Hillsboro business owners criticize proposed pedestrian safety project designs

With Hillsboro City Council’s August meeting falling roughly halfway through the public comment period for the city’s proposed pedestrian safety project, the citizens’ comments portion of the meeting included backlash from property owners concerned about the projected loss of parking spots in the uptown district.

According to the press release from the Ohio Department of Transportation, “The crosswalks at the Main Street and High Street intersection will be replaced with new high-visibility crosswalks including new pavement markings, center median refuge islands and solar-powered pedestrian-activated beacons.

“The project will remove 15 parking spaces. East Main Street will lose four parking spots, South High Street will lose five parking spots and West Main Street will lose six parking spots.”

As previously reported, the city was awarded $336,000 through ODOT in May 2022 for the project, which includes “federal and local” funding, according to the Department of Transportation.

The business owners in attendance at Thursday night’s council meeting said they were opposed to eliminating 15 parking spaces, with many also saying they felt that their concerns were not being heard by the city or ODOT.

In response to questions from property owner Steve Wilkin, safety and service director Brianne Abbott clarified that the city applied for the funding for pedestrian safety — citing “multiple accidents” involving pedestrians — and that it is an “ODOT project,” designed by the Ohio Department of Transportation, that follows their parameters for public comment.

As ODOT representatives were not on hand for Thursday’s meeting — since the matter was not otherwise on the agenda — The Highland County Press reached out to ODOT District 9 Public Information Officer Matthew McGuire for feedback on some of the comments regarding ODOT’s involvement. He said that they are “administering” the project and related aspects, such as the comment period, and that the city had “proactively” sought and acquired the funding.

The first business owner to speak to council, Rachelle Trefz, said that parking has been “an issue the whole 20 years I’ve had a business” in the uptown district, and that there has been “parking enforcement a total of 30 days” in those two decades. She said she fears that parking will be an even “bigger issue” as businesses continue to expand and open.

“I’m all for safety, but I don't feel that removing 15 parking spots is the answer,” Trefz said.

Wilkin asked if it was possible to “structure the project” in a different way that would not involve losing the parking spots uptown.

“I wish there was,” Abbott said.

Abbott cited Ohio Revised Code 4511.68, which, in part, prohibits parking “on a crosswalk; within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection; [and] within 30 feet of, and upon the approach to, any flashing beacon, stop sign, or traffic control device.”

“ODOT, and obviously the city, has to follow state law,” Abbott said. “That's the reason why we're losing some, not because of the project in and of itself — because those crosswalks already exist — but to be in compliance with that Ohio Revised Code, we are unable to keep those parking spots, unfortunately.”

Wilkin asked if ODOT could “make a waiver” to “keep at least most or all those parking spots.” Another business representative, Kevin Robbins, said he was told the law Abbott cited doesn’t apply to uptown because it’s “a historic district.”

“ODOT and the city is not above the law,” Abbott said. “You can ask them, absolutely. When the city put in for this grant, we were unaware that parking was going to be removed in any way. The idea behind the grant was just to ensure that pedestrians are safe.”

McGuire agreed, saying that ODOT is responsible for ensuring state and “federal laws and guidelines are followed” with such projects.

Wilkin asked if they could “rethink the project” or “withdraw the grant.”

“Safety is the number-one priority,” Abbott said. “Economic development is a definite priority as well, and parking, but considering we’ve had pedestrians struck or injured, the number-one priority is to keep our citizens safe.”

Wilkin suggested that there “may be other ways to address the safety issue” without impacting parking.

“The city is open to ideas,” Abbott said. “We realize that there is going to be additional parking needed because of new businesses, but there’s also going to be additional pedestrians. It’s a double-edged sword. I realize there’s two problems, and they both need to be fixed.”

Business owner Robin Morris asked if the project can “be on hold” if “the money hasn’t changed hands yet.” Abbott and city auditor Dawson Barreras both said there is a “purchase order open” for the project.

“But no work has been done,” Morris said. “We should be able to have other options available.”

Abbott disagreed about “no work,” saying that “surveying and design” work has been completed. However, she again agreed that they could look into other ideas.

Robbins said that ODOT has “shut down responding to us and said to go to” the city and “that it’s no longer their deal.” He told the city that ODOT “doesn’t want to hear from us.

“They feel like this was kind of mishandled in the beginning,” he said. “A consulting firm should have been brought on to come up with plans and ideas on how this could possibly be done, rather than having them engineer it from the beginning, because they're just going to come up with one idea, which is what we currently have.”

Business owner Travis Tong said that it appears they “have no options. You're telling us this is going to happen no matter what.

“We have to have a channel to challenge this, if ODOT is shutting us down,” he said. “It seems like all channels are shut down.”

“The project is moving forward at this time,” Abbott said. “Obviously, we're hearing comments.

“The information I’ve provided is directly from ODOT. I also do not have a law degree, but that’s the code they provided me and the information they provided me, and the design they provided the city.  I don't want to say I’m the middle person, because the city did apply for a safety grant because pedestrian safety is very important to us. But we did not know. We don't want to lose parking either. I realize how valuable it is. I’m very empathetic to all of you, honestly.”
 
In addition to the city “hearing comments,” as Abbott said, the public comment period is still open through ODOT, with a deadline of Aug. 31. McGuire confirmed that “by no means are we shutting down comments” until the deadline, and that ODOT’s standard policy is “not to respond to comments” until that open period is complete.

“We welcome more comments,” McGuire said. “This is exactly why we have a comment period for projects.”

Even after the formal commenting period, feedback is “always welcome,” according to the ODOT website.

Robbins also said that there are “a million different ways” of improving pedestrian safety without affecting parking, such as with “flashing lights.”

“These parking spaces are extremely valuable to all of us,” he said. “The best guess that we have, from a revenue standpoint, is these parking spots are worth somewhere between $280 to $400 daily.

“On the low end, say $280 per day, that parking spot’s worth about 30 grand a year. On the high end, about 42 grand a year. Now, granted, that's not just for one business — that's spread out among the businesses up and down there — but if you eliminate 15 of those, you’re talking half a million dollars over the course of a year, that's not been coming into our uptown area to all these people [the business owners].”

Robbins said the business owners are “all for” safer crosswalks but that the city needs to look into other “options.” He argued that the city or ODOT should hire a “consulting firm” to “put together two or three options” for them to “vote on.”

Abbott said that the city “wasn’t given options, either,” in terms of design plans. Tong said that it was “concerning that ODOT could come into a city, in the city limits, and control what happens.

“If that's the case, then the city of Hillsboro is the only city that with all the research I've done, that that has happened,” Tong said. “Many cities have had a lot of say-so in the options.”

Business owner Heather Hughes said that ODOT told her “they are the liaison between the city and the state,” that “they have to make sure the city uses the money correctly.”

“They would have preferred the city hire a planner that would have went through and designed this for them,” she said. “If there are other options, they have to come from the city, that ODOT is just there to make sure that the money is spent the way it was supposed to.”

McGuire said that it is not an issue of ODOT “coming in and controlling” something or that they are “initiating” this action. It is a project initiated by the city, as was brought out repeatedly, but ODOT does oversight responsibilities due to the federal dollars involved, McGuire said.

“We didn’t initiate the project, but we also do this in cities and villages all across the state, where cities receive federal funding and we handle contract administration,” he told The Highland County Press.

Abbott also indicated disagreement about ODOT not impacting projects in other cities but said she agreed that could look into whether a different design is a possibility.

“I’m not an engineer, so I can't say ‘we can change it,’ or that we can get around Ohio Revised Code,” Abbott said. “I don’t know that we can, but certainly, we can ask.”

McGuire said that the project’s engineering was done by a consultant — Strand Associates is listed on the project renderings — and that ODOT is “not actively designing or engineering the project,” but they are responsible for “reviewing” the plans.

Regarding whether a new project design could be completed, McGuire said he was unsure. However, he pointed out that it is “not a case of” being able to put crosswalks “wherever you want,” and that “many factors” go into determining where the crosswalks are located while having the “least impact.”  

Tong asked if the city had any “plans to enforce parking” in the uptown district “regardless if this happens or not.”

“It is being looked at,” Abbott said. “Previous advice given to the city by previous law directors was that we could not enforce it, but we are now looking into different avenues.”

City law director Randalyn Worley agreed, saying she is “actively researching” the matter.

“There was a case — a federal case — that indicated that chalking tires in our district is unconstitutional,” she said. “That's why the city at that point of time — again, that was not my decision — took away chalking tires and enforcing it. We are looking into the issue again.”

Business owner and former council member Ann Morris also asked the city to consider “a city parking lot” for the uptown area.

“I know we’ve asked for this for 20-plus years,” she said.

Earlier in the meeting, Abbott had said that the city was “looking into other opportunities” for parking.

“We realize that parking is an issue, so we are currently trying to obtain property to put in additional parking,” Abbott said.

Wilkin asked what was going to happen next for the pedestrian safety project, and council member Tom Eichinger told him that the matter would not be resolved Thursday night.

“We definitely do have time to investigate some of these additional matters,” Eichinger said. He added that “the city is engaged in the project” with ODOT and will continue to review options.

McGuire agreed, saying that “nothing is set in stone at this time,” with construction not slated to begin until 2024.

For more details on the project proposal, go to: https://www.transportation.ohio.gov/projects/projects/117314.

For more from Thursday’s city council meeting, see the stories at:

https://highlandcountypress.com/proposed-salaries-city-officials-debate…

and

https://highlandcountypress.com/residents-johnson-street-neighborhood-s…