South Russell residents and council debate safety, cost and character of proposed Bell Road pedestrian path

A lengthy public comment period at the South Russell Village Council meeting on May 18 focused on a proposed five‑foot asphalt pedestrian path along Bell Road and whether the village should place a levy on the November ballot to pay its share.

Residents, council members and staff repeatedly returned to three core questions: how much the path will cost, how safe it would be when placed alongside fast traffic, and whether the village should pursue lower‑cost alternatives or more grant funding before asking voters for additional taxes.

Why it matters: Councilors said engineering work has defined route options and costs and that the village must provide the county with levy certification information in early August to appear on the November ballot. The financing choices discussed will determine whether the village asks residents to approve a property‑tax levy to cover any funding gap.

Council and staff described the current financial picture in the meeting. A councilor said engineer estimates put the north‑side route at about $1.8 million, while a south‑side option discussed previously had been higher. The council reported an $800,000 grant already identified toward construction; absent additional grants, councilors said the village’s share could be on the order of $1 million and that a levy might be required to cover that amount.

Resident perspectives split sharply. Donna Peters Bon, who lives on Bell Road, told the council, “These children ... can go with their teachers and the volunteers, cross the road safely, and walk down to the park and enjoy South Russell,” urging the village to prioritize safety for walkers and children. Several other commenters said they likewise wanted safer routes and recalled earlier, resident‑led efforts to study a path.

Other residents raised counterarguments. Ally Dean asked councilors to “slow this process down” and warned that new sidewalks or paths “would remove wellestablished tree lines” and could permanently alter the village’s character; she urged exploring a road‑diet and restriping as a lower‑impact option that could give more room to bicyclists without extensive construction. Sarah Kesler said she would “never in a million years let my young kindergarten … third grader … use a path along a street that has high traffic, fast traffic,” and questioned whether a dedicated path adjacent to fast traffic would be safe for young children.

The police chief provided usage and crash context when asked: he said he has served the village for 28 years and that, in that time, two bicyclists have been struck by cars — a datum that multiple speakers used when arguing both for and against the project.

Councilors also discussed legal and practical details: per current local rules discussed in the meeting, bicycles are not permitted on a five‑foot pedestrian path, meaning signage and enforcement would be needed to control bike use if the path is built. Officials said a meeting of the streets committee later that week would deliver technical information about lane widths and striping options.

On timing and next steps, councilors reminded the audience that the item was scheduled for a second reading later in the agenda and that the county’s early‑August deadline to certify ballot measures would govern whether a levy could appear in November. Councilors suggested options including tabling the ordinance to seek further grants, proceeding with the certification to keep the November option, or modifying the plan to reduce the village share before going to voters.

What happens next: Council will continue committee and council consideration at scheduled committee meetings (streets, safe transportation, parks and finance). The council noted there are only two regular council meetings between May 18 and the county certification deadline and that a decision about certification for the ballot would need to be made promptly if council wishes to seek voter approval this year.