf Hall of Fame.
Mr. Cheek: Again, that is something that we have to do individually. [inaudible]
the budget, there is no way that we are going to be able to take these and have a line item
in a budget, so each year you ask different ones of us, or all of us, and I prefer you asking
all of us to participate and see if we can get any discretionary funds or either from a
personal aspect of a one time item in the budget, which can be done, to assist. Now I
know I personally have gotten money for the museum, library and different things, using
that as part of the pork that sometimes we cut up. And I’ve asked for it to go there and it
has. But as far as we just putting it as line item, it’s not possible. I almost say it’s not
applicable. Yes, Tommy?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Chairman, again, I go back to we had to put some money just
this month into both of our museum. $75,000/$50,000 I think it was. A lot of this is, as
Mr. Beard put together, we worked on it. So much of it really goes back to item 2, if you
keep watching it as we go through. If we had the option to use that sales tax money the
way we think we need to, then it frees up money for other areas. The appropriations to
the Augusta Museum have been cut back drastically over the last few years, and it was
coming from, I think, the CVB or the money that’s collected, the hotel/motel tax. And
now that has fallen down a little bit. So as we go through these, they -- all of these are
pretty much contingent on what --
Mr. Cheeks: Tommy, I know you’re not saying that y’all are not spending the 1%
SPLOST that you’re collecting. I know you’re spending it, so if you’re going to take it
from where you are already spending it, how are you going to fund that? You can only
stretch this just so much. You know, we’ll do whatever y’all want us to do as far as
introducing legislation to expand the scope to let y’all spend it. But there are still 100
pennies in every dollar. And y’all are spending SPLOST now somewhere. So if you cut
it to put it over in museums, you’re going to cut wherever you’re spending it. Yes?
Mr. Beard: Senator, I think on item 4 there, the best thing has been suggested,
and I think you mentioned it. Individually contacting each Delegation member is going
to help us out there in that area.
Mr. Cheeks: We would each, if y’all use it as that approach, and then each of us
use that as one of our priorities and all seven or eight -- it’s going to be seven -- turn that
9
in as a priority on the budget request, we will get some results. How much I don’t know.
Excuse me, let me add a codicil to that. That’s provided that the budget is not stripped
down on us. We’ve had 14 consecutive months with a decrease. However, we do see a
turn, and then add another codicil to that. Our rainy day fund is full, we do have money,
and we’re not broke like -- I could name states around us. We are paying our bills and
we did give our teachers and our state employees a raise this year across the board. So
we still are in pretty good -- in fact, we are in the best shape of any state in the Southeast
financially. North Carolina just lost their funding, AAA fund, that which will cost them
millions upon millions because of the situation they find themselves in. Go ahead, Jim,
you had your hand up first.
Mr. Wall: One suggestion insofar as this is concerned is to amend the hotel/motel
tax. That statute already has paragraphs that obviously are basically local legislation
cause only one county could qualify that has an airplane museum or whatever. If you
read the statute, I mean it obviously was designed for a particular county. And to
increase the percentage in that way again, since it takes implementation by the local
government to go to that level, you would not be passing a tax increase, you’d be
authorizing it. But it would be up to the local governments that meet that criteria to
implement it. And I guess my question is, is that something if we submit, maybe y’all
could look at it, and does that receive the type of statewide opposition, or to do they look
at it as being pretty much local legislation?
Mr. Cheeks: Well, we have it listed on item 8, so why don’t we hold that until we
got that number.
Mr. Wall: All right.
Mr. Cheeks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a general comment. Overall we’ve
seen maintenance and operation costs increase across the board on things like the 911
Center and some of these other areas that do have funding mechanisms already
established. They haven’t seen the fee increases over the last six years or so to
compensate for increases in maintenance, operations, personnel costs, insurance benefits.
Just general items that we as a local government, and I’m sure others in the state share the
same problems, do not have the local funding to do that. And we’re trying to make these
funding requests or changes for fees to go back to say the 911 Center, things that are
appropriate. I’m very concerned that we don’t get into a one cent sales tax any more than
absolutely necessary because that is where we have funding for roads, bridges, quality of
life things. You’re right, there are only 100 pennies in every dollar and if we start taking
it from there, those items are going to have to go away. We realize that there is a
resistance to fee and tax increases, but this would be appropriate in that with 9/11 and
other national and local security and safety issues, those monies would come back to the
source that actually utilizes them and not go to the general fund [inaudible] that.
Mr. Cheeks: Any other discussion on item 4? Item 5, y’all asked us to look into
the insurance premium tax.
10
5. Insurance Tax Premium
Mr. Cheeks: Let me remind y’all, and the letter from one of the Commissioners
said that y’all had $1.1 million or $1.2 because of population. I’m going to discuss that
in just a moment, but I want to remind y’all of something. Georgia is the third-highest
state in the nation on the insurance premium tax. And we raise that, you’re asking us
directly to raise everybody’s insurance in this county and in all of the counties we
represent, because it would have to be statewide, I’m sure again. And then you’re asking
us to raise it.
Mr. Kolb: No, we’re not asking you to raise it.
Mr. Cheeks: All right, what are you asking, because that’s what it says?
Mr. Kolb: And Jim and I are doing more research on this particular issue, but the
distribution of the current tax.
Mr. Cheeks: I can explain that to you, too. I was going to get there a little later.
Mr. Kolb: That’s what we were complaining about.
Mr. Cheeks: All right. I hate to put it to y’all like I’m going to put it to you, but
the truth is hard to run from. The letter I got, it said our population has decreased. Our
population did not increase. It did not increase as it has throughout the rest of the state.
Now I have good news and bad news, and I’m going to give you the bad news first.
You’re not going to get the increase that you want here, as long as when I pick up my
paper and read about the fussing and carrying on in the County Commission and every
other -- including the Delegation -- where business -- and I’m spending about ¾ of my
time meeting with various committees and meetings now on economic development, etc.
in the state. We have a bad reputation in this county for not seeking and trying to
approach industry right. I’m going to go ahead and finish what I wanted to tell y’all a
while ago. When we asked y’all to have a consolidated government and gave you a
consolidated government plan, you now have more employees than you did at the time. I
was one of the people that said we’ll have less. Your budget is way higher. We said it
was going to take less. I think it’s going to be compelling upon the local County
Commissioners to start looking at reducing people, reducing costs at every angle. And
then we can intelligently, I think, ask people to come here. But when we look at taxes
going up and fees going up, and I sit here and tell you that the premium tax is the third-
highest at 4.75, in the nation, the next one is Oregon with 6.6 and then Kentucky -- this is
one of their sole sources of revenue -- is 15%. And then cheapest is Wyoming, with
.75%. Now what you’re doing there, you’re saying to every property owner, again you’re
raising his taxes or her taxes because that’s who has got to pay it when they buy the
insurance. Now let’s go back to [inaudible] and try to give you some good news. We did
lose a million something because our population did not grow and it’s divided according
to the population within the counties with the growth. And we were out manned. Now
why, I’m just giving you my opinion and y’all are each entitled to your own. But you
11
will get approximately a $700,000 increase in your taxes this year, and let me tell you
why you’re going to get it. And this is, I’m pretty -- you can almost put that in the bank
that you’ll get $700,000 more. You’ve got $7.1 million approximately last year, and
you’re going to get $7.8 million this time. And let me tell you why. There is not a
person in this room, if they have received their insurance bill for their home, for anything
since 9/11, that they haven’t had an increase in their premium. My average across the
board on every piece of property I got, 25%. So we going to collect more money, but
you still are going to be getting on that formula for the population that we had in the
census. Because insurance premiums are higher, they are collecting more, and this is
coming. The person that gave me these figures is the person who will be cutting the pie,
and assured me we will have a $700,000 increase. So you can sort of count on that
coming. But if we had more population and we didn’t have flight out but had flight in,
like the rest of the state and some of our surrounding counties, we would not be looking
at a $700,000 increase, we’d be looking at several million. Because it is divided on
population and there is no way you’re going change that. Because the people that are
paying are the people that own the property, and you know, who is paying the property
taxes. And you’re asking -- I’m not asking and you’re not asking -- but what you’re
saying is you want to add more -- well, you want more money. And the only way you are
going to get more money under that is to have an influx of people coming to this county
and building new businesses and new homes. And then you’re going to get more
premium taxes. Andy had his hand up. Andy, did you want to just discuss it or do you
want to ask me a question?
Mr. Cheek: Just a, just a, just a basic response, and in the information I’m about
to tell you is a matter of public record in our Human Resources Department. There is an
absolute myth going around about the growth in this government in the operating side of
the house. The truth is, and based on last year’s Human Resources number, since 1996
we’ve seen a net increase of about 186 employees, 173 of which are in the public safety
sector and judicial. People have asked us to improve law enforcement. With that comes
the increase in the courts and the operations in the courts. Then there also an increase in
the number of people necessary to maintain -- safely maintain a jail, and so forth. We
have not grown our government in the areas of public works, recreation. I could go down
the list. Those have seen net decreases in employees over the years since 1996, as you
promised. We have a mandate from the people to improve the safety of our area. We
have done that. That’s where the growth has occurred. Also, as all of the Legislative
Delegation is aware, there are great, much greater demands on the requirements of both
state and federal reporting, which requires additional personnel to fill out those papers, to
get them turned in and have it properly documented and on file and to interface with
these government agencies. We have some employee increase in our water department.
We promised the Delegation that when the issue of a Water Authority came up, give us
two years and we would correct the problem. We no longer take money from our water.
It’s a stand-alone, self-funded agency. But it has seen increases in employees to meet the
growing demands of our water system which is expanding. The past governments were
not adequately staffed to meet state and federal required documentation and licensing.
We have corrected that. We haven’t grown government unnecessarily. The growth has
occurred in areas where the public has asked for it. We had -- and again I say this -- have
12
seen net decreases in areas, important areas like public safety, areas where we have
quality of life issues like recreation. We have farmed out several of our facilities,
public/private partnerships with neighborhoods. We are doing everything we can to
utilize local resources without increasing head count. But the bottom line is you are
required to have so many guards per number of prisoners, you need so many lawyers, so
many judges, and those are the areas where we’ve seen increases and growth in this
government and that’s a matter of public record. And though it is not stated at all in the
daily, those are matters of public record and fact. That’s not Andy talking, that’s the
facts. And departure from anything else is just not true.
Mr. Cheeks: Lee?
Mr. Beard: Yes, Senator. I kind of echo what Andy is saying. And it is
unfortunate that we have kind of gotten to that perception of which you alluded to earlier
in the first statement, that, you know, a lot of things are [inaudible]. And I think that, you
know, consolidation was sold on the idea that this was going to be a panacea for
everything, and everything was going to go down and all of this was sold to the people
for that. And it has been my experience that it’s going to take a number of years to get to
that point. And I don’t think that -- and maybe it’s our fault as a government that we
have stated and really marketed that point of it. And with the local perception that we
have and people are feeding on that perception and a lot of people are doing it for their
own personal [inaudible], I think that you know when you look at some of the things that
public safety -- you know, we heard the increase there, and when we first began
consolidation, you know, with all of the money that we had to put back, the $2 million,
the water plant, the airport money that we had to put back, we had to go into areas and
especially in the urban areas that were done, and it cost a lot. And as far as the
perception of the Commissioners not getting along, I have never seen a meeting in there,
and I’ve only missed a couple of them, where we’ve had that type of animosity among
each other. I thought we always dealt with respect there. But the perception is that we
fight down here every meeting we come to. That we’re just fighting, fighting away. And
I think that we as Commissioners and as members of the General Assembly ought to
dispel that perception.
Mr. Speaker: I agree.
Mr. Beard: And not add to it. And that’s what I think we are going to have to
work on.
Mr. Cheeks: Mr. Beard, Commissioner Beard, I agree with you wholeheartedly,
and that was going to be one of the final things I was going to say is maybe it might
behoove the Commission to try to portray a different -- invite the public to come to the
meetings and see how dedicated and how they are working and what’s happening. And
then let’s go back and look at what the city was spending and the county was spending
the last year when they were independent and see what we are spending now as far as the
budget. And let’s publicize the number of employees we have and where they are, and
maybe we could do that, we might could turn this around. But I’m here to tell you
13
unequivocally that when I go to Atlanta and when I was in -- I won’t call the town -- but I
will, Swainsboro last night, and Atlanta yesterday morning, and hardly ever do I ever get
a meeting that someone is not asking me what’s the problem in Richmond County? In
both places they said what’s the problem, and I said to them I don’t know that we’ve
necessarily got a problem, but I know that we’ve got some people that’s elected that
maybe we should address the issue to them, and I’m one of them. I’m elected. And
that’s what I told the gentleman that was talking to me last night in Swainsboro. In
Atlanta, I mean I’m not going to tell you, it’s hard to address the situation in Atlanta
because we are not the only community that’s having problems. Fulton County, you’ll
notice that problem in the paper. But when the press -- the press is here today -- maybe,
maybe you can speak to them before or afterwards and tell them what your plans or the
council’s plans are to turn this around. But you are right, it’s perception that’s out there,
and until we turn it around and businesses stop leaving, we’re going to have a problem.
But I concur with what you’re saying. But we’re not going to solve it here today, and I
was hoping we would get out of here in an hour-and-a-half. Yes?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Senator. Going back to item 5 again, when we met on
Augusta Day with John Oxendine’s office -- we didn’t meet with him, we met with one
of his representatives up there in February -- the lady told us to get with our Delegation
and see if we could talk about -- the Delegations statewide could talk about the
distribution method, instead of going with the census every ten years, but the distribution
method of the insurance premium tax. That is where I think I came in after the budget
was put together last year, but I think that’s where -- and if I’m not mistaken, George, it
kind of hit us by surprise, didn’t it? I mean it wasn’t something that you projected in and
all of a sudden it wasn’t there. And I wish I could remember her name. I know Lena has
it because there was some contact made afterwards. And that’s when they recommended
that we get back and that’s why it’s on here, just concerning the distribution. Certainly
not raising it. We’re not asking to be raised. But we’d like to have the money that I send
to Atlanta to come back.
Mr. Cheeks: Tommy, you’ve been there, and you know how it works and you
know the majority of the Legislature now is elected from Atlanta. That’s where the
majority of the premium tax is being paid. Now you think we’re going to convince them
to change the formula? All right. I’ve said, now we don’t have to debate it. That’s the
problem you’ve got there. Yes, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Just quickly, just so y’all, y’all will have the information first hand,
what the city has done to reduce the operating costs and get more out of our employees
and our system with less. We’re implementing a total quality program across the board
for our city. Our Administrator is working very hard to get that implemented. We have
comprehensive energy conservation plans that we are working to reduce the overhead and
utility costs that we pay out. We’re working on safety programs. We’re doing things
across the board that are consistent with those practices in Fortune 500 companies. We
have been putting that in place for more than just recently, for years now. These are
things that will yield great benefits in the future. We haven’t been sitting on our hands,
but I will say this, and I’ve said it before, this information has been forwarded. It is just
14
not being reported. And that we cannot control. We’re doing the things consistent with
good business practices to reduce the overhead costs and head count and to get more with
less, but we’re just not getting the coverage that we need to get that to the public.
Mr. Cheeks: All right. Anyone else want to discuss item 5? Let’s move on to
item 6, eviction law change.
6. Eviction Law Change
The General Assembly should amend the statute to declare as abandoned property
any personal property left behind at the time of eviction. Currently, the property
owner must remove the personal property from his premises and put it on the right
of way. Changing the law would allow the property owner to take it to a dumpster,
call Salvation Army to pick it up or whatever - it would not go to the right of way.
The current practice costs Richmond County over $30,000 a year and one dedicated
crew to clean up rights of way after evictions. Both the apartment owners
association and their lobbyist are expressing no opposition to this change.
Mr. Cheeks: I am going to address this to you, Jim. You better than anyone else
in the room, I would think. I think he know what I’ll say when I say due process. Who’s
going to be responsible? You know, due process, you know you just can’t come in and
take my property. What you have to do now, it’s a general law that says how it will be
handled. If you’re just going to walk in there and set my property out and when I come
back the next week and some of it’s missing, who is going to be responsible? Where
does due process fit in there? This was the question put to me. And I’m putting it to
you? It’s general law again. But when you leave that stuff out, and I know what y’all are
up against, we used to use the prison labor and I wish you still could and pick it up, and
now you can’t, and you’re paying for it. They’re doing it in Fulton County. I checked.
They’re paying for it in Fulton County. I believe they probably have as much eviction as
anyone. And maybe there is some room that we could pass a general law, but do you
really want us to pass a law where it’s going to fall right back on the shoulders of this
government for due process and responsibility, and who is responsible once it goes out of
that house?
Mr. Wall: Well, yes, I think we do want to pass the law and I think the due
process protections are already built into the statute. The issue comes once the writ of
possession is issued. Once the writ of possession is issued, you have been through the
due process. I mean the tenant has been served, the tenant has had an opportunity for a
hearing, the tenant has had an opportunity to appeal that ruling, the whole process has
gone through. The writ of possession gives the landlord possession of the premises.
Well, why not give the landlord possession of the personal property that’s in the
premises? Make the landlord responsible for getting rid of that personal property.
Mr. Cheeks: All right.
Mr. Wall: And that, deem it abandoned when that tenant does not by a day
certain, cause he know the date and time that the Marshal is coming to serve that writ of
15
possession, and give him possession not only of the premises but the personal property
that’s still there and put it on the landlord to dispose of it.
Mr. Cheeks: I used that very argument. Rebuttal like that. And I concur. First of
all, the tenant, I mean the land owner, the property owner is already out of his rent. He’s
already up to expenses, he’s got to get it out of the house, his property is damaged nine
out of 10 times, he’s got to make repairs, and now he’s got to put this in storage because
he wants to get this building so he can get a new tenant. So now what we’re going to do,
we’re going to tell the renter that you’re going to have to go up on the rent or something
because you are going to be responsible for this and you are going to be responsible,
although we turn it over to you, you are going to be held responsible when that man
comes back and says I had $1,000 in that drawer, I had a diamond ring in that drawer, I
had a Rolex watch in that drawer, and it’s not there now. And that’s what you’re doing.
You are going to tell the property owners again in this county and all over the state cause
it’s got to be done in state law. Now I’m going to ask you on this one, unless someone
has something else to talk about, I want you to call 404.656.5000 and you talk to David
or either Sewell. Sewell is the boss and you know it. Talked to him many time, the three
of us on the phone. David is my favorite attorney back there and that’s who I have been
talking to on this day before yesterday. So y’all see if y’all can come up with something
that you think is fair not only to the city but to the people that’s paying the taxes in this
city. And are we going to put the burden back on them again for something else? I mean
everything on here is raising taxes, directly or indirectly. I haven’t seen a think yet that’s
not raising taxes directly or indirectly. So think about, talk about it, and if you want to
make a conference call with your Administrator Kolb, that’s fine. But we are going to
leave that to y’all to talk about a little, unless somebody in this Delegation wants to talk
further about it. George? Henry is not here. The other two are visiting. I’m just going
to ask y’all. Y’all want to discuss this any further or you want to let the lawyers argue
about it?
Ms. Anderson: No.
Ms. Burmeister: No.
Mr. Cheeks: It’s a legal matter. Okay. I’m sorry. We’re going to let y’all argue
about that together. Okay? All right, the next one is a resolution expressing Richmond
County’s concerns about mosquitoes.
7. Mosquito Control Program
Resolution delineating Augusta’s support for a mosquito control program so as to
prevent the spread of the West Nile virus.
Mr. Mayor: Y’all gave us a resolution. I have not seen this [inaudible]
resolution. But I called back and asked one exactly you’re asking on this and I didn’t get
a real good answer because the person didn’t know that I spoke to. And it wasn’t Ms.
Bonner. She wasn’t here. I don’t know -- the lady tried to explain to me, but I didn’t
16
understand. Y’all have a resolution here. I haven’t read this, but are y’all giving this
resolution to the Delegation? What are y’all asking us to do on this?
Mr. Wall: We’re asking for statewide funding for control of the mosquito
situation and addressing it. [inaudible] will be making a presentation to the GMA
Legislative Affairs Committee in a couple of weeks seeking their support for that.
Mr. Cheeks: Again, this would be statewide. Of course you know that. But I do
believe that is going to be one of the topics discussed because of West Nile virus and the
deaths we’ve had in Georgia, and it’s my firm belief that will be discussed. And again, it
will probably be on a population basis or acreage basis. I don’t know. I’ve heard both
formulas talked about. I personally prefer it on an acreage basis, cause we got lots of
acres. And that’s what you got to treat. You got to treat the land. You don’t treat the
people. And so it should be on an acreage basis. That would be my position. But I feel
that will be discussed. That’s a give. I mean that’s something that y’all need not add to
y’all’s except to keep reminding us in case it falls through the crack and bring it back up.
We recognize the fact, in fact most people -- my wife, bless her heart, she goes through
the yard every day turning toys right side up. She’s scared to death of it cause we had
one dead blue jay in our yard. And she turns everything up and she won’t even water the
flowers with it because of it. So people are cognizant of the fact that we do have it and
it’s dangerous and it’s deadly. So I think y’all will see that addressed. Yes, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Again, just for information for the Delegation, recently we were able
to fund the purchase of the larvicide to do as much as we could within the county to
reduce the amount of mosquito population that we have. What we were able to do is
increase the total number of people applying this tenfold without any increase in head
count by including Public Works, Utilities and Recreation personnel that in the field in
that spraying program. They would be trained by the local Board of Health. We will be
able to cover much broader areas without increasing the head count with just the cost of
the larvicide liquid itself, which is about -- the annual budget for the Health Department
is about $12,000 and that’s about what we are spending. The Health Department has
soon continual reductions in their budget over the years. That was why they have asked
us to take on this responsibility. We, quite frankly, don’t have adequate funds to have a
stand-alone program in and of itself, and this is the reason for the request. West Nile is
just the flashpoint for this issue. There are many, many other transmitted diseases that
mosquitoes carry and we need some help.
Mr. Cheeks: That’s one you’ve got the button going on. That’s [inaudible]
looking at it. Let me say this in all fairness and candor, too. You know, we did away
with DDT a few years back. We had eliminated smallpox, we had eliminated typhoid,
we didn’t hear of these things anywhere in the world just about. Now we’ve banned it in
this country and other countries haven’t. Guess what? We are having people die. But
we are scared we are going to use a chemical, but yet with all the fruits and vegetables
and meats come in to this country, they are still using it. And stop and think about your
termites in this area. We can’t use [inaudible] any longer. And what we are using, you
can feed it to your termites. They get fat on it. And every year to three years you have to
17
redo it, and if you did it [inaudible] you wouldn’t ever have to worry about going back. I
guarantee you for 25 years you wouldn’t have to worry about it. But now, you build or
buy a new house, you better get your house retreated every three years or you are going
to have termites, you can count on it. Andy, I know what you are saying and the
chemicals that we are going to be spraying, and we are going to spray them, I’m sure the
state is going to spray, and it’s about 15% effective [inaudible] spraying the right thing
and who is [inaudible]? I’d rather be sick than dead. But anyway. Anything else on
that? The last thing on this printed agenda is the Coliseum Authority.
8. Discuss Coliseum Authority
Mr. Beard: Senator?
Mr. Cheeks: Yes?
Mr. Beard: We added that so that it would be on the agenda here that if anybody
wanted to discuss that, they could. But the caveat to that was that we would have the
meeting with the Delegation and the Coliseum Authority, and if any results came from
that, we would just forego the discussion here, if that’s okay.
Mr. Cheeks: Well, I want to discuss it.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Cheeks: All right. Coliseum Authority. It’s two or three things going on and
I understand at the last meeting there was a quorum and I’m reading the paper, and if
anybody read different please tell me. I understand that they elected a Chairman, and I
understand he’s a young person, intelligent, and articulate. And I personally, my
personal belief is, if you think you’ve got a problem and you’re willing to address it, give
you the chance to address it. I think the Coliseum Authority realized they had a problem,
I think they’re trying to address it. It took them many weeks to do it, but I’m proud that I
picked up the paper -- I forget exactly which day it was -- and it said they met, got a new
Chairman, and like I said I’ve been out of town, but I mean they met, got a new
Chairman and hopefully, and before we as a Delegation or a combined delegation would
do anything to try to jeopardize what they are trying to do, I hope we would not. But
that’s not to say that I’m still not interested because I have looked at it in detail in the last
90 days. And the motel/hotel/beer tax we’re putting in there, we could pay those bonds
off in three years, we could rewrite those bonds at the current interest and probably pay
them off in less than three years. When we’ve got a payroll approaching a million, and if
they’d gotten the 7% increase which I understand the new people did not want it, and
your gate receipts are $400,000, there’s not a business person or person with intelligence
that would continue that. And that’s what we have at the Coliseum. Gate receipts are
$400,000 and payroll -- I’m not talking about anything -- payroll over two times your
gate receipt. No business person can stay in business under those conditions. Now I did
have two people -- I’m not willing to say who they were -- said they would lease that
building. One of them said they would buy that building from the city, and my approach
18
was at that time, and I fully intended to make the suggestion that they try to get together
and try to clean up their own act -- the city could add $2.2 million annually into their
budget if you didn’t have that hung around your head with motel/hotel tax. Once we’ve
paid off the bonds. [inaudible] bonds which I understand is slightly less than $7 million
or slightly over $6 million. And if we are putting $2.2 million out of motel/hotel tax in
that, arithmetic tells me if we reduce the interest rate and paid them off, it would take less
than 2-1/2 years. Then you Commissioners would have $2.2 million to spend someplace
else if you had someone else maintaining that building and get it off. However, I would
not be for leasing it or selling it unless it’s used for conventions, continue to bring them
in here, and to use it for entertainment, which that have to be part of the program. So I go
back to what my original words were. Give them an opportunity to see if they can turn it
around. But that is something that I feel you as Commissioners and we as elected
members of the Delegation that appoints to that board, we need to look into and be
realistic and honest with ourselves and just address it. Is that a leech or is that a bird out
there? And right now I feel it’s a leech with the taxpayers, it’s a leech to the city, and
when they were bickering back and forth who and how much they were going to give and
who and what was going to do this, it’s time for them to get their act together, and I think
they did. I hope they did, last week. Yes, Lee?
Mr. Beard: Well, I’m glad to see you echoing that about giving them an
opportunity to work together, because I think that was the consensus of the Commission
that we would give them the opportunity, we would meet with them and give them the
opportunity to work together, and it appears -- of course, I wasn’t there either, but it
appears that they are working and I think that they should be given the opportunity to
work whatever problems that they have out and hopefully they will, you know, pick up
on some of the suggestions that are being made for that. And I think they will at this
point. As we know as functioning bodies, we all go through those periods of time where
we have disagreement, but I think to come together as they’ve done now, that we should
give them that opportunity and I’m glad to hear you echo that.
Mr. Cheeks: Let me ask a question, if I may, Mr. Beard. You said a while ago
that they were to meet with y’all. Did y’all? I don’t know. Did you have your meeting?
Mr. Beard: We did.
Mr. Cheeks: And y’all got a good vibe from it, y’all feel good about it? I’m not
speaking for the Delegation, members of the Delegation speak for yourself. But I feel it’s
time for us to sit back and look and let’s see what happens rather than us sit up there and
try to dictate something we really shouldn’t be dictating or having to dictate to. Does any
member of the Delegation feel different from that?
Ms. Anderson: No.
Mr. Cheeks: I think we can be assured we are looking for y’all to direct them and
hopefully good things will come out of it. Yes, Andy?
19
Mr. Cheek: Senator, I wanted to add to that the catalyst, I think, for a lot of this
change was desire on the part of the Coliseum Authority members, but also the fact that
we had that joint meeting with them that had Delegation members present that helped
serve to refocus them on their mission. We also need to be looking at in the near future,
and as we mentioned head count and growth in government earlier, there are
opportunities for cost savings. We have redundant staff. We have Human Resources
over there, clerical. There are other things that we can look at to reduce head count and
overhead at the Coliseum that we could bring within our government to assist them in
providing the same function without having had that stand-alone person in that facility
that’s probably not used full time in those capacities. Those are the things we need to
look at while we are allowing them to work out their problems.
Mr. Cheeks: Hopefully y’all get to keep a little more of your hotel/motel tax
[inaudible]. That’s what I’m looking at. When you’ve got a sink hole out there taking
$2.2 million and getting absolutely -- well, I don’t want to say absolutely nothing, but
pretty much nothing -- excuse me, did you want to say something, Tommy?
Mr. Boyles: I was just going to add to it that we had two members of the
Commission, Mr. Kuhlke and Rev. Hankerson went to their meeting Tuesday morning
and unofficially their reports were very good.
Mr. Cheeks: I’m glad we’re getting this out in the public. Maybe we’ll get some
encouraging press on it. Maybe that problem is solving itself. But I still want the
Delegation to keep in the back of their minds that it’s a business -- I mean it’s not, but it
is a business, and see how much we actually putting or allowing to be put in it, and
maybe encouraging to -- if we’re going collect it, let’s spend it for something worthwhile,
is the only thing I’m saying. First, let me go around here and ask the members of the
committee, does any member of the committee have anything they’d like to say because
we are on our last item? Go ahead, Tommy.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This package that we have put together
is of course coming from us. Now there may be in turn one coming from the Delegation.
Mr. Cheeks: If I may interrupt you, I asked each member of the membership of
the Delegation to contact -- and I sent word -- asking for them to contact outside
members and asked if you have anything, [inaudible] report back to me directly, not
through Ms. Bonner, but to me directly, was we are there to do what they want us to do,
we are not there to suggest what they do. We want to help them. And we’re not going to
bring an item forth unless we feel that it’s something that they are not addressing that
compelled upon us to do. And that was the only reason the Coliseum Authority -- I
wanted to discuss it, cause that was the only item that anybody had any discussion about.
And I haven’t had a chance to talk to them since they met and elected a Chairman and act
like they are going to do something, but I’m sure Alberta can speak for herself and Sue,
you can, and George. But I think we all concur that hopefully they are going to do
something beneficial and we will [inaudible]. That was the only thing that any member
of the Delegation had that they wanted to discuss. Is there any member that’s not a
20
member of the Delegation that was like to speak that’s in an elected position? Is there
any member other than the news media that’s here that would like to speak? Now would
anybody in the news media like to speak? Everybody is sitting tight. Don’t see no
hands. Would y’all like to have another meeting or do you feel it’s necessary we’re
going to meet again? Yes?
Mr. Beard: Well --
Mr. Cheeks: I would like to suggest if I may, since we have gotten the agenda
down to -- basically all but one item is state legislation. That’s going to be on one
column. I would like very much to ask the members of the Commission to go back and
see if you got some local issues that you will want us to discuss, and if you’ll give them --
I’ll ask Ms. Bonner, Lena, to call me, give me, and we will set up a date. The date will
be called and I will do as I did last time, asking each of you to give us a date that you can
attend and then we’ll try to pick a date. Give us a date. And then I’ll notify the members
or have someone notify the members of the Delegation and notify your members of
Council if we get it. If we do not get any input, if y’all don’t have any other things that
y’all want to bring up, we’re going to look forward to seeing y’all in December, and I
know that everybody is busy. So we’re not asking for a meeting. We’re saying if you
want a meeting, and I hope this has been beneficial to y’all in what we are willing to do
and what we can do. And now, Mr. Beard, if either one of y’all would like to say
something.
Mr. Beard: Well, I will state that you know, we went through this pretty
thoroughly, unless Andy or Tommy got some other things that they want to bring
forward. We went through it very thoroughly with all the Commissioners and we
itemized what we wanted. And this is in essence what a committee -- not a committee,
but an entire council put together. And I think we are pretty well straight unless --
Mr. Cheeks: Something comes up in the meantime?
Mr. Beard: Something comes up in the meantime. And I think we can move on
from there. And I’m not one of those people who say just meet for the sake of meeting,
because there are too many other things to do. So we can -- at least have the Clerk
inform the body that we have presented this to you, and if there are just some overbearing
or some things that they want to bring forth again, we just add them to that list. But I
don’t really see the need for another meeting of this body. We just put that together as
y’all have asked us to put it together, and we have the Administrator and Jim work that
out for us.
Mr. Cheeks: I think that’s exactly what I was saying. I appreciate you agreeing
and I would say that we will be meeting in December. We always do. And you’ve got
another chance at a wish list. But if there is something burning that needs attention, you
know, we will call a meeting together. And we’ll do it. But that’s up to y’all. And I’d
like to say that on behalf of the total Delegation, we are there to be of service to y’all.
21
Mr. Beard: Willie has a question.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I’m not on your committee.
Mr. Cheeks: Hey, man, I didn’t see you back there.
Mr. Mays: I’m moving a little slow.
Mr. Cheeks: Did you buy me a new suit yet?
Mr. Mays: Sewed it back up for you, too.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mays: What I was going to ask, we’ve got -- and I had no problem with us
getting this list down to a small amount of things rather than 25 or 30 that you all needed
to work with. The question I was asking, and you all know better on your turf what
works better in terms of trying to get passed. The only question that I would ask, I
looked at the wording of Columbus’ resolution, and when we submitted the list last year,
we submitted really two on purpose, because if one worked and one got through,
obviously public safety is a high cost item, but if in dealing with even if it had to deal
with a referendum, other expanded uses that might give relief to consolidated
governments on special 1% taxes, I notice that -- and we’ve had pretty good talks with
Columbus. Athens Clarke was a little reluctant in some ways of dealing with some
things. But I wanted to ask a question now because I notice Columbus put theirs for
expanded use. And I think there is a reason in not limiting that to just public safety. For
instance, they have a property tax 3 mill dedication that goes to the hospital authority
there in Columbus, which they would love to get total relief from. And I’m just
wondering if the limitation to public safety puts us in a box or can a bill, say if one got
off the ground, would it be more flexible in terms of each one of the consolidated
governments dealing with whatever referendum they would have? Because what may be
our relief for public safety, they may have their public safety satisfied but they need relief
from the hospital issue. And I didn’t know how that stood. And I noticed how they have
voted on theirs. And this has been somewhat of an albatross around their neck now for
several years that they would like to get off. And while I know they would like to see the
expanded us, but I think if ours is going to shoot strictly for public safety, it doesn’t give
them a lot of incentive on their Delegation to want to approach it if it’s going to be
limited to just one thing. And I just wanted to make that observance. Even if we got ours
on Public Safety, it would still be a relief, but since we only dealing with three counties at
this point, Athens Clark, Columbus Muscogee and Augusta, I just wanted to throw that
out there that that might be something that we might in the course of talks, and hopefully
our Commissioners will get a chance again to meet with both of those Delegations while
we are at the joint ACCG and GMA meetings, to have some dialog on this. But I just
wanted to just put that there as an observance, that I know they have a special need and
that’s why they did not limit to one thing, and it’s for expanded other uses that’s in there,
even if by referendum.
22
Mr. Cheeks: Willie, I think those views have already been expressed and the
County Attorney has already included several, and Andy and Lee did say several of them
should be looked at on the SPLOST, and like I said to them and I’ll say to you, it really
don’t matter to us how y’all spend the SPLOST. Just tell us how you want to do and
we’ll see what we can do about it. We’re not promising anything, but I think that Jim,
the Attorney, is going to get y’all’s wish list and say this is how we want it addressed and
revisited; am I correct, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Cheeks: That’s what has been said at the table basically. If there are no other
comments -- yes, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: Senator, I just see this tool that we have jointly created as a very
powerful tool and working together, and I would hope that this committee become a
regular fixture from year to year where we can provide y’all with concise information and
we can get feedback back and forth about what can and can’t be done. I guess as a
Commissioner I would ask that in Atlanta when thing come up affecting local
government that we convene again and work together to resolve issues and not have it
battled out in the media, but us actually work together based on factual information to
resolve our issues. This is powerful. It worked with redistricting and it’s working now
and I’d just like to see it continued.
Mr. Cheeks: Well, I agree that we have spent about an hour and 15 minutes here
this morning, and usually our meetings, when we have it for the general public and y’all
come with your wish list. Everybody else has theirs and you get about five minutes. So I
agree that this is the time and the place to do these things. However, as far as Atlanta,
y’all have a lobbyist or whatever you want to call it, and I felt like I was your lobbyist
and I think most of our Delegation feel like we are your lobbyists and if you will tell us,
you’re welcome to attend every one of the Delegation meetings. We usually meet at the
same time, same week, same place, and you know we do have emails and fax and if y’all
just get in touch with us, we’re going to try to hear what you are saying. And that’s not
to take away from the people that are representing the city. But we’re open, I like the
dialog that’s gone here so you all will know what we can and cannot do locally and what
we have to do statewide, and it’s good for the people that’s reading the paper and
watching the tube and know that we are working together. And both sides are amenable
to each other to get things accomplished, so I like to talk. Nothing else, we stand
adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
23