Click Here For PDF

A/GFTC Planning Committee Minutes – Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Attendees Agency
Members and Participants
Brian Abare Village of South Glens Falls DPW
Ed Bartholomew City of Glens Falls
Frank Bonafide NYSDOT
Robert Cherry NYSDOT
Dick Doyle Washington County DPW
Kevin Hajos Warren County DPW
Karen Hulihan NYSDOT
Wayne LaMothe Warren County Planning
Larry Mulvaney NYSDOT
Scott Sopczyk GGFT
Jeff Tennyson Warren County DPW
Scott Tracy Washington County DPW
Michael Valentine Saratoga County Planning


Aaron Frankenfeld A/GFTC
Kate Mance A/GFTC
Minutes of the Meeting

1. Welcome and Introductions – Aaron called the meeting to order at 1:32.

2. Visitor Issues – none

3. Administrative Items – Aaron reported that a draft resolution was sent regarding the
proposed changes to the Ethan Allen rail service. One alternative entails elimination of
service to Fort Edward. There are not yet enough votes to process the resolution. Several
municipalities have passed their own resolutions regarding the proposed change. Two
abstentions were noted, from NYSDOT and the Thruway Authority. Aaron noted that the
procedure for dealing with abstentions is unclear, and no action can be taken until enough
votes are received. Ed Bartholomew noted that the City of Glens Falls is planning on
passing its own resolution regarding maintaining the Ethan Allen service, and requested
an updated version of the draft resolution from A/GFTC.

A. 2013-14 Unified Planning Work Program – Aaron reported that this has been
approved and staff has begun implementing tasks.
B. Completed / Ongoing Activities
1) Coordinated Human Services Transportation Committee – Kate reported
that the group met a few weeks ago. Although attendance at the
meetings is light, the members express appreciation for the group in
Adirondack / Glens Falls Transportation Council 
11 South Street, Suite 203  
Glens Falls, NY 12801 
p:  (518) 223 – 0086  f:   (518) 223 –  0584 

terms of networking and linking resources. The group is interested in
Mobility Management activities, so staff is putting together a proposal to
create a web application/map which would allow residents to access
information regarding available transportation services based on
location, availability, or service providers. This would take the place of
creating a Mobility Management Plan on the A/GFTC work plan. Initial
feedback from the CHSTC indicates that the group supports the
application/map idea.
2) Crash History Scans – Kate reported that draft safety screening
documents were sent to the TAC last week for Washington County and
the Town of Moreau. Warren County’s document will be initiated once
traffic count data is available. Staff is looking for comments on the
documents over the next few weeks, prior to the reports being made
available for public review. Rob Cherry noted that DOT is conducting a
County Counts initiative, funded by SPR. This will increase the number
of counts taken off of the State system. DOT is looking to partner with
counties to get these counts completed. The counties would be
reimbursed for each count. This data could then be used to help apply
for HSIP (safety) funding in the future.
3) Planning for Electric Vehicles – Kate reported about a presentation at the
recent Clean Communities meeting, which outlined a study in Albany to
determine good locations for electric vehicle charging stations. The
Albany study was very involved and covered topics such as local codes.
However, it may be possible to adapt the charging station location
methodology as a staff mapping exercise for the urbanized area.
Although there is not currently a large demand for electric vehicles in
the A/GFTC area, it might be a good idea to be prepared once demand
begins to rise.
4) On-call assistance projects
a. Fire Road Ped improvements – Aaron reported that requests for
Letters of Interest for this project have been sent out and are due
on the 28th. Once the deadline passes, staff will share the results
with the City and select a consultant.
b. Chestertown intersections – Aaron noted that staff needs to meet
with the Supervisor and Warren County Planning to identify the
project scope. This is largely dependent on the Supervisor’s
schedule and desire to get started.
5) Exit 17 Land Use study – Aaron noted that a meeting was held with the
Supervisor and Saratoga County Planning to refine the scope of this
project. An RFP will be developed after the draft TIP is complete.

5. Transit
A. GGFT Update – Scott Sopczyk reported no additional updates since last meeting.
B. 5316/5317 Solicitation – Aaron reported that no applications were received for
the A/GFTC area. This is not uncommon, as it is difficult to solicit interest in these
programs due to the level of administration required compared to the funding
available. The funds will either lapse or return to the statewide pool. In the
future, we will be looking to fold in these grants into the annual funding received
by GGFT.

6. TIP
Amendments and Modifications – Aaron reported that the Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) projects need to be added to the TIP. There are two projects which were

awarded SRTS funding – Fort Edward and Warrensburg. These are funded at
100% and will not affect the financial aspect of the TIP.



B. Review and approval of Draft TIP – Aaron noted that the goal was to go through
the roster of projects and note any technical questions such as project costs,
dates, and so forth. This will allow staff to prepare a draft for public comment,
with the goal of a May approval by the Policy Committee. Specific discussion
items included:
1) Transit Projects: The spreadsheet includes carryover funds from previous
years, and fits into the fiscal constraint requirements. These projects
maintain the existing fleet and operational capacity. No TIP changes
2) SAR 115/104342: Discussion regarding the specifics of this project. Frank
Bonafide noted that it is a preservation project. No TIP changes noted.
3) WAR 100/175527: This project has been placed in Post-TIP. Jeff Tennyson
noted that the project is being held up by discussion among state
agencies and cannot move forward at this time. Aaron noted that if the
project is expected to become active in the future, it may affect the fiscal
constraints, since it is not a preservation project. The group discussed
whether it might be possible to use preservation funds to remove the
bridge entirely, if needed. No TIP changes noted.
4) WAR 147/175907: The group discussed the timing of this project.
Although the sponsor expressed a desire to construct in 2013-14, since it
is a preservation project, the construction has been moved out to 2014-
15. Ed Bartholomew asked what would happen to the project timing if any
other projects were pushed/removed from the TIP. Karen Hulihan stated
that the project could then be in line for advancement and moving it up in
this situation would probably not affect preservation targets. No TIP
changes noted.
5) WAS 126/175725: This project is being split with Vermont, and the
matched share for Washington County will be around $500,000. The TAC
agreed to transfer the balance of funds (approximately $1.1M) to the
preservation program, with 70% towards pavement and 30% towards
6) WAS 101/175532: The group discussed the potential for this project to get
SPP funding. If SPP funding is awarded, it will potentially free up capital $
alloted to this project for other uses. If SPP funds are not awarded, the
project can still be kept on the program.

The group had a general discussion about the TIP, including maximizing NHPP
funds and ensuring programming design phases for bridge and pavement



7. Other Items:
A. Karen Hulihan presented the current list of projects for the region. This year’s list
of projects includes a 10% “slush” allowance for cost overages, and a 30-day
window for PS&E. DOT staff worked hard with the sponsors and consultants to
come up with a realistic list for the Commissioner to sign. Jeff noted that he
would like to see more realistic goals for turnaround times built in. Project
sponsors and DOT may be doing all they can to turn things around, but other
agencies and consultants may not. It would be helpful to have data on the
average turnaround time for the various project phases prior to construction,
which could inform schedules more accurately.
B. Ed Bartholomew reported that the Broad Street project finally received a waiver
for environmental issues related to the Indiana Bat.

8. Next meeting and adjourn – The next meeting will be held June 19th. The meeting was
adjourned at 2:47 p.m.