Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Active Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed updates to Milton trail blueprint, hears public survey and next steps
Summary
City planning staff presented proposed additions to the Milton Trail Blueprint (UDC section 10.7.03a), summarized public survey results (about 140 responses) and described how the map guides private sidewalk/trail requirements and future funding discussions.
City staff presented proposed updates to Unified Development Code section 10.7.03a — the Milton Trail Blueprint — and summarized volunteer and public input on proposed additions to the city’s aspirational trail map.
Why it matters: The blueprint determines where private development may be required to build wider sidewalks or trails and helps prioritize segments for future funding, including Safe Streets grants and local transportation packages.
Rob Del Ross (staff) said the map’s primary legal effect is to change where a required sidewalk would instead be a wider trail; it does not itself commit city funding. The proposed changes were developed over roughly 18 months with the Trails Advisory Committee and volunteers, and passed the committee unanimously several months ago. Del Ross said the committee’s additions are shown on the draft map in pink; existing code segments are shown in blue.
Staff reported a public survey in February that yielded approximately 140 responses. Del Ross summarized that most proposed segments received support from respondents, with the most support for the New Providence Road segment and the Birmingham Road connection. Two segments — a portion along Route 140/Arnold Mill Road and a spur to Locke Pawnee Preserve — received the most individual objections or low support, in part because respondents found it hard to visualize those connections today.
Del Ross said the map is aspirational and intended to be used two ways: to require trail widths when sidewalk requirements are triggered for private development and to guide the city’s conversations about which segments to pursue for external funding (for example, Safe Streets for All and the next T‑SPLOST/TSPLOST round). He said the city has acquired passive‑park properties since the map was last reviewed, which prompted some additions. The staff presentation also discussed possible surface materials for different areas (concrete in form‑based code areas; gravel or asphalt in more rural settings) and the need for crossings and side‑of‑road design choices to be resolved in project design.
Councilmember Phil Kramer asked when staff will set priorities and funding plans; Del Ross said the Trails Advisory Committee and staff expect to identify a prioritized list and funding options in the second half of the year and to begin project selection tied to the next round of regional funding discussions in 2026. No ordinance vote was taken; the presentation was for discussion and council sentiment to guide future ordinance edits.
Ending: Staff said they will incorporate council feedback into draft ordinance language over the next months and return to council for formal consideration; council members urged an implementation plan with funding sources and timeline be produced soon.
