TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MACON-BIBB COUNTY SALES TAX ROAD PROGRAM
APRIL 17, 2003
10:00 A.M.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

BOB FOUNTAIN
BILL CAUSEY
MIKE ENGLAND
THOMAS HOWELL
VERNON RYLE
FRANK SANDERS
BILL VAUGHN

OTHERS PRESENT:

STEVE DUVAL
DAVID FORTSON
LINDSAY HOLLIDAY
LEE MARTIN 
MRS. JOE PATTERSON, JR.
JOE PATTERSON, JR.
TOM QUEEN
SHERRIE SAWYER
TOM SCHOLL
KENNETH SHEETS
KRISTEN STINSON
JIM THOMAS
ROBIN WEBB
BILL WILLINGHAM

CLAUDE JOINER REPORTING SERVICE, INC.
410 AMERICAN FEDERAL BUILDING 
P. O. BOX 94
MACON, GEORGIA 31202-0094
TELEPHONE: 912/742-6611 or 746-7804
MR. FOUNTAIN: I=d like to call our April meeting to order, if we could, please. These are not our, these are our February minutes before us. Are there any corrections, additions or deletions to our minutes? If not, could I have a motion for approval, please.

MR. CAUSEY: Move to accept.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Motion.

MR. VAUGHN: Second.

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

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

Item 3, I=m sorry, Item, I got ahead with the minutes, I=m sorry. Drop back up to 2 on our agenda. I guess we need a motion to approve our agenda. Could I have a motion to approve the agenda?

MR. CAUSEY: So moved.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Motion. Can I have a second?

MR. VAUGHN: Second.

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

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

All right. Item 3, is there anyone who would like to add any items to our agenda? (No response). Okay. 

I guess we=ll move to Item 5, our Community Comments. Is there anyone who would like to address this body? If so, identify yourself, please, sir.

MR. SCHOLL: I=m Tom Scholl. Bob, this relates to the Western Loop. I was at that meeting and one of the concerns that was raised at that meeting were the traffic counts. Given the fiasco of traffic counts that occurred on Houston Road, you brought in your consultant and you brought in evidence to the Executive Committee that there were going to be 30,000 cars a day on Houston Road. You said 30,000 cars a day on Hartley Bridge Road. You scared the Executive Committee into a decision to build a five-lane facility. And now we=re finding out that, from Planning and Zoning, that there=s not 30,000 cars a day coming down Houston Road, there=s in the 9,000 range of cars in the year 2024. So you=ve got a five-lane facility for 9,000 cars which any two-lane road can handle. 

I=m wondering what you=re going to tell the people when you bring in traffic counts such as you did on the Western Loop. I=m wondering what you can tell people that=s going to make them have any kind of faith in the traffic counts you bring. Why aren=t these traffic counts three times too high like they were on Houston Road? 

As a member of the community, I think we deserve some explanation as to why the traffic counts can now be relied upon when they couldn=t in the past, when they obviously couldn=t in the past. 

MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you, Tom.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Mr. Chairman.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I=d like to ask a question. The gentleman keeps referring to Ayou@. Did you make all of these decisions yourself? If not, who is Ayou@ and who are they referring to that did all of these things? Was it a committee, was it you, or was it, who was the approval of all of this?

MR. FOUNTAIN: The Chairman=s question, Tom, you=re talking about Ayou@. Are you talking about me or this body?

MR. SCHOLL: Well, Bob, I think I=m going to adopt the same attitude that you have. You don=t answer questions, so neither will I. 

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: So he=s just talking to just a general bunch of people who don=t know who they are. Thank you.

MR. FOUNTAIN: The, as you know, Tom, the Houston Road project was not a capacity project. We were taken to court over that in the Federal Court. And it was a, it was a safety project, and it was approved as a safety project and not a capacity project. We want to try to develop the best traffic counts that we can develop to do the very best job that we can do with the resources that we are given. That was a pledge we made and we try to do that, and we try to do it in a professional light. 

MR. SCHOLL: Bob, I appreciate that response, but let me say on that Executive Committee meeting when the Executive Committee was asked to approve Houston Road and consider alternatives, you did not say in the, and when I say, Ayou@, I mean the Road Program, the Road Program did not bring in one word about safety. Everything that was brought to the Executive Committee related to traffic counts, and huge traffic counts. 

MR. RYLE: Bobby.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Vernon.

MR. RYLE: The whole report that was done for Houston Road documented the safety problems. I remember reading it myself and it talking about the left and right-hand turns, and that=s why you had to have the continuous right-hand lane and the continuous center lane is because of the continuous conflicts that you had and the number of curb cuts you have along Houston Road. So the report that documented the need for the facility had that written in there. And I think Mr. Evans= projections was just a secondary thing. We, I don=t ever recall making our fi nal judgment on that study. This committee here, we already, the only reason we did was to look and see if the trends that we were looking at were consistent with other people, other projections people had made. So it, to me, when I looked at it I never looked at it as a capacity problem. I looked at it as a safety problem. I mean that=s how it was explained to me and that=s what I read in the document.

MR. FOUNTAIN: I believe 20 years out that we can see some 20,000 traffic out there. If you=ll look at Zebulon Road, if you=ll look at Northside Drive, they both reflect the growth. And I believe the growth will be there on Houston Road, and I think we made the right decision to do what we did.

MR. SANDERS: Especially with sanitary sewer going in there.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Absolutely.

MR. RYLE: And I want to set something straight here. It=s not P&Z=s projections and models, it=s the Georgia DOT=s. We happen to have a copy of that in our office which they give us. But it=s the DOT official model. That=s where those figures come from. < br> 
MR. FOUNTAIN: Anyone else like to --

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, sir.

MR. MARTIN: I just walked in. Is this community comments?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, it is.

MR. MARTIN: Good. I=m sure that Mr. Duval --

MR. FOUNTAIN: Would you identify yourself, please, sir.

MR. MARTIN: Lee Martin.

MR. FOUNTAIN: All right, sir.

MR. MARTIN: I=m sure that Mr. Duval will do a real good job on reporting on the stakeholders meeting about the Western Loop. He usually does. I was there. I=m a certified stakeholder of the Western Loop project. And I would just like to pass on to this committee the way that I saw the meeting unfold.

Out of all the stakeholders that were there, there was not one, not one stakeholder who approved of the Georgia, well, actually we never could find out who actually designed the five-lane project. It was like this (demonstrating). It wasn=t Georgia DOT. It wasn=t Moreland Altobelli. It wasn=t Bibb County Engineering. It wasn=t the Macon City Traffic Engineering Department. And it wasn=t Federal Highway, although they didn=t have anybody there. Nobody would admit to us who designed the five-lane project.

All of the stakeholders that were there asked for an alternative project that would address safety concerns, not traffic counts but safety concerns, in a two-lane or a three-lane road. And to imply that one has to have a four-lane road or a five-lane road to address safety concerns is neanderthal thinking.

We have asked for a needs and purpose statement for the Western Loop at the last three public meetings, the one public meeting and the last three stakeholders meetings. We yet have not, we have yet to see the needs and purpose statement for the Western Loop. 

I hope that Mr. Duval=s comments will reflect the accuracy of what I have just said. I mean I don=t understand how you can even design the project without a needs and purpose statement. But we would like to know who designed it. I mean somebody has got to step up to the plate and be man enough or woman enough to say that the company or the bureaucracy that I work for did the design. 

One other comment I=d like to make. At the last meeting this came up in new business so I=m assuming that it will come up again. It came up yesterday in the Policy Committee, and that was the Forest Hill Road project, or the Northwest Parkway. 

I have a letter here to Moreland Altobelli Associates from the Middle Georgia Regional Development Center concerning the Park Street widening. It references Stipulation 1 of the Memorandum of Agreement. While decreasing the width of the median along Park Street will slightly minimize the visual and aesthetic impact of the proposed work, the widening of the street from two to four lanes lies at the root of the problem. Retaining the historic resources along Park Street is a primary objective but the loss of the historic context and setting of these properties should also be considered. Implementation of the proposed project will require the loss of the historic setback of each property as well as diminish the pedestrian nature of the street. Both of these outcomes erode the historic development and character of the neighborhood. It is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

In reference to Stipulation 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement, the installation of landscaping and additional lighting along Park Street will contribute a false sense of historical development along the street and in the neighborhood. These measures will not serve to mitigate the effects of the project but will differentiate Park Street from the other streets in the neighborhood effectively interrupting the harmony and flow of the neighborhood streetscapes and spacial arrangements.

In reference to Stipulation 4 of the Memorandum of Agreement, the preparation of the Georgia National Register nomination from the Park Street Historic District is an admirable way to assist the community, and not just the Park Street community but the City and County community of Bibb, in achieving its goals of maintaining a liveable community and safeguarding its quality of life. Unfortunately, the proposed project may render the Park Street Historic District ineligible for listing in the National Register as the proposed work will alter the historical development of Park Street itself and the neighborhood as a whole. Widening Park Street from a residential two-lane street to a four-lane parkway will dramatically change the pedestrian character of the street and will sever the district in half erroding the continuity of the neighborhood. 

There has been a recent study put out by a traffic planner in, I can=t remember the name of the city in Colorado. I have the study. And he tracked the accident rates, injury rates, on neighborhood streets, and I=m not talking about collectors or arteries, I=m talking about neighborhood streets. A 50-foot wide curb to curb street had one accident per mile, one accident with injury per mile per year. When you reduced the lane width down to 24 feet and less, the accident rate and injury rate dropped to .2 accidents per mile per year. 

I saw in the paper this morning where Bibb County has had the astounding growth rate of .3 percent for the last, .6 percent for the last two years, .3 percent for each year. The last 20 years, not counting those two, we=ve had hardly any growth while the counties around us are growing greatly. I asked Mr. Elmo Richardson at the last County Commissioners meeting, the next-to-last, how he explained that. He said I think it=s past leadership. I don=t know who he was talking about, and I didn=t ask him. I probably didn=t want to know. But unless this county changes the way it does business, I don=t expect that those inflated growth rates that you=re projecting, Mr. Chairman, are ever going to happen. They certainly have not happened for the last 20 years and haven=t happened for the last two years. If anybody is excited about how these roads are being built, they would be flocking to move into Bibb County. In fact, I think we=re driving them away, and the statistics bear it out. So I think it= s time for some fresh, young, new outlooks about how the way this Road Program is being handled and how the roads are being designed. Thank you very much.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you, Lee.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I would like to make a comment on that. I thought it was right interesting that they talked about Houston County, the population growth, right beside a big picture of where they were widening the road in Houston County. I wonder what the contrast is between them and us.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Mr. Chairman, I=m not sure that the growth of single family dwellings or people reflect the traffic on our roads as we grow to be an economic hub for 27 counties. We have become a center of commerce. If you=ll look at the growth on Zebulon Road and all our major arterials, they are growing at rates far exceeding that of population growth. I think that=s to be expected.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: And Houston is working real hard to widen their roads, as we have been trying, and succeeding, though, without all the problems that we=ve encountered.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Right.

MR. MARTIN: They=ve had the population growth to justify it.

MR. FOUNTAIN: All right. Is there anyone else who would like to make any comments?

DR. HOLLIDAY: I was at the Western Loop.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Would you identify yourself, please, sir.

DR. HOLLIDAY: This is Lindsay Holliday, dentist and engineer. I concur with Lee that there was unanimous stakeholder indication that they wanted to see some two-lane options with intersection improvements. 

At the Forest Hill Road stakeholder meeting, the last one we had, that you stacked with developers as your stakeholders, sir, I=m talking about Mr. Olmstead stacking it with developers, even there, except for one or two developers, there was, the consensus was they wanted to see other options. The consensus was that this plan ain=t what we want as a community. 

The fact is Forest Hill Road could be fixed in one or two weekends with a bulldozer and an asphalt truck. There=s about five places where we need a turning lane. And that will solve 90 percent of the problems. 

Now, I=ve been talking about that road ever since we first saw the first, the EA for that we had out at Springdale School. I told you, hey, there is some engineering problems, and I was right. They have just recently sent surveyors out to Forest Hill Road and have found the creek I was talking about within the scope of the project. They put stakes across the creek and they said this creek is going to have to be moved. That is such an incredible oversight you have to wonder if it could possibly have not been accidental.

And, also, what other oversights are there that I just didn=t have time, I=m not being paid to oversee this project. I just go in there and hit the high points and pick up something, this gross an error. How many more could I find if somebody paid me to look at that project instead of the people here that have been sucking up my tax money to do it? 

These developers, there is a court case in Georgia about impact fees. It=s recognized now in the court system that there is a problem with developers drawing these roads to enhance their own pocketbook at the expense of the rest of the community. And it=s such a problem that the court said this is what you can do, Mr. Chairman, you can impose impact fees for people who develop projects that are going to cause us to have to build a four-lane highway, a new school, new water lines. It is reasonable and fair to impose impact fees. 

The exact opposite of that would be to put the developers in the position of stakeholders to design the projects. That=s the tack you have chosen recently, sir. It=s the exact opposite of what has been found to be the right thing to do. Okay.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Found by who? Who found it?

DR. HOLLIDAY: Lee, do you remember the court case that was within the past four or five months?

MR. MARTIN: Gwinnett County=s poster child for impact fees. They=ve been very successful with it. I=m sure if you go on the Internet you could find out all kind of good information about that and also sustainable smart growth and good comprehensive traffic planning. It=s out there.

DR. HOLLIDAY: Yeah. The Planning and Zoning Department ought to know that because this was, I think there have been five communities in Georgia. It was almost a class action suit saying, the developers were saying, no, you all can=t penalize us, we=re bringing all this money to the community, waah, waah, waah.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: What does this really have to do with this road? Now, if you want to tell, have a meeting and tell everybody how bad I am, that=s up to you. But for us to come and talk about the agenda items here and just because we have a chance for a comment does not give you the right to come and try to step on everybody that=s trying to serve, and maybe not to your opinion, but it is the opinion of more people, of the majority of the people in Bibb County.

DR. HOLLIDAY: I don=t think so.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Because I was elected by a majority of the people, and you weren=t.

DR. HOLLIDAY: Yeah, but you also know I represent several thousand people. Okay.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I don=t know who you represent or really what --

DR. HOLLIDAY: It doesn=t matter.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: -- you do other than practice dentistry sometimes.

MR. MARTIN: Mr. Olmstead, he has every right to present his views.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: He does. He has every right.

MR. MARTIN: He certainly does.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: He does. And I understand that. But I don=t think he=s got a right to come in and talk about, tell me how bad I am because I don=t advocate impact fees.

MR. MARTIN: I don=t think he --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Well, I --

MR. MARTIN: -- said that. 

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: -- I do.

MR. MARTIN: I don=t think I=ve heard your name mentioned --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I do. I=m sorry. We=ll discuss this outside. This is not --

MR. MARTIN: But you=re not a -- 
CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: -- the place for that, Lee. 

MR. MARTIN: You=re not a member of this committee, Mr. Olmstead.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I=m a citizen just like you are.

MR. MARTIN: But you=re acting like you=re a member of the committee and taking the right to speak when we don=t have the right to speak.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I=m taking the right to speak when this man stands up and calls me by name and making charges. You know, if we talk about disagreements, that=s one thing. But when you start talking about somebody=s character and ability, that=s another thing.

MR. MARTIN: But you=re a public official, and if you want to talk to him one on one now --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: So I=m free for you to belittle at any time you want to, right?

MR. MARTIN: This is a public meeting, Mr. Olmstead. It=s not a private discussion between --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I know what this is, Mr. Martin.

MR. MARTIN: -- you and Dr. Holliday.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I know that. He=s --

MR. MARTIN: I=d like to hear what he has to say.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Well, I=ve heard it before, and I=m sure you have.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Let=s try to stay with the agenda items if we could, please.

DR. HOLLIDAY: As to the agenda item, nobody here says who is designing the projects. That=s the issue that we were on about ten minutes ago.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: That=s what we were talking about.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Well, let me answer that for you. 

DR. HOLLIDAY: I=m not sure --

MR. FOUNTAIN: We do not have a design of the project of the Western Loop. We have not hired anyone to design the project. We have hired a company by the name of Kimley-Horn to develop a concept for us. We do not have an approved concept. We are trying to develop a concept as we speak. When that concept is developed, we will take it to the Executive Committee of the Road Program for approval. We will have one other community meeting in regards to the concept that=s developed for other public input. But as to date there is no design of the project.

MR. SCHOLL: Is there a needs and purpose statement? 

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes.

MR. MARTIN: Have you developed a --

MR. ETHERIDGE: The needs and purpose statement was handed out at the second stakeholders meeting for comment. We have not received one comment about the needs and purpose statement.

DR. HOLLIDAY: I never saw it. I was there.

MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, If you were there, you got a copy.

MR. DUVAL: You got a copy.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Or you were offered a copy.

MR. MARTIN: May we get another copy?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Certainly.

MR. ETHERIDGE: Certainly. 

MR. MARTIN: Thank you.

DR. HOLLIDAY: So the reason this was germane is that we=re dealing here with designs that don=t fit what the community that I hear, the majority of the stakeholders, even the stakeholders that you stacked in there, they didn=t agree with the concept for Forest Hill Road. They don=t agree with the concept for the Western Loop. They don=t agree with the I-16/75 concept. They don=t agree with the Eisenhower Parkway Extension concept. What we need to do to get these things moving, because we need these improvements, we=ve got to get on the right track. We=ve got to pull the developers out of the stakeholder=s position and put some people in there that care more about the community than making their own profit. 

There are some great ideas that have come up to solve these things and for some reason they=re not getting anywhere. And it=s because Mr. Olmstead and some others have stacked these stakeholders meetings with people who are interested only in their own personal financial gain.

MR. FOUNTAIN: That=s not the purpose of this meeting is to come and do that.

DR. HOLLIDAY: Well, I=m talking about --

MR. FOUNTAIN: We=re here to discuss technical --

DR. HOLLIDAY: -- the technical design of these projects.

MR. FOUNTAIN: -- issues that relate to road projects.

DR. HOLLIDAY: Yes. I=m talking about road projects.

MR. FOUNTAIN: And that is the purpose of this meeting.

DR. HOLLIDAY: Well, what do you think I=m talking about?

MR. FOUNTAIN: You=re talking about a man and what he did.

DR. HOLLIDAY: I=m talking about why your technical advice is screwed up.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I haven=t put anybody on a stakeholders meeting for what you came, what you were talking about, and I believe that is the Western Loop. I have not, and no one has asked me to do that, and that has not been done. But I=ll tell you, I don=t think real estate people and developers are evil. I think they are citizens just like you are and they need to be heard at the same time you=re heard. So to say for us to exclude them is absolutely asinine.

DR. HOLLIDAY: There=s good dentists and bad dentists. There=s good developers and bad developers. There=s good politicians and bad politicians. I=m not saying exclude developers. What I=m saying is the ones that you=ve chosen --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Oh, you don=t like my choice?

DR. HOLLIDAY: Well --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: You don=t like Tim Thornton. I believe he was recently appointed, that I was criticized yesterday by somebody that was worried about the Western Loop.

DR. HOLLIDAY: He=s got commercial property on Forest Hill Road, and he=s already expressed, and certainly if he had a, he could greatly enhance the commercial value of that property --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I think talking about Tim Thornton and individuals is absolutely --

MR. FOUNTAIN: This is -- We need to move on with our committee meeting --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: -- not in order for this.

MR. FOUNTAIN: -- because --

DR. HOLLIDAY: Well, you brought up his name. 

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: No, but, yeah, I did because you were circling around and saying I loaded these people with bad people.

DR. HOLLIDAY: Well, you did.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: And I just asked you, he was one, the only developer that I know that was on the Forest Hill.

DR. HOLLIDAY: The Joneses.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: And he=s not a developer.

MR. RYLE: He lived off of Forest Hill.

DR. HOLLIDAY: The Joneses own a vast, empty, ugly lot they stripped two years ago.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I did not know that. I thought they owned the Holiday Inn down there.

DR. HOLLIDAY: They own that, too. They also own a lot of people in Macon and Bibb County.

MR. FOUNTAIN: If we could, let=s move on with our agenda, if we could. Are you through, Dr. Holliday?

DR. HOLLIDAY: Well, I want to say again that these meetings are being held at the wrong time of day. If you really want to get the technical things solved, take people that have got other interests besides their own personal interests.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you.

DR. HOLLIDAY: That=s what it=s going to take. Lee, anything else I want to talk about?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address our committee?

MR. PATTERSON: Mr. Chairman, may I speak?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, sir.

MR. PATTERSON: The only thing I --

MR. FOUNTAIN: Would you identify yourself, please, sir.

MR. PATTERSON: This is Joe Patterson. 

MR. FOUNTAIN: All right, sir.

MR. PATTERSON: I=m not concerned too much with what was said then, but, Mr. Olmstead, and I know this from practical experience, Mr. Olmstead, but I think real estate people should not have a vote. And the reason is they=ve got a conflict of interest. And anybody, I don=t care whether it=s me or you or somebody else that=s got a conflict of interest, they shouldn=t be permitted to stand up and say, have an expression that=s we=ll say against or for a program. For instance, and here=s what I=m talking about, when we had the Forest Hill hearing over there, we had two real estate people, both of whom own real property over there. Both of them are for that program over there. They=ve got a conflict of interest. That=s what I wanted to say. 
CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Well, sir, let me --

MR. PATTERSON: Wait just a second. Anybody that=s got a conflict of interest, even if it=s me, they should not have anything to say when it=s going to affect a multitude of people for their own personal financial interest.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: What interests, how do you separate a conflict of interest between someone who owns property that may sell it for a profit and somebody who owns a house that may take a, may be affected some way on the road that will worry about the value of their house when they sell it or that don=t want it, that=s not a conflict of interest?

MR. PATTERSON: I=m not sure that I understand it in the sense of an individual that owns a home over there. He should have a right to sell it any time --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Well --

MR. PATTERSON: Wait a minute. Let me finish. He should have a right to sell it if he wants to sell it. But when it gets to the point, like the individual that I know, that it goes through, if I understand it correctly, there will be a retaining wall within 15 feet of his front door. That=s wrong.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: That=s wrong. No question about it.

MR. PATTERSON: That=s what I=m talking about.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: There=s no question about it.

MR. PATTERSON: Let me be frank with you. Lots of these people can=t hire lawyers to go down there and fight for them in court. And I detest even lawyers who get up and because of the interests they=ve got, they want to hurt somebody. My philosophy in life is don=t hurt anybody unless you have to. 
CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I agree.

MR. PATTERSON: Be honest and above board about it.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I agree. Thank you. 

MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you, sir, for your comments. Anyone else? (No response). We=ll move right along in our agenda then. Item 6, report on our stakeholders meeting. Steve, do you want to tell us what we haven=t heard?

MR. DUVAL: I don=t know whether I want to or not. Good morning everybody.

UNISON: Good morning.

MR. DUVAL: We did, in fact, have a stakeholders meeting in reference to the Western Loop project on March 27th. We had that meeting at Martha Bowman Memorial United Methodist Church. And the reason we moved that meeting to the church out there was because the other two stakeholders meetings we had held at Sonny Carter, and in that cafeteria, it was kind of noisy in there, and we couldn=t adjust that noise level. And it was kind of hard for some of the stakeholders to hear the presentation and everything that we were having out there. So they were so gracious to let us hold the meeting at United, I mean at Martha Bowman. 

And we had a nice cozy room. I think everybody could hear in that room. And we had several people in attendance. In fact, at this particular meeting we did have half of the stakeholders who were appointed on this project in attendance there. And that=s, I think we had more stakeholders than we ever did on any of the other meetings. So that was a good deal I think. And I tried to contact all the stakeholders. We contacted them by letter and I also did follow that up with a phone call trying to get everybody. So we had half the stakeholders there. 

As I see it, I=m going to, this report is my reflection of what happened at that meeting, so if you have something to say about it, we can talk about it also. But Mr. Walker, who works for Kimley-Horn, the firm that was hired to come up with these concepts and everything, he did have an agenda for that particular meeting. And that agenda wasn=t followed to the letter because his presentation was interrupted pretty quickly. 

MR. FOUNTAIN: Was it not an orderly meeting, Steve?

MR. DUVAL: Well, I don=t know what you mean by orderly. I=m saying he wasn=t allowed to complete his presentation and then follow up with questions and answers and that sort of thing because he had a presentation to make in reference to the entire corridor. He never got into that part. So, and I think probably after the meeting is when he probably could make a better presentation to individuals who came up to him and asked him questions about it. And I=m not su re how that went because I wasn=t in those conversations. But as far as the presentation that he had planned and the dialogue back and forth among all the stakeholders, that didn=t happen. And there was, you know, a lot of I=ll just say discontent, you know, about what might have been proposed for the road or whatever. But we didn=t get a, I think a good enough dialogue going during the meeting. Maybe afterwards.

So as far as that=s concerned, I don=t think it was a very successful stakeholders meeting overall. And that=s my personal opinion. But we did have quite a few people in attendance there, like I say. And that=s the gist of it, and I=ll entertain any question about it. 

And, also, let me just, I want to say at that second stakeholders meeting, we did show up with the needs and purpose statement, and I remember that because it was separate. And I did pass those out at that second, at the second stakeholders meeting.

MR. FOUNTAIN: And are they available to anyone that --

MR. DUVAL: They=re available now. Anybody that needs one, I can get it up for you. And that=s all I=ve got. Any questions? I=ll try to entertain them. (Hand raised). Yes?

MR. MARTIN: Would you agree, Mr. Duval, that of the high number of stakeholders, stakeholder attendees that were there, that they all were opposed to the five-laning of Bass Road?

MR. DUVAL: I will agree that the ones that spoke up were against it. But all 15 stakeholders didn=t get into this dialogue during the meeting. But the ones that did speak up, and I don=t have an accurate account, but I=d say, you know, three or four people who did get to speak, I=m saying the people that spoke during that presentation, during the dialogue back and forth, those people were against the road. And they definitely don=t want to see any four-lane road.

MR. FOUNTAIN: I think Steve=s question was to us as a group, do we have any questions of Steve? 

MR. DUVAL: I mean I -- whatever.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Do you all have any questions of Steve? (No response). Steve, thank you. 

MR. DUVAL: Thank you.

MR. ETHERIDGE: Mr. Chairman, just as a follow up, what we=d like is a little guidance on what to do next. What we=d like to do is show this concept that Kimley-Horn developed, show it to the entire neighborhood like we did the first time when we were out there. We had 155 people come to that first meeting. But at that time we didn=t have anything but a blank aerial photograph of that corridor. What we=d like to do now is go back and show the entire community what=s been developed and get comments on it before we go to the Executive Committee with the concept for them to look at where we can take the public comment that we get to them. So that would be my suggestion, that we do go ahead and set up a big public meeting.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Van, the concept is one that we=ve all seen collectively, I mean individually, but we=ve not seen that as a group, have we?

MR. ETHERIDGE: You mean here?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes.

MR. ETHERIDGE: This group?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes.

MR. ETHERIDGE: No, we=ve not shown it here at the TAC.

MR. FOUNTAIN: I=d like to bring it here before we go to the community so that we can all sit here collectively and make our comments. 

MR. ETHERIDGE: We can do that the next time.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Do it the next time, and then the following month maybe we can schedule at the end of summer, or mid-summer, schedule a full community meeting on that project. Are there anymore questions or comments to Steve? (No response). 

Item 7, our bids received, Van, a report of action of our Board.

MR. ETHERIDGE: Under Tab 7A is a copy of the bids we received on the Forsyth Street project. This is a project that was previously bid back in May of 2002 where we had only two bidders. The low bid at that time was 2.3 million dollars and it was rejected because it was 35 percent over the engineer=s estimate. On March 18th Bibb County took new bids, and Northeast Concrete was the low bidder. We had three bids this time. He was 18 percent below the engineer=s estimate, and his MBE goal was 47 percent, which exceeds our goal of 20 percent.

So what we=d recommend is that this body approve Northeast Concrete=s bid, and we=re recommending the $1,373,006.33. That=s the option that includes the concrete sidewalks instead of the brick sidewalks.

MR. VAUGHN: Is that within budget?

MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, this is within the budget that we have for the project.

MR. FOUNTAIN: And we=ve made this same recommendation to our Board, have we not?

MR. ETHERIDGE: We have.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Can I have a motion for approval?

MR. SANDERS: So moved.

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

MR. CAUSEY: Second.

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

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

MR. ETHERIDGE: Also, Mr. Chairman, another item of information that some of you may not have heard about was on March the 21st Georgia DOT received bids on our Log Cabin project. That=s the section from Eisenhower over to Mercer. And the low bid was Reeves Construction at 1.6 million. This is widening Log Cabin from a two-lane to a five-lane facility with new curb and sidewalks, traffic signals and a new drainage system. The project has a completion date of March 31st of next year. 

As you remember, this was a joint venture project with the City and County doing the engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition, and Georgia DOT letting the contract. Of course, this is just for information. Georgia DOT will handle the authorization to go to work, which they haven=t done yet. 

MR. HOWELL: It=s been awarded though.

MR. ETHERIDGE: It has?

MR. HOWELL: Yes.

MR. CAUSEY: Are they going to be able to make any arrangements for during Christmas?

MR. HOWELL: We=ll just have, it=s a long way away. We=ll just have to see. But I understand what you=re saying. I mean we don=t need to be disruptive to the shopping centers.

MR. JOHNSON: Tom, I think we do have a special provision for coordination with the businesses during the holiday season.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Moving right along to our program update with Joe. Joe is going to talk about all of them, design and environmental.

MR. JOHNSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I=ll go over the projects as I usually do. If there=s any questions, please stop me. And if there=s any projects that I don=t mention that you=d like to hear about, please stop me also. 

The first project I=m going to talk about is Project Number 3, which is our South Downtown Connector. The last time I reported to this committee that the Planning and Zoning Department was looking at a corridor study on that particular project. Since that time, P&Z with a few members of the Road Program have met with the Department of Transportation about another project in that area, the Second Street bridge project. And currently Planning and Zoning is working on that Second Street bridge project and how it will relate to our South Downtown Connector project. So we=re really in a holding pattern right now until we figure out the outcome of their study on that project.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Joe, I had some discussion with Vernon Ryle yesterday concerning that project, and with Mr. Chester Wheeler -- Chester is present -- about the fact that if we did the Second Street project we could not build the Connector. I think we have four alternatives in that project. It would severely impact one of them.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. FOUNTAIN: It would leave you three other choices to go if you so desired. But it would only adversely affect, which would be the Passano scenario. But there are three other routes that are viable routes that we have shown.

MR. JOHNSON: Right.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Am I correct in saying that?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

MR. FOUNTAIN: So just kind of a little correction there. It only affected one of the four routes that have been shown.

MR. RYLE: On the Second Street Bridge we=ve already, about a week after we met, we forwarded the data back to the Georgia DOT so they can do the elevations and the drawings and everything, and I hadn=t heard where they are on that yet.

MR. JOHNSON: The next project is our Poplar Street design from Civic Square down to Martin Luther King. We had a field plan review on March the 19th. We had a good crowd there. It went pretty well. Our consultant is finishing up the final plans and we expect delivery of those next week and we should be able to let that within the next two months. The field plan review did go extremely well, so we are doing pretty good.

Our next set of projects are our Jeffersonville Road projects.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Joe, I couldn=t hear what you were saying.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I apologize. That was our Poplar Street project that McClees, Boggs and Selby are designing for us. We had a field plan review on March 19th for that project. We had a good crowd there and that review went extremely well. Our consultant is working on the final plans right now and they are wrapping them up, and I expect delivery any time on those plans. We=ll be able to review them and get ready to let that project I=d say sometime early summer.

MR. FOUNTAIN: What date? Give us a month on that, Joe.

MR. JOHNSON: Let=s see, May probably, I=d say June or July.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Start the advertisement in June?

MR. JOHNSON: I think something like that.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Start advertising in June, open bids in July, award in August? Is that --

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: What are you going to do with the buses because that has not been resolved I don=t think?

MR. CAUSEY: We=re working on that. We=re designing some shelters for Gene Simons to construct down on Fifth Street in front of the Terminal Station.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Okay.

MR. CAUSEY: And Joe McElroy.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: So you think you=ll have the buses off of --

MR. CAUSEY: The transfer station.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: -- Poplar Street?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. That will be our limiting factor.

MR. CAUSEY: We=re moving right ahead with that.

MR. FOUNTAIN: They=ve approved the move as I understand it.

MR. CAUSEY: Yes.

MR. FOUNTAIN: The MTA has, Mr. Chairman.

MR. JOHNSON: Our next set of projects are our Jeffersonville Road projects, 6, 7 and 54A, which also includes a section of Millerfield Road. This project, our preliminary plans have been completed. We are just waiting on our draft environmental assessment to be approved. This document was returned from the DOT to Moreland Altobelli on March 15th with substantial comments concerning the historic areas out there and also the railroad bridge impact with the historic railroad track out there. So we are working on those comments, and hopefully we will have that document turned around just shortly. 

The assessment of effect, which is the assessment of the historic areas, has been approved by SHPO, so that=s a big step. Also, the ecology report has been approved by the approving authorities on that so that=s another big step there. So we=re moving along, but we still want to get that document forwarded to Federal Highway as soon as we can.

The next set of projects, Forest Hill Road, the last time I reported we were waiting on a letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to report on some fauna along the creeks along the project. We have since gotten that concurrence letter. They did not find any fauna. That document was submitted to DOT shortly after then and was just forwarded to the Federal Highway Administration on April 4th, so it=s currently in the hands of Federal Highway. And hopefully we will have approval of our FONSI shortly. And at that point we can move ahead to our field plan review and go on to right-of-way acquisition.

MR. FOUNTAIN: We say that, but I=m not sure that our funding didn=t move on us. It is officially moved? Chairman, did you get any comment yesterday in Atlanta?

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Of course, I didn=t talk to, I didn=t talk to DOT. I talked to Tom Moreland. And he was absolutely flabbergasted that it had moved without any knowledge. And he was headed over to talk to Tom Turner. And I=m expecting a phone call from him today. But that 475/75, which is really a critical, I think, project. You know, I can see the Forest Hill with all the opposition, but I can=t see 475 and 75, why they moved it back. But we= re just having to wait to see. 

MR. JOHNSON: On that project, our right-of-way funds are of course local monies on those projects, so that won=t hold us up from beginning so that when DOT=s construction money is ready, we=ll be ready.

Our next set of projects is 10 and 11, which is the Northwest Parkway and a section of Log Cabin Drive north of Mercer University Drive. Our preliminary plans are complete on that. We are working on revisions to the environmental assessment. Those are going back to the Department of Transportation this week. So we=ve completed, we had to revise the traffic studies to have the same assumptions that we do with the Forest Hill Road project. We=ve completed those studies and the document is going in this week.

MR. FOUNTAIN: And the right-of-way is set up for 2004?

MR. JOHNSON: On the?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Northwest Parkway.

MR. JOHNSON: It was at one time set up for Fiscal Year 2003. I=m not sure if that has been changed or not.

MR. FOUNTAIN: I think it=s been moved to 2004. And I think my question there, Joe, is will we make that time line?

MR. ETHERIDGE: 2004, yeah.

MR. FOUNTAIN: We=ll make that time line?

MR. JOHNSON: We should be able to make that.

MR. FOUNTAIN: So we=ll start right-of-way acquisition in FY 2004, which is July of this year.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: That=s July of this year.

MR. JOHNSON: Most of that is the hold up on the environmental document like our other projects, but it=s moving along. We can hopefully sometime this summer go to a public hearing on that, which would put us right on schedule.

The next project, Project 12, Log Cabin Drive, Van mentioned that a little while ago. It was let on March 21st and everything is going ahead fine with that project. I did talk to Brent Stokes yesterday, the local Area Engineer, and they have not yet scheduled the pre-construction conference but they do believe they=ll schedule it shortly, so we should be under construction just shortly. 

Project Number 14, which is our Mercer University Drive project, that has slipped to an October letting this year. That only slipped a few months so we=re still, it will still be hopefully let this year.

MR. FOUNTAIN: That=s the State Route 74 project?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. From Log Cabin out to I-475.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Is that on schedule, Thomas? Are you all tracking that?

MR. HOWELL: It=s fine.

MR. JOHNSON: Project 15, which is our Zebulon Road interchange, I=ve just heard that the right-of-way plans are not yet approved on that but the local District is going ahead with their property owners meeting, which will be April the 24th, so we will make this fiscal year for right-of-way funding, which is good news. Construction is scheduled for next fiscal year starting in July.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Thomas, we met, Van and I and Vernon met with, what was the lady=s name from Tom Turner=s office, deputy?

SEVERAL VOICES: Meg.

MR. FOUNTAIN: And she told us those plans would be approved within a week of our visit. Would you mind following back up with her and see what happened.

MR. HOWELL: Okay. That=s the right-of-way plans for Zebulon?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes. She told us they would be approved.

MR. RYLE: They just received through a fax the environmental letter.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Because we asked them to.

MR. RYLE: Right. And they got it while we were there, so everything should be ready.

MR. HOWELL: Okay.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Would you please let us know what you find out, Thomas?

MR. HOWELL: Sure.

MR. JOHNSON: Project 21, Riverside Drive, the preliminary plans are complete. Right-of-way plans are complete. I was aware that you all did shift the funding --

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes.

MR. JOHNSON: -- for the right-of-way to this fiscal year for that project, so hopefully the State can get started on that right-of-way shortly.

Project 22, Western Loop, Steve reported on that project. We did have a preliminary layout for our concept that we have out for comments. We have not received any written comments on that. We have had a few individual comments. And I guess we=ll be bringing that project to you all next time we meet here.

Project 23, Tucker Road, I believe Van will have the right-of-way on that project. We=re in the process of scheduling a field plan review for that project so we should be looking to have a letting this summer on that project. 

Project 36, Houston Avenue. We did have a field plan review scheduled last month. We had to cancel it because of some conflicts. It has been rescheduled for May, and I=ll be getting notices out just very shortly on that. So that=s Phase 1, so we should be able to let that this summer also. 
MR. FOUNTAIN: Houston Avenue?

MR. JOHNSON: That=s from south of Newberg down to Pio Nono.

Project 44A, which is the Hartley Bridge Road project, there=s two projects. One is the interchange itself. That is scheduled for a June letting. There was some worry about not having the right-of-way complete, but that was certified this past Monday so everything is in line for a June letting on the Interchange project.

Skipper Road, which is also being relocated as part of that project, there was a lot of concern about how it will tie in with the new school opening up this summer. The State has fast-tracked that portion, and they=re going to have a March 31st completion date for Skipper Road, which is about six months into the contract. The overall contract will take about 24 months. So the State is doing what they can to accommodate the school out there. The school did have to come up with a temporary traffic flow pattern to be able to get people in and out for the first few months of the school year. 

Count 2 on that project is the interchange between 475 and 75. The Chairman did mention that. Plans are almost completed on that. Right-of-way is not quite complete. The State, I guess they were shooting for a December >04 let date, but I guess you all read in the paper this morning that there=s a possibility it will slip out. So the plans will be ready when the funding is there. 

Project 47, our Sardis Church Road Connector project and our interchange, we do have preliminary plans complete on both of those projects. The environmental document was submitted to the DOT on the 24th of December. It was sent back to the consultant, JJ&G, on February 6th with a good number of comments. Our office has been helping gather some information for them to help speed that along, but as I understood that document has not been sent back to the State yet.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Joe, how can we, Van, how can we put any pressure on that process? I mean it doesn=t seem like there are any time lines set. I mean you send them back and there is no time line.

MR. ETHERIDGE: We, like Joe said, we=ve tried to help them all we could. We=ve furnished them information that they might need from down here. You know, when somebody else is doing the work, JJ&G is the consultant, you know, we=ve tried all we could to push that thing. It just seems you can=t push things like that.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Fellows, give us some advice on how to wrestle this thing down and get some time lines put on these consultants.

MR. HOWELL: Well, it=s a big issue because there=s so much work out there. Isn=t that what you=d say, Thomas?

MR. QUEEN: It=s so, I mean like the firm, JJ&G has got a lot of work out there and then the Federal Highway has all the other parts of Georgia.

MR. HOWELL: I think they=ve got one person that reviews those documents --

MR. QUEEN: We have --

MR. HOWELL: -- at Federal Highway.

MR. QUEEN: They=ve got three, but in our district we have only one person that handles the 31 of our counties and then 25 of another district, so I mean basically a third of the state, all the documents that need to be reviewed.

MR. FOUNTAIN: But if you=ve got financial documents that you=ve got to meet, and, you know, we are driven by these financial time lines, if we don=t give these consultants any time lines, you can=t mesh the two, and that just creates such chaos with us.

MR. QUEEN: And I=m not sure, I think that=s our consultant, isn=t it?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Yes, that=s your consultant. 

MR. QUEEN: And generally in our contracts you do give them a time line, you know, and after so long you say you=re not doing this and we=re not going to extend the time, we=ll just cancel the contract.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Whose department, is that coming out of Mr. Turner=s office?

MR. QUEEN: Well, he=s the director. He=s in charge.

MR. HOWELL: He=s the director.

MR. QUEEN: But Harvey Keifler=s (phonetically) office. Harvey Kiefler with the Environmental Location.

MR. HOWELL: With Environmental Location.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Environmental Location handles these consulting contracts?

MR. QUEEN: For environmental.

MR. FOUNTAIN: For environmental.

MR. HOWELL: For environmental.

MR. FOUNTAIN: And they handle the whole process. And they set the time lines?

MR. QUEEN: Yes.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Could you all find out what the time line on it is for us. I mean we certainly --

MR. QUEEN: I mean with Federal Highway it=s hard. In our district we=ve probably got eight or ten projects that are just, you know, they=ve all got about the same heat up under them. And it=s like very frustrating trying to get to the next step because not only are you waiting in line but then you have to deal with issues, resolving environmental issues along the way. I know we had this same conversation pretty much six months ago.

MR. FOUNTAIN: We=ve had it for a year. Over a year we=ve been talking this same thing. And, see, we=re looking at a chance we may lose our funding. And nobody wants to pick up the phone and call JJ&G and say, deliver us a document. And that=s what we=re asking somebody to do. 

MR. HOWELL: We=ll make the commitment to make the phone call.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Would you all do that? Somebody needs to pick the phone up and say, guys, you know, these folks are about to lose a mega project down here and they really need some help. Excuse me, Joe.

MR. JOHNSON: And our last big project we=re working on is our Ocmulgee East Boulevard project. We did have our preliminary plans at DOT. We were just told yesterday that it went down to their printing office to print copies for the field plan review. We have not had a date set yet, but I should be hearing any day now when that date is going to be. The re-evaluation of the environmental document was submitted March 28th, so that won=t hold us up. So we=ll be ready to go. And that project is set for a December letting this year. 

MR. FOUNTAIN: Will we make that letting, Joe?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. As soon as we get this field plan review done we can start on, we have a few parcels of right-of-way. We can finish that up and get our final plans done and we=ll be ready to go.

That=s all the projects I have. If there are any questions the committee has, I=ll be happy to --

MR. CAUSEY: This may be you or Van. The Second Street at Mulberry Street project, is that in design or is that complete?

MR. JOHNSON: Oh, yes, sir, I do have that on here. We are working on our final bid documents on that. The plans are complete. The engineers in our office are drawing up a bid contract. I=m not sure what day we=ve scheduled that for letting, but it=s basically finished now.

MR. CAUSEY: And what about the intersections at Georgia at College and Georgia at Washington?

MR. JOHNSON: We are working on that. As most of you know, Mr. Wikle, our Traffic Engineer, met with some leaders of the community and came up with a new concept. We are incorporating that into the design. But I really don=t have a time frame for you on when we=re going to be able to let that.

MR. CAUSEY: Joe Wood is doing that also?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir.

MR. FOUNTAIN: What was your time line on Mulberry at Second, Joe?

MR. JOHNSON: The plans are basically complete. I=m not sure that we=ve set an internal let date yet. But we=re going over our bid documents right now.

MR. CAUSEY: Do we expect any controversy on that project?

MR. JOHNSON: Second at Mulberry, No. 
MR. FOUNTAIN: What are we looking at, I mean, May, June, July?

MR. ETHERIDGE: Probably June.

MR. CAUSEY: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you, Joe. Van, do you want to talk about our construction and right-of-way update?

MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir. Some of the projects we=ve got under construction, the Bloomfield Drive project from Rocky Creek to Eisenhower, that=s a two and a half mile project that Shepherd has got. It=s 57 percent complete now. We think we=ll be through by the middle of the summer with it. 

Ingleside Avenue is basically complete now. The new traffic signal at Riverside and Ingleside is working and in place. 

Northside Drive, that=s a section from Forest Hill to Wesleyan, it=s a 3.7 million dollar contract that APAC has. It=s about 75 percent complete now. They still lack some base and paving, some curb and gutter and some sidewalks out there, and a little grading.

The Intown Historic District Sidewalk Repairs, Phase 1, which was the 14 streets, it=s 78 percent complete now. I think they=re working on Progress Street now. And Phase 2, which was recently let, Sam Hall has 9 streets, and he got started this week on those streets. 

Project 56, the Phase 2 and 3 Traffic Signals, there were some 48 intersections that were being upgraded. Georgia Electric was doing the work. It=s about 25 percent complete now. It was a four and a half million dollar contract.

And Project 22, the intersection improvements at Bass at Rivoli and at Bass and Forsyth Road, the contract was let to Reeves. He hasn=t started yet. We=re also trying to get utility work started out there for relocations.

Millerfield Road from Bristol Drive out to Shurling Drive, a 1.6 million dollar contract was let to Kime Construction Company. He has gotten started. He=s about five percent complete. He=s installing his drainage and the utilities are relocating out there.

MR. CAUSEY: Van --

MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes.

MR. CAUSEY: I talked to Joe last week. The Tour de Georgia is coming in next week on Millerfield Road and we just wanted to make sure that there=s no open cut in the road and it=s as safe as possible and they=ll just pass right through.

MR. ETHERIDGE: We are aware of that. We=ve made arrangements with our contractor to have the road cleared so they can go right through there.

Project 13, we=re acquiring right-of-way on Log Cabin Drive now. That=s the section from Eisenhower down to Rocky Creek. There=s 143 parcels out there. We=re about 34 percent complete.

And the Mercer University section from Log Cabin out to I-475 is now 151 parcels. We=re 79 percent complete with that. 

Houston Avenue, Phase 1, we=re 81 percent complete on that. That=s from Seven Bridges in to Newberg Avenue. And then the Phase 2 is 128 parcels and we=re 45 percent complete on those. And, also, that=s the project where we=re going to be going up and talking to DOT about a County contract for that first phase. I believe it=s sometime early next month, isn=t it, Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: May the 6th. 
MR. ETHERIDGE: And we=ll be in a position this summer to let that.

Tucker Road from Forsyth Road out to Foster, there are 47 parcels of right-of-way. We=re 80 percent complete there, so we=re about to finish it up.

That=s all the construction and right-of-way activity that we have, Mr. Chairman.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Thank you, Van.

MR. ETHERIDGE: Any questions?

MR. FOUNTAIN: Are there any questions of Van?

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Yeah. On Tucker Road, on the bicycle paths --

MR. ETHERIDGE: Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: -- what are you experiencing on that?

MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, we=re down to about ten hard core right-of-way parcels out there. We may have resolved one of those this week, but there could be quite a few condemnations to get the final eight to ten parcels.

MR. FOUNTAIN: How many were there total, Van?

MR. ETHERIDGE: Forty.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Forty and we have eight that are in conflict, so 20 percent.

MR. CAUSEY: And part of those are not due to the sidewalks. Some of them are to right turn lanes and things like that, the condemnations.

MR. ETHERIDGE: Well, there=s some of that, yes. So I think finishing that is going to be hard because we=ve been working on this thing a year.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: I know. I was at Jekyll at a meeting and I noticed some bike paths, you know, how they=ve got it all around the island.

MR. ETHERIDGE: Uh-huh (affirmatively).

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: But they cross over sometimes.

MR. FOUNTAIN: They meander back and forth.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Yeah. I just wondered if that was, I worry about the terrain on Tucker Road over there.

MR. FOUNTAIN: We=re going to keep ours all on one side though.

MR. ETHERIDGE: It=s all on one side, yes.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: You were able to do that?

MR. ETHERIDGE: It does have a lot of peaks and valleys in it.

MR. CAUSEY: And to be honest, Mr. Chairman, it=s really a sidewalk for bikes or pedestrians.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: Yeah. Well, this is too I think. You=ve seen it I=m sure. It=s quite impressive.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Anymore questions or comments to Van? (No response). Thank you, Van.

Moving to Item 9 on our agenda, I think the toughest thing that we=re having now is tracking this environmental location, Thomas, and I don=t know how to, it=s just I don=t really know how to get a handle on that. And I=m asked questions that I can=t answer. We=re all put in positions that --

MR. HOWELL: And we have very little control of that from the District.

MR. FOUNTAIN: From the District level?

MR. HOWELL: And, in fact, from the Department as a whole because you=re dealing with so many Federal agencies and State agencies. And you can=t set their time line. I mean if the Fish and Wildlife wants to take six months, there=s nothing you can do about it.

MR. QUEEN: We=ve even gone further in the Department and funded several positions within those agencies so the review processes could move along quicker. But they=re not, they=re not dedicated to Georgia projects. They=re dedicated to getting enough space in there so Georgia projects can hopefully get done quicker. 

MR. HOWELL: We=re asked that question everywhere. Everywhere.

MR. FOUNTAIN: And who does that office report to, to Mr. Danchez? Does that come out of his department?

MR. HOWELL: Eventually. But it=s under Tom Turner, which Harvey Keifler is the office head.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Harvey Keifler reports to Tom Turner?

MR. HOWELL: Reports to Tom Turner.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Okay.

MR. HOWELL: And then Tom, of course, is under Mr. Danchez.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Have we heard anything about the next stakeholders meeting on I-16/I-75?

MR. HOWELL: I haven=t.

MR. QUEEN: I haven=t.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Has that been scheduled, Tom, do we know?

MR. QUEEN: If it is, I=m not aware of it. They haven=t --

MR. FOUNTAIN: We=ve got one more I understand to be scheduled. I=m told that, and I want to make sure that we get the --

MR. HOWELL: We=ve had some changes in our management, some of the offices this past week. Joe Palladi will no longer be the State Urban Design Engineer. He=s going to be the Planning Engineer. Mark Rosen (phonetically) is retiring. Ben Buckland (phonetically), who was the State Consultant Design Engineer is moving into Urban Design. So that=s happened this week.

MR. CAUSEY: He=s taking Joe Palladi=s position?

MR. HOWELL: Right. And he, Ben used to be Joe=s assistant. I know you=re familiar with that.

MR. FOUNTAIN: All right.

MR. CAUSEY: Mr. Chairman, I=d like to ask something just to think about it, and I don=t want to put a burden on you but now that you have a little more time on your hands and you are the County=s consultant, would it make sense for you to maybe go to Atlanta once a week and annoy some of these people and keep Macon on their mind? It=s something to think about because it gets put on the shelf and forgotten.

MR. FOUNTAIN: We try to go about once a month. We=re averaging about a monthly visit to Atlanta. And I think it=s good and your comments are well taken, and we try to do that. 

MR. HOWELL: And I don=t think anything is getting, you know, getting put on a desk and forgotten. I think it=s just the volume of work.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Well, it=s a priority and the squeaking wheel is going to get the priority, and we know that. And we=ve got to keep it before them and we=re trying to do that with at least a monthly visit. And it gets so bad sometimes that they find out we=re coming and they don=t show up, you know.

CHAIRMAN OLMSTEAD: If you do that once a week, vary your days going. 

MR. FOUNTAIN: All right, guys. Our next meeting dates, and they=re listed on our cover sheet, our Oversight Committee will meet the, it will meet what, today?

MR. ETHERIDGE: We=ve got a reschedule on that.

MR. DUVAL: It=s next week.

MR. ETHERIDGE: It=s going to be the 24th.

MR. FOUNTAIN: The 24th, okay.

MR. ETHERIDGE: It=s next Thursday, not this Thursday.

MR. FOUNTAIN: Next Thursday, okay.

MR. ETHERIDGE: They had to cancel.

MR. FOUNTAIN: We=ve got an Executive Committee set for April the 30th, and that will be in the County Commission Board Room. And our next TAC is set for June the 5th, 2003. Is there anymore business to come before this body? (No response). If not, we=re adjourned. Thank you all.

(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 17th day of April, 2003.

This 24th day of April, 2003.

PATRICIA C. USSERY, CCR B-1238