PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE THE BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSION
(WORK SESSION)
Tuesday, October 11, 2005

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: And we've got to talk about this road priority thing before we end. What else have we got besides that? that's the last item I've got. We've got a road priority thing that congressman Bonner has asked us to deal with. we've got a meeting this afternoon at 4:30 in Robertsdale with Cal and anybody from the Mayors to try to come up with this list and Ca1 and I are to present it tomorrow at 11:30 in Montgomery to Congressman Bonner's office. Go ahead, Cal .

MR. MARKERT: Yes, sir. It's my understanding it was presented to the Alabama Department of Transportation so we've got primarily any projects that deal with ALDOT. The spread sheet is the format Congressman Bonner requested the data to be in. Greg and Kathy made us a good looking map for y'all. If you see the priority rank I left it blank. I figured we'll hash that out right quick.

MR. SMITH: One thing different on here, we've changed the colors on each of those so you can see the extent of each of those projects a little better.

MR. MARKERT: Just starting on the -- just some background information. Wesley with his contacts with the state, pretty much I can tell you that all the projects except for State Route 225 from 31 to 1-65, 59 from Bay Minette to 1-65 and State Route 181 from 1-10 to 1-65, they may be in the system but they're not in the five year plan as far as we can tell. The other projects showed up on the state's CPMS system, and I don't exactly know what that is. That's what the state uses to track their projects. I talked to Mr. Perue (spelled phonetically) this morning. They're doing the same thing. They're going to prioritize them and I should have the cost for our figures by the time I get back to the office on these state projects. I couldn't get them yesterday, the state was closed, but we should have them probably by now. I think, according to the letter I saw, they're wanting y'all to tell the state and the congressman what's most important to you.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: They're all the state highways that we've got, right?

MR. MARKERT: Right, except for, you know, 13 extension and interchanging the service road, that's not on the state books -- well, we included the service road in with the interchange on 13.

COMMISSIONER BURT: Mr. Chairman.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes, sir, Mr. Burt.

COMMISSIONER BURT: Did you say the projects for Baldwin County that you hand out are already in the state's system, these are?

MR. MARKERT: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: Except for two or three of them you said.

COMMISSIONER BURT: Which two or three are not?

MR. SMITH: Well, they're in the state system. They're just not in their five year plan.

MR. MARKERT: And I'm not sure how the state recognizes the following three. State Route 181 from 1-10 to 1-65, State Route 59 from Bay Minette to 1-65, and 225 from 31 to 1-65. It not on their plan but they're familiar with it and they've got estimates on some of those. Again some of that I don't mow how the state's got those three prioritized right now, but I know on the other ones they're actively involved

COMMISSIONER BURT: Mr. Chairman.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes, Mr. Burt.

COMMISSIONER BURT: The meeting tonight is to prioritize these or others that might come from the mayors and whatever and then that's to carry that to Montgomery tomorrow for the chairman and the county engineer to go up and make a presentation with Mr. Bonner and ALDOT?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Let me read you what -- you guys got a copy of the letter when he first put out a letter here, and he just said -- and then a follow-up, which I assumed everybody got a copy of it. It just says our meeting of October 12th is right around the corner, which is tomorrow. I hope you have an opportunity to touch base with your respective mayors in the upcoming days, which I have not had a chance to do. We've got one letter from one mayor and he's got it. Who is that?

MR. BREWER: Mayor Duke sent something yesterday.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: He's saying it would be beneficial for you to draft a project priority list to submit for the Department of Transportation's review. Since our time with these officials will be limited we should take full advantage of this opportunity and showcase your priority projects in the most concise format possible. It would be helpful to bring a declaration from your County Commission declaring your priority projects for the county. And then underneath he says provide the following: Project description; Project priority; estimated cost and method by Mhich the estimate was derived; information on whether this project has been requested
through any other channel; if project is currently on the five year plan; and point of contact and complete contact information. And basically we can give this  information to Jon iand, which is the assistant And then this afternoon, you know, you got a letter from the representative's office saying before you give anything to the office in Montgomery let's have a meeting in Robertsdale to discuss -- Allegri sent that letter out. Let's discuss what our list is so we'll be together.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: Is that at 4:30 this afternoon?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: That's at 4 : 3 0 .

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: They're going to be with y'all tomorrow, correct?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes, they're going to be there. But when we get there at 4:30 they've got a list they've sent out attached to that letter which is old and some
of it may not be the same as we've got.

MR. MARKERT: All of those that are on that old list are on here.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Oh, they are. Okay.

MR. SMITH: What time are y'all leaving to go to Montgomery tomorrow?

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: These are the same ones, aren't they?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: I think they are pretty much.

COMMISSIONER BURT: Some of these I don't recall seeing before. I mean they're on the ancient list. The widening 225 to a four lane, that's a 20 year old project.

MR. SMITH: And they're showing the state as being -- their right-of-way acquisition target date is like 2016 or something like that.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: I don't remember that one being on the state list either.

COMMISSIONER BURT: I think the citizens got up in arms over that.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: But I remember that as being a needed project because that road is dangerous.

MR. MARKERT: But if you look at the map we've got three south to north corridors and all three of them won't be built. We need to kind of tell them which ones are  priority.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes, sir, Mr. Lipscomb.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: Let me just tell you one of the things that was talked about and never really settled in as far as option, but it may be time for us to  consider it. I am well familiar with the concerns on 225 right down to the Spanish property that comes right into the Presbyterian Church and the community and they were up in arms, about 800 people -- 600 people at a public hearing, and I don't think many of them are for it, maybe not any. But we do know that right now we have the extension of 181 going north and former Representative Walter Penry had talked about making a way'kind of northwest. And you can see even looking here, avoiding some of the wetlands, if you look at the map right here, going northward for several miles and then northwest over 225 may be an option that

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: That would be a great pick up, shooting that traffic on up through there

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: And if you could do that you'd do several things, Mr. Chairman. One is you would eliminate the real concern in Spanish Fort and just right in the community, the elementary school, in that area. I'm not sure if it would come right in at Blakely but it would be in that part of the area. But we've already  opened up Jimmy Faulkner Drive, part of that, and the new high school. And there is a concern about whether you would point a four lane going that close, but it's not right at the front door of the high school. It would be in that area, but the thought being going northward and then moving maybe westward a mile and a half over
to 225 which is an established route and let that be a four lane and not four lane the area where there's more of a residential nature. It would be kind of a truck route. It would be 1-65 --

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Well, that would cross over those roads back there, Frank, that we've added built up in this area.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: It would tie into our industrial park area.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: I don't remember that one being on there either, but it is on there obviously.

COMMISSIONER BURT: Mr. Chairman.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER BURT: The purpose of this meeting in Montgomery to my understanding is for some of these billions of dollars the President and Congress is hoping -- going to come up with from the sale of bonds or however they raise they money that will bring billions of dollars to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and east Texas and each congressman and senator is going to carry a priority to insert into those requests to try to get for the State of Alabama. To me I would hope we would
stay focused on the Foley Beach Express and north and that would be our number one priority and not cloud it with a bunch of other stuff that get thrown in there, because all of those are important to somebody, but --

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: I agree with you. I don't think there's any intent to do anything like that. We've got to stay focused on that 15 million --

COMMISSIONER BURT: Right. And you know, the congressman and others further upstream are delighted if we're divided because once we get divided then they just take the money somewhere else.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Well, and you're going to have Representative Davis, Representative Faust, Representative McMillan that's going to be sitting there pushing for
98 and pushing for 31, and, hey, we've got to listen to them and try to form some kind of consensus out of all this. But if we're all together right here, and I believe we are, 83 is our number one thing.

COMMISSIONER: 83 goes up to 65 or just --

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Up to 65 right now.

MR. MARKERT: So number one is 83 from Foley Beach to 1-10.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: I-10 yes that's what I meant.

MR. MARKERT: Our top two or three priorities is that. The 13 interchange, it's already on the state's books.

MR. SMITH: Let me go back to this, Cal. We're showing two different projects for 83. One is up to 1-10, but then it also shows the interchange. Are they two  different priorities on that?

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: From I-10 to I-65 could be number two if that's what we're saying.

MR. MARKERT: All right. From Foley Beach to 1-10 and the interchange is the number one priority?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: Right, uh-huh.

MR. MARKERT: Then 181, the 13 extension, and 83 from 1-10 to 65, those three, how do they - -

COMMISSIONER BURT; I thought the 13 interchange is already in their pool of money and already -- you know, that's all tied up with Spanish Fort and that.

Mr. MARKERT: And I don't know if we're asking for money.

COMMISSIONER BURT: They have quit asking us for money for it.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: I don't know whatever got resolved as far as that service road issue. The 13 interchange they've already had public hearings and meetings for
people and everything else. To me that's in the works. If they even gave us a timetable in terms of when - - you know, buying the right-of-ways, when that would be.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes. I mean do we have to go back and restudy that? I mean to me that's a very high priority though, getting that done. Yes, sir.

COMMISSIONER BURT: Mr. Chairman, I would hope number one is to complete the project to 1-10 from 83. To do that we need an additional 15 billion dollars and then complete it up to 65 would be number two and for that we need 85.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Well, you know, I might disagree with you a little bit there. I wish that and I pray for that, but, you know, to know that we're going to get that this year or whatever, I think that this 13 interchange is a very critical thing because of that big shopping center going in over there.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: It's supposed to be done.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: If it's in place that's fine. If we don't tell them that, I mean, you know, they're going to say - -

MR. MARKERT: Our top priority is 83, but all the way to 65, 13, and 181. All of them. That's our top goals.

COMMISSIONER BURT: But if they're already funded in the highway bill, that's there, then our lot's already figured that, then this is a new pool of money that we're
talking about, we ought not take some of our old wants and switch them over to the new pool of money it seems to me.

MR. MARKERT: If we're going up there asking for money we're just saying this is what we want first.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: You're going to get in a meeting this afternoon and Randy Davis is going to say, well, my top priority is 31.

COMMISSIONER BURT: And that's the last thing they want us to do. I mean if we want to get funded the last thing we need to do is be divided.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: That's what we're trying not to do. Maybe we ought to just --

MR. MARKERT: Gulf Shores has got - - they want to relocate East/West Beach Road two blocks again looking for a bridge off Fort Yorgan peninsula north.

COMMISSIONER BURT: We go there with this, Mr. Chairman, I guarantee you Birmingham and Hoover and all those places are going to get all the money.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: And I agree with you. Can we all show up over there at 4:30 today and try to iron this out, because, you know, we're going to hear -- they've got a list too.

COMMISSIONER BURT: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going but I'11 go.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: Mr. Chairman, is it possible to approach it from this standpoint as far as with the state? You know, before we get into a list of one, two,
three, and four can we start out with, you know, can we confirm with you, ALDOT, that the Highway 13 interchange to 1-10 is already done and is in the works, we can take it off table?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: We take that off the table.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: And Highway 181 from U.S. 98 is already in the works and funded and we can take that off our list.

Mr. MARKERT: It's in five year plan but their five year plan turns into a 25 year plan.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: Well, we're only talking about - - is the purpose of the meeting to talk about what -- you know, how we do the work as far as one, two, three, or four, are or we talking about funding for work one, two, three, and four?

MR. MARKERT: I'm not sure about that. That's what I don't know.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: Yes. I'm assuming we're talking about funding like Frank said, where you've got a pool of money coming down. If we're talking about funding
there's no sense in going back and readdressing some of this but let's reconfirm with them that funding is in place and it's in your work plan to do the 13  interchange, 181 from Highway 98 is on there, that the Foley Beach Express is in your work plan and it's got, you know, so much funding already attached to it. Now, you know, that being said the other projects that are high priority that we want to have funded, specifically with regard to that would be these

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: You know, and we're going to be listening to a lot of input and there may be some mayors there. I don't know. But we've got to come up with some kind of consensus.

COMMISSIONER BURT: It would be for I-10 and I-65. And I can tell you this, it is for Gulf Shores and Orange Beach and Foley --

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: Are you talking about extending the Foley Beach Express?

COMMISSIONER BURT: Yes.

MR. MARKERT: Okay. So on 13 we'll say existing plan, or it's already in the plan, and if it's not --

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: If it's not then we would need to do something with it, because if it's not -- I mean it certainly needs to be at the top of the list.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP: I guarantee you if it's not on the list I'm going to --

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: But in my mind it's already funded and in the plan.

MR. MARKERT: 31, it's two separate projects on the state's books. 31 from Spanish Fort to Malbis and then from Malbis to Stapleton.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: But before we get to that, if we can, Cal, I wanted to go back -- we need to revisit 181 to see what the status is there because we've already borrowed 13.7 million dollars and the money's changed hands --

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: We're assuming that's a done deal.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: I mean do we need to discuss it?

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: No, that's just like 13.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: But do we want to assume that or do we want to revisit?

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: I would get them to reconfirm that and state for the record that it's in the works, this is the time frame, you know, it's funded, you know,
to where we can consider it, if you will, on another list.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: We need that.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: We can confirm those. We can take them off the discussion.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: Take them off the wish list to the to be done list.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Right.

COMMISSIONER LIPSCOMB: And at least get an update on where it is in the process If it's not done there's a governor's election coming, there's a lot of things out there, but we need to stay focused on what we are in trying to hammer out a priority and get ourselves in a position to move forward, but clarifying the status of where we are will go a long way to help us refine what else. And I  think what I'm hearing here is the 15 million from 83 up to 10 would four lane it all the
way, which would be very important, not just to establish a route, but would four lane it. So that's significant in itself. And then the next 82 to 85 million would be wonderful if we could get up there. It really would serve far more than just Baldwin County or the eastern county because think of all of the traffic on I-10 that could hit that way. And you almost need to three lane -- not necessarily, but you almost need to three lane northbound from I-10 to 65, 65 to Montgomery and then  you've got 85. I mean the northbound could even be a wider --

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: All right. Well, this afternoon when we get over there at 4:30 the press is going to be there. You're invited. We're going to hash this out and
tomorrow when we go up there I want to have a clean list with the engineer here to present 3nd it is our list of everybody that's there.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: We're not there representing municipalities, are we? The delegation is representing the mnunicipality?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes, he's asking us to bring their input too.

MR. MARKERT: Are they going or just us?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: I don't think they're going to be there.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: They being the mayor?

MR. MARKERT: Right.

COMMISSIONER GRUENLOH: I think even this afternoon, you know, based on what Mayor Duke has said I understand those are important to him, but if all the other mayors that are saying something of a similar nature all of the sudden we're kind of going in a different direction.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: You know, and we've got meetings here. The way he's got this thing set up he's got a schedule like of Baldwin County is first, then Mobile County, Monroe County, Washington, Escambia, Clark --

MR. MARKERT: 30 minute segments.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: You have 30 minutes to put your stuff there.

COMMISSIONER BURT: And I'm afraid really the funding's already been decided at the senate level.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: We're going to all be there at 4:30 today. All right. We're getting down to the end of this meeting and we've got other meetings we've got to hear at 1:00, I think, a scheduled meeting with -- I know I do, a team meeting. What else have we got? I'm about to hit the hammer here. I'm going to call an adjournment to this meeting.

(Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned . )