Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-2010 workshop meeting ,..... City Council of Peachtree City Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 The Mayor and City Council of Peachtree City met in workshop session on Tuesday, November 9, 2010. Mayor Haddix called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Other Council Members attending were Vanessa Fleisch, Eric Imker, Kim Leamard, and Doug Sturbaum. City staff present: City Manager Bernard McMullen, Administrative Services Director Nikki Vrana, Community Development Director/City Planner David Rast, Financial Services Director Paul Salvatore, Fire Chief Ed Eiswerth, Leisure Services Director Randy Gaddo, Police Chief H.C. "Skip" Clark, Public Services Director Mark Caspar, City Engineer Dave Borkowski, Public Information Officer/City Clerk Betsy Tyler, PlannerlEconomic Development Coordinator Tony Bernard, and Gathering Place Coordinator Janet Werner. The Gathering Place Leisure Services Director Randy Gaddo reviewed the expansion plan for the Gathering Place, noting this would be one of the questions on the 2011 Resident Survey. Discussion items would also include the rental of the facility versus no cost use, alcohol for events at the facility, and upcoming fee change recommendations. Gaddo said that, during the October 5 workshop, staff presented cost estimates and options for ,,-, funding the expansion of the facility. Council had requested more information on several issues, which staff had obtained. Gaddo said the cost of moveable partitions instead of a soundproof wall in the large meeting area were significant. Construction costs for a standard wall were estimated at $1,694, a soundproof wall at $4,356, and moveable partitions at $21,780. The cost of adding a basement to the new portion of the structure would increase construction costs by $181,500 to add 3,750 square feet. Eliminating the rear deck extension would save $53,845, and eliminating the furnishings, fixtures, and equipment would save an estimated $45,000. With the changes proposed, the final cost would be $752,048. Gaddo asked for Council guidance on the proposed expansion. Imker asked if there was a way to build the basement as unfinished, and Gaddo said those prices reflected unfinished work. McMullen said it was a square footage rough estimate because no funding had been allocated for design, but there were certain things that had to be done, like providing for restrooms before the concrete was poured. Imker said what if there were no floor put in. Gaddo said a lot of the cost was the excavation. McMullen said adding a floor later would cost more once the building was enclosed and pumping the concrete was no longer an option. Imker said he saw this project as helpful to the CVB so they could reclaim the remaining space in their building. Imker correlated that to a one-time $40 tax from the citizens (based on an average home price). Sturbaum asked if moveable walls were more useful, and Gaddo said absolutely. Learnard asked r-" what the ultimate goal was, a larger meeting room, more programming space, etc. Gaddo said the overall goal was more options for moving programs around. Rentals were another consideration. Werner added that there were a number of City events, like the Father Daughter City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 2 ,..... Dance, that could also be added. Fleisch clarified that the proposal would double the existing 3,700 square feet, and Gaddo said that was correct. Sturbaum asked about the estimated time to build the project, and Gaddo said a minimum of 18 months. McMullen said that, if the results of the survey were received in late January and Council initiated design, then completing the RFP for an engineering firm, awarding the contract, and completing the design would take six to eight months and cost $75,000 to $80,000 (10% of the project cost). Sturbaum asked if there would be displacement of the current users during constructions, and Gaddo said there would be an impact. Sturbaum asked staff to be looking for any possible alternatives to accommodate the cOllstruction. Haddix said a basement would see less use than the main level because there were some users who could not go up and down the stairs. McMullen said that, if there were to be public progranuning downstairs, there would need to be an elevator. Borkowski clarified that the cost did not include an elevator, but did include ramp access to both levels per the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. McMullen said there would need to be space provided for an elevator, as had happened with City Hall even though no elevator had been added. ,..... Imker asked about the rear deck .and if the users would mind removing that portion of the expansion. Werner said the existing deck was used during nice weather, but she had not heard any feedback on the possibility of eliminating it. Fleisch again asked about the ultimate use of the facility, and whether some of the rental uses would compete with private business, since the project would cost $1 million plus ongoing operating and maintenance costs. Gaddo said the City was not really competing with conference centers because The Gathering Place could not compete with that level of facility. The people currently renting were nearly all Peachtree City or Fayette County residents for things like birthday parties and functions that did not usually involve renting high-end space. Gaddo said the facility was meeting a need in the community, and staff had to walk a fine line to juggle the various demands for the space. Haddix asked for the bottom line on added space, and Gaddo said 3,750 square feet for one level, 7,500 square feet if both levels were built. McMullen said staff was seeking which cost level and which features Council favored to have a final price estimate for the survey. Council indicated staff should present the full price, including furniture, fixtures, of $850,000, to gauge the level of support for the project. ~ v ! The next issue Gaddo presented was the rental fees versus the no-cost users of The Gathering Place. He said some existing no-cost users are asking for more no-cost use, only paying the access card fee of $1 O/year ($20/year for Out of County users). The no-cost users included card playing groups and special interest groups (garden club, veterans), who used the facility during City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 3 ~ f<}, regular hours and on some nights or weekends. No-cost programs made up about 70% of the facility's program time. The remaining renters included instructional classes. Gaddo then reviewed the 2010 rental history, saying 76 rentals had brought in $14,000 in revenue, almost all from Peachtree City/Fayette County residents. Renters were now being considered a user group. Gaddo said most rentals occurred during the evenings or on weekends, and Council had already set the rental fees. Expanding the no-cost use of The Gathering Place would decrease rental opportunities and affect the fee-based instructional programs. Gaddo said staff was asking for Council guidance on where the priorities should be set for use of the facility. Gaddo said staffs goal was to provide a balance of usage that did not give anyone group a monopoly. Staff was also looking at the possibility of having the option to serve alcohol at The Gathering Place. Gaddo said state law changed the method of measuring distances after April 1, 2007, to the most direct route of travel on the ground, in a straight line from the front door of the structure from which alcohol is sold, to the front door of a church, treatment center, or retail package store or to the nearest property line of property being used for school or educational purposes. Gaddo said the distance requirement for school property was 200 yards for distilled spirits (liquor) or 100 yards for beer and/or wine. ~ Gaddo explained that the state's distance requirements could be exempted or modified by a local jurisdiction, and noted that the City of Fayetteville had implemented such an exception. Specifically, the relevant code section, O.C.G.A. S 3-3-2l(b)(3) provided that the applicable distance requirements did not apply to "licenses for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises only who shall be subject to regulation as to distances from churches, schools, and colleges by counties and municipalities." ~^ Gaddo said adding alcohol at The Gathering Place expanded the rental opportunities for the facility and enabled other programming options, such as culinary classes, wine-tasting events, Super Bowl parties, etc. Challenges to the proposal included on-site security and staff support during events, facility wear and tear and greater maintenance costs, and coordinating parking with other events at the complex. Staff was requesting Council guidance on whether to proceed with this initiative. Vrana said, if Council favored this initiative, staff would ask Council to approve The Gathering Place as a Qualifying Location so the events could then obtain the permits. Leamard asked how staff managed to maintain the balance between paying and non-paying programming. Gaddo and Werner said it was challenge. However, staff wanted clearer direction on whether the current balance was good or if staff should focus on either public use or revenue. Gaddo added that obtaining the alcohol permit would increase the rental use. ~ Fleisch said she was concerned about expanding a senior center to accommodate the rentals, which would be needed even more to pay for the expanded staff and maintenance. She said Council needed to decide whether The Gathering Place was an adult recreation facility or if that philosophy was going to slip away in an effort to rent out the facility. , ;;, City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 4 -- k Learnard asked what Fayetteville had adopted. Gaddo said he was unsure of the details, but they had passed something allowing alcohol in proximity to a church or school. McMullen clarified that it did not relate specifically to a city-owned facility. Imker asked if this would be the first City structure with alcohol, and McMullen and Gaddo said the Amphitheater and Tennis Center both had alcohol. Imker felt this issue could be delayed while they assessed how the facility was operating and whether the expansion would happen. Leamard asked if staff should continue with the same balance of rental versus non-paying programming. Imker said activities should be maximized for Peachtree City residents. Fleisch said she favored cutting back on the rentals and focusing on the other programming. Sturbaum agreed. Imker said the Leisure Services Commission should also look at the issue and report to Council. Sturbaum added that this type of allocation process had worked very well for the sports fields. Gaddo noted that certain groups were continuously trying to increase their usage and would often approach Council directly if they did not get the time they wanted. Imker said that was Council's fault, and the goal was to direct all those requests through the Leisure Services Commission. -- Haddix said the question came back to fairness to the users and asked Gaddo how those allocation judgments were made. Gaddo said staff has been addressing requests day by day~ trying to maintain the current balance. However, the volume and demand had increased so much that they needed direction to set overall limits on types of uses. Gaddo said going with the model achieved for field allocatio!l.lllight work best. Haddix said he saw two user types - Peachtree City users and non-Peachtree City users. The second issue was the cost to City residents, whether or not they used the facility. He asked if what field users paid for sports team participation, and asked if the costs were comparable. , I. Gaddo noted that The Gathering Place had some groups that were heavily out-of-county users, but others that were almost all City residents. Learnard asked, six years down the road when the problem was solved, how would have been it solved - by adding rooms elsewhere, expanding the facility, or if the same problem would exist. McMullen said the criteria needed to be established for free versus paid usage. Gaddo summarized that Council wanted to keep the Peachtree City and Fayette County usage paramount, and Council agreed. Fleisch said she was concerned about the out-of-county usage in light of the expansion, and felt specific criteria needed to be drafted to emphasize the local usage. She did not feel alcohol was necessary. Sturbaum said he would like to see the Leisure Services Commission develop an allocation model, and he asked for a revenue generation estimate versus operational maintenance cost offset. -- City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 5 Haddix agreed the prioritization had to favor Peachtree City residents and felt the 70/30 ratio of free versus paid usage seemed to be working well and favoring the residents. He felt having the alcohol as an option would also benefit local groups. Leamard asked if alcohol was a moot point if the prioritization was completed. Gaddo said possibly not under the specifications given, and Haddix clarified he wanted to provide the local groups with the ability to have fundraisers. Werner clarified an issue on out-of-county use. The bridge program provided a high level of competition, which the citizens wanted, but that level attracted the out-of-county high-skills bridge players. She asked Council if they wanted the balanced programming or a goal of 100% local programming. Gaddo said the allocation process would help to address that, and that information would come back to Council for final approval. Leamard asked if there were models available in other Georgia cities, and Werner said they were trying to follow the balance of programming recommended by the Georgia Recreation & Parks Association. Gaddo then addressed some additional fees staff was considering. Those included the use of equipment when renting facilities or meeting rooms, and the final fees would be brought back to Council for final approval. r'" Capital Projects Funding Options McMullen and Salvatore reviewed the financing options for the following list of proposed capital proj ects: r Project Descriution Baseball Soccer Complex Traffic Light Kedron Aquatic Bubble Replacement 54 West Landscaping Enhancement Reseal Library Exterior Resurface Small Kedron Pool Resurface Large Kedron Pool Three-Ponds Dredging Lake Peachtree North Dredging Gathering Place Expansion Cast House Roofs/Gutters (The Fred) PavillionlConcession Roof/Gutters (The Fred) Stage Area Roof (The Fred) Path System Expansion - Paths Path System Expansion - Bridges Railroad Quiet Zone Estimated Cost $ 157,000 $ 250,000 $ 248,786 $ 35,000 $ 32,000 $ 50,000 $ 200,000 $ 800,000 $ 750,000 $ 9,200 $ 22,600 $ 10,700 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $ 320,000 City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 6 "'""' Salvatore said every project could go out for a General Obligation Bond referendum, which was appropriate for discretionary or recreational facilities. A facilities bond, which did not require voter approval, was for essential proj ect repairs and maintenance. McMullen said that Council had asked in the last workshop for a recommendation on which projects should go on the citizen survey. Due to the variety of funding options for the maintenance, repair, and safety projects, staff was only recommending that The Gathering Place be put on the survey. Salvatore pointed out that the annual debt service for that project would be about $80,000/year for 15 years, which worked out to .04 mils ($3.40 per $100,000 of market value for the 15-year period). Fleisch asked how often Lake Peachtree needed to be dredged. McMullen clarified the cost was only for the lagoon north of Highway 54, which had never been dredged to his knowledge. The remainder of the lake was the County's responsibility. There were funds now to assess whether and how fast the lagoon was silting, and that would give a better idea of the scope of the dredging project. Salvatore said the items would come up in the budget process as part of the five-year plan. The biggest question marks were the path system expansion. ,...., Council agreed only to include The Gathering Place on the survey. 2011 Resident Survey Tyler reviewed proposed language for several questions on the 20 II resident survey to assess citizen satisfaction with the landscaping and mowing outsourcing. Learnard said that topic was a priority, and Imker suggested modifying the questions to provide public input on specific dollar amounts to regain specific levels of service. Fleisch also suggested including language to gather citizen input on replanting lost vegetation on major roadways because, even if the City reinstated 100% of the landscaping and mowing, they were still not doing some of the things that used to be done. Learnard suggested renumbering. the questions and said she was hoping for a better understanding of the citizens' satisfaction level, along with their ranking of importance. McMullen and Caspar cautioned that survey takers might not see mowed or landscaped areas immediately after completion, so evaluations of the performance would not give a true picture. The consensus was to remove the dollar amounts listed. .",..., Haddix said he thought there would be a question addressing the replacement of the Kedron bubble. Learnard and Fleisch said that was a facility maintenance issue and should not be a question. Imker and Sturbaum supported asking the residents for feedback on the Kedron bubble. McMullen noted that the City had only conducted the survey for the past two years and cautioned about significant changes to the questions eliminating the baseline that had been built City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 7 ,...., with the past two surveys. Council consensus was to keep the questions as similar as possible to those asked in previous years. McMullen said staff would modify the questions based on the feedback received that evening. County Proposal to Pave Sims Road Borkowski said in the 1980s and 1990s, the City's master plan for the northwest quadrant included a collector road from SR 54 East north to Sims Road and then Dogwood Trail. In 1991, the Planning Commission and Council considered the road a vital part of the transportation plan. Later plans better defined the road and called it the Northeast Collector. To date, only a small segment of Astoria Lane had been constructed, and a large piece of land remained undeveloped. McMullen said the County was prioritizing the unpaved roads they were planning to pave and asked if the City wanted the County to connect Sims Road to Astoria Lane. Sims was currently paved up to the City limits. The County said the connection would increase the number of people served for the project. A resident noted that there was only about a 200-foot section of gravel. r . Haddix pointed out this could impaCt future zoning requests. Rast and McMullen confirmed that the remaining 100+ acres of undeveloped land was planned for the same density as Smokerise. The resident asked how far in the future the rest of the road would be built, and McMullen said that was up to the developer who owned the land. The resident asked why the City would look at paving a road when the connection WaS so far in the future. McMullen said there were two philosophies - one, that the extension would become a cut- through to Peachtree Parkway from Tyrone, with no benefit to the residents. The other philosophy was that it would provide a second exit from Kedron Hills to SR 74. Another resident said she had become involved in this issue three years previously when Smokerise and Stoney Brook students were moved from Booth to Bennett's Mill Middle School. The school bus crossed Gin Branch Creek on a gravel road with no guardrails. That had been the residents' major objection to changing to Bennett's Mill. Connecting and paving Sims Rd. would offer a safer route for the children going to school and save 15 to 20 minutes over taking Peachtree Parkway to Walt Banks or taking SR 74 to Dogwood Trail. The connection would also eliminate some of the left turns onto the Parkway during high traffic periods. Haddix said the City had discussed the issue a couple of years prior and asked what, if anything, had changed. Fleisch mentioned *e school boundaries. McMullen added that the change was the County's effort to rank their unpaved roads and making this connection. McMullen asked if the Council supported the request. Haddix said it was a complicated question. McMullen suggested asking the Kedron Hills Homeowner Association (HOA) for an official position based on a poll of all the residents. Council agreed. Imker asked if there was a desire to pave Crabapple Lane instead. File said no, that would be more of a cut-through because it was much closer to Peachtree Parkway. McMullen said one of the reasons Crabapple was used now City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 8 ,....., was because it provided faster access to Dogwood Trail. McMullen said the Fire Department used that route on EMS calls because it was so much faster, and that was one factor supporting another paved route to Dogwood. McMullen said he would contact the County Administrator for their deadline in receiving a response, and the secretary of the Kedron Hills HQA, who was in the audience, said they would put it on the annual meeting agenda in mid December. Imker said the HOA poll was not the defining element in his mind, and he would evaluate the project on all its merits and drawbacks. Transportation Project Process Borkowski explained the process for a project being included in local County Transportation Plan (CTP) and the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The County called for projects for the CTP - any and all projects, solicited through workshops and meetings. Then the public was involved to solicit feedback on the goals, objectives, and priorities of the plan. The plan was updated through this process every five years. ,...., Phil Mallon with Fayette County Public Works was in attendance and said the current draft plan was up for adoption in the next few weeks. The draft plan included an annual update and the intent was to invite the cities to participate each year. Borkowski continued that, once the goals and criteria were developed from the public involvement, projects were selected for recommendation. The list was refined by the County's consultant through transportation modeling to achieve the final CTP. Imker clarified that the consultant was hired by the County to walk the County through the process, and Mallon confirmed this. The final CTP would be adopted by the Board of Commissioners. Mallon added that the Board had asked for the plan to be brought to each of the cities for approval in concept of the major recommendations before the Board considered the plan for final approval. Borkowski noted the item would be on the next Council agenda. .",......, .~ " Imker asked the sourc'i of the funqing that set the ceiling on projects in the CTP. Borkowski explained the CTP did not allocate funding. The plan listed a project, gave its priority, and indicated what, if any, funding was designated for the project. Imker asked what set the price cap for a single project or group of projects. Borkowski said funding could come from local or state sources, but the plan was not an approved budget. The funding came from approved budgets, and nothing in the plan moved forward unless it was included in a local budget. Sturbaum added that the CTP was a logistics document with estimated costs, but it was a plan versus a budget document. City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 9 r McMullen said the City might submit projects from its transportation plan, which was most recently adopted in 2007. The City's plan listed projects from 0-5 years, 5-15, and long-range projects. Those projects in the 0-5 umeframe would have been in the City's budget, whether the funding was all local or the City pursued state or federal funding. Borkowski continued that, once a project was included in the CTP, there would be three reasons to include it in the TIP - if federal funding was sought for the project, if the project affected air quality, or if the project were alr\lady federally funded. If a project fell into one of those categories, then ARC would include it in their database, evaluate the project based on a variety of factors, and come up with a preliminary recommendation. The recommendation was reviewed and commented on by stakeholder agencies, then ARC made a final recommendation. McMullen gave an example of the recent call for federal Transportation Enhancement (TE) grant projects. Staff brought the SR 54 West Landscaping project to Council to authorize applying. The TE grant imposed a requirement for the City to provide 20% of the funding, so if that grant would be awarded, then the projectwould go into the TIP. ,-. lmker asked if that project was included in the last City transportation plan that went to the County CTP. Rast said no because landscaping projects were not included in the CTP, but the Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT) administered federal TE grants, so they would be listed under the DOT in the TIP. lmker asked if the Sims Road paving and the Northeast Connector were involved in the CTP/TIP process. McMullen said the Northwest Connector was in the City's transportation plan and should be in the CTP as a developer-funded project. Imker asked about the recent path connection ranking system, as well as needed roads, and asked why those projects had not been forwarded to the County. McMullen said the new path projects were sent to the County for inclusion. Haddix asked, if a Transportation Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (TSPLOST) was approved for the regional transportation projects, would that change this process. Mallon said he believed the TSPLOST would be a secondary funding source, but the existing funding sources would remain. Haddix clarified that, because of the new criteria for approval of projects, there would be projects in the plan that would not qualify. He said he couldn't see the agencies following two different criteria. Mallon said his understanding was that the criteria for projects to be eligible were going to be very similar. ,....., i Haddix used some of the path projects as examples, saying they would go into the TSPLOST process for the DOT to decide if they met the criteria. Borkowski said he had not seen anything yet on how they were going to process those requests. Haddix said the criteria were being developed now, and DOT and Georgia Regional Transportation Authority would make the decision and ranking on all the submitted projects. McMullen said he understood that there was a distinction between projects on tIie normal TIP list and those on the TSPLOST list, and he said nothing had come out about how those funding mechanisms would be integrated. Haddix said it was a big concern, and Borkowski said the local discretionary share was also a concern. City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 10 r Tree Removal Permits Rast reviewed the history of tree removal permits. In 2004, there were several workshops on the ordinance. The ordinance currently required a permit for any tree over three inches in diameter on residential property, and required registration for tree companies. At the time, there had been several tree companies coming in with inadequate insurance and no occupational tax certificate. Several had not finished tree removal projects and had left the homeowners with a big problem. There had also been problems with logging companies coming in and clearing whole neighborhoods but leaving the unwanted logs on the properties and causing property damage. The ordinance required a permit to remove trees but did not really allow staff to deny the tree removal. Rast reported that 43,000 trees had come down over the past seven years, even with the permit process. McMullen noted that amounted to an average of five permits per day. Once received, the permit information was entered into database, then a staff member went to the property to make sure what was on the application reflected what was marked for removal. If the application matched the site, the permit was approved and the staff member came back to the office to enter the approval. -- ~, Rast said staff could only deny a permit if the tree was a specimen or protected tree. If the permit was denied, the homeowner was required to get a letter .from an arborist, but those universally stated that the tree in question might or might not be diseased or dangerous and should come down. McMullen said the other side of the coin was the inability to track trees that were planted. He said he personally took down several sweet gums when he landscaped his property, but put in maples and cypress to replace them. Rast then reviewed the permit and enforcement process, saying the ordinance assigned tree removal permits to the City Planner or his designee. When Rast had been appointed Interim Developmental Services Director, he assigned the process to the Code Enforcement Officers, which had since been reclassified as Municipal Code Officers and reassigned to Police Department. While one Municipal Code Officer was on extended medical leave, permits were reassigned to the Building Inspector, who was training under the Development Inspector as part of the outsourcing process. When the Municipal Code Officer returned to work, the Development Inspector retired, the Building Inspector was reassigned as the Development Inspector, and tree removals were reassigned to the Municipal Code Officers. At this point, the process was using a great deal of staff time, taking the Municipal Code Officers away from their other duties, with no real enforcement ability and no preservation of trees. Rast presented several options that had been discussed over the years: . Do nothing -leave "as is," . Establish education program for residents explaining benefits of trees, __ . Establish limits as to the nUJ;nber oftrees that can be removed in a calendar year, and . Establish tree removal permit fees as a part of the application process. Staff was bringing forward several additional options and requesting guidance from Council: City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 11 ,...., . Require permits only for trees six inches in caliper or greater. . Require permits for protected or specimen trees (as defined in the ordinance) only. . Require permit fee and! or replacement for removal of specimen and protected trees. . Do not require permits at all. . Require owners and! or tree removal companies to identify species of trees being removed on application. . Require drawing showing location of where trees are located. . Consult with City Attorney to determine whether the City would assume liability if staff denied a tree removal permit and the tree then fell onto personal property. . Establish minimum density requirements for tree cover on residential lots. Sturbaum asked if there was a way to judge how changing the caliper trigger would affect the permit volume. Rast was unsure because the City's permits did not specify tree size. He added that some jurisdictions only required the number of trees on permits, while others required species and size. Fleisch asked if the City's building inspections contractor, Safebuilt, could handle the minimum tree density inspections as part f the building permit process. McMullen noted there would not be many more new residential building permits, and no existing fee for the permits meant they would not take on the program. - Rast also noted that the tree removal permits were specifically for trees people wanted to take out of their existing yards - the figures did not include trees removed as part of land disturbance, whether new construction or if someone added a pool or driveway. Haddix said Peachtree City was a green community and the City needed to do something to protect trees. He liked the minimum density idea, but felt there needed to be some sort of bite to the ordinance. He asked about having a tree board, and Rast said that was possible, but the issue ofliability still came into play. McMullen said when staff had recommended a $25 tree removal permit fee or limiting the number of trees removed per year, there had been two very vocal factions those who wanted to protect trees at all costs, and those who want to protect personal property rights. Previous Councils opted to continue requiring the permits but did not provide any enforcement ability. Haddix asked, if there was no fee and no bite, then what was the point of the law. Learnard asked about the purpose of the ordinance. Clark said the focus was the specimen trees, which might involve 10% of the current permits. He also noted that, in some cases, the officers had cited people for removing trees with no permit, but there had been no fine imposed in court. Fleisch said her concern was the counting of trees being cut versus any real conservation oftrees. ,...... t Rast said the major benefit of the current ordinance had been the requirement for tree removal companies to register and be approved. City Council Workshop Minutes November 9, 2010 Page 12 I"""" Imker said the current process was a waste of time. He said, if they put a fee structure in place, they also needed to make sure the judge could impose fines. Sturbaum agreed this was a conservation issue and felt they needed to add teeth to the current ordinance and cover the associated costs. Learnard asked about having this issue on the survey and added to the agenda for discussion at Retreat. Staff felt that would be too great of a delay in reaching some type of decision. Rast said he would be attending the Georgia Urban Forestry Council conference the following week and would ask for input. He said Atlanta had one of the most stringent tree removal ordinances, but liability was still an issue. Learnard said, since the issue had been so polarizing, adding something to the survey could help gauge public sentiment. McMullen said the public had really expressed the opposing sentiments, and now staff was asking for direction from Council. Rast said he was a landscape architect, but not an arborist, noting that even when he was going out on the permit inspections, the issue had been the paperwork. McMullen said they needed to pull together the overall goals and objectives, and then write an ordinance to reach them. Council consensus was to strengthen the ordinance. ,..."." The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. a~~ b H>~",M.ym -