MINUTES
COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
CONSENT AGENDA/WORK SESSION
JANUARY 31, 2012
The regular monthly Work Session of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was
called to order at 9:05 A.M., Tuesday, January 31, 2012, in the Council
Chambers on the Plaza Level of the Government Center, Columbus, Georgia.
Honorable Teresa Pike Tomlinson, Mayor, presiding.
*** *** ***
PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Tomlinson were Councilors R. Gary Allen, Mike
Baker, Jerry ?Pops? Barnes, Glen Davis, Bruce Huff, Charles E. McDaniel, Jr.
Judy W. Thomas, and Evelyn Woodson. City Manager Isaiah Hugley, City Attorney
Clifton Fay, and Deputy Clerk of Council Sandra Davis were also present.
--------------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------------
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh, Councilor Berry Henderson, and Clerk of
Council Tiny Washington were absent.
---------------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------------
INVOCATION: Offered by Rev. Marlon Scott, Emmanuel Christian Community Church.
---------------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by St. Luke Catholic School (3rd Graders).
----------------------------------------------*** ***
***------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA:
THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS SUBMITTED AND READ
BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY AND ADOPTED BY THE
COUNCIL:____________________________________________________
An Ordinance (12-6) - Amending Chapter 2 of the Columbus Code by adding a
new Section 2-189 which authorizes the Muscogee County Tax Commissioner or the
Muscogee County Sheriff to initiate in rem tax foreclosures pursuant to
O.C.G.A. Section 48-4-75 et seq.; allowing the Land Bank Authority to make
written request for such in rem foreclosure; providing notification to Columbus
Council when such procedure is requested; and for other purposes.
Councilor McDaniel moved adoption of the Ordinance. Seconded by Councilor
Allen and carried unanimously by those eight members of Council present, with
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and Councilor Henderson being absent from this
meeting.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ALSO LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND
SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY AND APPROVED BY THE
COUNCIL:___________________
A Resolution (21-12) - Authorization a Special Called Council Meeting on
February 21, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. to hear the appeal of a Personnel Review Board
action in the matter of Little L. Lynn. A resolution is attached.
Councilor Baker moved approval of the resolution. Seconded by Councilor
Allen and carried unanimously by those eight members of Council present, with
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and Councilor Henderson being absent from this
meeting.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING PURCHASING ITEM LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WAS SUBMITTED
AND EXPLAINED BY CITY MANAGER
HUGLEY:_____________________________________________________________
A Resolution (Delayed) ? Authorizing the purchase of one (1) J. P. Carlton,
Model 7500, Stump Grinder, from J. P. Carlton Co., (Spartanburg, SC) in the
amount of $33,750.00. The stump grinder will be used by the Urban Forestry and
Beautification Division, of the Public Services Department, for grinding stumps
on City right-of-ways and other City properties. This is new equipment approved
in the FY12 Budget.
City Manager Hugley explained that this item would be back on February 14,
2012.
-----------------------------------------------*** ***
***-----------------------------------------
WORK SESSION AGENDA:
TAX ASSESSMENT UPDATE:
Mr. John Redmond, Internal Auditor came forward and explained that a few
months ago developers were calling the Mayor and members of Council regarding
their tax bills. He said at least 210 parcels were identified and were pending
further action by the assessor before they could be released for billing. Mr.
Redmond then made some additional comments from a prepared presentation, which
included:
Property Tax Assessments Released for Billing:
As of September 2011:
?Assessments on 210 Parcels were unresolved for varying periods of
time
?Tax Assessors worked with Advisory Committee and City resources to address the
status of these parcels
As of January 2012:
- Of the 210 parcels, only 21 remain unresolved
-Resolving these parcels, determined the status of $81.97 Million of
Digest Value
-The Estimated Tax To Be Billed from these parcels is $2.36 Million
-Work will continue to resolve the remaining 21 parcels, of which 2 are
under
appeal.
Appraisals Pending Further Action
Sept 2011 to Jan 2012
Digest Assessed
Parcels Value Value
Initial September Spreadsheet 210 $ 165,435,215 $ 66,174,086
Items resolved before list completed 77 50,400,663
20,160,265
Actual Starting Point 133 $ 115,034,553 $ 46,013,821
Parcels Completed
Determined Non-Taxable 21 $ 3,002,450 $ 1,200,980
Granted Conservation Easements 2 1,120,745
448,298
Resolved and sent to Tax Comm 89 77,845,070
31,138,028
Total Completed 112 $ 81,968,265 $ 32,787,306
Parcels Unresolved 21 $ 33,066,288 $ 13,226,515
Pending Appeal 2 2,000,848 800,339
In Process 19 $ 31,065,440 $ 12,426,176
A copy of Mr. Redmond?s presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s
Office.
-----------------------------------------------*** ***
***-----------------------------------------
VEHICLE CAPITAL REPLACEMENT PLAN:
Ms. Pam Hodge came forward and explained that there were some changes to
the document previously handed out. The following is a summary of Ms. Hodge?s
presentation:
Current Inventory
Replacement Criteria
Replacement Schedule
Mid Year Funding
CURRENT INVENTORY:
Number of Vehicles* = 1,319
? General Government = 506
? Public Safety = 813
Total Replacement Cost = $76,563,657
? General Government = $43,835,937
? Public Safety = $32,727,720
*Changes daily based on vehicle damage or maintenance issues
REPLACEMENT CRITERIA:
Useful Life
? Pursuit Vehicles = 7 years or 100,000 miles
? Fire Apparatus = 10 years or 100,000 miles
? All Other Vehicles (Truck, Sedan, Van) =12 years or 120,000
miles (10 years or 110,000 miles for Public Safety Admin)
? Motorcycles = 5 years or 50,000 miles
? Heavy Equipment = 5 years or 9,000 hours
Budgeted for replacement in FY12
MEETS CRITERIA FOR REPLACEMENT NOW
Number of Vehicles = 386 (or 29%)
? General Government = 204
? Public Safety = 182
Replacement Cost = $28,825,835 (or 37%)
? General Government = $18,218,707
? Public Safety = $10,607,128
FY12 MID YEAR FUNDING:
Mid Year Request = $5,890,000
Funding Sources
? Public Safety OLOST $1,500,000
? Public Safety SPLOST $96,000
? Special Projects Interest Income $865,000
? Stormwater Fund $640,000
? Paving Fund $1,350,000
? Infrastructure OLOST $1,000,000
FY12 MID YEAR REQUEST:
Public Safety $1,596,000
? 7 Sedans
? 32 Pursuit Vehicles
? 3 SUV?s
? 1 Ambulance
? 1 Fire Truck
Stormwater $640,000
? 1 Eductor Truck
? 6 Inmate Vans
? 1 Backhoe
Integrated Waste $1,439,000
?4 Waste Collection Trucks
?1 Compactor
Paving $1,350,000
? 2 Dump Truck Tandems
? 5 Dump Trucks
? 2 Flatbed Trucks
? 1 Fuel Truck
? 2 Pickup Trucks
? 1 Inmate Van
? 1 Bucket Truck
? 1 Sprayer Truck
? 1 Pothole Truck
General Government $865,000
? 3 Sedans
? 8 Pickup Trucks
? 4 Flatbed Trucks
? 2 SUV?s
? 1 Passenger Van
? 5 Service Trucks
? 2 Cargo Vans
? 1 Inmate Van
? 1 Bucket Truck
? 1 Backhoe
FUTURE FUNDING ? GET WELL PLAN (IN MILLION):
City Manager Hugley then explained that in the General Government, there
are 16 take-home cars for persons working in non-public safety and employees
who are on-call and those that are providing a service after hours use these
vehicles. He also explained about vehicles (marked and unmarked) used by public
safety personnel.
City Manager Hugley also pointed out that a copy of the take-home car
report was provided to members of Council.
Ms. Hodge provided some additional information on salvage value/auction, as
well as a plan of action for vehicle replacement going forward.
Following the conclusion of Ms. Hodge?s presentation, she responded to
questions and comments from members of Council regarding the issue of take-home
cars.
City Manager Hugley explained that the Capital Vehicle Replacement
Ordinance would be on first reading at the February 14, 2012 Council Meeting.
A copy of Ms. Hodge?s presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s
Office.
--------------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------------
FY2012 MIDYEAR BUDGET PRESENTATION:
Ms. Pam Hodge, Finance Director presented the following with regards to the
FY2012 Mid-year Budget, continuing from where we ended the fiscal year:
FY2012 MID YEAR BUDGET
FY2011 Year end Update
FY2012 Year to date Update
FY2012 Mid Year Budget ? Request
FY2012 Mid Year Funding Sources
FY2012 YEAR END UPDATE
General Fund ? Fund Balance =
80.46 days ($33 million)
FY2011 Revenues
101.5% of budget ($2.189 million)
FY2011 Expenditures
99.7% of budget ($135k)
FY2012 YEAR TO DATE (as of December 31, 2011)
General Fund Revenues = 1.92% increase over FY2011
General Fund Expenditures at 48.5% of budget
Based on current trends, General Fund ? Fund Balance as of 06/30/2012 = 72 days
(FY12 Budget projected 66 days)
FY2012 MID YEAR BUDGET
TOTAL = $9,175,000
Capital Replacement = $5,890,000
Public Safety - Integrated Records Management System and Field Based Reporting
= $2,500,000
Demolitions = $570,000
0.50% Pay Adjustment (0.25% for Retirees) effective March 1st = $215,000
FY2012 MID YEAR FUNDING
Public Safety OLOST = $4,000,000
Public Safety SPLOST = $96,000
Stormwater Fund ? Fund Balance = $640,000
Paving Fund ? Fund Balance = $1,350,000
Integrated Waste Fund = $439,000
Infrastructure OLOST = $1,000,000
Special Projects Fund ? Interest = $1,400,000
CDBG = $250,000
Mayor Tomlinson made a few comments about the downturn in crime in the past
few months and then called on Police Chief Ricky Boren to provided some
additional information on their request and need for a record keeping system.
Chief Ricky Boren, Columbus Police Department came forward and thanked the
Mayor and Council for supporting this project. He said it is something that
they have been trying to put in place for the past thirty years but was unable
to due to funding. He said this is a system that would help our citizens and
our officers on the street of Columbus to better keep up with what we do, how
we do it, and the time frame we do it in. He said this system would integrate
with what is already in place in all areas of law enforcement and public safety
in Columbus/Muscogee County.
Major Swiney then provided some detailed information of the system.
Mayor Tomlinson recognized the presence of Marshal Countryman, Sheriff
Darr, and other members of law enforcement present in the chambers.
Chief Boren and Major Swiney then responded to questions and comments from
several members of Council.
Councilor Allan asked Finance Director Hodge to bring back what the annual
cost would be for the COLA for general government employees as well as for
retirees.
--------------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------------
INTEGRATED WASTE PROPOSALS:
Ms. Pat Biegler, Public Services Director came forward and updated the
Mayor and Council on the Integrated Waste Program making reference to printed
information she distributed to Counci.l
BACKGROUND DATA:
MAJOR COMPONENTS
- Recycling Center
- Operating Landfills
- Closed Landfills
- Pick Up
- Household & Commercial Trash
- Recycling
- White Goods & Bulky Items
- Yard Waste
- Tree for Fee
- Do Not Pick Up
- Trash Pickup Equipment
- Trash Pickup Manpower
LANDFILLS
Pine Grove
Granite Bluff
Oxbow Meadows
LANDFILL FEES (CURRENT)
Putrescible Waste $27.50/ton
? Construction Waste $25.50/ton
? Special Handling $45.00/ton
? Metal $30.50/ton
(personal appliances free)
? Tires $110.00/ton
? Yard waste $14.00/ton
(first 2000 lbs free per day to residents)
? Biological Waste Disposal $178/yr
CLOSURE RULES
MSW?s ? Municipal Solid Waste
? Final cover in place within 1 month of last load
? All slopes 3:1
? Vegetation established
? Geo membrane
? Up to 4 feet of cover
? Methane gas system installed
Inerts
? 2 feet of cover
? Vegetation established
? All slopes 3:1
POST CLOSURE MAINTENANCE
Monitoring of
? Methane Surface Water
? Ground water Leachate Quality
Maintain vegetation
Methane disposal (Flame or energy)
Maintain
? Pumps
? Gas System
? Vegetation
Quarterly reporting
Monthly greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting
CLOSED LANDFILLS
Pine Grove C & D
? Maintain grass
Weracoba Creek
? Erosion control
? Remove washed up items
? Cost unknown
Wilson Camp
? Closed since 1984
? Methane migration occurring
? Need methane extraction system with wells and flare system
? Engineering contracted for $100,000 for testing and design
? Awaiting EPD approval
? Rough estimate for construction: $150,000
Satilla Landfill
? Working toward official closure
? $5.2 Million available toward closure, now under contract
? Post closure cost: $15K per year for 30 years +
Schatulga Landfill
? Officially closed since 1999
? Has wells and flare system
? Post Closure Costs: $108,000 per year for 30 years +
INTEGRATED WASTE PROGRAM ? COST ANALYSIS
CURRENT REVENUE FY2011
- Cost of Pickup per Household 2011
- Cost of Landfill Operation per Household
- Infrastructure Value
- Landfill Timeline
- 2011 Tonnage By Type
- Disposal Costs
- Operating Costs
- Infrastructure Value
- Infrastructure Value
- Residential Infrastructure Values
- Real Cost Per Month For Residential Service
- Real Costs - 2011
TERMINOLOGY
- Participation Rate
- Diversion Rate
Savings From 40% Household Diversion/Recycling
Value of Diversion Waste from Commercial Sources
Recycling to 40% is only possible once single stream is available!!!
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
RA1: Increased Landfill Fees for Consideration
RA2: Reduce Saturday Landfill Hours
RA3: Eliminate Resident Limits At Landfill
RA4: Review/Revise Chipper Contract
RA5: More Recycling
Drop Off Points
RA6: Commercial Sticker Pickup
Fee For Biological Waste Pick Up & Disposal
Downtown Per Bag Fee
RA7: Audit Customer List
RA8: Routing Program
RA9: Biodegradable Bags For Yard Waste
The 800-Pound Gorilla
Cut Pick Up to Once Per Week
Increase Fees
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt the 40% goal for diversion rate by 2015
2. Implement the nine recommended actions
3. Allow time for results to be achieved
4. Re-evaluate program status
5. Make a decision about next steps
Following the conclusion of Ms. Biegler?s presentation, she responded to
questions and comments from members of Council with regard to:
Charging citizens to pick up their garbage.
Increased garbage fees.
No recommendations for increase in residential garbage fees.
Waste energy/incinerator type environment.
A Copy of Ms. Biegler?s presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s
Office.
---------------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM & EVALUATION ORDINANCE
DISCUSSION:__________________________________________________________
Mr. Tom Baron, Human resource Director, came forward and made a
presentation regarding the city?s evaluation policy. The following is a summary
of Mr. Baron?s presentation:
CURRENT EVALUATION POLICY
In place since 1971 policy is out of date and does not totally reflect current
practices
Today?s faster pace work environment requires timelier interface with employees
The performance evaluation has evolved into a ?report card? that should contain
no surprises
The performance evaluation is now just one aspect of CCG Performance Management
practices
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
More than just evaluation of performance
Performance Management tools to track, measure and evaluate progress toward
goals/mission include:
? Coaching Log to record current interaction
? Project boards and spreadsheets
? Individual and work-group meetings
? Progressive discipline when necessary
KEEPING A RECORD
? A paper-based system from 1971 to 2001
? Optional electronic form introduced in 2001
? Management & non-management versions
? Probationary & annual versions
? Some employees are evaluated in other ways based on job and duties
TRACKING & REPORTING
Detailed records are available if completed using the electronic system
Although paper evaluations are posted to a database reports are not currently
available
All evaluations are placed in personnel file
Alternative evaluation processes that are not documented and paper documents
not submitted to HR are not recorded or filed
GOING FORWARD
A new electronic document is being developed to accommodate specialty and
non-traditional evaluations
After a phase-in period, only electronic evaluation documents will be accepted
Standardized notices, reminders and overdue evaluation reports are being
developed
Current evaluation policy needs to be reviewed and updated
Upon the completion of Mr. Baron?s presentation and comments from members
of Council, Councilor Thomas asked that the performance review ordinance be
placed on hold to allow the Human resources Department to conduct further
research and come back to this Council at a later date with a new proposal for
employee evaluations.
A copy of Mr. Baron?s presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s
Office.
---------------------------------------------*** ***
***-----------------------------------------
COUNCIL MEETINGS & WORK SESSIONS:
Mayor Tomlinson explained that we are proposing that we add four new
meetings; three would be Work Sessions and one being the personnel review board
appeal. She said before we go back to adding that third business meeting or
keeping staff here after the proclamation session, this is what myself and
staff is recommending.
City Manager Hugley made references to a proposed meeting schedule
available to the viewing public and said what he is proposing is four Special
Called Meetings and/or a combination of Work Sessions as we go forward for the
rest of the calendar year.
City Manager Hugley said he is not asking for a response today, but we
wanted to share this with the Council, and an agreement is made, we will then
follow the City Attorney?s direction on how we should bring this back: as a
resolution for the entire year or individually as we approach the date. He said
Council would of course have the right to cancel any of the meetings they wish.
Following additional discussions by members of Council, City Manager
Hugley, and Mayor Tomlinson, which lasted for approximately fifteen minutes
after which Mayor Tomlinson said she would take Council?s concerns into
consideration and continue to look at how to be more efficient in how we use
Council?s time.
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL MEETINGS FOR 2012:
February 21 - 3rd Tuesday ? Special Called Meeting/Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
March 20 ? 3rd Tuesday ? Special Called Meeting/Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
May 1 ? Change to regular Council Meeting for presentation of FY13 Proposed
Budget, 5:30 p.m.
May 15 ? Council Budget review Meeting, 9:00 a.m.
May 22 ? Council Budget Review Meeting, 8:00 a.m.
June 9 ? 3rd Tuesday ? Special Called Meeting/Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
September 18 ? 3rd Tuesday ? Special Called Meeting/Work Session, 9:00 a.m.
December 18 ? Change regular Council Meeting due to Christmas Day falling on
4th Tuesday, 9:00 a.m. or 5:30 p.m.
A complete copy of the proposed additional meeting dates, as well as those
already on the schedule is on file in the Clerk of Council?s Office.
---------------------------------------------*** ***
***-----------------------------------------
With there being no other business to come before this Council, Councilor
Barnes then made a motion adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Woodson and carried
unanimously by those eight members of Council present for this meeting with,
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and Councilor Henderson being absent from this
meeting and the time being 1:10 p.m.
Sandra T. Davis, DCMC
Deputy Clerk of Council
The Council of Columbus, Georgia
Attachments
No attachments for this document.