HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 03/15/2007 - MINS 03 15 07 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 1 of 40
Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on March 15, 2007 at 5:30 PM, Mayor
Joe Lockwood presiding.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
City Clerk Marchiafava reminded everyone to silence their cell phones and pagers. Additionally, those wishing to
provide public comment during a public hearing or at the conclusion of the meeting under the public comment section are
required to complete a public comment card. They need to be turned in to the Clerk.
City Clerk Marchiafava called the roll.
Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Karen Thurman, Councilmember Julie Zahner Bailey, Councilmember Bill
Lusk, Councilmember Neal O’Brien, Councilmember Tina D’Aversa-Williams, and Councilmember Rick Mohrig.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
Councilmember Lusk asked to have his resolution to govern the conduct of City Council members as they relate to
Boards, Commissions and authorities added to the Agenda.
Councilmember Mohrig asked to remove Agenda Item Number 07-212, Approval of Monthly Invoice for Legal Fees
from the agenda.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the meeting agenda as amended. Councilmember
Lusk seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she would like to voice the same concern she has voiced in the past when we have
brought a resolution forward that has not gone through the full process and procedures. Based on that, she requested that
the Agenda not allow for the adoption or the addition of a new resolution that had not been publicly advertised and that
comment would be consistent with the discussion we had back on January 11, 2007.
Councilmember Thurman stated that it was her understanding that the resolution was regarding Councilmember’s
behavior and this was the same resolution that was discussed at our Work Session. The public has been made aware that
this would be on the Agenda at some point in time for us to discuss.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated as clarification that the process requires a Work Session, which was held on
Thursday, but that it was not part of the public agenda that has been provided on the website for preview by the public.
She stated this is a diversion of the process that was adopted back in November 2006.
Councilmember Thurman asked the City Clerk if this item was tabled at the Work Session.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated there is no formal action taken at a Work Session.
Councilmember Thurman then asked the City Clerk if she could clarification the procedure for adding resolutions and is
this acceptable to add.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated the normal process is that if it is discussed at a Work Session, it would be scheduled at
the next regularly scheduled meeting the next month, which in this case is April 12, 2007.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 2 of 40
Councilmember Lusk stated that he believes it is the option of the City Councilmembers to introduce a resolution at any
particular time.
Councilmember Mohrig stated it was his recollection that at the Work Session it was expected that this (resolution)
would be presented. He believes it should be kept in mind that this is basically an internal policy issue and would only
prevail upon the Councilmembers, and was driven by an interest in serving the community and the constituents. Based on
this regard, he stated that he would be comfortable addressing it tonight.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed 5-2, with Councilmember Zahner Bailey and
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams voting in opposition.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to address the Mayor and Council.
Jon Carroll, 2140 Country Ridge Rd, Milton, stated he was at the last meeting and has had several people to talk with
him who are confused about the discussion regarding the lawyer. It is very contentious to date and even with the Council.
He first wanted to express his belief that everything the City Attorney has done is above board and that the Council
agrees. He further agrees with most of the Councilmembers who believe we have gotten our monies worth from him.
However, with regard to the two Councilwomen who are concerned about how the Council is doing the auditing as well as
the approval process, he further understands they are sworn individuals and will fill out the documentation as directed by
the City Manager. What he is hearing is there appears to be a problem that the Council spent more money than they had
anticipated going directly to the City Attorney, and that the staff was concerned enough about it put forth an Ordinance to
control the spending. He further stated there was a contentious debate and then the Ordinance was not voted upon. He
said that the perception from the community is that there is a problem that is not being taken care of and the fear that this
type of situation can occur again in the future. What he would like to see with regard to the problems the Council had
with the Ordinance that the City Manager had put forward, and that the Council work this out. In the future there will be a
different City Attorney and different Councilmembers and he believes they are setting a precedent for the future. At
present everyone trusts each other, but in the future you may not feel that way. In the future the Councilmembers may
have to validate what the others members are doing and he believes that is more of a function of the City Manager. It has
been expressed to him from others that the spending is out of control and the Councilmembers do not want to do anything
about this. He believes this is not fair because that is not what has happened and that they have handled it correctly in the
past, but he believes they do need to pass an Ordinance in this regard.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of the January 11, 2007 Special Called Meeting Minutes.
2. Approval of the January 18, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
3. Approval of the January 25, 2007 Work Session Minutes.
4. Approval of the February 1, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes.
5. Approval of Financial Statements for the period ending February 2007.
Councilmember Mohrig asked if they wanted to defer one of these items, would this be the time to do so. As he
understands there is still discussion going on with regard to the January 11, 2007 minutes. He asked if this item could be
deferred until the next meeting.
Councilmember Thurman asked as a Point of Clarification, would this item be removed from the Agenda or just moved
down in the Agenda to where it can be discussed at a later time tonight.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that his intent was to defer it to the next meeting; however, if the Council desires to
discuss it tonight, he is open to that as well.
Councilmember Thurman stated it did not matter to her.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 3 of 40
Mayor Lockwood stated if we are taking it off, then it should be moved to the next meeting.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve Consent Agenda items 2, 3, 4 and 5 (2 Approval of the
January 18, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes, 3. Approval of the January 25, 2007 Work Session Minutes, 4. Approval of
the February 1, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes, and 5. Approval of Financial Statements for the period ending February
2007.). Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams stated for the record that these minutes are not verbatim minutes, but they are
someway not the complete minutes of each of the meetings that were held and she felt this was important to note. She
further stated it is a lot of information for the Council to recall and we have deferred and postponed in approving them.
So the recall is not as good as it could be if we were to have had them within a couple of weeks out and she felt it was
important for the record to reflect that these are not verbatim minutes.
Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
ZONING AGENDA
Mayor Lockwood stated that there were no items under the zoning agenda.
FIRST PRESENTATION
(Agenda Item No. 07-199)
1. Approval of an Ordinance to Adopt the Bond Schedule for Municipal Court and State Law Violations.
(Agenda Item No. 07-200)
2. Approval of an Ordinance to adopt the Uniform Rules of the City of Milton Municipal Court, Code of
Conduct for Non-Judicial Court Employees, and Indigent Defense Plan.
(Agenda Item No. 07-201)
3. Approval of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4, Municipal Court of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances.
(Agenda Item No. 07-202)
4. Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, Business Licensing of the Code of Ordinances to Adopt
Regulations for Licensing of Bail Bondsmen.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the First Presentation items listed above. Councilmember
Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Approval of an Ordinance Accepting the Georgia Municipal Employee Benefit System Official Plan Document for
Retirement Program. (Second Reading)
Ordinance No. 07-03-16
City Treasurer Wolfe stated this Ordinance outlines the details of the Georgia Municipal Employee Benefit retirement
plan. During the annual budget process, the benefits that go along and the budget that accompanies this benefit plan for
adoption, along with the budget, this Ordinance is simply to adopt the official planned document that has been drafted by
GMA’s legal staff that codifies the individual retirement benefit in the GMA plan. She further stated that State law
requires the Council to pass the official plan documents, although the funding, the concept and pieces of the plan were
approved during the budget process.
City Treasurer Wolfe also wanted to point out that the official plan document also names a six member Pension Board
and this board is meant to be a liaison between the City and GMA. This board will consist of the City Manager, City
Treasurer, City Clerk, City Attorney, Deputy Public Safety Director, a firefighter appointed by the Public Safety Director,
and a police officer appointed by the Public Safety Director.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 4 of 40
Councilmember Lusk asked when was the First Reading.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated it was the last Council meeting, March 1, 2007.
Councilmember Lusk asked if there were any other plans researched and proposed for use here.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated there were several layers to the retirement plan; there is the deferred compensation, a
voluntary plan for deferred compensation of Social Security retirement, and this contribution plan. We did decide to go
with GMA because in the metro area, many other municipalities and counties have GMA and this was a critical piece of
our recruitment for public safety employees.
Councilmember Lusk stated in speaking of other municipalities, he wanted to know if they have the exact same plan.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated that each municipality will have a plan document that fits their needs and their budget. She
stated that we have a 2.75% formulary. She stated as example, when Alpharetta was with GMA they had a 2% formulary;
Roswell (she believes) has a 2% formulary. Therefore, she stated that the formula and details of the plan document do
vary from municipality to municipality to meet that specific organization.
Councilmember Lusk asked what the administrative costs would be for this plan.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated that she did not have the details of the administrative costs, but she stated she could get that
as they are outlined in the plan documents and she did not have those in front of her. She further stated that GMA's
pension plan is very competitive in their administrative fees.
Councilmember Lusk asked if the City Treasurer had any idea how this plan would compare with other plans that are in
use by other municipalities.
City Treasurer Wolfe asked if he meant the GMA plan and it was affirmed. She then stated that the City’s formulary is
a more rich benefit than most. An average formulary for a GMA ranges from 1.5 and 2%; therefore she believes that the
2.75% really does give us a competitive edge in recruiting our public safety employees. She then stated there are some
formularies in other municipalities with GMA who are higher, but she believes that we are on the high end of average
with our formulary.
City Manager Bovos stated there are a couple of comments that he would like to respond to. He stated that one of the
things he would like to clarify from the Ms. Wolfe’s comments is that when we talk about the formulary, it is important to
remember that we as an organization also opted out of social security. There is an off-set built into the retirement plan
with respect to the overall benefit plan that the Council adopted back in the November/December time-frame. In addition
to that, he further stated to Councilmember Lusk that he believed he asked a question about costs associated with the
administration of the program. City Manager Bovos stated that one of the things that they found across the board,
anytime that you have a resource organization whether it be ACCG or GMA that pools the types of functions from
municipal governments as those organizations do, are usually lower. He further stated that although the Ms. Wolfe does
not have the exact figures in front of her, he said he could assure the Council that based upon prior experiences that if you
do a 1 to 1 comparison and we would participate in the GMA plan verses going to buy a plan from an individual provider,
our costs under the GMA plan are substantially less. He then compared them to being in a pool and the costs are spread
over a plethora of municipalities. Basically, we become part of an organization that has 10,000 employees verses just 50
or 60.
Councilmember Thurman stated she wanted to clarify one thing and that it is a defined benefit plan and was affirmed by
City Treasurer Wolfe.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that when he reviewed the plan, he noticed there was one minor point that references the
period, which it offers a calendar year, a fiscal year or other, and he stated that he noticed we selected “other” and went to
basically defined calendar year. He wanted to know if there were any reasons for that. He also said that he noticed in
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 5 of 40
other organizations there is an opportunity to reflect respect and appreciation for the military and in this plan he noticed
that we did not elect any options that would reflect things such as past military service. He said he assumed there would
be a cost associated with that.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated the financial impact of county and prior military services just really prohibits it.
Councilmember Mohrig agreed affirmatively.
Motion and Second: Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams moved to approve the Ordinance Accepting the Georgia
Municipal Employee Benefit System Official Plan Document for Retirement program. Councilmember Thurman
seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Lusk asked if there is a grace period to opt out of this without extensive fees in order to go to another
plan, just hypothetically.
City Treasurer Wolf stated there would be a “notice period” and she did not know the timeframe of this “notice period,”
but could look through the plan documents to find this. She further stated this is not a contractual agreement, meaning we
do not have to stay with GMA for five years, but there would be a “notice period” in order to move to another plan.
Vote: The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE APPLICATIONS
City Treasurer Wolfe wanted to state that this is the first time that the Council has seen new Alcohol Beverage licenses
on the Agenda. She sated that the Council would begin to see these regularly as the businesses apply for their licenses.
Also, as this is the first time that the Council has seen them, she wanted to explain the process on how they get to the
Agenda. She stated these are for new applicants only and the Council will never see renewals on the Agenda. A new
application is taken in at the Operations Department. From there, the application is distributed to Community
Development and they review for zoning and distance requirements and they sign off on the application and either
approve or disapprove. The application is then distributed to the Public Safety Department and they run background
checks to be in compliance with the Ordinance. It then comes back to Operations and we facilitate the advertising
requirements for the Public Hearing both in the paper and those advertisements which are posted in front of the business.
Once those advertising requirements have been met, they go on the Council Agenda and once Council approves the issue,
the Alcohol Beverage License is issued.
(Agenda Item No. 07-203)
Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Lotty & Lotta Market, LLC, D/B/A Nahm Thai Cuisine
located at 5310 Windward Parkway, Suite C, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Ngamta Thong Young for
Consumption on the Premises -Wine/Malt Beverage.
Councilmember Mohrig wanted to know if this is a restaurant and the City Clerk affirmed it is a restaurant.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Lotty
Lotta Market, LLC, D/B/A Nahm Thai Cuisine located at 5310 Windward Parkway, Suite C, Alpharetta, 30004.
Applicant is Ngamta Thong Young for Consumption on the Premises -Wine/Malt Beverage. Councilmember Thurman
seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
(Agenda Item No. 07-204)
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 6 of 40
Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License Application for The Barn Bottle Shoppe, LLC located at 980 Birmingham
Road, Suite 304, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Timothy Lee Allen for Package -Wine/Malt Beverage.
Public Comment:
Paul Moore, 15290 Columns Drive, Milton, stated that he is in approval of this license. They are willing to be in
compliance with the Birmingham Master Plan that did address the types of stores that could be established at this
particular crossroad. He wanted to be sure there is an effort to be sure that this is not a traditional package store because
there was no provision for this in the original plan.
Council Discussion:
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams stated as clarification that this application is only for wine and beer and no hard
liquor.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey thanked City Treasurer Carol Wolfe for informing the Council of the process because
this is the first agenda item like this that would affect the Birmingham Master Plan and as clarification wanted to ask Tom
Wilson a couple of quick questions: (1) From his professional view within Community Development does this license
meet the provisions as stated in the Birmingham Master Plan and if could he comment on how this relates to the
conditions of zoning on that Master Plan and the zonings that took place at the Crossroads. She then stated that her
second question would be with the distance from churches, as well as bus stops, because there are additional requirements
as it relates to the Master Plan, the conditions of zoning, and how it affects the overlay.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated the condition of zoning of the 2004 zoning case prohibited package
liquor stores. The minutes from that meeting clearly indicated that beer and wine sales would be permitted. The
conditions to zoning would take precedence over the policy set forth in the Birmingham Master Plan. He further stated
that as far as the distances to a church, they have to be at least 100 yards. Applications come in with a certified plan from
a registered land surveyor indicating that it is at least 200 yards to the nearest church and that is further followed up by
certification. This is consistent with all of these applications.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey thanked him and asked from a measurement standpoint could he confirm further with
regard to other measurements. Typically, is this from point of property to point of property?
Director of Community Development Wilson replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked as this relates to zoning how the sale of wine and malt beverages will be
monitored going forward. For instance, she asked that if the inventory should shift, how it would be handled with regards
to the individual license.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated that along with the application it indicates their distributors. The
distributors would know they were issued a beer and wine license only and they would not sell strong spirits to the store.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it sounds as if this would be an enforcement issue. This does not mean that
going forward they could shift their inventory, but they would have to be in compliance and constantly get license
approval.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated the distributors would be prohibited from selling anything to this
store that is outside the license that has been issued to them.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated with regards to the distance requirements, the Ordinance indicates the distance shall be
measured by the most direct route of travel on the ground and measured in the following manner: from the main entrance
to the establishment from which beverages are sold or offered for sale and a straight line to the nearest public sidewalk,
walkway, street, road or highway by the nearest route along such public sidewalk by nearest route to the main entrance to
the church building or nearest portion of the school ground. Therefore, she further stated it is not from point of property
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 7 of 40
to point of property; it is actually from the entrance on the most public route to the entrance of the church or school.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that with regard to the Birmingham United Methodist Church that this was a point
of concern that they had raised at the time that we were going through this whole process several years ago. There are
two different churches in the area, but in addition to that there is Kids Kingdom, which is closer to the intersection that is
a separate building from the church, but it is by definition part of their church. She asked if we would verify that process,
especially since children are involved which is why the measurement was important. She stated that she believes it still
meets it, but since this is the first time we have done this, she would like to make sure that we do it correctly.
Director of Community Development Wilson added that the 100 yards actually does not even leave the subject
property.
City Treasurer Wolfe wanted to clarify that the Barn and Bottle Shoppe did submit their original application for a full
package store and the Community Development Department denied that application with further reapplication only for
package sales for wine and malt beverages.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve the Alcoholic Beverage License Application for The Barn
Bottle Shoppe, LLC located at 980 Birmingham Road, Suite 304, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Timothy Lee Allen
for Package-Wine-Malt Beverage. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
(Agenda Item 07-204)
Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Rohrig-Ellis, Inc., D/B/A Little Azio located at 12365
Crabapple Road, Suite 310, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Dan Schoolfield, for Consumption on the Premises
-Wine & Malt Beverage.
City Treasurer Wolf stated this is an application for Little Azio and the same stipulations as the previous and has been
through review and has met compliance steps for the issuance of the license.
Motion and Second: Councilman Mohrig moved to approve the Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Rohrig-
Ellis, Inc., D/B/A Little Azio located at 12365 Crabapple Road, Suite 310, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Dan
Schoolfield, for Consumption on the Premises -Wine & Malt Beverage. Councilman Thurman seconded the motion.
Discussion on the motion:
Councilmember Lusk asked for clarification exactly where this establishment is located in Crabapple. 12635, is that at
the Silos.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated that it is not exactly at the silos, but it is on Crabapple not far from
Birmingham. It is probably in the brand new commercial that is on the south side of Birmingham.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked for clarification again on measurement and not on how we do it, but as she looks
at that street address and how it relates to the daycare center, the Goddard School, she wanted clarification that is
considered a distance requirement. Since this is not a public school or an elementary, but that would include a preschool.
She wanted to know if this is an accurate assumption.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated she would check the Ordinance.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey then stated there are two preschools that are on Crabapple Road. One is the Goddard
School and there is another one further towards the Silos (on the right) named Kids are Kids.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated the Ordinance reads “as used in section, the terms school building or educational building
shall apply to only state, county, city or church school buildings and at such other schools which are taught subjects
commonly taught in the common schools and colleges of this state and which are public schools and private schools as
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 8 of 40
defined in the states statute. The term “school building” includes only those structures in which instruction is offered.
That would preclude a daycare.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated again that she surely does not have the details as to how the Goddard School, as
an example, would present themselves, but she felt they would indeed have educational materials and they are not just a
daycare.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated that it is 233 yards, according to the certified survey.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that it is correct in Crabapple, just as it would have been in Birmingham. She
further stated that early back in November or December, the Council discussed validating the distances because at one
point there was some question as to whether or not the distances were consistent. The Council had agreed to make sure
those were consistent. She further stated that it is her understanding that the measurement, regardless of where we are in
Milton, is the same.
Director of Community Development Wilson affirmed that statement.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey further stated that if she heard correctly, it is an ample distance even from the Goddard
School.
Director of Community Development Wilson affirmed that statement as well.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that this is a restaurant, so it is for consumption on the premises at the restaurant.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated that is correct, it is a restaurant establishment.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
(Agenda Item No. 07-206)
Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Catina Del Mar located at 12365 Crabapple Road, Suite
320, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Elizabeth D. Riordan for Consumption on the Premises – Wine & Malt
Beverage/Distilled Spirits.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated this is the same process and has been through staff review and recommends issuance of their
license. She further stated that she is verifying the address on this because she believes the address is a “typo” but will
verify this. She then stated the address is 12365, but there is not a suite listed and she will verify that 12365 is a strip of
shops, but the suite number is probably incorrect on the application because it is the same suite number as the previous
one just approved. The correct suite is 320 and it is not 310. She further stated that the previous address should read
12365 and not 12635. Both of theses should read 12365 and the previous item was suite 310 and this item is suite 320.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Alcoholic Beverage License Application for Catina
Del Mar located at 12365 Crabapple Road, Suite 320, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Elizabeth D. Riordan for
Consumption on the Premises – Wine & Malt Beverage/Distilled Spirits. Councilman Thurman seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams asked if there are different requirements for hard liquor or listed as “distilled
spirits.”
City Treasurer Wolfe stated the requirements are different, but it would be a zoning issue and not necessarily in the
Ordinance, but in the zoning requirements. As example, she stated the one we just went through with the Birmingham
Crossroads did not allow for distilled spirits, but in Crabapple and in this area is it allowed.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 9 of 40
Director of Community Development Wilson interceded with a statement that they are allowed unless they are
prohibited by conditions of zoning or some other restriction.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
(Agenda Item No. 07-207)
Approval of Alcoholic Beverage License Application for God Bless NNK D/B/A Package Store located at 13020
Morris Road, Suite E, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Norruislam Kapadia for Package –Wine & Malt
Beverage/Distilled Spirits.
Public Comment:
Bob Moheb, 13085 Morris Road, Milton, stated that he had spoken with a few people in the area and they are against
this. There has been throughout the past year (what we consider) a good amount of violence in the area. In this specific
area, we would definitely like to keep that down.
Mary Carter, 12868 Deer Park Lane, Milton, stated that she lives in the Deerfield town home community and they are
currently against a package store moving in because we feel it is too close to our residences. We prefer that our
neighborhood not be so closely associated with it. She further stated she has 32 signatures against it and 7 for it.
Councilmember Thurman asked what is the process for approving these applications if there is a community who is
against it. She wanted to know if we have anything legally to stand on if the community is not in favor of this. She stated
she understands they have gone through the whole process that is according to our ordinances, but just wanted to know if
this is one of those things that in the future we need to be careful for conditions of zoning if it affects a community where
they do not feel it is appropriate that we can limit it. She further asked if it is past the time that we can limit it now.
City Manager Bovos wanted to comment on the statement of additional crime around the package store and stated we
would need to prove secondary affects. This is no different than proving secondary affects in adult entertainment and
incorporates the ramifications and secondary affects into legislation. We have not gone down that path and there is a not a
lot of studies on secondary affects or input on secondary affects with relation to package stores, but certainly we can have
the City Attorney look into that if this is something Council wishes. In addition to that, at this point in time he wanted to
remind everyone that we have to comply fully with the Ordinance. Therefore, we would have to have to deny the license
based on the current Ordinance on the floor. It does not mean that we could not amend the Ordinance in the future to
include additional information, but at this point in time there is nothing that the applicant has not done to comply with the
Ordinance in order to receive the license.
Mayor Lockwood asked Deputy Director of Public Safety Millican with regards to safety if he had any comments.
Deputy Director of Public Safety Millican said that he echoes what the City Manager said and that we would have to
look at it from a secondary process.
Skip Gray, 3652 Avon, Milton, said that he just found out where that store is and that man has put up bullet-proof glass
in front of his convenience store. He does not want the liquor store down there either.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that when we talk about the applicant meeting the Ordinance, if it could be more
specific, can we just briefly talk about a rezoning that may or may not have occurred. There were no conditions which
precluded this from being a package store. Also, she wanted to know if this was on the Highway 9 overlay. She asked if
we could confirm that. Also, she wanted to see if we could confirm, as it relates to the comprehensive land use plan, and
she assumes that we are in compliance with that, but rather than making an assumption, she would like to be sure.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated that he believes this to be in the Highway 9 overlay. He stated that
he did not have the conditions of zoning in front of him.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 10 of 40
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she believes it is in the Highway 9 overlay. She said that it was her understanding
that there is not anything within that overlay and that it is currently written based on what our City Manager just stated.
Director of Community Development Wilson replied affirmatively.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked the City Manager what would be the appropriate time to request that we do look
into this and should we wait until a later time on the agenda or at a work session. She wanted to be sure that in
accordance with order that we address it at the correct time.
City Manager Bovos stated the staff would look into this with regards to the overlay.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey affirmed that the staff should look into the overlay because there is not currently a
prohibition to address the community concerns that have been stated here this evening. She further stated that if we could
quickly look at how we could modify that overlay and look at any other issues that may be forthcoming.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated that we could look into that, but there would still be some
secondary issues and we will have to do some research and establish studies on that as to whether it goes into the overlay
or a separate ordinance.
Councilmember Mohrig suggested we postpone this item since there is perhaps ample justification that we study this
rather than rush to approve apart from the citizen input. He further stated that if we postpone this item, would it give the
staff the leisure to research this as necessary and allow us to become a little more acquainted with it.
City Manager Bovos stated that, as a reminder, he would be more than happy to defer, but we have to apply the rules that
were in place when this applicant applied.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey wanted to validate that from the Director of Community Development’s perspective and
obviously from our Director of Operations that this particular instance meets the requirements of the overlay and meets
the conditions and requirements of zoning. She further stated that fortunately or unfortunately, it sounds as if from a legal
perspective that it has met the requirements of those ordinances currently in place. She then asked if there could be any
reason for the Council to defer until these conditions were validated.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated there is no reason to believe that the conditions of zoning were not
checked and that they fit the conditions, but he just does not have them (the conditions) with him tonight.
Councilmember Thurman asked if this is part of the normal approval process.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated absolutely.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that directly across from this is going to be a new community coming in and we do not
have houses built yet and people have not purchased yet. In the zoning ordinance in this area, he asked if there are any
restrictions in this area as far as proximity to neighborhoods.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated that she does not believe there are any. She further stated at the time of application those
are not constructed or occupied so we would have to apply the conditions on the date of application. As of today, this
applicant has met the requirements.
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams wanted affirmation that there were no daycare centers and no churches within 100
yards.
Director of Community Development Wilson stated that he would have that on the site plan and could double-check it
for the Council. After checking, he stated that 200 yards does not even leave this property.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 11 of 40
Mary Carter, 12868 Deer Park Lane, Milton, stated that what most of us are concerned about is there has been
additional crime at that gas station and by putting a liquor store in would not help that situation.
Mayor Lockwood asked the City Attorney Scott what options we have to approve or deny this based on public comment
and concerns.
City Attorney Scott stated that he does not believe this is the case and if they met all the conditions and all the
requirements and it is not approved, the Council is opening themselves up to problems. He suggested that they go ahead
and approve it.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that if we could get records from Fulton County and look at the safety issues that perhaps
we could step up the security patrols in that area for the residents.
City Attorney Scott wanted to remind the Council that these are up for renewal every year and their license is not a right.
Mayor Lockwood stated that certainly the staff and Council takes very seriously the concerns of the citizens and that he
felt Councilmember Mohrig made a good statement with regards to public safety that we start patrolling that area and
seeing what can be done from that aspect.
City Treasurer Wolfe wanted to clarify that upon renewal an applicant submits for a new background check, but once a
license is issued the ordinance states that the distance requirements that are met at the time of application follow the
application. Therefore, at renewal distance requirements are not reconsidered, only background checks.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated with regards to that if in this next year before renewal if there had been evidence
of crime at that particular location, would that offer adequate recourse to withdraw a license. She wanted to know if that
could be an exception and the renewal would not be automatic.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated that is not considered in our current Ordinance.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that she would then ask that this be considered similar to the earlier discussion
and not just in this overly, but perhaps in consideration to those points that were noted earlier by her and other
Councilmembers as well as the point we just highlighted.
Motion: Councilmember Mohrig moved that they postpone affording staff the opportunity to assist the Council in
reassuring that we had satisfied our oversight responsibility here. He asked if we could put this on the next meeting.
City Manager Bovos responded that per the advertising schedule these have to be publicly advertised so from the staff’s
perspective today, they have met the requirements.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was a second to the motion to postpone.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated the motion died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Thurman asked if there was a timeframe in our Ordinance to which these things have to be approved
and would the Council be violation of that if this were to be postponed.
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams asked the City Attorney if we postponed, would there be any ramifications.
City Attorney Scott stated there would be if we were to violate the deadline established in the Ordinance.
Mayor Lockwood stated that obviously we are taking this very seriously and stated that we will take a two to three
minute break.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 12 of 40
Break:
(There was a break taken at 8:04 pm)
Reconvene:
Mayor Lockwood reconvened the meeting at 8:15 pm.
City Manager Bovos looked at the Ordinance and stated the one that we currently have is silent with relation to a
timeframe. Traditionally, what you find in ordinances is that the failure to issue a license or for staff to procure that
process so the license is issued de facto and we do not currently have that in our ordinance. Also, based on State law
traditionally what is the standard of “reasonable” effort to get the application processed which obviously the City has
complied with.
Mayor Lockwood stated that currently it sounds like at this point the application is valid. We can go back and look at it,
but we cannot go back on this one so there does not appear to be a reason to defer it.
City Treasurer Wolfe agreed with the Mayor’s statements that there are no zoning reviews on this application that has
not already taken place. She further stated the applicant has met the Ordinance as it stands today. She further stated that
we would need to recommend approval tonight because we do not have any reason for denial at this point.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he wanted the public to know that we will do whatever can be done public safety wise to
enforce the area.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if there is any way to approve the application with a condition. For example, she
asked could we approve with the condition that the renewal would be based on no legal enforcement issues or citation.
She asked is there anything that would allow us to do that.
City Treasurer Wolfe replied “no.”
Councilmember O’Brien stated that if we did postpone, it could be construed that we are actively considering the
application and it is being fairly processed, but we are giving it due regard. We would not necessarily have any legal
concern as long as we had a brief postponement and asked if this were a correct statement.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated that her concern would be that you approved four (4) licenses prior to this that went through
the exact same review as this one, and there is no further review that we could do on this application by deferring it.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that it is his understanding that all due diligence has been done.
Councilmember Thurman stated as confirmation that there is no additional information we could gain that would give
us a reason to defer it
City Treasurer Wolfe stated yes, that is correct.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that he would like to echo what the Mayor said and what we said earlier from a law
enforcement view. This is the concern that we are hearing. It is not necessarily his understanding that the public feels
there is a link between the two and that we have other liquor stores around and near. We should look at Fulton County to
see what activity they have had in this area so far and from a public safety issue we should beef up our patrols in this area,
especially on weekends.
Mayor Lockwood asked for additional comments that have not already been said.
Mary Jo Carter, 12868 Deer Park Lane, Milton, stated that of the five that were voted on, four of those were
restaurants.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 13 of 40
City Treasurer Wolfe stated the Bar and Bottle Shoppe is a package store as well.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated as clarification that three of these are restaurants and one was a bottle shop and
this would be the second.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated yes, this would be the second package store. The difference is that the Bar and Bottle
Shoppe is just a wine and malt beverage package store.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve Alcoholic Beverage License Application for God Bless NNK
D/B/A Package Store located at 13020 Morris Road, Suite E, Alpharetta, GA 30004. Applicant is Norruislam Kapadia for
Package – Wine & Malt Beverage/Distilled Spirits. Councilmember Thurman seconded. There was no further Council
discussion. The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams voting in opposition.
END OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mayor Lockwood stated that the public hearings are now closed and asked the City Clerk to sound the next items.
(Agenda Item No. 07-208)
Approval of a Resolution to serve as official notification of the City of Milton’s intent to start a fire rescue
department on or before September 30, 2007 and to terminate fire rescue services currently being provided by
Fulton County.
Resolution No 07-03-26
Deputy Director of Public Safety Charles Millican stated that this resolution establishes a fire rescue section of the
Public Safety Department. This resolution establishes two distinct actions, the first being the intent to terminate fire
services with Fulton County on or before September 30, 2007; the second will allow the Public Safety Department to
initiate the process for state resignation as a fire and first response EMS service.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the Resolution to serve as official notification of the
City of Milton’s intent to start a fire rescue department on or before September 30, 2007 and to terminate fire rescue
services currently being provided by Fulton County. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Lusk stated that during discussion of this resolution it was noted that this will allow the City to continue
its planning for deployment and will allow staff to procure items and functions which otherwise would not be authorized.
He further wanted to know if these items and the other unauthorized functions were budgeted.
Deputy Director of Public Safety Millican stated they are budgeted.
Councilmember Lusk then asked for the budgeted amounts and wanted to know if this is for the entire fire organization.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated that the budgeted amount for large equipment such as apparatus and initial deployment
items such as uniforms, the fire portion is approximately $2.1 million dollars and this is off the top of my head. She
further stated that all these items for initial deployment are budgeted either in the maintenance budget or out of the capital
budget for equipment purchases.
Councilmember Lusk said that his question is how this compliments what we have already spent for the purchase for the
new fire truck and wanted to know if this is in addition to it or is this same budget.
City Treasurer Wolfe stated this is concurrent activity, as well as the ongoing procurement for initial deployment.
City Manager Bovos stated that one of the things that occurred is that the City Council did a very similar resolution for
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 14 of 40
the Police Department. The goal being that we are recognized at the State level, certainly from a grant funding process, as
having a fire department. Therefore, the goal here is to say that the City Council desires to establish such a department so
in the event we want to go for grants or funding and we want to be recognized by the State and if we want to send
employees to the training that is state certified then we will be able to do that even though we have not yet deployed the
Fire Department. We need to make sure this clarification is made. This is really Council’s formal adoption of the fact
that we will have a Fire Department in the very near future and allows us to move forward with that deployment
concurrent with budget and does not change that whatsoever.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
(Agenda Item No. 07-209)
Approval of a Resolution Amending Agenda Item No. 06-147, Approval of Nominations to the City of Milton Bike
and Pedestrian Path Committee.
Resolution No 07-03-24
City Manager Bovos stated this resolution is actually an Amendment to Agenda Item No. 06-147. As background on
January 11, 2007 the Mayor and Council nominated members to the Bike and Pedestrian Path Committee and there are
actually nine members, one from each of you and two from State Representative Jan Jones. Staff is aware of some
challenges of the nominations from the requirements with respect to residency. Therefore, he further stated this resolution
actually corrects those. All the nominees are still in place and we are not changing any of those. This is basically a
housekeeping item from the perspective in making sure that what occurred on January 11th is concurrent with the outline
of the committee itself.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams moved to approve the Resolution Amending Agenda Item No.
06-147, Approval of Nominations to the City of Milton Bike and Pedestrian Path Committee. Councilmember Zahner
Bailey seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
(Agenda Item No. 07-210)
Approval of Compensation for Municipal Court Judge and Solicitor.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated that in Chapter 4, Article I in the City Code of Ordinance it states that compensation for
judges and the solicitor shall be fixed by the Council. A comprehensive study of the compensation for judges and
solicitors of ten comparable local court systems was completed. The following compensation recommendations are the
result of the study. Compensation for judges is set at $475.00 per court session. Jail hearings will be compensated at
$118.75 per hour. The on-call judge (for emergency hearings and issue of warrants) will be compensated at $100.00 per
week. Compensation for the solicitor will be set at $400.00 per court session.
Councilmember Lusk stated with regard to the compensation for the City Solicitor had that not been established
previously as an hourly rate, or was an hourly rate established for the Solicitor rather than a set compensation per court
session.
City Manager Bovos responded that Chapter 4 actually outlined that the Mayor and Council and staff can set the
compensation for the judge and solicitor. We did set an hourly rate for the City Attorney, but stated to his knowledge
there is no hourly rate for the City Solicitor.
Councilmember Lusk stated than when we approved the appointment for the City Attorney back in August, 2006,
subsequently he stated he believed an hourly rate was set for him. At that time, he was also appointed as the Solicitor. He
stated he did not recall any differentiate in his compensation.
City Manager Bovos stated he did not recall having this read into the resolution, but he stated he did not have that in
front of him, but could get that information.
Councilmember Lusk stated he would like the staff to research this. He said there may be a proposal letter from the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 15 of 40
previous legal firm that they had on board.
City Manager Bovos stated that the resolution itself passed on November 14th did not have an amount.
Mayor Lockwood said that speaking for himself and everyone else up here, since this is the first court that has been set
up, he asked what is typical and customary in this type of situation.
City Clerk Marchiafava said that included in their packets was information from nine cities and one county. We have
furthered our search and they do vary. Some are paid per month, and some are paid per session. She said it seemed that
there is a majority paid per session. At least seven are paid per session. Some of them have a weekly salary, which we
did not consider to be on staff as a salary because that is not our circumstance in the City of Milton. She said they do have
some per hour. In Acworth, the solicitor makes $150 dollars per hour. The judge actually makes $34,000, but the
Solicitor is making $64,000 in Acworth and that is comparable to our population here. Also in the handout it also states
the population of the cities surveyed. The decision is totally up to the elected body. We formed a committee, the
committee met and looked over the statistics and everyone agreed that the per session fee was the most economical way
for the City of Milton.
Mayor Lockwood asked for a typical docket, what do you anticipate time wise?
City Clerk Marchiafava said about three hours once a week. We have scheduled court for Mondays.
Mayor Lockwood said so it would be close to our hourly rate within about $50.00 or so?
City Clerk Marchiafava said it was very close.
Councilmember Lusk stated that since the rate is always established here, it would seem, in fact, Riley, Lewis
McClendon, offered their fee schedule to the City back in October, where they proposed this hourly rate that we are
paying now for service as the City Attorney and for the City Solicitor. He said that being involved in contacts all of the
time, this would appear to him that this is a unilateral exaction of fee on somebody that we already had under contract. He
stated he was not sure if it was the City Attorney or if you all had any discussions with the City Attorney or the legal firm
that we have on board at this time or not. One thing about an hourly fee, whatever it is, $150.00 or $75.00, at least the
hourly rate is nailed down. For example, if he were to only spend one hour in court at a session and he was to be paid
$400.00, he would call that somewhat an unjust enrichment for his services, although he would be entitled to it. There
again, if he were in court for five hours, we would owe him an additional hour, which he said in his role as a contractor
and dealing under contracts, that is the way they typically operate. He would like to put this out there for discussion.
Mayor Lockwood said that if the City's court sets the docket, they would probably set it for when they would have
something which was just one hour, and asked is that correct.
City Clerk Marchiafava said that would be appropriate in the beginning, but they really would not know on their very
first court date with our being contracted through the IGA with Fulton County. We do have code enforcement issuing
citations and she believed that maybe for the first and possibly the one court date that they set for May, that it is a
possibility that there docket may not be equivalent to four hours. For clarification, she did talk today with the City of
Sandy Springs City Manager and right now their court is restructuring. They feel that the per session fee is also
appropriate. And just as a clarification too, their court solicitor was paid $76,000 for a six month period. She said they do
meet four times per week and their court sessions are a little more than four hours at a time, but consistently they are in
that hourly range.
Councilmember Lusk said he would comment that he believed the City of Sandy Springs' population is 65,000.
Unknown person stated their population is 90,000.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 16 of 40
Councilmember Lusk said he stood corrected.
City Manager Bovos said he just wanted to give everyone a quick comment on the basis of why a per session fee was
chosen. He stated that he believed there are some questions and he wanted to respond to Councilmember Lusk. He said
that one of the goals of the municipal court and one of the experiences that municipalities have across the nation is making
sure that cases are adjudicated in a timely manner. He said that one of the things that municipalities within the central
Atlanta have incurred is based upon an hourly rate and the lack of staff incentive both by the judge and more by the
solicitor to get cases moved through the court. He said that based on prior organizations that several of us have worked
for, what we have seen as a docket called for example at 9:00 and not intentional, but certainly a difference between an
hourly rate and a per session rate. The docket called for example at 9:00 and not completed by a particular judge until 4:00
in the afternoon. When a judge on a per docket type court, per session compensation plan would maybe finish that docket
by noon. He said their goal is just to encourage basically in the court setting that they do not have people sitting in
municipal court waiting for their dockets to be called. He said that in addition to this, he said that Councilman Lusk
referenced a letter from Riley, Lewis & McClendon. He said that staff has no problem moving forward with that letter if
we feel that this letter is contractually obligating the City. His only comment to this is that his understanding is that
Council wants Jarrard & Davis to provide the solicitor work and not Riley, Lewis & McClendon, so we need to get this
straightened out if we are to go by the letter that was referenced.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there were any more questions before they have discussion or a motion.
Councilmember Thurman said she did have one question for Councilmember Lusk. She said she thought he was asking
about that particular document as sort of a benchmark so we could have a similar agreement with Jarrard & Davis and
asked if this was correct.
Councilmember Lusk said that was correct. He said it was a complementary issue.
Councilmember Thurman said so if we decided to go with a per session rate and found out that it really was not fair for
some reason or another, that the rate could be adjusted at a later time.
City Clerk Marchiafava replied that is correct.
City Attorney Scott said he just wanted to make one comment initially about Sandy Springs and the $76,000 bill. He
said he had served at times as an assistant solicitor at Sandy Springs and he wanted the Council to understand that the
reason that that bill was so high was because there were so many solicitors being used to deal with the large docket. He
said he also agreed completely with the City Manager's viewpoint that there were some problems and they had been some
problems in Sandy Springs. He said he thought it was primarily motivated by the judges, unfortunately, not moving very
fast on their docket, and he was absolutely right about that. He said that had been a problem that Sandy Springs has had
to deal with. He stated that he had discussed this issue with his firm a bit when he realized that this was on the agenda,
and had not been told about it previously. He said he thought the issue right now is that they just do not know whether
$400.00 a session is going to be a good deal for the City. We do not know if it is going to be a good deal for his firm. He
said the problem is they just do not know yet how long these sessions are going to last whatsoever. He said they are
certainly willing to enter into or continue in the current agreement, or even enter into a different agreement, preferably on
an hourly basis as they get started, so that they know what is going on. Once we know how long the sessions go, he said
he is certainly open to revisiting this issue in all fairness to both parties. He said he did not know if the City was going to
loose its shirt on a $400 dollar session for an hour's worth of work, and he did not know if he was going to loose his shirt
on a six hour session for $400. He certainly understands the idea of keeping the costs down and a per session rate in the
interest that the sessions go quickly.
Councilmember Lusk said that this was exactly the perspective he was coming at. He said being in the business that he
was in everybody wants the best deal. He certainly did not want to punish him for working twice as much or twice as long
and it also did not feel it was fair for the City to be paying a full rate if he was only here for a half of an hour and drinking
a cup of coffee - the City's coffee.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 17 of 40
Mayor Lockwood asked if there were any more questions.
City Manager Bovos said from staff's perspective, it was not there goal to punish anybody. He said our goal is simply to
have a starting point. They did a survey of municipalities to look at the organization from its overall perspective and
come forward with a recommendation and, as the City Clerk said, this Council is more than welcome to change whatever
you feel must be changed.
Councilmember Lusk said he did not mean to make an implication. He is just looking out for both sides.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was a motion.
Councilmember O’Brien moved that they accept this, but amend, in light of the fact that Mark Scott has forwarded them
the economy of having a single legal entity fully familiar with their City as both City Attorney and Solicitor consistent
with other precedent, that they amend to reflect a $150 per hour rate as has been previously negotiated with him, with the
understanding that in the future, owing to their relationship with all hands, that if it is in the best interests of the City, that
they would revisit it in a bilateral negotiation. He said he thought they would expect that based on their association that
Mark Scott who would be more than willing to act in the best interest of the City with the cognizance of the staff and City
Council.
Motion: Councilmember O’Brien moved that they accept with the modification to $150 per hour rate rather than $400
per session. The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilmember Thurman asked City Attorney Mark Scott if the $150 per hour was the standard rate for that type of
service or per session. She asked him what his agreement with other cities or counties.
City Attorney Scott said that their agreement with the counties where they act as solicitors are on an hourly rate.
Councilmember Thurman asked City Attorney Mark Scott if it was at the same $150 per hour rate that his current fee is
for work performed as City Attorney.
City Attorney Scott said he honestly did not know. He said he knew that the hourly rate for the counties that they work
for as the county attorney is actually higher than what they charge for the City of Milton. He said he believed there is
probably some type of accommodation per hour and, frankly, he said he is authorized to offer a $125 per hour hourly rate
at this point for the rest of the year.
City Manager Bovos asked Mayor and Council if he could respond to Councilmember Thurman's question also. He said
that 22 cities were surveyed just to have some information in addition to what the City Attorney specified. If you will
note, there were actually 4 that did provide hourly rates, so you can get kind of an idea of what the hourly rate was with
respect to what is on the chart. He said he just wanted everyone to be aware that there were some listed there for their
reference.
Mayor Lockwood said he wanted to make a comment that the reason staff has looked at it, as he said earlier, is that staff
will have control over the docket. Obviously, they are not going to set a docket for 30 minutes or an hour and will
certainly try to maximize so that they can cover the most amount of cases within a reasonable amount of time. He said it
is also human nature and makes the court move a bit quicker. In light of the concern over the legal bills and spending a
lot of money on legal expenses, they thought this was the best way to monitor that. They have to monitor not only the per
session costs, but also how much is put on the docket.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve the items as presented. Councilmember
D’Aversa-Williams seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 18 of 40
Councilmember Lusk said he would offer that they review this situation on a quarterly basis just to see how they are
tracking this and see if there is an advantage.
Councilmember Mohrig asked if this leaves this item open so they can come back later and amend it.
Councilmember O'Brien said again, in fairness, he think this essentially is a unilateral offer and in the good faith that
Mark Scott has served the City. He urged that they maintain an existing relationship and, as Councilmember Lusk pointed
out, we would essentially get fair work for fair pay, rather than either inefficiently extending a windfall for a short session
or perhaps creating a hardship for Mark Scott and his firm if they are spending a great deal of time over what would be the
equivalent hourly rate. He said it seemed to him to be fair, especially in light of the economies that they have experienced
in having a double-hat attorney as other jobs in the City, like Tom Wilson and others. He said that, in fact, if the desire is
to economize in light of their legal budget, he did not think it was fair to ask Mark Scott and his firm to extend a discount
if we are extending legal resources or legal budget at a higher rate than we anticipate. So again, he said he did not think
that should be a burden he should bear on our behalf. He said he thought it would behoove us as a Council and as a staff
moving through these issues. He said he believed it had been noted that they are concerned about this.
City Attorney Scott asked if the solicitor billing is part of the legal budget or does that come out of the court budget or
another item.
City Clerk Marchiafava said it is out of the court budget.
City Attorney Scott said, so it is not part of the legal budget?
City Treasurer Wolfe said that the Judge's compensation and the Solicitor's compensation are out of the court budget,
not in the legal fees.
Councilmember O'Brien said that they will be recovered through court fees. Is that correct?
Councilmember Thurman said she wanted to make one comment. She said at times, people stretch out the time if they
are paid hourly, and at the same time, if someone is not paid hourly, she does not want the quality of the work to suffer
because he has a 10-hour session that they are trying to reduce down because you are paying them for an equivalent of
three hours. She said that this was her concern and that you get what you pay for. She wants to make sure that the
services they do get from whoever is providing them feels that they are fairly compensated and the services are handled
properly.
Mayor Lockwood said he felt sure Mark Scott would let them know if they were loading him up too much.
Councilmember Mohrig said again, we will look at this again as time passes and they go forward to see what is in the
best interest of the City and what is fair also for the solicitor.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any other comment that had not been expressed.
City Clerk Marchiafava called for the vote. There was no further Council discussion.
Vote: The Motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember O’Brien voting in opposition.
(Agenda Item No. 07-211)
Approval of a Resolution Establishing the Five Ethics Principals for the Conduct of City Officials for the City of
Milton, Georgia
Resolution No 07-03-25
City Manager Bovos addressed the Mayor and City Council and explained that the Resolution before them is a follow-up
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 19 of 40
resolution to several different items that Council has voiced their opinion on. Specifically, on the Georgia Municipal
Association (GMA) which certifies the City's ethics program. On November 21st, they passed an ethics ordinance and
part of it was a voluminous agenda where they were trying to get ordinances passed and established in the City. He said
that just last week they went through that ordinance with Jim Langlais of Alston and Bird and in addition to that on
January 11th at a Special Called Meeting, a resolution was passed establishing protocols and requesting that staff follow up
with GMA, specifically with relation to this program. This program became one of the most desired programs for staff to
complete on behalf of Council and it is included in the work plan. He is trying to accomplish and get something crossed
off of the work plan. It is very similar to the Resolution that was actually passed back on the 11th day of January. He
stated that one of the things that they considered was actually not moving forward with this Resolution and using the
January 11th Resolution in its place. However, in looking at the GMA website and researching the program, there were
some slight nuance differences. He said they would then certify this Resolution once it is signed and submit it to GMA
as part of our qualification process to the program. He stated that the goal initially is to meet the summer meeting
deadline so that Council could receive that award in June. That is the desired result. He said that one of the things he
would mention to everybody tonight is that if it does pass; he will need all of their signatures on the Resolution versus just
the Mayor's. This is just one of the differences between this Resolution and the January 11th Resolution.
Mayor Lockwood called for a motion.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve the Resolution Establishing the Five Ethics Principals for
the Conduct of City Officials for the City of Milton, Georgia. The motion was a unanimous second and passed
unanimously.
Mayor Lockwood called for the next agenda item.
(Agenda Item No. 07-214)
Approval of a Resolution to Govern the Conduct of City Council Members as they relate to Boards, Commissions
and Authorities and the training sessions for such Boards, Commissions and authorities.
Resolution No 07-03-27
Councilmember Lusk said he would read his Resolution and then explain it:
Whereas Boards, Committees and Authorities are established to provide independent studies, evaluations and
recommendations to the City Council and;
Whereas it is imperative that Boards, Commissions and Authorities remain unbiased and impartial and;
Whereas it is the intent and wish of City Council to have Boards, Commissions and Authorities autonomous with the
confines of their enabling ordinance and able to employ sound judgment in order to make informed recommendations to
City Council while always free from political influence.
Now Therefore, be it resolved that no elected official shall participate in, comment on, or influence the operation of any
Board, Commission or Authority in any training session for such Boards, Commissions or Authorities unless expressly
requested by the majority vote of such body and/or the City Council to respond to a request for information or input or to
appear before such body.
Councilmember Lusk explained that the intent of this Resolution is certainly not to infringe upon anyone's freedom of
speech or any right to speak. He said he cites in his cover that there is a section in the Code of Ethics and Standards of
Conduct for the City officials and also rules of conduct and procedure as it relates to City Council meetings. He feels that
there is a gap in that they cover conduct in all of their City Council meetings, special called meetings, executive meetings,
but one large segment of this whole process are these committees that we have established. The Planning Board, the
DRB, BZA, Ethics Board, and additional committees that they have set up and will set up in the future. One in particular
is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Path Advisory Committee. He said he feels like he has said in his Resolution that these
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 20 of 40
committees need to remain autonomous, unbiased and impartial and without the influence of City Council members. He
stated that these committees and boards have been established specifically to function impartially and without the
influence of City Council. We have a great intellectual resource in this City and he believes we need to use them
unimpeded. He hopes that we could add this Resolution, Rules of Conduct, to the existing Rules of Conduct and Code of
Ethics and Standards of Conduct that are already in place.
Councilmember Mohrig asked would this bar someone from attending a meeting when you say participate.
Councilmember Lusk said that we should not even participate in these meetings unless we are invited. It is not always
the spoken word that is influence. It is the body language and unspoken word that is more often interpreted than the
spoken word.
Mayor Lockwood asked for clarification and said are you saying that even attendance would be banned, or just from
actively participating or asking questions.
Councilmember Lusk said by participation – he would say attendance. This does not completely restrict, restrain,
prevent, preclude being at such meetings, but he said he thought any of them, certainly including himself, should have an
invitation or a request by these boards and/or the City Council to attend these meetings.
Mayor Lockwood stated since these are public meetings, he wondered how we could exclude anyone from attending the
meeting.
City Attorney Scott replied by Resolution.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there were any additional questions for Councilmember Lusk.
Mayor Lockwood said he would like to ask the City Attorney if we could exclude anyone from attending a public
meeting.
City Attorney Scott said that Council can set its own rules and its operation. They certainly have the Ethics Code for
example.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Resolution to govern the conduct of City Council
Members as they relate to Boards, Commissions and Authorities and the training sessions for such Boards, Commissions
and authorities. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion
passed 5-2, with Councilmembers Zahner Bailey and D’Aversa-Williams voting in opposition.
Mayor Lockwood said he would like to further his discussion by saying that he feels part of this is duplicate and part of it
is in our Ethics Ordinance. He said for him it is like having more government governing government, but he said out of
respect for Councilmember Lusk and his Resolution, that is why he voted to let it be on the agenda tonight.
Mayor Lockwood called for Public Comment.
Carol Lane, 14890 East Bluff Road, Milton stated she serves on the Ethics Board for the City of Milton. She said that
the City of Milton Mayor and Council approved the Ordinance No. 06-11-12, the Ethics & Standards of Conduct. It was
approved November 21, 2006. Jim Langlais, the Chairman of the Sandy Springs Ethics Board, reviewed the Ethics and
Standards of Conduct at the March 8th workshop. Having reviewed the Ordinance and discussing it with Jim Langlais at
that March 8th meeting, she said he feels this Resolution is not necessary and may be in conflict with the Ordinance which
is law. She would request that you withdraw this from consideration.
Paul Moore, 15290 White Columns Drive, Milton, said he wanted to comment on the change that Councilman Lusk has
proposed with the original language. He said he thought it is making a pretty bold statement when you are talking about
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 21 of 40
restricting attendance. It is one thing to restrict comment or to bear influence on or intentionally change the outcome by
playing the role within the course of a committee, Council or a board trying to conduct business on behalf of the City. He
believes that we are all adults here and astute business people that recognize that in the role that the person is asked to
play, you have to very carefully assess when and where it is appropriate to one, either capture more information -- critical
issues to the City where there may be a community ground swell where you may benefit from more information that has
been presented to you. Maybe you are looking for a particular expertise that may be presented that evening by one side or
the other for that item being heard. He thinks participation is one thing, but about the Resolution you are proposing, he
can certainly understand that and would support that, but amending it this evening to suggest non-attendance. He believes
that is a huge mistake. He said he thinks we can be self-regulating. The Ethics Board does address how we should act
and conduct ourselves in a public setting, and he would encourage to change adding the word "attending" to what you
have.
Bob Moheb said one thing we were told as Commissioners of the Planning Commission is that we were to come in
unbiased, do not talk to other people, do not talk to the contractor, whoever is applying, or anything like that. In his
opinion, if a Councilmember was to attend a planning commission meeting, you would not be coming in with the
knowledge that you should not have had before you made you own decision on it.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any additional comment or any additional discussion.
Councilmember Thurman stated to Councilmember Lusk that obviously this Resolution was not something he was just
sitting around one night thinking of a Resolution that he could possibly write. She knows that he has attended other
sessions where he has sat and witnessed what was going on in other sessions. She asked if he thought it was important to
completely keep people from attending the session or does he think we have to go that far, or can we just keep people
from participating to allow people to attend. She stated that she would guess it would be up to the Ethics Committee if
they went from attending the session to participating in the session. This is where she is struggling with it because she
understands that clearly there is a need for this, but at the same time, she did not know if there was more to gain from just
attending certain sessions even though you are not participating in it.
Councilmember Lusk said that he had considered this aspect of it and he said he too had rustled with it. He stated that in
hearing this discussion, he sees the benefit obviously of being in attendance and to hear what is going on, but it is the
geographical location of where they are in attendance at any one of these meetings. Like he said before, body language,
even the mere presence of us sitting in these meetings, has some influence. He said that he would relinquish on that point
that were they to be in attendance, they stay as remote as they possibly can in any of these meetings.
Councilmember Thurman said that body language could be construed as participating in a meeting without saying
anything.
Councilmember Lusk said that was his interpretation and his point. He said to that point, this is why he would suggest
that any one of our members if they were to be in attendance, sit in the very far corner of the room and not have the
influence of that body language.
Councilmember Thurman said that basically if they are there, they would be there as any other citizen and not as a City
Council person as such.
Councilmember Lusk said that is correct, with a stipulation that they participate in or comment only with a majority vote
from that particular body or City Council.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he thought they had a motion and a second, so he did not know if they could continue
asking questions.
City Attorney Scott said he thought this was sort of a point of order. He said that the Resolution as he read it does not
say you cannot attend. It says that you cannot appear before. He stated that from a legal term of art, appearing before is
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 22 of 40
addressing, so the point of order he thought is for Councilmember to address specifically what he means -- whether he
means the language should say, "attend", but it does not appear that way to him.
Mayor Lockwood said he appreciated the intent, but he had strong feelings about disallowing anyone from going to a
public meeting. He said it was certainly open for discussion.
Councilmember D'Aversa-Williams said that she just wanted to review her comments, which were the same comments
available during their work session last Thursday night when this Resolution was before them this week when she
learned that the Resolution would be added to the agenda. She just wanted to restate that she fully supports unbiased
work from our boards, commissions and committees and respect the purview that they have authorized them to be in.
They have appointed these representatives and the whole idea is that they are to act unbiased. It appeared to her that the
Councilmembers are to bring about rules and policies without bringing forth a Resolution. She had heard from some folks
that comment about some of the things that they do as Councilmembers and that some of the things that they are doing
and stating in some of the Resolutions that we are bringing are fairly obvious. It would seem to her that this would fall
under one of the obvious resolutions where there is an Ethics Board and an Ethics Ordinance. We are elected officials. If
we do not know that we need to stay out of the purview of our appointed committees, boards and commissions, then she is
not sure if they should be sitting in these seats. There are other policies that Council will support and have supported that
do not have to be formal resolutions that basically state they are not to be influencing people that they have appointed to
these committees and these boards. She said she felt this is enough for them to bring forth as opposed to just putting forth
a resolution. She said again, she is restating what she has already said for the Council and for the public awareness and
for the record because she believes it does make a lot of sense. She said that when they have to bring resolutions like
these that are so obvious, it looks like we are not able to self-control ourselves or police ourselves. She also has additional
information that another Councilmember sent forth from the same gentlemen. Attorney Jim Langlais spoke to us at our
work session about our Ethics Ordinance and he has become an expert in that field in that legal area of ethics. He seemed
to concur that this seemed like a redundant or obvious resolution. She said she does support the policy of not providing
undue circumstances to our boards and commissions and even committees. She just felt that they do not need a resolution
that makes the Council look as if they cannot self-monitor themselves.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any further discussion.
Councilmember Mohrig said just listening to what Mr. Moheb said, and what Mr. Moore said, he agreed that they
should be able to attend different meetings, but they have to be very careful because they are in a position whether or not
they want to acknowledge it. You can say well I am just Joe Public sitting there, but the reality is, they are elected
officials and they do make policy decisions. There were a couple of meetings that they have to at least, in his opinion,
abstain from, that being the Planning Commission meetings and also the Community Information meetings. He did not
necessarily believe that they have to put it down in this Resolution, but he believed they definitely need to agree to stay
away from those that they hear Staff's recommendation to them when they hear those for the first time when those zoning
cases come before them. He said to keep the City clean and to make sure they do not get into a compromise situation; he
said he believes it is important that they do not attend those meetings until it comes before them officially.
Councilmember Lusk said that he appreciated Jim Langlais’ brief review of their Code of Ethics and some other current
case law. He said he believes there is a gap in their Code of Conduct here and they need to cover it. There are numerous
examples of redundancy in government codes. He did not feel a redundancy in respect to conduct and ethics is
burdensome in our legal system here and certainly not an infringement of the right of free speech or the right to assemble.
He believes there are cases that they have encountered here in the last couple of months that need to be addressed and
send a message to the folks in the City of Milton that they will control their own conduct and that they are going to do it
tonight.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any additional discussion.
Councilmember O'Brien said that unless he missed something here, the Resolution reads to exclude attendance and, as
he understands it, it specifically talks about influence. He said it would enable the opportunity if participation or
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 23 of 40
attendance only were a problem, then they would be able to act on it. He thinks that if they did not need this, they would
not be talking about it. Unfortunately, they clearly have a need and it has been demonstrated that there is an issue that
affects the efficiency, effectiveness, and autonomy of the work of the City on behalf of the residents of Milton.
Regrettably, this is necessary and he believes is fair and it and it applies to all of us as well as the author Councilmember
Lusk. He thinks it is important that we be mindful that we cannot exercise undue influence and that we do trust our fellow
citizens that have volunteered to serve in positions of considerable responsibility on boards and commissions and other
such bodies as may be established in the future. He does not interpret this to exclude attendance, and he was not sure if
that was the intent, but what it would do though if attendance continued and was construed to be a detriment to the
operation of such a body that this could be acted upon by using this Resolution.
Mayor Lockwood asked if there was any more comment and then called for a vote.
Councilmember Thurman said she would like to get a copy of the email that they got from one of the Council members
with a cut and pasted quote from Jim Langlais. She would like to get a copy of the entire email from him. She said that
when things are being cut and pasted, sometimes you do not see the whole picture. She really did respect him and
understands that he was tasked with this Ethics Ordinance and worked with it a long time on Sandy Springs, so she would
like to see the entire dialog to make sure they fully understand his opinion on the ordinance.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she had a couple of comments. First and foremost, she wanted to reiterate that, of
course, they have an existing Ethics Ordinance. She believed their City Manager said just a bit ago that on November 21st
they approved a rather voluminous ordinance, and she would agree that it is a rather voluminous Ethics Ordinance. They
are required to abide by that law and by those ethics standards, but that this Resolution does not preclude what has already
been approved. They have a law by which they should be governing themselves. They have a law by which their ethics
board, which is now in place already, has the authority to review any concerns with regard to ethics, including the
standards and influence. She stated she believes it is very important for the public, as well as themselves, that they fully
understand that the Ethics Ordinance that was approved on the 21st is the law and that is already in place. The other item
she wanted to discuss was that at the work session, as Councilmember Thurman just noted, they did have the benefit of
Jim Langlais and he provided them an addendum that they talked about that evening, but some of the things that concern
her with the Resolution are not just about redundancy, but from the legal prospective it seems some of the language in the
proposed Resolution is in conflict with some of the sections that are identified. She said that again, for the record, she
wanted to say that in Section 1(c), and again she is referring specifically to the document that the attorney provided them,
but if we are adopting this ordinance, this is referring to the Code of Ethics that is currently in place and it refers to public
servants, who are also members of society, and therefore share in the general personal economic interest in the decisions.
That just speaks to what Mr. Langlais provided us in his presentation, but in Sandy Springs and other cities, in which he
has been involved in reviewing Ethics, he wanted to be very clear and this is why he gave this to us to distinguish between
us as elected officials and us as citizens. Of course, we are public servants and as elected officials we must abide by our
Ethics Ordinance, but that law does not preclude us as citizens from either attending a meeting or in some situations
having a comment as a citizen. She did feel it is important that we understand where a Resolution could be in conflict
with a law that they already adopted. In addition to Section 1(c) (1), under Section 2 it also refers to public servants
retaining their rights to publicly expressing their views on matters of general public interest. She tried to come up with an
example just to be able to maybe give this a little more meaning. As an example they do not yet have our committees
together for the comprehensive land use planning process, and so she could see how as this process unfolds. There could
be someone on this elected official board who owns property or has interest and as that proceeds that might find the need
to attend a meeting, or if a particular item gets discussed that they would have a comment to as a citizen and not as an
elected official. They have a legal right under our Ethics Ordinance to be able to provide a comment. She said she just
wanted to make sure that they do not put something forward that is in contrast with the law. Because they adopted the
Ethics Ordinance, she is concerned that it could represent a conflict in terms of the law. In reference to Jim Langlais, at
their work session it was her understanding that this Resolution was going to be routed to him for review. It was her
understanding that it was going to be tabled from last Thursday. Obviously, that is not how things transpired, but she was
under the impression that because the Ethics Ordinance had been adopted and that they as Council at their work session
had discussed making sure that it was not in conflict that we were going to ask him to review it. Learning yesterday that
this was proceeding, she did send a note to Jim Langlais and asked him if he would review the Resolution and provide,
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 24 of 40
obviously not as our City attorney because he is not our City attorney, but because he was with us last Thursday. She
thought that should be the next step to identify this issue and see if this was already included. She indicated that she did
respond and sent that along with some other comments to everybody on the Council, including the Mayor and our City
Attorney, and his opinion was that the Ethics Ordinance covers the intent of not influencing. She would be very hopeful if
they could, and perhaps before it is voted on, if it would be the pleasure of this Council, she thought it would be a great
suggestion to have Jim Langlais maybe re-review it so that it could be quite clear what his full review was. The other
thing that she wanted to highlight is that the draft resolution with regard to the ability to have freedom of speech, there is
case law out of the State Supreme Court in New York that basically upheld those same rights. This is the same thing
within the Ethics Ordinance that is being referenced. She said that this was just a particular case that talked about public
servants and citizens are entitled to be heard in matters of public concern and that speaks to making sure that we do not
put forth a resolution that would conflict with existing laws whether those are local laws, ethic ordinances, or state or
federal laws. She said the other thing she wanted to highlight is that she went back to the Charter that was approved and,
of course, we have the powers to approve an ordinance, resolution, rules and regulations, but it says that are not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the State of Georgia. In looking at the law of the State of Georgia,
obviously, as part of that freedom of speech, it enables every person to speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects,
and it shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty. She said again, her concern is that they not put forth resolutions
that are contradictory to the law that our Charter says they must be consistent with. We have an ethics ordinance and that
is obviously what drives and influences the intent of what Councilmember Lusk has put forward. She said she is very
concerned that they should not preclude attendance or in some cases comments based on the federal and state law.
Obviously, they all are bound by the ethics ordinance that was approved on November 21st.
Mayor Lockwood said that at this point, if Councilmember Lusk wanted to defer this to let Jim Langlais look at it, it
would be up to him. Everyone else has made comments so if Councilmember Lusk does not want to make any changes,
he would like to put it to vote.
Councilmember Lusk said just for clarification it was not his original intent to preclude any attendance. He said he tried
to clarify that, but thought they needed to put themselves in a position where their body language is not interpreted. He
stated that he did not want to be so bold to say that he has researched all of the case law in the United States. He has not
researched the state laws here and codes and certainly you would find one decision out there promoting one thing and
probably you can find ten others that speak to the opposite of it. He would propose that they go forward with this
resolution and he believes it covers a gap in their conduct out here and he thinks it is necessary. There is certainly a case
out there that precipitated this and if we want to get into that, we probably would not be sitting here discussing this if one
issue out there did not precipitate this resolution. He said he wanted to see this thing move forward and send a message to
the people that they are going to conduct themselves like grownups. He said the word “professionals” is too obscure of a
term to use. There are some professions out there that he would not want to be associated with like some of the oldest
professions out there.
Councilmember Thurman said that Councilmember Zahner Bailey raised a legal issue, so she would like to ask the City
Attorney's opinion as to whether this resolution would conflict with state law.
City Attorney Scott said that to the extent that someone would want to appear before a board or commission to express
something that affected their property which is one of the primary concerns. He said that there is certainly no reason why
they could not send a spouse or co-property owner or why they could not send an attorney or other type of personal
representative and be able to make that statement. He was not aware of any authority that would say there was a problem
with this one way or the other.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked the City Attorney for clarity on this same question and asked if he had reviewed
this resolution relative to the law before this evening and before the question that was just posed.
City Attorney Scott said that he reviewed it in general, but said he has not specifically read Georgia case law on the
point. Certainly Jim Langlais did apparently, and you heard what his opinion was. He said that he would defer to his
opinion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 25 of 40
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that her concern in 1 (c) is that it expressly says that public servants are also
members of society and, therefore, share the same general personal economic interest. The Ethics Ordinance that we
passed is as a matter of law. It does not say that we have to send an attorney or representative. She said that we as
citizens have a right under state and federal law to have a personal opinion, not as a body of an elected officials, and based
on the question that was just asked by Councilmember Thurman, she said she is not so certain that they have had a
thorough legal review and would ask that we have that.
Mayor Lockwood said okay, so we have a motion and a second and everyone and has had a chance to speak.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed 5-2, with Councilmember Zahner Bailey and
Councilmember D'Aversa-Williams voting in opposition.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she would like to give a quick report with regards to the Fulton County meeting that
was held recently with regards to water towers. There was some discussion between Council and Staff, and it was her
understanding that Staff would be coordinating with Fulton County, but as a matter of record for the City, she wanted to
clarify and wondered if during the Staff report process if either Tom Wilson or City Manager Bovos could respond, or
what would be the appropriate time to have that discussion.
City Manager Bovos said that they have actually scheduled for further discussion about the water tower on the April 26th
Work Session agenda in order to be prepared to brief Council on the process to date on what the plans are between both
Fulton County and their consultants and the City moving forward.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that there may be some public here that may or may not be concerned with the
water tower, but she wanted to acknowledge that Commissioner Riley. She appreciated her attendance here this evening.
She stated that she is obviously part of that water tower meeting with her staff, so she wanted to thank her for being part
of evaluating alternatives. She asked if before that April 26th meeting if there would be any community meetings that they
would need to apprise our citizens of.
City Manager Bovos said absolutely.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said just another question under Staff Report just to validate the earlier discussion with
regard to Highway 9 or other overlays. One of the things that came out of the alcohol review was whether that was going
to be through a work session or some other staff process, but that they would be reviewing those items and asked if that
was correct.
City Manager Bovos said that is on his list tonight.
Mayor Lockwood stated since there are no more Council reports, let us move on to Staff Reports.
STAFF REPORTS
City Manager Bovos said that he had just had a few updates for everybody. One of the things he wants to discuss tonight
is that you will begin to see from a staff perspective a few items added under Staff Reports specifically related to what is
traditionally termed as work session items. One of the goals is to try and balance the time constraints between work
sessions that have up to fourteen agenda items on them and then those become very lengthy meetings as well as the
Council meetings. He further stated that when the opportunity arises we will defer some of the items off of the work
session agenda and put them under staff reports in the regular Council meetings. He stated we have done so this evening
with a couple of items which we will get to shortly. However, the April Work Session Agenda as well as the May Work
Session Agenda, as of today, both have at least 12 to 14 items on them. So, you will begin to see these in the Council
meetings in order for us to cover the items that have to get covered. He wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of
this.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 26 of 40
Retreat Update
City Manager Bovos stated that the retreat is tentatively scheduled for April 20th and 21st and it is tentatively because we
are still confirming some dates for people. We will move forward to continue to confirm those dates before we ever plan
for the facilitator or location, but he wanted to make sure everyone knew we were still working on this and moving
forward as aggressively as we can.
Performance Measurement and Performance Matrix Project
City Manager Bovos stated we did launch this week, from staff perspective, the Performance Measurement and
Performance Matrix project and he was very happy to announce this. Therefore, he stated that they will begin to see these
Performance Measures and Matrix reports, and they will be included in the budget process.
Public Safety Update
City Manager Bovos stated a few announcements from Public Safety that we do have 27 current offers out for
employees. Of those 27 offers, 21 have been accepted; 3 are pending and we have 3 who have declined. In addition to
that we have 23 applications still in process.
First Municipal Court Date
City Manager Bovos stated we had 16 Fulton County officers sworn in today. As a point of information, payment for
those tickets issued by those officers will come to the City of Milton Municipal Court and the first court date is scheduled
April 16, 2007.
First Planning Commission Session
City Manager Bovos stated that the first Planning Commission session is next Thursday (March 22nd), and will begin at
5:00 pm held in the Council Chambers. Robin MacDonald did distribute the agenda very late, so you will be getting that
via e-mail shortly.
Invocation
City Manager Bovos stated that one of the things that will be different starting on the April 12th Agenda will be an
invocation prior to the meeting actually being called to order. He wanted to be sure that everyone is aware of that and
Carol Haag will be coordinating the invocation process. He wanted to be sure that everyone knows that the invocation
will occur prior to the roll call, so we will not actually call the meeting to order, but we will give an invocation and then
the Mayor will call the meeting to order in order for us to stay in compliant with some of the external regulatory entities.
He stated that in addition, if anybody has anyone or any group who is interested in leading the Pledge of Allegiance, such
as Boys or Girls Scout groups, we would certainly be happy to coordinate that and these would be welcome from the staff
perspective, elected officials perspective, and the citizens perspective in order to incorporate those people and associations
into our meetings.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked how many days are needed in advance because she has had some inquiry about
this and did not know if a day or a week was required.
City Manager Bovos stated that it really depends on whether they want to be published on the Agenda. If want to be
published on the Agenda, then we will need a week in advance of the meeting. However, if not and they just want to
show up, we can accommodate that quite easily.
Miracle League
City Manager Bovos stated that staff and elected officials will be participating this Saturday with the Miracle League and
we certainly wanted everyone to know about this. Councilmember D’Aversa Williams has coordinated this great event.
City Manager Bovos stated that the committee formulation is still underway and stated he and the Mayor are working on
those as well.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 27 of 40
City Manager Bovos stated his last announcement will be that we will have a three week break for the Mayor and City
Council and he hopes everyone enjoys that.
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams stated that we have been asked to work with the Miracle League and that we had
actually been asked to play the City of Alpharetta in a City softball game, but they were not able to get a team together.
We are going out to play with the kids and the City has sponsored the team the “Milton Mustangs.” However, she wanted
to state that one of the things this brings to light when we show our support for this Miracle League which is for children
and adults with disabilities and allows them to participate in these games. There is a growing population of children and
adults with disabilities throughout the North Fulton area (and probably other areas as well) and she had the opportunity to
work with them. She would be remiss if she did not mention it this evening that she was able to participate in the
combined Milton, Alpharetta and Fulton County school cluster meeting yesterday. One of the big items on the agenda
and for discussion was the special needs population that has really grown and they believe will grow significantly in the
foreseeable future within the school system. They believe people are moving to the North Fulton County Public School
System because of the excellent services that the North Fulton County Schools are providing to children with disabilities.
We have some of the most outstanding school services in our area and unless you have children with disabilities or maybe
some of your children are helping in supporting these schools and children, you might not be aware of this. She stated we
will see some more coming out of this Council and other cities a very proactive effort to make sure these services are
being provided properly to children and adults with disabilities in all the things that we do in our City. To include the
developmental things we do and not just sports related or parks and recreation, but other services all take into accord this
growing special needs population that we have. She stated that everyone is invited Saturday to the Alpharetta North Park
starting at approximately 10:00 AM and there will be lots of free food and it is a wonderful experience. This will be our
6th year.
Inter-Basin Transfer of Sewer for Dennis Potts
Community Development Director Wilson stated that based on conversations in earlier meetings that you have been
petitioned by one of your citizens to support a change to a Fulton County resolution that prohibits Inter-Basin transfer of
sewer. He said that tonight he wanted to give information about this and each of you has been given a map. He would
like for this to be put on the April 12th meeting for your consideration, but tonight he is giving some information and
answer some questions and also walk the Council through the map. He stated to begin he identified Dennis Potts’
property, which is on the south side of Webb Road, and he has placed a small dot on that property as orientation so you
can spot that first. Then, he wanted the Council to look at the legend on the right hand side to look at some of the colored
districts. He stated that he has been asked to broaden this from just Mr. Potts’ property to include all properties where we
see this same situation occurring. The lime green properties on this map are those properties that are not sewered, but are
sewer-able, but they are not sewer-able under the current resolution of Fulton County. He then stated the more medium
green properties are those that are already sewered and are not really part of the discussion tonight. The purple properties
are properties that are not sewered, but are sewer-able under the current resolution. Therefore, he stated that what we are
really looking at tonight are those light green properties that could be sewered, but not under the current Ordinance and by
sewered, he stated he means they would flow either to the Big Creek Basin or to a pump station that goes to the Big Creek
Basin. The yellow properties cannot flow by gravity to that basin or to a pump station that pumps to that basin.
Mayor Lockwood asked as clarification that we are talking about the lime green properties and there seems to be about
12 of them.
Community Development Director Wilson affirmed there are about a dozen or so.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated, as a color-coded perspective, that these lime green properties are those that
currently are not allowable based on the no-sewer policy of Fulton County that we have now adopted and then she asked
if the purple dot is where Mr. Potts’ property is located.
Community Development Director Wilson stated he actually put a tiny little dot on Mr. Potts’ property.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she sees multiple dots.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 28 of 40
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the bigger purple dots are pump stations that pump into the Big
Creek Basin.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said there is a little dot on the lime green that represents the property in question that we
are being asked to consider and then the additional properties are those that might ask for similar considerations
depending on what we do no this.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that is correct. The totality of the lime green properties are those
properties that could be sewered, but not under the current Ordinance.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if Mr. Wilson could define what he means by “could”.
Community Development Director Wilson stated these are properties that flow by gravity into the Big Creek Basin or
could flow by gravity into a pump station that pumps into the Big Creek Basin.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that when you say “could,” and maybe we can get back into how that is in contrast
to the Ordinance because the current Ordinance says that they cannot be and should not be.
Community Development Director Wilson stated the current Ordinance does not include these properties because these
properties are not included in the exempted land lots.
Mayor Lockwood stated that he understand that in Mr. Potts’ situation it is because he is an island and he is surrounded
by everyone else who is sewered. But some of these other properties in the lime green are not land-locked or an island
situation. He asked if this is correct.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that is correct and stated if you will look at Mr. Potts’ property and
those properties that are immediately to the east, 7 or 8 single-family lots that are there, those are entirely surrounded by
sewered properties and that is a distinction that the other properties do not have.
Mayor Lockwood stated he understands that some of these fall under the same situation, but these look to be those that
are just to the east of Mr. Potts’
Community Development Director Wilson stated yes and the one at Hopewell Road pump station is also totally
surrounded by sewer-able properties under the Ordinance.
Councilmember Lusk asked, in regard to the statement Councilmember Zahner Bailey made, if we approved Mr. Potts’
request here that has no bearing on the other lime green areas that are in the sewer-able area. They all stand by
themselves. To state it differently, if we approve Mr. Potts’ request this does not necessarily have a bearing on the other
lime green area and asked if that is correct.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he is not sure that he would agree with that, but said if you look
at Mr. Potts’ property and those two properties that are immediately east and that are also lime green, skip over the blue
one, which is already sewered, then there are eight properties that are also lime green. He stated that all of those are
distinctive in that they are all totally surrounded by sewered or sewer-able properties under the current Ordinance and
these have been left out of that Ordinance, all of those eleven properties. The other lime green properties, such as if you
go all the way up to the north along Highway 9, those properties are not surrounded entirely by sewered or sewer-able
properties, but sewer from that property could flow with gravity across the street into the Big Creek Basin. That is a
different distinction than Mr. Potts’ and those eleven properties adjacent to Mr. Potts, and the same thing is true about the
one that is in land lot 977 in the Hopewell tract as it is surrounded by sewered properties and it can flow by gravity to that
Hopewell pump station and pumps back into the Big Creek Basin.
Councilmember Thurman asked about the one in land lot 1050, the one across from 1049.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 29 of 40
Community Development Director Wilson stated that one is also completely surrounded by sewered properties.
Councilmember Thurman asked Tom Wilson if, in his professional opinion, if we approve tonight just those that were
completely surrounded by properties that were already sewered or sewer-able per the Ordinance, would that automatically
set a precedence for the other areas that did not qualify for that or can we do that and be done with the sewer.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that is a very good question and that is really a question about
precedence. If your actions accompanies a statement from you that this is not precedence setting, then he would never
consider that as precedence setting and would not consider that in my future deliberations, but he cannot say what a court
would do in a similar situation. He stated that perhaps City Attorney Scott can speak to us on how a court would consider
precedence.
City Attorney Scott stated that he felt a court would be inclined on one hand to defer to the Council, but that does not
mean that they will.
Councilmember Thurman asked if we enter a decision only on those properties which were already completely
surrounded by sewered or sewer-able properties per the Ordinance, it would be a little more of a jump for them to go to
the other ones who were not surrounded as opposed to if we were to approve some which were not surrounded and some
that are, and asked if that were correct.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that it is certainly a further jump to consider as precedence to extend
that to properties that are not completely surrounded by sewers, if that answers the question.
City Attorney Scott stated one more clarification on the precedent issue, if the Council were to take an action and say
this would not be setting precedence, it would clearly not be precedent for future Council action. Now, if someone
appealed to Council action to a court, we do not know what they would do. He further stated that if the Council were the
only actor in that scenario, the Council would clearly not have to accept that as precedence.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated those are the concerns and we need to look at this from a standpoint as though we
could be taken to court by others who would like to see sewer extended to their property, which she hopes that by tonight
we would have additional legal review and that we could look at scenarios. Let us presume that it is going to court and let
us presume that there would be other property owners who would want to challenge whether or not we are opening the
door for sewers extended to other properties and that if we think through that, what would we need to do to preclude
setting a negative legal precedent. She further stated that this is a question and a statement for additional legal review.
Another thought, this came before us as a request by one land owner. When that land owner addressed us, he stated that it
was just one parcel and initially it was just one parcel that we were considering or that Fulton County had asked us to
consider. She now hears Tom Wilson saying there are at least eleven properties that are in a similar situation, but still a
different situation. If we then add up all these other lime green parcels (and short of sitting here and counting them), it
looks to be in excess of twenty parcels, we have very quickly gone from one parcel to multiple parcels. She would be
extremely remiss if she did not express her concern for a very thorough research and review that would be needed to
evaluate this information which, as of tonight, is the first time we have had a real sense of which properties would
potentially challenge any changes that we might bring forward. She stated that the other thing, one of our legacy projects
that many on the Council have identified is the comprehensive land use planning process. It would seem that if we are
about to initiate that process, and with all the concerns that we have heard from Highway 9 residents, that we should not
unilaterally be considering making land lot changes to a no sewer policy without extensive public involvement. She then
asked Tom Wilson if it would be reasonable that this sort of shift in the no sewer policy giving that it would impact the
Highway 9 overlay and so many of those citizens that we might want to consider this as part of the comprehensive land
use planning process that we are about to undertake. We are not talking about one property, but multiple properties.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he is looking at the land use plan and they are on the future land
use plan and many of these are already slated for something other than single-family lots, so you would assume that those
would not need to be sewered in order to be an office development or a large development.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 30 of 40
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that her question is that would not a comprehensive land use planning process that
we are about to be engaged in be an appropriate place for us to seek public input on that future land use plan even though
that land use plan might consider something other than single-family residential. We have heard on numerous occasions
from the public saying they are concerned about that area of Highway 9 and she is concerned that we are disconnecting
the potential extension of sewer to eleven plus properties without a full review as it relates to the complete planning
process. We have gone from the consideration of one property to what can potentially impact multiple properties.
Community Development Director Wilson stated this is something that would be and could be considered during the
land use comp plan.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated if this comprehensive land use plan in process and about to be initiated and we
have adopted it on our legacy project list, how close are we to having that project being initiated.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he hopes to have that project kicked off on April 30th.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she threw that out as a possibility, but would perhaps want to have this as part of
that evaluation process in addition to some additional legal review. She stated that she believes this warrants a lot of
public input and consideration because it is not a small issue.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that his comment is that if we will recall, when Mr. Potts originally brought this forward,
he brought it forward to this Council and said “I am surrounded by sewer. My property has already been zoned for office
and there is no way that I can really do that without going to the point of sewer and that is what I request is that this
Council send a letter basically saying we are not opposed to sewer”. He stated that he believed that Commissioner Riley
was sitting here and we asked her specific questions, as well as City Attorney Scott, if this would set a legal precedent
because we are not making a decision on sewer, Fulton County is. Therefore, he stated that his sort of counter counsel to
Councilperson Zahner Bailey. He does not believe it is fair to a land owner that already has the zoning and because the
timing got held up in the process. He understands the concern about the other properties, but he truly does not believe that
we should hold this gentleman up in the Council by making a decision on whether or not we will authorize the City
Manager to send a letter saying we are not opposed to sewer on this parcel. He stated another thing that he would like to
put forward, and perhaps this is something we do as part of the comprehensive land use, there is a lot of new information
from the EPA and other places taking a look at when sewer is appropriate and actually safer than having septic. Where he
is going is that we (those of us who have lived here) have fought sewer because with it Fulton County always allows high
density. Now, we are the Council setting the land use map where we can say this is the density we are going to allow and
sewer no longer has to be the thing that we fight about as we go forward. He believes that is something we ought to
consider, not tonight, but as we go forward we have citizens who live up in the no sewer zone that work in that field and
they say we are leashing things down into the water table that make it unsafe to people who take water out of there. It
would be better to have that water treated and, again, we can impact what we are going to allow for density and for use
now that we are our own City. He stated that this is something to consider in the future. We have always fought it and he
does not want high density added and he is not for that, but he believes we need to take a look at the future what is the
best thing for the City of Milton from a health standpoint. He is not advocating extending sewer, but he believes this is
something we need to look at because when they talked about septic being acceptable, we did not anticipate large
developments all over the place with septic. He believes we can take a more pro-active role in the future.
Councilmember Thurman stated she has a question and a comment. First of all, she stated she agrees with
Councilmember Mohrig. In the past, the subject on the lack of sewer was our primary means to control density and at
times it was our only means. That was the card we had to play in order to keep the area the way we wanted it. She stated
that we no longer have that as our only card and we can control density ourselves and she believes this is something that
will be important going forward. Also, she wanted to ask the staff is we know why certain land lots were left out when
Fulton County did their sewer ordinance.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that the only thing he heard was that it was just overlooked.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 31 of 40
Councilmember Thurman stated that is why from a land planning perspective it seems kind of unusual that you would
have sewer completely surrounding certain parcels and have these little islands where sewer is not allowed.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that he knows of no rational explanation as to how that happened.
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams said she has a thought about being proactive and the way she looks at this map with
the parcels in question. In her opinion if you are going to do this for Mr. Potts’ property, then you are going to have to do
it for all the other lots in 1050, 1049ish and 1048ish. They are all surrounded by sewer and her opinion is that we need to
be proactive and set our own precedent, as opposed to waiting for someone to come to us and sue us because we gave
somebody sewer when we have a policy against sewer. We should make a policy (and we are pretty good at doing that)
that says anything surrounded by sewer in an area that is sewer-able, especially those condoned and accepted by Fulton
County, would then be allowed. So, have a policy now that states that. The only ones that are going to be impacted by
that are these 1037, 1049 and 1048, so then we have precluded anybody coming back to us and asking us about this idea
that we set a precedent and now they should have sewer. She said she does agree that we have historically had that battle
about not wanting the density and she is completely against density. She further believes our lots should be 2-acre
minimum, as opposed to 1-acre minimum, but she is not convinced that in this area we are being very realistic by holding
these properties back. She then stated that we should be proactive and set our own precedent as opposed to waiting
because she believes we open ourselves up conversely to being sued by these property owners because they are
handcuffed and they were left out and there is no real rational reason that we can figure out why they were left out, except
for timing, of course, because of Fulton County.
Community Development Director Wilson stated as clarification that he understood everything Councilmember
D’Aversa Williams said, but he did not understand why she left out those properties in 1037, as they are also surrounded.
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams stated that she did add them.
Community Development Director Wilson stated that yes; it is those 4 boxes there that are surrounded.
Councilmember O’Brien stated that he appreciates the statement that Councilmember Mohrig made especially that we
should remember that the landscape has changed a little for us since we do control the density. He believes that as it has
been previously noted, that Mr. Potts’ in this posture would be an exception and this really acknowledges the obvious. He
stated he does not see a downside and probably the most important factor to him is that he contacted representatives of the
Bethany area association for their opinion and they do not have an adverse opinion of approval of sewer there. They have
really been the watchdogs and very concerned about these types of land use decisions in the area and that suggests that
this would be safe and appropriate for those of us to consider.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that we are not authorizing sewer and all we are doing is sending a letter if this Council
agrees, then City Manager Bovos, representing the City, would send a letter stating we are not opposed to sewer and then
we would let Fulton County make their decision on the sewer-able and non sewer-able and asked if this is correct.
Community Development Director Wilson stated this is correct.
Councilmember Lusk stated that he would agree with all of this, especially the proposal to be proactive and let us take
care of this now whether then going down this same road eleven or twelve more times and feels we should deal with it
now.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she had just a couple of additional thoughts since she has heard different
Councilmembers making their points. There is a whole host of issues we are dealing with and the first is that we have
been asked to write a letter to Fulton County with regards to Mr. Potts’ property specifically and as it relates to that issue.
A concern that she has is if on April 12th this comes back to us, and she did not know if he was going to be coming back to
the Council in a work session or in a Council meeting, that the people who were in that room heard that the item was
deferred because Tom Wilson was unfortunately ill. As a matter of clarification, we did have a good number of citizens
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 32 of 40
who were there who heard whatever was going to be on the next work session, so she does believe we need to make an
extra effort to communicate that this might be different because April 12th is sooner than the next work session of April
26th. Also, she stated that in considering a letter there are two very different things. One, she said she heard somebody
say we would write a letter saying we are not opposed to sewer. She stated that language is perhaps not what we want and
she would recommend that we would include that in the letter to Fulton County. She said that part of the discussion we
had before, and if we were having this during a work session we would be having it around a table and there would be an
opportunity for public comment, but that a letter to Fulton County, she believes there are two different approaches. One
is to say to Fulton County that this is really your issue; you approved a rezoning knowing that it was not. We could be
silent and allow Fulton County to manage that because they do have the authority to make a decision without us. The
other would be if in that letter, and with more consideration and after legal review if there was going to be a letter to
Fulton County, we would support their change to a resolution. She would ask that we would not have something that
states that as an exception, but if we are looking for a particular land lot to be modified, it does not need to be an
exception, but it would need to be a change to the existing no sewer no inter basin transfer resolution so that legally when
challenged in a court of law, we did not set it up as an exception, we did not write anything that said it was an exception,
but instead it was very specific to that land lot that is owned by Mr. Potts. Those are two very different approaches to
how to potentially arrive at a solution. What she is very interested in is if we pursue a solution on that one parcel that we
are very mindful legally that we have not set in motion an exception or a legal precedent other than us sitting up here and
saying that we do not mean it to be an exception. Quite candidly, she said that in a court of law, whether we say that or
not, that is not what they are going to look to and she is hoping that our City Attorney will give us some more input. She
said she really does not believe they will say that those seven people said they did not want it to be precedent because
there is example after example throughout what is now Milton where that did not work. The other thing that she feels
compelled to comment on is that when we talk about the extension of sewer and that we can separate the extension of
sewer from high density, she does not know that in the State of Georgia it would necessarily support that posture. She
believes there is a lot of research that is needed and she is asking as at least one Councilmember that we be very sure we
walk down the path of legal review and if necessary we get outside counsel on this issue. There are thousands and
thousands of citizens that expect this area to remain non-sewered. She said she could probably pull up a multitude of
different publications that each person on this Council put forth talking about this remaining a non-sewered area. She
hopes we are not going to take this lightly and that we do extensive research and that the law does not say that you can
extend sewer and then preclude the higher density. This is a huge issue and if we are about to walk down opening up our
no sewer policy with not only one property now, but if we are now saying with the wave of a wand we might extend this
sewer to over twenty different parcels that today are very definitely non-sewered areas. To the property in 1037 and Mr.
Wilson’s comment, obviously this is beyond tonight and in a work session we would have more opportunity, and she begs
the pardon of our citizens tonight that this is much more than just a staff report, this is effectively the replacement of what
would have been a work session and constrained to a 5 or 10 minute discussion. She further stated that Hopewell Road,
she believes, as Councilmember D’Aversa mentioned, historically that anything that fronted on Hopewell Road is indeed
to remain 1-acre minimum and there are some cases where rezonings occurred and we could go back to Fulton County,
but there are basically more policies that were affirmed when rezonings were requested. You have folks from Hopewell
Place and different communities along Hopewell Road that she believes will have serious issues with us unilaterally
saying let us take 1037 and allow it to be sewered. Again, there are policies in place, there are decisions based on certain
rezoning whereby those parcels because they were non-sewered were allowed to remain on the frontage of Hopewell
Road in that 1-acre minimum. There are some citizens there that expected that to be part of that transition policy. She
then stated this would lead her to her next point and that is we talk about how somehow these all happened and she does
not necessarily believe it was a mistake and in some cases it represented a transition policy. Transition policies in our
current 20/25 comprehensive land use plan are very specific. We have seen some recent examples where transition
policies ended up being violated because there was a loophole in the policy and suddenly a transition policy that was
supposed to transition from high density back to AG-1 and one unit the acre was bypassed. Those loopholes were then
closed as recently as six months ago. Her concern is that we are about to ignore some of the closures of those loop holes
and potentially open up more loopholes. She just asks that we tread very, very carefully and she believes we are at risk of
setting negative precedents. She does understand the issue of Mr. Potts’ request and she appreciates very much staff
coming forward with the identification of additional parcels because before this map, she thinks that some people on this
Council were presuming that it was just one parcel. In fact, Mr. Potts thought it was just one. We immediately thereafter
heard another land owner say that he would like a sewer extension too. She stated she is all for proactive evaluation, but
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 33 of 40
she is extremely concerned about opening the issue of exceptions to a no sewer policy that has been in place since 1995
that the citizens expect to see us uphold. Between now and April 12th, she asked if we can ensure that we have adequate
time for more legal review that we evaluate the options on what that letter could or could not say that would address just
that one parcel and also evaluate whether or not separate from that one parcel could the other parcels become part of our
comprehensive land use planning process that is about to be initiated on April 30th. She asked if we could have multi-
tiered sort of solution for this and evaluation rather than bite off all 20 properties from where it was one and now it is 20
to 25 properties. She asked if this could be an item of possibility and especially given that we have not had any public
comment. If this were a work session, people would have had an opportunity for public comment on this, but instead we
have a staff report with no opportunity for public comment and we have citizens who were with us last Thursday night
who thought they would have an opportunity April 26th for public comment and now we do not have that. She asked if
there is anyone here tonight, and could we open it up to public comment for anyone who is here.
Mayor Lockwood said this is something we can consider.
Councilmember Mohrig stated that he wanted to make one final comment regarding this and his concern would be if we
do not consider this again and we put it off for another month because we had a staff member ill, we do not know if we
even know what the Council is feeling about doing the letter for at least one parcel. The other thing that he wants to make
sure that his comments are not misconstrued or misinterpreted. He is not saying we want to sewer an area that is un-
sewered. What he is suggesting is that if we go forward, and in the interest of health and looking toward the future of the
City, we need to look at what the current information states about sewer. He thinks we do need to continue to be
aggressive when we do our comprehensive land use plan. From what he has been told in the past that is the law as far as
zoning goes, sewer or no sewer, and stated he has lived with what happens with high density when sewer was extended,
so he understands the concerns. Therefore, he stated that we as the Council need to take a look and say that as we go
forward that we are the ones who are responsible for this area. He thinks we need to use the comprehensive land use plan
as if it really dictates that and also take a look down the road to see if it makes sense from a health standpoint to look at
other options as we go forward.
Mayor Lockwood stated we have had some good comments, and we need to get some more legal opinion on this where
we draw the line on this one situation because it does open up. He would also like to say, and he appreciates
Councilmember Bailey on the fact that the majority of our citizens, and he also does respects what Councilmember
Mohrig just said on the health issues, but he does think that sewer is a big issue to the majority of our residents with
regards to zoning. Sewer has been what has controlled it to this point, so he believes this is important.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if it be the pleasure of the Mayor could we open this is up for public comment.
Mayor Lockwood asked if anyone would like to say anything.
Joan Wynderle, 765 Owens Lake Road, Milton, said she agrees with Councilmember Zahner Bailey that a sewer issue
is a large and huge issue in Alpharetta and Milton and that was one of the reasons why she moved here. She said that if
you allow Mr. Potts’ request, then the Council is going down a slippery slope.
Councilmember Thurman stated that she wanted everyone to understand that we are talking about a very few number of
parcels and in the rest of the area sewer is not an issue because, quite frankly, it is not possible.
Jon Carroll, 2140 Country Ridge Road, Milton, said if you do this, just make sure that after you have the public
comments that you explain it very well. We voted for you because you said you were going to control density and if you
are going to separate sewer from density, you need to make sure that is very clear and that the public is very aware.
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams said she wanted everyone to know that these are not AG-1 properties, but are
commercial properties that border Highway 9 that we are discussing. There would be no way that we would be discussing
allowing sewer in the middle of the City.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 34 of 40
Councilmember Mohrig stated what he was trying to say is that he is not saying let us sewer this whole area. He is not
saying that at all. What he is saying is that we need to make sure we firm up our comprehensive land use plan, but as we
go down the road and we are getting more comfortable and we are protecting ourselves, let us take a look from a health
standpoint at the whole thing. However, he believes that all of our concerns and emotions have been because we have
used sewer and no sewer as the way we control zoning and density and we know what Fulton County did with that - they
would change things. He stated he is not advocating that we extend sewer lines and he does not want that to show up in
he paper, but he believes we need to look at the big picture.
Bob Moheb, 13085 Morris Road, Milton, said that he believes it would be to the benefit of the City to go ahead and not
make any action on this right now, but let the committees do research so you can make an educated decision and not just
look at one area or one parcel, but to look at the entire City and go from there.
Kathleen Smith, 13305 Bethany Road, Milton, stated that one of the reasons that Milton High school is having
problems now is because Fulton County does not want to go on septic. They had a lot of problems at Summit Hill and she
does not know if they did not address this, but when she attended all those meetings, they said they did not want sewer
because they did not have the sewer lines because there have been failures and scenarios where there are subdivisions that
do not maintain their septic fields and they failed. You will have a lot of problems.
Paul Moore, 15250 White Columns Drive, Milton, stated that after listening to the discussions on sewer and no sewer
and the situation with Mr. Potts, this seems to be out of what should be sewered process. He stated that we need to make
sure that the public is informed that this might affect several properties and not just one property. He encouraged the
Council to defer this decision this evening and get input from public as was stated earlier just to be sure.
Carol Lane, 14890 East Bluff Road, said she would like to address the Ethics Ordinance. She said the Council’s
position is to stand for the citizens of Milton and that is what your job is. Before the Council goes down that road without
the public comment and no input, she said that is not why you are here. She said we need public input on this issue and
this Council is making a mistake if they do not.
Councilmember Thurman said as clarification we are having public input and we will have public input before any
decision is made, is that correct…. It was affirmed unknown and off microphone
Carol Lane, 14890 East Bluff Road, said she appreciates this, but what she means is that it needs to go out to the entire
public in the City of Milton so they understand what is going on. This is about one of the biggest topics there is to the
citizens in the City of Milton and you all represent the City of Milton.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated with regards to public preview and knowing that, even though we also have three
weeks off and our citizenry has spring break coming up, between now and April 10th we are going to have a lot of the
public who will be out town for ten to twelve days on spring break. If we come back and this item is before us on April
12th, a concern based on two of the folks that just spoke with regards to public comment, she asked is that ample time for
folks to be fully engaged and apprised. She said she does not have a calendar in front of her, but that first Thursday that
the Council is back after spring break, but right now it is scheduled that the vote would be on that Thursday, the 12th, or is
that scheduled as a first presentation. She asked will there be discussion and asked if it could elaborate on. She would
like to urge the Council to have more than just one meeting on the 12th with more opportunity for public preview and
comment.
City Manager Bovos stated that from staff’s perspective they are just trying to respond to a constituent’s request and that
is obviously, Mr. Potts, with respect to his request to have the City issue a letter to Fulton County. The time frame in
which that happens is certainly up to the Council. If the Council does not feel comfortable doing that, we can delay this.
He further said that our goal because it was on last week’s agenda is certainly just to continue discussion tonight because
it is such a substantial issue. We have had previous discussion and we have had discussion tonight. If we did not have
discussion tonight, we would not be able to have it until the next Work Session on April 26th, and at this point it has been
going on for 30 to 60 days. He would like to say this is a long time, but it is certainly not for an issue this size. He said
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 35 of 40
we can put this on the April 12th agenda; we can put it on the April 26th agenda or on the May 11th agenda. From the
staff’s perspective, again, we are just trying to respond to a constituent’s request and not be non-responsive in that
manner, so it is strictly up to Council.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said a request that she would have at least for consideration by this Council and Mayor
would be since last Thursday it was discussed in the Work Session in public presence that it would be on a work session
for the 26th. This is the first time, with all due respect to the City Manager, that it has been 30 to 60 days since we last
talked about this. The Council did not have the benefit of the map that is before us and this is the first time that we have
been presented a map that shows it could be upward to 20 parcels and just hearing the discussions it went to from one to a
pretty broad discussion that has occurred the last ten minutes. Based on the public comment, although very limited, she
said she is a huge proponent of making sure that each issue gets it full due and it looks like we are discussing more than
just one situation that does have the potential of negative legal precedence, depending on how it is handled or not. She
said that with that in mind, we need more legal review. She said that she knows that Chris Browning was supposed to be
part of the discussion at the Work Session and we do not have the benefit of his input this evening. She said she thinks it
will still be very helpful knowing there is additional research to be done and knowing that we need more legal review.
She also knows that we need to continue it and that the Council should not ignore it, but she said we need to be sensitive
to this issue and be sensitive to Mr. Potts and give him the assurance that we are doing due diligence, but at the same time
we represent those community concerns and make sure that we give adequate public review and time especially given we
have ten to twelve days where our citizenry between now and April 12th will be out of town.
City Manager Bovos said that if that is what Council would like to do that is fine, but we need to hear from Council on
what they would like to see happen on this item.
Councilmember Mohrig asked how the Council does that.
City Manager Bovos stated that you go down the line…
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if this will appear at a Work Session where there will be more comment, was that
correct.
City Manager Bovos responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Thurman said right now we are scheduled for April 12th meeting so unless you hear from us otherwise,
it will be on our April 12th meeting, and asked is that correct.
City Manager Bovos said that from staff’s perspective our goal… and said you are absolutely right and he does not want
to not break it down into two issues. He said that one issue that is the request that Mr. Potts has and the other is the issue
of the 20 plus parcels. He said that they had anticipated having discussion about the Mr. Potts issue tonight and obviously
that is intermixed, but what the discussion from staff’s perspective was is to have Mr. Potts’ issue on for April 12th. Now,
if that cannot be separated from the overall and larger issue, then we are certainly fine with addressing both of them. But,
tentatively, yes, that is as of today’s preview meeting and in terms of staff’s discussion it is scheduled to come back before
you on April 12th, it would be at that point an agenda item and it will be a published agenda item and be distributed via the
web and also in your Council packets. So, that is where we are today and again… that can change based upon what your
desire is. If the Council wants something different, the staff does not have any disagreement with that, we just need to
hear what you want.
Councilmember Thurman said she is actually one of the ones who had asked Tom Wilson for the map showing all of
the parcels because to her, she would rather address them all at one time and make sure no precedent was set once this is
all taken care of one way or another so that we are not addressing these on a monthly or bi-monthly basis and we would
be setting a precedent in that manner. That is why she asked him to let us know which parcels out there were sewer-able
and which were the ones that were surrounded so that we could go ahead and make a decision on this and put it to bed so
that we do not have to talk about sewer for the rest of the area that is not sewer-able based on the current policies.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 36 of 40
Councilmember Lusk said that according to his mathematics, April 12th is 27 days away and asked if we could not go
ahead and post a notice for public comment and participation in our April 12th meeting tomorrow.
Mayor Lockwood responded affirmatively.
Councilmember Lusk said that he understands the sensitivity of this issue and the sooner we get it up there in public,
obviously, the better for the concerns of the public and catch them before they head out of town.
Mayor Lockwood said we need to get more legal advice and mixed that with staff on this one situation verses concerns
about it spreading and how we can define it or separate it.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she is just concerned because the request she had, and it was probably a different
request, but at the last meeting she had also asked Tom Wilson for the map because we were supposed to addressing Mr.
Potts’ request. Then we heard John McMillan after he came to the microphone say that he too had a couple of parcels. It
was in the context of that discussion for her that she had asked for additional parcels so that we could be sure that in
addressing one parcel, we did not set a precedence. She just heard Councilmember Thurman say is that her intentions
were a little bit different and that was to look at all of that and hearing that she believes we have two different approaches.
She is hearing two different things and she would like to clarify for the 12th that she believes she heard City Manager
Bovos mention that right now we are still addressing the one parcel and how best to address or not a respond to the
request from Mr. Potts for some sort of communication to Fulton County on that one parcel. She asked if that is correct
and then said she is just trying to get back to looking at just this one parcel, and now we are saying that on the 12th we will
be considering all parcels.
City Manager Bovos said that from staff’s perspective, the 12th is just to deal with Mr. Potts.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said is it staff’s and legal review, and obviously we have to look at that as what would
be the legal precedent on how we handle that one parcel, which is why we have the beneficial map. She asked will staff
be putting forth some additional input as to options that would suggest, for example, a letter that would say we do not
support it and you handle it, or yes we do support it on this one land lot and requesting they modify the resolution on that
one land lot or… She is just trying to understand what staff is going to be coming back to the Council with on this next
25 plus days. Just for the record, her point about the 12 days is not between now and the 12th, but how many days that
people will be out of town, but whatever that number is, what is staff going to be doing between now and then to respond
to how to handle just the Mr. Potts scenario verses the additional properties.
Councilmember Thurman said it is her understanding that Mr. McMillan has also made a formal request and asked if
his is included in there and asked if that was correct.
Director of Community Development Wilson said he has not seen a formal request, but he has made a public request.
To answer the question, staff is looking for guidance on this so we will bring back on the 12th and whatever you ask us to
bring back, whether it is just Mr. Potts or all of these, we will be prepared. This information has been provided to you
because you asked for this information as to the larger extent this might apply.
Mayor Lockwood asked as clarification from what he understands is that Mr. Potts’ piece of property was left out
basically, left out with Fulton County, and is that something that would isolate his property from the rest of these
properties.
Director of Community Development Wilson said it is hard to find any distinction about Mr. Potts’ property that is not
also exactly the same as the rest of those at least those 11 properties, which are surrounded by sewered or sewer-able
properties.
Mayor Lockwood said that right at the last minute Fulton County dropped the ball… they had approved something. That
is his recollection, but he may be wrong.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 37 of 40
Councilmember Mohrig said that what he heard from Commissioner Riley is because the City of Milton was coming
into play, they did not want to make that decision and there was not a City to go to the Council and ask or say we are not
going to address it. We will look at the zoning and other groups did support the OI zoning. It looks like it makes sense to
what was there, and we could go back and look at the records, but Fulton County did not want to touch it until the City of
Milton’s Council had a chance to actually weigh in on it and see if they were OK with this. That is what he heard.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said the other piece of history that might be important for us to rely on going forward is
also before we became a City, Commissioner Riley and Commissioner Handel closed a loophole, a perceived loop hole,
from an applicant at Bethany and Cogburn that walked through. It was during that process there was a pretty drastic
closure of loopholes by Fulton County and by our Commissioners, as well as Chris Browning’s involvement. That was a
pretty recent closure of loop holes and it is not as though Fulton County did not proactively look at some of these parcels
because that loophole closure, for lack of a better term, went back and very specifically changed or modified some
language to preclude the extension of sewer in this area. She said she wanted to make sure that we do not give the
impression that it was an “oops,” because they went back with quite a bit of diligence over a whole course of different
meetings and changed that language. She would like to ask staff and legal would look not only at the precursor to the now
current Inter-Basin Transfer Resolution and also look at the modified no-sewered Inter-Basin Transfer where they made
those changes to the land lot. It would be to her that if we are looking at Mr. Potts’ property, she would hope that we
would look at some others and ask Mr. Browning for some of those distinguishing characteristics. From a legal
perspective, we need to absolutely be able to distinguish or rationalize legally, and not just by motion or anything else,
why it is that we would ask Fulton County to change or to include certain land lots that previously had not been. She
would think we would want to evaluate legally what the components of distinction are, and it would seem that it should be
more than a general statement that it was surrounded by sewer because again, when Mr. Potts addressed us, he was saying
that he was the only one surrounded by sewer. She believes there are some other factors, as she said on Hopewell Road
where the folks who live there may not perceive them as being surrounded by sewered because they were not part of that
transition policy. She said it is her expectation that staff comes back, with (1) how we address the initial request and with
all due respect, she said we have had public comment from Mr. McMillan and there is not a formal request from Fulton
County or any applicant for us to consider other land lots to be provided sewer access. She would hope that we would not
just casually take a comment as a formal action to be broadening this policy. Obviously, she said she is concerned.
Councilmember Thurman said that she was under the impression that when he stood before us and asked us to consider
it, that that was a formal request.
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams said she believes we do need to be cognizant of the fact that these properties were
left out because of timing, according to Commissioner Riley, and we also had a misperception. She also believes Fulton
County had a misperception that because of the way the Inter-basin Transfer requirement was written that some of these
properties had consistent attachments to Highway 9. She said if you have a border on Highway 9, then you have access to
sewer, and we do not have to grant that and Mr. McMillan’s property we thought because he owned property that led up
to Highway 9 that he is a consistent attachment to Highway 9.
Director of Community Development Wilson said that is not in the exempted land lot.
Councilmember D’Aversa-Williams said that she does think there are some challenges here and her main point is that
she wanted to support getting sewer to anybody, but she does not think there is a way that we can give sewer to one land
lot, Mr. Potts’ land lot, without giving it to these other because they all meet the same requirements. How could we
possibly single him out and give him sewer, if we do not look at all of these who are islands that are surrounded by sewer.
She believes that staff has to look at it that way. You cannot just look at Mr. Potts’ property. If that is the case, then we
have to deny Mr. Potts and move on.
Mayor Lockwood said that was a very good point.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she had a quick question about an island… the more parcels that we add together
the less it looks like an island. She would hope that we look at our Land Use Policies because in some of these parcels, it
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 38 of 40
is easy to look at a box and say “yes, it is lime green,” but it would be nice to put acreage to this to look at once you
introduce sewer, what is that going to mean in terms of the amount of possible allowable density which would otherwise
not have been allowed without sewer. She believes we need to put real number to this, and it is just not a green box or a
purple box, but it’s people who live there who will experience increased density, who will experience increased traffic,
and will experience increased issues that today they have some confidence that they will not have that issue because it has
been a non-sewered area. The other point she would like to make is that the change in that loophole and the closure of
that loophole, and she knows that Mr. Wilson and Mr. Browning will be able to speak to this, but the language went from
partial access to Highway 9 to the land lot. She believes we need to have full frontage on Highway 9 and it is no longer
all or part, but all of that land lot. She believes the nuances of that legal change needs to be part of what is evaluated
when we try to determine if one parcel is distinguishable from another legally. As we pursue options, we know whether
or not there are maybe some other distinguishable factors that we really have not yet considered tonight and perhaps Chris
Browning can help us with that as well.
Councilmember Thurman said she had one more request of Tom Wilson, but she would like to know how these
properties are portrayed on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan so we will know going forward if these properties are
already zoned or already listed on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, or ONI or… then we know there is not going to be
any increase in density. She would like to know how they are reflected on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
City Manager Bovos said he would like to interject something really quick and he knows it is a little bit late and there has
been a lot of discussion on it, but he asked if each of them could send him an email about what they want on April 12th,
then he would be happy to have staff research those questions.
Citizen’s Advisory Committee for GDOT Project – SR 140 Corridor Widening
City Manager Bovos said we need to move onto the next item. He said that Abbie Jones would like to begin discussion
on the Citizen’s Advisory Committee with respect to widening of SR 140.
Abbie Jones said that she is before the Council tonight as we discussed in the recent work session to state that GDOT has
requested the City of Milton to send seven representatives to a Citizen’s Advisory Committee. We need one nomination
per Councilperson who lives on or very near to SR 140 or who is a member of a church or business or other organization
on SR 140. She asked them to please send their representative information to City Clerk Marchiafava by the end of next
week. If anyone desires additional information, she has a list of the various property owners and businesses that was
compiled by GDOT.
Councilmember Mohrig asked if there was a way for Ms. Jones to send the list to the Councilmembers.
Abbie Jones said she has made enough copies for everyone or she can send it electronically.
City Manager Bovos said he just wanted to add some additional comments. He said the Citizen’s Advisory Committee is
actually going to be comprised of about 25 people and that it is an inter-jurisdictional committee. It is not just the 6
people from Milton, but it is 25 people overall that encompass that entire project, so it will include multiple counties. He
said it is really important to understand that your nominee does not need to reside in your Council district. One nominee
needs to be directly impacted by the widening of SR 140. So, more than likely, all of the nominees will reside in district 1
with respect to the people that you nominate to this committee. You will not see a formal resolution or a formal ordinance
to establish this committee because this is not a committee from the City of Milton. He asked if they all could nominate
one person and submit those names to the City Clerk and we will be happy to forward this information on to GDOT.
Abbie Jones asked if they could get this done rather quickly. The first meeting will be held in April.
Councilmember Thurman said if anyone needs recommendations from the newly annexed area, there is a very long list
of them and she knows they would love to be involved.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked for clarification and asked if it could be any member of a church or business that
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 39 of 40
would be impacted as well, so it could be a resident or someone who is part of a church…
Abbie Jones said that as long as that church or business is along that SR 140 corridor.
Councilmember Mohrig asked if they had to be directly fronting it or could they be in that general vicinity.
Abbie Jones said as long as they are adjacent to SR140 approximately 300 feet. The list of possible nominees was
compiled by GDOT and they wanted to find every person they needed to be sending correspondence to.
Mayor Lockwood asked Abbie Jones if she could send them an email with an explanation of the requirements and what
this person is expected to do.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey further asked about the frequency they will be meeting and the times.
Abbie Jones stated she believes it will be once a month, but she does not know if they will set the times and dates until
they have everyone set up.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked for clarification that this is Cherokee County, Milton, Roswell, and Alpharetta and
she was responded to affirmatively.
2008 Budget Calendar
City Treasurer Wolfe provided the Council with the 2008 Budget calendar. She wanted to get these dates in front of
them and let them know what their involvement will be in the planning process and the approval of the Budget. July 9th is
the first City Council Budget Retreat and is tentatively scheduled form 2:00 to 9:00 which will include a work plan update
and what your work plan priorities will be for the year 2008 as they plan their budget requests. We will give you a
performance measurement program review at that time. July 26th you will have a budget work shop and we will present
you with our first look at revenues and expenditures. July 9th at the budget workshop we will ask you to prioritize the
CIP. August 23rd a budget workshop and this will be the final review of the balanced budget prior to public hearing. On
September 6th, we will have our first public hearing and first reading of the budget ordinance. September 13th will be the
final budget workshop, if needed. September 20th will be the 2nd public hearing and the final adoption of the 2008 Budget.
Councilmember Mohrig asked if these will be on Council meeting nights.
City Treasurer Wolfe said they tried to choose the fourth Thursdays, but some of these are going to be on a regular work
session night, but the others will be on that fourth Thursday. Budget workshops tend to have a lot of discussion and you
would really like that to be the only item on your agenda.
Councilmember O’Brien asked if there is a Council meeting already scheduled for the summer, tentatively, during July
and August.
City Manager Bovos said that we have adopted a schedule for the entire year.
Councilmember O’Brien said there will be no time greater than a week that we will not have commitments. In other
words, like the rest of the world if we had planned a vacation anywhere during the summer.
City Manager Bovos said that they are putting together a master calendar and you will see a calendar for the next several
months. He also said the July 5th meeting was cancelled, but he does not have a calendar in front of him to know when we
have off.
Report from City Attorney
City Attorney Scott said that he wanted to bring them up to date on a legal issue that we have become involved in. He
said that they may or may not know that there has been an on-going condemnation action brought by Fulton County
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 5:30 PM
Page 40 of 40
against the owners of the property, the red brick property on the south east corner of Roswell and Mayfield Road in
Crabapple. The County condemned the corner area there to build the sidewalk. When you condemn a property, you
actually have to bring legal action and it is all about the value of the land if it goes to court and the land owner and the
condemning municipality cannot agree on a value and settle it out of court. Fulton County has tried very hard to avoid
having to go to trial, but this is going to happen in either late April or May. The one issue that the Stewart brothers have
brought up is that they would like to come to a settlement and that they would like to get an easement across the adjoining
property, which is now ours, the Crabapple Community House. He said that he and City Manager Bovos have discussed
this at length, and with John LaVelle, the Property Manager and Fulton County, called us soon after we transferred this
property and said we need to give them an easement. A property right is worth money and has value, so we were not sure
why we would want to do this out of the kindness of our hearts, so we have been discussing things with the property
manager. He received a call this week from the attorney who is handling the case for the County, and he said that he
believes we are right and that they should offer us something for that, so there is actually going to be mediation on April
4th and they are willing to offer us something for consideration of the easement. He does not know what is actually going
to be offered, so of course they are going to be asking for some sort of zoning for signs they have that will cut into the
right of way by a couple of inches, which is what they have represented to him. There is also a canopy, so he believes
there might be some minor variance issues that they might ask us to help them with as a means to get this settled.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if the canopy projects over the right of way.
City Attorney Scott said he does not believe it will, but the sign projects into the right of way by a couple of inches.
Clearly, we have some issues to look at there and before he is in a position to agree to anything, he will continue to
discuss it with the City Manager, but if it takes further action, he will discuss it with the Council. He wanted to let them
know this is something that was undertaken by the County before the City came into existence and this will benefit the
City as part of the whole Crabapple Master Plan.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked how the easement is being valued or is John LaVelle doing that.
City Attorney Scott said under normal circumstances it would be the fair market value, but he does not think they will
have to go to that extent. What the attorney indicated that they are offering as much as we paid for the Crabapple
Community House, which he believes is one thousand dollars. Of course Mr. LaVelle is saying that they gave us this
property for nothing initially and his thoughts were that the taxpayers have already paid for it. He believes we need to
discuss this and it is not something tangible above ground that we are giving up for ever, but just an easement. They are
asking to put something below ground and then will cover it back up.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that we do not assume that the one thousand dollars is what the real value would be.
City Attorney Scott said he is not saying that it is worth that. He said he is not sure what we will get, but he would like
to get something for it.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to adjourn the March 15, 2007 Regular meeting at 10:58 PM.
Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Date Approved: June 7, 2007
__________________________________ _________________________________
Jeanette R. Marchiafava, City Clerk Joe Lockwood, Mayor