|
|
Full Minutes June 7, 2007 7 P.M. |
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC HEARING
(2nd Millage Rate) and
SPECIAL CALLED COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 SOUTH BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes for
June 7, 2007
7 P.M.
Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor Pro Tem: Debbie Guthrie
Council Members:
Walter Anderson, Bernie Cohen, Tom Kitchens and George Sipe
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present- 2
CALL TO ORDER
Guthrie opened the meeting at 7:02 pm at 4040 South Berkeley Lake Road.
I. DECLARATION OF MAYOR’S ABSENCE
Sipe motioned to recognize that the Mayor is not in attendance and not expected and to authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to act in her place. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
II. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
Anderson motioned to accept the agenda. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
III. PUBLIC HEARING
a.) Proposed 2007 Millage Rate
Guthrie stated that the millage rate and public hearings had been advertised, and that the next public hearing on the millage rate is scheduled to be held on June 14th at 7 P.M.
Guthrie called for citizen comments. There were none.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
a.) O-56-07, 2007 Millage Rate
Anderson motioned to put O-56-07 on first read. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Anderson stated that this ordinance is to set the 2007 millage rate at 4.1 mills.
Anderson called for discussion and read the following statement into the record:
“I would like to review some facts regarding Millage Rates and Budgets. I do this not only for my own clarity as a non-expert in accounting practices and procedures, but also to address some misinformation that I am aware of among our citizens.
The Millage Rate that is the subject of these specially called meetings is to set the rate for THIS YEAR's taxes which will be collected in the fall of 2007. Those moneys collected in the Fall of 2007 will be used to fund the City's 2007 budget.
If the City does indeed set the Millage Rate at 4.1 mills, and both our revenue and expenses match the current budget, then we will withdraw a budgeted $24,477 from reserves this year.
In the 2006 final amended budget, we actually put nearly $7,800 INTO reserves, so there was no net withdrawal in 2006.
The Council has not yet begun considering the 2008 Budget, and probably won't do so until 4th quarter 2007 in keeping with current practice. Any changes to the Millage Rate for 2008 will be considered during the second quarter of 2008, not this year.
I hope this clarifies some issues. I encourage our citizens to contact the Mayor, City Council and/or staff if they have questions of any nature regarding city business.”
Cohen asked for the latest legal bill. Threadgill responded that it was around $8,800. Cohen asked what legal bills normally estimate. Threadgill responded that she thought maybe $2,000 - $3,000. Guthrie and Anderson both estimated closer to $3,000.
Sipe referenced one of Anderson’s points that if our expenses proceed at the same rate as proposed, then our deficit would be on the order of $25,000. The important thing to note is, as council has discussed at length, we don’t expect it to be at the same level as was expected, but that we are aware of a variety of things that will cause the deficit to be much higher than originally expected. By approving the 4.1 millage rate council is accepting that the deficit and the draw on reserves will be much higher than the amount that was originally estimated.
Guthrie stated that Sipe’s point would be true only if we spent all of contingency and if we spent all of the budget for each line item. She noted that we will save money on some line items, such as training because we aren’t sending anyone to GMA this year. She noted that there are some areas where we may not spend as much as was budgeted and council originally approved to withdraw $39,550 from reserves. With 4.1 mills, that reserve usage would drop down to $24,477 allowing another $15,000 that would be available to spend such that council would still be within budget.
Anderson stated that he agreed that we may overspend some of the line items, such as the budget for the city attorney. He indicated that it may be prudent some time this summer to look at the need for a budget amendment before the end of the year.
There was further discussion.
Sipe said that there may be some line items that will be underspent that will probably be counter balanced by others that are overspent, but he is concerned about the unforeseen things, and some things we’re already aware of, that will push the need for reserve usage to exceed $25,000.
He stated that right now we’re just trying to read the tea leaves and use our own best judgment.
Anderson stated that we’re trying to do the most diligent best effort to guess about things that are months away and that many chaotic factors control. He stated that as a matter of procedure for how the millage rate is set it may be prudent for council to review the current year’s budget prior to setting the millage rate, so that if there are changes to the budget that need to be made those can be made so that we can best estimate what millage rate is needed for funding those expenses. Anderson stated that the budget hasn’t changed since its adoption in January.
Guthrie stated that if there is a sentiment that there are possibly going to be significant unexpected expenses coming up, then we should be budgeting for those items. She stated that there was back and forth dialog during the budget process about the amount to put in contingency and that council chose to budget very little for the contingency. It doesn’t make sense to keep the contingency budget low but then tax high to cover emergencies. There should be some consistency between what you put in the contingency for the unexpected and what you tax for the unexpected. In addition, she stated that she doesn’t think that we should tax based on the fear that all sorts of things might happen, but we’re supposed to tax in line with the budget.
Sipe stated that we then should budget for increased legal fees and road projects that are expected and not fundable by SPLOST. He also stated that we should budget for inflation.
Guthrie stated that we did build buffers into the budget line items when the budget was adopted.
Pam Williamson, 3996 South Berkeley Lake Road, commented that there was an unusual thing that came up right as the millage rate was being set last year. The budget was adjusted, although not formally amended, because of a new utility tax that was coming on line and the finance committee adjusted the millage rate review accordingly. This year we knew about increased legal expenses, but many other issues are unknowns and there were several line items not being spent as expected. The finance committee made a conscious decision not to adjust the budget because there was $12,000 in contingency, and there had been pluses and minuses that were balancing each other. The finance committee doesn’t feel you should tax people based on what-if’s.
Cohen asked whether last year’s budget was projected for a large surplus. Williamson stated that last year’s budget was approved for $8,000-$9,000 reserve usage. We didn’t use the reserve surplus because a lot of the work wasn’t done last year.
Sipe asked about the assumptions that the finance committee used in their calculations. Williamson stated that the finance committee used the approved budget and then looked at known pluses and minuses. This year, the approved budget didn’t have anything significant enough that required adjustment for the calculation of the millage rate.
Guthrie stated that she has reviewed the budget through April and that we are underspent on many line items and on track for many others, including the budget for the city attorney. She noted that this may not have accounted for bills that hadn’t come in yet.
Cohen states that the existing budget projects that we will take almost $25,000 from reserve. Guthrie stated that the existing budget calls for taking $39,550 from reserves. Cohen stated that we will take $25,000 from reserves if the millage rate is 4.1.
Guthrie stated that we may not have to take money out of reserves. It will depend on what happens.
Anderson noted that we also have contingency to spend before needing to take any money out of reserves.
Williamson stated that we added to reserves last year, even when we had budgeted to take out around $8,000.
Cohen asked whether or not Guthrie had wanted to attend the GMA conference in Salter’s place.
Guthrie responded that she was willing to go but because of the timing with the City Administrator being so new and needing to attend elections training this month and Salter being away with her new grandchild that it just didn’t appear to be a good time to send anyone. Guthrie noted that we are saving $3,200 because we’re not sending anyone to GMA this year.
Anderson said that at the end of the day we have an approved budget, with money in contingency, and that is where we’re coming from in terms of setting the millage rate. The need for the money from reserves would only come after the contingency had been spent.
Guthrie asked if we would really need $6,000 for dam repairs. Kitchen stated that he didn’t think that we would need that money this year.
Cohen stated that there were other things that would require more money.
There was further discussion about attorney’s fees.
Sipe stated that the attorney’s bills were probably for discovery, depositions and standard filings and responding to motions and he believes that there will be much more money involved when we go to court.
Anderson and Kitchens voted in favor. Sipe and Cohen opposed the motion. Guthrie broke the tie and voted in favor. The motion passed.
V. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Debbe Robinson, 540 Lakeshore Drive, apologized for arriving late and missing the part that she was really interested in, the budget discussion. She stated that she had been looking at information pertaining to last year’s budget and the expenditures through January of this year. It wasn’t clear to her how the roads and public works budget, which was significantly larger for this year (around $675,000), was going to be set out. She knows SPLOST was not that much, around $500,000 for roads, and she didn’t know what that amount was intended for. Beyond that, when the budget was being contemplated, did it include money for guard rails on some of the hot spot curves where culverts have been repaired.
Guthrie stated that she doesn’t recall council ever discussing guard rails for the areas in question and neither the engineer nor StreetSmarts had made that recommendation to us. Debbe Robinson asked if council would consider that.
Guthrie asked to clarify, was this something that happened as a result of the drainage project?
It was stated that the need for guard rails was because of drainage improvements. Cohen stated that he had asked to have this topic included on the agenda for the next regularly scheduled council meeting.
Guthrie stated that money for this may have been included, but she didn’t know and that we would just need to look into it.
Anderson asked about locations of the dangerous areas. Robinson responded that one she was aware of was between Todd Senne and Marci Zielazenski. She stated that at that curve all the trees were taken down on the lake side and a number of cars have gone over the road there.
She stated that the Street Smarts Accident Report for 2003-2006 was missing some accidents that she knew had occurred.
She stated that not all of the culvert repair locations had been worsened, but some have.
Guthrie stated that we would have to find out about money for guard rails. She asked Threadgill if that was something that she could research. Threadgill responded that she would ask the City Engineer.
Robinson asked if the $675,000 included this type of consideration, or what it did cover. Guthrie responded that that would be a question for the engineer and Mayor Salter may know off the top of her head.
Guthrie asked about what Robinson was referencing for $675,000. Kitchens stated that $675,000 was what we had been allocated for SPLOST. Guthrie stated that we go by the budget and not the total SPLOST allocation for the 4 years.
Robinson asked whether the $675,000 budget would cover the amount needed for guard rails.
Threadgill was instructed to check with the engineer to find out whether the engineering budget included money to correct safety issues where the side of the road has been cleared for the drainage project.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Cohen motioned to adjourn the meeting. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by council June 21, 2007)
|
to top
|
|
|
 |
