Perry Council hears proposed changes to Weleetka Trail

City of Perry Director of Engineering Chad McMurrian presented council with proposed changes to Weleetka Trial at the work session held on February 3. McMurrian first explained the original concept prepared by Bryant Engineering, which would cost $1.2 million. McMurrian stated that he was asked to return with alternate options. McMurrian presented five alternate plans.

The first option that McMurrian offered consisted of bringing the trail to connect with Martin Luther King Jr Drive and either connecting the trail to the existing sidewalk, or building a sidewalk on the creek side of the road. The trail would extend to Big Indian Creek Drive, and then up the Ball Street Extension. It would then cross at Tucker Road up to Duncan Avenue. McMurrian said that this option could serve multiple uses, as the city needs sidewalks, homes and lots along the projected path. It would benefit from the introduction of a sidewalk, and it would connect to parts of the city. The estimated price for this alternative is $550,000.

The next option that McMurrian proposed extended from the existing end of the trail to Martin Luther King Jr Drive over to Big Indian Creek Drive then to a sewer easement on the Goff property, and then could connect to a sewer easement on property owned by Interfor. McMurrian said that Interfor has advised that they would like to have a fence that separates their property from public access. McMurrian explained that there are sewer easements currently in place for the city’s access, but a walking trail would require the city to obtain public access easements. The path would consist of a boardwalk to bridge Big Indian Creek, a sidewalk on Ball Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, and a concrete path. The cost is estimated at $600,000 for this plan of action.

The third plan of action suggested utilizing the full sewer easement in place on the north side of Big Indian Creek, starting near Evergreen Cemetery. This would be on Interfor’s property as well as the property of others. McMurrian said that this route would allow for maintenance to the sewer. The path would continue out to Ball Street then on to Duncan Avenue. The path would require a bridge near water plant #1, sidewalks on Ball Street, and a sidewalk on Duncan Avenue. This option is estimated to have a cost of $540,000. This would also require a public access easement from Interfor and other property owners.

Another option brought to the attention of council was to make the most of the existing trail and limit the amount of trail to be installed. This path would begin at the end of the existing trail, pulling it through to Ball Street, and then again up to Duncan Avenue. This route would cause the trail to cut through properties belonging to Interfor among others as well, and would consist of a bridge, sidewalk on Ball Street, and a concreate path. This, too, would require public access easements, and cost an estimated $305,000.

The final option presented to Mayor and council did not involve connecting the trail to an existing sidewalk. The trail would create a loop, crossing the creek at Water Plant #1, following the existing sewer easement—also cutting onto properties owned by Interfor and others—and possibly crossing back across the creek at what is currently the end of the trail to connect the new trail segment with the old. The route would need the addition of two bridges to cross the river as well as a concrete pathway. It would cost an estimated $305,000, and needs public access easements in addition.

According to Gilmour, the funding source for the project depended on the desired time frame. If the construction of the project needs to happen quickly, the public facilities authority would have to be consulted, while if done in segments, recreation grants could be applied for, and the additional funds could come from SPLOST dollars.

Mayor Randall Walker reminded council of the goal of connectivity and challenged them to consider where it is that they want the trail to go. Walker advocated for the third option because it incorporated aspects of a nature trail as well as connected to Ball Street. Walker explained that he wanted to make sure that the option chosen fit the objective of what was set out to be accomplished.

Councilman Riley Hunt brought forward the question of timing and if the project could be done in phases, to which Mayor Walker concurred, stating that council should be conservative in that aspect but still decisive in the direction in which they wanted the project to move.

Councilman Robert Jones moved to the subject of Interfor’s requirements regarding the subject. Walker said that Interfor’s views, would be part of the investigation process and that there might have to be alternatives drafted.

Gilmour further expanded on Walker’s point and informed that if council decided on an option that involved Interfor’s property, the city would reach out to Interfor and inquire as to the company’s position, which would determine the planning process further.

Jones said that he felt the requirements were worth investigating on this third option, while Walker echoed this sentiment.

Mayor and council consented to move forward with the exploration of the third option in regards to property owners’, including Interfor’s, requirements.

HHJ News