Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2013 workshop ~ City Council of Peachtree City Workshop Meeting Minutes May 7,2013 The Mayor and Council of Peachtree City met in workshop session on Tuesday, May 7, 2013. Mayor Haddix called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Other Council Members attending: Vanessa Fleisch, George Dienhart, Kim Learnard, and Eric Imker. Needs Assessment Committee Survey Presentation Josh Bloom, one of the co-vice chairs of the Needs Assessment Committee, addressed Council to present the results of the survey and recommend a millage rate (a copy of the presentation is included in the official meeting file). Bloom first recognized the committee's volunteer members: Mayor Don Haddix (Non-Voting Chair), Robert Black (Committee Co-Chair; Chair, Survey Analysis Sub-Committee), Josh Bloom (Committee Co-Chair), Phil Prebor, Allen Baldwin, John Dufresne, Steve Hamlin, Jack Joyner, Paul Lentz, Holly Machemehl, and Terrence Manning. Bloom noted the committee had met more than 20 times since its formation in September of 2012. The committee had created a survey, basing questions on best practices and review of other community surveys created by professional companies. Invitations were sent to 1,200 randomly selected residential addresses, which was 10% of the total population, with the objective of receiving 400 responses, which would give a :t 5% margin of error. Only 209 valid responses were received, giving the survey analysis a margin of error of +/-7%. Responses were weighted by age based on the population distribution noted by the U.S. Census. Bloom noted that only two responses were received in the age group 29 and under, so those responses were eliminated to ~ normalize the results, based on advice from the professional statistician with whom the committee consulted. Overall, residents were satisfied with their services and felt expenditures for Police, Fire, Recreation, Library, and Public Works funding should be kept the same. Fifty percent of respondents indicated they would accept an increase of no more than $50 per year in property taxes in order to increase/improve City services, with another 20% saying they would accept an increase of no more than $100. Correspondingly, only 30% indicated they wished to see a cut in property taxes of $50 or $100 per year with a corresponding cut in services. Nearly 70% of respondents were willing to spend an additional $20 to $60 per year to add path connections in the master plan. Bloom noted that two of the questions, one related to increasing Recreation user fees (65% supported a fee increase) and one related to expanding other sources of revenue (68% supported other revenue, such as hotel/motel or sales tax increases), had been finalized prior to the Mayor and Council taking action in late 2012. At that time, recreation fees were raised and Council increased the hotel/motel tax. He also noted that the question regarding bond funds was somewhat misleading because part of the funding had been used to refinance existing debt. ~ The committee's final recommendation was that the Mayor and Council consider raising the millage rate by up to 0.5 (one-half) mils, per the findings of the Needs Assessment Survey. Bloom asked the Mayor and Council if there were any questions. Haddix opened up comments to the public first. Resident Jim Richter said that less than 2% of the population responded and felt that such a small sample could not be extrapoldted to the entire city. John Dufresne said the committee City Council Workshop Minutes May 7, 2013 Page 2 ~ consulted a statistician, who assured the committee that as long as the survey was conducted in a random manner, the results would be valid with a margin of error of 7%. Richter said he had experience in statistics and disputed the results. Resident Mike King asked, if a response rate of 400 would have given a 5% margin of error, would not receiving half that response increase the margin of error to 10%. Dufresne said no because the deviation was based on a bell curve. Terrence Manning pointed out that such an endeavor had not been undertaken before. This presentation represented a concerted effort to get some answers. Peachtree City was changing, and this survey had been an effort to see what the citizens wanted. Manning expressed frustration at criticism of the survey methods with no better effort being put forth elsewhere. He felt greater effort should be made to involve citizens overall. Richter recognized the efforts of the volunteer committee members, but was concerned at the low response representing the entire city. He noted that the two responses for residents aged 29 and under had been eliminated due to the disproportional representation. He said a survey without input for that portion of the population was flawed. Bloom said his concern was that they sent out 1,200 invitations and only received 200 responses. Learnard asked if the committee met their goals. Bloom said that, in terms of creating the survey and distributing it, along with a recommendation for the tax rate, the answer was yes. ~ Dienhart and Fleisch thanked the committee for their work and noted Council would consider the results during the budget cycle. Haddix said the survey was statistically valid, noting that polls and surveys were taken on a regional, state, or national level with lower representation. Haddix said he had accepted all volunteers to serve on the committee, and the committee members did a fantastic job, going far beyond what he asked of them. He was disappointed in the low survey response, but felt the committee had done a fantastic job. SPLOST Project Discussion City Manager Jim Pennington then provided Council with a handout on a range of capital projects that could be considered for funding by a proposed Special Purpose Local Options Sales Tax (SPLOST) being proposed at the County level. The focus was streets and cart paths, which had been funded through FY 2013 with a previous SPLOST, but had no identified funding source for FY 2014 and beyond. Public Services Director Mark Caspar reviewed the list, which included several pending bridge and tunnel projects, along with $7.5 million for street paving and $2.5 for path projects. Caspar also provided the current lists ranking the condition of streets and paths, which he proposed addressing on a "worst first" basis with the available funding, but noted the associated cost estimates were for resurfacing only, and did not include any potential milling or full depth reclamation (FDR) that might be required. The combined total was approximately $10 million of the $12.6 million in estimated SPLOST revenue, which left an additional $2.6 million for the associated milling or FDR costs. Fleisch asked Pennington to elaborate on what the current Local Option Sales Tax (LOST) and SPLOST would garner from the various jurisdictions. Pennington noted they would have that information for continued discussion after the May 9 City Council Meeting. City Council Workshop Minutes May 7, 2013 Page 3 ~ Haddix said he continued to oppose the SPLOST, but obviously, a plan was necessary if the SPLOST were to be passed. He felt debt reduction would save enough funds to pay for the path maintenance on an ongoing basis. He noted that the survey indicated that residents did not support the level of debt currently held by the City. Dienhart asked Salvatore to provide information on the City's total debt and annual debt service for the May 9 discussion. Haddix gave an estimate of $15 million in debt, with an annual debt service of approximately $3 million. King cautioned Council that the County did not have a good track record in passing SPLOSTs, and said Council needed to also consider how to move forward if or when the SPLOST failed. Pennington said staff was working on both possible outcomes, noting that there was currently no funding designated for the street and path maintenance. Haddix noted that the budget process would allow all of Council to make their preferred proposals. The meeting adjourned at 7: 16 p.m. ~4 -------- D ~ ~ .""I.~.~ _~.