Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Project Transparency And Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge transparency for 'Phoenix' project and complain of worsening traffic
Summary
Residents used the June 10 public-recognition period to press Gallatin City Council Committee members for detailed disclosures and a public vote on the proposed "Phoenix" construction project and to complain about traffic and road conditions.
Residents used the meeting's public-recognition period to press the council for more transparency on a proposed development dubbed the "Phoenix" project and to raise traffic and road-condition complaints.
Sandra Kelly, a Gallatin resident, presented a petition requesting that the city provide detailed public disclosures for the Phoenix project—project plans, cost estimates and budget breakdowns, funding sources, risk and environmental assessments, and contractor information—and to place the project on a public referendum. "Public projects are funded by taxpayers, and we deserve the same rigor and accountability in information sharing that private companies provide to their investors," Kelly said. She told council she expected the project would substantially affect traffic and downtown circulation when construction begins.
Renee Saunders, of 2092 Robin Boulevard, complained about Harris Lane, saying temporary asphalt is wearing away and leaving ruts that force drivers into oncoming traffic or risk vehicle alignment damage. "It's just kind of a pain in the rear end to have to try to either dodge going into the other lane of traffic or just go over it and wonder when I'm gonna need an alignment on my car," Saunders said.
Martha Zanger, 151 East Morris Drive, asked whether agenda item 2 covered accommodations for a new development and whether developers should pay associated costs. Staff and council clarified that the Lot 4 Road sewer-extension work discussed on the agenda is not for a new development but to serve existing homes at the end of Lot 4 Road; those connections will allow some property owners to abandon septic systems and tie into municipal sewer.
On timing for Project Phoenix, council members said the presentation schedule is in the developer's hands. A council member noted, "It's up to Boyle right now to bring to us what date they wanna make their presentation to you, so we're waiting for them to make a decision." Council also discussed whether to amend the existing MOU tied to Phoenix; staff said they had not yet reviewed an amended timeline or MOU.
Other public and council remarks touched on related matters: a council member raised a legal concern about a $1,500,000 grant connected to an industrial development board and cited "TCA 6 54 1 1 8" in that context; legal staff said they would review the citation. The council also announced a zoning-ordinance public-review kickoff meeting scheduled next Wednesday from 6 to 8 p.m. at City Hall Council Chambers.
Council did not take formal action on the petition or the Phoenix project at the June 10 committee meeting; staff agreed to follow up on the MOU timeline and on scheduling a developer presentation.
