Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 09/05/2012 - MINS 09 05 12 REG (Migrated from Optiview)l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 1 of22 This summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff. It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on September 5, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Pastor Dave Benson, Birmingham United Methodist Church, Milton, Georgia CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLLCALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember Lusk, Councilmember Large, Council member Hewitt and Councilmember Longoria. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by the Mayor. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Agenda Item No. 12-209) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes: • Under Approval of Agenda: Move Agenda Item No. 12-225, Resolution Appointing a Board Member to the Design Review Board from New Business to After First Presentation Items. • Executive Session added to discuss pending litigation and land acquisition. • Move RZ12-06NC12-03 from Zoning Agenda to Unfinished Business. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). PUBLIC COMMENT (None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the August 13,2012 Work Session Minutes. (Agenda Item No. 12-210) (Sudie Gordon, City Clerk) Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 2 of22 J2. Approval ofa Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton and JRM Management Services, Inc. for the 2012 Milton Roundup. (Agenda Item No. 12-211) (Jason Wright, Communications Manager) 3. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton, Georgia and Fun-Fare to Provide Event Services for the 2012 Milton Roundup. (Agenda Item No. 12-212) (Jason Wright, Communications Manager) 4. Approval ofa Professional Services Agreement between the City of Milton, Georgia and SunTrust Bank to Provide Banking Services. (Agenda Item No. 12-213) (Stacey Inglis, Finance Director) 5. Approval of a Construction Services Agreement between the City of Milton, Georgia and Blount Construction Company, Inc. for the FY12 Road Reconstruction & Resurfacing Projects. (Agenda Item No. 12-214) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 6. Approval of the Acquisition of 7,349 sf of Right of Way, 11,027 sf of Permanent JEasement and 6,449 sf of Temporary Construction Easement at 13300 and 13340 Cogburn Road from the St. Francis Day School for a Total Combined Purchase Price of $16,875. (Agenda Item No. 12-215) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 7. Approval of the Acquisition of 665 sf of Right of Way, 3,393 sf of Permanent Easement and 625 sf of Temporary Construction Easement at 13307 Cogburn Road from Daniel J. Doherty and Sara Doherty for a Total Combined Purchase Price of $14,200. (Agenda Item No. 12-216) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 8. Approval of the Acquisition of2,542 sf of Right of Way, 400 sf of Permanent Easement and 7,605 sf of Temporary Construction Easement at 2790 Bethany Bend from Hugh William Booker for a Total Combined Purchase Price of$15,000. (Agenda Item No. 12-217) (Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) 9. Approval of the Acquisition of 5,092 sf of Right of Way, 900 sf of Permanent Easement and 17,242 of of Temporary Construction Easement at 2765 Bethany Bend from the King's Ridge Christian School for a Total Combined Purchase price of$15,800. (Agenda Item No. 12-218) J(Carter Lucas, Public Works Director) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Large moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). L Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 3 of22 REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation Recognizing September as Pulmonary Fibrosis Awareness Month. (presented by Councilmember Burt Hewitt) FIRST PRESENTATION 1. Approval of an Ordinance to Adopt Amendments to the Fisca12012 Budget for Each Fund of the City of Milton, Georgia Amending the Amounts Shown in Each Budget as Expenditures, Amending the Several Items of Revenue Anticipations, Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Appropriations, and Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Actual Funding Available. (Agenda Item No. 12-219) (Stacey Inglis, Finance Director) L 2. Approval of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, to Adopt the Fiscal 2013 Budget for Each Fund of the City of Milton, Georgia Appropriating the Amounts Shown in Each Budget as Expenditures, Adopting the Several Items of Revenue Anticipations, Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Appropriations, and Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Actual Funding Available. (Agenda Item No. 12-220) (Stacey Inglis, Finance Director) 3. ZM12-02NC12-05 5304 Windward Parkway (Panera Bread), Applicant ArcVision, Inc. to request the Following Conditions of ZM08-04 be Modified to the Following for the Purpose of a New Drive Though for Panera Bread: 2a. To the site plan received by the Community Development Department on August 13, 2012. Said site plan is conceptual only and must meet or exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and these conditions prior to the approval of a Land Disturbance Permit. Unless otherwise noted herein, compliance with all conditions shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The Applicant is also Requesting the Following one part Concurrent Variance: 1) To allow four additional wall signs. [Sec. 64-2324 (i)]. (Agenda Item No. 12-221) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) 4. Approval of an Ordinance to Amend Appendix A, Fees and Other Charges of the Milton City Code. (Agenda Item No. 12-222) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the First Presentation Items. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). L Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 4 of22 JMoved by Motion and Vote to After First Presentation Items: Approval of a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 10-01-126, A Resolution Appointing A Board Member For District 5 To The Design Review Board. (Agenda Item No. 12-225) (Mayor Joe Lockwood) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Large moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-225. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). FIRST PUBLIC HEARING I. Approval of an Ordinance to Adopt Amendments to the Fiscal 2012 Budget for Each Fund ofthe City of Milton, Georgia Amending the Amounts Shown in Each Budget as Expenditures, Amending the Several Items of Revenue Anticipations, Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Appropriations, and Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Actual Funding Available. (Agenda Item No. 12-219) (Stacey Inglis, Finance Director) Stacey Inglis, Finance Director: J • This is a process we go through every year. • It is a simple process to bring the budgets in line with what the actuals are showing to date and we anticipate to happen by September 30th • • We usually have two budget amendments every year; one at mid-year and one at the end of the year. • This one is at the end of the year since our fiscal year ends September 30th • • You will notice that the General Fund will be increasing expenditure appropriations by $271,050.00. • This is the only amendment for the General Fund. • There are no revenue amendments at this time although we do anticipate some of the revenues to be higher than what is budgeted. • We have an operating transfer into the Captial Projects Fund for $271,050.00 and that is to cover the cost for Design and Architectural Services for the new Public Safety complex. • This is reimbursable by bond proceeds. • This is simply borrowing money from the Fund Balance in the General Fund that will be paid back whenever we issue the bond for that. • Some things will be higher and some things will be lower in the Special Events Fund. • We are outsourcing the Milton Roundup this year due to the Special Events Coordinator being on maternity leave. • The hotel/motel tax fund is coming in higher than we anticipated so, $12,000 will be transferred into the Special Events Fund. J • The Confiscated Assets Fund, which is seized money from drug busts, will be $16,880 higher than anticipated. l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 5 of22 • In the Operating Grant Fund, which are grants that are not classified as capital, we have two grants that we will receive, one from GEMA for the purpose of a Rapid ID System and one from Fulton County for the FRESH Grant, for reimbursement of expenses from the Joyful Soles Camp. • We will receive $19,005 for the GEMA Grant and $1,800 for the FRESH Grant. • The Capital Projects Fund, this fund is used to track revenues and expenditures associated with capital construction, acquisition, and maintenance. • This fund is for anything that is capital in nature which is anything that has a useful life of three years or more and has a total cost of $50,000 or more. • Infrastructure maintenance fees are coming in lower than anticipated by $5,000. • We are increasing the Crabapple Paving Fund by $1,050. • Landfill Use fees are coming in higher by $1,300. • HYA Fees are lower than anticipated. • Interest revenue is higher than anticipated by $5,700. • We are moving the Public Safety Communications line out of the Mayor and Council Department into the Police Department which is $50,000. 2. Approval of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, to Adopt the Fiscal 2013 Budget for Each Fund of the City of Milton, Georgia Appropriating the Amounts Shown in Each Budget as Expenditures, Adopting the Several Items of Revenue Anticipations, Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Appropriations, and Prohibiting Expenditures to Exceed Actual Funding Available. (Agenda Item No. 12-220) (Stacey Inglis, Finance Director) Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager: • This is the first public hearing of two that will occur. • We have to have a balanced budget adopted by Sept. 30th • • This budget is a balanced budget. • It does not contemplate any additional or possible revenues that we may receive this year so this is a very conservative budget. • We contemplated three things when putting together this budget. • The first was to put together what was required to maintain the operation of the city. • We have also funded a Capital Project Budget, Capital Grant Fund, and considered some initiative requests made by Department Heads. • When reviewing the initiative requests, I asked if it would allow us to be a part of a regional project and, therefore, we would not be the "odd man out". • I also considered whether there was a fairly quick return on the investment. • This is not a growth budget asking to hire a lot of additional staff; however, it is a budget that includes initiatives so that we can remain competitive in the marketplace. • A few major initiatives are a new Public Safety Communications system that needs to be rebuilt in North Fulton County and renovations to the Hopewell House. • It allows us to update our fleet of public safety cars with cash payment. • It highlights $1.9 million in pavement management. • It opens programs at the Hopewell House. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5,2012 at 6:00 pm Page 6 of22 • It funds Phase I of a severe weather warning system siren program. J..•. • It funds half of the construction match for the Mayfield and Mid-Broadwell Road construction project that is a state project. • It includes added investment of $500,000 into our Parks and Trails. • This budget does ask for you to approve increasing some of the salaries of our Public Safety Officers to get their salaries more in line with the marketplace so we can retain employees and remain competitive. • This would entail a 5% market adjustment for Public Safety and a 2.5% market adjustment for Non-Public Safety. 3. Consideration of the Proposed Use of Funds for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for Fiscal Years 2012-20l3-2014 to Renovate the City Property at 15690 Hopewell Road for Use as a Senior Center. (Agenda Item No. 12-223) (Michelle McIntosh-Ross, City Planner) Kathleen Field, Community Development Director: • The city is in the process of preparing an application for Community Development Block Grant funds for a three year contract period. • We are applying for the maximum amount eligible for each of those three years. J • The total amount for all three years is $170,070. . • We propose to use this funding to convert the Hopewell House into a Senior Center. • As you know, the city purchased the property at 15690 Hopewell Road in 2011. • The existing house was built circa. 1840. • It was used as a single-family residential home. • In order to convert this house for public use, significant renovations will be necessary. • The CDBG funds will be used for building and site renovations under particular criteria. • In Milton's case, the funds can be used to help convert this property into a Senior Center. • It is our intent to bring a resolution before you at the Sept. 17th meeting to review and then transmit our application to Fulton County who is the administrator for these funds. Councilmember Thurman: This is just for us to apply for the CDBG, this doesn't tie us to the exact numbers to the probable cost estimate of the renovation project? Kathy Field: Correct. We are applying for $56,690 for each ofthe three contract years to be used for this project. Councilmember Thurman: Does that tie us to the whole cost ofthis project of $700,000. Kathy Field: No, it is saying that we will use this $170,000 toward this project. J l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 7 of22 Councilmember Lusk: The estimate that we received from Precision Planning is just a conceptual estimate based on what you feel we need to provide for in that type of facility, correct? Kathy Field: That is correct. We wanted to bring something to you to better define the project costs but what will even better define it will be construction documents. We are out to bid for architectural services to detail the cost estimates and prepare the bid documents for construction. At that point, we will have a very detailed cost estimate. Mayor Lockwood: I have looked through that and have made some comments that we felt that the initial budget of the project was fairly high and that we can hopefully be good stewards and find ways to reduce that cost estimate. THIRD PUBLIC HEARING L 1. Approval of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, to Fix the Ad Valorem Tax Rate of the City of Milton for Fiscal Year 2012; and for Other Purposes. (Agenda Item No. 12-205) (Presented by Stacey Inglis, Finance Director) (First Presentation on August 27, 2012 at Special Called 9:00 a.m. Meeting) (First Public Hearing on August 27, 2012 at Special Called 9:00 a.m. Meeting) (Second Public Hearing on August 27, 2012 at Special Called 5:00 p.m. Meeting) Stacey Inglis, Finance Director: • This is the third and final public hearing that we are required to have since this is considered a property tax increase due to reassessments of the values of properties in Milton. • The tax bills will be mailed out tomorrow if we approve the millage rate tonight. • They will be due on November 5th • • The total tax digest is $2,118,811,920.00 and that is the assessed value that is in Milton. • Total taxes that will be levied off ofthat assessed value will be $9,261,067. • Off that amount, a little over $8.7 million is for property taxes. • A little over $500,000 is for motor vehicle taxes. • The property tax increase that we have is 1.14% increase over the previous year due to reassessments. • The millage rate that we are proposing is 4.731 mills and this is the same millage rate we have had since the incorporation of the city in 2006. ZONING AGENDA (None) L Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 80f22 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Approval of an Ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton, Georgia, to Fix the Ad Valorem Tax Rate of the City of Milton for Fiscal Year 2012; and for Other Purposes. (Agenda Item No. 12-205) ORD. NO. 12-09-143 (Presented by Stacey Inglis, Finance Director) (First Presentation on August 27,2012 at Special Called 9:00 a.m. Meeting) (First Public Hearing on August 27, 2012 at Special Called 9:00 a.m. Meeting) (Second Public Hearing on August 27,2012 at Special Called 5:00 p.m. Meeting) (Third Public Hearing on September 5,2012 at Regular City Council) Stacey Inglis, Finance Director: • As we just discussed in the public hearing you just heard, the proposed millage rate is 4.731 mills. • I will be happy to answer any questions. Councilmember Thurman: • Based on the public comment that we had at our last meeting, were you able to determine how much our cost to provide the services has gone up and has it gone up more than the 1 % that our current assessment property tax increase has gone up? City Manager Lagerbloom: • Yes. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-205. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). City Attorney Jarrard: • This next item has been moved from the Zoning Agenda to Unfinished Business which is RZ12­ 06NCI2-03, the Crescent Resources, LLC rezoning application. Before we begin, I want to reinforce the following with respect to procedurally where we are. • The Public Hearing as required by the Zoning Procedures Act with respect to this matter has already occurred. • Tonight is not the Public Hearing as dictated by that state statue, in fact, what we have now is a situation where an agenda item, we do allow in Milton per our rules, public participation prior to an agenda item, and that is perfectly appropriate; however, this is not a public hearing and not under the ZP A and not subject to those 10 minute requirements or limitations. I would ask that in light of the fact that this is not an advertised public hearing but; however, people may get up to speak both for or against this agenda item, that the City Clerk still read the zoning discussion disclaimer with respect to campaign contributions, etc. quite frankly, to protect those in the gallery that may want to speak to just put them on notice that there are some legal requirements if they get up and speak for or against zoning. J J J City Clerk Gordon read the City ofMilton Zoning Discussion Disclaimer L l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 9 of22 City Attorney Jarrard: • Mr. Mayor, before we commence, I just want to be very clear. Although the clerk provided our standard Zoning Disclaimer, again, I want to reiterate I requested that in order to provide all parties in the gallery on notice or interested stakeholders of what their disclosure obligations are under state law. We are proceeding tonight under those portions of the Milton rules allowing public comment on agenda items which means each speaker will have five minutes. This is not the Zoning Procedures Act Public Hearing. I do not want there to be any confusion or mistake on that. Although, the city clerk provided the full Zoning Procedure statement, we are proceeding at a Public Comment only. Moved by Motion and Vote from Zoning Agenda to Unfinished Business: Zoning is transcribed verbatim 1. RZI2-06NCI2-03 Deerfield Parkway by Crescent Resources, LLC to rezone from C-l (Community Business) and 0-1 (Office Institutional) to A (Medium Density Apartments) to develop a total of256 residential units at an overall density of 12 units per acre. The applicant is also requesting the following concurrent variance: To encroach into the 25 foot non-impervious setback by no more than 5,000 square feet [Section 20-426(2)]. (Agenda Item No. 12-141) (First Presentation at June 4, 2012 Regular Council Meeting) (Deferred at June 18, 2012 Regular Council Meeting) (Discussed at Zoning Agenda on August 20,2012 Regular Council Meeting) (Kathleen Field, Community Development Director) Kathy Field, Community Development Director: • I have nothing to add to tonight's proceedings but I am certainly willing to answer any questions that the council may have. Dale Jackson, 2105 Bethany Way, Milton, GA 30004 Councilmembers, I am Dale Jackson. I live at 2105 Bethany Way in the city of Milton. I am also the Chairman of the Milton Business Alliance but I am not speaking on behalf of the Milton Business Alliance this evening. I am speaking on behalf of the citizens of Milton and other interested parties. I am personally opposed to the downzoning of this property to medium density from 0-1 and C-l due to the fact that the City of Milton has a limited amount of commercial property that can be used for businesses at this time. This is 21 acres of property that will end up being apartments. I don't believe that this is the highest and best use of this property in the City of Milton as far as taxation goes. I believe that we can do better. I believe that the property will end up, the end result of the property's use will end up costing the city and will become a tax liability to the city due to the increase and cost of services that the city will have to provide as a result ofthe amount of people living in this high density area. l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 10 of22 It is my belief that apartments end up in the initial stage as being very nice development, but as the years go by the property typically is resold and at that time the quality of the residents of the apartment J complex goes down. The rental rates go down in relationship to the property and the cost of living resulting in the potential undesirable element moving in. We have already seen in the past in the City of Milton crime and murders that have resulted in these high density areas. The cost of services as far as, even if we, in my opinion, it is not really reasonable to say if we had one policeman, one fireman, or one paramedic. Typically, you have three shifts of these folks so you don't really add one but you had three individual employees to the city. It is my opinion that each employee relatively costs the city $100,000 per year to provide salary, benefits, equipment, and training. So, we are looking at $300,000 additional liability to the city. I request that the council analyze that in regard to the taxation that we will be getting from that property. As far as the increase, there will be an increase demand on our educational infrastructure here. Although Cambridge High School was just added, it was added with the goal of servicing the community and potential future housing that was going into the area. This was not considered part of that formula and that will increase the demand on teachers. I don't believe that proportionately that the amount of taxation resulting from the property to the county will give the school board enough resources to staff the school adequately and the result will be that we will have increased class sizes for our students; therefore, the testing level and educational level of the schools will decrease. One last point, we already see on Deerfield, obviously Deerfield is a very dangerous road for the City j because of the obvious police presence that is on Deerfield on a constant level watching for violators. I believe that increasing the amount of people entering Deerfield will create an increased demand and potential risk on the citizens on that street due to the traffic congestion as shown by the existing traffic watch that is on that street. Anyway, in closing, I urge the council to vote against the rezoning. Joy Ferguson, 1211 Whitshire Way, Milton, GA 30004 Mr. Mayor and City Council, I am Joy Ferguson. I live at 1211 Whitshire Way in Milton which is the Villages of Devonshire which is just on the other side of Webb Road. I am here with many neighbors in the community that are in opposition to the rezoning of this property. We live in a condominium development and are very concerned about the property values. With that and traffic as well as the fact that we would really love to bring jobs into the area and keep it zoned as a commercial area so that we support the community more by bringing in work for the people who already live here. I want to say that the gentleman, Mr. Smoke, we were very impressed with his research and we agree with his comments and we would request that you do not rezone this property. Thank you very much. Laura Wysong, 14305 Creek Club Drive, Milton, GA 30004 Good Evening City Council, I am Laura Wysong. I live at 14305 Creek Club Drive, Crooked Creek Community. J I am speaking in opposition to this particular zoning case. I would have to agree with the two previous individuals who spoke, particularly Mr. Jackson. The cost issue to me is a big factor here. l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page II of22 I think there will be significant cost to our infrastructure looking at the numbers, having attended the previous meeting and listening to the applicant and all the discussion by City Council. I am very concerned with the cost on our schools, the demand on the school system, fire and police, and infrastructure. I think we didn't really talk much about that but if you look down the road what is happening from an infrastructure perspective on the roads, there is going to be significant increase in traffic on Deerfield Parkway. We've got a development going up on Morris Road that is going to happen in the near future in Forsyth and that traffic is going to spill out on GA400 and they are going to go down Deerfield Parkway_ And another apartment complex is just going to add additional congestion to what a lot of folks use as a thoroughfare to get to GA400. So, I have a significant concern there just the entire cost to the taxpayers. And, I do believe with Mr. Jackson who spoke before, there is a higher and best use for property and commercial, to me, is where it has to be. I listened last time to the discussions last time of council and I would have to agree with those folks who discussed the better use of commercial for that piece of property. We are limited to our commercial space in our City of Milton. I, being a business person, I want to see more business revenue in our city. I think we have to have it in order to survive as a city. We've got to find ways to generate more revenue, bring more business and I think as Karen Thurman said, bring more jobs. Apartment complexes, as Mr. Jackson said, it is great to think that initially we can get those sort of rents, but the reality is with the competition that is right up the street, it is not going to happen. We are not really a live/work community. We are a commuting community. It is what it is. It is just the way we are so we just have to live with what we have. The reality is that I don't see the employers in this area having the sort of clientele for that sort of what we would consider upscale apartment complex. If you look at the folks working in this community, we are talking retail, call center; those folks are not going to be able to spend that kind of money. So, we have to look at the total picture of what is going on here. I just believe from being a business person here in the city and involved with the city that the best use is for us to keep it commercial and do what we can to promote our city and bring in business. For the record, those are my personal comments as a citizen of the City of Milton and not as a member of the Design Review Board. Pete Hendricks, 6085 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30320: Your staff has done a wonderful review, analysis, and recommendation to you. I don't need to go through it point by point. But is it suitable, yes, and affirmative with the adoption of Hwy. 9/GA400 Master Plan it fits what was intended under the scope of that Master Plan. Does the property have a reasonable economic use as currently zoned? I will take a few minutes and I have had some discussion on this previously. I happened to have been involved back in 1996 when the entire 540 acres that constitutes Deerfield was put together. We best guesstimated because there was no MIX district exactly where these different uses would go and so the first re-visit on this piece of property since 1996 was two years ago in 2010. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 12 of22 A portion of it I took through re-zoning some of you may remember for an autism center associated with ]a school and residential component. And, the track next to it, the balance of the property you have in front of you this evening, was taken through for office zoning for a data center. Those two zonings after entitlement was achieved, time was spent, money was expended, the market was not there for those properties. They did come forward. There has not been any development that has been done on those properties. So, none of my guesstimations, but the market has spoken to the fact that there is no reasonable economic use of those properties as they are currently zoned. In addition to that, you all, as I have referenced, have adopted some four months ago the Hwy. 9/GA 400 Master Plan for the corridor. In that study, in that review, in that analysis, it has been determined and your staff has presented to you that within the city there are a total of two tracks that are specified for multi-family development. The one you have in front of you and another one that labors being under being in 100 year flood plain with no development capacity because of the burden of that flood plain. So, this is it. This is the track that you have in front of you. As far as tenant profile, I think we have all become aware that over the last three years, there has been a drastic change in tenant profile. A lot of people have been chewed up, spit out, lost homes, lost money, they want nice places to rent but they are not going to own again. In addition to that, you have young people which is aggressively what this market is after. JIf you look at the site plan you will see by the amenity package, it is not juiced up with things that would attract families. In furtherance of that in responding to what we heard by earlier comment from you as to the school situation, we have deleted all three bedroom units from this. It will only be a mix of one and two bedroom units which ought to affirmatively state the fact that we are not out there trying to attract families. As far as cost of services is concerned, you have been provided today, Mr. Joe McGlory, with the applicant has presented his own profile of the take of cost of services and it is about 1/1 0 of what was projected by the professional outfit you had some in front of you. As far as wanting to hold on to the zonings that you have right now, I've been at this stuff thirty years, I've been up and I've been down on the rollercoaster, and the way this deal works, I think most of you are probably aware, you use up what is vacant and what is built, you then use up what is zoned and what is not developed and then lastly, you come to developments like this which were built some 16-17 years ago. They are one story sprawl office developments and you come back to these properties and you re-entitle these properties to juice up and bolster and once again create that office market if, in fact, that oftice market is there. Your staff has also reviewed and analyzed the vacancy rates, the occupancy rates, the apartment market in the City of Milton is 96% occupied. The vacancy rate for office is 15% for vacant. J I think without being puffing, I think you are looking at least a 10 year period of time before reasonably you will be able to get any turn around in getting the office market to come back. And, once again, it is totally and completely within your purview to be able to supplement, put back on the table, whatever level of inventory you want to be able to continue to respond if the market demand is there. l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 13 of22 Your Design Review Board in respect to your new member unanimously has recommended approval of this application. They stated it was gorgeous, intriguing, loved the use and utilization of the detention facility. Your Planning Commission unanimously has recommended approval of this application. So, I think: we are sitting and are left with one question you all need to labor over. Four months ago you adopted what really is the first re-visit to what was done back in 1996 and what came out of that is an indication that this piece of property with all the pedestrian engagement as shown in the application submitted with the walkability from here is entirely appropriate and it is what brings the true viability to this downtown core area. So, it is very surprising to me that you could re-think: and counterman and pull the legs out from under a study, an analysis, and recommendation you unanimously approved four months ago. Councilmember Thurman: I have some questions of staff about some comments that have been made. He made a comment that the comp plan had not been revised since 1996, we just revisited our comp plan in the last three years. It took us three years to do it, correct? Kathy Field: Yes, we did the comprehensive plan and then we also did the LCI study. L Councilmember Thurman: That is my next question. The LCI plan does not suggest any kind of development on any particular parcel which we were told tonight that this suggested that this would be multi-family. The LCI plan states that area is supposed to offer a mix of use including regional office, retail within a multi-use environment and residential likely attached or stacked. Kathy Field: Yes, and I think: the operative word is mixed. Councilmember Thurman: But, it does not suggest that it is supposed to be a multi-use anywhere in the LCI plan, in fact, it says it is a concept plan and very clearly states the concept sketches are intended to illustrate the envisioned development character and are not actual development proposals. Kathy Field: That is correct. Councilmember Thurman: So, nowhere in here does the LCI Plan state that it is supposed to be a mixed use development. Kathy Field: Correct. Councilmember Thurman: Or a multi-family development. It says it is supposed to be a mix of uses, correct? L -----~ ------~.------ Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 14 of 22 Kathy Field: ]Correct. Councilmember Large: Kathy Field mentioned that the Planning Commission and the Design Review Board unanimously approved this project, is that correct? Kathy Field: Correct. Councilmember Large: Ken Jarrard, please familiarize us on, as far as economic factors to be considered in an application for re-zoning or even a variance, what are the ground rules for that? City Attorney Jarrard: It depends on what is being asked. Can economic considerations playa factor in your decision and the answer is yes. But, I have been asked, can an economic burden, in other words, the fact that a new development, even taken out of the context of this development, can a new development, the fact that it will impose additional service demands on a jurisdiction, can that be a singular and sole reason to deny a rezoning? I take the position that it cannot. Again, understand what I am saying and what I am not saying, I am simply saying that I think that the courts would support me on this is that if that was the rule that a government could simply deny for the sole reason that a development would cause there to be more infrastructure cost or more burden, then it would work as an automatic, basically, legal ] justification to deny any zoning so that cannot be the sole reason but it can be a factor. Councilmember Longoria: I will reiterate what we talked about last time and this is not an easy decision. I certainly understand the mixed messages that we get from all the different parties that are involved in this. We have the city staff looking at it one day but the city staff is not the group that is asked to make hard decisions on this. It is the city council that is asked to make hard decisions on this. If this was just a matter of trying to decide if Milton was going to be split 50-50 between its ability to develop commercial space versus its ability to be a residential community, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think it would be moved, but in the reality is, like I said last time, we have very, very little commercial property to develop in the city. lbis isn't about what it costs the city. I'm not factoring in the fact that this is a burden from a cost point of view for the city. That is not my issue at all. My issue is, what opportunities do businesses have to relocate into the city. They have very, very few and this is one ofthe few properties. I don't necessarily take any joy out of not allowing the applicant to get their way. They have invested in this property, they want to see this property developed, and I wish I could grant them that but this is a tough decision. I think Matt Kunz summed it up very, very well in our last meeting. We are looking for Milton to achieve something here. We are looking for Milton to take on a specific dynamic in the future and if we give away all of our property that would allow businesses to relocate here and develop here and offer the work part of the live/work/play equation. So, for all the reasons I mentioned last time, for all the reasons we spoke about here today, I just don't see how we can give up on that at this point in time. ]Council member Lusk: I wasn't here on the 20th but I have had the opportunity to watch Granicus review of that meeting. In fact, I watched it last Friday evening and I watched it again last night in total. So, I have heard all of l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 15 of22 these comments and discussions before. And, obviously I was not here to comment on it at that time, but I do have a few comments and maybe it is in response to some of the applicants comments here too. About the viability of this property to be used as commercial and the use of it as commercial may be ten years down the road. Well, they've held on to it for ten years already. I've been in the building industry in the Atlanta area for almost forty years and typically what you see is that everything goes in cycles. I remember the early 70's when it tanked, again, in the mid to late 80's it tanked, again the 90's; everything goes in cycles but it comes back. The first thing that goes down the tubes will be residential, then it will be followed by commercial and when it comes back again, residential usually comes first and it is followed by commercial. So, I think to say it is that far out, well, it is anybody's guess. Is it ten years out, is it five years out, is it ten months out; that is all speculation. But, typically when the building market goes down, it is because of the market being overbuilt and it takes a while for the market to absorb that. Of course, what we are looking at now are other factors that have entered in to this down market. Certainly, not only the national economy but the world economy has played a big part. But, when it does recover, I think it is that developer who is poised to hit the market first. One who has the resources, one who has the property, has the design, and is primed for preliminary approvals to go to the market first. And, if you are to the market first, usually you are going to do well. I applaud them for being in such a position to do that but that is not a compelling reason to change zoning like this. 2 !12% of our total land area in the city, some 632 acres, is committed to commercial. That is 2 !12% of some 25,000 acres in the total city. So, that is a very small percentage. What is left that is undeveloped as of today, is 135 acres which includes this 21 acres next door that we are talking about. So, if you take the 21 acres out, which represents almost 16% of what is able to be developed today, then you are cutting it down to about 114 acres that are left to be developed as commercial in the city. True, we have adopted the Master Plan for Hwy. 9 and the LCI, but I think ultimately, our strategic plan and our vision for the city is where our direction comes from as council. We've been in the process for the last couple of years for doing the strategic plan and we don't look at, well, it is a three year plan, but our position is to look ten and twenty years down the road, too, to see what the city is going to look like and are we going to be sustainable if we give up this commercial land. I don't think it is the proper stewardship to be doing something like that. True, it has been approved by the Design Review Board but they are not in the business of looking at zoning changes. We have been talking about the new urbanism, and I have heard this argument before, well, new urbanism is just a new term for the way we used to live fifty years ago; live/work/play communities. We had small communities, small villages, we had concentrated retail. A lot of people lived around that retaiVcommercial area. Some lived above these retail businesses. The parks were right within walking distance. The schools had parks, but I don't see this development here as creating a live/work/play community. I would challenge anyone, and we talk about the young professionals and the empty nesters moving into an area like this. Well, if you take a look at it, there is going to be connectivity, I applaud the applicant for addressing that issue. Connectivity to Fry's and all of the other developments back there, Walmart, some restaurants and then up the road to Target. I challenge the claim that these people are going to walk to these retail spaces. Certainly, an empty nester couple is not going to walk over to Walmart or to Kroger and do their weekly grocery shopping. It is hard to envision something like that. I can't see these young professionals walking over to McDonald's or Chick-fil-a. There are really no destinations here. We are not looking at like a Canton Street in Roswell, Greenville, SC, Hoboken, NJ, not Savannah for sure, this is not a walkable situation. I have been in walkable communities before. People are too much in love with their vehicles to not jump in their car and drive over to even Chick-fil-a. I find it very hard to believe we are portraying this development as a walkable community. And for playing, where are you going to play out here? We do have an acre up here in the comer we are going to develop into a park but I can't see 256 families going up there to play. What are they going to do? They are going to jump in their car and go down to North Park or Wills Park that is more available to them. So, what are we doing here? We Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 16 of22 are reducing the amount of commercial space and we are creating more residential space. That is something that is irretrievable. Once we do make that change, we are not going to get it back. We are losing another 16% of commercial developable space that we have in our inventory. But fortunately, as far as the play aspect of it, most of you know we have just purchased between 13-15 acres of more property by Bell Memorial Park so we are taking care of that aspect of the live/work/play concept but we are still giving up commercial space that will help us remain sustainable and that is one of our charges as a steward of this community. We need to keep that in mind that we need to be sustainable. As a six year old city, I think we are doing good, but it is the constant vigilance of our budget, of our expenses, and our revenue that is going to keep us sustainable. It is also maintaining and utilizing commercial property out here that is going to help us remain sustainable. This great product, I think it is a great developer, great design, great reputation that they have. I commend them for putting the effort into wanting to build out here. As being proclaimed the "Best Quality of Life" city in the state; who wouldn't want to move out here. I think it is a great opportunity for any developer to want to develop out here. I think the risk is probably very small. But, we are still charged to do what is right for the city. We need to maintain our vision and make decisions all in accordance with our strategic plan. I think it is a great product but I don't think it is the right use for this property. Councilmember Hewitt: It seems like at the last meeting we discussed this and this evening as well. The thing that keeps circling back that I can't grasp hold of is the cost; what it is going to cost the city. And, that is what is going to cost us in hard dollars and what it is going to cost us in a different type of zoning. And, that is the single thing that I can pull up to mind to vote no for this but, if I heard Mr. Jarrard correctly, that can't be a single reason for me to vote no. Councilmember Kunz: This is a difficult vote for a lot of reasons because we have a great developer. They would build a product and win awards for what they did. In looking at it, I wish they were building it somewhere else because we cannot give up the commercial land that we have. The opportunity, again, and I said it last time, was that we have an opportunity to say exactly what Milton is and who we want to be. And, that opportunity is to say that we are allowing for the creativity of our people to work here within our own community within the City of Milton. And, not so much that we have a developer that is not being creative in that area, they are, but we need our citizens to realize that we want them to be creative within our city limits as well. That is the engine for our growth and for our future. If we give that away we not only say to the entrepreneurs that are already here that we don't believe in you but we believe in you by keeping this commercial land here. We believe that there is a future. We believe that with this current economic environment that we will get through this. We have it within ourselves to make this thing work. We have good partnerships with good developers. We are not saying no because we don't like them we are saying no because we believe that we can do better, that we can be better, that we are making a statement to every single community around us as well that Milton is the place where you want to live work and play. And, so by keeping where we are with this commercial land, we are providing for our future, not just ten years down the road but forty years down the road as far as what we are going to be. And, what we are going to be is something special because we all have it in ourselves to be that special but we have to make sure that we set up the foundation to do that and by keeping the commercial land I think that we are going to get that done. ] J J Councilmember Large: I think I stated my position in the last meeting and I maintain that position. Councilmember Lusk mentioned that in a recession; residential leads us in, residential leads us out. It is a difficult decision Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 17 of22 l L l and as Councilmember Kunz mentioned in previous meetings about listening to the people that we appoint to different boards, I realize their decisions are not binding, but to listen to their decisions in consideration of our decision. In fact, the Planning Commission especially, unanimously approved this project has to take some bearing on it. The Planning Commission is involved in the comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission touches about everything to do with land use and uses within the city. So, to take those six individuals and totally discount what they did unanimously, I realize that one has left now and one is coming on who has stated opposition to this project, I can't discount their opinion. My feeling is that, yes, we have a limited amount of commercial property but we also have to market that property and if you create an environment that will help us market the remaining property, the remaining 114 acres, what was mentioned we would have left after this 21 acres, then to me that is a benefit to help us market that. You've got I don't know how many thousands of square feet of office space sitting right across the street from this parcel in Verizon. How many of those employees might move into this property and be able to walk, I would think they would, even me who rides everywhere would probably walk if I worked at Verizon and lived in those apartments. At 114 acres, even at a 20% floor area ratio which I believe is an appropriate ratio, I know I have done studies before where we have used that, that yields 1.2 million square feet of commercial space; either office, retail, so just using that floor area ratio, now I realize that all 114 acres may not be usable but that is 1.2 million square feet within the City of Milton that could be created. Like I said, if we have an opportunity to help strengthen our position or market our property better, have a more focused economic development initiative in this city, I'm all for that. Lastly, talk about play. I agree, we don't have many places to play around here. I live here, I represent the whole city but I am the district six and this is in district six and I have made it very clear to the council that we need some park space in this area, more than just an acre, and we are spending money in other parts of the city and we do need park and play space in this part of the city because it is one of the higher density areas and has all the commercial, so you need park space for the people who are daytime residents and come here and work. I believe that should be a focus of the city as well. I, again, remain in favor of this project. Councilmember Thurman: Since we have discussed the LCI initiative so much, I would like to quote a couple of things from it because, I do agree with these people, I think this is a great plan; however, it is just not in the right place in Milton. Our LCI initiative states, it is important to note that relative to surrounding communities; Milton's ratio of commercial to residential property is lower, which could have an impact on property tax revenue. It goes on to say, in addition, there appears to be more opportunity for office and retail development to support Milton and other area populations. It goes on to say, given the strong base of executive households in Milton and a strong performance in the overall North Fulton office market, it would appear that there is an opportunity to provide additional office space. Right now, in the LCI area we are only 16% of the space is office; 20% retail; 23% single family; and 23% multi-family with a little bit of vacant and parks. But, I think if we really want this to be a true live/work/play area we have to have all aspects of the live/work/play. And, I believe that the two aspects we are really missing the most of is the work and play. So, I would hate to take property that could be used for either the work or the play and make it to more live because all that is going to do is make us even more out of whack in the ratio that we really need between those three. Councilmember Lusk: Further regarding Karen's comments, in referring to the Master Plan, page 35 of the Master Plan it states," it's important to note that over 95% of Milton's residents work outside the city. The employment located in Milton is most heavily concentrated in services and retail trade." Certainly, not something that is going to attract the young professionals. And, further on page 37 it states, "One of the Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5,2012 at 6:00 pm Page 18 of22 factors that has driven the growth of office space in other communities is the presence of executive households. These are the decision-makers that decide where to locate their offices. Given the strong base of executive households in Milton, and the strong performance in the overall North Fulton office market, it would appear that there is an opportunity to provide additional office space. In particular, there appears to be an opportunity for greater segmentation of office formats, not simply focusing on large institutional properties but including smaller professional service employment in mixed-use formats, which have been popular in town center locations." I propose a motion to deny RZI2-06, to preface this motion, I would like to say that at the outset I want to announce although I was not present at the August 20th City Council meeting where the public hearing occurred, I have watched the hearings twice in their entirety and am very comfortable that I have educated myself on all of the arguments presented. In addition, I have met with representatives of the applicant and their legal counsel on several occasions. I am very familiar with the proposal and the pros and cons associated with it. After giving this rezoning request much consideration and thought, and based upon the facts and arguments set forth during the public hearing and those matters in the record, I move to deny RZI2-06, a request by Crescent Resources, LLC to rezone a 21.368 acre site located on Deerfield Parkway from C-I and 0-1 to A, for the development of 256 multi-family units, for the following reasons: 1. The present C-I and 0-1 zoning of the property affords the applicant a reasonable and beneficial economic use and return on their property; 2. The proposed rezoning from a commercial/office use to a medium density apartment use -and the subsequent build out -will result in a heightened burden on city services with no corresponding increase in revenue; 3. The City of Milton has an extremely limited supply of viable commercial sites, and the transitioning of this desirable commercial property to serve a dedicated residential use will negatively impact the long term sustainability of Milton by forever removing this parcel from Milton's commercial inventory. The goal of the council must be to ensure long term financial sustainability for the city and not short term objectives that benefit only a handful of individuals; 4. As noted in the staff report, the proposed zoning is inconsistent with adjacent and nearby land uses; 5. Although the Highway 9/GA 400 Master Plan suggests that this location contain a Regional Activity center -with a mix of retail, commercial, office, and higher density residential -the proposed development is not a mixed use project as contemplated by the Milton zoning code, and those nearby, unaffiliated commercial and office uses do not fit together with this development to form a seamless, functional, integrated regional activity center as that concept is contemplated in the master plan. Therefore, this proposed development is inconsistent with the master plan; 6. As noted in the staff report, this development will cause significant additional burden on the city's roadway system, including the intersection of Morris Road and Deerfield, which is already operating at an unacceptable level. 7. The denial of this rezoning request will directly promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Milton by ensuring that Milton maintains and preserves its viable commercial sites thereby ensuring the economic long term viability of the city; and, 8. The denial of this rezoning request will result in a significant gain to the public due to the J"."". J ] lessened demand for services and the lessened impact on infrastructure, while simultaneously presenting little to no burden on the applicant as this property remains economically viable as zoned. l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 19 of22 I would ask that a copy of this motion be placed in the clerk's file. That is my motion. Mayor Lockwood: I certainly will repeat as others have that this is a tough decision. I respect and understand everyone's position on it. It is ironic, probably in the last hour and a half, I haven't heard anything but in the last hour and a half I have probably gotten fifteen cut and paste emails against this. It all starts out with apartments and what I have read in the press previously it is all apartments. The reason the last meeting I was supportive of this application, I think it is a great design, quality, high-end. I am just trying to state my position why I voted that way. I think with the rental rates and leasing rates it certainly supports a very nice product that will help the community. It would give more housing options. We have talked about where people are going to live and work. We've got 5,000 people here who work for Verizon and I'm positive that very few live in the City of Milton. This would be a good option for the middle level folks there. I think it will invigorate this area. This would play a part of the live/work/play. I think we heard from our staff that this piece of property is not big enough to do whole live/work/play. You have to kind of separate it around with the other properties that are with it. I personally have a problem, I totally respect the citizens and their concerns, but again, I think this is a much higher end property. I personally have a problem telling the owner what to do with his piece of property. I know it is easy to say wait another ten years or whatever, but when they have tried two times previously under our watch to rezone this or develop it, again, it is easy for me to sit up here and say wait on your property, sit on it for another ten years and pay the taxes and pay the mortgage note on it, I kind of have a problem with that too. I think it will improve our tax base just with sales tax and growth with other things that are secondary. I've heard a lot from citizens and heard up here the cost to the city and the school demand which as we know is not a legal reason to deny it. With that said, I just want to express my opinion. I certainly respect everyone else's and I certainly respect the outcome of this motion with the majority of what council wants to do. But, I have a feeling I am not on the side of the majority. I have a concern because of some of these reasons, we talk about costing the city money, I have a concern that future legal costs may pop up with this decision; therefore, I won't be supporting this motion, respectively. Councilmember Large: I just want to mention, I feel like the judge in My Cousin Vinnie when he makes such a nice motion and the judge says, denied, but he does say very astute and good motion, well thought out motion that Councilmember Lusk made but I can't support that motion to deny. Again, they are property owners, they are not contract owners of the property. We talk about property owners rights all the time. That applies as much to residential owners as it does to commercial owners. Crescent has already invested in this city and has other properties in the city. As a tax paying entity within the city, one of the Crescent people actually sits as one of Milton's representatives on the CID. Again, I respect that and respect the opinion of people who we appoint on boards and staff. Councilmember Thurman: This is not in keeping with our future land use plan. Our future land use plan calls for this to be office or retail. It does not call for this to be high density residential. I think that is important because all of the GMA classes we have been say that we need to be careful any time that you go against your current Comprehensive Land Use Plan, you are lessening the strength of that plan. So, I think that is something important for us to remember is that our Comprehensive Land Use Plan which was just approved in the last couple of years does not state for this to be high density residential. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 20 of22 Councilmember Large: I know there has been a lot of talk about apartments. I've gotten calls saying that five people or ten people move into an apartment just because of the schools. A lot of people, especially nowadays, relegate apartment dwellers to second class citizens and I, for one, do not consider apartment dwellers as second class citizens. I consider everybody who lives in this city as equal participants in this city and are not second class in this city. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk made a motion to deny Agenda Item No. 12-141. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed (4-3). Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Longoria, Councilmember Lusk, and Councilmember Kunz were in support. Mayor Lockwood, Councilmember Large and Councilmember Hewitt were opposed. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of a Resolution to Adopt the Milton Community Tree Management Plan. (Agenda Item No. 12-224) RES. NO. 12-09-228 (Michele McIntosh-Ross. City Planner) Michele McIntosh-Ross, City Planner: The Milton 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies several policy items that aim at preserving Milton's rural character and protecting the city's existing tree canopy. In May 2011, the city submitted an application to the Georgia Forestry Commission requesting funds to conduct a tree inventory assessment and management plan. In August 2011, we were awarded $20,000 to conduct a tree canopy study to take an inventory of the city streets and park trees. The consulting firm, Davey Resource Group, was chosen to produce the tree management plan and that graph was presented at the July 9th work session. The Milton Tree Management Plan collected data that will be utilized for the planning for street tree and park tree maintenance. The data will also be used to provide a baseline inventory for the development of canopy cover preservation policy. The plan and the key policy action items will be used as recommendations and a reference document. Also, adoption of the plan fulfills one of the requirements for points towards the Milton certification for the Atlanta Regional Commission's Green Community Certification. I am requesting for you to adopt the Tree Management Plan. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-224. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 2. Approval of an Agreement for Purchase of Realty between the City of Milton and Larry and Susan T. Hopkins for Fulton County Tax Parcel No. 22-5040-0535-0298 containing a total of 3.04 acres, more or less, for the Purchase Price of $425,000. (Agenda Item No. 12-226) RES. NO. 12-09-229 (Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager) J ...• J. ] .. l l l Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 21 of22 Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager: This agenda item is a culmination of a process by which we have gone through partly in Executive Session, partly in the public. On May 17, 2012, you approved a contract for the purchase of this property, 15260 Bell Park Drive, with a purchase price of $450,000. We are here tonight, to reduce that price to $425,000. I received two appraisals on the property. One was $346,000, the second was provided to the city by the seller and is a legitimate appraisal at $400,000. It is within your discretion if you choose to agree to purchase this property for $425,000. That would be a good decision. This property is contiguous to Milton's only existing active park. It partnered with the second parcel we will talk about tonight. In fact, it doubles the area of the park land we already have. This is the official ratification of the new price. If you do approve it, I would appreciate you adding the appropriate language that would allow me to execute the appropriate documents to close on the property. The due diligence has been done, the environmental assessment was fine and the survey title issues are clean. We are prepared to close if you approve this modification of the contract. Mayor Lockwood: I have spoken to several citizens and we have gotten emails as well that some people are under the impression that we are grossly overpaying what the value of these properties are. Typically, if we are going to purchase any piece of property, the first thing we consider is getting a current appraisal. Sometimes people get that mixed up with an assessed tax value that may be on the books somewhere. All of the properties are all very close to an approved appraisal. We are being good stewards of the city's money. Motion and Vote: CouncHmember Lusk moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-226. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The City Manager was given the authority to proceed with the closing documents. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 3. Approval of an Agreement for Purchase of Realty between the City of Milton and Michael and Sheryl Bell (Wilson) for Fulton County Tax Parcel Nos. 22-5040-0535-017,22-4880-0534-020 and 22-5040-0535-035 containing a total of 7.06 acres, more or less, for the Purchase Price of $517,500. (Agenda Item No. 12-227) (Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager) City Manager Lagerbloom: These are three parcels that are on the north and west side of the existing Bell Memorial Park. This is the parcel that is on the frontage of Hopewell Road. We got this property under contract for $535,000. There are three appraisals that were done, not three on each of the three parcels, but one appraisal per parcel. If you total those together to see what the value of these three assembled parcels is, they appraised at $499,500. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm Page 22 of22 It was close enough to $500,000 so what we agreed to do is take the difference between $535,000 J..• and $500,000 to see ifthe seller would be willing to meet us halfway. I am here tonight for your approval for a reduction to $517,500. The environmental assessment has been done. The title and survey are clear. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to approve Agenda Item No. 12-227. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The City Manager was given the authority to proceed with the closing documents. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS STAFF REPORTS EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion and Vote: Councilmember Large moved to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 8:12 J p.m. into Executive Session to discuss land acquisition and pending litigation. Council member . Longoria seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). RECONVENE Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to reconvene the Regular Session at 8:55 p.m. Councilmember Large seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 12-228) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Thurman moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:57 p.m. Council member Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). After no further discussion the Regular Council Meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Date Approved: October 1,2012. Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk J L STATE OF GEORGIA ) ) AFFIDAVIT RE: CLOSURE OF COUNTY OF FULTON ) OPEN MEETINGS ) CITY OF MILTON ) Personally appeared before the undersigned officer, duly authorized under the laws of the State of Georgia to administer oaths, JOE LOCKWOOD, who in his capacity as Mayor and the person presiding over a Council meeting of the CITY OF MILTON, and after being first duly sworn, certifies under oath and states to the best of his knowledge and belief the following: At its Regularly Scheduled Council Meeting held on September 5, 2012, the Council voted to go into closed session and exclude the public from all or a portion of its meeting. The legal exceptions applicable to the exempt matters addressed during such closed meeting are as follows: [Check or initial as appropriate] 1. X discussion or voting to authorize negotiations to purchase, dispose of, or lease property; authorizing the ordering of an appraisal related to the acquisition or disposal of real estate; entering into contract to purchase, to dispose of, or lease property subject to approval in a subsequent public vote; or entering into an option to purchase, dispose of, or lease real estate subject to approval in a subsequent public vote pursuant to O.C.G.A, 50-14-3(b)(1)(B-E); l 2. discussing or deliberating upon the appointment, employment, compensation, hiring, disciplinary action or dismissal, or periodic evaluation or rating of a public officer or employee or interviewing applicants for the executive head of the city with the vote on any such matter coming in public pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50-14-3(b)(2); 3. X attorney/client privilege in order to consult and meet with legal counsel pertaining to pending or potential litigation, settlement, claims, administrative proceedings or other judicial actions brought or to be brought by or against the agency or any officer or employee or in which the agency or any officer or employee may be directly involved, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50-14-2(1). 4. other (explanation): I certify that the subject matter of the closed meeting or the closed portion of the meeting was devoted to matters of official business or policy, with the exceptions provided by law as set forth above. Notary Public My Commission Expires: l