|
|
Full Minutes May 22, 2007 Special Called Council Meeting |
|
|
|
|
SPECIAL CALLED COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 SOUTH BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes for
May 22, 2007
5 P.M.
Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Walter Anderson, Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, Tom Kitchens and George Sipe
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present- 2
CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 5:00 pm at 4040 South Berkeley Lake Road.
I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Salter asked council for any suggested changes to the agenda. She noted that Barbara Carroll was not present to address the old business agenda item (a), City Hall Planning, and that council could postpone consideration of that item to the next meeting unless Carroll arrived. It was consensus of council to do so.
II. REPORTS
Pam Williamson, Chairwoman of the Financial Affairs Committee and resident of 3996 North Berkeley Lake Road, delivered a report to council with various scenarios for the 2007 millage rate. She reported that Tom Rozier, Jennifer Lombardi, Dixie Kucera, Leigh Threadgill and herself, members of the Financial Affairs Committee, met at noon to go over the tax digest information received from Gwinnett County. She explained the analysis that was done by the committee based on the current 2007 budget and the information we received from the county. A thorough written comparison was given of all the numbers at various levels, similar to what was done last year to provide some interim levels to indicate the impact.
Williamson said that the rate rollback is the number that we would have set if we had available the information that came true in 2006 to make the rate decisions, and that rate would have been set at 3.959 to exactly cover the budget. Williamson explained that in order to pay for the budget that had been approved for 2007, with the use of $39,550 from reserves, the millage rate would need to be 3.944. This would result in a net decrease of 0.38% from the required rollback rate of 3.959, which is the rate that is being used for comparison.
Williamson described that we didn’t expect the increase of $3.5 million due to reassessment. Williamson also described that River District had not resulted in the revenue that was anticipated last year. What we are assessing $86 million on for 2006 increases to $96 million for 2007 based on the reassessment and the net growth.
Williamson reported that the Financial Affairs Committee was recommending that the millage rate remain unchanged at 4.1 mills.
Williamson went on to explain that if the current millage rate of 4.1 was maintained, the amount of reserves necessary would decrease to $24,477. In addition, two other scenarios were provided. The first was for the use of $10,000 from reserves, which would result in a millage rate of 4.25. The second was based on a drop in the millage rate to 4.0, which would result in $34,150 being needed from reserves.
Anderson asked if these numbers were for the tax bills for this year as part of this year’s budget. Williamson responded that that was true. The money comes in at the end of the year to pay for all the expenditures for all of 2007.
Cohen asked whether or not there was anything in the budget that we expected would change, areas where we would spend a lot more or less than we originally thought or areas where we expected more or less revenue. Williamson said that we didn’t make any modifications to the approved budget because we don’t anticipate any radical changes. She explained that last year they adjusted the budget due to an increase in expected revenue from utilities.
There was discussion among council about different areas where we may need to spend more than anticipated such as public works projects and legal fees.
Cohen stated that the difference between a 4.25 millage rate and a 4.1 millage rate is an average of $21 per house. Williamson stated that the growth is in the higher valued houses. There was discussion about this.
Williamson stated that holding the rate at 4.1 basically results in using about $15,000 less of reserves. She explained that the entire approved budget was used in the calculation, including the amount that council had committed to spending from reserves.
There was further discussion about legal fees which are increasing significantly for 2007.
Williamson stated that the Financial Affairs Committee unanimously recommended holding the millage rate at 4.1, which represents a 3.56% increase over the 3.959 rollback rate.
Salter asked if council would agree to set the millage rate at 4.1. She asked Williamson to confirm that this would require the City to advertise an increase. Williamson responded yes that would be required. There was discussion about advertising requirements.
Sipe stated that he was concerned about deficit spending, which he doesn’t like at all. He stated that we are planning to live beyond our means. He also said that he is worried about the public works money for next year. In addition, the legal fees may be an issue. He stated that he thinks we’d be lucky to only need to take out $25,000 from reserves that would be required with the 4.1 millage rate. He anticipates that we may need more like $75,000 if we set the millage rate at 4.1.
Salter reminded everyone of the StreetSmarts report. There was discussion about this and whether implementation should begin this year or not. In addition, there was discussion about what additional stormwater expenditures may be needed this year, if any.
Sipe asked about rules regarding raising the millage rate beyond a certain amount. Threadgill responded that she was not aware that there was a difference dependent upon the degree to which the millage rate is increased, only based on whether you rollback or increase.
Guthrie stated that we should not be talking about next year’s expenses in regards to setting the millage rate for this year. There was further discussion about what projects should be paid for this year. Guthrie reminded everyone that we shouldn’t be trying to provide a cushion for next year’s expenses with this year’s taxes. She also stated that she is aware there is a sentiment among some citizens that are familiar with city finances that the reserve money should not be something that can never be touched. She stated that she is not sure that she is in favor of raising taxes in order to not spend any of our reserves.
Sipe stated that it would be different if we were using our reserves for capital expenses, but we’re using the reserves for our operational costs, which is a bad habit to get into.
There was further discussion about funding recommendations from StreetSmarts.
Salter reminded everyone again to focus on expenditures for this year.
Guthrie asked if the millage rate could still be changed during the course of the public hearings. Cohen stated that a firm number was not required today, but that we had to come up with a proposed number for the purposes of advertising.
Sipe stated that he thought the millage rate should be at least 4.25.
Anderson asked about the 4.1 millage rate being an increase since it’s the same as the millage rate that we had in 2006. Williamson explained that it was because of the difference between that and the rollback rate of 3.959.
Williamson asked to comment on behalf of what she understood at least half of the Finance committee members expressed in the meeting today. She stated that it is a disservice to the citizens to look at the reserves as untouchable because people have paid for that in the past and it’s being held hostage. The view that it is untouchable is damaging to the current citizenship.
She also stated that to set a tax base that’s going to affect the entire citizenship based on something bad that may happen presumes that we have poor fiscal management. She stated that it is poor stewardship of the finances to tax current citizens for what-if scenarios.
There was further discussion about public works expenditures.
There was further discussion about how much money from reserves should be spent and public sentiment about the reserves.
Anderson asked how much money was in reserves right now. Williamson responded that we have a little bit less than $1 million.
There was further discussion about the role of reserves. Salter mentioned that you are supposed to have enough funds to run the City for 6 months in the event of a disaster, but that we are more than covered for that.
III. OLD BUSINESS
(a) City Hall Planning – Answer to Urban Collage Questions
Carroll reviewed the questions still needing answers so that Urban Collage can move forward. The first is how “green” council wants the building to be. The second is how many people should serve on the architect selection committee who would review proposals and participate in the interview of architects. The third is whether we want Eric Bosman to hold a pre-proposal conference to introduce the requirements to potential bidders. The fourth question, which was answered at the last meeting, regarded the cost proposal. Council decided that it wasn’t necessary to have a cost proposal until we generated the short list of architects.
Council discussed their wishes regarding LEED. It was determined that requiring a LEED certified building may weed out potential bidders that council doesn’t want to exclude. Therefore, council decided that the RFP could state that the aspiration is to have a LEED certified building, but not make LEED certification a requirement. Council had agreed at the last council meeting to award more points, the point system to be set by Eric Bosman of Urban Collage, for LEED experience so that could be considered in the evaluation of RFP’s. There was further discussion. It was determined that the RFP should also include that the City is sensitive to cost.
In response to question two about the number of people on the architect review committee, Cohen stated that the number should be very few, one or two. Carroll suggested three. The committee would review the RFP’s and conduct interviews.
The architect selection committee would report to council and provide information for council to make a decision.
Sipe suggested that the proposals that we get back be made public for citizen review. Carroll agreed that information should be shared with the public, but council should be careful opening the door for too much individual citizen input on the proposals. Carroll suggested that reports be made routinely at council to keep the public informed. Carroll agreed that keeping the citizenry involved is important.
Salter asked council if they would be all right for Carroll, Threadgill and herself to make up the architect selection committee. Guthrie stated that she would like Eric Bosman to be involved with that committee, to attend meetings and to provide his opinions and advice throughout the selection process. Salter asked if there was funding for that. After review of the proposal that Urban Collage submitted in December, it was determined that council had approved funding for this. It was determined that the committee would be Carroll, Salter, and Threadgill with Bosman serving in an advisory role.
Sipe asked if we should ask an architect in the community to sit on this committee. It was decided that it was not a good idea to open this up to a citizen that hasn’t been part of the process to this point.
Council considered whether or not to hold a pre-proposal conference for prospective bidders to come in and have the requirements explained. There was much discussion about whether or not this was needed for a project this size and because the RFP would probably provide enough information. It was determined that Bosman would hold a simple pre-proposal meeting based on response from interested bidders that they would attend. It was also determined that Eric Bosman would be the point of contact for any questions from bidders. Guthrie suggested that we also be given a figure for how much the pre-proposal meeting would cost. Guthrie also wanted to understand about the format and whether or not council should be present or not.
IV. NEW BUSINESS
a) Consideration of the 2007 millage rate
Salter called for a motion.
Guthrie motioned to set the 2007 millage rate at 4.1 mills. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Cohen asked for discussion. He said that whatever we set the rate at now we can change. We also need to consider how much money from reserves we will spend and how much money may be needed this year to change what we’ll need.
Sipe said that he believes at a millage rate of 4.1 the amount needed from reserves is going to be more than $25,000 that was estimated by the Financial Affairs Committee because the Financial Affairs Committee used the official 2007 budget for their estimates, and it now appears that some expenses are likely to rise this year, such as legal expenses.
Guthrie, Kitchens and Anderson are in favor. Sipe and Cohen are opposed. The motion passed.
V. CITIZEN COMMENTS
There were no citizen comments.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Cohen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 P.M. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Respectfully Submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by City Council July 19, 2007)
|
to top
|
|
|
 |
