Pre-Council Briefing
Minutes
November 24, 2009
Present: Mayor Jim Wetherington and Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn Turner Pugh.
Councilors Wayne Anthony, R. Gary Allen, Mike Baker, Jerry Barnes, Berry H.
Henderson, Julius Hunter and Charles McDaniel were present. Also present were
City Manager Isaiah Hugley, City Attorney Clifton Fay, and Recording Secretary
Shondell Duncan.
Councilor Evelyn Woodson took her seat at 4:45 p.m.
Absent: Councilor Glenn Davis was absent.
Location: Council Chambers on the Plaza level of the Government Center.
Meeting began at 4:10 p.m.
Mayor Wetherington called the meeting to order and then turned the proceedings
over to City Manager Hugley. City Manager Hugley said there are two topics on
the agenda for today?s pre-council briefing ? Brown Avenue Bridge and
Enterprise Zone.
Brown Avenue Bridge:
Deputy City Manager David Arrington came forward and stated that last week
the Mayor received notice from the Georgia Department of Transportation that
the Brown Avenue Bridge, specifically the one going over the Norfolk Southern
Railway was being restricted to load carrying capacity of no more than three
tons. Previously the bridge had a weight capacity of no more than ten tons.
With that he then provided the Mayor and Council with a brief chronology of the
Brown Avenue Bridge replacement project, an overview of the inspection report
we receive from DOT, and some recommendations for us to move forward.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said the Brown Avenue Bridge was put into the
long-range transportation plan of 2002. Council approved a resolution to that
effect and the project moved forward with preliminary engineering being done in
2005 with a construction date at that time of 2008 but was subsequently moved
to 2010. He said there were several activities that occurred during the next
couple of years but in 2008, due to state funding restrictions, there was no
modifications made to the transportation improvement plan, however, staff did
attend an alternative design meeting in Thomaston, GA where a number of issues
were identified in the preliminary environmental, specifically from a
historical standpoint. There are historical neighborhoods on either side of
Brown Avenue as you come over the bridge and there were concerns about
preliminary designs and their impact on those historical neighborhoods.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said at this time in 2009, right-of-way is
schedule for 2010 or this fiscal year. Construction is schedule for 2011. He
said staff did meet with interim DOT Commissioner Gerald Ross earlier this year
and expressed our concerns about keeping this project on course because of the
delays experienced in the last several years. He said this morning he spoke
with the District Engineer David Millen and he (Mr. Millen) advised that this
project is on schedule for replacement. He said as part of this project, a
second bridge will also be replaced ? the smaller bridge that goes over Bragg
Smith Street. DCM Arrington further stated that in 2010 the City is responsible
for right-of-way acquisition and then the State and Federal Government will pay
for the actual construction of the project. He said right-of-way cannot begin
until the actual plans have been completed and according to DOT, construction
plans are about 30 percent complete and they (DOT) hope to have the
environmental completed by this Spring sometime around March (2010). DCM
Arrington said the biggest barrier to proceeding with this project is
coordination with Norfolk Southern Railway. He said DOT couldn?t even submit
plans to the railway for a review and approval until they are authorized to do
so by Norfolk Southern ? and that?s the one thing that they are extremely
concerned about. The District Engineer advised that assuming that everything
can be done in a timely manner, we would hopefully be ready to go forward with
right-of-way acquisition at the end of this fiscal year or early next fiscal
year. He said from that, (about) is a 12-month project to acquire the
appropriate right-of-way and then beginning construction in the fiscal year
2011.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said the city receives a bridge inspection
report every two years ? a Georgia Department of Transportation sends bridge
inspectors down here and the engineers go through and evaluate the bridges on a
number of different factors. They assign a sufficient rating which is a
calculation that is based on a variety of different factors dealing with
structural aspects of the bridge. Those factors are placed into an engineering
formula and there are also factors including the amount of traffic that goes
over the bridge. Based on that and other information, a load limit is
established for that bridge. In Muscogee County, we have nine bridges that are
currently under some type of weight restrictions. These bridges are shown in
the packet provided to Council and a copy is also on file in the Clerk of
Council?s Office.
Deputy City Manager Arrington pointed out that the first of these bridges
is in Muscogee County but is on the Fort Benning Reservation so we are not
responsible for that bridge. He said of the remaining 8, we have three
replacement projects under design right now. Two of those bridges are on Forest
Road and then the Brown Avenue Bridge over the Norfolk Southern Railway. He
said looking at this, when we received this report last year, it wasn?t unlike
reports we received in prior years but we did contact the Muscogee County
School District, Metra and all the Public Safety Agencies and notify them of
these restrictions. As we were moving forward with our LOST planning and our
Capital Improvement planning for the city, we asked those agencies to help us
prioritize the need for replacement of these bridges. The school district
indicated that their top three projects were the two Forest Road bridges and
the Brown Avenue Bridge. And that was one of the factors that was included in
our decision making process in identifying which one of these eight bridges in
the county we would focus our attention on. Another consideration was that the
four of the five remaining bridges were bridges that were built in the 60s and
70s and by comparison were relatively new bridges as compared to some of these
others that were built in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said in the report the Mayor received from
DOT last week, it stated that the bridge structure was in poor condition and
they attributed this condition due to advanced deterioration due to heavy
trucks and the inspection that was conducted in 2008 which we received in 2009
and referred to as our 2009 inspection report, DOT schedule this bridge for an
annual inspection as opposed to every two years. The first week in November,
they come down and inspected the bridge and noticed several deficiencies. Based
on those deficiencies, they recommended several things. First reducing the
posted weight limit to three tons as opposed to ten; aggressive enforcement of
people violating the weight restriction and they would be back in six months to
re-inspect the bridge and they said if continued deterioration occurs on the
bridge, it could result in closure. DCM Arrington pointed out that during
construction the bridge will be closed and there will be some inconvenience to
the community during the 18 months to 2 years that this bridge is being built ?
not unlike the inconvenience we experienced when the 2nd Avenue Bridge and the
Veterans Parkway Bridge were built. He said what we hope to do through our
actions and recommendations are to minimize the impact of that disruption to
the least amount of time possible. DCM Arrington then showed the Mayor and
Council some of the pictures that came along with the report showing some of
the cap damage and some of the concrete damages that are occurring on the
bridge.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said the city?s action upon immediately
receiving the report from DOT, we reposted the bridge, and deployed variable
message signs on either end of the bridge to notify the traveling public that
the bridge weight limit has been reduced and we felt that putting up a small
sign on the bridge was not an effective way to notify the public and so we went
ahead with the signs that are up today. They did come down over the weekend
because those message boards were needed as part of our response to the SOA. We
notified Metra, Public Services, Parks & Recreation, Public Safety and the
School District. The school district also received a copy of the notification
(from DOT) that the city received. We are planning, with the City Manager?s
direction, for providing additional signage on either side of the bridge and we
would put flashing light to notify the public of the weight restriction. We
will also request additional law enforcement of the restrictions through the
Police, Sheriff, and Marshal Departments.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said it is staff?s recommendation that given
the fact that a number of DOT projects over the last few years have been moved
back due to lack of funding, this project being one of them, that we commit
additional funding for this bridge replacement project. Considering its vital
need in the community, we felt that if we commit funding either as a
partnership with Georgia DOT or if necessary, as a sole funding source for the
replacement of the bridge. And then if necessary, we would have the funding
source to commit to them on our behalf. He said those funding sources are CIP
Project, SPLOST interest and earnings, Fund Balance, and Paving Fund. He said
this commitment will make a statement to DOT of how important this project is
to us and will also let them know if this project moves forward, we considered
it with a sense of urgency and if additional funding is needed to make
temporarily repairs so this bridge would not be closed in 6 or 12 months, we
have the funds committed to make those repairs so we can minimize the impact on
our community up to the point of construction.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked about placement of signage and message
boards and asked where on Brown Avenue side do we plan on placing the signs.
She said once the trucks get too close to the bridge, they would not have
anywhere to turn around. DCM Arrington replied by say currently we have the
signs on private property. On the North end (Martin Luther King) of the bridge,
it is on the right hand side of the road in a parking lot. He said he believes
that sign gives adequate notification to trucks coming down the road that they
do need to move. He said on the South end, there is a more difficult problem
because of parking lots for the Kendrick/Pecan areas are so close to the edge
of the road and the building as you get closer to the intersection. He said
even the buildings come up fairly close to the road. He said the safest place
they could put the sign was just up Brown Avenue from that intersection. He
said he has asked the Traffic Engineering people to go down and take a look to
see if there might be a better spot for the sign but that was the best place
for it at the time in order to get both Cusseta Road and Andrews Road. He said
if the signs were placed in any other location, one or the other would be
missing the notification.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh also ask that notification be sent out to
businesses in the area that may be receiving goods from the large trucks. She
said some of the trucks would come out Farr Road, down Cusseta Road to get over
to either Andrews Road or Brown Avenue.
City Manager Hugley pointed out an add-on resolution to his agenda for
today?s Regular Council Meeting requesting Council?s authorization to move $5.5
million from SPLOST savings to a Brown Avenue account along with the $500,000
we already have budgeted. He said this is an $8 million to $10 million project
and we anticipate there is going to be some further SPLOST savings from some
other projects and then we also have the Paving Fund where we might be able to
get a few dollars from but it won?t make up the difference between the $6
million that we have in hand (should Council approve this resolution) but it
would help to make up some of the difference. He said what is left of the $4
million that we need to get to the $10 million we are saying over the next
three of four fiscal years that we start to budget money out of the Fund
Balance - $1 million per year to get us to that $4 million we need in four
years to get us that $10 million. He said the $6 million would allow us to move
forward (should Georgia DOT fail to move forward with this project) with the
things that we need to do to prepare for construction of the new Brown Avenue
Bridge. City Manager Hugley said this is the first step.
He said the second step would be to use our local money to try and leverage
them to say that we have money on the table and if they are not going to fund
the whole project, fund the balance. After a few more comments, City Manager
Hugley asked Director Rick Jones to come forward and give the presentation on
the Enterprise Zone.
A complete copy of Deputy City Manager Arrington?s presentation on the Brown
Avenue Bridge project is on file in the Clerk of Council?s Office.
----------------------------------------*** *** ***
--------------------------------
Enterprise Zone:
Director Rick came forward and introduced members of his staff who are
responsible for research and gathering of data for this project. He then
pointed out the packets distributed to Council, which include the presentation,
charts relating to how areas are rated as well as an overall map of the area.
Mr. Jones said the Enterprise Zone was established back in 1998 and is
approximately between 2,962 acres and we have officially designated it as the
Columbus Business Development Center. He said pointed out on the map that
everything in Green is the actual Enterprise Zone today and has been
established by ordinance once the state has past legislation for that. He said
it should be stated here that when the state first announce this they were only
concerned about commercial and industrial job creation. Areas covered in Mr.
Jones? presentation included:
Overview
Existing Enterprise Zone
History ? April 1998 to December 2008 with the adoption of Ordinance # 08-69
readopting the existing Enterprise Zone for an additional 10 years. Mr. Jones
pointed out that once you adopt an enterprise zone ordinance, it is only good
for ten years and has to be renewed and has to be brought back to Council. He
said that doesn?t mean that business owners and residential structures (in this
area) will lose that Tax Abatement.
What is an Enterprise Zone? Areas suffering from Disinvestment;
Under-development; General Economic Distress; Blight
Criteria for Establishing an Enterprise Zone ? Pervasive Poverty: at least 20%
of the population of a census Block Group must be in poverty; Unemployment rate
must be 10% higher than the State or have significant job dislocation;
Underdevelopment: lack of building permits, licenses, land distribution
activities; General distress & adverse conditions: population decline, health
and safety issues; General Blight: general decline of overall area; Areas must
meet three out of five of these criteria to be eligible; Must be consistent
with the city?s Comprehensive Plan.
Eligible Activities/Uses ? Retail, Manufacturing, Warehousing & Distribution,
Processing, Telecommunications, Tourism, Research & Development, etc.
Requirements ? base on Businesses and Residential and must provide certain
additional benefits to the city.
Councilor Henderson said when we are talking about residential we were
focusing on single-family residential to try to increase homeownership as
oppose to giving the tax incentives to an apartment construction project that
may not pass along the savings to the residents.
City Manager Hugley said to his recollection when this first came up was
when Neighbor Works Columbus came with the Soldiers? Village Project and it was
pointed out that some of the residential in East Wynnton were getting benefits
and what I recall was there was concern in that we have a property tax freeze
on residential and so aside from that there is a 10-year tax abatement and
after ten years, it goes back to what the taxes would have been when they
bought the home and that is when they will start paying. He said on the other
side with multi-family, they would get the tax abatement over the period of
time, but there is not a freeze on commercial and so in ten years they are
going to be where they should have been because the property would have been
assessed and adjusted on a regular basis. He said his recollection is that we
were more concerned with residential not getting the tax abatement and then we
want to be certain that it did not go to the developer versus the homeowner.
Additional Considerations for Tax and Free Abatement ? Locating in a vacant
building; Demolishing a pre-existing or abandoned structure; Creating jobs
above the state threshold; Creating jobs for residents of the Enterprise Zone.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked Director Jones about the initial
consideration (for Tax and Free Abatement) being to add single-family housing
and at what point did we add apartment? Director Jones responded by saying the
apartments have always been there since there are commercial ventures. The
residential has to be five times more than the land. He said we have to look at
the criteria for the residential requirement more than anything else.
Councilor Woodson asked for previous Council minutes on discussions on the
Enterprise Zone. She said herself and Councilor Hunter did not want too many
apartments but rather ownership and as she recall, Cathy Williams and Neighbor
Works Columbus came to Council after the discussion we had and before we make
any decisions, we need to get a clear understanding of our intent at that time
so we can make sure everything is in order. She said she is supportive in
developing the property but wants to make sure that everything is accurate and
intended for what we had planned.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked about a certain area not being qualified
for tax credits. Director Jones explained that the additional consideration in
the ordinance is one of the things we may have to update but the benefits to
the businesses and residents are: the first 5 years you are exempt; 6-7 years
goes to 80% and goes down to 20% by year ten. After the tenth year you start
paying the full value again. He further pointed out that base on what the data
is telling us (Census report 2000), our main factor is the poverty rate. There
are five areas of rating but the main one deals with the census data, which is
old and needs to be revamped to gives a clearer picture for the year 2010. He
said this is why he suspects the area she (Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh) asked
about is not included in the Enterprise Zone.
Benefits ? Business/Residential developments may receive tax exemptions for the
first 10 years; Sales and uses taxes, taxes imposed of for General Obligation
debt, and school taxes are excluded.
Additional Incentives ? Exemption of the fees for building permits, sign
permits, business license administration, rezoning application, engineering,
and other local fees as determined by the Columbus City Council
Efforts of Date ? Marginally successful; Established funding mechanism through
bonds and SPLOST programs; City has purchased 61 +/- acres; This time last
year, the 10-year time limitation was running out; Planning department
continued its efforts to complete analysis.
Criteria Defined ? Pervasive Poverty (2000 Census data); Unemployment (Georgia
Department of Labor 2007); Underdevelopment (Inspections & Code Department);
General Distress (Columbus Police Department); General Blight (Inspections &
Code Department)
Areas Meeting Requirements (see spreadsheet and tables in presentation package)
Presentation further covers pro and cons of each individual potential EZ area.
Potential EZ Area 1
Potential EZ Area 2
Potential EZ Area 3
Potential EZ Area 4
Potential EZ Area 5
Potential EZ Area 6
Potential EZ Area 7
Initial Findings ? additional areas could be added but would double the size of
the zone; required data for analysis is somewhat dated; expansion of the zone
would mean additional tax abatements that could impact the City?s budget for
the next years.
Conclusions/Recommendations ? current census data needs to be updated to give
an analysis of the zone; maintain the existing boundaries; work to establish a
better marketing/land use plan for the Enterprise Zone; continue to monitor
zone for activities and opportunities.
In responding to a question from Councilor Barnes, Mr. Jones said this
particular area does not meet the criteria to qualify to which Councilor Barnes
asked that Mr. Jones show him how and why this is so. Councilor Barnes said
given the upcoming census of 2010, why is data from 2000 being used. In
responding to this, Mr. Jones said this is the most current census we have.
Councilor Barnes further suggested that some of the Councilors go on a bus
tour to see this area and get a bird?s eye view and then we as Council and
brainstorm and see what areas fall under the criteria.
Councilor Woodson said three of these areas are (potential EZ areas) in her
district and two of them she can see where they would meet at least three of
these criteria but Mr. Bolt?s property behind the Winn Dixie. She said there
are interest there and the possibility of financing available to go ahead and
develop that area. She said her concern is if it doesn?t meet the criteria for
it to be considered as part of the Enterprise Zone. She said she is hearing
two different things ? using the census of 2000 as well as what is occurring at
this time. She asked where does this property stand when it comes to the
Enterprise Zone?
Mr. Jones said right now the property does meet the criteria for
consideration to be in the enterprise zone. He said this is the short answer
and he can go into more detail.
Councilor Woodson said he would like more clarification because she is
confused after listening to comments made by the city manager.
City Manager Hugley said we will provide a date to do a follow-up and
further discuss and then maybe we can come back after that with a resolution to
move forward.
With there being no further discussions, Mayor Wetherington said this
concludes today?s work session and regular Council Meeting will begin in about
two minutes.
Meeting adjourned at 5:28 P.M.
___________________________
Shondell V. Duncan
Recording Secretary
Attachments
No attachments for this document.