Sidewalks here to stay, but who should pay?
On the agenda
The Janesville City Council will meet at 7 p.m. Monday at City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St. An informal listening session is scheduled at 6:30 p.m. Items on the agenda include:
-- A public hearing on an ordinance to allow the sale of alcohol at the Rock County Historical Society complex. The city owns the Tallman House, and staff has been working with society members to create a business plan for gatherings and bring in more revenue. The society is asking for a license to serve beer and wine. The city's alcohol license advisory committee has recommended the council OK the change but restrict outside activities to 9 p.m. and enclose drinking areas if the gathering could draw more than 150 people.
-- A discussion on the future of the downtown parking plaza. The single-level parking structure spans the Rock River. It has about 275 parking stalls. Sections have been closed because repairs are needed. Estimates are that the structure would need to be replaced sometime between 2015 and 2020. The DNR has said it likely won't allow the city to replace the structure. Staff recommends the city move forward with repairs to allow use for four years. Staff also recommends the council apply for grants to improve the riverfront, set a date to remove the structure and begin finding replacement parking.
JANESVILLE — For as far back as anyone can remember, abutting property owners have paid for installing, maintaining and repairing Janesville sidewalks.
But the city council Monday will consider whether to change the way the city does sidewalk business.
Any change would shift the cost of sidewalks from individual property owners to taxpayers.
A sidewalk committee commissioned by the council recommended changes because the majority of committee members believe most of the angst over sidewalks is rooted in cost.
"Former and current council members on the committee have indicated that, historically, the financing of sidewalks has been a major complaint," committee member Bob Yeomans wrote in a letter to council members. "Please solve it to remove it as a source of contention."
Others on the committee, though, have said they would support a change only if the inequity to those who already have paid to install sidewalks is addressed.
The committee recommends:
-- An 18-month notice be given to property owners who are ordered to put in sidewalks. That means the 2013 program would not move forward until 2014, City Manager Eric Levitt said in a memo. The city has a map on its website detailing its seven-year sidewalk plan, so residents can check anytime if and when they are scheduled for sidewalks.
-- The cost to pay staff who administer the sidewalk program be charged to the general taxpayer. Now, the cost is charged to private property owners who pay the city to install their sidewalks.
Those who choose private contractors do not pay the administrative cost, which is one reason why private contractors can build sidewalks cheaper than the city. The city also must pay prevailing wage. It also accepts residents whose sidewalks present problems, such as trees that need to be removed or retaining walls built. Those additional costs are folded into the city's total cost and spread among property owners on the city's sidewalk program.
In his letter to the council, Yeomans questioned the fairness of requiring only one set of residents to pay the city's engineering costs. Yeomans calls the surcharge a regressive tax because people who hire the city to install sidewalks usually do so because they do not have cash on hand and must use the city's financing plans.
Shifting the cost of staff time dedicated to sidewalks to the general fund would mean all residents would pay that cost with their property taxes.
-- City-ordered repairs of existing sidewalks be paid with general taxes, again shifting the cost from abutting homeowners to all homeowners.
-- The city pay for all sidewalks—new and those needing repair—with general property taxes if past inequities can be resolved.
One suggestion, for instance, is to tax or assess those people who do not have sidewalks to share in the cost of the sidewalks people are ordered to put in. Levitt has not yet determined the legality of such an option.
The sidewalk committee was formed after some residents protested the 2012 sidewalk program. The council that approved the seven-year program in 2008 did so to improve safety and fill sidewalk gaps. It began implementing the program in 2011. A 2006 ordinance requires all residents in new subdivisions to build sidewalks.
The current council, however, is not as supportive of sidewalks overall.
The sidewalk committee recommended that some of the 2012 program be built, and the council approved. The committee did not meet the council's deadlines, however, and the council closed the 2012 program half-completed.
Yeomans questioned whether the city makes money on its sidewalk program. He said in his letter that the city borrowed more than it spent in two of the last three years and that it charges residents more interest than the actual cost of the borrowing.
Yeomans also asked what happens to money set aside by developers to build future sidewalks, so-called "funded sidewalks." He questioned whether cost projections have been accurate over the years.
"As you begin reviewing the budget for next year, I ask you to question your comfort level with these dynamics," Yeomans said.
Aug 11, 2012 at 4:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree that if you live in the city property owners should expect a sidewalks on BOTH sides of the street. I have never lived anywhere where a simple sidewalk causes so much discussion and gnashing of teeth. Sidewalks are infrastructure and are an important part of a community. I know Janesville used to live and die by the automobile, but those days are gone and we need to be able access businesses with or without a car. Hwy 14 (Humes Rd.) comes to mind. Sidewalks should be installed when the curb and gutter go in. If it is damaged by a construction company, they should fix it.
It would be hilarious to hear the complaining of those who think that taxes for city services should be cut. Can you imagine someone who thinks it is tough to shovel a sidewalk having to take their own garbage to the dump etc?! Too funny.
Aug 11, 2012 at noon
Suggest removal
"Gandalf
Aug 10, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
frogger, this may not be an important topic to you, but it's a huge issue to our community and is well worth reporting on."
EVERY WEEK???
This has been going on for many, many , years. Some of these issues are not rocket science.
Decide and be done. Still waiting for somebody to use the sidewalks on Wright Rd out by Farm and Fleet. What a waste.
Aug 11, 2012 at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why is this such a hard concept for some people?
If you want to live in Janesville, expect that you may need to pay to have sidewalks put in.
If you don't want to do that, either move to another city that does not have sidewalks or move to the country.
Just as we have asked others in the past to pay their fair share, it may be your turn to do the same.
Aug 11, 2012 at 12:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
This will be the true test of what the city council and administration is really composed of.
Hoping for the best ...but expecting the worst.
Listen to Mr. Yeomans....he speaks for the silent majority.
Aug 10, 2012 at 9:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is a good step in the right direction. Those who did not have sidewalks complained that they did not need them on both sides of the street etc. Those that did were paying for a city mandated service and others were given a pass.
At least all are paying and now the ones who don't have a sidewalk can petiton to get them since they are paying for them and those that have them are at least not being burdened unfairly.
Aug 10, 2012 at 8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Problem is, no one wants to pay for any "public" services anymore. Whether they're provided by public employees or private sector employees. Education, roads, sidewalks, social services, benefit the public as a whole. The community.
Aug 10, 2012 at 7:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Back on topic, "Those who choose private contractors do not pay the administrative cost, which is one reason why private contractors can build sidewalks cheaper than the city." Another reason besides the prevailing wage issue, they send 12 guys to do 6 guys work.
Aug 10, 2012 at 7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Off topic frogger but I would be willing to guess Dean George lost the privilage of HIS license. I'm sure he has many others on his staff that are licensed through the state. I don't know that for sure but like I said, it's my guess.
Aug 10, 2012 at 5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
If this is on hold and such an issue WHY are they doing sidewalks on write rd? Who is paying for those?
Hey here is another question.
Article George Auction- licence suspended. WHY are there still auctions going on?
Aug 10, 2012 at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cant you find something else to write about. I guess it has been a week since the last "sidewalk" article. Sometimes 2 in one week.
Aug 10, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
They are for public use, just like the streets. They are on the part of a property owners "property" that he has no control over, the city controls it. They should be paid for out of the street fund or something like it. It is the only way that makes sense.
Aug 10, 2012 at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
i ve said it before and ill say it again sidewalks are a thing of the past most cities are putting in a blacktop paths that serves both walker an bikers, janesville is so behind the times .
Aug 10, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
BTW: Below is the link to the planning map. I'm orange. Future unfunded, unplanned.
http://www.ci.janesville.wi.us/modules/s...
Aug 10, 2012 at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
At least they're thinking about it. I have no problem paying into the general fund for public sidewalks. Maybe the people that already paid can get a sidewalk deduction on their property taxes for awhile. Again, I wouldn't mind that, either.
Aug 10, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
The two are exactly the same belman - a tax for NOT doing something.
Aug 10, 2012 at 4:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
smallBIZowner. You are a clown. What does one hae to do with the other. The Health Care Act will give people a chance to have some type of coverage. If you can control the cost the speak up. No one has been able to yet. We need to mandate the cost so insuance company's can't steal from us with uncheck regulations.
Aug 10, 2012 at 4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
ALL infrastructure should be on the general tax roll.
Aug 10, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The cost is charged to private property owners who pay the city to install their sidewalks." Keep it that way. Why should taxpayers on the south side pay for new sidewalks on the east side? And vice versa. The world will come to an end and Janesville will still be dithering about sidewalks.
Aug 10, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Kind of like the Obamacare plan - '... assess those people who do not have sidewalks ...'. The over-charging for interest part is quite interesting and should spark debates/lawsuits.
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.