HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting January 11, 2012
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
January 11, 2012
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 3:00 p.m., January 11, 2012, the
Honorable Jerry Brigham, Commissioner, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, Smith, Johnson and Jackson, members of
Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor; Bowles, Mayor Pro Tem; Aitken and
Hatney, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Russell: In the chamber I’d like to call the meeting to order. The first item of
business would be to elect a temporary chair for this particular meeting due to the absence of the
Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem. It would be appropriate for nominations to be made at this
particular point in time.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I nominate Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Lockett: I nominate Al Mason.
Mr. Russell: We’ve got two nominations. The first would be ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Jerry Brigham.
Mr. Russell: Jerry Brigham. Do you want me to second to a nomination, do we, Mr.
Attorney? And the second would be?
Mr. Lockett: Al Mason.
Mr. Russell: Al Mason. Any other nominations? With none being heard nominations
are closed. We’ll vote on the first one which would be Mr. Brigham. All those in favor of Mr.
Brigham please indicate by the appropriate sign.
The Clerk: That motion carries ---
Mr. Russell: That motion carries 6-1. Mr. Brigham is the chair for this particular
meeting. The gavel’s yours, Mr. Brigham.
The Clerk: That motion, let me for the record, that motion carries with Mr. Aitken,
Bowles, Hatney out. Mr. Lockett voting No.
Mr. Lockett: Madam Clerk, to make it unanimous approval I change my vote to Yes.
(Vote on the nomination of Mr. Brigham)
Final vote carries 7-0.
1
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion is unanimous.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, I’m going to turn the floor over to you for a presentation.
Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As you know we’ve been talking about the budget
for the last a little bit point of time. You passed a budget late November. We had some
conversation about that earlier this year and what we’re here today in a Special Called Meeting is
to make sure we’re moving forward in the right direction as we try to implement the budget that
you passed. You’re getting copies of the presentation. We’ve got a couple speakers today,
myself and a couple other department heads that we talked briefly about before. What we’d like
to do is go over that fairly quickly with and if you could hold your questions until the end I’d
greatly appreciate that. Our target is to talk for about 30-minutes or so to give you plenty of time
to end up at the end of the day with the discussion part as we end up trying to get this, trying to
get this moving forward here. And to make sure that we’re all on the same sheet of music as we
go forward. A couple of housekeeping items to begin with. The first of which would be the
$500.00 dollar increase to salary scale, to not specially address part time employees. With that
in mind I’d like to, I’m going to recommend and implement unless there’s any major heartburn
about that a $.20 cent an hour increase to our part time employees which is appropriate I think at
this particular point in time. I just want to let you know that’s the direction we’re going in. The
impact of that would be fairly minimal and gets the entire budget in that amount is taken care of.
Just out of curiosity for you though that and let me tell you what you did with that $500.00 dollar
increase. The President just recently has implemented or recommended a .5 increase for the
federal employees. That $500.00 dollars is basically a pretty good chunk of that for most of our
employees if you’re looking at some of the lower paid people per ration that’s a pretty good deal
for them. So we were happy that you were able to do that. In addition to that there’s a couple
projects that should have been included for funding out of the fund balance. One is the MPSDES
Project which is one of Abie’s projects in reference to soil erosion. The other’s a UDAC Project.
There’s money in the fund balance and that’s what that money’s is for to cover that. The other
items were some grants previously approved and a $65,000.00 funding for the land bank that’s in
there and we’re just moving forward with that basically. The major topic today would be the
budget and what we are planning on doing which we told you last week or two weeks ago. That
raised some serious concern from several of you as the impact that we talked about was having.
It raised some public concern as you can see referenced in the people sitting in the chamber
today. And I just want to make sure we’re still moving forward with what you desire us to do as
we do that. You know the bottom line once again expenditures and level of service is tied solely
into revenue. These are the actions that we took to balance the budget, the reduction in force, the
fund balance appropriation, department cost reductions on a sliding scale gave us the amount of
dollars that we’re talking about. We did use some money from the fund balance and here’s the
pie chart that actually represents that. There were some increased costs there that balanced out
all of which you approved and we agree with as being necessary for the continued operation of
the government in a way that’s the most cost effective and efficient. Reduction in force which is
about a million dollars. We’ve told you that on numerous occasions. That equates to about 34-
positions at a $30,000 salary level. Obviously somebody hired as and then let go. 24 might
2
become 32 or 31. Somebody lower than that is let go and 34 might become 36, 37 depending on
how the million dollar’s comes up. It’s my instruction to include those elected officials in this.
In the past we have not done that. But it was my instruction this year to do that. These are the
numbers and the recommendations that I make when making reference to that. These numbers
are obtained by just using a very simple scale based on the size of the department. Not a lot of
science there not a lot of scientific background or whatever but the general theory is the larger
the department the more possible it would be for those to do away with positions basically. In
the scale is such as 0-14 people we did not request any. 15-21, one, 22-32, two and over 33,
three. I would continue to like to have the authority to deal with that though. You gave me
within that million dollars and I think if we were to argue the points that at some point somebody
might come back and say that my position’s totally necessary you’re major direction was to get a
million dollars and that’s what I will do. What we have today made this list public. It wasn’t
until then but we notified the people that are involved and several which are sitting in the office
now that are impacted by this. We’ve got our solicitor down here, a representative of the
Marshal’s office and Tax Assessor and some of the people that are outside the norm that you
don’t normally see when we start talking about those particular kinds of cuts here basically. The
next item that we used was the fund balance. You can go back to the round chart we used about
2.1 million dollars out of the fund balance to do that. The general fund at the end of 12/31/10
had about a 32-million dollar fund balance fairly, not bad for an organization this size. The
budget that we used, we budgeted 3.8 million to use in 2011 which would take us down to 78-
days of operations, Once again not a number that I’m uncomfortable with. The catch with that
is we don’t really don’t know until August what we actually used and that’s the issue we ran into
last year. But around August the finances, the financials come back, the auditing statements
come back and we know if that 3.8 becomes less than that or more than that. And that’s a
gamble that we have to take at the moment. We used approximately 2.1 million from the fund
balance this year, in the fund balance to balance this particular budget. That would give us about
29 million dollars left, or if we reduce 6 days so you end up with about 72 days of operations.
It’s still not a number I’m uncomfortable with but the caution that I would use you, use and give
to you that you can’t continue to make payments for ongoing services out of the savings account
and that’s what we’re doing there. At that some point that becomes a slippery slope that you run
down and it’s very simple. As a homeowner or as a businessman as a government you shouldn’t
plan to pay the light bill out of a saving account. I mean that’s just not a smart thing to do. To
put that in perspective though with the recommendation we got we run into about 72 days of
operation. One day last year the state of Georgia was down in their fund balance of two days of
operation. Not that’s a model we should go forward to but you know once again while we had
tight times our functions and our finances are fairly good we’ve still got tough decisions to make
but those are ones that we’ve created for ourselves over a period of time by not increasing
revenues and maintaining a low tax base and absorbing costs that has increased electricity, gas
and all that other. We’ve done good. How much longer we can do good is the question that we
need to ask ourselves and are you willing to roll the dice to do that. Once again when we look at
some of the other departments the ones I want to talk about today are the ones that have the
biggest bite of what’s going on and the ones that probably have the biggest impact on the public
here. HED, HDD, Recreation and Engineering Services and Utilities. Chester’s going to speak
briefly about HED. Just to let you know what that means then each other department head’s
going to do that and we’re trying, once again we’re trying to keep this as concise as when can to
3
give you enough time to talk. So, Chester, if you could give us a real quick example of what
we’re doing here.
Mr. Wheeler: Thank you, Mr. Russell, and good afternoon Mr. Chair and other members
of the Commission. Our presentation today will focus on two areas as you will note from the
slide above. One is a reduction of federal funding and the other one is a loss in administrative
costs. As you will note that the federal funding in 2012 is $760,000 and a loss of administrative
costs of $225,000 dollars. Federal funding has been reduced nationwide. Unfortunately Augusta
took part of the brunt in those cuts and have been heavily hit with federal funding reductions for
the past two years. I thought I’d take just a minute and give you a snippet of what is at risk. You
have before you a slide that depicts for you the clientele and the services that they receive so I
will not read them to you. The cutbacks have an effect on agencies like the Boys and Girls Club,
the Golden Harvest Food Bank, The Augusta Mini Theater, Marc Academy, Salvation Army,
Senior Citizens Council and the Recreation Department where we have had partners on many
park projects and many other organizations that I didn’t note. These agencies work very hard to
help sustain and change the quality of life of the people that they serve. What you will note from
the slide before you now is that the CDBG Program has been accumulatively cut by 29.58% and
the Home Program has been cut by 43.74% over the past two years. The combined reduction in
the funds from both programs is 1.3 million dollars. This kind of cut can only result in a major
program reduction. It will impact our non-profits as well as our CHODO. Unfortunately these
cuts result in a loss and an impact on our administrative funds and the federal cuts resulted in
further loss of the administrative funds as $205,000 dollars. That cut in couple with the
elimination of two positions and the cut of $31,000 dollars from the Urban Services Fund is very
crippling to my operations. My plea to you is to maintain a significant level of contribution to
our administrative costs. Any further cuts in our local contribution is going to at some point
render us ineffective in our administrative duties and could possibly result in a reduction of staff.
Efficiencies in the area of administrative duties in my department which we strive not to have
could result in reimbursement of federal government of non-federal funds and that is not
something I do not want to stand before you and ask for. This slide depicts a pictorial
presentation of how the CDBG funding has been dropped over the past three years. If you will
note it has dropped from 2.4 million in 2010 to 1.7 in 2012. The next slide also depicts
pictorially how funding has dropped over the past three years. You will note that it dropped
from 1.3 million in 2010 to $800,000 in 2012. Also I took the opportunity to just put a few
questions in front of you. And you will note from this slide that we have limited administrative
cost support from the federal government. They really see this as a partnership with the local
government and ask that you put your share of costs necessary to run these programs in it. These
programs are very paper intensive and require ample staff to operate them according to the
regulations. Our administrative responsibility to the federal government is not reduced because
of budgetary constraints. In 2010 I had two employees to leave in urban planning and the
program coordinator resigned to take another positions. And in 2011 I lost another person to
other positions. Because of budgetary restraints they were not replaced. Their responsibilities
were reassigned to other individuals and I’ve been discussing with Mr. Russell how I can
compensate them for their additional work. I have listed several consequences for you to read
that I’m sure you will do so a little later. Unfortunately the picture that you will say, will see is
not a very bright one. Congressional cutbacks, a change in how HUD calculates our annual
allocation has truly impacted us. I wish I could read the stars and tell you what would happen in
4
the future but I can’t. But what I can say is that we need you continued support. The impact of
the loss of local support seems to be a little more stinging than the loss of federal funds. But for
these programs some of the problems that the community faces that is covered by these programs
will be placed at the feet of you our Commissioners. So when we lose your support it stings a
little harder. Thank you for letting me share the budgetary challenges we have as community
government practitioners as our sole mission is that of helping to change lives of the people we
serve. And we hope that we will have your continued support.
Mr. Russell: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to do that very simply because the
decisions we make are going to have some ongoing impacts outside of this. Most of the agencies
that get money get it through Chester. That money continues to go down so they’re going to be,
not that we can fill those gaps on all of those things but each one of those individuals are going
to be picking up the phone and calling you saying that the feds have cut my money, what can
ya’ll do to help? So that’s going to be out there. You need to be aware of that.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, as far as Chester Wheeler during his presentation what does this
have to do with the general fund account as far as I’m hearing that it’s federal funding and grant
money.
Mr. Russell: What you’ve got there is a cut of the federal grant money cuts reduced their
administrative costs so you’re ending up what, cutting that money, you’re cutting the
administrative costs that we pay for their personnel and whatever. So it means bodies going
away in those areas that are federally funded but to continue to do the work level we’ve got to
find the money to pay for it.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so that’s where it comes out of the general fund.
Mr. Russell: It comes out of the general fund.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Is there any way we can pull out of these SPLOST because a lot of his
work is done through SPLOST’s.
Mr. Brigham: Let’s finish having the presentations before we ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: I’m sorry.
Mr. Brigham: --- go into detail questioning.
Mr. Russell: Tom?
Mr. Beck: Thank you, Mr. Russell and Commissioners. Good afternoon. I wanted to
remind you about what transpired this past May with the reorganization of our department. Back
in May with Recreation and Parks the following functions were merged with us to form
Recreations and Parks and Facilities. And that was the facilities maintenance section, the
cemeteries and the landscape section all under the previous Public Works Department. With that
reorganization we have seen over the past eight months some significant savings with this
5
merger in efficiencies and you see on your screen there over $430,000 dollars has been arrived at
through efficiencies which have come in the following form. We have reduced the work force
through the merger by seven full time positions in supervisory capacities. We also have merged
three maintenance shops into one maintenance shop that were previously three separate shops.
We’ve merged those into one for efficiencies. We privatized the Augusta Boxing Club. The
boxing club is totally out of the city budget now and being run through and outsourced private
group. And they are still functioning and doing well, and also through the closing of Garret
Community Center in District 7. Those were some of the savings in efficiencies found through
reorganization. Now as far as what the numbers mean today of the programs that I’ll be going
over with you basically it’s $840,000 dollars worth of reductions which comes through $532,000
dollars in the percentage cuts and also another $307,000 from the reduction in force of the nine
positions that we were given to reduce which totals to $840,000. Now what methodology did we
come up with? Was this just pulled out of the sky or was there some methodology or was there
some method behind the madness. And this is the criteria hat was used to come up with these
centers. What were the total revenues received from the operation of these centers? What were
the registered programs? How many people registered for activities in these centers? What was
the overall attendance in these particular centers and then lastly but just as importantly by
geographical and by districts. We could not see totally eliminating services in geographical
districts so we have left facilities operating in each of the districts and I’ll give you an example.
In District 1 there were two operational recreational facilities that were staffed and supervised on
a full time basis, May Park and Sand Hills. In District 2 there are basically two full time year-
round operations and that’s Carey J. Mays and Bernie Ward. District 3 has no facilities, they
have no staffed facilities. District 4 basically has two staffed facilities Diamond Lakes Regional
Park and McDuffie Woods. District 5 basically has three, Brigham Community Center, Newman
Tennis Center and the Aquatic Center. District 6 has no recreational facilities that are staffed.
District 7 had two Warren Road and Garrett we just closed Garret in May. In District 8 has two,
that’s McBean and Blythe. Those are your staffed, supervised recreational centers where we
have significant budget funds allotted. So with that here is the recommendations from staff to
move forward. The first area of reduction comes in our administrative office. With these other
reductions that are on the table we did not feel like it would be actually equitable for the
department not to have some service reductions out of the administrative office. So there is
administrative office reductions with one full time staffer and some part time staff persons out of
the administrative budget. So that will have an impact and you see the consequences by these
reductions on the right side of the screen. It will definitely reduce the supervision of some
programs with that part time staff. It will affect our customer service abilities out of the main
office. The next area of recommendation would be to close all of the summer outdoor pools that
we have and there are three left in the system. And that’s at Fleming and that’s at Jones Pool and
that’s at Dyess Pool. You heard Mr. Wheeler speak earlier about partnerships with the CDBG
Programs. One we’ve got right now is with the CDBG program at Dyess Park with the joint
SPLOST and CDBG program there to upgrade the park. Dyess Pool is part of those upgrades
but obviously with the pool being closed it wouldn’t make much sense to carry own with those
kind of improvements if you’re not going to have a facility open. The impact of that obviously
you have no day camp swimming out of those areas. You have no group swimming you have no
learn to swim programs in those particular areas. No daily public swim for the kids no
community splash days as examples. The next would be to close Sand Hills Community Center
in their non-senior programs. That’s all the programs related to everything but the senior
6
nutrition programs and wellness programs that are run out of that center. And I’ll continue on
with that process with each one of these centers. That would be the staffing and any youth
related and non-senior related programs and the staffing that comes with that. Two full time
staff would be eliminated with that and obviously you see the impact and the consequences from
that. If we had any rentals of those facilities the rentals would have to be managed and
coordinated out of the administrative office. If you wanted to rent Sand Hills instead of going to
Sand Hills you know and a customer friendly atmosphere right there and maybe close to your
home you’d have to come to the Administrative office to rent the building. We could still rent
the building but there would be a consequence for customer service there. The next area on the
list would be Blythe. to close Blythe non-senior programs. Very similar situation to what I just
mentioned with Sand Hills. All the youth oriented programs would close. We’d still run all the
senior programs because again as most of you are aware the senior programs are funded
primarily with state and federal funds for the meal programs, the wellness programs, the
transportation and so it wouldn’t make much sense cutting that out. We’d be cutting off our nose
to spite our face. So those kinds of programs would stay but all the other youth oriented
programs that you see on your screen would go away with two full time staff. The next on the list
would be to close Carey J. Mays non-senior programs, very, very similarly to what I just
mentioned with the other two and the impacts that come with that as well as the next on the list
to close Brigham Community Center’s non-senior programs. We do have a swim center there
that would stay open. The senior program and senior center would still be open. Basically the
community center would go away and that’s in close for operations with all the programs that
come there with two full time staff and one part time staff effectively. Next area on the list is
Diamond Lakes Tennis Complex. Some of you were at the grand opening of that facility three
and a half years ago when we opened the tennis center and since that time unfortunately the
numbers have not been there are far as the registered programs and the revenues. So with that
this recommendation would be unfortunately to close that pro shop operation. The tennis courts
would still be open, you could come play tennis but you would have no attendant there. It would
be an open situation like we do have at some other tennis courts. The tennis, the tennis
tournaments would still continue. If we have a big tennis tournament like we do this weekend
we’ve got over two hundred folks coming in town. And those courts will be used. Even if it
does close we would man those courts during these tournaments which is five or six times a year
and we’d have to man those out of the administrative office or even through the community
center across the street. And the next area on the list is to reduce our downtown landscape
service area with a full time employee. We did, we have merged those shops as I’ve mentioned
so we feel like we can at least keep some services going there and not lose a whole lot with one
full time employee. Although we would eliminate all overtime, there would be no more
overtime so if you had some event or something come in town I wouldn’t be able to pick the
phone up and say you know let’s go spruce up this bed or something for this event. That would
go away. Those customer service kinds of things would go away as well as some new plantings
on Riverwalk would be gone. And the last area would be the facilities maintenance section. We
have merged some operations with the new Judicial Center but we would eliminate any overtime
and all that goes along with that. And that in effect is a consequence that could reduce our
afterhours emergency response potentially at that facility or those two facilities and one full time
staff person would be eliminated with that. So that is the program in front of you and with that
I’ll turn it back over to Mr. Russell.
7
Mr. Russell: --- (inaudible) number eight $140,693.00. That’s the total (inaudible).
Mr. Lockett: (unintelligible) anything else?
Mr. Russell: Well, you need to remember the two hundred and some from the other one
and the hundred and something from the, yeah you’re the idea. This is going work okay. I think
we’ve got this figured out here. The next one’s Abie to talk about engineering. I asked Abie to
particularly wear a tie. The last time I saw Abie in a tie he walked into a meeting and got $2
million dollars. So I just thought we’d try the tie again and see what happened. I know things
are tight but $800,000 will make him happy.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Well, buy a lottery ticket quick.
Mr. Ladson: Ya’ll know this is very important to the Engineering Department. Thank
you, Fred and Commissioners, as you can see this is the Engineering Department’s budget. It is
separated into three different categories, engineering, traffic and (unintelligible). This will give
you a background on the engineering department for the past six years. What we’ve actually
done in the department initially six years ago we started looking at the department and we looked
at different functions in the department and looked at positions and started evaluating on what
positions could be eliminated, what positions could be combined, what services, what additional
services could be done with less staff. And we did that. We started as I said in 2006 we call it
Phase 1, Phase 1 Reorganization. We started looking at as I said we started looking at the at our
staff and budgets and we able to eliminated one position. It was a vacant position. We were able
to eliminate that and save the county approximately $33,000 dollars. We continued working on
this reorganization and came back to the Commission as some of you may recall back in 2009
with Phase 2. With that the second page reorganization we were able to eliminate thirteen
positions, reclassify numerous positions and able to save the county about $87,000 dollars. Just
recently this past year we combined Public Services to the Engineering Department and it
became one department. For the 2012 budget we were requested to do a full percent reduction
and we did that. We were able eliminate fifteen positions and also save the county $206,000
dollars. Now we’ve been requested to come up with an additional $565,000 dollars which is
equivalent to five positions and a $335,000 dollars that’s equivalent to about sixteen positions,
additional positions. Now there’s a pie chart up there. Let me give a background on what we do
and to show that the services are mandated on the services that we render is mandated. We do
design and review, plan review and that’s on both public and private side. And all the plans as it
relates to infrastructure comes through the Engineering Department and it has to be disapproved
or approved. We do all the construction as it relates to infrastructure both, private, public and
private. We handle all of the water management issues. We also acquire right of way and land
acquisitions on major projects especially SPLOST projects. Just recently we started doing
professional surveying about a year and a half ago. We currently have a registered land surveyor
and a surveyor and we started doing some of these services in you know to actually save money.
As stated we just currently acquired the maintenance department and an engineering division.
We performed a concrete right of way, retention ponds, storm drainage, levee and dams. We
have to upkeep all of those and maintain those. We also whatever we is designed or whatever is
constructed we also have to inspect it both private and public. We also have to do the land
development, erosion, sediment and pollution control. We have to abide by both state and
8
federal guidelines. In the traffic division we also have to do the same thing, do the design, we do
design and plan review. We also do some of this as stated as an engineering division. We also
do quite a bit of this in house to save the county funds. We’re over the street roadway and
lighting programs. We do traffic analysis and studies and also the traffic engineering division
just recently acquired trees, potholes. I know ya’ll remember all the issues we had with trees
mid last year. They still continue to do the pavement marking, signs and signals. And let me
emphasize again that this is mandated. We have to maintain it. This is not a service that just can
be cut. We have to maintain those. Now let me give a current view of what the engineering
department is currently like. We have presently 166 authorized positions. Of these positions
only 109 of them are filled. So basically we have 57 open positions. The majority of them you
can see are in the maintenance the former department that we just acquired. Well we spent the
past five to six months looking at these positions, evaluating them and we found out that we can
eliminate 15 of those positions and then reclassify the others. So when we did our proposal for
the 2012 budget this was included in that which is a part of the $306,000 dollars. What the
engineering department as done so far is as you can from 2005 to 2010 we’ve come a long ways
with not a whole lot to work with. But and I want to emphasize the employees in the department
I say are exceptional because they work with very little and get a lot done. But and they are very
efficient but as a whole as a county are we efficient no I don’t think we are where we need to be
as a county. And that’s where the goal of the engineering department and that’s where we are
trying to go. But as you can see in the year 2010 we’ve actually got about 22/23 projects
completed. Let me state a lot of them, the projects as far as putting the contracts together,
managing the projects were all done by in house staff. Here’s what’s been accomplished with
the additional duties that the department received approximately five to six months ago. We’ve
actually completed about over a thousand work hours as stated. If we had to have to do a
reduction of fifteen additional, 15-16 additional individuals and I’m saying warm bodies this
would decrease our productivity, we’ll go down. There’s no doubt about that, we’ll go down.
What are the impacts of the post reductions we’ll probably have to eliminate if not all the in
house, the projects that we do in house. These are projects that we can actually get done real
quickly with little or no money as far as labor is concerned. Inventory and mapping, we
currently do some of that as well the majority of that in house. And so the amount that you see
here these are just estimates. They’re not set in stone but it could be less it could be more. But
these are some of the impacts. Decrease in level of service, decrease in productivity with limited
staff of course construction projects will linger on. We’ll probably go from two years to maybe
four years to complete a project. Long term liabilities if we don’t get these type things done such
as maintaining our existing infrastructure, maintaining our traffic signs, our pavement markings I
mean this could be possible liabilities and lawsuits. And these could be the possible impacts. So
this is in addition this is what we’ve been requested to reduce and I’m asking permission that to
take a second look at this and reconsider this amount. Thank you.
Mr. Russell: That statement to go through it that way is to simply set the stage. This
isn’t just one year of stuff we’ve looked at. We’ve been looking at these reductions over the past
couple years so that you end up doing, there’s been a continuing flow of doing more with less
and having less to do more with. So you know it goes back for a while there basically. Tom?
Mr. Wiedmeier: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I’d like to refresh the
Commission on what we’re trying to accomplish with our departmental reorganization. If you’ll
9
remember we’re proposing to eliminate 52 budgeted positions with an annual salary savings of
$750,000 dollars. Currently we’ve had eight mid, upper level management staff that have left
the department via retirement. I’d like to let you know about a situation that’s developing that’s
turning critical that is largely due to the delay in the implementation of our reorganization. If
you’ll recall in June of last year we got a consent order from the Georgia EPD that requires that
we inspect and perform preventive maintenance on our entire collection system on a five-year
cycle. That’s 950 miles of sewer. This consent order was a key driver in the way we
reorganized our construction and maintenance division. Today we’re at 62% staff in that
division. We’ve got 36 of 94 positions vacant. We recently posted for a heavy equipment
operator. We got seven qualified applicants and only one of them showed up for an interview.
We’re six months behind on this consent order. In order to catch back up we are going to have
to contract out some of these duties that we were planning to perform internally.
Mr. Russell: So with that in mind we’re actually moving forward with that area fairly
quickly. We’ll be signing off on that fairly quickly. Let me go on to the next slide. These are
some of the other areas that we’ve asked for based on that percentage, the sliding thing, the
sliding scale that we did. I have not got any response from these individuals at this particular
point in time. That’s another $682,690.00 dollars. What we basically, well we’ve got some
response from a few of them but there are no reductions in those responses. Part of that is Abie’s
money again that’s up there, about $300,000 or so. But you can see that as you go down the line
there are some that haven’t responded at all. This is the chart of Recreation again with their
shortfall. That number that I asked you to remember which was $840,693 dollars. That’s what
you’ve got to do with that. The engineering budget shortfall was $550,665. And then we get
back to the general issue that we need to talk about and talk globally about what you’ve got
there. Based on what direction I have at the moment I’m moving forward with these plans but I
did want to make sure since several of you had asked is that the prudent thing to do. That we
give you a chance to help me get some direction on some other way to do it or give me some
other direction on what you want me to do just simply so that there’s no misunderstanding on
what we’re actually doing here. I think there’s some compelling arguments. I can bring three or
four other people up here that tells you we can’t do what we’re supposed to do with what you
asked us to do it with. At the grand scheme of things that’s you know that’s tough I guess.
Some of the people that said you know well we’re not going, we’ve asked for their ideas where
the money’s coming from out of their budget. The bottom line is that we reduced the budget we
were asking where they were going to take it from not whether or not you could do anything with
it or not there basically. Let me attempt to begin the conversation then with a couple of simple
questions and we were a little bit slower than what I wanted but the question becomes in my
moving in the direction you want me to in or are there other things that you want to look at as we
continue to move forward with this budget.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, before we start that. Since we have the assessor up here and
he’s been patiently waiting I think we need to allow him an opportunity to speak to us. Also
along with the solicitor and the representative of the Marshal’s office and then I’m going to get
into your questions.
Mr. Russell: I wasn’t planning and did not invite them with the opportunity to speak.
That would be fine if you would allow them to do that when ---
10
Mr. Brigham: Well, I want to give them the opportunity since they’re here and they are
major portions of this budget. And they are outside of our direct control I want to hear from
them.
Mr. Russell: I just want to make sure that on the record that it reflects that we did not tell
everybody that this is their chance to come talk. We informed them of the meeting so that if they
came they could if they, it’s them not me.
Mr. Brigham: These are here and I want to give them the opportunity.
Mr. Russell: I don’t disagree. I just wanted to make sure there was any
misunderstanding on that point.
Mr. Brigham: I don’t think there is. If there’s anybody else here from another
department we don’t have direct control from I’ll be more than willing to listen to them. I’m
going to start with Mr. Ross if he wants since he’s got the biggest portion of our reductions and I
want to hear from him.
Mr. Ross: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. And if it was an option not to
speak perhaps I would not. Certainly I am not prepared ---
Mr. Brigham: I didn’t expect you to be. If you don’t have anything you want to say ---
Mr. Ross: Each of Commissioners haven’t received the presentation that petition of the
Chairman of Finance. We’ve been asked to reduce by three individuals. That represents 9.375%
of my staff. This additional request would reduce my funding in 2012 over to eleven at 10%.
The challenge is obviously we have at the Board of Assessors is to timely have a submission of a
digest. We’re not a service organization we are a key functional requirement of a financial
condition for local government. Not just for the county but obviously as well for the other
eleven authorities of the School Board. It is imperative that we attempt to timely submit these
factors because we’re not just of a local ordinance. We have the oversight of the Department of
Revenue. As I speak members of the Department of Audits in Georgia are in my office. The
conditions of digest is not subject to what we think a value should be but is measure by the
requirements of law. All I can petition to you certainly I am one department and I’m sure your
needs would have to address all of them. But in the words of my grandfather and I close, Mr.
Chairman, if you’ve got to pull the weight on the wagon there’s no need of horses.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Evans I hope you can ---
Mr. Russell: I’m glad you can follow that because I don’t. I’d probably get in trouble
after that.
Mr. Speaker: May I speak to ---
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir.
11
Mr. Evans: I’ll be glad to follow that because the same thought I will continue. One of
the things at the Solicitors Office that we do of course that many people understand is traffic
violations, tens of thousands of traffic violations a year. The first time since 2007 the fines
collected have gone up and that’s a plus for the county, it’s a plus for the overall city. We’re not
trying to take money out of poor people’s pockets but we do know that we have lots of cases out
there and we are getting a representative portion of the fines from that. It has increased a
significant part of this government’s budget and we understand that. And we have been good
stewards when we negotiate our cases. We’re good stewards to be attendant to it. What I’d like
th
to say is that on January 9 and if I may read my letter. I don’t have Power Point and I was
th
notified this morning as well. But on January 9 I communicated with our finance directors here
and I’ve received a letter and I recall the original suggestions about further cuts to the budget for
the Solicitor General’s Office. I contemplated the proposals and I firmly believe my originally
proposed budget reflects the needs of this office to accomplish its mission in the coming year.
Over the last two budget cycles my approach has been to use the process as a planning effort and
to at home the proposals to reflect our needs rather than our desires. I’ve brought principals of
good stewardship to the process and the underpin of this proposal. In this light to cut a arbitrary
amount is counterproductive to the entire planning process and will reduce the effectiveness of
prosecuting crimes in Richmond County. For others that review this letter I would report that
my effort to increase the revenues paid off with the first increase in collections since 2007. I’ve
also conserved 2011 and previously 2010 even though I came in at halfway through 2010 I’ve
conserved personnel funds for as long as possible for positions that unfortunately now need
filling. This is also been a savings, I’ve saved in several attorney’s positions due to a new hiring
practice while I’m looking to hire younger attorneys. Traditionally in prosecution offices that
not many people are aware of this I know our city attorney is, this is the place where young
attorneys get skills they need to go to trial. This is where they develop professionally and they
are tend to be the most eager prosecutors we have. They examine where the career prosecution
is placed for them. The prosecution office whether it be the DA’s office or myself are the prime
locations for that. We have saved effectively in that area. Furthermore as you already know for
two consecutive years my limited requests for pay increases were denied. Morale in my office
has been adversely affected in light of this activity and other areas. In conclusion I restate the
funding I asked for my budget is required to satisfy my legal obligations as well in the
prosecution of crimes and the delivery of statutory victim’s services. As always please don’t
hesitate to contact me. I wanted to state the date of that letter in response to the request for ideas
I did respond. I know Mr. Russell just missed that. As always gentlemen I am available for any
questions whatsoever. Thank you.
Mr. Brigham: Now I also understood there was a representative from the Marshal’s
Office? Do they want to address us?
Mr. Speaker: I’ll pass to Mr. Russell.
Mr. Brigham: You’ll pass? Okay. Mr. Russell, I’ll turn it back over to you.
Mr. Russell: And I think probably if we have representatives from everybody else here
they would be able to say the same thing. And I think we’ve done a remarkable job over the past
12
several years doing a lot with not a whole lot. And I’ve said regularly we’ve absorbed increased
costs, increased gas costs and health and all that other stuff. But the rubber hits the road and
now’s the day that that’s happened basically. We either can decide where we go from here and
what the shape of government looks like in Augusta or we can decide something else. But
today’s the day I don’t have any more magic. You know we can continue to manage the budget
as best we can but I need to make sure that I’m doing it in a way that you think is appropriate.
As it stands today our solicitor will lose that amount of money from his budget. As it stand
today each of these other people that have been here will lost that amount of money from his
budget and we will take those positions away. And that’s where I’m at. So if there are solutions
that we have not found yet that’s what I’d like to hopefully get to today or confirm the fact that
I’m moving in the right direction. We’ve got the chart up here for example if you were to you
know say that we want to fund the solicitor’s total budget that would be a little bit deeper detail
than I can show there. But we asked you for how many thousands of dollars? $33,000 dollars
plus a position. So if you were to say you know since Mr. our solicitor was here today we want
to make sure he gets fully funded. You know if you say give him that $60,000 dollars back it’s
got to come from someplace else in that circle and that’s where I’m at, at the moment. The same
thing with Abie or the same thing with Tom or whatever here basically.
Mr. Brigham: And that’s the case that we have is that anything we put back we’ve got to
find either new money or find additional cuts.
Mr. Russell: Yes, that’s got to be, it all has to equal out. So that’s where I’m at and
some of you had mentioned a few things individually to me and I just wanted to make sure that
we had the opportunity to talk about those. Some of you had asked me you know why we were
doing this because we already told you what to do. But so here we go, help.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarity I got to make sure I understand
this correctly. These raises that we’re talking about as far as a $500.00 increase to the salaries.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: That’s the cost right there to $1,045,506?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Okay, so we’re talking about increasing one million to each employee, not
the part time ones.
Mr. Russell: Right ---
Mr. Mason: Okay.
Mr. Russell: --- twenty cents per hour for the part timers ---
13
Mr. Mason: And then at the same time you’re talking about reducing a million dollars
which is around ---
Mr. Russell: About thirty four positions.
Mr. Mason: Okay, with thirty-four positions if your target was a million dollars I thought
so with thirty-four positions would be 29,450 dollars and some change, okay which is the lower
end of the totem pole of the workers number one. So I would think potentially if you were going
to do that and continue to do that, that you would look at some positions that may not be so low
on the totem pole to where you’re dealing with the lower echelon of individuals and maybe
we’ve got too many middle management or upper management folks that we potentially need to
be looking at. That’s number one.
Mr. Russell: Let me respond one on one if you don’t mind.
Mr. Mason: Sure.
Mr. Russell: I think that would be simpler down the line. We had that conversation both
staff wise and in with some members of the Commission during one of the budget hearings. The
issue that I had presented a little bit more raised there and it got down to the $500.00 dollars.
The issue with the cutoff you know it becomes an issue of up and down on the cutoff whether or
not if you’re making $20,000 and we give you $500.00 you’re making $20,500. If you’re
making $20,300 and the cutoff was there you’re making $20,300. So that was an issue that we
thought from a staff perspective that was a Commission suggestion to go with the flat five-
hundred at that point. And we thought that was equitable. It gave us after years of no raises it
gave us a little something. If I had my druthers I’d almost, I’d rather do that than anything else
at, well that’s, we thought that was a good idea. What that also does for our employees it pretty
much offsets increased health care costs. So while we’re not giving them additional money
we’re not really costing them money at this particular point in time. So from a staff
recommendation we thought that was a good idea that the Commission had had to do it that way.
Mr. Mason: And you’re making a good point from that standpoint. But from the reverse
standpoint of course you said the Commission you know looked at it and said yes. I wasn’t one
of them ---
Mr. Russell: Right.
Mr. Mason: --- that agreed with that for any number of reasons that I won’t necessarily
have to get into right now. But at this point to me it’s counterproductive in my mind to remove
jobs from individuals to give individuals $500.00 raises and you lose thirty-four positions and
people’s bills can’t be paid, food can’t be on the table and so forth. So from that standpoint it’s
almost a wash. You’re talking about giving people $500.00 and oh by the way this is people that
have already received as much as $18,000 raises by the way because you’re not excluding those
who have already received raises. Correct?
Mr. Russell: No, but if you want to trespass, not trespass ---
14
Mr. Mason: No, I’m just ---
Mr. Russell: --- go into that area you know you’re ---
Mr. Mason: I’m just asking a question.
Mr. Russell: Yes, it would include those people.
Mr. Mason: Okay, and so that’s good. It’s not, I’m debating anything it’s just, it’s a fact.
To me it’s a fact. So in other words it’s an unfair situation in my mind that we do something in
that particular form because it’s almost a wash. You’re talking about a million, forty-five and
then you’re talking about a million but then you’re talking about thirty-four people not having
jobs versus you know giving some folks a little morsel or token you know for the work that
they’ve done here. And I understand that people deserve to have raises. There’s no question
about that. I think there’s an appropriate methodology to get us there and they haven’t had it in a
while but when we’re facing this dilemma because it’s a bad situation no matter how you look at
it. But when you’re facing this dilemma where okay we can either give everyone $500.00 raises
and we lose thirty-four people or we forget the raises and we keep thirty-four people working
and being able to take care of their families and their homes. So that’s, I’m looking at it from
that standpoint. Not a knock on raises or previously or any of that. That’s done, that’s over
with. It’s just that particular method.
Mr. Russell: Would you let me (inaudible) my feeling on that? The tough decision is
exactly that. Do you save thirty-four jobs or do you reward 2,700 people for doing a good job as
best they could in whatever. The tough decision we made is a recommendation is I’d rather
reward the 2,700 people that are here that $500.00 and potentially I hate to use the word sacrifice
but sacrifice the thirty-four to do that. Or we could look for another source of that million
dollars somewhere.
Mr. Mason: I understand. And we can debate it all day but I don’t see $500.00 as a
reward to anybody because when you stop and look at it and take it over your pay periods and
you start taking Uncle Sam into effect the minimal amount of dollars that you’re going to get out
of that is extremely small. So you know if you’re talking about a reward is something that could
be beneficial that you can truly see at the end of the day in my mind you know five hundred
bucks it’s okay but it doesn’t begin to you know, I don’t know if you can buy a gallon of gas by
the time you’re finished each pay period with the dollars that you could get.
Mr. Russell: Let me suggest to you ---
Mr. Mason: Because gas is rising by the way.
Mr. Russell: I know that scares me.
Mr. Mason: Yeah.
15
Mr. Russell: But let me suggest to you that the majority of our employees that $500.00 is
important because it basically wipes out the difference in the healthcare costs. So for more than
less of our employees that $500.00 is probably an important impact.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a variety of things that I’d like to touch
base on. One is I’ve got some news that I was unaware of that Newman Tennis Center is in
closure. All this time I was unaware of that. Live and learn. Last meeting I asked several
people for an explanation of why we wanted to transfer I believe it was $200,000 dollars from
the SPLOST funds from Dyess Park to another entity. And I believe it was $200,000 from that
entity back to Dyess Park because one entity you could use two different things, the money for
two different things the other you could only use one. And now I here today that if Dyess Park is
closed even though the money has been set aside for Dyess Park what is going to happen to it
and I’m wondering why did I get the response that I got a week or so ago when I asked about ten
different questions on that.
Mr. Beck: Commissioner, I think the example that was being made was that Dyess Pool
is one of the three outdoor swimming pools that would be on the list for closure. And the
example being made was that we have a partnership project one of many that we’ve had through
the years with the Housing Department with CDBG projects. This would impact that project. If
the project wouldn’t go away with the pool portion of it we’d have to make adjustments to
because if the pool was closed then we’d have to put the monies into other parts of the park for
that project to remain viable. That’s the example I was making with the Dyess Park and CDBG.
Mr. Lockett: So for clarification will the money be expended this year for Dyess Park.
Mr. Beck: The project will still go on. The impact would be that the swimming pool
portion should you decide to keep that as one of the closure items the swimming pool
renovations would have to be moved to some other part in the park.
Mr. Lockett: But, Mr. Beck, what you’re saying is you’re going to enhance one part of
the park and at the same time close the swimming pool.
Mr. Beck: If you decided to go with that area in the cuts that’s correct.
Mr. Lockett: Okay. Another thing, this is for Mr. Russell. And you probably heard me
say it before Mr. Russell I’ve gone back through the archives for the minutes dealing with these
budget hearings and so forth. And it seems like year after year I’m reading the same thing over
and over. We got to cut, we’ve got a shortfall and I’m not telling you anything you don’t know.
The economy’s bad now. Unemployment’s extremely high. We have a criminal problem.
These teenagers need to have something to do when they’re not in school. And if we’re going to
take away money from these parks I think what we’re going to do is end up increasing the budget
for the Sheriff’s Department. I understand this is critical but you know when I look at my
16
checkbook and I see that the balance is getting low that tells me Brother Bill you’d better stop
spending. Now we are spending money, just last meeting I asked why are we paying a hundred
and some odd thousand dollars for GPS units? Sure they work but we’re not getting the value
out of them now that we did. Why are we, did we pay ¾ of a million dollars for ADP and I
understand when a single position is lost because of that and it’s my understanding we’re getting
ready to propose to spend more money with them. Why can’t we realize the financial status that
we have now cut back on spending until the times get better? Because right now we’ve taken all
the blood out of the turnip. And I’m not trying to be critical of you or anybody else for that
matter but that’s just a point I wanted to get out there.
Mr. Russell: If I can respond to that, Mr. Chairman. I think I agree with the
Commissioner wholeheartedly in the fact that we have continued to maintain a level of service
that’s beyond our financial means at the moment. The question becomes how do you do
something about that. The things that we recommend are things that we think are necessary.
The issue that we have today is how do you pay for that. You know the comments you made
about closing the parks and impacting on other areas of our budget because it increased crime or
whatever I can’t argue with that. I would probably I would think that’s probably true. But the
question becomes is how do you increase that revenue source to match the deed or what don’t
you want me to do as a group basically. You know it’s not too late not to spend $100,000 dollars
on the GPS system. It’s not too late to do the things like that that, that’s $100,000 dollars. The
question becomes is you know we think that’s a worthwhile investment. The bottom line is if we
don’t think it is you’re not going to get it and if you don’t think it is then we shouldn’t spend it.
But the dialog that we’re having now is let’s figure out those things that we don’t want or don’t
need or don’t have to have and move forward with that. I mean we’ve gone to the grocery store
with a fifty-dollar bill in our pocket and we went hungry. So we went around and we filled up
our cart, okay? We got to the checkout counter and the lady’s got, we’ve got half the cart empty
and the lady just rang up and it totaled $47.00 dollars and we’ve got half a cart left. We’ve
already thrown away the ice cream, the cake, the cookies we didn’t even buy them the first time.
In my mind we’re buying bread milk and eggs, flour and all that other important stuff there. So
the question that I asked you was either you’ve got to reach in that other pocket and figure out
where the additional dollars are coming from or you’ve got to cut something that’s important to
some of us in this room. And each of us have ideas of what’s important and that collective idea
of what you want us to do is what I’m attempting to get to. Because you might that A is the most
important program we’ve got and I might think so too but unless we get some direction you
know right now I’m cutting Program A. I mean simply because that’s the number we’ve got to
work with. So that’s the kind of what I want to get to. I mean that’s you’re absolutely on target I
think.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Johnson, you’re next.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Lockett touched on a few things
I was going to talk about in particular. But I don’t know about anybody else but I will say
there’s some things on here that I’m quite startled about. And not only that we just can’t afford
to do. We’re in a position now where we can’t afford, you say we can’t afford to do it but I say
we can’t afford not to do. At some point, Fred, we’re going to have to figure out how to increase
revenue. I haven’t heard any conversation about that. We haven’t talked about it and as
17
Commissioner Lockett said we’re constantly talking about cuts but we haven’t talked about
increasing revenue. And what I’d like to know from you is what do you propose you know and
then I’ll go to my second question on increasing revenue. I mean we can’t keep doing the same
thing expecting the same results. And of course things are continually to increase,
(unintelligible) is not going down it’s continually going up so what is your recommendation on
us trying to generate more revenue?
Mr. Russell: I think I’m going to tell you what nobody up here wants to hear.
Mr. Johnson: Well, we want to hear it.
Mr. Russell: It’s very simple. We need to have measured approach by making cuts in
one section and raising revenues in the other. The way you raise revenues the simplest way is to
raise taxes. That one mill raise gets us $4 million dollars and it’s $35.00 per $100,000.00
household. If that’s what six of you thinks is appropriate that would make my life a whole lot
simpler. If it’s not than we’ve got to find a balance someplace in there to look at. We talked
about the fund balance appropriation. You know they used 2.1 million this year. That would be
my recommendation. I would not be uncomfortable using a little bit more with that. You know
we were conservative in our estimates of the taxes that were going to bring in. You know with
the pictometry and the fancy new word that you taught me yesterday, the ITOS Project we
anticipate some increased revenue there as we find places that aren’t currently being taxed or not
currently being taxed right it’s going to pump into that there. You know that could give you ‘x’
number of dollars that we project at. The question becomes is are you willing to roll the dice. If
you look at the economy today other than gas prices everything else is looking like it’s starting to
look better. I mean you know if you look at our hotel motel numbers they’re up. If you look at
our sales taxes they’re up, our collections are up a little bit. Nothing to get excited and waving
flags about but we held our own in the worst and as things get better we seem to be gaining a
little bit. Do you want to roll the dice on that? That’s a policy decision that you’ve got to tell me
what you want to do. You know with the ITOS Project, the fund balance I can see another $2
million dollars somewhere in there that would eliminate some of these hurtful cuts that we’re
making. But on the other hand is let me share with you that are we making decisions today that
we’re going to have to sweat about in six months or a year. And the real question is it what you
really want to do with what you’ve got. I mean that’s where I need your help in. I mean and
when we first started this project the majority of you said don’t raise taxes. So that wasn’t on the
table. And the majority said we need to find cuts to meet the hole so that’s what you got. You
know is there a perfect way to do that you know I haven’t found it yet and I don’t think anybody
else has. Is there you know has Chuck got a great case you know he needs his extra $30,000
dollars to make us a safe place. Probably so but once again I can make that case for almost every
department we’ve got in one shape, form or another. So the hard part is the philosophical
question of do we want to be leaner, meaner and smaller or do we want to provide a high level of
service or do we want to find some combination betwixt and between that ya’ll can live with.
And that’s what I was about today is hopefully finding something betwixt and between that you
could live with.
Mr. Johnson: Well uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This part two and that’s exactly what I
wanted you to say because at some point we’re going to have to start talking about that.
18
Mr. Russell: Rehearsed and unprompted, please.
Mr. Johnson: Yeah, but also I think at this point as we look and move forward and look
at cutting back on future spending at this particular point we’re going to have to look at this fund
balance and look at probably shifting some of those dollars into this, too I guess offset this
shortfall because the items I see here in particular we just can’t afford to cut these items. I mean
two years ago we asked a lot of our department heads to cut their departments as much as they
can cut their budgets if you will and they did that. And now without hard numbers really in front
of us because all we have is really estimates we’re going to have to look at doing this. And I
don’t know how comfortable you feel about doing that but I think this is going to be a short term
solution until we can look at implementing sources to generate more revenue to offset this
shortfall that we’re going to create. Not just what we have this year but next year and the years
to come. So that’s where I am with this right now and I think that’s something we need to talk
about. So how would you feel about us pulling some of these dollars out of the fund balance to
offset this for this year and then us look at some future endeavors to raise revenue.
Mr. Russell: Well, you know I’m not uncomfortable with taking some more money out
of the fund balance at this point. But if we do that thinking that’s going to solve the problem
we’re just walking down the wrong path basically because at some point somebody sitting up
there is either going to have to make a decision that, I keep using you, Chuck, because you’re
here but as a solicitor we love you dearly we think you’ve got a good program but you’ve got
$30,000 less than what you had last year. Or, Mr. Beck, you know we love going swimming in
the pool but we understand you can’t open that. Or, Mr. Citizen, if you want these levels of
services you’re going to have to pay a little extra to get that. And you know either you’re going
to make that decision or somebody down the line is going to make that decision. And either I’m
going to sit here and implement what you say or somebody down the line standing here is going
to sit there and implement that. So for goodness sakes don’t think if we do that it’s a solution to
our problem. It’s a deferring of the question. And we do those things on the time but you’re
rolling the dice on the economy because south or southern we’ve got bigger issues here basically.
You know and I’ve talked to ad nausea about how reasonable our tax rates are but that didn’t
give me any traction either from most people that pay taxes. But you know look at the grand
scheme of things they’re pretty cheap. But you know that’s the policy that I’m looking for.
That’s the direction I’m asking for you and you know if want to I can come back with some
numbers if you tell me how much right now. You take an extra two million either out of the
fund balance and project a million from pictometry or some combination there are that’s gives
you two million dollars to play with and do away with the thirty-four cuts or you could give Tom
half of that and give Abie half of that and give Chuck a little bit of it and do that if you want. I
mean but that’s I mean that’s all there to do that you know.
Mr. Brigham: Are you finished, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Russell: I just made Donna get sick here.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Guilfoyle, while Mr. Russell’s on a roll let’s see if we can ---
19
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yeah, we’re going to have to hush Mr. Russell up along the way. The
director’s as well as the Administrator was supposed to speak for 30 minutes and it went for an
hour and fifteen minutes. So I would ask my colleagues if they don’t mind if we hash it out a
little bit longer if it takes that long as well as the director’s. This is a very important issue for all
of us. Now what we’ve been hearing on the floor is you know we’re trying to come up with
solutions. And we’re all going to have the face the same fact year in and year out. Now if we
face the, actually grab the bull by the horns this year we could do it. Now if you look at the
department director’s with the ITOS, guess what $85,000.00 investment two million dollars
returning. It takes ingenuity like that. Abie, he actually cut $350,000.00 out of the department
before we did our budget. But he’s already done his homework. He’s the one who came up to
the plate and did what he was supposed to do. We’ve got Rob Sherman back there. This is ideas
of what it takes. He ended up raising his fees where it was compatible with other counties. And
guess what? That’s a $225,000.00 increase to our general fund actually. And I cannot forget
about Sharon Brody. Nobody told her to cut here overtime expense. She done it on her own
with the help of her staff at a $22,000.00 a year savings. I mean this is what it takes to be a
department director is to go above and beyond. We’re here to come up as a policy maker.
We’re not here to micromanage and I won’t do that. But we have work in unity as far as being
up here on the floor. Now there’s some of the things that, we don’t have to, as a matter of fact I
was part of this budget. I just want to let my colleagues know that wasn’t here. I was I was very
instrumental in it. After we passed it I called Fred and I said you know what we need to look
outside the box. And that’s actually what we need to do, no different than our directors did. Do
we need to cut the thirty-four positions? No we got to think outside the box. We have been
talking to some of the department directors to come up with solutions. Earlier this year we had
passed on this floor is to hire a company to works off commission to find building permits, or no
it was business license we never implemented it. Did we?
Mr. Russell: I thought we did. We’ve got some money coming back from those people.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, but um ---
Mr. Russell: But I don’t know specifically.
Mr. Guilfoyle: What could be done our fleet management? This has been spoke about
for years. All right let’s look at our utilization on our vehicles as well our equipment. It works
off the hourly management of our fleet. Let’s say we’ve got an Explorer. First service which
changed the oil whatever occurs first, three months or five thousand miles. Well if you ain’t
drove it but two days out of that three months guess what we’re paying for more oil changes.
This is fleet management is a very big issue because we fund a lot of money to it. We need to
right size our fleet. Get rid of the old equipment that we keep paying maintenance for. It’s been
spoken over and over. We talked, our heavy equipment. I think the engineering department has
all this heavy equipment, utilities as well as Mark with solid waste. Why can’t we pool our
equipment together and use it when needed instead of everybody having the same equipment and
not being used that much. This and this actually comes from directors who helps me put this
stuff here together. Develop a continuous improvement team. Actually get somebody from IT
as well as some management people and go from department to department and spend time with
them. It wouldn’t hurt to have another set of eyes on the department and to be truthful in my
20
business we hired every three to five years and it’s actually constructive criticism. I use it in a
positive way. But I would like to speak with Tom Beck about this ---
Mr. Russell: Sure, let me caution you though that while I don’t disagree with what
you’re saying you know to save me $20.00 or $20,000.00 on oil changes or whatever or you
know that money adds up. But it takes a lot of those to add up to get where we’re going.
Mr. Guilfoyle: But when you ---
Mr. Russell: I’m suggesting we need a bigger box to think outside of is what I’m
suggesting.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, when you’re buying track hoes, backhoes, that’s all coming out of
the general fund.
Mr. Russell: It depends on where you buy them basically. I mean but that’s I mean Rob
buys them Mark buys them so they’re coming out of different places there basically. But talk to,
I mean he can answer ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: But my problem is every time there’s a suggestion there’s always a
rebuttal saying why we cannot do it.
Mr. Russell: Well, I think a lot of that is unfortunately based on the experience we might
have had in the past that led us to come to that conclusion basically. So to do some of the things
that you’re saying are things that we probably have looked at in some shape of form somewhere
down the line. And if somebody’s made a decision either before me or me at some point that
wasn’t a good way to good to go at that particular point in time. You know there’s a time to
relook at those things. I think you’ve got to look at that stuff all the time. And the things that
you’re bringing up are crucial to our long term success. There’s no doubt in my mind about that.
But once again you’ve got the you know the general fund, you’ve got a hundred forty three, $130
million dollars there basically that you’ve got to figure out how to balance almost 80% of which
is personnel and benefits. So once again you mainly get to the point of you’re talking people and
performance. Tom?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Tom, good afternoon. Thank you. I’m actually focused in Blythe
Community Center first of all because it’s in my district. We can look at the other community
centers if you like. By looking at the numbers I have you actually have overseen and approved
these budgets. Is that correct? The budget numbers that have been presented to the Commission.
Mr. Beck: Correct.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Three weeks ago we were given basically a copy of the same
budget which shows Blyth three weeks ago it was $141,000 as far as expenses. Now it’s
$110,000. How’d it get reduced that quick?
21
Mr. Beck: Because we had a position in there that was being charged to Blythe that is
actually, and in our business sometimes you have to work people where we need them. We had
a position that’s budgeted in Blythe that we actually work out of another REC Center that has
more activity so those numbers were taken out of that budget as well as the full time staff person
was reduced as well in the cut.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So the full time person did work out there full time?
Mr. Beck: No, as I just mentioned the position was budgeted out there but we parked that
position somewhere else where it was needed more.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, as far as the expenses how do you derive at the $110,000 number.
What does that include?
Mr. Beck: That’s a combination of some utilities not all utilities. As I mentioned the
building is still, if you go with these cuts the building’s still got to stay open for the senior
program. So your utilities, most of your utilities have to stay. The cuts come in program
supplies for all the youth programs that are organized out there and mainly other personnel and
benefit cuts. That’s where the majority of that cut is. I don’t have it line item but that’s
generally where it comes from.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, and the term where you got here revenue. Explain that to me.
Mr. Beck: Revenue’s generated from program income not rentals but program income
such as after school programs, day camps, fitness classes those kinds of things.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I’m actually my number is showing a 33% difference. Why? You’re
showing $15,000 dollars. I’m showing it at $22,554 dollars.
Mr. Beck: Ask your question again? The budget numbers are expenses are one ten the
revenues from programs ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: The revenues ---
Mr. Beck: --- are fifteen for net of ninety-five.
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, sir. The revenue you’re showing to us as Commissioners is $15,000
dollars.
Mr. Beck: That’s right.
Mr. Guilfoyle: It’s actually $22,554.
Mr. Beck: That includes building rentals. As I said the building rentals would stay
because we would still rent the buildings. This is just program related revenue.
22
Mr. Guilfoyle: Tom, what I think we need to do is go back as well as basic expenses and
revenues that you’re showing for us. We might want to take a second look at that because my
information is showing different. But let me I know with these reorgs that we just had this past
year you had made positions for five program director positions. Is that correct?
Mr. Beck: Five program directors?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, directors that make more than fire chiefs.
Mr. Beck: No, I’m not, part of the reorg did have it eliminated some assistant directors
and created some deputy directors of which I don’t know how that compares with the assistant
fire chief.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay.
Mr. Beck: I’m not sure.
Mr. Guilfoyle: What’d they make in salary?
Mr. Beck: I don’t know.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Neighborhood parks. I know that you gave us a list as well as the
media’s been very adamant on certain community centers. And what’s weird is the media’s been
picking up on the community centers that get used the most. I don’t know if there was a strategy
behind that but it sure seems that way. But we got a lot of neighborhood parks that’s unmanned
but we do maintain it. Have we looked at giving it or leasing it to a neighborhood association or
closing them to help cut costs?
Mr. Beck: I’m glad you brought that up because you know you mentioned in thinking
out of the box and just two years ago our department our city received a Trend Setter Award
through the Georgia Municipal Association for the programs to actually operate through
partnerships seven of our centers that we were the first in the state of Georgia to do that. And we
have seven centers under seven centers also a tennis center at Fleming Tennis Center at the MOC
Academy. We’ve got seven areas that we’ve already done that at. So you know any of the small
areas that we’ve got we’re constantly looking for that. We’ve just got the Boys and Girls Club to
come in to help us operate Johnson Center just a couple of years ago. We’ve got many of these
partnerships already. The issue is the smaller centers have no they have no budget associated
with it. We already don’t have full time staff so when you’re looking at cuts the cuts are just
peanuts comparatively. And that’s why we have to look, you know at the bigger operations.
Unfortunately you know if we’re expected to make $840,000 dollars worth of cuts we can’t
come up with that with the very important programs like the partnerships. But you can’t enter
into enough partnerships to come up with $840,000. It’s got to be substantial cuts and that’s why
you’ve got that on the table today.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Well, Tom, I appreciate you’re at the bat to lead dictating which
community centers are going to be closed for us. First of all ---
23
Mr. Beck: Actually I’m not dictating anything. These are recommendations. You can
come up with whatever plan you’d like.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, would you give us a list of the community centers that, actually
with the true expense and revenues? Let us decide if you don’t mind and give us a list of the
lowest utilized facilities in order. Can you do that?
Mr. Beck: The list that I’ve got right now for you are the least amount of centers with the
utilization that we’ve got. These are the ones that are on the list right now, geographically. Now
we’ve got you know some other centers that again was I going to recommend closing all the
REC Centers in District 1. No, I was not going to recommend that. That’s why in the
methodology I had geography district as one of the areas of methodology.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. I got three community centers in my district. You already closed
one, Hephzibah.
Mr. Beck: I had permission to close one, correct, about six, seven years ago.
Mr. Guilfoyle: But it’s still being rented through the Rec Department.
Mr. Beck: That’s correct and maintained by the department. Correct.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Maybe what we need to do with that park there to get it off of our
books is lease it to the city limits of the city of Hephzibah. They’re the ones who built it and
funded that project.
Mr. Beck: Part of it not nearly all of it. They funded part of it and we asked them to take
it over several times.
Mr. Guilfoyle: But the way it’s being maintained it’s going to go downhill quick. We
both know that and then it’s going to cost this city a lot more money. But if you would not mind
I would like to get a copy of both of them lists with all of the community centers, lists with all
the both, as a matter of fact both lists if you don’t mind please.
Mr. Beck: I can come up with whatever lists you need, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Please.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Jackson, I believe you’re next.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Abie, this is a good one for you. I’ve stated
before and I’ll state again I’m not for raising the millage rate because it not only affects
homeowners but it affects industry as well. But there is the devil that we know and the devil we
don’t know. How much money would be raised, how much money would be raised Abie if we
and the federal government is forcing us to do this, implement the storm water fee.
24
Mr. Ladson: Right now we can approximately, the study that was done probably about
three or four years ago we can probably generate about $8-9 million dollars a year.
Mr. Jackson: Okay. Would that help your budget any?
Mr. Ladson: It would.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Lockett, you’re next.
Mr. Russell: If I can a little bit more detail on that though, excuse me, Commissioner
Lockett, but I think that you know that is the place that we’re going. There’s some money in
SPLOST to explore that. In my mind we probably need to expedite that. It’s the dreaded rain
tax but it’s something that surrounds us. Columbia has it, Aiken has it, North Augusta has it and
you know it’s a function that would help us out with a lot of things that are now currently being
paid for out of the general fund. And that would come out of that additional funding.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say that with the Board of
Assessors I’m quite familiar with them. I’ve been to quite a few, in fact I’m a certified assessor
myself. And they need their people. For years they’ve been understaffed and if we don’t get that
digest in we’re not going to have any money, period. And (unintelligible) that gives you a day
certain and a time for it to be there and for it to be correct. It’s an outstanding group of people
there, they are well trained and they are continuing education and I know they monitor the
General Assembly everyday that it’s in session because they don’t know what major changes
they’re going to come up with. But I would hope that whatever they need will be provided
because they are a viable, well all the departments are viable but this department in terms of
whether or not we get that revenue so we need them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: (inaudible).
Mr. Brigham: Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Okay, just a couple of things here. I agree with a lot of what Mr. Guilfoyle
is saying here, in fact Mr. Johnson as well especially Mr. Johnson in terms of revenue generating
ideas. I’ve sat here for there and a half years almost four years now and we generally talk about
the same things and we generate here the same things and very rarely if ever have we brought
25
any revenue generating ideas to the table. I know at one point and I most this is a sore spot for
some folks there was a racetrack talked about which was a revenue generating idea which I
believe you even agreed to yourself could potentially bring in some good revenue. But we never
did anything about it. It’s already been passed so forth. I’m not abdicating today that we go and
move to that but I’m saying those are the type of ideas generating ideas that we need to have so
that we don’t always pick the pockets of our taxpayers and then also cut the services of our
citizens as well. Because those seem to be the two things that we do most up here versus
bringing ideas that will generate income. So I hope moving forward this year and future years
however long we’re all going to be here that we start looking at more like some revenue
generating ideas so that we can have some additional incomes available. Because the fact of the
matter is if we never create any ideas for revenue then we’re always going to have this problem.
And we’ve had it since I’ve been sitting here for four years. Some have sat here longer than that.
It seems like half their lives. But at the end of the day we’re still hearing the same thing. Now
there’s one thing I’m concerned about here and I’ve yet to get a really good answer. What is this
Mayor’s Economic Development deal? What is that?
Mr. Russell: I think it’s an opportunity to do exactly what you just said is to look at
opportunities to increase revenue. The initial conversation that we had in the budget hearing that
was presented in and why I put it in the budget is very simply it’s some seed money that would
allow us and we never really funded that very well at all. But to go out and help think outside
the box to bring in some people that will actually create jobs and create revenue. So that’s the
purpose of that is to do that.
Mr. Mason: Okay, so this $100,000 dollars that’s more than one position? Is that what
you’re saying?
Mr. Russell: I’m not even too sure at this moment it would be a position. I would think
it would be an opportunity to use those dollars to either to do advertisements to do enhancements
in some way to bring people to town that will get us things. I mean you said we don’t ever do
anything and that’s, it might seem that way on occasion because we don’t really have
discussions. But we’ve got the new pigment plan on South Augusta that’s coming up. We’ve
got Costco we’ve got some things that we’ve done a good job on. Walter and them have done a
good job in bringing in companies. This money is more targeted towards the business thing. I
mean we’ve got a guy yesterday that just announced starting a small business that’s ten jobs.
You know it didn’t make the paper it didn’t get all over the place but that’s ten computer jobs
that we didn’t have two weeks ago. So this is the kind of thing that I think these dollars in the
Mayor’s mind need to be used to help enhance that. We all know that manufacturing is great but
the real impetus in this country is small business.
Mr. Mason: Well, I’m glad you mentioned that.
Mr. Russell: If we don’t do a good job of looking for small business ---
Mr. Mason: I’m glad you mentioned that because ---
Mr. Russell: --- because that’s what I think this is for.
26
Mr. Mason: And that’s where I’m going next. Because the fact of the matter is our
economy is built on small business. Now I see us going out of our way and backwards to
support and create or do this what we call creative financing for all these other companies that
come in here. And we tend to forget about our small businesses, which is the backbone of our
community. I’ve yet to see anything in particular that has any incentive, any real incentive for
small business here in Augusta Richmond County. And I think that’s something futuristically
which is part of what I was talking about for those type of ideas.
Mr. Russell: You’re right on target with that thought process.
Mr. Mason: And I just hadn’t heard enough of this position to understand what it’s about
because it’s $100,000 dollars. I mean a $100,000 dollars right now can go a long ways. And
I’m sure the solicitor would like it and a few others you know around here you know. And so I
just didn’t hear enough about what it was to do because I do know that we have economic
development entities. In addition to that is this besides that? Is this, they’re going to be working
together ---
Mr. Russell: I think ---
Mr. Mason: --- who’s getting this money?
Mr. Russell: --- the process that I see at this point is our Economic Development
Authority does a real good job with industry. I mean we do okay well we could do better but
we’re holding our own and doing real well I think. But there’s a gap between the Rockwood
Companies coming in and even the Costco’s. I mean the Costco deal was not done so much by
the Economic Development people but by an internal team. This would give us a chance to go
after those ten, five, eight people’s jobs and companies not only is it an incubator situation that
Mr. Brigham has talked about but an accelerator too to not only bring them in and incubate the
company but to accelerate that into the market. Working with Paine College and working with
ASU and Georgia Health Sciences and the technical schools that’s all this process is what we’re
looking at to get outside that box, to well to get us outside that box. To join other people outside
that box that are doing a lot better job with that than we are. And that’s what this money’s for.
Mr. Mason: Okay, because I guess what I don’t want to see well I hope that I don’t see is
another entity put together that can concentrates generally on downtown in this area because
quite frankly we’re kind of well overdue for looking at and marketing other areas of this city.
And I think you know as part of the sustainable development plan that we had adopted but I do
know that we don’t have anyone actively working that on a daily basis concentrating on those
things that we paid half a million dollars for. I think at some point we’re going to have to either
look at it or say there’s another study that we three half a million dollars on. So I just, I’m just
trying, I was trying to get some clarity on what that position ---
Mr. Russell: That’s part of what ---
Mr. Mason: --- or what those dollars are going to be.
27
Mr. Russell: --- of what I consider our investment in that plan in the future to bring those
wholes together in a firm thing. I mean at some point I would suggest to you that we really need
sit down with the Development Authority and determine whether or not there’s some efficiencies
in moving them towards some small business development. They’ve got a staff of three people
you know we could help that and get some economy to scale there I think. But you know we’ve
all, we’ve been in silos way too long. I think the communication’s better now than it’s ever been
but it can get a whole lot better.
Mr. Mason: I agree and I think that if you would just kind of jot that one down for one of
our little retreat issues because I think that would be something that would be appropriate for us
to start talking about, seriously start talking about versus just throwing it out there. My last
thing, Mr. Chairman, if you would please ---
Mr. Brigham: Sure.
Mr. Mason: --- I have just one question and maybe you can clear this up. I’m looking
under the I think it’s page three on this deal here, slide six I would imagine. The 2012 Budget
Balancing Actions to resolve the $3 million dollar shortfall. I just want to try to get some clarity
because ---
Mr. Mason: Is it the slide we’ve got up here?
Mr. Mason: No, it’s not, its, I think it’s slide six because it’s on page three and there’s
two per slide so if my math is correct it’s slide six.
Mr. Russell: I’ve got the senior citizens ---
Mr. Mason: Okay ---
Mr. Russell: --- on my mind on page nine.
Mr. Mason: Okay, all right. So there where you see the 2012 budget balancing actions,
okay, now we’ve been trying to get a concrete number on this reorganization savings. Now I see
something here that says $300,000. Now I do recall a couple two three months ago receiving a
packet at my door that had you know some reorganization savings in it and it totaled, well it just
totaled well more than that. So ---
Mr. Russell: (inaudible).
Mr. Mason: --- so this is, so, so that we’re not spending. So the other two point whatever
million dollars that ever was you’re saying it was what?
Mr. Russell: It was considered as part of the original budget to get us where we are today
in savings.
28
Mr. Mason: Now of course there was a great of that that was not general fund dollars.
Mr. Russell: Only part of what Tom talked about was additional savings in his area just a
few minutes ago, Tom Wiedmeier not Tom Beck ---
Mr. Mason: Oh, yeah.
Mr. Russell: --- basically so yeah.
Mr. Brigham: My understanding the $300,000 is new savings due to reorganization
that’s going to occur in 2012, mainly in the Animal Control Department.
Mr. Russell: Well, not all ---
Mr. Mason: Oh, okay.
Mr. Russell: Animal control had twenty some thousand that she did by doing the
overtime issue in the combination with those events.
Mr. Mason: Has there been any one alibi there, has there been any land sold or anything
like that? I mean where are we at on ---
Mr. Russell: We haven’t sold a thing.
Mr. Mason: --- haven’t sold a thing huh?
Mr. Brigham: Haven’t sold a thing.
Mr. Mason: Haven’t sold a dog gone thing.
Mr. Russell: What? In the very near future we’ve got a couple of people that want to
buy some stuff.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Johnson, you’re next.
Mr. Johnson: All right thank you, Mr. Brigham, and we’ll try to get on and I guess get
through this here. Fred, I guess as we move forward and look at some sources to increase our
revenue and I think we need to do just that and specifically really dialogue about those things
that we need to do in conjunction with Commissioner Mason talking about of course ways to
bring more dollars into the city. And I’m all for that and I think that’s something we need to
dialogue about specifically also in the retreat. But I would like to put it in the form of a motion
that we take about 1.5 million out of the fund balance and also a million out ofthe pictometry
programand specifically Iknow for a fact we need to fund the engineering and the Parks and
Rec but I guess as we look at other entities within this pie that needs funding you kind of I guess
.
go through the numbers and see what we can fund and what we can’t But I know those two
items specifically we need to focus on because these guys are working with little or nothing to
29
try to get their work done. And this is not a permanent fix. You made a good point. I’m not
expecting it to be one. But we need to immediately start to look at ways to generate dollars and
increase our revenue so next year we won’t be faced with this particular issue. Because you’re
right we can’t keep pulling money out the fund balance. This will help us keep the ball rolling
keep these centers going keep the engineering department funded until we can get some things in
place to increase the revenue. And as I said with whatever we have left to go towards the other
entities. And not to be biased but I do know we’ve got to look at these departments because
they’re very critical to the county or the city if you will. But whatever you see fit to fund these
other entities do what at your discretion what you feel is best.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Johnson, if you’ll restate your motion in very distinct terms.
Mr. Russell: Have you got that, Lena? Can you read that back to us?
Mr. Brigham: I didn’t quite understand and I would hope that we would all be in a
situation where we understood what we were voting on up here. So if you could restate it very
shortly I’d appreciate it.
The Clerk: His motion was to take 1.5 million from fund balance and the million dollar
potentials funding from the pictometry program to restore funds in engineering and Park and Rec
in particular. And that the Administrator would use his discretion for the other restorations. Is
that pretty much what you said?
Mr. Johnson: That’s basically it in a nutshell.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, so we’re going, let me make sure I understand the motion before I
even ask for a second. The motion is that we take 1.5 million dollars out of reserve and that we
also add another million dollars in revenue I’m assuming from property taxes based on the
assessments that has not necessarily proved that they’re going to be increased yet. Is that my
understanding of the motion?
Mr. Johnson: Basically, in a nutshell. Fred, well, I guess he’s talking.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir, Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: I believe the chief appraiser has indicated that they anticipate collecting
probably about $2 million dollars. So I think one million sounds a little on the light side.
Mr. Brigham: Well, I’m sure we’re going to discuss this a little bit further. Do I have a
second on this motion? I don’t hear one.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Can I make a statement, sir, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Brigham: You were the one I was going to next.
30
Mr. Guilfoyle: Commissioner Johnson, I would ask you if you would take back that
motion for one reason and one reason only. This budget is just a tool and a guidance for us to
work throughout this year. Now if we take this money out of this reserve fund the first thing
we’re going to do is forget about our intentions and our solutions here today on the floor. It’d
give us actually a push to where we could actually do what we’re supposed to do. We’ve got to
August before we have to jump. That money is still there in August.
Mr. Johnson: Is it to August? I don’t think ---
Mr. Brigham: Okay, ask me the question and I’ll try to answer it.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brigham: Let’s make, if I can’t answer it I’ll get Mr. Russell to answer it.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. This budget is just a tool. Is that correct?
Mr. Brigham: This budget is a blueprint of where we’re going to go with our spending
for this current year.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right, okay. When is it come to flourish? When do we find out if we
succeeded or not?
Mr. Guilfoyle: When we find out if we succeeded or not will probably be August of
2013 and I won’t be here.
Mr. Guilfoyle: That ain’t going to be good.
Mr. Brigham: I think what you’re trying to ask is when we adopt the millage rate which
is in September I will in August of this year but we do not adopt the millage rate until we know
what the evaluations are of the digest. And at that time we will adopt a millage rate that will
attempt to earn or attempt to collect the revenue that we say we’re going to collect from ad
valorem taxes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, this is actually basically my first budget so I apologize.
Mr. Brigham: Okay I’m trying to talk you through it. Mr. Russell, did I explain that
correctly or did I miss something?
Mr. Russell: Let me make sure that we understand that currently this is the budget that’s
been adopted and this is the direction that I have. So if you told me to find a million dollars out
of savings by eliminating 34-positions that starts quickly because if I can’t wait until August to
do that. So there’s some there’s some tweaks to that if that’s the intention. I do agree with
Commissioner Guilfoyle though that whatever we tweak we need to recognize the fact that that
31
we can’t get away from the mission of reducing costs and increasing revenues in some shape or
form. That’s where we’ve got to be.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mason, do you have something?
Mr. Mason: Yeah, I just want to make a quick comment here. I agree with you 100% but
I believe that falls on you and your directors to ensure that that happens and not on us sitting up
here. So I just want to make sure that we’re clear you know as we make these decisions here
today in terms of what to do. My expectation of that if that’s the deal is that you’re going to do
what you’re supposed to do and your directors will do what they’re supposed to do and then
they’re employees will do what they’re supposed to do. And then we can make it happen so that
it’s not forgotten because I won’t be around telling people micromanaging talking about hey you
don’t forget what we said. You know what I mean?
Mr. Russell: I know exactly what you’re saying but let me make sure that you
understand what you told me to do that’s to find a million dollars by eliminating around 34
positions by cutting Chuck $30,000 dollars out of his budget by doing this. That’s the blueprint I
got now. If we’re going to change the rules a little bit by tweaking it I need to know what that’s
---
Mr. Mason: Right.
Mr. Russell: --- going to be so I’ll know what to do. And so in six months from now we
won’t come back and say well why didn’t you do this? I’m going to say ---
Mr. Mason: Believe it or not I’m not trying to set you up for failure because we all fail if
that’s the case.
Mr. Russell: We’re all in this together.
Mr. Mason: We want to set you up for success because then the community succeeds.
So that’s what we’re trying to do.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, Mr. Johnson, you’re next and then Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want for clarification and clarity
Mr. Guilfoyle this is again this is a solution for now. The Administrator’s saying give him some
guidance on what we need to do at this point because we can’t wait until Augusta. It’s too late in
August. And this is just giving us a solution to keep these departments functioning to keep
funding some of these other entities that have spoken today. And give us an opportunity to work
on creating a source if you will to generate those revenues so we won’t be in this position next
year. But this is not saying this is a permanent fix and a solution. But the Administrator can
vouch I think this is something that we can do to give him guidance to move forward with these
issues that we do have financially with these departments because we cannot wait. We cannot
wait. This gives us time to do exactly what we need to do in conversation up here while they are
still functioning. Because otherwise they’re going to have to cut that right now and that’s what
32
he’s talking about. We’re going to have to make these cuts like ASAP and we don’t want that.
We need time to really talk about the next move.
Mr. Guilfoyle: That will be the first time I ever seen this government move this way.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, let’s wait a minute.
Mr. Mason: Let’s not start something ---
Mr. Brigham: We’re not going to start that. Mr. Lockett, you’re next.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to say that I like what
Commissioner Johnson had to say and I think if we would support the motion that he made and
come five months or six months down the road we see that we failed in generating revenue that
we haven’t accumulated the necessary savings well then we all know at that point that then we
got to do some heavy hitting. I don’t think we will forget about it. I know the Administrator
won’t forget about it but I think that would give us a few months to get grounded to throw out
some ideas about getting revenue in and how to save money. So if it was in order and if it’s okay
with this body I would like to second the motion that my colleague Mr. Johnson made about 20
minutes ago.
Mr. Brigham: I will take that as a motion not as a second because I think we have beat it
----
Mr. Lockett: Okay.
Mr. Brigham: --- pretty much separate. So if that’s your motion ---
Mr. Lockett: Okay, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brigham: --- I’m assuming it’s the same motion that we take 1.5 million dollars out
of reserves and plan on an additional million dollars due to an increase in revenue being
collected from millage.
Mr. Lockett: Yes, as long as you don’t ask me to repeat it. Yes, you’re right.
Mr. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Johnson: I’ll second it.
Mr. Brigham: I have a second from Mr. Johnson. Okay, I have a motion and a second.
Now we’ve got several people wanting to talk. First off it’s Mr. Jackson then Mr. Russell and
then we’ll see from there.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Me personally I’d like to see the meat and
potatoes, the court system, the Sheriff’s office, Public Safety taken care off. We can always
33
reopen community centers and still take care of the senior citizens. You know as you have the
funds to move forward is when you reopen, you do bigger things. So where I stand right now is I
you know I would rather have the meat and potatoes to get us through this. We can always
reopen the swimming pools or put them in dormant status. You know I’m one of those that don’t
have a park so it’s easy for me to say. But I’m not being insensitive it’s tough times and we
can’t you know you’re not going to make any money off of a rental book at the library at ten
cents a day being late. So you know I think there’s, I think if we tighten the budget now, tighten
our belts now and in six months we can say okay we’ve got this. We’ve proven that we’ve got a
million dollars in revenue from the pictometry. So thank you.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, you’re next.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Brigham: If you want to think for a few minutes I can ask a few other questions.
Mr. Russell: No, I’m just trying to figure out how to sum up the motion as best I can to
make sure I understand.
Mr. Brigham: While you’re doing that while you’re thinking about that let me bring up
Mr. Ross because I want to ask him a question. Mr. Ross have we funded your, in this budget
have we funded the money that you need to do the pictometry study and to do the ITOS?
Mr. Ross: Actually it’s two developments for me.
Mr. Brigham: I understand its two different things but I don’t we funded either one have
we?
Mr. Ross: No.
Mr. Brigham: And how much money would that cost approximately?
Mr. Ross: The estimate for the Information Technology Outreach Services (ITOS)
University of Georgia to match the flight data to the actually parcel data to identify where we are
undiscovered in many parcels has been estimated at $85,000.00.
Mr. Brigham: $85,000.00 for that and how much for the pictometry.
Mr. Ross: The pictometry which is already a paid for issue in which there is a three year
pay off on the last flight at no interest that cost was $150,000.00. That commitment was already
in.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, that’s already in. Okay, I just want to make sure.
Mr. Russell: You gave me direction to pay for the ITOS out of the capital budget. There
is a budget discussion which I’m doing.
34
Mr. Brigham: Okay, I’m trying to make sure we’ve got things laid on the table to
everybody.
Mr. Ross: We’re trying to get ITOS in 2011, Mr. Chairman, and we didn’t get there with
it.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, so and now when we do this project you’re expecting what kind of
increase in the digest?
Mr. Ross: In the scenario Mr. Chairman, Commissioners that we sent out to each of you
on the presentation change finder is a part of pictometry which matches one flight year to the
other flight year ten and eleven. From the changes that were isolated from the two flights we
received that information and we’re working toward implementation of upgrading those values.
In the process thus forth and the report you received out of the 7,000 plus parcels identified out
of approximately 85% of the reviews completed the impact changes on those parcels that are
identified in those flights gave us a 6.12% growth in value. We then took that component of the
digest which is roughly about 75% of the entire digest and estimated at a level position applying
it across the entire spectrum what would the 6.15 impact be for the entire digest. That is where
the 200 plus million in discoveries to determine from and that 200 plus million is where the
estimated $2 million dollars will occur. We do have challenges to get it done Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Brigham: Right.
Mr. Ross: Most people think taxes in the fall and August. For the Board of Assessors we
don’t do taxes. I keep reminding people we do value. My charge for the Board of Assessors is
to have a digest submitted to the Tax Commissioners Office who is required by law to have it in
Atlanta on or before August 1. Therefore I must turn it over to him by July 1 by law. In order
for me to turn it over to him by July 1 I must have completed the 45-day appeal period after
mailing all the assessment notices. For that to be accomplished this year the mailing date would
th
be estimated to be May 11. Before I can mail assessment notices sir I have to develop the
entire digest which involves this body, school board, finance the advertising issues that are all
involved in the process. In order to get there to give you numbers at Finance to make decisions I
th,
have to charge my staff to complete their work by mid April. Today is January the 11 sir.
Mr. Brigham: So you’re working the same hours I work.
Mr. Ross: I’m generally here I guess the cleanup crew is still here when I leave most
nights.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, in addition to that if we’re talking about reducing your staff by three
positions at this point if we, if I understand our budget correctly.
Mr. Ross: We’re in the report for reduction of three people yes sir.
35
Mr. Brigham: Okay, I just wanted to make sure I got everything on the table. Now, Mr.
Russell, have you enough time to get your ducks in a row?
Mr. Russell: Yeah, you know at this point what I hear some of you saying is that we
need to look at what we’ve done. There’s some concern about the mechanism that I’ve used to
make the recommendations that I’ve made. I hear some of you saying that there’s some other
funding opportunities that might be available to us such as some projection from the fund
balance and a projection based on the potential increase to the ITOS project here that we’ve got.
What concerns me is that what I hear is don’t do A and B. I mean don’t touch Recreation don’t
touch Abie’s shop at any point. You know I think there’s some saving that are there that we
need to make sure we gather up somehow or another. It probably wouldn’t reflect the same level
we’ve got there but I’d hate to put them on a don’t touch basis when there might be some
economies there that we can look at. The Sheriff’s Department was not touched in any of this
other than the $1.5 million from prisoner savings and that’s a number I think we’re going to see.
And I think that number’s going to be better than that. But as far as any law enforcement or cops
on the street or anything like that that was something ya’ll took off the table to begin with and
we have touched that in any shape or form. Now once they get arrested they’ve got to go to
Chuck’s court then we might be a little slow there. So that’s the bind up there. So if was to have
a motion that would get me out of here as happy as I possibly could be today would be to take
some money out of the fund balance to recognize some degree of revenue enhancement by the
pictometry project that we’re going to have of about a million dollars. I think that’s a little
conservative but it might you know, but I’d rather be like more conservative in whatever which
would give me one to two, 2.5 million to come back with a program that would potentially take
some of the hot spots like Chuck or whoever, deal with some of his problems, make the
immediacy of deleting those 34 positions off the table and see where I go from there. I mean I
would suggest that there’s going to be some savings in by reducing people but if we don’t do a
RIF there’s other ways to get that done. So don’t ask me to repeat that either but if we could
craft something that would let me do that I think we’ve got a half way decent record still of
coming back to see how we’ve done. I just want to say over and over again though that we’re
using, we’re using gum and toothpicks to hold this together. And at some point we’re going to
have to decide what you know what we’re going to do. That would delay some decisions you
have to make and we can take a look at how we did last year which is an unknown. So that’s
what I would, think I want.
Mr. Brigham: In other words what I’m hearing you say and let me make that I’m hearing
what you’re saying correctly is that you would prefer us to tell a particular dollar amount and to
allow you to adjust the number of positions that are being reduced and the amount of expenses
that is being reduced. And vote that to you and let you bring us back some recommendation as
to whether we’re going to reduce 34 positions or are we going to reduce whatever the dollar is in
the expense side. Is that what I’m hearing or is, am I misunderstanding.
Mr. Russell: What you’re hearing from me at the moment is a suggestion that you give
me 2.5 million more in projected revenue. 1.5 million out of fund balance, a million from the
enhanced revenue from the pictometry and I give you back what I can do with that with the
thought process as we need to take care of the essential services that we’re looking at in Abie,
the impact that we’re having on recreation. The other services we’re having an impact on and
36
give you back our best guess and attempt not to lay off those 34 people to get that million
dollars, to see if there’s other ways to find that money that we’re looking at. As we all work
together to find revenue enhancements by focusing on small business development and those
kinds of things they’re going to bring us out of the doldrums and that we roll that dice to see
where we’re at. And then make a decision in August when we know where we’re at on how bad
or how good we’ve done. We’ve got a fairly decent track record of that but ya’ll still have to be
cognizant of the fact that we’re going to have to cut. I mean it’s, it might be more of a surgical
cut than what we’ve just seen but there are things that we can’t continue to do based on the
amount of revenue we’ve got coming in. So the question is do you want to cut with a scalpel or
do you want to cut with a machete. And that’s sort of where we’re at, at the moment.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, if I remember correctly that if the digest goes up the way state
law works the millage rate’s got to go down or either it’s a tax increase. Now the million dollars,
additional revenues and property taxes is saying we’re going to raise property taxes. I believe
that the majority of this Commission early on did not say that they wanted to raise property
taxes. Now if this motion passes that’s what we’re saying. Now if you’re asking about the $1.5
million dollars in reserve money I think that’s a more realistic ask that we’re talking about. We
don’t know that we’re going to be able to raise property taxes because we don’t know whether
the digest is going to go up, go down we don’t know what kind of percentage increases to get
additional million dollars out of revenue, out of property taxes is going to take in the form of a
millage rate change. And we already know there’s going to be a millage rate change just for the
funds for the Fire Department. That’s already in this budget.
Mr. Russell: A very small amount.
Mr. Brigham: Very small amount and I understand that.
Mr. Russell: My great-grandfather used to say ---
Mr. Brigham: A very small amount eventually if you know what size it is can add up to a
very large amount.
Mr. Russell: We’re not promised tomorrow by anything and I can’t predict the future any
better than anybody else.
Mr. Brigham: I can’t either but I ---
Mr. Russell: I can only give you what I think is a reasonable approach to get us there and
I think that does that. And I can let Alvino speak to the property tax thing. Short speech.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, sure. You are speaking about the non-
inflation areas (unintelligible) when we do revals and how the digest grows and the grow back
calculations. Pictometry in non-inflationary. You’re picking up the additions, the pool, the
garages and in some cases we even picked up houses that were not even on the digest. So all
these are defined as new discovery. New discovery is defined as non-inflationary that is the
growth that you get in your digest each and every year. The fact that you would capture
37
additions that were built four years ago, nine years ago, fifteen years ago and was never a part of
the digest record is called new discovery in 2012, sir.
Mr. Russell: I knew that. You told me that and I forgot. I knew that.
Mr. Brigham: We’ll see.
Mr. Jackson: That’s why he’s here.
Mr. Brigham: Okay, I’m the only one who seems to be debating this. Since I’m the only
one seems to be debating this nobody else wants to talk about it I assume we’re ready to vote.
Ms. Bonner will you please restate Mr. Lockett’s motion.
The Clerk: That was wordsmith by Mr. Russell?
Mr. Brigham: Yes.
The Clerk: Okay. Well, Mr. Russell you, well he used the terminology some funds but it
was 1.5 million from the fund balance and to use a million from the revenue enhancement with
the ITOS and pictometry program which will $2.5 million. And that program is to be brought
back to the Commission with the intent to divert the immediacy of eliminating the 34 positions.
Mr. Russell: (inaudible).
The Clerk: And he was going to use his discretion to restore the funds in particular to the
engineering, Parks and REC and other agencies that were potentially being considered for cuts.
Mr. Brigham: Does everybody understand the motion? Okay all in favor please show all
opposed likewise.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Smith vote Yes.
Mr. Jackson and Mr. Brigham vote No.
Motion fails 5-2.
Mr. Mason: Get that machete ready.
Mr. Russell: The next question I would ask would be Commissioner Brigham and
Commissioner Jackson what direction do you want me to go in now? Receive what I have in
front of me?
Mr. Brigham: At this point in time I think you need to proceed with what you’ve got
unless we have a change of heart up here. I do think that we do have another item that has to be
addressed and I believe that we have to amend the budget to look at the situation with the
community housing and neighborhood development. And those funds are ---
38
Mr. Russell:
You need to amend the budget to take as I spoke about originally action to
amend the budget for those first topics I talked about. The mass money on the soil protection
thing the other grant and accept the federal grants there basically. So it would be appropriate to
take my recommendations and adopt the budget.
Mr. Brigham: Are we okay with that?
Mr. Lockett: I would ask Madam Clerk to read the motion please.
The motion was to approve the use of fundbalance for the NPDES
The Clerk:
project, the UDAG projects, other items adjustment grants previously approved and
funding for the Land Bank Authority
. Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Brigham: Do I have a second for that motion? I thought I had a motion?
The Clerk: No, sir, he asked me to ---
Mr. Brigham: Oh, I’m sorry I thought I had a motion. Do I have a motion?
Mr. Lockett: So moved.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Second.
Mr. Brigham: I’ve got a motion I’ve got a second. Any discussion? Hearing none I’ll
assume we’re ready to vote. All in favor please show all opposed likewise.
Mr. Russell: So, gentlemen, the path forward would be?
Mr. Brigham: The path forward we’re open for discussion. Mr. Johnson did you?
The Clerk: That motion carries 7-3 with Mr. Smith voting twice. Mr. Aitken, Bowles
and Hatney out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in lieu of the absence of some of our
colleagues you know I understand some of them could not be here today. I truly think we need
to revisit this matter as it’s extremely important to allow the people and I can respect my
colleague’s decision. However I think everybody didn’t have an opportunity to vote on this.
And I truly think we need to look at revisiting this item very soon. So I guess we’ll get together
and figure out how to represent this. But I just don’t see how we can cut these programs and all
of that. Cut the, you know, I guess the manpower that we so desperately need to move forward
with operating this government. We’re just not in a position to do that right now. So I just
wanted to put that out there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
39
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Let me suggest at this point though I still have the direction that I have
originally. So we’re moving forward with those plans in talking about reduction in forces and
closing the facilities that was mentioned until we get some further direction. I just wanted to let
you know that.
Mr. Brigham: Hearing no other comments we stand adjourned.
Mr. Russell: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Johnson: We need to put this in the form of a motion before we leave here to have
this agenda item added to the agenda for Tuesday, the Tuesday meeting.
Mr. Brigham: You can bring back a request so we, he’s making a request.
The Clerk: Add that on?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
The Clerk: Oh, okay.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
January 11, 2012.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
40
41