Those Attending Representing

MATS POLICY MINUTES

August 7, 2013

A meeting of the MATS Policy Committee was held on August 7, 2013 in the Bibb Co. Engineering Office. There were 15 voting members present, thereby establishing a quorum. At the start of the meeting, Lonzy Edwards made a motion that the I-16/I-75 and the Forest Hill Rd. projects should be deferred from the list of TIP projects. Mayor Reichert stated that this item should be discussed when it is presented on the agenda under the TIP. Subsequently, the meeting agenda and minutes were approved with a minor change. Nick Pietrzak discussed the CAC meeting and Don Tussing reviewed the actions of the MATS Technical Committee. Under public input, Calder Clay, Ben Wells, Gary Bechtel and others made comments concerning the Forest Hill Rd. project. There were concerns that the project was overdesigned and would harm the neighborhood.

The first item on the agenda was the draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Jim Thomas stated that the TIP takes the projects in the Long Range Transportation Plan and allows them to be programmed for funding. He then stated that the I-75 widening project from Pierce Ave. to I-16 had been removed from the TIP and replaced by the Pleasant Hill Mitigation project. In addition, the Forest Hill Rd. project in the TIP contains funding for right-of-way acquisition. He also commented that the TIP is a draft document and will not be finalized until there is a public review period. Joe Allen commented that the Forest Hill Rd. project is overkill for the community. Subsequently, Jim Thomas explained that there is no more federal funding available for design work on the Forest Hill Rd. project so it would require the use of local funds. Lonzy Edwards then made a motion that was seconded by Rick Hutto to defer action on the I-16/I-75 and Forest Hill Rd. projects in the TIP. Mr. Hutto commented that the I-16/I-75 project should be scaled back because it will harm the surrounding neighborhoods. Sam Hart stated that there is a need for the project but the scope of the project is too large and should be deferred. Jim Thomas remarked that the Policy Committee can change the document or defer it but the projects will still remain in the LRTP. Nick Pietrzak then remarked that projects can be taken out of the TIP but they can also be put back in the following year.

Mayor Reichert stated that removing all the I-16/I-75 projects from the TIP will result in the delay of the Pleasant Hill mitigation project. The Pleasant Hill mitigation project must be included in the TIP before any work can be done. Subsequently, Rick Hutto stated that he would like to make a separate motion to include the mitigation project in the TIP document. Henry Ficklin then commented that the mitigation project would not be needed if the I-16/I-75 projects are removed from the TIP. Mayor Reichert replied that the mitigation project for Pleasant Hill is for the original interstate construction that occurred decades ago and not for the future widening project. Subsequently, Joe Allen asked for a clarification of the motions regarding the TIP. Mayor Reichert stated the motion was to defer the I-75 and the Forest Hill Rd. projects and a separate motion would then be needed to include the mitigation project. Lonzy Edwards stated that in regards to the I-16/I-75 project, the exit at Spring St. needed to be redone but the scale of the rest of the proposed project was too large. Joe Allen then remarked that the current design of the I-16/I-75 project is bad and something needs to be done but the proposed project is too big.

Rick Hutto commented that the motion presented by the Mayor was inaccurate. He stated the original motion made by Lonzy Edwards was to defer all the phases of the I-16/I-75 project and not just the I-75 widening from Pierce Ave. to I-16. The Mayor then replied that all the other phases of the I-16/I-75 project were not included in the TIP document due to financial constraints. Andrew Heath then explained that the Pleasant Hill mitigation project was the only project available in the TIP for I-16 & I-75. Subsequently, Lonzy Edwards withdrew his motion to defer all the I-16/I-75 projects from the TIP. He

also added that public input for the TIP will not be meaningful unless GDOT actually meets with the public. Henry Ficklin commented that road projects should be analyzed in detail before funding is identified for them in the TIP.

Mayor Reichert stated that the TIP draft needed to be finalized to make it available for public review. The Mayor then brought up the motion again to defer the I-75 project (Pierce to I-16) and the Forest Hill Rd. project and not include them in the draft TIP. The Policy Committee voted on the motion and the result was a 7 to 7 tie. Subsequently, Mayor Reichert asked for a roll call vote which resulted in the motion being approved by a vote of 8 to 7. The MATS Policy Committee members who voted for the motion were as follows: Sam Hart, Rick Hutto, Henry Ficklin, Lonzy Edwards, Daylon Martin, Grace McCrimmons, Kamal Azar and Nick Pietrzak. The members who voted against the motion were Mayor Reichert, Joe Allen, Tommy Robinson, Robert Rychel, Tony Rojas, Craig Ross and Tom McQueen. In addition, a motion was made by Rick Hutto to include the Pleasant Hill mitigation project in the draft TIP document. Subsequently, the motion was seconded by Lonzy Edwards and approved unanimously by the Policy Committee members. Tony Rojas then brought up the Forest Hill Rd. project. He mentioned that if this project is removed from the TIP then federal/state funding might not be available for this project in the future. Therefore, he made a motion to move the right-of-way acquisition for this project to FY 2016. However, the motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mayor Reichert then called for a motion to approve the draft TIP with the aforementioned changes which was approved by the committee members.

Don Tussing discussed the revised project list for the LRTP and the CDR. The items that were added included the I-75 lighting and Industrial Hwy. projects among others. These revisions were needed in order to meet the air quality conformity standards. A motion was made to adopt the list which was approved by the Policy Committee. Under the Project Status Report, no one was in attendance to review the report so copies were handed out to everyone. Being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.