Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 11/03/2014 - MINS 11 03 14 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm Page 1 of 14 This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form . This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on November 3, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Reverend Calvin Odhner, Morning Star Chapel, Milton, Georgia. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLLCALL Present: Councilmember Thunnan, Councilmember Kunz, Council member Lusk, Councilmember Hewitt , Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Mohrig. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by the Sons ofthe American Revolution) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Agenda Item No . 14-290) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes: • Add an Executive Session to discuss Land Acquisition and Personnel before the Public Hearing. Council member Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). PUBLIC COMMENT Charles Lancelot, 13372 Providence Park Drive, Milton, Georgia 30009 Good evening honorable Councilmembers and Mayor Lockwood. I am here to strongly support the City of Milton's desire to have the park transferred , as it should be, from the county to the city and to be Re g ular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , November 3, 2014 at 6 :00 pm Page 2 of 14 restored to its use as a nature park. I wrote a letter which I submitted to all of the Councilmembers and the Mayor a week ago and I would like to enter that letter into record and the meeting tonight. I just wanted to take a few minutes to hit the high spots in the letter. There are two key issues here. The first issue is the claim by certain Fulton County Commissioners that the park is unused, surplus property. It is most certainly not unused (even though it has been closed) and most certainly not surplus property. It was very actively used by very many groups before it was closed such as the Boy Scouts, the Cub Scouts, and scores of private citizens. It is , and always has been , a wonderful recreational area. When the Evergrace buyers were looking to buy their homes in the Evergrace area, which is right adjacent to the park , that was one of their questions, when was the park going to be reopened? The fact their homes were next to a nature park was a major factor in their buying decisions. I don't think it needs comment to say that the park has been anything but unused even during its closure. The fact that Fulton County has been as vigorous as they have in trying to enforce its closure kind of speaks to the point that it is not unused. The other key issue is the desire to transfer the park to the highest bidder and the highest bidder we assume would be a commercial to our residential developer. That park was built as a nature park with nature trails, because it was not possible to put the kind of structures on there that are in other parks like Wills Park and the parks up by Buford Dam, because of the poor percolation. It is a quarry , and it has very rocky topography. The fact is , as mentioned in my letter to the council , the properties nearest to the park, when they were being excavated to build the last few Evergrace houses , had to be dynamited to get down through that rock . The park is a total of 42 acres and a majority of the 42 acres is the quarry itself, characterized with rock outcroppings and steep embankments. In addition to the poor percolation properties, how much of this rocky topography can actually be residentially developed? When Evergrace was built, it was built with three detention Ponds: A, Band C. In the letter I submitted to the Council , I erroneously referred to the detention Pond C , I meant the detention Pond B and the letter which I am entering into the record tonight refers to detention Pond B. Detention Pond B empties into a stream, which was relocated as the Evergrace builders redid the topography. The stream empties into a small lake called Copeland Lake. That lake filled up with mud and sediment during the building because of all the mud runoff during construction and had to be dredged. Since that subdivision was built, silt, mud and dirt has continued to runoff and the streams downstream of Providence Lake have continued to fill up with silt. After very heavy rainfalls the stream's geography itself changes significantly. The banks have been filled up with sand and silt and aerial views of the upstream end of Providence Lake show heavy silt buildup as well. The reason for that is , when Evergrace Subdivision was built, the builders classified that property as "grassy waterway". Grassy waterway runs off fast and if the runoff is fast when you get there , you do not have that much runoff to try to contain especially when you are looking at that developed land with asphalt , concrete and houses on it. As a result, since they classified the land as "grassy waterway " they were able to undersize the detention ponds. In fact , the Evergrace land before the development was identical to Providence Park today which is "forested with heavy ground cover". In other words Providence Park and the land prior to Evergrace were actively retaining the groundwater. When the development was built there went the retention. The reason they had to undersize the detention ponds , as I mentioned before having to do with the heavy rock fOlmation , was because they could not go down further than they had because they were already at the minimum depth required to be at the minimum distance from bedrock. They could not go down and they could not go laterally because that would cut into their revenue generating building potential. All of this goes to say, you have a rocky topography, poor percolation properties, you will not be able to build proper detention ponds and you will have the same situation occurring that you have occurring now, except you will be directly running into Providence Lake. I have not written yet to the Soil and Water Conservation Supervisor for the district. I did not want to do that before I had this conversation with the Council , but I do think environmentally any attempt to develop that land residentially would be very harmful to the lake and to the surrounding environment. For all these reasons and for the fact there is a rather large Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm Page 3 of 14 contingent of residents/citizens that want that park restored as it once was, that I am strongly in support of your position and I will do anything you gentlemen and lady require of me now and going forward to bolster your position. Mayor Lockwood Thank you very much for your comments. Sudie, if you will add the letter into the record I know we have it as an email. In general to the public, the City of Milton is very interested in keeping that as a park. CONSENT AGENDA l. Approval of the September 22, 2014 Regularly Scheduled Council Meeting Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 14-291) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) 2. Approval of the September 29, 2014 Special Called Council Meeting Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 14-292) (Sudie Gordon, City Cl erk) 3. Approval of the October 6, 2014 Regularly Scheduled Council Meeting Minutes. (Agenda Item No . 14 -293) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) 4. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and TriScapes, Inc. for the "Thompson Road/Cedar Creek Stonnwater Improvement Project." (Agenda Item No. 14-294) (Cart er Lucas, Assistant C ity Manager) 5 . Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton and Gulf Coast Sports, LLC, for the Construction of Two Covered Dugouts at Hopewell Middle School. (Agenda Item No. 14-295) (Jim Cregge , Parks & Recreation Director) 6. Approval of a Contract Renewal between the City of Milton and AT&T for Broadband Services. (Agenda Item No . 14-296) (David Frizzell, IT Manager) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Thunnan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation Recognizing Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month. (Mayor Joe Lockwood) 2. Proclamation Recognizing Veterans Day 2014. (Presented by Councilmember Bill Lusk) Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3,2014 at 6:00 pm Page 4 of 14 FIRST PRESENTA TION 1. RZ14-14 -Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Section 64-1596 Event; Special Indoor/Outdoor, of the City of Milton, Georgia Code of Ordinances to Include Provisions of Chapter 34, Article III, Division 2, to Streamline the Existing Regulation of Special Events; and to Limit Sales from Vehicles at Special Events; to Provide for the Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances; to Provide an Effective Date; and for Other Lawful Purposes. (Agenda Item No. J4-297) (Jason Wright , Dire ctor of Innovation and Engagement) 2. Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 46, Solid Waste, Article II, Littering, Section 46-24, to Require Construction Site Operators to Properly Dispose of Building Materials and Waste at a Construction Site that may Cause Adverse Impacts to Water Quality. (Agenda Item No. 14-298) (Cart er Lucas, Assistant City Manager) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to approve the First Presentation Items. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). The following Executive Session was held immediately following the First Presentation Items as approved by Motion and Vote during the Approval ofthe Meeting Agenda. EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to go into Executive Session to discuss Land Acquisition and Personnel at 6:34 p.m. Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). RECONVENE Motion and Vote: Council member Longoria moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). PUBLIC HEARING (None) ZONING AGENDA (Non e) Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monda y, November 3, 20 J 4 at 6 :00 pm Page 5 of 14 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Offering for Sale of Transferable Development Rights in Certain City-Owned Property ; Authorizing the Imposition of a Conservation Easement and/or Public Access Easement on Said City Property; and for Other Purposes. (Agenda Item No. 14-281) RESOLUTION NO. 14-11-316 (D eferred at October 6, 2014 Coun cil Mee ting to Octob er 20, 2014 Regular City Co uncil Meeting) (Deferr ed at October 20, 2014 Coun cil Meeting to November 3, 2014 Regular City Council Meetin g) (Kathlee n Field, Community Developm ent Dire ctor) PUBLIC COMMENT Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Good evening Mayor and Council. I am not for this transaction. I believe much of the controversy about the transaction lies in the lack of understanding by all of us: community , staff and Council. I do not profess to be an e x pert on land conservation but I have taken untold hours to try to understand it by reading and speaking to experts. To clarify , we have two parts to TDR (Transferable Development Rights). The first focuses on the developer, the number ofTDR units and the financial viability for that developer. This area also includes the density bonus ratio for the Crabapple and Deerfield receiving areas , the demand for TDR by developers, and the number ofTDR units that a land owner has on his property available for the transaction. This side of the TDR program appears to be understood fairly well by most of the stakeholders including the City-Owned Development Department and the City Attorney. This makes since because the Staffs expertise is development and it is obvious they are quite good at that. The other piece of the TDR transaction involves the Land Owner Conservation process. Even if the TDR units are identified and agreed upon price is obtained there is a fairly complicated, lengthy and costly process that has to be worked through just to put an easement on a property. If the property has a mortgage the bank has to sign offon the placement of the easement on the property. To accomplish this, there has to be a survey done to show the easement and then a very specialized appraisal must be done to show the value before and after the easement. This appraisal has to be done by a certified appraiser that has specialized knowledge and experience with conservation transactions. In addition , an entity that is usually a third party in the form of a Land Trust has to agree to accept the easement for supervision. As far as I know, many of these important details on the conservation part of the transaction are unknown at this time. Aside from my previous mention, opposition to this transaction is because conservation of City-Owned park land is not necessary , nor appropriate for this land preservation tool. My biggest concern is what we do not know. As I have mentioned before I have not found any examples of a city using City-Owned land for TDR transactions . The consequences of this unusual use of this program are completely unknown. In fact, there are so many details of this specific TDR transaction that are unknown that I do not know how anyone could vote on it. Just as in any sale of public land there are specific details that need to be documented and made public such as what specific acreage on the Bell Memorial Plat is being used for the easement. Is it part of the expansion or was it prior owned? This is important because the ordinance specifies a lease City Land purchase after the program went into effect can be used for TDR purposes. Another question is what kind of appraisal was obtained? I do not know the results of the appraisal and I do not know what kind of an appraisal was done. I know that there was something done related to appraising TDR value but we have to understand that TDR value is not necessarily conservation easement value. We need to determine what is the determined value of the TDR by unit, what is that appraisal and then what is the decrease in value on the park land due to the easement placed on it. While in theory , market value for TDR should be Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3,2014 at 6:00 pm Page 6 of 14 close to the loss of value on property due to conservation easement. We do not know if this is true unless conservation easement appraisal has been done with the proper value of the property before and after the easement. The other question is who is going to hold the easement and supervise its use? To my knowledge, no third party has been contacted to hold the easement and it is wildly accepted to be a conflict of interest for the city to hold an easement on its own land. In addition, if the sale goes through at a much lower price than private land owners want their TDRs this will discourage land owners from participating in this arduous process to apply for acceptance to the program and later putting an easement on their property. At this point , I am asking why this transaction is being put through when so many aspects of the process remain unknown. There are many aspects of this program we do not understand. At this point I see there is no benefit to the community from this transaction and I do not see how it facilitates the TDR program other than getting a developer his units and the city some recompense. That does not mean there is not a value to do this transaction for the community but I am not seeing it right now. We really do not have enough information to make this determination. I think we really need to take the time to preform thorough due diligence before this decision is made . Thank you. City Manager Lagerbloom Before you tonight is this resolution again. This is the third time it has been here. This is the one that authorizes the Offering for Sale of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) on certain City-Owned property being that at Bell Memorial Park . We have deferred this item for a couple of weeks and in the that time there have been no new private landowners that have come forward with development rights that have been able to be transferred or offered for sale for an assortment of reasons. I can tell you that if in fact you want to move forward with this authorization tonight, in essence, what this does is directs us to the public sale. It does not transfer development rights , it does not approve any conservation easements and it does not do anything that directs us to go to that market. As you know the appraisal we have received on this is more of a receiving site appraisal , an academic evaluation, opposed to an appraisal that values some type of conservation dollars because that is what was available to us and we could rely upon with some reasonable certainty that the public was confident it was getting its value. We do not believe that the City of Milton is the right agency to hold the conservational easement. We have explored Land Bank Option in the last couple of weeks as the Council directed, and I do not believe that there is any legal liability for that to exist for this purpose either. We have a very strong interest from two different Land Trusts. One has agreed to hold the easement at Bell Memorial Park and the other conceptually believes that they will be willing to hold the easement but they certainly would want to visit the property first. Also recognize that any revenues the Council might generate as a product of this conservation initiative could be used to preserve other Land-In Fee elsewhere in Milton. We have had all those discussions and the good news tonight is that we have honed in on who can hold the easement. It will not be us or a Land Bank but ultimately will be one of two Land Trusts. I shy away from disclosing who they are because we want to make sure we that we remain with some competitiveness as far as endowment and dollars that would be paid as part of the transaction . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3,2014 at 6:00 pm Page 7 of 14 Kathleen Field, Community Development Director I would just like to reiterate, Mr. Mayor, this vote tonight should you vote in favor is to allow us to go out to bid based on the bidding procedure of the city. Any vote to actually sell the TDRs would come back to you for that. Mayor Lockwood Just to clarify, Kathy and Chris, there are a couple of issues we have addressed. Potential Land Trust could hold this if it were to happen and also a couple of proposals and thoughts with other private owners that might be interested. After vetting those out these have fallen through, correct? Kathleen Field That is correct. Mayor Lockwood That is part of the reason we had deferred this for the past month. Any questions? City Manager Lagerbloom If there is a motion offered tonight to offer support for this resolution, in the third "Whereas" clause, after the bracketed 3.819 acres in line three of that paragraph insert the wording "or other Milton Park Property." I think that you would understand what the purpose of adding that would be to this resolution. Councilmember Lusk Why would we restrict it to just park property? City Manager Lagerbloom My only thought there for the purpose of this resolution is it specifically calls out Bell Memorial Park. And to the extinct we have other park property that would be eligible or acquire other park property that would be eligible, by adding that simple clause we would not alleviate an opportunity that mayor may not exist in the next couple of months. Councilmember Kunz The one thing I worry about is existing park property we already have. If we include an acquisition of park property as part of our discussion with a TDR option for what we acquire, I think that would make most sense in the spirit of what we were trying to do. Trying to throw TDRs on parks we have owned for years may not be in that spirit and if there is a way we can motion that in that manner. Is there a phrasing we might be able to have in that transaction? City Manager Lagerbloom Yes, that has already been addressed . Property owned prior to the approval of the TDR does not qualify. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm Page 8 of 14 Mayor Lockwood Based on public conunent and our citizens with concerns we have explored several options and I think we have made some changes to accommodate and go in the right direction. Councilmember Mohrig I am passed the legality of yes, we can do this, but back to looking at green space preservation and conservation, I do not really see how this transaction really translates into accomplishing that other than we can get some dollars to buy some green space. That is my concern with this specific transaction. CouDcilmember Thurman Is there a way, as a part of this motion, to add to it that any net funds acquired in the sale of the TDRs be set aside for other conservation purposes? City Attorney Ken Jarrard We would not do it now but when it actually sales. Councilmember Longoria This is not a transaction, this is not a sale, this is not anything other than the authorization for the City of Milton to pursue the idea that the Bell Memorial Park property could be used as part of a TDR transaction but there is a whole lot more we have to do to make that determination. City Attorney Jarrard We would use this resolution as the authorization to go out and solicit bids for that very transaction. Councilmember Mohrig Where I get caught up in this is where it says "Executive Summary: This is a request to authorize the sale for TDR credits to assist an assisted living developer with his density requirements". I read that as a specific transaction that we are talking about. Councilmember Longoria Yes, that is poor word choice. I read the resolution and I did not get that out of that. City Attorney Jarrard We would have to make very clear as part of the bid process that even a successful bidder is still subject to the final ratification by Council. City Manager Lagerbloom That is potentially a nuance because when we go to bid and we put a reserve price in there, there is some thought that if someone meets the reserve price you are committing to doing the transaction. I heard from the Council, regardless of that, just meeting the reserve of the public bid does not commit the Council to update. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , November 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm Page 9 of 14 City Attorney Jarrard The Council wants to have this even if they meet the reserve back in front of you and then you be presented with that and then you decide yes or no at that point. Council member Lusk That terminology is included in the bid solicitation? City Attorney Jarrard Yes. Councilmember Mohrig We do not have to change anything in terms of the wording of what is in the resolution itself to cover that? Mayor Lockwood You want us to ratify that? City Manager Lagerbloom I did not see any council member object to that so I will take that as direction. Councilmember Longoria I move to approve a resolution on the Offering for Sale of Transferable Development Rights in Certain City-Owned Property; Authorizing the Imposition of a Conservation Easement and/or Public Access Easement on Said City Property; and for Other Purposes, Agenda Item No. 14-281 with the provision that in the third "Whereas" clause, after the bracketed 3.819 acres in line tlrree of that paragraph insert the wording "or other Milton Park Property." Councilmember Thurman I will second it. City Manager Lagerbloom I just want to point to section tlrree, if you questioned whether or not the direction needed to be in writing it says that final documentation transferring the development rights should be submitted to the Council for approval and ratification . Your direction that we captured is also written. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 14-281 with the provision that in the third "Whereas" clause, after the bracketed 3.819 acres in line tlrree of that paragraph insert the wording "or other Milton Park Property." Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion . The motion passed (6-1). Councilmember Mohrig was in opposition. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , November 3,2014 at 6 :00 pm Page 10 of 14 Councilmember Kunz I absolutely agree that the city should be acquiring land and buying TDRs. Although, that has not been the precedent in other states, I have no fear of us doing that. I think it will be a good thing especially if we are looking at the TDR program as a bank that allows us to acquire the land. The public will benefit from this program . I don't think we should use the program for land conservation as far as existing land because that defeats the purpose. I think Karen has a good idea about establishing a fund for conservation initiatives. I support this proposal. NEW BUSINESS 1. Consideration of a Resolution Amending Milton Grows Green Bylaws. (Agenda Item No. 14-299) RESOLUTION NO. 14-11-317 (Chris Lagerbloom . City Manager) Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager This is a request to amend the Milton Grows Green bylaws. Milton Grows Green asked if they could put together a sub-committee to look at their bylaws to see if there was room for modifications to be made. This is possibly version 18 or 19. It was thoroughly reviewed. These changes restructure the board and reduces its board members from 13 to 7 which will create more efficiency. Milton Grows Green has asked for these modifications . I may look at these changes and think they are somewhat restrictive and I requested that they make sure they can adhere to the modifications that they are requesting. They have assured me that the changes are consistent with the way they want to operate. The council has the authority to override any of these recommendations. Ken Jarrard, City Attorney This resolution is ratifying the Milton Grows Green committee bylaws and it is amending the creation resolution because the bylaws as amended are different than the creation resolution that was originally adopted several years ago. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve Agenda Item No. 14-299 . Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 2. Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and VC3 , Inc. for Cloud-based IT Services. (Agenda Item No. 14-300) (David Fri zzell. IT Manager) David Frizzell, IT Manager About a year ago , Councilmember Longoria and the City Manager had a discussion regarding the benefits of changing to a Cloud-based IT system. After a lot of research and many discussions and meetings, we agreed upon some criteria that we would want for the city. • A resilient infrastructure. We currently have a stable infrastructure and it is backed-up off-site. If anything were to happen to city hall, it would require us to buy new hardware, etc. to get it back up and running. By moving to the Cloud-based system , we would be a virtual network Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3,2014 at 6:00 pm Page II of 14 where we would not be restricted if anything happened to the hardware. We would be much more resilient. • Access from anywhere. If you remember, the snowstorm that we had last January kept a lot of employees home for a few days. With the cloud system, employees are able to work from home at all times. • Increased support. We will have 2417 monitoring with the cloud system. Filtering, fire wall , spam coverage, etc. will be in an expanded format. We will have experts in each field that we need. • Cost effective solution. The cloud system we have chosen gives us the best features for the best pnce. • Keep us on the competitive edge in the future. We will be ready to hit the ground running at the new city hall in the next few years. Our technology will keep up with the changing times. So, we spoke to several vendors and visited different cities to see the technology in use. We engaged in discussions about the pros and cons of the cloud system. From this information that we gathered, we decided that we needed the following features: • A virtual environment for our applications, servers, and users to have a virtual desktop that they can access from anywhere. • Software support for our third party applications. • 2417 monitoring and phone support; a help desk that is available 2417. • The ability to bring on board partners to support our changing needs in the future such as share point, voice over IP phones, etc. After many discussions with local and out-of-state vendors, we believe that VC3 is the best candidate for this job. They have twenty years of experience on small to medium sized government which was very important to us. We wanted to make sure we had someone that understood how government works. They have the most comprehensive services that meet all the criteria that we wanted. There were other vendors that we looked at that could offer some of the requests that we needed but not all of them. In addition, they did not have the government experience. After a year of a lot of hard work and research, we are confident that VC3 can meet all of our needs now and in the future. Councilmember Longoria I have reviewed the contract and everything looks good except I think their professional service rates are higher than what I have seen in the market recently. I could probably have accepted the higher rates but when they added that they charge for their travel time, I am upset about that. David Frizzell There are 16 hours of travel time built into the contract. Any hours in excess of 16 hours will be charged. Counci1member Thurman When will implementation begin? David FrizzeH As soon as we have a signed contract we wil1 go into the implementation phase immediately. We are planning to be completely live by February 2015. It takes 3-4 months to complete the total migration into the cloud . The majority of the time is needed for pilot testing. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm Page 12 of 14 Ryan Wilson, Director of Regional Offices, VC3 We have been in business for 20 years. We have offices in Raleigh, NC and Decatur, GA. Our corporate office is located in Columbia, SC and we just opened an office in Alabama. We have about 95 employees and 80% of them are engineers. David Frizzell There is a 60 month term; renewable arumally. Motion and Vote: Council member Longoria moved to approve Agenda Item No. 14-300. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 3. Consideration of a Sole Source Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton, GA and Laurel A. Florio for Land Conservation Consulting Services. (Agenda Item No. 14-301) (Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager) Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager This contract would extend and move us beyond the conservation plan phase in our conservation initiative to actually have some land conservation transactions occur. My direction to the City Attorney in creating this contract was if things are moving along and we have more conservation transactions than we know what to do with, then this contract could extend until December 31,2015. However, that is contingent upon the council adding funding to allow it to continue. My recommendation is that there is value in continuing to proceed with this initiative. The first funding that has been approved for this in the budget but is amendable is $30,000. If you feel more comfortable with a status update at $15,000, that can be approved as well. Councilmember Lusk Actually, this is a $40,000 contract. There is an option to increase it through a change order by $10,000. City Attorney Jarrard That is correct. Councilmember Lusk The contract indicates that there are six different tasks to be addressed. Are they stated in the priority that we are looking for? How are we going to evaluate performance or completion on each of the tasks? City Manager Lagerbloom We are trying to define the appropriate direction in how to move from conservation planning to conservation deliver in the form of actual conservation transactions. It is a very difficult area to define because the consultant can do everything correctly but not necessarily get conservation transactions closed. There are many variables the consultant cannot control. -----~ -~---~---------- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, November 3, 2014 at 6:00 pm Page 13 of 14 Councilmember Longoria It seems to me that it is very difficult to measure whether progress is being made in this type of staff augmentation type of contract. There are no defined end points. We are not really sure what we are aiming at. An end result or target has not been defined. To Bill's point, we do not want to bum through our funding only to find out that we are not any closer to where we are trying to get to. We don't want to get in a situation where in order to get to the end point we have to keep engaging to get the results we are looking for. City Manager Lagerbloom I think progress will be made when a conservation contract has been completed and brought forward for our review and eventually recorded. Councilmember Thurman I would like to suggest that we get an update on her progress after $15,000 has been spent to make sure we are all on the same page. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thunnan made a motion to approve a sole source professional service agreement between the City of Milton, Georgia and Laurel A. Florio for Land Conservation Consulting Services, Agenda Item No. 14-301 stating the fact that the contract calls for an hourly rate of $150 per hour and the fact that after $15,000 of the contract has been expended, the City Manager or Laurel will bring back to Council an accounting of how the money has previously been spent. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). MA YOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS STAFF REPORTS City Manager Lagerbloom Please think of any questions you may have for Laurel when she gives a presentation at our upcoming Work Session on November loth. She would like an interactive discussion regarding her progress and initiatives. In addition, Patrick Burke with Fulton County Schools will give us an update regarding our school system. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday , November 3,2014 at 6:00 pm Page 14 of 14 ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No . 14-302) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:29 p.m. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). After no further discussion the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 8:29 p .m. Date Approved: December 1,2014. STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) AFFIDAVIT RE: CLOSURE OF COUNTY OF FULTON ) OPEN MEETINGS ) CITY OF MILTON ) Personally appeared before the undersigned officer, duly authorized under the laws of the State of Georgia to administer oaths, JOE LOCKWOOD, who in his capacity as Mayor and the person presiding over a Council meeting of the CITY OF MILTON, and after being first duly sworn, certifies under oath and states to the best of his knowledge and belief the following: At a Regularly Scheduled City Council Meeting held on November 3,2014, at 6:00 PM the Council voted to go into closed session and exclude the public from all or a portion of its meeting. The legal exceptions applicable to the exempt matters addressed during such closed meeting are as follows: [Check or initial as appropriate] 1. X discussion or voting to authorize negotiations to purchase, dispose of, or lease property; authorizing the ordering of an appraisal related to the acquisition or disposal of real estate; entering into contract to purchase, to dispose of, or lease property subject to approval in a subsequent public vote; or entering into an option to purchase, dispose of, or lease real estate subject to approval in a subsequent public vote pursuant to O.CO.A, 50-14-3(b)(1 )(B-E); 2. X discussing or deliberating upon the appointment, employment, compensation, hiring, disciplinary action or dismissal, or periodic evaluation or rating of a public officer or employee or interviewing applicants for the executive head of the city with the vote on any such matter coming in public pursuant to O.CO.A. 50-14-3(b)(2); 3. attorney/client privilege in order to consult and meet with legal counsel pertaining to pending or potential litigation, settlement, claims, administrative proceedings or other judicial actions brought or to be brought by or against the agency or any officer or employee or in which the agency or any officer or employee may be directly involved, pursuant to O.C.O.A. 50-14-2(1). 4. other (explanation): I certify that the subject matter of the closed meeting or the closed portion of the meeting was devoted to matters of official business or policy, with !~e-exceptions provided by law as set forth above. Notary Public My Commission Expi es: