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: Amy Cowan
City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present- 60+
 

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

I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

Salter stated that she would like to add a new item under new business, “h”, to talk about the Greenspace. There were no other changes.

II. PUBLIC HEARING
a.) O-62-07 Home Occupation Amendment (78-206)

Salter asked that the Berkeley Lake citizens speak first and others speak afterwards. In addition, she requested that everyone would silence cell phones and  limit comments to 1 to 2 minutes. Salter stated that she would raise her hand 15 seconds before their time is up. At the end of 2 minutes Salter will say “time.” She added that we wouldn’t be able to hear everyone in the time allotted if we don’t do it this way.

The Mayor stated that there has been a huge outpouring of concern about this and we are grateful for all the citizen input whether for or against. We have gotten over a hundred emails. One citizen asked that her comments be read into the record since she couldn’t be here. We do have a written copy of the emails and she asked that we put the numbers of for and against in the minutes of the meeting and make some notification that the emails in writing are available for review at City Hall.

Salter asked if council had a problem with doing that. 

Guthrie stated that she isn’t completely comfortable with stating numbers because so many of the emails weren’t black and white for or against and some folks have changed their positions or backed off some.

Salter stated that we can share that we have received a certain number of emails that are available for review at City Hall.

Sipe added that any of the emails that council members have received are available with an open records request.

Salter stated that the same person who asked to have her email read in to the record asked “Do we have to ride herd on you people all the time?” Salter stated that the answer to that question is “yes.” You do need to watch what’s happening in your city all the time, not because anyone is doing anything sneaky, everything up to this point has been done correctly, legally advertised, no one has tried to hide anything. Good government never happens in a vacuum, and even to the best of the elected people’s ability we can get things wrong sometimes. Citizens do need to pay attention to know what is going on. Citizenship is a high calling. In this county, being an ordinary citizen is still a high calling and involves responsibility on everyone’s part, not just those who are elected.

Citizen comments as follows:

Dennis Perkins, 3362 Glen Devon Lane, stated that he strongly opposes the changes regarding in-home daycares within the residential areas of Berkeley Lake.

Lesley Gadegbeku, 3551 Mansions Pkwy, stated she has been a resident for almost 17 years and by and large likes the City of Berkeley Lake and the way that it is run. We maintain a quality of life here. She wanted to know if the statement to be read into the record was from Julia. If so, she was going to read it into the record, but Salter responded that it was not.  She is also not in favor of residential daycare. It has the ability to become disruptive to neighbors and whatever your business if it reaches a point that it disturbs your neighbors then it shouldn’t be allowed. She is in favor of instruction of piano and other educational services out of the home because this is not as disruptive, it can be invisible and she thinks that businesses out of our home should be invisible.

Cindy Perkins, 3362 Glen Devon Lane, stated that she opposes any change that would allow home daycare in the residential areas of Berkeley Lake.

Josh Hunter, 235 Lakeshore Drive, has called Berkeley Lake home for the last 27 years and has always been proud of the sense of community here.  It is important to allow for anything that enriches the community in any way, especially the educational services and piano teaching. He is in favor of the music education in the residential areas here. He has gotten to know so many of the students his mother has taught and more than just knowing their names. We should take pride in the fact that we have folks in the community to offer that service.

Bob Herman, 461 Lakeshore Drive, has lived here for 23 years. They have had the experience of someone living next door who raised puppies, which probably wasn’t a legal business in the city in the first place, and it caused all kinds of problems. It caused problems for the city and problems for the neighbors. It caused neighbors not to talk to one another and was an unpleasant situation.  He would hate to see any changes in the ordinance that would encourage people to run businesses from their home. It would be a bad mistake. 

George Kaffezakis, 490 Lakeshore Drive, stated that two concepts are gaining currency -  the live, work and play concept and “buy local” including local services concept.  He remembers having to try to rush to get children at daycare centers before closing time.  It is valuable to consider having local services. This has less environmental impact, conserves natural resources and helps the diversity of the community. Any ordinance that allows home-based businesses while maintaining a residential feel to the community, because that is of utmost importance, can do nothing but strengthen the community as a whole and enrich our children, particularly those that are educational based services. 

Guthrie made a suggestion that it would be helpful if citizens would state whether they are for or against all daycare, or if they would be all right with very limited numbers of children because some people had the idea that “commercial” would be excessive numbers of children.

Harrision Falk, 3950 Berkeley View Drive, stated that his life has been improved by his piano teacher and she is going through a difficult time right now and hopes that additional laws wouldn’t impose additional burden or paper work on her.

Laurel Mauroy, 105 Ridge Road, stated she is in favor of the ordinance change. She has three children, doesn’t have a support system, but Berkeley Lake has become her support system and wants to rely on Berkeley Lake to meet those needs that she can’t get elsewhere. She could use a daycare center, but an at-home daycare with 4 children is very different than a daycare center outside of Berkeley Lake. It brings up an issue of values and ethics in our community. She hopes that everyone will read the email that she sent. This issue is a lot deeper than a “commercial” venture. The commercial venture people are talking about is not a for-profit enterprise, but someone who is offering a service. We should embrace that in our community. This would make our community that much richer and would break down barriers of separation and unify us a whole lot more as a community. She is also supportive of having educational services in the community.

Kazunari Honjo, 4050 Berkeley View Drive, stated that he is against the proposed amendment in its entirety. It is not beneficial to the majority of the residents.

Jennifer Falk, 3950 Berkeley View Drive, stated that her own work as a youth advocate is about acknowledging that it takes a village to raise a child. She would ask that Berkeley Lake is a village. If we can’t see past taking care of 4 children in our community then we aren’t a village, and she moved here because it was a village.

Kathryn Robinson, 4710 Berkeley Walk Point, stated that she is in favor of the proposed amendment within reason and within limits and believes the limits have been written well.  She agreed with the last two women who spoke and agrees that this is a village and that is why many residents enjoy being here.

Michael Manness, 389 Lakeshore Drive, stated that one of our residents has been disrupted by a neighbor and it is the responsibility of council to defend us and look after our rights when our neighbor infringes upon our ability to have a quiet home life. We have a commercial area in the city across the corner from the fire station. A daycare could be located in that commercial area.  He is against the daycare center.

Brian Thumann, 3443 Glen Devon Lane, has lived here for 10 years and wants to thank everyone for being here so that we can have an open discussion on this. He feels compelled to bring up a couple of issues. The word “commercial” daycare has been spit out over and over again, but the state of Georgia is specific in their laws and when watching 6 kids or less then it is called in-home childcare. The state of Georgia requires that you register, be fingerprinted and have a background check, and if you meet those requirements then the state says that you can have an in-home daycare. People have different skills. Lydia has a degree in early childhood education. God gives us special skills and we should be able to work with our neighbors and if there are individual differences, then neighbors should talk to each other. He thinks the council could write the rules to limit in-home childcare to be consistent with state rules. How can you allow one commerce but not another?

Kitty Dales, 116 Lakeshore Drive, has lived here for 42 years, and it has been a wonderful place to live and is opposed to any changes to the ordinances that would allow daycare or anything else of the sort because of increased traffic. It’s not like the piano lessons where it would be one person at a time. If you did this, it would open the door for who knows what to come in, and she’s just opposed to it.

Jim Gilpatrick, 4614 Briar Hill Cove, is in favor of this change because he does not believe that the ordinance would authorize or approve of “commercial” daycare. This kind of service is not commercial but neighbors helping each other very unobtrusively and is the kind of service you would think neighbors would want to provide to each other in a small town like this.

Marcie Zielazienski, 506 Lakeshore Drive, has lived in Berkeley Lake for some time and was city clerk here for 12 years.  She remembers when the current ordinance was being developed and the Mayor and Council wading through a painful process to try to develop language that would protect and support the R-100 zoning, but not prevent or prohibit the invisible businesses from homes. A good ordinance was developed and has stood the test. She doesn’t see why the ordinance needs to be changed. During the time this ordinance has existed, piano lessons have continued and other tutoring has not been affected.

Rebecca Spitler, 3825 Berkeley View Drive, stated that she will not restate what others have already said and she agrees with what George Kaffezakis and Jennifer Falk said.

Kay Berg, 4240 Berkeley View Drive, stated that she did not send a separate email stating yes or no so she understands the count may not be very accurate. She does agree with George Kaffezakis. She is in favor of the changes to the ordinance. She doesn’t see how taking care of 4 children would increase traffic any more than a piano teacher or tutor. Some piano teachers have 10 or more students coming to their houses a day. There are many people living in the City who have more than 4 children of their own and probably make more noise than a 4-child daycare would. She would like to see these services offered in our community. She would have taken advantage of those when she needed them had she known about them. She appreciates the freedom that this county allows us. She is a Mary Kay consultant that sometimes has clients coming to her home, and really, according to this ordinance, she possibly might be breaking the law. It’s sad that we would squash our freedoms and ability to do in our home what we choose to do within reason, of course. If the ordinance isn’t changed then some of these people who do teach piano might be shut down and that’s not fair. The professions currently allowed are architect, attorney, clergy, engineer, tax consultant which are professional jobs. Daycare should be considered a profession of an honorable choice as well.

Marc Jansen van Rensburg, 4295 S. Berkeley Lake Road, is opposed to any change in the ordinance.

Julie Holliday, 4285 Dove Point Lane, owns a commercial child care facility, Kids R Kids, and is familiar with the laws. Her caution to everyone considering this change is that piano lessons may be unobstructive, but when does it become obstructive.  When will the neighbors find it not the right profession to have in your home? When will we open up to karate studios in our home or to the senior living communities in our home? You have to consider the laws of the state. The quality of whatever businesses are offered should be taken into consideration. Many of us moved here because it is a bedroom community, that’s the reputation of Berkeley Lake. If we are no longer that, then consider greatly what kinds of businesses we’re going to pick and choose, and that’s going to create all kinds of problems between neighbors.

Debbe Robinson, 540 Lakeshore Drive, stated that for many of the reasons that have already been stated, she is against changing the ordinance.

Dana Nigh, 4006 South Berkeley Lake Road, stated that she is against changing the ordinance.

Martha Schroder, 204 Lakeshore Drive, stated that she has rented in a house at 147 Lakeshore Drive for the past 11 years, and when she heard about the change of the ordinance she thought it would be important to hear from someone who can’t afford to own here but is willing to spend her hard-earned money to rent here because it is such a beautiful place. She admitted that if there were childcare going on next door to the house she wanted to rent then she wouldn’t want to rent that house. Renting is a different ballgame and you don’t always have a voice that someone who owns might have. From someone who rents in this beautiful place, she is opposed to any change in the ordinance. She is willing to listen to a compromise that might allow for piano instruction. She has visions of childcare in her mind and wouldn’t rent a house next to a childcare place.

Sandy Lacy, 147 Lakeshore Drive, stated that she is opposed to any changes.

Irene Gowens, 537 Lakeshore Drive, has lived here since 2000, is the mother of young children and recently went back to work part time. She doesn’t have family close by to help. She is strongly opposed to allowing in-home daycare. She agrees with many of the reasons already stated. She believes that businesses should be invisible, and they shouldn’t negatively impact property values. The fact that we are all here tonight tells her that this business has become a nuisance and has become disruptive. She would love to have someone close by to take her kids to, but not if it negatively impacts property values or negatively impacts her neighbor and their lifestyle and their property values. She believes in people helping other people. There is a fine line. When you have to legalize things to make that happen, that just doesn’t make sense.  There is a difference between a commercial daycare and piano lessons and instructions in the home. Also, her parents have personal experience with a next door neighbor who cares for the elderly. Her parents’ property values have been significantly reduced and they are afraid they won’t be able to find a buyer, and even if they do it will be a loss to them. It affects the whole neighborhood there.

Britt Collins, 33 Lakeshore Drive, former part-time OEO, stated that we should think about the lake. It is a big part of our community, and its health is fragile. We have limits on the number of people that can live in a home because of septic capacity. If we bring kids in day after day we may be exacerbating that problem, which we already have. He loves kids and home schooled, but we are opening a situation that will be a problem down the road. He is against the proposed change.

Miguel Cortez, 760 Lakeshore Drive, is opposed to any change in the ordinance. He read the following: “I don’t think any exceptions should be adopted, condoned, approved or granted. I believe that path leads to erosion of the enforceability of the core regulation and permits the nose of the camel of illegality and noncompliance to get into the tent of our city. It leads to further requests for exceptions, to noncompliance and to disregard of our zoning ordinances and ultimately to their non-enforceability altogether. He is opposed to any change in the ordinances whatsoever because they have served us well up until now. He is opposed mostly and selfishly because of his investment in his property. His home is 90% of his net value and for anything to erode that net value is an imposition on him and everything he’s worth. He picked this place purposely because it’s a quiet residential community. He likes the way of life here, he likes the environment. To turn it into a semi-commercial area or anything other than what it is is an imposition on him, an erosion of his property values and his personal interests.”

Ginny Nevins, 350 Lakeshore Drive, stated that she is a realtor and thinks that she can speak to the comments about property values. She doesn’t feel that an in-home daycare with 4 or fewer children would negatively affect our property values. We have invested greatly here on the lake and try to help other folks retain their property values as well. She is one of five and took piano lessons and knitting lessons in her neighborhood growing up. There were certainly always more than 4 kids at her house. She can’t fathom that that would be a detriment if the noise ordinances and other regulations would rule what happens in people’s yards. She also used a commercial daycare center that she rushed to get to pick up her son to avoid the late fees, but if she had a great neighbor, rather than have to deal with the germs, from a commercial daycare, then she would have done that.

Patty Thumann, 3443 Glen Devon Lane, stated that she is for the change. She stated that people are saying that this is destructive to the property values or disruptive to the neighbors. This is not like a commercial daycare center where you can tell it’s a daycare.  It shouldn’t be obvious that the in-home daycare is a daycare, it could just be that those kids live there. If you have 3 or 4 kids outside playing, that’s normal, we’re used to seeing that.  If we have specific rules, there shouldn’t be a problem. It shouldn’t negatively impact property values. This shows that Berkeley Lake is more a village. It is a help to our community.

Fran Mitsch, 826 Lakeshore Drive, is opposed to any change in the ordinance. Having 4, 6, 8, 10 kids occasionally playing in the yard is one thing, but having 4 arrive every morning at 7 a.m. with doors slamming, dogs barking and children talking is different. If that were next door to her it would bother her every day.  It is different than piano instruction.

Irvin Gunter, 4190 Berkeley View Drive, is opposed to the ordinance as it is stated right now. He stated that we’re not talking about one daycare center, but if this ordinance passed then anyone could have a daycare and that would be harm to the city.

Brian Riley, 4195 S. Berkeley Lake Road, is opposed because this area is for residential people not commercial people. These areas aren’t made for a daycare, with hills and lakes. He’d hate to see someone’s kids get hurt because of lack of supervision. Houses are made for houses, but not to have kids that aren’t your own running all over.

End of Citizen Comments.

Comments from meeting attendees who are not residents of Berkeley Lake.

Nancy Stokes, 3824 Ashford Knoll in Atlanta, is here not to speak to daycare, but is here to speak from her heart to help keep us from the problems that she experienced with her case in 2001 with Dekalb County. She did not know Julia Distelhurst until she called her about 4 weeks ago desperate for help. Julia Distelhurst has called Ms. Stokes because she didn’t know who else to turn to and this woman needs help. Julia has provided a valuable service. Culture is important, but so are property values. However, don’t let people scare you about property values. Julia has never had one complaint. Ms. Stokes lost to the commissioners by one vote because of what one other person stood up and said that was not true. Protect Julia in a special class, educational services, because that’s the only place she’ll be safe, don’t put her in with any other kind of business. Help her to live. Every day she is postponed is another stressful day that hurts her.

End of comments.

III. MINUTES of October 18, 2007

Anderson motioned to accept the minutes of October 18, 2007. Kitchens seconded the motion. Anderson, Guthrie, Kitchens, and Sipe voted in favor. Cohen abstained. The motion passed.

IV. REPORTS

i. October 2007 Financial Statements
Guthrie motioned to accept the unaudited October 31st financial statements. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

ii. Ordinance Enforcement Officer
Salter noted that council had received a report from the OEO.

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

“I met recently with presidents from homeowner associations to solicit budget requests, suggestions for committee appointments, etc.  In view of the recent concerns voiced by some citizens that information about council agendas and issues posted on our website and advertised in the newspaper was insufficient notice for them, I offered to email our council agendas before each meeting in the future to hoa presidents.  They liked that idea, and will forward it on to their citizens as they see fit.  They said they preferred to receive this kind of information as opposed to emails from other individuals, and I said I would pass that on to everyone.

I have recently attended a meeting at Gwinnett County’s water reclamation facility and received the following information with the suggestion that I might pass it on to our citizens (quoting here) “to clear up some misconceptions.  Releases are being made from Lake Lanier to meet downstream needs which include a lot more requirements than fish and mussels.  Metro Atlanta drinking water is taken from the river below Lake Lanier so releases must be made to meet that need.  There is also a minimum required need for a flow to assimilate treated waste water put back in the river by the city of Atlanta and other downstream municipalities.  In addition flows are required downstream for a variety of public uses such as drinking water, industrial plants, energy plants (nuclear and coal-fired) as well as the endangered species.”  The water wars going on around us are mostly beyond the purview of the City, but I did want to pass that on to you as requested.

I have received a request from a citizen to close the greenspace to pedestrians during the extreme drought we are experiencing.  His thought is that pedestrians might create a fire hazard.  Please consider this and let me know your wishes in this matter.

At our last meeting Council instructed me to ask the BLEMA chairperson if he would streamline and simplify the draft emergency management plan he had submitted to us.  I did so and he is working with his committee on that now.

Berkeley Lake’s recent Fall Festival was one of the best we’ve ever had and I’m sure we are all very grateful to the BLOSOMS for planning and coordinating the activities.

As you recall I have asked before for your suggestions for 2008 committee appointments.   I just wanted to solicit those again and remind you that I’m currently working on that for next year.”

VI. OLD BUSINESS
a.) Decision re Christa property problems

Salter gave a report about this issue stating that she spoke with Mr. Bentley this afternoon. She will send an email with the information. Basically, he wanted us to know that Ms. Christa is appealing a case not involving our city and has a new attorney in that. Their representation to us is that the structure and the permits are evidence in that case and his contention is that the house should not be able to be removed because it is evidence.

For those citizens who do not know the background here, at our last meeting council instructed that if Ms. Christa had not applied for a variance by a certain date, we were to cite her and our attorney was to proceed to Superior Court to remove the house.  We all understand this is a very serious step to take, but this issue has been going on for a couple of years and the issue has been on council’s agenda for quite some time. The homeowner and Mr. Bentley promised to file the variance application by a certain date, but that did not happen. Salter sent the OEO to issue a citation and polled the council about removing the house and the majority of council responded that they believed we have to do that as we said we would. Salter asked council for a motion to ratify that step. Our attorney here tonight, Ms. Cowan, believes we should move forward and let our attorney resolve the issues that were brought to Salter’s attention today.

Kitchens motioned to ratify the decision and support the attorney moving forward to remove the house. Cohen seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

b.) O-62-07 Section 78-206, Home Occupation – Exemptions (for possible 2nd read)

The next agenda item pertains to the public hearing just held.

Sipe motioned to substitute the Special Use Permit (SUP) text which he previously distributed to council and put on 2nd read but not adopt so that the P&Z can review and provide comment on it because it is a substantive change. This will not allow the daycare use at all, but will allow by SUP the private educational use.

He stated that according to his count 19 people opposed the daycare and 9 spoke in favor. 

Sipe stated that council promised in our last minutes that we would consider written comments from citizens. He has been keeping a list of written information from citizens and stated that there are 20 people in favor of the daycare and 135 people who are opposed. There are a huge number of people both here this evening and prior who are opposed to having the daycare. If we make the proposed substitution this would be more appealing to those 9 who were not in favor of having any change to the ordinance that would allow educational use.

Cohen seconded the motion.

Anderson stated that as he understands the SUP process an applicant would have to meet certain requirements for an SUP, and if those requirements are met then it is an administrative process that the SUP be reviewed and granted. He asked how that distinguishes that process from having the restriction in code for the by-right use except to add another administrative layer. Why not just state the limitations in code? What is the advantage to having an SUP requirement?

Sipe responded that the proposed text had been passed by the attorney and he has incorporated the attorney’s recommended changes into the proposal. The difference between the by-right use and the SUP requirement is that the P&Z would have the opportunity to take into account the location of the proposed music instruction or other private educational use. In other words, P&Z could consider the safety issues of the location in terms of increased traffic. In addition, P&Z could consider the impact on neighbors so that those homes which had driveways that are located very close to an adjacent neighbor’s bedroom could be considered and either the SUP denied or additional conditions could be added to mitigate any impact. As long as the P&Z applies it consistently, there shouldn’t be any issue.

Kitchens asked Sipe if his substitution would address daycare at all. Sipe responded that his proposal does not allow daycare at all. Sipe stated that he has taken a position on the daycare issue and we have 135 people who have written to us that have expressed their opposition. In addition, 19 have spoken against it tonight.

Kitchens stated that the numbers he has heard are out of balance from what he’s heard from the citizens tonight. He stated that he is not pleased to see how Sipe’s email was structured to solicit the comments he’s gotten. The comments heard tonight have changed the balance. Kitchens stated that we should put this off for another month before we make a decision. He needs to study this more closely and has reviewed all the emails and listened attentively to the citizen comments tonight. In addition, he doesn’t agree with Sipe on his count of who has spoken in favor and who against.

Anderson stated that the existing, current home occupation ordinance doesn’t require any of the other home occupations to go through an SUP process. He doesn’t see that the instruction of the kinds we’re discussing is so different than those other occupations that we already do permit.

Sipe stated that the exceptions currently provided for are professional occupations, which we can’t regulate by state law. Additionally, these uses only have incidental traffic generated, which is vastly different than music instruction or daycare. In essence, we currently do not have exemptions. We are now making an exception.

Guthrie stated that she doesn’t want to discount the citizens who have emailed, called and spoken tonight. However, the way that the information was gathered, from a statistical standpoint, distorts the comments. She stated that Sipe chose the audience and then sent information that was not unbiased and that he had an agenda. It was not presented factually or objectively, nor free of personal attacks. Those people who reacted were reacting emotionally to an emotional email. For those people who reacted emotionally and then read the ordinance and checked the website and didn’t change their mind, then Guthrie respects that and is not trying to change their minds.  She stated that when Sipe sent the information out to his email list he didn’t copy other council members and didn’t provide the entire proposed ordinance amendment to the citizens.

Sipe stated that he sent the email to his email list that is fairly extensive. He stated that many citizens weren’t aware of the issue so he claims that it wasn’t adequately advertised. People were thankful that this was brought to their attention.

Sipe stated that he isn’t against having a referendum on this issue.

Sipe wasn’t contacted by Anderson with these changes before 4 p.m. before P&Z reviewed the changes.

Sipe stated that he at least has put everything in writing and there is a lack of record when people have verbal conversations.

Sipe stated that he does have an agenda so that the citizens understand the impact that can happen to them as a result of this ordinance change.

Sipe stated that his email was factual.

Sipe stated that he didn’t make personal attacks, but has seen personal attacks from other council members about his actions.

Sipe stated that he did send out the ordinance.

Guthrie asked if he sent it out in the first email. He responded that it was not.

Salter does not want to have personal disagreements and asked that we focus on the issue and not on personalities.

Guthrie stated that if we are going to keep having the score card brought up, then it is a serious issue as to how that scorecard has been created. There probably aren’t too many people who would say that things were done the way they should have been. If Sipe had a passionate concern about this topic, then she would have liked him to bring that to council.

Guthrie went on to say that the City should have issued unbiased, non-inflammatory information to the citizens. There are so many ways that this could have been handled to have gotten citizen feedback but without everyone going into a panic. The reaction is that people were thinking we were going to have “commercial” daycares.

Guthrie stated that the folks she talked to called her, and people were scared about this because people thought that we were trying to sneak something past them. Citizens didn’t know what this was about and thought we were going to be allowing Kids R Kids in the neighborhoods.  If we’re going to talk about numbers and percentages, have we given everyone in the community a chance to respond in an informed way?

Salter stated that she hopes we did that tonight.

Sipe stated that he agreed this could have been done better. This whole process was fast-tracked, and council didn’t receive the text that was going to be reviewed until too late. He agrees that there should be more notice to the public so that they can be aware regarding changes to the zoning ordinance. He has a resolution later that addresses exactly that.

There was further discussion.

Kitchens asked that the motion be restated.

Threadgill read back the motion.

Sipe and Cohen voted in favor of the motion. Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in opposition. The motion failed.

Anderson motioned to put on 2nd read the current wording on first read for home occupations but striking Section 4(b), which is the daycare section., but leaves in Section 4(a) related to the educational use.

Salter described what she understood the motion to be.

Guthrie seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.

Anderson stated that he is offering this going forward with daycare stricken because he thinks that there needs to be more city-wide discussion on the merits and demerits of the issue of daycare in the city. There is almost a 2 to 1 against on the daycare issue from the comments tonight, but he shares a concern about the statistics on the email survey.  He is concerned that the city has not done enough to promote discussion with an unbiased factual based review of these proposed changes.  He thinks that we have a fairly clear mandate that the instruction use is not an issue and the current proposed language for instruction meets the needs of limitation without adding the SUP language and extra administrative burden.

Sipe stated that he sees this as a step in the right direction, but is still concerned about the number of students that may be allowed in a piano business. There is no limit in the proposed text in terms of the size of the piano practice.  Sipe stated that he has spoken to piano teachers and they understand size of practice in terms of the number of students per week. He proposed in his SUP text that we limit it to no more than 25 students per week, whether that be in one day or not, he didn’t address that.

There was further discussion.

Anderson agreed that that is something that is worth looking into to try to figure out what would be an appropriate number. We could do that before it is adopted since we are just looking at this for second read.

Sipe suggested looking at the existing piano instruction. Anderson agreed that that was one resource that could be used.

Frank Lombardi, 20 Lakeshore Drive, suggested that the proposed motion should consider striking reference to care of children to clean up the text. 

Anderson amended his motion to strike the words in the first sentence “for the care of children, and” from paragraph 4 of the Exemptions and to keep the remainder of his motion intact. Guthrie seconded the motion. Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. Cohen and Sipe voted in opposition.

Anderson motioned that the city make a direct effort to communicate to the citizens the merits and demerits as can be factually presented on the issue of family home daycare in an effort to ascertain what the overall city’s reflection is on that on a broader scale than what we currently have and would like that done fairly soon so that we can have that done before the next council meeting.

Salter asked if he was thinking a Mayor’s Message. Anderson responded that he thinks we should have a discussion about what the appropriate method would be.

Guthrie seconded the motion.

Guthrie added that we need to attach information to that communication such as information from the state regarding this. She added that the state defines a family daycare home to be a private residence and that it must be in a residential area. We need to differentiate what we’re talking about from what the state calls a commercial daycare center. We need to use language that we’re not creating but that the state has come up with and the definitions that they use so that it will be unbiased.

Anderson modified the motion to state that the communication should include background information.

Guthrie seconded the modified motion.

Kathryn Robinson, 4710 Berkeley Walk Point, asked that council not attach the complaint made against the daycare in future correspondence because it is inaccurate and unsubstantiated and has been very hurtful to the family.

Irvin Gunter, 4190 Berkeley View Drive, stated that he does not know how to put the merits and demerits of childcare in front of the public. This is an emotional issue as well as a factual issue. How can you not include the complaint? This wasn’t a statistical sampling, it was an email, and people responded to it. Have the Mayor send out an additional email to see what the response is. He believes the response would be the same.

Cindy Perkins, 3362 Glen Devon Lane, stated that she was part of the original complaint and everything is factual and it is exactly how it happened. It is true as written. Those of us who are against this should also be heard.

Anderson stated that we are trying to evaluate whether the community should consider having a home occupation allowance for daycare and not evaluate any one particular daycare operation. If there is a way to write a regulation that permits daycare and addresses those concerns then that is a merit. If there is not a way to address the concerns in code, then that is a demerit. That is a discussion we need to have in this community.

Salter asked again how council would like this communication to happen.

Anderson suggested that a special Mayor’s Message that has a section that unabashedly brings up all the pluses and minuses, details of the current proposal, including the informational background so that someone not familiar can get a good background. He agrees with Mr. Gunter that this is both an emotional and factual issue.

Guthrie stated that it is highly unusual for someone to email out the complaint from one neighbor about another city-wide. That is not typical city business, and it wasn’t sent out by the city.

Salter stated that she believes she is a good communicator but does not feel adequate to present the emotional aspects of both sides of this in a way that would please everybody. She would prefer to focus on the actual wording that is being considered. We can send that out along with any other documents before council. 

Guthrie asked about drafting an alternative ordinance that could address some of the concerns that have been expressed, for example the licensing.

Salter stated that the other option is to send information about where we are procedurally and a copy of what is being considered and also to let two council members write something that is a pro and a con to be included.

Sipe believed that this would be a good idea and that he could write the cons and he was sure that another council member would be willing to write the pros. If we just send the text, the impact that that change has is not clearly apparent on its own to everyone unless they have had some real experience with ordinances.

Sipe addressed the comment about forwarding the complaint. We as city government don’t normally send out the complaint. He stated that this was an open record, so anyone could have obtained a copy of it.  Sipe sent it because it provided an example for what it was like to live next to a daycare.

Anderson stated that the existing proposed change was not tailored for the daycare in Berkeley Walk. That daycare is what brought up this issue to council, but he believes that this is a use that could have a benefit for our community.  It was crafted from the research performed by Anderson and Threadgill.

Rebecca Spitler, 3825 Berkeley View Drive, agreed with some of the points Guthrie made. The initial email from Sipe was very targeted and did not go to everyone. She only got it because someone else forwarded it to her and she knows that Sipe has her email address because she has sent emails to council as chair as the conservancy. She believes that everyone in the city should be informed in the same way, which will probably be by mail, and that everyone has the opportunity to vote yes or no and then we can have good statistics. Right now, she is not comfortable with the statistics.

Sipe stated that we should have a referendum before allowing daycare which legally and accurately determines everyone’s individual vote.

Guthrie stated that Sipe has made that recommendation before and the City Attorney has been explicit that there are only specific things that can be decided by referendum. We can not just have referendums for anything. When the citizens vote, they are voting for elected officials to represent them.

Cowan stated that not every situation can be decided by referendum, but that she would like to check into this to determine whether it would apply to the daycare situation. It is not so broad that any kind of disagreement could be determined by referendum.

Brian Thumann, 3443 Glen Devon Lane, stated that the State of Georgia has a provision for this. What he is concerned about is that we keep picking on daycare. Once one dollar changes hand that is the exchange of commerce. How is it not discriminatory for us to allow some businesses and not this one, which the state specifically provides for?

Sipe stated that the state doesn’t mandate that we allow it unless we are told otherwise by the City Attorney.

Thumann stated that he is prepared to contact the ACLU himself. He sees this as someone’s gift and skill and how do you draw the line between that person and another when commerce is exchanged. She reports her taxes and this is what America’s about – creating jobs and creating communities.

Guthrie asked Cowan to try to determine how this fits in with the state regulations. She then read the following state definition: a family daycare home is a private residence operated by any person who receives therein the pay for supervision and care for fewer than 24 hours a day without transfer of legal custody 3 but not more than 6 children under 18 years of age not related to such persons whose parents or guardians are not residents in the same private residence. It goes on and says it’s permitted by law to care for 3 to 6 children for pay and that there is a registration process and that it must be in a residential zone and can not be in a commercial facility.

Sipe asked if Cowan believed that this was a mandate that we have to allow residential daycare.

Cowan responded that she would have to see the language that surrounded that provision and cities regulate home occupations in a variety of different ways. It will depend on those language qualifying definitions.

Guthrie added that she wouldn’t consider this a mandate, but would like to know how we would hold up in court.

Marcie Zielazienski, 506 Lakeshore Drive, stated that we have responsibilities to read the minutes and keep up with what is going on and to be supportive to our city government, quite often we get busy and we don’t bother. Exceptions to zoning are very important to all of us and it can open doors that we can’t imagine.  She asked that the city plan to communicate with the citizens regarding zoning changes and that that happen in all cases.

Anderson asked Sipe to work with him on something to hammer out the issues and take feedback from other council members and the Mayor.

Guthrie asked do we want to do it now with the wording that we have now, or do we want to develop new code language to address the concerns that we’ve heard from citizens. We already know that this code does not address all of the citizen concerns. We could modify the code to give folks even more time to contemplate all of this.

Sipe stated that he has a concern because the next council meeting is his last and two other people that haven’t been part of this discussion will be addressing this. The opposing point of view won’t be accurately represented once he’s off council potentially. He would rather work with Anderson sooner rather than later and try to hammer out whatever wording and whatever risks and benefits there are to doing this.

Guthrie stated at this point citizens should get something that we’re recommending since the current proposed code doesn’t address the concerns of some of the citizens.

There was further discussion. It was clarified that the discussion about the need to communicate to the citizens was about the daycare use.

Anderson asked if the proposed language that was reviewed tonight, which deleted 4(b), would need to be re-reviewed by P&Z. Cowan responded that this does not have to be sent back to P&Z.

Sipe stated that he understood the motion to mean that nothing would be sent out until he and Anderson could work together to come up with text that they can both live with. 

Guthrie withdrew her second because she doesn’t see a reason to rush this even though she understands Sipe’s concern about his vantage point since he’s leaving council.

There was further discussion.

Sipe seconded Anderson’s motion in lieu of Guthrie.

Kay Berg, 4240 Berkeley View Drive, stated that if simply a pro and con is produced and goes out without a factual revision of the potential ordinance then again we are getting two people’s opinions without having the factual revisions that Guthrie is talking about. That was her complaint as a citizen that she received several heated emails that turned this in to a commercial daycare business like a Kids R Kids and that is not what this is about. She would have preferred to receive something from the Mayor or collective council rather than personal opinions. Regardless of who is on council, it is about what the citizens prefer and what they want to have.

Debbe Robinson, 540 Lakeshore Drive, requested that written communications not go out on this issue. It is not a good way to keep up with current issues as far as reaching community members who are not on email. There are a lot of ways to get this process confused.   Council has the authority to vote in contrast to the opinion of the citizens, much to the chagrin of the community.  She thinks Guthrie said as much when she said that whatever came to her heart and mind regarding this daycare issue, she would vote accordingly, and the Mayor agreed, regardless of Sipe’s effort to get information out to as many citizens as he could.  We are here with late gaming and late information and a lot of energy coming from the community, and council could have voted on things that are controversial, but for Sipe’s effort. She is not in favor of any more personal efforts, it should all be forthright and in a public arena. Citizens are not in favor of going forward with daycare based on the numbers. It’s not about the piano instruction tonight.

Salter asked about Robinson’s mention about the Mayor having said something she didn’t believe she had said. Robinson said that the Mayor had stated that regardless of the numbers that favored a percentage against daycare, then council would vote anyway, regardless of the community’s expression.

Threadgill stated that in recording the minutes she didn’t believe that she heard that.

Guthrie stated that she also didn’t say what Robinson just said she said, although she didn’t agree with the way the numbers were generated as they aren’t representative of the community as a whole.

Salter stated that she doesn’t remember saying anything remotely resembling what Robinson attributed to her. 

Robinson stated that if she erred she retracts her statement just as publicly as she stated it.

Robin Sansone, 4295 Dovepoint, stated that the biggest portion of her job is getting information out to the Miramont homeowners. After she forwarded the email from Sipe to the residents, she did receive some complaints about that. She wants Miramont homeowners to know what is going on and it should be in written form in the mailbox and it is more credible coming from the Mayor. When the Mayor has her name on it then it is more credible. When we start talking about the pros and cons that is where you get into the emotions. If people are presented with factual information, people are intelligent enough to understand how it will impact them and to give feedback.

Salter added that she believes the best way to get the information out would be to provide the documentation, and would go along with getting out the pros and cons list if that was the wish of council.

Guthrie is in favor of drafting code and sending that out to the residents. This is a simple code and anyone can read it and determine what they think about it.

Guthrie stated that we weren’t rushing through this; we followed the same process we always do. This was heard by P&Z at an advertised public hearing and it has been to a meeting before council. Guthrie stated that we should draft the code in due time and not rush through it.

There was further discussion.

Sipe stated that the problem he has, in addition to strategizing with the timeline, is to put out the text and not give any specifics that we know on how it can impact citizens.

Salter asked if he doesn’t think that people can figure that out. Sipe stated that he got a lot of emails from people who didn’t understand.

Guthrie suggested that we simply go through drafting something that addresses concerns that citizens have told us about and then do what Salter had outlined, something that she could include in the Mayor’s message. She is not interested in doing code and commentary. Guthrie would like the code put on the next agenda so that it can be openly discussed instead of doing it off-line in emails behind closed doors. Let it follow the normal pattern that it should follow.

Sipe asked if we are discounting all the people that came tonight. Are we asking them to do it again?

Guthrie asked what do we think of the 500 households we haven’t heard from?

Irvin Gunter, 4190 Berkeley View Drive, asked how many email addresses Sipe included in his email. Sipe stated that he had well over 500 emails. Gunter stated that people have spoken. We are discounting what that hundred and something people said. Gunter stated that we were going to draft something from the concerns expressed tonight.

Guthrie stated that she wants to address the comments we’ve heard about from citizens in their emails, which contain some good suggestions, and not just based on what citizens have said tonight.

Anderson withdrew his motion.

Guthrie motioned that we work on drafting the ordinance and bring it back to council for consideration at their next meeting. Anderson seconded the motion.

Sipe stated that we have a large response from citizens by email, which was requested by council at the last meeting, and apparently we don’t like the response that we’ve gotten so we’re going to try again and change the code and go through it all again.

Anderson stated that that is not accurate, but the attempt is to address the expressed concerns and see if a substantive ordinance comes out of it that makes any sense at all.

Sipe has heard that citizens don’t want this at all.

Guthrie stated that the citizens may have been responding to the image that Sipe conjured up when he used the language “commercial” daycare center.

There was further discussion.

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


c.) O-61-07 Chapter 78 (former Chapter 39) Zoning Ordinance (for poss. adoption)

Cohen motioned to adopt the ordinance. The motion failed for lack of a second.

Anderson motioned to postpone consideration to next month on this ordinance, O-61-07, Chapter 78. Guthrie seconded the motion.

Cohen asked Bob Herb to come up to say something. Herb stated that he would like to get this approved. He stated that he has been working on this for 2 and ½ months after being asked to proceed post haste to get this done. He stated that council was going to get questions to him in an email before the November meeting, but that he didn’t receive any questions.  Herb stated that these are not complex changes, but we’re trying to clean up and fix some things. We can still change it again, and there are still things that need to be changed in the code.

Guthrie apologized that council hasn’t gotten back to him. She stated that this past month has been very difficult with all of the issues with the home occupations ordinance.

There was further discussion.

Guthrie added that one of her concerns is regarding the change in rear setback for accessory structures and uses to 40 feet.  Herb said that this is the way it’s been interpreted previously and the purpose of 40 feet is to prevent obstruction of the lake view for lake properties.  Guthrie stated that the code shouldn’t unnecessarily burden non-lake properties and that 40 feet is a very large setback for accessory uses and structures.  There was further discussion about this.

Anderson also apologized that he had not gotten questions to Herb before this meeting. He had every intention of going through that code with a fine-tooth comb in preparation for the meeting tonight, but he will do so before the next council meeting.

Herb stated that he would prefer not go back in forth in an email chain, and would rather sit down to discuss this with council. He can bring in the whole P&Z if need be.

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


d.) City Hall

Salter stated that she has received from Clark Patterson Associates a bid to do a survey as was described by Wakefield Beasley for $4,300 plus expenses for things like travel charged at expenses + 10%. Anderson asked if Salter would get further information regarding expenses.

Kitchens motioned to move forward at an amount not to exceed $5,000. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

e.) Berkeley Village Preliminary Plat – Revision to Condition on Hours of Operation

Salter noted that she had received a request from Neil Lansing to postpone this until the January meeting. They are trying to work it out so that all of these people can have their needs met.

Salter read the request into the record. “We are requesting that the City Council table the request for the revision to the plat for Berkeley Lake Village because we are working
with Snap Fitness on another franchisee.  The current franchisee will be giving up his lease for a new franchisee, but we have not finalized things yet.  We request that you table it until the January meeting.  Please confirm receipt of this email by reply.”

Guthrie asked Threadgill what she understood from the franchisee. Threadgill stated that she understood that the franchisee was amenable to the postponement.

Guthrie motioned to postpone this until the January meeting. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

f.) Leave Policy

Anderson asked for clarification of procedure. Is it a motion to accept or do we do a resolution?

Cowan stated that we would adopt by resolution.

Salter stated that this could lay on the table another month, but her only suggestion was under the PTO accrual we may want to add a day per year incrementally to keep good employees.

Guthrie stated that she would have to look at that, but that puts us back where we were, which we all thought was overly generous. There was further discussion.

Guthrie motioned to adopt the policy. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

g.) Public Works Issues

Salter stated that there is a private pond that she had received a concern about. Just this afternoon the results of the survey are in which shows that the original person who brought the concern is not involved at all, it is a neighbor to that person and the outlet structure straddles the line between the city right-of-way and the neighbor. The city engineer recommends that the city accept this as a responsibility to fix if, and only if, the private entity gives us a permanent easement for maintenance and repair.

Anderson stated that he would like to know how much that would cost, but he stated that he thinks it sounds like this is something we should do.

Salter reported that we are close to having spent all of our SPLOST infrastructure money, but she has been told that within the early months of next year we will be asked to come up with a new SPLOST request for a new SPLOST that will be put before the public.  Salter advised that we do nothing until we get the new SPLOST money. The city engineer stated that it is not going to be catastrophic if it fails as it will fail gradually.

Anderson stated that we should be aggressive dealing with it. If we have SPLOST funds to just get the easement, then we should go ahead and do that because it takes time to do that.

Salter stated that she would explore this with Carothers and report back to council next month about it.

h.) Consideration of BPRC report

Anderson stated that he has reviewed the staff response and that this report should probably go back to the BPRC for them to address staff comments as prepared by Threadgill.

Guthrie agreed with Anderson.

Consensus of council was that this should be referred back to the committee.

Guthrie motioned to take a 4-minute recess. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

a.) Septic Extension Requests

Cohen motioned to approve the staff recommendations. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

b.) Budget 2008

Cohen motioned to put the 2008 Budget on first read. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

c.) Certification of Elected Officials

Sipe motioned to resolve to certify the elected officials. Guthrie seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

d.) Stay of Enforcement 595 Lakeshore Drive

Guthrie asked if this was about the mailbox. It was confirmed that that was the issue.

Anderson motioned to stay enforcement at 595 Lakeshore Drive pending the outcome of submitted text amendment. Kitchens seconded the motion.

Anderson commented that this was the same pattern used for the stay of enforcement on the daycare center several months ago. While we’re looking at reviewing code that materially affects it, we don’t have any intention to punish and then change the rules to remove the punishment.

Guthrie stated that we have been accused of not enforcing the code when we do something like this, but this is legal.

There was further discussion.

All were in favor. The motion passed.

e.) Adoption of Occupation Tax Certificate Forms, Administrative Fees and Regulatory Fees

Guthrie motioned to resolve to accept the documents that the City Administrator has submitted.  Anderson seconded the motion.

Anderson asked what happens if these documents need to be modified.  Salter responded that they would have to come back to council for approval by resolution.

Guthrie commented that the proposed applications include that home occupations meet the requirements of the code.  This deals with the concern that the business licenses not just approved without anyone having to meet the criteria for home occupations.

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

f.) Zoning change notification resolution – Sipe

Sipe stated that this is a small change and that council received a copy of this last week.  We already put changes on the website and we already require a public hearing in our code.  What he is looking to do is to ensure that the public has sufficient notice by ensuring that the website conspicuously shows the zoning changes. He is leaving that up to administration to figure out the best way.  There are ways of making it very visible. Before we go to the public hearing, it should be mentioned in the newsletter that there are zoning changes pointing people to the website for more information. Then he is recommending to hold the public hearing before first read not before second read.

Guthrie stated that right now we’ve held it after first read but before second read.

Sipe stated that historically we’ve done it whenever. 

Guthrie stated that passing this resolution and requiring the public hearing before first read does restrict us if there is a need to move forward with something quickly. First read is just a first formal step that something is under council consideration. It doesn’t mean that anything is on the fast track. We had the business license and occupation taxes on first and second read for a year or year and a half as council ironed through it. 

Guthrie does appreciate some of the things that have been brought out in this recommendation. Guthrie agrees we can do a better job of putting things more conspicuously on the website. Guthrie is concerned about requiring the changes be included in a newsletter because she doesn’t know how often those are circulated. She asked Salter how many times the newsletter is circulated. Salter responded that she has tried not to commit herself to sending it out in any certain pattern because she didn’t want to send it just to be sending it, but stated that she has done it based on the community’s need for timely information.

Salter doesn’t want the citizens to get to the point where they don’t pay any attention to the newsletter and she doesn’t want to spend money unnecessarily.  Salter asked how many times the zoning code will change. Anderson stated that once we finish with the municode changes and some of the other work that is going on then this will come down, but in the short term we are anticipating quite a few code changes.

There was further discussion about posting the website and how to more prominently post important code changes as well as possibly the agenda.

Sipe stated that he is suggesting that the public hearing can be held the day that the ordinance is put on first read. There was further discussion.

Guthrie stated that there is already a public hearing before P&Z before zoning code changes come before council.

Sipe stated that this is in response to virtually everybody who had indicated that they hadn’t heard anything about the daycare issue.

There was further discussion.

Guthrie stated that the system we have works but we can improve the system by the website and we can be more cognizant of utilizing the Mayor’s Message.

Salter responded that this daycare thing was an unusual situation and asked council to let her know when we see something coming that warrants a Mayor’s Message to let her know so that she could put something out. 

Consensus of council is that zoning changes should be made more visible on the website.

There was further discussion about the importance of the newsletter.

Sipe motioned to adopt this resolution as written. Cohen seconded the motion. Cohen and Sipe voted in favor. Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in opposition. The motion failed.

g.) Steering Committee members’ designation

Salter reported that she has a meeting tomorrow at 10 A.M. with the consultant for the comprehensive plan and needs to come up with a steering committee.

Salter did email all HOA presidents and got no takers.

There was further discussion.

Guthrie asked about the function of this committee. Salter responded that this committee would take the lead on the comprehensive plan like the facilities committee took the lead on city hall.

There was further discussion.

Spitler stated that she would be willing to serve on the steering committee with Anderson, Salter, Threadgill, and the consultant.

h.) Greenspace

Salter received a concern from a citizen requesting that we close off the greenspace to pedestrian traffic. She referred it to Rebecca Spitler as the BLC chair.

Rebecca Spitler, 3825 Berkeley View Drive, stated that she called Dale Higdon, our county forester. He stated that there is no fire usage permitted in the greenspace. Unless someone is smoking or illegally setting a camp fire, which we don’t allow, he doesn’t see how regular pedestrian traffic will cause a fire hazard.  He says that bans have been placed on camp fires in parks and forests because of the drought, but no facilities have been entirely shut down for normal park usage.  She also spoke to Carol Hassell, President of GOLT, and she stated that pedestrian traffic will provide eyes on the ground so that if there is anything unusual or abnormal we would catch it sooner rather than later.

Cohen stated that if there is a fire, there is a serious problem for homes on Lakeshore Drive that border the greenspace in that they are connected to the smallest fire hydrant in the city. He has discussed it with the fire marshal. The county would have to move the hydrants on the six-inch line which is on the other side of the road, across Lakeshore Drive.

Anderson asked about the size of the line on Ridge Road. Cohen stated that that was a larger line.

Salter stated that she has been worried about the hydrant situation for some time. She has worked with the county to try to get something worked out about this.

The consensus of council was to keep greenspace open to pedestrian traffic.

VIII. CITIZEN COMMENTS

No one spoke.

IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal and personnel issues

Cohen motioned to enter executive session at 10:30 for discussion of legal and personnel issues. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

Cohen motioned to exit executive session at 11:15 p.m. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.

Following Executive Session, Council came back into open session.

i.) City Administrator

Anderson motioned to authorize the Mayor to offer the job of City Administrator to Tom Rozier at the salary of $60,000 per year. Guthrie seconded the motion.

Cohen stated that he sounds too good to be true and for what we need this is too much money.

Sipe stated that the administrative cost of the city is growing from a 1999 level of $9,000 up through 2006 to $47,000 and to what we’re projecting now for 2008 to a total of $82,500. In a period of 9 years we’ve increased almost 9 times and in two years we’re almost doubling the administrative costs. The cost of this position alone is about $100 a year per family.

Guthrie stated that we did a state-wide salary analysis through GMA of cities that are comparable to the size of Berkeley Lake and this salary is well within the range. The range is for populations 2500 and below throughout Georgia and is $22,000 in Alamo to $72,509 in Flowery Branch.

Cohen asked what the median salary was.

Salter noted that this does not include benefits, which is quite significant. When she talks to Mayors in other cities the benefits are running about 35% of the salary. Salter stated that she would wish to find someone for less money, but having done this very thorough search what else would council recommend?

Cohen stated that he would hire the young lady candidate.

There was further discussion.

Guthrie gave salaries for other small cities to try to answer Cohen’s question, but doesn’t have the data on-hand for the median salary. She stated that Grantville pays $62,400, Emerson pays $60,000, Demarest pays $51,854. She noted that these figures are almost two years old now, which is significant. 

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

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Cohen motioned to adjourn at 11:24 p.m. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.


(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by Council December 20, 2007)