Minutes
BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE
May 21, 2013
Members Present: Acting Chairperson Mike Baker and Councilors R. Gary Allen,
Jerry ?Pops? Barnes, and Judy W. Thomas. Councilor Evelyn Woodson arrived at
10:13 a.m. and Councilor Bruce Huff arrived at 10:57 a.m. Also present were
Mayor Teresa Tomlinson, City Manager Isaiah Hugley, City Attorney Clifton Fay,
Deputy City Managers David Arrington and Lisa Goodwin, Finance Director Pam
Hodge and Deputy Clerk of Council Sandra Davis.
Members Absent: Chairperson Berry Henderson, Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn Turner Pugh
and Councilors Glenn Davis and Charles E. McDaniel, Jr. were absent. Clerk of
Council Tiny Washington was also absent.
Call to Order: Acting Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 9:06
a.m. in the Council Chambers, Plaza Level, of the Government Center. Finance
Director Pam Hodge then called upon the first of a list of departmental
presentations scheduled for this meeting.
The following documents were distributed around the Council table: Recommended
Budget Schedule for Council Meetings - Department Presentation, Travel Request
Form (6601, 6641) and Budget Reductions from Tax Assessors Office, Muscogee
County Probate Court, Municipal Court of Columbus, Public Works FY14 Budget
Changes, Columbus Fire and Emergency Medical Services.
Provided below is a summarization of presentations outlined by the
respective Department Head that highlights the impact of the 1.5% budget
reduction, as well as, any suggestions or recommendations made to the Budget
Review Committee.
--------------------------------------------------------------*** ***
***---------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS:
STATE COURT:
Judge Andy Prather, came forward to advise that he did not identify the
1.5% reduction in the State Court budget; therefore, the Administration
outlined certain cuts and are listed as follows:
? Personnel Services - $10,000 (furloughs)
? Operational - $10,000
? Travel, Schools and Conferences cut to $0
Judge Prather explained that State Court Judges are required by law to
have a certain amount of hours, and he pays the expense out of his own pocket.
However, he would ask that the travel expenses for Judge Gottfried be paid by
the city.
City Attorney Fay reiterated his comments with respect to furloughs of
elected officials. He advised there is a constitutional provision that reads
that the Judges? salaries cannot be diminished while they are in office. After
Councilor Thomas determined the inability to find where the Judge?s budget
could be cut and other areas that need to be restored, Finance Director Hodge
pointed out that to restore Judge Prather?s budget would be to add back the
$20,734. Councilor Thomas then put the $20,734 on the Add list.
*** *** ***
MARSHAL?S OFFICE:
Marshal Greg Countryman, approached the rostrum to outline the 1.5%
reduction, which equates to $39,000 for the Marshal?s Office and is listed
below:
? Combine two Deputy Marshal positions into one reclassification position of
Chief Deputy and use the salary savings in not funding that position until the
following year in January to meet the $39,000 reduction
? The $39,000 would offset that making the reclassification revenue neutral
causing a savings to the city in the amount of $7,996.
*** *** ***
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY:
Mr. Dick Ellis- Chairperson of Development Authority, came forward to
provide a powerpoint presentation to share the efforts in capital investments,
projects with job statistics and expenditures of the Development Authority. He
also outlined the seven major projects that the Development Authority is
currently working on to bring into the City of Columbus.
Mr. Ellis gave a recap of the economic impact created by the Development
Authority since 2003 when the millage was created through 2012 and is listed as
follows:
Economic Impact Estimates
? Jobs- 11,580
? Capital Investment- $1.1 billion
? Population Increase, Family Unit, School Enrollment
? Additional Retail Sales- $303 million
? Additional Sales Tax Revenue- $18 million
Investment Summary
? 2003 ? 2012 Millage Funds- $9.3 million
? Economic Impact of Projects
o Total Annual Payroll- $409 million
o Total Capital Investment- $1.1 billion
Return on investment of $117 for every $1 invested
*** *** ***
PROBATE COURT:
Judge Marc D?Antonio- Probate Court, came forward to propose a
reorganization of Probate Court. (A copy of the handout was provided for the
record.) He began by sharing the functions of the Probate Court and explained
the proposed reorganization, which would cause a savings from FY13 to FY14 of
7.45%
? Eliminated the position of Associate Judge
? Retained Chief Senior Clerk position
? Hired a Fiduciary Compliance / Law Clerk
In conclusion, Judge D?Antonio introduced and gave some background
information on the new Fiduciary Compliance / Law Clerk- Ms. Crowley that was
present and seated in the audience. During better budget times, he advised
that he would be coming back to the Council to reclassify the Fiduciary
Compliance / Law Clerk and Chief Senior Clerk position.
*** *** ***
FIRE & EMS DEPARTMENT
Fire & EMS Chief Jeff Meyers, approached the rostrum to speak of the
impact of the 1.5% reduction with a powerpoint presentation being outlined. (A
copy of the document was provided for the record.)
? Total 1.5% reduction equates to $1,166,166
In response to Acting Chairperson Baker regarding the amount of the
reduction, Finance Director Hodge explained that the $1.1 reduction is based on
the submitted budget from the Fire & EMS Department. Mayor Tomlinson explained
that the submitted budget was higher, because of requested increases.
Fire & EMS Chief Meyers then continued with his presentation as outlined
below;
? Current Budget Includes:
o Salary Savings - $966,236
o Operations - $199,922
He also offered some Alternatives and Solutions that included the least
favorable of reduced staffing, as well as, some proposed operating budget
reductions.
If required to make this reduction, Fire & EMS Chief Meyers advised that
with two positions currently vacant, we would have to layoff 14 personnel for a
total of 16. He also offered the option to close fire stations. If this
occurs, He pointed out that Stations 14 & 15 would be looked at for closure.
He then outlined the consequences of reducing personnel and station closures to
include the increased safety risk to personnel and citizens.
Mayor Tomlinson offered suggestions to be considered by the Budget Review
Committee to alleviate the potential reduction of 14 filled positions within
the Fire & EMS Department by pointing out the flexibility in OLOST due to the
reserve there. Also, if the reserve for the jail is separated out and E911, it
leaves $800,000 that has been set aside for purposes of discussion in that
OLOST fund total. She explained that would keep us at 60 days reserve and
would maintain the reserve for the jail and E911. She further expounded that
the jail reserve is $3 million, the E911 reserve at roughly $2 million and
Capital Reserve of $2.2 million. When those three reserves are taken out, she
explained that there is $800,00 left that could be appropriated and not take us
below 60 days total.
Councilor Allen then added 14 of the 16 positions on the Add/Delete List.
Acting Chairperson Baker expressed the sensitivity of reducing public
safety personnel. He then asked the Administration to clarify the $1.1 million
reduction, which includes a request for a significant increase of approximately
$700,000, at which time, Finance Director Hodge advised that the difference
between FY13 adopted and FY14 recommended was $370,000; therefore, $1.1 million
reduction is the total reduction from the requested increased FY14 amount of
approximately $700,000.
Finance Director Hodge was asked to make comments on the capital
expenditures for the Fire & EMS Department and the revenue derived from the
opening of White Water.
*** *** ***
STATE COURT SOLICITOR:
State Court Solicitor Ben Richardson, came forward to explain that the
1.5% reduction equates to $38,264 with his operating budget totaling $28,888;
therefore, the cut cannot come out of the operating budget. He pointed out
that the only line item to cut is from personnel, which he pointed out that the
State Court Solicitor?s Office cannot take that type of cut. He then made
reference to a document that was passed around the table a copy of a memorandum
from Mayor Tomlinson regarding the FY14 Budget. (A copy of this document was
not filed for the record.)
He went into details regarding the reorganization of the State Court
Solicitor?s Office by deleting the Senior Assistant Solicitor General and
reclassifying that one position into three positions for a cost savings of
$420. He continued to provide information on the restructuring of the office
that would include a proposed reclassification of a Deputy Clerk to a Field
Investigator.
In conclusion, State Court Solicitor Richardson requested the
reinstatement of the $38,264 proposed reduction to allow the same approved FY13
budget. Mayor Tomlinson expounding further added that the reclassification
would have caused a savings in the State Court Solicitors Office if there was
not the 1.5% reduction; this is the reason the requested reclassification was
not approved. She briefly spoke of the antiquated record keeping system that
would cost approximately $2 million to put this office in the computer age.
Councilor Allen suggested that departments look more into contracting
services out in lieu of hiring employees.
When State Court Solicitor Richardson advised that the reclassification of
the Deputy Clerk to a field investigator could be accomplished with the
reinstatement of the $38,264. Councilor Thomas then asked that the $38,264 be
placed on the Add List.
MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK:
Ms. Vivian Creighton Bishop- Municipal Court Clerk, came forward to
summarize the document passed around the table that addresses the 1.5%
reduction. (A copy of this document was filed for the record.)
Municipal Court Clerk Bishop requested that the 1.5% reduction, which
equates to $32,000, be restored to her budget; however, she did offer some
possible cuts. She mentioned the change in operating procedures with regards
to warrant signing to reduce overtime. Listed below are the budget adjustments:
? Overtime from $23,000 to $13,000 savings $10,000
? Training/Travel from $3,671 to $2,000 savings $1,671
? Witness Fees from $5,000 to $2,500 savings $2,500
She also spoke of the inability to cut personnel due to the increased
workload. She reminded the members that the Municipal Court is a revenue
generating office and provide services to the Public Safety agencies. She
determined that the total savings as presented is $14,171.
Acting Chairperson Baker recapped that the total reduction would be
$32,000; however, Municipal Court Clerk Bishop has identified cuts totaling
$14,171 that leaves the amount of approximately $17,000 in reduction that has
not been met. Therefore, the Municipal Court Clerk is asking to restore the
$17,000 that she is unable to identify a means to reduce. Municipal Court
Clerk Bishop agreed with this statement.
Councilor Woodson placed on the Add List the $17,000. After some
additional questions, Finance Director Hodge was asked to clarify the reduction
amount that had been mentioned by Acting Chairperson Baker to be $35,000;
however, Municipal Court Clerk Bishop said the information she received was
that the reduction was $32,000.
*** *** ***
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT:
Clerk of Superior Court Linda Pierce, came forward with a document that
she briefly highlighted, which was passed around the table. (A copy of this
document was not provided for the record.)
? The 1.5% reduction equates to $82,000
She explained that the reduction would leave less than $30,000 in her
operating budget, because she is unable to make reductions in personnel. She
proposed to reduce the Clerk of Superior Court?s Office by $30,000 in the
operating budget from last year, which would be a 26% reduction from the
operating budget of last year. She spoke of the already small operating budget
and explained the areas this operating budget supports to include the judges.
She added that mid-year, there would be a seventh Superior Court Judge. She
provided some information on the organizational chart that shows how large the
organization is that the Clerk of Superior Court?s Office has to fund, as well
as, staff and budget comparisons with other cities and counties. She also
mentioned some storage concerns.
She called attention to the Judicial Operating Fund that was passed by the
State of Georgia. She explained that the legislation requires an additional
fee on filing fees that go directly to the State of Georgia, which is $125 per
case filing. She shared that for State Court, the State allows the county to
receive $50 with the remaining $75 going to the State; however, for Superior
Court, the legislation reads that the entire amount of $125 goes to the State.
She suggested that there should be some consideration with legislation to allow
the county government to receive at least half of that amount.
She also spoke on case management systems for the court. She offered some
options in case management and electronic filing. She pointed out the
potential revenue stream that she is authorized to assess for providing online
services; however, she does not have a system that allows her to do this.
When asked about the total reduction, Finance Director Hodge responded
that the total reduction is just over $82,000 and she has submitted reductions
of $30,000, which causes a shortfall of $52,000 from her budget.
Acting Chairperson Baker then asked to put this on the Add list.
*** *** ***
TAX ASSESSORS OFFICE:
Ms Betty Middleton- Chief Appraiser Tax Assessors, appeared before the
Budget Review Committee to outline how the 1.5% reduction would impact the Tax
Assessors Office and is provided as follows: (A copy of the document was
provided and filed for the record.)
? Equates to $52,096 reduction
? Replacement of retired employee at lesser salary- Savings $18,500
? Savings in travel- $9,354
? List all returned mail on Tax Assessor?s website to reduce re-mailing-
Postage savings- $1,500
? Unfilled position to remain open for six months to meet remaining $15,062
She explained the office hardships due to increased appeals by taxpayers
and preparation for Board of Equalization hearings.
*** *** ***
PUBLIC DEFENDER?S OFFICE:
Mr. Robert Watkins- Public Defender, appeared and spoke of the 1.5%
reduction with the only line item to reduce being personnel with no operational
budget that could be cut.
He said that we would have to furlough nine lawyers one day a month for 8
months, which equates to 72 days where indigent people will not have
representation. He pointed out the constitutional mandate to provide
representation for indigent people. He then asked two lawyers to come forward
to further explain the impact of the reduction: Mr. Michael Flournoy and Mr.
Steve Craft.
Finance Director Hodge briefly explained the contract with the State;
whereby, the city provides the funding for the public defenders through the
contract with the state, and the state pays the salary to the public defenders;
the public defenders are state employees. She added that the positions that
are listed are the administrative positions that are funded by the city.
After further questions, Finance Director Hodge said the total reduction
submitted was around $24,000 and has already been applied; they have reduced
the contract with the State. She recalled that staff did look at the Public
Defender for Recorder?s Court and the Public Defender?s Office to meet the 1.5%
reduction with the Recorder?s Court Public Defender showing a 10% reduction and
the Public Defenders Office with a .47% reduction for the total of 1.5%
Mr. Michael Flournoy came forward to further expound on the impact of
furloughs for the nine lawyers and the loss of 72 days of productivity. He
then spoke of a potential solution, which is the fund retention plan. He then
called on Mr. Craft to speak in details with regards to the fund retention
plan. He then requested that the cut not be implemented with the $24,000 being
restored to the budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Councilor Huff arrived at approximately 10:57 a.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***-------------------------------------------------------------
Councilor Barnes requested that the $24,800 be placed on the add list.
Mr. Watkins spoke of the impact of a reduction in the jail population. He
shared the cost to the taxpayers per day for each inmate in the jail.
Councilor Woodson offered another option to put on the add list $12,000
and look at it again at mid-year.
Mr. Steve Craft, approached the rostrum to offer a project that would
return $120,000 to the city this year and with the committee?s approval, allow
the Public Defender?s Office to retain the $24,800 reduction to their budget.
Mr. Craft explained that the State notified their office at the beginning
of the year that if the office undertake a voluntary compliance program under
the Local Fund Retention Act that we could retain monies in the counties we
operate in. He recalled that in 2005, the State initiated some funding
initiatives, two in particular; a civil action fee of $15 for every civil case
that is filed in the Clerk of Superior Court and a 10% surcharge on any crime
fine. He pointed out that all of that money goes to the State?s general fund
and we have sent people for training and submitted the city?s official letter
requesting this. He shared that last year, the money the city would be allowed
to keep under that program is $120,000 for Muscogee County. He determined that
we would hear from the Standards Council in the next thirty to sixty days to
find out if it was approved or not. He said if it was $120,000 last year, he
would expect that it would at least be the $24,000 for the coming year.
In responding to questions, he pointed out that the money would go to the
city?s General Fund because it is not earmarked for the Public Defender?s
Office. Finance Director Hodge advised that until we receive notification that
we have been approved, it is not included in the budget at this point.
*** *** ***
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT:
Ms. Pat Biegler- Public Works Director, appeared before the committee and
provided a power point presentation to outline the proposed personnel changes
and are provided as follows: (A copy of the presentation was provided and
filed for the record.)
Personnel Needed:
? New Facility
o Manager (G19) - New position
o Line Supervisor (G15) - Upgrade existing G12
o Scale House (G12) - G12 from Oxbow / title change
o Correction Officers (G12) - 2 existing G11/upgraded & 2 new
o Drop Off Site Pick Up (G12)- G12 from Oxbow / title change
o Composting Mgr (G18) - G16 from Oxbow / title change
o Heavy Equipment Op (G13)- G13 from Oxbow
Mayor Tomlinson clarified that in this budget, Public Works Director
Biegler is just asking for the one position- the manager; the other two
correctional officers are delayed until she needs them.
In response to a question of Councilor Baker, Public Works Director
Biegler advised that she has not seen budget reductions in the Integrated Waste
Fund, Paving Fund or Rainwater Fund; reductions are just in the general fund.
Public Works Director Biegler continued to respond to personnel questions
from the Budget Review Committee members. Finance Director Hodge explained
that the two correctional officers? positions are not in this budget and would
have to come back to Council or the Council could approve those positions but
not fund them, which means the positions would still have to come back for
funding. She added that the cost to reclassify these positions is a total of
$69,677 for all the changes with the new position included. Mayor Tomlinson
added that it would be roughly an additional $10,000 for the correctional
officers because they are reclassifications.
When Councilor Thomas asked if Public Works Director Biegler had met the
1.5% reduction in general fund, Public Works Director Biegler responded that
the 1.5% reduction equated to $406,000 and have been achieved. Finance
Director Hodge added that Public Works Director Biegler has achieved the
reduction through vacant positions or leaving positions that are vacant
unfunded, as well as, changes to the operational budget.
*** *** ***
NAVAL MUSEUM:
Mr. Ken Johnston- Director, appeared before the committee to make comments
as it relates to the 20% reduction to the Naval Museum and his request to
rescind that cut.
Councilor Huff asked Mr. Johnston to make comments as it relates to the
emails that have been forwarded on the city?s funding to the Naval Museum. Mr.
Johnston explained that last year the Civil War Naval Museum and the Columbus
Convention & Visitor?s Bureau entered into a funding alliance that composed of
the museum, Columbus Convention & Visitor?s Bureau (CCVB), Columbus Cultural
Arts Association (CCAA) and the Sports Council. A packet was put together
where they would fund us $50,000 a year for a three-year funding alliance
agreement. He recalled an email that was sent by Mr. Peter Bowden- Executive
Director of Columbus Convention & Visitor?s Bureau to Mayor Tomlinson. He then
read excerpts of that email that made mention that the funding alliance would
not work with the continued funding reduction from the city before the museum
could put the necessary revenue resources in place for its operation.
He further pointed out that board members and Mayor Tomlinson had
discussions where the spirit of the discussion was that the funding would not
be reduced during the term of the funding alliance. He said this is the third
year where the funding has been cut by $50,000 to the museum. He recapped that
the spirit was to maintain stability for three years of the $200,000 with the
funding alliance providing $50,000.
Mayor Tomlinson said from the beginning, the effort was to reduce
consistently the $300,000 subsidy. She then called attention to her emails to
and from Mr. Bowden. (The emails that were made reference to were not provided
to be filed for the record.) She added that there was a review of the
presentation to ensure that the city had not committed orally or in writing to
the $200,000 for three years. She recalled in the Mayor?s budget letter of the
object being to reduce to a greater extent the museum?s reliance on the city?s
general fund. She said a request was made from the board members to consider
keeping the subsidy at $200,000 during the term of the funding agreement, and
she agreed that the request would be considered. She then made reference to
the memo she has presented this morning. (A copy of which was not filed for the
record.) She recalled the 20% reduction in other affiliates that the city is
funding and with items being placed on the add list, the $50,000 that is being
asked to be reinstated has been spent.
She also made reference to the original contractual agreement between the
Naval Museum and the city as signed by then City Manager Carmen Cavezza, which
refers to a $138,000 subsidy annually, but reads very clearly that it would be
assessed each year based on the city?s ability to meet it in light of other
demands.
After there was continued mention of various emails, Mayor Tomlinson said
that it is at the Council?s discretion but her budget proposed the $150,000 for
the Naval Museum.
Councilor Huff then placed on the add list the $50,000 for further
discussion by the committee. Councilor Woodson offered a similar
recommendation as provided earlier, which would be to add half of the amount-
$25,000 and look at it again at mid-year.
Finance Director Hodge explained that currently the Naval Museum is
budgeted for $150,000 with the Naval Museum being on the city?s payroll system;
therefore, staff would process their payroll up until they reach the $150,000
and after that point, each payroll the Naval Museum is required to reimburse
the city for their payroll cost with their payroll totaling approximately
$251,000.
*** *** ***
NEXT BUDGET MEETING:
Finance Director Hodge announced that the final Budget Review Committee
Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. There are seven
departmental presentations scheduled for that meeting, as well as, the
Add/Delete List.
*** *** ***
At this time, Finance Director Hodge responded to questions from Councilor
Thomas with regards to the .16 mill for economic development.
Acting Chairperson Baker expressed concerns regarding expenses from
TSPLOST projects that were absorbed by the General Fund. Finance Director
Hodge said that we would have to research the legislation to determine if there
is any allowance for a cost allocation to be charged to TSPLOST. She recalled
that any expense directly related to TSPLOST for any purpose on those road
projects would be charged to the TSPLOST fund. He then asked about
maintenance, at which time, Finance Director Hodge explained that most of the
allocations for roads fall under the Paving Fund; there is a separate millage
for paving as opposed to the General Fund, but there are some services from
departments that are in the General Fund that provide the oversight for those
Paving Funds or TSPLOST type projects.
Mayor Tomlinson shared that when we administer the project ourselves,
there may be some allocation available for that expense. Also, the discussion
for the Discretionary Fund would be on May 28th and the one thing the statute
does allow is operation and maintenance funding.
*** *** ***
There being no other budget related items to discuss, Acting Chairman
Baker announced that the meeting is adjourned with those six members present
with Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and Councilors Davis, Henderson and McDaniel
being absent for this meeting with the time being 11:50 a.m.
________________________
Sandra T. Davis
Deputy Clerk of Council
Council of Columbus, Georgia
Attachments
No attachments for this document.