The Henry County Board of Commissioners held a Called Public Meeting on Monday, March 8, 2004 at 2:30 P.M. in the Community Room of the County Administration Building, 140 Henry Parkway, McDonough, Georgia.  Notice of this meeting was posted on the bulletin board of the County Administration Building.  The Daily Herald was notified of this meeting.  Representing Henry County were:


                           Leland Maddox, Chairman, presiding

                           Lee Holman, Vice-Chairman, District V Commissioner

                           Warren E. Holder, District I Commissioner

                           Gary M. Freedman, District II Commissioner

                           Jason T. Harper, District III Commissioner

                           Gerry Adams, District IV Commissioner


Also attending were Linda Angus, County Manager; Susan B. Craig, County Clerk; Shay Mathis, Deputy County Clerk; Rob Magnaghi, Deputy County Manager and Public Safety Division Director; Tom Couch, Assistant to the County Manager–Special Projects; Angie Bailey, Executive Assistant to the County Manager; Mike Bush, Finance Department Director; Angie Sorrow, Budget Analyst; Michael Harris, Public Works Division Director; Danny Taylor, Economic Development Division Director; Michael Sabine, Human and Community Services Division Director; Susan Howington, Extension Services Director; Lyn Bledsoe, Program Manager/SPLOST; Terry McMickle, Transportation Manager/SPLOST; Wayne Wilhoit, Program Consultant/SPLOST; Joni Miller, Administrative Assistant/SPLOST; and others.


Chairman Maddox called the meeting to order. 


Chairman Maddox asked for an Acceptance of the Agenda.  Commissioner Holman said he would like to amend the Agenda and had put on each of the Board Member’s desk a packet that has a resolution for a library (SPLOST designation for District V), and also the Commissioner would like to talk about the Organizational Chart that is in need of some changes. 


Commissioner Harper recommended we will place the library as IV.A. and SPLOST designation as IV.B. on the Agenda.   Also add approval of a de-annexation of property from the City of McDonough as II.A.   Commissioner Holman made a motion to amend the Agenda as stated above; Commissioner Harper seconded. 


Commissioner Freedman wanted to add to the Agenda a discussion of House Bill 1003 resolution, and stated Mr. Danny Taylor had put a copy in each Commissioner’s box.  Chairman Maddox said he did not know what he was talking about, and Commissioner Harper said he did not see any legislation in front of him. 


Commissioner Freedman said, “last Friday, the Building Department, Danny Taylor and myself went to the ARC.  There is a House Bill 1003 that the ARC wants the Board to support, where builders and developers have to be certified, registered and licensed; apparently this is an agreement reached with the development, building, and real estate communities.  ARC has worked on this for about one (1) year to get it in such a way it could pass the General Assembly.  We were trying to find out if we could wait until our next Commissioners’ Meeting, but Mr. Taylor and Ms. Angus informed me that we have to do this today.  What I am asking for is a resolution supporting the House Bill.”


Chairman Maddox said, “are you asking us to support a resolution and we know absolutely nothing about it?”


Commissioner Freedman said he just wanted to put it on the Agenda.


Commissioner Maddox said, “and that is exactly what you passed something the other day about.  It is up to the Board.”


Commissioner Freedman said Danny Taylor worked on the resolution with Ms. Angus this morning.  “Let’s discuss it; if we are going to get it to the General Assembly, we are going to have to approve it today if we support it.”  (Commissioner Freedman passed around a copy of what was brought back from the ARC Friday.)


Chairman Maddox said, “are we going to sit here and read it and digest it……then vote on it?  Well, I’m not.  It is up to what the Board wants to do.”


Commissioner Freedman said, “we are trying to do our best to support the Legislation at the request of the ARC.   I am not asking for people to vote on it if they do not feel comfortable with it.  If we put it on the Agenda, Mr. Taylor can tell us all about it.”


Commissioner Adams asked Mr. Taylor if he had had a chance to study it.


Mr. Taylor said he had looked at some of the features of it, and stated he would be glad to go over some of it if the Board desired.   He said he had not read it to the last page, but he had read some significant parts of it. 


Commissioner Holder stated, “personally I would like to see us at least discuss it, and if the Board does not feel comfortable in making a decision as a whole, then each Commissioner could contact their legislative delegation and move forward.  I do not have a clue what it is either; but evidently it is something of enough significance the ARC seems to think we need to support.”  


Chairman Maddox said he spent three (3) days at the ARC last week, and this did not come up at all. 


Commissioner Freedman asked if he could read the cover letter from the ARC and did so. 


Chairman Maddox asked Commissioner Holman if he wanted to amend his motion.


Commissioner Holman said his motion stands unamended. 


Commissioner Holder said, “is it correct we are not going to talk about this at all?”


Chairman Maddox said Commissioner Holman did not amend his motion.  He asked a second time if Commissioner Holman wanted to amend it.


Commissioner Harper said, “it is my understanding from the rule we adopted at the last meeting, if we are going to amend the Agenda prior to us making this bench, resolutions have to be placed on the table if we are to vote on an issue.”


Commissioner Freedman said, I have two (2) resolutions here that I have not seen either, maybe more.  We did not have any problems adding these to the Agenda.”


Chairman Maddox asked Commissioner Holman to amend his motion for discussion. 


Commissioner Holman amended his motion to discuss House Bill 1003 Builder Licensing II.B.  Commissioner Harper seconded; Commissioners Harper, Holman, Freedman, Holder and Adams voted in favor of the motion.


De-annexation of Property from McDonough.


Commissioner Harper made a motion to adopt the following resolution:


WHEREAS, on March 3, 2004, the Estate of Dorothy E. Castellaw filed an application with the City of McDonough to de-annex from the city limits of the City of McDonough and into unincorporated Henry County certain property as described on the application for de-annexation, a complete copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and


WHEREAS, in accordance with O.C.G.A. 36-36-22, the City of McDonough may not adopt an ordinance de-annexing such property from its city limits unless the Board of Commissioners of Henry County adopts a resolution consenting to such de-annexation; and


WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has considered such de-annexation and determined that such de-annexation would be in the best interest of the citizens of Henry County;


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Henry County that the Board of Commissioners does consent to the de-annexation of the property as shown on the de-annexation application attached hereto as Exhibit “A.”


Commissioner Holman seconded; the motion carried 5-0-0 with Commissioners Harper, Holman, Freedman, Holder and Adams voting in favor of the motion.


Discussion on a Resolution of the Henry County Board of Commissioners Pertaining to Support of House Bill 1003.


Commissioner Harper said, “if today is the deadline to pass a resolution regarding legislation, we have a piece of legislation laid on our desk to read and consider for voting on tomorrow.  We are going to miss the deadline if today is it.”


Mr. Danny Taylor responded, “it is my understanding there are thirty-three (33) days in the Legislative Session in which a Bill must come out of Committee and then get on the floor, and this is the 30th of the 33 days.  It does not mean that those days necessarily following consecutively if the General Assembly decides to adjourn tomorrow, then you might have until Friday.  The deadline here is getting the Bill out of the Committee and on to the floor where it can be voted on.”


Mr. Taylor said, “last Friday we attended the meeting at ARC, who sponsored the meeting on House Bill 1003.  There were four (4) people present who were essentially sponsors of the Bill, and two (2) of them I remember distinctly.  One is a member of the Home Builders Association and the second is a member of the Real Estate Association.  They had two (2) lobbyists with them.  The rest of the audience was made up of building officials from Fulton County, four (4) from Henry County, two (2) from DeKalb County, and others representing various jurisdictions.  Many of them had not seen this Bill before.  The lobbyists pressed upon those who were in attendance that it had taken them fifty (50) years to come together and put together some regulations on how to license and regulate contractors and builders in the State of Georgia.  They had come together in agreement on this particular Bill, and put it to us that either we go forward with this because we have it in Committee right now, or we really do not have anything.  They are concerned about local jurisdictions taking it upon themselves to establish different criteria and standards across the State, whereas this particular Bill would establish one standard statewide.  A fourteen (14) member panel would be created; membership on that panel would be appointed by the Governor; five (5) members would come from the home builders or contracting industry.  There are two (2) divisions each being seven (7).  So five (5) members of each of the two (2) sections would come from the Home Builders Association; one (1) would be a building official and one (1) would be a consumer.  Each division would be broken up into general contractors and residential contractors.  They would be charged with licensing and disciplining home builders and general contractors.” 


Commissioner Adams asked, “builders and real estate are going to have ten (10) seats?”   Mr. Taylor answered, “exactly.”


Mr. Taylor continued, “they would be charged with licensing and disciplining that particular industry.  They would establish an exam; they’ve got criteria established for minimum qualifications, one of which is twenty-one (21) years of age; they’ve established provisions in the Bill for reciprocity with other States who do the same thing.  You can have certain experience to exempt you from taking an exam or you can have certain educational attainments that also would exempt you from taking the exam.  You could be ‘grandfathered’ if you have substantial experience from taking the exam.  Nevertheless, they would have the authority to license and discipline anybody who got out of line with respect to proper conduct of business.”


Commissioner Adams said, “that is stacking the deck; I would not be for that at all.”


Chairman Maddox stated, “if it followed very closely the Licensing Board like the State of Florida has, I would certainly be for it.”


Commissioner Freedman said, “if we do not feel this is strict enough, I do not have any problem with us not going forward with it.”


Chairman Maddox said, “I do not have any problem at all supporting a Bill that has a Licensing Board for builders and developers.  I do not think I would ever support a Bill where the builders and developers had control of that board.  No doubt there should be builders and developers on the board.”


Commissioner Freedman said, “I would suggest they will never get a Bill through there that the builders and developers don’t support.”


Chairman Maddox responded, “in some point and time they would, but probably not in the next thirty-three (33) days,”


Commissioner Freedman said the ACCG was present at the meeting and indicated their support for it.


Commissioner Adams made a motion to reject this resolution; Commissioner Holman seconded.  Commissioner Harper said it did not need a motion; just move on to the next item on the Agenda. 


Organizational Chart:


Commissioner Holman said he had in front of him an Organizational Chart dated 1/27/04, and it shows the old committee structure.  It has names on the chart who are no longer with the County.  Mr. Michael Sabine’s title has been changed and it does not show where our Stormwater Management is located.  “I would suggest the Board’s consideration to move the Water Authority bubble, which is under SPLOST, and move that under Economic Development.  The Water Authority and Stormwater Management will be working together.”


Commissioner Holder said he thought the committee structure should stay in place, but according to what Commissioner Holman is saying, if the Economic Development Committee is no longer functional, it does not need to be under anything.  He thought the committee structure should stay in place whether or not they meet or not.  But the point of them moving from one committee to the other, if they do not exist, then why move them?


Commissioner Holman said he had no problem leaving the committees on the Organizational Chart even though they are not functional.  He said what he is talking about is the Division Directors.  Currently Michael Harris has as a bubble, the Water and Sewerage Authority; in his opinion, that would be a better fit under Economic Development in view that it is anticipated the Stormwater Management going underneath that Division Director.


Ms. Angus said some of the topics touch on personnel issues and might be better for Executive Session, but said we will bring the chart back as a topic with recommended revisions at the next meeting. 


Chairman Maddox said no motion or vote was necessary for this.


Request Approval to Rescind Resolution 04-93 Regarding Encumbering Funds and Authorizing an Agreement with the Y.M.C.A.


WHEREAS, on February 16, 2004, the Board of Commissioners of Henry County adopted Resolution No. 04-93 in which it encumbered $5,000,000.00 to be used for the construction of a family and youth facility within Henry County, Georgia, and in which it voted to enter into an agreement with the YMCA whereby the YMCA would be the operator of such facility; and


WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has determined that it is the best interest of the residents of Henry County to rescind such Resolution;


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Henry County, Georgia, and it is hereby resolved that the Board rescinds the Resolution encumbering such funds and authorizing an agreement with the YMCA.


Commissioner Holman made a motion to approve the above resolution; Chairman Maddox seconded for discussion.


Commissioner Holder said he just wanted to know why the Board was rescinding it.


Ms. Angus stated, “we have a couple of issues; 1) the attachment given to the Board when the Resolution was passed and then referred to in the Resolution outlined some things we believe are questionably legal for the County to do, like enter into a thirty (30) year agreement with two thirty (30) year options.  All that they anticipated and wanted at that point was just a resolution setting the money aside so that we could enter into the contract discussions.  2) the YMCA issue with our County Attorney has yet to be resolved; because that is an issue, if we set the money aside this way, we are going to contract with the Y, then perhaps we can resolve all of that without anyone taking legal objections today.”


Commissioner Harper said, “the way this is worded, it says ‘rescinded’ as if we are getting out of the deal and that is it.  That is not correct.  I went back and had Susan Craig, County Clerk, when she did the Minutes to check the tape and see what Commissioner Freedman said when that motion was made.  In my opinion, the motion was we encumbered $5 million to be set aside for the purpose of building an activity building, and we authorized the County to negotiate with the Y.M.C.A. (a family and youth center) and then we would enter into contract negotiations with the Y.M.C.A.   I do not believe his motion approved that attachment.  Because Mr. Jaugstetter has not had time to read it.”


Ms. Angus said, “what should be here, but I do not see it………..what Mr. Jaugstetter and I had discussed this being was a resolution to rescind and then to reword and place in it’s place……….if you look at Exhibit 7 it cleans that up; that’s all we are doing.  It probably should have been placed together.  You can pull them out and vote on them one after another.  This is setting the money aside for a family and youth center, and we know what the Board wishes to do and that is to enter into negotiations with the Y.M.C.A. to see how we can construct a contract that everyone will be happy with. 


Commissioner Freedman asked where this resolution came from.


Ms. Angus answered, “from discussions with Mr. Jaugstetter and me.  We think this is cleaner and there is not a legal challenge at this moment that can be made to any reference to the Y.  But we know what the directive from you is, and that is what we are going to be working on.”


Chairman Maddox said there is another Resolution to #7.  “Now, is that in here for us to pass with the correct wording?”


Ms. Angus answered, “yes.”


Chairman Maddox asked, “has the Board read that one, and do you agree with that reading?”


Commissioner Harper asked if Resolution 04-93, which was passed on February 16th, has been signed. 


Ms. Angus answered, “no.”


Chairman Maddox said, “the reason I did not sign it was because there is an attachment to it.  On the back of it, down under #4 where it says ‘Sportsplex - twenty (20) acres of lighted mixed-use youth fields,’ Phase III of that was where they were going to raise $10 million in 2009/2010.  Are we going to wait to 2009 to 2010 for them to raise the $10 million dollars to go with the $5 million we have?”


Commissioner Harper said, “in my opinion, we never adopted that contract, unless you think differently.”


Commissioner Adams said, “we just encumbered the money; we did not adopt the contract.”


Ms. Angus said, “our County Attorney is not comfortable yet with the terms that were attached and referred to.  A clean approach would be to set aside the money, and I think we should start with a clean language resolution that no one objects to and get where we are going.”


Commissioner Harper asked Mr. Jeff Alevy with the Y.M.C.A. (seated in the audience) to come forth and give his opinion.   Commissioner Harper asked, “did you understand we encumbered the $5 million, but it was pending legal review as to adoption of a contract between us and the Y?” 


Mr. Alevy said, “we did.”


Commissioner Freedman asked Mr. Alevy to look at Exhibit #7 that is the new resolution. 


Commissioner Holder said, “if it is just a matter of wording, just ‘amend this resolution’……..but to say rescind; we are getting a bad reputation in making a decision and then rescinding things, and that is not good.  You can say amend or clarify, but to say rescind means I am backing out on the deal.  That gives a bad impression.”


Ms. Angus stated if the Board wants to ‘amend or clarify’ for the reading to be ‘as attached,’ and then adopt, then it would be fine.


Mr. Alevy said, “I think what I am hearing is the spirit of the Board is still what it was a couple of weeks ago in terms of wanting to move forward with entering into discussions that would lead to a legal agreement with the Y.M.C.A.  Also, I understand the County Attorney has some questions about that.  We have been addressing some of those questions with Mr. Jaugstetter over the last 2 or 3 weeks, as we did with Mr. Brenskelle a couple of years ago, and the last word I got from Patrick was he felt we could come to a place where he would be comfortable with the legal arrangements.  I think we are all on the same page in terms of the intent of encumbering the $5 million, number one and number two, and then proceeding with some discussions with the Y.M.C.A. in terms of creating a legal contract.”


Commissioner Holman said, “I am looking at the language for the ballot and it reads ‘about one or more community centers for family and youth activities.’   My question is $5 million for a youth center in light that we have a court annex around $7 million, fire station for around $700,000; are we locking ourselves into one center by this resolution?”


Ms. Angus said, “Commissioner Holman is expressing the Board’s desire and our outline is the staff as to the way you would like to approach it, and that is one …….and that is one center and that is the way we will approach the contract.  If you wanted two centers, then if you commit $5 million to the first one, there will be no second one.”


Commissioner Holman asked if that was a realistic approach; $5 million for one center?  That is a lot of money.”


Ms. Angus responded, “it is, but I think that is what the Board wants.”


Mr. Alevy added, “on the proposal given to your Board a couple of weeks ago, you will see the $5 million is really for Phase I of a much bigger project where the Y.M.C.A. is committing to invest approximately $10 to $11 million over a period of time.  So this would comprehensively be in total a $15 to $16 million project; not a $5 million project.  Whether that encompasses one location or two, I think has yet to be determined based on the availability of the site and what we agree on once we get into the legal agreement.”


Commissioner Freedman moved to call the question.


Chairman Maddox asked for a vote on the motion on the floor; the vote was 2-4-0 with Chairman Maddox and Commissioner Holman voting in favor, Commissioners Adams, Harper, Freedman and Holder voting against; thus the motion failed.


Commissioner Freedman made a counter motion to approve the resolution as written in Tab. 7, to amend 04-93 to read as it is on Tab. 7; Commissioner Harper seconded; the motion carried 5-0-0 with Commissioners Harper, Holder, Adams, Freedman and Holman voting in favor.


Discussion Regarding Impact Fee, General Fund and SPLOST Capital Expenditures.


Ms. Angus stated, “we have made certain that there was a clean document, and we have the backup documentation that matches the document.  We went through every resolution that has occurred from the time SPLOST II designations started, and you have them attached behind Tab. 3.  On the first page the total buildings and parks, all the designations you will see to the left, and the total funding designations are to the right.   At the bottom you will see program management costs and the total for both designations (building project, road projects, etc.) including administrative costs.”


Commissioner Freedman asked, “what was the cost…..who managed the last SPLOST?”


Ms. Angus said, “we had that discussion last week when we were trying to find out and we do not actually know that.”


Commissioner Freedman asked, “it was $3 million, wasn’t it.”


Chairman Maddox said, “I asked that question many times, Commissioner Freedman, and I never got an answer.  If you read the contract that was signed on the first SPLOST, it was probably more like $1.8 million in the original contract plus add-ons.”


Ms. Angus said, “What we are looking at is 4% which the industry uses, and it may not be that.  Also, what I asked to be put in this administrative number is the amount of the cost allocation plan.  Last year we had the first cost allocation plan performed ever for this County, and it is a federal document that can be used for federal funding.  We are able to charge this program legitimately to reimburse us for what we have to do with it.  It is 4% and it is inflated because of the cost allocation.”


Commissioner Freedman responded, “I would like to see the total of project management, because there were all kinds of people hollering when the last SPLOST came up about all the money wasted in project management; people do not realize it costs money and we are doing it ourselves in this $3.8 million.”


Ms. Angus stated, “if we can find that number, the documents for SPLOST I are not as clean in terms of what I have seen; clean meaning in an orderly fashion.  It was a smaller SPLOST than this one is also.”


Commissioner Freedman asked, “under Gasby you have to allocate that toward the actual expense anyway, don’t you?”


Ms. Angus answered, “that is true, but you cannot charge the state or federal program unless you have a certified allocation plan, and we have never had one.”


Commissioner Freedman said, “Gasby requires that; there was a law passed two years ago.”


Ms. Angus said, “but if you told me not to do it…………”


Commissioner Freedman said, “under Gasby, I do not think we have any choice.”


Ms. Angus replied, “gasby is a proper way of doing accounting, and it is not a rule or law.”  


Ms. Angus continued, “so we are very clear that these are the actions the Board has taken; we do not have any questions about that.  Of $90 million, $70 million has been designated and all capital monies, if you look at the 70/30 split which we verified again, was the distribution of the capital projects or the road projects in the County overall projects.   The 70/30 split would be $27 million for capital and $63 million for roads.  We have overspent/over obligated, but not to a significant amount, total buildings and parks of $302,000.   We have included in that bond issuance an interest cost of $1.8 million, and the bond should be issued this month.  The total of the bond is $25 million; our bond rating was upgraded per Standard & Poores.”


Commissioner Harper referenced the last page and asked them to go down to District III SPLOST II designations/dirt road construction, “go to Duffy Drive to McGarity Road to Lake Dow Road where it shows $250,000; I am 99% sure if you have Susan Craig, County Clerk, do a search in the Minutes, I took that $250,000 out and it is being paid for by the $1.4 million district list.  I am 99% sure the Chairman signed that resolution several months ago, and if that is the case, that will free up a quarter million dollars.” 


Commissioner Freedman said, “on that same list ‘District II proposed,’ I do not remember Stone and Oakland being that high on the list.”


Ms. Angus said, “we have all the SPLOST I projects that you designated, and where they are in terms of have they been engineered, where we are in the process, etc.  Then we have it for SPLOST II, if you would like to see it.  (Ms. Angus showed a timetable for SPLOST I and SPLOST II projects.)   We are 98% confident that all of these documents match exactly.”


Commissioner Holder stated, “in the resolution the Board passed, some of the numbers in the projects do not balance out.  In the SPLOST resolution that the Board voted on and the people voted on by referendum, it was not equally divided between Districts.  If we vary from what the people voted on, then what does that mean?  We are violating the trust of the people who voted on these projects to be funded with this $140 million.”


Ms. Angus said, “when we looked at the numbers that came in at the end of SPLOST I collections, we projected conservatively SPLOST II not to collect $140 million, but to collect $110 million.  That doesn’t mean it will not change, but right now that is what we are working with.  Then we subtracted in round numbers the cities’ portion and it left us with our part which is $90 million.  The way we split that $90 million was proportionately 70% and 30%, and that is $63 million for roads and $27 million for buildings or capital.  Of the $63 million, $43 million has been allocated ($20 million remaining).  So far there has not been a structured approach to dealing with the distribution of money.  The two schools of thought are 1) to divide the funding equally (All districts would get an equal share of $90 million which would be divided by 5.)       2) To distribute them proportionately; that would be to take each district and determine what of the totals of SPLOST projects in dollars were allocated to each district of the $140 million.  For example – District I of all of the projects in the SPLOST fund list with the total dollars got 30% of the total SPLOST and District II, for example, got 15% and District III got 2%.  None of that is true, but just an example.  If the Board cares to address this, then that last $20 million would be all that we have to finish addressing these issues.  Unless you want to back up on projects we have not started yet and start taking them out of the list.”


“The other approach, if you wanted to compromise between this structured allocation and this one, would be to weigh these, and you would get some part of it that would be an equal distribution and the other half would be a proportionate distribution.  Then I could tell you the dollar amounts based on the two approaches.”


Commissioner Freedman asked, “what is proportionate based on?”


Ms. Angus replied, “proportionate was based on what projects were on the $140 million list.”


Commissioner Freedman said, “if I remember correctly, that original list was based on DOT’s assessment of what roads needed surfacing, resurfacing and intersection improvement.”


Commissioner Harper said, “are you talking about just the $20 million or the entire $140 million?”


Ms. Angus replied, “what we would do is sort what has been distributed to date to each district, and then decide on an approach and then apply the $20 million to the districts to try to straighten it out.”


Commissioner Harper said, “the problem with that is $7.3 million was assessed against District III for the Courthouse and we have less crime in District III, so most of the use will come from the other districts.  I looked at Commissioner Holder’s numbers and they were highly inflated because he’s got the animal shelter in his district and that was assessed against him.  Things that are used by all five districts gets assessed against each individual district, and I do not think that is correct.  Another example, in Commissioner Holman’s district the reapportionment changed our districts; the fire station being closed in District III is being moved just across the line into District V.  So suddenly he gets assessed $775,000 against his district for a fire station that will serve my district.  It is hard to come up with a formula in a fair manner.”


Commissioner Holder said, “when we vary from what the voters voted on, even though there are projects in each of the five districts that very well may not be funded, when you start to change the spread or ratio of where the money was going, then I think you have violated the trust of the people.”


Chairman Maddox asked, “are you saying that all the monies voted on in the SPLOST referendum had roads attached to it?”


Commissioner Holder responded, “the referendum did not specify roads, but the resolution the Board of Commissioners voted on and approved in support of the referendum, was very road specific and project specific.  This was the sealed copy that went with everything so nothing could have been changed; this is the list we should strive for as a Board to accomplish as many of the projects within our districts with percentages set up to go to the districts as we possibly can.  Because otherwise, (I’m looking at $28 million per district) that is not what the people voted on.”


Commissioner Freedman asked, “how do you go back to changing boundaries?” 


Commissioner Holder said, “those adjustments can be made; but when we start to vary from what we originally agreed on and the voters voted on, we are asking for trouble.   I think it should be based on the percentages in this resolution, and as far as reapportionment, as those change, then that will have to be adjusted.”


Commissioner Holman displayed the SPLOST 2002 synopsis on the overhead.  He showed numbers the County had projected; $91 million current funding, $64 million projected for roads, $27 for capital.  He stated what Commissioner Holder is noticing is this is just an equal split.  “The 140 million is what the bond or ballot allowed; it capped the capital projects at $46 million and capped in the ballot at $93 million, and I divided it by 5.”


Commissioner Holder asked, “$93 million?  Where did that number come from?  We voted on a $140 million SPLOST.”


Ms. Angus said that was the 70%.


Commissioner Holder said he understood it was the 70/30 split.  “My argument is the distribution of the $93 million and the remaining 30%, because this resolution the Board passed was project specific – not the referendum.  Because it would have taken a ballot this thick to have voted on.”


Commissioner Freedman said, “you take $140 million, and you take $20 million off for the cities, that leaves $120 million and if you take 70% of that, there is only $84 million for roads and $36 million for capital projects; not the numbers you’ve got.”


Commissioner Holman responded, “I am using a financial data sheet provided by Mr. Mike Bush, Finance Director, and he projected monies; not the $140 million, it is the $110 million the County Manager was talking about and then take out the $20 million for the cities and that will leave you with $92 million.  That is $28 million for capital and $64 million for roads and that is the projected amount.”


Commissioner Holder said, “we need to make a determination as to what these unknown funds are going to be based on a proportionate share, because that was the way the funds were voted on to be spent.  But if there is a shortfall, then there is obviously going to be projects that would not be funded.  But it should be at that particular Commissioner’s discretion to scratch it.  If we change the funding structure, the way it was actually voted on, then this whole Board is taking responsibility in cutting projects, and that particular Commissioner has no control over losing the funds.  But if done proportionately, and take into consideration the reapportionments, those adjustments need to be made and then let’s see what the end result would be.”


Commissioner Freedman said, “I suffered twice on schools going in on dirt roads, but we had to build them and that came out of my road dollars.”


Ms. Angus suggested, “what I am hearing the Board would like to do is to have us define better this allocation that was made of the County’s portion of the $140 million, and let us give that back to you along with the equal distribution that you already know, and we will even show you a couple of formulas for consideration.  If you would like to do that, thus suspending this piece of the discussion.”


Commissioner Holman said he was trying to figure out the mechanics; was there a resolution that moved $2.5 million into designation #6?


Ms. Angus responded, “in the backup paperwork, the staff went through the designation of the Heritage Park money and there was $830,000 designated for the land purchase which was ruled by the Legal Department as ineligible, but it still remains.  Then there was $1.4 million allocated to Heritage by resolution; yet, there was discussion within that resolution stating engineering can be done for the total of the $2.5 million project.  In this discussion about Heritage, it was not a written clean resolution, but the discussion led us to this point.  We would like to clean it up, but right now, there is still allocated $830,000 dollars for land and designation #3 of $1.4 million.”


Commissioner Harper said, “instead of $2.5 million being allocated for the arena and activity building, Ms. Angus is backing $830,000 out of that.  You have already stuck $830,000 in the SPLOST II account to acquire land.   We are just going to take that $830,000 and apply it to the $2.5 million.  It is not an extra $2.5 allocation; we are deducting the $830,000 from the $2.5 million.”


Commissioner Freedman said he would like a total that has been spent between SPLOST I and SPLOST II by park. 


Ms. Angus agreed and said that could be provided.


Commissioner Holman said he had a question regarding Moseley Park.  “Is that $2.5 million already allocated from SPLOST. 


Ms. Angus answered, “yes.”


Commissioner Freedman said there are two (2) activity centers; one at Heritage and one at Moseley, and they are $2.5 million each. 


Ms. Angus said, “the last thing we have for you to consider are the resolutions (referencing Tab. #8 – Ms. Angus began explaining each of the resolutions.).


Commissioner Harper made a motion to adopt the resolution transferring the $830,000 from land acquisition currently allocated to Heritage Park transferring it to be applied to the $2.5 million for the design and construction of the activity building and arena at Heritage.  Commissioner Adams seconded.   


            Commissioner Freedman said somehow Heritage Park got $1 million more than the other parks because “when we had that lawsuit against us for the expenditure of those monies, we held off on spending it.  But, you allocated it, and then when we divided the money up to $1.7 million each, you got your $1.7 million in addition to that, so you already had an extra million in there.  Now you want to put another $830,000 into it.”


            Commissioner Harper said the $830,000 is already budgeted.  Commissioner Freedman said “you already had an extra million because you used the money that we held off on using until the lawsuit was over; you went ahead and committed it.”  Commissioner Harper said “I disagree with that.”  Commissioner Freedman said “no body spent those monies, but you went ahead and committed that money, and then when we broke down the money that was left over, we divided it and we all got $1.7 million and you got that in addition to what you had already committed out of that money.  So, you’ve got an extra million in there.  That’s why you have so much to spend.   That $830,000 ought to be taken back and divided up somehow among the parks so everybody gets some fair acquisition of that money.”


            Commissioner Harper said as long as the $2.5 million is allocated, “I don’t care what you do with the $830,000, but it would make sense that you’re going to spend $2.5 million to build that activity building, which the voters approved.  You would use $830,000 to offset the cost.”


            Commissioner Freedman said “I’m just saying you have already gotten an extra million that none of the other parks got and I think it’s time, if we’ve got that $830,000 left over and it’s not going to be spent, let’s go back and divide it the way it should have been divided in the first place.”


            Commissioner Harper said “You’re talking about SPLOST I stuff that is old and we had a pie chart that they put on there and gave each one of us $5 million or $6 million if the Chairman got an allocation, and I think he did.  We all have the $6 million pie that we were working on and then we had more come available.  I can’t help that and I can’t help that I did it to a park and the Chairman did it to a bridge, and another Commissioner may have done it to a road.  We all chose what to spend that particular portion on.”


            Commissioner Harper said “I don’t spend without five of you voting to authorize it.  I don’t have the authority to vote to do that.”  Commissioner Freedman said “I’m not sure the Board picked up on the fact you had spent that money before the lawsuit was completed.”  Commissioner Holder stated “I did not and I’d like to ask if staff can verify what each person is saying in this particular thing because I don’t want to see anybody get $1 million more, but it may be exactly right that I get a million more.  I don’t know.”


            Ms. Angus said she cannot verify that although she has heard this discussion before.  She stated “the only thing that I was involved in was, I came in and there were $57 million of project expectations out there and we determined that there was $17 million of cash remaining and that’s when we split it.  Of that $17 million, I know that was distributed by $5.3 million to East Lake Extension; there were a couple of small allocations; and then the balance was distributed.”  Commissioner Harper said “this Board never put a moratorium on spending that money.  You allocated $1 million to the Library and that took your allocation just like that; you didn’t have to worry on a day-to-day basis, you took the whole thing in one lump sum and it’s still sitting there.”


            Commissioner Freedman said “you’re telling me you didn’t know you got an extra million dollars.”  Commissioner Harper said “Mr. Holder had $1 million allocated to that Library and he took the same portion of the $1.7 million, so if I did, then he did it, too.”  Commissioner Holder said “I took $1 million and put to the Library.”


            Commissioner Freedman asked what amount the County was sued about beyond what was anticipated.  Commissioner Harper responded “anything in excess of $60 million is what he sued us for.”   Ms. Angus said “there was a set-aside that all of you had that was challenged.”  Commissioner Freedman said “when he sued us, I did not spend the money that we had broken down to $1.7 million each.  I did not spend it and I don’t think anybody else did, except for Mr. Harper, until that lawsuit was resolved; until we thought we had a good chance of resolving it, and then it was $1.7 million each.  Prior to that, close to a million had already gone in out of that excess money into Heritage Park, and then when we split the money up that was left over, that had already been deducted.  That is why it is broken down to $1.3 or $1.7 million.”


            Commissioner Freedman said “if there is $830,000 left over and an extra million went into Heritage Park, it’s time to recoup that and give it equally to the people who didn’t get that million.  That’s what I’m saying.”  Commissioner Harper said “and I’m telling you that it’s hypocritical to say that unless you are going to recoup the million we gave to Warren for the Library, which I’m not willing to do.” 


            Commissioner Holder said “rather than casting stones, I wish you would document and put into simplistic terms that each one of us can understand and show where the distribution went, the amount, and when it was done.”  Ms. Angus stated the $1.7 million each was distributed equally.  Ms. Angus said she thinks “when the lawsuit was filed, there was an amount of money all of you had split, which was before I got here, and you said ‘we are not going to spend this’ because we’re going to wait for the settlement of the lawsuit.”  Chairman Maddox said that was called the “outer ring.”  Commissioner Holder said the “outer ring was the $1 million each.”


            Commissioner Freedman stated before the resolution is approved, “I would like this to be looked at because for someone to say it’s hypocritical is ludicrous.  It’s not hypocritical to say the money should be divided equally.  Give it equal division among the parks.  I’m not willing to support this until you come to us and say that the extra money did not go to that park because I think I can prove it did.  I have documentation.”


            Chairman Maddox said a chart has been provided to the Board indicating $18,817,694.00 was allocated to District I; $21,757,108.00 was allocated to District II; $22,039,647.72 was allocated to District III; $16,646,258.37 was allocated to District IV; and $5,397,400.00 was allocated to District V.  He said “if you want to talk about somebody getting more than others, then why don’t you talk about the $5 million for District V.” 


            Commissioner Harper’s motion passed by a vote of 3-2, with Commissioners Harper, Holman and Adams in favor; and Commissioners Holder and Freedman opposed.


            Ms. Angus presented a resolution for Board consideration to rescind $1.15 million for SPLOST program management and to allocate $3.6 million administrative cost, including cost allocation, at an estimated amount of four (4%) percent of the estimated $90 million in revenues for the five-year SPLOST program.  (Commissioner Harper departed the meeting.)


            Commissioner Freedman asked what $100,000 cost allocation means.  Ms. Angus said “it means the cost allocation plan prepared last year allocates the cost of the County of all of your services toward SPLOST, based on the number of resolutions or however they weighted it.” 


            Commissioner Holman made a motion to approve the resolution; Commissioner Adams seconded; and the motion passed by a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners Freedman, Adams, Holman and Holder in favor.  (Commissioner Harper was absent during this vote.)


            Ms. Angus presented a resolution to add $500,000 to the Turner Drive Road improvement project budget.  She said this resolution is the estimate of what will be needed to complete the project.  Commissioner Holman said “so this is not repairing or leaving the paper trail correctly; this is actually new designation?”  Ms. Angus said “I think both because the estimate did not include all of the costs.”  Mr. Harris stated “the reason for this resolution is the initial estimates were done back in 2000.  They were just that; they were estimates and we have since gone forward and had the design done and we have actual firm bid numbers to construct the project.  So now we are going through and getting a more realistic cost of the project.”


            Commissioner Holder stated he thought the project was already bid and under construction.  Mr. Harris said it is under construction.  He noted there were additional costs with testing and other things.  He said $500,000 additional is needed to complete the project.  Commissioner Holder asked if the project was budgeted for $1.3 million and it ended up costing $1.5 million.  Ms. Angus said “just because the SPLOST Committee had a number. . .”  Commissioner Holder said some contingencies were put in SPLOST I and II and there are going to be some discrepancies, but $500,000 on a $2 million project is significant.  Ms. Angus said the right-of-way costs were not included in the project estimate.


            Commissioner Freedman asked where the money is coming from.  Ms. Angus replied from SPLOST II.  She said she feels comfortable with this resolution. 


            Commissioner Holman’s motion passed by a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Freedman, Holder, Harper, Adams and Holman in favor.


            Ms. Angus presented a resolution to allocate an additional $1 million to construct East Lake Road Extension as a four-lane versus a two-lane road, which was funded.  She said the scriber of the resolution indicated “they were going to prepare to construct a two-lane road and with GRTA funds and funds from SPLOST I, it is approximately a $10 million project, and we are talking about making it four lanes versus two lanes for $1 million.”  She said this is a reasonable investment for two more lanes of road.


            Commissioner Adams said it makes no sense to construct a two-lane road with the amount of existing traffic.  Commissioner Adams made a motion to adopt the resolution; Commissioner Holman seconded.  Ms. Angus stated the funds will come out of SPLOST II.  She noted some projects will come in under budget and some will come in over budget.  Commissioner Harper said to have a four-lane road you need 12,000 cars per day and at the opening of this road it is estimated at 18,000 cars.  Mr. Terry McMickle, P.E., SPLOST Management, said when traffic is between 14,000 and 18,000 cars per day, you need to start planning for a four-lane road.  Commissioner Harper said the road has been returned to the designer for modification and while it is there, it is prudent to add the two lanes.  Ms. Angus said this shows “the SPLOST team you have in place is attending to the details of this and trying to force us to make reasonable decisions.  If they had not pressed this and pressed the engineering firm to complete the four-lane, we would be building a two-lane road.”


            Commissioner Adams’ motion passed by a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Adams, Holder, Freedman, Harper and Holman in favor.


             Ms. Angus presented a resolution to approve and adopt a designation of money for the issuance cost and interest for the 2004 General Obligation SPLOST Bonds.  Commissioner Holman made a motion to approve the resolution; Commissioner Harper seconded.


            Ms. Angus said there is a $25 million cap on the bond issue, although the County can capitalize the cost of the issuance into the bonds so the County will borrow $25 million plus the capitalization and interest. 


            Commissioner Holman’s motion passed by a vote of 5-0, with Commissioners Adams, Holder, Freedman, Harper and Holman in favor.


            Ms. Angus stated the next agenda item is concerning impact fees.  She said the total impact fees collected  as of March 3, 2004, are $1.39 million.  She presented a schedule of percentages collected, which projected estimates to the end of this fiscal year.  She said this is significant because the Board can borrow for ten years on anticipated revenue. 


            Ms. Angus said, for instance, the County can borrow $3,883,936 today against library projects.  She said the Board would be taking impact fees for ten years, assuming they remain flat (no growth). 


            Ms. Angus said the Board could borrow $15,799,085 for parks and recreation projects; $5,015,494 for fire protection, $3,334,471 for Sheriff’s protection, $2,171,691 for police protection, $351,764 for Emergency 911, $302,776 for greenspace, $925,831 for administration, and $10,524 for CIE preparation.  Ms. Angus stated the percentages are based on the formula in the law the Board created to collect impact fees. 


            Ms. Angus stated transportation is not a part of the impact fee program.  She said the transportation element is being prepared.  Mr. Couch stated proposals have been solicited from another team of consultants for the transportation element. 


            Commissioner Freedman said he championed having the impact fees spent where they are collected a long time ago, however, Ross & Associates said if the Board wanted to do that, it would have to be done by establishing separate tax districts for each district in the County.  He said the fees should be spent where the impact is felt.  Ms. Angus stated the only thing that might skew that, for instance, would be the growth in Locust Grove and Locust Grove is getting a new library that is going to increase the service level from zero. 


            Commissioner Holder said Ross & Associates tried to make him believe the libraries could be connected electronically.  He said “you can never make me believe that.”  He said the impact fee requests listed do not include a project south, east or west of McDonough.  He said he would like to see where the impact fees are actually collected.  Ms. Angus stated she is trying to lighten the load on the general fund.


            Commissioner Holder said “I would never borrow against impact fees.  It would be a collect and spend for me because as the economy changes, impact fees are going to change because they are based directly on the amount of permits you are going to issue.  I’d never commit myself to ten years on this because it is too erratic.” 


            Ms. Angus said the effect of not borrowing is going to be on the general fund budget, which is okay, but what it does is when you are trying to increase fire and police officers, it affects it when you cannot shift costs from the general fund.  It will affect what you are able to do in terms of other decisions.  Ms. Angus stated the impact fees can only be used for capital improvements. 


            Chairman Maddox said police and fire services are the two main areas that are lacking.  Ms. Angus said the funds can only be used for capital infrastructure needs, not for personnel.


            Commissioner Freedman asked whether a greater percentage of one fund can be used to enhance another fund (for instance police or fire).  Ms. Angus said that cannot be done, but the County may be able to set up a general fund bank of some limited amount to borrow and loan to and from itself. 


            Chairman Maddox stated an addition to the jail was not included in the current SPLOST program.  He asked whether impact fees could be used for an additional jail pod.  Ms. Angus said the amount designated for the Sheriff’s operation could be used for a pod.


            Chairman Maddox said this agenda item was a discussion item and no vote needs to be considered.   Ms. Angus stated if the Board chooses to move the park purchases onto impact fees, then the Board will be freeing up $1.2 million next year from the general fund which could be invested in police officers and fire personnel.  Chairman Maddox said he would like this to be discussed in more detail at a later date.  Commissioner Freedman asked for Ms. Angus to consider including a $2.2 million activity center at Mt. Carmel Park in the list of proposed projects.  Commissioner Holman stated he has been working on this list for many months and now that the list has gotten big, his projects are listed on the bottom of the page as an additional comment. Commissioner Holder noted there are no projects on the list from District I. 


A Resolution of the Henry County Board of Commissioners Regarding the Development of a Fifth Library Within the Henry County Library System.


WHEREAS,     the qualified voters of Henry County, Georgia approved the imposition of a special on percent sales and use tax, known as the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST), for various capital projects and facilities on November 5, 2002, with an effective date of April 1, 2003; AND


WHEREAS,     the ballot question submitted to the qualified voters provided for the development of library facilities within the County; AND


WHEREAS,     the geographic area included within the Fifth district of the Board of commissioners is presently without a library of its own; AND


WHEREAS,     the Board of Commissioners desires to ensure maximum accessibility and availability of library resources to the citizens of the County within reasonable parameters; AND


WHEREAS,     the Board of Commissioners is also aware of the financial responsibilities and constraints imposed by the imposition and collection of this special one percent sales and use tax over its finite duration, which shall not exceed 20 calendar quarters; AND


WHEREAS,     the Board of Commissioners desires to rationally prioritize projects proposed under the current SPLOST program, as well as plan and program prospective projects as far in advance as reasonably practicable.


NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HENRY COUNTY, GEORGIA that the Board hereby affirms its intention to develop a public library within the Fifth District of the Board of Commissioners, as the first project placed within Tier II of the current SPLOST program.


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Manager and SPLOST Program Management team shall undertake such efforts to institute implementation steps for this project in a manner consistent with Board direction regarding the project’s development.


Commissioner Holman made a motion for approval and Commissioner Harper seconded the motion. 


Commissioner Harper stated this has been talked about several times about a library in the fifth district, and Mr. Holman has been beaten up for the last few months regarding this issue in the press.  He is trying to make a commitment publicly today.  Commissioner Harper had further comments.  He stated after looking at the impact fee proposal, it states $3.38 million is available over a ten year period for library capital allocations.  Commissioner Harper asked Commissioner Holman to amend his motion to add a third portion to the resolution as follows:  Should SPLOST allocation not be available, staff should look at impact fees.  Commissioner Holman amended his motion and Commissioner Harper amended his second.


Commissioner Holder asked if there could be discussion of the original motion.  Commissioner Holman withdrew his amended motion.


Commissioner Holder stated the resolution should be more specific than just within the fifth district because the original SPLOST Resolution states in Fairview.  He added he committed $1 million from SPLOST I funds for a total of $2.2 million for the library, for what the State says it will take for the population in the area.  He stated his concern is that an additional $1 million is not taken from another area to make up for the short fall when in fact $2.2 million was set aside for the Fairview Library.  Commissioner Holder stated he has concerns regarding the use of impact fees.  He further stated he is very supportive of the library but has concerns that he (Commissioner Holder) committed an additional $1 million and Commissioner Holman will be getting the same thing without giving the same commitment.


Commissioner Harper stated his intention is that staff would come up with a plan to achieve the end and two or three means in order to do it.  He is not asking for approval of funding from impact fees.  Second, Commissioner Harper stated he agrees with the theory of a matter of fairness if one has to give up something and the other one reaping the benefit.  The only problem is he would hate to punish the citizens of Fairview because of a bad decision made in the past. 


Commissioner Holder stated before he would vote, and he is very supportive of a library in Fairview, the resolution should be consistent with the ballot or with the SPLOST resolution adopted originally.


Commissioner Holman stated he had a resolution following this one that might satisfy that.  Commissioner Holder stated this one should say Fairview and he will not support it unless it is consistent.


Commissioner Harper stated he and Commissioner Holman have had this discussion and he (Commissioner Harper) is in agreement with Commissioner Holder.  The ballot says Fairview and you can’t get around that and we should stick with what the ballot says.  Beyond that, Kellytown is geographically closer to the McDonough Library.  Commissioner Harper stated when the ballot was done for the libraries, the McDonough Library was given $1 million by the SPLOST Committee to add to the McDonough Library which is the largest library.  Commissioner Harper stated he declined that allocation because other districts were not getting as big a library.  Commissioner Harper further stated he voluntarily said to cut the McDonough addition, which would have increased the size by one half, divided the money and spread among other districts. 


Commissioner Freedman had a couple of comments. One, he feels a library is needed in Fairview.  Secondly, Commissioner Harper mentioned you can only spend money the way it’s allocated on the ballot or the referendum, but the money that was set aside for the library in SPLOST I was spent for roads. 


Commissioner Holman stated there was $1.2 million for a library in SPLOST II.  Commissioner Freedman stated he is speaking of SPLOST I.  Commissioner Harper stated to Commissioner Holman that he was not present and Commissioner Freedman made the motion and everyone voted to reallocate that $1 million to roads.  Commissioner Freedman stated Commissioner Holman had written a note for him to make that motion.  The money set aside for the library was spent; now whether or not that was right or wrong, or whether or not what Commissioner Holder says is true, he doesn’t know if that’s valid or not. 


Commissioner Freedman went on to say he doesn’t know how the $1.2 million will be made up.  It was there in SPLOST I and that money basically has been spent,; there is $1.2 million in SPLOST II but he doesn’t feel that does justice to what is to be done or what’s being done in Locust Grove.   It has to be decided were the other $1 million or $1.2 million will come from.  The second issue is moving it as the first project in Tier II, which means the other projects that have been promised will be in some sort of jeopardy.  Thirdly, as far as impact fees, they are to be spent all around the County were they’re felt, you don’t want to lump all your impact fees for the libraries in one place when the purpose is to upgrade the libraries all through the county as the impact is felt through the county. 


Commissioner Harper stated for the press, he did not mean SPLOST I for roads was improper, that was perfectly proper under SPLOST I.  He agrees with Commissioner Holder, if something says you should build it in Fairview, to build it in another community is what he questioned.  He stated a Supreme Court case in Floyd County where they were to build a convention center, they shifted it from the physical location where it was mentioned on the ballot, to the river and the Supreme Court threw it out and stated that’s not what the voters approved.


Chairman Maddox stated he remembers the $1.2 million being allocated but that was not on the ballot for the first SPLOST.  Commissioner Holder agreed, the $1 million that is in question is the $1 million Commissioner Spraggins committed to the library from the “outer ring”, just as he committed $1 million to the Locust Grove Library; Commissioner Spraggins did the same for Fairview.  That’s the $1 million that’s in question, it was not designated in SPLOST I as library funds and the $1.2 million that’s in SPLOST II, is designated and that’s what is being referred to now.  The short fall comes from the $1 million allocated by Commissioner Spraggins.


There was clarification regarding the motion.  Commissioner Holman amended his motion to include:  Should SPLOST allocation not be available, staff should look at impact fees.  Commissioner Harper seconded the amendment.  Commissioner Holder stated this is for the plans, not funding.


Commissioner Harper state the motion is to adopt a resolution for a Fairview Library and for staff to come up with proposed plans to consider funding from SPLOST and/or Impact Fees.  Commissioner Freedman asked did this also include it being first in TIER II list?  Commissioner Holder asked, what is the #1 priority in SPLOST II Capital Projects?  Commissioner Holman made an amendment to his motion to strike the mention to the Tier.  Commissioner Harper amended his seconded.  Commissioner Freedman asked Commissioner Holman to clarify the motion. 


Commissioner Holman stated it is in front of him (Commissioner Freedman) and the changes are to strike the tier designation and staff will determine the funding sources, and to say in Fairview.  Commissioner Freedman asked basically the Board supports it once the funding is determined?  Commissioner Harper stated contingent upon the Board approving the funding.


The motion passed 5-0-0 with Commissioners Adams, Freedman, Harper, Holder and Homan in favor.


IVB  Approve and Designate the addition of twelve (12) projects to the SPLOST II Program.  These projects will represent designation #5


WHEREAS, the Henry County Board of Commissioners wishes to approve an amendment to the SPLOST II program designation; and


            WHEREAS, the following projects will hereby become designation#5 (5) of the SPLOST II program:


Capital Park & Recreation Hidden Valley Park $  700,000
Capital Building  Fairview Library 1,200,000
Intersection Improvement E. Atlant/Mays/Stagecoach  204,000
Intersection Improvement Panola @ S. R. 155 135,000
New Road Construction Sorrow Road
(S.R. 155 to Mays)
New Road Construction Rowan Road
(Fairview to Clark)
New Road Construction Ward Drive (to Panola Rd) 300,000
New Road Construction Harper Drive
(South of East Mays)
New Road Construction Moseley Drive
(Reagan to Mosley Rd.)
Culvert Replacement Airline Road over Camp Creek 45,000
Bridge Old Conyers over James Creek 600,000
Bridge Airline over Big Cotton Indian Creek 800,000




Commissioner Harper stated the biggest part of these projects is the Fairview Library which has been approve contingent upon finding the funding, the remaining part is SPLOST projects, should this not be allocated until the County Manager determines what formula will be used. 


Commissioner Holman stated if you were to put the entire approximately $6 million into district five, it will bring district five up to $9.9 million total spending, which is 13 % of the total percentage.  Next would be district four at 16% at $11 million, next would be district one at $12 million, 17%.  The next one is district two $14.6 million at 21% and then district three with $28.8 million at 41%.  There is remaining, $20 million to allocate.


Commissioner Holman made a motion to approve the resolution striking the Capital Building/Fairview Library. Commissioner Harper seconded the motion.  Commissioner Freedman asked for clarification of the designation.  Michael Harris responded, designations correspond to the date the resolutions were done. 


Commissioner Freedman stated his concern is there is a list of projects showing dates, what will this do to that list or is it an add on?  Michael Harris confirmed it would be an add on.  The list, particularly with road projects, can’t be lump into the first year because the projects are contingent upon the availability of monies.  The concern is whether or not there is money available to designate additional projects.


Commissioner Freedman asked if the projects on the list right now use up the SPLOST money we are projected to receive?  Mr. Harris stated it’s approximately 46% on the road projects. There is $20 million remaining.  Commissioner Holder stated none of the rest of the Commissioners has added anything to the list.  He asked the County Manager to do the percentages, and proportions of shares and bring it back to the Board.


The motion carried 4-2-0 with Commissioners Freedman, Harper, Holman and Maddox in favor and Commissioners Adams and Holder opposed.



Commissioner Holder moved to adjourn at 5:34 P.M. into Executive Session, in accordance with the provisions of O.C.G.A. 50-14-3, and other applicable laws, and pursuant to advice by Patrick Jaugstetter, County Attorney, for the purposes of discussing the acquisition of real estate, pending and /or potential litigation, and personnel matters.  Commissioner Holman seconded; the motion carried 5-0-0 with Commissioners Holder, Adams, Harper, Freedman and Holman voting in favor.


            An executive session was held.


Commissioner Holman made a motion to reconvene into public session; Commissioner Holder seconded; and the motion passed by a vote of 4-0-0, with Commissioners Holman, Harper, Adams and Holder in favor. (Commissioner Freedman was out of the room)


Commissioner Holman made a motion to approve an affidavit pertaining to executive session in support of the Chairman; Commissioner Harper seconded; and the motion passed by a vote of 4-0-0, with Commissioners Holman, Harper, Adams and Holder in favor. (Commissioner Freedman was out of the room)


Commissioner Holman made a motion to send a resolution to the Legislative body submitting Local Legislation to its Legislative Delegation to Create a Board of Elections and Registration.  Commissioner Harper seconded.  The motion passed 4-0-0 with Commissioners Adams, Harper, Holder and Holman in favor.  (Commissioner Freedman was out of the room)


Commissioner Harper made a motion to adjourn (6:30 p.m.); Commissioner Holman seconded; and the motion passed by a vote of 4-0-0, with Commissioners Holman, Harper, Adams and Holder in favor. (Commissioner Freedman was out of the room)


                                                            Leland Maddox, Chairman



Peggy Malcolm & Shay Mathis

   Deputy County Clerks

Susan Craig

   County Clerk