MINUTES
COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
SPECIAL CALLED COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
A Special Called meeting of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was called to
order at 9:03 A.M., Tuesday, September 16, 2014, on the 2nd Floor of the
Citizens Service Center, located at 3111 Citizens Way, Columbus, Georgia
Honorable Teresa Tomlinson, Mayor, presiding.
*** *** ***
PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Teresa Tomlinson were Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn
Turner Pugh, Councilors R. Gary Allen, Mike Baker, Jerry Barnes, and Judy W.
Thomas. Deputy City Manager David Arrington, City Attorney Clifton Fay,
Assistant City Attorney Lucy Sheftall, Clerk of Council Tiny Washington and
Deputy Clerk of Council Sandra Davis were also present. Councilor Bruce Huff
took his seat at the Council table at 9:10 a.m. Councilor Evelyn Woodson took
her seat at the Council table at 9:57 a.m.
*** *** ***
ABSENT: Councilors Glenn Davis, Berry Henderson and Charles E. McDaniel Jr.
were absent. City Manager Isaiah Hugley was absent, but was represented by
Deputy City Manager Arrington.
*** *** ***
INVOCATION: Led by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson.
*** *** ***
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by the Student Council from Rigdon Road
Elementary School.
---------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------
Mayor Tomlinson said we are probably going to be struggling with having a
quorum on today and said we have two items that are on second reading, which
would require a vote of the Council and then asked City Attorney Fay to present
his two second reading items for a vote and then we can come back to the first
reading after the Work Session Agenda.
CITY ATTORNEY?S AGENDA:
THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY
AND AFTER A VOTE OF THE COUNCIL RESULTED IN AN INCONCLUSIVE
VOTE:_____
__ ____
An Ordinance ? Authorizing ?working spouse? eligibility for coverage in
the Columbus Consolidated Government Employee/Retiree Self Funded Medical
Benefit Plan conditioned upon payment of a monthly surcharge of $371.45; and
for other purposes. Councilor Allen moved the adoption of the ordinance.
Seconded by Councilor Barnes. There was an inconclusive vote of four to two,
with Councilors Allen, Barnes, Thomas and Turner Pugh voting for the motion and
Councilors Baker and Huff voting against the motion.
City Attorney Fay pointed out that he would bring the ordinance back at
the next regular meeting on next Tuesday.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS ALSO SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY ATTORNEY
FAY AND ADOPTED ON SECOND READING: ___
An Ordinance (14-49) ? Rezoning properties located at 1450 and 1454 54th
Street, from LMI (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) zoning district to GC
(General Commercial) zoning district. The purpose of the rezoning is for
business and professional offices/building construction office and shop.
Councilor Thomas moved the adoption of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilor
Allen and carried unanimously by those six members of Council present at the
time, with Councilor Woodson having not yet arrived and Councilors Davis,
Henderson and McDaniel being absent for this meeting.
Mayor Tomlinson said we can come back to the first reading items, which
will be open for discussion as she doesn?t think there will be any issues with
any of them.
---------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------
NOTE: The City Attorney?s Agenda is continued below.
---------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------
WORK SESSION AGENDA:
CITY VILLAGE CONCEPT:
Mr. Phil Tomlinson came forward and introduced the other two members of
his committee, who was present along with him this morning; Ms. Marquette
McKnight and Mr. Justin Krieg who has been working on the City Village Concept.
He said Justin Krieg with Historic Columbus has been leading the project and
has primarily being doing all of the work. He said they would like to take a
few minutes of the Council?s time this morning to go through this matter. He
said many of the Council members went on a tour with them a few weeks ago and
he is hopeful that you found that was very eye opening. He said they are
excited about this concept and thinks it is one of the next big things for our
City.
Mr. Justin Krieg, acting as spokesperson for the group, then came forward
and made a twenty minute presentation and provided the following information,
as outlined below as it relates to the proposed development of City Village.
CITY VILLAGE:
Owner Occupied Housing: 12.9%
Mean Family income: $14,223 (3rd lowest in Muscogee County, Census tract 1600)
55% of the Population lives in Poverty (17% Georgia)
Serves as Gateway to Columbus
Entrance to Uptown and Whitewater
Source: 2012 U.S. Census Bureau
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP:
Most property appears to have passed through Family estates
Investment/Rental Property
City owned property (nearly 45% of land area)
(50 out of an estimated 350 parcels)
Primary zoning is RMF-2 (up to 16 units per acre) and general Commercial
CITY VILLAGE STAKEHOLDERS:
Executive Committee
Marquette McKnight
Phil Tomlinson
Teresa Tomlinson
David Arrington
Hal Averett
Elizabeth Barker
Marcus Gibson
Jackie Lowe
Philip Thayer
Len Williams
Mr. Krieg said they have approximately 56 other individuals who are
interested in this concept and have attended many of the stakeholder?s
meetings. He also showed several photos to indicate the conditions of the area
along the stretch of 2nd Avenue going into downtown Columbus. He said there are
a number of houses boarded up on 2nd Avenue.
CHALLENGES:
Code Violations
3rd Poorest Census Tract in Muscogee County
2nd Avenue Corridor
1st Avenue Disconnect
Absentee Property Owners
Infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, Substation)
OPPORTUNITIES:
Gateway entrance into Columbus
Affordable Housing
Existing housing stock
Housing authority site
Riverfront Property
Proximity to major employment centers
Tsys
CB&T/Synovus
Columbus Regional
Columbus State University
Multi-modal Transportation
Riverwalk
Streets (most w/ Sidewalks)
Public Transportation
Infill Development
Commercial and Residential
Control of vacant land
Mr. Krieg said they have been in contact with Len Williams and Amy Moore
of the Housing Authority, who also serves on the steering committee and said
that both of them have endorsed the idea of the possible redevelopment of Chase
Homes.
Next Steps?
City Village Selection Committee
Reviewed 9 proposals
Interviewed the top 3 consultants
Recommended the #1 consultant to Council
Begin master planning process with Consultant
Expected to last nine months
After the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Krieg then offered to
respond to questions of members of the Council.
Mayor Tomlinson said she would hope that we see more, and more stakeholder
driven opportunities for improved neighborhoods in our City. She said this area
is next to one of the highest violent crime rates in our city. She said these
redevelopment efforts have been shown in other cities to lower crime, as well
as. improve schools and provide great communities for mixed affordable
housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said when we talk about redevelopment we have to
also look at the traffic side of it, as well as the safety aspects of it. She
said that reinforces the fact that you probably don?t want that many
residential properties facing Second Avenue, but more of your commercial type
properties. She said she was glad that we had the presentation, because
initially she was under the impression that it went up to Bibb City, but said
it doesn?t.
Discussion continued on this subject for some additional ten minutes with
Mayor Tomlinson and members of the Council expressing their views, with Ms.
McKnight and Mr. Krieg also responding to questions of members of the Council.
Councilor Thomas said as we go through this process, she is hopeful that
some of those historical properties are enhanced and preserved. She said she is
talking particularly about the old Macheny School. She said she would hate to
see the school torn down, and yet it needs to be in line with what else is
going on in that area. She said she would hope that we keep some of those kinds
of things in mind as we move through there.
After Mr. Krieg concluded his presentation and responded to further
questions of the Council, Mayor Tomlinson said the reason you are here is
because you came forward for the approval of an RFP and said there was some
money change. She said at one point, it was talked about as a grant and then it
came up as another funding source, which somewhat surprised us. She said as you
heard from the Council, this really needs to come from a source, such as grant
monies or other types of funding that are pigeonholed for these types of
things; not money that can be used for insurance, raises, public works and
other things we need to be doing.
Mayor Tomlinson then called on Deputy City Manager Arrington to inform the
Council of a funding source that they were able to come up with.
Deputy City Manager David Arrington said as Mr. Krieg has shown, the City
has made a major investment over the years in property in this area from the
standpoint of blight removal to opportunity purchases in conjunction with the
old Second Avenue Redevelopment Plan. He said we have reached that critical
mass to where this property needs to be redeveloped. However, the City is not
in the redevelopment business; therefore, we have to partner with other
agencies and organizations to do that. He said he really appreciates the
stakeholders that we have involved in this effort to enter into this
public/private partnership. He said it could be a public, public/private
partnership because the Housing Authority also is a major stakeholder in
property ownership in this area.
He said they were looking at a grant opportunity that they did apply for
on last year, but said they were not selected for that grant; therefore, they
looked for other funding opportunities. He said after presenting this matter to
the Council at the last meeting, they have gone back and looked at other
funding opportunities and said there are two sources that they have identified.
Funds that are from the old UDAG program; the down payment assistance program
that was terminated a number of years ago, but we are still receiving proceeds
from the loan repayments. He said since the UDAG program is not a viable
program; we could use those, as those funds that come back to us are
unrestricted and are placed into an account.
He said we have used those funds in the past for a number of the flood studies
when we had the major flooding issues. He said that account now has about
$130,000 in it.
He said the other funding source that they felt was appropriate in this
case because as Justin has indicated there are two funding sources where we
acquired property in this area, which is the Community Development Block Grant
fund
and the other is the general funds.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said with the Community Development Block
Grant funds, we will be required to provide low to moderate income home
ownership or housing opportunities in this area. He said we do have some
funding in the Community Development Block Grant from prior years unallocated
or unused funds. He said we felt like for the planning of the redevelopment of
this area, that the Community Development Block Grant funds would be an
appropriate funding source in part for this effort, with the understanding that
there would be planning for the redevelopment of this area to provide low to
moderate income housing, which is one of the goals of this effort to provide a
mixed income community.
He said what they will bring back to the Council is two funding sources to
fund the $225,000 study. The first would be $125,000 from the UDAG funds and
the other will be $100,000 from the prior year?s unused funds from the
Community Development Block Grant funds.
After the final discussion on this matter, Mayor Tomlinson then pointed
out that there will be a resolution that will come before the Council on the
City Manager?s Agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said if any members of the Council have any
questions before next Tuesday, to get your questions to Deputy City Manager
Arrington.
*** *** ***
880 CONFERENCE UPDATE:
Celebrating a ?Doable City!?
Ms. Betsy Covington, President of the Community Foundation came forward
and read the following statement as outlined below.
As most of you know, the Community Foundation is now a $100 million public
foundation geared toward helping people use the tools of philanthropy to
improve their communities? now and forever. I appreciate the chance to come
before you today. Thank you, Mayor Tomlinson, for this opportunity. I?m here to
let you know of some conversations that have been taking place lately in our
community. While they?re not ?new ideas? ? some people who are aware of the
concepts of Smart Growth and New Urbanism have been talking about them for
years ? and you?ve shown your support for the ideas by recently passing the
Complete Streets Ordinance. Truly, the idea of building a ?Doable City? is
hitting Columbus at what may be a pivotal point in city?s evolution.
She said we want for Columbus to be a successful city where people believe
they ? and their children ? have a say in their future. Where citizens are
engaged in civic life, enjoy gathering together in public spaces, and can
easily move around for recreation or transportation. We want this to be a city
that attracts creative thinkers and entrepreneurs who ? statistics show us --
increasingly choose where they want to live first and either find ? or create ?
jobs second.
Ms. Covington said what we?re seeing is cities that can affect this
transformation by activating some of their best public spaces. She said there
are four things that she will highlight in her presentation this morning, which
is outlined below.
Share some of what we learned at the Doable City Forum / Copenhagen Deeper Dive
Introduce you to our new vocabulary concepts
Give you a few of the ?next step? ideas that are popping up
Announce a great opportunity for Columbus
Ms. Covington also said in the next few minutes, she will:
Bring you up to speed on some of the standout things we learned at the Doable
City Conference in June
Let you hear a little about what we see as next steps for our community
Give you a chance to offer ideas / ask questions
Ms. Covington said the conference was organized by the 8-80 Cities Group,
which helps design and improve cities around the world. She said as Gil Penoza,
ED of 8-80 Cities, says: By 2050 the world population is expected to increase
by 2.3 billion?, and urban areas are expected to gain 2.6 billion in
population. Closer to home, over these 40 years the population of the US will
increase by 130 million and over 50 million homes will be built. She said from
these projected numbers, it is clear that urban areas will absorb all of the
world population growth expected in the next four decades as well as additional
migration from rural populations.
Cities are now faced with a multitude of quality of life issues: pervasive
traffic, climate change, skyrocketing obesity rates, and a lack of affordable
housing ? the solutions to which are game-changers for city building.
Ms. Covington said but some of the brightest urban visionaries, including
those we heard from at the conference, are people who give us hope as their
work demonstrates that the solutions to our most urgent challenges are in fact
doable. She said their trip was sponsored by Knight Foundation, which believes
that democracy thrives when people and communities are informed and engaged.
She said the Knight Foundation enables and promote philanthropy that inspires,
facilitates and fosters a vibrant and engaged Chattahoochee Valley.
She showed a photo of the team that took the trip, which included the
following individuals
Mayor Teresa Tomlinson
Richard Bishop, Uptown Columbus
Neil Clark, Hecht Burdeshaw
Anne King, MidTown, Inc.
Ken Henson
Marquette McKnight, City Village Project
Becky Rumer, Synovus Foundation
Ms. Covington said that they also
Learned how to conduct a walkability audit for city streets
And we quickly learned the importance of footwear that supports walkability
She said they boldly mastered the art of urban cycling (especially with
the help of protected bike lanes). And we learned that, in Chicago, the
installation of a protected bike lane along a main corridor resulted in an
immediate 50% increase in bike usage.
And as we learned that the benefits of using our largest public land
asset ? our streets ? better pay big returns for cities in terms of
Public Health
Economic impact & increased economic mobility
Social integration & happier residents
Environmental impact ? more trees, fewer cars
She said a number of her slides that she is showing here today are
borrowed from presentations made at the conference.
Ms. Covington said there were three main things at the conference that
resonated with her:
(1) Increasingly, as creative, entrepreneurial, successful people can live
anywhere they want to live, they will choose cities that promote happiness.
The key questions: how do we want to live? (Cities are only a means to a way
of
life.) Now cities aren?t about efficiency. They?re about how to attract and
retain the best people.? ? Gil Penalosa
(2) Our streets should dignify all travelers. Not just about biking & walking
for recreation, but for transportation.
?Walking, cycling, public transit is a sign of public respect for all people.?
? Gil Penalosa. In the South, issues of race/class
Ms. Covington said if all of our streets are our largest public spaces, how are
we using them to serve ALL of our population?
(3)Good city development puts People First
The purpose of cities is to maximize the exchange between people
Complete Streets make $$ count
Can no longer afford to spend $1 of transportation dollars on work that doesn?t
increase property values.
Do more than accommodate
Commuting makes people less happy than anything else in life.
We should do more than just accommodate other forms of travelers, but said we
should plan for success
Use the right design guidance
Use the right design guidance that?s out there
Plan for different outcomes
Ms. Covington said as one of our speakers said, ?You know you?re building
a healthy city when you see unescorted children in downtown.? She said in
Columbus, we?re on the right track, but we can still do better. She said but
we still have a ways to go; therefore, let?s use what this group learned to
help us all make a difference.
She said certain words are creeping into our vocabulary here in Columbus.?
Words like Minimum Grid
Protected Bike Lanes
Activated Public Spaces
?Transportation? (not ?Alternative Transportation?)
Dignity for All
She then introduced new concepts: Impatiens/Orchids:
IMPATIENS refers to short-term ideas that are low cost, low risk, high
visibility and can be implemented in less than one year.
ORCHIDS refer to longer term public space improvement ideas that are higher
cost, require more planning and resources and would take two to five years to
implement
Ms. Covington said right now we are looking for some impatiens that we can
get going immediately. She said among the ideas to consider, showed a photo of
a stamp pavement crosswalk, what some other cities are doing, to include having
a stop, wait and wave and/or a sign that says Bicycle Friendly Community. She
said as you know the Mayor has set the goal of making Columbus be the State?s
First Bronze Level Bicycle Friendly Community within the next year. Mayor
Tomlinson said it?s the Silver Level.
Ms. Covington said today they will be rolling out the Knight Cities
Challenge. She said across the country Knight is announcing that they will give
away $5 million across 26 Knight Cities. She said anyone in the community can
enter, and you can enter multiple times. She said governments can enter, as
well as citizens and non-profits, businesses, anyone who wants to enter.
She said Knight is looking for big fresh ideas that can largely be
implemented in about one year that focuses on one or all of these three key
drivers to city success:
Attracting talented people
Expanding Economic Opportunity
Creating a culture of Civic Engagement
Ms. Covington said the contest will run from October 1 ? Nov. 15 and in
the first round of applications will ask two questions: What is your idea? What
do you hope to learn from it? She said they will be sharing the ideas with them
from Columbus at the Community Foundation and said they will be taking a look
at some of the ideas and will be sharing them with their donors. She said she
thinks this offers an excellent possibility for us to tackle some of the
impatiens that we see around our community. She said this calls for new ways of
thinking; as they are not looking for the same old things, but are looking for
real creative thought. She said for additional information, individuals may go
to their website at www.cfcv.com
Ms. Covington concluded her presentation with the following quote: ?The
right to the city is far more than the individual liberty to access urban
resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the
city."............................ David Harvey, 2008. Happy City
Mayor Tomlinson thanked Ms. Covington for her presentation and what the
Knight Foundation does for the community. She also made comments regarding her
trip to Copenhagen.
*** *** ***
TAX ASSESSOR/TAX COMMISSIIONER SOFTWARE UPGRADE:
Mayor Tomlinson said the Council is interested in the funding today. She
said on last week we heard about how much this system is needed. She said
everybody knows that this is needed, so she don?t think we need to concentrate
on that as much, but said we do want to know more about how it?s going to be
paid for, how much it is going to cost and if that price tag is all
inclusive.
Attorney Randy Lomax came forward and said he represents both the Tax
Assessors and Tax Commissioner?s Office, and the other departments who will be
affected by the Oasis software, and hardware upgrade and property review. He
said there are several people present with him today, with the most important
person being Finance Director Pam Hodge, who will be telling us how we are
going to get the money to pay for this upgrade. He said there are also two
representatives from Tyler Technology present, Mr. Steve Chrysael, Senior
Account Executive and
Ms. Mary Griffin, who will be the individual working with them doing the
hands-on work to help us implement this.
He said if we go forward with this, we will start working within the next
4 to 6 weeks and said we have a 60-page document, which he and the Assistant
City Attorney will have to review. He said that they will then go into a
planning stage, which will take approximately two months; and after that we
will start on the hands-on project, which will be the implementation of the
software and hardware.
Ms. Pam Hodge, Finance Director, came forward and said the cost of the
system has been broken out. She said there are really two projects, the
software upgrade and the reappraisal process. She then went into some details
in outlining the cost as highlighted below.
COST:
ias World Upgrade
$2,956,115
iasWorld License $787,150
Oracle License $ 24,650
Implementation Services $1,869,315
GIS Parcel Conversion $ 75,000
Hardware $200,000
Reappraisal $1,700,000
Total Cost
$4,656,115
Annual Maintenance $184,560
Ms. Hodge said the annual maintenance will cover any upgrades to the
system going forward, but said there could be implementation cost with an
upgrade depending on how much is done in-house with our IT Department and how
much is required from the vendor for data conversions or special reports. She
said there is additional cost for the upgrades to the system going forward, but
said it is very minimal. She said she just wanted to make sure that we state
that clearly at this meeting today.
FINANCING OPTION FOR UPGRADE
iasWorldUpgrade
GMA Lease Purchase Program
Annual payments for 5 years estimated at $550k-$600k beginning in FY16 (depends
on interest rate)
?OLOST Infrastructure ?Technology Improvements
IMPACT TO FUTURE OLOST INFRASTRUCTURE ALLOCATIONS
FY-14
FY-15
FY-16
OPTION
IT $250,000 $125,000$210,000
iasWorldUpgrade 0 0600,000
Stormwater 750,000 375,000630,000
Roads 2,642,601 1,000,0002,228,715
Facilities 750,000 375,000630,000
Cost Allocation 28,774 100,981120,000
Personnel 75,580 74,36580,000
Reserve 0 2,448,3690
Debt Service 5,403,045 5,401,2855,401,285
TOTAL $9,900,000 $9,900,000$9,900,000
Finance Director Hodge said the impact to the future OLOST infrastructure
allocations is represented in the far column under the FY-16 option. She said
she just wanted to make sure that the Council is aware that we will have to
reallocate the OLOST allocations from the projects that are currently funded
through OLOST and $600,000 will be diverted to this upgrade lease repayment.
She said she has provided the Council with the FY-14 & FY-15 budgets so that
you can see where those allocations have been in the past. She said in FY-15 in
the current fiscal year, there was a reserve created to assist with the fund
balance requirements of $2,448,000. She said that particular reserve was not
in the FY-14 budget; therefore, she provided you with several years, so that
you can see the allocation of the projects. She said what she has done in the
FY-16 options is to spread that $600,000 between the other projects. She said
you could reduce just one. She said this is just an option.
Ms. Hodge then responded to several questions of members of the Council.
Finance Director Hodge responded to questions of Councilor Allen, as it
relates to vehicle replacement, saying that we have a reserve in the OLOST for
vehicle replacement for public safety, but said this is just the
infrastructure, and we did not have a reserve for vehicle replacement in the
Infrastructure. Councilor Allen said he knows that he is mixing two different
subjects now, but said he would like for us to think about vehicle replacement
in the general fund, as well. He said he thinks that is necessary and it
should be a proactive issue that we should take. He said he wanted to make sure
that those budgetary items would not be affected.
Deputy City Manager Arrington made comments regarding the concerns
expressed by Councilor Woodson, pointing out we would have a third funding
source for roads and resurfacing and said if we need to make an allocation, we
could do that from the TSPLOST fund.
Mayor Tomlinson said as you go forward in the negotiations, it is our
understanding that this is all inclusive. She said there will be some support
from our IT Department, but she believe it was cleared up on yesterday, but
that this price tag includes the vendor largely taking on the burden of this
conversion process. She said we don?t want any surprises.
Attorney Lomax said that is correct. He said they will be here from the
very beginning to the time that we go live and stay with it for a period of
time to make sure we know how to run it.
Finance Director Hodge continued with providing information regarding the
funding for this upgrade.
FUNDING OPTION FOR REAPPRAISAL
General Fund
FY15$490,000 (Cash payment delayed to FY16)
FY16$660,000 plus $490,000 from FY15 deferral
FY17$550,000
TOTAL$1,700,000
(Estimated at 4 days of Fund Balance over 3 years)
Possible increased digest to offset cost of reappraisal
Competing needs for the General Fund
Department budget reductions in FY15
Economic Development
After more than forty-five minutes of discussion on this matter, Finance
Director than concluded her presentation.
Councilor Baker said he believes this will be the same timeframe that the
BTW revitalization payments will come due. He then asked if we have clarified
those funds or if any of them will have to come out of the fund balance or the
Community Development Black Grant funds.
Director of Finance Hodge said they will have a plan to come back to the
Council with the funding for the Housing Authority?s BTW revitalization
payments. Mayor Tomlinson said she believes that those payments were postponed
for FY-15, but will come up in FY-16.
Director of Finance Hodge said that is correct, she said they will come up
in FY-16.
Councilor Baker said that is his concern; if the technology and the BTW
revitalization payments hit all at the same time, the fund balance is going to
be an issue.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said they are looking at another funding
option for that to bring back to the Council. He said they have to get some
questions answered first. He said they will be bringing that back at some point
in the future to talk about the BTW Revitalization payment.
Mayor Tomlinson said we will bring back the item for the funding for the
Tax Assessors/Tax Commissioner?s software upgrade on the City Manager?s Agenda
on next week for approval.
After further discussion on this matter, Attorney Lomax and Director of
Finance then responded to further questions of members of the Council.
After more than sixty minutes of discussion, this subject matter was
concluded.
*** *** ***
ROAMING CAT PROGRAM:
Mayor Tomlinson said we have a situation where we have a lot of Ferrell
cat communities in our city and said they are operating in the shadow largely
and said this is a way that we can stop that population increase.
She said we did have a citizen who came forward on our public agenda at
the last Council meeting, who showed a video from Miami, Florida where they are
having problems with people that are hoarding. She said she wanted to remind
the Council of something. She said shortly after she came into office, we begin
working on the Animal Care & Control Center and were besieged by emails from
No Kill Columbus saying that we should stop euthanizing animals right away. She
said we implemented the ?Save the Pet Program?. She said this City will not
allow warehousing and said sometimes that has some circumstances. She said
that is a form of animal cruelty and that is the reason we don?t allow
warehousing.
Ms. Pat Biegler, Director of the Public Works Department came forward and
made some remarks regarding hoarding and then called Ms. Drale Short to come
forward to make the presentation.
Ms. Drale Short presented the following information as it relates to the
Columbus Animal Care & Control Program, as outlined below.
HOARDING OF CATS
What happened in Miami, could not happen here:
State Law Prohibits abandoning of animals
CACC met w/Dept. of Agriculture and went over our process
Local Ordinance Regulates Community Cat Program (CCP) or Trap/Neuter/Release
(TNR)
Hoarding exists in every community.
Hoarding exists here in Columbus, Georgia.
Columbus Animal Care and Control has always addressed hoarding issues.
Most hoarding cases develop from individual mental issues.
COLUMBUS ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL:
Hoarding is not the result of TNR (Trap/Neuter/Release).
Hoarding will happen whether we have a CCP, practice TNR or not.
The Miami film showed a shelter dropping cats off at a residence in an
uncontrolled manner.
CACC HOARDING INVESTIGATIVE PROCSS:
The CACC hoarding investigative processes used to bring forth compliance and
resolution includes working with the following agencies:
APS (Adult Protective Services)
State Inspector/Dept. of Agriculture
Rabies Control Officer
Local Rescues
BACKGROUND
Trap and Kill Method
Discontinued the trap/kill method when we obtained the Pet Smart Charities
Grant.
Prior to being awarded these grants we impounded on average 3,254 cats and
killed on average 2,286 cats per year. (2010-2013 stats)
Since inception of these grants we have impounded 3,295 cats and have
euthanized 1,055 cats.
Ineffective
Fails to curtail population growth
Costly
Leads to compassion fatigue:
High employee turnover in shelters
Taints public image
Publicly unpalatable
MATING FACTS:
Cats can become sexually active as young as 4 months.
Females will remain in heat or cycle quickly until they are mated.
Females can give birth to 2-4 litters per year.
Litters average 3-5 kittens
(One female, 4 litters = 20 kittens x 5 females @ 20 kittens each = 100
kittens
per year.)
CACC STATISTICS
Ms. Short highlighted the 2010 ? 2013 statistics for reducing the cat
population.
TRAP, NEUTER & RELEASE (TNR)
What is Trap, Neuter & Release?
Trap/Neuter/Release is the non lethal alternative to the trap-and-kill method
of controlling cat populations.
PET SMART CHARITIES/FERAL FREEDOM PGM
Pilot Program started in September 2013
Pet Smart Charities Grant for $58, 250
A total of 1,036 Cats went through TNR Program
BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY/Community Cat PGM
- Launched August 2014
- Grant Award is $600,000.00
- Our goal is to have 2,000 cats go through this program each year
for the next 3 years.
- Any cat deemed unhealthy by a participating
licensed Veterinarian will be euthanized, unless
medically Best Friends will accept those costs.
TNR BENEFITS:
Long term, TNR lowers the numbers of cats in the community more effectively
than trap-and-kill.
Good Samaritans in our neighborhoods provide food, water and shelter for
community cats, and TNR provides a non-lethal, humane way to effectively manage
these community cat populations.
Our programs will afford friendly cats or young kittens the opportunity to be
placed into forever homes.
Stopping the breeding and removing some cats for adoption is more effective
than the traditional trap-and-kill method in lowering the numbers of cats in a
community long-term.
TNR reduces shelter admissions and operating costs.
Creates a safer community and promotes public health by reducing the number of
unvaccinated cats.
TNR improves the lives of free-roaming cats. Males no longer fight over
territory or female cats and female cats are no longer forced to endure the
physical and mental demands of giving birth and fending for their young.
Sterilizing community cats reduces or even eliminates the behaviors that can
lead to nuisance complaints.
NUISANCE BEHAVIORS
TNR Controls Nuisance Behavior
Dramatically less noise/no mating or fighting
Dramatically less smell/no spraying from male cats
Less roaming
Controlled breeding
No kittens
Increased mediation/educational opportunities to resolve neighbor disputes.
CAT DETERRENTS:
Provide non-lethal, proactive strategies
Deter cats away from areas where cats are not wanted (e.g., backyard, garden)
DETERRENTS:
ACC/BF has purchased ?Scarecrows? to be loaned to residents.
Other deterrents:
Cat Scats
Coffee Grounds
Citrus peels
Lattice fencing for flower beds
After the conclusion of her presentation, Ms. Short offered to answer
questions of the members of the Council, but there were none.
*** *** ***
PRE-65 SPOUSAL OPTION/ORDINANCE:
Ms. Reather Hollowell, Director of the Department of Human Resources came
forward and made a presentation, in which she responded to questions and
concerns that were made at a previous Council meeting. She provided the
following information as outlined below.
She said there are two primary provisions of the ordinance that was
adopted in 2001 and was revised in this year?s budget, and then outlined those
two provisions, which are highlighted below.
Ordinance 14-25, Section 33 (Replaces Ordinance 01-49, Section 20)
All retirees who are Medicare eligible and were hired on or after July 1, 2001
will not be eligible for participation in the Columbus Consolidated Government
(CCG) Employee/Retiree Self Funded Medical Benefit Plan. To the extent the
City identifies and offers a Medicare compatible insurance plan for Medicare
eligible retirees, 100 percent of the costs associated with that plan will be
borne by those participants, and the City will assume no liability for any
benefits payable to participants under that plan.
All employees who were hired on or after July 1, 2001 who retire while
enrolled in the CCG Employee/Retiree Self Funded Medical Benefit Plan and begin
to draw pension benefits prior to becoming Medicare eligible, and any
non-Medicare eligible dependents covered at the time of the employee?s
retirement, may remain a part of the CCG Self Funded Medical Benefit Plan until
they become Medicare eligible; provided however, the premiums for plan members
in this category will be set in accordance with the guidelines set forth in
section 31 above.
Any retiree who discontinues his or her participation in the CCG Self Funded
Medical Benefit Plan or any Medicare compatible insurance plan offered by the
CCG will forfeit any future right to re-enroll himself or any dependents in
either plan.
Section 20 of Ordinance No. 01-49 is specifically repealed and replaced by
this section.
Ms. Hollowell said how this matter became a point of discussion is that a
pre-65 retiree, who is a retired police officer, came forward and talked about
an incident that is going to impact him. She said he is a pre-65 retiree, who
has his spouse as a dependent on his health insurance. She said his question
was, if he takes his spouse off of his insurance; because he was concerned
about the spousal surcharge being increased from $50.00 a month to $371.45 per
month.
She said he wanted to know if he took his spouse off of his coverage and
allow her to go be on her employer?s health insurance, could she come back on
the City?s plan. She said the answer to that question for today, is no. She
said she would not be eligible to come back on for any reason.
Ms. Hollowell said we do have some exceptions that will allow dependents
to come on the plan of a pre-65 employee, as well as a post-65. She then
outlined those exceptions, which is listed below.
EXCEPTIONS:
New Dependent
Marriage
Birth
Adoption
Legal Guardian
She said these are the current exceptions that allow for dependents of
those retirees to come back onto the plan and said this is not being proposed
to be changed. She said once a retiree, pre or post; once they leave, they
cannot come back onto the plan, as this remains in tact, and we are proposing
that it stays in tact; however, for their dependents these are the exceptions.
Ms. Hollowell said the question was, if a spouse or dependent of that
retiree leaves, can that person come back on. She said if the Council elects to
make a change, then yes. She said that could be another election under the
exceptions? provision that would allow a spouse to come back onto the plan; but
said that would be with certain provisions, meaning that the spouse or
dependent would need to show that they had previous coverage within the last
30-days. She said that is the lost of coverage that could be added back. She
said they would have to present that coverage. She said she thinks that is an
exception that would fit well in these categories and said it wouldn?t be an
undue burden for the City to administer.
She said one of the discussions about bringing that spouse or dependent
back on, whether we bring them back on at 100% of the cost of the coverage,?.
after some discussion on that with the staff and our benefit consultant, we
think that the cost would be nebulous. She said if we are going to allow for a
loss of coverage for the spouse or the dependent, we would bring them back on
the tier that they fit in, without saying that they would need to come on at
the full cost of coverage. She said if the retiree just has him/her and the
spouse on; then they would come back on that particular tier, and paying that
spousal rate, not the surcharge; because loss of coverage means that they don?t
have a job, or they are not employed; so they would come back on at that rate,
or if it?s a family, or a dependent, then they would come back on at that rate.
Ms. Hollowell said that is the option that could be elected, if you want
to amend that ordinance. She said what you would be amending is just the
provision under the exceptions to allow for a loss of coverage and said they
would have to fit in that particular category.
After concluding her presentation, Ms. Hollowell then responded to several
questions of members of the Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said as it relates to the ordinance regarding
the spousal surcharge, how does it impact the employee whose spouses work;
whether it?s pre-65 or post-65, or this other ordinance. She said because we
have not approved or disapproved the proposal for the $371.45. She said she
knows that it would not become effective until January 1st, but said if we
don?t approve it, then those spouses are automatically off of our insurance
coverage.
Ms. Hollowell said as of January 1, 2015 that is correct.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said if we go back and approve the spousal
surcharge, would they be able to come back and apply for that. Ms. Hollowell
said yes. She said if you approve the spousal surcharge that is now in the
ordinance, then that means they will be eligible for coverage on January 1,
2015. She said they will continue to have coverage until December 31, 2014.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said, while we will have open enrollment on
October 1st there are other companies who are now in open enrollment; they will
have to be placed some place. She said if they go and get coverage with their
employer; then in essence they would have left our plan. She then asked, what
happens, we will allow them to come back.
Ms. Hollowell said if they elect coverage and bypass open enrollment, then
on January 1st, they are on the coverage of their employer; then they will stay
on their plan until open enrollment of 2015. She said it all depends on what
you do with this ordinance, because right now there is no provision, January
1st for anyone to come back.
After continued discussion on this matter, members of the Council
expressed their further views on this subject, and Ms. Hollowell responded to
those questions and concerns of the Council. Councilor Woodson then asked that
an ordinance be brought forth to amend the ordinance to allow for an exception.
Councilor Baker said before the ordinance is brought back, he would ask
Ms. Hollowell to provide the Council with something, in writing, explaining
that if the individuals are allowed to come back on the plan, at what rate will
they be allowed to come back. He said he doesn?t have a problem with how they
drafted the ordinance in 2001, and said he don?t have a problem with looking at
it again, but he is somewhat confused as to what rate they come back at; and if
you are certain that it?s not going to be cost prohibitive. He said he would
like to have some clarification on that before we vote on it.
Ms. Hollowell said she would provide the Council with that information;
however, she will go ahead and share that they will come back at the rate that
is already in place. She said whatever the rate is for pre-65 retirees;
whatever their premium rates are. She said if it is a dependent coming back on,
they will come back on at whatever that rate is as well. She said she will
provide those rates to the members of Council.
Councilor Baker said he would also like to have a statement from the
consultants of the economic impact of that on the plan.
Ms. Hollowell said it will not be cost neutral, but said it will not be
something that will be an exceptional amount of cost. She said it will be
difficult to say overall, how much the cost will be, because you don?t know how
many people might come back. She said we think that we are talking about a
small window of folks, because we are talking about dependents; those who had
coverage and then they lost their coverage, because it has to be within that
30-day window. She said we think it?s going to be a small group of people, but
she will speak with our consultant and get something more definitive so that
you will feel better and have a better appreciation for what we are talking
about, if you vote yes, let?s change this.
Councilor Baker said regarding the other ordinance that we have been
wrestling with, the $371.45 premium as it relates to the spousal surcharge,
said he is not a big fan of it, but said if everyone wants it, he could live
with it. He said he don?t like the fact that we have the dollar amount in the
ordinance; the $371.45. He said he thinks that makes it subject to political
manipulation. He said that is an actuarial number and said we really shouldn?t
have authority over that number. He said in his opinion, he thinks the
ordinance should stop when it say, an amount determined by our consultants; and
then the administration publishes the rate. He said because if it gets
to$321.00 or $421.00 in the ordinance and we say that?s too high, let?s just
hold it at $300 or cut it to $200; you can?t do that.
Councilor Baker said it is a zero percent subsidized number , it?s 100
percent self-supporting, so that number has to be whatever it is and he don?t
think we should have control over that number. He said that is what concerns
him, we are taking an actuarial number and making it subject to political
manipulation, if possible, and said that is what bothers him. He said if it
just said, it is purely subject to the calculations by the actuary and it is,
whatever it is; then he can support it, if we needed to just get pass it and
move on. He said putting the number in the ordinance is what bothers him. He
said if some people leave that
option because it is too expensive and then next year you have fewer people,
then it?s not $371, but it becomes $471, and then the next year, $571. He said
it just become so easy, to just say, let?s hold it. He said we shouldn?t have
authority over that number that number has to be self-supporting.
Mayor Tomlinson then said when the ordinance comes back up, you can amend
it.
Councilor Baker said that is Councilor Davis? ordinance and said he
probably should have some feedback on it. Mayor Tomlinson said next week will
be our last opportunity to amend it before open enrollment. She said if we
don?t everybody will be excluded and there won?t be any option.
Councilor Thomas said it was her understanding of the ordinance as it was
presented to us; that while it didn?t say what Councilor Baker is saying, she
understood that is what it meant.; that this year, $371 was the surcharge. She
said she certainly would not have any problem with us saying that the actual
dollar amount shall be calculated by the actuaries. She then asked if we could
make that amendment today.
City Attorney Fay said the ordinance is still on the table and said if
you wanted to propose an amendment, you can do that. He said just remember
that the 371, the ordinance that is on the table, only amends a particular
section of the annual budget ordinance. He said this number could certainly
change every year, that?s why it?s in the chart of your premium rates and it is
in this section of the annual budget ordinance.
Councilor Thomas said since the administration has heard this
conversation, and it may be that whenever we come back on next week that
perhaps there can be whatever we need to do, you will find that the majority of
the Council agrees with Councilor Baker; that we anticipate that the number
will change from year to year depending on the cost and the number of people
involved. She said she would request that the staff take a look at that and
brings us something back that accomplishes what Councilor Baker has suggested.
Councilor Baker said it is an annual election to offer the option, not to
specify a dollar amount. He said if at some point, it gets cost prohibitive,
the option isn?t to say that it?s too expensive, let?s reduce the cost, but the
option at that point would be let?s terminate the option. He said that?s the
only thing that concerns him is the dollar amount.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh then asked what needs to be done today, in order
to change the wording. She said she understands that it?s Councilor Davis?s
ordinance, but because of the timeframe in which we have to do business, we
need to do something.
City Attorney Fay said you can offer an amendment to the ordinance that?s
on the table, to say that the monthly surcharge approved by the Finance
Director based upon actuarial calculations.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh then moved the approval of the amendment to the
ordinance. Seconded by Councilor Woodson.
City Attorney Fay said this will not change what the amounts are for this
year in the charts with all your premiums.
Mayor Tomlinson then called the question on the motion for the amendment
to the ordinance, as moved above, which carried unanimously by those six
members of Council present at the time, with Councilor Allen being absent for
the vote and Councilors Davis, Henderson and McDaniel absent for this meeting.
City Attorney Fay said we can take a vote on the ordinance as amended;
however, it was decided that we wait until next week when Councilor Davis is
present.
Councilor Woodson said with us voting on this next week, asked if the
ordinance that she requested with regards to adding an additional exception
needs to come forward on next week, or would it have to wait.
After further discussion, it was decided that the ordinance would have to
come back as a first reading on next week.
---------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------
CITY ATTORNEY?S AGENDA CONTINED:
THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS ALSO SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY ATTORNEY
FAY AND INTRODUCED ON FIRST READING:________
An Ordinance ? Repealing Ordinance No. 99-21 so as to replace existing
Personnel Review Board Policy 220-505 with a new policy which shall be
designated as Policy Number 220-505 and for other purposes.
Councilor Thomas said she would like to have a copy of Policy 220-550 that
is
being repealed in this proposed ordinance.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY ATTTORNEY FAY
AND READ IN ITS ENTIRETY BY COUNCILOR BARNES AND ADOPTED BY THE
COUNCIL:__ __
A Resolution (294-14) ? Commending and expressing our deep appreciation to
Ms. Margaret Cruz for her contributions and care for homeless individuals in
the
Columbus community. Councilor Barnes moved the adoption of the resolution.
Seconded by Councilor Baker and carried unanimously by those six members of
Council present at the time, with Councilor Allen being absent for this vote and
Councilors Davis, Henderson and McDaniel absent for this meeting.
---------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------
MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING: Minutes of the September 9, 2014 Council Meeting and the August 26, 2014
Executive Session of the Council of the Consolidated Government were submitted
and approved upon the adoption of a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh
and seconded by Councilor Woodson which carried unanimously by those six
members of Council present at the time, with Councilor Allen absent for this
vote and Councilors Davis, Henderson and McDaniel being absent for this
meeting.
---------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------
THE FOLLOWING ADD-ON RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY
ATTORNEY FAY AND ADOPTED BY THE
COUNCIL:________________________________________________________
A Resolution (295-14) ? Authorizing payment of Attorney Fees which may be
incurred for legal services rendered regarding various city issues during
fiscal year 2015. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh moved the adoption of the
resolution. Seconded by Councilor Huff and carried unanimously by those six
members of Council present at the time, with Councilor Allen absent for this
vote and Councilors Davis, Henderson and McDaniel being absent for this
meeting.
*** *** ***
With there being no other business to come before the Council, Mayor
Tomlinson then entertained a motion for adjournment. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh
so moved. Seconded by Councilor Woodson and carried unanimously by those six
members of Council present at the time, with Councilor Allen being absent for
this vote and Councilors Davis, Henderson and McDaniel being absent for this
meeting, with the time of adjournment being 12:00 p.m.
*** *** ***
Tiny B. Washington, MMC
Clerk of Council
The Council of Columbus, Georgia
Attachments
No attachments for this document.