lynchburg clay middle school - dot.state.oh.us...within 1/4 mile of school 27 8.9% within 1/2 mile...
TRANSCRIPT
Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL TRAVEL PLAN
February 15, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction and The Safe Routes To School Team 1
Section 2: Our SRTS Vision
5
Section 3: Current Student Travel
6
Section 4: Key Issues Impacting Safe Walking and Bicycling to School
9
Section 5: Recommended SRTS Countermeasures
12
Section 6: Public Input
17
Section 7: Final Plan – Pledge of Support
18
Appendix A: ODOT Radius Map
Appendix B: Teacher Tally Summary
Appendix C:Parent Survey Summary
Appendix D: Sidewalk Conditions Map, Recommendations Map, and Cost Estimates
Appendix E: Advertisement of the Public Meeting in the Hillsboro Times Gazette newspaper, the announcement of the Public Meeting on the Lynchburg-Clay Middle School website, and the minutes of the Public Meeting that was held on January 23, 2013.
1
The purpose of the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School Safe Route to Schools (SRTS) is to encourage
school age children to travel to and from school by means other than a motorized vehicle,
specifically active methods of transportation such as walking or biking. The benefits of
promoting active transportation models include encouraging increased physical activity and
developing healthy habits, developing a sense of freedom and responsibility, and supporting an
environmentally friendly activity, while creating a safer area around the school.
The Ohio Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is funded by the Federal Highway
Administration and administered by the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). The Ohio
SRTS Program funds countermeasures in five categories called the 5 E’s. These are Engineering,
Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, and Evaluation. These categories are as follows:
Engineering
Engineering projects, also referred to as infrastructure projects, include operational and
physical improvements that establish safer and fully accessible pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure, such as crossings, walkways, trails, and bikeways. All infrastructure projects
must improve conditions for students walking or bicycling within two miles of the target school.
Other types of infrastructure project focus on reducing motor vehicle speeds and conflicts with
pedestrians and bicyclists, and establishing safer and fully accessible crossings, walkways, trails,
and bikeways.
The next three project types are considered Non‐Infrastructure Projects because, while they are
intended to affect the student or driver behavior in conjunction with new infrastructure
projects, they do not include any ‘bricks and mortar’ projects.
Education
Programs target children, parents, caregivers, and neighbors, teaching how to walk and bicycle
safely and informing drivers on how to drive more safely around pedestrians and bicyclists.
Education programs can also incorporate personal security issues, as well as health and
INTRODUCTION AND THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL TEAM
2
environmental messages. Creation and reproduction of promotional and educational materials
are covered by SRTS funding.
Enforcement
Strategies increase the safety of children bicycling and walking to school by helping to change
unsafe behaviors of drivers, as well as pedestrians and bicyclists. These funds may cover the
costs for additional law enforcement or equipment needed for enforcement activities, such as
bicycle and pedestrian safety curricula, materials, and trainers. Equipment and training needed
for establishing crossing guard programs are also covered.
Encouragement
Activities promote walking and bicycling to school to children, parents and community
members. Events such as Walk to School Day, contests with incentives such as a Frequent
Walker/Bicyclist challenge, or on‐going programs such as “Walking School Bus” or “Bicycle
Train” can promote and encourage walking and bicycling as a popular way to get to school.
Safety and educational tokens that advertise these programs are also included in the funding.
Evaluation
Collecting information before and after program activities or projects are implemented allow
communities to track progress and outcomes, and provide information to guide program
development. The SRTS process requires an evaluation process after the implementation of
infrastructure and non‐infrastructure projects to see if students have increased the number of
times they walk or bicycle to and from school. The costs for data gathering, analysis, and
evaluation reporting at the local project level are covered by SRTS funding.
These non‐infrastructure projects, while coupled with the infrastructure projects, set in place
parameters to increase students walking and biking to and from school. With community
involvement, and efforts by schools and citizens, the program improves the health and well‐
being of children by enabling and encouraging students to walk or bike to school. Through
implementation of SRTS programs, results show reduction in traffic and air pollution, and
encouragement for a healthy, active lifestyle at an early age.
3
BACKGROUND
The Village of Lynchburg is located in Highland County, Ohio. Within the Village of Lynchburg,
key individuals involved with the community and the school district were tasked with creating a
successful SRTS Program (see next page for the SRTS Committee members’ information). The
Lynchburg‐Clay Local School Travel Plan targets Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School for this study. At
one time, Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School was located inside the Village limits. Several years ago,
a new middle school was built outside of the Village of Lynchburg, with the new school’s north
property line being the south corporation line of the Village of Lynchburg. This study includes a
review of crash records from 2008–2010, results from a walk audit, identification of existing
conditions, and determination of possible countermeasures and solutions. Specific
improvement suggestions were developed for the school to address short, medium, and long
term needs of students to encourage walking and biking.
School District School Name School Address Grades served
Lynchburg Clay Local School District
Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School
8250 SR 134 Lynchburg, Ohio 45142
6‐8
Your School’s Students 2010‐2011
Average Daily Student
Enrollment
Black, non-
Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific
Islander Hispanic Multi-
Racial White, non-
Hispanic Economically
Disadvantaged Limited English
Proficient
Students with
Disabilities Migrant
319 - - - - - 98.4% 42.0% - 13.6% - * Source: Ohio Department of Education (ODE) website
SECTION 1: OUR SCHOOL
4
Our SRTS team members include:
School Representatives: Name Email address 5 E Role: Mr. Shane Shope, Superintendent [email protected] Education Community Representatives: Name Email address 5 E Role: Mr. Rob Berger, Council Member [email protected] Encouragement Local Government Representatives: Name Email address 5 E Role: Ms. Carolyn Hastings, Council Member [email protected] Lead Point of Contact
Ms. Christine Wilbanks, President Pro Temp, Lynchburg Village Council
[email protected] Encouragement
Education Representative: Name Email address 5 E Role: Mr. Eric Magee, Middle School Principal eric. [email protected] Education
Ms. Meghan Griffith [email protected] Education Health Representatives: Name Email address 5 E Role: Mr. Fred Rose, President Highland County Board of Health [email protected] Education, Encouragement
Ms. Rachel Osborne, school nurse [email protected] Education Public Safety Representatives: Name Email address 5 E Role: Deputy Richard Warner, County Deputy Sheriff [email protected] Enforcement
Chief Tim Heiser, Local Police Chief [email protected] Enforcement
Other: Name Email address 5 E Role Ms. Caroline Duffy, PE [email protected] Engineering Chief Dave Manning, Fire Chief Education, Encouragement Mayor Robbie Wallace, Mayor [email protected] Encouragement/Education
1A. The lead contact for our Plan is:
Name: Ms. Carolyn Hastings
Affiliation: Village of Lynchburg City Council
Phone Number: 937.364.2579
Email address: [email protected] and [email protected]
Mailing address: PO Box 454 150 N. Broadway, Lynchburg Ohio 45142*
5
Our goal is to provide a safe sidewalk and intersection crossings from the Village of Lynchburg to the
Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School so there is an increase among the students who safely walk and bicycle to
and from school. The middle school does not currently provide activities that encourage walking or
bicycling to school. In the past, the school has promoted bike safety programs that gave free bicycle
helmets to students. The school will develop plans to promote greater use of the facilities once the
infrastructure projects are completed. This resulting activity will increase the healthiness of the
students who attend the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School.
SECTION 2: OUR SRTS VISION
6
3A. How many students live within walking and bicycling distance of school?
Distance From School Number of Students % of Student Body
Within 1/4 mile of school 27 8.9%
Within 1/2 mile of school 56 18.5%
Within 1 mile of school 70 23.1%
Within 2 miles of school 91 30.1%
See Appendix A for the school attendance boundary map.
3B. How many students are currently walking and bicycling to school? What are the primary walking and bicycling routes?
Walk Bike School Bus
Family Vehicle Carpool Public
Transit Other
Number of students (morning trips)
0% 0% 78% 0% 0% 0% 0.1%
Number of students (afternoon trips)
0% 0% 86% 12% 2% 0.1% 0%
Primary walking/bicycling routes
N/A
Travel modes data collected from the National Center for Safe Routes to School Student Travel Tally forms that are summarized in Appendix B.
3C. Are there any school or district policies that impact students walking or bicycling to school?
District Bus Policies The district bus policy states that the school district shall provide school bus transportation to all elementary and secondary students. Students are not permitted to walk or ride their bicycles to or from school. Students may be dropped off or picked up by an adult in a motorized vehicle. School Travel Policies Because of the District Bus Policy, students who live within walking distance of the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School are not allowed to walk or bicycle to school. Many of the parents interviewed at the dismissal of a school day live within a mile radius of the school. They indicated that if a sidewalk were built, they would let their children walk or ride their bicycles to and from school.
SECTION 3: CURRENT STUDENT TRAVEL
7
Dismissal: Busses in side lot
Dismissal: Parents in front of school
3D. School Arrival and Dismissal Process.
The Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School lies just south of and shares the Village of Lynchburg corporation limit. The school has an access driveway that runs from SR 135 to the west of the school to SR 134 to the east of the school (see map below):
This driveway provides the only access to the school. During morning arrival, a random vehicular mix occurs of parent drop‐offs, busses, and staff parking that is all assigned to the front parking lot. All students enter the front of the building. A school official is not on site during the school arrival process. However, during the afternoon dismissal, all of the busses assemble in or near the side lot and the parents assemble in front of the school for dismissal of all of the students. Students that are riding busses exit the side doors to the side lot, while student riding home with a parent utilize the front doors. A teacher assists the bussed students in the afternoon to resolve any issues so the busses can be timely at their next stop at the high school. There are not any police, adult crossing guards, or student safety patrols present for the arrival or dismissal of the school. There are no bicycle racks on the school property. The sidewalk in front of the school does not connect to either SR 135 or to SR 134.
Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School
Corporation Limit
8
3E. Parent Attitudes Towards Walking and Biking.
Reasons for not allowing children to walk or bicycle to school: 1) The students are not allowed to walk or bicycle to and from school.
2) The amount of traffic along SR 135 and SR 134.
3) The speed of the traffic along SR 135 and SR 134.
4) There are not any sidewalks or pathways for the students to use to walk or bicycle to and from school.
5) Safety of intersections and crossing.
Parent Attitude data collected from May 2012‐ October 2012 from the National Center for Safe Routes to Parent Survey forms are summarized in Appendix C.
3F. Safety Issues and Concerns.
The major safety concern is that the school access driveway is bounded by SR 134 to the west and SR 135 to the east. Both state routes are major rural collectors, with a vehicle count of 2000 vehicles daily. A vertical curve on SR 135 limits sight distance at the school entrance. The lack of a sidewalk or path from the school to the Village and a lighted crosswalk at the SR 135 intersection at the Glenavy Subdivision inhibits students from walking and bicycling to and from school.
Relevant traffic crashes
The following is a summary of crash data reports from 2008–2010 recorded within two (2) miles of the school site.
There was _____1_________ total crash within the STP study area. The crashes resulted in _____1_______injury and ______0_____fatalities. The number of crashes that involved bicycles was ___1_________. This accident occurred on SR 134 south between the school entrance and the bridge over Turtle Creek at the intersection of SR 134 and High Street. The child involved in the accident had to be transported via a helicopter to the hospital. The number of crashes that involved pedestrians was ___0_________.
The crash that involved a bicycle was on SR 134 at the intersection with High Street. A car was traveling southbound and the bicyclist pulled out in front of the car and was struck by the car.
9
SR 135
3G. Walking and bicycling encouragement activities at the school.
The middle school does not currently provide any activities that encourage walking or bicycling to school. In the past, the school has promoted bike safety programs that gave free bicycle helmets to students.
SECTION 4: KEY ISSUES IMPACTING SAFE WALKING AND BICYCLING TO SCHOOL
1. Issue: The lack of a safe sidewalk or trail from the Village of Lynchburg corporation limit to the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School along SR 135 is a safety issue.
SR 135 provides the preferred route from the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School into the Village of Lynchburg. However, SR 135 does not have any sidewalks from the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School to the corporation limit of the Village of Lynchburg. In addition, SR 135 crosses Turtle Creek, the stream that is the northern boundary of the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School property. These barriers inhibit students from walking and or bicycling to and from school.
10
2. Issue: The lack of a marked, lighted, school crosswalk with a crossing guard across SR 135 at the Glenavy Subdivision is a safety issue.
The Glenavy Subdivision houses numerous students that attend the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School. The school, however, is on the opposite side of SR 135 from the subdivision. The intersection does not have a crosswalk, signing, or street lighting for SR 135. Crossing guard are not present at this location during the school arrival and dismissal time periods. These barriers impede the students from walking or bicycling to and from school.
3. Issue: A lack of useable sidewalk along the west side of SR 135 from the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School to Pearl Street is a safety issue.
The sidewalks along SR 135 are only inside the Village of Lynchburg corporation line. However, the sidewalks along SR 135 to Pearl Street are all deteriorating, cracking, crumbling, and uneven. Pipes under the sidewalk are exposed, causing a tripping hazard. Many trees roots have caused the upheaval of the sidewalks. The condition of these sidewalks impedes the students from walking or bicycling to and from school.
To Schoo
l
SR 135
Glenavy Sub. Entrance
To Village
To Schoo
l
11
4. Issue: Proper school signage and responsive school‐flasher programming is a safety issue.
Speeding is an issue on SR 135. While school flashing signs are present, they are not remotely controlled, but rather controlled by dates. This leaves the sign flashers active during early release dates, holiday breaks, and snow days. Leaving these signs active during times when students are not present breeds disrespect for these signs by the motoring public.
5. Issue: Lack of sidewalk amenities on the school site.
a. There isn’t a sidewalk or any path for the students to use to access the school building from SR 135 except for the same pavement as the motorized vehicles.
b. The school property does not have any bicycle racks.
School Entrance
SR 135
12
5A. O
ur 12‐Mon
th SRT
S Non
‐Infrastructure Activity
Calen
dar.
Non
‐Infrastructure Cou
ntermeasure
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
1. W
alk to Schoo
l Days
PLAN
Lead: Mr. Eric M
agee, Prin
cipal
IMPLEM
ENT
2. Bike and Walking
Safety Ed
ucation
Programs
PLAN
Lead: Mr. Eric M
agee, Prin
cipal
IMPLEM
ENT
2. Frequ
ent w
alking
and
biking programs
PLAN
Lead: Mr. Eric M
agee, Prin
cipal
IMPLEM
ENT
3. Produ
ce “good
” tickets fo
r prope
r safe
walking
and
biking habits to
be given by
sheriff office at schoo
l sem
inars.
PLAN
Lead: Ch
ief Tim
Heiser, Lynchb
urg Po
lice Ch
ief
IMPLEM
ENT
4. Provide
training
and
uniform
s for Crossing
Guards a
t the
SR 13
5 and Glenavy Sub
divisio
n Scho
ol Crossing.
PLAN
Lead: Ch
ief Tim
Heiser, Lynchb
urg Po
lice Ch
ief
IMPLEM
ENT
5. Provide
the stud
ents with
a bike he
lmets
for com
pleting a bike sa
fety training
assembly.
PLAN
Lead: Ch
ief Tim
Heiser, Lynchb
urg Po
lice Ch
ief
IMPLEM
ENT
SECT
ION 5: R
ECOMMEN
DED
SCH
OOL CO
UNTE
RMEA
SURE
S
13
5B. Infrastructure Co
unterm
easure Recom
men
datio
ns
Map
ID
Loca
tion
Issue
Co
unte
rmea
sure
Ti
mef
ram
e Pr
iorit
y Ju
risdi
ctio
n Re
spon
sible
Estim
ated
Co
st
Poss
ible
Fund
ing
Sour
ce
Stat
us
1 From
the
Lynchb
urg‐
Clay M
iddle
Scho
ol
prop
erty
line to th
e Village of
Lynchb
urg
corporation
limit, along
the west
side of SR
135.
The lack of a
safe side
walk
makes it nearly
im
possible to
walk or bicycle
to and
from
scho
ol. SR
135
has a
high rate
of driv
er sp
eed
and on
e lane
in
each dire
ction
with
a sm
all
shou
lder.
‐ Install sid
ewalk and lighting
alon
g west side of SR 13
5 from
the scho
ol driv
eway to
south
corporation line of th
e Village of
Lynchb
urg, includ
ing a pe
destria
n footbridge.
Short
Term
High
‐Ohio
Departmen
t of
Transportatio
n ‐ Lynchbu
rg
Scho
ol District
High
‐ODO
T SRTS
Fund
s ‐Other
Fund
s
Pend
ing
2
The lack of a
marked,
lighted
, schoo
l crossw
alk with
a crossin
g guard across SR
135 at th
e Glenavy
Subd
ivision
is a
safety issue.
‐Install a Rapid Flashing Be
acon
on
SR 13
5 in both directions to
he
lp m
otorists see
stud
ents
attempting to cross th
e street.
‐Paint a ladd
er‐type crossw
alk on
the south approach to
the
intersectio
n on
SR 13
5 ‐In
stall Schoo
l Crossing Crossw
alk
signs on all three
app
roache
s ‐Build ADA
com
pliant curb ramps
on th
e tw
o south corners a
cross
SR 135
. ‐Provide
street lightin
g for S
R 13
5 crossw
alk.
Short
Term
High
‐Ohio
Departmen
t of
Transportatio
n ‐ Lynchbu
rg
Scho
ol District
Med
ium
‐ODO
T SRTS
Fund
s
Pend
ing
14
Map
ID
Loca
tion
Issue
Co
unte
rmea
sure
Ti
mef
ram
e Pr
iorit
y Ju
risdi
ctio
n Re
spon
sible
Estim
ated
Co
st
Poss
ible
Fund
ing
Sour
ce
Stat
us
3 On the
scho
ol site
from
the
northe
rn
prop
erty
line to th
e scho
ol
building.
Lack of sidew
alk
amen
ities on
the scho
ol site.
‐ Con
struct side
walk from
the
scho
ol to
the westerly
right‐of‐
way line
of SR 13
5.
‐ Con
struct crosswalks, signs, and
curb ra
mps.
‐Install 3 bicycle ra
cks o
n east
side of sc
hool prope
rty
Short
Term
High
‐Ohio
Departmen
t of
Transportatio
n ‐ Lynchbu
rg
Scho
ol District
ODO
T SRTS
Fund
s
Pend
ing
4 Alon
g SR
13
5 and SR
13
4 at th
e scho
ol
entrances.
Prop
er sc
hool
signage and
respon
sive
scho
ol‐flashe
r programming is
a safety issue.
‐ Upgrade all schoo
l signs and
pavemen
t markings o
n SR
135
and SR
134
and
includ
e ne
w
remote program fo
r flashing
signs.
Mid
Term
High
‐Ohio
Departmen
t of
Transportatio
n ‐ Lynchbu
rg
Scho
ol District
Low
ODO
T SRTS
Fund
s
Pend
ing
5 Alon
g the
west side
of SR 13
5
A lack of
useable
sidew
alk alon
g the west side of
SR 135
from
the
Lynchb
urg‐Clay
Middle
Scho
ol to
Pearl
Street is a sa
fety
issue
.
‐Rep
lace th
e sid
ewalk alon
g the
west side of SR 13
5.
‐Cut dow
n trees in the rig
ht‐of‐
way th
at im
pede
the ne
w
sidew
alk.
‐Con
struct new
ADA
com
pliant
curb ra
mps along
the ne
w
sidew
alk at all intersectio
ns and
alleys between the Lynchb
urg
Corporation Limit to Pearl Street.
Mid
Term
Med
ium
‐Ohio
Departmen
t of
Transportatio
n ‐ Lynchbu
rg
Scho
ol District
‐ Village of
Lynchb
urg
Med
ium
‐ODO
T SRTS
Fund
s
Pend
ing
15
MAP ID 3
MAP ID 2
MAP ID 1 MAP ID 4
16
4
1
2
3
MAP ID 5
17
Public Input Process: SRTS Public Meeting Date: Wednesday January 23, 2013 in the school library of the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School. Target Audience: Parents and teachers Appendix E contains the following documents from the Public Meeting:
1. The advertisement of the meeting in the Hillsboro Times Gazette newspaper;
2. The announcement of the meeting on the Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School website;
3. The sign‐in sheet from the public meeting; and 4. The minutes of the public meeting.
Key Input Received:
• The President Pro Temp of the Lynchburg Village Council wanted street lighting added from the intersection of SR 135 and the school driveway to the intersection of SR 135 and Glenavy Subdivision.
• The SRTS Point Person wants rumble strips across SR 135 before and after the school entrance to calm traffic.
• The School Superintendant did not want to implement drop‐off days, a ticket program, or a bike rodeo for non‐infrastructure projects.
SECTION 6: PUBLIC INPUT
18
SECTION 7: FINAL PLAN – PLEDGE OF SUPPORT
Appendix A ODOT Radius Map
Appendix B Teacher Tally Summary
Appendix C Parent Survey Summary
Appendix D Sidewalk Conditions Map, Recommendations Maps,
and Cost Estimates
Side
walk Co
ndition
s Map
Recommen
datio
ns M
ap
NON‐IN
FRAS
TRUCT
URE
COST ESTIM
ATES
BIKE
AND W
ALKING SAF
ETY ED
UCA
TION PRO
GRA
MS: $28
0.00
1.
Cu
rriculum
and
Materials ‐ $
200.00
2.
Flyers ‐ $8
0.00
SCHOOL TICK
ET PRO
GRA
M: $51
0.00
1.
Bo
y’s B
ike ‐ $
150.00
2.
Girl’s Bike ‐ $
150.00
3.
40
$5 Gift Cards ‐ $2
00.00
4. Tickets ‐ $10
.00
WAL
K TO
SCH
OOL DAY
S: $35
0.00
1.
Incentives ‐ $3
50.00
BIKE
TO SCH
OOL DAY
S: $5
50.00
1. Incentives ‐ $5
50.00
TRAINING ASSEM
BLIES: $
1,90
0.00
1.
He
lmets for th
ose participating (70 @ $25
.00 each) ‐ $17
50.00
2. Training
Bike ‐ $
150.00
SR
TS SCH
OOL CO
ORD
INAT
OR: $1,00
0.00
CR
OSSING GUAR
D: $1,50
0.00
1.
Training
‐ $2
00.00
2. Vide
o ‐ $
500.00
3.
Uniform
s ‐ $80
0.00
GRA
ND TOTA
L: $6,09
0
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
COST ESTIM
ATES
Phase 1: Cost E
stim
ate: The
Tea
m will su
bmit on
these infrastructure projects in the first pha
se
1. Sidew
alks:
a. On the no
rth sid
e of sc
hool driv
eway, across from th
e scho
ol entrance, to
the west side of S. R
. 135
right‐of‐w
ay.
b. Alon
g the west side of S. R
. 135
right‐of‐w
ay from
the scho
ol driv
eway, north to
the Glenavy Sub
divisio
n en
trance.
2. Curb Ra
mps:
a. Tw
o ne
w curb ramps at the
crossing from
the ne
w side
walk on
the no
rth sid
e of th
e scho
ol driv
eway to
the scho
ol entrance.
b. Tw
o ne
w ADA
com
pliant curb ramps at the
crossing at th
e Glenavy Sub
divisio
n.
3. Crosswalks
a. Thermop
lastic ladd
er‐type crossw
alks at n
ew crossing in fron
t of the
scho
ol.
b. Thermop
lastic ladd
er‐type crossw
alks at n
ew crossing at Glenavy Sub
divisio
n.
4. Lighting
a. Lightin
g from
the ne
w crossing in fron
t of the
scho
ol to
the westerly
right‐of‐w
ay line
of SR 13
5.
b. Lightin
g from
the westerly
right‐of‐w
ay line
of SR 135 to new
crossing at th
e Glenavy Sub
divisio
n.
5. Signa
ge
a. New
Schoo
l Flashing sig
ns with
remote programming for S
R 134 and SR
135
.
b. Ra
pid Flashing
Beacon Signs o
n bo
th app
roache
s on S.R. 135
at the
Glenavy Sub
divisio
n En
trance.
c. Lighted crossw
alk sig
ns on all three
app
roache
s
6. Rum
ble Strip
s a.
Co
nstruct o
n the scho
ol driv
eway between the crossw
alk and SR
135
.
7. Bicycle ra
cks
a. Three bicycles ra
cks to be
located ne
xt to
the scho
ol entrance.
Co
st E
stim
ate b
y Sec
tions
Spe
cified
in th
e Rep
ort
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T SECT
ION 1
SIDEW
ALK FR
OM SCH
OOL TO
GLENAV
Y SU
BDIVISION
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUAN
TITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TO
TAL CO
ST
202
WALK RE
MOVE
D 50
SQ FT
$4.00
$200
.00
202
CURB
REM
OVE
D 10
FT
$2.50
$25.00
203
EXCA
VATION
167
CU YD
$40.00
$6,680
.00
203
EMBA
NKM
ENT
17CU
YD
$40.00
$680
.00
608
4" CONCR
ETE WALK
4500
SQ FT
$4.00
$18,00
0.00
608
CURB
RAM
P 2
EACH
$4
00.00
$800
.00
614
MAINTENAN
CE OF TR
AFFIC
1LU
MP
$12,00
0.00
$12,00
0.00
618
RUMBLE STRIPS
40
0FEET
$10.00
$4,000
.00
630
SIGN, FLAT SH
EET
24SQ
FT
$15.00
$360
.00
630
GRO
UND MOUNTED SU
PPORT
, NO. 2
POST
30FO
OT
$6.00
$180
.00
644
CROSSWALK LINE
150
FOOT
$4.00
$600
.00
SPEC
IAL
BICY
CLE RA
CK
3EA
CH
$800
.00
$2,400
.00
25% CONTINGEN
CY$1
1,48
1.25
CONSTRU
CTION COSTS
$57,40
6.25
SPEC
IAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
1LU
MP
$20,00
0.00
$20,00
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION ENGINEERING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION BIDDING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
TOTA
L$8
7,40
6.25
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T SECT
ION 2
PEDESTR
IAN BRIDGE AN
D SIDEW
ALK TO
GLENAV
Y SU
BDIVISION
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUAN
TITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TO
TAL CO
ST
201
TREE REM
OVE
D 5
EACH
$4
00.00
$2,000
.00
203
EXCA
VATION
112
CU YD
$40.00
$4,480
.00
203
EMBA
NKM
ENT
22CU
YD
$40.00
$880
.00
603
48" C
ONDU
IT
40FT
$125
.00
$5,000
.00
608
4" CONCR
ETE WALK
3000
SQ FT
$4.00
$12,00
0.00
614
MAINTENAN
CE OF TR
AFFIC
1LU
MP
$8,000
.00
$8,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
PEDE
STRIAN
BRIDG
E, M
ATER
IALS
1LU
MP
$150
,000
.00
$150
,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
PEDE
STRIAN
BRIDG
E, LAB
OR
1LU
MP
$125
,000
.00
$125
,000
.00
25% CONTINGEN
CY$7
6,84
0.00
CONSTRU
CTION COSTS
$384
,200
.00
SPEC
IAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
1LU
MP
$76,84
0.00
$76,84
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION ENGINEERING
1LU
MP
$19,21
0.00
$19,21
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION BIDDING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
TOTA
L$4
85,250
.00
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T SECT
ION 3
CONSTRU
CT NEW
CRO
SSWAL
K AT
GLENAV
Y SU
BDIVISION.
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUAN
TITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TO
TAL CO
ST
203
EXCA
VATION
8CU
YD
$40.00
$320
.00
203
EMBA
NKM
ENT
1CU
YD
$40.00
$40.00
608
CURB
RAM
P 2
EACH
$4
00.00
$800
.00
608
4" CONCR
ETE WALK
200
SQ FT
$4.00
$800
.00
614
MAINTENAN
CE OF TR
AFFIC
1LU
MP
$8,000
.00
$8,000
.00
625
STRE
ET LIGHT
S 1
EACH
$3
,000
.00
$3,000
.00
630
SIGN, FLAT SH
EET
24SQ
FT
$15.00
$360
.00
630
GRO
UND MOUNTED SU
PPORT
, NO. 2
POST
30FO
OT
$6.00
$180
.00
644
CROSSWALK LINE
120
FT
$4.00
$480
.00
25% CONTINGEN
CY$3
,495
.00
CONSTRU
CTION COSTS
$17,47
5.00
SPEC
IAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
1LU
MP
$20,00
0.00
$20,00
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION ENGINEERING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION BIDDING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
TOTA
L$4
7,47
5.00
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T SECT
ION 4
UPG
RADE EX
ISTING SCH
OOL SIGNAG
E AN
D PAV
EMEN
T MAR
KING ON SR 13
5 AN
D SR 13
4; ADD STR
EET LIGHT TO
EXISTING POLES
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUAN
TITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TO
TAL CO
ST
614
MAINTENAN
CE OF TR
AFFIC
1LU
MP
$8,000
.00
$8,000
.00
625
STRE
ET LIGHT
S 25
EACH
$3
,000
.00
$75,00
0.00
630
PROGRA
MMAB
LE FLASH
ING SCH
OOL SIGNS WITH
LIGHT
S 4
EACH
$5
,000
.00
$20,00
0.00
630
REMOVA
L OF GRO
UND MOUNTED SIGN AND DISPOSA
L 26
EACH
$1
0.00
$260
.00
630
REMOVA
L OF GRO
UND MOUNTED PO
ST SUPP
ORT
AND
DISPOSA
L 14
EACH
$1
0.00
$140
.00
630
SIGN, FLAT SH
EET
204
SQ FT
$15.00
$3,060
.00
630
GRO
UND MOUNTED SU
PPORT
, NO. 2
POST
150
FOOT
$6.00
$900
.00
642
REMOVA
L OF PA
VEMEN
T MAR
KING
4EA
CH
$100
.00
$400
.00
642
SCHO
OL SYMBO
L MAR
KING
4EA
CH
$200
.00
$800
.00
25% CONTINGEN
CY$2
7,14
0.00
CONSTRU
CTION COSTS
$135
,700
.00
SPEC
IAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
1LU
MP
$27,14
0.00
$27,14
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION ENGINEERING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION BIDDING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
TOTA
L$1
72,840
.00
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T VILLAG
E OF LYNCH
BURG
SEC
TION 1
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUAN
TITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TO
TAL CO
ST
201
TREE REM
OVE
D 1
EACH
$4
00.00
$400
.00
202
WALK RE
MOVE
D 18
00SQ
FT
$4.00
$7,200
.00
202
CURB
AND GUTTER
REM
OVE
D (TEXAS
AVE
) 12
FT
$3.00
$36.00
203
EXCA
VATION
85CU
YD
$40.00
$3,400
.00
203
EMBA
NKM
ENT
16CU
YD
$40.00
$640
.00
608
4" CONCR
ETE WALK
4125
SQ FT
$4.00
$16,50
0.00
608
CURB
RAM
P (TEXAS
AVE
AND ALLEYW
AY)
4EA
CH
$400
.00
$1,600
.00
630
SIGN, FLAT SH
EET (TEXAS
AVE
AND ALLEYW
AY)
36SQ
FT
$15.00
$540
.00
630
GRO
UND MOUNTED SU
PPORT
, NO. 2
POST (T
EXAS
AVE
AND ALLEYW
AY)
56FO
OT
$6.00
$336
.00
644
CROSSWALK LINE (TEXAS
AVE
) 10
0FO
OT
$4.00
$400
.00
690
SPEC
IAL ‐ U
TILITY RELOCA
TION
1LU
MP
$3,200
.00
$3,200
.00
25% CONTINGEN
CY$8
,563
.00
CONSTRU
CTION COSTS
$42,81
5.00
SPEC
IAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
1LU
MP
$20,00
0.00
$20,00
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION BIDDING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION ENGINEERING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
TOTA
L$7
2,81
5.00
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T VILLAG
E OF LYNCH
BURG
SEC
TION 2
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUAN
TITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TO
TAL CO
ST
201
TREE REM
OVE
D 3
EACH
$4
00.00
$1,200
.00
202
WALK RE
MOVE
D 21
60SQ
FT
$4.00
$8,640
.00
202
CURB
AND GUTTER
REM
OVE
D (SOUTH
STR
EET AN
D JACK
SON STR
EET)
24FT
$3.00
$72.00
203
EXCA
VATION
30CU
YD
$40.00
$1,200
.00
608
4" CONCR
ETE WALK
2700
SQ FT
$4.00
$10,80
0.00
608
CURB
RAM
P (SOUTH
STR
EET, JA
CKSO
N STR
EET, AND ALLEYW
AY)
6EA
CH
$400
.00
$2,400
.00
630
SIGN, FLAT SH
EET (SOUTH
STR
EET, JA
CKSO
N STR
EET, AND ALLEYW
AY)
54SQ
FT
$15.00
$810
.00
630
GRO
UND MOUNTED SU
PPORT
, NO. 2
POST (SOUTH
STR
EET, JA
CKSO
N
STRE
ET, A
ND ALLEYW
AY)
84FO
OT
$6.00
$504
.00
644
CROSSWALK LINE (SOUTH
STR
EET AN
D JACK
SON STR
EET)
200
FOOT
$4.00
$800
.00
690
SPEC
IAL ‐ U
TILITY RELOCA
TION
1LU
MP
$2,700
.00
$2,700
.00
25% CONTINGEN
CY$7
,281
.50
CONSTRU
CTION COSTS
$36,40
7.50
SPEC
IAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
1LU
MP
$20,00
0.00
$20,00
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION BIDDING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION ENGINEERING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
TOTA
L$6
6,40
7.50
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T VILLAG
E OF LYNCH
BURG
SEC
TION 3
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUAN
TITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TO
TAL CO
ST
201
TREE REM
OVE
D 2
EACH
$4
00.00
$800
.00
202
WALK RE
MOVE
D 24
00SQ
FT
$4.00
$9,600
.00
203
EXCA
VATION
34CU
YD
$40.00
$1,360
.00
203
EMBA
NKM
ENT
12CU
YD
$40.00
$480
.00
608
4" CONCR
ETE WALK
3000
SQ FT
$4.00
$12,00
0.00
608
CURB
RAM
P (SHO
RT STR
EET AN
D ALLEYW
AY)
4EA
CH
$400
.00
$1,600
.00
630
SIGN, FLAT SH
EET (SHO
RT STR
EET AN
D ALLEYW
AY)
36SQ
FT
$15.00
$540
.00
630
GRO
UND MOUNTED SU
PPORT
, NO. 2
POST (SHORT
STR
EET AN
D ALLEYW
AY)
56FO
OT
$6.00
$336
.00
644
CROSSWALK LINE (SHO
RT STR
EET)
100
FOOT
$4.00
$400
.00
690
SPEC
IAL ‐ U
TILITY RELOCA
TION
1LU
MP
$2,800
.00
$2,800
.00
25% CONTINGEN
CY$7
,479
.00
CONSTRU
CTION COSTS
$37,39
5.00
SPEC
IAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
1LU
MP
$20,00
0.00
$20.00
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION BIDDING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION ENGINEERING
1LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
TOTA
L$6
7,39
5.00
INFR
ASTR
UCT
URE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T
VILLAG
E OF LYNCH
BURG
SEC
TION 4
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION
QUAN
TITY
UNITS
UNIT PRICE
TO
TAL CO
ST
201
TREE REM
OVE
D 2
EACH
$4
00.00
$800
.00
202
WALK RE
MOVE
D 11
20
SQ FT
$4.00
$4,480
.00
202
CURB
AND GUTTER
REM
OVE
D (PEA
RL STR
EET)
12
FT
$3.00
$36.00
203
EXCA
VATION
16
CU YD
$40.00
$640
.00
203
EMBA
NKM
ENT
6 CU
YD
$40.00
$240
.00
608
4" CONCR
ETE WALK
1400
SQ
FT
$4.00
$5,600
.00
608
CURB
RAM
P (PEA
RL STR
EET)
2 EA
CH
$400
.00
$800
.00
630
SIGN, FLAT SH
EET (PEA
RL STR
EET)
18
SQ FT
$15.00
$270
.00
630
GRO
UND MOUNTED SU
PPORT
, NO. 2
POST (P
EARL STR
EET)
28
FOOT
$6.00
$168
.00
644
CROSSWALK LINE (PEA
RL STR
EET)
240
FOOT
$4.00
$960
.00
690
SPEC
IAL ‐ U
TILITY RELOCA
TION
1 LU
MP
$1,400
.00
$1,400
.00
25% CONTINGEN
CY$3
,848
.50
CONSTRU
CTION COSTS
$19,24
2.50
SPEC
IAL
ENGINEERING DESIGN
1 LU
MP
$20,00
0.00
$20,00
0.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION BIDDING
1 LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
SPEC
IAL
CONSTRU
CTION ENGINEERING
1 LU
MP
$5,000
.00
$5,000
.00
TOTA
L$4
9,24
2.50
Of the
item
s sho
wn in th
e diffe
rent physic
al se
ctions, the
following ite
ms w
ere chosen
from
the vario
us se
ctions to
app
ly fo
r in Ph
ase 1 of th
e SRTS grant fu
nding.
PHAS
E 1 C
OST
ESTI
MATE
SI
DEW
ALKS
, CUR
B RA
MPS,
CRO
SSW
ALKS
, LIG
HTIN
G, S
IGNA
GE, R
UMBL
E ST
RIPS
, AND
BIC
YCLE
RAC
KS
ITEM
NO.
DE
SCRI
PTIO
N QU
AN
UNIT
S UN
IT P
RICE
TO
TAL C
OST
201
TREE
REM
OVED
5
EACH
$4
00.00
$2
,000.0
0 20
2 W
ALK
REMO
VED
50
SQ F
T $4
.00
$200
.00
202
CURB
REM
OVED
10
FT
$2
.50
$25.0
0 20
3 EX
CAVA
TION
28
7 CU
YD
$4
0.00
$11,4
80.00
20
3 EM
BANK
MENT
40
CU
YD
$4
0.00
$1,60
0.00
604
CULV
ERT
PIPE
48"
40
FT
$125
.00
$5,00
0.00
608
4" C
ONCR
ETE
WAL
K 77
00
SQ F
T $4
.00
$30,8
00.00
60
8 CU
RB R
AMP
4 EA
CH
$400
.00
$1,60
0.00
614
MAIN
TENA
NCE
OF T
RAFF
IC
1 LU
MP
$36,0
00.00
$3
6,000
.00
618
RUMB
LE S
TRIP
S 40
0 FE
ET
$10.0
0 $4
,000.0
0 63
0 SI
GN, F
LAT
SHEE
T 24
SQ
FT
$15.0
0 $3
60.00
63
0 GR
OUND
MOU
NTED
SUP
PORT
, NO.
2 PO
ST
30
FOOT
$6
.00
$180
.00
630
REMO
VAL O
F GR
OUND
MOU
NTED
SIG
N AN
D DI
SPOS
AL
26
EACH
$1
0.00
$260
.00
630
REMO
VAL O
F GR
OUND
MOU
NTED
POS
T SU
PPOR
T AN
D DI
SPOS
AL
14
EACH
$1
0.00
$140
.00
630
SIGN
, FLA
T SH
EET
228
SQ F
T $1
5.00
$3,42
0.00
630
GROU
ND M
OUNT
ED S
UPPO
RT, N
O. 2
POST
18
0 FO
OT
$6.00
$1
,080.0
0 64
2 RE
MOVA
L OF
PAVE
MENT
MAR
KING
4
EACH
$1
00.00
$4
00.00
64
2 SC
HOOL
SYM
BOL M
ARKI
NG
4 EA
CH
$200
.00
$800
.00
644
CROS
SWAL
K LIN
E 27
0 FT
$4
.00
$1,08
0.00
SPEC
IAL
STRE
ET LI
GHTS
26
EA
CH
$3,00
0.00
$78,0
00.00
SP
ECIA
L PR
OGRA
MMAB
LE F
LASH
ING
SCHO
OL S
IGNS
WIT
H LIG
HTS
4 EA
CH
$5,00
0.00
$20,0
00.00
SP
ECIA
L RA
PID
FLAS
HING
BEA
CON
SIGN
SOL
AR P
OWER
ED
2 EA
CH
$200
.00
$400
.00
SPEC
IAL
BICY
CLE
RACK
3
EACH
$8
00.00
$2
,400.0
0 25
% C
ONTI
NGEN
CY
$50,3
06.25
CO
NSTR
UCTI
ON C
OSTS
$2
51,53
1.25
SPEC
IAL
RIGH
T-OF
-WAY
ACQ
UISI
TION
, NEG
OTIA
TION
S, A
ND F
EE
2 LU
MP
$3,20
0.00
$6,40
0.00
SPEC
IAL
ENGI
NEER
ING
DESI
GN
1 LU
MP
$50,3
06.25
$5
0,306
.25
SPEC
IAL
ENVI
RONM
ENTA
L DES
IGN
1 LU
MP
$37,7
29.69
$3
7,729
.69
SPEC
IAL
CONS
TRUC
TION
BID
DING
1
LUMP
$2
0,000
.00
$20,0
00.00
SP
ECIA
L CO
NSTR
UCTI
ON E
NGIN
EERI
NG
1 LU
MP
$20,0
00.00
$2
0,000
.00
TOT
AL
$385
,967.1
9
�
�
Appendix�E�Advertisement�of�the�Public�Meeting��
in�the�Hillsboro�Times�Gazette�newspaper,��the�announcement�of�the�Public�Meeting�
�in�the�Lynchburg�Clay�Middle�School�website,��and�the�minutes�of�the�Public�Meeting��
that�was�held�on�January�23,�2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
LCMS seeking sidewalk grant By JEFF GILLILAND Editor Friday, January 11, 2013
The village of Lynchburg and the Lynchburg-Clay schools are seeking a
grant that would pay for a sidewalk running from the village to the middle
school, in addition to an intersection leading from the Glenavy subdivision
across state Route 135 to the school.
A meeting to discuss the project will be held at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Jan.
23 at the Lynchburg-Clay Middle School Library and parents are urged to
attend and ask questions.
The grant is part of the federally-funded Safe Routes To School program
and is administered by the Ohio Department of Transportation.
"We became aware that funds were available early last year, kind of put it
aside for a while, and now we are facing some fairly tight submission
deadlines," said Carolyn Hastings, a Lynchburg Village Council member
who is spearheading the project. "We have a plan and a engineer from
ODOT is working with us. We want parents to review the plan so they know
what's going on.
"The government, because of childhood obesity problems, wants students to
walk and bike to school."
Hastings said current Lynchburg-Clay school policy says that students are not allowed to walk or bike to school. But she's
working closely with school officials, and Lynchburg-Clay Superintendent Shane Shope said Thursday that a sidewalk to
the middle school would be good for both the community and the school and would give Lynchburg residents greater
access to the school's facilities.
"The ideas are sound - to promote a healthy living style, walking and biking, and if we can get parents involved it makes it
that much better for everyone," Shope said.
According to Hastings, the grant would pay for the entire cost of the project, which would included a lighted intersection
leading from Glenavy to the school. She also said the school plans to provide a crosswalk patrol, and that the grant will pay
for training and uniforms. She said the village plans to take care of maintaining the sidewalk, and may also provide
incentives for students to walk or ride their bicycles to school.
Hastings said that other school have implemented programs where students that ride their bikes or walk to school are
given tickets, then at the end of the year there's a ticket drawing where the winner receives a new bicycle.
There are currently several barriers, Hastings said, that prevent kids from walking or riding their bikes to school. She they
include the bridge over Turtle Creek that runs between the village and the school, and that there are no sidewalks even as
far as the bridge.
She said the sidewalk would run along the school side of state Route 135.
"Safe Routes To School is a federally-funded effort to encourage Ohio's students to bike or walk to school in order to
improve their health, academic performance, self-confidence, and at the same time reduce traffic and pollution near
schools," Hastings said.
Reader Comments
Posted: Saturday, January 19, 2013
Article comment by: Roger Myers
Taxes are the cost for a civilized society. The ignorant attitude by too many who have fallen for the lies of the tea party that
theya re overtaxed is amazing. The problem is not that the working class is overtaxed it is that they are unfairly taxed when
the rich and the corporations are undertaxed, when they are taxed at all.
Sidewalks, police, fire services, schools all have to come from somewhere. tehy do not just spontaneously grow out fo the
ground. And why is it the right are willing to say it take smoney to make money when it comes to business but not to a
community or govt? It seems like peopel shoudl be willing to invest in their community a lot quicker than they would a
business because a safe, strong and thriving community with adequate services fully funded by their taxes woudl attract
more businesses than a bitter, selfish and divided community that would rather see their services destroyed and denied.
Look aroudn the country those communities that have learned that lesson are growing while those that have not are dying.
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013
Article comment by: Suzanna Kincaid
Kathy and Milt I agree with both of you.
Lynchburg's council doesn't give a darn about the residents who struggle to keep food on their tables, clothing on their
backs, and so on! They are are sneaking around behind our backs to add this 1% tax on us. This will not help our
community. This will will only drive people away. An over taxed community doesn't thrive because we become
unattractive for new businesses.
Shame on our council members. I'm not proud to be a Lynchburg resident, I'm ashamed of what this town is doing to it's
people.
I'm so sick of seeing all of the run down empty houses that need torn down, a building thats caving in on our main street.
I for one will not support anymore types of taxes put before me any longer in Lynchburg. It makes me sick to think of the
ones I voted for to only now to be over taxed by Lynchburg,Ohio.
People this isn't a place to come to live or start any type of new business due to the VERY HIGH TAXES that have been
imposed upon us.
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Article comment by: Kathy Earley
Ms. Flowers, regarding your comments, first grant money does come out of all our taxes, and is the Middle School going to
change their policy regarding kids walking to school? Currently, it is not allowed, so if this isn't changing what is the
purpose of taking grant money to put in a sidewalk for children to walk to school?
Second, I do not believe anyone said your husband or any other council members were "evil". I know they don't really
receive any pay for what they do, and it is wonderful they are willing to do this. However, the village council should put
aside their personal views and represent the majority of the people of Lynchburg. It doesn't matter what I want, what you
want, or anyone else, it's what the majority wants. Council should work/speak for the people, not against the people.
Third, I am also a resident of Lynchburg, have grandchildren attending school here, and work full time. The 1% income tax
would cost me over $30 a month. You ask, is this what I am complaining about - you bet it is! Poor little ole Lynchburg
already takes too much of my money. Look at all the add on's to our property tax for Lynchburg, look at all the add on's to
our water bill, such as street lights and street drainage, etc. Most of us are already paying about $100 a month on our
water bills. The Police Levy keeps failing (doesn't this tell you something), so you think this is how you will get us, with this
income tax that you don't need approval for. Have you looked around town to see the number of foreclosed homes we
have? Do you know how many are already behind on their property taxes right now? This is like telling people, we don't
want you here in Lynchburg, if you can't afford to pay us! If you are willing to pay double, as you stated, then you and the
others that are willing, should feel free to do so, and leave the rest of us alone. I'm sure Lynchburg will gladly take your
money. Most are struggling right now to put food on the table for their families, so do you want those to just quit feeding
their families to keep giving more and more to Lynchburg, which only has a population of about 1500??
If you want to beautify Lynchburg, try some fund raising. You should be able to collect quite a bit, especially from those
like yourself, that are willing to pay double. I would be glad to volunteer, as I also would like to see improvements in
Lynchburg, but not at the cost of causing families to loose their homes or have no money left to feed their families, pay
their electric bills, etc.
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Article comment by: milt burton
Ms. Flowers don,t you read your water/sewer bill?? The street lights were put on it, as was the drainage for streets. It said
right on the bill street lights. So, why can't the take and put a five dollar charge that says what it's for??? And I do know
where you come from about your hubby. When I was on council in the 90's, it was the hardest $25 a month I ever made.
The whole point is, LCMS is not in the village opf Lynchburg, so why should we be maintaining the walk way. The school
system here chose to leave the village and long time ago. I know because I was a freshman when it happened. So please
don't be upset when someone has a different opion than you do. Hell, it's been my hometown for 62 years and you're just
getting started. Because facts are facts. The village should not be responsible after the bridge going south. Nothing on the
west side of the road has been annexed and I know for a fact that Lynchburg-Clay schools don't want to do that. I hope you
enjoy the community. Some day you'll want out just like the rest of us.......Uncle Milt ....PS look how council is doing things
behind the publics back. Thjey won't use the news paper for what they see as bad news only stuff like this....Maybe, you
should speak to Mr. Flowers about the way things are done....Have a nice day!!
Posted: Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Article comment by: April Flowers
I have several ways to view the topic and comments that have been made on here. First of all the article was written about
federal grant money to help provide students a safe route to school. I am a school teacher in a district that is not within
any reasonable walking distance for the students in my attendance area. However this grant was received by our school
and we were able to put in a walking track and other wellness equipment. We were able to purchase bikes, speed bumps,
and outdoor physical fitness equipment. To say that applying for a grant because our children will have to "pay" for in the
future is like saying do not try the samples at Kroger's because it will increase our cost of groceries. The students in my
district have enjoyed the benefits of our path\walkway.
Secondly, my stomach turned to read the comments that people have the nerve to write on here. I am married to one of
these "evil council" members that works a full time job on top of working for peanuts for the village. There are a lot of
things that you clearly do not know about how money must be allocated and how village finances work. That's ok because
no one would unless your job was to work with this money and spend it. If you put $5.00 on the water bill it must go in the
account for water.... Would serve no purpose!!
Now for the topic not addressed in the article. I am a resident of Lynchburg, my children attend school here and I work full
time. The one percent income tax would charge me a total of $20.00 a month. Is this really what we are complaining
about? I would pay double this to see some changes happening in our town. We may not agree on how the money should
be spent or who should get to spend it, but no matter where you live you are going to find your self in that same boat. I
didn't move to Lynchburg to get away from taxes. I moved to Lynchburg to live in a neighborhood that I loved. I want to
see good things happen here. It makes me sad that people wouldn't want the same thing.
The village council and mayor are bound by many restrictions. The biggest restriction of all is not being able to please
everyone!!!! I, for one, love some of the improvements that have been made through grant money and the generosity of
community members. The park was a great addition to the empty space up town. I know that the new sidewalk will be just
as pleasant of an upgrade. Shame on those that would want that!!!
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013
Article comment by: Kathy Earley
To Milt Burton and West Side Voter, I agree with you completely. I am shocked by the comments "again" I have read from
a select few.
First regarding the income tax, Carolyn Hastings said the only opportunity they had to advertise was a sign in town.
Strange, this newspaper was used to advertise the sidewalk proposal. They purposely do not want to let Lynchburg
residents know again what they are up to. The police levy has repeatedly failed, because we can't afford anymore here in
this small town. Now they are going to get us with an income tax, which Carolyn said Council does not have to have
approval from the residents to pass. She said they are loosing sleep over it, really? The residents of Lynchburg do not want
this tax. Doesn't council work for us?? Take a vote, we will say NO. We do not live in Cincinnati, we live in a very small
poor village. We don't want this and can't afford this. Most people move to small towns like Lynchburg to get away from all
the expense. You have taxed us to death on our property tax. For those of you not in Lynchburg, look at our property tax.
You will see many add-on's for LYNCHBURG. Not to mention our extremely high water bill, for which most of us pay
about $100 a month!
The school sidewalk money should not be taken, as was stated, the kids are not allowed to walk to school! All of us know
this. Have they changed the school rules?? Some only want this to say, look what we are doing in Lynchburg. It has no
purpose, so do not take the money just because you can. Future generations have to pay for all this nonsense.
Council, for a change do what the people of Lynchburg want you to do. After all shouldn't you represent the majority and
not the elite minority??
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013
Article comment by: milt burton
I think the biggest question to me is, why should the village assume the up keep of a side walk that is not in the village.
Seems to me you would take care of it to the bridge, because just south of the bridge is not annexed. Let the school
maintain the side walk. Second, I read about this in this the paper not the big billboard downtown. So, I don't understand.
Why can't you call Gary at the paper and give him the story. Third the red sand filter should be paid from water revenue
and God know you should have some water revenue, it costs us enough. If you want to pay for cops, just put five dollars a
month on the water bills, you've done it for everything else!!! It seems to me that this council is trying to do what the old
administration has done. Don't let anyone know what your doing because it won't fit on the big sign downtown. We're not
idiots out here Mrs. Hastings. You have to keep us informed and a newspaper like the Times-Gazette would be a good way
to do that...... Uncle Milt
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013
Article comment by: West Side Voter
@ Carolyn Hastings this grant is suppose to be about providing safe walking paths (sidewalks) to the schools, not
improving the village of Lynchburg or so people can see the pretty properties in the village. The school board has a policy
in place...No children are allowed to walk to school anyway so the actual reason the grant is there is not the reason you
want the sidewalks. Just because the money is there doesnt mean you have to spend it. Kinda seek like one of my kids that
soon as they get money in their pocket they have to spend it before it burns a hole in their pocket.
Look at the true reason for the grant... I am sure you will see your reasoning is not just.
If the Village of Lynchburg wants or truely needs sidewalks and improve their entrances let the residents have their say.
Put on a special levy for just that let them decide. Dont spend my tax money that is for schools to beautify your village!
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013
Article comment by: Carolyn Hastings
I can only state my opinion at this point, but I do know parents of Middle School Students have been polled. The results
have been tallied and will be inluded in the proposal.
Folks think only of the Village and the school for this particular project, but if I lived in the Buford/Pricetown side of the
district, I would be identifying friends of my children where they could walk and stay until practice, then I as a parent
would only have to make one trip to Lynchburg to pick them up.
The impact of this project is way beyond the proposal. We have beautiful properties in town that would be more appealing
to those folks seriously looking for fitness at a minimal cost.
Our mayor is working hard to get new business into Lynchburg. Are our entrances inviting enough to consider the
location? This project will improve our infrastructure for everyone to enjoy.
Village residents will be able to walk/bike to the tennis courts, soccer fields, and track safely. They do it now, but safety is
always a concern.
Fuel will be saved.
Children will by necessity have to become more responsible for being at school on time. No more victims of parents
inability to get them there on time.
Tell me if I am wrong. These dollars have already been allocated. We had nothing to do with the decision. Why should we
let them go to other schools when ours needs it desperately?
I know nothing absolutely nothing in this life is free. We haven't seen the proposal but when we do, we, as a Council, will
have to decide whether to accept it or not. There will be opposition, I am sure. Council will have to make the decision
based on many issues.
In the meantime, feel free to contact any member of council or the mayor with questions.
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013
Article comment by: Bravo To you
Many thanks for the information, Carolyn. And thank you for your service. Our town will die unless we step up soon and
get on board with saving it....I will pay more in taxes to the village if I have certainty that improvements will be made. Let's
get r done....
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013
Article comment by: Gregory Grant
First, I do not live in Lynchburg, so this does not affect me (other than my federal tax dollar payments ie: fiscal cliff).
However, being a financially conservative business accountant, I do have several questions about whether this expenditure
is financially responsible use of tax dollars. On the surface, this sounds like a worthwhile effort, but let’s look deeper. This
is another of those federally funded projects which is increasing our national debt, while local communities see it as let’s
get something free (put the burden on our children and grandchildren to pay in the future). The intent is to get children to
walk to school, but will it actually happen?
This leads to several questions. What is the percentage of children out of the total enrollment of the school who actually
live within walking distance? Are adequate sidewalks and avenues available for those children living in that half to two
mile radius to get to this new sidewalk area near the school? This seems to be a large expense that benefits only a small
percentage of students. Given todays environment, how many parents will ACTUALLY let their children walk to school? I
find most parents are concerned about their childrens safety and will not let them go unaccompanied anywhere by
themselves. Have those parents been polled to see if they would actually let their children walk? When the schools were
located in the residential areas of Hillsboro, many of the local children were brought to school by their parents in cars,
even though there were already sidewalks and traffic lights in place. Will the next step be to pay for police or security to
monitor and accompany the children while walking through the community (not just the crossings by the school)? The last
several police levies have failed, so we all know the answer to that one. If there are prize drawings for the percentage that
actually live close enough to the school to walk, are the children who live throughout the rest of the district punished for
not being able to walk and participate?
Sometimes just because something is offered to us for ‘free’, does not mean it is actually a good offer. Is it a wise use of our
federal tax dollars? Will it receive adequate use and support? What will the ongoing maintenance cost be, and do current
budgets support those expenses? Who will keep the sidewalks cleared of snow (assuming we actually get any). I would
hope that the school board and local council considers all of these factors in deciding whether this is a wise use of monies
and not just say lets do it because it’s free money.
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013
Article comment by: West Side Voter
"Hastings said current Lynchburg-Clay school policy says that students are not allowed to walk or bike to school"
So building a sidewalk to the school has no benefit for the school as the children are not allowed to walk to school. This is
just a nice benefit to the residents to the village. I believe the idea of the program federally-funded Safe Routes To School
is for kids that have to walk to school.
So to use tax money to build a sidewalk to a school that does not allow the kids to walk to school is a waste of money. To
say it will not cost anything is wrong! I pay federal tax out of every pay check so it is costing me and every one who works.
I think its best not to obtain the funding just because it is there when the need is not is wrong!!!!
Posted: Monday, January 14, 2013
Article comment by: Caroyn Hastings
Thank you so much for responding to the article about the sidewalk. First I will answer your question about the school. It
has not been annexed. Their water comes from the county. They pay Lynchburg a double sewer bill because they are
outside the Village.
The sidewalk actually is federally funded. I am sure each state sets up their own guidelines. Phase 1 is entirely funded by
the Federal government. Next phase will require a 20% match should we apply.
Regarding the income tax, the only opportunity we have to advertise is the sign at the center of town.We have no paper
that everyone reads. Not everyone in our village has a computer.
Ordinances require 3 meetings to discuss proposals unless it is an emergency. We have invited the public (via the sign) for
the first 2 readings for discussion. The 3rd one is next month. If you haven't been to a Council meeting with our new
Mayor Robbie Wallace, I would like to invite you to come. Public participation is crucial to our decision making process.
Please join us, your input is very important.
Council can pass a 1% income tax without asking our residents. We are studying the decision. We have council members
researching and questioning whether it would be a good decision and not. They actually are losing sleep over it.
We know (or think we know) with the way the economy is, no levy will pass and we will be losing 11 mils, part this year,
part next.
We have few good streets and very few good sidewalks. There are important things that need to be replaced like the sand
in the water filter system at the cost of $20,000 to name a few.
I have had residents tell me Lynchburg is going to die regardless. My hope is that is not true. I have found the residents to
be interesting, delightful, good people in the 40 plus years I have lived in the area. Well worth fighting for.
Towns do die from neglect. Remember historically Webertown was a thriving village.
Lack of streets and sidewalks usually precede the demise.
Council has worked on streets andstorm sewers (many folks think they aren't important, but they do undermine our
streets if not in good order.) throughout the Village as money allows.
The main thoroughfares cost more than we can access at the present time, so we bite off smaller pieces looking forward to
a gift to complete the job.
The income tax taxes working people--those who have an income. I personally do not want someone on fixed income to
lose their home to pay property taxes that I have encouraged.
Renters do not pay property tax but can vote to add one if there is something they want. What do they have to lose?
It seems to me, an income tax spreads the cost beyond the property owners responsibility. But I would value your input at
the next council meeting.
The sidewalk has been planned. The plan will be revealed the 23rd. A special Council meeting will be called to decide to
accept or decline the plan after that. That meeting will also be open to the public.
Until the residents realize this village is theirs, and the decisions we make can only be made well with input from them, we
as Council members can only make the decisions we feel are in the best interest of the community at large. We have no
personal agendas.
Respectfully
Carolyn Hastings
Posted: Sunday, January 13, 2013
Article comment by: Long Overdue
Finally, a very sensible proposal. it can't happen fast enough. Uncle milt, i dont think this is paid for out of the village
general fund. Wilmington is using the same funds now to impove access to its schools. Yes, it's tax money, but out of the
state's coffers. And it's worth every penny. Lynchburg won't improve without these kind of good projects. With the mirac
expansion underway, we should be more upbeat and willing to step in. Would be great if the churches in town started
organizing a more active response to the malaise here...
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013
Article comment by: Sherry Burton
I've all ways thought a safe path to the school would be a good idea. But I do have a couple of questions. Is the school
annexed into Lynchburg now and are they on Lynchburg water now? I mean if the Village is going to maintain this safe
walkway, shouldn't it be in the Village. I know the East side of 135 was annexed but I don't remember hearing about the
school or any other properties on the west side of the bridge, like the fire station being annexed. Can anyone enlighten me?
Sherry Burton
Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2013
Article comment by: milt burton
I think it's awful funny, that you have this story printed, but yet, you do not publicize the fact that you have approved an
income tax for the village. It seems like the Mayor and council, only want what they think is good for the community be
published. So, come on and tell me how you are going to make us pay. You can't pass a police levy, so you try an end
around play. You don't see obese kids walking the streets of town. I can't see them walking to school, unless maybe to have
a smoke on the way.....Uncle Milt
Lynchburg Safe Routes to School Public Input Meeting Lynchburg‐Clay Middle School January 23rd, 2012 MINUTES
Attendees: • Marty Bailey, parent; • Deputy Richard Warner, Highland County Sheriff’s Dept.; • Rob Berger, Lynchburg Council; • James Flowers, Lynchburg Council; • Christine Wilbanks, Lynchburg Council; • Eric Magee, Middle School Principal; • Brad Hess, parent and school board member; • Shane Shope, L‐C Superintendent; • Robbie Wallace, Mayor; • Sara McLaughlin, parent; • Chad McConnaughey, parent and school board member; • Carolyn Hastings, SRTS prime contact; • Caroline Duffy, Barr & Prevost; and • Dan Bieberitz of DLZ.
After a brief introduction, our presenters did a power point presentation of SRTS, its funding source, and goals, as well as the Lynchburg Clay School Safe Route to School Travel Plan. Barriers that prevent the students of Lynchburg‐Clay Middle school from walking and bicycling to and from school were discussed. The results of the parent surveys and the teacher tally surveys were presented. Infrastructure and non‐infrastructure recommendations were made to the task force. All questions posed by the audience were addressed by the presenters. Contact information of the presenters was given to the audience so they could submit any questions to the presenters.
Meeting Adjourned
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Hastings