HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
(Continued from November 19, 2002)
November 26, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission reconvened at 3:15 p.m. Tuesday,
November 26, 2002, the Hons. Cheek, Commissioner, and Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem,
presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Williams and
Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by Rev. Williams.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Cheek: We are here to discuss the budget. Madame Clerk, can you read the
motion and substitute motion that are on the floor at this time, then we’ll get into
discussion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Relative to the budget. There is a motion on the floor to
table. It was tabled.
Mr. Cheek: It was tabled?
The Clerk: Yes, it’s tabled. We need to get a motion to get it off the table.
50. Motion to approve adoption of Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Resolution.
Mr. Shepard: I move that we remove the budget from the table.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? Being none, all in
favor, please vote.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Colclough out.
Motion carries 8-0.
The Clerk:
1
Addendum Item 5. Consider a request from Catholic Social Services regarding the
restoration of funding in the amount of $35,000.00. (Referred from Administrative
Services November 25, 2002 meeting)
Mr. Cheek: Motion to add on, for the addendum agenda.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Cheek: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor –
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: You don’t have unanimous consent.
The Clerk: To add that on? Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Okay, we don’t have unanimous consent so let’s move forward. Can
we recap our position on that or we can turn it over to our Chairman of Finance for a
brief recap.
2003 Budget Proposal
Assumptions:
1) No Property Tax Increase
2) Use of Fund Balance Appropriation (subject to actual revenue/expenditure
performance) not to exceed $1,343,899.00
Revenues:
General Fund & Law Enforcement $100,024,170.00
Less: New Programs & Personnel (903,320.00)
Reduce Fund Balance (356,110.00)
Add: Mobile Home Appraisal 38,000.00
Civil Court Eviction 14,310.00
$98,817,050.00
Expenditures:
General Fund & Law Enforcement $100,024.170.00
Less: New Programs & Personnel (903,320.00)
Reclass Savings - 1/3 per year (232,000.00)
2
Pay for Performance 03 (378,000.00)
Eliminate Economic Dev. (150,000.00)
Department.
Eliminate 68 Unfilled Positions @ (2,108,000.00
$31,000.00
Add: Indigent Defense 346,000.00
Public Relations 50,000.00
Training 75,000.00
Continuation of Work Crews 162,000.00
Prison Medical Increase 77,200.00
Fund Library 150,000.00
Lucy Laney Museum 75,000.00
Fund Museum 300,000.00
Increase Contingency 250,000.00
Fund PR Position for Econ. Dev. 25,000.00
Fund 34 Unfilled Positions 1,054,000.00
$98,817,050.00
Alternative Indigent Defense Funding:
Additional 346,000.00
staff/upgrades
Facility (200,000.00)
use/Private
Probation
Contractor
Legislatively (175,000.00)
Authorized $5
fee/case
surcharge
(approx. 35,000)
Difference/Excess (29,000)
Shift DARE (324,380.00)
Program to
RCBOE or
eliminate
Leave Fund in 324,380.00
Budget for
Sheriff Jailers
Shift EEO to
Human
Relations
Commission
Mr. Shepard: Sure, I’d be happy to. Mr. Chairman, I had put forth the proposal
last week which was driven by two assumptions, that we would have no property tax
3
increase in the ensuing budget year, and that we would make use of the fund balance as a
budget balancing tool, but that would be subject to the actual revenue and expenditure
performance of this government in the coming year. I think it will also be guided by the
determination of what the actual performance of the funds were, expenses and revenues
in the 2002 year, which we won’t know until approximately March of 2003. I have an
amended proposal which I’m grateful for those of you that I was able to together with and
talk to over the ensuing period, that would be proposal that I would advance today. If
any other Commissioner has a proposal for the budget, I’d certainly be interested in
getting down to the specific figures of that, but while I have the floor and the mike, I’m
going to go ahead and go over the current proposal as amended through this morning.
And I think y’all have copies of that. It’s marked at the bottom Revision #2, 11/2/02, I
believe. Do you have, Lena? Okay. I started with Mr. Kolb’s budget at the figure of
$100,024,170. I adjusted the revenues first to eliminate the tax increase, which would
eliminate the new programs and personnel except as added back in the expenditure side
as shown below. That was a reduction of $903,320. I’m going to reduce the use of fund
balance. I believe the current budget has $1.7 million or so in it, and I was going to
reduce the fund balance by $356,110. Two programs at our workshop brought us
additional revenues in excess of expenses, and so I don’t see any adverse impact to the
taxpayers by adding those programs. The two programs that met that criteria were the
additional mobile home appraisers in the Assessor’s office and the additional monies for
Civil Court evictions, reducing the budget revenue anticipation from the $100,000,000
figure to $98,817,050. On the expenditure side, we also needed to adjust them as well.
And the first adjustment was to eliminate the new programs and personnel which were
shown in Tab 6. And the next adjustment is that I am deferring the reclassifications for a
year to realize a $232,000 economy. The other matter that we’re doing, we’re deferring
the pay for performance program for another year, which would eliminate, or realize a
$378,000 savings. We are also requesting that due to the fact that it was a new program,
we not fully fund at the level previously of recommended Economic Development
Department, so therefore there would be $150,000 savings there. The major balancing
tool that I’m using this time is to eliminate the 68 unfilled positions which we were told
would be approximately $31,000 average cost apiece, and that would realize a
$2,108,000 savings. There are events that we have not been able to fully foresee, control
or anticipate this previous year which have impact in the ensuing budget year of 2003.
The first category is Indigent Defense. $346,000. In partial replacement of Economic
Development Department, we think for a year that the Public Relations area could serve
as the liaison until we have a better handle of funding Economic Development.
Therefore, I have left in $50,000 in the Public Relations area which was a new program
which is now an add-back. In addition, there has been an observation from you, Mr.
Chairman, that we should try to be a better educated, better trained work force, that we
would have positive results in the area of safety and just overall running of the
government if we invested in training. And I’m willing to give you that point. I think
that it’s better to have an ounce of prevention than a pound of cure. I’m familiar with
that in my personal line of work. And I know that a better trained work force could
maybe avoid accidents, then we’ll see a return in that area that will far exceed the budget
that we’re allocating here for training. I have heard you, Commissioner Hankerson, talk
about the work crews that we need for each District, and I have put in enough money that
4
would fund crews that would experiment with that program during next year and fund it
at the supervisor and I believe driver level. We have talked before there are certain
forces that drive this budget we can’t control. One of those is the cost of medical care in
our jails for our prison population. That was something that we could not control and had
to remain in for $77,200. I’m suggesting that we fund the Library because they’ve been
here and we may have some opportunities to fund that later out of the SPLOST, if we
could go to our Legislative Delegation we could have books and media, electronic media,
perhaps authorized for the SPLOST. If we have a new SPLOST in 2003, then this would
serve as sort of a stop gap funding to breach the gap between the beginning of the fiscal
year and January 1, 2003, and potential relief from the SPLOST in this area, but we
would recommend, or I recommend $150,000 designated for the Library, which could be
designated for materials. We’ve had an ongoing funding discussion regarding the
museums. And we want to try to solve that to give us a year to work with other ideas that
may come in for museum funding, but for this year I’m recommending that we fund the
Laney Museum in the amount of $75,000 and the Augusta Museum of History in the
amount of $300,000. I’m also uncomfortable, as I was last year, with the amount of the
Contingency Fund. Presently the Contingency expense is at $500,000. I’m
recommending increase the Contingency to $250,000, the amount of that being somewhat
less than what I usually prefer, which is the million dollars, which we’ve had to go to on
numerous occasions here this year, and the wisdom of putting aside the $1 million for
Contingency has been borne out. But in view of the fact we have a fairly good Fund
Balance, I’m willing to go with the $250,000 Contingency account. Here again, to get us
through the time until we have some decisions on this proposed expanded SPLOST, I’m
recommending that the Economic Development function be fulfilled in the
Administrator’s office through the position of the Public Relations person. Finally, I
suggest that we have to address some issues that I don’t know if we can address in one
session. I suggest returning the funding of the equivalent of the 34 unfilled positions
which will return funding in the amount of $1,054,000 to the budget for addressing the
critical skills positions and for addressing other special cases as they may arise in the area
of personnel. The total budget then, revenues and expenditures which I recommend to
my colleagues, is $98,817,050. There is some possibility for working with additional
revenue sources on Indigent Defense, and here again I think that it’s critical that we
continue the discussions that were begun by you, Mr. Chairman, and other members of
our committee when talking to our Legislators and consider that there is going to be some
statewide interest in funding Indigent Defense, and there is the possibility that we could
get the $346,000 that I am arguing for in addition to its current budget from one of two
sources. First of all, I’m very hopeful that after playing this for I think at least two years,
that we have some statewide action on funding Indigent Defense. And that could be in
the form of a case surcharge. And I just illustrated a minimum surcharge of $5 a case,
even in just one court would generate $175,000. The other item that we’ve talked about
in funding Indigent Defense would be a facility use fee, which our Attorney indicates
would be an appropriate and legal way of addressing the fact that we are giving our
courtroom space and law enforcement facilities to the benefit of the probation contractor,
and I would just estimate a fee of approximately $200,000 in new revenue to the
government. I think that the Sheriff has indicated that he in wanting to increase the
number of jailers. And although the next part of my proposal does not have any
5
budgetary impact, I would like to give the Sheriff the flexibility to add some of the jailers
that he came to budget table requesting. And what I would like to do is give him the
freedom to fund those jailers by transferring the DARE Program to the Board of
Education or eliminating it, at his choice. Finally, I’d like to answer one of the
complaints that has come forth from the Grand Jury, which does not have any budgetary
impact, Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners, but I’m suggesting that the EEO
function for this government be transferred to the Human Relations Commission, and I
would think that that would answer the problem that they have identified that indicates
that we have a line supervisor making decisions on employee grievances, which is a
conflict of interest in essence, and we would then remove that by dedicating this
responsibility to the Human Relations Commission. But I do commend this proposal to
you, Mr. Chairman and fellow Commissioners. We’ve been on an accelerated budget
schedule this year. I note in the newspaper last night, for example, that New York City
was having to raise their taxes I think 18%, that the health insurance costs for state
government employees all across this country has increased. In addition, the states are
having the worst time balancing their own budgets in view of two factors: the health
insurance increases and the tax collection decreases. They are all in a bind is what
they’re saying. The health insurance crisis is reaching – in the same newspaper I read, is
reaching into the middle class. This is a concern of our employees. I don’t – that’s one
thing that I wanted to address that I just did not have the resources to address at this time,
but I didn’t forget about it, those who have brought it up to me from time to time have
indicated that the health insurance under the POS Plan for them is less than satisfactory.
I hear them, but do I have an answer in this budget other than what the administration put
forward? And the answer is I do not. And that does frustrate me and still concerns me.
But still I think that we are going in the right direction if we do not increase property
taxes, if we use our fund balance properly, and we reduce the, we make the reductions
which I have outlined so that we can balance this budget and then move into the next year
with a clear mandate to address the critical skills positions and other inequities that we
may find, but I just don’t see that we can do today much more than what I have set forth
with the targeted increases and the reductions in the expenses which I have outlined. So I
commend that amended budget to you in the form of a motion, to approve that budget.
Mr. Cheek: We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Cheek: We have a motion and a second. I’ll open the floor for discussion.
Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve, again I think you did a great job
but I’ve got some reservations about a couple of things you said. You mentioned about
taking the positions from, the Economic Development positions and have that ran out of
the Administrator’s office; is that right?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct, Mr. Williams. For this next year I would anticipate
the Administrator running Economic Development through his Public Relations staff.
6
Mr. Williams: Well, I thought we got that staff, that position because it was very
much needed to do something else. If that’s the case, then what’s going to happen to that
position that they was indeed hired for in the beginning? We heard all of the rhetoric
about how great and how much that going be. I mean is that going affect that? Can we
look for the same level of service? Are we going to talk about a pay increase? I mean is
that –
Mr. Shepard: The office could be organized with the additional monies that we
have put in the budget, and that could be a sub-budget and an issue that we have
conversation about in the coming year. I think the main thing today is to try to get these
pots of money established that we could later use for economic development or that we
could later use for, for example, for targeted salary increases in the skilled positions. My,
my idea is to create budgeted amounts of funds today that would address those, address
those issues but leave the specifics of those two discussions for the Commission in the
ensuing year. I think we found out last year that the budget is an amendable document.
Here again, I’m trying to anticipate, Mr. Williams, a very bare bones approach to
Economic Development in the coming year. I would expect that existing staff would be
asked to do that, in addition to the responsibilities of Public Relations. In addition, we
would have the same approach on the salaries. We would have money there to deal with
within the context of that $1,054,000, but here again if we were able to develop
additional revenues – for example, to support Indigent Defense or something else that are
not related to a property tax increase, we would have some flexibility throughout the
budget to, to adjust those areas that some Commissioners may feel we were not able to
address on today’s meeting.
Mr. Williams: Well, and I agree with what you said, Steve, I’m just, I’m just
talking about the importance of that, of this position that we hired. We went out and
hired several people and that’s making a good salary, that I think, and if we can not only
do that one, what about the other positions? We have not sit here and talk about the hard
cuts. We’re talking about the little people, the little stuff we can cut out. But, but, if we
can do this with this position, then what about other positions? I’m saying that we got
people in this government that’s making good salaries, ought to be able to be transferred
to some of those other positions, such as you just recommended today in other facets as
well. And use those people until we get a float, so to speak, until we can see where we
going to be able to do something different. There is monies to be saved that could be
used in, in other areas. That Catholic Services, they’re not on the table here, but I we
going to be making a serious mistake to make a move and not consider them while we are
considering this budget.
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams, one thing, Mr. Chairman, if I may answer.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: One thing that has been removed from the revenue appropriation
was the UDAG money, and that is going back to HND, which would be available in
7
HND for such programs as Catholic Social Services. It would be available for them and
perhaps others who need reconsideration in that area. We are not now, if you notice in
the revenues, if you look back to the previous proposals I’ve put out, I have not
appropriated the $160,000 from the UDAG money. I have left that alone, so that remains
to be, remains available for such programs as that.
Mr. Williams: Well, I agree again, Steve, I’m not giving you an argument over
that. It’s just that once you pass this budget, and I can’t pass this budget until I feel good
about what’s been put before me. Let me go on to the next issue here. The next issue is,
and you know it’s been sticky for the last three years, this is the third year, with the two
museums. We are funding museums. We don’t say Augusta Museum, we say fund the
museums, but we are giving the Laney Museum $75,000 and we still retaining the same
$300,000 we been giving to the Augusta Museum. Is, is, is that the norm? Have we not
talked about these two entities being married and going down the aisle and staying
together until death do them part?
Mr. Shepard: That’s why they’re both in there.
Mr. Williams: I understand but do you think that’s fair? I mean the way it been
distributed? I mean you worked this up, right?
Mr. Shepard: I worked it out and I think it – and I’ll defer to those members that
sat on your I think Museum Funding Committee, Mr. Kuhlke, I believe. I think these are
numbers basically taken from what’s been done in the past. I mean I’m generally
familiar with the overall package, Mr. Williams, but I’d ask Mr. Kuhlke to speak to that
because I thought that’s where those numbers came from.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman, I think – I don’t know the exact figure, but I think
that the Lucy Laney Museum gets money from Housing & Neighborhood Development
as well, and I don’t know what those funds are, but that’s a funding source for them that’s
not available to the, to the Augusta Museum.
Mr. Williams: Well, Bill, I can address that, and they did get some funds from
that source, I think in the amount of about $16,000, something of that nature, until we got
them $100,000 the first year because there wasn’t no other funds available somewhere.
They had not gotten that on a regular basis. That’s not a, not a funding source that they
get yearly from that. If that was the case, I wouldn’t be sitting here saying anything. But
that’s not the case. And what Steve just said about the UDAG money, the money that
we’ve got there, we’ve got a lot of hands out and we’ve only got a limited amount of
money, I realize that. But I can’t sit here and go along with this and just say that’s going
to be acceptable to not to address that at all. I don’t think that’s being fair at all. I really
don’t. And I can’t support it. I won’t support it.
Mr. Cheek: Anything further, Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: No. That’s it.
8
Mr. Cheek: Gentlemen, further commentary? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my colleague, long time colleague,
our Finance Chairman for further fine tuning the short version of getting this budget to a
head, and I think that what’s been done is commendable and the spirit of it, particularly,
and I say this to him in public and in private in reference to the tax increase part, I think
is the common denominator that probably drives all of us in terms of what we’re trying to
get done. And I appreciate that and probably if a few questions are answered I can get
some other information from it that’s not necessarily on his sheet that I may be able to
buy into it. I think that what he’s tried to do is to get it to a sensible approach of defining
some of the stuff in here. But let me first, Mr. Chairman, let me ask this of the Attorney
before we go any further, because this was one situation that we, that we removed from
the budget because it was ready to be filled in terms of how we would handle the
situation if it is to be handled. That is in reference to the consolidation bill and the EEO
position in terms of whether or not we can eliminate, transfer function and deal with that
without prior to dealing with a vote to change what’s there in the consolidation bill. I
think we need to have one, first a ruling on that if that’s going to even be discussed
within the budgetary process.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: The consolidation bill and charter specifically provides that there will
be an EEO person who will employed by the Commission and would work directly for
the Commission, just as the independent auditor, internal auditor and the city Attorney, so
this is not something that I think that you could transfer to the Commission. It needs to
be a designated person that works directly for the Commission.
Mr. Mays: And Mr. Chairman, if I might, and, and, and, and I know where the
Finance Chairman was going in that because of some of the same types of duties that we
could deal with that. But I think that one is clearly spelled out. We’ve done that before,
but I do think in, in fairness to him, in recognizing what the, the Grand Jury pointed out, I
think it may have been more in the position that we find ourselves in now inasmuch as
the person that was previously in that position is now the HR Director and that person, if
complaints and such are coming there, and that person is handling those two duties, I
think that does give about a certain conflict which is legitimate and we made it through
last year without being challenged on that, but I think if we try to do anything that’s other
that, then I think we move to a level that’s not going to be such a comfort zone. So I
think that there may be something that we want to before a final adoption deal with that
and how the funding of that is to be dealt with. The next question I would have, Mr.
Chairman, and I can’t and wouldn’t attempt to cover every department. I’ve glad that
we’ve got into a, a, a defined role of getting this into a particular scope, but one thing that
kind of struck me yesterday. We were in Administrative Services and we were dealing
with a, a, a situation that affected Engineering Services, or more commonly known as
Public Works. And in the process, I was – and I voted for the issue that’s there and I
think it’s good in terms of doing it, but it gets me to a larger issue that does not
9
necessarily deal with Public Works, and that will get me to a larger issue that’s beyond
that. I asked the question, because I saw Maintenance supervision there, and we’ve
talked a lot not just about work crews but about maintenance period, the upkeep and the
cleanliness of this city. [inaudible] if you don’t talk when you’re planning for money,
then you get planned out of the program and then you don’t have an argument when you
deal with something later. This is the point in time that you do it. Now what I, what I,
what I found astonishing in there was that the Public Works Director, she answered my
question very well. It was very thorough, it was very detailed, and we had a light
moment because we talked about part of that maintenance was where they discovered
that two people were supervising two people. Well, I was glad to hear they found that.
But now my question on a larger basis, do we have other issues out there in departments
and in the crux of when we’re talking about really saving money, do we have any more
situations out there where two people are supervising two people or one person
supervising one person? And I made the comment that it took us seven years into
consolidation just to basically not change the structure of the department, we’ve gone
through seven years and two Public Works Directors before we found out that we had
two people supervising two people. Now if we got that there and found that there, then
what else can we find within the confines of the scope of really getting to saving money?
What I also need to know, Mr. Chairman, is that I need to know where are the negatives
in this. We spoke briefly, Recreation was an example used last week, because we pointed
out the situation of where we approved the change [inaudible] talking about what could
not take place in the new center that’s to open on the [inaudible] that’s there between
Summerville and Sand Hills. Now I need to know, at least as Chairman of Public
Services, on those that fall under there, and one of them being corrected already, and I
knew that the Finance Chairman, particularly [inaudible] I’m glad to see [inaudible]
Library is, but I also want to know do we have a [inaudible] shortcomings in the delivery
of service in terms of surprises that the Commission needs to know about from
Departmental Heads, Mr. Chairman, whether it be in Public Works or some things that
will not be done with the budget, whether it’s in Recreation & Parks, whether there are
any changes to Transit, and I have been assured that there wouldn’t be but I don’t know
about that in terms of the difference of where the numbers are. What still worries me is
not what the Finance Chairman has put together to vote on today. What worries me is
that when we started these hearings in terms of [inaudible], Mr. Chairman, of where
Department Heads found themselves and I made this a point at the last Commission
meeting, of seeing budgets more or less for the [inaudible] time, and I don’t have a
problem when we give stuff to folk and we say these are your numbers. I do have a
problem if we give them numbers, directions, and the whole nine yards that that’s what
they are to deal with within the numbers they are given, because hypothetically, if a
department needs dump trucks and we said buy cars, I want to know from them do they
still have a shortage of dump trucks, can they eliminate some cars but buy dump trucks?
That is the type of [inaudible] about this budget that I have not heard being in its final
summary as to where we are. Perfect example, we were going through the course of last
year and we start finding out things of where the government could not function in
certain ways. Abbreviated forms of what we’re doing are excellent if everybody is on
one agreement and knows what the abbreviations are going to entail and where the
impact is going to be, but I think if there are some language in there or there are some
10
numbers in there, and I get to where I’m going to just ask, Mr. Chairman, it’s kind of like
we talk about bearing off the budget, and I’m ready to case in on the vote [inaudible] and
support it, but I’d like to know if we’ve got some situations there where we’ve got some
departments that need to either speak now or forever hold their peace. I don’t want to see
them lined up at the microphone through the month of December, January, February
saying that we need to have budget reconsiderations because my department is in this
type of situation and we cannot function. That is what I have not heard being brought to
this Commission floor and I’ve not heard that in finality of workshops and I think that if
those situations are out there, then this is the time that we need to hear it. If they’re not
out there, we can’t turn around and say well, you didn’t speak of it when we were dealing
with the budget. If there is something there that hits us, then we are going to have to deal
with it. And that’s still my only hang-up that I have, and it’s not with the proposal that is
there on the floor. It’s within the integral details of where the numbers lie, how they
impact, how they are going to be spread, and if they are going to be negatives in there,
where are they, how much, and who are they going to affect. And that’s kind of where I
am, Mr. Chairman, on it, and I don’t mind asking and I guess this qualifies of keeping it
legal. I have not been to any Department Heads, even though I have heard from them. I
didn’t make any calls so I’m not violating the ordinance that Mr. Wall drew up for y’all
and staff that I didn’t vote for. Y’all know how I do and I don’t [inaudible] into that, but
since the Administrator is present and the Assistants are present, then I guess first what
I’d like to do, we started in Recreation and that was one example that was brought. I’d
like to, since I chair that committee, I’d like to go through at least the Public Service
items and find out where we are on it. I think [inaudible] but I’d like to get [inaudible]
Recreation & Parks since that was a big issue, and I’ve heard it in some terms politically
that it needs to be cut. If it’s something that’s there that’s not there, then I’d like to hear
it, cause I really want to vote for [inaudible] and I think it’s a good structured proposal,
but I also want to hear the details of where we are, and I’d be remiss of sitting here as I
said the other day representing four District by vote and eight of them cause I choose to.
But Mr. Chairman, I just think that we need to hear what’s in the numbers and not just the
numbers in a short form. Because if we’ve gone from this [inaudible] book that you’ve
got here [inaudible], we went from previously one from a black form, that if we’ve gone
to without real debate and real discussion of getting it down to two pages, that’s good, but
when you move that quick on me, and y’all are young and y’all are smart, but I just kind
of like to hear where that is, a little bit, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. We are waiting to hear from staff on the impact of the
proposal before us, that question correct, Commissioner Mays?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, if I may?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kolb: Before we start, there are some things that I think that you probably
need more information on. For example, the vacancies that we talked about.
Mr. Mays: We can’t hear you.
11
Mr. Kolb: We probably need to provide you with the vacancies list, and if it’s
ready I’d like to pass that out. In the new programs, there are several that have been
eliminated, one of which is, as Commissioner Mays pointed out, the McBean positions
that were being allocated there. Also the Sand Hills project, which we are about to start
construction on. We have no funds to operate it once it’s built. I’ll let, while we’re
getting the vacancy list together which we can talk about later, I’d let Mr. Beck give you
a synopsis of what was proposed and then what was taken out. I think he’s passed out
some information.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as you remember at our
budget workshop, our new program list which we have attached to this handout included
$63,637 worth of new programs. Those programs include the new Sand Hills Park
staffing as well as staffing for the new McBean Center, as well as some additional park
[inaudible] funds that were eliminated from the existing budget that our department needs
to survive. In the budget proposal that is presented, this budget would not include those
functions, so the impact, as Commissioner Mays wanted the information on, would be as
follows: the new Sand Hills Park would not open due to not having staffing sufficient to
operate that center. The new McBean Center would open, although what we would have
to do is transfer a maintenance person from our existing shop out to McBean to serve that
function, which would eliminate a fulltime maintenance worker for normal park duties
that are so critical in the upkeep of the rest of our parks. Savannah Place Park was also
part of the programs. We’ve been operating that park and center without a maintenance
person ever since it was actually established, and we’re in desperate need to have a
fulltime person there. That was in our new program list. That wouldn’t happen. And we
continue to operate that center without a Recreation Specialist II. It’s currently being
operated by a Specialist IV. We need to get that position consistent and commensurate
with our other centers. That was in our new programs as well. Now I have put at the
bottom of that sheet some options that potentially could fund putting these back. And
being able to put those services back in and doing that. We currently have a proposal
with the city of Hephzibah for the city of Hephzibah to take over the operation of the
Carroll Community Center. I have had conversations with the Chairman of the
Hephzibah Commission. They have verbally indicated that they are interested in doing
that. We do not have any official action from them at that time, but that would result in a
$15,000 savings, expenses less revenues that we currently take in there now. You, the
Commission, entered into a new cell tower contract at Lake Olmstead about two months
ago. In anticipation of that tower being constructed and being up and running April 1 of
’03, that would result in approximately $15,000 of new revenue that’s not currently in the
budget in any shape right now. We would also cut our staff clothing, that is one thing
that I think we have all as a total government prided ourselves on, with our staff being
professional and visible out into the public. This would eliminate that function for our
staff function. We would cut our bid fee monies by $15,000. These are bid fee monies to
give us the latitude and seed money to go out and bring in national, regional and state
tournaments into Augusta. And lastly, we would shift, in order to get a Recreation II
Specialist position to Sand Hills Park, we would proposed to shift a current position at
Dyess Park that we transferred to Dyess, shift it to Sand Hills and operate Dyess Park
12
with a part-time Recreation Leader. Currently, as you remember in last year’s budget,
that was one of the areas that was potentially up for closure. We did enter into some
partnerships there to help deliver services. We have a very active after school program
currently being operated by a private partner, as well as a very strong summer program
we had there this year through other resources besides staff, so we could keep that center
operating with a part-time person and not affecting closures to the department. In the
opening of the new Sand Hills Park, I’d strongly recommend that center being operated
and open, even though some of our friends here from the Sand Hills Neighborhood
Association who have worked with us so diligently over these last two years in getting
that project off the ground, they, I’m sure, and if the Commission wants to hear from
them, I’m sure they would readily speak on Sand Hills’ behalf, but on their behalf I know
they are standing ready to help us with any resources that they can provide to help us
operate that center. So with all that being said, those are some options we could fund the
above new programs that would not [inaudible] currently included in the budget as
presented.
Mr. Cheek: The tournament bid fee, does that eliminate that program altogether
or does it leave us adequate funds to still attract the level of tournaments we need?
Mr. Beck: It does leave us some funding, but it could jeopardize our ability to
acquire tournaments as we go out. We just sent a couple of staff to the National
American Softball Association meeting. We did come back with a national tournament.
That is an ’04 tournament in that particular case. We won’t have to deal with that until
’04. But the ’03 monies right now, we had hoped to be able to use some of those monies
to go ahead and pre-pay some of that. That’s potentially a $4 million to $5 million
economic impact national tournament that we have gotten, and it will be coming to
Augusta. The National Police Athletic League Tournament that was a huge, large
success a couple of months ago, we have a proposal in. These monies could be used for
that. We were really posturing more for ’04 than ’03 on that particular tournament, but if
we were able to get it, any of these tournaments or events are large economic impact
functions for Augusta.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I think on the, on the bid money, you know, if we
could at least, politics changes, people change. I think if there could be some type of
commitment, at least from the PR side [inaudible] the Commission would have the will
of not sending our folk out to attract an event and would be committed to reaching back
and doing that, that’s what they needed. One of the reasons why we set this in motion
was that they would have something within the department budget in order to [inaudible]
rather than to have to fight each and every case and to come before us in order to do it.
But I think that’s one way of working it. Let me ask you this, Mr. Beck. I, I, I went
through the situation of Dyess last year. And we reopened it and I know everybody that
road went, came to that January parade know the effort that was, that was made in terms
of it being loud and clear to both this Commissioner and to Commissioner Beard that
represents District 1, in terms of Dyess Park. [inaudible] activities you mentioned
13
[inaudible] and I got in District 9, and this is why, Mr. Chairman, I wanted Recreation to
come first cause I cover four of them, and I’m not just looking at where I am, but
ironically both of them fall in 1 and both of them fall in 9. And it’s not District posturing
in any way, but it’s where we are spending new monies out of sales tax that we ask
people to commit to, and it’s the type of example I’m talking about when we say that we
are going to go back to the public on one hand and make a PR spiel to say we’re going to
deal with spending [inaudible] and ask the same folk to come back and give it to you for
ten to 15 years for other projects. I remind you it’s kind of like the parent says about the
nightclub. It’s the same folk. We’re going back and forth [inaudible]. These are folk
that have been waiting for a long time, and I just think the overall tone of where you set
and make folk [inaudible], that’s good [inaudible] and I’m going to support where we go
to Sand Hills. But with the activity increased downtown, in the inner city, with all the
new homes that we are building in the Laney-Walker area, both the [inaudible], what
ANIC is doing, what Laney-Walker Development Corporation is doing, that’s going to
increase Dyess Parks’ [inaudible] and the swimming pool there. And that’s why I’m
floating it on the table. Can we even deal with it of working a part-timer there with the
acreage we’ve got and the activity, to make sure it’s maintained? And these are the type
of things I wanted to throw out to these other guys here in terms of what’s happening,
you know, in that department, even though I’ve heard in some corner that y’all ought to
be just cut back anyway and it was sort of an unnecessary evil that ought to go away. I
want the city to never get in that position [inaudible] but if we can, if we can manage the
[inaudible] in some way to be able to still have the funds to keep both of those entities
there, because when it gets where it [inaudible] traffic you’re picking up and people
moving in with families and of that being the only central place to walk and do within
Recreation, and ironically we’ve got at least [inaudible] Catholic Services [inaudible]
bails us out and helps us in that area, is the small park that’s there in back of [inaudible]
of which [inaudible] has never closed its doors. It’s open, even though it’s private, but
people utilized it and walk to it. And that’s the only thing, Mr. Chairman, I’m trying to
get out of where we’re [inaudible] some of this stuff to do [inaudible] Jim, if I cast that
type of vote I just, quite frankly, need to know the impact it’s going to have before I start
getting calls.
Mr. Wall: There are two things I want to be sure the Commission is aware of.
One on the budget proposal that Commissioner Shepard addressed. The DARE Program
that’s down at the bottom, where it says shift the DARE Program to the Richmond
County Board of Education or eliminate. We currently, we collect a surcharge on fines
and the amount that we collect is the $324,000. We have to demonstrate that we use that
for substance abuse and right now the DARE Program is what we point to to show
compliance. And we would have to use the surcharge money for substance abuse
programs and so we cannot simply eliminate the DARE Program without putting
something else in place to demonstrate compliance with spending that surcharge money
[inaudible] substance abuse. Now I’m not sure if there is another program we could point
to, but I’m not aware of it. The second thing that I’d like to point out to the Commission
to consider is I understand the budget, basically you’re substituting the museum, funding
both the Lucy Laney Museum and the other museum, shifting that to the General Fund,
away from the 1% hotel/motel tax. And insofar as the bid fees, it would seem to me that
14
that is something that could be paid for by the CVB, if you want to make that an
obligation to them to put money in their budget for any bid fees to recruit with.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Kolb, you had a comment?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I passed out to you the
listing, the current listing of the vacant positions that the 68 positions are based on. At
your last Commission meeting, you asked us to actually look at the impact of eliminating
those positions or at least placing a freeze on them [inaudible] may have. Many of the
departments responded to that, which is the second sheet. Just an example on the
administration portfolio some of those would have. I’d like to ask in a couple of seconds
Mr. Hornsby to come up and go through the administration portfolio’s impact, but rest
assured that there are other similar impacts that you will note from the vacancies that are
on the list that would be impacted. There are vacancies in the cemeteries, in the
Marshal’s office, etc. Also, in terms of cutting the reclass savings and the pay for
performance, to actually reduce that to zero, and I’d like also like to point out that much
of the 34 unfilled positions, the $1 million, is probably taken into consideration when we
look at the lapsed salaries that we have already budgeted in the budget, and it may or may
not have an impact of that magnitude on the budget. You have to cut a little bit deeper in
order to come up with the $1 million. I’m not sure of the wisdom of cutting the reclasses
to zero and also the pay for performance to zero because of the impact potentially it could
have on the morale and productivity of the organization. The museums, we did have
those funded out of hotel/motel tax and I do believe each year that that tax increases that
even [inaudible] the amount, there is some growth potential for the CVB. I’d like Mr.
Hornsby to talk further and possibly state the – Fred Russell could talk about some of the
impact there.
Mr. Cheek: Before Mr. Hornsby begins, Commissioner Kuhlke will you defer, or
will you –
Mr. Kuhlke: I just wanted to, if I looked at this correctly and I’d like to ask the
Finance Chairman, but the $324,000 or the EEO that Commissioner Mays brought up,
that has no impact whatsoever on the budget; is that correct?
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. And if the, with the consent of the Commission,
you see there is no impact, I would eliminate those two suggestions. They were a zero
budgetary impact, but I was trying to allow the Sheriff to work within the confines of his
allocation, and I was trying to answer without having to budget more money the
perceived problem that there is no neutral agency to determine grievances in the EEO
area, so there are, there are no economies to be realized by either of those two features of
this proposal, so with the consent of the Commission we could delete both of them.
Mr. Cheek: As an administrative housekeeping item, I’d like to thank the board
for allowing me the honor of serving as Chair, and I’m going to go ahead and pass the
gavel to our Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioner Colclough.
15
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, thank you. At your request, we went back [inaudible]
portfolios [inaudible] as to – if you take those unfilled positions at this time, if you take
those and you can freeze them for half a year, [inaudible] the cost to your – what cost
savings we would realize. Almost without a doubt, and you have the information in front
of you, almost without a doubt each department director came back and indicated that it
would hamper their attempts to accomplish their mission. Some of them made some
very, very strong cases that, to the effect that they just didn’t feel right trying to work
with it, although they did give us the numbers. Now my portfolio probably had less, a
smaller number of openings or vacancies. In fact, we only had 10 in the portfolio and
one of them was a part-time vacancy. But in those, and you’ve got the breakdowns in
front of you, we were talking of half of a year, if we were to suspend the, the hiring for
half a year. In other words, we would be talking of about $344,000. Again, this is one of
the smaller groups. But without a doubt, I don’t think I can emphasize too much, without
a doubt every department director we queried as to how is it going to affect your
operation? Okay, we cut dollars, but how is it going to affect your operations? They said
without a doubt it would have all kind of problems trying to accomplish, they thought,
the tasks at hand, and even went so far as in tax assessment, he started off as he did with
you all indicating how he wanted to generate, that he was a revenue generating
department, and to affect him that much, to cut and freeze those positions that he had,
that he thought that it would be terrible – I put it blank – and I think I agree with him.
Are there any questions? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Well, you know, Mr. Hornsby, and I appreciate the
words that you’ve spoken in behalf of your departments, but I’ve been here in my fourth
season, I can’t see that anybody has failed to advocate an increase in their responsibilities
or how undesirable cuts would be. But that is just the unpleasant reality of the situation.
This is an austerity time, and you know, when we talk about doing any kind of cutting,
we talk about laying off of people. But you do have vacancies in the organization within
your portfolio now, do you not, Mr. Hornsby? I’m sorry, I know you’re talking to
counsel. My question to you was you do have vacancies in your portfolio within those
departments and you are rendering those services this very day, are you not?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, we are rendering services.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Now you can explain your answer. That’s what we
always say in court. But you are rendering services with vacancies in your organization,
are you not?
Mr. Hornsby: In a – if you want a yes or no, yes, we are rendering services. We
are rendering services, not [inaudible] services.
Mr. Shepard: But you have a certain level of services you are delivering today
within your portfolio with vacant positions in that structure, are you not?
16
Mr. Hornsby: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: And what I’m trying to impress upon the administration, from you,
George, and nothing person about this, all the way through the department heads is we
have got to adopt an austerity budget this year. Period. Now if somebody else wants to
sit down and figure up all the spreadsheet numbers again, I’m happy to hear it. But I
mean just to have testimonies about how good the services are, I know all the services are
good. That’s not the issue. The issue is how do we avoid a tax increase this year, how do
we put together an austerity budget in Augusta’s government – are we are going to do
what Shirley Franklin did in Atlanta and that’s cut 1,000 positions? I hope not. I don’t
want to lay off anybody. And that’s what – what’s in it for the employees is no layoffs.
But until you’re ready to come out with a spreadsheet, I just think that we don’t really
need testimonials about—because I know that we know they’re doing a good job. I know
we’re asking them to sacrifice more. But I mean I think that we’ve got to realize we
passed a large tax increase last year, and we’ve simply got to live within our means one
way or the other, and this budget includes some money that we could later come back and
address the critical skills positions and if we will advocate additional funding from other
non-tax revenue sources, for Indigent Care, for example, we can come back and restore
some of these things, but right now I think it’s incumbent on us to pass a budget pretty
much as I have outlined and then come back to address the critical skills positions and to
address any additional revenues we might realize from non-tax sources, which I’m
talking about fees for service, contractor, probation contractor fee, the surcharges in the
courts. That’s all good and that will reduce the budgetary pressure. Additionally, I’ve
left the UDAG over at Housing & Neighborhood Development so that some of the
programs there can likewise be addressed out of that pot of money. But I just think that
we’ve got to make some really hard decisions and you’ve got to, you’ve got to accept the
reality that we just can’t add, add, add to our programs in this economy. I mean we are
going against the grain of the economy. I don’t like the economy, but we’ve got to live
with it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with my Finance Chairman in terms of
where the bottom line is and have no difference with it. The only reason, and I think that
also like court testimony is good, because if every witness is silent then we won’t know
what’s on anybody’s mind and trying to find the truth or guilt is where I’m trying to go
with it. Truth or guilt lies in the level of service that you do deal with. Some people may
be happy in not knowing [inaudible]. I fully agree with where your bottom line is, but I
have not heard and the only reason I think, the only thing I’ve been told since elementary
school, kindergarten, if you want to know the answer to a question, you ask it. You can’t
assume what the answer is. When you start assuming, there are certain things that take
place in a budget, then you’ve got to know the workings of the details of being there. Do
I want to increase or add anything? No. What I’m talking about doesn’t increase or add
anything. What I would like [inaudible] if there are negative impacts on service levels of
what we’ve done in just this past year, and I think you’ve done a good job in terms of
saying we can’t get into new programs that are [inaudible] but there are some in there that
17
I have not heard it spoken in public and the only thing I’m saying is in reality, I mean
I’ve been here for workshops on web sites, I’ve been here for workshops on a thousand
different things, and we’re getting to [inaudible] and I supported your ordinance on it. In
fact, my [inaudible] it is, but I just think to a point that when Mr. Hornsby mentioned
about what’s in his portfolio, we got a little bit off from the standpoint, you know, no
offense to Mr. Kolb’s assistants [inaudible] but to a point if something doesn’t happen in
the city, something doesn’t get delivered, there are no functions – I’m here today as one
of those Commissioner some may say has no place in the budget. I got a problem.
You’re right. I’m concerned about where we raise taxes there, too. I got a problem when
a person buys a new home in my area, that’s put their life savings in it, and they still got
debris sitting out there from – it’s now November, it’s been there since September. You
know, if there’s a problem with, with, with people we paying, contractor or on staff, to
get services delivered in a proper manner to those taxpayers, then I think those are the
things I’m seeking to get an answer to. If that’s too much to ask the Commission to deal
with, then I don’t have a problem with cutting my dialog short, and in fact cutting it out
all together, when it gets to be hampered if folk appear and I let y’all deal with that. I’ll
go ahead and leave and get back where I was on the street hustling folk to the polls and
I’ll just resume what I was doing there. But I think I do have a right as an elected official
to ask what is going to be the outcome function of these numbers that we are putting
together. Now we, we, we’ve studied a lot out here. We are going to have other
workshops that deal with other stuff. All of a sudden we’ve got this [inaudible] that we
got down into this [inaudible] one day. And I was up there, I was up there at Julian
Smith. I was disappointed in the way that went, I made my comments public in terms of
the way this whole thing has obviously been put together. The fact, Steve, from Willie to
Steve, I just don’t believe [inaudible] if you were to decide to retire tomorrow,
[inaudible] put together last week than some of the stuff [inaudible] and not clearly
defined about what departments are going to do and what those functions are going to be.
And if there are shortcomings, they need to be brought out in public. That’s why you
have a process. Recreation, we’re fixing to leave it. [inaudible] few things in there
[inaudible] get done [inaudible] I got to represent, nobody else has them in their district.
Maybe they are just in mine. But I got two of them sitting [inaudible] Recreation
[inaudible]. [inaudible] Commissioner Williams’ problem and Commissioner Beard’s
problem that’s over there. Both of them I got that are there now. So we may correct it
later on, but those unused, I mean unfilled positions that we restore, I’m just trying to get
us into a tone that if I can get that level of commitment to where you have a basic gap in
services if it exists, that we will at least return to deal with it. That’s the only thing that
I’m saying, and silence will not get you an answer on anything. You’ve got to talk about
it and at some point some things have to be debated. In a friendly way, yes, but I don’t
think [inaudible] we walk away from this is going to necessarily do it. I do think this,
and I’ll shut up, Mr. Chairman, that I think we [inaudible] and we’ve given [inaudible]
we’re not going to raise taxes, folk are not going to be laid off, they got to work within
their numbers, but what I don’t want to hear is the fact the numbers don’t match what
their services are, then what do they plan to do with the numbers within their
departments? And again, I refer back to the example yesterday in Administrative
Services that relates to Engineering Services. Are there any more two-on-two
supervisors that we found out there that we could eliminate three positions? If there are, I
18
think Steve probably could have found a little bit more [inaudible] cause there might be
some of those out there. But departments [inaudible] to a point sitting here next to one of
the most effective department heads we ever had, one of the best ways [inaudible] was
you gave folk money and then they told you what they could do with the money cause
they didn’t know they had any more. But when you give them money, direction, tell
them everything to do with it, and then maybe [inaudible] coming out of these different
modern day portfolios, I don’t hear the folk who going perform it, then it gets to be a
little bit [inaudible], so that’s kind of where I am on it. And I, I’m going to leave y’all
here cause I see it’s going to be an either/or situation and as we review these in the
coming year, with the [inaudible] Delegation that will be down to [inaudible] you
gentlemen, and some of them I will probably bring or solicit, then we’ll discuss it at that
time. I’m going on back out here and do some more of the people’s business, too. I’m
going to leave y’all with this.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. [inaudible] Mr. Mays. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would hope that Commissioner Mays would stay just a little bit
longer because I think we need to be here for a little bit longer for this. Just a quick
comment. I think it’s good to hear from the department heads. I think it’s good to hear
from them and I’m going to make this short because if we are going to hear from them,
then we really need to move on. Because if Recreation hadn’t mentioned what they did a
meeting ago, I would not have known that Sand Hills would be, would not be able to
open, and I think that he’s come up with some alternatives there that he can work with.
We can see that. Mr. Hornsby got up there and he’s saying something, but you ought to
come up with some alternates there. You know if people can’t do their job, you know we
have to think about pay raises also that are involved in there. So if we want all these
people to do this work, then we ought to think about maybe the raises and the
reclassifications be held up and some funds can be drawn from that. And I think once we
are hearing this, then we can get some idea of where we want to go.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. We are currently in my fulltime job experiencing a
situation of where 20 people went out the gate this week, another 300 or so next year.
Consistently throughout the last five years, when we’ve seen it go from 28,000 to 13,000
people. The jobs didn’t go away and the functions did not go undone. What has
happened is those responsibilities have been shifted to other personnel and now you’ve
got essentially people doing the work that four people used to do, and the work is still
getting done. There is, and I say that to say we can tighten our belts and we can continue
to do a lot of things with the same number or less. We’re not seeing – the reclassification
that’s ongoing at the site right now is that we’re reclassifying and people are losing
wages in some areas, while still being expected to perform in the same functions as
before. This is, this is the economy. This is the way things are within government, not
just here but across the DOE complex and across the country in industry and trade.
We’ve got to look at this thing, and the proposal today is a very sound proposal. As was
mentioned earlier, we can make amendments. If we continue to pursue our Legislative
19
Delegation, we can perhaps reprogram some of those monies if we get reimbursed from
the State to some of these needed areas. I have very deep concerns about Recreation and
Public Works and some of our other departments, the impact this will have on public
service and our ability to perform our work in a timely fashion. There are things we can
continue to do if we don’t reclassify, go with the raises for reclassification. We can
follow through with the administrative side of reclassification. That will help us create
the career ladder that will free our people to do more with the same amount, and I hope
that doesn’t get lost and written off until we decide to pass the reclassifications. We can
feather it in over time. But I’ll say this, and it was said earlier by our Chairman of
Finance, this is a starting point. Throughout the year, we expect our Department Heads to
go through and look for those supervisors supervising two people, transfer some of those
responsibilities, and create, take that position and use it for, in an area of need perhaps
like Ms. Smith was able to do. There are tremendous options. But what’s being
presented to us today is an amendable thing that can be adjusted. Funds can be
reprogrammed as needed throughout the year. These are some things that we need to
look at seriously. We have an opportunity to pass a budget today or not pass it. One
thing is clear, though. It seems we could do a better job communicating one with another
on these recommendations before they come to the floor, perhaps we would not have
extended floor fights over what’s cut and what’s not. The bottom line is there’s going to
be cuts, there has to be cuts.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to apologize to the Commission.
I am going to have to be leaving right now to make a presentation for my job. I would
like the opportunity to vote on the budget and I’m just wondering if we could possibly
take a vote on the motion that’s on the floor. If it fails, then I’m sure we’ll continue on,
probably y’all today and probably another day. If it passes, we’ve passed a budget and
I’m just wondering if we could call the question at this time and vote on the motion that’s
on the floor and see where we’re at.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, you want to yield to taking a vote?
Mr. Williams: Say it again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Would you want to hold off and take a vote?
Mr. Williams: No, sir, I had my hand up and I want to be recognized before we
go any further, before we take any vote or anything else. I understand my Commissioner
need to leave, but – and he’s been patient. I was going to yield to him anyway, but I still,
before we go any further, I still have a couple of comments.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I won’t try to be long, make it short. But first of all, Tom got my
attention when he talked about Savannah Place and we been fighting to try to get a
20
fulltime person in there. We have not been able to do that for quite some time and to
change that, that really got my attention. But what Commissioner Mays mentioned about
the two people supervising two people, there’s a lot of things in this government that we
don’t pay attention to. We ask those people who are being paid to, to know where your
people are and what your people are doing, and I don’t expect for each person to follow
that individual person around and find out what that person’s doing. We have been
really, really lax when it comes to accountability as far as getting trash moved or getting
anything done. People do, and I said this from the very first month until this day, people
in this government do what they wanna, when they wanna, if they wanna. And that’s
from the top all the way to the bottom. I mean from the very top to the very bottom. And
we are not holding people accountable there. We are wasting taxpayers’ money every
day. Now that shoe don’t fit everybody. If it don’t fit you, don’t try it on. But that shoe
do fit a lot of people. And we sit here and act like we don’t know what’s going on. We
act like we don’t know where, where the waste is. We got folks driving cars and trucks
on weekends and parking them and using up gas and, and, and that’s because it’s
taxpayers’ money it ought to be okay. When I looked down and I saw at the very bottom
traffic engineers I think we got 30 people in that position, when the traffic engineer
people drive their trucks back and forth home on weekends in case there is a stop sign
that’s knocked down and the police department got to call them, [inaudible] stay there
until somebody get there. They got to have an emergency vehicle to be able to leave.
That just one of the things that came to my mind. I have no pick on traffic engineers.
But that just one. There are a lot of cases where people are riding around or doing
nothing, sitting parked all day long, and if y’all want to see them, come go with me and
I’ll show them to you. They be at the same spot every day. But, but here we are talking
about raising taxes. If we going raise taxes, I be in agreement with what we did
Homeland Security, we did all that at one time. Not coming back now and raising taxes.
I don’t think we are being wise, I don’t think we are cutting where we need to be cutting
at. I think we look at the little man rather than the man who is making the money and
ain’t doing the work. That, those are the issues we have not said one thing about, as if
that don’t [inaudible]. Well, if you going cut, look like you cut the large piece of cake
first, rather than the small piece of cake. You still keep cutting the small piece of cake.
It’s done got down to crumbs. Those people are the ones that suffer. Those are the
people that keeping this government together. And, and, and, and you’re talking about
we can always come back, Steve. I, I, I, I, I commend you, too, you did a good job. But
we can come back and make some amendments and change some things [inaudible] cut
this then some more and come back and amend it [inaudible]. Y’all said there is some
money there. We can [inaudible]. Take the knife there and put it on some more. If it’s
so pleasing to do to go on and get this passed. I’m not voting for it. I’m not supporting it.
I’m not going to sit here and be a part of this, saying well, we can always come back. If
we can come back, gentlemen, we can come back in [inaudible] for those people that’s
coming, those people on this list, the ones that been giving all the time. 20 and 30 years.
[inaudible] put the knife on them. So if we going to do anything, let’s do what’s right.
Let’s do what’s fair. Let’s make it fair for everybody. Let’s take the same knife to cut
the same cake for the same folks. And we have not done that. I’m through. That’s all I
got to say. We can take a vote if you want to, but we are not being accountable as people
elected us to do, for the people of Augusta Richmond County. We sit and act like we
21
don’t know what’s going on. We act like we don’t know who ain’t doing what, and we
still paying folks. And it upsets me.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Bonner, do we have a motion on the floor?
The Clerk: We do.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And a second? Could you read the motion, please?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion on the floor is to approve the budget as amended
by Commissioner Shepard, his version 2, with deletion of the DARE Program and the
shifting of the EEO position to Human Relations Commission.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we have a motion and second on the floor. Any
further discussion?
Mr. Boyles: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] Mr. Bridges called the question.
Mr. Boyles: A point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir.
Mr. Boyles: Did you include the DARE Program?
The Clerk: No, sir, we deleted that.
Mr. Boyles: Deleted, right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Deleted the DARE and the EEO officer’s position to the
Human Relations Commission.
Mr. Williams: Clarification, Mr. Chairman. I think our Attorney spoke and said
that it was not legal to do.
The Clerk: We deleted it.
Mr. Wall: Deleted it.
Mr. Williams: Oh, okay. I’m not in support anyway but I just wanted to make
sure.
Mr. Boyles: [inaudible], I didn’t hear when she said that.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, that what throw me off, too, Tommy. [inaudible] anyway.
22
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentlemen, we have a motion and second on the
floor.
Mr. Mays: Point of clarification, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Economic Development department, what did we do down
in [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: PR [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: What I’m saying is we eliminated a department, a person there to do
that?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Administrator, can you answer the question?
Mr. Mays: My question, I can accept we eliminate the department but what the
PR person going to promote?
Mr. Shepard: No, we eliminate – if I could speak to that, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right.
Mr. Shepard: The idea there is not to create a department but to enhance the
responsibilities of one person within the Administrator’s office, and our suggestion is that
it be an expansion of the present duties of the PR person. There is some money there for
it, basically $75,000 to deal with that function in the Administrator’s office.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: As opposed to funding the department, that’s correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion, please signify
by voting.
(Vote on budget deleting the elimination of DARE program and elimination of shift of
EEO position)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 5-3-1.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
23
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further business?
Mr. Kuhlke: Move we adjourn.
The Clerk: We have some other items.
Mr. Kuhlke: What?
The Clerk: We have some other items. You want to recess?
Mr. Kuhlke: Let’s do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion to recess.
Mr. Beard: Don’t we have –
rd
The Clerk: No. We can put it on the December 3 agenda.
rd
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So we can recess until December 3?
Mr. Wall: Recess this meeting.
Mr. Beard: I know what you’re saying. I have something else besides – there’s
not a motion to recess, is it?
The Clerk: No, sir.
Mr. Beard:
I was just wondering if we had a little more time, and I know we all
I move we recess.
need to go. So we do need to recess. Until when? Monday.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Recess until Monday.
Mr. Beard: We need some time, I think, to go over this, so probably Monday.
What is the date of Monday? Monday looks good. Be fine with most people?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re recessed until Monday at –
Mr. Cheek: Late in the day, please.
Mr. Shepard: 4 o’clock. 3 o’clock.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Monday at 3 o’clock..
[MEETING RECESSED UNTIL DECEMBER 2 AT 3:00 P.M.]
24
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the continuation of the November 19 Regular Meeting of
Augusta Richmond County Commission held on November 26, 2002.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
25