CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE

4040 BERKELEY LAKE ROAD

BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096

PUBLIC HEARING/COUNCIL MEETING

FULL MINUTES FOR

June 29, 2002

Those in attendance were:

Mayor – Lois Salter

Council Members – Tony Arakawa, Ken Massaroni, Delicia Reynolds, David Steventon

Richard Carothers – City Attorney

Tom Kitchens – BLEMA

John Rockers – City Manager/Treasurer

George Sipe – Chairman P&Z

Marcie Zielazienski – Deputy City Clerk

Citizens Present – 1

CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Salter called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. at the Berkeley Lake City Hall.

CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Following are brief summaries of each officials comments and/or opinions:

Council Member Arakawa – Reviewed that in looking at the process, the question is how to bring together the various participants to effectively merge resources from each to avoid mistakes in a very critical matter. The initial approach was to have the City Manager involved as defined in the job description. The thought was that the City Manager would facilitate the resources required and help direct where the needs are, with the help, cooperation, and direction of each of the participants, which include Planning & Zoning, the developer and the engineering groups. Now, as it is apparent that this process is not in full agreement of everyone, it is within the leadership role of the Mayor to step forward and help guide and facilitate one of the most important processes of this city's history. Also, there does not appear to be any statutory basis for anyone else directing the process at this point.

Council Member Lombardi – From the beginning thought that there was a team of subject matter experts, sort of a three-pronged approach to the process. Looking at it from the developer's standpoint felt that it might be confusing, might slow the process down, if they had to figure out which part of the team to talk with. See offering a single point of contact to the developer as keeping the process on track, keeping it moving and keeping it simple, and the City should also have a single point of contact with the developer. That single point of contact should be a facilitator to help make sure the city's overall, high level, big picture kind of needs are met — a team leader that is not really a part of the team, i.e., someone to direct.

Council Member Massaroni – As previously discussed, one of the things that has become apparent in looking at these different subject matter experts that we are talking about, to include Charlie Sewell, is that there is not a sufficiently bright line between each of these different groups of individuals that have responsibility. Therefore, it is conceivable that on any given day, because there is no clear demarcation, there is the possibility the developer's group might get the first answer from one group and the second answer from another group and liking the second answer better than the first, proceed along down that path, not withstanding what the first person said. The single point of contact offers a much better opportunity to eliminate that kind of thing, because that person will bring the issue back to the entire group of subject matter experts. They will "hash" it out and leave a discussion with a single point of view.

Council Member Reynolds – Concerned if there is a person that is a single point of contact, that person will make answers which they think they are knowledgeable about but really are not. Planning & Zoning is in the best position to know the ordinances and development regulations, even at the County level. Personally, think P&Z should be the party to handle the process.

Council Member Steventon – Believe totally in the communication process, especially in a project like this, of involving a facilitator and individual experts. Think the Mayor is the right facilitator to clearly direct issues for decisions that need to be made by each of the groups so there can be a quick response, whether it is an engineering issue, a P&Z issue, or an ordinance enforcement issue. It makes sense to have a single point person driving the process and initiating specific entities when decisions need to be made.

CITIZENS COMMENTS

Mayor Salter opened the floor for citizen's comments.

George Sipe (Chairman of P&Z) – This is the first time this council has had a development to deal with, whereas, the P&Z has always handled development applications and issues in the past. There have been significant developments such as Miramont and Berkeley Walk, which are very large multi-phase development processes. The P&Z was, in each of those instances, the point of contact. In every development in the past, it has always been the P&Z, and it is a process that has worked. Why would it not be the P&Z this time – how is this different from anything else that the P&Z has done successfully? Going with the "tried and true" reduces risk instead of experimenting with a new, untested process.

CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMERCIAL DEV. PROCESS (Cont.)

Council Member Arakawa - Called for a resolution to say that the Council provides full powers of facilitation to the Mayor. Within that resolution, it should be clear how the Mayor and Council will communicate on the individual issues that come up – meetings and discussions about the project – so that everyone is thoroughly informed. Has the utmost confidence that the Mayor will be able to provide that leadership.

Mayor Salter – Concurs with George Sipe that the P&Z certainly knows more about the development process than she does. However, if it is Council's wish for her to lead the process, would see herself as a facilitator and not a decision maker. Would certainly hope that the P&Z would continue to do what Chairman Sipe expects that they would do anyway. The facilitation process would be one of receiving information and channeling information to the Council and to the P&Z and to everybody as currently and as concurrently as possible. Feels this is all that she will be able to do.

Council Member Massaroni – Does not think the effort here is to derogate in any way from P&Z's authorities or to derogate in any way from the City Engineer's job and so on, but to be able to have a developer know that he needs to call the Mayor with a question or issue. The Mayor will get in touch with the appropriate subject matter expert and get a resolution to the problem. A developer cannot do better than the Mayor.

Council Member Arakawa motioned for a resolution that Council continue on with the facilitation process on the Parsons/Bagwell property, with the leadership of the Mayor and with full communication powers and full directional powers to provide resources for the project.

Council Member Massaroni seconded the motion. Council Members Arakawa, Lombardi, Massaroni, and Steventon voted "yea" to the motion. Council Member Reynolds voted "nay".

City Attorney Carothers will draft the resolution with Council Members providing ideas on how they see communications effectively working and that they will be notified of all meetings that take place so they can be there – a resolution that defines how the process will work. The resolution can be adopted at the next Council meeting.

In the meantime Council requested that Mayor Salter notify them of any meeting so any of them can be there if they wish to attend.

All participants will be sent a letter to notify them of the process. It was determined that the Deputy City Clerk would send such a communication to advise of the resolution of Council and give the parties all the contact numbers for the Mayor.

OUTGOING COMMUNICATION

Mayor Salter - Asked for comments in regards to a communication she has written for distribution to the community, whereby citizens will be given the opportunity to sign up for a weather radio. There was some discussion with a few changes suggested.

Tom Kitchens – Suggested using the Calling Post as an additional communication.

Mayor Salter – Plan to use the Calling Post as a follow-up to remind citizens to get their forms back in if they want a radio.

The communication will be sent via bulk mail. Council Member Reynolds volunteered to help facilitate the mailing.

MILLAGE RATE

City Attorney Carothers advised that the previous ordinance to pass the millage rate was invalid (millage rate publication error) so there must be a new ordinance. Council Member Reynolds motioned to put the new millage rate ordinance on first read. Council Member Arakawa seconded the motion. Vote to approve was unanimous.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, COUNCIL MEMBER MASSARONI MOVED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING PERSONNEL ISSUES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOMBARDI AND APPROVAL WAS UNANIMOUS. THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:40 A.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Marcie E. Zielazienski, Deputy City Clerk