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- 12


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 to move new business (b) up to the beginning of the agenda.

Consensus of Council was to move it to the reports section to be considered with the building inspectors report.

Sipe asked to swap old business items (b) and (c) because the Regulatory Fee ordinance references the Occupation Tax ordinance.

II. PUBLIC HEARING
Transmittal of Joint Community Assessment to ARC and DCA.

There were no citizen comments, nor any discussion among Council.

III. MINUTES
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes from the March 15, 2007 meeting.  Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

IV. REPORTS
Salter noted that Council had received reports from the Police and Building Inspector.

Salter also noted that Council had received the financial statements for March, 2007.

Consensus of Council was to wait to vote on the March 2007 financial statements until the next council meeting.
Sipe asked about the Transmittal Resolution, and when that would be considered. Salter added it under new business on the agenda for this meeting.

Council consideration of the building inspector’s report regarding 830 Valley View Lane.  

Carol Christa, 828/830 Valley View Lane, stated that Gwinnett County Environmental Health would support her two septic systems if the lot lines were restored to the original lot-line configuration. She stated that Environmental Health agreed to issue a septic permit if that was done.

Kitchens asked about the lot line changes on the property.  Christa explained to Council that she had moved her lot lines to increase the size of the 830 Valley View Lane property.  Once they were moved, neither lot complied with the 25,500 square-foot minimum lot size required by Environmental Health for a septic permit.

Sipe asked about the change in lot lines in regards to city zoning requirements and the original use permit, and whether the city was ever given the opportunity to review the lot line change.

Anderson asked what the result to her new building would be if the lot lines were restored to their original position. Christa responded that her structure would not comply with the regulations of the City of Berkeley Lake and, as such, a portion of the building would have to be torn down.  

Sipe asked whether the original use permit was based on the original lot line configuration or the new lot lines. Christa responded that the original use permit used the old, grandfathered lot lines, but the new lot lines should have been used.

Anderson asked if, because the use permit was granted based on the old lot lines, the original use permit showed the building crossing the property line. Christa responded that she did not know what the use permit showed.  

Sipe stated that the building has to exactly comply with the use permit that was granted. If it does not, then the building needs to be removed or a new use permit needs to be obtained that matches the way that the structure is/will be built.  

Wayne Mitsch, 826 Valley View Lane, stated that Christa is confused. The use permit was based on the lot lines having been moved, but the survey was not legally recorded.  Sipe stated that, if this is the case, the use permit that was granted is invalid and a new use permit needs to be obtained.

Christa agreed with Sipe’s statement and stated that she is now in the middle of a lawsuit against the builder.  
Anderson asked if Christa was going to submit a new use permit that reflects the redesign of the new house in order to make that conform within the old lot lines. Christa said that she was waiting on the outcome of the lawsuit to answer that question.

Sipe suggested to Christa that the law suit isn’t the City’s business, and Christa should not wait until after the lawsuit before beginning to come into compliance with the City, and there are ways to address the issues that the city has as she continues her civil action.  

Christa stated that she did not know if she was going to have to tear the house down, and if so, she may not need a use permit, but would need instead a demolition permit.  Sipe suggested that Christa work with an architect to come up with plans for her new house or modifications to the structure such that it will work within the property lines so that she can apply for a new use permit.  

Carothers asked if Environmental Health would allow a shared septic system between the two structures on two different lots. Christa stated that they would allow it with an easement on 828 Valley View Lane for the overflow field for 830 Valley View Lane. Carothers asked if both houses would channel their effluent into one septic system.  Christa described the septic design for her aerobic system. Anderson referred back to Carothers’ question and asked if the structures actually shared a tank or a field, or if there was just an easement for the overflow field. Christa responded that the latter was the case.  Christa stated that the septic system would be located in front of the house and not on the lake side of the house.

Sipe stated that according to the building inspector’s report the dwelling is deteriorating and is an attractive nuisance.  From the code, there are several different apparent issues. It is important that some progress is made soon. Christa agreed that it needed to be rectified soon.

Anderson stated that the sequence of events will have to be a new use permit or a demolition permit before any work can be done on the house since the existing use permit is invalid. The question for Council is how to proceed given the building inspector’s recommendation that the structure be moved or demolished.  Should Council act without haste based on that recommendation or should Council specify a time period for a new use permit to be applied for and considered?  Sipe stated that the use permit should be applied for by the next council meeting. If the use permit isn’t obtained, Sipe would want to know the materials necessary for plan review for the use permit and the list of variance needs for the use permit.

The City Administrator stated that the City no longer issues use permits, but building permits, and asked to clarify that what was being discussed was actually that a new building permit be issued for 830 Valley View Lane.
Anderson questioned whether it would be possible for Christa to accomplish all of this by the next Council meeting. It was further discussed.

Sipe asked if there was a huge encroachment onto the neighboring lot, which would make this a bigger problem that may warrant additional time. Christa responded that a large portion of the existing structure encroached onto the neighboring property.

Lokey, the City Building Inspector, asked Christa how long it would take her to obtain a septic permit from the County.  Christa stated that the County is willing to work with her, but she doesn’t know because she may have to tear down a portion of the building, which  may need to be done prior to them issuing the permit.  Lokey stated that in his opinion, architectural drawings and a current survey are needed for the issuance of a septic permit.  

Linford Bimley, a friend and advisor of Christa, works with Buckhead Mortgage Company, which financed 828 Valley View Lane. He stated that the lot lines have to be restored because of the impact of the change in lot lines on the value of that property.  
    
After much discussion it was determined that Council would give Christa a 60-day timeframe to come back to council.

Anderson suggested that Christa would need a legal survey recorded with the County restoring the lot lines, a modified house design that meets city requirements, a septic permit based on those designs and then a building permit from the City. Anderson doubted that this would be possible within 60 days.

Sipe suggested that an architect could take a look at this and be able to determine whether the house could be salvaged or not relatively quickly.  Sipe said that ideally the house should not come right up to the lot line, but meet the required side setback. Christa stated that the design was already compromised.   

Kitchens agreed that an architect could give an answer as to whether the structure could be saved relatively quickly and then progress could be made.

Anderson suggested that Christa and her architect work with the City and the Planning and Zoning Commission as needed to look at options and alternatives.

Consensus of Council was to have a determination within 60 days as to whether the house can be salvaged. If so, then plans should be provided demonstrating how it can be salvaged. If it is determined within that timeframe that the house cannot be saved, then Christa will have an additional 30 days to demolish the house.  In addition, Council requested that Christa return to the next Council meeting to give an update on progress in this matter. Christa agreed to do so.

Council decided to delay action on the building inspector’s recommendation until the end of the 60 days.    

Clara Ojeda of 77 Lakeshore Drive, who is an architect, stated that an architect can draw up conceptual plans within a short period of time and then proceed with that to the permit departments, so it should be possible for Christa to know relatively soon whether or not the house can be saved.    

Public Works Committee Report
Randy Kirkus, Public Works Committee chairman, gave a verbal report to council. The Public Works Committee has met three times this year. The agendas have included looking at the fire hydrants within the city limits to relocate hydrants on 4” lines to 6” lines and to do something about those fire hydrants that are spaced too far apart.  In addition, Public Works is working on LARP for the repaving of Lakeshore between Ridge Road and South Berkeley Lake road. They are looking into a stormwater maintenance ordinance. Randy reported that there will be a change in the City’s responsibility for the MS4 permit.

Sipe asked about the LARP project in terms of the limits of the repaving and the previous April 20th deadline. Kirkus stated that the April 20th deadline has gone away and that the repaving would not leave a square of Lakeshore Drive near its intersection with Ridge Road unpaved.

Kitchens asked about upgrading hydrants to 6” lines. Kirkus says that the County should pay for this infrastructure and he is approaching the County with this on a small-scale basis to do it a little bit at a time.

Salter commented to Council that the City’s decision to take on responsibility for our MS4 permit and not go along with the County and their stormwater utility is a considerable task for our small City to be taking on. Salter stated that Grayson decided at the last minute to go with the County, and they are the nearest correlate to us in terms of size. Salter is not suggesting that Council should not have made this decision, but the MS4 permit is a significant challenge.  

V. MAYORS MESSAGE
Salter submitted a written report to council, which said the following:  
The lake has been rising very slowly since we have had such little rain.  The siphons were turned off, as you recall, the first week in March.  The old siphon pipes from a previous lake lowering have been removed.  

The infrastructure project is coming along nicely.  There are 2 sites near the Miramont pumping station and they are about half through with the first of these.  After that they will do some work on the culvert near Wayne Mitsch’s house and some work contracted separately with Miramont on their retention pond.  That’s all that’s left, except for paving over the remaining places where the road has been cut.  Site Engineering has been very responsive to our needs and concerns throughout this major project.

Regarding the shoulder buildup by Farmer Construction, that appears to have been done well also.  I have been asked by some homeowners if they can remove the straw netting in front of their houses, because they think it’s somewhat unsightly and it may damage their lawn mowers.  Having consulted Rich Edinger about this, I am telling them, and you may pass the word, that they should feel free to remove the netting if the grass cover has taken hold.  They should remove it carefully without ripping up the grass.

Earth Day went really well and as always our volunteers make me proud to live here!  Thanks especially to Wayne Mitsch, Tom Kitchens, Steve Craigg, Britt Collins, and John Salter for heavy labor in removing a very large tree and all its branches from the roadside.  They saved the City almost $1000 which was the professional estimate to remove it.  These same guys worked on other projects around the City that day as well, cleaning the spillway, etc.  Thanks to George Sipe and Britt Collins for assisting our hardworking staff (Leigh Threadgill and Gene Rodgers) at City Hall.  Mikal and Tom Kitchens, Linda and Steve Craigg, Debbie Peters, Randy Johnson, Chip McDaniel, Kathy and Bob Strickland, all picked up roadside trash.  We were also blessed to have trash picked up by people from outside our City. Donald Ordner and his three children, non-residents from Hermitage, picked up along PIB.  Jay and Jacob Revis, non-residents who are with the Cub Scout Troop at Mt. Carmel Methodist Church came to help also.  Bob Herb scrubbed signs around the city.  Thanks also to the many people who worked for the Chapel and their homeowner associations on that day.  As my grandmother used to say, “Many hands make light work!”  It bears noting that this was the first Earth Day that was coordinated without an Events Committee.  Our staff and I worked hard on this, and Advanced Disposal did their usual excellent job in assisting us.

Having talked with the Ga. Power people about power outages, I want to remind our citizens that if someone in your home has a serious health threat and relies on electric equipment to monitor or control it, Ga. Power will prioritize your home to get power resumed before others.  If you have a need that may qualify for this emergency priority, please contact Ga. Power and ask to be put on their list.

I will be driving an arborist around the City tomorrow to check on trees and advise as to possible threats.  We’ve had significant damage from falling trees lately and we need to be as proactive as we can to prevent this.  Years ago I asked Betty Covington and Randy Kirkus to get us a price for burying power lines in the old part of the City.  I have always wished for that, but we’ve never had the money to do it.  Having seen the destruction that some citizens have suffered, I want us to explore what possibilities may exist in the near future.  It may be possible for a future SPLOST to pay for this, or we could create a TAD (tax allocation district) for the areas affected.  It would be my hope that we could maintain as many as possible of the trees we love without losing power so often in windstorms and ice storms.  Beyond power loss, the power surges that happen are even more destructive.  One family last week had computers and other electronics fried and all their light bulbs exploded.  We need to do what we can to protect people from that kind of nightmare.

You will recall our history of trouble with the billboard above our City on PIB.  In response to our complaints the county took the owners to court, which ordered lights off nightly by 10 PM.  That is not happening, and I have renewed my complaints to the county.  Having gotten no response from their legal dept., I moved on to Bert Nasuti who is looking into it and will get back to me.  I will keep you informed.

I have been working with Britt Collins to plan for our Veterans’ Day celebration next November.  He hopes to provide Huey helicopter rides for our citizens this year among other things.  I have contacted Tom Woosley of the Safe Dams Administration and received permission to land a Huey on our dam.  If anyone is interested in helping plan for this event, they should contact me or Britt.

We have obtained altosid briquets (a mosquito larvacide) which Gene Rodgers will begin distributing around the City immediately.  I urge everyone to be even more diligent than in previous years about emptying any water containers around their homes.  I have received notification about malaria and dengue fever in areas south of us but closer than in past years, as well as the usual West Nile threat here.  We need to be very cautious about mosquitoes.

I have arranged to have 3 high school students doing community service in our City.  They have picked up a lot of trash and assisted on Earth Day, but most of their time has been spent cleaning traffic signs.  If you have other suggested tasks for them, please contact me.

I am repeating the SPLOST financial information already given to Council here for the public and to assist in your deliberations tonight.  I talked at length with Lisa Johnsa (Gwinnett Co. Finance Dept.) about what $ we might reasonably expect to come to us from SPLOST for City Hall.  Their original estimate was that Berkeley Lake would receive $1,866,082 from this SPLOST by the time that it ends on March 31, 2009.  Of the total, 39.7% was committed to streets and infrastructure, which was expected to be  $741,082.  Secondly, 24.1% is committed to recreational facilities (then expected to = $450,000).  Finally 36.2% is committed to administrative buildings, then expected to produce the $675,000 we have been talking about.   The county's current projection based on the current rate of sales tax receipts is that we can expect to receive more than $2,140,000 total of which $774,000 would be committed to city hall.  This could drop if the economy tanks completely (they don't expect this).  It could, of course, go up as well, particularly if gas prices go up, which we hear being discussed a lot.  People seem to buy gas (and pay sales tax on it) no matter what it costs, although I would think they'd buy less other stuff to compensate somewhat.   It's difficult to know exactly but we do know that what we don't spend on City Hall cannot be spent on anything else.  Lisa reiterated that.   She confirmed that we can borrow from our reserves to pay for City Hall and pay ourselves back from SPLOST, but she doesn't know if we can pay ourselves interest from SPLOST.  She suggested we ask Dick Carothers, citing him as a noted expert on SPLOST. The third thing I explored with her at your request was whether or not we have to take the lowest bid.  She says the SPLOST is "silent on that" but that the county uses SPLOST funds for things by using Request for Proposals and scoring these by some mechanism, which doesn't always result in the lowest cost proposal being accepted.  For example, they might advertise that the decision would be based on a formula of 20% experience of contractor, 20% references, 20% cost, and other factors to equal 100 %.
   
VI. OLD BUSINESS
a) O-45-07 Chapter 3, Administration Ordinance (for poss. adoption)
Sipe motioned to adopt the ordinance with the change discussed last meeting to restore the original description of the BLC.  Kitchens seconded the motion.  

Anderson asked about the dates referenced in the original text and whether those should be eliminated.

There was some discussion.

Guthrie stated that the last sentence of the first paragraph of 3-703.1.A could be removed.
Guthrie asked if anyone wanted to discuss whether terms for BLC members should be one or two years. Sipe stated that he thinks they should be two year terms, which provides for more knowledge and history of work being done and insulates members of the conservancy from some politics. Guthrie stated that citizens may be more willing to volunteer for the commitment if it is just for one year. In addition, if there is a problem with a member it is easier to simply not reappoint someone at the end of their year term rather than having to go through the process of removing them.

Sipe commented that there is an error on Page 10, number 5 (Section 3-206.5) that needs to be corrected where it references in the first two paragraphs that committees have jurisdiction. Committees do not have jurisdiction.   Consensus of Council was to change “jurisdiction” to “purview”.  

Sipe modified the motion to approve Chapter 3 with the following two changes: 1.) the original BLC verbiage shall be restored, except that the last sentence of the first paragraph in Section 3-703.1.A will be removed and 2.) “jurisdiction” shall be changed to “purview” in Section 3-206.5.  Kitchens seconded the motion.

Threadgill asked if Council was ready to vote because there were still some questions about the issue of dismissal for cause. Discussion followed. The version under consideration will remain the same in regards to this issue.
Guthrie asked if Threadgill had anything to add about the Planning and Zoning Commission (P & Z) meeting schedule. Threadgill stated that there is business that has needed attention but has not been heard because no variance requests have been submitted to drive a P & Z meeting.

Anderson stated that he had given this issue more consideration since last meeting, and that it would be more professional for the City to have regularly scheduled P & Z meetings. Last year Council had to wait several months to get a response from the P & Z about business that Council was considering.   

Guthrie added that she looked at other cities in Gwinnett County to see what they do for P & Z meetings.  She stated that Berkeley Lake is the only city in the county that does not have regularly scheduled P & Z meetings.  Guthrie stated that the minutes from last year’s P & Z meetings reflected that there were more agenda items for City business than there were for variance requests. Guthrie stated that P & Z should meet in a way that would be conducive to how Council conducts business.

Sipe does not want to force P & Z to have regular meetings since members of the P & Z have already voiced their opinion that they do not want to schedule regular monthly meetings.  Sipe also stated that while he was on the P & Z he never heard any complaints from citizens about not having a monthly meeting.   Sipe stated that he feels that P & Z should be able to respond before a motion is made to change the wording in this section of Chapter 3. Sipe said that Council could suggest wording such as meeting every second Tuesday (for example) as needed, and let P & Z respond to that change.

Guthrie asked Threadgill if P & Z members were open to the idea of having a regularly scheduled meeting.

Threadgill said that her recollection of the discussion at the last P & Z meeting was that some of the members were more willing to do that and others may prefer it the way that it is handled on an as-needed basis.

There was much discussion.

All were in favor. The motion passed.

There was consensus that the City Administrator would contact the P & Z members about changing the meeting schedule to be regularly scheduled to be a certain day each month but with the added verbiage “as needed”.
Cohen stated that the original BLC verbiage states that Council is required to appoint a member to the GOLT board, which hasn’t been done this year. In addition, the BLC is required to meet once a quarter, and that they have not met yet this year.  

There was discussion.

Salter offered to talk to BLC about who they would nominate to serve on the GOLT board and bring it back to Council at their next meeting. This met with Council’s approval.

Guthrie requested that Chapter 3 be placed on next month’s agenda to discuss the outcome of the P & Z meeting schedule consideration.

b) O-48-07 Chapter 4-103 Occupational Taxes (for poss. 2nd read)
Several Council members stated that they had a lot of discussion on this ordinance.

Salter stated that she wished that Council had been working on this leading up to the meeting so that some of these issues could have been discussed before the meeting.

Guthrie stated that she had provided her comments to council previously but hadn’t received feedback, so she went through the ordinance providing her comments, both those that were formatting related and those that were substantive.

There was much discussion pertaining to the formula and rounding that is used in the sample ordinances to calculate the number of full time equivalents (FTEs).  Guthrie suggested that the formula be simplified by dropping the step of rounding up or down.

Guthrie suggested that March 1st rather than January 1st be the deadline for employers to submit their information regarding number of employees. It would be difficult for employers to have this ready by January 1st for the prior calendar year.  

Guthrie asked for clarification in section 8.A, which says that occupation taxes imposed on businesses commencing after January 1st are due and payable 30 days following commencement, because section 2.B states that any business established in the current or prior calendar year shall pay zero. This needs to be rectified so that these two sections are not contradictory.

Guthrie asked that it be spelled out in the ordinance that the penalty fine is in addition to occupation taxes owed.

Sipe said that overall this ordinance is very complex and that many people will probably have trouble with it. He went through some of his comments and questions.  

Sipe questioned whether we should include vehicles in this and how difficult it may be to enforce if we do. Anderson responded that there could be people who may provide car detailing services or lawn care services that are working out of their vehicles, but live in the city limits.

There was further discussion.

Sipe stated that he can’t envision this ordinance ever looking good to him unless it is simplified a great deal.  Anderson responded by saying that the proposed ordinance is derived from the sample ordinances provided by GMA/GwMA, and that much of that boilerplate was left untouched.

Sipe asked about those people who are required to pay taxes based on whether or not they are living in Georgia and paying occupation taxes in Savannah, for example, versus those who may come into Berkeley Lake from another state.

Guthrie suggested that she had heard that Johns Creek had a good code dealing with occupation taxes and that Council may want to take a look at that for the City.

There was further discussion.

Sipe suggested that if disabled veterans are exempt then we should also exempt those who are in active service. He also questioned who under the disabled veteran exemption would be exempt and suggested that the way it was worded could include the Taliban.

Sipe raised the question of enforcement being the responsibility of the City Administrator.

Guthrie and Sipe agreed to provide their suggested changes to the document and redistribute it for Council consideration.

Consensus of Council was to table voting on O-48-07 Chapter 4-103, Occupation Taxes, and O-47-07 Chapter 32-101, Regulatory Fees at this time until the City Attorney has had a chance to review other cities’ codes. Carothers stated that he will look into what Johns Creek’s Occupational Tax Ordinance states.  

Marilyn Childress, 4363 South Berkeley Lake Road, stated that she was a veteran and that the disabled veteran clause didn’t include members of the Taliban or the armed forces of another country.

c) O-47-07 Chapter 32-101 Regulatory Fees (for poss. 2nd read)
Per above, consensus of Council was to table voting on O-47-07 Chapter 32-101, Regulatory Fees.
    
d) City Hall Planning
Barbara Carroll, 3430 Kingsland Circle, informed Council that there was a public meeting held two weeks ago, April 9th, 2007.  Members of Council, members of the Facilities Committee and the City Administrator met with Eric Bosman of Urban Collage to discuss the two delivery methods, design-build or design-bid-build.  At that meeting it was requested that Council would bring up discussion of the delivery method of choice to be decided on at this meeting.  Carroll is requesting that discussion about the delivery method and the amount of money to spend on the new city hall ensue at this time.

Salter stated that the information that she obtained from Lisa Johnsa at Gwinnett County about how much money we would likely have from SPLOST was included in her Mayor’s Message to Council tonight for everyone’s review.

Salter read a citizen comment she received by email from George Kaffezakis who is an engineer with Gwinnett County and has experience with this topic, both from the standpoint of the design-build firms and the owners who have erected buildings using that delivery strategy.

Kaffezakis indicated that the design-build process is very profitable for the firm constructing the building, but that owners who have gone this route have had mixed success. He advised that Council be very careful in making this decision. He stated that “unless there is a schedule issue, I am not sure why there would be an interest in this approach.” He suggested that if Council chooses this method, then they should have a 30% design developed and have very clear expectations.

Kaffezakis also commented on the issue of building a LEED structure and expressed that governments should consider what message they send in their own construction practices. Construction of an environmentally sensitive city hall indicates that the City is trying to preserve the environment for future generations.  In addition, the types of improvements required to construct a LEED building would pay for themselves over the long term.   

There was discussion about the pros and cons of both design-build and design-bid-build.

Carroll warned against Council falling into one pitfall of going through the design-bid-build option in that Council could get caught up in making decisions about every detail along the way.
 
There was further discussion about the pros and cons of both delivery methods.

Guthrie stated that design-bid-build could get out of hand because an architect could design the building and not necessarily take into consideration the City’s budget and design something that the city may not be able to afford.   

Guthrie motioned to select the Design-Bid-Build delivery method. Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

Salter discussed the SPLOST information she had recently obtained from Gwinnett County. Lisa Johnsa estimated, based on the rate at which money is now coming in, that the City would have $774,000 to spend on city hall, which does not include if we choose to spend some amount of the SPLOST recreational facilities money. Salter suggested that perhaps the parking facilities and site preparation expenses could be paid for, at least in part, with the recreational facilities money.

Cohen asked the City Attorney his thoughts about using that money to fund the new city hall. Carothers responded that Council would need to work out an allocation formula and be careful to be sure that the SPLOST money was spent appropriately.

There was discussion about the cost of furnishings for the new city hall and the cost to rebuild the park.

There was discussion about the other needs for the recreational facilities money, such as land acquisition that the City may be interested in pursuing, which would need to be discussed in executive session.  It was determined that land acquisition would be added to the executive session scheduled at the end of the agenda.

Sipe motioned to spend all the anticipated money ($774,000) for the new city hall as well as approximately half of the recreational facilities money ($250,000) as a reasonable estimate for additional money that may be available for the construction of the new city hall. Anderson seconded the motion.  

There was further discussion.

Cohen asked for an amendment to the motion stating that the additional money from the recreational facilities be used only if that money is permissible to be used under the SPLOST rules.

Sipe modified the motion to spend all the anticipated money ($774,000) as well as approximately half of the recreational facilities money ($250,000), if it is permissible under the rules of SPLOST, as a reasonable estimate for additional money that may be available for the construction of the new city hall. Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.  

There was further discussion about SPLOST rules pertaining to paying ourselves back money that we had to use for construction of the building prior to the entire SPLOST funds being available. Carothers agreed to look further into this issue of whether we could recuperate lost interest and provide an answer to council at the next meeting.

VII. NEW BUSINESS
a) R-29-07 Transmittal Resolution for the Joint Community Assessment
Sipe moved to make the resolution. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

b) O-53-07 Chapter 45 Conservation Subdivision
Sipe asked why this was being considered.

Threadgill explained that passage of this ordinance was required for our MS4 permit and to pass our EPD audit.

Sipe motioned to put the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance on 1st read.  Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

c) Consideration of Building Inspector’s Report regarding 830 Valley View Lane
This was considered under the reports section of the agenda with the building inspector’s report.

d) Discussion regarding GwMA Executive Director Position
Salter explained that the money requested is not expected until January, so this year’s budget shouldn’t be changed as a result of this. It would come under the dues budget for next year, and it would be a permanent increase to the dues. The increase would be significant. The dues would increase by approximately $4,000 while they are currently $500 annually.  

Guthrie asked what the total budget for the executive director was planned to be so that Council would have an understanding of the overall pot of money for this.

Salter explained that the budget would fund both the executive director’s position as well some expensive research by the University of Georgia on Service Delivery Strategies.

Sipe expressed reservations about this position and putting all GwMA’s eggs in one basket.

After further discussion, Cohen added that we are already paying for the Georgia Municipal Association’s (GMA) services, and that they may be better equipped to take this role since they already have the secretarial staff, necessary equipment and experience in lobbying.  Cohen suggested that we increase the amount that we pay GMA to have someone there represent the interests of GwMA.  

Salter regretted that members of Council had not individually contacted her personally prior to tonight’s meeting, as she had requested, to discuss their concerns.  Cohen agreed to speak privately with Salter.  

Consensus of Council was to delay voting on this matter until further information was available.

e) City Cell Phones - Cohen
Cohen requested two additional pieces of information.  He asked to know what other cities’ policies are for cell phones?  Additionally, he requested the phone records from the last quarter of last year in order to know how many minutes were used and how much internet usage was billed to ensure that we are using what we are paying to use and that we are not paying for more than we actually use.

Anderson and Guthrie feel that this is an administrative issue and that Cohen should work with the City Administrator to obtain this information.

Salter stated that the phones were obtained at a government rate.

Guthrie and Anderson expressed some concern about pulling the actual call logs listing phone numbers because that could be seen as a privacy issue and is irrelevant information to the matter at hand.  The number of minutes should be able to be obtained without needing the actual phone records.

There was further discussion.

Salter raised some concern about the amount of time available to look into this. Cohen stated that he did not need this information immediately and that it shouldn’t take too long to obtain that information.

It was determined that the total minutes used and the amount of internet usage for the last quarter of last year would be sufficient to satisfy Cohen’s request instead of the actual phone number log.

Consensus of Council was that Cohen would work with Threadgill on this issue.   

e) Septic Extension Requests
Salter noted that there were two requests

Anderson motioned to approve the conforming Septic Extension Requests as submitted by the City Administrator.  Kitchens seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

f) On-Street Parking Requests
Salter noted that the Kelly’s had submitted an on-street parking exemption request.

Anderson motioned to grant this exemption as it was submitted for the Kelly’s at 574 Lakeshore Drive. Kitchens seconded the motion.

Salter suggested that the exemption should continue as long as the Kellys live in this house.  She was reminded  that the on-street parking ordinance requires an expiration date for exemptions.

Anderson modified his motion to grant the exemption as submitted for the Kelly’s at 574 Lakeshore Drive for a period of two years from today’s date.  Kitchens seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.  

Council also noted that enforcement of the parking ordinance would be effective April 20, 2007, as determined at last month’s council meeting.

VIII. CITIZENS COMMENTS
Wayne Mitch, 826 Valley View Lane, asked that Council take a look again at the entire Christa issue because there are other issues and there may need to be a retrospective look at why these things are happening in the city. He was bothered by the notion that Environmental Health would be willing to bend the rules to help Christa in her situation and the impact that that may have on the lake.  He suggested that our ordinances may need to be revisited and that the system may not be working as well as it should be working.  Mitsch offered to serve on a citizen committee to help look at the problems and the permit review process and the codes and everything pertaining to these situations.

Salter added to Mitch’s comment her recommendation that a 12-month expiration should be applied to building permits.   The building permit process needs to be reviewed.  

Salter asked what the committee would be called. There was no consensus about the title of the committee.
Mitsch stated that too many people know that they can do what they want and then come back later and ask for forgiveness.

It was the consensus of council that a committee should be formed as Mitsch had suggested with Mitsch serving as the chairman.  

IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal issues and land acquisition

Cohen motioned to enter executive session at 10:16 P.M.  Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor. The motion passed.

Cohen motioned to adjourn executive session at 10:50. Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor.  The motion passed.

X. ADJOURNMENT
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, COHEN MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:55 P.M. ANDERSON SECONDED THE MOTION.  ALL WERE IN FAVOR.  THE MOTION PASSED.

Respectively Submitted by Leigh Threadgill (Approved by Council on May 17, 2007)