MINUTES
COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
WORK SESSION
AUGUST 28, 2007
The regular monthly Work Session of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was
called to order at 9:03 A.M., Tuesday, August 28, 2007, in the Council Chambers
on the Plaza Level of the Government Center, Columbus, Georgia. Honorable W. J.
Wetherington, Mayor, presiding.
*** *** ***
PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Wetherington and Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn Turner
Pugh were Councilors R. Gary Allen, Wayne Anthony, Mike Baker, Jerry ?Pops?
Barnes, Berry Henderson, Julius H. Hunter, Jr., Charles E. McDaniel, Jr., and
Evelyn Woodson (arrived at 9:15 a.m.). City Manager Isaiah Hugley, City
Attorney Clifton Fay, and Deputy Clerk of Council Sandra Davis were also
present.
*** *** ***
ABSENT: Councilor Glenn Davis was absent but was officially excused upon the
adoption of Resolution Number 374 respectively. Clerk of Council Tiny B.
Washington was also absent.
*** *** ***
INVOCATION: Offered by Pastor Maurice Burton- Church of God.
*** *** ***
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by the Church of God Youth Group.
-------------------------------------------*** ***
***------------------------------------------
RECOGNITION OF CAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL:
Captain Christopher Mitchell, approached the rostrum and reminded everyone
that he came before the Council in June to introduce the Captain?s Career
Course 307. He announced that we have Captain?s Career Course 407 beginning
class in two weeks and would graduate in February 2008; the 307 class would
graduate in December. He then introduced each of the soldiers that were
present and gave their native country. He spoke of the tours around Columbus
that the soldiers would take before class begins on Thursday, August 30, 2007.
--------------------------------------------*** ***
***-----------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
THE FOLLOWING TWO ORDINANCES AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF COLUMBUS,
GEORGIA WERE LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WERE SUBMITTED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY
AND ADOPTED ON SECOND READING UPON A SINGLE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILOR MCDANIEL
AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALLEN, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE SEVEN
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL PRESENT WITH COUNCILOR WOODSON HAVING NOT YET ARRIVED FOR
THIS MEETING:
An Ordinance (07-61) - Property located at 716 29th Street is proposed for
rezoning from RMF2 (Residential Multi-Family 2) District to GC (General
Commercial) District. (37-A-07-Burdick)
An ordinance (07-62) - Property located at 6800 Macon Road is proposed for
rezoning from LMI (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) District to RO
(Residential-Office) District. (38-A-07-Hocutt)
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING TWO RESOLUTIONS WERE LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WERE
APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL UPON A SINGLE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILOR WOODSON AND
SECONDED BY COUNCILOR ALLEN, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE SEVEN MEMBERS
OF COUNCIL PRESENT WITH COUNCILOR WOODSON HAVING NOT YET ARRIVED FOR THIS
MEETING:
A Resolution (372-07) - Authorizing a request to accept responsibility as
Pass-Through Agency for the Georgia Department of Community Affairs Local
Assistance Grants in the amount of $85,000 approved by the Georgia State
General Assembly for various local agencies and programs.
A Resolution (373-07) - Authorizing a request to submit an application and
if approved accept a grant of $195,875 from the Georgia Emergency Management
Agency for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program to purchase
equipment, materials and training through GEMA.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND WAS LISTED ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND APPROVED BY THE
COUCIL:
A Resolution (374-07) - Excusing Councilor Glenn Davis from the August 28,
2007 Council Meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh moved its approval. Seconded
by Councilor McDaniel and carried unanimously by those seven members of Council
present with Councilor Woodson having not yet arrived for this meeting.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING THREE NEW REZONING PETITIONS WERE LISTED ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND AN ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING WERE CALLED FOR EACH BY COUNCILOR
MCDANIEL:
Petition submitted by Woodruff Brokerage Company to rezone 19.268 acres of
property located at 8301 Veterans Parkway from SFR1 (Single Family Residential
1) to GC (General Commercial) zoning district. (Recommended for approval by
both the Planning Advisory Commission and the Planning Department.)
(39-A-07-Woodruff Brokerage Co.)
Petition submitted by Shirley Grantham to rezone 1.45 acres of property
located at 4640 Warm Springs Road from NC (Neighborhood Commercial) to GC
(General Commercial) zoning district. (Recommended for approval by both the
Planning Advisory Commission and the Planning Department.) (40-A-07-Grantham)
Petition submitted by Chris Peebles to rezone 1.8 acres of property
located at 4505 Buena Vista Road from SFR2 (Single Family Residential 2) to GC
(General Commercial) zoning district. (Recommended for approval by both the
Planning Advisory Commission and the Planning Department.) (41-A-07-Peebles)
---------------------------------------------*** ***
***----------------------------------------
WORK SESSION:
EDUCATION PRESENTATION- TAX ALLOCATION DISTRICT (TAD):
City Manager Isaiah Hugley said the first presentation is for educational
purposes. He recalled that we have on the 2007 Legislative session a request
for Redevelopment Powers, which is known as Tax Allocation District (TAD). He
said that we were authorized to place on the November 6, 2007 ballot referendum
the Redevelopment Powers. He said that we want the citizens to be educated
regarding TAD and Columbus State University was asked to do this and have
agreed to serve as the organization that would assist in educating the
community. He noted that the Muscogee County School Board members were invited
to attend the session, but would provide a copy of the taped presentation. He
then introduced Dr. Linda Hadley, who was appointed to lead the educational
effort. He also mentioned the various forums that would be held around the
community.
*** *** ***
LITTLE LEAGUE WORLD CHAMPIONS:
Councilor Hunter requested a resolution be prepared to send to Warner
Robbins, Georgia congratulating them on the winning the Little League World
Championship.
*** *** ***
EDUCATION PRESENTATION- TAX ALLOCATION DISTRICT (TAD):
Ms. Linda Hadley- Dean of the D. Albert Turner College of Business,
provided some information on the strong ties between the City of Columbus and
Columbus State University. She said that Columbus State University is pleased
to be to provide a service to our constituents by providing a series of
educational and informational forums on this issue that is going before the
voters in November. She then introduced Dr. Mike Daniels, Dr. Carolyn Berdou-
Professor of Public Finance in the Andrew Young School of Public Policy at
Georgia State University. Ms. Hadley pointed out that Dr. Berdou has written a
comprehensive study on Georgia?s experience with tax allocation districts.
At this time, Dr. Carolyn Berdou came forward to provide the following
educational presentation for the TAD and is outlined as follows:
Georgia?s Redevelopment Powers Law
A policy guide to the evaluation and use of tax allocation districts
Overview
What is a Tax Allocation District (TAD)?
Theme: How do local governments deploy TADs in a way that is fiscally prudent?
Report identifies benefits, costs, and risks
Discusses tactics to hedge against risks based on experiences in Georgia and in
other states
What is a TAD?
Tax allocation districts capture incremental property tax revenue increases in
a specified geographic area.
The anticipated or actual incremental increases are then used to finance
activities to promote economic development.
The economic development in turn should stimulate increased growth in tax
revenues.
The most significant financing innovation is the use of anticipated revenue
increases to back debt.
Benefits
Economic development can ?pay for itself?
Localities leverage anticipated revenues from redevelopment to stimulate growth
Debt does not count against local debt ceiling and does not have to be backed
by full faith and credit
Allows overlapping jurisdictions to pool resources
Allows access to redevelopment powers, such as eminent domain
Tool to promote growth in areas that otherwise would not redevelop
Costs
Initial investment in infrastructure or other activities to support economic
development
Increased demand for public sector services from growth
Particularly an issue for school districts.
?Opportunity cost? of public services that could have been provided with the
revenues diverted to economic development
Note: Additional revenues might not be available without economic
development investment from TAD
Problems of gentrification and equity in application of TAD
Risks
Benefits from investment fail to materialize:
Private sector partners renege on agreement
Insufficient revenues to cover debt obligations
Insufficient revenues to cover the increases in demand for public services
Long term erosion of tax base
Public sector bears unnecessary burden of costs of development (i.e., private
sector receives unearned windfall)
Displacement of low and moderate income families
Tactics to Hedge Against Risks
Benefits fail to materialize
Rigorous assessments of feasibility of project
Fiscal impact analysis
Cost-benefit analysis
Ensure private sector involvement
Structure public-private agreements appropriately
Require up front private sector investment
Equity kickers
Pre-negotiate benefits with penalties for not delivering
Audit and evaluate
Insufficient revenues to cover debt obligations
Use other revenue streams to back TAD debt
General fund property tax revenues from the TAD can be used to back TAD debt;
municipality or county must declare that increment is ?insufficient?
Expand size of the TAD to encompass high growth areas
Regular reassessments to capture appreciation in value of property
3 & 4. Insufficient revenues to cover demand for public services; erosion of
tax base
Conduct analysis that includes fiscal impact of project on public services
Special provisions to reimburse school districts
Guard against TADs becoming a long term drain on local fiscal resources
Recapture excess incremental revenues coming from a TAD
Set time limits on TADs
Bound the area of TADs
Place TAD in overall local planning frame work
Create ?economic development budget? that accounts for accumulated development
initiatives
Public sector bears unnecessary costs and risks
Establish need for development in area: ?but for? the TAD development would not
occur
finding of blight
significant environmental damage
Establish important public purpose that would otherwise not be served by
private sector
Review path of growth and redevelopment
Midtown v. Atlantic Steel
Displacement of low and moderate income families
Finding of blight important
Require low-moderate income housing to be protected/developed in TAD
Protect existing home owners
In conclusion of the presentation, Dr. Berdou responded to a question from
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh by stating that the City has to keep the TAD as long
as there is debt outstanding, which is limited to thirty years; however, the
City could continue issuing debt off of the TAD and that might extend the time.
Councilor Baker asked about TADs in other cities outside of Georgia, at
which time, Dr. Berdou advised that most of the research has been done at
Atlanta; however, the project does cover projects from throughout the country.
Dr. Berdou also made some brief comments regarding eminent domain as
suggested by Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker then made reference to HB900 as
it relates to property taxes and how the passage of this bill would affect the
property tax revenue stream to make the bond payments. Dr. Berdou explained
that the current way that the GREAT Plan is structured is that if debt has been
issued; then, the debt would be protected and the City would continue to
collect the property taxes in order to support that debt.
Responding to comments from Councilor McDaniel, Dr. Berdou pointed out
that the City stands to lose the anticipated incremental growth of that area,
but the City could back up the debt with the total general fund revenue from
that jurisdiction.
Councilor Allen called attention to the failure of the TAD project in
Macon once it was approved by referendum. Dr. Berdou made brief comments
regarding the responsibility of the debt if the project fails, which is
dependent on how the TAD is structured.
Councilor Baker said that it is negotiable as to whether the taxpayers
take on the liability as far as backing the debt, Dr. Berdou pointed out that
if the debt is issued and the city does not back it by the general fund
revenues from within that jurisdiction, and it is made clear that there is no
liability to the taxpayer, in theory, the City should be able to write it off,
but there is not information out there to make a clear judgment.
Councilor Henderson suggested that comparable or smaller sized cities that
have had successful TADs be highlighted as well as, point out possible reasons
why some TADs have failed. He also suggested that with the property tax
freeze, a development that is weighted more towards residential is unlikely.
He said that the commercial development with some housing in that area may work
in this community.
City Manager Hugley also made some closing comments regarding the TAD and
the preparations that the Administration would have to make if the TAD is
approved by referendum.
Dr. Hadley advised that we have prepared text for a website and plan to
have a link from the Columbus State University website to this site where we
would put information up for the general public to prepare them to make a
decision for the referendum. She pointed out that brochures would also be
prepared; the word ?TAD? is not going to appear on the referendum
Councilor Woodson requested the staff put a link on the City?s website
that connects to the Columbus State University website where citizens could get
information regarding the TAD. She also requested a copy of the presentation
that would be provided to the citizens at the Education Presentation for the
Tax Allocation District (TAD) be forwarded to the members of Council.
Dr. Hadley commented on the Macon project by explaining that Macon decided
to abandon the project before they went forward; therefore, there was never any
debt issued.
City Manager Hugley said that there may be citizens that want to be heard
on this matter and he would like for those persons to be heard before the
Columbus State University staff leaves. Councilor Henderson moved that
citizens be heard on this matter. Seconded by Councilor Baker and carried
unanimously by those nine member of Council present for this meeting.
Mr. Paul Olson, 13830 Upatoi Lane, came forward to get some additional
information regarding the TAD. He suggested that the Georgia Redevelopment
Powers Law (Title 36 Chapter 44- Redevelopment Powers) be placed on the City?s
website. He spoke on the subprime lending practices and the increased number
of foreclosures. He then questioned what is considered to be blighted areas,
because what has been mentioned in the newspaper is the rail yard. He also
asked what areas would be targeted for the TAD. Mayor Wetherington responded
by saying at this point, we do not know what areas would be targeted.
City Manager Hugley explained the process of bringing forward areas for
the TAD and a final decision would be made on whether the areas would be used
for a Tax Allocation District. Councilor Hunter also made comments by further
explaining the TAD and the benefits that could be realized from having this
redevelopment tool.
Mr. Bert Coker, 5815 Ventura Drive, asked questions regarding the tax
freeze on homestead exemption, time restraints on the TAD and general fund
backing of the TAD, at which time, Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and City Manager
Hugley addressed each question. Regarding the general fund backing of the TAD,
City Manager Hugley explained that this is a decision that would have to be
made at the appropriate time. He explained that it would be outlined in the
policy guidelines that are established, which has not been done yet.
MOON ROAD WIDENING PROJECT:
Mr. Rick Jones came forward to provide an overview of the Moon Road
Widening Project and is listed as follows:
Moon Road Improvements
Public Open House Comments Results
Background Information
Public open house meeting held on July 26, 2007
Meeting was to discuss possible improvements to Moon Road
From Wilbur Drive to Whittlesey Boulevard
Public was notified by:
Signs (108)
Newspaper (26)
Word of Mouth (25)
Radio/Television (11)
MPO Website (2)
Approximately 175 citizens attended the 3 hour public open house
Road Improvements Alternatives
Citizens were asked to review and comment on five alternatives for this section
of Moon Road:
Intersection improvements
Widen to three lanes
Widen to four lanes, no median
Widen to four lanes, with a median
No build/changes
Alternate 1-
Intersection Improvements
Would widen intersections to include turn lanes
The estimated project cost is $2.3 million
This alternate would be locally funded only
Alternate 1
Intersection Improvements
Benefits of Alternate 1 include:
Minimum right of way impacts with no displacements
Minimum construction footprints
Improves capacity at intersections
Alternate 1
Intersection Improvements
Drawbacks of Alternate 1 include:
Does not provide a long term solution for travel along Moon Road
Does not improve delay for minor side street approaches
Does not include sidewalks
Alternate 2
Three Lanes Widening
Would widen existing Moon Road from two lanes to three lanes with intersection
improvements
The estimated project cost is $5.9 million
This alternate would be locally funded only
Alternate 2
Three Lanes Widening
Benefits of Alternate 2 include:
Allows left turning vehicles to separate from through vehicles. This will
increase capacity and improve safety
Manageable construction footprint
Provides sidewalks for the length of the project
No displacements are required
Alternate 2
Three Lanes Widening
Drawbacks of Alternate 2 include:
Does not provide a long term solution for travel along Moon Road
Does not significantly improve delay for minor side street approaches
Does not provide access management and safety benefits typically associated
with raised medians
Alternate 3
Four Lane Widening
Would widen existing Moon Road to four through lanes, two in each direction
The estimated project cost is $7.1 million
This alternate would be locally funded only
Alternate 3
Four Lane Widening
Benefits of Alternate 3 include:
Provides a long term solution for travel along Moon Road
?improves delay for minor side street approaches
Where the left turns are provided, left turn vehicles can separate from through
vehicles
This will increase capacity and improve safety
No displacements are required
Alternate 3
Four Lane Widening
Drawbacks of Alternate 3 include:
Some easement will be required along most of the Moon Road right-of-way
Does not provide access management and safety benefits typically associated
with raised medians
Alternate 4
Four Lane Widening w/Raised Median
Would widen existing Moon Road to four lanes with divided median and turn lanes
median
This alternate includes median landscaping for beautification.
Estimated project cost for Alternate 4 is $12 million
This project could be eligible for 80% state funding of the construction cost
Remaining costs (Right of Way, Utility relocations and 20% construction) would
be locally funded
In response to a question from Mayor Wetherington, Director of Planning
Jones advised that the time frame is at least seven years out. Councilor
Henderson asked for some clarification on the time frame, at which time,
Director of Planning Jones added that it would be at least seven years out to
complete the project and three to fives years for the city to complete the
project without assistance from the Georgia Department of Transportation.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh commented on the timeframe for completion by pointing
out that some roadways have been on the Transportation Improvement Project
(TIP) list for over ten years.
Alternate 4
Four Lane Widening w/Raised Median
Benefits of Alternate 4 include:
Provides a long term solution for travel along Moon Road
Significantly improves delay for minor side street approaches
Where the left turns are provided, left turn vehicles can separate from through
vehicles. This will increase the capacity and improve safety
Raised median will provide access management and safety benefits
Alternate 4
Four Lane Widening w/Raised Median
Drawbacks of Alternate 4 include:
Considerable right of way requirements
Requires displacement of properties
Raised medians will limit some side streets and driveways to right-in/right-out
access only
State/Federal contributions would need to be secured in order to fund this
project. This requirement would likely extend the project?s schedule
Additional Information
For each Alternate 1 ? 4, intersections with each side street were evaluated
for traffic signal installation
A new traffic signal is proposed for the Moon Road intersection with Spring
Lake Drive
Traffic signals are not warranted at any of the other side streets and would
cause unnecessary delays
Alternate 5
No-Build/Changes
Makes no improvements to this section of Moon Road
Under this Alternate, travel delays on Moon Road will continue to increase as
travel demand increases
This section of Moon Road would begin to experience high levels of congestion
over time
Councilor Allen called attention to the one outlet at Hunters Point and
there was some discussion regarding signalizing the entrance of Hunters Point
along with Springlake or rearranging those intersections so that they connect.
Director of Planning Jones advised that they would be working on that as well.
Councilor Anthony made comments relative to each alternative with respect
to the cost and length of time for completion of the project.
Citizens Responses to
Alternates Proposed
Recommendation
Four lanes - 39 people
Three lanes - 35 people
Four lanes with median - 39 people
Intersection Improvements - 8 people
No build/Change - 6 people
No choice - 4 people
The Planning Department recommends that Alternate 3 Four Lane Widening with no
median, be constructed
Provides for a long term solution
Improves delay for minor side street approaches
Where the left turns are provided, left turn vehicles can separate from through
vehicles
This will increase capacity and improve safety
No displacements are required
Estimated cost: $7.1 million
Construction plans could be ready by January, 2008
Construction could begin in FY09
*** *** ***
PLANNING DEPARTMENT?S PROPOSED FEE INCREASES
Planning Department Today
Staffing Issues
Present Planning Division staff is spread too thin
BRAC, Kia, Aflac developments
Zoning Cases
Subdivision Review
Comprehensive Plan
Special Projects (overlay zones, surveys, etc.)
No reserve in Planning Division staff
If we lose one team member, the division is basically shutdown
Zoning and subdivision review timelines are delayed
Staffing Proposal
Planning Department?s Strategic Action Plan
Proposed maintaining a professional staff
Adding three new positions
Reorganizing the Planning Division into four divisions:
Comprehensive Planning
Transportation Planning
Historic & Environmental Planning
Development Services
Reality Check
Proposal was submitted for consideration during last budget review
Determined that general fund could not support this request
Planning Department then proposed an increase in certain development fees to
fund proposal
Proposal
Increase development fees for various operations
Only rezoning applications are charged a fee
Subdivision review, variances, Board of Historic & Architectural Review do not
have a fee
Additional fees would help maintain and expand the planning staff as proposed
under the department?s Strategic Action Plan
Fees are based upon staff costs and materials needed for review
Planning Department Fee Proposals
Planning Department Fee Proposal Existing Fees Proposed Fees Projected fees using 2006 cases
Zoning Fees
Planned Unit Development -0- $1,200 $1,200
Major $350 $1,000 $31,000
Minor -0- $700 $28,700
Text Amendment -0- $500 $2,500
Developments Regional impact -0- $300 $600
Conditional Change -0- $500 $1,500
Subdivision Plat Review Fees
Preliminary -0- $225 + $10 per lot $9,940
Final -0- $225 + $8 per lot $57,935
Final from Preliminary -0- $100 + $5 per lot $9,535
Council Variances Fee -0- $200 $2,400
Verification Fees -0- $55 $7,040
Board of Historic & Architectural Review Fees
Staff Approval -0- $20 $380
Material changes/hardscape features -0- $100 $5,300
Remodeling/Additions/New Accessory structures -0- $200 $5,400
New Construction -0- $1,000 $4,000
Relocation -0- $1,000 -0-
Demolition -0- $500 $2,500
Site visits -0- $50 $5,400
Work prior to certificate of appropriateness -0- Fees doubled on any item above Fees doubled on any
item above
TOTAL $22,980
Planning Department?s Fee Proposals
Projected Revenue
Total Anticipated Revenue:
$175,330
This figure has been determined by:
The number of actual cases in 2006
The cost per hour for staff to review
The materials needed to provide the reports
Implementation
Homebuilders/Developers have been informed and recommend approval of these fees
Want to see fees collected dedicated to new staffing efforts
Want to make sure present department funding is not reduced because of this
action
Implementation
Fees would be put into place by October 1, 2007
Hiring of new staff members would only occur when the funding is made available
In response to a question of Councilor Woodson, Director of Planning Jones
explained that we are referring to the Board of Historic & Architectural
Review; therefore, only if you are in a historic area or the house is
historical would these fees apply. He added that the board is required to
review those plans for additions or modifications. He said in order to
accommodate that and cover the city?s cost, we are asking for a fee of $200.00
for the staff to review it.
Councilor Henderson suggested this information be put out to the
constituents who are not developers, but may be own property in the historic
areas and are interested in making modifications.
Councilor Allen advised that he is in support of the plan present and made
a motion that monies be transferred from the fund balance to get this kicked
off so the additional people could be hired by the first of the year. Seconded
by Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and carried unanimously by those nine members
present for this meeting. City Manager Hugley advised that we would go ahead
and advertise positions and proceed with hiring. He suggested attaching the
money to the mid-year budget even though we would have already done it.
*** *** ***
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Councilor Hunter requested an executive session at the end of the regular
Council Meeting.
*** *** ***
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION:
Director of Planning Rick Jones called on Zoning Administrator Will
Johnson to provide the presentation regarding the Planning Advisory Commission
and is outlined as follows:
Proposed
Planning Advisory Commission
Membership Alternatives
Background
PAC consists of:
Seven (7) voting members and two (2) alternates all appointed by Council
Appointments are for three (3) years
May serve two (2) consecutive terms
Not eligible for reappointment until a lapse of twelve (12) months from the end
of the second full term
Background
January, 2007 ? PAC had three vacancies to fill
Council questioned the policy of automatically moving alternates into full
member positions
Method of selecting new members by state senatorial districts questioned
Staff asked to research other communities planning commission appointments
Research and Analysis
The Planning Department has researched other communities in Georgia, the
southeast, and throughout the United States
On average, seven (7) to nine (9) members account for the commissions in
Georgia and the southeast.
The following 5 options are being presented for discussion and, eventually,
direction
Option A
Maintain existing commission
Seven (7) regular members, two (2) alternates
Currently, two of the members of the PAC live in SD 15 and seven live in SD 29
Of the members, two are black males; three are white females; one is a black
female; and three are white males
All commissioners are at-large members
Option B
Increase the Commission by adding two (2) additional alternates
Commission would consist of seven (7) voting members and four (4) alternates
All commissioners would be at-large members
Option C
Eliminate the alternate positions and convert them to voting positions
Commission would consist of nine (9) voting members
All commissioners would be at-large members
No commission researched in Georgia or the southeast has alternates
Option D
Eliminate the alternate positions and convert them to voting positions
Commission would consist of nine voting members
Eight (8) members would represent a council district (nominated by the
councilor for his/her district) and one (1) member would be nominated by the
Mayor
If a councilor is unable to find a commissioner from his/her district, then
they may nominate an at-large choice
under this scenario, commissioners should be phased in as terms expire
Option E
Eliminate the alternate positions and convert them to voting positions
Add two (2) voting members
Commission would consist of eleven (11) voting members
Eight (8) members would represent a council district (nominated by the
councilor for his/her district)
Two (2) members would be at-large members (each nominated by the at-large
councilors). The Mayor would nominate One (1) member
If a councilor is unable to find a commissioner from his/her district, then
they may nominate an at-large choice
Under this scenario, commissioners should be phased in as terms expire
Recommendations
Option C offers the best flexibility
Provides for community-wide participation
Expands the Commission to nine members
Eliminates the need for alternates
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh made a motion that Option C be approved.
Seconded by Councilor McDaniel. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh suggested training
for new board members on all of our boards and commissions.
Zoning Administrator Johnson responded to questions regarding the options
that were presented. Several members then expressed their views regarding the
option that should be approved.
Councilor Hunter requested the staff to research to find out how other
consolidated governments are doing with regards to the membership of their
Planning Advisory Commission.
Councilor Allen called attention to the unwritten rule of having a real
estate attorney on the board. Zoning Administrator Johnson assured that we do
have a certain level of professionalism in the development community on that
board, and that is one profession we would want to keep on the board at all
times.
Zoning Administrator Johnson reminded everyone that this is a Unified
Development Ordinance matter; therefore, we would have to go through the zoning
process as a text amendment. Councilor Henderson suggested that there be more
than one real estate attorney be elected and present to rotate on the board and
serve as maybe a non-voting member.
Mayor Wetherington referred back to motion on the table to approve Option
C, which carried unanimously by those nine members present for this meeting.
*** *** ***
ROAD DAMAGE:
Councilor Anthony requested the staff to check for road damage at 7498
Rolling Bend Road.
*** *** ***
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Mayor Wetherington called attention to the earlier request for the Council
to go into executive session to discuss potential litigation and personnel.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh made the motion. Seconded by Councilor McDaniel.
*** *** ***
MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:
Councilor Woodson requested the staff to provide a report on the
Management Development Program to find out how it is working and what
improvements need to be made. She also asked what has happened with the
program, has it been effective and what kind of input has occurred.
*** *** ***
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Mayor Wetherington referred back to the motion on the table to go into
executive session to discuss potential litigation and personnel, which carried
unanimously by those nine members present for this meeting.
*** *** ***
At 11:35 a.m. the Council adjourned its regular meeting to go into
executive session. The meeting was reconvened at 1:16 p.m., at which time,
Mayor Wetherington announced that the Council did meet in executive session to
discuss potential litigation and personnel, but there were no votes taken.
*** *** ***
With there being no other business to come before the Council, Councilor
Henderson made a motion for adjournment. Seconded by Councilor Woodson and
carried unanimously by those seven members of Council present for this meeting,
with the time being 1:16 p.m.
*** *** ***
Sandra T. Davis, DCMC
Deputy Clerk of Council
The Council of Columbus, Georgia
Attachments
No attachments for this document.