HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-29-2004 Work Session
THE AUGUSTA COMMISSION
SPLOST WORK SESSION
COMMISSION CHAMBER
April 29, 2004
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Thursday, April
29, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
Present: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Colclough, Grantham, Mays, Cheek, Beard,
Williams, Cheek, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
Mr. Kolb: We are ready, we are ready to put the, begin. Everyone has an agenda
and I was going to go with the agenda. I’m, I’m, I’m waiting for Mrs. Smith to get here
but we can talk about one of the other items until she gets here and some other things.
We were going to continue, I’m hoping everybody brought their public works sheets that
we gave out last year, last week. Exhibits 1, 2 and 3, and we will continue discussions on
those. What I’m hoping we’ll do and we have here the request last week is to outline
projects that had actual matching funds to them and we can pass those out while we’re
discussing so that you’ll see what those projects are. Teresa is here and we will, I’ll turn
it over to her in a minute in her own way plus, Teresa, here. Our second discussion will
go into talking about the canal. You do have an outstanding -- or will have an
outstanding loan to them for the cleanup. We need to add that to the list and discuss it
plus any additional funds. Commissioner Cheek had talked about undermining of the
tow, tow road in the canal. We are trying to get a cost estimate but we don’t have any but
we need to set some funds aside for that and then lastly, hopefully you go through and
begin to determine what your priorities are in the public works area and let’s if we can by
4:00, if we can come up with a dollar amount that we want to shoot to, that would be
great. And we have some recommendations on that. And then if we have time, hopefully
beginning at, we’ll start at 4:00 to talk about the canal. Maybe by 4:30 giving us a little
[inaudible] time we can then begin the discussions about recreation and we’ll talk about
those particular projects and the infrastructure. We’ll finish that up next week and get
into another issue about public facilities. So without further ado, I’ll turn it over to
Teresa.
Ms. Smith: And did we hand these out? Okay. What you have in front of you is
the exact same list that was given to you last week. The format is slightly different in
that the column that had priorities numbers in them no longer have priority numbers in
them and what I would like to ask that we do today is to simply go through the list and
identify those projects that are of the higher priority that we want to make sure get
included in the number amount and if we can identify those projects and come up with a
1
total amount, then we can come back and we can talk about what else needs to be added
from, to the list or what else needs to be deleted from the list based on making our list a
little bit shorter. If you look at your black and white copy, which is the smaller handouts,
those projects that have a box around the project name, a, a heavier bold, bold line around
the project name and the column for priority are the ones that are green on the sheet that
have matching funds and the ones in yellow which are the ones that simply have the
shaded boxes next to them are the ones that some activity or expenditure has already
started on those projects.
Mr. Colclough: Now tell me what [inaudible] improvements are? I see it’s in a
shaded box.
Ms. Smith: Ready to go to construction as soon as we get the additional money.
Mr. Colclough: How much additional? $125,000?
Ms. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: Design?
Ms. Smith: Design is completed, right-of-way is completed.
Mr. Cheek: Teresa, on St. Sebastian, is that $6 million total cost accurate or, it’s
my understanding that we need about $9 million. Is that correct?
Ms. Smith: We have $3 million.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: While you’re up there let’s, let’s talk about St. Sebastian cause at
the meeting yesterday that was a subject matter we had with the DOT people and, and I
think it’s important to know that there’s some federal funds that we have that’s already
been allocated for this particular project.
Ms. Smith: If, if I can take a minute to --
Mr. Grantham: If you would, I think you ought to do that.
Ms. Smith: Okay. If, if I can take a minute to just give a little bit of information
on the St. Sebastian project. The project was authorized in either, I think it was 1999 or
2000. Design work started on that project in 2000. At the time that the project was set
up, our right-of-way team quite honestly had not done a right-of-way estimate utilizing
the federal guidelines or the federal approach. The estimate for right-of-way was
approximately $3 million and that’s what we have set up. We’ve hired a consultant.
2
That consultant who has a history of working on GDOT projects has worked with the
right-of-way section in Atlanta and come up with a total estimated right- of-way cost for
St. Sebastian of just over $8 million so that is basically what, what had, had transpired as
far as the increase in right-of-way for St. Sebastian and the two Windsor Spring Road
projects. Quite frankly, these are the first projects that we’ve done with this type
partnership with DOT. The staff that was here in the 96-97-98 time frame used the best
information that they had with respect to their backgrounds and expertise to identify what
the estimated costs would be. It turns out that they were far below what the requirements
are for those projects. St. Sebastian is, the concept is complete on it. We have just done
some layouts as far as preliminary plans are concerned. We had some additional
environmental work that was required to be done that should be completed within the
next two to three weeks and we anticipate being ready to go to right-of-way acquisition in
the fall of this year.
Mr. Grantham: And, and also to the point that, that those funds are designated
under the federal approval and they cannot be transferred to any other projects. They’re
earmarked for that particular project.
Ms. Smith: There’s $15 million of federal funds on the St. Sebastian project.
They are earmarked specifically as a Congressional line item as I understand it for that
project and cannot be used for any other project without going back to Congress for
reprogramming.
Mr. Grantham: Correct. Thank you.
Mr. Kolb: Another be 20 years probably.
Ms. Sims: That’s what I was going to say, how long --.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Smith, while, while you standing there can you, there are
some other project as well besides that one that’s earmarked from the DOT as well on
specific projects, is that right?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. Those are the projects that are shown in green that
we have matching funds for. The only one that the matching funds are not from the
Georgia Department of Transportation is the Augusta Flood Control Feasibility Study
and that is where the Corps of Engineers has indicated that if the cost benefit ratio meets
the requirements then they would provide matching funds. I believe their split is, it’s
either 60/40 or 75/25, I’m not sure which on that project.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just, I just wanted, just wanted to clarify that there were
several, you know, projects that the DOT was supporting in this area and you know, we,
we need to do all we can but I wanted to make sure that we understood to that there was
more than, than that one St. Sebastian.
3
Ms. Smith: I, I will add that the Glenn Hills Drive improvements project has been
approved by the Georgia Department of Transportation to receive state aid funds. An
amount has not been identified at this point but it is also in green. It’s a different,
different set of money from GDOT but it is also in green because it has been approved by
the Georgia Department of Transportation to receive state aid funds.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just something quick. Do you have anything else on, on the
federal money? I know we’re talking about DOT on one side but you mentioned the
other one where you got pending federal money but do you have any others with federal
money?
Ms. Smith: Not that, the other ones are, is federal money that is allocated to the
State, so the I-20 Project, the State Routes Project, that is federal money but that is
federal money that is allocated to the State that they have put on specific state routes in
Augusta.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: But none where you need a specific direct federal connect
to deal with?
Ms. Smith: Correct. None that we have to go back to the feds to specifically
move.
Mr. Speaker: Teresa, could you explain [inaudible]?
Ms. Smith: If you, if you look in about the middle of your page 1, you will see an
item called ARC Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements and for that specific project, that
was one that was added at the request of the Commission because on occasion we have a
number of drainage projects that come up that need some attention that are too large for
our maintenance crews to do the work and we don’t know what they are or what they’re
going to be so we identified $5 million to address those drainage related problems as they
come up. Quite frankly, it probably is going to equate to somewhere in the neighborhood
of five to eight projects total. When you look at some of the ones that we have on here
like Milo Street or the Walton Way Extension Project or D’Antignac or a couple of those,
if you see what the size and the magnitude of them are, it’ll be about five to eight projects
that we can get done during the life of this particular SPLOST.
Mr. Cheek: I just want to follow on with that and in my history on the
Commission, I think I’ve seen all the Districts come in with houses falling into ditches
and things that we quite frankly don’t have money to cover, emergent issues like
4
Alexander Drive and other things. I would encourage us as a body to double that amount,
especially if we go longer than five years on the SPLOST to make sure we can cover
emergencies that do come up and have funds to, to take care of that.
Ms. Smith: The other projects, the other funds that you’re looking at, the, the, the
County forces grading and drainage is for storm drain replacement, sink holes, replacing
corregated metal pipe, those types of things that will be done with or minor flooding
problems where we might have to have a inlet or a pipe or for those of you that are
familiar, Mr. Simons’ property out on Lafayette or Pineview or a number of things like
that, that’s where the funding for those type projects come from. Resurfacing contracts,
that’s where we have about -- did you want to speak to that one, Andy?
Mr. Cheek: I do too. On the, the drainage and the grading, we are seeing a
tremendous number of our corregated pipes that are coming of age at this point in time
and we’re seeing a trend towards collapse of those systems. They are going to need to be
replaced or they will become non-functional at some point in time. That dollar figure too
was probably low considering going in and replacing some of these pipes over say 250 or
300 feet plus excavation that runs a half a million dollars on average. So for us to
address this issue across the city, that dollar amount is probably about $5 million low if
we go for ten years.
Ms. Smith: The next item on your list, excuse me, is resurfacing contract, and
that is where we hire a contractor to come in and do large volumes of resurfacing work.
It is particularly important to have funds identified for that and that shows an increase in
the funding for that particular item on an annual basis because we have a number of
streets where we’re noticing that we have some base and pavement failures or some
reconstruction work that needs to be done such that portions of the street would have to
actually be completely taken out and reconstructed. We have a problem on Dewey Gray
Circle now that the material below the road was not adequately put in place. The road is
basically moving and we’re going to have to go in and do some major reconstruction
work on Dewey Gray Circle. We attempted to put some additional asphalt down to help
to stabilize it and it’s not holding up and that work that we did three weeks ago.
Mr. Boyles: Teresa?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir?
Mr. Boyles: The money that you’re talking about here is, is that any money in
case we get something from LARK or anywhere like that?
Ms. Smith: No, actually and, and I’ll share some information on the LARK
program. The LARK program will actually go out and GDOT will, get, will actually hire
a contractor and they will resurface streets. When GDOT resurfaces streets, they don’t
raise manholes, they don’t do adjustments, they don’t do any shoulder work that needs to
5
be done and if there’s any potholes that needs to be patched or any work that needs to be
done to that street other than laying asphalt, then we have to do it and we do that work
out of our sales tax monies. If there, if there’s a problem with the road or any failures or
anything, GDOT also does not address that so LARK is simply for having a contractor to
come in with an asphalt machine and continual running to put down asphalt.
Mr. Boyles: Well, how do you, where do you cover that, you know, your cost,
that may, you may incur?
Ms. Smith: The next item which is the county forces resurfacing?
Mr. Boyles: Uh huh [yes].
Ms. Smith: Any costs that we incur that’s associated with resurfacing including
additional work that our county forces folks have to do is included there. Now, when the
manholes have to be raised or when there’s other major work that potentially will need to
be done to the street, we go back and when we let our next resurfacing contract to have a
contractor to come in and adjust manholes and water valve structures, we include that in
that contract so our resurfacing contract will include all the streets that we’re resurfacing
plus any manholes or water valves that needed to be raised or adjusted as a result of
either county forces going in and doing resurfacing or the LARK program doing
resurfacing.
Mr. Boyles: Has there been any decrease in the amount of funding that’s come in
for LARK programs over the last couple of years?
Ms. Smith: Significantly. Significantly.
Mr. Boyles: Decreased?
Ms. Smith: The funding for the LARK program has decreased I think, from if
I’m not mistaken from about $40 million a year to about $6 million a year at the state
level.
Mr. Boyles: And isn’t that motor fuel tax?
Ms. Smith: I think so.
Mr. Boyles: From, from the DOT.
Ms. Smith: I think so. But there’s been a significant, significant decrease in the
state funding provided for the local area resurfacing program.
Mr. Boyles: Okay. Thank you.
6
Mr. Grantham: Let me ask a question. Based on these items you just mentioned,
the miscellaneous drainage improvements, the county force grading and drainage, can
you, can you get us the figures from the last two LARKs combined as to what we have
spent on those particular areas? And in doing so it might give us a better handle on
whether we’re saying $5 million, $10 million or whatever amount, if, if we got some
experience in the last two five year LARKs as to know what we might expect for the next
ten years
Ms. Smith: I actually had that information. It’s downstairs and I simply didn’t
bring it upstairs with me but I do have what the average expenditures have been for each
of these one, two, three, four programs over the course of the last three years I think it is.
Mr. Grantham: That, that’d be great. Well, even looking at your total for LARK
3 and LARK 4, I mean --
Ms. Smith: From SPLOST.
Mr. Grantham: From SPLOST III and IV would give us a guesstimation as --
Ms. Smith: All, all, all I would -- for SPLOST III, as I understand it, SPLOST IV
had funds in it for equipment and that’s the last item that you see on here. County forces
equipment.
Mr. Grantham: Right.
Ms. Smith: There was funds in there for equipment for SPLOST IV. We are
again requesting funds for SPLOST V. During SPLOST III, while we were actually in
the process of implementing SPLOST III, we had money identified for, to buy asphalt but
we didn’t have any asphalt spreaders that were in such a condition that we could put
down the asphalt. The GDOT asphalt plant started running again and they’ve put it,
reestablished it in the Augusta area but again we didn’t have adequate equipment to
purchase asphalt, I mean to put down the asphalt so some of the funds from the county
forces resurfacing and the county forces grading and drainage were reprogrammed from
those accounts to purchase equipment. So the numbers that you get are going to be
skewed if I give you numbers back through the other SPLOSTs.
Mr. Grantham: Okay. Okay.
Mr. Kolb: Okay --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me ask this a minute, George. Looking at your
shaded areas, I guess looking at both pages a minute, Ms. Smith. On Windsor Spring
Road, dealing with on page 1 and page 2, on pages 4 and 5, can you, I know we got some
7
participating money in there but if I’m looking at both pages and I’m up about $22.5
million roughly on Windsor Spring Road, I, what have we got that’s been promised? I
know, I know we did a situation a little while ago the Commission approved in reference
to doing the shift and getting the okay from, from GDOT but, and that was to move the
deal from, from five to four but I’m, I’m looking on here, I just want to get clear on what
was the net still needed cause I’m looking at $10 million on 4 and I’m looking at $12
million on page 5 as a proposal but, but how much of that $22.5 million roughly do we
have that’s either both in the house and on a promise from, from GDOT cause I know we
want to try and do a pack in and get, get four out the way and then obviously deal with
five but if we got the same road looking up in here, just wanted to kinda get that maybe a
little bit clearer.
Ms. Smith: Okay. On and if I can talk about them one at a time --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Whatever you need to.
Ms. Smith: -- Windsor Spring Road Phase 4, the $10 million that is needed for
right-of-way for Phase 4, excuse me, those funds are being requested from the
construction dollars that are available for Phase 5. The current cost estimate, the
preliminary cost estimate for construction of Phase 5 is $8.5 million, I believe it is, which
leaves us about $1 million short. It doesn’t mean that the construction money is moved
off of Phase 5, it only means that instead of spending that construction money in the year
that it’s allocated to get spent for Phase 5, we spend it for Phase 4 and the construction of
Phase 5 gets shifted further out.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I, I understand that but what I’m, what I’m trying to get is it
a little simpler on the math.
Ms. Smith: It’s about --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Got, got two phases where you got $22.5 here, $22.5
million. Then I need to know what you got participating, what’s been promised, what
you got in the tank. That’s still my question. That’s, just, just give me the numbers on
that. You, you, you got them at what they gone net you out to. I, I don’t, I, and, and
cause you got, you mixing in allocation and construction. I’m just looking at totals. How
we work it, I don’t have a problem with us trying to get it done but what I’m saying is if
it’s going to cost that on one road to finish from Tobacco Road to Hephzibah, I need to
know out of $22.5 million what you already have in the tank out of the $22.5 million and
what G, GDOT’s promising out of that. How you allocated, you know, I mean I know
you gotta deal with a separation there but I’m trying to deal now with, with net numbers
because what this has thrown us into and you know where I’m coming from, I been
arguing about this one a long time, I, I, I think we need to get a resolution on what it’s
gone take to deal with it from Tobacco Road to Hephzibah in its finality because see you,
you mentioned a minute ago about St. Sebastian in terms of how particularly where y’all
8
walked into a situation that of those numbers being calculated and being low. This one is
no different and probably drastically worse because if you got a situation there where you
got a zillion voters surrounding it in three different Districts, you’ve got a point there I
think we need to just, just, just, just, just get to that. I’m, I’m looking at the charts and I
may be the only ignorant one out of the ten but I need to get a better clarification of $22
million, what you got, take that from it, and what you still need. That’s, that’s, that’s
what this list is not showing me like you got it. I just need you to break that down for me
a little bit better.
Ms. Smith: Of the $22 million that is identified here as being cost that Augusta is
responsible for, we have $3 million, the Georgia Department of Transportation has
committed to provide the, to reprogram $8.5 million --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay.
Ms. Smith: -- which leaves us at --
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Ms. Smith: Okay. I, I’m sorry but the numbers aren’t running today. And so the
$12 million that would remain a need for right-of-way for Windsor Spring Road Phase 5
would continue to be a need.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. But it gets us though to a net of about really fifty
percent. Probably.
Ms. Smith: Correct. Correct.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: To cover construction and right-of-way?
Ms. Smith: Construction and right-of-way for Phase 4.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. That, that, that’s what I needed to get us exposed to
because, because the time frame that it’s being in because of the shift, and because of the
drastic difference in what it started at, numbers being presented. Now when you, when
you jump from $2 to $3 million in an allocation to $8 or $9 million in terms of, of being
able to get right-of-ways, that alters a whole lot and I just wanted to get us down to a net
as to what we were going to just need on Windsor Spring Road so if we got a cushion
number to appoint or just roughly saying this may put you above it, so we are probably
needing in order to, in its finality, and that a lot could change in terms of those years, I
know that, I wouldn’t ever ask to you to guarantee that on when this is going to get
completed, but even with a conservative estimate, you’re looking at say $12 million at a
point out of that you still need and that’s what I wanted to get us on. Okay?
9
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Temp?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir?
Mr. Smith: Are you talking about from Tobacco Road to Willis Foreman or all
the way to Hephzibah?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m really talking about all the way to Hephzibah in terms
of net money.
Mr. Smith: Yeah.
Mr. Mays: Because we, we, we did this shift, you know, and I keep saying shift.
Teresa can correct me on that. But in terms of that part of the reprogramming to move up
from 5 to 4 because I, I thought we needed to do something to identify how we were
going to at least complete 4 because we been talking about 4 and 5 and I thought it will
be very shaky for us to step out on this thing on that deep side of South Richmond and
you got a situation of where at least one of them would not be totally clear and that’s
what I was saying there. I know from a, a, a staffing point it may be good where you list
this down and to break it, but I think when, when asked a question, particularly you know
you’re coming on and it ain’t and when a majority of that would be, you know, you as
well as all of us but particularly deep south commissioners need to be able to say it’s at
this point, this is what the net will be in order to finally complete it hopefully in terms of
getting into Hephzibah. But we moved the money from the standpoint of being able to
realistically deal with half of that in getting from Tobacco Road down to Willis Foreman
and getting that part of that four lane, both in acquisition and in, in construction and that’s
where, Mr. Commissioner, I was trying to, to get us clear where we were over that
because I, I know I probably have to pick you and Andy up on the way outta town if y’all
could catch the car fast enough to jump in it if you didn’t have a way to figure out how
you going to get one half of that road out there complete and I, but I, but I think at this
stage of it, as long as we been talking about it cause when you tie Diamond Lakes in with
that road, you gotta lot of stuff that’s going together and I can remember in terms of the
creation of why Diamond Lakes was done, those three commissioners at the time came
together to try and consolidate some of the money that could be done to that and the road
and the park itself somewhat go hand in hand in terms of what you got to deal with with
the expansion but then how do you get to it? How do you get access, how you able to
function on that side of the county period and for four lane growth on what you going to
be able to do whether you got any economic development or not coming to that section of
Tobacco Road and on the southside so you, you got to a, a, a, a whole lot that depends on
what you do with that one road. Not only in terms of progress but also in terms of, of
people who remember when it started, and if they still think you starting it and don’t have
a way to complete it, they have a better way of letting you know how they feel about it
and so I, I just wanted to kinda clear that to a point that we not only out in public, we
asked just from our own mind of where we were on it and how much money it’s going to
10
take to finish dealing with it. Cause I mean, while I realize it doesn’t have a federal
match per se in it, it’s got one where we’ve had it on that drawing board, you know, prior
to your coming and prior to just about everybody else up here’s coming, too.
Ms. Smith: You still talking about Windsor Spring?
Mr. Mays: Yeah, and I want, I’m on, I’m on finish it but I, but it took me a long
while to get it to here. It, it was about ready for me over there on James Brown for
awhile and that’s how it was looking and I wanted to make sure it still had, kick it off life
support and inject some real life into it to a point of where it was gone be.
Ms. Smith: But let, let me comment if I can. The money on Windsor Spring
while it is not the same type of federal money that is for St. Sebastian, the same federal
requirements have to be met associated with constructing the project which is part of the
reason that the cost associated with the projects are as high as they are. If, and I’m not
sure how much information, how intimately familiar you are with these, the right-of-way
costs for Windsor Spring Road is greater than the construction cost for Windsor Spring
Road for Section 4 and for Section 5 because of the federal guidelines and federal
requirements that we have to meet as we do the right-of-way acquisition process.
Mr. Mays: That’s why I been trying to get it for a short life time into this kind of
discussion and I wasn’t riding your back with it but I know when you inherited it, I
looked at it and looked at your source of funding that it needed to be publicly discussed
because numbers just don’t change that drastically. Now you remember what I said and I
said it in five different meetings, two workshops, two legal sessions which you wasn’t it
and by three committees to appoint that either mistakes were made going in or they were
making them now and they needed to get cleared up. I think you’re doing a great job of
clearing it up but the point was being was that the source of funding if it was allocated
wrong on doing it because of the source then it doesn’t matter at this stage who’s doing
the allocating, it’s the group and the staffing that’s in place now that’s got to get it
straightened out and if you got different requirements on what it takes to capture those
properties in order to do it, then that needed to be articulated to this Commission and to
do it because some of us, even though I was here when it started, if I’m depending on
staff, staff runs on and the government runs on but if we don’t know that it’s going to
take something different than what we were talking about because when I followed
Jimmy’s tenure on knowing what it was going take to do it, you know, or he went to a
point maybe, Don, when you were meeting with him about what he was going to talk
about, numbers in terms of what it was it gone take which is drastically different and like
you say, people did that but what the best the thought process that they had it but I think
when you, you know, the first question that come to mind is then if it jumps from 2 to 9
or 2 to 10 then there has to be a reason for knowing it and I’m only gone say at place in
time falls under that same committee nobody’s fault but everybody’s responsibility. Now
when it jump from 2 to 10 that’s a lot of millions of dollars and if there’s a reason behind
it, that’s all we needed to know what it was but it, it needed a utility date until today, this
11
has been the first time I think and I’m glad of it that it’s been clarified as to how it got
there, how it got wrong, what it’s gone take and what did that number dollars it is to
finish it so it’s not a matter of jumping of you about it, nor staff about it, nor
administration about it but to a point it just needed to be said cause the general public
kinda wants to know if they’ve seen it there the last time and say wait, did y’all go crazy
the last time? We saw the cost, I mean, if you got something there on Phase 4. We got
enough people smart enough to know they voted for something four to five years ago and
this is what it’s supposed to run and then you come up another four or five years and it
cost differently then obviously some number’s in there and I think Mr. Public Works
Chairman, is the reason why we’ve needed to get deep into this because if -- I’m just
starting at Windsor Spring Road, if there’s some differences in some other numbers that
the calculations are not correct or if the inflation numbers need to be plugged in so that
you can get realistic numbers then we need to be in place to know whether or not when
you put thirty projects out whether thirty projects are gone stay thirty projects or whether
they going to drop to twenty-six projects because twenty-six, because they have no
inflation numbers realistically plugged in, whether they’re going to disappear off the
radar screen and become non-existent projects because the cost factors in there may not,
may, may or may not be correct and I think that’s what you, you really gotta say that’s,
that’s cold-hearted message, kinda as cold is where y’all were earlier today. I missed that
wind draft but I let them by already, David, but the point I just think, and, and, and it’s
not beating on anybody but I just think that’s the kind of clarity all of us have gotta hear
about a project. If we know it’s going to be thirty up there, we want to know it’s going to
be thirty. If it can’t be done, then we need to say, hey, these numbers are not what they
should be and that’s nothing wrong there but this is how far your money will realistically
take and I think before we finish dealing with public works that’s the kind of listing that
we need to have out there and that’s the kind of numbers we need to have out there,
because that’s the only thing then that you can deliver to folk, you know, in an honest
basis to say this is, this stands a good chance of getting done. Mr. Cheek, and I’ll shut up
about it.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add and ask a couple of
questions about Windsor Spring Road, that Windsor Spring Road’s improvements are
essential to realizing the economic potential development that could occur with the
improvements at Diamond Lakes and the additional traffic that will bring to that area,
tourism, overnight stays, and so forth. Teresa, where are we at as far as design and what
are we going to be able to do in the next two years and when can we start turning ground
perhaps to see this project begin construction?
Ms. Smith: The determining factor for Windsor Spring with respect to the
progress that we’re able to move forward is going to depend on the environmental
documents and I honestly don’t remember if the final environmental documents for
Windsor Spring are the ones that went forward two days ago or if they’re the ones that
we’re about 95% completing. Well, we anticipate being able to have a preliminary field
plan review towards the end of this summer which would allow us to move forward with
12
start of design on our right-of-way. I think that Windsor Spring is actually scheduled to
go to construction in fiscal year 06.
Mr. Cheek: We would hope early fiscal year 06?
Ms. Smith: I’m sorry. No, it’s not. It’s fiscal year 07 cause the construction cost,
the construction amount is $11 million and GDOT’s funding balance that they have to do
won’t allow us, won’t allow them to construct the project until FY07.
Mr. Cheek: It’s just a shame. I know when I, I first came on and you and I, you
inherited a lot of this --
Ms. Smith: Wait. Andy. Andy. Stop. In fiscal year 06, Wrightsboro Road we’re
trying to move into fiscal year 07.
Mr. Cheek: Yeah, that, cause you know when we first got here, you in your
position and me in mine that it was an 04 project, then an 05, now an 06.
Ms. Smith: It’s 06, I’m sorry.
Mr. Cheek: 07 I think I would have done a Fred Sanford with a big heart attack
up here. We just desperately need this improvement in that area. There are thousands of
people on Windsor Spring going to Diamond Lakes as it exists now with the potential
future improvements that we hope to see out there, there could be two to three to ten
thousand or more people on a weekend depending on the events from all over the
Southeast and that is very, very important project for South Richmond County and the
City.
Ms. Smith: Any, any more, go ahead, George.
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Cheek sent a listing and I just wanted to acknowledge
that. Some of the projects that you asked for are already on the list I believe.
Mr. Cheek: I can read them off for you if you like.
Mr. Kolb: I think now --
Ms. Smith: Can, can we, can we let him do that, George, so I can tell him where
they are?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: Several of these are forty plus year old neighborhoods or areas that
have not had any drainage rehabilitation done in their basins for about as many years.
13
Mt. Vernon, Birch Grant, Valley Forge and Cadden Woods Subdivisions need drainage
improvements. We are seeing some collapse in those systems in that area. Cadden
Woods in particular has since its construction in the wet season we had this last year, the
residents found out that they have a detention pond in their back yard. There’s no outlet
on the bottom end. Now this property is owned by the City and the improvements
necessary perhaps are as simple as digging a drainage ditch at the bottom end of that or
clearing out existing drainage. I estimated a half million dollars for the improvements for
that area.
Ms. Smith: If, if you’ll look at your list, I’m not, I’m not sure if it’s on page 3,
page 3, fourth project from the bottom, Salem Subdivision, drainage improvement, is that
in the same area that you’re speaking of?
Mr. Cheek: Salem is approximately 300 to 400 home subdivision. The balance
of these areas includes about 1,200 homes in six different subdivisions scattered through
there. This is the region or the quadrant that all drains to Butler Creek that actually feeds
through Salem and say this is the top end of the system --
Ms. Smith: Do you got about a half a million dollars that you’re looking at?
Mr. Cheek: That’s just to, yes, to improve those areas and with each project being
about a half million dollars, I’ll probably need to, that is an Andy estimate, it’s probably
low.
Ms. Smith: Okay cause we got about $1.2 million identified for Salem.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I’m saying additional, an additional $1.2 probably to do what
we need to do in that area.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Plantation Road and Boykin Road is on the list, so I won’t have any
questions. Green Meadows Detention Pond is experiencing silation and there are some
drainage issues across the golf course there.
Ms. Smith: It’s in ARC Drainage Phase 2.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Windsor Spring Road to Rocky Creek, this is the quadrant
bounded by Old Louisville Road and US 25 and I-520. That area has some pretty serious
problems with its existing drainage ditches. These are open ditches in back yards and
side yards of homes that every time it rains its running over in the streets.
Ms. Smith: This is between Peach Orchard and Old Louisville?
14
Mr. Cheek: Yes.
Ms. Smith: That’s the third project on the list.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. And then Miles Park has needs for rehab and drainage. Also
in that area, there’s some, some issues with areas we promised to pipe in 25 years ago
and haven’t and also some drainage back towards Butler Creek, there’s a, several amount
of standing water in that system way beyond rain days. But those were the areas for
drainage and I’d ask that we look at about $2 million for roads and also for paving roads
in six, in the Sixth District, and also new roads construction, I was not sure where we
were at with the construction of the road off of Richmond Hill Road to the new Public
Works & Utilities building. It is my understanding that that road is, we’re planning,
planning to put a frontage road in through from Richmond Hill Road to Highway 1, is
that accurate?
Ms. Smith: Not, not from Richmond Hill Road to, to Highway 1. It’s from
Richmond Hill Road to the Public Works Augusta Utilities Complex.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Ms. Smith: Right.
Mr. Cheek: Windsor Spring to the complex?
Mr. Kolb: Windsor Spring to the complex. We, we need to I think plat the land
and have that developed before we start looking at a road from the complex to Highway
1.
Mr. Cheek: The thing, thing about, about that frontage road, I know we had this
South Augusta station that they’re talking about developing in that area and I know that if
we can, if we can put in some improvements and a roadway through that area, it would be
a lot more likely to attract commercial and residential development in that area.
Mr. Kolb: We are about to come to the Commission and ask approval for the
project. We are, Utilities is moving along because we have to build the road to get back
to the project anyway.
Mr. Cheek: Well, in my concern though George is we have a desperate need to
grow our economic face and there’s going to have to be some speculation done on the
construction of, of roads to attract businesses to our area. That is a prime frontage spot
on Bobby Jones much like the frontage road between Wheeler Road and Belair Road and
how much that’s developed over the last few years. This area has been stagnant since I
was a child in the neighborhood. If we build a one way road into our Public Works and
Utilities headquarters, we’re not likely to see the potential growth develop in that area
15
that we could have and that’s why I ask that we consider developing a roadway along that
frontage to bring us some business and increase our tax base in that area. One of the
things I, I want express about the sales tax is there are projects that will come up that are
necessary that have been lingering but we also need to take a look at how we can put in a
few dollars of investment and perhaps grow a greater number of dollars in tax
reinvestment in the City by attracting business and industry to the area and that’s part of
why that road, why I looked at that road and asked that road be added to, to the list for
consideration. I mean, it may be a situation where we develop matching funds with some
developer, it may be some GDOT funds that we can get, but that roadway through there,
there’s about 500 or so acres in there that could be developed and it could be developed
much like the Target Center if its done right and we don’t have that type of frontage
along Bobby Jones in other places that is undeveloped. This is a very, very ripe area for a
lot of business and residential development to come in there but the City’s going to have
to take a first step I believe in, in investing that.
Mr. Kolb: As I said, we will be coming to you really, probably in the next 30 to
60 days with this project because we do need a road to get back there for construction and
we’ve, we’ve directed that they go ahead and put a two lane road in there so we, that
would do exactly what you’re saying expandable to four lanes and hopefully will attract
some development. Once that starts to happen, we’ll start looking at going all the way
and, and doing what we need to do and when the land becomes available for
development.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Kolb: Was that your list?
Mr. Cheek: Well, I got recreation and some other items if you want me to.
Mr. Kolb: No. Yeah, let’s stay with infrastructure --
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: -- and then we’ll come back to you.
Mr. Cheek: Oh, I did say that, that there was, since it wasn’t budgeted in the past
traffic calming for District 6 since it’s not a budgeted item on our general fund, that a half
million dollars be allocated to aid in traffic calming projects within District 6.
Mr. Kolb: Okay.
Ms. Smith: In SPLOST, in SPLOST?
Mr. Cheek: It’s the only show and tell for additional money.
16
Ms. Smith: I don’t know.
Mr. Cheek: It’s a capital improvement.
Ms. Smith: It hadn’t crossed my mind.
Mr. Kolb: I’m, I’m not sure it’s called a capital improvement rather than traffic
control.
Mr. Cheek: I think, I think that --
Mr. Kolb: We can look at it.
Mr. Cheek: -- it would fall under the same category as roads and bridges as far as
supplemental additions to roadways.
Mr. Kolb: Can, can we go through the Commissioners’ list and, and determine
which ones are on the list and not, and then maybe we’ll take five minutes and then let’s
talk about the canal. We’re at our 4:00 o’clock limit. If that’s possible.
Ms. Smith: You mean --.
Mr. Kolb: Never mind. None of them are on the list so --
Ms. Smith: Well, George, some of, some of them, actually sort of like Andy’s are
already on the list.
Mr. Kolb: And that’s what I wanted to talk about in terms of the Commissioners’
list to see if any of these were on the list and we could strike through, and then the next
step is for the Commission then to take the list and mark the projects that they want to see
done. And we, we’ve looked at this for a very long time and determined, number one,
what our past capacity has been and what we’ve been spending and trying to forecast
exactly what we may be able to do over the next ten years. Also recognizing that there
may be other funding sources available to you to, to deal with some of the projects that
are on this list which means you then build more capacity for additional projects. And
we’re looking or we’re recommending to you a possible budget sealing of about $120
million. So I would suggest that you start prioritizing.
Mr. Mays: Let me ask this, George. What was our final starting number that we
got plugged in already?
Mr. Kolb: The Committee recommended to you $92 million which included $10
million for utility matches. We went through the projects and determined that there were
17
no need, there was no need for utility matching funds and so we added that to the
projects. However, what we did not take into consideration nor did the Committee is the
projects Teresa went over that, that we’re calling resurfacing, county forces, maintenance
type stuff or, and I don’t want to, that, that term needs to be defined cause it’s really not
maintenance, it really is like resurfacing or putting in new ditches so that’s how we term
it. We did not have any money for that and we do need monies for that.
Mr. Mays: Just what I’m asking is that let’s just say hypothetically and I know
that, that, that it’s good to have a some kind of number to start with for a budget cause
you going to make a budget, you gotta say, gotta plug in some number but if we, let’s just
say if we do $120, then realistically we’re talking about trying to get only $28 million
worth of stuff to the table [inaudible] cause I mean if we got $92 million that’s on there,
that, that’s been presented through Citizen’s Committee and if a lot of it didn’t contain
what’s been presented from these different lists to go just into public works, then we’re
down to the starting block of less than $30 million. If, and that’s just hypothetically, if
we deal with that number and, and let me throw this other one situation out to see if it has
any bearing or not but I’m, I’m throwing it out only from, cause I’m just asking a
question to deal with it. I mentioned earlier when we were talking about Windsor Spring,
what was the validity or not in terms of trying to deal with particularly the longer that this
SPLOST may go on as opposed to the old 5 year situation, whether we end up with the
new law being, you know, the minimum of 6 years or whether it goes on into 10, what
are we doing from the standpoint of projects versus inflation numbers and of allowing
anything in there to cover that? Because I think if we, if we, if we looking at the
stretching out, then we need to, we need to have some figure in there that we’re going to
have for possible inflation that you’ve got because they can’t run tight up to the meal and
say you got $120 million to deal with public works. I, I think that needs to, to reason out
that maybe you got $110 if that’s the hypothetical number you going to use or, or, cause
some figure’s gotta be, gotta be put in there or else you going to have a Commission, I
won’t be on it, but you going to have a Commission that’s gone have to make some
decisions of cutting some potential public works projects that won’t be around because if
those numbers are run to that basis with, with, with no preparation for what they’re going
to cost for stretching them that long and the changes in them with a reasonable bit of
inflation, it’s my understanding that they are tight up to the bone and have no room in
there to do anything with. That, we need to look at that too. Now I’m, I’m just putting
that out on the table cause it’s workshop time and I’m just throwing it. It could be, it
could be wrong as two left shoe but I’m, but I’m throwing it out there to a point that you
know if, if, if it’s something we need to, to talk about or to say how do we go with that?
Mr. Kolb: And it, it’s a very good question, I believe. First of all, let me, let me
say this. We plan the revenue stream to be constant over a ten year period. In other
words, we’re collecting roughly $32 million a year. We have experience, and I was just
looking at it, for example, in Phase 3, we budgeted $104 million. We actually collected,
plus interest, $140 million so there’s, there’s money there in terms of growth that you
could apply in the situation that you’re talking about. Now, now, and so you could plan
18
an, a increase that then you could use the strategy you used in Phase 4 and that’s to build
in a 12% contingency amount that would be used to finance those projects before
anything else was done so you did that in Phase 4. Now those are two ways or
combination of the two that you can use and I’m sure there are others that we can employ
but one thing I wanted to mention, the $92 million of projects are the ones that are on, on,
pretty much on the list that the Committee approved. So the $28 million we’re talking
about is either new projects or adding the maintenance onto them or rearranging what the
Committee did and creating your own priority list.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Let me, let me, let me, let me just ask this before we, we get
crazy into thinking that there’s about $36 million of available new money. Do you want
to clarify that a little bit to a point on collections versus where we are and of how in terms
to, to allocate and to deal with that because see, I want to make sure before we leave that
spot that we’re not thinking general public-wise nor Commission-wise cause when you
say we, we, we, we prepared to spend $104 million and you say you got $140 million,
then that message may jump out there to a point that it’s $35, $36 million somewhere
laying around that you got to spend or the potential to spend in a short period of time and
you may want to clarify that a little bit.
Mr. Kolb: Well, I think you, you spend most of that in terms of like you were
talking earlier, and that’s what I was trying to relate to projects that were overrun, that
you needed additional monies for, change orders, etc. Most of that, those funds have
been spent or are somehow obligated. And so you know I’m not prepared to go project
by project but the majority of those funds are, are --
Mr. Mays: I, I wouldn’t want you to do that. I’m going to, I’m going to shut up
on that one but, but I, but I do think that needs to be a general accounting though from the
standpoint when we, at some point before we leave the workshops of public works, to
start on a new presentation for a new sales tax that there’s not that type of money there
cause see when we discuss these type things in jist and we say that there’s an amount in
there, then that either equates to the point that you either spent too much money or that
you gotta change order problem or that you gotta surplus that’s in there that hasn’t been
spent and, and, and, and John Doe cannot adequately deal with that cause Willie though
has a little bit of problem when you say that one but I think you know when Joe Public
deals with it, we just, now I’m not, I’m not being critical, I’m just being observant, but,
but when you talk about surpluses, you have to be I think, all of us have to be very
careful to a point of explaining where they’ve gone, how legitimately they’ve gone or
whether they’re still around and whether there’s a commitment to deal with something
with them and my reason for saying that is prior to us getting four new members on the
Commission, I remember at one time when probably Marion when, when you, when,
when your group to came on, that was you and Andy, you know, we, we heard one time
and wasn’t, wasn’t brought on by, by George but when we, when we talked about one
time well there’s, there’s a whole lot of money and there’s a big difference and we had
people lined up to spend it. I mean, every, you know, there were folk who had a list that
19
came in and said well you got this much money, these projects need to be done. Well,
then when it was broken down into a commitment where it was going, we found out that
you were basically right back down to zero again and I, and I think that when you, when
you throw, thirty, $36 million is a lot to throw out there so you need to be real, we need
to be, all of us, real careful when we talk about what we’ve collected versus what we said
we were going to do and how much we spent because that, that opens you up to another
round of explanations to do to a point and while it should all be disclosed, I think you
need to, when you put that kind out there cause at this point, somebody’s going to ask
other than me, you know, how much was committed, how much is surplus, how much
have you got to apply to some new project and then I think it’s fair game when you throw
those type numbers out there so we have to be prepared to deal with them. Tommy, you
were? Had your hand up there?
Mr. Boyles: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just trying to find in here if
there’s a place for a curb and guttering or piping some of the existing ditches in some
subdivisions or where that may be in here or if it is in here?
Ms. Smith: It is, it is not included in there. Currently, with our, the, the funds
that we have, if by chance we go in and do a roadway improvement that there’s
expansions or widening or anything like that that needs to be done, if the evaluation is
made that the drainage system should be piped and curb and gutter should be added, it is
done in conjunction with that roadway improvement but we do not have a separate
program identified specifically to go in and pipe ditches.
Mr. Boyles: How difficult is that to, to add back in? Because I think all of us
have certain areas in our districts that have -- the roads may be okay but we still have
drainage, you know, ditches in front of people’s houses on both sides of the street. I’m
talking about specific, if it’s specifically I think every, I think as well as I know the
county, I can probably name areas in every Commission district and cause I had to go to a
kind of a heated meeting Friday night and that subject came up.
Ms. Smith: It’s, it’s kinda like those areas or subdivisions that don’t have
sidewalks, pipe drainage ditches and sidewalks are nice to have but they have not made it
to the top of our list with respect to liability related issues and most of what we have
included on the list are liability related issues particularly at the top of the list. How
much money you want to allocate to it or how much is it going to, how much is it going
to take, I have no clue. How much you want to decide to allocate to it, because how long
the road is, what size the pipes need to be, whether or not we have to acquire additional
right-of-way, in order to do it, the cost is going to vary greatly so it’s going to be a matter
of how much money the Commission wants to set aside for that type work and then we’ll
work with it until we run out of it.
Mr. Boyles: You know, I think you and I discussed one time that you’ve got a lot
of items that were promised to people years and years ago from 1988 to now and they
20
somehow get pushed further and further down the list and they don’t come up and these
folks that live in these residential neighborhoods remember those things and I, I think you
and I talked about that going to Jacksonville if I remember and somehow it just seems
like projects that were promised people just kinda gets pushed back and new ones get
added and you know those major roads and all don’t vote too well but that little lady with
the drainage ditch in front of her house, she’s going to be the first one at the polls so.
Ms. Smith: And, and hopefully, because piping the ditch, ditches have a number
of things to be taken into consideration other than just whether or not the citizen wants to
have the ditches piped and I have to, I have to speak to Ms. Beard in this particular
instance because I know in District 1, District 1 is at the, the bottom of the rain flow pool
and a lot of water comes down to District 1, settles in District 1 and it’s very flat over
there and there are a number of people, and I’ve had a number of discussions with Ms.
Beard just in the short amount of time that she’s been on board, and has indicated that all
areas are just not prone to having the ditches piped but of course, everyone would like to
have the ditches piped in their areas so there are some, some physical constraints
associated with piping ditches and hopefully if we identify some funds for going from
ditches to underground drainage systems that those are the types of things that will be
taken into consideration before we make commitments that the ditch in front of the little
old ladies’ houses can be, can be piped because sometimes we’re creating bigger
problems than the aesthetic ones that we’re solving.
Mr. Boyles: Thank you.
Mr. Cheek: That’s when I, I talked earlier about the drainage improvements and
the county forces grading and drainage dollars needing to be increased, that was, was my
intention is to see that funding increase to allow us to do that and again, I, I strongly urge
the Commission to consider what those two categories at least doubling that money
especially if we go 10 years in order to deal with the emergencies and other small
projects that always emerge before this body is an issue where we will have funding in
the future and not be as has been in the past having to scramble or tell people we can’t
help them. So for those two, I would say at least $10 million for miscellaneous drainage
improvements and probably $20 million in the second one would be reasonable to cover
say 7 years. If we go June to 7 years, with the money, the dollar like, value like it is, as
Teresa said, that’s probably 8 projects maybe total of about 16 projects at half million
dollars each and that’s just not going to cover all the stuff that we’ve seen the years that
we’ve been here and as Tommy, as you, you implied all of us have those problems and
all of us would like to help each other but if there’s no money there, now is the time that
we need to sit that aside. And I, I want to further add that one of the issues too with
drainage in this city is maintenance on those systems, we don’t have the staff nor the
funding to maintain the systems that we have in place as they should be maintained. All
of Butler Creek, Rae’s Creek and some of the others, not to mention the secondary
drainage systems that we will at some point, if we are a responsible body, have to deal
with the creation of a storm water utility as has been done in Columbia County to fund
21
those, those improvements and just basically to manage the upkeep necessary to keep
them working properly. We’re going to have to cross that bridge sooner rather than later.
Mr. Kolb: Mr., Mr. Mayor Pro Temp, just in response to Commissioner Cheek,
on May 10th, we will have a discussion about looking a storm water system and we will
be bringing forth to you proposals for you to consider acquiring a consultant to look at
that specific issue.
Mr. Cheek: And I just want to add to what Mr. Colclough said. I’m glad you’re
doing that but the federal requirements for clean water emissions and run off are
becoming more stringent all the time and for us to comply as a city and not get into
consent order space, we’re going to have to staff and fund maintenance of our storm
water system.
Ms. Smith: Commissioner Grantham earlier asked the question with respect to
what our expenditures are on these items that we are currently discussing. Not taking
into consideration the ARC Miscellaneous Drainage Improvement because that is a, a
new item that we’re adding, we have approximately an average expenditure over the last
three years of about $5 million to include salaries for those things that are done with the
county forces funds that are identified here in page 1 of the worksheet.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams?.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Smith, I was looking over this list
that you passed out and there’s a couple of number errors I want to clarify because I don’t
want you, I don’t want anybody to think that District 2 had been represented as the way it
is this, this, this list indicate. Windsor Spring Road is not one of District 2’s project and
that’s, I mean I understand that, and along with railroad seat, I, I appreciate the, the
recognition for the numbers but I want to be clear that there’s a lot of infrastructure
problems that I, I would love to see done. I gave, I gave you some, some, gave you a list
of some, some, some new, when I say new, some of the stuff we have not put on the sales
tax list as of yet, Virginia Subdivision, we talked about drainage little while ago and, and
watching the news last night and it was talking about how much the mosquito is already
starting to take effect but if we don’t do something about the places that’s like Ms.
Beard’s district and my district, and my district that holds water, I mean we, we are really
fighting against something that’s going to continue to be there if we don’t solve those
problems. If we, if we let those, those, those kinda things stay there but I, I want to make
sure those things I gave you, Virginia’s on here, yeah, and [inaudible]’s on there but I
gave Ms. Smith some information on another subdivision who don’t have any drainage,
who don’t have no infrastructure, don’t have any sidewalks that’s been long time
residents, not new area to this area behind Butler Stadium --
Mr. Cheek: Southland.
22
Mr. Williams: Southland Subdivision and, and, and that area. We also went out
[inaudible] and [inaudible] Road and looked at some of those areas and, and that, that,
some of that stuff like retention pond, especially Nathan Helm but there’s some other
things that I want to make sure that’s on this list and I want to make sure that when, when
this, these projects are approved, you know, that they get done. These, these people been
waiting in line a long, long time and have not had it but if you, if you don’t have all those
things, if you need to get with me again, I need to make sure they on the list and we can
hash out what, what’s gone be priority or not but I want to make sure that they’re not left
out, I mean, cause they were left out before.
Ms. Smith: We’re, we’re looking at about $2 to $2.5 million for each of the areas
that, those additional areas that you had spoken about and after Ms. Beard pointed out
that we needed to confirm the districts, the information with respect to which projects are
in which districts is based on the congressional layouts, I mean the district layouts that
are on our existing GIS system. My son and I were up til 12:30 this morning confirming
all of the, the, the projects and the districts that they’re in so.
Mr. Williams: I understand. I appreciate that but I want to clarify that the GIS
and let, let it know that that’s not right.
Ms. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Williams: I mean those numbers don’t, don’t, don’t belong. Now let me ask
one other question. Those things that you just said that I, that we talked about, they’re
not on this list as of yet?
Ms. Smith: They’re not on that list at this time.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I want, I want to make sure those projects --
Ms. Smith: But I, I think what Mr. Kolb had indicated was that there are things
that are on, not on the list that we want to add to the list, then we can go ahead and list
those cause again, the one that’s turned into him, some of those items are already
addressed within the list so if we can go through there, the list that we have from each of
you and identify which ones need to go on the board, and then hopefully go through and
see which projects off of this list we want to go ahead and add as our starting point, then
we can close out the public works part for the day. I can come back with that
consolidated list and the cost associated with the total so that we can either add or
subtract from it depending on what you want the number to be.
Mr. Williams: So do I need to start with the list that, that, that I have for District
2, is the addition of stuff or what? What, what, what are you saying?
Ms. Smith: I, I --
23
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What, what I think and I’m on, I’m on, I hear, I hear you,
just one second, Richard. I think in order to, some can be done today for Mr. Williams,
I’m thinking to a point what she’s asking is that to make, to make sure that they are there,
allowing some reading time to see what’s already on that maybe does not need to be
added but that what may not be there and then submit it ahead of time so that that can be
a formal list to come back and do and I think in the, the essence of time we can, we can,
we can do either but I think probably if you got some more to find to making sure that
they are there, if you got them right now, she can deal with doing them but I think what’s
going to be better is to get back with her even if you give us something today to a point
that they can formulate a, a, a total master list to include it because what we’re talking
about is still that difference versus what we presented and I know we’re not set any
budget yet but that’s why I, I mentioned earlier that if you got $92 that’s on there been
approved because we could technically speaking redo the whole thing but if we’re trying
to get what’s there and then add to it without missing anything, we don’t have a whole lot
that’s in those hypothetical number situation. Let me, let me, Richard was in, Ms. Beard,
and then I’m going to get you, I know. We let you get --
Mr. Colclough: I just want to ask a question. The list that the Commission made
up and turned in prior to this meeting, I see where I got Willis Foreman dredge on there,
and I know that’s on there but this list of projects that we turned in, I turned in a couple
of weeks ago, is any of those items on the list or where do we have to do it a second or
third time?
Mr. Kolb: Well, your, yours are Willis, Willis Foreman Road is on the list and
the others are either public facilities or recreation. When we get there, then we’ll
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Teresa?
Ms. Smith: Yes, ma’am?
Ms. Beard: I was wondering if I could meet with you or someone in your
department before I finalize my list?
Ms. Smith: Yes, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And, and I, and I think since we’re trying to clear public
works out, that would be a good idea for others as well because that way cause some
things are on here that Commissioners have submitted but just to, to double and triple
check so that we come out with a, with a, with a, hopefully a last master list at some point
24
in time soon that will give an opportunity for the different eyes to glance upon it and to
kinda proof it. Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you. One of the things I wanted to mention, if you go to page
4 and this is typical of something we need to consider. You’ll see down about six items
down, Phinizy Swamp Basin and that’s listed in District 1. One of the things are, a very
wise lady once said, and I’ll have to paraphrase what she said is that it doesn’t do any
good to, to increase the water flow if you don’t unstop the drain. Well, Phinizy Swamp is
the drain and we have got to seriously consider work that has been neglected on our
major conductors Butler Creek, Spirit Creek, Rae’s Creek, Oaks Creek, we have got to
clean these channels out which if you’ll look at the Phinizy Swamp it’s $10 million plus.
In order to drain our neighborhoods, especially the lower lying districts and areas,
District 2, District 1, we have got to improve the through flow of water through Phinizy
Swamp. It needs to be channelized and cleaned to improve drainage in District 6, District
3 over on the other side of Fort Gordon, District 2, we’ve got to improve Rocky Creek
and Oaks Creek and Butler Creek. I consider, I would like the Commission to consider
and I urge you strongly to fund these projects. They were unfounded last time but for us
to improve drainage in our entire city, we’re going to have to unstop the pipe and these
dollar expenditures I feel as Chairman of Public, of Engineering Services having walked
most of these basins are in desperate need of the work and I encourage you all to, to
strongly consider funding these because this is the bottom of the drain. Doesn’t do any
good for us to fix a neighborhood and then not unstop the problem that’s below the
neighborhood that’s causing the water to stand up or pile up. So --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Good observation.
Ms. Sims: Mr. Mayor Pro Temp?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Sims: Are you saying that we can meet with you separately and go over
everything just to double, triple check all of ours, and we won’t take up time here that we
can meet with you?
Ms. Smith: Yes. Tomorrow will be good. Tomorrow afternoon will be good.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I hope, you better clarify that too, Ms. Smith,. An open
invitation to ten folk, I don’t think you want all ten of them coming tomorrow afternoon.
I, I think you need some time in between the time that you’re going to have it done and
then also when whatever those new things are. That can be in a formal list that’s brought
back or even sent out before because it, it would seem to me that you’re beginning to get
a list together hopefully that does not have to be redone whenever you’re meeting with an
individual Commissioner. It should be at the point now where there should be some
things that are there that contain hopefully a majority of what’s there and then at this
25
point add it on those that may be very serious that we’ve overlooked or that need to be
brought to the attention and identify with a dollar figure. That’s why I think you may
need it.
Ms. Smith: Here, here’s, here’s my dilemma. When I get projects from each of
you individually, where do I put them on the list? I mean, if, if, if I am to consolidate a
list, where do I put them on the list?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I, I think if you could --
Ms. Smith: Stop. Well, that, there, I mean, I, I only have, there’s only one, one,
one, one phase so I mean that --
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I, I think, I think you do, I think you do, I think you
do three things, Ms. Smith. I think one you, in order to get to reaching some finality, you
deal with what you got that has previous committed funding to. That constitutes most of
your top because that gives some priority, then if there’s going to be a shift from that,
then we all know what those consequences can be. If it’s federal and you decide to do
something else on a local level, that means you, you abandon the federal cause you can’t
have it both ways. You leaving that laying on the table. If it’s state, you run the risk at
that point of them telling you we may let you shift it to something else cause you got an
emergency, and they may say go on it on your own cause you’ve come and asked for it
three to four years. What I think to a point you say where do you put it? I think you’re
better suited if you finally get a list that nothing else has to be added to. Then that, at that
point, there’s not totally become your total work. There’s going to have to be a point
where you got some directions and voting that’s gone have to be done but I figure at least
at that time you got some stuff where you got some major stuff that’s sitting there and
even to a point of Commissioners looking through what’s there and prioritizing some
stuff that’s in their particular districts. If it, if it’s four drainage projects in, in, in District
2 to a point of where I think if Mayor’s looking at funding that’s in there where they may
be, some of his maybe where there’s zero funding to a point that all of them may be there
if he’s got nothing on the radar screen. If it’s in a district whereby one is ready to go with
50% of its funding, it may be one that that Commissioner that, that they need to put as
number 1, so I think each one is gone have some different plan in order to, to go with it.
In case of Ms. Beard’s, I think we got in District 1 a situation whereby I know the state at
some point, Andy mentioned Phinizy Swamp, before Phinizy Swamp we better get some
stuff off the agenda in East Augusta that contains the word east bound or East Augusta,
whatever, because you done be went to three to four different DOT Commissioners and
they’re gone get tired of hearing it and they gone bump a bunch of stuff from it pretty
soon because I know this little problem you inherited but some of this stuff on that
project that’s been down here has been reworked since 1987 and because priorities have
been switched, you know, it’s kind of like how do you start at the bottom where all the
water ends up and you’re not finishing and I’ve, and I’ve heard us be warned about that
before and I’ve said that. – I [inaudible] Ms. Beard.
26
Ms. Beard: I agree, sir.
Mr. Kolb: You have that list.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Huh?
Mr. Kolb: You have that list, the department recommendation list is the ones that
have the, if not all, the majority of funds that are attached to them.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think the reason why they still need to submit lists
though is because like you said a minute ago, some of it may fall, -- I know Rec is totally
different. But some under utilities side that may be there because you dealing with a
mixture of what may be both public works, utility and then trapped in the middle as Andy
said is just plain ol’ simple maintenance. And we can’t create a tax to deal with clean it
up. That’s a fundamental problem that you got to deal with from a staffing issue and a
supervision issue on what you, you gotta work with what you got or you got a need to
have to deal with a different formula to get the clean up but you can put in, you, we pipe
anywhere in Augusta Richmond County and clean out a ditch and run one in there too but
to a point that if you don’t have available what you’re going to need in order to service
that whole system, then you, you, you gotta problem there. [inaudible] Ms. Beard?
Ms. Beard: Teresa, I’m wondering if 1:00 would be a good time for you?
Ms. Smith: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Beard: Okay and will you have information pertaining to any projects that
are on the table?
Ms. Smith: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Beard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You got a 1 and a 2. I’m on leave that to y’all on how y’all
sign up over there. I’m just going try and help all. Me and Don gone help y’all eat, fight
for what y’all need to get cause the way I see this wagging right now, it’s on rims, not
tires. You don’t need to be throwing nothing else on the back cause I’m on, I’m on live
with what you got out there.
Mr. Granthm: Mr. Mayor Pro Temp, I, and you know one of the comments I
made I last Thursday was that, and I think we’re getting closer to this point, is that is if
let’s establish this dollar amount that we’re talking about as well. We bring in all these
projects we want to and, and I think, you know, we’re pie-ing in the sky to some extent
but I, right now today was what, what Andy’s brought, and I’m glad he did that because I
27
think it, it certainly shows an interest in your district and shows that you, that you want to
have something done for your particular area but add it on to the bottom of these four or
five pages we have right now and we’re $300 million plus. Right now, and we’re talking
about ten years, well, let me just say that, that looking at, looking at ten years, I think
gives us a better opportunity of saying what Augusta wants to become and I think it tells
the people that we’re willing to put ourselves out for that period of time and to show that
we’re going to be a progressive government and a progressive city. If we look at five
years, all we’re doing is putting band-aid service on it. If five years is just gone get us by
with what little infrastructure we can get done over that period of time, and we’ve been
doing five years now for four, four times and that’s, and, and we’ve seen a tremendous
improvement and I think we’ve seen a lot of growth as far as our community goes in
regards to this SPLOST program. But what I’m, what, what I’m seeing, and what I’m
hearing is that we going to need to extend ourselves and go out and bite the bullet and let
not just the CSRA know that Augusta wants to become an important city in the Southeast
but to let the entire Southeast know that we want to become an important city and I think
that’s important, I think that’s the selling point that we have got to make, that we are
willing to do these projects, we want to do ‘em, we want to do ‘em at a way that we’re
gone bring industry and people into this community and we’re gone do them for the
people who are here paying the taxes for ‘em. Now to me, I think that’s going to be
important so I’d like for us to kinda start with, and as we meet with Ms. Smith, that we
get these, this dollar amount in mind and as, as Joyce suggested a minute ago, it may be
$120 million, it may be $140 million, but I think once we get to that massaging area,
that’s what we gone have to really work on and make sure that we going to be able to do
those projects within that amount of dollars and any contingency or extra funds that are
out there that we can work on those later but I think that’s important for us to keep in
mind as we go forward with these things.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams, and then I’m going to yield to the
administrator cause I think we got one section we need to get into before we leave and if
we can wrap up this part of it for right now with you, Marion, and then move on.
Mr. Williams: I, I just want to comment on something Don’s saying and I, I agree
with 90% of what he said, little bit different on the, on the, the length of time, Don, but I
think you’re right about saying that we, we need to bite the bullet and do some things.
We need to do some things. We talking about infrastructure stuff now that’s been laying
around here 200 years that we have not got to, even with a five year, and a five year, and
a five year. We need to do some things that’s gone bring monies into this cities and
welcome the, the business side to, to come in and well. We need to be open-minded, I
guess is, is all I’m saying. I’m a little bit different on the, on the ten years. Once you
designate what this money’s to be used for, we locked in for ten years. If, we don’t know
what the future hold, we don’t know what gone come up, we, we lock it in for ten years
on whatever we said, then we can’t do nothing else. We, we got monies from SPLOST 1
through 5 where we, you know, it’s been reprogrammed or, or we done shifted, we had
not used, you know, I, I, I know a lot of problem but I never thought we had a problem
28
spending money but you know it seem to be something, something wrong with even our
spending factor there but I’m, I’m in agreements with a lot, 90%, I’m, I’m a little leery
and I, now I’m not saying I’m not supportive, I’m just a little leery when you say ten
years cause once you lock it, if something else change, something else happens and we
need to say well, this is what we need to, where it be future growth, where it be helping a,
a business relocate here or whatever it may be, once we lock it in, it’s locked in and I
think ten years is a long time to, to commit, you know to, to that level but I, I agree with
90% of what you said.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Andy, my last one.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. I’ll be brief. One thing we need to consider, I know we’re in
infrastructure now but if you go back and look at the somewhat mandatory projects or
projects we’re committed on as far as capital improvements in the way of a judicial
center, jail pod or anything else, we are already at five years for those commitments and,
and therefore in order to fully fund anything additional to that, unless this body decides to
cut half the judicial center funding or reallocate it somewhere else, we are going to have
to go longer than five years in order to meet the needs of this city and I, I completely
concur with my colleague from the Super 10th, we have got to take a bold step to show
the people in this area and this region and this country that we are serious about making
Augusta second to none. I do share with, with my twin brother though reservations
because of events going on at Savannah River and potentially at Fort Gordon, but we are
at a point where we have committed to at least right at five years on buildings. If you
look at the, the total expenditure for the judicial center, it’s nearly three years in and of
itself and so we’re going to have to go at least seven to ten years and I would say just as a
ballpark and I’m a little biased towards public works and how they’ve been underfunded
but I’d say, I’d say that we can in good conscience go before the citizens with this sales
tax and go ten years having committed to them that five of those years worth of money
will be expended in improving your roads and your drainage so I would say $150 million
would be a good starting point from the, the view of this Commissioner.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: With that Mr. Kolb, we gone move to another section now.
Mr. Kolb: Mayor Pro Temp, members of the Commission, your agenda says the
Augusta canal discussion. I would, it was going to take five minutes. I think I should
postpone it to your next Thursday’s meeting and I’ll turn it over to --
Mr. Cheek: Let me, let me just have one minute. This, this weekend, I did an
inspection of the dam at the head gates of the canal. It’s 145 years old. There is water
coming underneath that dam about center of it. That is an additional repair that’s going
to be necessary in the next few years over and above the undercuts on the tow path. It’s
been neglected for a hundred and however many years but ladies and gentlemen, if that
fails, it has to qualify under dam criteria under the current dam laws in this country and it
29
would cost probably a quarter or a half billion dollars to replace that under current
criteria.
Mr. Kolb: I would defer this conversation. I’d like to start another one today,
continue it next week and then we’ll get into the canal discussion and I will have Dayton
Sherrouse and some others to attend the meeting to address some of the canal issues.
However, I think right off the top, you’re going to have to take about $8 million off to
pay for a bond issue that you are engaged in now to pay for the AGL cleanup so I know
$8 million you have already committed to spending out of SPLOST. So with that, I’ll,
I’ll just turn it over to Tom Beck to talk about the recreation and parks list.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me, let me, hold just one, one, one second, George. Let
me, let me, let me ask Tom this and, and you too. And I’d be the last one to do it since I,
I chaired that committee longer than anybody else but I’m wondering if the canal is going
to be discussed in five minutes, I want make sure I’m doing my Rec and Parks justice
from the standpoint that if we’re going to get out of here on the, on the five o’clock deal,
don’t we probably need to do the, the five minute deal? Because recreation and parks
that covers everybody’s district is not going to be a five minute detail and this is what I
said at the last meeting. I want to make sure that they keep these department heads
adequate time. I, I mean we just started but I, I, and I, whatever the feel is of the body but
I, I think if you got a five minute one, let’s get your five minute one out the way cause I
don’t want to short change them on what they need to present and cause the once you
started, five minutes to get with one Commissioner on a recreational need and I’m just
asking that question before I take up your time talking about it.
Mr. Kolb: Well, I -- Mr. Mayor Pro Temp, Mr. Beck and I have, have conferred
and he can do a quick summary so that we’ll be done by 5:00.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What, but, but what I’m, what I’m saying in justice, I know
Tom is quick but if you got some folk up here asking about what they can add to and
what they gone deal with in rec, his reply time may not be quick. Now that’s the problem
you got. His presentation I’m sure will be thorough and get through with it but I don’t
think he’s gone be able to get out of here at 5:00. Not, not on critical things either, Tom,
but just some questions that need to be put on there.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor Pro Temp, if I could? You, if I could, what we were
talking about was summary, was just trying to summarize this list that I’ve got and
explaining the columns and explaining you know how I think we need to try to approach
this because we can’t get it done today. I mean, I would, I would be in hopes that there
would be a tremendous amount of discussion about Recreation and Parks and I’m sure
there will be.
Mr. Cheek: You can count on it.
30
Mr. Kolb: Let’s start out the meeting next week with recreation.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I, I have no problem with that. I just didn’t want you, if
you going to start Recreation, if you had five minutes to deal with it now, and we got ten
minutes to be in here, then it’s the canal and then you through with it. That’s the only
thing I’m saying y’all. Rather than him getting started, cause if you going to wait a week,
I mean what he’s going say is going be on lost ears today for, for two weeks. If you
going to get to the canal, let’s finish it in five minutes. Just get through with it.
Mr. Kolb: All right. We can, we’ll do that.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Cause Andy the only one old enough to been on the canal in
this [inaudible] so.
Mr. Cheek: I been under the canal.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Under it. So.
Mr. Kolb: I can almost guarantee this is, is going to be more than five minutes
once Andy and Commissioner Grantham start.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, that’s not what, yeah, then that’s why he said give
minutes, I was going to let him get it out in five minutes.
Mr. Kolb: Okay, I already, I’ve already talked about the $8 million bond issue.
You have already committed that you’re going to repay that bond issue from SPLOST
dollars, so that’s $8 million off the top. The next issue is, is I believe Commissioner
Cheek concern about the tow path and the undercurrent, the deterioration of that project.
We are, we currently do not have an order of magnitude. We are having the utilities
department take a look at it and get engineering estimates as to how much that will cost.
Hopefully that will come over the next two or three weeks and we will get that
information to you. Assuming that it is as critical as Commissioner Cheek, we probably
ought to begin looking at the, at that project and prepared to do, to do something with it.
Now the third element of the canal is the issue of the match monies that go to the Augusta
Canal Authority and I at some future meeting need to bring in Mr. Sherrouse so that he
can talk about what he has done with previous SPLOST money, how much money he has
leveraged from the federal government to, to make improvements out there but I noticed
on Mr., Commissioner Cheek’s list, there’s about a $5 million appropriation and I would
concur in that provided we can squeeze it in but I would like to have those two projects
talked more in detail at some future meeting but I don’t want it to get off the record or to
get off the Commission’s radar screen. That’s my five minutes that was done in one.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Thank, thank you, Mr. Kolb, and before I, I think
you’re correct in, in bringing us back to our commitment on the first part of that where
31
we’re dealing with the, with the money that we’re going to have to deal with with that
first $8 million and, and I, I had some, some questions that I, I, that I brought all mine I
hope to save when we, when we dealt with that cause there was some serious concerns I
had then and now but I would hope that when you bring them in and I, and I been
supportive of what they done with that authority but now I think it’s, it’s, it’s getting time
in that deals that while we’re committed on that end and to make that commitment on
what I call the furtherest end of the canal, on that third level, the city is really now getting
into some debt of its own to do it and I hope that they will be prepared to tell us some
starting dates on some water flowing in, in that area with what’s been committed to them
and when they plan to start moving out parts of their money but I, I yield to you, Andy,
but I think that’s, you know, I, I, I just don’t want to see us out with the first, the first $8
million to a point of where, you know, we gone end up to improve a situation that, you
know, that Atlanta Gas Light created and we over here and, and doing a deal with that,
you know, and I, I, well, I ain’t even going into that deal because that [inaudible] made
my dog gone blood push up but I, I just think that when you bring them in, I want to hear
where its gone get to be some water that joins up with this $8 million that we putting in
down here on this end. I don’t want to see us creating a you know bath tub that the water
don’t get in. That’s my only point. With Andy [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: We’re assured by the Canal Authority that they have investigated and
found the source of water for the third level that comes over from around Davidson so
hopefully we’ll be able to see that flowing water. I’m going to start at the top, Mr.
Chairman, and come down. As I said earlier, I walked across the entire dam this past
weekend up at the head gates all the way over to Carolina and found one location about
center of the dam where water’s actually flowing underneath that blocked structure.
While it’s, we’re lucky that it’s on bedrock as it sits, that this erosion eventually will
cause major problems if not repaired. The head gates structure, the building that’s over
the head gates is in a position to where about one half of the front wall as it faces
downstream is about to fall off. The area between the head gates and I-20 was not
inspected but there are areas to where the width of the canal is, bank is 50 feet and we
anticipate undercutting due to observations made at the shoreline. The area between I-20
and the pumping station has undercut holes big enough to put that table in underneath the
road. We recently lost several trees which cost about 100 foot section of the bank to
slough off and has been recently repaired. I don’t know if it was in-house forces or out-
house forces but we could probably take that cost for that 100 to 150 foot section and
multiply that times the 7 mile length or 4 mile length from the pumping station north and
get a pretty good estimate of the cost but ladies and gentlemen, this is 60% of the city’s
water supply and I am not exaggerating and saying that there is real potential for it at
some point in the future with a major rainfall event or some seismic event for it to go take
a left turn and go back to the river and if that occurs, we will have to requalify that dam
structure under current federal guidelines which would cost us years and multi-millions
of dollars so this repair is both essential and necessary to keep this vital water supply
flowing to our city and it is overdue and when we quit maintaining that end of the levee
and tow path in the 50’s and 60’s when we disbanded the, the canal crew up in that area,
32
the trees have to be removed on the water side and that bank has to be restored. It hasn’t
been maintained in 50 years and it’s way overdue. Also what I wanted to mention, Mr.
Chairman, is perhaps under the guise of restoration of that bank to its original size, the
Canal Authority can do a five for one leverage on matching funds, maybe we can
contribute some monies to them and they can go before Congress and get restoration
monies to restore that. If we give them $1 million, they can get $5 million which they’ve
done in the past, perhaps if we give them $2-3 million, they’ll get enough money to cover
the entire repair through federal matching grants under the guise of restoring it back to its
original condition. So -- .
Mr. Granthm: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Temp. To tag along on what
Commissioner Cheek just said is, is I think that’s important, and I know it’s important but
I feel like that, that I’m going to give you some food for thought and that is in order to get
this money that he’s talking about, hopefully to get federal funds from and through the
authority, is we have an enterprise fund in our public works, I mean our public utilities,
and that’s where the water goes through and that’s where the water bills are being sent
out from to our constituents and I think that we need to set up an escrow account out of
our water income as far as the utilities department’s concerned and to be able to fund
these type of programs out of that enterprise fund, and, and I got to thinking about that
and I was talking to Mr. Kolb today earlier and I feel like this is an area that we can do
that without effecting our general fund without even affecting the SPLOST program and
it’s something that 50% of the water comes out of that canal area for the people of this, of
this city and that’s where the money should come from and it should not be an add on to
these people who’s using the water. We should be able to take those funds whether it be
two cents, fifty cents, whatever it might be and set up this escrow fund based on the
usage that’s being had out there and I think this is an area to look at for us to get some
funding from and to be able to identify. Had the money that was in the water authority
fifteen years ago been used in the areas that it was intended for, then we wouldn’t be
facing the problems we’re facing today.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’re right. Particularly from the government that ought
to have done them right. Mr. Cheek. I clarify that.
Mr. Cheek: Just in response. I, I’ve been beating on this horse for what, three
years now, and Commissioner Grantham might – when I bring this up and it’s almost like
the, I don’t know if you’ve seen the cartoon with Boss Tweed, the circle of politicians,
and everybody’s pointing at the next one down line? Well, when I brought this up to
public works and utilities and then the Canal Authority, it’s like that dad gum Tweed
ring, everybody points at everybody else and said well, that’s the canal, or that’s water, or
that’s not public works. I agree with you, I’d like to see us find another funding source
but within my tenure trying to push this thing through, you can’t get anybody to take
responsibility for it and we’ve got to come up with a funding source from somewhere. I
don’t have ownership in it being in SPLOST but I do, I would like to sit it, have it sit
aside just in case we can’t legally to take it from our utilities department someway as a
33
mechanism to do this cause I don’t, you know, nobody has an idea of when these things
will fail but there’s already been two major areas, one about a hundred yards north of the
pumping station that’s now covered with asphalt that sloughed off about 15 years ago,
and now a second area between --
Mr. Grantham: Five o’clock, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. The second area sloughed off about two months ago, so I
mean, we’re going to look real stupid all of us sitting around here not having done
something when that thing takes a left turn at that river and then the Corps of Engineers
says well, you need to do a three year engineering study and environmental impact study
before you rebuild it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well taken. That’s why I wanted you to start on the canal.
A good way to end it up today on that phase and Don, pardon me because I, I definitely
wanted and I know you know where I stand with Recreation and Parks but I wanted you
all to get a clear shot on being able to start off and do a, a sweep of where you were going
with it and that’s why I wanted --
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor Pro Temp, could I, could, could I at least just go over the,
not over the, each list, but over the columns and give you an idea of what you’re looking
at and maybe we can make some headway before next week?
Mr. Mayor: It won’t do you any damage. You got those little two or three
minutes that’ll do but I wanted to make sure you adjusters got done on the bigger
department that you got.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mays, real quickly before Tom just starts, real quickly. Is there
any way we can get Mr. Hicks in here for our meeting next Thursday, I’m assuming
we’re going to be together next Thursday, and let him explain the canal?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, as well as Dayton Sherrouse. Yes.
Mr. Boyles: Yeah, I mean, so they’ll, they’ll be here so we’ll have a true, a, a
clearer understanding of what he’s talking about and Tom, I apologize. I wanted to get
that out.
Mr. Beck: Not a problem.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if, if, I think it greatly resembles water and so that, that, that in
itself gives you a good common denominator to start talking with them about and it’s a
matter of, of then researching the legalities but I think if there’s an alternative source to
deal with it and we get him in and be able to use it and that’s, that’s very much worth
looking at.
34
Mr. Boyles: We gotta listen to Tom.
Mr. Beck: Well, just, could you give me thirty, give me thirty seconds and I’ll be
--
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He says it won’t, he says it’s not suicidal so I’m, I’m on,
I’m on, let’s yield to him.
Mr. Beck: Thirty seconds. This is our CIP for Recreation and Parks. It’s about
200 pages. I didn’t really think you wanted a 200 page document so what we tried to do
is give you a summary by district of what our CIP is and by column, you’ll see the
commission district number of the respective park, then the project, the project cost, and
that is our CIP, the SPLOST 5 request is the same as the project cost because this is our
only source of funding for our CIP, the next column shows what you’re operating and
maintenance costs increases will be should all of our CIP be completed. We wanted to
make sure to show you what the O&M cost would be. The next column is the Citizen’s
Committee recommendation. This is what the Citizen, Citizen’s Committee
recommended was the $11 million figure out of the $59 million CIP that we are
recommending and the next column quite frankly is a column for you to fill in where you
think that you have some priorities over and above what the Citizen’s Committee has
recommended and that’s a short summation but I, that’s the way I feel like we can make
some headway between now and next week. As you go through the list, if there’s any
areas you want to see added to it, to go ahead and add it in that column, maybe try to get
it to Mr. Kolb’s office, call me if you need me to explain anything, I’ll be glad to but try
to get those figures in so we can have a little headway toward next week and try to come
to some conclusion on our total list in a expeditious fashion, Mr. Mayor Pro Temp.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, sir. Tommy, I knew he’d be non-suicidal if he,
if he could so you didn’t hurt yourself, so thank you, Tom, but I just wanted to make sure
you all wasn’t getting side tracked on that. Thank everybody for coming.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
35