Friday, October 8, 2010

Dunwoody City Council Meeting Agenda for Monday October 11th at 7 pm

Monday, October 11th
Dunwoody City Hall
41 Perimeter Center East
Dunwoody, GA 30346
7:00 p.m. - Watch Live


The city has rolled out new software for agendas and the agendas printed on the web now include all attachments, click either one of the agenda links below to see the documents embedded into the agenda via the city site.  The second part of the agenda document management system is the audio visual equipment investment that we will be discussing on Monday.  This system is a one time investment in hardware that will record, post and store video of all future city meetings on line.  (I am really looking forward to this taking place.)

Voting Meeting Agenda

1. Approval of Special Event Additional Signage Request for RunDunwoody Rotary Race To Serve.
10112010_SCM_sign request RunDunwood2.pdf
10112010_SCM_sign request RunDunwoody.pdf
10112010_SCM_sign request RunDunwoody3 admin_Guidlines.pdf
10112010_SCM_sign request RunDunwoody4 permit application.pdf

2. Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement Between Sandy Springs and City of Dunwoody for Paving of Dunwoody Club Drive.
10112010_SCM_IGS Sandy Springs paving bids.pdf
10112010_SCM_IGS Sandy Springs paving IGA.pdf
10112010_SCM_IGS Sandy Springs paving memo.pdf

Work Session Agenda

1. FIRST READ: Ordinance to Amend Chapter 20, Signs, and Chapter 27, Zoning, Article III, Overlay District Regulations, §20-1276, Regulations.
10112010_WS_Signs Amendments.pdf
10112010_WS_Signs Memo.pdf

2. Discussion of Ordinance Amendment to Chapter 27: Zoning §27-1303 Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses.
10112010_WS_Accessory_Buildings_Ammendments.pdf
10112010_WS_Accessory_Buildings_Memo.pdf

3. FIRST READ: Budget Ordinance for the Year Ending December 31, 2011.
10112010_WS_Budget_2011_ordinance.pdf
10112010_WS_Budget_2011_proposed.pdf

4. Discussion of Award of Audio/Visual Contract.
10112010_WS_Audo Visual System.pdf

5. Discussion of E-911.
10112010_WS_E911 Memo.pdf
10112010_WS_E911_IGA.pdf

6. Discussion of Parks Master Plan.
10112010_WS_Parks Master Plan.pdf

7. Discussion of Sidewalk Improvements Policy.
10112010_WS_Sidewalk_Policy_lista_A.pdf
10112010_WS_Sidewalk_Policy_lista_B.pdf
10112010_WS_Sidewalk_Policy_memo.pdf

8. Discussion of Additional Sidewalk Projects List.
10112010_WS_Additional_Sidewalk_Proposed_add.pdf

9. Discussion of 2010 Capital Paving Contract Amendment.
10112010_WS_paving_modification.pdf

10. Discussion of Seal Coating on Recently Paved Streets.
10112010_WS_seal_coating_streets.pdf

11. Discussion of City Council Meeting Schedule.
10112010_WS_City_Meeting_schedule.pdf

12. Discussion of Pain Clinic Moratorium.
10112010_WS_Pain_Clinic.pdf

13. Initiation of Text Amendments.

5 comments:

Pattie Baker said...

John: Links aren't working :(

John Heneghan said...

Fixed, thanks.

TwoDogsTrucking said...

Reference the recommendation to enter into an IGA with Chatcomm has anyone really vetted this request First is Chatcomm considered a private business or a government entity eligible for an IGA or subject to Open Records request. I remember April news articles stating Sandy Springs and John’s Creek had to give Chatcomm a million dollars out of their regular budget due to some faulty financials projected by Chatcomm proponents. For a little irony, the IXP corporation’s web site still proclaims there’s “no need to raid the general fund” . I see this memorandum as full of adjectives but very light on facts. The “performance metric” really caught my eye. My basic understanding of 911 centers is that most centers meet the parameters for answering, processing and dispatching “high priority calls” in 90 seconds 90% of the time. What skews a 911 center’s “performance metric” are the rainy rush hours with their accompanying accidents, full moon Friday nights and other such external factors. I think the city council should see some hard data comparing Chatcomm to numerous other 911 centers before sending 1.2 million Dunwoody dollars to IXP corporation. With respect to the memo’s paragraph on the city’s request of the county to provide Dunwoody citizens some enhanced services. Is the memo suggesting that Dunwoody receive an enhanced service not afforded to other citizens of the county? The section stating the “analysis of alternatives” with the city starting a 911 center, “answer 90% of all calls with in ten seconds” seems admirable but unrealistic given calls for service generated in the Dunwoody area. A rainy day would still have 911 calls on hold. The “purchasing service from Chatcomm” -”purchase 911 service from Chatcomm while dispatching on DeKalb County’s digital system”. The county is going to give this company access to it’s digital system?
The selling points that seems to have the committee recommending this expenditure really seem odd. The “automatic vehicle location” a computer dispatch enhancement to determine which car is closest to an incident. Dunwoody is 12 square miles and I think the officers could just as easily work out among themselves who is closest to a call for service. Exactly how does the hiring IXP’s Chatcomm service “strengthens established partnership of the North Metro SWAT Team”. and what relationship do they even have with each other.
What’s the city’s fall back if they go to Chatcomm and find it to be a bad match? Has it been determined who is entitled to the E-911 fees (tax) since the county will still be dispatching fire/rescue calls in Dunwoody? Lastly, if his proposal is approved then public safety will consume nearly 50% of the city’s budget and so far I’ve haven’t seen any difference (if not a decline) in public safety.
I would hate to be the person on record who canceled Dunwoody’s existing partnership with the county with the very limited facts presented in this memo, particularly at 1.2 million dollars. I think the political promises made were for Dunwoody to be independent not to swap from one big government to a collection of government that in whole are a big government. Whatever happened to the idea of townships and limited government?

Joe Hirsch said...

Hi John,
Since I will not be able to attend the City Council meeting, I of course wanted to share some more concerns about the proposed sign ordinance. While certain parts of the proposal have improved, many have not:

-First, both the city of Dunwoody and City Council refuses to do anything about the no-parking signs erected in front of Dunwoody High. You know this is illegal, yet you ignore it. So for any member of Council to discuss our sign ordinance without addressing this matter is problematic. Why bother to create new laws that you also won’t enforce? Giving favor to a contractor while not extending those privileges to other businesses or citizens makes you and our city look corrupt.

-Though some in Dunwoody may not like (non-white) people holding signs that show a store going out of business, requiring a permit for them while always allowing hand carried signs with “non-commercial messages” is asking for legal trouble. Courts have ruled that sign regulations should be for time, place and manner, not content.

-As proposed, portable signs on a vehicle are prohibited, unless the vehicle is being used for the business or parked somewhat hidden AND the sign is for a “properly licensed business”. I don’t foresee a police officer calling in to check on the status of a business license for a business name that is on a car. The code also would be saying that commercially licensed speech is of higher regard than non-commercial. This definitely won’t stand in court, so don’t put it into our codes to appease someone.

-And now that Dunwoody owns the property of the Spruill Center, who is going to tell them that there are too many flags on the flagpole? Yeah, our sign ordinance says only two are permitted. Here’s a great headline: “American Flag Must Be Removed Per Dunwoody Ordinance”

-Institutions [houses of worship] would be permitted to have 15 temporary signs a year for 30 days each. That’s funny. And if these “temporary” signs exceed 5x6 in dimensions, the City will have them removed? That’s even funnier. Don’t waste our taxpayer’s ink.

-With about half of Dunwoody’s population not living in single-family residences, it is peculiar they are prohibited from the opportunity ever to display a birthday or party balloon on a street. Well, “those people” don’t vote, so I guess it doesn’t matter to Council?

-Permits for pole banners would only be issued for events located in Dunwoody. Is that for events solely in the City? What if it’s a statewide event that includes Dunwoody? What if it is for an international event, which includes Dunwoody? What about a galaxy-wide event, which includes Dunwoody?

With the countless hours debating this sign ordinance, I would have expected better from our city. My hope is that the end product, if there ever is one, will be vetted better.

TwoDogsTrucking said...

Another million dollars on something that’s not broke! First is Chatcomm considered a private business or a government entity eligible for an IGA or subject to Open Records request. April news articles stated Sandy Springs and John’s Creek had to give Chatcomm a million dollars out of their general funds due to some faulty financials projected by Chatcomm proponents. For a little irony, the IXP corporation’s web site still proclaims there’s “no need to raid the general fund” . This memorandum is full of adjectives but very light on facts. The “performance metric” really caught my eye. My basic understanding of 911 centers is that most centers meet the parameters for answering, processing and dispatching “high priority calls” in 90 seconds 90% of the time. What skews a 911 center’s “performance metric” are the rainy rush hours with their accompanying accidents, full moon Friday nights and other such external factors. I think the city council should see some hard data comparing Chatcomm to numerous other 911 centers before sending 1.2 million Dunwoody dollars to IXP corporation. With respect to the memo’s paragraph on the city’s request of the county to provide Dunwoody citizens some enhanced services. Is the memo suggesting that Dunwoody receive an enhanced service not afforded to other citizens of the county? The section stating the “analysis of alternatives” with the city starting a 911 center to “answer 90% of all calls with in ten seconds” seems admirable but unrealistic given calls for service generated in the Dunwoody area. A rainy day would still have 911 calls on hold. The “purchasing service from Chatcomm” -”purchase 911 service from Chatcomm while dispatching on DeKalb County’s digital system”. The county is going to give this company access to it’s digital system?
Some of the selling points that have the committee recommending Chatcomm really seem odd. The “automatic vehicle location” a computer dispatch enhancement to determine which car is closest to an incident. Dunwoody is 12 square miles. The officers as they do now could just as easily work out among themselves who is closest to a call for service. How does the hiring IXP’s Chatcomm service strengthen the “established partnership of the North Metro SWAT Team”.
What’s the city’s fall back if they contract with Chatcomm and find it to be a bad match? Has it been determined who is entitled to the E-911 fees (tax) since the county will still be dispatching fire/rescue calls in Dunwoody? Lastly, if this proposal is approved then public safety will consume nearly 50% of the city’s budget and so far I’ve haven’t seen any difference (if not a decline) in public safety.
Dunwoody continually demonstrates that its not better government just unnecessary government.