John Daniell Saved Oconee County Money By Being Elected

Well Paid vs. Not So Well Paid

Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis saved county taxpayers $4,394.09 starting in January of this year when he refused to accept the increase in his salary that is specified in the county’s enabling legislation as a reward for his election to a third term.

This is a significant amount of money, but it is $855.46 less than the voters saved on their own by turning down Don Norris’ request that he be given a fifth term as commissioner.

The amount saved when voters selected Commissioner John Daniell to replace Norris in the Republican primary in July of 2008 was $5,249.55 and was considerably more than enough to cover the costs of the increases given to Commissioners Margaret Hale, Chuck Horton and Jim Luke.

The county’s enabling legislation specifies that each of the three re-elected commissioners as well as Davis was entitled to a raise starting in January as a result of their re-election.

The total for Hale, Horton and Luke was $3,149.73, or $2,099.82 less than the difference between the salary Norris would have received with his reward for being elected for a fifth term and the salary paid Daniell.

Daniell, who was elected in November without opposition after defeating Norris in the Republican primary in July, earns $20,998.26, versus the salary of $26,247.81 that Norris would have received. Norris was seeking his sixth four-year term.

This bizarre set of calculations of the salaries of the commissioners was not an issue in the election campaigns of last July, but The Oconee Enterprise made Davis' decision to reject his increase an issue as Daniell, Hale, Horton and Luke pushed for passage of an ordinance changing the relationship of the four commissioners to the administrative departments of the county.

That ordinance was passed on Aug. 4,with all four commissioners voting for the change. Davis, who does not vote unless there is a tie, asked that his opposition to the ordinance be recorded in the minutes, and it was.

The Enterprise reported as its top story in its July 16 edition that Davis had not taken the salary increase specified in the county’s enabling legislation, while Hale, Horton and Luke had. In that same edition, the paper attacked all four commissioners in an editorial on the salary matter.

Though the raises took place on Jan. 1, in the county’s 2008-2009 budget, the paper linked them to the county’s 2009-2010 budget, in which the salaries of county employees were not increased.

"It has apparently not crossed the minds of his four board members that they might share the plight of their underlings," the paper said. "His" refers to Davis.

The editorial also incorrectly linked the salary increases to annual cost of living increases for the county’s constitutional officers, such as the sheriff and the tax commissioner. In fact, there were no such increases for the county’s constitutional officers this year, or for the commissioners.

The pay for the chairman and the other four commissioners is spelled out in the 1998 legislation passed by the Georgia General Assembly specifically for Oconee County. The need for changes in that enabling legislation was a part of the discussion of the just-past reorganizational ordinance, though relative salaries were not discussed.

That legislation specifies that "The chairperson and members shall receive an additional amount of 5 percent of their respective salaries for each four-year term as a commissioner completed."

The formula for computation of the salaries for the chairman and the four commissioners is spelled out in the enabling legislation. It is a complex formula, and the Enterprise got it wrong in its story.

According to the legislation, "The chairperson of the Board of Commissioners of Oconee County shall receive a base salary of 113 percent of the highest base salary payable to the following county officers: the sheriff, probate judge, tax commissioner, and clerk of superior court."

The members of the board of commissioners are to be paid a salary of 27 percent of the highest base salary payable to the same four officers.

The Enterprise presented a table showing the salaries of the sheriff, probate judge, tax commissioner and clerk of superior court. Since all have been elected numerous times, the salaries shown do not reflect the base.

Melinda Smith, director of Human Resources for the county, gave me a copy of a letter she had received from County Attorney Daniel Haygood specifying the salaries for the five members of the commission.

Haygood subsequently walked me through the computation of the salaries in a series of email messages to make sure I understood the procedures.

The base salary for computation of all of the salaries is based on the highest applicable minimum salary for the four officers listed in the legislation, which is $64,776.16, plus a state-set supplement of $8,609.23. The total base is $73,385.39.

The chairman’s base salary, at 113 percent of that figure, is $82,925.49.

Davis’ salary, had he decided to take the full amount allowed, would have added $8,292.55 to that amount, or two times 5 percent of the base, since he has begun his third term and is entitled to an additional 5 percent of the base for each four-year term completed.

In addition, the state had two cost of living adjustments of 2.89 percent and 3 percent prior to this year. These are compounded, meaning that the salary is adjusted for the 2.89 percent and then the total is adjusted again for the 3 percent.

Based on this computation, Davis could have received $96,669.87 but chose instead to take only $92,275.78.

Davis made his decision to not take the higher amount sometime before April 6, but there was no public announcement of the decision until the Enterprise ran the story on July 16, in the middle of the discussion of the reorganization ordinance.

I had asked Smith about salaries for the commissioners in early April, and she responded in an email on April 6 but made no mention of the decision by Davis not to take the higher amount.

The base figure for the commissioners is 27 percent of the base figure of $73,385.39, or $19,814.03. The 5 percent increases are added to this, as are the two cost of living adjustments.

Hale starting getting a salary of $23,098.08 on Jan. 1, compared with $22,048.17 prior to her reelection. Hale was beginning her third term.

Horton and Luke received salaries of $22,048.17 starting on Jan. 1, compared with $20,998.25 prior to their reelection. They were beginning their second terms.

Though the newspapers often refer to the four commissioners as part-time and to chairman Davis as full-time, there is nothing in the 1998 legislation that currently governs the operation of the county that makes that distinction.

Rather the distinction is in the salary.

The chairman, in addition to heading the board of commissioners, also is called the "chief executive officer of the county" in the legislation, but the duties of the chairman acting in that capacity are not spelled out.

The ordinance passed by the commission last week was designed in part to address that fact.

Perhaps the media in the future should take to distinguishing between the "well-paid" commissioner and the "not-so-well-paid" commissioners, or the WP commissioner and the NSWP commissioners, since salary is part of the defining legislation.

Davis’s decision not to take his reward for being re-elected didn’t change that distinction.

Oconee County BOC Passes Reorganization Ordinance

Chair Votes No

The Oconee County Board of Commissioners voted 4 to 0 tonight to approve an ordinance specifying that the county administrative officer reports to the full board rather than just the chairman.

The ordinance contains an organizational chart for the county, specifies that the board will have control over its agenda, and outlines procedures to guarantee that the board plays a role in the budget process.

The board took the action after a final public hearing on the ordinance. Many of those who spoke asked the board to delay action and get more input from citizens.

Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis stated his opposition to the ordinance and also asked that a decision be delayed.

Commissioner Chuck Horton made the motion to approve the ordinance, and Commissioner John Daniell seconded. Commissioners Margaret Hale and Jim Luke approved.

Davis asked that his opposition to the ordinance be recorded in the minutes. The enabling legislation for Oconee County specifies that the chairman votes only in the case of a tie.

At the beginning of the meeting, Commissioner Daniell read a time line he had compiled of discussions of the need for a change in the way the Board of Commissioners operates that began in 2005.

Chairman Davis said that by his interpretation three-quarters of the people in the county opposed the changes proposed in the ordinance. He said he reached that conclusion based on public comments at the three public hearings and on email messages received by the county.

Luke challenged the usefulness of the data in judging public opinion.

County Attorney Daniel Haygood added two sections to the ordinance before it was approved. One specified how the ordinance could be changed and the other specified the administrative procedures for handling violations.

The ordinance was drafted by Haygood at the request of the four members of the board and in consultation with experts at the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia.

Background information on the ordinance is contained in a posting here on Sunday.

Note: I could not attend the meeting. This posting is based on reports from Charles Baugh, Sarah Bell and Russ Page, who did attend.

Control at the Heart of Oconee County Discussions of Reorganization Ordinance

Citizen Power at Center of Discussion

The most informative part of the discussions with the public about the proposed reorganization ordinance for Oconee County came not during the two public hearings held by the Board of Commissioners, but in the public comment section at the end of the July 28 meeting.

Local businessman Mike Power came to the podium and said he was still trying to understand the proposed ordinance. "Who would have the last say in a personnel matter, a department head matter?" he asked.

County Attorney Daniel Haygood said that disciplinary matters would go to an administrative hearing officer, but simple hiring and firing of department heads "is going to be by the board."

Power asked: "And how is it now?"

Davis responded: "Now the chair has the responsibility, with the input and knowledge of the board. Fortunately, we haven’t had many of them."

Commissioner Jim Luke followed: "Mr. Chairman, I can’t let that pass. I’ve tried to be a gentleman through this process. But I just can’t let that pass. How many positions do we have that I’ve gotten a letter from you saying you hired somebody for that position? How often has that happened? In every case since I’ve been commissioner, but one. One hiring I knew the person was being considered before the hiring. I cannot let that pass."

Davis: "Which one was that?"

Luke: "The one I knew about was Mr. White. Any of those positions since then. Emil Beshara was one. I got an email from you saying that we had hired Beshara.

Davis said: "But you knew we were discussing it?"

Luke said: "No, I did not. Didn’t know who he was. Only after I got the letter from you."

Davis turned to Power and said: "Now I make the decision."

The reference was to the heads of two of the most important departments in the county. B.R. White is the head of the Planning Department. Emil Beshara is the head of the Public Works Department.

A third crucial department, Utility, has been headed by Chris Thomas, then John Hatcher, and now again Chris Thomas since Gary Dodd retired in 2007.

If the BOC passes the proposed ordinance at its regular meeting on Tuesday night, the hiring of department heads would be approved by the five-member board "based on the joint recommendation of the Chairperson, Administrative Officer and Human Resources Director."

"Discharge" of a department head would be by the board based on the county’s Human Resources Ordinance and upon recommendation of the administrative officer and the chairperson.

The ordinance also proposes that the county’s administrative officer and finance director "shall be hired and discharged by the Board of Commissioners." Both also would report directly to the full board. At present, both are hired by the chair and report to the chair.

The county clerk and the county attorney would continue to be appointed and discharged by the full board, as is the case now.

County Attorney Haygood drafted the proposed legislation after a series of meetings involving the commissioners going back to last September. He also consulted with experts from the Carl Vinson Institute of Government at the University of Georgia and reviewed case law on such ordinances in Georgia.

It was at Davis’ initiative that the Carl Vinson Institute was brought into the discussions.

The commission is scheduled to take final action on the ordinance on Tuesday night. The meeting starts at 7 p.m. at the courthouse in Watkinsville.

Power asked Haygood at the meeting on July 28 if the ordinance required the county to change its enabling legislation.

"Not in my opinion," Haygood said.

Haygood went on to say that the enabling legislation for the county is "vague" and only says that the chairman of the board of commissioners shall be the chief executive officer of the county.

The enabling legislation is clear about the power of the legislative branch, or the commission. According to the original 1917 legislation passed by the Georgia General Assembly to set up the government structure in the county, the commission has responsibility for finances of the county.

The 1917 ordinance said the commission is responsible for "examining and auditing and setting accounts of all offices having the care, management, correction, keeping and distribution of moneys belonging to the county or appropriated to its use and benefit."

Only seven citizens spoke at the public hearing on July 28, and only nine spoke at the first public hearing on July 7. In addition, four persons, two of whom spoke at the July 28 public hearing, spoke at the public comments section of the meeting.

Power did not speak at the public hearing itself.

The back-and-forth at the public comment section of the July 28 meeting contrasted with the passive response of the members of the commission in both of the public hearings.

In those cases, Commissioner Margaret Hale told citizens should would be pleased to talk with them via telephone or in person if they wanted to know why she was in favor of the ordinance. The other three commissioners did not speak.

The Oconee Enterprise, the weekly newspaper in the county, has been very critical of the commissioners and of the attempt to pass the ordinance. Chairman Davis has been clear in his opposition to the ordinance, and the paper has supported him both through its editorials and its coverage.

Typical of the tone of that coverage was the story that appeared at the top of the front page of the July 30 edition of the paper. The headline said "Luke lashes at BOC Chairman," and had as its first paragraph this sentence: "Commissioner Jim Luke blew his cool Tuesday night."

Luke was calm, as the video clip above shows. The unedited clip is taken from the county’s recording of the meeting.

The commissioners have said repeatedly that the problem is communication between the chairman and the other four commissioners, and this has turned out to be a mistake.

Johnathan McGinty, a former reporter for the Athens Banner-Herald who currently has a blog on local politics, has argued in today’s paper that communication problems can be fixed without an ordinance.

Enterprise Editor Blake Giles in a column in the July 30 edition of the paper argued that the commissioners have "attacked a communication problem with a sledge hammer."

By controlling the flow of information, the commissioners have said in their working sessions, Davis puts them in a position of voting in public on issues that they do not fully understand or are not confident they understand.

The enabling legislation says Davis votes only in the case of a tie, so the commissioners, rather than Davis, often have to deal with reactions to decisions once made. The commissioners also have accused Davis of making promises behind the scenes and then leaving them in a position to have to ratify or break the promises.

The ordinance specifically requires Administrative Officer Alan Theriault and Finance Director Jeff Benko to report to all commissioners as a way around the communication problem. Since all department heads would report to Theriault, the commissioners would get their information from department heads through Theriault, whom they would hire and fire, rather than through Davis, who is elected.

Commissioners Hale, Luke and Chuck Horton have said the problem has existed during the time they have been on the commission. Luke and Horton are starting their second terms. Hale joined the commission when Davis was elected two terms-back.

Commissioner Don Norris, defeated in last year’s elections, defended Davis when these criticisms surfaced, saying he always had all the information he needed. This weakened the position of the other commissioners until Norris was replaced by Commissioner John Daniell in January.

The three continuing commissioners have said they have tried to fix this problem of lack of information repeatedly by simply talking about it with Davis. They have said they have had no success.

In an interview I did with Davis in his office on July 13, he argued, as he did on July 28, that citizens should have a say before the commissioners act on the ordinance. He did not make that argument until the ordinance was drafted.

Davis said during that interview that citizens might want to consider eliminating the commission entirely by electing only a single commissioner–the chairman–or consider having the commissioners run by districts.

If all of the commissioners were elected by districts, their power would be diminished relative to the chair, who would run at large and could claim to represent the whole county. This problem could be solved by having some commissioners run by district and others elected at large, but Davis did not suggest that strategy.

As the exchange between Davis and Luke at the July 28 meeting and the comments by Davis to me make clear, the tussle really is over power.

McGinty and Giles missed the point that "communication" has just been used as shorthand for "power" in the discussions.

It also is clear from comments of several of the citizens who spoke at the two public hearing that many also did not understand–or want to understand–what the issue is behind the commissioner’s complaint with how things are done at present.

The county now has a very strong executive branch represented by the commission chairman and a very weak legislative branch in the commission, on which the executive also sits.

The ordinance is designed to change that.

***

The edited version of the two citizen comment sections from the July 28 meeting is on my Vimeo site.

The public hearing on the ordinance at the July 7 meeting was at the front of the meeting. The recording of that meeting is on the county’s Vimeo site.

(I spoke at both hearings. I argued the county is well served both by a strong chairman and a strong commission and that the commission should pass the ordinance. I did recommend that one provision be dropped so the ordinance deals entirely with the power of the commission.)

Background information on the ordinance is available in a number of earlier postings here: July 28, 27, 13, 8, and 5, June 17, May 19, 13, 6 and April 26.

Video recordings of the May 6 and May 19 work sessions on the ordinance are on my Vimeo site, as is a clip on the ordinance from the June 30 commission meeting. The June 23 work session on the ordinance is on the county Vimeo site following the called meeting for that date.

The April 26 posting is particularly helpful in understanding the motivation of the four commissioners for pursuing the ordinance. It is based on a meeting held back in September and includes statements from the commissioners on their sense of frustration in trying to correct what they see as a problem short of passing an ordinance.

The April 26 report contains a full audio recording of the meeting, in Part I and Part II. The order of the speakers is explained at the bottom of the April 26 posting.

Oconee County BOC Chair Asks for Delay of Action on Reorganization

Following Citizen Comments

At the end of a public hearing tonight during which seven citizens spoke, Oconee County Board of Commissioners Chairman Melvin Davis suggested the board should postpone action on its proposed reorganizational plan until citizens have a chance to consider all the options.

The seven speakers were not unified in their reaction to the proposed change, which is designed to strengthen the hand of the commissioners in dealing with county affairs, though most were critical and thought more public involvement was needed before a decision is to be made.

Franklin Shumake told the board that the county should “make a thorough study in the next 12 months of what forms of government will be most beneficial for our county” before any action is taken.

Kate McDaniel said the county needed a citizen “advisory committee” to study the proposed action.

When the last person had spoken, Davis said the board should consider “tabling and postponing” action on the resolution given the comments of the citizens and that a future decision should be taken only “with the public very involved.”

Final action on the proposed ordinance is scheduled for the next regular meeting of the board on Aug. 4. The hearing tonight was the second scheduled on the ordinance, which County Attorney Daniel Haygood drafted after discussions with the board going back to last September.

Board members provided few reactions to the comments of the citizens tonight. Commissioner Margaret Hale once again offered to discuss personally the proposals with anyone who wanted to call her for that purpose.

Two of the seven persons who spoke during the public hearing and two additional citizens addressed the board about the ordinance during the public comment period at the end of the meeting, and during this time Commissioner Jim Luke challenged a response Chairman Davis gave to businessman Mike Power, who had not spoken earlier.

Davis told Power that the full commission was involved in hiring of department heads, and Luke said that certainly was not the case. In the end, Davis withdrew his statement and said he alone hired department heads.

(I was one of those who spoke at the meeting. I asked the commission to pass the ordinance after eliminating a section dealing with the powers of the chairman. I said I felt the section was unnecessary and that the commission should focus on defining its own operating procedures rather than specifying the activities of the chairman.)

The chairman of the commission–the legislative body of the county–also serves as chief executive officer for the county.

Davis had told me in an interview I did with him on July 13 that he planned to ask the board to table the ordinance. He said at that time he had no plans to challenge the ordinance legally if it is passed.

Some Opposition Builds to Oconee County Reorganization Plan

Newspaper Lends Pen

With The Oconee Enterprise leading the way, at least some opposition has built to the attempt by the Oconee County Board of Commissioners to change the way the county conducts its business.

The weekly paper has run critical stories at the top of the front pages of the last two editions. It also has strongly attacked in editorials in each of those two papers the four commissioners pushing the ordinance .

The Enterprise also has run letters critical of the four commissioners in both papers.

The commissioners have been working on the ordinance since last September, but they did not allow public comment until they gave it first reading on July 7. Only nine people spoke, with opinions mixed. (I was one of those who spoke, and I criticized part of the ordinance and favored other parts.)

Those with opinions on the proposed ordinance will get another chance to express them tomorrow night in the second public hearing, which will be held at the regular agenda-setting meeting of the commission. The meeting starts at 7 p.m. in the commission chamber in the courthouse in Watkinsville.

The commission is scheduled to take final action on the proposed ordinance at its regular meeting on Aug. 4.

The ordinance, drafted by county attorney Daniel Haygood, has eight sections. It changes the organizational chart for the county so that the county attorney, the county clerk, the administrative officer and the finance director all report to the full commission.

At present, the county attorney and the clerk report to the commission, but the administrative officer and the finance director report to the chairman of the board of commissioners.

The chairman of the board of commissioners is both the chief administrator of the county and head of the commission, according to the enabling legislation for the county. The commission is the legislative body of the county.

At the meetings leading up to drafting of the ordinance, Commission Chairman Melvin Davis has defended the status quo, while the other four commissioners have called for change.

The proposed ordinance gives the full commission a stronger role in developing the budget for the county, specifies that the board has final authority for hiring of department heads, and gives the board more control than it currently exercises over the agenda of its meetings .

The existing enabling legislation makes the full board of commissioners responsible for the finances of the county, and the proposed ordinance states how the commission wishes to exercise that responsibility. In the past, the four commissioners have been deferential to the initiatives of the chairman.

One section of the ordinance does attempt to assign "leadership" to the chairman in coordination of intergovernmental activities, economic development, public relations and evaluation of county services. The chairman already does each of these things.

(In my comments on July 7, I said it was my view that this section was unnecessary and seemed to be attempting to restrain the chairman rather than specifying full commission responsibilities.)

In last week’s edition of the Enterprise (July 23), the paper had as its top story on the front page an article about a meeting of county department heads in which, according to the article, opposition to the reorganization was voiced.

All department heads now report to Chairman Davis, though the article did not point out that fact.

The headline on the article in the Enterprise was "County staff drags feet." The paper had posted a more restrained version of the same article on its web site on July 17 under the headline "County department heads have questions."

The paper ran a list of 38 questions posed by the department heads on the web site and again in the July 23 edition of the paper. One of those questions was: "Do the commissioners understand the impact of 300-plus county employees and their families and friends as a voting block?"

The editorial in the paper criticized the commissioners for cutting the salary of the Keep Oconee County Beautiful Commission director during the budget process. Chairman Davis had not included that cut in his proposed budget, but it was added by the other four commissioners.

The editorial about this budget decision was tame compared with the one the paper ran on July 16.

That editorial was in response to a lead story in the paper that Chairman Davis had decided not to accept a salary increase of $4,393 specified in the enabling legislation to take place at the beginning of this year, though Commissioners Margaret Hale, Chuck Horton and Jim Luke were accepting their increases of $1,050 each.

Daniell, as a newly elected commissioner, was not entitled to any increase.

The editorial said: "Only Davis showed leadership, example and class, if you will, and thought, if he did not say, no, it would be indecent, vulgar." (That is the original punctuation in the editorial.)

Also on the front page of the paper, another article carried the headline "Citizens puzzled over BOC shuffle." The article does not quote any citizens, but rather contains quotes from all of the commissioners except John Daniell about the proposed ordinance and its justification.

The July 16 editorial ends with a reminder that Daniell and Hale will be running for reelection in less than a year–if they want to keep their seats.

Oconee County voters overwhelmingly approved staggered terms for the commissioners in 2007 after the commissioners voted to put the issue on the ballot. Hale and Daniell were elected to two-year terms last November.

One of the criticisms of staggered terms is that they mean at least some members of the commission are almost always confronting reelection, making decision-making within the commission more political.

The Enterprise–and at least one department head, it seems–want to make sure no one forgets about next year's elections.

Oconee County Reports Sewage Spills on Calls and Barber Creeks

Two in Two Days

Oconee County had two sewage spills into local creeks last week, requiring formal posting of signs at the sites and the filing of reports to the state Environmental Protection Division.

Both spills were minor, with 1,290 gallons of sewage entering Calls Creek on July 13 and 1,050 entering a tributary to Barber Creek on July 14.

According to the notices the county put on its web site last week, sampling of Calls Creek downstream from the spill indicated fecal coliform levels were below EPD plant permitted effluent limitations and sampling downstream of the Barber Creek spill indicated fecal coliform levels were below detection level.

Utility Department Director Chris Thomas told me in an email message today that "due to the size and nature of the spills, EPD did not require creek sampling. In a situation like this, the peace of mind that the sampling provides was worth the extra cost and effort."

Visitors to the popular Harris Shoals Park in Watkinsville over the weekend were confronted with a sign where visitors often wade. The sign, pictured on the right, informed the visitors of the spill.
Thomas told me the spill was about a half mile upstream from the sign.

According to the public notice on the county web site, the spill was caused by an accumulation of roots in a sewer line. After the blockage was removed, crews applied lime and removed debris associated with the resulting spill, the notice said.

The spill affecting Barber Creek occurred at the intersection of Malcolm Bridge Road and Rocky Branch Road, according to Thomas, and then followed the ditch on Rocky Branch Road and entered the stream that feeds a pond at the corner of Rocky Branch and Malcolm Bridge roads.

The spill was caused by a traffic incident that severed a valve attached to a pressurized sewer pipe, according to the county report. After the line was repaired, crews applied lime and removed debris and standing water associated with the spill, according to the report.

Barber Creek flows through a large number of subdivisions in the northeastern part of the county downstream from the spill.

On Feb. 24 the county reported a spill of an estimated 8,000 gallons of sewage into Calls Creek near the lift station on Durham Mill Way. The line became blocked, forcing the sewage out of a manhole and into the creek.

The county operates two sewage treatment facilities, the first on Calls Creek in Watkinsville and the other on Barber Creek on Rocky Branch road near the new high school. The Calls Creek plant uses membrane filtration for treatment, while the Rocky Branch facility applies the sewage to controlled hay fields on the site.

The county is in the process of expanding the capacity of the Calls Creek facility. Plans to upgrade the Rocky Branch facility to a membrane filtration plant have been put on hold because of the effects of the economic downturn and the drought on Utility Department revenues.

Daniells Bridge Road Upgrades Put on Hold by Oconee County

Forget the Flags

Travelers along Daniells Bridge Road can expect to see roadway construction in the next month or two at the intersection with the Oconee Connector, but the county has no firm schedule for doing any additional work on the roadway east of that intersection, according to the head of Public Works for the county.

In December, the county had said it planned to finish by the end of June widening of Daniells Bridge Road to three lanes back to just east of the blind curve.

"Assuming the BOC agrees with our final numbers and approach, I’d like this to be completed before the end of this fiscal year (end of June)," Public Works Director Emil Beshara wrote me on Dec. 3, when I asked him to confirm what he had said at the Board of Commissioners meeting the night before. "Weather could cause delays as could availability of contractors."

Beshara told me in an interviews in his office on July 10 that the county is waiting on further development along Daniells Bridge Roadway before it begins the upgrade it presented to citizens back at the end of last year.

Specifically, Beshara said, the county is waiting to see what happens to the 9.1-acre site just east of the blind curve on Daniells Bridge Road. That piece of property, owned by Dolores N. Lance and Dorothy N. Anglin, was rezoned from agricultural and residential use to Office Business Park on Dec. 2, 2008.

The county said at the time of the rezone of that property that it would upgrade Daniells Bridge Road by making it three lanes wide with a center turn lane to the eastern end of the site.

The county committed $400,000 in Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax money to the project. That money had previously been dedicated only for improvements to the Daniells Bridge Road and Oconee Connector intersection.

Beshara said in my interview with him on July 10 that the county does not have enough money to do the full upgrade it presented to the public at the Dec. 2 BOC meeting. Some of that money, he said, must come from the developers of the Lance and Anglin site, who agreed, as is usual in such cases, to make roadway improvements as part of their request for the rezone.

"There is no way we could do this project start to finish with only $400,000," Beshara told me in the interview.

As of this writing, the 9.1 acres remain in the hands of Lance and Anglin, according to the county tax records. Because of the rezone, however, its value has increased from $349,267 to $637,000 for 2009.

When the property was rezoned, Stephen D. Jenkins and Edward Nichols of Athens proposed to build a two-story office building on the site to be known as Perimeter Center. According to documents filed with the rezone request, infrastructure construction plans were expected to be approved by June of 2009, and total build-out was to be completed by January of 2011.

Nothing has been done since the rezone, and the Lance and Anglin property remains the only property east of the blind curve on Daniells Bridge Road that is not agricultural or residential, shown in green, blue or white on the county zoning map.

Lance and Anglin first asked for the rezone in May of 2007, and residents in the subdivisions around the site protested that the development was unsafe because it is located just east of the blind curve on Daniells Bridge Road as the road nearly touches the entrance to SR Loop 10 off SR 316 East.

The BOC turned down that rezone.

Lance and Anglin filed suit against the county, and the matter came back before the board in the fall of 2008 as part of that settlement. More than 400 individuals signed another petition against the rezone, but this time the board approved the rezone after asking Beshara to present it with redesign plans for the roadway.

Just after the rezone, small flags appeared in the right of way on both sides of Daniells Bridge Road, making it seem that some action on the roadway improvements was imminent.

"What you saw out there on the ground starting back in December was the utility location process," Beshara said on July 10. "All those flags out there identified the exact locations of the various underground utilities, including fiber optic, gas, power, telephone, what have you. All those had to be surveyed."

The purpose was to determine which of these, if any, would have to be moved, Beshara said. In the end, it turned out that just a couple "would be under asphalt" and will have to be relocated, he said.

He said when I talked to him that he had not yet seen final plans, being prepared by ABE Consulting. Abe Abouhamdan, the president of ABE Consulting and winner of the bid for design of the widening of the road, also is chairman of the county’s Land use and Transportation Committee.

ABE Consulting is "about 95 percent completed with the design," Beshara told me in the interview.

Beshara said the county road crews might do some paving at those places on Daniells Bridge Road that are now only two lanes wide "if they have a week where they are caught up with their maintenance activities."

In the meantime, he said, citizens will see work being done at the Oconee Connector and Daniells Bridge Road intersection, where QuikTrip plans to build a gas station and convenience store.

Beshara said he expects QuikTrip to start filling the site and adding turn lanes along both roadways within the next six to eight weeks.

The county will then do some similar work to add lanes on the opposite side of the Connector, he said.

QuikTrip will have two entrances, one on the Oconee Connector and the other on Daniells Bridge Road. At some point in the future, a median will be added to the connector, Beshara said at the hearing on the QuikTrip plans on June 2.

At that point, traffic entering the station heading south on the Connector will have to enter the station via the Daniells Bridge Road entrance.

Beshara at that June 2 meeting expressed concern over safety of the Oconee Connector entrance because traffic will be entering the station after crossing two lanes of traffic on the Connector heading north to SR 316.

The long-range plan is for Daniells Bridge Road to be five lanes wide, with two lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. Daniells Bridge Road will serve as the southern part of a loop road circling the busy SR 316 connection with SR Loop 10.

Construction of the northern part of that loop will begin soon, but the southern part will require a second flyover of Loop 10, and Beshara said that probably won’t happen until between 2020 to 2025.

The plans to make Daniells Bridge Road three lanes wide will serve as a stopgap.

Reconstruction of Daniells Bridge Road as part of the QuikTrip roadway will only result in four lanes–two on the north, a center lane, and one on the south, according to Beshara.

It will not be possible to make Daniells Bridge Road any wider than three lanes through the blind curve without taking additional right of way from property along the roadway, Beshara said at the Dec. 2 BOC meeting and again in my conversation with him earlier this month.

An option, which Beshara acknowledged both before the BOC and to me again, was to create a new roadway behind the existing houses on Daniells Bridge Road. This would have the effect of eliminating the curve in the roadway.

The county has never made public a full map of this "circle" route, and I asked Beshara if he had any to make available.

He said he had a drawing of the full loop that he created for the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) in April of this year. He gave me an electronic copy of that map.

The blind curve on Daniells Bridge Road is the result of the construction of SR 316 and SR Loop 10.

Beshara showed me a copy of a GDOT map of the County from 1972. A blowup of the map shows Daniells Bridge Road intersecting with Epps Bridge Road and then circling back around to meet Mars Hill Road near the current intersection.

I began the interview on July 10 by telling Beshara "I was trying to get a picture of what the status of the Daniells Bridge Road upgrade is."

In answering, he referred first to the drawings that had been done by ABE Consulting and then started talking about the work at the QuikTrip site.

About 20 minutes into the 45-minute conversation, I asked again about plans for the work discussed when the Lance and Anglin site was rezoned. I’ve edited the next seven minutes of the interview, and it is available for listening and download on my Box.net site.