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 Attorney and Associate: Dick Carothers and Amy Cowan
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present- 8

CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:35pm at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.

I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

Salter suggested changes to the agenda based on the fact that the City Attorney needs to leave early. Salter suggested adding Facilities committee report under the reports section. She noted that a council member had requested that (f) and (g) under old business be moved to be considered after (a) and (b) under old business. Salter asked to add an agenda item under new business, (h) financial transactions. New Business (f), Council consideration of the PrepareFirst report, be moved up to be combined with the BLEMA report agenda item.  Salter asked that everyone associated with the PrepareFirst report agree that there is a lot that can’t be discussed tonight, but that this will be considered more completely at the next meeting.

Guthrie asked if the BLEMA report would be heard under the reports section or if it should be heard after old business agenda item (d).  It was determined to consider the BLEMA and PrepareFirst reports under old business.

It was consensus of council to make these changes to the agenda.

II. SPECIAL GUEST SPEAKER – Stephanie Joedecke, Director of Partnership Gwinnett

Joedecke apologized for Nick Masino missing the May meeting and stated that he couldn’t attend because of a conflict with City of Suwanee meetings.  This is a community wide effort and Partnership Gwinnett would like to have support from all of the cities.  At this point, no one has said no to the Partnership Gwinnett request. They have received four formal commitments from cities and are on the agenda of other cities as well.  Dacula, Grayson, Lilburn, and possibly Suwanee have committed.

Cohen asked how much each of those cities committed.  Dacula committed $4,500 after being asked for $4,221. Grayson was asked for $845 but committed $2,345. Lilburn committed $6,000 as opposed to $12,000, which was requested. Suwanee committed an even $10,000, although she wanted to verify this number, but they were asked for $9,570.

Guthrie asked if we had budgeted anything for this year, and asked the City Administrator to find that out. Guthrie asked what our previous contribution was last year. Salter responded that we had committed what was requested last time. Joedecke stated that that contribution was to fund the study phase of the project.  This year we are being asked for $1,859 based on our city’s population at the 2000 census.


III. MINUTES of May 17th, 2007; May 22nd, 2007; 12 Noon June 7th, 2007; 7 p.m. June 7th, 2007; and June 14th, 2007
Anderson motioned to accept the minutes of May 17th with the addition of the changes that he circulated at the beginning of the meeting, which are largely formatting issues. Guthrie seconded the motion. Guthrie, Sipe, Anderson, and Kitchens voted in favor. Cohen abstained. The motion passed.

Anderson motioned to accept the May 22nd minutes.  Kitchens seconded the motion.

Guthrie asked about omitted text on page 2.  There was further discussion. It was determined that Threadgill would review the voice record again.

Anderson withdrew the motion.

Anderson motioned to accept the minutes of June 7th at noon. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

Anderson motioned to accept the minutes of June 7th at 7 p.m.  Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

Anderson motioned to accept the June 14th minutes.  Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

IV. REPORTS

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

ii. May 2007 Financial Statements
Salter noted that council had received the May 2007 financial statements.

Guthrie motioned to approve the unaudited May financial statements. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

iii. Ordinance Enforcement Officer
Salter stated that council had received a report from the Ordinance Enforcement Officer.

iv. Berkeley Lake Conservancy
Salter noted that Council has received a report from the Berkeley Lake Conservancy and that Rebecca Spitler will be coming later to answer any questions.

v. Facilities Committee
Salter noted that Council had received a report from the Facilities Committee.

V. MAYOR’S MESSAGE TO COUNCIL
Salter read the following written report into the minutes:

“In response to George Sipe’s concern about bicyclists expressed at our May meeting, I have contacted the Executive Director of GEORGIA BIKES and the Public Affairs Officer of the Southern Bicycle League.  The word has been passed along to individuals, cycle shops, and e-mail lists/forums that we take any violations of relevant law seriously and that I have asked our police to be very observant for such violations.  Additionally, I spoke with Doug McClure and asked for another police visitation with local cycle shops.  Mark Matesevac was dispatched in our behalf.  He spoke with Andy McCann, the manager of Cycleworks on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard.  Mark reports, ‘I expressed to him the concerns several City of Berkeley Lake citizens and council members have with bicyclists riding recklessly through the city.  He was very courteous and understanding.  He informed me that the group he rides with stopped riding in the city altogether for over one year because they didn't want to cause problems.  He has recently ridden through the city with his group and they stopped for all of the stop signs and did not block the roadway.  He understands the citizens concerns … and will pass the word on to his fellow bicyclists.’
                                                 
Since our May meeting Rebecca Spitler, chair of the Berkeley Lake Conservancy, has attended the Urban Forest Conference as our representative.  Thanks to her for contributing her time, and thanks to Dale Higdon, our city forester, for arranging payment for the conference without city funds being expended.  I received a call from Carol Hassell following Rebecca’s first attendance at a GOLT meeting.  Carol said she felt she had to call to tell me how “fabulous” Rebecca is.  She said, “I am so impressed, so thrilled!  You’ve selected a real winner and I’m very grateful.”  I pass her gratitude on to you.

A tree fell recently on the mill house at the spillway.  Tom Kitchens cut it up and is in the process of repairing the mill house.  This, of course, saves the City money, which I’m sure we all appreciate.

Kay Lee has agreed to help with our July 4th festivities.  If any council members or citizens would be willing to help, please let me know.

I have received some responses from county planning officials to the concerns I expressed about development on PIB, confirming that the concerns are being passed around to all the appropriate officials and decision makers.

Our City Engineer has still not released me to pay Farmer Construction, not because he has found problems, but because he’s still working on it.  He expects Site Engineering to begin on the Miramont infrastructure project soon since we have resolved all the difficulties having to do with questions about the contract.”

VI. OLD BUSINESS
a.) Update from Carol Christa regarding progress at 830 Valley View Lane and Council consideration

Carol Christa of 828 and 830 Valley View Lane apologized for not being present at the last council meeting because of her injury. She stated that due to her personal injury her lawsuit against the builder had not been adjudicated and the trial begins on July 9th.

She stated that her legal advisors have told her that because there was not sufficient minimum square footage at either location, 828 or 830 Valley View Lane, when the new minimum lot size regulations were put into place for septic, which created the grandfathered status, that a slight change in the lot lines doesn’t change the amount of square footage available and doesn’t change the grandfathered status.  She believes that a judge will agree and there should be a new septic permit issued so that they can finish the house. She reported that there has been no change in size of either lot as a result of the lot line change. 

Salter asked whether the structure would be built over the lot line. Christa responded that she intends to keep the lot lines that she has changed, not restore the original lot lines.

Anderson asked the square footage of the new larger lot. Christa said that she had that information but not with her tonight.

Sipe asked if it was true that neither lot size changed as a result of the reconfiguration of the lot lines. Christa stated that there is a change to each individual lot size but not the total square footage. Sipe asked if both structures would be fully conforming with the lot lines. Christa stated that they would.

Sipe stated that the use permit that was issued has to be legally granted, even if the city officer issuing it made an error. Right now it’s as if she built the house without a valid use permit from the City. There was further discussion about the validity of the use permit Christa had obtained.

Christa stated that the use permit that was approved had a stipulation on it and that stipulation had been deleted before submittal to the county.

There was discussion about the use permit and its invalidity because it incorporated a portion of a neighboring property, 826 Lakeshore Drive. Wayne Mitsch, 826 Lakeshore Dr., stated that was true.

Sipe stated that the use permit was and still is invalid and the house was effectively built without a use permit.  Christa stated that was true.

In addition Sipe stated, we have the opinion from the building inspector stating that the house should be removed and council’s direction to Christa was to meet with an architect to determine if the house could be saved and comply with the city’s requirements.

Christa says that she has not looked at tearing the house completely down or redesigning the house and demolishing a portion of it to comply with the city’s regulations. She stated that the cost of demolition she has been quoted is $180,000. She is instead pursuing a permit with environmental health.

Salter restated what Sipe stated which is that the issue for council is with the use permit for the City.

Carothers stated that he didn’t understand how the grandfathering could still apply if the lot lines had been changed. In addition, there is no valid use permit. He doesn’t understand how these problems are being solved.

Sipe stated that he doesn’t think lot lines should be moved without city approval as that was the basis upon which the original permits were based.

Anderson asked if there was any valid use permit to go back to look at. Christa said no there wasn’t.

Anderson asked if the lot line was able to be moved will both structures be conforming to zoning of the City of Berkeley Lake. This is a crucial piece of the puzzle. Christa stated that she was granted two variances, one for a front setback for the new house and also the possibility of a side setback.  Anderson asked if the scaled drawings presented to P&Z were accurate. If the information presented to P&Z was inaccurate, then the variances are invalid as well.

There was further discussion.

Sipe made an observation that there are issues with the builder and the surveyor. While we have empathy for this situation, they are between the owner and those parties. Council first needs to verify that the lot lines are legally moved and going to stay moved. Salter asked if the lot lines had been registered. Christa responded yes but there is a problem with that.

Sipe stated that the second thing is that both structures need to be in conformance with our ordinances and a valid use permit needs to be acquired immediately, such as within the next few days, and if not then we are no different than we were 60 days ago. A valid use permit is critical. The third thing is that we have a report from the building inspector and we need to get another recommendation under the new circumstances with the changed lines and if the use permit can be issued.

Kitchens then asked if Christa has worked with an architect to save as much as can be saved to comply with the City’s regulations. Christa responded that she has not done that yet. After careful consideration, she is trying to figure out a way to proceed with this and not have to tear any of it down.

Guthrie added that the building inspector’s recommendation did note that there was no remedy to the lack of an environmental health permit, so that piece needs to be taken care of as well.

Sipe said if there is an approval that can be forthcoming from environmental health then the inspector needs to look at it again to determine if the building is salvageable.

Salter stated that a building permit needs to be obtained immediately. Christa stated that she can’t get a building permit without a septic permit. There is no septic permit because of the problems with the lot lines.

Anderson stated that he understood that Christa was trying to put a lot line in a place between the two structures such that neither has to be torn down, which would not be restoring the original lot lines. When the lot line is moved is one lot going to get smaller? Christa stated that both lots would retain about the same amount of square footage after the lot line is moved. Anderson asked if environmental health had provided a letter stating that they would allow septic approval. Christa stated that she could get that letter. Anderson suggested that she get that letter from Environment Health so that the city inspector can include that information when he reviews the situation again.

Carothers asked who Christa had talked to in environmental health. She responded Don Crouch and Joseph Sternberg.

Guthrie stated that council should be concerned about what environmental health is willing to permit if they are going to waive their requirements.

Carothers stated that this was a good point and that the use permit requirements still need to be met. There was further discussion.

Guthrie asked if there was someone, such as Sipe, to talk with Christa, and figure out all the answers to these questions and be able to submit to us a report.  Sipe responded that our OEO and building inspector should prepare a report.  He offered to work with them to answer their questions.

Sipe stated that something needs to happen quickly. He suggested that the end of next week should be enough time for a valid building permit to be obtained, unless a variance is required.

Salter asked if council was in agreement to designate Sipe to be council’s representative in an effort to resolve this very complicated situation with Ms. Christa and the building inspector and report back to council.

Sipe suggested that we may need to have a special called council meeting so that we didn’t have to wait another month.

Anderson asked what the current recorded plat shows. Is there an error on the recorded plat?  Mitsch stated that the problems between his lot and Christa’s lot had not been recorded, but the stakes were moved physically and on a survey.

Guthrie stated that we need to know what was recorded. Sipe stated that we need this information from the county and that we need a letter from the mortgage company saying that they approve the movement of the lot lines.

Lynford Bentley with Buckhead Mortgage Company stated that they’ve looked at the lot line situation and there is no problem. Because of the situation, the mortgage company is willing to accept a lot line change.

Salter asked if Christa was willing to meet with the building inspector and Sipe or whoever and bring whatever documentation is needed to try to achieve a building permit. Christa agreed to do this.

Guthrie asked if Sipe was willing to do this. He responded that he was and that he would make himself available to whoever is trying to do this. Sipe also stressed the importance of a special called meeting long before the next scheduled council meeting if issues remained unresolved.

52:40 Verbatim Starts

Salter: We need to move this on.

Kitchens: I agree

Salter: Are y’all…Is there a consensus that… Are you willing to meet with our building inspector and Mr. Sipe and bring whatever documentation, not he-said, she-said, but documentation to try to achieve a building permit?
 
Christa: Yes.

Salter: OK.

Guthrie: And George you’re ok with doing this?

Sipe: Yeah, I’ll make myself available whatever time is necessary to do it. The only other thing I want from council is, you know, since we’re here, and I’m not asking to do it now, we need to have a special called meeting long before 30 full more days passes if we can’t resolve it for whatever reason.

Kitchens: I’m in agreement with that. [I couldn’t hear this well, so this is my guess at what Tom said.]

Salter: OK.

Guthrie: What is two weeks from tonight? Are we hitting July 4th weekend?

53:26 Verbatim Ends.

Discussion followed on potential dates for a special called meeting.  No date was set and Salter suggested that we wait until Sipe’s response and his suggestions about what we need.

Carothers asked Christa about the court calendar for her civil action.

Debbe Robinson, 540 Lakeshore, stated that Christa might be able to disclose information more easily after the trial.

b.) Road Safety – Cohen
Cohen stated that Ms. Robinson had brought this to council’s attention recently, and it has to do with alteration of the right-of-way due to work that has been done on the roadways for the infrastructure project. He reported that the City Engineer, Mr. Edinger, stated that we didn’t have to do anything to correct this. Cohen stated that there were other cases where the city engineer had recommended providing a guard rail and he didn’t understand what had changed to make his recommendation different this time.

Carothers recommended that the city ask a transportation expert to take a look at the situation and make a recommendation about this.

Anderson stated that maybe we asked the wrong question of Edinger and we should just ask if a guardrail would be recommended in this location.

Salter stated that her memory of the prior situation with the guardrail that Cohen referenced was that Edinger hadn’t been the one to recommend that.

There was further discussion.

Sipe stated that in the interest of public safety, someone should look at all these situations to determine what we need.

Kitchens asked if Edinger was qualified to do that. There was further discussion.

Anderson asked if we could just request that Edinger inspect these spots to look at what needed to be done to ensure road safety.

There was further discussion.

Salter reported that Edinger told her that the infrastructure work we have just completed did not change anything that would cause us to need guardrails.  He said that if we choose for some reason to explore this, we needed to have a complete study done and if we add guard rails then we will take more trees down and have lots of metal that will change the character of  Lakeshore Drive. In addition, this will cost a lot more money. She stated that Street Smarts didn’t note that these were safety problems or recommend guardrails when they did our recent traffic safety study in this area

Guthrie stated that in the past there was work done to install a guard rail near Nick Lore’s in 2004, and she had questions about whether this should be done at that time. Guthrie read an email from the past about what was discussed then. The 2004 email from Marcie Zielazienski who was in charge of public works then reported that she had a traffic safety engineer  look at Lakeshore Drive with her a few years ago and that there were no other places where a guard rail was warranted, would have enough room on the right-of-way, or be welcomed by the homeowners. It seems that in the past when we’ve looked at this, the curves that are being discussed now weren’t identified before.

There was further discussion.

Guthrie stated that it is prudent to have someone look at this. She stated that we would need professional advice on this. Perhaps we should ask Gwinnett County to come out and look at this.

Salter stated that she would contact the county to look at this issue and investigate how much Edinger would charge to look at this issue.

Guthrie stated in the past the person who was noted to be helpful in Zielanzienski’s email was Gwinnett County’s head of traffic engineering.

Anderson asked Guthrie to forward the email that she had to council and Edinger.  She agreed to do so.

Cohen stated that now that the infrastructure work has been done it is more apparent how serious the safety hazard is.

c.) Discussion about the direction of staff and attorney by individual council members
Guthrie requested that this and “d” below be postponed since the City Attorney needs to be present for this and has to leave early.

Guthrie motioned to postpone c and d (formerly f and g) to the next meeting. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
 
d.) Discussion regarding council member access to City Information

e.) BLEMA report and Council consideration of PrepareFirst Report
Wayne Mitsch, 826 Lakeshore Drive, chairman of BLEMA started by apologizing that some of the council members had not received the PrepareFirst draft from him before today. He commended the work of the committee to get to this point as well as the work of the consultant, Rob Carter of PrepareFirst. Mitsch suggested that consideration of the PrepareFirst report be postponed to the next council meeting, which will not hold up the committee and will allow council the opportunity to review the material.

Kitchens suggested that this be postponed as well.

Consensus of council was to postpone this to the next meeting.

Guthrie stated that it would be helpful for council to get more information about what the contract allows the city to do with the information from the consultant and changes to the document since the committee had expressed a concern about this. Mitsch stated that the BLEMA committee anticipated something different than what was delivered. He stated that the concern of some of BLEMA was to be sure that the electronic files would be fully available to the city to make changes to and be within the copy right limits of PrepareFirst. Guthrie stated that the City does have that right according to the contract that was signed with the consultant.

Rob Carter with PrepareFirst stated that the project has been tracking on schedule. He stated that he has gotten most of the committee feedback, but that there is some additional feedback that should be forthcoming from the committee regarding a preparedness gap they have mentioned. Carter stated that the contract was structured such that he would not get paid until he delivered a finished project.

Carothers asked that the material that was provided be sent to him. Carter provided him a hard copy of the draft.

Mitsch stated that the drafts that were distributed could be retained for council review for the next 30 days and the committee members who lent them would not need them during this time.

f.) O-47-07 Chapter 32-101 Regulatory Fees (for poss. 2nd read)

Anderson motioned to put O-47-07 Chapter 32-101 Regulatory Fees on second read. Guthrie seconded the motion.

Anderson called for discussion. He stated that Sipe had provided some ideas for how to modify this to make it easier to enforce and to apply to our community. Anderson stated that he didn’t think that it would be possible to simplify these model ordinances to the extent that Sipe had originally suggested, but maybe they can be simplified enough to meet Sipe’s goals. Anderson stated that this could endure more work to incorporate some discussion of these topics and the ordinances will benefit from that.

Sipe stated that simply because this is a GMA model ordinance is not that useful to him. He wanted to address the source of the code noting it could have been written by a summer legal intern.

Anderson stated that if there are places of inconsistencies then they should be noted and we can have the city attorney resolve those.

Sipe stated that he doesn’t see the value to the city to do this. He sees these ordinances to be better for a much larger city. If we’re doing this to have some information about the businesses that are going to be in our tiny commercial district, then there may be a better way of getting at that.  It will have a net effect of $0, but it will have a burden to folks to report their business even if they don’t have to pay.

Guthrie stated that she appreciated the email from Sipe with suggestions, but she stated that there would be a problem with trying to define who would need a license based on whether customers or clients come to their premises, as Sipe had suggested. She stated that the regulatory fee ordinance may not generate revenue, but the occupation tax ordinance would generate revenue.  Guthrie also stated that the City Administrator had indicated that there would be tenants in the new commercial area soon so this needs to be resolved in the very near future.

Salter stated that she understands from other cities that there is significant revenue generated from occupation taxes. Guthrie stated that it could offset taxes paid by our citizens. There was further discussion.

Sipe stated that he is in favor of offsetting taxes, but we should know how much financial benefit there would be because it is an administrative burden to implement these ordinances.

Salter stated that the fees would offset that administrative burden and that the occupation taxes would be extra revenue for the City.

Sipe and Guthrie agreed that the home based businesses need to be addressed somehow.

There was further discussion.

Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. Cohen and Sipe opposed. The motion passed.

g.) O-48-07 Chapter 4-103 Occupation Taxes (for poss. 2nd read)

Anderson motioned to put O-48-07 Chapter 4-103 Occupation Taxes on second read. Guthrie seconded the motion.

Anderson asked to get all issues out on the table for this ordinance as for the Regulatory Fee ordinance just discussed.

Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. Cohen and Sipe opposed. The motion carried.

Salter asked Carothers before his exit about the comprehensive plan proposal we’ve received from Clark Patterson. Would it be proper to approve this without going out to competitive bid? She reported that he said yes because it is a service and not in excess of $100,000. Carothers stated that there is no ordinance or state law that he is aware of that would preclude us moving forward with this proposal for a service agreement.

e.) O-54-07 Chapter 22-201, Permanent Buffers; 22-702, Violation and Penalties; and 22-703, Appeal (for poss. 2nd read)
 
Guthrie motioned to put O-54-07 on second read and adopt. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

VII. NEW BUSINESS
a.) Partnership Gwinnett Request

Guthrie asked how much money we have given to Partnership Gwinnett previously, and was it in 2006 or 2007.

Sipe stated he didn’t bring his notes, but that in his research he understood that we’ve spent more per capita than anyone else has up to this point.

Cohen asked how Partnership Gwinnett will benefit Berkeley Lake. There was further discussion about Partnership Gwinnett and its importance to the City.

There was discussion about the level of contribution.

Guthrie stated that we can’t commit future councils and they are asking for a 5-year pledge. She also didn’t notice when they want it paid out, and would like that information.

Anderson motioned to participate at the level of $1860. Kitchens seconded the motion.

Guthrie asked Threadgill to look back to the record and check to see how much was previously requested and how much we gave.

Anderson asked where this would come out of the budget and Salter responded that it would come out of contingency or reserves.

Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. Sipe and Cohen opposed. The motion passed.

Salter stated that she would talk to Partnership Gwinnett and find out when they need the money.

b.) O-57-07 Chapter 20, Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks

Anderson motioned to put O-57-07 Chapter 20 Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks on first read. Sipe seconded the motion.

Anderson asked about 20-104 paragraph 5 and the term "lighted barricades". There was discussion of that term and its meaning.

All were in favor. The motion passed.

c.) City Logo

Salter stated that she has been contacted by a citizen who was concerned that another of our citizens has a website that is frequently used for weather and fishing information about the city. That website uses our city logo except “the city of” has been erased, but the drawing of the heron and “Berkeley Lake” are exactly the same.

Salter stated that when Britt Collins created this that he was cautious and didn’t want it to be used by anyone else without the city’s permission. The council at the time agreed with that. Salter asked  since this is a different council what the wishes of this council were with regards to this.

There was discussion.

Guthrie stated that there is an agreement signed with Britt Collins and the prior council didn’t think they should grant an individual use of the logo.

Sipe stated that he thinks this website is a service to the citizens, but we have to protect our logo. If we let this individual use it, how would we prevent someone else from using it and what if the website had advertisements or editorial comments?

There was consensus of council that the logo should be removed from the website. Threadgill was instructed to send the citizen a letter and include a copy of these minutes requesting that the logo be removed.

d.) Plan to Raise the Lake Level due to drought – Cohen
Cohen stated that we should do anything for the lake that we can. He stated that there is a reuse line that runs through the city from the county that we could tap into without too much trouble and he doesn’t think it would be very expensive, but the city would have to do it. It requires that we get EPA approval to take this water. The county has a permit to dump this water directly into the Chattahoochee at Crooked Creek. It is treated at a state of the art facility and, while not potable, it meets EPA standards for being dumped into the Chattahoochee. His recommendation is to run that water into the city’s wetlands, not directly into the lake, and he thinks on that basis that EPA would allow it.

Cohen suggested that two members of council and someone from the BLHA meet to determine whether we should pursue this.

Salter asked if we paid to have that water run into the greenspace, could we at some point stop that water. Cohen replied that it had a valve and it could be shut off anytime. The cost of the water is $750 for a million gallons. Cohen stated that there is also a cost for taking it off the pipe, which he doesn’t think would be that expensive.

There was discussion.

Guthrie stated that she would like to have a better understanding of what treated sewage water is.

Cohen stated that it is not considered potable water, but it is well treated and that EPA won’t just let any water be dumped into the Chattahoochee.

There was discussion about how much water would be needed.

Anderson pointed out that a rough calculation indicated that at $750 per million gallons, filling the lake would cost around $80,000, based on his estimate that about 120 million gallons of water would be required to bring the lake to full pool as of now.

Randy Johnson, 296 Lakeshore Drive, volunteered as the BLHA representative to help two council members explore this.

Consensus of council was to appoint Cohen and Anderson to meet with someone from BLHA to investigate this.

e.) Comp Plan

Salter stated that we are required by ARC and DCA to come up with a comprehensive plan for the city to the year 2030. She gave some of the background about how this has been done in the past.

She stated that we had $15,000 budgeted to pay for this and that she has been working on trying to draft an RFP, but that she asked Clark Patterson for their proposal.  We got their proposal in the amount of $9,950 plus necessary expenses and some optional additions which are detailed on the proposal. Salter’s recommendation is to contract Clark Patterson for this service.

Cohen motioned to hire Clark Patterson to do the City’s comprehensive plan subject to the City Attorney’s approval and at an amount not to exceed $15,000.  Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

g.) Authorization to compensate Lane Shutt for elections training and elections
Cohen motioned to compensate Lane Shutt at $12 an hour for elections training and elections. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

h. ) Financial transactions.

Salter stated that a money transfer was necessary to make the bond payment and that transactions of this type are needed from time to time. The auditor advised that this type of transaction, a money transfer from one city account to another city account, should not be something that council would have to be troubled with considering.  Carothers is going to research this to ensure that there is no city requirement that council approve fund transfers prior to making them.

Cohen motioned to approve the transfer of funds to cover the bond payment. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

VIII. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Debbe Robinson, 540 Lakeshore Drive, wanted to clarify the issue about guard rails. She stated that she does like the institutional memory regarding this issue. She stated that she didn’t like the silver rails, that they didn’t look pretty, but that it was required due to the slope in the location that was discussed earlier. Nick Lore’s property was different because he had requested a guard rail because he was worried about his family’s safety.

She stated that she wanted to talk about the problem area between Updegraff and Senne where the road has been cut and what’s left is the same safety issue as before. She clarified that her inquiry was to ask if the job was completed or if there was any intention to come back and do repairs. She stated that the one location she referenced does need a rail because there is a precipitous drop and very limited shoulder and poses a safety hazard for pedestrians.  She stated that she is not suggesting that all the areas need rails.

IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal and personnel issues
Cohen motioned to enter executive session at 9:45 pm. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

Cohen motioned to exit executive session at 10:20 pm. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

X. ADJOURNMENT
Cohen motioned to exit the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.





(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by Council October 18, 2007)