July 14th, 2026
Dear Road Commission of Kalamazoo County Board Members,
Following the RCKC June 30th Board meeting, the residents are writing you to adjust our proposed compromise with the RCKC. Before relaying our amended request, we direct your focus to a few facts. Within the RCKC’s SS4A presentation (labeled, “May 19th Board Meeting SS4A presentation” on the RCKC’s SS4A website: https://www.kalamazoocountyroads.com/SS4A.php ), the RCKC discusses test cases the RCKC has already completed where rumble strips were installed on certain roads over the last few years. RCKC reported significant reduction in crashes involving vehicles departing the lane just from installing rumble strips. Specifically, the RCKC stated in their presentation, “72% Reduction in Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes / Year, 42% Reduction in All Crashes / Year, About 17 fewer fatal and serious crashes occurred after the improvements.”
Then, during the June 30th Board meeting, a member of the SS4A project team from the Road Commission explained the project team’s motivation for the SS4A project is to save lives (and also stated on slide 2 of the May 19th SS4A presentation). Later in the same meeting, we learned that of the 130 miles in the SS4A program for which clear cutting is proposed, 56 of those miles will not include the addition of rumble strips along the shoulders. This is despite the RCKC’s own evidence presented in May of this year that rumble strips significantly reduce “Fatal & Serious Injury Crashes / Year”. Yet, the RCKC is not installing them along almost half of the roads it claims this project will make safer? It is clear that the RCKC has a significant amount of discretion and leeway over their SS4A project.
The RCKC has put safety aside on these 56 miles of roads, because it will be installing bike paths/lanes. In fact, the RCKC Board explained that the RCKC has been partnering with the Kalamazoo Bicycle Club during the planning of this SS4A project. The RCKC is prioritizing bike paths for a few dozen cyclists over installing shoulder rumble strips, which would help prevent motorists from veering off the road. The RCKC is using our tax dollars to install bike paths to benefit a couple of dozen bicyclists so they don’t end up with sore bums from rumble strips? This planning is in direct contradiction with the RCKC team’s stated motivation to save lives. With the money you would be saving by not clear-cutting you could add rumble strips within the white lines along the shoulders of these 56 miles and prevent drivers from potentially departing the lane.
Further, the residents have been suspicious of the number of ‘tree related’ accidents reported by RCKC. The RCKC has been presenting large numbers like 1,700 crashes per year, 15/61 fatalities/crashes and 50% in their presentations to county/township officials and the public (see slide 4 of the “May 19th Board Meeting SS4A presentation”). These larger statistics are being marketed to elevate concern and give the impression that trees are a part of an alarming number of accidents. The RCKC once again delivered their presentation and statistics to the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners (Regular Board meeting at 6:30pm) on July 7th. It was at this meeting where Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners called into question the RCKC’s crash statistics and uncovered that there have only been 3 fatal or serious injury crashes involving trees on the 11 designated routes in the SS4A program. Much lower than the RCKC team would have you believe per their presented statistics. We will post a link to the full meeting video once it is published.
Returning to the June 30th RCKC Board meeting, the Road Commission presented a new proposal whereby it changes the Clear Zone from including all trees within 33 feet from the centerline to 17 feet from the edge of the lane (link to video of this discussion is here and starts at the 51 minute mark https://u.peg.tv/s/m8cb4l ). The reality is that where there is a white line on the road, it’s actually 28 feet from the centerline and where there is no white line on the road, it will be 17 feet from the edge of the pavement, which gets us back to 29 to 32 feet from the centerline. The Road Commission also advised their Board that they may take down additional trees as they deem necessary at their discretion (these comments start at the 55:25 minute mark). From this new proposal, the RCKC is marketing that only 4,000 trees will be removed. However, at the same time, the project team stated that they have yet to go back out to re-survey under this new proposal and are basing their 4,000 on a few spot checks and office chair estimates and that a complete ‘scope of work’ survey still has to be done. We do not believe this 4,000 tree removal estimate reflects reality. We have received feedback from folks with trees to be removed that the road commission's new proposal changes very little from its initial proposal... the majority if not all of their trees will still be removed.
Residents also feel mislead by the way this option was presented during the June 30th meeting. Residents left the meeting feeling like the door was now open to compromise and further discussions would take place. The RCKC’s Option 2 proposal to move the ‘clearcut zone’ to 17 feet from the white line was specifically called a “recommendation” by the RCKC project team lead (see video at the 53 minute mark) and the Board advised the public audience to be patient as they were also learning this in “real time”. However, on July 1st, the RCKC was issuing statements to the press that this is a final revision and one they are moving forward with no vote by their Board.
A RCKC Board member explained to residents that because this was a ‘design change’, the Road Commission Board members did not have to vote on it and the internal project team made this change at their own discretion. This decision to move forward with this change was made covertly outside of the public forum. More significantly, it is contrary to the message that RCKC has been communicating since May to county/township officials and the public that the program was finalized and not open to change without jeopardizing the SS4A grant. Apparently, the program can be changed… and was confirmed by our direct discussions with the US Department of Transportation.
One final item that residents take issue with concerns the RCKC’s lack of annual roadside tree maintenance. When a private resident calls the RCKC to inform them of a dead or dying tree along the road, or a dead branch hanging over the road, the RCKC responds with ‘nothing we can do’. The RCKC advises the property owner that it is the property owner’s responsibility to remedy dead or dying trees that have not yet fallen on the road. During the July 7th RCKC presentation to the Kalamazoo Board of Commissioners, the Director of the Road Commission advised that they received 1,700 ‘service calls’ involving trees/branches that had fallen on the road last year. He claimed that it is his team that works tirelessly to clean up these fallen trees/branches. The residents would like to point out that the number of ‘service calls’ would be greatly reduced if the RCKC performed routine roadside tree maintenance throughout the year and remove dead/dying trees/branches (especially as requested by residents). This type of roadside tree maintenance is known throughout the country as ‘best practice’ and was included in the research we sent you in our June 29th email. This is the same research that stated that healthy tree canopies over roads lengthen the life of the road with less resurfacing needed resulting in road commission cost savings.
In light of all this new information, the 2,088 residents who have signed a petition supporting the RCKC to amend their SS4A program would like to adjust their
proposed compromise. Consistent with our previous two pleas to the RCKC Board, the residents are asking the RCKC Board to direct the RCKC to compromise with the citizens/residents of the County and amend and/or make a ‘design change’ to their SS4A project whereby the RCKC only removes trees impeding visibility at intersections and curves, as well as removing dead trees or dead limbs along roadsides... not clear cutting them all to create ‘Clear Zones’. In addition, we are now asking the RCKC to use the funds that were originally planned for clear cutting 8,000 trees and instead use those funds to install 56 miles of shoulder rumble strips where they were not originally planned in an effort to prevent motorists from departing the road, which even the RCKC admits would save lives.
In the interest of transparency, I would like to make the RCKC aware of new citizen initiatives. Two attorneys have taken issue with the clear cutting of our county roadside trees and support the residents’ campaign. They have advised residents with property directly impacted by the RCKC’s clear cutting that the land and the trees on the land are owned by the property owner. And therefore, the ‘clear cutting’ initiative is considered “regulatory taking”. As such, the property owners are required to be compensated for these trees. Given the number of residents that are a part of this campaign that are impacted, one attorney is suggesting that this could potentially turn into a Class Action lawsuit. A second attorney has advised that rural county roads may not fall exactly within easement boundaries and any deviation from the legal easement description vs. the actual road construction may constitute a trespassing issue if measurements are taken from the centerline (or white line) and not by a professional metes and bounds survey.
Finally, under the guidance of an attorney, we submitted a FOIA request on June 22, 2026. The RCKC said it would reply no later than July 14, 2026. That is today and we are still waiting for the information requested. Once again, we are asking for a reasonable compromise that is supported by our research.
Regards,
Brad Sadowski on behalf of 2,088 residents.