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- Ron Bennett
Citizens Present- 19            

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

I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Salter requested a change in the order of the agenda to allow for visitors to speak first.  It was also noted that ‘Citizens Comments’ had been mistakenly omitted from the agenda and needed to be added. There was consensus from council that this should be so.

II. MINUTES
Kitchens motioned to accept the minutes from the October 5th 2006 council meeting.   Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.

Anderson motioned to accept the minutes of the October 19th 2006 council meeting. Kitchens seconded the motion and all were in favor and the motion passed.

III. REPORTS
a. Urban Collage- Eric Bosman and Matt Cherry.
 110206_Council_Meeting_Presentation.pdf
Bosman started with a summary of community vision session key points and went over the points which had been prioritized by the citizens who had attended the last Town Hall meeting:
•    Consider reusing the existing City Hall site to enhance and reinforce Berkeley Lake’s ‘City Center’
•    Provide flexibility and the ability to accommodate a variety of functions
•    Reinforce the city’s lake location and accommodate views to the lake
•    Design consistent with the character of the community
•    Budget commensurate with allocated SPLOST funds
•    Provide adequate parking

Bosman then described the program of spaces in terms of office area and building support requested:
•    Reception area
•    Mayor’s office
•    Clerk’s office
•    Planning office
•    Shared office
•    File storage
•    Archives/historical documents
•    Kitchen/Break alcove
•    Work/Copy area
•    Toilets

Bosman then described the suggested meeting spaces and communications:
•    Conference room for 10-12
•    Council chambers with 40 person audience capacity
•    Furniture storage
•    BLEMA supplies
•    Cell base site

Bosman then described the expansion potential and exterior needs:
●    Public safety space/office
●    Future office expansion
●    Flag Pole(s)
●    Communications Board
●    Bicycle Rack
●    Outdoor seating/Gathering area
●    Plaza

Bosman then described the master plan concepts:
●    Adjacencies, i.e. what areas need to be located near each other, and
●    Potential building organization

Bosman said the potential city hall used in their examples was 3500-3700 sq ft. He then described the two possible locations and their pro’s and con’s:
‘City Center’
•    Able to accommodate the proposed city hall
•    Minimal site work if on-street parking is utilized
•    Potential for demolition of existing city hall
•    Potential for relocation of existing playground
•    Reinforces ‘city center’ and lake view, residential character

Peachtree Industrial Blvd (PIB)
•    Would require 1.25 to 1.5 acres of property for City Hall alone
•    Additional sidewalk/parking costs required
•    Provides visual presence for city on PIB
•    Flexibility and expandability based on ability to acquire additional property

 OptionA.pdf 
 OptionB.pdf 
 OptionC.pdf
Bosman then showed three concept plans and discussed the three options and their pros and cons of using the existing site. He also discussed pros and cons to a site on PIB. There was  a budget computation based on low and high end costs for both current city hall site and a generic PIB site. He described the approximate costs of construction based on today’s market prices at $135- 150 per sq ft. He said there would be further costs for fixed equipment and site work as well as other costs for project expenses. He said there could be extra costs for a PIB location due to site work and property acquisition.

Salter thanked Bosman for a great presentation and asked for comments from council.

Sipe said he would like to see the corner of PIB and North Berkeley Lake Rd considered as a possible location on PIB instead of buying costly property on PIB. He said the location was currently greenspace but owned by the city, and a portion could be condemned to be used.  He said there would be less costs than buying other property and the parking would provide for access to the green space too. He said this was an ideal opportunity to consider it, although he was not saying that it necessarily should be done. He said that the community may decide to use this property, as he had spoken to a number of people that previously would not have wanted to do anything with the greenspace and who did consider this a possibility if it included a place to expand for a public safety facility in the future.

There was some discussion as to whether this possibility should have been presented to the community at large at the last town hall meeting.

Citizen Comment: Pam Williamson 3996 N Berkeley Lake Rd.
Williamson asked if the greenspace could be used if GOLT (Gwinnett Open Land Trust) now had an easement on it.

Salter explained that the city attorney had researched this, and that it was possible for the city to condemn its own greenspace in order to get the easement back from GOLT.  

Williamson asked if a condemnation would affect the easement on the whole property.

Cohen said that he thought that the city would probably not have to condemn an easement but that GOLT may, with some discussion, give that portion back to the city.

Sipe said he was not pushing for this but it was a possibility that should be considered.
It was noted that there would be more costs involved, even though there would not be costs for land acquisition. It was then noted that there could be significant cost to the City of acquiring the property in the Greenspace for City Hall, depending on how the easement on the condemned Greenspace property was evaluated (it might be necessary to pay such moneys to the State or County); so it is important to not dismiss the issue of the cost of the property (even thought the City owns it) in considering the Greenspace as a possible site. It was also noted that citizens had suggested that the new city hall be built at the current city hall location, but they may not have known that using some of the greenspace was also an option, although there was some discussion about that at the last meeting.

In further discussion, it was noted that the cost for condemnation, were that to be necessary, would probably be very low.  Only the easement would be the subject of a potential condemnation as the City continues to actually own the land.  Additionally, only a very small part of the overall easement would be necessary.  Given that, together with the insignificant price GOLT paid in consideration of the easement, it was felt that any condemnation would in fact not be a significant expense.

There was also further discussion about the concepts shown regarding the city center location, and the costs for the projects, which could exceed the SPLOST monies allocated, and how these costs could be reduced.

After much discussion it was decided that there should be some discussion with GOLT about the possibility of an alternative location using the greenspace. However, it was noted that this use of the Greenspace property may not be the preference of either the citizens or the majority of council.

There was further discussion about whether additional tax dollars should be spent on the city hall as well as the SPLOST money available. There was also discussion about the possible inflation of costs over time. It was suggested that costs could be cut and that this should also researched and reported back at the next meeting.

There was discussion about how parking could be expanded on the current city hall site should the building be expanded in the long term. There was a suggestion that there could be a long term arrangement made with the Chapel Association to use their parking lot, and it was suggested that this could be discussed with the board, although it would mean committing future boards.

It was agreed that Urban Collage would add an alternative option of using a portion of the greenspace and an additional drawing to show how that may look with parking too, (which may have a bigger impact) as well as other options to cut costs on the budget.

IV. MAYORS MESSAGE TO COUNCIL
Salter submitted a written report, which said the following:
At our last meeting I shared with you the concerns I have after attending the tabletop exercise in emergency management and made some recommendations.  I did not ask for a response from you that night because I wanted you to have time to consider, but I also do not want to wait around on this longer than necessary.  Tonight I ask you the following:
1. Do you support my recommendation that Council should explore the legal possibilities of decision-making without face-to-face meetings?  I have not wanted to task our attorney with that unless a majority of you want his time and our money to be spent in that way.
2. Do you support my recommendation that Council should review and seek to strengthen emergency communication avenues via radios, website, email groups, etc. including the possibility of an emergency meeting via website forum with online discussion?  If so, I would ask George Sipe to investigate this and report back to Council.
3. Do you support my recommendation that Council should investigate the possibility of allowing our citizens to buy emergency supplies like masks at a bulk cost through us?  If so, I would ask Tom Kitchens to investigate this and report back to Council.

In asking these 2 council members to pursue this, I would assume that they would cooperate as they see best with the committees to which they are liaisons.

The Carl Vinson Institute sent the following: “We facilitated the Berkeley Lake planning session on March 17, 2006.  The first 5 months of the year are considered our busiest time to facilitate planning retreats and I want to give you the opportunity to schedule your 2007 planning before all prime dates are locked up.”  Does Council want to schedule a similar planning session for 2007?

Rich Edinger is in Charlotte until tomorrow afternoon attending the Southeastern Stormwater Association Conference.  In his capacity as the Project Manager for our stormwater infrastructure work, he has sent revised easement documents to Carothers (per his request) and has begun to work with Mr. David Hess of Site Engineering regarding the contract and preconstruction arrangements.  Site Engineering has submitted the payment and performance bonds and will send us the signed contract and insurance paperwork shortly.  Rich has discussed timing on lake lowering with them which he knows is of great interest to some of our citizens, and they expect that the lake will be lowered by December 15.  However, this is just the best estimate at this time.  Citizens should check our website for current information in the coming weeks.

I have also been talking with Mr. Carothers to get an update for you about the outstanding easement issues.  He has decided to use an appraiser suggested to him by Tom Kitchens.  Carothers had conversations with this gentleman and believes he will be able to work “on a very expedited basis,” because he understands the process very well having done a lot of work for the Georgia Transmission Company (which does a lot of work on power line easements) so he knows how to value them.   By our next meeting Carothers expects him to have completed the appraisals.  At that meeting you will be asked to vote on 3 resolutions that authorize a ”Declaration of Taking” for each of the 3 properties, which is an expedited form of condemnation.  Should you approve those, Carothers can file them with the court and he would expect us to be able to begin work within 2 weeks after that.

Having sent out broad requests to other governments and related agencies in the area, I am getting unexpectedly good responses in my search for a new City Clerk.  Several candidates actually have very good related experience.  I want to investigate and interview them and hope to have some candidate(s) to introduce to you at the next meeting.  Does Council wish me also to send emails throughout the City to local citizens or to continue to work through agencies related to municipal government?

I have been exploring some things with the county transportation department that I want to share with you.  They have hired Long Engineering as a consultant to study the potential sidewalk along N. Berkeley Lake Rd. from City Hall all the way to PIB.  Initial exploration confirms what he told me earlier - that it will go on the dam side of the road.   They expect to get a “concept plan” from Long in about 2 weeks.  Although the county often relies at this point on GIS-based plans (made with aerial photography), they have taken the somewhat unusual step of beginning with an expensive field survey which should make these early plans much more accurate.  They did this to honor the concerns I had expressed about impact on property owners and the difficulties of this project.  When the county receives the report from Long Engineering they will then begin to develop a “detailed design” which takes about 3-4 months, then a “preliminary plan,” then a “field plan,” and finally begin right-of-way easement negotiations.  In short, this won’t happen fast, but it does appear to be progressing, and they do appear to be responding to our concerns.

Salter said she could discuss the highlighted questions at the next council meeting, however she needed consensus whether advertising for a new City Clerk should just continue with governmental agencies. There was a consensus that this should be so, and that it also should be sent to the Home Owners Associations presidents in case they would like to distribute it.

V. OLD BUSINESS
a) Road safety study- Streetsmarts follow up proposal - John Karnowski
 Streetsmarts_Berkeley-Lake_Proposal_10-30-06.pdf
Karnowski described the follow up proposal he had submitted following the meeting he had with Kitchens and Sipe since the last council meeting.

There were some concerns that the proposal focused mainly on Lakeshore Drive, when the consensus of council was to get data for the whole city in order to see where the overall problems or issues are.  The mayor expressed a concern that since the majority of citizens had not supported major changes and just wanted current laws strongly enforced, we could be spending a lot of money only to be told of suggested changes we might not then be prepared to make.

There was discussion about cut-through traffic and the relative costs, and issues with lighting at this time of year.

There was some discussion about whether there should be a review by the county of stop signs on Berkeley Lake Rd.

There were questions about the license plate survey costs versus benefits.  

After much discussion, there was consensus that 24 hr speed and volume data could confirm whether or not a problem exists in the various locations in the city, as there has always been a difference of opinion and perception as to the nature, extent and location of problems. It was noted that this survey could be completed before Thanksgiving. It was also suggested that the HOA presidents should be asked to identify any areas of concern within their subdivisions too. The consensus was to do a safety study based on the data collected.  Council requested that Karnowski take a moment to calculate the approximate cost for Streetsmarts to collect speed and volume data in approximately 20 locations throughout the entire City; to conduct research of historical traffic accidents and analysis of road networks as outlined by Karnowski, and to include an appropriate number of presentation meetings by Streetsmarts.  Karnowski then provided this information to Council.   

Cohen motioned not to exceed $16,000 to analyze the speed and the count for up to 20 locations in the city, and to authorize the mayor to sign a contract subject to Carothers approval. Sipe seconded the motion. Cohen, Guthrie, Kitchens, and Sipe were in favor of the motion. Anderson recused himself from the vote in order to avoid the potential for any perceived conflict of interest. The motion passed.

b) Emergency preparedness plan- Kitchens
Kitchens said that PrepareFirst had submitted a license agreement since the last meeting that had been reviewed by Carothers.

Kitchens therefore motioned to authorize Salter to sign the contract subject to Carothers approval and move forward with the work. Anderson seconded the motion. Anderson, Cohen, Kitchens, and Sipe were in favor of the motion. Guthrie recused herself from the vote in order to avoid the potential for any perceived conflict of interest. The motion passed.

VI. NEW BUSINESS
a) Appointment of Administrative Assistant for City Hall
Cohen motioned to appoint Sandy Rosenberger as an administrative assistant for City Hall. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion and the motion passed.

b) Budget amendment for 2006 and proposed budget for 2007
 Mayors_Proposed_Budget_Amendment_Nov_06_and_Budget_07.pdf
Salter said she had submitted a draft of both the budget amendment for 2006 and a proposed budget for 2007 for council to review at the next meeting. She noted some changes that she already wanted to make to the budgets submitted which included keeping her salary at its current rate and not increase it back to the original rate as had been suggested by council members and the treasurer. She noted she had not asked anyone to do this; she felt that any change should be made for the 2008 budget and therefore the next mayoral term. She said an updated version of the budgets would be sent out as soon as possible to reflect these changes.

VII. CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no citizen comments.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, EVERYONE MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT APPROXIMATELY 10:31 PM. EVERYONE SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED.

Respectfully submitted by Jackie Wall. Approved by council on November 16th, 2006