Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-02-2002 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER (Continued from November 19 and 26, 2002 Meetings) December 2, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission reconvened at 3:00 p.m., Monday, December 2, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Hankerson, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. 50. Motion to approve adoption of Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Resolution. November 27, 2002 Augusta Richmond County 2003 Budget Proposal - from Commissioner Lee Beard Assumptions: No property tax increase Use of Fund Balance appropriation (subject to actual revenue/expenditure performance) not to exceed $1,343,890 Commissioner Adjustment Commissioner Lee Steve Shepard’s Beard’s Proposal Proposal Revenues General Fund & $100,024,170 $100,024,170 Law Enforcement Less: New (903,320) (903,320) Programs & Personnel Reduce Fund (356,110) (356,110) Balance Add: Mobile Home 38,000 38,000 Appraisal Civil Court Eviction 14,310 14,310 Total Revenue 98,817,050 98,817,050 Expenditures: General Fund & 100,024,170 100,024,170 Law Enforcement Less New Programs (903,320) (903,320) & Personnel Reclass Savings - (232,000) (232,000) 1 Commissioner Adjustment Commissioner Lee Steve Shepard’s Beard’s Proposal Proposal 1/3 per year Pay for Performance (378,000) (378,000) 03 Delete Economic (150,000) (150,000) Dev. Department Eliminate 68 (2,108,000) (2,108,000) Unfilled Position @ 31,000.00 Add: Indigent 346,000 346,000 Defense Public Relations 50,000 50,000 Training 75,000 75,000 Continuation of 162,000 162,000 Work Crews Prison Medical 77,200 77,200 Increase Fund Library 150,000 150,000 Lucy Laney 75,000 75,000 150,000 Museum Fund Museum 300,000 300,000 Increase 250,000 (113,000) 137,000 Contingency Fund PR Position 25,000 25,000 for Eco. Dev. Fund 34 Unfilled 1,054,000 1,054,000 Positions Add Purchasing - 38,000 Capital Proj. Mgr. Total $98,817,050 $98,817.050 Commissioner Lee Beard’s Proposal: 1. The $232,000 is the total amount of reclassifications - no savings available. 2. Will reduce the contingency amount by $113,000 funding the projects listed below. 3. Will fund Lucy Laney Museum an additional $75,000. 4. Will add to the Purchasing Budget $38,000 for the Capital Projects Manager. Mr. Mayor: We will reconvene the Commission meeting to continue our discussion and hopefully today have adoption of a budget for 2003. I think all of us have been presented with three different budget proposals. We have one from Mr. Shepard and Mr. Kuhlke, one from Mr. Beard, and one from Mr. Kolb. Would anybody like to open the discussion? Mr. Kuhlke? 2 th Mr. Kuhlke: I’ve got -- one is dated December 2 and one is the 27 of November. Which one is Mr. Kolb’s? November? The Clerk: It’s on the first page at the top, Mr. Kolb’s. Mr. Shepard: December 2. Mr. Kuhlke: Oh, okay, I’ve got it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to comment if we do anything with the reclassification plan today, I’d just like to express my concerns that we do implement the administrative side of that, whether we go with any salary increases or not, with the career ladders and training and so forth that’s incorporated as part of that reclassification plan. That is a structure that is consistent with what is being done in many of the Fortune 500 companies. And successful industry across the globe. And something that we should follow through with, whether we do any kind of salary adjustments or not. And I also wanted to speak to the issue of the seed money for tournaments that was mentioned the other day in our session. Recreation. Those cuts. That indeed if those cuts do occur we will aggressively approach the Convention & Visitors Bureau for restoration of those funds through a grant to make sure we have, we equip our people with funding, enough to go out and get those tournaments. They bring hundreds of people to this city year round, plus national and regional tournaments that other cities envy. And I really do, from this Commissioner’s perspective, consider those two two very important items that we at least consider today in our deliberation. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Kolb, would you like to go through your revised proposal here for us? Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you have dated December 2 entitled 2003 Budget Proposal from Administrator. I took, basically I went from Steve’s, Steve Shepard’s proposal that he submitted, which is the first column, then the second column is adjustments, and then my proposal. We tracked, and I’ll just talk about adjustments. Mr. Shepard had about $1.4 million used from fund balance. Our original recommendation was $1.7 million use of fund balance, so I increased that by $356,000. All other revenues remain the same and including the revenue for the new programs and personnel reductions. On the expenditure side, I’ve restored the increases for the reclass. We also restored the pay for performance for ’03 and the rationale behind that is if we are going to implement some of the programs that we want to see accomplished in the organization, we really need to show the employees that we are also willing to provide incentives and to cut it out of the budget, I think, sends the wrong message in accomplishing that particular goal. To fund all of -- what we want to do for personnel has been stated and I made that mistake, but the true cost for any personnel changes, reclasses, including the pay for performance, is approximately $640,000. So it’s not $1 million as has been reported before, but it’s significantly less. I 3 am recommending that we add that back into the budget for that purpose. I’m continuing to deleted the Economic Development Department, eliminate 68 unfilled positions, and they would not be an elimination but we would manage any positions that were targeted, any vacancies that may be targeted, we would manage to that amount of money. We would not recommend that you actually delete them from the budget, but that we try and achieve those dollar amounts either through freezing those positions for a period of time or some other method to make up those dollars. The next change, significant change, goes down to the museums. And I am recommending that you not place those in the general fund but to continue to fund those out of the hotel/motel tax. Provided on what happens with our proposal for the new sports arena, whether or not it’s approved next year, I will be recommending to the Commission probably later on this week that you approach the State Legislature and request that they amend the law that divides up and provides funding out of the hotel/motel tax, specifically 50% to the Civic Center, and that that law be changed. And that then would allow the Commission to make the determination as to how much money should go for the current Civic Center operation and also for other purposes. That could potentially, depending on the Commission’s deliberation and your final decision, provide more permanent source of funding for tourist-related, convention-related activities, as well as to help subsidize the Coliseum. Now with respect to the debt, if we go to a SPLOST vote sometime next year, one of the provisions is that the debt would be paid off with the approval of a new sports arena, so therefore the elimination of the debt to the Coliseum would also be eliminated, which again eliminates the need for using the hotel/motel tax to reduce that debt. I am also recommending that in the new programs, included in new programs and personnel, the recreational programs for McBean, Savannah Place and also for Sand Hills, and I’m recommending that those be restored to the budget in the amount of $65,000. Also, Commissioner Cheek just mentioned the tournament fees. I would still recommend that they be paid for out of the hotel/motel tax, out of CVB, since that is a legitimate purpose. I have prepared somewhat of an analysis, if the Commission is interested in looking at the hotel/motel tax history, and our projections for this year, and we can probably give you an estimate of what we think will happen in 2003. The net result of those changes was $56,000 to the good in terms of the budget revisions. I would propose that that be added to your contingency, which would bring your contingency to $806,000 for next fiscal year. I believe that it significantly accomplishes the goals that the Commission set out to achieve and provides a good balance for a good budget for 2003. Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions for Mr. Kolb? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: George, what does this do with the fund balance now? We are still borrowing or pulling $1.7 million out of fund balance in your new proposal. Mr. Kolb: My proposal, yes, you would appropriate as you have in prior fiscal years. Mr. Bridges: I see it. 4 Mr. Kolb: Just to balance the budget, $1.7 million. And that would go into your contingency. So you’d only be relying on $900,000 for maintaining your programs, to move forward. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, what, what percentage of these jobs, the elimination of 68 jobs? What percentage of that is part time employment? Mr. Kolb: None. Mr. Williams: All full time people? Mr. Kolb: That’s right. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] hotel/motel tax [inaudible]? Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Kolb has a handout for us. Mr. Kolb: I have a handout, but quickly I can tell you. In 2000, you collected about $2.8 million. In 2001, you collected in excess of $2.8 million. In 2002, year to date through the end of October, this does not include November, you’ve collected about $2.4 million. And you’ll see the -- and once you’ve passed it out, you’ll see how was distributed to the various agencies. Mr. Boyles: [inaudible] Is there enough in there that we could cover what Commissioner Cheek and others may have thought about finding a way for the seed money that they use for softball, baseball, or boxing or whatever else they want? Mr. Kolb: I can’t answer that. I can only give you what historically has happened in the past. That is usually an annual decision that is made by this council through ordinance, so it’s something that you could debate at some given point in the future. What I wanted to do is to show you or to demonstrate that your sales, hotel/motel tax collections are increasing, as well as the 1% excise tax on alcohol, and that there potentially could be some additional revenues that would be available to you. In addition, it’s something that you are going to have to discuss anyway if you’re going to talk to your local Delegation, State Delegation about changing the law, in terms of the formula for funding the Coliseum, as well as the CVB. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, my only comments with Mr. Kolb’s proposal is that I think we were in hopes that we could reduce the need to go into fund balance to the tune of $1.7 million, and so I have a problem with that. My problem with, with the pay 5 for performance part of it is not that I don’t think that’s a good idea. My problem is that I don’t think we are in a position to really structure what we want to do and be able to really evaluate and train department heads and so forth to really institute that. And my comment in regards to the museums is that I agree with what Mr. Kolb is saying. The problem is that that is not going to happen overnight, and I think there needs to be some degree of comfort on the part of museums that even though it’s not where it ought to be, it’s the only place that we can go at this point to, to fund those two institutions. I know that we have the alternative to go back to CVB, but whether the Commission has the will to pass a resolution to do that on an annual basis and reduce the amount of money that they can provide for organizations that attract overnight stays in this community, I don’t know where that sentiment is on the part of the community. If the were willing to do that, I have no problem in pulling it out of the general fund. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, did you want to comment and go over your proposal? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Beard: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to make a little analogy before I get into what I’m, my proposal. From everything that I’ve read recently, and I’m sure most of you have, too, that, you know, from the State level to the local level and even the national level, you now, we are in trouble as far as finances are concerned. And I think it would be prudent on our part if we looked at a budget that could go to possibly fixing the need of most of our people in government here, and not going overboard and possibly not having any reduction in the, in staff or in the level of service that we are offering our people. What I did here was really -- we’ve looked at the proposal that Commissioner Shepard had a couple of days ago and presented to us, and we’ve all go through that, and from my understanding most of this has been very prudent in what he did, and we would just like to make a couple of adjustments to his and hopefully that this body will go along with that. In doing this, we are looking at [inaudible] reclassification and pay for performance. With our economy the way it is, I don’t see how we can think at this time about reclassification and the amount of funds that will be involved in that, and pay for performance. And let me just give you a reason why I’m saying that. You know, I think it’s, we’re at that point where I believe most people should be thankful for a job that they have and that they can go to every day, and I think we ought to be thankful for that, and I can understand that some of our staff people may be a little concerned because they didn’t get a raise or they are not getting a pay for performance, but when you look across the nation and you read about the different states, how they are going in the red at this time and they are making adjustments, and we look at other cities around, even in our state, where in, what they’re doing, I think that the people would understand, our staff people would understand that it is necessary for all us to tighten our belts and to do 6 whatever is necessary to get us through this period. Because I, from what I understand, we are going to be going through a very rough period for the next year or the next year- and-a-half, and I would suggest in those programs that possibly this body come back, maybe in June, and reassess that and see how things are going. And if they’re going well, then we will look at it and maybe we can do that. But just to continuously spend and spend and spend, I don’t think we can make available at this time. So this is why we are going along with what Commissioner Shepard had recommended in that. The only other adjustment that we have was that in Recreation, we figure that if we go into the -- Mr. Beck had made some recommendations, and I think if we do that we can do a wash in that so we don’t have to bother that, and still maintain the Blythe or the McBean area, the Sand Hills area, and there are a couple more. Savannah Place areas, that we can still maintain there. And with the other adjustments that were made in mine, the Lucy Laney Museum, we’re increasing that, making an adjustment there of $75,000, which would give them $150,000. And the Augusta Museum would still maintain their $300,000. And the other would be adding, the rationale behind the Purchasing Department here is that we understand that they would have to outsource their printing, and if they could get this restored and we make an adjustment there, then that would take care of that. And Mr. Mayor, I’m going to move that that be that’s basically what we have here, and approved. Mr. Mayor: All right, is there a second to the motion from Commissioner Beard? Mr. Williams: I’ll second it, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask Mr. Beard, in talking with Public Works, in the last report that we got, to provide these work crews in every district, we had plugged in $162,000. But the actual cost to be able to do that is going to be $186,000, and I would like for that adjustment to be made , and that would provide us -- and I talked with Commissioner Hankerson and it’s on our agenda tomorrow, and we’ll have the full details of how that’s going to be implemented presented tomorrow. But since we are going through the budget process and this would take place next year, I would certainly like to see that adjusted to that figure. And my suggestion on it would be that we just -- rather than increase your contingency by -- well, let’s see, you reduced the contingency, didn’t you? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Mayor: May I suggest you do this? Instead of funding 34 unfilled positions, just fund 33. Because you’re adding a new position of capital project manager so you’re going to end up with 34 positions. That way you don’t have an increase of the net number. Mr. Kuhlke: So we really need two because the positions -- 7 Mr. Mayor: That would make up the difference, though. Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Then Bill, what we would do, if you went to 33 unfilled positions, that would reduce that number to $1,033,000? Mr. Kuhlke: About $31,000. Mr. Shepard: $31,000 off of $54,000. Mr. Kuhlke: Right. Mr. Mayor: That would more than make up the difference on [inaudible]. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: George, the capital project manager that’s being added in Purchasing, is that along the lines of what you had proposed earlier? Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] Mr. Bridges: What’s the difference in that regard? Mr. Kuhlke: What we had recommended to add [inaudible] reclassified in the budget was a quality control individual, a person who would be able to monitor for compliance any purchases that are going through on a spot-check basis, more in line just like an internal auditor. This position would be, and I don’t believe we need it, would be more or less the person who oversees contracts for capital projects going on, primarily in Public Works and Utilities. And the reason why I’m saying that is because normally we have persons within the department who are already putting contracts together, and in Utilities’ case, it’s usually [inaudible] program manager who has put those documents together and monitoring what is going on with those particular projects. Mr. Bridges: So you don’t feel the position that’s proposed here would fill the need of what Purchasing really needs? What I’m hearing you say is it’s already duplicated in the departments themselves. Mr. Kolb: Well, no, and Commissioner Beard would have to speak to that. But I, what we had recommended is that the person, a vacant position be reallocated that would also oversee the Print Shop, as well as do some quality control work within the department. And what this position, as I understand it, would be to oversee capital projects [inaudible]. 8 Mr. Beard: No, that wasn’t my intention. My intention was, I was told the Print Shop, that if we didn’t get that vacancy filled for the Print Shop that we would have to outsource most of our printed material. I think she mentioned that a couple of days ago. Now we may have the wrong title here, but I explained the intent of what this person was to do. Now we can, we can, we can get the title straight. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, is that an existing position? Mr. Kolb: It would be a reclassification of an existing position that is now vacant. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kolb: So actually, it’s already -- well, it was an unfilled position. Mr. Mayor: It’s a reclassification and -- Mr. Kolb: An existing vacancy. But there is, there was a request for an additional capital projects manager, and I did not recommend that. Mr. Mayor: Was that in the same department? Mr. Kolb: Yes, it was. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] confused. [inaudible] if I knew [inaudible] name of it, and just [inaudible] we know what the position entails, for the person to do. Is this dealing -- is this the old print shop job? Mr. Beard: This was my understanding of it. That I understood, and I think George mentioned this a couple of meetings ago, that we were doing some cutting there. And this would restore that person so that the print shop could still be operative and not having to outsource this. And we may have to get some clarification on the, the title of this. And it was my understanding, that I thought this was the person who was doing that. I may be off on that. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor [inaudible] in terms of if that was the case, and I know we went through this last year [inaudible], and if that was [inaudible] that’s what it is, then that would give us a better clarity on it [inaudible] something else. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb could maybe give us some clarity here. Mr. Kolb: There were two proposals out of Purchasing with respect to personnel. One we considered to be a new program, a new request for personnel. And that was the capital projects manager. That was one. There was an existing vacancy within the 9 Purchasing Department that they asked to be reclassed. And I think that you and I are probably talking about the same position. And I think that you solved the problem by reducing unfilled vacancies from 34 to 33. I think that’s the same thing that you are saying. Those are two different positions. One is a reclass of an existing position, one, the capital projects manager, was a new position. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m not sure we can get into budget time specifying individual positions to add back. I think we’ve done that in refunding half of what the 68 positions that we eliminated, by funding half that. And I that recommendation really probably should come back through the Administrator, even if it’s coming from department heads it needs to come back to us through the Administrator. We could really string this thing out if we start trying to find all 34 positions in the budget, you know, for the money we’ve added. I don’t think we want to do that, so I’m not sure that it’s, that it behooves us to pick individual positions that we want to add back. I think we’ve done that by funding half the positions and we need the Administrator to bring back his recommendations to us at a later date. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m a little concerned about the Print Shop as a whole, and we know, we found out that the Print Shop touched from the bottom of this building to the top of this building, of getting paperwork and of getting work done. And if we have to outsource that, regardless of who is doing it, I’m more concerned about whether we including the Print Shop, whether we going to be covered so we would not have to outsource it, and it’s going to cost us more time, more money, and more people I think when we outsource that kind of thing. So I’m more worried about the Print Shop, making sure that it is covered and it will be well thought of and not forgotten about in the process, Mr. Mayor. That’s the point I wanted to bring out. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Williams: Mr. Beard’s proposal is including the Print Shop, regardless of who do it. We trying to get this budget and I don’t want to go to another page. I want to stay right here. So if we can get that done, then that’s [inaudible]. Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: I’d just like some clarification, because I’ve got a feeling this question is going to come up in 2003 if this is adopted. When you say eliminate 68 unfilled positions, does that take them off the organizational chart or is it simply eliminating funding for those 68 positions so that they would continue to show on the organization chart and wouldn’t have to come back before the Commission to create the positions? 10 Mr. Kolb: Freezing the positions. Mr. Mayor: Freezing the positions. Mr. Shepard, you want to respond to that? Mr. Shepard: I thought we were just eliminating the funding, Jim. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Shepard: They would be in the chart. Is that? Mr. Wall: [inaudible], yes. Mr. Kolb: If I can ask additional question for clarification, is it also saying that we manage to that number rather than picking any [inaudible] or 33 positions? Mr. Shepard: I was eliminating them as they stood now, George. I mean that’s what I thought we would do. Mr. Kolb: However -- Mr. Shepard: They’re not there now and you’re running the organization. We eliminate the funding of those that are not there now. We know that there’s 68, 68 vacancies, for example, in the general fund. Mr. Kolb: And that’s my question. And you’ve restored 34 of them in your proposal. So are you saying that we can manage to -- in order words, all during the year we keep 34 positions vacant regardless of what they are; are you going to specify which positions you want frozen? Mr. Shepard: Well, for now, eliminate the funding of those that are vacant and then restore in a lump sum that you can manage, because I think we’ve got some issues to be addressed about skill positions and other that we are going to have to contend with, George. So that’s why I would freeze -- I don’t know if freeze is the right word, I don’t know, Jim, but to eliminate the 68 right now would be, that would be my thought, that the organization is functioning without them now and we eliminate their funding, leave them on the chart. Then you have this lump sum that we can deal with later in the year as to particular positions. Mr. Kolb: Okay, I just need clarification. For example, on that list is traffic engineer, assistant traffic engineer, preconstruction engineer. Are we leave those unfilled in this process? Are you saying if, as long as we keep 34 positions and the dollar amounts associated with those positions constant, we can rotate in and out? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, you want to respond to that? 11 Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, I think, Mr. Kolb, what both Mr. Beard and Steve are saying is that you’ve got a pot of money there. You are going to have to come back to us or either through the Department Heads on critical positions that you need to fill, and we’re not going to tell you what those positions are. You’ve got to tell us. Mr. Shepard: That’s the word I was looking for. A pot of money. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I’m going to yield to Mr. Mays and then I’ll come back in. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Kuhlke pretty much said where I was going. I think it might be clearer for the Administrator that really that 34 would work if everybody made the same amount of money and made $31,000. But everybody doesn’t make $31,000. So really, 34 in essence to a certain extent means nothing. What means something is the $1,054,000. That’s all that really matters. Because in some cases, like you say, traffic engineering, you may need $70,000 to get that one. That’s going to cover two of those $31,000 positions, plus an additional amount thereof. So 34, if it helps any, for all intents and purposes, goes out the window. And you’re dealing with [inaudible], and that was the point I was trying to make the other day, when I was accused of just talking. When you start dealing with even numbers or positions, when everybody is not making the same dollar amount, then you can’t say you’ve got 34 positions or 68 positions. You say you’ve got X number millions of dollars to spend, but you can’t say that equates to jobs when you’re talking about $100 million budget. [inaudible] amount and it’s as close to voodoo economics as you can get when you start trying to say you’ve got X number of people that’s in there. So I’m going to go on and vote for what’s on the floor today, but [inaudible] you are not going by any numbers on there, the only thing you’re going by is the money that’s on there. And I think the necessary ones, they need to come back to us, and they still need to come back [inaudible] and I still [inaudible] committee to help you [inaudible] the you need because I think overall we are going to save money in Public Works by eliminating a lot of these $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 contracts and getting them down to some folk that’s working and get them in positions of where they can get paid and I think therefore overall you save money anyway. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I just wanted to remind the Administrator and other members of the Commission that Public Works is one of those that we have already declared that they needed, it’s almost an emergency situation which is needed and had to be worked on because of the nature of Public Works. So I think we’re going to come up with those kinds of things and where they are needed, we are going to deal with that accordingly. Mr. Mayor: We have a third proposal to consider today from Mr. Shepard, and I’d like to give him a moment to go over that and then we’ll resume the discussion. 12 Mr. Shepard: I’ll be happy to go over that. Trying to grow toward a consensus, I have a third proposal which I think is here again another variation of this budget. Again, in the revenues, counting on cutting the new programs and personnel from the day, from last week, I’m still reducing the use of fund balance. I continue to keep the mobile home appraisal and the Civil Court evictions in there. There is an indication that I had that we could expect, based on a population basis, we could expect a little more reimbursement in indigent defense. Revenue may be under-projected, but I’m somewhat uncomfortable with that. And then there is, I think we’ve already included -- correct me if I’m wrong, Mr. Beard -- that we had looked at the Recreation Department and there is a proposed additional Recreation revenue, but that would be balanced off by $65,000 additional, expenditures in Recreation for the opening of Sand Hills, McBean and Savannah Plan, but it would be balanced by other cuts inside Recreation for $35,000. I had, I had tried to temper the reclass and the line staff increases. I still deleted the Economic Development Department. I still eliminated the 68 unfilled positions, although the other figures are still pretty much the same except that the prison medical may be higher. That may be something we’ll have to work with. And I had reduced funding for the library and the Laney Walker Museum, Lucy Laney Museum rather, to get there. I also had worried about the contingency being not adequate. I’m a little bit uncomfortable with only $637,000 in the contingency account. There is $500,000 in there in Mr. Kolb’s budget, and Lee had increased it $137,000. Those are just some additional possibilities that I had played with, and I’d still include and I would hope Mr. Beard’s proposal gets enough votes that we’ll still continue to look for additional funding sources for indigent defense. That’s an off budget revenue source at this time, but we had projected in my, all of my proposals we looked toward a use of the private contractor and we look at the possible legislative surcharge for these personnel. But as I see it, the proposal I advanced last week, Mr. Beard has tweaked that in a fairly minor fashion, if I do understand that he’s accepted the increase of the funding of the work crews and have reduced the funding of unfilled positions to 33, and then I think you’ve also put in on your proposal, Mr. Beard, the Recreation Department, additional revenues, and the Recreation Department program cuts other than at Sand Hills, McBean and Savannah Place. So that was, that was some of the things I was attempting to reach for in this proposal. But really my second proposal and Mr. Beard’s proposal dated November 27 are pretty much the same except for those minor funding issues as to the project manager and the Lucy Laney Museum. I think it’s pretty much the same as what I said before with those adjustments. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Yes. Mr. Shepard: So I’m pretty much comfortable with the -- either my second or third proposal or Lee’s proposal. I think we can get that because what I said is coming out, the new programs are coming out, the tax increase remains not used, the reclass savings and the pay for performance savings are still, are still, are still there. The cuts are still there in those areas, which I think are very important. I agree with him that it’s -- the folks’ raise this year, they should regard their jobs as the raise. I, I think there was an article recently in the Atlanta paper that indicated that there were wholesale reductions in 13 actual positions in the Atlanta city government and that’s something we want to avoid. I think the Mayor may have shared that article with others of you that, for example, their Corrections Department in the city of Atlanta was having a good number of positions eliminated, really, really harsh, harsh remedies that were being applied in the City of Atlanta budget which are not present in any of these budgets if we take the savings largely from the unfilled positions, the reclassification, and the pay for performance, and not add any new programs except as targeted in the budget amendments. So Mr. Mayor, I, I’m pretty much, I think willing to support with the modifications that Mr. Kuhlke and others have made to Mr. Beard’s budget. It’s pretty much the same as where I was when we left last week. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, I want to reemphasize the administrative side of reclassification and the career ladders. What that does in essence, if you have positions where you need people that drive trucks, that need CDLs or Class A licenses for heavy equipment and so forth, what that enables us to do is take that one person, to have them trained up and allowed and certified to work on any of those different categories without adding an additional person for head count. For instance, if they were idle in their truck driver position, there is a need for a heavy equipment operator on a temporary basis, that person could rotate in an perform that work without the addition of a person in head count. That is where you get efficiency out of the same number of people within your staff by allowing that type of training and transaction to occur. And again, I don’t know if I need this as an amendment to the motion or not, but let me emphasize we hear all the time about making government efficient and more effective. The career ladder is the key to achieving that goal with the existing work force we have, especially in light of the fact that we are not going to be able to add additional personnel over and above those critical skill positions that we’ve mentioned. That is a very valuable tool. It is being used to create a highly portable cross-trained work force that makes them effective not only in the job they’re permanently assigned to, but able to rotate in on a temporary basis into other jobs with little or no retraining. And I don’t know if I need to offer this in the form of an amendment to the motion of not, but that administrative structure begin to be implemented with this budget to the point that we run , but that we into, we run into a situation where it’s going to require additional funding begin to lay that foundation for the reclassification structure that the Administrator has laid out, we get that in place for hopefully the review next June or July of the budget to see if we have funding for the reclassification. I guess, Mr. Wall, I ask you. Do I put this in the form of an amendment or is this something we can handle administratively? Mr. Wall: Yes, it would need to be a part, it would need to be amended to implement that, because the reclass has been taken out. Mr. Cheek: Okay. I guess I’ll ask the maker of the motion -- Mr. Kolb: It can only be on paper, too. 14 Mr. Cheek: Well, if we get the paper in and we get everybody prepared to make whatever moves are necessary. You know, here again, title changes, we’re going through title changes in my place of business with special reductions in salary. I think if we can go through title changes with hope of perhaps some adjustment at some point in the future, that’s something that employees will be -- I don’t know if they’d be happy with it, but it’s something that they’ll certainly understand in the short term. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek has offered an amendment to Mr. Beard’s motion to include the administrative portion of the -- what do you call that, Andy? Mr. Cheek: The reclassification. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include that? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, get some clarification now. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: What Commissioner Cheek is proposing is just to reclass and not salaries, no money involved? Mr. Mayor: No money involved. Just the administrative part. Mr. Williams: I got no problem with that. Mr. Mayor: No objection? Then the motion will stand as amended by Commissioner Cheek. Are we ready for a vote on Mr. Beard’s motion or is there any further discussion at this point? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. If the maker of the motion would accept it, the Attorney needs to recite the funds that are currently in balance and we spend our time mainly on the funding number 101 and fund 273, but there are several other funds that are all balanced, don’t require a tax increase, and I’d ask the maker of the motion, so that we pass all the budgets at one time, that he allow the Attorney to put in the necessary descriptions of those funds, that they’d begin with fund number104, the Port Authority. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you don’t think that’s going to confuse anybody now, do you? Mr. Wall: I hope not. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard: We’ve got to do those budgets as well, I know that much. 15 Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] separate motion. Go ahead. If there is some confusion, we’ll stop. Mr. Wall: These do not concern the general fund, on which the debate has been going on. But as a part of the notebook that you have been presented, it lists the other funds, including the Port Authority, the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, Local Law Enforcement Block Grants 5, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant 6, Special Revenue Funds which consist of the following: 5% Crime Victims Assistance Program, the Supplemental Juvenile Services, the Wireless [inaudible] for Cellular Fund, Emergency Telephone Response, Building Inspections Fund, Housing and Neighborhood Development, Urban Development Action Grant, Weed and Seed Federal Grant, Community Greenspace, Board of Appeals for Zoning, Urban Services District, Capital Outlay, Fire Protection Occupation Tax, Street Lights, Downtown Development Authority, Sheriff’s Capital Outlay Grant, Promotions Richmond County. Then Capital Projects Fund, which consists of the Special 1% Sales Tax Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the Urban Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax Phases 2 and 3, and then Capital Projects. Then as a part of the Debt Service Funds, the Debt Service and the Urban Debt Service each go to zero. The Enterprise Fund, which will consist of Water and Sewage, Water and Sewage Revenue and Extension, Renewal and Extension, I’m sorry. The 1996 Water and Sewer Bond Fund. 2000 Bond Series. The Water and Sewer Bond 1991 Series. The Waste Management Fund. Garbage Collection Fund. Augusta Public Transit System. Augusta Regional Airport. Daniel Field. Municipal Golf Course. Newman Tennis Center. And Riverwalk. Then Internal Service Funds, including Risk Management, Employee Health Benefits Fund, Workers Compensation Fund, Unemployment Fund, Long Term Disability Insurance, Fleet Operations and Management, the GMA Least Program. Then Trust and Agency Funds consisting of the following: 1945 Pension Fund, 1977 Pension Fund, the Urban 1949 Pension Plan, the other Urban Pension Plans which have been grouped together, and then the Trust Fund for Perpetual Care and Trust Fund for Joseph Lamar Fund and then the non-expendable Trust Funds Joseph Lamar. Mr. Mayor: So we need to incorporate those into the motion, is that correct? Mr. Wall: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to doing that? None heard, so we’ll order that incorporated into Mr. Beard’s motion. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, are we ready to vote, Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I just, I would like a clarification of really what we’re voting on. I mean Ms. Bonner can give us that. I had asked for a couple of amendments and think that the maker of the motion agreed to those. 16 The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to approve the Beard proposal, one, with reducing the unfunded, unfilled positions to 33, adding that funding to the continuation of the work crews, implementing the administrative section of the reclassification study. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. And let me clarify the work crews. That would increase from $162,000 to $186,000. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: And so it possibly would not use all that money. Mr. Mayor: Any -- Mr. Kuhlke: Can I ask the Attorney a question? Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead. Any other questions on motion or procedure? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Is this taking out the Purchasing position, too, and allowing the Administrator to bring that back to us? Mr. Mayor: It’s my understanding this position remains in, is that right, Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: That’s right. We clarified what that position is. Mr. Mayor: And that’s the Print Shop. Mr. Beard: Print Shop. Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: We have a couple of members who want to get a legal opinion here. We’ll let them do that and then we’ll proceed. Mr. Williams: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Are we ready to proceed? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, all in favor of the motion then, all in favor of the motion then please vote in the affirmative. Mr. Hankerson out. Motion carries 9-0. 17 The Clerk: Mr. Hankerson, for the record, is attending the National League of Cities Conference today. Mr. Mayor: Is there any further business to come before this body? Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: I guess it’s a question. We had on the agenda a legal meeting, and I don’t know whether the Commission wants to take that up today or tomorrow. Mr. Beard: Take it up tomorrow. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: The Mayor would like to know one thing. Are we going to have a quorum here tomorrow, because I understand a number of you are going to the National League of Cities. Could I just ask those of you who will be here tomorrow to raise your hand and let’s see if we have seven to have a meeting? We’ve got seven? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Before you do adjourn, let me just simply say thank you to the Administrator, to the Finance Department. I know they spent a lot of time working on this and certainly a lot of paper and running back and forth on our proposals trying to get them straight. I think they’ve done a tremendous job and also to our Department Heads who have worked to do this. For my first time up here with it, I appreciate it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? We’re adjourned. [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 continuation of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on November 19, 2002. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 18