COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes for February 2, 2006

Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Walter Anderson, Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, Tom Kitchens and George Sipe
City Clerk- Jackie Wall
City Attorney- Dick Carothers
Citizens Present- 12
               
CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:30pm at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.

MINUTES
Kitchens motioned that the minutes of the meeting of January 19th 2006 be accepted.  Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor of the motion. The motion passed.
 
REPORTS
Guthrie motioned to accept the December 2005 Financial reports. Kitchens seconded the motion.

Cohen abstained from the vote as he said he may have a concern with the reports but he could not say what yet. Sipe also abstained. Anderson abstained from the vote as he said he had not been a council member at that time and did not yet understand the way the reports are put together. However he said he did not have any concern about the numbers per se. Guthrie asked that Cohen and Sipe let Council know what their concern was as soon as they could, even by email, so there could be some investigation into it. Salter asked if there was something that could be done to help with any concerns. She said the reports were sent out in advance so any concerns could be expressed beforehand, and it would be nice to know that. There was no response. The motion failed.

Salter said that Council had received a report from both the police and regarding public works sent by the City Engineer.

Salter said that she had also put a message on the web site from Mary Kay Murphy, our school board representative. She said she would like it attached to the minutes for the record.  School_MKMurphy.doc

Salter apologized and said that she would be absent at the next meeting. She said that the Mayor pro tem would act in her absence.

Salter said she had spoken to Brian Craft, the Chairman of the Blue Ridge Industries Group, who had been dealing with Crescent Development. She said she had told him of the other companies within the City’s watershed that had been contacted regarding their failing ponds, one resulting in contact with the city attorney. She said she had reiterated the City’s expectations of Blue Ridge’s responsibility, and said that their association with Crescent Development was the only reason further action had not been taken. Mr. Craft said he fully expected the issue to be resolved in a couple of weeks. Salter said she  discussed the County Stormwater Utility Fees and their increasing responsibility for maintenance issues with the pond. She said that she thought he understood that anything coming from their properties ultimately ends up in lake, and that it was important to protect it. She said that he had agreed to continue to work together.

Salter said that the Berkeley Village group had also suggested that City Hall be built in their development. She said she had passed it on to the Chair of the Facilities Committee but it was unlikely that the City would be ready to go ahead in time for their building schedule, due to conducting needs assessment and getting community input. She said she had promised to relate the offer, although she thought it was unlikely the City would take them up on it. 

Salter asked Council to review the draft Public Works Stormwater Policy by the next meeting, and be prepared to discuss it. She said both the City Engineer, Rich Edinger, and the Public Works committee will review it again too.

Salter said that there had been many conversations with Crescent Development regarding inspections that had been made due to impending rain now that trees and foliage have been removed. She said that the Chair of the Public Works Committee, Randy Kirkus, and committee member Dave Bondon had agreed to provide oversight of any siltation coming from either Crescent development or from the County Aquatic Center as it develops. She said she had also notified County Commissioner Burt Nasuti about our vigilance. She said that both Bob Herb and the new City Inspector, Craig Lokey, were being very vigilant. She thanked them, Clark Patterson Associates and Eric Johansen for meeting everyone’s concerns.

Salter said that the Clerk had agreement from Gwinnett County to remove the ‘Welcome to Peachtree Corners’ sign to outside the city limits.

OLD BUSINESS 
3-204 Proposed change to ordinance for monthly meetings- Kitchens  3-204-Council_Meetings.pdf
Kitchens motioned to adopt the ordinance to change monthly meetings to once a month beginning in March. Guthrie seconded the motion. Guthrie, Kitchens, and Anderson were in favor of the motion.  Cohen and Sipe voted against. The motion passed.

3-701 (b) P and Z term change -Kitchens  P&Z_terms_3-701(B).pdf
Kitchens motioned for second read and adoption of the ordinance changing P and Z terms from five years to three years. Guthrie seconded the motion.

In discussion, Sipe said that as the only Council member who had served on P and Z for nine years, seven of which he was chairman, the longer terms were important to P and Z for continuity and long term service. He said that had not been a problem when a term came up every five years and that they had always been reappointed. Vacancies had occurred by commissioners either moving away or leaving P and Z due to personal changes. He said that reducing the terms of P and Z was politicizing the service of the people on P and Z.  He said that P and Z was not political and tried to be independent of political views. He said reducing their terms tells P and Z members that their service will be evaluated every three years in some way and he did not think it was necessary.  He said that when people joined P and Z it told them that the city were not asking for a term of service that was long and that it should be viewed as long term service due to the learning curve and time it takes to get fully acclimated with all the complexities of the code. He said in conclusion that it was a non-problem to change it and he feared that it would add nothing more than add a political dimension that was not there currently. Sipe said that in three year cycles two people would be up at the same time and there was more chance of appointing someone in place of someone else. He said there would be more and more reappointments if the trend continued as it had been historically done. He also asked why three years. He said that five years was chosen as a long time and works well, as with five members one person’s term comes up each year. He said it had just not been a problem. He said that there must be some other reason for doing it, as he did not see what the purpose of doing it was.

Kitchens said that the purpose was to be able to review the appointments every three years instead of every five years, and it gave more potential for citizens who had the knowledge, capability and ability to serve to do so. He said he would like to see citizens be given more opportunity to serve every three years instead of every five years. He said anyone doing an acceptable or satisfactory job would just be reappointed.

Sipe said that the most qualified are those already serving. He said they have the most experience and are an asset. Once a term needs to be appointed as it is forced by circumstances, then someone new should be appointed. He said that they should be people who have been going to P and Z meetings and have an interest to learn about it. He said that there is not often the need to review a reappointment, as they always are the best person. He said that if the person is not the best person, for whatever reason, then Council should not wait until reappointment to appoint someone else in their place.

Kitchens said that he would like there to be more flexibility other than a five year term. He said that people had indicated to him during his election campaign that five years was a long time and they did not want to begin to commit for that long.

Sipe said that it was the City’s commitment to them and not their commitment to the City. He said that historically people did not leave the P and Z unless they could not serve. He said that new people were appointed to P and Z all the time as evidenced by the three new people in the last two years. He suggested that people who had expressed an interest should attend meetings and become familiar with the code. He did not want to see people appointed who decided after they did not want to continue as they did not understand the process. He said that choosing between someone who was interested in P and Z over someone who was experienced would not be in the interest of the community.

Guthrie said that she thought it was being viewed somewhat as a life-time appointment unless a person chooses to step down.  She said that either 3 or 5 year terms gives council an opportunity to review the board and review their appointments. However, it was being characterized as a life-time appointment and the reappointment as just a formality unless the commissioner decided to step down. She said she did not think that was the way it was supposed to work.
 
Sipe said he was not characterizing it that way as the way it should work, although he personally thought it did work that way it was not lifetime. He said that history absolutely showed that previous appointments served until they no longer wished to. He said it was an incredible valuable service to the City because it was hard year after year to continue in the same function, but they did that and became good at it, which meant protecting the ordinances and property values.

Guthrie said that the ordinances and charter did not give the P and Z the authority or the power to determine how they were made up, it gave that power to Council. The ordinance is currently set up to evaluate an appointment every year over 5 years, and it was Council’s job to determine and evaluate if they want to reappoint the same person or appoint someone new. She said that Council should not just rubber stamp a reappointment every year just because of a member’s willingness to serve or length of service and experience. She said it was not just about experience, it was also about judgment, ability to interpret code, etc.  She said that when the evaluation happens, whether every three or five years does not make a difference, if they are doing a great job Council would be more than happy to reappoint them.

Sipe said that so far Council had been happy to reappoint every time.

Guthrie said that who was appointed was a different conversation than the term for this ordinance.
 
Kitchens, Guthrie and Anderson were in favor of the motion, Cohen and Sipe opposed. The motion passed.

39-401.2 Boathouses and Docks   39-401.2_Boat_Houses_and_docks_FINAL.pdf
Guthrie motioned to accept the ordinance as submitted. Anderson seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.

Alcoholic Beverage Ordinance
Salter said that Council had been asked to review Lilburn’s new ordinance as suggested by Carothers before Carothers works on the city’s version.

Guthrie said most of the content was relevant to the City of Berkeley Lake including excise tax, licensing, regulations and restrictions.

Carothers said that it was a little more stringent that the standard ordinance and more restrictive than Gwinnett County’s ordinance, for example, in Lilburn as a server of alcohol you cannot get a permit  if you have a DUI offense, but you can after 5 years in Gwinnett. He said that there were many other small examples. He said there was also discussion in Lilburn about seating requirements and sales of food to stop just bars. He said there were also limitations as to selling liquor for off premises consumption. He asked Council to look through it again and see if there any areas where they have a concern.
 
Sipe said he would prefer prohibiting any non-restaurant selling liquor. There was discussion about an exception process but Carothers said he would prefer to have objective criteria rather than exceptions. He said that changing an ordinance to suit a valued application might be a better way.

Carothers asked who would hear appeals, as it needed to be defined for due process purposes. There was discussion about how it was handled in Lilburn and Gwinnett County for example. It was agreed that for such a slim likelihood that an appeal would be filed, for such a small location, Council would hear appeals.
 
Carothers said that he would reformat the ordinance for Berkeley Lake for the next meeting to be ready in 10 days for council’s review. He noted that the ordinance would also be accompanied by a second ordinance to authorize the actual sale of alcohol.

NEW BUSINESS
New City Hall Planning- Barbara Carroll, Chairman of the Facilities Committee
Carroll recapped progress so far. She said that the Facilities committee made a recommendation to Council in September on how to begin the project. She said it was the committee’s understanding that they would be doing the legwork and research, visiting other city halls etc in Council’s stead to save them time. She said that they had therefore recommended ‘Urban Collage’, a master-planning firm. She said they had visited five municipal buildings, and interviewed the City manager and/or city clerks of Norcross, Suwanee, Grayson, Buford and Sugar Hill. She said that the people in charge were at different stages of knowledge and understanding, and therefore the person who handled the project was the most useful.  She said that during the interviews it became obvious that a plan was needed to identify where we needed to be, where to go and how best to get there. In meeting with Marvin Allen in Suwanee, they believed that they had found an approach to match Berkeley Lake’s situation. He had described how he had interviewed various planning companies before choosing ‘Urban Collage’. Carroll said that she also contacted various people who had already engaged Urban Collage on municipal projects, such as Dekalb County Economic Development, Enterprise partners (who handle Atlanta Public Schools planning and programming), Kentuck Museum in Northport Alabama, and received all glowing comments from them, and she quoted several comments about their performance.

Cohen asked which other planning firms were also considered.

Carroll said that in speaking with the references and also with Marvin Allen with Suwanee, who had done extensive work with other planning companies, the committee utilized other cities research and decided to recommend Urban Collage based on what they had learned. She said that they did not look at any other planning firms.

Guest speaker: Eric Bosman – Urban Collage
Bosman thanked the Facilities committee as well as the Mayor and Council for the opportunity to speak.  He said ‘Urban Collage’ was a planning and urban design company based in downtown Atlanta. He said there were eleven individuals, most of them are architects who have become city planners, as well as registered architects. There are certified planners as well as a landscape architect. He described their professional qualifications.  He said that they had worked for a variety of clients who had similar needs and goals. He said they concentrated on building needs, the identity of the city and public involvement.  He said that after their meeting with the facilities committee they had prepared a brief ‘process’ description. He said that their role did not include designing the project and taking it to construction. He said their services were to prepare the City to be a better client for the architect in order to get going swiftly.  He described the options the city had at this stage: 1) to hire a master planner, 2) to hire an architecture firm who would begin to immediately design a facility and move directly into the building phase 3) to hire a design-build firm who would design and then go into construction almost immediately.  He said it depended on how certain you are that you know exactly what you want. He described the advantages of each of the options. He said that if you did not know exactly what the facility needed, or the function of everything it needed, the spaces that needed to be there, the approximate size, where it would be located and how it fits into the community, then the master-planner would be a good suggestion. He said that a master-planner helps to bring everyone together at a better price and was a more cost efficient option. He described the process and the four steps they were suggesting which largely involved community consensus from the very beginning. He said once the goals were established they would think about equipment involved, and the program costs. He said they could then put together some concepts for community consideration.  He described a similar process that happened in Suwanee.  He said that all the costs could be calculated from the costs of professional services, to the building itself as well as the equipment needed to run it.  Bosman said a similar process would cost about $8000 for the City of Berkeley Lake and could be completed in 2 months.

Sipe said there was no rush but Council would be looking at a number of options and the pros and cons of them, versus anyone presenting what has been determined for us. He said it was important for Council to do their due diligence and to chose from the options understanding what the pros and cons are. He said he was glad to see a lot of community involvement. He said the community was very involved in it and did want to participate and hear what was happening. He said that this kind of process would help get to a solution we all felt comfortable with.

Citizen Comment: Betty Covington 342 Lakeshore Drive
Covington asked why the company stopped short of doing architectural drawings. She said it would be nice to have a ‘turnkey’ job.
 
Bosman said the company had chosen to concentrate in the planning field. He said a typical building process takes 18-24 months to design a facility, and they did not have the staffing level to put together a project for that amount time.  He said that they did work with certain architectural firms and it should save time and money for that process too. He said they could put together a RFP if requested. They can stay on retainer for a time period to manage an architect too.

Guthrie said she would like feedback from Council about the next steps.

Cohen said that he agreed that a planner of some kind would be needed when the time came. He said he also thought that Council should talk to other planning companies who also go through the other operations.  He said Grayson spoke to six planning firms. He said architects living in the city should also be consulted.

Bosman said the planning process could take about 8 weeks, but it would take 12-18 months for design only, and another 12-18 months to build.
 
Guthrie said she would therefore like to start the process sooner rather than later. There was discussion about when the money would be available, which would be within the next four years due to SPLOST. It was pointed out that we could lend ourselves money to be paid back by SPLOST at a later date.

Bosman said that the architectural work was typically a percentage of construction and averaged 6-10% depending on the size of the building, he said it was closer to 8-10% for smaller buildings. He said there would also be administrative fees for surveying the site for example, and utilities and engineering would cost 2-5% depending on the complexity of construction.

Sipe said there were the issues on where it would be built, and if it was not built on the current site there was potential for land acquisition which could take time too.

Bosman said that they could help with the location issue as a product of the design was an idea of what the building might start to look like, basic organization and the requirements for the site to be built upon.

Cohen suggested that he did think Council should consider talking to other firms and involve some of the architects in the city.

Guthrie said she was concerned about using volunteer architects to spend their time on a design that may not be used as was done previously.

Cohen said that would be made obvious upfront but he would like their opinions like those of other citizens, not to do any design work.

Guthrie said she appreciated Bosman’s time. She said she was satisfied with the due diligence of the committee in reaching the conclusion to suggest using ‘Urban Collage’. She said that as the committee had given their recommendation, it was Council who should ask anyone else to come and speak to them.

Cohen said that the committee had not considered anyone else.

Carroll reiterated that they had taken advantage of the due diligence of other cities, Suwanee in particular, in recommending Urban Collage. She said that they had done much of the work for them and feedback from other places about Urban Collage had been very good.

Cohen said that Grayson was a similar sized city and he asked whom they had used for their project.

Carroll said she did know but did not have her notes with her. She said that the committee did feel that the design/build option could create a conflict of interest as the architects chose everyone else working on the project.
 
Cohen said he would still like to hear from at least one more firm, even two. He would still like some more choice.

Sipe agreed and said although he was impressed with the presentation he felt that as Council had to make the decision there should be some due diligence on their behalf.

Carroll agreed to get the committee together to present some other options as soon as possible.

Appointments
Salter said that she would like to approve Shaun Cochran to BLEMA, and Laurel Mauroy to the Events Committee.

Salter said that she would like to recommend Dan Huntington as the appointment for P and Z Commissioner. She said she had emailed Council previously to inform them of her suggestion. She said that Huntington was currently living on Lakeshore Drive, and had previously lived in Berkeley Walk for nine years. She said he was on their Homeowners Association Board for four years, and president for two of them. Whilst on the board he was actively involved in enforcing their covenants. She said that he had also extensively remodeled his home on Lakeshore Drive and had dealt first hand with P and Z related ordinances. She said professionally he was a pilot for Delta Airlines.  She said she felt that he had the perspective reflective of homeowners both in the subdivisions and the older part of the city. She said his leadership experience gave him a good insight into code enforcement. She said she knew he worked hard at his commitments, took his responsibilities very seriously, and was bright enough to study issues thoroughly, render his opinions fairly and treat citizens with courtesy and respect.  She said she thought Huntington understood the important role that P and Z has, and she had put a lot of thought and consideration in suggesting the appointment as she thought he was the best candidate.
 
Sipe motioned not to confirm the appointment. Cohen seconded the motion.

In discussion Sipe read the following statement into the minutes:
“I am saddened for our community and very disappointed in Mayor Salter's decision to withhold reappointment of Skip Johnson to the Planning and Zoning Commission after serving us with unquestionable dedication for 12 years.  Make no mistake about it, not reappointing Commissioner Johnson is the same as dismissing him...  but in a politically convenient way that bypasses the normal requirements of dismissal for cause and a public hearing.

Experience is the most important qualification for a P&Z Commissioner.  It takes new Commissioners a year to come up to speed on the basics and several years after that for sufficient history to internalize the logic and framework crucial to sound, fair decisions.  Additional years of service give the Commissioner an invaluable long view of ordinance changes and variance decisions - when they were made and why.

Past Mayors and Councilmembers, in order to protect property values and the long-term public interest, have put a high premium on keeping politics away from the P&Z.  That is why P&Z Commissioner terms have been set long, nominally for 5 years.  I say nominally because in fact experienced Commissioners are too valuable to lose.  Past Mayors and Councilmembers have had the wisdom to reappoint Commissioners willing to continue in this public service.
Experience is so important, that Planning and Zoning Chairman Bob Herb together with every Planning and Zoning Commissioner has urged us to reappoint Commissioner Skip Johnson.  This unprecedented recommendation has never happened before, but then again it is unprecedented that a Mayor and Council have considered not reappointing.  As the only other past Planning and Zoning Chairman in the City, having served on the Commission for 9 years and having served as Chairman for the last 7 of those prior to my election to Council, I join with the entire P&Z in urging my fellow Councilmembers to accept only the most qualified candidate for this role and to put the City's interest above politics. 

The Planning and Zoning Commission is not in any way similar to a Mayoral Committee.  Committee members have no statutory authority, work for the Mayor, are appointed at the sole discretion of the Mayor, are directed by the Mayor, and may be removed at any time by the Mayor.  In strong contrast - P&Z Commissioners have statutory authority in several areas and are thus formally members of City government - not the Mayor's staff, they are nominated by the Mayor but by ordinance under the advice of City Council and must be formally approved by City Council.  Removal of a P&Z Commissioner has some of the strongest requirements for any non-elected City official - requiring both cause and a public hearing.  These requirements are in place for Commissioners in order that nominees are selected by the Mayor and Council as a group, that the Mayor and Council as a group formally approve the appointment, and that once appointed protect the P&Z from the corrosive and damaging effects of partisan politics.

Mayor Salter has affected another dubious Mayoral first for our City by recommending a comparatively inexperienced candidate over a seasoned P&Z Commissioner.  Previous Mayors have reappointed P&Z Commissioners who are willing and able to continue their service, even when they “inherited” them from political opponents in previous administrations.  Previous Mayors have recognized the steep, multi-year learning curve for zoning matters and valued the continuity and consistency crucial for fairness in zoning decisions.

Skip is 1 of only 2 senior members of the P&Z.  Yes - 1 of only 2 senior members of the P&Z and has served our City under 3 Mayors and numerous Councilmembers.  Other than Councilman Cohen, Skip's service began long before that of us now effectively sitting in judgment of him.  The experience and dedication to our City shown by Commissioner Johnson would be a significant and unnecessary loss.  In his long and honorable service, Skip has not only contributed to innumerable variance decisions but has on many occasions taken the initiative to expand and strengthen our code in order to protect property values including one before us earlier this very evening.  He has served us during the development of all of our subdivisions.  Skip's distinguished service has always been with the highest integrity, recusing himself whenever there was any potential conflict.

As I noted previously - because the Planning and Zoning Commission exercises delegated authority, makes decisions under the force of law, must recommend any change to zoning code, and directly decides any exceptions via the variance process - any appointment must be with the advice and consent of City Council per section 3-701-2 of our ordinances.  Let the record show that the consent sought this evening to replace Commissioner Johnson is without the advice of Council and with notice only 1 day ago from Mayor Salter.  In making this nomination without the advice of Council, Mayor Salter has failed to uphold her oath to abide by our ordinances.

If the current City Council operates in the best interest of our community, then we will not approve a lesser-qualified candidate unless Mayor Salter can convincingly justify why Commissioner Johnson (who she herself reappointed 5 years ago) is suddenly no longer the best choice for his seat on the P&Z.

From my service, I know that the most important qualification for a P&Z Commissioner is deep knowledge of our zoning code, its nuances, its history, its strengths, and its weaknesses.  A background in real estate, construction, property law, and similar areas are valuable but no substitute for long-term zoning experience.  Such unique experience should be valued for the benefit of the entire community, not thrown away.

There is but one explanation for this.  In the recent election Mayor Salter, not a candidate for election herself, took the unprecedented step as a sitting Mayor in publicly supporting and campaigning for three candidates.  Every citizen received her political endorsement letter that she signed over her title of Mayor.  As only a citizen, Skip also sent a letter to some of his neighbors in support of candidates, but of those Mayor Salter publicly opposed.  The Mayor and Skip are obviously on opposite sides of the political fence.  The question is will the time tested practice of reappointment and the appointment of the best-qualified candidate prevail or will political retribution be the overriding priority?

This vote will be an early test for the newly elected council members who campaigned on a platform vigorously opposed to what they called “block voting”.  Should support for Mayor Salter in this ill-advised and morally questionable move come only from these council members, then the role of partisan politics will be squarely set above the interest of our community for the remainder of Mayor Salter's term and that of their own.

I urge council to place the interest of our City above political considerations and personal political ambitions.  With his 12 years of solid service on the Berkeley Lake Planning and Zoning Commission, no other candidate is as qualified as Commissioner Skip Johnson.

Over just the last 2 years Mayor Salter herself has appointed Craig Belt, Rodney Hammond, and Gary Moore in response to departures.  Such openings are the opportunity to consider new people including Dan Huntington.

In summary, we are obliged to now compare two candidates - one directly under this motion and one as a reference for qualifications.

• Commissioner Skip Johnson has attended Planning and Zoning meetings for 12 years, Dan Huntington appears to have attended only a single meeting in which he had a personal interest.

• Commissioner Johnson has over a decade of Berkeley Lake Planning and Zoning experience.  Dan appears to have no P&Z experience either in Berkeley Lake or elsewhere.

• Commissioner Johnson has a long record of dedication and accomplishment in his P&Z tenure.  Dan appears to have no record in this area so far.

• Commissioner Johnson has the support of the current and past Berkeley Lake Planning and Zoning Chairmen with 24 years of combined experience.

• Commissioner Johnson has the support of every Planning and Zoning Commissioner.

• No non-political reason has been raised supporting the termination of Skip Johnson from his role on the Planning and Zoning Commission.

With all due respect to Dan, his qualifications appear weak in comparison to Commissioner Johnson.  I personally want to thank Dan for his willingness to serve on the P&Z and urge him to begin gaining experience by occasionally attending P&Z meetings as Craig Belt and Gary Moore did prior to their appointments.”

Kitchens said that he resented Sipe’s entire statement. He said it was not a political platform, and he was opposed to Sipe having read something like that.

Salter said that the decision she had made in making the appointment was made very carefully and not for political reasons. She said people would chose to believe whatever they wanted but her conscience was clear in that regard and her morals were her own, and not available for other people’s judgment (she hoped) in this decision. She said it was a difficult to make a decision but it was the best she could make for the City. She asked Council to do the same.

Anderson said it was a compelling statement and an excellent description of P and Z and the requirements for it. However he was concerned about some of the comments, as they seemed like they were political in their content. He said that he knew other P and Z commissioners that had been appointed were replacing leaving members, and he understood that there could be continuing members who wished to continue, and there was a desire for them to continue. However he said he had not heard that the issue at hand was rejecting Skip Johnson. He said that he understood that Sipe read it that way. He said he did not think it was a scenario of putting Salter versus Johnson politically either. He said his concern was that by saying if Council votes to put one person in that it is political, if they vote to put another in it is not. He said he did not understand how it would work that way. He said he did see some value in involving more of community in P and Z to spread more understanding, and one of the ways it could be done was rotating members of P and Z, and understandably that it could come at a cost in losing expertise to some extent which does take time to build. He said it was important to him to spread the expertise among the community by utilizing those people who were willing to be appointed as it was not an easy job. He said he was interested in involving more people in the process, and that was why he had voted for a three year term.

Sipe said some of his statement was his interpretation of what had happened. He said  part of it had come from so blatantly not following the ordinance, which requires nominations to be on the advice and consent of council. He said that Council had not been asked for any advice, they had been told a day ago by an email from Salter, which Council was now supposed to approve. He said there was no discussion on the candidate, and Council had been forced into the situation. He said he would have preferred to have handled it differently. Sipe said he did not disagree with Anderson’s comments. He said on the need for occasional rotations, if all the members had been there for the last 10 years there may have been some ‘staleness’, however within the last two years three of the members had been replaced, which left only two senior ones on P and Z. He said they had been there long enough to realize experience is necessary. He said that ultimately it is Council's job to appoint the most qualified person to the position, as a responsibility to the community. He said that Skip Johnson has twelve years of Berkeley Lake zoning experience. He said that Johnson had originated the boathouse ordinance that Council had just passed tonight. He said that Huntington may be a good P and Z commissioner and he would not be opposed to considering him when there is an opening, but to do that by taking Johnson off when he is only one of two experienced commissioners was not responsible.

Cohen and Sipe were in favor of the motion. Anderson, Guthrie, Kitchens were against the motion. The motion failed.

Kitchens motioned to accept the appointment of Dan Huntington for P and Z commissioner. Guthrie seconded the motion.

Anderson asked what Sipe would like to see in terms of time to ‘advice and consent’.

Sipe said if he was mayor and wanted to follow the ordinance, and he were leaning toward not appointing an existing commissioner for the first time ever he would have brought it to council’s attention, saying why he did not want to appoint that person and why he thought someone else was more qualified, and there would be discussion on that, probably on email. But this did not happen at all.

Guthrie said that Council knew at the last Council meeting that the mayor’s intent was not to reappoint Skip Johnson, and it was very clear in an email that was sent from Bob Herb. She said if Sipe was that concerned about the City he could have called or emailed the mayor, and could have asked her what she was thinking, who she was considering and had some dialogue with her about it. She said Council did not have to sit around and wait for information to be fed to them. She said it was up to Council to be proactive to do due diligence on the issue.

Salter said she disagreed with the portrayal that she had done it in secret. She said that weeks ago she had taken the step of calling Johnson himself to let him know she was considering other candidates and he might not be reappointed. She said she had also called and spoke to Bob Herb, and every member of Council was aware, as Herb had emailed everyone, which was discussed at the last meeting. She said she did not think it had come as a shock. She said that Sipe had said that she should let everyone know why she was opposed to Johnson, she said it was an issue she had really struggled with. She said she had decided that in her role as mayor in appointing a new person, she should not be required to tear down the other person. She said she had avoided that and would continue to do so.

Sipe said that Council was aware Salter was not reappointing Johnson because they were alerted by the email from Bob Herb. He said that according to Herb, Johnson and Herb were told two different reasons for not reappointing Johnson: one was a conflict of interest with him as a realtor; the other was told it would be valuable to the City to appoint another person who lives in a sub-division. He said it was hearsay however.  He said that this evening was the first time he had heard the full description from Salter of what Huntington’s qualifications might be and it should have been passed to council some time ago. He said that Huntington’s name was mentioned for the first time the day before and Council was asked to confirm his appointment.

Guthrie said that Council had known since January 5th, when the appointment was not brought up that there was a possibility that someone else was going to be appointed.

Sipe said he did not know, as he believed the appointment was not made due to Kitchen’s introduction of an ordinance to reduce the terms of service of P and Z.

Guthrie agreed that was a valid thought, but the phone calls to Herb and Johnson had taken place in January. She said she felt confident that Sipe had spoken to Johnson or Herb about the appointment at that time.

Sipe said he had only heard when Herb had called him with his concerns, and he was not involved in the decision making loop. He said it was the responsibility of council to advise and confirm the Mayors appointment.

Anderson asked again how that process could be achieved.

Sipe said he would like to hold off on the appointment to consider the qualifications of the candidate. He said there was no rush in the new appointment as the existing commissioner could stay on until the determination was made.

Kitchens asked if that would change Sipe’s position at all.

Sipe said he would like to know more about Huntington, and to speak to him.

Kitchens said he would like to see Johnson’s record for the last 10 years for every meeting.
 
Sipe said the minutes were available and the clerk could provide them.

Salter said that there was time that Sipe could have called and talked to Huntington, and Huntington had attended the meeting. She said she thought some entrenched positions had been taken and she was not sure there was anything Huntington could do or say to change Sipe’s mind.

Guthrie said when she was appointed to Council in 2004, there was controversy at that time that the majority of council did not advertise for her position, did not look to see if she were qualified or ask the community. She said she was appointed within days of the resignation of the Council member and Sipe had adamantly defended the right of Council to do that. She said she found it ironic that in this situation, the decision was supposed to be dragged out and all the qualifications sought. She said that the appointment was on the table, and a decision needed to be made and not dragged out any more. She said when ‘the shoe was on the other foot’ it was handled in a totally different way.

Sipe said it was a different situation as there was an opening and no one was sitting in. He said that the P and Z ordinance reads that the commissioner sits until someone else is appointed. He said it was a decision to be made by Council. In this case three or more members of council did not come up with a nomination, the mayor did it by herself, which is her statutory responsibility but with the advice and consent of council.

Guthrie said that the ordinance does not say when the advice should happen, and the Council meeting discussion was time for ‘advice’. There was discussion going on at the meeting and everyone was expressing their opinions; there was nothing in the code to define when it should happen.

Sipe agreed but reiterated that the common sense viewed that the ‘advice’ part should allow for some time for discussion to consider the appointment and then consent could happen quickly.

Anderson said it sounded to him that Sipe did not feel he had enough time to evaluate Huntington’s credentials.

Sipe disagreed, he said that the issue was not that Huntington’s credentials were in question as he was probably as qualified as anyone who had joined P and Z but not reappointing a sitting member was a different situation. This had never happened before, and now Council was faced with comparing two candidates, the existing one and someone else.

Guthrie said if that was the case, no one would ever stand up against anyone who was currently on P and Z as they would always have better qualifications and experience. No one would ever change on P and Z unless someone stepped down and that was not the way it was set up. P and Z does operate independently from Council but they do not have the power to appoint members - that is the responsibility of the mayor and council to vote on; it is a check and balance in our system. Citizens have no voice to appoint P and Z other than through the council members they elect, and it is Council’s role to make that choice. If the only way to choose someone is according to their experience, then P&Z appointments become lifetime positions like supreme court judges, as council would have no choice in the matter if someone wants to stay on. She said that was not the way the system was set up, and for good reason.

Sipe said he was not saying the people were appointed to P and Z because of their experience ‘period’. He said he had asked in his statement for reasons why Johnson was no longer the right person for the role.

Guthrie said that was the same as performing a public hearing to remove somebody, which is not the point now. She said Sipe was saying that if someone was not going to be reappointed, there had to be reason to do so, or cause, which is not what the ordinances say.

Sipe said that another way would be for the mayor to discuss the reasons with Council in email or by phone. He said he expected, especially as he had P and Z experience himself, to have been consulted on the idea. He said he may disagree with the appointment but there should have been the discussion.

Guthrie said with the emphasis Sipe put on years of experience, she did not think that the mayor could appoint anyone and convince Sipe or anyone on P and Z that they were the right person.

Sipe said Guthrie was right so long as all other things were equal, despite Johnson’s twelve years of experience, despite that Mayor Salter had reappointed him only five years ago, that now someone was more qualified than he was. He said that it was his preference that someone with experience and most qualified was appointed.

Kitchens, Guthrie and Anderson were in favor of the motion. Cohen and Sipe opposed the motion. The motion passed.

Money Management Issues.
Salter said that there was a perennial question about the investment of city funds. She said at the last meeting Cohen had expressed a concern about the reinvestment of some of the CD’s as he had felt other banks could match the rate that the city was already getting. She said Council had discussed the issue by email regarding that no other contacted bank would match Peachtree’s rate and offer a security pledge . She said she would like Council to consider whether the funds were secure enough where they are or whether they would feel the need to go through the same process again.

Cohen said there was an excellent set up with Peachtree Bank but his only concern was that all the money was in one bank and it would be safer if some of the money were in another bank or among several banks. He said he understood it took time to investigate other banks but he suggested that the Treasurer contact other cities or counties to see how they invest their money, in what banks and under what conditions.

Salter said that previous council member Delicia Reynolds had investigated that in the past, and cities, especially those larger than Berkeley Lake did not spread their funds over several banks to protect through the FDIC. They protected their funds in the same way as the City did with Peachtree Bank through a pledge of funds from another bank.
 
Cohen said he still thought other banks would offer the same service as Peachtree Bank.   It was a good service but he still thought it was safer to spread the money.  The City Clerk gave a summary of the banks she had spoken with and their responses about rates and security pledges.

Guthrie gave an overview of the situation as she had researched it: $100,000 was covered per entity per bank with the FDIC. According to Georgia code, public funds over $100,000 should be protected at 110% of the balance less than the $100,000 FDIC  covered portion. She said Peachtree was very familiar with the process, and other municipalities also invested with them. She said that they had taken out a security pledge to cover our investment, and in the case of Peachtree, it was in the form of shares that they own in ‘Fanny Mae’.  The security pledge is held at SunTrust Bank who is the custodian. If there was a qualifying event at Peachtree, SunTrust was required to release those funds to the City. Peachtree also has to report their security pledges in their annual statements. Guthrie said that when the clerk had called other banks regarding a pledge, they did not know what she was talking about. She said Peachtree Bank was very well versed in the situation and habitually keep the secured pledge higher than what is required, which she had verified.

Cohen asked how immediately SunTrust would release the pledged funds. He said normally dispersal of funds would take years. It would be safer for the City if money was spread.

Guthrie said she did not know how fast the FDIC would release funds, but that SunTrust held the funds for that purpose and she thought they would be released more easily than the FDIC funds.
 
There was further discussion about not repeating the same issues every time a CD was up to be renewed, and the possibility of spreading the funds into other banks which offered the same service as Peachtree Bank. Guthrie pointed out that the banking relationship was also important.  There was more discussion about the safety issue.
 
Guthrie said that the banks themselves were also rated at Bankrate.com for example, and Peachtree fell high on the scales they used, and she felt it was good practice to check those ratings.

Pam Williamson- City Treasurer.  Williamson said that she intended to meet with Peachtree Bank to clarify the pledge access question, and she would report back at the next meeting. She said that they were also looking at the banking relationship with SunTrust too.

$500 Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful prize money
Salter asked Council’s opinion about using the prize money to beautify the city property across the road from City Hall.

Sipe said he was concerned about cleaning all the area out and allowing public access to the lake, as it was FPR property, and therefore would be open to the public. He said it would be a security problem for BLHA and would like to ask them their opinion about it.

Anderson said that the FPR property also would not allow the building of a fence etc.

There was discussion about not clearing out the whole area to still restrict access. It was agreed for their liaison, Anderson, to ask BLHA their opinion.
 
Resolution- Annexation as a private property right.  Annexation_Support_Resolution.pdf
Sipe motioned to adopt the annexation resolution that GMA had asked the city to pass.  Cohen seconded the motion.
 
Carothers agreed it was a good resolution to support.

All were in favor of the motion. The motion passed.

Cohen motioned to go into executive session to consider land acquisition and annexation, and personnel issues. 

Anderson seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.

Cohen motioned to exit executive session, Kitchens seconded the motion and all were in favor.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, COHEN MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY  10:30 PM. SIPE SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED.

Respectfully submitted by Jackie Wall. Approved by Council on February 19th, 2006