Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCallled Meeting December 7, 2009 CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER DECEMBER 7, 2009 The Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 11:30 a.m., Monday, December 07, 2009, the Honorable Alvin Mason, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Smith, Grantham, Hatney, Beard, Johnson, Jackson, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor; Holland, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Fred Russell, Administrator; Chiquita Johnson, General Counsel; Nancy Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll go ahead and call the Called Meeting to Order. And I would like to ask our Commissioner Jimmy Smith to lead us in the invocation, please. The invocation was given by Commissioner Jimmy Smith, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. 1. Discuss/approve finance and project/development plans for the TEE Center/Laney-Walker/Bethlehem Projects. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Mr. City Administrator. Are you prepared? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. We’re passing out some of the documents that we worked on. Excuse me, that the staff’s worked on over the weekend and we obviously apologize for not getting them to you sooner but they were finalized early this morning as we continue to make sure we dotted all the ‘i’s’ and crossed all the ‘t’s’. Or crossed at the ‘t’s’ and dotted all the ‘i’s’, which ever. What we’ve got today is y’all tasked me last week at our Commission Meeting to bring back a final, not a final but a recommendation on where we’re at in reference to the TEE Center. What we’ve accomplished what we haven’t accomplished and where we are with Laney-Walker and what we’ve accomplished and what we haven’t accomplished in a path to continue to move that forward. As we want to see both these things occur and happen in the next initial little while we hope. So I’d like to just go ahead and get started if you don’t mind. As we move forward here with this the subcommittee recommendations as you know several months ago there was a subcommittee appointed recommended and appointed by the Mayor that has worked on these plans, several days of input. Not only in reference to the potential for a new hotel but what’s been happening in Laney- Walker, what’s been happening with the TEE Center and as we continue to move forward with that. These are the recommendations that that subcommittee has looked at. We would present those as a subcommittee recommendation. The Mayor apologizes for not being here today to do that himself but he’s out of the country. The TEE Center, a picture of how we think it’s going to 1 look or how we know it’s going to look if we move forward. Similar to the plans we’ve had before the TVSdesign, they’ve been on hold for a while but they’re ready to get moving again at a cost of $38 million dollars. As you know we’ve got $20 million from SPLOST V, we were planning on $9 million from taxes and bonds. We’ve got a $1.5 million cost savings from the Judicial Center, $5 million from additional SPLOST V collections and $2.5 million from SPLOST interest earnings which gets us up to the cost without additional costs to the community. The Qualified Management Agreements the operation of the TEE Center is there. As you know several months ago when we worked on this it was a 50-year agreement that’s been reduced to 15-years. We’re going to submit, they required that the operator to submit an annual operating plan. We have full access to financial records and we will be monitoring those through my office and through hopefully the Finance Committee will be interested in helping us with that. And our management fees if you look at other facilities throughout the country are somewhat lower than that. So we’ve worked a pretty good deal with the management people at this particular point in time. You tasked me several months ago to put together a parking study. There were some consternation about the parking that we initially recommended and it turns out that consternation is well received. The architects came back with a parking study that would actually allow us at this time to build a smaller deck. We would recommend that you do that and that deck would still be on the property that, across the street from the TEE Center. We think that would be appropriate. That deck would cost approximately $10 million dollars instead of the initial number that we had at, looked at. In addition to that our recommendation would be that you appoint the TEE Center Management Company as operator of the newly constructed parking facility. That cuts through several layers of bureaucracy at this particular point in time and we think that would be the most advantageous way to do that. There are potential alternatives for surface parking. You asked me to look at that. If we did that we’d still be required by the agreement to build a parking deck at some point in time. That parking deck would be about three years out and we think the total cost would be an additional, about an additional thirteen for the same size. So you’re looking at about a $1.1 million dollar cost for doing the surface parking and then the additional cost for the parking deck in my mind that’s not the best way to move forward. We ought to go ahead and do the smaller deck with the ability to build on that and to expand that as (inaudible) requires. The $19 million dollar bonds net, which would cover both, the facility and the parking deck would be run through the Coliseum Authority for both projects. And the source of funds for bond repayment is a million dollars of the hotel/motel tax and $425,000 of the car rental franchise fee. Those amounts of money are currently being collected. Those are the amounts that are currently going to the Coliseum Authority so there’s no additional dollars there that’s not currently being collected. We’ve had some conversation with the Coliseum Authority and we’re having more on that in relationship to that building itself. But at this point we would need to renegotiate that deal with them. It runs out in February when we pay off their bonds and it would still allow them money for their operational expenses at this particular point in time. The next part of the project is the Laney- Walker/Bethlehem Neighborhood Revitalization. That’s what we’re using the transportation fee for the majority to deal with at this particular point in time and that covers the Laney-Walker Neighborhood Revitalization. You’ve heard me talk over and over again about the importance of that historic neighborhood not only to the history of Augusta but to our country. And these continue to grow and the historic individuals and historic buildings that are there will continue to draw tourists that come back into our community and we think that’s a win, win. In addition to that as you replace vacant lots with houses you gain from the real estate value of that and the 2 taxes that would be available and then you also gain from the esthetics of having people living in houses that are nice and fit into the scheme of the Laney-Walker Historic Development at this point. And you’ve seen pictures and diagrams and that in the past and I think we’re all aware of what that can do to our community. There’s a fine example of that on Pine Street I believe of actually houses that are there and people living in them that are paying taxes on what used to be empty lots. And that’s what this is all about is increasing our tax base. The Laney- Walker/Bethlehem Neighborhood Revitalization Project would use $550,000 of the $750,000 Tourism and Trade Transportation Bond Fee from, to bond $8 million in taxable bonds. The bonds would have a 5-year maturity with a 30-year amortization. That does not mean that you cannot bond those off earlier if the money’s available. In addition to that if at the end of the five years we anticipate a balloon payment so you can get additional dollars there. So you’ve got a five-year series with ballooning payments with a 30-year amortization --- Mr. Mason: Amortization. Mr. Russell: --- payoff, payoff right, 30-year payoff, that’s it. Our bond people are behind me here, Dianne and Mr. Nabors who’s here that’s that’s worked on this project late into the night, well many nights particularly this weekend. The amount of the future bonds may increase with the increase in transportation fees collected. And the reason we only use $550,000 or the $750,000 for the bonding is because these are taxable bonds and there will be some restrictions on how you use those. The $200,000 would be given as a pay-as-you-go deal in which we would have less restrictions on the use of that money. And we think that’s wise way to do that. Chester and have looked at that and are comfortable with being able to deal with that money, being able to have an impact with that amount of dollars to the community and are comfortable with that particular plan at this particular point in time. Part of the Laney-Walker Neighborhood Revitalization is to develop programming requirements for use of the funds for land acquisition and developer loans and down payment assistance and obtain bond counsel approval for the use of the bond proceeds. Our bond counsel in this particular project is with us today and has had some experience in these areas before and I don’t want to take words out of his mouth but he’s very comfortable with what we can do with these dollars and how we can have an impact on that community to make it a better place. And we’ll let him say a few words in just a few minutes there if you don’t mind. In addition to that as we’ve talked about in the past I still recommend very strongly and the Committee will look at the million dollars from the general fund to be paid from bond proceeds. As you know that project has come to a little bit of a halt at this particular moment. We have property that’s available that we’d like to go ahead and move forward on and that million dollars would allow us to do that as a jumpstart until we get the bond proceeds available. And it would repay the general fund with those dollars. We’ve done that in the past with other projects, it’s been very successful and we would like to continue that project going. We’ve got some momentum now. We’ve hit a slight bump in the road but we’d like to continue that momentum until we get the bonding done. There are two different ways to do the bonding for this particular program. The first would be to use the Downtown Development Authority to authorize and to continue the bond counseling to bond the $8 million. We would have to do some things with the Downtown Development Authority to issue these bonds and that would be to expand their downtown development authority area and grant the Downtown Development Authority urban redevelopment powers for Laney-Walker/Bethlehem area. My recommendation would be that we go back to recreating the Urban Redevelopment 3 Agency. We’ve had a great deal of conversation with the bond attorney about that. What that would be would be five members appointed by this, well if you don’t mind, go ahead. Mr. Speaker: Good Afternoon. My name is Ken Nabors with the law firm of Greenberg (inaudible) before you. I think earlier this summer and I’m excited to get restarted. By way of background I live in the Martin Luther King Historic District in the City of Atlanta, which is in a tax allocation district. It also has a very similar background at least when I moved there to the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem area. I’ve also served as General Counsel for the Atlanta Development Authority, Downtown Development Authority Atlanta. And I’ve worked on CRA and Urban Redevelopment matters in Florida and Georgia. And based on that experience and understanding the historic character of your neighbors of that neighborhood we searched the code for the tool that would give you the most power, the most flexibility and would be the easiest to use and would give this Commission I think the greatest stake or ownership in the process for coming up with the implementation and that really was a fairly easy call. It was the Urban Redevelopment Act and the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Agency. And actually under the code that’s already there you just have to activate it. And how do you activate it you find an area that fits the requirements of that statute and you declare it so and then based on the necessary findings and a Resolution of Ordinance then you can actually activate that and you’ll approve a workable plan. You have an excellent revitalization plan for this area. That would be quickly re-tweaked into a workable plan, an urban redevelopment plan with one public hearing. So it’s a very public process with tremendous by in. And based on my experience that kind of by in is essential to making it a success. We implemented a similar program in a very downtrodden but a fairly historic area of Atlanta as an example. And the city, the agency implementing it and the community had 99% concurrency on projects that were funded. And so there are some really good tools out there for making sure you get what you want and the community gets what they want. Mr. Russell: And like I said that was the topic of some fairly long and late night discussions. But it would be my recommendation that that be the route that we go. The five members we appointed by this Commission specifically for this project, for these two projects, for this project is more efficient, more cost effective and that is the recommendation of our bond counsel at that particular point. Um, what the next point would be the Bethlehem Neighborhood Revitalization and some alternative funding options that we’ve talked about to amend the Transportation Fee Ordinance to provide as follows: The first $350,000 goes to the TEE Center, operation of the capital sinking fund, management fee of $84,000 and the catering fee of $48,000 is less than what we had initially anticipated. We were able to negotiate that down fairly, that’s another long night conversation we had with Mr. Simon over there but he was acquiesced to, I don’t what to call it pressure Paul but we were pretty tough on each other there. But we got that down to where we think the operation expense and capital sinking fund would be the balance of that $350,000 and we would have control over those dollars as we move forward with that. The next $750,000 goes to Bethlehem/Laney-Walker and the $150,000 to Transit. What we had talked about at the Commission and Committee was a balance of collections of over the $1.25 million to be split 50/50 between Bethlehem and Laney-Walker and Transit. And I know there’s been some conversation about that today and think there’s some amendments to that if we’d like. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Grantham. 4 Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Yes we looked at this and looking at the Balance of Collections there’s been some discussion and I guess everyone’s seen us run back and forth along this ten-member body up here trying to get some dialogue as to what we would do and we would, how this would be acceptable for everyone. And I feel like we’ve come up with a, with a reasonable response for everyone and one that we can live with. And that would be that the $350,000 remain as for the TEE Center and the first dollars along with $750,000 for Laney-Walker/Bethlehem and first dollars to provide for those two major projects. The estimated amount for collection had been a $1.1 million and that’s where those two figures came from. In addition to that we incorporated Transit on over and above any collections and this was done several years ago. However we’d like to be more definitive and put a set figure of $400,000 over and above the collection of a $1.1 million that would go to transit, bring our total collections up to a $1.5 million, which would us a committed dollars for those three major projects. By doing that with Transit that would help in relieving some of our general funds that we had to do at the end of the year and certainly give us an opportunity to not only support the present Transit we have but to expand the service that is needed throughout our community. Once we reach that $1.5 million then we would look at anything above that would be on a split basis that 60% of the remaining amount or the, over and above the $1.5 million would go to Transit as well, continuing to relieve the general fund obligation and then the 40% would go into a revitalization fund such as what we have right now with our HUD Program. And I think Fred puts about $200-250,000 dollars a year in revitalization where we using that money to cover all eight districts and the entire community in tearing down unforeseeable projects and houses that we need to tear down. These funds would go toward all eight districts and that then set the tone I think for everyone benefiting in this bed/fee tax that we put in and that we will be collecting on. So with that said I would like to ask that this be amended into Fred’s presentation and that if a motion is in order to that I so move, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Russell: Since there’s no motion, well --- Mr. Hatney: I’ll second that but I need to ask a question. Mr. Mason: Just a second, Dr. Hatney. We have a motion and a second. Dr. Hatney. Mr. Hatney: You mentioned I believe that this was above this extra 60/40 split was beyond and above the $1.5 and that the 60% would go to Transit and then Transit would be using that money to expand in the direction that is needed that includes South Augusta --- Mr. Grantham: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: -- in the direction that it’s needed? Mr. Grantham: Well it, excuse me, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if you don’t mind me answering. It was our intention I think from the very beginning that the initial funding that we would be giving to Transit in this $400,000 would assist in what you’re talking about. Not only to help to relieve our obligation from our general fund but to increase transit routes in the South Augusta as well as any where else that might be needed. And those recommendations would 5 come from our Transit Director, Transit Department and that be approved by the Commissioners that would be sitting at that time. So this would help in all aspects of that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Dr. Hatney. Mr. Hatney: The other question I would ask to our Administrator I remember when we talked about the parking deck before. We were not so warm on that issue and the volume was $500,000 and you’ve come back and you said you were going come back with a lower scale because it would be more cost effective to go ahead and do that then to I believe pay a $1.1 million or something like that on I guess the lease or rent or whatever you do and still that eventually buy the property. You said this property’s going to be given? Talk to me. Mr. Russell: I need the map. There we go. If you look at the round area up there, there if you look at that brown area would be the area that we’re looking at for the building the parking deck. And then if you look at the two areas that are not being donated, one of which belongs to the radio station which is a, sorry about that. That’s where the hotdog stand is. That’s owned by a private individual. The other part of the place is owned by WAGT Television. The balance of that is owned by Riverfront Development and that’s the property that’s going to be donated. Mr. Hatney: Are you saying that the yellow and this --- Mr. Russell: No --- Mr. Hatney: --- portion where the pin is pointed is all going to be donated except those two parcels that you pointed out? Mr. Russell: The brown area where the pin’s pointed except for those two parcels that I pointed out is going to be donated, not the yellow the brown. Mr. Hatney: Not he yellow, okay. Is this Reynolds Street in between here? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: Okay. Mr. Russell: Exactly opposite of the TEE Center and the old garage that’s now the hotdog stand is on that corner. Mr. Hatney: That’s opposite the TEE Center. That’s the hotel back there, the yellow? Mr. Brigham: The TEE Center’s the green. Mr. Russell: The hotel is right here. Mr. Hatney: Oh, okay. 6 Mr. Russell: Beamie’s Restaurant is right here. The new hotel is over here. This is the parcel that’s owned by the TV station right here, this piece right here. This is where the hotdog stand the old gas station is on the corner. The balance of that brown would be –-- Mr. Hatney: You checked with them about whether or not they were going to be building the site? Mr. Russell: Sir? Mr. Hatney: About donating the site, about donating? Did we check with them yet on the possibilities? Mr. Russell: They’ve agreed to donate the property. Mr. Hatney: So what you’re actually saying then if you build a parking deck of 250 or 300, 300 hundred parking spaces because that would be half of five-hundred, is 250. Mr. Russell: Right. What we did at your direction was to bring back the consult fee. The architect that was doing the building we asked them to do the parking study that you requested. What they basically came back with was we need to replace 150-spaces. In addition to that they needed ‘x’ number of more spaces and the total number together was 400 total. Mr. Hatney: “X” number of more spaces, so that’s 250 more than they actually (unintelligible) Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. It replaces the 150 that --- Mr. Hatney: So the total will be 400 and you anticipate you’re going to have to go beyond 400? Mr. Russell: Hopefully, sir, at some point we will have room. We’ve got room to but hopefully we’ll have to expand that at some point but not in this particular move. We don’t need to do it right now. Mr. Hatney: But you can’t make it with 300? Mr. Russell: Not according to --- Mr. Hatney: 150 to 150. Mr. Russell: By the time --- Mr. Hatney: 150 you need and 150 you might. Mr. Russell: And you’d be the first one that showed up and you didn’t get a parking place and holler at me. 7 Mr. Hatney: I wouldn’t do that. Mr. Russell: The recommendation of the architects is that 400-number --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Russell: --- and we have those dollars available. Mr. Hatney: One other question and I’m through. What’s the additional expanded possibility that’s going to be built into, that would be built into the original? How far up could you go? How many more could you add? Mr. Russell: We could double that according to what they’re telling me if need be. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are you good? Mr. Hatney: Yeah I’m through. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mason. Fred, I noticed that on the slides and on the handout that you and I discussed last week that the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem there’s an item “C” under one for the $200,000 extra funds to go to the Pay As You Go projects? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Bowles: It’s not on the sheet that you passed out today. I don’t know if that’s an over sight or? Mr. Russell: It’s an over sight. It should be on that sheet. Mr. Bowles: Okay. Mr. Russell: We’d have to amend --- Mr. Hatney: That’s an old copy. Mr. Mason: Just so I’m clear, Mr. Administrator, you’re saying under one, under ‘B’ there should be a “C” there as an additional $250,000 for Pay As You Go projects? Is that what? Mr. Russell: For the $750,000, $550,000 goes for the bond payment. Two hundred goes to the Pay As You Go projects. Mr. Hatney: What you did you gave the old information. The new information Item C is $250,000. 8 Mr. Russell: Right and that’s what it should be. Mr. Hatney: You just gave, you was excited. Mr. Russell: It’s been one of those days, sir. Mr. Mason: How much more of this is old information? Do we need to be looking at? Mr. Grantham: The $750,000 total is there. Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Bowles, I appreciate that. Mr. Bowles: Just trying to help you out. Mr. Russell: I appreciate that. We need all the help we can get. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think you do have a motion on the floor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, we had a motion and a second. I’m just trying to figure out. Were you finished? Mr. Russell: Yeah, it’d be appropriate to go ahead and adopt that motion to include that in the recommendation. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madam Clerk, can you read the motion please? The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to approve the recommendation of the Subcommittee as outlined by the Administrator with the amendment as stated by Mr. Grantham. I believe that was to change the split from 60/40. I’m trying to get your amendment. Mr. Grantham: You want me to say it again then? Okay, it is to increase the original funding to Transit up to $400,000 once $1.5 million is collected and the amount over $1.5 million would be split between Transit at 60% and a revitalization fund for all eight districts at 40%. I think that’s a simple way to put it. Mr. Mason: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any further discussion? Mr. Russell: If you could, you need to incorporate that motion and second to include the verbiage in the documents that are relevant. I mean not that but the entire motion needs to include the relevant document that’s attached. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are we good, Madam Clerk? Do we have any further discussion? Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. 9 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: I just want to get for clarity now. You’re talking a board? This is for the redevelopment or pretty much implementing the new board? Mr. Russell: What you’ll do is establish a URA which is a five-member board tasked by this group and appointed by this group to bond the money for Laney-Walker. And that’s pretty much the bottom line. Mr. Johnson: And that would be the only entity that we would be bonding for? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. You would write the specs, you would write the redevelopment agreements so that would be the only duty they had, sir. Mr. Johnson: And then it would be the amount that --- Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: Okay, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: I think, Corey, you did say it was on Sunset at the end of that. And then the bond’s being paid back? That authority, is that correct? Mr. Russell: We have that written in the language but we can do that. Yes that’s appropriate. Mr. Brigham: Okay. Mr. Russell: That’s the only purpose of this group. Mr. Brigham: Okay. That’s what I wanted to make sure of. Mr. Hatney: I’m sorry, go ahead. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got Commissioner Beard over here. She’s had her hand up. Commissioner Beard, please. Ms. Beard: I’m just wondering why some of the bonds are tax-exempt bonds and the others are taxable. Mr. Russell: The taxable bonds have less restriction on them than the tax-exempt bonds. It’s my understanding for the tax-exempt bonds we would be limited to doing infrastructure, roads and stuff like that. With the tax-exempt bonds while they cost a little bit more you would able to do some of the purchasing of property, some of the other more appropriate redevelopment 10 functions there. So you end up paying a little bit more for that flexibility but that flexibility give us the ability to implement the plan as designed. Ms. Beard: Yes and one other question. At one of our last meetings it was voted upon to call in Dr. Sanders to hear what he had to say in reference to this. Why was it --- Mr. Russell: I had Dr. Sanders scheduled --- Ms. Beard: --- why was he not there? Mr. Russell: --- to, I could not get him here but he was scheduled to be on a phone conference with us at the meeting last Thursday that was cancelled. So we had attempted to do that. We had several conversations with him and he was going to be available Thursday and that meeting was cancelled. Ms. Beard: If you had conversations with him then what did he say in reference to TEE Centers? Mr. Russell: Generally speaking I think his overall, and I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think in his overall presentation he was not favorable to building them anywhere. He immediately and regularly repeated the fact that that was based on local conditions. We had sent him some information regarding our locality and where we were going, what we were doing and the other opportunities there and I do not know his response to that at this point in time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hatney. Mr. Hatney: (inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All righty. We have a motion and a second on the floor. No further discussion Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Mr. Mason votes No. Ms. Beard abstains. Motion carries 7-1-1. Mr. Russell: Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. It would be appropriate to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: With no further business to come before this Commission we stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Nancy W. Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission 11 CERTIFICATION: I, Nancy W. Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on December 7, 2009. ____________________________________ Deputy Clerk of Commission. 12