South Russell Village Council members and the ad hoc Safe Bicycle and Pedestrian Transport Committee met in a special joint session to review a draft master trails plan and Phase 1 cost estimates tied to an $800,000 trail grant and to hear community concerns about width, easements and stormwater. Committee member Carrie Schwoss opened the presentation with survey results and a Phase 1 route; engineering details and cost breakdowns were presented by Rich, the plan presenter.

The committee presented results from a community survey of 373 household responses showing broad support for off‑road paths and safer crossings, and recommended a Phase 1 route that would connect Spring Drive through South Russell Village Park east to the Sugar Lakes neighborhood. “The number one improvement was off road paths,” committee member Carrie Schwoss said, adding the committee and design team prepared two cost scenarios: a core Phase 1 estimated at $745,851 and an expanded Phase 1 at $1,023,384. The committee said the identified grant would cover 80 percent of eligible costs, leaving a roughly 20 percent local match.

Why it matters: the project would create walking and (potentially) cycling connections from neighborhoods and schools to South Russell Village Park, but the scope and legal designations of the trail affect what activities are permitted, the village’s matching obligation and whether additional property easements or acquisitions will be required.

Key technical and policy issues discussed

- Path width and permitted uses: speakers said Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) guidance referenced by the design team indicates a 5‑foot minimum for a pedestrian path; ODOT guidance also treats an 11‑foot cross‑section (with a center line) as a multimodal, two‑way trail. “ODOT’s recommendation was a minimum of 5 foot width,” Rich said. Program representative Sunil Sharp told the group that under the funding rules a walking path could be designed to a 5‑foot minimum but that width alone does not settle slope or other ADA considerations: “Depending on the funding requirements, which seem pretty loose, you could possibly do a walking path, not designed for bikes, that would typically have a 5 foot minimum width for ADA,” Sunil Sharp said.

- Materials and special structures: presenters said they prefer an asphalt surface over gravel for durability and maintenance, and that boardwalk structures would be used where wetlands or culvert constraints exist to avoid extensive culvert extension and wetland fill. The design team noted some segments would require boardwalks to span wetland areas.

- Right of way, easements and property impacts: several council members and residents pressed the design team to identify where the proposed path would fall relative to the road right of way and where permanent construction easements or temporary construction access might be required. One councilmember noted that some sidewalk projects in nearby communities required running the path through private front yards and that such acquisitions can be contentious and costly. Rich and the committee said the design used base maps with two‑foot contours and existing utility/pole locations but that more detailed topography and staking would be the next step to define exact impacts and potential easement needs.

- Stormwater and underground utilities: multiple speakers raised concerns that placing a paved path in the road ditch or right of way could affect existing stormwater conveyance and sanitary structures. A resident warned that filling or enclosing ditches could increase runoff and that the village has invested in stormwater mitigation in recent years; the design team said whether formal stormwater management is required depends on the amount of disturbance and acreage impacted.

- Crossings and safety: the plan includes new marked crossings and beacons at key locations, including an advised signalized crossing near State Route 306. Committee presenters said crossings are a priority because people currently cross the road to reach businesses, the park and the farmers market.

Funding, schedule and next steps

Committee speakers said the village previously set aside $50,000 to develop a master trails plan and that the project team had applied for an $800,000 grant (described in meeting materials as an 80/20 match) to finance implementation in the funder’s fiscal year 2026 program cycle. The committee urged the council to proceed with further engineering, outreach and formal coordination with the funding agency and ODOT. An email read into the record from Adam Allen indicated that, once programmed, ODOT scheduling and engineering could take 9–18 months and estimated the earliest possible award as state fiscal year 2028 (calendar 2027) with possible earliest construction start of July 1, 2027.

What was decided and what remains open

No formal action was taken on accepting the master plan at the meeting. The mayor asked for a motion to accept the plan, but the solicitor said a motion could not be made because accepting the plan had not been properly noticed on the special meeting agenda. The committee set a public outreach schedule (including market‑day hours and September meetings) and asked staff to obtain definitive, written guidance from ODOT and the village solicitor about the grant’s width requirements, whether a 5‑foot path funded under the grant must be pedestrian‑only, and any legal or liability limits on bicycle use and e‑bikes. The council also discussed adding planning funds to the October budget cycle so the village can proceed with detailed design and stakeholder outreach.

Community concerns voiced at the meeting included maintenance responsibility for a paved path, the safety of children crossing Bell Road at multiple locations, the feasibility of keeping the village’s rural character, and the potential need to acquire private easements from affected homeowners. Several speakers emphasized they favored getting people off Bell Road but urged the village to resolve legal and design uncertainties before committing matching funds.

Ending

Presenters and council members closed by asking the design team to return with more detailed staking/topography, formal written confirmation of allowable widths and uses from ODOT and the grantor, and a refined cost estimate that explicitly addresses potential easement acquisition and stormwater work. Because the meeting was a noticed work session, the council did not take a vote on plan acceptance; the committee will continue public outreach and pursue back‑office coordination with ODOT and legal staff ahead of any formal council action.