Claude Joiner Reporting Service, Inc. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MACON-BIBB COUNTY SALES TAX ROAD PROGRAM JULY 11, 2002 4:06 P.M. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: BOB FOUNTAIN BILL CAUSEY TOM QUEEN VERNON RYLE SCOTT STALNAKER BILL WIKLE OTHERS PRESENT: JIMMY CONNER STEPHEN DANIEL MICHAEL A. DEEP STEVE DUVAL MELVIN EWING JULIE GROCE SUSAN HANBERRY JOE JOHNSON ANTHONY LEWIS LEE MARTIN CAM OETTER JOE PATTERSON, JR. TERRIE SALTER SHERRIE SAWYER TOM SCHOLL GARY C. SCHULTZ CHRISTOPHER SCHWARZEN KEN SHEETS BRINK STOKES JIM THOMAS DON TUSSING REPORTED BY: PATRICIA C. USSERY, CCR B-1238 CLAUDE JOINER REPORTING SERVICE, INC. 410 AMERICAN FEDERAL BUILDING P. O. BOX 94 MACON, GEORGIA 31202-0094 TELEPHONE: 478/742-6611 or 746-7804 MR. FOUNTAIN: Let's call our meeting of July 11th 2002, to order. We have our May minutes, May the 2nd minutes before us. Are there any corrections, additions or deletions to our minutes? If not, could I have a motion for approval of the minutes? MR. WIKLE: So moved. MR. FOUNTAIN: Do I have a second? MR. QUEEN: Second. MR. FOUNTAIN: All in favor, say, "aye" UNISON: "Aye". MR. FOUNTAIN: Opposed? (No response). So carried. Item 3 is our community comments. There will be another opportunity under Item 9 if you'd like to wait while we go through the agenda. Tom. MR. SCHOLL: Bob, I'd like to ask what the name of the project that is proposed for the end of Eisenhower Parkway, what is the name of that project? I keep hearing Fall Line Freeway and I keep hearing Eisenhower Parkway Extension. And in some meetings DOT is making statements that it's not the Fall Line Freeway, the Fall Line Freeway and the Eisenhower Parkway extension are two different projects, and other times we're finding out that it's a section of the Fall Line Freeway. We don't understand. I'd like some clarification from this body, if I could, what that project is, what the name of it is and why we're having a problem with this name. MR. FOUNTAIN: Tom, I'll tell you my understanding of it is, and if anybody's got anything any different, they're welcome to share it. But long before there was a Fall Line Freeway there was Eisenhower Parkway Extension. The Eisenhower Parkway Extension goes back to the 1960s as I understand it. It's a very old project. It was put in our transportation plan by the late Francis Shurling, Tred's dad. It actually took it on past I-16 and it actually wrapped it around into Shurling Drive at that time, in the old plan that was published in the late 50's early '60s. We have had that project a long time in our community. After that, the State came out with what they called the Fall Line Freeway and superimposed that on part of our system, laid it on top of what we called the Eisenhower Parkway Extension. And I guess at times they can be synonymous with one another. But that would be the State's call. I guess they could call it anything they want to. But our local project all along has been the Eisenhower Parkway Extension. Now that was dropped. I know that MATS Policy asked that it be added back in so that we would always maintain some difference because it was a project and no one wanted it to get lost in the translation for our Fall Line Freeway. MR. CAUSEY: What's in the TIP right now? MR. FOUNTAIN: I'm not sure. Is Vernon coming? MR. CAUSEY: He's supposed to be here. MR. FOUNTAIN: That was my understanding. MR. CAUSEY: But it's really an extension of 16. MR. SCHOLL: The project -- MR. FOUNTAIN: It has an FLF number MR. SCHOLL: -- starts FLF, so when did that FLF get in there? MR. FOUNTAIN: I don't know. MR. SCHOLL: We have somebody from GDOT. Can you tell me whether GDOT regards it as the Fall Line Freeway? MR. QUEEN: FLF funding came about in about 1987, 1989, somewhere along in that time. The Eisenhower Extension as Bob said was around prior to that, and there was a project with an interchange at 16 that was I-16 -- 191 or 2, because 91 was the Spring Street/2nd Street project that was looked into several years ago. In various forms we've had an extension to the Eisenhower Parkway tied to I-16. MR. SCHOLL: Does GDOT consider the Eisenhower Parkway Extension as part of the Fall Line Freeway? MR. QUEEN: We have environmental studies underway, and if I'm not mistaken they may mention that as the Fall Line Freeway. MR. FOUNTAIN: It's one of the ones being studied MR. SCHOLL: So you're saying that Eisenhower Parkway, if I hear you, is possibly a part of the Fall Line Freeway, we don't know yet? Am I correct in that statement. MR. FOUNTAIN: That's my understanding of it. MR. SCHOLL: Thank you. MR. FOUNTAIN: Susan. MS. HANBERRY: Hi. I'm Susan Hanberry. We also have a Citizens Advisory Committee meeting today and I might have to leave early, so I just wanted to get my question in before you had a discussion about Forest Hill Road. I have the minutes of the meeting that was held on June 16, 1998, at the Georgia Department of Transportation in Atlanta. And with regard to the Forest Hill Road project there is a statement in here from GDOT Utilities that says that there are 66 power poles and 21 BellSouth poles that will have to be moved if there is a four-lane alternate and that with the three lane alternative that that does not require moving all of those poles. And this is, I hadn't really heard this discussed in anything, and I'm concerned about that for a couple of reasons. One is the taxpayer. There was an article in today's New York Times that said, the title of it is Study Finds Steady Overruns in Public Projects. And this is a huge expense, and I don't know that I've ever seen that or ever seen that cost factored in when we look at how much this project is going to cost. And I'd just like to make sure that that comes up as an item in every bit of discussion that happens about Forest Hill Road from this point on. Also, if there's extra right of way required for that, that needs to be shown clearly on any footprints that are proposed to the public. Otherwise we're not getting a fair idea of what's happening in that project. Thank you. MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you Susan. MR. CAUSEY: Can we ask him to clarify for us the TIP. MR. FOUNTAIN: Certainly. Vernon. MR. RYLE: What? MR. FOUNTAIN: We had a question -- MR. RYLE: I don't know. MR. FOUNTAIN: How is it carried in our TIP? I think that was the question. MR. RYLE: The TIP doesn't have that detailed of a description that I'm aware of. MR. CAUSEY: It says a from and to, doesn't it? MR. RYLE: Oh, yes, it does. I don't have it with me. It's a two -- MR. FOUNTAIN: It's available for anybody to go see it? MR. RYLE: Oh, yes. MR. QUEEN: From Lower Boundary to a point at I-16. MR. CAUSEY: Where? MR. QUEEN: To I-16. MR. CAUSEY: To I-16? MR. RYLE: It's whatever your breakout is in your -- I'll be glad to bring it, and I probably should bring a copy of the TIP to the meetings, so I'll do that in the future. MR. FOUNTAIN: Okay. We'll move on to Item 4 and we'll come back again under Item 9 if someone else has got some comments. Our public meetings, Steve, do you want to bring as an update on those? MR. DUVAL: I'll be glad to. Good afternoon everyone. The first public meeting I'll, well, the one, the only public meeting that we've had since this last meeting was a stakeholders meeting for Forest Hill Road, and that happened on May 30th, and it was at the Holiday Inn conference room. And we had a, I think we had a pretty spirited meeting there. We had several people in attendance but it was, as far as the actual dialogue, it was limited to those stakeholders who were, you know, placed on this stakeholder group. We had a lot of media coverage there. I think we had media coverage, you know, prior to that, a lot of media coverage prior to that particular meeting and also afterwards. And, again, you know, I think it was well attended by the citizens in that area. And, you know, for my part, from my point of view, I think it was a successful stakeholders meeting. MR. FOUNTAIN: We have not heard any official reply yet, have we, Steve -- MR. DUVAL: No, we have not. MR. FOUNTAIN: -- from Georgia DOT on our hearing? All right, Steve. MR. DUVAL: And also, I wanted just to bring to the attention of this committee that there is a public information meeting scheduled for July 18th at Sonny Carter School, and that's in regard to the Zebulon Road at I-475 project. And that meeting will be starting at 5 o'clock, I believe. If those times change, you know, I'll let you know. MR. QUEEN: It is 5 o'clock. MR. DUVAL: It is 5 o'clock, okay. And that is a DOT meeting. They will be conducting that meeting out there. MR. FOUNTAIN: Bill, where are we at on our turning lanes on Zebulon Road as far, I mean the signal for the off ramp? MR. WIKLE: I think the construction is either under way or about to start, and the signal permit is in Atlanta. MR. FOUNTAIN: What does that mean? Does that mean that it's approved or it has to come back? MR. WIKLE: That means it has to be acted upon and returned to us. MR. FOUNTAIN: Before we get approval? MR. WIKLE: Yes. MR. RYLE: There's two approvals on that, wasn't it, Bill, one for that variance from the line on the widening of the road and the second one -- MR. WIKLE: The first one was for the turn lanes. MR. RYLE: So the first one has been approved for the turn lanes? MR. WIKLE: Right. MR. RYLE: And the second one has not been approved yet? MR. WIKLE: That's correct. MR. RYLE: Okay. MR. ETHERIDGE: And as far as the contractor, we have been negotiating a price to do that work. We have reached what we think is a fair price now, and we have sent him the supplemental agreement and he has not signed it and sent it back. As soon as he does that, we can start construction. MR. CAUSEY: Can I ask a question? MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes. MR. CAUSEY: On Forest Hill Road, we're waiting to hear from David Gretchen (phonetically), is that what I understood? MR. FOUNTAIN: Bill, it's my understanding we're waiting to hear from Georgia DOT. Georgia DOT will reply to us and Mr. Gretchen at Federal Highway will talk to Georgia DOT. I don't think they're going to talk directly to, not to me, and I don't think the county, but, Chairman, I think the Chairman might know. MR. OLMSTEAD: Not a word, not on Forest Hill. MR. FOUNTAIN: I'd like to recognize our Chairman. Thank you, Chairman, for taking time out of your schedule to attend this meeting. So this meeting will be the 18th. That's a week from today. It's from 5:00 to 7:00 at Carter School. All right. Moving right along to Item 5, our bids received. Van. MR. ETHERIDGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bibb County received bids on May 30th for improvements on Forsyth Street. That's the section that starts at I-75 and comes down to City Hall. It's known as Project 5- A-2 right now. We only received two bids, one from Shepherd and one from APAC. Both bids were real close, and they are shown under Tab 5A if any of you want to look at them. They were real close in cost. And there were some 78 items to be bid there and 27 of those items were considered too high. The bids are 35 percent over the engineer's estimate, and we would recommend that both bids be rejected. And we should look at the trimming this project in the future and taking out any unnecessary work that might be involved in that and get more in line with what the budgeted funds are. And in the future when we rebid it we recommend that we consider combining it with another project to try to get a more competitive bid. So with that, we recommend that they be rejected. MR. RYLE: Would it be appropriate for me to make that motion? MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes. MR. RYLE: Okay. I so move. MR. FOUNTAIN: Second? MR. CAUSEY: Second, but can we discuss it? MR. FOUNTAIN: Discussion? MR. CAUSEY: Will we look at the items to be deleted at some point in the future? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes. MR. FOUNTAIN: I'm going to ask Van to set us up a little study group, Bill, to get together -- MR. CAUSEY: Okay. MR. FOUNTAIN: -- to see if we can downsize this project to get it within budget, and then we'll start working on it immediately. MR. QUEEN: It looks like some of the landscaping item, there was quite a bit of difference in them. MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes. MR. QUEEN: And the irrigation is over double. MR. ETHERIDGE: Labor was high. MR. FOUNTAIN: Okay. All in favor, say, "aye" UNISON: "Aye". MR. FOUNTAIN: Opposed? (No response). So carried. MR. ETHERIDGE: The second project that Bibb County let on the 30th of May was the intersection street name sign upgrades. This is a project that has over 2000 intersections in it. And we had four bids, and the low bid came in 583,000, but it was 76 percent above the engineer's cost estimate of the project. And we'd recommend that all four of the bids be rejected, and before the project is relet, we need to look at the design of that sign assembly to see if it can possibly be redesigned to cost less, and look at the materials that we specified to be used to see if they can be changed to get a better price. Also, the number of intersections that we've got in there might need to be reevaluated to get the cost more in line with what the budgeted funds are. So with that, we would recommend that we reject all of those. MR. FOUNTAIN: You've heard the recommendation by our Project Manager. MR. QUEEN: So moved. MR. RYLE: Second. May I ask a question? Is there any way we might could get with Georgia DOT? I mean do they do similar signs so that maybe they could include these in one of the larger bids so we might get them cheaper? Van, I have no idea how they do their signs. I'm just asking here. MR. QUEEN: I thought we got them through Correctional Industries. I know on our public meeting signs, we have to get them through the prison. MR. RYLE: We're talking about street signs. I know the State has to post small signs all along the Interstates. MR. QUEEN: Don't we get them through -- MR. STOKES: All our standard roadway signs are Correctional Industries. MR. RYLE: So all the signs are regardless? MR. QUEEN: Yes. MR. FOUNTAIN: We can buy from Corrections. There's nothing to prohibit us. MR. RYLE: I just wonder if it might be cheaper. MR. ETHERIDGE: That might be a thing we can look at to see if we can buy them cheaper there. MR. FOUNTAIN: We may want to let them bid. MR. ETHERIDGE: I don't think they bid. MR. FOUNTAIN: They do not? They are not competitive at all? MR. WIKLE: They don't install. MR. QUEEN: They don't install? I thought they did bid. MR. ETHERIDGE: Bid? MR. QUEEN: You may check with them. MR. FOUNTAIN: We may want to check and see if the Prison System -- MR. ETHERIDGE: I think you can negotiate with them. I don't think they bid, but you can negotiate with them. MR. FOUNTAIN: All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? (No response). All in favor, say, " aye" UNISON: "Aye". MR. FOUNTAIN: Opposed? (No response). So carried. MR. ETHERIDGE: And the third project that was let for the In Town sidewalks phase one repair, some 14 streets to get sidewalk repairs, we only had one bidder and that was Secal Environmental. The bid is 20 percent below the engineer's estimate and it is recommended that this bid be awarded to Secal. Secal has not done work for the Road Program before now, but it has done work for the City, Brown and Williamson, the Board of Education and Beers Construction. Sam James is the President and CEO, and he has an office on Vineville Avenue. They are equipped to do the work. They've got the necessary tractor and equipment, backhoes and trucks to do that. We, of course, checked out his references. The firm is an MBE, and we'd recommend that they be given an opportunity to do this project. MR. FOUNTAIN: You've heard the recommendation of our Program Manager. Is there a motion to accept these. MR. CAUSEY: So moved. MR. FOUNTAIN: We have a motion. Second? MR. RYLE: Second. MR. FOUNTAIN: Discussion? Van, you feel comfortable with them? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, I think they can do it. MR. FOUNTAIN: All in favor, say, "aye". UNISON: "Aye". MR. FOUNTAIN: Opposed? (No response). So carried. Thank you. All right, moving to Item 6, Joe, our proposed intersection improvements at College and Washington Avenue. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon everyone. These drawings here represent College Street at Georgia Avenue and College Street at Washington and Hardeman. This is the same drawing that we brought to this committee about a year ago. At the last meeting the Chairman asked us to bring these back to the committee and give an update of where our concept stands now and get some direction from the committee of what we want to move ahead with. I'll just explain the intersection real quick for anybody who is not familiar with it. This is Georgia Avenue coming back into downtown, College Street. This is where the United States Post Office is. What our plan wants to do is to add another lane going out-of- town on Georgia Avenue which is represented by these two arrows here. The widening which would occur in this intersection is a slight widening of the radius on this corner across from the Post Office and about a foot and a half to two foot widening along this side, on the south side of the roadway. That's pretty much to take the place of the dirt and grass strip that's there now. The sidewalk will remain where it is and the curb will just be moved back slightly. That would have the effect of letting us have two lanes out and one lane coming in. The lane widths will be 11 foot, 10 foot and 11 foot. These darker areas that you see shaded here would actually be a tightening up or a smaller, a reduction of the intersection. By bulbing these radiuses out we'll have a little more room for plantings and also it will allow pedestrians a much shorter crossing distance. That is shown in the shade out here, but we have not gotten to the point where we can show where the sidewalks and trees would be. We needed to get with our landscape architect before that was done. Myself and Mr. Wikle put truck templates on there and this will accommodate buses and your local delivery trucks. The only difference on this drawing and the one that you saw last year at this time is this radius right here which is slightly reduced so that a truck or a bus could make that turn. That's where we stand right now with that intersection. MR. FOUNTAIN: Bill, those radiuses that are plotted there, you can get a bus around those without crossing over into the opposing lane. MR. WIKLE: Yes. MR. RYLE: And the only change to that intersection would be just not moving out into the intersection as much on the radius there? MR. JOHNSON: Right. In other words, it's still -- MR. RYLE: Did you fix the radius there so that you could have a turn and instead of moving out -- in other words, what I'm trying to say is we're not taking more land away -- MR. JOHNSON: Right, we're taking less land away. There will be more distance between the homes and the travel way. There will be less property taken. MR. RYLE: But it's not that much different, though, right? MR. JOHNSON: No. Five feet maybe. But we're gaining about 10, 15 feet. MR. ETHERIDGE: Joe, there is some parking there that will be done away with. MR. JOHNSON: There is parking on one side of the street now. To get three lanes in here in this block between this street and here, these houses here, there will be no parking on either side of the street at any anytime. MR. FOUNTAIN: Where are you taking it off of? Aren't you taking it off of this side? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. And all these houses do have off street parking, and some of them do use the on street parking for convenience, but each of the houses does have off street parking. Yes, ma'am. MS. GROCE: (Inaudible). Is this the same drawing that I brought you last June that had been approved by -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am. MS. GROCE: Because ours has marked three lanes of 10 feet across on Georgia Avenue and you're saying now 11, 10, 11. MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. That's the drawing that I had that you had given me last June. MS. GROCE: Because mine says 10, 10, 10. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Well, we can compare them. MS. GROCE: But it doesn't, is this the one that you made the corrections to the turning radius that we asked for? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, ma'am, that's correct. The other intersection is Washington Avenue, which is here, Hardeman and College. This is the library at this location and this right here is the U.S. Post Office. What we're doing here is adding turn lanes that will improve the efficiency of the intersection. The only widening that you will see will be Washington Avenue on the library side. Our landscape architect, Russell Claxton, has done various renditions of what this would look like once it's finished. We have in effect 4 lanes on Washington Avenue, 11 foot, 10 foot, 10 foot and 11 foot. The widening will stop when you get to the second driveway going into the parking lot of the library. The radius would be improved at this point here. On this side of, from the park, from Washington Park, right now anybody that drives knows there's a kink in the road and you have to drive a little bit towards the Post Office you have to shift over almost 15 feet where actually it will be a bulging out of the radius at this point to get more of a lineup when you start traveling northbound coming from the Post Office. MR. RYLE: Why did -- MR. CAUSEY: Why did you change that? MR. JOHNSON: This one right here we've done a little more work on, and we actually had the location of the sidewalk. It's just the drawings are done different. MR. CAUSEY: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: But there's really no difference in the type of bulge out. MR. ETHERIDGE: Those trees that were beside the library, those oaks won't be affected. MR. JOHNSON: We do show a small wall here of the type that would not require a railing, maybe a foot or a foot and a half tall and that will enable us to save the large trees along the library there. Of course there has been different additions to add some additional landscaping, but we're not to the point yet that we've got a final landscaping concept. This is where our drawings sit right now. This is really as far as we've gone in the past while. MR. FOUNTAIN: And as I understand it, we've met with In Town and we've got pretty much a sign off from In Town. MS. GROCE: But it includes enhancements between Washington and Georgia Avenue that Russell Claxton drew, and all that tree cover and all that nice pretty stuff in the middle. That was the deal the neighborhood signed off was two intersections and the trees between, not two intersections. MR. WIKLE: That's true. MR. CAUSEY: That's true. MR. FOUNTAIN: Now I was approached by Gordon Bennett, III. MS. GROCE: I'm aware. MR. FOUNTAIN: And he told me that you all might want to participate in the landscaping. MS. GROCE: He didn't mean we'd pay for it. He just meant we wanted to talk about it. As president of In Town, I can tell you he didn't say we'd participate. MR. FOUNTAIN: I think he told me he would personally participate. But, anyway, we're glad to hear that, Joe. MR. CAUSEY: Can we proceed and reactivate Russell? MR. FOUNTAIN: I think so. I think he's bringing it to us if we could move forward with the project with the budgeted funds. MR. ETHERIDGE: We're setting them up now -- MR. FOUNTAIN: A budget transfer. The project, the budget modification this time reallocates these funds. So I think what we need at this time is to go on with our concept and finalize the concept on this and let's move forward with the project. We need a motion. MR. WIKLE: I'll make that motion. MR. FOUNTAIN: I have a motion from Bill Wikle. Is there a second? MR. RYLE: Second. MR. FOUNTAIN: Vernon second. Discussion? All in favor, say, aye. UNISON: "Aye". MR. FOUNTAIN: So carried. Now we're going to work with, Joe, with In Town? MR. JOHNSON: We're going to set up a meeting with them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. FOUNTAIN: That's a good, it changes that shift on College Street. Thank you, Joe. All right, Van, Item 7, Budget Modification Number 13. MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. Under Tab 7 is a copy of a proposed budget modification 13. Budgets are generally needed to be modified when the project is first set up, again when the project concept is prepared, like we're talking about here, also when you get the design completed and also when you let the thing to contract it usually has to be adjusted; and, also, when you final the thing out. The modifications, the route that they travel is that they come here first, they're approved by the TAC, they then go to the Bibb County Public Works and then they go to the Bibb County Commission for approval. So what we're showing today is some projects that need the budget modified. And I'll be happy to go through them each if you all would like. MR. FOUNTAIN: Bill is not here with us today. Has Bill gone over these, Van? MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Vaughn couldn't be here today, but he has gone over this modification with me and he has agreed that the projects need to be modified. MR. FOUNTAIN: And he's okay with this? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes. MR. RYLE: Mr. Vaughn, I had a discussion with him earlier about another matter and he asked me to reiterate just exactly what Van said, that he -- MR. ETHERIDGE: Oh, he did. MR. RYLE: -- has gone over them and he's comfortable with what's there. MR. FOUNTAIN: The next step then would be to sit down with the Chairman and go over these? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes. MR. FOUNTAIN: Coming from the committee to the Chairman. You've heard the recommendation of our program managers. All in favor, say, "aye". MR. CAUSEY: I didn't. Could we hear it one more time? MR. FOUNTAIN: Just to accept these budget modifications as presented here, Item 7 on your agenda. MR. ETHERIDGE: The page, Bill, 4 of 5 kind of shows in a little more detail as to how the overruns and underruns work. And according to our calculations, and Mr. Vaughn's, there is money in the budget to handle these. MR. FOUNTAIN: This is a balanced budget, Van? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes. MR. FOUNTAIN: Do we have a motion to approve? MR. RYLE: So moved. MR. FOUNTAIN: Second? MR. WIKLE: Second. MR. FOUNTAIN: All in favor, say, "aye". UNISON: "Aye". MR. FOUNTAIN: Opposed? (No response). So carried. Thank you, Van. I've asked Van to give us an update on our outstanding projects. It's been a couple of months now, so Joe and Van are going to talk about our entire program as it relates to the projects. MR. ETHERIDGE: If I could, I'd like to mention some of the projects that we've got under construction and then some of the right-of-way acquisition projects, and then Joe will talk more in detail about some of the design that we've got going on and maybe some of the environmental studies. The first project is the Bloomfield Drive project. This project starts out on Rocky Creek Road and goes almost up to Eisenhower Parkway. It's about two and a half miles long. Shepherd Construction Company is working on it. He's about a third complete now. The work that's ongoing is utility relocation and some curb and gutter work and grading. It is anticipated that probably in the Spring of next year he'll be through with Bloomfield Drive. The next project is Ingleside Avenue from Riverside Drive to Pierce. Shepherd Construction has that project. It's just getting underway. Utility relocation work is proceeding. Clearing and grubbing is ongoing and some demolition work. The completion date is the end of this year on Ingleside. Also, out at Macon State College, we have several intersections out there around Ivy Drive, College Station and Eisenhower Parkway. Shepherd is doing that work and is 80 percent complete. He's grading on that south entrance and he's done some curb and gutter and base and paving work on there, but it looks like he's going to be through about October of this year on all the Macon State College work. Then out on Northside Drive, the section from Forest Hill to Wesleyan, APAC is the contractor there. He's grading. He's doing staged construction. He's placed a lot of curb and gutter and sidewalks, and he's about 60 percent complete. Out on Houston Road, from Sardis up to 247, APAC is the contractor. He's placing the final paving out there. I've been told it's going to be about four more weeks before the paving will be finished and it possibly could be open. That's a 7.9 million dollar contract that DOT is handling. Also, the drainage improvements at Porterfield Circle out there at Houston Road that goes around to Allen Road is complete now except the grass. They need a little more grass put in out there. Also, the traffic signal we talked about a while back at I-75 southbound at Eisenhower Parkway with Precision Traffic, he has submitted all his equipment submittals and they have been approved by DOT and us and he should be going to work shortly. His completion date is September on that signal. Any questions or discussion about any of the construction projects? Yes, sir? MR. CAUSEY: Well, it's not a discussion. I was going to ask you about Tucker Road. MR. JOHNSON: I've got that one. MR. ETHERIDGE: Joe will talk about that one. I'd also like to mention some of the projects where we're working on right-of-way. The Mercer University project that goes from Log Cabin out to I-475 is well underway. I think there's 157 parcels of right-of-way. 98 of them have been bought, so it's proceeding well. MR. FOUNTAIN: Are we going to make the let date on that project? MR. ETHERIDGE: DOT wants to let it by January of next year, so we ought to be ready by then. Also, the section on Log Cabin Drive from Eisenhower to Mercer University, I think there's three parcels out there that have not been closed, but that project is just about complete as far as right-of-way. And I think that a December letting is in order there from what we hear from DOT. Another section is the Log Cabin at Bloomfield that goes from Eisenhower back to the south and ties into the old five lane road down on Rocky Creek. We've just started acquisitions out there. I think we've acquired maybe 12 or 15 of those 154 parcels. And, also, we're working on Houston Avenue. There's 286 parcels of right-of-way on Houston, and we've acquired 87 of those so far. MR. FOUNTAIN: Van, did you prioritize that project? MR. ETHERIDGE: That project has a phase one and two, and the phase one is from about Newberg Avenue south, and that's the section we're working on now to get that right-of-way complete. MR. FOUNTAIN: What kind of let date are we talking about? MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, we've got a partner in that. DOT is our partner. We've got to get some funds from them to let. MR. FOUNTAIN: Is that State aid? MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes. I suspect we will be ready in a couple of months, or maybe three at the most, as far as right-of-way, but, you know, it's whether those funds will be available. We don't know yet. MR. FOUNTAIN: What kind of money are we looking for, Van, on that? MR. ETHERIDGE: It's considerable money, about a million and a half, I think. Also, I'll mention the Millerfield Road project. 84 parcels are out there, and all of those have been acquired except two, and we're just working on those. MR. FOUNTAIN: Millerfield has been deferred to the next calendar year. MR. OLMSTEAD: Which is now. MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes. MR. FOUNTAIN: Is it the fiscal? MR. ETHERIDGE: Fiscal, yes. I might just mention that Brink Stokes, who is our DOT engineer, is here today, and he has been authorized by the Department to look at Millerfield for construction clearance, which means they are working on that county contract now. MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you, Van. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, I'll go through our projects that are currently under designed. If I missed any of the smaller ones and you all have got a question, please let me know. My first project, which is Project Number 3, which is the South Downtown Connector. We've had plenty of discussion on that project during the past month. Right now I'm working on a concept revision with a new alignment and send that to DOT to get their comments. At that point when we get out concept revised, then we can proceed with design or go from that point, but since the Department is participating on that project we don't really need to go anywhere with that project until we have an approved concept. Projects 6, 7 and 54-A, which are our Jeffersonville Road projects, Jeffersonville Road from Emery Highway back around to Emery Road and Millerfield Road and Cross Keys up around Bristol Drive, each of those roads will be a five-lane project, two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane. Our preliminary plans on each of those projects are complete. We're waiting on our environmental document. That was submitted to DOT back in March, and we just recently received that back with a few minor comments. There was one major comment. The Department wanted us to look at the historic significance of Lakeside Park. We have since had our historians out there and we have resubmitted our historic survey back to the State, but that's going to take 45 days for them to review it, and the State Historic Preservation Officer to review. Once they concur with that, we can have the documented completed and submitted to DOT to push on to Federal Highway. That's where that document is. The design on this project is just sitting on hold until the next stage of the environmental document. Projects 8 and 9, Forest Hill Road, we mentioned those briefly earlier. The preliminary plans are complete. We are waiting to hear from the Department as to how to proceed with that project. Projects 10 and 11, which is the Northwest Parkway and Log Cabin Drive. Log Cabin from Mercer to Hollingsworth Road, tying the Northwest Parkway back into Park Street. The preliminary plans are complete on both of those projects. The environmental document was submitted back in March to the Department, and we have not yet heard from them with any comments? MR. FOUNTAIN: Anything we can do to help with that? MR. JOHNSON: We have placed several phone calls to the reviewers. I guess if they heard from the County, maybe they could help push that along a little bit. But we are not expecting any comments on that. It already has been in review once and sent back so hopefully they'll be ready to send it on to Federal Highway for us. MR. FOUNTAIN: We'll try to check on that for you. MR. JOHNSON: As Van mentioned, Projects 12 and 13, an environmental re-evaluation has to be done every six months for projects that have not been completed. We have just completed that re-evaluation and are sending that to the Department now. Project Number 20, Wesleyan Drive, I have just received construction plans from our design review engineer, so we're ready to go to a public meeting with that design. This is the new design since we have scaled down the project. This will be the first time the public will have officially seen this new design. MR. CAUSEY: Is the signal at the intersection is what it is? MR. JOHNSON: A signal at the intersection, some proposed turn lanes going back into the high school, and there's some turn lanes and grading work at Arkwright. The major project is the signal upgrade and some safety enhancements at the railroad crossing. MR. CAUSEY: Is that all local money? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. MR. CAUSEY: Even the signal work? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. MR. FOUNTAIN: We lost that money. It was set up as Federal aid, but when we changed the design on it the Feds pulled the plug. MR. CAUSEY: They ought to be able to help on the signal, though. MR. JOHNSON: Well, the signal is not on State, the signal that will be installed will not be on a State route. It will be on Rivoli. The State route signal will be on Forsyth, and we'll be upgrading that signal. The next project, Project 22, the Western Loop, we've had one stakeholders meeting. We've met with our consultants. We just heard last week that Jim Pullman has left Kimley-Horn. He was their point man for them on that project. So they're in the process of setting up a team to come down and meet with us and the County and discuss where to go from here. We are waiting on a second stakeholders meeting on that project. Project 23, Tucker Road, I believe you mentioned that a second ago. We have received right-of-way plans from our consultant. We are currently reviewing those making sure they're okay for acquisition. We should have construction plans by next Friday. Once we have construction plans and a new set of right-of-way plans, we'll contact the property owners. I know you had mentioned you wanted to be involved in some of the larger property acquisitions. MR. CAUSEY: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: That project is moving ahead just fine. Project 36, Houston Avenue, Van mentioned the right-of-way status of that. I did meet with the consultant this morning about the plans. The construction plans are coming along fine with that, and we should have those in another month or so. So outside the funding, the project will be ready to let. Project 47, the Sardis Church Road Connector, I should have preliminary plans from our consultant, Kimley-Horn, this month. That's a very large project and there's several bridges in there, so it's going to take a little time to review. I did check with the Department this morning on the environmental document, and they have not yet received the environmental document from their consultant. They expected it two weeks ago, and they're still waiting for that. And, so, our project is really held hostage. MR. FOUNTAIN: Who is the consultant? MR. JOHNSON: JJ&G, Jordan, Jones & Goulding. MR. FOUNTAIN: Can we follow up on that and find out, kind of push that a little bit. MR. JOHNSON: I think Rich Reese (phonetically) is the project manager on that. MR. QUEEN: We've been waiting on JJ&G for that particular one and a couple of others. MR. JOHNSON: And one last project, a small intersection project, Second and Mulberry. It's an intersection enhancement project. Those plans were turned in Monday by the consultant. So we'll be having a quick field plan review and we should be ready to let that project within the next month or so. MR. FOUNTAIN: When we let that, let's take the final plans and go over them with the Chairman. I don't think Chairman has seen them. MR. OLMSTEAD: I haven't seen them. The last time I was here you were talking about what material you were going to use. The bricks are not working out that well. MR. JOHNSON: Are there any other projects, Mr. Chairman, that you want to know about? MR. FOUNTAIN: The Sardis Church, we need to have some kind of inquiry on that so they know somebody is looking at that because we're not putting any time lines on it, so we need to follow up with some type communication to them that we are anxiously awaiting completion of this project. This is a major major transportation project. MR. JOHNSON: That environmental document covers our connector project and the interchange project. MR. FOUNTAIN: Okay. So we can't do anything until it's been approved. MR. CAUSEY: What about the intersections on Bass? MR. JOHNSON: The two intersections on Bass, Moreland Altobelli along with the County are working on traffic signals and turning lanes at Bass Road and Forsyth Road and Bass Road at Rivoli Drive. We are just about to finish with those, and, Ken, I need to schedule a field plan review with your office. MR. FOUNTAIN: As part of the Western Loop project, we had some, what did we call those, urgent needs to be done immediately, and they were adding turn lanes at Forsyth and Bass and Rivoli at Bass, and signalization of those two intersections, which will hold them some years before we get into the Western Loop project. MR. CAUSEY: The Second at Mulberry, you said you just got the plans? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. MR. CAUSEY: Could I get a copy? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. I'll get everybody a copy. I just got them myself and I haven't had time to make copies. But I'll, of course, get with the City and County to do the field plan review. Thank you, Mr. Chairman? MR. FOUNTAIN: Any comments or questions for Van or Joe on our projects? MR. WIKLE: Did the Second at Mulberry project include a sidewalk in front of the Grand Opera House? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. MR. FOUNTAIN: It went all the way to First Street, I think. MR. OLMSTEAD: It was supposed to. MR. ETHERIDGE: We picked up the project at Mercer and design in front of the Grand Opera House. MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes, to correct that. That was a bad step from the street. MR. CAUSEY: Does Russell's project address that? MR. ETHERIDGE: That's part of it. Russell incorporated that into his project. MR. FOUNTAIN: It was in the one I looked at. I have not seen it since we first looked at it. Item 9, our community comments. Is there any comments? Susan? MS. HANBERRY: Susan Hanberry. On the update on the projects, I'd like to comment on a couple of them. On the Western Loop project, I know there was one stakeholders meeting, and I want to remind you all about the last consultant said that he was going to bring the draft of the purpose and needs statement to the second stakeholders meeting so that this was not done the way that so many projects have been done in the past where we have the wrong purpose and needs statement or one that does not meet the community's needs. The second comment is about the South Downtown Connector project. It sounds like we're moving full speed ahead with that, is that correct? MR. FOUNTAIN: Only with the concept. MS. HANBERRY: Because the last public meeting we had, Mr. Etheridge stood up and said if the community doesn't want it, we're not going to do the project, and you heard overwhelmingly that the community does not want the project. Now, I hope that just because this does not include Federal funds that we don't see something ramrodded down the community's throat. I think you need to handle this very carefully, and whatever happens needs to be done with full disclosure and in the light of what the public wants to see, because this is not exactly the way that the public understands that this is proceeding. And I think that this is one of the problems that we continue to have here. I hope that we can get this straightened out. Thank you. MR. FOUNTAIN: Susan, this project will move as any other State project. We will have a concept. The meeting we had was not a public hearing, it was a public meeting. To get into the State system, we will take a concept to a public hearing. MS. HANBERRY: That's fine. But I'm telling you, too, then, you are misrepresenting things to the public. And the people who were in that meeting, and there were 100 plus people at that meeting, heard you say if we don't want the project, we're not going to build it. MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, they didn't hear him say it. They heard me say it. MS. HANBERRY: That's right. MR. ETHERIDGE: And I don't speak for the County or the Road Program. I'm me. And I misspoke when I said that. I should have said if the community doesn't want the project. I misspoke. I admit that. And the community includes a lot of people, all of our elected officials. MR. MARTIN: But you didn't tell the public that at the meeting, and that's the problem, because they see you as representing the County and Moreland Altobelli. You work for them. Moreland Altobelli represents the County, so -- MR. ETHERIDGE: And I'm telling you now -- MR. MARTIN: -- when you speak, they listen. MR. ETHERIDGE: -- and, we'll put it in the paper, too, that I don't speak for this whole community. MR. MARTIN: Will you do that, Christopher? I'm asking will you do that, Christopher? I'm asking you will you do that? He just asked you to do that. MR. OLMSTEAD: You don't have to answer. MR. SCHWARZEN: I'm here to report on the meeting. I'm not here -- MS. HANBERRY: Well, I, you know, this is a problem. And what we see is that we have a different level of participation and a different level of scrutiny when we don't have Federal funds included in them because Federal Highway can't hold a big stick over your head and say, no, we're not going to fund it because you didn't look at environmental justice concerns, you didn't look at community concerns, you didn't look at neighborhood concerns. And the people that were in that room are residents of that community, homeowners of that community, that are concerned about what's happening to them. And what I'm hearing now is we're going to go right on ahead and design this with four lanes just like -- MR. FOUNTAIN: No. Susan, you didn't -- That's not what I said. I said we're going to proceed with a concept, not design it. MS. HANBERRY: Well, let me just check my notes and see what I wrote down. MR. FOUNTAIN: I'm telling you which way we're headed. MS. HANBERRY: This is that the concept with a new alignment and then we're going to proceed to design, and that was what was said. MR. FOUNTAIN: Well, we have to go to a public hearing prior to design. MS. HANBERRY: And I'll tell you this, too, that most of the people there thought that was a public hearing. MR. FOUNTAIN: Well, I'm sorry. MS. HANBERRY: And I think we need to clear up the conclusion. And I think you all need to take the high road on this project. There are serious environmental justice concerns associated with this project, and you don't need to ram it down the community's throat, particularly when the need has not been documented and there are other studies that say that it will do irreparable harm. Thank you. MR. MARTIN: I think it was reported as a public hearing, just for clarification. MR. FOUNTAIN: Well, it was not. It was a public information meeting. MR. CAUSEY: What's the difference? MR. FOUNTAIN: Pardon me? MR. CAUSEY: What is the difference? It's a meeting for the public to come look at a plan. MR. FOUNTAIN: Well -- MR. QUEEN: A public meeting is not required by law, okay. The hearing is. It's codified in both the Georgia Code as well as 23 CFR, which covers the Federal Highway Administration. MR. MARTIN: Well, it was advertised in the paper as a legal ad. MR. QUEEN: Probably as a public meeting. I didn't see the ad. MR. FOUNTAIN: It was a public meeting. It was collaborated between Bibb County, Community Development and the City of Macon. MR. CAUSEY: DOT was there. MR. FOUNTAIN: They were there. Of course, they've got money in the project, so they were there. It was a public information meeting. MR. MARTIN: I guess I still don't understand the difference. MR. FOUNTAIN: I guess you can have all -- MR. MARTIN: Both of them are informational meetings. MR. FOUNTAIN: Maybe so, but one of them has to be declared what it is. MR. QUEEN: Public hearings have to be advertised. MR. MARTIN: This one has been -- MR. QUEEN: Let me finish. Between certain dates. You have to advertise no less than 30 days in advance, and you have to have your legal ads on certain dates. No sooner than five days before the meeting, and the first ad has to be a certain number of days prior to that. Public meetings, if we decided today to hold a public meeting on the South Downtown Connector, you could have one in probably two and a half or three weeks because there's not the time constraints with the legal ads. It does, it's advertised twice in the paper, and there are signs put out, but it's not nearly as structured as a public hearing process is. You still have the court reporter there, you still have the displays, you still have the open format, but those are the differences. MR. PATTERSON: May I ask a question? MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, sir. MR. PATTERSON: Just so I make sure I understood everything. I didn't hear everything you said. You might have said it and I just didn't hear it. Is there more than one advertisement with a public meeting? MR. QUEEN: Right, twice. MR. PATTERSON: All right. MR. QUEEN: It has to be at least twice. MR. PATTERSON: You might have said it and I just didn't hear it. MR. QUEEN: And the way the law reads in the paper of widest distribution. At one point in time it used to say the legal organ, but it's whatever medium has the widest distribution. MR. PATTERSON: Is that second publication within the 30 days? MR. QUEEN: Yes. MR. FOUNTAIN: Okay. Tom? MR. SCHOLL: I just wanted to ask one other question as a follow-up on the Eisenhower Parkway Extension just to make sure I understand. The reason we don't know whether it's the Fall Line Freeway has to do with whether it's Georgia DOT's decision about whether they want to make it the Fall Line Freeway? The decision is in their -- MR. FOUNTAIN: Oh, absolutely. MR. SCHOLL: Then would you explain one thing for me there. Last year about this time when you said the Eisenhower Parkway project should be separated from the Fall Line Freeway project to protect it as a local item, what did you want to protect it from? MR. FOUNTAIN: So that it wouldn't get lost in the fact that they were one and the same. They were two different projects. We had a project called the Eisenhower Parkway Extension years before we ever heard of the Fall Line Freeway. And all of a sudden you got to calling it the Fall Line Freeway and we lost somewhere the Eisenhower Parkway Extension. And I wanted to make sure that we kept those two projects. They were two separate projects. And the State came in and overlaid their project on top of our project. MR. SCHOLL: So that the economic benefit from participating in the Fall Line Freeway actually should not be a consideration then when we consider the need and purpose? The need and purpose should be exclusively for whatever local benefit the Eisenhower Parkway Extension brings? MR. FOUNTAIN: Well, the Eisenhower, as I say, the Eisenhower Parkway Extension goes back to the 1960's, Tom. That's how old the project is. We've shown it as part of I-16, with an interchange at I-16. Now, I guess the same need is there today that there was when it was put there. It's been there since I've been there, 30 years. MR. SCHOLL: It really doesn't have any affect on that then? MR. FOUNTAIN: Well, obviously, if the State, I mean the common sense of it, Tom, if the State is funding both projects and they've got a way to get two birds with one stone, I mean they're going to do it. I mean that's what they were doing is a funding mechanism. I mean obviously that's what they were trying to do. But I think what we were trying to do as a community is to make sure that we didn't lose our project just because the Fall Line Freeway got, you know, pushed here or wherever it winds up. With all the alternatives that are on the table, that we didn't lose our project. Mr. Chairman, am I saying that right? Is that your understanding of it? MR. OLMSTEAD: Well, I think the difference is that, the way I understand it, and I remember it, the Eisenhower Parkway Extension happened before the Fall Line Freeway was decided to go the way it is planned to go. So it went from Seventh Street to I-16. When the Fall Line Freeway came, they took the Eisenhower Extension and the Fall Line Freeway came off of I-75, down Eisenhower, over the Eisenhower Extension, and then at that point at I-16 they carried it forward to 57. So that's really the difference the way I understand the difference in the two? Is that accurate? I've been on and off of working on it since it started, but that was my understanding of the way it was. I think, that's the way I differentiate it. MR. CAUSEY: Well, do we have a need and purpose statement for Eisenhower Extension to I-16? Has that been approved? MR. OLMSTEAD: I don't know. MR. CAUSEY: I mean could that -- MR. TUSSING: That's part of what's being reviewed right now at the EIS. You have to have a need and purpose before you can do an EIS, environmental impact study. MR. CAUSEY: But it's the Fall Line Freeway designation what's killing the project, stalling the project. If we had a project from Eisenhower to I-16 by itself that had -- MR. TUSSING: I don't think it makes any difference. I think you've got some of the same basic issues. MR. OLMSTEAD: You've got some of the same issues. Mr. Chairman. MR. FOUNTAIN: Do you want to tell them the new business, Mr. Chairman? MR. OLMSTEAD: I need to because I had a meeting at 5:00. MR. FOUNTAIN: I'm going to hand these out. This is a letter that the Chairman is going to discuss. We had gotten a letter from Georgia DOT in reference to our meeting time, and the Chairman wanted to speak to that issue. (**REPORTER'S NOTE: Several people conversing while letters being passed out.**) MR. OLMSTEAD: We received, are you ready? MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes. MR. OLMSTEAD: We received correspondence from DOT, Thomas Howell, the District Engineer, and David Millen, the District Pre-Construction Engineer, and they outlined that recently the meeting times of the Policy Committee of the TAC has been changed to 4:00 in the afternoons, being moved to the afternoon to satisfy the request of a few CAUTION Macon members. As you know, the Georgia Department of Transportation has other commitments to the other 30 counties in our district and will most likely prevent us from being at as many of these afternoon Road Program meetings. For the Road Program Policy meetings, our Board member, Mr. Dixon, is from Waycross and late afternoon meetings will be more difficult for him to attend on a regular basis. We have not noticed an increase in public participation in the meetings that we have been able to attend. In fact, we think that the new, that the numbers are fewer, and I'm sure that the afternoon and evening meetings of the Road Program present an additional burden to those local officials who are in attendance. We are requesting that the TAC consider moving the meeting dates back to the morning hours that was originally observed. Of course, I guess the TAC has taken a different tack since I was Mayor because when I was Mayor, I never felt the need to attend because the technical group was working on the technical part and it was a meeting held in the mornings by staff and DOT, and I never felt that need. Of course, I attended MATS and you have a full discussion in an open forum public meeting. We have plenty of time for open public times. I notice we've got some people here, some of them are senior citizens who are retired. I'm sure morning would probably be even better for them where they can drive home, of course, in the winter it's dark at 5:00 or 5:30. I don't think we've improved a thing by having it at 4 O'clock in the afternoon. I don't see it's crowded. I don't see anybody that wouldn't be here at 10 O'clock in the morning, except maybe me, which I never really planned to, I mean I never did when I was Mayor anyway. So, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we honor the request of DOT, which are our working partners to get this job done, and go back to the original time. MR. FOUNTAIN: That's been our feeling, too, about the attendance, and we've heard that from Georgia DOT. Could I have a motion to change that back. MR. WIKLE: I think perhaps we should (inaudible) to our morning meetings. (Inaudible). I agree that -- MR. OLMSTEAD: Some of us can't hear you. MR. WIKLE: Excuse me. I'd like to make a motion that we move our meetings back to 10 O'clock. MR. FOUNTAIN: We have a motion. Do we have a second for that? MR. QUEEN: Second. MR. FOUNTAIN: We have a motion and we have a second. Any discussion? MR. CAUSEY: Yes. I'd like to bring some discussion up. I think that is step backward. Granted the meeting is not packed, but nonetheless the opportunity is there for those that do work to attend meetings later in the day. I have all the respect in the world for Thomas Howell and David Millen and Tom Queen, and I'm sorry that it's such a hardship. I would entertain the idea that perhaps the DOT may be removed as a voting member from the TAC since we're dealing with mostly the local projects. If we have a question about DOT funding, we could certainly ask them, but, you know, we could consider them not voting. That would remove the hardship of them having to drive down. I think it's a slap in the face to the public if we change these meetings back to the morning after we've moved them to the afternoon. MR. RYLE: Bill, I don't see how we can take them off as a voting member when they're -- MR. OLMSTEAD: I'd think about that very seriously. MR. RYLE: They need to be a voting member on the committee. MR. OLMSTEAD: We have enough problems communicating with the DOT as we're doing. I'd hate to see it if we didn't have them attending here. MR. FOUNTAIN: We've got a motion. Any further discussion on that issue? All in favor, say, "aye". UNISON: "Aye". MR. FOUNTAIN: Opposed? MR. CAUSEY: I'm opposed. MR. FOUNTAIN: Let the record show one opposed. Bill Causey is opposed. All right, guys, is there any other new business? MR. OLMSTEAD: I'm sorry, but I've got to leave. MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you, Chairman. Is there any new business? MR. MARTIN: Mr. Olmstead. MR. OLMSTEAD: Yes. MR. MARTIN: Before you get away, I'd just like to clarify one thing. MR. OLMSTEAD: Say it in a hurry. I'm 15 minutes late right now. MR. MARTIN: Well, if we had a later meeting time I'd probably have -- MR. OLMSTEAD: If you -- MR. MARTIN: It was not -- MR. OLMSTEAD: Say what you want to say -- MR. MARTIN: It was not -- MR. OLMSTEAD: -- and I'll answer it. MR. MARTIN: It was not a TAC meeting when you were Mayor. I'm sorry. I think you probably meant TCC, and that has been changed to 4 O'clock. MR. OLMSTEAD: I need -- MR. MARTIN: I just wanted to clarify that so you'd understand because obviously you didn't understand that. I would just like to say the last time I checked the DOT gets paid by taxpayer dollars. They do work for the public. They do not work just for themselves. These meetings were not moved for the convenience of a few CAUTION Macon members. If you'll remember CAUTION Macon members are at these meetings whether they're at 10 O'clock or whether they're at 4 O'clock. And I would like to contradict Mr. Olmstead's comment and also this letter. When the Policy meeting last met at 5 O'clock we had like something like 50 something people there. I don't understand that's less. MR. QUEEN: I have a question. Was our Board member, Mr. Dixon, there? MR. MARTIN: You're mistaken, too. I said the Policy Committee, not the Executive Committee. MR. QUEEN: Oh, okay. MR. MARTIN: So you all don't even know which meetings you're talking about. This says the Policy Committee meeting. When the last Policy Committee meeting met back in August a year ago at 5 O'clock there were like 40 something members in the public there. And then for some reason it was changed back to 11:30 in the morning and there's hardly anybody participating. And I think you're doing the public another disservice by ramming this down their throat and not giving them a chance to come to these meetings and participating in their government that pays your salaries. Thank you very much. MS. GROCE: I also would like to comment on that. My husband, who travels all over the world to attend meetings in various places, attends them at the time that they are set, not necessarily the time that it's convenient for him to be there. And it's my impression that DOT is paid by us, that their budget comes out of our pockets. And given all of the questions that have erupted about the Roads Program, I think this is a step back, and I'm really quite disappointed. And I've not even been one of the people who has been vocal about the change. And, quite frankly, it costs me money, not just my time, because I volunteer to be here, but I have to pay a babysitter in the afternoon. If I came at 10 O'clock in the morning, Harry would be in school at least nine months out of the year, so it's actually more convenient for me to come at 10 O'clock. But I think the DOT has a lot of nerve writing a letter like that. They get paid whether they get paid to come to a meeting at 10 O'clock or it lasts until 10 O'clock at night. That's their job, period. It's your job, too. It's not our job to have to be here. We're here because we're interested and because you're spending our money. MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you. Tom. MR. SCHOLL: I would also notice that not all these meetings are going to be controversial. You're going to find the public turning out on some meetings and not turning out for others. And to just take a short span of time and say, well, the public is not coming, is an error in logic. Maybe they will turn out better on the more controversial times. But I think it deserves a longer trial than what you've given it to draw the conclusions that you have drawn from the short time is in appropriate. MR. FOUNTAIN: All right, guys, is there any old business to come before our committee? We have a Citizens Oversight on July the 25th, another TAC will be on August the 8th. The Executive Committee will be announced. Do I have a motion for adjournment? MALE VOICE: I so move. MR. FOUNTAIN: Do we have a second? MR. WIKLE: Second. MR. FOUNTAIN: We are adjourned. (MEETING ADJOURNED) CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF BIBB. I hereby certify that the within and foregoing record is a true, complete and correct transcript of the proceeding taken by me on the 11th day of July, 2002. This 25th day of July, 2002. Certificate No. B-1238