Columbus, Georgia

COUNCIL BRIEFING



April 9, 2002





A Council Briefing was held on Tuesday, April 9, 2002 in the Council Chamber

Conference Room, on the Plaza Level of the Government Center, Columbus,

Georgia. Mayor Pro Tem Jack Rodgers, presiding.



PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers were Mayor Bobby G. Peters,

Councilors R. Gary Allen, Richard Smith, Nathan Suber, and Evelyn Woodson and

. Evelyn Turner Pugh (arrived at 8:25 a.m.) Also present were City Manager

Carmen Cavezza; City Attorney Clifton Fay; Finance Manager, Real Estate

Division ; Sidre Hearn; Director of Community Development, Rick Jones; Director

of Finance Kay Love and Director of Human Resources, Tom Barron.



ABSENT: Councilor Berry Henderson





This meeting was called to order at 8:10 a.m.



City Manager Cavezza briefed the members on two issues: CDBG Budget and the

Tree Ordinance. He then proceeded to explain those issues beginning with the

CDBG Budget.





COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT:



? Expecting $4,325.00 in entitlement grant funds (CDBG + HOME +ESG)

? Estimated CDBG funds of $2,763,000 ( FY?03)

? Estimated ESG funds of $96,000 (FY ?03) ( The homeless program)

? Estimated $1.4 million for the HOME Program.

? Twenty - year (20) commitment to pay approximately 1.4million on the

Total System project.





PAYBACK OF THE SECTION 108 LOAN



? Payback of the 108 loan takes approximately half of $2.8M CDBG Grant.

? Payment this year will be $1,477,238.



HOME PROGRAM:



? Estimated HOME funds for next year is $1,466,000

? Match this year $183,250 (12.5% requirement this year)

? This year?s match was made through UDAG funds and bonds.





DIRECT HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE (1ST Time Homebuyers)



? 109 applications were funded as stated in this year?s budget.

? This program offers $5,000 for down payments and is operating well.



Seeking clarification, Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers focused on the report titled ?

CDBG/HOME to Discuss? regarding the Section 108 loan and asked of the $2.8

Million are we paying $1,477,238 to the Home Program, which he responded,

yes, that one half of that amount goes to paying for the Total System

Program. He then asked if the $1,466,000 is specifically allocated to the

Home Program, to which City Manager Cavezza responded , yes, it is allocated

to the Home Program.



At this point City Manager requested input from Rick Jones, Director of

Community Development which he reported the allocated amounts as follows:

$4.3 million - total allocation; $2.7 - CDBG; $96,000 ? Emergency Shelter

Grant; and $1.4 million is dedicated to the HOME Program. City Manager

Cavezza continued by reporting on the next program.





OWNER - OCCUPIED REHAB PROGRAM:



? Program allows a maximum cost of $200,000 per owner occupied unit.



Responding to a question asked by Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers if this fund is

eligible to be used in the CDBG Program? City Manager Cavezza replied CDBG

funds can be used on sewer, and road improvements; but funds are locked in

for the CDBG program.





RENTAL REHAB PROGRAM:



? One rental rehab loan is under construction. Problems exist between the

owner and contractor concerning payment to the subcontractors.

? Rental Rehab was stopped last year.



City Manager Cavezza said there is a need to come back before Council before

the beginning of the fiscal year to determine how to revamp that program.

Councilor Woodson asked Rick Jones to find out if funds designated by the

Clinton Administration to help the elderly is still available within the

current administration.





ACCOUNTING ISSUES:



City Manager Cavezza pointed out that on the budget spreadsheet, about $1.2

million was brought forward from previous programs whereby we want to

reallocate those monies; so that, we can go ahead and spend what has been

allocated to us on a timely basis.



STAFFING:



? Additional staffing is needed to manage the programs.





Referring back to the Rental Rehab Program, Councilor Rodgers asked why is the

Rental Rehab program less staff intensive, to which Mr. Jones responded because

the monitoring is required annually instead of a weekly or monthly basis.





SMALL BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM:



? Funds will not be provided for this program.

? Working on SBA?s Microloan program





PROJECT CARE:



? Funds are low.

? UDAC funds are almost depleted.



? Proposed Financial Technician is needed.

? Proposed Housing Technician is needed.



Referring to handouts in the Councilor?s packets, City Manager Cavezza called

attention to the CDBG project.









CDBG PROJECT:



$2,763.00 ? FY?03 Estimated CDBG Grant Allocation

$1,249,516 ? Prior Year CDBG Funding

$1,650.00 ? FY ?03 Program Income



$5,662,516 ? TOTAL (CDBG FUNDING ? FY2003)





HOME PROJECT

Rehab owner - occupiedPrior year - $500,000





At this point, Sidre Hearn further explained that the program was stopped

beginning 1 January due to a lead paint issue as mandated by Hud. She said

$20,000 would not cover the lead based paint and the owner rehab program, too.

She pointed out that a contract is being laid out to allow inspectors to

look at the overall cost to bring one house into compliance. She then

estimated the total to be about $30 ? 35,000 for each owner rehab, which will

be more than the actual value of the home.



Councilor Suber recalled it was said the home program was running out of

money, to which Ms. Hearn replied that the first time homeowner program is

running out of money. He asked prior to the Hud mandating abatement, how much

money did we have? She continued to explain this $500,000 is only for this

budget year which has to be rolled over, because we still have not started

owner rehab. City Manager added that this issue was brought before Council

last year and we broke it down in three categories with the Council?s approval

to reallocate additional funds for this program.





Mayor Peters said if guidelines are so stringent due to the $20,000 maximum

cost per owner occupied unit, why not abandon that (program) and shift the

funds into a program

that has a waiting line. City Manager Cavezza replied this can be done.

However, Ms. Hearn pointed out this is not concrete, but to only let the

Council know what is out there.





Councilor Pugh expressed strong disapproval in abandoning the program , and

suggested that the allocated amount is increased to bring those house up to

code, instead of abandoning that project. She then asked if you move 90% of

the neighborhood where will they go? She said this was her first time hearing

about this situation. As City Manager Cavezza offered to explain, he said

there was a problem with the staffing in the program and rather than continue

the program, we halted it in order to correct the problem. He said we have to

figure out how to deal with the problem because we don?t want to kick anyone

out their house. City Manager Cavezza admitted there is a problem in the

program ; therefore, we want to put a hold on it until the problem is fixed.

He assured the Council that the program would be sorted out and pulled

together.





Councilor Rodgers asked for clarification on the sum of $189,000 in the CHDO

Administration and Home Program activities. He then asked what is the

administration fee of $50,000. Rick Jones explained that this is6 the fee

allocated to run to program..



As City Manager Cavezza was about to address the tree ordinance, for

clarification purposes Councilor Suber asked Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers to explain

his previous question if the $189,000 is allocated for Administrative

activities? However, Councilor Rodgers explained that he asked if that sum

was all for that amount, after which he brought out the $50,000, but to

concur with Councilor Suber said initially, he stated $189,000, but now he

could see the $139,000 is directly attributed to the Home program.





TREE ORDINANCE - SPECULATIVE GRADING



City Manager Cavezza pointed out that Liz Turner passed a hand out of the

ordinance around the table of Pages 36 and 37 Section 18 (g).



INTENT: To address clearing land in anticipation of later development of

land cleared

and left in that state for extended periods of time. Referring to a chart, he

summarized the two positions as follows:





OPPOSING POSITIONS:





1. Clearing is necessary.



Within one year requires the developer either to submit a plan or plant the

trees before the project is completed. ( I may not have the project finished,

but will have to go in and plant trees within one year)



Would prefer that plan is met before issuing CO or final inspection.



2. By removing all trees prevents a prospective buyer?s options

Saving and using mature or existing trees as part of their plan.



- Many sites are cleared and left sitting there for some time



OPTIONS:



The tree committee decided on two options for the developers.



1. Leave the undisturbed natural buffer in place.

2. Prepare a plan for the portion adjacent of the right-of-way.



- Buffer ? One tree every 100? or 50? depending on width of planting strip



- Tree ? One small maturing tree every 30? or one large maturing tree every

50?.



Responding to various question from the council members regarding cleared land

left for long periods of time without any trees planted, he referred to Par. 16

(g) which states the buffer would be planted along right away during the next

planting season.



City Manager Cavezza summarized the positions by stating that the developers

would like to see when the CO is issued, then we are done, but the Tree

Ordinance committee?s concern is by the next planting season have a plan in

place, so that no vacant land is left for an extended period of time.



Continuing to respond to questions from various members of councilor, he

advised the members that this information would remain in the books and would

be brought back up for discussion on next week.





There being no other business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m.









Gloria A. Carey, Secretary