Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-2001 Meeting I SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ROOM - August 9, 2001 10:30 A.M. PRESENT: B. Young, Mayor, B. Kuhlke, Chairman, S. Shepard, J. Carter, Downtown Development Authority, H. Barrett, Augusta Tomorrow, P. DeCamp, P&Z, R. Snellings, Historic Preservation, Judge C. Overstreet, R. Acree, Facilities Maintenance, E. Montgomery, Historic Augusta, D. Craig, District Attorney, G. Kolb, Administrator members. ABSENT: L. Beard, W. Mays, Judge W. Fleming, members. ALSO PRESENT: L. Knox and J. Lieband, Morgan Keegan, G. Halverson CSRA Development Center, L. Bonner, Clerk of Commission I Mr. Kuhlke: Jim Wall and I have met with the Coliseum Authority concerning the two-acre tract. The reception was not too good with the Coliseum Authority the way it was laid out which went from 7th Street to 6th Street. So we're going to take a look at maybe turning that piece of property maybe 90 degrees paralleling 6th Street to see if that would work with the church then we'll get back with them. We have already contracted with Ashby-Crose to do the appraisals on the property on 6th Street, the trucking company and the 2-acre tract of land. We've received bids Rick, I think for the environmental assessments. But I don't know that we have actually awarded a contract for that yet. That was for the bus station and R&R Trucking. Basically that's where we are now. The real purpose for this meeting is that the Mayor has had contact with the National Development Council. We all know that we had $20 million in the sales tax and we're looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of about $40-$43 million to build the judicial center, so we're a little bit short. I think it's time for us to go ahead and investigate what alternatives we may have to make up the short fall so that when we get started we can go ahead and complete the project. Presentation from National Development Council on financing Judicial Center. At this time Mr. Dan Marsh, Senior Director, National Development Council makes a presentation to the Committee. Mr. Shepard: I move we receive this as information. Judge Overstreet: Second. Motion carried unanimously. Update on work being done. I Mr. Snellings gives a report on the cost of moving the houses that sit on the property . ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned. I' . I I REAPPORTIONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE COMMITTEE ROOM - Oct 16, 2091 1:30 P.M. PRESENT: B. Kuhlke, Chairman, L. Beard, U. Bridges, W. Mays, members, J. Wall, Attorney, L. Bailey, BOE, L. Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman. Mr. Kuhlke: I asked Ms. Bailey to be with us today because she will play an important part in this. The meeting today is to set the agenda on what we're going to try to do. We obviously want to get with whatever committee is appointed the School Board and the Legislative Delegation and probably have them attend our next meeting. Lynn could you review with us a little bit of the criteria that you would have to go by to develop these maps. Ms. Bailey: Basically, our office is in the receiving ship of whatever this group comes up with. But the good news is that for the first time ever your local government is in a position to implement whatever plan you come up with. When I say that, we have been to the reapportionment office and met with them and arranged to get data files sent here. They have been properly formatted so that we can use them with our own GIS system. We're now in a position, when the maps are looked at in certain areas, for instance, if you wanted to move a block of people from District 1 to District 2 just to see how the numbers would work out we can do that and instantaneously get a chart to pop up to show how that effects the total population within those districts. And it even breaks it down beyond a precinct level to census block data within each precinct. Things that this group should consider when they redistrict, on a state level, when the Senate House and Congressional lines are redrawn, they try to keep the deviation plus or minus five percent from the ideal district size. That is what they're adhering too. I'm not sure if there is anything written anywhere that says plus or minus five percent, but I think that is an acceptable deviation with the United States Department of Justice and so therefore, that's the number that they try too stick to. Outside of that it's up to this group to decide where they want the boundaries to go. I gave you information at the last Commission meeting that showed population shifts within the current districts. If you looked at that, you know- that there are some Commission districts that are twenty percent under population and there are others that are twenty percent or better over population so, there is work to be done to even up the population in those districts. Mr. Kuhlke: I think Commissioner Cheek's motion was to move ahead with this and to try to come back to the Commission with something by December 1. Do you think you're in a position that you along with the IT Dept., could come up with where we are now on a power point presentation? And based on where we are now and based on the population shift and working with any other deviation you want to play with give us a starting point. I think the impact, because of the population shift, this committee along with the Board of Education, needs to know what impact that's going to have from the standpoint of the districts. vVhat other type criteria do you think we'll have to meet so that when something is submitted to the Justice Dept., it will pass the test? Like retrogression and these kinds of things. And in saying that, so that we can go ahead and set a date for the next meeting, when do you think you could have that ready to do? I Ms. Bailey: Ifwe could have a week to ten days to get a presentation together. Mr. Beard: Anything before the Nov. 6 election is not good for me and I'm sure not for her. Mr. Kuhlke: What we need to do is go ahead and begin the dialog because one of the criteria, I'm sure particularly with the Legislative Delegation is going to be that whatever districts we come up with correspond with the school board districts. Mr. Mays: You got into what I was going to ask. I think that's a fundamental question that we need to ask ourselves since we're doing the initial meeting and we're doing the moving. While we have Home Rule and while, yes we have the right to be able to draw these lines. I think there is a fundamental question that we have to ask within ourselves, 1) whether that's going to make a difference and 2) whether or not that's going to be a standard to set in whether we have mirroring districts or not. We could very well under Home Rule draw our own districts, have them racially balanced and have them where they would meet justice. But I think Lynn would also attest to the fact that if confusion is started from the standpoint that if we don't bring the entities together and the Board has districts that are drawn by the Legislative Delegation and those districts don't mirror, then you stand the chance of different entity groups within the community then filing suit against both plans and having them rejected. Even though the balance maybe there but more goes in than just the balance when you get into that argument. That's not to say they win when they file one, but it gets into the confusion process of delay and everything else. And that is why I wanted to make sure that when we started they had all of their business totally out of the way. But I think we have to ask from within whether that's something we want to make sure that the districts mirror. Now if it's not a consideration of this body to say that they mirror I think we can go ahead and draw whatever district we want to, but I think to a point it's better to put everybody, like you're talking about doing Mr. Chairman, under the same roof at the same time. Now if the Legislative Delegation defers and says ask us to come together with the local elective group and~then they look it. over in its_entirety_ hecause they-.stillunder. state law have the right to draw the ones for the Board of Education. They may elect to do that. But I think your move to bring everybody in at this point is the key. But I do think internally we have to ask the fundamental question, do we want them to mirror? I know the various groups that I've talked to, no matter what district, there has been quite a concern and even on the deep south part of my district which tips over into where Andy's district borders and even part of Ulmer's there is a concern that the mirroring of districts be done regardless of what happens in there. I just wanted to throw that in there from the standpoint that we do have a right to do something but then it's somewhat of a questionable right in terms of what we determine that we want to set as a basis for how those are drawn. I I I Mr. Bridges: Lynn, do you or IT have the program where we can watch as the districts are changed and the effect it has overall? Mr. Kuhlke: That's the meeting I want to have for the next time. What I'm suggesting is that IT show us what it looks like now, show the population shift, preliminary of what we might do based on the deviation and so forth. And if people want to ask a question. And to show where every elected official lives now. Mr. Cheek: I would like to submit to the Committee some of the areas that I've had concerns about split neighborhoods and communities. I can draw that up and we can look at it as compared to demographics and population on the GIS map. And I think we can balance it out and solve some ofthe problems we have with areas being isolated. After further discussion: Mr. Beard: What is the overall time line? I Ms. Bailey: It seems to me that if we're going to do this locally, if this committee or whoever is going to be involved get information to the Delegation as close as we can to the beginning of their session so that they can look at it and it maybe send back to Augusta for some changes. It may even require some trips to Atlanta from this group to get this finalized. But the sooner it could get to the Delegation the sooner it could be made into law and get up to the Justice Department. I think it would behoove us all to go ahead and get those lines set and established so that when we finalize the state lines, hopefully, we can get all these lines finalized in a timely manner so that voters can be notified prior to the August primary. Mr. Kuhlke: I think another advantage that we'll have if we get the Delegation to participate in this process with us then when we get to the point where we think we've something, hopefully they'll buy into and we'll have it done. Mr. Beard: That was my point at the last Commission I was saying that all three groups at some time sit down and they should be invited to the next meeting. The sooner we get everybody_totbe_ table and I agree with you, the better it'll beonce we submit it. And once we submit it all three groups would be in consensus with that and eliminate a lot of going back and forth. Mr. Wall: The State office of elections is encouraging all local governments to have their plans drawn by the end of December so that they can be introduced the first week of the Legislative Session and get them passed so that you'll have a sixty-day pre- clearance period. I Mr. Brigham: I think we need to look at the number of voting precincts as well. Mr. Kuhlke: Jim, as we go through this process and we begin to look at things, can you provide the legal background from this standpoint or will we need to bring somebody in to take a look at this? The ultimate thing is will it past the test with the Justice Dept whatever we come up with. If you don't mind thinking about that and giving us a report back at our next meeting. I The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Friday, November 9 at 9:30 -11 :30 a.m. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission Ibb I I