2026-11-02 - SPLOST and TSPLOST Oversight Committee

00:13I've got it, Rodani.

00:24So, one of them was specifically for the

00:28Taste Blast. I don't know if that one

00:31but the joint one I would think we would

00:33be able to go ahead and do the three for

00:35the March 30th, April 27th, July 27th.

00:43>> Technically, it's

00:4630th.

00:50The second

00:55>> We just couldn't take an official.

00:57>> Balance before

01:11If you change those minutes

01:13>> Mhm.

01:32>> And you change the wording to be real

01:34clear so somebody could blame me.

01:36>> It should be were not. Yes, I can add

01:38that.

01:42It It is. I can see that. Yes, I will

01:46fix that.

01:54Well, it says you didn't have a quorum

01:56but they still were approved. Yeah.

02:00No, that's what we want y'all to do.

02:02That's good. Thank you.

02:06July.

02:31Yes, ma'am.

06:07>> Mhm.

08:05>> all the details

08:07and we needed the money.

09:20>> to the arch.

09:23That we don't know yet, but that's

09:24something that we'll consider.

09:27Uh there are some smaller ones in there

09:29that we're going to be looking for an

09:30opportunity to accomplish the things we

09:32can really even though money doesn't

09:34start rolling in technically till

09:36October, but we can understand that we

09:38can keep going

09:39quite early.

09:40And we will be staffing up so that we're

09:42you know historically what y'all are

09:44used to is

09:45after a referendum we'll turn around and

09:47kind of contract for program and project

09:50management with a consulting firm

09:52professional services.

09:54Uh we won't be doing that after T-SPLOST

09:562022-2026. The intent is as much as

09:59possible

10:00uh to accomplish that within house

10:02staff. So we're in the process of hiring

10:04and getting the team on board so that

10:07they can implement it T-SPLOST 2022-2026

10:09at you know,

10:11um

10:12there'll be limitations on that. I don't

10:14know that we'll be able to do it

10:15completely, but that that was

10:17that's our intent, anyway.

10:18>> Yeah, cuz you and Nat said in another

10:19meeting, we've hired a county engineer

10:22and added some other staff, so that

10:25could be

10:25>> We've posted. We haven't hired yet.

10:26>> Okay.

10:27>> You know,

10:28>> But you I mean, it's approved, so that

10:30That's what you're talking about.

10:31>> That's what we're talking about. County

10:33engineer, some project managers and some

10:35other staff that we're just hiring

10:37internally that we think will support

10:39that work.

10:41All right. So, T-SPLOST 2026, if you

10:44have any questions about that, um you

10:45know, we can talk about it, but the

10:47implementation plan that's on the mayor

10:49commission's agenda is just what I

10:50wanted to point out to y'all tonight.

10:53Next is SPLOST 2028.

10:57So, So, we got to do this again.

11:00>> [laughter]

11:01>> Uh

11:03I think at the December vote cycle is

11:07when the commission will see kind of a

11:08pre-referendum plan.

11:11We think that

11:13um

11:14the current SPLOST program will expire

11:17towards the end of 2028.

11:19Meaning, we would in order to avoid a

11:22gap in funding, we would need to uh earn

11:25revenue starting in January of 2029,

11:28which means a

11:30May of 2028 ballot question.

11:33So, backwards planning from that May of

11:362028 ballot. Uh and now is the time to

11:39get started. Uh that pre-referendum

11:41process might look a little bit

11:42different

11:44than it has in the past.

11:46Uh

11:47But there are two things that I expect

11:49to remain.

11:50Um that y'all are going to need to. One

11:52is the opportunity for community

11:54submissions.

11:56Second is the kind of appointed review

11:59committee. I don't know what shape

12:00that's going to take yet. Uh we're

12:02probably going to make make decisions on

12:04that uh appointed review committee in

12:07April.

12:08But this coming This coming April. So,

12:10just be aware of that.

12:13I'll probably have more for you after

12:15the actual other

12:17pre-referendum plan. That way I'll

12:19know that what I'm telling you is what

12:21they've actually asked me to do.

12:23Um the the most impactful piece

12:27we have shared this with the commission

12:30that they're wrestling with is it's

12:32obviously how we're going to plan

12:35the judicial center.

12:37It's partly funded through SPLOST 2020.

12:41It's a significant portion that needs to

12:43bridge into the next one.

12:45Um you know, there is a plan for it.

12:48They have some decisions to make kind of

12:50later next year on how they're going to

12:53do that.

12:54How we're going to do that as a team and

12:58uh you know, what that means for SPLOST

13:002028.

13:02They've got some options in front of

13:03them. One of them is actually on their

13:05agenda for Wednesday as well.

13:07Uh just takes the next step. And

13:13our financing structure.

13:16And there's a couple of other items that

13:18are in that same agenda. One is So, it's

13:22gone from essentially a $79

13:24[clears throat]

13:25project to a much larger project. That

13:27means change orders for the architect,

13:29project management.

13:31We're also starting to build in plan for

13:35uh parking solution. So far, it's been

13:38about the judicial center and just the

13:39judicial center.

13:41We know that we don't want our judicial

13:43center solution to move forward.

13:45Um so,

13:46that's becoming more and more a

13:48component of uh

13:50you know, they've asked me to kind of

13:51build that in.

13:53So, probably ask the architects to help

13:56us with that as well.

13:57Same project management.

14:01>> Josh, are you saying that

14:04the

14:06that

14:08change orders didn't happen for

14:09architecture and project management

14:10because the project got bigger and it's

14:12going to straddle two SPLOSTs?

14:14>> Um really just for the first one the

14:16loan is enough. Uh So, typically

14:20um

14:21design firm contracts and project

14:24management fees to some degree based on

14:27the value of managed work.

14:29Um, and so for sure and not always for

14:32design firms, but in this case

14:34uh there's so much of a change from the

14:37the the originally imagined project to

14:40the one that we have now

14:42that yes, change order is just a very

14:44appropriate.

14:48And then next next in that project will

14:50be um

14:52construction manager um contract as

14:54well. Bring them on board uh earlier in

14:57the design phase, so you'll probably see

14:59that in February.

15:02>> Is there going to be enough money to do

15:03the renovation of the old courthouse or

15:06is that

15:08going to need to be

15:10up as well?

15:11>> Great question. Glad you asked. So,

15:13there are two answers to that.

15:16One thing is that there is some money

15:20reserved for the current

15:22Sparks 2020 project

15:25that is designated for

15:28the existing courthouse.

15:31Really just enough to make sure the

15:33elevators working, HVAC is working. It's

15:35fundamental. So, make sure

15:36>> that we got elevators. Hopefully they'll

15:38work for a while.

15:39>> We would have to We would hope.

15:40>> [laughter]

15:42>> That was horrible.

15:43>> You got it.

15:45Uh

15:46it was. Yes. Hopefully we're on the

15:48other side, but it's that sort of thing

15:51that this money will be for.

15:54Um

15:55what they're not enough money for is

15:57what anything you would call a

15:58renovation.

16:00Some security upgrades probably.

16:05Renovation is one that we have built

16:07into the pre-referral process for Sparks

16:092028.

16:11The commission has indicated to us yes,

16:12they want that.

16:15And so that would be one that would be

16:17positive in the next program.

16:19>> Have they figured well, I know this is

16:22early.

16:23But tentatively have they been thinking

16:25about what they want to use that space

16:27for cuz I don't know if everything they

16:29originally wanted to get in the judicial

16:32center is actually going to be able to

16:34get go into the judicial center.

16:38>> So

16:38>> Because it's got a much smaller

16:40footprint than I think they wanted. It's

16:43just going to be up in heat.

16:45>> Depends on who you ask.

16:46>> Okay.

16:47>> Um the the expectation is that it will

16:50be ACC go functions. Exactly what

16:54functions

16:56uh you know, remains to be seen.

16:58Um

17:00We do anticipate that the judicial

17:02functions of the judicial center will be

17:04sufficient.

17:05>> Right. I mean, I know that was the main

17:07thing, but I also know there was a

17:09debate about moving out of Clark of

17:10Court functions.

17:11>> Yeah.

17:12>> Through the judicial center and that's a

17:14whole lot of space.

17:15>> Yes.

17:16>> With all of her land

17:18the stuff. So that's why I'm just trying

17:22to get clarity on where stuff's going.

17:25>> As we all are for sure. I think the

17:27space allocation

17:29uh work that is all under under

17:32>> They're doing that again.

17:33>> now.

17:35It's basically a never-ending process.

17:37>> Well, I mean, they did two humongous

17:39studies.

17:43I would have thought that would have

17:46There's enough to kind of give them an

17:48idea.

17:48>> You know, keep this in mind cuz they you

17:50know, there was a plan think about

17:52costing.

17:53There's no plan for costing. There were

17:54probably five or six different

17:56iterations of what

17:57>> See, I never really kept up that much of

17:59that. As long as that building was being

18:01preserved and taken care of.

18:03>> what you care about. Okay. Okay.

18:05>> Well, I don't want the face of town to

18:07get totally warped so it doesn't look

18:10like

18:11an interesting place anymore.

18:14>> And but if you think about the timing

18:17next SPLOST program that revenue start

18:20January 2029.

18:22We anticipate might run for 10 years.

18:25So if we're going with that renovation

18:28to take place, how many years is it

18:30between now and when it would actually

18:32be open for services? You know, now is

18:35probably not the time that we would be

18:37saying what would [clears throat] be in

18:38that facility. That will come time for

18:40that.

18:41Uh now is an

18:46So our estimate right now is 300 Uh yes,

18:49we do have an estimate.

18:50Uh again, it's a projection and you

18:53know, we're using uh

18:55>> It's kind of sky high.

18:56>> 2%

18:58uh you know, inflationary factors for

19:00revenue.

19:02Uh

19:03we anticipate a 10-year program would be

19:05worth $452 million.

19:11The year we're working with right now,

19:13you know, we continue to just watch

19:14revenues and try to anticipate and it's

19:16nearly impossible we just have to Keep

19:18best we can.

19:20>> That covers both the courthouse

19:23and

19:25the abandoned facility the old What what

19:27does that number represent?

19:28>> That's We don't know yet.

19:30>> [clears throat]

19:30>> That's the size of the SPLOST.

19:31>> That's That's a guesstimate projection

19:35out of the sky paper. That's just

19:38hyperbole. It might be.

19:40>> And and what I'm sharing tonight with

19:43you all is uh the kind of referendum

19:45process that we would follow to kind of

19:47determine what we what what that $452

19:50million would be used on and it's what

19:52we're putting in the agenda cycle. I

19:54think we'll vote on it in September.

19:57Um

19:58after that, you know, we'll know a

19:59little bit more about

20:01what comes next.

20:02>> Well, cuz see this is

20:042020 is getting finished

20:07considerably sooner than I thought it

20:08would.

20:13>> And unlike unlike T-SPLOST, there is no

20:15possibility of um

20:18the SPLOST program becoming a

20:20time-limited program. It will be dollar

20:22limited. It's dollar limited. Right. It

20:24will stay funded.

20:27>> I was going to say I know that um

20:31Well, our committee work feels like a

20:33long time ago because this is pre-COVID,

20:35but my memory of the process and it's

20:38possible that that you all have done now

20:41two

20:43I think since tomorrow's, right? And so,

20:47it's possible this process has already

20:49been updated, but I I know for me at

20:51least just speaking for myself that one

20:54of the problems I sensed from the group

20:56was that

20:58I can't remember what the bucket of

21:00money was. I can't remember what the

21:01number of projects were, but we were

21:03sort of told here's the bucket of money,

21:05here's the number of projects

21:07deliberate

21:09make it work.

21:10And

21:12I remember at the time one of the things

21:14that felt sort of disingenuous to me was

21:17that we didn't actually have a choice

21:18about several of those projects, but yet

21:20we're still given

21:23them as if they were really something

21:25that we could actually

21:27not include should we as a committee not

21:30want to. That wasn't true. That was

21:31never true. And it's possible that that

21:34process is update. In other words, they

21:35were going to do that anyway. Right. And

21:38I don't really have a problem with and

21:41this is probably sort of a controversial

21:43thing that I don't want to agree

21:44something like I don't really have a

21:45problem with the commission deciding

21:48no, we're doing these six. So, for

21:51example, like we're going to do these

21:53six projects. So, actually

21:56take those off the slate of projects you

21:57all are considering or or do something

21:59different with them cuz they're not in

22:01the pool, right? That the commission has

22:02already decided ahead of time we're

22:04doing these projects. And also then

22:06remove that amount of money from the

22:08bucket and let the committee work

22:10with some real

22:13like with the process just being I think

22:16one of the things that frustrates me

22:17about some of this public engagement we

22:20do in committee work we do is you kind

22:22of go through all this and you give a

22:23lot of time and actually, it was people

22:25checking boxes, and

22:28we needed not to have deliberated over

22:31those things if we

22:33could have known that the committee that

22:34the commission was just

22:36set, right? So,

22:39I don't know what's possible in the eyes

22:40of law. I don't know what's possible. I

22:43mean, I think that those would still

22:44have to go up in the referendum even if

22:45the commission has decided ahead of

22:47time. But, I think the idea being like

22:49that the committee has approved

22:51the suggested the list, and the mayor

22:53and commission have added, subtracted,

22:55whatever.

22:56But,

22:58at least for the committee who spent so

23:00much time on that, like

23:02let's not pretend on that one, right?

23:05Let's just

23:06>> with you, Sarah, cuz I think and I think

23:07this is a little bit different than what

23:09you're saying cuz it sounds like they're

23:10being very transparent and up front

23:13with the committee's projects. But, the

23:15issue that I had was that

23:19we did not find out that was even an

23:20option until pretty far down the

23:23>> Yeah.

23:24>> And then and that I I mean, I had a

23:27whole conversation with the county

23:28manager after cuz I was very upset about

23:30that.

23:31>> Yeah.

23:31>> Cuz we spent a ton of time,

23:34and it just sort of I I did not like the

23:36way that was done. And so, I think I

23:39totally agree with you. If there are

23:40some things they're going to go ahead

23:41and define, which is their right to do,

23:43I mean, at the end of the day, they make

23:45those decisions.

23:47Mayor and commission, but

23:49I did not like how that was handled

23:51either, and

23:52it felt a little bit like a bait and

23:53switch. I don't think it is um

23:56respectful of people's time because

23:59this group of people spent a lot of

24:01time. I mean, we

24:02basically saw each other more than our

24:04families.

24:05>> You're welcome.

24:08>> So, I I guess that would be I totally

24:10agree with you. I think that I was very

24:12angry about that, actually. So,

24:15>> But, I think by the time like our

24:17committee

24:20I don't remember the details anymore,

24:22but I kind of remember that the end of

24:23our committee like there were several

24:25members of the committee who just kind

24:26of had it, right? They didn't engage in

24:28the education piece that you do after

24:30your between the end of the committee

24:32work and the referendum itself. And in

24:34some ways I think people were spent.

24:37Their energy was kind of spent and we

24:39could have saved a little time not

24:41discussing those projects. They weren't

24:43So anyway, I'm just saying the same

24:44thing over and over but you get my

24:45drift. And to the extent that, you know,

24:48I don't know how much

24:50I I don't know how much how changeable

24:51that process is but it's just something

24:54right now

24:55I'm just very sensitive about as these

24:59uh residents get put on committees and

25:01commissions and things like

25:04don't pretend when we're not actually

25:06going to listen. Like let's just take

25:08those projects the question already

25:09knows they want to do off the table and

25:11discuss everything else.

25:14>> And then also

25:15I think we've got the committee's got to

25:17be educated cuz if you're going to have

25:19to educate on the whole package. You've

25:22got to understand why those packets

25:25are in there but you don't have to spend

25:27time debating them.

25:28>> Right. It could be the very beginning of

25:30the process that

25:31>> Maybe the end because you're not going

25:33to spend as much time on those. You're

25:34just going to listen and do those at the

25:36very end and say, "Okay, this is where

25:38the rest of the money's going."

25:40>> Yeah. And it could be that somebody

25:42someone from SPLOST or the county

25:45manager or somebody comes and says

25:47"We are doing these five projects and

25:49here's why." Because I think the SPLOST

25:51committee still has to be kind of

25:54ambassadors in a way so we need the

25:56SPLOST committee to know why. So I get I

25:59get that that may have been why they

26:00were included but I think there's a

26:02better, more efficient way to do that.

26:05>> So people know why.

26:06>> Yeah, exactly. We still have to sort of

26:08be

26:09convinced as the ambassadors we're then

26:11expected to be. So

26:14>> So if I'm thinking about ways to do that

26:16better if you had that information

26:19earlier in your involvement, do you

26:21think that would have mattered to you?

26:23Would that made it have made a

26:24difference for you?

26:25>> absolutely.

26:26>> Absolutely.

26:26>> known that the commission had

26:27predetermined five projects and that the

26:30general amount was known. Like let's say

26:32we had 500 million. I don't know what we

26:34had. But if they know that they want

26:36five projects and those are worth 200

26:38million dollars, then we have the rest

26:40of the projects and 300 million to work

26:43with.

26:44>> Yeah.

26:44>> Right? Because that was also something

26:46that's kind of

26:47you know,

26:49>> Because it was like 80 million or more

26:51off the top in the midstream when we

26:53were already well down the way. And I I

26:56think it's not and I mean I don't know

26:58if this is for a fact, but it does sound

27:00like that was not what they were

27:01thinking.

27:02>> I think they changed their mind and

27:04decided to do this.

27:06And maybe that will still happen. I mean

27:08that's up to them. But

27:10um

27:11but it it I think this is a better

27:13approach that they're already thinking

27:16about things that are priorities.

27:17>> Okay. It is

27:21I think I kind of knew the judicial

27:23center was going to have to happen

27:24because of the problems with the

27:26courthouse. And

27:27I think they were pretty convinced they

27:29were going to do the arena because they

27:31presented it to us for the ball park

27:33amount.

27:34>> What were the other Do you remember what

27:36the other one

27:36>> Well, the homeless, the redo the the

27:40north village.

27:41>> Or no. Oh, right there behind us. That's

27:43the Bethany

27:45buying that and redoing it into a

27:48>> What else was on that

27:49>> Civic center and the sport court number

27:52two.

27:53>> The arena and the courthouse and the

27:55and the home

27:56>> There was a third? Okay.

27:57>> That was on there, too. That was one of

27:59the things

27:59>> That was that was the smallest of the

28:00three, right? As far as the dollar

28:02amount.

28:02>> Probably. It was only 44 million dollars

28:05or so.

28:05>> We were kind of coalescing around no to

28:07the arena and they came and said, "No,

28:08no, we're actually not.

28:10>> Oh, we said that after we had already

28:12done the master plan.

28:13>> Right. But it seems like we were there

28:15was a Anyway, not important. [laughter]

28:17But yes, those three those are the big

28:18three.

28:19>> Yeah.

28:19>> I'm going to do Had we Had we tempered

28:21our expectations and come in knowing,

28:22"That's fine. They can have those three.

28:23Wonderful. We get the rest of the pot to

28:25advise

28:25>> It's the difference It's just kind of

28:27like 300 million to me.

28:28>> Mhm.

28:30>> That's a significant amount of Just a

28:32significant amount of money.

28:34>> Well, for Texas since there were 98

28:36projects.

28:38>> I guess that's the the other

28:39>> And only one of them was basically

28:41worthless.

28:42>> Right, just that one.

28:43>> Yeah, just that one.

28:44>> The tower on the grain.

28:45>> [laughter]

28:46>> It feels nice to feel shot

28:49not and I that was a lot of projects to

28:53guess the number. I don't know if you

28:54>> presentations were

28:56>> I love that 10 years later we are

28:57whatever we all know exactly what we're

28:59talking about.

29:01>> I had some troubles on this here.

29:02>> It's still pretty warm often.

29:04>> [laughter]

29:05>> Let me say let me say this and then

29:07because I do want to get y'all out of

29:08here. You know, um

29:11these are great insights and believe it

29:13or not they are helpful. You know, to

29:14y'all it might feel like well, this is

29:16just therapeutic for us to it it is

29:18actually helpful. I don't know that

29:20there's anything we can you know, I

29:21don't know.

29:22Uh but if I if I'm an honest

29:24>> say these are their priorities that they

29:26know they're they want to fund.

29:28>> Sure.

29:29>> If floss passes, I mean that's

29:32perfectly open and above board.

29:34>> They decided to decide that these are

29:36the projects that the mayor commission

29:37wants. This is the pot of money. This is

29:40what y'all have to deal with and

29:41separate the money from that.

29:43>> Yeah, just do that from sure.

29:45>> Sharing these insights here tonight is

29:46certainly helpful. What's also helpful

29:49is

29:50if you're at home these thoughts come to

29:52mind, shoot me an email.

29:56Y'all have a lot of experience here.

29:59You've been through it.

30:00You know what comes out, you know, in

30:03terms of the product. Um and we're about

30:06to go through this again and it would be

30:08nice

30:09to have some lessons learned.

30:11>> Yeah.

30:11>> I mean at least have the opportunities

30:13to work on that. Again, maybe I maybe we

30:16can

30:17>> Didn't we do an evaluation though after?

30:20Didn't we go through that kind of? We

30:22had a follow up thanks though.

30:26>> But then COVID happened. That was all

30:28that was right. Whatever they might have

30:30done exit maybe it was.

30:32>> could be well, I think they got

30:34information from us but so there's

30:36probably a report somewhere, but it's

30:38not like everything stops around here.

30:40>> Well, I guess the other thing too is

30:42just to be up front with the next

30:44committee that

30:47and they've already maybe got some

30:48things that they're already thinking

30:49about prioritizing and taking that off

30:51the top and then the

30:53the mayor commission can do that?

30:56Because that was also news to us.

30:59We had no idea that that was the case.

31:00>> Oh, we had no idea.

31:02>> Well, it's just that you're smarter than

31:03I am.

31:04>> [laughter]

31:08>> birthdays than me, so you know better.

31:11>> I have had more birthdays than me by a

31:13long shot.

31:14>> We didn't know the process there would

31:15be changes. I think midstream we did not

31:17quite realize. I thought we would have a

31:19chance to finish our work. And then it's

31:22anybody's guess what will happen after

31:24we're done, but you know.

31:29>> We're also about to have

31:31mayor

31:33three new commissioners.

31:33>> That's interesting.

31:34>> So, talking to those folks would be a

31:36process

31:37of learning and understanding the whole

31:39process and what happened history that

31:42you will share with them. So,

31:45um

31:45a number of different factors come in

31:47here.

31:48All I can tell you right now is that

31:50these sorts of insights and observations

31:52are actually helpful.

31:54Um just share them with either Ashley or

31:56me and

31:57uh

31:57that's probably the best route.

32:01Um all right.

32:045:51.

32:05Uh

32:08last year uh

32:11mayor commission did ask us to kind of

32:13at some point review makeup of boards,

32:16forums, and commissions, all of them cuz

32:17there's like over 60 and it's just it

32:20got out of control.

32:21Um

32:23the one thing that they asked for here

32:25is part of what we've already kind of

32:27been doing. That is when we meet

32:28together.

32:29Uh second is we know one of the known

32:32things is this is the mayor appointed

32:35two mayor appointed committees. I think

32:37they asked us to explore the option of

32:39it being single

32:41number one single commission to

32:43appointed kind of not just by the mayor.

32:46All of that is to be seen.

32:49The one thing that

32:50the one outcome that

32:52I would be looking for in whatever

32:54happens.

32:56Obviously

32:57it's going to it's going to be different

32:59from what it has been.

33:01If it's not something that you all see

33:03value, if it's not something that you

33:06all think is a good use of your time

33:09and you know, it probably isn't going to

33:11work out.

33:12Probably will end up with low

33:13participation and engagement and that's

33:15not what we're looking for. So, more of

33:18exactly what you've been offering to me

33:20tonight on you know, what what we might

33:23be able to do better even post

33:24referendum. So, I'm talking about post

33:26referendum here.

33:27That would also be helpful to me.

33:29>> I will say I think it is very important

33:32that everybody is not appointed by the

33:34mayor.

33:35It needs to come from all the

33:37commissioners.

33:38>> Right.

33:40>> Because otherwise you're not going to

33:42get a broad spectrum of the community.

33:45>> Right. So, that and and that is the idea

33:48of a commission, right? Is that

33:50appointed by the full

33:53by all of them receiving.

33:55But then but then the the second

33:56question is okay, what is the charge?

33:58What are what are we what is our

34:00responsibility? What is it that we're

34:02supposed to be doing? And if you all

34:04have any insights or observations on

34:06that

34:07it could also be useful to me.

34:09All right.

34:10>> That was pretty clear, didn't it?

34:12I thought our charge was pretty clear

34:14from our

34:15>> on the this

34:16>> Yeah, on the small committee. Yeah.

34:19>> But so it it so

34:21it might have been clear whether or not

34:22you all think that is what you

34:24if that's a valuable thing for the

34:25community, if that's a valuable thing

34:27for your time

34:29then that's also good. So, just tell me

34:31like it the way it is.

34:32>> Because I think and

34:34if I'm hearing you right, you're

34:35pointing out that it's a clean slate,

34:38right? All bets are like it is. There

34:39there there's no we can't take for

34:41granted that they'll just start with a

34:42template of what happened last time.

34:44They might, in the absence of any

34:45feedback from us,

34:47do try some different things. Maybe they

34:49keep some parts of it. Is that what

34:50you're saying? Like we sound like we're

34:51like

34:52>> clean slate.

34:52>> It needs like 22 people.

34:54>> They've asked they've they've asked us

34:56for two for us to explore how to go from

34:59two mayor-appointed committees to a

35:01single commission.

35:02>> Got you.

35:02>> Uh we know we're going to have a new

35:04mayor. We're going to have you know

35:05we're going to have some new members on

35:06the commission. What that will look

35:07like, you know, that's clean slate is

35:09the way to look at it.

35:10>> But but if we don't say anything,

35:12they'll just do what they think. But if

35:13we have any feedback, the good, the bad,

35:15the ugly.

35:15>> If if you're going to sell this

35:17>> It's not going to hurt. Got it. Sharing

35:18is not going to

35:19>> If you're going to sell this to the

35:20community,

35:22it's going to have to have broad

35:24representation from every district. And

35:27it can't be people who think alike.

35:32Right?

35:33>> And so we email that to you? Is that

35:34what you're saying? Sure, email it to

35:35you. Got it. All right.

35:36>> If you have um

35:39insights or stuff some anything you can

35:41you can think might be helpful.

35:43>> Cuz every district has different issues,

35:45you know.

35:47We all have

35:48different things we're aware of. I mean,

35:50Shenice and I were both from District 1,

35:53but what she was concerned about and

35:55what I was concerned about were entirely

35:59different.

36:00And it's not that we disagree that both

36:02of them didn't need attention. It's just

36:04that

36:05we brought different viewpoints to the

36:07table even though we're from the same

36:10district, appointed by the same

36:12commissioner.

36:14And I think that's what you've got to

36:15have when you're trying to evaluate

36:17these projects.

36:18>> Perspectives.

36:19Good.

36:20All right.

36:22So,

36:23let's see. I think that's first three

36:24items. Staffing So, we're continuing I

36:27think I talked to talked about this

36:28already. Some internal hiring. The

36:31mayor's office is doing some hiring as

36:32well.

36:34Um I'll keep y'all updated about that

36:35progresses.

36:37Uh and then recent activity. So, we have

36:40the Riverbank Cutty for College Square.

36:41If you haven't been out there, um you

36:43know, we're pretty proud it. It's It's

36:45not, you know, it is open. There is

36:47still some work to be done out there,

36:49just some closeout activities. So, the

36:51Georgia Power has some work to come back

36:53and do,

36:54um,

36:55but, uh, it's open. Folks can enjoy it

36:57and I think there's been already been

36:59all sorts of events out there and I

37:01think folks have enjoyed this park.

37:03We're happy with that. Um, if you've

37:05been out,

37:06uh, if you miss the bridge and seeing

37:08the construction of the mental health

37:10facility,

37:12to the to the eye right now, it looks

37:14like it's, you know,

37:15pretty coming along quite nicely. There

37:18is still a lot of work to to to go on,

37:20kind of it's

37:21it's

37:23Uh,

37:24but we do anticipate it being, uh, open

37:26early next year,

37:27um, and and ready for Advantage to use.

37:31Um, if you've been in the long Barnsley

37:33Olds, you've probably seen, uh, some

37:36>> The library.

37:36>> clearing for the library, which I'm also

37:38very proud of.

37:39>> was really happy when they really made

37:41those did the fence with the big signs

37:44cuz people have been going

37:46I can't figure out where it's going cuz

37:48you'd give them the parameters, they'd

37:50go, "There's no place there to put it."

37:52And I'd go, "There really is."

37:55>> Yeah.

37:56>> So, I was really happy when they finally

37:58tore up enough earth

38:00that they've got a fence and everybody

38:02can see where it is.

38:06>> So, and we're still targeting, you know,

38:08being open kind of around the time frame

38:10that the next school season is is

38:12opening up.

38:14The Memorial Park, if you've been down

38:16there, a lot of activity going on down

38:17there as well. And again, hope to be

38:19open by summer camp. So, that won't

38:22affect summer camp programs.

38:25Roundabout, uh, West Broad Street.

38:31Construction, you can expect to see

38:32construction really any day. We are not

38:36sure, uh, you know, GDOT manages the

38:38construction piece.

38:39They get out there when they get out

38:41there.

38:42What I will tell you is that they'll be

38:43out there for a while.

38:44>> Yeah, thank you. So, it's kind of a like

38:47a almost two years I think. Fall of

38:492028.

38:53>> What's the final thing on how many lanes

38:56there will be in that roundabout?

38:59>> It's going to be a two-lane roundabout.

39:01Which is what you know most of the ones

39:03that we ones that I don't know most of

39:04the ones that we've been to so far are

39:06single-lane roundabouts. So this will be

39:07different.

39:12>> Are you going to make sure that the end

39:14drivers get it all the area

39:17I think they need chance to roundabout

39:18driving.

39:21>> [laughter]

39:22>> Now I think somebody's going to have to

39:24bring this up.

39:27>> Prince Avenue as well we we found that

39:30we will have to bring a construction

39:32solicitation to the to the public.

39:35But we expect that this point probably

39:38target summer months this coming summer

39:40months to make a Prince

39:43Avenue

39:44a pilot program permanent.

39:46We'll be researching and making all that

39:48and then permanent.

39:51One thing I would like to get in the

39:53habit of sharing with you you know it's

39:55been July since we met last time is are

39:58are some of the agenda items that have

40:00gone through the cycle already or over

40:02the past few months.

40:05>> [clears throat]

40:06>> It's actually a fact but I just feel

40:07like they're ones that you know maybe

40:09y'all have been aware of in the past

40:10maybe you haven't.

40:13So T-Splost projects Stonehenge

40:18T-Splost projects so essentially some

40:20sidewalks along Old Monroe Road.

40:23If you're familiar with where Stonehenge

40:25is a preliminary plan went through.

40:28Jefferson River Road got a multi-use

40:31path planned out there needs some extra

40:33help from the land agent and the design

40:35firm that is contracts went through the

40:38agenda cycle.

40:39We talked about roundabouts. We know

40:41we've already got a roundabout at at

40:43Whitehall and South Milledge.

40:45It

40:47one of the Botanical Garden that was on

40:49the agenda cycle

40:51I think a month a month or so ago. That

40:54one I think is partly Shelby County

40:55funded so it was a sprawl. It's just

40:58that if you as a driver you know there's

41:00going to be a roundabout at the

41:01Whitehall Botanical Garden and one of

41:03the T spots 2026 projects as well

41:05involved there where the

41:07>> the track

41:07>> track facility softball facility is.

41:10That one is T spots. You know you'll

41:12probably see that in the coming through.

41:14>> Oh I can hear the comments now.

41:17>> [laughter]

41:19>> Uh the annual paper management program

41:21you know this is something we do every

41:23year bring next year research thing

41:26plans to them you'll see that I think

41:28next month.

41:30We've been purchasing a lot of public

41:31safety vehicles and fire apparatus

41:34lately.

41:35Um spots 2020 some of the energy

41:38projects so lighting in Southwest Clark

41:40Park

41:41and then solar trackers both at

41:44facilities building and jail.

41:47I think that one is going on Wednesday's

41:49Wednesday's vote is the solar tracker

41:51facility

41:52probably at the jail.

41:54Um

41:56Or for Wednesday so fire station both

41:59the zoning and schematic.

42:01Uh

42:02you know Wednesday's vote

42:03>> I read in here that the planning

42:05commission recommended the approval.

42:09>> And no public commentary there nor at

42:11the agenda setting. And I think it's on

42:13at least schematic is on the consent

42:15agenda.

42:16>> Well I think I gave it up.

42:18>> [laughter]

42:19>> No I I'll I'll let me share I mean you

42:21were you

42:22No you were at the judicial center

42:24public engagement. We did have some

42:25impacted property owners

42:27one impacted property owner meeting

42:30all the impacted property owners showed

42:32up.

42:33They all wanted to talk about the

42:35project and I think they left feeling

42:37this my impression.

42:39Uh I think they left feeling better

42:41about the project.

42:42>> Good cuz they were not nice at all.

42:45>> We we

42:46>> But those of us on the site selection

42:48committee

42:48>> We implemented some of the things that I

42:50think they were looking for in

42:53the site plan.

42:54>> Well, since we're talking about that,

42:55it's more land than they needed for the

42:57fire hall cuz the owner said they

42:59wouldn't sell it unless they sold the

43:01whole piece.

43:01>> That's right.

43:02>> Uh

43:03they are very happy, by the way.

43:05That couple is very happy. But um

43:09what are we going to do with that extra

43:11land? Can they Can the county use it for

43:13storage or can it go into the green

43:16space

43:17allocation, you know?

43:19Cuz it's going to be off the tax rolls

43:21regardless.

43:22>> The answer we've been giving everybody

43:24given

43:24>> So you don't know yet.

43:25>> And well, as we want to get the fire

43:27station built.

43:28>> Okay.

43:29>> Uh

43:29and

43:30>> Well, I mean, I'm just asking cuz

43:32you know

43:32>> The one of the um

43:35I mean, I I will share we have been

43:37exploring you know, with the

43:39sustainability office and with the

43:41community arborist, you know, are there

43:43opportunities out there for, you know,

43:46not construction something like

43:49>> So I'm assuming a tree farm.

43:52A tree farm.

43:53>> And we don't know yet. We haven't

43:54approached that.

43:56>> The county used to do a lot with its own

43:58trees and plants and shrubs and I don't

44:00know if they're still doing that.

44:03>> We're going to get that We'll get it

44:05built and then probably that will come

44:06up at some point.

44:07>> And in fact, the property owners you

44:09said that there were some

44:10things in the site plan that that

44:13that were seen as

44:14sort of positively viewed by them that

44:16were response to their feedback. Like

44:18what would be an example of

44:19>> One is that they wanted the screening a

44:20little bit differently. So the screening

44:23yeah, the vegetative screening.

44:24Um there was a lot of conversation about

44:26that and

44:27uh kind of where

44:29you typically put screening is along the

44:32edge of the property right along the

44:34property line. It might be a better spot

44:36for

44:37uh you know, for doing

44:38landscape screening.

44:40Um

44:41so we did add some that's up closer to

44:43the building.

44:44Given the given the terrain.

44:46>> Yeah.

44:46>> Um you know, there was a a better way to

44:48do screening.

44:50Um

44:51and we're thinking in response to

44:53what they had to share with us.

44:55>> See, at the beginning they were

44:57convinced it was going to be one of the

44:58big

45:00firehouse with the tower.

45:03And that didn't help. And in the

45:06original thing

45:08the original stuff, they used the word

45:11development.

45:14And they used it in a way so that it

45:17sounded like all around there was going

45:19to be developed and that's not what it

45:22was intended to be. It was just poor

45:24choice of wording. So, everybody on the

45:27east side, when we hear the word

45:29development

45:30we go into knee-jerk

45:34rapid

45:35angry mode and I'm one of those. So, I

45:39totally get it.

45:41So,

45:42you know, there were just some things

45:44from the get-go that were

45:45misunderstandings

45:48that got everybody's panties in a wad

45:52unnecessarily.

45:53You know what I'm saying?

45:55Is that

45:57Yeah.

45:57>> Cuz they were trying to point out that

45:59if they cuz they only needed a small

46:02percentage and a lot of the properties

46:04that fell into this area that needed

46:08that it needed to happen in

46:11were much larger tracts than what they

46:13were trying to say

46:15when they wrote it down

46:18was that it would allow for the for the

46:21property owner to do whatever they

46:23wanted to do, but they used the word

46:25development.

46:28So, it sounded like all of a sudden they

46:30were going to change it from AR

46:33zoning to massive

46:35other kind of zoning that would allow

46:37all kinds of development. And so, people

46:39just got upset cuz they didn't

46:41understand.

46:42>> And I totally understand.

46:43>> the site for a fire station.

46:45Yeah, they wanted it to be like this is

46:47going to open the door to rapid

46:49>> That's exactly what they thought. That's

46:51exactly

46:52>> And they didn't really get that it was

46:54going to be a a

46:55building

46:57with a relatively small footprint

47:00that would just be modern and up-to-date

47:03and functional.

47:05So, I mean, it There were just so many

47:08misunderstandings, misperceptions.

47:11And people were really angry. I mean,

47:14really angry.

47:19>> So, the

47:19>> It does.

47:20>> Um so, for the First Nation uh next up

47:23to be in the zoning schematic is all

47:25there on the agenda for Wednesday.

47:27Another item that you will see SPLOST

47:292020 we just mentioned the Bethel

47:31Redevelopment.

47:32SPLOST of that uh has been used

47:35uh on all of downtown Athens, but not

47:37all of it.

47:39This summer uh we

47:42overtook the

47:43the request for

47:45proposals of what to do with the

47:47remainder

47:48or some some of the remainder.

47:50>> The remainder of the funds?

47:51>> Of the SPLOST 2020 affordable housing

47:53funds.

47:54Uh that recommendation has come to us um

47:57on our agenda for doing so tonight as

47:59well.

48:00>> Has that Can that be combined with the

48:02million dollars

48:05that they just

48:10No, that Oh, I don't know cuz they were

48:12talking about they had allotted million

48:14dollars to help deal with the

48:16homelessness situation since Advantage

48:19closed their center there on North

48:21Avenue.

48:24>> Here, enough with that.

48:26>> I don't know either. That's why I'm

48:27trying to get it figured out.

48:31Oh, okay.

48:32>> I'm talking about the affordable housing

48:34SPLOST project.

48:35>> It's two different funds.

48:37>> Okay. Okay.

48:39>> But for y'all, the awareness that you

48:41know

48:43project and the recommendation in front

48:45of you

48:47uh

48:47as well as the MLK Greenway. That was I

48:51think it was a it's a T-SPLOST project,

48:53but it's in the middle of the Greenway

48:54from

48:565th Avenue is there's just a a gap in

48:58the greenway all the way down to

49:01um

49:02East Broad

49:04>> street.

49:05>> First Street.

49:07Uh

49:08and

49:09that one has become

49:11uh sort of iterative project between

49:14GDOT and us.

49:20In some of the design efforts, we became

49:23aware that the

49:26river slope kind of appeared towards

49:29North Avenue could use some

49:31improvements.

49:32Uh

49:33but the way that GDOT's um TAP program

49:36uh transportation alternative program

49:39uh funding works

49:41by the little bit, we do a little bit of

49:43work, they fund a little bit more, we do

49:44a little bit of work, and then we get to

49:45the construction.

49:47And the advantage is that uh it is

49:50significant amount of money. Uh and so

49:52we are looking at doing some powerful

49:54improvements there along with the river.

49:57That'll be coming uh a pledge ordinance

49:59for them.

50:00Will be coming forward uh I think in

50:02December.

50:03>> Is that cuz that area is kind of close

50:06to the railroad and the bridge, the big

50:09bridge?

50:10>> Who knows why?

50:11>> The North Avenue.

50:11>> But it certainly is

50:14uh

50:15I would expect the designers to tell us

50:17that you know

50:19the road is very close to it.

50:21>> Is it up

50:21>> up towards North Avenue, so

50:23>> What's the timeline on that again?

50:25>> It's long it's a drawn out time because

50:27we're working on GDOT's plan development

50:28process. I think construction is out

50:312031.

50:35Completion by 2031.

50:37>> Sorry, I didn't hear.

50:38>> 2031.

50:39>> 2031.

50:40>> Um it will

50:43It'll be in the agenda cycle at some

50:44point. I will share that.

50:45>> Yeah, I was wondering why that was going

50:47to take so long cuz it's not a big big

50:49space. Now I understand better.

50:51>> Uh

50:52for this one, the explanation is I won't

50:54call it an excuse. I'll say the

50:56explanation is you know GDOT

50:58doesn't really care that it's a it's a

51:00greenway

51:01and

51:01>> not an interchange.

51:03The plan development process is the plan

51:05development process. The TAP program is

51:07the TAP program. We can do what we need

51:09to to meet our requirements.

51:13Uh and then just a couple of other

51:14policy items that have been put in place

51:16that I don't know if y'all care about

51:18these but I do want to share them.

51:20Athens in Motion Plan recently updated

51:23is significant for us cuz it helps guide

51:25future investments.

51:27Uh

51:28the Vision Zero Plan as well.

51:31That action plan was approved and so now

51:33we've got some documents in place that

51:35can help guide investments.

51:37The airport has layout plans that we're

51:39beginning to develop.

51:41Um and again it doesn't directly uh it's

51:43not a master plan and directly have any

51:45projects in it uh but it is important.

51:47>> Hey thanks Jared. Are they interviewing

51:49for a new airport manager yet?

51:50>> Uh so I'm not familiar with where they

51:52are in the process but yes uh it is a

51:53vacancy that will be filled.

51:55>> Yeah, he's retiring.

51:57>> Oh good.

52:01>> [clears throat]

52:01>> So that's all I have for y'all tonight.

52:04Uh

52:05if y'all have something for me that's

52:08happy to try to entertain it otherwise

52:11if there's just something that you're

52:12curious in and you want me to bring next

52:14time that's fine. Depending how our

52:17internal hiring goes I hope

52:20uh to be able to bring you a sort of

52:22annual report at the next meeting which

52:23I think will be in late January early

52:25February or something like that.

52:27Um

52:28and uh you know I don't know if I don't

52:30know if we've been doing that in the

52:32past but I'd like to produce an annual

52:34report for y'all to be

52:36>> Well you kindly give us one every time

52:38you send us all that

52:39>> Every time you say I know I know. Well

52:41no one one that's easily digested.

52:43>> Well that's not but but it's very

52:45informative and I learned a lot about a

52:47lot of those key slots things that I'd

52:49never seen before. That was really

52:51interesting when I was waiting through

52:52all that stuff this morning so.

52:56>> I really appreciate you

52:58>> Is he going to start doing this early in

53:00the month as opposed to later as we when

53:02we to?

53:03>> Uh

53:06>> We've just kind of been doing it

53:08off of

53:09>> They say this, if there's a preferred,

53:11you know, it's hard to find a preferred

53:12time for

53:13everybody that's on this record, but if

53:15there is one,

53:16I'll probably

53:19find a way to meet that.

53:20>> A preferred time or No, I just it's

53:22because I am pretty busy with a variety

53:25of things.

53:25>> Yeah.

53:26>> And I kind of had the end of the month

53:28as my time to

53:29>> Okay.

53:29>> There were I would write oversight just

53:31in case question mark.

53:33>> Okay. Okay.

53:34>> And um so when the announcement came for

53:37November 2nd, I was surprised.

53:38>> So for your routine, it's yeah, yeah,

53:40yeah. You built it in your routine at

53:42the end of the month. That works better

53:43for you. I got it.

53:44>> It's always been the third Monday.

53:47Yeah, but but the third Monday is what

53:50we've done for a long time.

53:52>> Okay.

53:53All right, if that works for folks then.

53:54>> Well, who knows?

53:56>> Yeah, but that's what it's been

53:57historically, right?

53:58>> Although look, we've got more people

54:00here today.

54:01>> Yeah, what's up?

54:02>> How was the chief boss's meeting?

54:04>> Psycho.

54:05>> Um so it was the same day, just at a

54:08different

54:09>> An hour and a half earlier.

54:10>> Okay.

54:11>> From before.

54:11>> Yes.

54:12What they met back-to-back.

54:14>> Right.

54:14>> But on the same day.

54:15>> Which is easier for staff cuz they're

54:17not having to get to two.

54:19>> And honestly, I don't care if we have it

54:21early in the

54:22I just like to

54:23>> Okay.

54:24>> Yeah, kind of have that

54:25>> But we save some time for it.

54:31Cuz nobody I'm this group does anything

54:33else you do.

54:34>> Yeah.

54:35>> [laughter]

54:37>> Um I do appreciate y'all being here and

54:39I do want to make this time useful for

54:41y'all and valuable so that you look

54:43forward to the next time you come. You

54:44know, I I look forward to these

54:46Um so you know, again, that's the sort

54:49of feedback if you have so I'll take it.

54:51I will take it absolutely.

54:52>> I do have a question for you, but for

54:54after the meeting.

54:55>> Okay.

54:56>> Do we need to adjourn or what?

54:57>> Yes.

54:58>> Oh, yeah.

54:59>> I motion to adjourn.

55:00>> Second.

55:00>> All right.

```*