HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-25-2003 Called Meeting
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
August 25, 2003
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:25 p.m., Monday, August
25, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek,
Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Boyles, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator and Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Mayor: We have two items that I would ask, if you would, to add to the
agenda of the meeting today. I’ll tell you what they are.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
1. Resolution supporting the principles of effective water management and
opposing the marketing of water rights or water withdrawal permits and any
interbasin transfer without full protection of the basin or origin.
Mr. Mayor: This is consistent with positions taken by the Commission
previously. This Thursday, the Georgia Municipal Association Environment Committee
is having a meeting in Macon to help formulate the GMA position on the trading of water
rights and water permits. And we’d like to have our position I think very clearly noted
before the GMA Committee as they [inaudible] that position, and that’s why I’ve asked
you to add and approve this resolution today.
2. Approve Change Order Number 13 with Advanced Outdoor Services in the
amount of $65,005.00 on the Augusta Common, Phase 1A Project to be funded from
Account Number 101-04-2260/53.19910 ($48,000) and the project’s contingency
account ($17,005).
Mr. Mayor: Our people met with the contractor last week. They went through all
the work that was done over there. Everything is done properly, correctly, and in
accordance with specifications, and their subcontractor came to see me Friday and asked
if possible if y’all would go ahead and approve this so they can be paid. So I would ask,
if we could, to add those two items, add and approve those two items to the agenda,
please.
Mr. Cheek: Move to add, Mr. Mayor.
1
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor:Was that an add and
Is there any objection? None heard.
approve?
All in favor, please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I think the voting machine is working. Yes, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I have no objection.
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead.
Mr. Mays: But I do have -- just wanted to ask something if we are adding and
approving, and that’s on the add-on item.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: There was, there was -- in the conversation when this came up in
reference to whether or not everything had been done, and I think that was the charge that
was given to the Administrator when this was questioned. Just for clarification’s sake,
there was some discussion as to whether or not everything was ready, you know, prior to
th
4 of July or whether something still needed to be done. And they were having problems
with it. And I just wanted to make sure. I have no problem voting for it, but I think when
we left the last meeting, that was going to be decided, since it’s going to be added on
[inaudible], I just wanted to make sure that there are no problems in terms of what was
being done. Or has been done, for that matter.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Commissioner Mays, yes,
th
everything was done prior to July 4. I believe that the experience that Commissioner
Williams may have observed, or the situation that he may have observed, we have several
outlets that have various ampage on them, and some of the vendors were trying to plug in
into outlets that could not handle -- in other words, they were plugging into the wrong
outlets, and that was overloading the circuits. But once they were given the proper
instructions into which outlets they were supposed to plug into, they worked
appropriately and there has been no complaints since then.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: That answers my question in reference to that. And my pulling of this
item, not just on the Commission but in the committee, was not in terms of any reference
to the company doing business. It was from the standpoint that when I read the backup
material, I thought we needed to get an answer from the standpoint that notes had been
made from the company as far back as November of 2002, and this happened to have
2
been August of 2003, and certainly if I made a commitment to support a multi-million
dollar project I wasn’t going to stop supporting it because we had to still some money to
deal with the electrical outlets. But I think that when you, when you make this type of
observance and you’re looking at change orders, it needs to, you know, it needs to be
known for this Commission to be able to make a decision to a point that when you are
paying money, that’s a small item this time, but if it’s handled the same way and you’re
talking about a half million dollars or $1 million, and the backup work goes back to nine
months, then I think somebody needs to give an explanation on it. An explanation has
been given as far as this Commissioner is concerned. I can vote on it. Have no problem
with it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: But I will do the same if it occurs again.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, we expect you will and we expect that the staff will be ready
to respond accordingly. Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Mays, you ready to vote? Mr. Mays, are
you going to vote? Everybody else has already voted.
The Clerk: This is to add and approve; right, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Right. The motion was to add and approve.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now that everyone is seated and they have their lunch, we’ll
recognize -- Sonny, are you going to do the presentation or David? Who is going to do
the presentation on the millage rate resolution? You’re going to do it. Okay.
The Clerk:
1. Adopt 2003 Millage Rate Resolution for Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, you have before you a
resolution to adopt the 2003 millage rate for the city’s annual budget. The tax digest has
been published, as required by the State of Georgia. In terms of the annual budget, we
are not proposing any change in the millage that was adopted by you when you adopted
your annual budget. However, the digest is not the same as it was in -- at the beginning
of the year or the end of the year when you adopted your annual budget. It is slightly
less. Approximately $1.6 conclusive of all the operating funds of the city that levy a
property tax millage. The Finance Committee will consider in their meeting various
resolutions that will adjust the budget to coincide with the anticipated revenues that we
will collect as a result of the adoption of this millage. With that, the millage is in
appropriate format. Once you have adopted that millage, the digest will be submitted to
3
the State of Georgia Department of Revenue and once they have approved the digest then
we will issue tax bills beginning, hopefully in the latter part of September.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt the millage rate as set forth in
the resolution and as anticipated by this Commission in the 2003 budget
negotiations.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Now discussion. Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Administrator, let me ask this question. And
[inaudible] of the motion, I think, but some of the conversations that we’ve had this year,
the article that was in the paper this past weekend, and I recall, I think we went into fund
balance this year to balance the budget. My concern is if we adopt the same millage rate
for next year and we don’t really have any significant increase, if any, in our digest, how
are we going to cover the budget next year?
Mr. Kolb: It is a little too early for us to determine what the magnitude of the
problem is going to be. I do agree with you. I am struggling with that now. But you will
have three options obviously. One, probably, or you may have to use a combination of
all three. But one is to increase your revenue somehow. Property tax increase, opening
up other sources of revenue. For example, doing the audit that we had recommended last
year or that was recommended by the Assessor at your last meeting. Or some other types
of revenue generating activities. The second is to look at a significant reduction in
services that are provided to the community. You have had experiences in doing that,
also. And then the third is to look at your fund balance and draw out of fund balance to
balance your budget. And then hopefully some of the revenue generating ideas or
activities that you undertake in the fiscal year would be used to offset that use of fund
balance. However, I do believe that next year is going to be a critical year. We are flat.
We did see a reduction in the digest, and unless you make some appropriate adjustments,
the use of your fund balance is going to be something that you don’t want to do year after
year.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Kolb, let me ask this question, and I’m not exactly sure, but
didn’t this body vote to keep the fund balance at a certain level, three months of
operations?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Where do we stand on that?
Mr. Kolb: You are in very good shape. In fact, during the budget year we were
going to compliment the Commission for two reasons. First of all, we were looking at a
25% of your annual operating budget as being the number that you want to use for your
fund balance, or 90 days’ worth of capital. You have exceeded both. You now, at the
4
end of fiscal year 2002, have about 30%, and more than 90 days in fund balance. So
you’re in very good shape with respect to that. However, as we approach the 2004
budget year and as we resolve the issue of the 2003 reduction in property taxes, you will
drop below that 30% and you will go back to about 25%. And even though we’re
optimistic about the year end, there is no guarantee that you may not -- that you will have
to dip into your fund balance reserves. And to what extent is too early to tell.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. And my last question, and I’m quoting from the article in the
paper, is it truth that we are going to have to go into the fund balance for the remainder of
this year for about $2.1 million?
Mr. Kolb: It’s too early to tell to what extent. You balanced your budget this
year with $1.3 million. And I’m just talking the general fund. You will have to look at
an increase in use of fund balance because of the property tax revenue reductions. It may
be as high as $2 million total. But again, it’s too early to tell. We’ve put some cost
cutting, cost saving techniques in place, but until the end of the fiscal year has occurred
and all expenses and revenues have been accounted for, we can’t tell you how much fund
balance would actually be used.
Mr. Mayor: Anything else? Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kolb, it’s not that I don’t believe
what you’re saying is that I got a little problem, like the transmission man have to put on
a carburetor. I thought Mr. Persaud may be able to enlighten me a little bit now. I’m,
I’m, I’m a little confused on what you said, three options, then you said that we was 30%,
I believe, but that since we can’t tell where we’re going to be at the end of the year, we,
we may be even less than that. Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Kolb: You will use some fund balance in this fiscal year. To what extent I
don’t know. But if that is true, you will go below your 30%. You probably will still be
higher than your 25%, but you probably will not be at your 30%.
Mr. Williams: So there is a great possibility that we have to increase taxes or cut
services, as you said, in that respect. And I think the taxpayers, the people of Richmond
County deserve a little more than that. We been trying to raise taxes before. We did it
for public safety and other things. We did things that we had to do. And I don’t mind if
we going to raise taxes and put it where it need to be and it’s legal. But every year we
keep coming back with a little bit more and a little bit more. And this probably isn’t the
time for an economic question about what we bringing into this city, but I’m just, I’m just
finding it a little bit difficult to swallow right now and I just, just want to throw it out, Mr.
Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: If I can respond. You did raise your millage level last year, and that
was in anticipation of trying to hold expenses in check and remaining even. But if you
recall, your digest dropped by about 5%, so any improvements that you saw in your
property tax revenues have been lost and we have also seen an additional reduction of
5
about half a percent. So you’re losing ground. And if this continues and we don’t see
much improvement in the digest next year, if we remain the same, our expenses we know
are going up. So it’s going to necessitate you having to look seriously at coming some
services, the use of more fund balance, or raising taxes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Go ahead, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: What I was going to ask, Mr. Kolb, and this might be on that you
can’t answer right now. And I don’t have a problem with that, but you might be able to.
George, just looking back at -- and I guess what I’m throwing in is the, is the 25%, 90-
day factor, and looking at where we were say a year ago and of looking sort of down that
same barrel. Where are we at this point or will we know closer as we go over say the
next 30 to 45 days, and that’s why I said I wouldn’t hold it if you can’t answer it right
now. But are we at a point where we can do some comparisons? Because every year,
most governments are going to come up the fact that when they start putting tentative
budgets together, something is always going to be over and then you get into fights in
terms of what’s going to be cut, what’s going to be left and where the survivors are in
there and you balance that. But I guess what I’d kind of like to know is from the
standpoint of being better say or worse at this point in this stage of the game of looking at
that, and it might be a little too early to do, but that would help me some if I would know
where we are on that point.
Mr. Kolb: With respect to the last five years, you have been very fortunate to add
to your fund balance. As your annual revenues and expenses go up, it’s been pretty close
to maintaining that 90 days or 25% balance. And that’s just for the general fund,
including your law enforcement accounts. Last year, you added to your fund balance
which took us up to the 30%, of $1.8 million of revenues over expenses. We had to use
$1.3 million of fund balance, which means that you improved about half a million dollars
over that period of time. So you’re doing very well. But that’s been because you’ve had
improvements in the economy, you’ve had improvements in your digest. Now you’ve
seen a dip not only in your tax digest, but your sales tax has also leveled off because of
the economy. So to continue that we’re going to have to be very careful and you’re going
to have to make some prudent fiscal decisions for your 2004 budget.
Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Mayor, I guess my last comment would be, and
particularly, I guess, as we delicately move over the next six weeks, would we be better
in line to look at gauging, because I mean we always get the reports out and usually at
first when it happens say well, the city is looking to having to shave $4 million, looking
at having to shave $5 million, those things are [inaudible]. But with what’s been brought
in thus far from departments per se and of being able to deal with that administratively on
the tentative side, is that still in the same neck of the woods? Let’s discount where the
digest is and revenues. But in terms of the request of at least looking at the differences, I
guess what I’m looking at is where we sit up here in terms of realistic terms of stuff that
you are going to have to shave at some point, and of getting that down. Have we reached
6
the point yet that we know we are, say, at least looking at a better picture, worse picture,
or the same picture?
Mr. Kolb: That’s a very good question. It’s too early to tell. We are still
attempting to look at and forecast our revenues. We are still looking at our expenses in
terms of what the departments are asking for. It’s too early. If you would ask me what
the gap is right now, it’s probably as wide as the Grand Canyon.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: I can say this. It is going to be a very difficult budget to put together
without looking at the uses of fund balance for other sources of revenue. And hopefully
th
we’ll, we will -- and we will present you in one way or another October 15 -- and also a
reduction in some services. Especially in light of the fact that you have added some
th
services in this fiscal year. But we will on the 15 of October or thereabouts present you
with a balanced budget and our recommendations.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I want to keep this sandwich down. This was my last
question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, so you relate to it a little bit more, the gap is probably as
big as some of those holes over there on Laney-Walker Boulevard right now, and as
deep. Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in the last Finance Committee meeting, we talked to the
Finance Director and we also talked with the Chief Tax Appraiser. And the best
explanation of the fund balance that I saw was on page 51 of David’s report last time to
the committee. And basically, we had, we had budgeted some use of fund balance, but
we did not require it all. If you want to know more about the fund balance situation, I’ll
be happy to have these all duplicated. We’re about to go through it in Finance. I know
that Commissioner Hankerson requested that the second quarterly reports be discussed
again. I believe it was you, Mr. Vice Chairman. But I will have this duplicated. But I
think the action that we’re proposing at this time is to keep our promise in the budget that
I know that Mr. Beard spent a lot of time on, I certainly spent a lot of time on, we all --
the Commissioners, Mr. Kuhlke, just looking around, all of us spent a lot of time on the
budget. And when we basically said that one of the assumptions was going to be that we
would not raise property taxes, and that’s where we are. The present resolution does not
increase property taxes. And I think that you are going to have to, we’re going to have
some hard decisions to make in the coming weeks about specific appropriations, and
you’re going to have to consider them in the context of keeping our promise not to raise
ad valorem taxes, so for those, with that ruled out, particularly in the general fund cause
that seems where we always have our most difficult times, the other options are like I say,
to cut some programs or use the fund balance. The fund balance has gone up
significantly, and George is correct. I was following along on this chart, and that is,
that’s prudent. We are going to have be yet more prudent because I think this is basically
the rainy day that we socked away some of the fund balance for. And we’ve seen that.
7
And what I’d like to do is either here or at Finance Committee, it seems what we have is
not so much a failure of our expenses to be managed, but really a failure of the revenues
to be realized, and that’s -- I don’t know that, I don’t know to what extent we can control
that because you have certain tax properties moving off the digest into exempt categories,
you have reclassifications, particularly in my District, which raised more revenue because
all of the assessments went up. We are also in a position that apparently some
assessments went down as part of the reassessments. I think the federal -- not the federal
law, but the state law puts the assessors under a burden to have their digest and
individuals properties that make up the digest within a certain percentage of tolerance, as
I recall, Mr. Reece. You just don’t, you have to have certain state requirements met. But
what I would be interested in knowing is how we could see this coming sooner, if at all.
And I don’t know if you can speak to that, Mr. Administrator, or Mr. Reece. That seems
to be the problem. We’ve watched it at the end of every quarter, if we could, and at the
end of every year. You know, we take seriously on the Finance Committee our oversight
calendar, and people have been coming up here, but for example, when a non-profit takes
over a piece of property that used to be on the tax digest, it comes off the tax digest if
they meet the criteria. If the property goes down, it certainly reduces the amount of
revenue you generate from that. And this is -- we’re talking about, I think, fourth quarter
revenue. We’re not yet to the fourth quarter. But we’ve got to, I think, have a better idea
of when the digest is going to go down. Because I know it hadn’t happened until now,
but now it’s happened. So I guess my policy question is how are we going to anticipate
future moves like this from the digest? It always seems to do it backward, and I think
that’s the process in the State. You first set the millage and then you find out what the
digest is going to be later. I mean we set the anticipated millage, is what I’m saying.
When we do budget, we set anticipated millage. We have an assumption of what that
revenue is going to be. Then we get the digest in actually, which is where we are today.
Or that just passed, actually, in a chronological sense. Now here we are applying the
actual tax rate to that digest. So when your assumption of revenue on your pro forma is
out of whack with what we actually have to levy a tax on, how are we going to know that
as budget setters? If anybody can address that? How are we going to minimize this type
of unanticipated digest -- not [inaudible], but digest shrink is what we’ve gotten.
Anybody want to take that on?
Mr. Kolb: I’m going to try. And I -- we’re fortunate today to have the Chief Tax
Assessor, as well as the Tax Commissioner here who may have some thoughts on it, too.
Two observations. Number one, is that the digest is set every year and I think they do as
best job as they possibly can do in terms of any adjustments up or down in the digest.
Quite frankly, there are always going to be some kind of a glitch. That is a very difficult
number to keep track of on a day-to-day basis. Properties change hands, as you talk
about. Economies change, which impact on property. It would be extremely difficult to
keep track of it. So once a year is probably about as much as anybody can stand without
pulling all their hair out, to keep in touch with the digest. But I think we have to, as a
community, try and encourage a healthy economy, that we encourage events from
occurring that have an impact on the values of property, and we have to really try and
manage events that occur that impact on our finances. But I think that there is a second
issue that you may want to look at as policy makers and talk to your State Legislators
8
about. When they first changed the law with respect to the millage in the digest, going up
to a certain percentage, they made it so that if the millage goes up, the digest goes up a
certain percentage, and we were able to raise more revenue, then we had to hold public
hearings. The law never anticipated what happens if the digest goes down, if we’re able
to adjust our digest, our millage rate upward without a public hearing. So that is a flaw I
think in the law, and as I understand it, and Mr. Reece can probably address this better
than I can, but there are other communities in the state of Georgia who are in the same
situation that we’re in today. Seeing a reduction in their digest. But we’re all in the same
boat. Either we have a public hearing to get back to where we were, or we accept, as
we’re doing today, the reduction in the revenues that are raised. So those are a couple
things that, you know, we ought to be thinking about in terms of policies.
Mr. Shepard: If I could follow that up. If -- the reports that we’ve been seeing,
and I’ll let the Finance Committee correct me if I’m wrong, was that in our oversight
sessions we’ve been seeing that reports were, you know, basically normal, the
expenditures within the pro rata amount allocated to that quarter, and we understand that
there are different revenues that come in at different times, so it bunches in certain
quarters, and this is -- ad valorem property tax is a fourth quarter receipt. What, what I’d
like Sonny to address really, too, is how are we going to know if this is in the pipeline in
Georgia? I appreciate what you’re trying to say, but you know, we’re faced now with
some real serious adjustment because of this, because of this digest shrink, is what I’m
calling it. I mean that’s correct. Were there any like large exemptions granted for
industrial development purposes that happened during the year or something that -- you
know, what’s happening out there with the digest, Sonny?
Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, to go along with what the
Administrator was talking, we looked at rollback range which the Legislature did put in
where it rolled back, but in the event the digest reversed [inaudible] where you generate
the same amount of revenue that you did the previous year. And I talked to the
Department of Revenue about that and that’s when I learned that we are not the only
jurisdiction facing that. One thing that came up in the senior staff meeting was that we
start doing quarterly reviews, running not digests, if you would, consolidation sheets on a
quarterly basis and see where we are. The third thing is this year we’re planning for flat
growth. We’re not trying to do an estimated appreciation or growth in the digest. Last
year, I projected around 2-1/2% growth in October of last year, based on historic
happenings. While we did have some growth, a lot of our growth in the urban district, for
example, qualified for Amendment 65. That’s the amendment that allows expansion of
$100,000 or more for a commercial business in the old city of Augusta to be exempt from
the ad valorem taxation from the old urban -- the urban district, the 01 District, for a
period of five years. That’s one of the factors. Another factor that took place is when
you have a property to go in under the Richmond County Development Authority, it was
taxable at one time and then comes off and becomes exempt. Another thing that we
forecast and when the General Assembly was looking at, the individual exemption being
increased from $500 to -- they were discussing $5,000 or $10,000, we did a study on our
personal property side, and on the low side of $5,000 it’s going to cost an estimated
$186,000 in revenue in the county wide levy. And we submitted that to our Legislative
9
Delegation in Atlanta. As you know, it wound up increasing it to $7,500 from $500. Our
personal property exemption then went from approximately $300,000 to almost $5
million that’s not on the books. That’s another $4.5 million that came off in taxability.
And then we had properties, of course, that you mentioned earlier, Mr. Shepard, that
became exempt, that was income producing, that was bought by exempt properties,
charitable organizations, and that went off the tax rolls. And basically, all of that --
excuse me, Ms. Lena -- basically all of that compounded into where we are now.
Another thing that the Tax Commissioner’s office and I have been looking at was we had
a decrease in motor vehicles in the 01 District, which is the old city. The only we can
come up with for that is basically because of the downturn in the economy, the people are
holding the cars longer in the old city, they’re not trading as much. We’ve also attributed
that, too, that we’ve got better coding situation, of coding in the property Districts, that
the Tax Commissioner has instilled over the last couple, last three years. So instead of
being off in the wrong District, now they are getting put in the right Districts. So it’s just
a compounding effect. We checked about our inventories and free port. Both of those
are down, which shows a downturn in the economy. So everything is just demonstrating
toward that. The other factgr we had goes back to the Y2K, Y2K problem.
Unfortunately, in 2000 the Tax Assessor’s office at that time did not have a backup or
parallel system to run. When our old EDS system, which was not Y2K compliant -- the
IT Department did a magnificent job of being able to fool the clock so it wouldn’t go
down on us right at the beginning of the year. But it was kind of a Band-aid effect and
we had to find something, and due to lack of revenues we had, we had to go to a state
wide system that was also a DOS system that was very small, basically designed for the
small, rural counties that would not hold all the data that we had in our EDS system. As
a large county using that [inaudible] system, probably got the Department of Revenue to
pre-release their Windows program, which is called WINGAP, prematurely, and we
moved into the Windows program and our IT Department again was able to go back and
get a lot of data that would not fit in the GAP program and pull it back out of EDS and
feed it into the new Windows program. What happened on that, and it was compounded
on that in one section of the old EDS program, our data dictionary went away with the
company that had it, that was going to be able to create us a system, so we didn’t have a
data dictionary, and sometimes a code up on one part of the property record showed 1-1/2
story and the sketch itself showed a type of building that was on it. Well, with the new
system, the building code that was in the sketch was not read by the new system. And we
were having properties added on in duplicates and we had problems with accessories
duplicating, buildings duplicating, buildings falling off, buildings coming back. And that
was a part of the software, in conjunction with the hardware that we had. Y’all allowed
us to get a new computer system, new hardware, in January, February of 2002, and a lot
of the problems we were having with the [inaudible] system was overcome. But there
was a lot of frustration built up by the appraisers and trying to put something in place,
and it would there one day and come back the next to verify and check it, and then the
improvement would be gone and the sketch would be gone and the information would
just be out in cyberspace. When we got the new hardware, most of that was eliminated.
But in the process of working the appeals, we also worked some problems along with the
improvements being on there and properties that were not appealed as part of working
our normal day-to-day business. In which case, we make corrections on a lot of
10
properties that were not appealed, we make corrections on properties that are appealed.
And as y’all recall, back when we did the re-evaluation for the real estate, one of the
things that I addressed and made the public aware of and the Commission aware of, that
we had some land schedules out there that were not generating -- the schedules were
generating one value in our computer system and there were override values, some of
which we could not explain, in the system where the property may be at 20% of what the
appraised value was. And from that reason, I made the decision with the Board’s
approval that we would call those off and then we would fix them when we came back
on, when a property owner, when we found it and reviewed it and if we had a specific
problem with a property then we would note that on the property record card and
[inaudible] comments and go forward from there. All those compounded and put us in
the position that we’re in now.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Reece, let me ask you this. It seems like to me that you should
be sharing, when you start generating the quarterly reviews of the digest with this process
to the Finance Committee, because how are we going to know where we are unless we
get this -- we get to this point of the year and we don’t have a lot of time left to make
corrective action. We’ve got, what, four months?
Mr. Reece: That’s correct, sir, and this is one of the things that came out of senior
staff meeting that this is what we needed to do so we can make y’all, keep y’all informed,
as well as our Board.
Mr. Shepard: And I take it, and I’ll ask this question of Mr. Wall, I know this is a
special called meeting, and the only purpose on the agenda is to adopt a millage rate
resolution, and that’s all we can do in terms of any other policy. Can we direct a policy
change such as being [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Ask that it be added and approved.
Mr. Shepard:
Okay. Well, I think we need -- and I’m wanting to amend my
I’d like to amend it so that we get
own motion now, after hearing what Sonny said.
these quarterly reviews that senior staff creates, because as soon as David gets it or
George gets it, and then we need to get it pretty quick. And I’d like to amend my
motion that we get those quarterly reviews, and I’d further like to amend my
motion that the administration present us with a combination of ways to cope with
this and direct him, George and your staff, to look at the two alternatives we’re
going to have left, which are budget cutting and fund balance use.
I mean those are
the only two tools we’ve got after today. And I think we’re going to have to have as
much time as you can get, because I think we are going to have to react pretty quickly as
a Commission. We’re keeping our promise to the ad valorem taxpayers, I think we
should do that. But we’ve got -- like I say, the other two components of that would be
use of fund balance, and I’m a little scared to use such a large amount of fund balance
just totally. I mean I think that’s how other jurisdictions have gotten in trouble. So we’re
going to have some cutting, and I would like to see selective cutting rather than
something that we [inaudible] from the top and say everybody cut X percent from their
11
budgets and [inaudible] you that way. It would be my preference that we try to do it in a
reasoned way rather than an arbitrary way. I would offer both of those as amendments to
my motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion? None heard, so the
motion will stand as amended. There is a third consideration. Collect the money that’s
owed us, and since North is here, North, can you give us -- I know you haven’t prepared
to give a report today, but could you tell us about how much outstanding money we have
in property taxes that are collectible? That’s certainly money we could try to accelerate
the collection through the rest of this year and offset any withdrawal from the fund
balance.
Mr. Williamson: Including the money that is due to go to the School Board,
about $10 million.
Mr. Mayor: And about 25% of that would be ours?
Mr. Williamson: Between 25% and 30%, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could follow that up, while we’re all assembled as a
body, and we had, we in the old city had the office they called Collector of Revenue and I
guess I didn’t quite realize the appropriateness of that designation until now. And I
thought -- of course those duties were the Finance Director’s, but for the benefit of the
Commission, that was going to be discussed and can be discussed again at the Finance
Committee, but it’s our agenda item number 8. And some of these expenditures, I know
we looked at some leases, but David, if you would help me through, I think this is one of
the attachments, your work. For example, do I understand that, that there is no payment
whatsoever on the stadium rental from the GreenJackets organization; is that the way I
read that? It’s the page -- it’s not numbered but it’s in agenda item number 8 on the
Finance Committee, that policies and procedures, the caption is report from you
regarding policies and procedures related to the collection of monies owed the city. And
when I flip through here, you know, it said there were no payments in 2003 from that
organization, for example. Am I reading that wrong?
Mr. Persaud: What page are you on?
Mr. Shepard: Well, it’s not numbered, and so you have to go agenda item number
8 of the Finance agenda and flip back until the page that’s captioned up at the top
Augusta Richmond County Recurring Rents and Leases. [inaudible] Commissioner
Hankerson? And here it says stadium rental, it says, the annotation says no payments for
2003.
Mr. Persaud: It is to be collected, it will be collected this year.
12
Mr. Shepard: Well, this is a month-by-month payment, I would think, I mean
when you -- unless it’s an annual. If the due date has not yet passed, but I guess my
assumption was that a monthly lease was paid monthly. Maybe I’m wrong, but it could
be annually, I suppose, but isn’t this a monthly payment? And eight months at that rate
that you show there is about $33,300; right?
Mr. Persaud: Yes. [inaudible] there was a reason why it was [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: Well, I mean, the further annotation says it’s to be $25,000 to be
paid by August. Well, we are not quite finished with August yet, but major league
baseball is being blamed, and with the prices they charge for tickets I can somewhat
understand that because it may be driving off the fans. But aren’t we, aren’t we really
owed at this point $33,000 or so? And where, I don’t know if that goes in the general
fund.
Mr. Persaud: It does.
Mr. Shepard: It does? Okay. And we should have that collected. And then I
think that Richmond Bonded Warehouse said that they, the other account says that this is
delinquent as of March, so that’s March, April, May, June, July and August. Six months.
Mr. Wall: I doubt that that’s accurate. [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Taking that off?
Mr. Wall: Taking that off.
Mr. Shepard: Because we own that property now; right, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, we own [inaudible] and they [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: But is this, is this -- see how the property exchange there would
cause a problem but you’re saying because of the exchange that delinquency may not be
valid?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. I had not looked at this list, but I’ll check into that.
Mr. Shepard: But I would agree with you, Mr. Mayor, that it’s obligations like
that this would be, would move against the deficiency in the general fund, and the
deficiency is not all in the general fund. It’s across the funds; right?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And is there any backup sheet that shows that? I mean the general
fund problem is not $1.5 million, for example, in its own right? It’s more like half that
$1.5 million?
13
Mr. Persaud: Yes. [inaudible] the $1.5 million, if I can quickly. The general
fund is [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: David, let me -- the Finance and Appropriations agenda item that
you referred to, so that other Commissioners can follow that, you want to direct us to that
one? It’s not 8, it’s another one, I recall.
Mr. Persaud: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Is it part of 8? 8 was right thick.
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: It’s number 18.
Mr. Shepard: 18. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: 18.
Mr. Shepard: But isn’t there a summary here at the end that says Augusta
Richmond County Millage Impact Analysis FY 2003? Isn’t that the recap there?
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. So is the general fund short only $72,730?
Mr. Persaud: That’s correct. And the law enforcement is $769,000.
Mr. Kolb: Those two comprise the general fund.
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] those two funds.
Mr. Shepard: So corrective action in that fund alone is $800,000-and-some?
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. Yeah, I see it. That really is our road map to correct this
problem in part, is it not, if we choose to? And that’s the target that we’ve got to go for
in the general fund, is $842,000?
Mr. Persaud: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: And then you would just go through the funds.
Mr. Persaud: [inaudible]
14
Mr. Shepard: So not to belabor the point, but if we could collect that money from
the GreenJackets, your problem reduces by $33,000 in that one category today?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, that’s [inaudible], those funds have already been included in
the budgeted revenues. [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: That’s all the questions I have.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I got two things here, maybe they can answer to me. That the law
enforcement fund, why should that be a shortfall? [inaudible]
Mr. Persaud: Of the general fund millage, 6.024 [inaudible] law enforcement.
Combine the millage for the general fund is 6.859, of which .835 is for the general fund
M&O and 6.024 for the law enforcement. You will see that the law enforcement has a
higher millage so the impact is higher.
Mr. Beard: The other thing, Mr. Mayor, the other thing is for the past year, I keep
-- I think Commissioner Shepard hit on this earlier about collecting, start collecting.
We’ve been talking about that, and I know Commissioner Hankerson, it’s been kind of
his baby for a long, this collection, I can’t understand, and since we’ve got everybody
here today, maybe they can tell me what is the procedure for collection? Steven
mentioned in the old city we had someone collecting money. But I’m -- and maybe it’s
just me. But I haven’t found anybody here who is responsible for collecting anything.
Who is supposed to be collecting? I know, you know, several months ago we came up
with someone who was way behind, they paid [inaudible] years. I know two years ago,
maybe a little longer, we were paying a Commissioner for his cell phone and he was no
longer a Commissioner. How do, since we have got everybody here, maybe I can get an
answer of the rental property, the leased property, whatever, the visitors bureau, they
haven’t paid [inaudible], the GreenJackets haven’t paid. And now I’m finding out that
over here on the pension property, you know, things are just like they’ve been. Who is
responsible for collecting this? Do we have a collection agency? Which department is
responsible for that and why isn’t it being done? Someone, with all these agencies in
here today, can someone tell me that?
Mr. Persaud: The Finance Department, the Accounting Division, they are
primarily responsible for billing and collection of all revenue and [inaudible]. When the
Mayor first brought it to my attention [inaudible] policies and procedures so we can start
identifying all our revenues streams and make sure [inaudible] stay on top of the
collection and make sure that we address any account that becomes delinquent. That’s
something I’m working on right now.
15
Mr. Beard: So in other words, you’ve telling me that in the future we’re going to
see a direct agency or person responsible for collecting all of this that we have out that
need to be collected?
Mr. Persaud: Yes, [inaudible] to make sure [inaudible].
Mr. Beard: Okay. So next year we won’t be hearing this; right?
Mr. Persaud: Hopefully not.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes. While you’re standing there. I hear what you’re saying but I
need some clarification. I hear you say you’ve got something you’re putting in place, but
your department, Finance, has been in charge of those things Mr. Beard talked about, all
of those things that have not been done, Finance has been in charge, Finance been the one
that’s supposed to collect those things; is that right?
Mr. Persaud: That’s right.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And you working on something, you say, now to correct?
Mr. Persaud: Yes. [inaudible] process and make sure that we [inaudible]
information [inaudible] to make sure [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Okay. And on those things that we have not collected on a time
period of 90 days, I’m going to use that for a number. But those things that’s in the rear,
that should have been collected, I mean is something going to come forward to us, some
kind of action that need to be done? Because I said the other day that when the city’s at
fault, we have to pay. I mean we have to come up with our part. But other entities seem
to be relaxing, not, you know, not having to do that. But if there is something we got out
there that’s 90 days or longer, look like there ought to be something coming forth, you
know, right away.
Mr. Persaud: Yes. That’s addressed in the report. I have on the agenda today.
That is also [inaudible] to Jim, I work closely with his office to make sure these are legal
means available. At the same point in time, [inaudible] present [inaudible] so you’ll be
kept current.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: First of all, Mr. Mayor, I just want to make it clear and for the record
that we understand that David has just gotten here, so this is not a criticism. The things
that I am talking about happened years ago, and it need, and I’m glad to see that he is
16
putting in some measures to correct this. I don’t want the public to get the idea that I was
just addressing David, because I’m addressing if the Finance Department was responsible
for that, then I’m addressing the Finance Department prior to David getting here. But
you ought to be congratulated if you are going to get these measures in place.
Mr. Mayor: Any more discussion? North, I’ll suggest to you that if you’ll send
me the names of your top ten delinquent accounts, I’ll call them on the phone tomorrow
and see if we can get some money out of them.
Mr. Williamson: Okay. Love to.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have an amended motion on the floor.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: The only thing I’d like [inaudible] is the fact that I still think we’ve
got to deal with some, with whatever long term measures we are going to deal with, even
coming into this year I wouldn’t get that optimistic. I mean you asked North about how
much of that money is out there, and he gave $10 million. And then you look at 20%,
25% of that. But I think you got to look realistically at how that $10 million may be
classified in terms of what state it’s in, whether or not you’ve got some crazy estates that
some of it’s tied up in, whether you got some of it that is in court proceedings and
bankruptcy, so it may not be a lot out there in that $10 million, if only 25% of it at max
belongs to us, and then how much of it you can realistically collect in a short period of
time. So I think we need to, you know, while we’re looking at this, not just think that is
going to be because it’s sitting there and it’s on the books that you are going to be able to
knock on somebody’s door and you going to be able to get a check mailed to you or
handed to you when you look at it like that. So just need to be realistic about looking at
that. That is not something that you just going to get handed over to you. Even when
you make the demand, it is not going to be to a point that -- they are going to have to
follow certain rules, too, so I just wanted to say that before you beat everybody across the
top of the head to a point it’s some laws they’ve got to deal with in terms of even
collecting [inaudible] that you got to deal with [inaudible]. And that doesn’t excuse the
fact that you [inaudible] ever effort in terms of doing it. But there are just some to a point
if you looking at that to straighten out what you’re looking at in the next two months, I
would not necessarily count on that being the savior to do that. But I agree, Mr. Mayor,
you got to try if you can to aggressively deal with it, but we need to have a realistic look
when he sends you those as to what kind of state they’re in, from a legal standpoint, as to
whether or not it’s something that Mr. Wall is going to have to go through some changes
to help us collect that or whether that’s something that somebody just sitting on, that we
really just need to turn the heat up on in terms of doing it. So just making an observation.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
17
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke has called the question, and the Chair rules there has
been adequate debate on the amended motion. All in favor of the amended motion,
please vote in the affirmative.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Mr. Boyles out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: No further business. We stand 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 minutes of the Called Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 25, 2003.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
18