[00:00:01]
CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY BEAVER COUNTY OF THE BEAVER
[CALL TO ORDER]
COUNTY FINANCE COMMITTEE TO ORDER FOR TODAY, DECEMBER 14TH, WOULD EVERYBODY PLEASE RISE[PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PLEASE MUTE YOURSELVES IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE MUTED.I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, POSTED, AND DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT]
MEETING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED, POSTED, AND DISTRIBUTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOUTH CAROLINA FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, WHICH IS APPROVAL[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
OF THE AGENDA.HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HAS READ THROUGH IT.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION MOTION BY JOE SECONDED BY STEW WITHOUT OBJECTION.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 16, 2020]
I DON'T REMEMBER FIVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 16TH, 2020.HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THROUGH THOSE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE MINUTES? SO MOVED MR. CHAIRMAN, COUNCILMAN DAWSON.
DID I HAVE A SECOND? THAT LOOKS LIKE A SECOND FROM PASS THEM IN WITH A THUMBS UP.
THANKS JOE UNCONVENTIONAL, BUT IT WORKS ANYWAY.
UM, WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 16TH ARE APPROVED.
[UPDATE FROM CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, WHITNEY RICHLAND REGARDING THE CAFT AUDIT, 2020 CARRYOVER BUDGET AND YEAR TO DATE FINANCIALS.]
ITEM NUMBER SIX ON THE AGENDA UPDATE FROM THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER WHEN HE RICHLAND THE REGARDING THE CAF FACTOR AUDIT 2020, CARRY OVER BUDGET AND YEAR TO DATE FINANCIALS.MS. WHITNEY, PLEASE TAKE IT AWAY.
UH, I'LL BEGIN THE STEPHANIE WITH A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT.
UM, DESPITE OUR BEST EFFORTS, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY, IT LOOKS LIKE OUR AUDIT FIRM WILL NOT HAVE THAT REPORT COMPLETED BY THE 1231 DEADLINE.
HOWEVER, WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT IT CAN BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF JANUARY, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT MET OUR, UM, OUR GOAL.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE JANUARY COMPLETION DATE WAS STILL BE EARLIER THAN, UM, PRIOR YEAR.
SO WE STILL WANT TO TRY TO CELEBRATE THAT, UH, THIS AFTERNOON AND WE ARE WORKING TOWARD THAT, BUT I WILL BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I DON'T SEE ANYONE ASKING QUESTIONS.
SO I'LL MOVE ON TO, UM, THE CARRY OVER 2020 BUDGETS.
SO, UM, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THERE WAS ABOUT $1.3 MILLION, UH, FOR THE GENERAL FUND THAT ROLLED OVER FROM FISCAL 19, OR EXCUSE ME, FISCAL 20 AND TO FISCAL 21.
UM, AND EACH WEEK WE WERE SENDING OUT REMINDER EMAILS TO ALL OF OUR DIVISION DIRECTORS SO THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE COORDINATING WITH THEIR STAFF ON PROCEEDING WITH THOSE PROJECTS AND WITH THOSE OUTLAYS.
SO AS OF THIS MONTH, THERE ARE NO MATERIAL CHANGES IN TERMS OF DOLLAR AMOUNTS, EXPENSES.
UM, BUT ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAD, UH, WAS PERTAINING TO THE, UM, DNA LAB.
AND I DID RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THAT THIS AFTERNOON.
SO LET ME PULL THAT EMAIL UP FOR YOU FOR JUST A MOMENT AND LET YOU KNOW WHAT THAT SAYS.
SO ACCORDING TO, UM, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, J WEST CAMPBELL, UM, EARLIER TODAY, THE COST SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE ARE ALL ON TRACK FOR THE LAB.
UM, THERE WAS A FOUNDATION TEST LAST WEEK, UM, AND IT DID PASS BETWEEN EIGHT DAY DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT'S A VERY GOOD MILESTONE FOR THEM.
UM, HE SAYS BETWEEN NOW AND CHRISTMAS, THE ROOF TRUSSES SHOULD BE INSTALLED.
UM, THEY'RE REFRAMED AND FIREWOOD INSTALLED AS WELL IN BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND NEIGHBORS.
WE SHOULD HAVE WINDOWS AND DOORS, UM, A TERMITE TREATMENT, SOME FRAMING INSPECTIONS, UM, THE MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING ROUGH-IN WILL CONTINUE DURING THAT TIME.
SO I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS INDEED UNDERWAY, UM, AND WE CAN CELEBRATE THAT PROGRESS AS WELL TODAY.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CARRY OVER BUDGET, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THOSE.
MS. PRISCILLA, DO YOU ANTICIPATE, OR ARE THEY ANTICIPATING ANY, UH, COSTS OVER RUNNING AT THIS TIME? NO, SIR.
AS OF NOW HE STATED THAT THE COST AND THE TIMING ARE ON TRACK.
[00:05:03]
ALL RIGHT.SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE 21 FINANCIALS FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER AND INCORPORATED WITHIN THIS DISCUSSION.
UM, I'LL BE PRESENTING A ONE-PAGE SUMMARY ON SOME COVID SAVINGS.
UM, COUNCILMAN HERBIE, SEAN ASKED, UM, A MONTH OR SO AGO IF IT LOOKED LIKE THE COUNTY HAD REALIZED ANY SAVINGS FROM THE PANDEMIC.
UM, AND I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT WE HAVE, UM, BRENDA, DO YOU HAVE THAT, UM, THAT SCHEDULE BY CHANCE THAT YOU CAN SHOW, IF NOT, I CAN TRY TO SHARE MY SCREEN HERE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE IT.
I ALSO HAVE IT IN YOUR AGENDA PACKETS AS WELL.
IN THE MEANTIME, COUNCILMAN MCKELLEN, CAN YOU PLEASE MUTE? WE'RE GETTING SOME FEEDBACK.
SO, UM, JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WHAT I DID HERE WAS I COMPARED THE MONTHS OF MARCH THROUGH OCTOBER FOR ALL OF CALENDAR YEAR 19, AND IN THOSE SAME MONTHS, MARCH THROUGH OCTOBER OF CALENDAR YEAR 20.
UM, AND I CHOSE THOSE MONTHS PRIMARILY BECAUSE THOSE WERE THE MONTHS IN WHICH, UM, THE PANDEMIC REALLY TOOK OFF IN OUR REGION.
UM, AND WE, ALTHOUGH WE ARE STILL EXPERIENCING IT CURRENTLY, UM, I WAS PREPARING THIS AS OF THE OCTOBER DATE FOR OUR STEADY CUTOFF.
AND IF YOU'D LIKE FOR ME TO CONTINUE GOING, I CERTAINLY CAN, BUT FOR NOW I HAVE MARCH THROUGH OCTOBER FOR YOU.
UM, SO YOU WILL SEE THIS CROSSES FISCAL YEARS, BUT IN TERMS OF A CALENDAR, YOUR TIMEFRAME IN 2019, THE GOVERNMENT WIDE EXPENDITURES FOR THAT PERIOD WERE $151,816,047 COMPARED TO CALENDAR YEAR 20, WHICH WAS $141,077,725, WHICH IS A DIFFERENCE OF 10 MILLION, 730, $8,322 OR STATED DIFFERENTLY 7% SAVINGS, JUST BE LETTER THAT YOU WILL SEE THE AREAS IN WHICH THOSE SAVINGS WERE REALIZED.
UM, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF GRAPH THERE, BUT I CAN GET DOWN INTO THE, THE NUMBERS PRIMARILY YOU'LL SEE THAT THE LARGEST SAVINGS AREA WAS PERSONNEL SERVICES.
UM, AND AGAIN, THE BOTTOM OF THIS CHART HERE FOR THE VARIANCES WHERE THEY WERE GREATER THAN 5% FROM THE PRIOR YEAR TO THE CURRENT YEAR, I TRIED TO, UM, SORT OF LET YOU KNOW THE FUND THAT DERIVE THOSE SAVINGS.
UM, SO YOU'LL SEE, JUST PULL OUT OF THE PERSONAL SERVICES.
SAVINGS WERE PRIMARILY ACHIEVED FROM THE GENERAL FUND ACCOUNTING FOR 76.4% OF THOSE SAVINGS.
UM, AND TOTAL THEIR SAVINGS WERE ROUGHLY 5 MILLION, 670, ABOUT $72,000 THERE.
UM, NEXT TO THAT, WE HAVE PURCHASED SERVICES.
SO THINGS THAT WE ARE ACQUIRING OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY LABOR FORCE, UM, THAT COULD BE PROFESSIONAL IN NATURE REQUIRING OTHER CERTIFICATIONS, SUCH AS, UM, ACCOUNTANTS, ENGINEERS, OR LEGAL, UM, OR THEY COULD SIMPLY BE SERVICED THINGS LIKE, UH, PRINTING UNIFORMS OR STRIKING FIELDS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO YEARS WAS 3 MILLION, $533,000, $565.
AND THE, THERE WERE LOTS OF FUNDS PRIMARILY THAT, THAT DROVE THAT SAVINGS.
UM, THE BIGGEST WAS THE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND.
SO WITH THAT, WE PAY A THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR, UM, FOR OUR HEALTH INSURANCE FUND.
SO THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ABOUT 2300 OF THE SAVINGS IN THAT YEAR.
UM, GENERALLY IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAD A GRANT PROJECT FUND WITH A CDBG GRANT, UM, IN THE LOW COUNTRY.
UM, EXCUSE ME, I'M MISPLACING THE ACRONYM.
THEY WERE HAVING A HARD TIME WITH MATH, LOW COUNTRY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS IS 17.8% SAVINGS THERE.
UM, FOLLOWING THAT THE DSN FUNDS, UM, COMBINED ACCOUNTED FOR 13.6% SAVING, AND THEN THE GENERAL FUND AT 12 7%, UM, MOVING DOWN THERE FROM THERE, WE HAVE THE SUPPLIES CATEGORY AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THE GENERAL FUND ACCOUNTED FOR 57.6% OF THAT.
AND THEN THE CENTRAL GARAGE, WHICH MANAGES ALL OF OUR VEHICLES, OUR FLEET, OUR EQUIPMENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 12.3%.
AND THAT TOTAL SAVINGS WAS 1.5 MILLION THERE.
UM, AND JUST BELOW THAT THERE WERE NO SAVINGS IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND THAT ACTUALLY INCREASED, BUT I WANTED TO PUT THAT ON HERE, UM, BECAUSE IT AFFECTED THE OVERALL BOTTOM LINE OF THE $10 MILLION IN SAVINGS THAT I MENTIONED AT THE TOP.
UM, AND THE REASON FOR THAT AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL DEBT ISSUANCE, UM, AND 20, OKAY, CAPITAL OUTLAY IS NEXT, NOT AS SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS THERE.
UM, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY HAPPY TO SEE THAT.
AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT MEANS THAT OUR ASSETS ARE BEING REPLACED ON SOMEWHAT OF A ROUTINE SCHEDULE AND IN A TIMELY MANNER.
UM, YOU DON'T WANT TO DEFER THOSE OUTLAY COSTS.
SO I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THERE IS LESS THAN HALF A MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF SAVINGS THERE.
UM, AND BECAUSE THAT WAS ONLY 2.4, 5%, I DID NOT
[00:10:01]
EXPLAIN THAT CATEGORY.AND NOR DID I EXPLAIN THE CATEGORY OF THE SUBSIDIES TO OTHERS, THAT'S VERY MINIMAL IN COMPARISON TO THE OVERALL, UM, SAVINGS HERE AT $302,000.
AND THEN AGAIN, BELOW THAT, UM, THERE WAS ONLY $30,791 IN CONTINGENCIES, BUT BECAUSE THE AMOUNT FROM THE PRIOR YEAR LOOKED SO LARGE, UM, AT 33.97%, I DID PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION AND THAT WAS ENTIRELY THE GENERAL FUND SAVINGS, UM, CONTRIBUTING THERE.
UM, OTHER EXPENDITURES WAS $166,331 IN SAVINGS, WHICH WAS 31%.
AND THAT WAS DERIVED PRIMARILY FROM THE GENERAL FUND AT 93.6%.
UH, AND BELOW THAT WE HAVE THE PURCHASES FOR THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS COMING IN AT $525,007 OR DIFFERENCE OF 53.9, 6%.
UM, AND AGAIN, THAT WAS FROM THE STORM WATER UTILITY FUND.
UM, AND THEN FINALLY OUR TOTAL THERE AGAIN AT THE BOTTOM WAS 10 MILLION, $738,322 OR 7.7%.
THERE ARE SOME SAVINGS FROM THE PANDEMIC.
UM, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS.
UM, BUT I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, UM, REAL QUICK AND THEN WE'LL DO BRIAN, BUT, UH, WHITNEY, WOULD WE EXPECT FOR THERE TO BE A BUDGET SERP, A BUDGETARY SURPLUS AFTER THIS FISCAL YEAR? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT? YES, SIR.
I DO NOT HAVE AN EXACT FIGURE FOR THAT.
WE HAVE PROVIDED INITIAL TRIAL BALANCES TO THE AUDITORS AND THAT IS UNDERWAY.
UM, THERE ARE A FEW ENTRIES THAT WE JUST BECAME AWARE OF THIS WEEK THAT WE NEED TO PUT BACK INTO 20.
UM, BUT I WILL CERTAINLY HAVE THAT PROJECTION FOR YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING.
COUNCILMAN FLUELLING AND THEN COUNCILMAN.
UM, WHITNEY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, UM, FOR BEING HERE IN PRESENTING THIS, WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE GOOD NEWS, AND I DON'T CONSIDER IT TO BE BAD NEWS.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THOUGH, NOT ALL OF THIS, UH, SAVINGS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO, UM, SLOWER COVID SPENDING COVID RELATED SPENDING.
SOME OF IT IS, WAS BUILT INTO THE BUDGET AND PROBABLY ANTICIPATED JUST THE NORMAL ADMINISTRATIVE, UM, UM, TIGHT BELT THAT WE TRY TO KEEP AROUND THE COUNTY.
ISN'T THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.
I JUST WANT TO JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, APPRECIATE IT.
GOOD JOB ADMINISTRATION, COUNCILMAN SUMMERHILL.
VERY BEGINNING THAT I, THAT I SEE YOU STARTED THE COVID SAVINGS IN MARCH OF 2019, OR DID I MISREAD THAT? SO I USE THAT MONTH AS A MONTH FOR COMPARISON, UM, STARTING OUT BECAUSE MARCH OF 20 WAS REALLY THE YEAR THAT THE PANDEMIC SORT OF TOOK OFF IN OUR REGION.
UM, IN ORDER FOR ME TO PROVIDE APPLES TO APPLES, I STARTED COMPARING THAT TO MARCH OF 19.
AND ALL OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR A VERY COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT OUR FINANCES AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
OUTSTANDING JOB, VERY APPRECIATED.
THAT ALL GOES TO WHITNEY HAYES WILLIAMS. THEY DO, THEY DO A LOT OF HARD WORK TO GET ALL OF THAT TOGETHER.
AM I SAYING THAT WE DO HAVE HAYES ON THE CALL AS WELL, SO GREAT JOB HAYES.
AND COUNCILMAN GLOVER, UH, YES.
UM, BRITNEY TO JUST SORTA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU TALKED ABOUT PERSONAL SERVICES, 76% SAVING, BUT ON YOUR CHART IT SHOWS 8.9.
TELL ME, EXPLAIN THAT TO ME BECAUSE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FOLLOWING THAT.
BRENNA, CAN YOU PULL THAT BACK UP FOR A SEC? OKAY.
SO WHAT I DID THERE, COUNCILMAN WAS I COMPARED THE TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND OVERALL FROM CALENDAR YEAR 19 TO CALENDAR YEAR 20, THERE WAS ONLY AN 8.9% DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL THERE UNDER THE $5,671,946.
BUT OF THAT 5 MILLION, $600,000, THE GENERAL FUND WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 76% OF THAT SAVINGS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, SIR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER?
[00:15:03]
OKAY, DAMN.FUN TO THE NOVEMBER FINANCIALS IF THAT'S OKAY.
AND BRENNA, DO YOU HAVE THOSE AS WELL? OKAY.
CAN WE HAVE A LOADED SCHEDULE TODAY? SO I'VE TRIED TO GO QUICKLY, BUT IF AT ANY POINT I'M GOING TOO FAST, PLEASE LET ME DOWN.
UM, SO HERE AGAIN, WE HAVE THE FINANCIAL REPORT THROUGH NOVEMBER OF 2020.
UM, AND YOU'LL SEE A FEW LITTLE TWEAKS THIS THIS MONTH IS I TRY TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE, UM, CHANGES REQUESTED LAST MONTH.
UM, WE HAVE NO BUDGET AMENDMENT YET THAT I'M AWARE OF.
UM, I THINK ONE WILL BE COMING COURSE.
UM, AS JOEL MENTIONED HERE IN A MINUTE WITH REGARD TO REVENUES THAT HAVE EXCEEDED OUR ANTICIPATION FOR THE YEAR.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE WITH THE, UM, EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERSONNEL CASH OUT, WE'LL WANT TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO, UM, COUNCIL APPROVED BUDGETARY AMENDMENT.
UM, BUT AS WE GO THROUGH, YOU'LL SEE WHERE I ADDED A LITTLE SECTION ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE, BUT OVERALL AGAIN, SAME FORMAT FOLLOWING THE ONE FROM OCTOBER.
SO YOU HAVE OUR TOTAL BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND AT THE TOP.
UM, AND THEN THERE ARE, UM, REVENUES TO DATE OF 12 MILLION, 822,791.
AND THEN THE REMAINING REVENUE TO BE COLLECTED, UM, 117,000.
I MEANT TO SAY AMELIA IN THERE $721,746.
SO THE PERCENT OF THE YEAR THAT WE HAVE COLLECTED SO FAR IS JUST SHOPPED 10%.
IT'S COMING IN RIGHT AT 9.8, 4%.
UM, IN THE PERCENT OF THE YEAR THAT WE HAVE COMPLETED FIVE MONTHS INTO THIS FISCAL YEAR IS 41.6%.
SO THAT MAY SEEM ALARMING TO YOU AT THE MOMENT THAT WE'VE ONLY COLLECTED 10% OF OUR REVENUE FOR THE YEAR WHEN WE'RE ALMOST HALFWAY THROUGH.
UM, THAT IS REALLY NOT CONCERNING AT THIS POINT.
WE KNOW THAT IT'S COMING, THERE'S JUST A SLIGHT DELAY THERE, UM, PRIMARILY FROM THE TAX REVENUE AND WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THAT MATERIALLY AS WELL.
UM, ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU GUYS REQUESTED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING WAS, UM, THAT I ALSO SHOW THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR, UM, IN COMPARISON TO THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR.
SO IF YOU SEEN THE GRAPH BELOW, YOU HAVE YOUR REVENUE TYPES AND FISCAL 21 IS THE BLUE LINE AND FISCAL 20 FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES IS THE GREEN LINE.
UM, AND THEN OF COURSE THE RED ONE GOING ACROSS THERE IS SORT OF WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT IN TERMS OF THE MONTHS OF THE YEAR THAT I'VE HAD HAVE PASSED ALREADY.
UM, THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT HOVERING RIGHT AT THE 41 42% MARK.
UM, SO YOU'LL NOTICE BIG DIFFERENCE RIGHT NOW, AGAIN, IN THE, IN THE REVENUE LAGGING IS THE ADVIL TAXES THERE.
THAT'S YOUR VERY FIRST COLUMN.
UM, BRENDA, IF YOU CAN SCROLL JUST A TINCH, I'LL BE ABLE TO SEE SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS.
UM, SO OUR BUDGET FOR THOSE TAXES THIS YEAR WAS 106 MILLION, $217,968.
AND TODAY IT SEEMS THAT WE'VE ONLY COLLECTED ABOUT 2.7 MILLION OF THOSE.
UM, AGAIN, IT'S LAGGING, BUT WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE COMING.
UM, I THINK THAT EVERYONE'S GOING IN THE LEAD UP ON THE, ON THE TAX BILLS BEING DELAYED.
SO YOU'RE AWARE THAT THOSE HAVE NOT GONE OUT YET, AND THAT STAFF IS WORKING DILIGENTLY, UM, ALL AROUND THE COUNTY TO GET THOSE SENT OUT TO, UM, OUR CITIZENS.
SO WON'T BE LONG AND WE SHOULD SEE A BIG JUMP IN THAT PARTICULAR REVENUE CATEGORY.
NEXT TO THAT, YOU'LL SEE OUR LICENSE WHERE THEY WERE IN THE PRIOR YEAR.
UM, WE HAVE COLLECTED $1,064,704 OUT OF AN ANTICIPATED 3 MILLION, $244,160.
SO WE'VE COLLECTED ABOUT THREE, UH, 32.8% THERE.
AND BRENDA, IF YOU'LL SCROLL JUST A TEENY BIT MORE, I PROVIDED SOME, UH, VARIANCE ANALYSIS FOR YOU GUYS AT THE BOTTOM.
AND IF YOU HAVE THIS ALREADY, YOU CAN FOLLOW ALONG.
UM, AND WE MENTIONED, I THINK IN THE LAST MONTH THAT THIS REVENUE PRIMARILY ARRIVES IN JANUARY.
SO AGAIN, I'M HOPING WITHIN ANOTHER MONTH OR TWO, YOU'LL SEE A BIG JUMP IN A LOT OF THESE FIGURES NEXT TO THAT.
YOU'VE GOT YOUR INTER-GOVERNMENTAL, UH, FACE THAT WE HAVE THAT WE RECEIVE FROM OTHER AGENCIES.
UM, AND RIGHT NOW STATE AID SEEMS TO BE LAGGING A BIT.
UM, WE'VE GOTTEN, IT LOOKS LIKE ONE QUARTER, UH, OR EXCUSE ME, ONE PAYMENT, UM, FROM THAT AND TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT 1.6 MILLION.
AND WE SHOULD BE EXPECTING SOME MORE TO COME IN SOON FOR THAT.
SO WE'RE HOVERING RIGHT AT 30% THERE.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THAT WILL CATCH UP AS THE YEAR GOES ON.
AND THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENCE THERE THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE CURRENT YEAR TO PRIOR YEAR.
OKAY, NEXT TO THAT, WE HAVE OUR CHARGES FOR SERVICES, AND
[00:20:01]
THIS IS PRIMARILY COMING FROM THEIR REGISTER OF DEEDS.THEY'RE JUST AGAIN, HAVING A RECORD YEAR.
UM, I THINK YOU GUYS ARE WELL AWARE OF THE REAL ESTATE MARKET AND B FOR COUNTY AND HOUSES ARE FLYING OFF THE MARKET.
AND SO WITH THE NUMBER AND THE VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN PROCESSING, AND OF COURSE, UH, PHASE THAT THEY'RE COLLECTING THE CHARGES FOR THAT SERVICE ARE EXCEEDING TREMENDOUSLY.
UM, WHAT WE ANTICIPATED FOR THE YEAR.
SO WE ARE AT 60% RECEIVED RIGHT NOW, UM, IN FIVE MONTHS OR 41% INTO A YEAR.
UH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE GRAPH ABOVE, WE'RE LOOKING VERY GOOD IN THIS PARTICULAR CATEGORY.
UM, ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE FINES AND FORFEITURES, UH THERE'S RIGHT NOW, OR AT 19.4%, UM, NOT A HUGE, UM, REVENUE SOURCE.
THEY'RE JUST SHY OF 750,000 THAT WE'VE BUDGETED FOR THE YEAR.
AND WE HAVE COLLECTED, UH, $145,685 THERE.
UM, AND I AM TOLD THAT THE MAGISTRATE FINES ARE STILL LAGGING A LITTLE BIT, MOST LIKELY DUE TO THE DELAYED REOPENING OF THE COURTS.
UM, I'M HOPING THAT AS THE YEAR GOES ON AGAIN, YOU'LL SEE THOSE SLOWLY CATCH UP, BUT THIS MAY BE A CATEGORY, UM, THAT FALLS JUST SHY OF OUR BUDGET FOR THE YEAR, BUT WE'LL KEEP AN EYE ON THAT AS THE YEAR PROGRESSES.
UM, NEXT TO THAT, WE'VE GOT INTEREST OF $3,620, WHICH IS JUST 0.8%, UM, OF THE YEAR COLLECTED.
AND I THINK I TOLD YOU GUYS LAST MONTH, THAT THAT IS USUALLY AN ALLOCATION THAT IS DONE ONCE ANNUALLY.
UM, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO WORK WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
SO THAT IS DONE ON A MORE TIMELY BASIS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE REALLY EARNING ON OUR INVESTMENTS.
UM, NEXT TO THAT, WE'VE GOT THE MISCELLANEOUS CATEGORY.
WE ARE AT 24.2%, AND THAT IS AN AMOUNT OF $43,622 OUT OF 180 THAT'S BUDGETED TOTAL.
UM, AND THAT PRIMARILY COMES FROM SALES WITH COUNTY PROPERTY.
UM, WE'VE JUST HAD VERY LITTLE THIS YEAR AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO TOUCH BASE WITH OUR, UM, PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR AND RISK MANAGER TO SEE IF THEY HAVE A PARTICULAR SCHEDULE, UM, THAT WE NEED TO BE ON AND GIVE YOU GUYS AN UPDATE ON WHEN WE CAN EXPECT THAT NUMBER TO INCREASE.
BUT AS OF NOW, WE'RE AT 40 3006 22, AND THEN FINALLY OUR TRANSFERS IN CATEGORY THEM, THOSE ARE PREPARED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS AND WE'VE ONLY DONE ONE OF THOSE THROUGH THE YEAR.
UM, DESPITE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ALREADY AT 51.4%.
UM, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO RESEARCH THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AND LET YOU KNOW WHY THAT IS MORE THAN WE ANTICIPATED.
UM, SINCE I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WERE DONE ONLY QUARTERLY.
LET ME FOLLOW UP WITH, WITH THAT ONE AND LET THEM GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT.
UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE REVENUE PIECE? OKAY.
YOU DON'T SEE ANY, ALRIGHT, NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE EXPENDITURE PAY SPRINT, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PLEASE.
SO AGAIN, AT THE TOP, YOU'VE GOT OUR BUDGET AND THE CAREGIVER FROM 2020, UM, AS I SAID, THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY TRANSFERS OR, I MEAN, IT SEEMS THAT THE COUNCIL WAS APPROVED, BUT I DO ANTICIPATE, UM, ASKING YOU GUYS TO DO AN AMENDED BUDGET SHORTLY AFTER THE NEW YEAR.
UM, BUT AS OF NOW, OUR TOTAL FISCAL 21 BUDGET, IT STILL REMAINS AT $131,652,877.
UM, EXPENDITURES TODAY ARE 47,387,000 AND $131 WITH ENCUMBRANCES AS OF THE END OF OCTOBER, UH, EXCUSE ME, NOVEMBER OF 9 MILLION, $216,042.
SO THAT AGAIN, THE TOTAL, UM, CHUNK OF OUR BUDGET THAT WE HAVE SORT OF EARMARKED OR SPENT IS 56,000,600, $3,973, WHICH GIVES US A BUDGET REMAINING OF $73,696,457 IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES.
WE'RE TRENDING A LITTLE BIT ON THE HIGHER SIDE, UM, GREW AT 43.4 AND WE'VE EX UH, THE TIME LAPSE HAS BEEN 41.6% OF THE YEAR, UM, AT THE BOTTOM.
THEN YOU'LL SEE YOUR COMPARATIVE GRAPHS, UM, FISCAL 21 IN BLUE AND FISCAL 20 IN GREEN, AND FOR MANY OF OUR, UM, EXPENDITURE CATEGORIES, IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT HALF AND HALF THAT ARE TRENDING VERY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, AND THEN OTHERS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT, UM, BUT I'LL GO TO THE BOTTOM AND EXPLAIN SOME OF THOSE, UM, WITH OUR GENERAL GOVERNMENT, UM, NECK TO NECK.
UM, HERE TWO A YEAR COMPLETED A 41.6%.
[00:25:01]
IN THE GRAPH THAT THE PRIOR YEAR WE ARE NECK TO NECK THERE, UM, TODAY THAT, UH, COMES TO $17,490,177.JUST FILL THAT WITH THAT OUR PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET, UM, WHICH AGAIN, NO HUGE VARIANCE THERE, IT'S NOT EVEN 5%.
IT'S 44.2% OF THE TOTAL BUDGET EXPENDED TO DATE THAT'S $22,750,000, UH, $379 THERE.
UM, AND THOSE ARE OUR RIGHT ALONG, SEEMED TO BE RIGHT IN LINE WITH WHERE THEY SHOULD BE.
UM, FOLLOWING THAT WITH THAT PUBLIC WORKS.
AND THIS IS THE ONE, IF YOU WORK IN BURKE, THE SAME POETRY THIS MONTH, AS LAST YEAR, THEY HAVE, UM, LARGE CONTRACTS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR THAT ARE WITH PAS FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.
AND SO IT SORT OF LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE TRENDING A LITTLE BIT HIGH, BUT IN TERMS OF THEIR ENCUMBRANCES, THAT'S, WHAT'S INFLATING THAT NUMBER A LITTLE BIT.
SO I'M NOT TRULY WORRIED THAT THEY'RE GOING TO OVEREXTEND THEIR BUDGET.
I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU THAT RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE EXPENDED 64.7% OF THEIR BUDGET.
UM, BUT REALLY THAT'S FACTORING IN THE ENCUMBRANCES TO THEIR ACCOUNT, BUT TO DATE THAT COMES TO $11,048,221.
UM, JUST BELOW THAT WE'VE GOT OUR PUBLIC HEALTH CATEGORY.
UM, AND THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER.
UM, WE'RE AT 31.1% COMPARED TO 41.6, UM, AND HAVE SPENT APPROXIMATELY $575,951 OUT OF OUR TOTAL OF 3.7 MILLION.
UM, AND WHEN I LOOKED INTO THE DETAIL FOR THIS PARTICULAR CATEGORY, IT'S MOSTLY DUE TO MOSQUITO CONTROL.
UM, I THINK THAT WE'VE JUST NOT EXPENDED AS MUCH IN THAT CATEGORY AS WE NORMALLY WOULD.
I BELIEVE THAT POSITION MIGHT STILL BE VACANT.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF HE'LL FOOT IS ON THE LINE, BUT HE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, UM, WITH THAT, BUT THAT IS A PRIMARY REASON OR DEPARTMENT, UM, THAT HAS NOT EXPENDED A CHUNK OF ITS BUDGET.
THAT'S CONTRIBUTING TO, UM, THAT FIGURE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, PUBLIC WELFARE, MOVING ALONG, IT'S TRENDING TO SLIGHTLY HIGH AT 47.3% OF THE BUDGET EXPENDED OUT OF 41.6%, WHAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY EXPECT.
UM, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT THE, IF YOU REMEMBER, WE HAD THE OPPOSITE PROBLEM LAST MONTH IN OCTOBER, WHERE IT WAS LOW THIS MONTH, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE TOGETHER FOR, FOR PAYMENT WAS MADE IN NOVEMBER.
SO YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THESE CATEGORIES ARE A LITTLE QUIRKY WHERE, UM, FUNDS ARE NOT DISTRIBUTED ON AN EQUAL EMIRATIZATION SCHEDULE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
THAT MIGHT MAKE IT SEEM A LITTLE LOW ONE MONTH, LITTLE HIGH ONE MONTH, BUT ALL IN ALL, IT'S REALLY WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
UM, FOR CULTURE AND RECREATION, WE ARE AT $2,978,734, WHICH IS 34.3% OF THEIR BUDGET.
SO THAT ONE'S A LITTLE BIT LOW.
UM, AND WHEN I RESEARCHED THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE BUDGET, THOSE, UM, RE REDUCTION IN COSTS ARE PRIMARILY DUE TO THE PERSONNEL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CATEGORY.
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ALONG TO THE OTHER CATEGORY.
AND WE'VE EXTENDED TODAY $675,546, WHICH IS 132.8% OF WHAT WE HAD.
AND THEN AS IT WAS LAST MONTH, THIS IS FOR FUNDS THAT WERE EXPENDED TO THE BUFORD COUNTY ECONOMIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FROM THE ESCROW FUNDS.
SO I ANTICIPATE DOING A BUDGET AMENDMENT THERE FOR THAT OVERAGE.
AND LASTLY, WE HAVE OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS CATEGORY.
UM, AND AGAIN, THIS ONE IS NOT ONE THAT IS NECESSARILY SPENT IN EQUAL CHUNKS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
SO CURRENTLY WE EXPENDED $750,206 OUT OF A TOTAL OF 900, $6,286 FOR THE YEAR, WHICH IS 82.8% OF THE YEAR.
UM, AGAIN, NOTHING TO TRULY BE WORRIED ABOUT.
UM, NOT ALL PROJECTS ARE SPENT IN EQUAL CHUNKS.
SO I WOULD BE GLAD TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION AND I MADE SOMEWHAT QUICKLY, BUT PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WHITNEY, UH, QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.
SO, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WAS VERY IN DEPTH.
AND I'M SURE THAT THE PUBLIC APPRECIATES THAT LEVEL OF FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY AS WELL.
UM, IN RELATABLE TERMS TO CHRIS IN RELATABLE TERMS, EVEN BETTER, YOU MAKE IT SOUND LIKE NORMAL SPEAK INSTEAD OF, UM, THAT DEFICIT OF THE FISCAL BLAH, BLAH, BIG CHUNKS YOU WERE SAYING.
MOVING ON TO DISCUSSION ITEMS, NUMBER SEVEN ON THE AGENDA DISCUSSION OF THE SHERIFF FEES COLLECTED FROM THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD ISLAND BY BEAVER COUNTY FOR THE FISCAL YEARS, 2006, 2020,
[00:30:01]
MS. WHITNEY, I BELIEVE THIS IS YOU AS WELL.AND I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE THE, UM, THE AIS THERE IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
UM, WE WERE JUST ASKED TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW TO YOU OF THE AMOUNT OF REVENUES THAT WERE COLLECTED, UM, FROM HILTON HEAD FOR THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE FROM, I THINK WE BACKED IT UP EVEN TO 2006.
UM, AND I THINK IT GOES BEYOND 2011 BRENNA, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THAT SCHEDULE AS WELL THAT YOU CAN SHOW, OKAY, THIS IS A VERY ORIGINAL ONE THAT WE PROVIDED THAT DOES RUN THREE, 2011 THROUGH 2020.
UM, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE I THINK IN YOUR PACKETS PERHAPS BEHIND THIS PAGE THAT I BELIEVE GOES TO 2006.
AND THIS ONE ACTUALLY HAS, UM, IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL FUND THAT THE PREVIOUS PAGE OF SEVEN YEAR, IT HAS OTHER FUNDING SOURCES THERE, THE VICTIM'S ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, UM, THE BAR BAR DETAIL, UM, AND THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER, UH, RESOURCES AS WELL.
SO, UM, STARTING WITH THE YEAR 2006, YOU'LL SEE THAT PRIMARILY THE GENERAL FUND, UM, WAS A RECIPIENT OF THOSE REVENUES COMING IN, UM, A LITTLE OVER 2 MILLION OF A TOTAL, ALMOST 2.1 MILLION THERE, UM, IS $2,099,829.
UM, AND THEN YOU'LL SEE FROM THAT BASE YEAR, IT INCREMENTALLY CLIMBS EACH YEAR AS WE ARE WORKING, UM, TOWARD OUR CURRENT YEAR FISCAL 21, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, UH, FISCAL 20, THERE WAS A SLIGHT DECLINE THERE.
UM, YOU'LL SEE THAT YEAR BROUGHT IN 3 MILLION, 390 3006 $97 AS COMPARED TO FISCAL 19, WHICH BROUGHT IN 3,000,400, $9,942.
UM, AND THAT DIFFERENCE IS YOU CAN SEE WAS MAINLY FROM THE BARDI TAIL.
I REMITTED IN 2019 VERSUS 2020, WHICH WAS $64,829.
SO THAT ACCOUNTS FOR MOST OF THAT DIFFERENCE, WHAT IS THE BARDY TAIL? I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT THAT BAR DETAIL IS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
UM, I WILL BE HAPPY TO CONSULT WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND FIND OUT WHAT THAT REVENUE SOURCE IS ON MY ASSUMPTION.
YEAH, SO MANY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG AND, AND EITHER JOE OR, OR STEVE PROBABLY KNOWS BETTER THAN DO, BUT THAT'S THE, UM, THE TRIANGLE DOWN ON THE SOUTH END OF HILTON HEAD WHERE THEY HAVE EXTRA RESOURCE OFFICERS THAT ARE COMMITTED TO, UM, PATROLLING THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE ISLAND.
ESPECIALLY DURING, UM, THE SUMMERTIME WHEN, UM, THE BARS ARE FULL WITH TOURISTS.
SO THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL NEED FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
YEAH, WE GOT NOTHING, BUT WE'LL COME BACK THOUGH.
IF I HAVE TO COME BACK WITH OTHER, OTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, YOU'RE GOOD, MR. CHAIRMAN, UM, LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
UM, WHAT WE'VE SEEN HERE IS WHAT IS BUDGETED NOT NECESSARILY COLLECTED? UM, NO, SIR.
THESE ARE ACTUAL COLLECTIONS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD FOR THE SERVICE.
AND THE 2020 AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS COLLECTED AS OF JUNE 30TH OF 2020, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY REVENUES FROM HILTON HEAD ISLAND AFTER THAT.
WHICH WOULD BE FISCAL YEAR 21.
UM, COUNCILMAN FLOWING ACTUALLY REAL QUICK.
UM, ALICE, IF YOU WANT TO TAP YOUR QUOTE OR TYPE YOUR QUESTION INTO THE CHAT, I'LL READ IT OUT LOUD.
I'LL BE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
AND IN THE MEANTIME, UM, COUNCILMAN
SO THE QUESTION IS SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS, DOES THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REFUND THOSE, THOSE DOLLARS? I WILL FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION AND GET BACK WITH YOU.
I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT IN THIS MOMENT.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION THOUGH.
I'M WONDERING MY QUESTION WAS WHITNEY.
IF THERE, IF YOU THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME WAY TO TRACK WHEN THE FEES WERE COLLECTED BY THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD IN
[00:35:01]
WHAT TAX YEARS, IN OTHER WORDS, IN FISCAL YEAR 2020, WHERE YOU RECEIVED FROM, FOR A GENERAL FUND, UM, LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES, THREE POINT ALMOST 3.2 MILLION WERE RAT AMOUNT COLLECTED IN THEIR 2019 TAX BILL.IN OTHER WORDS, THE TAX BILL THAT WENT OUT IN NOVEMBER OF 2018 PAID, UH, WHEN WAS THAT COLLECTED BY THEM? IS THERE ANY, ANY THOUGHT ON THAT? CAN YOU TRACK THAT SOMEHOW? I WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT, BUT I THINK THAT YOU ARE CORRECT.
SO WITH THE TAX BILLS THAT ARE BEING SENT OUT CURRENTLY DECEMBER OF 2020, THAT WOULD BE RECORDED BY US AS REVENUE IN FISCAL 21.
SO I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE CORRECT IN STATING THAT, SO, SO BASICALLY WE MISS A YEAR WORTH OF PAYMENTS IN THE CURRENT PROGRAM THAT WE'VE GOT CORRECT.
OR IS THAT, UM, IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE COLLECT THAT MONEY, UM, THAT WE ARE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT WE HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO THE TOWN OF HILTON THAT WE COLLECT, THAT WE REALLY DON'T POST THAT UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR.
AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE USE OF THAT MONEY UNTIL, UNTIL JUNE OF 2021.
I'M NOT SURE IF AHEAD, I'M SORRY.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY REMIT ALL YEAR ROUND TO US.
UM, I WILL LOOK INTO THAT AND FIND THAT OUT FOR YOU, RIGHT? CAROL SMITH.
WELL, AND THIS IS HAYES WILLIAMS. HEY HAYES.
HEY, HOW ARE YOU DOING THIS MORNING? OKAY.
UM, THE, THE, THEY WERE MET QUARTERLY PAYMENTS, QUARTERLY ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.
SO IT WAS KIND OF WHATEVER THE WHOLE YEAR.
AND I HAVE, WHEN DID THEY COLLECT THAT MONEY THAT THEY WERE MEANT TO US QUARTERLY CLEARLY, OR AT LEAST I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THE PAYMENTS THEY WOULD SEND IN, UH, SEPTEMBER AND DECEMBER ARE COLLECTED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR TAX BILLS AND THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S BUDGET.
AND AT LEAST THAT MUCH, I WOULD SAY ANTICIPATE THAT THEY, THE CHECKS THAT THEY GAVE US THROUGHOUT THE YEAR IN 2019 AND 2020 HAD BEEN COLLECTED BY JUNE OF 2019, HAD ALREADY BEEN COLLECTED.
AND THEN IN, IN SEPTEMBER AND SEPTEMBER, THEY SENT US QUARTERLY PAYMENTS MONEY THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED IN THE PREVIOUS BUDGETED YEAR.
AND SO MY QUESTION IS, I WONDER, ULTIMATELY MY QUESTION IS I WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY THAT THEY COLLECTED FROM THE TAX BILLS THAT WERE ALREADY PAID SO FAR THIS YEAR, BUT THAT WENT OUT IN, IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, IN NOVEMBER OF 2020 OR 2019, ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY GOT TAX BILLS INCLUDED IN THERE WERE PAYMENTS COLLECTED BY THE TOWN OF HILTON HAD FOR BUFORD COUNTY.
UH, WONDER IF ANYBODY CAN ANSWER TO ME WHERE THAT MONEY IS, HOW MUCH IT WAS THAT THEY COLLECTED, WHAT WAS THEIR BUDGETED AMOUNT? MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY BUDGETED $3.4 MILLION AND THAT, THAT MONEY IS IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT.
YEAH, I GUESS I COULD STAND CORRECTED, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THAT WE, THAT THEY COLLECT THE MONEY AND PAY IT TO US QUARTERLY IN THE SAME FISCAL YEAR AND THAT THEY DON'T IT A YEAR IN ADVANCE AND THEN PIECEMEAL IT OUT DURING THE YEAR.
SO, UM, THEY, THEY THEY'VE EARMARKED A 3.4 MILLION FOR US, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT, IF IT WAS EVERYTHING WAS UNSCHEDULED, THEY WOULD BE PAYING QUARTERLY AND IT WOULD BE BEING COLLECTED IN THE CURRENT TAX BILLS.
I WANTED TO TEST TO SEE IF YOU COULD HEAR ME NOW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL ON THIS MOST AGENDA ITEM OR WE NEED, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? AS FAR AS THE EPIC? I DO NOT CUT AND SEEING NONE I BELIEVE BEFORE WE MOVE ON CHRIS, I THINK MY POINT WOULD BE THAT THE MONEY WE'RE ABOUT TO START COLLECTING, UH, ON THIS, UH, ON THE TAX BILL FOR THE USER FEES THAT IS TO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT IS TO REIMBURSE US FOR CURRENT YEAR EXPENSES.
AND SO, ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE FINISHED RECEIVING ALL THAT MONEY UNTIL, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER THE TAX SALE IS IN, IN SEPTEMBER, UM, THAT THAT MONEY IS TO REIMBURSE US FOR CURRENT YEAR EXPENSES.
AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOW TO SETTLE THIS MATTER AND FIND, GET SOME FINALITY WITH THE TOWN OF HILTON HEAD, IT IS ANTICIPATION
[00:40:01]
OF NEXT YEAR AMOUNTS.UH, AS LONG AS WE'RE, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS WE'RE SEPARATING IT IN OUR MINDS, UM, I'M, I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WORKING WITH US.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE 3.4 MILLION IS BEING COLLECTED THIS YEAR IS FOR EXPENSES THAT ARE BEING INCURRED IN THIS FISCAL YEAR, JUNE, I'M SORRY, JULY THE JUNE.
SO THERE'S THAT, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT, WHICH I THINK IS A THING.
I THINK WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ON THAT ONE.
UM, HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY FUNDING FROM HILTON HEAD AT THIS TIME ON A QUARTERLY BASIS? THE ANSWER TO THAT.
NO, WE HAVE NOT, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING.
THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS OCCURRING ABOUT, UM, SOME TYPE OF PAYMENT, BUT THAT HAS NOT PROVED TO BE PRODUCTIVE AT THIS POINT.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON THE AGENDA DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE OF FUNDING TO THE BUFORD COUNTY BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
MS. WHITNEY, I BELIEVE THIS IS YOU AGAIN.
UH, ACTUALLY IT'S ACTUALLY A MANY, I BELIEVE WHITNEY AND, UH, HAYES AND MYSELF WILL A TAG TEAM.
THIS ONE, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMITTEE.
FIRST OF ALL, IS A RESPONSE TO THE LAWSUIT THAT WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 17TH, 2020.
UH, WE WILL FOLLOW THAT ACCOUNT.
SO WE ARE NOT A PARTY TO ANY OF THAT, BUT WE FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE PHYSICAL RESPONSIBLE FOR US NOT TO PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE ORGANIZATION, TO LAWSUITS SET OUT.
THE BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RECEIVES FUNDING FROM BUFORD COUNTY FROM THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES.
THE STATE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX IS ONE OF THOSE SOURCES.
DOES SOMEONE NEED TO SAY SOMETHING? OKAY.
UM, THEY REQUESTED A $135,000 FROM THE STATE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX FUND.
AND THE COMMITTEE ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED 32,000 OF THAT AMOUNT, BUT AFTER RECONSIDERATION, THEY ELECTED NOT TO AWARD ANYTHING THIS YEAR.
UH, THEY FELT THAT THAT FUNDING COULD BE PUT TO GOOD USE INSTEAD OF STAYING IN THE ACCOUNT UNTIL THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE RESOLVED.
SO STATE ACCOMMODATION IS TAX MONEY.
$32,000, I THINK, IS BEING WITHHELD AND WILL NOT BE FUNDED TO THE CHAMBER.
UH, ALSO THE LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX AND BUFORD COUNTY THEY'VE RECEIVED $50,000 AS A DMO FOR MARKETING.
UH, THEY, UM, HAVE THAT MONEY, THAT MONEY WAS SENT TO THEM ON OCTOBER 21ST OR 2020, WHICH WAS ABOUT A MONTH PRIOR TO THE LAWSUIT BEING FILED.
THERE IS NOTHING ELSE THAT BUFORD COUNTY HAS RIGHT NOW TO PAY, UH, THE CHAMBER.
AND THEN FINALLY, LOCAL ACCOMMODATIONS TAX AND LOCAL HOSPITALITY TAX.
THEY WOULD NEED TO APPLY FOR THIS FUNDING.
THE DEADLINE FOR THAT IS DECEMBER 30.
FIRST OF THIS YEAR, LAST YEAR, THEY APPLIED FOR FUNDING FOR SEVERAL FESTIVALS.
UH, BUT SO FAR WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY APPLICATIONS FOR ANY OF THAT MONEY.
AND THAT'S ALL WE HAVE UNLESS SHE THAT'S ALL I HAVE, UNLESS ANYONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD OR YOU IN QUESTIONS.
SO A QUICK QUESTION, AND THEN WE'LL DO A COUNSELOR SOMMERVILLE.
UM, THE FUNDS THAT WERE ADMITTED ON THE 21ST OF OCTOBER, DOES BEAVER COUNTY HAVE ANY RECOURSE AS FAR AS FREEZING THOSE FUNDS OR GETTING THOSE FUNDS BACK, SOME SORT OF CLAWBACK MECHANISM OR NOT SO MUCH, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO HAYES OR WHITNEY ON THAT.
AND WE MAY HAVE TO RESEARCH THAT FOR YOU, COUNCILMAN HERBERT.
TYPICALLY WE ISSUE THAT CHECK, UH, THE CHECK, UH, THE, THE, THE CVB, AND THEN THE, UH, HILTON HEAD CHAMBER IN, OR AROUND THE END OF OCTOBER.
IT IS A CHECK WRITTEN AND CAPTURE THEIR ACCOUNT.
IF WE HAVE THE ONLY RECOURSE THAT WE WOULD HAVE WOULD BE TO ASK THEM TO REFUND THE CHECK TO US THAT THAT WOULD BE IT.
WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS IN THE PAST, AS I RECALL, UH, WHETHER OR NOT THE BLACK CHAMBER WAS A DMO.
AND AS I RECALL, THEY, THEY ARE NOT A DMO.
AND, AND I KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S BEEN SOME CONFUSION IN THE PAST ABOUT THEY WERE, THEY WERE NOT, I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE NOT, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY EVER HAVE BEEN.
UH, SO WHATEVER WE GIVE THEM IS A DECISION THAT WE MAKE AS A BODY.
BUT I DON'T, IT'S NOT JUST DEO.
IT'S NOT DMO, THAT'S NOT BEING VOCAL.
[00:45:01]
YEAH.UM, THE, UM, MAKE SURE ERICA, UM, THE COMMITTEE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO NOT FUND AT THIS TIME OR, UH, CAUSE I THOUGHT THEY MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO FUND AND THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT THE RECOMMENDATION OF YOUR YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A STATE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX COMMITTEE.
UH, THE, THEY DID MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ORIGINALLY TO FUND THAT, BUT AFTER THE SUIT WAS FILED, THEY MADE A DECISION TO WITHHOLD THAT FUNDING DUE TO THE LEGAL SITUATION UNTIL IT'S RESOLVED OR, UH, TO USE THOSE FUNDS FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION I HAVE HERE TO USE THOSE FUNDS FOR SOMETHING ELSE, I THINK THAT'S WRONG.
I THINK THAT, UM, UH, THIS IS A LAWSUIT, LIKE MANY OTHER LAW SUIT THAT HAS TO BE RESOLVED.
AND I THINK THOSE FUNDS SHOULD BE WHOLE AND ADVANCED UNTIL IT'S RESOLVED.
AND IF IT'S NOT RESOLVED, WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND USE IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
BUT JUST TO TICKET RIGHT NOW THROUGH A LAWSUIT.
AND YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ON ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER, BUT YOU KNOW, LAWSUITS ARE FILED EVERY DAY.
AND, UM, SO FOR US TO QUICKLY TAKE THOSE FUNDS AND PUT SOMEPLACE ELSE, I THINK IT'S WRONG.
I THINK WE SHOULD ACTUALLY HOLD IT IN ADVANCE.
UH, GIVE THEM WHATEVER TIME PERIOD IS NECESSARY.
AND SO LET'S RESOLVE AND THEN WE MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE.
AGAIN, HAYES, UH, WHITNEY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE.
I THINK THAT THAT IS A COMMITTEE THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE, UH, RESPONSIBILITY AND JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY IT'S UM, THAT, THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION, THE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AND WE PASSED ON THAT.
UM, SO THE COMMITTEE IS THROUGH WITH THAT.
SO I'M THINKING I'M MY, MY, MY POINT IS THAT THAT MONEY SHOULD BE HELD IN ADVANCE UNTIL THIS IS RESOLVED.
AND IF IT'S NOT RESOLVED, UH, FAVORABLY, THEN, UH, THE MONEY COULD BE USED ELSEWHERE AND STUFF.
BUT UNTIL THEN, WE'RE TOO QUICK TO MAKE A DECISION ON A LAWSUIT AND I'M NOT RULING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I READ THROUGH THE LAWSUIT AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND STUFF.
BUT, UH, FOR US TO PASS JUDGMENT THAT QUICKLY, I THINK IS REALLY WRONG.
WELL, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER GLOVER, THE $32,000 IS FROM THE STATE AID TAX COMMITTEE, NOT THE COUNTY, NOT A COUNTY COMMITTEE.
I THOUGHT WE INCURRED THOSE FUNDS OURSELVES.
HEY GUYS, CAN YOU HELP ME OUT WITH THAT? WE DID.
SO, UH, APEX COMMITTEE, WHAT ARE THE NEXT WELL, THE ACTION ITEMS IS WE ARE GOING TO, UH, AMEND THE ST APEX BUDGET, UH, TO, TO, UH, TO, TO PUT OUT MORE MONEY BECAUSE WE'D SAY TO THEM, THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE REVENUES COMING IN.
UM, MR. FARMER IN, IN THE, IN THE STATE AID TAX COMMITTEE CONVENED, UH, IS THE REMAINING FUNDS AND, UH, TO MOUNTAINS, THAT WAS TH TH THEY, THEY TOOK THAT FROM THE, UH, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND READ OUT THE VARIOUS OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAD PUT IN APPLICATIONS.
UM, MAYBE MR. FARMER, I THINK MR. FARMER WAS ONE OF THE TOP, UH, UH, TALKING TO THE, THE MOTION, WHICH IS FURTHER DOWN IN THE ACTION ITEMS. YOU CAN ADDRESS IT NOW, IF YOU'D LIKE TO, WELL, ACTUALLY I HAVE SOMETHING IN INTERIM, UH, IF I COULD, THANKS YORKER.
MY FRIEND, PROBABLY NOT, BUT GO AHEAD.
WELL, I JUST WANT TO JOIN IN WITH YOU BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT, UM, THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY, BUT I ALSO DISAGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE HELD IN A BAND BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT WE GIVE MONEY TO FOR, FOR THESE VARIOUS AGENCIES, IN FACT, EVERYTHING THAT WE DO, THESE PEOPLE ARE GETTING SUED EVERY DAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE GONNA STOP GIVING MONEY TO THE HILTON HEAD CHAMBER BECAUSE THEY GOT SUED BY SOMEBODY.
UM, WELL WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THEY'VE, THEY'RE BEING SUED ALL THE TIME.
AND, UH, SO IT SEEMS KIND OF WEIRD THAT WE WOULD TREAT THE, UH, THE BLACK CHAMBER DIFFERENTLY THAN WE TREAT EVERY OTHER ONE, JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENED TO BE IN THE NEWSPAPER.
AND SO I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF SENDING THIS MONEY TO THE BLACK CHAMBER AS WAS, AS WAS PREVIOUSLY VOTED ON BY THIS COUNCIL.
AND, UH, UH, AS PREVIOUSLY SENT OUT OR SUGGESTED BY THE STATE AID TAX BOARD THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY GET $32,000, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD SEND THEM THAT MONEY.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE NOT, THEY BECAUSE OF, UM, BECAUSE OF THE VAGARIES OF THE COURT SYSTEM, BECAUSE OF INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE PROVIDED LATER ON THAT THEY ARE INELIGIBLE OR IT'S NOT TO
[00:50:01]
BE RECOMMENDED.THEN I THINK THAT'S A DECISION THAT PLAYS INTO THAT, THE NEXT ROUND OF FUNDING FOR THE STATE AID TAX BOARD, NOT THE ONES THAT WE ALREADY APPROVED AND NOT THE ONES THAT THEY ALREADY SUGGESTED TO US.
I THINK WE NEED TO SEND THEM THAT $32,000 FOLKS OTHERWISE, OTHERWISE WE HAVE JOINED THIS LAWSUIT AND I, AND I, AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A WISE IDEA.
AND THEN LARRY, UM, THE, THE POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN, BOTH BRIAN AND, UM, UH, YORK, UH, HAVE VALID POINTS.
UM, I WOULD SAY TO ALL OF US, UH, ALONG THE LINES OF BRIAN'S ARGUMENT, THAT'S NOT, LET'S NOT MAKE THIS A MESS FLOWER SELVES, IT'S ALREADY A LAWSUIT.
WE DON'T NEED TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND GET OURSELVES INVOLVED IN AN ADDITIONAL LAWSUIT.
NOW, THE FUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN, UH, UH, PRO UH, RECOMMENDED BY THE ATEX BOARD.
AND SO NOW I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE FUNDS, UH, THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THE FUNDS AWAY BECAUSE THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS CHAMBER, THE BLACK CHAMBER, THEY STILL HAVE TO OPERATE.
THEY STILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO ADVERTISE IT.
THEY STILL HAVE TO CONTINUE TRYING TO SOLICIT, UH, TOURISM FOR THEM UP THERE, UH, OPERATIONS.
AND SO, UH, RATHER THAN GIVE THEM THE PHONE OR RATHER A HOLD OF THE FUN AND BAINS, I, I CAN GO WITH EITHER ONE OF THOSE, BUT I'VE TOTALLY, DON'T THINK THAT IT'S RIGHT FOR US AS A BODY TO TAKE THOSE FUNDS AWAY AND NOT GIVE IT TO THE MEN AT ALL, BECAUSE AT SOME POINT THE SUIT IS GOING TO BE SETTLED.
AND IF IT IS SETTLED IN THEIR FAVOR, IN THE CHAMBER'S FAVOR, AND WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THE FUNDS AWAY NOW, WHERE DO THEY GET THOSE FUNDS FROM? WHERE, WHERE DID THEY GET THEIR ALLOCATIONS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED DURING THIS APPLICATION PROCESS? SO THAT'S, THAT'S NOT GOOD ON THAT ROAD, PLEASE.
UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR HAYES.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? HEY, YES, SIR.
HE HELPED ME FOLLOW THE MONEY HERE.
WOULD YOU TELL ME THE SOURCE OF THIS FUNDING, WHETHER IT'S STATE MONEY OR COUNTY MONEY, AND WHO HAS THE ABILITY TO APPROPRIATE THAT MONEY FOR USE BY ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ASKED FOR IT? UH, YES.
COUNSELING, UH, THIS IS STATE PATIENTS, TAX MONEY RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE BY THE STATE ACCOMMODATION FACTS BOARD.
Y'ALL Y'ALL, UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE ALL OUT ON THAT BOARD.
AND, AND THEY HAD A CHANGE IN FUNDING, WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO IN A BUDGET AMENDMENT, BASICALLY ON IT.
AND THEY HAD A NEUTRAL $240,000 AND THEY APPROVED IT BASED ON VARIOUS.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO APPROVE IN, IN THE, UH, YEAH, LET ME, LET ME, LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION, MAKE IT SIMPLER.
THIS IS MONEY COLLECTED BY THE STATE AND THEN THE STATE GIVES IT TO THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY APPROVES THE DISTRIBUTION.
THE LEE'S FATE, UH, W WE RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM THE STATE, UH, FROM, FROM, BE IT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
SO IT'S, IT'S A COUNTY DECISION ON WHETHER THE MONEY IS DISTRIBUTED OR NOT.
IS IT CLEAR THAT THE, THAT THE ATEX BOARD MADE THIS DECISION BECAUSE OF THE LAWSUIT, OR DID THEY MAKE IT FOR SOME OTHER REASON? AND THE LOSS OF JUST HAPPENED TO BE, TO POP UP IN THE POPE? I MEAN, FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD UP TO THIS POINT, IT'S NOT TOTALLY CLEAR TO ME THAT THE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX BOARD MAKE THE DECISION SOLELY BASED ON THE LAWSUIT.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT I THINK THAT NEEDS SOME CLARIFICATION.
YOU SHOULD PROBABLY LET MR. FARMER ADDRESS THAT QUESTION.
UM, I'VE BEEN KEEPING MY MOUTH PRETTY MUCH CLOSE TO THIS CONVERSATION, BUT I THINK I NEED TO CORRECT SOME NOTIONS.
WE DID IN FACT, TAKE THE MONEY AWAY FROM THE BLACK CHAMBER, NOT BECAUSE OF THE LAWSUIT, AS MUCH AS THE FACT THAT WE'RE ON NOTICE THAT THAT BOARD MAY NOT COMPORT WITH THE LAW.
[00:55:01]
HAVE NEPOTISM IN THAT BOARD AS ALLEGED, THAT WOULD RENDER IT, NOT EVEN A FIVE OH ONE C3.SO THERE'S A BIGGER ISSUE THAN THE 32,000 BEING AN ESCROW.
HAVING SAID THAT WE DID TAKE THAT MONEY AND PER YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, WE ALLOCATED IT TO THE SECOND WAVE OF DISTRIBUTIONS THAT WE HAVE MADE.
MR. FARMER, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
UM, YOU, WHAT YOU JUST SAID TO ME SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS BASED ON THE LAWSUIT, UH, BECAUSE IN THE LAWSUIT IT BASICALLY TALKS ABOUT, UM, THE BOARD, NOTHING CONSTITUTED PROPERLY AND STUFF.
SO I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED, UM, UM, THROUGH THE LAWSUIT AND AT THE SAME TIME, UH, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE ALLOCATED ANOTHER $240,000 FOR YOUR BOARD TO CONSIDER AS WELL AS THE 260, THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED BY YOU.
WE, AND WE HAD DONE THAT WORK, BUT AGAIN, CERTAINLY IT'S YOUR DECISION TO MAKE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE ARE ON NOTICE THAT THERE'S A POTENTIAL PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THE TIMELINE, UH, MS. FARMER.
I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY.
UH, JUST FOR THE, FOR EVERYBODY'S GENERAL CONCEPTION OF WHERE WE ARE AT SOME POINT EARLIER IN 2020, I THINK IT WAS AROUND AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, YOUR BOARD MET AND RECOMMENDED A $32,000 PAYMENT TO, UM, TO THE BLACK CHAMBER.
AND THEN IT CAME TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND WAS APPROVED ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER $260,000 OF PAYMENTS THAT YOU HAD THE OTHER $230,000 WHERE IT'S PAYMENTS AND THEN COUNTY COUNCIL VOTED TO SET THAT MONEY AS WELL.
UM, IS, IS ALL THAT CORRECT? SO FAR? IT SOUNDS RIGHT.
I AM NOT AWARE OF THE COUNCIL HAS HAD THE READINGS FOR OUR PROPOSAL YET.
I JUST DON'T KNOW WE DID HAVE IT.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THAT, UH, THE CHECK DOESN'T IMMEDIATELY PAY, RIGHT? THAT WAS MONEY.
AND THIS LAWSUIT HAPPENED AFTER THE DATE COUNTY COUNCIL HAD INSTRUCTED EVERY THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO SEND SENT THAT MONEY.
AND SO, SO FOR US TO NOW TAKE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVE AFTER IT'S LIKE REOPENING THE WHOLE THING.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S FAIR TO SPLIT A FAVOR WHO HAS MADE, UM, COMMITMENTS THEY'VE MADE, UH, I'M SURE THEY HAVE MADE COMMITMENTS AND HIRED PEOPLE OR, AND DONE CONTRACTS FOR ADVERTISEMENT IN ANTICIPATION OF GETTING THAT MONEY, WHICH HAD BEEN APPROVED FROM COUNTY COUNCIL.
IT'S LIKE WE APPROVED IT, BUT DIDN'T GET TO THE CHECK.
AND THEN IN THE MEANTIME CHANGED OUR MIND.
WE, WE, IF WE DON'T SEND THAT MONEY, WE ARE EXPOSING OURSELVES TO A LAWSUIT THAT THEY HAD EVERY REASON TO RELY ON RECEIVING $32,000 FROM COUNTY COUNCIL.
EVERY REASON IN THE WORLD, WE WERE ON PUBLIC RECORD AS HAVING APPROVED THIS AMOUNT.
IF WE DON'T NOW SEND THAT MONEY, WE HAVE JOINED THE LAWSUIT AND WE WILL BE A PARTY TO THAT LOSS.
I'LL PROBABLY REPEAT OVER WHAT BRIAN SAID, BUT, UH, I, I DO BELIEVE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND, UH, AND I THINK IF WE DON'T SEND THE MONEY, WE ARE ACTUALLY VIOLATING OUR OWN ORDINANCES, WHICH IS VIOLATING THE LAW OF THE COUNTY.
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE, UH, UH, I THINK WE HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND SEND IT, UM, SO THAT'S MY OPINION.
UM, REAL QUICK, UM, KURT, IF I MIGHT, UH, HOPEFULLY NOT THROW YOU UNDER THE PROSECUTOR, BUT COULD YOU TELL US, ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS? NUMBER ONE, IF WE DON'T SEND THE MONEY, ARE WE NOW A PARTY TO THE LAWSUIT? NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, IF WE DO THE MONEY, WHAT RECOURSE DO WE HAVE IN THE EVENT THAT IT'S NOT A LAWFUL FIVE OH ONE C3, OR IF YOU KNOW THE LAWSUIT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN FILED, TURNS OUT TO BE A PROBLEM.
YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT KIND OF RECOURSE WOULD WE HAVE IN THAT? IF YOU DON'T SEND THE MONEY? I DON'T THINK YOU QUOTE, AUTOMATICALLY BECOME PART OF THE LAWSUIT.
YOU MAY BE, HAVE MADE A DECISION THAT HAS SOME RELATIVE RELEVANCE TO THE LAWSUIT, BUT YOU'RE NOT PART OF IT AUTOMATICALLY.
THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT FILED OR A, AN INTERPLEADER DONE.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE SIMILAR ENOUGH IN THE FACTS TO THE ACTUALLY WHAT THE LAWSUIT IS FOR US TO BE PULLED INTO THAT ONE.
[01:00:01]
SO THERE MIGHT VERY WELL BE A SEPARATE ONE.I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY WITHIN COUNTY COUNCIL'S PURVIEW TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT HOLDING THE MONEY IN ESCROW UNTIL THE CASE IS RESOLVED OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
UM, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND NOT, NOT, NOT GUILTY TILL FOUND GUILTY, BUT I THINK HOLDING THE MONEY IN ESCROW WOULD BE THE MOST PRUDENT THING TO DO.
AND, UM, THAT WAY, UH, WE'LL BE, WE'LL BE TAKING THE SAFER ROAD RATHER THAN GIVING THIS MONEY OUT.
AND THEN THEY'RE NOT A FIVE OH ONE C I HAVE A PROBLEM.
NOT KNOWING IF THEY'RE LEGALLY A FIVE OH ONE C OR NOT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS MADE, WHAT WAS THE SPECIFIC USE OF THE $32,000 AS PART OF THE APPLICATION? THE BLACK CHAMBER, IT COMES TO US WITH A REQUEST TO HELP FUND THEIR ADVERTISING, VARIOUS CHANNELS, MAINLY MAGAZINES, IF NOT IN FULL PAYMENT OF ANY ONE ITEM, IT GOES TOWARDS, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
HOW ARE YOU DICK? YOU HAVE ANY MONEY AVAILABLE IN THE SECOND ROUND OF FUNDING TO HOLD THIS MONEY IN AN ESCROW AS THAT? RIGHT NOW THERE'S 240 ADDITIONAL THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT IN MY GROUP GOT TOGETHER AND THREE SPREAD.
SO IT'S ALL ALLOCATED, BUT IT HADN'T BEEN APPROVED.
OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, FOLLOW UP ON WHAT JOE SAID THAT TRIGGERS IT.
UM, SINCE THEY WERE SPECIFIC PURPOSES, A, UH, MAYBE A WAY TO RESOLVE THIS IS THAT, UH, WE STILL SPEND THE 32,000, BUT WE ACTUALLY PAY IT TO THE ADVERTISING FIRMS AND SO ON.
SO WE MAKE SURE IT GOES TO WHAT WE APPROVED FOR IT.
SO THAT, THAT MAY BE A WAY OUT OF IT.
DO WE HAVE, AND THEN WE'LL DO BRIAN AND THEN, AND THEN PAUL, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHO THIS QUESTION IS TO GO TO, BUT DO WE HAVE A MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT? I GUESS THAT'S MAYBE A WINNIE QUESTION OR HAZE QUESTION.
MAYBE WE, I WOULD, I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT THE ADVICE OF LEGAL UPON THAT.
WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN OUR CONTROL.
I'M NOT SURE IF WE WOULD BE LIMITED BASED ON ORDINANCE, BUT IF NOT, THEN YES, WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAYMENTS AND TRACK THEM UP TO THE $32,000 THRESHOLD.
I WOULD JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE LEGALLY ABLE TO DO THAT, UM, IN AN AGENCY CAPACITY.
AND I'M NOT SURE HOW IT RELATES TO AID TAX OR, UM, THAT, BUT I WILL TELL THE COUNCIL THAT IN THE PAST YOU HAVE SOME PRECEDENT FOR DOING THOSE BECAUSE WE DO THIS, WE DO THE SAME THING, UH, WITH, UH, PENN CENTER CONSTRUCTION, WE DID IT FOR MITCHELLVILLE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT THE INVOICES AND THEN WE REIMBURSE FOR THOSE INVOICES.
ONCE WE SEE, UH, THAT THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVAL.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT ABOUT PENN CENTER.
AND THEN PAUL, RIGHT? I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, UM, TWO-PART, UM, FIRST OF ALL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UM, ENTITIES ON THE DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THIS STATE ACCOMMODATION STACKS THAT ARE NOT FIVE OH ONE C3? MAYBE THE ANSWER IS NO, WE IMMEDIATELY ELIMINATED THOSE FROM APPLICATION IF THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR SECRETARY OF STATE.
I GUESS THE SECOND PART WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY A PART OF THAT LOSS.
WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS THAT WE IMPLY, UM, THAT WE, WE PUT, UH, THE COUNTIES, UM, TRUST, I GUESS THEN, OR THAT WE WERE PLACING WEIGHT IN THE ARGUMENT OF A PLAINTIFF WHO WE, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE AT ALL.
AND FOR US TO PICK SIDES SO EARLY IN THE PROCESS IS REALLY PROBLEMATIC FOR US.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LAWSUITS FACING THE TOWN OF HITLER, THE, UH, HILTON HEAD CHAMBER ALL THE TIME ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE, UH, A VALID, UM, C3, ACCORDING TO, UM, JUST TO ASK, IT WILL TELL YOU THAT, THAT THERE ANYWAY, GO AHEAD.
I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING UP TIME.
[01:05:01]
YEP.YEAH, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO EITHER A PAY THE MONEY OR BE, UH, HOLDING AN ESCROW SINCE THE FIRST ROUND WAS ALLOCATED AND FUNDED, WHICH MEANS IT'S GONE IN THE SECOND ROUND IS ALLOCATED, BUT NOT FUNDED OR NOT APPROVED.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE SOME ACTION AS COUNSEL TO EITHER REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE, UH, OF THE BOARD TO THE TWO 30, $2,000, OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FUND IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL $32,000.
AS LONG AS YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S NOT $32,000 ANYWHERE IN THE SYSTEM THAT HASN'T BEEN EITHER ALLOCATED OR PAID.
NOPE, IT, IT WAS HELD, UM, PAUL, JUST FOR CLARITY, THEY HAD RECOMMENDED $32,000, BUT THAT CHECK WAS NEVER WRITTEN AND IT WAS NOT THIS ALLOCATION THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO CONSIDER LATER ON THIS MEETING, IT WAS THE PREVIOUS ONE OUT OF THE $260,000 THEY HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN ALLOCATED.
I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT, UM, THE, I UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS REALLOCATED.
THAT IS, THAT WAS SENT TO SOMEONE ELSE.
SO, SO, SO WHAT I SAID IS WHAT I SAID STANDS, THE FIRST ROUND WAS ALLOCATED AND PAID.
THE SECOND ROUND IS ALLOCATED AND NOT PAID.
SO WE'RE GOING TO BE THE $32,000.
WHAT WAS ALLOCATED IN THE SECOND ROUND, OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE $32,000 FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, I THINK.
WELL, I, I REALLY NEED AN ANSWER A HOW MONEY THAT WE HAD DIRECTED TO GO TO ONE ENTITY GOT REALLOCATED AND SENT TO ANOTHER ONE WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THIS COUNCIL.
HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? I AGREE WITH YOU, BRIAN.
I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND HOLDING THE CHECK BACK, BUT YOU DON'T, IF MINISTRATION, PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME I'M WRONG COUNSELOR THROUGH ALLIE.
UH, W W WE HAVE THE FIRST REQUEST AND YOUR FULL NAME IS WILLIAMS. YEAH, THE FIRST REQUEST BEING, BECAUSE IT, I THINK IT NEEDS AN ORDINANCE TO GO THROUGH AND HAVE THREE RATINGS, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST RATE.
SO WE CANNOT ISSUE ANY CHECKS, ONE BASED ON THE FIRST AMOUNT.
UM, I HAVE, UH, WHAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW, I'LL SHARE MY SCREEN WITH YOU.
AND, UH, HOPEFULLY Y'ALL COUNSEL DID IT IN OCTOBER.
I, IT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS FINANCE MEETING IN WHAT WE HAD, WHAT WE DO IS WE WANT TO WAIT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT CHANGE, AND WE JUST WANTED TO ISSUE ONE CHECK IN AND READ ONE MORE BIT, THREE TIMES NOT BEING RIGHT YET.
IT HASN'T GONE THROUGH COUNCIL.
AND YOU HAVE THE, THE, THE, THE AMOUNT OF SEEING TWO AND THREE.
SO THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL 260,000 THAT WAS ALLOCATED THIS P 40 HERE'S WHERE THEY'RE SPLIT OUTS ARE FOR THE TOTAL RECEIVED.
SO WE WERE JUST GOING TO READ ONE MORE MINUTES TIMES WITH THIS BEING FOR FREE.
NO, NO, THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHECKS THAT HAVE GONE OUT FOR THE TAX AT ALL, BECAUSE I WANT TO GET THE THREE READING ON IT.
THE TWO 60 WAS ALREADY APPROVED, RIGHT? THE 260,000 WAS THE RADIO APPROVED BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ACCOMMODATION TAX COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL APPROVED THE $260,000 TO THOSE ENTITIES.
THE, THE, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAD, HAD, HAD APPROVED THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT ADDITIONAL FUNDING, AND WE WANT TO FEEL THE HORRIBLENESS THREE TIMES, AND THIS WAS THE START OF IT.
SO I BELIEVE THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAD AND WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK.
I BELIEVE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAD MADE THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT IT HASN'T PROCEEDED IN FULL COUNCIL YET, NOR HAS IT HAD THREE READINGS.
I KNOW IT HASN'T HAPPENED RECENTLY.
SO ARE YOU SAYING TO ME THAT THE, THE ACCOMMODATION TAX COMMITTEE IS COMING BEFORE US WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL 260,000 HOURS WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY? SO W WE GOING TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT AND GET THAT BALL ROLLING, AND THAT WILL BE A CANE FOR ANOTHER 240,000.
AND BASED ON THAT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, THEN WE HAVE, HAVE MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
UM, YEAH, TH THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL AND IT HAS TO GO THROUGH, SO
[01:10:01]
Y'ALL, Y'ALL CAN, UH, MAKE, MAKE, MAKE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGES FELT SISENSE.AND, UM, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THAT WAS INTENDED ON DOING IS GETTING BETTER.
THE BUDDIES TOGETHER WHO WRITE ONE CHECK FOR THEM, FOR THESE FEES, IT, THE, OF JANUARY, IF WE COULD
AND I WANT TO MAKE, I WANT TO MAKE THAT THESE EARLY BOARDS RECOMMENDATION, THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS, NO ADMINISTRATION.
I AGREE WITH, I APPRECIATE THAT.
UM, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE ACCOMMODATION TAX AND I WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT JOB.
UM, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE ACCOMMODATION TAX SHOULD BRING FORTH, UM, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, UM, OF THE 260,000, AND THEN MAKE AN ADDITIONAL REQUESTS OF THE TWO 40.
I AM NOT GOING TO SAY WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM OR SHOULD GO TO, BUT THE, THE, THE BLACK CHAMBER HAD 32,000 IN THAT BUDGET, AND THAT WAS APPROVED.
AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE, UM, A CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE EXPENSES.
THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE, UH, APPLICATIONS TO EXPEND THOSE FUNDS.
AND FOR US TO TAKE IT AWAY FROM THEM RIGHT NOW WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE.
UM, I THINK THEY HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THE FIVE OH ONE C I THINK IS, IS, UH, IS, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE A FIVE OH ONE C IS BEING QUESTIONED AT THIS TIME IN A LAWSUIT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL THAT'S GOING TO BE RESOLVED.
UM, UM, BUT ANYWAY, I STOPPED RIGHT THERE.
UH, CHAIRMAN, HERBERT, SEAN REAL QUICK.
UM, MR. GREENWAY, AND THEN WE'VE GOT STU AND THEN WE'VE GOT LARRY, AND WE DO NEED TO WRAP THIS UP BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A FULL AGENDA AND WE WANT TO GET DONE BEFORE SIX O'CLOCK WHEN COUNCIL STARTS THE WHOLE, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION TODAY IS TO GET DIRECTION FROM THE, UH, COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL ON WHAT YOUR DESIRE IS.
WE, WHENEVER I WAS WORKING WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND FINDING OUT WE DECIDED TO HOLD PAYMENT, UH, ANY FURTHER PAYMENT THROUGH THE CHAMBER UNTIL THE COMMITTEE AND THIS COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL COULD GIVE US FURTHER DIRECTION AT THIS MEETING.
IF YOU JUST, IF YOU SAY, GO AHEAD AND PAY THE 32,000, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS TO DO THAT, AND TO GET THAT RE AWARDED TO, UH, THE BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
BUT WE'RE JUST PERFECT AND SEND AN EMAIL WAS TO PUT THINGS ON HOLD, NOT TO REDIRECT ANY FUNDS.
AND THEN LARRY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PAY THE 32,000, BUT DO IT THROUGH OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE MONEY IS GOING TO THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH WE ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
IF THAT'S THE MOTION, I'LL SECOND IT.
OR WERE YOU ABLE TO MAKE THAT EMOTION ON A DISCUSSION ITEM? I I'M TOLD THAT.
YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION AND TAKE ACTION ON DISCUSSION ITEMS. OKAY.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.
YEAH, I'M SEEKING SOME CLARIFY, UH, CLARIFICATION.
UM, MR.
I KNOW HOPELESS SUED THEM ONCE, BUT THE CHAMBER ONE, I'M WONDERING WHAT OTHER LAWSUITS MR. FALWELL LYNN WAS REFERRING TO? WELL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT LAWSUITS, BUT CERTAINLY ALLEGATIONS THAT THEY'RE NOT A FIVE OH ONE C3.
I JUST, IF YOU READ HIS EMAILS, THAT'S IN THERE ALL THE TIME SAYING WHO IS HE? HOAGLAND'S YES.
HE SUED THEM AND HE LOST, BUT I'M JUST WONDERING THE OTHER LAWSUIT.
YOU MENTIONED WHICH ONES THEY WERE.
WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND, UM, TO RESTATE THE MOTION, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR TO REMIT THE $32,000 IN FUNDS THROUGH THE COUNTY FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
UH, CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE, UH, UH, CLARIFICATION WILL JUST BE TO ALLOCATE AS PART OF THE ALLOCATION OF THE $5,000, NOT IN ADDITION TO THE 500,000, CORRECT.
THAT'S THE ALLOCATED FUNDS TO BE PAID DIRECTLY TO VENDORS OF THE BLACK CHAMBER THROUGH THE COUNTY FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT YOUR MOTION? THAT'S CORRECT.
UM, DISCUSSION, UH, I SAW POLICY AND FIRST, AND THEN WE'LL DO JOE.
[01:15:01]
REALLY HAS TO DO WITH SOURCE OF FUNDS.I MEAN, THAT MAY SOUND LIKE A SILLY QUESTION, BUT, UM, I'VE BEEN LISTENING CAREFULLY AND I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE THAT I'M RIGHT ABOUT THIS SOUNDED TO ME LIKE 500,000, THE TWO 60 AND THE TWO 40 HAD BEEN TOTALLY ALLOCATED ASIDE FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, BLACK CHAMBERS, 32,000.
IN OTHER WORDS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE'S $500,000 WORTH OF ALLOCATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE PLUS BLACK CHAMBER.
IF THAT'S TRUE, TAKE $32,000 AWAY FROM SOMEBODY.
IF I'M NOT CORRECT, WE'RE NOT TAKING READY, BUDDY.
THIS IS MONEY WE'VE ALLOCATED APPROVED BY ORDINANCE, AND THAT WE'RE HOLDING IN.
WE WILL HAVE TO GO WE'RE BACK AND REALLOCATED.
YES, I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, BUT CLARIFICATION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEND THEM THE $32,000.
WE'RE GOING TO COMMIT $32,000 TO THEM, BUT THROUGH APPLICATIONS THAT THEY WILL SEND US FOR PAYMENT FOR SPECIFIC EXPENSES RELATED TO THAT 32,000.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? WELL, WE UNDERSTAND.
DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR, WITH YOUR EMOTION JUST TO CLOSE THE BELL ON THAT? YES.
SO I JUST WANT TO GET TO WORK WITH GOING OVER THIS AND CLARIFYING IT OVER AGAIN, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT AT THIS POINT WE WOULD ASK MR. FARMER AGAIN, THEY DO A GREAT JOB.
I KNOW WHAT THEIR JOB TO DO, WHAT THEY DO, BUT TO GO BACK AND ADD THE $32,000 BACK INTO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THEN ALLOCATE REMAINING BENEFITS TO THE OTHER ENTITIES.
IF WE HAVE NOT APPROVED THIS YET IN COUNCIL, THIS IS JUST COMING BEFORE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE TO BE APPROVED.
SO WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THIS, THESE ALLOCATIONS, UM, FOR, FOR OUR APPROVAL.
AND IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED AS AN ORDINANCE YET.
UH, I WOULD, WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE AS AN AMENDMENT TO STEWS? THAT, THAT WAS, I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING MARK LET'S DO.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANYTHING BEYOND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO PAY THE 30 2034, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT'S IN ESCROW THAT WE ALREADY HAVE APPROVED, CORRECT.
THESE ARE ALREADY APPROVED DOLLARS, BASICALLY.
UM, AND THEN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, STEVE, BUT THE MOTION IS JUST THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THESE WILL BE PAID.
I, I WOULD DISAGREE IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PACKET ON PAGE 87, UM, YOU HAVE THE FIRST WAVE AND THE SECOND WAVE AND THERE'S.
AND SO SOMEONE HAS TO GIVE UP $32,000.
AND ARE WE GOING TO ASK THE COMMITTEE TO FIGURE THAT OUT, THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THIS BECAUSE THAT LIST IS, DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS ITEM 15 PAGE 87.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THE BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS NOT LISTED ON THERE.
SO SOMETHING ELSE HAS TO GO AWAY OR BE REALLOCATED.
AND ALL I WILL SAY IS THAT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST INCLUDED THE 32 FOR THE PAC CHAMBERS.
SO THE COMMITTEE TOOK THAT OFF WITH THE COUCH, THIS FINANCE COMMITTEE APPROVED THAT ORIGINAL REQUEST.
SO FOR ME, IT WOULD GO BACK TO THEM TO WORK THIS OUT AND WE MOVE FORWARD.
I THINK FIREMAN, MAY I SAY SOMETHING, PLEASE? THIS IS DICK FARMER.
I HAD NO IDEA THAT I WAS GOING TO BE BRINGING THIS KIND OF CONTROVERSY, BUT HAVING SAID THAT THE ORIGINAL APPROVED AMOUNT THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE SENT FORWARD TO COUNCIL HAS BEEN CHANGED A LOT BECAUSE THAT 32,000 WAS ALLOCATED IN THAT FIRST WAVE.
THE SECOND WAVE REALLY IS PRETTY CLEAN, BUT WE WENT BACK AND TOOK THE 32,000 AND MOVED IT AROUND TO OTHER DESERVING AGENCIES TO INCLUDE THE CBB WHO DOES ADVERTISING IN ROUGHLY THE SAME AREA.
UM, ARE YOU REFERRING TO JUST SO I'M CLEAR.
[01:20:01]
SO ALICE POINTED US TO ITEM NUMBER 15, PAGE 87 OF THE BACKUP.ARE YOU REFERRING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED NUMBER ONE COLUMN, ROW TWO, WHICH WOULD BE THE GREATER BW FOR PORT ROYAL CVB, WHICH SHOWS 120,000 WAS THEIR FUNDS FROM THE 32,000 THAT WERE ALLOCATED THERE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU YOU'RE SAYING? UM, I'M TERRIBLY, SORRY.
I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
YEAH, PROBABLY NOT ME EITHER, EITHER.
UM, LET ME, LET ME RE SAY IT IN THE FIRST COLUMN FIRST ALLOCATION.
IF WE HAD JUST MOVED THE 32 OUT, YOUR TOTAL WOULD NOT BE TWO 60.
WE TOOK THAT 32 AND ALLOCATED IN WITHIN THE TWO 60 ALLOCATION.
THE SECOND WAVE WAS TWO 40 AND THAT WAS CLEAN.
THIS MIGHT BE A REALLY STUPID QUESTION AT THIS POINT, BUT THE FIRST ALLOCATION WAS APPROVED WITH 32 FOR THE BLACK CHAMBER.
SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN, ISN'T REALLY ACTUAL AND WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED AS FAR AS WAVE ONE IS CONCERNED.
YOU SENT US BACK TO REWORK IT.
WE REWORKED IT INTO WHAT YOU SEE NOW.
SO, UM, I, I DON'T, I DON'T REMEMBER THE COUNCIL DOING THAT.
WHAT I REMEMBER COUNCIL'S SAYING WAS THAT, UH, WE WILL APPROVE THE TWO 60.
I MEAN, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WE WERE APPROVED THE TWO 60 AND WE WILL ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL 240,000 TO, TO THE COMMITTEE TO, TO APPROPRIATE BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN FUNDING.
I WOULD NEVER REMEMBER THE COUNCIL SAYING TO YOUR COMMITTEE TO GO BACK AND WORK OUT 32,000 WITHIN THAT $260,000.
I'VE NEVER, WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE FORM WOULD NOT GO TO COUNCIL UNTIL WE BROUGHT IT BACK.
THEN THAT'S DIRECTING YOU NOW COUNSEL, I'M SAYING WHEN, WHEN FINANCIAL COMMITTEE ASK US TO GO BACK AND RE ALLOCATE THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WOULD BRING YOU A FINALIZED DOCUMENT, THAT WOULD BE WHAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING THIS YEAR.
SO WE'VE GOT, UH, GERALD AND THEN LARRY AND YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND, UM, ALL OF CONSOLE IS CLEAR THAT WE'VE GOT A SITUATION ON OUR HANDS HERE WHERE, UM, IT IS A MESS.
IT IS A MESS AND WE WILL, AND WE'RE MAKING IT EVEN MESSIER.
NOW IT'S CLEAR THAT THE FUNDS, THE $32,000 HAD ALREADY BEEN RECOMMENDED BY THE TAX BOARD APPROVED BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND FORWARD IT ON TO CONSOLE NOW FOR THE TAX BOARD TO GO BACK AND DRAW THOSE FUNDS, THE COMMITTEE APPROVAL OR CONSTANT APPROVAL.
I DON'T THINK THERE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.
AND SO THE $32,000 SHOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE.
NOT THAT THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO TAKE IT IN AND PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
AND SO WE, WE, WE ACTUALLY WERE MAKING A MESS OUT OF THIS WHOLE THING.
IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO JUST ASK MR. FARMER TO GO BACK IN AND REALLOCATE THAT MONEY AND THEN MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHETHER IT SHOULD BE FORWARDED OR HELD IN ESCROW SINCE HE HAS CONTROL OF ALL THESE FUNDS? CAN WE DIRECT HIM TO DO THAT AND THEN BRING THAT BACK TO US, ALLOCATING THAT MONEY AS WE HAD ORIGINALLY PLANNED AND THEN MAKE A DECISION, WHETHER IT SHOULD BE MAILED OUT WITH ALL THE OTHERS THAT STILL HAVEN'T GONE OUT, OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE HELD IN ESCROW UNTIL THE SETTLEMENT OF THAT LAWSUIT.
CAN WE DO THAT? CAN MR. MR. PHARMA HELP US OUT HERE, MALARIA I'M WITH YOU? I THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING A MESS AND TO LIKE GERALD SAID, I THINK WE'RE MAKING A MESS OF THIS.
AND THERE SEEMS TO BE QUITE A BIT OF CONFUSION.
HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
I BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO WITHDRAW THOSE AND THEN MOVE FORWARD AS SUCH WITH THAT SAID, I'LL DEFER TO STU WHO'S HAD HIS HAND UP HERE FOR A MINUTE.
I THINK IF YOU GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS, AS WE PROPOSED AND WE GET THESE PEOPLE PAID BECAUSE THERE'S PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT NEED TO GET PAID.
THEN THE WORST CASE WE HAVE IS WE COME TO THE SECOND WAVE AND WE EITHER FIND 32,000 ADDITIONAL, OR WE REDUCE IT BY 32,000.
BUT I THINK WE CAN APPROVE THIS.
THEN MOVE ON TO THE SECOND WAY AS WE GO FORWARD.
I WANT TO CALL THE QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN.
COULD SOMEONE REPEAT THE QUESTION? YEAH.
STU CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR MOTION PLEASE? THE MOTION IS TO, UH, GO AHEAD AND PAY THE 32,000,
[01:25:02]
BUT BASICALLY HAVE IT PAID THROUGH OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT FOR SUBMITTED BILLS AND THAT THEY HAVE TO RELATE TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSES FOR WHICH WE APPROVED 32,000.WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
IT'S IN THE ORDER THAT YOU ALL ARE ON MY SCREEN, MR. SEAN, POINT OF ORDER, PLEASE.
IN FACT, WE CALL THE QUESTION.
WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, AND A TWO THIRDS, MAJORITY OF THOSE OF US PRESENT TO CALL THE QUESTION.
IS THAT NOT THE CASE, MR. PARLIAMENTARIAN? WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? CAUSE THAT'S ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER UNDER WHAT AREA? WHAT, WHY DO YOU THERE, WHAT BASIS DO YOU THINK IT NEEDS? A TWO THIRD? YOU THINK THIS IS NO, IT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY THAT'S ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.
NO AGENDA FOR THE PERSON ON THE COMMITTEE HAS CALLED THIS A QUESTION.
THAT PERSON HAS TO HAVE A SECOND AND IT'S NOT DEBATABLE.
AND IT REQUIRES TWO THIRDS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT AND VOTING TO APPROVE THAT.
YOU'RE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, HOLD ON.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE MOST FAN TO CALL THE QUESTION.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IT WAS ON THE TABLE.
SO WE WILL TAKE A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO CALL THE QUESTION.
OR YOU COULD JUST ASK IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY, AND THEN JUST, IS THIS JUST AN ISOLATED INCIDENT OR IT'S JUST THE WHOLE PACKAGE.
IT'S JUST, JUST TO PAY THE 32,000 AND NOT APPROVE THE ENTIRE PACKAGE, CORRECT.
THIS IS JUST THE 32,000 THE MECHANISM BY WHICH WE WILL DO.
SO IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTARY THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ENDEAVOR UPON IN RELATION TO THE MOTION? AND THE SECOND THE MOTION WAS MADE BY STU THE SECOND WAS MADE BY BRIAN.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION? YEAH, I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS NOT JUST TO PAY THEM, BUT IT'S TO PAY THEM AND HAVE SOME SIGN OF SOME KIND OF OVERSIGHT OVER THE PAYMENT PROCESS.
AND ALSO IF WE TAKE $32,000, THE 500 THERE'S NO REAL FIRST WAVE AND SECOND WAVE ANYMORE.
IT'S ALL BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO THE $500,000 PROPOSAL WITH WHICH, SO MR. FARMER KINDLY BROUGHT TO US TODAY.
SO WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE $32,000 AWAY FROM SOME, OR THEY ARE, EXCUSE ME.
SOMEBODY'S PRESUME OVER THE A TAX COMMITTEE IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE $32,000 AWAY FROM SOMEBODY THAT'S ON THAT CURRENT $500,000 ALLOCATION PACKAGE.
WE'RE GETTING AHEAD OF OURSELVES HERE, RIGHT THERE.
THERE ARE, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES.
THIS IS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF ONE ISSUE.
WHEN WE GET TO ITEM 15, THAT'S WHEN WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME SORT OF DIRECTIVE AS TO WHAT WE WANT DONE WITH THE MONEY THAT'S BEING ALLOCATED, CORRECT? FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE.
I DON'T EVEN THINK THE MESS THERE'S MA I W I'M NOT SURE STEWS MOTION WAS SECONDED.
SEEING ON FOLLOWUP QUESTION, STU STU.
I THINK THIS IS, UH, I THINK WE'RE DOING THIS BACKWARDS, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE PACKAGE, THEN GIVE DIRECTIONS TO MOVE THE MONEY BECAUSE THERE'S NO MONEY TO MOVE.
CAUSE WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THE PACKAGE.
YES, JOE, FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT LARRY SAID ELOQUENTLY.
MAY I SHOW TO SPEAK FOR A MOMENT? IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THIS ENTIRE PACKAGE HERE TODAY, WE CAN, CAN WE APPROVE IT WITH THE CONDITION AND UNDERSTANDING AND MR.
[01:30:01]
FARMER WILL GO BACK AND DO HIS NORMAL GOOD WORK AND JUST FIND A WAY TO GET THAT $32,000 REAPPROPRIATED TO THE, TO THE DMO THOUGH, TO THE, UH, BLACK CHAMBER, AND THEN LET'S MAKE A DECISION WHETHER IT'S TO BE PAID OR HELD IN ESCROW.THAT'S WHAT ALL WE ALL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION PROBABLY RATHER SPIRITEDLY WHEN WE GET TO NUMBER 15.
NUMBER NINE ON THE AGENDA DISCUSSION ON THE ONE-TIME CASH OUT OF PAID LEAVE POLICY, MR. YEAH.
AGAIN, THIS IS A, AN ITEM THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL AT THE, UH, DECEMBER 7TH SPECIAL CALLED MEETING.
WE HAD, UM, SET THE DEADLINE FOR DECEMBER 10TH, UH, FOR THE APPLICATIONS WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 507 EMPLOYEES APPLY FOR THE PROGRAM.
THIS TIME AROUND, I INCLUDED DETAILS IN MY WEEKLY REPORT, UH, FROM, UH, TO YOU ALL ON FRIDAY, UH, REGARDING THE SITUATION WE HAVE INSTRUCTED OUR STAFF AND OUR TEAM, AND WE WILL BE WORKING AS A BUDGET YEAR TO BRING FORWARD A COMPLETE BENEFITS PACKAGE THAT WILL INCLUDE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IN THE WAY OF A POLICY FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND SET UP A BUDGETING PROCESS FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER A PART OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET TO ACTUALLY BUDGET FOR THIS PROGRAM.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? I'M AUSTIN, CAN YOU PLEASE MUTE, UH, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE? GOOD JOB, ERIC.
I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL UNDER SOUTH CAROLINA.
I BELIEVE IT'S SECTION DASH NINE DASH SIX 30.
UH, LET ME FIND IT UNDER NUMBER SEVEN, TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY PERSONNEL POLICIES, INCLUDING SALARY AND CLASSIFICATION PLANS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
HAS THIS BEEN DONE IMPROPERLY IN THE PAST, OUTSIDE OF SOUTH CAROLINA LAW? AND WHAT SHOULD THE PROCESS HAVE BEEN IN OTHER WORDS, I MEAN, SHOULD THIS BE AN ORDINANCE WHERE WE GIVE OURSELVES THE ABILITY TO DO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO DO THESE ONE-TIME CASH OUTS OF PTO OR LIKE WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE STORY THERE.
CAN, CAN I, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT? I DON'T KNOW, WE'VE PASSED THE RESOLUTION, I BELIEVE HERE TO APPROVE THIS AND YOU'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO IN THE FUTURE.
AND IT'S IS THAT NECESSARY FOR US TO DO RIGHT NOW? OR CAN WE MOVE AHEAD SINCE WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED TO DO THIS AND SUPPORT OF OUR EMPLOYEES TO GET THIS DONE AND DISCUSS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN THE FUTURE WITH REGARD TO, UH, THE PROPRIETY OF MOVING AHEAD AT A TIME WHEN IT'S MORE RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO TALK ABOUT NOW IS NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED TO DO THIS.
THAT WAS ONLY MY FIRST QUESTION.
THE NUMBER THAT WE WERE GIVEN AT COUNCIL LAST TIME WAS $1.5 MILLION.
I ASKED WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS APPROPRIATELY BUDGETED THIS YEAR.
AND THAT SEEMED TO HAVE BEEN AN OUTSTANDING QUESTION.
AND, UM, AND THE REASON THAT WAS GIVEN WAS, WELL, THIS HAS BEEN DONE WITH OUT, UM, COUNCIL APPROVAL IN THE PAST SO MUCH MUST BE OKAY.
NOW THE QUESTION THAT I'M ASKED ASKING IS, IS A RESOLUTION SUFFICIENT, DOES IT NEED TO BE AN ORDINANCE? AND ARE WE APPROPRIATELY EXPANDING THESE FUNDS? I MEAN, OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO THE COUNT, THOSE TO THE TAXPAYERS AND THE TAXPAYERS FUNDS.
I WOULD LIKE CERTAINTY THAT WE ARE DOING THAT APPROPRIATELY.
I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT CERTAINTY AT THE LAST DISCUSSION.
UM, YEAH, IF I, IF, IF I GO ELABORATE REAL QUICK, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW, UH, I THINK THERE'S SOME DEBATE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, UH, THE PROCEDURES IN THE PAST WAS DONE, UH, APPROPRIATELY.
AND I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I, I, UM, DON'T REALLY THINK I SHOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE INFORMATION THAT THE PEOPLE HAD AT THE TIME THEY MADE THOSE DECISIONS.
I DO THINK THAT, UH, THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND THE TEAM THAT WE HAVE NOW THAT INCLUDES FINANCE OUR LEGAL TEAM AND, UH, THE, UH, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION AND THE ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATORS HAVE A PLAN GOING FORWARD FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY 100% PROPER AND BUDGETED, UH, IN THE FUTURE.
AGAIN, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE CURRENT SITUATION I DID THE BEST I COULD WITH
[01:35:01]
THE SITUATION THAT I WAS FACED WITH AND THE INFORMATION I HAD AT THE TIME COUNCIL DID APPROVE IT BY RESOLUTION ON DECEMBER 7TH, WE'VE HAD PEOPLE APPLY FOR IT.UH, I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM.
I THINK A LOT OF THE EMPLOYEES APPRECIATE THE COUNCIL, UH, WORKING WITH THE ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE THIS, MAKE THESE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THEM FOR THIS YEAR.
AND AGAIN, I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD PLAN, MOVE THEM FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET COUNCIL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS AND GET IT APPROVED AS A PART OF A COMPLETE BENEFITS PACKAGE, UH, ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR THE EMPLOYEES MOVING FORWARD.
THAT STILL DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION OF BASED ON SOUTH CAROLINA, CAROLINA CODE, DOES THIS NEED, DOES THIS NEED, DOES THIS FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF A COMPENSATION AGREEMENT ARRANGEMENT? AND DOES THIS NEED TO BE AN ORDINANCE OR OKAY, GOTTA BE A RESOLUTION, UH, TO I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, MR. TAYLOR, ON THAT? WELL, WE HAVE A, AN OPINION ON THE PROPRIETY OF, OF HAVING THIS, HAVING BEEN DONE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR LAST TIME KEVIN HAD TO GO OVER THAT, BUT, BUT LET ME START BY SAYING THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE PAST COUNTY COUNCIL OBVIOUSLY APPROVED A PAID TIME OFF POLICY.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS, BUT IT HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING EVER SINCE.
WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT EMPLOYEES WHO JOINED THE WORKFORCE, THEY START ACCRUING LEAVE.
THEY USE LEAVE, AND WHEN THEY LEAVE, THEY STOP OCCURRING LEAVE.
BUT ALL OF THAT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
AS THE FINANCE STAFF IS ADMINISTERING THE BUDGET EVERY YEAR, THERE IS A, AN EXPECTED INCREASE IN LEAD ACCRUAL BECAUSE IT'S AN EXPECTED THAT AT LEAST CERTAIN NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WILL CONTINUE WORKING WITH US.
SO AS FAR AS THAT'S CONCERNED, THEY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, PAID, PAID TIME OFF PROGRAM.
AND THE FACT THAT IT'S ADMINISTERED BY FINANCE AND INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET TELLS ME THAT THIS IS AN APPROVED PROGRAM THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR TO HAVE UNDERTAKEN AS HE DID TOMMY, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE, PLEASE DO REAL QUICK.
THOSE ARE FOR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE LEADING.
WHAT ABOUT EMPLOYEES THAT ARE NOT LEAVING? NO, I, I, MY, MY PREFERENCE WAS FOR EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATING IN THE LEAVE PROGRAM, WHETHER THEY'RE STILL WORKING AND THEY TAKE A COUPLE OF DAYS OFF OR IF THEY LEAVE AND THEN THEY'RE WHETHER THEY'RE CASHED OUT OR NOT UP TO THE CERTAIN CAP, ALL EMPLOYEES ARE WORKING UNDER THE PAID TIME OFF SCHEME THAT COUNCIL APPROVED, I DON'T KNOW, SOME YEARS AGO, OBVIOUSLY.
AND THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL.
SO, AS I INDICATED IN THE MEMO, I WROTE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS COUNTY COUNCIL APPROVES, THE BUDGET INCLUDES THE PERSONNEL BUDGET AND THE OBLIGATIONS, UM, TO EMPLOYEES FOR VACATIONS ROLLOVER.
ALL I PAY THE EXTENT EMPLOYEES DO NOT EXHAUST THE VACATION THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED EACH YEAR.
IT'S JUST AN ONGOING, UM, ONGOING LIABILITY.
UM, I, I'M NOT, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHICH CODE SECTION YOU'RE TO, AND I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO PROVIDE A LEGAL OPINION OFF THE CUFF, UM, BY, UM, REVIEWING IT QUICKLY AND RESPONDING TO YOU.
BUT IF YOU'LL GIVE ME THAT CODE SECTION AGAIN, I'LL BE HAPPY TO LOOK INTO IT FOR YOU.
I'LL GET SOMETHING TO YOU BY THE END OF THE WEEK.
I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE THAT SAME HESITATION TO GIVE AN OPINION ON IT.
IT SAYS TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF COUNTY PERSONNEL POLICIES, INCLUDING SALARY AND CLASSIFICATION PANTS PLANS APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
MY POINT WAS COUNCIL OBVIOUSLY HAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THE SALARY AND CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND THE ADMINISTRATOR IS ADMINISTERING IT AS SECTION FOUR, SIX, FOUR NINE, SIX 30, SUBSECTION SEVEN GIVES UP THE POWER TO DO COUNSEL.
I THINK THIS IS A BALANCE SHEET, UH, ITEM OF, UH, REDUCING A LIABILITY.
I DON'T THINK IT REALLY WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT OF THE INCOME STATEMENT.
SO I REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT WE'D BE DOING THE RIGHT THING.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE ON.
I MEAN, IT, ISN'T EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS ALL.
IT'S ALL THESE PEOPLE QUIT RIGHT NOW.
SO ALL WE'RE SAYING IS WE'RE GOING TO PAY YOU AND PLEASE DON'T QUIT BECAUSE THE POLICY IS YOU GET IT WHEN YOU, I UNDERSTAND IT.
I DON'T REMEMBER 10 DISCUSSION OF THE POTENTIAL CASHFLOW SHORTAGE DUE TO THE PROPERTY TAX BILLS, NOT BEING MAILED TO THEM.
UM, YOU GUYS ARE AWARE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX BILLS HAVE YET TO BE MAILED OUT.
SO CONSEQUENTLY, THE EFFECT CAN BE, UM, DUE TO THE DELAY IN REVENUE COLLECTION, UM,
[01:40:01]
THAT IT COULD CAUSE, UM, OPERATIONS ISSUES IN TERMS OF CASH FLOWS.UM, I ACTUALLY RECEIVED AN UPDATED PROJECTION FROM TREASURE WALLS THIS MORNING, UM, WHEN WE WOULD NEED TO LIQUIDATING OUR INVESTMENTS, UM, TO SORT OF KEEP US AFLOAT OPERATIONALLY.
UM, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT IS THREE MID JANUARY.
SHAY'S ON A LINE ON THE MEETING TODAY, IF SHE WANTS TO, UM, KIND OF ELABORATE ON ANYTHING THAT I'M STATING TO YOU.
UM, AND SO I'LL LEAVE THE FLOOR TO HER.
IF SHE HAS ANYTHING MARIA, YOU CAN CONFIRM YOUR NAME.
SO HERE'S WHAT I HAVE PROVIDED TO, LET ME JUST SHARE MY SCREEN A MOMENT.
SO THE GROUNDS THAT YOU'RE VIEWING RIGHT NOW IS A GRAPH THAT I SHARED.
UH, THIS IS THE SECOND VERSION OF THIS GRAPH THAT I HAVE PROVIDED TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATION TO VISUALLY SEE.
AND I BELIEVE COUNCIL HAS SEEN SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS BEFORE TO GIVE YOU ALL AN INDICATION OF WHERE OUR CASH FLOWS ARE RIGHT NOW AND WHERE THEY'RE PROJECTED TO BE BASED ON THE SITU THE CURRENT SITUATION AS IT STANDS.
AS I EXPLAINED TO MS. RICHLAND LAST WEEK, MY CONFIDENCE LEVEL IN THE INITIAL PROJECTION, WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN IN A GRAPH FORM WAS VERY HIGH.
IT WAS BASED ON OUR COUNTY HISTORICAL DATA AND THE COUNTY SPENDING ITS OWN MONEY THAT IT WAS COLLECTING OR NOT COLLECTING IN THIS CASE.
IT DOES TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SOME ASSUMPTIONS AND VARIABLES THAT ARE GOING TO BE CHALLENGING TO NAIL DOWN.
SO FIRST LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THOSE VARIABLES ARE.
LET ME JUST MOVE THIS OUT OF MY WAY SO I CAN SEE, SORRY ABOUT THAT.
THE FIRST ONE IS GOING TO BE HOW MANY TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PREPAYMENT PROGRAM THAT WE ARE STILL ON TRACK TO BEGIN ON FRIDAY THAT IS UNCERTAIN.
WHAT IS CERTAIN OF COURSE IS HOW MANY PAYMENTS WE EXPECT TO RECEIVE FROM THE MORTGAGE COMPANY.
BUT BEYOND THAT, HOW MANY TAXES ARE REALLY GOING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROGRAM? WE DON'T HAVE A WAY OF PROJECTING THAT THE SECOND UNKNOWN VARIABLE IS HOW MUCH FUNDING THE AGENCIES ARE GOING TO REQUEST EACH WEEK.
WE WILL BE ASKING THEM FOR THOSE EXPECTATIONS IF THEY HAVE THEM, WHAT THEY MIGHT PROJECT.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OF OUR NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS.
TYPICALLY WE SEND A BILL, WE BEGIN COLLECTING ON THAT BILL.
AND AT THE END OF THE MONTH OR MORE FREQUENTLY, WE WILL TAKE THE MONEY FROM THAT BILL AND DISPERSE IT TO THE AGENCIES IN ITS ENTIRETY.
IF THE TOWN OF LEFT-HAND COLLECTS A MILLION DOLLARS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, WE SEND THEM A MILLION DOLLARS.
WE DON'T HOLD IT AND THEN DISPERSE IT AS THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON NEEDS IT TO USE THEM AS AN EXAMPLE.
SO THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO.
AND THEN LASTLY, UM, AT THIS TIME, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE THAT THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE WILL BE COMPLETED, THEIR PROCESS AND EXACT DATE.
AND I THEREFORE CAN'T SAY EXACTLY A DATE THAT THE TAX BILLS WILL GO OUT OR THAT OFFICIAL COLLECTIONS THAT ARE NOT PREPAYMENTS WILL BEGIN.
SO THOSE ARE THE THREE VARIABLES THAT ARE A CHALLENGE TO INCORPORATE INTO THE GRAPH AND THE PROJECTION THAT YOU'RE SEEING RIGHT HERE.
SO HERE ARE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE HAVE MADE IN THE CRAFTING OF WHAT YOU SEE ON MY SCREEN.
FIRST, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE THREE NOTE, THREE NOTED DATE CIRCLED ON THE LINE.
THE FIRST IS GOING TO BE, WE, WE CURRENTLY HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT, UM, OR EXCUSE ME, WE ARE WORKING ON REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.
AND OUR HOPE IS WE ARE ABLE TO BEGIN COLLECTING BY JANUARY 15TH.
THAT IS ASSUMPTION NUMBER ONE.
UM, AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENT TWO DATES ARE AN INDICATION OF WHEN NON-LIQUID, SO NON-CASH HOLDINGS WILL NEED TO BE LIQUIDATED IN ORDER TO FUND OPERATIONS.
SO THOSE TWO DATES ARE JUST THERE FOR YOUR REFERENCE.
IT IS THE GRAPH ASSUMES WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN COLLECTING PREPAYMENTS ON FRIDAY, WHICH WE'RE ON TARGET TO SKEW.
IT ALSO ASSUMES THAT WE WILL HAVE SIMILAR PAYMENT ACTIVITY AS WE NORMALLY DO.
RIGHT AFTER THE BILLS ARE DISPERSED.
SO IF YOU THINK OF TAX COLLECTIONS LIKE A BELL CURVE, THAT IS WHAT WE TEND
[01:45:01]
TO SEE OUR ACTIVITY BE.WE SEND THE BILLS OUT AND YES, WE NOTICE AN IMMEDIATE REACTION.
WE'LL GET AN INFLUX OF PAYMENTS, BUT IT REALLY IS A RISING LINE UNTIL YOU HIT THAT DECEMBER 31ST, LAST WEEK OF THE YEAR, FIRST WEEK OF THE NEXT YEAR, WHERE THE TOP OF THAT BELL CURVE REALLY HITS.
SO THIS GRAPH IS ASSUMING THAT THE TWO TO THREE, TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING WHEN WE WERE THERE, NORMALLY SEND THE TAX BILLS AT THE ACTIVITY LEVEL IS THE SAME.
THE NEXT ASSUMPTION IS THIS GRAPH IS INCLUDING THE APPROXIMATELY $104 MILLION IN TAX PAYMENTS.
WE KNOW THE TREASURER'S OFFICE KNOWS OUR MORTGAGE COMPANIES ARE HOLDING AND WANTING TO PAY, BUT THAT TAKES THAT INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL.
DID I HEAR SOMEONE TRYING TO ASK THE QUESTION? I'M SORRY.
CAUSE THE VIDEO IS UNDER THE GRAPH.
SO THE NEXT ASSUMPTION IS GOING TO BE THAT AFTER DECEMBER 31ST, THAT THERE ARE, THAT THERE IS A STEEP DECLINE, IF NOT ZERO THREE PAYMENTS BEING MADE BECAUSE THE ADVANTAGE TO OUR CUSTOMERS IS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO PAY BEFORE DECEMBER 31ST TO GET THAT INCOME TAX DEDUCTION.
ONCE THAT BENEFIT IS GONE, THE CUSTOMERS DON'T REALLY HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO PAY UNTIL THEIR BILLS ARE SENT.
AND THAT CLOCK STARTS TAKING LEADING UP TO THE FIRST PENALTY.
SO THIS GRAPH IS ASSUMING THAT NO FURTHER PRE-PAYMENTS ARE TAKEN AFTER DECEMBER 31ST.
WE'LL STILL ACCEPT THAT IF THE BILLS ARE ANNOUNCED, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A PROJECTION.
UM, I MENTIONED THAT THIS IS ASSUMING THE TAX BILLS ARE MAILED ON JANUARY 15TH.
UM, AND WHAT THIS GRAPH DOES NOT IS LIKE I SAID, THE CASH OUTFLOWS THAT WILL BE NEEDED BY THE AGENCIES.
WHAT IT DOES INCLUDE IS A COMPILATION OF ALL OF OUR HISTORICAL CASH, OUTFLOWS ALL OF OUR HISTORICAL DATA INTO THIS PROJECTION.
SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE LIGHTS COMING DOWN, IT INCLUDES PROJECTIONS OF WHAT WE COULD EXPECT TO JUST FIRST BASED ON OUR HISTORY.
BUT LIKE I SAID, OUR HISTORY IS DISPERSING MONEY TO THE AGENCIES RIGHT AWAY.
AND ALL OF THEIR MONEY IN, IN THIS PRE-PAYMENT PROGRAM WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
WE WILL HAVE TO HOLD IT AND DISPERSE IT TO THEM AS NEEDED UNTIL THE AUDITORS OFFICE HAS COMPLETED THEIR WORK AND WE'RE ABLE TO APPLY THESE PAYMENTS.
SO WHEN, UM, MS. RICHLAND ASKS FOR ESTIMATE ON WHAT, WHAT AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT MIGHT BE FOR A TAN IS A VERY DIFFICULT, THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO ANSWER BECAUSE I DON'T, I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT IT WILL EVEN BE NECESSARY.
MY RECOMMENDATION TO HER, THAT THE PROCESS IN TO GET ONE IS NOT BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE CERTAIN IT'S NEEDED, BUT BECAUSE IT SEEMS THERE ARE SO MANY STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN TO APPROVE THE INCURRENCE OF THE CHANCE THAT MEET.
WE MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS NEEDED UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.
SO, UM, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS ON THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT YOU, THAT YOU SEE HERE.
UM, LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE SOME VARIABLES THAT I'M, I'M JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROJECT FOR YOU BECAUSE WE'RE IN UNCHARTED TERRITORY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM MARIA OR WHITNEY STEW, AND THEN JOE.
THAT THERE'S NOTHING LOST BY STARTING THE PROCESS.
UH, MY, MY OWN PERSONAL TAKE ON IT IS THAT WE WON'T NEED IT.
AND MY REASONING IS THIS, UH, THE MONEY'S COLLECTED SEEM TO FALL IN FOUR BUCKETS.
UH, THERE'S A SMALL AMOUNT THAT IS IN THE INSTALLMENT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S AFFECTED, MARIA MENTIONED THERE'S ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION THAT IS COLLECTED THROUGH THE MORTGAGE ESCROWS.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT AFFECTED, SO THAT MONEY WOULD FLOW TO US.
UH, THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY WANT TO TAKE A TAX DEDUCTION, YOU KNOW, BY AND LARGE ARE GOING TO TAKE IT BECAUSE SOME WOULD LOSE IT IF THEY DIDN'T TAKE IT.
SO WHAT WE REALLY HAVE IS THE BALANCE OF THAT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE HEAVILY PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE PAID IN JANUARY, UH, THAT ARE NOT GOING TO DO AN ITEMIZED DEDUCTION ON THEIR TAX BILL.
AND THAT'S GOING TO MOVE OUT 30, 45, 60 DAYS, WHATEVER.
BUT SINCE WE COLLECT MOST OF OUR MONEY ABOUT THIS TIME OF YEAR TO CARRY US THROUGH THE YEAR, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT WE'RE NOT OKAY, BUT NOTHING LOST BY STARTING THE DAMN PROCESS.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT
[01:50:01]
WE SHOULD START THE PROCESS.THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO ISSUE THE TECHNICS ANTICIPATION NOTES, BUT IT DOES GIVE US SOME FLEXIBILITY.
SO, UM, NICE, NICE WORK, MARIA.
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL PAUL, GO AHEAD.
WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH IT IN THE EVENT.
I MEAN, WE SAY IN OUR, IN OUR, UH, PACKAGE THAT WE MAY NEED IT.
UM, BUT IF WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE THINK WE DO NEED IT, OR THAT IS TO SAY, WE NEED ADDITIONAL CASH.
I NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE INVESTMENTS THAT CAN BE LIQUIDATED.
AND I THINK AT THAT POINT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR FINANCE OR THE TREASURY TO GIVE US SOME IDEA WHAT THE TRADE-OFF WOULD LOOK LIKE BECAUSE INTEREST RATES ARE SO LOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT WE'RE GETTING ON OUR INVESTMENTS AT ANY EVENT.
I KNOW I HAVE A FEELING I'M PRETTY SURE IT WOULD COST A LOT MORE TO BORROW MONEY THAN IT IS TO GIVE UP INTEREST ON MONEY THAT WE HAVE.
SO WE'RE PROBABLY ARGUABLY BETTER OFF TO LIQUIDATE INVESTMENTS, BUT THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD.
ANYWAY, WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, I'M SURE WE'LL GET THAT INFORMATION.
AND THEN OUR HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT WE'RE KEEPING TABS ON WHAT THE GOING RATES WOULD BE AND HOW IT COMPARES TO THE AVERAGE OF OUR CURRENT INVESTMENT HOLDINGS.
SO WE'RE W W WHEN IT COMES TO THAT TIME, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S EVALUATED.
CAUSE CERTAINLY IF IT'S CHEAPER FROM AN INTEREST RATE STANDPOINT TO BORROW MONEY, IF IT'S AN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, OF COURSE, VERSUS A HIGH YIELDING INVESTMENT, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT CHOICE AT THAT TIME AND BE CERTAIN TO UPDATE ALL OF THESE.
SO YOU'RE AWARE, BRING UP, I'M WONDERING, CHRIS, DO YOU THINK YOU NEED A MOTION ON THIS TO DIRECT THE ADMINISTRATION TO BRING IN THE SEAT, THE PROCESS FOR THE POTENTIAL ISSUE OF A TAN, OR DO YOU THINK OUR DISCUSSION IS ENOUGH FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO MOVE FORWARD? THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FOR AN ORDINANCE TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNCIL TONIGHT.
I'LL SECOND THE MOTION SAYING TO MY OFFICE, UH, WE WILL APPROVE THIS WITHOUT OBJECTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS? VERY GOOD.
REAL FORWARDED ONTO COUNCIL THIS EVENING.
ITEM NUMBER 12 ON THE AGENDA EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, CONTRACT AWARD RECOMMENDATION TO PURCHASE ONE NEW 2020 AMBULANCE FROM THE H G A C BY COOPERATIVE CONTRACT.
I BELIEVE THAT MS. MR. FOOT SEE, UH, MR. THOMAS ON THE LINE FROM PURCHASING.
SO THIS IS FOR A NEW AMBULANCE, UH, IT'S UNDER THE COOPERATIVE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE AND IT IS TIME SENSITIVE AND I CAN MOVE TO COUNTY COUNCIL FOR FULL COUNCIL APPROVAL BECAUSE IT IS OVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
THANK YOU FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM STILL.
ALL RIGHT, I'VE GOT A CORRECTION.
WE HAVE A SECOND SECOND BY GERALD.
WE WENT THROUGH ITEM WITHOUT OBJECTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS? VERY GOOD.
ITEM IS ALSO SLATED TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNCIL THIS EVENING AS WELL.
UH, I DON'T REMEMBER 13 RECOMMENDATION FOR CONTRACT AWARD FOR INTERNAL AUDITING SERVICES FOR BUFORD COUNTY TO ELLIOTT DAVIS OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA, MR. RICHLAND, I BELIEVE THAT'S YOU.
SO EARLIER IN THE YEAR, UM, AROUND THE AUGUST TIMEFRAME, UM, THE COUNTY HAD REQUESTED PROPOSALS FROM AUDITING FIRMS TO, UM, HELP US WITH AN INTERNAL AUDIT THAT WOULD LOOK AT, UM, SEVERAL DIFFERENT AREAS OF OPERATION TO INCLUDE FINANCE PURCHASING AND THE DSN DEPARTMENTS.
UM, THAT BID PROCESS WAS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR POLICY AND STAFF, UM, REVIEWED THE TWO, UH, RESPONSIVE FIRMS, UH, CONDUCTED INTERVIEWS AND DID SCORING SHEETS AND ARRIVED AT A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU, UH, TO AWARD THIS PARTICULAR ITEM TO ELLIOT DAVIS FROM COLUMBIA.
UM, YOU WILL SEE ON THE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY, THEIR TOTAL COSTS FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE AUDIT, UM, IN $63,750.
AND THAT IS FOR 395 AND A HALF HOURS OF WORK FOR THOSE THREE AREAS.
UM, THAT COMPARES TO THREE PIECEMEAL PROPOSALS FROM PICKER TILLY IN THE AMOUNT OF 60,100,000 AND 30,000.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION TO YOU TODAY IS THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW STAFF TO PROCEED, UM, AND OFFER THAT AWARD TO ELLIOT DAVIS.
UM, HE COULD BEGIN THIS AUDIT AS EARLY AS JANUARY, 2020, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
[01:55:01]
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.WHAT WAS THE BUDGETED AMOUNT ON THIS AGAIN? WHITNEY, DO YOU REMEMBER? UM, I THINK WE ANTICIPATED AROUND 65, WHICH IS, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF OUR NORMAL AUDIT FOR MODERN AND JENKINS, BUT RATHER THAN DOING A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE, UM, FINANCIALS OF THE COUNTY, THEY WOULD DO A MORE, IN-DEPTH LOOK AT THESE THREE SPECIFIC AREAS.
SO IN ELLIOT DAVIS CAME IN JUST SHY OF THAT.
UM, THAT SEEMS TO RING A WITH US.
UM, WE WERE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT BAKER TILLY'S PROPOSALS, UM, BEING A LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND PIECEMEALED OUT.
SO WE ARE MORE CONFIDENT IN AWARDING THIS TO THE ELLIOT DAVIS FIRM.
I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT COMES IN UNDER BUDGET AND I I'M ENTIRELY CONFIDENT THAT IT DOES OTHER QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVE THAT.
CAN WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND, WE WILL APPROVE THIS WITHOUT OBJECTION.
UM, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM NUMBER 14, HILTON HEAD ISLAND, AIRPORT CONTRACT, EXTENSION SOUTHERN POMO LANDSCAPES.
WE HAVE MR.
UM, SEE IF I HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THAT, WHAT THIS IS IS JUST A, UH, CONTRACT EXTENSION, THE TOWN HILTON HEAD ISLAND BID THIS CONTRACT OUT FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY OUT IN 2017 WAS COMPETITIVELY BID.
AND THE AIRPORT IS BASICALLY BENEFITED FROM THEIR BID, UH, COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS.
AND AS WE CAN TAG ONTO THAT AND SOUTHERN PALMETTO IS A COMPANY THAT DOES THE LANDSCAPE COMPROMISE WORK, MAINTENANCE WORK FOR THE TOWN, KIND OF IN THE AREA OF THE AIRPORT.
AND SO THAT THE TOWN HAS OFFERED US THE OPPORTUNITY TO BENEFIT FROM THAT, THAT BID PROCESS.
AND WE HAVE TO STILL WORK WITH, THAT'S BEEN OUR NORMAL WAY TO, UH, HAVE THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DONE OFF THE AIRFIELD.
SO OUTSIDE THE FENCES OF THE AIRPORT.
UM, SO WHAT THIS IS IS JUST A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THAT CONTRACT, SO WE CAN MAINTAIN THOSE MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES.
VERY GOOD, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR JOHN SEEING NONE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED, MR. CHAIRMAN WOULD HAVE A MOTION.
WE WILL APPROVE THIS WITHOUT OBJECTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS? VERY GOOD.
UM, MOVING ON ITEM NUMBER 15, ORDINANCE FOR STATE ACCOMMODATIONS TAX, THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.
THIS HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT DISCUSSED ALREADY.
UH, MR. FARMER, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO ADD OR, OR PRESENT? THE ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR IS THE MONEY THAT WE'RE FUNDING IS FOR FUTURE EXPENDITURES.
SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PAYING THE CHAMBERS BILLS FORM, THOSE WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, NOT ALREADY INCURRED, UH, CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS HAYES WILLIAMS. I THINK THERE ARE REALLY THREE THINGS HERE.
ONE, I WAS BEST PRESENT THIS, BUT WHAT IS NEED TO GET AN, A BUDGET AMENDMENT, UH, UH, FROM Y'ALL.
I WANT TO SHARE MY SCREEN WITH YOU ACTUALLY, YOU HAVE THE, UH, BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING MORE IN ACCOMMODATION STACKS, UH, ACCOMMODATION FACTS, AND WE HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED.
WE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND AMEND THAT BUDGET.
AND THEN THE OTHER SECTION WILL BE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STATE ACCOMMODATIONS FACTS.
I THINK WE CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH THE BUDGET AMENDMENT AND HAVE THE APEX BOARD.
IF YOU ALSO SEE FIT THREE DIFFERENT, THEIR ALLOCATIONS BECOME UP TO THE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS RIGHT NOW, BUT I WANT TO SHOW, Y'ALL SHOW YOU THE, UH, THE STATE OF
I HAVE BASICALLY ALL THE REVENUE AND INCOME ITEMS IN HERE, AND I THINK ORIGINAL BUDGET OR PILLOW, IT WAS
[02:00:01]
ORIGINALLY FOR $425,000.UH, THE AMENDED BUDGET, UH, IT HAS, UH, $800,000 IN, UH, OUR, OUR ORIGINAL SUBSIDIES FROM P 50 TO 500.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A PART OF THE APEX.
THE STATUTE HAS A SCENT GOING TO THE BMOS AND CHAMBERS.
SO THAT CHANGES THE HUD TO WHAT, 61 TO ONE 15.
AND THEN I BELIEVE A 5%, UH, TRANSPLANT TO THE GENERAL FUND.
UH, AFTER WE PAID $25,000, THAT'S THE DAY WE WON'T HAVE ABOUT $5,400, UH, IN EXCESS TO PUT IN THE FUND BALANCE AND THE AMENDMENT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? OKAY, GOOD.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT 500,000, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE TWO 60 AND THE TWO 40, THERE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL $32,000 THAT WAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE BLACK CHAMBER.
AM I CORRECT IN THAT STATEMENT? YES, SIR.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO SAY ANY COMBINATIONS, IF I'M, I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT I'M BEING ASKED TO DO, LET ME, LET ME SAY WHAT I THINK I'M BEING ASKED TO DO.
THE FIRST WAVE THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE APPARENTLY DID GO TO AND WAS APPROVED.
SO I NEED TO MAKE THAT FIRST WAVE LOOK EXACTLY LIKE IT DID WHEN WE PRESENTED BEFORE.
IS THAT CORRECT? OR DO I HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE SOME OF THE SECOND WAVE TO, TO FUND THAT 32 TODAY? HOW YOU WANT TO FUND IT AS, HOW DO YOU WANT US TO FUND IT? BUT I THINK THAT THE, THE FACULTY COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL AS A WHOLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE US A FUND BLACK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THAT 33,000 VIA EDUCATION AMONG YOUR 500,000, I'M SEEING HEAD NODS FROM COUNCIL.
SO I, I DON'T, YEAH, TH THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO VOTE ON, PUT IT OUT BETWEEN, COULD YOU SAY BETWEEN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT AND THEY CAN INSTRUCT YOU ON HOW THEY WANT THAT MONEY? I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE 32, MY QUESTION IS THE APPROVED AMOUNT SPREADSHEET WAS SPREAD IN A WAY THAT INCLUDED 32 AND SOME OF THE OTHER FOUR DIFFERENT, RIGHT.
AND SO LET ME ASK FOR PERMISSION, INSTEAD OF WHATEVER, I'D LIKE TO JUST TAKE THE 500,532,000 AND REALLOCATE, WHATEVER I NEED TO DO AND PRESENT YOU THE WHOLE PACKAGE.
YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE.
YOU KNOW, MY OPINION IS THAT, UH, THE OTHER, THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE DISTRIBUTION LIST ARE NOT GOING TO MIND GETTING MORE MONEY.
IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE, LET ME ASK THE QUESTION BEFORE I GO ON.
ARE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT YOU REDUCED, UM, ANY OF THE OTHER RECIPIENTS THAT YOU REDUCED BETWEEN THE FIRST LOOK AT IT AND THIS LOOK, NO.
WELL THEN AS LONG AS 32,000 IS ALLOCATED TO THE BLACK CHAMBER, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT, MR.
SO AGAIN, WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU'RE GONNA APPROVE $500,000 WORTH OF SPENDING, NOT 260, AND THEN 240, YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT'S 32 FOR THE BLACK CHAMBER.
ALL RIGHT, AHEAD, PAUL, GO AHEAD, PAUL.
I, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE RIGHT ON WITH THAT.
HOWEVER YOU WANT TO INCLUDE IT.
THE $32,000 FOR THE BLACK CHAMBER, THE ONLY CAVEAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IS THAT $32,000 WILL NOT BE DIRECTLY REMITTED TO THEM.
THEY WILL IN FACT ISSUE INVOICES, WHICH WE WILL PAY ON THEIR BEHALF.
I WILL FOOTNOTE THAT ON OUR PROPOSAL, BUT THE BOARD HAS NO WAY TO ENSURE THAT THAT'S A COUNTY THING.
AND THAT'S WHAT, WHY WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN OUR MINUTES SO THAT IT, IT IS PUT
[02:05:01]
IN OUR MINUTES THAT THAT'S EXACTLY HOW WE WANT TO HAVE THE MONEY EXPENDED AND PAID BY US.WELL, AND THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR FUTURE SPENDING, NOT PAST, SO DATED IT SHOULDN'T BE PAID.
AND THEN IT'LL BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM THE CHAMBER OF WHAT OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO BE, NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.
SO DO WE NEED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE? ARE THE CHART AS INDICATED OR THIS AS LET'S HOLD THAT THOUGHT, HOLD THAT THOUGHT REAL QUICK.
YEAH, IT SEEMS TO ME, WE'RE ONLY AT FIRST READING AT COUNCIL.
I WOULD SAY WE COULD GO AHEAD.
UH, DICK COULD DO HIS MAGIC BEFORE WE GET TO A SECOND READING AND WE WOULD EITHER HAVE TO ALLOCATE TO ABSORB THE 32, OR WE MIGHT FIND THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO DO THE ORIGINAL PLUS 32, BUT IN EITHER EVENT, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH GOING AHEAD WITH FIRST READING AND THEN THROWING IT UP BY SECOND READING BY THE, WHATEVER WE DO WITH THE 32, WE'LL HAVE THE ADJUSTED CHART DONE THIS WEEK, PAUL.
YEAH, THE, UH, THE $260,000 WAS APPROVED BY US.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FROM WHAT MR. FARMER JUST SAID, THAT THOSE NUMBERS THAT MADE UP THE $260,000, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE BLACK CHAMBER ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE CURRENT $500,000 PROPOSAL, WHICH BROUGHT ABOUT TODAY.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS MR. FARMER AND MANY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE $32,000 FROM SOMEBODY THAT'S IN THE A HUNDRED, $240,000.
SECOND WAVE HIS OPTIONS RIGHT NOW.
NO, UNLESS WE PLAN ON ADDING ANOTHER $32,000, WHICH WE HAVE NOT DONE, IT'S A ZERO SUM GAME ON THE $240,000.
SOMEBODY IS GOING TO LOSE TWO 30, $2,000 IN THERE, SIR.
WELL, LET ME, LET ME SAY SOMETHING.
WHAT I HEARD YOU JUST SAY IS THAT I COULDN'T LET JUST MY SECOND WAVE PROPOSAL A MINUTE AGO.
I HEARD I COULD ADJUST IT ANY WAY I NEEDED TO, TO FIND THE 32,000.
I'M SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE, TOO MANY CHORES, BUT TO ADJUST YOUR $240,000 ALLOCATION, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ADJUST THE $260,000 ALLOCATION BECAUSE COUNCIL ALREADY APPROVED IT.
SO THE ONLY ONE I HAVE IS THE TWO 40.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO, WITHIN THE TWO 40, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'VE CURRENTLY ALLOCATED TO AND COULD HAVE TAKE $32,000 FROM SOMEBODY.
AND YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IT TO THE BLACK CHAMBER.
THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT.
UNLESS WE AUTHORIZE AN ADDITIONAL $32,000 INTO THE 500,000, WHICH WE HAVE NOT DONE, RIGHT? PAUL, HE'S GOING, HE'S GOING TO MAKE A DECISION THAT MAY NOT COME 30, $2,000 FROM ONE ENTITY.
HE MAY TAKE FIVE FROM ONE, THREE FROM ANOTHER SIX, FROM ANOTHER TOTALING, $32,000, BUT THAT'S WHAT HIS JOB HAS.
I WILL MOVE 32,000 AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED TO FUND THE BLACK CHAMBER.
BUT SOME OF THOSE OTHER ENTITIES THAT YOU APPROVED FIRST WILL HAVE CHANGED.
SO WHAT YOU GET FROM ME NEXT? THAT'S CORRECT.
I THINK PAUL, UM, THE, THE ORIGINAL $260,000 PAUL CAME BEFORE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE INCLUDED THE BLACK CHAMBER.
SO THAT MONEY WAS ALREADY ALLOCATED FOR THE BLACK CHAMBER THAT CAME BEFORE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, THE ORIGINAL.
ARE YOU SURE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
THE ORIGINAL MR. FARMER ASKED MR. FARMER, IS THAT TRUE? YES.
WELL, UM, I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THIS, BUT THAT 32,000 WOULD SPREAD SOMEONE OF THE ORIGINAL GROUP WOULD HAVE GOTTEN MORE MONEY.
MY PREFERENCE IS TO USE THE SECOND WAVE TO EVEN OUT AT 32.
AS LONG AS WE'RE, AS LONG AS WE'RE APPROVING ALL OF THAT $500,000 AT ONE TIME, THIS IS A POINTLESS
[02:10:02]
DISCUSSION.ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AND, OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE I'LL SECOND.
MR. FARMER IS GOING TO WORK WITH, TO REPLACE THE THIRD YEAR THOUSAND TWO, THE BLACK CHAMBER, UM, WHICH CAME OUT OF THE FIRST ROUND.
AND SO THE RED MAN GOT THE 500,000 MINUS THE 32,000 AT EAST, GOING TO ALLOCATE TO THE CHAMBER.
THE REMAINDER NOW IS TO BE, UH, ALLOCATED, UM, FOR ALL THE APPLICANTS, INCLUDING THE CHAMBER.
AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, I THINK THEN WE SHOULD HOLD WHATEVER THE ALLOCATED TO THE CHAMBER OUT OF THAT 500,000 MINUS THE 32 DAYS TAKEN OUT, WHATEVER IS ALLOCATED TO THE CHAMBER OUT OF THAT.
THEN WE SHOULD PUT THAT ON HOLD, HOLD, HOLD THAT, UM, AS, UM, UH, ADVISE US EARLIER TO JUST HOLD IT UNTIL THIS LITIGATION IS RESOLVED.
AND, AND IF, IF, IF THE CHAMBER, UM, UM, UH, NOT BEING, UH, UM, UH, GUILTY THE ALLEGATIONS, THEN WE FORWARD, WE RELEASED THAT, THAT MONEY THAT WE HELD, WE FOLLOWED THEM TO THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE PARTY TO EVERY ROUND OF APPLICATION THAT, UH, THE ACCOMMODATION TAXES ADMINISTERED.
AND SO WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD ALLOCATE IT TO THEM OUT OF THAT REMAINING MONEY THAT DICK IS GOING TO WORK WITH, BUT RESERVE IT, PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL THE LITIGATION IS, SIR.
I GERALD CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
BUT WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, EVEN BEYOND THE 32,000, THAT WE INITIALLY, THAT HAD INITIALLY BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED BY THE EIGHT TAX BOARD, WHICH WE NOW SEEM TO HAVE SOME AVENUE OF GETTING, GETTING THAT MONEY TO THE, UH, TO THE USE OF THE BLACK CHAMBER, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS, UM, FROM THIS SECOND ROUND OF, UM, OF, OF, UH, OF, UH, FUNDING THAT QUITE FRANKLY, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE EXCLUDING THEM FROM IT JUST BY THE WAY WE'RE TALKING.
IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN, GERALD? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
AND SO, SO GIC, I, YOU KNOW, IF, UM, IF YOUR BOARD IN ITS NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS WOULD HAVE HAD, UM, THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE CHAMBER, DON'T BE AFRAID TO ADD THAT IN AND WE'LL CUT WE'LL ACCOUNT FOR IT THE SAME WAY.
AND, UM, AND I THINK THE SECOND PART OF WHAT GERALD WAS SAYING WAS THAT IF BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME THAT THAT FUND, WHETHER IT'S 32,000, OR LET'S SAY IT'S 41,000, THAT YOU INITIALLY ARE YOU, UM, YOU FULLY INTEND TO, TO FUND OR WHAT HAVE FUNDED FOR THEM, IF THAT 32 OR 41,000 IS, UH, STILL HAS A BALANCE BY THE TIME THAT THE LEGAL MATTER WITH THE CHAMBER IS SETTLED AND RESOLVED, THAT THE BALANCE OF THAT SHOULD GO AND DIRECTLY TO THE BLACK CHAMBER, LIKE EVERY OTHER RECIPIENT WOULD, IS THAT WHAT YOU, WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY, GERALD.
I, I SEE THIS, I SEE THIS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
IT SEEMS TO ME, WE HAVE PASSED AN ORDINANCE TO DISTRIBUTE WHATEVER THE FIRST WAY WAS THAT INCLUDED THE 32.
AND WE NOW HAVE A MECHANISM TO MAKE SURE THAT'S USED FOR THE PURPOSES WE WANT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT'S SETTLED LAW.
WE NOW HAVE A SECOND WAVE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
AND ONE OF TWO THINGS CAN COME OUT OF DICK'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO HE GETS TO THE SAME TOTAL OF 500, OR MAYBE WE FIND ANOTHER 32.
UH, AND, UH, AND IT GETS ADDED IN, BUT IN EITHER CASE, I DON'T SEE THAT WE'RE SHOULD DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY DID WHEN WE APPROVED BY AN ORDINANCE, THE FIRST WAVE OF MONEY.
IN FACT, I THINK WE SHOULD BE PAYING THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE PLACES ARE PROBABLY STRUGGLING FINANCIALLY.
[02:15:01]
QUESTION DICK.I'M SORRY TO BE SEEKING CLARITY ON THESE ISSUES, BUT I, I, I CAN'T TRACK ALL THIS.
IS IT TRUE THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE APPLIED FOR FUNDING IN THE FIRST WAVE WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR FUNDING IN THE SECOND WAVE AS WELL? YES.
IN FACT, WE ADDED TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT WE THOUGHT WERE MOST DESERVING OF FUNDS.
UH, DID THE, UH, BLACK CHAMBER MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE SECOND WAVE? IN ADDITION TO THE FIRST THERE'S ONLY ONE APPLICATION COUNCILMAN, BUT WE DID NOT GIVE THEM ANY MORE MONEY IN THE SECOND WAVE.
WHAT'S YOUR RETICENCE IN ALLOCATING MONEY IN THE SECOND WAY OF THE RESULT OF THE DECISION YOU MADE WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST WAVE? YES.
WELL, I MISSED THE
SO IN FACT, THE TOTAL MAY BE AN EXCESSIVE $42,000.
AM I RIGHT? YOU'RE ASKING ME TO TELL YOU WHAT SIX PEOPLE SAYING.
WELL, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.
I'M SAYING THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS THAT THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN THE SECOND WAVE, WHICH WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE TOTAL THEY RECEIVED BEYOND 32,000.
I WON'T GIVE YOU MY OPINION, BUT THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS CORRECT.
SORRY TO BE DOING THIS TO YOU IN SUCH A STRENUOUS WAY, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLARITY ON THIS BEFORE I HAVE TO VOTE ON SOMETHING.
MR. FARMER HAS MONIES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED IN THE FIRST ROUND ALREADY BEEN SENT TO THE VARIOUS ENTITIES.
AS WE SAID EARLIER, I'M NOT AWARE THAT COUNCIL HAS READ IT AND APPROVED.
I THOUGHT, HEY SAID NO CHECKS HAD GONE OUT.
CHAIRMAN PASS FOR THIS IS H WILLIAMS. UH, NO, WE HAVE NOT WRITTEN ANY CHECKS TO ANYBODY, UH, FOR THE STATE OF COMBINATION STATUTE.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION WE HAVE EMOTION IN A SECOND.
DO WE NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE? I SEE NO MOVEMENT OF ANY HEADS.
I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT MEANS NOW.
SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE WILL APPROVE THIS ITEM.
DO WE HAVE ANY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE A CLARIFICATION ON THE READING THAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
WHAT IS THE MOTION? THANK YOU, BRIAN.
DID YOU MAKE THE MOTION AND YOU MADE THE SECOND.
CAN YOU PLEASE RESTATE THE MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF, UH, THE TAX COMMENDATIONS BOARD, EXCEPT THAT IT WILL BE REWORKED SO THAT AT LEAST $32,000 WOULD BE ATTRIBUTED OR, UM, ASSIGNED TO THE BLACK CHAMBER FOR DISTRIBUTION, FOR BILLS INVOICE TO THE BLACK CHAMBER SUBMITTED TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
SO MR. DAWSON'S REQUEST THAT IT BE PLACED IN ESCROW, IS THAT PART OF THIS MOTION IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
I THINK WE HAVE, WE HAVE A METHODOLOGY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MONEY IS AT LEAST AVAILABLE FOR THE APPROPRIATELY INVOICED EXPENSIVE.
I JUST THOUGHT THAT HE'S HIT WHO SECOND.
SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE WILL APPROVE THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION, NUMBER 15 IS APPROVED.
WE'VE GOT ROUGHLY 10 MINUTES LEFT.
IF WE WANT TO END ON TIME CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING A TEMPLATE FOR REPORTING BY THE BMO'S AND CHAMBERS RELATED TO REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES PAYS, I BELIEVE THAT'S YOU, UH, THINKING, UH, CHAIRMAN OR SEAN? YES.
UH, TH WE HAVE, UH, FADING ON THE FORMAT OF, OF, UH, OF HOW WE WANTED THE DMS AND THE CHAMBERS TO REPORT, UH, FOR US, UM, OUR STANDARD SETTING INTO THEN THE CVD.
UM, AND, AND IN YOUR PACKET WE HAVE SUBMITTED TO Y'ALL.
UM, SO, UH, SOME, UH, STATEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE SENT US, UH, THEIR MEMO THAT THEY SENT US TO TRY AND GET IT IN.
REALLY, I THINK WHAT, UH, UH, COUNCILMAN HERBER SHAWN TURNER IS, IS THIS WOULD BE THE FORMAT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE GOING FORWARD.
UH, AND, AND ACTUALLY GOING BACK INTO THE PATH FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, UH, FOR ANY STATE ACCOMMODATIONS AND HOSPITALITY TAX OR WARNING TO US.
AND, UH, HE JUST WANTED ME TO KIND
[02:20:01]
OF BRING YOU UP ON THE FORMAT, ELECTRICAL, LOOK AT IT AND HOW THEY HAVE THEIR EXPENSES EXPENSIVE OUT AND HOW THEY'RE, UH, WRECKING THE FUNDS THAT THEY RECEIVED FROM US.UM, UH, I THINK THIS IS A FAIRLY EASY FORMAT TO FOLLOW AND, UH, AND, AND REPLICATE BETWEEN, UH, THE BEAUTIFUL CAMPUS AND THEN THE BLUFFTON HILTON CAMPER.
UM, HE WENT INTO 30 QUESTIONS.
I'LL JUST ADD JUST A SMIDGE TO THAT.
UM, I THINK ROB WELLS AND THE BUFORD CVV GET A LOT OF CREDIT FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER AND BEING, UM, SO EASY TO WORK WITH AS FAR AS PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, IF EVERYBODY REMEMBERS, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING, UM, WHERE WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, WE, UM, MADE DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PUT TOGETHER AN ORDINANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT, AT LEAST CLOSELY RESEMBLED, WHETHER IT BE FOR CBB HAD PUT TOGETHER WHAT THEY HAVE HERE, UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE IS A FAIRLY STANDARD REPORT OUT OF QUICKBOOKS.
THAT SHOULD BE FAIRLY EASILY REPLICATED FROM ANY ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE, AT LEAST ANY ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE I'VE GOT EXPERIENCED.
UM, SO THAT'S KIND OF THE GENESIS OF THIS ITEM.
SO WITH THAT SAID, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, AND, OR DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THIS AS A STANDARD FORMAT FOR THE REPORTS BY DMS. UM, THAT'S MY MOTION ARE, AND I HAVE ONE COMMENT ABOUT IT AFTER IT'S MADE AN OFFICIAL SECOND.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I WILL GO AHEAD AND MADE THIS.
SO SECONDLY, BY YOUR COMMENT FROM BRIAN YEAH.
YOU KNOW, I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT TO EVERYBODY THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING AN RFP FOR OUR DEEMOS.
AND I, I JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE A MOMENT TO SOAK IT IN THAT THE BUFORD CVB IS THE GOLD STANDARD.
THIS IS WHO WE ARE, WE'RE ACCEPTING THEIR REPORTING.
WE'RE ACCEPTING THE THINGS THAT THEY SAY TO US AND RECOMMEND TO US.
AND, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE BUFORD CVB.
AND, AND THAT HAS TO WEIGH ON OUR MINDS AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THE RFP.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, IF IN FACT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE STANDARD WE'RE GOING TO DO, UM, CLEAN THIS UP SO THAT THERE ARE NO MONIES.
I MEAN, IT SHOULD JUST BE A BLANK TEMPLATE AND IT OBVIOUSLY, IT'S GOING TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, THE DETAIL IS GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT FOR, FOR EVERY ORGANIZATION, BUT AS A TEMPLATE, UM, RIGHT, EXACTLY.
UM, I'D LIKE TO ECHO WHAT BRIAN SAID.
I MEAN, UM, THE BEAVER CVB HAS BEEN, I WOULD SAY, UM, VERY TRANSPARENT, ALSO FAIRLY CREATIVE IN COMING UP WITH THIS.
UM, SO THEY ARE TO BE COMMENDED AND, YOU KNOW, THE MORE, UH, FINANCIALLY TRANSPARENT WE CAN BECOME AS A COUNTY, I THINK THE BETTER.
AND I THINK THAT, THAT THIS IS ONE STEP TOWARD THAT GOAL THAT SAID ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON A SECOND.
UM, WITHOUT WE WILL APPROVE THIS WITHOUT OBJECTION.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? VERY GOOD.
I'M NUMBER 16, MOVING FORWARD TO COUNCIL ITEM NUMBER 17 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS CONSIDERATION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF LESLIE ADAMS FLURRY.
HOPEFULLY I DID NOT BUTCHER THAT TO THE AIRPORT'S BOARD.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
AND THEN SECONDED WITHOUT OBJECTION.
WE'LL APPROVE THAT APPOINTMENT.
THAT MOVES US TO CITIZEN COMMENTS.
UH, BRENNAN, DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR FINANCE COMMITTEE OR IS THAT ALL FOR COUNCIL? EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE SENT TO YOU, OR IF THE COUNCIL OF THE HALL AND THAT WAS FROM SHAREPOINT AND OUR EMAILS.
AND I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT'VE BEEN A SPOT.
YOU JUST BROKE UP THERE AT THE END.
WAS THAT YOUR 1133 EMAIL FROM TODAY? UM, I GUESS OUR, AND I BELIEVE SOME AS WELL,
[02:25:07]
BEAR WITH ME A SECOND.IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT THREE.
IT LOOKS LIKE ONE IS FOR FINANCE.
THIS IS FROM MISS OTTO FROM BLUFFTON AND IT AS LONG.
I'M WRITING TO YOU TODAY IN REGARDS TO THE PTO CASH OUT.
I AM BAFFLED BY THE REQUEST THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER AND POTENTIALLY STOPPED.
I FOLLOW YOUR MEETINGS CLOSELY, AND I BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DISCUSSIONS REGARDING BAILING OUT, QUOTE, UNQUOTE BUSINESSES AND PROPOSING GRANTS TO HELP WITH DISTANCE LEARNING, BUT HELPING YOUR EMPLOYEES.
IT'S ESSENTIALLY THEIR MONEY THAT THEY EARNED.
IS IT NOT THE COUNTY SHOULD PUT THEIR EMPLOYEES FIRST.
AND I BELIEVE IS WHAT THE INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR MR. GREENWAY IS FOCUSING ON.
AND I APPLAUD HIM FOR THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE CAMP, EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY IS FULLY FUNCTIONING, ACCORDING TO RECENT DISCUSSIONS, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR EMPLOYEES OR SPOUSES MAY BE GOING THROUGH WITH HIS OR HER JOB DURING THE PANDEMIC.
THIS OPPORTUNITY MAY BE THEIR SAVING GRACE FOR PAYING THEIR MORTGAGE OR BUYING THEIR CHILDREN CHRISTMAS, OR EVEN PUTTING FOOD ON THE TABLE, GIVING THEM THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CASH UP.
PAY TIME OFF IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THEM ANYWAYS, IF THEY TOOK THE TIME OFF, BECAUSE IT'S THE TIME THEY ARE ALREADY GIVEN BY THE COUNTY.
THAT SHOULDN'T BE A BUDGET ISSUE WHEN YOU HAVE ALREADY CALCULATED AND COMPENSATED THAT PAY TO EMPLOYEES AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, A FIVE EMPLOYEES TAKE A VACATION, USE 40 HOURS.
ARE YOU GOING TO STOP THEM FROM TAKING THAT TIME? BECAUSE IT ISN'T IN THE BUDGET OR IT WASN'T RUN THROUGH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
WHAT IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE IS THAT MANY, MANY, MANY EMPLOYEES LOSE THIS TIME BECAUSE THEY AREN'T ABLE TO TAKE THE TIME OFF DUE TO LACK OF STAFFING, OVERWHELMED WITH WORK AT THEIR POSITION, OR THEY DON'T HAVE THE SUPPORT FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS.
MANY, MANY, MANY WORKING PARENTS ARE STRUGGLING AND JUGGLING FULL-TIME WORK AND HOMESCHOOLING THEIR CHILDREN.
THIS IS JUST THE BREAK THEY NEED.
SEAN, I AM EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU WOULD QUESTION THIS QUESTION.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE INTERIM COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR QUESTION IN THE PAST COUNCIL MEMBERS LIKE COUNCILMAN SUNBRELLA, CUSTOMER ROBIN.
YOU'VE SEEN THIS IN THE PAST AND DIDN'T QUESTION THE PAYOUT.
BUT MY QUESTION IS TO YOU, WOULD YOU HAVE MADE THIS AN ISSUE IF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATOR MS. JACOBS, LET MR GO AWAY A FAMILY FOCUSED, MAN, LEAVE THIS COUNTY IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION WHILE HE IS IN THIS POSITION.
LET HIM BRING BUFORD COUNTY TO ITS FULL POTENTIAL.
BUT I'M LEADING IN A COMPASSIONATE MANNER WHERE CONSIDERATION FOR STAFF IS IMPORTANT.
I'VE HEARD HIM SAY HE LOVED BEAVER COUNTY.
LET HIM BE YOUR LEADER AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT.
THAT APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY ONE FOR FINANCE THAT I HAVE.
SO I JUST BOUGHT ANOTHER ONE THAT, UM, WAS SUPPOSED TO SAVE DRAFT FEEDBACK FORM THAT WAY YOU HAVE IT IN THE TOP OF CERTAIN EMAIL.
USAGE OF THE EMPLOYEE'S VACATION TIME.
I NORMALLY DON'T EMAIL OUR SAY ANYTHING.
HOWEVER, I AM SADDENED BY HOW SOME MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL ACTED.
WE, THE EMPLOYEES ARE EXPERIENCING A HARDSHIP RIGHT NOW.
AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY INDIVIDUALS THAT SAW THIS WAS MR. GREENWAY, MR. SOMERVILLE, AND MR. ROBIN, THIS COUNCIL MAY NOT SEE IT OR FEEL ANY HARDSHIPS, BUT A LOT OF FAMILIES ARE HAVING ISSUES JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE YOUR FIELD.
WHAT IS GOING ON DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T HAPPENING.
OBVIOUSLY, MR.
IF WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS TIME OF CRISIS.
IF THIS EXCHANGE OF THE EMPLOYEES VACATION TIME FOR PAY, IT WAS NEVER PREVIOUSLY WITH THE COUNCIL.
AND WHY SHOULD IT BE DISCUSSED? NOW? YOU ALL HIRED MR. GREENWAY FOR A REASON, THEN PLEASE LET HIM DO HIS JOB.
MR. GREENWAY, I SLEEP FOR LISTENING TO YOUR EMPLOYEES NEEDS MR. SARVER, LESLIE YOU FOR HEARING YOUR EMPLOYEE'S NEEDS AS FOR I'M GONNA SIBLEY YOU FOR SEEING YOUR EMPLOYEE'S NEEDS.
SO YOU OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, PLEASE STAND UP FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OUR VOICE.
PLEASE SPEAK FOR US CORRECTLY.
I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST ONE.
ALSO SOME COMMENTS BEING READ.
WE ARE NOW AT THREE 30 AND WITH NO OTHER ITEMS BEFORE THIS AGENDA OR BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, WE WILL ADJOURN AND MOVE ON TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.