Columbus, Georgia

Georgia's First Consolidated Government

Post Office Box 1340
Columbus, Georgia, 31902-1340
(706) 653-4013
fax (706) 653-4016

Council Members

MINUTES

COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA

WORK SESSION

JANUARY 22, 2008





The regular monthly Work Session of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was

called to order at 9:03 A.M., Tuesday, January 22, 2008, in the Council

Chambers on the Plaza Level of the Government Center, Columbus, Georgia.

Honorable W. J. Wetherington, Mayor, presiding.



*** *** ***



PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Wetherington were Councilors Wayne Anthony,

Mike Baker, Jerry ?Pops? Barnes, Glenn Davis, Berry Henderson, Julius H.

Hunter, Jr., Charles E. McDaniel, Jr., and Evelyn Woodson. City Manager Isaiah

Hugley, City Attorney Clifton Fay, and Deputy Clerk of Council Sandra Davis

were also present. Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn Turner Pugh arrived at 9:10 a.m.



*** *** ***



ABSENT: Councilor R. Gary Allen was absent. Clerk of Council Tiny B.

Washington was also absent.



*** *** ***



INVOCATION: Offered by Reverend B. T. Pleasant- B. T. Pleasant Ministries, Inc.



*** *** ***



PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by students from St. Luke School.

-------------------------------------------*** ***

***------------------------------------------

PROCLAMATION:



ONE COLUMBUS DAY:



With Pastor J. H. Flakes, Mr. Ken Crooks and Mr. Lee Brantley standing

before the Council table, Councilor Henderson read the proclamation of Mayor

Wetherington, proclaiming Thursday, January 24, 2008 as ?One Columbus Day? in

Columbus, Georgia.



Mr. Lee Brantley announced that on January 24, 2008, the annual One

Columbus Recognition Dinner would be held. He said the honoree would be Mr.

Dan Amos and AFLAC for his and the companies work in diversity in the community.



*** *** ***



BLAZERS BOXING CLUB:



Mr. Rick Carrillo, Coach of the Blazers Boxing Club, introduced one of his

students Michael Finney, who is ranked number four for the nation. He then

invited the Council to a tournament that would be held this weekend at Haygood

Gym, on Cusseta Road and 11th Avenue. He announced that it is a two-day

tournament on January 26 and 27, 2008. He asked for the support of the

community in attending this event.



Councilor Barnes emphasized the fulfillment of boxing through discipline

and self- defense. He encouraged everyone to support the boxing club.

--------------------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------------

CONSENT AGENDA



THE FOLLOWING TWO RESOLUTIONS WERE LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS

SUBMITTED BY CITY MANAGER HUGLEY AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL:



A Resolution (22-08) - Authorizing a request to execute a Reconfiguration

Proposal Agreement with Motorola, Inc., the City's 800 Mhz Radio System

manufacturer, in order to implement all changes and reprogramming to the 800

Mhz Transmission System, replace and/or reprogram all radios to comply with the

FCC Rebanding Order. Sprint Nextel, Inc., will pay for the cost of all work as

required by the Federal Communications Commission. Councilor Woodson moved its

adoption. Seconded by Councilor McDaniel and carried unanimously by those nine

members present for this meeting.



An ordinance (23-08) - Excusing Councilor Charles E. McDaniel, Jr. from

the January 15, 2008 Council Meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh moved its

approval. Seconded by Councilor Henderson and carried unanimously by those

nine members of Council present for this meeting.





*** *** ***



THE FOLLOWING NEW REZONING PETITIONS WAS LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND

AN ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEARING WAS CALLED FOR BY COUNCILOR

MCDANIEL:





Petition submitted by D. L. Moore to rezone 2.01 acres of property located

at 1330 Victory Drive from LMI (Light Manufacturing / Industrial) to GC

(General Commercial) zoning district. (Recommended for conditional approval by

both the Planning Advisory Commission and the Planning Department.)

(2-CA-08-Moore)



---------------------------------------------*** ***

***----------------------------------------



WORK SESSION:



MONTHLY FINANCE UPDATE:



City Manager Isaiah Hugley called upon Finance Director Pamela Hodge to

make a presentation on the monthly finance report. Councilor Anthony requested

the staff to provide an update on the progress at Ginger Creek. Mayor Pro Tem

Turner Pugh requested an update on the skating rink.



Finance Director Pamela Hodge came forward after which time the finance

report was distributed around the table. Finance Director Hodge highlighted

the various funds as listed on the summary page of the December Quarterly

Revenue Report and further explained in more details those funds that down in

revenue.



City Manager Hugley further expounded on the loss of revenues for the

Parking Management Fund due mainly to no longer receiving rental proceeds from

businesses such as; Columbus State University and W.C. Bradley, once the

parking garage was constructed on Broad and 10th Street.



Councilor Davis asked questions regarding the number of employees in

Parking Management, to which City Manager Hugley responded by saying six.



Responding to Councilor Baker to determine if the Finance Department

conducts an a budget to actual each month or quarterly and run the variance,

Finance Director Hodge agreed that this is done.



*** *** ***



MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT- CUSTOMER SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:



At this time, Mr. Jami Mack came forward to provide the following power

point presentation on customer service and is outlined as follows:



Customer Service Council

Presented by: Jami Mack

?Quality People Providing Quality Service?



Objectives

Define the scope of the council; who it is comprised of and their purpose

Discuss the impact of the council on internal and external customer service

provision

Examine the long term outcome of the council after implementation (i.e. return

on investment and efficiency).





What is the Customer Service Council?

A focus group comprised of the employee?s of the Consolidated Government

Their purpose is to discuss, develop and implement solutions for current

internal and external issues effecting the quality of service provided



Why a Council?

It gives each department an opportunity to bring internal/external customer

service issues to the forefront

It gives employees a sense of belongingness to the organization

It will improve morale and inter-departmental relationships



What is the impact of the Council?

It will change the manner in which departments communicate with one another

All 22 departments are represented

It will allow for issues that may have otherwise been ignored to be addressed

among members of the council

Employees are constantly educated about other departments

Quality of service is increased to implementation of efficient and effective

strategies



Long-term outcomes of the Council on the City

Improves the reputation of the City

Reduces stress of front-line employees

Allows employees to work independently

Saves time, energy and emotions



How much does poor customer cost ?

Time spent managing irate customers is 15 minutes

$2.50 x 8 = $20.00 a day

261(working days) x $20.00

= $5,220 per employee



Projected Return on Investment

After the council is established and customer service issues are addressed the

number of unsatisfied customers are reduced to half

Previous amount per employee is $5,220

New amount is $2,610 per employee a savings of $2,610 dollars per employee a

year

Or 261,000 a year for 1,000 employees who provide front-line customer service



Summary

The Customer Service Council is necessary to the future of our organization

We will ?humanize? the customer service experience again



Councilor Woodson requested that the staff provide a report on the

employees that have completed the Management Development Program. Also, check

to find out if employees are being prepared to move up to the next level.



*** *** ***



THE FOLLOWING TWO ORDINANCES NOT LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA WERE

SUBMITTED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY AND APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL ON SECOND READING:







An Ordinance (08-2) - Amending the Columbus Code so as to establish a

franchise fee applicable to holders of cable or video franchises issued by the

State of Georgia. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh moved its adoption. Seconded by

Councilor Henderson and carried unanimously by those nine members of Council

present for this meeting.



An ordinance (08-3) - Authorizing Sunesys, LLC (?Licensee?) to encroach

upon, over, under and in certain streets, easements, alleys and other public

rights-of-way of the Columbus, Georgia Consolidated Government (?City?) for the

purpose of installing, constructing, operating, upgrading, maintaining,

repairing, replacing and removing a multimedia optical fiber communications

transmission system to be installed by licensee. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh

moved its adoption. Seconded by Councilor Barnes and carried unanimously by

those nine members of Council present for this meeting.



*** *** ***



SPECIAL PURPOSE SALES TAX (SPLOST) UPDATE:



Deputy City Manager David Arrington approached the rostrum to provide an

update on the 1999 SPLOST projects and is outlined as follows:





1999 SPLOST

Project Update

1999 SPLOST

Project Funding Sources

Leveraging Public and Private dollars to enhance Projects

1999 SPLOST

Tax proceeds $241,100,000

Private Sector $ 4,200,000

Grants $ 44,887,384



Total Public/Private funding $290,187,384





1999 SPLOST Project Update

New Fire Stations

Project Budget $5,250,000

Station 3 - American Way

Station 7 - Buena Vista Road

Station 10 - Benning Drive

Station 12 - Cargo Drive

Station 14 - Old River Road

Station 15 - McKee Road

Actual Cost $4,975,527



Upgrade Police & Fire Vehicles - Equipment

Project Budget - $12,750,000

189 technology packages installed

Public Safety Warning Sirens

299 Public Safety Vehicles

Actual Cost $11,898,788



City Service Center

Project Budget $3,000,000

Additional property acquired through land swap

Masterplan development underway in cooperation with MCSD

Project Funding Allocation in FY09



Animal Shelter

Project Budget $2,600,000

Public/Private Partnership with PAWS

11.8 acre site on Milgen Road purchased by PAWS

PAWS Facility Under Construction

Animal Control Facility Design Complete

Construction to Begin March 2008

Projected Cost - $2,400,000



Road, Street, & Bridge Improvements

Project Budget $40,000,000

Leverage $19,760,000 in State Funding

LARP - 262 miles resurfaced

State Aid Contracts - 6 contracts completed

Railroad Crossing Improvements

Bridge Repair/Replacement ? Standing Boy Road Bridge

State Projects Programmed or Underway ?

St. Mary?s Road ? Buena Vista to Robin widening

Whittlesey Road widening

Whitesville/Double Churches

Brown Avenue Bridge

New construction of 28 traffic signals, loop maintenance on 97 intersections

Expenditures - $ 27,167,966



Councilor Davis expressed the need for infrastructure and asked questions

regarding the funding sources for resurfacing in particular the contributions

from the State in the upcoming years. Deputy City Manager Arrington said that

the State is planning to continue funding the LARP Program; however, the LARP

Program is a match where the City has to come forward with a portion of the

funding. He pointed out that over the years, we have been able to increase the

number of miles that we resurface each year from approximately 15 miles to 45

miles. He maintained that this is the last year that we would have SPLOST

funds available for resurfacing and without an additional funding source, we

would go back to resurfacing approximately 15 miles per year.



Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked about the status of Forrest Road. City

Manager Hugley explained that Forest Road is a priority. He said in terms of

funding, we presented a $70 million bond packet two or three times, which also

includes the natatorium, roads and the City Service Center. He pointed out

that Forrest Road and Moon Road are included on that list. He said if we are

ready to approve that; then, we are ready to move forward with funding;

however, if the Council is not ready to approve that; then, an option would be

if there is a local option sales tax that is approved by the citizens.



After Mayor Tem Turner Pugh suggested that the matter be brought before

the Council for a vote, City Manager Hugley maintained that he has no problem

with bringing forth the resolution if this is the desire of the Council.



Storm Water Control/Flood Abatement

Project Budget $30,000,000

Stormwater

Old Town Stormwater Inventory - COMPLETE

Priority 1 and 2 pipe rehabilitation - COMPLETE

Flood Abatement

12th Avenue - COMPLETE

6th Avenue - Phase I under construction

Expenditures - $13,145,844



CCTV Assessment and Prioritization



High-Tech Library/Learning Center

Project Budget $40,000,000

Actual Cost - $39,999,851



Olympic-Size Pools

Project Budget - $9,500,000

Rigdon Park Pool - Complete

Psalmond Road Pool - Complete

Shirley Winston Park Pool - Complete

Center City Pool - Design, location, and funding under discussion

Expenditures - $6,257,385



Improve Bull Creek Golf Course

Project Budget - $4,300,000

New irrigation, new pump station, new irrigation lake, new concrete cart paths,

greens constructed to USGA specifications, green grassed with TifEagle,

reconstructed tees and bunkers

Phase One, renovation of 9 holes has been completed

Phase Two, renovation of 9 holes has been completed

Phase Three, renovation of 18 holes under construction,

Actual Cost - $4,271,989



Upgrade Lake Oliver Recreation Area -

Project Budget $1,200,000

Design Complete

Currently in Bid Process

Expenditures $18,850



Enterprise Zone

Project Budget - $7,000,000

Brownsfield Grant Awarded - $200,000

Property Acquisition Ongoing

Industrial/Commercial/Residential Abatements Awarded

Expenditures - $426,434



Expand Trade Center

Project Budget-$4,183,238

Renovation of 180,000 sq. ft.

New construction 115,000 sq. ft.

Additional improvements ? Exterior patios, walks, fountains & greenspace

State Funding - $22,000,000

Actual Cost - $7,075,403



NFL Improvements/Acquisition

Project Budget $12,000,000

Phase I Eastern Connector, Old Brim Road, Osceola Court - COMPLETE

Phase II Eastern Connector under design

Regional Detention Pond - COMPLETE

Water, Power, and Sewer Infrastructure Improvements in place for Phase I

Expenditures - $6,199,310



Liberty District Redevelopment Area

Project Budget $5,000,000

District Masterplan - COMPLETE

Streetscape Improvements Underway

Ma Rainey Museum Improvements - $149,000 Save America?s Treasure Grant

Expenditures - $412,763



Oxbow Meadows Development

Project Budget $10,000,000

Property Acquisition

Infrastructure Improvements

Expenditures $3,112,764



Walking/Biking Trails & Trolley System

Project Budget $11,000,000

Design 95% complete

Project is under review to determine the feasibility of the proposed trolley

component



?Clean Air? Buses

Project Budget - $2,500,000

10 Buses purchased to date - $1,401,115

4 buses & 1 Trolley ? 100% SPLOST ($1,076,621)

5 buses ? Leverage 10% SPLOST funding ($324,494) for State and Federal funding

0f $2,919,991

Project Balance - $1,098,885



Parks/Green Space Improvements

Project Budget $10,000,000

Broadway Streetscapes 10th Street to 14th Street substantially complete

Stormwater & Sanitary Sewer Pipe Replacement

Fountains, Gazebo, Performance Stage

Sidewalk, Signage, and other Streetscape Improvements

Additional funding sources utilized

Leveraged private funding - $4,200,000

Expenditures - $8,757,321

SPLOST Summary

Fiscal Year 2009 last year for SPLOST allocations

Grants and public/private partnerships have leveraged more than $44 million

additional funding

SPLOST has benefited local economy through capital investment and job creation

from construction projects

SPLOST Projects funding by many outside County



At the request of Councilor Davis, Deputy City Manager Arrington expounded

further on the Animal Control Center, Olympic Pool and natatorium along with

more detailed comments from City Manager Hugley.



Councilor Davis pointed out that most of the projects have been completed,

but there are a few projects that have issues as far as funding goes. He then

asked about the interest that has been generated. City Manager Hugley advised

that if there is money available after the completion of all projects from

interest or at the end of the sales tax; then, the money could be used to

enhance projects that were on the list. He further explained that if there is

no enhancement required; then, the money could be used to roll back property

taxes or retire old debt. He projected that we would have collected the $250

million from the SPLOST by September.



Councilor Henderson pointed out that the citizens focus on the projects

that have not been completed, which are the pool, Citizen Service Center and

the animal shelter. He maintained that for the animal shelter and the pool,

there have been groups that have come to us in an effort to enhance the project

and wanted some time to see if we could identify some money within the

government or if they could identify money within the private sector. He

contended that we fully intend to continue to obligate the amount of money that

we originally stated that we would use to build those facilities.



Councilor Davis requested that the staff provide in booklet form for

citizens to view what projects has been done with the tax dollars from the

SPLOST.



At the request of Councilor Baker, Deputy City Manager Arrington briefly

addressed Oxbow Meadows by advising that the City is still investing in Oxbow

Meadows. He maintained that the Oxbow Meadows project is one of the projects

that the funding allocation was in the latter years of the SPLOST and is just

beginning to come forward. He further commented that the funding for the City

Service Center is not until 2009; however, we are moving ahead with plans. He

reiterated that Oxbow Meadows, City Service Center and the Rails to Trails

Projects are all projects that were in the latter years of the SPLOST.



Councilor Anthony requested the staff to provide an update on the 1993 tax

and brief the Council on this information. Also, let?s have this information

in downloadable form for the citizens to be able to print.



Councilor McDaniel asked for an update of the Rails to Trails project, at

which time, Deputy City Manager Arrington advised that the design is complete

and have met with the consultants about the trolley aspects of the project. He

said that staff is close to be prepared to submit a recommendation to the City

Manager on how to proceed with this project. City Manager Hugley said that we

are not going to be able to do a trolley on rail with $11 million. He said

that we are moving forward with the walking/jogging trail; however, the trolley

on rails component would cost between $50 and $100 million.



Councilor Davis requested that the staff consider the new technology of a

battery-operated trolley.



*** *** ***

ROUNDABOUTS:



City Manager Hugley stated that Mr. Jim Pound was asked to make his

presentation on roundabouts during the Council Work Session. He said after

this presentation, Mr. Rick Jones would provide a presentation on Moon Road and

he has Mr. Bret Gillis from Stantec, which is the engineering consulting firm

that we use to assist with road projects with him today.



Councilor Woodson requested that the staff include as part of the Vision

Planning meetings all of the questions regarding road improvements, what

promises were made to the citizens and which projects have not been completed

and why the city does not have the money for it.



Mr. Jim Pound, 1916 Leonard Street, came forward to provide the following

comments to his presentation with regards to roundabouts. He then outlined

some of the benefits for constructing roundabouts and are listed below:



Roundabouts have to be custom designed

There is a reduction in air pollution and improved air qualities

Traffic calming aspect

Easier to enter the road from the side streets

Reduction of the amount of property to be acquired

Provide gateways into the area

Enhances the property value of the area

More room for sidewalks, bike paths, etc.

Reduction of noise due to lower speeds



He then commented on the comparisons that have been made with roundabouts

versus traffic lights. He also went into discussions regard the design of

roundabouts. He maintained that a roundabout would be a perfect solution at

the interchange of J. R. Allen and Moon Road according to one of the top

companies specializing in roundabouts, Ourston Roundabout Engineering.



He also provided pictures of roundabouts in other communities, as well as,

pictures of potential areas where roundabouts could be used in Columbus. He

pointed out that roundabouts do not necessarily cost less to start with, but it

saves the city from all of the property acquisitions and there are no annual

costs as with traffic lights.



Councilor Anthony mentioned one additional benefit by pointing out that if

the electricity goes out, there would not be a problem with how to proceed at

the intersection. He then asked about the removal of the roundabout at the

Traffic Circle. Mr. Pound then explained that there is a difference between

traffic circles and roundabouts and what Columbus had at that location was the

traffic circle where there were a number of high- speed collisions.



In conclusion, Mr. Pound said he saw that in the SPLOST, the city has done

twenty-eight traffic lights since 1999. He said that he would ask that the

Administration consider a roundabout every time we put in a traffic light.

Councilor Henderson asked that Mr. Pound send a website link to the Clerk of

Council?s Office that shows the motion of how the traffic flows in a roundabout.



*** *** ***



TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES:



With respect to traffic calming, Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh requested the

staff to look at Wilder Drive and North Star Drive, near Chester?s Barbeque,

for traffic calming devices.



*** *** ***



MOON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS:



Planning Department Director Mr. Rick Jones came forward with a powerpoint

presentation to provide an update on a transportation project and is outlined

as follows.



Councilor Henderson requested the staff to first find out where the

citizens live that participated in the meeting and also to go back to ask the

citizens to narrow between the two projects of three lanes or four-lanes with

no medians.



Transportation Project Update



Moon Road (Phase 1)

(Whittlesey Boulevard to J.R. Allen Parkway

Project Description

Widen 2 lane road to 4 lanes

Add needed northbound left turn lane on Whittlesey Boulevard

Add southbound right turn lane off of J.R. Allen Parkway

Projected Cost

Construction $1,300,000

City Responsibility

Responsible for the full funding of this project

Will utilize private developer?s contractor for project

Status

Project to start February 1, 2008

Approximately six months to complete



Moon Road (Phase 3)

Wilbur Drive to Whittlesey Boulevard

Project was first identified in TIP in 1993 as a four lane with a median

Project cost identified as $10 million

Design would significantly impact adjoining residential properties

Staff in 2002 began looking for alternatives



October 2005, a public hearing is held to review intersection improvements as a

possible alternative

Approximately 83 citizens attended

No clear consensus could be determined

Further review showed that the improvements would produce minimal results



July 2007, new public meetings are held to review four possible alternatives:

Intersection improvements - $2.3 million

Widening to three lanes - $5.9 million

Widening to four lanes - $7.1 million

Widening to four lanes with median ? $12 million

No improvements



Responses by citizens:

Widen to four lanes ? 39

Widen to four lanes with median ? 34

Widen to three lanes ? 35

Intersection improvements ? 8

No build ? 6

No choice ? 4



Consensus-

A four lane road, with no median



Another option has now been proposed

The use of Roundabouts



Proposal was referred to our consultants for their review

Mr. Bret Gillis - STANTEC



Planning Director Jones provided a picture of the double-lane roundabouts



Single-Lane Roundabout Characteristics



Design Element Mini Urban Compact Urban Standard Rural

Max. Speed 15 mph 15 mph 20 mph 25 mph

Diameter 45-80 feet 80-100 feet 100-130 feet 115-130 feet

Typical Peak Hour 1,000 veh/hr 1,500 veh/hr 2,000 veh/hr 2,000 veh/hr

Capacity





Double-Lane Roundabout Characteristics





Design Element Urban Rural

Max. Speed 25 mph 30 mph

Diameter 150-180 feet 180-200 feet

Typical Peak Hour Varies Varies

Capacity





WHY USE ROUNDABOUTS?

Under certain conditions, can reduce delay over stop control or signal control

By removing left turns, reduce number of conflict points. Potential safety

benefits.

Aesthetics



At this time, Planning Director Jones displayed pictures of the signalized

intersectons, Moon Road at Weems Road, Moon Road at Springlake Drive and Moon

Road at Whittlesey / Stone Mill.



OTHER PROBLEMS WITH ROUNDABOUT ALTERNATE

Provides no improvements for travel along Moon Road corridor

Bottleneck effect

Provides no relief for various side streets and driveways along Moon Road

Attempts to add roundabouts to other intersections proved futile



CONCLUSION

Four-lane alternate previously identified

Provides long term for travel along Moon Road

Improves delay for minor side street approaches

Left turn lanes allow vehicles to separate from through movement vehicles.

This will increase capacity and improve safety.

No displacements

Roundabout alternate does not meet these objectives and does not warrant

further consideration



With the conclusion of Planning Department Director Jones presentation,

Mr. Bret Gillis with Stantec, also came forward to provide some additional

information regarding potential improvements to Moon Road by the use of a power

point presentation.



*** *** ***



ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPERTY - UPDATE:





Columbus Business Development Center

Urban Industrial Park



The Enterprise Zone - Timeline

April 1998 - Ordinance #98-30 established the local enterprise zone for the

specific purpose of industrial growth/job creation.

May 1999 - City issued bonds (1999C) for the Enterprise Zone for the specific

purpose of industrial growth/job creation.

1999 Legislative session - the Enterprise Zone law was amended and signed into

law on July 31, 1999

To include new residential construction and residential rehabilitation.

November 1999 ? 1999 SPLOST was approved by voters providing funding for the

specific purpose of industrial growth/job creation

December 2000 ? City amended the local ordinance to comply with the amended

state law.

Ordinance #00-106

To include new residential construction and residential rehabilitation



The Enterprise Zone - Funding

1999C CBA Taxable Lease Revenue Bonds - $2,000,000

This project consists of acquiring approximately 200 acres of land in south

Columbus for industrial development. The property is currently underutilized

with mixed development throughout the area. Because the land lies within the

recently adopted Enterprise Zone, tax incentives to redevelop the area could be

offered for each site. The property purchased would be reassembled and

marketed for industrial uses to generate new jobs in Columbus.



Notice of Election

?The Columbus Business Development Center (Enterprise Zone) will be developed

through the acquisition and development of property for commercial and

industrial use in the defined enterprise zone area. Cost include property

acquisition, infrastructure, demolition, site preparation, and construction of

improvements estimated to be $7,000,000.?



1999 SPLOST - $7,000,000

The Columbus Business Development Center (Enterprise Zone) will be developed

through the acquisition and development of property for commercial and

industrial use in the defined enterprise zone area. Costs include property

acquisition, infrastructure, demolition, site preparation, and construction of

improvements.



Enterprise Zone Purchases

12.73 +/- acres was purchased and sold to Ply Mart

June 2000 - $180,000

Property purchased with CDBG funding and reimbursed with Bond funding

35.57 +/- acres was purchased and assembled to be used for an urban industrial

park

Jan. 2000 ? 17.12 +/- Acres - $500,000

Bond Funding

July 2000 ? 15.65 +/- Acres - $575,000

Bond Funding

Jan. 2006 ? 2.8 +/- Acres - $350,000

1999 SPLOST Funding



Area of Activity

The area surrounding the urban industrial park is seeing additional activity

Baker Village Revitalization ? (244 units)

Ambling Development ? (250+ units)

Cusseta Road Widening (proposed 4 lanes ? long range)

Proposed Rails to Trail Project



Available Property

The City currently only has 2 large tracts of land for development within the

Enterprise Zone:

Urban Industrial Park Property ? 35.57 acres

Andrews Road Property ? 12.87 acres

Large acreage of this type is at a premium in this area of the community



Proposed Resolution

Will allow for the use of 1999C Bonds funds to be used for any uses and

purposes as set forth by the Enterprise Zone Act, as amended

Commercial/industrial uses and Job creation

New residential construction and residential rehabilitation



Disposal of Property

Property must be declared surplus by Council

Ways of disposing the 35.57 tract of property

Request for Proposals (RFP)

Require to be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for entire site.

Provides for the City the most control and influence of what type and quality

of development acquires.

Advertisement of Property for BID with conditions

Per Section 7-501 of the Charter

Sealed Bids

2 Week Advertisement of the property in the newspaper

Sold to Highest Bidder

Provides the City the least amount of control of what type and quality of

development.





Disposal of Property

Lease the property

Not feasible for a residential development

Donate the Property

As part of a public/private partnership



Request for Proposals (RFP)

Timeline

Development of PUD Criteria ? 30 to 45 Days

Developed by the Planning Department

Preparation of RFP for Advertisement ? 7 to 14 days

Purchasing Division

Advertisement Period ? 30 Days

Minimum of 15 business days required

Recommend 30 days

Due to complexity of developing Master Plan for PUD

Time Period my be longer depending on the amount of Vender questions for

clarification and/or additional information.



Request for Proposals (RFP)

Timeline

Receive and Review of the Proposals? 30 to 45 Days

Review Committee to have 2 to 3 meetings to review the proposals

Time dependant on the schedules of review committee members

Develop a shortlist of vendors

Presentations by and/or interviews of Vendors

OR

Recommend Proposal To Council for Approval

Presentations by and/or interviews of Vendors ?30 days

Time dependant on the schedules of review committee members



Total Time for RFP Process

Minimum Time ? 82 Days

Minimum Days to develop PUD Criteria

Minimum Days to prepare advertisement

Minimum days to advertise

Minimum days to Review

No interviews/presentations

Maximum Time ? 164 Days

Maximum Days to develop PUD Criteria

Maximum Days to prepare advertisement

Recommended Days to Advertise

Maximum days to Review

Maximum days to conduct interviews/presentations



Public Process

Upon approval of the proposal by Council

Proposal for PUD must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Advisory

Committee (PAC)

Property will have to be rezoned for the development of the PUD



Disposal of Property

Options

1. Leave property as is

Market for commercial and/or light industrial uses and job creation

2. Approve the proposed Resolution

Declare property surplus

RFP process for a PUD

3. Approve the proposed Resolution

Declare property surplus

Advertise property for Bid with conditions

4. Do not approve proposed resolution

Declare property surplus

RFP process for PUD or Bid with conditions

Reimburse the Bonds with proceeds of sell of property





Issues That Need Further Discussion

Resolution to change the use of the bond to include residential activities

Available property for commercial/light industrial uses Columbus South

Defense Contractors

Back Office Business

Commercial development to support surrounding residential development

Potential Environmental Issues

Property adjacent to junkyard and auto repair businesses

Appearance of a Fair Process in the disposal of the property



Recommendation

Declare the Property Surplus

Develop RFP

Require Plan Unit Development (PUD) for entire site

Dispose of the Property at FMV

Disposal of property conducted through the Purchasing Division





Councilor Henderson requested that the staff to go back to the citizens

during the Visioning Planning Meetings to mention the changes in the State law

with regards to the inclusion of residential to let the citizens know that

there is a way to bring the funding mechanism in line with what is now allowed

in the Enterprise Zone; since, we did specifically discuss industrial /

commercial development with the citizens.



*** *** ***



With there being no other business to come before the Council, Mayor Pro

Tem Turner Pugh Henderson made a motion for adjournment. Seconded by Councilor

Woodson and carried unanimously by those eight members of Council present for

this vote with Councilor McDaniel having left the meeting, with the time being

12:47 p.m.



*** *** ***







Sandra T. Davis, DCMC

Deputy Clerk of Council

The Council of Columbus, Georgia











Attachments


No attachments for this document.

Back to List