University Heights committee weighs narrowing $2.0–$2.6 million CMAQ signal project as NOACA deadline looms

The University Heights Service & Utilities Committee on Aug. 1 discussed whether to accept or resize a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant programmed through NOACA for a citywide traffic-signal project, with staff saying a response will be needed soon and construction must be started by about July 1, 2027, if the city proceeds.

The discussion centered on two choices: pursue the full set of signal reconstructions described in a 2017 ordinance, which committee members said could require a multi‑million‑dollar local commitment, or reduce scope to signal improvements on corridor stretches (chiefly Cedar Road and nearby intersections) to gain safety and traffic-flow benefits at lower cost.

City Engineer Brenda McBee told the committee NOACA has the project programmed for state fiscal year 2027 (July 2026–June 2027) and that “it needs to be sold to a contractor to go to construction by June 2027,” adding that the scope can be adjusted and that CMAQ funding for the city is capped at about $500,000 for this award. McBee also said staff will try to obtain and distribute the original grant application and packet from the 2017–2018 process so council can confirm the prior assumptions and obligations.

Why it matters: NOACA’s schedule and the CMAQ scoring rules create time pressure. McBee warned that downsizing or returning an award can affect future scoring; jurisdictions that reduce scope receive fewer points on subsequent applications, and returning award money can reduce competitiveness for one cycle.

Committee members and safety staff repeatedly emphasized public‑safety elements that are not always eligible for CMAQ funding. Police Chief Rogers and other safety staff said they want improvements such as modern emergency‑vehicle preemption and upgraded vehicle detection; Rogers said older loop detectors are frequently damaged and do not reliably detect bicycles and motorcycles, creating safety and operational problems. He said newer camera- and signal‑based detection systems and modern preemption technology (for example, Opticom or similar systems) would better support emergency response and could be included in a corridor‑focused plan.

Concerning the project's price and prior ordinance: members recalled an earlier council discussion that referenced a roughly $3 million project and a 20–27% local match. Committee members and staff reported confusion about whether the 2017/2018 ordinance and earlier minutes committed the city to the full reconstruction budget or to apply for the grant only. Staff said the current assembled estimate for the complete package in front of the committee is about $2.57 million total, with local costs shown in the packet around $2.067 million in some summaries; speakers emphasized those numbers are estimates and the packet lacks original application materials and full plans.

Several council members urged a strategic approach: Councilman Brian King and others said focusing on roughly 16 intersections for signal improvements along Cedar Road and nearby corridors could deliver substantial safety and traffic‑flow benefits at a fraction of the total reconstruction cost. Vice Mayor Michelle Weiss, Councilman Chris Cooney and other members expressed preference for narrowing scope to the improvement list and returning later for additional funding cycles if needed.

On schedule and next steps: Committee chair Sherry Sachs said the committee needs another Service & Utilities meeting before council returns from recess in September so members can review the original grant packet and refined cost estimates. Staff (city engineer and service director Alan Pennington) were asked to produce the grant application and any related packet material and to prepare revised cost breakdowns showing the “improvement” (eligible) portions distinct from full reconstruction (infrastructure items that may be ineligible).

No formal vote was taken on accepting or declining the CMAQ award at this meeting. The committee did agree to reconvene to refine scope and to provide NOACA with the city’s intent as soon as the council can act.

Committee members also suggested other financing options to explore in parallel, including Ohio Public Works Commission programs (grants and low‑interest loans) and staging projects across application cycles to align technology choices with modern signal solutions rather than 2017 assumptions.

What remains open: staff must locate and circulate the original 2017–2018 application and packet, confirm which elements CMAQ will or will not reimburse (particularly infrastructure such as poles, mast arms and underground wiring), and produce a refined proposal that isolates eligible improvements (signal controllers, detection, preemption) from ineligible reconstruction costs. NOACA’s deadline and the project’s programmed SFY2027 status make a council decision time‑sensitive, staff said.

Ending: The committee adjourned after agreeing to set a follow‑up Service & Utilities meeting in September to review the original application and a narrowed scope that prioritizes corridor signal improvements and public‑safety upgrades.