Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Video and short recap of the October 11th Dunwoody City Council Meeting


Video of Part 1 (3 hours)


Video of Part 2 (1 hour 10 min)

Abbreviated meeting recap. Original Docs.

We allowed more signs for the Run Dunwoody Race and approved the repaving of Dunwoody Club.  I was conflicted on spending the money early for the repaving above higher rated streets and wanted more room for bike lanes but in the end I couldn't pass up the price for the work nor the $70,000 in LARP funds that with the state's financial issues might not be available next year.  The sign ordinance was back with another first read, I was completely thrown for a loop that only now the city's contracted sign attorney publicly gave input.  I personally asked for this previously, was told that it was done and glad I pushed again after the last deferral.  Though I am thankful for the public presentation; her points needed to be incorporated months ago before drafts were sent to Community Council and Planning Commission.  The reworked item will be published for public for review by next Monday and then possibly voted up or down on the 25th (again without the official review of several committees of the final product).  We deferred Accessory Buildings.  We discussed the budget and are dropping three additional officers but look to be adding the two requested Sargents (Day & Night shifts) to alleviate the lack of managerial backup. The City is also implementing a one time policy whereby in late 2011 officers could sell back 40 hours of vacation time if they have accrued 80 hours of leave; whereby this will put additional man hours on the street without any additional overhead of equipment.  We discussed the proposed audio visual system that will be streaming and archiving video of all future city meetings.  911 was a huge topic, DeKalb is non-responsive to our requests, Chattcom is a fixed price with a nice service package whereby we can use them as a short term fix and/or we are still exploring starting our own 911 system.  Parks Master Planning process is about to start and we heard that seven benches will be installed at the Brook Run playground this Thursday. (Smile, it has been a long time coming.)  Sidewalk policy was discussed and though most of Council still wants to make school areas a priority; we also need to find solutions for Happy Hollow, Valley View and Mount Vernon which are away from schools but still have a great need.  The suggestion of a divided list was proposed and Public Works will be getting back to us with a possible solution.  We dismissed the street seal coating idea and decided to keep the same Council meeting schedule of one work session and one voting session per month.  Hopefully not all of our meetings are as long as tonight.  The meetings started at 7 pm and at 11:30 we then went into Executive Session to discuss real estate, law suits and personnel matters and I wasn't off the clock until 12:30 am.  If there are typos above please forgive me.

11 comments:

Bob said...

where were our lawyers during this year long process? Once again as a result of City Council members making changes from the floor with out any legal advice, and we end up where we were last night with a legal expert taking an hour to tell us what was wrong with a years work of work.
I cringed when the council members laughed at times over how long this has taken and even more suggestions were being made by the expert lawyer.
Well not funny ladies and gentlemen.
It should have been an ongoing process and not held to the end after a year of discussion. Especially not before what was to be the FIRST READ. You laughedat yourselves not because it was funny, but because you were embarrassed that you wasted a year.
After the hour, you are still going to reject the recommendation that "institutions" can have 15 signs a year ( or is it 12).
So much for the stopping of sign pollution that one counclman claimed.
I have no dog in the fight, but anyone who saw this last night had to be embarrased.
Now that we have all the advice and a document that has been changed AGAIN, and no one will get a real chance to review it since it will by pass the public review process, the council will vote becasue they are in a hurry to do so.

John Heneghan said...

Here is a link directly to the video of the sign presentation.

City Sign Presentation

Rick Callihan was also in attendance and provided a recap of the sign issue on his Dunwoody Talk blog along with a little movie clip that make me chuckle.

http://dunwoodytalk.blogspot.com/2010/10/council-recap-signs.html

.

greencracker said...

Hey, how'd I miss your camera? Maggie from Reporters

NellieWoodson said...

Is that the very same far right obscurantist Rick who wrote the wholly inarticulate letter in the local paper belittling and mudslinging Jim and supporting Nancy?

If so, and if she endorses Rick's words then I guess Nancy Nixon has her very own Spiro Agnew and certainly won't be getting my vote.

"All cruelty springs from weakness." Seneca

Joe Hirsch said...

I see this as another test of leadership. It sounds like city staff purposefully kept their actions with the extra attorney hidden from City Council, Mayor and the public? John, is that your take? Did staff have to ask for additional funding for this? Are you worried what other things our staff might want to disclose? This looks disgraceful. We have all wasted countless hours on the sign ordinance. Somebody owes us an explanation and probably an apology or reprimand. I myself have said an attorney should give advice on the proposed code… and city staff heard me - but appear to have kept a secret that there already was one?!? If staff indeed made a point to hide their hiring of an attorney, Council shouldn't tolerate it. I look forward to hearing a clarification.

John Heneghan said...

Maggie, I have been doing video for quite awhile and audio from day one of the city's creation therefore I am excited that the city is finally thinking of taking this task over. Welcome to the blog.

Joe, inquiries are being made and I will not jump to conclusions at this time.

FamousDunwoody said...

The surprise realization about the sign attorney working with Community Development Department, but out of sight of the public commissions, boards, and Council is yet another example of why the Clark Patterson Lee contract to operate Community Development should not be renewed. Procedural errors continue unabated and a culture of "we know better than you" is rampant with CPL staff.

themommy said...

I don't understand how the council approved the hiring of an economic development director just a few weeks ago and one has already been hired.

Was the position created to fit the person?

Rick said...

Nellie,

Tell me what in my letter to The Crier was not true, please. I mentioned three votes by Redovian. I'll donate $100 to your charity if you prove me wrong on any of the three. Not mud slinging, just stating the obvious.

Famous FarmHouser said...

Take a look at the new post and comments at the DeKalb School Watch Blog concerning Redovian.

http://dekalbschoolwatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/district-1-boe-candidates-answers-to.html

Rick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.