HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting July 28, 2014
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
July 28, 2014
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 12:00 Noon, Monday, July 28,
2014, the Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, D. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson,
Jackson, Davis, G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Mayor: I call the meeting to order. Madam Clerk, agenda item number one.
1.Discuss and approve the proposed 2014 millage rate. (Requested by the Interim
Administrator)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Williams or Ms. Allen.
Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, what we want to do in Finance
we will be presenting a presentation with what we’d actually discussed at the Mayor and
Commission retreat in regards to the proposed millage rate. Hopefully we can take some form of
action on this today because each day that we wait it continues to push back the date we actually
get the tax bills sent out. So I’ll turn it over to Ms. Williams to begin the presentation.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams: Thank you, sir. You’re receiving copies of the discussion that you’ll see
on the monitor as Ms. Allen stated. We definitely need to take some action regarding the millage
rate proposal. As the process begins the earliest that you can complete this entire discussion and
approval of a mill rate is a minimum of two weeks. As a timetable that is put out by the
Department of Revenue that specifies on what dates and what times you will have particular
actions and what you must do in regard to advertisements and public hearings. We started this
discussion in preparation for today at our retreat in June and at that time I gave you a few slides
just as a kind of refresher course as to where we are and kind of how we got here today. The
current status of the 2014 budget requires the use of approximately $5.4 million dollars out of
your reserves, fund balance. Additionally it passed along a 2.4% reduction to, originally it was
across the board to all departments. Later however the Sheriff’s Department’s reductions were
absorbed by the use of fund balance. As of today there are still approximately $380,000 in
various departments that have not been specifically identified by those department directors and
elected officials as to how they will reduce their budget for this year. Another slide that you’re
familiar with, the revenues, just your major sources and which ones you actually have control
over. This is a history of our general fund maintenance and operations millage rate going back to
2005. The last time that there was an actual increase that was advertised was in 2007 which was
a quarter of a mill which was designated to general fund operations. Prior to that it was a little
over a mill that was designated specifically to law enforcement. This is a slide that you can
probably now recite in your sleep, the effect of the millage rate change on our $100,000 house.
We did have an actual kind of a funny question that somebody called in and said that being that
they didn’t own a $100,000 house, theirs was either more or less than that and asked if the mill
1
rate actually applied to them. So we did have to bust their bubble a little bit and say, yeah,
because you don’t have a $100,000 house, either more or less, that yes, the mill rate does apply
to you. Half a mill is $17.50, a mill is $35.00, a mill and a half is $52.50 and the two mill
increase is $70.00. This is an annual amount. This is not per month, per week or any other
method of measurement. This is an annual increase so if it was $70, it would be less than about
$6.00 per month. This is the proposal that was tentatively agreed upon, discussed, more so than
some of the others during the budget retreat. It required reversing the 2.4% reduction that was
implemented in the approval of the 2014 budget and replacing it with a 1% reduction across the
board to all departments and elected officials and to eliminate the use of fund balance. We also
discussed adding in a $1,000 increase for employees across the board for each employee. Of
course this would be prorated. Now this August 1 date, that’s what we put out there at our
retreat. Being that we would be at a later date, we would need some discussion as to whether it
could be the August 1 date or would it be the next paycheck. That’s just simply a matter of
being able to get things done properly. Also included was an amount of money which would
fund a program which has already been approved in your Policy and Procedures Manual several
years ago however there was never funding set aside to take care of this whereby employees
could sell back up to three days of their vacation. The numbers on that we gave to you was for
three days at an estimated 80% acceptance rate and that would cost $361,000. That is a one-time
occurrence. That could be done one year or funded in each subsequent years or not funded at all.
There is a discussion about what the revenue generated from an approximately two mills would
equate to and at that time it was a little under $9 million dollars. Now that we have the digest
number, it is a tiny bit over $9 million and you’ll see that in just a few minutes. I have updated
my subsequent slides to reflect the 2014 digest. Out of that I would recommend replacing our
reserve for extraordinary losses. When we passed the budget in November, we had an estimated
amount of use of fund balance which was of course increased later. Well, in February we had
the ice storm. Not all of those monies that were spent will be replaced by FEMA and/or GEMA.
There will be a residual amount that we will have to use out of our existing reserve for losses
which was $4.7 million dollars. The estimated amounts based on a range from what we have
submitted or planned to submit to GEMA and depending on what they actually approve could be
anywhere between about $2 to $2.5 million dollars to the upper end of that reserve which is
approximately $4.5 million. We are still in the process of submitting those work sheets and
working with FEMA and GEMA to sign off on those and there are a few of the smaller ones that
have been finalized however the large ones for the debris removal have not yet been finalized.
So when you use that reserve that is sitting there for the purpose of taking care of a catastrophic
event, the fiscally prudent thing to do is to replace that. This would phase in the replacement
over a four-year period. As I said the countywide digest for the general fund maintenance and
operations did go up slightly so one mill of collection at the new digest rate would be $4.5
million dollars. Now if you increase the millage rate one mill the recommendation would be that
you decrease your amount of your reserve that you’re using and because we had planned to use
almost $5.4 million dollars out of reserve, one mill does not exactly bring you back to even. You
still would be using $862,000 out of your fund balance and you still have $380,000 in reductions
that have not been identified out of various agencies. If you go to one and a half mills, the
numbers change slightly. You now can cover the use of your planned, use of your regular fund
balance. Additionally you could replace the 25% of your reserve for losses that were due to the
ice storm and still have approximately $275,000 left (inaudible) recommendations to apply that
to your reserve for losses or you can apply it, the choices are yours to do what you, to recraft the
2
2014 budget with a new amount of revenue. You change the equation to 1.75 mills. You now
have fully funded once again the use of planned reserve and your replacement for your
extraordinary loss. Then we begin to bring in the items that were discussed from the workshop
retreat. The changing the amount of the reduction down to 1%, to implement the employee
raises and to fund the vacation day buyout. That would leave you with a new amount of revenue
of $203,000. The other options that were discussed at the retreat was to change the reduction
from 2.4% down to one and a half percent and still to require it to be across the board. That
would increase your expenditures by $617,000 so now you’re flipped over the other way with
$400,000 in the hole. But you can pick and choose from this list. I don’t want to equate it to like
going shopping but you have various options that are available to you. Change the equation and
you go on to the scenario that was discussed at the retreat which was the 2 mills then you have an
additional half million dollars that are available to you as new revenue or to increase the amount
that is in the reserves. Each year the tax cap is recalculated based on an equation that uses the
amount of sales tax that are collected as well as a fraction composed of the current year and prior
year digest and I won’t bore you with that information. However plugging in those digests and
recomputing the tax cap based on the sales tax credit and in this case I have increased the
rollback rate which was 8.038. Last year’s millage rate was 8.04 so there was a slight change.
Your rollback rate actually went down a little bit which is normal when the digest creeps up. If
you increased what the calculated rollback was by 2 mills, the net millage rate to the general
fund m and o would be 10.038 which is still under the tax cap by approximately a little over .4 of
a mill. Now on the urban service side, the net millage rate has been decreased to offset the
amount that offset the change due to the garbage tax billing. That was a discussion that was
done in June and this board approved billing each citizen the same, using the same methodology
for their garbage rate so there is no more hybrid billing system in the urban service area. To
offset that somewhat that amount was calculated and turned into a millage rate credit so their
mill rate would go down from the prior year by about 2.787 mills. You see that there in your
notes. That is the only change that was made to the urban service district. Fire protection
rollback rate is 2.139. The existing millage rate was 2.140. It’s one-thousandth of a mill which
generates a little less than $10,000. There are some items that have to happen here in a relatively
short, short order. What we would hope that today the commission could agree on a proposed
rate. Once that rate is set by this body, then we’re required to do certain things by the
Department of Revenue. A five-year history of the current digests have to appear in the
newspaper and depending on whether or not those proposed rates are higher, equal to or lower
than what the computed rollback rate would be, then other actions have to happen. If it is higher,
a press release must be issued and that triggers the holding of three public hearings. If that
happened, what we would propose is that the first and the second public hearings would be held
on August 11. They must happen at least a week after the advertisement appears in the
newspaper. One must be held before noon, the other one has to happen between the hours of
6:00 and 7:00 o’clock at night. Then the notice of the third public hearing would be put in the
newspaper and the date would have to be another week out. On August 19 we would have the
third public hearing and following the hearing we would have a meeting to hopefully adopt the
final millage rates. The Tax Commissioner and the Tax Assessor have tentatively scheduled a
meeting with the Department of Revenue to take the entire package to Atlanta as is required and
theirs is set for August 22. On September 15 or before that day the Tax Commissioner needs to
mail out his bills. Mr. Kendrick was scheduled to make an appearance, I guess he may have
gotten tied up, but he wanted to speak to ya’ll regarding the timeliness of going ahead and
3
making a decision on the millage rate and how it would affect him if this process is not
completed in a timely manner. What we would want to make sure that each person here
understands is once this proposed rate is advertised, any increase to this proposed rate would
start this entire process over again. If a proposed rate is advertised but an adopted rate is lower
than the proposed rate, that’s okay. The process can continue. But if you put a proposed rate out
there, say of 8.5 mills, and at some point during the discussion decide to increase that, then we
have to start this entire process over again which would impact obviously the August 22 date and
quite possibly the date that Mr. Kendrick could actually mail the bills. This is the schedule
showing the 2013 rates, the credits due to the sales tax credits and I have left the county general
fund m and 0 blank just for your discussion and a directive to us. I’d like for Mr. Kendrick to
come up and speak to ya’ll for just a minute if that’s okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kendrick.
Mr. Kendrick: Thank you. Members of the commission, the task that you have before
you of course is one that’s very important but it’s not an easy one. In order for our government
to continue working and our school board’s government to continue working, we have a
timetable we have to meet in order to send bills out to effectively collect. We’ve gotten a
number of calls already from the school board who is very interested in making sure that this
process keeps, speeds along because those cash flows that come in to them are very important to
their operations each and every day. As it stands right now we have already asked the
Department of Revenue for a, thirty more days beyond the deadline. August 1 was our deadline
to submit this and if you remember in years past we have actually been able to meet that
deadline. This year we haven’t so they’ve given us until August 30. We’ve arranged a meeting
on August 22 on the anticipation of you deciding something today that would allow us to do the
things that Ms. Williams just talked about but also we have to test our bills before they’re sent
out so we have to send them to a printer, they have to be tested and retested so that when we send
them out to the taxpayers we don’t have a problem and we have to send it out over again.
Because our bills are due on November 15 by statute, we need to send our bills out by September
15. The August 22 date does allow me enough time to get those things tested. Anything beyond
that next several (inaudible). So and lastly my only role here again was just to remind you of
(inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any questions for Ms. Williams? Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: As far as the $1,000 per employee effective August 1, that’s just between
August 1 and December the numbers that we have showing here, is that correct?
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right. As far as for next year, how do you have that budgeted because
we’re going to be in a shortfall. The Sheriff alone is asking for $1.463 million dollars.
Ms. Williams: Those items would be budgeted in their entirety in the 2015 budget and
we would hold back on the recommendation for the energy excise tax in which (inaudible) both
increase the amount of funding available and take care of what the Sheriff has requested.
4
Mr. Guilfoyle: So we’re counting on the millage rate increases as well as the excise tax
be implemented to solve the problems.
Ms. Williams: In several of those scenarios up there, sir, you do have some leftover
money that would be used towards that.
Mr. Guilfoyle: You know as far as these companies since they are, you know, (inaudible)
passed they get a millage increase, they’re going to get hit hard because they don’t have any kind
of exemptions for school tax. They get hit every which way around for every business in
Augusta Richmond County then we’re possibly going to hit certain businesses with the excise
tax as well.
Ms. Williams: Which is a replacement tax.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, ma’am, at 1%. Right?
Ms. Williams: Yes, (inaudible) legislation –
Mr. Guilfoyle: From ACCG, not the GMA.
Ms. Williams: The state (inaudible) that legislation but we have consulted with, you’re
recalling our conversation that we relied on some direction from ACCG to determine the amount
that we could impose, the excise tax, which we could not just go to 1%.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Have we took into any consideration like the Sheriff as well as Steven
Kendrick’s office, anybody that’s making over $60,000 a year would not be privy to a raise or
cost of living raise. Have we took any of that into consideration?
Ms. Williams: I have not in this scenario, sir. But what we’ve found before obviously if
you have an individual that is making, where do you put the cutoff? If you have an individual
that is making $59,800, somebody that is making $200 a year more than that does not get a
$1,000 raise.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I understand that. Which the Sheriff I guess as well as Steven Kendrick’s
had to overcome them challenges within their department when the raises were given,
consideration had to be given for that one instance you just said, $59,900 versus $60,000. I think
the Fire Department did what they’re proposing are doing the same thing to make sure there’s no
disparity within the pay.
Ms. Williams: Correct. If you did that for the entire organization, you would need to do
the study for the whole organization. Elected officials have a good bit more flexibility in what
they can do salarywise with the individuals that work under their direction than the folks that
work directly and report directly to the commission.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Donna.
5
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Donnie Smith then Commissioner Williams.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Williams, if we go from a 1%
recommendation to remain at the 2.4% reduction and we eliminate the $1,000 increase for the
employees, where does that get us in dollarwise? How many millions will we need as opposed
to the full two mills creating $9 million? What could we get by with if we took those two drastic
-- Because in my mind the important things are replacing the emergency fund monies that we’ve
spent during the ice storm and then starting to repay the fund balance that we’ve lost over the last
two budget cycles.
Ms. Williams: So you want to eliminate this, the employee raise, leave or strike the
vacation buyout –
Mr. D. Smith: I mean these are obviously things we need to consider. Take that out and
let’s see where we are.
Ms. Williams: And put back in –
Mr. D. Smith: The 2.4 as opposed to the 1%.
Ms. Williams: Put back in the 2.4 that was about – then you’ve got approximately $2.2
million dollars.
Mr. D. Smith: Which really is about maybe half a mill, is that correct?
Ms. Williams: Correct.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Williams, this is never easy but we act like
it’s going to go away and we reduce it and go down next year, we’re going to back here talking
about the same things. I’m wanting to know first of all where the two mills, rather, would get us
what we needs to be and beyond, I guess, because if we’re just going to get where we need to be
and not be able to do anything else and we’ll still be back next year sometime so that’s my first
question.
Ms. Williams: The two mills even would do the things that were discussed and that
would leave half a million dollars in new revenue to be used for this year and in years going
forward. Now what’s tricky about budgets and revenue is that you can fix them. It does not
necessarily mean that they’re going to stay fixed because new services, new service levels and
other extraneous factors like the cost of you doing business continue to show up so what the
hope of the Finance Department typically is is that there is digest growth and growth from other
sources of revenue that offset those. But can I promise you that if you do this this year that we
will never be in this situation again, no, sir, I can’t. I wish I could. But we have in my humble
6
opinion we have delayed making small corrections over numerous years. As you saw from the
chart before the last time there was an increase was in 2007 which was a quarter of a mill. If you
make small corrections to be more reactive to your expenditure patterns, the service levels that
you are providing and the needs that you need to provide for your citizens, then it helps keep us
out of the situation that we find ourselves in today either digging deeply into your reserves to
face, to fund your ongoing level of operation or requiring a large jump in your taxing structure to
cover what has been ignored over the last several years.
Mr. Williams: And I understand that and I’m thinking you’re talking about, if you
decrease services you’re going to decrease revenue. Nobody’s going to move into a situation
where you’re not maintaining the streets, you’re not keeping the necessary things done and you
close down parks and you’re not going to track the taxpayer that we need to have and should
have and probably want to be here. So I’m asking I guess what is the real number, what do we
really need to do? I guess before you answer that while you’re thinking, let me shoot one more.
I thought when we did this emergency fund with the storm cleanup that we’re going to be
reimbursed. I was told, I was excited about how much money we were going to be getting back,
it wasn’t going to lose anything really. We just had to go through this process and it’s totally
different from what I was told then so if we’re not going to get very much of that back –
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, we will get a large percentage of that back but FEMA and
GEMA do not reimburse 100%. It is typically between those two combined, it is between 75%
and 85% so we had approximately $17 million dollars in expenditures.
Mr. Williams: I learned a long time ago you won’t get 100% of everything nowhere so I
wasn’t looking for 100% but from what we got back and maybe you’ve got some numbers you
can give me now as to what FEMA and GEMA is that, 70 or 80, or what those dollars are really
percentagewise and dollarwise is what I want to know and what we’re going to have to work
with versus what we’re going to have to raise taxes for so I just need to hear that.
Ms. Williams: And the best I could do I went through my spiel here, I gave you a range
because all of those, what FEMA calls a project worksheet, all of those have not been finalized.
Three of the smaller ones have but the two larger ones that contain the majority of the
expenditures for the ice storm debris removal have not yet been finalized by GEMA and
submitted to FEMA. But the range based on, between us spending $17 and $18 million dollars,
between 15 and 25% that would be our cost. 25 is the high end. I do not anticipate us having
25% that is left to us. That would be between $2.5 and $4.5 million dollars that would come out
of the reserve that was designated when this body approved beginning the cleanup process. I
believe I stepped to the podium and told Ms. Allen that there was approximately $4.7 million
dollars in that reserve for what we call extraordinary losses.
Mr. Williams: Okay, let me ask one other question. What would three mills do?
Ms. Williams: We cannot go to three mills, sir, that’s over the tax cap.
Mr. Williams: Okay, what was the cap?
7
Ms. Williams: 2.484 is the maximum that you could possibly go up.
Mr. Williams: And that’s what I was getting at.
Ms. Williams: The last increase was a quarter of a mill in 2007 other than an increase
that was the rollback rate. The rollback rate actually goes up sometimes when the digest is
down.
Mr. Williams: I’m just thinking about how much enterprise money we’ve got in other
areas that’s making money for this government but we don’t get it and we can’t touch it. So I’ve
got some issues with that when we got to take and get the max that we can do in order to give
everything because when you look at the Landfill, when you look at the water and other stuff that
money is coming in and we generate money but it’s not being used for this government to
operate like we need to have. I know people don’t understand that, they don’t like that and I
don’t care. I get those calls about it and I see it. I understand it and I think we ought to be able
to look at some of that to alleviate, ought to go ahead and do what we need to do as a city and
raise them to the max and be done with it. But when we keep coming back over and over again
attempting to raise or talk about raising it, people get the same panic mode, they go through the
same ordeal, the same time. We do know that we’re one of the smallest as far as the tax is
concerned out of 159 counties, we are one of the lowest. We need to bring that up but we need
to make sure that money’s used for it was intended to be used for and then keep those sources
going so we can attract and get other revenue to come in. That’s my statement. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Donnie Smith and then Mr. Lockett.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Williams, Commissioner Williams was
talking about going to the cap and the danger of this commission raising the millage rate to the
cap is that if you have a catastrophe such as the 1990 or another ice storm that would cost this
government money beyond the $4.7 that we have in the emergency fund then this government
would have absolutely no ability to raise any capital to pay those bills at that point, would we?
Ms. Williams: I believe that there is a provision in the cap whereby by means of a
general referendum the citizens could agree to tax themselves but I will defer that for the legal
team to research it. It has been years since I have looked at that but that question did come up
one time before.
Mr. D. Smith: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: I would have to look into that. That’s a very detailed question and I’d
look back if the board would like to do that I could provide a response at the next meeting.
Mr. D. Smith: But the inherent danger is that we would be in a position where we
couldn’t put our hands on money right away and it would have to go to a ballot which would be a
lengthy process which would not allow us to have any flexibility to pay bills during the course of
that ballot and the course of that straw poll or whatever, am I correct? So going to the cap is not
the ideal situation, am I correct?
8
Ms. Williams: We have never been to the cap. The school board has a different
methodology or requirement that they do but the recommendation has not been discussed at the
cap. I presented something that was somewhat below the cap and that would be my
recommendation.
Mr. D. Smith: I really wanted to make it publicly known the danger of going to the cap,
that there are pitfalls with that.
Ms. Williams: The cap moves.
Mr. D. Smith: It moves but it only moves, the appropriate way for our revenue to move
is not through the millage rate cap but through the digest.
Ms. Williams: Correct.
Mr. D. Smith: And so far we have been unable to increase the digest by a significant
means. I think this year’s digest is $3 million more than it was last year, is that right? I see Mr.
Ross back there.
Ms. Williams: Your current year digest is 4.716 billion and your last year’s digest is
4.687 billion so you had a 30 some odd million increase in the digest after, there are two sections
to the digest, reassessment and growth. You are allowed to take credit for growth in your
rollback calculation. You are rolled back for reassessments. The net growth was a little over
$30 million.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay, but I guess my point is that if we’re going to grow the digest,
you’re going to have to make it an environment where we are cultivating new businesses and
new residences, homeownership and so when we have people moving out of our county our tax
digest is going down and I equate it with selling cars. You sell a few cars at a big profit or you
sell a lot of cars at a little profit and we are on the track right now of using the digest is going
down or staying pretty much flat compared to some neighboring counties around us and so we’re
caught in this quandary about whether we tax the remaining people the maximum amount or
close to the maximum amount or whether we keep things low to try to attract those people and
keep them within our county and that’s where we’re at. Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Williams: And it is interesting that you equated that to cars. The taxes for motor
vehicles went down about $50 million which we think based on conversations with the
Department of Revenue is the first measurable difference due to the change from the sales tax
and the birthday tax on your vehicles now to the one time tag ad valorem tax that you pay six and
a half percent one time and you’re done. So that digest will continue to go down.
Mr. D. Smith: One last question, Mr. Mayor and I’ll try to be quick. Is this the time that
we need to bring about certain utilities or is that a conversation for later?
Ms. Williams: I would really love to get through this issue before us so that we can set a
proposed millage rate.
9
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you. I hope we are not going to do what we did with the last budget
with the across the board 2.4% reduction. I’ve listened to comments made by my colleagues.
Ms. Williams, are you aware of the fact of whether or not Savannah, Athens, Columbus, Macon,
if they have any manufacturing at all there?
Ms. Williams: I’m sure they do, sir.
Mr. Lockett: And they all are thriving. When businesses consider moving to a location,
they’re concerned about many things and some of those things is good roads and bridges. Some
of those things are good transit. Some of those things are good public school education and all
those things you’ve got to pay for. We’re not in the predicament we’re in now because of that
much mismanagement on our part. It’s because 2013 we had an opportunity to implement an
excise tax to make up a million dollars last year and two this year. We chose not to do it. The
2014 general assembly passed legislation that’s going to cost local governments in Georgia about
$154 million dollars over the next five years. The cost of goods and services are going up. We
have got to get the revenue somewhere and I keep saying that this millage rate increase will give
us an opportunity to possibly clean up this city and as a result of that, property values should go
up. I mean nobody wants to raise taxes, but let’s be honest with ourselves. Let’s do what is right
and we definitely need the two mills. We definitely need to have the excise tax. There’s no way
you can get around that and I don’t know why we want to kid ourselves. And lastly, I would not
support a millage increase, I would not support a budget unless there’s an employee pay increase
or salary adjustment or whatever in there.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: All right, where to begin. Ms. Williams, okay let’s refer back to
Commissioner Williams’ statement about moving the millage rate to the max. Now you say
there’s about 2.4, 2.5 –
Ms. Williams: 2.484.
Mr. Mason: Okay, I’ll just say 2.5 and round it off. And a half a mill equates to what?
Ms. Williams: About $2.5 million dollars.
Mr. Mason: Two and a half million dollars. All right, so as I’m thinking about that
number right there as far as what Commissioner Smith was referring to, going to the maximum
you still wouldn’t have enough money left to do anything emergencywise anyways, for instance,
if it was the same 4.7 million or somewhere in that neighborhood you’d still be in a quandary
trying to find money and I understand cap and change and all of this and that but the basic thing I
wanted to say in reference to that is the 2.42, wherever you go, the bottom line is on the reverse
10
side of that we have not identified any revenue streams that can keep us out of the situation we
find ourselves in every year. So until we find revenue streams, projects or things that’s going to
bring in appropriate revenues for us that will bring us above board, we could raise the mill rate
this year two mills and we haven’t identified a revenue stream we’ll be in here again depending
upon what happens throughout the year as you well know that could be possibly be looking for
some additional funds and the following years. So whatever we do today I guess my point is is
that whatever we do for this proposed tax increase, at some point we’ve got to get some revenue
in here from somewhere, be it from our other departments, Utilities or wherever be it, a drag strip
or whatever the case may be, it is what it is. Until we identify something that is bringing in some
money we’re always going to be in a quandary because money is going out and money continues
to go out. If that does not happen then we don’t get things like you’re asking for, Bill, like
employee raises and things like that that are absolutely necessary because the funds just are not
there. And then at the same time what this does we continue to put the onus on the backs of
property owners to bail out the needs of the city and that’s also an issue as far as I’m concerned
from that perspective. So I just want to share that fact. I don’t know what’s going to happen
here but certainly this commission needs to start looking at some ideas to bring in some money
so that we can do the things we need to do. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Donna, as far as our expenditures out of our
general fund for the past five years, has it been increasing every year or has it be decreasing?
Ms. Williams: The total has increased. I’m not sure that that is sequential every year but
it has increased, yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I know that since I’ve been on the floor it’s been increasing every year so
that was the past three years and our revenue has basically been flat. I know that Alveno had
brought up the ITOS which found on parcels where they had buildings and such on it which
helped out. I know that we went self-insured to save a couple million dollars and those
expressions on ways of saving. But the problem that I would have is pretty simple. While our
expenditures are steadily going up every year and our revenue is flat and I understand, I’ve never
heard that before about trying to eat an elephant at one time, but if we raise it to the max we will.
Don’t want to do that. I’ll be done choked on that one but there’s got to be a point because the
way everything is set up here is given our in raises and it still includes a 1% reduction within all
departments and you will have some departments complied with that so next year when we have
to pay the employees the increase, the $1,000, versus the four months that you have showing
here and the people that does not as far as the elected officials who does not comply with the 1%
reduction, we’re going to be back in the same spot we are today. Would you agree with that?
And as far as services there’s nothing, whatever we do today would not increase service to the
residents. This is just showing that we’re giving our employees’ raises. We somewhat balanced
the budget. We’re putting money back into the emergency fund which is a great idea and I’m
glad that the staff had implemented that years ago. We would have been in a quandary right
here. As far as consideration, I know that I’ve always looked at the high turnover rate that’s on
the lower spectrum of our employees no different than the Sheriff looked at that, and Steven
Kendrick as well as the Fire Department. I would consider that, or just a cost of living raise
11
which I think you had said $760,000 for a cost of living raise for all employees for an entire year,
the 2.3 southeastern cost of living raise.
Ms. Williams: In the workshop?
Mr. Guilfoyle: I don’t think you showed it there. It was in another discussion we had.
Ms. Williams: There was a scale that was in one of the workshop presentations that
showed what the various cost of living raises would be. I can’t remember those numbers off the
top of my head.
Mr. Guilfoyle: That’s no problem.
Ms. Williams: I’ll be glad to look them up for you.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Cost of living. I know that you have implemented in this package as far
as vacation buyback which a lot of employees, I know I’ve been getting phone calls, which I
know appreciates that.
Ms. Williams: As we discussed the vacation buyback would allow the employee to have
some control over whether they wish to take that benefit that they accrued which is days of
vacation and they wish to take those in the form of time off or if they wish those in the form of
cash in their pocket. That is a program that could be implemented relatively inexpensively. It is
not an ongoing expenditure. It could be funded on an annual basis or skipped like it has been.
We’ve recommended that several times and it has yet to get much traction with the body but that
to me I believe would be a benefit to the employees that they would like to see.
Mr. Guilfoyle: In two years if we went to the two percent mill, in two years if we look at
our past expenditure that’s steadily been increasing it would be done caught up. The only thing
we could do if it’s at .484 at that time is the max we could go because if we raise it up to the two
mill now sooner or later we’re going to have to face the music, something is going to have to be
done or something needs to be done where it equalizes where the revenue and the expenditures
are the same instead of one scaling up higher. Your advice on that, please.
Ms. Williams: In the past five years you’ve got some increases in revenues that I would
not anticipate, I’m sorry, in expenditures that I would not anticipate you seeing those duplicated.
We’ve opened up an entire new building down the road, the Judicial Center. Those costs were
approximately $1 million dollars.
Mr. Guilfoyle: That was SPLOST money.
Ms. Williams: No, sir. Operating cost is out of the general fund.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Oh, operation and maintenance.
12
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. We can build them out of SPLOST but we have to operate them
out of the general fund and so you would not whereas you saw that jump from one year to the
next you would not see that same jump replicated in years going out. Those levels of
expenditures would pretty much be flat lined. We’ve had some impact on our revenues that were
outside of our control. We’re actually seeing the revenues on a, instead of being flat, some of the
increases that we’re having are being offset by decreases that have been legislated to us.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Donna.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Donnie Smith.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to clarify something Donnie Smith said earlier. I want to get
it on the record straight. He mentioned that the residents or the people that are moving out of
Richmond County so to speak and we was kind of going flat, I guess my question is if those
people are moving out and no one is buying then they still owe property tax on them. They may
live in Waynesboro but they still owe property tax in Richmond County. And if they sell those
properties, then the next person moves in so I don’t understand and I’m trying to get some clarity
from you as to how we’re not, because I talk to construction people. I can’t build nothing but I
talk to construction people who say well, they can’t build homes fast enough. I mean if you go
south you’re going to see a humongous amount of construction that’s going on, that’s building.
Now are we providing those services? I doubt that but my question is if they are moving and
still owning them, they still got to pay taxes. If they sold them, and they’ve gone to
Waynesboro, then somebody else is paying taxes. So how are we at the same point versus being
at least somewhat close? Because that sound bad and when I say it sounds bad, it sounds like
that’s a problem that I need to find out but then this old gray hair on my head started to move
around and I thought about what happened. If the person sells, somebody is paying. If they’re
still there, they’re paying. So how did we get so far, I guess is my question.
Ms. Williams: I thought I’d defer any questions about the values and how the digest
moves up and down to Mr. Ross because that is his area of expertise.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Ross.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Ross can tell me because I don’t understand that and it really bothers
me, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Ross: Good afternoon, commission.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Ross, I think you heard my question. But if Commissioner Smith is
right and people are moving and selling and somebody’s moved in there or they didn’t sell and
they’re still standing there so how are we so far off? How is it that the revenue is not being
produced?
Mr. Ross: You’re absolutely correct, commissioner. It’s not the location of the owner. It
is the location of the property. There are multiple issues for the digest that has impact. You
spoke about the loss on the vehicle impact issue. There was also the year in which there was a
13
million dollar capped by this commission because of the growth in the digest and that is a
reoccurring revenue that’s not been talked about. There are many pieces, decisions that are made
at the state which controls tax policy. For instance, Development Authority accounts that drive
to bring in new business offer many types of incentives. Those have now been shifted to afford
those same benefits to existing industry so those accounts shields on the digest. Those have
negative impacts as well. It’s still there but the exemption considerations on those properties
shields significantly. There are many factors, I’d love the opportunity to speak to this
commission specifically –
Mr. Williams: I just need the ones about the residents I’m worried about now. There are
many moving parts to this government especially in your office but I’m trying to figure out how
is it that that much affect, have affected this budget or what we’re doing here now, now I’m not
talking about the other moving parts, just that part because that’s something that’s bothering me
if that’s the case and the paper will print that well, people are moving to other counties, yeah,
and they probably are but there are some people moving into this county too unless those homes
are just sitting there and nobody owns them because somebody ought to be paying taxes on
them. It’s not the location of the person. It’s the location of the property like you just stated so
that’s my question to you. How is it that we are so far off and we’re losing so much because
everybody is moving out, is the perception.
Mr. Ross: I never –
Mr. Williams: No, no, I didn’t say you did. My question to you is because Ms. Williams
said you are the man with the plan and you can answer this. And I ain’t heard the answer yet and
that’s what I’m waiting on.
Mr. Ross: I thought I agreed, Commissioner, that your view regarding residential
properties and ownership I agreed with you that it is not the location of the owner, it is the
location of the property. Now obviously if a significance of people moving out and moving out
and vacancies occur and vacancies occur that in itself can have an influence on the prices of
properties to sell. I don’t take the philosophy that that scenario exists in Richmond County.
Mr. Williams: Okay, well, that’s the clarification I needed because that’s the philosophy
that I heard and I was about to adopt but I wanted you who was in that business to tell me
something and you did. Thank you, Mr. Ross.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, based on the latest census updates that I’ve seen our
population is in fact growing. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would also suggest that that information that
you just gave about our population growing, it’s not growing by leaps and bounds. I think it was
just two or three thousand people. It wasn’t a significant amount. Back to Ms. Williams.
Donna, when this commission is trying to adopt a budget, there is a whole pie kind of theory we
have to deal with that goes beyond just this budget. So let me throw some things out that we
have to discuss and take into consideration when we’re talking about tax policy for the county.
If we, if this commission were to pass a millage rate increase it will get you somewhere, let’s just
14
use round numbers, $9 million dollars for this year. And then if you are to adopt the energy tax
levy, whatever it’s called, it gets you how many millions?
Ms. Williams: Next year we’d be at the 75% rate forecast is about three.
Mr. D. Smith: Three million dollars. So have this as a running total with me so we’re at
$12 million dollars then and then if you introduce the stormwater fee that’s another $9 million
dollars so we’re up to about $21 million dollars in new taxes and if you multiply that out over,
I’m sorry, and then if you multiply that out over a six-year period that comes out to $126 million
dollars, give or take a few, and then we go back and ask the taxpayers in November of ’15 for the
SPLOST and the SPLOST generates $195 to $200 million dollars given on how during the six-
year period how much of it is collected, but that’s a conservative figure, $195 million dollars. So
you’ve got a $75 million dollar difference there in between the two and if you do the SPLOST
only 60% of that $195 million dollars is paid for by the consumer, the homeowner and the
property owner in Richmond County, because we know that 40% of the SPLOST is actually paid
for by out of town residents. And so we take a huge risk when we’re sitting here talking about
passing on new millage rate, new excise tax, new stormwater fee and yet we jeopardize the 2015
SPLOST by alienating the voters with new taxes when the SPLOST vote in my mind is much
more important because the SPLOST vote gets you $200 million dollars with a 40% discount to
the taxpayers here in Augusta Richmond County. I don’t expect a comment; I’m simply saying
that is the big pie picture that some of us are thinking about when it comes to tax policy. It’s not
as simple as saying let’s pass a 2 mill increase. There is many parts to that and we have to take
the voters and how they are going to react to this a year and three months from now and given
that this year’s SPLOST failed it did not hurt us as bad because we’re still collecting SPLOST VI
through the end of 2015. However if the November, 2015 vote fails on the SPLOST then it
cannot be brought back until ’16. We will go an entire calendar year without any collections of
SPLOST which is about $30 million dollars. So I just wanted everybody to kind of understand
the big pie theory that some of us are thinking about. Thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: I just had a quick comment and then I’ll turn it over to Commissioner
Fennoy. During the retreat it sounded like there was some consensus there. What would the
recommendation of staff, and I’d say to Madam Administrator and our Finance Director, what
would your recommendation be?
Ms. Allen: Listening to the comments and I think we talked about some of these issues at
the retreat, no one wants a tax increase. Nobody ever wants to have a tax increase however it is
like Ms. Williams stated earlier this is something that has been ongoing for the longest and
we’ve never actually addressed the real issues. I mean we’ve asked departments to cut, cut, cut
and they’ve cut so that some of them are actually bleeding. We’ve asked the employees to go
without any potential raises or anything else as far as across the board increases. I’m not one
necessarily an advocate for across the board increases because it doesn’t do as well as when you
do it for performance. However when you have not done anything in such a long time for your
employees in that regards you have to at least let them see that you do appreciate what they’re
doing and their services. Now don’t get me wrong. You can be in this potential spot in another
year or so as Commissioner Smith I think brought up or Commissioner Guilfoyle. But what you
do is you review your budget and you make those difficult decisions as to whether or not you’re
15
going to let your expenditures that can be controlled outgrow what your revenues are. That’s the
control of the Commission. This is one of those issues that we originally discussed that’s going
to have to be one of those tough decisions. You know my recommendation is that we proceed
with what was shown at the retreat with the two mill. We show our employees some
appreciation and when those employees are appreciated or feel that they’re being appreciated,
believe me, they will see the services out there in the community. Our citizens will see a
difference but we have to have some form of revenue in order to even look at doing additional
things for our citizens. We can’t continue to reduce what’s in departments and then expect the
employees with low morale to go out there and perform to make our citizenry happy. That’s not
going to be the solution either. So we’re going to have to make one of those tough decisions
whether it’s a two mill or a 1.5 mill or what have you. We need to do something to kind of give
everybody a little piece of what needs to be done and I think the two mill if we’re going to do it,
you might as well take that big bite and do it but then show our citizens that they’re getting
something for that tax increase.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes. I’d like to respond for a minute to my colleague’s comment about the
big pie theory. You know the people in my district don’t see pie. They see abandoned houses,
they see potholes, they see houses that are half burned down and are still standing. And it’s
about time that the city does something about this. Now I just took a picture right now on the
nd
corner of 2 and Walker Street where this church is having a conference in three weeks from
now. In front of their church you’ve got seven abandoned houses right there next door to each
other. You’ve got grass this high. On the corner right across the street from Harmony Baptist
Church you have rows of abandoned houses. On the other side you’ve got grass that is seven
feet tall and the city does not have the money to take care of that. The Engineering Department
requested over $200, $300 million dollars for engineering to improve our infrastructure. Had the
SPLOST passed they would have only gotten $50 million but that would not have solved the
problem. The people in Marion Homes and Eastview have been complaining for 50 years about
the flooding and the city has not done anything about it. The only way we’re going to do
something about it is by raising the taxes. I have talked to the people. They don’t mind a tax
increase as long as they’re receiving the services. What they want from this city is services,
something that we cannot deliver because we don’t have the resources. And until we come up
with resources, they’re going to continue to complain. People will spend more money going to a
family affair or going to movies and eating hot dogs and sodas than they would with a two mill
increase on a $100,000 home. I think it’s time we moved this city forward and if it’s going to
take a tax increase to move the city forward, I don’t have a problem with that. The people in my
district that are suffering don’t have a problem with that but they want to feel reasonably assured
that the monies that the city will generate from the increase in taxes will go towards goods and
services that are badly needed in their neighborhood.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
16
Mr. Lockett: I make a motion that we adopt the procedures and the budget that’s
been recommended by the Finance Director, that is the 2% mill increase.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Two mills.
Do we have any further discussion? The motion’s been made
and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Johnson, Ms. Davis, Mr. Mason, Mr. Jackson, Mr. D. Smith, Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. G.
Smith vote No.
Motion fails 3-7.
Mr. Mayor: No action taken. Is there, Mr. MacKenzie, just to be clear, could we have
another motion on the agenda item or do we need another motion to reconsider?
Mr. MacKenzie: You need to do a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Mayor: Can we have a motion to that effect?
(No response)
Mr. Mayor: Hearing none, I guess the agenda item is disposed of. Mr. MacKenzie.
2.LEGAL MEETING
A.Pending and potential litigation
B.Real estate
C.Personnel
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to go into a closed meeting to discuss real
estate and pending and potential litigation.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. Williams: I’ll make that motion, Mr. Mayor, but I want to make sure that personnel
is added to that. I didn’t hear that from the attorney.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’ll include it as well.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’ll make that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second?
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote
by the usual sign.
17
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We are in legal.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ll go ahead and call the meeting back to order. Mr. MacKenzie.
3.Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with
Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to execute the closed meeting affidavit.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. D. Smith: So move.
Mr. Williams: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Mason, Mr. Jackson and Mr. G. Smith out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: With nothing further to come before the body, we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on July
28, 2014.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
18
19