Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Dunwoody Work Session audio of September 21, 2009

Tonight's Dunwoody City Council work session ran about four hours long but it is at these work sessions where topics are debated and policy is formulated openly which we will see again in next weeks meeting packet for a final vote. If the work session works well, the voting meetings should be rather boring and I am happy with tonight's session so hopefully next weeks session will go much quicker.

With the excessive rain, horrible traffic, flooded basements and school closings the meeting attendance was lighter than usual, so I am happy to provide the audio broken down into individual segments for your listening pleasure. I have listed the amount of time recorded on each item and maybe it will assist you in determining if the item is worth your time. If you need the work documents from the meeting just click here.

Agenda - Work Session
  • 1. Start of meeting - Council Comment (Time: 9m26S)

  • 2. August financial report. (10m37s)

  • 3. Pubic Comment - Traffic Calming (1m50s)

  • 4. City of Dunwoody Budget Policy. (10m01s)

  • 5. Discussion of Financial Software RFP. (19m56s)

  • 6. Discussion of Purchasing Policy. (13m32s)

  • 7. Discussion of Audit Committee and Audit Policy. (15m44s)

  • 8. Traffic calming policy discussion. (20m40s)

  • 9. Ordinance to amend Chapter 17: Traffic and Public Roadways. (0M47s)

  • 10. PUBLIC HEARING - Chapter 27: Zoning, §5A and §5D: Public notice requirements for zoning actions in the City of Dunwoody. (49m35s)

  • 11. Discussion of CVBD employee benefit package. (15m57s)

  • 12. Public notice requirements for zoning actions in the City of Dunwoody and text amendment to Chapter 21: Signs. (2m03s)

  • 13. Street parking at Marcus Jewish Community Center. (19m08s)

  • 14. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan meeting schedule. (21m47s)

  • 15. Discussion of City Council Rules and Procedures regarding meeting schedule. (13m40s)

  • 16. Final citizen public comment and end of meeting. (4m06s)


Staceka said...

I attended the city council work session on Monday, September 21 to better understand the proposed changes to the current traffic calming ordinance. Having listened to the discussion during the agenda item, please see my continued questions and comments addressed to the City Council and Mayor below.

My first question to you all, again, is why are you compelled to change the traffic calming procedues we inherited from DeKalb County? What is wrong with them? I ask you again because from my observations at the work session it appears Councilman Shortal detests speed bumps and doesn't want them in his city, let alone pay for them. It appears he is the driving force behind the changes yet I still question the need to change the current ordinance.

My next question, again, is why you all are supporting a decrease in the level of service we received from county? It is most certainly a tax increase if you are asking citizens to pay for something which DeKalb County installed at no cost upon approval of the petition by the Board of Commissioner and charged only a minimal amount ($25/year) for maintenance. Councilman Shortal has a problem with his taxes paying for speed bumps on someone else's street. Hmmm.....isn't that part of living in a city? I don't mind paying to repair a pothole in Dunwoody North because I assume at some point, they will help pay for a pothole in my neighborhood. It's called a community and I think we have a great one. I was appalled at Councilman Shortal's short-sighted, selfish statements.

Why do you all feel compelled to make it harder for the citizens to petition their government? Is the City of Dunwoody being overrun with requests for speed bumps? It is so incredibly hard to work on a neighborhood petition. We can elect governments with 50%+1, DeKalb County asked for 65%, why on earth do you need to increase that number? I know of several neighborhoods where a petition drive has failed because of lack of support. 65% is not a slam dunk and is hard to achieve. I think an increase is completely unecessary.

To answer the question of why the city should pay for the speed bumps is twofold in my mind. Government does a couple of things: 1) Provide for the safety of its citizens, hence police force, fire stations, traffic signals, etc. Certainly speed bumps would fall under the purview of citizens' safety; 2) Maintain the roads, therefore the city should pay for the speed bumps. If you all start asking citizens to assist in paying for speed bumps, why should I ask the city permission to construct speed bumps if I'm willing to pay for the total cost? The city government is fiscally responsible for the roads in our city. Period.

If these changes go through, I don't think you'll see another successful traffic calming petition. That should make Councilman Shortal happy, but put a lot more children and pedestrians at risk.

Thank you for your time.


Stacey Harris

DunwoodyPerson said...

If Dunwoody charges residents to have speed bumps installed, yes, that is a tax increase (or a reduction in services from DeKalb).

Additionally, the reason some officials don't want speed bumps is: speed bumps don't generate money like speeding tickets do.

Making it more difficult for residents to decide ourselves on speed bumps gives Dunwoody's leaders more power.

The bumps are more effective than an occasional cop and would force even city council members to slow down.