Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Intragovernmental Coordination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves substitute to move Central State redevelopment authority to DCA, prompts local-control objections
Summary
A substitute to SB260 that would transfer management of the Central State Hospital redevelopment authority to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs and change board residency requirements passed committee, despite objections from local representatives concerned about loss of appointment power.
The Intergovernmental Coordination Committee on Oct. 27 considered and approved a substitute to SB260 (LC 62017S) that would transfer oversight of the Central State Hospital redevelopment authority to the Georgia Department of Community Affairs and change board membership and residency requirements.
Madam Chair opened the meeting saying, “We are here today to discuss a substitute to SB260,” and described the changes in the substitute language, including a provision that two of the governor’s appointees must reside in Baldwin County and a reconstitution of the authority to a six-member board with five voting members.
The substitute responds to concerns about site deterioration and the authority’s ability to act. Madam Chair said the property comprises “2,000 acres and a hundred buildings” in poor condition, with asbestos, lead paint and mold, and that placing the project under DCA would create a smaller, executives-appointed board “that hopefully can get some things done on the property.”
Representative Park sought further limits on the change, saying the substitute “still does not address the concerns ... with respect to local control” and that, under the substitute, “the local folks would lose complete control and not have any ability to ensure that they have someone that they can select.” Park referenced prior draft amendments from the city council that would have mirrored Savannah’s redevelopment authority and preserved more local appointment power.
Other lawmakers questioned whether the substitute was still needed. Representative Miles said the board previously lacked a quorum but that subsequent gubernatorial appointments had restored its ability to operate, and asked whether creating a new, state-controlled authority remained necessary now that the existing board is “fully functional.” Madam Chair and other supporters argued the change would align the authority with other state property boards and accelerate remediation or redevelopment.
During discussion committee members compared the substitute to other authorities, noting that Jekyll Island and the Stone Mountain Authority lack strict local-residency requirements; proponents said parity with other state property authorities justified the change.
Representative Thomas moved to pass the substitute; a second was recorded. A separate motion to table SB260 failed. The committee conducted a hand count when a voice vote was unclear; members reported counts of "9" and "7" in favor and "6" opposed during the count, and the chair declared, "Motion carries." The committee then adjourned.
The substitute would dissolve and reconstitute the existing board and place the redevelopment authority under DCA oversight; it also inserts a residency requirement that two governor-appointed members reside in Baldwin County. No final implementation timetable or funding details were specified at the committee meeting.
Questions remain about the effect on local appointment authority and about next steps for the property once DCA assumes oversight; supporters said the change is intended to stop further decay and to expedite sale, demolition or adaptive reuse of the buildings.
