Council delays ambitious sidewalk program
Photo Gallery
JANESVILLE — The Janesville City Council delayed implementing an aggressive sidewalk plan until 2009 to give people more time to save for their sidewalks.
The plan adopted Monday contains 62 miles of sidewalk that would be built over seven years beginning this spring. But the 2008 sidewalk project likely will be small.
The cost to the owner of an average lot would be about $2,000 based on 2007 costs. The seven-year plan could affect 2,800 properties.
The plan still does not put sidewalk on both sides of every street, and many have no sidewalk at all. In 2006, the council voted that all new streets have sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Voting to adopt the plan Monday were Paul Williams, Bill Truman, Tim Wellnitz, Amy Loasching and George Brunner. Craig DeGarmo voted against adopting the plan. Russ Steeber was absent.
The city has a haphazard system of sidewalks because all residents haven’t been required to build sidewalks over the years. That has created safety issues and hard feelings among residents, most council members say.
Residents can plead their cases annually at public hearings in hopes of convincing the council to remove their properties from the program.
Resident Ken Osborn said after the vote that he fears the council will simply rubber stamp its plan every year and turn a deaf ear to residents who protest the suggested sidewalks.
Nine people spoke against either adopting the plan or against building sidewalks on their properties specifically. Three of the nine are running for city council.
Council members Loasching and Truman especially pushed to give residents as much notice about their sidewalks as possible.
City Manager Steve Sheiffer said staff would attach a date to each street.
Councilman Paul William spoke in favor of sidewalks.
“Everybody can always come up with excuses on why they don’t want a sidewalk,” he said.
But he noted that the Wisconsin School for the Visually Handicapped is in the city. And people in wheelchairs need to get around.
Councilman George Brunner agreed, saying he recently observed two people in wheelchairs struggle down a street to get to a restaurant. People with disabilities who advocate a strong sidewalk system have contacted him.
“I think that sidewalks are important to a community,” Brunner said. “I think they’re important from a public safety standpoint … and for bringing neighbors together.”
Loasching said she wasn’t convinced she needed sidewalks on her short, dead-end street.
“I have found that since we’ve gotten sidewalks, it’s brought the neighborhood together … One of the things we need in this community are for neighbors to talk to neighbors again and for us to build a stronger community.”
She wondered, however, how Jack Messer, the public works director, could out of fairness choose one side of the street over another for a sidewalk. She prefers that sidewalks be put on both sides.
“Instead of bringing neighbors together, we’re dividing neighbors,” she said.
Messer said he struggled with that.
“A long journey always starts with one step,” he said. “… The map … seemed like a good place to start.
“I didn’t personally go look at every yellow line … Who knows if it’s on the right side? It’s a line on a piece of paper that’s been there for a long time.”
Truman, too, said he’d prefer to see sidewalk on both sides of every street.
But Craig DeGarmo, the sole member to vote no, said he didn’t want to build sidewalks just because the map showed a yellow line. He believes the issue is one of fairness, too. People chose the homes they buy often based on sidewalks, he said.
Tim Wellnitz said it is important that the council look to the future.
The map is the official position of the council and puts people on notice.
“It’s the best thing we can do with what we’ve inherited from the past councils and the past decisions that have been made,” Wellnitz said.
Council delays action on permit
The Janesville City Council delayed action on a suggested $185 permit for residents who contract privately to build their sidewalks.
Most council members said the $185 was too high.
The city had suggested the permit so people who opt out of contracting with the city still pay for administrative costs.
Councilman Paul Williams noted that a sidewalk fee has never been paid before.
Councilman Bill Truman said a smaller permit fee might work. The city would know that a sidewalk was built and the resident would get the correct specifications for the sidewalk.
“There are 311 miles of existing sidewalk in the city, and every one of those people have paid the overhead cost of the sidewalk program when they were assessed,” Manager Steve Sheiffer said.
If the people who choose private contractors aren’t charged a fee, then the residents who stay with the city shouldn’t have to pay a fee, either, he said.
The council will continue its discussion of the permit at a future meeting. The proposed permit was not popular with the people who spoke at Monday’s public hearing.
What the people have to say
Al Lembrich, 541 Miller Ave.
Lembrich questioned the policy of spreading all sidewalk costs among all the people on an annual program. “Why should one (resident) on a level lot be forced to pay for (another’s) bad terrain or tree removal? Where is the fairness here?”
Regarding the suggested permit fee to hire private contractors, he said: “The city now wants to suck the last penny from the property owners with the ridiculous fee of $185 … If sidewalks are everyone’s use, then have everyone pay this via taxes …”
Lembrich said the city wants to assess property owners for city workers to do their jobs, what he called “double dipping.”
Robert Yeomans, 2001 Ruger Ave.
“We’re asking the property owner that’s next to the sidewalk to pay for the sidewalk … In addition, we’re asking the owner of the property to pay for the cost that the administration has, or say they have, to put the sidewalks in … The city benefits from the sidewalk … I would like to ask the city council to reject the notion of asking the homeowner to (pay) that additional cost.”
George Stone, Janesville
“We can’t afford sidewalks,” he said of himself and his retired neighbors living on limited incomes on Hubbard Street. If the sidewalks come in, three of them are “going to sell our homes and get out.”
Ken Osborn, 2206 Garden Drive
“When my wife and I purchased the house in which we live (35 years ago), our realtor and the city both told us that we would never have sidewalks on our street. I know that things change, but I cannot bring myself to believe that something like the way the sidewalk was placed on the map was anything other than someone drawing a line because he or she was instructed to … Absolutely no research was placed in it, and you can’t make me believe that any site visits were performed.”
George Mark, 206 Shady Oak Court
Mark is “totally opposed” to sidewalks.
“Show me why we need these sidewalks? What’s the problem? … You talked about safety. Well, that’s a word out in the sky someplace unless you present the facts.”
He suggested lowering the speed limit on short streets to 6 miles an hour to advance the concept of shared space for all road users.
Richard Reinke, 1901 Rockport Road
“Our economy is on the downhill slide … The fact that homeowners in this area are in double-digit foreclosure, that means their money is not available anymore for things like sidewalk … I’m not saying we don’t need (some sidewalk). Just let’s use some common sense.”
K. Andreah Briarmoon, 339 S. Locust St.
“If we really need these sidewalks and they’ll benefit the city as a whole, how about we put it to a referendum, up everybody’s taxes and bill everybody … My guess is, it’s not going to pass.”
Morgan Shepard, Janesville
He noted his potential bill for his commercial property on Kennedy Road could be $20,000. That doesn’t include the ongoing maintenance once the sidewalk is in.
“As a small non-profit, it will take quite a while to raise those kind of funds.”
Jan 17, 2008 at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
I once lived on a street that did not have sidewalks and the city made one side put in walks (not my side). This was not fun to watch as my friends across the street were having to pay for the walks and move landscaping etc. There were hard feelings from some because only their side required them. One went so far as to try to petition to have the non-sidewalk side pay the installation cost for the sidewalk side because of "fairness".
The only fair way is sidewalks for all. Some don't have kids yet pay school tax. Others don't use the library, parks, sports facilities, etc. yet pay those taxes.
This is a community issue, not a personal issue like a driveway or patio. Oh and I have sidewalks now and will be out there today shoveling mine.
Jan 17, 2008 at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
unkbd, as I said in a previous post:
All infrastructure, roads, bridges, curb, gutter, sidewalk, sewer, etc. should be installed, maintained and paid for with general city funds in all of the city. I realize this would not make some people happy who had to pay for their sidewalk, but I think it should be implemented with some type of credit for those who already paid. It would take some initial work but then we wouldn't be in this situation year after year.
Jan 17, 2008 at 2:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh! One more thing.....if they make me put in sidewalks the post office better make my street a walking route. Just so I don't have to go out to the street to get my property tax bill.
Jan 17, 2008 at 2:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
I have the same problem as amishbob (small front yard) and zach (large maple trees). I do not want sidewalks. The $185 fee is nothing more than a penalty for using a private contractor to put in your sidewalk. It makes one wonder how much the city is "making" by railroading the public into using their contractor. In my opinion this is how it should be done from here on out if this is going to continue to be an issue. All new construction started after March 1st, 2008 should be required to have sidewalks. Any and all streets currently without sidewalks will not be required to put them in unless a neighborhood petition is signed by 3/4 of the residents on that side of the street. Furthermore maintenance of new and existing sidewalks should become the responsibility of the city paid for out of the general fund or Mr. Sheiffers Aquatics facility fund of $1 or $2 Million(whatever it was that he "set aside") which could be invested. Possibly well enough to perpetuate itself and fund the whole thing. If there are any flaws in this idea, maybe we could all pitch in to perfect it an propose it to the council?? Any thoughts?
Jan 16, 2008 at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes, it was put there in 1838 by Henry Janes and it's grandfathered in.
Jan 16, 2008 at 9:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think Andreah Briarmoon's position and comment is one of the most logical I've heard regarding the sidewalk debate! I wonder if her carriage barn had a sidewalk in front of it :p
Jan 16, 2008 at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Who picks up the cost of the trees that will have to be removed, the driveway that will have to be re-poured, the outdoor lighting that will have to be moved and rewired, the landscaping that will have to be redone, and the irrigation system that will have to be dug up and re-routed? It's not just a matter of a $2,000 sidewalk or a $185 fee. If you consider all these extra costs, times each property on our street on both sides, the City may want to reconsider ruining our yards by forcing us to add sidewalks that nobody is going to walk on in the first place.
Jan 16, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
The $185 fee is ridiculous. This must be fully-allocated overhead and it is not appropriate to charge this to the resident. The resident should be charged the marginal cost for sidewalk planning/documentation (i.e. any additional costs associated with the project). By using fully-allocated overhead for these projects, both those done by the City and by others, the City Manager is keeoing the general tax rate artificially low by shifting fixed costs to the fee-for-service environment. This is just playing with numbers and gives an unrealistic picture of what it costs to run a city of our size.
Jan 16, 2008 at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sidewalks are an issue of public safety and all properties should be required to have them. It's absurd that anyone should be expected to walk in the streets simply because a homeowner doesn't want a sidewalk. Should a mother have to walk her child in a stroller using the street? How about the elderly or disabled? Should they use the street? Or maybe those of you without sidewalks won't mind shoveling a path through your front yard for pedestrian safety.
If you don't want a sidewalk and don't want to live in Janesville because you have to have one buy a rural property.
Jan 16, 2008 at 8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
I will run away and join the circus before I ever pay $2000 for a sidewalk that I do not want!!
Jan 16, 2008 at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
For what it's worth, we bought our first house in Janesville (we now live elsewhere) nearly 30 years ago in a (then) newer east side neighborhood with no sidewalks. A friend of mine from high school was on the city council at the time and he cautioned me that no neighborhood in the city was exempt from having sidewalks. He said that even though our area didn't have them at the time, the city could require them at any time. Seems the more things change the more they stay the same.
Jan 16, 2008 at 2:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
I have a sidewalk and to be honest, I really hate shoveling the thing.
Jan 16, 2008 at 1:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
For those of you that do not have sidewalks... do you walk on other people's sidewalks to get somewhere? If so, who pays for the maintenance? There are so many of you making excuses more than any child ratting on their siblings all day long! Goodness gracious, get ahold of yourself. Anytime you buy property, expect to be paying what it cost to live. If you don't like living in the city, then hit the road! The city council shouldn't even be asking for resident input, suggestions, or much less... useless feedback just to keep this issue going on for what seems endless.
Maybe sidewalk owners should never pay for maintenance, or installation by just taxing the crap out of the entire city to maintain every sidewalk for the entire city! How's that for suggestion? This way, the city owns all sidewalks and take even more control of raising our taxes!
Jan 15, 2008 at 11:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
I will sell my house and move if sidewalks are required.
Jan 15, 2008 at 7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
I've purchased several homes in my lifetime. If the property doesn't have sidewalks, I ask the question about plans, so I'm prepared if and when they are to be installed. I also ask about plans for vacant property in the event that a big box is planned for vacant land. I have always received the 'oh, no plans.' As part of my research on a home, I go to the assessor and find out the assessment history, I find out the taxes on the property, I go to the City and find out what the 'plan' is for sidewalks, I find out what the 'plan' has for use of the vacant lot(s) in the vicinity, and the list goes on. It's easy for someone to say that there are no plans; however a house is a big purchase and I think it's important as a consumer to do our own due diligence. Personally, I've always been perplexed about the sidewalks to nowhere and the inconsistency in sidewalks around town. On my walking route, I have to cross the street several times to be on a sidewalk; I'm not complaining and it's not a big deal and I am out there to exercise, just stating a fact. I believe that sidewalks are an integral part of urban living and that we choose to live in an urban environment. With that come certain things like waiting at stop lights, winters where there is snow on the road, speed limits of 25mph, and even sidewalks. I am ok with all of this and thus the reason why I enjoy living in an urban environment.
Jan 15, 2008 at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
The only fair way to do this is either for all to have sidewalks, or for those who save money and time ever year by not having them should pay extra tax and the money be used for maintenance and install of sidewalks for those who are stuck with them.
If we live in the same city, some should not benefit at the expense of others.
Jan 15, 2008 at 6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sorry, but this is such a non-issue. You live in the city, you have sidewalks. I am always quite amused at the sidewalks that go nowhere in this city. I am even more amused with the excuses that people come up with as to why they absolutely can not have sidewalks in their neighborhoods.
Jan 15, 2008 at 5:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Once again, our city council is wishy-washy on the sidewalk issue. I don't have sidewalks in my area, but wish I did. Sure I could add them. I feel if you live within the city limits, you must have sidewalks!
Jan 15, 2008 at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why stop now? I had to fork over $1600 for a sidewalk that is RARELY used and was HIGHLY unwanted in our neighborhood. I didn't have an extra year to come up with funds. How is that fair in the least bit???? It just ticks me off that much more every time I have to go and shovel our new "investment" with all of the wonderful snow this winter.
Jan 15, 2008 at 4:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sure. Retirement communities, near schools, in high foot-traffic areas, near restaurants and businesses and parks, in general areas where people would logically use them - great. Have sidewalks to promote exercise and safety. But that does NOT apply to every street, every neighborhood, every area. You can't blame obesity on the lack of sidewalks - that's stretching it just a bit don't you think? Buy a treadmill. It's cheaper than a sidewalk and you can use it even in inclement weather.
Jan 15, 2008 at 4:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think the city needs more sidewalks. I live by a retirement community and see them walking down the road with their walkers. Thats not right, something bad is going to happen.
I look at it this way. I don't lIke to pay a tax for the schools. I do not use them, I have no kids and don't plan on it. People that made the choice to have kids and use the schools only pay a small amount more in class fees. But, I am forced to pay for the betterment of the community. The same could be said for the sidewalks. You may not use them but others do and it will make the community better. If I have to pay for another persons kid to go to school. Someone can help pay for me to walk my dog, take walks with my wife, or go for a run without the fear of getting hit by a car.
Jan 15, 2008 at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obesity is at epidemic levels in our country and in our city. We need sidewalks to be able to exercise and move our bodies, safely and without fear of having to go into the street and get hit by a vehicle. My friends and I run in the street when there is no sidewalk or now, when sidewalks are not cleared of snow and ice. We've had a number of close calls because many drivers are not willing to move over and share the road.
Jan 15, 2008 at 3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
If you live in the city, you should have sidewalks. If you don't want sidewalks, move to the country. This is not a hard concept.
Every street should have sidewalks down both sides.
We need to stop whinning about it and get them built.
Jan 15, 2008 at 2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
The city administration is constantly complaining about unfunded mandates from the state and feds; Isn't this the same thing? An unfunded mandate from the city to the property owner.
All city infrastructure including sidewalks should be funded and maintained by the city through the general fund.
Jan 15, 2008 at 2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
What are sidewalks really for? People out walking their dogs, pushing strollers or jogging do it in the street whether there is a sidewalk there for them to use or not. This seems like just another strategy by the powers-that-be to wring more money out of its citizens. When I retire I plan to move far away. The only thing I'll miss about living in this so-called "city" is the Rotary Gardens.
Jan 15, 2008 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
How nice of the city to delay for people to save money...too bad they failed to mention that this project has already begun. They must have forgotten the $1000 they had me fork over to replace my/the cities whole sidewalk in front of my home when only a couple of squares had a slight slop to them. Don't worry the city stuck it hard to everyone on my street. That was 2 years ago. What do we need sidewalks for, it's a crime to ride bikes on them.
Jan 15, 2008 at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
I totally agree. The lack of sidewalk was part of our buying decision as well, and adding a sidewalk would completely destroy the landscaping and mature trees of our entire block. The sidewalk decisions can't be made by drawing a line on a map - each neighborhood is different. There is no restaurant or school near us and we have very little foot traffic, therefore no need for sidewalks in the first place. It would be a waste of money and a waste of time to maintain.
Jan 15, 2008 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
One of the reasons I purchased my house was because it to does not have a sidewalk. I have a huge red maple in my front yard that provides a lot of shade and protection from the sun and elements. If I have to put in a sidewalk I would lose the tree. Is the city willing to pay when I need a new roof or for my extra air conditioning bill in the summer?
Jan 15, 2008 at 12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the city wish to put a sidewalk on my street, they better reduce the size (width) of the road. I don't need a side walk in front of my picture window.
The city allowed these smaller lot sizes because they knew there would not be a sidewalk there.
I bought my place because it DOES NOT have a sidewalk!!!!!!
Jan 15, 2008 at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have to agree with the referendum idea. The government is suppose to make decisions on the many not the few and I defiantly appose the sidewalk plan.
Jan 15, 2008 at 11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Craig DeGarmo is right. The people that live where there are no sidewalks live their by choice. People even ask their realitor if there will ever be sidewalks by their house because it's an important buying decision.
I know for a fact that when I build a new house, it won't be in Janesville.
Not ONE citizen at the meeting last night said it was OK to put in sidewalks as planned. If there's NOT ONE CITIZEN that can come to the meeting to express their opinion, why are we putting them in? Do we own this government, or does the government own us?
Jan 15, 2008 at 11:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Maybe the city should sell some of the property that the parks sit on to home developers. Then it would cut costs on park maintenance and upkeep and with all that extra money the city could pay for sidewalks.
Jan 15, 2008 at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Of course Paul Williams is going to say "Everybody can always come up with excuses on why they don’t want a sidewalk,” because he has money to throw away on things like this. IT's not an excuse Paul. MOST people do not have $2,000 just laying around to waste !! Get a clue city council, not everyone is a rich as you people !! you are certainly not making decisions according to the wishes of the entire city population. Time for a change in city government !!!
Jan 15, 2008 at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
I guess I would need time to save money for sidewalks as I am retired and find it hard to even pay my property taxes.
Moreover I would NOT like sidewalks, as I bought with the mindset that there would be none in my subdivision.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.