BALDWIN COUNTY COMMISSION
WORK SESSION

DATE: January 23, 2007
TIME: 8:00 a.m.
LOCATION: Baldwin County Administration Building
322 Courthouse Square
Bay Minette, Alabama

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wayne A. Gruenloh, Frank Burt, Jr.; David E. Bishop and Charles F. Gruber

ALSO PRESENT : Michael L. Thompson; J. Scott Barnett, County Attorney; Erich Bergdolt, Assistant Chief Counsel; David 3rewer, Assistant to County Administrator for Research and Special Projects; Wanda Fail Gautney, Purchasing officer; John Jackson, County Archivist and Historian; Earl Drinkard, Building Maintenance Department Director; Kyle Baggett, Clerk/Treasurer; Leigh Ann Ryals, EMA; Wayne Dyess, Planning Director; Alainna Elliott, Grants Coordinator; James M. Ransom, Solid Waste Director; Vince Jackson, Senior Planner; Susan Lovett, Personnel Department; Cal Markert, County Engineer; and citizens with interests related to the work session agenda

MR. MARKERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You probably all know the service road and the interchange or County Road 13 and 1-10, the project has come within the spotlight of everything, and I'11 try to give you a quick background. The state had designed the road and the interchange up to 1-10 and through a lot of, maybe, miscommunication or whatever reason, their design is strictly to get folks from County Road 13 South onto the interstate going east and west. It didn't allow for
service roads to attach to it on the north side. We've discussed it with ALDOT. Commissioner Burt and I went to ALDOT yesterday morning. They will allow us -- They've stopped the project, the existing project north of the interstate and will allow us to redesign the interchange and the service roads, if that's what we want to do. They got a consultant, Carter, Burgess who designed the road and interchange up to date. They met with the feds, I believe, last Friday The Federal Highway Administration is going to require us to do an environmental document on the service road as well as the change to the interchange, and ALDOT is requiring us to pay for it. So after we met with them yesterday and got some nore details, the approximate cost to do the environmental work on the interchange and the service roads, to redesign the interchange and to design the service road is somewhere around 600,000. The state is also requiring us, if we go this route, to pay for the additional bridge that the interchange will need since you're going to have people coming from the north onto the interchange. We're estimating about a million dollars. It could be 500, could be a million, could be 1.5 million. We're estimating a million. It's depending on the traffic in the amount that's estimated but we feel like that's a good number.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Where is that bridge, down where that --

MR. MARKERT: The bridge we're talking about is actually the one going over the interstate.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Oh.

MR. MARKERT: Also, the estimate to build the service road from the interchange to the west to the Bass pro Shop property line is approximately three million. The estimate to build the service road from the interchange back to the east is approximately 1.5 million. The total amount of money needed is 6.1 million. We met with Commissioner Bishop, Commissioner Burt in Spanish Fort, Daphne, Mobile Infirmary, Timbercreek and the Bass Pro Shop yesterday and threw that number out on the table. The Bass Pro Shop has got alot invested in their part of the project. They're actually paying for and building approximately a mile of the service road, which is not included in the cost I just mentioned. They have tenants that need the service road and need it as soon as possible. We talked about a timeline with the DOT. The environmental document will take 10 to 12 months, and they can't start on the design for the interchange until the feds sign off on the environmental document. So you're looking at 12 to 18 months to start construction and another 18 months to complete construction. So we're looking at approximately 2010 on an opened  interchange with service roads. We didn't get anybody to say they would commit to paying any funds yesterday, but the number is out there and they're going to work on it, and we plan on meeting again. However, regardless of whether the service roads are built now or in the future, we need to do the environmental work and redesign of the interchange so that we can build an interchange that will receive service roads. I put on this agenda because I didn't have any details last week to discuss it, but what I wanted to do was prepare an agenda to enter into a contract with Carter, Burgess to complete the redesign of the interchange and the environmental work so we can get started with that as quick as we can because I feel like we're going to need that sometime in the future no matter what happens with the rest of the players. And, with that said, the DOT, the interchange design they've got now that's complete, they're complete with the environmental document,  they're ready to go and go to work, but they have put that on hold until we -- if we want to go this route, and I would recommend we go that route. With that, I'11 leave it with Commissioner Bishop and Commissioner Burt, if y'all have any more comments.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: I think the one thing we come out of here with was two things, besides what all he's describing. You know, when we went in there talking about this thing originally, things have escalated. You know, the three million to the west, we knew it to be 1.5 million or thereabouts, and we also knew that the state was going to be involved, from all indications we had heard from various entities. We were told when we first started talking about this, that we were going to work on the west end from 181 down to the 13 interchange. Then later we were told, no, that's not correct. The state is going to do that portion, and we sort of believed that all along, that they were going to be involved and they were going to do that part. So with Representative Davis and them discussing this with ALDOT and the state and the governor involved in it, that was their perceptions on this thing, and all of a sudden that's come back into the picture as another cost factor that they're not owning up to. So what we're trying to do now is -- Randy was there yesterday, Randy Davis, Joe Faust was there, Owen Bailey was there from the Mobile Infirmary, and we had the Bass Pro people, and Frank and I were there along with the people from Timbercreek, and we're going to wait two weeks and have another meeting exactly two weeks from yesterday at 4:30 in the afternoon to see, go back and let each one of these entities see if they can fine-tune this thing and come back with some kind of different ideas, and it possibly may involve another meeting with the governor or whatever. We were in that meeting to start with, and we thought the state was definitely going to be involved in this project and believed it all along, and we're still hoping for that to come through. Now, whether it does or not, I don't know. The thought is, if we can work this out and get an agreement amongst all these parties -- it's such a complicated thing. You've got Spanish Fort, you got the City of Daphne, you got Baldwin County, got Mobile Infirmary, got the Bass Pro Shop, and everybody is thinking what they can do and what they can't do. The only way it will work is if the County takes over as an agent and manages the thing and gets an agreement signed amongst all these people of what they're going to pay and how they're going to participate. We agreed to do the 650,000 for administrative-type service, basically, and I think we're still in that ball game. To see where we might can go from here is going to take several more meetings, I'm sure.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: Commissioner Burt?

COMMISSIONER BURT: I don't know if I can add anything to that, but Cal and I were sort of surprised where they are when we got to Montgomery yesterday. They nave designed, as he said, and completed an interchange that works from 13 to the interstate but it dead ends there. You could never develop anything or connect to it on the north side of the interstate. What they gave us the option of was coming back with a diamond interchange, as you see over to the right on 181, and putting that same sort of interchange there and allowing for access roads back to 181, access roads for this new development over to the west and also an access to a new hospital, the possibility of a new hospital in that area. And the health and welfare of the people in the area in the future -- you know, we're in a 10-year plan, that would fit right into our 10-year plan. It seems the delay, though, until 2010 was not what some people at the table wanted to hear yesterday. They said it had been delayed -- this is about the 6th time, and the cost doubled since they last talked about it. All we were was a bearer of the news. But it certainly makes sense to do it. If you don't do it now, you have closed the door forever for that happening north of 13. If you allow for it, then it makes access to new health care, a lot of other things that might would develop on that same 100 acres or 90-something acres there related to health care. I believe one of the comments there was that Daphne, you know, really doesn't have a hospital. Probably a city of that size that doesn't have a hospital, I don't think there's another one in Alabama, they said. So we ought to look at working with them on that. The thing is, everybody is kind of maxed out on the money, and everybody was looking at the County. What we said to them was we put 650,000 dollars on the table. That's what we budgeted for and we -- Cal said he was willing, if the Commission chose, for us to take the lead and manage this project, at least all of that outside the interchange. But the state wants, if it's going to happen that way, for the County to be the one that they
deal with and not three or four, the county, the municipalities, Spanish Fort and Daphne. So it makes sense. What Cal, I believe, has suggested is that we -- one thing he didn't say was that when we got up there, the state's -- what do they call it -- consultant who has designed that whole interchange and done the environmental assessment on it was in their office when we got there yesterday, and they suggested that we use the same consultant since he's already familiar or they're already familiar with the project. They thought the feds would better buy into it if we had the same environmental assessment consultant. It would just make the whole thing fit together better. So that's where we are, and I think he wants to talk about whether we want to go ahead and hire that consultant on the chance or on the possibility that that will happen. It seems a shame to close the door on it forever by telling the state -- because the state is ready to go ahead and build it like they designed it.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: Commissioner Bishop.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: One other thing I wanted to tell you, when I come up here this morning and I come this way to come to work, when you get right here -- this norning when I pulled up here, I started getting in ieavy, heavy stuff. You know what I mean? And the zraffic was trying to get on this interstate right here md backing up and actually shutting the road down. And you only have one way to go and that's to get in that right lane and hope you get in a clear lane because this ;tuff is backed up here trying to get on it. And I'm :elling you, to think that everything can be handled at 181, I think is bad thinking.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: Is it possible, Cal, on this thing -- well, let's just say we went ahead like you're suggesting and engaged a consultant to do the environmental and complete the design and everything else as far as having that interchange to where you've got access on and off the interstate there. Is it possible we could get the road built -- I mean, if we could get the Infirmary and the cities and everyone else to agree, could we go ahead and get the road built ahead of the interchange?

MR. MARKERT: That would be possible. Now, you would be risking the feds denying -- you know, if something major came up and the feds didn't do the interchange, then you have to look at, okay, we don't have the interchange to connect them together where they do all the way across. But the interchange construction has got federal money in it. So the environmental work is for the interchange, and that's what they can't start on the design -- they can't start on the redesign of the interchange but we can start on the design of the service road at the same time we're doing the environmental work for the service road. So we'll be through designing the service road in about 10 months.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: Let's say we went ahead and did that. You design the service road. You get into building the service road. The feds don't like what we're suggesting there at the interchange. What's the worst case, that we can't connect them?

MR. MARKERT: They would build the trumpet-style interchange and, worst case, we'll have to cul-de-sac the service road on each side of the interchange.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: And couldn't connect them?

MR. MARKERT: Right. Well, we could. We could go around the interchange and connect them. It would be costly, though, because Timbercreek subdivision is already developed and the golf course. I mean, I feel like, as we talked about with the state and consulting, I don't see any major issues to come up. The environmental work they have to do for the interchange itself is very little because, basically, you have to study within your right-of-way limits, and they're not going to change that much from one type of interchange to the other. And they're letting the document the feds have already signed off on stand, and they're going to reference that document with the new one they're doing. so I don't know how to apply a percentage of chance you'd be taking but that could be done. I don't know if it would help the Infirmary or Bass Pro Shop if you had the road without the interchange. From what I gathered, they wanted the interchange. He wanted, the Bass Pro Shop, needed the interchange as much as he needed the service road.

COMMISSIONER BURT: The hospital wanted the service road from 181 for the hospital because of access to the hospital.

MR. MARKERT: I just wonder if we built -- the Bass Pro Shop was in a major hurry. We might could build the road. I don't know if they're in a major hurry for the service road and the interchange. They probably are.

COMMISSIONER GRUBER: From 13, are they not going to have an overage? It's just going to be when you come up from 13 to 1-10, you're going to have to go to the other one to cross over? Are they putting a crossover in already?

COMMISSIONER BURT: A two-lane crossover is what they've got designed.

COMMISSIONER GRUBER: So they want us to go to a four-lane crossover?

MR. MARKERT: Basically.

COMMISSIONER BURT: They showed the reason why, because of the increased traffic.

COMMISSIONER GRUBER: We're going to actually go back to the diamond instead of a single crossover?

COMMISSIONER BURT: Yes. They have a diamond on the bottom side but not the top side.

MR. MARKERT: You'd go over the interstate and never stop and roll on down toward Mobile or if you're coming the other way --

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: You know, I don't know if we can solve this thing right here, but we sure know we've got some issues here, and to get back to these other meetings, we all need to know what the deal is.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: In the long run, we're going to need to have a service road up there.

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Definitely, if anything goes in there.

MR. MARKERT: So what I was asking is give me a week to negotiate with the consultant to put on the agenda a proposal at Tuesday's meeting to hire Carter, Burgess to do the environmental work first, design for the interchange and service road.

COMMISSIONER GRUBER: You still. think it's going to take a year to do that environmental assessment, because they've got most of it already, don't they?

MR. MARKERT: Right. We went through that. There's a chance -- we're reluctant to even say it -- but there's a chance the feds would give us some breaks on some of the public meetings because if all the right-of-ways could be donated, you could cut some time off that 10 to 12 months, but we didn't say that to the other folks because you don't want to - -

COMMISSIONER GRUBER: Don't want to give false hopes.

COMMISSIONER BURT: He said as far as his work, it wouldn't be a problem. It's advertising and holding public meetings that stretches it out.

COMMISSIONER GRUBER: Your footprint is not changing that much more.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: Do we want that to come forward, gentlemen, then, as far as the 650 for the environmental?

COMMISSIONER GRUBER: That's budgeted?

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: The 650 is in the budget.

MR. MARKERT: And that's in the cost that I mentioned, the total cost of the project, 6.1 that included preliminary --

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: And in the meantime we've got some delegation members lobbying the governor to find some state money?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes.

MR. MARKERT: We tried to get the state to pay for that, the widening of the bridge to allow for the additional traffic.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: And y'all are going to meet again in two weeks?

COMMISSIONER BISHOP: Yes.

CHAIRMAN GRUENLOH: Good. Anything else on that item, gentlemen? A11 right. Cal, we'll be looking for that agenda item.