Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:

Mayor – Lois Salter
Council Members: Betty Covington, Frank Lombardi, Delicia Reynolds, and David Steventon
City Attorney- Dick Carothers
City Clerk - Jackie Wall
Public Works Director- Marcie Zielazienski

Citizens Present - 8

CALL TO ORDER
Salter called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.

CITIZENS COMMENTS
There were none.

PUBLIC WORKS
Zielazienski - Dalton-Downey Pond
Zielazienski said Council has received communications from Bill Downey, Dan Dalton and Ray and Jackie Coker. They have mentioned several things that they would like to have considered in the final easement agreement.

Carothers said they are not legal issues; it is just how council wants to proceed. The issues may need to be brought up at executive session at council on Thursday as it may involve litigation.

Salter asked if there is anything that could be done in between to further the process.

Carothers said that Dalton and Downey have asked for different things than the council have authorized. So if council wants to do anything different it would be in the context of litigation. There are a lot of things that would involve litigation. The meetings before were good but not everyone was pleased with plan 3 as a good alternative. It depends what council wants to go ahead and do.

Zielazienski said that she had the impression that more needed to be talked out and asked that everyone meets together with Carothers present and that he be given some authority from council to go ahead and negotiate within a certain dollar figure. Otherwise it may just keep going backwards and forwards.

Carothers said the language in the letters sounds as though there should be executive session.

Covington asked how you resolve different people all having different ideas and deciding what the best fix is.

Carothers said it boils down to how much money council want to spend on the fix. In a condemnation case, what is done is strictly in the purview of the governing authority. The City will have to pay for condemnation.

Covington asked whether there is a margin for negotiation within what the engineer thinks is a reasonable fix. If the engineer can modify plan 3 to suit all parties it would be a better solution.

Carothers said that there are different options, but it is a question of money, as Dalton and Downey seem to want to recreate a detention pond.

Steventon said he had met with the engineers at the site and asked about putting a new pipe under the road and a stack at whatever height is required to eliminate the silt problem. He said that now it is a road, but it becomes a dam. If it becomes a dam, in order to retain water, the materials required need to be more substantial, but it can be done. He said he is not sure how council came away from this plan and ended up with plan 3. He said he believes that both Dalton and Downey would like a pond back there.

Zielazienski said it had become that way because of the discussions and issues that came up over private property.

Carothers said after the easements have been granted, it will become city property in terms of future maintenance and liability.

Salter asked if there might be some common ground found in the negotiations to avoid a lawsuit.

Steventon said there was still a leap from plan A to plan C. What happens to the downhill side was never discussed. On order to fix the pipe the downhill side has to be fixed to solve the current problems. Plan C involved a larger project, but can it be less invasive.

Carothers said that a plan 4, which returns the area to same as before, is the most expensive, but would make everyone happy. It would restore it to the same basic hydrology as before. However it is a question of money.

Reynolds said she thought the engineer said the basic difference between plan 3, and the pond, is where the stack is.

Carothers said that was true to a certain extent but the pond does not need a channel, just more rip rap and the need to take out more silt to begin with.

Steventon and Reynolds asked why the engineer did not give them a fix that involved restoring the pond, as it was an option.

Zielazienski said he was not authorized to design a fix to get the silt out of the pond, just a fix to go onto private property and fix the problem.

Reynolds said she thought he was authorized to come up with the best fix no matter what.

Carothers said he thought Seldomridge was acting on how far the city wanted to go. What the citizens wanted both up and downstream, is different to what the city wanted to pay for, and Seldomridge was trying to find a balance between the two.

Zielazienski said that Seldomridge told her that good engineering determines what is most reasonable, workable, and economical for a certain situation, as it could be engineered to the hilt.

Salter asked if council would agree to what the property owners’ want, which is to recreate a pond.

Covington said she thought that the engineer and Carothers were going to sit with the property owners to determine what they wanted. The engineer was obviously not involved in planning.

Salter clarified that Carothers was only involved in getting the easements necessary for Plan 3.

Carothers said that what the citizens’ want, according to their letters, is not what Plan 3 says and neither he nor Seldomridge were authorized to do anything to the plan beyond what council had said.

Covington said that council couldn’t authorize anything until Seldomridge says, from an engineering prospective, what will work.

Carothers said all the alternatives so far are ok from an engineering perspective, and from a legal standpoint, council can make any one of them happen but the citizens do not like the plans. Seldomridge needs to be authorized to draw something else, so he can draw the easements.

Covington said that it is clear from the letters that the citizens are not all asking for the same thing. Everyone seems to want a different option.

Salter asked if no one wants plan 1, 2, or 3 yet, should plan 4 be created. An alternative plan needs to be defined. Everyone seems to be interested in recreating a retention pond.

There was discussion about the citizens’ different requests.

Zielazienski said the plan proposed back in May did repair the weir to recreate the pond to about 3 ft deep, but it did not involve removing the silt. It would have stopped silt going through the pipe. She said however, it did not address what was going on further upstream and may not have been a workable solution in the end.

Steventon said that the area above the Dalton-Downey pond has proven to be doing its job according to Seldomridge. It is not failing.

Covington suggested that all four of the homeowners concerned, the engineers and Carothers, and council members to meet to mediate it all.

Carothers said he and Seldomridge could discuss a new plan with the all the homeowners but without the council members, they could not decide anything. The best solution for everyone would be to meet together and the council members there could recommend the solution to those who were not.

Covington said the result would be the best compromise to suit everyone. She asked what the best way would be to set this scenario up.

Lombardi said that the road has been closed along time, and he asked whether there is something that can be done to get the road open again in the mean time while negotiations are happening. It may cost more, but will cost less in the long run than if it goes to litigation.

Zielazienski said she doesn’t believe that the road can be fixed without removing the pipe, which creates issues like the down slope. She said she thinks it could happen rapidly if everyone meets and council gives authority for it all to be negotiated all the way. However, she asked if there are will there be open meeting issues.

There was discussion regarding avoiding contravening the open meetings section in the Sunshine Law by only convening a maximum of three council members at the meeting.

Salter asked Zielazienski to arrange a meeting with everyone as suggested and whichever council members are available at the time up to a maximum of three.

Lombardi suggested that Dalton’s proposal be taken as a suggestion to the engineers to give the meeting a starting point but to include the downstream side too, to determine an approximate dollar amount.

Covington said that everyone needs to get together to hear what each are all asking for and not to base it on one person’s opinion.

Lombardi said Dalton’s proposal looks like a lot less work and it could also be a cheaper alternative.

It was agreed that the quickest way to do this would be to have three council members at a meeting with the homeowners and engineer to come up with a plan 4, so council could reconvene quickly and vote on it. No costs have been agreed yet as the design engineer’s plan will only be an estimate anyway as no bids are requested until there is a firm plan.

Salter asked Zielazienski to go ahead and plan the meeting as soon as possible

ZIELAZIENSKI- ROAD SAFETY
Zielazienski talked about the proposals offered after her brief meeting with Bob Manning. He had said it was not customary in road engineering to take the most drastic preventative measure first. Guardrails would work but were not attractive and would cost about $4000. However, he suggested more accurate road signage depicting large bends as well as painting warnings on the road surface in large letters. Reflectors could be used in the middle of the road too. Zielazienski said they had discussed other types of railings that would be more attractive but Manning said they would be a greater danger in themselves.

Covington asked whether Manning was suggesting new signs, painting the road and reflectors or just one of those. She also asked whether Zielazienski had discussed the options with Nick Lore.

Zielazienski said he said all three. She has not spoken with Lore.

Salter said she has spoken with Lore about speed humps, as they would distress a lot of other people. She said she had told him that she thought it would be difficult to get enough people along there to agree. She said she didn’t think that he would disagree that there would be other alternatives but he needs to hear them.

Steventon asked whether Manning had looked at other sites on Lakeshore Drive and what he had identified.

Zielazienski said he only went to two places as he had limited time. He said painting the road would be most effective in a lot of areas.

Reynolds asked who would do the work on the road and whether they would know where to mark.

Zielazienski said all companies who do that kind of work would be working to the same highway standards.

Steventon asked whether Streetsmart could identify all the problems and fix them all at once.

There was much discussion about getting one company that knows DOT standards, such as Streetsmart, to identify all the problem areas, and do the work as well in an effort to save money. Most of Lakeshore Drive needs some kind of warning on it due to the number of bends along it. There was some concern about the distracting nature of over painting the roads too.

Zielazienski asked if it would be possible to go ahead and do what is needed on Lore’s curve.

Covington said it would be better to get a package deal to do everything at once.

DONATING AN EASEMENT TO GET A SIDEWALK -ZIELAZIENSKI
Zielazienski said that Morland, working on behalf of the county, was requesting that the city donate an easement across the street for the construction of a sidewalk.

There was discussion about getting the company to pay the city for the sidewalk, however the sidewalk is not costing the city anything.

Carothers said that as a general rule, cities do donate easements to the county if they are getting improvements to public roads.

Zielazienski said they will have to do some filling near the chapel but it would be a 5 ft wide sidewalk.

It was decided to talk about it on Thursday night when there could be a motion on it.

Reynolds asked for clarification as to the final decision on the road safety issues. Zielazienski had asked to go ahead and act on the road outside Lore’s house before getting one company to look at the whole area but there was general discussion to wait
and do it all at once.

The consensus was that the road should be investigated and quoted by one company who could do all the work as soon as possible to enable Lore’s particular problem to be remedied as soon as possible too.

GREENSPACE ISSUES
• Deed of Conservation Easement,

Salter asked for any comments on the Deed of Conservation easement.

Salter had some comments and questions on the wording of the document and the conflict of some phrases.

Carothers clarified what was meant in the wording.

There was more discussion of the condemnation wording and ‘10% of nothing is nothing’, so why it is needed in there.

Carothers said it is not a legal issue; it is whatever council decides.

Covington said that if it costs more for Carothers to change it and then negotiate it with GOLT, then it should be left as it is.

Salter asked council to think long term and said that it could be a lot of land if, for example, it was the stretch along Peachtree Industrial Boulevard (P.I.B). Therefore it would be 10% of a lot. Any money could be significant.

Reynolds said that council had just discussed donating an easement in return for a sidewalk and it would look better to do that same should they need it along P.I.B in the future.

Salter said the city was getting a sidewalk in return and widening P.I.B may not be to the city’s advantage.

Zielazienski said that she remembered that when the county put the effluent line down PIB on the Greenspace side, they said they would not widen it on that side.

Salter said that council obviously did not agree with her on that point and that therefore no changes would be made.

• Agreement,

Salter asked why the agreement is separate from the deed.

Carothers clarified that a deed is not a contract but the agreement is.

• Ordinance 3-703, 3-205

Salter pointed out the differences in the latest version of the ordinance and asked if council were in agreement with the changes made.

There was discussion on the changes.

Salter asked Carothers to check on the issue regarding a site management plan and whether it is binding on the city council.

Carothers said he thought it was but he would check.
Lombardi said it says that the conservancy would submit a site management plan in 8C but not to whom.

Carothers said he could add ‘for approval by the city council’.

Covington asked if it should say when.

Carothers said if council requested a site management plan and it didn’t get one, they could remove all the members of the conservancy until they did submit one.

Covington said adding a time frame would be a good idea and Lombardi agreed.

Salter asked what the council wanted to happen to the documents next.

Lombardi said the ordinances stand by themselves.

Carothers said that council need to authorize Salter to execute the contract and execute the easement.

Lombardi asked how that should be done.

Carothers said it would need a resolution.

Covington asked whether it could be done Thursday night.

Carothers said it could.

Salter objected to doing it on Thursday as the changes made this evening should be posted on the web site and left on the table for at least a month from one meeting to the next.

Lombardi asked Carothers when the changes could be made, as it is only minor changes.

Carothers said he could do them by Thursday.

Lombardi said the documents were essentially unchanged and have been on the web site for a long time. He said he didn’t see a need for it continually to be looked at.

Covington agreed that the changes were not substantial.

Salter said she thought the final documents should be posted on the web and the latest ones have not been on long enough. She said she was not sure not all of them had been on the web for the same amount of time. The documents should be posted so everyone can see the absolute final documents that council is happy with and be voted on at the next meeting

Lombardi said he would concur with that.

Salter asked Carothers to ask his assistant Jennifer to put the final documents on the web site or to email them to her so she could do it.

FUN RUN BERKELEY LAKE TRACK CLUB
Salter said she recalled that the event was approved but police approval needed to be discussed.

There was discussion about the school event and having a consistent approach to all such events, and how other cities coped with the same situations. The cost of extra police shifts was discussed and how long those shifts would need to be.

Lombardi said the police have been missing some shifts recently. He said that Officer McClure had contacted Salter about it over the weekend.

Salter said she had not heard that from Officer McClure.

Lombardi said shifts had been missed so it would be hard to move officers from one shift to another.

The costs of permitting was discussed but it was decided that it would cost more to administer that than to do that

Lombardi said that the school had paid half of the costs for the event last time. He said if there were more events then the situation may be different but there were not many normally.

Covington said that it was not necessary to have a policy as such but to deal with each event on a case-by-case basis. It depends on the time of day the event is, as it could be convenient just to change a regular shift.

Lombardi said it would be difficult to change the policy depending on whether it is convenient to move a shift or not, especially as the officers are not always available right now. Covington agreed. He also said that there may be problems with Saturday shifts anyway, and asked Salter to talk to Officer McClure about that.

Salter agreed.

Steventon suggested that as shared expense has worked before, it would be a good policy to adopt.

Covington suggested the policy should be fair and not just consistent.

Salter clarified that council suggest that the track club should cover half of the police costs. There was a general consensus on this.

The clerk asked if the city were paying for an event, would the funds for police coverage come out of the funds allocated to the group running the event such as the Fall Festival, or would the city cover those separately.

It was agreed the city would cover the costs for the police.

Reynolds asked if the city was cutting back on shifts on a Saturday after the summer was over.

Lombardi said the reason he knew there were no officers available on Saturday was because there was a late party on the beach and he called 911 about it and asked for one of our officers to come over. He was called back an hour later and told the officer was on his way then and was the party still going.

Reynolds said she remembers about three years ago, that there were no officers on a shift on a Saturday night during the winter. The original reason to have the police officers was to stop people speeding and running stop signs during the week and to prevent vandalism at the weekends.

Lombardi said there had been a lot of arrests recently on a Saturday night.

Salter said that police coverage on a Saturday night should carry on, as there are a lot of teenagers driving fast on Lakeshore Drive at the weekends.

Reynolds said she was not aware of the police having any effect on the speeding on Lakeshore Drive.

Salter said they had had an effect along Lakeshore Drive and Berkeley Lake Road

Lombardi said that council used to receive a report from Officer McClure but he didn’t remember seeing one recently. He asked that he start doing it again daily for a couple of months so they could see what was happening.

Salter said she would ask Officer McClure.

CITY HALL – MASSARONI
Massaroni was not at the meeting, so discussion on this was postponed.

CITY-WIDE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Lombardi asked Carothers about nuisance lawsuits. He said the goal of the Stormwater management plan was to address the timely response to a problem. He thought there were three things a municipality has to do to avoid that kind of lawsuit. He asked if there was a guideline to how long a ‘timely response’ was.

Carothers said he did not know of one but if you don’t do something, you can get sued. However, if you take on the responsibility, you get liability as well later. Either one can be greater than the other. If you fail to investigate a problem, you can also add to the liability.

Lombardi asked how to do include this in such a guideline.

Carothers said ‘a timely manner’ could be interpreted differently. A record could be kept to show what is being done and when. If there is a claim, there would be another third party entity that would investigate it.

Lombardi gave two examples, 3450 Kingsland Circle and the retention pond grates – one took 3 months, and one took 5 months. He asked whether that would be considered reasonable.

Salter said that Zielazienski had explained both those delays and there were reasonable reasons.

Lombardi asked if the reasons given it would be considered reasonable if it went to court.

Carothers said the law does not define the word reasonable but always uses it, “reasonable” will always be not fast enough.

Lombardi asked what everyone wants to do with the Stormwater Management Plan.

Covington said council had talked about putting together some procedures together in a book before to deal with some issues and it was a good idea, so this could be added to that book.

Lombardi asked whether it needed more detail.

Covington said that it could be added to, as council learn new things about a procedure. It is a good outline.

Salter said that often issues arise that are individual and often need individual responses. If it becomes a procedure it would need to be voted on.

Lombardi talked about the current liability insurance level and said it could be increased to almost double the amount covered. He said the insurance was very general and did not specify storm water coverage.

Carothers said this kind of claim would be covered by the policy.

Reynolds asked if the policy was enough and should it be increased.

There was discussion about coverage, current costs and deductibles.

Salter asked Carothers whether the increase in premium would be worth the extra coverage.

Carothers said he would take a copy but he not sure it is worth it. He said if council wants to adopt a stormwater procedure he would like council to leave it until November so he can write a preamble to it to have a disclaimer on it. If were just a guideline and not adopted officially, that would not be necessary.

Covington said she was suggesting it should be for reference only.

Salter said it could be filed along with other suggested procedures so it would not be lost.

STATE WATER RESOLUTION
Lombardi asked that it would be postponed until after the next full council meeting.

INVOICE APPROVAL POLICY
Lombardi said that we already have other polices like travel and expense reimbursements and that this could be another like that one.

Covington said it should say mayor or city manager.

Reynolds said it could say ‘in the absence of a city manager, the mayor takes that role.’ She said it could say that on page one of the policy manual and could apply to all the policies if they were written in a generic form.

Covington said that if a large contract was being billed incrementally, someone needs to be responsible for making sure the total amount does not go over what the agreed upon contract states. She said whoever is in charge of the budget needs to be doing it to get the big picture.

There was discussion about where it could be put in the policy.

Salter said that the policy refers to the city’s bookkeeper. The City clerk will be the bookkeeper in the New Year.

It was agreed that is should read bookkeeper in terms of whoever is keeping the books.

Salter asked Lombardi to post the policy on the web site after the suggested corrections are made and he agreed.

Hiring Policy
Lombardi said the policy is a suggestion from an example from Lilburn and could be used as an example to base a hiring policy on.

Carothers said there is a dramatic difference between Lilburn and Berkeley Lake. Lilburn’s policy was not a good example to use as most of Lilburn’s policy is written to protect for due process. He said his personal philosophy was that Berkeley Lake should try and keep employees ‘at will’ in an organization so small and unique.

Covington suggested that council take a look at the policy again.

Reynolds suggested Covington look it and revise it to suit Berkeley Lake and Covington agreed to.

Salter asked if the hiring policy could be taken off the agenda for Thursday’s meeting so it could be worked on. She also asked about the Invoice Approval Policy.

Covington agreed the Invoice Approval Policy would stay on the agenda, as there are only minor changes to be made.

GMA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT
Carothers said that GMA have come to a formal franchise agreement on behalf of Berkeley Lake and that he will continue to work with GMA on it. He said it would be useful to go ahead with the contract for their services. He said council need to read the document in case there are any comments. He did say as a disclaimer that he serves on the board of directors for GMA. He said it would be useful to have their services during the negotiations but he was not sure how much they would be needed at a later date.

Reynolds clarified that council would need to make a motion to pay the $1000 fee at the council meeting on Thursday night.

SEPTIC SYSTEM TESTING
Salter asked council to listen to Charles Sewell, the OEO, who had asked her to sign an application for a company who would test samples of water.

Carothers said if Sewell sees a pool of sludge on a property, Sewell could go and investigate it.

Salter said it would be difficult to see whether it was just mud.

Carothers said Sewell can go on a property if there is a suspicion but he would not be authorized to take samples, as he would be trespassing. It is not enough if it is just a smell.

Salter asked what the solution was if Sewell had good reason to believe there was sewage on the surface of the ground that was not being handled properly in a septic system.

Carothers said if Sewell observes something on a property and he believes gives him ‘articulable suspicion’ that a nuisance is being created; he can go on the property but not take any samples.

Salter asked if could scoop something from the surface.

Carothers said he could scoop up something from the surface but he has to know there is a problem to start with, not just a suspicion.

Sewell said the ordinance says he has to have reasonable suspicion.

Carothers said in order to hold up in court, it must be a violation of a code that is obvious. A smell is not enough.

Sewell also asked for clarification about being able to go on a property.

Carothers said again that Sewell should have reasonable suspicion before entering on a property combined with observation. Sewell would have to see something.

Salter asked if Sewell were unable to go onto a property, he could not see a violation for himself.

Sewell said he could approach the homeowner and ask for permission to access the property, but people with problems on their property previously, avoid him. Even if he has had other people observe a problem, such as a pipe protruding from the septic tank, which is overflowing.

Carothers said if he could see the pipe, even through binoculars, he could go and look at it. He had to have good grounds to go on the property.

Sewell described the situation in which he could see the pipe, neighbors had complained about the pipe and the smell and he had gone onto the property. He had scrapped some surface matter with a stick and it had a strong septic smell. He said he thought that was all sufficient grounds. He said he did file an official complaint on behalf of the city with the county. He said he was waiting on a response from the county before he served them with the violation.

Carothers said Sewell had to keep in mind, that if the board of health wants to go on the property, then they would have to have a warrant.

Sewell said he had asked about that and was told that if they had had an official complaint in writing, it is sufficient grounds.

Carothers said Georgia Law states they would have to have an inspection warrant. Sewell should make sure he has good grounds to be on the property.

Reynolds asked what the grounds are to go on a property.

Carothers said the grounds should be a violation of an ordinance, and Sewell has to have ‘articulable suspicion’ that a nuisance is being created on the property. If the septic tank is not working properly, it needs to be inspected.

Reynolds asked why a search warrant was not necessary.

Carothers asked Sewell if he could get a search warrant.

Sewell said he did not know.

Reynolds asked why Sewell should have more power to be able to go onto a property without a search warrant than the police

Carothers said it is an issue.

Sewell said despite state law, in the city ordinances it states that he his responsible for enforcing the ordinances and it does give him the authority to go on the property.

Reynolds said the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution would override the city ordinance.

Carothers said if Sewell sees, and he believes that he has ‘articulable suspicion’ that an ordinance is being violated, he does have some objective criteria coupled with what he sees, hears or smells. Carothers said he thought he should be able to go on the property.

Sewell said he would not jeopardize a case by not having reasonable suspicion, he said he will be sure before he enters a property.

Salter asked if he did have all the correct reasons, gets a sample and sends it to an agency to test it, and the test proves positive for human waste, what does Sewell do.

Sewell said the Ordinance gives the property owner ninety days to respond.

Carothers said ultimately a citation would be issued.

Salter asked which ordinance would be violated. The Septic Ordinance requires people to have the septic tanks cleaned every 5 years.

Carothers said it would be under the Nuisance provisions in the Code of Ordinances. He said he recalled when the Septic Ordinance was created, he said then that the city cannot require an owner to let the city inspect the septic tank but could require proof of inspection. He said it is difficult to determine if a septic tank is leaking into the water.

Covington asked if the ordinance to clean out septic tanks requires inspecting every five years, can one fail in the mean time. She was assured that could happen. So therefore the homeowner has complied with the ordinance to have the tank inspected.

It was clarified that that is why it would be a violation of the Nuisance Ordinance instead of the Septic Ordinance.

Sewell described a technical inspection of a system, which requires opening the system and checking the viability of the internals of the system. A regular inspection is not checking the yard for seepage. He said that is what he would do.

Covington reiterated that if someone complains about a system, if Sewell sees and smells the problem, he could take a sample.

Carothers agreed.

Steventon suggested the he should also make an attempt to notify the homeowners.

Carothers agreed that would be a good idea.

CITIZENS COMMENTS
Deb Robinson 540 Lakeshore
Robinson said with reference to the Culvert situation, council is assuming that the property owners are making a decision individually and to the detriment of everybody else and that this is not correct. That the neighbors are working independently of each other is also incorrect. Also that they are not in communication with one another is not true. The neighbors are all working together and talking to each other and in general terms do understand one another’s position on the culvert.

The reason that the Robinsons’ letter to the council is not available is because when they met with city representatives on the 2nd, their negotiations were revised. She added she thought the meeting went extremely well too. The engineers’ representatives came out on the 10th and made changes in the markings of the easement flags and marked which trees would be subject to removal in the construction area. If council wanted to come over and look at it, (she wasn’t sure if anyone had) all the trees that would be taken up are flagged in orange. As late as one o’clock that afternoon, they had final contact with the engineer on an adjustment with the final permit easement on their property that would give leeway to one of the large white oaks. That last revision was drafted to their letter late today, and if she had realized it was on the agenda this evening, she would have brought it to the meeting and she asked council how soon they wanted it.

Robinson said that the original $30,000 fix would put a standpipe and a pond back into the Dalton Downey side. She said council would have to consider what the original $30,000 would cover as it did mean leaving silt in the pond. She said if the city were considering taking permanent easements on the Dalton Downey side and are contemplating leaving the silt, eventually the city is going to have to pay to take the water out that is now accumulating with silt underneath it. While the Miramont construction is no longer contributing silt to the Dalton Downey pond, there are plunge pools that have been created underneath the retention ponds on the Miramont side. There is a live streambed that has continued to generate silt that goes into the Dalton Downey Pond. If the city does not remove the silt at this time, the city will, at some point down the road, incur accelerated costs to take it out, as the silt will fill up the pond.

Robinson said she was very interested in round table negotiations, with all parties getting together. When the property owners first met with city representatives, it was the first available meeting date that was offered, but they were not available at that time and that they would welcome the opportunity to get together with everyone concerned. She suggested that the Berkeley Lake Homeowners Association (BLHA) also be brought into the discussions too. She said she had always maintained that the lake was an entity in the fix and that the lake has suffered injury by silt going into it in the cove. She said if a representative from BLHA were to come to the meeting, she would not be against it.

Robinson said, regarding the Greenspace, that she finds the language regarding the right of access in the easement document confusing. She asked that the wording be clarified so that the grantor will retain the right of access to the property and will not be excluded as general public. She said she didn’t believe it was the council’s intent to exclude any of the citizens of Berkeley Lake at any time unless the conservancy decides the area should be closed. She clarified that the residents of Berkeley Lake are the owners and not the general public and said she still felt that the language was not clear enough in the document.

Robinson said, regarding the fun run that the route does go over the road where it is currently closed on Lakeshore Drive.

Salter said it would but she had spoken to the organizer, Theresa Sipe, and she thought it was safe to walk over. She suggested the Berkeley Lake track club talk to Marcie and the engineers to check that was correct.

Robinson said in reference to the policy manual, the disclaimer page should say ‘in the absence of the mayor, the mayor pro tem or city manager take over’, not vice versa as the mayor is the current head of the city government.

Zielazienski asked if anyone had any questions as to what happening on the dam and no one did.

LOMBARDI MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:30 PM, COVINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION AND ALL WERE IN FAVOR.