CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
	MACON-BIBB COUNTY SALES TAX ROAD PROGRAM
	JULY 17, 2003
	2:00 P.M.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

DAN DUNWODY, JR.
DAN FISCHER
OLA MAE FORD
EARL PACE
EBIN SHEPARD
TOM WIGHT

OTHERS PRESENT:

STEPHEN DUVAL
VAN ETHERIDGE
DAVID FORTSON
SHERRI SAWYER

 

	CLAUDE JOINER REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
	410 AMERICAN FEDERAL BUILDING 
	P. O. BOX 94
	MACON, GEORGIA  31202-0094
	TELEPHONE:  912/742-6611 or 746-7804

MR. DUNWODY:		We’ll call the meeting to order.  And the first thing on the agenda is approval of the minutes. Does anybody want to add or subtract or amend the minutes?  Do I hear any objection to the minutes?  If not, by consensus they stand approved as published.  

We don’t have any audience comments today I don’t believe, do we?  

MR. DUVAL:		We’ve got a lot of people here disguised as empty seats today.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I do have something to report on one of our citizens that usually comes, Judge Patterson and his wife.  You all know Judge Patterson.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Yeah.  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I talked to his wife this week and he has fell.  He was out in his yard in his driveway and fell and broke his hip.  And he had to be operated on and put a plate on it.  And he’s in rehab now over at the Coliseum Hospital.  So he’s been over there ever since.  And he has been faithful as you all know about coming to the meetings.

MR. DUNWODY:		 He has.  He’s been sort of our extra member.  

I’d like to say that I talked to Frank Johnson and his wife today, and he’s getting along pretty good and he’s walking with a walker fairly good and they’re going to plan to be at the next meeting they think.  So I wanted to pass that on to you.  

Steve, you want to talk about the South Downtown Connector?

MR. DUVAL:		 Yes, sir.  Good afternoon everybody.  I will call your attention to Tab 4.  That’s our public meeting report on the South Downtown Connector.  We held this meeting on June 5th at Ebeneezer Missionary Baptist Church there on Elm Street, and we had several program officials there and we had several of our elected officials and also we had two members of this committee at that particular meeting.  And we had coverage from WMAZ, Channel 13, and also the Macon Telegraph.  And there were 65 people in attendance at this particular meeting.

And the meeting was chaired by Commission Chairman Mr. Olmstead.  And I guess what I could say, you know, most of the folks in attendance there were not for this particular project, and there was some heated discussions, but I think all in all it was a good meeting as far as informing the people of where the project might be going.  There were some comments made at the end of the meeting by I think Mr. Olmstead and also Ms. Ponder saying that they probably wouldn’t vote to, vote for this project.  But at the last Executive Committee meeting, Mr., Mayor Ellis said that he’d like to have another meeting out there about this project.  And he had been approached by some of the ministers in the area, you know, about the project and he would just like to have another meeting before he made a final decision on it.  So some people thought the project might be dead, but, you know, it’s alive right now as to, I’m not saying it’s going to be built, but they’re probably going to plan another public meeting about it.

MR. DUNWODY:		 So you’re planning another public meeting out there now?

MR. DUVAL:		 Well, I’m not planning, I haven’t been told to put one in place yet, but he asked that we have another one, so we’ll get with them and see just when they might want to have it out there.  But I haven’t been told to put it on just yet, but he requested that we do another one before we decide on the project.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Well, that’ll come from the Executive Committee?

MR. DUVAL:		 Sir?

MR. DUNWODY:		 That will come from the Executive Committee?

MR. DUVAL:		 Well, it did.

MR. DUNWODY:		 I understand.

MR. DUVAL:		 They voted to go on and have another one.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Okay.  

MR. DUVAL:		 Wasn’t that the case, Van?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.  There’s also another little caveat in that.  The City through their Planning and Zoning office had been talking about doing a study of the neighborhood area there to encompass the road and maybe some improvements to the community in a big project that would be all encompassing, the road and other improvements planned in that community.  And so I think they’re going to wait and get that study done and see how the road might fit into that plan --

MR. DUNWODY:		 And then have a meeting?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 -- and then have one.

MR. DUNWODY:		 That sounds good.

MR. DUVAL:		 Yes, sir.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 I have a couple of comments on that one --

MR. DUNWODY:		 Yeah.  Okay.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 -- if that would be in order.  Number one, one of the comments, there was a comment that the road would increase property values.  It was not by a resident.  It was by a developer.  There were other comments by property owners saying that they couldn’t even sell their homes because of all of the uncertainty.  And they were very concerned at the loss of value.

I don’t think that the way this has been handled is one of the Road Improvement Program’s finer hours.  The neighbors complained that it’s on again off again.  There’s a real lack of information.  As you know, the preferred route for the last couple of years was along the railroad tracks so it wouldn’t change the neighborhood, or it wouldn’t divide the neighborhood.  Then all of a sudden it was moved to Elm Street where it absolutely devastates the neighborhood.  And the reason given was the Second Street Bridge.  

I called Van Etheridge and I, he had me, gave me the name of somebody at the State DOT, and it turns out that there’s not even a preliminary concept plan on the bridge yet.  So you can’t really determine whether or not the bridge is going to dictate moving the road.  I think it was rather presumptuous to just all of a sudden change alignments.  

I went out there myself and found out that the surface of the current roadway is only one foot lower than the that on the new crossing at Oglethorpe, so it would seem that you’re dealing with maybe a foot additional elevation with proper bridge design using a low profile.  So I think it definitely would be in order to design the road and the bridge in conjunction and see if it can be done in a way that minimizes the negative impacts on the neighborhood.  I think it was purely precipitous to go ahead and move the alignment with no warning to the people, and they reacted to that.  

One individual said he couldn’t sell his house for two years because they had already declared they were going to take it and with the new alignment they aren’t.  So there’s been horrendous economic hardship, at least according to the residents, just because of all the uncertainty and the constant change in the plans with no real rhyme or reason.  

So, you know, I don’t think we, the Road Program has handled that one very well.  It didn’t help that Chairman Olmstead got mad at the participants either.  I mean he just pretty much at the end said we’ll take our money and go somewhere else with it.  It ended up being a lot more adversarial than it would have had to have been if it would have been just a little bit more calm in the process.  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I’d like to just respond just a little bit.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Go ahead.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Back when we first started talking about this project in ‘95 maybe, ‘94 or ‘95, ‘96, in that particular time frame, one of the alternates that we studied first was the route that pretty much parallels the railroad.  It had a lot of problems with it.  One was that it was so close to the Second Street bridge over the railroad that it would present problems in the future like any other location where, you know, where a railroad and a road crosses right there together like if you know where Roff Avenue and Pio Nono is, that road coming in right beside that railroad bridge has always been a problem and is always going to be a problem.  And that had that particular feature in it, plus it had the other problem of its entrance to MLK down there right beside the railroad trestle.  You would have a similar situation.  You had two real operational problems on that alignment.  And so that alignment was discarded early on.

But in the last few years, Joe Passano from Washington, D.C. also was an advocate for that alignment close to the railroad, and we carried that alignment to a public hearing.  And I guess it was the worst one I’ve ever been to.  I mean they scalded us from head to foot about that alignment and all.  And that was one reason it was changed back at the last public meeting to go down the original alignment that we had identified as the preferred alignment, which was Elm Street.  So that’s just a little background.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 That earlier meeting I don’t think that the concern of the neighborhood was the alignment.  It was the scale of the road, you know.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 That hadn’t changed though.  It didn’t change on this one.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Well, I mean they weren’t complaining about the alignment along the railroad tracks, they were complaining about the four lanes.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I think they were complaining about --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And you’re right, that concern was --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 -- most everything as I remember the meeting.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 But the meeting really devolved where it wasn’t about issues that night.  It again was not one of the Road Program’s better meetings.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Well, apparently we’re going to have another hearing out there.  So Mayor Ellis --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Yeah.  I hope this time there’s better planning that’s a little bit more concerned about neighborhood issues.  This is one of the poorer parts of the community.  There’s a horrendous effort among all different agencies to try to do something to better that community.  And the road could be a part of that.  I mean a proper road designed to be compatible with the neighborhood could actually enhance and further development efforts.  But I don’t think a four-lane facility down Elm will do anything but kill some of the other efforts.  And I say that because I went one lunch hour and just walked along Penniman, and there is no way you can have a highway of that scale, that speed, that noise with residential frontage.  It’s just inconceivable in my mind.  And it will damage the neighborhood and that’s what I think some of the concerns are.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Are you all presenting a different concept at your next meeting or is it just going to be --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I don’t know.  I think it’s going to depend a lot on what Planning and Zoning’s community development plan would show.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Okay.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And that is one of the real pluses is that they decided they should look at the road in a planning context which is really what’s required is to see how things fit together.  I think that’s been one of the weaknesses in the past.  I think that promises to maybe get more focused calm and cool debate than in the past.  So I hope that works.  It’s a very good initiative to involve the planning.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Any other comments on this report?  If not, thank you, Steve.  

MR. DUVAL:		 Yes, sir.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Van, you want to tell us the results of our inquiries?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes, sir.  Last Wednesday the Executive Committee of the Road Program met and they reviewed the two letters that the Citizens Oversight Committee had sent them, and copies of those letters are under you all’s Tab 5 there.  

The first letter was dated March the 18th, 2002, and it concerned the proposed Gateway Park restroom facilities that the committee had previously approved $150,000 to build restrooms with.  And this committee, of course, questioned the use of those funds for that particular purpose since it was raised by the one cent sales tax for road improvements.  So the Executive Committee had Mr. Hale Almand, who is the Road Program’s attorney, present and he advised that it was not an appropriate use of the one cent sales tax money to fund those restrooms, and the Executive Committee voted 3 to 2 to uphold Mr. Almand’s recommendation.  So the money will not be spent on restrooms from the sales tax fund.  So that was the first resolution that you all had sent them.

The second one referred to the Executive Committee was also in the January 24th letter, and it asked for a legal opinion about using sales tax monies for multi-use paths, and there is one being planned on Tucker Road and also on Zebulon Road and a few other places I guess.  Mr. Almand did review that and he said that it was a proper use of the sales tax monies to build those paths with.  And they were more or less, I guess, separated sidewalks from the travel way so apparently that question has been answered also.  And this committee has received the two answers that you all had requested.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Thank you, Van.  Anybody got any questions on those, or comments?  Steve, you want to give the Minority Business Report?

MR. DUVAL:		 Yes, sir.  And that’s Tab 6, I believe, in your agenda package.  Instead of going item by item, I’ll just call your attention to the bottom line on the back page there.  The percentage of contracts is now at about 21 percent.  Most of our contracts require 20 percent minority participation and we are at about 21 percent minority participation right now.  We’ve awarded $20,000,000, actually about 19 and a half million dollars, as you can see, in minority business contracts.  And we’ve paid nearly 90 percent of that, that money, of that 19 and a half million dollars.  So we’re still operating above the 20 percent minority participation and, you know, knock on wood, we hadn’t had any major problems.  We normally get enough participation on all the contracts, and the contractors, you know, work hand-in-hand to satisfy that participation.  That’s going pretty smooth.  And I’ll entertain any questions if you have any on that.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Does anybody have any questions?  Thank you, Steve.  Van, do you want to give us your report?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes, sir.  Let me begin my report talking about some of the projects we have under construction.  If any of you have been down Forsyth Street lately you’ve seen that the project from Arlington down to City Hall is getting underway there.  That’s being done by Northeast Concrete Company.  He’s about 5 percent completed as far as the completion, but he is just getting started.  The completion date will be next May, 2004.  But the work underway now is he’s doing a lot of demolition work.  He’s done some sidewalk work already and some grading and some curb work.  

Also, another project is out on Bass Road.  There’s two intersection projects out there at Forsyth and Rivoli.  Reeves Construction has been awarded that contract and he has to the end of the year to complete it.  He has not started work yet.  Georgia Power has been relocating their facilities out there and the natural gas has got to relocate some lines out there before he can get started.  But that work seems to be underway.

The next project is Project 43, our Bloomfield Drive.  It seems like we’ve been working on it forever.  But it goes from Eisenhower Parkway over to Rocky Creek Road.  Shepherd’s Construction Company is the contractor.  He was supposed to be finished this month, but I don’t think he’s going to make it.  He still has some sidewalk work to do, some base and paving work and some traffic signal installation work to go.  He should finish it probably in August though.  

The next project is 54-B, Millerfield Road.  It runs from Bristol Drive on out to Shurling Drive.  Kemi Construction Company is the contractor.  He’s 18 percent complete now.  He has until June 30th of next year in his contract to complete it, and he’s been putting in the drainage system and the utilities have been relocating their lines out there.

The next project is 56.  It’s the traffic installation of some 52 intersections here in town.  It’s a 4 and a half million dollar contract.  Georgia Electric is the contractor.  He’s about 50 percent complete now.  He’s still putting in the foundations and strain poles to hold up the new signals.  And this is part of the overall big signal system that feeds into the Traffic Management Center over here.

And in the In Town Historic District Sidewalk Repairs project, we’ve had two phases let.  The first phase has been completed.  It was 14 streets in that first phase.  The second phase is 9 streets and Sam Hall and Sons is currently working on that.  He’s about 50 percent complete.  And also in that one is the Cherry Street work, the repairs being made on Cherry.  

That ends the projects under construction, but I will mention a couple of projects that the Department of Transportation is taking bids on.  First is the Hartley Bridge Road at I-75.  This is the phase one project.  And that project is to widen Hartley Bridge and also replace the bridge over 75 there.  It also relocates Skipper Road to avoid conflicts with the new ramp terminal that’s being installed later.  There were six bids received on June 20th when DOT took bids, but Reeves Construction Company was the low bidder at 10.8 million dollars.  This is a joint venture with Georgia DOT, the Road Program and the Federal Highway Administration.

The second phase of this project rebuilds the intersection with 75 and 475, and the funds now are currently in Fiscal Year 2006.  That’s a pretty large project.  There’s some $51,000,000 involved in that project.  So it’s going to be a couple more years before we see that one started.  

Also, DOT took bids on Log Cabin.  That’s the section from Eisenhower over to Mercer.  The low bid was submitted by Reeves Construction, 1.6 million, and that’s upgrading that two-lane facility to a five-lane project.  It’s a new drainage system, curbs, sidewalks, and traffic signals.  And they have until March of next year to complete the project.  Again, this was a joint venture with Georgia DOT and Federal Highway and the Road Program.  And the work that’s going on out there now is mostly utility relocation work.  Georgia Power has been working and some of the others.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 And that’s between where and where?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Between Mercer and Eisenhower Parkway out where Eisenhower Crossing Shopping Center is.  

Also, Bibb County is taking bids July the 29th on three projects.  One of them is welcome and landscaping work on Emery Highway over close to where the railroad bridge is there at Walnut Creek.  That’s also about the city limits.  This project is a joint venture between the Keep Macon Beautiful Commission and the Enhancement Trust Funds that the Executive Committee and the Bibb County Commission have set up whereby the interest off of that money is used to do these beautification projects.  

The second project, and it’s shown here on these renderings, is to do some enhancement type work at Mulberry and Second Street there at the Courthouse and at the Grand Theater.  And this project will have a pretty short completion date, by the end of the year.  And what it’s going to do is it’s going to put in some new crosswalks, there’s going to be some pretty good landscaping, heavy landscaping, and pedestrian lighting, and also some work down at the Grand Theater, in front of the Grand Theater there,  they’ve been having some problems with that sidewalk and all down there, and some landscaping right in front of the theater.  

And the third project that bids will be taken on is a project to do some 1300 intersection street name signs.  In other words, when you come to a cross street they put up these nice big signs showing what the street is in each direction.  And that project will have also some high grade materials as far as the sign itself is made out of, something that will last a long time and will be real reflective and visible.  

Other projects we might do bids on this year, of course, is Poplar Street.  We think we’ll be ready in September to accept bids on it.  Maybe one phase on Houston Avenue.  Maybe the Tucker Road project in September also.  Mercer University Drive out from Log Cabin out to 475 ought to be ready about December.  Also maybe on Ocmulgee East Boulevard out at GEICO.  It should be ready in December.  And then the Zebulon/I-475 new bridge, those approaches over there, should be ready early in 2004.  

Also, I might mention under Tab 7 is a brief status report on the remaining projects in the Road Program.  I might just comment on a few of those and then if you have any questions about any of the others we’ll try to answer those.  

The first one is the Bloomfield Road project and Log Cabin Drive.  This section joins the other project.  It starts at Eisenhower and goes back to the south to where Rocky Creek is already five-laned.  The final construction plans are about 80 percent complete now.  The environmental work has been approved on it.  Right-of-way acquisition is underway.  We’re about 61 percent completed with that.  The construction funding is in Fiscal 2005, which starts next July 2004.  Of course this is another joint venture with the DOT and Federal Highway and the Road Program.  

The next project is Number 15, Zebulon Road at I-475.  This project is going to reconstruct the bridge over 475 and also four-lane the approaches.  And the project starts about the Wildwood entrance and goes back toward town to Peake Road.  Right-of-way acquisition is underway now.  Construction funding is set up in 2004, which we are in.  So also that project relocates Lamar Road, if you all know where Lamar Road comes in right by that ramp terminal, it’s being relocated up to come across and tie into Peake Road out about where the new fire station is.  The environmental work is complete there and final construction plans are being completed by Georgia DOT on that one.  

I mentioned Houston Avenue a while ago, but that’s a project that’s three and a half miles long and it’s been divided into four sections now because of the length.  The first phase starts on the south down near Seven Bridges and comes back to Rocky Creek Road.  And then from Rocky Creek to Newberg will be the second phase.  And then the third from Newberg to Eisenhower.  And the last from Eisenhower into town at Broadway.  We are currently working on right-of-way on that whole section.  There are some 286 parcels of right-of-way to buy.  We’ve acquired about 60 percent of them already.  Construction plans are being broken down into those four phases and they should be completed in a few months.  

We are currently working on phase two from Rocky Creek to Newberg.  That’s apparently going to be the first project that’s let probably in September if we can get the Georgia DOT funding.  This is another joint venture where 2.8 million in local funds is being put with 2 million in Georgia DOT funds to do this project.

I want to mention Sardis Church Road, the interchange at I-75 and the four-lane connector over to 247.  Funding for this project is currently scheduled for right-of-way in 2006 and construction in 2008.  Chairman Olmstead has written Georgia DOT about putting this project in the bond fund project that’s being put together by the government now to include this project to possibly try to speed up the right-of-way acquisition maybe to 2004.  And we haven’t heard back but hopefully that project might be included.  The environmental work is underway.  The document has been submitted to DOT and as soon as that document is approved we can have our final public hearing on the project out there.  And if that document is approved, we can move on into design, final design and right-of-way.  This project is another big project.  It’s some $14,000,000 in right-of-way and $37,000,000 in construction.

Those are the particular ones that I wanted to mention, but if you all want to take just a second to look through there, I’ll be happy to take any questions on any of the others that might be of interest to you.  

MR. SHEPARD:		 This flyover bridge that they’re calling it on Hartley Bridge there, is that if you were exiting off of 75 you would fly over 475 to get off at Hartley Bridge?  Is that what that means?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes, it is, and vice versa if you were going the other way.  You would fly over 75 going into town and hit 475 going north.  But that’s what that does.  It separates that weaving move that’s been so dangerous.

MR. SHEPARD:		 Yeah, that’s terrible out there.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 It’s almost as bad, or is as bad as the I-16 interchange.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Well, the speeds are a lot faster out there so really I think it’s worse.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Yeah, I think it probably is.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 The speeds are a little slower down here, if you can believe it, but they probably are.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Does anybody have any questions or comments?  Dan?

MR. FISCHER:	  	 You mentioned that one contract was going to miss the deadline?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Bloomfield.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Yeah.  Do we have penalties?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Are they very severe?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Very severe.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Are we imposing them?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 They’re based on how much the contract value was originally.  And there’s a schedule of what they call liquidated damages.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And we don’t waive those, we impose them?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes. They are --

MR. SHEPARD:		 We’ve had some utility moving problems out there, though, now.  We have to take that into consideration.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.  We are imposing them, and he does have an opportunity to provide information that might be of a forgiving nature if they might exist.  There might be some utility conflicts there.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 That would only be fair.  I brought that up at our last meeting, but it’s one thing that bothers me that we don’t seem to have phasing or time requirements to try to minimize some of the inconvenience and safety problems.  Almost every major project there have been a lot of concerns expressed by the people affected that they seem to drag on forever.  I remember reading a lot of that in the paper on Houston, a lot of it on Zebulon, and there was a letter just a week or so ago on Northside.  

And Northside is really a good example where the second phase actually created a worse problem than existed before because it extended four lanes west of the intersection with Forest Hill Road and came back together into a single lane right where the left turn movement is onto Marlowe.  And that’s just extremely hazardous because you’re compressing the traffic that’s moving a lot faster than it used to to a point. 

The second phase could have been designed to solve that problem.  The third phase could have been staged where that problem and the problem with the intersection with Wesleyan were solved expeditiously.  There was nothing to preclude fixing those before the more complicated parts in the middle were done.  And it would have greatly reduced the inconvenience to the people.  It would have been a real safety benefit.

Another problem on Northside is where the entrance is to Whispering Hills I think it’s called, where I don’t know how many units there are there, it must be two or three hundred, it’s a very big apartment complex, and their road has been an ill-defined gravel entry for well over a year.  And, again, you would have thought even if it was temporary, some better provisions would have been made there rather than have that safety issue.  

And if it’s appropriate at this time, I’d like to introduce a motion that a recommendation be forwarded to the Executive Committee for the Road Improvement Program that all future contracts include staging requirements and strict construction time frames to minimize inconvenience and danger to adjacent properties and the traveling public.  That just seems common sense.  The contracts should be geared to the convenience and safety of the citizens, not just the convenience of the contractor.  Even if it means a slight penalty in cost, I think that would be money well spent.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Do we have a second to the motion?

MR. SHEPARD:		 Don’t we pretty much do that anyway?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.  Anytime --

MR. DUNWODY:		 It sort of looks like you’d have to do that.  But I’m sure once you turn it over to a contractor, you don’t know what he’s going to end up doing.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Well, it gets kind of out of his control, too, with utilities working on it.  They get to restricting his work as to what he can actually work on.  But most of these projects are staged and phased as far as a designer can ascertain at the time what needs to be done.  But a lot of times those staging plans don’t work because you’re held up somewhere and can’t work on those stages.  So while those are made a part of the contract, they have to be modified from time to time to make it work.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 I used Northside as an example.  Was there staging there to try to fix the intersections?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Oh, yeah, there was.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 But the contractor just ignored the stages or what?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 No.  He did it like it was staged to do.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 So it wasn’t staged to fix like Wesleyan and that, he was allowed to just leave that sit there half built for --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Well, the time frame wasn’t planned that way.  I mean it shouldn’t have been that long.  It just happened to draw out that long.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 So the stage had no time?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 No.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 I think my motion would still be in order that that should, you know, we should really look at those problem areas as far as safety concerns and have them in the original bid documents, maybe to even ask the developer, or the contractor, to submit his timetable and that becomes part of the award criteria is that it’s satisfactory.  I get the definite feeling from watching projects, and I see Northside every day, that the time frames are so long and so non-specific that they’re used as filler projects.  The contractor, because he’ll go away for a month or two and then come back, so I really think he probably has other contracts that have much more stringent time requirements, pulls his crews to satisfy those and uses our projects as filler at great inconvenience to the citizens in Macon and Bibb County.  I don’t think that’s right.  And, you know, maybe we get a better deal, but I think really it’s just benefitting the contractor.  He has one project that has, that is very loose, and he tends to come and go as he wants.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Well, those projects, they really are hard to micro-manage, especially without being part of them and knowing all the things.  I mean I could list a hundred things that he ought to do, but he probably couldn’t do two of them, you know.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Yeah.  But I wonder if we even look at some of those real critical safety issues.  I mean is there any reason that the Wesleyan/Northside intersection couldn’t have been done early on?  I mean there’s nothing there that you would think would have slowed it down.  I never go that way because of the traffic, but every morning traffic is backed up all the way past the school and it’s just extremely hazardous.  And it’s been going on to me a year more than it had to.  It could have been fixed right up front.  I think the same thing about Marlowe.  It could have been fixed at the very beginning stages of the contract.  There was nothing that influenced it.  The problems on Northside is that they had a very bad gully that took them a horrendous amount of time to get fixed.  But that became the point that pushed everything else back unnecessarily.  And they could have finished some parts that were critical and left the hard part until last which affected the fewest people.  

When you get to Houston and some of these where there’s a lot of businesses, especially small businesses, you can put them out of business if you disrupt the place longer than necessary.  I mean there’s really economic repercussions for the area, too, when you start harming businesses.  I would invite a second to my motion.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Yeah.  I was going to say do we have a second to the motion?

MR. WIGHT:		 I’ll give it a second to get it on the table.

MR. DUNWODY:		 State the motion again before we vote.  Has anybody got any questions about it, or does anybody want to comment on it?

MR. FISCHER:	  	 I’ll restate it and I’ll give you a written copy.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Good.  That will be great.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 There’s another motion I’m going to make on this same page.  Did everybody get one?  I move that a recommendation be forwarded to the Executive Committee of the Road Improvement Program that all future contracts include staging requirements and strict construction time frames and minimize inconvenience and danger to adjacent properties and the traveling public.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Seconded by Tom?

MR. WIGHT:		 I’ll second it.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Does anybody have any comments?

MR. WIGHT:		 Yeah, now I’ll make a comment.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Okay.

MR. WIGHT:		 Without explaining in more detail what you’re talking about to me when you start it out this way it sounds like we’re recommending something that Moreland Altobelli is already trying to do, or should be trying to do.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Right.

MR. WIGHT:		 So I’m wondering if there’s just not another way.  It’s just good business that you’ve raised the issue now and it’s in our minutes.  And why does it need --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Well --

MR. WIGHT:		 -- to go to the Executive Committee?

MR. FISCHER:	  	 -- it doesn’t, if you remember we just had two letters that we sent to them where we brought up issues.  It’s just to bring it to their attention.  One they saw as a problem and one they saw it wasn’t, but they resolved both.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Right.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And we’re strictly advisory.  It’s a matter of getting things on the table.  I will guarantee you that members of the Executive Committee won’t pour over our minutes, but they do respond to resolutions.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Right.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And I think they took it very seriously.  I used an example and Van pointed out the kind of staging that I would have anticipated was not done in that project.  So the staging may be geared more to engineering issues than to public convenience and safety.  And I’m just saying let’s put that on the table.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Traffic --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 The --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Traffic is the issue when you’re staging.  You’ve got to take care of the traffic and you’ve got to take care of it in a safe manner, and that’s the ultimate, that’s the real concern for the staging is that.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 But if that were the case, then Marlowe would have been fixed and Wesleyan would have been fixed, and it would have been fixed probably a year ago.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 You’re just talking about the time frame though.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Well, isn’t staging and time, don’t they go hand-in-hand?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 No, they don’t go hand-in-hand really because something is entered into the equation there that we don’t know what it is that has kept them from doing that work.

MR. SHEPARD:		 The weather has been a real problem.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Whether it’s the weather or a utility or something that has got into the equation that, you know, we don’t know all 
the --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Well, I think from watching the project they were, I don’t think they have any direction that there is any local concern so they do it, you know, like it looks like they put pavement out when they have a paving crew available.  There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to how they utilize the segment where it’s incomplete.  So it seems that, you know, most contractors would respond to some direction if there were local concerns or issues.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I think the local concern has been expressed.  I know the Chairman along with myself has expressed those concerns to Georgia DOT about the project dragging on as long as it has.  Of course Georgia DOT has managed more projects than anybody in the state, you know.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 So they’re managing Northside?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Oh, yeah.  And so --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And of course they --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 As far as the state of the art in what is known, they know it.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 But, again, I think there is an engineering bias versus a public bias, and I think the proof is in the pudding that on almost every major project you see these letters to the editor in the paper expressing concern.  I know on Zebulon even there were editorials because some of the editorial staff lives out there.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I know concerns have been expressed to Georgia DOT.  I mean I’ve done it myself several times already on the project.  And they tell me they’re doing the best they can with it.  

MR. PACE:		 You already have a time frame, don’t you, for --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes, sir.  The time frame is set up for the whole contract.

MR. PACE:		 Right.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 And on this particular project they told me they’re about a year over that time now.

MR. WIGHT:		 Do they put penalties in their contracts?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 They do.  But it’s just like --

MR. WIGHT:		 But they can be waived based on --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 -- we were talking a while ago.

MR. DUNWODY:		 For the weather or the utilities, somebody else is holding them up --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Right.

MR. DUNWODY:		 -- and they can make allowances for them.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 That’s right.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 What causes contractors to just pull off a project for a couple of months at a time?  I mean is it --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 If they’ve got work there, they usually don’t leave.  Something has affected the work where they don’t have productive work.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Are you sure it’s not just other projects with tighter --

MR. SHEPARD:		 If you’re going to be held up --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 -- time constraints?

MR. SHEPARD:		 -- on a job for several weeks, you just can’t let hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of equipment just sit there.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 No.

MR. SHEPARD:		 I mean you’ve got to have it working.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Right.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 But it looks like they just go away for no apparent reason, you know, without a reason.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Well, that’s what it looks like to us because we’re there, but we don’t know why he left or where he went.  He may still have his equipment parked somewhere where it’s not productive.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Yeah.  Sometimes the equipment is still there but they’re just not doing anything.  You’re right.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 But it’s costing him money when you see that equipment sitting there not being used.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 I just think that more attention could be paid and could be communicated to the contractor there are local issues that we would like to get resolved to minimize inconvenience and safety concerns.  And I don’t think for the most part the ones I mentioned would make any difference whatsoever to the contractor.  He’d probably be more than happy to oblige if somebody just said something to him.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Anyone else that’s got any comments?  If not, are you ready to vote?  

MR. WIGHT:		 I’ll just say I mean I don’t have any way to gauge this.  This is outside my area of expertise.  And so I’m not comfortable.  I mean to me it sounds like something they should already be doing.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Right.  It does to me, too, Tom, I hate to tell you.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And I feel the same way, too.  It’s something that should be done.  The proof is in the pudding.  It doesn’t seem to be.  That’s why I made the motion.

MR. SHEPARD:		 Being a contractor myself, and I know the ins and outs and what can hold you up and I mean nobody has work that they just don’t do, you know.  I abstain from voting either way.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Are you ready to vote?  All in favor of the motion, say, “aye”.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 “Aye”.

MR. DUNWODY:		 All opposed, “no”. (No response).  Well, we’ve got one “aye”.  Is anybody else going to vote?

MR. WIGHT:		 I don’t feel qualified to vote.

MR. PACE:		 I don’t either, I mean.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Are you all going to vote?

MS. FORD:		 Uh-uh (negatively).  It’s picky-nit to me.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 What?

MS. FORD:		 It’s just picking out things to want to talk about.  I don’t see any interest.  I’m not interested.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 You all have got me now.  We’ve got, nobody is voting.  The motion is going to fail because everybody has abstained.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Well, the motion carries.  The ayes have it.

MR. DUNWODY:		 What’s that?

MR. FISCHER:	  	 The motion carries.  The ayes have it.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Well, the ayes have it so far but nobody else is voting.  Now, I don’t know Roberts Rules of Order well enough to tell you that everybody else abstains and we’ve got one vote for it.  I really don’t see any harm in the motion.  I mean it can go up to the Executive Committee and they can do what they want to do with it.  I don’t have a problem with the motion, but I do understand that there are a lot of problems that don’t meet the eye when they’re building roads or --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And, you know --

MR. DUNWODY:		 -- any other construction.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 -- when there is reflection given, there might be all kinds of, they might decide that they’re doing it, and again that will come back to us.  I would be reassured if that were the case.  At least I’d know somebody looked at it.  Even if they did nothing, but they looked at it and determined that the problem is adequately handled.  But, you know, I do feel that there has been such a consistency with this dragging on that it pays to look at it.  That’s all that motion is asking is that they look at it.

MR. WIGHT:		 One thing that you said in your later discussion that’s not actually in the motion, and I think, you know, just for the future that it’s something that we certainly would be interested in everybody making an extra effort on is when we’re starting on like Houston and others where you could inconvenience small businesses, that’s not just an inconvenience anymore, that’s somebody’s, you know, livelihood.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Yeah, that’s their bread and butter.

MR. WIGHT:		 And so, you know, in that context of future projects then I would be supportive of some communication just to ask for special, extra special checking over.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 I would amend my motion to read adjacent properties, businesses, and the traveling public because I think you’re right.  I think that needs to be emphasized.  Will the second accept that?

MR. WIGHT:		 Yeah, I’ll accept that.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Where are you amending it now?

MR. FISCHER:		 Okay.  I’m amending it in the very last sentence to minimize inconvenience and danger to adjacent properties, businesses, and the traveling public because I totally agree that should be emphasized.

MR. DUNWODY:		 And that’s accepted by the second?

MR. WIGHT:		 Yes.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Okay.  Are you all ready to try a vote again?  All in favor of the motion signify by saying, “aye”.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 “Aye”.

MR. WIGHT:		 “Aye”.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Opposed, “no”.  The ayes have it.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Thank you very much.

MR. DUNWODY:		 So we’ll send the motion to the Executive Committee for their consideration.  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Any other questions about the report on any of the projects in here?  That’s all I had, Mr. Chairman.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Thank you, Van.  Appreciate that.  Have we got any comments from the audience?  Have we got any old business that we need to tend to?  How about new business?

MR. FISCHER:	  	 At the last Executive meeting, I guess it was what, last week, again the issue came up of citizens having adequate opportunity to have input into the Road Improvement projects.  The Executive Committee met last week for the first time in 18 months, and recently the Technical Advisory Committee for the Road Program moved its meeting to 10 O’clock and enacted protocols that restricts input to the very tail end of the meeting.  So they really don’t allow citizen participation during discussion of issues.  It’s sort of a what I thought was a connotation was that this committee was supposed to be doing that, giving an opportunity for citizens to have input.  Unfortunately, as you can see today, our time isn’t too convenient because people have to take off work to attend our meeting.  

The CAC, which is our counterpart in the metropolitan planning organization moved its meeting to 5 O’clock to accommodate public participation.  It also has started conducting meetings out in the project areas so that citizens have a better opportunity.  They had one over in Shirley Hills.  They had another one over in the Beall’s Hill area.  And I think they had such good reaction that they’re planning to have more.  So they’re actually going out into the community at a convenient time.  

I think it absolutely behooves us to try to do everything we can to make our meeting more accessible.  I therefore move that the regular meeting time of the Citizens Oversight Committee be moved to 5:00 P.M. in order to afford citizens of Bibb County an opportunity to attend.

MR. DUNWODY:		 Do we have a second?

MR. WIGHT:		 I’ll second that one from a selfish viewpoint because I’ve missed about the last four or five or six meetings because I haven’t been able to leave work to be here.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And I understand that there has been problems even finding people who will serve on this committee for that very reason because a lot of people just can’t take off during the day.  So there’s been even a problem in soliciting membership to serve on the committee.  At the last meeting, we didn’t even have a quorum.  It’s really rough for people who want to do it but can’t.  And we are a Citizens Oversight Committee.  We’re supposed to be one of the primary opportunities for the citizens of Macon to have representation and a voice.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Anymore comments?

MR. SHEPARD:		 Well, to me 5 O’clock would be more difficult for me to take off than 2:00 because that’s closing time.  The traffic is really heavy.  And most people work until 5:00 or 5:30.  If we’re going to make it in the afternoon, I’d suggest that we amend that until about 6:30 because if somebody can’t make it at 2:00, they can’t make it at 5:00 unless they happen to be on the first shift, which is, I think most people would be, 5 O’clock would be a getting off time.  They couldn’t possibly make a meeting here unless they got off work early.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 I’d be willing to amend the motion to a later time if you feel that’s, I know I picked 5:00 because that’s what the CAC did.  But I agree with you that a bit later could be even more helpful.

MR. DUNWODY:		 What’s your wish?

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Does anyone else think it should be 6:00?

MR. PACE:		 Well, it, me, for example, I’ve scheduled this and I know that I’m going to be here.  But if you change it to 5:00, I know I won’t be here.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Would 6:00 be more convenient?

MR. PACE:		 I’ve got other commitments already.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Three months away you have commitments already?

MR. PACE:		 Huh?

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Three months from now you have commitments already?

MR. PACE:		 I have a year-round commitment for Thursday, so --

MR. FISCHER:	  	 What time is your commitment?

MR. PACE:		 Like, for example, I have a 7 O’clock meeting, and if we come in at 5:00, I’m not sure that I’ll be able to make that 7 O’clock meeting.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 Now, most of our meetings have been an hour or less.  But if we really had participation they may be longer.  I’d have to grant you that.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 Anymore comments?  Are you ready to vote?  All in favor of changing the meeting, signify by raising your hand.  All opposed, raise your hand.  Motion fails.  We’ll still meet at 2:00.  

MR. WIGHT:		 I’ll try to do better about getting here.

MR. PACE:		 The thing about it is, especially the members, when they agreed to be on this committee, they knew what time it was going to be.  

MR. WIGHT:		 No, we didn’t.

MR. PACE:		 And if they --

MR. WIGHT:		 We didn’t know until the first meeting we came to and we reached a concensus as a group as best we could.  

MR. PACE:		 Yeah.  That’s right.

MR. WIGHT:		 But we could have resigned then after we had accepted.

MR. PACE:		 Right.

MR. WIGHT:		 Just for clarity on that point.  

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And I will come no matter when we schedule it when I made the commitment.  But I don’t think it should be done for my convenience or for any member of the committee’s convenience, it should be done to best serve the public since we’re supposed to be an opportunity for the public.

MR. PACE:		 I’ve said this before.  We met at the Courthouse and everybody said it’s just not convenient for them to get into the Courthouse that they needed to change it, so we changed it to here.  And now we don’t have any, we don’t have as many people attending as we did at the Courthouse.  So I don’t think the people really care about coming.

MR. FISCHER:	  	 And I don’t know.  I mean you might be right.  I have no idea.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 All right.  Our next meeting date is October the 16th at 2:00 P.M.  If there is no further business I’ll entertain a motion for adjournment.

MR. WIGHT:		 So moved.  

MR. DUNWODY:		 If there is no objection, the meeting is adjourned.

(MEETING ADJOURNED)

 

 	CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

STATE OF GEORGIA

COUNTY OF MONROE.

I hereby certify that the within and foregoing record is a true, complete and correct transcript of the proceeding taken by me on the 17th day of July, 2003.

     This 25th day of July, 2003. 

       		                                
        PATRICIA C. USSERY, CCR
    Certificate No. B-1238