MINUTES
COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
WORK SESSION
FEBRUARY 28, 2006
The regular monthly Work Session of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was
called to order at 9:04 A.M., Tuesday, February 28, 2005, in the Council
Chambers on the Plaza Level of the Government Center, Columbus, Georgia.
Honorable Robert S. Poydasheff, Mayor, presiding.
*** *** ***
PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Poydasheff and Mayor Pro Tem John J. Rodgers
were Councilors Wayne Anthony, Glenn Davis, Berry Henderson, Julius H. Hunter,
Jr., Charles E. McDaniel, Jr., Nathan Suber and Evelyn Woodson. City Manager
Isaiah Hugley, City Attorney Clifton Fay, Clerk of Council Tiny B. Washington
and Deputy Clerk of Council Sandra Davis were also present. Councilor R. Gary
Allen took his seat at the Council table at 9:06 a.m.
*** *** ***
ABSENT: Councilor Evelyn Turner Pugh was absent, but was excused upon the
adoption of Resolution Number 79-06.
*** *** ***
INVOCATION: Offered by Mayor Pro Tem John J. Rodgers.
*** *** ***
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Mayor Robert S. Poydasheff.
---------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA:
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO
THE ADOPTION OF A MOTION MADE BY MAYOR PRO TEM RODGERS AND SECONDED BY
COUNCILOR SUBER, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE NINE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING: ____________________________
An Ordinance (06-13) - Rezoning property located at 2300 Martin Luther
King, Jr. Boulevard from an LMI (Light Manufacturing/Industrial) District to a
GC (General Commercial) District. (66-A-05-Thomas)
An Ordinance (06-14) - Rezoning property located at 6016 Billings Road
from a SFR1 (Single Family Residential 1) District to a SFR2 (Single Family
Residential 2) District. (6-A-06-Wade)
A Resolution (78-06) - Excusing Councilor Berry Henderson from the
February 21, 2006 Council Meeting.
A Resolution (79-06) - Excusing Councilor Evelyn Turner Pugh from the
February 28, 2006 Council Meeting.
A Resolution (80-06) - Approving a Special Exception Use request to
operate a church in excess of 250 seats at 2300 Martin Luther King, Jr.
Boulevard.
---------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
WORK SESSION:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COLUMBUS:
Mr. Franklin Douglas, Chairperson of the Housing Authority of Columbus
said they are here this morning to give an overview of what?s going on with the
Housing Authority and then called Mr. Len Williams to come forward to make that
presentation.
Mr. Len Williams said they hope that the Council will be pleased with
their progress that has taken place with the Housing Authority projects.
He said when many people think of the Housing Authority, they think primarily
of Muscogee County and said that is where they do the bulk of their work;
however, they have other property in some of the surrounding counties.
He said the properties, which they manage in Columbus includes Nicholson
Terrace, Warren Williams, and Columbus Villas. He said they have twelve (12)
neighborhoods and 2381 units in Muscogee, County that they manage, but said in
addition to that they manage the Housing Authority in Harris County, Ellaville
and Buena Vista. He said with the 162 units at those small Housing Authorities,
that?s a total of 2,543 that they own or manage of housing.
Mr. Williams said in addition to that, they administer the housing voucher
program more commonly know as the Section 8 Program; whereby they have 1981
units under that program.
He said what you are probably not aware of is that in another six
counties, as part of the consortium of other Housing Authorities, they
administer additional Section 8 programs for HUD. He said they serve a
10-county area, which includes Columbus, LaGrange, Thomaston, Newman, Griffin,
Shenandoah and Peachtree City and have 2,145 units under that program. He said
Columbus Gardens here in Columbus is a part of that program. He said the
total number of units that they have is 6,669.
Mr. Williams then went into further details outlining the following
information, as outlined below:
INDIVIDUALS HOUSED:
Columbus (Mgmt.) 4,846
Columbus (Vouchers) 5,106
Remote (Mgmt.) 357
GA. HAP (Admin.) 6,178
Total Served 16,487
HACG TRENDS: (VOUCHER PROGRAM GROWTH)
FYE 01 1232
FYE 02 1570
FYE 03 1570
FYE 04 1927
FYE 05 1981
VOUCHER WAITING LIST:
FYE 02 837
FYE 03 2714
FYE 04 2007
FYE 05 1883
PUBLIC HOUSING WAITING LIST:
FYE 98 132
FYE 99 199
FYE 00 209
FYE 01 207
FYE 02 305
FYE 03 397
FYE 04 392
FYE 05 338
DEC 05 703
Mr. Williams then showed a chart outlining the numbers for Public Housing
Occupancy Rate, Average Vacancy Turnaround, Public Housing Net Income, and
Operating Reserves,
STAFFING:
2000 216 (full time)
2001 222 (full time)
2002 184 (full time)
2003 174 (full time)
2004 169 (full time)
2005 150 (full time)
FYE 2005 PROGRESS:
(General)
Public housing program recognized as a high performer by HUD (for FYE 2004).
Section 8 programs recognized as a high performer by HUD (for FYE 2004).
Received a Capital Fund bonus of $116,545 for being a high performer.
Mr. Williams said this $116,545 is their modernization funds, and said
they do believe that they will be a high performer again this year as well.
MODERNIZATION:
Central air conditioning installation completed at Warren Williams, Farley,
Canty and Wilson Apartments, with work underway at Chase Apartments.
Major landscaping improvements completed at Warren Williams and Farley
Apartments.
KEY OPERATING INDICATORS:
99% occupancy rate in public housing.
29-day vacancy turnaround time.
$1,270,620 net income for public housing.
$612,428 net income for all programs.
$6,564,925 public housing operating reserve.
ORGANIZATIONAL:
Employee morale remains high; in fact, the employee survey results indicated
that 100% of the respondents said they enjoyed working at HACG and enjoyed
their work. 95% would like to retire at HACG.
150 positions are budgeted this year as opposed to 222 in 2001(a 32%
reduction).
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS:
Boys and Girls Club established at Canty Housing received statewide award this
year.
HACG received the ?Business Partner of the Year? award from Goodwill.
Recognition by Mayor?s Commission on Diversity.
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ? HOPE VI:
$56,111,310 Budgeted Amount
33 Homeownership Units
Ashley Station (formerly Peabody)
366 Apartments (62 more than planned)
146 Public Housing Apartments (+26)
147 Market Rate Apartments (+25)
73 Tax Credit Apartments (+11)
Mr. Williams said these numbers might change somewhat, but said it could
be a little more or less depending upon the second phase proposed by the
developers. He said as soon as they know what the final mixture is going to be,
they will certainly let this Council know.
Mayor Poydasheff said it is his understanding that HOPE VI has been
disbanded and then asked if there is anything else that?s going to take its
place for some of the other projects.
Mr. Williams said currently it is almost dead, but said they allotted
approximately $100 million for the program this year, which will only fund
about five or six grant awards. He said they are not planning on HOPE VI funds
for the Baker Village project, but are looking at other combinations of
financing. He said it makes it much more difficult, but said it is still doable.
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES ? HOPE VI:
Building construction is in progress
The first apartments should be available for leasing in May 2006.
Phase II tax credit application for the second 182 units will be submitted in
May.
Mr. Williams then showed some photos of the Columbus 2002 HOPE VI proposed
revitalization plan and what the planning and design elements will look like at
Garden Apartments along Midland Avenue, as well as, the off-site housing of the
East Wynnton neighborhood
In response to Councilor Woodson, Mr. Williams went into some details and
explained the tax credit application.
In continuing on with his presentation, Mr. Williams then provided
information on the following additional proposed projects, as outlined below:
REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES- BAKER VILLAGE
590 apartments on 66.47 acres (current)
281 Section 8 Mod. Rehab.
110 Public Housings
41 Section 8 Vouchers
158 Market Rate
244 apartments, 72 Homeownership units plus commercial use
122 Tax Credit
89 Project Based Section 8
33 Public Housings
72 Homeownerships
5.4 acres Commercial
Mr. Williams showed the proposed design of the multi-family Garden
apartments and townhouses for the Baker Village Housing area. He then
outlined the Phasing Plan for Baker Village Housing area, which includes
the following:
Phase I will consist of 122 rental units.
Phase II will consist of 122 rental units.
Phase III will consist of 32 homes and 20 duplexes for sale.
Phase IV will consist of commercial development.
There were also photographs shown of the proposed design for the
single-family 7 duplexes. He said the single-family will be detached housing
with bungalow style one and two-story buildings, horizontal wood siding and
brick veneer exterior finishes, carried roof forms, front entry porches with
free-standing wood and masonry columns.
BAKER VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE:
Feb 2006 Begin Community Planning Process.
April 2006 Submit Mixed Finance Proposal to HUD.
April 2006 Discontinue Leasing for Phase I.
September 2006 Begin Phase I Relocation.
April 2007 Discontinue Leasing for Phase II.
April 2007 Begin Phase I Demolition.
May 2007 Submit Phase I Tax Credit Application.
September 2007 Begin Relocation for Phase II.
April 2008 Submit Phase II Tax Credit Application.
April 2008 Begin Phase II Demolition
2008-2010 Construction
CHAPMAN HOMES:
161 Apartments for the elderly.
Preliminary plans for modernizing Chapman Homes are under development.
MODERNIZATION:
General Modernization
Central heating and air conditioning installation is ongoing at Chase and BTW
is under contract.
Warren Williams landscaping has been completed.
Farley landscaping has been completed.
Plans for Chase and BTW landscaping are in development.
ELIZABETH CANTY HOMES:
Major exterior improvements, landscaping and fa?ade renovation.
Over $2,000,000 of capital fund loan proceeds will be used for this work.
WILSON:
Comprehensive modernization, major fa?ade renovation and landscaping.
Over $6,000,000 in capital funds and loan funds will be used
After the conclusion of Mr. Williams? presentation, several members of the
Council expressed thanks to him and Mr. Douglas for the work that they do at
the Columbus Housing Authority.
City Manager Hugley also thanked Mr. Franklin Douglas, Chairman of the
Board, as well as, Mr. Williams for what he has been able to do, as the new
Executive Director of the Housing Authority with all of the ongoing projects.
*** *** ***
BIG BOX ORDINANCE:
City Manager Hugley said we brought a presentation to the Council a little
over a month ago on the Big Box ordinance that dealt with structures 100,000
square feet or larger and said we got some directions from you to go back and
look at something that?s below 100,000 square feet.
He said Mr. Rick Jones is going to talk to you this morning about that
same ordinance that we brought to you before, but he is also going to talk to
you about an ordinance that will be for buildings of 50,000 square feet up to
just under 100,000 square feet, as well as another ordinance that will be for
20,000 up to 50,000 square feet.
City Manager Hugley said they want to share that with you today and get
some direction from the Council as to whether or not they need to continue to
proceed with the ordinance for the 100,000 plus square feet in the very near
future or bring all of it forward to you all at one time. He said they would
like to bring it back at the first or second Tuesday in the month of March.
Mr. Jones said they want to remind everyone what they were initially
trying to accomplish with this ordinance. He said they were trying to deal with
anything that was basically 100,000 square feet or larger for a development in
terms of the impact that it might have on the community. He said you might
recall at that time, they were still dealing with a couple of Wal-mart issues
involved with that.
He said their main objective was to look at how we deal with these 100,000
square feet boxes more than anything else from that standpoint. He said the Big
Box Committee did meet and said unfortunately, for whatever reasons there was
no one present from the development side at their last meeting. He said they
were invited, but did have a conflict; however, they did go ahead and meet.
City Manager Hugley said that was the recent meeting they had in which they
were unable to attend, but said in the earlier meetings that they did have
regarding the 100,000 plus square feet buildings, the development community
were involved. He said when they got the directions from the Council as it
relates to the 50,000 square feet buildings or less, when they had that
meeting, that is when the developers were not represented at that particular
meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers asked how many developers were on this committee.
Mr. Jones said there were three members on the committee.
He said none of those three could make it, but said there is no reflection on
them; they just couldn?t be there at that particular meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers said he spoke to one of those members and he
suggested that he wouldn?t have a problem in getting back together with the
committee.
Mr. Jones said they have also been communicating by email as well, in
terms of dealing with these issues and getting their comments back to them.
Mr. Jones then responded to further questions of Mayor Poydasheff and members
of the Council.
City Manager Hugley also responded to those concerns of the members of
Council, as it relates to those members of the development committee not being
present at an earlier meeting.
In continuing with his presentation, Mr. Jones pointed out that each
committee member is still in very much support of the initial ordinance, the
100,000 square feet of gray. He said they think that this is the issue that
needs to go on now and something that we need to address now. He said their
concern is that the next development that comes in may be of that nature and
they cannot control it.
Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers said when this ordinance came before us earlier, he
was one of the Councilors that asked that we go back and take a look at it. He
said he didn?t have a problem with the 100,000 or the 200,000 square feet, but
said he felt like rather than continuing to have ordinances and amendments that
it would be a relatively simple process; since we have established the initial
benchmark of 100,000 ? 200,000 square feet to proportionally scale down the
requirements for buildings of a smaller size that we intend to capture as well.
He said we found historically that the biggest offenders of vacant buildings is
not in the 100,000 square feet range, but it is in the 20,000, 40,000, 60,000
square feet. He said he would be glad to help, as he doesn?t see this as a
major undertaking to proportionally assign the same kind of criteria to smaller
buildings. He said we only have one such case in Columbus now and then asked,
if we have any other applications for consideration for anything of 100,000
square feet and above.
Mr. Jones said we don?t at this time. He said their concern is that he
doesn?t have anything right now where he can put in control of the 100,000
square foot box that comes in today. He said if someone makes an application to
us now, they can go in and blacktop the entire area, they may have to meet the
buffer ordinance, but there is nothing, as far as, the esthetics or anything
else that deals with these, which is his only concern.
City Manager Hugley said he thinks that Mr. Jones is trying to do exactly
what Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers has explained. He said if we allow him to go through
his presentation, he thinks that you will find that he is probably doing what
the Mayor Pro Tem is asking for.
Mayor Poydasheff said he doesn?t think there is any problem from anybody
on this Council with respect to the 100,000 square feet. He said he would urge
Mr. Jones to address the concerns of the Council, as it relates to the 20,000,
50,000, 70,000 square feet.
Mr. Jones said the committee believes the initial ordinance should be
adopted now. He said there are alternatives for those developments smaller
than 100,000 square feed discussed. He said the possible alternatives are to
develop three separate ordinances: 20,000 to 50,000 square foot, (2) 50,000 to
100,000 square foot and (3) 100,00 square foot and greater.
Mr. Jones said as far as the 20,000 to 50,000 square feet is concerned,
there is no requirement for impact studies on scenic, historic, or
transportation conditions. No raised pedestrian walkways, divided parking
lots, or interconnected walkways, twelve (12) tree Density Units requirements
per acre at the site and no requirements for out parcels.
50,000 to 100,000 square feet ? No requirement for impact studies on scenic or
historic conditions, fifteen (15) tree Density Units requirements. 100,000
square feet ? All of the requirements would apply.
Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers asked if there was anything other than the tree
density requirements that we are going to deal with on buildings of 100,000
square feet. He said we really haven?t done anything except trees.
Mr. Jones said that is the biggest one that they have looked at, because
when you start looking at things like architectural design, outdoor storage and
the vacant portion of the ordinance; those are still applicable to 20,000
square feet.
Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers asked if Mr. Jones is recommending or suggesting
anything towards closure and re-renting and activity of re-renting for
buildings between 20,000 ? 50,000 square feet.
Mr. Jones said for buildings of 100,000 square feet, the requirement for
tree density units is 20 TDU. He said for a 20,000-50,000 square foot building,
the requirement is 12 TDU. He said the real meat of the ordinance is still
there for all of these developments.
After Mr. Jones concluded his presentation, he then responded to several
questions of members of the Council. There were then several concerns
expressed by members of the Council, with additional information being
requested as outlined below.
Councilor Allen said regarding the statement on impact studies, it states
that there are no requirements for impact studies on scenic, historic or
transportation conditions, and then asked if that means there are impact
studies required on other items. Mr. Jones said it does.
Councilor Allen said he would like for Mr. Jones to provide some
additional information as it relates to the requirements for impact studies in
the Big Box ordinance.
Mr. Jones said with the way the ordinance is written now, particularly
100,000 square feet, it requires it to be in compliance with City plans and
that involves things such as design features, utilities, etc. He said there is
also a provision that requires you to look at the actual historic nature of a
community surrounding the area itself, and transportation impact on 100,000
square feet or greater. He said it was viewed from the committee?s standpoint
that the 20,000 ? 50,000 square foot range didn?t require a transportation
study. He said if the property is already rezoned and ready for development,
and they make application, it would not be required to put together a
transportation study for that 20,000 square foot building.
Mr. Jones responded to further questions of members of the Council and the
Mayor as it relates to the impact study requirements.
Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers said he wants to make sure that the term ?impact
study? at some point in the future is not used as a tool against the
development. He said he thinks that we need to set some parameters for what
impact study means.
City Manager Hugley said he agrees with Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers, as he
doesn?t think we have done that. He said he thinks that we need to do that so
that we don?t have to do it as we go, but it?s been defined, and it?s there,
and when we require an impact study, we will know exactly what the ingredients
will be.
Councilor Allen also requested that the staff present this to the Chamber
of Commerce, as well as the Economic Development Board. He said because we
don?t require businesses to produce an impact study today, he would like to
know where did the idea of requiring an impact study come from and where are we
looking at going with this. Let?s have this matter to go back to the committee
for further study and have a joint meeting with the Economic Development
Committee and the Chamber of Commerce.
After more than forty-five minutes of discussion on this subject, with
members of the Council expressing their further views on this matter, this
issue was finally concluded.
City Attorney Fay said as a procedural matter, whatever ordinance comes
back, it needs to go to the Planning Advisory Commission, because it is a
change in the UDO and it has to be advertised.
*** *** ***
MERITORIOUS RESOLUTION:
Mayor Poydasheff said he would like for the City Attorney to prepare a
resolution expressing the Council?s condolences in the death of Mr. Rozier
Dedwylder. He said he would also like to have a resolution welcoming home the
troops as well.
*** *** ***
INDIVIDUAL LOT DRAINAGE:
City Manager Hugley said we have had much discussion about an ordinance
that would address individual lot drainage and said they have been working with
developers and builders on this issue. He said they have a committee working on
this subject, as well, and there is some proposed legislation that some of them
think will help to address some of the concerns with individual lot drainage.
He then asked Deputy City Manager David Arrington to come forward to give a
brief update on this matter.
Deputy City Manager David Arrington went into some details and gave a
brief summary on the issue dealing with individual lot drainage. He said on
last summer, the Council directed the staff to move forward in developing an
individual lot drainage ordinance. He said the purpose being to establish
regulations that protect the interest of homeowners in regards to storm water
runoff on individual lots.
He said the staff went to work on the development of that ordinance, and
as you can see from the timeline (see below) over the course of the last 6 to 8
months, there has been numerous meetings and involvement with the development
committee.
Ordinance Development Timeframe:
06/14/05 ? Initial committee meeting
08/17/05 ? Committee meeting
09/22/05 ? Draft ordinance developed
10/13/05 ? Draft ordinance submitted to Development Committee
10/24/05 ? Response received from GCHBA
11/07/05 ? Development committee meeting
11/16/05 ? Meeting with GCHBA
01/17/06 ? Received GCHBA proposed revisions
02/06/06 ? Development committee meeting
02/28/06 ? Scheduled meeting with GCHBA/ Development committee
He said the staff initially developed a draft ordinance and shared it with
the homebuilders association and they came back with some comments and then
ultimately they came back with a revised proposal, and said that is essentially
the point that we are at now. He said they have a meeting scheduled this
afternoon to meet with the Homebuilders Association and try to resolve the
differences in the two versions of the ordinance and come to a meeting of the
minds on the best approach for us on this issue.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said there are some areas of consensus in
the group, which includes the following:
Ordinance will have little or no impact on sub-surface groundwater problems.
Homeowners may alter the grade or drainage pattern of property.
Landscaping
Storage buildings
Pools
Lack of maintenance
Few communities currently regulate individual lot drainage.
Enforcement will result in additional expense.
Possible Alternative
State Licensing Board of Residential and General Contractors
Legislation passed in 2005 Legislative session establishing the Licensing Board
for Residential and General Contractors
Board regulates residential and general contractors
Has power to impose fines, suspend license, and take other disciplinary actions.
Board currently in process of adopting rules and regulations.
All contractors required to be licensed by July 1, 2007
Deputy City Manager Arrington said they still have a lot of questions as
to the scope of the authority of this board and how they would interact locally
within a given community. He said some of the things that are noteworthy, is
that the board within the legislation requires a warranty period of one year on
all contracts. He said it provides arbitration as remedy for dispute, and the
regional information meeting on the functions of the Board is scheduled for
March 22, 2006 in Columbus.
Mayor Poydasheff said he would like for the City Attorney to provide some
information as to the scope and authority of the State licensing board of
residential and general contractors, and how they would enact locally within a
given community.
City Attorney Fay said he would be glad to look at that, as this deals
with administrative procedure and their licensing. He said if you will recall,
we gave you a report on rights of action against builders. He said he would
have to check and see if there is any authority for any local action.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said that question, along with other
concerns, is if it does provide arbitration as a means of settling disputes.
He said the effective date of all this is July 1, 2007; and said by that date
all contractors will have to be licensed in the State of Georgia. He said
locally for some years now, there has been a licensing process for contractors,
and the interest of our local citizens through the Inspections & Code
Enforcement Division and the testing and examination process that they
currently have in place has always been in place to protect the interest of our
citizens locally. He said essentially this is a similar process that?s now been
applied statewide.
Councilor Suber said that was only for general contractors and not regular
contractors.
Deputy City Manager Arrington said this expands on that. He said there is
some speculation that this may be able to replace what we are doing here
locally and we will have to look at that. He said Mr. Duck is looking hard at
that and on March 22, 2006 there will be a Regional Information Meeting where
the Executive Director of this Licensing Board will be in town. He said this
would be one of seven statewide meetings that are going to be held; whereby we
will be able to get a lot more specific information about the scope and
authority of this board and how it might be of some benefit to us in addressing
these kinds of issues, such as the individual lot drainage.
He said at this time, they don?t feel comfortable in looking at this as an
exclusive alternative to an individual lot drainage ordinance. He said it is
the staff?s goal to meet with the Homebuilders Association and over the course
of the next several weeks work to come to consensus on an ordinance that we
feel comfortable bringing back to the Council. He said at the next Work
Session, they would have an ordinance that they can bring back for the
Council?s discussion and comments.
Councilor Suber said he would like to commend the City Manager and Deputy
City Manager for bringing this forward to us, but said in looking at the
legislation that he was given, he was thinking that the new legislation from
the State?s perspective would give us an overview; which would basically
overlay anything that the City of Columbus was having difficulty with. He said
he is not sure that is going to be all-inclusive in doing exactly what we want
to do.
He said what he is hopefully trying to prevent, with the workings of the
Homebuilders Association members and the staff is not for us to have something
that is completely redundant or that our ordinance is a waste of time, and that
we just need to stay with what the State is going to do.
Councilor Suber said the biggest thing in this is that the State is going
to require all contractors, general contractors or whatever homebuilder you
are, if they are a contractor, to be licensed in the State of Georgia. He said
that is going to alleviate some of the problems that we have been dealing with
in the past few months.
Mayor Poydasheff said that is why he suggested to the City Attorney that
he get a handle on that and work with the Deputy City Manager, as we have to
know what our authority would be under the law. He said the rule is that you
can always strengthen a State law, but you can?t loosen it, and that is why he
wants to know exactly where we are going to be on that issue.
*** *** ***
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE:
City Manager Hugley pointed out that the Housing Authority would have
another public meeting at Baker Middle School on Wednesday, March 8th at 5:30
p.m., relating to the Baker Village Revitalization project.
*** *** ***
JOINT SALES TAX:
Councilor Suber said he was out of town on last Thursday and Friday and he
read in the newspaper on Saturday morning that the proposed joint sales tax is
basically dead and he would like for someone to explain that to him.
City Manager Hugley said he would yield to those members of the Committee,
Councilor Henderson is on the committee, as well as Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers was
at the meeting and represented the City at that meeting. Mayor Poydasheff said
Mayor Pro Tem Rodgers expressed his thinking. He said he outlined his opinion
and exactly what he believes.
Councilor Henderson said he would yield to Councilor Anthony, who serves
as the Co-Chairperson of that Committee. However, he would like to say that he
doesn?t think its dead. He said he thinks the concept and the idea is very much
alive.
He said what took place at the last meeting, an effort took shape to try
to expedite it through this year?s legislative session, and said his opinion
and the opinions that he has heard from several other Council members, was that
was way too much of a rush job. He said the concept is alive and is still a
viable option down the road for the citizens of Muscogee County; it?s a great
example of the partnership between the School Board and the City Council; but
he thinks it?s something that takes some careful deliberation and crafting
before we take it to the Legislators.
Councilor Anthony said in addition to that, the point was made again and
again that we want to work closely with the Muscogee County School Board. He
said this is the citizen?s money and we want to be good stewards of that money,
so we want to be working together with them, and that there is also a strong
commitment to find a system by which we can have the funds that enable the City
to operate. He said that is one of the most crucial issues that we have and
they are in agreement with us in recognizing the needs for funding for City
operations; and then perhaps, to share, in one form or the other, the Special
Purpose Local Option Sales Tax for capital improvements.
*** *** ***
MERITORIOUS RESOLUTIONS:
Councilor Woodson said as it relates to the resolutions that she requested
for Spencer and Kendrick High Schools, she spoke with a spokesperson from each
of those schools and they have said that they wanted to wait on the
resolutions, to determine who would won the State Championship. She said they
both win on Friday night and are going to Macon this coming Friday. She said
the girl?s team has really played their hearts out and said she is somewhat
disappointed that the media is just focusing on one high school.
*** *** ***
PARKS & RECREATION LEADOFF CLASSIC:
Councilor Davis said we all know that we just had the leadoff classic here
in Columbus, but because of rain it was discontinued. He said in an effort to
get the tournament going, which Parks & Recreation was successful in doing, in
spite of all the rain prior to the event. He said Parks & Recreation worked
around the clock in getting the fields in great shape and the tournament was
able to start, and we had world class women?s softball right here in Columbus.
He said it was a great event and unfortunately it got cut short due to weather.
He said he also wants to commend and thank all the volunteers who
contributed during this event. He said there were a number of volunteers who
were there to help make this event successful. He said it was good to see
Janice Davis back in action and in full force, working as hard as ever, as she
always does. He said our prayers are with Janice Davis and we wish her the
best as she continues to recover.
Councilor Hunter said we have four teams in the semi-finals this
weekend, the Carver boys, Spencer boys, Pacelli girls and the Kendrick girls.
He asked if we could have a resolution for all four of these teams. He said we
would know by Saturday night who the champions are, but said all four teams are
worthy of recognition. He said we have a night meeting this coming Tuesday and
maybe we can bring them in during that Tuesday night Council meeting.
*** *** ***
LEADESHIP COLUMBUS CLASS:
Councilor Suber said he thinks that we should take a look at, from the
Council?s perspective, the recommendations that the Leadership Columbus Class
has recommended, as far as the budget is concerned. He said they have given us
some recommendations and he is hopeful that we seriously take a look at them.
*** *** ***
WRESTLING TITLES:
Councilor Henderson said he knows that we recognize State Champions and
said he knows that there were four for the four State Championship wrestling
titles brought back by individuals; three from Columbus and one from Pacelli.
He said he thinks that we ought to recognize them and their coaches for winning
in their weight class and he would like to have the City Attorney to prepare
these resolutions.
*** *** ***
With there being no other business to come before the Council, Mayor Pro
Tem Rodgers then made a motion for adjournment. Seconded by Councilor McDaniel
and carried unanimously by those nine members of Council present for this
meeting, with the time being 10:19 a.m.
*** *** ***
Tiny B. Washington, CMC
Clerk of Council
The Council of Columbus, Georgia
Attachments
No attachments for this document.