JB, to answer you question on holding two public hearings – as most found out last night (including myself), holding 2 public hearings is a policy. Big difference between ‘policy’ and ‘ordinance’. It is “at the Board’s discretion” to hold two public hearings or not. And since you had 4 aldermen ready to do away with the P&RC as we know it, they weren’t interested in following normal policy. I can’t think of another issue that has required public hearings that didn’t get the two hearing treatment.

Unfortunately, only one of the board members that voted in favor of repealing the P&RC ordinance was voted out of office – Self. McLaurin, as you know, didn’t seek re-election, Perkins was put back in unopposed, and Corey won his re-election. So, I’m not sure how much of a lesson the incoming BoA will learn from this.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of how this impacts the 2% tax, if any.

I will agree with Robbie – I would like to see the first order of business by the incoming administration to veto this decision.

Rumor has it that this commission was created and made autonomous to take some of the load off of the BoA. And according to McLaurin, he wrote the original ordinance. By his actions last night, was he admitting that he made a mistake or that the BoA now has the extra time to handle the P&R issues?

It was mentioned several times last night that the BoA has had issues with the P&RC for 3 years. Why wait until the last meeting to “do something about it”? Were they just now able to squeeze this issue in on the agenda?

There was a lot of support last night for the current P&RC to stay as is. At least 4 times, citizens directly asked questions to the BoA inquiring on who put this on the agenda and why. Not one board member responded. Why you might ask? Well the board members knew that once this issue came up under Board Business on the agenda, the public could not interact with the BoA. So, McLaurin, Perkins, Self, and Cory knew that they could “debate” this issue without having to answer specific questions from the public.

This is crazy!

It was reported that Dan Morland, Park Commission president, send the Board of Aldermen a letter notifying them that the 2% tax money (that the BoA want so badly) is a State statue that the “Park Commission” receives the funds – According to Morland, the BoA is not eligible to receive the funds if my rumor source is correct… Any confirmation on this?

Ya know, those that passed this mess were voted out of office… let this be a lesson to the new board members… Keep your constituents in the center of your decisions… or we will replace you too!