TIFTON — The 2016 city audit was presented by Meredith Lipson with Mauldin & Jenkins CPA at the city council workshop Jan. 19.

The city received an unmodified clean opinion, which, according to Lipson, was the best result anyone can hope for. According to the audit report, the city is in good financial shape, with it’s assets exceeding it’s liabilities by $83.9 million with an increase of $4.7 million from last year.

The council voted to accept the results of the 2016 audit, and the council expressed it’s appreciation of the excellent job done by the financial department during the audit.

The workshop opened with a public hearing concerning the proposed amendments to the Land Development Code and Historic Preservation Commission manual as it relates to signage.

Most of the updates had the effect of standardizing the size of signage and banners across the board.

Exterior electronic graphic display signs are not authorized in Tifton’s Historic District but are allowed in other areas. Signs put up in the historic district are not allowed to cover any architectural detail. Lettering limits based on height were taken out, since signage is regulated by square feet and the limit on lettering by size of the lettering is redundant. Banner size has been set at 15 feet throughout the city limits to make it easier for businesses by making the regular sign ordinance and the banner ordinance match.

The Land Development Code was modified to allow both an awning sign and a wall sign, giving businesses more flexibility. Another change will allow partials that have more than one business to allow each business to have a banner.

Vigorous discussion erupted over modifications to the sign removal ordinance. It changed from a $5 impound fee for illegal signs to $25, which was the estimated cost to the citizens to have city employees go out and remove signs that are illegally placed in the right of way.

Wes Ehlers protested that it was too expensive, citing trouble he had had during his election with campaign signs being impounded. He protested that having to spend $25 per sign was a lot of money for a small business or someone running in a local election.

Mayor Julie Smith said that the real problem isn’t signs in people’s yards, but the advertising signs “cluttering up” the city.

There was also discussion about not allowing electronic signs in the historic district. Ehlers asked if the only argument against having the signs was aesthetics.

“We already have specific guidelines to control any crazy Las Vegas signs that everybody was scared of.”

Council member Frank Sayles responded, saying, “I think it gets down to what kind of a city we want to have.” Sayles said that he has seen small towns with big electronic display lights that look “out of place,” and that the Historic Preservation Committee and people who live there don’t want to see those kind of signs in the historic district.

When asked, Sayles said that while he has not spoken a lot with the business community located in the historic district, it hasn’t been an issue right now but he is “looking at the future.”

Smith urged that the council members look at the proposed changes line by line and vote the way they feel is in the best interests of their constituents.

There was no public input either for or against the proposed changes.

There was also a heading for the application for an alcohol beverage license for Sunmart, located at 902 S. Central Avenue, which used to be Lo Lo Meat Market.

There was some concern about previous owners selling alcohol to minors from council members, particularly Johnny Terrell, but it was established during the hearing that the current applicant was in fact not the same person and had not had any history of selling alcohol to minors.

The council voted to approve the application in special session.

The only issue with the application involved the reinstatement of the LLC under which the alcoholic beverage license was applied for, but since the LLC is in the process of being reinstated there was no anticipated problem once it was reinstated by the state.

The discussion of the resolution adding a local vendor preference to the city purchasing policy and on adding an employee education/training incentive plan continued.

Details for both are still being ironed out and are not ready to be voted on.

The council discussed the ordinance amending the City of Tifton pension plan for provisions of the Heroes and Earnings Assistance Relief Tax Act of 2008.

The HEART Act states that if a city employee goes out on qualified military leave, they will not be terminated and rehired during the time of their deployment, they will not be required to make up contributions missed during the deployment, that if they die while on deployment, they are deemed to have reentered employment the day before to allow beneficiaries to collect benefits and that if raises are given out while they are deployed they will receive the raise along with everyone else.

The ordinance also changed the definition of a standard workweek for police officers. The council also heard discussion of an ordinance restating the City of Tifton pension plan documents.

Two alcohol beverage license applications were reviewed, with one being approved. The application for the Elm Street Mart was asked to be looked at more closely by Terrell.