Douglas County Board of Commissioners – Special Called Meeting – Millage Rate Adoption – September 8th 2023

In this special called meeting of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners, the approval of the millage rate and the reinvestment plan for the county are discussed. The millage rate of 12.563 is proposed and adopted, generating additional revenue for reinvestment plans. There is a debate about rolling back the rate, with concerns about transparency and the impact on budget cuts. Ultimately, a rollback rate of 12.313 is adopted. The reinvestment plan focuses on investing in public safety, infrastructure, economic development, and quality of life. Phase one of the plan is presented, which includes raising salaries for law enforcement personnel and investing in capital assets. The allocation of funds for various purposes is also discussed, including general government expenses, cultural and recreational improvements, and the funding of the DC Museum. The importance of public safety and attracting and retaining employees is emphasized throughout the meeting.

• 00:00:00 In this section, the Douglas County Board of Commissioners holds a special call meeting to discuss the approval of the Douglas County Board of Education’s 2023 millage rate. The board members present for the meeting are listed, and there is a motion put forward to approve the resolution.
• 00:05:00 In this section of the video, the Board of Commissioners discusses and approves the millage rate for Douglas County. The proposed millage rate of 12.563, which is the same as last year, is adopted. Commissioner Vice Chair Carson asks for more information about why this rate is recommended and what the rollback rate is. It is explained that keeping the millage rate the same will generate an additional $5.6 million in revenue, which will be used for reinvestment plans. The rollback rate is 12.256 and would generate $2.6 million, but adopting the current rate allows for more funding for the investment plan.
• 00:10:00 In this section of the meeting, the issue of rolling back the millage rate is discussed. The difference in tax savings for the average homeowner would be approximately $25. However, rolling back the rate would still require budget cuts and would not fully address the impact of inflation. The county’s new growth rate is around 2.49% compared to an inflation rate of about 14%. The decision to roll back the millage rate is met with some concerns about lacking transparency and insufficient details about the reinvestment plan. Despite these concerns, a motion is made to adopt a rollback rate of 12.3, but further clarification is requested on what this rate would achieve.
• 00:15:00 In this section, the speaker discusses the proposed millage rate adoption and how it would generate a total of $128.9 million, with the majority going towards Sheriff’s Department raises. The speaker emphasizes the need to hire more personnel for the sheriff’s office and improve the conditions of the jail. They also mention the impact on current employees who are overworked and quitting as a result. While there is a suggestion to cut the budget by 2.3 million, it is ultimately decided to go with a millage rate of 12.313, which still cuts the budget by over 2 million.
• 00:20:00 In this section of the meeting, the Board of Commissioners discusses the Douglas Ford reinvestment plan. The plan involves investing $100 million over the next 36 months in areas such as public safety, infrastructure, economic development, and quality of life. The goal is to meet the needs of citizens and ensure that taxpayers can see their dollars at work. The plan also focuses on maintaining capital assets and investing in the county’s employees. The first phase of the plan is presented at the meeting, with the second phase to be presented at a later date. Overall, the plan aims to set the groundwork for the community’s success for generations to come.
• 00:25:00 In this section, the speaker presents phase one of the reinvestment plan, which focuses on investing in the county’s workforce. The objective is to improve market competitiveness, attract and retain talent, and establish a more competitive compensation structure. The proposal includes raising the starting salary for jailers and deputy sheriffs to make them more competitive in the market. Additionally, adjustments would be made to advance the salary structure and provide raises based on tenure and comparatio. The proposed effective date for these changes is September 30th, with an estimated investment of approximately $5.3 million from general funds and other sources. The speaker then transitions to discussing the investment in capital assets, such as infrastructure and public safety equipment, to ensure the county is attractive and competitive to employees and can address citizens’ concerns effectively.
• 00:30:00 In this section of the meeting, the director discusses the allocation of funds for various purposes. They mention that $700,101 will go towards general government expenses, including mandated election equipment. Additionally, $575,000 is being requested for cultural and recreational improvements, such as library facilities and Meals on Wheels vehicles. The total amount requested for phase one is $10,018,894. Questions are then raised about firefighter raises, and it is clarified that they are included in the general population raise. The raises for the Sheriff’s Office are discussed, with percentages ranging from 18% for jailers to 7.2% for others. The importance of investing in public safety is highlighted, and the need for a safe environment in the county is emphasized. It is also mentioned that the previous board had made progress in investing in public safety but had not kept pace with inflation. The chair of the board expresses hope that the increase in pay will attract and retain employees, contributing to the growth of the county.
• 00:35:00 In this section of the video, Commissioner Tiffany is questioning the inclusion of a $100,000 allocation for the DC Museum in the budget. She explains that in the past, there was a requirement for third-party organizations to go through an application process for funding transparency. However, the museum director requested the funding after a study was completed, which recommended changes to the museum. The request is to keep the museum operational while the necessary changes are made. Commissioner Tiffany proposes allocating $50,000 instead of the requested $100,000, as she believes that other funds will be needed for renovation purposes.
• 00:40:00 In this section of the video, a discussion takes place about funding for the local museum and library facility improvements. The speaker suggests providing $50,000 instead of $100,000 for the museum and using $300,000 from capital funds for the library improvements. The finance director explains that the library improvements include minor fixes such as roofing and fencing issues. The speaker also mentions the DDS project for $275,000, which is a joint project with the state, and states that the work is nearly complete.
• 00:45:00 In this section of the video, a commissioner expresses the importance of competing with other law enforcement agencies in terms of salaries, benefits, and morale. Another commissioner asks for clarification about the funding needs of the museum and why $100,000 is necessary for its restructuring. The response explains that the assessment conducted by Kennesaw State University highlighted the need for updating the museum, potentially relocating county departments, diversifying the collection, and training the staff. The final decision is to allocate $100,000 for the museum in the 2023 budget, which is supported by the argument that the museum is a valuable asset owned by the county and serves as an educational resource for school children.
• 00:50:00 In this section of the meeting, a commissioner expresses concerns about the funding allocation for a museum. They question why the museum is receiving $100,000 for just three months when they only received $75,000 in the past for a whole year. The commissioner argues that the museum can operate part-time and still function effectively. They propose allocating $50,000 instead. Another commissioner then questions how the museum has been operating without any funding from the county throughout the year. The conversation then shifts to other topics, such as fire apparatus and the sheriff.
• 00:55:00 In this section of the meeting, a speaker expresses frustration about the shortage of law enforcement personnel and the issue of salaries. They argue that it is difficult to attract and retain law enforcement officers when they are paid low salaries. The speaker also raises concerns about the exclusion of dispatch from the proposal and questions why the proposed rate is not 60 instead of 57 or 58. They express a desire for higher salaries for law enforcement but also acknowledge the financial constraints of the budget. Another speaker requests more time to provide the impact of increasing the rate to 60 and suggests that it will increase the budget. Overall, the speakers highlight the importance of public safety and express a need for better decision-making and planning during the meeting.

In the second hour: There are disagreements about proper documentation and spreadsheets, with one board member expressing frustration about the lack thereof. The salaries of law enforcement, particularly those in the Sheriff’s Office, are also discussed, with one member advocating for higher raises to retain talented individuals. Funding for the museum is brought up, and there are suggestions to explore different sources of funding and create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to outline the public benefit. The idea of allocating a percentage of hotel tax funds to the museum is proposed but requires further consideration. There is debate about the 2023 budget, public safety, and raising taxes, with concerns about the long-term impact. Ultimately, the millage rate is set at 57, striking a balance between law enforcement needs and taxpayer concerns. The discussion also touches on potential budget adjustments and the challenges of balancing financial needs. The meeting concludes with a compromise motion to drop the DC Museum allocation and increase the Sheriff’s Office starting salary.

• 01:00:00 In this section of the video, there seems to be a heated discussion regarding the millage rate adoption. One member of the board expresses frustration about the lack of proper documents and spreadsheets for the debate. They emphasize the importance of following the legislative process and accuses others of not valuing their vote. Another member discusses the salaries of law enforcement in the area and argues for a higher raise for the employees of the Sheriff’s Office. They assert their belief in the competence of their department and express a desire for top salaries to retain talented individuals. The exchange ends with gratitude and appreciation from some members of the board.
• 01:05:00 In this section of the video, one of the commissioners questions why the museum is not funded by the travel and tourism budget, considering it receives around 6,000 visitors per year and promotes tourism in Douglas County. The finance director informs them that the museum will be funded from the unincorporated fund, which comes from the hotel motel tax. The commissioner suggests that future discussions should be held regarding the best way to handle funding for the museum, considering the suggestions from Kennesaw State University but also acknowledging the cost implications. The attorney clarifies that the funding cannot be considered a donation but rather an agreement for services in exchange for money, and an MOU would be required to outline the public benefit. This information prompts the commissioner to suggest a possible funding amount, but the attorney cautions that further legal considerations would be necessary.
• 01:10:00 In this section, the speaker mentions that there was a prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in place for services provided by the museum. They propose to appropriate the funding and then develop a new MOU, which would include reporting requirements for the museum on the use of funding. The speaker agrees with this approach. Another commissioner asks about the hotel tax collected by DCT and how it is used. The speaker explains that DCT receives 66% of the funds, while the county retains the rest and allocates it as they see fit. The commissioner suggests that the museum and DCT should work together, which the speaker agrees with and mentions that there have been instances of collaboration between them. The commissioner proposes a potential vote to have a percentage of the hotel tax funds allocated to the museum, but the speaker states that it would require further consideration. The discussion then shifts to a motion to approve the Douglas County reinvestment plan and the 2023 budget with changes, including an allocation of $50,000 to the museum and a salary raise for deputies.
• 01:15:00 In this section of the meeting, Roslyn explains that raising the minimum salary to $60,000 would cost over a million dollars, as it would require adjustments for over 300 employees. She suggests tabled the motion and finding a number that everyone can agree on. The chairman questions the need to raise taxes when there is already a fund balance of $51 million, but Roslyn explains that after adjustments, the fund balance would be $35.2 million. Another commissioner emphasizes the importance of public safety and argues for keeping the motion as is. However, concerns are raised about the long-term impact on taxes.
• 01:20:00 In this section of the transcript, there is a discussion about the millage rate adoption and the decision to lower the revenue. Some board members express their concerns about the prioritization of funding, particularly for public safety. They argue that there may not be enough discretionary funds in the future if the rate is lowered. However, there are also board members who emphasize the need to consider the taxpayers’ concerns and not raise their taxes too much. They believe that funding law enforcement adequately can still be achieved with a slightly lower rate. Ultimately, it is mentioned that the millage rate will be set at 57, which is considered reasonable for both law enforcement and the community.
• 01:25:00 In this section of the meeting, a commissioner expresses concern about raising the millage rate further, as it would exceed their spending policy and potentially lead to job cuts in the future. The board discusses the possibility of amending the budget, but confusion arises regarding the specific language of the policy. Another commissioner argues that the focus should be on addressing the sheriff’s needs rather than involving other departments. Ultimately, it is decided to increase the millage rate to 58.5, but it is acknowledged that the budget will be affected and potential cuts may be necessary next year. The discussion reveals the challenges of balancing financial needs with taxpayer concerns.
• 01:30:00 In this section of the video, there is a discussion about the millage rate and budget adjustments. One person suggests cutting out unnecessary expenses and focusing on leadership. They also question why there is a $5 million allocation for general population and express their dissatisfaction with slipping in these changes without proper discussion. Another person brings up the raises for employees and asks for more details on the narrative and data. Eventually, a compromise motion is made to drop the DC Museum allocation and raise the Sheriff’s Office starting salary. The motion is passed, and the meeting is adjourned.