Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-19-2011 regular meeting 1 - City Council of Peachtree City Minutes of Meeting May 19, 2011 The City Council of Peachtree City met Thursday, May 19, 2011, in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Don Haddix called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Council Members present: Vanessa Fleisch, Erik Imker, Kim Leamard, and Doug Sturbaum. Announcements. Awards. Special ReCOI!Ditions Mayor Haddix swore in Police Officers Courtney Lumpkin and Christopher Dukes. Minutes Leamard moved to approve the May 5, 2011, regular meeting minutes as written. Fleisch seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Consent Al!enda 1. Consider Local Maint~nance and Improvement Grant (LMIG) Contract Leamard moved to take item #1 off the Consent Agenda for discussion. Sturbaum seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Leamard noted the item had been added to the agenda. Public Works Director Mark Caspar explained that the LMIG program replaced the Local Assistance Road Program (LARP). The -- state's Department of Transportation (DOT) gave the City a grant to help pave the worst roads in the City. This year's contract, if approved, would cover 2.6 miles of streets. The contract cost was $199,997.20. Caspar said that DOT generally reimbursed the City for 80% (approximately $160,000) of the contract amount. The money could only be used for materials, and the City was responsible for the labor. The City's portion, approximately $120,000, would be taken out of the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) funds. Leamard asked where the 80% came from. Caspar said that was what the City usually received from DOT. The $199,997.20 was the full amount authorized for the project, but the City did not always use that amount of materials. For budgeting purposes, 80% of the contract amount was used. Haddix said the financing was fairly standard every year. Sturbaum moved to approve the local maintenance and improvement contract with DOT. Fleisch seconded. The motion carried unanimously. -- Old Al!enda Items 04-11-01 Consider Amendments to Outdoor Display Ordinance Regulating the Use of Walking Advertising Community Development Director/City Planner David Rast addressed Council, pointing out that neither staffs nor the Planning Commission's recommendation had changed. The recommendation was to regulate the use of the walking advertising with a temporary special event permit. The recommendation included several conditions. The size of the sign should be limited to six square feet. People holding the signs should not be in either the City or state right- of-way, and they must no closer than 25 feet from the edge of the pavement. Businesses could apply for permits four times per calendar year, and permits would be issued for five consecutive City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 2 e-: days each time. Thirty days woul~ be required between the issuance of each permit. Only one permit per business per property would be permitted at anyone time. The amendments would also apply to non-profit organizations and civic clubs. The signage would be limited to the property where the business was located, and a letter of approval from the property owner was required. A $25 fee was recommegded for the special event permit. The floor opened for public commynt. Joan Houghton said she did not see why Council wanted to pass such a complicated item. She continued that businesses had to know they were not in the main area for advertising, and they were probably paying lower rents . than those businesses located in the main commercial areas. Houghton said the walking advertising cheapened the image of the City, and she was offended by them. She did not understand why the City wanted to be involved in something so complicated. Debbie Sanders, owner of The Picnic Basket on Dividend Drive, said she did not think the signs were offensive. Sanders said she had used walking signs to advertise her business in Chicago, and she assumed she had the right of free speech when she opened her business in the City when she chose a location in a less visibJe area. The Industrial Park had been full five years ago, with a significant number of people in the area during the daytime hours. The current economy was bad, and there were not as many people working in the Industrial Park. Sanders said there was ,....., no way for her to move her location and stay in business. It was a struggle to stay open, and the walking signs were important. She noted that a person who had seen the sign on SR 74 had come in and ordered $750 in food for an event. Per day, the sign brought in 17 - 20 customers. She added that the young man who held her sign was a college graduate who had not had ajob in three years. She asked Council if they were going to help her stay in business since they were limiting the signs to her property. The floor closed for public comment. Haddix asked City Attorney Ted Meeker how the special event permit allowed for non-profits. Meeker said the special event permit process had always applied to non-profits, and they had been the mechanism that had beel1 used for any sort of signage that went along with the event. Businesses were able to use the process as well. Haddix said he wanted to clarify that non- profits would not be banned because walking signs might be banned. Leamard also asked for clarification, noting that the proposed limits for the permits, four times a year, applied across the board for businesses and non-profits. Meeker said that was correct. Imker said the City took signage very seriously, and the walking advertising was a way around the sign ordinance. He asked Council to consider further modifications to what staff had presented, adding that he agreed proposed amendments were extremely complicated. He suggested removing the special event application, fees, and the letter from the property owner for non-profits. Irnker said the proposed four times per year for five consecutive days each time should be changed to two times per year for three days, with no time limit in between the City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 3 ,...,., issuance of permits. The changes would give non-profits plenty of time for their events. As for the for-profit businesses, the City could be inundated with applications if the ordinance were approved as written. Imker said his proposed changes would enable non-profits to continue what they were doing, and that was his target. Sturbaum asked Imker to go over his suggestions again. Imker said non-profits would not need a permit, pay a fee, or a letter from the property owner. He wanted to simplify the proposed amendments to the ordinance. He said the citizens would notice a business that was usurping the rules, and that was when the City could enforce the ordinance. Haddix pointed out that not requiring permission from the property owner was tantamount to allowing people to trespass. Imker said that might need to be changed, but he did not think a non-profit would go out of its way to go on private property and hold a fundraiser. Meeker said any time a permit was pulled the business should get the prop~rty owner's permission. Imker said there should not be a requirement for a permit, which unburdened the Police Department, Planning Department, and the administrative process. Leamard said that, with the permit, the City could enforce the ordinance. Haddix said the only way to track for-profit businesses was with a permit. They needed to come off the road and needed permission for where they were located. He was concerned about the non-profits. Imker suggested the fee be waived, reiterating the permits should be twice a year for three days each. Leamard said she could accept that. Learnard continued that she had spoken to some business owners who told her the sign ordinance was onerous to starting a business, and people walking around waving signs was a contrast, adding that not all businesses supported walking signs. Sturbaum asked Imker why the fees should be waived. Imker said non-profits were obviously making money for their cause. He. did not want to cost them money. Meeker said a distinction should be made on the schedule of fees that was adopted between the business and non-profits, not in the ordinance. Imker said that ordinance could simply read "no fees." Meeker said it would be set up in the schedule of fees. Haddix said there were still issues to be addressed such as getting the sign holders off the road and onto private property, the legality of them being on the private property, and the enforcement. He asked Police Chief H.C. "Skip" Clark his opinion on enforcement of the proposed ordinance. Clark said there had to be some way to track the permits. The officer would have to check to see if a permit was on file in addition to asking the person if they had one. It was not an unnecessary burden. There were only a half dozen businesses that used walking signs. Fleisch said Council had looked at this issue for some time, and she was prepared to go with the ordinance as written. She would like to look at it again in six months to see how things were r"'1 going. ~ ''-- ,-.. t" - r: - lli City Council Meeting Minutes May 19,2011 Page 4 Haddix said he was considering Imker's suggestion regarding twice a year, three days at a time, which would limit the number of signs that could be seen. He said that, as written, 10 businesses could have over 200 signs out a year. Fleisch said she had not see!! 200, and there were only a handful of businesses that used them. The ordinance could be revisited in six months. Haddix said he could not support that. Imker said that Sections 908.7(h)(b)(6) should be changed from four times to two times per year, and 908.7(h)(b)(7) should be changed from five days to three days. The fee schedule was included in the ordinance. Sturbaum said he could support Imker's suggestion. Fleisch asked how businesses woqld be supported ifthe proposed time was cut in half. Haddix said it would not be effective for some, but it still allowed the businesses to utilize walking advertising for special occasions and protected the non-profits. Imker moved to approve Sections908.7(h)(b)(6), changing the term "five consecutive days" to "three consecutive days," and in 908.7(h)(b)(7), changing. four perrIlits per year to two permits per year, with a review in six months. Sturbaum seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 04-11-04 Consider False Alarm Ordinance Clark addressed Council, noting that the Police Department had responded to 2,707 alarm calls in 2010. Only one alarm had indicated a crime had occurred, and Sl6 had been cancelled after an officer was dispatched, but before the officer arrived, and those calls were not considered false alarms. Clark continued. tha,t the number of false alannssh()w~cl a significant amount of wasted manpower hours. He said the proposed ordinance would address the issue through education, training, and fines if necessary. Clark added that alarm owners/operators and alarm companies would be required to take a more active role and would be held to a higher level of accountability, resulting in fewer alarms and allowing officers to handle true calls for service. Clark continued that the ordinance required all security alarms to be registered by October I, required system maintenance and standards of use, limited false alarms to two per year, established fines for excessive false alarms, and provided for an awareness class in lieu of a fine. Those cited for a third offense could take an online class rather than pay the fine. Cities that had enacted similar ordinances had seen a 40% - 60% reduction in false alarms, which was equal to a reduction of 600 - 900 man-hours responding to false alarms. Clark introduced Glenn Mowreyof the Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC) and John Loud, an industry expert (alarm company owner), member of the Georgia Police Chiefs Alarm Management Committee, and president of the Georgia Alarm Association. Mowrey said 80% - 90% of false alarms were caused by human error. The proposed ordinance would change the behavior of the end user. The education component of the ordinance would help drop the number of calls. The fee structure for the fines was critical, and the escalating fines would also help change behavior. The ordinance would also provide efficiencies for local government and the Police Department as the officers could use their time for more proactive work. He continued that answering alarms over and over could cause complacency to set in, which affected officer safety. Mowrey added that Marietta had approved a similar ordinance City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 5 ,....., three years ago, looking for a 25% reduction in false alarms. At the end of two years, false alarms had been reduced 65%. Mariett~ c()ll~cted $~2j,000 in fines the fi~st year, dropping to $94,000 the second year as people'changed their behavior. Mowrey said the proposed ordinance was based on the model ordinance approved by the Georgia Police Chiefs Association. Mowrey said one of the most critical elements of the ordinance was the two-call verification. He explained that, when an alarm call was received at the alarm company's central station, the company contacted the police for dispatch. Now, most companies called the premises, and if there was an answer, the alarm call would go away. If there was no answer at the premises, then the company would call a second number, most often a cell phone. The company would then determine whether to call the police or not. According to the statistics, when the call was made to the second telephone number, law enforcement was not needed 60% -70% of the time. Sturbaum asked if there had been any decrease in people using their alarm systems because of the fear of a false alarm when an ordinance had been approved. Mowrey said there had not been a decrease. The numbers were measured through registration. Loud, whose company was located in Cobb County, said there were times when things were slow, but it was an educational process. If the subscribers were not educated on the maintenance and use of the system, he would rather they did not use the system. He was also a taxpayer, and he was embarrassed by the number of false alarms and the cost to the taxpayers. The proposed ordinanc.e was, good and followed. the model nicely. Other cities had found alarm registrations had gone up while false dispat<ihes were going down. The ordinance would provide an opportunity for the companies to work closely with law enforcement to provide a benefit for society without incurring the unnecessary expense. Imker said his only issue with the ordinance was the number of false alarms that were allowed (three per year). He said the second citation should require the person to go to court and explain why they should not be fined, and that would change behavior. He did not see why people should be given a second chance. .' He said the alarm users should only be allowed on free false alarm per year. Mowrey said the number of free false alarms was strictly up to Council. Imker said when he received the first citation for a false alarm, then his immediate response would be to speak to his provider. Clark added that, typically, more than one person would be in a house or business. The first time an officer went out for a false alarm, they would be put on notice. He did not disagree, but the standard was usually two. Imker said there would be a training opportunity for families and businesses after the first false alarm. There was no reason to task the City's officers and everyone else involved answering a false alarm for the second time. Loud said Council would be pleased with the reduction in false alarms and the savings once the ordinance was in place. Many security companies were on the phone that day with subscribers who had false alarms. The enha:r;tced call verification program in the ordinance would reduce false alarms. Sometimes, the false alarms were just mistakes. The penalties should not be too ,....., harsh. City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 6 Fleisch asked how many people did not have a monitoring company for their security alarms. Clark said he did not know, but most of the systems in the City were monitored alarms. Fleisch asked what was happening currently to repeat offenders. Clark said nothing. Fleisch asked whether staff had considered outsourcing the registration. Clark said they would try doing it in- house first. If registration had to be outsourced in the future, the fee structure would help cover the cost. Haddix asked Clark what time frame would be adequate to revisit the ordinance to see how it was working. Clark asked that a year be given to analyze the data, then look at making any changes that were needed. Leamard asked how people would know to register their systems. Clark said letters would be mailed and the website would also be used. A registration packet would be sent to those who had already had false alarms. There would also be information sent to the news media about the need to register. Fleisch asked about using the security companies as a conduit for registration. Mowrey said the companies located within the state often registered their customers, and that could be done through the Georgia Alarm Association. Loud added the national companies located outside of Georgia would put the focus for registration on the subscriber. Imker asked what the advantages were to registration. Clark said it would provide the name of the responsible person, accurate information regarding all the users, awareness of any handicapped people or dangerous .chemicals on-site, and the name of the installing/monitoring companies and the responsible people in the company. The desired result was a reduction in alarm calls. The registration program also encouraged the system owners to keep their information up-to-date since 15% - 20% changed companies every year. Sturbaum asked how many alarms. belonged to residents and businesses. Clark said he did not know. Mowrey said the national average was 80% of the systems were residential and 20% were businesses. However, 80% of the false alarms were from businesses and 20% were from residences. He added that the turnover of employees in some businesses contributed to the false alarms, as well as the inability to contact the person responsible. Haddix said he liked that special needs were part of the registration since that was essential information for emergency personnel. Imker said he was trying to understand why the City wanted to task its citizens to register a feature in their home and what percentage of residents had alarm systems. Loud said there were probably 5,000 users in the City. He encouraged Council to ensure registration was part of the ordinance. The registration should be in the name of the end consumer, the person using the services of the alarm company. Imker asked why the City needed to know that information. Loud said those citizens were asking for additional services other citizens were not. This was not a 911 call. r'"'" Leamard asked what happened ifthere was no registration. Meeker said they would be playing a game trying to guess who the responsible party was when it came to enforcement. Imker said the responsible party should be whoever signed the agreement with the company. Loud said r-: City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 7 landlord/tenant situations were of concern. Meeker added that the City would not have access to that information. The person who registered the system would be the responsible person. In a landlord/tenant situation, the tenant could claim they notified the landlord, and the landlord could claim he never received the notification. Meeker said it was not about the fine, but who was responsible to ensure the false alanns stopped. City Manager Jim Pennington said he had been in a community that passed an ordinance that had not required registration, and the ordinance did not survive six months because it could not be enforced. It was as worthless as the paper on which it was written. Imker said that, after listening to the discussion, he agreed two "freebies" was the best approach with the learning curve. Fleisch asked for more information on the second call in the enhanced call verification. Loud said the 911 dispatcher would ask the security company if two numbers had been called prior to dispatch. Once the dispatcher verified those nUillbers had been called, the dispatch would begin. Fleisch asked if enhanced call verification was effective without an ordinance. Loud said it was, but having them together was more effective and had a greater impact. Sturbaum moved to approve the false alarm ordinance as presented in the packet with a one-year revisit. Imker seconded. The motion carried 4-1 (Fleisch). 05-11-02 Discuss/Consider Changes to CAR 9-3 Investment Policy Financial Services Director Paul Salvatore said most the proposed changes Were housekeeping in nature. The substantive change would add more flexibility to the policy by changing the length of investments from a one-year term to a two-year term. He continued that a financial expert had looked at the investment policy gratis, saying the policy was restrictive. He reiterated that the main change was increasing the limits on the different securities from one year to two years. The change would be for everything but repurchase agreements, which were usually short-term and no longer than 60 days. The changes just provided additional flexibility on what could be done with the investments. Imker said he agreed with the proposed changes because they would provide additional revenue to the City. Sturbaum agreed, adding that it would allow the City to get an investment break with minimal risk. Haddix and Leamard also like the flexibility. Fleisch said she wanted to set some expectations, noting that all the investments would not be changed to two years. Salvatore said he would not be closing all theone-year accounts the next day. Safety of principal was most important, as was liquidity. Staff also worried about yield. Money had to be on hand for emergencies. Pennington added that there was no guarantee the City would make more money on its investments, but the changes in the policy would allow the City to use the latest and best municipal practices when investing the cash reserve. I""""; Imker moved to approve the changes to CAR 9-3 Investment Policy as presented. Sturbaum seconded. The motion carried unanImously. City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 8 05-11-04 Consider Recomll';e.ndation .forNew Air Supported Structure Contract for Kedron / Report on Concrete Testing Leisure Services Director Randy Gaddo said the concrete testing had started earlier that week, and two of the four testing areas had been dug. After digging in the first two places, it was unclear to those doing the test how to proceed, and they needed more guidance from the Arizon engineers. Gaddo said he had received a report just prior to the meeting, and they had not determined if the grade beam would work as it was. The way the grade beam had been poured was an issue. They could not determine how deep or wide it was. Because of the way it was poured, they had to do the calculations differently from the normal way. There would be three choices after the engineer's review. It could be fine to go as it was, it could be a problem, or more testing could be needed. Gaddo said they anticipated finishing the testing by the next week, but promises could not be made as this was a unique project. Arizon needed 12 to 14 weeks, start to finish time, for the bubble. The timing would be close, but there was some room. The latest a final decision could be made would be the middle of June. Sturbaum said it was good the tests were being done since they had uncovered things that were not known. It was best to make an educated decision on something of this magnitude. The best educated guess would be to continue the agenda item to June 16. Sturbaum moved to continue the agenda item to June 16. Imker asked what the issue would be with the June 2 meeting. Gaddo said he was not sure how long the additional testing would take. Fleisch said if the report was completed earlier, a special called meeting could be held. She asked Gaddo if the additional testing would be covered by the $6,000 approved on May 5. Gaddo said that, at this point, the additional testing was included, adding that. he had reminded them that the cost was not to exceed $6,000. . Sturbaum amended his motion to continue the agenda item indefinitely. Leamard seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Andrea Schmid, a user at Kedron, suggested Council look at a tension fabric structure to cover the pool. She referred to an Olympic-sized pool in Atlanta that used the structure, which cost $200,000 when it was erected in 1998. The structure should last for 20 years. It was rated for 130 miles per hour winds, and similar structures were used by the military in Iraq. She said that, since it was a permanent structure, the pool would not lose revenue during the time it took to put the bubble up and take it down. Haddix asked Schmid if she would discuss her suggestion with staff, asking her to leave her contact information with the recording secretary. New Al!:enda Items 05-11-06 Consider Non-profit Funding Request for FY 2012 from Fayette Senior Services 05-11-07 Consider Non-profit Funding Request forFY 2012 from Promise Place Administrative Services Director Nikki Vrana pointed out that Fayette Senior Services (FSS) had requested $19,357 and had been. approved for $15,630 for last three years, adding that an amendment to City Administrative Regulation (CAR) 8-3, Funding for Non-profit Organizations, r-: might be needed depending on Council's desires. Section I1(A) of CAR 8-3 stipulated that Council budget no more than $25,000 annually for non-profit funding. r""'I City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 9 Vrana continued that 36% of thoseserved by FSS were Peachtree City residents. The number of City residents served by FSS increa.sed by 200 from FY 2010 to FY 2011, and an increase of 230 was expected from FY 2011 to FY 2012. Vrana said the request for $7~500 frolll Promise Place fell within the guidelines of CAR 8-3, and 33% of those served by Promise Place were City residents. Vrana said the combineg total for bothtequests was $26,700, which was $1,700 more than the amount allowed by the City's policy. Haddix asked if there needed to be separate discussions on the agenda items. Meeker said separate votes would be needed. Imker said the money requested had minimal impact, and the requests should be accommodated if possible. Sturbaum agreed, adding that the services were very valuable to the community and the City did not provide them. He supported amending CAR 8-3. Haddix suggested rounding up the amount provided to the organizations to $27,000. Sturbaum moved to approve the non-profit funding request for FY 2012 from Fayette Senior Services in the amount of$19,257. Fleisch seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Sturbaum moved to approve the funding request for FY 2012 from Promise Place in the amount of$7,500. Fleisch seconded. The motion carried unanimously. A short break was called from 8:42 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. 05-11-09 Consider Request from NorSouth to Abandon a Portion of Newgate Road Kathy Zickert of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, attorney for NorSouth, addressed Council. She referred to the March 3 rezoning of the property located on Newgate Road, and their expressed contemplation that the City abandon part of the cul-de-sac. She said that, while the cul-de-sac served no public purpose and was not necessary for the development, abandonment of the 0.431 acres would help the development design and the City at the same time. NorSouth had two proposals. The first was for a land swap - the Newgate Road portion in exchange for 0.861 acres to enhance the buffer along SR 74. The second proposal was to have the portion of Newgate Road appraised and to pay the City for it once it was abandoned. NorSouth asked that Council either approve the land swap or abandonment in concept, so NorSouth could get the submission ready that was due to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in a few weeks. Architect Bill Foley showed drawings of how the development would work with and without the portion of Newgate Road. Foley said the plan with the Newgate Road right-of-way freed up more greenspace on the site. There would be a private drive into the property from the hotel to the project, taking the maintenance of that portion of the road off the City. Learnard asked where the additional greenspace would be. Foley said the building would move forward, which reduced the amount of additional drive/parking ratio. He had not done the full calculation, but removing 0.4 acres of the hard cul-de-sac allowed the building to be pulled up, creating "...., greenspace around it. The building would be more compact due to the lower number of units. There would still be a cul-de-sac, but would be done within the parking standards and loop as City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 10 r"\ opposed to having the hard 24-foot cul-de-sac currently in pla.ce. The amount of driving area and hard pavement on site was reduced. Haddix asked ifthe 0.8 acres was developable. Foley said it would be dedicated as buffer for the City. It was developable. Irnker a~ked if NorSouth would make changes to the 0.8 acres to help hide the development from SR 74 whether the land was swapped or not. Zickert said there was a landscape condition, and enhanced landscaping had always been contemplated in that area. They would have to bring those drawings back to the Planning Commission for approval. Imker asked what the estimated value of the 0.4 acres of New gate Road was, adding he could not make a value judgment without a value. Rast said staff had not done a cost analysis yet or looked at comparables in the area, There was a lot of vegetation in the SR 74 right-of-way to help screen the development. The 0.8 acres was shown as a 50-foot landscape strip on the plat. Imker asked if NorSouth had a number in mind. Zickert said there was a legal process that had to be followed for abandonment of that portion of the road. Her guess was the property was worth approximately $75,000, but she could not promise that. Irnker said he supported selling the property as the buffer would be there whether the City owned the property or not. Meeker said direction was needed from Council on whether they wanted to swap the properties, abandon the portion of road, or do nothing, adding there was a process that the City must go through. At this point, NorSouth needed direction from Council as they were submitting their plans and information for financing. Beth Pullias clarified that proceeding with the abandonment or the land swap was not approval of the plan, and the plan still had to go through the Planning Commission. Meeker said that was correct. A motion was needed to proceed with .either the abandonment orthe land swap, but that was not final. It was just a motl6n to proceed. The applicant would have to come back to Council at the appropriate time during the legal process. Sturbaum moved to authorize staff to proceed with the abandonment. Leamard seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 05-11-10 Consider Fire Station 84 Renovation/Expansion & Sewer Extension Rast explained that the contractor had run into issues with rock and unsuitable soils with the foundation of the building expansion and the sewer construction. To date, nearly $65,000 in change orders dealing primarily with unsuitable soils and utility relocations had occurred. There was a City policy that set a I 0% change order limit on projects. They had to blast and drill through rock to install the sewer line, then they ran into unsuitable soils and could not use the soil that had been dug out. There needed to be funding available ifthey ran into additional issues with unsuitable soils for the rest of the project. The recommendation was to increase the bid amount by $50,000 for unsuitable soil replacement from manhole 2 to Station 84, which was a f""'I!; couple of hundred feet. Haddix asked ifthis would be the last ofthe changes. Rast said staff hoped it was. "......, f City Council Meeting Minutes May 19, 2011 Page 11 Sturbaum said they set out to solve a problem, and if it was nof properly done, another problem would be created. Financial Serviges Director Paul Salvator(l said.th(l fUl}d.s '\Vere ayailabl(l' .The project was included in the 2009 Bricks & Mortar loan. The l()an also included funding for driveways and parking lots for three fire stations, so they would take funds for the driveways and parking lots, which were budgeted at $75,000 each. Funds from two of the parking lots would be transferred to this project, adding that $72,725 was left in each of the driveway/parking lot projects. He added that the third driveway project was needed as part of the Station 83 sewer connection. Pennington said there were lessons. to be learned from the Kedron bubble and Station 84 projects. The cost of both had greatly exceeded the expectations. There was not a way to clearly define those things in the future, but there were ways to examine them and try to find as many variables as possible. Sturbaum moved to approve the Fire Station 84 renovation and sewer expansion in an amount not to exceed $50,000. Fleisch seconded. The motion carried unanimously. 05-11-11 Consider AmendD1ent to Chapter 66 Related to Film Industry Sign age Rast said the City's sign ordinance restricted film companies from putting up signs in the right- of-way to direct employees to filming locations. Staff had been working with the companies to resolve the issue. Staff proposed a new permit that would allow the film and movie industry to put up directional signage so the City would know where they were and how long they would be ollt.. The. Police. j)epartment and Code . Enforcement would be notified of the sign locations so they would not pulled up. The at)1endment was to "Section 66-18 Signs permitted in the right- of-way." The permits would be approved at staff level. Rast said staff had met with the producer of Drop Dead Diva, and another meeting was planned with representatives from other companies. Another television series would begin filming soon. Imker pointed out that the amendment said the permit fees should be adopted in the schedule of fees. He said there was no reason to give the film companies a break, and they should be charged for the permit the same as everyone else. He asked why they should be special. Learnard asked what the fee was. Rast said the fee was $25, and one permit would be issued per shoot, not each day. He added that the productions were bringing a great deal of revenue to the City. Imker said they could put the verbiage in about the fee schedule, addressing it in the schedule. With the current wording, the City was not giving itselfthe opportunity to charge a fee in the future. The wording in the proposed amendment was, "Permit fees shall be waived." Haddix said the business was very competitive, and the companies could leave the City. Meeker said fees were not referenced in any of the proceeding paragraphs. The last sentence could be deleted, and the issue addressed in the fee schedule. Imker said that would be same as with the walking signs. Haddix said he cOllld accept that. Imker moved to adopt the ordinance with. the reVlSlon that the last sentence be deleted. Sturbaum seconded. The motion carried unanimously. City Council Meeting Minutes May 19,2011 Page 12 ~. Council/Staff Topics Hot Topics Update Pennington said the pressure washing and sealing of City Hall was slated to begin on May 23. There would be an effect around the building, and appropriate notice would be given. Pennington said that information should be out June I regarding the DOT and Transportation Investment Act program. The impact should be positive for the City on the unconstrained list of projects. Pennington continued that, during the Council Retreat, they had discussed developing goals, objectives, and strategies. They were beginning to put together conceptual ideas at the staff level. Staff was putting together information and proposals to discuss with Council in developing goals and objectives. A road map was needed. Specific goals were needed for several areas, such as economic development and a major emphasis on infrastructure. Imker asked if the SR 74 widening was still on track to be completed by the end of the year. Caspar said it was. Vrana added that the City would also need DOT to turn the right-of-way over, which had taken six months after the completion of the first phase. Imker said he and Learnard had visited the Lake McIntosh dam site, and it should also be completed by the end of the year. He and Learnard suggested contacting the Water System r-: about the dirt they had. He asked that an update on Lake McIntosh be given once per month. Imker asked how the SR 54 West development was going. Rast said staff was still waiting for a complete application for the Line Creek retail project. The Planning Commission public hearing was scheduled June 13. A meeting had also been held with Southern Conservation Trust to discuss a potential road connection to the Line Creek NatUre Area. The application was very detailed, and they were waiting on some key elements. Fleisch thanked everyone who worked on the May 15 path clean-up. Learnard said the Peachtree City triathlon held the same weekend was fabulous event. Sturbaum moved to enter into exe9utive session at 9:25 p.m. to discuss pending or threatened litigation and personnel. Learnard ~econded. The motion carried unanimously. Sturbaum moved to reconvene in regular session at 10:12 p.m. Learnard seconded. The motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, Smrbaum moved to adjourn the meeting. Learnard seconded. Tho motion ,arri,d mumimolli<ly. Th, mooting '<1;0='7)5 p:m$~ ~~ayor . .