CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE

4040 BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GA 30096-3016
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 10, 1999

Those in attendance for the Public Hearing/City Council meeting were as follows:

Mayor – Marguerite Cooke Council Members: Anthony Arakawa, Kelly Goff, Tom Kitchens, Sherwin Levinson, Sherry Ruys

City Attorney – Dick Carothers

Public Works Director – Bob Flaherty

Zoning Enforcement Officer – Stan Kelly

City Clerk – Anne Mayton

City Treasurer – Marcie Zielazienski

Citizens Present: 29 

The City Council meeting was called to order by the Mayor, Marguerite Cooke at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road at 7:06 p.m.

Robert Hoskin, President of the Miramont Homeowners Association, gave the invocation.

Refreshments were provided by Councilman Goff. 

Mayor Cooke announced that Citizen Comments would be postponed until after the presentation by Dr. Theresa Sipe regarding the results of the Land Acquisition Survey.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Mayor Cooke had a couple of changes in the minutes of the May City Council Meeting. Mrs. Mayton made a note of those changes (page 6, 3^rd paragraph should read 1.1 acres; page 10, 3^rd paragraph from the bottom, First Read). The Minutes were approved with corrections as noted.

APPROVAL OF THE FINANCIAL REPORT 

Mayor Cooke noted that we are getting close to the limit of our budget for office expenses. The Financial Report was approved as submitted.

STAFF AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 

ZEO Report, Police Report, City Code Revisions Committee, City Park Enhancement Committee, City Hall Storage Committee, Emergency Management, and the Greenspace Reforestation Committee, Traffic Control Committee, and Homeowner’s Association Advisory Board were submitted and approved. The Roads and Public Works Director will submit a report for May and June at the July Council Meeting. The Ordinance Enforcement Committee was dissolved. There will be no report from an attendee of the Gwinnett Municipal Association, as there will be no meetings for the months of June, July or August.

OLD BUSINESS 

Mr. Kitchens asked if Dr. Bernie Cohen, citizen, who was listed first to speak under Old Business could speak second as he had brought Frank Stephens, Deputy Director of Gwinnett County Planning, Engineering & Construction, Department of Public Utilities, to speak to the Council and the Citizens regarding the Effluent Line. Dr.Cohen was agreeable with this. 

Mr. Kitchens introduced Mr. Stephens and explained that representatives from the City (Mr. Kitchens, Mr. Levinson, Mayor Cooke, and City Attorney Carothers) had met with Wayne Shackleford, Commissioner of the State Department of Transportation, Frank Stephens, Wayne Hill, Chairman, Gwinnett County Commissioners and others. We, the City, asked them to re-examine the situation and to consider two (2) alternatives.

Frank Stephens, Deputy Director Planning, Engineering & Construction, Department of Public Utilities, Gwinnett County. Mr. Stephens talked at length about the Effluent Line, a 48-inch, water-reclamation line that is to be run alongside Peachtree Industrial Boulevard on the Berkeley Lake side of PIB. According to Mr. Stephens, this will be one of the world’s most advanced water reclamation facilities and the water that flows out of that pipeline will be as clear as the water that flows out of your tap. 

Mr. Stephens mentioned that he had taken part in the meeting held the previous week in the office of Wayne Shackleford, Director of the State Department of Transportation, attended by Mayor Cooke, Councilman Kitchens, and Councilman Levinson. In this meeting, Mr. Shackleford agreed to have the effluent line surveyed for potential movement to the opposite side of PIB from the Lake. However, as Mr. Stephens explained, Mr. Shackleford drove out to the site on his way home (he lives in Gwinnett County), and discerned that to switch the effluent line to the other side of the road would not be cost effective due to the eight (8) concrete drainage structures already in place on the East side of the road as well as eight (8) power poles. Mr. Shackleford decided to leave the line on the West side of PIB as is shown on the engineering plans. 

The alignment portion of the pipeline in which Berkeley Lake is most interested is where it crosses North Berkeley Lake Road which is just on the North side of the intersection of North Berkeley Lake Road and Peachtree Industrial Blvd. goes for 600 ft. on the opposing side of Peachtree Industrial Blvd. then there will be a boring under PIB and the pipeline will then run along this side (the Berkeley Lake side) of PIB at the edge of the right-of-way, pretty much at the "toe of the slope" of the road and the point of concern is that the effluent line will have to cross four tributaries that feed Berkeley Lake. And, that is a mutual concern with the County as well. It is important that this County Utility Project not be putting sediment into the Lake. The discussion that led us to a meeting of some 15 – 20 people in Commissioner Shackleford’s (State DOT Commissioner) office was about moving the Line from the toe of the slope to the top of the slope and putting it near or under the shoulder of the road (PIB). We had discussed this verbally with the City about three (3) months ago and there had already been a verbal "No" given to this idea by the District State DOT Engineer. Members of this Council initiated a "sit-down" meeting with Commissioner Shackleford. Although this is not a State highway, apparently State DOT money has been used on this road in the past that gives Mr. Shackleford a say in this matter. 

The representatives from Berkeley Lake (the Mayor, Mr. Kitchens, and Mr. Levinson) had once again suggested that the Line be put under the shoulder of the road, but Mr. Shackleford discarded this idea as not being feasible. During discussion, Mr. Shackleford suggested putting it (the Line) in the shoulder of the road on the opposite side of PIB but that depended on the Line’s not conflicting with any of the drainage structures on that side of PIB. There are eight (8) culverts that cross the road in this area that we would be looking at and that side of the road had a square, on-grade conflict with six (6) of those culverts. There are also eight (8) power poles on that side of PIB. In addition there is a lake—25-acre lake, I’m guessing—and the dam to that lake is adjacent to a very elaborate drainage structure on that side of PIB. As a result, we would risk the possibility of breaching that dam should we place the effluent line on that side of PIB. Mr. Shackleford personally visited the site on the evening of the meeting with your City officials and he retracted his idea as not being feasible. This leaves us where the Effluent Line was originally designed at the toe of the slope on this side of PIB. 

Mr. Kitchens asked Mr. Stephens to elaborate as to why the idea to move the pipeline to the opposite side of the road be discarded. 

Mr. Stephens explained in detail that time is of the essence and to bore under those existing culverts would be more costly both in time and labor than to place the line on the Berkeley Lake side of PIB where there were no such drainage structures. 

Mrs. Ruys: Is Mr. Stephens familiar with the Berkeley Commons subdivision and their wetlands, which are right next to PIB as are a screen of trees and a fence which protects the subdivision from the noise of PIB. Mrs. Ruys stated that we (the Community) have not seen anything that explains whether or not the fence at Berkeley Commons will have to come down. 

Mr. Stephens replied that lots of fences along the entire route that will have to come down but that the County will put them back up. The easement conditions are standard for all pipeline easements all over the County. There is a twenty-foot permanent easement that is not really a very good place to put woody plants but is suitable for any other type of ground cover but not woody plants. 

Mrs. Ruys: At least four (4) lots in Berkeley Commons would be involved. When were these easements obtained? Mr. Stephens replied that these easements were obtained from the builder before these lots were built on. 

Mr. Goff: What can the County do to assure us that we are not going to have a disaster or even a near disaster in regard to the Lake while the Effluent Line is under construction. 

Mr. Stephens replied that some of the ideas that they are working on include getting the construction area stabilized as soon as possible and to proceed efficiently. He explained that the County crosses 2,200 creeks and rivers and tributaries every year with similar construction. It is standard practice to mulch and seed, put up silt fences, re-mulch and re-seed. He proposes to do on-site sampling as a way of quantifying what might occur. He remarked that he would be very surprised if there was as much as one or two cubic yards of sediment. However, he would be the last person to say that something untoward will not happen. 

Mr. Goff: Can we assure our citizens that these safety measures regarding soil erosion and run-off will be carried out by the County. Mr. Stephens assured Mr. Goff that these items would be done. 

Mr. Levinson: Could we move the pipeline to about halfway between where it is planned to be now and the edge of the road, thereby saving 10 to 20 feet of trees? 

Mr. Stephens: There are over 250 easements in the path of the pipeline. We are trying to follow the guidelines for this type of construction as set up in 1998. We also intend to minimize the taking down of trees. There is actually very little easement depth outside of the existing right-of-way. 

Mr. Arakawa: It is my understanding that this work will begin next week, is that correct? 

Mr. Stephens: Borings will begin the first half of next week. It is possible that the boring under N. Berkeley Lake Road will be completed next week and the crew will move on to the boring under PIB. The Project Manager anticipates coming through about mid-July. 

Mr. Arakawa: Will there be someone that we could be in contact with next week as a point of contact and with whom we can talk about the progress, etc. 

Mr. Stephens: There are several people including myself with whom the City can be in contact. I will make these names and phone numbers available to the City the first thing tomorrow morning. 

Mr. Kitchens: If we see something that we feel is obviously a detriment to the Lake, could we temporarily halt the project by making a phone call to one of these people? 

Mr. Stephens replied that it would be their job (the County’s) to halt the project. 

Mr. Arakawa: Do you have a testimonial of a similar situation where we can actually find out what the results were? 

Mr. Stephens: The Alcovy River area is restored after similar construction and that he would like to take the entire Council down to see this area tomorrow afternoon. 

Mr. Kitchens: A group is going tomorrow in the afternoon to view the Alcovy River project. Any citizen who is free tomorrow is welcome to go. 

Mrs. Ruys: How wide is the easement? Mr. Stephens replied that the maximum easement width that would not overlap with the right-of-way is 40 feet. 

Mrs. Ruys: Is this from the edge of the road or the middle of the road? 

Mr. Stephens: We are trying to use the right of way alongside PIB so it is less than that. The pipe is to be centered in the 40-foot easement. 

Mr. Kitchens: If anyone walks along the pathway of the survey he/she would find blue and white markers along the path of the pipeline. 

Mrs. Ruys: Everything within 20 feet of the blue and white markers will be removed—trees, bushes, fences, etc. 

Mr. Stephens: Some of the easement conditions include some replanting, he did not recall which ones but it was a matter of easement negotiations and of those 250 easements some entail an allowance to the property owner to do some re-landscaping or it included some requirements for re-landscaping. 

Mrs. Ruys: The County has no easement through the Greenspace except for the right-of-way of PIB, which already exists. Mr. Stephens replied that this was correct. 

Mr. Arakawa: When all is said and done, the reason the choice was not to go to the opposing side was based on the elaborate drainage structures that would have to be dealt with. 

Mr. Stephens There were too many drainage structures—six to be exact—with which we had conflict. But we are not in conflict with any drainage structures on this side of the road. 

Mr. Arakawa: But, we have tributaries on this side of the road. The other issue of concern is that we have a very narrow right-of-way. These are the main issues for putting the pipeline on this side of PIB, as I understand them. 

Mr. Stephens: Compliant with the width of the shoulder and the necessary depth of coverage that DOT has mandated over the pipe and in some instances the steep shoulder of the road. 

Mayor Cooke announced that she would now allow citizens to ask questions of Mr. Stephens.

Brian Matthews, 3256 Highgate Chase Court, Berkeley Commons
How long has this project been planned?

Mr. Stephens replied that there were two (2) public meetings toward the end of 1995; one (1) early in 1996. 

Mr. Matthews: We purchased our home eighteen months ago, so our builder knew about this pipeline? How can we find out if our builder knew about this pipeline before we purchased our home? 

Mr. Levinson: That information would be recorded on the plat at the County for the entire subdivision. It should also show on the plats for the individual homeowners. I know that there are at least three (3) lots with easement going through—I mean right through their back yards. The easement will be filed at the County and the people in that office are very helpful to citizens. 

Mr. Stephens: The public meetings for this project were held prior to the completion of the final design, so, there wasn’t a precise alignment shown. 

Mr. Matthews: How many drainage tributaries are in the area from South Berkeley Lake Road south down PIB to the southern most edge of Berkeley Commons? And, could the pipeline be moved to the other side of PIB from Berkeley Commons? 

Mr. Stephens: This would ultimately entail two additional crossings, so ultimately the pipeline stays on this side of PIB and given that the narrowness of the right-of-way on the other side, as I understand it, it would entail acquisition of additional easements on the other side.

Jane Hardwick, 770 Lakeview Lane
I would like to know if it is possible for the pipeline to go down the median of PIB covered by pieces of grating structure allowing you to maintain the pipeline, that way it would not disturb either side of the road. 

Mr. Stephens: There are cases where that has been done. Satellite Boulevard is one such case. 

Mrs. Hardwick said that she is concerned that this wasn’t given consideration and why the County didn’t look at this as a possibility and why the County can’t look at this as a possibility.

Chet McQuaide, 3455 Kingsland Circle, Berkeley Walk
I am a bit concerned with the long list of contacts that Mr. Stephens listed for us to be able to contact if something goes wrong. Could we establish a hotline between a designated representative on Council and a designated individual in your office, Mr. Stephens? 

Mr. Stephens replied that a hotline is already established. 

Mr. McQuaide asked if Tom Kitchens would be the contact for the City? 

Mr. Kitchens: I would like to be the contact for the City and be given a pager in order to be contacted more easily.

Dr. Bernie Cohen, 381 Lakeshore Drive
The trench is going to be more than 48" wide. That is a lot of dirt when you take it out of the ground; what are you going to do with this dirt? You have to put it someplace. Of course, you are going to spray the dirt with grass seed and fertilizer and it will wash away, and wash away for years. How can you stabilize the dirt on a slope? How wide will the path of construction be? 

Mr. Stephens replied 40 feet. 

Dr. Cohen said, if we have unusual weather conditions and we are expecting dry conditions this year and probably next year and a few years to follow. The wetlands will recover but it will be a capillary method of recovery. 

Mr. Stephens replied that he would like to show Dr. Cohen some areas that have come back after similar construction.

Sharrie Moore, 160 Bayway Circle
How long is the County responsible for erosion problems that might occur? 

Mr. Stephens: Until there is a good vegetative take. There is actually a year’s warranty on the Contractor’s work and this year doesn’t start until the project is compete and it won’t be complete until January or February of next year.

Dr. Jarvis Hill, 326 Lakeshore Drive
What is the size of the pipe and the volume? 

Mr. Stephens: 48" in diameter. The North Plant has a permit for 20 million gallons a day with a prospect for more. This pipeline for the most part is going to be around 20 psi. 

(This is the end of the Citizen’s questions for Mr. Stephens)

Dr. Bernie Cohen, Citizen. Land Acquisition
The approximately 9.75 acres that the City might purchase or swap for another parcel has been for sale for 30 years. There is a major depression in the center of this parcel where the pipeline is to go through; in addition, this is not a good building site. Perhaps this is why this property hasn’t sold in past years. To swap such a poor piece of land for a good piece of land would be a major error. Also, I believe that the price quoted is excessive. Another consideration is the money involved. This money has been set aside to eliminate the bond. The Mayor and the Council have not made a case for urgency in the purchase of this property.

Dr. Theresa Sipe, Land Acquisition Survey Results
Mayor Cooke explained that on April 1 an informal survey was distributed to every household. The return rate and response to this survey was poor—just over a hundred returns. Therefore, the Council decided to ask Dr. Sipe to assist them in producing and distributing another survey from which we could get a better response. We have had a wonderful response to this second survey. 

Dr. Sipe explained in detail the methodology used in conducting the survey. On this survey, she said, we had 641 responses. We would need to have 159 households to submit surveys choosing Option B for that option to win out over Option A, the option that was chosen overwhelmingly over Option B and Option C. Our response rate for this survey was 61 percent. Every section of the City had a 50 percent response rate or higher with the exception of Berkeley Fields which had a response rate of 24 percent.

Results of Survey Based on Persons

Roxanne Cashdan, 3449 Chaselton Court
Why were the survey results broken down into different communities? 

Dr. Sipe: To make certain that we had a good response from the entire City.

CITIZEN’S COMMENTS

Mr. Levinson: I would like you all to please think about how we can find some solution that will not upset and alienate a large portion of our citizenry because it has become obvious that there are strong feelings on each side of this issue no matter how large a majority there is for one option. Think about something you could recommend to the Council on how we could reach a compromise that will make whatever the Council does or whatever you recommend more palatable to everybody in the City.

Jeff Cashdan, 3449 Chaselton Court, Miramont
For the first time in the history of the City of Berkeley Lake, the City Council is contemplating inviting development into the City borders via the choice of Option B. In the long term, allowing such action is more harmful to our City and to our personal lives and to our property values than any other option available to you today. I urge you to vote for Option A and purchase the land as an addition to our Greenspace. Option A is the best alternative to protect the Lake, the gem of our City and the single most vital item driving our property values. Option A clearly shields our entire community from the harmful effects of development—pollution, traffic, noise, etc. To choose Option B would be to say that the community of Miramont is not a part of the City

Tracey Settlage, 3790 Berkeley View Drive, Miramont
I would like to second everything Jeff Cashdan said.

Brian Matthews, 3256 Highgate Chase Court, Berkeley Commons
I question whether or not purchasing this land for over $900,000 is the best thing for the City. We at Berkeley Commons lost a lot of trees to the Tornado and now the pipeline will destroy more trees. Are these the only three options for the use of the $900,000 in the whole City? Why doesn’t the City purchase land adjacent to Berkeley Commons to help protect our property values? I would like to make a motion that the City go out and explore other options for the $900,000.

Chet McQuaide, 3455 Kingsland Circle
I would ask the City Council to think carefully about how you spend the taxpayer’s money. My tax rate has more than tripled since I have lived here. If there is a surplus, I would like to see the taxes reduced or the City debt reduced. We had a meeting last year about putting that money in reserve specifically to pay off the debt and now we have found a way to spend it that may actually increase our tax rate or at least will preclude paying off the debt. I don’t think a city the size of Berkeley Lake can afford to be a land holding company. I am very much in favor of preservation and buffer areas for the entire community not just one corner and I certainly would not want the Miramont area to suffer any more than I would want the citizens on our side of the community to suffer. I spent a fair amount of my time working on re-forestation last year, as did a lot of other people, so trees are important to me, too. I would just ask for good fiscal responsibility from the City officials.

Ken Massaroni, 3424 Chaselton Court, Miramont
I think everyone in the City feels strongly about the need to preserve greenspace and I think that Mr. Cashdan said it properly. I agree that we should use our resources carefully to make certain that a wealth of greenspace is being preserved throughout the City and I am sure the City Council—should additional property become available—would consider those parcels as well. I am not the only non-Council member on the Financial Affairs Committee and, I think I can assure you that the Financial Affairs Committee has considered very carefully the effects of the purchase even if they paid full price. Dr. Cohen gave some good arguments against paying full price. Even if we purchased the 9.75-acre parcel at full price the citizens would received a reduction in taxes of .5 mils.

Dick Lillie, 204 Lakeshore Drive
Would like an expression in hands in how the audience feels.

Jane Hardwick, 770 Lakeview Lane
I would like to ask for a pledge by the City Council that they acquire the services of an ethical, unbiased professional appraiser on the 9.75 parcel to make certain that they do not pay too much. I think there is very little net usable land in that tract of land.

Mr. Levinson made a motion that the Council takes a ten-minute break, Mrs. Ruys seconded and the vote to approve was unanimous.

Mr. Kitchens made a motion to make the following resolution: Be it resolved by the City of Berkeley Lake, Georgia that the City Council is hereby authorized as the agent to purchase a certain 9.75 acre parcel on Peachtree Industrial Blvd. Said acquisition to be financed by methods approved by the City Council. Mr. Levinson seconded. 

Mr. Goff: I am against making this resolution effective at this time, as the Council hasn’t had an opportunity to discuss the issue. We have gotten the survey back; we have heard the people speak; but we have not even discussed it yet as a Council. I think it is premature. 

Mrs. Ruys: I think it is premature for the reason that we haven’t had a chance to get an accurate appraisal of the property to find out even what the land is worth, or we can’t start negotiating for the land because we don’t even know where to start. I think that this is what we want to do, but I think it is premature to make a resolution until we do a little bit more research on price per acre. 

Mr. Levinson: I would like to ask Mr. Carothers if it is necessary to have a resolution to obtain independent appraisals of this land. 

Mr. Carothers: That is going to involve an expenditure of funds and should be a resolution; however, it can be done by voice resolution. We could amend the resolution that is on the "table" to add that the City obtain an appraisal of the property. We have had a "sketch" appraisal done of this property. This document assesses the value of this property at approximately $90,000 per acre; however, knowing the appraisers who did this appraisal, I don’t believe they walked the property and I personally think the appraisal will change downward if they actually investigate the topography and other aspects of the property. I would recommend a full appraisal of the property. 

Mr. Levinson: Do you have any idea what such an appraisal costs? 

Mr. Carothers: Such an appraisal would cost $1,000 to $2,000 depending on who does the appraisal. 

Mr. Levinson: I would not be in favor of passing this resolution at this time because we can always pass a resolution of this sort once we get the results of an appraisal. 

Mayor Cooke: All in favor of Mr. Kitchen’s motion? One Council Member in favor. Four opposed. The motion did not pass.

Mr. Levinson: I would like to introduce a resolution. Be it resolved by the City of Berkeley Lake, Georgia, that the City Council authorize the expenditure of no more than $4,500 to obtain two independent, detailed appraisals of a certain 9.75 acre parcel on Peachtree Industrial Blvd. Mr. Goff seconded. 

Mr. Arakawa: How do we select an appraisal company? 

Mr. Goff: You hire a certified appraiser who is MAI certified. Then we can use the appraiser that we used in the past to just update the appraisal that was already done on this property. 

Much discussion followed regarding appraisers and appraisal companies.

Mr. Levinson proposed an amendment to his resolution on the table that at least one of the appraisals be performed by an MAI certified appraiser. Mr. Goff seconded. 

There followed a discussion about MAI certification for appraisers.  

The vote for this amended resolution was taken and it was unanimous.

Solid Waste Collection Proposal

Mr. Arakawa announced that he had recently received 150-pages of documentation from the City Attorney on solid waste proposals and ideas from other cities and he has not had time to digest them. It would not be fair to put together a presentation or format on that at this time.

Police Services

Mr. Arakawa explained that this is only an exploration and it is in no way something that we are moving forward with. We are just trying to stage ourselves with the kind of growth we are having. Officer Dunlap and his crew have done a tremendous job for this community. 

We met with the Police Chief of Duluth this past week and he understands what we are looking for in respect to response time; 24-hour vacation coverage--there are a lot of possibilities. The question is, is this what the citizens want? So, the Police Chief of Duluth is going to put together a proposal for the City of Duluth and come back to us and tell us what he can offer us. And, at that point we should discuss this at the Council Meeting and also with the citizens and ask them what they want. 

Mayor Cooke said that she understood from Mr. Arakawa’s Traffic Report that he would like to ask the City Council to provide qualified direction as to what course of action should be taken. 

This is merely an effort to look at where we are in our growth and trying to address where we need to be as a City. I don’t want to proceed any further if we need to have a Town Meeting. 

Mrs. Ruys: I think you have done a great job so far and I would hate to see you stop at this point. Just from the public opinion that I have gotten, people bring that subject up and it seems that we are having a lot of vandalism and crime in the neighborhoods that are closer to Peachtree Industrial Blvd. And I do think we do need to look into some sort of additional police services—we do need faster response time. I also think that your ideas on solid waste are excellent. We don’t need all those trucks driving through the City. 

Mr. Goff: I would like to make a comment regarding waste collection. The trash trucks create noise, pollution, and are tearing up our roads. I think the citizens would appreciate using one trash company and getting a reduction in the rates. 

Mr. Levinson: Also, the trash companies would not have to bill individual households so that would be a saving to them. I would like to ask Mr. Carothers if there is any situation at all where a County makes refunds for reducing property taxes in a municipality where significant County services are provided instead by the municipality. 

Mr. Carothers: No. Those jurisdictions who have police services feel like their citizens want additional police services, just like Berkeley Lake does right now.

Enforcement Procedures Ordinance, 2^nd Read

Mr. Goff made a motion that we adopt the Enforcement Procedures Ordinance as written. Mr. Levinson seconded. 

Mr. Carothers had one comment on Page 2 in Step 3. I believe an amendment would be in order to re-write so that it states "may" be fined or else we are sort of taking over the duties of the municipal court.

Mr. Levinson made a motion that Step 3, Line 10, the first word be changed from "will" to "may." Mrs. Ruys seconded. The vote to accept the Enforcement Procedures Ordinance as submitted with the amendment was unanimous. 

Mayor Cooke: Mr. Carothers, do I have to appoint an arbitration board? 

Mr. Carothers: Yes. 

Mr. Levinson: You could ask for volunteers. 

Mr. Goff: Put in Mayor’s letter that goes in the Reflections newsletter in order to give it a broad distribution and to get more people interested.

Gross Receipts Tax & Occupational Tax

Mayor Cooke: Mr. Carothers, do you have something regarding the gross receipts tax and the occupational tax. 

Mr. Carothers: The City has always had licensing and occupation taxes and has never collected any of them. The Council has to decide whether or not to have these taxes. 

There was much discussion among the Council and with Attorney Carothers regarding these taxes as well as several other ordinances, which are not enforced.

Mr. Levinson made a motion that we adopt five code revisions recommended by his Committee (Sec 4-103; 4-104; 4-104; 32-101; 4-104.1) to be put on First Read. Mr. Goff seconded. 

Mayor Cooke requested that the minutes reflect that these Ordinances that we are putting on First Read refer to the repeal of Sections 4-103 Section 3; Section 4-103 and 4-104; and Section 32-101; and Section 4-104.1, and Section 4-105

The vote to approve Mr. Levinson’s motion was unanimous.

NEW BUSINESS

GMA By Law Amendment and Ballot

Mr. Carothers: This is just a change in the districting by the GMA. It doesn’t really affect us at all, but the GMA likes for all their members to approve. It is just a formality, really. I recommend that the Council make a motion to approve the GMA Amendments to the By Laws as set forth in the Minutes. This simply gives a reference to it, as this is the only time it will appear in the Minutes.

Mr. Levinson: I move that we adopt the proposed GMA By Law Amendment as submitted here. Mr. Goff seconded, and the vote was unanimous.

House Bill 489

Mayor Cooke: It has come to my attention that we need to pass a couple of resolutions regarding HB 489, the Service Delivery Strategy. The County would like us to confer that we are in agreement with this House Bill and that we will act in accordance with it. 

Mr. Carothers: I have the corrected pages regarding Berkeley Lake and its agreement with the County. I recommend that we approve these. 

Mayor Cooke: I repeat, one is just a resolution we adopt for the Service Delivery Strategy for Gwinnett County as approved by the Georgia State Legislature and then the other resolution is to approve the extension of the deadline to submit our Service Delivery Strategy by 120 days.

Mr. Goff made a motion that we adopt the resolution to approve the Service Delivery Strategy for Gwinnett County and to approve the extension of the Service Delivery Strategy by 120 days; and to authorize the Mayor to execute any additional documents needed in support of the submission of the Service Delivery Strategy. Mr. Arakawa seconded and the vote was unanimous.

Symposium on the New Millennium

Mr. Kitchens: There is to be a symposium on preparing for the New Millennium and I feel like our City could benefit from having someone attend. It is scheduled for June 30, 1999. 

Mr. Arakawa volunteered to go to the symposium entitled, "Growth in the New Millennium" to be held on June 30, 1999. 

Effluent Line

Mr. Carothers passed out a resolution that he had drafted regarding the Intergovernmental Agreement for Erosion & Sedimentation Control.

Mr. Levinson: I propose that we resolve to authorize the City to enter into the Intergovernmental Agreement regarding Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of which the City Clerk has a copy. Mr. Goff seconded, and the vote to approve was unanimous.

Mr. Levinson made a motion for the Council to go into Executive Session for the purposes of discussing pending and potential litigation and confidential personnel matters. Mr. Goff seconded, and the vote to approve was unanimous. 

After the Executive Session, the City Council meeting was resumed. No citizens were present.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, MR. LEVINSON MOTIONED FOR ADJOURNMENT. MR. GOFF SECONDED, AND THE VOTE FOR APPROVAL WAS UNANIMOUS. THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 8, 1999 AT 7 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne T. Mayton, City Clerk