BULLOCH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Bulloch County Transportation

BULLOCH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Bulloch County Transportation Improvement Program 2015 Preliminary Transportation Improvement Program 2020 Proposed Revisions and Discussion July 30, 2013

Items to Discuss �Problems and Issues �Status of Current TIP �Proposed Revisions �Network Resurfacing Issues �Dirt Roads �Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Issues �Recommendations �Questions and Comments

Workshop Objectives �Get BOC direction on priorities for road improvements in near-term and for the six-year program.

Problems and Issues �Administration is doing a comprehensive review to fund as many projects as possible in the CIP. �Public Safety and Facilities are the most constricted areas and should be the subject of a follow up workshop before approving the CIP. �We need to consider planning for and beginning road improvements to new industrial park in the TAD with remaining $3 M in bond proceeds. �We don’t know the effect of the TAVT and Energy Excise Tax on revenues.

Problem(s) and Issues �County needs for roads are underfunded; we need about twice as much money as we expect to receive to keep up with demands and service levels. �Road improvement costs have tripled since 2004. �We will have limited opportunities to pave dirt-roads. �Network roads have fallen behind on resurfacing. �Preserve funds for Southeast Quadrant projects, bridges and safety striping, or they will become a more expensive problem later. �We will have to reserve some road money for the Gateway industrial park.

Status of Current TIP

Original 2015 TIP: Approved FY 2010 CATEGORY "Shovel-Ready" Dirt. Roads "Neighborhoods First" Resurfacing Bridge Rehabilitation Program “Southeast Quadrant” Improvements Right-of-Way Acquisition Road Striping and Safety Markings Capital Equipment Master Lease. Purchase TOTAL FY 2010 Estimate FY 2011 Estimate FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 TOTAL 800, 000 900, 000 670, 000 - - - 2, 370, 000 - 206, 500 213, 500 168, 000 - - 588, 000 40, 000 - - 160, 000 558, 077 1, 116, 154 1, 600, 000 468, 400 3, 742, 631 30, 000 310, 000 - - 400, 000 - 60, 000 - 240, 000 250, 000 752, 000 - 3, 258, 000 1, 120, 000 1, 988, 500 2, 323, 577 2, 446, 154 2, 412, 000 468, 400 10, 758, 631

SPLOST 07 Funds (Remaining and Estimated Through 11 -2013) CATEGORY Resurfacing Program Bridge Rehabilitation Program “Southeast Quadrant” Improvements Program Right-of-Way Acquisition Program Road Striping and Safety Markings Program TOTAL 2, 225, 000 103, 000 2, 138, 000 60, 000 320, 000 Capital Equipment Master Lease-Purchase: Road Construction 1, 504, 000 TOTAL 6, 450, 000

Status on 2015 TIP �“Shovel Ready” program is finished (under budget). �“Neighborhoods First” is finished; over budget. �“Bridge Rehabilitation” are pending (but, likely to be under budget). �“Southeast Quadrant” projects are pending. �“ROW Acquisition” program for future dirt-roads to be paved in LRTP are pending (likely to be under budget) �“Road Striping” program is approaching 33% complete (will be over budget due to higher cost). �“Capital Equipment” program costs have been below budget, but are due for turn over in new TIP with higher pricing expected.

Revisions to TIP through 2020

Recommended Revisions to Original TIP �We can expect to get $900 K-$1 million per year from GDOT for projects; leveraging resurfacing projects is proposed – 30% match is required, but, not problematic. �Resolve immediate resurfacing needs by using $4. 2 million of existing 07 SPLOST and state-aid – approximately 40 miles of roads. �Allocate funds to year-to-year projects for dirt roads, intersections, bridges and safety signage and striping. �Maintain allocations for equipment needs for capital maintenance.

Recommended Revisions to Original TIP �Escrow funds for Transportation Plan Update in 2019. �Allocate $500, 000 in 07 SPLOST road funds to complete AJ Riggs Road (to compensate for costs of utility relocation and railroad improvements.

SPLOST 2013 Funds (Preliminary TIP in 2011 before Referendum) FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Sub-Total Dirt-Roads Program 333, 333 333, 333 1, 999, 998 Resurfacing Program 421, 500 421, 500 2, 529, 000 Bridge Rehabilitation 50, 000 50, 000 300, 000 171, 000 171, 000 1, 026, 000 50, 000 50, 000 300, 000 150, 000 150, 000 900, 000 335, 002 752, 000 752, 000 4, 095, 002 1, 510, 835 1, 927, 833 Project Description Intersection Safety Improvements Reflective Safety Signs (Federal Mandate) Road Striping and Safety Markings Equipment Leases TOTAL 1, 927, 833 11, 150, 000

SPLOST 2013 Adjustments Using Unspent 2007 SPLOST Funds AVAILABLE FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 TOTAL REVENUE SPLOST 2007 SPLOST 2013 GDOT LMIG EST. REVENUE RESURFACING DIRT ROADS ECON. DEVELOP. SAFETY BRIDGES INTERSECTIONS EQUIP. - BUY EQUIP. LEASE CONTINGENCY PLAN UPDATE EST. EXPEND. DIFFERENCE RUNNING BALANCE 6, 300, 000 958, 922 7, 258, 922 4, 262, 000 170, 000 500, 000 130, 000 80, 000 128, 000 5, 270, 000 1, 988, 922 572, 032 1, 000 1, 572, 032 2, 039, 611 1, 000 3, 039, 611 EXPENDITURES 855, 400 641, 900 285, 000 2, 117, 252 1, 000 3, 117, 252 2, 187, 068 1, 000 3, 187, 068 2, 256, 304 1, 000 3, 256, 304 544, 700 410, 490 464, 200 423, 000 151, 000 800, 000 550, 000 1, 019, 462 123, 000 80, 000 150, 000 550, 000 342, 134 30, 000 2, 415, 534 491, 661 101, 000 80, 000 348, 000 550, 000 228, 829 900, 000 3, 193, 019 (75, 767) 500, 000 135, 000 80, 000 174, 000 550, 000 207, 657 1, 000 30, 000 3, 140, 857 46, 211 500, 000 140, 000 3, 694, 102 (2, 122, 070) 115, 000 80, 000 232, 000 550, 000 320, 605 1, 000 30, 000 3, 254, 505 (214, 894) 2, 820, 657 435, 647 (133, 148) 358, 513 143, 619 67, 852 114, 063 549, 710 835, 640 228, 000 1, 867, 195 1, 040, 000 2, 907, 195 550, 000 207, 657 1, 000 6, 300, 000 11, 039, 462 6, 998, 922 24, 338, 384 8, 026, 840 1, 378, 490 1, 500, 000 895, 000 480, 000 1, 832, 000 3, 300, 000 2, 326, 344 3, 900, 000 150, 000 23, 788, 674 549, 710

Network Resurfacing

Network Resurfacing �The Barnhardt Group (TBG) has recommended a program of pavement preservation using alternative techniques to treat 100 miles of roads over ten years. �TBG recommendations have received an adverse reaction from regional pavement contractors. �County staff does not agree with every TBG recommendation, but does agree that many strategies are worth considering.

Strategy �We have about 38 miles of network roads that justify the use of traditional hot-mix asphalt (in some cases with base work). �There about 2 -4 miles of older subdivisions that have very poor pavement condition as well. �The projects in the following slides are recommended for immediate attention – preferably to let bids before the 2013 paving season concludes.

Candidate Roads for Network Resurfacing with Lowest PCI Ratings for 2013 PROGRA M YEAR AREA 5, 4 PROGRAM BEGINNING END LENGTH 2" HOT MIX ASPHALT COST EST. PCI RATING 2013 Kennedy Bridge Road SR 46 Adabelle 5. 400 21 600, 000 5 2013 Old Register Langston Chapel Old Register Way 1. 700 0 170, 000 5 2013 Adebelle Candler County US 301 5. 000 16 500, 000 5 2013 Langston Chapel Old Register Harville 2. 567 20 256, 700 2 2013 Brooklet-Leefield Brooklet City Limits Stilson Leefield 2. 900 21 290, 000 1 2013 Lakeview Staesboro CL Screven County 9. 200 38 920, 000 2013 Pulaski Bypass Candler County 8. 000 47 800, 000 2013 Clito Lakeview US 301 3. 566 57 356, 600 5, 6 1

Subdivision Resurfacing – CY 2013 PROGRAM YEAR AREA PROGRAM BEGINNING 1 2013 Pointer Road (HP) 1 2013 Hunters Pointe Drive (HP) Akins Pond 1 2013 Woodshole Circle (HP) 1 END Hunters Pointe Akins Pond LENGTH AREA PCI RATING 0. 460 66 46, 000 0. 585 69 58, 500 Hunters Pointe 0. 761 76 76, 100 2013 Fox Court Path (HP) Hunters Pointer 0. 288 86 28, 800 1 2013 Hunters Way (HUT) Lakeview End 0. 396 53 39, 600 1 2013 Mossberg Circle (HUT) Hunters Way 0. 312 62 31, 200 1 2013 Browning Court (HUT) Hunters Way End 0. 037 68 3, 700 1 2013 Peachtree Run (GW) Lakeview Magnolia Place 0. 300 47 30, 000 1 2013 Dogwood Trail (GW) Magonlia Place End 0. 454 57 45, 400 1 2013 Magnolia Place (GW) Lakeview End 0. 045 69 4, 500 1 2013 Delta Cove (GW) Dogwood Trail End 0. 050 95 5, 000 Woodshole

Follow-up Strategy �Staff recommends the application of 1 -2 inches of HMA, where appropriate. �Continue to evaluate TBG recommendations on other road sections going forward. �We paid TBG for advice, not to make decisions.

Dirt Roads

Dirt Roads - Ready ROAD SEGMENT BEGINNING END 2" HOT OPEN GRADED MIX CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 CY 2017 ASPHALT COLD COST EST. MIX Key Akins Old Riggs Mill Trail/Key Lane 220, 000 170000 Horace Mitchell SR 67 Red Hill Church Road 267, 000 228, 000 Clark Farm SR 80 Candler County (Dirt) 332, 900 285, 000 Harmony Church Harville Road Emit Grove (Dirt) 332, 900 285, 000 Akins Pond Middleground Road Deer Crossing (Dirt) 502, 500 410, 490 228000 285000 410490

Dirt Roads – Transportation Plan (Not Ready) ROAD SEGMENT BEGINNING END Clifton Road* SR 67/Emit Grove SR 46 Elmer Phillips Rd* SR 67 Josh Smith Rd* Hightower Road* 2" HOT MIX ASPHALT OPEN GRADED COLD COST EST. MIX LENGTH 4 1, 200, 000 Harville Road 1. 33 399, 000 Harville Road Hightower Road 0. 62 186, 000 End of pavement Burkhalter Road 0. 84 252, 000

Dirt Roads – Petitioned (Not Ready) ROAD SEGMENT BEGINNING END Maria Sorrell RR Old River Ponderosa Road US 25 Hood Road* 2" HOT MIX ASPHALT OPEN GRADED COLD COST EST. MIX LENGTH 1 300, 000 240, 000 Church 1. 5 450, 000 360, 000 Pulaski Old Riggs Mill 1. 8 540, 000 432, 000 Miller Street Extension Friendship Church Colfax Station 0. 4 120, 000 96, 000 Colfax Subdivision Miller St. Ext. End 0. 6 180, 000 144, 000

Dirt Roads – Decision Points �Whichever roads are chosen, because of cash flow needed to do other projects, only one road per year can be completed. �It is possible that once roads are sequentially selected, we could begin to build up two roads per year to compact and make them pavement ready, but would need to have a one year lag to apply fine aggregates and asphalt (finishing). �There are few roads that improve the network because they end at a dirt road section (“*”) �Hot-Mix Asphalt or OGCM?

Dirt Roads – Decision Points �There are few roads that improve the network because they end at a dirt road section (“*”) �Hot-Mix Asphalt or OGCM? �We could accelerate a project or two with excess bond proceeds (or you may want to reserve for public safety needs or the TAD).

Southeast Quadrant

Intersections – Southeast Quadrant

Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Plan �Staff still believes that following the SEQ Plan is needed and necessary. �However, there are some issues related to Statesboro annexation strategies that merit consideration and further justifies the shifting of funds to Network Resurfacing. �Some decisions will need to be made to program funds properly.

Intersections – Southeast Quadrant �Pretoria Rushing Road @ Burkhalter Road �Langston Chapel Road @ Lanier Drive �Burkhalter Road @ Harville Road �Golf Club Road @ Harville Road �Burkhalter @ Langston Chapel

Candidate Projects for SEQ Plan

Pretoria Rushing @ Burkhalter (Five Points) �Issue #1: Roundabout or Controlled Intersection? �Issue #2: Bike and Pedestrian Safety with the S&S Greenway. �Issue #3: Realignment of Josh Hagin Road from its existing point at the intersection to the lower side of the existing solid waste center is recommended as a part of the project.

Langston Chapel @ Lanier Drive �Issue #1: Do we do anything at all given City Annexation encroachment? �Issue #2: If we should do something, it should be limited to a controlled T-leg stop or a three way stop using splitter islands or medians.

Burkhalter @ Harville (just west of SR 67 �Issue #1: This project is under the construction work program with GDOT and is scheduled to have a Roundabout constructed by 2017. �To speed the project, the County is in a position to offer covering the costs of engineering and ROW.

Golf Club Road @ Harville �Issue #1: This area is programmed to have a 120 lot subdivision development just southeast of the intersection. �Issue #2: Golf Club Road is out of alignment with the opposing intersecting road, Josh Deal Road.

Burkhalter @ Langston Chapel �Issue #1: Traffic at this intersection has grown dramatically through the years. �Issue #2: There is zoning approval for a yet to be built convenience store at the southwest portion of the intersection. �Issue #3: Since the intersection rests on a hill, sight distance on the Burkhalter-Langston Chapel approach is limited. �Issue #3: A small roundabout or a controlled threeway with splitter islands or medians should be considered.

Intersections to Consider for Project Execution (1) This intersection may be eligible for GDOT funding. (2) Shoulder widening in Langston Chapel can be eliminated but resurfacing is needed. (3) A roundabout may be a better solution here than a realignment for a two or four-way stop; but this project may be on the bubble. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATE Pretoria Rushing Road @ Burkhalter Road Signalization and turn lanes; controlled four-way or roundabout $600, 000. 00 Burkhalter Road @ Harville Road (1) Roundabout $600, 000. 00 Burkhalter Road @ Langston Chapel Road Small roundabout or advanced 3 -way stop $300, 000. 00 Burkhalter Road from Golf Club Shoulder widening; Road to Langston Chapel Road resurfacing: 2. 4 miles Langston Chapel Road from Shoulder widening; Burkhalter Road to Old Register resurfacing: 2. 0 Road (2) miles Golf Club Road @ Harville Road Roundabout or (3) realignment TOTAL: ALL PROJECTS $240, 000. 00 $350, 000. 00 $600, 000. 00 $2, 690, 000. 00

Intersections to Consider for Project Deferral Each of these intersections are subject for water and sewer expansion and annexation; likely within the next five years. Would the BOC consider any joint participation with Statesboro at this time? PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT Langston Chapel Signalization and turn Road @ Old Register lanes Road COST ESTIMATE $1, 116, 000. 00 Burkhalter Road @ Cawana Road Roundabout $873, 000. 00 Cawana Road from Bradford Place to S&S Greenway Pedestrian Safety Zone $1, 000. 00 TOTAL: ALL PROJECTS $2, 989, 000. 00

Final Recommendations �Proceed with resurfacing projects identified with available SPLOST 07 and state-aid funds – allow County Engineer to determine pavement thickness. �Begin engineering work on selected SEQ intersections (solicit engineers for design, planning and programming – BOC to appropriate funds based on plan).

Final Recommendations �Allow staff to program equipment, bridge work, and safety striping signage needs in six-year program. �BOC future considerations – dirt road programming and use of TBG recommendations based on staff input for paved roads (do we want to consider performing some PM techniques in-house, like crack sealing? ). �Consider limited use of excess bond proceeds.

Questions – Comments - Discussion?