MINUTES
COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
REGULAR SESSION
MAY 11, 2010
The regular weekly session of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was called
to order at 9:00 A.M., Thursday, May 11, 2009, in the Council Chambers on the
Plaza Level of the Government Center, Columbus, Georgia. Honorable W. J.
Wetherington, Mayor, presiding.
*** *** ***
PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Wetherington and Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn Turner
Pugh were Councilors R. Gary Allen, Wayne Anthony, Mike Baker, Jerry Barnes,
Glenn Davis, Berry H. Henderson, Julius H. Hunter, Jr., Charles E. McDaniel,
Jr., and Evelyn Woodson. City Manager Isaiah Hugley, City Attorney Clifton Fay
and Clerk of Council Tiny B. Washington were also present. Deputy Clerk of
Council Sandra Davis took her seat at 9:05 a.m.
-------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
ABSENT: No one was absent.
-------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
INVOCATION: Offered by Reverend J. W. Jones, Pastor ? Peaceful Baptist Church.
-------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by students from Clubview Elementary School.
--------------------------------------------*** ***
***------------------------------
MAYOR?S AGENDA:
WITH MR. JERRY GRIFFIN STANDING AT THE COUNCIL TABLE, THE FOLLOWING
RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND READ IN ITS ENTIREY BY COUNCILOR BAKER AND ADOPTED
BY THE COUNCIL:__________________
_________________________
A Resolution (148-10) ? Commending Jerry Griffin on his retirement as
Executive Director of the Association County Commissioners of Georgia.
Councilor Baker moved the adoption of the resolution. Seconded by Councilor
Henderson and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for
this meeting.
-------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
CITY ATTORNEY?S AGENDA:
THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY
AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DELAYED BY THE COUNCIL:
___ ________
An Ordinance ? Rezoning property located at 1267 Alta Vista Road from SFR2
(Single Family Residential 2) zoning district to SFR4 (Single Family
Residential 4) zoning district. (9-CA-10-Bowles/Hart) The proposed use is for
single-family residential.
City Attorney Fay asked Councilor Baker if there were any additional
discussion on the proposed zoning classification for this piece of property.
Mr. Don Bowles, the petitioner for this piece of property came forward and
said he is here today to ask for a delay of the petition for the rezoning of
this piece of property from SFR2 to SFR4. He said he was somewhat puzzled about
the comments he heard from the Planning Division about this piece of property
being rezoned to SFR4 because he had spoken with the immediate property owners
and they were all in support of his request.
However, in light of the amount of concerns regarding this matter, he
would like to request that this matter be delayed to allow him to discuss this
matter with the Council and the neighbors, the possibility of rezoning this to
SFR3.
City Attorney Fay said we would need a motion for a time certain for the
delay of this ordinance. Mr. Bowles said he would request a two-week delay.
Councilor Baker then made some comments stating that he thinks this is the
wise thing to do and he appreciates Mr. Bowles taking in the concerns of the
citizens, as well as being willing and flexible to take another look at that
project and then made a motion to delay the ordinance for two weeks. Seconded
by Councilor Henderson.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh then asked how many houses could be built on
that property with an SFR3 zoning classification versus SFR4 classification?
Director of the Planning Division Rick Jones said it depends upon how the
plan is laid out. He said he is probably going to get less lots than he has
now, but said we would have to defer that back to the petitioner, Mr. Bowles
and ask for that consideration and wait for him to come back with a design for
the plat itself.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said she would hope that Mr. Bowles meet with
the neighbors before coming back to the Council because one of the major
concerns was the number of homes being built on the property.
Councilor Baker said he thinks that has been the major concern all along
and said that is how we got to this point on today. He said if it takes longer
than two weeks to get this matter resolved; then, he thinks that we need to
take whatever time is necessary. He said he don?t think there is any rush to
try to move forward with the project, especially not from his standpoint. He
said he would like for the communication process to go forward rather than the
construction process.
Mr. Bowles said he is somewhat puzzled because at the Planning Advisory
Commission meeting, they was no opposition and they had a unanimous approval
decision to move forward with the SFR4. He said the Planning Division also gave
them approval on the request and said that is the nature of his comment of
being puzzled in that now the neighbors are concerned about this.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said a lot of citizens don?t understand the
difference between the classifications of zoning requests and said it is not
until they come to the Council meetings and they hear information and they have
a better understanding of what the rezoning will do. She said they have every
right to object if it is something that they don?t want in their neighborhood.
Councilor Henderson said in his mind this process did work the way it was
supposed to. He said the developer followed the rules and actually went the
extra step, which unfortunately some developers don?t do. He said Mr. Bowles
did talk to the people whose property was contiguous with his and who was going
to be immediately impacted and explained by the process. He said he understands
where he is coming from; not having any opposition at the Planning Advisory
Commission and then now having opposition. He said that is part of the process
because as we get closer to the time when the development occurs that?s when
the neighbors really hear more details about it. He said the important thing
for the neighbors to understand is that we are fortunate that we have a
developer and a builder who is interested in finding something that will fit
into the neighborhood as best to be done. He said he would hope both parties
would take complete advantage of the opportunity to discuss what?s best for
that area out there.
After the discussion concluded on this matter, Mayor Wetherington then
called the question on the motion to delay the ordinance for two weeks, which
carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this meeting.
City Attorney Fay said we would delay this ordinance on second reading for
two weeks.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING TWO ORDINANCES WERE SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY
ATTORNEY FAY AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON SECOND
READING:_______________________
An Ordinance (10-14) ? Rezoning property located at the corner of Dirk Way
and Timberlane Drive from an SFR2 (Single Family Residential 2) zoning district
to SFR3 (Single Family Residential 3) zoning district. (11-CA-10-McClure) The
proposed use is for single family residential. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh moved
the adoption of the ordinance. Seconded by Councilor Woodson and carried
unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this meeting.
An Ordinance (10-15) ? Amending Chapter 13 of the Columbus Code so as to
adopt the Columbus Board of Health fee increases for various services,
effective July 1, 2010. Councilor McDaniel moved the adoption of the ordinance.
Seconded by Councilor Woodson and carried unanimously by those ten members of
Council present for this meeting.
*** *** ***
AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER, THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS DELAYED BY
THE COUNCIL UNTIL THE AUGUST 10, 2010 COUNCIL MEETING
:__________ ______________
An Ordinance ? Rezoning property located at 3832 Trask Drive & 1600 Ft.
Benning Drive from an RMF2 (Residential Multi Family 2) zoning district to GC
(General Commercial) zoning district. (1-CA-10-McKenna) The proposed use is for
Medical Office.
City Attorney Fay said we have a letter that was submitted to Clerk of
Council Washington requesting a delay on this matter until August 10, 2010 and
then asked that the Council approve a motion to grant the request.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh made a motion to delay the ordinance until
August 10, 2010. Seconded by Councilor Hunter and carried unanimously by those
ten members of Council present for this meeting.
*** *** ***
ALTA VISTA DRIVE REZONING:
Councilor Baker said when the Alta Vista Drive rezoning petition comes
back on second reading, he would request that some of the residents be allowed
to be heard and then asked the City Attorney to advise on the procedure.
City Attorney Fay we will allow those residents to be heard particularly
if there is going to be a motion to change the category requested. He said we
would allow people to be heard at that time.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE WAS ALSO SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY ATTORNEY
FAY AND AMENDED BY THE COUCNIL AND THEN INTRODUCED ON FIRST READING:______
An Ordinance ? Amending the text of the Unified Development Ordinance
(UDO) to amend Sections specifically Chapter 4 Section 4.4.13.B, Chapter 5
Section 5.4.2, Chapter 6 Section 9.2.4.F.1, Chapter 9 Section 9.2.5.J.8(A), and
Chapter 10 Section 10.11.6.1, and Chapter 10 Section 10.11.7. The
aforementioned sections in the UDO pertain to Billboards, the Board of Zoning
Appeals, Development Review, the Chattahoochee River Watershed, the Uptown
Fa?ade Board and Certificated of Appropriateness.
Mr. Will Johnson of the Planning Department said there are several changes
that they are proposing with respect to the Unified Development Ordinance and
said most of them primarily concern creating a variance process for stream
buffers within the seven-mile Lake Oliver water supply, which currently sits at
150 feet for the tributaries that flow directly into Lake Oliver. He said Item
Numbers 1 & 4 on the staff report refers to this new process and said he would
defer to Director of Engineering Donna Newman so that she can explain to you
how we got to this point.
Ms. Donna Newman, Director of Engineering said how we got to this point is
that when the Unified Development Ordinance was developed the State had
established some planning criteria to use for protection of water supply, which
in our case is Lake Oliver. She said Lake Over is owned by Georgia Power;
however, the Columbus Water Work utilizes it to supply drinking water for
Columbus, Muscogee County. She said about a year or so ago, as development was
moving along someone was interested in developing some lots that was close to
one of the major tributary to the water supply. She said the criteria are that
there is a 7-mile radius and any perennial stream, which is identified as a
solid blue line on a USGS guard map, has a buffer requirement of 150-feet. She
said that is a 100-foot natural buffer and 50 feet setback for an impervious
surface. She said that would be anything like buildings, concrete, asphalt any
hard surface that will not allow water to infiltrate into the ground.
She said they started looking at where would that variance come from since
it was criteria established by the State. She said in the current laws,
Erosion Control laws, State water buffer variances are issued by the State.
She said in conversations and talking with the State, they realized that since
this was not part of their law, but was just planning criteria they had issue;
they would not issue a buffer variance.
Ms. Newman said it then in turn fell on the City, who is the local issuing
authority for site plans to issue a variance; however, they realized there were
no criteria established in the Unified Development Ordinance to allow the
Department of Engineering or the City Council to issue variances.
She said this is what started the process. She said since Lake Oliver is
controlled by Georgia Power, as well as the Columbus Water Works they met with
them to discuss the matter to determine what they were comfortable with as far
as allowing and maintaining buffers to protect that water supply. She said
after meeting with them this is the criteria that we are bringing forth today;
a variance procedure for the Department of Engineering; and said anything that
they are opposed to with the department would then come back to the Council for
review.
City Attorney Fay said that are also some changes to Chapters 5 & 9, which
you can see those on the document. He then asked for a motion to amend the
ordinance to include those points as outlined by Ms. Newman.
Councilor Henderson so moved. Seconded by Councilor Allen and carried
unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this meeting.
The following are the changes as outlined by Director of Engineering Donna
Newman, as well as the changes mentioned by City Attorney Fay.
Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended by creating
Section 10.11.6.1 to read as follows:
10.11.6.1 Watershed Protection Variances.
A watershed protection variance may be granted by the Council of Columbus
subject to the requirements of this Section.
A. Criteria for Variances. Watershed protection variances shall be limited to
relief from the following requirements:
1. If the applicant complies with the buffer widths and required practices, he
or she can secure no reasonable return from, nor make reasonable use of, his or
her property. Merely proving that the variance would permit a greater profit
from the property shall not be considered adequate justification for a
variance. Moreover, the local government shall consider whether the variance is
the minimum possible deviation from the buffer widths that shall make
reasonable use of the property possible; and
2. The hardship results from application of the buffer widths to the property
rather than from other factors such as unrelated deed restrictions; and
3. The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property, such
as its size, shape, or topography; and
4. The applicant did not cause the hardship; and
5. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
riparian buffer widths and required practices and preserves the purpose
thereof; and
6. In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured,
and the quality of downstream water, including but not limited to water used to
supply public drinking water, has been maintained or improved; and
7. The applicant certifies that the applicant has not and does not intend to
apply for a variance from the minimum buffer requirements contained in the
Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act for the same perennial stream or
streams for which a variance is sought pursuant to this paragraph.
B. Administrative Approval. The Director of Engineering, upon finding that a
watershed protection variance meets the standards for approval contained in
this Section, may administratively approve such watershed protection variance
within and not exceeding the following parameters:
The Engineering Department may allow a reduction
of the 150-feet buffer requirement of the 7-mile
radius area of the Lake Oliver water supply
reservoir down to a 100-foot buffer along the
banks of the reservoir boundaries.
The Director of Engineering shall grant a
variance based on the criteria as set forth in
Section 10.11.6.1.A.
Mr. Will Johnson then went into some details in outlining the other
changes to the Unified Development Ordinance, which are as follows.
Chapter 9 of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
Section 9.2.4.F.1 to add subsection (A)(B).
He said currently if a signed is appealed and they need a variance and
appeals to the Board of Zoning and they are approved for the request and the
City doesn?t like it, then they can appeal it to the Council. He said that is
the only item that can be appealed to Council from the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Johnson said at the request of Councilor Barnes they have added
wireless communication facilities to that list as well; therefore, signs and
cell towers can be appealed from the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Council and
then from there, they can be appealed to Superior Court. He said they have
added that step in the process on the appeals of variances regarding cell
towers.
Councilor Anthony asked Mr. Jones if they have dealt with the issue as to
whether or not cell towers could be located from the host property line or from
the property line of the cell tower, 300 feet or 600 feet.
Mr. Johnson said they have not. He said the way the ordinance is written
today is that it is 300 feet from a residential structure. He said he thinks
that there has been some confusion on the issue of property line setbacks from
property lines, which are building setbacks. He said that is still on the table
to be discussed; which they have not brought back yet based on current
situation with new cell towers.
City Attorney Fay said we still have two matters in litigation; therefore,
we are still discussing that matter. He said they would make a recommendation
at some point to get that changed.
Councilor Henderson said if a wireless communication facility is appealed
by the proponent and it is approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, he thought
the intent was to allow a process that if the Board had actually approved
something that perhaps the Council wouldn?t have, we would have an opportunity
to hear it and then asked, who would initiate that appeal?
Mr. Johnson said if it is an appeal that the Board of Zoning Appeals has
granted and we have recommended denial of the appeal, he would say that we, the
City would be able to appeal it to the Council. City Attorney Fay said the
Planning Division would be able to appeal it.
He said the third change deals with the Uptown Fa?ade Board. He said this
would be a typographical error. He said the appeals process for the Uptown
Facade Board mentions that Chapter 11 is where you would find the appeals
process; however, it is actually in Chapter 10.
Mr. Johnson said the final change is dealing with Variance from a
Certificate of Appropriateness, which is what a person is issued by the Board
of Historic & Architectural Review or the Uptown Fa?ade Board that would allow
them to move forward with the work that they are proposing to do. He said the
language in Section 10.11.7., only refers to the Board of Historic &
Architectural Review Board. It doesn?t refer to the Uptown Fa?ade Board and
said all they have done through this section is incorporated Uptown Fa?ade
Board so that the appeals process is established for the Board of Historic &
Architectural Review as well as the Uptown Fa?ade Board.
City Attorney Fay said that would allow an appeal from either other
entity.
In response to questions of Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh, Mr. Johnson, as
well as Mr. Rick Jones then went in some details in explaining the appeals
process for a wireless communication tower.
City Manager Hugley, in responding further to Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh
said we are represented at all of the Board of Zoning Appeals meetings, because
it is our staff who sets the meeting agenda. He said we know what is being
appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeal because our staff is the staff support
for the board.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said the staff may not agree with the decision
that the Council wants, but they know that if it goes to the Board of Zoning
Appeals they still need to let us know before it goes too far.
City Manager Hugley said what happened in the previous case when it went
to the Board of Zoning Appeals; the staff knew in advance that it was going
because obviously they do the agenda and he thinks the assumption was that the
Board of Zoning was going to support the position of staff and the Council and
then they went with something slightly different and when they ruled in favor
of the monopole, the staff alerted us after the meeting and this is when we
brought it to the Council?s attention to let you know what was going on. Then
that?s when you took to the position to file an injunction or whatever we
decided to do at that time.
City Attorney Fay then pointed out that ordinance would be back before the
Council in two weeks to be voted on, as amended.
Councilor Baker then asked Mr. Johnson, if the applicant would have to
come back to the Council or could they go straight to Superior Court, if they
preferred, to which Mr. Johnson pointed out that they would have to come
through this body (Council) just like an individual who was appealing a sign.
City Attorney Fay said this would be a mandatory step into the process.
The following are the proposed changes as outlined above by Mr. Johnson.
(A). Signs. Appeals to Council shall conform to Section 4.4.26 of this
ordinance.
Chapter 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
5.4.2. to add subsection C to read as follows:
C. Appeals to Council. Appeals to council shall conform to Section
10.11.6.1 of this ordinance.
Chapter 9 of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
Section 9.2.4.F.1 to add subsection (B) to read as follows:
(B). Wireless Communication Facilities. A decision by the Board regarding an
administrative appeal may be appealed to Council. The appeal shall be filed
within ten (10) days of final decision by the Board.
Chapter 9 of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
Section 9.2.5.J.8(A) to read as follows:
(A). Appeal from a decision of the Uptown Facade Board shall be made within 30
days to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided in Section 10.11.7 of this
ordinance.
Chapter 10 of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
Section 10.11.7 to add reference to the Uptown Fa?ade Board to read as follows:
Section 10.11.7. Variance from a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Any person adversely affected by any determination made by the Board of
Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board relative to the
issuance or denial of a certificate of appropriateness may appeal such
determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
A. Applications for Appeal.
1. Maximum Filing Period. Appeals must be filed with the Board of Zoning
Appeals within 15 days after the issuance of the determination or in the case
of a failure of the Board of Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown
Fa?ade Board to act, within 15 days of the expiration of the 45-day period
allowed for the board action.
B. Standards for Granting an Appeal.
1. Actions by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals may
approve, modify, or reject the determination made by the Board of Historic
Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board.
2. Criteria for Determination or Decisions. Determinations may only be made
if a majority of the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals finds that the
Board of Historic Architectural Review and/or the Uptown Fa?ade Board abused
its discretion in reaching its decision.
Chapter 5 of the Unified Development Ordinance is hereby amended by amending
5.4.2. to add subsection C to read as follows:
C. Appeals to Council. Appeals to council shall conform to Section
10.11.6.1 of this ordinance.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING SEVEN RESOLUTIONS EXPRESSING
APPRECIATION AND CONDOLENCES TO THOSE EMPLOYEES
WHO HAVE RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE SERVICES OF
THE COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO RECENTLY PASSED AWAY
WERE SUBMITTED BY CITY ATTORNEY FAY AND THEIR CAPTINOS READY BY MAYOR PRO TEM
TURNEDR PUGH AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL PURSANT TO THE ADOPTION OF SINGLE
MOTION MADE BY MAYOR PRO TEM TURNER PUGH AND SECONDED BY COUNCILOR HUNTER,
WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE TEN MEMBERS OF COUNCIL PRESENT FOR THIS
MEETING: _________________________________________________
A Resolution (149-10) ? Expressing appreciation to Mrs. Judy D. McCullars
upon her retirement with the Muscogee County Tax Commissioners Office after
over 21 years of service.
A Resolution (150-10) ? Expressing appreciation to Mr. Leroy E. Mills upon
his retirement with the Muscogee County Sheriff?s Department over 32 years of
service.
A Resolution (151-10) ? Providing Conveying condolences to the family of
Mr. Richard P. Allen, former employee with the Columbus Water Works, who passed
away on March 25, 2010.
A Resolution (152-10) ? Conveying condolences to the family of Mr. Vaughn
Hixson, former employee with the Muscogee County Public Services Department,
who passed away on March 24, 2010.
A Resolution (153-10) ? Conveying condolences to the family of Mr. Roger W.
Wolf, former employee with the Muscogee County Public Services Department, who
passed away on March 15, 2010.
A Resolution (154-10) ? Conveying condolences to the family of Mrs.
Elizabeth D. Martin, former employee with the Columbus Fire Department, who
passed away on March 31, 2010.
A Resolution (155-10) ? Conveying condolences to the family of Mr. Timothy
E. Murphy, former employee with the Columbus Water Works, who passed away on
March 3, 2010.
-------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
PUBLIC AGENDA:
THE FOLLOWING PERSON (S) APPEARED ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA AND PROVIDED IS A
SUMMARY OF EACH
PERSONCOMMENTS:_________________________________________________
MR. LORENZA WILDER, RE: SHERIFF?S DEPARTMENT, SPEEDING IN COMMUNITY AND
SCHOOL ZONES, AND WRITTEN RESPONSES ON MATTERS PRESENTED:____________
Mr. Lorenza Wilder was not present when called upon to address the
Council. (See below for his late arrival)
MS. JOYCE WAGES T. WAGES, REPRESENTING THE GOLDEN CUE, RE: LAWS GOVERNING
THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE:_______
Ms. Joyce Wages appeared again as she did approximately a month ago to
talk with the Council about the alcoholic beverage ordinance and how we needed
to make changes to it. She said she had expected to get a lot of conversation
about it, although she didn?t. She said she had spoken to all of the Council
members with the exception of Councilor Woodson prior to her coming before the
Council, and said everyone seemed to be eager to discuss it; however, the only
feedback she received was from Councilor Henderson who stated that they have
worked very hard five years ago working on the alcoholic beverage ordinance.
She said her reason for being here today is that she has brought forth a
proposal to the Council regarding this matter. She said everything that she is
proposing has to do with the background checks. She said this means that there
is nothing else on their background. She said she thinks that on the first
offense, if they have a clear background check they should be able to pay a
fine and re-apply and get their alcoholic beverage card. She said if you have
an offense, if you forget to renew your alcoholic beverage card or don?t have
an alcoholic beverage card, you would be able to get an alcoholic beverage
card; paying a fine, with a clear background check. She said on the second
offense, you could pay a larger fine provided they still have a clear
background check and then they would be able to get their card. She said on the
third offense a person would have to pay a higher fine and then there would be
a 30-day suspension of their card with a clear background check.
Ms. Wages said she knows that there are a lot of things that goes into
this background check and if a person is charged with selling drugs or
something serious then she understands that a person would not be able to get
an alcoholic beverage card. She said something as simple as forgetting to renew
your alcoholic beverage card; then they could pay their fine and have an
opportunity to work.
She said Mr. Bill Lee who was her manager at the Golden Cue is not able to
work for her for two years now because he forgot to renew his alcoholic
beverage card.
Mr. Bill Lee then came forward and said he has been working for the Golden
Cue for about eleven years and has never been checked for an alcoholic beverage
cards, and he has always had one, but said it expired on his birthday. He said
the Metro Squad came into the facility and raided them and put them in jail. He
said they told them that if they didn?t pay the fine they could possible face
jail time. He said there was a young lady working there with him and she didn?t
have an alcoholic beverage cards as well because he had just got her to help
him. He said they got her for not having an alcoholic beverage card as well.
He said the young lady had a young child at home and said she needed to get
back home with her child. He said he bailed them all out not knowing the law.
He said he has never committed a crime and has a clean record. He said the
penalty is too harsh and said he has paid the fine. He said now he cannot work
for two years and that has more than less closed down the place where he was
working and he can?t get another job doing anything for two more years. He said
he would ask that the Council reconsider the penalty that you have imposed
along with the fine on this matter.
Councilor Henderson said he agrees with Ms. Wages and he did tell her and
he still believes that we have to be very deliberate when start tweaking that
alcoholic beverage code. He said in order for this matter not to continue to
drag on, he would ask the Mayor, as Public Safety Director to consult with the
Police Chief about this matter and bring back some information to the Council
within two weeks.
He said he is not sure that he would agree with all the suggestions made
by Ms. Wages, but said he certainly think if on the background offense that if
your only offense was that you forgot to renew your alcoholic beverage card and
there is no other criminal activity is on your record, he thinks the fine and a
renewal of the card is in order.
Councilor Henderson said he don?t want to remove what?s in the ordinance
now, because it is in there for a reason; which is to keep people with less
desirable records from being able to serve alcohol and work in an
establishments that serve alcohol. He said he don?t see where it would be a big
change to allow some verbiage in the ordinance that says if the only offense on
a background check is the failure to renew your alcoholic beverage card. He
said he don?t know how many chances you are going to get at that, he said he
don?t agree with three times. He said he thinks that everyone should get one,
but he don?t want to offer that up without running it by our public safety
personnel. He said he would like to ask the Mayor to provide to some
information to us by our next meeting and allow us to evaluate that and take it
under advisement as to whether or not we can go ahead and do it.
Mayor Wetherington said he would talk with Chief Boren and bring back a
report to the Council within two weeks.
Discussion continued on this matter for some twenty-five minutes with
several members of the Council expressing their views on this subject with City
Attorney Fay responding to questions and concerns on this matter, with members
of the Council requesting additional information as outlined below.
Councilor Henderson said he would ask that the City Attorney participate
in these discussions regarding this subject.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said we need to make it clear that even if the
law does change that it will not have an effect on Mr. Lee because you can?t
make it retroactive. City Attorney Fay said that is correct, the law if
prospective if it is changed that?s the general rule.
Mr. Wages asked City Attorney Fay if Mr. Lee could work in a restaurant
that serves alcohol or is he prohibited from working anywhere where alcohol is
served, to which he said he thinks so, but he would have to ask Finance
Director Hodge about the restaurant rule. He said he is not sure whether or not
everyone who works in a restaurant has to have an alcoholic beverage card.
City Manager Hugley said Director of Finance Pam Hodge is indicating that
he couldn?t work if they require an alcoholic beverage card, but said if it is
an area or work that does not require an alcoholic beverage card then he could
work. He said he would yield to the City Attorney to respond to any legal
question.
City Attorney Fay said he may be able to work in a kitchen, but said he
could not serve alcohol without a card.
Councilor Woodson said when you say serve, does that mean that he can?t
pour the alcohol and give it to a customer or are you saying that if he
works in a restaurant and I ask for a drink that he can?t bring my drink with
my food. City Attorney Fay said he believes it is both.
Councilor Woodson said it is her understanding that he can?t be in a bar
or a club and be a bartender, or be a bartender at Red Lobster?s. She said she
would think that he could work as a waiter, but not at a bar as a bartender.
She said he couldn?t work at a nightclub or as a bartender at Red Lobster?s.
City Attorney Fay said that is something that needs to be looked at
because the purpose of the alcoholic beverage card law was to get at anybody
serving or handling alcoholic beverages.
Councilor Henderson said since the City Attorney has heard the discussion
regarding this matter on today as it relates to specific duties in restaurants,
he would ask that he would bring back information to try to clear up this
matter.
Councilor Anthony said also for the City Attorney to determine whether or
not a person would be able to manage a facility that serves alcohol.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner asked that City Attorney provide the Council with a
copy of the alcoholic beverage ordinance.
*** *** ***
PASTOR MILLIE JOHNSON, RE: THE FRESH START OUTREACH PROGRAM:
__________________ _______________
Pastor Millie Johnson came forward and pointed out that she is the
Director of the Fresh Start Outreach Program. She said every since she has been
located on the corner of Cusseta & Brennan Road she has done fundraising in
every way she can to help support the outreach program and the community. She
said she has done it with diversity and great compassion and have new people
coming in every day. She said her mission there at the Fresh Start Outreach
Program is first charity. She also pointed out that she is a member of the
10-year Task Force to end homelessness.
Pastor Johnson went into further details in outlining how her program has
assisted the community. She said she is here today seeking financial assistance
from the City of Columbus to assist her with this program. She said she loves
what she is doing and she wants some help from the City to continue on with
this program.
-------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA:
THE FOLLOWING TWO RESOLUTIONS WERE SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY MANAGER
HUGLEY AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL:________________________________________
___
A Resolution (156-10) ? Authorizing the execution of a separate
Intergovernmental Agreements with LaGrange, Georgia and Troup County, Georgia
for use of the Columbus Regional 800 MHz Radio Communication System. Mayor Pro
Tem Turner Pugh moved the adoption of the resolution. Seconded by Councilor
Allen and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this
meeting.
A Resolution (157-10) ? Authorizing the purchase 0.3 +/- acre of property
for $26,500 at 1026 Fort Benning Road adjacent to 35 +/- acres of property
assembled for redevelopment in the Enterprise Zone. Councilor McDaniel moved
the adoption of the resolution. Seconded by Councilor Hunter and carried
unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this meeting.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY MANAGER
HUGLEY AND AFTER SOME DISCUSSION WAS ADOPTED BY THE
COUNCIL:__________ _____
A Resolution (158-10) ? Authorizing transfer a portion of 2.07 +/- acres of
City property off Regency Drive to Enrichment Services Program, Inc. (ESP,
Inc.) to construct a new Head Start Center.
City Manager Hugley said we ask that the Council approve this resolution,
but approve it with conditions on the property. He said the conditions would be
that if the property ceases to be used solely for nonprofit and charitable
purposes it would revert back to the City. He said if they sell the property,
the current fair market value of $165,000 would be paid to the City and the
receipts of funds by the City would be deferred until the sale or transferred
of the property by ESP, Inc., if that should happens at some future date. He
said they are the primary Head Start provider in our community and they do an
excellent job and we have been partners with them for many years now. He said
their main office, which is located on Linwood Boulevard is in property owned
by the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked if they would be able to sell the
building.
City Manager Hugley said if at some future date that they decide they
didn?t want to use the building and want to sell the property; then we would
want to fair market value of the property. He said that would be a condition
that is written into the deed.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said she thought that the first condition was
that if the property was no longer used as a Head Start Center that it would
revert back to the City.
City Manager Hugley said they could revert the property back to the City
if it?s not going to be used for that, and we would have it, but if they opt to
sell the property because they want money out of the building; then we would
get the fair market value of the property and not necessarily the building.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked if that is already written into the
resolution. City Attorney Fay said it is in the resolution that is on the
table. He said, of course, these conditions would go into any deed for this
particular property. He said we are talking about today?s fair market value.
City Manager Hugley said we have done some of these type of deeds before
and it will be done in a similar manner.
Several members of the Council expressed their views on this matter, with
City Manager Hugley responding to further questions of the Council,
City Attorney Fay said he would ask Director of Community Reinvestment to state
in the deed that if the property sold the City would receive a minimum of
$165,000 for the property.
After continued discussion, City Manager Hugley said he would be guided by
the wishes of the Council, but he is asking for the Council?s approval.
Councilor Henderson then made a motion to approve the resolution. Seconded by
Councilor Woodson and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council
present for this meeting.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING TWO RESOLUTIONS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY
MANAGER HUGLEY AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL:___________________
_________
A Resolution (159-10) ? Authorizing the submission of an application and,
if approved, accept up to $300,000 from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to
establish a mentoring program and other services. Councilor Allen moved the
adoption of the resolution. Seconded by Councilor Henderson and carried
unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this meeting.
A Resolution (160-10) ? Authorizing the acceptance of a deed to that
portion of Fortson Business Park Boulevard Replat of Lot 300 Replat of Part of
Land Lots 271 & 293, 19th District has six commercial lots. The Department of
Engineering has inspected these streets and recommends the acceptance.
Councilor Henderson moved the adoption of the resolution. Seconded by Councilor
Allen and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for this
meeting.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING TWO PURCHASING RESOLUTIONS, HAVING BEING INCLUIDED WITH THE
CITY MANAGER?S AGENDA WERE ALSO SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CITY MANAGER HUGLEY
AND ADOPTED BY
COUNCIL:_
___________
A Resolution (161-10) ? Authorizing the approval of payment to Georgia
Department of Natural Resources for the state mandated solid waste disposal fee
in the amount of $66,288.88. A total of 90,188.9465 tons of solid waste was
disposed, at Pine Grove Landfill, between January 1, 2009 and December 31,
2009. Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh moved the adoption of the resolution. Seconded
by Councilor Allen and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council
present for this meeting.
A Resolution (162-10) ? Authorizing the reimbursement of payment to
Keep Columbus Beautiful Commission in the amount of $52,820.38 for the
Household Hazardous Waste Recycling project. The Keep Columbus Beautiful
Commission organized and sponsored the Great American Clean Up ? Household
Hazardous Waste Recycling project, held in March 2010. The City shares the
cost of the effort with Keep Columbus Beautiful and reimburses the Commission a
portion of the recycling expense. Councilor Henderson moved the adoption of the
resolution. Seconded by Councilor McDaniel and carried unanimously by those ten
members of Council present for this meeting.
*** *** ***
RECYCLING CENTER:
Councilor Anthony said a request has come to him about having a recycling
center on the north side of town and then asked if there is any discussion on
that and a possibility that we can provide some place where people will be able
to bring in cardboards, and things like that; not hazardous
City Manager Hugley said that it is something that we can include in our
discussions when we talk about our sustainability center effort that will be
out on the 30 acres that we own on Schatulga Road. He said he could have the
staff to include that in on their discussions.
*** *** ***
COLUMBUS GIVES ITS HEART TO HAITI CAMPAIGN
UPDATE:____________________________________________________
Deputy City Manager Lisa Goodwin provided the following update of the
City-Wide Haiti Campaign Effort and highlighted the results as detailed below.
Goal & Giving
$50,000 Citywide Goal (Feb 1 ? March 30)
Ways of Giving:
Purchase $10 Button
Purchase a $10 Dinner Sticker
Purchase a verse of the Song written by Cammy Currie and Spurgeon Glenn
Additional Ways of Giving:
Employees could purchase $10 ? 2-hour time off coupons
Employees could also purchase a $10 coupon to wear jeans each Friday for a month
Log on to City?s Website through CARE, Inc. and give via Credit Card
Columbus Gives Its Heart to Haiti
Two Radiothons held in conjunction with Davis Broadcasting & Clear Channel
Elected Officials, Department Directors, Managers, Supervisors, Employees and
Citizens stood on corners soliciting donations
Entertainment (Jazz, Gospel, Country, R&B), Food, Fun, Fellowship & Door prizes
Columbus Gives Its Heart to Haiti:
CCG Employees??????.??.$15,937.53
Citizen Donations????.????$ 5,466.73
Online Donations????????.$ 1,340.00
Byron Hickey (PS)?????.??..$ 800.36
Members of Fourth Street MBC??..$ 5,000.00
Columbus United For Haiti????..$ 4,313.00
Total Contributions to Date: $32,857.62
After Ms. Goodwin gave the above report, a Red Glove Dance Video was
shown.
*** *** ***
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE:
City Attorney Fay said for clarification with respect to alcoholic
beverage cards, Ms. Hodge and he checked the Code and it does say that an
establishment, like the Golden Cue that Ms. Wages was here before the Council
about, a bar/pub, nightclub, adult oriented facilities their employees are
regulated and do have to have the alcoholic beverage cards. He said with the
traditional restaurants where you have the 80% or a regular restaurant more
than 50% foods, they do not have to have a alcoholic beverage card. He said
Councilor Davis and Councilor Woodson were correct on that matter.
*** *** ***
RESOLUTIONS:
Councilor Henderson said he has asked the City Attorney to bring a
resolution honoring Columbus High School?s Golf Team as well as Mr. Clotts from
Columbus High School and Travis Osterman from Northside High who tied for city
medalist.
*** *** **
DAWN COURT:
Councilor Hunter said for the benefit of the people, who live on Dawn
Court, which is located off of Old Cusseta Rd., we would like to let them know
that we are concerned about their situation. He said in January he had emailed
the City Manager?s Office because of a concern by citizens on Dawn Court. He
explained that some of the citizens saw a crew coming through the neighborhood
looking at properties and wanted to know if it was the City. He said upon
inquiry we found that it was not the City but Columbus Water Works that was in
area because they were in the process of putting in a line to Fort Benning. He
said last week Ms. Carol Gerdes with the Columbus Times asked if he had seen
Dawn Court lately and he said he had not been by there in a couple of weeks.
He said he went by the property and it looks terrible. He said a lot of the
property on Dawn Court has been dug up and it is really hard to travel through
that area. He said he talked to Ms. Gerdes on yesterday and she is saying that
there are cigarette butts that are all strewn about people?s property and there
are portable potties out there and it is just a mess. He said in his email to
the City on last week, he asked that our people go out there and take a look at
this matter because it is really hard to describe. He said he knows that it is
going to be beneficial to have a water line into Fort Benning, but this
particular street is really suffering.
Councilor Hunter said he would encourage the City Manager to go to the
property and take a look at it as soon as possible so that he can see what he
is talking about. He said he will be meeting the contractor out on site
tomorrow, but he wants them out of there as quickly as possible so that we can
get things back to normal as soon as possible.
Councilor Barnes said just he has been to that area and is in agreement
with Councilor Hunter. He also mentioned Englewood Drive; he explained that
there is still water accumulation in that area. He said he did speak with Mr.
Gary Stickles about this matter earlier on. He said he would like a reply as to
what is going on in that area. He pointed out that there was not a problem of
water accumulation before the Columbus Water Works came out and began working
in that area. He said he would like to identify exactly what the problem is
and find out when will there be a resolution of it.
City Manager Hugley said regarding Dawn Court, this is a Columbus Water
Works project and not a City project but we do have our engineer involved with
the project. He said working with the Columbus Water Works, it is our
expectation that they will make those people whole when it is all done. He
said he has not been out there personally, but he will get out there to take a
look at the matter. He said he does not have the status on the Columbus Water
Works project that took place on Englewood Drive, but he would follow up on
that matter as well.
*** *** ***
RESOLUTION:
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh requested that a resolution be done for the ROTC
Teacher at Spencer High School who received the honor of Teacher of the Year.
-------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
CLERK OF COUNCIL?S AGENDA:
THE FOLLOWING ITEM WAS SUBMITTED BY CLERK OF WASHINGTON AS INFORMATION FOR
MAYOR AND COUNCIL:
(1) Mayor?s Committee for Persons with Disabilities Weekly Report for the weeks
of April 12, 2010 through April 26, 2010.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CLERK OF COUNCIL
WASHINGTON AND ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL:_______________
__________________
A Resolution (163-10) ? Changing the regularly scheduled Council meetings
for the month of June 2010. Councilor McDaniel moved the adoption of the
resolution. Seconded by Councilor Allen and carried unanimously by those ten
members of Council present for this meeting.
Councilor McDaniel moved the adoption of the resolution. Seconded by
Councilor Allen and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present
at the time.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION FOR A TAXICAB OWNER?S BUSINESS LICENSE WAS
SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED BY CLERK OF COUNCIL WASHINGTON AND APPROVED BY
THECOUNCIL:___________________________________________________
Application of Maxo L. Cesar for a taxicab owner?s business license to
conduct business as Recon Cab Company, located at 1640 5th Avenue, Columbus,
Georgia 31901.
Councilor Woodson moved the approval of the application. Seconded by
Councilor Allen and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present
for this meeting.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSING APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AND
EXPLAINED BY CLERK OF COUNCIL WASHINGTON AND APPROVED BY
THECOUNCIL:___________________________________________________
Application of Richard Bishop to temporarily close the 1000 block of
Broadway and 11th Street from 1st to Bay Avenue, on Friday, May 21, 2010 from
6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. in connection with the ?Broadway Event Series?
pedestrian safety.
Councilor Woodson moved the approval of the application. Seconded by
Councilor Allen and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present
for this meeting.
*** *** ***
MINUTES OF THE FOLLOWING BOARDS WERE SUBMITTED BY CLERK OF COUNCIL
WASHINGTON AND OFFICIALLY APPROVED BY THE
COUNCIL:______________ _________________
Board of Tax Assessors, Nos. 16-10 & 17-10.
Development Authority, April 1, 2010.
Family & Children Services, April 28, 2010.
Golf Authority, March 23, 2010.
Hospital Authority, March 30, 2010.
Medical Center Hospital Authority, January 27, 2010.
Planning Advisory Commission, January 6 & 20, 2010.
Planning Advisory Commission, February 17, 2010.
Planning Advisory Commission, March 3, 2010.
Councilor Allen moved the approval of the minutes. Seconded by Councilor
Woodson and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for
this meeting.
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING NEW ZONING PETITION, WHICH IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
BY BOTH THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING DIVISION WAS
SUBMITTED BY CLERK OF COUNCIL WASHINGTON AND AN ORDINANCE AND PUBLIC HEAIRNG
WAS CALLED FOR BY COUNCILOR MCDANIEL: ___________
Petition submitted by Karl Douglass to rezone 90 acres of property located
at 1150, 1126, 942, 934, 926, 904, 850, 800, 640, 865, 705 and 685 Morris Road
from LMI (Light Manufacturing Industrial) to SFR4 (Single Family Residential 4)
and NC (Neighborhood Commercial) districts.
(12-A-10-Douglass)
*** *** ***
THE FOLLOWING NEW ZONING PETITION, WHICH IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL
BY BOTH THE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING DIVISION WAS
SUBMITTED BY CLERK OF COUNCIL WASHINGTON AND RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL:
Petition submitted by Dale Smith to rezone 1.5 acres of property located
at 2301 & 2307 Martha?s Loop from SFR2 (Single Family Residential 2) to SFR3
(Single Family Residential 3) district. (13-D-10-Smith)
Councilor Henderson made a motion to receive the petition. Seconded by
Councilor Allen and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present
for this meeting.
*** *** ***
BOARD APPOINTMENTS:
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS:
Clerk of Council Washington pointed out that the term of office of Mr.
Walter Wade expired on March 31, 2010 and said that he is eligible to succeed
himself for another term of office. Councilor McDaniel then nominated Mr. Wade
for another term of office.
Clerk of Council Washington said she would bring this nomination back in
two weeks for the Council?s confirmation.
*** *** ***
BUILDING AUTHORITY:
Clerk of Council Washington pointed out that term of office of Mr. Terry
Ballard on the Building Authority of Columbus expired on March 24, 2010 and
that he is eligible to succeed himself, but does not desire reappointment.
She said the Council would need to nominate someone else for this position.
*** *** ***
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD:
Clerk of Council Washington pointed out that the terms of office of the
following individuals expired back on March 25, 2010: Ms. Clementine Cochran,
Council District 10 representative, Mr. Harold Funderburg, Council District 3
representative, Mr. Bradford Haines, Council District 2 representative, Mr.
Chuck H. McDaniel, III, Council District 5 representative and Mr. Charles
Weaver, Council District 1 are all eligible to succeed themselves for another
term of office.
The Councilor for each of these respective Council District re-nominated
these incumbents to succeed themselves for another term of office with the
exception of Council District One. Councilor Barnes said he would provide a
nominee to the Clerk of Council at a later time.
Clerk of Council Washington stated that since these are all district
appointments these individuals may now be confirmed. Councilor Woodson so
moved. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and carried unanimously by those
ten members of Council present for this meeting.
She also pointed out that the terms of office of the following
individuals, as listed below, also expired on March 25, 2010, but they are not
eligible to succeed themselves for another term of office, as they would have
served two consecutive full terms of office when their current term expires:
Mr. Daniel Priban, Council District 9, Mr. John Partin, Ms. Lula Arrington and
Mr. Eddie Roberts, who are all the Mayor?s appointment, Mr. Arthur Rogers,
Council District 4 representative, and Ms. Leigh Stewart, Council District 8
representative.
*** *** ***
CIVIC CENTER ADVISORY BOARD:
Clerk of Council Washington pointed out that the seats of Mr. Wane Hailes,
who served as Council District 4 and Ms. Wanda Jenkins, who served as Council
District 1representative have been declared vacant and said we need a new
nominee from these two Councilors.
*** *** ***
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY:
Clerk of Council Washington pointed out that at the last Council meeting
Mr. Billy Blanchard and Ms. Stella Shulman was nominated to succeed themselves
for another term of office on the Building Authority and that they may now be
confirmed.
Councilor Allen then made a motion that Mr. Billy Blanchard and Ms. Stella
Shulman be confirmed. Seconded by Councilor Henderson and carried unanimously
by those six members of Council present for this meeting.
She also pointed out that Ms. Jacki Lowe and Mr. William Taylor, Jr. has
been nominated to fill the expired term of Mr. Fernando Verdree. After taking
a roll call vote Mr. Taylor received eight votes. Voting for Mr. Taylor were
Councilors Allen, Baker, Barnes, Davis, Henderson, Hunter, Woodson and Mayor
Pro Tem Turner Pugh. Voting for Ms. Lowe were Councilors Anthony and McDaniel.
Councilor Woodson then made a motion that Mr. Taylor be confirmed to
succeed the expired term of Mr. Fernando Verdree. Seconded by Councilor
Henderson and carried unanimously by those ten members of Council present for
this meeting.
*** *** ***
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COLUMBUS:
Clerk of Council Washington pointed out that the term of office of
Mr. Rob Doll on the Housing Authority expired on April 30, 2010 and that he is
eligible to succeed himself for another term of office; however he does not
desire to be reappointed. She advised Mayor Wetherington that this is his
appointment and he needs to nominate someone for this seat.
*** *** ***
PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION:
Clerk of Council Washington pointed out that the term of office of Mr.
Scott Boyce, Ms. Cathy Hodge and Ms. Lucy Sheftall on the Planning Advisory
Commission expired on March 31, 2010, and they are all eligible to succeed
themselves for another term of office and would like to serve again. Councilor
Allen then nominated all three incumbents for another term of office.
Clerk of Council Washington said she would bring this back at the next
Council meeting for the Council?s confirmation.
-------------------------------------*** ***
***---------------------------------
STREET SWEEPER:
Councilor Woodson said when they bring the street sweepers into the
neighborhood on Avondale Drive, the street that she lives on, which is towards
the end of the street, which is a dead-end, the residents are telling her that
they are turning there are the corner and are not getting the entire length of
the street because they are not able to turn around. She said if they would
give notification to the residents when they are gong to come and sweep the
streets, they could move their cars from off the street in order to allow them
to get the entire length of the street.
*** *** ***
COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL:
Councilor Anthony asked Clerk of Council Washington to contact the Chamber
of Commerce, as well as Leadership Columbus and Leadership Columbus Alumni to
determine if there might be someone interested in serving on the Community
Development Advisory Council.
*** *** ***
Mayor Wetherington then asked there was anyone present in the audience who
had an issue that they wanted to bring before the Council.
Mr. Jim Rhodes, One North Whisper Court said they are still ashamed of
this Council because they haven?t done anything to Moon Road. He said you tell
me that you have done something and that you have it all in the plan
With there being no other business to come before this Council, Councilor
McDaniel then made a motion adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Barnes and carried
unanimously by those eight members of Council present, with Councilor Anthony
being absent from this meting and Councilor Hunter being absent for this vote,
with the time being 12:25 p.m.
Tiny B. Washington, CMC
Clerk of Council
The Council of Columbus, Georgia
Attachments
No attachments for this document.