MINUTES
COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
APRIL 29, 2011
The regular weekly meeting of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was called
to order at 9:00 A.M., Tuesday, April 29, 2011, on the Plaza Level of the
Government Center, Columbus, Georgia. Honorable Teresa Pike Tomlinson, Mayor,
presiding.
*** *** ***
PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Tomlinson were Councilors R. Gary Allen, Mike
Baker, Jerry Barnes, Glenn Davis, Berry H. Henderson, Bruce Huff, Charles E.
McDaniel, Jr., and Judy Thomas, City Manager Isaiah Hugley, City Attorney
Clifton Fay, Clerk of Council Tiny B. Washington and Deputy Clerk of Council
Sandra Davis were also present.
------------------------------------------*** ***
***----------------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Tomlinson.
------------------------------------------*** ***
***----------------------------
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and Councilor Evelyn Woodson was absent from
this meeting.
------------------------------------------*** ***
***----------------------------
City Attorney Fay said other than the Mayor presenting her budget; he has
one item that needs to have Council action taken. He pointed out that we
discussed this issue earlier in an executive session. He pointed out that the
developer will put in an additional retaining wall that will stabilize the wall
that was previously built. He also pointed out that he has signed an
encroachment agreement. He said he has a resolution for the Council?s approval.
Councilor Davis then moved approval of the resolution. Seconded by
Councilor Huff and carried unanimously by those eight members of Council
present for this meeting, with Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and Councilor Woodson
being absent.
THE ABOVE ACTION APPROVED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION AS LISTED
BELOW:_____________________________________________________
A Resolution (169-11) ? Authorizing the City Manager, City Attorney and
Clerk of Council to execute an appropriate encroachment agreement or
appropriate amendments to the same, said agreement to be signed by developer
David B. Erickson and Grayhawk Homes, Inc., acknowledging said encroachment and
accepting responsibility and liability therefore.
***
*** ***
PRESENTATION OF THE MAYOR?S BUDGET:
Mayor Teresa Tomlinson the presented her 2012 proposed budget for the
Columbus Consolidated Government as outlined below.
The Mayor's recommended FY 2012 Budget is reduced by 8.66%, or $24,284,980
million: down from $280,084,085 in FY 2011 to $255,835,105 in FY 2012. This
reduction is due largely, but not entirely, to the 2009 Other Local Option
Sales Tax rollback requirement which inflated the budget in FY 2011. This year
we face several budget challenges. We are predicting a 2% decrease in our tax
digest. We expect our sales tax collections to remain flat; and, we anticipate
the State of Georgia, given its historic budget deficit, may push costs to our
municipality that it has traditionally carried. We recognize our revenue
predictions are conservative, but note that last year's predictions were
conservative as well and we overshot our estimate by .5%. We understand that
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) growth is coming; however, it has been
gradually coming our way for some time, and we have not yet seen the economic
effect that we believe will impact our community. Accordingly, this recommended
FY 2012 Budget adopts the conservative revenue predictions of our Finance
Director. Should better than expected economic trends and revenue come about,
we can make mid-year adjustments to our FY 2012 based on fact and not
expectation.
This FY 2012 Budget reflects a reasonable and measured function of government.
No longer can we subsidize with taxpayer dollars those Funds, affiliates or
entities that do not have a plan of sustainability. As I have said many times:
"Taxpayer dollars should not be just spent, they should be invested with a
clear return". Here we begin the long process of culling through our city's
budget to find those items where we can do better those areas where we can
reach a higher efficiency or maximize our assets through productive, mutually
beneficial partnerships.
This Budget also reflects a listing of priorities. A government is as good as
its foundation, and the Columbus Consolidated Government (CCG) is strong. To
maintain and build upon that foundation, we must preserve an operating reserve
that allows us to provide services to our citizens, while remaining confident
that we have the resources to do the job regardless of unexpected Federal or
State mandates or other unforeseen, and therefore unbudgeted, costs. We must
preserve our favorable bond rating, which encourages investment and provides
lower interest rates on bonds that will finance our future civic improvement.
We also must preserve the CCG retirement benefit in a way that is sustainable
and honors the trust our faithful employees have bestowed on us. And, while
making tough operational cuts, we must remember that our city employees are a
great asset to us and essential to our daily municipal functioning.
They must be given some sign of our acknowledgment and appreciation.
There are sacrifices requested herein, no doubt; but those sacrifices are an
economically necessary step toward a leaner, better, stronger city government.
Each sacrifice or challenge noted is met with a proposed solution for
improvement. We are a community which has always met our challenges and
maximized our opportunities. This Budget will strengthen our foundation and
prepare us for the growth and opportunity to come.
General Fund Reserve
The city's FY 2011 Budget anticipated that we would expend 14.17 days of our 90
day General Fund Reserve, bringing the Reserve down to 76.50 days. We are
expected, thankfully, to end the 2011 Fiscal Year with 81.57 days left in our
General Fund Reserve. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends a
minimum 60 day operating reserve. One of the factors used by bond rating
agencies to determine a municipality's bond rating is the ability to maintain,
at a minimum, a 60 day reserve. Currently, the Columbus Consolidated Government
(CCG) has an AA+ bond rating from Standard & Poor's and an AA2 bond rating from
Moody's. Our CCG bond ratings are impressive in this difficult economic time
wherein municipalities and states across the country find themselves living off
their reserves, unable to provide essential services to their citizens and
having had their bond ratings correspondingly downgraded. Columbus' favorable
bond rating makes it a bright spot for potential investment, and we must guard
that valuable asset.
This Budget sets as a priority maintaining our strong bond rating because we
expect in the near future to issue bonds for our new jail and for road
improvement projects, such as the Forrest Road improvement. Our bond rating
will affect the rate at which we will borrow money and the amount of our future
interest payments on any bonds issued. It also will affect the marketability of
any bond issue.
This Budget also sets as a priority a Reserve amount in excess of the
recommended 60 day minimum. This Budget preserves a 70.02 days General Fund
Reserve, which should allow us to maintain our bond rating and further allow us
to fund any unexpected costs during FY 2012.1 Each Reserve day is valued at
approximately $420,000.
Of the 11.55 days of General Fund Reserve consumed in this FY 2012 Budget, 7.87
days were previously committed in prior years and 3.61 days of reserve funds
were needed after extensive cuts and reductions to balance this Budget.
Pension Fund Considerations
One of the most significant hurdles in compiling this Budget is the demand of
our increasing employee costs through Pension Fund obligations. This year a $
27.8 million payment is required to assure the integrity of the city's
commitment to our employees' Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Our commitment to
this Defined Benefit Plan as it is currently structured may prove to be
unsustainable over the long term, as it may unduly drain the city's resources
given projected revenue. A long term, sustainable solution must be found -and
soon. As a member of the Pension Board, I have requested that the Board, which
includes employee representatives and city administrative staff, begin
analyzing options (including maintaining our current Plan) so that we may
provide a sustainable retirement benefit to our dedicated employees who have
served this city through the years. I also have consulted with our City
Attorney to ensure this analysis takes place according to the laws and
directives which govern our Pension Plan. That process has begun, and upon its
completion a report will be made to City Council regarding this complex issue
for Council's consideration, action and resolution.
In the meantime, I, as Mayor, face the competing obligations of our pension
responsibilities and our FY 2012 balanced budget. In order to balance these
obligations, I have recommended a reassessment of our Pension Fund commitment
from a "7-year to fully fund" period to a "15year fully fund period".3 this has
the mathematical effect offering up some $1,580,302
I million of FY 2012 pension obligation for the purpose of balancing the
General Fund budget without using the 3.77 days of reserve that would be
necessary to fund that amount otherwise.4
No one should believe that this somehow lessens our pension burden. And, no one
should believe that this somehow endangers our commitment to our Pension Fund.
It is the equivalent of refinancing a 15-year mortgage to a 30-year mortgage.
The monthly mortgage payment may be reduced, but the overall financial
obligation is unchanged. It is my hope that this is a one year mathematical
adjustment and that by next year Fiscal Year 2013 -we may either go back to a
"7-year to fully fund" period or have Council approve a responsible and
sustainable retirement benefit plan. Unfortunately, given the complexity of
dealing with pension issues, these potential solutions could not be conceived,
vetted and adopted prior to the approval of a FY 2012 Budget.
Operational Costs and Challenges
In order to balance the Budget, we have asked all Department Heads to reduce
their General Fund departmental budgets by 2%. Given that operational costs for
General Government departments have remained flat or reduced since 2007, this
FY 2012 reduction largely "eats into the bone" of those departments. The total
savings in departmental reductions is $2,773,679 (or 6.61 Reserve Fund days).
These dramatic operational cuts cause several postponed and hidden costs to the
city and ultimately to the taxpayer. I will summarize a few:
Our vehicle and heavy equipment inventory is alarmingly aged. Many vehicles are
19951999 vintage and have over 150,000 miles on them. Because of prior budget
restrictions and the absence of a methodical plan to replace vehicles due to
those restrictions, the majority of our fleet incurs expensive repair costs and
downtime. It is possible to reach a point where we have a number of vehicles
breakdown or "flat line" in a few months' time causing the city to exceed its
contingency fund and requiring it to dip into reserve funds to continue the
day-to-day function of the city government.
We denied all requests for reclassifications and new positions from the General
Fund.
While this prevents increased personnel costs, it results in long-term pay
compression for senior employees and a loss of expertise as talented and
experienced individuals seek employment elsewhere or decline to enter public
service. Failure to adjust our General Government employee pay scale also makes
Columbus less competitive in the job market, a reality we have experienced
recently when trying to fill open departmental level or management positions.
Failure to address justified requests for reclassifications and new positions
could result in morale issues for existing personnel, which have an effect on
the delivery of services to citizens and a hidden cost in less productive or
less invested employees.
We must pursue the 2% departmental budget reductions intelligently. Therefore,
I am directing that the reductions be achieved through efficiency improvements,
waste reductions, and/or a "return on investment" evaluations of current and
future expenditures.
It is my hope that our revenue projections are bettered by our actual revenue
collected in the first half of FY 2012. If so, we will make mid-year
adjustments as needed through our mid-year adjustment process.
Modest Cost of Living Adjustment for All Employees
General Government employees (including administrative support for Public
Safety) have not had a cost of living raise since September of 2008. This
fiscal year we are looking at inflationary trends spurred by increasing fuel
costs. Due to our decreasing revenues, a substantial raise is not prudent or
advisable. However, a modest cost of living increase across all operating funds
of .5% for General Government employees (at a cost of$253,706.27) and a .25%
increase for sworn Public Safety officers (at a cost of$151,651.47, which is
paid out of other LOST funds)6 are included in this budget. This results in a
General Fund obligation of $281 ,526 or 0.67 Reserve Fund days. While largely
symbolic, this modest cost of living adjustment is intended to show all our
employees that they are valued, and that I am committed to assessing employee
pay on an annual basis so that our salaries may keep pace with the market and
inflation.
Historically Subsidized Funds, AffiUates and Entities
Cuts were made to several Funds, affiliates and entities historically
subsidized by the CCG General Fund. The decline in revenue and other demand for
city resources makes these continued subsidies imprudent despite the
unquestioned value of the Fund, affiliate or entity.
? Integrated Waste Fund -For years Columbus has struggled without decision or
direction with the controversial issue of its Integrated Waste Fund and its
structural deficit. Over the past two years the General Fund has subsidized the
day-to-day functioning costs of our Integrated Waste Fund some $379,852. The
capital cost of our waste collection service in Columbus is largely due to
costly equipment, such as garbage trucks. The Fund is not self-sustaining
because the garbage fees collected do not cover the expenses of the service
provided to our citizens, even given our use of prison labor. The FY 2012
Budget would have demanded a subsidy of$187,036, without consideration of costs
for new garbage trucks (which are desperately needed) or the costs of dealing
with our landfill issues. This is not sustainable. The FY 2012 Budget,
therefore, deletes this subsidy and requires the community to go to one day a
week trash pick-up so that we can live by our Integrated Waste Fund means.
Reducing our garbage pick-up to one day a week is expected to save
approximately $331,000. Any excess reserves for the Integrated Waste Fund over
operating costs will be placed in a contingency fund for the likely need to
purchase garbage trucks in FY 2012 (we are told we currently need eighteen), or
to allocate additional funds to the costs of closure and post-closure of our
land-fills. Regardless, of this reduction of service and the associated cost
savings, it is possible that without an increase in monthly Garbage Fees) the
city will have to issue a bond to provide funding for landfill closure and
post-closure.
Civic Center Fund -The Civic Center Fund is expected to have a $150,000
operating deficit in FY 2011. (This does not include its $677,062 loan balance
with CCG). In order to balance its budget for FY 2012, the Civic Center would
require a subsidy of $291,491. In a recent review of Civic Center contracts and
dealings, it was determined that the proposed FY 2012 subsidy could be
eliminated through tighter controls. Accordingly, the subsidy is not budgeted
for FY 2012 because it is not expected to be needed barring an unforeseen
occurrence.
Civil War Naval Museum In 1994, some of the assets of what is now the Civil War
Naval Museum came under the domain of the City's Parks and Recreation
Department. As part of the private fundraising effort known as the "Columbus
Challenge" (along with public funding from Master Tourism in the amount
of$579,607), funds were raised to build the current home of the Museum. In
1999, as part of a public/private partnership, the city agreed to subsidize the
early operating costs of the Museum with the previous allocation of the Parks
and Recreation budget of $78,840. This commitment was intended to be
year-to-year and temporary until such time as the Museum could become
self-sustaining. It is expressly stated in the parties' Memorandum of
Understanding that the arrangement is "subject to funds availability". The
annual subsidy was increased in FY 2004 to $103,840 during the budget process.
In 2008, City Council was apprised of the Museum's non-payment of the balance
owed to the City, which balance currently stands at $248,384. A decision was
made at that time to carry a significant portion of the Museum's operation
costs through the General Fund by increasing the annual subsidy to $300,000
until the Museum was self-sustaining. In FY 2011 this subsidy continued at
$300,000. There is no question of the value of the Civil War Naval Museum to
this community. And, there is no question that the city wishes to continue its
partnership and support of educational and preservation entities such as the
Civil War Naval Museum; yet, the Museum must develop a business plan to be
self-sustaining. For over a decade, our city subsidies have failed to produce a
workable model for the Museum. Certain personnel costs such as the Museum's own
in-house accounting, maintenance, and advertising could perhaps be handled more
economically by existing city services (such as our Finance and Maintenance
Departments) or other city affiliates (such as the Columbus Convention and
Visitors Bureau). Savings may be achieved through a better coordination of
these personnel to avoid duplication. Additionally, the Museum could consider
adjusting its days of operation to correspond to those days of the week when
the most visitors frequent the Museum, and perhaps save costs. Realizing the
dramatic impact of completely eliminating a sizeable, long-term subsidy, I
recommend that we return the subsidy to its original level of$78,000 for FY
2012 as we work with the Museum to assist in its development of a
self-sustaining business model, free of future subsidy. As Mayor, I am
committed to working with the Civil War Naval Museum to assure its continued
viability and have already met with its Director and Board to discuss
potential plans for moving forward.
Public Golf Course Fund -Few would debate the need for and value of public golf
courses in a community the size of Columbus, Georgia. They are essential for
economic development, tourism, and youth and adult recreation, among other
factors. We have two public golf courses in our community: Bull Creek, a
thirty-six hole course and Oxbow Meadows, a nine-hole course. Over the years
the courses have operated at a structural deficit without a prospective
business plan. In the past 6 years, the General Fund of the CCG has subsidized
the running of our public golf courses in the amount of $1,205,375. In addition
to this subsidy, the balance owed from the golf courses to the General Fund as
of June 30, 2010, was $3,113,007. In FY 2011 that subsidy was $893,917. In FY
2012, the subsidy is expected to be $619,104. I believe our public golf courses
are of a quality that they can at least break even. We can no longer afford to
subsidize these important community assets in our prior fashion, so I am
recommending the elimination of all such subsidies and collaborating with the
Golf Authority and a team of experienced community volunteers to develop a
sustainable business plan and successful fundraising effort so that our public
golf courses are productive, self-sustaining assets. There is need for capital
improvements at these courses (Le., another 9 holes at Oxbow Meadows and a new
Club House at Bull Creek). These improvements will likely have to be made
through private contributions, grants or through a future bond issue by the
city. Understandably, those potential lines of revenue are enhanced if the
operations of the golf courses are self-sustaining. As Mayor, I am committed to
assisting our public golf courses to become independently sustainable assets of
the city and have already met with the Public Golf Course Director and the Golf
Authority to that end.
Affiliates and Entities -For years the city has had a relationship with the
quasigovernmental organizations of Keep Columbus Beautiful, Uptown, Inc.,
Cooperative Extension and the entity of Literacy Alliance, Inc. Due to our
current revenue restrictions, our subsidies to these entities are being reduced
by 10% from their FY 2011 level.
Keep Columbus Beautiful (KCB) can demonstrate a successful business plan and
broad engagement of citizen volunteers and contributors that provide a $7
return on every taxpayer dollar invested. KCB leverages other financial
community resources from the private sector to capitalize on the city's partial
subsidy. Though City Council increased its subsidy in FY 2011 to $80,784, KCB
had previously been on a course of reducing its dependency on the city -down
from $81,215 in FY 2005 to $65,784 in FY 2010. This FY 2012 Budget begins the
process of returning KCB to its prior FY 2011 level by reducing its subsidy 10%
to $72,706.
Uptown, Inc. likewise has a proven business plan with demonstrable results. As
its success has grown, Uptown has gradually reduced its dependency on the city.
Its FY 2005 subsidy was $100,000. Its FY 2012 subsidy will be $72,900 after a
10% reduction. Uptown can show that its use of city subsidy has been leveraged
to generate $200 million in capital investment over the last 15 years, to
create 10 new businesses and 50 new jobs in 2010, to improve the Uptown
residential occupancy rate and to increase the number of visitors to the city's
now thriving business and entertainment district. By broadening its private
sector support and demonstrably enhancing the city's economic development
strategy, the partial subsidy of Uptown's operations has a proven return on
taxpayer investment.
University of Georgia (UGA) Cooperative Extension is an educational arm of UGA.
Since 1997, CCG has had a contractual partnership with the state in which all
Extension employees are state employees and the city provides partial funding
of the employees, office space, and supplies. The city's contribution to this
partnership constitutes about 16% of its overall budget of$791,409. The
programs offered by Extension include Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Expanded Food and Nutrition, 4-H Youth, Home Economics and Resource
Development. Given our long-standing contractual relationship with the state
related to the Extension, the partnership obligations spelled out therein, and
our comparatively small contribution to the overall value provided to the
citizens, it would be ill-advised to eliminate this subsidy without further,
extensive inquiry.
We, however, recommend a 10% reduction in our city subsidy to $126,298. We can
revisit this subsidy in the FY 2013 Budget.
It is difficult to quantify the economic return generated by our partnership
with Literacy Alliance, though there is no doubt that a literate populace is of
great value to any community. It is a small volunteer literacy program the
value of which is unquestioned, but nebulous. However, the Literacy Alliance
has decreased its reliance on city subsidy down from $20,000 in FY 2005 to
$14,580 in FY 2012 after our 10% cut. Given the relatively small amount of its
subsidy, its leverage of other grants and donations, and its decreasing
reliance on the city, I recommend we continue this subsidy in FY 2012 and
reassess it in FY 2013.
User Fees
In order to attempt to recoup the administrative and other costs related to the
provision of particular city services we have proposed the creation of, or
increase in, User Fees to help cover those costs. The thought behind
implementing or adjusting existing User Fees is to place the cost more directly
on those availing themselves of the municipal service being provided. The User
Fees recommended in this Budget are not comprehensive across all departments
and programs. It is a start. We will continue to review other departments and
programs for possible additional User Fee recommendations in FY 2013.
These recommended User Fees are expected to bring $304,916 in additional
revenue to the city to help offset the costs directly related to the services
provided to users. The User Fees created or adjusted in this FY 2012 Budget are
as follows:
Department Fee Description Additional Revenue Produced
Inspections/Codes Building Permits -Increase minimum fee from $50 to $75 and
increase $3 per $1,000 value to $4 per $1,000 value $100,000
Planning Special Exception Use Request -Increase from $250 to $500 $2,000
Planning BHAR -Demolition Permits submission fee will be $50 $500
Planning BHAR -Board Review Application fee will be $25 $200
Planning BHAR -Staff Approval Request fee will be $10 $100
Parks and Recreation Facilities Rentals -Increase rental rates for residents
and non-residents $63,000
Parks and Recreation After School Programs Increase fee schedule by $1 $48,000
Parks and Recreation Athletics -$100 fee per team, applicable to all teams,
including baseball, football, soccer, and adult basketball $42,800
Parks and Recreation Tennis -10% increase for residents and 50% increase for
non-residents $35,800
Parks and Recreation Pottery -Fees for classes and supplies $10,000
Parks and Recreation Basketball -Youth Teams increase of $5 per resident and $7
per non-resident $1,316
Parks and Recreation Therapeutics -Fees for transportation of participants
$1,200
While these User Fees will allow us the resources to improve the service
delivery our citizens demand, this was a particularly difficult decision to
make in light of our efforts to encourage development in underutilized areas
and to encourage kids of all ages to take part in constructive, confidence
building activities through our Parks & Recreation Department. We believe that
the Mayor?s Real Estate Investment Initiative Commission will bring forth
suggested incentives for real estate development investments in underutilized
areas; and these recommended inspection and planning fee adjustments will be
comparatively nominal reimbursed for administrative costs incurred by the city
in supp9rt of all growth and development.
In order to ensure that every resident child who would like to participate in a
Parks & Recreation supported team has that opportunity, regardless of family
financial strains, I will ask our new Parks & Recreation Department to review
private charitable partnerships, and perhaps a program worthy of an Office of
Crime Prevention grant, to ensure every resident child who wishes to play city
sports has that opportunity.
Other LOST Funds:
In 2008, the citizens of Columbus, Georgia approved a one penny sales tax
for the purposes of funding Public Safety (70%) and Infrastructure (30%) needs.
In FY 2010 and FY 2011, many expenditures of the Other LOST funds were
recurring costs, such as employee costs. This means that a sizeable portion of
the $30.6 million FY 2012 Other LOST funds for Public Safety is committed to
cover those previously incurred and now recurring costs. We expect to collect
approximately $4 million in Other LOST revenues for FY 2012 over and above that
amount needed to meet our prior commitments. We also expect $1.17 million of
the Other LOST revenues for Public Safety collected in FY 2011 (largely from
unused funds from our new Office of Crime Prevention) to revert to the Other
LOST fund leaving this FY 2012 budget with $ 5.17 million for Public Safety
which has not been previously committed.8 However, we received $18,457,999 in
new Public Safety expenditure requests to be paid for out of this $5.17 million
pot. Accordingly, I recommend an allocation among those Departments based in
part on the number of sworn officers in the respective departments and in other
part on their request for funds, the particular needs of each department and
their past allocations:
Public Safety Department No. of Sworn Officers FY 2012 Allocation
Columbus Police Department 488 $1,859,164
Columbus Fire and EMS 1370
$809,612
Muscogee Co. Prison 110
$53,296
Homeland Security 2
$59,500
Muscogee Co. Marshal's Office 19 $286,079
Muscogee Co. Sheriffs Department 312 $1,885,318
Recorder's Court N/A
$88,700
State Solicitor's Office N/A
$120,152
Clerk of Municipal Court N/A
$3,642
Muscogee County Coroner 3
$3,950
The 30% of the Other Lost funds, or $9.98 million, allocated for Infrastructure
is to be expended on Riverwalk repair, information technology, facility
improvements, storm water and sewer rehabilitation, and road resurfacing and
improvements.
Concluding Remarks:
This Budget has been prepared to address our revenue limitations in an extended
sluggish economic recovery. It has also identified and addressed difficult
systemic issues related to our Defined Benefits Plan, our challenges related to
General Government operational costs, and our history of subsidizing Funds,
affiliates and entities. It was not an easy Budget to compile, but it is
prudent and responsible and balanced, with as little effect (3.61 days) on the
General Reserve Fund as we could achieve.
After the conclusion of presenting her budget, the Mayor then thanked City
Manager Isaiah Hugley, Finance Director Pam Hodge, our Department Heads and
their staff for their extraordinary assistance in this effort.
To our City Council, I respectfully submit this Budget for your review,
consideration and approval. I thank: you in advance for the hard work that will
be necessary to complete this budget process. Many of the decisions made herein
are difficult decisions, but I trust you will find them reasonable and
necessary under the totality of the circumstances presented.
City Manager Hugley pointed out that a copy of the budget is on file in
the Clerk of Council?s office, as well as the Finance Department and is on the
website as well.
A motion to adjourn this meeting was made by Councilor Henderson. Seconded
by Councilor Baker and carried unanimously by those eight members present at
9:55 a.m.
Tiny B. Washington, CMC
Clerk of Council
Attachments
No attachments for this document.