|
PUBLIC HEARING AND COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes
February 15, 2007
Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, Walter Anderson, Tom Kitchens and George Sipe
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Deputy City Clerk- Sandy Rosenberger
City Attorney- Dick Carothers
Citizens Present- 15
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 Council’s wishes regarding changes to the agenda. Salter asked to add Chapel use. Cohen asked to add to the agenda a discussion regarding the Voyles situation as well as extending hours of city hall. There was a consensus of Council to add those suggested changes to the agenda under new business.
Guthrie asked to add next steps with Urban Collage to next month’s agenda.
II. STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS
Salter read the following state of the city address:
State of the City Address
February 15, 2007
The past year has been the busiest one for our city that I can remember. We have accomplished a lot, in spite of some serious obstacles. We began with an Ethics Workshop led by a representative of the Vinson Institute of Government at UGA. We made some changes as a result of that meeting which I think have been helpful, but I would urge council members to review the mutual agreements we made at that time, because we appear to be backsliding in some respects. One of our stated goals was to “enhance the council’s internal cohesiveness.” We clearly have a ways to go on that. We agreed that “if an action item is on the agenda, the background and descriptive material distributed to the council in advance will make the exact action proposed clear (i.e., so that council members know in advance what consideration by the council is expected or is proposed).” We still occasionally have things proposed only verbally on the spot at a meeting - important and complex things, which your colleagues have had no time to study or consider. Not only does that damage cohesiveness and mutual respect, it makes good decisions for the city more difficult. We agreed that “preparation of the council’s official minutes will move more toward summary form and away from verbatim form.” That appears to be happening somewhat unevenly. Some council members comments are summarized, but then occasionally a verbatim transcript is included from someone. Council should discuss how to handle this evenly among yourselves, but I would suggest that if someone goes to the trouble to prepare a written document of their recommendations about something you will vote on, it should at least be presented to the others before the meeting (as we agreed) for their advance consideration. I would also ask that we work harder toward our agreement to ready ourselves more in advance of meetings. We’ve made some progress there, and I appreciate the large amounts of time some of you have committed to studying and sharing comments on documents and issues well before our meetings. Leigh and I will be pushing you to do even more of that. We agreed to “begin the process of drafting and eventually adopting a city code of ethics and/or a council code of conduct.” I believe that has taken a back seat to the many other projects you’ve worked on in the last year, but I do hope we’ll progress on that soon. For my part in this, I have tried to move things along during meetings for the best utilization of your time and to uphold positive discourse among us. I hope I have not seemed rude in doing so, and I am open as always to your suggestions as to how I may do my job better, for you and for the City.
We have seen a huge change this past year in the people who work for our City. At my request, you hired a City Engineer, and I believe he has clearly made a very positive difference for us. We are finally making infrastructure repairs that have been needed for years, and making them under professional supervision with separate and independent quality verification. This is certainly expensive, but the undesirable alternative is clearly visible in the costly lawsuit that we still slog through as a result of the unsatisfactory work done the year before. You also supported my request for a new City Building Inspector. This has been very positive for everybody. He’s doing an excellent job and saving our citizens time and money. Gene Rodgers, also new this year, has brought us experience in ordinance enforcement from previous employment in another city, as well as a good work ethic and an excellent way of working with our citizens. He is certainly an asset. The difficulty we had in finding and hiring both Sandy Rosenberger and Leigh Threadgill is evidence that we need to treat our employees well and keep them as long as possible. As I’ve often said, in a small organization like our city, turnover kills us. Large amounts of time, energy, and money have gone into finding and training them, and that has been a burden for our city recently. Similarly, much time, energy, and money has been expended in the last year on obtaining the many easements necessary for the infrastructure project. That was quite a task, and I’m grateful not to be facing it in the coming year.
The “big picture” here is that these changes in staff are moving us toward a more professionally run city. For years Berkeley Lake has survived by relying on the efforts of volunteers and staff that had no background experience or training. We should all be forever grateful to the dedicated people that got us this far through hard work and commitment. I hope we’ll continue to have volunteers on committees because that kind of civic involvement is one of the major strengths of our city, one of the things that really sets us apart from other cities, I think. But I also think we’re seeing that hard work and commitment can only take us so far, and that paying for training and expertise can in fact be cost effective. Leigh is the first person in her position who has both a Master’s degree and previous work experience in public policy and municipal planning. I predict you will all be very glad we have her, but I also predict that your way of working with her and others will evolve into something different. In this next year you should consider how your old patterns of micromanaging our staff fit with the staff that we are currently fortunate to have. Oversight is important and a clear fiduciary responsibility, but too much interference in details can make our staff feel overwhelmed and pulled at from too many directions, impeding their highest level of service to the City, and lessening their desire to stay with us. Good people can always go elsewhere, and that would hurt us badly.
Another factor that hurts our staff also, I believe, hurts our whole City. That is the lack of “internal cohesiveness“ that we discussed in the Ethics Workshop. I continue to be grateful for the passion Berkeley Lakers bring to their work for the City, but I sometimes despair that our passions degenerate into hostility, which in fact obstructs the City’s goals. When we arrogantly insist on our own way and attempt to malign or hurt anyone who disagrees with us, a climate of negativity is created that not only makes our employees wish they were elsewhere. It makes our best citizens unwilling to run for office or otherwise involve themselves in the business of the City which can turn so nasty at times. That hurts the City! Badly! I think this may currently be our greatest liability, and as such I feel compelled to direct your attention to it, and to urge you to do what you can to combat it. Remember that no one else’s negative behavior justifies your own in response. I believe that each person is responsible for his or her own behavior, regardless of the provocation, and at the risk of sounding sappy, I urge you to be the change you wish to see for our City, regardless of what anyone else does.
I’m very pleased with the progress we’ve made in planning for a City Hall. Again, professional expertise paid off in the support we got from Urban Collage, and so did our old tradition of volunteer work by our Facilities Committee. I hope we can progress in the coming year towards a building that will serve us well into the future. With constructions costs at such an unusual high currently, it will be a real challenge to provide what we want for our city, and I expect that this process will be difficult and frustrating, but the building that will support us for decades and represent us to the world deserves our best efforts.
Other challenges include decisions to be made about our streets and our public safety, two things of very fundamental importance to our life together here. We have obtained good suggestions from the Street Smarts study and must now decide not only how to respond to those suggestions, but how to pay for the choices we make. Similarly, the decisions to be made about policing are inseparable from the tough ones of paying for our choices. Some of us would like to employ our own police force directly, rather than continuing to employ Gwinnett County officers by the hour. Because of my own interest in this, I recently sat down with Charlie Walters, the county’s Chief of Police, to ask him for specific details about financing a force. I also met with a gentleman from the Vinson Institute of Government to discuss the same thing. There is too much to tell you in this address. Basically my take on this, for what it may be worth to you, is this: Who wouldn’t want our own force?! The question is how much do our citizens want to pay for it? They should make that choice, and, if they’re interested, we should be about the business of researching what the real costs would be, not, and I emphasize this, from a preconceived platform of our own about what should happen. We don’t serve our citizens well when we arrogantly decide what they should want, and then set about to push it on them with polemics that support our own positions. They deserve unbiased facts. In the meanwhile, we are all grateful, I’m sure, to the excellent officers who serve us now to the very best of their ability. They are clearly making a demonstrable difference for us, and our citizens appreciate them. When I asked the six homeowners association presidents recently about their interest in having our own force, they were somewhat curious about the idea, but very pleased with what we have. I’ve asked Doug to compile statistical reports quarterly from now on rather than yearly, so we can respond quickly to any trends that develop. He and I are also working on a C.O.P.S. program for our neighborhoods, which has been shown to be effective elsewhere, and I am working on some educational information about crime prevention to share with our citizens.
We’ve only just recently adopted a budget for 2007 at the last meeting, and those discussions have given you a clear and current understanding of our financial situation, so I won’t belabor that here. I know you are as concerned as I am about the challenges we face in paying for things we may want for our citizens. In the coming year I expect we will be spending down some of our reserves to pay for current expenditures. We can afford to do that for a while, but not indefinitely. The only other brief information I have to share with you now about finances is that I am hoping to have a new City Treasurer for us, and I am exploring the methodology of changing our financial software to a different system. I will be happy to discuss more about both of those with any of you later, but I’m trying to stick to overviews here.
In considering the state of our City, we also have to be aware of our surroundings. Many important changes are taking place in Gwinnett County and, as I’ve said before, I believe it is very important for our city leaders, and indeed our citizens, to know what’s happening in our larger environment. I have been studying some demographic data and I presented some of what I’ve learned to our homeowner presidents when I met with them recently. I will be glad to talk with any council members as well, and I urge you to read and stay informed about county issues. The best source of current information that I have found in that regard is Partnership Gwinnett. (introduce PG rep.)
III. SPECIAL PRESENTATION – Partnership Gwinnett
Chip Mitchell from Partnership Gwinnett made a brief presentation to Council. The information presented is accessible on the Partnership Gwinnett web site, www.partnershipgwinnett.com.
Cohen asked how much of present prosperity is based on construction and what will happen as construction slows down. Mitchell responded that we do need to hit target industries and diversify the work force. Target industries are advanced communications, information technology, professional services and regional headquarters, health care and distribution and trade.
Debbe Robinson of 540 Lakeshore Drive asked what bringing jobs to the area would mean for traffic and impacts to the City of Berkeley Lake. Mitchell responded that traffic will always be an issue, but that by attracting more jobs and services to the area, perhaps residents will choose to live and work in the same place, thereby reducing vehicle trip length. In addition, the residents will be provided with greater options for services closer to home.
IV. GUEST SPEAKER – John Karnowski of StreetSmarts and Council’s consideration of StreetSmarts Report
John Karnowski of StreetSmarts was available to answer questions from Council regarding the StreetSmarts report. Guthrie requested that Council’s questions submitted to Streetsmarts via email and StreetSmarts’ responses be posted on the City web site.
Guthrie asked if there is a place in the area that has chevrons that Council could visit to get an idea of how they look. Karnowski is not aware of any place where they have been used locally. He stated that they are fairly innovative and function as an optical illusion to psychologically affect drivers to make them perceive that they are going faster than they really are. Guthrie requested additional photos of examples of chevrons.
Guthrie asked why the recommendation from Streetsmarts on several locations on Lakeshore Drive had been escalated from re-striping the streets to rumble strips. Karnowski responded that they did not find a speed problem per se on Lakeshore Drive, but that that does not mean that there is not a safety issue. Re-striping to narrow the lanes and add an area for other users would help. Installation of sidewalks is still the primary recommendation, but re-striping would help. Rumble strips would cause people to slow down a little bit as they come around a curve. In addition, rumble strips are a deterrent to bicyclists, and Karnowski understood that there was some concern about bicyclists.
Anderson asked if rumble strips have an impact on vehicle adhesion to the road. Would they cause a car to go off the road? Karnowski said that the recommendation was for depressed rumble strips, rather than raised strips, and that StreetSmarts can provide a design standard for them. The rumble strips should not cause vehicles to skid off the road.
Randy Johnson of 296 Lakeshore Drive asked about the noise that would be created by rumble strips for adjacent residences. Karnowski responded that there is some ambient noise, which is a down side of rumble strips. Noise produced by rumble strips is greater at faster speeds, and it is expected that the rumble strips proposed here would not be driven over at high speeds.
Guthrie requested that StreetSmarts prioritize all of their recommendations from a traffic/safety perspective without having to take each project cost into consideration. Sipe questioned whether this is practical considering that two of the roads with major recommendations are Bush Road and Berkeley Lake Road, which are county roads.
Anderson asked if there was a delay in emergency vehicle response with chicanes and roundabouts. Karnowski responded that those two devices have very little impact on emergency response.
Anderson asked about budgeting for the priority list requested by council. After some discussion, Karnowski stated that StreetSmarts would provide the priority list free of charge.
Karnowski stated that if StreetSmarts was going to help the City assess the parking lot across the street at city hall, that would be a separate, individual task, not covered under the budget for the StreetSmarts report in discussion at this meeting.
V. MINUTES
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes from the January 18, 2007 council meeting. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
VI. REPORTS
Salter noted that council had received reports from the Police, OEO and Facilities Committees.
Salter also noted that council had received the financial statements for November and December, 2006 and January, 2007.
Guthrie motioned to accept the unaudited November financial statements. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Guthrie motioned to accept the unaudited December financial statements. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Guthrie motioned to accept the unaudited January financial statements. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
VII. OLD BUSINESS
a) City Hall Planning – Site Selection
Guthrie motioned that the City move forward with selecting the corner of Bush Road and South Berkeley Lake Road for the future city hall site, but with the exact location of the building on that site to be determined as we go through next steps with the architect. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Salter reiterated that Council should study up on the next steps for next meeting. Guthrie asked that the Urban Collage report be emailed out to Council members so that they may prepare for the next Council meeting.
b) O-44-06d WA Ch. 11.103, Traffic Control, on-street parking (for poss. 2nd read)
Anderson motioned to adopt Chapter 11.103, Traffic Control, on-street parking with the following two modifications: 1.) change 11-103.2.g to read 15 feet instead of 25 feet in order to match state law and 2.) to amend the final paragraph to change the effective date from the date of adoption to 30 days after adoption to give the public enough time to learn about the change.
The City Attorney suggested that it would be simpler to specify the effective date rather than to say 30 days after adoption.
Anderson amended the motion to adopt Chapter 11-103, Traffic Control, on-street parking with the following modifications: 1.) change 11-103.2.g to read 15 feet instead of 25 feet in order to match state law and 2.) to amend the final paragraph to change the effective date from the date of adoption to April 1st, 2007. Sipe seconded the motion.
There was some discussion.
Anderson amended the motion to adopt Chapter 11-103, Traffic Control, on-street parking to include the following modifications: 1.) change 11-103.2.g to read 15 feet instead of 25 feet in order to match state law; 2.) to amend the final paragraph to change the effective date from the date of adoption to April 1st , 2007; and 3.) change 11-103.2.a. to replace “right-of-way” with “shoulder”. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
c) Deer Crossing and Police Patrol Area Signs
There was much discussion regarding the effectiveness of the proposed police patrol area signs. An alternative would be to spend money on helping to inform the citizens about safety and home security. The COPS program could be a combination of both citizen education and signage. Salter mentioned that the COPS program requires a lot of work on the part of citizens. Guthrie is concerned that the signage alone would just be a false sense of security for the citizens and would not be a real deterrent to criminals.
Anderson asked if the Homeowners’ Associations would be interested in taking on the COPS program.
Barbara Carroll, resident of 3430 Kingsland Circle, stated to council that Berkeley Walk would be interested in some type of neighborhood watch program if the program was neighborhood specific rather than city-wide. Sipe suggested that all the neighborhoods should implement this at the same time so that the whole city would be on the same page.
Sally Rich Kolb of 808 Lakeshore Drive asked about combining signage on one pole to try to avoid sign clutter. Sipe responded that the COPS and deer signs may be able to be combined, but that there were likely rules about keeping Stop Signs free from additional signage.
Anderson asked about cost information for the deer signage, both the cost of the signs themselves and the installation of those signs.
Guthrie asked about progress researching ways to have existing signage throughout the City cleaned. The City of Berkeley Lake signs need to be pressure washed along with all other street signage.
Guthrie asked why deer signage is not proposed to be visible from both directions. Anderson agreed to ask Liz Nicholas for more information on her deer signage suggestions.
d) O-52-07 Chapter 32-308 Body Art Studios and Artists
Anderson motioned to put O-52-07 Chapter 32-308 Body Art Studios and Artists on second read but not to adopt. Guthrie seconded the motion.
There was brief discussion.
All were in favor. The motion passed.
e) O-49-07 Chapter 31-110 Litter Control
Sipe motioned to put O-49-07 Chapter 31-110 Litter Control on second read and adopt. Anderson seconded the motion.
There was some discussion.
All were in favor. The motion passed
f) O-50-07- Chapter 43 Stream Buffer Protection
Sipe motioned to put O-50-07 Chapter 43 Stream Buffer Protection on second read and adopt. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Sipe raised concerns on page 4, Section 4.1 – Grandfather Provisions. Section 4.1 (2) should say existing development “that was previously permitted or properly authorized” instead of saying just existing development because it could have been done illegally in the first place. In addition, he had concerns about Section 4.1 (3) and suggested striking “that is under construction.”
The City Attorney agreed that these changes can be made without adversely affecting the ordinance.
All were in favor. The motion passed.
g) O-51-07 Chapter 44 Post Development Stormwater Management
Guthrie motioned to put O-51-07 Chapter 44 Post Development Stormwater Management on second read and adopt. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
a) Fence on Bayway Circle – Cohen
Salter explained that the fence on Bayway Circle was installed due to a safety issue raised by the Local Government Risk Management Service (LGRMS) about the area around the spillway and the ravine near there. There was an issue with parking on the road in that location, which has the effect of compacting the soil under the street causing a safety concern for drivers who may have a greater risk of falling into the drop-off. Jackie Wall, City Clerk at the time, presented the request to put the fence there after talking with the LGRMS expert who visited the area. She said it was a safety issue and that there was money in the budget to cover the cost of installing the fence.
Cohen asked the cost of the fence. Salter responded that the split-railing fence in that area cost about $900.
Cohen asked why additional fencing was not placed on the other side of the street. Salter responded that the City was anticipating having a sidewalk in that location which would make installing a fence in that location impossible.
Cohen asked why this issue was any different than the proposed deer signage. Both are safety issues being proposed by someone else. Salter responded that signage evokes opinions regarding the aesthetics of the city. In addition, the fence was suggested by an outside risk management expert, and there was available money in the budget to do that. There is not specified money in the budget for the proposed signage.
b) City-funded cell phones – Cohen
Cohen wanted to evaluate the need for city cell phones, how many are needed, and the need for a policy regarding city cell phones. Salter provided the history behind the city cell phones.
Members of Council discussed the costs and type of plan associated with the city cell phones.
Anderson and Cohen stated that the City should put together some type of cell phone policy. Guthrie stated that she would research cell phone policies. She also recommended the City research adding another phone line into city hall or investigate a master ring service so that the fax line could be used as a second voice line.
c) Acknowledgement of Arbor Day Resolution and Plans for Earth Day
Salter annually signs the Arbor Day Proclamation this time of year. The Proclamation states that Salter urges citizens to celebrate Arbor Day and to support efforts to protect our trees and woodlands and further urges citizens to plant trees “to gladden the heart and promote the wellbeing of this and future generations.”
Salter stated that this year, with the disbanding of the Events Committee, she and staff are working on planning for Earth Day, which is scheduled for Saturday, April 14, 2007. Salter has asked HOA presidents to help with the effort to create teams to pick up trash. One change this year is that we will not do the blood drive.
d) Chapel Use
Salter talked with the Chapel folks about the request to use the Chapel for Relay to Life. Chapel does not want to donate the Chapel, but would like the City to hold this event and will support us in doing it by reducing the rental fee to $100. Salter recommends that the City support Relay for Life. It has been a city event for years. Sipe wanted to be sure that it was understood this is an open event to the entire City and is not a private function.
Guthrie wanted to ensure that the Relay for Life dinner is in addition to the regular city contracted dates and will not come out of the City’s meeting days. The Chapel will not be raising the rental fees this year and the lease agreement is the same as last year.
The BLOSOMS have requested that the City sponsor an event at the Chapel for an organizational program and speaker. Salter does not recommend using one of the City’s Chapel rental days for that function in view of our budget difficulties this year. It was the consensus of Council that this is not something the City should support.
Sipe motioned to accept the Chapel rental contract. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Guthrie motioned to approve the $100 extra chapel rental fee for Relay for Life. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in the favor. The motion passed.
e) 142 Bayway Circle, Joe Voyles
Cohen wanted to get a debriefing of the situation and to learn the facts about what is going on with the Voyles’ property. Salter explained the construction activity that is going on at this address. Bob Herb, Chairman of Planning and Zoning Commission did not think that the type of construction should be allowed. Herb sought an opinion from the City Attorney, who agreed that this is a structure and is not in compliance with the City’s ordinances.
Sipe wanted to discuss whether the construction on Voyles’ property is legal or not. He referred to how the code has been applied in the past and his opinion is that the City is now enforcing the ordinance differently. He stated that retaining walls have always been considered landscaping features, not structures.
Anderson asked the City Attorney about the definition of an accessory use. The City Attorney provided the definition, which also required the 12.5-foot setback. The City Attorney did not worry about calling the situation an accessory use because he viewed the construction to constitute an accessory structure.
Sipe says that the City has always applied the code such that a structure was something with a roof on it. The literal definition is broader and will require additional use permits than what the City has seen in the past. Sipe thinks the risk to us is that we are changing the way we apply code.
Guthrie asked if Council had any responsibility for anything involving this situation at this point. The City Attorney said only if Council wanted to begin refereeing all ordinance violations and citations. Guthrie stated that Council should not interject itself into the situation at this point.
The City Attorney referenced the definition of the word “boathouse”. It does not require that a boathouse have a roof, but it states that it can be an enclosure. There was additional discussion.
The City Attorney and Council agreed that the definition referenced, Section 37-101.1.c, should be included in the citation.
f) Extending City Hall Hours
Cohen stated since there is a full-time City Clerk, city hall hours should be extended. If someone is there then we should be able to open up for additional hours.
Salter explained that due to the size of city hall it is difficult to function effectively in there. No one has asked us to be open longer, nor have we received any complaints. The time that the City Administrator is in there outside of business hours is quiet time during which she can get a lot of work done. Salter thinks extending hours now would be obstructive to her getting work done. Cohen suggested Salter ask the HOA Presidents’ at their next meeting what they thought about extending city hall hours.
IX. CITIZENS COMMENTS
Randy Johnson, resident of 296 Lakeshore Drive, recommended that Lakeshore Drive be closed beginning tomorrow due to the construction at Holben’s pond, which creates a safety issue and a dangerous situation. He indicated that it would be best to state on road closure signage which addresses are authorized to pass, but that all other traffic would not be permitted.
Sipe asked about how much longer the Holben pond construction site would be this way. Salter said that she understood they were going to try to be through with the work by the end of next week.
X. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal issues
Guthrie motioned to enter executive session at 9:45pm. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Guthrie motioned to end the executive session at 10:00. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, Guthrie motioned to adjourn at 10:00 Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill (approved by Council March 15, 2007)
|
