07-27-1998 Special Called Joint MeetingSPECIAL CALLED JOINT MEETING
CITY OF SMYRNA, CITY OF MARIETTA, COBB COUNTY GOVERNMENT
JULY 27, 1998
A special called mediation hearing was held July 27,1998 at 10:30 a.m. at the Cobb County
Commissioners Meeting Room, Second Floor, 100 Cherokee Street, Marietta, Georgia 30090.
This meeting was called and conducted pursuant to the Uniform Rules for Dispute Resolution
Programs adopted by the Supreme Court of Georgia effective April 15, 1993 as amended, and the
Order of the Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia on July 23, 1998.
In attendance was:
Cobb County
Chairman Bill Byrne
Commissioner Bill Cooper
Commissioner Gordon Wysong
Commissioner Woody Thompson
City of Smyrna
Mayor A. Max Bacon
Councilman Wade Lnenicka
Councilman Ron Newcomb
Councilman Bill Scoggins
Councilman Jim Hawkins
Councilman Pete Wood
Councilman Jack Cramer
City of Marietta
Mayor Ansley Meaders
Councilman Betty Hunter
Councilman John Sinclair
Councilman Paul Sabiston
Councilman James Dodd
Councilman Frank Ayers
Councilman Philip Goldstein
Also present from the City of Smyrna were Attorneys Scott Cochran and Michael Williams and
City Clerk Melinda Dameron. Not present were Councilwoman Charlene Capilouto and City
Administrator Howard Smith.
Chairman Byrne opened the meeting by thanking all the Mayors who participated and took time
out of their busy schedules to meet with him last Tuesday night and stated it was a very
productive meeting which would provide a framework to carry over in this morning's meeting.
He then introduced Randy Mayer with the firm of Mayer and Beal who was ordered by Judge
Ingram to mediate the session today.
Chainnan Byrne stated that as a result of FIB 489, a dispute resolution process began over a year
ago between Cobb County and the six cities of Cobb. We came forward with an inter-
governmental agreement — we being the Cobb Municipal Association — to the Board of
Commissioners that had two issues. Other than that, the agreement as it was presented, which
was months of negotiation, was acceptable for the all parties. There were actually four issues
addressed in the meeting last Tuesday night and those are open for discussion. The first of those
issues was the definition of "substantial change" and there was a unanimous agreement of the five
mavors and commission chairman that a substantial change meant a change in land use. Examples
of that would be if an annexation/rezoning came forward in any of our six cities from low density
residential to medium density residential, that would not be a land use change. But if it came from
residential from commercial, or Office/Institutional or Industrial, that is a land use change and the
county would have standing to object to that. The second issue was the agreement itself.
Chairman Byrne stated that any agreement has to have a mechanism by which you revisit it but
not eliminate it and it was a unanimous agreement of the six that we address it in that manner and
that in the ideal world, July 1 would be the anniversary date of this agreement. Proposed for
discussion today is that in June of every year, the six cities and the county revisit the agreement
based on the experiences of the past year to see how the agreement worked, where it could be
improved or amended, that those proposals be brought to the table for discussion but before it
could be adopted and mutually acceptable again there would be an amendment in place.
The third issue with regards to the issue of annexation/rezoning, and there may be somewhat of a
disagreement here in relationship... in the comments I got from Marcia Andruzzi, however, I
remembered that the County would have 60 days in which to resolve the differences of the
proposed land use changes with the city of record.
Number four, and although not a part of HB489, is that once a year at the end of September, the
city and county planning staff and administrators would hold a retreat outside the county to
review all land use plans and the proposed changes as a result that year's zonings and the cost of
this would prove to be the responsibility of the county. Those were the four issues that we came
away with at last Tuesdav's meeting in agreement.
Chainnan Berne stated those were his notes from that meeting and for simplicity of discussion
had taken the liberty of utilizing the Intergovernmental Agreement that was presented by the City
Julv 27. 1998 meetine — continued
with these four issues into the agreement. Chairman Byrne said that completed his comments and
presented copies of the agreement as a form or format on which discussion could proceed.
At 1 l :45 a.m. it was suggested the groups adjourn separately to executive session for further
discussion. Councilman Bill Scoggins made a motion the Smyrna officials adjourn to executive
session and reconvene at 2:00 p.m. Councilman Wade Lnenicka seconded the motion which was
approved by a unanimous vote.
When the meeting reconvened, Smynia officials voted 3-2 to accept the proposal presented by
Chairman Byrne with Council members Wood and Lnenicka opposed. Councilman Scoggins was
absent when the vote was taken.
A. MAX BACON, MAYOR MELINDA DAMEKONTITY CLERK
1----7�1 L)-'- - I
o-
RO NEWCOMB, WARD 2 BILL SC GGINS, W 3