Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Bernie Cohen, Walter Anderson, Debbie Guthrie, Tom Kitchens and George Sipe
City Clerk- Jackie Wall
City Attorney- Richard Carothers
City Engineer- Rich Edinger
Citizens Present- 7           

CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:30 pm at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.

PUBLIC HEARING
There were no comments for the public hearing regarding the annexation of the detention pond next to Berkeley Lake Village on Peachtree Industrial Blvd (currently owned by Crescent Development).

I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Salter said the only addition to the agenda she was requesting was regarding guidance for the replacement of the city clerk. This addition was adopted by consensus of council. There was also agreement to change the order of the meeting to allow the guest speakers to speak first.

II. MINUTES
Kitchens motioned to accept the minutes from the October 5th 2006 meeting.  Guthrie seconded the motion.
After some discussion, it was agreed that not everyone had seen the final version of the minutes, and so the motion was withdrawn. The minutes will be reviewed at the next meeting.

III. REPORTS
a. Financial reports
Guthrie motioned to accept the un-audited September financial statements. Kitchens seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.
 Sept_06_Balance .pdf
 Sept_06_Detail.pdf
 Sept_06_Summary.pdf 

b. Salter said that Council had received reports from the Berkeley Lake Conservancy (BLC), the Events and Community Affairs committee, the Police and OEO.

Betty Covington, chair of BLC, said her report was answering the mayor’s questions that had been sent to the committee chairs. She also noted that she had drafted a site management plan for the greenspace and sent it to council. She said she was also trying to schedule a walk through of the greenspace this month with the state forester, Dale Higdon and GOLT member, Carol Hassel to discuss the issues of water bars and privet removal.

There was some discussion about the staggered terms described in the ordinance and who was technically still appointed to the conservancy. It was agreed to review this again at the next meeting.

IV. MAYORS MESSAGE TO COUNCIL
Salter submitted the following to council in writing:
'Since our last council meeting I have attended another Community Leadership Meeting led by Partnership Gwinnett.  I believe that what they are doing will have a strong positive impact on our future property values and quality of life.  Some of our Council members heard an abridged version of these meetings at the last GwMA meeting.  I urge those who couldn’t attend, as well as our citizens, to visit the website, www.partnershipgwinnett.com to see what’s going on there.

The information that Debbie Guthrie and I got when we visited the United Peachtree Corners Civic Association meeting was somewhat similar to what we’re learning from Partnership Gwinnett.  UPCCA had invited Dr. Doug Bachtel of UGA to speak to them about the changing demographics of our area.  If any of you are interested in that information, please talk with me or Debbie.

Charlie Carroll, our BLEMA chairperson, and I participated in a “tabletop emergency management exercise” with representatives of the county, the police, FEMA, GEMA, the school system, and various other agencies.  They are trying to prepare for pandemic flu, the prospect of which they keep saying is a “when” and not an “if.”  The scenarios are extremely sobering, and I came away with some specific recommendations I would like to make for us to consider.

The last time this occurred was early in the last century and 50 million people died, worse than the plague.  Today it will spread much faster because people move so quickly and frequently around the world.  If an infected but not yet symptomatic person gets on a jumbo airliner in Asia, many people will breathe the same air with him for hours and then disperse throughout our country before anyone knows they’re sick.  The old and the young would be most vulnerable, but many could die and the entire fabric of our society could be greatly strained.  I would urge all our citizens to get yearly flu shots because in spite of the fact that they won’t ward off a mutant strain in a pandemic, I’m told there may be some minimal crossover protection. 

The chief advice offered at this meeting in the event of a pandemic is what they call “social distancing” which means “stay home.”  Council should explore the legal possibilities of decision-making without face-to-face meetings.  Important decisions will still need to be made, even and especially in such circumstances.  We need to be able to function without city hall being open and without face-to-face meetings.  We need to plan for and consider the impact on our employees.  I would expect that our police might be unavailable to us for a time under our current arrangements.  I believe we need more cross training among our employees.  I’m told that communication will be critical and we need to strengthen those avenues via radios, website, email groups, etc.  Is it possible for us in an emergency to have a meeting via website forum with online discussion?  I believe we should perhaps allow our citizens to buy emergency supplies like masks at a bulk cost through us.  I recommend the website www.pandemicflu.gov for more information.

I truly do not want to create a lot of anxiety about this, but if this threat is indeed a “when” then we must plan for it and educate our people in advance.  Additionally, these suggestions have benefits beyond just the preparation for pandemic flu. 

On a happier note, our Fall Festival will be this Sunday afternoon, Oct. 22, 2-4:30 pm.  Although the City will pay for it, as you know we rely on BLOSOMS to do the work, and I understand that Beth Gilbert is having a very difficult time getting volunteers.  Please encourage anyone you know to contact her immediately if they can possibly help on Sunday.  

Please remember Fall Earth Day on Saturday, October 28. 

I heard from Bert Nasuti today that the new dog park, which I requested of him, will open tomorrow at Pinckneyville Park.  The total area of the dog park is slightly less than 3 acres, and consists of a small-dog area and a larger play area for all dogs. There are some grassy areas and some wooded areas for shade.  Dogs are permitted to play in these fenced areas without leashes, and there are two water fountains featuring dog bowls.

I very much regret to inform you of the likelihood that we will lose Jackie soon as our City Clerk.  Her husband is considering a very good job in California, and I believe we need to explore the possibilities of attempting to replace her'.

Salter added that she had some information regarding 'Partnership Gwinnett' should council like to review it. She also said that the City had received confirmation from the EPD that the city's MS4 permit application was acceptable.

III OLD BUSINESS
a. Public Works Infrastructure project
The city engineer, Rich Edinger said that bids for this project were opened the previous week and that a copy of the bids was available. The apparent low bidder (JHC) however had since withdrawn their bid after an error was discovered in their bid calculations. The city engineer said he was satisfied that it was a genuine reason and JHC was allowed to withdraw their bid by state law without forfeiting the bid bond. It would also mean that they could not be involved in the project in any other way, even as a sub-contractor. The next apparent low bidder was Site Engineering who bid $467,000. The Miramont 'Deductive Alternate One' was $30,000. 'Additive Alternate Two' was to install concrete pipe instead of the HDPE plastic pipe for an extra $12,000. He said that 'Allowance One' was to lower the lake for $8000. Edinger said he did recommend Site Engineering as he had worked with them before, and they had done an excellent job. He recommended both alternate one (for Miramont) and alternate two (for the more durable concrete pipe), as well as allowance one (lowering the lake) for a total cost to the city of $457,000.

The city engineer described the other options open to council should they decide not to accept the apparent low bid, and their advantages and disadvantages, which included re-bidding the project, and renegotiating the scope of the project.

There was some discussion about the budget for the project, and whether it would all be covered using SPLOST funds. It was noted after reviewing the budget that the SPLOST funds would be sufficient for this project.

Kitchens motioned to accept the bid for Site engineering for $457,000 for the Berkeley Lake drainage project. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed.

b) Road Safety Study (StreetSmarts proposal) -John Karnowski Street_Smarts_Proposal.pdf
Salter said that she had just been told that the County will not pay to do the surveys for Berkeley Lake Road even though it is a county road as it would open them up to similar requests from other cities. She also said that there was no bottom line cost on the Streetsmarts proposal, just a menu of costs depending on the services requested.

John Karnowski said that it was a good idea to identify the problems and issues first and then to do the research for them in small bites, which is why the menu of services was requested by the city.

There was some discussion about what could be done once the issues were identified. It was also noted that the time between Thanksgiving and Christmas was not a good time to do a survey. The stormwater repair project on Lakeshore Drive may also have an effect on traffic.

It was suggested to have a short meeting first to identify the issues. Sipe and Kitchens and Anderson volunteered to meet with Karnowski for such a meeting to discuss his opinions to enable council to make better decisions as to what could be achieved with the research. The City Attorney noted that we should not have three members of Council at that meeting.  Because Anderson stated his intention to recuse himself regarding voting on the Street Smarts proposal, he withdrew from the issues meeting.

Anderson motioned to fund Task 0 Data collection for $650. The motion was then withdrawn.

It was agreed that Sipe and Kitchens would meet for a short discussion with Karnowski to determine what the issues may be before this task moves forward.

b) O-43-06b Chapter 39-1201 Building permit required O-43-06b Ch_39-1201- Building_permit_req.pdf
Kitchens motioned to put Ch 39-1201 Building Permit required on second read and adopt. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.

c) O-37-06d  Ch 39-404 Adult commercial establishments-  not advertised for this meeting- tabled until November 16th pending another advertisement for a public hearing.

d) O-39-06b Chapter 20 Street Curbs and sidewalks- tabled until the next meeting.

e)  Emergency preparedness Plan- PrepareFirst Proposal  PrepareFirst_Proposal.pdf
Kitchens motioned to adopt the proposal from PrepareFirst and implement it for a dollar amount not to succeed $5000. Anderson seconded the motion.

There was a question regarding the possibility of a liability for the city. The city attorney said the city officials would be insured in such circumstances.

After some discussion regarding training, materials and printing costs, the motion was modified and seconded not to succeed $7000.

Citizen Comment: Deb Robinson 540 Lakeshore Drive
Robinson noted that there may be ongoing costs for certain aspects of the proposal, for example, for certification renewal and for printing and storage of supplies.

There was further discussion as to who would be trained and what type of training would be offered.

Anderson, Cohen, Kitchens and Sipe were in favor of the motion. Guthrie recused herself from the vote. The motion passed.

f) O-45 06b Ch 3 Administration  O-45-06b_Ch_03_Admin_Ord.pdf
There was discussion as to whether council was ready to discuss this chapter. It was noted that council had seen the changes for a month already and therefore:

Guthrie motioned to put Chapter 3 Administration on first read. Kitchens seconded the motion.

Salter noted that some changes on the ordinance could directly effect the budget which is why she would like to see the ordinance 'on the floor' sooner rather than later.

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

g) O-44-06 Chapter 11.103 Parking on city streets.
There was discussion as to what the aims of the changes requested in this ordinance were and whether there was a consensus of council that the issues such as parking on the right of way should be addressed.  It was noted that parking in the right of way does cause erosion, however that some exceptions need to be made due to the topography of Lakeshore drive. It was also noted that some penalties should be built into the revised ordinance, as well as whether vehicles other than cars such as trailers and trucks should be prohibited.  There was some discussion about overnight parking on the streets or in the right of way in order not to obstruct traffic. However this may also affect pedestrians. There was a consensus that more work needed to done on this ordinance before it was presented for first read. Anderson offered to put forward his suggestions in the ordinance itself and Carothers agreed to work with him on it.

VI. NEW BUSINESS
a) Issues relating to City Hall planning
Barbara Carroll – City Hall liaison. Carroll described how the issues came up and why there was a need to discuss them: the issues need to be clarified in order for Urban Collage to complete their presentation for the next city hall meeting and presentation to council and leadership group on November 2nd.

1. What community events may be allowed in city hall? Dinners, banquets, meetings other than City Council and committees, recreational things?

There was discussion as to whether city hall could be used by other groups after business hours. It was noted that rooms used by the public may need to be kept apart from the business area. There was discussion about whether the space would be free to use, as there would be a cost to the city for cleaning etc. It was noted that it was possible to charge different amounts for citizens versus non-residents. The attorney suggested a cleaning deposit should be requested. There was general consensus that there should only be a small kitchen in the city hall.  The chapel has a full kitchen available to rent if a kitchen was needed, and it was preferable not to compete with that facility.

Citizen Comment: Frank Lombardi 20 Lakeshore Drive.
Lombardi asked if the city could make a profit from this. The attorney saw no reason why not.

Citizen Comment: Rebecca Spitler
Spitler noted that the fire station still had a room that was free to use. However the room now housed equipment that made it harder to do so. There were some thoughts that they had recently stopped renting it out too.

2. Do we want a Senior Center with the potential use of that facility for additional needs and to provide additional funding?

There were different opinions on this issue. Cohen noted that there would be no cost to the taxpayers for the addition of a senior center. It would allow for flexibility as it could be used for large council meetings and also have a large kitchen for functions. It would be a separate building and not part of the city hall building.  Such a building would have an impact on the layout of a city hall. However there were also questions as to whether any needs assessment had been done, as to whether anyone in the community wanted such a center, whether the number of seniors in the population would warrant it, and whether grant money could actually be obtained for it as 7.2% of the population was over 65 in last census. There would also be other costs associated with running the facility. It was also noted that a senior center could provide services, and for example, be a rehabilitative facility.  There was concern expressed that there was not enough money to build a city hall, and this would relieve the pressure.  Other concerns were expressed about whether a grant would be given in our circumstances, and whether this facility would duplicate services offered by the Pinkneyville center nearby. There was more discussion about operating costs of such a facility.
 
Cohen motioned that the city should consider a senior center as part of the city hall plan as a separate facility. Sipe seconded the motion. Cohen and Sipe were in favor of the motion. Anderson, Sipe and Guthrie were against. The motion failed.

3. What future growth might affect the necessary size of city hall, ie annexation?

It was questioned whether any future annexation would affect an increase in the size of services and therefore the future needs of city hall. There was consensus that the new city hall should be built with the maximum flexibility with the current funds available with an eye to an increase in population and services provided.

4. Do we need to plan for public safety space that would allow for a police force of our own?

There was much discussion about the possibility of the city having its own police department in years to come. There was general agreement that extended police coverage may be necessary in the future but there was not a consensus as to whether our own small police force could be accommodated in the plans for a new city hall now. There were questions about the possibility of needing police holding cells, judge chambers and the inherent security issues this would entail. It was suggested it could be a different facility in the future.

Sipe motioned to direct Urban Collage to design City Hall not to preclude the possibility of our own small police department in the future housed at this location, Cohen seconded the motion.  Sipe and Cohen were in favor of the motion. Kitchens, Guthrie and Anderson against. The Motion failed.

There was some confusion as to the meaning of the motion.

After more discussion Anderson motioned to ask Urban Collage to attempt to include in the plan layout, space to expand the building for a possibility of a police or safety facility if possible.

Cohen seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion and the motion passed.

5. Do we want to consider incorporating a cell tower and base site, requiring exterior access and approximately 100-120 Sq. ft for equipment?

There was a consensus that this should be the case. The only question was whether the space suggested would be large enough. It was suggested that there should be a minimum of 200 sq ft. to include space to store emergency equipment and a back up generator or city communication equipment.

Citizen Comment: Frank Lombardi 20 Lakeshore Drive
Lombardi said the city would be the site manager, so whatever the city chose to put in the same space was up to them. It would not be a concern to the cell tower provider.

6. Do we want to plan for an emergency generator as backup for HVAC, emergency communications, a shelter for children and elderly, etc.?

The consensus was that there should be room for an emergency generator for emergency communications as noted above but not for an emergency shelter which could be better provided for elsewhere due to the lack of bathrooms and kitchen facilities.

There was a concern that there should be a run off detention facility to accommodate any stormwater run off from such a facility.

b) Gwinnett County Body Art ordinance
This was tabled until the next meeting.

c) OEO
Salter said that the city had received a letter of resignation from OEO Charlie Sewell, and that council had accepted it.

Salter suggested that the temporary OEO Gene Rodgers be appointed as a permanent OEO in his place. Anderson motioned that this be the case. Sipe seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.

d) Occupational Tax / Regulatory Fees- Anderson
Anderson described the difference between the Occupation Tax and Regulatory fees and sought councils guidance on the direction in which to proceed. He suggested basing fees on the number of employees. After some discussion, it was suggested that as council had discussed this in the past it would be preferable to continue from the same point rather than to begin the discussions again from the beginning.

e) O-46-06 Annexation of Crescent Development's Detention pond.
 O-46-06_Detention_pond_annexation.pdf
Kitchens motioned to put the annexation on first read, Anderson seconded the motion.

In discussion, it was suggested that the County Stormwater Utility could eventually be responsible for the inspection and upkeep of detention ponds and that it would be in the city's and the owners best interest to leave it in the county limits as it would cost both parties less. It was also noted that this point had been made before and that it was at the city's original request and a condition of the zoning that the pond be annexed in the first place.

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

f) Septic Tank Extension Requests
Anderson motioned to accept the eight septic tank extension requests submitted by the clerk. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.

g) Likelihood of the City clerk leaving
Salter said there was a distinct possibility that the city clerk would be leaving the city. She asked for council's guidance in replacing her. She suggested that this could be a time to consider it an opportunity to change the job description to make it a different position such as a City Administrator or City Manager position in light of the increasing responsibility the position entailed. After some discussion there was a consensus of opinion to keep the position as a city clerk and to make the position a full time one and to offer a salary range of between $38,000 - $43,000 based on the current city clerk hourly rate with the number of hours increased from part-time to 40 hours per week full-time and based on current figures available from the DCA wage and salary survey for a similar sized city with no benefits. It was suggested however that some research could be completed to see if benefits could be offered through GMA or the Chamber of Commerce.

IV. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Randy Kirkus - Chair of Public Works
Kirkus said that he appreciated the big step council had taken to repair the infrastructure in the city by taking on the full responsibility for the storm water repair.

V. EXECUTIVE SESSION
Anderson motioned to enter into executive session in order to discuss personnel and land issues. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed.

Anderson motioned to exit the executive session. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion passed.

VI. OLD BUSINESS continued
h).Condemnation for the remaining storm water project easements
Anderson motioned to authorize the city attorney to begin the necessary condemnation procedures by obtaining appraisals of the properties for an amount not to exceed $7500. Cohen seconded the motion.

In discussion, Sipe noted again that he was still opposed to condemnation of personal property.

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

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ANDERSON MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY 10.43 PM. SIPE SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED.

Respectfully submitted by Jackie Wall. Approved by Council on November 2nd, 2006.