Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-2004 Meeting THE JUDICIAL CENTER SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING March 12, 2004 Mr. Kuhlke: The purpose of this meeting is that we have been through the process of the Phase I environmental study of the property at Ninth Street, Walker Street. And rather than going through to the report, we have developed a PowerPoint presentation that we passed out to you, right here, that we thought we would run through and give you our assessment of what, what the report is telling us, and once that’s concluded we will then have some questions and answer period. And I think it’s going to fall on us today after we receive this to go back to the Commission with, with a recommendation on what we do so we can move forward with the Judicial Center. First of all, let me welcome Commissioner Williams. He’s replacing Commissioner Beard on this committee. Good to have you here. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Bill. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Peggy, we can go ahead and move forward. The agenda is the purpose, the definition and explanation, review status of plats, summary, and the options and alternatives. Okay. This is to provide the Judicial Committee and the Board of Commissioners with an update on the status of each plat that is being considered for purchase for the Judicial Center to be constructed. The definition, explanation, Phase I, that’s what we have just gone through. If we move forward, we have Phase II. If we find contamination we have to submit a corrective action plan. The next is remediation. If the -- and the final thing is getting to no further action required. Rick, I can’t see that. Can you read that? Mr. Acree: Okay. Phase I assessment is part of the due diligence process to qualify under the innocent purchaser defense as defined by whatever that acronym stands for. Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] Mr. Acree: Pardon? Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] Mr. Acree: Okay. Basically, it’s the due diligence that you would, that you need to go through before you purchase a piece of property to avoid the liability associated with environmental contamination. This is no different than a homeowner having a homeowner’s inspection done to check for mold, mildew, termites, that kind of stuff. It’s what you should do before you purchase a piece of property. The steps involved in performance? In Phase I you perform a reconnaissance to look for past and present waste handling, activities of water storage, review regulatory listings for past and present environmental concerns, review history of ownership, review available historical information, aerial photos, top maps, and previous environmental reports and so on, to 1 see what has been, what information is available on the site, perform vehicular reconnaissance of select areas around the site to verify location of solid waste and hazardous waste facilities, and then you prepare the written report with the findings and conclusions. Depending on what is determined from the Phase I environmental, it may result in a recommendation for a Phase II assessment. As a matter of law, the current property owner may be reluctant to perform any environmental assessment because of knowledge of -- because knowledge of environmental problem may trigger a legal duty on the part of that property owner to report and remedy the problem. Phase II is a more detailed assessments. It’s scientific, it involves testing to confirm or eliminate environmental concerns that are identified as potential problems during the Phase I activities. And the question it is intended to answer is the suspected contamination indeed present at the [inaudible] locations. All right. Several [inaudible] of Phase II assessment may be required if contaminants are discovered in the initial Phase II. And it must ultimately determine lateral and vertical extent of the contamination claims and the data used to develop a corrective action plan. What you find is that certain contaminants, if they get into ground water, they can migrate beyond the property line and the property owner would then be responsible for clean-up beyond his property borders, which is the same thing Atlanta Gas Light is having to go through with the contamination they’re dealing with on Walton Way, because contamination extended far beyond the borders of the site that they were actually on. Upon completion of Phase II, the property owner must send a letter to the Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division within 30 days if contaminants are discovered to be above levels permitted by the Georgia Hazardous Site Response regulations. As proposed in the environmental report, property owners should be notified of the possible need for a Phase II assessment with amended right of entry, which is the permission they give us to go on the property for the assessment. If the contaminants are discovered, in Phase II, the owner has to develop a corrective action plan. DNR/EPD requires corrective action plans to be submitted after the extent of the contamination claims are defined. The schedule depends on the extent of the problem and the nature of the contaminants and the directives imposed by the EPD. Corrective action plan identifies the property owners’ proposed remediation for the sites. It requires Georgia EPD approval. The State evaluates and approve the plan. That process can take from 30 days to over a year, depending on conditions and required revisions. If the contaminants are discovered, then the final step would to perform the remediation. If soil requires remediation, it can typically be done fairly quickly as a matter of removal and replacement of contaminated soil. If the contamination extends into the ground water, it can be a lengthy process, as I mentioned just a couple of minutes ago, the extent of contamination can exceed the borders of the site and involve other property owners. Once the remediation is completed, you submit a report to Georgia EPD of what was performed and wait for EPD to approve what was done. Mr. Cheek: I just want to distribute at this point a document I received from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources outlining First Union property as Site A and C, the corrective actions that have been taken and the plans that are in place, as well as the corrective actions, plans that have been in place in Atlanta since December 2001. So I want to submit this to the committee. 2 Mr. Acree: Okay, once the letter, once the remediation is completed and reviewed by the EPD, they will send a letter stating that no further action is required, and in that letter it also says “at this time.” It indicates the remediation is approved but the letter leaves the door open for future enforcement action based on changing conditions and regulations. So basically once it’s cleaned up and you’ve received this letter, if their regulations change and the concentration of whatever contaminant was on the site is, is reduced as far as acceptable levels, the property owner may be required to do further remediation. So this is an overview of the entire property under consideration for purchase. The two large triangular sites here are the ones that are owned by First Union, and the others are -- Mr. Cheek: Those are the sites that have been submitted as far as the corrective action cleanup plan. Mr. Acree: They’ve been submitted as part of the Phase I assessment. Mr. Cheek: No, these have been submitted -- Mr. Acree: Oh, I’m sorry, you’re right, First Union has been. Now 102.3, which is the one to the left of the screen, they have not, they’ve got the corrective action plan but they have not remediation is my understanding. Mr. Cheek: They have removed several thousand cubic feet of soil from this area. Mr. Acree: On 102.2. I don’t think 102.3. Mr. Cheek: Okay. Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] surveyed. Mr. Acree: All right, the following slides identify the plats, each of the plats that are under consideration, list of activities required to purchase the plat, and a bar chart schedule which accurately depicts estimated time it will take to purchase the plat. And this schedule could vary. There’s really no way to determine some of the environmental aspects of it, when you don’t know for certain what is there. Mr. Cheek: Rick, let me interrupt you one more time, and I apologize to the Committee. Has any of the data obtained from the Atlanta Gas Light studies at the third level of the canal and the level of contamination, the well drilling and other analysis done, been compared or brought into this study as far as trace elements or contaminants found in and around the third level of the canal, which would include property highlighted there? Mr. Acree: They have not. 3 Mr. Cheek: Is that data base available through the State DNR? Mr. Acree: It is. Mr. Cheek: Thank you. Judge Fleming: Let me ask a question. On 1 and 2, any deep drilling that’s taken place there? Mr. Acree: No, sir. That would be part of the Phase II environmental assessment. Judge Fleming: That has not been done? Mr. Acree: That has not been done, no, sir. Judge Fleming: So you don’t know just what is there [inaudible]. Mr. Swanson: The deep drilling as required by State cleanup requirements for the Atlanta Gas Light property required monitoring of ground water, which would include deep drilling, flow patterns of their subsurface water, as well as any contaminants found at various levels beneath the soil, and that should be -- I don’t know how many feet from the third level of the canal they monitor, but they did an entire well field, the plume of the contamination, which would include [inaudible] and other type of contaminants founds in the soil of the area of the general quarter mile radius or so around the Atlanta Gas Light property. That data is available. Judge Fleming: No, I’m talking about [inaudible] plat I had [inaudible] deep drilling. Mr. Swanson: They have done soil sampling and all of that is part of the [inaudible]. Judge Fleming: No, I’m not talking about surface. I’m talking about 20-25 feet deep. Mr. Kuhlke: Judge, [inaudible] who did the report, I think maybe he can answer that question. Mr. Swanson: They’ve done a lot of testing [inaudible] canal [inaudible] First Union tracts. Judge Fleming: They show on plats every one of those wells and [inaudible]. Mr. Swanson: 102.3, that site, the plumes of contamination have actually been defined but they have not been cleaned up yet. 4 Mr. Kuhlke: And 102.2, weren’t they, wasn’t that there was no ground water contamination? Mr. Swanson: There were a couple of constituents that were in the ground water but not to the extent that they required them to do anything about the ground water. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Okay. Let’s go ahead. What about at this point if you look at the sheet you’ve got there, what we’ve tried to do, because there’s been some concern expressed on the part of the Commission that it’s taken a while to get this done, and it has, but I think if you look at this, on the left hand side it said, where it says acquire right of entry. On this particular tract, we started back in August of ’03 trying to get right of entry. We finally got right of entry on February 4 or February 13 of this year, and I think Rick expressed in his report that one of the reasons for taking so much time was not being able to get that right of entry to get on the property. I wanted to go and just let you know that. If you look at this, on this particular piece of property, there where it says perform Phase II assessment, that started in 1995 and was finished in ’99. And then if you look at the, the EPD review of the corrective action plan was completed in June ’03. Modified November ’03. And if you look at EPD corrective action plan approval, it’s in the process. Okay? I wanted to point that out so every one of these pieces of property we’re trying to give you what’s taken place there. The, the other thing that you need to need, as a result of the Phase II down in the right hand corner, there is a permanent deed restriction imposed on that part parcel of land. And that is that you cannot build any residential on there and you cannot extract any ground water for drinking purposes. So we’re going to be consistent as we go through, so that’s what you need to look at as we go through these slides. Judge Jennings: Bill, why did it take so long to get a right of entry? Mr. Kuhlke: Because if they had done testing on the -- if you’ll look back, Judge, at this right here, they had done testing on 102.2. They had not done the testing, I believe this is correct, on 102.3. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? Mr. Fleming: I hate to interrupt you but they have done a lot of testing on 102.3. Mr. Kuhlke: They have? Mr. Fleming: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, but anyway, they didn’t want us to interfere, I think, with the process that they are going through with EPD. Mr. Fleming: Can I expand on that just a little bit? 5 Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah. Mr. Swanson: Most property owners nowadays are very reluctant to do any more testing than they have to do because if they find something else they’re going to be on the hook for that cleanup, also. Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible] Mr. Swanson: [inaudible] and once we got the right of entry they wouldn’t let us take soil samples. Mr. Kuhlke: No. They would not. Mr. Williams: Bill, if I can ask one question. And I’m hearing, and I heard Rick talking, speak on a few minutes ago about Atlanta Light & Gas, and if there was contamination and there was other stuff found, as the gentleman just stated in the back, that they would be responsible as well. But Atlanta Light & Gas had been doing some testing from the canal and that area that they’re working in, should they have not been giving the right to get on the property and to, to test the property, even, even so much that we could go to them to find out what they already have? Mr. Kuhlke: Well, let me say this. If you look at this sheet right here, and this is 102.3, it’s got down here Atlanta Gas Light remediation along the canal. And that, the activities to follow. I think that the Atlanta Gas Light is now in the process of doing the remediation in the canal, [inaudible] and they have until January of next year to complete that. That’s on the third level. Andy? Mr. Cheek: Just, just to reiterate that on any remediation plan submitted to State EPD, there has to be a sampling program, drilling program, coring program or whatever established. That would have been analyzed and contamination levels on those sites would have been reviewed by State EPD as they formulate their path forward on residential/non-residential or further cleanup actions. That data should be available. It is common for people that own property to freeze that site to prevent additional additions of materials which may cause further contamination or as was said, discover of additional contaminants not discovered during the initial analysis phase. But the bottom line on this is there have substantial, substantial sampling and testing of this site and contamination today pending further approval show that Site 1, one of the sites is suitable for non- residential use, based on EPD standards. I have not seen the analytical charts on the level, the percentages and so forth of the contaminants, but seems to be fully suited for use of construction of a municipal center without the additional need for further study on our part. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Rick? 6 Mr. Acree: This is -- the next item is just kind of a timeline, a bar chart time line of how long it has taken the current owner of the property to get to where he is today in terms of the initial studies and not quite yet being complete with getting the “no further action required” letter. So as you can see from this, that it can be a fairly lengthy process. It doesn’t always have to be, but it can be. Mr. Williams: If I might, Andy brought a point up and I’d like to ask a question behind it here. From what Mr. Cheek just stated a little while ago about the contaminants and not being able to build residential. And [inaudible] any more studies to build a, a, a judicial [inaudible]. Would you agree with that assessment? Mr. Speaker: Yeah, that’s in the last page of our report. Basically, and in other articles I’ve provided, basically since EPD is aware of the problems on those sites, the last -- we weren’t provided a letter in the documentation that was provided to us that said that the State had approved the remediation. But we’re less concerned about 102.2 because the cleanup’s already been done, the State’s aware of it, and the State will eventually approve what’s been done. So we’re not, from my standpoint I’m not concerned about 102.2. It will eventually be cleaned up to the satisfaction of Georgia EPD, if it already has not gotten to that point. Mr. Acree: All right, the next site is 100.1, which I believe is currently owned by Sprint. We have not gotten a right of entry to that parcel, and quite honestly, and the schedule reflects we don’t have that, in my mind that, that particular parcel is not critical to this project anyway. Mr. Speaker: Right. And when we do, they probably won’t let us take soil samples? Mr. Acree: I can’t speculate what they may or may not do. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chair? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? Mr. Mayor: You know, we had the engineering work done on moving the railroad line over to Fenwick Street. Would there not have to be some environmental assessment of the Sprint property before the railroad would engage in moving that rail line? Mr. Speaker: Absolutely. Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah, I’m sure it would. Mr. Acree: But in terms of the, the site and fitting the Judicial Center on there, that is not a key piece of property, unless that, unless the moving of the railroad tracks becomes defined as we definitely want to do that. 7 Mr. Kuhlke: The point is, Mayor, is that they have not given us the right to go on that piece of property. Andy? Mr. Cheek: Here again, in site -- I guess it’s 100.1 that we’re looking at? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. Mr. Cheek: According to my recollection of the flow patterns of the subsurface water, in that area it tends to flow towards the third level of the canal. Any soil analysis that was done on that adjacent bank would have indicated any mobile contamination that would be in existence below the surface of the soil in that 100.1 tract. Therefore, if there is analysis in place or samples that have been taken on that bank, on that side of the canal, that would give us a very clear indication. If there’s other contamination that exists it’s in that tract from the railroad line to the third level of the canal. Mr. Swanson: Can I add something to that? Basically that’s why we recommend the initial part of Phase II that the regulatory files be reviewed so we can compile all these tests, put them on a plan, and know exactly what contaminants -- you’ve got to remember, for coal tar, coal gasification process, they’re testing generally for a very narrow band of type of contaminant. So you have to take all that data, put it together, put it on a map, and know where they tested, what they tested for, because there may be additional concerns on that tract from additional operations on that site that they haven’t run that particular range of constituent testing on. Mr. Cheek: Just as a reminder, the full spectrum of analysis done on the Atlanta Gas Light property included a suite of sample that included [inaudible] metals listed, waste products, benzene, other [inaudible] and other things associated with coal tar. And the [inaudible] constituents found at the site for Atlanta Gas Light is, were deemed to be byproducts of the disassembly of the tank, not actual [inaudible] product entered into the soil by any chemical processes or dumps. Here again, this type of analysis was done along the entire program. But since it was found at the initial site where the coal gas generated, those types of requirements, I would imagine by State EPD and EPA would required along that entire stretch where contamination was found, which would include a full suite of sample from [inaudible] to listed wastes to other things that are found in the Code of federal regulations requiring environmental cleanup. Mr. Williams: If I could ask Rick a question. You said something prior that that property along where the railroad is being used may not be needed at this time, is that -- Mr. Acree: In my opinion in terms of the Judicial Center itself -- Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Acree: Exclusive of moving the railroad tracks, that little small piece of property is not a key piece of property for what we are trying to accomplish. 8 Mr. Williams: You’re saying that the railroad, the rail would necessarily need to be moved or would not necessarily be moved? Mr. Acree: The railroad may not agree to move. Mr. Williams: I understand. Mr. Acree: So until it’s determined that that is something that will happen, that piece of property is not crucial to the Judicial Center. If it’s determined by the Commission that the rail stays in place where it is, then that piece of property is not essential to what we are trying to accomplish. If the Commission decides that yes, we want to move the railroad track, then absolutely that piece of property is essential and the railroad is very -- in our meeting with the railroad, they’re very specific about they will not move onto contaminated property. Mr. Williams: Well, and I guess I’m thinking, and cost savings as if we did not need that, if that wasn’t going to impact the, the area, then that’s money saved already that we wouldn’t have to, you know, relocate or to move it even if it was or was not contaminated, if it’s not going to impact us. And in our travels, and I know we been underground, and the train run right beside you while you having lunch and dinner and stayed in hotel where trains ran under the hotel while was upstairs enjoying whatever facility we was at. But I’m just -- when you said that it just brought to me that if we did not, that’s, that’s a lot of money we’re talking about for relocating that could be used maybe even in the building. But I just wanted to bring that out because of what you said and I wanted to be clear on that so I wouldn’t be -- Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: No, I’m trying to decide, I’m trying to determine whether or not we can save. If it’s not going to affect the building and there are situations where trains run and it does not affect it. I been advocating a lot of different stuff, so we won’t get into all that, but I’m just trying to save as much as I possibly can and be as effective as I possibly can. I wouldn’t want the rail, the train to disrupt the courthouse no more than we got right here on, on, where we having our court services now. The horn blowing I think is the major factor with the, you know, the disturbance in this area, but I don’t think anywhere in Augusta you’ll get away from the train. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, let’s go ahead and move. Mr. Acree: This property is parcel number 98. It’s owned by Mr. Amato. Mr. Amato. As I recall, the, we have been on that site and it has been, the Phase I assessment is complete. And the consulting firm is recommending a Phase II assessment on this piece of property. Mr. Wall, the property owner has been notified that we -- Mr. Wall: Yes. He has no objection to a Phase II on his property. 9 Mr. Acree: Okay. Then Mr. Amato has no problem with the Phase II, so that is one parcel that we can, we can go on with our evaluation and determine what, if any, problems there are on that particular piece of property. Mr. Kuhlke: Let me -- on this next slide that you are going to. It’s got Robert Lamar. That piece of property is actually owned by Braye Boardman. Mr. Acree: Okay. That would be tract 107. This one also is recommended for further investigation because there is evidence that there could potentially be some contaminants on the site. The current owner has denied us permission to perform a Phase II assessment on that piece, parcel of property. Parcel 105, owned by Mr. Duncan Johnson. That one is also recommended for Phase II. We have also been denied permission to enter for Phase II on that parcel Mr. Hankerson: Can I ask a question? Mr. Acree: Yes, sir? Mr. Hankerson: What does that mean when they deny [inaudible] can’t go on the property ?? deny any inspection that we think that there may be contamination? Is that a law? I’m asking for information. Mr. Wall: I would say yes. The -- I mean once -- if contamination is found it imposes a liability on the property owner to take the necessary action to clean it up. And in most situations, the reporting requirements, etc., particularly insofar as underground storage tanks, which is one of the primary concerns that was raised in the environmental ruling. There is no obligation to report that until you start activity or you know it’s in there. And so from their vantage point, there is no incentive for them to do it, and if the City comes in and forces that, then we’re imposing liability on them that they would not otherwise have. Mr. Hankerson: I understand that, but [inaudible] I know that that’s the reason, but what rights does the City has or what could -- I mean [inaudible]. Mr. Wall: I have -- Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] can you go ahead and proceed with, without their approval? That’s what I’m asking. Mr. Wall: I don’t think -- I would not recommend it and don’t think that you can do it. I have not found a case in which, in Georgia, in which the Court has ordered and allowed you to go on and do testing under a Phase II. There have been some declaratory judgment actions that have said that instant to the power to condemn is the right to go on the property and do non-invasive type procedures as far as appraisal, visual inspection, things of that nature. But they have pointed out that there was no damage to the property, 10 and I think that the rationale of those decisions is that if it has the potential of imposing liability on the property owner, then the City is gong to be on the hook for it if they force that issue. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Chairman? Just quickly on these properties where we don’t gain access. There is an established flow pattern of subsurface water which we could monitor on the perimeter of these properties which would indicate any type of soluble contaminants that may have migrated from the site downstream, which would indicate there would be a point source somewhere upstream, which may be the properties we’re limited to be on. Based on the history in the document here, a lot of these properties were low impact. Some of them are listed as hazardous waste generators currently and have been in the past, but these are generally motor oil, antifreeze and different things like that. But perimeter monitoring or wells and core samples would show any migratory or soluble contaminants that may have gotten into the soil. My concern in some of these areas is point source contamination of insolubles like coppers, nickels, other things used in process that don’t lend themselves to being dissolved and then transported through water table. But we should be able to get a good base of information if we’re able to monitor well and core drill around the perimeters of these facilities. Mr. Acree: Okay, let’s move on to the next parcel. That would be parcel number 104. Same owner, Mr. Johnson. Also Phase II recommendation, for a Phase II. Permission to perform that study has been denied. The next parcel is also a First Union parcel. That’s 102.2. We’ve discussed that some already, but they have done, they have done remediation on that site. It is, they are awaiting the “no further action required” letter from EPD. I don’t know when precisely, but I think they anticipate it fairly soon, I think. The next parcel is parcel number 83. Owned by Mayfield Dairy Farms. There is a recommendation for a Phase II. I do not know the status of that request. Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: I did not know -- this is the first I’ve heard they wanted a Phase II on that. I thought the report said no. Mr. Swanson: No, it said that we had a dry cleaners right across the back street for 45 or 50 years, and it identified they used [inaudible] ethylene and they have [inaudible] and it’s a highly mobile contaminant and ground water is flowing, by the First Union reports, to the north-northwest, which would carry it right across the tip of track 85. However, the [inaudible] ethylene being such a mobile contaminant, it can, it can spread out a lot quicker in a light base so basically might thoughts on the Phase II there, you know, one or two wells at the most to check for just that one chlorinated [inaudible] organic. Mr. Wall: Well, I have not made [inaudible]. Mr. Kuhlke: Jim, isn’t this one of the pieces of property that they withdrew their right of entry to us? 11 Mr. Wall: They did. And they have a new property owner now. Mr. Kuhlke: Yeah. Yeah, that’s something that needs to be brought out. That piece of property has been sold. Mr. Speaker: Who owns it now? Mr. Kuhlke: Billy Litchfield. Mr. Acree: Okay, parcel 84, I assume that’s a recommendation for that one for the Phase II for the same reason as 85? Mr. Swanson: Well, I included, I lumped all of the Borden, former Borden properties together for my discussion in the report, so I had recommended that we get, you know, right of entry to do Phase II. Mr. Shepard: That’s contamination from another -- Mr. Speaker: From offsite sources. Mr. Shepard: From offsite sources? Mr. Speaker: You still have certain liability. Mr. Cheek: One of these sources, I remember reading in the document and I’m not sure of the plat number. There was a former underground storage tank that EPD had done some sampling and we went back and did some subsequent sampling at that point somewhere along these tracts. Mr. Swanson: There was two pieces, two documents that I was provided for the Borden tract [inaudible] in the Phase I assessment that was done in 1998, and a “no further action required” letter from the State of Georgia. The Phase I assessment report did have some, some [inaudible] well locations on it, so -- but those concerns were based on at one time up to 14 underground storage tanks that were located on that site. So you would be -- all those analyses would be geared to benzene, your [inaudible] organics, or your hydrocarbons. It wouldn’t pick up a chlorinated [inaudible] organic like [inaudible]. So part of the initial Phase II is to review those files and see if they did it. If they did it, then we don’t need to rerun the test, which is what, what you’re going to try to do with the regulatory file review, is to eliminate as many needs to any additional testing that you have to run. Mr. Acree: Okay, the next parcel is also part of that Borden Dairy property. Phase II for the same reasons as mentioned on the previous parcel. As is tract 282, which would be the one [inaudible] there. All the parcels that [inaudible] the copies are not in color, but of all the parcels that we are under consideration, that are under consideration 12 for purchase for construction of the Augusta Judicial Center, it is recommended that we perform Phase II evaluations on all of the parcels that are under consideration, as part of the due diligence before we move forward with this project. Mr. Swanson: Rick, let me clarify that. I don’t think we had included 102.2 and 102.3 -- Mr. Acree: Okay. Mr. Swanson: -- in the Phase II, because they’re -- Mr. Acree: They’re in the remediation process. Mr. Swanson: -- they’re under regulatory action with the State and they’ll eventually be cleaned up to their satisfaction anyway. It’s a matter of time. Mr. Acree: But they all do have some concerns in terms of either being potential for contamination, deed restrictions or, or even with a “no further action required” -- [inaudible] “no further action required” -- that should the regulations change in terms of the concentration of chemicals and some of these are lead and arsenic and that sort of thing -- Mr. Swanson: Or if ground water well is installed with two miles of the site, which you really don’t have a whole lot of control over. Mr. Acree: -- then there is potential -- there is potential liability in the future. It’s not a clean bill of health, that this is a pristine piece of property. And this is just, this is for the Commission’s information, just to be fully aware of what the nature of the property is. This is kind of in summary. The rights of entry for the Phase II assessments -- as I mentioned, we had the right of entry for the Phase I. The property owners rescinded their permission for any further testing on plats 82, 84, 85 and 282. We are awaiting the EPD approval of the cleanup actions on plat 102.2. We’re awaiting EPD approval of the corrective action plan on plat 102.3. We have been denied permission to perform the recommended Phase II testing on plats 104, 105 and 107. We are awaiting permission, which apparently we just received, on 98 -- 98 was Amato? Amato? Mr. Wall: Yeah, yeah. Mr. Acree: We have received permission to do the Phase II on that particular plat. We are still awaiting the right of entry for the Phase I assessment on plat 100.1. Mr. Wall: You have that now, too. Mr. Acree: We do have that? Mr. Wall: Yeah. 13 Mr. Mayor: Rick, what about the right-of-way that’s owned by the railroad? Is there any testing that would be involved on that right-of-way? That seems to -- it cuts right through all of this. Is that part of the assessment? Mr. Swanson: [inaudible] haven’t recommended any further Phase II testing for the railroad right-of-way. I think Mr. Cheek is right that there is going to be some, some chemical analyses results in the regulatory files for the canal and possibly some on 102.2 and 102.3 that we can justify maybe not having to run any additional tests there. Plus, it’s a fairly narrow tract of land, so some of your main concerns have really already been addressed. In other words, there’s no major ground water contamination in 102.3. Ground water is flowing to the north-northwest, which would be the nearest source of contamination for the railroad right-of-way. So it kind of borderlines it, but I don’t think we’re really going to do anything on the railroad. Mr. Wall: Let me comment, and I don’t know about this particular line, the railroad track, but that is an issue insofar as the GBI property is concerned over whose contamination it is. It’s lead contamination. And the Atlanta Gas Light and the State have taken the position that the lead contamination came from the railroad. And so that is an ongoing issue as far as the remediation on that property. And that’s the old Summerville line that’s there. That was there. Mr. Cheek: Bill? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir? Mr. Cheek: In my review of the document we received, three sources that concerned me the most is one, former rail use of property in and adjacent to that and releases, drains or drips discharges that may have occurred over the past 100 or so years in that general area, the dry cleaners that were mentioned earlier, and one other business that was operated that handled more than small quantities of potential hazardous materials some 20 or 30 years ago. Other than that, general use of the property seems to be of very low impact, but those are areas that concern me the most that may be point sources for contamination. Primarily the railroad and their former handling of liquid quantities, solid quantities of soluble materials that may or may not have been dropped out of the cars while they were parked in or near those areas. Mr. Swanson: Is the railroad track on deeded property? Mr. Wall: I have not searched the title on that. My guess is it’s deeded property. Mr. Kuhlke: Before Rick gets into these alternatives to consider, in addition to the Phase II that is being recommended, Rick, I think in your report you also say that we need to do some investigation on the existing buildings, any asbestos or lead paint; right? Mr. Acree: Yes, sir. 14 Mr. Kuhlke: All Right. Rick? Mr. Acree: Okay. Here’s a list -- this slide shows a list of options, potential options that we, that the Commission or the committee can consider. This is just a list. If we go to the next slide, we go into these a little bit of detail. The first option is to purchase the plat “as is.” Some issues [inaudible], if we’re taking this course, is the fair market price is difficult to ascertain due to environmental uncertainty and given the, and given that risk, the process will likely involved specialized attorneys that are, that are experts in environmental issues and how to protect the parties involved in the transaction. The remediation process through EPD can be very time consuming and have an impact on any completion date for the project. Any extension on the time it takes to complete the new Judicial Center continues utilization of inefficient facilities for a longer period of time. The purchase the plat “as is” we’d have to reduce the purchase price to the owners or set aside an escrow account to cover the costs of remediation on those properties and probably would be advantageous on the ones where we have the “no further action required.” Better to set some money aside should the regulations change and further action be required at some point in the future. Another option that we, that could be pursued would be condemnation of the properties, which does have political ramifications. It is time consuming from both time and nature and remediation standpoints, and again, anything that extends the progress on this project will continue the utilization of the facilities that we’ve got becoming somewhat of an issue. Another option to consider is reconfiguring the site or perhaps eliminating some of the parcels, adding -- and adding a parking deck. Avoiding the properties with the greatest environmental concerns may be a possibility. It might have a negative impact on the efficiency of the building. Our design consultants have told us that there is a certain floor size and number of floors that is the most efficient for a judicial center. If you contract the amount of property which you purchase and have an impact on how large the floors can be, it could increase the overall size of the building in order to net out enough usable square feet to make a functional judicial center. This also reduces the potential or the ability to expand the facility in the future should it be necessary, and construction and cost of the parking deck could have an impact of $3 million to $5 million for construction of the deck. One plus is it reduces the parking surface or hard surface. [inaudible] reduced impact on storm water runoff and would reduce the heat island which [inaudible] when you’ve got a large sea of asphalt that’s black, it does get quite hot in the summer months. And it preserves the land that we wouldn’t use for some other use. Another option to consider would be negotiating ground lease for the property. We would, as a tenant we still could be liable for contamination on this property, with the intent to clean up the site as part of the construction effort. This would allow the design of the project to go ahead and proceed. Right now, with the design of the Judicial Center, we’re kind of at a standstill because we have not been able to direct the consultants on what the site actually will be. And the final option to take into consideration is go back to secondary location as the ultimate location. Mr. Cheek: Three options, for cleanup, would be -- say we acquired the properties, would be removal of soil for disposal at a hazardous landfill perhaps, 15 depending on concentration of contaminants, and replacement with clean soil, in ground remediation, which may be hydro peroxide injection or [inaudible] if there are chlorinated products in the dry cleaners. Thirdly, it’s that you -- isolation of the products like they’re doing on the Atlanta Gas Light, basically making concrete monoliths of the underground subsurface formations in order to isolate and freeze those contaminants in place. Are those all accepted methods by State EPD for cleanup, and is there any potential, should we find after acquiring these properties, for getting superfund or other State cleanup monies to assist with the cleanup of these facilities? Mr. Kuhlke: Don’t know. Rick, can you answer that question? Mr. Acree: All those cleanup methods would be types that you would tend to consider for these types of contaminants. My understanding of superfund or certain federal regulations is that if you -- the only way you protect you protect yourself under the innocent landowner defense is by doing all the appropriate inquiry, which is what we’re doing right now. If you find during the appropriate inquiry process that you have contamination there and you still proceed with the purchase, you’re on the liability chain for any future action that’s, that is coming down the [inaudible], that’s why in my Phase I report I mentioned that we don’t really need to do any more testing on 102.2 and 102.3, but there is always going to be contaminants in that ground above natural background levels. Therefore, the State has the right to come back if the regulations change or if somebody installs a well within two miles of your site to enforce additional action on you. So basically at that point you’re buying into the liability on those sites. Now what you’re, what you’re betting on is that -- let me back up a little bit. If, if it did proceed on 102.2 and 102.3, you know, I would recommend some kind of indemnification from First Union or the railroad that if any additional future corrective action is mandated by the State that y’all be indemnified from that liability, and that -- I don’t know how that works in a condemnation standpoint, but it’s a typical, it’s a typical act or a route for contaminated properties. Mr. Tom Gunnells: Mr. Chairman, the fact that we’re even having this conversation about potential contaminants and placing employees of all these elected officials in that building, [inaudible] we are [inaudible] identify [inaudible] potential problems, we’ve got a lot of uncertainty on that project. I think asking County employees to work in that environment, asking the public to come to that environment when all these uncertainties exist, is not acceptable. Mr. Kuhlke: I passed this sheet out here because I think this is something that we need to look at. This is basically a flow chart, and if we go from Phase I and into Phase II, if you look at this sheet, it -- if Phase II is required, which we say it is, and you started this month, Phase II assessment is going to take about 87 days. If contamination is confirmed, you are looking at -- Mr. Wall: Bill, you’ve got 87 days. Does that include time to go to Court and get a [inaudible]? 16 Mr. Kuhlke: No. No, I’m not, I’m not counting that. Mr. Wall: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Anyway, if you go along that top line and go on over to the second sheet, and you get to the point of the corrective action claim, the reviews, worst case scenario, we’re looking at the possibility of ’07. That’s when you, that’s when you begin to buy property, in ’07. On the other hand, if Phase II doesn’t show up anything obviously it stops. So I just thought I’d inject that. Andy? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I for one would like to see us proceed with the Phase II and whatever needs to be done legally and scientifically to this property, keeping in mind that all City employees will be working on a floor probably constructed of four inches of concrete. And migration of contaminants through concrete is a very slow process. In fact, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has done studies on th plutonium migration and it’s less than 1/10 of an inch for 10,000 years. So I’m sure arsenic and other things that may be at eight to ten parts per billion that may be encountered on these soils do not pose a particular health hazard to the citizens in this area. Furthermore, if anyone will read Dr. Cashin’s books about the history of the canal, the city of Augusta, will find out that there were some 47 operating plants along the Augusta canal. Also, there are several other sites within this city where there have been historic industrial practices not consistent with current EPA guidelines, which would lend the soil to be, if examined, above the current threshold limits for EPA requirements for cleanliness or residential use. To state that this property is unsuitable to build an office complex, in my opinion, based on my experience with environmental monitoring and transport, is more of an excuse than a natural reason not to build on this property. Mr. Kuhlke: Let’s open it up for any discussion or any questions. Judge? Judge Fleming: I still haven’t seen that [inaudible] cause I’ve got -- I didn’t bring my chart with me, but I’ve looked at them, and it shows each one and this was put out by the EPD. And some other wells have been drilled? Mr. Swanson: During our onsite visit, we noticed -- Judge Fleming: Did you drill? Mr. Swanson: No, we haven’t drilled. Judge Fleming: I call them test wells, but what do you call them? Mr. Speaker: Ground water monitoring wells. Judge Fleming: Okay, ground water monitoring wells. I want to get the right -- you haven’t done any? 17 Mr. Speaker: We have not. Judge Fleming: Because I’ve looked at those EPD reports and I didn’t see where they did any testing. Mr. Swanson: No, they’ve done, they’ve done a lot of testing. Judge Fleming: I’m talking about -- it show with a little X mark, a little cross, wherever those testing was done; right? Mr. Swanson: Yes. That’s part of that regulatory file review which will -- Judge Fleming: [inaudible] library, got it in the library. Anybody can go to see it. Mr. Swanson: You really want to review the files that the EPD has at the State, cause they’re more -- what you’re going to see is -- Judge Fleming: I’ve got some more, too. I’ve got some more reports. Mr. Speaker: But we did notice that there were current ground water monitoring wells on tract 98 and several on tract 102.3. So there are signs of ground water monitoring wells. Judge Fleming: I’m not talking about ground water. I’m talking about something going down 25 feet. In other words, if you are going to put an elevator shaft in the building, I assume, if you build one, and if you go down 25 feet and you find contamination, that’s what I’m saying. Has any type testing been done in that regard? Mr. Swanson: Not that I’m aware of. Basically I think most of the contaminants that 102.2 were relatively shallow, so I think they went, you know, four or five or six feet down with their remediation, at the most. Judge Fleming: Because if you looked at the [inaudible] that [inaudible] the Civic Center and other places where they tested, it’s migrating towards the river. Mr. Speaker: North-northwest is what I understand, which would be consistent with that. Judge Fleming: Towards the river, right. It shows at the Civic Center and I think on, coming this way. I call them wells. The holes that were drilled anyway. Mr. Mayor: Tell me if you know of any, was Phase I or Phase II done on the dairy property as part of Billy’s purchase, do you know? [inaudible] information [inaudible]? Mr. Kuhlke: The -- 18 Mr. Swanson: We reviewed a Phase I that was dated in 1998 that was done for Tri-State Dairies. I assume that that was for the transaction to Mayfield Dairy Farms. So there, there’s other environmental reports on this site out there that we either haven’t been provided or may not, you know, ever be privy to. Mr. Mayor: But the property just recently changed hands and as part of that transaction, was there a Phase I or Phase II done? Mr. Swanson: We don’t, I don’t know that. Mr. Mayor: The question then would that information be available to us? Mr. Kuhlke: Jim, would you know that? Mr. Wall: I don’t know whether or not a Phase II was done, and you know, it would be up to the property owner as far as whether or not he would release it. Judge Fleming: How much money has the County spent for this study? Mr. Swanson: Phase I? Judge Fleming: Uh-huh [yes]. Mr. Swanson: It was $4,000. Judge Fleming: $4,000? Mr. Swanson: As you can tell, it was a pretty extensive scope of work for this particular piece of property, as you can tell by the size of the report. Mr. Kuhlke: Rick, have you estimated if we, if we get permission to go on these properties what’s the cost to do Phase II? Mr. Acree: I’ve kind of done a preliminary cost estimate, but the scope of that assessment could change or be reduced by data that’s in the regulatory file. So we’ve come up with a number right now of about $15,000 for five soil test borings and ground water monitoring wells at various locations. But that’s really kind of a guess, and again, if the State or if Atlanta Gas Light, if First Union has done some of these tests in their processes before, and we find it in the regulatory files which would be where to look, then we wouldn’t need to duplicate that effort, so we would basically, I think we’re think we’re starting that $15,000 and the regulatory file review is going to start dropping us down hopefully from there. Mr. Kuhlke: Well, the reason, the reason we’re having this meeting, and first of all, we wanted to try to get the report as concise as we could and not quite as technical 19 [inaudible] report so people could understand what we have there. We as a committee, I’d like to see us get off dead center on this judicial thing. We need to, we need to move forward, whether it’s on this site, whether we go to a secondary site, but I have -- and Commissioner Williams also has got on the agenda for next Tuesday a report on the site, and I think that we as a committee are obligated to, based on what you’ve heard this morning, we’re obligated to go back to the Commission with a recommendation. And then the Commission is going to do whatever they want to do. But we need to make a recommendation back to them. Judge Fleming: I make the motion, Mr. Chairman, recognizing the urgency for a new Judicial Center and recognizing the problems with exist with this location on James Brown Boulevard, such as traffic congestion, the time involved in looking at this site, maybe future approval, and the environmental defects of it, I would the committee recommend the County Commission to abandon this site completely and select another site. Mr. Speaker: I second that motion. Mr. Kuhlke: Let me inject this. When the Commission voted -- Lena, you have to correct me on this -- but the Commission voted this as the primary site. And the secondary site was to come back to this site here, with the purchase of the additional land on this block. And I’m just thinking we need to be consistent in what the Commission has already done if we go back to them. Judge Fleming: Well, [inaudible] like to see [inaudible] motion amended to [inaudible] secondary site? Mr. Kuhlke: I think that’s consistent in the action that’s been taken by the Commission. Judge Fleming: Well, I move we go to the secondary site, even though I don’t say that’s the best location, but it’s sure 100% better than this location. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Speaker: I second that. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Any discussion. Andy? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One, one, the stated estimate costs listed as a bargain to find out the conditions of this soil in this area. I would like to see a few more wells if the tests warrant that [inaudible] myself, but history shows in this very fine report that this area has seen nearly 100 years of unuse or sparse use. There have been some initial concurrences between us and the railroads for the straightening and relocating of that line perhaps, to get it of the property, which would give us the beautiful green belt of the third level of the canal. Though I have not seen data, the deepest 20 contamination point found at the Atlanta Gas Light based on just memory at this point was about 50 feet to 60 feet. All other areas off site have been treated with hydrogen peroxide injection, which has been deemed by the EPA to be a remediation method to completely oxidize and render harmless the chemicals that are found in the ground water surrounding the third level of the canal and other off site plumes caused by the Atlanta Gas Light property. I would suspect that while moving to the secondary site was of course of my initial desires, that this site if abandoned at this point will render it in the same position it is in now for another 50 years to 100 years due to unwillingness to proceed with environmental cleanups and find a positive use, therefore not allowing economic, the positive economic impacts of this Judicial Center to radiate to the surrounding communities in that area, which are desperately in need of additional head count to open and operate businesses and support industries, legal offices and so forth. I don’t think that the level of contaminations that we’ve seen are as drastic as to prevent us from use, and remediation would be small in comparison to the cleanup of other sites in this city that are located on the banks of the river and other parts of the canal that we tend to ignore. But I would just hope the committee would consider -- I’m -- I like this site for a lot of reasons. Phase II, or [inaudible] II was my choice initially, but I think if we don’t take action on this site and expedite cleanup and acquisition and construction, that it will sit for another 100 years just as it is now. An island of blight in the city otherwise growing. Mr. Kuhlke: Marion? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Bill. I kind of agree with Commissioner Cheek. I’m glad we’re off center. I’m glad we’re at least bringing something to the table. We have not heard the full report from the professionals. I mean the committee wants to make a motion to maybe change sites, but, and I know a lot of things have changed and I’m sitting here thinking about the, the civic center. [inaudible] built on the old railroad shop over there where diesel engine sat there from early 1800’s to whatever time they left there. And I know things have changed then, but like Andy said, if we abandon this particular place, this site, and not use it, then it’s going to sit there because we have changed our mind and moved on, and we saying that it’s potentially. We don’t know. From what I heard today had not given me any reason to change from the professional. I guess that if the site was as bad as we think it is, would it not been on the State register we had broadcast here back, a few months back? I’m talking about all the sites around Augusta that was so, so, so bad. But that was not one of them. And if was as bad as we project that we think it is, should not the State have had some inkling of, you know, the condition of the contamination? I’m on this committee, and, and, and, and, and I want to support getting another building. But when you talk about coming back to this building, if you talk about the expense of moving or relocating or changing, disrupting this building, [inaudible] no more than the expense of just the IT, setting up all that, and then coming back and setting it up, we going to have a lot more money than what we allocating now if we use this particular site here. So I just, I just, I just think that we really need to look at that and make sure that we want to move from this, this particular site. I just think we need to get a building, Judge, get started somewhere. We been 21 waiting and waiting and waiting and now we finally got something to the table and the first thing we got is to, to abandon. Bill, that’s my comment. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Any other comments? Judge Fleming: I’d like to say this. We’ve been dealing with this new courthouse proposition for several years. As a matter of fact, we started before we started in Columbia County, here in Richmond County. And the courthouse in Columbia County has been completed and been occupied for over a years. And we haven’t even selected the location here. And if you go out and talk to the public and you listen to people talk, all I hear is you must be crazy to even think about this site. That’s what I hear from the public. Somebody is not listening. And I hear that every day. As a matter of fact, two people hit me yesterday with it. This is a terrible site, I can’t believe you are involved in it. And I said well, I didn’t pick the site. So I think that we need to move away from this site completely. Mr. Craig: [inaudible] Mr. Kuhlke: Danny? Mr. Craig: The Columbia County courthouse serves a population of 96,000. Richmond County has a population of about 200,000. And we use that courthouse essentially for all of the [inaudible], for Juvenile Court, Superior Court, Probate Court, all the Clerk’s offices are there, and the lawyers who need to search titles go to that same building. In other words, it’s a comprehensive service center for the people’s needs and I go there regularly and we access that courthouse by a four lane road on one side, a two lane highway on another side, totally unobstructed by railroad tracks. And I think what should concern us greatly about this site is that in front of it, it’s accessed by a two lane street. And which can’t be apparently widened because it would interfere with the operation of the Post Office on one side or cut into the actual property that we would need in order to build something on the other. And in order to access it from Walton Way, which is a main thoroughfare in Augusta, you would have -- you would be at the mercy of your trains going up and down the train track. Presently, we have difficulty using this facility because the train tracks prevent anyone from accessing this building when the train is running on Greene Street. Now what you’re going to do is you’re going to double that problem because people who would be coming from the lawyers’ offices down at this end of town would also be at the mercy of the train tracks as they traverse Greene Street up toward the courthouse, and in addition now those people, the citizens for the most part, who are accessing from Walton Way, won’t be able to get to the courthouse. And that has been a major problem for us in trying to do business in this building. Now we’ve doubled that, which makes no sense whatsoever. And we’re pretty smart people. We really should not be seriously considering something that would put us in that kind of predicament. I think really the standard you should apply is would you build a medical-surgical center on this property here? And of course the answer -- it’s rhetorical -- the answer is absolutely not, you would never consider doing that because, first of all, the contamination is a contradiction to doing something like that. And if you 22 wouldn’t do that because of that contradiction, then why would you bring the innocent citizens of this community into a building on that, on that property on a daily basis? And also to subject your employees, working in that building on a daily basis. And secondly, no, no doctor in his right mind would agree to go in and do surgery in a building next to railroad tracks, and with the disruptions, the vibrations, the noise that goes along with it. And I deal with juries every day in this building, and days with Grand Juries when we have to stop what we’re doing every day that we work in order to let the trains go back two or three times during the course of two or three hours. We just stand that and we look at each other, quietly, and when it’s over I say don’t worry, in three or four years the County Commission is going to put you closer to the railroad tracks. And I think to myself, you know, that’s rather silly for us to even be considering something like that. That’s my two cents’ worth. Mr. Kuhlke: Any other comments? Mr. Tom Gunnells: Mr. Chairman, we’ve had discussions many times about the location of this project. To us, it really doesn’t make sense to for the County to build the most expensive building it’s ever built and sandwich it between a garage, a dilapidated building, and face it to the back of the Post Office. If the property there is so valuable and so good, why hasn’t someone else bought it? Why are we having to buy it to put a public building, a $75 million public building, on a piece of property that’s not feasible? Mr. Kuhlke: Andy? Mr. Cheek: May the record reflect that about six months ago we were recommending locating it on a site with the railroad track directly adjacent to that with a two lane road with a bridge that is near condemnation as a preferred site along the river, and so there is again some inconsistency in the recommendation process that goes along with this. I challenge anyone in this room to go to several sites within this city, take core samples where there have been industrial complexes -- remember, Augusta was the industrial [inaudible] of the South prior to and after the Civil War -- and not come up with several positive finds of soil samples above current EPA threshold limits for [inaudible] and other listed waste products. Contamination exists in this building in the form of paints, solvents and other things that we work with daily. If you look under your kitchen counter, there are, depending on quantity listed, wastes that you would find on the EPA list if it were in sufficient quantities. The issue of the railroad tracks is a very valid issue, and that is again one of my concerns and why we pressed to relocate the th tracks away from the property. There is also ongoing discussion to relocate the 6 Street tracks around the city, and as you know dealing with the railroads it like dealing with a foreign country. Whatever decision this committee comes up with, I think my intention of being here was to make, to get these things off of my chest as compared to the analysis, need for analysis and the path forward. If we do abandon site and go to the secondary site, I think having a judicial mall essentially right here in this one location would be ideal. 23 Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, thank you, Andy. Let me mention this to y’all. Because Andy made a point. If the decision is to abandon that site and go to the secondary site, I think you need to understand that what’s up on the screen is going to happen here, also. So you know, we can’t afford to go out and buy any property without doing an environmental assessment on it. So hopefully, if that’s, if that’s the decision of the committee, you need to know that at least we’re making a recommendation that we can move forward, but one of the first things that will happen will be the environmental assessment on the adjoining property. Mr. Speaker: The secondary location doesn’t involve as many parcels, does it? Mr. Kuhlke: No. Mr. Speaker: So we wouldn’t have as many possibly hostile [inaudible], hostile -- [inaudible]? Mr. Kuhlke: I can’t answer that, Judge. I know in -- I can only imagine maybe one place, and that may be the corner. But we’ll have to wait and see. Okay, I think, I hope we’ve had enough discussion. So we have a motion and a second on the floor. The motion is to abandon the site at Ninth Street and Walker Street and to recommend back to the Commission that we moved to the secondary site location. All in favor of that motion, raise your hand, please. Opposed to it? Motion passes. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, well, I think we have taken care of the business. I appreciate everybody taking the time. Marion, you do have this on the agenda for next Tuesday, and our intention is to make a presentation, similar presentation to the Commission next Tuesday and hopefully some action will be taken at that meeting. We stand adjourned. Thank you. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 24