MINUTES
COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA
WORK SESSION
AUGUST 31, 2010
The regular quarterly Work Session of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was
called to order at 9:00 A.M., Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 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 ?Pops?
Barnes, Glen Davis, Berry 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.
-----------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------------
ABSENT: No one was absent.
-----------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------------
INVOCATION: Offered by Pastor Thomas Pope, Central Baptist Church.
-------------------------- --------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------------
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Students from Child Life Discovery Center.
----------------------------------------*** ***
***------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA:
THE FOLLOWING PURCHASES WERE LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND SUBMITTED BY
CITY MANAGER HUGLEY:
A Resolution (302-10) Authorizing the Mayor to fund for one year, three new
programs for Juvenile Drug Court (Home Counseling, GPS Monitoring and
Psychological Evaluation Program) through the Columbus Office of Crime
Prevention in the amount of $76,300.00. 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.
-------------------------------------------*** ***
***-----------------------------------------
WORK SESSION AGENDA:
HISTORICAL BLACK CEMETERY 6TH STREET& 6TH AVENUE-UPDATE:
City Manager Hugley reminded the Mayor and Council that a few months ago a
citizen came down and had some questions and concerns about the historical
black cemetery located at 6th Street & 6th Avenue. He said it is listed on the
Black Heritage trail and staff committed that they would look into the history
of that location and try and verify whether there is a slave/colored/black
cemetery at that site. He said he asked the Community Reinvestment Division to
look into the matter and it was assigned to Ms. Lenora Smith, who reports to
Deputy City Manager David Arrington and he is going to come forward and make
some brief comments followed by Ms. Smith who has done a lot of the research
regarding this matter.
Deputy City Manager Arrington came forward and stated this is a subject
that has some historical relevance to our community. He said the presentation
will be brief and will cover the history of cemeteries in Columbus and
specifically some of the findings as a result of Ms. Smith?s research.
----------------------------------------------*** ***
***-------------------------------------
CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM:
Before Ms. Smith proceeded with her presentation, Councilor Davis asked to
go back to the Crime Prevention Program and how money is being allocated. He
said he is ok with the resolution that has been brought before Council for
approval but there was some hesitation around the last meeting regarding the
request, structure, and flow of how the funding requests would be approve. He
said it is his understanding that the Crime Prevention Committee would look
through these requests and they would then bring them to Council with a
recommendation that they (Crime Prevention Program) like these programs and not
with a recommendation to approve said programs. He said the programs should be
submitted with a summary so Council can do their own homework regarding the
requests. He said in this particular case, he knows about the Drug Court but if
it were a different program, he probably would not have been able to make a
decision this morning without some kind of summary or background information.
Councilor Henderson suggested another work session be held on the Crime
Prevention Program because while he understands Councilor Davis? concerns, he
too is concern and confused. He points out that he had some reservations about
that and is concerned about how deeply involved we are getting with these
programs. He said his recollection as to the reasons for creating that crime
prevention board was to keep as much of the politics out of it as much as
possible. He said he is concerned about some of the outside pressures that can
come to bear on some of the programs. He this is a great first step but we
should dedicate some time in the future to further examine the structure of the
board.
Mayor Wetherington said it was his concern and his thought that by
appointing the board they would in turn go through this process of interviewing
people and they have some really strict guidelines as to what they are going to
bring to the Council. The mayor said he thought this board would make
recommendations to the Council but if Council wants further information, they
can certainly do that, but whether a particular group is approved or not, is
the latitude permission this board was given.
There were some additional discussions on this matter where several members
of Council voiced their opinions and concerns regarding the crime prevention
board.
Councilor Davis asked to see a summary of what is being requested to
include how the programs function, what is being presented, what is being
recommended and not just a sheet on the background. He said in this particular
case, all the summary sheet says is that the office has agreed to fund money.
Councilor Barnes said he agrees with Councilor Davis but what we need to do
is look at the ordinance with regards to procedure. He said the crime
prevention board is supposed to bring these items to Council with a service
agreement outlining what each program is about and what they are doing, and
then on the recommendations of Council, it goes back them.
Mayor Pro Ten Turner Pugh said one of her concerns is, in reading the
resolution; we are only funding the program for one year. She said it is those
kind of things that Council would like information from the board on ? why are
they only approving it for one year and what is going to happen next year.
Councilor Anthony said he understands that the crime prevention board was
to review all the proposals that were brought to them, bring a recommendation
to Council and Council would review it in the first session and if there were
any questions they (Council) would send it back to the board, but otherwise
Council would vote on it and fund it at the next session - much like the first
and second readings on ordinances.
Councilor Allen said he agrees with Councilor Henderson?s synopsis but from
what he heard Councilor Davis say, his agreement with him was maybe a quarterly
and year-end report summarizing the events and accomplishments of the program.
He said that would be much like Mr. Seth Brown did during the budget process.
He said he is of the opinion that when the board presents a slate to Council
that?s when Council approves it. If the board brings every individual request
to Council and we have to sit and listen to presentations, that is going to bog
us and then down. He said he personally would prefer to let the board handle
that side of the process. The reporting section of it would come in during the
budgetary process and at the end of the year in a presentation by Seth Brown.
Assistant City Attorney De Loach said in regards to Councilor Barnes?
question about the ordinance, it allows Council the freedom to take either
approach they were discussing. She then read a portion of the language in the
ordinance to the Mayor and Council. She also pointed out that in response to
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh?s question on long term funding, the ordinance
provides for two years funding but it doesn?t seem to provide for longer
funding and she thinks its because part of the process is to have criteria
where Council can evaluate the effectiveness of the funding and monies spent.
After an additional fifteen minutes of discussion, Mr. Seth Brown
(Director, Crime Prevention Program) responded to questions, concerns, and
comments from several members of Council. After which Councilor Woodson asked
about a yearly or twice a year educational forum to the public where they can
learn about the process and criteria of the crime prevention program with
regards to receiving funding.
In response to questions from Council regarding summary or information on
programs being recommended to receive funding, City Manager Hugley said what
typically happens with a grant is that it gets place on the agenda with an
agenda report and in this case they did something we don?t typically do and
that is they came and did a presentation and also brought the applicant to
answer any questions and then they came back the following week with a
resolution and an agenda report for Council?s approval.
*** *** ***
HISTORICAL BLACK CEMETERY 6TH STREET& 6TH AVENUE-UPDATE:
Ms. Lenora Smith came forward and gives the following presentation:
Cemetery History 1826:
May 15, 1826 ? Minutes of the Board of Commissioners, Columbus Georgia -
the Board of Commissioners met and resolved at that time to order two burial
grounds to be laid off containing four acres each for the internment of the
white and the second for the internment of the blacks. The surveyor, Edward
Lloyd Thomas laid out the first burial ground. The cemetery was located east of
the eastern line of Mercer Street (now 6th Avenue) and south of the northern
border of the town commons. The second burial ground designated for the
internment of the black population was between Few Street (now 7th Street) and
Early Street (now 6th Street) and east of Mercer Street (now 6th Avenue) on the
southern boundary and northern boundary line of Few Street (7th Street) and
Early Street (6th Street). This site currently identifies and is identified as
a slave cemetery on the Black Heritage Trail.
In 1836, the city established a new cemetery for colored persons; eight
years after the old cemetery for colored persons, later renamed Porterdale
Cemetery and the earliest grave marked in the cemetery is dated 1836.
In 1890, Riverdale Cemetery was established and it is the second cemetery
in the city for whites.
In 1946, East Porterdale Cemetery was established and many African American
families purchased lots, sometimes many together to form family lots that are
still used today.
Summary of findings:
1828 ? the plan of the City of Columbus, Georgia map dated 1828 showed the
location of two cemeteries. The surveyor Edward Lloyd Thomas used the white
cemetery that year following the death of his son Truman. The cemetery for
colored persons is named on the same map. These cemeteries are the oldest
institutions in Columbus, Georgia city government.
1872 ? the 1872 map no longer has the cemetery for colored persons on it.
1886 ? on January 6, 1886, the city deeded block 45, the 4-acre burial
ground for the black population to the railroad and the railroad at that time
was Georgia Midland and Railroad Company. At that time it was stated in the
deed that the property was not occupied at this date for cemetery purposes.
The 1907 and 1929 maps showed that there was a cattle pen placed on block
45. During this time, other small buildings including Simpson Chapel AME Church
were also placed on the 4-acre property, but no longer remain. Currently there
is a railroad line and an apartment building on the 4-acre property.
1992 ? On or about December 9, 1992, Jim Manahan a reporter for the
Ledger-Enquirer had a conversation with a local historian, Mr. Alfonso Biggs.
Mr. Biggs pointed out that the former location of Simpson AME Church that stood
on the Northwest corner of the block; the cemetery began south of the southern
most apartment that now stands there where Simpson Chapel once stood and
extends all the way across the block into the area now covered by the railroad
line along the east side of the property. The people only broke dishes and some
other personal effects of the person that was buried so someone who knew the
person could recognize whose grave it was. There were no headstones placed on
the graves because they were too poor. Mr. Biggs talked about the decease dress
in nice clothes and wrapped in brown paper and put in pasteboard boxes with
something personal on top of the graves to mark the resting place.
Mr. Arrington then came back to the podium and stated that based on the
excellent research conducted by Ms. Smith, we believe that there is sufficient
historical evidence to indicate that the 6th Avenue site at 6th Avenue and 6th
Street was designated as a cemetery site is part of the original plan for the
City of Columbus, and it was the only designated site for the burial of blacks
in Columbus, at least for a period of eight years; up until 1836, when the
Porterdale Cemetery was established. He said there is also evidence that
indicates graves were located on this site at some point in time and based on
these findings, we believed that further research is required to determine the
location of graves on this site, if they exist and then the boundaries of the
cemetery as it was laid out and as graves were place on the site. He said, it
is our recommendation that we engage a firm to conduct further research into
this site and this research would include additional research through
historical records to include probing on the site and also the use of ground
penetrating radar. He said we have a firm that we have used previously and they
have provided us with an estimate for this research in the amount of
$24,000.00.
Mr. Arrington said it is also our recommendation that if grave sites are
located on this site, that we proceed with the development and improvements to
the site in a matter that will preserve the dignity and respect of the site for
the people that are buried there. He then asked Council?s approval in moving
forward in engaging the archeological firm to conduct this further research.
Councilor Baker moved the approval of Mr. Arrington?s request. Seconded by
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh and carried unanimously by those nine members of
Council present with Councilor Barnes being absent for this vote.
City Manager Hugley spend an additional 10 minutes responding to questions
from several members of Council regarding the number of graves on this site;
impact of the site by the railroad; and the Black Heritage Trail and boundary
of the cemetery site.
--------------------------------------------*** ***
***--------------------------------------------
CITY SERVICE CENTER COMPLEX-UPDATE:
City Manager Hugley introduced the architects from Hecht Burdeshaw and 2WR
who are here to provide an update to the Mayor and Council on the city service
center.
Mr. Scott came forward and stated that he is here to briefly talk about the
site and then he will hand the presentation over to Mr. Tim Jensen. Mr. Scott
made some remarks about pointing out the layout of the building in regards to
the site. He said given the location of the building, there are many influences
that will shape the building in form of its proportion, scale, and access.
Councilor McDaniel asked if all three buildings would be built at the same
time, to which Mr. Arrington replied that it will be built all as one project.
He further pointed out that because of the constraints of the site and the
limited area between the School District Administration Building and the Public
Library, it is very difficult for three individual general contractors to
coordinate staging of equipment with such a small site.
Mr. Jensen then came forward and during his presentation to the Mayor and
Council, he said the reason for the location of the building is that the formal
entrance of the building addresses the court as well as gives us a nice
position of Macon Road, being the primary view. He said we will have two
entrances coming from the parking deck side and then a formal entrance on the
southern portion, also we were concern with the service component and there is
no good place to hide that and so the shape of the building begins to do that
with our primary service area being to the western section of the building. Mr.
Jensen made some additional comments regarding the various departments that are
included in the design and the functionality of the building and access to the
citizens.
Upon the conclusion of Mr. Jensen?s presentation, City Manager Hugley pointed
out that the architects are here to answer any questions council may have and
that they need to continue to move forward with their work to make sure that we
complete this project as soon as possible. He said Council has: seen the site
plan and the layout of where the buildings are going to be; already know what
functions are going to be in this building. He pointed out reiterated what was
pointed out by Mr. Jensen, that in order to get the foot-print to work and do
what it need to do and still look right on the site, the Council chambers will
not be on the first floor, it will be on the second floor. He said the only
thing staff would be bringing back to Council would be this building that could
possibly change base on what the center piece of the building might be to give
it it?s identity.
Councilor Anthony asked since we are putting this building up next to two
three-story buildings, and this is a two-story building, is the recommendation
of the architects a two-story building or a three-story building, to which City
Manager Hugley responded that the architect really wants to please the owner
(citizens of this city), and policy makers (mayor and Council) who represents
the citizens of this city. He said we have gone through a number of sessions
and we received directions from the Mayor and the Council. He said we initially
brought a two-story building with a shell on top that would have been a third
floor and after much discussion; the majority of this body concluded that we
would do 63,000 ?64,000 square feet and the building would b e two stories.
That is the direction we received from Council and the direction we give the
architects.
Several members of Council, City Manager Hugley, and Mr. Jensen spend an
additional 15 minutes discussing this issue with regards to a two or
three-story building; the design and possibility of having a dome on the
building; an estimated cost of a two-storey and three-storey building; and
future growth and technology;
City Manager Hugley then pointed out that the Council Chamber according the
plan presented here today will be on the second floor and the architects will
move forward with this as the foot-print unless Council says otherwise. He said
the only thing remaining to come back to Council with, is what the centerpiece
element of the building is going to be. He said after today?s meeting, they
will be moving forward.
---------------------------------------------*** ***
***---------------------------------------
STATE OF GEORGIA-HOUSE BILL 277: TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT ACT 2010:
City Manager Hugley pointed out that this House Bill 277 was a highly
contested and debated issue in the last session of the General Assembly and it
has since passed. He then called on Director of Planning, Mr. Rick Jones to
brief the Mayor and Council on the aspects of this bill.
Transportation Investment Act of 2010 Overview
Regional Transportation Sales and Use Tax
Creates 12 special tax districts based on regional commission boundaries.
Each district can levy 1 percent sales tax for 10 years.
Removes the cap on local sales and use taxed for the one-percent transportation
funding sales tax.
Individual counties cannot opt out.
Money raised in district stays in district.
Money is not subject to congressional balancing.
Criteria for road development to be set by GDOT Director of Planning (finalized
11/2010).
Regional roundtables ultimately select projects.
Vote will be primary election of 2012.
Funds start flowing in 1st quarter of 2013.
Sections 1 & 2
Assigns the DOT Commissioner the duties and responsibilities for the management
of the budget, schedule, execution, and delivery of transportation projects
around the State.
Requires the GDOT Director of Planning to be approved by the Senate
Transportation Committee, in addition to the House Transportation Committee.
Section 3 ? MARTA Impacts
Section 4 ? Georgia Coordinating Committee for Rural and Human Services
Transportation
Establishes a committee to examine how transportation services are provided
throughout the state and make recommendations to the Office of Planning and
Budget.
Section 5 - Limitations of Taxes
Removes the cap on local sales and use taxes for the one-percent transportation
funding sales tax.
Section 6 Regional Sales Taxes
Creates 12 Special Tax Districts for Transportation along boundaries of
Regional Commissions.
Individual Counties are not allowed to opt out.
Each district can levy 1% sales tax for 10 years.
Regional Sales Tax Funds collected in each district remain in each district.
25% of the funds collected to be used for local ?transportation purposes? and
do not subject to the roundtable selection process.
Potential Revenue
2009 estimates have been used to show that the region could generate
approximately $53 million.
More than half of that amount (approximately $30 million) would be generated by
Columbus.
These funds would be shared among all of the 16 counties in the region.
?Project Definition?
Proceeds of the tax may only be used for voter approved projects, which
includes administration, engineering, property acquisition, construction,
maintenance, and operations.
Projects may include transit capital expenses and revenues may also be used to
fund a 20-year reserve for a district?s transit maintenance & operations
requirements.
Eligible projects include:
Roads, Bridges and Transit projects
Projects funded by the tax are selected by Roundtables and Executive Committees
consisting of local governments in collaboration with GDOT Director of Planning.
Regional Transportation Roundtable.
Consists of 2 members from each county.
Columbus - Mayor and another member of the consolidated government elected by
the Council before November 10, 2010.
First meeting after November 15, 2010.
Regional Transportation Executive Committee.
Created by the Regional Roundtable.
Consists of:
5 members from Roundtable
2 State House of Representative Members, selected by Chairman of House
Transportation Committee (non-voting member)
1 State Senate Member, selected by Chairman of Senate Transportation Committee
(non-voting member)
Final project list
Executive Committee in collaboration with the GDOT Director of Planning will
develop the final project list from projects on the Draft Investment List.
Final project list will be provided to each Roundtable.
Roundtable can approve the final project list as submitted or amend with
substitute projects from the Draft Investment List.
A majority vote by the Roundtable is required for approval.
Two public hearings on the final project list must be held prior to the final
Roundtable meeting.
GDOT has established draft criteria for a district?s investment list.
Following distribution of the criteria, comments from MPOs or local governments
are due to the GDOT Director of Planning by Sept 30, 2010.
Final criteria will be issued by the GDOT Director of Planning on or before
November 15, 2010.
By Mid 2011 GDOT Director of Planning will develop a Draft Investment List:
Fiscally unconstrained by congressional districts.
Projects must result in Public Benefits such as:
Congestion Mitigation
Increased Lane Capacity
Public Safety
Economic Development
Vote will be held during 2012 General Primary
Ballot Question
( ) Yes
( ) No
Shall _____ County?s transportation system and the transportation
network in this region and the state be improved by providing for a 1 percent
special district transportation sales and use tax for the purpose of
transportation projects and programs for a period of ten years.
There is a link between the Local Maintenance and Improvement Grants (formerly
known as State Aid/LARP) and the Regional Sales Tax.
If the Roundtable does not approve the Final Investment List, local
governments must match LMIG with 50% funds.
If the sales tax is voted down during the 2012 General Primary, local
governments must match LMIG with 30% funds.
If sales tax is approved by voters, local governments must match LMIG with
only 10% funds.
25% of the funds raised in the region would be for local transportation
projects
Funds would be allocated bases on a formula of 1/5 population and 4/5
centerline road miles.
Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission (GSFIC) serves as trustee for
each District?s tax revenues
GDOT manages budget, schedule, delivery of all projects in state-except: bus
and rail in Metro Atlanta.
Upon completion of a project or as funds are needed for project ?elements? GDOT
will invoice GSFIC, which shall make payments ?promptly?.
GDOT and GSFIC will consult quarterly on the schedule and delivery of projects.
GDOT is authorized to determine whether a project should be designed and
constructed by the department, by a local government, or by and other public or
private entity.
DOR publishes and maintains a website on project status/budget.
The investments made with this tax are not subject to congressional balancing.
A five member Citizens Review Panel is created.
Charged with the review of the administration of the projects on the investment
list.
Panel Members must be residents of the region.
The Speaker appoints three members to the panel and the Lt. Governor appoints
two.
The Panel must report annually to the General Assembly on project progress
beginning 1/1/13.
Mr. Jones stated that House Bill 277 creates 12 special taxing districts or
boundaries in the state and each district can levy a one percent additional
sales tax through out the region itself and would remove the cap on any local
limitations for sales tax. He said this is an issue the city or county cannot
opt out of-we are bound by this law in terms of what it requires of us. Any
money that is raised through this taxing will remain in the district and the
money is not subject to congressional balancing. He said GA DOT Planning
Director would set the criteria for road development and there would be
regional round-tables establish to select projects and there would be a vote
taken by citizens in 2012 during the primary elections and any funds raised
through this process will actually start coming forward during the first
quarter of the year 2013.
Upon completion of Mr. Jones? presentation, he responded to questions and
comments from several members of Council.
Councilor Allen asked how many of the 16 counties have another form of
sales tax, and how much they generate.
Councilor Anthony said what he wants to make sure that there will not be a
reduction in what the Department of Transportation is already doing for the
states. He said this is additional money and this is one of those things we
will have to keep an eye on in that Department of Transportation cannot cut
back on what they are doing. He also asked for clarifications on two components
of the vote: (1) Money is going to be coming from all the people that are in
the district or region but also the priorities for the list when is voted on is
by vote of the region. He said if we are contributing 60% of the revenue, our
voters should have 60% of the vote on the projects. (2) When we vote, it was
supposed to be similar to a SPLOST with a list of the projects that are being
voted so we need to look into this for further clarification.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh said the scariest part of it is that if the sales
tax is not approved, we still have to come up with a certain percentage of
funding.
City Manager Hugley said he would come back to Council after staff has
verified the details of this bill. At the request of Council City Manager
Hugley said he would also get representative from GMA to come down and brief
Council on the bill prior to the legislative agenda.
A copy of Mr. Jones? presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s
Office ce. ------------------------------------------*** ***
***------------------------------------------
BILLBOARDS & MULTI MESSAGE SIGNS:
Director of Planning, Mr. Rick Jones reminded the Mayor and Council of a
previous presentation (June). He said the original sign ordinance was done back
in 1997 and adopted in 1998. He said there are over 300 different billboards
throughout this community and we start having problems with billboards in terms
of location and over time we have discovered some loophole and inconsistencies.
He said the current issue we are having with billboards and multi message signs
have required elevated scrutiny in terms of how they are installed. He said
then called on Director of Inspection and Code, Mr. Bill Duck to give Council
some information on what they are dealing with in term of issuing permits for
billboards and multi message sings.
Mr. Duck came forward and brief Council of some of the difficulties they
are having with billboards and multi message signs. The following are portions
of Mr. Duck?s presentation:
UDO Revisions to Billboards - Sections 4.4.13 & 4.4.14:
? Sign Committee formed in 1997 to create a city sign ordinance.
? Committee consisted of sign professionals, citizens, and city staff.
? Sign Ordinance was adopted by Council in 1998.
Original Sign Ordinance ? UDO:
? Sign ordinance was incorporated into the UDO in 2005.
? Over time, loopholes and inconsistencies have been identified and rectified.
? The current issues within the billboard & multiple message sign sections have
required elevated scrutiny.
Current Issues with Billboards:
? Orientation/Location
?Use of Side or Secondary Streets
? Interpretation of the Existing 1,250 foot requirement
?Clarification of the ordinance
? Intersections
?Use of Billboards on All Four Corners
2010 Billboard Committee:
? Council passes billboard moratorium in December 2009.
? Billboard Committee formed in January 2010 to review billboard/multiple
message boards.
? Committee consisted of billboard professionals, citizens, and city staff.
? Council extends moratorium again in March 2010 for 120 days.
? In June, Council again extends the moratorium until November 30, 2010.
Proposed Revisions:
? There are 6 revisions to the aforementioned sections.
? The most important of which is clarifying language regarding sign separation
requirements on the same side of the street.
? New subsections have also been added related to sign facing; distance from
residential zones; and distance requirements at intersections.
Revision 1 ? Section 4.13.G.1. Spacing of Signs
Current Language
? ?1. Minimum Separation Required. No part of any permitted, outdoor
advertising structures may be erected within 1,250 feet on the same side of the
street with any other billboard sign.?
Proposed Added Language
? ?No other billboard sign shall be erected within 1,250 feet as measured by an
arc from a permitted billboard sign on the same side of the street. Said
minimum separation for billboard signs are indicated in Figure 4.4.1.?
Figure 4.4.1
F
Revision 2 ? Section 4.4.13.G. Spacing of Signs, add new Subsection 3
?3. Intersections. Measuring from the center point of an intersection, no
outdoor advertising structure shall be located within a 650 feet radius of said
center point. Said minimum separation for billboard signs at intersections are
indicated in Figure 4.4.2.?
Figure 4.4.2
Revision 3 ? Revised Section 4.4.13.H
? Current Section 4.4.13.H will become 4.4.13.I. Structure Specifications.
? Current Section 4.4.13.I will become 4.4.13.J. Height Requirements.
New Section 4.4.13.H:
? H. Sign Facing Orientation. Any permitted, outdoor advertising structure
facing shall face perpendicular to the street to which it has been permitted.
Said sign facing orientation for billboard signs is indicated in Figure 4.4.3.
Figure 4.4.3
Revisions 4 & 5:
? Revision 4 and 5 were listed in the slide for Revision 3, and are repeated
here.
? Current Section 4.4.13.H. Structure Specifications will become 4.4.13.I.
Structure Specifications.
? Current Section 4.4.13.I. Height Requirements will become 4.4.13.J. Height
Requirements.
Revision 6 ? Revised Section 4.4.14.C. Minimum Separation:
Part 1
Current Language:
? ?C. Minimum Separation. No such sign shall be placed within 5,000 feet of
another multiple message sign on the same side of the highway.?
Proposed Language divides the section into 2 subsections under 4.4.14.C.
? Subsection 1:
? 1. No part of any permitted multiple message sign shall be erected within
5,000 feet as measured by an arc from another multiple message sign on the same
side of the street. Said minimum separation for multiple message signs are
indicated in Figure 4.4.4.
Figure 4.4.4
Revision 6 ? Revised Section 4.4.14.C. Minimum Separation:
Part 2
? A new Subsection 2 will address distance requirements regarding multiple
message boards and residentially zoned areas.
Proposed Language for Section 4.4.14.C.
? Subsection 2:
? 2. No digital multiple message sign shall be placed within 1,000 feet of a
residentially zoned area. Said minimum separation for digital multiple message
signs from residentially zoned areas are indicated in Figure 4.4.5.
Figure 4.4.5
Cap & Replace
? Albany
?Prohibits new billboards but will allow the replacement of existing billboards.
?Requires the removal of 2.5 square feet of existing billboard face space for
every one square foot of electronic/digital billboard face to be erected.
? East Point
?Requires a removal ratio of standard billboards to digital billboards of 1:1
in commercial districts.
?Requires a removal ratio of standard billboards to digital billboards of 2:1
in industrial districts.
? Savannah
?Requires the removal of 2.5 square feet of existing nonconforming billboard
face space for every one square foot of electronic/digital billboard face to be
erected.
Photographs of billboards and multi message signs were not included in
these minutes but a complete copy of Mr. Duck?s presentation is available in
the Clerk of Council?s Office.
Upon completion of Mr. Duck and Mr. Jones presentation, they responded to
questions and comments from several members of Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked about the $1250 fee, to which Mr. Jones
responded it is for the sign.
Mr. Andrew Rooney, Real Estate Manager for CBS Outdoor came forward and
stated that he was involved in these committees who came up with this proposal
and we had differences of opinions along the way as to what was necessary and
wasn?t. He said we called for the committee to come together because we thought
we have a potential problem on our hands for this city and CBS has probably 90%
of the billboards you see in Columbus. He said one important thing to know
about this is that those boards that are there now, on the two locations
mentioned by Mr. Jones has been there for more than 10 to 20 years in some
cases. He said that can?t happen anymore with the current sign ordinance in
place because the 1250 feet distance and there aren?t five locations that you
can go out and find right now that are allowable under the current sign, even
before the moratorium was implemented. He said CBS built one billboard in the
last five years and the reason for this is because we are concentrating on
selling what we already have built.
Mr. Rooney said there are so many things in this proposed ordinance that
makes sense and there are some things that at least, at the very minimum
require a bit more thought because of the technology of multi message signs. He
said the one good thing about multi message is that it is an opportunity for
you to lessen the number of billboards overall in town because in one structure
you can have six different faces of advertising which allows you to limit the
number of billboards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Note: Mayor Wetherington and Councilor Anthony left the meeting during this
portion of the proceedings with the time being 11:55 a.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Councilor Davis said from his viewpoint, the spacing and change in the way
staff does the measurements makes good sense, but the digital poses a new set
of concerns both from a residential area and from as it applies to the idea of
eye-clutter and keep the city looking good.
Councilor Davis also asked about pockets of commercial and residential
zones, to which Mr. Jones responded that billboards could only be placed in
certain zoning classification ? General Commercial, Light Manufacturing, and
Light/Heavy Industrial areas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Note: City Manager Hugley left the meeting during this portion of the
proceedings with the time being 11:58 a.m. and Mayor Wetherington returned at
12:00 noon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh asked how many individuals served on the
committee formed in January 2010 to which Mr. Jones responded that there were
two members from CBS; Mr. Rodney Milner; Mr. Arthur Geesler, Mr. Boy Hydrick,
Mr. Ken Henson, and Mr. Scott Bell - a total of seven persons.
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh then asked about the minutes from these meetings
to which Mr. Jones responded that there were no formal vote but we all agreed
in principal in terms of what we are trying to accomplish before we came
forward to Council. In a follow-up question by Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh, Mr.
Jones agreed that the information provided to Council today was by general
consensus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Note: Councilor Anthony returned to the Council Meeting at 12:05 p.m.
Mayor Wetherington left the meeting during this portion of the
proceedings with the time being 12:10 p.m.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh cautioned that for future references, to have
minutes of meeting, especially when we have committees formed like this one.
Mr. Rooney added that if there were citizens in the various districts who
have questions about these signs, they can call especially if there are issues
about a lighted board and we will turn them off. He said we have never had such
a request but it?s a simple matter of notifying us and we will take care of it.
*** *** ***
With no other business to come before this Council, Councilor McDaniel then
made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Allen, and carried unanimously
by those ten members of Council present, with the time being 12:15 p.m.
Tiny B. Washington, CMC
Clerk of Council
The Council of Columbus, Georgia
Attachments
No attachments for this document.