Shakertown Road project

An Oakwood resident who drives the road daily urged council to cancel a project she said solves a problem that doesn't exist.

Asked council to require the city to publicly produce traffic counts, crash data, projections and cost-benefit analysis before taking property or spending millions.

Said the extra lane will make crossing more dangerous for him, asked council to table the project, and noted he's lived there 58 years and rarely sees pedestrians.

Said he'll push charter changes to make levies finite and warned of a federal complaint, saying residents feel ignored.

A resident since 1982, she described cars ending up in her yard, asked the city to scale the plan back, share before-and-after drawings, and hold roundtable talks with residents.

Donated her three minutes of comment time to Kelly Campbell.

Said the stretch has been neglected for nine years, argued the federal funds haven't been received yet so the project can still be stopped, and urged the city to withdraw its grant application.

Presented documents he said show the MVRPC application used false traffic counts and false congestion and safety justifications, and demanded the project be stopped.

Said she never has trouble getting out onto Shakertown and dared anyone to count pedestrians on the road.

Delivered an impassioned statement accusing council of lies, disrespect and gaslighting, disputed the city's account of the shared-use-path reduction, and vowed to keep attending meetings.

Said the area is built out so traffic won't grow, questioned the grant's traffic numbers, and said she won't vote for the income tax because of this project.

Donated her three minutes of comment time to Kelly Campbell.

Said residents don't want a smaller version of the project — they want to know why it's needed at all, questioned the traffic data and lifetime maintenance costs, and asked for real dialogue instead of three-minute statements.

Called himself a proud Beavercreek Beaver but a disappointed citizen, saying the sidewalk size change misses the point — it's where it goes in residents' yards — and told council to show whether it cares by its vote.

Dropped her usual respectful tone, calling the city's letter 'a slap in the face' and arguing the project is built on outdated plans, skipped required studies and public input, and may violate NEPA federal compliance requirements. She offered to discuss an exit strategy she says she found in the ODOT agreement.

Said he's against the project and feels the city is trying to take his property; he doesn't want concrete in front of his picture window.

Declared 100% opposition, said the city's letter response was unfulfilling after 16 months of documented errors, and asked council to cancel the project immediately.

Appreciated the letter but said the changes aren't enough; questioned whether temporary right-of-way compensation will change and raised stormwater runoff concerns from the new development to the west.

Argued a prior vote isn't a permanent obligation and sunk costs don't justify spending more; cited Section 12.5 of the ODOT agreement allowing termination with 30 days' notice and questioned whether the city would really forfeit $2.4 million if construction hasn't been awarded.

Said he's 100% opposed and resented the mayor's comment that input didn't matter; listed nine unanswered concerns including outdated 2019 data, no pedestrian studies, 125 tree losses, home devaluation and liability issues.

Said council and the city manager disrespect residents by refusing to reassess; urged council to cancel the project and warned similar backlash is coming on the Lantz Road project.

Said she was discouraged from attending meetings in 2019 and only learned details in 2025; listed numerous engineering errors she identified and asked that the project be immediately cancelled.

Expressed disappointment that resident concerns on the road widening seem to go unheard and asked council to show how feedback influences decisions.

Said the city is turning Beavercreek into a concrete city and asked that the project be cancelled and money used elsewhere.

Questioned why Shakertown needs 10-foot paths when North Fairfield has 8 feet; said her mother's half-acre of 55 years is affected on both sides and asked again to cancel the project.

Speaking for his mother-in-law, said the project lacks hard data justifying it and asked council to cancel it.

Presented crash data — 10 valid vehicle issues and zero pedestrian accidents in 5.5 years — and said the project's stated safety objectives are non-issues; asked the mayor and each council member to cancel it.

Called the project a waste of grant and taxpayer money that should go to roads that actually need improvement.

Pointed to inconsistent sidewalk widths across the city and shifting project designs, saying the 10-foot path will look like a road in front of their yards.

Said the issue is now council's refusal to act on documented flaws; asked for common-sense scaling back and warned every forward vote will be a matter of public record.

Speaking for his in-laws the Kellers, described their front yard shrinking from 67 to 37 feet and argued the widened road will worsen speeding; suggested funds go to emergency reserves instead.

Donated time and raised construction noise, access, and pet concerns during the proposed 18-month construction period.

Thanked Bales for urging a pause, argued grants shouldn't drive planning, and questioned spending millions here while speed humps in her neighborhood go unfunded.

Read through 20 objections — safety, traffic counts, tree loss, liability, drainage, cost per linear foot — and asked for an immediate stop plus a real dialogue meeting.

Pro-sidewalk but not 10 feet on both sides; asked the city to find a middle ground that respects long-time residents.

Drives Shakertown twice daily, sees no pedestrians and little traffic, and doesn't understand the need for a turn lane.

Donated time from Joe Schmidt; argued Beavercreek neighborhoods are walkable without main-road sidewalks, citing her childhood and Centerville comparisons.