Proposed lease for Weed School fails first vote

The Weed School in Augusta's Sand Hills community. Staff photo by Scott Hudson

Date: May 16, 2025

Members of the Augusta Land Bank Authority (AGLBA) voted down a potential 75-year lease on the historic Weed School building at a special called meeting on May 15.

The potential lessees may have another, and final, bite at the apple, as the authority will hold another special called meeting Friday, May 16, before a deadline at the state level expires, effecting killing the development’s chances for the next year.

The school is located on Mount Auburn Street in the historic Sand Hills neighborhood, an area that has been the target of restoration by both private developers and city planners for years.

John Manton, attorney for the AGLBA, told authority members that the lease was merely an “option” for a year so that the Lessee, WODA Development and its subsidiary, Sandhill Estates LTD., could apply for a grant through the Georgia Department of Community Affairs (GDCA).

Such grants work on a “point system” and having even a temporary lease would increase the number of points needed to secure a grant.

Last week, the Augusta Commission voted to allocate $860,000 in partnership funding for restricted use with WODA Development, but the developers needed some form of lease agreement to file with the GDCA by the May 16 deadline.

Augusta Administrator Tameka Allen and Planning and Zoning Director Carla Delaney cast the deciding “no” votes, with both objecting to the proposed 75-year length of the lease. Manton explained that the lease’s length was meant to help WODA Development with the grant process and could be changed later.

“The longer the lease, the better the project looks for the GDCA,” Manton said. 

In 2023, the Augusta Commission approved the acquisition of the 2.2-acre former school site for $1.3 million from an Atlanta firm that paid $300,000 for it three years earlier.

Augusta Land Bank Authority members deliberate on the future of the historic Weed School. Staff photo.

The lease proposal did not contain details on exactly what type of development was planned other than it would be an estimated 40 unit mixed-use type of facility.

Several groups have come forward with plans and ideas, but WODA’s proposals are one of the few that the highly vocal Sand Hills Neighborhood Association has approved. According to Manton, several community forums have been held to get public reaction.

At first, WODA was committed to creating a senior living facility that would also include plans for a library, shopping plaza and health center. At the last public meeting the neighborhood balked at the idea of a retirement home and were more in favor of low income or affordable housing, according to Chairman Chris Johnson.

“They (WODA) are interested in developing the property, they can go either way on whether it is a retirement home or something else,” Johnson said.

Currently, the land is owned by the city, but under the custody of the land bank. The vote was 3 to 2. In favor were Johnson, Scott Rountree and Karen Gordon. Voting no were Allen and Delaney. The authority’s bylaws require a minimum of 4 yes votes to pass.

Scott Hudson is the Senior Investigative Reporter, Editorial Page Editor and weekly columnist for The Augusta Press. Reach him at scott@theaugustapress.com

What to Read Next

The Author

Scott Hudson is an award winning investigative journalist from Augusta, GA who reported daily for WGAC AM/FM radio as well as maintaining a monthly column for the Buzz On Biz newspaper. Scott co-edited the award winning book "Augusta's WGAC: The Voice Of The Garden City For Seventy Years" and authored the book "The Contract On The Government."

Comment Policy

The Augusta Press encourages and welcomes reader comments; however, we request this be done in a respectful manner, and we retain the discretion to determine which comments violate our comment policy. We also reserve the right to hide, remove and/or not allow your comments to be posted.

The types of comments not allowed on our site include:

  • Threats of harm or violence
  • Profanity, obscenity, or vulgarity, including images of or links to such material
  • Racist comments
  • Victim shaming and/or blaming
  • Name calling and/or personal attacks;
  • Comments whose main purpose are to sell a product or promote commercial websites or services;
  • Comments that infringe on copyrights;
  • Spam comments, such as the same comment posted repeatedly on a profile.