Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting August 18, 2022 CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER August 18, 2022 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 3:00 p.m., Thursday, August 18, 2022, the Honorable Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Garrett, Frantom, B. Williams, Scott, McKnight, D. Williams, Hasan and Clarke, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Johnson and Mason, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Mr. Mayor: -- our Administrator and Finance team and then we’ll take a look at the handouts that each of you have. There are two handouts. There is a presentation that’s before you on the screens and then there is a series of documents that we asked to have brought back to us that provides us with the ARP allocations to date, what’s been drawn down, what was approved so that we can have a thorough conversation about that. There’s also information in here about non-infrastructure capital needs and what those numbers look like that trend into 2023 and beyond that more importantly can be used as part of a thoughtful 2023 budget preparation conversation. So with that we’ll turn it over to Finance. Ms. Donna Williams: Good afternoon. Ms. Douse, did you want to say anything to begin with or you just want me to launch? There were some questions posed earlier and I’ve attempted to do instead of reiterating the same things that have been in previous presentations I’m attempting to answer some questions that have come during the conversations that we’ve had in the previous two meetings regarding the millage rate. So one of the first ones pertains to the changes in our fund balance over the past several years. I’ve cut and pasted the chart that was presented to you from Mr. Miller Edwards from Mauldin Jenkins when he came to speak to you about the results of the 2021 audit. These are the changes from 2016 until 2021. To put that in perspective about where we expected and where we say we need to be, the yellow line is our 90-day target which was our adopted target through the year 2020. However, during the GMA work session for the budget and planning in early 2021 one of the commission priorities that came out of that meeting was to increase our available number of days of fund balance to 180 days. As a result of that where we were right on the target for several years the target in 2021 has moved upwards so we are now striving over a period of time to attain that 180-day mark. Currently at the end 2021 we are at 105 days which is indeed a healthy position. It’s just a little short of the new target. I hope that that answers those questions related to our fund balance. There was some conversation about Augusta continually raising their millage rate so I have been actively tracking it. The reasons for the changes in our general fund millage rate, this one goes back to 2005. Most of the millage rates we have adopted have been the roll back rates. In 2014 we needed to increase that millage rate because of the ice storm so that increase was put in place yet until 2021 we continued to adopt the roll back rate. In 2021 we did not adopt the roll back rate but rather we kept the rate the same that it was in 2020. That’s the 9.045 that you see in front of you and this year the recommended rate is 8.411. However, the roll back rate is 7.986. That would be the results of what this chart would look like going back to 2005. Let’s speak a little bit about how the digest changes. Obviously, there was a pretty good size change in the total property valuations on the 2022 digest. The digest moves 1 mainly because of three things put fairly simply. The first is the reassessment category. That is the category that triggers a computation that tells you that you need to change your millage rate either upwards or downwards because reassessments can go up and reassessments can go down. We have seen that total work both ways. The next part is your other changes and your growth to that digest which you’re not, I’m going to use the word penalized because the roll back calculation usually in a year when your reassessments goes up, that roll back calculation tells you that you need to lower your millage rate and you have to do that calculation based on the value of the reassessments. But you get to experience the revenue associated with your growth and that does not enter into the roll back calculation. The other thing that makes the digest change going either up or down is the way your exemptions go. You have more or less people filing for your homestead exemption. There is whole litany of exemptions that I will not even begin to try to get into. I’ll let Mr. Rountree answer either of those questions but those exemptions can either roll on or roll off of the digest causing it to move one way or the other. What I’ve attempted to show you on this chart is not only the millage rate and the change in the millage rate from year to year from 2016 to what would be the roll back millage rate in 2022. The change in those mill rates as you can see more than likely goes downward. The far right hand computation is the revenue that you would experience from that millage rate just based on the growth category of the digest movement. As you can see the seven year average is less than $400,000 that new growth would contribute to your budget process as new revenue so that’s not nearly as big a number as one might expect it to be going year to year. Obviously 2022 is higher than most of the prior years the most closest being 2019. So what do you do with the revenue and what do you have to keep track of because obviously when you adopt a budget in November of the prior year and you start experiencing the things that life throws at you while you’re going through your fiscal year, some of those things kind of come towards you that you weren’t expecting. There are conversations that happen, there are things that have to be taken into account. One of things that I mentioned to you at the last GMA workshop was that we didn’t do a very good job of predicting what our gas prices would be this year. We budgeted at $2.80 and at $3.00. Obviously that number has caused us some problems up until now when the prices are finally beginning to, seem to be on the decrease a little bit nonetheless we have experienced record high gas prices and as a result our departments are absorbing that within their budget currently. We don’t know how much longer that can be done. We may well have to come back and ask for a budget adjustment to help those departments that do not have any places that they can reallocate funds from within their own operating expenses to help them get through the year through essentially just an economic change. We’ve listed categories for ’22, ’23 and ’24. These are things that we just need to take note of. Some of them are actual commitments such as the prisoner health care contract that was recently approved that will take effect in 2023. That will cause the cost of providing that care to our inmate, well, prisoner population. This is mostly related to the jail population although RCCI is covered. Just a little less than half a million dollars. So we ‘ve got to look forward to that in 2023. As I mentioned the gas prices we would love to see that $700,000 marker in there for 2023 to come off the board. I’m not yet comfortable removing that so we just need to keep an eye on it. That will all be taken care of in our 2023 budget conversations. I’m not going to go through each one of these but I want to get through some of this with you. Just to let you know that we have to make adjustments and there are few opportunities to generate new revenue sources within this government. We can’t sell more widgets to increase our revenue. So we need to be mindful of this and do what we can to honor our commitments that we have made. The top portion of your, this screen is related strictly to the general fund and law enforcement. The next three areas are from capital outlay, fire 2 protection and the urban service district and what some of those items would represent the need for this revenue so I don’t think it is any great surprise to anyone to know that our building maintenance and repair budget, the number of items that come before you they are many and we have a lot of buildings, we have a lot of old buildings and there are a lot of needs in this category. This is not to identify anything specifically to be addressed. This is just to give you a target number. As we’ve spoken before, fire protection. This is the same slide. I did reuse one of them. This is what we spoke about earlier. There is a very long list of equipment that is needed by the fire department. There is no funding allocation either in SPLOST 8. Their revenue basically comes from two sources. It comes from ad valorem taxes and it comes from insurance premiums which are forwarded to us by the state. The recommendation that you had before you with the recommended millage rate was to add a quarter of a mill which that addition plus the digest growth would generate $2.3 million dollars which would then be restricted for equipment purchases with Chief Burden to come back with a prioritization and a recommendation obviously that, he would not be able to go out and spend $2.3 million dollars just immediately. The budgeting process, the procurement process and all that would be approved by the Commission. This is the schedule that you saw the last time. The middle column is the calculated roll back rate and the far-right hand column is the recommendations from Finance and the Administrator’s Office. At this point this concludes my presentation. I will be happy to try to answer any questions that you may have. Mr. Mayor: Are there any questions for Ms. Williams? Mr. B. Williams: Just a couple of questions. I think you said the other day and I’m just looking for clarification that if we don’t do the proposed rate and we do the roll back, then we’re going to have some areas where we’re going to be short some money so can you explain that to us? Ms. Williams: Okay, the calculations that I shared with you earlier took the gross amount of revenues less the collection rate which I use 98%, I’m speaking to the general fund right now, less the early payment discount less the required transfer over to the tax allocation district and would indeed put us in a projected position of approximately $450,000 to $500,000 below the targeted level of revenue that we have used to balance the budget. Mr. B. Williams: Gotcha. So let’s say we do the roll back and we come in and we’re short so where would the money come from if we need to plug a hole or what have you? So where would we get the money from? Ms. Williams: There are two immediate areas that could be reduced. You would effectively wipe out your contingency fund which right now stands a little, I think right at $500,000, I’m not 100% sure, I need to check on that. You have programmed in there to increase your fund balance by a million dollars. You would lower that projection and not demonstrate your commitment to getting towards the defined target for your fund balance. Those are the first two off the top of my head. I could prepare a different listing of possibilities should that be needed. Mr. B. Williams: And I see, I think I saw your presentation that there’s a possibility we could have an increase for the EMS service as well as an increase with the Library system here in Augusta, Georgia so that would cause further – 3 Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, I have no idea what those amounts might be but we would need to plan for them going forward from some source of revenue. Mr. B. Williams: And the proposed rate is less than last year? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, it is. The proposed rate is .634 mills less than the 2021 rate which was 9.045. Mr. B. Williams: So we’ve been essentially going down the entire time like you said. We’ve been looking at accepting the roll back rate for a number of years and I’m looking at the roll back rate that you have for this year is 7.986. That goes way back to 2006 when – Ms. Williams: That’s correct, sir. Just looking at the rate that would be one of the lowest rates in the past 20 years just about. Mr. B. Williams: And this is because, I don’t know, is there a rate we could go to that would not be a 7.9 and not necessarily the proposed rate for this year, is there a way to get in between there somewhere right in the middle? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, but it still dictates the same action, the requirement from the state. The roll back rate requires one hearing and the process is completed within a week. Anything higher than the roll back rate requires three hearings. If it is one-thousandth of a mill that it changes above the roll back rate, you still go through the same process. But, yes, sir, in answer to your question there are any numbers between the 7.986 and the 8.411. Mr. B. Williams: Gotcha. And if we adopt the roll back rate will we be able to get the fire equipment, would it generate enough money for us to get the equipment for the Fire Department? Ms. Williams: No, sir. The money for the Fire Department is predicated on the recommended rate for Fire of 2.217. Mr. B. Williams: Okay. So is there any other department where we really need to generate money? Ms. Williams: The Fire Department is the only other stand alone department that is supported by a millage rate. Most of your operating departments that you see your Tax Assessor, your Procurement, Finance, Ms. Bonner’s office, Law Department, Recreation Department. Those are all housed in the general fund which are supported by that countywide M & O rate. Mr. B. Williams: Okay, and I’ve talked to people and this is pretty much, you correct me, this is pretty much a recommendation from the Finance Department and not just from you, Donna Williams, because see you’re the Finance Director that you made this rate up or something. This is something that’s coming from your team with the Finance Department. 4 Ms. Williams: That is correct, sir, and it has been discussed, the implications of adopting a roll back rate versus the rate that has been recommended that has been discussed at length with the Administrator’s Office, my team, I’ve had different ones do revenue projections. This is a group recommendation. It is not just Donna standing in front of you picking a number out of the air. Mr. B. Williams: I gotcha. Thank you. th Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the commissioner from the 8. Mr. Garrett: Thank you, Mayor. Just going back through the slides and I’m going to start at the beginning. You know it’s a little misleading the way that Mauldin and Jenkins did that initial chart. It kind of looks like we’re losing revenue, gaining revenue, losing revenue but in reality what this chart is showing is that we’re actually adding to our fund balance each and every year to the tune of about $18.9 million over the last six years so I just want people to understand that that were watching out there because it does look like it fluctuates up and down but it’s actually good news for everybody. We’re budgeting but we’re bringing in more or spending less each year so to the Commission up here I think we’ve done a good job of being able to add to that fund balance and even to the tune of growing the daily cash on hand and up past 100 days. Have we ever been over 100 days? Ms. Williams: No, sir. You’ve got the chart. That’s the first time we’ve broken 100. Mr. Garrett: Okay, and I just want to state that because as you’re going through this you kind of make it seem like it’s a negative thing that we’re under what our target it but the target was raised because we felt like we could get there eventually and so for us to finally be over that 100 day fund balance, I think that’s says tremendous things about where we are and you know how we’re growing and continually trying to make sure that we’re protecting the City as well as our citizens. Like you said, it’s all in how things are – Ms. Williams: I could not agree with you more that I was ecstatic that we broke the 100- day mark. It was never intended to be a conversation that, I don’t like Mauldin Jenkins’ slide either but that’s the way they like to show it but I felt that it was important to be able to measure the progress towards the new goal that was set for us and no, sir, we were not going to meet that in one, two, three, four years because that requires approximately $35 million dollars to be added to the fund balance at the present rate. Mr. Garrett: But we have a target and targets are good to aim for. Ms. Williams: That’s the target and you just don’t want to go the other way. Mr. Garrett: No, no, absolutely. Ms. Williams: When you start comparing yourself to the target. 5 Mr. Garrett: Yep and I appreciate that. And as you were talking about some of the expenditures that are coming up, you know a couple to weeks ago we had the budget retreat and you were talking there that as of the end of June we’re at 43% expenditures for the year which is good because at that half way point you’re expecting to be closer to 50 so for us to have that 7% buffer there was good. But then you’re talking about a lot of these things that we’ve done are being pulled out of different budgets and people may have to come back for budget reconciliations and different things like that so when you were talking to us a couple of weeks ago, you already knew about the expenditures. You didn’t factor any of those – Ms. Williams: Okay and I cautioned ya’ll when I made that presentation that the mid-year reports are done on a cash basis. That means that sometimes your expenditures lag behind because some of your bills have not come in yet. So any time you cut off a month on a cash basis, it’s just like you may have more money in your bank account on pay day than you do maybe the first week of the month when you pay your mortgage and your other bills. So we are used to those ebbs and flows. I believe that I did answer that 43% at mid-year was normal so we don’t expect to be frankly if I was at 52% mid-year I’d be more worried for more than one reason simply because it is on a cash basis and you would already be over half of your year’s expenditures. But yes, sir, 43% is approximately normal. It’s not that we, I never intended to convey that we were not aware of the increase for fuel prices because I have departments that are juggling their expenditure level in order to accommodate those prices. Mr. Garrett: Well, even with that you know with the presentation from the Administrator we were talking that we have roughly a 26% vacancy rate and our employees, those are budgeted positions and so I’m just trying to figure out if we’re basically 25% or 26% empty on those employment slots, where are those funds going and isn’t that a place that we could pull from to fill in some of these gaps with these other expenditures? Ms. Williams: And again that 26% that the Administrator put out there was across the board. That includes all of the employees that belong to all the elected officials which I believe on that pie chart I showed you the percent in that same presentation the amount of budgets that are under control of elected officials rather than under the Administration. Okay, so in that 26% are all the vacancies in the Fire Department. That is not supported by the millage rate that I have recommended for the general fund. There are many vacancies in Utilities, in stormwater it includes the airport and I do not, I don’t know the details behind the report that generated the 26% vacancy but that is, I know enough to know that that’s where a lot of them are occurring. A majority of them are within the Sheriff’s Department. Mr. Garrett: All right, that’s all I have, Mayor. Thank you. th Mr. Mayor: Thank you as well. I’m going to go to the commissioner from the 6. Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Donna, give us the analogy of if there is one the relationship between the millage rate that we set and the ’23 budget, operating budget that we set for the general fund. Is there a correlation between that, what we do today or what we do at any time in setting the millage rate, is there an impact on your next year’s budget? 6 Ms. Williams: It will impact, the millage rate that you adopt for ’22 will be what I use to project your ’23 ad valorem taxes collected because you’ve got to have a budget for your revenue projection in order to anticipate the revenue that’s going to come in that’s going to support you because you’re not going to know for sure until we get to the process that we seem to be intrenched in right now to try to actually set the millage rate for the current fiscal year so that would be where my projection would come from. I would never project that you would increase the millage rate. I would make some assumptions related to digest growth which for ’22 we projected approximately 3%. It was a little less than that. The actual growth not related to reassessments was a little bit under 3. Mr. Hasan: So when you go back to the roll back that’s been recommended by the DOR obviously you’re moving away from that, so you’re suggesting that we move away from that and you’ve given us the proposed, the slightly higher, but at the same time it’s lower than what we were last year so when you look at page three, upcoming and potential expenditures, is that what’s driving what you think the millage rate should do about what our responsibilities are going to be that’s not in it, that’s not budgeted for them anyways? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, all those items that we have listed on here are items that we need to be aware of. We don’t operate in a vacuum. We know that things are headed our way. As I told you, the prisoner medical care contract. It does not kick in until 2023 so we already know that that level of expenditures is going to increase. I’ve got another item down there, the $400,000 for our employer pension contribution. When the actuarial study was completed for the past year, the required employer contribution percentage was increased. That has an awful lot to do with the way the market is performing and the number of people that are in our pension. There is an awful lot of things that go into an actuarial calculation that I can’t speak to but I can read the numbers that fall out at the end and it told me that our expected cost to be able to continue to fund ours at an acceptable level will increase about $400,000 next year. So I have to take that into consideration. I know that’s coming and there is nothing we can do about it so I have to be mindful that I’ve got an upcoming expenditure that I need to plan for in the next year’s budget. Mr. Hasan: Also I see you have a number on FY ’23 is that $7 million dollars? Ms. Williams: Yeah, that’s the total of that column. Mr. Hasan: Right, I understand. I just wanted to make sure of that. But there’s two things there at the bottom of that column to the left over there is that we are in the midst of negotiating a contract with Gold Cross and we are on the high end, numbers from this dias has been $1.6 million dollars and then, which is to be determined so it’s not factored in. Also I think many of us has been in a conversation with the Library and I think they’re asking for about a $350,000 to right at $400,000 that’s not there as well. And so I just want us to be mindful of those things in the relationship between the millage that we set because it does give us an idea of what kind of funds that we have to work with. Mr. Mayor, that will be all that I have at this present time. I’d probably like to say something a little bit later before the day is over with at 12:00 at night. Mr. Mayor: Well, if I were a betting man I would suggest that if you’re here at 12 I will not be. 7 Mr. Hasan: The Mayor Pro Tem will stay here. Mr. Mayor: The cats are still outside. The Chair recognizes the commissioner from the th 10. Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I only have one question. Ms. Williams, can we pay for new fire engine equipment out of the American Rescue funds? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, you can. Mr. Clarke: Okay, thank you. th Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The Chair recognizes the commissioner from the 7. Mr. Frantom: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Most of my questions have been answered. Donna, if you can go back to the first screen with the net fund balance. Ms. Williams: Right there? Mr. Frantom: Yes, ma’am, thank you. Ms. Williams: It’s the net change. Mr. Frantom: Yeah, net change of what went back in the fund balance after expenditures, correct? Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. Mr. Frantom: And see I think this is where the Commission really needs to hone in on because you take all those years, 2016 to 2021, it’s $2.9 million dollars average per year, $5.6 last year as a matter of fact, and we need $453,000 average 2.9 million and that’s the ’22 budget and that’s what we need to be focused on, not all these things that are down the road. We also have 8.something in ARP, we also have $500K in contingency, we also have now 105 days in operating and we also know it might not be 43% but it’s 43% as discussed. We also have increased sales tax revenue. Is sales tax revenue, Ms. Donna, up this year over last year? Ms. Williams: It is. Mr. Frantom: Thank you. Have you seen this government ever in a better financial state than we are currently based on everything that you’ve shown us now with the number of days, the funding sources that we have? Ms. Williams: That $84 million dollars did wonders for our ability to meet unbudgeted – 8 Mr. Frantom: And thank you. That’s exactly my other point of like we’re here asking to go back to the taxpayers to pay $453,000 that we know we’re going to have based on what we see in front of us. There is no reason that we shouldn’t roll it all back and as your budget at home, if you have things that are coming down the line, what are you going to do? You’re going to have those tough conversations to make cuts and have those tough difficult conversations on the 2023 budget that you haven’t set yet involving the Sheriff’s possibly positions’ cuts that we’re going to have to make the tough decision on so I think for us to not roll it all back when you talk about all the funding sources we talked about. You talked about all the history of the last five years in front of us, I don’t really understand that because that’s what we’re focused on 2022 and the amount of revenue so thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, commissioner. I’m going to ask you to put slide 4 back up. And during the period of 2007 to 2009 they refer to that time as the Great Recession. I remember it well because I remember these church conversations we used to have predicated on faith that if gas prices are $5.00 it ain’t going to stop nobody from going to work and ain’t nobody going to stop eating and doing all of what they’re doing. No different than what one would perceive is as the current administration is saying it’s not a recession. We’re not in a recession. We’ve got high inflation but it’s not a recession. What’s going on and my question, I’m getting there, but where we are is not unlike where we’ve been. History has a way of repeating itself and data has a way of hopefully helping us make better decisions. And so what I’m looking at again just using the 2007 to 2008 timeframe in 2009 the Commission at that time shows a rate that was lower than the roll back rate. Ms. Williams: Because the roll back rate went up. Mr. Mayor: I understand that as well. Ms. Williams: But you are right. Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. And if I jump to 2020 through 2022 you’ve got a current Commission that is better financially than that Commission was notwithstanding you actually have a policy in place now that says we want to go towards 180 days in reserves and I remember that conversation we started at. I’ve heard from all of the commissioners over time with regards to where we are and certainly timelines that are in front of us and I go back to the Georgia taxpayer bills of rights which is really what this conversation is all about and what we’ve got in front of us is the DOR suggested rate which is the roll back rate which pursuant to (inaudible) says that a municipality will raise this amount of money using this to satisfy its needs versus what’s being proposed and we’re not here today to make a decision but I think given the weight of the data that’s in front of us and all of what we’ve heard and we’ve had this discussion before making mid-year adjustments and in this case an adjustment to the tune of $500,000 it just seems prudent in light of what we know. What we also know then is that given all of the needs of what will be a future commission, we’ll at least start leaning into that from a budgetary process from a 2023 perspective th which is what governments do all the time so my question is the commissioner from the 6 raised this idea about what has been discussed as a $1.6 million dollar subsidy annually for GC. I happened to be somewhere in the city a couple of days ago and I heard another number almost $4 million dollars, you know the streets be talking, and my question is given slide 4 and slide 6 much 9 of what we see around upcoming and potential expenditures is it not true that these upcoming and potential expenditures are not included in the ’22 budget? Ms. Williams: The Phase 2 retention, $3.5 million dollars, is included in the budget. The Central Services contract I believe that is included in the budget. I believe those are the two from 2022 that I can speak specifically are included currently. Mr. Mayor: Okay, and we have sufficient enough revenue to meet that, is that not true? Ms. Williams: The increase in your sales tax collections was designated and itemized as a source to revenue to fund the Phase 2 retention as presented by the Administrator, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you. Are there any other questions? The Chair recognizes th the commissioner from the 6. Mr. Hasan: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, one of the things you made mention of is that we were not going to attempt to make a decision today and I don’t necessarily disagree with that but we do have August 30 bearing down on us so the only time we officially meet again is August 30 so do we plan to do another special called meeting of something between now and that time to try to get something done prior to August 30 because whatever we do, you’ve got some advertising to do whichever way you go. Mr. Mayor: Mentally I’m tracking that, Commissioner, and I thank you for that question. Madam Clerk, is it not true that we meet next week? Do we meet next week? We don’t? Thank you, Lord. I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding. Given the nature of your request to have this meeting, Commissioner, I’m confident that as we have these discussions and again, we’re largely having this conversation at your request, we’ll have another special called meeting as well if necessary. Mr. Hasan: Yeah, because we’re going to have to advertise them and vote and even if you stay at the roll back I think you’ve still got to advertise. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, you do. You’ve got a week’s notice. Mr. Hasan: Yeah, okay. And so would we do a special called meeting next week if we don’t take no action today? Mr. Mayor: One, we are statutorily not able to take action today. Number two, to that end if there is a desire to have a special called meeting, I’m all for it. Mr. Hasan: Okay, because we’re going to have to, you know, because the following th Tuesday is the 30. Okay. Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. All right, the question that was posed, I’m going to come back to what I said that ya’ll are having questions about, I’ll address that first. As I understand it, this meeting was advertised as a special called meeting for the purposes of discussing expenditures and 10 the millage rate. The question before us is can the Commission take an action on adopting a millage rate today. Mr. Brown: No. Mr. Mayor: Would you explain please? Mr. Brown: The purpose of the meeting today I presume would be given the authority that you have is to begin the millage rate adoption process which you would announce a millage rate which would begin and activate the public notice, observe the notice period and the public’s participation and at a later date you may adopt a millage rate equal to or lower than the one that you advertised. If you have a desire at the end of this process adopt a millage rate higher than the one you advertised, you may do so but not at that meeting. You must begin the process over again. Mr. Mayor: While they’re talking, I’m going to go to the question that the commissioner th from the 7 asked. What you have in package number two is what the current to date expenditures are of ARP dollars and who the recipient of those dollars are because you didn’t have a comprehensive list at this point. And it also includes information, I’m going to come back to you, Parliamentarian. It also has information about proposed capital needs for the next three to four years. All of those things that were a part of earlier discussions and conversations about you know we’ve got the 2023 budget, we’ve got these costs that we’ve got to pay for. Well, it’s one thing to talk about them but it’s another thing for you to see it in writing. All right, back to the Parliamentarian. Mr. Brown: Yes, Mayor Davis, I understood you to ask me the question could the Commission adopt a millage rate today. Was that your question? Mr. Mayor: That was my question. Mr. Brown: Yes. Mr. Mayor: That is not the question that they have. The question that they have is can the Commission move forward with agreeing to a process to present to the media, the public, a proposed millage rate. Mr. Brown: And as I stated, yes, you can do that. Mr. Mayor: You did state that. I was tracking. Mr. Brown: All right, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Un huh. What’s the pleasure of this body? The Chair recognizes the th commissioner from the 6. Mr. Hasan: Make a suggestion, based on what we see here, we’ve got the proposed millage rate from the DOR that we adopt it but leave the other things in place, the M & O, the fire protection 11 and the capital projects. Leave those in place but accept the roll back for the general fund, whatever the DOR recommended. That’s my motion. Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go back to slide #8. All right, on slide #8. I’m going to give th the commissioner from the 6 an opportunity to express what he’s communicating. Mr. Hasan: Yes, sir, what I was saying, Mr. Mayor, you have a DOR that was 7.something that was – Ms. Williams: 7.96 – Mr. Hasan: 7.96 the Department of Revenue was recommending that we adopt that but the capital outlay that was 0.722, leave it in place as being presented to us, the fire protection 2.217, leave it in place and the, I think in the urban service district there’s 4.845, leave those in place for roll back take the DOR’s recommendation. That’s my motion. Mr. Garrett: Mayor, can I ask a question to my colleague? Mr. Hasan: Yeah, I’m here. Mr. Mayor: I’m going to recognize him. That motion fails without a proper second. th The Chair recognizes the commissioner from the 8. th Mr. Garrett: Thank you, Mayor. My question is for my colleague from the 6. In regards to the fire protection rate, can I suggest that we wait until we have ARP discussion before we make th’s a move on that especially in reference to my colleague from the 10question earlier? There $10.5 million that’s getting dumped into the general fund next year that to me is much more valuable today than it will be in three years when a lot of this equipment needs to be replaced so that goes a lot farther towards the $14.5 million dollars that the Fire Department needs than $2.3 per year that this quarter percent increase will generate. Mr. Hasan: Well, I think what you’ve got here is your Fire Department is going to have a new building in about a year and a half and won’t have any equipment to go in it. And I think it takes almost a year to 18 months to get their vehicles so – Mr. Garrett: That’s what I’m saying if we allocate the $10 million out of ARP funds that they’re wanting to put into the general fund next year instead of allowing it to get placed there. Mr. Hasan: Let’s ask this, Mr. Mayor, because we do see a $10 million dollar in there. Ask has that already been distributed or that is yet to be distributed? Mr. Garrett: It’s to go to the reserve fund. It’s going to get --- Mr. Hasan: Let’s ask the staff so we won’t be, I want to hear what they’ve got to say about it. 12 Mr. Mayor: So here’s a couple of things. I want to draw everybody’s attention to your handout. I want to draw your attention to your handout. We’ll leave what’s on the screen on the screen. But your second set of handouts, okay? All right. This document details or at least represents the full $82 million dollars and where those dollars are supposed to go. I want to go back to this premise, I’ve said it before and I’ll hold fast to this. Where those dollars are conditionally approved or predicated to go somewhere, this still provides opportunity to make adjustments and to be more thoughtful about what you want to spend. I said this in a private conversation, we’re not doing anything very innovative and if all we’re going to do is just make sure the government operates and continues to move forward, then this is your opportunity to revisit that and talk about solving some of these capital challenges. We knew we were building a fire station; we knew it needed equipment to go into it so that’s not new. And so we didn’t include it in SPLOST 8 so this is an opportunity for us to be thoughtful in saying how do we solve present day challenges with current resources while at the same time giving those who will come behind us for those who are departing an opportunity to have this same strong stable runway that we’ve built over the last several years. All right, Ms. Jackson. Ms. Jackson: For me I just wanted to make a clarification because I believe that the statement was that the $10 million dollars is just going to general fund. It’s going to general fund but for clarity that $10 million dollars is designated for specific needs for the general fund such as the increases to the Sheriff’s Department such as some security things. All those things were addressed in the 2022 budget so just to be clear if we do make adjustments for the general fund that those actual appropriations, we will have to reassess the budget for 2023 as well. Mr. Garrett: I’ve asked the question numerous times – Ms. Jackson: And we shared that information with you, sir, I believe last week. We outlined every single thing – Mr. Garrett: You outlined the 4.5 that I asked about. But I’ve asked about this 10.5 and I was repeatedly told that it was being put into the budget and would eventually end up in the reserve fund to help grow those number of days. Ms. Jackson: The 4.5 that we addressed is a carryover in 2023 and 2024 and then we would have to pick those costs up in general fund specifically. So everything that was outlined is also inclusive in 2023 and 2024 as well. Mr. Garrett: The 10.5 was not included in your communication last week. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Jackson. You’ve got more questions, Ms. Jackson. The Chair recognizes the Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, I still had the floor, if you don’t mind. Mr. Mayor: Well, you only had the floor because he had a question for you. Mr. Hasan: But I wanted to weigh in on the answer to that. 13 Mr. Mayor: I’ll come back to you. I’ll come back to you. Mr. Hasan: Okay, all right. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Jackson, the Mayor Pro Tem has a question for you. Mr. B. Williams: Yeah, and that $10 million includes the firehouse if I’m not mistaken. Ms. Jackson: No, it’s specific as operating costs. It’s the Sheriff’s Department’s increases that we pay for, I think that was $3.2 million dollars. There was something related to security that was on there. Also storm water fund, the RCCI has costs there so all of those things that were outlined those things are specific for this year and the upcoming years. ARP is covering those operating costs to give some relief to general fund. Mr. B. Williams: And so if we were to pull that money we’d still have to find some money to put – Ms. Jackson: That is correct. Mr. B. Williams: Okay, so that means that if you pull $10 million you’ve got to get $10 million from somewhere else, if I’m not mistaken. Ms. Jackson: That is correct. Mr. B. Williams: Which the only place we’ve got money right now is probably ARP and I know people still have some things that they want done with that. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: And given what we know today, whatever it is, the Chair has the floor, whatever it is that people want what I’m hearing from staff is these are the things that need to take priority and precedence. So whatever other things are then they’re taking a back seat to you’ve got a new fire station that’s being built, you’re going to need fire trucks to go into that and that quite frankly needs to be a priority. All right, I’m going to go back to the commissioner from the thth 6 then I’m going to come to you. Commissioner from the 6. Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, another thing that I wanted to be mindful of and I’ll leave it alone after this is that as we can look at those things that we use the ARP funds for such as the $10 million dollars in the (inaudible) that’s ’23 and ’24 for those salaries and things of that nature, eventually all of these after ’24, one as early as ’23, you know whatever you do with our provider, you’ve got, just say you’ve got 65650. We know that’s (inaudible) those numbers under normal circumstances are not going to hold but you’ve got 1.3 there over a span of ’23 and ’24. You may end up using every dime you’ve got right there just for ‘23 alone. My point in saying all of this is that all of these things eventually is going to come back on the general fund and if we set ourselves so far back you won’t catch up. You won’t be able to catch up. You’ll start digging into your fund balance and stuff. That’s why I tried to be measured, that’s why I tried to step away from okay, not touch the general fund but let’s not put the burden of everything and roll everything back 14 and that we just hurt ourselves as an absolute. We may can get by but just accepting the DOR roll back but however, just leave those other things in place because we don’t want to take every dime off the table to keep us moving in the right direction. That’s all I’m suggesting. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And I absolutely am not suggesting that you rob Peter to pay Paul who then will take what John thought he had. What I’m suggesting to us is that we be thoughtful about where we are right now and in doing that, it requires us to certainly look ahead. We know that there are present day concerns around the health, welfare and safety of all of our citizens. Fire stations are essential to that. You’ve got, if you take this first sheet that’s on the screen now you’ve got a series of buckets that we will talk about and navigate through during the 2023 budgeting process, you’ve got the $10.5 which is revenue replacement, you’ve got the $2.25 which is the street lights conversation of which for some reason we won’t go ahead and just solve this conversation long term and then of course you’ve got the $3 million where you’re talking about meters for Utilities and all of these things. Unfortunately, from a capital perspective that’s one of the greatest challenges of local governments. How do I address capital needs on an ongoing basis if I have not already identified a funding source for it? That’s not a new conversation. That’s not a new thing but it’s a challenge that you have every single year when it comes to capital investments so take the sting out of it and all of that other stuff. We’ve just got to be thoughtful th about how we attack this, okay? All right, I’m going to go to the commissioner from the 8 and then we’re going to close this out. Mr. Garrett: Thank you, Mayor. Really the question is to whoever is out there that wants to answer this or even provide the information. Can somebody please break down that $10.527 million dollars into where it has been reallocated towards? It’s a question that I’ve asked numerous times over the past few months, and I have never heard or seen it broken down the way that was just suggested so I’m just asking for that to be sent to the full Commission. The way that it is being presented here as revenue replacement and the explanation that I received just two weeks ago was totally different than what I just heard on the floor so that would definitely help me and I think it would help the rest of us as we try to make some decisions in regards to how the rest of these funds are going to be spent. Mr. Mayor: I appreciate your concern. I also appreciate Ms. Jackson for answering that question and providing a quality answer and yes, you’ll get it in writing which is why we asked them to provide you with this. And I’m going to challenge every member of this Commission to look at this because it’s real easy to forget where we’ve spent money and where you’ve made allocations of $500,000 here, $300,000 there, $400,000 there when it comes to these ARP dollars and everyone needs to be fully mindful of that as we’re making these broader budget decisions for 2023 and beyond and we’re not even really at that place, okay? Madam Clerk, we’ll talk and we’ll schedule as needed a special called meeting to address the broader issue in front of us. All right, this meeting is adjourned. \[MEETING ADJOURED\] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 15 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 18, 2022. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 16