MINUTES
COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 29, 2014
A regular meeting of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was called to order
at 9:02 A.M., Tuesday, April 29, 2014, on the 2nd Floor of the Citizens Service
Center, located at 3111 Citizens Way, Columbus, Georgia. Honorable Teresa Pike
Tomlinson, Mayor, presiding.
***
*** ***
PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Tomlinson was Councilors Mike Baker, Berry
Henderson, Judy W. Thomas, and Evelyn Woodson. City Manager Isaiah Hugley, City
Attorney Clifton Fay, Clerk of Council Tiny B. Washington, Deputy Clerk Sandra
T. Davis and Administrative Secretary Lindsey Glisson were also present. Mayor
Pro-Tem Evelyn Turner-Pugh and Councilor Jerry Barnes took their seats at the
Council table at 9:16 a.m., Councilor Glenn Davis took his seat at the Council
table at 9:19 a.m. and Councilor Bruce Huff took his seat at the Council table
at 11:00 a.m.
----------------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***--------------------------------------------------------------
ABSENT: Councilors R. Gary Allen and Charles E. McDaniel were absent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayor Tomlinson made the following announcement to Council and Public:
? In reference to the severe weather in the area, Mayor Tomlinson urges
citizens to tune into the local weather stations. She also reminds citizens
that if there are trees down or flooded streets, that they may report them to
311 during regular business hours and 911 after hours. There are City
Government crews out in the area now with 43 reports of down trees and limbs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***---------------------------------------------------------------
INVOCATION: Reverend Jamie Capers, Holsey Chapel C.M.E. Church.
----------------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***--------------------------------------------------------------
PLEDGE: Led by children of Lonnie Jackson Academy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***---------------------------------------------------------------
COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA:
Peter Bowden, Executive Director
Columbus Convention and Visitor?s Bureau
?CCVB?What we do?:
Executive Director Peter Bowden took the podium to begin his
presentation on what the Columbus Convention and Visitor?s Bureau does.
Tourism is economic development. It needs to be said and kept in mind
on how important this is for our community. The presentation consists of a
brief overview on what CCVB has been working on in the past twelve to fourteen
months. These things should help better position Columbus as a destination for
conventions, trade shows and tourism. All of this is primarily a result of an
active sales force, which are innovative and customer service focused; an
aggressive public relations and marketing team, which lead CCVB into the
digital world of talking to the visitor; and perhaps one of the best Visitor?s
Bureaus in the State of Georgia.
The partnerships that CCVB has, is what has made this a success story.
Partnerships are key to being successful. A.J. McClung once used the analogy,
?if you see a turtle on the fence post, you know he did not get there by
himself?. CCVB has seen a great benefit from partnering with the Georgia
Department of Economic Development, the work that is done at the State Welcome
Center, located on Williams Road and the newcomer?s orientation that is done on
Fort Benning.
At this time, the video presentation was presented to Mayor and
Council. Some of the key information on what CCVB brings to Columbus that was
shown during the presentation is as follows:
? 1.7 annual visitors
? $318 million annual visitor expenditure
? 4,232 annual employment
? $110 million estimated payroll
? Events/Activities
- Annual Homeschool Week
- Events and Sales Missions
- Annual Family Reunion Workshop
- Monthly Hotel Meetings
- Monthly Facilities Meeting
? 106 Site Visits
? $20 million Economic Impact
? 243 Clients Serviced
? $19.9 million Economic Impact
? 308 Total Key Wins
- $27 million Economic Impact
? 21 Trade Shows and counting
? Tools used:
- Online Booking Engine
- Custom Itinerary Builder
- Annual Tourism Impact Analysis
- Custom Package Builder
- Family Reunion Planner Guide
- Columbus Mobile App
- Event Calendar
- Augmented Reality App
? Marketing & PR:
- Print Publications
- Promotional Videos
- Social Multimedia
? Media Coverage
? Total Media Impressions 62 million
? Ad Value Equivalency $500,000
? Film
- Need for Speed, Uptown Columbus, Georgia
- The Fighting Temptations, Uptown Columbus, Georgia
- We Were Soldiers, Fort Benning, Georgia
? Designations
- ?Top 100 Best Place to Live? ? Livability.com
- ?Top 100 Best Communities for Young People? ? America?s Promise Alliance
- ?Runner Friendly Community? ? Road Runners Club of America
- ?100 Best Places to Raise a Family? ?Today.com
? What do we do?
- Economic Development
$318 million Economic Impact
- Increased Visitor Spending
- Create Jobs
- Columbus Households Saved $430 per Year in Taxes
- ROI of $20 for every $1 invested
At the end of the video, Director Bowden invited Mayor and Council to
the CCVB the following week for National Tourism Week. Tourism is the driver
for the success of our community. Some of the highlights of the activities
planned are:
? Tuesday, May 6, 2014, Chester?s BQQ will be providing lunch
? Wednesday, May 7, 2014, Volunteer Appreciation Day, 12th Street Deli will be
providing lunch
? Thursday, May 8, 2014, Columbus Trade Center, Uptown Car Wash, Hampton Inn
Airport, Country?s and JTP will be a part of a big cookout
Mayor Tomlinson recognized and thanked Director Bowden as leading the
charge on the hotelier issue relating to Fort Benning. Also, what Director
Bowden has done with the Film Commission, getting it off the ground and taking
care of some opportunities. CCVB administered a poll on whether or not the
City of Columbus should change their slogan, which may need to be continued to
look into.
--------------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Jones, Director of Planning Department
Director Jones begins by thanking Director Peter Bowden and his staff.
He explains the American Planning Association, which is in Atlanta this week
for the National Conference, came to Columbus. Columbus had the privilege and
honor of having a mobile workshop here this past Sunday. There were ten
Planners from all across the country who came to experience the Columbus
Whitewater firsthand. With efforts from Director Bowden and Richard Bishop of
Uptown and Patty Cullen with River Valley, they were able to really impress
those Planners that visited our City.
*** *** ***
Alternative Transportation Study:
Director Jones explains that during one of the sessions held yesterday
at the APA Conference was on Alternative Transportation. One of the speakers
said it should be referred to as ?Active Transportation? rather than
Alternative. This is something that is not just unique to Columbus but unique
throughout the Country. The point of the Alternative Transportation Study is
to see what needs to be done as a community to encourage activities such as
biking and walking. This is also a health issue, in terms of allowing the
citizens to be more active.
Present from the City?s consultant agency URS was, Eric Lusher and Jim
Brown. They will be sharing what the study involves.
Consultant Eric Lusher took the podium to give the presentation on the
Alternative Transportation Study. He says there is a lot of correlation between
investing in this type of transportation infrastructure and various economic
benefits to the community; such as jobs, more young people who equate to more
jobs and certainly health impacts.
1. Study Purpose
?To focus on the travel of those who bike, walk, and use public transit as
their means of transportation.?
*** *** ***
As the study evolved, their work tending to focus more on the biking
and walking component, as a separate study was being conducted on with a
specific focus being on the transit system.
*** *** ***
2. Study Purpose
Develop general alternative transportation ideas the City of Columbus can pursue
The study is?.
? Not an engineering-level analysis
? Not intended to address site specific or design issues
? Only the first of many steps before projects can be constructed
*** *** ***
This study is a planning-level study. They are trying to get a general
idea of what can possibly work within the community.
*** *** ***
3. Project Activities
? Existing Conditions Review
- Previous Studies and Plans
- Best Practices and Guidance Manuals
- Inventory of Alternative Transportation Conditions
- Public/Stakeholder: Establish Community Values
? Needs Analysis
- Suitability Analysis
- Public/Stakeholder: Establish Overall Vision
? Development of Recommendations
- Identify Alternative Transportation Corridors
- Policy Recommendations
- Potential Funding Sources
- Public/Stakeholder: Establish Public Support for Projects
*** *** ***
4. Recommendations
? Sidewalks
? Multi-Use Trails
? Sharrows
? Bike Lanes
? Cycle Tracks
*** *** ***
5. Recommendations
? 68 corridors identified
? Recommendations need to undergo detail engineering study
? Likelihood that recommendations will be refined in such detailed study
? Some projects have feasibility challenges
? Future priorities could change
*** *** ***
There are some projects that are thought to have some feasibility
challenges. The back section of the study report is a narrative about each of
the projects, why it is thought to be a good idea and where there is thought to
be feasibility challenges or issues.
The projects were also prioritized based on a variety of items; such
as, the ease of construction, the impact of the project to the community and
the general success for the project.
The 68 recommended projects would total an additional 132 miles of
pedestrian amenities and an additional 149 miles of bicycle amenities. The
bicycle projects in general are made up of mostly the sharrows that were
shown. The reason sharrows were recommended is they are inexpensive and
relatively easy to install. It does not require heavy investments or taking
away the right-of-way.
Mayor Tomlinson says that the issue between sharrows and dedicated bike
lanes are often debated on her Facebook page. She asks if there is a criteria
where sharrows would not be appropriate and then a dedicated bike lane would be
recommended or could a dedicated bike lane be appropriate anywhere. Mr. Lusher
responds by saying, if there was an opportunity to put a dedicated bike lane in
then that is certainly the better improvement, with the understanding that it
may not be the realistic option for any given corridor without spending a
tremendous amount of money or having an adverse impact. A sharrow is at least
a very good intro improvement at the locations where it meets the various
guidelines and where they are appropriate. The basic criteria for sharrows are
for the roadway to be less than 35 miles per hour and fewer driveways or median
cuts, the better.
Mayor Tomlinson says there is a lot of concern about our multi-use
trails not having separate lanes. She would like for Planning to look into
this issue that a number of cyclists are concerned about. Because they
consider it to be a safety and use issue, she believes that it needs to be
considered in moving forward in the future.
*** *** ***
When the projects were prioritized, the 68 projects were also rated on
what is a short-term investment, mid-term investment and long-term investment.
Mr. Lusher explains the highest 4 projects in each of those categories. The way
these projects were separated into these categories determined on how easily
they can be implemented, how expensive and how easily it will be to acquire the
project funds.
*** *** ***
The 4 highest priority projects for a short term investment are sharrows on the
following roads:
? 6th Avenue (includes parts of Linwood Boulevard and 10th Avenue)
- To connect where the fall line trace is and connects to Victory Drive.
- In theory, with the help of some kind of safety mechanism, it could cross
Victory Drive and connect to the River Walk by the Civic Center.
? Hamilton Road
- Which is an adjacent corridor for part of that segment.
- This would be from the Civic Center all the way to Woodruff Road.
? Woodruff Farm Road (by the Soccer Complex)
- This ties into a long-term project as well, which is a multi-use
trail/greenway along Bull Creek.
? Rigdon Road (from Macon Road to Buena Vista Road)
*** *** ***
The 4 highest priority projects for a medium term investment are road diets on
the following roads:
? Cherokee Avenue
? 13th Street
- Which would tie into Cherokee Avenue.
- There may be some feasibility challenges because of the mix of traffic
particularly on the west side of that corridor.
? 10th Avenue (from Linwood Boulevard to Victory Drive)
? University Avenue (in front of Columbus State University)
- from the fall line trace to Macon Road
*** *** ***
Mayor Pro-Tem Turner Pugh asks Mr. Lusher on the Rigdon Road project,
would that include Buena Vista Road. Mr. Lusher responds by saying, that
particular project does not. However, there are separate projects out of the
68 that include Buena Vista Road.
Mayor Pro-Tem Turner-Pugh asks what was taken into consideration when
doing the prioritization. Mr. Lusher explains it was the general feasibility
of how easily they believe the project can be constructed, general public
support, to what degree the project would connect to various points of interest
in the community and how well the high priority project connected to other
projects within the puzzle. Mr. Lusher points out there are several challenges
that will be faced when the projects that involve Buena Vista Road come into
play. The challenges with Buena Vista Road are there are not currently
sidewalks within that corridor, there are other feasibility and construction
challenges as well.
*** *** ***
The 4 highest priority projects for a long term investment are multi-use trails
on the following roads:
? Segment One of the Bull Creek Greenway
- from the River Walk to Buena Vista Road
- it would tie into the projects that are planned for Buena Vista Road
? Segment Two of the Bull Creek Greenway
- from Buena Vista Road to Schatulga Road
? East/West Trail
- there is an easement that runs east and west
- from River Road to Williams Road
? US 80 Corridor
- this would take advantage of the wide right-of-way that is along that
corridor
- it would be located on the south side, a distance away from the actual freeway
*** *** ***
Mayor Pro-Tem Turner-Pugh says that she has been on Council for 25
years. Before she was an elected official, Buena Vista Road was supposed to be
widened and sidewalks put in. Yet, here more than 30 years later, Buena Vista
Road is still not a top priority. It is said that other projects are cheaper
to construct, but if Buena Vista Road continues to keep being pushed back, it
will be another 30 to 40 years before it is done. Mr. Lusher responds there are
a lot of different debates that could be brought up on why one project is a
higher priority than another.
Mayor Tomlinson says that there is a project in the works for Buena
Vista Road that has been on the books for years. It is even at the public
input stage of the process. This project is from Wynnton Road to Illges Road,
with extensive sidewalks and round-abouts. City Manager Hugley says there is a
public meeting on this project May 12, 2014. He says the project was funded,
but there was a lot of public and political debate regarding Buena Vista Road.
The City acquired right-of-way for this project. But because everyone could
not come together, the funds were then moved to another project. The Buena
Vista Road project then was pushed to a future date, which is now here.
*** *** ***
Planning Director Rick Jones comes forward to explain to Mayor and
Council ?millenials?. He explains this is the age group that has been born from
mid 80s to now. This is the age group that will be demanding a lot more
services that the City of Columbus is currently not providing. These services
are basically the walking and biking aspect. This age group wants to work,
live and play in an area where they do not have to get in a car to travel to
each activity. The importance of this Alternative Transportation Study is vital
to the City and sets the coarse for the future.
*** *** ***
Director Jones confirms what City Manager Hugley has said about the Buena Vista
Road project. He invites the public to join them May 12, 2014 at Brewer
Elementary School from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. There will be 3 different
concepts presented for that roadway and also the Spider Web Project during the
public meeting.
*** *** ***
Accessory Dwelling Units:
Director Jones explains that millenials are also very important when
talking about accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit is a second
small dwelling on an individual lot. It can be an apartment, an apartment over
a garage, a backyard cottage or a basement apartment. These dwellings would
benefit families that are caring for an elderly relative.
*** *** ***
1. ADU?s Defined
? Referred to as accessory apartments, second units, or granny flats
? Are additional living quarters on single-family lots that are independent of
the primary dwelling unit.
? The separate living spaces are equipped with kitchen and bath-room
facilities, and can be either attached or detached from the main entrance.
*** *** ***
2. Brief History of ADUs
? Can be traced back to the early twentieth century.
? After World War II, an increased demand for housing led to a booming suburban
population.
? Large lots and an emphasis on the nuclear family, with suburban development
lessen the need for ADU?s.
*** *** ***
There are existing ADU?s in the community. They are primarily located
in the Lakebottom area and the Park District. These for the most part are
nonconforming uses according to the existing zoning ordinance. They are aloud
to continue to operate. There have been issues with the existing ADU?s in the
past in terms of them being rented out to tenants that are non-family members.
The benefits of going to an ADU?s, in terms of increasing the area?s
housing supply, is for millenials, costs less than a new single-family unit,
option for low to moderate income families, elderly persons, disabled persons,
empty nesters that want to be close to their families and students that are not
able to afford housing beyond a certain grade. These ADU?s would be limited to
1,000 square feet or 10% of the size of the original dwelling.
*** *** ***
There was discussion between Councilor Thomas and Director Jones on the
parking and size restrictions of ADU?s. Councilor Thomas said she wants to
make sure if this Ordinance goes forward, that they are not making the
requirements more stringent for the ADU?s than they had for the construction of
the original dwelling.
*** *** ***
3. ADU?s In Columbus
? ADU?s currently exist in Columbus
? Prior to World War II, many of the neighborhoods had ADU?s
- Garage apartments in the Park District
- Converted quarters in the Historic District
- Most of are legal, nonconforming uses
? Currently, ADU?s are allowed as Guest Cottages
- Must have minimum of 1 acre
- The guest cottage is for a guest of the homeowners, not for a tenant.
- Over the last decade, the Planning Department has received increased requests
for ADU?s, with multigenerational households being the primary reason for the
requests.
- Unfortunately, the 1 acre minimum has hindered the ability to create ADU?s on
most ?in-town? properties.
*** *** ***
4. Ordinance Proposal
? The Planning Department is proposing the following to allow ADU?s in Columbus
- The property owner must live on the property.
- Limit the number of tenants to 2 persons.
- Only one ADU per lot shall be permitted.
- Despite the type of ADU, each shall have its own separate entrance.
- Parking shall be provided on the property in an approved location.
- Detached ADU?s shall meet the requirements in Section 2.1.6 Accessory
Structure, which establishes setbacks and lot coverage
- ADU must match the primary structure in design and materials.
*** *** ***
Director Jones says his primary concern when staff began discussing
ADU?s was what was going to be the reaction of the adjoining neighbors to these
properties. The purpose was to see if the construction of an ADU could be
accommodated on an existing lot.
Councilor Henderson states that someone constructing a dwelling for their needs
in caring for an aging parent does not concern him, but constructing a dwelling
to rent to tenants does. He says that the group of millenials that Director
Jones described, he is not sure they are ever going to materialize. He referred
to employees of TSYS, Synovus and AFLAC, he does not think there will be a
problem affording the apartments that have been constructed in the area. He
speaks on the possibility of not being able to sell a property and the owner
choosing to rent the main dwelling, then there will be two rentals on one
property. Councilor Henderson asked to hear how other communities that are
utilizing these dwellings, their size and what if any issues they have had with
maintaining the property value.
Mayor Tomlinson agrees that Council should hear what other communities
are doing in regard to ADU?s. She has heard at many conferences that a lot of
communities are doing this now as revitalization efforts. There seems to be a
high level of acceptance for in-town communities such as Lakebottom and
Downtown Historic District. She says that area further out like gated and golf
communities, that the thought of incorporating ADU?s seems odd.
Councilor Davis believes this issue should be taken very slowly. He
would be interested in hearing from the area?s real estate community on their
thoughts. He would not like for Council to pass an ordinance that would have a
negative impact on the property values, the multi-family properties that
already exist in the City, or disrupt the sale of homes in the area.
*** *** ***
Councilor Woodson says she like the concept of the ADU?s being used for
the elderly and disabled relatives. This is an issue that a lot of Baby
Boomers are facing now. Their parents are getting older and they may not be
able to afford the nursing homes or assisted living facilities. She says there
are builders that are building these additional dwellings on properties
already. There are a few homes in the Brookstone area that have the
mother-in-law suites in the back of their properties. What some may consider
as affordable housing, is not affordable housing for students in college.
Councilor Barnes says he believes that Planning needs to move very
slowly with this issue. He is not conceptually on line with this proposal.
Mayor Pro-Tem Turner-Pugh asks Director Jones how this Ordinance is any
different from what Council did with the situation with Mr. Douglas on Cherokee
Avenue. Director Jones says that is where this is coming from by setting
guidelines and directives on these dwellings. There was a zoning case that came
about years ago, where a citizen wanted to add an additional dwelling that was
more than that lot could support. This presentation is a way for the Planning
Department to be proactive in this matter.
Councilor Barnes applauds Director Jones for always being proactive.
He too wishes for Planning to meet with realtors in the area to see what the
pros and cons of an ordinance such as this being adopted.
Councilor Thomas says she recently read an article on post-college
towns. It was about young people who have graduated from college and chose to
continue living in the town from which they received their degree. It was said
they prefer to not be more than 10 to 15 minutes away from their place of
employment, mainly because they like to walk or bike to work. This article was
particularly talking about Charleston, South Carolina.
Manchester Expressway Overlay District:
1. Overlay Districts ? Purpose
o The purpose and intent of creating an overlay district is to address specific
issues that might exist within defined area, such as a roadway corridor,
without the necessity for creating an entirely new zoning district or creating
the need for one or more area-wide variances to achieve a desired community
benefit.
UDO Section 2.5.2
*** *** ***
2. Overlay District ? Purpose
Possible issues that could be addressed
o Architectural/ Design Controls
o Building Facades
o Community Redevelopment
o Economic Development
o Historic Resources
o Infill Development
o Landscaping
o Natural Resources Protection or Preservation
o Signage
o Specific Use Regulation
o Tree and Vegetation Preservation
*** *** ***
There are overlay districts in the community right now. The first
being US Highway 80. The overlay district was put together with the
understanding that there would be pressure to develop along that roadway
because of the traffic.
The proposed overlay district is on Manchester Expressway from US Highway 80 to
County Line Road. The interesting part about this area, it is pretty much
undeveloped. There are only two access points.
*** *** ***
3. Definitions/ Applicability
? Purpose and Intent
? Definitions
- Corridor: land within 1,000 feet of the Right-of-Way and a 1,000 foot depth
at intersections
- Focus Areas
? Applicability
- Properties wholly or partially within the Manchester Expressway corridor
- Property being redeveloped through demolition or expansion
? Development Standards
- Corridor buffer of at least 40 feet for setback
*** *** ***
4. Design Requirements/Access
? Parking/Yard, Height and Setback
- Parking should be screened from public roads by buildings/landscaping
- Establishes criteria for front of building parking for non-residential uses
based upon the size of building
? Signage
- No billboards or bench signs
- Monument signs allowed with architectural and size standards
*** *** ***
The parking lot size currently can only be 20% of the size of the
building on the property. One of the concerns that came up in past overlay
districts, the safety and security of the employees for these businesses, with
only 20% of parking being allowed in the front of the building.
*** *** ***
5. Overlay Parking
Between 7,501 and 25,000 sq. ft.
? Example building- 15,000 sq. ft.
? 60 spaces total
? 30% of spaces allowed in front of building (18 in front- 42 in back)
*** *** ***
6. Design Requirements/Access
? Building Placement, Height and Intensity
- Placement
- Building Height
- Building Mass, Intensity and Density
? Provisions for Specific Uses
- Communication Towers ? concealed support structures only
- Fences and Walls ? establishes materials and landscaping for those structures
visible from public right-of-way
- Drive-Through Facilities ? required to be on the side or rear of building
*** *** ***
7. Design Requirements/Access
? Gas Station Pump Islands
? Outside Display and Storage and Service Areas
- Screening of truck parking areas
- Loading and storage areas to be screened
- Trash areas to be located in the rear
-Addresses seasonal merchandise
- Storage areas to be permanently defined
- No storage of toxic chemicals (fertilizers, insecticides, etc.)
? Stormwater Detention Facilities ? required to be landscaped and incorporated
into the overall design
*** *** ***
8. Design Requirements/Access
? Architecture Design
- Establishes design criteria for facades visible from a public roadway
- Prohibits portable buildings
- Identifies roof materials
- Requires rooftop mechanical equipment to be hidden from view from public
streets
? Accessory items such as railings, benches, trash receptacles, etc., must
compliment the buildings
*** *** ***
9. Design Requirements/Access
? Additional Design Guidelines
- Facades to be varies in depth
- Distinct architectural entry identification for individual tenants
- Out parcels to reflect the character of the primary structure
- Walls visible from public roadways shall incorporate different designs
- Roof parapets shall provide visual diversity
- Articulation of building design shall continue of all sides
- Building elevations to be reviewed by the Planning Department
? Land Use Review ? development activities are required to be reviewed by
Planning Department prior to the issuance of permits
*** *** ***
The Ordinance is a mirror of the overlay districts that have already
been done in the community. They benefit the neighborhoods in those areas.
This is the plan for Manchester Expressway, to protect that corridor and at the
same time to continue development.
*** *** ***
Mayor Pro-Tem Turner-Pugh asks if the only issue with this overlay is
the billboard issue and asks if it has been resolved. Director Jones responds,
the billboards are still an issue and will be resolved when it is brought
back.
Councilor Henderson says that there are strict guidelines for
billboards as it is. As the overlays have moved along and was implemented on
Veterans Parkway, he began to have some concern. The buffering is fine; he
believes it is a welcoming aesthetic.
Director Jones says that the department could have been extremely rigid
and unforgiving about some of the development that already existed in the US 80
overlay. The common goal that is trying to be achieved is to provide the
opportunity for things to be developed and to provide services that are needed
in these parts of the community. But at the same time, make sure that it is
done at a community standard that serves the community. Planning is trying to
make sure that Columbus does not look like every other city in the country. To
make sure that Columbus has an identity and character about it.
There is a cap and replacement guideline in place now. For every two
billboards that are taken down, one must be put up. The point is to make sure
that things are harmonious for the surrounding area.
Councilor Henderson adds that when you take an area and try to make it
pleasing for the eye and harmonious, you could take 20 people and they would
all have different opinions. Sometimes extremely well intentioned initiatives
can have an impact that is an undesired consequence. He does not believe that
it is a hardship in most instances with requiring the parking for businesses to
the back of the property. But, too dense of screening, though what you are
trying to accomplish for the persons on the roadway, it can have a negative
impact on the small business owner that is trying to generate some type of
activity. Most of their marketing is the facade of their building.
*** *** ***
Councilor Baker asks if the overlay would apply to people who still
have agricultural structures unless they apply for a commercial rezoning.
Director Jones says that is correct, it would not affect them.
*** *** ***
Councilor Barnes explains that he has always struggled with overlays.
He has a problem with one size fitting all. These overlays are restrictive and
prejudicial to the ?Mom and Pop Businesses? that cannot afford to do all that
is required of a ?Big Box? store. From the standpoint that ?Mom and Pop
Businesses? have been the backbone of this country. He says that he has never
voted for an overlay and he will not be voting for this one, because he does
not believe in overlays. Secondly, he hears from a number of builders and real
estate that they need to have more of a buy-in on this whole process. He has
been told they do not feel as if they have had a buy-in when it affects them
and the people that they serve. It looks as if the department expects everyone
to conform when some do not have the means to do so.
*** *** ***
Councilor Davis said he likes the overlays. He believes that they
develop character and create an image for your community. At the same time, he
believes there definitely needs to be balance. He makes a referral for the
River Road corridor, from Bradley Park Drive to the county line, to be looked
at for the possibility for an overlay district. He has received numerous
requests for this over the years.
*** *** ***
City Manager Hugley thanks and applauds Director Jones and his staff
for their forward thinking on how our community will grow as we go into the
future, from a smart-grow standpoint, aesthetics, and making sure we leave a
better community than what we have today.
*** *** ***
Councilor Thomas asks if there is a timeline that the Manchester
Expressway Overlay District proposal will be brought back for Council?s
consideration. Director Jones responds, it will not be any time soon. The
earliest could be sometime in May. There needs to be more time for citizens
that live in that area to be heard. City Manager Hugley says that those
citizens have requested that the 1st Reading be held during an evening meeting,
which he has promised them this would happen.
*** *** ***
Councilor Davis did express his concern with regards to how the parking
lots are connected and the flow of traffic as it relates to the overlay
district. He referred to the difficulty of getting into the flow of traffic
when leaving businesses in Columbus Park Crossing. However, the connectivity
of these lots does make it a lot easier for citizens to get around the traffic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------***
*** ***------------------------------------------------------------
David Arrington, Deputy City Manager
Recycling Program with Fort Benning:
Deputy City Manager David Arrington takes the podium to explain and
present to Mayor and Council the proposed Recycling Program with Fort Benning.
At a time of shrinking budgets and in a difficult economy, we are challenged to
pursue innovative service delivery strategies to meet our citizens? needs for
services and to generate revenue for the City.
One such strategy is the potential use of a shared service partnership
agreement with Fort Benning. An opportunity, until recently, was not available
to us. Congress in 2012 and 2013 Session, passed legislation that now provides
the ability for military installations to partner with adjacent jurisdictions.
Local and state governments are able to enter into intergovernmental agreements
for shared services between the two agencies, as an approach to improve
efficiency and to reduce overall cost.
*** *** ***
1. Overview
? Background
- Authority
- Monterey Model
? Initiatives and Opportunities
- Fort Benning Partnerships
- Public-Public Partnership Conference
? Recycling Proposal
? Conclusions
? Recommendations
*** *** ***
2. Authority
? FY13 National Defense Authorization Act Section 331
- Allows intergovernmental agreements with state and local governments to
provide, receive or share base services.
- Allows intergovernmental agreements on a sole-source basis.
- Agreements are limited to 5 yr. term
*** *** ***
Previously, military installations were only allowed to contract on a
competitive basis. This put adjacent jurisdictions in a position where they
could not compete in those agreements. The military base potentially could pay
higher cost, redundancy in overhead and services with agency adjacent to each
other.
*** *** ***
3. Monterey Model
? A pilot program for shared-services partnership between installation and
neighboring community.
- Recreation services
- Maintenance services
- Utility services
- Public Works
? Program saved the Army 41% compared to the cost of service from its previous
providers.
*** *** ***
The Monterey Model came about as a result of the 1993 BRAC. The
presidio and the Naval Post-Graduate School were scheduled to be shutdown as a
result of the base realignment and closure recommendation in that year. As a
result, the City of Monterey stepped up and requested to the BRAC Commission
that they be allowed to look at some unique approaches to reducing the overall
cost of services at the presidio and at that installation. The BRAC Commission
unanimously agreed and moving forward there was legislations put into place
that allowed this installation and the City of Monterey to enter into service
agreements. It began as soon as the legislation was passed. The first
agreement was for recreational services that were not only available to those
military families of that installation but also to the families of Monterey.
As a result of this partnership with the base and the City of Monterey, the
program saved the Army approximately 41% of the cost that was compared to
services being provided by other providers.
*** *** ***
4. Partnership Fundamentals
? Partnership must:
- Create Mutual Value
- Leverage Resources
- Address Common Issues
- Share Risk
*** *** ***
Recycling is an issue that Columbus wants to leverage our resources to
maximize the value to our taxpayers as well as to the military installation.
The shared risk is an important issue with the City. It cannot be a one-sided
venture. In an agreement, you cannot go into it with one party carrying all the
risk. By doing that, you are exposing it to failure.
*** *** ***
5. Fort Benning Partnerships
? Pacific Northwest Laboratory ? Renewal Energy Opportunities ? 2010
? CCG ? Alternative Waste Disposal Strategies ? 2011
? Energy Efficiency Task Force ? DOD 2012/13
? Public-Public Partnership Conference
*** *** ***
In recent years the City has looked at opportunities to partner with
Fort Benning on a variety of issues. In November of 2013 many City staff
members, including Public Safety and General Government, participated in a
conference on Post called the Public-Public Partnership Conference. This
conference was a result of the passage of the Shared Services Agreement
opportunities in the Defense Bill.
*** *** ***
6. Public-Public Partnership Conference
? Examined opportunities for shared services in numerous areas
- Public Works
- Emergency Services
- Sustainable Energy
- Recreation
- Public Transportation
? Recycling identified as best option for initial partnership between
installation and City
? Other opportunities still being pursued.
*** *** ***
From the conference, the City looked at opportunities for us to work
with our local military installation. To assist them in reducing their cost, as
well as, reducing the City?s cost and enhancing the value of certain services
to our citizens.
Out of all the opportunities, recycling is the best one for the City to
get started with this partnership. Other opportunities are still being pursued
with our neighbors at Fort Benning are as follows:
? Landfill Gas to Energy
? Use of Compressed Natural Gas for fleet vehicles
? Fleet Services to include maintenance
? GIS Services
? Traffic Coordination
? 911 Call Center Services
? Using Joint Purchase Agreements
? Use of the Firing Ranges
? Recreation Services
? Using combine Maintenance Resources
? Marking of Special Events
? Golf Membership for the coarse on Post that is being underutilized
? Venues for Special Events
? Passive Recreational
? Environmental Education Opportunities
? Public Transportation
*** *** ***
Columbus? new Recycling Sustainability Center has the capacity to
process additional materials beyond what is currently being processed. The
location is immediately adjacent to the Fort Benning military installation.
*** *** ***
7. Recycling
? City?s new Recycling/Sustainability Center has capacity to process additional
materials
? Location is adjacent to installation
? Fort Benning will receive ?green credits? for all materials diverted from
landfill disposal
? Fort Benning will make recycling mandatory for housing area with all
materials coming to the City
? Additional recycling materials are a source of revenue for the City
? Revenue projection indicate the partnership will results in a positive
revenue stream for the City recycling operation
*** *** ***
Receiving Green Credits is important to Fort Benning in meeting their
Sustainable Energy Goals that are set by the Department of the Army. For every
pound of recycling material that they divert from a landfill to a recycling
center they get green credits.
*** *** ***
8. Recycling Proposal
? City will:
- Implement once a week curb side recycling program for all family housing
areas on post (approx. 4,200 units)
- Process and sell all materials through our current contract
Examine other opportunities for recycling (schools, admin buildings, etc.)
- Accept, process, and sell commercial materials from installation delivered by
contractor
- Provide monthly reports to the installation on materials
*** *** ***
9. Recycling Proposal
? Fort Benning will:
- Make recycling mandatory for all family housing areas
- Provide material to the City for processing and sell at no cost to the City
- Install a road from the installation to the property line connecting to the
City Recycling/ Sustainability Center
- Require contractor to deliver commercial material to the Recycling/
Sustainability Center for processing
- Transport drop-off trailers to the Recycling/ Sustainability Center for
processing
-Authorize for use by the City any surplus equipment (bailers, etc.) not being
used by the installation
*** *** ***
10. Recycling Proposal
? Initial term of 2 years with option for 3 additional one year periods
? Termination of agreement with 60 days written notice by either party
? Recycling of glass is not included in agreement
? If approved, projected start date of operation would be October 1, 2014.
*** *** ***
Deputy City Manager David Arrington informs Council that Public
Services Director Pat Biegler will be sharing specifics on the City?s cost and
projected revenue as a result of this partnership during her Budget
Presentation at the Budget Session.
*** *** ***
11. Conclusions
? Partnership with For Benning will benefit the installation by providing
?Green Credits? and the City by establishing a positive revenue stream for the
recycling operation. (Details to be provided by Public Works Director Pat
Biegler)
? Initial program will not require City to make significant capital investment
and represents minimal risk on behalf of the City
? Additional opportunities should be pursued for the mutual benefit of the
installation and the citizens of Columbus
*** *** ***
Looking at the additional resources, it would require the City to rent
equipment instead of purchasing equipment. This way the City is able to go on
a month-to-month basis for equipment.
*** *** ***
12. Recommendation
? Authorize the City to enter into a Shared Services Agreement with the Fort
Benning Military Reservation for recycling services and to pursue other
mutually beneficial partnership opportunities with Fort Benning
*** *** ***
City Manager Hugley asks for Director Biegler to present to Council the
information she has for her Budget Session regarding the recycling program with
Fort Benning.
Director Biegler takes the podium to give specific on the recycling program to
Mayor and Council.
*** *** ***
1. Recycling on Ft. Benning
? Proposal is that Waste Management would pick up curbside for 4200 homes on
Ft. Benning
? Ft. Benning will install connector road near recycling center
? City would receive that revenue from all recyclable materials that we collect
? Ft. Benning would not pay for pick up
? Recycling will be mandatory on base
? An opt out clause will be included in case of insufficient revenues.
*** *** ***
2. COSTS ?Ft. Benning Proposal
? Annual Cost
- 2 drivers $60,581
- Fuel $30,168
- Vehicle rental $139,200
- Total $229,949
*** *** ***
3. Potential Revenue
? Residential areas:
-28lbs HH/week x 4200 HH= 117,600 lbs/week
2000lbs/ton = 58.8 tons /week
? $150 / ton = $458,640
*** *** ***
Councilor Woodson asks if the City will be required to provide the
recycling bins to Fort Benning. Director Biegler says there has been
conversation about the City providing a couple of the small bins. They have
found a funding source within their budget to purchase the large carts for all
of their households.
*** *** ***
Councilor Thomas asks if Fort Benning currently has a recycling
program. Director Biegler informs her that they do not. However, they do have
drop-off points where households may drop off the their recyclable materials.
Councilor Thomas asked why the proposal includes renting vehicles
instead of purchasing them. Director Biegler explains that her department is
running very short on operable trucks. There are days when they are 10 trucks
short to complete their current routes. She did not want to commit to make
things even shorter in our community to meet an obligation to Fort Benning.
Deputy City Manager Arrington says this choice was made to minimize the City?s
risk.
*** *** ***
Councilor Davis asks what he is to tell the citizens when they ask why
we are putting funds into a pilot program that they want here in our own
community. Director Biegler responds, recycling is available at every
household every week in this city. The pilot program was only to put out the
large containers to assess whether or not we are getting better results with
recycling. In those areas that the large carts have not been provided to, they
still have the smaller bins and are able to have as many they need.
City Manager Hugley points out that the pilot program with Fort Benning
will in no way affect the services provided to the citizens of Columbus. Also,
funds have had to be taken out of the General Fund to fund the Integrated Waste
Fund because there is not enough revenue coming in to support it.
*** *** ***
Councilor Barnes applauds Director Biegler on her efforts in regard to
recycling around the City. He also invites everyone to visit the Recycling
Center.
*** *** ***
Councilor Huff expressed concern for disappointed residents of District
3, who was part of the pilot program, still not receiving the large recycling
carts. This was brought up a few weeks ago. It was said that there was a delay
because of trucks and drivers. He informed Council that a citizen had called
Public Works on numerous occasions with the same question on when the carts
were going to be provided to them. The last time this citizen called, she was
told not to call back because she would not be receiving a cart.
City Manager Hugley tells Councilor Huff that he would like to talk with that
citizen personally and find out if a Columbus City Government employee made
that comment, they will no longer be employed here.
Director Biegler explains that her department has been delivering the
carts on flatbed trucks borrowed from other divisions. She says that the
delivers should be completed in 2 to 3 weeks, if weather permits.
*** *** ***
Councilor Thomas asks if the City utilizes prisoners to work on the
recycling trucks and asks if they will be used on Fort Benning. Director
Biegler confirms that the City does and they will be utilizing them for the
recycling program on Fort Benning. The approval has already been given by the
Warden and by Fort Benning Officials to bring Muscogee County Prisoners on to
Post.
With there being no further 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 eight
members of Council present, with Councilors Allen and McDaniel being absent for
this meeting, with the time of adjournment being 11:58 a.m.
Tiny B. Washington, MMC
Clerk of Council
The Council of Columbus, Georgia
Attachments
No attachments for this document.