quote:

Originally posted by Supermike:
Just wondering if anyone might have an update on what happened this morning. The EN site doesn't even mention it, and the CJ hasn't updated their story.

The accident was not at Salem-Noble Road. It was west of Salem-Noble Road at one of the median cross-overs.

It was there when I went through at about 6:10 this morning. They were putting the sheet on the truck then.

quote:

WLKY:
Rodden said the driver of a truck from the Orecka Explosives Plant pulled into the center lane of Hwy. 62 and stopped to wait for traffic to clear.

A tray, sticking out from the side of the truck, was partially in the eastbound lane of traffic. Rodden said a woman driving a pickup truck didn’t see the tray and slammed into it.

http://www.wlky.com/news/17264952/detail.html


I say that intersection needs a red light with the increased traffic in River Ridge; along with a couple other turn outs from River Ridge.



Maurice Jones Jr. (M.J.)

quote:

Originally posted by Supermike:
Well, folks, here you go:

quote:

A two-vehicle accident with injury has been reported in Clark County, Ind., earlier this morning.

The accident occurred about 6 a.m. on Ind. 62 near Salem Noble Road.

Clark County dispatchers could not say if there was a fatality.

Clark County Police responded to the scene and are investigating.

County dispatchers would not say if it was a fatality, but the white sheet the first responders draped over the truck indicates that it most likely was. There was a dump-truck sitting in the median with it's back end sticking out onto the road. It appears a smaller truck ran right into the back of it. The scene was being worked at 6:30am, and as of 8:30am it is STILL being worked by multiple fire trucks, police cars, etc.

Apparently Ed Z. and others think the need for a light at Salem-Noble is all in my head (Ed will respond to every thread but this one). So Jeffersonville, here's your FIRST fatality at Salem-Noble and 62. I hope I'm not the next one, but I guarantee there will be more until something is done.

After all these years the county has been getting local roads/street money year after year for every mile of owned road by the county. This money is received specifically to repair and improve roads owned by the county. The county received property taxes from property owners year after year in the Salem-Noble road area and did not improve this road. Why didn't the county ever use this money to improve Salem Noble road?

By a commissioner's own admission on this blog this road is dangerous but has done nothing. So why has that commissioner or the other commissioners not fixed this road they own, a road they receive road/street money to improve, and a road they admit is dangerous? In the mean time, I can't help but ask why the county is overlooking obvious road problems in populous areas while looking to spend multiple millions of dollars on a new road in a very low populated northwestern part of Clark County that is not needed?

The county continues to own Salem Noble, continues to get street/roads money for it, continues to receive property taxes from the property owners there yet the city is called out for not doing anything? How does that make sense when the city does not own the road, does not receive local road/street money for it nor has it received the first property tax dollar in this area.

Please tell me again how the city created or contributed to the Salem Noble road problem and why it is the city's responsible to fix a road it does not own?

As I have said before, if the county gives the road to the city the city will get the local roads/street money for it and the city will then be responsible for improving it. Even if the county does not give the road to the city I think the city will work to improve or will partner with the county to improve it since with annexation it now does affect city residents and the county is clearly not taking responsibility for doing it on its own.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title8/ar14/ch2.html
IC 8-14-2-4
Local road and street account; allocation of funds


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4. (a) The auditor of state shall establish a special account to be called the "local road and street account" and credit this account monthly with forty-five percent (45%) of the money deposited in the highway, road and street fund.
(b) The auditor shall distribute to units of local government money from this account each month. Before making any other distributions under this chapter, the auditor shall distribute E85 incentive payments to all political subdivisions entitled to a payment under section 8 of this chapter.
(c) After distributing E85 incentive payments required under section 8 of this chapter, the auditor of state shall allocate to each county the remaining money in this account on the basis of the ratio of each county's passenger car registrations to the total passenger car registrations of the state. The auditor shall further determine the suballocation between the county and the cities within the county as follows:
(1) In counties having a population of more than fifty thousand (50,000), sixty percent (60%) of the money shall be distributed on the basis of the population of the city or town as a percentage of the total population of the county and forty percent (40%) distributed on the basis of the ratio of city and town street mileage to county road mileage.
(2) In counties having a population of fifty thousand (50,000) or less, twenty percent (20%) of the money shall be distributed on the basis of the population of the city or town as a percentage of the total population of the county and eighty percent (80%) distributed on the basis of the ratio of city and town street mileage to county road mileage.
(3) For the purposes of allocating funds as provided in this section, towns which become incorporated as a town between the effective dates of decennial censuses shall be eligible for allocations upon the effectiveness of a corrected population count for the town under IC 1-1-3.5.
(4) Money allocated under the provisions of this section to counties containing a consolidated city shall be credited or allocated to the department of transportation of the consolidated city.
(d) Each month the auditor of state shall inform the department of the amounts allocated to each unit of local government from the local road and street account.
(Formerly: Acts 1969, c.392, s.4; Acts 1971, P.L.98, SEC.5; Acts 1973, P.L.71, SEC.3; Acts 1974, P.L.33, SEC.1.) As amended by Acts 1978, P.L.58, SEC.5; Acts 1980, P.L.74, SEC.219; Acts 1981, P.L.11, SEC.54; Acts 1981, P.L.88, SEC.11; P.L.2-1990, SEC.11; P.L.182-2007, SEC.2.

IC 8-14-2-5
Local road and street account; use of funds
Sec. 5. Money from the local road and street account shall be used exclusively by the cities, towns, and counties for:

(1) engineering, land acquisition, construction, resurfacing, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of both local and arterial road and street systems;
(2) the payment of principal and interest on bonds sold primarily to finance road, street, or thoroughfare projects;
(3) any local costs required to undertake a recreational or reservoir road project under IC 8-23-5; or
(4) the purchase, rental, or repair of highway equipment.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Councilman #2,

quote:

Originally posted by Suspence:
During Council workshops, plans were presented for sidewalks on both 8th st. and Allison Ln. 8th street is now complete. The Allison Ln. plans were to be on the school side of Allison Ln. all the way to middle Rd. I recall discussion of a state grant when sidewalks include school zones, perhaps that is the delay. The same firm was doing both projects...one is complete, perhaps the other will start soon. In the last few years, ALL council ordained sidewalks have been completed, with the exception of Allison Ln. However plans have been drawn up, so perhaps our patience shall be rewarded...

BTW - Over the last 3 years the city has added sidewalks to Charlestown Pike, Perrin Lane, and 8th street. The city council approved the funding for an Allison Lane sidewalk. I believe the sidewalk goes from the Kmart parking lot in front of Jeff High and down to Meadowlark. Future sidewalk projects will likely include completing Allison Lane sidewalk to 8th street and/or extending the Charlestown Pike sidewalk from Woerle road to Wilson School. I think its important for the city's BZA and Plan commission to not allow variances and require sidewalks in all future developments so that it is part of the developers infrastructure costs rather than an after the fact taxpayer burden.

Ed,

Let's put the angry words aside and do something about the problem. My offer still stands to work jointly with the city to get this dangerous intersection fixed. Someone lost their life yesterday, let's put politics aside and get this resolved. For the safety of everyone who travels on Highway 62, I hope to hear from the City soon.

I believe if we work together, we can get this done.

Thanks, Mike
(502) 295-3738

quote:

Originally posted by Councilman #2:

quote:

Originally posted by Suspence:
During Council workshops, plans were presented for sidewalks on both 8th st. and Allison Ln. 8th street is now complete. The Allison Ln. plans were to be on the school side of Allison Ln. all the way to middle Rd. I recall discussion of a state grant when sidewalks include school zones, perhaps that is the delay. The same firm was doing both projects...one is complete, perhaps the other will start soon. In the last few years, ALL council ordained sidewalks have been completed, with the exception of Allison Ln. However plans have been drawn up, so perhaps our patience shall be rewarded...

BTW - Over the last 3 years the city has added sidewalks to Charlestown Pike, Perrin Lane, and 8th street. The city council approved the funding for an Allison Lane sidewalk. I believe the sidewalk goes from the Kmart parking lot in front of Jeff High and down to Meadowlark. Future sidewalk projects will likely include completing Allison Lane sidewalk to 8th street and/or extending the Charlestown Pike sidewalk from Woerle road to Wilson School. I think its important for the city's BZA and Plan commission to not allow variances and require sidewalks in all future developments so that it is part of the developers infrastructure costs rather than an after the fact taxpayer burden.

Ed, you think it is important for the BZA and Plan Commission to not allow variances for sidewalks, and for once I agree with you. But it is also important for THE CITY to pour sidewalks on the city's developments. There are no sidewalks in front of the two new firehouses or along Renfro Way beside the firehouse. Both of these projects were completed last year. I came before the council and asked about these walks BEFORE the projects were completed but the city failed to act. The city needs to LEAD BY EXAMPLE, and PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH. The response from the council was "the city is exempt from following its own ordinances". Ed, this is BULL****!

And while sidewalks have been brought up lets discuss the cost of the walks. The above mentioned walk from K-mart to Meadowlark drive is costing the city $250,000. I think this is an outrageous amount to pay for sidewalks. The city has a construction crew and equipment, and the city should be doing this work to save the taxpayers $$$$. Pouring a 4 foot wide sidewalk is not hard. At 4 inches thick and 4 feet wide a yard of concrete will cover a 20 foot long area. That figures out for every 1000 foot of sidewalk it will take 50 yards of concrete. I'm not sure of the cost of concrete at today's rate, but if concrete is $125.00 a cubic yard, every 1000 foot of sidewalk has only a $7,250 cost for concrete . Ed, how long is this stretch of sidewalk?

I figured the cost for a new driveway using roughly the same figures you did and in the end it was almost double; despite my attempts to control the cost. There was a lot more work and material than I initially figured.

NSBHM:

The cost of this project also includes drainage considerations. If drainage is not addressed as part of the project, then adding the sidewalks will likely create new drainage problems and make existing drainage concerns worse.

I believe another factor that will add to the project's cost is right-of-way aquisition. The school corporation has donated a considerable stretch of right-of-way, but other property owners might not do the same.

These are the reasons the project will cost $250,000.

Larry Thomas
Communications Director
City of Jeffersonville

quote:

Originally posted by Magnificent Bastards.:
I figured the cost for a new driveway using roughly the same figures you did and in the end it was almost double; despite my attempts to control the cost. There was a lot more work and material than I initially figured.

A cubic yard of concrete for sidewalks is about 85 to 90 dollars and will pour about 75 square feet at 3 1/2 to 4 inches thick, or about 20 linear feet at 4 ft. wide. Add in the cost of labor to get the proper grade, pour and finish, and backfill/re-seed and you have the cost. It isn't rocket science. When a city hires an engineering firm (JTL?) to get this done, you end up with an outrageous $250,000 cost for a project this size. It's just a sidewalk...not a major infrastructure project.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Thomas:
NSBHM:

The cost of this project also includes drainage considerations. If drainage is not addressed as part of the project, then adding the sidewalks will likely create new drainage problems and make existing drainage concerns worse.

I believe another factor that will add to the project's cost is right-of-way aquisition. The school corporation has donated a considerable stretch of right-of-way, but other property owners might not do the same.

These are the reasons the project will cost $250,000.

Larry Thomas
Communications Director
City of Jeffersonville

Larry, thanks for taking time to respond this Saturday morning. (I hope your not going to turn in 1/2 hour OT for this) I believe a sidewalk that is properly installed should not create new drainage problems. If there are existing drainage problems corrected at the time sidewalks are poured shouldn't this expense come from the drainage fees we contribute to every month and not from EDIT funds?

As for the right-of-way aquisition, this should not amount to much at all. I remember when Market Street/Utica Pike was rebuilt and I had to sell the right-of -way to the city for them to install a catch basin. For my prime Utica Pike location I received from the city $1.00 for the 35 square foot area. And I was still expected to mow and maintain this area. Bob Miller is a tough negotiator!! The price the city is paying for sidewalks makes me want to come out of retirement for a few weeks. The projected cost of $250,000 sounds way high!

councilman #2 could you check with PEPPER COOPER and see if its ok for you and the city to help Mike get this problem fixed?

quote:

Originally posted by Councilman #2:
After all these years the county has been getting local roads/street money year after year for every mile of owned road by the county. This money is received specifically to repair and improve roads owned by the county. The county received property taxes from property owners year after year in the Salem-Noble road area and did not improve this road. Why didn't the county ever use this money to improve Salem Noble road?

...The county continues to own Salem Noble, continues to get street/roads money for it, continues to receive property taxes from the property owners there yet the city is called out for not doing anything? How does that make sense when the city does not own the road, does not receive local road/street money for it nor has it received the first property tax dollar in this area.

Please tell me again how the city created or contributed to the Salem Noble road problem and why it is the city's responsible to fix a road it does not own?

Ed, thanks for finally responding. Thanks for your input as well, Larry. I wish I could answer all of those questions, Ed, but I can not. I'm just a citizen who wants this road and intersection to be as safe as possible for my family and friends. So I'll leave you with these known facts and questions:

1) The JEFFERSONVILLE CITIZENS that YOU ANNEXED in the subdivisions of Raintree Ridge, Windy Pines, Whispering Oaks, and along Salem-Noble Road are now all in the CITY OF JEFFERSONVILLE and are paying taxes. While some of those properties (e.g. Raintree) are not exactly adjacent to Salem-Noble, they are a large source of it's usage. The road services the population.

2) I just moved up here to this end of the road (I used to live in the City limits on the segregated end of C-town Pike). I don't care about history - I care about NOW.

3) How can the City have residents living along Salem-Noble Road and yet NOT have annexed any responsibility for the road?!

4) Mike Moore has offered to work with you on this. YOU are my APPOINTED councilman (I didn't get to vote for or against you, remember?). Have you contacted Mike during this transition to see what can be done?

5) This road reconstruction is in KIPDA. But given the increased usage, has ANYONE looked to see what KIPDA had planned and whether the project can be advanced?

6) The Salem-Noble reconstruction is ALREADY being worked/planned by Jacobi, Toomz, and Lantz. Has anyone with the City (or county) contacted JTL to see if there were reconstruction plans for this intersection?

7) One of the biggest users of this intersection is Mister "P" trucking. Has anyone contacted the "River Ridge Commerce Center" to see about putting proper turning lanes on Hwy 62 at this location? Or is this one of those deals where they build it all up now and the taxpayers pay to add lights and turning lanes later?

8) There is a light at Bethany Road and Hwy 62. There is NO WAY that intersection gets more traffic than Salem-Noble and 62 does now. How did THAT light get installed? Who paid for it? Does anyone know?

9) Ed, don't you find it funny that property along Hwy 62 is in the "Jeffersonville limits" (River Ridge), and property along Salem Noble road is in the "Jeffersonville Limits", which means Jeff residents are travelling those roads, yet Jeffersonville claims NO RESPONSIBILITY for those roads?! Salem-Noble is the county's problem, 62 is the State's, right? Where does Jeffersonville come into play?


As noted, Ed, I'm not concerned about the past and what the county has been doing with their funding. Even if we were not in the "City of Jeffersonville" I would be pushing the county commissioners for a response to the same questions. And in fact, Mike Moore HAS responded. And he is offering to work with you on this. PLEASE CALL HIM!! I leave you with this:

quote:

The crash occurred Friday at about 5:49 a.m. A section of Ind. 62 was closed for hours, and traffic had to be rerouted through the old Indiana Army Ammunition Plant.

Police are now questioning how safe that section of road is for drivers.

“Due to the high amount of east and west traffic, this area should have a traffic control device for the safety of the drivers in the area,” according to the accident report prepared by investigating officer Harold Goodlett.

quote:

Originally posted by NOT SUPER BUT HONEST MIKE:

quote:

Originally posted by Councilman #2:

quote:

Originally posted by Suspence:
During Council workshops, plans were presented for sidewalks on both 8th st. and Allison Ln. 8th street is now complete. The Allison Ln. plans were to be on the school side of Allison Ln. all the way to middle Rd. I recall discussion of a state grant when sidewalks include school zones, perhaps that is the delay. The same firm was doing both projects...one is complete, perhaps the other will start soon. In the last few years, ALL council ordained sidewalks have been completed, with the exception of Allison Ln. However plans have been drawn up, so perhaps our patience shall be rewarded...

BTW - Over the last 3 years the city has added sidewalks to Charlestown Pike, Perrin Lane, and 8th street. The city council approved the funding for an Allison Lane sidewalk. I believe the sidewalk goes from the Kmart parking lot in front of Jeff High and down to Meadowlark. Future sidewalk projects will likely include completing Allison Lane sidewalk to 8th street and/or extending the Charlestown Pike sidewalk from Woerle road to Wilson School. I think its important for the city's BZA and Plan commission to not allow variances and require sidewalks in all future developments so that it is part of the developers infrastructure costs rather than an after the fact taxpayer burden.

Ed, you think it is important for the BZA and Plan Commission to not allow variances for sidewalks, and for once I agree with you. But it is also important for THE CITY to pour sidewalks on the city's developments. There are no sidewalks in front of the two new firehouses or along Renfro Way beside the firehouse. Both of these projects were completed last year. I came before the council and asked about these walks BEFORE the projects were completed but the city failed to act. The city needs to LEAD BY EXAMPLE, and PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH. The response from the council was "the city is exempt from following its own ordinances". Ed, this is BULL****!

And while sidewalks have been brought up lets discuss the cost of the walks. The above mentioned walk from K-mart to Meadowlark drive is costing the city $250,000. I think this is an outrageous amount to pay for sidewalks. The city has a construction crew and equipment, and the city should be doing this work to save the taxpayers $$$$. Pouring a 4 foot wide sidewalk is not hard. At 4 inches thick and 4 feet wide a yard of concrete will cover a 20 foot long area. That figures out for every 1000 foot of sidewalk it will take 50 yards of concrete. I'm not sure of the cost of concrete at today's rate, but if concrete is $125.00 a cubic yard, every 1000 foot of sidewalk has only a $7,250 cost for concrete . Ed, how long is this stretch of sidewalk?

The council never said the city was exempt from following its own ordinances and the council never agreed with not having sidewalks in front of the firehouses. I have mentioned numerous times how the city should lead by example and follow its own ordinances and an ordinance is already in the works for this very topic.

As you know the council and Mayor have different authorities and responsibilities. The mayor does the contracting of work, approving change orders and makes contruction changes not the council. I'm still disappointed about not having a sidewalk and not having a steel roof on the firehouses as planned. Regardless I continue to fight for and support more sidewalks in our city. At this point the council continues to look at and prioritize additional sidewalk construction.

This Mayor and the majority of this council have one boss, PEPPER COOPER, whatever PEPPER says goes. What great leadership we have.

Good grief, Joe... could you let the Pepper Cooper thing go for like 6 seconds? I'd like the focus here to stay on the roads and sidewalks.

I'm hopeful that Mike Moore or Ed Z. will report that they have spoken and are going to work together and perhaps involve the "River Ridge Commerce Center" to determine who is responsible for that stretch of road and where funding can come from to make it safer. And perhaps if traffic lights and proper turning lanes can't be installed, what they can do together to make it safer (road lights, reflectors, etc.).

quote:

Originally posted by joe6pack:
This Mayor and the majority of this council have one boss, PEPPER COOPER, whatever PEPPER says goes. What great leadership we have.

Joe. I agree with what you are saying about the mayor and Cooper, and yes, some of the council too. Why not start a new topic on the forums just for Cooper related posts? You can keep us filled in on all the dirty little tricks and under the table workings of city government.