Sunrise Engineering presents Mount Pleasant transportation master plan; council sets Sept. 9 comment meeting and seeks rapid adoption

Mount Pleasant city leaders on Aug. 26 reviewed a draft Transportation Master Plan from Sunrise Engineering and agreed to a schedule for public comment and finalization, with a comment-resolution meeting set for Sept. 9 and an aim to adopt the plan by the end of September.

Jeff, the consultant from Sunrise Engineering, said the draft combines data collection, existing zoning and annexation-area analysis to guide future roadway classifications and connectivity. "So having this transportation master plan in place does that for you," he said, describing maps of functional classifications that extend a collector grid into annexation areas and typical cross sections for future development.

The draft maps and exhibits include intersection turn-movement and volume counts, a crash-data review from 2010 through 02/2023, and a transit/active-transportation section. Sunrise reported that most intersections operate at level of service C or better and that crash counts—largely around highways—have decreased over the examined period; the consultant said no long-term crash trends were identified that require immediate mitigation.

A central piece of the plan is a 10-year pavement management program built on updated surface-inventory scores and an assumed annual budget of $500,000 (adjusted for inflation). Jeff said the plan schedules projects based on remaining service life, severity of pavement distresses, functional classification and treatment costs and that the delivery order could shift modestly if cost estimates change.

The draft also lists capital projects that are not routine maintenance—new major and minor collectors, a local road noted in prior discussions and an improvement to fire-department access. The plan assumes developers will fund minimum cross sections for new streets while the city would pay for enhancements above that minimum.

On active transportation, the plan phases sidewalk and crossing work: Phase 1 targets gaps along major collectors to improve connectivity, with subsequent phases filling gaps on minor collectors. Jeff noted that many of the sidewalk projects would be eligible for Safe Routes to School funding.

Council discussion centered on timing and priorities. Rodney pushed to begin work quickly on a top priority: "Based on this, our highest priority would be 200 North from 400 east to 900 east. Can we just say go?" Jeff responded that the order of projects is generally set but can be adjusted and that the council can begin planning for top projects now.

The consultant described the recommended comment process: two weeks for council/staff review, a comment-resolution meeting, and a final draft roughly two weeks after that meeting. He asked the council to compile comments into a single marked-up PDF or spreadsheet to streamline responses and offered to provide a comment-resolution form.

On impact fees, Jeff said they can fund capacity added for growth (for example, widening caused by development) but "cannot be used to address existing deficiencies" such as routine pavement management. He cautioned that precise bookkeeping is required to separate impact-fee spending from other expenditures.

The council and staff agreed to schedule the comment-resolution meeting for Sept. 9 during a council meeting and expressed an aggressive goal to adopt the plan by the end of September so the city can move to identify funding sources. The work session closed following a motion to adjourn, which carried by voice vote.

What happens next: staff and councilors will compile and submit comments to Sunrise Engineering, which will address them in a comment-resolution meeting on Sept. 9 and circulate a final draft for adoption consideration by the end of September.