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
Administrative Assistant- Sandy Rosenberger
City Attorney- Dick Carothers
Citizens Present- 7       

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 asked for two changes to the agenda: adding Barbara Carroll under reports, and asking for a recess in order for council to speak with the potential replacement candidate for City Clerk.  There was consensus of council for these changes.

II. PUBLIC HEARING for the Amendment to Chapter 39.404 Adult Commercial establishments.
There were no Citizens Comments.

III. MINUTES
Kitchens motioned to accept the amended minutes from the November 2, 2006 council meeting.  Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor and the motion passed.

IV. REPORTS
i) Police
Salter noted that council had received a report from the police.

ii) Financial Statements
Guthrie motioned to accept the un-audited October 2006 financial statements and Kitchens seconded the motion. 
In discussion Cohen had a question about a check, which the clerk could not answer as the supporting documentation was not available at the time of the meeting.

Anderson, Kitchens, Guthrie, and Sipe were in favor of the motion. Cohen abstained in order to review the check. The motion passed.

iii) City Hall Planning- Barbara Carroll
Carroll read the following:

‘Back in the early fall, I was designated as the point of contact or, as is shown on page 2 in the Consulting Services Agreement between Urban Collage and the City of BL, the designated client project manager.  As far as I see it, my role is as a point person, responsible for ensuring that we are progressing toward the goal as planned.  Without any functional authority, my tools include the dissemination of what has been accomplished and to serve as a purveyor of information to and from Urban Collage.  I’m supposed to have the “view of the whole” and a connection all the parts.  I’m supposed to be making sure that we follow the plan as it was originally set forth between the city and Urban Collage.

At the outset, Eric outlined the plan thusly:  We have a citizen input meeting where general ideas of the vision are put forth by citizens of the city for the new facility.  Then we have, based on the information gleaned from that meeting, a meeting with staff and council to pin down specifics regarding needs.  Then, from that information, a preliminary plan is presented at a council meeting with approval of the plan.  Then there’s another citizen meeting where the approved plan is presented and citizens can comment further. 

At the council meeting where the preliminary plan was presented, we changed horses midstream.  We asked Eric to go in another direction when we asked for information on a possible acreage that might come from the greenspace easement.  This idea should properly have been presented at the original citizens meeting so that it could be factored into the preliminary plan process. During that meeting, Eric presented three plans for the existing city hall property which would allow for some future expandability based on what was presented at previous meetings.  Question responses by Eric regarding these plans were given but a few of the questions require additional research and time for preparation.  Eric will seek to answer these questions on the 30th when he presents what we have to this point, unless, of course, you wish to set up an additional meeting between council and Eric prior to the 30th.  Keep in mind, however, that this would impact our financial arrangement with them. 

But Eric has said that, based on George’s questions, he’ll spend a little more time seeing what would “max out” the existing site so he can tell how much expansion is possible, although he does believe that doubling the size in the future is quite aggressive and may be more than necessary, based on the needs as previously defined by citizens, council and staff.  From earlier meetings and discussions, he was assuming you might, with an aggressive stance, add another ½ of a council chamber and potentially 2-4 additional offices if you really needed to expand.  Perhaps it might help for council to discuss what “expansion” might mean in their vision.

He is a little concerned with the stormwater issues in that we would need an assessment from an engineer to make any conclusions in that respect.  Commercial construction is typically required to retain or detain stormwater, but this facility isn’t really of the size where that should be a big issue.  He will do a bit more research on that before the 30th.

But please recognize that the scope of services has now changed and Eric is doing his best to accommodate that change.  However, it is absolutely essential that we all remember that major deviations from the original contractual plan, as I generally outlined before, could result in a financial impact to this process.  I might also request that since the scope of this project has changed with the consideration of greenspace acreage, in order to keep citizens totally abreast of what’s going on in our quest to communicate fully to our city, a notice be sent out to all citizens (and it can be from Lois and myself) that the meeting on the 30th will incorporate and enunciate more fully the suitability of the existing city hall site, as well as the consideration and exploration of greenspace acreage.

Let me say that Urban Collage has done this many, many times for a myriad of municipalities and they know how to manage their time so that it fits the budget that we established in the Contractual Agreement.  They have outlined the procedures and processes to be done a certain way because it fits the fee structure.  They also know how to define needs and to glean from those citizen comments and information from staff and council what needs are on the horizon for a new facility.  Planning for 50 years is unrealistic, even 20-30 is untenable.  Expandability will be addressed further at the meeting on the 30th’.

Salter asked for a recess to meet with Leigh Gaston Threadgill, candidate for City Clerk.   Salter introduced Threadgill to council and citizens that were present.

Cohen motioned for a 10 minute recess to meet with Threadgill. Kitchens seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.

After a 10 minute recess, the council meeting was called back to order.

There was much discussion regarding whether it was necessary for council to have an additional meeting at extra cost to the City with Eric Bosman from Urban Collage to discuss the possible stormwater issues, an alternative location using the Greenspace, etc. prior to the November 30, 2006 public meeting.

Sipe motioned to have Eric Bosman from Urban Collage answer additional questions via email prior to the November 30, 2006 public meeting. Cohen seconded the motion. Sipe and Cohen were in favor of the motion.  Anderson, Kitchens, and Guthrie opposed the motion because they felt the questions were not necessary at this time. The motion failed.

V. MAYORS MESSAGE
Salter submitted a written report to council, which said the following:

‘Rich Edinger held a preconstruction meeting this week with Site Engineering for our stormwater infrastructure work, and Randy Kirkus attended as Public Works Chair.  We continue to receive questions about lake lowering, and citizens should check our website for current information in the coming weeks.  Regarding our shoulder reconstruction project, Rich has been pushing the contractor to get started, but he is dragging his feet because, as we keep hearing about everything else in the world of construction, costs have gone up sharply since he made his bid.  Fortunately Rich had prearranged a commitment that if the grass dies when he plants it, the contractor has to replace it.  Rich has also required matted covering to prevent the dirt added to the shoulders from moving.

I have been asked to serve in 2007 as vice-president of the Gwinnett Municipal Association.  This organization is considering some major changes that I cannot discuss with you publicly at this time, although I would, of course, be willing to talk with council members individually.  The next year will be particularly challenging and very significant for the organization, and I am honored by the confidence of my colleagues in asking me to participate in its leadership at this time.

I am pleased to let you know that the citizen responsible for breaking the fence on Ridge Road has paid the bill for repairing it.

Charles Barrett has asked me to meet with his committee from Hermitage to explore further their possible annexation by our city.  They have studied their situation and ascertained that they do qualify to do this based on the amount of contiguous border that we share.  They specifically asked that I include the Mayor ProTem as well, and Debbie has agreed to join us.  I will continue to keep you apprised.  You should know also, that I asked Bryan Stuart to discuss the prospect of Hermitage annexation with the BLHA board since that could impact lake access.  He did so, and reports that they support it.

Carol Hassell called me after their recent GOLT board meeting.  She reports that they discussed the possibility of Berkeley Lake  wanting to place municipal buildings in the current greenspace and reiterated that their entire mission is to preserve greenspace.  Beyond that they feel that no comment is appropriate from them as we explore the desires of our citizens, but Carol does plan to attend our public meeting on Nov. 30 and has invited her board as well.

You will recall that Randy Kirkus had offered to donate his labor and materials to make specific repairs to our dam that the Safe Dams inspectors had suggested.  He has now completed all those and rechecked the site during major rain events to make sure that all was functioning correctly.  Many thanks to Randy for his generosity.  He is also researching the water erosion problem behind City Hall that Randy Rizer reported, and I have asked Gene Rodgers to assist him in this.

I have been asked by Advanced Disposal to remind our citizens that our contract specifies Thanksgiving week as one of those times when pickup will be one day later than usual.

Please recall the questions I asked you to consider at our last meeting, which arose from my attending the tabletop exercise in emergency management. 

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.  Debbie Guthrie has since suggested to me that we might explore what GMA could find for us in this regard, and I would be happy to attempt that first if you agree with the need for such exploration.

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.

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.

Additionally, a question from the Carl Vinson Institute which facilitated the Berkeley Lake planning session on March 17, 2006.  Does Council want to schedule a similar planning session for 2007?

You can respond at the agenda item I placed for this but I wanted to recap the questions for you here’.

Salter added to the Mayor’s Message that it appeared to our contractor that the lake would only need to be lowered  between 6 and 8 feet.  However, we will not know for sure until they get into the actual work at a particular site to see how much lowering will be necessary.  Salter suggested that the lowering of the lake could wait until after the holiday season since the citizens enjoy using the lake to view the lights. We could begin immediately after New Year’s Day.  This would not interfere with the start of the project. There was consensus of council that this should be so.

VI. OLD BUSINESS
a) O-36-07e Amendment to Chapter 39.404 Adult Commercial establishments (for poss. 2nd read) First Amendment Issues - Carothers

City Attorney Carothers summarized the basis for the adult commercial establishments ordinance.  He related that state and federal law recognized the right under the First Amendment to sell and to buy adult entertainment materials, be that books, magazines or videos, or to provide for entertainment involving nudity.  He further related that a long history of state and federal jurisprudence permitted local governments to regulate adult commercial establishments and the conduct therein due to what is referred to as the pernicious secondary effects. Those include the depression of property values, the acceleration of community blight, increased expenditures for law enforcement, and increased burdens on the judicial system.  He noted that the preamble to the ordinance makes reference to all of these matters, and confirmed that it is not the First Amendment activity with which we are concerned, but the secondary effects of same.  He then summarized the findings and public purposes from the preamble of the ordinance and submitted for the record four notebooks of data which support the regulation and the prohibition of adult commercial establishments within the City of Berkeley Lake.  He particularly called attention to the full public hearing held on August 7, 2001, for the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners, and a similar hearing with testimony from Sheriff Scott R. Barry of Oconee County to the Oconee County Board of Commissioners on January 28, 2003, concerning their adult entertainment ordinances.  He noted that the present amendment prohibits adult commercial establishments in all zoning classifications within the City of Berkeley Lake.  With regard to the total prohibition, he noted the following:

1.    That the City of Berkeley Lake is unique in that it is very small and has only 4.5 acres of commercially zoned property.
2.    That based upon his representation of Gwinnett County in another case, he knew that Gwinnett County had many locations throughout unincorporated Gwinnett County in proximity to Berkeley Lake for such expression. 
3.    That in addition to adequate future locations for such businesses, there were three existing establishments within close proximity, those being The Love Shack II on Peachtree Parkway, The Love Shack I on Jimmy Carter Boulevard, and the Starship on 85/Lawrenceville Suwanee Road.
4.    Lastly, he noted the lack of full time City personnel to monitor such businesses.

Based upon the record of the meeting and the documents submitted, Carothers recommended approval of the amendment to the ordinance.

Cohen motioned to put on second read and adopt O-36-07e Amendment to Chapter 39.404 Adult Commercial Establishments.  Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion, and the motion passed.

b) O-39-06c Chapter 20, Streets, Curbs, and Sidewalks (for poss. 2nd read)

Anderson motioned to put O-39-06c Chapter 20, Streets, Curbs, and Sidewalks on second read and adopt it with the correction of the typographical errors noted.  Guthrie seconded the motion.  All were in favor of the motion and the motion passed.

c) O-45-06c WA TK Chapter 3, Administration Ordinance (for poss. 2nd read)

It was determined that Chapter 3 needed to be reviewed further.  It was agreed that Chapter 3 would be discussed at the next Council meeting.

d) O-44-06d WA Ch 11 Traffic Control (and parking on city streets)

Anderson motioned to put O-44-06d WA Ch 11 Traffic Control on first read. Sipe seconded the motion.

There was much discussion about the wording in the ordinance, for example, whether North or South or just Berkeley Lake Rd should be used, whether parking should be allowed in the right of way, and whether other objects left in the right of way would fall under this ordinance. It was noted that objects in the right of way is a topic also addressed in the new O-39-06c Chapter 20 ordinance, just passed.  It was requested that some work be done to determine how much this would affect parking on Lakeshore Drive.  It was agreed to address these issues prior to putting the ordinance on second read.

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

e) Occupational Tax / Regulatory Fees – Anderson 

Anderson motioned to put 32-101 Regulatory Fees on first read.  Kitchens seconded the motion. 

Cohen and Sipe said that they had not been able to review these ordinances yet.  It was noted that this ordinance and the Occupational Tax ordinance had both been under consideration at the previous Council meeting and were tabled, and that modifications had been suggested.  The updated ordinances, with the suggestions incorporated, were distributed to the Mayor, Council, City Clerk, and City Attorney four days after the previous Council meeting.

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

Anderson motioned to put 4-104 Occupational Tax on first read.  Guthrie seconded the motion. Anderson, Guthrie, and Kitchens were in favor of the motion.  Sipe and Cohen opposed.  Motion passed.

f) Annexation of Crescent Development’s Detention Pond (for poss. 2nd read)

Guthrie motioned to accept to the annexation of the Crescent Development’s Detention pond, and Anderson seconded the motion. Guthrie, Kitchens, and Anderson were in favor of the motion.  Sipe and Cohen opposed.  The motion passed.

g) Consideration of Mayor’s Questions (Nov. 2)

Salter restated her questions:
‘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’.

4. Additionally, a question from the Carl Vinson Institute which facilitated the Berkeley Lake planning session on March 17, 2006.  Does Council want to schedule a similar planning session for 2007?

It was noted that questions one and two were somewhat related.  After some discussion, Salter said she would ask GMA to see if they were interested in exploring alternatives to face to face meetings.  Carothers noted that other state organizations meet this way when distance is an issue, however, he would need to see if the same rule could be extended to the City.

It was also noted that question three was actually what PrepareFirst would be working on in terms of making recommendations for emergency preparedness supplies.  PrepareFirst would also be involved in emergency communication methods although the Communications Committee had already issued a report on Emergency Communication Systems.  It was suggested that the City start exploring the recommended options for municipal emergency communication tools as outlined in the committee’s report. 

Guthrie said she would look into what types of workshops are available for 2007 for question 4, and would report her findings to Council.

h) Budget 2006 Amendment and Budget 2007

Cohen motioned to put the Budget 2006 Amendment and Budget 2007 on first read. Anderson seconded the motion.
 
There was discussion about the police budget and whether it should be increased. However there were also questions as to whether the crime rate had increased.  It was requested that crime statistics be available by the next council meeting.

There was further discussion about the public works budget and the increases recommended by the city engineer and the chair of the public works committee.

Citizen comment: Randy Kirkus Chairman of Public Works
In summary, Kirkus suggested that the committee would like council to fund a road assessment plan to determine the condition of the roads throughout the city in order to put together a long term repaving plan.

There was much discussion about when this should be done and from which fund it should come- SPLOST or operating fund.

There were further questions about the income expected in 2007.

After more discussion, it was suggested that Council schedule a work session in order to discuss the budget changes for both 2006 and 2007 further before the city clerk leaves.  There was consensus that there should be a work session on Thursday, December 7, 2006 at 7:00pm at City Hall.

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

VII. NEW BUSINESS
a)Greenspace Site Management Plan – Covington
Covington informed council that  an issue  had arisen that day regarding when to kill the privet: now or waiting to kill it in the spring.  It had been recommended by Frances Winslow, a certified Master Gardener, that it would be best to kill the privet in the spring as opposed to doing it in December. There was no objection from council to wait until the spring.  Covington said that the cost would be around $700, which would be part of the budget given to the greenspace.

b) Gwinnett County Body Art Ordinance – Carothers
Carothers asked to table the matter because there are concerns that he needed to look into as to whether or not the City OEO could enforce this Ordinance, and he had been notified by Gwinnett County that they wished to have enforcement jurisdiction on this matter, and he had questions regarding which court would hear the case if a citation was written by the OEO. 

c) Appointment of City Clerk
Salter recommended appointing Leigh Gaston Threadgill as City Clerk but to change her title to City Administrator based on her qualifications and experience. She suggested her salary should be the maximum $43,000 per year.

Sipe motioned to hire Leigh Gaston Threadgill at the requested salary but to keep the job title as City Clerk at this time.  There was no second to the motion and the motion failed.

Guthrie motioned to extend the offer of an appointment to Leigh Gaston Threadgill at the requested salary and give her the title of City Administrator. Kitchens seconded the motion.

There was discussion about the title of City Administrator, and whether it would leave the position of City Clerk vacant. It was suggested that the duties of the City Clerk could be performed by the City Administrator if stated that way, and would therefore not affect the current ordinances. However a new ordinance could be drafted to create the position of City Administrator.

Guthrie then amended her motion to employ Leigh Gaston Threadgill as City Administrator at $43,000 per year, and to appoint her as an Assistant City Clerk until the current City Clerk leaves.  Kitchens agreed to second the amended motion.

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