You can also donate through www.venmo.com/u/pikecountytimes, $pikecountytimes, and PayPal.Me/PikeCountyTimesLLC.
Editor Becky Watts: Phone # 770-468-7583 editor(@)pikecountytimes.com
This online news website is owned and operated by Becky Watts. The Editor can be reached at 770-468-7583 or at editor(at)PikeCountyTimes(dot)com. Pike County Times is a website for citizens to keep up with local events and stay informed about Pike County government. It began on November 13, 2006 as a watchdog on county government and has turned into an online newspaper.
If you enjoy reading Pike County Times, consider buying an advertisement for your business or sending a donation to support the only free online newspaper in Pike County. Donations can be sent to: The Pike County Times, PO Box 843, Zebulon, Georgia 30295. Click here to donate through PayPal. Thanks for supporting Pike County Times.com!
Wednesday, March 13, 2024 - 9:00 AM
Courthouse, Main Courtroom, 16001 Barnesville Street, Zebulon, Georgia
Town Hall Meeting at 8:45 a.m.
ZEBULON - The Pike County Board of Commissioners will meet on Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 9 a.m. in the upstairs courtroom of the courthouse. The public is invited to attend. There will be a 15 minute Town Hall Meeting where members of the public can address commissioners without being on the record.
>font color="#0000cc">[Note from the Editor: https://www.facebook.com/pikecountytimes/videos/726513142966020 to watch this on FB Live through my business FB page. You can scroll through my videos to see what other meetings, etc. you would like to watch. The budget meetings are on there as well. This day ran pretty much the entire day.]
Commissioners James Jenkins, Jason Proctor, Tim Guy, Tim Daniel, and Chairman Briar Johnson were present as well as County Clerk Angela Blount, County Manager (CM) Brandon Rogers, and County Attorney Rob Morton. The courtroom as a lot more packed than usual with residents from Watering Hole Pass who had taken time off from work to be at the meeting. They began speaking during the Town Hall Meeting and that time of public comment was extended into the actual meeting itself. [Note from the Editor: Kudos to our commissioners for listening to members of the public when they speak out whether that is in a county meeting, at a chance meeting at a restaurant or grocery store, or when commissioners return emails and phone calls.]
Click here to see the documents that have been uploaded with the agenda on the Pike County government page.
1. CALL TO ORDER - Chairman J. Briar Johnson
2. INVOCATION - Keith Ford
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Chairman J. Briar Johnson
4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - (O.C.G A. § 50-14-1 (e) (1))
Jenkins asked to have a public comment during item F about Watering Hole Pass. Motion and 2nd to have a public hearing during Item F. Limit to 3 minutes each. Jenkins, Guy. Approved 5-0.
Motion to approve the amended agenda. Approved 5-0.
5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
a. Minutes of the February 27, 2024, Regular Monthly Meeting.
b. Minutes of the February 27, 2024, Executive Session.
Motion to approve both sets of minutes. Approved 5-0.
6. INVITED GUESTS
a. Employee Recognition for service to Pike County.
Wesley Berryman - Sheriff's Department
Berryman was unable to attend due to being at mandated training. We’ll catch him at the next meeting.
7. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS, DEPARTMENTS, COMMITTEES, AUTHORITIES
a. Monthly Reports submitted from County Departments and County Authorities, including a Revenue/Expenditure Statement for all departments, and a summary check register.
Department Reports
Financial Reports
b. County Manager Report
Update on County finances for the following funds/accounts:
General Fund - $1,846,373.59
Fire Dept. Donations - $9,845.95
Cash Reserve Account - $74,094.09
Jail Fund - $28,356.17
E-911 Fun - $161,139.77
DATE Fund - $36,126.01
Juvenile Court Fund - $13,982.78
Residential Impact Fee - $780,599.30
Commercial Impact Fees - $185,501.69
C.A.I.P Fund - $22,551.23
General Obligation SPLOST 2022-2028 - $1,317,076.87
L.M.I.G. Grant (DOT) - $3,860.41
c. County Manager Comments.
None.
d. Commissioner Reports.
Jenkins. Said that he will save his for item F.
Chairman Johnson. Saturday morning, he sent Public Works Director Todd Goolsby a text to get a tree out of the road after a notification by Facebook. Thank you to you and your crew for handling this so quickly.
e. County Attorney Report to Commissioners.
None.
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Consider one appointment to the Pike County Board of Tax Assessors to fill an unexpired six-year term, set to expire August 31, 2029. Applicant has met criteria.
CM recommended appointment. Motion to approve Parrish Swift. Approved 5-0.
9. NEW BUSINESS
a. Consider use of Courthouse Grounds from Charles Steck with Life Line Ministry for Statewide Bible Reading on Sunday, July 14, 2024 at 7:14 a.m.
Motion to approve. Approved 5-0.
b. Discussion of Employee Appreciation Day.
June 21 for the event. Community Center. Food truck, etc. Jenkins. Whatever saves us money. Daniel and Johnson said that they would help Jenkins cook. Typically around 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
c. Approve/deny use of Impact Fees for Impact Fee Study.
Impact Fees. Rogers. Y’all approved the Impact Fee at the last meeting. Suggested using Impact Fees to pay for this. Either CIE or administrative. 24 from administrative and 51 from CIE. Motion to approve use of Impact Fees. Morton. Clarified that this includes the specific departments to pull from. Approved 5-0.
[Note from the Editor: There has been an ongoing argument/discussion over the implementation of Impact Fees since last fall between Shannon Mullinax and 9 other signatories on a letter that was sent to the Pike County Board of Commissioners, the county manager, and the Director of Planning and Zoning on September 25, 2023 and signed by eleven "Concerned Stakeholders of Pike County" that laid out an argument that the increase to the residential impact fee schedule was "haphazard and inappropriate." They also requested that the January 31, 2023 motion to approve the increased fee schedule be reversed and the Board of Commissioners follow its ordinances and procedures for a change to impact fees which includes the forming of an Advisory Committee and two public hearings which was not done before the new impact fee schedule was implemented. Apparently no response was given to Shannon Mullinax from that letter so she sent an email on November 29, 2023 requesting for a formal response from the Board of Commissioners regarding the September 25, 2023 regarding the increase to residential impact fees and spoke at the 12.13.23 Commissioners Meeting which is included below along with pertinent information from county ordinances and state code.]
State law says in Title 36 - Local Government, Chapter 71 - Development Impact Fees, Hearings on Proposed Fee Ordinance GA Code § 36-71-6 (2022):
"Prior to the adoption of an ordinance imposing a development impact fee pursuant to this chapter, the governing body of a municipality or county shall cause two duly noticed public hearings to be held in regard to the proposed ordinance. The second hearing shall be held at least two weeks after the first hearing." (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-36/chapter-71/section-36-71-6/
Chapter 71 - Development Impact Fees, § 36-71-5. Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee, GA Code § 36-71-5 (2022) says:
a. Prior to the adoption of a development impact fee ordinance, a municipality or county adopting an impact fee program shall establish a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee. b. Such committee shall be composed of not less than five nor more than ten members appointed by the governing authority of the municipality or county and at least 50 percent of the membership shall be representatives from the development, building, or real estate industries. An existing planning commission or other existing committee that meets these requirements may serve as the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee. c . The Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to assist and advise the governing body of the municipality or county with regard to the adoption of a development impact fee ordinance. In that the committee is advisory, no action of the committee shall be considered a necessary prerequisite for municipal or county action in regard to adoption of an ordinance." (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-36/provisions/chapter-71/36-71-5
County ordinances say in § 157.11 PERIODIC REVIEW AND AMENDMENTS:
"(A) Ordinance Amendments.
(1) This Ordinance may be amended from time to time as deemed appropriate or desirable.
Any such amendment to this Ordinance, including an amendment to the development
impact fee schedule, attached hereto as Attachment A, shall follow the procedures for
adoption of an ordinance imposing a development impact fee as set out and required
under the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act (O.C.G.A. 36-71-1 et seq. as
amended).
(2) Text amendments to the impact fee ordinance and amendments to the impact fee
schedule (regarding the establishment of new land use categories by the Administrator
under Section 6.01.3.c.) shall follow the process for text amendments provided in
Section 156.028..." (https://www.pikecoga.com/uploads/1/3/3/6/133643513/chapter_157_-_impact_fee_ordinance.pdf) [Note from the Editor: I couldn't find Section 156.028 or I would have uploaded it for reference. This information is needed as background to understand Mullinax' concerns.]
From the 12.13.23 legal minutes (verbatim):
10. PUBLIC COMMENT (Limited to 5 minutes per person) a. Shannon Mullinax to address the Board requesting a formal response to letter sent on September 25, 2023.
Shannon Mullinax addressed the Board stating a letter was sent to the Pike County Board of Commissioners, the County Manager, the Director of Planning and Zoning, and a copy was provided to the County Attorney on September 25, 2023 in regard to the increase in Impact Fees. The letter includes 30 signatories signed by concerned stakeholders of Pike County. As stakeholders in Pike County, they believe the increase to the residential impact fee schedule was haphazard and inappropriate. According to Pike County Ordinances, Chapter 157.11 (A) (a) stated this ordinance may be amended from time to time as deemed appropriate or desirable. Any such amendment to this Ordinance, including an amendment to the development impact fee schedule, attached hereto as Attachment A, shall follow the procedures for adoption of an ordinance imposing a development impact fee as set out and required under the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act. Ms. Mullinax stated according to the Georgia Development Impact Fee Act, prior to the adoption of a development impact fee ordinance, a municipality or county adopting an impact fee program shall establish a Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The development Impact Fee Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to assist and advise the governing body of the municipality or county with regard to the adoption of a development impact fee ordinance, In that the committee is advisory, no action of the committee shall be considered a necessary prerequisite for municipal or county action in regard to adoption of an ordinance. Such committee shall be composed of not less than five nor more than ten members appointed by the governing authority of the municipality or county and at least 50 percent of the membership shall be representatives from the development, building, or real estate industries. An existing planning commission or other existing committee that meets these requirements may serve as the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee. Ms. Mullinax stated technically, the Planning Zoning Board could have been appointed but she would argue that 3 of the 5 members do not meet the requirements. Ms. Mullinax noted under O.C.G.A. 36-71-6 states prior to the adoption of an ordinance imposing a development impact fee pursuant to this chapter, the governing body of a municipality or county shall cause two duly noticed public hearings to be held regarding the proposed ordinance. The second hearing shall be held at least two weeks after the first hearing. There were not two public hearings held. Ms. Mullinax would like a response in writing. Ms. Mullinax noted she asked the County Attorney Rob Morton what she needed to do to get a response regarding the letter and Mr. Morton told her he would need a vote from the Board of Commissioners for him to respond with his legal opinion. Motion/second by Commissioners Jenkins/Daniel to approve to allow County Attorney Rob Morton to respond to Ms. Mullinax letter that was sent on September 25, 2023, motion carried 5-0.
End of legal minutes.
From the 1.31.23 Legal Minutes (verbatim):
"d. Discussion of Impact Fees.
County Mananger Brandon Rogers stated at prior meetings he has provided the Board of Commissioners with Impact Fee information. CM Rogers asked the Board for their feedback if they would like to change the Impact Fees amount and allocations or leave them like they are. The amount in Impact Fees that the county is collecting now is not significant enough for the growth the county is seeing. Currently the county collects $2,404.15 in Impact Fees for new residential homes and the fees are paid into the Library at 6.48%, Fire at 14.58%, Sheriff at 8.44%, Detention Facilities at 35.77%, 911 at 8.82%, Parks & Recreation at 3.51% and Roads at 22.40%. Paragon proposed to raise the $2404.15 to $6434.94. County Mananger Rogers stated his recommendation would be to use Paragon’s recommendation at $6434.94 and allocate the funds with the Library at 3.010%, Fire at 15.605%, Sheriff at 12.57%, Detention & Facilities at 35.77%, 911 at 12.95%, Parks & Recreation at 12.145%, and Roads at 7.950%. The total Impact Fees for new residential homes would be $6,775.99 that includes administration fee and CIE fee. Commissioner Tim Daniel asked if the Impact Fee could be set at a different amount somewhere between what the County collects now and what Paragon recommended. CM Rogers stated it can be set at any amount the Board wants as long as the number can be justified. Paragon has justified the number they recommend. Paragon recommended this number four years ago. Commissioner Proctor asked if the Impact Fee is not increased, where will the money come from for the projects. CM Rogers replied it would come from the taxpayer money, tax property bill would increase, or the county can choose not to do the project. Chairman Briar Johnson asked what if the Board decided to add departments to the list of allocations, would it have to go to the state. CM Rogers replied it would not have to go to the state they could be added during the methodology report but if the Board wants other departments added, the discussions need to take place during the budget this year because it would need to be budgeted for next year."
End of legal minutes.
Open Records Documents
Rob Morton sent a reply to Shannon Mullinax and all signatories on the September 25, 2023 letter by email on January 31, 2024 with a response that said, "Please be advised that the Board of Commissioners took the steps necessary to effectuate the action taken by the Board on January 31, 2023, which is the primary subject of your letter dated September 25, 2023."
Shannon Mullinax responded by email on January 30, 2024 to say that did not believe that the response was adequate because her letter outlined the procedures laid out by Pike County's Ordinances as to what was needed to modify the Impact Fee Schedule as well as the excerpts from the legal minutes on how the impact fee increase came about. She asked what steps were taken by the board and how it could possibly be legal the way it was done if the county was following its policies. She then advised members of the Board of Commissioners, the county manager, the director of planning and zoning, and the county clerk to expect a call from her asking for "an explanation of the steps you took and how they followed the county policies" since she said that Rob was not willing to do this.
Shannon Mullinax then requested a meeting with County Manager Brandon Rogers and Planning and Zoning Director Jeremy Gilbert that would last less than 30 minutes on January 31, 2024. A response was received from County Manager Rogers that said he would be happy to meet with her but that he could not comment on the letter. He advised her that if she needed information from the letter to contact the county attorney.
A February 1 email from Shannon Mullinax to the county manager, the director of planning and development and the county attorney said that she saw no reason that County Manager Rogers could not meet with her, asked County Attorney Rob Morton if he was advising Rogers not to meet with her, and asked for a meeting between Rogers, Gilbert, and Morton to discuss her concerns.
The February 1, 2024 response from County Attorney Rob Morton responded to her question of whether he advised Rogers not to meet with her as follows: "I have not advised Brandon not to meet with you. In fact, Brandon responded that he "would be happy to meet with you." I have advised my client(s), however, not to provide further comments at this time regarding the subject letter and the County's response."
Shannon Mullinax responded to County Attorney Rob Morton that same day by saying that she had followed up with each commissioner regarding Morton's letter and asked what steps they took to increase the impact fees and how they followed county policies and ordinances. "All but Proctor called me back and told me that they had no idea the steps taken or how they followed County policies and ordinances." She then said it was unacceptable that Morton would not answer this question and advised Gilbert and Rogers not to respond either and asked if this means that basically no one at the meeting who voted for an increase to the impact fees "has any idea how this was accomplished in a way that follows County policy?" She said that she felt like she was "getting the run around" and didn't appreciate it. She asked again who to ask to get an answer to her questions.
A February 7, 2024 email from Mullinax to Morton, Rogers, and Gilbert, asked if anyone was planning to respond to her.
The final email came from County Attorney Rob Morton and said that he had no further response on this matter and that it was his understanding that there would be no further response from Pike County at this time.
From the February 14, 2024 Legal Minutes:
g. Open sealed bids for review and discussion for the Impact Fee Study.
County Manager Brandon Rogers stated the county received four bids. Planning and Development
Director Jeremy Gilbert and the County Manager reviewed all the bids and completed an Evaluation
Criteria for each company. The sealed bids will be opened today and then CM Rogers stated he can
give his recommendation.
• Ross+associates – Evaluation Criteria 81, Cost Proposal $95,200 with an additional hourly
rate of $175.00/ hour.
• Hall Consulting – Evaluation Criteria 55.5, Cost Proposal $98,000 with an additional
hourly rate of $125/ hour.
• dta corp – Evaluation Criteria 51, Cost Proposal $90,400 with an additional hourly rate of
$125-$290/ hour.
• benesch – Evaluation Criteria 73.5, Cost Proposal $233,530.
CM Rogers noted that everything should be included in the cost proposal and the additional hourly
rate would be if the county asked them to do anything more than the tasks listed in the cost proposal.
Commissioner Proctor asked if dta corp was out of North Carolina, CM Rogers replied yes.
Commissioner Daniel asked how the county was going to pay for this study. CM Rogers replied
that money was set aside a couple of years ago out of Impact Fees to help pay for it, Planning and
Development budgeted some in their department to help pay for the study and the CIE Prep will
help cover the funding. County Manager Brandon Rogers recommends Ross+associates with the
highest rating criteria and the past experience of the vendor. Ross did Pike County’s current Impact
Fees study.
Motion/second by Commissioners Proctor/Daniel to reward the Impact Fee Study to
Ross+associates, motion carried 5-0
End of legal minutes.
[Note from the Editor: History. The Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) was used as a committee on this when it was first passed in 2006. Public hearings were held back then too, and a study was conducted at that time prior to the vote.
I'm including links to open records which includes an email written by County Manager Brandon Rogers advising commissioners, etc. that former Planning and Zoning Administrator Brad Vaughan did work on updating our Impact Fees between 2018 and 2022 with Paragon as well as links to previous CIE's, the Impact Fee Methodology report that was written on with proposed changes for an update, and other items that were considered when changing our Impact Fees from $2400 to $6700 last year. (Yes, you read that correctly, and I've gotten a phone call on it just this week who is building a house here in Pike County and was horrified at the amount.)
I looked for an official Impact Fee Study and didn't find one. If that is incorrect, someone please advise me on that, and I'll be happy to include it on here with a note in blue. The county is doing a current study through Ross and Associates. Why this wasn't done last year before the change in Impact Fees, I don't know. I do know that it doesn't look good because it looks like we are doing things backwards.
My thoughts? If we did not follow the rules on this, we need to go back and do things correctly even that means returning all of the money that has been collected to this point until we can get things done correctly. And transparency in government is vital to keeping citizens informed as well as citizens taking the time to get informed on what our representatives are doing on our behalf.]
October 27, 2022: Assessment of Georgia Development Impact Fees (This gives an overview of Impact Fees and a comparison all over the state) www.georgiapolicy.org/publications/impact-fees/
Impact Fee Email from County Manager Brandon Rogers to Commissioners, County Attorney, County Clerk, and Planning and Development Director Gilbert dated 12.20.22
pikecountytimes.com/secondary/ImpactFeeLetter12.20.22.pdf
Old Building Fee Schedule
pikecountytimes.com/secondary/NewBuildingFeeSchedule2023.pdf
New Building Fee Schedule
pikecountytimes.com/secondary/OldBuildingFeeSchedule2023.pdf
CIE 2020 Annual Update FINAL [Note from the Editor: This is the latest that i have so I've included it as a reference. Anything further than be obtained through Open Records if you're interested.]
pikecountytimes.com/secondary/CIE2020AnnualUpdateFINAL.pdf
CIE 2019 Annual Update FINAL
pikecountytimes.com/secondary/CIE2019AnnualUpdateFINAL.pdf
The 2006 Impact Fee Methodology Report with handwritten notes all over it.
pikecountytimes.com/secondary/ImpactFeeMethodologyReport2021.pdf
VENDOR ACTIVITY REPORT Pike County Board Of Commissioners
Check Dates: 01/01/2018 to 12/31/2022
Pay Dates: 07/01/2022 to 06/30/2023
pikecountytimes.com/secondary/ParagonVendorActivity2.9.23.pdf
d. Discussion of Pike County Parks and Recreation Board.
There is a member serving on two boards right now, but based on their enacting legislation, he cannot serve on both boards. According to our ordinances, there is no problem. Based on this, the BOC is required to hold a hearing with anyone who needs to speak to be a part of this hearing to determine whether he should be on the Parks & Rec Board or not. Very informal. Then the BOC makes a decision. Johnson. Leatherman does a great job on both boards. Motion to hold a meeting right before the next meeting on March 26. Approved 5-0.
e. Approve/deny right-of-way acquisition of Tanyard Road.
A right of way drawing was provided to the commissioners on Tanyard Road. We were minimal in what we tried to do on this as far as changing the center line. We would like to proceed with trying to obtain right of way. Johnson. We are not allowed to do this. Rogers. The grant is for drainage and street repairs. Two separate projects. Johnson. We can’t do this without talking to our administrator. You can guarantee that this will not affect our grant? Rogers. I can’t give a 100% guarantee on that. This is not meant to affect our CDBG grant.Johnson asked to postpone this to the next meeting because he wants to ensure that we are not putting this grant in jeopardy because that is not what he understands from his source. Rogers asked the source, and Johnson would not tell him. Johnson wants the project administrator and the project engineer to have everyone on the same page. Rogers did not want to wait 2 weeks. Johnson said that he doesn’t see a problem with waiting for 2 weeks.
Guy asked Attorney Morton for insight on this. Can you provide us with some info on this. Two separate projects. You approved the ROW acquisition to approve the design of the road because of how it was used prior. The issue has been clouded in the past. The discussion previously was about design work and whether it can be used. It was his understanding that this had to be done by the design firm.
More discussion. Is the approval of this going to affect the CDBG? We haven’t had a response from the state on this. Johnson. Asked for 2 more weeks. He has not called to project administrator after he has been asked. Motion to delay this for two more weeks. Discussion. Johnson wants no mistakes or misunderstandings. Proctor will speak to Carol himself and get a 100% guarantee that this won’t affect the grant. Rogers. He said that the comment about him not calling Carol is not true. Johnson. The only way to solve this is to get everyone in the same room. I cannot ignore the information that I have been given. Motion to postpone. Approved 5-0.
[Note from the Editor: The following contains information gathered after this meeting and posted in my agenda write up for the 3.26.24 meeting. This has been a source of contention in the past even to the point of saying that if this project has to be paid for twice, it will need to be paid for twice because the engineer of record on the grant will have to do the work according to DCA requirements.]
From the 3.8.23 Legal Minutes (verbatim):
"h. Discussion of Tanyard Road Engineering.
Carol Southard, CDBG grant writer, addressed the Board stating a grant was written for Tanyard Road last year and was not awarded. Ms. Southard contacted the State to see what could be done to make a stronger application and they provided several ideas, with the biggest one being they need more pictures showing the water. The County Manager provided a video last year of the entire road, but it was turned in after the application was submitted and they would not consider it. It is time to submit the grant application again for Tanyard Road. After talking to the County Mananger, Ms. Southard was made aware that a different engineer was working on the project at this point. Last year when the application was submitted, the Board of Commissioners selected Hofstadter and Associates as the Engineer for Tanyard Road after the procurement process and through a vote. With a change in engineers the CDBG project cannot be done. Department of Community Affairs, DCA, procurement protocol must be followed for Engineering and Administration. Ms. Southard asked for direction by the Board regarding Engineering because the grant application is due the first Friday in June. County Manager Brandon Rogers stated after the county was not awarded the CDBG grant for Tanyard Road last year, Tanyard Road was put in with the county SPLOST projects because there was always a plan to get Tanyard Road done. CM Rogers stated Whitley Engineering got appointed for all the SPLOST projects. Mark Whitley has done a lot of work on Tanyard Road. CM Rogers stated since the CDBG project was not awarded it was his understanding that everything would have to be reapplied for including the Engineering and in that process the county would have a full set of working plans that can be provided to that Engineer and it turns out that is not the case. Ms. Southard stated that when Hofstadter was awarded the Engineering, they will remain the Engineers for the submission of the project. Carol Southard stated in October of 2022 is when DCA announced that Tanyard Road did not receive the CDBG grant. Commissioner Proctor stated to leave it like it is and if the county is awarded the grant this year for Tanyard Road, he is sure Mark Whitley can call Hofstadter and charge a fee to stamp Whitley’s plan. Ms. Southard stated she does not know if Hofstadter will do that. Commissioner Proctor stated he knows they will that he has not talked to Hofstadter, but money talks and he knows for a fee they will put their stamp on there. County Manager Rogers asked if the county could not just reapply and resubmit for Engineers. Ms. Southard replied that the procurement process is a 45-day process and with that Whitley has already started and as far as the State is concerned Whitley has inside knowledge of the project and they would not be eligible to submit for the engineering. CM Rogers stated his confusion is when engineering is talked about for the CDBG, it is the oversight of the project. Carol Southard replied no, it is for Design and Engineering. CM Rogers asked if he had shovel ready project that a CDBG grant cannot be applied for and if he does, he will have to pay for a second Engineer to do the project. Ms. Southard replied that is one thing they have discussed with DCA, she does not agree with it either. DCA says if their funds are involved it must be an open competitive bid for engineering. County Manager Brandon Rogers stated he is not sure if the county will be ready to submit for the CDBG grant for Tanyard Road in June because the county has not obtained the appropriate right-of way needed. Carol Southard stated she put that in the application last year that the county did not have all the right-of-way however the county was working on it and that was not an issue. Commissioner Proctor stated just leave Hofstadter as the Engineer and worst-case scenario the county is awarded the grant; they will have to pay twice to get the road engineered. If the county is awarded the CDBG grant on Tanyard Road, Hofstadter will be paid out of the grant. Carol Southard asked the Board does she needed to tell Hofstadter to move forward putting the preliminary engineering report together for the application to be submitted to the State. The Board of Commissioners said yes. No motion, discussion only."
[Note from the Editor: I have a ton of emails on this. (Thank you to County Clerk Angela Blount for her diligence on filling my open records request.) At the past county commission meeting, our county manager tried to convince commissioners to vote for the local engineering firm to work on right of way on Tanyard Road seemed angry about it when Chairman Briar Johnson pushed for a reassurance that the county would not lose the million dollar grant on Tanyard Road if commissioners did what the county manager was asking.
There is a specific email from February 2024 from Kathleen Vaughn, Office Director, Community Development at the Georgia Department of Community Affairs advising that there are federal guidelines that must be followed including Hofstader and Associates being the engineer of record for all engineering work done on Tanyard Road, asking questions, and directing our county manager to ask for assistance from our grant writer, Carol Southard, "in navigating all of the federal and state requirements, rules, and regulations." Even before that, grant writer Carol Southard advised by email that her emails from November 17, 2023 and January 31, 2024 have gone unanswered by the county manager attempting to address the issue of engineering on that road after the CDBG was awarded to the county on August 25, 2023. County Manager Brandon Rogers has tried to smooth this over with the DCA, but the DCA is still asking questions regarding design of the road, etc. which are to the point and sound very concerned with how the county and an engineer that is not the engineer of record on this project has been allowed to do anything at all on this road after April of 2022. Federal rules are not very forgiving and don't care about reasons if something is done against their explicit instructions.
Did Commissioner Proctor and/or the County Manager call and speak to the grant writer, Carol Southard, after the past commission meeting? Will the local engineer continue work on the right of way on Tanyard Road? Or will the county abide by DCA regulations for CDBG as the county manager is being advised by the Department of Community Affairs and the grant writer? I look forward to seeing this is resolved. Grant writer Carol Southard worked very hard with residents of that road to get the documentation that was needed -- including residents' videos of water washing over that road so it is not safe to pass during huge downpourings of rain -- in order to obtain that million dollar grant.
I will be broadcasting the upcoming meeting (and every other county commission meeting if I can) on Facebook Live through Pike County Times' Facebook page in order to bring accountability to our Board of Commissioners and County Manager on this and other issues and hopefully cut unnecessary drama because the past meeting included behavior by the county manager that was not as professional as it should have been. The video can be watched at https://www.facebook.com/pikecountytimes/videos/726513142966020. Pike County Times has bought new, wireless microphones and will have the camera backed up to include everyone at the tables from here on out.]
From the 3.8.23 Minutes (verbatim):
"h. Discussion of Tanyard Road Engineering.
Carol Southard, CDBG grant writer, addressed the Board stating a grant was written for Tanyard Road
last year and was not awarded. Ms. Southard contacted the State to see what could be done to make a
stronger application and they provided several ideas, with the biggest one being they need more pictures
showing the water. The County Manager provided a video last year of the entire road, but it was turned
in after the application was submitted and they would not consider it. It is time to submit the grant
application again for Tanyard Road. After talking to the County Mananger, Ms. Southard was made
aware that a different engineer was working on the project at this point. Last year when the application
was submitted, the Board of Commissioners selected Hofstadter and Associates as the Engineer for
Tanyard Road after the procurement process and through a vote. With a change in engineers the CDBG
project cannot be done. Department of Community Affairs, DCA, procurement protocol must be followed for Engineering and Administration. Ms. Southard asked for direction by the Board regarding
Engineering because the grant application is due the first Friday in June. County Manager Brandon
Rogers stated after the county was not awarded the CDBG grant for Tanyard Road last year, Tanyard
Road was put in with the county SPLOST projects because there was always a plan to get Tanyard
Road done. CM Rogers stated Whitley Engineering got appointed for all the SPLOST projects. Mark
Whitley has done a lot of work on Tanyard Road. CM Rogers stated since the CDBG project was not
awarded it was his understanding that everything would have to be reapplied for including the
Engineering and in that process the county would have a full set of working plans that can be provided
to that Engineer and it turns out that is not the case. Ms. Southard stated that when Hofstadter was
awarded the Engineering, they will remain the Engineers for the submission of the project. Carol
Southard stated in October of 2022 is when DCA announced that Tanyard Road did not receive the
CDBG grant. Commissioner Proctor stated to leave it like it is and if the county is awarded the grant
this year for Tanyard Road, he is sure Mark Whitley can call Hofstadter and charge a fee to stamp
Whitley’s plan. Ms. Southard stated she does not know if Hofstadter will do that. Commissioner Proctor
stated he knows they will that he has not talked to Hofstadter, but money talks and he knows for a fee
they will put their stamp on there. County Manager Rogers asked if the county could not just reapply
and resubmit for Engineers. Ms. Southard replied that the procurement process is a 45-day process and
with that Whitley has already started and as far as the State is concerned Whitley has inside knowledge
of the project and they would not be eligible to submit for the engineering. CM Rogers stated his
confusion is when engineering is talked about for the CDBG, it is the oversight of the project. Carol
Southard replied no, it is for Design and Engineering. CM Rogers asked if he had shovel ready project
that a CDBG grant cannot be applied for and if he does, he will have to pay for a second Engineer to
do the project. Ms. Southard replied that is one thing they have discussed with DCA, she does not agree
with it either. DCA says if their funds are involved it must be an open competitive bid for engineering.
County Manager Brandon Rogers stated he is not sure if the county will be ready to submit for the
CDBG grant for Tanyard Road in June because the county has not obtained the appropriate right-of
way needed. Carol Southard stated she put that in the application last year that the county did not have
all the right-of-way however the county was working on it and that was not an issue. Commissioner
Proctor stated just leave Hofstadter as the Engineer and worst-case scenario the county is awarded the
grant; they will have to pay twice to get the road engineered. If the county is awarded the CDBG grant
on Tanyard Road, Hofstadter will be paid out of the grant. Carol Southard asked the Board does she
needed to tell Hofstadter to move forward putting the preliminary engineering report together for the
application to be submitted to the State. The Board of Commissioners said yes.
No motion, discussion only."
[End of addition from the 3.26.24 agenda write up.]
Hofstadter is the engineer of record. This is the only one who will be working on Tanyard Road. [Note from the Editor: This was quite refreshing to see this after the tantrum that the county manager pitched last week trying to push commissioners to use another company to obtain right of way and make changes on the road. The feds don’t care how we try to portray our thoughts on how things should be two different projects or not. They have rules that pertain to this million dollar grant, and we have to follow them. Period. I wish that county ordinances and rules were given this much consideration, but that is an ongoing fight that will continue as long as the majority of three commissioners (Proctor, Daniel, and Guy) allow the county manager to do whatever he wants without consequences. Thankfully this time, someone got through to someone who listened and truly understood the consequences of county manager’s actions since it took us two years to get that grant. On a side note, the grant writer and administrator of the grant, Carol Southard, was in the audience and was not seen by Chairman Johnson until later in the meeting. When he asked if anyone had questions for her, no one did.]
[From the 3.26.24 meeting write up.]
f. Discussion of speed bumps in Ranchland Estates Williamson, GA.
IN FAVOR
John Yates. It’s for the safety of our residents. People don’t have respect for their neighbors. Neighbors have told him that they’ve almost been run over. Some have changed their minds on the speed bumps.
A citizen spoke not for or against. We have a serious problem with speeders. Has reported speeders to the Sheriff’s Office because there have been problems. Said that even the school buses are speeding. OPPOSITION
A resident spoke not for or against. But if we have speed breakers we’ll have to put something beside them because people are going to go around them and tear up yards. Most of the traffic is coming from the other side of the lake as a cut through. Tried to get this off of GIS and was told that they couldn’t remove it because of emergency vehicles.
A citizen spoke against speed bumps. This has been an issue with the dam for a road. I know that y’all are working on this, but the cul-de-sac would help end this. If the dam issue was addressed with a private road, people are going to ignore it. It needs a barricade of some sort. Has lived with them in another area and is very much opposed to them.
A resident said that his wife signed the petition but changed her mind about it. He says that there are speeders out there, but he doesn’t think that the neighborhood needs them. He thinks that more patrols would help.
A resident said that he was opposed to speed bumps. Seconds count if people have a stroke if we are going to talk hypotheticals. My hypothetical with needing an ambulance is just as valid as someone maybe getting hit by a speeder. Prefer to tread in information.
A resident from the third house in the community has seen a lot of change. Some don’t choose to play by the rules with speeding, etc. Speed bumps are not the answer. Likes response times for emergency vehicles now.
A resident is out at the bus stop every day. If we had regular patrols out there, they would catch speeders. Traffic across the dam is an issue.
A resident said that she wasn’t informed and is against speed bumps.
A resident said he was also against speed bumps.
A resident suggested more law enforcement presence out there.
Chairman Briar Johnson closed the public hearing. Johnson thanked everyone for speaking on this.
Commissioner Jenkins. Talked with the Sheriff on this. They can ticket off of the road, but not the private road. It was suggested that the gentleman who owns the private road on the dam handle the problem for everyone by blocking the road. Jenkins has spent a lot of hours out there talking with residents who are against the speed bumps and apologized to residents that they had to come out today. Motion to rescind the motion for speed bumps. Discussion. There was a discussion about a gate there. Gates were cut, etc. Morton. You all previously discussed the land there including the surveying work there. This was in the process. Those plats had not been approved. It took a lot of time to get things done, but it is in the works. Recorded yesterday. The intent is to put the cul-de-sac there. There were litigation discussions about the private road over the dam. This has been discussed before. The cul-de-sacs being there will help with the turn around. The cul-de-sac is in the next agenda item. Approved 5-0.
g. Discussion of Road Projects.
Cul-de-sacs. The plats have been recorded for the north and south of the dam. The property owner can put up a gate if they would like. $94,000 is the cost. Morton. The cul-de-sac on the one side has already been approved, but the request is for the north side of the dam to make both sides even. Motion to approve the north side cul-de-sac and the continuation of the road to make both sides the same. Approved 5-0.
Discussion about certain roads that needed resurfacing. Do we want to look at putting funds into other roads and cul-de-sacs. This current list for paving was formulated before I even started. 3 county managers ago with John Hanson. Other revenue sources have accelerated the paving schedule by years. Sandefur Road is set for 2030. Do we need to resurface it now? That is the discussion.
Put all roads on the current working list. SPLOST roads included. The SPLOST roads cannot be changed because voters voted on them. LMIG/Ga Transportation funding under that. Recommends doing minor repairs on roads that need them and expand the list as needed.
Jenkins. Blanton Mill Road. From Ward to Beeks Road for wash boarding. Rogers. Discussed prior to SPLOST. Do we want to expand this to the entire road, and we expanded to the entire road. Jenkins. This is for the entire road? From 362 to the county line. Our total cost is listed. $1,800,300. Rogers. There are a few things that will need to be done to keep the cost done. Pave what we have now and have at least 19 feet for the road itself rather than 60 foot right of way. Bad curves at UGA, etc. to straighten them out to match better with county safety standards or can pave what we have now. Jenkins. Heard discussion that it would be the entire road and that concerned him. Rogers. Beeks to Ward Road is terrible and needs to be paved. Jenkins. Heard that it was changed and that had not been communicated to him. 15 houses north and 30 south of Beeks. Rogers. The biggest problem that one road change affects everything else. Guy. Status on ditching without widening the right of way. Does the road need to be widened? There are a few roads that we have talked about ditching without widening the ROW.
Jenkins. Woodcreek Road? Rogers. It will be a slow project because we need ditches and right of way (ROW). About 2 years is the projection on this. Daniels. We borrowed money to get this started, and it needs to be rolling. Rogers. We are well on our way on several. Anticipate being done with the list next year except for the SPLOST roads. McCard Lake, etc. are added to the list for discussion. Discussion list only. SPLOST are not changeable. Rogers. Not in any particular order. Can change how much ROW, etc. but cannot remove the roads on the SPLOST list. Rogers. Jenkins said that he wanted to do the entire road and this is his district. Jenkins. Clarified. I did not say to do the entire road. Wards to Beeks Road. He is concerned with the washboard effect. Rogers. I need some direction on this - Blanton Road. Jenkins. The entire road is not the original. Wards Road to Beek Road is the original. My daughter lives out there, and I am not pushing that because I don’t work that way. Morton. CM just needs direction on Blanton Mill Road. Todd Goolsby. Recommendation is to do the entire road instead of just a piece of it. It will be a major thoroughfare if we pave part of it. It needs to be done right like Hughley Road. Woodcreek Road. Also a cut through. Acquire ROW and widen. Blanton Mill Road. Pave whole road based on Goolsby’s recommendations.
Roberts Quarters. We don’t want to be riding it and end up in a ditch. We need to widen some of these roads, remove trees from ROW, have room for ditching and yellow line in the middle of the road, etc.
Roberts Quarters Road. Eventually going to be in an area around the school to reduce congestion. Pave what we have now.
McKinley Road. This needs to be widened, etc.
2nd District Road. Cut through. Need to connect the two paved roads. Consensus to go with CM recommendation and pave as it is.
Old Zebulon Road. Johnson. The road is terrible. Rogers. This needs everything to be done well/full width too.
Hill Street Alignment is from a previous SPLOST. Just waiting on pretty weather for this one.
Johnson. We have two gentleman to speak and an executive session before the 11 a.m. meeting begins. 29 more roads on the list. Continue this to the next meeting.
10. PUBLIC COMMENT - (Limited to 5 minutes per person)
a. Keith Ford to address the Board in response to the February 27, 2024 agenda item on the discussion of year 2023 property tax on 2.29 acres on Highway19 in the name of The Estate of Jerry Colwell.
Men’s Missions Director at Christ Chapel. I believe that Christ Chapel was not represented in the right way at the past meeting. Said that Christ Chapel never asked for a break on the property taxes. We got the tax statement in the mail, and it was beyond the date for an exemption. The Tax Assessor’s Office asked if they had maintained the property and said maybe we can waive that. If this wasn’t a church, would we have this conversation? We didn’t ask for this. We followed the recommendation of the Tax Assessor. I offered to pay the money several times. We were told that we had to wait for a decision. The money never was an issue. We just went with the recommendation of the Tax Assessor’s Office. We love our community and love to support the community. For the record, the tax was paid the next day. I tried to file the paperwork a couple of time prior to this. We never asked for a break. We followed the direction of the Tax Assessor’s Office.
b. John Yates to address the Board in regard to speed bumps in Ranchland Estates Williamson, GA.
Mr. Yates spoke previously and had already left the meeting.
11. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
a. County Attorney Rob Morton requests an Executive Session for consultation with the county attorney, or other legal counsel, to discuss pending or potential litigation, settlement, claims, administrative proceedings, or other judicial actions brought or to be brought by or against the county or any officer or employee or in which the county or any officer or employee may be directly involved as provided in O.C.G.A. § 50-14-2(1), germane to pending or potential litigation.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Back in regular session. Motion to adjourn. Approved 5-0. 10:49 a.m.
Agenda subject to revision.
[Note from the Editor: If you appreciate being able to read information from county meetings for free on Pike County Times, please make a donation to Pike County Times through the PayPal link at the bottom of the page or by check to Pike County Times at PO Box 843, Zebulon so I can justify the amount of time that I am spending away from family. It may not seem like much but sitting in a meeting and then typing it up takes a lot more time than you might imagine! Thanks for reading Pike County's only FREE newspaper.]