Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting August 11, 2022 CALLED MEETING VIRTUAL/TELECONFERENCE August 11, 2022 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 10:00 a.m., Thursday, August 11, 2022, the Honorable Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Johnson, Garrett, Mason, Frantom, B. Williams, Scott, McKnight, D. Williams, Hasan and Clarke, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Mr. Mayor: Good morning, everybody. Madam Clerk, for the purposes of this meeting and for voting, any votes that we do we’ll do a roll call vote. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: We’ll call this meeting to order. The Chair recognizes Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Today’s meeting is to adopt proposed 2022 Millage Rate. 1. Motion to approve proposed 2022 mill rates for each taxing district, advertise the required 5-year history of the digest and to schedule the date of August 30, 2022 for the meeting to adopt the rates proposed. Mr. Mayor: We’ve had a series of presentations or at a presentation and conversation on this past Tuesday. I’m not sure if we need to go through a full presentation at this point. I know there are still some questions that were in people’s minds with regards to what our posture is. What has been proposed, particularly for the purposes of publishing that in the local daily organ, i.e. newpaper, is what we are wanting to accomplish today. I know that there has been some th additional information provided by the commissioner from the 8 and I will certainly give him an opportunity to talk about that, but what I’d like to do is begin with our Director of Finance with an abbreviated presentation of what’s being proposed and then we’ll have some questions and the th commissioner from the 8 I’ll give you the opportunity to share what you have. At this point, Director Williams. Ms. Donna Williams: As I understand the majority of the questions from the various commissioners concerned, the difference between the calculations for the roll back rate and what it might generate for the government and the proposed or recommended rate that I presented on Tuesday. The 2022 budget and the revenue budget associated with that was set back in November of last year and the revenue that we used to adopt the budget assumed a little over a 3% digest growth. So you have a revenue budget that has already been set and we have been operating at that level for some seven plus months now. As I showed in the presentation, just simply dropping the roll back rate into the total amount of the digest will yield a number approximately $1.2 million dollars which appears that that would be excess revenue for the government. That assumes as I said before a 100% collection rate. You do not have a 100% collection rate. We budget at 98. Additionally, there is one reduction to revenue which that calculation does not take into effect which is the early payment discount that Richmond County has elected to provide to its citizens to generate some optional relief from their tax bill. They get a discount if they pay within ten days, 1 I believe. So that reduces the revenue collection from the gross number that was put out there. Additionally, there is an obligation for money that is dedicated to the TAD. Our general fund revenue budget accounts for that and we operate at that level but that is not illustrated in the gross calculations when you just multiply the millage rate, any millage rate times the digest. In short, at the roll back rate that has been calculated by the State. It leaves you approximately a half a million dollars short of what we budgeted to come in as revenue for the general fund. That is where we are on the roll back rate. If I can proceed to the proposed rates, that does generate additional revenue for the government. Now remember these rates, every now and then people get a little confused, these rates apply to your 2022 budget. This generates the revenue that you’re operating on this year through the end of this year. It has nothing to do with the 2023 budget. This is all confined to 2022 and the effect that it will have on this fiscal year. At the proposed rate for the general fund, the 8.411, it will generate additional monies for the general fund, approximately $2 million dollars. For fire protection as we went over before, approximately $2.3 million dollars which will be dedicated to their capital outlay needs. As of the present time fire protection does not have anything that would fund their capital outlay over the upcoming years. They normally are included in the SPLOST allocation. They do not have a SPLOST allocation for capital outlay funds in SPLOST 8. That $2.3 million dollars would begin to allow them to address their most pressing capital needs. For the smaller capital outlay millage rate which is .722 that is the same rate that it was last year. On the increased digest it would generate approximately half a million dollars more than what was budgeted. That half a million dollars would allow you to if you chose to do so, this is capital outlay funds, to address some of your most pressing building maintenance issues that as we have seen time after time after time Central Services has come to the floor, something has, there is a pressing need to do there. That would generate approximately half a million dollars more than what we budgeted which would be dedicated to capital outlay concerns for your facilities. The same goes for the urban services. It would generate, this is the same millage rate as it was last year. It would generate anywhere from a half a million to $600,000 and you’ve got to remember urban service district, it funds, those residents do not pay the fire protection millage rate so their fire protection is paid for by a transfer out of their urban service millage rate over to fire. So that would increase slightly that transfer which would have to come out of urban and go over to fire to help to get to that $2.3 million dollars that I already stated. Additionally, it funds some of transit which has been a robust discussion about being able to increase your transit services. It could be dedicated to Housing and Neighborhood Development which our external auditor brought to our attention at his presentation that the portion that is allocated to cover administrative expenses from the various grants and programs that is received by the federal government are not sufficient to meet those needs so that fund is subsidized. And we had to augment the subsidy that was budgeted to make up for 2021. Urban services would be able to help do that with an increased level of revenue generation. In short and in trying to kind of, trying to sum this up as best I can, the 2022 proposed millage rate countywide is .634 mills less than what was levied in 2021. That is actually the lowest millage rate that has been proposed would have been adopted since we needed to increase the millage rate in 2014 for the ice storm and some raises for law enforcement. In 2015 through 2020 Augusta adopted the millage rate each one of those years. In 2021 we did not adopt the roll back millage rate. We had kept it the same as 2022 simply because the roll back rate would not have generated enough funds in your tax revenue to meet your budgeted level of revenues that were set during the budget. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that anyone might have. I’ll do my best. 2 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Director Williams. Do we have any questions from members of th the Commission? Commissioner from the 7, Mr. Frantom. Mr. Frantom: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My questions are for Donna. You mentioned on the collection rate that we budget at 98% but we collect at 99%. Why do we not budget for 99% from a revenue standpoint? Ms. Williams: Timing. I believe that my answer was 99% over time. That goes on out several years as the Tax Commissioner attempts to collect those funds that have been billed. We anticipate approximately 98%. As you know they are billed in September. So we have until the end of December to collect that revenue and to post it to our current revenue collections to show it as current revenue collected during the fiscal year. You cannot post a revenue that you do not have that goes on out several years. As I said the collection rate goes out higher the longer you get as the Tax Commissioner’s office gets more aggressive in pursuing those collections. So we budget at 98%. Mr. Frantom: Okay, and how much would 1% be? Ms. Williams: Your total approximately $480,000. Mr. Frantom: For 98 to 99 is what you just said. Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. Your total budgeted revenue is $48.6 million. Mr. Frantom: At the budget retreat last week you mentioned that the expenses are at 43% through June 30. Can you kind of let people know is it typical that it’s at 43% at that time? Is there more expenses in the second half, again I’m trying to understand because we’re talking about revenue and how we got the revenue but I think also that we need to talk about expenses as well because we might not spend as much this year as what we had budgeted either. Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, that fairly normal because your mid-year reports are done on the cash basis so you do not have the full accrual that you have toward the end of the year when you have to go on out the next 60 days and pick up any expenditures that pertain to the present year that weren’t done until the end of February, so yes, sir, that is quite normal for us to be somewhat below 50% at June 30. Mr. Frantom: Okay, and my last question is that based on the revenue and the expenses, are they basic like from the street light standpoint, this isn’t factoring in an increase in street lights, correct? Ms. Williams: No, sir, this does not address street lights at all. Mr. Frantom: Yeah, and then as far as like any other budgetary things that changes whether it’s with Parks and Rec, whether it’s the Mayor’s Office, none of that is pretty much whatever it was this year is what we’re budgeting that the revenue that we need to bring in, correct? 3 Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Frantom: Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. B. Williams: Donna, you said the proposed rate that you have is still less than what we did in ’21? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. The proposed rate for countywide is 8.411. The rate in 2021 was 9.045. The proposed rate is .634 mills less than 2021’s rate. Mr. B. Williams: And if I’m not mistaken you said the roll back would not give us the money that we need, is that correct? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. B. Williams: Okay, so just a very short answer, tell me what’s the biggest difference between the roll back and the proposed other than it’s not going to give us the money that we need in – Ms. Williams: Okay, the revenue generated by the roll back rate is as I said is gross and it only compares the difference between what taxes were projected to be collected at 100% in ’21 and collected at 100% in ’22. Now we already budgeted for a little over 3% gross so you have to factor that in plus as I said that’s at 100% collection so we use 98, that’s standard, we’ve been using 98% collection to put forth our budget probably for the last 15, 20 years plus you have to take into account the discount for early payment. Last year that was $450,000. I would expect more folks to take advantage of that. It grows somewhat every year. As I think I said on the floor the other day the mortgage companies are required to submit within that 10-day period in order to afford their escrow holders the advantage of the early payment, the lesser rate. So is that close to what you were looking for? Mr. B. Williams: Yeah, yeah. And I guess the emphasis, the thing that I’m thinking about is that you’re saying that the roll back is not going to give us exactly the money that we want and could you tell me is there a particular department or some particular fund that’s going to be short if we go with the roll back rate or is it just in general? Ms. Williams: The roll back rate, the main one, the county one affects all your departments in the general fund and that is the Sheriff’s Department, that is all your court system, that is Recreation, your administrative departments, your elected officials, etc. All those are contained in the general fund. The tax collections from that countywide millage rate support that fund. So that’s the short answer. Mr. B. Williams: I got you, I got you. All right, thank you. th Mr. Mayor: Let me go to the commissioner from the 8. 4 Mr. Garrett: Thank you, Mayor. These questions are for Finance and I think Scott Rountree is also in on this so he may need to chime in. So I sent out some numbers last night via Ms. Bonner. Some came from the Chamber of Commerce, some came from just asking Scott Rountree to look at what the meat and potato numbers look like and so that’s what you have in front of you. As you can see, the amount generated as Donna just said if you do the full roll back it’s about 1.2, 1.3 additional that we’ll be able to generate and then if you do the proposed rate, that jumps up over $7 million additional so Mayor Pro Tem asked what the difference was between the two and you’re looking at about $6 million. So as we’re looking at that and we’re discussing which route to take in regards to the full roll back, is there a reason, Donna, why there’s not a number between the proposed and the full roll back that we could look at? And also you made a comment that from budgeting purposes or whatever that we need to go ahead and approve this because of the rest of 2022’s budget. Can you help me understand what you meant by that? Ms. Williams: Well, the millage rate that you’re setting today supports the 2022 budget to the tune of almost $48.5 million dollars. If you don’t set a millage rate, then you don’t collect taxes but there are timing issues that are required for you to get the process done and get your digest approved by the Department of Revenue. Mr. Garrett: Why isn’t this millage rate more specifically for the 2023 budget? That’s what I’m trying to wrap my heed around. Ms. Williams: Because that’s the way the law works. That’s when every governing body in the state of Georgia sets their millage rate during, after they get their digest for the fiscal year that you’re working with. This millage rate generates revenue for fiscal year 2022. This is not a new process. This is the same timing that – Mr. Garrett: Look, I was just asking the question. Ms. Williams: Yeah, yeah, I’m trying to understand your confusion. Mr. Garrett: Maybe it’s in the way you explained it, I don’t know. Ms. Williams: Yeah, I’m good at that. So Mr. Rountree generated some revenue numbers for you guys? Mr. Garrett: Well, it was for me and I shared it with the rest of the Commission just so we could all be on the same page. It was similar to what you showed us but I know that the business community is very concerned about the tax increases. You know you have businesses out there that are coming out of the pandemic, but they’ve also been investing in our community, and I think that that is something that we as a Commission have to look at as we’re looking at these millage rates moving forward is the burden that it places on these businesses that have invested here. Since this deals with the 2022 budget, can somebody help us understand how many unfilled positions there are currently in our budget? I think we have to look at ways that we can make some cuts if there are numerous, you know budget retreat last week we talked about there’s 26% unfilled positions or whatever out there so you know there are areas that we can cut as you’re looking at a 5 $500,000 shortfall if we do the full roll back. I just think this is a much bigger conversation than we’ve just got to get something in the newspaper today. Ms. Williams: And that was never intended for it’s got to get in the newspaper. That is just a part of the process that is required by the Department of Revenue. It is a legally regulated process as to the timing of the setting of the millage rates and I do not have the total amount of unfilled positions right now but I can tell you that as we look the very largest amount of those were over 150 or so in the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Garrett: Which we actually provided $3 million additional to last year in the budget to help them to recruit and to retain positions and you know, like I said as we’re talking through this we need to take a close look at what practices we’ve done in our past budgets that have worked as well as you know what are the core issues in regards to these numerous positions that are open so I mean I’m going to waive right now, Mayor. I may have some other questions as we discuss more. th Mr. Mayor: All right, I appreciate that. All right, commissioner from the 4. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and good morning to everyone. Just for a point of note, Mom’s feeling better for those of you who have been inquiring so I appreciate your prayers and everything as it relates to my Mom. Some of the questions I had have been addressed to some point but I do want to say this that I was concerned and I asked this question a couple of weeks ago in terms of the percentage of folks that we’ve lost, it was somewhere around 25 or 26% and so I was concerned about these lapsed salaries or empty positions and to be honest with you it doesn’t really matter to me where they come from whether it’s the Sheriff’s Office or any other office. That to me is something that should be taken into consideration. Also hope that we take into consideration that the School Board has decided to up their millage rate. Okay, we are in the middle of an inflation for sure, some call it a recession as well. We’re in the midst of talking about putting in a 3% increase in salaries to our workers which we’ve debated that on the floor and we feel that that’s probably appropriate but at the same time the optics of it does not look well when you’re talking about raising the millage rate as well so I would hope that we look at this comprehensively and take all of this into consideration and start looking at some creative ways in which we can give something back to our taxpaying citizens that bear the burden if you will over these last two or three years as we’ve been in this pandemic and as well as our businesses that have contributed to our community greatly and still trying to do what they can. There’s been a lot of monies that have been allocated whether it’s through ARP or otherwise that have been of assistance to our Sheriff’s Office and other areas as well and so we’ve got to be very, very cognizant of the fact of one, the perception which becomes people’s reality in terms of we just can’t tax and spend our way out of situations. We’ve got to learn to do some cutting somewhere so I would hope that we take that into consideration, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much, sir. th Mr. Mayor: Thank you, commissioner from the 4. I’m going to make a few statements here because I’m going to be a real stickler about this concept. We’ve ended each budget year with a budget surplus. I think Finance will communicate that to you. Number two, we’re not in a deficit and so I’m going to qualify those conversations as it relates to that. Sales tax collections continue to be strong. I want us to focus our conversation around this notion of adopting a millage 6 rate which is what this conversation is about. There are proposed numbers in front of us. There is a proposed roll back rate if you will that Finance has presented. The Finance also took occasion to articulate a series of here’s where there might be challenges from a budgetary perspective and where you could take those additional resources to the tune of about $2 million dollars and you can do those things. The Commission hasn’t made any decisions about any of that. So I want to put that in the parking lot. More importantly, as we navigate through we still have effectively about eight plus million dollars of tranche one ARP dollars and you’ve also got tranche two of about $42 million dollars of ARP dollars. So I want to just qualify these conversations, while they have nothing to do with the adoption of a millage rate to be used in this context, I don’t want the citizens of Augusta when they hear certain things assuming well, we’re at a budget deficit, we have cost overruns and those things. That is not the case and so the matter that is before us this morning is consideration for a motion to adopt the proposed mill rate as provided to the Commission with a clear understanding that that’s for the publishing of that and the Commission still has opportunity and occasion to change that, accept that or affirm that by 31 August, actually 30 August. That is the matter that is in front of us. I’m not going to make a motion at this point. I encourage you to say this is what the motion should be but that is the single subject matter that th is in front of us. I’m going back to the commissioner from the 7 and then I’m going to move on th with this matter and have a motion and we can at least move forward. Commissioner from the 7. Mr. Frantom: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So to that vein of what you just said, why would we post a motion, I mean a millage rate, that could possibly change? Can we post both millage rates and agree to have them both up there to see if there could be Option 1 and Option 2 today and vote on it so that both of them are there and then we vote on it on a later day when you have more information and we can make a more accurate decision on this? Mr. Mayor: Director of Finance. Ms. Williams: You have to advertise one proposed millage rate. Once you advertise that millage rate, you can lower it before the final date of adoption. That has always been on the table with each and every year we go through the process, there is always the availability to lower the advertised rate. What you cannot do is increase the advertised rate without starting the process over anew. That is exactly what your neighboring county did. That is what some other governments have done is they advertised the rate and during the process through various discussions, sometimes it is lowered. Mr. Frantom: And I appreciate that. I can say that I don’t feel confident in doing it that way because it seems like once the ship sails, it wouldn’t pull back into the harbor per se so that’s why I just can’t support anything but a full roll back at this time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. The Chair will entertain a motion at this time. Mr. Hasan: I make a motion to approve the proposed rate, Mr. Mayor. Mr. B. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, I’ve got a motion and a second. All right, the Chair recognizes the 7 th commissioner from the 8. Mr. Garrett: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we approve the full roll back rate. Mr. Frantom: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right, -- Mr. Garrett: I also had a question, Mayor, for Donna. Mr. Mayor: All right, please proceed with your question. Mr. Garrett: Donna, you said that we need to advertise the rate and it could be lowered. In the history that you’ve been doing this over, I’m not going to say how long you’ve worked here. Have you ever seen the advertised rate lowered after it was advertised? Ms. Williams: I don’t think so because in the past there has always been a consensus what the rate would be so it was not by us but I have seen it done several times both by the Board of Education and by Columbia County as well. Mr. Mayor: All right, Madam Clerk, we have a substitute motion to adopt the full roll back th rate with a proper second from the commissioner from the 7. We’ll take a roll call vote to that matter and then proceed from there. The Clerk: Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Frantom. Mr. Frantom: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Garrett. Mr. Garrett: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. 8 Mr. Mason: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Ms. McKnight. Mr. McKnight: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Ms. Scott. Ms. Scott: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. B. Williams. Mr. B. Williams: Abstain. The Clerk: Mr. D. Williams. Mr. D. Williams: No, ma’am. Mr. Hasan, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Scott and Mr. D. Williams vote No. Mr. B. Williams abstains. Motion fails. 5-4-1. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, we’re now at the matter of the main motion and that is to adopt the proposed roll back rate as presented by Finance. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke: No. The Clerk: Mr. Frantom. Mr. Frantom: No, ma’am. The Clerk: ;Mr. Garrett. Mr. Garrett: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. 9 Mr. Mason: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Ms. McKnight. Ms. McKnight: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Ms. Scott. Ms. Scott: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. B. Williams. Mr. B. Williams: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. D. Williams. Mr. D. Williams: Yes, ma’am. Mr. Clarke, Mr. Frantom, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Mason and Ms. McKnight vote No. Motion ties 5-5. The Clerk: That fails, a tie 5-5, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: That is a 5-5 tie, Madam Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay and the Mayor votes No. The Clerk: Okay. Motion fails 5-6. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, I believe that’s all the business that’s before us today. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right, this meeting is adjourned. \[MEETING ADJOURNED\] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 10 CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on August 11, 2022. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 11