Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-30-2010 workshop I"""" E' City Council of Peachtree City Mi~utes of Workshop Meeting , November 30, 2010 The City Council of Peachtree City met in a workshop on Tuesday, November 30, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. Council Members in attendance were: Mayor Don Haddix, Vanessa Fleisch, Eric Imker, Kim Learnard, and Doug Sturbaum. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the revised draft County Transportation Plan (CTP) and come to an agreement on wording for a resolution. Staff members present were City Manager Bernard McMullen, City Engineer Dave Borkowski, Administrative Services Director Nikki Vrana, and County Engineer Phil Mallon. Borkowski explained that the CTP was a transportation planning document, and the meat of the plan was in Chapter 6 Plans Recommendations. He continued that the CTP was not a budget document nor was it an authorization for design or construction. He said there were three tiers of projects - Tier 1 projects were those that would be pursued in the next five years and had funding sources primarily identified; Tier 2 projects were high-priority projects planned in five- 10 years for less critical needs, but did not have funding sources; and Tier 3 projects had a 10 - 20-year time frame and had no funding identified. r: Borkowski said the project list was in Chapter 6, asking if there were any specific projects Council wanted to discuss. Mallon pointed out that the project listing was in no particular order. Learnard asked how many Peachtree City projects were in Tier 1. Mallon said there were three, adding that most of the Tier I projects were in the 2003 plan for the Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST). The City projects in Tier 1 included intersection improvements at Peachtree Parkway/Crosstown Drive, Peachtree Parkway/Braelinn Road, and Redwine Road/Robinson Road. Sturbaum said he wanted to discuss the improvements for Peachtree Parkway/Crosstown Drive. Imker said he was looking for the extension of MacDuff Parkway in the CTP, as well as County projects with a $10 - $20 million prtce tag. Haddix noted that MacDuff would be funded with private funds. Imker was also concerned about the potential traffic signal at Peachtree Parkway/Crosstown Drive, adding he did not want to see one there. McMullen said a concept report for Peachtree Parkway/Crosstown Drive had already been approved by the Department of Transportation (DOT), and they were not looking for a signal at the intersection. If the County provided the funding for the balance of the project, DOT would want to look at a roundabout or turn lanes. DOT would have to approve the concept of the alternatives. If DOT did not approve either concept, then the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) money would be lost, leaving only the SPLOST money. Imker clarified that the wording should not be changed due to the possible loss of TIP funds. McMullen said that was ,..., correct. McMullen said that, at each step of the process, it was ultimately what Council wanted. The traffic light wording was in theCTP because of the approved concept plan, but that did not mean that would happen. Once notified regarding the funding, staff would ask Council if they felt a roundabout was feasible. Imker said he understood. He was concerned about the public's ,..., I"""' -- City Council Workshop Minutes November 30, 2010 Page 2 perception of what Council signed; he wanted the public to understand Council controlled what happened. Haddix was concerned that a roundabout would eat up the property at the intersection. Sturbaum agreed with Imker. Sturbaum, Learnard, and Itnker suggested the word "potential" be added to the following clause: WHEREAS, The Comprehensive Transportation Plan identifies "potential" transportation improvement priorities and recommendations for the County, allowing the County to compete more effectively at the Regional level for limited transportation funding, thereby maximizing the tax dollars of Fayette County citizens; and Mallon said one of the Fayette County commissioners had asked that the City express support for City projects in the resolution, adding that the commissioner did not want it to look like the County supported projects in any city. Learnard asked if Fayetteville had approved a resolution yet. Mallon said they had, that the wording was different, except for the final paragraph, and they had listed all the Fayetteville projects in their resolution. McMullen said Council could add anything they wanted to the resolution. Haddix said they did not want to support the County portion of the CTP as there were projects they did not endorse. Council consensus was to look at Fayetteville's resolution prior to finalizing the City's. Haddix said Council needed to be c!iIeful with the wording, that the County endorsed projects in the City that the City might not want, and the Tier 1 projects included intersection improvements and traffic signals at Peachtree Parkway/Braeliun Road and Robinson Road/Redwine Road. Imker asked what the probability was of a signal materializing in the next five years. Borkowski said the traffic studies had just been completed. McMullen reported that Peachtree ParkwayIBraelinn Road did not meet the warrants for a signal, but improvements were recommended at the golf cart crossing. He continued that Robinson RoadlRedwine did meet the warrants, and a portion of the City's SPLOST money was dedicated to funding the design of that intersection. McMullen added that DOT was more inclined to fund projects if the design was complete and the right-of-way had been acquired. Borkowski said once a preliminary design was done, then staff would come to Council for concept approval. Mallon said the draft CTP, which was updated November 24, 2010, reflected the recent comments from the City. The projects list was almost 18 months old, so some of the wording was already out of date. The plan was to update the CTP once a year. Work on the draft began in October 2008, and the writing began in sunnner 2009. Haddix referred to the language regarding the extension of MacDuff Parkway, saying wording had not been discussed. Mallon said the wording was probably lifted out of other documents. McMullen verified that the City projects were taken from the City's transportation plan, which was done around 2007. Imker asked if the West Fayetteville bypass was totally funded by the SPLOST. McMullen said the West Fayetteville bypass had been identified as a SPLOST project, but he did not know if all the funding came from the SPLOST, reiterating that the CTP was not a budget document. Mallon said Phase 2 of the West Fayetteville bypass was a SPLOST project, but federal funds City Council Workshop Minutes November 30, 2010 Page 3 ,..., , had been prograrnmed in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTF) for Phase 3. lrnker paraphrased the wording in the last paragraph of the resolution, "we resolve...support...and recommendations as the County's base document for transportation planning." 1mker said that meant Council endorsed Phases 2 and 3 of the West Fayetteville bypass by signing the resolution. Haddix said the part that trpubled him was the actual mapping of the plans that showed tapping into 1-85 with a diarnond interchange. Itnker said he had no problem with projects being in the CTP as the County's plan; he just did not want to say he supported it. He wanted a "whereas" with exceptions. Itnker said it was the Commissioners' job to follow-up on the County transportation items. There should be no indication that the City supported Phases 2 and 3 of the bypass. - Haddix said the maps in the plan showed the bypass going in different directions. Mallon said he was farniliar with a proposed halr-diarnond interchange at SRS 92/I-85, but that project was independent of the bypass. Haddix said they also needed to know how the bypass was impacted by House Bill 277. A project for SR 92/1-85 should be considered a regional project and was subject to HB 277 funding as it was located outside of Fayette County. There seemed to be a conflict as to the standing of the plan for Phase 3. Mallon said Phase 2 of the bypass went through the existing Sandy Creek Road up to SR 92, ending at the existing West Bridge Road intersection. Phase 3 was south, going from Lester Road near the schools down to Harp Road and SR 85. ~., Haddix said there was confusion about Phases 1, 2, and 3 of the bypass, but there were also projects beyond them that the Commissioners wanted to do. Mallon said there was a need for improvements to the interstate, and there was an existing SPLOST project from the County's discretionary money for intersection improvements at NewtonlSR 92, as well as general discussion on improvements from SR 92 to 1-85, whether it was a half-diarnond interchange or improvements to SR 138, but those were not part of the west bypass. They were not defined, could consist of a new road or improvements to existing roads, and were included as a Tier 3 project. Haddix said he would send the link to the graph to Council. Fleisch asked Mallon if all phases of the West Fayetteville bypass were in Fayette County. Mallon said they were. Leamard clarified that Mallon needed approval by Council of the City projects and the policies used to guide the process. The wording had already been used by Fayetteville, and if it were available, the workshop could probably adjoum. Haddix said he did not support all the policies, because some had a regional nature to them. Mallon said the commissioners were looking for support of projects. He felt it made sense to have the projects and the policies. Council should note in the resolution that they did hot support all the policies. McMullen suggested the following: r- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE/), that we, the Mayor and Council of the City of Peachtree City, Georgia, support the Peachtree City projects and priorities contained in the 2010 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. City Council Workshop Minutes November 30, 2010 Page 4 "......, The Council consensus was the wording was good for that sentence. 1mker referred to a $4.5 million DOT project to widen SR 85 from Price Road to Grady Avenue, saying his concem was that the local share for the DOT projects would soak up any money available for the City's Tier I projects. McMullen said the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) did not set aside money specifically for Fayette County projects. Since the County was located in the non-attainment district, each 'project was evaluated in terms of its impact on air quality. Each project had to stand on its own in terms of priority. All projects were scored based on their impact on the non-attainment district. ,....., Mallon pointed out that Tier 3 included widening of SR 85 in general, and the document noted that the County was concerned only with widening the portion of SR 85 located in the County. The County would rather focus the money on making improvements to SR 85 by Starr's Mill. 1rnker asked where the $712,000 local contribution for the widening ofSR 85 from Price Road to Grady Avenue would come from. McMullen said he did not know. It was a Fayetteville project and could be one of their SPLOST projects. Mallon said most of the numbers were very conceptual. He continued that those types of projects were typically 80% federal and 20% local, and in this case, the 20% would be Fayetteville's responsibility. 1rnker said anything over $1 million on the list got his immediate attention. Mallon explained that projects that included in the SPLOST were identified in the column marked, Other Project IDs used. The projects from the 70% list had a project number, with SPLOST listed. The projects coming from the municipality's 30% share were also marked as such. Haddix asked Mallon ifthere was an updated 70% County SPLOST priority list. Mallon said the board was working on it. The list would be discussed at the commissioners' workshop on December 1. 1mker said he wanted the tier lists and the 2004 SPLOST list in an Excel format. McMullen said that County Administrator Jack Krakeel had been asked for an Excel list earlier that week, with information on the projects funded so far, the balance of SPLOST money remaining, and the remaining SPLOST projects. Mallon said currently the ARC paid 80% of the CTP project, and their goal was to update the plan every five to seven years. There was a paragraph in the CTP that called for internal updates, which would be an advantage as things changed quickly. They might need to go through this same process every December. Haddix said the City had a basic review of its transportation plan every year, a heavier review every two to three years, and a formal review every five years. Mallon said the City had been doing a better job than the County, noting the 2003 plan had not really been updated until now. Learnard clarified that the ARC had funding the CTP update. Mallon said yes, adding that some items/issues were in the CTP to meet the contractual obligations to the ARC. Leamard asked where the ARC's money came from. Mallon said he did not remember the name of the fund, but it ultimately came from federal dollars. ~ Tier 2 projects included the following: - ,....., ,....., r - City Council Workshop Minutes November 30, 2010 Page 5 Project Other Project Lead Project Purpose and Need/ Probable Local ID Project Type Name Description of Cost Share (CTP) IDs used Recommendation Expected IR-203 Intersection PC Crosstown Intersection Improvements $500,000 $500,000 @ Robinson to improve capacity, traffic Road operations and safety. . . IR-204 Intersection PC SR54@ Intersection. Improvements $1,000,000 $200,000 Commerce to improve capacity, traffic Drive operations and safety. Close median at 54, install traffic signal at SR 74. IR-205 Intersection PC SR 54@ Intersection Improvements $1,400,000 $280,000 Robinson to improve capacity, traffic Road operations and safety. Long-range. Traffic signal exists; left turn lanes on all approaches. IR-206 Intersection PC SR 74@ Intersection Improvements $250,000 $50,000 Kedron and Traffic Signal Drive (possible turn lanes on South Kedron). IR-207 Intersection PC TDK Intersection Improvements $500,000 $500,000 Boulevard and Traffic SignaL @ Tum lane improvements Dividend and possible signalization Drive when warranted. IR-208 Intersection PC Tinsley Mill Intersection Improvements $500,000 $500,000 @Peachtree on Peachtree Parkway Parkway. IR-209 Intersection PC Loring Lane Intersection Improvements $500,000 $500,000 @ Peachtree on Peachtree Parkway. Parkway Is-ora Intersection PC Georgian Intersection Improvements $500,000 $500,000 Park@ and Traffic Signal Peachtree Parkway NS-OO 1 a New Street PC and MacDuff Extension to Kcdron Drive $2,517,200 $0 FC Parkway South. This is Extension intended to be provided by Phase 1 private development north of SR 54 and west of SR 74; Peachtree City should coordinate as needed to ensure street connection. NS-OOlb New Street PC and MacDuff Extension to Kedron Drive $4,891,000 $0 FC Parkway North, This is Extension intended to be provided by ~ - ,-, City Council Workshop Minutes November 30, 2010 Page 6 Phase 2 private development north of SR 54 and west of SR 74; Peachtree City should coordinate as needed to ensure street connection. NS-IOO New Street PC SR 74 South Addition of new street $] ,578,000 $] ,578,000 Interparcel from Sierra Drive to Connection Dividend Drive. Fleisch asked what the intersection improvements at Peachtree Parkway/Tinsley Mill and Peachtree Parkway/Loring Lane were. McMullen said the concept at this time was to add left- hand turn lanes, Imker asked about the wording on the two phases of the MacDuff Parkway extension, noting that, if the wording were to go forward, no one would help with the funding. McMullen said that the intent was for the MacDuff Parkway extension to be the developers' responsibility, based on the development agreements in place. No one knew what would happen at the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court decision, then the two MacDuff Parkway projects would become County projects. McMullen said Fayette County had been added as a lead on the project as well as the City. The issue would depend on what came out of the Supreme Court. McMullen said t!J.e developers had appealed the ruling to the State Supreme Court. Haddix said it was in limbo, If the Appeals Court decision was overturned, then the development agreements were binding. If the decision was not overturned, then the City could do what it wanted, Imker said if the developers were to lose the appeal, then he wanted to make sure whatever body at ARC knew those projects needed funding. Imker said he had heard the East bypass would not happen, which would free up $12.7 million in SPLOST funding. McMullen reiterated that the project cost was expected to be $28,5 million. Twenty percent would $5.7 million, which did not mean that the County had $5.7 million budgeted against the project Imker said it did show that the $5.7 million and $6.6 million for the 20% match for each phase wou,ld come out of SPLOST funds. McMullen said if they chose to fund the projects. Imker said i( the County chose not to fund those projects, then the money could be obligated to something else. Mallon said the consultant provided the numbers in the CTP. Imker said that was why he wanted an Excel file of the 2004 list, to get the right numbers. Imker referred to Table 6.1.5 CangidateProjects Not Recommended for Implementation, which included an intersection study of SR 54/SR 74. The project was not recommended for implementation because the project was to be advanced by DOT. Three other projects were also not recommended for implemen~ation, including the TDK Boulevard extension, operational improvements at Walt Banks/Peachtree Parkway, and the widening of Crosstown Drive Borkowski said he had been told by a DOT district engineer that the proposed grade separation for SR 54/SR 74 would be cancelled and taken out of the TIP, Haddix said there had been two other concepts for the intersection. Borkowski said the only one in the TIP was the grade City Council Workshop Minutes November 30, 2010 Page 7 ~ separation. McMullen said the concepts had come from DOT's consultant, and the City had not liked them. The Path and Bike list, Table 6.2.4B, showed 100 new paths, primarily in the City. Imker was convinced all the projects were there, asking ifthere was a line item for maintenance. McMullen said the last two projects were a charging station program to install stations at various locations throughout the City and a path enhancement program to continue the program to widen the paths to the 10-foot standard. Imker said he liked having those projects in the document. Borkowski explained what Concept 3 was, noting it was the long-range transit vision for the Atlanta region developed by the Regional Transit Committee's predecessors, the Transit Planning Board and the Transit Implementation Board. Concept 3 was developed in August 2008. Borkowski added that transit and current plans must be discussed in the CTP as a stipulation of the ARC funding. Haddix said it was a 30-year program contained in HB 277 that was mandated to be developed. The last date on the current approval was September 2010, and it was under continuous development. Haddix said the goal of the Transit Committee was to take control of all the transit elements within ARC and to be the overseer of transit's development within ARC. ,,-., Imker said Concept 3 was in the CTP, but there was a statement in the document that said the population of the County did not endorse or agree with the aspects. Haddix said the Regional Transportation Roundtable (RTR) controlled the plan for the region. The plan would not be broken up within the region. If Concept 3 was approved, it would be approved for the entire region. The funding was a different matter, but the plan would be in place. Fleisch said a plan without funding was non-existent. Borkowski said the RTRs were to look at Concept 3 and would decide what would be funded in the region. Fleisch reiterated that the County's CTP stated that it did not support Concept 3. Haddix said that did not matter; HB 277 overrode local plans. What was approved on a regional basis was approved for every county in the region. How the construction was implemented was another issue, but the counties would have no say. Imker suggested another "whereas" clause to the effect that the CTP referenced Concept 3 as a long-term vision, not a funding document, and recognized the TIP as the funding document. Haddix said he would like stronger language - the Peachtree City City Council had determined there was no support for Concept 3 as far as implementation. McMullen pointed out that the "whereas" clauses in resolutions were statements of fact. He said that the following "whereas" reflected a statement offact based on the findings of the CTP: WHEREAS, The Comprehensive Transportation Plan reflects a lack of support and does not include recommendations for public transit infrastructure projects or for scheduled, or fixed-route transit service; and ,..... Imker suggested adding "including Concept 3" or something to that effect. Haddix said the resolution would be read by several agencies, and the statement that the City did not support Concept 3 needed to be clear. Imker said the implication in the clause was Fayette County did City Council Workshop Minutes November 30, 2010 Page 8 McMullen said the position of Council was stated in the "Therefore" section and suggested the following wording: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED, that we, the Mayor and Council of the City of Peachtree City, Georgia, support the Peachtree City projects and priorities contained in the 2010 Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Additionally, the Mayor and Council reiterate their lack of support for funding for any portion of Concept 3 within Fayette County. Sturbaum said, as long as the others agreed, he felt that the resolution was good. Imker asked for a few minutes at the December 2 meeting to explain why he was signing the resolution. He wanted to emphasize the paragraph McMullen just read. r- Tlrere bcing", funhcr b_~. '" di_, lb, mooting. ~ed ,,,,27 p.m. . ~ ~.W~ Pam Dufres ,Deputy City Clerk on Haddix, Mayor ~ f'1