Thursday, January 10, 2013

Agenda for January 14th Dunwoody City Council Meeting

Monday, January 14th
Dunwoody City Hall
41 Perimeter Center East
Dunwoody, GA 30346
6:00 p.m. - Work Session
Agenda (my comments in RED)

Update on the CAD-to-CAD Interface Project.
Proclamation Honoring the 2012 Sustainable Hero. (Tom Lambert)
FIRST READ: Regulations Governing False Alarms in the City of Dunwoody
Dunwoody Village Main Street Project Update.
Discussion of City Position Allocation and Compensation Chart Related to Salary Ranges.
Discussion of Sentinel Offender Services, L.L.C. Contract to Adjust Probation Fees.
FIRST READ: Ordinance to Amend City of Dunwoody Purchasing Policy.
Discussion of Resolution to Join GIRMA Membership for Workers' Compensation.
Discussion of Award of Brook Run Video Surveillance System Contract to Iron Sky, Inc.
Discussion of Board Appointments. (docs below from Dec10)
- Board of Ethics Members. (Janet Webb & Wade Wright)
- Community Council Members. (Steve Barton & Susan Harper)
- Development Authority Members. (Augustine, Gaddis, Miller)
- Planning Commission Members. (Anders, Converse, Dwyer)
- Board of Zoning Appeals Members. (McCahan, Mitchell, Penn)
Discussion of Ethics Ordinance.
Discussion of a Parks and Recreation Board.
Discussion of DeKalb Municipal Association Dues.
Discussion of Intersection Improvement Projects


waterman said...

Alarm ordinance = overkill. It seems to be a disincentive to have a monitored residential alarm system if I have to pay for permits and an occasional false alarm. To add to it, the City must hire a contractor to administer permits, fees and seminars. Excess regulation...

dpgroupie said...

waterman, no one pays a fine for an "occasional" false alarm. But if you have an ineffective system and don't hold your vendor accountable for operational issues that could be remedied, why should I pay for police to respond to all your false alarms instead of being out on the street preventing and responding to real crimes??

waterman said...

@dpgroupie, I respect your opinion about "why should I pay...?" Do you own a residential alarm system? I have since 1995. So the alarm goes off, I'm away from home and the company calls me and lets me know there was an alarm in a specific zone. Now I have to make a decision. Do I tell the monitoring center to send the police, just to find out there was no evidence of break-in (Strike 1) or do I hold back and say no, negating the reason I have it?

Let's add that now I have to file for and pay for a yearly permit, the fee for which will be set by Council later. I want to know now. Penalties? Set by Council later. I want to know now, because permit fees and penalties are stealth taxes. I work in another branch of government and this is what we do to pay the bills. I'd really like the specifics on how much "lost time" this represents during the normal course of neighborhood patrolling duties. Prove to me that this is a huge problem demanding additional regulation and taxes and maybe I'll go along.

Don't forget that if you forget to pay the penalty (residential fee is unspecified) and you hit your panic alarm, DPD won't respond to your home invasion. 24-186(e) indicates otherwise, but hey, people make mistakes when you're trying to implement a 10 page regulation with non-public safety contractors.

Being in a regulatory agency, I can see so many ways this ordinance and our newly contracted Alarm Coordinator can go upside down. I already pay property taxes for public safety. Now I'll pay more fees and fill out forms and alarm monitoring expense will go up because of the added layer of Dunwoody alarm bureaucracy. This will be because I was proactive enough to alarm my house. Perhaps we need more patrol officers so our resources aren't so scarce.

Oh well, we all pay franchise fees if we like our cable and power... it's just another way for the City to hit our wallet. This is fun!

MP said...

John, I am sharing this here as my professional obligations preclude my attending the City Council Meeting. While I believe the changes in this version represent marginal improvements I remain concerned that this ordinance will still have the net effect of discouraging or unduly complicating alarm system ownership and use. The reports I have seen referenced in city council materials that suggest such ordinances are only a subset of the research that has been completed on this topic and there are an equal number of, if not more, reports that suggest such ordinances have negligible impact on false alarm counts.

In short, I believe this is a "feel good" measure rather than one that will serve better to protect the residents and businesses of the City of Dunwoody and encourage you and the balance of the City Council to vote against it.