HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 04/12/2007 - MINS 04 12 07 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 1 of 49
Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM, Mayor
Joe Lockwood presiding.
INVOCATION - Pastor John Wolfe, Birmingham United Methodist Church
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 and that they need to be turned into the City Clerk staff. Cards are
available at the front and back tables.
City Clerk Marchiafava called the roll and noted that Councilmember Mohrig was not present. Councilmember
Mohrig arrived at the meeting at 10:05 PM.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Lockwood led the Pledge of Allegiance.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS
Mayor Lockwood made the announcement that the post office has given notification that we are now official in the use
of Milton as the City address.
He also wanted to recognize Jaclyn Fleischer, Miss Teen Milton. (Photographs with Mayor and Council were taken.)
APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda item no. 07-216, approval of the meeting Agenda. She stated that staff would
like to make the following amendments to the agenda this evening.
1) Add the approval of the February 15, 2007 regular meeting minutes to the Consent Agenda; and
2) Postpone approval of the February 8, 2007 Work Session Minutes, February 21 Special Called
Work Session Minutes, and March 1st Regular meeting minutes to the April 19th meeting agenda;
and
3) Postpone the Introduction of Babs Abubakari, Georgia Department of Transportation, State
Consultant Design Engineer to a May meeting; and
4) Remove Approval of Monthly Invoice for Legal Fees for February 2007; and
5) Add a Resolution Opposing the Current Proposal to Extend the One Percent Sales Tax for MARTA;
and
6) Add to staff comments discussion on non-City sponsored web and media outlets to staff reports.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve the meeting agenda as amended.
Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to remove Agenda Item 07-229, Approval of a Resolution
appointing Mark E. Scott of Jarrard and Davis as City Attorney for the City of Milton, Georgia, based on the fact that
additional information was received today and they have not had time to review it. Councilmember Lusk seconded the
motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion failed with a 3-3 tie vote, with Mayor Lockwood,
Councilmember Zahner Bailey and Councilmember D’Aversa voting in opposition.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 2 of 49
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Lockwood stated that the next item is public comment. Public Comment is the time for citizens to share
information with the Mayor and city Council and provide input and opinions on any matter that is not scheduled for its
own public hearing in today’s meeting. Each citizen that chooses to participate in public comment must complete a
comment card and submit it to the City Clerk. Please remember that this is not a time to engage the Mayor or
members of the City Council in conversation. When your name is called please come forward and speak into the
microphone stating you name and address for the record. You will have five minutes for remarks. Mayor Lockwood
asked if there were any public comments.
Jon Carroll, 2140 Country Ridge Road, Milton stated he was concerned to see the staff report about the sewer for
the Potts property coming up again as a staff report because he was under the impression after the last meeting that it
was decided that this item needed to be put forth for public comment on public record. What he is concerned about is
that a vote might be taken tonight whether or not to send the letter to Fulton County without really having the issue
opened up to public comment, and considering that this is at the heart of what everyone was really elected for on the
controlling of the sewer and controlling growth. No matter which way it goes, he felt it really needs to come before
public comment and be on the agenda and if that is what is going to happen tonight, which is what happened last time,
and he is not sure why. Plus, the fact that the last time it happened it was at 11:00 at night and most of the people had
gone, and he wanted to make sure this was not going to be the same case this time. Also, if you go to the agenda and
click on the agenda item, there is nothing there. When you click on the other agenda items, there is detailed
information, but if nothing else, it should have showed there were eleven properties in this category and maybe twenty
other properties that might be affected.
Also, the second thing he was wondering if there is something that can be done for Councilmembers Lusk and O’Brien
because he saw in the paper that there is this illusion that there is an ethics problem with a fundraiser. He has not seen
them exonerated and he felt they should be because they are outstanding guys and someone should stand up and say
there is nothing going on. It is not fair to them.
City Attorney Scott said he wanted it to be clear to the entire audience that there has been some ethics allegations
made against two of the Councilmembers. The process and procedure for an ethics complaint is outlined in the Ethics
ordinance. We have not received a formal ethics complaint. There is no such complaint now, but there have been
some allegations made. Until a formal, written complaint is received, we will not be investigating it. The procedure is
that the City Attorney does perform an investigation and then presents that to the Ethics Board if there is such a
complaint filed. But, as of this date, there has been no complaint filed.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked for clarification that the staff report is part of the agenda and is not a vote
tonight.
City Manager Bovos stated that is correct.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated to the Mayor that the next public comment she received is on item no. 07-227, which
is listed under First Presentation and as such, there is no public comment. However, if it be the pleasure of the Mayor
they can allow this person to speak and this item is Zoning Case No. RZ07-002, Text Amendments to the City of
Milton Zoning Ordinance.
Mayor Lockwood agreed to have him speak.
Bob Moheb, 3085 Morris Road, Alpharetta, addressed the changes with the Sign Ordinance and Highway 9. He
said as a builder and developer, he wanted to caution the Council to be careful when lowering sign sizes as this can
extremely hurt developers and builders. About 50 percent, if not more, of a builder’s business is drive-ups, and since a
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 3 of 49
lot of them do not have agents, it is crucial to take advantage of having signs. He believes lowering them down to 16
square feet would hurt everybody.
John McMillan. 14255 Thompson Road, Alpharetta, stated that in the past when it came to the way buildings were
built, etc. there was a lot of community input during the decision making processes. He believes that what we find
now is apparently one person or a group who are going in there and trying to change everything without having the
insight and community input, which is what we used to have around here before we became the City of Milton. It is
really ironic that instead of having more input now, the community has less and things are being done without a real
community input process. This is not the way it was supposed to work. It is a very large detriment to small businesses
when you take away a person’s right to signage and that it is probably 50 percent or more of the way that people get
business in this or any area. Those who have never had a business or who have a storefront or someone who has not
had to really get out there to get a business noticed might not understand how this affects them. With the amount of
time wasted on these changes here has been about a thousand hours and at $50 an hour, which is $500,000, we could
have fixed three intersections.
Carol Lane, 14890 East Bluff Road Milton, wanted to comment on her opposition to granting sewer to Dennis Potts
and whether it should be considered to be grandfathered in. Mr. Potts and the eleven others had plenty of opportunity
to get this done before we became the City of Milton. With regards to Mr. McMillan and talking about the signage,
again this is our opportunity as a new City to set policy and signage is part of that. If they want to do business in the
City of Milton, she doubts that signage is going to harm businesses.
Paul Moore, 15290 White Columns Drive, Milton, said he wanted to speak on three topics with the first being his
opposition to the granting of a courtesy letter to Fulton County on behalf of Dennis Potts for sewer, and the precedence
it sets for other properties. He reminded Council that many said, in the course of their campaigns, that they were a
supporter of the no sewer policy. The second thing was regarding the recent fundraiser events and the unfortunate
circumstances therein. Because we are a new City and because it is important that we play a role as individuals
representing the City and be above board as much as possible, he agrees with City Attorney Scott that we do take an
opportunity to address this in a formal way. He believes that Councilmembers Lusk and O’Brien were intending to
act above board and he hopes that we would give them the chance to prove that to the community. Lastly, as
Chairman of the Planning Commission on a situation that came up recently, it is unfortunate that Councilmember
Mohrig is not here this evening to hear these comments, but it is appropriate for all of the Council. In recent weeks,
the Council all took a vote to put an ordinance forward to govern themselves on how to act when attending other
meetings or to inflict influence on those other meetings. Again, it is unfortunate the Councilmember Mohrig’s efforts
were intended to be above board in a letter that he had written to John McMillan stating a firm position on the
Highway 9 Overlay and the addressing of signs and that letter, within the week of all of the Council passing the
ordinance, was read into the minutes of our Planning Commission meeting by Mr. McMillan. He is sure Mr.
McMillan did not understand that this ordinance had already been put into place and that Councilmember Mohrig did
not intend for that letter to be read into the minutes of the meeting. He asked that the Council be stewards of their own
requests and to be of the ordinance that they put into place.
City Clerk Marchiafava told the Mayor that we have another request to address an item with no public comment that
is listed under First Presentation and this is regarding Chapter 12, False Alarms. She asked if the Mayor would like to
give him permission to speak.
Mayor Lockwood stated it was fine with him.
Edwin Magyer, 3355 Highway 9, Alpharetta, said he did not want to talk on Chapter 12, but on the Alcohol and
Beverage Ordinance. After reviewing the proposed changes and having conversations with the Georgia Alcohol
Dealers Association, there were about ten to fifteen items that are not up to date and up to State and Federal guidelines.
He proposed a work committee be appointed to address them. The distance requirements from one liquor store to
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 4 of 49
another was just revised on April 1, 2007, and there have been several new ordinances that have been changed either
locally, or state and federal levels just in the past couple of months. Also advertising requirements and also the I.D. of
every individual are just some of the problems and he feels the GAD should be contacted for their input because of
these discrepancies.
Cary Schlenke, 490 The Heritage Drive, Milton, read a statement she had sent to the Council earlier that day which
basically addressed the Highway 9 Overlay District, the upcoming new sign ordinance, and her agreement with the
proposed changes to keep the size and heights to a smaller limit with some meaningful changes. Much of the
height/size and general signage guidelines are a departure from what has previously been seen in the Hwy 9 area
and these changes represent a much better outcome for our community.
Gary Reckers, 12812 Highway 9, Suite 150, Alpharetta, wanted to discuss some problems with the Alcohol
Ordinance: that it basically outlaws beer sales in liquor stores and he does not believe that was the true intent; The
regulation that is listed is less restrictive than the State regulation and is in violation of State law; Section 21does not
match up with the Federal law; Section 5 does not meet up with State regulations; In Section 29, the City will require
all liquor stores to ID everyone, even if they are 80 years old; and on the sales against underage persons he would like
to help with this in any way he can.
Rose Prestiani, 105 Providence Oaks Pointe, Milton, wanted to thank those who worked on the new sign ordinance
and for cleaning up the signs at the intersection of Providence Road and Birmingham Highway. She is in opposition of
the approval for the request for sewer and it is clearly in conflict with the Inter-Basin Transfer of sewer and the
resolution which was passed in 2006. If any Councilmember or even the Mayor has any connection with anyone who
would benefit from this proposal, they should excuse themselves from any of these discussions. The second area is to
ask the Council to deliberate on making any zoning changes that are not consistent with the voice of the constituents as
there are several requests that will be forthcoming which have the potential to whittle away at the existing zoning
standards.
Joan Wynderle, 765 Owens Lake Road, Milton, agrees with all the statements that have been made in opposition of
the Inter-Basin Transfer of sewer and approving this would hurt Milton more than help.
Tim McCormick, 505 Owens Farm Road, Milton, wanted to speak on behalf of those who live in the Six Hills
Subdivision and asked the Council to deny any changes to the current AG-1 zoning for sewer.
Introduction of Municipal Court Judges
Mayor Lockwood introduced our two new Municipal Court judges: Barry L. Zimmerman and Brian Hansen at this
time.
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Lockwood read the Proclamation for Georgia Cities Week to be April 22 to 28, 2007.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY WASTE MANAGEMENT
Communications Manager Bill Doughty announced a special presentation by David Stuart and Jo Ann Bell with
Waste Management where they presented a check to the City of Milton in the amount of $64,393, which represents
Host Fees on the land fill in the City of Milton for the first quarter of 2007 for January, February, and March. These
fees are required by the State for all host jurisdictions.
CONSENT AGENDA
City Clerk Marchiafava read the following agenda items:
1. Approval of the January 11, 2007 Special Called Meeting Minutes.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 5 of 49
2. Approval of the February 8, 2007 Work Session Minutes was postponed by motion and vote. (Postponed by
motion and vote)
3. Approval of the February 15, 2007, regular meeting Minutes. (Added by motion and vote)
4. Approval of the February 21, 2007 Special Called Work Session Minutes was postponed by motion and vote.
(Postponed by motion and vote)
5. Approval of the March 1, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes was postponed by motion and vote. (Postponed by
motion and vote)
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve the Consent Agenda (January 11, 2007 Special
Called Meeting Minutes, and the February 15, 2007 Regular Meeting Minutes). Councilmember D’Aversa seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
FIRST PRESENTATION
City Clerk Marchiafava read the next agenda items:
1. Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 12, Offenses and Violations, Article 2, False Alarms, of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Milton, Georgia.
2. Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 7, Alcoholic Beverages of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Milton, Georgia.
3. Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10, Taxation, Article 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Milton, Georgia.
4. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 6, Ethics and Standards of Conduct, of the City of Milton Code of
Ordinances
5. An Ordinance Establishing Noise Control within the City of Milton, Georgia.
6. An Ordinance creating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Task Force.
7. Zoning Case No. RZ07-002, Text Amendments to the City of Milton Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 33, Signs;
Chapter 12G, State Route 9 Overlay District; Chapter 12H(1).2, Crabapple Crossroads of the NW Fulton Overlay
District; Chapter 12H, NW Fulton Overlay District.
Discussion after First Presentation:
Councilmember D’Aversa asked if they have to approve all of them together.
City Attorney Scott responded that they could make a motion to divide the question.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to divide the question by removing Chapter 7, Alcoholic
Beverages, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Milton, Georgia due to new information received.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve the First Presentation (excluding Amendment to
Chapter 7, Alcoholic beverages). Councilmember D’Aversa seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Approval of an Ordinance to Adopt the Bond Schedule for Municipal Court and State Law Violations.
Ordinance No. 07-04-19
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 6 of 49
City Clerk Marchiafava stated Section 5.13(d) of the City Charter provides that “The municipal court shall have the
authority to establish a schedule of fees to defray the cost of operation” and 5.13(e) provides that “The municipal court
shall have authority to establish bail and recognizance to ensure the presence of those charged with violations before
said court”. Chapter 4, article 1, section 6(b) of the City Code of Ordinances states that “The Council shall set City
fines for violations of City ordinances”. The bond schedule has been developed by court staff within the parameters of
State law and the Charter and Code of Ordinances of the City of Milton, and has met the approval of the Chief Judge.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve the Ordinance to Adopt the Bond Schedule for
the Municipal Court and State Law Violations. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no Council
discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
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.
Ordinance No. 07-04-20
City Clerk Marchiafava stated Section 5.15 of the City charter provides that “the judge shall have full power and
authority to make reasonable rules and regulations necessary and proper to secure the efficient and successful
administration of the municipal court”. Chapter 4, article 2, section 1 states that “The Municipal Court Judges shall
adopt specific rules of procedure which must be approved by the Mayor and City Council”. The rules of operation
have been developed by court staff following the guidelines of the rules of Superior Court, and have met the approval
of the Chief Judge.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve the Ordinance to Adopt the Bond Schedule for the
Municipal Court and State Law Violations. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no
Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Approval of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4, Municipal Court of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances.
Ordinance No. 07-04-21
City Clerk Marchiafava stated there are statements in Chapter 4 that could be construed to be conflicting with
regulations for municipal courts set forth in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Title 36, Chapter 32). The
ordinance amends Chapter 4, in various sections are to correct spelling and so that the wording does not appear to be in
conflict with State regulations for municipal courts.
Motion and Second: Councilmember O’Brien moved to approve an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4, Municipal Court
of the City of Milton Code of Ordinances.
Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated she has more of an edit than a comment, on page 1 of 5 where it references the
term of our judge and it mentions it is a 4 year term in concert with our Mayor, because our Mayor’s first term is 3
years; we need to make that change. She offered this up as a motion to amend page 1 of 5 that it reflect a 3 year term
which is consistent with the 3 year term with Mayor Lockwood.
Mayor Lockwood asked staff what their opinion is on this.
City Manager Bovos stated that from staff’s perspective this is a clarification on the initial first year term and just to
clarify this is in Article 1, Section 2(b).
City Attorney Scott stated his suggestion would be that we simply amend by stated the term and state it shall be
coincident with the term of the Mayor.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 7 of 49
Councilmember Zahner Bailey agreed and the whole point is that the language be consistent with the terms of what
it references.
City Attorney Scott stated from a procedural perspective, had there been a 2nd and had that been stated yet.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said not yet.
City Attorney Scott said that she needs to strike the words “four years” from Article 1, Section 2(b)…
Motion to Amend and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to amend Chapter 4, Municipal Court, Article 1,
and Section 2(b) to read as follows: “The Municipal Court Chief Judge shall serve a term coincident with the term of
the mayor and may be reappointed to consecutive terms thereafter.” Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion to
amend. There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava announced the motion to approve an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 4, Municipal Court, as
amended, passed unanimously.
Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, Business Licensing of the Code of Ordinances to Adopt
Regulations for Licensing of Bail Bondsmen.
Ordinance No. 07-04-22
City Clerk Marchiafava stated Chapter 4, article 3, section 3 of the City Code of Ordinances states that “no
professional bondsman shall be accepted as surety on a bail bond unless he holds a current business license in the City,
is approved by the Chief of Police, and has fully complied with all other City requirements for bonding companies”.
Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinances provides regulations for licensing of businesses in the City of Milton, and
currently includes no regulations for bail bondsmen. Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinance is to be amended to
include regulations for the licensing of bail bondsmen. The regulations for licensing of bail bondsmen have been
developed using state law and the City of Milton regulations for businesses, in a manner comparable to regulations of
other local cities.
Councilmember Thurman requested a clarification and asked if basically what we have right now is something that
states they have to have a license, but we do not have any way for them to get a license and all we are doing here is
clarifying how they go about getting their license.
City Clerk Marchiafava said that is correct.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve an Ordinance Amending Chapter 11, Business
Licensing of the Code of Ordinances to Adopt Regulations for Licensing of Bail Bondsmen. Councilmember
D’Aversa seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Request to move the Discussion of Fulton County Pritchard Mountain Water Tower to be heard before New
Business.
Mayor Lockwood stated that Chris Browning was here and requested a change in procedure for him to be allowed to
go ahead and talk about his report earlier.
City Manager Bovos said it would be up to the pleasure of the City Council and he asked for a motion to have that
agenda item moved to be heard now.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 8 of 49
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to allow the Staff Report item regarding Discussion of Fulton County
Pritchard Mountain Water Tower to be heard before new business. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion.
There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Discussion of Fulton County Pritchard Mountain Water Tower
Community Services Director Greg Wilson said there was a presentation made earlier in a Town Hall meeting held
here and, as a result of that meeting; there were several additional comments from citizens. We asked Mr. Browning if
he could present some additional information.
Chris Browning said that he wanted to be sure that all the items which were discussed previously was heard by the
Mayor and Council regarding the proposed tank they are trying to install. We presently have a 4 million gallon ground
storage tank located at the facility. He gave a brief history about Fulton County’s water system. The elevation
differential throughout Fulton County is about 500 feet from the river where you draw the water to the higher
elevation. When the system was developed, there was a decision made to leave out a section of Fulton County that
was extremely high and is known as Pritchard Mountain. They currently serve the elevation of 1,050 feet above sea
level with adequate pressure and fire protection. Later on in time as the County developed there was a need to serve
the higher areas in the Pritchard Mountain area. That time is here. Over the past few years they have had some
developments that have come in above the 1,050 foot elevation, and there a number more planned and are actually
under construction today. In order to serve those adequately and to give fire protection and adequate flow and pressure
to the homes that are being built in that area, they need to build a high service area within Fulton’s water system, so
they can serve up above the 1,050 all the way to 1,250 elevations. With reference to the hand-out, the green area is
above the 1,050 elevation and it is roughly 588 acres.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if the public might want to see a map since they have one.
Chris Browning said if you will look at the Windsor Cove and Milton Point area, those are above the 1,050 and that is
a subdivision. During the peak water usage times in the year, which are May through October, we have a hard time
getting pressure and flow in that area to the residents who live there right now. In addition, there are some homes
scattered about in the green area that have those same problems. They are trying to solve the problem for the existing
as well as those who will be building and moving into this area. In order to do that, they have to develop a high
service area that will go from Westbrook Road on the east, north to the county line, south to Birmingham Road, and
west to Birmingham Highway. This is an isolated area that would serve an elevation above 1,050 up to 1,250 and that
would satisfy all the development and all the current people who already live out there. In order to do that, they are
planning on putting a 500 gallon elevated water storage tank at the site where they currently have a 4 million gallon
tank and that tank would allow them to hold enough water just to serve those areas during the normal usage and during
the high peak times in the year. In addition to that, if they had a catastrophic failure within their system in the County
or if there were any other incidents that caused them to not to be able to move the water through the County
adequately, then the tank would serve as a reservoir to allow making corrections to the system giving them 10 to 12
hours to make whatever corrections are needed in order to restate that normal level of service. So, typically these tanks
are built from these high points, even throughout the normal service elevation, so that they can store the water in those
areas and fill it from the water plant or from a pumping station allowing the water to come out and serve the customers
with no interruption to service or fire protection. They would maintain the level of public safety and public health that
is needed throughout our system. The plan is install a temporary booster pumping station that will draw water from
the current 4 million gallon tank, construction a 500 gallon elevated water storage tank, use that booster station to
serve the elevated area on a normal basis.
Councilmember O’Brien asked Mr. Browning if he had the design of the tank for those who were not in attendance at
the meeting, and if he would describe what the tank would look like. He had heard some concerns recently from
citizens hoping it would be aesthetically pleasing. He asked if he could tell us what the frame would look like, and if
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 9 of 49
there are any alternatives available or if that would be something we could discuss to install in lieu of what has been
proposed.
Chris Browning stated that the typical tank that they build now is what is called a center pedestal tank where there is
architectural concrete that supports the tank itself in lieu of the multi-leg tank that most people are familiar with. They
have a couple of them over at the corner of Bethany and Providence right now, but those are 2 million gallon tanks.
The tank we are talking about is 500 gallons. The elevation would be about the same height of approximately 150 feet
and those are 140 feet. The top of the tank would be made out of steel and painted, but the pedestal would be
architectural concrete.
Councilmember Lusk asked if it could be made into the shape of a running horse.
Chris Browning replied that, unfortunately, there are only a couple of tank companies out there and they are at the
mercy of their design. However, there are color selections that we might be interested in.
Councilmember Thurman asked if one could be built to look more like a silo.
Chris Browning said the silo designs are really not built 150 feet high, as those are called a sand pipe and they are
significantly shorter. To get the pressure they need to build a 150 foot silo, he does not know anyone who would build
one that high, and there are a limited number of contractors.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if there will be any public comment on this, as she knows it will be coming as
a staff report.
Mayor Lockwood said it is certainly open to public comment if there is any.
City Clerk Marchiafava stated she had not received any public comment on this item.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she did not know if anyone knew we had public comment available and that is
the point of her question. She did not know if it is an appropriate time and, if so, some of the audience might have
comments.
Councilmember D’Aversa said that at the meeting Mr. Browning said they were going to explore options and asked
if those explorations have been underway.
Chris Browning said they have explored one of the options mentioned and checked with Cherokee County to see if
they would be interested in providing water because they do serve a higher elevation and they do serve up to 1,500
feet. Unfortunately, they called them and they said they do not have the infrastructure that would serve the area, do not
intend to put it in, and are not interested.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said another alternative that had been discussed was whether or not an additional
pumping station or even pumping facilities within each home. If that could be a mechanism that could handle the
deferential between the lower pressure identified in some of this area verses not and believes this was one of the other
things that had been brought up by the citizens for consideration. She believes that two of the developers that were
part of the contract, which had been entered into with Fulton County, were present at that first meeting, but she had the
impression from those citizens who live within the Peachtree development that that developer was interested in
exploring with Fulton County some alternative approaches. She asked Mr. Browning if any discussions with those
three or four developers who were a part of that agreement had any opportunity to pursue this with them.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 10 of 49
Chris Browning said they have not been in contact with any of those developers. They did not contact us and we
have the developer agreement that has been approved by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners on May 18, 2006.
They entered into negotiations with those developers in late October 2005 and, at that point, the agreement was made
with them to allow them to build the booster pumping station. They are putting in the pipe infrastructure within their
development communities. At that time, the Board approved to construct an elevated tank only. As far as an option to
allow each home to put in separate pressure assistance, that does not address the fire protection and would not be an
acceptable alternative. There may be a few homes that will have to put in a separate booster pumping system within
their homes just because they will be above the 1,250 elevation.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said as a follow point, in that first meeting we also discussed, and obviously public
safety is a concern for all of us, and she did not know if Chris Lagerbloom was part of that discussion in that meeting,
but with our new tanks that are being purchased recognizing that a lot of this area today is not served by public water
at all, she wanted to include herself as an example as she is on a well. For this water tower, as an example, this water
tower does not necessarily mean that she and others now will have fire protection that they would not otherwise have
and knows there are still many other citizens that would still be in that scenario. Her question would be that while an
elevated water tower in theory provides some additional fire protection for an incremental number of new homes, the
hope would be that without the water tower, which the situation today is, that we still are providing fire protection to
homes, including her own and also her neighbors who are also on wells. The reason that she brought this is up is
because she does not know that fire protection alone is the reason to consider an elevated tank. She believes there are
two components: First, she would like to ask our Public Safety Director, Chris Lagerbloom, to help us evaluate the
reality of that differential between the real fire protection issues today, with or without that tower, and she feels this is
something that needs to be addressed because in many cases they do not have public water.
Chris Browning wanted to make a comment on this and stated that if there is a piping infrastructure under the
regulations of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division, we are required to
maintain a minimum of 20 psi system. That is for fire protection and public health as well. Without the tank, we
cannot guarantee to do that. If there is a piping system, they are obligated under DNR rules to maintain that level of
service and without the tank in the high use periods of the year; they would not be able to do that.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that where you have that 20 psi requirement for the existing structure, do you
believe that is in part why that elevated tank is required to provide incremental service to those existing pipes?
Chris Browning said the existing and the new pipes that would be installed in these subdivisions that are currently
under construction.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said those are the ones that part of that agreement that we made on May 18th?
Christ Browning said that is correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she believes that is still one of the questions that had come up in that first
meeting and she understands we may not get that answer this evening, but said that if we collectively as
Councilmembers and also as citizens, it would be helpful to understand what the incremental number that that water
tank is serving, the number of new homes that are not yet built verses those that are currently on the ground. That is
one of the questions that she had heard that evening and she has subsequently had that question asked again. She is not
equipped to answer it because she does not have the data, but that could be helpful.
Chris Browning said that with the map that he gave the Council, ultimately there are 588 acres and probably about 30,
plus or minus, acres are up in Cherokee County. You could lower that number down to 550 or so and in 550 acres
there is potentially bound to be about 400 homes and that would be the number that would be impacted ultimately.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 11 of 49
Councilmember Lusk addressed Mr. Browning and said that he brought up a new point of this whole discussion and
that is approaching Cherokee County. It was said by Mr. Browning that they did not have the infrastructure. He
understands that part of this new water tank project would be to construct or install a transmission main from Bethany
and Providence, up Providence, and asked what would be the costs with the transmission line from the tank, and would
it be possible to get a comparable cost for a transmission line from the Cherokee County facility over to the existing
tank. Additionally, he asked would that help or not and you would have the pressure in Cherokee County.
Chris Browning said that it is not just a pipe, it is the capacity. They (Cherokee County) are not equipped to manage
additional flow. Each facility is permitted to withdraw and treat water for a certain population and these are generally
regional facilities. The plan that was submitted in 2002 to the GDNR and approved and was accepted as the guideline.
Each regional facility has a current discharge parameter that they work around. The Cherokee facility is designed to
handle a certain radius around the plant and a certain population. Fulton is not included in their withdrawal for that
plant, so there would be some major permitting issues that would have to be resolved, if in fact they would even go
along with the plan. He does not know if they would. It is not just a matter of putting in a pipe, it would be the matter
of changing the permit, building the plant larger, putting in the pipes, etc. and would be a very complex and
complicated scenario. He does not know how the regulators would feel about that and it would take an extensive
period of time to do that.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Mr. Browning to comment on the second 4 million gallon tank that has been
planned for the last number of years and if this is still on the plan.
Chris Browning said it is.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said you would still have the incremental 4 million gallon tank that is on the ground.
Chris Browning said that what they are trying to do without storage tanks and especially the larger tanks is to provide
the system storage capacity. We would like to be up around 24 hours and is typically the standard for utilities.
Unfortunately, throughout the US there are a number of the large utilities that do not meet that standard. Ours is
currently ten to twelve hours depending on the time of year. Therefore, they intend to build additional storage tanks to
allow them to have additional capacity in the event they are unable to provide water service from their plant, so that
they have time to make the corrections and make the repairs, etc. to restore public service to the system.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey stated that one of the other things that had been discussed at the first meeting and
Councilmember Lusk just mentioned it that was discussed that first night, that the transmission line that was going to
go from the Bethany water tanks to the existing 4 million and it is part of that.
Chris Browning said that was not correct. He said Bethany Road and Providence.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said what she meant to say was the water tanks that are at Bethany and the
transmission line.
Chris Browning said no, the transmission line will go from Bethany and Providence intersection, up Providence Road
and up Freemanville up to those tanks. We have a large line on Bethany Road.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said it is already coming from those existing tanks.
Chris Browning said no, that it actually comes from their water plant.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that none of those transmission lines are bringing them from those tanks, but it is
coming from the Bethany – Providence intersection.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 12 of 49
Chris Browning said that was not correct, those tanks have no influence…
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said there is a transmission line (side discussion between Councilmember Zahner
Bailey and Councilmember Lusk).
Chris Browning said their current problem is that they do not have a transmission system here in Fulton County.
They have a large distribution system whereas, if it is a transmission line, that pipe line goes from the water source
directly to a tank and does not feed any customers along the way. A distribution system, which is what they have, the
pipe lines go to the tanks that they feed all the customers in between, so it is very difficult during the high use time of
the year to get water from the plant to those tanks and fill the tanks.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she wanted to clarify her question so that she is sure that she understands, there
will be a new transmission line as part of this process and asked if that was correct?
Chris Browning said that is correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said the beginning point is different than what she was thinking it was going to be, so
the transmission line that you are putting in place will go to that new tank.
Chris Browning said it will go to the 4 million gallon tank to make sure it stays full of water so that the upper tank
can be filled from that tank.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said there will be a new transmission line that comes without distribution off of it
and that some of the suggestions that had been made from the citizens during that first meeting were wondering
whether that new transmission line would allow for increased pressure, in and of itself, without the elevated tank.
Chris Browning said no that their system is a gravity system and so that line would only fill a tank that is designed to
handle 1,150 and below. It will have no affect on the higher elevations at all.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that all that was going to do without that elevated tank was to allow the 4 million
gallon tank to be fuller.
Chris Browning said that was correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that still gives you some additional hours, but just does not handle that
incremental…
Chris Browning said that at 1,150 and below, yes.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she believes that is where the discussion had been, that the transmission line
would allow for a fuller 4 million gallon tank, plus an additional 4 million gallon tank, that at least in theory we were
creating some additional fire protection and some additional 10 to 12 hours, but we still had the issue of that
incremental elevation. She just wants to make sure she understands which components of this plan meet what issues.
Councilmember O’Brien said the fundamental issue is system integrity. We are primarily driven by the 20 psi
standard and he asked Mr. Browning what is the driver for the citing of the tower, and asked is it the fact that Fulton
owns the property presently that is approximate to that area or are you physically cited at the highest point, or
thereabouts.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 13 of 49
Chris Browning replied that it is both. We are cited about 1,240, which is the elevation of our current tank, and that
would allow us to build a tank, the shortest tank that we can build, the lower you go, the taller the tank has to be and so
at 1,240 elevation, it allows them to build a tank 150 feet tall and satisfy elevations up to 1,250.
Public Comment
Doug Ward, 16305 Laconia Lane, Milton, said that he is really concerned that this entire area is going to deteriorate
and become like the east side of 400, but specifically to the water tower, there is no way there is 400 or so homes on
500 some acres in Milton with the zoning being 1 acre minimum lots. There are multiple lots within that green area
that are 4 and 5 acres within these subdivisions that are affected and not to mention swimming pools, power lines, road
roads, golf courses, etc., but at the last information meeting, there is reality that 20 psi is the pumping system that the
developers have already agreed to pay for the new and soon to be developed homes. The only time this would be a
public safety issue would be if there were to be a power failure.
Chris Browning said that is not so. That anytime there is a catastrophic failure within our system where they could
not…
Doug Ward stated that is very rare, maybe a couple of times a year, so his concern is that the public safety issue is a
ruse and it is not true and multiple people, even with this, and he is included, when we do not have adequate water
pressure, we use sump pumps. We need to revisit the safety issue because there is a fire station not five minutes away
from the entire green shaded area (referring to the map) that have tanker trucks, so he is opposed to the tall water
tower.
Wayne Super, 16265 Laconia Lane, Milton, addressed a question to Mr. Browning, if the agreement between
Pritchard Mountain Water, LLC and Fulton County, if the LLC did not follow through with the agreement, would this
tower still be built?
Chris Browning said yes.
Wayne Super asked then who would be paying for the infrastructure at that point and what would the time line look
like.
Chris Browning said the County is building the tower and the County would continue to build that tower. The
infrastructure that goes to the subdivisions is the developer’s responsibility.
Wayne Super said the infrastructure to the subdivisions from the tanks?
Chris Browning said that was correct.
Wayne Super then stated that it seems as though the building is essentially a church parking lot for the Easter service
and it is over-kill as his neighbor said. We have a limited amount of space up here with zoning which requires 1 acre
homes and he cannot imagine that we are going to have to have another 400 million gallon tank.
Councilmember O’Brien asked if Mr. Super could back up just a little because he thinks he lost him when he shifted
gears and he is seeing quizzical looks when he referred to a parking lot for a church.
Wayne Super said that was an analogy that in a sense we are building a parking lot for a church for an Easter service
where everybody comes for Easter service and that is it.
Councilmember O’Brien said, OK, he understands.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 14 of 49
Wayne Super said, anyway that is all.
Telanyn May, 16315 Laconia, Milton, asked how many current homes are non-compliant with the 20 psi standard.
Chris Browning said none.
Telanyn May asked how many of the new homes would be non-compliant.
Chris Browning said that during peak times during the year their system allows water to be drawn off by consumers
from plants all the way to the outreaches of the county. During extremely dry periods of the year, people use a lot
more water. Although they have watering bans, most of the people in North Fulton have sprinkler systems with timers
and they continue to use the water. They try to control water usage as much as they can. They have had a few that got
below the 20 psi for a very, very short period of time, but not for an extended period of time. As the population grows
and the demand for water gets more and more, they will without a doubt, violate the minimum of 20 psi standard.
Telanyn May said this is to confirm currently that there are known 50 homes that are non-compliant with the 20 psi
standard. Another topic as we were discussing the transmission line, how many transmission lines are along these
roads and would there be enough roads or along side of it. She wanted to make a request that they consider when we
lay those roads that we put in side walks and bike paths.
Mayor Lockwood thanked Mr. Browning for being here.
Community Development Director Tom Wilson said that Mr. Browning is also the expert on Inter-Basin transfer of
sewer while he is here, could we get his advice. He asked would the Council consider moving the 2nd item from the
Staff Reports to now and take advantage of Mr. Browning being here.
Mayor Lockwood said that was fine and he called for a motion.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to allow Staff Report item regarding Inter-Basin Transfer of Sewer
for Dennis Potts to be heard before new business. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no
Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Inter-Basin Transfer of Sewer for Dennis Potts.
Community Development Director Wilson said that we have talked about this item at other City Council meetings.
Dennis Potts has asked the City Council to support a change in the Fulton County Resolution that prohibits the transfer
of sewer from one basin to another. He provided a map via power point presentation. which is the same map he
provided to the Council at the last meeting and there had been no changes to the map. The items listed as dark green
on Highway 9 are those parcels that are unsewered presently that could, by gravity, flow into a pump station or current
sewer that exists today and be served by sewer. Mr. Potts is one of those properties. At the last meeting, Council
asked him what the long-range land-use plan was for those parcels and those are in your packets. This will come back
to the Council during a Work Session for more detailed discussion. While Mr. Browning is here, he encouraged the
Council to ask him questions because he is the expert in this area.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if he could confirm if this particular land lot that we have been requested to
write a letter to make it an exception, could he confirm whether or not that land lot currently is included in the no inter-
basin transfer resolution.
Mr. Browning said it is not currently included.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 15 of 49
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said to clarify, meaning that by not being included in part of the non-sewered area by
that existing ordinance does not allow this parcel to be sewered, is that correct?
Mr. Browning said that is correct.
Councilmember Thurman asked if he could explain why it was left out when the area surrounding it does have
sewer.
Mr. Browning said that it pre-dates him, but the original concept was to provide sewer to Highway 9 for a commercial
corridor and those land lots were identified in the original ordinance. Subsequently, there were some additional land
lots added to allow a school to be built (he believes that is all). Those land lots that were included in the original
ordinance could flow, by gravity, over into the Big Creek basin. The ordinance was written so that if those parcels or
land lots were developed where any parcel or part of a parcel, including those land lots, then it could be served by the
Big Creek basin, but it was to be limited only to those properties. They had a developer last year who actually bought
a piece of property that would have been included in the original ordinance and he had contiguous property that
allowed him to develop where he was not in one of the original land lots. Since then, they have modified the ordinance
to exclude that from happening in the future.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if it would be fair to say that during that modification or the re-write or
amendment to the No Inter-Basin Transfer Resolution that the intent of that was to close that earlier perceived loop-
hole so that unless it was a specific land lot identified and it also had frontage on Highway 9 and was therefore part of
a different basin, then and only then was it under that ordinance allowable to be sewered.
Mr. Browning said that the modification was to disallow somebody from buying a piece of property contiguous to
those land lots, buying a piece of one of those properties in the land lot and being considered as part of the original
ordinance.
Councilmember Thurman said she is still unclear as to how these land lots were originally determined, when there
are properties that are completely surrounded by sewer that were not part of these land lots and she is struggling with
this. She asked was there any rhyme or reason or did people just pick land lot numbers out of a hat or how were these
determined.
Director of Community Development Wilson said that if you look at the map that shows the original land lots, it will
become clear that it was any land lot that had frontage along Highway 9. There is a rhyme and reason to that and if
you will look at the map in red, you will see that. It is clear what the original land lots were doing and they were
taking in those land lots that had frontage on Highway 9.
Councilmember Thurman asked how did we get to the areas around there that are completely surrounded by sewer,
but do not have sewer.
Mr. Browning said that, according to the ordinance, he believes was written in 1998, there was already sewer in that
area.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said the resolution was actually written in 1995.
Mr. Browning agreed it was 1995 and prior to that there was a pumping station on Hopewell Road that served the
subdivision around there and it was put in prior to the resolution and the ordinance.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that some of the language that is part of that resolution and part of the language
that Commissioner Bob Fulton, who is no longer with us, wrote that specifically talked about not only the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 16 of 49
environmental impact of not wanting to transfer obviously from one basin to another, but that it was also intended to
keep this area obviously low in terms of density and more rural, which is why to Mr. Wilson’s point that the sewer that
was accessible off of Highway 9 was a distinguishing point. It was to allow us to transition back to what we now
know as the City of Milton and is what she believes is an extension of what Mr. Wilson was trying to express.
Councilmember Lusk asked if Mr. Browning would clarify and quote the State Law regarding Inter-basin Transfer.
Mr. Browning said he does not know if he could quote the State Law, but there are number of Bills now that are
trying to be drafted to make it very precise. Typically, we should be taking water and using water off from a basin and
putting it back in that basin and the Chattahoochee Basin because it is so narrow and the Metropolitan area is so
diverse, it is very difficult to do that one hundred percent of the time. What they tried to do is to use it as a guideline
when they permit water withdrawals and wastewater discharges from the metro utilities that are located throughout the
region. In this particular case, the Little River Basin is not part of the Chattahoochee Basin and there is a problem in
that one of the largest water utilities in the area would be the Cobb County and the Marietta Water Authority, which
takes water out of the Chattahoochee River and out of the Alatoona, which is the total Inter-Basin Transfer. Again,
they try to balance the usage of the water so without quoting the exact language that is the intent of the Inter-Basin
Transfer rule.
Councilmember Lusk asked if he would be correct in saying that it is a guideline and it is not a mandate.
Mr. Browning said it is more of a rule and there is some legislation that is trying to make it a law, but that legislation
has not passed. Water utilities, and he believes the environmental protection division would like to see a Statewide
water use plan developed that would address all of these issues, but it would be virtually impossible to operate a water
utility especially in the metro areas without absolutely no inter-basin transfer because the Chattahoochee is so narrow.
You have Lake Alatoona, Cobb County, Fulton County, and Gwinnett County who happens to be on the divide, which
part of their county actually goes to the Atlantic Ocean and not the Gulf of Mexico. It would be virtually impossible to
divide everything to have no inter-basin transfer whatsoever.
Councilmember Thurman said we have heard this is extending sewer and we have heard that this is not extending
sewer, but just tying into existing sewer and wanted to get clarification on whether this is extending sewer or tying into
existing sewer or just what exactly are we doing here.
Mr. Browning said there is currently no sewer on the property, so there would need to be an extension of sewer from
the existing county infrastructure over to the property. We do not allow private sewer lines to extend from one
property across right-of-ways or across other properties to get to county sewer. The main or the public sewer would
have to be extended to that property in order for it to be considered sewered. To clarify one thing, on a commercial
tract there may be a number of buildings and a number of actual properties within a commercial tract that would share
private sewer lines, but it would eventually on that property have to tie into a public sewer system.
Councilmember Thurman said so in that case it would be tying into the public system and not really extending.
Mr. Browning said there is no public sewer available directly on that property right now.
Councilmember Thurman said so this is on that particular property.
Mr. Browning said that is correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said it would be an extension of the public sewer system into the currently regulated
no inter-basin transfer area, which is currently non-sewered.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 17 of 49
Mr. Browning said that is correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said there are a lot of questions, obviously, and at our last meeting we were asked to
provide staff with additional questions and a number of us have done that, but this is a work in progress and we have
this on our agenda at the next work session on April 26th. She wanted to know how many additional questions we
want to talk about at this time with the legal risk and the issue of setting legal negative precedence with the extension
of public sewer not just to one parcel, but to others. We have now received another request for sewer extension in that
area.
Director of Community Development Wilson said that is correct that we now have two requests.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said so we have gone from one request for a letter to two requests and there are other
maps that Mr. Wilson had provided that showed other potential properties that might meet a similar sewer extension if
we agreed to this exception. It looks like 38 to 40 different parcels. How much acreage does this include and beyond
the acreage that these 38 to 40 parcels include for potential public extension into what is presently a non sewered area,
what potential density would then be forthcoming on those 38 to 40 parcels. She knows that there has not been time
tonight to provide that data, but she stated for the record and as stated in the email that was provided to the staff and
specifically to the City Manager at his request, that between now and our Work Session that those will be the types of
additional pieces of information that we have an opportunity to evaluate and to have our public provide their
perspective on as well.
Mayor Lockwood said he proposes that between now and the Work Session that if there are any questions you have
that you email them to Mr. Wilson and perhaps Mr. Browning will also be kind enough to help with those answers.
Councilmember Thurman said she is still confused because it looks like that land lot 1111 does touch Highway 9
and if all the ones that touch Highway 9 that were included originally.
Director of Community Development Wilson said that are no properties in land lot 1111 that he sees that can flow
by gravity.
Councilmember Thurman says she sees where it says “Per Policy”. So, those would be allowed.
Mr. Browning said that is correct.
City Clerk Marchiafava says she has one comment card where the person wants their comments read into the record.
Patti Silva in the Wood Valley neighborhood stated that she opposes sewer into Milton, that it sets precedent. We are
counting on you to hear us.
NEW BUSINESS
City Clerk Marchiafava announced the next item.
Consideration of an abandonment of Right-of-Way for the Manor Subdivision Phase 2E and Long Street.
Transportation Engineer Jones said this item includes the abandonment and dedication of road that was created as
part of the Manor Subdivision. This construction layout was approved by Fulton County before Milton was created.
The request at hand includes a unique feature, a bridge culvert with a private golf course road below and a culvert
street above. The staff’s opinion is in the packet and the policy decision at hand is for Council to decide.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked Ms. Jones to clarify for the record what her recommendation is. We do have
the packet, but for the public it would be good to state for the record what your recommendation is.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 18 of 49
Transportation Engineer Jones said that staff recommended that the road should be essentially a swap because a
road was abandoned and a new road was built and staff is suggesting the acceptance of that. The only item that is in
question that staff is having a hard time with is the bridge culvert.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she is now more unclear than she was before. Staff does not recommend the
abandonment of the road because there is an issue of private versus public road and, specifically, liability both in the
immediate but also in the long term in terms of the maintenance of that culvert because it would no longer be - it is a
private road and yet we would have the liability and asked if that was correct.
Transportation Engineer Jones said the specific concern that she had is that it is a policy level decision of where the
City would be accepting something that is servicing only private individuals that would be maintained using City
dollars. That is a policy level decision for Council to decide. As staff, she is just trying to be able to try and explain
the drawings and legal descriptions shown on them. The way that it has been presented is that the City would take
ownership of the culvert, which is the request of the petitioner.
Mayor Lockwood asked if she had an opinion on basically, it is a concrete culvert or bridge and what the maintenance
possibly would be.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that bridges are generally designed for a 50 or 100 year life, depending on the
size and the safety concerns of it. That is what GDOT uses and requires, and that is the standard that is used for design
criteria.
Councilmember Thurman said it is her understanding that the road above is a public street; it is just the road below
that goes through the culvert that is private, and asked is that correct.
Transportation Engineer Jones said merely the road above is currently not dedicated and that is what this agenda
item is about.
Councilmember Thurman said that it would be a public road and it would not be a private road just for that
subdivision.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that is correct. The road underneath is this private road.
Councilmember Thurman said just for that subdivision.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that is correct.
Councilmember O’Brien said the road beneath is for vehicular traffic or is that a cart path?
Transportation Engineer Jones said it is for both. It has three openings across the bottom.
Councilmember O’Brien said you referred to 50 or 100 year criteria. It sounds like what we are addressing is a
relatively low maintenance, relatively durable product that is fairly simple, and asked if that is correct.
Transportation Engineer Jones said she would not necessarily say that bridges and culverts are in the easy category.
Some of the most complex parts of our assets are bridges and culverts. There are 29 bridges and culverts in our City
limits and they are more expensive to maintain than asphalt roads because of the capital costs that are incurred at those
large increments.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 19 of 49
Councilmember O’Brien said that is an amortized cost, is that correct?
Transportation Engineer Jones said that is correct.
Councilmember O’Brien said so the on-going maintenance - is there a routine, regular and frequent maintenance for
these concrete structures or is that not the case.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that for a concrete bridge culvert that would be different if it were actually a
stand bridge They have different maintenance cycles, so for a concrete bridge culvert it would have limited
maintenance, yes.
Councilmember O’Brien said what he was asking before; this is relatively a low maintenance structure.
Transportation Engineer Jones said you could say that.
Councilmember O’Brien said once the initial capital costs has been born, which is not the issue at hand, correct?
Transportation Engineer Jones said that this is a policy level position for Council to decide as to whether or not you
want to own something that is going to service private individuals and that is a policy level decision. Whether or not
that is positive or negative or a professional opinion of mine, that is for you all to make that decision.
Mayor Lockwood asked if we have addressed a maintenance bond or some kind of warranty to help.
Transportation Engineer Jones said as with all construction projects that are being dedicated to the City, they have
provided their maintenance bond and she has a copy of it. The time period on it is for two years for $254,000.
Mayor Lockwood asked if it was a warranty or a maintenance bond.
Transportation Engineer Jones said it is a maintenance bond and responded to one of the Councilmembers that it is
for two years.
Mayor Lockwood asked the City Attorney what was the possibility of getting a longer bond on that project on the
bridge.
City Attorney Scott said it is entirely possible.
Councilmember Thurman asked if there had been proper testing on the culvert itself to ensure that we are not going
to be suddenly stuck with any kind of maintenance issues.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that we do not do testing on the bridge itself. We would have an inspection of
the bridge itself and there has been a punch list done and those items have been taken care of to generally staff’s
satisfaction. Has there been an expert to go out and review the construction methods, we have not done that, but that is
something that could be done.
Councilmember Thurman asked if there were going to be a major problem with it, she assumes it would surface
during the first few years, and asked is that correct or is that something thirty years from now that we would find out.
Transportation Engineer Jones said it is hard to say. On roads, for instance, the problems may not surface for two
years depending upon the type of failure such as a base failure or an asphalt failure. With large structures, you would
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 20 of 49
know more information after going through an entire calendar year with all the seasons involved. There is not
anything in particular and there is not a timeline that we would suspect something.
Councilmember Thurman said but if there were a major problem most likely we would know about it within five to
ten years, is that correct.
Transportation Engineer Jones said you could say that.
Mayor Lockwood asked is it safe to say that the City has received, and there may be some liability with the culvert,
but is this road much better road than was previously there.
Transportation Engineer Jones responded without having the center line information to be able to tell you exactly
what the radiuses are, it is hard to do an exact comparison side by side, but generally staff would say that what is
provided is better than what we originally had, but we do not know to what level it is better.
Councilmember Lusk asked if this facility was inspected during construction by Fulton County or by some
independent engineering firm.
Transportation Engineer Jones responded that it is assumed that Fulton County visited this site, but we do not have
records of that. That is just something we do not have during that time period, which was during the transfer process.
She has not been provided any construction testing specifically for on site engineer reports of the construction at this
point in time. Something may exist, but we have not seen anything.
Councilmember Lusk asked if they have not offered to produce those, is that correct. Has the builder offered to
produce those?
Transportation Engineer Jones said she does not specifically remember, but we could ask.
Councilmember Lusk said you come up with three possible alternatives and rejected each one of them. They got this
documentation last week. Have there been any other considerations that she knows of at this time by which you would
accept this facility, other than possibly an extension of the maintenance bond.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that alternatives would possibly exist, but again it comes down to the pleasure of
the Council. We could find something at the staff level, but we need something from Council.
Mayor Lockwood asked if she had a recommended period for a maintenance bond that, in her professional
experience, she would feel comfortable with.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that this is such a unique feature and we have not found one of this particular
type so we do not have anything to go by, but she does know that the number of twenty years has been quoted as one
particular idea. She has heard other people say two years is fine, so we have heard all of them. She believes it will be
arbitrary whatever number is picked so there is no recommended value.
Mayor Lockwood said that maybe City Attorney Scott could answer this, a two year bond versus a twenty year bond
versus a ten year bond, does anybody have an answer on that as to what would be reasonable for the development.
Transportation Engineer Jones said she would like to ask an additional part to that question as to whether or not
warranty or maintenance would be the consideration as well.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 21 of 49
City Attorney Scott said that he believes a maintenance bond would do the trick. He believes, however, the length
you want it for is a policy decision. The applicant certainly might have some input and would likely engage in some
dialogue with you on that. Generally, he would say that we would be safer with a longer bond. He believes that is
common sense.
Councilmember Lusk asked if we could find out what the annual bond premium is just as a point of discussion.
City Attorney Scott said he does not know if the applicant has that or not, based on what they have obtained so far.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said we talk about the length of the maintenance bond and the potential risk or not,
do we know what the cost was at the time to put in this bridge and culvert, what was the capital investment that the
developer had, and then what would it cost us to replace. Worst case, if we take liability for that culvert and bridge
and at some point there is a failure, what would it cost us to replace it in today’s dollars and then in some future
dollar’s cost. That would help us to better understand what real risk we have in assuming this liability. We cannot
possibly think about a policy decision until we have a better sense what the real risk is, so if you can help define what
that liability and financial risk is to the City that would help.
Transportation Engineer Jones said the present value from last year, and she is assuming that this is what these
actual fees in dollars would represent, according to their documentation it was $254,000. If you were trying to figure
out your future value, and she believes Mr. Bovos knows what this formula is, but she thinks it is one plus “i” to the
“n” power, is that a correct equation.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that at least in today’s present dollars it is at least $254,000 and to project that
out two, five, ten, and twenty years, our future value is going to be significantly higher. One request would be is could
we have a chart that would say that if we had failure in the second year, the fifth year, the tenth, twentieth and so on,
what would be the reasonable costs on replacement would be and based on that, we could compare it to the premium
costs and see if this is a liability that we can live with. If we have that data tonight, great; if we do not, then she asks
that we get that information.
Transportation Engineer Jones said she could probably help a little with that. Construction costs generally have
been escalating at least ten percent each year, so that would be your “i” value of the equation and you also have your
“n” value and that would be what Council would want to know the number of years so we could do the math easily
based on that.
Mayor Lockwood asked what about a complete failure is a small possibility and as you said earlier, the design is for
50 to 100 years.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that is correct.
Councilmember O’Brien said that in general there are approximately 29 such structures that we have looked at in the
City.
Transportation Engineer Jones said we have identified 29 and have measured them, but we have not done bridge
assessments as of yet because a certified individual needs to do that.
Councilmember O’Brien asked as of those structures is this low, medium or high in its obvious condition. Would
you say this is in pristine condition or is it questionable?
Transportation Engineer Jones said it is brand new.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 22 of 49
Councilmember O’Brien said so pristine would characterize this?
Transportation Engineer Jones said generally.
Councilmember D’Aversa said that it is a policy decision based on the fact that this is a public road or access road
that runs above this culvert. We do not have a choice other than to maintain or to not accept this structure completely
as a public access. If it is deeded a public access, we have to accept maintenance of it just with the road itself and not
the culvert. So, the question is do we accept the culvert with a 20 year bond, a 50 year bond, whatever the case may be
or just to accept the road above it.
City Manager Bovos said that is absolutely correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that one option is to accept the road and just not accept the liability of that bridge
and culvert. Could anyone, including the applicant, help us to understand why that would not be an approach that we
would want to approach. Would that not be a win/win to handle the abandonment?
Councilmember D’Aversa stated because the developer does not want to maintain it forever because they are not
going to be in the subdivision forever would be the easy answer.
Transportation Engineer Jones said she could shed some light on that because they did consider several different
alternatives and we did have two or three meetings with the applicant and their attorney. One of the ideas was like
airline restrictions where we would accept the land, excluding certain items, based on elevations and that was one of
the ideas that was originally discussed. There could be some hairy issues involved because of maintenance. The fact
that the base of the pavement is essentially the top of the culvert and they are somewhat intertwined in that regard, so,
if the bridge ices, who’s liability is it. That is a very sticky question that we were trying to work out whether can we
legally separate those two entities when they do touch or can we consider them separately and the City Attorney can
probably explain that a little better, but we did try to think outside the box and tried various alternatives.
Mayor Lockwood said he would like to ask the applicant if they would like to shed some light on what information
they have and what they can possibly provide.
Lee Duncan (applicant) said that he appreciates everyone who has worked on this. This structure was built by E.R.
Snell and Associates who is a world-wide bridge builder. The rating on this structure is unlimited. You have
structures within one hundred yards of this with a 19 to 22 ton capacity, so in terms in what you can expect as a
lifetime of this structure, Councilmember O’Brien hit on it fairly well. We are going to be seeing this thing last a lot,
lot longer than the other 28 structures than you have in your inventory right now. If you look at the structures that are
in the inventory right now, and you drive south on Hopewell Road you will see a bridge that is marked maximum load
15 tons. To put this into perspective, a loaded concrete truck weighs 23 tons, so you have issues that you probably
need to be looking at and Abbie Jones hit on them very well and an inventory probably needs to be done. He proposes
tonight that the one being considered here tonight on Long Street is not going to be one of those you will be worrying
about when the entire inventory is done. In separating the structure, this is a reinforced concrete structure, and it is all
integrated from the foundation up to the substructure that supports the roadway. Trying to draw a line to separate this
is at best very difficult because it is all integrated. It is reinforced concrete and you have steel that goes all the way
through the footings to the base of the concrete structure so if there is a failure pinpointing blame from one to the other
is not going to be very easy to do. Secondly, the bond they have provided, this bridge has been in operation for ten
months. The bond extends that for an additional two year period to give you a total three years. They have discussed
this with Council outside of the meeting and felt, as a result of those meetings, that this was an appropriate alternative
to take and to provide the City with some level of comfort that we are providing a warranty period that is reasonable.
To extend beyond that there is a transitional phase that will be going to that and the City will be maintaining this
structure during the transitional phase and more and more you are going to be out there working on that. To ask a
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 23 of 49
bond company to indemnify you against losses that you are actually maintaining, there is a diminishing return here that
needs to be understood. A bond company, if they are going to project out to twenty years, is going to want to be in a
position to control what is going on. If we have done our job right we are not going to be there for twenty years and
how that bond company controls that is very difficult, which is why the three year window was one that was looked at
and when we met with Council prior to this meeting, that is what was arrived at.
Cliff Watson (applicant) said that just as Mr. Duncan just stated if you look at some of the bridges the City inherited
versus the bridge you are now considering, you will see a rather significant difference. More importantly, as discussed
with the City Attorney and Abbie Jones on numerous occasions, there is a ongoing legal problem with trying to
maintain ownership of a bridge over which the public is traveling because whoever owns the bridge, if it is a private
individual and not a city, they become liable for anything that happens on that bridge. If somebody gets hurt, there is
ice on the bridge and there is a wreck, they become liable. The City does not have that liability because you have
sovereign immunity. You cannot sue a city. You can sue the owner of the bridge and this makes it very difficult for us
to continue to own a bridge. That is why when we had the conversations about the maintenance bond it made sense to
give you the comfort that in the future that a well built bridge to the extent that any testing that went on during the
bridge was being built, inspections that were done while it was being built, and they will be turned over to the City if
they have not been already. He will give copies of the plans to Abbie Jones if she does not already have them. We are
talking about a very substantial bridge where if we continue to own it, if there is ice on the bridge or an accident occurs
on the bridge, then it becomes a personal problem because we allowed someone to cross our property, as a licensee.
We would have to either clear the ice or clear the road and this is why we cannot continue to own a bridge.
Lee Duncan said that as a part of a class submittal which is now under consideration, and those inspection reports and
sign offs from Fulton County have been provide to the City of Milton already, we will be happy to re-supply them if
some of them are missing and in addition since then, we have provided construction plans.
Councilmember Lusk asked Tom Wilson if he had reviewed all of these documents.
Director of Community Development Wilson said that he has not reviewed them, but believes they have been
reviewed in transportation.
Councilmember Lusk asked in the testing that he made reference to, is that during construction or destructive testing.
Transportation Engineer Jones responded that it was destructive testing that was cold patched after the fact and we
have all of those for the roads. She has been able to review the cores for the dedication section. She has not reviewed
the testing on the load on the class as of yet.
Councilmember Lusk asked about concrete test reports.
Transportation Engineer Jones said she has not seen concrete test reports.
Lee Duncan said that he would have all the test reports for the Council and cannot imagine that a company of the
caliber of E.R. Snell and Associates would not have ran testing on the concrete when it was put in. He believes they
would have done this as it was being put in, but he will get all the reports
Christopher Bloor, 1800 Birmingham Road, Milton, had public comment that he has concerns about the
maintenance of this bridge and it is really more of setting of a policy and precedence. The point is not how good this
bridge is, but the precedence it will set in future endeavors with other investors who might want to do the same thing.
Mayor Lockwood called for a motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 24 of 49
Motion: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to defer the Consideration of an abandonment of Right-of-Way for the
Manor Subdivision Phase 2E and Long Street until we can get additional information from the applicant and test
reports.
Discussion on Motion:
She is still in question whether Abbie Jones still needs some construction review because there has not been a
construction expert to review the bridge and also the need for some consideration for a longer maintenance bond
instead of just the two year. She is concerned about policy and about what is being set in motion tonight over one
issue. She would much rather see Council establish a policy that we can live with on any bridge and any scenario, but
we need a policy we can live with long term.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that we had the staff PE go and review the bridge, so we have had a competent
individual review the bridge. Staff was not so much questioning the construction method as we wanted to make sure
that the policy decision was made by Council and not at the staff level.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she was also questioning what the premium would be for the maintenance bond
and Councilmember Lusk had questioned what that premium cost would be for a longer bond. We do not have that
information this evening. Regardless of this, she would like to see the Council consider a longer maintenance and/or
warranty bond before we make a decision because she feels the City would be taking on a liability.
Transportation Engineer Jones said we can crunch numbers, but it is up to the Council to set the policy to go with it.
She asked if the Council wanted them to start the number crunching before they actually make the policy decision.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that the number crunching and the conversation between staff and the applicant
would have to determine what is a reasonable timeframe that would litigate the risk that we have heard we might be
taking on this evening. She would never want to set false hopes in an applicant. She had heard reference to meetings
between Councilmembers and the applicant and she was not part of those meetings and she cannot speak to what was
or was not agreed to outside of this public hearing. She apologized that if someone said that two years would be
satisfactory, but this is the first time she has heard this being satisfactory based on Council input and she is not
comfortable with two years and that is why she is asking this to be part of the deferral.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that two years or eighteen months is the standard and asked Tom Wilson what is
the standard.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that is why she is asking for the deferral because we need to know this and see if
there could be a resolution between staff and the applicant for a longer bond. Also, she would like for any additional
reports to be submitted that Mr. Duncan referenced that may or may not have yet seen.
Lee Duncan said he wanted to clarify that the counsel he is referring to here is not this Council, but legal counsel. The
other thing is there is a second component to this tonight. It is not just the abandonment of the old road, that no longer
exists, but if we get a deed to a clear title, but we cannot pull plats, so this has been going on since Fulton County
failed to get it done in time for December 1st. They had it ready to be poured on December 5, 2006 to finish this and
now we are talking about at least a five or six month delay. The best time to build is before the summer and so the
question is if the acceptance of the road is to be deferred, could we not have the Council go ahead today and vote on
the abandonment of the road that no longer exists.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if we can legally separate the two.
Lee Duncan responded that you can because the resolution that was passed in Fulton County back in May of last year
actually states in the past tense that it was abandoned. The language then goes on to say they abandoned it conditioned
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 25 of 49
on subsequent donation, but legally you can abandon any road if the Council would agree and the City can abandon
any road it wants to. Obviously, we would be glad to having the road dedication, but there is a second part to all of
this and we cannot get clear title in section 2E and cannot sell lots.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked how many specific lots are tied to this.
Mayor Lockwood asked City Attorney Scott if it were possible to separate the two tonight and get the abandonment
possibly tonight and then by next week’s meeting address the other issues.
Councilmember O’Brien said that perhaps this would be an opportune time for a short break for Council to have a
constructive side bar. His understanding is that this came about due to the transition from Fulton to Milton. He has the
sense that the applicant has endured a very thorough review and we do need to find a balance. If there is an
incremental approach to achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome, that would be great. If we could have a break and let
the staff see if there is any possible way to move forward on this tonight.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey restated her motion was to defer no longer than a seven day period and until we could
get the reports that Ms. Jones needed and an additional time period for the maintenance bond.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Five Minute Break:
Mayor Lockwood called for a 5 minute break.
Reconvene:
Mayor Lockwood reconvened the meeting.
Motion and Second: Mayor Lockwood moved to accept the structure with a 20-year maintenance bond.
Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Lusk wanted to clarify that we will be receiving copies of all the reports.
Transportation Engineer Jones said the construction is OK and with all the data we have received this is just a policy
level decision. The question is that the LLC might not even exist in 20 years.
Lee Duncan said he does not even know if we can get a 20 year bond and to make this a stipulation, he just does not
know if this is doable.
Mayor Lockwood said we will have to research this and we may have to come back and say that two years is all that
is available.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that is why she recommended a deferral just so we could evaluate that question.
Councilmember D’Aversa said she is not comfortable with us maintaining the private road. Even with a 20 year
bond, we have the public road that is an obligation of the City to maintain, but if we agree to maintain the private road
underneath a private structure, what is the difference between agreeing to maintain any other private structure within a
subdivision or is there a difference.
Lee Duncan said you are not being asked to maintain a private road. You are only being asked with respect to the
structure that is holding up the public road. The private road is their responsibility and only their responsibility.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 26 of 49
Councilmember Thurman asked what the difference in maintaining this is and maintaining a bridge.
Lee Duncan said the bridge is the item that is holding up the public road and that is what we are talking about. We are
not asking the City to maintain the roads that run through the subdivision because they will be maintained by the
Manor and only the Manor.
Councilmember D’Aversa said this becomes a public structure, a City owned public structure. She said she just
needed some clarification.
City Attorney Scott said the distinction is that the structure you will be accepting is allowing that public road to cross
over a private road and that is a different situation that we will probably see anywhere else.
Transportation Engineer Jones said she can give a specific example for this. Normally when you see a culvert, it is
for water and water is something that is owned by everybody. There is public on both sides of it. In this instance,
there is private on both sides of it and underneath and that is the uniqueness of this one and this is what has been
pointed out to staff. Since this is so unique, staff should not make the decision.
Councilmember O’Brien said so we would not be entering into precedence because this scenario would not in affect
occur in other private subdivisions.
Lee Duncan said this is correct.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said when you think of some other road examples, while this might be unusual, she is
thinking about the abandonment that took place where Liberty Grove was realigned and was a public road that
intersects private road, which is part of the Blue Valley subdivision. While that question has not come to us, but could
those be similar examples as today exists or as development and growth in our area occurs. Could we have similar
examples where we would be asked to take on a similar situation? How was that handled with Echelon where there
are golf carts and bridges and culverts?
Transportation Engineer Jones said that goes back your basic idea, are you going to have public on both sides or are
you going to have private on both sides and who are the users of such. If you have water under a culvert, then it is
going to all be public items that are transferring under the road; if you have a golf cart path under a road, that generally
is going to be for the exclusive use of club members, so that would be a very private enterprise. That could be an
easement, potentially. At Atlantic Station they were able to separate easements and air rights and various things. The
fact that we would be doing this sort of thing in this application is not exactly parallel.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she appreciates Ms Jones’s first statement that this is a policy decision and this is
where she is struggling and hopes that we can establish policy first.
Transportation Engineer Jones said that the Community Services Group under Greg Wilson has put together
policies and we have prepared that for the April 21st work session and in it, it talks about privatization and road
abandonment and other things and at the back of it she has just included all the associated OCGA items related to road
abandonment and property disbursement. Also, there is a right-of-way ordinance that will be discussed at the April
21st work station. Staff is trying to be proactive for the next time this comes along. She does not believe that we will
ever have this exact same situation to bring before Council ever again. This is basically a once in a lifetime situation
before you. However, it is not a decision that needs to be made at the staff level; it is a decision that needs to be made
at the council level.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 27 of 49
Lex Watson said this is not the first time something like this has happened. He developed a piece of property in
Peachtree City, which has some areas down there and they are integrated where tunnels go under the roadways to
access the golf course and all of those were handled via easements under the public right of ways to accommodate the
golf carts. In June, we will be watching the US Open up in Pennsylvania where it accesses under an interstate, a six
lane interstate which allows a golf carts to go from one part of the course to the other. This is not unusual and it is not
unique, but it is to Milton and he is up to the challenge.
George Ragsdale, 540 Treyburn, Milton, said that he believes the issue has not been articulated well. The private
road that is under the highway, there would be no culvert. Easements granted the responsibility of the grantee is to
maintain. The precedent that is being set here is for the City to take responsibility for maintaining something that
benefits solely the people who are using that private road. That is the question that you need to address, whether the
City Council wants to take on the responsibility of maintaining the structure for the sole benefit of the people that use
this private road.
Councilmember Lusk asked for the motion on the floor to be repeated.
Mayor Lockwood said it was to accept the structure with a 20-year maintenance bond.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she thought she had heard that on April 26th, which is only a few weeks away,
we are addressing a policy. If we could remove the time constraint, would the April 26th work session include a
discussion about what our policy would or would not be for situations such as this? Would this not give us an
opportunity to make that policy decision?
Community Service Director Wilson said that he believes this issue is addressed inside of the list of community
services policy and he does not know if you would be conclusive in your mind between now and then to have enough
information to make that decision.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said that part of the April 26th discussion addresses policies that incorporate this very
issue.
Community Services Director Wilson said that was correct.
City Clerk Marchiafava said that Councilmember Mohrig has arrived and the time is 10:05 pm.
Vote: The motion to accept the structure with a 20-year maintenance bond passed 5 to 2, with Councilmember Zahner
Bailey and Councilmember D’Aversa in opposition.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the road abandonment. Councilmember O’Brien
seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read the next agenda item.
Approval of a Resolution Appointing Mark E. Scott of Jarrard and Davis as City Attorney for the City of
Milton, Georgia.
Resolution No. 07-04-28
Mayor Lockwood said he would like to propose resolution no. 06-11-04 appointing Mark E. Scott of Jarrard and
Davis as our City Attorney.
Motion and Second: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to approve a Resolution Appointing Mark E. Scott of Jarrard
and Davis as City Attorney for the City of Milton, Georgia. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 28 of 49
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Thurman said it is her understanding that by approving this motion what we are doing is relieving
Mark Scott of his duties as solicitor and asked is that correct.
Mayor Lockwood said that is correct.
Councilmember Thurman said it is her understanding that based on information that you have and that we received
today, that the rest of the Council did not receive until today.
Mayor Lockwood said that was correct. Originally, we passed a resolution with Riley & McClendon as our attorney
and Mark Scott as our City Attorney and solicitor. Since then, Mr. Scott has changed firms. As a formality since he
has changed firms, and in the meantime as we are working diligently to set up our court services and in meetings with
our Judges and our court staff, it was brought up that Mr. Scott mentioned that he was going to be the solicitor and our
Judges raised a red flag and said that they did not think that was a good idea based on liability and conflict of interest
on the City. After discussions on that, he had outside legal advice and received the same information as well as
starting to talk with other Judges in other municipalities such as Roswell and Alpharetta. They all recommended we
have a separate solicitor. We have had several discussions over the past several days with Mr. Scott’s firm and with
Mr. Scott. At this point, they might not agree or like the agreement because it is obviously less revenue for them, but
they also understand and stand behind us on that. He would like to ask that our Chief Judge Barry Zimmerman, who is
here, if he would give us his thoughts on this situation.
Municipal Court Chief Judge Zimmerman said he raised the issue. He said there seems to be all sorts of issues
flying around as to whether he had some sort of other agenda and that is quite disturbing. He applied for the position
of Judge of this Court because he thought he could do a good job for the City and bring his experience to the City and
have a professional and well run Court. He was appointed and he appreciates that appointment. In doing so, his
number one goal here is to have a well run and the best run court. When he heard that the City Solicitor was also the
City Attorney this raised some red flags in his mind and he felt it was a conflict of interest. He can name any number
of reasons why he feels it is a conflict of interest. There are several different branches of government: the official
branch, the executive branch, which you all are, etc. and those two are not supposed to join at any time. If something
gives an appearance of impropriety or appearance of a problem, he feels it should be avoided. There are situations
when a City Solicitor could be in a situation where they are being accused of prosecutable misconduct, etc. and the
City Attorney would be in the position of having to defend that City Solicitor and, obviously, they could not do this if
they were the same person. There are situations where a Judge might need representation because someone is accusing
him of judicial impropriety and the Judge would be represented by the City Attorney. That City Attorney cannot be
the City Solicitor who prosecutes in front of that Judge. It cannot happen. Tonight, he has heard a discussion about
the term of a Judge. It seems you are concerned about the term of the Judge, but the City Attorney had a voice in
recommending to you all on what the term of the Judge should be. Fine, that is his job. If he is the Judge and he is
making decisions and that same City Attorney is the City Solicitor and he does not like the Judge’s decisions, then he
will be in front of you all trying to change the Judges term. That cannot happen. This is real basic and he would go
back to the saying “If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck”, and
if it looks like it and if there is any hint of any sort of conflict, then why go there? Since he brought up this comment,
he has had countless discussions with people, emails back and forth, telephone calls and he was asked to write a letter
and he did. He does not make the laws of the City of Milton and he never intends to, but he is in a position of having
to enforce them and he does not want to interfere with what the Council does or with how the Council selects the City
Attorney or the City Solicitor. He knows a lady by the name of Fran Shoenthal and her name has been brought up. He
mentioned her name for a couple of reasons. What the City may or may not know that besides sitting here, he also sits
in the City of Alpharetta, City of Roswell, Fulton County, and the City of Atlanta. The City of Alpharetta only has
court three days a week and he knew she (Ms. Shoenthal) was available and he offered her as a solution. So,
somebody asked him, and he does not remember who, somebody asked why he suggested Fran Shoenthal. He said he
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 29 of 49
responded that he did not necessarily suggest her, but he was always taught by his parents that you should not be part
of the problem, but be a part of the solution. So, he said that if he is creating a problem here by saying that you all are
having a problem because you have the same person, maybe he should help be part of the solution and the solution was
to suggest somebody else. He does not care who the Council picks, he does not care who the Council uses, and he
does not care if the Council uses the same person, he just expressed his opinion and that is all. He still believes this to
be true and he will stand by that, but whatever the Council decides, and that is the Council’s job, and that is not his job.
His job is to sit on the bench and hold court and rule on cases and go on about his business. He knows that just besides
judging all these courts, he practiced in all these courts and he knows all the solicitors all over town. Most of them are
good and most of them have full time jobs and he does not care who the Council picks because he can get along with
all of them and that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not you want to have an issue on whether there is an
impropriety or not or a conflict of interest or not. He asked if anybody had any questions for him, because he would
much rather answer questions from the Council than to hear innuendos and see emails and hear about rumors. He
would rather stand here and hear what you have to ask and answer those questions if he can. He is honest and straight
forward and right down the line with people and he hopes that is how everybody would be with him and that is how he
holds his court.
Councilmember Thurman said she appreciates him coming and explaining this tonight. The Council did receive the
letter today that he wrote over a month ago and most of the Council had not received that letter until today. Her
concern about this whole thing is that we are making a decision to terminate a person that we have previously put in a
position and she did not receive the information telling why we legally are to do this. The last thing she received was a
letter from the Attorney General stating his perspective that it was not a conflict and she is now being asked to make a
decision that it is a conflict, and that we need to terminate this person as the solicitor. She did not receive any of this
information as to why it should be done until today. She did not know if it was his intent that this letter be given to the
Council or that the Council have this information so that they can make this decision within four or five hours in
advance. But, they may come to the exact same conclusion that the Judge came to after reviewing the information and
we probably will, but she would like to have more than a few hours notice to review information prior to making a
decision. She thinks he can probably understand that.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said he had no intent whatsoever. He was asked to write a letter and he did. He consulted
with the other two Judges and they came to one opinion and that is why when he wrote the letter that it was not just
coming from him, but it was a joint opinion. They all consulted on it and everyone agreed. He has no agenda and
wrote the letter because he was asked to and whatever the Council decides is the Council’s business and not his. All
he did was throw the comment out there for the Council’s discussion and whether they got that a month ago or today,
he did not have any control over that. He does not come to meetings and he does not interfere with the Council’s
work.
Councilmember O’Brien said he wanted to thank the Judge for his gracious time in recent days. For those not
familiar with this process as has been alluded to, Judge Zimmerman really has actually crossed paths with an
organizational or personnel issue as much as anything else and he does understand how awkward this may be for the
Judge. But, he can echo Councilmember Thurman’s thought that we appreciate him coming and offering to answer
questions. He similarly is quite concerned that completely outside of his control a fairly elaborate process was
somewhat cloaked which could have no bearing on the situation, but it lends somewhat of an uncomfortable
impression. Especially in most organizations a vacancy is filled rather than created and, as the Judge faithfully and
sincerely put the possibility of a conflict of interest with a double-headed solicitor/attorney, although the examples
may be statistically somewhat remote and the likelihood that a traffic ticket might be reversed due to a conflict or in
the extraordinary circumstance that the Judge described about a circumstance against the Judge, he feels there could be
a simple solution to that. But the other side of that coin that some have identified is the perception that at least is that
this was a package deal with a long-time colleague from Alpharetta coming for the Judge and that is an uncomfortable
prospect that may have no foundation, but yet the Council labor under the desire to avoid the perception of
impropriety. He thinks that what Councilmember Thurman was eluding with no notice essentially discovered by
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 30 of 49
accident in the last 48 hours, the prospect that we are essentially issuing a technical termination of a staff member who
has, absent any additional information, has performed faithfully, reliably, and conducted himself with great credit on
behalf of the people of Milton. So, the Judge can understand, he is sure…
Chief Judge Zimmerman said no, that he cannot. No, he cannot. He cannot understand somebody accusing him of
something. They have not talked with him, they do not know him, they do not know anything about the situation and
no, he cannot understand.
Councilmember O’Brien asked who was accusing him.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said that Councilmember O’Brien just did.
Councilmember O’Brien said he was expressing organizationally the prospect that…
Chief Judge Zimmerman said that Councilmember O’Brien just accused him of bringing a package deal to this
Court. He did not bring anything to this Court but himself, and he is not going to stand here and put up with this. He
is going to tell the Council if you want him to resign, he will do it right now because he does not need this and nor
does he need the accusations. He will tell you right now that he does not get angry. He gets angry about once a year
and he is angry.
Councilmember O’Brien said “yes Sir”. Your Honor, he apologized and that was not his intent. He had a lengthy
meeting with the Mayor.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said that Councilmember O’Brien said it tonight and again said it in an email, and also said
it over the telephone, so it is not your intent?
Councilmember O’Brien said it was his intent to discuss what he believes is a personnel issue in private and the City
Manager refused to take this in private and the Mayor insisted that it be done publicly. He is embarrassed and regrets
that the Judge is offended and he apologized. It was not his intent. He emphatically, strenuously asked that the other
possible perception of this situation that has no bearing on the Judge would potentially be aired and he thought it much
more appropriate to air it privately, but the City Manager and the Mayor asked to air it here. So, again, he apologizes.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said he has nothing to hide, so he does not care.
Councilmember O’Brien said he appreciates that.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said he has nothing to hide. He has no package deal. He has no relationship. He offered a
solution to what he saw as a problem and now he gets accused of coming in and having a package deal. He does not
understand it. He is sorry.
Councilmember O’Brien said he understands.
Mayor Lockwood said he would like to address this. One, on the package deal or any reference to that, he never got
that indication and never felt that. He thought it was commendable for the Judge to offer to recommend somebody.
He knows that in his line of work, if you hire somebody and they are a good person and you need somebody else and
they recommend somebody they have worked with before, that is certainly acceptable and honorable. To address the
time issue, it was probably was a month ago when this was first brought up in the meeting with the attorneys and Judge
Zimmerman did write a letter Obviously, his job is to do the best for the City of Milton not for an attorney or for his
firm or whatever, but what is best for the City of Milton. So, the staff and he did not just jump and take that letter and
say this is gospel. The staff and he spent time talking with other people and did a survey of other jurisdictions. It was
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 31 of 49
late last week while he was on vacation that the staff finally came to terms with Mr. Scott’s firm and got an OK from
them that they were OK with this decision. Then, our City Manager was out for two days, so tonight is when we were
presenting the information. We are not asking anybody to vote on the Solicitor tonight. We are trying to have a
resolution to appoint Mr. Scott as our City Attorney and do it in the right way since he has changed firms. On the
prosecutor, we can do through due process and so there was no intent in withholding the information. He is just trying
to do what is best for the City of Milton and from starting with Judge Zimmerman’s opinion and the other two Judges
that we hired, and we respect their opinion, and other legal firms and other jurisdictions such as Roswell, Alpharetta
and other Judges. Everybody that he has talked to, and who staff has talked to, and staff’s recommendations is that this
is much better for the City of Milton. There is less liability and this is the way that ninety percent of everybody else
does it, so why would we want to take a chance, even if it is close. There was no withholding information back.
Councilmember O’Brien said the only problem is that the only information that the Council had, and this is why this
uncomfortable situation, which is embarrassing, has come up is that we have a very specific and what he understands
to be a legal brief, as a layman, that references case law that is fairly recent. We were not afforded any of the previous
discussions of what was to go on, so absent that, any who had questions about this probably would have profited from
seeing that and being able to talk about it.
Councilmember Lusk addressed Judge Zimmerman and said ‘Your Honor’ if he may…
Chief Judge Zimmerman said he would much prefer he be called Barry…
Councilmember Lusk said to quote a line from Cool Hand Luke, he thinks what we have here is failure to
communicate and he believes it is on this side of the rail, and there is a little disfunction going on here, and he will be
as brief as he can. He does not believe there is enough discussion on this and we are getting documents up here until
mid-afternoon. Maybe the Judge can appreciate our side of it and maybe how we are reacting. That is his personal
opinion and his observation.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said he appreciates that and he has no way of knowing what information the Council is
getting and what the discussions have been for anything of the sort.
Mayor Lockwood said that Judge Zimmerman or Barry is not up here to defend, all we did is ask him to state his
position.
Councilmember Lusk said he understands that, but he wants the Council, those of us up here to understand.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said it is real simple. He is normally a fill in Judge for other Judges and he practices law
full time. He really does not have to take on these kinds of responsibilities. He tells his wife that you have to be
careful what you ask for because you just might get it. He asked for this position and he got this position and he takes
it very seriously. He had one goal and that is to make this Court the most efficient, well respected, ethical, well run
Court in the State of Georgia. No questions, no problems. The public does not mind coming here, the prosecutors, the
court personnel, the police officers, and it is a good place to come. Again, he practices in so many courts and sits as a
judge in so many courts, and there are so many horror stories out there. He knows what to avoid and what not to and
that is all he has in mind for this Court, that it be the best Court in the State of Georgia. Because he thinks whatever in
this Court is going to reflect on him, personally and it will reflect on all of the Council and he wants it to be a
professional place.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey thanked Judge Zimmerman for being our Judge. She respects him extremely and
respects him being here tonight and she respects his opinion. She absolutely agrees that we should not have a conflict
of interest. It is his Court and it was his recommendation and she understands that the Council has a letter that is not
only his legal opinion, but also the legal opinion of our other two judges. She would ask, between the three of the
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 32 of 49
Judges as legal professionals, how many years of legal profession do the three Judges bring together that represents
that letter and legal opinion, roughly?
Chief Judge Zimmerman said that he has been practicing for 32 years and he has been a Judge for 27 years, Judge
Hansford has been practicing for 10 years and a couple of months, and Judge Phelan, he does not know the answer and
asked Mayor Lockwood if he knew.
Mayor Lockwood said he did not know.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said so we have over 50 years of legal expertise. She is just speaking for herself, but
she wanted Judge Zimmerman to know that she is extremely appreciative of his lawful advice and being willing to take
on this Court. We need to have a Judge, such as he, representing this City the way he does. She wanted to thank him
personally for being here this evening and making it very clear that we need to be the City that we have strived to be
from day one and she cannot thank him enough.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said you are welcome and thank you.
Councilmember Thurman said she believes they will all agree with that. We are all very thankful to have the three
Judges that we have and that is not the issue at all that is before us. The only issue before the Council is that they have
been asked tonight to make a decision to terminate someone from a position that they approved two months ago and
not receiving the information that they needed to make this decision until a few hours ago. She just needs more time
personally to review the information that the Judge has presented tonight in order to make that decision. She very
much respects him and is very much appreciative of his letter. She has not had time to review the letter because she
did have to work today and has not had time to review it in detail. It was her impression that we received another
opinion from an Attorney General stating there was no conflict. The rest of the Council did not know that all of this
was going on and so this has kind of been sprung on them. She hopes he can understand that after we got through
reading the four hundred plus pages that are on our agenda tonight and suddenly it became clear that we are not
redoing our previous resolution and changing the name of Mr. Scott’s law firm, but we are actually removing part of
his responsibility and she would like to know why. She appreciates the Judge providing the letter and coming to speak
with them tonight on that subject. She is sure that once they read all the information they will come to the same
conclusion because the last thing she wants is a conflict of interest in any situation. She just needs additional time to
review the information that has been presented to them today.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said again, he has no intention of interfering with the way the Council runs the City or what
your timeframes are with agendas, that is totally the City’s deal. He only came here because he was asked to come and
whatever the Council decides to do tonight or does not decide to do tonight, that is your job.
Mayor Lockwood said he wanted to thank the Judge again for coming and he will reiterate that the timing had nothing
to do with the Judge. He asked the Judge to come so that everyone could have the same information all at the same
time and he appreciates that.
Councilmember O’Brien said he would like to say as he rather inarticulately tried to convey, he will not soon forget
the Judge’s understandable reaction to what was intended as a theoretical concern and, again, the Judge is standing on
the stage for a different drama. He apologized again and he hopes the Judge will accept for what was an honest
exploration of the issues and he again thanked the Judge for coming.
Chief Judge Zimmerman addressed Councilmember O’Brien and stated that he was welcome and that he does accept
his apology. He does not know if it was necessary, but he does accept it. He asked if there are any other questions.
He does like being on that side of the bench a lot better.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 33 of 49
Mayor Lockwood asked Judge Hansford if he had anything to add to this.
Judge Hansford said he is safer over here.
Mayor Lockwood asked the staff if they had any questions on this.
City Manager Bovos said this is quite a distressful position to be in and not only distressful, but extremely frustrating.
From staff’s perspective and he would just like to say to Councilmember Thurman’s statements, he concurs with the
challenges that are placed before the Council today and that they did get some information with respect to the decision.
It was never staff’s goal nor was it staff’s intent to have a discussion about the City Solicitor attached or tied to this
resolution. The reason the resolution is before the Council tonight is because we have a City Attorney serving in the
capacity of the City Attorney, the City is paying invoices with no legal record on file that the Council has approved,
which is required by the Charter that particular person in the law firm that they currently look for. So, as the result in
Mark Scott’s law firm, this resolution was requested and put forward by staff. Again, he understands the challenge
before the Council. This is not an easy issue to address. It becomes very convoluted very quickly and he is more than
happy to give a full disclosure in a public meeting if that is what Council so chooses. He will tell the Council the
reason why they are not and certainly why they recommended and staff recommended to not go into Executive Session
is because Executive Session on this would be over personnel matters. Mark Scott is not an employee of the City, he is
a contractor. So, there is a line that you walk with respect to going into an Executive Session on a contractor versus an
employee. If the Council chooses to do that and it is Council’s ability to do so, but they need a motion and a vote of
the majority and that is clear in our Charter that you can do that. So, yes, was it a recommendation by the Mayor and
the City Manager, absolutely and that is why, again, it is certainly up to the Council to do. In saying that, he shares the
Judges concerns with some of the perceptions and assumptions that were made. He has absolutely no problem talking
about this, but this particular issue was deferred out of the City Manager’s office to the Mayor’s office for some
specific reasons and some specific events that occurred very early on in this process. Again, he will be happy to
disclose those in a public format if the Council chooses to hear them; it is certainly up to the Council. As a result of
that process not being concluded, the Council has not been briefed. He understands that is a challenge for the Council
and he is unsure how to provide a briefing in a public format that is constructive to the Mayor and Council and the
senior team that sits in front of you, the City Attorney, and the constituents of the City. So, therefore, the dilemma
exists and he will be happy to answer questions if anyone has them. Certainly, if Council wants full disclosure, he will
provide it.
Councilmember Thurman asked if there was a reason why the Council did not receive the letter from the judges until
today.
City Manager Bovos said there absolutely was a reason why. That process today was not concluded. We were forced
to have hours and hours of discussion last night, as well as today with respect to that as a result of emails received from
multiple Councilmembers and text messages received late last night, telephone calls, etc. So from a staff perspective,
we are not ready to disseminate that information.
Councilmember Thurman asked if City Manager Bovos can understand why it would be very difficult for us to vote
on information we just received.
City Manager Bovos said he has already said and he concurs with the challenge.
Councilmember Thurman said she does not know what the alternative would be, if they have a problem with a
person not serving as the City Attorney and what they can do about that, and she does not know what kind of problem
the City could run into with personnel issues in the future since we only have five City employees and everyone else is
Ch2m Hill and how that works out with personnel issues. We need to get an opinion from our Judges or City Attorney
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 34 of 49
at some point on that as well. This kind of scares her a little and she hopes we do not have any personnel issues since
there are only five employees and if we have personnel issues then we really are in trouble.
City Manager Bovos said that personnel issues on the Ch2M Hill contract are addressed via the contract, so that is a
little bit different scenario.
Councilmember Thurman said there could still be a personnel issue we wanted to bring it to them.
City Manager Bovos said again, that would be staff’s recommendation that that not be done in Executive Session and
he does not want to belabor that because this is not what is before us.
Councilmember Thurman said that her only thing is and once she has had time to disseminate the information and
others have had a month to have this information and she has had a few hours with the information. She would just
like to have time to review what was sent to her and be able to read it when she is not having her phone at work to ring
every few seconds from clients calling with a deadline so that she can make a decision on what is in the best interest of
the City. If that is to separate the two, then she just needs a little time to read the information to make this decision.
Mayor Lockwood said to clarify one thing, we have not had all the information for a month. In fact, Monday we got
the last part of the information and obviously staff did not want to give Council partial information without doing a
thorough study and our City Manager was out of town on Monday and Tuesday on vacation. Also, the reason this
resolution is here is not addressing the Solicitor. If, as our City Manager explained with things going on last night, we
would not be addressing this today and we would be addressing this one resolution.
Councilmember Thurman asked if this is still a resolution technically terminating a person from the position as
Solicitor for the City.
Mayor Lockwood said that was correct.
Councilmember O’Brien asked if we could offer Judge Zimmerman where he would prefer to sit and it might be a
toss up.
Chief Judge Zimmerman said he is right here if anyone needs him.
Mayor Lockwood said that he would like to add that we have an agreement from Jarrard and Davis that they fully
support us just doing the City Attorney and not the Solicitor.
Councilmember O’Brien said as Judge Zimmerman so graciously offered and similarly Jarrard and Davis have
offered to act as we see fit, so really whatever is the pleasure of the Council has been expressed to be supportable by
both.
Mayor Lockwood we have been given the advice that we can go whichever way we want to go.
Councilmember Mohrig said we have a motion out there now and he does not know if we are going to pass this
tonight or if this will hurt us if we defer this for one week. He asked can we bring this up next week where we can talk
through some of the issues that are going back and forth. The reason he is asking for this is that the concern is
communication, which is what Councilmember Lusk said, it is a timing issue and we have not had an opportunity to
talk through and digest this.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 35 of 49
Councilmember D’Aversa said with all due respect, after hearing what Judge Zimmerman had said as far as the
conflict of interest and hearing with the knowledge that Mr. Scott and his law firm and the other Judges both concur,
she believes we are ready for a vote on this.
Councilmember Thurman said she wants it to be clear that she is not ready to vote on anything when she has not
received the information until today.
Amendment to the Motion: Councilmember Lusk moved to defer the decision until next Thursday at the next
Council meeting. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
City Attorney Scott said that technically that he does not believe it is an amendment, but it is a separate motion.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if we need to vote on the first motion as a matter of Roberts Rules and we
already have a lot of hours invested in this procedure, probably a couple thousand dollars.
City Clerk Marchiafava said the original motion is Approval of a Resolution Appointing Mark E. Scott of Jarrard
and Davis as City Attorney moved by Councilmember D’Aversa and seconded by Councilmember Julie Zahner
Bailey.
Councilmember O’Brien asked if we have the luxury if we wanted to entertain a deferral, could we amend to at least
maintain the status quo and then take this up next week as well. He asked if he could move for a modification.
(City Attorney Scott spoke away from the microphone and it is inaudible.)
Mayor Lockwood requested that we go back to the original motion.
Councilmember Thurman said she thought that Councilmember O’Brien was going to make a motion to amend and
you can make a motion to amend.
Councilmember O’Brien said rather than belabor it and just for the time being, he would like to suggest for
expediency that the resolution mirror the resolution being amended, and additionally reflect that Jarrard and Davis
would undertake whatever customary municipal responsibility that would be considered typical. In other words,
Jarrard and Davis would be responsible for all aspects of the municipal-attorney relationship and with Mark Scott and
the City of Milton.
Councilmember Thurman said that in the interim to make them the interim solicitor.
Councilmember O’Brien said no, what he thinks that most of us understood was we were substituting the firm of
Jarrard and Scott for the firm of Riley and McClendon as Attorney and Solicitor. The other concern is just to be sure it
is clear that Jarrard and Davis would have the opportunity to be our sole municipal law firm and for all that that would
entail which is customary in that arena. We can take this up in more detail when we have had an opportunity to study
this.
City Attorney Scott said he would like to address this because at this point he wants to make it clear that he wants to
help the City settle any controversy over that issue. They do not want to serve as Solicitor at this point as a matter of
controversy. It is that simple.
Councilmember O’Brien said it is his understanding that the decision has already been made that Mr. Scott will not
regardless the protocol that an interim solicitor arrangement has been provided. He is not sure who that is, but he was
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 36 of 49
told this afternoon that two interim solicitors were prepared to act on Monday and he is assuming that they will do so.
Consistent with Mr. Scott’s wishes that he just described. He is just suggesting that until next week, we use the same
resolution that previously existed with the exception of the name of the firm.
City Attorney Scott said that his wish is that the Council either approves the resolution as moved or if others of you
wish to have more time, that is your call, but he is not asking and he is asking that the Council do not throw off the
discussion by attempting…
Councilmember O’Brien said he is mindful of that and he is trying to respect that and just thought it would be
simpler to substitute the previous resolution with exception of the firm and he guesses he has not succeeded.
City Attorney Scott said he appreciates the effort, but at this point it is best for all concerned to just proceed with the
motion.
Mayor Lockwood said that we will probably make the same decision a week from now or two weeks from now. He
is not sure how much liability we have by waiting another week without naming Jarrard and Davis and, again, he
would like to move forward with this.
City Clerk Marchiafava called for a vote of the motion to approve the resolution appointing Mark E. Scott of Jarrard
and Davis as the City Attorney for the City of Milton.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read agenda Item No. 07-230.
Approval of a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 07-02-015, Appointing Members to the City of Milton
Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals for Districts 2, 4, and 6.
Resolution No.07-04-29
Director of Community Development Wilson said the Construction Board of Appeals would review variances to the
Building Code, building materials and technique it needs on an “as needed” basis and even then very rarely; it is
populated with Architects, Engineers, tradesmen and so they would welcome any new members the Council may
nominate.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she would like to nominate Mike Doyle. She is pleased to recommend him and
would like to make sure that his biographical information was provided to each of the Councilmembers via staff. He is
a very qualified individual and she would like to disclose for the record that Mr. Doyle works for J.K. Lockwood and
to make it clear for the record that the Mayor does not know that she was asking Mr. Doyle to be her appointment.
Before Mr. Doyle agreed to accept the appointment, he asked if we need to ask the Mayor if it were OK and so she
wanted to make it clear that her appointment of Mr. Doyle was very separate and distinct from his current employment
with J.K. Lockwood. Her appointment of Mr. Doyle is based on his 25 plus years of engineering and construction and
his background from Georgia Tech; he lives in district 2, in Richmond Glen, and he has also been the President of his
HOA for a number of years. Rather than to belabor all the wonderful things he has done, she did want to mention that
he has a wife and two children and it is important that this be included in his bio. She knows that his wife and children
will appreciate that, but she wanted to ask Mr. Doyle to step forward as she makes this motion.
Mayor Lockwood stated for the record that when Mr. Doyle asked him about it, he said he could not think of a better
qualified person to do this. He can certainly say one hundred percent that there would be no conflict of interest
because his company would not be doing any projects in Milton. Mr. Doyle is an intricate part of the reason why he
can be here and spend time here because he keeps the fires burning. He also went over this with our City Attorney and
he has told me that he does not see any conflict of interest and he wanted everyone to know for the record that they
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 37 of 49
have been upfront about this and there is no conflict of interest. If there is ever a project or a conflict of interest, he is
sure that Mr. Doyle will recuse himself.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve a resolution amending Resolution No. 07-02-
015, Appointing Members to the City of Milton Construction Board of Adjustment and Appeals for Districts 2, 4, and
6 by appointing Mike Doyle to District 2. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Councilmember Lusk said there are three misspellings in the resolution.
City Clerk Marchiafava said that City Manager Bovos had already pointed those out, but the Oath is correct.
Councilmember Lusk said in section one it is Richard Coats and Steve Check.
City Clerk Marchiafava thanked him.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Lockwood performed the Oath of office.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda item no. 07-231.
Approval of a Resolution Approving the Fiscal Year 2007 Work Plan for the City of Milton, Georgia, As
Amended.
Resolution No. 07-04-30
City Manager Bovos said the resolution before the Council is a result of the March 8th work session discussion with
respect to having two items that were sponsored by Councilmember Lusk. The first item under legacy projects and is
listed as number four, the establishment of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and then under non-legacy projects, it
is project number thirteen, the adoption of a Wireless Telecommunication Ordinance.
Mayor Lockwood called for a motion.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve a resolution approving Fiscal Year 2007 Work Plan for
the City of Milton, Georgia, as Amended. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. There was no Council
discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda item no. 07-232.
Approval of a Resolution Amending the Boards and Commissions Schedules.
Resolution No. 07-04-31
Community Development Director Wilson said since the approval of Resolution number 07-01-03, there is a need to
make changes to the scheduled dates of the zoning and use permit schedule, the zoning modification schedule, the
board of zoning appeals schedule and the design review board schedules to reflect the dates and times each of the
boards and commissions have chosen for their meetings. The proposed schedules are attached to the resolution as well
as the summary of all boards and commissions schedules. The following meeting schedule is being proposed:
Planning Commission on the 4th Tuesday of each month at 7:00 pm; Board of Zoning Appeals on the 3rd Tuesday of
each month at 7:00 pm; the Design Review Board on the 1st Tuesday of each month at 6:00 pm. All of these meetings
will be held at 13000 Deerfield Parkway. He would like to bring the attention to two errors that are in the resolution
and that is on the zoning and use permit schedule. The community zoning information meeting on that schedule says
that it will be on the 4th Thursday because of other conflicts on Thursdays, but that will actually really be on the 4th
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 38 of 49
Wednesday and the City Council meeting where it says on that docket that it is the 3rd Tuesday, it is in fact the 3rd
Thursday. He recommends the approval of these schedules as these are the times the groups have selected to get
together to meet.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve a resolution amending the Boards and Commissions
Schedules. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed
unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda item no. 07-233.
Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Milton and the City of Alpharetta for
custodial services of property and evidence.
Public Safety Director Lagerbloom handed out changes to the agreement because some things changed after meeting
with the Alpharetta Council on Monday. The first IGA is for property and evidence services. Property comes into the
possession of a policy agency in one of two ways, either as property or as evidence. The difference would be if you
lose your wallet and somebody finds it and turns it in, that would be property and we can turn that over to you. If you
lose your wallet and somebody steals the credit cards out of it and then goes and uses those credit cards and then the
wallet is found, that becomes evidence because it has been used in a criminal prosecution. That is why each is
specified in an IGA such as this. One of the things that a police agency or public safety agency is responsible for
doing is supplying secure storage for property as well as secure storage for evidence. This is a function we would do
whether we elect to engage the City of Alpharetta or not. If we choose to do these ourselves, we would have to
establish an office here in City Hall or do some type of off-site storage facility and employ the correct person in order
to process that evidence and transfer it to the GBI when it needs to be and generally take custody of it. Alpharetta
began construction on an evidence facility and it is nearing completion and one that if you look at the cost of this IGA
and when working with the City of Alpharetta, it will really benefit both cities to enter into this agreement because if
we put a clerk in that facility, which we would have to hire anyway if we decided to do this ourselves, we would now
have access to that facility and we are getting a better bang for the same dollar. In addition, Alpharetta has committed
to keeping that facility open extended hours because of our contribution of an additional clerk. Our citizens will benefit
as well by these extended hours so they could go and pick up their property when needed. The one thing that changed
since the first publication of the agreement is that Alpharetta would look towards a more long term agreement than a
short agreement. When we initially had this IGA, it was a 30 day notice period that either party could terminate and
that would be possible, but it would be a challenge because if either of us had elected to terminate, 30 days is not a
long time to find a place to put your property. He agrees and recommends that the City entertain this agreement for a
term of five years, which is reflected on page three. This is the length of time that we will probably be in this building
and the next time we have an opportunity to look at doing it ourselves will be after this time frame and these can be
very expensive to retro fit for property and evidence.
Councilmember Lusk asked how this compares to what the City had in the Budget.
Public Safety Director Lagerbloom said this is exactly what we had budgeted.
Councilmember Thurman said this appears to be a win-win situation for both Milton and Alpharetta.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the
City of Milton and the City of Alpharetta for custodial services of property and evidence. Councilmember Thurman
seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda item no. 07-234.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 39 of 49
Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Milton and the City of Alpharetta for
GCIC services.
Public Safety Director Lagerbloom said this is the second IGA and this is again a benefit and a win-win situation for
both Milton and Alpharetta and specifically for the City of Milton. GCIC services and we have talked about this many
times as the City was forming ORIs and all those other things the City did a while back. GCIC is our connectivity to
the State’s computer system for history and other information and is something the City if required to have access to
24 hours a day, 7 days a week and for anything that is considered to be a “hot” file, such as we entered a stolen car or
gun, a wanted person, anything that would require action on behalf of the Police Department, especially if it deals with
taking people’s liberty, which would be in the form of an arrest requires immediate confirmation. Which means, when
a message is sent to Milton, the City has ten minutes to confirm whether it is valid or not. The unique thing about this
agreement is that the City is able to utilize this center which is operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to provide this
service for us. What most agencies do is they have this handled in their dispatch center. If you go to the rules of the
GCIC Committee, GCIC connectivity is not a function of a dispatch center, but of a police or law enforcement agency
and in ninety nine percent of the cases, the dispatch center is just where it ends up because they are always there and
they are always sitting in front of a computer. The people who are providing dispatch services for the City of Milton
are Fulton County, at least initially. Fulton County has told the City that GCIC is a function of the police department
and they are not willing to do it as part of the dispatch center, so the City had to go out and find this. The alternative
would be to hire staff sufficient to staff a computer terminal 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that would require six
to eight people at the least.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember D’Aversa moved to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the
City of Milton and the City of Alpharetta for GCIC services. Councilmember O’Brien seconded the motion. There
was no Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda item no. 07-235.
Approval of a Resolution regarding meetings times.
Councilmember Mohrig said this resolution is to talk about meeting times for the Council to be held during week
days or held after hours. The reason is for those working people. He asked if he could defer this until next week.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to postpone to the resolution regarding meeting times to the April
19, 2007 regular meeting. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion.
Discussion on the Motion:
Mayor Lockwood asked Councilmember Mohrig if what he is proposing anything different that what the Council is
presently doing.
Councilmember Mohrig said this has to do with retreats and non-scheduled meetings and he is flexible.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda item no. 07-236.
Approval of a Resolution for a Fireman’s fund grant application.
Resolution No. 07-04-32
City Treasurer Carol Wolf said that staff recommends the approval of a grant application for a Fireman’s fund
application for funding of supplemental for our City Fire personnel. Since this is the first grant application in
resolution form, she wanted to take a minute to explain the process in order to get a grant resolution. The City works
with Robin Bishop on a consultant basis. She is a very skilled grant writer. Staff and Robin are both constantly
engaging in identifying grants and once we identify grants and they are very time sensitive and many of them are
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 40 of 49
driven around the Federal Government’s budget schedule, so when one is identified and it is open, the process will
move quickly. The different departments and Robin put together the item and the budget for the item that the City
would like the grant for. This resolution will be brought to Council to approve and part of that resolution is also
authorizing the Mayor to execute the required documents upon grant award. The reason for that is so staff does not
have to come back to the Council to receive the grant award. The philosophy in looking for grants is to always took
for those involved with capital improvement programs or items that staff knows are going to need to be budgeted in
future years and use those items for grant awards. The item in front of Council is a bit of a novelty because it is a
private foundation. The foundation funded by the Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company. This is their way of giving
back to the community. They generally focus on providing funds for equipment, fire prevention tools, fire fighter
training, fire safety education and community emergency response programs. The initial turn out that the City if
asking for a supplemental turn out gear and the initial turn out gear has been budgeted, ordered, procured and should
be received in time of deployment. However, a supplemental set of turn out gear for fire personnel is common in the
fire service industry because the fire personnel are exposed to harmful fluid on even possibly a daily basis, due to
volume, and once turn out gear is exposed to those fluids, it has to be cleaned. If this is not a supplemental set of turn
out gear, then you take personnel out of service while their only set of turn out gear is being cleaned. For this reason,
the City would like to use this grant to request a supplemental set of turn out gear which is generally something the
Fireman’s Fund Heritage likes, which is protective equipment. This is an insurance company and this is the type of
thing they do like to fund. They generally only fund up to $50,000 and the City is going to go ahead and ask for all
$88,000. If the City only gets $50,000 then the City will find other ways to fund the additional $38,000 for the turn
out gear.
Councilmember Lusk asked how soon the City could anticipate having this grant in hand.
City Treasurer Wolf said the turn around time for this type of grant is generally a couple of months. The grant is
open. The City has it written and ready to go and will be turned in upon Council’s approval. In about 6 weeks to 2
months, the City should know of the grant award.
Councilmember Lusk said so it is not assured.
City Treasurer Wolf said it is not assured.
Councilmember Thurman asked what the typical odds are of receiving the grant.
City Treasurer Wolf said that the Fireman’s Fund Heritage Grant, well every grant is risky and you do not know if
you are going to get a grant. We are doing a capable job of writing the justification for the grant and she believes
because this is a start up City will work for the City. The Fireman’s Fund Insurance company headquarters is located
in Alpharetta, their regional Vice President lives in Milton and wants to come out and talk during the next couple of
weeks, so all of these things are working for the City. As with any grant you cannot say the odds are seventy-five
percent. She and Robin both think our odds are very good.
Councilmember Lusk asked if there is a cycle.
City Treasurer Wolf said they do not with this grant because it is a private foundation. They will generally open
grant opportunities when they have funding. This is much different than a cycle driven grant, such as federal funds
that are from the federal budget. This is a private foundation, so when they have funding in their foundation they open
up a grant opportunity.
Councilmember Lusk asked what the delivery time on the turn out gear.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 41 of 49
Public Safety Director Lagerbloom said the City’s Fire Department will have theirs before they deploy, but it is on
average four weeks on a custom set of gear, which is a jacket, pants and footwear, helmet and shield, suspenders.
City Treasurer Wolf said the good thing about this grant is there are no matching funds.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if the City did not receive the full $88,000, when would the additional $38,000
be required and where would it come from.
City Treasurer Wolf said a supplemental set of turn out gear is programmed into our year one CIP for next budget
year, so if were to only get the $50,000 we would find a way to fund the additional $38,000, possibly leading into the
next budget year. The plan would be to purchase the jacket, pants, and the boots, which are the things that are more
likely to receive contamination.
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Zahner Bailey moved to approve a Resolution for a Fireman’s fund grant
application. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. There was no further Council discussion. The motion
passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read Agenda item no. 07-237.
Consideration of a Resolution approving a Change Order to the CH2M Hill Contract to add Information
Technology and Human Resources Support for the City of Milton Public Safety Department.
Resolution No. 07-04-33
City Treasurer Wolf said the recommendation tonight is to approve a change order to the contract between the City
of Milton and Ch2m Hill adding information technology and human resource support services for the City’s Public
Safety Department and authorizing the execution of all documents to effectuate that change. On December 21st, the
City entered into the initial contract with Ch2m Hill and as part of those contract negotiations and the conversations
between staff, Ch2m Hill and Council, we described the process for amending the scope of services of the contract.
Expanding the scope of services generates a change order. When the December 21st contract was approved, the
services included support for the City Clerk, municipal court, manager, operations, community development and
community services. The date for public safety deployment was tentative and public safety was not included in the
original Ch2M Hill contract. Since the City is nearing the time for deployment for public safety, specific IT needs and
a specific number of positions and human resource needs have been identified and the City has asked Ch2m Hill to
provide a proposal on the costs to support the public safety department in those areas. That proposal is before the
Council tonight and IT support will include lease costs for all office equipment, all desk top and laptop computers for
administrative staff, copy, print and fax machine ability, all email support for desktop and laptops, Blackberry and cell
phone support, GPS devices for all police and fire vehicles, the imaging software license and all labor costs for
deployment implementation of support services. In addition, human resource support will support 65 additional
employees in the traditional HR areas being training, development, benefits management, performance management,
recruitment management and selection and workplace safety. The fiscal impact of the change order on an annual basis
is $100,514 for IT supports $45,000 for HR support on an annual basis which is $145,514. This year, we will only
incur six months of that cost and the prorated fiscal year 2007 costs will be $84,883. Ch2m Hill has already put forth
about $15,794 in one-time costs for purchasing copiers, etc. That brings the total impact for fiscal year 2007 to
$100,678. In order to pay for this, during the annual budget process, the City estimated $389,000 needed for Risk
Management insurance coverage, etc. Since approval of the budget, the actual amount determined to meet our needs
for Risk Management is $189,000 which is a savings of $200,000. To meet the fiscal year 2007 budget impact by
using the portion of that $200,000.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said in effect the City would still have approximately $100,000 in savings.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 42 of 49
City Treasurer Wolf said that is correct and if this is approved tonight, the Council will see the formality of moving
those funds from Risk Management to Public Safety during a budget adjustment which will be coming to the Council
in May and June. There is a detailed breakdown of all of these items included in the change order and she will forward
these details to the Council (she proceeded to list these items verbally).
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if this equipment would interact and hook up with the GIS system that Ch2m
Hill is working on getting for the first and police vehicles.
Public Safety Director Lagerbloom said it definitely will and the GPS devices in the vehicles are state of the art and
it will interface with the GIS system.
Motion and Second: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve a Resolution approving a Change Order to the
CH2M Hill Contract to add Information Technology and Human Resources Support for the City of Milton Public
Safety Department. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion.
Discussion on Motion:
Councilmember Lusk asked if there is a maintenance agreement included with the leases of the computers.
City Treasurer Wolf said she did not know the details of the leases with Ch2M Hill, but that any maintenance or
agreements on this equipment is included in this cost to the City and the lease is between Ch2M Hill and the provider
(such as Dell Computers) and not the City.
Vote: There was no further Council discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Marchiafava read the item that was added to the agenda this evening by motion and vote..
Approval of a Resolution opposing the current proposal to extend the one percent sales tax for MARTA.
Resolution No. 07-04-34
Mayor Lockwood said this is a resolution to oppose the proposed one percent sales tax for MARTA. MARTA is
proposing to extend the one percent sales tax in Fulton County now used to support MARTA operations.
Whereas, Mayor and Council recognizes the important role of MARTA in addressing regional transportation needs and
whereas all Fulton County citizens contribute to support MARTA to one percent sales tax that they purchase in Fulton
County.
Whereas, the plans proposed by MARTA that they would use the money generated by the extension of this one percent
sales tax do not include any North Fulton capital expenditures and do not directly benefit North Fulton citizens.
Whereas, this proposal to extend the one percent sales tax does not include a referendum to be voted by the citizens of
Fulton County on an issue that should appropriately be put to the voters of Fulton County.
Now therefore, be it resolved that the City of Milton hereby expresses its opposition to the extension of the current one
percent sales tax for MARTA as currently proposed because it does not include for MARTA capital expenditures in
North Fulton nor to any direct benefit to the citizens of North Fulton and because it seeks to impose such extension
without a vote by the citizens of Fulton County which should be subject to a public referendum.
Councilmember Thurman asked if this was something that most of the North Fulton cities are doing.
Mayor Lockwood said that Alpharetta, Roswell and Johns Creek have already passed this.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 43 of 49
Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve a Resolution opposing the current proposal to extend the
one percent sales tax for MARTA. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. There was no further Council
discussion. The motion passed unanimously.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
City Clerk Marchiafava announced the next item.
Discussion of an Ordinance creating the City Council Committee.
Mayor Lockwood said this is an ordinance establishing Mayor and Council committees; providing for the scope and
nature of operation of such committees; providing for the nomination of elected officials to each committee; and for
other purposes. The City of Milton’s Charter provides the ability for boards, commissions and authorities to be
created to fulfill any investigative, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative function the City Council deems necessary and
shall be ordinance establish the composition, period of existence, duties and powers thereof; and whereas the Mayor
deems it in the best interest of the organization to establish City Council committees to operate as sub-committees of
the elected body for specific purposes; and whereas it is in the intent of this ordinance to establish and define such
committees of the City. Now, therefore, Council of the City of Milton hereby ordains:
Section 1: Committees.
This ordinance shall establish twelve (12) committees as follows: 1.) Recreation and Parks; 2.) Transportation; 3.)
Intergovernmental Affairs; 4.) Education; 5.) Public Relations/Special Events; 6.) Business Community
Relations/Economic Development; 7.) Public Facilities Planning; 8.) Utilities; 9.) Special Community Situations; 10.)
Historic Preservation; 11.) Special and Senior Needs; and 12.) Youth.
Section 2: Powers.
Each committee is established to operate in a quasi-legislative capacity, representing the City of Milton while
conducting the business of the committee. The Committee shall not have the ability to bind the city in any endeavor
without first obtaining the majority vote of the Mayor and City Council during a city council meeting.
Section 3: Scope and Purpose.
The scope and purpose of each committee shall be defined as follows:
1. Recreation and Parks: to study, define, develop, implement, and advertise the parks and recreation system
of the City of Milton. This committee shall be responsible for soliciting and managing public input about
Milton’s parks and recreation systems. The committee should make recommendations to the Mayor and
City Council on development standards, types of park developments to occur within the City, and how to
fund such park development. Members shall review the style and number of recreation programs offered
within the City and make recommendations for changing such recreational opportunities to the Mayor and
City Council.
2. Transportation: to study, define, develop, implement, and promote the transportation system within the
City of Milton. This committee shall be responsible for soliciting and managing public input about
Milton’s transportation systems. The committee should make recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council on transportation projects to occur within the City, and how to fund such improvements.
Members shall represent the city at various external meetings regarding transportation and regional
planning efforts.
3. Intergovernmental Affairs: to manage, represent, and voice the City’s opinion to other governmental
entities and agencies on matters of legislation/law, development, multi-jurisdictional services, and
government related issues. The committee should make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 44 of 49
on the affects of actions by other governmental entities, or quasi-governmental agencies. Members shall
represent the city at various external meetings regarding intergovernmental issues.
4. Education: to represent and voice the City’s opinion to other governmental, private, not-for-profit, and
similar education establishments, institutions, and places of learning on matters of the City and
government related issues. The committee should make recommendations on positions to the Mayor and
City Council on the affects of actions by such educational institutions. Members shall represent the City at
various external meetings regarding education and education related matters.
5. Public Relations/Special Events: to promote, communicate and manage key messages developed by the
City to external groups, organizations, clubs, or associations. The committee shall promote both
government sponsored and privately sponsored events within the city. Members shall represent the City at
various external meetings.
6. Business Community Relations/Economic Development: to study, develop, promote, and foster the
success of the business community within Milton. The committee shall serve as the link between the
government and the business community and shall promote government sponsored information to the
business community. Members shall represent the City at various business functions and events.
7. Public Facilities planning: to study, define, develop, implement, and promote the public facilities system
within the City of Milton. This committee shall be responsible for soliciting and managing public input
about Milton’s public facilities not related to recreation and parks. The committee should make
recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on public facilities to occur within the City, and how to
fund such improvements. Members shall represent the city at various external meetings regarding public
facilities.
8. Utilities: to study, define, develop, implement, plan, and monitor the utilities being delivered to Milton
constituents by external entities, both private and public. This committee shall be responsible for
managing public input about Milton’s utilities and making recommendations to the Mayor and City
Council regarding such utilities being delivered within the City limits. Members shall represent the city at
various external meetings and planning events.
9. Special Community Situations: from time to time situations, events, or responses to actions by others may
warrant special attention. This committee shall be responsible for responding to such events as they are
warranted and identified. Members shall represent the city at various external meetings and planning
events.
10. Historic Preservation: to study, define, develop, implement, plan, advise and monitor the preservation of
historic structures within the City of Milton based upon industry best practices. This committee shall be
responsible for the formulation of policy to be recommended to the elected body of the government for
such historic preservation. Members shall represent the city at various external meetings and events.
11. Special and Senior Needs: to study, develop, promote, and foster the success of the special needs and
senior communities within the city. This committee shall serve as the link between the government and
the special needs/senior needs communities to promote government programs and resources to such
committees and to make recommendations on policy guidelines regarding the provision of services to such
committees. Members shall represent the city at various external meetings and events.
12. Youth: to study, develop, promote, and foster the success of the youth (18 years old and younger) within
the city. This committee shall serve as the link between the government and the youth community to
promote government programs and resources to constituents and to make recommendations on policy
guidelines regarding the provision of services to such constituents. Members shall represent the city at
various external meetings and events.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 45 of 49
Section 4: Composition.
The Mayor shall serve on each committee created by this ordinance and shall nominate two additional elected officials
to serve on each committee. The city manager shall also serve on each committee and be an ex-officio member. Upon
convening the first meeting of the committee, and each subsequent first meeting when a new committee member is
assigned, the elected officials shall agree on a chair of the committee. Should a vacancy in the committee exist, the
Mayor shall appoint a replacement.
Section 5: Term.
Elected officials shall serve on their respective assigned committees during the period in which they are elected or until
the Mayor makes a change in the assignments. Changes to assignments can happen at the pleasure of the Mayor.
Section 6: Compensation and Reimbursement.
Elected officials serving on the committees shall not receive any compensation for their work associated with the
committee. Expenses incurred while performing work in the actual course of the City of Milton business shall be
eligible for reimbursement under the Financial Management Program Policies.
Councilmember Lusk asked how the City will organize this and it looks as though each Councilmember will be on
four committees.
Mayor Lockwood said some committees may be very busy at one time and others may sit on the shelf for a year, but
hopefully there is one that the Council is very involved in and the others will sit on the shelf. There are needs currently
and we need to work with the citizens to do what the Council can to work with these, such as the School Board, and
whether than everybody jumping on these committees or in some cases, nobody, we have a specific point person for
each committee.
Councilmember Lusk said we need to go ahead and establish the goals and tactics and how are they going to be
identified and what kind of help will staff provide.
Mayor Lockwood said each committee will have to identify their goals and staff will have to answer that question
about the help received from them.
City Manager Bovos asked did Councilmember Lusk mean when they have a project that needs to be done and
Council wants staff to work on that project as a result of the committee goal, is that the question.
Councilmember Lusk said it is setting up these committees and establishing goals and objectives and who is going to
really identify the issues involved with each one of these specific areas. He is sure from a staff point of view they are
more involved in what is transpiring in the City relative to each of these issues. He perceives a larger burden imposed
on the Councilmember and he wants to see how this whole thing comes together and who has the vision on how these
are formed, how they function, and their accountability and how is their progress going to be measured.
Councilmember Thurman said she agrees with Councilmember Lusk and she has a lot of questions as well about
what exactly is the role and responsibility going to be. Is there a reason that this is not coming to a work session so
that Council can have more time to discuss this and have a full understanding of it.
City Manager Bovos said this can certainly come to a work session, but to address Councilmember Lusk’s question,
the committees themselves will set the goals of their committee and certainly there will be staff input, for example on
public facilities planning, very clearly there will be shared needs about City Hall and Municipal Court facilities and
potential fire stations or a police precinct. Staff will share these things with Council, but after that, it will be the
responsibility of the committee, based on how the ordinance reads, to identify what their goals are. As far as
accountability and how that is reported, that is really a peer issue between the Council and his expectation would be
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 46 of 49
that clearly staff would lend support and be able to attend the meetings as they are needed, but he anticipates a regular
report mechanism to be added to either Mayor and Council reports on a quarterly basis or monthly basis, based on
activities. Certainly, the special community situations will be as a result of things that come up in the community and
be deferred by the Mayor or staff until that specific committee can work or investigate. It will be a work in progress
with regards to the needs and what the committee wants to take on.
Mayor Lockwood said that he does not anticipate this as adding more work, and obviously there may be a little more
work, but he sees it as spreading it out and getting people involved in areas they are interested in. There is a point
person rather than all of us wanting to address one and not others.
Councilmember Lusk asked if any of the surrounding cities, such as Roswell or Alpharetta, do they have
organizations like this.
City Manager Bovos said those are cities that have strong Mayors instead of strong City Managers, so both of those
organizations have committee structures, but they are very different.
Councilmember Thurman said she still has a lot of questions and concerns about roles and responsibility and she
would like to see this come to a work session so we can make sure we fully understand and since the ordinance was
just passed about conflicts with Councilmembers and committees, she just wants to be sure everyone knows how all
this will work together.
Mayor Lockwood said this is really up to each Councilmember as to the role they want to play on their committee.
Some will put more into it than others.
Councilmember Thurman said you have to be careful if the committee is really speaking on behalf of the Council or
on the committee. She would like to work with the people at Johns Creek because she knows they have one that is
working very well, especially since during the annexation process people would ask what is the difference between
Roswell and Milton and it was explained that Milton did not want to be all things to all people, but provide the services
that are needed and provide them very well. When people ask why there are so many committees, she wants to be able
to answer as to the role of the Council on these committees and that we are not just creating more government and
committees, but are serving the people better through these committees.
Mayor Lockwood said he would agree, but he does not feel the City is creating more government because the City is
not adding people. The City is just trying to divide things up and not let things fall between the cracks and so we can
cover everything.
City Manager Bovos said this can certainly come back to the Council in a work session.
Councilmember Lusk asked that during the meantime perhaps some working models could be created that other
jurisdictions already have in place.
Mayor Lockwood said that Councilmember Thurman had a good idea with Johns Creek, which actually these are
almost mirrored with Johns Creek.
Councilmember Lusk said he would still like to look at those who have been in place four or five years.
City Manager Bovos said it will be hard to find those because traditionally strong manager forms of government do
not have committees, so what you will find are strong mayor forms of government, such as Alpharetta or Roswell, you
will find committees that are specifically designated to oversee department functions and that is not what we are doing
in this ordinance. Those committees actually act as another layer of the government in oversight of departmental
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 47 of 49
operations. He can provide examples, but it will not be relevant to what this ordinance is intended to do. We have had
a huge challenge trying to find examples ICMA or ACCG in this manager form of government.
City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item.
Discussion on Mast Arms at Kings Ridge School.
Councilmember D’Aversa said this is a request she has based on citizens request in an effort to correct a wrong that
happened through Fulton County. There has been a traffic light installed at the intersection of Bethany and Cogburn
Road and the intersection looks good except the mast arms almost look like you are about to enter Georgia 400, they
are very steel looking and they do not fit with Milton. In Fulton County’s defense, the overlay there for Highway 9
and that area just did not cover having decorative mast arms, which are the poles and overhangs that carry the lights.
What they would like to do is install the decorative fixtures that would go along with the poles that are currently there.
What is there will remain, but decorative skirting around the poles and other decorative features like those at
Crabapple. Kingsbridge School has graciously offered to paint those poles to match those at Crabapple. In addition to
this request to outlay approximately $8,000 for these mast arms to add the decorative items, she would like to make
sure that in our overlays that we have these decorative mast arms throughout the City of Milton, so this challenge does
not occur again.
Councilmember Thurman said she believes it will be money well spent. She believes the people over on Highway 9
would be the ugly step-child of the area and she believes this will be a very good move for them to show that we really
do care what their area looks like.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey said she wanted to be sure that going forward that we make sure the maintenance on
the painting of the poles is something the City is aware of in the budget.
Transportation Engineer Jones said it is approximately $4,000 per pole over ten years. Alpharetta just priced all of
theirs as they are painting all of their poles. They have 30 decorative mast arms. Also, the right of way ordinance does
talk about the decorative mast arms in the overlay district.
City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item.
Annexation Update.
Councilmember Thurman said the bill was introduced on Tuesday and is expected to be passed by both houses by
the end of next week when the session ends. She has a copy of the bill if anyone would like to see it. City Attorney
Scott and his firm have looked it over. Roswell’s City Attorney has reviewed it to be sure there are no discrepancies.
Mayor Lockwood said he would like to say that although everyone up here has helped out, he would like to note that
Councilmember Thurman certainly did a lot of the work and Councilmembers Mohrig and D’Aversa also helped out a
lot, but the bottom line is that it took a while, There were some funky looking boarders and what ended up is there
were people who wanted to be in Milton and expressed strong desires to be in Milton and he feels good that most of
them were able to be a part of Milton. Also, the City got more property than was originally thought and it was because
these people specifically wanted to be in Milton. Councilmember Thurman spent a lot of time talking to people and
knocking on doors.
Councilmember Thurman said even though there were a lot of legal fees incurred, she has calculated that the City
will bring in three times that amount in the first year alone. Also, she talked with Representative Jones and there will
be no changes made to the council districts other than to add the people on Arnold Mill to District 1 and the people on
Highway 9 who have just been annexed, they will be in District 4 and there will need to be a resolution adding these
new lines into the districts by June.
Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 48 of 49
STAFF REPORTS
City Manager Bovos said since Carol Haag could not be with us tonight, he wanted to give a brief update on the
Council Retreat. It is scheduled for Sunday and Monday, May 6th and 7th. It will be held at the Waterfalls Country
Club. It will begin approximately 10:00 am on Sunday and end 3:00 pm on Monday.
City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item.
Update on the FY 2007 Work Plan and Comprehensive Land use Plan.
Community Development Director Wilson said the attached document outlines a preliminary process for the
development of Milton’s Comprehensive Plan. This process is driven in part by the Department of Community
Affairs’ requirements and in part from his own experiences in similar plan development. The proposed process is
driven by a 16-member Citizen Advisory Committee who will seek citizen input and translate the input into the written
plan with the expertise of a qualified consultant. Staff will provide technical assistance to the committee and to the
consultant. A more detailed scope of services will be developed in conjunction with the selection of a lead consultant.
The 16 member task force will be comprised of seven appointed members from the Mayor and City Council, seven
members of the Planning Commission, the Chairman of the Design Review Board and the Chairman of the Board of
Zoning Appeals. The Citizen Advisory Committee will be involved in all phases of the plans creation from inception
to completion. This will be the subject of the next Town Hall meeting on April 30th in which the staff will share this
information with the citizens. Also, tonight was the first reading to create a 16 member task force and is scheduled for
next week’s meeting where the staff will ask Council to nominate the seven committee members. Staff is working on
a RFP at this time and there is money budgeted and he believes it will be rolled from the general fund into the CIP
fund so it can be spread out over a longer people of time and will take about twelve months or longer.
Councilmember Lusk said he has been asked by a couple of people as to the time commitment would be involved.
Community Development Director Wilson said they need to commit every other Monday evening for at least two
hours for the next twelve to sixteen months.
Councilmember Thurman said she assumes this committee will come up with a lot of public input a plan that will go
before the Planning Commission and then come before the City Council for ultimate approval, is that correct?
Community Development Director Wilson said that is correct and it will be developed in three stages: data
collection, which is normally done by staff and the consultant to make sure we have all the data needed to come up
with a plan; the second part is citizen input where the citizens provide a lot of information on how they would like to
see their city developed in the future; and the third part is where all the information is gathered from the public input
and actually form that into a plan. As soon as the data is collected, it will need to be sent off to the DCA for them to
review this and confirm we have good and accurate data. It is his hope that this is completed by October, 2008.
Councilmember Thurman said she believes that Ch2M Hill has a program which allows you to get some type of time
and cost estimate based on zoning and wanted to know if this will be used as part of this plan.
Community Development Director Wilson said that is correct that this information will be available as we make this
plan.
Councilmember Thurman wanted to know if the Planning Commission members will actually be voting on this plan.
Community Development Director Wilson said they will be voting on the plan as they are part of the sixteen
members who will vote on the development of the plan. They will then vote on it as the Planning Commission before
it comes to you and yes, they will be voting on it twice. He also requested the Council to select the Chairman of that
Rqplar Meeting of the Milton City Council
Thursday, April 12,2007 at 7:00 PM
Page 49 of 49
committee as he believes this committee is too large to elect someone among themselves. He will also advertise these
appointments in the newspaper and on the website and will give the Council the names he receives.
Councilmember Zahner Bailey asked if they would be abIe to see the RFP before it goes out as she would really like
to see this even if it is in draft form.
Community Development Director Wilson said that would be possible.
City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item.
Update on Georgia Cities Week.
Project Coordinator Linda Blow said she has been asked to apprise the Council on things that are being planned for
Georgia Cities Week. Resolution by the Council recognizing Georgia cities Week and encouraging all citizens to
support the celebration and corresponding activities -to be presented at the April 19, 2007 Council Meeting. Also,
April is Keep Georgia Beautiful Month. We will be rolling out the Milton Adopt-A-Road program during April. Patti
Silva and Tim Enloe have volunteered to Co-Chair this program, acting as liaisons with citizens of Milton and Keep
North Fuiton Beautiful. In addition, letters have been sent to Milton High Schools and Middle Schools inviting classes
to tour City hall, or, if requested, a City Staff representative will visit the school and speak to the designated class. She
is working on a project involving input from the Milton Historic Preservation Committee and a Milton Girl Scout
looking for a project to earn her Gold Badge. A map of local historic sites and cemeteries will be created with a srnaIl
blurb regarding each site and made available to the schools and citizens of Milton. GMA held a contest for 61h Grade
participation in essay contest re: "If 1 were Mayor, 1 Would ..." The winner for District 3, which is the district Milton
is in, is a 6'h grader from Northwestern Middle School, Elizabeth EcZwards. She has been invited to a Iuncheon along
with the Mayor, her parents, and her teacher. She will be invited to the first council meeting in May so everyone gets
to meet her.
City Clerk Marchiafava read the next item.
Discussion on non-City sponsored web media outlets.
Communications Manager Bill Denghty gave updates on the use of BIogs and that they should not be responded to
by staff. He monitors these on a daily basis.
ADJOURNMENT
Metion and Vote: Councilmember muman moved to adjourn the April 12,2007 regular meeting at 12:24 am, April
13,2007. Councilmember Zahner Bailey seconded the motion. There was no Council discussion. The motion passed
unanimously.
Date Approved:-July 12,2007
%WL
~dtteR.Marchiafava, City Clerk