Friday, October 11, 2013

Dunwoody City Council Meeting Agenda for Monday October 14.

Monday, October 14th
Dunwoody City Hall
41 Perimeter Center East
Dunwoody, GA 30346
6:00 p.m. - Work Session
7:00 p.m. - Voting Meeting

Agenda 6 PM (CAD to CAD)

Agenda 7 PM

Update on the CAD-to-CAD Interface Project. (employees in training)

SECOND READ: Ordinances Amending and Readopting Chapters 27, Zoning, and 16, Land
Development, and all Previous Amendments Thereto.

     Staff Memo of Changes
     Chap 16 Clean     Chap 16 track changes
     Chap 27 Clean     Chap 27 track changes
     CC & PC Minutes

Approval of Revised Intergovernmental Agreement with DeKalb County for the Provision of Election Services.

Discussion of Dunwoody Village Parkway Construction Contract.

Discussion of 2013 Amended Budget, 2014 Annual Operating and Capital Budgets, and Proposed Fiscal Year 2014 Budget.

Discussion of 2014 Legislative Priorities. (Independent Schools & ??)

Discussion of 2014 Town Hall Meeting Program.

Discussion of Amendment to the Development Agreement for Project Renaissance.

Discussion of Spruill Center for the Arts Ground Lease.

FIRST READ: Amendment to the Project Renaissance Quitclaim Deed regarding the Reversionary Interest.

Discussion of Amendment to the Project Renaissance Declaration of Easements.

Approval of Agreement with GDOT for Year 2 of the Perimeter Traffic Operations Program

Request by Council Member Adrian Bonser for City Council Review of Ethics Board Recommendation Regarding Stephen Chipka Ethics Complaint Against Council Member Bonser Dated 5-21-13.

     Ethics hearing officer findings in Bonser / Chipka complaint.
     Minutes of Ethics Hearing on 09122013 in favor of Councilwoman Bonser

ACTION ITEM: Request by Council Member Adrian Bonser for Reimbursement of Legal Fees Associated with Ethics Complaint Filed by Stephen Chipka Against Council Member Adrian Bonser Dated 5-21-13.

      Legal expenses of Councilwoman Bonser defending Chipka Complaint.


Pattie Baker said...

Thanks, John for providing all of this. I do want to share one point of clarification where I believe Staff gave incorrect information to the Community Council, based on the minutes you've provided:

Section 27
A. Agriculture: Council Members asked about the possibility of not classifying chickens as livestock. Staff stated that due to recent conflicts on the subject, the provision was not modified in the Code Rewrite.

To clarify: There have been no complaints about any of the small-scale heirloom backyard chickens that have resided in our city for years. The reason the issue was brought to City Council a couple of years ago was so that the city would join neighboring cities and others nationwide in legalizing this private-property activity (that is so popular it is featured in the upscale Neiman Marcus and Williams Sonoma catalogs), utilizing best practices and ensuring the adherence to noise and nuisance ordinances. Citizens were 4-1 in support of it, and it failed by one vote. Now is the time to make this simple change to our ordinances.

Max said...


dpgroupie said...

I cannot attend the meeting, so I will make my public comment here.

The ethics process is designed to accomplish a specific task without the need for legal representation. You may have legal representation if you wish, but it is strictly a personal choice.

Mr. Chipka chose not to have legal representation, I'm assuming because he believed he had a strong case. Councilperson Bonser CHOSE to have legal representation. That was her PERSONAL CHOICE, and I'm sure most citizens would agree that we should not have to pay for her personal choices. If she was not confident that she could argue her position effectively, I can understand why she would want to buy that insurance policy.

The fact that she has personal friends on the Ethics Committee has influenced the process on both sets of ethics charges, but I believe Council will make a prudent decision to preserve the integrity of the process by denying her absurd demand to be reimbursed for legal expenses. If an ethics charge is considered truly frivolous, it would not make it to the hearing. So obviously there appeared to be some merit for further discussion of the matter.

If citizens feared the type of retribution that she is seeking from Mr. Chipka, what are the chances that someone would easily step forward to file a complaint in the future? (I'm sure her intent is to attempt to bully the City into paying, and if she is not successful, she will probably go after Chipka personally (or crucify him in the media...)

Move on Adrian. Accepting responsibility for one's behavior can sometimes be painful, but much less painful than not doing so.