Anderson Finds Discrepancies Between IDA Statements and Actions

By LYDIA BERGLAR
News Editor

Some readers may have followed along with the Industrial Development Authority’s purchase of the Price Farm and the ensuing concerns from residents adjacent to the property. (See the October 25th, November 1st, and November 8th issues of the Sentinel.) One of the concerned residents, Shan Anderson, has found apparent discrepancies and lack of due diligence by the IDA and county in at least three areas.

First, a quote from Dr. James Cantrell (IDA chairman) in the November 8th Sentinel article prompted Anderson to submit an open records request to the IDA. The quote read: “Most of Shan’s questions were a yes or no answer…Some of the studies we may should’ve done, but we didn’t. 70 to 80 percent of what he’s asking, we’ve done. The few things we did not do I don’t think would hinder us moving forward.”

Anderson submitted an open records request to the IDA which read, “Request for the results and findings of any and all research studies performed on the Highway 11 property, referred to as ‘The Old Price Farm,’ including impact studies relating to traffic, adjacent property owner affects, sewage systems, industrial integration, suitability of the property, etc. To include, but not limited to, any studies indicating this purchase was a valid purchase of taxpayer funds, and positive impacts to adjacent properties.”

Here are Anderson’s questions about studies, of which Cantrell reported that 70-80 percent had been completed: “Where is the IDA study that indicates the current need for more industry in the county at this particular time, knowing that the unemployment rate for the county is at or less than three percent? Where is the IDA study on the area that was purchased indicating this is a suitable and the most desirable place to establish another industrial park? Where is the IDA study showing the research of this property, both layout and soil composition, indicating this property is suitable for advertisement of industrial use? Where is the IDA study showing the proposed impacts to adjacent property owners in the affected area? Can you produce a study that indicates in a high percentage that adjacent property values will remain, increase, AND prove to be desirable to a buyer if a property owner chooses to sell his/her property? Have you told any of the companies looking at the property that they would be required to obtain a Special Use Permit? In which this board is also required to evaluate negative impacts to adjacent homeowners.”

In response to the open records request, Anderson received a letter from Robin Rogers’ law office and a copy of a land appraisal by Holmes Associates Real Estate. He, Will Dickerson, and Tracy Blevins sat down with the Sentinel to discuss their continued concerns.

Anderson said, “The only record they were able to produce was the property appraisal from Ed Holmes realty. Therefore, [Cantrell’s] statement to the Sentinel was not true, as he had been provided the list of our inquiries and questions before making that statement.”

Additionally, Anderson reported that the appraisal noted vegetation, topography, and soil content, but it did not note the power line easement. Cantrell told the Sentinel in the November 8th article: “That easement can be moved. We’ve already had contact with Georgia Power. That’s not an issue.” However, Anderson said, “The part that Cantrell seemed aware of is that there was an easement signed. The part that I questioned is that the contract includes ‘other obstructions.’ If the IDA’s working with Southern Company to do anything different with that contract, that would open a door for every citizen in Dade County who signed that contract to go back and change their contract. The Southern Company supervisor told me over the phone that they are not changing that contract.”

Second, Anderson researched the Special Use Permit Board (SUPB) because incoming industry will need permits from this board. Anderson said that in his conversations with Evan Stone (IDA executive director), Stone was largely unaware of the ordinances of the SUPB and directed him to Ted Rumley (county executive). Anderson reported that Rumley said he had not looked at the SUPB ordinances since they were in the draft stage. These conversations took place before the Sentinel sat down with Stone and Rumley for the November 8th article. When interviewed by the Sentinel, Stone and Rumley spoke as though the SUPB was a familiar topic, meaning Anderson and the Sentinel received opposite pictures of county official’s knowledge and familiarity of a board that has significant impact on the county.

Because the small portion of land on the east side of Highway 11 is not suitable for the IDA’s goals, the IDA sold this portion to Chattanooga Industrial Motors. Anderson reported that CIM did not obtain a special use permit prior to beginning work on the property. When he asked Stone about this, Stone said that is because CIM is an existing business and does not fall under heavy use.

Anderson said, “Shortly after that, the SUPB had a special called meeting to determine their roles and responsibilities which I went and sat in on. By their ordinances, Chattanooga Industrial Motors should’ve gotten a permit from the SUPB. It appears that CIM would NOT be exempt from these ordinances based on the three acres and more than 25 percent expansion.”

The ordinances (which are readily available online) require permits for “uses for any other industrial activity or developed area or lot exceeding more than three acres in size,” and when an existing facility is increasing its square footage “by more than 25 percent in a one-year period.”

Third, Anderson believes there was a lack of due diligence regarding asbestos materials in the demolition of the Price Farmhouse on November 29th.

According to Anderson, “During previous recorded conversations, the IDA had been informed that the county would likely incur a substantial cost in tearing this house down, as the dates of the house would strongly suggest that it likely contained Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM’s), both in and on the house. This information was given to the IDA and county representatives by both concerned citizens and the city’s fire department.” (Anderson is a volunteer with the Trenton-Dade Fire Department.)

The Environmental Protection Department of the State of Georgia (GA EPD) requires that a project notification be made to the state prior to demolition, allowing time for the structure to be properly inspected and tested for the presence of ACM’s.

The GA EPD website reads, “All project supervisors and workers must be trained in approved asbestos training courses; the contractor must have a Georgia Asbestos Contractor License; contractor must submit a completed Project Notification to EPD before removing or disturbing more than the trigger quantities of friable ACM and pay the associated fee; and before and during work must wet and keep wet any ACMs that are or will become friable…All ACM must be collected, placed in leak-proof packaging, labeled, transported in an enclosed or tightly covered vehicle, and deposited in a landfill permitted to accept asbestos.”

According to Anderson, “On the next morning, the majority of the debris from the demolition was quickly removed and taken to the Dade County Transfer Station, where the truck was seen driving over the scales, without effort to stop for weight or pay, then transported to the dump station, where the material was mixed in the same dumpster with normal garbage, both household and commercial debris. Since no abatement or inspection process had been seen at the address by surrounding residents, a request was made to the GA EPD to see if a project notification had been submitted for this address. GA EPD told me that a notification had not been submitted for this address, for inspection, approval, or demolition. If the state’s ordinances and the EPA’s Code of Federal Regulations were bypassed, this would constitute multiple intentional violations of regulations governed by the EPA, EPD, OSHA, and the US Clean Air Act, regarding the unlawful handling, removal, and disposal of ACMs indicating a lack of concern for regulations, laws, and the welfare of adjacent affected homeowners.”

Another issue: Anderson noted that after the property was sold, he asked Cantrell, Stone, Seth Houts (IDA member), and Leisa Cagle (IDA member) if they knew his name or where he lived. Reporting that at that time, these four did not know him or his home, Anderson confirmed that the IDA had not contacted adjacent property owners prior to the purchase.

Anderson said that when he spoke at the November 2nd county commission meeting, his primary goal was to request that the commission hold the IDA responsible, but Phillip Hartline (District 2 commissioner) instead turned the discussion to zoning. Anderson and Blevins reported that they have not been contacted by any of the commissioners or any of the IDA members since that commission meeting, and they are not happy with the lack of response.

They continue to desire an in-person meeting with the IDA to discuss covenants. Anderson said he hasn’t sent his ideas to the IDA because he feels that they require an in-depth, in-person discussion to fully be explained. Blevins added that without yet knowing what industry would be placed on that land, it is impossible to set up appropriate covenants.

Regarding the water and sewer expansion in the current industrial park, Anderson said, “I agree with the IDA spending funds in the industrial park where they’re supposed to be because that is using their funds wisely. That is going for something that is going to build the businesses that are already there.”