Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-2002 Called Meeting CALLED MEETING COMMITTEE ROOM October 14, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Monday, October 14, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. Present: Hons. Colclough, Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, 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. 1. Adopt 2002 Millage Rate Resolution for Augusta Richmond County. Mr. Speaker: -- any Commissioner who wants to answer -- Mr. Mayor: Under the rules of the Commission, you must address your question to the Chair. Mr. Speaker: To the Chair? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Speaker: My question to the Chair is, is there any way we can cut waste and run the government more efficiently, rather than raise the mill rate? Mr. Mayor: The answer to your question is yes. Mr. Kuhlke and I put a number of potential cuts on the table during the budget deliberations last winter. The Commission chose not to adopt any of those cuts, and so that’s why we are here today with a request to raise millage rate. Mr. Cheek, you want to respond? Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. We are looking at a comprehensive energy conservation plan for the city to reduce the overhead of our utilities. We are looking at improvements in our safety program to reduce the incidents that cause us litigation and cost. That’s a half-a-million-dollar-a year line item on average. We are looking at reorganizing the government at every level to try to gain the efficiencies to get more, a better skill mix down to the street level to actually get more services to the public. These are things consistent with what Fortune 500 companies are doing. We’ve tried to implement those. They’ve been voted on and passed by this Commission. There are real cost benefits to be gained from that. We’ve implemented a total quality management plan which will have us do a statistical analysis of the way we do business, which will help us to look at things that are wasteful, processes that we want to look at for improvement, we’ll have a statistical base to continually improve those over time, and a measure to do that with. These are all things that we’ve done within the last couple of years and things that we are working towards. And as you know in industry, these are 1 things, these culture changes take a little time to implement. The growth in this government has occurred in areas the public has asked for. In Public Safety, in our police departments. Out of -- and I’m going on last year’s numbers, I haven’t seen this year’s -- but out of 183 positions, plus or minus a couple, 173 of those have been in the judiciary and law enforcement areas. We don’t have the bloated government that has been propagandized to the public. If you look at public records and information available from our Human Resources Department, we have cut back. We have had salary freezes, hiring freezes. Over the last few years we’ve taken tremendous multi-million-dollars hits in grant monies and so forth, and we’ve adjusted for. We’ve quit robbing the water fund. All of these are adjustments that take time, and that is the way we’re going. As far as this increase in millage rate, I think the staff has done a very good job of looking at the targeted areas that are most important the public -- Public Safety being number one. And that’s where they are targeting all these funds to go. We are continually trying to improve this government. And those are some of the steps we’ve taken. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I’d just like to make this point, cause I can appreciate your question, and I think all of us up here asked that same question of ourselves. But when you look at our situation in government and when you look at 42% of your budget, and I may be a percentage or two off, but 42% of your budget goes to Public Safety. Probably another 12% goes to judicial. And probably 70% of the remaining budget goes to salaries, to provide services to the citizens. And you know, it’s an easy answer to your question, and when you look at private industry you see it every day in the paper, of what they are doing. And they don’t take a lot of time to do this. But they cut jobs. Now we are in the business of providing services to the citizens of this community, and most of those services are demanded of the government to provide it. And so it makes it very, very difficult to go in and say look, how are we going to do this, how are we going to keep employees, how are we going to stay competitive in the marketplace when we have really nowhere to turn to raise money to provide those things other than increase taxes? And it’s a tough job, but I appreciate your question. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to respond. I agree with Commissioner Kuhlke, but I especially agree with Commissioner Cheek who probably hit the nail on the head. There’s a lot of things in this government that we got to look at, and I think the consolidation of Augusta and Richmond County, we’ve got some double services that we are still trying to work on, to try to get those things down. I’m a big advocator of getting paid for the work you do. And I think as a body we need to look at those people who are getting paid and not being held accountable. I think that’s one of the ways we can cut some of the fat out of this government, in my mind. The Mayor mentioned about the Commission not adopting some of the things that he brought forward. But there are several things been brought forward. And I’m reminded of just a couple of weeks ago when we could have saved this county $600,000 or maybe more, but the Mayor and neither this Commission decided to do that. We could have looked at 2 doing some things differently. And that’s what we got to do. The little money that I handle, that I manage in my own budget, I try to do that with every fiber in me to save money. And that’s what we got to do with this government, I think. Is to save the taxpayers any way, shape or form we can save them. But we are so busy looking at the business side of it saying that, hey, this is the way the business is done. And in my own business, I do things a little different than we do them downtown. And I think that’s what we got as a government. We got to look at being smarter, cause we’re not just handling our money, we’re handling everybody’s money. But we could save some money. I agree with that. I appreciate your questions. There’s a lot of things we can differently than we been doing because we been doing it for 200 years, so to speak, or because we been doing it for a long time, we tend to let it keep working the same way. The old saying, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But this been broke and we won’t fix it. We will not shop around. We are not doing things that I think in my mind, and it’s just one person, saying that a group of Commissioners ought to do to save taxpayers’ money. We was elected for one reason, and that’s to do what is right for the citizens and to make this city a better city than it was when we came here. And to save money and to use that money wisely. Mr. Mays touch on a point about being able to use money for different things. There’s some money we get in here that we can’t use but for certain things. We spending a lot of money on automobiles. Commissioner Steve Shepard gets on me a lot of times we talked about these automobiles. I can’t understand that. I still can’t fathom how we can spend as much money as we spend on automobiles. Whether it be the Sheriff’s Department, whether it be in this government. I mean an automobile is not made to give you 80,000 or 100,000 miles and quit. We paid $3 million a year for preventive maintenance, but we still buy automobiles like they are going out of style. Everybody can’t see that. I don’t know why. They need to open their eyes and look around. Something wrong. We need to start doing some things different when it comes to spending money and doing business in this city. But I appreciate your question. Appreciate it. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? Mr. Mayor: Go head, please. Mr. Speaker: I think I represent a common person in Richmond County. I’m a common worker. I grew up in Richmond County, went to Richmond Academy, Augusta College. The number one question that my friends is, when you coming to Columbia County? And we have a great mill rate, but should we revisit this hike until another time when maybe some of these great plans can be implemented? That’s all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak, anyone among the Commissioners? We have a motion for adoption of the millage rate. We have a resolution here, don’t we, that we have to approve? This is the wording of the motion. 3 Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if you’re asking for a motion, I make a motion that we approve the -- that we adopt the rates as set forth in the resolution in the attachment as presented by the Administrator. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and second. Discussion on the motion? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I have a statement I’d like to make. Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead. Mr. Boyles: In 1995, the citizens of Augusta voted on a consolidation plan, and we’ve heard a lot about that today. That plan was to streamline this local government, reduce our costs, reduce the bureaucracy and caused the promise of cost savings of the citizens that we serve. For many reasons, those plans, goals, dream have not worked. They have become empty promises. Maybe we expected too much, but we were promised results. 2500 hundred citizens vote in District 7 for someone to represent those goals. To represent then in the District that’s going to be hit the hardest by property re- evaluations and tax millage increases. They want and they need to be heard. With industries and governmental agencies around us, SRS just lost 47 jobs last week, the Governor of Georgia is seeking a 5-6% reduction in state department spending. The economy is in a down spin. Instabilities on the national scene. Augusta seems to be increasing our size. There were areas that we talked about at the first of 2002, and you mentioned that a few moments ago, that to my knowledge, we have not discussed again. We should look at our middle-to-top management positions and offer early outs and retirements to those eligible. We may have allowed the salary adjustments to get out of hand. We didn’t examine a freeze on the hiring situation to determine or study positions that are absolutely essential. We didn’t examine departments and functions of departments that are critical or functional, and we didn’t pursue deleting positions that were vacant for long, long periods of time. We didn’t lobby the legislation, lobby for the legislation, to allow existing revenues, Mr. Mays said to be used differently in the three consolidated governments. Nor did we fight for the loss of $1 million in insurance premium tax that metro Atlanta counties that outgrew Richmond, and I resent my insurance premium money going to other counties, especially in metro Atlanta. Many of the ideas and proposals that were debated and discussed would not work. But they need to be reviewed. Perhaps the time has arrived that we go ahead and tell our residents that this consolidation has not and will not produce the savings or provide the basic services that we were promised back in 1995. Seven years later, we still have separate tax districts, urban and non-urban service areas. I understand that costs go up. Benefits, such as health insurance for our employees, must be improved. Services are demanded. But I also feel that to promote economic development and draw business and industry. 4 We must assure business leaders that this Commission is capable of making decisions and providing the most fundamental government services, water, fire, sanitation, police, without balancing the budget and increasing the taxes on the homes of our citizens. In summation, because I made a commitment last November, I cannot in good conscience this October break that commitment. I will vote no on a millage increase. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And I particularly appreciate the comments that Commissioner Boyles just read, and for one, if nothing else, in terms of just being here and this being his first year and the commitments that he made to a voting public I think is absolutely accurate, and from a conscience standpoint I would probably do the same. Having been here, and it would be easy for me on the other side of it say that’s what I’m going to do as well. However, two points of clarification that I would like to make that we’re now into the meeting and out of the public hearing side of it. One, and it’s only a small part of it, but back in January, I remember making the motion to at least get us to a point where we would be in the discussion as it related to fire, particularly pertaining to the loss in the fire insurance premium money that was needed for the fire department. Now there was a debate at that time, and what we agreed on, those who -- at least I did in making the motion, even said that if we did not need -- because there was a heated debate to a point that the money would not be needed. And I said, I made it basically because we’ve lost the million dollars, and I had a faith there that somehow, a false sense of faith that it would at least get discussed. Well, it didn’t get discussed. I guess the question I’m asking now, Mr. Mayor, is that if it was not needed at that point, is it still not needed, or for the point of at least clarification, is it needed, and was the motion on that part of the fire tax that was added on after we had at first proposed the ones to deal with the police side of Public Safety, then I’d like to maybe hear back at this time. Because there was, there was an up and down debate that we would not need the money to do, that it would be able to exist without the tax increase. And I think that out of fairness, even though I made the motion, I made it in the spirit that if I was wrong when I made it, that I would be the first one to say drop that part of it and not propose it. So I’d like to maybe hear that. Mr. Mayor: Can somebody answer the Commissioner’s question? Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commissioner Mays is absolutely correct. At that time we had put in place -- this is prior to Chief Gillespie coming on board, also -- that we could free some positions within the Fire Department and actually save that $500,000. However, after Chief Gillespie came on board, there was a strategy that moved that aside that required us to increase the number of fire personnel within the Fire Department. So in answer to your question, we do need the $500,000. Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, I don’t -- for one time, I don’t take any pride in being vindicated. I made a motion, quite frankly, hoping that I’d be wrong when we got to this point, because it was one I [inaudible] side of it, but that gets back again to what 5 I’m talking about, about reality into of having to face it and to deal with it and we’ve had this time since that was proposed to see if that could be done. Because my intention for making it was because I did not want to cripple the Fire Department at that time, this time, or any time in the future, regardless of who the Chief was. That’s not an issue. The point is in terms of the people that you serve, and that’s why I made the motion, based on the fact that we were not getting that money out of the State and it was going to cause a deficit. But, you know, I was told almost that the sky was falling, that we didn’t need it, and it was an unnecessary proposal. So that’s why I just wanted to get that point clear on the record today. It’s either needed or it’s not needed, and if it’s not needed, then I’m prepared to make a reversal of the motion I made at that time and ask the maker to pull it out. But if it’s needed and that’s so, then I guess that answers that. A second question, Mr. Mayor, and this is in the part of it, you made reference to the cuts that you personally proposed to be brought before us. And I think in terms of what we are trying to raise in terms of where you get the seven figures of money, or better than $4 million, do you have a total of the cuts that you proposed, that you say the Commission rejected? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I don’t recall the figure right offhand, but it was in seven figures. I think it was $2 million to $3 million perhaps. Mr. Mays: $2 million to $3 million? Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Mays: I notice in a commercial you said $300,000, and that’s a long way from $2 million to $3 million. And I’m just wondering whether or not you had some list of what you proposed and brought to us itemized and we absolutely rejected. Mr. Mayor: You never discussed them. You never discussed them. They were -- you weren’t here, Mr. Mays. You were not here when we were deliberating the budget, if you’ll recall. You were out of town. But Mr. Kuhlke brought a list, I brought a list. We had all this out on the table. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, we did not adopt -- to beg your pardon, sir. We adopted the motion, we adopted the budget, Mr. Mayor, at the end of February. You voted on one which was not finalized, which we were still discussing, and those cuts were not in. So I may have been out of town but I had been pushing for the budget to be adopted weeks before I even left and months before I left. So I mean, you know, we can’t cop out on dates that I wasn’t here. I just simply was asking to a point that if you are going to campaign on a fact and you’re going to bring into a proposed meeting of a tax increase, that if you have millions of dollars that you proposed, then I think somebody in the public needs to legitimately say them. Because they work good in commercials, but they’ve not been before us, Mr. Mayor, to be rejected. And that is absolutely not true. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I would disagree with your characterization. Number 1, the budget was adopted prior to December 31 of last year, in accordance with the law. We had to adopt a budget. Then in January, this Commission chose to freeze the cuts and 6 to revisit. And there were a number of procedural motions that were made over the next two months to restore cuts, not to remove any money from the budget, and then the budget was finally adopted toward the end of February, as I recall. Mr. Mays: That is correct, but we were not setting sail on any numbers until that finalization date was set, and that was why I was asking did you have that legitimate list that totaled into the millions of dollars that would have been saved that this Commission rejected that you brought before it. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, and we will be submitting another list as soon as soon as we get a budget for next year. We’ll have another list of proposed cuts. Mr. Mays: Okay. And, and I made add that those cuts that were restored was to keep this city from being totally dysfunctional and some departments which by now would have totally run out of money, even down to the postage of operating them and of essentially services which affected every department in this county, of which everyone did not want to face that reality of doing. But we would not have been able to run this city and to do it. And I think it’s quite easy and quite political to basically say this is what I would have done and it was not done, but I have not seen those millions that you’ve had that’s been out there of legitimate concern that would keep the every day services of this city running and the basic services that we provide that those millions of dollars that are out there. And I’ve heard more than once you make that public statement about the $300,000. Mr. Mayor: That’s just one. That was the DARE program. That was one example. That was one example from the list. But the point is, Mr. Mays, I totally disagree with your characterization. You’re looking at it one way, I look at it another way. And I just disagree with you. You’re not speaking for me on this issue. Mr. Mays: Well, I don’t ever intend to speak for you, Mayor Young. I only intend to speak for Willie Mays. That’s the only person I can speak for, and you can speak for Bob Young. But I think when you make the statement that you have some massive great proposal that’s been out there, that would keep this city totally functioning and running, that you have promoted on, that you have itemized it, that you have put those numbers out there, and that you can guarantee the delivery of services in this city without interruption, then that’s what you ought to say and do. Because it’s quite easy to a point of just saying that and just saying that if I had a vote, that’s what I would do. But I’ve not seen it in terms of where -- and you have had the rest of the year since it’s been done to bring it up. But it’s funny it’s just popping up in this season that you’ve got millions of dollars that we would have saved and it’s never been brought here as a real fighting demand in terms of what you would deal with in terms of putting those operations out there for the city. And I think it’s totally wrong for you to turn around and to make that as though it’s [inaudible] everything that pops up that you’re dealing with. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams? 7 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I guess we can talk about this all day, but I’m trying to remember the budget, and we went through budget season last year and we talked about it and we finalized the budget but with amendment to come back again after the first of the year, and then I think we amended it again the second time. Jim, your recollection might be a little better than mine. But I don’t remember those drastic cuts that we could have made, like Commissioner Mays said, that would save the essential things we do in this city. I remember we cut, we made a budget cut and we did away with those services as far as ditches in the inner city and stuff like that, and that stuff got piled up on us. We talked about getting rid of the printing shop, which touched every fiber in this government as far as getting mail delivered and other stuff, and we had to come back and put those things back in, because if we had done that it would have cost us even more money. So I think we need to get on with this vote and let’s get on with the business at hand. I don’t remember, I have not missed any meetings. I have been out of town but I been back for meetings. Maybe Mr. Mays was out, but I been here every meeting and I pride myself on that. I might not have done an effective job, but I been here. I haven’t missed any. So I just want to go ahead and try to get this thing passed or not passed or what we going to do today, so let’s get on with the business. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you know, we worked on the budget a long time. We had a budget that was first proposed with I think a 3 mill tax increase, and as a result of a lot of efforts, we have lowered that to what we have today. You know, we remember in this Chamber last year you led the effort for the Care and Prayer Crusade as a response to September 11 in New York, and I’ve always viewed this budget as Public Safety heavy as the real practical response to September 11 and the changes that we have had to implement in the [inaudible] of doing business that we do. When y’all all came in the building today, we came through security. This was something that was in the planning stage, but if it hadn’t been in the planning stage it would have been kick-started by September 11. That’s just a necessary now drag on the overhead of this government like it is in the overhead of corporate American everywhere. You know, we had the insurance premium tax taken away to the tune of $1 million, and that largely explains the fire tax increase. I share Mr. Boyles’ frustration there, but I think are we not going to have a Fire Department? Well, certainly not. I also point out that we are faced with decisions from the United States Supreme Court that we are going to have to cope with that we’ve talked a lot about. Alabama vs. Shelton requiring the appointment of more indigent defense counsel. We’ve had increase in our prison medical costs. We are serious about law enforcement. We are going to have keep folks that the courts sentence. We are going to have to keep them incarcerated, and when they are dangerous to us we are going to have to keep them incarcerated pre-trial as well as post-trial when they are convicted. You know, we have attempted to answer some of the questions of the public. We have attempted on several areas to cut back. We’ve found, I remember, a compromise on indigent care which we were able to cut an expense that when I first came up here was on the order of $2 million in this budget, has now been cut down to about a $500,000 expense. That was done because we found a program from Ashville, North Carolina, when we went to the National League of Cities. I remember Mr. Jerry Brigham and Mr. 8 Mays and I were up there, and we took an interest in that program, and we’re still able to delivery indigent care in this community under a new formula, a formula that does not require taxpayers to pay as much money as when I first came up here. And so you look for those items throughout the budget that you can agree on that you can reduce and sometimes reduce them without impairing the services. But I think if you look at your backup material that was handed out today, it says that the revenue will fall about $5.993 million short of the project level of expenditures. And to vote against this mill rate now will bring about fiscal chaos in this government. So I don’t think, I mean if you want to go into fund balance really big time, than that’s the only real alternative other than to find $6 million in cuts in the next 75 days of this calendar year, which I just don’t think you are going to do. And I’ve been the proponent up here of an adequate contingency fund, and I’ve been a proponent of a fund balance. We have a Finance Director that has come from Chatham County, and he knows what it’s like to operate a government without a fund balance, and that is just sheer chaos, and if David Persaud, if I’m wrong, I hope you’ll stand up and tell me that. That’s no way to run a government, and it’s not going to be one that I think we are going to indulge in. So today’s vote is one that -- I don’t like supporting a tax increase, I don’t like to revaluations, but neither do I like chaos, and I’m not going to have this government in chaos and this city in chaos because this is a day for action to protect the services that are the basic services in this community of law enforcement, which is really where homeland defense rests. It’s on the burden of this government, and unlike the federal government, we cannot run a deficit here. We have the constitutional obligation to balance our budget each year. It is not an easy task. We are about to being it again for 2002. It will not be an easy task. But it’s a hard and necessary one. So I made the motion to approve this and there is just really no practical alternative, gentlemen. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I can’t think of a case where we have brought before this Commission cost savings and we did this with the energy conservation plan and the safety plan, to say the least, to where this Commission hasn’t given it a serious look and then adopted any types of cost savings. I can -- I remember regularly how often snickers are had whenever the car issues are brought up and when we look at ways that we manage our fleet and other costs and how we could all take that savings a little more seriously than we do, because Commissioner Williams has a very valid point in his arguments. But it’s easy to take projected savings and throw them out without any follow-up and then tout that as to what we didn’t do. I’ll assure you that I will look at any opportunity to save money. But the things that I’ve initiated, and I’ve seen other Commissioners initiate, that the follow up on with some sort of cost benefit analysis and not just naked numbers that are thrown on the table of what potential savings could be had as if it were fact, there are actual savings and then there are projected savings. I have lived in an organization that has outsourced various portions of it, of its services, and I have seen quality improve and I have seen quality decrease over time. I have seen costs go up above what the original net cost was for operating that with in-house people. But again, I’ll say this Commission, as far as this Commissioner is concerned, has looked at every opportunity to save money, that are put on the table in a serious fashion, that at 9 least has an advocate that will follow up on it on a weekly basis, and has adopted every option that -- or opportunity to save money that it could. And I look forward to seeing any of these cost-savings proposals for outsourcing or anything else, but again, I would like to see a cost benefit analysis to look at in the future. And what Commissioner Shepard has said is exactly true. We have seen budgetary impacts in this government that we have dealt with very well considering the number of million dollar impacts we have had over the last few years. We have things that we have to pay for now. We have been creative in trying to defer costs to other sources. This Commission has done a good job. And it’s disturbing -- I’m not going to say that. I’m through with my comments. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I just have a few comments to make about this. You know, I just think it’s asinine and it is very disturbing and it is just ridiculous that we would sit here and the first thing after this gentleman got here to the podium and asked what we were doing, and the first thing I hear is that, you know, the Commissioners are not doing anything to cut this budget. And I think that we went through this from probably this time last year up until sometime in February where we adopted this, that we tried to eliminate all the waste that we possibly could and still run an effective government. And I think this is when -- and I hope the people out there understand that, you know, the perception that there is a lot of differences here between the Commissioners, I think you would see that today, that of all the people who have spoken, except the Mayor, they are on one accord saying that we did this simply because there was a necessary for Public Safety. And that’s where the bulk -- we all know that’s where the bulk of the money went. We all injected cutting services. Not only the Mayor, but all the Commissioners. There were things that were put forth that we should cut. And when we came to the conclusion that those things to run an efficient government we had to put those things back into action, or we were going to have a chaotic condition here. Now we all understood that. And this perception that, you know, nobody is doing, the Commission is not doing anything, I take offense to that, because I think I’ve worked from ’96 up until this point to have the most efficient government that we possibly could have here, and I have not been the only one doing that. The Commissioners, the nine other Commissioners I think have worked toward that. You were given some, a lot of stuff in ’95, and Commissioner Boyles said that you know, we all thought we were going to a utopia that does not exist, and I think the one thing that we ought to try to convince the public that consolidation is possibly good, but it’s not going to happen overnight, and it’s going to take time for us to work those things out. We must understand that we came into this government with a bankrupt city government. We had the money at the airport, the money at the Water Works, we had to pay those funds back, so we came in as a disadvantage, and I don’t think most of you understand that, the citizenry does not understand that. They haven’t been told that. And I think they ought to be told the facts. And we came in at that disadvantage and at that handicap and we had to work within that. And I think that the Commissioners here have done a good job and that perception that people are trying to restore among us that we have not done our job and we weren’t trying to do anything, that’s false. And it’s offensive to me to have to sit here and listen to that because we know it’s political rhetoric. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 10 Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? We have a motion on the floor to adopt the resolution in the attachment setting out the property tax rate. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Cheek and Mr. Boyles vote No. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Entertain a motion to adjourned. Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Mayor: We’re adjourned without objection. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on October 14, 2002. Clerk of Commission 11