CITY GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF CITY COUNCIL
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

PRESENT: Mayor Eddie W. DeLoach, Presiding

Aldermen Julian Miller, Brian Foster, Bill Durrence, Van Johnson, II, Tony Thomas, John Hall, and Estella E. Shabazz

Rob Hernandez, City Manager

Brooks Stillwell, City Attorney

Bret Bell, Deputy Assistant to the City Manager

William Shearouse, Assistant City Attorney

ABSENT: Alderman Carol Bell

The regular meeting of Council was held this date at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison followed by the Invocation by Alderman Estella Shabazz.

Upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Shabazz, unanimous approval was given for the Mayor to sign an affidavit and resolution on Litigation, Personnel and Real Estate for an Executive Session held today where no votes were taken.

A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AFFIDAVIT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah as follows:

At the meeting held on the 26th day of April, 2018 the Council entered into a closed session for the purpose of discussing Personnel and Real Estate. At the close of the discussions upon this subject, the Council reentered into open session and herewith takes the following action in open session:

1. The actions of Council and the discussions of the same regarding the matter set forth for the closed session purposes are hereby ratified;
2. Each member of this body does hereby confirms that to the best of his or her knowledge, the subject matter of the closed session was devoted to matters within the specific relevant exception(s) as set forth above;
3. The presiding officer is hereby authorized and directed to execute an affidavit, with full support of the Council in order to comply with O.C.G.A. §50-14-4(b); 17
4. The affidavit shall be included and filed with the official minutes of the meeting and shall be in a form as required by the statute.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED: APRIL 26, 2018 upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Shabazz, and unanimously carried.

Mayor DeLoach gave Jameillah Smiley, mother of Ricky Boyd, an opportunity to speak before City Council. She appeared requesting the release of the police body camera video from an incident which occurred on January 23, 2018, involving the Savannah Police Department resulting in the death of her son. City Attorney Stillwell informed Ms. Smiley, family, and supporters that the City cannot release the footage since it is a matter of a pending investigation with the District Attorney’s Office. He also stated no member of Council has control of the release of the video.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Miller, seconded by Alderman Shabazz, and unanimously carried.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Miller, seconded by Alderman Shabazz, and unanimously carried.

Taffanye Young, Chief Community Services Officer, appeared to announce the kickoff of the Great Savannah Cleanup, which will be occurring throughout the month of May. She encouraged everyone to take an interest in the City. She stated during the month there will be cleanups in the four zones throughout the City. Ms. Young announced currently thirty-five neighborhoods have registered to participate in the event, and provided additional information on how more information can be found. Carliss Bates, Keep Savannah Beautiful Executive Director, introduced Hallie Anderegg, Claire Sandow, LaToya Brannen and Robert Hunter, all members on the City of Savannah’s Keep Savannah Beautiful Board. Additionally, she introduced members from Neighborhood Associations which included Jack Patterson, Victorian Neighborhood Association, Donna Myers and Ulysses Bryant, Liberty City Neighborhood Association, Paulita Bennett-Martin and Kat Dillion, Mid-Town Neighborhood Association, and Nick Palumbo, Ardsley Park Neighborhood Association.

Gordon Denney, Greenscapes Division Director, appeared to introduce representatives from the Ardsley Park/Chatham Crescent Neighborhood Association and Ardsley Park/Chatham Crescent Garden Club. Both organizations are present to make a donation to the City of Savannah to contribute to the completion of a lighting project in Theus Park. The funds will go towards the purchase and installation of matching lights. Nick Palumbo, Ardsley Park/Chatham Crescent Neighborhood Association, Judy Miller, Project Chair for the Garden Club Beautification Committee, Ardis Wood, a member of the Beautification Committee, and Randy Tate, Park and Tree Liaison for the Ardsley Park Community Association, were all present.

Alderman Miller infomed Council of the many projects the Ardsley Park/ChathamCrescent Neighborhood Association and Garden Club have done. He stated all the work estimates about half a million dollars that has been contributed to the City to help beautify the area.

Alderman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, regarding items five and six, these are items that have been continued from two weeks ago. These issues dealt with compliance issues regarding the license. We've received the information from staff and I don't think it's necessary to reopen the hearings. So, as I understand it and I received from staff, some evidence that they have now come into compliance. So I'm moving for approval of items number five and six, per the City Manager’s recommendation. Thank you Mr. Patel for making that happen.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation.

Alderman Hall: As it relates to item number seven I'd like to make a motion to approve, but I have to ask the City Manager a question concerning the coverage of windows in these establishments and why not, and why that same requirement is not for grocery stores who cover their whole front windows?

City Manager Hernandez: Mr. Mayor, members of City Council, the requirement is City-wide, it just does not apply to convenience stores. It applies City-wide, no more than 10% of the surface area of a window can be covered by advertisement. So, we will, I think what has happened is over time as we've had people leave the City, we've had some of the expertise leave and with some of the newer folks on board they probably did not know that that was a requirement. Now we know that and we will be enforcing that standard City-wide.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation.

Hearing closed upon motion of Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unaimously carried. 

No Action Necessary

Ellen Harris, Metropolitan Planning Commission, Director of Urban Planning and Historic Preservation: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, I'm not going to go into very much detail unless of course you would like for me to. We have reviewed this at a Council workshop previously and it was continued in order to get additional public comments. Subsequent to that meeting we've had two open houses hosted by the MPC. The Historic Review Board has had a special called meeting to review the ordinance. Additionally, I pulled together a group of stakeholders who met on the proposal. What is before you is some revisions based on those meetings. I think everyone, you know, I think it was a really fruitful and productive group of meetings and the revisions to my understanding is fully supported by all those who've been involved. The main area of previous contention dealt with the large scale development standards and particularly to strengthening the criteria for a bonus story. We have added a provision to allow for a project that we received LEED gold certification and uses higher quality building materials to qualify for that bonus story. So, that was the main source of discussion but there's a lot of smaller changes within the ordinance. I'd be happy to go over any or all of those in detail if you like.

Alderman Thomas: Ellen I think for the public to let them kind of know what some of the revisions here are. What does it mean? Cause there may be, there may not be, some people didn't understand exactly what six and a half means.

Ellen Harris: Many of the revisions addressed just sort of typographical changes or clarifications and really aren't policy changes within the ordinance, but just provide a little clarification. As I mentioned, the large scale development standards in the bonus criteria was really the meat of the proposed revisions. Currently we have in projects that are considered large scale developments and they're considered that based on their footprint and/or their building height can qualify for a bonus story if they meet certain criteria. Those criteria include, currently include the restoration of a street or lane that's been lost, you know built over into private hands, the inclusion of affordable housing into the development, the incorporation of active uses on the ground floor, and the final one is the inclusion of sustainable practices in addition to better quality materials. And what we found is that those last two provisions, the retail on the ground floor, commercial active uses on the ground floor, and the double sustainability and better quality materials are getting used quite frequently. As buildings are getting built and constructed, the Historic Review Board and members of the public have felt that the intent of those standards wasn't being met. There were some loopholes that people were able to circumvent and affect the intention of what those standards were. So, the main bulk of the revisions strengthen that up, strengthen the definition of what's considered an active use. The sustainability initiative has been revised to have a standard, they'll have LEED gold standard so that it’s measurable, and enforceable in the future.

Alderman Durrence: Also on the activating street use the definitions in there were expanded a little more broadly to include commercial rather than simply retail.

Ellen Harris: That's correct.

Hearing closed upon motion of Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Thomas, and uanimously carried.

Ardis Wood: You can see the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas, but oh, it's so much better in Paris. I remember going recently to Nashville and I saw a recreation of the Parthenon. It was fully in scale and they even had Athena inside, which was marvelous to know what it was like, but it certainly didn't compare to years ago when I went before dawn to the Acropolis in Athens and watched the sun come up over the decayed but real Parthenon. It was like watching the sun rise over the western civilization and democracy. And finally I want to tell you a true story. I was going through the Space and Air Museum at the Smithsonian a number of years ago, and our guide referred to a group of blind people that he had guided through rather recently. He said when they came to see the Spirit of St. Louis the people said, can we touch it, because they were in the presence of the real deal. He said unfortunately it's hanging from the ceiling and cannot be touched and that’s a historic thing, that can't be. And he said, well then can we just stand under it? How important it was to be in the presence, even if you couldn't see it. To know it was near you, to be in the presence of the real deal, that's what Savannah is about. Let's don't chip it away. Let's keep the requirement to have good windows, wood windows, replaced for the building that's being considered. Thank you.

Continued to the meeting of May 10, 2018, upon motion of Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the petioner's request.

Ellen Harris: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of Council. This is a petition to amend the design review process related to new construction in the Mid-City District. Currently, as has been since 2005 in the district all alterations for any changes within any building have to get a certificate of appropriateness before they can move forward. All of these are essentially done at a staff level, so there's no public hearing necessarily, and no public notice even for new construction. So, staff has proposed an ordinance amendment to require that new construction and new construction only be forwarded to the Planning Commission so that there's an opportunity for public hearing, and there's public notice to the neighborhood association and residents. This is consistent with the design review process in the Victorian District. The proposed ordinance also allows the MPC to grant variances by up to 20% for any measurable design standards. Currently, that would be a two part process. The petitioner would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals after receiving a COA for that, so that would streamline that process. The third and final part of the ordinance revision provides some additional protections in place for the demolition of historic buildings. Currently, if an applicant applies for the demolition of the historic building and it gets denied, there is a six month waiting period and then the demolition can move forward. This proposed revision would eliminate that which is that weaknesses, if you will, in the ordinance. When it's denied, then that denial holds.

Mayor DeLoach: So, basically instead of six months they can turn around and appeal?

Ellen Harris: If the demolition gets denied, they wouldn't be able to demolish the building. They could appeal that decision and go forward that way, but it wouldn't just be a six months wait period, yes sir.

Mayor DeLoach: Okay, so they can appeal right then and then if it's upheld then they can't tear it down, but if it's questioned does it comes before us?

Ellen Harris: I believe the appeals to the MPC go to the Zoning Board of Appeals next.

Mayor DeLoach: Okay, thank you.

Ellen Harris: This item related to the ordinance was reviewed with the Neighborhood Association President before it was held at the MPC hearing on April 3^rd. The MPC unanimously recommended approval, several people spoke in favor of the ordinance revisions at that time and there was no opposition and I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Clinton Edminster: Hello, my name is Clinton Edminster. I'm the President of the Thomas Square Neighborhood Association. When this proposal first came out, I saw it as an excellent and proactive measure to help make the process for new development a bit more transparent and engaging for our neighbors. However, since that time we've come to realize that this proposal is a bit more complex and a little bit more broadly reaching than we had originally expected when we started. So, that being said, we feel that this could be a very good thing. It could also have unintended consequences on small developments and affordability which are two things we are in desperate need of in our neighborhood. Additionally, we do not feel that we have had adequate time to really engage with our neighbors about this, and we for both our neighbors to understand and fully wrap their heads around what this process could be. So, we'd like a little bit more time to do that. As such, we ask that this be tabled until such time that our neighborhood has had time to understand and comment on this issue so that we may fully support a revision to the Mid-City review process that will provide transparency for the large ones. The large new projects and limit the burdens on small developments.

Mayor DeLoach: I need to ask, we advertised this and had a discussion on it with the neighborhood?

Ellen Harris: Yes sir.

Mayor DeLoach: We have done that? How much time did we allow before we did it?

Ellen Harris: Well it went to the Metropolitan Planning Commission on April 3^rd.

Alderman Miller: We had meetings with the Neighborhood Associations?

Ellen Harris: I met with the Neighborhood Association President and he forwarded the information to the residents.

Mayor DeLoach: Ok, so we’ve had a month.

Mr. Edminster: Can I make one quick comment? That all did happen, but I still feel that we didn't really understand this issue until that point. That's absolutely, I take that on as a failure on my part as a neighborhood leader. I'm just going to let that stand.

Kevin Klinkenberg, 308 East 31^st Street: Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Klinkenberg, 308 East 31^st Street. I think I'd mostly like to echo a Mr. Edminster’s comments. There are some technical questions that I have as part of this ordinance change and how it affects especially smaller development and how the review process going through the Planning Commission would actually work in terms of this neighborhood. The big issue that I have is the stakeholder engagement, while there was a conversation between staff and Mr. Edminster there was never a neighborhood meeting specific to this issue, it was never on a neighborhood meeting agenda. In fact, the first that I learned about it was after the Planning Commission hearing and I like to pride myself on staying pretty plugged in to what's going on in the neighborhood. So, I think we just need a little time, but may be perfectly reasonable. These may be all good changes. We may agree on 80 or 90 percent of them and just need a few tweaks, but I would ask for you to continue this.

Mayor DeLoach: I want to work on the process because I don't want to have to do this again. When we do it, we do it, we do it, and just knock it out. So, what happened on this last one that we weren't able to engage the citizens? Did you just talk to him, is that what we did? He’s the neighborhood president, right?  

Ellen Harris: Yes sir, I spoke with the Neighborhood Association President, we went through the proposed changes. You know, I'm always happy to meet with the neighborhood association or anyone else if it's requested by the president, but it was not at that time.

Mayor DeLoach: I would like to make a motion that we continue this until they have another meeting on this here and everybody can talk about it if they want to speak on it. But I would just recommend from now on that we don't go to the President to decide if things are going to happen because there are some different opinions out there.

Alderman Johnson: Mayor, I don't believe you can move, but I can so I move.

Mayor DeLoach: Everybody's going to speak, everybody will be allowed to speak, but we're going to continue it until a month from now. That will give them time to have a meeting, wouldn’t it? So, the last meeting in May.

Alderman Johnson: That will be date certain May 24^th. Thank you.

Continued to the meeting of May 24, 2018, upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and uanimously carried.

Virginia Mobley: May I ask, have you closed the public hearing?

Alderman Johnson: No, we continued it.

Virginia Mobley: You continued it?

Alderman Johnson: Yes it’s still on the record.

Mayor DeLoach: If you want to come back and not talk now that’s okay. But I thought I was just making an effort to be polite. Whatever you want to do.

Attorney Stillwell: Your general rule again, as we said on the last petition, if someone speaks on a motion that's been continued, then they cannot speak when the hearing is reopened at the continued hearing.

Alderman Johnson: However, the comments she make are on the record for this particular hearing, correct?

Attorney Stillwell: That's correct.

Mayor DeLoach: What do you want to do?

Ms. Mobley: I’m going to speak.

Mayor DeLoach: I'm going to listen.

Virginia Mobley: But will it make any difference? This is an amendment in response to a very long discussion with the community over past projects. Over and over again when a project comes before the MPC and Council, the question comes from the residents in the community, what is it going to look like? How is it going to fit and what kind of materials are going to be used? More often than not, it's a matter of a community wanting ownership and pride in the proposed project. What makes a project successful is when the community can have ownership in what is coming into their neighborhood. What makes a good neighborhood thrive is when residents have pride in what their neighborhood looks like. This is not a change of the standards for anyone. It simply puts in public view what the developer, large and small, who doesn't want to follow the standards of the neighborhood, wants to build. How many times have you been asked what is this project going to look like? The Neighborhood Association sent out a notice of this item on the MPC agenda and the public hearing. I personally made comments. While no neighborhood discussion meeting was held, the neighborhood's members through numerous emails were told of the item and given the information to voice their concerns. At the MPC meeting, the Neighborhood Association spoke without reservation for the approval of the amendment as now written. This is a simple move to allow site plans to be submitted so they won't come under the review of the MPC, but by the staff. In the spirit of supporting those you represent, I ask that you move ahead with this amendment without delay.

Steve Argue: My name is Steve Argue. I simply wanted to say that from what I understand of this amendment, is that it gives the same protections to the Mid-City District that is currently enjoyed by the rest of the historic districts, not to include the Mid-City District. Seems to me a matter of fairness for one thing. Secondly, the criticism about smaller developers or smaller perhaps businesses or residents who want to build something outside the standard and is less than 5,000 square feet, if that should be carved out. Again, I think a matter of fairness, no development, large or small should be not included within the standards and subject to review, it's just a matter of transparency.

Mayor DeLoach: I agree with that but I would also argue one point here. Everybody doesn't drive Fords and everybody doesn’t drive Chevys. So, we do need to make a bit of leeway so that there is a difference in our neighborhoods. It’s not all and doesn't need to be homogenized, it just needs to be, you know, it just needs to fit. So, let's do make sure we keep an open mind to that.

Alderman Miller: Mr. Mayor I would just like to make a couple comments. And, I would hope that maybe we can clarify this before we get back together at the next meeting. The devil's in the details and ordinances such as this are very complicated and they're difficult to read especially for the layman. I'm not good at it, but others are. And I have asked this question, what kind of reassurances are there that in this text amendment that doesn't require every single new project, even single family homes and small buildings to go before the Planning Commission for approvals and that adds a substantial cost and time burden. If the community desires small scale development, then it should have a simple, predictable path to follow for approval as it does now in Mid-City. If we are concerned at all about affordability then adding more requirements on small projects might be the wrong direction to take. These are questions that I posed to Ms. Harris. She hadn't had a chance to respond to me yet, or if she did I haven't had a chance to read her emails. If the person who sent this to me couldn't find that in the ordinance, then it's probably hidden. We need to be careful what we're voting on and if we could make that plain or point it out to us how these protections are in there, rather than just saying well we won't have to do that. I think we have to be cautious how we do it because that's how we end up getting trapped and so I support waiting and getting these things straightened out.

Alderman Durrence: Mr. Mayor, just a point of information on this. What we're looking at now is the proposal to amend our current zoning ordinance. As we move forward with NewZo, one of the plans and with NewZo is that going forward once we've adopted that, there will be a Design Review Board for the other districts similar to the one we've got for Downtown now. At which point it would not go to the Planning Commission for review or staff it would go before the Design Review Board. Assuming that that's what winds up being adopted in NewZo. So, what we're doing now is a short term solution to what will be modified with the new zoning ordinance.

Hearing closed upon motion of Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried.

Marcus Lotson, Metropolitan Planning Commission, Director of Development Services: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, members of Council, Marcus Lotson for the Metropolitan Planning Commission. The item before you at this time is a proposed text amendment that was initiated by City staff regarding short term vacation rentals. As you all know, the City of Savannah initially adopted a short term vacation rental ordinance back in 2014 and last year made some changes to that ordinance as a result of a series of stakeholder meetings between City staff, members of the short term vacation rental community, and some of the tourism authorities within our jurisdiction. Some of those changes included the 20% ward cap that you're all familiar with. So, now the process is much more streamlined, the City believes that the permit process that's in place allows people to go ensure that they meet all the requirements of having a short term vacation rental and then receive a permit from the City if they do meet those qualifications. There is one difference within the ordinance that stands out and that's what we're here to talk about today. Short term vacation rentals are permitted in 23 zoning districts in the City. Three of those districts each, of which is in the Victorian neighborhood, it also requires that the applicant receive use approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. So, this is the only outlier as it relates to that requirement. The City believes that the regulations that are currently in place, including the ward cap, are appropriate enough now with the permit process to exact the necessary recommendations before the City will issue a permit. So, what’s being proposed is that the need for people who want to establish short term vacation rentals within the Victorian District have a special use of approval in addition to the other recommendations be amended to remove that requirement. So, the outcome of this ordinance, if it's adopted, would be that all the zoning districts where STVR’s are permitted, it would be treated the same as far as the review process is concerned. With that I will be happy to answer any questions.

Hearing closed upon motion of Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Hall, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not presnt for the vote.

Marcus Lotson, Metropolitan Planning Commission, Director of Development Services: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, this item is a request for a special use approval. I'm sure you all are familiar with a Cohen’s Retreat on Skidaway Road at 5715 Skidaway. This property was granted the special uses that allow it to operate the way it does now, which is a restaurant and an art museum and several other retail uses. This building was constructed in 1933 as a retirement home and it sat dormant for quite a long time before Ms. Smith rehabilitated the building and began to use it. In addition to the restaurant uses that I mentioned, there are currently duplexes on the site which had been there for a number of years and have operated as rental quarters for those persons who have lived there. What the petitioner is requesting is that the special use of an inn be approved by this body so that they may convert the existing rental units from a long-term regular rentals to an inn. The inn use is not a permitted use within the PUD-IS zoning classification, but it can be permitted by this body if approved.

Alderman Miller: Question, I want to try to get it settled in my mind. Right now these duplexes can only be rented for at least 30 days?

Marcus Lotson: That's correct.

Alderman Miller: As an inn you'd be able to rent them nightly.

Marcus Lotson: Right, yes.

Alderman Miller: What assurances do we have that in the future, a future owner or even this owner might not decide to convert the whole building, the big building out front into this?

Marcus Lotson: Well under what’s being requested and if it is approved, only the freestanding duplexes would be permitted to serve as parts of the inn use. The main building would not be permitted to do that. If they wanted to do that, they'd have to come back before this body to request this special use approval. Under the zoning classification, there's three or four uses that are permitted by, right. And then there's a stipulation by which the owner can come and ask for essentially any use. So, if they want to make a change regarding the main building, they'd have to come back through the zoning process to do that.

Alderman Miller: As I understand it, this requires there be a 24/7 office open?

Marcus Lotson: Yes, it requires a caretaker because all inns require a full time onsite staff.

Alderman Miller: An innkeeper?

Marcus Lotson: An innkeeper, yes sir. And it is the petitioner's intent to meet that requirement.

Hearing closed upon motion of Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not presnt for the vote.

Marcus Lotson, Metropolitan Planning Commission, Director of Development Services: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, this property which is on Wheaton Street between Helmken and Mastick is approximately three quarters of an acre in size. It's currently split zoned, a portion of it is light industrial and a portion of it is multi-family residential. Unfortunately this is a common occurrence along Wheaton Street corridor in terms of the industrial zoning that exists in some of the places there, as well as some of the split zoned properties. The petitioner is requesting that the property be rezoned to the neighborhood business classification. Their intent is to renovate the site, which is the former John Hall nursery. The petitioner is requesting the B-N zoning classification. Our understanding is that they're intent is to establish a convenience store on that site. In review of the zoning requests, we did find the Planning Commission voted that the B-N zoning classification was an appropriate district along the Wheaton Street corridor and would permit a potentially needed retail uses along that corridor.

Hearing closed upon motion of Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Foster, and unanimously carried.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not present for the vote.

Marcus Lotson, Metropolitan Planning Commission, Director of Development Services: Mr. Mayor, this property includes six parcels cumulatively, approximately two and a half acres. The eastern most four parcels which are contiguous are developed with existing commercial buildings and they've served a number of retail and restaurant uses over the years. The remaining properties served as warehouses on the Ann Street side of the property. The petitioner has requested to rezone these properties from the BC and BG-1 classification, that's the Community Business and General Business classification, to the BC-1 Central Business classification. These properties are on the border really of the existing downtown and what we are calling the downtown expansion area. In review of this area we believe that this is a location where continued redevelopment will occur between MLK and the bridge. There's a lot of warehouse uses that have been back there over the years and those are beginning to relocate and open an opportunity for redevelopment. The petitioner initially, as I mentioned, requested the BC-1 zoning classification for all the properties. We did have some meetings with the applicant who agreed to amend his request to only request the BC-1 zoning classification for the properties that abut Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, and that is what the Planning Commission is bringing forth for you today.

Alderman Johnson: Mr. Mayor. I have a question for the petitioner Mr. Yellin. So, this is the former, was one of these parcels the former Firestone building?

Attorney Yellin: No sir. This is south on the other side of Zubley, south of Zubley and Ann.

Alderman Johnson: And the difference between the BC and the general business, what’s the difference in terms of what you're trying to do here?

Marcus Lotson: The current zoning classification, the BG-1 you're referring to, that's a heavy commercial classification which allows things like warehouses, vehicle repair, things of that nature. The classification that Mr. Yellin has requested is more of a retail restaurant classification that's more of a downtown classification, but it is a down zoning as far as intensity is concerned.

Alderman Hall: To be correct, is that at the foot of Broughton?

Marcus Lotson: Yes. If you're familiar with where the old, where the Grey is right now. It's a property that's adjacent to that, not the Firestone Building but immediately south of that.

Hearing closed upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and unanimously carried.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not present for the vote.

Alderman Johnson: I have a question now for item 16, is this the next door property?

Marcus Lotson: Actually I should have mentioned that items 15 and 16 are one item really. They are just separated on the agenda. The action that you've taken really takes care of both of them.

Hearing closed upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and unanimously carried.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not present for the vote.

Ordinance read for the first time in Council April 26, 2018, then by unanimous consent of Council read a second time, placed upon its passage, adopted and approved upon a motion by Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not present for the vote.

Ordinance in its entirety is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Council.

Ordinance read for the first time in Council April 26, 2018, then by unanimous consent of Council read a second time, placed upon its passage, adopted and approved upon a motion by Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Foster, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not present for the vote.

Ordinance in its entirety is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Council.

Ordinance read for the first time in Council April 26, 2018, then by unanimous consent of Council read a second time, placed upon its passage, adopted and approved upon a motion by Alderman Durrence, seconded by Alderman Johnson, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not present for the vote.

Ordinance in its entirety is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Council.

Ordinance read for the first time in Council April 26, 2018, then by unanimous consent of Council read a second time, placed upon its passage, adopted and approved upon a motion by Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried. Alderman Shabazz was not present for the vote.

Ordinance in its entirety is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Council.

Ordinance read for the first time in Council April 26, 2018, then by unanimous consent of Council read a second time, placed upon its passage, adopted and approved upon a motion by Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried. 

Ordinance in its entirety is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Council.

City Manager Hernandez: Mr. Mayor, members of Council, I think we've covered this in great detail during the workshop. What type of information do you require in order for you to make your vote now? I'm happy to provide as much detail as you want or as little detail.

Alderman Miller: The one issue that we discussed in the, or one of the issues we discussed was the move of the $600,000 from a bonus to a provision to true up salaries.

City Manager Hernandez: Yes I'm prepared to do just that, to repurpose the $600,000 I initially recommended for that one time performance incentive and instead establish a wage adjustment reserve to be used at a later date following a pay and compensation study.

Alderman Hall: I would like to offer an amendment and make a motion that we...

Alderman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I think that more discussion is required. Mr. Hall is that alright with you? Because you’re offering, you’re actually making a motion is that correct?

Alderman Hall:  Yes, an amendment to this.

Alderman Johnson: I’d like to add something before you make your motion.

Attorney Stillwell: Can I make a suggestion procedurally that you just put something on the floor in terms of what the Manager's recommended perhaps with the $600,000 change and then introduce some amendments to that. It would be clear to the record on exactly what passes or doesn't pass in terms of amendments.

Mayor DeLoach: You want to just read the entire list of numbers, is that what you're saying?

Attorney Stillwell: If that's what Council desires to do.

Alderman Miller: Let's see if this works for you, I move we accept the City Manager's recommendation with the addition or with the exception of moving the $600,000 currently on the list for bonuses into a residual for wage truing.

Alderman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I don’t believe… I don't… I'm not understanding.

Mayor DeLoach: Okay, what he’s done is where the $600,000 was going to across the board, he is now saying with the exception. That exception is we're not going to do that. We're going to put it towards the truing up the pay differences between the individuals rather than giving everybody…

Alderman Johnson: I understand that, but I mean, I don't think that's what he said. That’s why I'm trying to make sure.

Alderman Miller: That's what I was trying to say.

Alderman Johnson: He said with the exception of and I want to make sure, because we’re only talking about $600,000 at this point. Correct?

Alderman Miller: Right.

Alderman Johnson: And we're talking about $600,000 to be used in the way that we discussed.

Alderman Miller: I'm taking this, his recommendation with the exception that we move that $600,000 into a, whatever you call it.

City Manager Hernandez: I’m calling it a wage adjustment reserve.

Alderman Johnson: This is $10 million less the six?

Alderman Miller: The $10 million but moving the $600,000 from where it's, he originally recommended into the wage truism.

Alderman Johnson: We're only talking about $600,000?

Attorney Stillwell: Now, if someone would second that, then before you vote on it, if someone wants to make amendments to that motion, that's the motion that's on the floor. It will be clear what exactly you're amending.

Alderman Miller: But let me answer his question though, because I think it’s an important question. We’re talking about the whole $10 million. We're just redirecting $600,000 of it from bonuses to this reserve.

Alderman Johnson: And that's what I thought you said. And that's not, that's no, okay. That’s what I thought you said. So, we’re really talking about the whole $10 million, except for the $600,000 to be redirected in a different way.

Alderman Miller: Yes.

Attorney Stillwell: That’s his motion. Now, if you want to amend that or Mr. Hall wants to amend that if we do them in order, then we'll know what passes. You can make whatever amendment to that you want.

Mayor DeLoach: But we don't want to amend an exception, do we? We would be amending the exception, not the general bill. Am I correct if we do it?

Attorney Stillwell: Can I make a suggestion on how you'd do that. Julian, if you would withdraw that.

Alderman Miller: I withdraw the motion.

Attorney Stillwell: Now, if someone will make a motion to approve the City Manager's recommendation on the agenda as written and we get a second for that, then you can make a motion to amend that with whatever you want to amend it and so can everybody else.

Alderman Miller: Now, I’d like to make the motion that we amend that original recommendation to move the $600,000 from a bonus to a reserve for salaries.

Attorney Stillwell: There’s a second for that, so you can vote on that and then move to the next amendment.

Alderman Foster: Second.

Attorney Stillwell: Okay, is there a second to the subsequent motion?

Alderman Foster: I’ll second that one as well.

Attorney Stillwell: Alright, now you could either vote on that or if somebody has something else to say they can.

Alderman Hall: Motion to amend Alderman Miller’s motion and add an amendment to this. I would like to make a motion to earmark $1 million of the proposed $2.5 million of the reserve funds be set aside to start the process of the creation of an early childhood education program for the City of Savannah three year olds at East Broad Elementary School. Nothing would be used on fixed cost such as building upgrades, equipment, and furniture. If all the money is not used it shall remain in the reserve fund. I believe this will allow the City to address the root causes of poverty in our community that are making sure our youngest citizens are given an opportunity to prosper.

Attorney Stillwell: Would you agree to hold that for just a minute and allow a vote to the resolution on the $600,000 and then moved to that. That way we'd be clear on what everybody's voting on.

Alderman Thomas: Well I have a subsequent motion.

Attorney Stillwell: Well, would you agree to just resolve the $600,000 first?

Alderman Johnson: I think we have to build it rather than…

Mayor DeLoach: Let's just go ahead and build it and then we'll go through each one. Okay, we’ve got John’s.

Alderman Foster: I’ll second.

Alderman Johnson: Are we voting on these individually? I think what the City Attorney is saying, that we should vote on it resolve it, and then move on to the next amendment.

Attorney Stillwell: That was my suggestion, but it doesn't have to be done that way.

Alderman Johnson: It's probably an easier way for us to keep track.

Mayor DeLoach: Let’s vote on Julian's first. Let's do Julian's. Okay, we got a motion and we got a second on the amendment to the original budget request that Julian put in place to move the $600,000 from the general obligation to a bonus system reserve. Is that right?

City Manager Hernandez: It is a wage adjustment reserve. We are moving $600,000 from a one-time, 1% performance incentive.

Clerk: The amendment on the floor is to put the $600,000 into a wage adjustment reserve.

Upon motion of Alderman Miller, seconded by Alderman Foster and unanimously carried the amendment to the original recommendation to move the $600,000 from a bonus to a reserve for salaries was approved.

Attorney Stillwell: So, that passed. The motion on the floor now is to adopt the City Manager's original thing with one change. Now Mr. Hall made a second motion to add a second change. Was there a second to that motion?

Alderman Miller: Yes, there was Brian.

Attorney Stillwell: Alright now have the discussion on that motion.

Alderman Thomas: Well, I have a question on that and perhaps it's a legal question for Mr. Hall. Is Mr. Hall in conflict since he works for the Savannah Chatham Board of Education?

Attorney Stillwell: Technically not, because he's not getting any personal benefit from this.

Alderman Thomas: But he's married to a Board member.

Attorney Stillwell: I will leave that to Mr. Hall's discretion whether he wishes to recuse himself on that.

Alderman Hall: I don't believe I'm conflicted.

Alderman Johnson: I think that there was still some significant questions that needed to be answered. From what I understand Mr. Mayor, what you're asking for is for these funds to just be held in our contingency fund to the point at which a MOU is materialized and there is some formal action on behalf of the school system, correct?

Mayor DeLoach: Yes. It is in the reserves and would not come out until the MOU is approved.

Alderman Johnson: By which we would have to vote on.

Mayor DeLoach: Yes.

Alderman Johnson: Will we then have the form and the substance and everything else.

Mayor DeLoach: Yes.

Alderman Thomas: Well, for the concerns that I've mentioned in the workshop earlier today, I cannot support that at this time. I think that the project or program deserves to be looked at fully and to see what partners that we truly can engage in order to pay. I think I did the calculations in the first year calculation for the program was $41,000 per student that would be in this program. And then I believe our second year contribution would be closer to $17,000 a year. I still question those numbers without knowing exactly who's all going to be participating in this program and who's going to be paying for it. I do not think that City taxpayers from the City coffers should be the only ones supporting this financially. I think that we should have other financial partners in this and until those can be defined, I cannot support this program.

Alderman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I'll support the concept. I think my issue is, and that's why I want to be very clear. The money is not designated. Correct, Mr. City Manager?

City Manager Hernandez: At the moment, it is not designated.

Alderman Johnson: And if we voted on it, it would still be undesignated, it would be a contingency, and it would still have to come back before us.

City Manager Hernandez: Correct, you would still have to move it out of reserves.

Alderman Johnson: Okay, so I mean, I think for that, if it takes shape, I'm willing to see what it looks like.

Mayor DeLoach: Alright, we got a motion. We got a second. All in favor.

Upon motion of Alderman Hall, seconded by Alderman Foster, the following amendment was made to earmark $1 million of the proposed $2.5 million of the reserve funds be set aside to start the process of the creation of an early childhood education program for the City of Savannah three year olds at East Broad Elementary School. Nothing would be used on fixed cost such as building upgrades, equipment, and furniture. If all the money is not used it shall remain in the reserve fund. I believe this will allow the City to address the root causes of poverty in our community that are making sure our youngest citizens are given an opportunity to prosper. The motion passed with the following voting in favor: Mayor DeLoach, Aldermen Miller, Foster, Durrence, Johnson, Hall and Shabazz. Alderman Thomas voted against the motion. It passed 7 to 1.

City Manager Hernandez: I need some clarification. Mr. Mayor, members of Council with this item and with the expression of support for the concept, is staff, is City Council directing staff then to take this as a project and begin the next step of negotiating with the School Board and answering all the other questions. Are you directing me to do that?

Mayor DeLoach: My recommendation would be to sit and wait and do nothing until we have something concrete from some other source that says this in fact is moving forward and we will appreciate the City to participate. At that time, you can move forward because we are, we have commitments from Georgia Southern, we have commitments from Savannah State, and we have commitments from the Chamber already in actual dollars, whether it's in kind or whatever, they've committed. It's not just us and the School Board participating, it is all those others that I just read or just said. So, this is not the School Board itself.

City Manager Hernandez: So, at this point staff is not going to work on this project until directed by City Council.

Alderman Miller: Mr. City Manager in the meeting we asked all those entities to provide us a dollar figure that they were contributing. So, it's just a matter of accumulating those dollars.

Alderman Foster: It would seem to me with that being the case, we should have a time certain when that's permanent reserve money because we don't need it hanging out there as a contingency reserve forever. So, I think we need to have a date certain, that’s what I would suggest.

Mayor DeLoach: I would suggest it comes up whenever we have a vote by the School Board in their next, well it might not be their next meeting, but we will give the School Board the right to vote. As soon as they vote, one way or the other in the next 60 days, is that fair?

Alderman Johnson: I think I agree with Alderman Foster. I mean, I think it needs to be time specific. They are also in the middle of an election and there will be a turnover, so we need to know so the money isn’t just hanging in there.

Mayor DeLoach: Let's just say 60 days, is that good?

Alderman Hall: That’s good. Yeah that will work. The present Board regardless of whom is elected will serve out their term until the end of December.

Alderman Johnson: But they may not be willing to commit to future funds.

Mayor DeLoach: But we've got a clarification where we can move forward with clarity. Right? You good?

City Manager Hernandez: So, as of right now, the money stays within the undesignated reserve.

Alderman Hall: We're waiting on a Memorandum of Understanding, is that correct?

City Manager Hernandez: Correct, but that is going to be coming through, we are waiting on a response from the School Board. Staff is not going to initiate any sort of action.

Mayor DeLoach: Correct, we've got plenty to do.

Alderman Thomas: But Mr. Mayor, I think we need to be honest and transparent with the total cost of this program. I think that we need to have full and reliable numbers. I don't think there needs to be any verbal commitments. I think this needs to be codified in paper and who's going to pay what. I mean the last thing we need is a fight up here about who's paying for what, like we saw with the merged police department and everything. And the last thing we need up here is not understanding exactly what City tax payers are going to be on the cuff for with this program because what people aren't realizing is, is that it is not just a commitment that we're making this year to try to do this. If this plan and program does go forward, this will be a commitment to the end of this term and one that the next City Council, whoever the members are of that Council, will have to determine if it's something that we continue with or not. And it's going to be a total of $800,000 a year. If you divide the cost of roughly $800,000 a year by the number of students in these six classrooms, which is 48 students. I think, Mr. Foster earlier said that the number was like close to $17,000 or $16,700 or something like that. I mean that's still a lot of money that taxpayers are paying for 48 students and we need to have a verifiable means of seeing some results from this if we do move forward with this program.

Mayor DeLoach: I don't think anybody disagrees.

Alderman Thomas: Mr. Mayor, I have a subsequent motion. I would like to put on the floor a motion for the repeal of the fire fee.

Alderman Johnson: Second, for discussion.

Alderman Miller: Should we finish this one first?

Attorney Stillwell: I think that would be out of order on this issue, but I think that's a separate motion for after this is resolved.

Alderman Thomas: I'll be glad to make that motion after it's resolved.

Alderman Thomas: Alright, Mr. Mayor, I discussed it before about finding ways to, I believe I tasked the City Manager to find ways for us to return all if not a significant portion of the surplus to the citizens. I don't know whether you have gotten that far Mr. City Manager in terms of ways that we can do it to provide some relief from the fire fee as it is right now.

City Manager Hernandez: I have not gotten into great detail into applying the $10 million FY17 surplus to fiscal year 18 operating costs either through a reduction in the fire fee or reduction in the millage rate. Either way you’re looking at significant adjustments to either the millage rate or the fire fee, not necessarily in 2018. Because remember these are one-time dollars, but you are going to have to account for the fact that those dollars may not be there in fiscal year 19.

Alderman Johnson: But we’re only talking about 18. What I was talking about was just for one-time, just for 18. I think the thought is this, I just think that, I mean, Council members, I mean, I think that in times, you know, we were facing a much larger deficit as we thought it was. We sold the fire fee on that premise that we need your help, to help us to do what we do, and provide these services. While the fact is we ended up with more money than we thought we did. And so to that end, I believe, you know, conceptually I think there should be some ways to, in good faith, to return some of those funds back to those citizens. I think when we do well, we should, they should see some benefit from it and likewise, when we don't do so well, I think they then feel better about us coming to me for help. So, I think that's my first issue. I will make a motion as we debate that since we said we were going to come back to it, to ask to amend that we provide $35,000 for a summer basketball in 2018 Citywide. That's my motion.

Alderman Thomas: Second.

City Manager Hernandez: I have a question for the Alderman. Alderman Johnson the proposal to establish a summer basketball league, funded with your $35,000 request. What are your thoughts in terms of who is going to operate that? Because my understanding is in speaking with staff, we do not have the staff available to do that.

Alderman Johnson: That is correct, but your staff, they also said that it would cost about that much to be able to hire the staff they need on a temporary basis to run it. This is your number.

City Manager Hernandez: So, your expectation is that would be a program that would be provided through the City's Park and Recreation department?

Alderman Johnson: That's correct. And then we would talk with the School Board as I indicated, talked earlier about it being done through school gyms and not through the City Community Centers which already have summer programs.

City Manager Hernandez: I’m clear now, thank you.

Alderman Hall: Would $35,000 be enough?

Alderman Johnson: Well, we can make it $40,000.

Alderman Hall: I’m just asking, we’re just going to put the money you all were talking about something planned or do you have coaches lined up?

Alderman Johnson: From what the staff told us the amount and I believe Ms. Young is here. We asked them how much would it cost for them to… again, our role here is as policy makers and funders is to provide the money, they will work out the detail. They do run a winter basketball program, so they would essentially take their resources and with the money we give them to create a summer basketball league, I believe for the month of July.

Attorney Stillwell: Which of the pots of money would this come from.

Alderman Johnson: This would be from the surplus.

Attorney Stillwell: From the reserves or from one of the other programs?

Alderman Johnson: From the $10 million.

Attorney Stillwell: From which one?

Alderman Johnson: I'm not, I’m just talking about from the $10 million. I’m not taking from any particular one, there might be other requests out there.

City Manager Hernandez: I would offer that it would come out of the $500,000 in undesignated reserves.

Alderman Johnson: That's fine.

Alderman Miller: Point of discussion. I'd like to hear from the staff because I understood from the staff that they were not able to do this. If something has changed, I'd like to know.

City Manager Hernandez: I think I've responded already as your staff member. If directed to do this by Council, we will implement this. We don't have the staff in place today to be able to run the league. My understanding is that we would have to hire temporary personnel to help establish and oversee the league.

Alderman Johnson: Correct.

Mayor DeLoach: I think I'll use that card we play a lot. I think this is too quick and I don’t have all the information I need. So, I think we need to bring it back, let’s say 60 days and let’s look at it and make sure we got all the information we need so that we can determine in fact whether we want to do that or not. That's my thought and you’ve run that rabbit on me before, but I'm going to run that rabbit now. Sixty days, but if you bring it back in 60 days and give me a clear indication of what you're talking about and how it’s going to unfold, I'll sit down and look at it.

Alderman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect though the fact is I voted for you to do $1 million dollars for no plan at all?

Mayor DeLoach: No, but I have to have a MOU.

Alderman Johnson: Well, we have a MOU, this is a City staffed program. You’re talking about three year olds. I'm talking about giving something for young people in the inner City to be able to do over the summer so that they're not killing each other.

Mayor DeLoach: I need an understanding or I can't.

Alderman Johnson: And $35,000 for the price of the program that you're talking about. We could run a citywide basketball program for less than one child in the program you're talking about.

Mayor DeLoach: I would approve anything, but I just can't do that because we don't have the staff to do it.

Alderman Johnson: And the City Manager said we could get the staff.

Mayor DeLoach: His job is to do whatever we say. So, he's going to do. If we tell him he's going to climb a mountain. But in reality we don't actually have staff to do that today, nor do we have a plan in place and therefore I can't support it.

Alderman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, and let's go on the board please.

Alderman Shabazz: Mr. Mayor, in reference to the citizens receiving some benefit from the $10 million. It is my voice coming from my constituents, is that some of that $10 million needs to be used for some type of relief and release of the fire fee. Not any specific line item of the fire fee. It's a good thing that the discounts are on the table now. Maybe a little higher percentage of a discount or something. But I will leave that up to the City Manager to work out. But I would suggest that some of this $10 million be used to help our citizens with this fire fee.

City Manager Hernandez: Mr. Mayor if I may? Again, my job is to implement whatever directions you give of staff. But I just want to reiterate to members of Council that my recommendation is to extinguish future liabilities for the City. We extinguish it this year using one-time dollars. If we do not do that and move forward with some other type of relief, not only do we have the costs of the relief that we need to fund certainly next year, we also have the ongoing costs of those areas that I'm trying to extinguish this year. So, it's a double whammy from a financial standpoint. But again, our job is to implement the wishes of City Council, but I do want to go on the record.

Attorney Stillwell: Procedurally, I think it would be appropriate to vote on Alderman Johnson's motion and then if Alderman Shabazz or someone else wants to make another motion, then you go on to that issue.

Alderman Johnson: Let me restate my motion please.

Mayor DeLoach: But we've already approved how we are going to spend the money. I thought so now we're going back into it.

Alderman Johnson: No sir, we didn’t that's why I wanted to be very clear about what we were saying. We only did the $600,000, and then your $1 million.

Alderman Miller: Can you restate the motion.

Alderman Johnson: The motion is from these funds $35,000 for a summer basketball league City-wide.

Alderman Miller: I have a point I need to make before we vote.

Alderman Thomas: And I have discussion too.

Alderman Miller: We have been working with the Recreation Department for like two years to try and figure out how we can put recreation back where it needs to be, because in previous years it has just disintegrated. We really don't have a recreation program. I think it was six months ago we started working with or three months ago we started working with staff to try to enhance, to go ahead and plan next year's basketball program, the winter basketball program because it was going to take us that long to try to get everything straightened out. It took us about a year to get things straightened out and the staff said it would need that time. They’re supposed to have a recommendation at the end of the month or somewhere along that way, that line. To suddenly come up with a program that, I mean summer's here, and this is going to have to be done very, very quickly. I think that's unfair and I don't think we're going to have a good program if we do that. I'm a little nervous over it. I just need to make that comment.

Alderman Hall: I just have a problem with Alderman Johnson bringing up the fire fee vote again and requesting $35,000 for a summer basketball league, which none of that he ever voted for. So, I see a lot of posturing down there, I see a lot of posturing.

Alderman Johnson: Then vote against it then.

Alderman Hall: I see a lot of posturing, you’re trying to box everyone up here in a corner.

City Manager Hernandez: Just a reminder members of City Council that your fiscal year 18 operating budget does include additional operating dollars for Parks and Recreation to extend the hours of two of our facilities, one on the east side and one on the west side to at least midnight, for the purpose of opening up the community centers and the gyms until midnight.

Attorney Stillwell: The motion is whether you want to take $35,000 out of undesignated reserves and give it to a summer basketball program.

Alderman Hall: But didn’t the Mayor ask for that to come back in 60 days?

Attorney Stillwell: You didn't vote on that. So, the motion on the floor is Alderman Johnson's motion to amend the budget. The budget motion that's on the floor is the $35,000.

Mayor DeLoach: We're going to vote by hand on this. Okay, not by the board.

Alderman Johnson: I believe Mr. Mayor as a Council member, I mean, I think it's the prerogative of the Council member to ask how that vote goes.

Mayor DeLoach: They can ask, but doesn't mean it happens.

Alderman Johnson: I’ve never known of any Council and I’ve been here for quite a long time and Tony more than me, that if an Alderman asks that the vote be on the board, the vote is on the board.

Upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Thomas, and carried the following motion was made: Use $35,000 out of undesignated reserves to create a city-wide summer basketball program. A board vote was taken with the following voting in favor: Aldermen Johnson, Thomas, Shabazz and Durrence. Mayor DeLoach, Aldermen Miller, Foster and Hall voted against the motion. It failed with a tied vote of 4 to 4.

Alderman Thomas: We were fortunate enough in this community to have and I want to correct the number is a $10.2 million surplus? We keep saying $10 million but there's $200,000 out there somewhere.

City Manager Hernandez: I think it's actually a little higher than that. I think its $10.9 million unaudited. We will come back to you once the financials are complete with any residual dollars to clarify that.

Alderman Thomas: So, Mr. City Manager, it's over $10 million. Now this money that was taxed to Savannah tax payers that belongs to the Savannah taxpayers. And quite frankly, everyone up here has some project or something that we're chomping at the bit to get this money. But this money belongs to the people. Now you crafted a plan that spent all of it, and then the Mayor wanted $1 million, Van wanted $35,000, I don't know I haven't heard others and stuff. Why would we do something like that and not consider the people that are paying this money? Are we going to spend, if we have a surplus at mid-year, which you said earlier in the workshop that our trend is going up, so projections and everything looked like they're rising, if we have a surplus at mid-year, are we going to roll that back? Are we going to give that back to the tax payers? O are we going to keep just spending?

City Manager Hernandez: So, let me answer your last question first. You have to provide me that direction when we get to the mid-year budget conference as to how you want me to address any potential surplus or for that matter, any deficit related to FY18. So, you'll get that opportunity to provide that direction to me.

Alderman Thomas: And that’s a brilliant answer to have in the public record. But will you tell us next time the surplus before everyone goes to spending it? If you project that we're going to have a $5 million, $10 million, $20 million surplus. Instead of passing out a sheet that says here's what I want to do with the $20 million, how about giving us a sheet that just says, it looks like we're going to have a $20 million let's come together as a body to see what we can do so that the taxpayers get a fair shake out of this. The tax payers are the ones who are getting overlooked in this process. We passed a fire fee on them last year that raised $21 million. Now we've got $10 million more dollars that we're spending and that's $31 million. So, I don't know when we stop, when do we give them a break?

City Manager Hernandez: I don't want the public to think in any way, shape or form that the monies that we're talking about here, the $10 million surplus is going to my pocket or to any employees pockets. This particular recommendation to you is to allocate money for the benefit of the public. These dollars are going to go to the Cultural Arts Center, it's going to go to the Montgomery Street redirection project, and it is going to go to other municipal purposes that benefit the public. So, these are not going into anybody's private hands. These are all benefiting the public one way or the other. And again, what it does is it gives us flexibility so when we sit down at either the mid-year budget conference or we sit down and we start putting together the FY19 dollars and we're seeing that these are recurring dollars, then I think that that's the ideal moment, the ideal opportunity for all of you to consider either rolling back the millage rate or adjusting the fire fee. But I recommend that we do that as part of the FY19 budget, not the FY18 budget. That's my recommendation.

Alderman Durrence: A couple of quick points. Partly maybe to the consternation of some of my constituents I want to be clear, I haven't asked for any of this money, personally or district wise. The other point that I was going to make before the City Manager did is, you know, language is important to me and the way you use language is important to me. And I think it's important, no matter how much we might disagree about the spending priorities, every nickel of this money goes to the benefit of the City and City’s taxpayers. We may not think it's the right spending and we may not think it's the right benefit but as the City Manager said this money is going into spending for the City not, you know I'm not sure what else it could be anyway. That was it.

Alderman Johnson: Just briefly, the City Manager is doing what any good City Manager does. The City Manager is charged with making very practical decisions about money that's over and then when money is under. You know, I think the position that we're in, we're in political positions, we’re in theoretical positions, its philosophical positions. I mean, some of us just feel like that money that is taken from citizens or asked from citizens that when you have a surplus should be returned citizens, that's a philosophical statement. I don't think the City Manager did anything that he should not have done. I think he did what he was supposed to do it, he’s supposed to say hey, we have extra money let's look at ways looking forward the City could be. I commend you on at least thinking forward. I would have been very concerned if you said nothing at all.

Alderman Miller: Point of clarification. We have a 2018 budget. When we did the budget, we did not have, we could not find the funds to do everything we needed to do and that's where we got the fire fee to build the budget. The money we're talking about the $10 million whatever it is, is money that was saved from 2017. So, there's that confusion of you said you didn't have enough money and then you end up with $10 million additional. It's not the same money and this, the recommendations, are going to reduce the City's exposure in other areas which will benefit the City in many, many other ways, including potentially increasing our credit rating, a potentially. We also said at the time we budgeted 2018 that probably in the middle of the year there would be some other money coming in. This is not that money, this has nothing to do with that money. So, we keep throwing all three of these budgetary maneuvers in as if it's the same pot and it's not. And it's important that everyone understand that.

Alderman Foster: Mr. Mayor, first of all I want to point out that the City Manager and staff recommended 25% of this $10 million go into the general fund reserve that is not spending money that is getting the City back to where it should have been after the 2015 deficit spending year where we lost over $1.5 million. So, $1.5 million is going back into the general fund. We are still not where the reserve fund should be. So, in defense of what the City Manager's done, he's been the very conservative on this. He is recommending $1 million to get the Montgomery Street change done, instead of bonding or spending that out of current money. He’s taking care of the remaining $2 million from the Cultural Arts Center instead of selling that part of that property, which was the plan. He’s paying off $1.4 million Dr. Shabazz on the fairground purchase which will save the City $700,000 a year, and I need to point out that this was not a surplus. This was very conservative management of the financials of the City by the City Manager and his staff. About $5 million, approximately half of the $10 million was an expense savings, some of which was related to restructuring the City. A lot of it was due to a freezing hiring until the management reorganization was put into place. As we pay to staff up the police officers, which by the way was a remarkable success and today we're 100 percent staffed on the police side. And the staff for the City is being put back under the new organization. So, that money is there to handle those expenses. I don't see that, I can't see how anybody can call that a surplus. It is not a surplus, it is proper management of the City's assets. For the future it reduces our overhead and expense and increases our reserves. So I just want to make that point.

Mayor DeLoach: We stand adjourned unless there’s something else.

Attorney Stillwell: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Mr. Mayor, we have not voted on the budget change. There's a, if I could clarify where you are procedurally, there's a motion to adopt the City Manager's proposal. It was then amended if I remember right, twice, once about the $600,000. Secondly, about the $1 million. I believe those are the only two changes that have been approved, those. So, that is the motion on the floor. So, that needs to be voted on and unless there's going to be another amendment to that motion.

Alderman Shabazz: Mr. Mayor and everybody else in this room know I've only talked about this thing one time and everybody has been multiply talking about this.

Mayor DeLoach: I'm sorry, we're not going to talk on this. We're going to clear this up. Right now, we've already voted on the two amendments, so what's left is the original recommendation.

Attorney Stillwell: The original recommendation unless there are other amendments.

Alderman Shabazz: What I wanted to say is, on this fire fee situation that I don't know how much money it would take, but in my conversation and my statement that I made earlier one time on this issue, when I said to use some of this fire fee money, I don't know what the calculations is and I know that the City Manager and his staff has the formula at hand. But if there was from the, and I'm only in my thoughts because I've been hearing from the residents. Yes, I have been hearing from my constituents and they have talked to me about it. Especially when it comes to the residents, the single family line of the discount percentage. If we were to increase that a 5 or 10 percent from 20 percent savings, up to a 20 percent savings to a 25 or 30 percent savings on the single family resident line only. Nothing else that goes up with the other industrial or commercial percentages for the discounts. How much money that money, whatever that figure is, I don't know what it is. It may be in what I am talking about. It may not be any type of interruption to what all of the conversations that all of you, I've been having in all of your recommendations and all of you amendments, what I'm stating may not have a big negative or even touch any of the line items that the City Manager has already stated in his recommendation and proposal. So, that's what I'm saying, I’m talking about single family residents, if we could take that fire fee, if we can take that up to a 25 or 22, whatever we just need, in my estimation you’re right City Manager all of what you're talking about is for the benefit of the people. But in reference to the fire fee that is what my position is right here. Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Alderman Thomas: Mr. Mayor with all due respect, there's been so many amendments if we could just kind of call them out right now. We have $1 million on the table for your program. We have $35,000 that wasn't passed. Is that correct? And what else is out there? $600,000 for Mr. Miller. So, that's $1.6 million and the little one, the $35,000 didn't pass. So, bearing on what Alderwoman Shabazz said and listening to what Mr. Foster said, I do want to just say one thing was to Mr. Foster I could not quite hear what you said about the short fall of 2015, which was the last administration you said it was $1 million dollars, we took $1 million from reserves.

Alderman Foster: it was about $1.5 million that came out of reserves.

Alderman Thomas: Right, I agree with you, we did take about $1.5 million out of reserves. But we also took $2 million in 2016, and sent it to the County thinking we were going to keep a merger for the police department together. So, when we talk about these things, we can't have selective memory. We have to talk about what happened in 15 and what this Council did in 16 because we're talking about what this Council did. So, bearing with that in mind and bearing with what I've heard from Alderwoman Shabazz, I would like to make a subsequent amendment and bearing with what, what you mentioned Mr. Foster with the $2.5 million for the reserves to improve our credit rating, taking into account the $1 million for reserve for what the Mayor's social program is, and the $600,000 for what Mr. Miller has offered that. That is around $4.1 million. So, what I would like to do is make an amendment following with Alderwoman Shabazz that we grant $5 million of this money for these programs and for what we've passed here today and that we rebate to the citizens on that fire fee a total of $5 million.

Alderman Johnson: Second.

Alderman Miller: I kind of like what Alderwoman Shabazz said, let's look and see what bumping up the discount would cost instead of just throwing out $5 million and we don’t know what it will do.

Alderman Thomas: Well you can figure that out with the $5 million.

Attorney Stillwell: If I could clarify that on a fee, you cannot give a special benefit just to a homeowner that doesn't apply to everybody. That's one of the issues with a fee, a fee as opposed to a tax has to be equally applied to everybody based on what the cost of the service is.

Alderman Shabazz: What I'm talking about is there is a separation and how we are calculating or charging for the fee. We're talking about the discount, I'm talking about the discount.

Alderman Thomas: Well the $5 million accomplishes what everyone up here has been throwing out and gives the City Manager some money to go and address the other things on his wish list and it gives the people $5 million of their money back in some form. Whether it's a rebate on the fire fee that can be figured out by staff on how to do that as an additional discount for this year or something.

City Manager Hernandez: I think what we would do and I’m sorry if I’m interrupting. We would probably not apply it to the discount, we would just apply it across the board such that if you direct $5 million to be transferred from the general fund into the fire fee. We would just lower the total amount from what we collect from the fire fee by whatever amount you transferred.

Alderman Shabazz: Sounds good City Manager.

Alderman Miller: So, what are we taking off this list then?

Alderman Thomas: Well, you’ve gotten the things that you put out on there. You put the pay study…

Alderman Miller: But that takes everything out.

Alderman Thomas: Well, it gives the $1 million for the Mayor, it gives $2.5 million for the reserve, which takes us up for the credit rating and I believe if my calculations are correct, we have about $900,000 that the City Manager could direct then for IT, or one of the other priorities that he passed on to us. And then if he wants to hold onto this list, we can all do this again come July when we have a review of the mid-year because we're going to have additional monies from the revenues at that time too.

Alderman Hall: Would any of that go to the hardship fund?

Alderman Thomas: He's going to lower it for everyone, Mr. Hall.

Mayor DeLoach: I would like to say that I would not consider using any of this money to just arbitrarily throw $5 million out there. When you come up to mid-term, when you come up to 2018 monies and you got reoccurring revenue that's coming in, then it will be the time to look at whether you want to float the, whether you want to raise or lower the fire fee or leave it alone or whatever you want to do. But one time monies does not create a stream that will sustain it next year. What are you going to do, go back up whenever you don't have the money to offset it next year, $5 million or whatever, you're going to go back up. It's just false, you just putting out, it's just not…

Alderman Thomas: No, it’s not a false narrative. I mean what it is Mr. Mayor is that we shouldn't just be automatically in a spending spree.

Mayor DeLoach: We are not in a spending spree and you're not going to label those items that he just listed as a spending spree.

Alderman Thomas: Spend half of the tax payer’s surplus and give half of it back to them in some benefit some way. That's what my motion is and I got a second.

Alderman Johnson: I find it interesting that after you got your $1 million for your program now we’re clamping down.

Mayor DeLoach: It’s one time money and it’s a one-time expense.

Alderman Johnson: We’re talking about one-time money as well.

Alderman Thomas: Yours is a recurring expense.

Alderman Johnson: Its $1 million and then $800,000 a year.

Mayor DeLoach: It is not that $1 million is a one-time expense. From that point on, you have to subsidize the other part of the educational part. The $1 million that is not reoccurring, is actually spent to do the construction and change it for the three year olds to be able to use the school.

Alderman Thomas: In all due respect, what you're asking for is, you're asking for $1 million for the reserve, not the expense for the reserve. And then you're going to have to come back if we do decide to move forward with a Memorandum of Understanding from the Savannah-Chatham County Public Schools, with another $1.2 million to fund it for the first year. Then we will, every year will be at least $871,000.

Alderman Miller: We’re not making progress, let’s just call the question.

Attorney Stillwell: The motion is to take $5 million out of the money that the City Manager recommended for the items that he recommended them for and allocate it to a reduction of the fire fee.

Alderman Thomas: That is correct with the following: $2.5 million for the reserve, $1 million for the Mayor’s social program, $600,000 dollars for what Mr. Miller advocated for, that’s $4.1 million with  $900,000 to the City Manager's discretion for IT or whatever he deems he can spend that money or needs that money for.

Upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Johnson, and carried the following motion was made: to take $5 million out of the money that the City Manager recommended for the items that he recommended them for and allocate it to a reduction of the fire fee. With the following: $2.5 million for the reserve, $1 million for the Mayor’s social program, $600,000 dollars for what Mr. Miller advocated for, that’s $4.1 million with  $900,000 to the City Manager's discretion for IT or whatever he deems he can spend that money or needs that money for. A board vote was taken with the following voting in favor: Aldermen Thomas, Johnson, Shabazz and Hall. Mayor DeLoach, Aldermen Miller, Foster, and Durrence voted against the motion. It failed 4 to 4.

Alderman Thomas: I would like to make a subsequent motion.

Upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Johnson, and carried the following motion was made: to rebate to the City taxpayers $10 million for the surplus. A board vote was taken with the following voting in favor: Aldermen Thomas, Johnson, Shabazz and Hall. Mayor DeLoach, Aldermen Miller, Foster, and Durrence voted against the motion. It failed 4 to 4.

Attorney Stillwell: The motion now pending on the floor is to approve the City Manager's recommended deal with the two changes.

[This motion was originally made by Alderman Miller, and seconded by Alderman Foster]

Alderman Thomas: So, I have a question Mr. Mayor, in the City Manager’s list that he proposed to us of the $10 million, there was not a $1 million allocation for your social program. What is the City Manager going to, where is the City Manager going to take that $1 million from the wish list of the surplus to reserve for your program?

City Manager Hernandez: It will remain out of, it will come out of the $2.5 million set aside.

Alderman Thomas: So, we accomplish the reserve like we thought?

City Manager Hernandez: If we move forward with an arrangement with the School Board, the reserve would be decreased by rather than, rather than being increased by $2.5 million, it would only be increased by $1.5 million.

Alderman Thomas: Yes, I mean that's the point.

Alderman Johnson: Let me be clear what I'm voting on. We’re voting now to approve the balance as proposed by the City Manager, correct?

Attorney Stillwell: The entire $10 million allocated with the two changes.

Alderman Shabazz: We're talking about with the $1 million for the School Board, and the $600,000 for the wage adjustment?

Mayor DeLoach: Yes.

A board vote was taken with the following voting in favor: Mayor DeLoach, Aldermen Miller, Foster, Durrence, Hall and Shabazz. Aldermen Johnson and Thomas voted against the motion. It passed 6 to 2.

City Manager Hernandez: So, Mr. Mayor, the next item on your agenda, item number 23, somewhat related in that this item essentially closes the books so we can complete the financial report. Now we're going to budget, you’re transferring those monies from the 2017 fiscal year into the 2018 fiscal year. In addition, there are numerous other budget related adjustments that we didn't get into detail, whether it's adjusting the personnel cap in the sanitation fund by increasing it by four, decreasing the general fund by four. So, there's a lot of FY18 general budget cleanup in there to include moving monies in the capital account from the MLK Pharmacy SPLOST project to the Central Precinct project.

Alderman Miller: So, you’re moving the dollars around? You're not adding or subtracting dollars.

City Manager Hernandez: Correct, dollars being moved around. But we are adding the 17 surplus dollars into…

Alderman Johnson: Although it needs to be noted that the SPLOST money was a corridor project, but it was also a District 1 project. Knowing now that it's been re-designated now to the Central Precinct which is now in District 2. However in the same corridor, but I think it needs to be noted.

Alderman Durrence: Point of order, we had 22 on first and second reading, but since we didn't have a unanimous vote it has to be a first reading. So, can we even do 23 on a first and second if we haven’t finished 22.

City Manager Hernandez: I guess you can only do 23 as a first.

Alderman Thomas: You know I’m not in favor of 22 on first and second reading, so we’ll have to take it on first reading. And I will not be in favor of 23, so you’ll have to take them both on first reading.

Alderman Johnson: Agreed.

First Reading. No Action 

Ordinance read for the first time in Council April 26, 2018, then by unanimous consent of Council read a second time, placed upon its passage, adopted and approved upon a motion by Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and unanimously carried.

Ordinance in its entirety is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Council.

Alderman Johnson: I think, you know, ultimately if the honorary designation needs to be and I believe it has to be sponsored by a Council member, I can't see making someone pay $150 for it.

Alderman Durrence: My question was going to be if we do go forward with this charge, I know that we've got at least one in the process right now that just charge wouldn't apply to that one.

Alderman Thomas: If I'm correct didn’t we discuss that this fee would cover the signage?

Alderman Durrence: My question wasn’t so much an objection as something that's in the pipeline now would not be subjected to this fee.

City Manager Hernandez: I think they would be because when you adopted the policy, you adopted it in the ordinance. Now we're going back and including that fee in the revenue ordinance.

Alderman Durrence: So, this is not a new fee you're just making it part of the revenue ordinance.

Alderman Johnson: It’s a new fee though, because it didn’t exist.

City Manager Hernandez: It exist when you adopted the program.

Alderman Johnson: But it did not exist when we made the request.

City Manager Hernandez: If you're talking about the one, I think in your district, right there was an initial request that was made prior to a policy being adopted.

Alderman Durrence: Right, they have no fee.

City Manager Hernandez: If that's the way you want to look at.

Alderman Durrence: They've been in the process for a while.

City Manager Hernandez: Right, they’ve been in the process. We held that request up because we didn't have a policy. We didn't know how we were going to even react to those types of requests. So, then we put a policy together and we know that we have to cover the cost of the signage. Because the signage is essentially temporary, it's only for a five year period.

Alderman Johnson: I can go with it provided…

Alderman Durrence: I’m with him.

Alderman Miller: Provided that it starts now, is that what you’re saying?

Alderman Johnson: Provided going forward.

Ordinance read for the first time in Council April 26, 2018, then by unanimous consent of Council read a second time, placed upon its passage, adopted and approved upon a motion by Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Thomas, and unanimously carried with the following condition: the fee is for the cost of the signage.

Ordinance in its entirety is on file in the Office of the Clerk of Council.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Foster, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Miller recused himself from the vote because he is a member of the Neighborhood Association and Garden Club.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Foster, seconded by Alderman Durrence, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Miller recused himself from the vote because he is a member of the Neighborhood Association and Garden Club. 

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Hall, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Hall, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Hall, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Alderman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, item 33 which was pulled. This is just to award the sale of surplus for a property on Cleland Street. There are great things happening in West Savannah and the Hudson Hill Community

Approved upon motion of Alderman Johnson, seconded by Alderman Shabazz, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote. 

Mayor DeLoach: Can I ask a question, how's that Walmart doing?

Alderman Thomas: That Walmart’s doing great. I mean, I'm surprised that we're just getting around to having a water and sewer agreement with them. It's been going for over a year. That was in your first year in 2016.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Miller, and unanimously carried per the City Manager's recommendation. Alderman Durrence was not present for the vote. 

Attorney Stillwell: This is the first reading. As you know, there are two bond issues that the City’s requested the Downtown Savannah Authority to make. One is the taxable revenue bonds for the Savannah River Landing parking project not to exceed $33,000,000. The second is the City Savannah fire system project for the purpose of financing a fire vehicle not to exceed $1.2 million. This is just the first reading on those two items.

First Reading. No Action Necessary.

City Attorney Stillwell: The settlement is there's a worker's comp claim by Hope McGee, a Recreation Services employee, who sustained injuries to her right knee and back in connection with her duties. The claim has been settled for $80,000 subject to Council approval. I recommend approval.

Approved upon motion of Alderman Thomas, seconded by Alderman Hall, and unanimously carried upon recommendation of the City Attorney.

COMMENTS

Alderman Hall: Mr. Mayor, just very quickly. Mr. City Manager, I was very encouraged by this morning's announcement that the discount assistance is being offered by City staff at Moses Jackson. This is a question. Is this dedicated staff who will be available throughout this process?

City Manager Hernandez: Well, I think we’re doing a couple of things Alderman Hall. We've trained staff certainly within our Finance department and also 311 to provide customer assistance when individuals request it. But in addition, we're taking the show on the road so to speak, we're having a series of one on ones throughout the City.

Alderman Hall: So, this is dedicated staff who will be and not people pulled in from other departments?

City Manager Hernandez: Well, I think that we've trained individuals to be able to answer preliminary questions. Any detailed questions will need to be referred to our Finance staff or the residents can come to one of our specific workshops that we're having throughout the City.

Alderman Hall: Can the June 1^st deadline for applications be attached to the water bills? I know Council will be evaluated on how well this rolls out and so will you Mr. City Manager, so it has to be done right. So, in all of this we have the fire fee, so it frees up money for other things and the citizens need to know. Somebody brought that up today about the nonprofits and what they are getting from when we free up money and it goes to the fire fee and for other things. The citizens need to know what they're getting.

City Manager Hernandez: Sure, I mean we put that information out when we adopted the budget for FY18. I'm happy to…

Alderman Hall: But we still have to keep talking about this, we don’t want this to get lost.

City Manager Hernandez: I understand what you’re saying.

Alderman Thomas: Mr. Mayor, Mr. City Manager, you know we're going to have our mid-year review, financial review coming up and you know that the trend is heading up so you know we're going to have some dollars. So, you can actually spend some dollars, but one of the complaints that I have is the grass cutting for our medians around town. They are atrocious, but they're atrocious in some areas and not all areas. I noticed today when I was headed up here from north of DeRenne versus south of DeRenne. The north of DeRenne median on Abercorn looks like a lush garden from a book compared to the south of DeRenne. And particularly in the Windsor Forest Neighborhood I know that I saw a small segment of Largo cut yesterday, a very small segment, but the Windsor median and Largo median is awful and needs attention. I know that you and I have had some interaction with this and I was told that our medians were going to be put on four week cycles. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Miller, I can't agree with that under any means. Four week cycles are far too long, that they said that they …

Alderman Miller: Where did that come from?

Alderman Thomas: Well, that was told to me and one of my residents by a senior member of our team here. Mr. City Manager corrected it and said that it's now a three week cycle. I don't think that we can even wait three weeks during the grass growing season for our medians. We are asking our residents to clean their homes and keep their yards straight and clean, but yet we're not keeping our yards clean and to a standard that can be, that we can be proud of, and especially in these neighborhoods. Mr. City Manager, can you address that with some methods so that we don't end up fighting all summer about keeping the ditches and the medians cut.

Alderman Shabazz: I have to make a point when you talk about these medians. The median on West 47^th Street and Pendleton Street, and also between Abercorn on one end going towards Montgomery Crossroads going down to the other end on Montgomery Crossroads that turns into Middleground Road. Those three medians in my district were at one time kept immaculate. I don't know what happened. But West 47^th Street, Pendleton Street median, and over on Montgomery Crossroads turning into Middleground Road, those medians we have to get on that list.

City Manager Hernandez: Mr. Mayor and members of City Council, we didn't have the benefit of going to the Greenscape presentation today because of time. But if you can recall prior to the reorganization going into this year, which created the Greenscapes division and prior to the City Council actually allocating an additional $1,000,000 for enhanced lawn maintenance servicess, we were basically on a six week cycle. As a result of some additional funding we got down to a four week cycle that was year round. I heard from plenty of you that that was not acceptable. We then went back and we worked on getting it to a three week cycle. I heard from plenty of you that that was not acceptable. So, I think we're at a point where we are going to do our absolute best to commit to a two week cycle during the growing season, which is essentially April through about October. We are going to go on the line and we're going to essentially commit to two weeks during that period for our medians. We're also going to strive to take care of all of the right of ways during that period on a two week cycle. But the priority is going to be on the medians on a two week cycle during the growing season.

Alderman Miller: Can I add to that Mr. City Manager. I talked to staff either yesterday or the day before when I noticed one of our contractors was cutting the grass. They cut about 90 percent of it. But when you cut 90 percent of it and you leave weeds in the middle of it, it looks like it hadn't been cut. At the same time, I pointed out that when they cut, they left cans, trash, other things there and I understand that it's a balancing act. If you spend a lot of time picking up the trash and cutting the weeds and that means you don't get to as many stretches of grass to cut. But if it doesn't look cut, I'm not sure we're doing ourselves any good. Now the staff is looking into that.

City Manager Hernandez: Part of the scope of work, they are required to pick up litter and trash.

Mayor DeLoach: It’s 162 miles between here and Macon, they walk every bit of it on both sides and pick up the paper before they cut. If you’ve ever watched them do the interstate, they don't leave a lick, because if they do, they have to go back and pick it up.

Alderman Miller: So, I never did hear back on what came out of that. I would like to add one other thing. I'm getting an awful lot of complaints about noise, noisy mufflers, loud stereos, trash trucks picking up, Tony this was in your area at 3:30 in the morning. I think we've kind of addressed some of that. But in the past, our Police Department has really not been staffed to start really going after these noise complaints, but they are staffed now. I would hope that we can direct the Police Department now that they’ve gotten staffed up and they're ready to do it. So they can start looking at these noise complaints because they are as intrusive as anything else we've got going on.

City Manager Hernandez: Sure between our Police Department and our Code Compliance Department we will address those quality of life issues.

Alderman Thomas: Can we have a work shop on Code Enforcement and just what they're doing in the neighborhoods.

City Manager Hernandez: Actually, we do plan on bringing that forward, and we also plan there will be a mail out, not this next utility billing cycle, but the one after that. We will have a public information piece on code compliance, but we can certainly have that workshop before we send that out as part of the water bill.

Alderman Thomas: Okay, thank you.

There being no further business, Mayor DeLoach declared this meeting of Council adjourned.

The video recording of the Council meeting can be found by copying and pasting the below link in your url:

https://savannahgovtv.viebit.com/player.php?hash=6VNd0NgMPL6w