City Council June 6, 2011 Business Meeting: Agenda Summary

Before convening the City Council June Business Meeting, Mayor Judy Jordan Johnson did something she said she has wanted to do since taking office. She wanted to recognize and honor Lawrenceville veterans that served this country in World War II and in the Korean War. On Monday evening the mayor and city council members did just that.

In recognizing the importance of this day in the country’s history, Mayor Johnson said, “On June 6, 1944 was the battle of D-Day. We so often do not express our gratitude to these men and women. It really came home to me when I was talking to some of these service men and women; and one of them stated that since being discharged only two people have said thank you. And I was the second one.”      

Mayor Johnson, fighting back tears, said that she had invited Gainer Bryan, Jr. to this ceremony, but he wasn’t there to receive this recognition, because he had passed away the night before. But his wife allowed the mayor to bring his military cap that he wore to church every Sunday to stand-in recognition to his memory.

The mayor challenged citizens to say thank you whenever they see any of these service men and women.

Announcements:

In what could be called a delayed reaction, Councilman Tony Powell voiced outrage at sent to Gov. Nathan Deal that none of the council members nor the current mayor made mention of the hiring of a city manager, during their election campaigns. 

Powell said, “This is not true. I ran on (hiring) a city manager. And to have a former mayor interfering in something that is not true tells you a lot about the former administration.”

Mentioning the audit being conducted into the city’s finances under Millsaps' administration, Powell said, “That audit will call to your (the public) attention a lot of the reasons why we are having some difficulties in the city. And you (the public) should know it.” 

Calling Millsaps' letter “an improper communication," Powell said this was the first time he had seen anything like this in the 25 years he has been around (city government). He said “thank goodness” Gov. Deal had ignored Millsaps' request for a veto, also in the letter, and signed House Bill (HB) 555 into law.

HB 555 allows the city to change its charter to include the hiring of city manager. The governor signed HB 555 on May 11, 2011; it became effective the day it was signed.

In its May 25 Work Session the council decided to invite the Carl Vinson Institute to give recommendations on how the city should operate and restructure under a city manager form of government. Whether this presentation by the Carl Vinson Institute will take place at a council retreat or during a Work Session has yet to be officially announced.

The city manager, listed as Item 8 on this meeting’s agenda, was deleted and moved to the council’s June Work Session.

Council approved all of the items on the Consent Agenda, after adding Item 6:

1. Approved a contract with Precision Planning to oversee Highway 29 crossing and raw water line installation in the amount of $12,000.00, authorization to bid Highway 29 crossing and raw water lines as shown on Exhibit A.
2. Approved Electric Department subscription of services with Electric Cities of Georgia in the amount of $217,341.00.  Subscription enumerated in Exhibit B.
3. Approved Change Order 3 recommended by Paul Austin for the Winer Industrial Way Drainage Project.  Contract is with Contour Grading in the amount of $24,840.00.  Change Order 3 is attached as Exhibit C.
4. Approved request by Police Department to approve expenditures in the amount of $112,077.25 from the Police Asset Forfeiture Fund. 
5. Approved an agreement with Integrated Services Engineering to complete the Federal Mandated Annual NPDES Phase I MS4 Report.  Contract is in the amount of $4,800.00.
6. Approved the proposed Water Master Plan and Rate Study by Precision Planning in the amount of $21, 750.

Mayor Judy Jordan Johnson announced that on June17, at 11:00 a.m. the city will hold a dedication ceremony for the new water treatment plant.

OLD BUSINESS:

Item 1---2nd READING---SIGN ORDINANCE:  Councilman Powell made a motion to approve the 2nd Reading of the Sign Ordinance subject to a number of changes he requested. 

Most of the changes, asked for by Powell, involved definitions of signs to make consistent throughout the ordinance. The city’s explanation for not allowing electronic signage and billboards throughout the city was to be deleted; Powell asked that it stay in the ordinance.  

Powell asked that some references to electronic signs be changed to electronic message centers-- or EMCs-- to allow public service announcements (i.e. council meetings, election notices, etc.). All EMC signage would require a special permit. EMCs can only be placed in specified commercial areas. An existing sign shall not be converted to an EMC.

Wording changes to the city’s displaying banners was also requested by Powell. For example he said “the promotion arm of the city” should be changed to DMO (destination marketing organization).

He asked that wording be added to state that in order for A-frame signs to be used on downtown city property that a special permit must be obtained from the city. This is applicable to A-frame signs used on sidewalks in the eight blocks of the courthouse square.

Electronic sign changing intervals was revised from four seconds to six seconds. 

Powell said “a fee may be accessed to cover the cost of administration of a non-conforming sign, as established by the mayor and council," is added.

City Attorney Lee Thompson, Jr. told council that a public hearing must be done, before voting on the motion, because these were text changes to an existing ordinance.

Mayor Johnson called for Public Comments, but no one in the audience came forth.

Councilman Peter Martin said he is afraid that with approval of the ordinance that council is going down a “slippery slope." He said a few years ago, the city made “the stance” that they (electronic billboards) were dangerous and the city won a lawsuit on that basis. He said if this new council approves this ordinance then the city is “backtracking." And he said the city runs the risk of looking like other towns that have allowed these types of signs to clutter roadsides.

While special permitting makes it more difficult to get these signs, Martin said that puts the city in the position of having to say yes or no based on the location and the type of business. Then he said the city could be stepping on freedom of speech. He said he appreciates the new technology, but it scares him. This is a complicated issue, he said. He supports the A-frame signage revisions. But he said there are issues in the ordinance with non-compliance signs that are going to be difficult to enforce.

Councilwoman Marie Beiser said the council has thought this out thoroughly and that every business will not be able to afford these electronic signs. But there are those that can, she said, and the city will have control over what signs will be approved.

Powell said in the past the city has permitted digital signage usage to non-profits. Examples given of the signage in question were those located at and . He said Councilman Martin was right that the city had “stretched the envelope and made Mr. Thompson’s job a lot harder." He said the city has an ordinance that is “clearly defensible and very restrictive."

Areas that are designated, Powell said, to allow electronic signage permitting are: a short part of Scenic Highway before Moon Road, Sugarloaf, and Pike Street before you get to the bridge at the railroad between it and 316; the bridge at the railroad and 20 out to 316. He said these are the highest traveled commercial areas.

Whatever is put up, he said, will be tested to ensure safety and that there is no traffic or aesthetics issues. Powell said that council members had run (during election campaigns) on cleaning up the city’s corridors. And one of the main issues is non-conforming signs, the ordinance requires that signs be registered; and if they are not registered, Powell said, they will go away.    

The council voted on the motion to approve the 2nd Reading with changes requested by Powell; motion carried 3-2, with Councilman Martin and Mayor Johnson casting No votes. Mayor Johnson said she voted No because she said she couldn’t digest all of the changes to fully understand them.

NEW BUSINESS:

Item 4---1st READING---TAXICAB ORDINANCE: Councilman Martin said that the city has been looking at the Taxicab Ordinance for “a number of months”. He said there was some confusion as to the way this ordinance read. He said a lot of taxicab operators were finding ways to “skirt around” insurance requirements in the ordinance.

The proposed revised ordinance, he said, forces operators of taxicab companies to carry one master insurance policy covering all vehicles in their fleet. Currently he said each operator of the cab carries an individual insurance policy which makes it hard for the city to enforce the existing ordinance.

The revised ordinance, Martin said, puts the responsibility of providing and proving insurance coverage directly on the taxicab companies owner and, or operator.

Revisions in the ordinance also include reducing the amounts of general liability coverage from $1 million and comprehensive coverage from $500,000 to $300,000 for each of those types of insurance coverage.

Martin made a motion to approve the 1st Read of the Taxicab Ordinance.  Motion carried 4-0.

Item 6---ALLOCATION OF 2009 SPLOST FUNDING: Bob Baroni, City Clerk, said that over the pass months council has been discussing the, unofficially called, Jackson Street Park. He said it appears to staff that this will be a “viable project," therefore, council is being asked to allocate the $2.5 million in the SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) funding for construction of a park.  

Baroni said the $2.5 million includes $200,000 for engineering, $1 million for land acquisition, and $1.3 million for construction. Baroni said that in council approving this allocation should know that these three components of the project are “fluid” and amounts associated “are not etched in stone."

If the convention center feasibility study, Baroni said, that was placed in “there” (SPLOST set aside funding) is something that the council does not want to move forward with, then that funding, in the amount of $20,000, can also be moved into the park’s budget.

Councilman Martin made a motion to allocate the $2.5 million and to move the $20,000 originally earmarked for convention center feasibility study into the budget of Jackson Street Park construction.

Before the vote Councilman Powell asked if these allocations were consistent with the election to approve the SPLOST fund. Mr. Baroni said yes, that the $2.5 million was listed on the 2009 SPLOST under parks.

Powell said that it is important for the public to understand that council is fulfilling their referendum approving SPLOST; and for allocating SPLOST funding for a park that would be adjacent to the Baptist church between Jackson Street, Clayton Street and Luckie Street. He said this council is putting this one-cent sales tax exactly where the previous council allocated it.

The planning by Bill Tunnell (of Tunnell-Spangler-Walsh & Associates), development of a plan for park’s construction and (land) acquisitions by the city, Powell said, are well underway.

Motion carried 4-0.

Item 9---PARKING CREDITS: Councilman Powell said the issue with parking credits has to do with downtown parking requirements. He said there are certain buildings that “take up the whole footprint of their property”, like older buildings. In efforts to provide adequate parking for the public, a few years ago the city, Powell said, began collecting what it calls “parking credits” money.   

Powell said that in setting up this fund, the city looked at how much it would cost to build a parking garage would be $12,000; and the cost to build a surface parking lot would be $6,000. He said a compromise was reached in trying to balance the public’s need for downtown parking with the business owners’ requirements for parking.

The number of parking spaces that a business is required to have is determined by the city in its Zoning Ordinance; based on the type of business seeking the city issued permits and licenses. For example a downtown restaurant could require 40 parking spaces.

At the time parking credits were established, Powell said, the city decided to charge $6,000 for each parking space required by a business. He said the problem is someone wanting to put a restaurant in downtown, in this bad economy, would pay $240,000 for required parking, which impacts the affordability of leasing commercial property downtown.

Powell said these parking credits at their current amount, has become an economic detriment. So council is trying to give some relief to new businesses that want to set up shop in the downtown area.

There is a legal issue with one downtown property owner that has traded for parking credits; therefore this contract with the city must be “re-worked” to determine the amount of parking credits.  

Powell made a motion to change the parking fee or the parking credits requirement from $6,000 to $100 per (parking) space. Subject, he said, to Mr. Thompson working out a satisfactory agreement on the Morsberger contract, making sure that the city does not “trip” any of its contractual requirements.

Before voting on the motion, Councilwoman Katie Hart Smith asked city attorney Thompson to further explain the ramifications of changing the parking credits in regards to other downtown businesses.    

Thompson said the way in which the Morsberger contract is set up, it “triggers a payment” if the city eliminates parking requirements.  This payment is not triggered if the council changes the amount of the parking credits, Thompson said. But it could affect how many parking credits a person gets.

The exact number of parking credits that Morsberger has, said Thompson, was never formalized via a referenced memo; and, he said, the contract entered into “several years ago” preceded him and this council. Due to the city’s failure to formalize parking credits amounts with Morsberger when contract was established, the city must now go back to Morsberger to determine the amount(s) and to formalize the number of parking credits that he has; then Thompson will bring these numbers back to the council.

Councilwoman Smith asked Thompson to ascertain the total number of parking spaces that the city has to determine limit to avoid “over selling." Thompson said he would inventory spaces to come up with a number; he said the city is not selling credits, just making sure that there is public parking. Due to there being a finite number of parking spaces and if the city requires all restaurants to have 40 spaces, then there will not be enough spaces to go around, said Thompson.

Councilman Powell said that the city has never sold parking spaces in the parking deck, although it was rumored to have. He said the city cannot sell any public parking places. There was a real problem, he said, until Mr. Morsberger built his parking lots along the backside of buildings on Crogan Street.   

Powell said now that the city has other tools, TADs and SPLOST funding, it no longer needs to rely on parking credits to correct downtown parking problems.

Motion carried 4-0.

The following items were added to the agenda:

Item 11---STREETS RESURFACING CONTRACT: Jim Steadman, Director of Utilities, said on May 13 the city received six bids for the streets annual resurfacing contract. He said the lowest bid was submitted by Baldwin Paving Company in the amount of $1,518,197.03.

Steadman gave council a listing of 46 streets that are projected to be resurfaced under this bid and contract. He told council that this listing is subject to change.

Councilman Martin asked if this resurfacing project was a budgeted item, Steadman’s response was yes, subject to SPLOST funding availability.

Martin said that the bids were very competitive. He made a motion to approve the awarding of contract to Baldwin Paving.

In response to Councilman Powell’s question of if bids were submitted for specific streets or per square foot annual paving bid. Steadman said they were submitted per square foot, not on specific streets. Powell then said that if the city doesn’t pave an inch, then it will not be charged, Steadman said that was correct.

Steadman also said that there might be some residual funding from last year contract that was not used in the General Fund that could be applied to this year’s projects.

Councilman Powell asked if the council would see the exact list of streets to be paved (with associated cost), before work is started (and expenditure is incurred); Steadman said yes.

Motion carried 4-0

After the vote Mayor Johnson instructed Steadman to coordinate these paving projects with any other construction by the city’s gas and or water departments; in efforts to get work done simultaneously. Mr. Baroni said that a letter has been sent to all department heads with the street listings asking for coordination of joint projects.

Steadman said he will monitor this coordination closely.

Item 12---GWINNETT COUNTY EASEMENTS: The council, per city attorney’s recommendation, was asked to authorize Mayor Johnson to execute a temporary construction easement to the county. The county is working on a sewer project that requires this easement on property owned by the city, on Paper Mill Road.    

Attorney Thompson said that in a meeting held on Friday, June 3, the city and county discussed city projects that require easements and right-of-ways from the county. During that meeting this sewer project was introduced.

Thompson when asked by Councilman Martin about the county’s cooperation on issuing easements for city projects, said the county will work with the city; and hopes to get easements approved for the city by July.

Councilwoman Beiser made the motion to grant the Mayor authorization to sign the agreement giving the county construction easement onto city property for the sewer project.

Motion carried 4-0.   

After hearing public comments, the council moved into an Executive Session.