|
COUNCIL MEETING and PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4043 SOUTH BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes for
December 20, 2007
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
Deputy City Administrator – Leigh Threadgill
Citizens Present- 19
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 suggested adding discussion about the City Administrator being authorized to sign checks as item (i) under new business. In addition, she would like to add the public works report as (c) under reports.
Guthrie suggested adding the City Emergency Handbook under New Business (j).
There were no further suggested changes to the agenda.
II. PUBLIC HEARING
a.) Budget 2008
No citizens spoke.
III. MINUTES of November 15
Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of November 15, 2007 as submitted. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
IV. REPORTS
a. November 2007 Financial Statements
Guthrie stated that under revenues the property tax revenue needs to be distributed between general and debt.
Guthrie motioned to postpone accepting the November 2007 Financials in order to distribute the property tax revenue appropriately between general revenue and debt service. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
b. Ordinance Enforcement Officer
Salter noted that council had received a report from the OEO. Council had no questions or comments.
c. Public Works Report
Salter noted that council had received an annual report from the Public Works Committee. Council had no questions or comments.
V. MAYOR’S MESSAGE TO COUNCIL
Salter noted distribution of the following written report to be incorporated into the minutes:
“After tonight two of our current council members will be retiring, and I wish to offer my thanks to them for their service to our City. Bernie Cohen was also our mayor in past years and is largely responsible for having obtained our greenspace. That was a bold and visionary move in a time before the county, state, and others were interested in saving greenspace. If the City had waited until they caught up and grants became available, the property would be yet another tacky strip mall now instead of that beautiful and rare hardwood forest that blesses our City. I will be forever grateful to Bernie for that, and I know many of you will as well. George Sipe has also served beyond his years on Council, having been on P&Z for seven or more years, of which he was chair for five. George may someday return to public service. If he does, I hope he will bring to us the best of himself, and find a way also to bring out the best in the rest of us. Both of these gentlemen go with my gratitude.
As I have told Council privately, I am expecting some unwelcome changes in our police service as mandated by the county. I had expected to know something concrete about these changes by now, but no letter or any official word has come. An assistant to the County Administrator confirms verbally that changes are, in fact, coming and wants to talk with me and whomever else I wish to bring, if anyone, about them. A commitment has been made, at least, not to change anything until I can meet with them. I expect to do so after Christmas and will keep you informed. In the meantime I believe we need to explore other options and I hope to get council’s thoughts and wishes about that tonight. I am sorry that things continue to be so vague. It certainly makes responsible planning difficult. I have asked Doug to schedule our officers through January.
I have finally succeeded in getting deer signs erected at every entrance to our city at no cost to us. Someone has already put red noses on the deer for the holiday season. Last night 5 deer were seen standing right by the sign on Ridge Rd. as if to say, “Yep, this is our sign, and here we are!”
I was invited by the BL Elementary School to join their PTA to hear a county parks person talk about the new aquatic center which will be just across PIB from us. I could not attend, but Barbara Carroll went and sent me this report, which I share with you and our citizens with my thanks to her. Some decisions have not yet been made and additional info will be forthcoming over the next several weeks. There will be 2 entrances: one will be off PIB and the other off South Berkeley Lake Road adjacent to the gas station. The current project is for the Natatorium building (42,000 s.f. to include the outdoor leisure pool) and two lighted multipurpose fields for use for soccer, lacrosse, etc. One of the fields will have a 1/4 mile walking track around it. Later phases (2 tennis courts, another multipurpose field, restroom buildings; pavilion) will be scheduled for future development and are dependent on renewal of the SPLOST tax next fall and when the County assesses the need in this area. The tentative opening for the Natatorium building is to be sometime around February 1. Further info will be forthcoming as we get closer to that date. At this point, it is dependent on the number of lifeguards they have available. There are 4 pools in total - the outdoor Leisure Pool (seasonal - open Memorial Day to Labor Day); the Competition Pool, open year round (which will allow for lap swimming and will have 2-3 swim teams utilizing it for practices); the Instructional Pool, open year round for swimming lessons; and the Therapy Pool, open year round (a smaller and warmer pool which will allow for general and senior citizen aerobics, etc.). Tentatively, the hours will be Monday-Thursday 9 a.m.- 8 p.m.; Friday 9 a.m. - 6 p.m.; Saturday 12 noon - 6 p.m.; and Sunday 1 p.m. - 6 p.m. This is all contingent, however, on how many lifeguards will be available to handle the hours. Anyone who is interested in lifeguarding can apply NOW online at gwinnettparks.com as instruction classes have already begun and will be ongoing until they get the number of lifeguards they need. Swimming lessons will be available for ages 6 months and up. The smaller pools will be available for birthday party and other private rental. There will be 2-3 school swim teams who will be scheduled to hold practices at the Competition Pool. However, at least 2 lanes will be left available at all times for lap swimming. Pricing: The facility will follow the membership standard for all Gwinnett County aquatic centers for membership rates which are broken into two types: Seasonal (Memorial Day through Labor Day) and Annual (open year round).
$265/seasonal - family up to 6 people
$75/seasonal - single
$600/annual - family up to 6 people
$144/annual - single
There will be passes available for daily entry if seasonal or annual membership is not desired. Further information can be found on the website at gwinnettparks.com.
Thanks to each of you for your hard work all this year. I'm bringing you some goodies tonight as a token of my appreciation. Merry Christmas and happy holidays!”
VI. OLD BUSINESS
a.) O-62-07, Chapter 78-206, Home Occupation Exemptions.
Anderson motioned to adopt O-62-07. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Sipe read the following prepared written statement into the record:
“At the public hearing in November, fully one-half of the 16 citizens who commented on this change to permit piano instruction did so in opposition. This roughly mirrors the positions expressed by a large number of citizens in e-mail (on the topic of piano instruction).
Ignoring their opposition and other input, no substantial change has been made to this proposed code.
Also in November, I proposed a Special Use Permit process that would have allowed our only piano teacher citizen to continue her business completely unimpeded without the significant flaws in this change. Those flaws are twofold - (1) a "by right" approach that completely shuts-out any citizen input and (2) a lack of limits which allows future music businesses at a scale many times in excess of the existing one.
The specific flaws with this ordinance change are as follows:
- no right or opportunity for neighbors to comment
- no city review of these proposed residential businesses
- no limit on the number in any one area
- no consideration of your unique proximity to your neighbor's driveway or music room
- no consideration of traffic impact
- no consideration of driveways which are uniquely dangerous to enter or exit
- NO limits on the number of students (other than 2 at a time)
This allows an operation to run 7 days per week, 12 hours per day, with as many as 8 drop-offs or pick-ups per hour (assuming 30 minute lessons) every hour. Such a residential business could be extremely high impact in potentially dropping-off and picking-up over 300 students per week. In contrast, our only existing teacher has less than 20 students. This is really broad, totally unnecessary, and an extreme change from our existing code that protects neighbors by completely prohibiting such businesses.
The only thing “good” about the existing proposal is that it is very brief. That is because it simply pokes a huge hole in our Home Occupation Ordinance with little restriction. It is brief but with huge risks.
I urge Council to not pass this very liberal change as written but to reconsider the SUP proposal which addresses every one of these issues while allowing our only existing piano teacher to continue without impact. At the November meeting the SUP proposal was defeated by a narrow vote of 3-2. The reason given was that it would be somehow burdensome to administer. In fact, it uses the exact same process we routinely use today for variances. A familiar and routine process that is not a burden.
Passing this change as written would completely discount the opposition of half our citizens who took the time to provide input. There truly is no reason to ask citizens for input if it is to be ignored. Further, the stated goals of this change can be 100% met without the clear and significant risks of the original text.
Please replace the proposed text with the more measured, SUP text. If the existing text is moved to a vote - please oppose it out of respect for our many citizens who have voiced their opposition.”
Anderson commented that this ordinance does impose limits to preserve the neighborhood character and he does believe that the SUP is more restrictive than it needs to be. It wouldn’t provide anything that this code would not allow in terms of actual practice. He doesn’t see this city turning into a 600-home music instruction city.
Sipe noted that the SUP would have allowed Ms. Distelhurst to continue unimpeded exactly the way that she always has. The existing text has risks that would have been addressed with the SUP text.
Anderson stated that the flexibility proposed would not result in 300 students per week. We can suggest a change to limit the number. He went on to say that Distelhurst would only be able to continue if she were granted the SUP under the guidelines that Sipe proposed. The restrictions that Sipe is looking for are already largely addressed by existing code with the exception of driveway slope and proximity to other neighbors. He doesn’t see that that does anything but cause a difficulty for someone who wants to teach. This code repairs a restriction that was put in this code that didn’t exist in this town and many other towns in this country for traditional home occupations. Adding this does not compromise our neighborhood or the residential feel in our city.
Sipe responded that regardless of what Anderson feels is a traditional residential business, half of our citizens were opposed to this. Putting limits to address their concerns seems appropriate. Distelhurst would have to apply for a SUP. If it was turned down by P&Z, council could still hear an appeal, and council could make an exception for Julia as a grandfathered business in the city.
Guthrie said that she doesn’t think that the SUP would provide a guarantee that anyone would have the right to teach music. This code is not supposed to be written or reviewed for a specific person. It is for the city and we shouldn’t pass laws for one individual. We can’t say that one individual would be able to work through this. The SUP sounds subjective and unduly restrictive. She has a problem that other consultants don’t have to be concerned about the slope of their driveway or where a window is in their house, but we would impose that in this position.
Sipe stated that the City Attorney has already approved the SUP text. On those few professions that are exempted by the text, it is clear that their visitors from clients can only be occasional and incidental which is very different from a daycare or music instruction, where it’s neither occasional nor incidental.
Guthrie stated that we don’t define occasional or incidental so that is subjective language.
Sipe responded that many things are subjective and he would leave it up to legal interpretation.
Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. Cohen and Sipe voted in opposition. The motion passes.
Irvin Gunter, 4190 Berkeley View Drive, asked which motion was being discussed right now.
Salter responded that it was for music teachers, tutors, art teachers and educational services. She noted that they are open to citizen question and comment as they go along.
Miguel Cortez stated that this has already been decided before asking for citizen input. Miguel Cortez, 760 Lakeshore Drive, stated that he substantially agrees with Sipe, but also agrees with Guthrie in that ordinances are broad scaled. To design ordinances to accommodate special circumstances is the wrong way to do it. You are opening the door for everybody’s special situation with all kinds of variations. The ordinance will accommodate things that don’t make sense across the board. The wrong way to do it is to change the ordinance that applies to everyone across the board, deal with it as a special circumstance/special situation.
Guthrie responded that a lot of people state that council shouldn’t make special exceptions and the code should be followed by everyone across the board.
Cortez stated that it shouldn’t be opened up but dealt with as special exceptions and special uses. Doing away with the ordinance that makes it so broad for anyone to come through is not the right way to do it.
Guthrie stated that this is limited and not that broad. She stated that the uses permitted are limited and the number of pupils is limited.
Sipe stated that it has all the risks that he’s listed.
Cortez stated that both make sense. The balancing is properly done as exceptions or variations from the ordinance. The ordinance should be reasonable and tight. If you want to do something off the reservation, don’t make the ordinance such to make everything off the reservation to be on the reservation.
There was one further question about whether this deals with child care. Salter stated that this does not deal with child care.
b.) O-61-07 Chapter 78 (former Chapter 39) Zoning Ordinance (for possible adoption)
Sipe motioned to adopt the ordinance O-61-07. Cohen seconded the motion.
Anderson stated that he has some general comments. He stated that as he reads through this he wants to divide changes that are to the base municode ordinance. One is what did municode do to it, second is what was done in order to correct deficiencies in the municode version which through formatting changed the way the code could be interpreted, and the third is those changes which are clarification or modification to the previous meaning of the ordinance which are distinct from the municode changes. Anderson stated that some of these changes/clarifications seem to be substantive changes to the meaning of the ordinance if not to the way that the ordinance has been interpreted and applied and as a result he still has a number of questions and concerns about the ordinance itself.
Sipe asked fofr Bob Herb, P&Z chair, to speak to Anderson’s concerns.
Herb stated that there is no way that he could go through all of these changes one by one at this meeting and break it into the three component parts Anderson asked for above.
Anderson stated that this has been on the agenda since September and apologized for his part in delays.
There was further discussion.
Anderson suggested that council should again postpone this and get very direct about trying to understand what we don’t understand now.
Kitchens asked what else council can do.
Anderson stated that if we can divide it into the municode fixes and then look at the clarification and changes from P&Z, it should be easier to look at this and understand the changes better. We need to understand what the latter changes present to the ordinance and determine whether there is any concern about those or not. Anderson stated that Threadgill could probably do that and have it back just after the first of the year.
Herb asked what difference that makes.
There was further discussion.
Anderson stated that he believes a substantive change is the 40-foot setback for accessory structures. He acknowledged that is the way that the code has been interpreted by tradition.
Herb responded that the 40-foot setback was for structures and that structure is defined. The proposed change was to make it clear to everyone that it was for an accessory structure, a home structure, any structure.
Guthrie said that she has a problem if this code was meant for lake visibility but applies to all residences.
Herb responded that that was a misstatement of his previously. He stated that it is for all properties and for all rear visibility.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie stated that she is in complete agreement that there should be a 40-foot setback for structures, but not for accessory structures.
There was further discussion.
Sipe asked if the existing code has the restriction on the accessory structure that it meets a 40-foot setback. What’s before us today doesn’t change that, so these concerns are about existing code not what is being proposed here.
There was further discussion.
Carothers stated that without looking at the definitions he would have to defer to the P&Z, but he seemed to recall that we have said that an accessory structure is a structure which is subject to the 40 feet.
Guthrie stated that 12.5 feet is totally reasonable. Sipe stated that it may or may not be reasonable to change the rules for accessory structures, but that’s not what they’re attempting to do now. They’re attempting to clarify.
Threadgill read the regulations pertaining to accessory structures and the definitions of structure and accessory structure. Accessory uses or structures shall be permitted only in rear yards, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. An accessory use or structure shall be set back not less than 12.5 feet from any lot line. The definition of structure is anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires a location on the ground, or attached to something having a location on the ground. A single structure encompasses all manmade materials which are tightly integrated to form the whole. The definition of accessory structure is a detached subordinate structure, the use of which is clearly incidental or related to that of the principal structure or use of the land, and which is located on the same lot as that of the principal structure or use.
Carothers stated that part of the problem is with email. He stated that Lokey has questions, Threadgill has questions and there may not be any resolution mechanism in the email. It’s happened before when there are comments that are never resolved.
Guthrie stated that at the last council meeting, council asked that feedback be provided on staff questions. Guthrie stated they haven’t received anything.
Herb asked who was supposed to provide feedback and stated that everyone on council said they would provide him with questions and comments regarding this.
Guthrie asked for Herb to respond to the questions from the city inspector, Lokey, and Threadgill.
Salter stated that email isn’t working well. Should we have a sit down meeting with Threadgill, Carothers and potentially Lokey? Council discussed having a whole council work session to include the P&Z, Threadgill, Carothers and Lokey. Guthrie stated that we should have a special called work session.
Salter asked when Carothers would be available. Carothers said he could do the 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th. Anderson stated that the 2nd or 3rd would work better for him due to business travel.
Salter stated that if that works for Herb, we could meet at 7 p.m. at City Hall for a Special Called Work Session on Thursday, January 3rd.
There was discussion about where the work session should be held.
Kitchens asked if the purpose was to discuss this ordinance and the changes proposed. It was stated that if other items came up between now and the meeting then those could be discussed at the meeting as well, but that the proposed zoning ordinance changes would be discussed.
Threadgill asked if the City Attorney could provide guidance for advertising. Carothers stated that he would email Threadgill the next day.
There was further discussion.
Herb asked Threadgill for a printed version to include the comments.
Sipe withdrew his motion.
c. City Hall
Guthrie asked if we should hold off on this until later since Barbara Carroll hasn’t made it yet to the meeting.
Salter stated that she could tell everyone what Carroll would have said.
Salter stated that we have selected an architect and have gotten good feedback from people who have used this architect about their performance, support and openness. It is debatable as to whether we should pay Urban Collage to supervise and support us as an intervention between the architect and us as they prepare architectural plans.
Salter stated that her view is that Urban Collage is worth every cent we’ve spent, but it is an open question in her mind as to whether we should pay them for this task. She worries that we are spending lots of money before we ever start building.
There was further discussion.
Salter reported that Carroll feels strongly that we should pay Bosman with Urban Collage to help with management of the schematic design process.
Threadgill reported that $17,617.23 has been spent to date out of the City Hall SPLOST bucket. The projection that Salter received from the county in April was for $774,000. Salter added that we’ve already committed roughly $100,000 for the architect. The money for the building is shrinking fast.
Guthrie asked Threadgill what the cost would be for Bosman to take on this role.
Threadgill reported that the range she was given was between $2,500 and $5,000 for a 2-3 month endeavor.
Guthrie stated that she agrees with Carroll and that we have needed the expertise from Urban Collage and they have done a phenomenal job. No one on council or on staff has the expertise to do this. We’ve never gone through this before, especially something of this scope. Urban Collage has expertise and could keep us on point and may in the long run save us money because of how they are able to stay on top of the architect.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie stated that Carroll very strongly recommended that we do this. She has a background in space management and development. She would be an ideal person to manage the architect, but Carroll has recommended that Eric Bosman do this.
Sipe asked if another approach to this would be to just pay Urban Collage at the end of the design to review the plans and make sure that they meet the specifications.
Guthrie stated that the problem with that approach is that the architect, if they hadn’t done things correctly, would then be in a position to charge us a lot to redo that work, and Urban Collage would prevent such from happening upfront.
Sipe motioned to approve $2500. Anderson seconded the motion.
Anderson asked why would we not go ahead and approve the whole amount suggested by Urban Collage. Sipe stated that he would rather come back and approve more money than go ahead and give that now.
Guthrie stated that we could communicate to Bosman that we need to keep the budget tight, and Urban Collage has not maxed out their budgets to this point on tasks they’ve previously worked on with us. Salter believes that he does deserve that trust from us given his track record and pointed out that she, Guthrie, and Carroll will be working closely with him.
There was further discussion.
Sipe withdrew his motion.
Guthrie motioned to engage Urban Collage for Step 4 with a cap not to exceed $5,000 with a communication to Urban Collage that we want to conserve as much as possible. Anderson seconded the motion.
Kitchens stated that we should do something to inhibit him from spending the entire $5,000. If he knows he’s got it, he may spend it.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie stated that it’s our responsibility to manage Urban Collage and that we would dictate his involvement.
There was further discussion.
Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. Cohen voted in opposition. Sipe abstained. The motion carried.
The other issue is that the contract from the architect was for $98,500, which is what council authorized, but they want normal reimbursables, which weren’t approved by council when they authorized the contract. Salter stated that she needs a motion about this.
Guthrie stated that they want 10% which is approximately $10,000 and that this amount is what she questions.
Threadgill read the list of reimbursable expenses as contained in the draft contract from the architect.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie motioned to approve $5,000 for reimbursable expenses for the contract with the architect. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Salter asked Carothers to contact the architect about the contract.
Guthrie asked about the status of the survey for City Hall. Threadgill stated that she spoke with a surveyor today and that we should have a cost estimate for the work shortly.
d. Budget 2008
Salter stated that there had been a few changes, which Threadgill had emailed to Council. Salter stated that Kirkus had an additional request to pay for an engineering study of the roads around the city to ascertain which roads needed to be paved sooner. She stated that we have had that done for free by the LARP engineers and they felt that all of our subdivisions were fine for the foreseeable future. The worst road is the oldest, which is Lakeshore Dr. and possibly Ridge and Little Ridge Roads. Last year council approved $10,000 that Kirkus requested a year ago to do this study. The problem is that we ran out of SPLOST funds before we got to this project because subsequent to that request we approved the company to perform testing for the infrastructure project, and everyone agreed with that expenditure, including the Public Works Committee. We have no more SPLOST money on this. The question before council is whether to spend city tax dollars to do this engineering study or should we wait until there is more SPLOST money to do this. Salter stated that Kirkus feels strongly that we need to do this now with city tax dollars.
Anderson asked if the SPLOST money would come in at such time that we could pay ourselves back if we paid it out of regular cash flow.
Salter stated no because we’ve already overspent the expected total money for this area of the current SPLOST. The SPLOST money she is talking about coming in would be from the potential 2009 SPLOST and we’re going to need something to put in our request.
Salter stated that she is not aware of anything urgent that needs to be done regarding paving currently.
Bill Smith, 876 Lakeshore Dr. and member of the public works committee, stated that Kirkus has been in contact with Clark Patterson more than anyone else and the committee was questioning whether we needed to go forward with this at this time. The committee, other than Kirkus, believes that we can wait. He doesn’t see any catastrophic situations that will happen in a 12 month period. Smith stated that Kirkus is not here to speak tonight.
Salter stated that Kirkus believes this project is imperative. He is requesting that $12,000 be allocated in the 2008 budget based on a proposal from Clark Patterson for $10,000 plus expenses.
Anderson asked what the project is specifically. Salter stated that an engineer would look at all the roads to prioritize paving needs.
Sipe stated that the proposal is a good one in general. But even if we had a prioritized list, we won’t have any money on which to act on it. A study would be more accurate if it were closer to the time envisioned to do the paving.
Salter reported that Kirkus has stated that this study would help us in determining what our next SPLOST request would be.
Guthrie asked for Salter’s recommendation. Salter stated that she would prefer to spend SPLOST money rather than our city tax dollars where possible.
Guthrie asked Smith what the rest of the committee thinks about this. Smith reported that 2 of the committee reviewed the Clark Patterson report and there were questions about that from a cost standpoint. It’s a lot of money and they were going to do a tremendous study. If you feel that a study is in order so that we could ask for SPLOST money later, then we need to revisit this proposal. Smith believes that there are open ended questions for Clark Patterson that need to be addressed. He would suggest tabling it so that we could get the price down from Clark Patterson.
Guthrie stated that we could probably ballpark what we need for public works projects when we ask for SPLOST and is inclined to go with the recommendation from the Mayor.
Sipe stated that he agrees since the alternative is to use tax payer money, which is a precious resource.
Guthrie stated that the engineering study is a valid study.
Salter asked for consensus from council. Anderson stated that he would not include this money in the 2008 budget. Cohen stated that it was approved a year ago and the committee didn’t do anything so it doesn’t seem that urgent. Kitchens agreed not to approve this money in the 2008 budget. Salter noted that all of the council agreed not to add this into the 2008 budget.
Salter asked for other items to discuss. Kitchens asked about the police budget and what to do at this point. Salter stated that her recommendation is to do nothing at this time because we have no clue how to change it and there isn’t any point to change it until we know more about what we need to do. If we have to change it later, we can certainly do that. She stated that she has done everything she can to get information from the county about this, but doesn’t know what dollar amount to put on this.
Sipe stated that we should always be increasing our public safety budget. Salter stated that we almost doubled it two years ago and then added money last year. It’s gone up very rapidly. Salter stated that we did tremendously increase it and our situation with crime here has not warranted an increase in her view.
Sipe stated that crime is increasing outside of Berkeley Lake. Salter stated that the money we have spent has adequately taken care of our needs. Sipe stated that the hours of coverage is a small percentage of time. We’re uncovered a good majority of the time. Salter stated that we are also covered by the county. Salter stated that what we’ve been doing is working. What has been spent thus far has worked well.
Cohen stated that this budget shows a great deal of inflation. This budget is 9% over last year’s budget. The budgets are inflating much too rapidly and we’re not doing that much more and asked where the money is going. Salter stated that exactly where it’s going is in front of council line by line.
Guthrie asked about miscellaneous revenue. There was discussion about the current year miscellaneous revenue and what previous budgets for this line had been. Threadgill stated that it was $1,500 last year. Guthrie asked about the $5,000 and suggested that we drop it down to $1500 for next year.
Guthrie asked if we will be as high on our attorney expenses in 2008. Salter stated that we could be at the rate we’re going. Carothers responded that it may not be as high, but it just depends. Generally speaking what drives the increases and what provides the real difficulty to estimate are litigation expenses. It was determined to leave the $60,000 for the attorney next year.
Guthrie recommended adding money for emergency responder training. Should it go under training or public safety? She recommended $2,000-$2,500 for the training budget in line 44 to cover emergency responder training.
Guthrie also commented that on line 67 for Chattahoochee landscaping we have budgeted for $3,000 when last year we budgeted $10,000. There was discussion that contingency should cover this if there are needs for tree removal and repairs.
Under parks and recreation, could we spend money to get a site management plan for the greenspace that we have been trying to get for some time? This is a difficult project for citizens to take on. Could we pay someone to do a site management plan for the greenspace and pay for it from SPLOST parks and recreation money? Salter responded that we will spend a lot of that parks and rec SPLOST money on the park design and other site design on the city hall site. Guthrie stated that we are required to have a site management plan for the greenspace. Salter stated that our professional forester Dale Higdon has reviewed and studied it and said that the greenspace is fine the way that it is. Guthrie stated that we are supposed to have a plan.
Anderson asked to summarize Guthrie’s recommendations, which result in an additional $2,500 for training and dropping miscellaneous revenue from $5,000 to $1,500.
Sipe stated that he is concerned about the contingency amount. He stated that the current year has $12,450 in contingency, of which $10,590 remains, which to him says that we don’t need a lot of money to be budgeted in contingency. For next year, we are looking to put more money into contingency, which he considers a slush fund. He stated that is a huge amount of money with no specific designated purpose. Salter stated that the whole nature of contingency is not knowing where it’s going to go and there are contingencies like the police and trees coming down from a storm for which we must be prepared. We are lowering it by $4,000 after Guthrie’s suggested changes.
Sipe stated that he is also concerned about our ever increasing administrative costs. The budget in 1999 for city administration was about $9,000. Since that time, the city has not grown significantly, but salaries have. Over the next six years administrative salaries grew slowly reaching $32,000 in 2005. Since the last council change, it has skyrocketed to $47,000 in 2006 to $60,000 in 2007 and is set at $90,300 next year. This represents approximate annual increases of 47%, 27%, and 50%. On average every Berkeley Lake household was taxed $13.84 in 1999 to pay administrative salaries. Next year our citizens will be asked to pay on average about $12 per month to pay for administrative costs.
Guthrie stated that she can’t verify or refute the numbers presented by Sipe. Guthrie stated that she is very appreciative of staff in the past, but the staff in past years has had trouble keeping up with everything. We’ve had part-time staff in the past and we are trying to raise that. In the past, we have also been dependent on citizens doing things that typically are done by a city staff. There are lots of problems that we have dealt with since she’s been on council that result from things not being run as professionally as they should be. It’s no slight to people who have worked here in the past, but is attributable to a lack of resources in the past. She believes this is money well spent and we are getting to the point that we have staff that is making sure that we are doing what we need to do as a municipality.
Salter asked for any additional comments.
Guthrie asked if it was ideal for the budget to be approved tonight. Threadgill responded that she believed that it should be approved tonight rather than waiting until 2008 to pass it.
Guthrie motioned to approve the 2008 proposed budget with her suggested changes, which are to reduce the miscellaneous revenue line to $1,500 and to increase the education and training line by $2,500. Kitchens seconded the motion.
Cohen stated that the inflation for this one is 9%, the contingency is much too high, and we are spending too much on administration.
Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. Cohen and Sipe voted in opposition. The motion passed.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
a.) Appeal of Ordinance Enforcement Officer’s Determination regarding brick mailbox at 89 Lakeshore Dr.
Tom Koenig, 90 Lakeshore Drive, stated he is in the process of constructing a new home. Mr. Hughes’ mailbox is on the opposite side of his house at 89 Lakeshore Drive in front of 90 Lakeshore Drive. He’s the one that put Mr. Hughes in the situation that he’s in. The tradesmen were blocking Mr. Hughes’ entrance to his mailbox. Mr. Hughes talked to Jennifer Lombardi, the designer, reporting that he has had trouble getting his mail and Lombardi brought the situation to Mr. Koenig. Mr. Koenig stated that the right thing to do would be to move his mailbox. Mr. Hughes wouldn’t accept a stake and arm mailbox and had a mailbox designed to be very similar to the brick mailbox that he already had. He located it in the place that it has been constructed. Once it was built, a neighbor asked Lombardi if she had a permit to erect the mailbox. She wasn’t aware of the requirement, nor was the builder, Richard Deal.
Mr. Hughes contacted Mr. Koenig regarding the Notice of Violation he received. There are two brick mailboxes and one of them has to come down.
Sipe asked when the first brick mailbox was built. Koenig responded that he thought it was maybe built four or five years ago.
Koenig stated that there are 2 of them now and there will just be one, and it looked to him as though the intent of the ordinance is for safety reasons. The second (new) mailbox is less intrusive because it’s back off the road 2 feet further than the older mailbox on the opposite side of the road. One has to come down, but the newer one that is more convenient to him is also less of a safety issue.
Koenig stated that Hughes would not accept a stake and arm mailbox. If it has to come down, take down the one that you just put up, he wants a brick mailbox.
Salter asked Threadgill to comment. Threadgill stated that if we allowed everyone who had a brick mailbox to rebuild it in another location then we would never get those gone, which she understood to be the intent of the code.
Sipe stated that the issue here is that as far as he can see the OEO’s determination was exactly correct. There is no error in interpretation by staff. Sipe suggested that the process is for a variance before P&Z. Guthrie asked if this could be actually be approved as a variance. Sipe stated that he doesn’t know of any way that P&Z could grant the variance, but that’s the next step for the homeowner.
Sipe stated that this is a long standing code and that replacing a grandfathered mailbox could only be done by replacing it with a conforming mailbox.
Guthrie stated that this is an unfortunate thing that council has to deal with. Common sense may say to keep the new box which is safer. However, when we hear an appeal, it is simply to determine whether the OEO interpreted the ordinance correctly. She stated that the city has made residents remove beautiful mailboxes in the past that weren’t in compliance.
Sipe motioned to not approve the appeal because the OEO determination was correct. Cohen seconded the motion. Anderson, Guthrie, Cohen and Sipe voted in favor. Kitchens voted in opposition. The motion carried.
Anderson asked if there was anything in our ordinance or from the post office that would prevent tradesmen blocking the mailbox and why the tradesmen couldn’t park somewhere else so as not to block the mailbox.
Koenig responded that there is no place to park. He stated that Mr. Hughes offered for them to park on his side, but the tradesmen don’t do that although the contractor has reminded them to.
Koenig stated that one of the mailboxes will remain. It doesn’t make sense that we would leave the one that is in the more dangerous location. The new one is in a less dangerous place. If one is going to get hit, it will be the old one. One of them will be there, and he doesn’t understand leaving the more dangerous one. He stated that this isn’t very reasonable.
Sipe responded that the important thing is that we follow process. To enforce our ordinances, we need to uphold the OEO since he wasn’t wrong. He also stated that the P&Z would likely not be able to grant the variance based on the criteria that they are charged with in approving or not approving a variance. The next step would be for the applicant to appeal the variance denial to council. The P&Z could make a recommendation to council that the new mailbox is safer, and then council could make an exception.
b. Consideration of Auditor’s Engagement Letter
Salter stated the question is whether to continue with David Dick as the auditor.
Kitchens motioned to keep this auditor. Guthrie seconded the motion.
Cohen stated that we have had the same auditor for more than 20 years and we should consider another auditor. Guthrie questioned how long the city has actually had this auditor.
Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens voted in favor. Cohen and Sipe voted in opposition. The motion carried.
c. O-63-07, Section 78-201, Building Restrictions on City right-of-way (first read)
Guthrie asked if the P&Z had approved this language and asked if this was initiated by a citizen.
Threadgill responded that this was a text amendment application from a citizen and this is the language recommended to council from P&Z.
Guthrie wanted to explain that since this was a text amendment submitted by an applicant, council is required to consider it.
There was further discussion.
Anderson motioned to put this on first read. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
d. R-37-07, Resolution to Submit 10 Year Update to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan
Guthrie motioned to approve the submittal. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
e. Home Occupation – Daycare
Guthrie asked Threadgill to provide an introduction since Threadgill had drafted the wording.
Threadgill stated that at the last council meeting the motion that was made was to revise the draft language to address citizen concerns. She has, in response, suggested adding four additional restrictions into the code. She stated that there were some concerns that could not be addressed in regulations, such as citizens just not liking the connotation of daycare. She stated that a restriction has been added to fence outdoor play area to keep children from wandering into neighbors’ yards, a regulation for density requirements has been added so that every house in Berkeley Lake couldn’t operate a daycare, and a limitation has been placed on the number of paying and non-paying customers so that there couldn’t be an unlimited number of children receiving care.
Threadgill went on to say that this was just proposed as a starting place for discussion and is not a formal text amendment at this time.
Sipe stated that the direction for staff to do this was by a slim majority of council. He read a prepared written statement into the record regarding this for council consideration.
“We have asked the public for input on the topic of changing our Home Occupation Ordinance and they have responded with resounding opposition.
At the public hearing in November, 19 people spoke in opposition while only 9 were in favor. An even wider measure was taken by e-mail where 135 were opposed while only 20 were in favor. That breaks down by subdivision as follows:
In favor:
7 Berkeley Lake Estates (“older” areas of Berkeley Lake)
3 Berkeley Commons
7 Berkeley Walk
3 Miramont
--
20 TOTAL
Opposed:
81 Berkeley Lake Estates (“older” areas of Berkeley Lake)
13 Berkeley Walk
21 Miramont
1 River District
15 River Mansions
4 unclassified
---
135 TOTAL
Members of every subdivision strongly opposed residential daycare by a wide margin.
Making minor changes to the proposed text in no way addresses the opposition of the vast number of citizens who unambiguously are completely opposed. The only change that matters is to drop this.
In continuing to pursue this matter Council (and staff at Council’s direction) is ignoring the clear will of the vast majority of our citizens.
Some on Council have suggested that the opposition is due to the non-favorable light my messages cast the proposal in. It is difficult to describe in favorable terms a change that:
- Would allow a neighboring household to operate a residential for-profit daycare facility with the noise and disruption it entails to our quality of life
- Is opposed by 4 out of 5 resident Realtors for its impact on property values
- Is addressing no current need since the one existing business has been ordered closed by their homeowners association
- That will require no special City license or permission
- For which existing neighbors will have no right to object
- That can draw outsiders into our neighborhoods through advertising and other promotion (as seen on the Berkeley Walk website, for example)
- Permits operation 7 days per week and all holidays
- Where daily traffic to drop-off and pick-up is allowed throughout the day, everyday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
- By which non-resident children may play outside from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM without restriction
Another idea floated to justify ignoring the substantial citizen input is that my messages were sent only to carefully selected individuals whom I knew would be opposed. Council has the full list of citizens who are opposed and that list includes some of the closest friends and political allies of the members who back this proposal. There was no such careful screening – the vast majority of citizens, considering only the merits of this proposal, are opposed.
Finally, the last justification for ignoring the overwhelming voice of our residents is that we simply did not hear from every one of them. I believe hearing from about 150 residents sets a new record for citizen response! I believe that a full hearing from every citizen will only mirror the percentages we have seen – almost 90% opposed.
At the November meeting I suggested in response to the “we need to hear from every citizen because maybe all the others are in favor” idea that we hold a referendum. A referendum would have to follow rigorous legal procedures to insure a fair and un-manipulated result. I again call on Council to make no change to allow for-profit, residential daycare businesses until a referendum has been conducted.
Debbie Guthrie challenged the legality of this at the November meeting and subsequently asked our City Attorney if this would be legal and the answer is YES. We can hold a referendum as long as it is done when we hold an election. Since the sample we have is so strongly opposed, and since there is absolutely no time-critical need - or any for that matter - to enact this change that we wait until the next election and ask our citizens formally and directly to express their wishes.
In the interim, I respectfully suggest that Council focus on important matters in the operation of our City including addressing the loss of our police force, developing our legally required comprehensive plan, building our new city hall, resolving our numerous legal issues, training new staff and council members, completing public works projects, improving our building process, involvement in critical Gwinnett Municipal Association initiatives, developing our emergency management plan, protecting our natural resources, and much more.”
Sipe circulated a map showing those opposed and those in favor of this request, but only shows about half of the respondents to the email because it wouldn’t take more than that.
Sipe motioned to put off this matter until it can be presented to our citizens at the next election cycle in 2 years for their consideration as a referendum item. Cohen seconded the motion.
Anderson stated that this issue is before us now for a number of reasons. The previous discussion on this has been skewed. The intent here is not to reopen the discussion on that basis. The attempt now is to see if there are ways to address the concerns that citizens have expressed. He sees no harm in asking the citizens to respond to the specifics presented here, either through the website or through further enhancement with the Mayor’s Message. Anderson has no intention to put this forward as ordinance until much more discussion has been had with the citizenry.
Kitchens asked why we wouldn’t wait for the referendum. Anderson stated that we shouldn’t have to delay it if we could have a conversation now. Sipe agreed that more work needed to be done to come up with a more responsive proposal. We should have a proposal that can be discussed before we hold the referendum. The referendum could then include the specific proposal.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie asked the City Attorney to give comments about the referendum for the record. Carothers responded that he has previously opined that you can’t hold referendums for decision and even if you hold a referendum, it isn’t binding on this council. The Attorney General’s opinions are that you can’t do it. He spent a lot of time looking at those opinions and has talked with city attorneys from other cities who have conducted such referenda. If you hold a referendum in conjunction with a general election then the money expended is de minimus so it would not be an improper expenditure of city funds. One of our cities in Gwinnett County just held a referendum on whether to have a police department. As long as it doesn’t cost extra money, it’s acceptable to hold a referendum, but it doesn’t have any legally binding impact on the council.
Irvin Gunter, 4190 Berkeley View Drive, stated that if council really wants to hear citizen opinions, then they need to hold a referendum. You can communicate to the citizens that it is not binding.
Gunter stated that he agrees that we need to change auditors if we’ve used the same one for at least 10 years.
Anderson stated that with a referendum, the daycare question would be a single yes/no question. He isn’t against having a referendum, but he is against dropping this as a discussion and addressing it in a year and a half. He thinks that we should continue to have the conversation about the shape of that proposal.
Gunter responded that you will need to have some process going forward to create what will be put out for referendum. He asked if we are going to tell the citizenry in our conversation that this will be put on a referendum ballot in 2 years.
There was further discussion.
Anderson stated that right now the draft language is simply for discussion. The proposal for daycare was voted down at the last council meeting.
Gunter asked if there was a matrix of email comments that was created to inform the draft language proposed tonight.
Sipe stated that most of the emails were no to the daycare, without any specific concern that could be addressed in regulation.
Sipe stated that the motion does not restrict us from discussing the issue over the next two years. What this does is assure the citizens that there will be a referendum on this before any code is changed.
Guthrie stated that a business license would be required so we would know where daycares would be located.
She also stated that she is personally not 100% for or against having daycare. She does think that we should have fair due process. She doesn’t believe that this was handled in a normal, calm and rational manner. She stated that, in the past, Sipe has fussed at other council members who wanted to know what citizens in attendance thought about a subject because he said you can’t poll the citizens. What Sipe has done through email is a straw poll. She doesn’t know if it is worth spending 2 years of council and citizen time on this issue. We should be able to put things on the table without it sounding as though the sky is falling, and everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion.
Sipe stated that we all agreed at the October meeting that we would ask our citizens to respond in email and that staff would keep track of that. He believed this was a survey, but not a straw poll. So many people who received Sipe’s email were thankful that he informed those citizens who did not know. He stated that he did not selectively choose people. It is somewhat representative statistically he believes. Maybe we don’t want to pursue this, and the motion that he is making here is merely to promise citizens that this change in code will not happen without first holding a referendum.
Guthrie stated that she was the one to ask for citizen opinions at the October meeting. What she had in mind, although she may not have voiced this clearly, was that this is something that our Mayor or City Administrator would do, but Sipe’s email went out on Sunday following the council meeting - before the City had another business day so no one had the opportunity to do this.
Salter stated that it has been moved and seconded that this daycare issue not be passed until it has been presented as a referendum at the next election.
Sipe wants to assure our citizens that no action will be taken to change the code until we have held a referendum.
There was further discussion.
Sipe, Cohen and Kitchens voted in favor. Anderson and Guthrie voted in opposition. The motion carried.
f. Police Issues
Salter stated that there is not a lot that she can tell council tonight. The best information is that she expects within about a month we will not be able to have Doug McClure as our chief police liaison. We will probably have to hire police through the nearest precinct absent all the support from McClure, which has been considerable and much appreciated by citizens. In addition, we would be required to pay a surcharge of $10/hour. The police would continue to make $35/hour and the county would get $10/hour. Salter stated that in addition we would not have all the services and support from Doug, which has made the whole program workable.
Anderson asked for some examples of those services. Salter responded that McClure hand picks our policemen and he knows them personally and knows they are highly respected. All of our police men are SWAT trained, which means they’re the best of the best. McClure also meets with our citizens when anyone has a concern and supports them with any process they need to go through. He would not be permitted to continue to do this.
Guthrie asked why we couldn’t hire him in his off hours to do that. Salter responded that in order for him to keep his job with the county he would not be permitted to do that.
Sipe asked if the $45 buys any additional service. Salter stated that it buys less. Sipe also asked if we were a church or private entity if we would be charged $35 or $45 for this. Salter responded that as she currently understands it those types of organizations would pay $35.
Threadgill reported that in her conversation with the county administrator’s office the county has drafted an inter-governmental agreement which representatives from the city need to meet with the county to discuss. She stated that she understood the additional money was to cover the officers for insurance. She went on to say that right now we have officers as contracted employees and we currently cover them with insurance. We will no longer hire police officers, but will have to coordinate with the precinct commander to have officers put on detail at the City.
Gunter, 4190 Berkeley View Drive, stated that he would volunteer to put us in touch with other police departments to provide coverage.
Salter responded that she has already done that and has been exploring. It is a very complex thing because of 911 service and all of that sort of thing. Salter has been exploring the possibility of having a City Marshal who is our employee and is able to enforce our ordinances. She stated that it had been difficult with Gwinnett PD because they couldn’t enforce things like our on-street parking ordinance.
Guthrie asked if a marshal could issue traffic tickets. Salter reported that that was her understanding.
Carothers stated that he didn’t know that they would have jurisdiction to enforce Uniform Rules of the Road and other state laws
Guthrie stated that a marshal sounds more like a private security guard.
Cohen suggested that we table this until we talk to the county and get more information.
Gunter asked Salter if she would entertain another contact. Salter stated that she would.
Guthrie stated that she wants to hear what the county says.
Guthrie also stated that she would hope we would talk to the county about the timing of this change. If we can’t use the county, we need to have time to make alternate arrangements.
There was further discussion.
Guthrie suggested that we might talk to Duluth Police Department.
g. Equipment Disposal Items.
Threadgill reported that it was requested to dispose of the OEO’s computer which is very old and has lots of major problems.
Guthrie motioned to approve the disposal of this equipment. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Anderson asked why we wouldn’t also dispose of Sandy’s problematic computer.
Guthrie stated the need for an equipment disposal policy.
h. Septic Extension Requests
Cohen motioned to accept the first three and deny the last two per staff recommendation. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
i. City Administrator as check signer
Cohen stated that it is a bad practice and that we need to find a Treasurer soon. There was further discussion.
Guthrie agreed that the signers should be the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Treasurer and this should be a temporary solution to allow the City Administrator to serve as a check signer until a new Treasurer is appointed.
The auditor and city attorney both believe that there is no impropriety in allowing the City Administrator to be a check signer.
Anderson motioned to permit the City Administrator to continue in his role as Treasurer and be a check signer until a new Treasurer is appointed. Sipe seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Salter wanted clarification that she understands that council wants the City Administrator not to sign checks once there is a new treasurer. Guthrie responded that’s because he’s cutting the checks and then signing the checks and mistakes could be made.
Threadgill stated that one of the reasons that the City Administrator needed to be a signatory is to be able to obtain information from the bank. Guthrie stated that he could be a signer with the bank, but not authorized by council to sign the checks.
Salter stated that she understands that council is alright for him to be a signatory at the bank, but as a policy would not be a signer of city checks.
Anderson motioned to do what Salter just stated. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
j. Emergency Handbook
Guthrie stated we have received the final electronic files that need to be reviewed to ensure that all of the change requests were implemented. She recommends that we keep this moving and have us review those and then authorize PrepareFirst to print the 10 hardcopies he owes us per the contract and then he can be paid.
Anderson asked how we determine if we’ve had sufficient review. Guthrie recommended for a couple of members of council to do the review.
Salter stated that all of council now has the document that could be reviewed. It would make sense for the whole council to bless the document instead of just two people, since this has been a significant expense.
Guthrie stated that if we wait until another council meeting, then we are getting in to next year’s budget. She would prefer that we bring closure to this.
Kitchens stated that he thinks it’s ready to go and that he’s reviewed the electronic file and it looks like it’s ready.
Guthrie motioned to review it, approve it, authorize PrepareFirst to print the hard copies and pay him.
Anderson stated that he would also review the manual in addition to Guthrie.
Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
VIII. CITIZEN COMMENTS
No one spoke.
IX. EXECUTIVE SESSION for consideration of legal issues
Cohen motioned to enter executive session at 10:15 pm. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
Cohen motioned to exit executive session at 10:25 p.m. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Cohen motioned to adjourn at 10:25 p.m. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed.
(Respectfully submitted by Leigh Threadgill, approved by Council on January 17, 2008)
|
