August 14, 2002 Meeting Notes

I. Introductions & Meeting Orientation

The meeting came to order at 7:02 p.m. In attendance were the persons listed on the list of attendees.

II. Summary of MDOT Studies

A. Corridor Location Study

a. Corridor A

b. Corridor A2

John Sych met with MDOT planners. They provided him with the statement from the US-131 public hearings and with various maps. MDOT did not complete the corridor study for this area. Currently, I-94 has priority over US-131 for funding. Once I-94 is widened, MDOT will deal with US-131 in segments, based on need. The grade separation for the railroad is on hold, pending the ultimate decision regarding US-131. MDOT needs to see work and consensus building from us, and we need to work with MDOT as we move forward.

It was suggested that we invite an MDOT engineer to our next meeting, so as to get them to tell us why certain things will not work, or would work, and to help us to avoid looking at the cost alone. That suggestion was echoed by several, because of the belief that it might help SAUPC deal with the public. Others suggested that perhaps this type of work should wait until a corridor has been selected. The group decided, though, to seek the presence of one or more representatives from MDOT. The group suggested questions to be asked of MDOT in advance, so that they could prepare answers prior to the meeting.

B. Other Studies

a. Access Management

MDOT considered access management, and purchased rights in one area (XY Avenue). There is not currently any more funding for that project. Questions asked included where the money came from for the purchase of the access rights (A: likely from the access management study funding), how much footage was purchased (A: unknown), and how MDOT will deal with all the accesses currently in place (A: after corridor selection).

With regard to a potential bypass, John Sych indicated that MDOT is looking at placing only one interchange in Schoolcraft. Questions involved whether MDOT might have a hidden plan (A: no) and why they are not showing us the information they do have (A: they do not have very much, because they reached an open-ended "conclusion," which gives the SAUPC an opportunity to input opinion and shape the project). Several comments addressed the fact that our group should stand firm regarding exits and interchanges, as other municipalities have done regarding other projects; Manton was highlighted as an example.

b. Scenic Corridor Management

III. Summary Data

A. Average Daily Traffic

B. Crash Data

C. Train Operations

Data discussed during this section were included in the sheet named "Summary Data for Schoolcraft Area of US-131."

IV. Economic and Environmental Information

A. By-pass Article

The article written by Kotval, which had been distributed, was discussed. The article raises several questions regarding the creation of bypasses.

B. Agriculture Constraints

There is a large amount of farmland in this area. That land will be significantly affected by the project, regardless of the direction of the bypass.

C. Built Environment

The data regarding this topic are old, and there have been lots of changes since then.

D. Bridges and Topography

Bridges will be a significant issue, particularly if US-131 is re-routed to the east of the Village of Schoolcraft.

V. Possible Next Steps

John Sych pointed out that perhaps our first step should be to follow the example set by the group in St. Joseph County and develop a mission statement.

A. Corridor Principles

We need to develop these principles, to guide us as we move forward in the planning process.

B. Community Meetings

We discussed whether to open the meetings for public comment. Several persons present stated their belief that the meetings should be open to the public for the purpose of building community support. It was pointed out that the members of SAUPC are a rather diverse group, and additional community input might not be needed right now. John Sych pointed out several things that the group should consider: 1) What are the strengths of the planning corridor? 2) What are its weaknesses? 3) What are its opportunities? 4) What are its threats? 5) Define "vision." 6) What information do we want to tell MDOT? A roundtable for input was suggested, in part to help develop a process for looking at the "nuts and bolts" of the issue rather than at the emotional concerns. We discussed the fact that we should be sure to get business people involved, as we do not want the Village of Schoolcraft to die as a result of highway relocation; we also discussed the fact that we should not forget Vicksburg, despite their absence from the meeting. The question was raised regarding whether community meetings would resolve the east-west issue, which was the biggest hindrance in the past.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting ended at approximately 8:30 p.m.

Attachment 1

List of Attendees

Committee Members

Moderator John Sych

John Chapin
Newell Dean
Jennifer Schug

Larry Bingham
Don Ulsh

Tim Brown
Darrell Harden
Loren Warfield

Andy Blodgett
Tony Blodgett
Mary Jane Bradford
Robert Bradford
Barbara Buckham
Marilyn Buckham
Jackie Chapin
Ron Harding
Jason Schug
Pamela Schug
Richard Skalski (City of Kalamazoo)
John Zull (Kalamazoo County)

Jill Benfell (Kalamazoo Gazette)