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
City Attorney- Dick Carothers
Citizens Present- 4

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

MINUTES
There were minor corrections noted. Sipe motioned that the minutes of the meeting of November 18, 2004 be accepted with the changes. Cohen seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion. The motion passed.

REPORTS
Salter said she had a received a report from BLEMA after a request she had sent to all committee chairpersons to ask them for an end of year report. She described the five questions she had asked. She said she would attach the report to the minutes.

MAYORS MESSAGE
Salter said she had signed the new Waste contract after consent from Carothers.
Salter said that there had been a BLEMA meeting the previous evening.
Salter announced that Court would convene on December 8th, and that the Public hearing for the Budget would be on December 16th.
Salter extended an invitation for Council members to hear a presentation on December 15th from the representative from Municode.
Salter announced that the new Directory has gone to print and would be delivered before Christmas.
Salter said that Tom Kitchens had agreed to represent the City on a Citizens Advisory Committee for SPLOST, which should involve about two meetings a year, and she thanked him for volunteering.

OLD BUSINESS
Infrastructure Repairs– Zielazienski
Zielazienski said that the easements documents have been approved by the county for the work on 360-368 Lakeshore drive culvert and would be sent to Carothers to review.

Zielazienski said that the Miramont HOA have brought in engineers from McFarland and Dyer to look at their retention ponds with a view to re- retrofitting them.

Consideration of Budget 2005
Cohen said that the County had sent a draft representation of the money that would be collected from the SPLOST. They are estimated amounts each month, but the County would not get the money until June. Therefore the income amount allocated from SPLOST in the budget would need to be reduced to $270,000.

Reynolds said that Council cannot bind the future Council to pay off the bond early and that she felt that the surplus should be spent on Public works projects.

Cohen said that $740,000 of the SPLOST money was earmarked for public works and could not be spent elsewhere. He said that the City would not receive all of it yet but it would still be spent on Public works. He said he felt that tax collection money should not be used on Public works when there was income for it from another source.

Reynolds said that she thought that all the projects costs would amount to more than the allocated amount.

Cohen said that he thought that LARP money could fill the gap too. The upcoming report should highlight the problems, and could be the basis of a bigger allocation of money for the City. He said that money could not be used from any other source to pay off the bond and it was a large burden on the City should there not be another successful SPLOST referendum. Cohen explained the reasons that SPLOST allocation may not be so large in the future.

Sipe agreed and said that he thought it would be a prudent thing to do to pay off the bond early, and he hoped future Councils would see that too.

Cohen said that $190,000 would now have to be allocated to public works, a reduction of $30,000 due to less SPLOST income.

The condensed version of the budget will be available at the next meeting and used for the ordinance.

Reynolds motioned to put the budget on first read. Cohen seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed.

There was discussion with the Treasurer (Pam Williamson- 3996 S Berkeley Lake Rd) about accruals. Williamson also suggested that the two other grants granted to the City, which will be spent next year, be added to the budget too.

There was discussion regarding engaging David Dick from Simmons and Jamieson as City Accountant again, so he could start the preliminary work for the audit.

Reynolds motioned to authorize the Mayor to sign the letter of engagement. Zielazienski seconded the motion.

In discussion, Cohen suggested that Council may want to consider putting together an RFP for 2006, but it was too late to do one for 2005.

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

Chapter 3 department admin amendment (first read 11/4, amended 11/18) – Sipe
Sipe said his proposal was to amend chapter 3 to define how departments will work in the City, as the current ordinance includes a City Manager and we don’t have one. He said it was not clear what happens when there is no City Manager. He talked about the department officials’ role.

Sipe motioned to put the amended ordinance on second read and adopt it. Cohen seconded the motion.

In discussion, Zielazienski asked to amend the motion so that the amendment is put on second read only and to adopt it at the December 16 meeting allowing more time to review it.

After some further discussion, it was agreed that it would be better not to put the ordinance on second read yet as there were still issues that needed further explanation.

Sipe said it was still his intention 100% to put it on second read and adopt it at the next meeting, as he felt it was critical to get it in place before the end of the year, to enable the new structure to start at the beginning of the New Year when the normal appointments are made.

Reynolds said that the current ordinance says that the Mayor functions in the role of City Manager should there be no City Manager. She said she thought it was the intent of the Charter to function with the mayor as the head of government and the council as a body and not as individual Council members running different departments. She said it was not good business or good government to do that. She said the Charter says: 3.10 (b) Except as otherwise provided by this Charter or by law, the directors of departments and other appointed officers of the City shall be appointed solely on the basis of their respective administrative and professional qualifications.

Reynolds said that unless Council have resumes that qualify them to run departments, then they should be working as a body to do it. She said it would be appointing unqualified people to run a department, and that there was very little reporting and oversight, and that Council as a body or the Mayor would not be overseeing things. She felt that one person in charge would contravene the Charter.

Sipe said it was an interpretation of the Charter and that he did not interpret it that way. He said that the elected officials would be providing the oversight of the departments. The City pays others, like the City Clerk, to run the departments as the experts.

Reynolds said that the new ordinance would mean department heads would report to a single Council member as department official, not to the Mayor as before. The Council member may or may not report to the Mayor and Council.

Sipe reiterated that a Council member would be replaced as department official if they were not doing their job properly.

Carothers said he saw the changes as the Council members delegating their responsibility for a department to a department official. He said it was important that they were not department heads. He said that he did not see there was any legal conflict with the Charter.

Carothers described a similar situation in Lilburn, although he said their system was not as formal as in the ordinance we are considering, Council members served as a liaison to the departments. He said they did have other employees as public works officials for example. Even with a City Manager, they continue to have informal roles but are less hands-on than before. They do not supervise the day-to-day activities of City employees. The City Manager of Lilburn did take direction from the Council member liaisons, but more so as a whole body, rather than as individual Council members.

Salter said that the new ordinance would involve a major change in responsibility moving from the Mayor to Council. She said that Sipe says that the major power lies with the Council anyway, and therefore it is not a major change. She asked Carothers if that was the case.

Carothers said it is a change but did not remove power granted by the charter to the Mayor and is thus not a change contrary to the Charter. He said it sets up department officials as more hands on than in the past. He said there were the same kinds of discussion for the City Manager, but originally the City Manager took functions of the role of the Mayor away and that required a Charter change and so it could not be done. He said that this did not require a change in the Charter.

Reynolds said that the Charter still calls for ‘Mayor and Council and this would mean that department heads would be under the supervision of a single Council member and not a body of Council. The Charter says (3.10d) … There shall be a director of each department or agency who shall be its principal officer. Each director shall, subject to the direction and supervision of the Mayor, be responsible for the administration and direction of the affairs and operations….. Reynolds said Sipe was using ‘official’ instead of ‘director’ as a different word to avoid conflicting with Charter. Sipe disagreed.

Guthrie said she was also having problems finding a comfort level with the proposed changes. In her view it was a question of accountability, balance of power, authority and checks and balances on a general level. She said it seemed an awkward plan to her. It was not a simple flowing system for accountability and management. She said she did not have a problem with using a modified version of the ordinance for anything that was a special project or area which has a lot of activity, such as Public Works and Zielazienski’s role. Guthrie said that in the future where there were projects like the new City Hall, then it would be an excellent way to manage them. She said it was appropriate to delegate authority to oversee that kind of project. She said she had a problem with doing the same thing with day-to-day activities and employees. Guthrie said that she still had several other changes she would like to see and asked if council wanted her to go through them or e-mail them to everyone.

Sipe said it would be good to e-mail them.

Sipe said that the current ordinance still says that the City Manager runs the City and that is not the case. Fortunately the Mayor acts as a City Manager without the ordinance providing that authority. Sipe noted that Reynolds was in error that City Manager authority reverted to the Mayor and asked where she saw otherwise.

Reynolds said that the Charter explicitly says that the Mayor is the chief executive officer.

Sipe said that the Charter also says that administrations is as prescribed by the City Council and that this formalizes the situation.

Reynolds said she thought it works best as it is now, where someone who is interested in an area takes it on and reports back each month.

Sipe said that it formalizes what is already going on now.

Reynolds said that it was made clear at the beginning of the year that Council members were not members of the committee, they acted only as liaison and did not necessarily attend meetings.

Sipe said the new ordinance related the committees to specific departments. The department officials are still not members of the committees, and the committees are still independent and citizen led. However, the officials will be more hands on in the department.

Salter asked what happens if a committee does not get along with their department official. She said that similar problems this year had been solved with the current situation because the committee was able to consult the Mayor.

Sipe said that the Mayor still appoints members of the committees. He said that problems with the committees were largely due to differences of opinion with the directions they were getting from the Mayor and the liaison. He said it happened in more than one circumstance. He said that problem would be avoided, as the liaison would have the support of the majority of Council. If it were a personality clash then the liaison as the elected official would have a better standing than the volunteer on the committee, who should run for office if they did not like thecouncilmember’s opinion.

Reynolds said that that was a major departure from the current citizen led committees who are appointed by the Mayor. She said the liaison was currently not supposed to be giving the direction; it was the Mayor’s job.

Sipe agreed that it was a major change, however the committees would still be independent but their Charter would be set by the department official.

Reynolds and Guthrie agreed that it was a significant change. Guthrie said that the committees were supposed to be independently and voluntarily operating and the liaison was to assist and be a go-between. She said that what comes out of committees in the form of recommendations could be very different if the Council member is directing and managing their meetings.

Sipe said that department Officials do not necessarily go to the meetings but they would be responsible for setting the bounds of the department.

Guthrie said that there was much more of a likelihood that the committee would be directed and micro-managed by the councilmember in that situation.

Sipe said that in 2004 there were a number of documents that defined the committees roles, but there were some conflicts in Council meetings when there were disagreements about which areas were appropriate for that committee. He said other committees may have had overlapping and similar responsibilities. However, the purpose of the committee should be to support the department.

Guthrie said that currently the committee could go outside their area of responsibility when there was a grey area but Council did not have to accept their recommendation if they disagreed. The committees were still able to make the recommendation. Under the new system, the Council person could in theory say that the committee may not make that recommendation.

Sipe disagreed, he said Guthrie made it sound as though the committee would be muzzled and Guthrie agreed that it was a concern. Sipe said however, that the Council member would not be part of the committee, they would only be in charge of the Charter of the group to set their mission. The change would be that the Mayor would not set the mission, the Council member would set it. He said that the Chairpersons could still come to a Council meeting and speak openly about their recommendation

Guthrie said that currently one central source is able to oversee all the committees but with the new ordinance it would be managed by five different people. She said that it increases the likelihood of gaps or redundancy, as one person was not overseeing the missions as a whole.

Sipe disagreed, he said that this year the guidance the committees were given caused direct overlaps.

Guthrie suggested that a whole new system does not need to be created as a result of one bump in the road.

Sipe said there had been several bumps in the road. Guthrie said she was not aware of them.

Guthrie said she had specific feedback about specific sentences that needed changing. She said it did not change her concerns about accountability, checks and balances and the balance of authority.

Reynolds said that it was also the first time she had heard of bumps in the road with the committees and that magnifies the problem, if Council as a body does not know about bumps in the road now. She said there were no reports from committees saying that.

Cohen said that was not the case, Council disagreed with what the Conservancy committee were insisting upon, they did another survey in the community and it came back the opposite direction. He said in that case they were either not getting the right direction or were not listening to their mission. He said that this had occurred over and over. He said it did not work as it is.

Guthrie said the Conservancy is a perfect example of why she has an issue with the new ordinance. She said she was the liaison to that committee and she believed that as liaison she was to assist them and be a go-between. She said it was wrong to say ‘I will tell you what the outcome of your decision will be.’ They had recommendations that some members of Council did not like. She said she had explained to the committee what citizens were saying, but as a volunteer group of citizens, they should have the right and opportunity to make any recommendations they want to. Council does not have to agree and pass it, just be willing to hear what citizen groups say. Otherwise there is no reason to have a committee if we are going to dictate what the committee should say. Sipe disagreed that would happen, but Guthrie pointed out that Cohen had used the Conservancy as an example.

Sipe said it was not a good example, the new ordinance just changes who sets the mission from the Mayor to the department official and nothing else. If no one is appointed to the position, the Mayor is the department official.

Guthrie said she was concerned about the way employees and committees could be potentially managed.

Zielazienski said that Sipe had spent a lot of time and effort. She said it was a small City that cannot afford a City Manager. A good Council member needs to serve the community by having hands on involvement. Giving a report is not the same as being involved, and understanding where the problems lie. She said she wanted to know what the community was thinking and feeling. She said to move in some direction to accomplish that was a positive thing.

Guthrie agreed but she said she thought it could be done by being liaisons and choosing to be involved, in a lot of different ways. If a Council member is liaison to a committee, it does not mean that another Council member cannot be interested in what they are doing. She said that she does not have a problem giving Council members delegated authority for certain projects or large areas on an as-need basis.

Zielazienski said that the committee can currently chose to invite the liaison or not, and she would like to see that change. She said it puts the liaison in a difficult position and it cuts off their ability to interact with the community.

Guthrie said she would not see a problem in changing that where liaisons do attend meetings. She said the only reason committees had not wanted to invite their liaisons was due to issues such as conflicts of interests, misunderstandings of who was in charge and situations where chairpersons felt as though Council members were undermining them. She said she had concerns that it could become a bigger problem rather than a lesser problem with the new ordinance.

Reynolds said she also had concerns about personality and dealing with those issues. She said that Zielazienski was in a unique position in that she was previously Public Works Director and was accustomed to reporting to Council and the Mayor on a regular basis. She said she didn’t feel that Zielazienski had ever overstepped her bounds in any position like that. Her background may have helped her so well in filling that role now on Council as a delegated person in charge of public works. Reynolds said she did not have the confidence that another Council member would understand the limitations of the role as well as Zielazienski has, and that she had done an excellent job in that role.

Sipe said that there may be some issues to start with but it was important to note that a majority of Council needed to agree that the person could do the job, with a vote of confidence. Anything inappropriate could mean that they can be removed.

Guthrie said it sounded good in theory but it may not happen in actuality. She said that a previous citizen comment noted that there could be perception problems and ramifications in the community if a Council member were removed and the reasons are not known and it could make someone look bad in public.

Sipe said that it would not be brought up in Council at first, there would be personal one to one discussion first.

Guthrie asked what would happen if a whole committee wants their liaison removed, would it be brought to Council and openly discussed. Guthrie said it would be intimidating to come before Council. The process to remedy it is much more regimented and public. It is currently a more informal situation.

Sipe said that the Council member would have the support of the Council as the department official. The Mayor would speak to the department official. Sipe said that there had also been a lot of successes with the committees and it was a new system. He would like to see that the friction that had happened before structurally would not happen again.

Guthrie agreed that the committee system had been successful and that there were not as many problems as were being described. She said she totally disagreed if the issue was that the committees did not agree with the decisions Council wanted. She said the problems have been isolated.

Zielazienski agreed and said she had seen any problems resolved in a friendly way.

Salter also reiterated that and said she was shocked to hear there were supposed to be so many problems with the committees, She said that was not the case, and situations were resolved in a friendly manner. Some of it had to do with any new system and finding our way. She said she did not remember instructions being different between Mayor and Council. She said the instructions she gave were exactly what Council had agreed upon at the beginning of the year and were to do with the independence of the committees. Salter said even if they disagreed with their liaisons, the committees should be able to give their recommendations and Council did not have to agree. She said she did not see any harm in that.

Sipe said the frictions were exaggerated but there were cases when there was friction when two committees started looking at the same area. The Mayor did not see that they were covering the same ground but he said he did not know who was giving them a different direction.

Salter asked how personality clashes between the Council member and committees could be resolved. She said that she believed that was the biggest issue that arose from the committees, rather than the difference in mission instructions.

Sipe said he thought the problem stemmed from the changes in mission, and that the way the missions are decided should be changed. Nothing else needs to be changed.

Guthrie said that the main difference was that the Mayor did not attend the committee meetings and was not involved in them. There is potential for the Council member to become in charge of the committee.

Reynolds said if the Mayor appoints the committee and the Council member alienates the committee, the committee members would just quit.

Sipe said that everyone should be concerned if that was the case and the Council member would be answerable to his or her peers on Council.

Guthrie said that you would have to rely on the Council member telling everyone that there was a problem.

Sipe said he was sure everyone would find out anyway. He said that he didn’t feel these problems would arise.

Reynolds said that it could be harder to get volunteers on the committees.

Tom Kitchens- 150 Bayway Circle
Kitchens said the City was lucky to have the committees manned by volunteers. He said they work hard to present their ideas to the City, and they should be not discouraged. He said if council members act to give guidance and not direction that everyone benefits, he asked that they listen to their ideas but not discourage them. Council does not have to adopt them. The City will gain more that way, by using knowledge and expertise to guide the committees.

Kitchens said some of his concerns had been addressed. He asked for clarification on section 3-602.1 and Sipe explained it to him. He said the Council would only be able to take away the authority of a department official and not a City employee.

Guthrie also questioned 3-302.4 where the change would mean that the Council would have to approve disciplining an employee. She asked for clarification of ‘discipline’.

Sipe said that the department official would be in charge of basic discipline but hiring and firing would still be Council’s role, as in the Charter.

Kitchens asked that good judgment be used as he had been involved in a difficult situation with Council and one employee before. He also asked about the authority for signing contracts.

Sipe said currently in 3-504.2j the City Manager was able to execute contracts, which was actually in violation of the charter, which requires the Mayor to sign contracts. Sipe said that it has been changed so the department would co-sign a contract with the Mayor but the City attorney said that it may not be enforceable or legally binding.

Guthrie said that it also conflicts with 3-302.6 and the Mayor’s duties. She said she thought it was the time for this to also be cleared up as well. She suggested that the department official reviews and approves the contract before the Mayor signs it versus co-signing.

Sipe said he had no problem with that.

Pam Williamson 3996 Berkeley Lake Rd.
Williamson said she strongly agreed with Guthrie and Reynolds’ points. She said she felt that watering down accountability means potentially watering down unity to operate efficiently and effectively. She said that it was a good desire to have volunteers but council members as individuals and as a group need to be open to citizen comments and input. She said she was, and still is, part of the Conservancy and knows how it all transpired, and she appreciated Guthrie allowing the group to give their opinion. It did allow them to go back and review after and allow them to grow as a committee. Everyone should be able to have own his or her opinion. She said she had a concern that that freedom is in jeopardy and this new structure could restrict it.

Sipe said it was not his intention to hurt committees, but the opposite. He said that considering all of this discussion, there was obviously a need for the text to be clarified to show the kind of guidance the department official can give for the department’s operation. He said it could be made clear that the committees can bring other things to the attention of the department official and that they should be shared with council. The guidance given should be for the benefit of the department. It is not the role of the department official not to allow the committee to move beyond their mission.

Williamson said she still has an issue with the concept of a department official. She said she felt that 3-602 might function ideally but in reality it may limit more than promote. She said it was from experience.

Sipe said he would look harder at the section. He said the point of the ordinance was to try to divide up the work as there are now more and more things that have to be done. He said there was also a lot of experience on Council and he hoped that they could take on part of the workload without costing the City more.

Williamson said she was still concerned and she gave an example of the clerk having to report to different departments. If an invoice needed paying for Public works, then she would have to go to the finance department and the public works department.

Sipe said that the clerk would be in charge of the administration department but that the departments may have to be defined further.

Guthrie asked whether it would become harder for citizens to know whom to ask, as currently they ask the Mayor and she is able to tell them. She asked if the Mayor would have to forward questions to the department officials and the process would be longer and more difficult for citizens.

Reynolds said that everyone can and does go to the City Clerk, and she deals with most problems or forwards questions on. Council members do not work at City hall or have office hours and the clerk will still do the work. She said it might be hard for citizens to get hold of department officials.

Sipe said that the clerk will still know the information, but just as it currently is - she cannot send someone to fill a pothole - but would know who to ask to do that.

Williamson said she still felt that unnecessary bureaucracy was being created to deal with something that is not broken. She said it was adding additional layers, which were not necessary.

Sipe said the goal of the defined structure was to stop people stepping on each other’s toes and so everyone knows what their roles are and to create some department official accountability.

Guthrie asked about 3-602.2 b. She asked if it changed the way the budget would have to be designed. For example, professional services, where different departments may be responsible for money in the same line item. It may need a department budget instead. It would also be hard to track.

Williamson said that the budget may need to be changed to allow for this and departments created with authorization cards. She said that it would create another layer of bureaucracy, which will impact the way we set the budget.

Sipe said that some departments are not budgeted. He said that others fall cleanly under line items already in the budget. He said he felt it did not need a revamp of the accounting system.

Guthrie said that budget issues should be considered. It is a reality. She described where the issue would be with the line item of professional services, which covered four different departments. She said that it is a valid point and should not be ignored.

Sipe said that it could be addressed, he suggested the budget could be broken down into departments but he did not think it was necessary, he also suggested other guidelines could be developed to show what the approved expenditures would be. He said the Mayor would still have to write the checks and her role would ensure that the budget would be kept and not exceeded in different areas. He suggested that it could be kept the same and to wait and see if problems do develop with budget issues, which he did not think would be the case. He said if it did, then it would be fixed.

Guthrie said that it would still involve extra work by the clerk for example, she would need to verbally tell people budget numbers, which could change on a regular basis.

Sipe said he didn’t think it would change what was currently working and would not create further bureaucracy. He said that council should focus on the things that are changing, and not the things that are not.

Zielazienski said she thought that the current ordinance does need to be fixed. She said the City is operating on assumptions as there is no City Manager, and it is assumed that the Mayor steps in and takes over. She said the Council could assume to do the same and it needed to be changed.

Salter thanked everyone for the useful discussion.

Sipe said that he still hoped that Council would still be able to vote on it at the next meeting. He agreed to withdraw the motion to place on second read and adopt and motioned to postpone adopting the amended Chapter 3 until the next meeting.

Chapter 3 Ordinance Enforcement amendment (first read 11/18) – Sipe
Sipe also postponed the adoption of the Ordinance Enforcement amendment until the next meeting as there were further suggestions that had come up for it too. However he also said he was 100% committed to follow the Arbitration Board’s recommendations and hoped that it could be adopted at the next meeting.

Other
Salter said that she had spoken to Charlie Sewell, the OEO, at the request of Council, regarding not posting his report on the web site due to crime potential concerns.

Salter said that the clerks were currently working on a records retention policy for City Hall. She said she hoped there would be something to review by January.

Salter said that Jackie Henderson was ready to donate the mill property and that she had given the information to Carothers. She hoped that it would be ready to resolve to accept the donation at the next meeting.

Salter said that a notice to the citizens about the new Waste service would be included in the Mayors Message, which will be delivered with the directory. The current trash collector has been given notice to collect the trash cans by the day after the last collection (Thursday 30th December) and the new trash cans will be delivered on Friday 31st December.

NEW BUSINESS
Salter asked Council about some props for a play which would left in the chapel during the January 20th meeting. Council said it would not interfere with the meeting.

Carothers was asked to send a substitute to the first meeting on January 6th as he is unable to attend the meeting.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ZIELAZIENSKI MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:52 PM. GUTHRIE SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED.