Please note:  The first 14 minutes and 47 seconds of the April 17, 2008 Council Meeting audio are unavailable due to technical difficulties. We apologize for the inconvenience.  The audio begins during the "New City Hall" discussion.

CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
COUNCIL MEETING and PUBLIC HEARING
4043 S BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes
April 17th, 2008
7:00PM

Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members: Walter Anderson, Rebecca Spitler, Debbie Guthrie, Frank Lombardi, Tom Kitchens
City Administrator: Tom Rozier
City Attorney and Associate: Dick Carothers, Amy Cowan
Citizens Present: 7

CALL TO ORDER (0:00:00)

Salter called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road. She noted that all council members were in attendance.

I. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA

Salter suggested the addition of the following under New Business, ‘Fine-related Ordinance Amendments’:

20. O-85-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 78, Section 207
21. O-86-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 78, Section 92, and

the addition of item 4, ‘Hanson’ under New Business, ‘Septic Inspection Interval Extension Requests’.

Guthrie noted that a previous version of the agenda had contained the topic “New SPLOST”. Salter agreed and suggested that we add “New SPLOST” as an item under “New Business”.

There were no further suggested changes to the agenda.

Anderson made a motion to accept noted changes to the agenda. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.

II. PUBLIC HEARING

Salter opened the floor for public comments regarding the Appeal to Council of Planning & Zoning Commission’s denial of a variance request for a brick mailbox at 89 Lakeshore Drive.

There were no public comments.

III. MINUTES
a.) March 20th, 2008 City Council Meeting

Guthrie motioned to accept the minutes of March 20, 2008. Spitler seconded the motion. Guthrie, Spitler, Lombardi and Anderson voted in favor of the motion. Kitchens abstained due to his absence from the March 20th Council meeting. The motion passed.

IV. REPORTS
a.) Financial Statements for March 2008

Guthrie mentioned that while she had intended to discuss financial statements with Tom Rozier, that both times she had visited City Hall with that intention Rozier had been unavailable to meet.

Anderson motioned to postpone consideration of the financial reports of March 2008. Kitchens seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.

b.) OEO report

There were no questions.

c.) Police Report – Q1

There were no questions.

Salter added that 2 of the 3 traffic-related incidents were located at the curve near 514 Lakeshore Drive and that both incidents were related to excessive speed resulting in citations.  The other incident occurred at River Mansions and according to the driver was wind-related. There was no citation issued for the incident at River Mansions.

d.) Mayor’s Message

Salter noted distribution of the following written report to be incorporated into the minutes:

Mayor’s Message to Council
April 17, 2008

Last month I asked you to contact Bert Nasuti to join me in requesting a library at Berkeley Village.  I hope you have all done that, and if not, that you will soon.  Please let me know if you need his contact info.

The city-sponsored art show last weekend seems to have been a success.  Please participate in Earth Day this Saturday and remember the citywide garage sale this weekend also.  I have arranged for two charitable organizations to come door to door to collect leftovers that citizens would like to donate.  Nspire will be here starting at 2 PM on Saturday and the Family Violence Council will be along on Sunday morning.  Citizens who want pickup at their homes should contact me before Saturday noon.

Berkeley Lake Elementary will soon have a new principal, Dr. F.A. McLeod.  I have arranged to meet with her when she arrives in June in order to continue the mutually supportive relationship I have had with the outgoing principal.  She has agreed for us to use their parking lot for our Memorial Day and July 4 festivities.

I have met on site with John Karnowski of StreetSmarts and later with our city engineer Rich Edinger to look at traffic safety issues.  I recommend that we spend $725 now to mark the sharp turn near 514 Lakeshore Drive and commit funding for some of the other striping issues in the SPLOST to be voted on in November of this year.  This is in accordance with the professional advice I have received.

There was a discussion regarding needs which remain unmet for the Memorial Day celebration.

V. OLD BUSINESS
a.) New City Hall
 i. Status Report

Salter noted that Barbara Carroll had provided a written report and that all Council members had received a hard copy of that report. Copies of the report were available at the front of the Chapel. That report contained the following:

CITY HALL PLANNING REPORT – APRIL 17, 2008

I attended a meeting on April 1 on behalf of the Architect Design Committee where the architect, civil engineer, landscape architect and structural engineer were in attendance.  This “kickoff” meeting was arranged by the architect with just 24-hour notice and other committee members were unable to attend due to previous commitments. As of the date of this report, minutes are not yet available but will be disseminated as soon as they are received. 

Many topics were discussed that will impact the Design and Development drawings of the building and site.  For example, much discussion was held regarding the possible need for and location of two detention ponds on either side of the back of the site.   This information is important as it will define the remaining area where the proposed cell tower could be located.  After the engineer determines the pond locations, we can then proceed with discussions regarding cell tower feasibility and placement. 

At this moment, the architects are working on the Design and Development drawings to tie down many of the technical aspects of the approved design.  Technical specifications for the interior elevation are currently the area of concentration.  It is after the completion of these Design and Development drawings that we proceed to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the position of Construction Manager (CM).  This Construction Manager will then have the responsibility of doing a cost benefit analysis to see where we stand financially as regards cost for doing the design we’ve already approved, as well as the cost for digging out a larger basement area.  Architect Ed Palisoc will assist us in putting together the necessary data to create the RFP after determination of certain parameters regarding this process for the City.  The package as created will then be passed to our City Attorney Carothers for review prior to advertising and dissemination.

I anticipate that having the Design and Development drawings, along with the Construction Manager, will put us in a position to be know approximately where we stand financially in the cost analysis of our approved site plan and floor plan.  Further information will follow as it is generated.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Carroll
Architectural Design Committee

 ii. Development of a use policy

There was discussion regarding development of a use policy and documentation of said use going forward.

There was discussion regarding parks and recreation-related site construction costs.

Guthrie suggested that Council delay the discussion until more information is available from Barbara Carroll.

There was no objection.

There was discussion regarding anticipated SPLOST funds.

Salter indicated that it is possible that the City could ask for more Administrative Facility funds in the ’09 SPLOST.

b.) Police coverage (00:24:08)

Salter indicated that we’re under the new plan with the County. She noted that there are 40 hours of coverage per week. Lombardi inquired as to whether we were moving forward with a study.

There was discussion regarding another potential solution for our Police Coverage issue.  Salter is investigating the possibility of having a sheriff’s deputy committed to us full time.

c.) Code of Ethics (00:28:09)

Guthrie indicated that the most available date for council members to participate in a Code of Ethics development workshop is July 26. There was consensus among council members that a whole-day session is preferable and more cost-effective. There was discussion about adding other topics for discussion at that workshop.

Guthrie noted that both Carothers and Cowan are invited to attend.

Guthrie committed to contacting the moderator and facilitating contact between him and Rozier.

d.) Traffic Safety on Lakeshore Drive (00:30:07)

Salter indicated that she and John Karnowski of Street Smarts visited Lakeshore Drive and reviewed the curve near 514 Lakeshore Drive. She further indicated that Karnowski identified 385 linear feet of road where he suggested reflectors should be installed in the center (yellow reflectors) and on the sides of the street (white reflectors).

Lombardi indicated that the suggested action seems to be effective for night time, but questioned whether it would be effective during daylight hours. Anderson indicated that the dome-style reflectors would be highly visible during the daytime as well.

Lombardi inquired about the vendor who would install the reflectors.  Salter indicated that Wildcat Striping and Sealing had provided a quote for approximately $725.00 to perform the work.

Guthrie inquired about potential sound pollution issues for nearby residents. Salter indicated that the option being discussed was a much quieter option than previously suggested rumble strips which are placed all the way across the road.

Kitchens made a motion to have the reflectors installed in the curve near 514 Lakeshore Drive for an amount not to exceed 800 dollars. Lombardi seconded the motion.  All were in favor and the motion carried.

Salter indicated that both John Karnowski and Rich Edinger had indicated that speed bumps are not recommended.

In response to Anderson’s concerns about road striping, Salter consulted Rich Edinger. He indicated that it was not necessary and that several neighborhoods do not have striping at all. Edinger did indicate that while striping is not necessary, it is something the City could choose to request for under the next SPLOST.

There was further discussion regarding how the city could determine the effectiveness of the reflectors as to reducing accidents.

e.) Belt property concerns (00:36:08)

Craig Belt, 566 Lakeshore Drive addressed Council disputing the property line as indicated by a survey created for the City while securing easements for the most recent stormwater infrastructure project.

Salter committed to consulting with Rich Edinger to determine whether the survey was performed relative to a monument.

f.) Structure on right-of-way at 350 Lakeshore Drive (01:08:17)

Bob Herb reported the results of the P&Z Commission meeting where parking pads were considered indicating that he had withdrawn the proposed change due to lack of interest of the Planning & Zoning Commissioners.

Ginny Nevins, 350 Lakeshore Drive, provided Postal Service form #4056, dated February 1991, stating that “whenever possible, boxes must be located so that carrier’s vehicle is off pavement when serving them.” She presented her case indicating that the structure is a driveway flare which helps to support proper drainage and prevent siltation. 

Anderson made a motion that Council request that the P&Z Commission take a look at Postal Service requirements for off-street access to mailboxes and how our zoning code might be modified to include being able to do that with some sort of structure and further that definitions for driveway flare and so forth also be suggested so that we have some sort of objective metrics for providing instruction to builders and determining compliance and that we stay any further prosecution of the citation at 350 Lakeshore Drive. Guthrie seconded the motion.

Guthrie clarified that we’re not asking P&Z to revisit the same topic of parking pads on right of way which Herb took to the last meeting.

Herb asked for permission to get Rich Edinger to provide input from an Engineering perspective as to what he would recommend that driveway flares be and the size requirements for Postal vehicle maneuvering.

Lombardi recused himself from voting because of potential conflict of interest.

Spitler, Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens were in favor. The motion passed.

VI. NEW BUSINESS (01:49:02)

a.) Waste removal contract

Steve Edwards with Advanced Disposal presented his case for imposing a fuel surcharge and to request a 2-year extension of the existing contract with the City. He referenced the following document previously provided to Mayor and Council:

April 11, 2008

Honorable Mayor Lois Salter
City of Berkeley lake
4043 South Berkeley Lake Road
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096

Dear Mayor Salter:

We are approaching our second renewal option proudly servicing the City of Berkeley Lake. As promised in the proposal, we are actively involved in the community and we have made significant changes in our service to accommodate the residents in Berkeley Lake.

At this time, I would like to petition Mayor and Council to renew the contract for two years and I am asking for a fuel surcharge as we have experienced a 62% increase in fuel costs since the beginning of the year. With this renewal, I am foregoing any increases to the rates due to the Consumer Price Index.

I am asking for a fuel surcharge to more accurately reflect the extraordinary impact of changing fuel prices on our expenses. The fuel surcharge amount will vary each quarter depending on the price of fuel. l am asking for the fuel surcharge to go into effect in July.
 
The fuel surcharge calculation is tied directly to the lower Atlantic East Coast average price of diesel fuel as reported by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy ("EIA/DOE") in its Weekly Retail On-Highway Diesel Prices Index. I have met with Mr. Tom Rozier about my request and we have tentatively agreed on a formula (see next page).

Sincerely.

Steve Edwards
Advanced Disposal Services

Advanced Disposal Services Fuel Surcharge Program
Advanced Disposal Services remains committed to controlling costs so we can continue to provide you with the best overall value in waste related services. However, rising fuel prices are something we simply cannot control. Consequently, for all invoices for the third quarter of 2008 will include a fuel surcharge to more accurately reflect the impact of changing fuel prices on our expenses.
 
The fuel surcharge calculation is adjusted weekly and is tied directly to the lower Atlantic East Coast average price of diesel fuel as reported by the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy ("EIA/DOE") in its Weekly Retail On--Highway Diesel Prices Index (the index is available at ''http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/infolWohdp/diesel.,asp''.This index úis objective, publicly available and widely recognized in the trucking and transportation industries. This change will ensure that you, our valued customer, will pay a fuel surcharge that is currently adjusted, easy to calculate, and equitable. Changes to the surcharge will be effective the first Monday of each month.
 
The table can be found at our website. Go to www.advanceddlsposal.com, click on our Home page, click on Customer Notices at the bottom, then click on Fuel Surcharge Tables. This tables shows what the fuel surcharge, as a percentage of your monthly or other periodic invoice charges, before taxes" would be based upon the reported EIAI/DOE national diesel price index on the first Monday of the month for which services are rendered.
 .
For example, if the reported EIAIDOE national diesel price index on the first Monday of the month which includes your invoice date is $3.74 per gallon, your fuel surcharge would be 13.95% of your invoice charges, excluding taxes. Take the 13.95% and multiply it by 44% (because it is the residential %) and you will get 6.14%. If your invoice reads $35.22 per quarter, your fuel surcharge would be $2.16 for the quarter.

In the spreadsheet, row 75, column M - is how I received my %.

There was discussion regarding the fuel surcharge basis and calculation and placing a cap on the fuel surcharge.

Salter asked Council if they wanted to discuss or consider the option of the City providing solid waste disposal services to citizens and passing the cost of doing so through to citizens as a likely tax increase.  She noted that doing so would save citizens the hassle of paying the bills and would provide citizens with a deduction on their taxes. She indicated that there is a potential downside of having to raise taxes.

Lombardi stated that he thinks that it is worth investigating as a worthwhile additional service that the City can provide to the residents. He further indicated that he believes the City would probably not have to raise taxes.

Guthrie indicated that she doesn’t think the City should be considering the option at present because of uncertainty about fuel costs and further uncertainty about SPLOST revenues. She stated that the City doesn’t need to take on additional burden at this time when we don’t know if we might have to raise taxes for some other reason. She noted that it may be something that could and should be looked at but that the timing for it is not great.

Anderson clarified with Guthrie that she did not have a problem with researching the matter and stated that he didn’t feel particularly time-crunched for doing so.

Lombardi stated that he would like for the City to perform the analysis.

There was further discussion regarding costs associated with the new City Hall operation.

There was discussion regarding vacuum truck services provided by municipalities. Steve Edwards indicated that there are no private solid waste collection companies in the Atlanta area providing that service.

Guthrie indicated that the City should encourage citizens to mulch leaves.

Spitler indicated that she is not adverse to performing a study regarding the City providing solid waste services through taxes. She further noted that there are a number of budget-related situations in flux at the moment, including the police situation and City Hall. She recommended against the City providing solid waste services via taxes at this time. She believes the City needs to consider extending the solid waste disposal contract and look at all of the budget issues together at one time.

There was discussion regarding the terms of the renewal.

Guthrie made a motion to renew the existing contract for 2 years (2009 through 2010) and to authorize a fuel surcharge to begin in July 2008 with a cap of fuel price set at $8/gallon maximum.  Spitler seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried.

b.) Appeal of P&Z determination to deny variance for 89 Lakeshore Dr. – stone mailbox (02:14:06)

Lombardi recused himself from the entire discussion due to conflict of interest.

Tom Koenig, 90 Lakeshore Drive contended that the new mailbox at 89 Lakeshore Drive is safer than the older mailbox for the same address across the street. He further asked Council to instruct him as to which mailbox needed to be removed.

Anderson made a motion to deny the request for variance for the mailbox at 89 Lakeshore Drive. Spitler seconded. Anderson, Guthrie and Spitler voted in favor. Kitchens voted in opposition. Lombardi recused himself due to conflict of interest. The motion passed.

Anderson stated that he would personally dig the hole for installing a conforming faux stone mailbox at 89 Lakeshore Drive if that is what the resident would wish to install in place of the pre-existing brick and mortar edifice.

c.) O-88-08 Amendment to 78-65 Street frontage requirements – Possible First Read (02:32:30)

Guthrie inquired as to the event which brought about the need to amend the ordinance.  Herb addressed the issue noting that the Berkeley Lake Homeowners’ Association wishes to build a structure replacing the existing structure in the picnic area behind the Chapel and to include a storage room. He further indicated that the current code requires that a piece of property have 50 feet of abutment on the road in order to build a structure on that piece of property.

Anderson made a motion to place O-88-08 on first read; Lombardi seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion carried.

d.) Georgia Safe Dams Agency requirements (02:37:10)

Guthrie motioned to accept the contract from Piedmont Geotechnical Consultants in an amount not to exceed 5K and to authorize the Mayor to sign the contract, subject to the City Attorney’s approval as to form.  Anderson seconded the motion.  All were in favor and the motion passed.

e.) Right of Way/Mowing contract (02:38:33)

Guthrie motioned to ratify the acceptance of the agreement with Chattahoochee Landscaping beginning April 1, 2008 according to the price schedule. Anderson seconded. All were in favor and the motion passed.

Guthrie asked that in the future when the City places a contract or purchase out to bid, that Council be notified in advance. She indicated that Council may want to make a change such as adding a service.

f.) Fine-related Ordinance Amendments – Possible First Read (02:39:28)

1. O-67-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 6, Article III
2. O-68-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 34, Article I
3. O-69-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 38
4. O-70-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 1, General Provision
5. O-71-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 14, Section 5
6. O-72-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 26, Article II
7. O-73-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 26, Article III
8. O-74-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 26, Article IV
9. O-75-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 26, Article V
10. O-76-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 30
11. O-77-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 32, Article I, Section 32-4
12. O-78-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 34, Article II, Section 34-100
13. O-79-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 42, Article III, Section 42-66
14. O-80-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 42, Article VII, Section 42-349
15. O-81-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 42, Article VIII, Section 42-910
16. O-82-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 46, Section 46-9
17. O-83-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 58, Section 58-6
18. O-84-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 66, Section 66-13
19. O-87-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 74, Section 74-1
20. O-85-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 78, Section 207
21. O-86-08 Fine Amendment for Chapter 78, Section 92

Anderson motioned to place the ordinance amendments listed in the amended agenda under Section IX, item ‘f’, sub-items ‘1’ through ‘21’ on first read. Kitchens seconded the motion. All present were in favor.  The motion passed.

Salter suggested that while fines are being amended, that Council should consider a provision such that a person who begins a project without a permit may be awarded a permit with a double-cost. She noted that Carothers will be researching that possibility.

g.) Septic Inspection Interval Extension Requests (02:42:06)

1. Cortez – 760 Lakeshore Drive
2. Salter – 650 Lakeshore Drive
3. Young – 4265 South Berkeley Lake Road
4. Hanson – 3755 North Berkeley Lake Road

Anderson motioned to approve the 4 Septic Inspection interval extension requests, as recommended by staff.  Kitchens seconded. All present were in favor.  The motion passed.

h.)  New SPLOST (02:42:35)

Salter indicated that we may have to place a request before the next regularly-scheduled Council meeting.  There was discussion regarding possible SPLOST requests and it was noted that the 2005 SPLOST would not produce as much revenue as has been anticipated.

Salter solicited ideas for possible 2009 SPLOST requests. Guthrie asked Salter to keep Council updated with information as it becomes available with regard to potential projects and estimated costs. Salter agreed that she would and asked Council members to determine the priority.

VII. CITIZEN COMMENTS (03:05:02)

No citizens spoke.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT 

There being no other business to discuss, Lombardi motioned to adjourn. Guthrie seconded. All were in favor and the motion passed.

Salter adjourned the meeting at 10:35pm.           

(Respectfully submitted by Tom Rozier, correct as of May 8, 2008)