Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, Delicia Reynolds, George Sipe and Marcie Zielazienski
City Clerk- Jackie Wall
Citizens Present- 4

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

MINUTES
Guthrie motioned that the minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2004 be accepted as presented. Zielazienski seconded. Guthrie, Cohen, Sipe and Zielazienski were in favor. Reynolds abstained as she was not at meeting. The motion passed.

REPORTS
Cohen motioned to accept the December 2003 financial reports, as the auditor has approved them. Sipe seconded the motion. All were all in favor of the motion and the motion passed.

Guthrie motioned to accept the August 2004 financial reports. Zielazienski seconded the motion.
In discussion, Reynolds asked what was being approved, as she believed that financial reports did not have to be approved.
Carothers said that was the case and that approval meant that it had been read, and understood. He said that if Council members did not approve certain expenditures, then they should say so.

Cohen, Guthrie, Sipe and Zielazienski were all in favor of the motion. Reynolds opposed the motion. The motion passed.

Mayor and Council accepted the Police and OEO reports. Chris Holben’s report was postponed until the next meeting as there would be further updates then. Copies of current plans are available at City Hall. The Arbitration Committee report was presented. Marilyn Childress highlighted the main aspects of it. Council will consider the report for the next meeting.

MAYORS MESSAGE
The Mayor said that proposals have been received from Dreamsan, Waste Industries, BFI, Advanced disposal and United/Robertson for the waste contract. The Clerk will put a summary together for Council to see, and there will be discussion and a formal reading of them at the meeting on October 21st. Salter suggested that all Council members look at the proposals at City hall before the next meeting.

Salter said that there were six people at the court session on September 8th, and as a cautionary note, a fine of $600 was imposed on one person for cutting down trees.

Salter announced that Council members had received a CD with all the ordinances on. There were other procedural changes at City Hall, which she would update everyone with later. The Clerks had also recently attended Clerks training in Athens for their continuing education.

Salter was pleased that approximately 60 people had used the facilities provided at Earth day on October 2nd.

Salter announced that a new directory and handbook is at the printers.

Salter said she has appointed Jay Taradash from Miramont to the finance committee and described his background and experience. Tom Kitchens has stepped down as BLEMA director and she had tried to appoint Sherwin Levinson as his successor. However he will be moving from the community shortly and he suggested Charles Carroll from Berkeley Walk in that position. Salter said he had agreed to take the position. He is a former FBI agent. His assistant directors would be Tom Kitchens (personnel) and Charles Carroll (from the Lake community –physical resources) Please note that these are two different gentlemen with the same names.

OLD BUSINESS
Infrastructure Repairs- Zielazienski
Zielazienski said she was still waiting for the County to finish the easement requirements for the culvert repair on 368 Lakeshore Drive.

Salter said she had a conference call with Brian Allen (Director of the Department of Transportation) and Bill Powell at the County. They had said that there was no need or justification for an additional lane or a three way stop sign at the new ‘Berkeley on the River’ subdivision. They had said that the County Development regulations only require this for subdivisions of at least 200 lots.

There were concerns that the County had not looked at the area adequately enough and that the area has some unique circumstances- such as the steep hill and curve. It was believed that no one from the county had actually seen the area. Salter read an email from Powell describing his thoughts.

Charles Dean- developer of Berkeley on the River, explained his situation. He described the StreetSmart survey that had been performed. His main wish was to slow down the traffic at the new subdivision. He believed that Powell’s opinion was incorrect. Salter also read Bob Herb’s recommendations into the minutes (see attached) which recommended that the P and Z and Council not require Dean to install a left turn lane as is described in the preliminary plat. He recommended that Dean be allowed to resubmit the preliminary plat with the left turn lane removed. Salter said that the turn lane is an issue for the City but the stop sign is a County issue.

Sipe said that an amendment could be made but the P and Z had to make the recommendation to Council and then a Public Hearing would be necessary.

There was further discussion about slowing the traffic, and other ways in which this could be done. Sipe offered to pursue the 3 way stop with the County. Zielazienski agreed it was a good idea. Reynolds said she thought the 3 way stop would produce long lines, which could be more dangerous. She said she saw the lines from the other stop sign closer to her house. She said she would prefer to have nothing at all, although she agreed that there was no need for a turn lane. Cohen said he had no objection for Sipe to pursue the stop sign with the County. Guthrie agreed that Sipe should pursue it, especially as StreetSmart say there is adequate distance to stop.

It was decided to advertise and hold a Public Hearing and a meeting on November 4th to discuss an amendment to the preliminary plat.

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ord. Amendment, for 2nd read – Zielazienski
Zielazienski motioned for second read and approval with the changes as recommended by the Ordinance Committee. Cohen seconded the motion.

There were questions regarding the suggested changes from Debbie Robinson (Ordinance Committee) and the wording on 34-104 b ii Page 10 in particular. There was discussion around the language and that there should be no doubt that if one of the criteria were not met, then it would be a violation.

Rebecca Spitler- 3825 Berkeley View Drive.
Spitler said that if it was a question of semantics then it should be clearly written that if one of the three exists you would be in violation.

Carothers recommended that the language should be as clear as possible. The City should not be less strict than the State. He said that the recommended change regarding the Ordinance Enforcement Officer did, in his opinion, weaken the OEO’s investigative powers, and he did not agree with that change.

Sipe, Zielazienski and Cohen were in favor of leaving the ordinance as proposed.
Reynolds and Guthrie opposed as they felt some of the changes weakened the ordinance. The motion passed.

Sipe said that they had taken the considerations from the Ordinance Committee.

Robinson said that the committee had not had time to make changes to the ordinance; they were points for consideration, which came from herself, with no opinion attached. It was up to Council to decide either way.

Sipe said that he was generally not in favor of weakening model environmental protection ordinances in any way. In this case, there is a trade-off in slightly limiting enforcement power in favor of privacy. In particular, the change from the original text does not allow the OEO to enter adjacent property without permission. The OEO may still enter the property where the violation occurs with or without permission and may enter adjacent property with permission.

Reynolds asked if the ordinance covered home renovation. It was clarified that it did.

Consideration of fines to be increased
Cohen pointed out that any change in fines would need to have a change in the Charter.

Sipe said that he thought citizens felt that no change should be made in the Charter without a referendum, and that a great deal of thought would need to go into that beforehand. Zielazienski agreed.
The consensus was that the fines should be left as they are unless in future there was felt to be a need to hold a referendum and change the Charter.

NEW BUSINESS
Ordinance 3-204.1 Regular meetings, 1st read – Cohen
Cohen motioned to have a one meeting a month on the third Thursday, and in keeping with the charter, the Mayor or three members of Council could call special meetings. Sipe seconded the motion.

In discussion, Sipe proposed an amendment that the first Thursday be held as a reserve day, and that if any Council member felt that a meeting was necessary, that it be held on that reserve day. He proposed the ordinance be amended so that Paragraph 3-204 would read ‘the City Council shall hold City Council meetings on the first and third Thursday of each month. The regular meeting on the first Thursday may be cancelled by the unanimous agreement of the Mayor and Council in which event lawful public notice shall be provided’.

Cohen said that the ordinance may as well stay as it is with two meetings a month.

Rebecca Spitler- 3825 Berkeley View Drive.
Spitler said that it looks worse to cancel meetings than to call additional meetings.

Salter said that Special meetings are often date driven and will not necessarily be on that day, and that the amendment decreases the flexibility.

Guthrie agreed with Spitler. She said there needed to be a decision either one way or another. Historically there had only ever been the need for one meeting a month. Guthrie also disagreed with Sipe’s suggestion that only one Council member should be able to call special meetings, as it went around the intent of the Charter. Reynolds agreed with Guthrie. Guthrie said there should be intent to either have two meetings a month or one but either way, the meetings should go ahead.

Sipe disagreed with Guthrie noting this would not be a special called meeting but a regularly scheduled one and that historically Council usually met more than once per month either in Council meetings or in work sessions. He reminded Council of its preference to use the more open Council meeting formant over work sessions.

Cohen withdrew the Ordinance, and suggested that Council continue to meet twice a month unless there is not enough on the agenda to warrant it, in which case he would bring the ordinance to Council again.

Jeff Pahl-881 Lakeshore Drive
Pahl said he liked that Council met twice a month as he was unable to make the meeting on the Third Thursday of the month but could make the first meeting of the month.

Ordinance 4-101.3 Delinquent taxes, 1st read – Cohen
Cohen motioned to put the ordinance on first read. He said it charges interest, compounds it and then has a fine if it is not paid by the end of the year.

Wall said $11,718.35 had been owed in taxes, $2450.90 had been written off by Council (under $100 or no longer resident), so $9267.45 was owed. $3070.10 had been paid so far, with $6197.35 still being owed by 8 taxpayers.

Zielazienski seconded the motion.
Cohen confirmed that it complies with Charter as well as County and State regulations.

Sipe said it was fair to all those who do already pay their taxes.

All were in favor of the motion and the motion passed.

Conflict of interest- Zielazienski
Zielazienski said that there had been questions raised as to whether it was a conflict of interest that she continued to work with Public works while she is a Council member. She asked Carothers for an opinion, which is attached to the minutes.

Carothers summarized his opinion. He said that there is a prohibition against dual appointments and that it was not applicable in this case. Zielazienski had no official title and is not paid for what she does at the direction of Council. He said she has no independent authority, and all her recommendations are brought back to Council.

Sipe said that Zielazienski’s service to community is an asset, and it is good to have direct involvement by elected officials.

Carothers said that it is common in many small jurisdictions and he cited Lilburn as an example.

Community affairs and events- Salter
Salter handed out some suggestions for community events. She said that the Community Events Committee had seen and discussed them. She said that there was a strong recommendation to go ahead with the Celebration of Neighbors. She said there were mixed thoughts about the D-Day memorial, and although the 50th anniversary of the City was sometime away (March 2006) that the event should be kept in mind.

Sipe asked what the cost would be to the City.

Salter said that she did not see that the celebration of Neighbors (Sunday November 7th) would cost anything. The City had paid for extra days at the chapel, and she hoped citizens would bring a covered dish. She said it was her hope to recognize and foster more of the same kind of efforts. It would be a positive City event.

Guthrie said it would be difficult to recognize everyone, and both Guthrie and Sipe suggested that a small group of people be recognized as examples, and that it should not be an attempt at recognizing everyone, otherwise someone could be left out.

Salter asked for further opinions about the other events at a later meeting.

Auction House- Carothers.
Carothers distributed copies of the final noticed served to the auction house, and there was discussion about what would happen next in the process.

Berkeley Lake Elementary School walk- Relay for Life
Salter said she had offered to redirect one police officer to help in this event.

Sipe said that in other such events the organization had to pay half for police coverage and that this should not set a precedent.

Salter explained that notice about the event had come to her very late and that a decision had to be made quickly. She had emailed Council and three members had agreed that redirecting one officer was a good option.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ZIELAZIENSKI MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:17 PM. COHEN SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED.

Respectfully submitted by Jackie Wall