1. law, govt and politics
2. armed forces
3. army

COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
3:00 P.M.
May 19, 2011
Law Enforcement Center/Municipal Court Room
1. INVOCATION: Pastor Hayes of New Day Outreach Ministry
2. MINUTES
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. PRESENTATIONS
4-1-0. FT. STEWART JLUS MODEL OVERLAY: Kevin Sullivan, Land Use Planner
for Coastal Regional Commission, is developing a draft Model Overlay ordinance that
local governments may choose to implement in their communities in accordance with the
2005 Fort Stewart Joint Land Use Study (JLUS).
Informational
5. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES RESOLUTION #2011-15:
Darden to present a Guide for City Officials.
Action item:
City Attorney
6. BID OPENING: A bid opening for a ladder truck was held at the Hinesville Fire
Department on May 9, 2011, at 11:00 AM.
Action Item
7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:
7-1-0. Resolution #2011-12: Safety and Liability Management Grant to reimburse for
safety equipment.
7-2-0. Resolution #2011-13: Public Safety Grant offered by Target Foundation for
National Night Out event.
7-3-0. Resolution #2011-14: Secure Our Schools Grant offered by Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS).
Action Items
8. P.C. SIMONTON & ASSOCIATES:
8-1-0. Forest Street Sidewalk As built
Action Item
COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
3:00 P.M.
May 19, 2011
Law Enforcement Center/Municipal Court Room
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS
10. MAYOR S REPORT
10-1-0. Report
11. COUNCILMEMBER SHAW’S REPORT
11-1-0. CH2MHILL Operations Status Report
12. COUNCIL MEMBER JENKINS’ REPORT
12-1-0. HFD Monthly Report
13. COUNCILMEMBER ANDERSON’S REPORT:
13-1-0. Report
14. COUNCILMEMBER FLOYD’S REPORT
14-1-0. Inspections Dept. Monthly Activity Report
15. MAYOR PRO TEM FRASIER’S REPORT
15-1-0. HPD Monthly Crime and Citation Report
16. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT:
16-1-0. PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:00 - Buffalos Southwest Café Hinesville, located at
811 Elma G Miles Pkwy currently operating without a local manager since February 20,
2011. Buffalos Southwest Café currently has a class II alcoholic beverage license to sell
beer, wine and liquor that is not according to our Code.
Informational Item
16-2-0. BOARD APPOINTMENT: Yvonne Woods appointment on the Live Oak
Library Board expires June 30, 2011. The Live Oak Library Board appointments are
made by Mayor and Council.
Informational Item
17. ADJOURN
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 04-1-0 Model Overlay Zoning District
Prepared by: Rose M. Kenner
Presented by: Kevin Sullivan
PURPOSE:
To present a draft copy of the Military Installation Zoning Overlay
District (MIZOD).
BACKGROUND: This Model Overlay Zoning District is an implementation project of
the Fort Stewart/HAAF Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), which was completed in 2005.
The Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS was prepared by the Coastal Regional Commission
and funded by the office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense (DoD) as
a cooperative land use planning initiative among the U.S. Army, cities and counties
surrounding this military installation.
FUNDING:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
04-1-1 MIZOD FAQ
04-1-2 Model Overlay Zoning District
04-1-3 End User Review Booklet
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
MIZOD
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Military Installation Zoning Overlay District “MIZOD”?
The MIZOD is a model zoning overlay district intended to ensure compatible land use and growth
management for affected jurisdictions surrounding Fort Stewart. The MIZOD is a voluntary
zoning tool which has been developed for use in conjunction with existing zoning regulations.
What does sound “attenuation” mean?
Sound attenuation is simply defined as reducing the intensity of a sound.
What is the purpose of the MIZOD?
The purpose of the MIZOD is to address the military and public concern from noise and air safety
created by the military training activities at Fort Stewart and Wright Army Airfield (WAAF) by
establishing zoning regulations for land uses and structures that are incompatible with military
operations. The intent of the MIZOD is to reduce encroachment around Fort Stewart and to
maintain the overall quality of life of those who live, work and recreate in the region.
What is an Overlay Zoning District?
An overlay zoning district is established by local ordinance and prescribes supplemental
regulations to address special land use concerns. Overlay districts are applied to an area in
combination with the underlying or base zoning district.
How will the MIZOD affect my property?
Depending on the MIZOD subzone in which a property is located within, there is a hierarchical
set of specific standards that affect new uses and structures. All structures built prior to the
effective date of the MIZOD designation shall have legal nonconforming status.
What does “legal nonconforming status” mean?
‘Legal nonconforming status’, or ‘grandfathered’, refers to the continued use of all structures
occupied by noise sensitive land uses as legally existing prior to rezoning. All grandfathered
structures can individually continue until such time as they are substantially damaged or
destroyed.
Will I be required to make changes to my house or building?
No, any ‘grandfathered’ structures can remain unaltered. However, new construction must
comply with the regulations upon adoption by the governing jurisdiction.
What land uses are considered “noise sensitive” uses?
The MIZOD overlay identifies the following noise sensitive uses (generalized examples);
residential structures, assisted living facilities, churches, in-patient medical facilities, funeral
homes, child care facilities, libraries, and schools. For a detailed list please refer to the model
overlay zoning district.
What is the source of the noise and air safety that makes the MIZOD necessary?
Fort Stewart is the primary training site for the U.S. Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, supporting a
wide range of training operations including small arms and large caliber firing ranges, simulation
facilities, ordinance detonation, maneuver areas, combat medicine, and combat air-drop training.
Primary noise generators include gunfire, low-level helicopter flights, and fixed-wing aircraft.
www.crc.ga.gov/planning/jlus/default.htm
Model Overlay Zoning District
Fort Stewart/Wright Army Airfield
OVERVIEW
This Model Overlay Zoning District is an implementation project of the Fort Stewart/HAAF
Joint Land Use Study (JLUS), which was completed in 2005. The Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS
was prepared by the Coastal Regional Commission and funded by the Office of Economic
Adjustment, Department of Defense (DoD) as a cooperative land use planning initiative among
the U.S. Army, cities and counties surrounding this military installation. The ongoing JLUS
implementation program seeks to establish and bridge the relationship between Fort Stewart and
the community to avoid conflicts associated with future community growth. The JLUS objective
is to protect the resident’s quality of life, the property owner’s rights and the existing and future
mission of the Fort Stewart installation.
The intent of the Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS is to identify, address and resolve encroachment
issues between the military and its civilian neighbors to promote compatible land uses and
growth management guidelines. Encroachment—urban development near military
installations—can contribute to problems with the military’s operational effectiveness when
preparing for missions. It can also be disruptive to the civilian population, as well as public
establishments such as schools and religious centers, that are located near the base.
Economic Influence
Although most military installations were originally developed in distant areas away from
urbanized communities, the availability of non-military job opportunities encouraged people and
businesses to relocate to these areas. However, the military’s training practices can become
disruptive. Loud-noise levels, low-flying planes and ground-training exercises can be hazardous
and bothersome to civilians. When these practices become intolerable, people will seek relief.
The public pressure will then force military commanders to restrict training or move it else
where, which could result in the installations closure. Consequently, minimizing the military’s
activities directly impact local economies in terms of civilian job cuts and tax reductions.
The goal of the Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS is not only to protect the viability of current and future
military missions, but also to accommodate growth, sustain regional economic health and protect
public welfare, health and safety. The economic impact of Fort Stewart/HAAF on the
surrounding region is significant. In 2002, the DoD was the largest employer in the region and
accounted for approximately 75 percent of the total direct economic impact of the military in the
coastal Georgia region. The estimation of this economic impact amounted to $2.115 billion
annually.
Currently, Liberty County and the City of Hinesville are operating under a joint-use agreement
with Fort Stewart and the DoD to utilize Wright Army Airfield (WAAF) as a joint-use airport to
serve the needs of the city, county and region. Permanent civilian air service greatly improves
economic development conditions and increases non-military employment and training
opportunities throughout the region. To date, public and private investment has already been
realized near the WAAF. Liberty County is pursuing the development of an adjacent
commerce/industrial park.
Model Zoning Overlay District
The Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD) has been developed as the zoning
tool to implement the policies of the Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS and to regulate incompatible
development surrounding the military installation. The MIZOD is divided into six (6) subzones,
each having specific standards beyond what is required by the underlying zoning district. These
subzones are categorized into three (3) Noise Zones and three (3) Air Safety Zones pursuant to
the guidance of the Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS. The boundary of the MIZOD is derived from the
boundary of the largest subzone, thus acting as an umbrella for the remaining five (5) subzones.
The official boundary of the MIZOD was developed as part of the Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS.
MIZOD Diagram
The Military Installation Zoning Overlay District Ordinance (MIZOD) is a voluntary Model
Zoning Overlay District, which has been developed for use in conjunction with existing zoning
regulations by local municipal and county jurisdictions that surround the Fort Stewart/WAAF
military installation. Each jurisdiction has some flexibility in the composition of the military
overlay zoning district they adopt, but is should remain consistent with the Fort Stewart/HAAF
JLUS and Federal guidelines for land use compatibility surrounding military installations.
Encroachment occurs when adjacent military and civilian land uses generate one of both of the
following effects:
•
•
Nearby community development interferes with the ability of the military to perform its
mission or causes modifications to military operating procedures; or
Members of the public are exposed to a higher than normal level of operational impacts
associated with military activities, such as noise, smoke or the risk of an aircraft mishap
There are off-post lands surrounding Fort Stewart/WAAF that are particularly susceptible to
noise impacts caused by the firing of heavy weaponry or detonations as well as potential areas
for aircraft accidents. During periods of more intense activity and under certain atmospheric
conditions, these off-post lands may be subject to higher noise impacts that trigger annoyance
(especially noise sensitive uses). As a supplement to standard zoning, an overlay zone allows
communities to develop land uses that are compatible with the impacts of the military installation
and ensure people and businesses are not exposed to undue safety risks or nuisances.
The MIZOD implements recommendations contained in the Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS by
protecting its future military mission and the economic health of the region and individual
property rights. It also protects the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of residents and
businesses in the surrounding municipalities and counties. The MIZOD provides a regulatory
framework for communities to ensure compatible land use planning and development standards
for off-post lands impacted by military activities. An accompanying review process that satisfies
the recommendations of the Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS is also provided.
Hunter Army Airfield (HAAF)
Through the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC), the City of Savannah and Chatham
County are currently developing a Unified Zoning Ordinance to combine land development
regulation for these jurisdictions. The MPC has identified the need to develop an overlay zoning
district surrounding the HAAF to implement the requirements of the Fort Stewart/HAAF JLUS.
For this reason, the Model Overlay Zoning District is not intended for the lands surrounding
HAAF, but rather only those lands surrounding the Fort Stewart/WAAF installation.
For Additional Information, Contact:
Lupita McClenning
[email protected]
Director of Planning & Government Services
Coastal Regional Commission
www.crc.ga.gov
Article [#.#]
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Section [#].1 Purpose and Intent
A. The purpose of the Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD) is to
regulate, in a manner consistent with the rights of individual property owners and the
requirements of military operations at Fort Stewart/Wright Army Airfield (WAAF),
development of uses and structures that are incompatible with military operations; to
sustain the economic health of the [City, County] and the region; to protect the safety
and welfare from the adverse impacts associated with high levels of noise from flight
operations and large-caliber weapons and the potential for aircraft accidents
associated with proximity to WAAF operations; and to maintain the overall quality of
life of those who live, work, and recreate in the [City, County].
Section [#].2 Definitions
For the purpose of this Section, certain terms and words are hereby defined:
A-Weighted decibel: A measure of sound that depicts higher frequency noise caused by
small arms firing, aircraft use and vehicle operations.
Attenuation: Special design and construction practices intended to lower the amount of
noise and vibration that penetrates the windows, door and walls of a building.
Avigation: Aerial navigation.
Day-Night Sound Level (DNL): The 24-hour average frequency-weighted sound level,
in decibels, from midnight to midnight, obtained after additional of 10 decibels to sound
levels before 7:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m.
Decibel: A logarithmic unit of measure of sound pressure.
C-Weighted decibel: A measure of sound that depicts low frequency noise and vibration
associated with the firing of larger weapons systems.
Exterior door: All exit doors of a building that are located between conditioned and
unconditioned space. A basement, crawl space or garage is considered unconditioned
space unless it is provided with a positive heat supply to maintain a minimum
temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
Habitable space: A space or room in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking.
Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, solariums,
sunrooms and similar areas are not considered habitable space.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 1 of 12
Section [#].3 Relationship to Zoning Districts
A. The MIZOD shall be designated on the Official Zoning Map and its boundaries shall
be based on the Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield Joint Land Use Study, as
amended.
B. In all zoning districts within the boundaries of the MIZOD, the regulations for both
the underlying zoning district and the MIZOD regulations shall apply. Whenever,
there is a conflict between the regulations of the underlying zoning district and
MIZOD, the more restrictive regulation shall apply.
Section [#].4 Applicability
A. The standards for this section shall apply to those properties that lie within the
MIZOD boundaries. When a parcel is split by the boundary of the MIZOD, only that
portion of the parcel within the MIZOD shall be required to meet the provisions of
this article.
Section [#].5 Establishment of MIZOD Zones and Boundary
A. For purpose of administering these regulations, there shall be three (3) noise subzones
and three (3) air safety subzones that reflect where use restrictions or standards apply
within the MIZOD. The boundaries for these noise and air safety subzones shall be
defined on the Official Zoning Map.
B. MIZOD Noise Zones. The boundaries for these noise subzones are inclusive of areas
surrounding the Fort Stewart installation and WAAF and shall be based on the Fort
Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield Joint Land Use Study, as amended.
(1) Noise Zone I (NZ I). This zone consists of an area between the 55 and 65 Aweighted Decibel Noise Level (ADNL) and 57 and 62 C-weighted Decibel Noise
Level (CDNL) contour lines.
(2) Noise II (NZ II). This zone consists of an area between the 65 and 75 ADNL and
62 and 70 CDNL contour lines.
(3) Noise III (NZ III). This zone consists of an area in which the contour lines are
greater than 75 ADNL and 70 CDNL.
C. MIZOD Air Safety Zones. The boundaries for these air safety subzones adjacent to
WAAF shall be based on the Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield Joint Land Use
Study, as amended.
(1) Clear Zone (CZ). This zone is an area at the immediate ends of the runway 1,000
feet wide by 3,000 feet long in which there is a high potential for accidents.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 2 of 12
(2) Accident Potential Zone I (APZ I). This zone is an area leading to the runway
beyond the CZ, 1,000 feet wide extending 2,500 feet in which there is a significant
potential of accidents.
(3) Accident Potential Zone II (APZ II). This zone is an area leading to the runway
beyond the APZ 1, 1,000 feet wide and extending 2,500 feet in which there is a
moderate potential for accidents.
D. Parcels Located Within More Than One Subzone. In the event a lot or parcel of
record is located within more than one zone identified in this article, the entire lot
shall be subject to the restrictions of the zone which most restricts development of the
lot.
Section [#].6 Use Regulations
A. Any use permitted in the underlying zoning district in which the proposed use is
located shall be allowed in the MIZOD, except as expressly prohibited within the
provisions of this article and provided that additional standards set forth in this article
are met. References to permitted uses as provided within this article are conditioned
upon the said use being in compliance with permitted uses within the underlying
zoning district.
Section [#].7 Permitted Uses in Relation to MIZOD Noise Zones
A. The use of a building or premises for any use permitted under Section [#].6 shall be
allowed in the MIZOD if it lies within the specified noise zone as set out in Figure
[#].7 shown at the end of this article and conditioned upon compliance with Section
[#].12 of this article.
B. Where property is undeveloped, only such portion of it as is actually within the noise
zone shall be considered within that noise zone. However, at such time as said
property shall be subdivided or platted, any platted buildable lots intersected by a
noise zone shall be deemed to be wholly within the highest noise zone.
Section [#].8 Conditional Permitted Uses in Relation to MIZOD Noise Zones
A. The use of a building or premises for a use designated Y[1] as set out in Figure [#].7
shown at the end of this article is permitted in the MIZOD if it lies within the
specified noise zone and is in conformance with the requirements of Section [#].11 of
this article and the conditions prescribed herein:
(1) A building permit may be issued by the [Zoning Administrator/Building
Official] provided that the building plan shows a design and construction that
incorporates sound attenuation features to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level
reduction (NLR) of at least 25 decibels, which shall include but not limited to the
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 3 of 12
requirements described below in addition to all other applicable requirements of the
building code, as amended:
(i)
All exterior doors shall be either:
a. Solid-core or metal-clad construction, or
b. Separately equipped with wood or metal storm door, or
c. Multiple-glazed.
(ii)
Multiple-glazed windows shall be provided for all habitable space.
(iii)
Through-the-wall/door mailboxes, venting skylights, jalousie
windows or other direct openings from the interior to the exterior
of the building shall be prohibited.
(iv)
Mechanical ventilation shall be provided of a type and design to
provide adequate environmental comfort with all doors and
windows closed during all seasons. Window and through-the-wall
ventilation units shall not be used. Commercial cooking areas are
exempt from these conditions.
Section [#].9 Permitted Uses in Relation to MIZOD Air Safety Zones
A. The use of a building or premises for any use permitted under Section [#].6 shall be
allowed in the MIZOD pursuant to the specified air safety zone regulations as set out
in Figure [#].9 shown at the end of this article.
B. Where property is undeveloped, only such portion of it as is actually within the air
safety zones shall be considered within that air safety zone. However, at such time as
said property shall be subdivided or platted, any platted buildable lots intersected by
an air safety zone shall be deemed to be wholly within the highest air safety zone.
C. Only single-family detached dwellings with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres are
permitted within the APZ II air safety zone.
Section [#].10 Additional Regulations in Relation to MIZOD Air Safety Zones
A. Interference. No use is permitted within the MIZOD Air Safety Zones that creates
electrical interference with radio communication between an Air Traffic Control
(ATC) facility and an aircraft; or to make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between
airport lights and other lights; or to cause glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport;
or to impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport; or to otherwise endanger the
landing, taking off or maneuvering of aircraft at an airport or in the vicinity of an
airport.
B. Height. Maximum height limits for structures exist for areas in close proximity to the
runways of the WAAF. These height limits shall apply to all structures including, but
not limited to, buildings, wireless telecommunication facilities, broadcast
transmission towers and construction cranes. The maximum limits are generally
based upon the path of aircraft that are taking off from, landing on or circling in a
holding pattern around the runway and vary based on distance from the runway. The
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 4 of 12
[Height Limiting Zone Map] (To-Be-Developed) is based upon the Approach and
Clear Zone Plans. When the maximum height permitted by the underlying zoning
district and this overlay district conflict, the more restrictive height shall apply. All
new wireless telecommunication facilities and broadcast transmission towers meeting
the requirements of this article shall be constructed with lights on the tower.
C. Aircraft Wildlife Strike Hazards. Human-made use such as retention ponds, roosting
habitats on buildings, landscaping, putrescible-waste disposal operations, wastewater
treatment plants, agricultural or aquaculture activities, surface mining, or wetlands,
which may be used by wildlife for escape, feeding, loafing, or reproduction are
prohibited. Wildlife use of areas within an airport’s approach or departure airspace,
aircraft movement areas, loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas may cause
conditions hazardous to aircraft safety. Human-made uses shall be sited in
accordance with the following criteria to achieve adequate separation between the
attractant and aircraft movement:
(i)
[Criteria to be developed in conjunction with City, County and
Garrison Commander]
Section [#].11 Real Estate Disclosure
A. All real estate transactions within the MIZOD shall include a notice disclosing the
proximity of the property to the Fort Stewart/WAAF installation, except such uses or
properties exempted by this article. The notice shall be affixed to all listing
agreements, sales and lease contracts, subdivision plats, and the seller’s property
disclosure statement or similar documents. The real estate disclosure notice shall
conform to the provisions contained in the model notice, a copy of which is identified
in Figure [#].11 shown at the end of this article.
Section [#].12 Avigation and Noise Easements
A. All uses permitted within the MIZOD, except the area within the Noise Zone (NZ I)
boundary and uses or properties exempted by this article, shall be conditioned upon
the grant by the property owner of an avigation and noise easement to the [City,
County]. Such easement shall be a condition of subdivision, planned unit
development, special permit, use permit, building permit or similar permit. The
avigation and noise easement is to be submitted pursuant to the terms of this article
and shall conform to the provisions contained in the model avigation and noise
easement, a copy of which is shown in Figure [#].12 at the end of this article.
B. An executed copy of the avigation and noise easement for said property shall be
provided to the [City, County] and kept on file as proof of easement. All avigation
and noise easements shall be recorded with the [County] Clerk of Court at the
property owner’s expense.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 5 of 12
Section [#].13 Pre-Existing Uses
A. Any existing use, which was lawfully established at the time of the effective date of
this article, may be continued; although, such use does not conform to the provisions
hereof. However, the requirements set forth in this section shall be applicable to the
portion of the use subject to enlargement, extension, conversion, reconstruction or
structural alteration, and not be retroactive to the entire pre-existing structure.
Nothing shall prohibit the reconstruction of a building legally in use at the time of the
adoption of this section. A request for enlargement, extension, conversion,
reconstruction or structural alteration of a pre-existing use which does not conform to
the provisions of this article shall be processed through the [Permit] procedures as set
forth in the [Zoning Ordinance].
B. The [Permit] to enlarge, extend, convert, reconstruct, or alter a structure lawfully in
existence at the time of the enactment of this section, shall not be conditioned upon
the execution of an avigation and noise easement pursuant to Section [#].12.
Section [#].14 Enforcement and Exemption
A. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or other certificate, the [Zoning
Administrator/Building Official] shall ensure the proposed building, premises or
development is in compliance with the requirements of this article.
B. The [Garrison Commander] or its designee shall be informed of all requests for
development within the MIZOD, except the area within the Noise Zone (NZ I)
boundary. The [Zoning Administrator/Building Official] shall forward a copy of
all applications to the [Garrison Commander] prior to issuance of any permits. The
[Garrison Commander] or its designee shall verify receipt of such information and,
within a reasonable time period, forward any comments concerning the request to the
[Zoning Administrator/Building Official].
C. Any use located within the MIZOD and utilized in connection with the operations of
Fort Stewart/WAAF; properties owned or leased by the [City, County]; any [Public]
Authority; military units; or other governmental agencies are hereby declared
compatible and shall be exempted from the requirements of this article.
Section [#].15 Protection
A. The degree of protection provided by this article is reasonable for regulatory purposes
and is based on planning, engineering and scientific methods of study and in
coordination with aviation and defense agencies. This article does not imply that
areas outside of the MIZOD area will be totally free from noise impacts and aircraft
hazards, and, therefore, shall not create a liability on the part of [City. County], or
any of its officers or employees, for any damages resulting from reliance on this
article.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 6 of 12
Section [#].16 Variance
A. Variances shall not be permitted from the height limits or use regulations for
properties within any Noise Zone or Air Safety Zone of this overlay district.
Additionally, no application for a variance to the other requirements of this article
may be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals unless a copy of the application
has been furnished to the [Garrison Commander] or its designee for a written
recommendation as to the aeronautical effects of the variance. If the [Garrison
Commander] or its designee does not respond to the application within 30 days after
receipt, the Zoning Board of Appeals may act on its own to grant or deny the
application.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 7 of 12
Figure [#].7
Generalized Use Matrix for MIZOD Noise Zones
Permitted Within
Each Noise Zone
NZ I
NZ II
NZ III
Residential
Y
Y [1]
N
Manufactured Housing
Y
N
N
Industrial
Y
Y
Y
Retail & Service
Businesses
Y
Y [1]
Y [1]
Office
Y
Y [1]
Y [1]
Restaurants
Y
Y [1]
Y [1]
Service stations &
repair services
Y
Y
Y
Health & childcare
Y
Y [1]
N
Hotels/motels
Y
Y [1]
N
Education & religious
facilities
Y
Y [1]
N
Public Assembly
Y
Y [1]
N
Y
Y [1]
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Indoor sport,
recreation &
entertainment facilities
Outdoor sport,
recreation &
entertainment facilities
Parks, Open Space &
Golf Courses
Agriculture
Notes:
Y – Permitted
N – Not Permitted
1. Development is required to incorporate sound attenuation features as a condition of
building permit issuance, as described in Section [#].8 of this article.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 8 of 12
Figure [#].9
Generalized Use Matrix for MIZOD Air Safety Zones
Permitted Within
Each Air Safety Zone
APZ II
APZ I
CZ
Y [1]
N
N
Manufactured Housing
N
N
N
Industrial
Y
Y
N
Retail & Service
Businesses
Y
N
N
Office
Y
N
N
Restaurants
N
N
N
Service stations &
repair services
Y
Y
N
Health & childcare
N
N
N
Hotels/motels
N
N
N
Education & religious
facilities
N
N
N
Public Assembly
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Residential
Indoor sport,
recreation &
entertainment facilities
Outdoor sport,
recreation &
entertainment facilities
Parks, Open Space &
Golf Courses
Agriculture
Notes:
Y – Permitted
N – Not Permitted
1. Only single-family detached dwellings with a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres are
permitted pursuant to Section [#].9.C of this article.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 9 of 12
Figure [#].11
Model Real Estate Disclosure Notice
Properties located within the Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD) for Fort
Stewart/WAAF should be aware that such property may be subject to overflights by commercial,
general aviation, and military aircraft, and subject to noise, vibration, exhaust, air and vehicular
traffic and other conditions associated with the operation of this military installation. Land
within the MIZOD, particularly during periods of more intense military activity, can be subject
to noise high enough to trigger annoyance. The military installation is operational 24 hours per
day.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 10 of 12
Figure [#].12
Model Avigation and Noise Easement
INDENTURE made this _____ day of ____________ , 20__ , between _______________________ , hereinafter
called “Grantor”, and [City, County] a public body corporate and politic, hereinafter called [“City, County”]:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner in fee simple of a certain tract of land situated in [Name] County, State of
Georgia, more particularly described as:
See attached Exhibit “A”,
said tract of land being hereinafter referred to as “Grantor’s Land”; and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed in consideration of ______________ ($_______) and other valuable consideration,
receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, to grant [City, County] the following Avigation and Noise Easement for
the right of flight and consequent aircraft noise over Grantor’s Land.
NOW THIS INDENTURE, WITNESSETH:
Grantor, for itself, its heirs, successors and assigns, for the said consideration, hereby grants and conveys to the
[City, County], the following Avigation and Noise Easement for the right of flight and consequent aircraft noise
over Grantor’s Land.
NOW THIS INDENTURE, WITNESSETH:
Grantor, for itself, its heirs, successors and assigns, for the said consideration, hereby grants and conveys to the
[City, County], its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement and right-of-way for the unobstructed and
unrestricted flight of aircraft in, through and across the airspace over and above Grantor’s Land, at any legally
permissible altitude, and the right, to the extent permitted by law, to make noise and cause fumes and disturbance
arising from the ground and flight operations of all civil and military aircraft to, from and upon the Fort Stewart/
WAAF military installation, regardless of the means of propulsion.
The Grantor, for itself, its heirs, successors, and assigns, does hereby waive all right to and interest in any claim or
cause of action against the [City, County], arising out of or from any legally permissible noise, vibration,
avigations, firing of large-caliber weaponry or detonations, pollution, light or noise generated from, above or on
military property, or sonic disturbance of any description, caused by flight operations of civil and military aircraft
regardless of the means of propulsion, to, from and upon Fort Stewart/WAAF, which may result in damage to land
or to any person, structure or other property located upon Grantor’s Land, excepting, however, any claim or cause of
action for any damage or injury to person or property resulting from any aircraft, or object there from, falling on,
propelled into, or striking any person or property on Grantor’s land.
The Grantor, for the said consideration, further agrees, that if Grantor or its heirs, successors or assigns, should sell
or alienate any portion of Grantor’s Land, Grantor, its heirs, successors or assigns shall include in every deed or
conveyance evidencing such sale or alienation, a recitation that the grant is subject to all conditions contained within
this Avigation and Noise Easement, and further as a condition of such transaction, Grantor shall require each
Grantee to include such recitation in any subsequent deed or conveyance of any of the property herein above
described as Grantor’s Land.
In the event any condition or provision herein contained is held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction,
the invalidity of any such easement, condition or provision shall in no way affect any other condition or provision
herein contained.
It is understood and agreed that this easement shall be binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, and assigns
of the Grantor, and that this easement shall run with Grantor’s Land.
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 11 of 12
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said Avigation and Noise Easement hereby granted unto the [City, County] for the use
of the Fort Stewart/WAAF military installation, its successors, and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused its signature to be affixed this day of
______________ , 20__.
By: ___________________________________
STATE OF _______________)
) ss.
COUNTY OF _____________)
On this _____ day of _____________ , 20__, before me, a duly appointed and qualified notary public, personally
appeared _____________________________________ , to me personally known to be the same and identical
person who signed the above and foregoing instrument and he did acknowledge the execution thereof to be his
voluntary act and deed and that of _________________________.
WITNESS my hand and seal on the date last aforementioned.
__________________________________
Notary Public
Military Installation Zoning Overlay District (MIZOD)
Coastal Regional Commission—March 2011
Page 12 of 12
COASTAL REGIONAL COMMISSION OF GEORGIA
FORT STEWART/ HAAF JOINT LAND USE STUDY (JLUS):
INITIATIVES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPATIBLE GROWTH
MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES SURROUNDING THE FORT STEWART
MILITARY INSTALLATION
END-USER REVIEW BOOKLET FOR:
MODEL
MILITARY INSTALLATION ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT
(MIZOD)
Reviewer name (optional): ______________________________________________
Jurisdiction: __________________________________________________________
Please Submit to:
Coastal Regional Commission
(Attention: Kevin Sullivan)
Fax: 912.262.2313
Email: [email protected]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS!
Purpose of this Booklet:
The MIZOD is an initiative which implements compatible growth management techniques
surrounding the Fort Stewart Military Installation as identified in the Fort Stewart/HAAF Joint
Land Use Study. This booklet’s purpose is to generate feedback from potential end-users of the
MIZOD in order to refine the model overlay zoning district to improve implementation
outcomes. The review’s format is generally arranged in two parts.
Part One is a general critique of the MIZOD as it applies to the following subjects:
Intent – Does the model overlay zoning district (MIZOD) meet its intent? Does it clearly and
concisely convey standards, requirements and procedures for implementation?
Functionality – Does the model overlay zoning district (MIZOD) achieve its goal to implement
compatible growth and land use management surrounding the Fort Stewart Military Installation?
Relevance – Is the model overlay zoning district relevant to the jurisdictions surrounding the Fort
Stewart Military Installation?
Part Two provides an opportunity for detailed observational notes and end-user
recommendations that will assist in detailed refinement at the conclusion of the MIZOD public
outreach process. The feedback should be narrowed to critical points that affect jurisdictional
application of the model overlay zoning district.
The reviewer must indicate the page number stated in each comment.
Model Overlay Zoning District:
PART ONE: GENERAL COMMENTS
Intent:
Functionality:
Relevance:
Model Overlay Zoning District:
PART TWO: DETAILED COMMENTS
Five Detail Review Observations:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Model Overlay Zoning Ordinance
Workshop Series
Fort Stewart/HAAF
JLUS Implementation Project
Today’s Agenda
• Workshop and Team Introduction
• Review Model Overlay Zoning District
• Forum for Input and Discussion
Purpose of the Workshop
For You:
To get an in depth understanding of how
this tool may work in your city or county
For Us:
To get an understanding of the potential
applications of this tool and to refine model
ordinance
Background
Fort Stewart / HAAF JLUS (2005)
• JLUS Goals:
• Reduce land use conflicts
• Accommodate Growth
• Sustain regional economy
• Military is a significant factor in the regional economy
Issue: Encroachment
Adjacent military and civilian land uses generate
• Community development interferes with
military mission
• Civilians are exposed to higher than normal
level of military operational impacts
Will encroachment continue without action?
JLUS Implementation
Identified 15 Compatibility Initiatives
Land Management
Zoning
CIP
PDRs
Noise Mapping
Disclosure
Coordination
Partnerships
Noise Reduction
Communication
MOU
Land Use
What is an Overlay Zoning District?
• Additional “layer” of zoning in specific area
• Superimposed to the “base” zoning district
• Implemented via zoning rules/procedures
• Legal preexisting uses are allowed to continue
Military Installation Zoning
Overlay District (MIZOD)
Model Zoning Ordinance developed by CRC
• Comprised of standard language
• Local refinement/calibration required
• Voluntary application
• Requires local approval
Communities with Similar Overlays
• Maricopa County, AZ (Luke AFB)
• Virginia Beach, VA (NAS Oceana)
• Richland County, SC (Fort Jackson/McGrady TC)
• Arapahoe County, CO (Buckley AFB)
• Lincoln, NE (Joint Guard/Municipal Airport)
• *Chatham County, GA (Hunter Army Airfield)
*Proposed
MIZOD
MIZOD
Depicted by
Boundaries
Specific
Standards
3 Noise Zones
NZ I
NZ II
NZ III
6 Subzones
3 Air Safety Zones
CZ
APZ I
APZ II
MIZOD Noise Zones (NZ)
Noise Sensitive Uses
• Residential
• Elderly Residential Facilities
• Education and Religious Facilities
• Child care
• Hotels/Motels
• Public Assembly
• Indoor/Outdoor Facilities
NZ Compatibility Guidelines
Multi-Pronged Approach
• Real Estate Disclosure
• Sound Attenuation for Noise Sensitive Uses
• Avigation and Noise Easement
• Specific Use Restrictions
MIZOD NZ-I
Disclosure
MIZOD NZ-II
Disclosure
Sound
Attenuation
Easement
Manufactured
Housing
MIZOD NZ-II Use Table
• Sound Attenuation
MIZOD NZ-III
Disclosure
Sound
Attenuation
Easement
Use
Restrictions
MIZOD NZ-III Use Table
• Sound Attenuation
• Use Restrictions
NZ Compatibility Guidelines
Multi-Pronged Approach
• Real Estate Disclosure
• Sound Attenuation for Noise Sensitive Uses
• Avigation and Noise Easement
• Specific Use Restrictions
MIZOD
MIZOD
Depicted by
Boundaries
Specific
Standards
3 Noise Zones
NZ I
NZ II
NZ III
3 Air Safety Zones
CZ
APZ I
APZ II
6 Subzones
MIZOD AIR SAFETY ZONES
CZ
APZ-I
APZ-II
MIZOD AIR SAFETY ZONES
• Use restrictions
based on location
Additional Air Safety Requirements
•Interference
•Height
•Hazards
MIZOD Exemptions
• Fort Stewart/WAAF operations
• Owned/Leased by City/County
• Public Authorities
• Other governmental uses
MIZOD Benefits
• Primary Benefits
• Protection of military mission
• Protection of regional economy
• Protection of public welfare/quality of life
MIZOD Implementation Steps
1
1 – Community Outreach
2 – Stakeholders
3 – Review & Calibration
4 – Approval
2
3
4
Feedback, Questions, Additional Info?
End User Response Forms
• Submit today or later to CRC
For more Information
www.crc.ga.gov/planning/jlus/default.htm
Kevin Sullivan (CRC)
[email protected]
Office: 912.262.2871 Fax: 912.262.2313
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 5, 2011
Agenda Item: 05-1-0 Parliamentary Procedures
Guide
Prepared by: Rose M. Kenner
Presented by: Linnie Darden
PURPOSE:
To present the Parliamentary Procedures Guide compiled by the
Georgia Municipal Association for discussion/adoption.
BACKGROUND:
FUNDING:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
06-1-1 Resolution #2011-15
06-1-2 Parliamentary Procedures
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
RESOLUTION No. 2011-15
A RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE GEORGIA MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION PUBLICATION
“PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, A GUIDE FOR CITY OFFICIALS” AS STANDARD
OPERATING PROCEDURE IN THE CONDUCT OF HINESVILLE CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the duly elected governing authority of the City of Hinesville Georgia is
authorized under Article I, Section 2-21 of the Code, to enact any reasonable and lawful
ordinance or resolution that it deems best for the governance of the City; and
WHEREAS, the rules of Parliamentary Procedure are intended to help organizations
conduct business efficiently and fairly; and
WHEREAS, the Georgia Municipal Association has published suggested procedures for
efficiently conducting city council meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Georgia Municipal Association publication, “Parliamentary Procedures,
A Guide for City Officials”, published June 2007, is intended to serve as a guide to municipal
governments in Georgia for simplified procedures to follow in the conduct of city council
meetings;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Council of the City of
Hinesville, and it is hereby RESOLVED that the City shall use as standard operating procedure,
the Georgia Municipal Association publication, “Parliamentary Procedure, A Guide for City
Officials” published June 2007, in the procedural conduct of all meetings of the City Council.
APPROVED and ADOPTED this the ____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY OF HINESVILLE, GEORGIA:
____________________________________
James Thomas, Jr., Mayor
____________________________________
Charles Frasier, Mayor Pro Tem
____________________________________
Jason Floyd, Council Member
____________________________________
David Anderson, Sr., Council Member
____________________________________
Keith Jenkins, Council Member
____________________________________
Kenneth Shaw, Council Member
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Sarah R. Lumpkin, City Clerk
Parliamentary
Procedure
A Guide for City Officials
Georgia Municipal Association
June 2007
Introduction: The Purpose of Procedural Rules
The rules of parliamentary procedure are intended to help organizations and other
large bodies conduct business efficiently and fairly. Historically, the rules allow healthy
debate and discussion while controlling who speaks and when so that decisions are made
in an orderly and timely fashion. Legislative bodies in particular have a lot of work to
accomplish, and the rules of parliamentary procedure should alleviate problems and assist
officials in accomplishing their tasks and goals. Most clubs, organizations, and other
bodies across the United States have adopted Robert’s Rules of Order, as it is the most
widely accepted procedure guide.
For local governments, however, the procedural rules often bring an even more
daunting obstacle than the duties themselves. While Robert’s Rules may be effective to
assist in the orderly conduct of large groups, it may become unwieldy for smaller bodies
of people, in particular local legislative bodies. It may cause confusion, waste time, and
even cause legitimate actions of the mayor and council to be invalidated on technicalities.
This publication is intended to serve as a guide to municipal governments for simplified
procedures to follow in the course of a council meeting. While there are various laws
requiring meeting notices, open meetings, and agendas, this publication only covers
suggested procedures for efficiently conducting a council meeting. The commentaries
provide additional guidance.
The following rules, with a few alterations to meet the needs of the city, may be
adopted as Standard Operating Procedure for the conduct of council meetings. For a
quick summary of the most common motions used by a municipal body, see Motions at
a Glance on page 5.
For more information regarding parliamentary procedure for local governments,
see Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century1,
or Suggested Rules of Procedure for Small Local Government Boards2. For information
regarding Open Meetings and Records, see the GMA publication Government in the
Sunshine: Open Meetings/Records Guide for City Officials (Sixth edition, 2004); and the
Georgia Open Meetings Act and Open Records Act, starting at Code Sections 50-14-1,
50-18-70 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, respectively.
1
Rosenberg’s Rules of Order: Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century, available at
http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/22486.ParliamentaryRevised.pdf (hereinafter “Rosenberg’s Rules”).
2
A. Fleming Bell, II, Suggested Rules of Procedure for Small Local Government Boards, 2nd Ed., 1998.
Basic Guidelines
1. Getting the Floor
When an individual member of the legislative body wishes to make a motion, the
chair must first recognize the individual’s right to speak.3 The individual may then make
the motion, beginning with the phrase, “I move…”.4 Typically a second is then required;
however, the council may choose in its adoption of parliamentary rules whether or not to
require a second. The original purpose of the second was to assure minimum support for
the issue, and theoretically on a local council, if even one member has interest then there
is sufficient interest for the proposal to go forward. Keep in mind, however, that the
second can be a useful tool, especially with larger councils. First of all, on a larger
council, one member represents a smaller percentage of support for the motion, so the
original purpose of the second may be invoked—to assure sufficient support of the issue.
Further, on any size council the second can help to curb the forced consideration of an
issue in which only one member shows interest. Without the use of a second, there is the
potential for one member to repeatedly propose an issue that the rest of the council finds
irrelevant. Thus, although not required, a second is highly suggested, especially in the
case of large councils.
2. Discussion and Debate
After the motion (and second, if the council so chooses), the presiding officer
repeats the motion and opens the floor to discussion of the motion.5 The maker of the
motion speaks first, and the presiding officer allows proponents and opponents to
alternate speaking if possible. A member who has not yet spoken has precedence over
those who have already voiced an opinion.6 The presiding officer has the authority to end
discussion if it becomes too personal or too longwinded.
3. Limits on Motions
The various procedural motions available are explained under the “Motions At a
Glance” section. A procedural motion is one that governs the way the meeting is
conducted, whereas a substantive motion is a motion on a particular topic or issue. A
member may only make one motion at a time. Ratification of an act is considered a
substantive motion.7
3
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 2.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Bell, supra note 2, at 15.
7
Id. at 15.
3
Up to three motions (one substantive, two procedural) may be on the floor at one
time; for example, one substantive motion and two motions to amend.8 While two
substantive motions may not be pending at the same time, multiple procedural motions
may be on the floor if the rules discussed in “Motions at a Glance” so allow.9 When
multiple motions are on the floor, the last motion made should be the first voted on.10 See
motions to amend under “Motions at a Glance” for more detail.
4. Voting Requirements
A quorum is necessary to conduct business and is generally defined as a majority
of the membership of the council. Unless otherwise provided by the city’s charter, the
council may decide whether to exclude vacant seats for purposes of determining quorum,
as well as whether or not to count the chair. Typically, boards decide to count in quorum
a member who leaves a meeting without being excused by majority vote of the other
remaining members, but the charter may contain a definition of quorum or specific voting
requirements. Thus, the charter must first be consulted by the city in setting its voting
requirements.
Just as the council has the power to choose whether to include the presiding
officer in attaining a quorum, they may also be able to decide whether or not he or she
votes always or only to break a tie. Again, the charter usually controls this, so the
requirements in the charter will govern this section of the procedural rules. If someone
fills in for the presiding officer, that individual votes as he or she normally would,
regardless of the rules governing chair voting unless the charter provides otherwise.
5. Passing a Motion
If a quorum is present, the chair can take a vote by asking for the “ayes” and
11
“nays”. Approval of a motion is generally attained by a majority vote (more than half)
of all the votes cast when quorum is present, but the charter again should be consulted, as
it may provide otherwise. The council may choose to require a 2/3 or other supermajority
approval vote for certain motions that tend to curb the rights of individuals to voice their
opinions or make motions.
Further, in the case of a motion to suspend the rules, a unanimous vote may be
needed for certain actions, such as having both the first and second reading of an item in
the same meeting when two separate meetings are typically required. Abstention should
be disallowed except in cases where a conflict of interest exists.12 Otherwise, it may be
used improperly to cripple the council. Although it is highly discouraged, however, a
council does have a choice to allow abstention. The charter should delineate how an
8
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 3.
9
Id. at 13-14.
10
Id.
11
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 4.
12
Laurel E. Henderson, Vagaries of Voting: The Oblique Approach (unpublished paper); 2000 GMA City
Attorneys Section Seminar.
4
abstention is to be treated. When there is not a roll call vote and the minutes do not reflect
the names of the members voting against a proposal or abstaining, state law provides that
the action taken is presumed approved by each person in attendance.13 After the vote, the
chair should declare the results of the vote.
6. Amending Procedure Rules
The council also needs to provide a process for amending its procedural rules. It is
suggested that amendments to parliamentary procedure be allowed at any regular meeting
or a special meeting called for that purpose, and that adoption occur upon approval by a
majority of a quorum.
13
O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(e)(2) (2006).
5
Motions at a Glance
The following are procedural motions that may be needed by a city council in
order to conduct its business. They are presented in descending order of precedence.
As a side note, included in this example are motions that are rarely, if ever, used.
For example, the motion to divide a complex issue and consider it by paragraph,
discussed below, should only be used in the most complex, confusing situations, and
motions to refer to committee are unnecessary in a city that does not use committees. In
adopting procedural rules, the council may thus choose whether or not to include such
motions. A word of caution about exclusion, however; unforeseen situations may arise
where such motions are needed, and it is sometimes easier to let a procedural motion sit
on the books unused than to go through the process of adding it to the rules.
However, if the council feels the presence of a rarely-used motion may cause
unnecessary confusion, the amendment process discussed above is fairly simple and
would allow a motion to be added if such a contingent circumstance arose. For example,
if the motion to divide and consider by paragraph was not in the rules and a very complex
motion was made, the speaker may withdraw the motion, allowing the council to amend
the procedural rules to include a motion to divide. Then the motion may be renewed and
the council may move to divide it into simpler pieces. The decision to include some of
the less-known motions discussed below thus lies with the council.
x
Motion to appeal the procedural ruling:14 A speaker may be interrupted for the
purpose of making this motion, which arises when the presiding officer (typically
the mayor or mayor pro tem) has ruled a motion in or out of order or made some
other procedural decision with which the speaker disagrees. The ruling is
appealed to the council and thus requires a majority vote under guidelines
typically provided in the charter.
Commentary
The motion to appeal may be made only at the time that the
procedural ruling is made. Because it must occur so immediately, it takes
the highest precedence of the procedural motions. The member of the
body making the motion may speak without being recognized, and the
motion may not be ruled out of order.
x
Motion to adjourn:15 This motion proposes the meeting end and takes
precedence over all other motions discussed below if it passes. It may not be
made during the discussion of a pending substantive issue and may only be
brought by an individual after he or she has been recognized by the chair to have
the floor.
14
Bell, supra note 2, at 16.
15
Id. at 17.
7
Commentary
The council may still choose to adjourn without deciding a pending
substantive matter; however, one of the below-mentioned motions must be
used. There is no debate on the motion to adjourn, so after the motion and
second a vote must be held.16
x
x
Motion to recess or adjourn to a time and place certain:17 This motion also proposes an end
to the meeting and takes precedence over all the motions below if it passes.
Commentary
However, unlike the motion to adjourn, it may interrupt the
discussion of a pending substantive issue. Thus, this motion can be used
by the council if they want to stop the meeting before a final decision is
made on a substantive motion.
Motion to take a brief recess:18 This motion proposes a break in the meeting and
is subject only to an amendment as to the length of the break.
Commentary
This motion may be made at any time except when one of the
motions above is pending. The presiding officer, however, may call a brief
recess at any time without a motion. There is no debate on this motion.19
x
Call to follow the agenda:20 This motion attempts to steer the council back on course if they
deviate from the agenda. If it is not raised the first time they stray from the agenda, the motion is
waived and unavailable.
Commentary
The speaker may be interrupted for this motion, and it may be
debated, as there may be limited times when deviation from the agenda is
necessary.
x
Motion to suspend the rules: This motion allows the council to do things that are
legally allowable but may violate the council’s own rules. (Rules imposed by
state law or the charter cannot be suspended).
Commentary
The motion to suspend the rules is debatable and amendable.21 It is
available to give the council more flexibility and to reduce needless
formalities. This may be another situation where a 2/3 vote or other
16
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 3.
17
Bell, supra note 2, at 17, cmt.
18
Id. at 17.
19
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 3.
20
Bell, supra note 2, at 18.
21
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 4.
8
supermajority should be required, as it is an effort to override existing
rules. The rules are in place for a reason, so the higher percentage of
support may prevent the rules from being suspended in order to infringe
on an individual’s right to voice an opinion or vote his or her conscience.
x
Motion to go into closed session:22 This motion coincides with the law regarding
Open Meetings in O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1 et. seq. If during a meeting the council
needs to go into closed session for one of the limited purposes listed in the statute,
a member may make this motion to go into closed session.23
x
Motion to leave closed session:24 This motion allows the council to return from a
closed session into an open meeting, either to conclude any business or simply to
adjourn the open meeting.
x
Motion to divide a complex issue and consider it by paragraph:25 This motion
allows debate and discussion, amendments, and voting to occur on a large issue in
smaller increments.
Commentary
As a word of caution, this motion should be used only in the case
of long motions or complex issues where confusion is possible. For
example, if the city designated money in the budget to fund a new park
and there was opposition to the park, there may be a motion to divide and
vote on that budget item instead of the budget as a whole. Then, if the park
funding was approved, the budget could be considered. If the park funding
failed, the budget could be amended and then voted on.
x
Motion to defer consideration/Motion to Table:26 These motions allow the
council to leave the decision on the issue for another day. Consideration of a
motion may be deferred to a specified date and place or indefinitely.
Commentary
It is suggested to set a time limit for the motion to expire if not
revived, perhaps 90 days.27 At expiration the issue is automatically off the
22
Id. at 18-19.
23
For more information, see GEORGIA MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION, GOVERNMENT IN THE
SUNSHINE (6th ed. 2004).
24
Id. at 19.
25
Id.
26
Id.; Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 3.
27
Bell, supra note 2, at 19.
9
table and no motion is required to dispose of it. After expiration, however,
the motion may be made anew. The motion is debatable and amendable.28
x
Motion to end/limit debate (Move the previous question):29 This motion allows
a member to suggest that discussion end and voting occur.
Commentary
This motion is not in order until all members have had the
opportunity to speak at least once. The council may also choose to impose
a minimum time requirement before a motion to end debate is made. For a
typical 3 to 5 member board, 15 minutes may be ample time for discussion
of one motion and to allow each member a chance to speak, whereas more
time is likely needed for a larger council. These times are completely
arbitrary, however, and the council may choose to set whatever time it
deems appropriate, or to set no time limit at all. When made, this motion is
not debatable, but is again a good candidate for a 2/3 or other
supermajority vote requirement.30
x
Motion to Refer a Motion to a Committee:31 If the council believes it would be
better served to let a committee first consider the substantive motion, it may move
to refer to committee.
Commentary
When the committee reports to the council on the issue, a second is
not required, whether it is generally required or not. The individual who
made the substantive motion may compel consideration of the issue to the
entire council if the committee has not reported back within a specified
period of time, such as sixty days. If the council does not use committees,
this motion is unnecessary. This motion, if used, is both debatable and
amendable and requires only a majority vote.
x
Motion to amend:32 This motion must be related to the subject matter of the
original motion and may not be phrased in a way that is contrary to the original
motion.
Commentary
If passing the amended motion would defeat the original motion,
the amendment is disallowed, but this is interpreted very narrowly; only
amendments that explicitly reject the original motion are prohibited. Up to
two amendments may be on the floor at one time; the first motion to
28
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 3-5.
29
Bell, supra note 2, at 20; Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 4.
30
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 4.
31
Bell, supra note 2, at 21.
32
Id.
10
amend changes the original motion, and the second motion to amend must
relate to the first amendment.
After a motion to amend is made, only that motion may be
debated, and the original motion is not discussed until the disposition of
the amendment. Motions to amend must then be voted on in reverse order
as needed; the second motion to amend will be voted on, then the first
motion to amend, then the original motion if necessary.
Discussion and debate are important for everyone to voice their
opinions and come to a consensus, so it is best practice for complete
debate and discussion to occur before motions to amend are made. This is
not always necessary, however, such as in the case of short, technical
amendments.
When there is opportunity for confusion, it is best practice to put
the amendments in writing. To the extent that the community has the
ability, complex amendments should be subjected to writing for even the
public audience, perhaps by projection, flip chart, or photocopies. In the
case of long or complex documents, a motion to divide the complex issue
(described above) may be used, but it should be used sparingly.
If a motion to divide is made, there may be no more than
two motions to amend on each paragraph, and voting will follow
the order discussed above. Only after all the motions on the
paragraph have been resolved may the next paragraph be open for
motion and discussion.33
33
x
Motion to revive consideration:34 This motion allows the council to consider a
tabled or deferred issue before it expires under the time specified above under
motion to defer consideration.
Commentary
The motion may be debated and amended. If this motion doesn’t
occur within the specified period, the issue expires and may be brought up
only on a new motion.
x
Motion to reconsider:35 This motion allows an issue considered earlier in the
meeting to be reconsidered.
“Substitute motions” are sometimes used when the suggested changes may potentially have a major
effect. The council may choose to still use substitute motions; however, in the interest of simplicity and to
avoid confusion, all proposals for changes, regardless of their potential consequences, are deemed “motions
to amend”.
34
Id. at 22.
35
Id. at 23.
11
Commentary
The motion may only be made by someone who voted with the
prevailing side and must occur in the same meeting as the original vote,
with a meeting continued by adjournment to a time and place certain being
considered the same meeting.36
x
Motion to prevent reconsideration:37 A defeated motion may be reintroduced at
later meetings. This can be prevented for a specified period of time set by the
council, perhaps six months, through a motion to prevent reconsideration.
Commentary
This motion must occur immediately after the original motion is
defeated and must be approved by a majority, but the council may choose
to set it at 2/3 of the members because it limits the ability to bring
motions. The only way this motion may be overcome is through a motion
to suspend the rules. This motion may seem unnecessary since an issue
that only one councilmember has interest in can often be avoided by
simply requiring a second.
However, each time the motion is repeated, time is wasted, so in a
situation when the issue is clearly not considered important, a motion to
prevent reconsideration can help avoid potential problems. Under Georgia
state law, defeated zoning proposals may not be considered for at least six
months38; likewise, it makes sense to prevent reconsideration of defeated
issues for a similar period.
x
Withdraw the motion:39 The person who made the motion may interrupt the
speaker to withdraw his or her motion at any time during discussion or before it is
amended, whichever comes first.
Commentary
In the case of motions to amend, they may be withdrawn only by the
person making the motion to amend and only in the order in which they may
be voted on (reverse order, beginning with the amendment to the amendment).
The motion is deemed automatically withdrawn upon a motion and a second;
no vote is needed.
36
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 4.
37
Bell, supra note 2, at 23.
38
O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4(c).
39
Bell, supra note 2, at 24; Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 5.
12
Decorum
The above motions represent the vast portion of procedures needed so that the
legislative body may function. However, it may occasionally be necessary to interrupt a
meeting for a reason aside from what is going on in the meeting, such as the temperature
of the room or noise outside; the “points” discussed below may be used to get the floor in
those situations.
x
Point of inquiry:40 An individual may raise a point of inquiry if a simple
clarification of a motion is needed. The individual must first be recognized by the
presiding officer. This point should be used sparingly and only in the case of
confusion as to the intent or substance of a motion.
x
Point of privilege:41 The speaker may be interrupted before he or she finishes her
motion or issue by a “point of privilege”. Points of privilege are used if an
individual needs to interrupt for a reason that is unrelated to the issue at hand but
that may interfere with the general atmosphere of the meeting. An interruption
that a door should be closed because of outside noise would be an example.
x
Point of order: An individual may also interrupt the speaker because the meeting
is being conducted inappropriately in some way. For example, if a third motion to
amend is made, and only two are permitted, the individual would say “point of
order”, and the presiding officer would then say “state your point”.
In the interest of orderly and efficient meetings, the council may choose to implement
some discretionary rules on decorum into their procedure guide. When implementing
such rules, it is important to respect the First Amendment rights of citizens to free speech
and to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, the courts have
repeatedly recognized that these rights are not absolute and do not provide individuals
license to disrupt government operations. Notably, the right to petition does not include
the right to participate in all open government meetings and the right to free speech is
only violated when the restricted speech is constitutionally protected and the
government’s justification for the restriction is insufficient.42 Thus, a city council can
limit public participation in council meetings to required public hearings. However, the
better practice is to designate some portion of each public meeting for time-limited
comments by members of the public on matters that are relevant and within the authority
of the body being addressed. A countervailing concern is that to allow members of the
public to comment on each agenda item as it is considered and allow the same members
of the public to continue to address the council or commission throughout the meeting
essentially allows these non-elected individuals to participate in debate as members of
council.
40
Rosenberg’s Rules, supra note 1, at 5.
41
Id.
42
See Perry Education Ass’n. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U.S. 37 (1983); Scroggins v. City of
Topeka, 2 F.Supp.2d 1362 (D. Kansas 1998)
13
When a city council permits public comment on agenda items or other matters
directly relevant to city business, the council has created a designated public forum and it
may enact content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions on speech and expressive
conduct which are narrowly drawn to achieve a significant government interest and allow
sufficient alternate channels of communication.43 A city council should consult and work
with their city attorney to draw up meeting guidelines that are constitutionally sound but
responsive to the need to conduct orderly meetings and conserve public resources.
x
Time Limit on Speakers: This helps to keep discussion of issues timely and on
point. Also, if a time limit is established in advance and applied consistently, it is
less likely that an individual will feel personally attacked if he or she is asked to
yield the floor at the end of the allotted time. The legislative body may choose to
apply the limit to elected officials only or to both officials and members of the
public as well. The body may also choose to not allow public comment except in
the limited circumstances mandated by Georgia law, such as zoning and budget
hearings.44
x
Politely addressing council and citizens: A policy on respect for the council and
citizens may also help meetings to be more orderly and productive. Such a policy
may require individuals to refrain from using the public meeting as a forum for
rude, slanderous or disruptive personal attacks on others, and may allow the chair
to take the floor away from individuals who act unruly.45 Individuals may further
be prohibited from private discourse or other distractions, and any such acts may
be stopped by the
residing officer.46
x
Focus on relevant matters. The council can adopt a policy limiting public
comment to matters that are on the agenda for consideration or, more broadly, to
matters that are directly related to the business of the body being addressed. The
policy may also prohibit redundant or repetitive comments to save time and
provide time for a variety of viewpoints.
x
Abstention: As stated earlier, cities are strongly encouraged to adopt a policy
prohibiting abstention in the absence of a conflict of interest. Otherwise, it is
possible that abstention could be abused to strategically cripple a council or
otherwise impair the conduct of business. A city may choose to require all those
43
Id.; see City of Madison, Joint School Dist. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n., 429 U.S. 167
(1976); Jones v. Heyman, 888 F.2d 1328 (11th Cir. 1989).
44
See also O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 and 26-66-5 (public hearing for zoning decision and each side gets 10
minutes); O.C.G.A. § 36-72-7 (public hearing regarding development of abandoned cemeteries); O.C.G.A.
§ 36-81-5 (public hearing regarding budget); O.C.G.A. § 36-73-2 (public hearing regarding proposed
contracts for regional facilities); O.C.G.A § 36-90-3 (public hearing regarding cable franchises).
45
Id.
46
RULES OF PROCEDURE, NEW MEXICO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (unpublished manuscript).
14
in attendance to vote unless there is a conflict of interest, with the conflict
recorded in the minutes.47
SAMPLE COUNCIL MEETING
Mayor: With a quorum present I now call to order this meeting of the Blackacre City
Council, Monday, February 19, 2007. You should all have a copy of the agenda before
you. Are there any changes to the agenda?
[Silence]
Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brown.
Councilmember Joe Brown: Mr. Mayor, I move we accept the agenda as presented.
Councilmember Bob Jones: Second
Mayor: All in favor? [“Aye”] Any opposed? [Silence]. The agenda has been adopted.
Let’s move on to the minutes. Each of you should have received a copy of last meeting’s
minutes. Mr. Brown.
Councilmember Joe Brown: I move we approve the minutes as written.
Councilmember Bob Jones: Second.
Mayor: All in favor? [“Aye”] Any opposed? [Silence]. The minutes have been approved
as sent out. Moving on down the list. Is there any old business? Ms. Doe.
Councilmember Jane Doe: Mr. Mayor, I move we revive consideration of the purchase
of new police cars.
Councilmember Joe Brown: Point of order. Mr. Mayor, we discussed that issue 8
months ago—it wasn’t revived in the 6 month time period so it expired.
Mayor: Mr. Brown is correct, I’m afraid we cannot revive consideration. Yes,
Councilmember Doe?
Councilmember Jane Doe: Then I move we buy 10 new police cars.
Mayor: Is there a second?
47
RULES OF PROCEDURE, NEW MEXICO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (unpublished manuscript).
15
Councilmember Joe Brown: Mr. Mayor, I call to follow the agenda. The issue of police
cars is nowhere on this agenda.
Mayor: Ok, there is a call to follow the agenda. Is there a second?
Councilmember Bryan Green: Second.
Mayor: Any discussion? Mr. Brown.
Councilmember Joe Brown: Yes, well I think that there’s a reason we have an agenda—
it’s so we can get out of this meeting quicker. Plus, we discussed it 8 months ago, so it
can’t suddenly be so important that we have to deviate from the agenda to consider it.
Besides, there’s just no money to do that right now. We simply don’t have the funds for
more police cars. It’s up to the police department to come up with some sort of plan to
deal with those situations with the resources they have—their job is to be prepared.
Mayor: Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Daisy Smith: Well, I think we should deviate from the agenda to
consider the issue of police cars. 8 months ago we weren’t so sure we needed them. But
last month, we had 3 robberies going on at the same time. The criminals could have been
caught if we had had enough police cars to get officers to the scenes in time, but instead
we had to choose 2 of the stores to go to because there weren’t enough cars. This is a
time when it is necessary to stray from the agenda.
Mayor: Any other discussion? [Silence]. Then let’s take a vote. All in favor of deviating
from the agenda? [3 Ayes]. All opposed? [2 Nays]. Ok, we’ll consider the issue of police
cars. Ms. Doe?
Councilmember Jane Doe: Yes, well as I said before, there is a real need for some more
police cars, to protect our families and citizens. It is unacceptable when criminals go free
because we’re too cheap to buy new cars.
Mayor: Mr. Brown?
Councilmember Joe Brown: Mr. Mayor, like I said before—we already considered this,
after we had a study done that said we didn’t need more cars, we needed our officers to
be more vigilant. There’s no money to spare for this and, according to the expert group
we hired, no need.
Mayor: Any other discussion? Anyone that hasn’t spoken yet? Ok, Ms. Doe.
Councilmember Jane Doe: That study was done before these robberies took place, and
how on earth would the officers have prevented it by being more “vigilant”? Predict it
would happen and jog over to the store to be there in time to catch the crooks?
16
Mayor: Mr. Green?
Councilmember Bryan Green: Mr. Mayor, I move we end debate. Everyone has gotten a
chance to speak at least once if they want to, and we’ve been talking about police cars for
over 15 minutes.
Mayor: Is there a second?
Councilmember Daisy Smith: Second.
Mayor: All in favor to end debate? [4 Ayes]. Any opposed? [1 Nay]. Motion carries. We
will now vote on the motion on the floor, regarding the purchase of 10 new police cars.
All in favor? [2 Ayes]. Any opposed? [3 Nays]. Ok, we will not be buying new police
cars at this time. Yes, Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Daisy Smith: I move that we prevent reconsideration of this issue about
police cars for six months.
Mayor: Is there a second?
Councilmember Joe Brown: Second
Mayor: All in favor? [4 Ayes] Any opposed? [1 Nay]. Ok, motion to prevent
reconsideration carries. Next on the agenda—an issue we need to discuss with our
attorney about the zoning lawsuit. Is there a motion? Councilmember Doe.
Councilmember Jane Doe: I move we go into closed session.
Mayor: Second?
Councilmember Joe Brown: Second.
Mayor: All in favor? [unanimous Ayes]. Any opposed?
[Mayor and Council leave for 15 minutes, then return to the room.]
Mayor: Is there a motion?
Councilmember Bob Jones: I move we leave closed session.
Councilmember Bryan Green: Second.
Mayor: All in favor? [unanimous Ayes]. Any opposed? Ok, next order of business—the
new statues in the park. Any motions? Councilmember Doe.
17
Councilmember Jane Doe: Yes, I know we need to discuss the statues, but I move that
we first take a brief 10 minute recess.
Councilmember Daisy Smith: Second.
Mayor: Ok, we have a motion to take a brief recess. Since we have a motion and a
second, I’ll just call a brief recess—I agree it’s probably needed. We’ll reconvene in 10
minutes.
[10 minutes later]
Mayor: Ok, back to business. Can I have a motion? Councilmember Green?
Councilmember Bryan Green: Mr. Mayor, I move that we spend $1,000 to put three
statues in our park in honor of our town founders.
Mayor: Ok, is there a second? Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Daisy Smith: I move to amend the motion to spend $2,000 on the
statues.
Mayor: Ok, there’s been a motion to amend. Is there a second on the motion to amend?
Councilmember Doe.
Councilmember Jane Doe: I move to amend the motion to spend $500 on three statues.
Mayor: Ok, there’s another motion to amend on the table. Is there a second?
Councilmember Brown.
Councilmember Joe Brown: I move to amend the motion to spend only $500 on the
statues, but instead of honoring the town founders, we should dedicate the statues to
women who fought for women’s suffrage.
Mayor: Ok, there’s a third motion to amend. Is there a second on Councilmember
Brown’s motion?
Councilmember Bryan Green: [without being recognized by the chair] I move to appeal
the procedural ruling of allowing Councilmember Joe’s amendment. There may only be 3
motions on the floor at a time, the original motion and 2 amendments, so this third
amendment is not allowed.
Mayor: Is there a second on Councilmember Green’s motion? Mr. Jones?
Councilmember Bob Jones: Second.
18
Mayor: All in favor? [4 Ayes]. Any opposed? [1 Nay]. Motion carries, Councilmember
Brown’s amendment was out of order. Ok, is there a second on Councilmember Doe’s
motion to amend to spend only $500 on the three statues? Councilmember Brown?
Councilmember Joe Brown: Second.
Mayor: Any discussion? Ms. Doe?
Councilmember Jane Doe: Since we don’t have the money for new police cars, we
certainly don’t have the money for statues.
Mayor: Any other discussion? Being none, let’s vote. All in favor of amending the
motion to allot $500 for the statues? [3 Ayes]. All opposed? [2 Nays]. Motion carries.
The original motion is amended to allot $500 for the purchase of the statues and there is
no reason to vote on the motion to amend to $2,000. Now, on to the issue at hand—is
there a second for the original motion, to spend money, now set at $500, to erect 3 statues
honoring the town founders? Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Daisy Smith: Second.
Mayor: We have a motion and a second—all in favor? [4 Ayes] Any opposed? [1 Nay].
Motion carries. Councilmember Doe.
Councilmember Jane Doe: I move to reconsider the issue of police cars, since we’re
spending money on statues.
Mayor: Your motion is out of order. A motion to prevent reconsideration has already
passed. Next order of business: erecting 20 new traffic lights. Ms. Doe?
Councilmember Jane Doe: I move to divide this complex issue and consider it paragraph
by paragraph.
Mayor: Is there a second?
Councilmember Joe Brown: Second.
Mayor: Any discussion? Councilmember Bob Jones.
Councilmember Bob Jones: Mayor, this is not a long or confusing issue—it will waste
time to divide it.
Mayor: Any other discussion? Hearing none, let’s vote. All in favor? [1 Aye]. Any
opposed? [4 Nays]. Ok, motion to divide the issue fails. Back to the issue of new traffic
lights. Is there a motion? Councilmember Jones.
Councilmember Bob: I move we put up 20 new traffic lights.
19
Mayor: Councilmember Doe?
Councilmember Jane Doe: I move we refer that to a committee for research to make
sure it’s necessary before we act.
Mayor: Is there a second on the motion to refer the traffic light issue to committee?
Councilmember Brown.
Councilmember Joe Brown: Second
Mayor: All in favor? [1 Aye]. All opposed? [4 Nays]. Motion fails. Now back to the
original motion. Councilmember Doe…..
Councilmember Jane Doe: I move that we table discussion of the traffic lights until we
can consult the DOT.
Mayor: Is there a second? Councilmember Brown.
Councilmember Joe Brown: Second.
Mayor: All in favor? [5 Ayes] All opposed? [silence]. Motion carries, we’ll table the
discussion of the new traffic lights until we can talk to DOT. Is there any other new
business? Councilmember Jones.
Councilmember Bob Jones: I move we pass an ordinance to take any dogs that bark loud
enough to cause people to call my house.
Councilmember Jane Doe: Point of inquiry—what do you mean take?
Councilmember Bob Joes: I mean we confiscate them and either send them out of town
or put them to sleep.
Councilmember Daisy Smith: Point of order—I think that may be a violation of property
rights and illegal.
Councilmember Bob Jones: I withdraw the motion.
Mayor: Yes, Councilmember Smith?
Councilmember Daisy Smith: I move we adjourn.
Councilmember Bryan Green: Second
Mayor: I think that is an excellent idea. All in favor? [unanimous ayes]. Meeting
adjourned.
20
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 06-1-0 Ladder Truck Bid
Prepared by: Jan Leverett
Presented by: Billy Edwards
PURPOSE: To approve bid request for ladder truck for Fire Dept
BACKGROUND: Bids for ladder truck opened on May 9, 2011
FUNDING: Budget
RECOMMENDATION: Fireline Bid for E-One Ladder Truck
ATTACHMENTS: 06-1-1 Bid Tabulation Sheet
06-1-2 Fireline Bid Letter
06-1-3 Fireline Available Discounts
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: N/A
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 07-1-0 Safety & Liability Management
Grant Application
Prepared by: Michelle Lane
Presented by: Donita Gaulden
PURPOSE: Request authorization to submit a grant application to the Georgia
Municipal Association (GMA).
BACKGROUND: The GMA’s Risk Management Programs have established this
program which is offered only to members of GMA’s property and liability fund,
Georgia Interlocal Risk Management Agency (GIRMA) and GMA’s workers
compensation fund, Workers Compensation Self-Insurance Fund (WCSIF). The
program provides financial incentive to assist members in improving their employee
safety and general public liability loss-control efforts through the purchase of training,
equipment, or services.
Each fund offers a maximum of $6,000 per year with no match required.
The Hinesville Police Department requests one squad car digital video mirror to
record and review audio and video of all police interactions with citizens to provide
evidence in case of allegations of abuse or improper conduct. The City of Hinesville
Fire Department requests one thermal imaging camera to detect correct levels of
heat in buildings/places, such as that emanated by trapped human beings.
FUNDING: Requesting $12,000
RECOMMENDATION: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: 07-1-1 Budget
07-1-2 Resolution 2011-12
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: N/A
Georgia Municipal Association
Safety and Liability Management Grant Program
Budget
Equipment will be used to further the loss control efforts of the
Hinesville Police Department and City of Hinesville Fire Department.
Item
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Digital Video Mirrors (Qty. 2)
Installation, configuration, training, phone support
Trip charge (292 round trip miles x $.85/mile)
Hotel charges, 1 night
Shipping and handling
POLICE DEPARTMENT Total Equipment Request
Item
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Thermal Imaging Camera (Qty. 1)
Fire truck kit, 2 batteries, truck charger, lanyard, CD (Qty. 1)
FIRE DEPARTMENT Total Equipment Request
TOTAL EQUIPMENT REQUEST
Cost Each
Subtotal
$4,995.00 $9,990.00
$ 295.00 $ 590.00
$ 248.20
$ 85.00 $ 85.00
$ 30.00 $ 30.00
$10,943.20
Cost Each
Subtotal
$7,565.00 $7,565.00
$ 732.00 $ 732.00
$8,297.00
$19,240.20
GRANT MAXIMUM AWARD: $12,000.00
If awarded, additional funding of $7,240.20 will be budgeted in FY 2012
and paid from the general fund.
Resolution
2011-12
CITY OF HINESVILLE
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HINESVILLE,
GEORGIA DECLARING THE GEORGIA MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION SAFETY AND
LIABILITY MANAGEMENT GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Georgia Municipal Association administers the Safety and Liability
Management Grant and;
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council authorizes the Community Development Department,
on behalf of the Hinesville Police Department and the City of Hinesville Fire Department, to
submit a grant application to the Georgia Municipal Association in the amount of $12,000;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. That the City of Hinesville Community Development Department seeks reimbursement funds
of $6,000 to provide a heat-seeking thermal imaging camera with a fire truck kit for the Fire
Department, and seeks reimbursement funds of $6,000 to provide two digital video mirrors
for the Hinesville Police Department’s use in a squad car. (Total grant reimbursement
request: $12,000)
2. That the City of Hinesville hereby approves this Resolution.
APPROVED this _______ day of ____________, 2011.
____________________________________
James Thomas, Jr., Mayor
________________________________
David Anderson, Sr. Councilmember
___________________________________
Charles Frasier, Mayor Pro Tem
________________________________
Keith Jenkins, Councilmember
____________________________________
Jason Floyd, Councilmember
_________________________________
Kenneth Shaw, Councilmember
ATTEST:
______________________________
Sarah R. Lumpkin, City Clerk
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 07-2-0 Target Public Safety Grant
Application
Prepared by: Michelle Lane
Presented by: Donita Gaulden
PURPOSE: Request authorization to submit a Public Safety Grant Application to the
Target Headquarters.
BACKGROUND: Target’s extensive public safety partnerships and innovative
programs help support the safety and preparedness of the communities where
Target guests and team members live and work. The company supports local law
enforcement agencies through Target & BLUE™, which is part of Target’s
commitment to innovative philanthropy, based on the philosophy that public/private
partnerships create safer communities.
Target has established the Public Safety Grant Program to provide funding to law
enforcement agencies and emergency management organizations across the
country. Specifically, the Public Safety Grant Program is designed to support crime
prevention through events, programs and equipment, such as National Night Out.
This impactful national event:
• brings people together in support of safer communities
• heightens awareness of crime and drug prevention
• generates support for local anti-crime programs
• strengthen neighborhood unity and
• tells criminals that neighborhoods are organized and fighting back.
Target proudly partners with communities to support NNO by providing volunteers
and hosting and attending events.
FUNDING: Requesting $1,500.00
RECOMMENDATION: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: 07-2-1 Budget
07-2-2 Resolution #2011-13
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: N/A
Target Public Safety Grant
Budget
Expenses needed to hold National Night Out event August 2, 2011.
Item
Printing of banner, T-shirts, flyers, etc.
Food and beverages
Door prizes (school supplies)
Total
Total
$700.00
$500.00
$300.00
$1,500.00
Resolution
2011-13
CITY OF HINESVILLE
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HINESVILLE,
GEORGIA DECLARING THE TARGET PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, Target Headquarters administers the Public Safety Grant through their Target &
BLUE Program, and;
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council authorizes the Community Development Department,
on behalf of the Hinesville Police Department, to submit a grant application to Target
Headquarters in the amount of $1,500.00;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. That the City of Hinesville Community Development Department seeks $1,500.00 to provide
funds for the Hinesville Police Department’s National Night Out event.
2. That the City of Hinesville hereby approves this Resolution.
APPROVED this _______ day of ____________, 2011.
____________________________________
James Thomas, Jr., Mayor
________________________________
David Anderson, Sr. Councilmember
___________________________________
Charles Frasier, Mayor Pro Tem
________________________________
Keith Jenkins, Councilmember
____________________________________
Jason Floyd, Councilmember
_________________________________
Kenneth Shaw, Councilmember
ATTEST:
______________________________
Sarah R. Lumpkin, City Clerk
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 07-3-0 COPS SOS Grant Application
Prepared by: Michelle Lane
Presented by: Donita Gaulden
PURPOSE: Request authorization to submit a grant application to Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office on behalf of Liberty County Board of
Education and the Hinesville Police Department.
BACKGROUND: Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office is making
available approximately $14 million under its Secure Our Schools (SOS) program to
provide funding to law enforcement agencies to assist with the development of
school safety resources and provide improved security at schools and on school
grounds.
This program will fund up to 50% of the total cost to implement one or more of a
variety of deterrent measures, security assessments, anti-violence initiatives, security
training of personnel and students, coordination with local law enforcement, etc.
The Liberty County Board of Education intends to purchase a comprehensive access
control system to enhance security at Bradwell Institute, costing $206,655.28.
FUNDING: Requesting $103,327.64
RECOMMENDATION: There is a 50% local cash match required under this
program which is the responsibility of the Liberty County Board of Education.
ATTACHMENTS: 07-3-1 Budget
07-3-2 Resolution 2011-14
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: N/A
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
Secure Our Schools (SOS) Grant
Budget
Funding requested on behalf of Liberty County Board of Education to
enhance security via a comprehensive access control system at
Bradwell Institute in Hinesville.
Liberty County Board of Education cash match:
Item
Grants Administrator
Access Control System Panel
Data Network Upgrade for Access Control System
Access Control Components at Exterior Doors
Access Control System Demo/Training
Access Control Components at Interior Doors
Access Control Components at Main Entry
Intrusion Detection Panel
Intrusion Detection System Key Pads
Intrusion Detection System Dual Tech Detectors
IP Based Video Surveillance System NVR
New IP Video Surveillance Cameras
Video Surveillance System Demo/Training
TOTAL
Quantity
1
1
6
1
4
1
1
7
100
1
32
1
$103,327.64
Unit
12,500
9,500
1,500
1,000
1,500
1,500
7,500
1,500
325
15,000
3,000
2,500
Total
3,155.28
12,500
9,500
9,000
1,000
6,000
1,500
7,500
10,500
32,500
15,000
96,000
2,500
206,655.28
Resolution
2011-14
CITY OF HINESVILLE
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HINESVILLE,
GEORGIA DECLARING THE COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES
(COPS) SECURE OUR SCHOOLS (SOS) GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the Community Oriented Policing Services administers the Secure Our Schools
(SOS) Grant and;
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council authorizes the Community Development Department,
on behalf of the Hinesville Police Department and Liberty County Board of Education, to submit
a grant application to Community Oriented Policing Services in the amount of $103,327.64;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. That the City of Hinesville Community Development Department on behalf of the Hinesville
Police Department and Liberty County Board of Education, seeks reimbursement funds up to
50% of the total cost of a comprehensive access control system to provide enhanced security
at Bradwell Institute. (Total grant reimbursement request: $103,327.64)
2. That the City of Hinesville hereby approves this Resolution.
APPROVED this _______ day of ____________, 2011.
____________________________________
James Thomas, Jr., Mayor
________________________________
David Anderson, Sr. Councilmember
___________________________________
Charles Frasier, Mayor Pro Tem
________________________________
Keith Jenkins, Councilmember
____________________________________
Jason Floyd, Councilmember
_________________________________
Kenneth Shaw, Councilmember
ATTEST:
______________________________
Sarah R. Lumpkin, City Clerk
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 08-1-0 Forest St. Sidewalk Asbuilt
Prepared by: Marcus Sack
Presented by: Marcus Sack
PURPOSE: To present mayor and council with the ADA and sidewalk
information so that the body can make an informed decision on a construction
variance request.
BACKGROUND: The Forest Street Reconstruction Project included the complete
reconstruction of the street as well as the addition of curb and gutter and sidewalks.
The majority of the sidewalks have been found to be out of compliance. The cost of
these sidewalks are $86,788.80.
FUNDING: Local
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
08-1-1 Sidewalk Slope Detail
08-1-2 Two study results regarding cross slope
08-1-3 Percent Groupings
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: Bid was awarded on July 15th 2010.
 Page 2
May 17, 2011
Slope Detail:
There are two slopes concerning sidewalks, the longitudinal slope and the cross
slope. The longitudinal slope is the slope in the direction of travel of the road and the
cross slope is the slope perpendicular to the travel direction of the road.
 Page 3
May 17, 2011
Study Results: In performing research two studies were found that analyzed the
current ADA requirements and guidelines. One study was issued by the Veterans
Administration and the second was an independent study performed by The
University of Texas at Austin, Kara Kockelman et. al. This study analyzed the current
requirements and performed scientific experiments to determine the relationship of
the safety and amount of work exerted to traverse sidewalks of different cross slopes.
The results of the studies are below.
Veterans Administration Study, “Meeting the Intent of ADA in sidewalk cross
slope design”:
“In order to accommodate the largest number of possible users, a 4-percent maximum crossslope is recommended. Where a 4 percent maximum is not feasible and the primary slope is less than
5 percent, a 10-percent maximum cross-slope appears to be very reasonable.”
University of Texas at Austin, “The Nature of ADA’s Sidewalk Cross-Slopes
Requirements: A review of the Literature”:
“Our review of the existing literature on this topic of persons with disabilities and
cross slope suggests that there is no substantive, non-anecdotal evidence on which the
two-percent requirement might be based…No matter how it got there, one question still
remains: Is there any research and science to back it up? This answer to this question is
focus of this review.”
“In Section 14, continuous passage is defined as “…a continuous unobstructed
pedestrian circulation path within a public sidewalk connecting pedestrian areas,
elements, and facilities in the public right-of-way to accessible routes on adjacent sites. A
continuous passage is provided in lieu of an accessible route in a public right-of-way.An
accessible route is an unobstructed path connecting all accessible elements of a building
or facility. Although public sidewalks are subject to technical provisions similar to those
that apply to accessible routes, public sidewalks are not required to meet guidelines for
accessible routes unless the public sidewalk is used to provide the required accessible
route connecting accessible elements on a site.”
“Results from the most relevant existing reported work, conducted using plywood ramps,
can be interpreted to indicate a maximum “short-distance” cross-slope upper bound in the
neighborhood of 16 to 20 percent (Chesney and Axelson, 1996). For somewhat longer
istances, a reliable upper bound may be closer to 10% (Kockelman et al., 1999). These results
support the idea that the ADA’s two-percent limit might be too strict for relatively infrequent
short-distance sidewalk sections, such as driveway crossings, when considered in combination
with the various constraints. Further research is required to accommodate larger samples of
users with disabilities and more robustly determine such bounds and to identify under what
conditions they would apply (e.g., the maximum length of an individual section). In addition, a
route performance measure may be very useful, in conjunction with a short-distance bound.
 Page 4
May 17, 2011
Current Sidewalk Conditions
SW Slope
0% to 1%
1% to 2%
2% to 3%
3% to 4%
4% and
Over
Groupings
7
14
37
24
% In Group
7.29%
14.58%
38.54%
25.00%
14
14.58%
Cumulative %
7.29%
21.88%
60.42%
85.42%
*The majority of the over 4% group is from driveway crossings.
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 09-1-0 Public Comment
Prepared by: Rose M. Kenner
Presented by: Mayor Thomas
PURPOSE:
To allow citizens to address Mayor and Council.
BACKGROUND:
FUNDING:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 10-1-0. Mayor’s Report
Prepared by: Sherry Strickland
Presented by: Mayor James Thomas
PURPOSE:
BACKGROUND:
FUNDING:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: April 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 11-1-0 Council Member Kenneth Shaw
Prepared by: Darlene Parker
Presented by: Billy Edwards
PURPOSE: April 1 – 30, 2011 CH2MHILL/OMI Monthly Operations Status Report
BACKGROUND: Departmental Reports
FUNDING: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Status Report
11-1-1 April 1 – 30, 2011 CH2MHILL/OMI Monthly Operations
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: None
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 11-1-1 Council Member Kenneth Shaw’s
Cover Sheet
Prepared by: Darlene Parker
Presented by: Council Member Kenneth Shaw
ACTION ITEMS: None
INFORMATION ITEMS: April 1 – 30, 2011 11-1-1 Ch2mhill\OMI Monthly Operations Status Report
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor and Council
From:
John Bartelmo, Project Director
Subject:
CH2M HILL OMI Monthly Operations a
Date:
April 1 - 31, 2011
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & GROUNDS
MOSQUITO COUNT
FRANK COCHRAN
PINELAND
STONEHENGE
AIRPORT ROAD
EAGLES LANDING
COUNTRY CLUB
FLOWERS DR.
COURTLAND
DAVIDSON ST.
BRYANT STATION
SANDY RUN DR.
MEMORIAL DR
WALLACE MARTIN
TOTAL COLLECTED
Male
Female
0
6
3
1
0
5
6
1
1
1
1
1
3
29
0
13
28
10
8
8
18
10
2
3
12
2
1
115
SANITATION
Tons of Garbage
Loads of Yard Waste
Tons of Trash
842
143
135
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
Fire Dept.
Police Dept.
Inspections
City Hall
Public Works
Public Utilities
LCPC
CM's
PM's
2
11
0
0
7
3
0
1
8
0
0
6
1
0
STREETS/DRAINAGE
STATUS
COMMENTS
Ditch Maintenance:
On Schedule
N\A
Street Sweeping
On Schedule
724.35 Miles of stree
(Including Flemingto
Special Projects
N\A
No Report
PUBLIC UTILITIES
METER READERS
Pressure Checks
Meters Read
Service leaks repaired
Rereads
Accuracy Checks
Meters Replaced
Water Production
Chlorine Usage
4
10,595
2
92
0
74
91,533,000 MG
1,577 lbs.
CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE
Meters Installed 3/4" Potable
Meters Installed 3/4" reused
Meters Replaced 3/4"
Meters Installed 1.5"
Meter Installed 1-1/2"
Meters Installed 1"
Meters Installed 2"
Meters Installed 3"
Meters Installed 4" reused
Meters Installed 6"
Meters Installed 8"
Water Meter Relocated
Water & Sewer Line Locates
Water Taps
Sewer Taps
Manholes Lowered
Manholes Uncovered
Manholes Repaired
Manholes Raised
Road Cuts
Curbing Cut
Sidewalk Cut
Driveway Cut
Road Bore
Water Line Repair
Reused water line tap
Reused water line repaired
Reused water valve box installed
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
314
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
Water Valve Box installed
2" Water Valve installed
Sewer Line Repair
Sewer lines cleaned (ft)
Unscheduled sewer cleaning
Night sewer line cleaning
Sewer lines Monitored (ft)
I & I Water Valve Inspection
Fire Hydrants Installed
Fire Hydrants Maint.
Fire Hydrant Painted
Fire Hydrants Raised
Fire Hydrant Repaired
Fire Hydrant Relocated
Fire Hydrant Replaced
Fire Hydrant Removed
Valve Box Installed
Storm Drains cleaned
Vactor truck # 2 water tank fillups
Water Usage
Cleaned liftstations
Cleaned Liftstation in Ludowici, Ga
Cleaned sewer lines in Pembroke, Ga. 3/21/11
Clairifier cleaned
2
3
4
48,600 ft
0
0
3,000 ft
0
0
24
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,000 gals
11
0
0
1
Comments:
- Repaired 1" water line at City Public Works
- Repaired low water pressure at 113 Cherrydale St.
- Raised 3/4" water meter at 1214 Peacock Dr. off of Oak Forest Dr.
- Installed 1.5" water meter for Justice Center Storage Building
- Repaired 2" water leak at City Public Works and disconnected 2"x8" water
line at City Public Works
- Disconnected 2" water line from 8" water main and capped 2" water line and
connected to 3" water valve at water tank temporarily until new water main
is installed.
- Repaired 2" water leak behind Kroger's
- Repaired 1" water line behind Hinesville Ford at canal
- Lift stations cleaned: Garden Acres, Airport Rd., Sunbury Rd, Cypress Cove,
Deveraux Place, Pineland I & II, Stone Henge, Hinesville Pump Station, Country Club.
- Disconnected 2" water line from 8" water main at Public Works Yard at valve pit and
connected to water tank
- Repaired 3/4" water leak at 211 Bradwell St. behind Board of Education building on
Bradwell St. and made half road cut.
- Made 2" x 6" water tap and installed 2" water meter for New Pleasant Grove Church
@ 1450 W. Oglethorpe Hwy.
- Repaired fire hydrant at James Brown Park
- Repaired sewer service line and installed clean out at 5 Sherwood Dr.
- Uncovered and raised manhole at intersection of Florence/1st Street
- Replaced missing top on manhole at Mill Creek (Pipkins Trailer Park)
- Made 6"x*" sewer tap at new plant for sewer pump station on JV Rd. Installed 6"x8"
tapping sleeve and 8" tapping valve, 8" ductile iron pipe approximately 12 ft. in length and
6" flange end.
- Made 8"x6" sewer force main tap for Flemington II Lift Station on Wallace Martin Rd.
- Uncovered and raised manhole at intersection of Florence/1st Street
- Replaced missing top on manhole at Mill Creek at Pipkins Trailer Park
- Road cut done at Public Works Dept at 613 E.G. Miles Parkway
LIFT STATIONS
- Hinesville Lift Station - Paint the hoist railing system as requested. Used a gallon
and half of paint.
- LS01 Mill Creek Liftstation - Checked overloads p2 liftstation. Went to Mill Creek
to check overloads caused by call out. Cleaned out wet well with Vac Truck.
- LS08 Garden Acres Liftstation - Pump #1 needs to be pulled and removed debris
from volute. Pulled pump, removed debris from volute/impeller, reset pump and
verified proper operation. Cleaned out wet well with Vac Truck
- LS09 Northwest Woods Liftstation - Clean out wet well with Vac Truck. Drilled holes and
mounted hinges on wet well lid. Cut bottom of lid with cutting wheel so that bolts can be
tightly secured. Lid remounted properly and secure.
- LS10 Arlington Park Liftstation - Cleaned out wet well with Vac Truck
- LS36 Deveraux Place Liftstation - Pump #2 needs to be pulled and removed debris from
volute. Pulled pump, removed debris from volute/impellar, reset pump and verified
proper operation.
- Pump Room - Sump pump #1 needs to be reinstalled. Installed new sump pump into posi
and verified proper operation, all good.
WASTE-WATER TREATMENT PLANT
Hinesville Total Flow MG
Hinesville Avg. Flow MGD
Ft. Stewart Total Flow MG
Ft. Stewart Avg. Flow MGD
Combined Total Flow MG
Combined Avg. Flow
Total of Lab Analysis performed
Average Lab Analysis performed per day
Total Power Used KWH
Average Power/Day KWH
71.5
2.383
48.176
1.606
119.679
3.989
3,176
136
358,800
11,960
WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY
Influent flow MG
Influent flow Avg. MGD
Discharge flow MG
Discharge flow Avg. MGD
Re-use flow MG
Re-use flow Avg. MGD
23.53
0.784
5.114
0.17
14.05
0.468
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 12-0-0
Prepared by: Jan Leverett
Presented by: Council Member Jenkins
ACTION ITEMS:
None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
12-1-0 Incident Activity Report
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 12-1-0 March 2011 Incident
Run Report
Prepared by: Jan Leverett
Presented by: Council Member Jenkins
PURPOSE: April 2011 Incident Run Report
BACKGROUND: April 2011 Incident Run Report
FUNDING: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: 12-1-1 April 2011 Run Report
12-1-2 April 2011 Incident Type Report
12-1-3 April 2011 Dollar Value Saved & Loss
Report
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: N/A
12-1-1 Incident Activity Report
Hinesville Fire Department
Incident Activity Report
Period
November 1-30, 2010
December 1-31, 2010
January 1-31, 2011
February 1-28, 2011
March 1-31, 2011
April 1-30, 2011
Hinesville Flemington
City Limits City Limits
155
10
138
4
144
6
227
17
201
15
187
13
Liberty
County
5
4
8
5
9
6
Midway
City Limits
Richmond
Hill
Fort
Jesup Glennville Sta 1 Hinesville
Stewart
Totals City Limits
1
1
172
67
146
60
158
68
249
82
225
100
1
207
70
Non Incident Activity Report
Period
November 1-30, 2010
December 1-31, 2010
January 1-31, 2011
February 1-28, 2011
March 1-31, 2011
April 1-30, 2011
Burn
Permits
26
14
8
22
20
11
Car Seats
10
8
7
3
7
6
Smoke
Detectors
5
6
7
1
1
2
Scald
Prevention
Swimming
Pool Filled
1
Totals
41
28
22
26
29
19
Walthourville
City Limits
1
1
12
10
7
Allenhurst
City Limits
1
Gumbranch
City Limits
1
1
1
3
1
2
Riceboro Liberty
Long
Sta 2
City Limits County County Totals Totals
5
74
246
3
1
66
212
10
3
82
240
12
1
110
359
12
5
130
355
15
1
94
301
12-1-2 Incident Type Report
Hinesville Fire Department
Responses for April
Response Type
Building fire
Fires in structure other than in a building
Cooking fire, confined to container
Fuel burner/boiler malfunction, fire confined
Trash or rubbish fire, contained
Fire in mobile home used as fixed residence
Fire in portable building, fixed location
Passenger vehicle fire
Road freight or transport vehicle fire
Water vehicle fire
Camper or recreational vehicle (RV) fire
Off-road vehicle or heavy equipment fire
Forest, woods, or wild land fire
Brush or brush and grass mixture fire
Grass fire
Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire
Construction or demolition landfill fire
Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire
Fireworks explosion (no fire)
Outside equipment fire
Outside gas or vapor combustion explosion
Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition
Medical assist, assist EMS crew
Motor vehicle accident with injuries
Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident
Motor vehicle accident with no injuries
Search for person in water
Search for person on land
Extrication, rescue, other
Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle
Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator
Extrication of victim(s) from machinery
Rescue or EMS Standby
Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill
Gas leak (natural gas or LPG)
Oil or other combustible liquid spill
Chemical hazard (no spill or leak)
Chemical spill or leak
Refrigeration leak
Carbon monoxide incident
Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective/worn
Overheated motor
Breakdown of light ballast
Power line down
Arcing, shorted electrical equipment
Biological hazard, confirmed or suspected
Building or structure weakened or collapsed
Aircraft standby
Vehicle accident, general cleanup
Person in distress
Lock-out
Ring or jewelry removal
Water or steam leak
Smoke or odor removal
Public service assistance
Assist police or other governmental agency
Public service
Assist invalid
Unauthorized burning
Cover assignment, standby, moveup
April
2010
April
2011
March
2010
March
2011
6
7
5
7
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
91
12
1
20
1
156
8
2
28
9
8
2
1
1
85
12
1
15
194
9
31
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
5
1
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
10
17
1
1
4
7
2
13
1
4
15
2
4
Dispatched and cancelled en route
Wrong location
No incident found on arrival at dispatch address
Authorized controlled burning
Smoke scare, odor of smoke
Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke
Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle
HazMat release investigation w/no HazMat
Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm
Telephone, malicious false alarm
Central station, malicious false alarm
Local alarm system, malicious false alarm
Bomb scare - no bomb
Extinguishing system activation due to malfunction
Smoke detector activation due to malfunction
Alarm system sounded due to malfunction
CO detector activation due to malfunction
Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional
Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional
Detector activation, no fire - unintentional
Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional
Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO
Severe weather or natural disaster, Other
Wind storm, tornado/hurricane assessment
Lightening strike (no fire)
TOTAL
7
9
1
22
1
16
3
4
16
15
7
2
3
18
1
3
3
1
1
5
3
1
7
197
1
355
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
2
200
301
12-1-3 Dollar Value Saved and Loss
Hinesville Fire Department
Dollar Value Saved and Loss
Period
November 1-30, 2010
December 1-31, 2010
January 1-31, 2011
February 1-28, 2011
March 1-31, 2011
April 1-30, 2011
# of
Fires
Total
Values
Total
Losses
Total
Saved
Total
Percent Loss
Total
Percent Saved
4
6
2
4
5
5
$931,500
$852,283
$740,500
$592,864
$3,632,613
$858,821
$188,250
$101,680
$13,100
$18,843
$819,885
$106,150
$743,250
$750,603
$727,400
$574,021
$2,812,728
$752,671
20.21%
11.93%
1.77%
3.18%
22.57%
12.36%
79.79%
88.07%
98.23%
96.82%
77.43%
87.64%
26
$7,608,581
$1,247,908
$6,360,673
16.40%
83.60%
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 13-0-0 Councilmember Anderson’s
Report
Prepared by: Rose M. Kenner
Presented by: Councilmember Anderson
ACTION ITEMS:
NONE
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
NONE
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 14-0-0 Councilmember Floyd’s Report
Prepared by: Linda Smith
Presented by: Councilmember Floyd
ACTION ITEMS:
None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Department of Inspections monthly report for
April 2011.
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 14-1-0 End-of-Month Report
Prepared by: Linda Smith
Presented by: Councilmember Floyd
PURPOSE: To demonstrate construction activities and collection of fees for the
month of April 2011.
BACKGROUND: N/A
FUNDING: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
14-1-1 Addendum to Monthly Report
14-1-2 Periodic Summary Report
14-1-3 Site Development
14-1-4 GIS Monthly Fee Report
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: N/A
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS
ADDENDUM TO MONTHLY REPORT
MONTHLY/YEAR: April 2011
A.
OTHER FEES COLLECTED FOR MONTH:
DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS
Re-Inspection Fees
$
30.00
GIS Maps
$
261.75
Tree Fund
0.00
WATER/SEWER FUND
Water Meter Fees
$
Water Impact Fees
$
Sewer Impact Fees
$
Infrastructure Fees
$
WATER ERUs
Res.
Comm.
SEWER ERUs
Res.
Comm.
1,840.00
1,600.00
10,560.00
-
(Independence/Settlement)
B.
C.
INSPECTIONS:
Structural
Plumbing
Zoning
E.
F.
G.
H.
Electrical
Mechanical
Total Inspections
61
41
321
NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS FINALED:
Single Family
Multi-Family
(1) Apartments
(2) Duplex
(3) Townhouse
(4) Condominium
D.
159
53
7
# of Bldgs.
4
0
0
0
0
# of Units
4
0
0
0
0
Valutation Amount
$
850,361.00
$
$
$
$
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NEW RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
FINALED:
# of Permits
(Includes Private Pools, Storage Bldgs &
Residential Garages/Carports)
2
$
3,256.00
20
$
140,267.00
(Includes Office, School/Education & Religious Buildings)
0
$
0.00
COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS
& REPAIRS FINALED:
2
$
209,478.00
RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS
& REPAIRS FINALED
Valutation Amount
NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION FINALED:
MOBILE HOMES FINALED:
Mobile Home Park
Mobile Home Subdivision
# Replacement Units
0
0
# New Units
0
0
4
0
4
0
FY TO DATE
WATER ERUs
Res.
41
Comm.
22.21
SEWER ERUs
Res.
38
Comm.
21.36
Code Enf. Complaints:
56
Bldg. Code Violations
49
City of Hinesville
Department of Inspections
PERIODIC REPORT SUMMARY OF PERMITS ISSUED
MONTH OF APRIL 2011
Permit Type
Code
Current Fiscal Year (11/01/10 - 04/30/2011)
# Permits Valuation Amount
905,845.00
Fees
$
Permit Type
5,506.00 Single Family (Detached)
Previous Fiscal Year (11/01/09 - 04/30/10)
Code
# Permits
Valuation Amount
Code
# Permits
101
31
$
6,637,794.00
$
38,216.00 Single Family (Detached)
101
28
$
901,488.00
$
4,420.50 Single Family (Attached)
102
0
$
-
$
-
103
0
$
-
$
-
Single Family (Detached)
101
4
$
Single Family (Attached)
102
0
$
-
$
-
Single Family (Attached)
102
7
$
Two-Family Buildings
103
0
$
-
$
-
Two-Family Buildings
103
0
$
-
Fees
$
Permit Type
-
Two-Family Buildings
Valuation Amount
5,904,345.00
Fees
$
24,788.50
3 & 4 Fam Bldgs (Apts)
104
0
$
-
$
-
3 & 4 Fam Bldgs (Apts)
104
0
$
-
$
-
3 & 4 Fam Bldgs (Apts)
104
0
$
-
$
-
5+ Fam Bldgs (Apts)
105
0
$
-
$
-
5+ Fam Bldgs (Apts)
105
0
$
-
$
-
5+ Fam Bldgs (Apts)
105
0
$
-
$
-
3 & 4 Fam Bldgs (Condos)
106
0
$
-
$
-
3 & 4 Fam Bldgs (Condos)
106
0
$
-
$
-
3 & 4 Fam Bldgs (Condos)
106
0
$
-
$
5+ Fam Bldgs (Condos)
107
0
$
-
$
-
5+ Fam Bldgs (Condos)
107
0
$
-
$
-
5+ Fam Bldgs (Condos)
107
0
$
-
$
-
Manuf Hme (new locate)
111
0
$
-
$
-
Manuf Hme (new locate)
111
0
$
-
$
-
Manuf Hme (new locate)
111
0
$
-
$
-
-
Manuf Hme (replacement)
112
0
$
-
-
60.00 Driveway/Open Ditch Encl
113
19
$
Manuf Hme (replacement)
112
0
$
Driveway/Open Ditch Encl
113
4
$
-
$
4,800.00
$
-
$
89,290.00
$
Manuf Hme (replacement)
112
0
$
240.00 Driveway/Open Ditch Encl
113
37
$
210.00 Well Drilling Permit
$
-
61,096.00
$
810.00
Well Drilling Permit
116
3
$
4,500.00
$
105.00 Well Drilling Permit
116
6
$
9,600.00
$
116
11
$
22,525.00
$
385.00
Electrical Permits
120
26
$
217,225.00
$
452.00 Electrical Permits
120
123
$
1,159,286.00
$
2,779.00 Electrical Permits
120
127
$
716,116.00
$
2,570.50
Plumbing Permits
121
19
$
117,073.00
$
410.00 Plumbing Permits
121
119
$
600,898.00
$
2,767.50 Plumbing Permits
121
107
$
373,375.00
$
2,454.50
Mechanical Permits
122
26
$
262,779.00
$
730.00 Mechanical Permits
122
115
$
1,486,159.00
$
3,662.00 Mechanical Permits
122
101
$
754,165.00
$
3,318.00
Gas Permits
123
0
$
-
$
-
Gas Permits
123
3
$
6,500.00
$
123
2
$
60,100.00
$
34.50
Hotel or Motel
213
0
$
-
$
-
Hotel or Motel
213
0
$
-
$
-
Hotel or Motel
213
0
$
-
$
-
Amusement / Recreation
318
0
$
-
$
-
Amusement / Recreation
318
0
$
-
$
-
Amusement / Recreation
318
0
$
-
$
-
Churches / Religious Bldgs
319
0
$
-
$
-
Churches / Religious Bldgs
319
2
$
1,178,138.00
$
Industrial Building
320
0
$
-
$
-
Industrial Building
320
3
$
3,400.00
$
83.50 Gas Permits
3,068.00 Churches / Religious Bldgs
75.00 Industrial Building
319
0
$
-
$
-
320
0
$
-
$
-
Parking Garage
321
0
$
-
$
-
Parking Garage
321
0
$
-
$
-
Parking Garage
321
0
$
-
$
Service Stn / Repair Garage
322
0
$
-
$
-
Service Stn / Repair Garage
322
0
$
-
$
-
Service Stn / Repair Garage
322
0
$
-
$
-
Hospital / Institution
323
0
$
-
$
-
Hospital / Institution
323
0
$
-
$
-
Hospital / Institution
323
0
$
-
$
-
Office, Bank / Profess Bldg
324
0
$
-
$
-
Office, Bank / Profess Bldg
324
3
$
Public Works / Utilities
325
0
$
-
$
-
Public Works / Utilities
325
0
$
1,022,291.00
-
$
$
School / Educational Bldg
326
0
$
-
$
-
School / Educational Bldg
326
0
$
Store / Mercantile Bldg
327
0
$
-
$
-
Store / Mercantile Bldg
327
1
$
2,747,033.00
$
$
1,120.00 Office, Bank / Profess Bldg
-
Public Works / Utilities
-
School / Educational Bldg
2,385.25 Store / Mercantile Bldg
324
0
$
-
$
-
325
0
$
-
$
-
326
0
$
-
$
-
327
0
$
-
$
-
Other Non-Residential Bldg
328
4
$
1,896,993.00
$
90.00 Other Non-Residential Bldg
328
24
$
3,570,295.00
$
645.00 Other Non-Residential Bldg
328
20
$
88,554.00
$
710.00
Structures other than Bldgs
329
8
$
59,286.00
$
333.00 Structures other than Bldgs
329
18
$
996,328.00
$
3,610.00 Structures other than Bldgs
329
17
$
218,938.00
$
1,176.00
Signs
330
13
$
11,413.00
$
325.00 Signs
330
33
$
47,473.00
$
330
55
$
155,462.00
$
1,400.00
Add/Alter/Repair Res Bldg
434
35
$
160,157.00
$
720.00 Add/Alter/Repair Res Bldg
434
121
$
994,647.00
$
5,142.00 Add/Alter/Repair Res Bldg
434
154
$
1,086,535.00
$
6,160.50
Add/Alter/Repair Non-Res
437
7
$
196,546.00
$
942.50 Add/Alter/Repair Non-Res
437
30
$
3,730,319.00
$
5,031.00 Add/Alter/Repair Non-Res
437
53
$
8,423,100.00
$
5,997.50
Res Garage / Carport
438
0
$
438
29
$
157,308.00
$
861.00 Res Garage / Carport
438
4
$
32,989.00
$
199.00
Demolition
450
2
$
450
13
$
119,800.00
$
295.00 Demolition
450
21
$
115,462.00
$
7,920.00
12,000.00
$
Res Garage / Carport
45.00 Demolition
Moved Houses/Struct/Bldg
475
0
$
500
501
26
0
$
$
1,113,169.00
-
$
$
…
177
$
4,961,786.00
$
10,862.00
1,840.00
$
10,000.00 Current FY Total
Water Meter Fees
$
Water Impact Fees
$
1,600.00
Sewer Impact Fees
$
10,560.00
Infrastructure Fees
$
-
** Indicates there was 1 no fee permit in this category for the Bd. of Ed.
$
-
Plans Checking
Sprinkler Sys, Bldgs only
TOTALS:
-
$
-
Moved Houses/Struct/Bldg
1,143.50 Plans Checking
Sprinkler Sys, Bldgs only
TOTALS:
-
$
825.00 Signs
475
0
$
500
501
136
3
0
$
$
17,329,211.00
141,000.00
$
$
13,672.75 Plans Checking
22.00 Sprinkler Sys, Bldgs only
-
Moved Houses/Struct/Bldg
…
839
$
42,928,258.00
$
89,130.50
TOTALS:
475
1
$
100.00
$
100.00
500
501
125
2
0
$
$
15,036,810.00
20,100.00
$
$
12,055.00
122.00
…
865
$
33,069,772.00
$
70,201.00
SITE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
APRIL 2011
As of April 30, 2011
Project
Anytime Fitness
Valuation
$
Azalea Street Redeveopment, Phase II $
Address
156,289.00 2353 W. Hwy 196
-
Azalea St./Ash Blvd./Caswell Ct.
Bradwell Institute
$
Car Wash Express
$
287,488.00 737 E. Oglethorpe Hwy.
City Hall
$
7,009,168.00 115 E. M.L. King Jr. Dr.
Dasher Self Storage
$
2,747,033.00 748 E.G. Miles Pkwy.
Dr. Bodamer's Office
$
484,114.00 600 E. Oglethorpe Hwy.
Dr. Townsend's Office
$
95,343.00 767 Frank Cochran Dr.
First Seventh Day Adventist Church
$
552,864.00 173 Live Oak Church Rd.
Golden Habachi Buffet
$
205,185.00 503 W. Oglethorpe Hwy.
Governor's Quarters
$
Griffin Park Phase 1A
$
Griffin Park Phase II
$
864,595.00 Cascade Ct.
Griffin Park Phase 1B
$
380,252.00 Grandview Dr.
Independence Settlement, Phase 1A-R $
2,602,744.00 100 Pafford St.
-
Tattnall Dr.
1,979,496.00 Miles Crossing / Hwy 196 W
2,208,789.00 Bender St. / Davila St. / Connor Ct.
Liberty County EMA Office
$
333,000.00 Liberty Street
Liberty County Justice Center
$
19,652,481.00 201 S. Main St.
Oak Crest Phase I
$
879,832.00 Oak Crest Dr. / Forest St.
Oak Crest Phase IIA
$
358,271.00 Forest Street
Oak Crest Phase IV
$
661,136.00 Forest Street Extension
Olvey Fieldhouse
$
1,886,646.00 315 E. Gen. Stewart Way
OMI Public Works
$
3,182,575.00 613 E.G. Miles Pkwy.
Pleasant Grove AME Church
$
625,274.00 1450 W. Oglethorpe Hwy.
The Grove at Cinder Hill, Phase VII
$
305,402.00 Ali Ave. / Carlie Ct.
TOTAL
$
47,457,977.00
April 2011
PROJECTS IN PLANNING AND UNDER SITE CONSTRUCTION
As of 04/30/11
Project
Status
Address
Bradwell Institute Addition
LDA Issued
Off General Screven Way
Bryant Commons Surface Mine
Limited LDA Issued
Bryant Commons Drainage Area off
Hwy 84
DFCS Building
Site Plan approved/Design Review Approved
112 W Oglethorpe Hwy
Dr. Myers (dental surgeon)
Zoning Approved/Site Plan Approved
604 W Oglethorpe Hwy
Flemington Oaks
Site Plan Approved
In Flemington
Hinesville water &sewer
Griffin Park, Ph III
Preliminary Plat Submitted (41 lots)
Off of Hwy 196 W
Guyett Estates at Griffin Park (fka Oak Grove
Estates)
Final Plat Approved(30 lots)
Off of Live Oak Church Road
Hinesville Public Works
LDA Issued/Construction Under Way
613 EG Miles Pkwy
Immediate Care Center
LDA Issued
At the intersection of Hwy 84 E and E
Gen Stewart Way
Private access easement still pending
Independence Place Stewart North (Ph II)
Site Plan/Preliminary Plat Approved
On the East side of 15th Street
adjacent to Independence Place Ph I
(312 apartment units)
Independence Stewart North Entrance Road
Site Plan Approved
Off of 15th Street
Independence Settlement Phase II, 76 lots
Preliminary Plat (Specific Development Plant)
Approved
Off of Marne Blvd
Independence Settlement Phase B-2
Preliminary Plat Submitted (41 lots)
Off of Marne Blvd
Liberty Park (fka as Settlement), Lot 1 and
Block 1
Final Plat Approved
Off of Marne Blvd
Liberty Park, Block 2 and 3 (24 lots)
Final Plat Approved with conditions
Off of Marne Blvd
Mt. Zion Baptist Church Community Outreach
Center
Site Plan to be re-submitted
Off of Shaw Road
Olvey Practice Field and Fieldhouse (new)
LDA Issued
Off Gen Stewart Way
Surrey Road Detention Pond
LDA Issued
City project off of Surrey Road
Wexford Estates (12 lots)
Preliminary Plat Approved
Off of Wexford Drive
Hinesville GIS Office
Monthly Sales Report for April 2011
Date Sold
Invoice Number
04/01/11
04/01/11
04/07/11
04/11/11
04/19/11
04/21/11
4011102
401201101
407201102
411201102
419201101
420201101
03/29/11
03/31/11
04/27/11
329201103
3312011
427201101
Company Name
Darin Townsend
Dental Services
P C Simonton &
Associates
HDDA
Contact Name
Invoice Amount
Darin Townsend
Peter Buhles
Marco Deprince
Linda Anglin
Roger Hammens
Joel Osteen
$
$
$
$
$
$
37.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
23.00
Vicki Davis
James Huffman
$
$
$
Total Sold:
$
1 of 1
Date Paid
Amount Paid Permit Number
Type
04/01/11
04/01/11
04/07/11
04/11/11
04/19/11
04/21/11
$
$
$
$
$
$
37.00
10.00
10.00
20.00
10.00
23.00
R-949112
R-949116
R-952824
R-954161
R-960807
R-961370
cash
cash
cash
cash
credit
cash
53.75
88.00
10.00
04/21/11
04/25/11
04/27/11
$
$
$
53.75
88.00
10.00
R-961532
R-962247
R-962473
check
check
cash
261.75
Total Paid:
$
261.75
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 15-0-0. Mayor Pro Tem Frasier’s
Report
Prepared by: Linda Blanchard
Presented by: Mayor Pro Tem Frasier
ACTION ITEMS:
t
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
15-1-0. Mayor Pro Tem Frasier’s Report
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 15-1-0. Mayor Pro Tem Frasier’s
Report
Prepared by: Linda Blanchard
Presented by: Mayor Pro Tem Frasier
PURPOSE: Report criminal Activity
BACKGROUND: Monthly report from incidents and citations
FUNDING: NA
RECOMMENDATION: NA
ATTACHMENTS:
15-1-1. Crime and Citation Report 2011-4
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION: NA
HINESVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME AND CITATION REPORT
April 1-30, 2011
Aggravated Assault
Auto Theft
Homicide/Homicide by vehicle
Rape
Robbery
Burglary
Arson
Entering Auto
Domestic Disputes
Juvenile Arrests
Curfew Violation Warnings
Adult curfew arrests
Juvenile curfew arrests
Criminal Citations
Military
Civilian
Traffic Citations
Military
Civilian
Loud Music Citations (also included in traffic
citation numbers)
Military
Civilian
Traffic Warnings
DUI
Over 21
Under 21
Military
Civilian
April 2010
0
0
0
0
4
38
1
19
44
56
0
0
0
133
22
111
691
149
542
April 2011
5
5
0
2
4
54
0
33
54
47
3
0
2
109
28
81
March 2011
0
5
1
0
1
64
0
15
62
42
4
0
0
107
26
81
177
500
March 2010
0
5
0
0
2
26
1
23
42
64
0
0
0
168
37
131
888
171
717
8
16
8
9
5
3
357
20
20
0
2
18
11
5
302
4
4
0
1
3
2
6
471
11
9
2
3
8
4
5
372
9
8
1
0
9
677
743
217
526
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2010
Agenda Item: 16-1-0 Public Hearing - Buffalos
Prepared by: Rose M. Kenner
Presented by: Billy Edwards
PURPOSE:
at 5:00 p.m.
To remind Council of the Public Hearing for Buffalos Southwest Café
BACKGROUND: Buffalos Southwest Café, located at 811 E.G. Miles Parkway, is
currently operating without a local manager since February 20, 2011. Buffalos
Southwest Café currently has a Class II Alcoholic Beverage License to sell beer,
wine and liquor that is not according to the City of Hinesville Code of Ordinances.
FUNDING:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
City of Hinesville, Georgia Council Meeting
Date: May 19, 2011
Agenda Item: 16-2-0 Live Oak Library Board
Appointment
Prepared by: Rose M. Kenner
Presented by: Billy Edwards
PURPOSE: To inform Mayor and Council of the expiration of the appointment on
the Live Oak Library Board.
BACKGROUND:
Yvonne Wood’s appointment on the Live Oak Library Board
expires on June 30, 2011. The Hinesville Housing Authority appointments are
made by Mayor and Council for a three (3) year term. This will be an agenda item at
the June 2, 2011 Council Meeting for discussion/appointment.
FUNDING:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
16-2-1 Board appointment spreadsheet
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
STANDING
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS/AUTHORITIES
APPOINTEES
ORGANIZATION
APPOINTED BY
Serves by virtue of position
By governing authority
Mayor and Council
Live Oak Library Board (3 members, 3 year term)
Mayor and Council
Mayor and Council
Mayor and Council
Mayor and Council
Mayor and Council
Hinesville Housing Authority (7 members,
Mayor and Council
5 year term) Appointed by Mayor and Council
Mayor and Council
Mayor and Council
Mayor and Council
CURRENT
APPOINTEES
James Thomas
Shirley Frasier
Yvonne Woods
Judy Shippey
Douglas Harn
Kevin Thomas
Irene McCall
Denise Deigh**
Liston Singletary*
Lee McGee
Paul Johnson
Susan Albright
Liberty County Records Advisory Board
Sarah Lumpkin
3
Rev Brown
Jeffrey Hein
Beverly Pitts
Liston Singletary
Linda Richardson
Curtis Velasco
Richard Olson
Reggie Sage
Justin McCartney
2
2
3
4
5
1
3
4
2
Liberty County Board of Health (2 members)
Ethics Committee (5 members, 2 year term)
Appointed by Council
Hinesville Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization (HAMPO) Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC)
Mayor and Council
CM Frasier
CM Ryon
CM Anderson
CM Jenkins
CM Shaw
Mayor Pro Tem Frasier
CM Anderson
CM Jenkins
CM Floyd
*Mr. Singletary is filling the unexpired term of Mayra Smalls
**Ms. Deigh is filling the unexpired term of Mattie Brown
RESIDES IN
DISTRICT
4
1
1
2
2
2
5
1
4
3
3
3
TERMS
SERVED
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
LENGTH OF TERM
4 years
6 years
3 years
3 years
3 years
5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years
5 years
1 year
TERM BEGAN
01/01/2000
01/01/2005
07/01/2008
07/01/2010
09/02/2010
05/11/2010
05/11/2006
08/05/2010
08/20/2009
12/04/2008
05/11/2008
08/06/2010
Serves at the pleasure of
the Mayor and Council
2 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
2 years
TERM EXPIRES
End of Term
12/31/2016
06/30/2011
06/30/2013
06/30/2013
05/11/2015
05/11/2016
05/11/2012
05/11/2013
05/11/2014
05/11/2013
08/06/2011
N/A
05/17/2011
05/17/2011
05/17/2009
05/17/2009
05/17/2011
02/07/2008
02/17/2011
03/03/2011
02/17/2011
05/17/2013
05/21/2013
05/17/2013
05/17/2013
05/17/2013
02/17/2013
02/17/2013
03/03/2013
02/17/2013
5/17/2011 10:27
Page 3 of 5