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- 13

CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:30 at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.

I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Salter added under Old Business a new item, k.) Partnership Gwinnett Clarification. Under New Business, Salter added f.) Renumbering Chapter 43 to Chapter 46 and g.) Chapter 47 – Unfit Buildings.

It was consensus of council to make these changes.

II. MINUTES of May 22nd, 2007 and June 21st, 2007

Guthrie motioned to approve the minutes of May 22nd. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

Guthrie motioned to approve the minutes of June 21st.  Kitchens seconded the motion.

Sipe preferred that more time be given to review these minutes because they were being changed right up to the deadline. He doesn’t think that the amended minutes accurately reflect his commitment in the Christa situation. He stated that these are summary minutes rather than a transcript and believes that some of the changes that were made to reflect the audio recording were taken out of context. He stated that he would vote against the minutes as they are in their current state.

Debbie asked how long ago the minutes were circulated with the changes.  The City Administrator stated that it was the week after July 4th that the minutes were modified regarding the Christa situation.

Anderson asked Sipe what sections of the minutes are of specific concern. Sipe stated that he had misgivings about the section on what he was going to do relative to the Christa matter. He did not believe that he agreed to meet with specific people. The other part of the minutes that he believed needed changing was the conversation about the discussion of the GMA model ordinances relative to occupation tax and regulatory fees ordinances. He stated that he pointed out that the he had commented more extensively than what was captured in the minutes. He stated that there wasn’t enough time before the deadline to correct the minutes.

Guthrie stated that council members send emails up until the day of a council meeting on various business items to be considered at the meeting that night. She stated that if Sipe had submitted his changes at any point before the meeting, those changes could have been considered at this meeting. Guthrie asked if Threadgill had any problem with that, and she stated that she did not.

Threadgill asked Sipe if he would be suggesting changes to the minutes. Sipe stated that he would submit his changes.

Guthrie withdrew her motion.

Guthrie stated that the minutes would still need to accurately reflect the voice record.

Council agreed to consider the June 21st minutes at the August council meeting.

III. REPORTS

i. Police
Salter noted that council had received a monthly and quarterly report from the police with additional explanation in the Mayor’s message.

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

Guthrie motioned to accept the unaudited financial statements for June 2007. Kitchens seconded the motion. Guthrie, Kitchens, Anderson and Sipe voted in favor. Cohen abstained because he still had some questions that he hadn’t had a chance to get answered prior to this vote.  The motion passed.

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

iv. 2006 Audit
It was consensus of council to wait to vote on the 2006 audit until the next council meeting. Anderson expressed interest in discussing the audit report from 2006 with the City Treasurer. Anderson stated that he did not necessarily have specific questions but wanted to understand how it all came together.

Guthrie asked if another session needed to be held with the Auditor. Anderson stated that he didn’t think that would be necessary but that he could pull his notes from last year and could meet with the City Treasurer or finance committee.

v. Building Inspector’s Report
This is a subsequent report on the Valley View property that has been the subject of ongoing council discussion and is to be discussed on the agenda tonight.

Guthrie asked a question about the OEO report and what Capitol Commons was cited for, and Salter responded that there was a laundry-list of things including landscaping. Guthrie wanted to be sure that landscaping was one of the things included in the citation. Threadgill responded that Guthrie could come to City Hall to review the letter that was sent to the owner, but that she believed that landscaping was included.

V. MAYOR’S MESSAGE TO COUNCIL
Salter noted distribution of the following written report to be incorporated into the minutes:

“At Council’s request I have contacted the Gwinnett DOT to ask one of their traffic safety engineers to survey Lakeshore Drive and assess any need they might find for guardrails.  They agreed to look into that for us.  As you will recall, they did the same thing a couple of years ago at Marcie Zielazienski’s request and found no need for guardrails except near Nick Lore’s house.  Hopefully they will come and review it again.  I also at your request asked Rich Edinger to give us an estimate of what he would charge to do this, but I’ve not gotten that estimate yet.  He apologized and said he’s been very busy but will get to it.  While I was speaking with Gwinnett DOT, I asked what the holdup is on the sidewalks and the deer signs.  They will get back to me on those.

Leigh and I will be meeting next week with our city engineer and a planner from Clark Patterson to begin work on our comprehensive plan.

As you may be expecting we are going over in court costs this year.  We budgeted $2,000 but we're already over by $280 with much more to come.  We have 2 more scheduled court sessions with Judge McKinney, one in September and one in December.  We will have additional bills from Judge Lewis for last Tuesday night and any other time he spends reviewing the many motions, as well as for all future court dates and work that he's doing for us on the particular case he’s handling.  I see no alternative but to pay these, and take the funds from contingency and reserves. If any council member has a concern about this, please let me know.
Rich Edinger has verified the measurements of the work that Scotty Farmer did for us, but has disputed a charge of $3500 for extra matting on the road shoulders.  Scotty has acquiesced to this and I will be authorizing a payment for the linear feet of shoulder in his invoice.  According to Dave Hess of Site Engineering, they will begin the Miramont work next week.  Rich will finalize the punch list for our work and send it to Hess before Monday.  Rebecca Spitler, acting for the Miramont HOA, has authorized additional monies up to $2000 for testing services with ECS.  This is the third time she has had to go to their homeowners asking for more money.  I continue to be grateful to her, the HOA board, and all Miramont citizens for their commitment to do this work in the best possible way.  Rich has arranged for Miramont to save 10% on ECS’s cost.
I will be meeting with the principal of Berkeley Lake Elementary next week to discuss the status of the school and how it might be improved.  As you know from my last Mayor’s Message mailed to citizens, there is a local interest group led by Patty Thumann of Berkeley Walk, and I urge anyone concerned about the school to contact Patty for further information.

Many thanks to Kay Lee and all those who helped with our July 4th festivities.  I believe we were able to save some money this year and still give everyone a good time.

I recently sent to Council a summation of police incidents for the second quarter.  There were only two in those 3 months.  One was a young driver who swerved to avoid another car, crashed into the entrance at River Mansions, and did some damage there.  No one was hurt and he was not one of our residents.  The “Other” incident noted on Lakeshore was not something that actually took place in our city.  Doug was trying to help one of our residents who found that someone had gotten information off her driver’s license and was trying to open a credit card in her name.   He counts this as a fraud, and I put it in the “Other” category.  The people who speed around Lakeshore laid low for a while after we arrested some of them, but there has been another recent incident.  Doug and I have made some plans for catching anyone doing this.  I am not discussing these plans with anyone but our police, but I hope they will be effective.  Please pass the word to anyone who is accustomed to walking along the Chattahoochee that River District has now contracted additional police services to stop trespassers along there.  Some of our citizens have done this for years and may not be aware that this could be a problem for anyone, but there are private homes there now, and I would not want anyone to be arrested for trespassing.

Last night the Executive Board of GwiMA on which I serve met and decided to create and fund the position of Executive Director.  You will recall that an earlier decision was made quite some time ago for GwiMA’s president to meet and discuss this with Charles Bannister and Jock Connell.  The delay is due to the fact that it took the county officials many weeks to find time to meet with him, but that conversation did finally take place, and now GwiMA is moving ahead with its plans.”

Guthrie commented about the reference in the Mayor’s Message to the email from Marcie Zielazienski, and wanted to be sure that it wasn’t incorrectly characterized. She didn’t want to suggest that the email said other locations didn’t need guard rails but that they didn’t recommend any other places, and it isn’t clear what recommendation came from the county DOT versus what were the opinions of Zielazienski.

Cohen stated that the county has a 150-foot right-of-way along the Chattahoochee River that anyone can walk along. It is for a sewer line along the Chattahoochee River, which means that if people can access it without trespassing, they can walk along the river there.  Salter stated that she would inform the River District about the easement.

Anderson wanted to go back to the guard rail discussion and stated that the police should pull accident reports that could indicate a pattern for where accidents could have happened and locations that may need guard rails.  If there is a pattern, that should be communicated to the City Engineer because that might suggest where guard rails may or may not be appropriate.

Sipe stated that we shouldn’t wait until an accident pattern is shown before taking safety measures. Anderson disagreed and stated the importance of accident patterns in deciding about possible safety measures. Anderson then stated that most roadway safety modifications normally require a warrant, which means that not only must the road area appear to be dangerous, but there must also be a demonstrated danger.  He then suggested that we look at accident records to determine if there were any other locations that warranted further analysis. Salter added that that was the major consideration in Nick Lore’s guard rail.

Anderson stated that there is some evidence of the number of people who have run off the road near the Updegraff property, but there may be other places where folks run off the road.

Sipe stated that often accidents are not reported to the police. Anderson stated that some of the evidence may be anecdotal.

Salter stated that she was going to be appointing Tom Rozier as City Treasurer.
 
VI. OLD BUSINESS
a.) Decision re Christa property problems
Ms. Christa was not in attendance at the meeting. Salter reported that
Christa received a letter from environmental health indicating that if she restores the original property lines they would consider giving a septic permit. Salter had asked her before the meeting what her plan was regarding the portion of her house built over the property line. Christa stated that she did expect that she was going to have to remove a portion of that building.

Sipe stated that at this point we’re in agreement that the structure that has been constructed does not have a valid use permit and has thus been constructed illegally. Sipe went on to discuss the lot layout and property line movement. In essence, the building that’s been constructed was proposed with the lot lines moved. The variance it has for the front setback was based on the new lines. With the new lot lines, 828 Valley View Lane would become an extremely non-conforming lot and would, therefore, require a new use permit. The reason that 828 Valley View Lane is important is because it is no longer a lake lot with the change in lot lines and it would no longer be exempt from minimum lot area and minimum lot depth, and would not meet those requirements for lots not adjoining Lake Berkeley. The other issue with the change in lot lines is that the mortgage company would need to give approval of that. The biggest problem with the new lot lines is that the property would not be grandfathered by environmental health, and no septic permit could be issued for the lot because it could not meet the requirements of Environmental Health. Environmental Health has communicated that this lot would not get a septic permit. Additionally, they indicated that as far as 828 Valley View Lane goes, it would now have to follow the new regulations, which it would not meet. As a result, it could not be substantially remodeled or changed because of this, which would also be of interest to the mortgage company. The new lines can’t exist because of all of these issues. The only way we can look at this new construction and these properties is with the restoration of the original lot line configuration, which was the position of council 90 days ago, but we know more now about why that needs to be.

With the lot lines restored to their original position, it appears that the new structure straddles the lot line between 828 and 830 Valley View Lane, so the side setback is certainly not being met. In addition, the new construction appears that it won’t comply with the rear setback and the variance for the front setback would also be null and void because it was granted on the changed lot lines. In addition, it appears that the structure occupies more than the maximum permitted lot coverage of 15%. 

The net is that the house is non-compliant with our zoning ordinances and there remain some septic issues. The building inspector has recommended that the structure be removed partially because it has been exposed to the elements for some time without being properly closed in and the engineered lumber has not held up well to weather. It is an attractive nuisance. Sipe stated that he sees no solution other than removing the building.

Salter asked for Sipe’s recommendation for how council should proceed. Sipe responded that when we first met we asked the homeowner to look at alternatives for how the building could be salvaged. We did not hear from the owner that that had been accomplished. At this point we’ve been very accommodating to try to find some solution other than removing the building, but he doesn’t believe that there is a solution. He believes that since the building was built with an invalid use permit, it’s an illegal structure, and we should require that it be removed under the zoning ordinance.

Anderson stated that what he understands is that our normal process of inspection and enforcement of the ordinance is an administrative task and could handle this situation. Is there anything that council needs to do other than to request that the OEO or City Inspector enforce the ordinance?

Carothers stated that this is a nuisance and could be handled under the proposed Unfit Building Ordinance on the agenda for tonight, but it could be handled through the enforcement process for zoning violations.   If found in violation of the zoning ordinance, Christa would be fined, but Judge McKinney can not order the demolition of that building. State law gives authority to municipal court under the unfit buildings to have it removed. If we find her in violation of the zoning ordinance, council would need to authorize the City Attorney to enjoin her to take the structure down or make it comply with the zoning ordinance.  At the end of the day, the decision is whether to authorize the City attorney to move forward with an injunction.

Sipe stated that we should move forward with the injunction. It’s been done in the past when there have been zoning ordinance violations. While the unfit buildings section may apply, he doesn’t see any reason to use that necessarily. We are in a position now to cite her and find her in violation of our zoning ordinance.

Sipe stated that the main thing that needs to happen is to get this out of council. It won’t comply with zoning ordinances unless we change them drastically. Sipe stated that he thinks council should make a resolution.

Carothers agreed that if the structure is not removed upon being cited then the City Attorney can be authorized to seek an injunction and this can be done through resolution of council.

Sipe motioned to resolve to cite Christa in violation of our zoning ordinance as discussed and that the City Attorney is authorized to seek an injunction if the citation doesn’t result in the remedy of the problem. Cohen seconded the motion.

Anderson asked if there was a time frame that should be placed on this happening. Carothers stated that council will likely meet before he will have a chance to file for injunction because she will have to be taken before municipal court. Carothers didn’t think it important to put a time frame on this. Once we determine that there is no intent on the part of the property owner to bring the structure into compliance, then he could proceed. Salter stated that Christa has indicated that she intends to remove some of the structure so that may occur before an injunction is necessary. If we have to cite her and bring her into municipal court that will take some time and then we would move forward from there.

Threadgill indicated that Christa has already been taken before municipal court. Carothers stated that he didn’t know what she had been in municipal court for before. Threadgill stated that she didn’t recall the particulars but believed that it was due to zoning violations and that she was found guilty and the fine was suspended. Carothers asked why the fine was suspended, and Threadgill stated that she understood it was because of the awfulness of the situation.

All were in favor. The motion passed.

b.) City Hall

Barbara Carroll, 3430 Kingsland Circle, liaison and representative from the Facilities Committee regarding the new city hall stated that Eric Bosman from Urban Collage was asked to put together an RFQ for the selection of an architect for the new city hall. The final draft RFQ was prepared for consideration at tonight’s meeting.

Carothers has some editorial things that he will send to Eric Bosman. The insurance requirements are fine, but he wants to be sure that certificates will be provided.

Guthrie had previously emailed several minor suggested changes regarding the RFQ.

There was discussion regarding the schedule of events and Carroll indicated that they were flexible.

Guthrie motioned that council accept the RFQ with the modifications she had  emailed, with the suggestions Carothers will be providing and with agreement reached about the scheduled dates. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

c.) O-48-07  Chapter 4-103 Occupation Taxes (for poss. adoption)
d.) O-47-07 Chapter 32-101 Regulatory Fees (for poss. adoption)

Anderson stated that he is not aware of other changes or modifications having been suggested for either Occupation Taxes or Regulatory Fees in the past month. Anderson stated that the City Administrator has not had the opportunity to generate the forms necessary to support these ordinances.

Anderson suggested postponing both Occupation Taxes and Regulatory Fees until the next council meeting. There was consensus of council to do this.

e.) O-57-07 Chapter 20, Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks (for poss. 2nd read)

Anderson motioned to put Chapter 20 on 2nd read with the most recent changes. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

f.) Discussion about the direction of staff and attorney by individual council members

Guthrie put this on the agenda a couple of months ago and went through the background of how this topic for discussion came up and explained that the City Administrator, Threadgill, had encountered a situation that caused her to seek Council’s direction and had motivated these topics.  That situation was that Council had decided by consensus how to proceed about something, but a council member came to Threadgill and asked her to do something that council had specifically decided that she would not do. 

Guthrie handed out to Council a discussion sheet that boiled this down to 2 questions. The first is “What is a staff member to do when Council as a whole discusses a topic in a formal meeting, reaches a decision and directs the staff on how to proceed, but an individual councilmember then directs the staff member in a manner that is contradictory to Council decision & direction?” 

Kitchens stated that if there are extenuating circumstances that would cause a councilmember to change direction that needs to be taken into consideration. For the most part, if it is council direction then that should be honored, but it may need to be handled on a case by case basis. Guidance should be provided to staff so that they know how to handle situations.

Sipe stated that he generally agreed with this, but that if a councilmember is asking for information, that is different. He doesn’t think that one council member should have to ask permission from other council members about asking for that information.

We discussed the specifics of the case that motivated this conversation regarding a request for city phone records for the Mayor and former City Clerk for the last quarter of last year. These records were not in staff’s possession and council had had a very lengthy discussion about whether council wanted to obtain these records and council unanimously decided that these records were unnecessary and should not be obtained. Following this discussion several days later, a council member asked Threadgill to obtain the phone records.

There was further discussion.

Sipe stated that additional information came to light that the records were subject to disclosure.

Guthrie stated that there are ways to handle this without putting the city administrator in the middle of the situation and that council could communicate with each other.

Sipe wanted to talk about the open records portion of this. He stated that Guthrie was suggesting that council members be more limited than the general public in obtaining public records under the Open Records Act. Guthrie said that that was not what she was suggesting and that council access to open records was a completely different topic and the next topic to be discussed.  She stated, however, that the council member could have submitted an open records request and go through that procedure and pay the associated fee in order to obtain the cell phone information he wanted.

There was further discussion.

Guthrie suggested that Threadgill should email council when she has been asked by one council member to do something that she understands to be in contradiction to her direction from the council as a whole. Sipe agreed. 

Sipe stated that he expects staff to provide any information to a council member that would be provided to the public under the Open Records Act, but without the need for the council member to submit an open records request.

There was further discussion.

Salter asked council to come to an agreement about how to handle situations like this in the future.

Cohen stated that the basis on which the council made the decision about the particular situation was invalid. It was made based on the issue of privacy. Subsequent to the meeting, Carothers sent a memo stating that there is no privacy issue, and the information was subject to the open records act.  Guthrie stated that privacy was not the sole reason for council’s decision as detailed phone records were determined to be unnecessary in evaluating phone plans and that the reason for a council decision is not relevant to this discussion.   

Anderson stated that if specific direction had been give to staff then she should not be expected to proceed differently even if additional information had been provided on the topic because council did not change its direction.

There was further discussion.

Sipe stated that he doesn’t feel that there is any reason for Threadgill not to inform council if she feels she has been asked to do something contrary to council direction.  He also stated that if public information has been requested, then that should be provided within reason.

Salter requested for consensus that all of council and the mayor be sensitive to two things. The first is not to put Threadgill or staff in a difficult position and the second is not to exclude the rest of council on anything that may be of interest to them and to be open with each other.  Salter asked if any council members could not live with this to please suggest a modification.  No one did.

Anderson stated that if there is concern from staff about what they’re being asked to do, then they should ask council about that. 

Anderson asked if there is a case where a council member should have to make an open records request. Carothers stated that he had never seen a situation where an elected official has had to make an open records request to have access to city records as they are elected by the citizens and in the position of exercising their responsibilities for that position.  Anderson stated that then we can say that elected officials have access to public records without having to invoke the Open Records Act or make an open records request.

Guthrie read a excerpt from an email she had sent to council that stated that she thinks the distinction about the need for an open records request is more of an ethical one than a legal one, and that elected officials should consider why they need the information and make a decision about whether obtaining that information is necessary for their role as a council member.  She stated that elected officials should differentiate between requests for information that are related to their job as an elected official and requests that may be made for personal reasons, such as defending oneself against a citation or material desired for a re-election campaign.  Staff shouldn’t have to second guess why a council member is requesting information; therefore, a councilmember has to make the determination for themself. Guthrie shared why she had submitted an official open records request in the past and had made payment to the City for this information, which was for her election campaign.

Cohen asked Carothers to comment. Carothers responded that he appreciated what Guthrie was saying but trying to judge the subjective intent of each council member, whether to be more comfortable in their knowledge of their position or whether they want the information to be better on the campaign trail, probably both are related to their positions and it’s a slippery slope to try to differentiate. Generally speaking, a city record is subject to an elected official’s request.

Sipe provided an example where if he needed to do some research for a variance case, he would make the decision that he would submit an open records request and pay for it himself.

Guthrie stated that she wanted to go on the record as stating that she disagrees with the opinion Sipe previously emailed to Threadgill and Council in which she read a portion of his email - “No member of council, duly and properly elected by our citizens, should be required to seek information under FOI.  Such a requirement would be scandalous and extremely political in my opinion.”. Guthrie said staff can’t be in a position of asking an elected official why they need information and that this is an ethical issue more than a legal issue.

Salter stated that if you give instructions or requests to staff, then that should be shared with the whole council.

Sipe stated that council should be aware of whenever open records requests are submitted.

Guthrie stated that council direction of City Attorney still needed to be discussed. She stated that it had been discussed in January 2006.  It was determined then that council members would copy each other when information or tasks were requested from the City Attorney.  Guthrie stated that we have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the City’s resources appropriately, but that the City Attorney bills may possibly be the only area where Council as a body may have no idea how money is being spent until we get an attorney bill up the road.  Also, the city attorney only has so much time to spend on the city’s business and if Carothers works on something for an individual councilmember rather than the overall work that was requested by council, then information council is waiting on may be delayed. 

Salter asked for consensus that if any council member tasks the attorney for information, then he/she should share that with the rest of the council by email. There was consensus from Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens.

There was further discussion. Salter asked again if she had consensus.

Sipe asked if the consensus was to try to copy all of council when we individually task the attorney. Guthrie stated that it was more than just “try,” and that we should be agreeing to do this. Sipe stated that there is no hard and fast rule that will result in a violation of what we’ve agreed to do here. Sipe stated that he believes that we have consensus.

Salter asked if there was anyone who couldn’t live with that consensus. No one responded.

Anderson asked for tasks to be appropriately prioritized, whether for City Attorney or City Administrator. How is the prioritization arbitrated? Sipe stated that Carothers uses his best judgment. Anderson stated that he doesn’t want to make this an issue of Carothers’ or Threadgill’s judgment. Anderson stated that council is responsible for establishing priorities.

Guthrie stated that when Carothers sent the legal opinion regarding cell phone record privacy, she was surprised because she thought that there were a lot more pressing issues needing his attention. Guthrie stated that she did not want Carothers to be caught in the middle.

Carothers explained in that situation that he responded so quickly because he was serving as the assistant city attorney for City of Atlanta when that case originated, and he was concerned that the city would be in violation of the open records act if that information wasn’t provided. He stated that attorneys are often caught in the middle and he tries to respond to everyone when he handles individual tasks and tasks from the council as a whole.

Salter stated that if we share with each other what we’re doing, that should help with some of these problems.

g.) Discussion regarding council member access to City information
See above.

h.) Possible use of county-treated water in greenspace – Cohen and Anderson

Cohen gave an update on this. Anderson, Cohen and Randy Johnson, representative from the Berkeley Lake Homeowner’s Association, met with officials at the county who were needed to answer specific questions. Cohen relayed the information that was obtained at this meeting. The purpose is to use reuse water from the county to try to bring the lake level up at this time and for any future droughts that we may encounter. In general, there is a cost for the water. The way it works is that the amount you take in March is the baseline so that if you take one million gallons in March then you’re entitled to one million gallons every month thereafter, and if you take more than that, then you pay for what is over the million gallons. Before we consider this at all, the Berkeley Lake Homeowner’s Association (BLHA) has to really give some input as to their interest in something like this. Cohen stated that he assumes Randy Johnson has spoken to the BLHA about this.

Randy Johnson, 296 Lakeshore Drive, representative from BLHA stated that he has not discussed any of this with the BLHA because he thinks that it is going to cost too much money, disturb too much of the greenspace and the water would not reach the lake for quite some time. He stated that he thought it was a pipe dream.

Cohen stated that if the BLHA isn’t interested then the City shouldn’t pursue this.

Johnson stated that he didn’t think that the BLHA would be willing to pay for it. Cohen responded that the BLHA would not be responsible for paying for this. The issue is whether the BLHA cares about this. Johnson stated that he thought the BLHA would be interested in having a full lake and that they would likely not have any concern about the water quality that would be coming into the lake from this source. Cohen stated that if the BLHA doesn’t care then the City shouldn’t pursue this.

Johnson hasn’t talked with BLHA because he didn’t have any of the facts. He asked if it was reasonable for the City to take on the tasks necessary to achieve this, build a pump station, put in a pond, and so forth.

Anderson stated that we don’t have a good idea of how much water the greenspace could absorb. That is an important unknown because we need to know that information to know what would be required to deliver the water.  Anderson stated that even if the greenspace was entirely sand, he didn’t think that water could be supplied to the greenspace fast enough to fill up the lake. The next step would be to get some engineering analysis to know if this is even reasonable.

Salter stated that before we spend money, since Johnson has invested his time, she asked Johnson to address this issue with the BLHA to know if there is an interest for the city to pursue this.

Guthrie stated that it didn’t seem fair for Johnson to go to the BLHA if council may not even be in support of this. Johnson stated that the BLHA would like to fill the lake. As a citizen, he wondered  is this City going to move ahead with spending untold amounts of money to build a pump station, pond and irrigation system to put water some day back in the lake? He stated that is a decision for the City.

Guthrie stated that $80,000, which was the previously stated estimate for the water alone prior to us knowing about a formula for calculating cost based on a March level of usage, was a lot of money. She asked if Carothers believes it appropriate for the city to do this for the benefit of a private lake. Carothers stated that if the city wants to take the position that they want to water the greenspace and as an ancillary benefit the lake would refill, they can do that.

Sipe asked Carothers about expenditure of public money on private projects. He stated that the city had to lower the lake in order to complete a public infrastructure project. Sipe asked Carothers if we don’t have a responsibility to put the lake level back to what it was before the city performed the infrastructure project. Carothers stated that these matters have been delicate about how to handle the care of the private lake by public monies, for example testing the water. Carothers stated that Sipe has a good point.  He also pointed out that part of the stormwater improvements protect the integrity of the lake as well as to improve flow through the city.

Salter stated that until this came up, no one had identified any need for the greenspace to be watered. The original goal was to get water into the lake from the reuse line, which is not allowed. Now, we’re looking at spending significant money to spray the greenspace, and that’s a question that council should answer.

Guthrie stated that council should go ahead and make a decision about this after all the time and effort that has been spent on this.

Salter asked for Guthrie’s decision. Guthrie stated that she would not be in favor of it. Cohen stated that he thinks the engineering studies could be done for free, but he stated that he doesn’t think there are a lot of people who think it’s a good idea.

Salter asked for consensus that council is glad that this was explored but after hearing the information it is best not to pursue this.  No one disagreed with this and there was apparent consensus.

i.) Discussion – BL shoreline and adjacent properties - Kitchens

Kitchens is concerned about the shoreline changing and the environmental impact, the result on dam safety and the spillway. He stated that right now he could excavate his back yard to enlarge the lake into his lot. He thinks if everyone did this, then we would have a huge problem with the dam, spillway and environment. He stated that there is no limitation at this point and wanted to gain support to either work with BLHA or adopt ordinances or other guidelines to stop this from happening anymore.

Cohen asked about the impact of this on the lake. Kitchens stated that it would change the volume of the lake which would have an impact on the dam and spillway. Kitchens stated that it would change the way the spillway responds. The Safe Dams group would need to approve it because of the possible impact on the dam and Spillway. Cohen stated that it doesn’t affect either one, and it would make no difference if 10 acres were added to the lake. Kitchens stated that the spillway would have to compensate for the additional volume of the lake. Cohen stated that it isn’t that there would be any additional water going over the spillway.

Salter stated that it may be worth at least investigating this with Tom Woolsey with Safe Dams. Randy Kirkus, public works committee chairman, stated that if you increase the acreage of the lake, then you would have to do an analysis on the spillway. Kirkus disagrees with Cohen that the amount of water wouldn’t be increased. He doesn’t know if the spillway would still be able to handle that amount. Kitchens stated that the spillway was designed based on the acreage of the lake.

Sipe stated that if people do this, they would lower their property values because lot acreage is important. If people were to make small indentations on their lot lines, the overall impact would likely not represent a very large portion of the lake. Sipe asked if the shoreline should be regulated with zoning.

Sipe asked Carothers if we are free to do that if we choose or if there is a property rights issue. Carothers responded that he thinks that we can regulate that if there is a public purpose and it would depend upon how strictly it is being regulated.

Anderson stated that we already enforce the distance of the drain fields from the shoreline, so that indirectly gets at this point.

There was discussion about the impact of changing the shoreline on property lines.

Salter asked if there is consensus to ask Carothers how would be the best way to proceed. Anderson, Guthrie, Kitchens and Sipe agreed. Cohen stated that he didn’t care one way or the other.  Carothers stated that it would be important to know what kind of things would be affected, for instance the dam and spillway. Salter asked Kirkus if he would ask Tom Woolsey with Safe Dams about this, and asked Carothers to be thinking about this. Salter stated that we would take this up at the next meeting.

j.) Sale of city-owned property across from City Hall – Kitchens

Kitchens wanted to discuss this and asked is it legitimate for somebody to use that lot with the understanding that it’s a Free-Pass Repass (FPR) lot? Salter stated Hosford could add the property to his current property but could not build anything across it. Carothers added that even a driveway should not be built across a FPR lot. 

Anderson asked if Hosford owned both pieces of property, would that affect his side setbacks. Sipe stated that a variance would probably be granted for his side setback because of the FPR lot located adjacent to it. Carothers added that he thinks the variance would be required because the FPR would remain a separate lot.

Cohen added that the land can’t just be sold to Hosford, the city would have to put the land out for bid.

Sipe stated that right now it is acting as a good barrier to access the lake. Once it’s cleared it becomes a path to the lake. Sipe added that it may not even be something that would help Hosford with his situation.

Kitchens asked Carothers if it is impossible to change the status of the lot from an FPR. Carothers stated that he knew no way of doing that.

There was further discussion.

Anderson asked Carothers if the adjacent owner purchases the FPR, can the lots be recombined. Carothers stated that merging the lots would make the other lot an FPR.

There was further discussion.

Sipe stated that it seems a risky thing to sell it and that the adjacent owner probably doesn’t know that the lot may not be much benefit to him.

Salter stated that she thinks council has reached a consensus not to put the FPR lot across from city hall out to bid. No one disagreed.
 
k.) Clarification of Partnership Gwinnett

Guthrie stated that council had asked Threadgill to research Partnership Gwinnett activity in the last fiscal year.  Threadgill summarized an email that she had circulated to council on June 28th stating that the city had given $1,000 to Partnership Gwinnett last July, which is what was requested and was paid from contingency.

VII. NEW BUSINESS
a.) Council consideration of dates to discuss PrepareFirst Report

Salter stated that a work session was requested to move forward and council needs to consider possible dates to schedule that work session.

Cohen asked why council is doing this instead of the committee. Guthrie asked if Cohen had received the letter that she circulated today to the BLEMA chair and Council.  Cohen stated that he did not. Guthrie asked if Wayne Mitsch wanted to comment on her letter.

Wayne Mitsch, 826 Lakeshore Drive, stated that he had received Guthrie’s letter but that he had not had a chance to read it in detail. He wanted to be clear that the committee wanted it known that the manual they got was not something that they could go out and save the city with, and if the council is all right with that, then BLEMA would not mind charging forward with this. If a work session is desired, that is fine.

Guthrie stated that it seemed that council had not done a good job of communicating what the contract with PrepareFirst was for, which was for them to give us a “what to do in the event of an emergency” manual. Guthrie stated that she thought she understood that the BLEMA committee was worried about a preparedness gap.  Guthrie stated that the council had adopted a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan last July. Mitsch stated that if the council has read the manual and is fine with it, then there really doesn’t need to be any further conversation.  Guthrie brought up the example of Pandemic Flu and the importance of getting council, BLEMA and Rob Carter from PrepareFirst together to get opinions from all parties about its significance.

 Salter asked if it was a desire to have a work session.

Anderson asked what the lead time for advertising would be and would we have enough time to advertise to hold a work session on Monday, July 23rd. Threadgill responded that she did not think that would be adequate time.

There was further discussion.

Salter asked everyone to consider meeting on Monday, July, 30th at 7:00 at the Berkeley Walk Clubhouse.  Salter asked Carroll to check availability of the club house.

Guthrie asked if we were expecting Rob Carter from PrepareFirst to attend, and it was decided that he did need to attend and the meeting time would be contingent upon his availability. 

b.) Consideration re: City Treasurer

Sipe motioned to accept Salter’s appointment of Tom Rozier for City Treasurer. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

Salter stated that this is a significant commitment of time and expertise that is being offered to us for free and offered her appreciation for that.

c.) Visiting speaker request

Threadgill stated that this was a request from the NAACP to come make a presentation to us. Salter stated that she did not know if this was necessarily related to city business.

Threadgill gave a brief explanation of the information that was on the website they referred her to for more information.

Anderson asked how much time they requested. Salter stated that she understood that it would be brief.

Salter suggested that she allot them 5 minutes. Sipe agreed with a 5-minute limitation and stated that this time should largely be used for council to ask any questions about information that will have been provided to them prior to the meeting.

d.) Septic Extension Request

Sipe motioned to approve the request. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

e.) On-Street Parking Exemption request

Salter stated that this was for 112 Ridge Road, and the application was confusing and it seemed that the needs for this exemption would be true for most all citizens in the City.

Anderson stated that they wanted to limit these to existing parking aprons in the city, which this doesn’t have, and the vehicle parked there is compacting the soil. In addition, he believes the vehicle is a commercial vehicle.

There was further discussion.

Sipe stated that anyone could apply for this exemption under these conditions which makes the ordinance that was passed essentially meaningless. Something should be peculiar to this situation that would warrant the exemption.

There was further discussion.

Kitchens motioned to deny the on-street parking exemption for 112 Ridge Road based on the fact that if council approved this request it would be in contradiction to the intent of the ordinance, and would require that council approve similar requests from countless others.  Cohen seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

f.) O-58-07- Chapter 43, Building and Building Regulations

This is to change the chapter number for Buildings and Building Regulations from 43 to 46 because we have two chapter 43s.  The text itself does not change at all.

Anderson asked if this was just administrative or if this required first and second reads. Carothers stated that it would require a first and second read.

Anderson motioned to put on first read the ordinance to renumber Chapter 43 to Chapter 46, Building and Building Regulations. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

g.) O-59-07 – Chapter 47 Unfit Buildings

Sipe motioned to put on first read Chapter 47, Unfit Buildings, with the modification that City Administrator be changed to Ordinance Enforcement Officer throughout the text of the chapter. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

VII. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Debbe Robinson, 540 Lakeshore Drive, wanted to say that she is not in favor of selling the FPR lot and doesn’t understand why we would need to do that to shore up our city coffers. As a citizen, it is a particular asset to the community to provide a buffer to Bush Road. While on the BLC, there was discussion to turn it into a nicer park area, but BLHA didn’t want to do that because it would draw attention to that availability of access to the lake. She encouraged council not to put this lot out to bid.

Guthrie wanted to clarify that council had decided to drop this earlier in the meeting.

VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal, land acquisition and issues

Cohen motioned to enter executive session at 10:00 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.

IX. 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 August 16, 2007)