After 13 years on the Dunwoody City Council, I think I do a pretty good job of raising issues and explaining what is coming up on the next City Council agenda. What I believe is inconsistent on my part is the explanation of what happens after the meeting, the discussions between council members, and the decisions made. On the positive side the city has taken over video recording all council meetings and making them available on Facebook which is huge improvement over me doing it on my own eleven years ago.
In the past, reporters (and Dick Williams in particular), would document in detail what the Council was doing, would add historical perspective, quote Council members and would even write opinion pieces to provide perspective on what was transpiring at City Hall. The Crier, the Neighbor, the Reporter and even the AJC would have dedicated stories on the actions of the Council. There were numerous bloggers who would analyze, report, ridicule, and possibly exaggerate but also give blow by blow recaps of the actions of the Council. Today there is only one Dunwoody centric blogger left who analyzes what is happening in local government, so let me acknowledge. Because these various outlets reported what they saw, I rarely needed to provide a recap.
The news business is always changing, and as much as I am thankful for all the reporting that is being done, sometimes I think the details are missing from some of the media outlets. As a City Councilman, it is my job to know the reporters and I bend over backward to get to know them, I share my cell phone number and encourage them to ask questions. Cathy Cobbs of the Dunwoody Reporter has covered our community for many years and I am especially thankful to her dedication and coverage of the Council meeting, as I will be quoting her stories a few times in this blog.
Last Monday, we were scheduled to vote on the 2023 budget that eats into our reserves by 2 million dollars in order to be balanced; therefore, I met with the Mayor and staff for two hours to find ways to balance the budget without cutting into Police or Parks operating funds. After two hours of staff discussion going line by line, and me proposing to cut Capital (project) funds that I thought were excessive and/or items that the community doesn't want; I was informed that those cuts were not operational therefore wouldn't assist in balancing the budget in the eyes of the auditors.
If you would like to watch the City presentation on the 2023 Budget here is the start of that video segment. In the end I argued for cuts, especially on the proposed 12-foot trails in front of single-family homes that I don't believe a majority of the citizens want but I couldn't get traction for the other Council members to remove the expenditures.
Last Monday, we approved the budget as presented but if you review the video of the Council Meeting, you can see my ugly baby comments where I propose changes to capital expenses as I believe the community would rather have other projects vs the proposed 12 foot paths.
Dunwoody dips into reserve funds for 2023 ‘hold-the-line’ budget, - Cathy Cobbs / Dunwoody Reporter
"Councilman John Heneghan likened the 2023 budget picture to “an ugly baby.”
“The baby picture is ugly, and the toddler picture doesn’t look like it’s going to be much better,” Heneghan said. “This structural deficit has me concerned.”
Heneghan said he met with key members of the budgeting team, including Dunwoody Mayor Lynn Deutsch, before the council session “trying to find $2 million” so the reserve wouldn’t have to be touched, but conceded that the meeting did not produce any viable alternatives.
“I’m just concerned that we are funding things that the public doesn’t want and not funding things that they do want,” he said. “I’m particularly concerned that we have sidewalk projects in this budget when we have heard from citizens that they want to slow down on them.”
Vinicki reminded the Council that the budget can, and will, be modified throughout the year to reflect changes in revenues and expenditures.
We also had on the agenda the final plan approval of our two newest parks, Roberts Drive & Vermack Rd as they were deferred from a previous meeting as there was controversy over Roberts new turf field being shown as only a soccer field and Vermack Park having a last second connecting trail from the park into the neighborhoods behind them. Staff quickly changed the drawings of the multi-use turf field to remove the soccer overlay to include only tic spots for all sports (Soccer, Lacrosse & Football) and I was personally lobbying for all three sport lines to be over laid into the final design but I lost that argument.
If you review the Council Meeting Video, you can listen to our discussions on the field markings, our desire for the field at Peachtree Middle School to be converted to a turf field for dedicated Lacrosse & Football and my desire for all three sport markings to be permanent on the new Roberts field.
For Vermack, we listened to numerous public comments regarding the connecting trail directly behind residents homes and then when it was time to discuss the matter the item was tabled by district representatives without ability to comment or discuss; therefore the residents who attended the meeting were forced to sit there on a Monday evening for almost two hours were not given the opportunity to hear from their elected representatives. I was disappointed at the move and said so at final Council comment of the meeting. My hope is that this tabling procedure without Council comment never happens again.
Dunwoody Council passes park plan for Austin property, tables Vermack - Cathy Cobbs / Dunwoody Reporter
During council comments at the end of the meeting, Heneghan said he was disappointed that the Vermack issue was not discussed.
“[At the last meeting], we took the word ‘transparency’ out of our mission statement and I’m not sure that was the right decision,” he said. “I really wish we would have had the chance to comment among Council the item that was tabled. I think we could have had some worthwhile discussion, and we could have been transparent to the 50 people who were in the room listening.”
The 2023 parks budget does not include any funds for construction, which have been estimated to be $10.5 million for the Roberts property and about $4 million for the Vermack property. The Council had discussed funding Vermack, Roberts and other parks improvements with a $30 million parks bond, but in September decided not to put a parks bond referendum on the ballot in November.
Discussions about putting a parks bond referendum on the ballot in 2023 are ongoing.
2 comments:
What does it mean to approve a plan for the park without funding I? Does that mean that nothing happens until funded? When funded does it have to be developed to the plan? What happens if approved funding is not sufficient to develop to the plan?
How did we get so far from the original vision for the City????
Post a Comment