Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-26-2003 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 18, 2003) November 26, 2003 Augusta Richmond County Commission reconvened on November 26, 2003, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Beard, Cheek and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. Mr. Mayor: We will reconvene our meeting of the Augusta City Commission. If I could have your attention as we begin our meeting. If I can have your attention, please, we can get this meeting -- I would ask you to join me in a moment of silence in respect to the family of Richmond County Sheriff’s Deputy Vantrell Wilson. His father, Command Sgt. Major Jerry Wilson was killed in the fighting in Iraq in recent days, and this is a difficult time, as we all know, for his family, and we would ask for a moment of silence, if you would join in, please. (A moment of silence is observed.) Mr. Mayor: Amen. Discussion of the adoption of the budget for 2004. Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair will recognize, as we continue discussion of the budget for 2004, Commissioner Hankerson, and then we’ll follow that with recognition of the Finance Chairman, Commissioner Shepard. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have a copy of a budget proposal, Option 1 and Option 2. I’d like for all the Commissioners to receive a copy of it. The option that I’m considering first is Option 2. We’ll look at Option 2. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hankerson, I believe everybody has been served now. Go ahead. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor, I have discussed these options, looked at it. I’m very concerned about the, the tax digest. I’ve asked questions about whether or not it’s a good time to consider working other than a zero increase for the budget, and I’m just really concerned about a lot of proposals we made in the budget session. And the proposal that I’m presenting would also make some changes that we can put-- first of all, the reclassification. In listening to our Tax Appraiser and also to a most recent article I saw 1 in the paper from our Finance Director, it concerns me and then also that I asked questions of our Administrator about it in the work sessions. I’m kind of leery about the increases that we have in the budget. So if you want me to just go over the whole proposal, what, explain what I have here? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, please go ahead. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. In this proposal that you have, which my main concern is the manpower savings that we have in the program, that we put a freeze on all lapsed positions for 120 days, and that would generate $2.1 million. And you figure on the manpower savings. And also that we consider reclassifications in July. And as January st 1, that we would give a 3% increase cost -of-living across the board. Everybody would receive a 3% cost-of-living increase. We would look at -- we know the seriousness of reclassification. I think if we, that would give us time from January to July to consider whether or not we have the funds for reclassification. At that time, we would consider reclassifications. The individuals that receive reclassification, the 3% will be deducted from that amount at that time, would be adjustments there for the reclassifications. Under the current reclassifications, everybody would not receive an increase because it’s a reclassification, so I think that would cause negative morale in the department among employees. This also, senior citizens, that the Recreation Department has presented the senior citizens program of $140,000, would take to operate the senior citizens program using Recreation staff, but what we can do is instead of using Recreation staff, which already there’s a shortage in employment there, let it remain the same and continue to keep all the staff that are working in the senior citizens, and we would supervise that. We need $100,000 in this budget for that, with that $140,000 and then $30,000 that Mr. Kolb talked about, and the Senior Citizens Council said that they had $30,000 left, that we add that $30,000. So the total to operate that program, we could take that program over and operate it for $270,000 and that would use the current staff that is already working there. That’s the, some of the main concerns that we have. The others that you, that you have before you, I think that Mr. Shepard and myself have looked at this and I think with his proposal that he have, it’s pretty well, is about, is about the same, other than those, those changes. And if any questions -- also, before any questions be asked, I’d just like to hear again, cause this is my concern with the Finance Director and the Appraiser. The Appraiser says that we should do the budget with zero. And I just want to ask David Persaud if he would elaborate on that, if he would, to give us some more information on that and also our Chief Appraiser. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let me, if I may do this, let me go to the Finance Chairman and let’s hear his option and then we’ll get into some of those other issues. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Bobby something? Mr. Mayor: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke: About his proposal. Bobby, under the senior citizens program, it was, it was my understanding from Tom Beck that he could run that program for 2 $200,000. And we had $143,000 in our budget, in our general fund budget. Plus there was $66,000 in the Recreation budget. And which would give him the $200,000. The way you’ve got it here is -- so I don’t quite understand the $100,000 increase that you have plugged in. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. Mine came from -- Commissioner Kuhlke, I’m glad you asked me that. When Mr. Beck made his proposal in the work session, it was $143,000 for us to take over that program. But we will be using Recreation staff. Okay. And that was a big discussion that particular day about using Recreation staff. And I asked the question then if we used that particular proposal, what would happen to the individuals, the directors and assistants that are working there, would they lose their jobs? Well, that was a yes, it had to be because the fund wasn’t there. Mr. Mays went into discussion about whether or not that Recreation could provide the staff and still do the level of service that they’re already doing. So this proposal would be the $143,000, and I asked the CPA that presented for the Senior Council -- Lawrence -- in the session last week, I asked him how much would it take to utilize the staff, and he said $130,000. In the work session when I asked that question, it was $90,000. But he said $130,000. So taking that in mind of the $130,000 for the staff, the director and the two assistants, $130,000, add that to the $140,000. That would be $240,000, plus the $30,000 that he said he had left over. So my figures show that it takes $270,000 to operate the senior citizens, we take it over, operate it, we would not use Recreation staff, we would use the current staff, and the senior citizens would still receive the same level of staff that are taking care of them, that they’re familiar with to take care of them, and operate that program, and would not interfere with the Recreation staff. Mr. Kuhlke: Well, maybe I’m misinformed. I was under the impression that the reason that we were going to do it is that we could provide the services cheaper. Otherwise, why change? Mr. Hankerson: Well, $270,000 is cheaper than what we been operating it. Mr. Kuhlke: But what I’m saying is, you know, I don’t know how you do it more efficiently. If you don’t use Recreation Department staff to do it, if you are going to go out and hire the staff that’s already there now, so I’m just trying to make a point on that particular item. Mr. Hankerson: Well, I think, Mr. Kuhlke, more efficient is that we would supervise it, Senior Council, which is in trouble now, would not be supervising it. So we are doing it ourselves, and that’s going to be more efficient, it’s going to be more efficient because that staff is going to work directly for us and it has not been a problem with senior citizens sites that we have with the staff. The problem has been the management of the funds from the Senior Citizens Council. That’s been the problem. So we eliminate that. They are bringing us a monthly finance report. And when they came before us several months ago and we, we assisted them twice this year, I believe we assisted them, they said at that time that they would need $470,000 in order to operate, to keep the doors open this year. Well, we knew then that we were not going to fund them 3 $470,000 cause we don’t have it to fund them $470,000. So instead of funding them $470,000, we use, under my proposal, $270,000, we take the program over ourselves, then the Recreation would not have to lend their staff to the senior citizens, and we’re not going to depend on summer students who don’t like grand mamas at home to come and talk about taking care of grand mamas at Senior Citizens. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Hankerson: So that’s what I’m saying. Teenagers not going to come and have no patience with senior citizens in the program that they have, so we just -- I mean I don’t think we even need to compare that. We need somebody in there that already know these senior citizens, work with them, give them a level of service. The youth have their programs, we take care of the youth and their programs, recreation centers, and our senior citizens, I think this is savings. We know that we can monitor this, we can supervise it. $270,000 a year for senior citizens that have already paid their dues in society, show up to the polls and vote, and, and, and support everything that we do. Mr. Kuhlke: And your proposal is roughly ¾ of a mill increase? Mr. Hankerson: This proposal will be, is a -- Mr. Kuhlke: .2802 and then .5? Mr. Hankerson: Right. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Hankerson: Right. Mr. Mayor: Any other questions for Commissioner Hankerson? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just, to clarify something in my mind is that in the 2003 budget we had $143,000 in for senior activities, senior citizens activities. And I, that is pretty much in line with what it has been over probably the last 10 to 12 years, am I right, it’s been pretty much the same thing. And out of that, they were supposedly -- I suppose they did -- pay for the staff that was working from that. And taking care of the program. Now when they ran into some other financial difficulties this year, through some other means, we came back and added $130,000 to that from some discretionary funds I think we got from UDAG, if I’m correct on that part, where it came from, but we add $130,000 back to it, which took it up to $270,000. So in the Finance Committee a few weeks ago, Mr. Shepard, I think we talked about, I think I volunteered to do this, was to sit down with Mr. [inaudible] and Mr. Beck and see just exactly how much the staff now costs and how much the meals cost and how much we could, what that total bill would be. The $270,000 really came into effect only this year after the UDAG money went back in from the sale of the Landmark Apartments; am I correct? When they came to us. But over all the years and from my days as Recreation 4 Director, the amount that was given to the Council also included the workers who were over there, plus the cost of the meals. Now I’m not quite sure in my mind where we’re talking about pulling out the workers’ salary and adding that back. Is it not already there? Are we not doing it twice? That’s, that’s what I thought we wanted to -- Mr. Shepard, I think when we talked in Finance, and of course I think I asked for Mr. Williams and Mr. Hankerson both because the senior programs are in your areas, your Commission Districts, and of course Mr. Smith coming on, it’s going to be in his. And that is what I would like -- I am just not real sure about the additional funding. I’m totally in favor of it, but I’m not sure, I’m not sure we’re not doubling it up somewhere. Mr. Mayor: Let me ask staff. Is there someone on staff who could answer this question about what -- let’s make sure we’ve got the accurate numbers here. George, can you clarify this? There seems to be some confusion about what the real number is for this program. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’ll try and walk through it as best I can. Commissioner Boyles is correct. We had $170,000-some we sent to the Senior Citizens Council that operated the recreation programs that -- [inaudible] the meals in terms of the [inaudible], bought extra meals, ran their foster grandparent program, etc. Later in the year because of problems they ran into, you added $130,000 in UDAG funds. What we came back in proposal is that the meals, the foster grandparents program, other programs except the recreation programs, we would continue to give to the Senior Citizens Council, which totaled $143,000. Our proposal was in order to operate the senior citizens program, we needed an additional four part-time people plus an additional $10,000 in summer youth program funds to supplement other programs other than the senior program in order to effectively take over the seniors recreation program and operate it at the same level as the Senior Citizens Council. That total came to $60,000. Now the Senior Citizens Council said they could maintain the recreation programs for $150,000. $130,000 in staff plus $20,000 in additional administrative support. So the difference between the $60,000, which included I believe it was about 12 individuals, is about $90,000. And so as we looked at it, if you added $90,000, $30,000 of which could be the left-over UDAG money, really the impact on the general fund would be an additional $60,000. Mr. Mayor: Does that clarify it for you, Commissioner? Mr. Boyles: I’m still not certain as to what the total figure would be. Is it this $160,000 plus $60,000 plus $100,000? Mr. Kolb: If you were looking to fully fund through the Senior Citizens Council, the recreation programs at the four centers, the cost would be $150,000. If you take the $60,000 that we budgeted wherein we ran the program and subtracted from the $150,000, that leaves a gap of $90,00. 5 Mr. Mayor: So you’re saying for us to accomplish what Rev. Hankerson would like to do, and that is to continue the program as it is with the people who are already doing it, it would cost $150,000? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Mayor: For us to do it with our people, as originally proposed by the Administration, it would cost $60,000? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Does that clarify it? Mr. Boyles: I’m just not sure, what is that final number again? Mr. Mayor: Depends on which way you want to go. If you, if you want to do it as Rev. Hankerson proposes, with the people who are already doing the work, it’s $150,000. If we assumed it ourselves, using our resources, it would be $60,000. That’s the distinction between the two numbers. Now Mr. Mays had his hand up and then we’ll go back to -- Mr. Mays: What I’ll do, let me yield to the Vice Chairman of Finance for a minute. I still want to be recognized, but on the number clearing up there, I’ll yield [inaudible] that. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Bobby. Mr. Hankerson: This is based on the work session that when Mr. Beck brought his proposal for us to take it over for $143,000. That was his proposal that he presented. $143,000. And in that proposal, he said that that would not include the staff, that we would have to use Recreation staff, that’s what was said in that proposal. Mr. Mays had a problem with is and I had a problem with it, we stayed in that session that evening late discussing it. We were the only two Commissioners I think at that particular time, maybe Mr. Shepard was there, too, in that proposal. Now he brought that proposal to us, said that this is the proposal that we had asked earlier this year if we would take over this program, what it would cost the City to take over the program. He said $143,000. And in that proposal, I asked the question then what would happen to the staff that’s there? He said it does not include the staff that are already currently working, we will provide Recreation staff and summer students. And so the question was we thought that Recreation could not operate the senior citizens currently as they are and do the work that they’re doing now. And that’s how the other figures came up, with how much would it take to hire the staff. I asked the question in the, in our last meeting that we had, to Lawrence, to how much is it for the employees that you have working? And he said $130,000. So that’s where I’m getting my figure from. Adding the $130,000 to the $143,000 to cover the staff, and also he said he had $30,000 left over. So that’s what I see where a simpler formula is the only difference was that what Mr. Beck had already 6 worked out what it takes to operate, but the only difference was, was the staff. And we found the money to get the staff. And if, if Senior Citizens Council says $130,000, I think they said $130,000 to $150,000 or whatever that figure was, add that figure to what Mr. Beck, and you got it covered. I mean that’s just simple math to me. I think Mr. Howard is here, he probably got the proposal of Mr. Beck. Mr. Beck is not here today and you know, we’re discussing this budget, I mean I think these department heads that we’re discussing these issues need to be here so they could speak to it. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I can, I believe that there is a misunderstanding, and what I’m passing out to you is the original proposal that has been funded from our recommendation. If you look at the very bottom line where it says total funding, there is $143,910 from our recommendation. Now that was to go directly to the Senior Citizens Council. If you look back up where it says senior citizens operation, there is a number of a request from the senior citizens of $253,000. Our recommendation was zero. And what we did in lieu of that was to add to Recreation Department budget $60,000 to operate those senior citizens operations. So I think there is a misunderstanding. The $143,000 has nothing to do with the senior citizens operations. Now you also note that I made a note of $150,000, that’s what the Senior Citizens Council, Lawrence Hammond specifically said it would cost to operate those four centers using their staff. So we would then give to, in lieu of Recreation running it, we would give to the Senior Citizens Council an additional $150,000 to continue the operations as they are in the senior citizens program. I hope that clears, clears it up. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, let me say this. While we’re giving a constant number from county government to Senior Citizens Council for those programs, I think where you’ve got somewhat a situation where you’ve got to put an asterisk in there. Because you’re looking at what we contributed to the program in funds and of backup resources within the centers in order to do. But then it’s kind of hard to just say this is specifically where this money goes when you’ve got a mixed staff of people coming in to perform a certain program. True, we’ve only contributed that amount. But then what is then in the breakdown, can you, if you can honestly say that $143,000 has covered the staff that they have sent in, meals and everything else, then I think you’ve got a plate of oranges. If you’ve got where it covers some of that and there’s an outstanding amount that’s in there, then I think you’ve got a plate of apples. And I think you’ve got to balance both of them. Right now, that’s what we were trying to do, and I think that’s what is in Commissioner Hankerson’s proposal. Number 1, let me remind you that this is a little bit deeper than the seniors programs. The seniors programs is what we are discussing right now, but what’s on target is this -- I mentioned this earlier to some Commissioners, I’ll use Savannah Place as an example. You’ve got a gym coming in on line over there and I believe we are finally getting a maintenance person to come over there, now that we got [inaudible] buildings. But what I think the proposal does, it actually, and this by no means the staff that will be coming on, but I actually think you are getting a cheaper, more experienced work force to add to what you’ve got than if you’ve got to supply some of these centers with stocking personnel to house it. Number 7 1, we debated, and I still don’t know -- we’ve covered so much -- we’ve got a center that’s opening up on the Hill side in Summerville and Sand Hills. It’s got to be staffed. You’ve got a gymnasium being built at Savannah Place to a point you are getting a maintenance person. Well, by the time you take Ms. Jackson -- and I’m putting persons down that’s in here for the purpose of where you see what’s there. You’ve got her at Savannah Place. And you may deal with a part-timer or somebody else, but then you remove the person doing the senior coordinating, that’s gone, and then you put her in charge of having to deal with all of it. At some point, you are going to have to hire somebody in that case to deal with two buildings there, one person on staff and [inaudible] recreation is not going to be able to deal with it. It will be better if you are going to fund it to deal with it now, dealing with the experience that you’ve got, keeping the senior program intact with that person, so that in splitting duties you’ve got people that’s associated with both and understand it and can run it. Because you are going to come back and hit it eventually anyway. So if you are going to hit it, you might as well move the ones that you’ve got. The other thing that it gives, if you are going to have to start this shifting folk within public services to expand recreation. Now let me just say this, and I’m not going to put them on the spot about answering anything. I think Rec will handle as best they can whatever we delegate them to handle, just as other departments do that are short-handed, they still make it work. But to say will it work adequately and what they’re used to dealing with, I’m not so sure of that and I’m not going to put folk on the spot to answer that. But I think there that you’ve got a [inaudible] situation that, as I mentioned during that budget hearing that night -- Commissioner Hankers was right and I’ll repeat it because we were down low and we dwindled down to the three of us that night [inaudible]. Seniors, not to speak for them, and even though I got my AARP card in my pocket, Mr. Mayor, but it’s getting to the point where with a $103 million or $104 million budget, they’re not dealing with the perception of where you get all this money from and all the different departments and layers. The questions I get out of the four Districts that I’ve got is that, whether our care will be the same and how it will be done, they’re familiar with people and how they deal with it. You’re looking at asking the same pocket group of folk to deal with all the other things that we want to do in the community in July, and I hear people ask me this, y’all are planning to build this, y’all are planning to expand this, y’all are planning to do this, and y’all are going to get into war about the little money that we want to deal with for seniors program. Now every program ought to be run prudently, it ought to be run efficiently. But I think that the trade-off that you’re dealing with and what you are asking for to happen out of the population that you’re dealing with in this, the smoother it works, the better it’s going to work. Because that’s where you’re going to have the demand to come up and ask you to fund five to ten years of SPLOST to do with it. These are the folks that are going to vote in July. They are not going to be the folk that’s to a point in another generation that you are going to ask in July to get out and vote. It’s going to be your main populace of seniors who are going to concentrate your biggest voting population. And that’s why we looked at it to a point that maybe it can work. But will it work better with the ones you’ve got? If they are under our auspices, it [inaudible] this, and I’ll be through, Mr. Mayor. It gets them under our workforce, our payroll, but under our supervision. I’m sure that we’ve got a seniors coordinator in a center that works for Augusta Richmond County. They going to be asked to do more than senior citizens 8 business. And the answer to that is they’ll do it. Because they are part of our family at that point. And I think [inaudible] need to start shifting folk and they move them, then they’ve got an experienced force that you can rotate and you put them [inaudible]. It’s a matter of whether you’re going to ask for them now or you are going to ask for them later. But it’s going to come back to deal with at some point. And that was why I support what he’s got in there. And I hope that answers the question in terms of the fact that can it probably work? It probably can work but at what level and of what strain do you put on a workforce that’s already going out and asking neighborhoods and neighborhood associations to adopt and run centers? You’re already at that state. So then how more do you continue it by dwindling down and stretching the workforce that you’ve got already in those capacities? And that would be my answer to it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let’s go to Mr. Shepard and hear his proposal, Option 2. I think everybody has got a copy. If you don’t, I’ve got some extras. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, what I want to observe is [inaudible] of this is how much we have, both my proposal and Mr. Hankerson’s proposal, has built on the budget that was submitted through the Administrator’s office which had the input of the Finance Director and the assistants in Finance. So let me make a couple of refinements to the proposal. Number 1, a legal one which Mr. Wall recommends, is that we have an increase of 2.802, not as a new district but as part of the general fund millage. The last, the last time I checked the difference between what we levied and the tax cap, it was about 80%. So I think whatever proposal we have finally come to get six votes on, we ought to characterize it, if I’m correct, Jim, as a increase in the general fund millage, but we’re targeting it toward the ambulance and the support in the 911 center. Otherwise, we’re just creating a needless problem down the road. I quite frankly don’t look forward to any needless legal problems down the road. But anyway, if you can cut it out beforehand, let’s cut it out. So that’s, that’s the first difference. And here again, the significant thing about both these proposals is that they’re aimed at what has come up out of the hearings, what has come up from our constituents, which has, yes, even come up through the media. And that is we’re going to have to address the fund balance situation. I think it has been correctly pointed out that we should use conservative numbers. We should try to protect that fund balance. And I really don’t know what the digest is going to do. I’m not a crystal ball seer, so my millage increase to address the fund balance/shrinking digest problem is an increase of .25 mills, and that’s down in the total general fund revenue about the third one down. I’m also in the manpower management savings plan. If you notice, that’s the main difference there, that’s, that I’m doing that a little less than Mr. Hankerson. The Diamond Lakes library, all these numbers are the same if you look across both spreadsheets. I think we are of one mind that we have to work with law enforcement, animal control. Another significant difference is I’m not increasing IT but $144,000. I understand how important that is, but I think we’ve got substantial agreement as to the EEO program, trying to get that off center and funding that, that’s identical. The other major difference as I see it is that we have a delayed market and reclassification program to try to treat everybody with some kind of adjustment on May 1, 2004. So my item of expense is less because I had delayed it, whereas Mr. Hankerson has increased with COLA effective January 1. So then we move 9 to the senior center, which we all are trying to address. And here again, I’m going to ask a question after I finish here, because my number here is $90,000. Mr. Hankerson’s number is only $10,000 different from that. I’ve also fought again for an increase in the contingency account. So we are trying to address the problems that I think we’ve identified. Here again, is the digest going to grow? Have we used too much fund balance? Both of us are going in the direction that would, would address those new matters. It addresses public safety, and it addresses our employees. So I’m, I’m thinking that a compromise on these line items is, you know, if it’s not here today, it will be here in the very near future. I think we’re working off the same sheet of music. And that is important in the process. But it’s not Steve Shepard’s budget, it’s not Bobby Hankerson’s budget, it’s the budget of the Commission, and if we tie up, it’s the budget of the Mayor’s vote going with one proposal or the other. So I’m, I’ve refined mine a little bit, but what I’m having a little trouble understanding is, is the difference of the senior citizens appropriation only $10,000 in each version? I mean I’m appropriating or I’m suggesting appropriation of $90,000 new money, he’s suggesting $100,000. That would appear to me to be only a $10,000 difference. What, can we get a little enlightenment on that? That’s what I’m not quite -- we don’t seem to be that far apart. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Hankerson is going to have to correct me, but your proposal funds the four centers at a level of $150,000; Commissioner Hankerson’s seems to fund it at a level of $160,000. Now if I’m correct on that, I can’t, I can’t explain the $10,000 difference. Mr. Mayor: The $150,000 is what is reflected in your note, on the memo that you passed us. Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Shepard: Well, if I reduce the contingency increase by just $10,000, wouldn’t that, wouldn’t that shift that $10,000 up to that $90,000? Mr. Kolb: Yes. Mr. Shepard: So that could -- I see David in the room and George. Mr. Mayor: I think they’re discussing that number now. Mr. Mayor: Bill? Mr. Kuhlke: Steve? Mr. Shepard: Yeah? Mr. Kuhlke: Let me ask you this question. Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir? 10 Mr. Kuhlke: And I ask it of Mr. Kolb. The $90,000 that you have plugged in -- Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: The way I understood it, Mr. Kolb, was if you, if you continued the program with the senior citizens, if you did not continue the program with the senior citizens, the $90,000 would go away. Mr. Kolb: That is correct. Mr. Shepard: So that increase would be zero increase. Mr. Kuhlke: It would go down to contingency. Mr. Shepard: Well, that would -- and then in my, under the total Augusta run program, the contingency could be increased to $200,000; is that what you’re saying? Mr. Kuhlke: Exactly. Mr. Shepard: And I guess my question is, in either of these budgets, are we achieving any economy over the 2003 appropriation to the senior center? Mr. Kolb: Either proposal increases what we have given to the Senior Citizens Council in past years. Except for this year, where you added the $130,000 in UDAG funds. But in terms of general fund support, yes, it would increase. Mr. Shepard: The total general fund support for that is? Mr. Kolb: $143,000 plus whatever, whichever proposal you choose, either with Recreation or with the Senior Citizens Council operating the program. Mr. Mayor: George, isn’t the actual number $203,000, cause you’ve got $60,000 in Recreation? You’ve got $143,000 going directly to the Senior Citizens Council and $60,000 in Recreation, so you already have $203,000 in the budget; correct? Mr. Kolb: That is correct. So if you wanted to add $90,000 to the $203,000, it would be about $293,000. Mr. Shepard: But here again, under -- excuse me. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Under the proposal that I was making, we would have the experienced employees transferred from the senior citizens budget to our budget; is 11 that correct, so we’d have the same personnel providing those services, that includes transition type of, you know, operation. Mr. Kolb: As I understand what’s on the table, that is what is being proposed. That there would be, we would pick up -- well, we would pick up those employees that currently work for the Senior Citizens Council, we would pick them up on our, our payroll. Mr. Shepard: But here again, to achieve that, I would have to move the $90,000 from that direct grant, just move it to contingency; is that correct? Mr. Kolb: That is, that is correct. If you were considering the $150,000 proposal as a grant to the Council, yes. That would be moved to the Recreation personnel line item. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hankerson, there was a question about the discrepancy between the $150,000 that Commissioner Shepard put in and the $160,000 that you put in. Mr. Hankerson: For senior citizens? Mr. Mayor: For senior citizens, right. He’s got $150,000 and that’s based on the information [inaudible] $160,000. Mr. Hankerson: I spoke to Mr. Shepard earlier this weekend, and I found it was a difference in the figures when Lawrence made his report. So then my figures had to change. First it was $90,000, so that’s why he had $90,000 on there and that’s what we had discussed and we talked about. It was $90,000. But the difference is $10,000. You know we talking about $10,000 here, talking about a compromise in a budget that’s never been so close with two individuals presenting it, and no really argument or discussion from the Commissioners, I think we need to get serious and get this budget done and finished with, cause we don’t have enough differences here. And Mr. Mayor, another thing is the difference with Mr. Shepard’s proposal on the cost-of-living adjustment and the [inaudible] management, that his is say we start in May and I had proposed for st January 1. I can live with starting at May and that would change the mill to .35. His is .25. Mine is .35. You can’t get no closer than that. Mr. Shepard: It changed the net mill increase? Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, where yours is .25, right? On your proposal. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Just one second, Mr. Williams. I see your hand up and I’m coming to you. Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Hankerson? 12 Mr. Hankerson: Yes? Mr. Mayor: I don’t want you to misunderstand. We’re not arguing over $10,000. We just want to make sure that whatever we do we have the correct number in the budget, whether it’s $160,000 or $150,000. Mr. Hankerson: Right. Mr. Mayor: And just want to make sure that we do have the right number in the budget. Mr. Hankerson: Right. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Williams has asked to be recognized. Marion? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m a little, as close as we are, still a little bit confused here about how the employees is going work and which -- and I know we got [inaudible] program. My question is, first of all, I haven’t heard anything from the Finance Director and I’m wondering why he’s here but have not presented and gave us -- Mr. Mayor: Well, I’m going to invite them up to talk about the issue with respect to the tax digest and so forth, but what we want to do is try to flesh out -- Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: -- these two options first and then we’ll get into the other. Mr. Williams: And my good friend, Mr. Shepard, your, your increase, cost-of- living increase, how much -- is that the same as Mr. Hankerson was across the -- what, what? Mr. Shepard: I thought I did 2%, did I not? I did 2% versus 3%. Mr. Williams: 2% versus 3%? Well, I’ve got some of a problem with that. I mean I can understand the 2%. I think that our lower level needs to have maybe a 3% and maybe a 2% on the upper lever, Mr. Shepard. I think we still close, I think we, we, we, we trying to get down to brass tacks, but maybe I think hear a little bit more from the Finance Director and these two proposals very close and I can, I can adjust [inaudible] with that. Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Bobby. Mr. Hankerson: Let me respond back to what Mr. Williams was saying there. That, in the proposal also I stated that if we consider the reclassification, the 3% that the individuals that will be getting the reclassification increase, 3% would be deducted from that. So basically that’s saying the same thing, you’re saying executive staff versus the -- 13 Mr. Williams: I see the legal attorney shaking his head down there. I don’t know, is that -- Mr. Wall: Well, I’m trying to understand what you’re saying by that. Let’s say you’ve got $20,000 employee who is to be reclassified to a $25,000 position. And then you’ve got an employee who is currently in that $25,000. He’s going to get the 3%, so effective January 1 or whatever the date is, he will be making $25,750. All right, if you reclassify that employee, is he going to get $25,000 or is he going to get $25,750? Mr. Hankerson: He’s going to get $25,000. Mr. Mayor: He is going to get the greater, either the reclassification or the cost- of-living. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] is that, I’m trying to understand. [inaudible] Mr. Hankerson: Well, the intentions, the intentions of it and how we would work out the logistics of it, we have from January to July to work out the logistics, but the intention of it is to give the 3% to -- everybody will get an increase. Then the reclassification that we’re considering in July, by that time it will let us know, the proof will be in the pudding, whether we have the money to do it or not, and at that time the ones that receive the, will benefit from the reclassification, now I said will be minus the 2% or the 3% that they already received. I think the formal proposal out, that we [inaudible] was that we give 3% and also do the reclassification, but the individuals that would get a reclassification wouldn’t get both. And what I’m trying to do is eliminate an individual getting 3% now and then we do a reclassification, he get the reclassification increase, and also he has received the 3%. That’s what I’m trying to eliminate. Mr. Williams: Well, Mr. Mayor, if I can respond. And, and, and that’s my, that’s my problem with the reclassification. It is so mixed up, it has got so much in there till if we do that and not knowing what’s coming, we give a 3%, then these, the reclassification come about, then there is another increase which make even more difference between the employees. Mr. Hankerson, that’s why I wanted to find out something. But like I say, I hadn’t heard anything from the Finance Director. I’d like to hear something, a proposal from him, I’d like to hear from Sonny Reece again. I read this article that I didn’t buy, Sonny, somebody gave it to me. But we’re -- Mr. Mayor: We’re going to hear from them, Mr. Williams, as soon as we’re through with our question on these. And have we run our course on the questions? Mr. Mays, you had another question? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I know we’re, I know we’ve had a lot of discussion in reference to the seniors side, but is it, is it, would it be proper to move down to the bottom or are we still right now on seniors? 14 Mr. Mayor: No, go ahead. What we’re trying to do is clarify the issues with respect to the proposal from Commissioner Hankerson and Commissioner Shepard or any other proposals somebody would like to put on the table, and then we’re going to hear from the staff about [inaudible]. Mr. Mays: This would probably be to, to, to staff in reference to maybe both proposals and not knocking the numbers that are, that are put in. I’m going to take this opportunity, as I’ve done a couple of times, one, to, especially since we’re right here on the eve of Thanksgiving to thank the Mayor for moving in on some things, particularly not only during inauguration but things we talked about privately and he’s talked about publicly in reference to the bottom items that are on here in reference to not only EEO but particularly as it relates to small and minority business. And putting that initiative together and of getting that group done, and I think that’s been a long time coming and we’re trying -- I’m grateful to you and to the Commission for finally after about 11 or 12 years, where this is coming around to making it a reality. So I’m not going to be crazy enough to take the money off the table in any kind of way, but I’ve got a little bit of clarification of where we’re going and I want to make sure that, that if we’re going to do it, that we, we have it from the sources that we need, too. At the bottom we’ve got plugged in here to go into the airport side of it, and I’m wondering if it’s at a time because some of us discussed it this morning, is it at a time that we need to maybe look at adjusting where that comes from out of their budget, and I bring it up for this reason. We’ve approved their situation to hire their [inaudible] person at the airport. They’ve got a certain amount of money that’s plugged into and I know some earlier talks were even to a point of could we do some things jointly. I think that while we were maybe not ready to do ours, they moved ahead to where they were going and in discussion with some of them, I think what we’re going to run into, quite frankly, is, is, is this point. The proportionate share, if we’re taking money from theirs and they’re going to have one, even though we appoint the board and we could do that, I just think from the standpoint, particularly if we’re going to end up finalizing this today and reach a compromise where we’ve got such a short distance apart in the proposals, but on this one, this is on both of them. And as the person who chairs that subcommittee, I just want to make sure that we get it from somewhere. I’m kind of wondering, as long as it doesn’t knock something else in the head to do it, I’m kind of grateful wherever we get it from. But I think we need to probably clear this airport situation on both of these to a point if we know we’re going to run into objections about it, and I think we are, and Jim can probably back me up on that. I think maybe we need to decide that now on that pro rated share as to where we deal with that out of city funds, because when I look at the number of employees they’ve got, and look at versus the number we’ve got, then look at the contracts, look at the ones from Public Works, Utilities, everything else that we may do, Recreation, and the ones that may share in this city’s program of doing the contracts, versus what the airport’s got, I think they are going to question to a point if they’re putting in a person to do this, and then we’re creating an office, should they pay a large hunk of what we’re doing and their person is doing the same thing? And I’m just throwing that out there to, to get some clarity on it. 15 Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in response to that, first of all, I think you should realize that this is 100% funding, from January 1 to December 31. I don’t think that’s realistic. You probably will not have that office up and running for a minimum of 30+ days. Second, in our cost allocation study, regardless of how you fund this, all of the funds will contribute to paying for this particular position, not only the airport and water and waste water, but solid waste and all of the other independent funds of the general fund through our normal cost allocation study. I kind of agree with you, Commissioner Mays, but for the budget purposes and to show a balanced budget, I would recommend that you leave it this way, that we go into discussions with the airport, because they have at least indicated to me that if we had moved faster on this position that they probably would have relinquished their responsibilities to this office. I think that if we can discuss it with them, that we could get some cooperation, at least for the initial 12 months. Now after that I think it should probably go into the normal flow of how we fund our general fund and subjected to the cost allocation formula, and that may take place in 2004 anyway. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond in a friendly manner. I reiterate the fact I like [inaudible] going for a touchdown, I believe in keeping my money where it is. But I also believe that if you know there is going to be a discussion that’s going to be to a point where you’re going to run into objections and you know that going in, I think it’s a little bit, even if it’s a small amount, I don’t see any need to balance the budget to a certain extent on the slight falsehood, because if you need to adjust it, adjust it now. What I don’t want to have to do with this office to a point of 12 or 13 years of fooling with this thing, is end up having to come back in January or some time with a new Commission to try and find six votes to get the difference of it clarified because then the airport has objected and then you’ve thrown that part of it out. That’s why I saying give them what would be their just pro rated, fair share or either put it in from the departments appropriately from the very beginning. And then if you’ve got to deal with a contingency to make up the difference, do that and do it now. I just don’t like to, to go into -- I was taught when you deal with a budget, you deal with the numbers of what you’ve got. The ifs and what may happen and negotiate later, that gets you into trouble. And it also to a point all that you don’t see [inaudible] when you vote on it on a certain day, it’s left to negotiation, and better [inaudible] dogfight on another day, if you don’t settle it while you’re dealing with it. It’s a small amount, but I just don’t think to a point contractually, number one, this is an office, [inaudible] Jim, you correct me, that I think another thing to add to it is, and I brought this to their attention when I talked with some of their members, and I said to them remember this. This also is going, is a different type of city department because it’s out of the bill. It’s one where the reporting responsibility stays directly to the Commission. Now I think some folk had a slight problem with that or going to have one with it to a point where you got a department that’s in there, [inaudible] I know everything eventually reports to the Commission, but the independence of it and where it goes and then they’re asking somebody to make some decisions, to me that’s just, I just would feel better if we cleared it here. You know, cause what I’m looking at here, [inaudible] exact amount of money we’re going to get from the airport? 16 Mr. Mayor: $63,500. Mr. Kolb: In terms of everything or just this? Mr. Mays: No, just -- that we’re going to ask them to pay. Mr. Kolb: We don’t know. We won’t know that until towards year end when we do the cost allocation study. That’s what I’m saying to you. We won’t be back to you. This is just a paper number in order to give you a balanced budget. Mr. Mays: But George, I don’t mean to cut you off, but see, paper numbers are what get us in trouble anyway. And I’m glad paper numbers are popping up. I didn’t mean, I didn’t mean to rain on a parade that was almost about over with, but you know, Santa Claus ain’t quite getting into this one. Now see, paper numbers, when you put them in, this is just one item, but now then I may get curious and say what else have we got tied in this big book of numbers that’s on paper numbers? Because I like, I like, y’all know me, I like real numbers. And God knows I’d be the last person to fight against [inaudible] off the table with this, but I think you going, you going, you going to plug them in, plug them in real. $63,000 to come out of this from one department that’s got less than 75 employees, and we got 2,700 that work for the City and we issuing contracts every day, Recreation, Public Works, Water and Sewer, and Engineering. The bulk of this, and you ask an enterprise fund to fund it, I just think that needs to be balanced differently. And that’s just my opinion on it. I am taking money, Mr. Mayor, wherever I can get it. But I just don’t think if they do it later, the budget, if you going to finalize the budget today, finalize it properly. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The Mayor Pro Tem has had his hand up for some time. Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: And I’m on the same line with the airport budget. I don’t think that the airport should have to fund major portion of a position that’s going to be over here. Like Willie said, we have too many contracts, too many RFP’s [inaudible] and then when the airport needs to be put out a contract that person is tied up. I think this need to come out for the airport, and I think like the airport go ahead and stand alone on this position. I told George earlier I was uncomfortable taking $63,500 from the airport. Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. If there are no other questions on these two options, what we’d like to do now is pursue the interest of the Commission with respect to the estimate for the digest this year. Mr. Persaud, if you would come forward and speak from your position as Finance Director and then we’ll hear from Mr. Reece and then we’ll hear from Mr. Kolb and entertain any questions the Commissioners have. Mr. Persaud: Thank you, Mayor Young. The concerns that I have raised more have to do with budgetary gaps than the use of fund balance. Of course, reserve policies and [inaudible] policies are policy decisions adopted by this body. What I want to draw your attention to is the budgetary gap that has impacted on FY2003 budget. The current 17 budget that we have, that we are living with in 2003 has a gap of $4.8 million that is [inaudible] fund balance $1.8 million and lapsed salaries from the manpower management plan totaling $3.1 million. The method [inaudible] give to you is that the budget is more than an exercise of balancing revenue and expenditures. Whatever you do in terms of policy decisions in FY2003 will affect 2004, what you do in 2004 will consequently affect 2005. The proposed budget by the Administrator, George Kolb, has a gap of $5.6 million. Fund balance $3.7 million, lapsed salaries $1.9 million. If you look at the gap from 2003, $4.8 million, [inaudible] 2004, $5.6 million. Going back to reserve policy, reserve policies are policy decisions. However, there are certain elements that affect [inaudible] fund balance. Fund balance in governmental [inaudible] are increased by three elements: when actual revenues exceed budgeted revenues, when actual expenditures comes in less than budgeted expenditures, and a combination of both. In 2003, we have [inaudible] sale tax [inaudible]. We have [inaudible] out of salary [inaudible]. My summation is that I am predicting a very slight increase in fund balance. Therefore, the [inaudible]. In 2004, we have drawing [inaudible] $3.7 million. The Tax Assessor is predicting a flat digest. We are predicting a 2% sales tax increase. In summation, we are [inaudible] $5.6 million [inaudible] of $5.6 million over 2003 and 2004 with $5.5 million fund balance. Those budgetary gaps will roll over into 2005. I think I have a fiscal and ethical responsibility to advise you where you’re going. The gap in 2004 budget of $5.6 million will be compounded if you use either the $1.5 million or the $2.1 million in salary savings. As presented to you in both options and under difference scenarios by Commissioner Shepard and Commissioner Hankerson, you are not affecting the bottom line of the proposed 2004 budget. Yet at the same point in time, you’re increasing appropriations. That’s being done because you’re compacting salary savings and increasing or [inaudible] future expenditures in ’04 and ’05 that will repeat itself [inaudible] gap. As you know, the budget is balanced either by recurring revenues or non-recurring revenues. These elements I’m addressing are non-recurring. Therefore, the $5.6 million will repeat itself in 2005 unless we see a significant increase in fund balance. I just want to make sure that that’s clearly communicated to you, because as I’ve often heard, this body does not like surprises. [inaudible] and the results were not favorable [inaudible] so I just want to make sure that these issues are addressed to you [inaudible] lend itself to this explanation. It’s a policy decision but I think it’s [inaudible] advise you where you’re going. Mr. Mayor: David, let me ask you a couple of questions, if I may, if we can have a little math 101 class, if we could. Mr. Persaud: Sure. Mr. Mayor: The, what is the fund balance figure now? Mr. Persaud: The current fund balance is [inaudible] $25.3 million. Mr. Mayor: $25.3 million? All right. Mr. Persaud: And the working capital. 18 Mr. Mayor: Right. And that gives us how many days? Mr. Persaud: 90 working day. Mr. Mayor: 90? Okay. And over the course of a 12 month year, what would be the earnings of our fund balance? Mr. Persaud: If you’re going by interest rate, right [inaudible] 1%. That’s a pretty small amount. $250,000. Mr. Mayor: Okay. So that, so if we didn’t do anything with it, it would increase by about $250,000? Mr. Persaud: Correct. Mr. Mayor: So, so if we took something out of fund balance but didn’t want to impact the balance in the fund balance, we could anticipate taking out the, in effect take out the earnings? Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: And remain flat for the year? Mr. Persaud: Yes. Mr. Mayor: So that would, that would give us about $250,000 out of that? Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Persaud? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: David, historically I thought we had resulted in an increase in fund balance when we finally did our accounting on a cash basis here in the past. Have we not added to the fund balance for at least last year? I didn’t bring that part of my materials, but you say the fund balance today is at $25.3 million? Mr. Persaud: Correct. Mr. Shepard: Haven’t we added to that? Because the actual expenditures after the year was closed under-ran the projections and the revenues exceeded the projections, hasn’t had happened? Mr. Persaud: Yes, Commissioner Shepard. The fund balance in 2003 increased by $1.8 million. Mr. Shepard: So, so from last year to this year, it’s increase $1.8 million; is that correct? 19 Mr. Persaud: Correct. Mr. Shepard: And will not both of these proposals, you know, that’s what I understood, I was targeting and I think Commissioner Hankerson was targeting a mill increase to fiscal responsibility and the public safety, and both our proposals raised money to put in that gap, do they not? Mr. Persaud: Correct. Mr. Shepard: And -- Mr. Persaud: My analysis was based before these proposals were presented. Mr. Shepard: Okay. So I mean what I’m, what I’m trying to say, and I think Mr. Hankerson -- I won’t speak for him, he’ll speak for himself, these numbers speak for themselves -- is that we heard those concerns and still we want to hear Mr. Reece because we’re trying to be conservative here, I think. And so this, this speaks to that exact issue, does it not? Mr. Persaud: It does. Mr. Shepard: Okay. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Hankerson and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. And that’s my reason on the manpower savings that we have here. And from what I’m hearing from the Finance Director and from what I’ve read, the concerns that this manpower savings is not actually real money, and from what I’m hearing we’re buying time. That’s why that, you know, my proposal is to, is to on the manpower savings, is to freeze those salaries a little bit longer, but still yet that’s not affecting the bottom line, is what I’m hearing. We’re still in the same position. The best position we could be in is, is not make any increases, that’s the best position we could be in. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: David, I wanted to ask you this. We’re going into fund balance $3.7 million. Within the projected revenues, I believe there’s a 3% increase in the digest, in the proposed budget. Assuming that we go in at the $3.7 million and we use the $3.7 million and we don’t have a 3% increase in the digest, what is the total financial impact on the fund balance at the end of 2004? Mr. Persaud: The actual 3.5% growth in the digest equates to $841,000 of lost revenues from 2003 that’s included in the proposed budget. To answer the question, if we do not realize the growth as anticipated in the Administrator’s budget, the revenue 20 shortfall is $841,000. However, over and above that, you have used $3.7 million of your reserve to keep the budget in balance. Mr. Kuhlke: Right. So, so, so the, so the impact is the $4.5 million? Mr. Persaud: Absolutely. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Persaud: If you realize zero growth in the digest, you will have lost $841,000, around $842,000. But at the same point in time you [inaudible] $3.7 million in reserve. And you must realize there will also be a shortfall. Mr. Kuhlke: Right. But the proposal, I think Commissioner Shepard was trying to say, is that the millage increase that we’re proposing basically is about $2.7 million, if you look at the ambulance service and 911 and half a mill increase. Mr. Persaud: Yes. Mr. Kuhlke: That’s Mr. Hankerson’s proposal. Mr. Persaud: The millage and increase will provide assurance or balancing for the fire districts. Both proposals from Commissioner Hankerson and Commissioner Shepard with the slight millage increase is providing some relief on the dependency of salary savings or the manpower savings. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Persaud: Not at 100% level. Mr. Kuhlke: I got you. But under both proposals, whether it’s a quarter mill or a half a mill, would take care of the shortfall if we did not have an increase in the digest? Mr. Persaud: Yes. You are decreasing your projected shortfall. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had some questions? Mr. Williams: Well, I guess not to the Finance Director, but this, and he enlightened me a great deal in what he just said. But the [inaudible] process, in, will be growing out of this? Is that -- Mr. Mayor: Well, if that’s what you all want to do, it will be. That’s a [inaudible] this board will have to make as part of the budget. 21 Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: In terms of looking at the, the EEO funding, trying to take some pressure off the general fund, do we have a number of what the airport and water and sewer contingency funds are? I mean are we, there’s a minimal impact on both of those funds, is my impression; is that correct, Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Yes. They don’t necessarily have contingency funds. They have what you call retained earnings, and they are appropriated from those. Mr. Shepard: Okay. Well, in terms of retained earnings, then, how much are we, how much are -- Mr. Kolb: They are, both funds are definitely on the plus side of the ledger. Maybe David can give you a specific number. I can’t, but I know that they are [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: Can you give us a ballpark? I don’t want to be strapping the, the retained earnings. The retained earnings are the water and sewer and the Bush Field accounts, David, do you have those available? Mr. Williams: A ballpark figure or anything, with in the ballpark? Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] Mr. Shepard. Mr. Persaud: Let me clarify this. I will get those figures for you, but the proposed 2004 budget, the amounts we have recognized for indirect cost recovery allocation is based on the current year and [inaudible]. That figure, that figure will not change [inaudible] balancing of this budget. [inaudible] indirect cost allocation you have recognized. The $63,000 is over and above what has been recognized. Mr. Shepard: But what is their retained earnings, is what I was trying to determine? I’m taking $63,000 of the retained earnings from both of those enterprise funds, what will they have left? Mr. Williams: This ballpark, David, don’t have to be -- just -- Mr. Mayor: But might not retained earnings be artificially skewed because of the capital improvement program in utilities and the accumulation of cash to build the terminal at the airport? Mr. Persaud: You’re absolutely right, Mr. Mayor. The impact on the water and sewer fund would be quite insignificant. I think the retained earnings in the water and 22 sewer fund is close to [inaudible] million. The airport is close to $17 million so it’s very insignificant in terms of financial impact. Mr. Williams: Okay, but it’s still the enterprise zone situation not a part of this regular government and part of our regular budget, though, right? Mr. Persaud: Yes, they are separate funds, [inaudible] balancing funds. Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s hear from Mr. Reece now if you have no more questions for Mr. Persaud. Sonny, you want to talk a little bit about the digest again? Mr. Reece: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as I addressed you at the first part of September and October when you started your budget hearings and workshops, based on the appeals of 2002 and what we’ve looked at the digest for 2003, how it came about, we’re still finishing those appeals, I suggested that you go for a budget with zero growth. I’m going to still say that I think we need to go with zero growth as we are cleaning up our system and trying to come up with the operating [inaudible] that we have. Also at that time, as a result of the Commission Finance Committee meeting, y’all asked us to provide you with quarterly reports. And as I have explained to the Finance chairman and a couple of Commissioners that we will be presenting you a report the first of April, at which time we will have the chance to pick up the building permits that we compared with last year’s, what resulted in this year, then we can then give you a projection where 2004 is going to actually be the first part of April. All of our building permits should be picked up no later than the first part of February, we get all the information entered in the system, but at this point in time I still think we ought plan with a zero growth in the digest. If there is any change of that, then you’ll be made aware of that in the first quarter, as soon as possible. You will also be made aware that if there’s going to be any problems, at the same time. I would rather be on the safe side and conservative than to go out with a 3% growth. I know I’ve looked at the same presentation that you’ve had and Augusta doesn’t seem to be in real bad shape as far as the economic impact that’s going on in the area. But as far as the digest is concerned, I still think we ought to go with a flat digest. Mr. Mayor: Any questions for Mr. Reece? Go ahead, Steve. Mr. Shepard: So given that, what, what, either increment of cuts or new revenue are you comfortable with in terms of a flat digest? Mr. Reece: From Chief Appraiser or from an individual taxpayer? Mr. Shepard: Well, just, just from this process. Mr. Reece: From this process, I think the only fiscally prudent thing that you can do for the government would be to raise the millage rate. To generate additional revenues. We’re running on shoestrings now in most places. 23 Mr. Shepard: So either of these proposals address that? Mr. Reece: Either of these proposals. I would say the, I’d like to see the higher mill rate myself. Mr. Shepard: Well, okay, from purpose of the process, but then from being a taxpayer of Richmond County -- Mr. Reece: Then I would like to see the lower one, too. Mr. Shepard: I understand that, so probably a compromise would have to be the one to work out. Mr. Reece: Yes, sir, I think the number that Mr. Hankerson put out is about .35 would probably the compromise. Mr. Shepard: But that’s just one component of it. Mr. Reece: Right. Mr. Shepard: We’ve still got the other 2.8 on public safety. Mr. Reece: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: .28. Mr. Shepard: .28. Mr. Reece: .28 Mr. Shepard: .28. And -- Mr. Reece: [inaudible] .63. Mr. Mayor: Anything further from Mr. Reece? Mr. Shepard: Maybe. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Reece, you just said that we’re operating on a shoestring. Tell me where and how. Mr. Reece: Well, just like two years ago, three years ago when I first came to government, one of the first things I had to do was cut 3% of our budgets. And a lot of 24 departments had to go in and cut them and some of the departments, the small departments in particular. Mr. Boyles: In what areas did you have to cut? Mr. Reece: One of the things that we did, we had to cut in our operational end of it because 80-85% of my budget, particular the [inaudible], is all salaries. So we had to go right straight across with [inaudible] and what we’ve done in our office is to eliminate car allowances, we’re using vehicles now and stuff of that nature. We’ve cut everything we could. Mr. Boyles: So was a good bit of that what we called discretionary funding or was it mandated funding or what did we -- Mr. Reece: The required cuts? Those were mandated. Mr. Boyles: Talking about the mandated funding. We have certain mandates, like food for the jail, food for the prison, all that. That’s mandated. Mr. Reece: Just the general operating budget. Mr. Boyles: Not much we can do about that, but what about the discretionary part? Mr. Reece: The discretionary funding that we had. Mr. Boyles: May I ask Mr. Persaud a question? Mr. Mayor: Certainly. Mr. Persaud? Mr. Boyles: David, in the information that we’ve got on both Mr. Shepard’s and Mr. Hankerson’s proposal, things like the Diamond Lakes library, that’s really not a cut, that’s just not there, is it? We haven’t cut that. Mr. Persaud: That’s funding that was in place that is not necessary [inaudible] budget. Mr. Boyles: So we’re really not cutting anything? Mr. Persaud: No, you [inaudible]. Mr. Boyles: What about on total bills, like total budget amounts like cell phones or travel and those kind of things, miscellaneous identified? What are those, is that discretionary? 25 Mr. Persaud: Those are discretionary expenditures, and the staff has went back and looked at the trends for 2003 and I think they were able to trim $175,000 from those discretionary expenditures. Mr. Boyles: Is this the staff doing this, who is doing this? Mr. Persaud: Staff. Mr. Boyles: Staff? Mr. Persaud: Looking at trends. You can determine trends and pattern of expenditures and historic information s to what impact will be in 2004 and those were trimmed off. Mr. Boyles: Could you give me a rough idea, so that general fund, of what the travel, education and training, local mileage budget would be? Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles: How much? Mr. Persaud: $800,000 approximately. Mr. Boyles: $800,000? Mr. Persaud: Yes. Mr. Boyles: So we’re going to take $100,000 off of it? Mr. Persaud: Yes. Mr. Boyles: What about the others, as total figures? Mr. Persaud: Discretionary budget, and the total general fund? Mr. Boyles: Uh-huh [yes]. Mr. Persaud: It’s approximately $25 million. Mr. Boyles: How much? Mr. Persaud: About $25 million. Mr. Boyles: About $25 million of this budget is --- 26 Mr. Persaud: You have a budget of just about $100 million, of which labor cost is about $75 million, $70 million. And the other fixed costs, $5 million. $75 million. You have discretionary expenditures around $25 million, $20 million to $25 million. But [inaudible] things like utilities which are fixed costs. So you have to understand [inaudible]. Mr. Boyles: That’s kind of mandated, like fixed costs? In your opinion do you think there is any way else, there is anyplace else that this might could be cut? Mr. Persaud: What we have done is established a look at areas where we think we can trim without affecting operating departments. To do additional trimming we’ll need to get feedback from the departments [inaudible] potential impact on the operations. Mr. Boyles: How long would that take? Mr. Persaud: Three or four days, working days. Mr. Boyles: Three or four working days? Mr. Persaud: [inaudible] Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Boyles: Could I make a motion that we authorize the Finance Director to thoroughly analyze the proposed general fund budget for reductions and discretionary expenses and see what kind we can come up with and maybe have something back to us by next Tuesday? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. That’s in order if that’s what you’d like to do. Mr. Persaud: That would be kind of quick. Mr. Mayor: I asked at the work session for projected cuts about a month ago and haven’t seen them yet, so. Mr. Persaud: I give them to you. Mr. Mayor: Where? These are your cuts? These are the recommended cuts from the staff? That’s what I asked for. Recommended cuts. Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] everything is on the table. [inaudible] you want and you said that was appropriate. 27 Mr. Mayor: Well, this is prioritized [inaudible] staff. Okay. Let’s see if we have a second to Mr. Boyles’ motion. Mr. Kuhlke: What was the motion? Mr. Boyles: The motion was to authorize the Finance Director and budget staff to thoroughly analyze the budget, the general fund budget for reductions and discretionary expenses and bring it back to us. I said Tuesday, but that day is flexible. Mr. Persaud: It may take longer than that because we will need to get with departments and review their budgets so we need more time. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Kuhlke: Question. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: If we, if you -- you mean before we adopt a budget? Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: Well, we’ve got a regular meeting next Tuesday. We’re going to have to postpone that meeting and -- Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] much time. Mr. Mayor: Well, what you could do, Tommy, is have him do that report and we can come back and amend the budget after the first of the year and cut some of that discretionary spending, if the Commission so chooses to do that. It would be helpful information, but I don’t know -- Mr. Boyles: Well, I’m just concerned we’ve got a $25 million basically discretionary budget and [inaudible] mandated. Mr. Persaud: Well, there’s fixed costs in there. Mr. Boyles: Fixed costs. In the $75 million. Mr. Persaud: In the $25 million. Mr. Boyles: You’ve got fixed costs in the $25 million. Mr. Kolb: You have gasoline in there, postage. 28 Mr. Mayor: We’re getting into discussion on a motion that hasn’t been seconded. So the Chair would like to get a second, otherwise the motion will die for lack of a second and we’ll move on. Mr. Mays: I’ll second it, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] discussion going. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All right, we’ll continue with this. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the discretionary spending that Commissioner Boyles wants us to look at includes the support kinds of things that we have to spend in order to keep the operation of the government going, like paper, postage, tools, pencils, things like that. If you begin to cut those, then we begin to take away the tools, I guess, of trying to operate the government in looking for cost savings there. The ones that we have put on the table we feel comfortable that we can manage those. There is no guarantee because there may be cost increases in any one of these area, for whatever reason, but we will try to manage to those numbers based on what Mr. Persaud called trends. So we will move forward with that. Also, you have what I’ve handed out to you, something that the Mayor asked for. It’s a very difficult task for us to go through and determine where we should make cuts and prioritize, because we have a very bare-bones budget. But what I have given you is something I gave you two years ago, and that’s an inventory of municipal services. Everything. And the departments have relooked at it, prioritized them from the most important to the least important. So if you go to the end of a department and go backwards, then those are services that they could recommend that you cut. I don’t recommend that because as you made cuts two years ago, you were quickly reminded to restore those or you had to restore those and they caused you problems down the road. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Mr. Kolb. The Chair is going to declare a five minute recess. [RECESS] Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a couple of items that are on that table that we’re not going to be able to deal with today because we’re about to lose a quorum. And since the agenda for the meeting next Tuesday has already been published, the Chair will recognize Mr. Williams for the purpose of making a motion. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to place, make a motion that we place on the agenda for December 2 the item 52A and 55A, that’s the Administrator’s contract and the cost of the Judicial Center. I’d like to place them on the item, agenda for December 2. 29 Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. (Vote to place items on December 2 agenda) Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bonner, if you’ll add those to the agenda. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Now the Chair will recognize the Finance Chairman. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to make a motion at this time that we approve the 2004 budgets in the general fund and the law enforcement fund and in all funds listed in the resolution which was in the agenda book and that the Administrator’s proposal be amended as shown on a document prepared this morning by a group of us which is shown at the top of Commissioner Hankerson’s proposal #2 which is filed with the Clerk along with filing with her the budget resolution and I want to indicate the terms of that would be that the fire protection district have removed from it the $775,000 ambulance charge, that the general fund have added to it the ambulance subsidy of $775,000, a 911 support of that activity of $200,000 and then further adjustments of the general revenue being shown as additional revenue found from HRC/EEOC of $65,000, decrease in the use of fund balance by $1,492,740, the increase in the general fund of a mill, not a mill, a .35 mill which would equate to $1.1 million which is in addition to the millage rate in the general fund which will be necessary to take the 911 and the $775,000 ambulance charges associated with that service into the general fund. There will be a total general fund revenue as published on this sheet of $101,411,670 and there will be the following adjustments to that number. We will subtract from that a continuation of the manpower management plan of $2,151,250, we will delete the funding of the Diamond Lakes Library for $130,000, we will delete cell phones and pagers in the amount of $25,000, repairs and maintenance for $75,000 deletion, we will delete travel, education and local mileage and training for $100,000, there are other miscellaneous adjustments that have been identified in the amount of $88,490 for a total of subtractions of $2,569,740. There will be the following additions to the fund, to the expenses. We will have an additional $600,000 in law enforcement personnel, animal control and maintenance $240,000, IT $144,000, the EEO program will be borne entirely by the general fund with new money being added to what’s already in the budget in the amount of $68,000. There will be a cost of living raise for the employees which will begin May 1 at 3% of their salary which is equivalent to $1.1 million. The Senior Citizens Program will be handled to explain that with $90,000 in new money which I understand goes to the Rec Department. There will be continued funding of $143,000 to the Senior Center in order to leverage money for the purchase of food, and there is also an additional $60,000 in the budget in Rec for the Senior Citizens Program. These will result in increases in reprogramming of 30 $2,240,000 for a total of $101,411,670. Ms. Bonner, the references on the sheet to the Water and Sewer fund, 506 are deleted and the footnotes are expressly incorporated into this motion. Footnote #1 that the manpower management plan is extended from 90 to 120 days and that footnote #2 is incorporated therein, reclassifications will be addressed after the receipt of the 2004 tax digest. All employees receiving the reclass will be credited for the previous Coliseum Authority adjustment. Did I leave out anything, gentlemen? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, does that meet the legal requirement for the statement of the motion, and once we’ve [inaudible] motion then we will [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: On the advice of legal counsel as to Footnote #2 regarding the word COLA after Footnote #2 and before reclassification is deleted. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the motion? Mr. Colclough: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the motion. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: Yeah, also, did you say at the top it’s not new tax district? Mr. Shepard:All general fund Thank you, Mr. Hankerson. Did I say that? millage which we’re adding together, .35 and .28, which is .63, which is .6302, my motion stands amended by that. Mr. Mayor: Okay, discussion? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I just want to get some clarification on #2 at the bottom, Steve, reclassification will be addressed after receipt of the 2004 tax digest. Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: The 3% that we giving out, that still be considered with the same employees [inaudible]? Mr. Shepard: Well, it says, the footnote, the source is Mr. Hankerson’s motion, the employees that receive the reclass will be credited from the previous adjustments. That’s what I understood him to say. Mr. Hankerson: Right. Mr. Williams: I just want some clarification of that, I mean, I hear that, but all employees will receive reclassification, will be credited. And, and, and in what respect? Let’s take it back to James Brown Boulevard. 31 Mr. Wall: Well, with the COLA adjustment, but the COLA adjustment is being addressed now. It’s not being addressed after the 2004 tax digest, was the reason that the initial word was deleted, because the COLA adjustment is being made effective May 1, 2004. Mr. Shepard: And did I say that in the -- Mr. Wall: Yes, you did. Mr. Shepard: -- in the, see up in the plus side $1.1 million, that’s already been done. So the reclass will be done after the tax digest is done in 2004. Mr. Williams: I see that, Jim, but my question is those who get the reclassification, I mean those that get the cost-of-living adjustment back in May and once we reclass, is that another raise come in there? Mr. Mayor: That will be credited toward the amount. Mr. Wall: The footnote is written that the COLA adjustment that’s given in May will be applied, credited against, taken into consideration as part of the reclassification. Mr. Shepard: It’s like a retainer, I mean against the final. Mr. Williams: I just want to be clear. Mr. Mayor: Well, we want you to be clear. Do you understand what they’re talking about? Okay. Any other questions, any other comments? Anybody want the motion repeated? Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, may I ask just to be certain, just to be certain. A couple of questions. In the new tax district for the ambulance service, .28 mills? Mr. Shepard: I struck that. It’s for tax cap purposes the Attorney advises that we should not make a new tax district but we should have it in the general fund. Mr. Wall: 911 and ambulance rolled into the general fund. And that millage that’s shown there is added to the .35. Mr. Shepard: Correct. We’re at 80% of the tax cap. Therefore, that’s where we should put increases as opposed to, as opposed to a new district, Mr. Wall advises. Mr. Boyles: So our total increase is .35? Mr. Shepard: No, sir, it’s .6302. Mr. Wall: You say .6302. I’m trying to figure out where that number came from. 32 Mr. Boyles: Explain that. I don’t see that. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Shepard: That’s correct. Mr. Boyles: So we’re still doing a .28 for public safety and the ambulance service? But it won’t be a tax district, it’s just tax increase for that purpose, for public safety? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Boyles, the two main components of the millage adjustment are public safety, which if you want to break it down that’s the .2802, and fiscal responsibility. I mean we’ve been told that the digest is going to be flat, we’ve been told that you know, we need to reduce our use of fund balance. That’s where the .35 is directed. At the long term fiscal integrity of this, of this city. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, may I? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Boyles: I thought that I had a motion on the floor a little bit earlier. I don’t know what happened to that motion. It was seconded, but I just wanted to hear and know from the Finance Department, the Finance Director, that this budget has been cleaned as much as it could be and there were no other areas that could be cut. That’s what, that was what I wanted to know. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard : Mr. Mayor, Mr. Boyles is entirely correct. There was another I will, Iwill add the further stipulation this is a substitute motion to pass motion. this budget. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke has to leave for another engagement. We’re in danger of losing our quorum here. Is there anybody that has anything we need to get on the floor before we vote on this, so we can vote on the substitute and see if we can get it passed today? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I -- 33 Mr. Boyles: Are we going to hear from Mr. Persaud before? Mr. Mays: I can yield. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Persaud, if you’re ready to respond, go ahead. Mr. Persaud: Yes, in response to Commissioner Boyles’ request, we went back and looked thoroughly at the general fund operating expenditures. We were able to trim another $175,000. [inaudible] assume that we have [inaudible]. Mr. Boyles: So you’re saying that we, we can go no further with cuts? Mr. Persaud: At this point in time. That if you supplied additional significant reductions in the budget, it may create some hardship [inaudible] operate. Mr. Boyles: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, anything further? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I really would like to go on and finish this today. But I want to get two things clarified. One, I guess probably on Commissioner Beard’s behalf first since he is the sitting Commissioner, I made reference to this at the workshop and there were some places in here I realize we can go back in here and make other adjustments. But I share District 1 with him and I simply would like to know whether or not we are going to come back in those areas that were not recommended, and I guess I got one particular in mind [inaudible] $10,000 we were different on and we got that worked out and all, but I still, cause I’m going to get asked the question whether it’s going to happen. I got it the other night at a, at a, at a church meeting that they were having problems on road widening and it came up because the person lived in that area. What are we going to deal with with the new, new center there that’s on the Hill? Because in the recommendation, when it was in for three months prior to and it was not in for this year coming in, are we going to go back and address that to where the Commission [inaudible] make a decision out of contingency or some source or just what are we doing to do? I need to get an answer, particularly as Chairman of Public Services, on that. Because we have a brand new building we built and I didn’t see anything then and I don’t think anything has changed now. I thought it would, but -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mays, when is the building going to open? Do we know that, sir? Exactly, I mean? Mr. Howard: February. Mr. Shepard: February? 34 Mr. Howard: Middle of February. Mr. Shepard: Well, I think you are going to have to either do some reprogramming or you know, addition of that program for a deletion in other areas, Mr. Mays, or you are going to have to make some adjustments in using contingency or you’re going to have to make some adjustments in the mill rate, or a combination thereof for those ten months. Mr. Mays: Okay, well, I’m, I’m, I’m seeing new personnel, I’m seeing other places that are new on here, and I’m seeing a lot going into new salaries in here to the tune of a lot of [inaudible], some of them I worked for, some of them mandated by the bill, but those not mandated by the bill, I’m seeing it here $240,000, $144,000. That’s $388,000. $600,000. That’s near a million dollars. And I just need to know what’s going to be in there to deal with a new center. I understand the process of where we have to go through, but this still is budget time and I think that’s the time that you, that you still ask it. It kind of got past me because we were, we were in on the seniors money and or trying to get that straight, but I remember, you know, Lee and I had talked about this on yesterday and I just wanted to know where and how we were going to deal with that, because you know, I mean it’s to a point do you spend six figures of money on an entity and then you close the door? I mean I just think that’s just to a point and that could be an argument for another day. Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Mays, I might suggest that Mr. Shepard has said on many, many occasions that the budget is a living and breathing document, and what we’re trying to do today is simply meet a legal deadline to adopt a balance budget, and certainly we will have many opportunities to revisit this document and recraft it and to make changes in it as the priorities and missions of this government change. And certainly with the opening of a new center, we’re going to have to address the need for staffing that center. And operating it. And doing the maintenance and so forth. And I’m sure that will be dealt with as soon as that matter is brought before this body. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, you know that Sand Hills Center borders my District, and so let’s put -- Mr. Mayor: It’s in my District, too. Mr. Shepard: That’s right, it’s in the Mayor’s District, too. It’s in Bill’s District - - borders -- why don’t we put that on the Tuesday regular agenda to find the money for that? Mr. Mays: I have, I have no problem because I want to go on and vote for this, but I, I think it’s, as Chairman of that committee and of also with the sitting 35 Commissioner asking me to make sure it got on here, in the minutes of this meeting, that the only way you can make sure that things do stay alive is the fact that you discuss them. And I just didn’t want us to deal with a new center -- it’s taken me 13 years to get to the item on here with, with, with, with dealing with this contract compliance office, so you know, I can wait two months to deal with how we are going to open up a new center if we going discuss it. But I just wanted it as a part of where we’re discussing this, that it be dealt with. I can live with that. The last question, we scratched for purposes that I think are clearly understood by everybody in reference to that particular contingency and how we [inaudible], but did we technically place an equal item on the other side where we removed the $144,000 out of that water and sewer contingency in order to deal with the program in that office? Because it’s down here. We took it out, but what I’m saying is have we added back? We made reference to it, but is it a part of being in the verbal minutes to be added to that so that the $144,000 reappears? Because the only thing we’ve done -- Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s ask the Chairman to answer that. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, we talking about the EEO and MBE? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: And the water and sewer fund appears on this document in error. It is an expenditure being borne entirely by the general fund. Neither the airport nor the water and sewer funds are bearing that. Mr. Mays: I’m clear on that. But I see, even without my 250’s, young folk, I’m seeing, I’m seeing $68,000 but I’m not seeing where $144,000 was re-added. That’s what I’m asking. What, what, where is that under that? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mays, I think we adjusted the IT budget from $288,000 to $144,000. That’s what you’re referring to? Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] Mr. Kuhlke: No, you’re saying that the $144,000 cut that we took out of IT basically when we eliminated the airport, we eliminated the water, water and sewer, the majority of those funds went back in to the EEO budget. Mr. Mays: Okay. And I can live with that. But it’s just by coincidence, Bill, that it’s not showing, that’s what I’m saying. I agree with you, but I just don’t want this to be the document that we go back. If it’s on there and might have missed it, but we [inaudible] got it done, but we don’t have a place up here. We take this off the bottom, there is not a replacement factor for the $144,000. 36 Mr. Mayor: Well, the minutes will show, I think, what Mr. Kuhlke has said clearly. Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, I been dealing with minutes before where I’ve got -- Mr. Mayor: They are verbatim minutes. Mr. Mays: Well, verbatim ones, too, where folk don’t understand. We’ve had directions on money and somehow or another it gets lost. Now this is one fight now I’m going, I’m going, I’m agreeing to deal with this center two months later. But now this is a 13-year-old fight here. Somebody [inaudible] going take a pencil and add this one to here and vote it on here. Cause I don’t want this one to get lost in funny money in there. I been dealing with this one too long. Mr. Shepard: And Mr. Mays, the intent was that it be fully funded from general fund. Mr. Mays: And I, I, I, I think everybody’s in good faith, but when you dealing with money, you just put money down on paper, and you add it up. We send back and we cross this out. In fairness to them, they didn’t know we were going to cross it out. But I had questions about the contingencies that didn’t just start today. Mr. Mayor: Staff is trying to put a pencil to it right now. Mr. Kuhlke: Can I say something? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, please do. Mr. Kuhlke: David, David? Mr. Persaud: Yes? Mr. Kuhlke: When we had our discussion and we reduced IT by $144,000, what Mr. Mays is referring to you are showing an increase of $63,500. Mr. Persaud: Yes. Mr. Kuhlke: It should be two times $63,500. Mr. Persaud: Just found that out. Jim is working on that. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Persaud: Exactly. Mr. Mayor: We’ll need to correct your substitute motion to put that figure in. 37 Mr. Shepard: Then we’d have to decrease it out of contingency is the only way I know to do it. Mr. Mayor: Who’s got the, who’s got the corrected number for us? Mr. Kolb, do you have the corrected number there? You’re still working on it? Okay. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: We have a number. If the Commission will take your proposal sheet, we’ll just write it in instead of trying to get you a clean copy. Under total general fund revenue, we need to decrease the budgetary use of fund balance, increase to $1 million. Mr. Mayor: All right, stand down. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, let me try this again. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb: The decreased budgetary use of fund balance number should read $1,429,240. That’s $1, 429,240. Now in the plus column where it says law enforcement personnel, dropping down to the EEO program, that number should read $131,500. $131,500. And that balances your budget and takes care of Mr. Mays’ concern. Mr. Mayor: All right. And if the Clerk would correct those figures in the substitute motion as on the sheet that was read by Mr. Shepard. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Let me ask another question. Is the total increase, is that final total again $131,000? Mr. Kolb: $131,500 is the increase in the budget that is already at -- is already in the regular budget, the position, one position. The 1/3, the $63,500 that was originally presented to you. So this is the 2/3 that took care of the water and sewer fund and the airport. That would be added to the existing budget that was put forth. Mr. Mays: Okay. So what, I guess what I’m getting is what do we have all total for the department that you’ve got there? That’s the final number that I need to go into the record. And I assume that would be $68,000 plus $131,000 there? 38 Mr. Wall: $59,000 plus. Mr. Mays: $59,000 plus. Mr. Wall: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: Cause I was just asking, I know that’s what we started off with this morning in the different three categories and when we started moving them I wanted to make sure we had, we knew we were clear on the record that one was not stopping at $131,000 cause we been at $144,000, $131,000, $68,000, $59,000, $4,000, a whole lot of numbers. And I been keeping track of all of them. So the final total is the $190,000- something that you got down there? Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] Mr. Mays: [inaudible] Mr. Kolb: The total budget is $190,500. Mr. Mays: Okay. That’s the only thing I wanted. Mr. Mayor: Are there any further questions? Anybody, does anybody need the motion read again? Okay. Mr. Kolb: There is. On the spreadsheet, you should x out the water and sewer. Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Shepard said that. Mr. Shepard: Yeah. Mr. Mayor: Delete that. Mr. Mayor: All right, if there are no further questions then we’ll call the -- Mr. Mays, you had a question? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, it’s just a comment. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for the part of this increase because of where it’s going, but I do think there should be a diligent effort that if folk owe us, and I be very clear about this. If folk owe us six figures of money, that has to furnished our 911 area with support, then we need to get off of the negotiating stages, because this does mean however small a tax increase, and if folk owe us money, it’s out there, then we need to stop negotiating, we need to sue, seize, or do whatever we have to do, because we’ve 39 published other folks’ names in the paper, smaller amounts of money than big companies who owe us in dealing with this. It needs to get off of that because taxpayers now are having to fund this little bit to deal with it in an important area like 911, and I would hope that on Tuesday we could take this up to deal with it, get out the back room in there, get in this room and move ahead and move forward with whatever litigation we have to deal with. I, for one, am tired of it. I think they’ve had long enough, they are reputable enough, and they are financially strong enough that this part should not be spread in terms of dealing with a millage increase to a point when folk owe us money, know they’ve owed it, know what they owe, and we are still negotiating with it. It’s gone on too long. We need to get out of that and go ahead on and deal with what we have in the power of this government to get our money and to collect it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Mays. Point well taken. Anything further? All in favor of the substitute motion then please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Boyles votes No. Mr. Cheek, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 6-1. Mr. Mayor: That brings us back to the original motion that we had from Mr. Boyles, which is still on the table. Any discussion on that? We’ll take a vote. All in favor of the original motion from Mr. Boyles then please vote aye. Mr. Kuhlke: What was that? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: For Mr. Persaud -- The Clerk: It was to -- Mr. Mayor: [inaudible] discretionary spending [inaudible]. The Clerk: Authorize the Finance Director to analyze discretionary spending for possible reductions. Mr. Mayor: Well, shouldn’t that be made as a new motion now? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Well, it’s not the same as the motion we just voted. We can make it - - Mr. Wall: [inaudible] has been taken care of when you adopted the budget. 40 Mr. Shepard: I think you ought -- if he wants to do that, he ought to do it as a new motion. Mr. Mayor: You want to renew your motion? You want to renew your motion, Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: Yes, sir, I would. I’d like to repeat that same motion. Mr. Mayor: All right, is there a second? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion then please vote aye. (Vote on Mr. Boyles’ motion) Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further to come before the body, then we will stand adjourned. Everybody please enjoy your holiday and have a safe one. [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 Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on November 18, 2003 and continued on November 26, 2003. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 41