Committees of Council Meeting
Video Transcript
Duration: 66 minutes
Speakers: 14
Meeting.
Good afternoon, and welcome to the Roswell mayor and council committee meeting for 06/24/2025
here in the city of Roswell.
I'll begin by acknowledging the elected body present,
council member Sarah Beeson,
council member Christine Hall,
council member Julie Hills, council member David Johnson,
council member William Morthland, and council member Alan Sells.
I'm Sharon Izzo, deputy city administrator and senior vice president for infrastructure, and I am joined by assistant city attorney Joe Cusack
and deputy oh, nope. And
and our city clerk, Nancy Long.
The purpose of committee meetings are for the city departments to convey information to the mayor and city council and discuss initiatives listed on the published agenda.
By ordinance, the committee consists of the mayor, members of the city council, and the city administrator.
As deputy city administrator, I will be the chair of today's committee meeting.
This is a public meeting, but not a public hearing.
Therefore, while the meeting is open to the public, we will not take pump public comments or questions during committee meetings
unless specifically authorized by the mayor and council.
Public comments or questions are received at the regular city council meetings held at 7PM in the City Council Chambers on the second and fourth Monday of each month and the fifth Monday of each month in open forum.
We do encourage citizens to engage on on on our online platforms. And if you have questions or need information regarding any matter, our staff is available to provide that information to you.
In addition, if you have service requests or need to report a concern,
we highly recommend utilizing the city of Roswell app or service web portal. We encourage you to view the calendar of events at Roswell Three Six Five Dot Com.
The first item on the agenda is the approval of the committee meeting minutes from 06/10/2025.
I'll entertain a motion.
Council member Johnson
and second by council member Beeson. Any further questions?
Seeing none, all in favor?
Thank you.
We'll move on to the regular agenda. Item number two, consideration of the transmittal of the 2025
CWPCIE
update
presented by Michelle Alexander, our community development director.
Miss Alexander.
Thank you.
Evening.
So the this is the annual impact fee. It's the financial report essentially and the backup requirements.
So the purpose of the any of
the the agenda item is to get your approval to submit the annual report and the backup items
to the state.
Development fee impact fees are a onetime payment for growth related infrastructure.
It's, created from the Georgia Development Act, which governs the program. The Department of Community Affairs, DCA, is, the oversight mechanism and has, enforces the rules, and that's to whom we submit our documents. Part of the regulations are that we submit an annual report
and we have to describe how much
impact fees. How many how many excuse me the amount of impact fees collected
encumbered and used during the preceding year by the category of the use that that the city applied to it. And in addition to the annual financial report,
there is a capital improvement report, and that's the list of projects that you've decided you are willing you would like to be able to use those impact fees. You don't you're not required to use impact fees for that list. It's just the eligible list. So every year, DCA says, let's take a look. Have you changed it? Have you updated it? Similarly, there's a community work program. That's another list of projects that are,
included on your,
twenty forty comprehensive plan, and those are a list of activities. And so similarly, DCA says, give us your financials, but also show us how are you in implementing from your 2040
comprehensive plan.
So
the CIE,
I don't need to go into all the details of it. I know that this you've seen it. You we come to you every year, once a year with this report.
The CIE, like I said, is the capital improvement projects. They're coming from your master plans and from the comprehensive plan and,
the staff has updated it according to whatever policy you have most recently approved,
just to avoid any confusion.
So that list is based on your 2040 comprehensive plan. So for the which was done five years ago. So every year,
for five years, we bring back to you this capital improvements list, and it gets modified accordingly.
It's gonna be updated more completely
with the comprehensive growth plan, the 2045.
So the planning period is 2045,
and it's a growth plan that we're just starting. We just,
introduced the public hearing last night to discuss it. So we'll all have primers on
impact fees and comprehensive plans short term work programs.
You'll see a new CIE and a new
community work plan, which is the list of projects associated with your policy.
If we'll be bringing it to you on the fourteenth. If you approve it, we'll submit it to DCA
and ARC for review.
They,
will review it. They have a time frame,
to make sure we bring it back to you and approve it for adoption
by October 31. So that keeps our qualified local government status.
And then after that, just putting in perspective, we'll be working pretty closely after that, bringing to you sets of, complete,
policy to consider for your growth plan and these two types of project list associated with it.
So I have some of the details if,
you want to go through it. This is just a summary.
I wanted to explain also in order to align our reporting with our new fiscal year, which now
coincides with the calendar year,
we not only get are submitting the, a twelve month period that would have been the twelve month period following our last report, but we're adding another six months to report through
December
2024.
So next year, we'll be fully aligned. Next year, we'll just have the normal twelve months, and it'll be twenty our fiscal year 2025 that we're reporting. So it's it's a little extra for,
the agencies to look at, but the total expenditures,
for that time period combined,
was a little over a million dollars.
What you probably care more about is what the balance is, and that was as of the December was $5,800,000
was the balance. And so this fund has been generating since
Jackie told me it's nineteen ninety
ninety ninety three.
I was looking more at data since 2015. And so around since 2015, you've you've generated about $9,000,000.
So there's the financials. That's part one because of the time frame,
the fiscal year, and then we also have the expenditures for that time frame of the '20
what what was used to be our fiscal year for '24. And then same thing for part two is the second part, only a six month period going through December of twenty four.
So I can go through the different lists. If you had any questions on the CIE,
we just,
transportation removed a couple of the projects that were authorized.
Fire department,
also removed one of the fire stations, but that was based on,
the results of the study that they presented to you last fall and talked about the relocation.
And then they added primarily vehicles.
So you have a detailed itemized list in your packet. This is just a summary so you get a sense of what was what is being removed or added. And I'm happy, of course, to go through any of the itemizer or the department heads who, helped us put this together.
And then on the work program,
the only things that, we're at it were really to clarify, I think, the changes that we had about the facility services master plan and also some of the,
components getting ready that next year, we're gonna be looking at the North Fulton CTP.
So those were the two things primarily,
sets that were added to the work program. So that work program is activity based versus capital improvements, which is, you know, project based construction based infrastructure. And I can keep going. I wanna just check-in with you. We're just
asking you to approve,
that we submit it to the,
Department of Community Affairs and ARC for review.
Thank you, miss miss Alexander.
Any questions or comments?
Yeah. Council member sells. Hey. Would you go back to the financial page?
I've got a couple of part one. Yeah. Yeah. Just wanna make sure I understand. I I hadn't been through the Okay.
Comp plan process.
Praise god. But I will soon.
But so what we're saying here is that,
this is the one where we we collected $5.38.
That's for that's right here. That's our total. So let me I'll back up a bit. We have three different programs, recreation and parks, transportation
and public safety, which is really fire and police. So you'll have different facilities for both fire and police under that. Mhmm. You have an dollar amount associated with each impact fee that is,
collected
for growth and to to accommodate the growth associated with the projects.
And then each of that. I'm gonna go over here you see on the left impact fees collected
and so that was just for that time period. How much was collected? So I just made that summary here for that fiscal year and it's varied over to you know year to year depends on performance
in the market.
Okay. And that's how we went and then we spent
you say expenditures rate 65. So that's how we went from the $5.98
to 5,871
right and also
there's something called credits here on the right side is a little cheat sheet that finance put together for people like me, I need the cheat sheet
the credits are associated with say there's a project that
that was being already chart,
paid for by a prior
development. And now I'm the new developer coming in, and I'm going to but because they already had paid the impact fees, I might be,
they get a credit. So we don't there's there's checks and balances so nobody so we don't double dip so nobody's paying twice
so if someone was if that the prior developer actually already paid that say the infrastructure was for that new road. We're not collecting from impact fees again.
Also if we're paying a project through tea, for example,
where it was subsidy, you know somehow could not collected collected separately from
where the impact fees are identifying
you would get a credit. So we it's a complex program in that we work with the departments
as well as finance
to make sure to see if there would be a credit that would be available. So I'm explaining something that is a little out of my kin on the finance,
but just to give you that abbreviation that there is a process for allowing credits to keep us honest and not double double charge anyone.
The other thing is the encumbrances so there might be encumbrances
that
a project
was well, just like as you know what they are. Yeah, so that was added to it. So you can see that how the numbers all add up
but this this was just for this was for that fiscal year and then the separate one for the six month period of following And do you wanna see the charge the expenditures?
Sure.
So this was for, again, same fiscal year that twelve months prior, twenty three to twenty four.
So this is by by program total.
And it's by project. So you can track each project to see how did we spend the money and what was it, you know, what was it used for and what was the amount.
And as we look at the projects that are on sort of our economic development pipeline,
I see impact fee eligible for some of the product on the
CWP
list, right?
For those projects that we are getting, maybe you guys all know this, but I'm not quite sure. How is it determined what the impactful fee will be? Is it because of what's in the,
the comp plan or is it,
dark arts
in a of
a cauldron and stuff? What what how does that work?
So it's a good time to ask that question because we are undergoing the impact fee study. So you have a consultant working for us right now who is working to go through all of the needs,
what are on all your project lists, what is on all your master plans, what,
staff has reported the needs and facility needs are according to what you've requested,
and then coming up with a calculation
per facility,
coming up with a calculation
to
update
our fee. So you'll the fee is is charged by, the square footage. It's charged by the types of industrial, commercial, or residential.
And
there it is charged by what is your,
a surrogate for what your need is, and the surrogate is your square footage of your facility. So if you're existing,
the consultant will be much more eloquent than I.
If your existing,
capital ex the
value of your existing, say, fire stations
for your existing population, they'll calculate
what is an appropriate prorated amount for the amount of new growth that you anticipate. So it's a formula Right. Which I guess is black arts as well, but, formula Basically, you're common sizing the cost across.
CDs so much better. Yes, sir. Yeah. Common size. We'll be coming back to and applying it to the project based on its square footage being the common sized,
factor.
And and we'll let you know, I, when the, you have a impact fee committee the RDA and when they meet
because the consultant comes then too and so you might you know at least to prepare have questions and make sure we get answered in the in the making of the sausage,
but there'll be more details specifically on the the formulas and the needs that are assumed.
But you can anticipate that the recommendation will be that for some of our,
fees that they will go up. They haven't been increased since 2015.
So if you think ten years,
just even the last few years, how much construction costs have gone up, they're not really keeping up. Okay. Thank you.
Council member Beeson.
Can you go back to the credit slide?
So when you're discussing credits for redevelopment,
is that a full credit for the previously paid impact fees, or is that a percentage of credit for the impact fees? And
regardless of if it's a percentage or the full, are we really
are we covering,
the intensification of the use
of that amount? Because for instance, if you're doing a redevelopment
on a property and the while it has been previously developed,
if the use is being intensified, are we fully capturing that when we're honoring the credit?
I'm not gonna be able to answer that but
intelligently Jackie might have a better idea. I just got the light jog going so we're good. Jackie to the rescue. He said the word I needed to hear
So Credits. Credits. Under redevelopment. We'll take that one. For,
a project that had something that was built,
let's say,
in 1993
or after, and it had,
commercial,
and they paid their impact fees. But now they came in and did, like, a mixed use development.
They would get credit for the square footage of the commercial, but if they had residential,
then no, they would have to pay the full amount of impact fees for the residential portion, and we'd only give them credit for the square footage of the commercial that was existing.
Anything over and above that, they would have to pay the impact fees for at this point in time. So follow-up stupid question.
So using your example,
somebody developed a property, commercial, $2,012.93
dollars are not equal to $20.25
dollars. So are we accounting for that as well whenever we're giving them that credit? So we take a look at the square footage and the differences.
And,
normally, like, single family houses are pretty much a one for one.
If the square footages,
are different, like, if somebody takes a house down,
in the past,
we were informed that it's a one for one, they don't have to. But,
I'd say in the last few years, things have we've there's been a lot of discussion and we've changed a little bit. So if there's more square footage added, we would charge just for the additional square footage
over if they've already paid. If it was built prior to 1993,
no. They would have to pay now, obviously, because they never paid originally.
So back to your other question. So we look at the square footage and try to say if it's if there's additional square footage added onto it,
then we would charge them for that currently in today's dollars.
So if it was 10,000 square feet in 1993,
and they're putting back 25,
we're gonna charge them over the 15 we're gonna charge them the 15,000
based on today's numbers. Understood. Thank you. K. You're welcome. So can I pull that back to you? Mhmm. Sorry. Sorry.
Council member,
sells.
So
what I'm just gonna try to play back that answer. You're saying so if if I had a a piece of property, I had a commercial piece of property, and I knocked it down and it was 10,000 square feet, and I'm gonna build a 100,000 square feet, I'm going to pay impact fees on 90,000 square feet based on the current common size. Correct. Okay. And that's if,
one,
if you we don't always just offer it up to people.
It can be discussed.
Some people are aware of the impact fee law,
and but most, nine times out of 10, you know, if they're gonna say, hey. So we have commercial and we're going to commercial and we know you we have impact fees. And, we do know we you know, they check took a look and said, we do know this one was paid for because it was built in 1995
or whatever.
And then we'd be like, yes. We take a look at that, and you you do have to pay for the 90,000 and you'll be paying for the the square footage of that now and the the the fee amounts we'd have today. The theory being that whatever the
infrastructure we had to put in for the 10,000 square feet is in place Mhmm. And the incremental 90,000 is the additional burden. That's Right. So there could be new infrastructure that might have to come into place now compared to what was happened then and or it has to be updated because
whatever they might have there at that point in time,
with this new development or whatever comes in, it could be bringing all kinds of new stuff that we did not have back then in the, like, say, the nineteen nineties.
Does that help? Council member Hall.
Thank you.
So my question is,
the impact fee law came into,
effect in '93. Is that around '1. So around '91, '92. And then we,
we implemented it basically almost six months to a year after it came into law. So so my question is,
which which part of the law? Do we have to give any credit for anything?
Is that law, or is that just something that we're being nice and deciding to do? It is law. It's and it's also in the code related to credits, and there's also exemptions, which I'm not gonna go into because it has nothing to do with this. That's in state code and state exemption, not Roswell. Well, no. It's also
since the state code is part of our code, it's also in ours. Okay. So we're required to by law. So the state code requires us to acknowledge
that there was
a payment, but it does it dictate how much of that
everything else is up to us? We could give a dollar credit?
I'd have to take a look at that and read through it. But, I mean, I just wanna understand how much
we're making the rules and how much the state is,
dictating the rules. Pretty much sure that if if they did 10,000, then we'd have to take a look at that 10,000
and if they paid for it. Because this just goes back to to council member Beeson's point that the dollars were very, very different back then. I mean, I I would I would
speculate to say that I would look at the whole 10,000.
And if it was, you know, if you're coming back
and with 25,
I'd say, okay. Your first 10,000, you paid at, you know, 2¢ on a dollar. Now we're gonna charge you, 5¢.
And then for the 15,000,
we'll charge you the going rate of 15¢.
That's that that would be a way that it would bring parity
to,
that. So that that's where my question is. We could take a look and because Michelle just said ask the consultant who's doing the new updated one,
since he is probably a little bit more familiar with with all the laws. Yeah. What Yeah. Just just historically,
we've we've put I mean, this just goes to the point that we've set so many rules on ourselves that we don't even know where those rules came from. And and we make the assumption that they're
governed by somebody else when we really self govern those and have the ability to control that destiny, our own destiny.
Thank you. Council member Northland.
Looking at these percentages,
what is the maximum percentage for each of these line items that is allowed by the state?
They've never actually told us an infected maximum other than the fact that a 100% is not.
And we got that answer this year when we put in 100%
but for a couple items for transportation last year, we were told that was incorrect they
did not indicate that to us and they said that was that they must have missed it when we were going through. So we made sure that was changed.
We'll find out
But there's,
and when we when when we talked to DCA, they didn't they just said a 100%
because we they know that there's no way it's gonna be something that's a 100% filled by impact fee. So some of the numbers up there that show a 100% need to be changed. There shouldn't be any a 100% on this current one. There's There are five? Yes. Okay. Well, we will make sure those are changed because there should not be. We spoke about that earlier.
And,
yeah, well, The consultant is reviewing it. So, yeah, thank you for bringing that up. We'll find out what the the limit it is and what is the, we'll make sure those are just rationale behind the limit. Yes. Thank you. Okay.
Council member sells. Thank you.
Mayor
what what what what chairman. I guess you're chairman today. Chairman. Yes. Chairman. Alright. Very good.
Chairman Isaac.
So just to walk through the math on the top one, the 20 2,500,000.0
dollars, 20%. What we're saying is that
two two, of the 2 and a half million dollars, 20% is exposed
to the fee.
Correct? Is allowed to be paid for by the fee. Mhmm. Up to 20%
can be collected or covered by funds generated by the impact fee. Gotcha. So this is this is not on the chart side. This is on the spin side. Exactly. Exactly. Yes.
Council member Beeson.
Trying to fix my own citation. I've read several journal articles before on how impact fees are typically fairly underestimated for most municipalities.
Yes. Severely underestimated. Yes, ma'am. Back to the conversation
between myself, council member Sells, and council member Hall about
the credits that are given.
To council member Sells' point, I I totally understand if the infrastructure is in place for that property based off of the percentage and the square footage.
My concern is moving forward to council member Hall's point,
it paints us into a corner whenever we're trying to
improve that. So for example, I'll use, I'm gonna mess up I think it's Warsaw where we had to do the waterline replacement because there was, asbestos lined pipes for the waterline. We wound up having to tap into CDBG funds for that, whereas if we were adequately charging impact fees in my mind, that waterline
would be funded through,
full impact fees as opposed to the credits from what was previously developed. So even in 1993, like, if you assume dollar for dollar that they were even adequate, the technology isn't the same. So making sure that we're preparing in advance for when we have to either maintain or replace,
just the general m and o for the city.
I would like to see based off council member Hall's point
what we can do in terms of credits,
and trying to minimize those a little bit more, just to make sure that we're we're
covering our behind.
Yeah. Thanks.
Thank you.
Any further comments?
Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion.
Council member, Northland,
second by council member Beeson.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor
passes unanimously.
Thank you.
Item number three,
consideration for the mayor and or city administrator to sign a memorandum of agreement between the city of Roswell
and the four other North Fulton cities to initiate an update of the North Fulton comprehensive
transportation
plan
and improved budget amendment in the amount of $58,642.
This item is gonna be presented by Greg Nicholas,
our interim director of transportation.
Mister Nicholas.
Thank you.
Good evening.
So the Atlanta Regional Commission is funding an update to the North Fulton comprehensive transportation plan, also known as the NFCTP,
in 2025
through its comprehensive
transportation plan assistance program,
which is which is was previously funded through the NFCTP
also in '28 2010 and 2018.
Typically, the CTP is managed at the county level, but due to the the fact that Fulton County is fully incorporated,
ARC will be managing this project,
with input from all five North Fulton cities.
Project management team with one staff member from each city, will
be selected to help guide the process.
A memorandum of agreement is needed among all the cities to define the project management and decision making.
ARC will act as the project manager,
securing the federal funding with GDOT and will handle the the contract and subcontracts.
The City Of Johns Creek will serve as the administrative city, collecting the local matching funds
from the other four municipalities.
Upon authorization from all five city councils,
the consultant procurement will begin through ARC,
and the the full plan update process is expected to take twelve to eighteen months,
including the procurement,
evaluation, public engagement,
and final adoption.
Staff is recommending using
unprogrammed t splos two funds to pay for the City Of Roswell's portion
of the NFCTP.
And the financial impact,
the total estimated cost is 1,200,000.0.
This includes 990,000
in federal funds and 247,500
required as the local match by the five cities.
And, Roswell's portion based on the 2023
ARC population
estimates is $58,642.
And with that, we will entertain any questions.
Any questions?
Council member
for Northland.
Can you, shed light on how Johns Creek was was chosen there? Was that out of the goodness of their heart, or are they getting an administrative fee to do so? No. They're not getting paid anything if they volunteered.
Very good.
Any other questions?
Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion.
Motion by council member
Johnson, second by council member Hills.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor?
This passes unanimously. Thank you very much.
Item number four, consideration for the mayor and or city administrator to authorize the sale of approximately 360
square feet of city owned right of way at 11370
Crabapple Road.
Mister Nicholas.
Thank you.
So we have a developer at 11370
Crabapple Road. This is at the,
intersection
of Crabapple Road and Chaffin Road.
They have requested to purchase a 20 by 18,
piece of right away
along Crabapple Road that is is currently containing
the city drainage structure.
The developer plans to integrate the structure into their private drainage system,
limit essentially eliminating the city's need, for the right away.
After review with transportation
and the environmental public works
staff,
we are all in agreement that we there is no need for the notch in the future based on the current design,
the development
and recommend approving the sale.
The applicant proposed a purchase rate of $6.35
per square foot.
CityStat
did analyze comparable data and determined that $10 per square foot,
seemed to be better in this area.
So
just a quick
this is Crabapple at Chaffin, and the red box is the little notch
of right of way. That's the 360
square feet.
And then this is just shown on their site plan.
Just the red box highlighted there again.
So staff is recommending the sale right away to the developer as there's no need for the notch. And
as far as the financial impact, the city would receive 3,600
for the sale of the 360
square feet, and that money would go into the general fund.
With that, we'll answer any questions.
Any questions for mister Nicholas?
Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion.
Motion by Council Member Johnson, second by Council Member Beeson.
Any further discussion?
Seeing
none. All in favor?
Passes unanimously. Thank you very much.
Item number five, consideration for the mayor and or city administrator
to accept a right away agreement from the reserve at Newton Development for roadway improvements on Nesbitt Ferry Road.
Mister Nicholas.
Thank you.
So this is
actually, this should say the reserve at Newtown.
This is over near Newtown Park in Johns
Creek. There's a residential development that is fully in the city of Johns Creek, but their access is off of,
Nesbitt Ferry, which is in Roswell in this section.
As part of the project, right of way improvements,
which would include
turn lanes and multi use trail, are required along Nesbitt Ferry.
To ensure the maintenance,
staff requested the right of way be dedicated to the city of Roswell,
in coordination. We coordinated with, Johns Creek on this.
So the dedication includes the improvement
of the area plus a minimum one foot buffer, beyond,
the multi the the new multi use trail,
and the total area would be approximately point three acres.
Just quick map. This is, the development just south of Scott Road on the east side there of Nesbitt Ferry.
This is just their overall site plan
showing the I think they have a desal lane going in. The multiuse trail is not showing on this, but the multiuse trail is being built along this whole frontage.
And then as far as staff's recommend recommendation, we are, recommending
that Riley be dedicated to the city of Roswell.
And as far as financial impact, they're just minor upkeep,
which will be managed through our department's operating budget,
once it's constructed.
And with that, we'll answer any questions.
Any questions for mister Nicholas?
K. Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion. Motion by council member Johnson, second by council member Hills.
Further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor? Passes unanimously. Thank you.
Item number six, consideration
of a resolution to approve the 2025
annual action plan for the community development block grant, CDBG
presented by Charles Alford,
grant specialist.
Mister Alford.
It's,
as you guys know, the city receives annual funding through HUD's community development block grants program every year. In order to secure those those funds, we have to submit an annual action plan to HUD every year.
Our 2025 annual action plan is due to HUD, August 16.
So I just wanna do, like, a little refresher. I think you guys probably remember where we've, committed those funds, but I just want to confirm,
that we're heading in the right direction
and also to give you an update on sort of the projects that are involved with these CDG funds. So as I mentioned, the the annual action plan specifies intended use of the city's annual community development block grant funds.
They're tied to our five year strategic plan, which is a HUD requirement.
We started that in 2023.
At the time, we identified affordable housing as the main need there,
particularly as it relates to the redevelopment of the Roswell housing authorities,
199 Grove Way, the Puffy Pines Apartments.
So we got a total allocation this year of $406.68.
I should go back and say in in 2023,
we went ahead and
allocated
our 2023
CDBG funds to the demolition and clearance
of the, property, which was finished this year.
And then we also made another commitment to help with gap financing for the housing authorities low income housing tax credit,
application to the DCA.
To satisfy that, we, decided to go for a section one zero eight loan through HUD,
which allows us
to apply for up to five times our annual allocation,
and we can repay that loan using our CDBG,
funding every year.
And so,
the loan proceeds will go to the housing authority,
particularly for the site work
at the Pelfrey Pines redevelopment.
So,
just so you know, we we applied for that section one zero eight loan in December 2024. I believe
mayor and council approved it in July, so we applied in December
2024.
I heard back from them,
from HUD
last Friday, and it has been approved,
internally.
It now has to go for congressional approval,
but, they do believe we should have that in the next thirty days.
The low income housing tax credit closing is anticipated for August, so we should have that in time for that, closing.
And we will be able to,
start making loan repayments beginning fall of twenty twenty five.
We allocated last year's CDBG funds to repaying the loans. We had the 2024 funds, and we're recommending through this annual action plan that we continue that and,
apply the 2025
funds,
to repaying this loan.
And, so the plan, if you guys are okay with it, the plan is due 08/16/2025.
I would open a public comment period on Friday, the twenty seventh. We would close that comment period on July 28, collect any comments,
and take it for a,
resolution
at the city council meeting on August 11, and then submit the the plan to HUD after that.
Questions?
Thank you. Any questions?
Council member Hills. Thank you. Thank you, mister Alford. I just wanna clarify that last year, CDBG money is parked for us to use toward repayment That's correct. Addition to this year. Yeah. Well, I appreciate your attention to all this and working thoroughly through this process. It's been tedious and arduous and
taken a lot of time,
not only on the calendar, but, you know, for staff. So I I'm in full support of this and very excited of the prospects of, redeveloping 199 Grove Way. Thank you very much.
Council member Beeson.
Remind me. Is this typically done a little bit earlier in the year? I feel like we in the past, our public comment period has been, like, in May. It just depends. They they send us a letter in May Okay. Because of,
they sent it in late May, but sometimes we've got it as early as February. We're technically supposed to have it the prior year if you go by the federal.
Got it. So it's because we received the federal letter later than normal that it triggered our processing later than normal. Yeah. Because otherwise, I would say it's obviously not ideal to have a public comment period through summer when everyone's traveling and it's holidays and people aren't around. But I understand if that's coming from the federal down, that impacts our timeline. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion. Council member Hills Motion.
Motion.
Second by council member Morthland.
All in favor?
Passes unanimously.
Thank you.
Item number seven, consideration to award a demolition contract.
Lita Thompson Park And Bowen And Highway 92 properties presented by Stephen Malone, director of recreation parks, historic, and cultural affairs.
Good evening. Thank you for allowing me this presentation tonight.
Real quick, I'll jump into it. The request tonight
is specific to the properties at Lita Thompson Memorial Park and Bowen in 92.
There are
we're requesting contract approval and budget authorization for demolition and abatement of five structurally compromised buildings.
Again, the location of those five structures are at Lita Thompson Memorial Park in Bowen in 92 property.
The issues that we've been dealing with are ongoing include stormwater or storm damage, vandalism,
rodent infestation, and hazardous materials. The total contract would not would be not to exceed
$238,315
That includes a 10% contingency.
The contractor is prime contractors potentially and funded by insurance reimbursement
and park CIP maintenance fund. If you recall,
we came before this body,
a couple months ago to accept a reimbursement for insurance
related to the the damage from the hurricane last September, I believe.
I'll run through just a couple pictures in a minute, but the timeline and next steps, if approved, permitting to follow contract approval,
work to begin within thirty days of the notice to proceed, and then the project duration is approximately
five weeks.
Real quick, I'll show you a little overview. This is Alita Thompson Memorial Gardens. You'll see the Art Center West down there,
at the rear of the park. That's almost the far peak of the park right there. You'll see the red and the green box.
That is the, cabin and the brick house and garage.
And then the blue box on the bottom left hand corner along Highway 92 is what we call the yellow house.
Real quick, this is the damaged brick home that sits on the back of the property
with, as you can see multiple damage
to that property beyond repair.
This is the adjacent garage with structural damage.
This is what we call the cabin that is down by the pond. This is the one that's rodent infested,
and this is the yellow house that's on Highway 92.
We have significant issues with this house as it relates to break ins and vandalism,
I think, because of the high visibility.
The other two structures we're recommending are on the Bowen And 92 property. The red box right there is actually the single story ranch brick home,
and the blue box back there is the temporary
trailer that's on the back of that property.
Here's the single story ranch style home.
This has had significant
PD related
calls.
We are addressing this facility about once a week currently
to try to re secure the building based on break ins and vandals that are going through that structure.
Structure. And this is just the temporary trailer structure that was used. It's beyond repair and and more of a nuisance as it sits right now.
Any questions?
Yes, ma'am.
Council member Hills. Thank you. No one's living in any of those. Correct? They're all No, ma'am. These are all abandoned and I just feel like it's important to ask. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
Any further questions? Council member Marthlin.
On the Jones Bowen, property,
I saw the yellow house.
There's another structure on the front side of that that's not part of this or that is part of this.
So this is the sing there this is actually what would have been a house that actually has two phases to it. It's you'll see the brick side, and you'll also see the yellow,
clad
siding that actually has a garage kinda on the backside of this. Brick house is part of this. Correct. Okay. That's correct. Gotcha. Thank you.
Inside all that structure connects.
Any other questions?
Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion. Motion by council member Hills, second by council member Northland.
Further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor?
And it passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Item number eight, consideration to award a contract with Native Instinct LLC for the water treatment plant generator in an amount not to exceed $324,802.56.
Presented by Brian Watson, director of environmental public works.
Thank you. Mister Watson. Thank you very much. Lost my pen, which makes me feel uncomfortable, but that's okay.
Thank you, Chairwoman
Izzo. Good afternoon,
Council.
Usually I have the mayor there, so that throws me off.
This first item in October of twenty twenty two,
EPW submitted on thank you. Feel much better.
EPW,
I'm an annual engineer, come on now.
That's not funny.
EPW submitted on a grant to FEMA and GEMA for a backup generator for our water treatment plant.
In March of twenty twenty five, mayor and council
approved receiving $573,686.70,
from the federal government to fund that backup generator.
Due to the federal procurement regulations, the city is required to actually put each of these items out to bid. So we put,
the first one that we solicited for was this generator,
put it out on our city's website.
On May 29, we received 11 quotes
for the generator
that range between
$313,307.25
to $565,000
with a quote submitted by Native Instinct LLC being the most responsive and responsible to do the work.
Staff recommends awarding the contract to Native Instinct.
Now with that, I'll take any questions.
Seeing no questions, we'll entertain a motion.
Motion by council member Johnson, second by council member Sells.
Before we vote on this, I just wanna check. We're moving this to a special called meeting.
Correct? Yeah. I thank you. I didn't know if I was supposed to do that.
Yeah. So, I'm requesting that, you all well, if you vote on it tonight that we bring it to the special called meeting,
next Monday night,
the Native Instinct has agreed to hold this pricing until the end of the month, at which point it then goes up 10%.
So
but they said that if we can bring it on the thirtieth, that they would acknowledge and accept the pricing at. So
thank you, Councilwoman.
Well, I'm being promoted.
Oh, that's not a promotion.
Council member Beeson.
With regard to that understanding that you have a timely and necessary and you wanna bring this in on Monday,
can I make the request that we do it for what's typically our 05:00 special called session when we open it up to closure? Yes. Okay. Yes, ma'am. So just making sure. I believe that the plan is to have the special called at 05:00.
Cool. Yes. And there'll be a couple items on that that That'd be ready for seven. Okay. Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor?
Passes unanimously. Thank you very much.
Item number nine, consideration to award a contract with Kendall Supply Incorporated to relocate AMI equipment in an amount not to exceed $99,500
presented by mister Watson.
Thank you. So the Roswell Water Utility will be relocating
equipment that is currently attached to our Community Circle tank.
The equipment is part of our advanced metering infrastructure,
AMI,
system.
In the agenda item, it says a propagation study is being conducted. It's actually been finished since this,
since this got published
and the best location is actually a little bit more centrally located to our
utility.
Staff recommends awarding a contract to Kendall Supply in the amount of 99,500.
We're also recommending allocating 25,500
for unforeseen circumstances.
And with that, I'll take any questions.
Mister Watson, this one also is going to the special called. Am I correct?
That would be great. Okay.
Alright.
Let's see. Any we have no further questions. We'll entertain a motion.
Motion by council member Sells, second by council member Johnson to move this forward to the special called on 06/30/2025.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor?
And it passes unanimously. Thank you very much.
Last item.
Item number 10, consideration of an ordinance to establish the Roswell development finance program
presented by Daryl Connolly, director of of economic development.
Mister Connolly.
An ordinance to establish the program?
Okay. Back in July
2024,
we set forth an economic development strategy
that the council approved. It had goals,
objectives
to grow the economy.
We also had targeted catalytic projects, including a couple of hotels.
The strategy included repositioning Roswell, diversifying the tax base, for the city,
and also talked about establishing a set of tools
in order to encourage development that included a tax allocation district.
The Roswell development finance program is another tool that we've been working on for some time.
And
the way we've designed this is a program
to help finance hotels
that are very, very difficult to finance in this particular environment.
There were in the economic development strategy several hotels that we were looking to to catalyze and this will help to
make those projects happen.
The program is
established pursuant to what we have is OCGA 30 six-sixty
two-seventeen.
That's otherwise known as the Commercial Property Assess,
Conservation Energy and Resiliency Act.
It's something that was
put into the law back,
last year by the state,
and it was broad based legislation
that
said that development authorities or downtown development authorities can,
set up programs to finance,
certain types of improvements like energy efficiency, conservation
improvements.
What we've done is we've taken the program,
And while that particular law allows a broad base of projects to
be financed,
we wanted to set up a targeted economic development
tool. So and we are looking at hotel projects, so specifically new hotel projects
in the city.
So
we're also saying
there's an ordinance that
is before you as well as some guidelines.
And
it talks about new hotel developments,
along with ancillary commercial uses. So if the hotel has
a retail or an office use, that would also be eligible under this particular program, and it would be citywide.
We are putting forth a a minimum for a a loan of $4,000,000
that would be,
according to the to the laws, you can do a maximum of 25%
of a
total project.
So it's a $20,000,000
project, a $4,000,000
loan under the Roswell development finance program,
that we're establishing.
The improvements,
that would be eligible
are
energy efficiency,
water conservation,
renewal energy and resiliency.
Those are certain things that hotel developers are particularly putting into their projects today.
The law says that you have to do this
set up through a development authority or downtown development authority. What we are proposing here is that it be administered
by the city. So we're self administering it through
the Roswell Development Authority
that'll be done pursuant to an intergovernmental
agreement.
So we would be controlling that program.
The features of the program, it's,
uses third party,
private capital. These aren't government funds. These are not,
the city is not putting up any money for these,
these projects,
but private capital would finance the improvements.
The loans
would be paid back through a special tax assessment that would be placed on the property.
By doing that, it enables property owners to improve the economics.
It enables because it is essentially
a first lien, with the same priority as
real estate taxes.
The lenders are willing to grant a lower interest rate,
lower amortization,
longer amortization,
and also allows them to transfer a loan to a third party. So if they sell, say, the hotel to another party that we run with land and that could be transferred.
With this program, the city would receive fees
as the program
administrator.
We'll go into exactly what those,
we're proposing those be.
And then we would also collect
the loan payments. So a the property owner would essentially pay
the loan through the city. We would then pay
the lender.
The program fees that we are proposing
that you would be approving in the guidelines,
we would have a loan application fee of,
$500 that is nonrefundable.
There's administrative
fee,
1% of the loan amount paid at closing,
legal fee
at 50 basis points or essentially five half a
percent for,
putting together all the loan, the documents that we need to do, the special assessment. And then there's also a servicing fee
that the city would get, which is 1%
of the annual payment, and that would be added to their annual tax bill.
This particular slide
shows a hypothetical
comparison, so you how this would improve the economics
of a project.
On the left hand side is conventional construction financing
for
a hotel. Typically, you would have equity,
senior debt, and then mezzanine debt.
So the Roswell Development Finance program
loan,
that would replace the mezzanine debt. So when you're looking at this and look at the blended rate, really talking about
in conventional financing
today would be about 11.6%
under with using the Roswell development finance program, you would have a blended rate of about 9.8%.
And what that means to the property owner is about
$300,000
annual savings,
using
a development cost of about $20,000,000
So it's pretty pretty significant,
and it certainly impacts the economics
of a a project.
This slide is showing a an example of the the fees. If you had a $4,000,000
loan, which is our our minimum,
The you would have an application fee of $500
The administrative fee would be 1% of the
the $4,000,000
which is $40,000
The legal fee
would be $20,000 and then annual servicing fees would be about $4,000
per year.
In terms of the mechanics,
since we would be Citi would be the administrator of this particular program,
developer would go out, get their third party financing.
They would apply for the loan through the city.
The economic development team would review the project for conformity
with with the guidelines that you adopt.
The lender would then provide the loan, and then the city would place the special assessment on the property.
Developer would then build the project.
City city
would make sure that they are adhering to the the requirements in in the program,
and then loan repayment would be made through the special assessment.
To establish the program,
so today we're at the council committee.
We're proposing that we have the first reading of the ordinance and the guidelines which are in your your packet
on the fourteenth.
We would then, on the fifteenth, go to the RDA,
the development authority, to approve an IGA.
And then on the twenty fourth, we would have the second reading at the mayor and council meeting
of the ordinance and the guidelines which we would approve as well as approval of the IGA.
Thereafter, we would start,
and launch the program with an application and and procedures. So,
Council
member Sells.
Council member Sells.
Thank you,
chairman.
Just a couple of quick things. I'd like to hit the a couple of points. The first is you would I wanna be clear. You said it, but I wanna restate this. The city is not the lender.
Correct? This is there is no city,
funding of the loan itself.
Correct. And the the lender would be a bank or a third party of some sort. Right? Yes. Okay. And the special tax assessment that we discussed, which is the source of repayment of the loan, that is not coming at the expense of our taxes.
That is an addition. Basically, we're taking their mortgage payment
and collecting it through the taxing,
arm of the city. Is that is that correct or good? That's that correct. Okay.
And and and the reason that that improves
the interest rate for that borrower
is because
the risk assessment of that mezzanine debt has gone down
because
of the fact that it's tied to the land and to the taxing authority of of the city Of Roswell. Correct? That's correct. Okay.
So
the all we're really doing
is providing a way for them to reduce their borrowing cost by reducing risk
and to use it for specific projects, which we tailored this program
because success
congrats to YouTube in particular for for for honchoing
this. Projects that we want
of a size that we want
and sufficient in size such that
the fees that we're talking about cover the cost of administering it on a year to year basis, but also provide us a tool in our tool belt to drive that,
additional economic development. Is that does that 100%. The project? 100% correct.
There's a question mark at the end somewhere, I'm sure.
Council member else.
Council member sells brought up a good point as far as,
the funding.
It looks like under capitalization, maybe I'm misreading this. It says the program may also leverage public funding through revenue bond issuance. Is that not
on the shoulders of the residents to taxpayers? So the Roswell Development Authority could potentially issue a a bond
for the program if they show desire, but it is not So that's not absolute what your answer was for that council member sales. It is c I g a above.
Okay.
Alright. And then other question,
what is what's the typical life of the loan
for these? Is it thirty? This would be a thirty year.
And then we, the city, are with the fees that we collect on this are responsible for compliance. So, low flow toilet is not gonna
necessarily last thirty years. I'm making it really simple here. But how does that work so that we're not
it let's say
let's say the IGA didn't hold, then the RDA decided to put out a revenue bond. Or I don't know. I'm just putting that out there.
And the residents are paying for that.
Our taxpayers are paying for that. And then we've got a roof that was secure at the beginning of the loan that's energy efficient or toilets or the insulation or whatever the the myriad of things are that they could qualify for this. How how does that work as far as what's our responsibility?
How is that,
how is that managed?
So
to to clarify, so the
if the Roswell Development Authority issued a bond, that would be a a revenue bond issued not necessarily
this is not a GO bond, not general obligation bond,
paid for by the residents. It would be a third party.
Thank you. So
but but then you would have an amortization
term of over thirty years. So it would be amortized over a thirty year period.
Okay. Thank you. I had that the bond wrong. Thank you for that clarification.
Council member Johnson.
If the hotel gets built and it goes bankrupt for whatever economic reasons before the loan is paid off, does
the
lender get the lien on the hotel? Does the RDA get the lien on the hotel? Who gets to,
you know, who
gets to hold you?
It's it's a
Joe, you may want to
to weigh in on this, but you you essentially have
if there is a default on that, you would auction off the the lien to a
on the courthouse steps. Correct? Yeah. More than likely,
I think we looked at one case study in which that happened. That's the the whole
life of the CPACE program. It's happened one time, and the bank stepped in,
and paid off the debt.
So that's
rare, but it's something to think about. Normally, the bank would step in and
take
over. Yeah. It's just like a tax member sells. Sorry. It's just like a tax lien.
They sell it with they they they settle it and they sell the tax lien, and if they get 10¢ on the dollar, then that settles the debt. We're not in any way on the hook for the debt at all.
Correct.
Council member Morthland.
So it's my my understanding of the state statute here, the OCGA
thirty six sixty two seventeen. And,
mister Conley, you you touched on it earlier. It's it's very general. It's broad. Lots of things can go into this thing. And I understand that we're talking about tonight this just being a hotel
scenario for economic development reasons.
My, my ask tonight is that
the housing authority in the Roswell in in Roswell would also be beneficial
to this this scenario as well. I know we have this on the, potential calendar to come forward in February time,
but my ask is that can we get legal to look into the fact that would it be acceptable to include the Roswell housing authority into this this conversation?
And is
the end of the month acceptable to get that answer back? Because, again, it is very broad. It is very wide ranging.
Yeah. Be happy to look into that and then ultimately,
add the language for the housing authority between now and and that first reading of the
ordinance.
K. So that would be my request is that this this get pushed back two weeks on the calendar
with the first first reading to give legal enough time to to find that answer,
And then everything else flow right past.
You can do that.
Further questions, comments?
Seeing none, we'll entertain a motion. Motion by council member, Northland.
Second by council member Johnson. Any further questions,
comments?
Seeing none, all in favor?
One
Just to clarify, we are making the motion and voting on
four weeks down the road, not two weeks down the road.
Yeah. Is that acceptable?
The first, well,
first reading being
end of the month, give you month and time.
So so is there any pressing projects that
why did you pick the fourteenth?
It's the next
it's the first, mayor and council after. There's no pressing projects. There's no reason not to accommodate the question?
No.
And and does Joe, does, I mean, the housing authority pays pilot.
What you you couldn't you couldn't
secure the loan in the same way as you can private, you know, piece of property. So this I mean, I'm not even sure this fits.
Need to look into it a little further. There is housing authorities that have used,
CPACE loans. Okay. Now yeah. To your to your point, I don't I don't know What what does the lender do? They can't foreclose.
Correct. Right. Yeah.
So their whole purpose of the thing is to give security to the lender that they don't have in a stand alone mezzanine piece of debt. So I'm a little confused by how this could be used for the for the
housing authority. And and I wanna look into further how
other cities have utilized it with their housing authorities. Okay. I think there's been some creative ways they've they've utilized it, and I think it's probably worth looking into and getting an answer on. Okay. Yeah. Just a little confusing to me. Thank you.
Alright. So we had a we had a motion by council member Northland.
And do we have a second? Do I need to amend that emotion, or are we good on that motion? On the date. On the date. On the date. So you wanna move that to
July 28.
Twenty eighth? Okay. July 28.
The second by I think it's the twenty fourth. Twenty fourth? That's yeah. '20. Twenty fourth. Thank you. July 24, second by council member
Johnson.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor?
It's the twenty eighth. Alright. Okay. Alright. The twenty eighth. Twenty eighth. Okay. My apologies.
Council member okay. We had a motion by council member Bartlett to move it to the twenty eighth. Second by council member Johnson.
All in favor?
Passes unanimously.
Thank you very much.
That concludes the committees of council. We'll entertain a motion for adjournment. Council member Johnson motion, second by council member Beeson. All in favor?
And this meeting is adjourned. Have a great evening.