HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting July 30, 2014
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
July 30, 2014
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 30,
2014, the Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, D. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson, Jackson,
Davis and G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Mason, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Discuss/approve the 2014 Millage Rate.
Mayor Copenhaver called the meeting to order.
Ms. Allen: Members of the Commission, today we are here again to discuss the 2014
millage rate. Again I emphasize that we’re looking at the millage rate for 2014 so that we can
finalize our 2014 budget. We’ve had numerous discussions at the retreat in regards to some of
the recommendations that were made. So today we are asking to have a decision made so that
we can go ahead and begin the process. Mr. Kendrick has come in and explained how important
it is as well as the Tax Assessor’s office for us to get this process kick started so that we can go
ahead and get the bills out and not have any delays in bringing in any revenues. Please keep in
mind today’s purpose is basically to set the proposed mill rate and this mill can be adjusted
without starting the process over as long as we’re looking at going down as opposed to up. So
we do at least need to start with something so if you’re talking about setting a proposed mill rate
that may increase of course we’ll have to start the whole process over again. But if we can set at
least a mill rate that we can work with and if at any time you look at reducing that mill rate you
will not have to start the process over. I think that’s very important for you to know. Ms.
Williams is going to get up and explain and go over some of the same options that we looked at
before. We actually discussed some other options hopefully that will be more, you know, you
guys can be more receptive to but we would love to walk out of here today with a proposed
millage rate so that we can go ahead and start the process and not hold up the tax bills. I’m
going to turn it over to Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams: Thank you. As Ms. Allen said, our wish and our hope today is that we do
come out of this meeting with a consensus for a proposed mill rate that will get the process
started so that we can complete this in a time frame that allows the tax bills to be mailed out on
time. As you know the tax bills contain our portion as well as the Board of Education. The
th
Board of Education has already set their proposed rate and they are set August the 12 to adopt
their formal and permanent millage rate for this year. So we would hope that we can come to
some agreement today and get this process on the road. A tiny bit of review here. We have
current scheduled use of fund balance in the adopted budget of $5.939 million dollars. We have
reduced across the board 2.4% to all general fund departments. Those have been included in this
budget that was adopted and they have been rolled out to the departments and all except a
handful of departments governed by elected officials have identified those reductions. As we
stated before we started out and wound with $3.9 million dollars’ worth of, use of fund balance.
1
In February we had the ice storm which we will not be reimbursed 100% from FEMA and
GEMA. That has been presented and that has been discussed. Our amount will be based on
approximately 75 to 85% reimbursement from the two entities. The project worksheets are in a
continuous state of development and being passed forward from GEMA to FEMA. There was a
press release yesterday concerning a portion of that. That is not the entire amount that we will be
filing for. But as you were told before what we call the reserve for our extraordinary losses
which contains $4.7 million dollars. Our 15 to 25% cost of the February ice storm could well be
close to $4.5 million dollars. That gives you a total of $9.89 million dollars scheduled use of
your reserves for 2014. Ladies and gentlemen, that is one-third of your total reserves. If we
replace only 25% of the reserve for losses and the entire amount that we’re using for operations,
we’re still going to see a decrease in our fund balance, about $3.4 million dollars depending on
our reimbursement rate. The schedule that I showed you before and will show again is replacing
the reserves for losses in 25% increments over a four-year period. That’s a prudent thing to do
because that reserve was there for these extraordinary occurrences and this is the first time it has
been used in a great many years. So by replacing that 25% each year for four years, I’m
comfortable with that level of restocking those reserves. The digest as we discussed was $4.7
billion dollars. The amount of revenue collected at a mill and a half which is a figure that keeps
floating around is $6.7 million dollars. The first recommended use of that is of course to replace
both of those reserves, to replace the scheduled use from operating reserves, $5.39 and to replace
a quarter of the reserves for your losses. That gives you only $276,000 in new revenue. I would
need to remind you again that that would pretty much directly offset the $380,000 worth of
reductions that have not yet been specifically identified by those departments. Just need to make
it clear at one and a half mills, there is essentially no new money. The recommended use would
be to replace those reserves. That is the fiscally prudent thing for this body to do. I got ahead of
myself here so what this means and I keep harping on it because I need to make sure that this is
clear. The revenue from the additional one and a half mill levy covers the use of fund balance
for operations and it replaces 25% of your estimated loss of your, due to your use of loss of
reserves for losses. The 2.4% reductions that were passed in the 2014 budget document remain
in place. There is no movement on that at one and a half mills. It does not create additional
funds for any other purpose. If you move slightly upward from one and a half mills, then you
can begin to consider making other changes. At 1.75 mills you have covered your reserves again
and you have created approximately $1.4 million dollars in additional revenue. Some of the
things we have discussed and, please, everything at this point is on the table, we’ve prepared an
interactive sheet for later if there are various ideas so you can see how these things play out
much as we did during the budget process. There’s a lot, you need to be able to see the effect of
each action or each program that you would adopt each change that you would make. These
were the ones that were discussed most frequently. At 1.75 mills the line for changing the 2.4%
reduction down to one, it is not on the table. There is not enough money to do that. The other
items that were discussed were an employee raise which is approximately $830,000 in the
general fund and law enforcement. That was the flat $1,000 and the 25 cents per hour increase
for your part-time. The effective date was originally scheduled August 1. I didn’t adjust my
schedule for that. The impact would be minimal. Obviously there would be a date in the future,
probably the first check in September that that could possibly be done. The other item that could
be flipped back and forth down here at a mill and three-quarters is that you could make a slight
change in the amount of reductions from 2.4% to 1 1/2%. That costs $617,000. Obviously
something on up above that line would have to come off because you only have $203,000 if you
2
took both of those first options, the raise and the vacation buyout at three days. This is your tax
cap calculation once again. I’ve not updated it either. I’ve still it plugged in at the rollback rate
which was 8.038 plus two. I can change that schedule in a heartbeat. Let me go back there one
more minute just to remind you that the urban services mill rate has been decreased to reflect the
change due to the way the garbage is billed. That has decreased. The rate last year, the millage
rate in urban services last year was 8.987 or 897, yeah, 987 and it has been decreased by the
amount that is not transferred from tax collections to cover the garbage bills out of urban
services. Everybody gets billed the same. Fire protection is the rollback rate which was one-
thousandth, one hundredth of a mill different than it was in 2013. This is the new proposed
calendar. Today I would love to be able to come out of here with the proposed rates that can be
advertised in the newspaper. Once again this starts the process. If you set a proposed rate today,
you can decrease that amount when it is adopted on August 9. If you set something today and
decide later that you want to go up, you will have to restart the entire process and it will delay
the timing of the August 22 meeting in Atlanta with the Department of Revenue that allows the
digest to be approved and the Tax Commissioner to send out the bills both for us and for the
Board of Education. This would be the schedule of the proposed millage rate showing you what
the rates were in 2013 along with the tax credits that are (inaudible) in the countywide general
fund mill rate and the urban services district mill rate. Actions that we would need from you
today is to set a proposed mill rate. To come to some agreement on that today. To use the dates
on the proposed calendar so that we can start the advertisements and we can hold the hearings to
go through the state-mandated process and to agree to advertise the date of August 19 as the
meeting date for the final adoption. This has to appear in the ad that will run at the beginning of
the process that goes (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Williams, I’d just like to know because I know that we’re under a time
frame here and should we not approve anything prior to week’s end, what could be the cost or
the consequences, particular the cost is what I’d like to know?
Ms. Williams: I’m not sure I can measure a direct cost. It delays your ability to, you
risk, I guess you risk delaying the time that you would start collecting your money because
obviously the sooner that your bills go out, the sooner your tax collections start coming in. The
other impact of that, as the Tax Commissioner said, he has to get these bills out by September the
thth
15 in order to meet the state-mandated deadline and that taxpayers have until November the 15
to be able to pay. He has to give them sixty days so those bills have to be in the mail on
th
September the 15.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Williams, I’ve got two questions I need
answered. Provided that we don’t get anything done today or this week, how does it impact the
school system on their portion of the property tax?
Ms. Williams: They obviously collect a lot more property taxes than we do. Their tax
bills cannot go either so if they are in a period of low cash flow and are counting on doing this in
a timely manner, getting those bills out and there is inaction on before of this body, it would
3
jeopardize the time frame that their collections would come in and their cash for them to operate
would be available.
Mr. D. Smith: So if their bank account is low and they start school here very shortly
conceivably since they don’t have a reserve and they’re up against the cap, they would have to
go borrow money to operate off of?
Ms. Williams: That could be possible. If our cash reserves were low, we would be in the
same situation. It would be advantageous to the taxing body to get their bills out as soon as
possible so that those collections could begin to come in.
Mr. D. Smith: So this impacts not only the county and city government operations but it
impacts the school system too.
Ms. Williams: It does. It does and the cash amounts that come in are typically heavy at
the beginning because the mortgage companies are making payments on behalf of their
mortgagees and they make those as a lump sum and take advantage of the discount that is
offered. In fact they may be required to.
Mr. D. Smith: My next question and I hope this will be the last one. This millage rate
that we’re contemplating now is actually paying not for the 2015 budget, which we’ve not even
begun to discuss yet, it’s to pay for the previous seven months of operations and then the next
five months of 2014. Am I correct?
Ms. Williams: Correct.
Mr. D. Smith: So we’re not really looking in 2015, the budgetary year, because that’s
what we’re going to take up in the next few weeks when the budget starts. This deals with
strictly the seven months that we’ve already spent money and the rest of this year.
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. D. Smith: And my last point is we have spent from fund balance $5 something
million dollars and we have spent from the emergency fund $4 million dollars for the ice storm.
Basically we have advanced ourself money, kind of like living on a credit card, right, and in most
places, in your personal life they tell you to pay off the credit card debt first before you take on
new things, new expenses. And so what you’re asking us to do today is to set a millage that will
allow us to pay off the credit card debt that we’ve inherited over the first seven months of this
year.
Ms. Williams: I am. I’m asking you to replace that planned use of reserves. We cannot
continue to maintain our sound financial position if we continue to plan to use our reserves to
carry us through our regular operating expenditures year to year.
Mr. D. Smith: And our bond rating which is our interest rate on our credit card, so to
speak, is affected by that, by our use of the credit card or what you would call fund balance.
4
Ms. Williams: The bond rating agencies look at that very closely to determine how well
an entity is able to provide for its ongoing expenditures or whether or not it is continually
dipping into the available reserves to meet their day to day operations, living beyond their
means.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you for educating me and I just want to say to you and Tim and
Tameka I know this is not an easy process and I do want to tell ya’ll thank you. There’s many of
us who have spent the midnight oil in the last few days trying to help but I do want to tell ya’ll
thank you.
Mr. Mayor: And, Ms. Williams, if you could please put back up the action sheet just for
a reminder for everybody and then I’ll recognize Commissioner Guilfoyle, Commissioner
Williams then Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Miss Donna, under sheet seven you have it
broken out general fund, urban service, fire protection and debt service fund.
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I realize the Fire Department is funded no different than the enterprise
fund is dedicated –
Ms. Williams: Dedicated millage rate, yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right. What does it take to have a dedicated police, does it take
legislative action or –
Ms. Williams: It still falls under the existing tax cap because that is not a new service
that would be offered when the tax cap was put in place in 1979. It covered existing services and
service districts. You have a countywide Sheriff’s Department. It covers the countywide area.
We track the pieces of the millage rate that when you see you budget, there are two sections. It
says general fund, law enforcement. But for taxation purposes it is included in this what is
referred to as the general m and o, maintenance and operations millage rate. I do not believe that
you can go outside of any of these areas that you see on this sheet and levy a millage rate for a
service that already exists under this taxing method.
Mr. Guilfoyle: The reason why I was asking because Sheriff Roundtree had sent us all a
letter with regards to his employees getting them towards a balanced equalization with other
employees. We’re either going to have to make this part of the conversation today or we’re
going to have to face it later. I know that we got in your package that you have the COLA. I
don’t know if any communication happened within the Sheriff’s Department about this but I
know it’s going to have to be addressed. But as far as the money to go back and operate a budget
of 5.39 as well as the 4.5 and one quarters every year so in four years that account would be
satisfied as far as the emergency fund, the 5.39 is done as a whole, just one chomp to fill that
void that we had taken out for the past year.
5
Ms. Williams: Correct. That’s what you’ve budgeted to use out of your reserves for this
operating budget.
Mr. Guilfoyle: In order to have fulfilled this reserve for the ice storm for the following
years, the next three years, is coming out of if the millage’s decided today is going to be satisfied
in quarters, is that correct?
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. You would take the first 25% of it out of the revenues from the
millage rate that you set for 2014. You’re going to set a millage rate every single year. The plan
that I’ve got here is that you would use a portion of each year’s millage rate in the next three
years to fully replace the use of these reserves.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, what do you have set aside for the operating budget because if
you’ve got the millage rate set aside for the storm (inaudible) for the next four years and after
that it becomes available to be put back into the general fund, is there a separate millage for the
operating budget to where we put the 5.39 in and then next year what are we going to do with the
additional, am I thinking wrong?
Ms. Williams: I got lost. With the replacement of your reserve for your losses at the end
of the fourth year you would no longer be putting another million one twenty-five in that reserve
because it would be fully replaced so those amount of monies on the premise that the millage
rate would continue to be the same and the digest would be the same for all next three years, then
that money would be available for other programs or you could reduce the millage rate.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So this operating budget would put that money back in there in the full
amount of the 5.4. Can that money be reduced to satisfy the needs of the Sheriff’s Department?
Ms. Williams: Are you asking me to use reserves for this year from the millage rate that
you’re levying to fund what the Sheriff might be asking for? I’m sorry, I’m getting lost.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I might be saying it wrong altogether, Donna, I apologize.
Ms. Williams: Well, me too.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Let me try to gain my thoughts and I’ll come back to you.
Ms. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think this is as difficult as we’re making it
out, Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams: I will be happy if you give me a simple answer. I will be a happy lady.
6
Mr. Williams: The simple answer is we’ve got to do what we need to do and we know
that the ice storm was something unforeseen. I’m thinking that the average person who have an
experience in their home, whether it be the air conditioner and the transmission and the engine
and maybe the shop all kills up at the same time, you’ve got to do the things necessary, you
know, first things first. You talked about taking a percentage and putting it in the reserve until
we build it back up. I think that’s smart and not only do I think that’s smart, I think that’s
something we ought to be doing anyway whether we put it in the reserve fund or have it. That’s
what a rainy day situation is for. We had a rainy day in the ice storm. We can’t have a rainy day
and it’s sun shining the next day. It rained that day and it takes time to recover. It takes time for
the clouds to go away. I’m interested in knowing what is the bottom line we need to do to make
sure the raises is included because I’m not voting, I’m not voting for anything that’s not going to
include those raises for the employees that really need those raises and should have gotten them
so I guess my question is what’s the bottom line figure, what’s the millage rate we need to go at
because you said we can come down, we can’t go up without starting the process over, I
understand and that’s what I’m getting at. So I don’t seem that difficult to me. I know it’s
different from my household naturally but you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do. You’re
elected to make some tough decisions, those decisions that we’re making should be the ones that
are best for this county. So what is the millage rate that we need to set that’s going to include
those raises that we talked about?
Ms. Williams: If you set a millage rate of 1.5 mills without making any other reductions
to any other places, essentially what that does is it replaces your reserves. That’s what it takes to
cover what we planned and had to use, now everybody agrees that we started with the 5.3 and the
ice storm was just, that was a catastrophe that happened but we had to pay for it. But the fiscally
prudent thing to do was to replace those monies so that’s what we’re asking to do. The 1.5
would replace the reserves. The sheet that you’re now seeing, if you go 1.5 and you want to add
in any other programs or expenditures, any raises, any vacation buyback, anything else, then to
equalize that equation you’ve got to take something out on the other side like we did the 2.4%
reductions. You simply at 1.5 do not have the revenue to add in any other programs without
making more cuts. What I’ve got on this sheet shows you the amount of revenue that is
generated by each mill or each portion of a mill. My idea for discussion purposes would be if
you guys didn’t already come in with a solution and make my life really easy was to be able to
pick some number from these amounts here. I’ve already shown you what happens at the 1.5
mills. If you take the number from the 1.75 mills and plug it in right here, the first thing that you
do is still, and it’s going to be my recommendation until the cows come home, is to replace your
use of fund balance. So you have used $6.5 million dollars. Then all the other items and some
other things that we’ve just thrown in just so we can look at them would relate to expenditures
that could or might be added. The $1,000 effective, a one and a half percent, because these have
all been on the sheets in retreats and different times, you’ve seen these numbers before. There’s
one and a half, there’s one, there’s $500 one time salary adjustment, one time, that’s all. Three
days’ vacation buyout, that’s an elective program. It’s approximately $125,000 per day based on
about an 80% acceptance rate. That’s also a one-time expenditure. That’s allowed for in the
Policy and Procedures Manual. The difference between the vacation buyback and the COLA
raises are a salary increase across the board. It was as we explained before. That’s a one-time
payment. There’s no impact on your next year’s budget from a vacation buyback program. It
7
allows the employee to determine number one, if they would rather have the cash or two, if they
would rather have their time off. They have earned that benefit so it puts the amount of cash that
the employee might want to have in their pocket, it gives them some control over that. It’s an
elective program. We figured three days, we figured five days. You go the other way and you
start reducing more expenditures which, we’ve gone 2.4%, that’s already in there and that has
not come out yet. It is there. If you go further reductions across the board, which I don’t
advocate across the board cuts, I did not advocate them in the budgeting process. They unfairly
penalize some departments that can or cannot make them. This body should decide which
programs they want to operate and what level they want to operate them at. They should be
targeted reductions or increases. It goes both ways. That would add back to your amount of
revenue and then you’ve got a running total of what you have available so I’m here to plug in
numbers.
Mr. Williams: Let me ask you this. If we’re thinking that a 75 to 80% we’re looking at
being reimbursed, just looking at it, hadn’t got it yet but we’re looking at reimbursed, you don’t
replace that overnight, the next day when you have a need in your home or anywhere else, it
takes time to do that. That’s a fair way to do it and pray that nothing else happens until you get
it. But if we’re looking at the 75 to 80% reimbursement and we still take and put 1.25 every year
for four years to get it back, we may not have to do that very long because if we get this 75% that
will be another plus, right?
Ms. Williams: You’re correct. That four and a half million is an estimate of what our 15
to 25% might be. Obviously if it’s 15% it’s going to be lower than that. It’s going to be closer
to two and a half million dollars. In that case it would only take you two years to put it back and
we will know that later in the year when we get some more press releases from FEMA.
Mr. Williams: So 1.75 is what you just got through explaining?
Ms. Williams: That’s the number I plugged in. If you want me to put, if the group wants
me to put in a different number I’ll be happy to do as many schedules as this body wants to see.
Mr. Williams: But that will get the raise that we talked about.
Ms. Williams: Then you could pick, you could begin to consider which one of the
options or newer options that the group would want to do.
Mr. Williams: Okay, thank you, Ms. Williams. That don’t seem like it’s so hard to make
a decision and you’re not going to please everybody and you’re going to make some folks mad
and some folks glad.
Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Williams, I just want to agree with you and I think that
the 1.75 gets us the employee raises, the vacation buyout and so it’s not perfect but everybody
has expressed an interest in taking care of our employees. In my opinion that’s the threshold that
gets us there. Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Johnson.
8
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to read this presentation I have
rather than just recite it because I don’t want to appear to be as smart as I think I am. This is in
response to the article written by my friend, our local print media psychiatrist. I probably should
not identify Ms. Cooper, well, in fact I won’t even identify her. I’m not going to cast aspersions
on any of you my colleagues but it’s sort of ironic that some have been extremely vociferous in
their commitment to not raise taxes. Need I remind you that many of you supported and lobbied
for the construction of the Convention Center, the public library, Judicial Center and many more
SPLOST projects. Clearly no consideration was given to the hundreds of thousands of general
fund dollars that would be needed for maintenance and operation expenses. Let’s deny a pay
increase because of our lack of vision and forthrightness. Let’s deny our employees a miniscule
pay increase because the General Assembly passed House Bill 386 which eliminated the
collection of ad valorem tax on energy used in manufacturing and that began January 1, 2013.
The negative impact on our general fund was $1 million dollars last year, two million this year, it
will be three million next year and four million in 2016. This local government had no
involvement in the decision made by the General Assembly. But we did have an opportunity to
implement an excise tax but we declined to do so. Our employees truly are not responsible for
the decisions made by the General Assembly to pass a collection of tax measures that would
drain up to $107 million dollars from Georgia local governments over the next two years and up
to $154 million dollars over the next five years. It would be asinine to blame our employees,
deny them a pay increase as a result of poor financial decisions made by this governing body.
All of our employees are extremely valuable to this community. They are our most important
resource. We need the courage and intestinal fortitude to unanimously support a proposed 2 mill
increase. Many of you that are in opposition to the 2 mill increase had no difficulty a couple of
weeks ago authorizing $25,000 for the arts. Some of you will probably have no difficulty
supporting a pay increase for the Fire Department. Many of you probably would have no
problem supporting the Sheriff’s Department request for $1,463,000 increase in salaries. By no
means did I intend to disparage our first responders however I did want to highlight the
importance of all our employees. Let’s stand tall and unanimously support the 2 mill increase.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Donna, I’ve got a question for you. If we were to
go to the 2 mill increase hypothetically and that gives us about $9 million dollars, what happens
next year? I know we generate the same revenue extra but what happens with the monies
because I know we’re putting 5.3 back into reserve this year. Did we have any monies to
replenish next year?
Ms. Williams: You’re not exactly replenishing next year because you have not adopted
next year’s budget.
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Ms. Williams: So if those monies that are not spent go into your fund balance you could
either maintain the same millage rate next year, 10.038, which would be the 2 mill increase, then
9
you would either decide on how those funds that are generated next year are allocated during the
budget process or you would put them in reserves or you would change the millage rate.
Mr. Johnson: What would be your, I know we have done tax rollbacks in the past. What
I’m trying to figure out here is because I know that if we collect that $9 million next year and
we, at that time we don’t have any obligations should I say to replenish money from the reserve
and whatever the case may be, the $9 million would be there to be allocated to be allocated to
either services or something within the government whether it be departments or whatever. We
can do the 2 mill and it will not have a significant impact this year outside of what we need to
pay back and what we need to do with the employees but then next year you will have I guess a
particular amount that will come out to substantiate the ongoing increase to the employees if you
will and then you will have an overage of monies that can go into the reserve which will
probably be the best thing to do to get the reserve back where it needs to be for at least the next
couple of years and then at that point the commission can make a decision to do a rollback of
some sort of taxes if they chose to do that, whether it be .25 mills or half a mill or whatever,
right?
Ms. Williams: Right. You will adopt a millage rate every year based on the need of the
operating level of the budget that you agree on beforehand. You agree on the budget. You agree
on how much revenue you anticipate and we tell ya’ll each year based on generally a fairly flat
digest because we like to be conservative when we’re estimating our revenue and the same
millage rate that was proposed the prior year. So we go into the budget process with those
revenue streams anticipated. The commission where you’re sitting right now determines in July
of each year what they really want to do, any adjustments that they need to make to that revenue
stream. In this case the budget was set with a pretty heavy use of fund balance. Those are your
reserves. That was adopted in the budget. Now is the correcting point for that action.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, and if we take and do the 1.75 that will allow us to replenish the
funds back into the fund balance, 1.1 will go back to what we spent in the ice storm, correct?
And then will we still be able to do the $1,000 increase or would that be, and the vacation buyout
with the 1.75?
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. Go back to the 1.75. There is your revenue in this column.
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Ms. Williams: It replaces the use of your fund balance by plugging the increases that
were mentioned and the buyback program and you come down to the bottom, you have $203,000
that is unobligated at the end of the process.
Mr. Johnson: Now next year hypothetically we don’t have the 5.3 to go back into reserve
–
Ms. Williams: If you stay at the same operating level –
Mr. Johnson: Right.
10
Ms. Williams: -- as you are at now –
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Ms. Williams: -- your expenditures, you will essentially spend that $5.3 million dollars.
What you did this year is we took it, instead of coming from current year revenue, we kept our
expenditure level the same. But instead of pulling it out of current year revenue, we pulled it out
of reserves.
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Ms. Williams: So next year in theory you would still have the same level of expenditures
which includes the 2.4% reduction and you’ve got to use, you’re going to be using that $5.3
million dollars because the only switch will be it will be current year revenue at the anticipated
millage rate rather than use of reserves.
Mr. Johnson: Right. So we’ll basically be in a position where we’re almost balancing
the budget again if everything stays the same. So it won’t be any extra money to do anything
extra with and really even if we do the 2 mill you’re talking about $1 million dollars more but it
won’t be anything over if we don’t exceed because there’s a possibility that we could exceed
more than we did this year in operations and expenditures which could in sum that other one
million dollar extra.
Ms. Williams: There’s always a place that money can be spent.
Mr. Johnson: Right. I know with the 2.4% reduction that we ask departments to adjust to
at some point that can get probably very tough for them as well.
Ms. Williams: It’s tough this year.
Mr. Johnson: I know it is but it can get extremely tough if the demand goes up and then
you still don’t have the revenue to substantiate it so I just wanted to try to get some clarity so I
think it kind of breaks it down in layman’s terms so we can kind of better understand and the
people can better understand what happens next year even if we do it this year so that’s pretty
much it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: 2.4% reduction. Did all the departments adhere to the 2.4 reduction?
Ms. Williams: Not all. The first adjustment that was made was the law enforcement side
of the equation was accepted. They were exempted from that. That was $890,000 of the planned
amount of reduction. That was part of the 5.39 that was moved over to fund balance. Then there
is approximately $380,000 worth that have not been identified. They rolled it in the budget for
some of the elected officials that have not yet been identified and have not been met.
11
Mr. Fennoy: Okay, but the 2.4 reduction that was submitted did it involve termination or
laying off of any employees?
Ms. Williams: I’m not aware of anyone that was laid off because of that reduction. I was
not indicated to me. There were a couple of vacant positions that were not replaced. RCCI
comes to mind and Recreation. They had some vacancies that they chose not to fill and therefore
that was taken off of their planned expenditures in order to help meet their reductions.
Mr. Fennoy: What would be the impact on our budget if we went with a 2.0 mill increase
and we used the excise tax?
Ms. Williams: We talked extensively about the excise tax in the retreat and the earliest
that the excise tax can be put in place at this date will be the beginning of 2015 if that calendar
we put out there starting the process in late August is adhered to and there’s a positive vote by
the commission to actually implement that. Should that be implemented at the first of the year in
2015, what we would anticipate in the third year of the phase in of the tax is that between $2.5
and $3 million dollars’ worth of revenue would be replaced to the general fund operations. The
presentation that was made at that time was to designate that as a revenue source. Half of that
money generated there and from then on out would be dedicated to the Sheriff’s Department.
The 25% would be designated to Transit. All this is just a presentation. Obviously this is a
decision of the board and the other 25% would go to the demolition program.
Mr. Fennoy: Really that’s one of my biggest concerns. We’re talking about a 2.4
reduction in departments and we’re talking about anywhere from 1.75 to 2 mill increase but and
this is only to maintain what we have and my biggest concern is that it’s going to be difficult for
me to go back to my community and say that we’re going to have a 1.5 or 2.0 tax increase and
the only thing we’re going to maintain what we have. It’s not what we have now is not getting
the job done in my community and it’s not getting the job done in my neighborhood. The streets
need paving. You’ve got people that put themselves at risk because on the corner there’s grass
that’s six or seven feet high and they have to ease out into the traffic and run the risk of hitting
people. We have too many dilapidated houses. I think we have about 25% of the calls that was
coming in from the 311 was coming from District 1 and it’s going to be a hard sell for me to go
back to them and tell them that we’re going to increase your taxes but you’re not going to have
any additional goods or services when there’s already goods and services that are lacking. I
think that this commission should look at the city as a whole and try to do something about it. I
think that the deputies need to be adequately compensated for the job that they do. But I think all
county employees need to be adequately compensated for the work that they do and to make
exceptions in one case and not be inclusive I don’t think it’s being fair to the employees of
Richmond County. I don’t think it’s being fair to the citizens of Richmond County. Right now it
would be difficult for me to accept anything less than a 2 mill increase and also take a look at the
excise tax so that we would have the resources that we need to move this city forward. I know
when we talked about, I mean that wasn’t presented as an option at this particular time but I
think it’s something that we as commissioners need to take a look at.
Ms. Williams: And we will be bringing that back to you, sir, it’s just that it cannot
possibly generate any revenue for the 2014 budget. That’s the reason that that will happen just a
12
little bit later is the quickest that that could possibly be implemented and we begin to collect
revenue from that would affect 2015. I’d love to survive 2014 first.
Mr. Fennoy: 2015’s going to get here.
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me just make a few points. With regards to a tax increase nobody
likes one but the fact that we have not increased the millage rate in seven years now, I believe,
that’s not sustainable and I have lots of friends in commercial real estate and I share with them
you’re never going to tell the people that lease those properties from you that you’re never going
to go up on their rent rates. You can’t possibly honestly tell them that. With regards to the
proposals in front of us you know the 1.75 gets us the $1,000 for employees, it gets us the three
days’ vacation buyback but one of the things it cuts 1% as well and during Congress’ recent
battle with sequestration you know I think their approval rating was at 12% and the main issue
that Americans had was that they couldn’t compromise. So I think that this is an opportunity
today I would hope that we can do it at the local level but we see what sequestration has led to at
the federal level. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think the compromise began when we chose not
to implement an excise tax. That’s when it began. I’m a firm believer that we cannot put a
bandaid on an arterial injury. It just won’t work. We’re always talk about listening to our
directors. Now I have disagreed with Finance and have agreed with them. But I think this is one
of those cases and last year when they made the presentation also, I agreed with them. They are
right. They are the ones that’s getting the money, they are the ones with the know how to tell us
how to survive. Last year we didn’t listen to them. We did a 2.4% across the board and we all
see how that worked out. Now at the midnight hour we want to go ahead on and inject what we
think is right and when the Finance and Deputy Finance Director have said that they feel that 2%
is what we need, I don’t see why we’re prolonging this. I mean those of you that have said
you’re not going to increase taxes, well you’re doing it whether you do it 1.75 or 2.0, you’re still
increasing taxes. You’ve increased taxes when you voted for SPLOST. I think the TIA or
SPLOST is taxes. So why don’t we go on and man up or woman up and go on and do the 2%
and adjourn the meeting until next time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Thank you. Ms. Williams, this is some serious business that we’re trying
to do on behalf of 200,000 people in this community and we are affecting 90,000 property
owners. We’re trying to balance the budget on the backs of 90,000 property owners, not the
200,000 that live in this community every day. Am I right about that?
Ms. Williams: (inaudible)
Mr. D. Smith: And there’s approximately 90,000 property owners in this community so
we’re asking 90,000 to pay for the services that are provided for the entire 200,000 people.
Okay, so no matter what we do today, we do if we have an action, if we raise the taxes, we are
13
not going to be giving them any more service next year than what we’re providing right now.
Am I correct about that?
Ms. Williams: If no other changes are made –
Mr. D. Smith: So if we don’t bring the budget into line for 2015, if we don’t do some
kind of reduction in the budget in 2015, a property tax increase this year gets us nothing as far as
services that my colleague Mr. Fennoy talks about. It’s going to get us nothing. Am I right?
Ms. Williams: (inaudible)
Mr. D. Smith: And so if we wanted to provide additional services for this community,
there has to be another way to do it either through reallocation of assets meaning one department
gets cut and that is maybe not a provider of essential services and that money gets moved to say,
an essential service department.
Ms. Williams: (inaudible) and that has been recommended time and time again that
should be done by targeted programs, areas and across the board methodology is really easy to
do mathematically.
Mr. D. Smith: But it’s a very inefficient and one of the candidates that was here for an
interview talked about that and he said we need to look at the budget by department and make
decisions by department not across the board and we need to look at not only the current year
that we’re in but a five-year plan as to how we impact the community and how we impact the
government over a five-year period. So this today is a bandaid on a problem that’s going to be
here for five more years and beyond. Thank you. You don’t have to answer that, I’ve made my
point.
Mr. Mayor: Yeah, but I will say if you don’t stop the bleeding at some point we’re going
to bleed to death. Oh, Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: I want to clarify something that was said. I want to be very clear about
this. I mean it may be 90,000 property owners that you’re talking about but even those people
who are staying in somebody’s property who still pay tax if there’s a building that tax should be
collected on so let’s don’t throw information out there and don’t make it plain, I’m going to
leave it like that. The other thing is that every year we get to this point, Ms. Williams, and
tomorrow will be an anniversary for you. How many years?
Ms. Williams: 35 years.
Mr. Williams: 35 years and in 35 years this commission has not figured out yet that
we’ve got to do some economic things to get monies in to this city to be able to do the things that
my colleagues on my right and my left said besides sitting here waiting on the budget. Now it
don’t take a rocket scientist to figure out if you’re doing the same thing, you’re going to get the
same thing and you won’t get nothing different. Now we’re here every year talking about this
and we get to this same juncture and then we talk about how we’re not going to raise taxes but
14
we’re not doing anything else. We’re not even discussing anything. We sit here and say next
year we’re going to do the budget and it’s going to get better. Well, it ain’t going to get no
better. That’s the bottom line so I wanted to make sure that the community understands that we
have to bite the bullet and do the things that are necessary and make sure that the money that is
being collected are being spent on those things that supposed to be spent on and not like what
we’re doing sitting in this room. We got off a little while ago talking about people trying to tell
us how to handle budgets and when we ought to be bringing those budgets around and how we
ought to be planning. There’s some things we should have been planning ahead of time so we
are not doing the job that we was elected to do. You’re doing a good job. Happy anniversary
but the people up here who talk that talk but ain’t walking the walk. So there’s a big difference
in my mind that we need to make some hard decisions. We’ve got to do the things that are right
for this community and we’ve got to make sure that we generate the revenue so we can get those
services and I don’t think we ought to be tearing down houses and I know Commissioner Fennoy
is right about the abandoned homes. But there ain’t no way in –
Mr. Jackson: Hades, Hades.
Mr. Mayor: You can use the term, you’re a preacher. Come on, man.
Mr. Williams: Well, if ya’ll want to know, hell’s a real place, now, I can tell you about
that. I didn’t say that but hell is a real place. But there is no way that we ought to be tearing
down other folks’ houses with taxpayers dollars and then we let an empty lot sit there and
nobody come back to claim it. If you own it, we need to take it from you and tear it down or you
need to tear it down. Ain’t no sense in raising money or putting money in the budget to tear
down other folks’ property for them and then they still walk away from it. They left it and that’s
why we’ve got to tear it down because they left it and then they come back for the empty lot?
That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. But that’s not what we’re talking about right
now. I’m just saying that we need to make the hard decisions and go ahead and do those things
and make sure that money will be used for what we collect that money for and get aggressive and
do those things that we need to do in this community that’s going to generate money or make
Augusta a destination point where folk will come in here and bring their money. Now someone
mentioned about the SPLOST. You know who spends more money on that SPLOST? We do.
The people who live in Augusta. The ones who go to the store four, five, six, seven times a
week. We spend that money, not the tourists. We don’t have a tourist town. There are a few
people who come here every once in a while, Tameka, but they don’t shop much. They just
come through. So the local people spend more money on that SPLOST than anybody else but
we don’t put that out there. That’s crazy. I’m ready to take a vote, Mr. Mayor, one way up or
down and it don’t make no difference. If the school board have to borrow some money, we ain’t
got that raise for the employees, I’m not supporting it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, let me just make a few points and I think it is, we should look at this
as we’re trying to serve 200,000 citizens every day. I mean it’s not dividing the different areas
of the town so I agree with that but I will say that, you know, to not make a decision is a decision
in and of itself and if we don’t do something today, it’s going to exasperate the problem and
make it more difficult whenever we bring it back up again so I would say that it concerns me if
15
we are unable to make a decision today just from a public confidence perspective as well.
Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s been stated that if we pass the two mills
today that we have another opportunity to go down. But if we pass anything less than two today,
if we see that there’s going to be a need to go up, well, then we’ve got to start the process all
over again. So I would like to call for the question and I would like to make a motion that we
accept the Finance Director’s recommendation to increase the tax base to two mills.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think you had a substitute motion.
Mr. Johnson: Yeah, I’ll make a substitute on a 1.75, Mr. Mayor, and the reason being is
this is going to get us where we need to be. We’ve got to be careful when we start to, don’t get
me wrong, I understand that we need this, we need the revenue but as Commissioner Williams
just said, we’ve got to get and I won’t be here but you’re going to have some decisions to make
in the future because we’ve got to find a source or a resource of new revenue to come into the
county to offset some of these bills that we have here. To me it’s very simple but the 1.75 will
give the employees the increase, it will get the vacation buyback, it will help decrease the fund
balance to 5.3, it will replace $1.1 million of the monies that was used for the ice storm and that
will get us where we need to be and it will give us an overage of about two hundred and
something thousand dollars. Next year you’re going to have to deal with this again. It won’t be
as significant but I agree, I think we at least need to come away today with making sure that the
employees have been adequately addressed and compensated in some shape, form or fashion and
that we’re able to pay and decrease the fund balance and take some of our expenditures as it
relates to the ice storm so I know it’s tough. It’s a tough decision and none of us want to be in a
position where we’ve got to raise the property taxes for anybody but we’ve been fortunate since
I’ve been up here. We haven’t raised property taxes and we’ve kicked that can down the road
enough and it’s just worn out now so a decision has come and now we have to make that tough
decision and I think it’s going to really be more beneficial by doing this way versus doing it
where we just take care of decreasing the fund balance. This is going to take care of the
employees, it’s going to help us take care of some of the debt that we already have and again,
we’re not going to have any other monies to do any other work outside of what we’re already
doing. We’re going to have to deal with that at some other time but the 1.75 will get us where
we are so I’ll make that in the form of a substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second on that? Okay, that motion has not been seconded.
There is no second for the Mayor Pro Tem’s motion. The primary motion.
The Clerk: To accept the recommendation of the Finance Department for a two mill
increase.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been made and properly seconded.
16
Ms. Williams: I need to know if included in the package is the items that were mentioned
on the board or if those will be discussed at a later date and the will of the body is just to set the
proposed mill rate right now. Either one is fine. I just need to know for purposes –
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett, did you want to reflect that in your motion?
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chair, if I may, Ms. Williams, I know you said either one but what
would be your recommendation?
Ms. Williams: I think it would provide clarity unless it makes a sticking point for this
body that the programs would be identified but my primary goal from this meeting is to get a
proposed rate to advertise and we can meet all day long about what gets funded out of those
amounts either before or after the permanent rate is adopted.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, I can, I will accept that recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: I want a motion, I want Mr. Lockett to explain to me something. He said
that he wanted, his motion was to have a two mill millage rate. So we’re going to have a
rollback of six points, because that’s what his motion was. His motion was to have a two mill
millage rate so if we’re going to have a six-mill rollback then I’m happy. What’s the motion?
Mr. Mayor: The motion is to adopt a two mill millage rate, increase on –
Mr. D. Smith: That’s not what he said.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams: Can I put that chart that was back up there that initially had a 10.038 mill
(inaudible) mill (inaudible) back up there?
Mr. Mayor: Please.
Ms. Williams: That shows the rollback rate plus two mills and then the other millage
rates are also shown and I think that might provide some clarity.
Mr. Mayor: Ah, clarity.
Ms. Williams: This shows the millage rate that would be a two mill increase over what is
the rollback rate, 8.038. This, plugging that amount in over here, makes the chart mess up but it
does show what would be the proposed rate. When I move things from Excel to Powerpoint and
then get somebody else to fix what I’ve done and I go back in and try to do it again mine aren’t
pretty. It’s functional but that would propose a levy of a net millage rate of 10.038.
17
Mr. Lockett: That’s increasing the millage rate by two mills, is that correct?
Ms. Williams: Two mills over the rollback rate.
Mr. Lockett: Madam Clerk, did you get that?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, but your motion was to accept the recommendation of the Finance
Department for a two mill increase.
Mr. Lockett: That’s what I thought.
Mr. Mayor: And I am just going to urge commissioners, we can adjust this down but we
do need a decision today so commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, before –
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, the motion needs to include also the adoption of the things, the
August 19, these actions as well. Is that okay with the Commission to use the dates on the
proposed calendar for the hearings and to agree to advertise the date of August 19 as the meeting
date for the final adoption?
Mr. Lockett: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: The maker of the motion and the seconder of the motion are okay with it?
Mr. Lockett: Yes. Donna, is that everything that you need? Don’t be calling me at
midnight tonight and say we missed something.
Ms. Davis, Mr. Jackson, Mr. D. Smith and Mr. G. Smith vote No.
Mr. Guilfoyle out.
Motion fails 4-4.
Mr. Mayor: No action taken. Could I get a motion to reconsider this item?
Mr. Williams: I make a motion to reconsider.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners
will now vote by the usual sign.
Ms. Davis, Mr. D. Smith and Mr. G. Smith vote No.
Mr. Guilfoyle out.
18
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: It is very apparent that we are not close on this. We have two elected
members of our body that are not here and that may make a difference so at some point we need
to contact our missing members and bring this back and let’s be responsible to the people that
elected us.
Mr. Mayor: In order for and under the advice of the attorney as opposed to adjourning
the meeting, I’m going to recess the meeting so that we can keep it open as discussions are
ongoing so the meeting is now in recess.
[MEETING RECESSED]
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to go ahead and reconvene the meeting and I would look for
a motion to reconsider the item we were considering prior in the meeting.
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Yes, sir,
Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Can I get some clarification exactly from the Finance Director about what
it is that we’re doing and what this is paying for –
Mr. Mayor: Well, first Commissioner Smith we need to be able to rediscuss it so we
need to reconvene and –
Mr. D. Smith: I apologize, Mr. Mayor. I’m distracted.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Mason, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Guilfoyle out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: Now I’d like to call on Ms. Williams.
Ms. Williams: (inaudible)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Would you please go over the breakdown of how this money is going to be
used as you tried to explain it a while ago?
19
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir. The first six and a half million dollars would be used to replace
the programmed use of fund balance both on the regular operating reserve and one quarter of the
estimated use of the reserve for our losses due to the ice storm in February. That’s the first six
and a half million dollars. The other items that were proposed would be a $500 one time
employee retention incentive, $500 and $200, $500 for permanent employees and $200 for part-
time employees, would cost approximately $725,000. That is a one-time payment as opposed to
a COLA or an ongoing cost of living adjustment. It would also fund $625,000 for a five-day
employee opportunity to sell back five days of their vacation during this year per the program
that is outlined in the PPPM with the attorney to bring back some language on it that would
allow the Sheriff’s Department which was originally exempt from that. We discussed that
earlier in the employee retreat. That language can be crafted and every employee would have the
opportunity to sell back the five days of their vacation per the program that’s outlined in the
PPPM. This leaves a balance of approximately $358,000 from the revenue that would be
generated that would be unspecified where it would go. The decision of this commission could
be made at a later date as to what to do with those funds.
Mr. D. Smith: All right. To follow up on that question I was under the impression when
we were standing out there a while ago it was going to be $1.4 million dollars. Now it’s down to
$300,000? The unaccounted for, I thought somebody showed me $1.4 million.
Ms. Williams: It flashed up on the screen momentarily before we corrected the formula
that’s in the spreadsheet. But if you take the 7.9 minus the 65, less the 425, less the 625, it leaves
$358,000.
Mr. D. Smith: So this will pay the credit cards off, so to speak, not entirely for the
emergency fund, it will pay the $1.2 million towards the 4.7 and it will pay off the fund balance
entirely and, but will we need in the 2015 budget, will we maintain the 2.4% reduction through
this ’14 budget?
Ms. Williams: Yes.
Mr. D. Smith: So there will be no rollback to 1.5 and in the 2015 budget that is a
discussion that we will need to continue to have about the 2.4 because obviously this 1.75 would
not cover, if we did away with the budget cuts, we would not have enough money to pay for that.
Ms. Williams: Without some adjustments obviously. The $500 per, the 500/200 is a
one-time deal and
Mr. D. Smith: And the vacation –
Ms. Williams: Those are one-time expenditures in this year. The decision will be made
in the budget process whether or not to fund those items next year as we do with all other line
items in the budget.
Mr. D. Smith: My last question. These PPM things with the Sheriff’s Department
because they’ve opted out of the PPM, in the elected officials offices we have state employees
20
over there that are paid by the state, the DA’s office, the Public Defender’s office, and some of
the courts. How is this going to be applicable to them or is it?
Ms. Williams: For the vacation buyback program those individuals have no vacation
benefits through Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. D. Smith: So this will not impact them.
Ms. Williams: It will not impact them at all. Their benefit structure is, if they’re a state
employee, their benefit structure is funded by the state.
Mr. D. Smith: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy, did you –
Mr. Fennoy: I think she’s sort of answered my questions. You say it’s a one-time $500
and $200 for part-timers.
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Fennoy: Okay and I guess my other concern and I don’t know what the Personnel
Policy and Procedures Manual says as regards to the buyback program, but I’m just, with 2500
employees, if all of them qualify whether we have the resources to accommodate the five-day
buyback.
Ms. Williams: We have looked at that across the board. The piece that you see in front
of you, the $625,000, is only for the employees that are in the general fund. Utilities employees
will pay their way, the airport will pay its way, the Fire Department will pay the monies out of
their designated source funding but we have looked at all the funds to make sure that they are
available, that they have sufficient funds that would be available to cover this.
Mr. Fennoy: So the maximum out of the employees that don’t fall under the fire or the
airport, the maximum payout will be $625,000?
Ms. Williams: That’s an estimate, sir. The way we calculated we looked at the cost of
everybody’s vacation and what it, that’s an average, it amounts to approximately $125,000 per
day for the combined general fund and Sheriff’s Department expenditures. I did not look at the
cost of every individual’s vacation, what they earn per day. I was forced to do some estimation.
I’m comfortable with that number.
Mr. Fennoy: I just don’t want the, and you’ll have the $358,000 left over?
Ms. Williams: Per this schedule, yes, sir. If everything was exactly as it’s on this piece
of paper, that’s exactly the amount you’d have left over.
21
Mr. Fennoy: I just don’t want the $358,000 that hopefully we’d use to clean up Augusta
to be used for –
Ms. Williams: I don’t have the authority to do anything with that money without the
consent of the body. That could be discussed at the –
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to approve the proposal as submitted?
Mr. Lockett: So move.
Mr. Williams: So move. Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no
further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign –
Mr. D. Smith: Can we have a roll call vote, please, sir?
The Clerk: Mr. Williams, you seconded that motion, right? Or Mr. Lockett. I heard both
of you.
Mr. Williams: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: I will honor the request of Commissioner Smith and we will now have a roll
call vote.
The Clerk: Ms. Davis.
Ms. Davis: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Fennoy: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Out.
The Clerk: Mr. Jackson. Out.
The Clerk: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Mason. Out.
22
The Clerk: Mr. Donnie Smith.
Mr. D. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith.
Mr. G. Smith: Yes.
The Clerk: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Mason and Mr. Jackson out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: I just want to commend everybody for staying around and for working
through this and for really compromising. If there’s no further business 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
30, 2014.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
23
24