TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
	MACON-BIBB COUNTY SALES TAX ROAD PROGRAM
	FEBRUARY 6, 2003 - 10:10 A.M.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

BOB FOUNTAIN
BILL CAUSEY	
THOMAS HOWELL
VERNON RYLE
BILL VAUGHN
BILL WIKLE

OTHERS PRESENT:

KATHLEEN AYERBE
CONNIE MAC DARNEL
ISABEL DAVIS
HEATHER DUNCAN
STEVE DUVAL
VAN ETHERIDGE
MIKE FORD
DAVID FORTSON
JOSEPH R. GIBBS
JOE JOHNSON
ANTHONY D. LEWIS
CAM OETTER
MICHAEL RYAN
SHERRIE SAWYER
KRISTEN STINSON
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:	 If we could, we=ll call our February 6th meeting to order.  Thank you all for coming.  We have a little different agenda this time.  There=s a sign up sheet circulating.  Anyone who would like to talk or address the group, please sign the sheet.

We have an agenda before us, a prepared agenda under Item 2.  Could I have a motion for approval of the agenda?

MR. WIKLE:		 So moved.

MR. RYLE:           Second.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Discussion?  (No response).  All in favor, say, Aaye@.

UNISON:			 AAye@.
 
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Opposed? (No response).  So carried.

Are there any items that anyone would like to add to the agenda?  (No response).  

MR. CAUSEY:		 So that precludes old or new business?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 No, I wouldn=t think so.  I wouldn=t think so.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Because something may occur during the meeting.  I have nothing.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Okay.  We=ll move right along into Item 4, our Minutes from December the 5th.  Could I have a motion for the approval of our Minutes?

MR. RYLE:		 So moved.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 I have a motion.  Do we have a second?

MR. WIKLE:		 Second.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Discussion?  (No response).  All in favor, say, Aaye@.
UNISON:			 AAye@.
 
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Opposed?  (No response).  So carried.  

Under Item 5 we have our Community Comments for those who would like to speak.  We have a list of them.  Let=s see.  The first is Cam Oetter.

MR. OETTER:		 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Ladies and gentleman, I=m Cam Oetter, Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Macon Area Transportation Study.  I also serve on the State Bicycling and Pedestrian Advisory Committee of the Georgia Department of Transportation.

Initially, I would like to issue a mild protest of your meeting conditions that require me to speak before the business is conducted.  I think this discourages public participation.  I had to prepare for today=s meeting as if I was going to trial because I didn=t know what might come up.  I had to anticipate everything.  Perhaps I could have asked a question and learned what I needed to know.  I think this wastes my time and yours.

I=ve been involved in four transportation meetings already this week, all, or some of them on government time.  Of course, today is vacation.  It=s tough on a volunteer.  I just want this committee, as always, to do anything you can possibly to improve public participation.  When I become a consultant I think it will be a little bit easier.  But that=s not what we=re here about today though.

I support the detached sidewalk on Tucker Road.  So does the Road Improvement Program Executive Committee by a 4 to 1 vote on November 29, 2001.  So did residents and stakeholders on November 27, 2001, and the editors of the Macon Telegraph in October >01.  The concept of bicycle/pedestrian facilities is part of an intermodal transportation system that was supported at this committee on November the 8th of 2001, and by the Executive Director of the Planning and Zoning Commission back in February of that same year.

Going way back in time, the vote yes sales tax brochure that was distributed back then promised sidewalks for schools and neighborhoods.  Bicycle/pedestrian issues were discussed at more than 12 meetings of this committee, the Citizens Oversight Committee and the Executive Committee in the past couple of years, often this particular project, a detached sidewalk on Tucker Road.  The project design team for Tucker Road received detached sidewalk concept drawings in July of 2000.

Ebin Shepard and the other volunteers on the COC are people just like me.  They are trying to make sense out of a complex and sometimes confusing program.  I respect their concern.  Back in April of 2001 Mr. Shepard asked his committee about the guidelines for placement of bicycle/pedestrian facilities.  Chairman Dunwody, Dan Fischer and Van Etheridge agreed that separation of sidewalks from vehicular traffic is safer.  This is consistent with the opinion of Nimrod Long, the Greenway consultant with New Town Macon.  I saw that in his letter from November of 2001. 

Last month Mr. Shepard asked a different question at the COC meeting.  He had concerns about costs, liability and suitability of spending sales tax dollars for the detached sidewalk.  The motion that was passed by the COC indicated some concern about whether the detached sidewalk was a recreation feature, and that, of course, is Item 10 on today=s agenda.

Now, we all know the cost of this improvement is covered by the Road Improvement Program.  I would refer you back to some statements made by Chairman Larry Justice in June of 2000 when the Road Program appropriated more than 3.3 million dollars, quote, but none of it was for road projects.  They funded at that time sidewalk repairs, promised to fund the entrance at Macon State College and a community development study.  I=m quoting Chairman Justice here.  I think all of this stuff is part of the Road Program.  We=ve done lots of things outside building roads during this program.  This program is about safety and beautification.

If there=s still a concern about liability of a detached sidewalk, I would refer this committee, of course, to your attorney, Mr. Almand, and sources including the Federal Highway Administration, the National Bicycle/Pedestrian Clearinghouse, the Surface Based Transportation Policy Project, and that, of course, is the group that authored the Mean Streets document that indicated that Macon, Georgia was one of the most dangerous places to walk along the street; and, of course, Transportation Quarterly magazine, and our own Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, which has been published for many years in the Transportation Improvement Program, the TIP, as well as the Long Range Transportation Program for the year 2025.  That is our long range plan and it goes into detail about how to provide bicycle/pedestrian transportation as part of a truly intermodal system.  

So I=ll close with this point.  I hope we can move beyond a stage of opposition to bicycling, walking and trail development in Bibb County.  Let=s implement some traffic calming, some measures that improve the health and safety of people who desire to exercise and improve their health, transfer themselves from one point to another without total reliance on the automobile.  Let=s join the progressive movement worldwide and fast track this worthwhile community transportation project.  Thank you.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Thank you, Cam.  Michael Ryan.

MR. RYAN:		 Good morning.  I would like to comment that under Item 12 on your agenda, Design and Environmental, that Mr. Johnson will address.  I hope that Mr. Johnson will give some detailed comments about how this program is going to concretely address the environmental justice issues surrounding the South Downtown Connector/Edgewood Avenue project.  And I also hope that there will be some information imparted about the Clean Water Act 404 Permit that is required for the combined Edgewood Avenue/South Downtown Connector project.  Thank you.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Thank you, Michael.  Bobby Gibbs.

MR. GIBBS:		 I=m going to pass.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Okay.  Thank you all.  All right, Item 6, our Intown Sidewalk Repair Bid.  Van?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Good morning.  Under Tab 6 is a copy of the bid that Bibb County received on December 17th for Phase 2 of the Historic District Intown Sidewalk repairs.  There was only one bidder, Northeast Concrete, who bid $489,865.40.  The bid was 34 percent above the engineer=s estimate, and we=d recommend rejection and rebid of this contract.  

MR. CAUSEY:		 Can we ask questions?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes, sir.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Why do you think there was only one bid?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I think it was because it was in the Christmas season.  We have historically not received many bids in December.

MR. CAUSEY:		 So we should get a better response if we rebid it?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.

MR. RYLE:		 I=ll make a motion.

MR. CAUSEY:		 He=s already rebid it.

MR. RYLE:		 Oh, you=ve already rebid it?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes, sir.

MR. RYLE:		 Okay.  No action is required then?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Well, officially we should.

MR. RYLE:		 Okay.  I=ll make a motion that we rebid it.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 What=s the recommendation, Van?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Our recommendation is that we reject this bid and rebid.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Okay.  And do we have a motion?

MR. RYLE:		 That is my motion.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Second?

MR. CAUSEY:		 Second.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Discussion?  (No response).  Okay.  All in favor, say, Aaye@.

UNISON:			 AAye@.
 
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Opposed?  (No response).  So carried.  Van, thank you.  Millerfield Road bids under Item 7.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Under Tab 7, this is Millerfield Road that runs from Bristol Drive out east to the intersection with Shurling Drive.  There were five bidders on this contract that was taking bids on January the 7th by Bibb County.  This is Project 54B.  And if you look on the second sheet of that, Kemi Construction Company was the low bid at $1,617,869.25.  That=s 23 percent below the engineer=s estimate.

Kemi Construction is an MBE so the 20 percent MBE goal will be met.  This is Kemi=s first job with the Road Program.  He has done work with the City of Atlanta, jobs ranging from 1.4 million to 3.5 million.  He has done one contract with Bibb County, the Gateway Park.  It was a $700,000 contract.  We have checked out his references and award of the contract is recommended to him.  

MR. VAUGHN:		 Van, this contract is, I notice this budget amendment which is later down on the agenda has a $575,000 amendment to that budget.  Is this the project that --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 This is the project that will need the additional funds.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 So this recommendation is contingent upon the budget amendment?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Absolutely.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Your recommendation is to award it to?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Kemi.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Kemi is the lowest bidder?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Right.

MR. CAUSEY:		 You said it was 23 percent below the estimate.  How did we end up with not enough money?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 It was 23 percent below the engineer=s estimate of what it would cost.  It=s a lot more than that above the budgeted amount that was in the budget.

MR. VAUGHN:		 Has the scope of the project changed since the initial budget was set?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 The scope may have changed somewhat, yes.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Of course, this was one of the projects that the State dropped out of is what it amounted to.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Initially this was a project that the State DOT was going to --

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 That=s how we got into the over-funding.

MR. CAUSEY:		 They took the money out?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 -- let.  They could not do that.  They opted to give us a county contract, which we=ll be reimbursed some 2 or 300,000 dollars as I remember.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 We were set up for 100 percent State funding, and through whatever happened it turned out to be a county contract, which changes that revenue source to about 50/50.  

MR. HOWELL:		 It=ll probably be a little less than that.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 And we certainly will appreciate what we do get.  That=s what happened to the revenue on the project.  Do I have a motion to accept the recommendation of our Program Manager?

MR. WIKLE:		 So moved.

MR. RYLE:		 Second.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Motion and a second.  Motion by Bill Wikle.  Second by Vernon.  Any discussion?  (No response).  All in favor, say, Aaye@.

UNISON:			 AAye@.
 
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Opposed?  (No response).  So carried.  Thank you, Van.  Item 8, our Bass Road/Rivoli Drive projects.  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Bibb County took bids on January 29th for the Bass Road intersection improvements at Rivoli and at Forsyth Road.  There was five contractors bidding on the project.  And on the second sheet there, Reeves Construction Company was the low bid at $678,812.84.  It was 3 percent below the engineer=s estimate on the project and they met the 20 percent MBE goal.  And acceptance of the bid is recommended.
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Van, this will be covered in the budget adjustment also or is it already funded?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 No, it has its own funding.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 It has its own existing funding, okay.  You have heard the recommendations of our Program Manager.  Could I have a motion.

MR. WIKLE:		 So moved.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 I have a motion.  Could I have a second?

MR. VAUGHN:		 Second.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Discussion?

MR. CAUSEY:		 Do we have to acquire right-of-way for these?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Both intersections?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.  It=s ongoing.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Are we going to have to condemn?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 We may have to.

MR. RYLE:		 And you all are providing sidewalks so that when we hook up to the rest of the improvements, what it looks like here is you=ve got the --

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 There=s some sidewalk work there up Forsyth Road which is in an area that we don=t think will be disturbed on future projects.

MR. RYLE:		 Okay.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 But the rest of it does not have sidewalks.
MR. RYLE:		 Okay.  But we are providing for where we know there won=t be any disturbance, right?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.

MR. RYLE:		 Okay.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 I have a motion and I have a second.  All in favor, say, Aaye@.

UNISON:			 AAye@.
 
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Opposed?  (No response).  So carried.  Van, Item 9, our Intown Sidewalk January bid?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 As you can see, we did get better response on this same project that was let in December.  There were four bidders on it.  Sam Hall was the low bidder at $358,579.40, about $120,000 lower than the previous bid.  It=s 1 percent above the engineer=s estimate.  And we have met with Don Hall with Sam Hall and are working with him on his MBE participation in the contract.  He did not meet the goal that was in the contract.  And after talking with him, we think he will meet the goal.  It=s just a matter of him finding the proper subcontractors to do it.  And we recommend approval pending the Board of Commissioners approving his goal for this contract.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Okay.  You heard the recommendations of our Program Manager.  What=s your pleasure?

MR. CAUSEY:		 Move to accept pending.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Second?

MR. WIKLE:		 Second.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Discussion?  (No response).  Van, you=re all right with this?  I think as I understand Sam Hall, they can get it, they=ve just got to get the right documentation and make it appear as it should.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I think he did.  He indicated that he thought he could.  And Steve Duval is going to be working with him close, and we hope he=ll get the paperwork.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Good.  All in favor, say, Aaye@

UNISON:			 AAye@.
 
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Opposed?  (No response).  So carried.  Van, thank you for that.  All right.  Item 10, Steve, you=ve got a resolution coming from our COC?

MR. DUVAL:		 Good morning everybody.  As Mr. Oetter was talking about, you know, before, The Citizens Oversight Committee met on January 23rd and the topic of the multi-use paths came up in that particular meeting.  And there was quite a bit of discussion about the multi-use paths.  And a resolution was drafted from that, from the Citizens Oversight Committee, that they are requesting that the Executive Committee of the Road Program get a legal opinion to see if multi-use paths are a legitimate expenditure of the 1% sales tax revenue.  And this letter was drafted to go to Mr. Tommy Olmstead, the Chairman of the Bibb County Board of Commissioners.  And this letter is in your agenda packet under Tab 10.  And that=s basically it.  But he=s going to get a legal opinion about the multi-use paths.

MR. RYLE:		 May I ask something about this.  How did this come about?  I mean this is a project I=m very very proud of.  We=ve worked with the stakeholders.  We=ve got a consensus built.  To me it is a transportation facility.  The 1-cent sales tax said we were going to spend it on transportation.  I=m very concerned about this project.  I think it needs to be built.  And it=s a good example of how these things can be done.  And I think if we show how it can be done, then we, if you remember, yesterday we talked about doing something very similar on Wesleyan Drive.  And I=d just hate to see it get killed.  I don=t, I think we ought to have a motion here saying technically we support it as a transportation facility.  I think we ought to because we spent a lot of time and effort putting this thing together.  It=s going to be safer.  Any of you all that=s ever, and I used to personally bicycle before I got old and out of shape.  And I used to ride down Tucker.  And that=s a very dangerous road for a cyclist.  And people are going to cycle and they=re not going to use these facilities for transportation purposes unless we make them safer.  And I think, and I would like to offer a motion that we refer to the Policy Committee, or Executive Committee, that we are of the opinion technically that this is a transportation facility and we support the project.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Vernon, I would hope that you would withdraw that motion until we discuss it further.  Would you do that, please?  I=ve got some thoughts, too.  

MR. RYLE:		 Okay.  I=ll do that at this point.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 The question is not whether it=s a good project or not.  I think it=s a good project.  I think we all do.  We=ve got a lot of time and energy in the project and have believed in it.  The question is is it legal to spend money on it, and I don=t know that that addresses itself to us.  

MR. RYLE:		 Bobby, they do that all the time.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 I know that, and I agree with you.  But that=s not the question that=s being asked.

MR. RYLE:		 And when I say, Athey@, other communities.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Well, let me give just a brief history that may shed some light on this.  When we were struggling to put a name on what this thing was early on, we really didn=t know what to call it, and we called it a lot of things.  We called it a multi-use, a shared path, a detached sidewalk, a bikeway.  We called it a lot of things because we didn=t know what we were trying to get.  We just wanted something in the project that accommodated pedestrians.  It=s nothing more than a sidewalk.  And the only difference between this sidewalk and all the other sidewalks that the Road Program has built, this one just happens to be a little farther away from the edge of the road than the others, but it=s still a concrete sidewalk for people to walk on, run on or ride bikes on, which is exactly what they do on other sidewalks.  That multi-use term is what=s causing the confusion.  It=s a sidewalk that just happens to be a little farther from the road.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 But the question still is is it legal to spend these funds on a multi-use path.

MR. CAUSEY:		 On a sidewalk?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Or a sidewalk, if you will.  That=s the question, I think, am I correct, Van, that=s what is being asked?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes.  And just to refresh you all=s memory, this is not the first time that the Citizens Oversight Committee has raised this issue about an expenditure.  If you remember, Gateway Park restrooms, they raised this same issue down there on the expenditure of those funds.

MR. CAUSEY:		 That makes more sense as to being a little questionable.  To me this is very clear.  Cam read quote after quote where we=ve been saying sidewalks are part of the Road Program.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 I don=t think that=s an issue.  You can shake your head, but --

MR. CAUSEY:		 Okay.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 -- I think we all like the project.  I like the project.  I think we all like the project.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Well, can we do something to make sure as Mr. Almand looks at this it doesn=t delay the project because I think we=re trying --

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 I think, certainly I hope that it=s legal.

MR. VAUGHN:		 Bobby, what if we make a recommendation contingent on approval by the attorney.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 That this project be pushed forward to --

MR. RYLE:		 Right.

MR. VAUGHN:		 With that contingency.

MR. RYLE:		 I=ll make that motion.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Second.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Let me get the motion.  Now, the motion is that we recommend this project be pushed to its ultimate completion --

MR. RYLE:		 Right.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 -- subject to the legal interpretation of the expenditure of the funds.  So we want to push this project.  We want to push it hard.

MR. RYLE:		 Right.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 We believe in it.  And we hope that the monies, that it is legal.  I=ve got a motion and a second.  Any further discussion?  (No response).  All in favor, say, Aaye@.

UNISON:			 AAye@.
 
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Opposed?  (No response).  So carried.  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification.  Unless you all are telling me different, we are not going to stop purchasing right-of-way and finishing the plans unless you all tell us today to do that.

MR. RYLE:		 Yeah.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Somebody will need to instruct us, Van, further I think when the letter goes up.  We=ve not had such directive, so we would continue on the project.

MR. RYLE:		 Thank you.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 And, Bill, back on that, you know, these multi-use paths, in my mind, if we get on these sensitive road projects where you can=t put sidewalks on both sides --

MR. CAUSEY:		 Right.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 -- this becomes kind of a mitigating effort.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Absolutely.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 That=s what it really amounts to on Tucker or Wesleyan Drive.

MR. CAUSEY:		 And I am convinced that if we can build one that it will open the eyes of the community and they=ll say we want more of that.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 All right, guys.  Moving right along.  All right.  Item 11, Budget Modification Number 14.  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes, sir.  If I could direct you all=s attention to that document, we=re requesting modification on the budget of six projects that are in the program.  

The first one is Houston Road, Project 45.  We=re requesting $410,000.  And this is to pay for a settlement on a condemnation case that=s been tried and that=s settled.

The second one is 54B, Millerfield Road, a $575,000 overrun.  It=s for additional construction funds to go with the bid that we have received on the project.  

And then Project 59, the Bibb County Resurfacing is $170,000 additional funds to cover bids received and also construction supervision on the Copas Connector paving.

And then on the second page, Project 64, $560,000.  The funds are needed to reflect existing and future expenditures of Bibb County Management.

Project 70, Ocmulgee East Boulevard, $150,000 are needed to set up right-of-way funds for that project.

And then the last one is Project 73, which was the Georgia Power lawsuit settlement.  And this is money to fund the Georgia Power relocation costs in the entire program, $1,715,000.  

Then on the next page, three of four, is a summary of those items, and they total $3,580,000.  And then on the last sheet, four of four, this shows the original budget plus all the budget modifications.  And our total amended budget will be $144,871,661.  Approval of this budget modification is recommended.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Van, you and Bill, Bill, you have gone over this, haven=t you?

MR. VAUGHN:		 Yes.  Mr. Chairman, Mr. Etheridge and I met a couple of weeks ago and reviewed each one of these projects and reviewed the status of all the projects left to do in the program.  And I would recommend, I put it in the form of a motion that this amendment be approved.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 We have a motion.  Do we have a second?

MR. WIKLE:		 Second.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Under discussion, Bill, do we have a balanced budget now in the Road Program?
MR. VAUGHN:		 Yes.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 The Road Program has a balanced budget.  That=s great.  I think that=s great.  How many years, nine years, and we still have a balanced budget.  That=s great.  Discussion, Bill?

MR. CAUSEY:		 Georgia Power lawsuit, that will cover the whole problem?  We=re done with that?  That money is there?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 That would be --

MR. CAUSEY:		 That=s the end of it?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 The Georgia Power suit, as I understand it, is on the table for settlement.  I don=t know that it has been signed yet, but both parties have basically agreed in principle.

MR. RYLE:		 They=ve agreed to agree, right?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 They=ve agreed to agree, and it is on the table for signature.  Is that, Bill, correct?

MR. VAUGHN:		 That=s correct.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 And, so, that does certainly help us with our financial planning.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Just for my personal clarification, what is the County Management?

MR. VAUGHN:		 The County Management is some of those legal fees, and most of this $560,000 applies to a prior period.  It=s where an appropriation hadn=t been made to update that County Management line item.  And then the County, the only thing other than that that=s paid out of that County Management is the accountant in the Finance Office that spends 70 percent of her time handling the, writing the checks and signing checks for the Roads Program, and that=s reimbursed periodically.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Our legal, so we=re paying our legal fees for the guys to represent us against Georgia Power from that budget?

MR. VAUGHN:		 Yes.

MR. CAUSEY:		 And then the 1.7 million is just a settlement to Georgia Power itself?

MR. VAUGHN:		 Right.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 And awards, jury awards are also paid out of that.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Who is our lawyer now?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Hale Almand represents the Road Program.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Against Georgia Power?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Yes.  Any further discussion on that?  (No response).  All in favor, say, Aaye@.

UNISON:			 AAye@.
 
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Opposed?  (No response).  So carried.  Van, that=s good after all these years that we still have a balanced budget.  I think that=s great.  Okay.  Item 12, Joe and Van on our update on our design, environmental, construction and right-of-way.

MR. JOHNSON:	 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I=ll go over the design and environmental status of all of the projects we have under design.  I=ll go through most of the ones that we have progress on.  If there=s any questions, please stop me and I=ll see what I can do for you.

Our first project is Number 3 in the Road Improvement Program.  It=s the South Downtown Connector.  As I understand it, the MATS Policy Committee just recently asked Vernon=s office to do a corridor study on that project.  So I guess it=s our recommendation to really put our work on hold until we hear from Vernon=s office.  I really don=t see any point in us going ahead with the project until we get a little guidance from what Vernon=s study says.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Joe, I think we probably, I know we=re looking to set an Executive Committee meeting.  We probably need to brief our elected officials of where we=re at on this project and probably get some guidance from them --

MR. JOHNSON:	 Okay.   

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 -- on what to do with it.  As I understand it, and have understood it, talking with Mayor Ellis, that he does want a comprehensive development plan done in companion to the road project and that they be put together as one project.  I think, he being one member of that Board, I think we need to take it to that entire Board and let everybody know what direction we=re headed in and get everybody to sign off on that project.  I don=t think it would stop Vernon=s efforts at all.  I mean he needs to do what he has to do.  But from ours, I don=t think we can have an official stop in a project until we are directed to do so.  

MR. JOHNSON:	Our next project is 5C.  It=s the Poplar Street design, which McClees, Boggs and Selby (phonetically) has been designing for us.  Van and I met with our design consultant last week, and they have substantially completed their plans.  We reviewed them with them and we=re in the process now of setting up a field plan review where we could invite all the members of this committee and the different utility companies to review those plans.  And I think we=re really in good shape for a summer letting on that project.  We=re really close.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Are we slipping now to summer, because we were shooting for a March letting?

MR. JOHNSON:	 Yes, sir, I believe we=re going to slip with the condition that the plans are in.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 What are we looking at, Joe?
MR. JOHNSON:	 Assuming we can get a field plan review in the next month or so, I believe we can probably make a June or July letting.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 The reason I=m saying that is because you know we=ve got this multi-modal with us.  You know, we=re telling, we used the term May as a drop dead date.  Well, that time line will slide if we award this project in May or June, so we=re looking at a time line with those guys probably August, September.

MR. JOHNSON:	 Well, that=s built into our discussion, I guess, moving the transit system there.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Okay.

MR. RYLE:		 Are you talking about the transfer station?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Yes.

MR. RYLE:		 Well, that can be easily moved in front of the Terminal Station.  You can pull off and get out of traffic there.  I don=t think that=s going to be a very hard thing that we both --

MR. CAUSEY:		 You mean temporarily?

MR. RYLE:		 Yeah, temporarily, while they=re doing the multi-modal work to move it up in the parking lot and all the stuff they=ve got to do there.  Most of the buses go that way.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Well, we=ve got a plaza in front of the Terminal Station to be underway not too much longer where we redo the whole front.  

MR. RYLE:		 Yeah.

MR. CAUSEY:		 We may have to look at a temporary relocation with the City and the Transit Authority.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Yeah.  We were talking yesterday at the MATS Policy meeting.  I brought that up to Mayor Ellis, and he suggested I get in touch with --

MR. CAUSEY:		 Melvin Waldrep.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 -- Melvin Waldrep, that you all had hired a consultant, and I forgot the name of the consultant.

MR. CAUSEY:		 John Rivers.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Can you, could you facilitate that, Bill, for us so that we might get our Program Manager and those guys together to make sure --

MR. CAUSEY:		 Would you like a meeting with --

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 I think so, with our Program Manager, Moreland Altobelli, and anybody else that might want to attend, particularly Vernon, and to make sure of that because this is critical, because we can=t let this project and us not have an answer to it.

MR. RYLE:		 Right.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Okay.

MR. JOHNSON:	 Like I say, we are close on that project, and you should be hearing from me shortly about when we can have the field plan review.  

Our next project is the Jeffersonville Road corridor, which includes Projects 6, 7 and 54A in our program.  The last time I reported that we had submitted an assessment of effect, which is your assessment on your historic districts and historic resources, to the Department of Transportation for approval and review with the SHPO office.  That has since been approved.  The draft EA is at the Department of Transportation now undergoing review.  The reviewer=s name is Mary Mitchell, and she is doing a little different process with her review this time.  Instead of doing one big review and sending the document back to us to correct, every time she has one little question she will talk back with our office, and hopefully this will speed the process up on our approval so she won=t be operating in a vacuum and we won=t either on our comments.  So it=s a little back and forth.  So the document is getting revised as the revisions come up.  So hopefully we can have something to submit to Federal Highway shortly on that project.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 When did that document get to Georgia DOT, Joe?

MR. JOHNSON:	 It was submitted in the beginning of November of this past year.  Also, part of that project is the railroad bridge, part of it is tied in with the Lakeside Dam.  As you know, this committee, members of this committee met with the railroad for an update I believe it was right before Christmas.  We=re still waiting on an agreement with the railroad, and I do not believe that has been signed yet.  But that is not holding up the development of our roadway project.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Who has got the ball in that project, Joe?

MR. JOHNSON:	 As to the bridge itself?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 The document?  The railroad?  The railroad has got it?

MR. JOHNSON:	 That=s my understanding.

Our next projects, Projects 8 and 9 in the program, Forest Hill Road, as you know, we have directed our consultant, Stantec, to revise the plan to meet the memo that was agreed upon by this committee detailing some design changes.  Those plans are due back the beginning of March.  The environmental document has been submitted to the Department of Transportation.  We are waiting on one coordination letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  As soon as that letter is received, the draft FONSI should be forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration.  We are waiting on that one letter before that can be submitted to the Federal Highway Administration.
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 How long have they been waiting on that letter?

MR. JOHNSON:	 They have been waiting on that letter since at least the beginning of December.  It might have been November.  That has been the one item that we=ve been waiting for.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Who has got to give the letter?

MR. JOHNSON:	 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Do we have a name?

MR. JOHNSON:	 I don=t have one.  I did talk with someone at the Department yesterday, and they=re expecting that letter any day, so, hopefully, the next time I report to you next month I can say that document is at Federal Highway.  

MR. PRESTON:	 When did the environmental document get approved, Joe?

MR. JOHNSON:	 The draft EA was approved over a year and a half ago.  The next step, of course, is the approval of the FONSI.

MR. PRESTON:	 Yeah.

MR. JOHNSON:	 The next projects are Projects 10 and 11, which is the Northwest Parkway and Log Cabin Drive north of Mercer University Drive.  That project is in the environmental stage.  I did report to you last meeting that we had had an MOA, which is a memorandum of agreement, of what we=re going to do with the Park Street Historic District sent out to various residents of the Historic District and some coordinating agencies.  We have received several comments on that.  That prompted a meeting with the Federal Highway Administration that was held the first week of December, which I did attend.  We really had a brainstorming session on that, and they gave us several recommendations on how we can adjust that document to meet those concerns, so we are in the process of doing that and should have something ready to submit to Federal Highway here shortly.  

The next project is Project Number 12, Log Cabin Drive.  This is the section between Eisenhower Parkway and Mercer University Drive.  It is scheduled to be let by the Department on March 21st.  Our plans are at the Department and everything is a go on that project as far as I know.  So hopefully we=ll see some construction underway here shortly on that project.

Project 14, which is Mercer University Drive.  This is a project being handled almost exclusively by the Department, and it is currently scheduled for a June letting.

Project 21, which is Riverside Drive.  That=s between Northside Drive and Hall Road.  That=s another project being handled by the Department.  They have had the preliminary field plan review on that project.  Right-of-way plans are complete and approved; however, the right-of-way funds are not available until 2006 on that project, and so it is really in a holding pattern until funds become available on that project.

Project 23, we spoke about that earlier.  That=s the Tucker Road project with the detached sidewalk.  We do have our plans in hand, and as soon as the right-of-way gets a little further along, we will schedule a field plan review and, of course, invite members of this committee.  

Project 35B, Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard south of Oglethorpe down towards Houston Avenue.  I believe at the last meeting, which I was not in attendance of, you all had a presentation of some conceptual work on that project.  We are now preparing an RFP to hire a design consultant to put that project together, and we should have some recommendations hopefully in the next month or so on who that design consultant could be.  

Project 36, which is Houston Avenue, we, of course, as you know, we split that project into two projects, the first one running from Pio Nono in the south to Newberg Avenue, and the second phase from Newberg north to Martin Luther King.  Phase one plans are in.  We will be having a field plan review on that project next Tuesday, which will be the 11th.  And hopefully that project will be ready to let shortly.

Project 44A, which is the Hartley Bridge Road interchange, that=s another project being handled by the Department.  We did prepare the concept for that project.  It is currently scheduled for a May letting this year.  And that=s phase one of the project which will detail, involve Skipper Road relocation by the new high school and middle school and a new bridge over the interchange.  

Phase 2, which will include the new fly over bridges from I-475 to 75 is currently on the schedule for a July letting, but from what I hear that might slip a little bit.  That=s a very large and expensive project that=s going to involve a lot of coordination.

Project 47, which is our Sardis Church Road Connector project and it=s also the number of the Department of Transportation=s interchange project at Interstate 75, we=ve been waiting over a year and a half for the environmental document on that project.  It was submitted by the consultant to the Department on December 24th.  I just talked to the project manager yesterday, Rich Williams, at the Office of Environmental Location.  They have a few comments on that and they are sending the document back to JJ&G today.  They said it=s minor comments but ones that have to be addressed before the document can go to Federal Highway for a draft signature.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Joe, would you mind tracking that with JJ&G?

MR. JOHNSON: 	 Yes, sir, I --

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Make sure it don=t drop into a, I don=t know who is monitoring those EA contracts but sometimes they drop off into...
MR. JOHNSON:	 I do have a contact at JJ&G now and I do E-mail her regularly on the status of that.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 We signed off a permit here with JJ&G and they made a commitment to us that they would really give us some high priority with their company.

MR. JOHNSON:	 Project Number 7, it=s the Ocmulgee East project north of the interchange out towards GEICO.  It=s some improvements to access Weaver Road and Ocmulgee East.  Our consultant has finished the plans.  We submitted them to the Department and they had a few revisions that we have to do that we are currently working on, and we should be having a preliminary field plan review in the next month or so on that project.

The last project we=ve been working on is the intersection project, Second at Mulberry Street.  That=s the work in front of the Grand Building and in front of the Courthouse.  We have received plans from our design consultant.  We are working with Central Services to get a review on some of the electrical plans there.  But I believe we=ll be able to make the March letting on that project with no problem.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Joe, what about our Forsyth Street project?

MR. JOHNSON:	 I believe Van was going to mention that, but we are finalizing those plans and we will be scheduling that to be let in March also.

MR. CAUSEY:		 What about the two intersections, Georgia at College and Georgia at Washington?

MR. JOHNSON:	 We have a new engineer in our office, Joe Wood, who is working on those.  We do still have a little problem with some of the turning radiuses for some of the larger buses that we are trying to work out, but we are going ahead with that design and we are working on the signal designs for those two intersections also.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 And that=s with the approved concept that was worked out by Bill Wikle --

MR. JOHNSON:	 And the neighborhood groups.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 -- and the neighborhood groups?

MR. JOHNSON:	 That=s correct.  We have just a few little design issues, but it really won=t change the concept.  But there are some technical issues that we need to deal with on that project.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Do we have a time line on that project?

MR. JOHNSON:	 No, sir, I=m not aware of a time line on that one.  We=re close, but it=s not something that I --

MR. CAUSEY:		 Will you let me know because our sidewalk will come through there and we don=t want to fix sidewalk now and then this project tear it up.  

MR. JOHNSON:	 The sidewalk on --

MR. CAUSEY:		 The Intown Historic.

MR. JOHNSON:	 Okay.  I=ll make sure we coordinate with you on that.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Okay.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Bill, get with Joe and you all collaborate on that if you will.

MR. JOHNSON:	 Anymore questions?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Any questions of Joe?  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Also, on that same project I need to mention that the DOT is also going to resurface College Street through there.  And we hope to coordinate where our project is going to start and end so we don=t have new paving through there that has to be, you know, damaged.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Thomas, is that coming out of you?

MR. HOWELL:	      It=s out of the Maintenance Office, yeah.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Will they mill the gutter?

MR. HOWELL:		 Yes, it=s in --

MR. CAUSEY:		 We have no gutter on a lot of College Street.

MR. HOWELL:		 We=re milling that whole project where we have gutter.

MR. JOHNSON:	 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Joe, back to your Houston Avenue, what was that again timewise?

MR. JOHNSON:	 We=ll be having a field plan review on Tuesday for phase one.  Depending on those revisions getting back to us, which usually takes about three to four weeks, we=ll be ready to let that project shortly.  Probably a May letting would be the most realistic time --

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 So we=ve got a pretty active year for our program.

MR. JOHNSON:	 There=s quite a few projects, yes, sir.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Thank you, Joe.  Van?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 Yes, sir.  I=ll mention some of the projects under construction.  First is Bloomfield Drive from Rocky Creek over to Eisenhower Parkway.  The utility companies finally got relocated the end of December.  The road contractor is back now and is started on drainage and a new water line installation there, so maybe we can get that finished up this spring or early summer.
The Ingleside Avenue project, the final paving was done last month.  The contractor is doing some sod work now and also working on the traffic signal installation at Riverside Drive, so that=s almost complete.  

The Macon State College entrances out there have been completed.  The final inspection was done in January and we=re working on punch list items there.

Project 18, Northside Drive from Forest Hill to Wesleyan Drive, is about 73 percent complete now, and it is expected that the contractor will be through in May of this year on it.  He=s doing some grading work now and also working on a large concrete culvert there.

The new traffic signal at I-75 and Eisenhower has been completed and the signal is in operation now.

Also, on the Intown Historic District sidewalks, they are 52 percent complete now.  There are 14 streets in that contract.  And they=ve been working on Tattnall, Oglethorpe and Adams lately.  And I think St. Paul, Progress and College Street remains to be done.

Also, the phase two and three signal upgrades, which was the new signals on the major arteries coming in, like Eisenhower, Mercer, Pio Nono and Vineville, Shurling Drive and Riverside Drive, Gray Highway, those signals, that project is about 15 percent complete.  They=ve been working on underground cable and conduit and pull boxes, and they also have been pouring a lot of the new strain pole foundations.  You all have probably noticed some of them along the road.  

Also, some of our right-of-way projects, the Log Cabin/Bloomfield project, there=s 145 parcels there and I think we=ve acquired 25 of those.  

The Mercer project from Log Cabin out to I-475, there=s 151 parcels, and we=ve acquired 115 of those.
Houston Avenue, phase one, is 161 parcels and we=ve got 114 already.   We have 39 under negotiation.  We=ve also got a partner in that project, and that=s the DOT.  We have to have a county contract to fund it, and we have that submitted and DOT is looking at that now.  But as far as a let date, we=re probably going to need to make sure we=ve got those funds in hand before we actually let, even if we get ready before they do.

Also, that phase two, Newberg on into town, there=s 100 parcels on it and we=ve acquired 16 of those.  

Tucker Road, we talked about the path on it.  There was 47 parcels out there.  We=ve acquired 14 of them, and we=re negotiating on 16 of them.  We have options on 5.  

So unless you all have some questions, that was all I had, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Does anybody have any questions of Van or Joe?  (No response).  One project we kind of lose in it all is this Zebulon Road interchange project because it=s a road design.  Joe, do you have --

MR. JOHNSON:	 Yes, sir, I had forgotten it.  I do have some information on that.  I apologize.  The Zebulon Road interchange, it=s being handled by the Road Design Department in the Department of Transportation.  American Engineers is the designer on that project.   They have had the field plan review on that project.  Right-of-way plans are not yet complete on that project, but funds are set up for this year.  From what I understand it=s going to be real tight to have those plans approved before the money runs out at the end of June of this year.  But if they can have the plans approved before then, they can go ahead and purchase the right-of-way.  There=s not many parcels out there.  Construction funds are set up in the next fiscal year, which will start the first of July.  So, really, it=s just a matter of the plans getting completed.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Van and Joe, what can we do to make this happen because I=m afraid we=re going to get in harm=s way with this project if it slips, you know, with the balance of money?  Is there anything we can do to get some priority with this consultant?  I mean there may be 8 or 10 parcels, at best, on that whole thing.  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 It may be, is that land swap deal still on the table?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 It=s still on the table.  In fact, I talked to them this week, the land swap between the gentleman out in California and Bibb County to swap those Lamar Road projects.  And, yes, they=re still willing to do that.  

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 The only thing I can suggest is if we see if DOT might would concentrate on that section as far as right-of-way plans and let us have those earlier where we can be working on the swap.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Do we need to go and sit down with Mr. Turner, do you think, and see what we can do?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 It might pay to do that.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Maybe that=s what we need to do is go to Atlanta because time is of the essence with this project.  I mean we=ve got some windows that we=ve got to hit and if we don=t I=m really afraid that we=ll fall into harm=s way with it.  So I=m going to ask Van and anybody who would like to go with us to Atlanta to sit down with Mr. Turner.  And it would give us a chance, also, to talk about some consultant contracts while we=re there.

MR. RYLE:		 Do you mind if I go so I can just kind of stay on top of it for finance purposes?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Sure.  Anybody that wants to go is welcome to go, more than welcome to go.  Is there any other questions of Van or Joe on our -- The Jeffersonville Road project, now, even though, do we need to prompt Norfolk-Southern a little bit or do we need to prod them a little with this contract?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 I don=t think Bibb County=s end of the project is the problem.  I think the other parties still have question about their end of the contract.  But Norfolk-Southern, as I understood it, is trying to put all of that into one contract.  I think Bibb County could probably go ahead with their part of it, if they want to do that, without an entire contract.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Did we resolve the issue of the dam and who owned it and who was going to fix it?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Well, I think the courts resolved that issue for us, you know.  The courts ruled, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that that facility --

MR. CAUSEY:		 Have you all heard that Mike Anthony may be buying Lakeside?

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 There=s been some talk about it but I --

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 There=s been some talk, Bill, but that would be part of the Green Space money expenditure.  Certainly this only helps the government because what we=re doing here is we=re reconstructing an old dam with help from whomever.  But trying to put it -- The reason I=m asking this, Albert Billingslea hemmed me up on this project.  Of course, he placed this project in the program in the very beginning.  That was his district at the time.  So it=s still part of him.  And Mr. Hart also got me and let me know that it was a priority to him to get that project into East Bibb out there, that that was a significant project out there.  

And maybe if we go, we can talk both of those projects a little bit.

MR. ETHERIDGE:	 That agreement is not holding us up as far as design anyway that I know of.
MR. JOHNSON:	We=re set to go either way, if that=s included or not included.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	Moving right along.  Item 13, Chairman=s Comments.  Bill, I had, Bill Causey, I had Al Williams call me about the City resurfacing, and he had talked to Mayor Ellis about it or something, something about a resurfacing project that=s set up for the City.  Will you all help me a little bit with that?  I --

MR. CAUSEY:		 We have a budgeted --

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Project somewhere?

MR. CAUSEY:		 -- amount.  Well, no, we don=t have the project.  The money is in the budget for resurfacing.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Okay.

MR. CAUSEY:		 For city streets.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 For city streets, okay.  Al was of the thought that there were some roads to be resurfaced that he had gone over with you.  Are you familiar with what I=m talking about?

MR. CAUSEY:		 Yes, I am.  He=s interested in some streets in Shirley Hills and they=re concrete.  And I=m interested in repairing concrete streets rather than resurfacing them for a lot of reasons.  They=re historic.  They=re cooler in the summer.  And sometimes it=s actually cheaper.  

We don=t have enough money to do all the concrete streets, and that=s where the process broke down.  I need to cull out those priorities, and from my memory his are the ones that would be done, if we did them.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Okay.

MR. CAUSEY:		 I guess I need to get with the Mayor and then get back with Van and submit a list and make sure that it falls within the budgeted amount.
MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Yeah, because I think he went to Mayor Ellis and I think he asked him to get with me, and I --

MR. CAUSEY:		 Well, you can handle it.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 I can=t handle it.  I don=t know anything about it.

MR. CAUSEY:		 I=ll do it.  It=s something that really needs to be done.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Thank you, Bill.  Another thing, Bill Wikle, on our traffic signal system.  Now, we=re going through the replacement of these controllers.  Would you mind bringing us up to speed about where we=re at?  Now, what we did, guys, we put a new system in place and then we=re going back and we=re replacing all the computer part of these signals now, which has taken us a little bit off of our timing.  Is that right, Bill?

MR. WIKLE:		 It has.  We completed the downtown installations and the communications network and then immediately turned around and started upgrading those controllers, which we knew from the outset we would have to do.  But the specifications for the new controller equipment were not ready when that contract was let, and it put us in that position.  So we=ve gone through the process of installing all the new equipment and it=s been, some of the delay is problems that come with redoing those controllers.  But we=re bringing them on line now with new software and it=s coming up as it=s supposed to, as it was intended with new software.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 The timing, Bill, do we need, are we going to need to bring in these timing consultants again or --

MR. WIKLE:		 No.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 -- do we have what we need?

MR. WIKLE:		 We do.  We=re converting all of that in house.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 In house.  So we=re just duplicating what was set up with the old controllers?

MR. WIKLE:		 That=s right.  The, we=ve got the phase two and three work that you mentioned earlier that=s underway.  And we=re in that same situation where the controllers that were spec=d for those intersections was the old 170 controller.  We got word yesterday from DOT that they will provide us with the 2070 controllers immediately so that we=ll be able to supply those to the contractor and not have to go through the trauma of installing one and then replacing it.  And that was good news.

MR. CAUSEY:		 While we=re on traffic signals, can I ask a question?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Certainly.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Charles Richardson has been beating us up badly about Vineville, and then I noticed yesterday that someone is starting spotting utilities out there and paint circles on the ground.  Is something going on as far as those signals out there?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Bill?

MR. WIKLE:		 Yes.  Those will be replaced with this new equipment.  Of course, it will be the same operation, and until we make changes in that road it will continue to function as a three-lane reversible lane system.

MR. CAUSEY:		 We=re not paying for that, though, are we?

MR. WIKLE:		 No.  It=s included in the phase two and three signal upgrade projects which is funded by DOT.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 It=s just a replacement of old equipment?

MR. WIKLE:		 Yes.
MR. CAUSEY:		 Well, have we made anymore discussion, I know we started talking about Vineville again, and I think we got it back in the TIP, didn=t we?

MR. RYLE:		 Yeah.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Are we moving that thought along at the same time?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 On the update, Vernon, did we get something set up for it again?  

MR. RYLE:		 It hasn=t been I don=t think.  It=s still in the long range end of it.  We need for Tommy or somebody to, and the Mayor, maybe, to write a letter to Tom Coleman and say, hey, you know, this is what we, go through the whole analysis that we did and we=ve come to the same realization, that Vineville=s got to be improved.  But that has to be done by the State.  It=s a State route. 

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 That needs to come out of the MATS process, though, doesn=t it, Vernon?

MR. RYLE:		 I think it can because we=ve already made that determination.  We meet again, well, we=ll probably meet before, around the 1st of April.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Would you put that on your agenda?

MR. RYLE:		 I=ll be glad to.

MR. CAUSEY:		 The newspaper is eating us up, and if we can just show that, okay, we acknowledge the problem and we=re making these steps towards I hope public involvement and --

MR. RYLE:		 Right.  I don=t think the problem here is local.  We=ve done a draft Vineville corridor study, and we are going to go out and kind of do some preliminary work with the community out there.  

MR. CAUSEY:		 You have or you=re going to?
MR. RYLE:		 We have the study, a draft of it, put together to the point that we=re ready to discuss it with the community, yeah.  But we haven=t met with the community.  We will be doing that.  And we=re going to proceed with that.  And we should be well, locally we should be well ahead of the curve by the time Georgia DOT, you know, starts putting it in their program.  But it=s going to be their decision because it=s a State route, as you all well know.  I think they need to be aware locally that=s the way we=re going to handle it.  

MR. CAUSEY:		 It is the State bikeway, also.

MR. RYLE:		 Right.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 We have a preliminary design on it.

MR. RYLE:		 Yeah, but I think we kind of need to revisit that.  There=s been a lot of, it=s been a long time since that one was done by the State.  There=s something even that you brought up that could really minimize the impact and improve traffic circulation there.  The median, that=s a good point to have there.  So I think we need to kind of revisit some of that stuff because I think we can, it=s going to be hard to fit it into that community because of the property, how close everything is to the roadway there, and I think Georgia DOT has done a good job in the first design, but I think we can improve upon it, and I think we can make it more community friendly and make it work just as good.  And I think we=ve got a good opportunity to do that and we need to pursue that angle with them.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Will you try to carry that forward for us, Vernon?

MR. RYLE:		 Yes, I will.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 All right.  Moving right along to our next meeting dates.  TAC will be March the 6th at 10:00.  Our Citizens Oversight Committee will be April 17th at 2:00.  And the Executive Committee, I know we are working towards getting a meeting set up on the Executive Committee.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Is Mr. Ward Evans, will he be our new --

MR. PRESTON:	 Edwards.

MR. CAUSEY:		 Edwards.  Will he be our new executive person?

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Jimmy, you may want to brief us on that.  

MR. PRESTON:	 Ward Edwards will be our new, will be our principal Board member on DOT.  We also have a little section of Bibb County that touches  Columbus, but Ward Edwards will be the principal Board member from Butler, Georgia.  

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 When will he take office, Jimmy?

MR. PRESTON:	 April the 15th.  He was elected last week, but he will take office April 15th.  In fact, there will be a good number of new Board members.  There will be six, and two are already there, but six were elected to the Board last week.

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Out of how many seats?

MR. PRESTON:	 There were six vacancies but two present members were running --

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 How many seats on the Highway Board?

MR. PRESTON:	 Thirteen seats.  There are only 10 voters right now on the Board.  Bill Hasty, the Chairman, resigned because his term was up, and he just resigned a little early.  He=s not well.  But Ward Edwards I think will be an excellent Board member.  I served in the House with him.  Ward married Garland Byrd=s youngest sister, Billie, and he=s had a long term of knowing what was going on in politics from here, there and about.  So he=s a fine young man, or a fine man, he=s not a young man.  He is a fine guy.

MR. RYLE:		 It depends on your perspective.  

MR. PRESTON:	 Yeah.  I like him.  I really like him.

MR. RYLE:		 I=m talking about age. 

MR. FOUNTAIN:	 Any other business to come before this body.  If not, we stand 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 6th day of February, 2003.

     This 10th day of February, 2003.

                               
       Certificate No. B-1238