Sidewalk committee agrees on criteria for placement
JANESVILLE — Traffic volume has risen to the top of criteria being considered by a new Janesville committee charged with helping decide who should have sidewalks in the city.
Other criteria, in descending order of importance, include:
-- Connections to schools and bus routes.
-- Gaps in sidewalk networks.
-- Connections to retail or public facilities.
-- Population density and accident data.
-- Connections to the bike trail.
-- Connections to future development.
Isolating and weighing criteria were the first major steps for the committee formed by the city council to study the city's seven-year sidewalk plan. The sidewalk plan was halted after one year when residents due to get sidewalks in 2012 organized politically and convinced two new council members to sponsor an agenda item to halt the plan.
In addition to objective data, committee members have said secondary issues, such as a neighborhoods' expectation for sidewalks, also might play a role in whether sidewalks are built. The more subjective issues led to the sidewalk program being halted.
On Thursday, committee members are expected to see how their criteria translate to sidewalks on a map.
At future meetings, the committee might discuss and recommend to the council who should pay for the sidewalks: taxpayers or the owners of the properties where sidewalks are being installed. Property owners traditionally have been assessed the cost.
One committee member, Chuck Behm, attended only one meeting. He told The Gazette on Tuesday that he would no longer serve. He said he had the wrong impression about what the committee would study.
"The city council and the city staff already went through all this criteria," Behm said, referring to the sidewalk plan that was halted this year.
"Going back over this, to me, is a waste of my time. They're beating a dead horse over and over again," Behm said.
A look at the committee members:
Scott Bever
Nominated by: Councilman DuWayne Severson
Address: 921 Thornecrest Drive
Background: Civil engineer and real estate broker employed by Marklein Builders
Has sidewalks: Yes
Opinions about sidewalks: He said sidewalks provide a public good in some places. He has two children and likes his sidewalk, but the seven-year plan is overreaching. He understands why people who never thought they'd have sidewalks are upset.
Bever initially became involved because Marklein Builders was ordered to install sidewalks across vacant property, even though the sidewalks will be destroyed when the property is developed.
Goal in serving on the committee: To come up with a sensible and adequate plan for pedestrian traffic without overdoing it.
Dave Hyde
Nominated by: City Manager Eric Levitt
Address: 1315 Mineral Point Road
Background: Employee for the Wisconsin Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired. President of the local chapter of the National Federation of the Blind.
Has sidewalks: Yes
Opinions about sidewalks: He said sidewalks make it easier for people to get around.
"I guess I like having that barrier between pedestrians and cars," he said. "I think it makes a difference."
Goal in serving on the committee: To find something that most residents can agree upon.
"We waste a lot of time and a lot of energy on sidewalks here in Janesville that could be put to other purposes," he said.
Ed Madere
Nominated by: City council president Kathy Voskuil
Address: 1135 Columbus Circle
Has sidewalks: Yes
Background: Retired city manager, including in the state of Oregon. Serves on the Janesville Plan Commission.
Opinions about sidewalks: Favorable
Goal in serving on the committee: Developing criteria by listening to the arguments on all sides to "try to make a decision that's going to be in the best interest of the residents in the affected area and the citizens as a whole."
Sam Liebert
Nominated by: City council President Kathy Voskuil
Address: Renting at 841 Milton Ave.
Has sidewalks: Yes
Background: Employed part-time by a private contractor providing security for the Rock County crisis staff. Member of the Janesville City Council. Running as a Democrat for a seat on the state Assembly.
Opinions about sidewalks: Liebert said sidewalks are an asset to the community, although he doesn't believe many in the current sidewalk program make sense. He has voted consistently against the sidewalk program because he did not believe there was enough resident input in its creation.
Goal in serving on the committee: To work with other members to "find consensus on how we appropriately and intrinsically put a value on where we need sidewalks and filling in gaps."
Tom McDonald
Nominated by: Councilman Matt Kealy
Address: 16 Marshall Place
Has sidewalks: Yes
Background: Janesville attorney and former city council member
Opinions about sidewalks: McDonald walks to work and has a young family, so he finds value in sidewalks that people who always drive might not, he said. Sidewalks are part of being in a community. Sidewalks are appropriate in most areas, but are not needed in all, he said.
Goal in serving on the committee: "I hope to help the council and the community move forward with this issue of sidewalks so it doesn't continue to be a contentious issue every year."
He hopes to explore the issue in more depth than in the past to alleviate concerns residents have had over the years.
Russ Steeber
Nominated by: City council President Kathy Voskuil
Address: 4266 Greenbriar Drive
Has sidewalks: No
Background: Retired captain of community corrections for the Rock County Sheriff's Office. Member of the Janesville City Council.
Opinions about sidewalks: The city has a sidewalk plan it never followed through with. With possibly some exceptions, the sidewalk plan "is a good one, a reasonable one, and I think the only way get through this controversy is to finish the plan and be done with it," he said.
Goal in serving on the committee: "We should have an adequate system for people to navigate through the community and one that allows accessibility. Right now, to some degree, that doesn't happen.
"The biggest thing is, I'd like to see some finality to this issue. … We can't keep having this controversy year after year with no resolution," he said. "What it's doing, in my opinion, is kind of tearing the community apart."
Carol Tidwell (chairwoman)
Nominated by: Councilman Jim Farrell
Address: 3517 Hemmingway Drive
Background: Former corporate and health care law attorney for 20 years in Minnesota and a federal mediator for 12 years. She worked with labor and management groups and the users of a national park, for example.
Has sidewalks: No, but sidewalks would be paid for by a developer and are set to be installed in the future.
Opinions on sidewalks: "I understand financial concerns, but at the same time, sidewalks are a common good," she said. "And there really should be a way to balance those concerns."
Goal in serving on the committee: To come to a decision that incorporates everyone's best ideas.
Dan Warden
Nominated by: Councilman Sam Liebert
Address: 3423 Woodhall Drive
Background: Retired General Motors employee
Has sidewalks: Warden was scheduled to get them this summer before the council called a halt to the program.
Opinions about sidewalks: Sidewalks are not needed, and people don't use the ones that are there now, he said.
People get along well without them. The areas where sidewalks are needed likely already have them.
"I think there's been an evolution away from sidewalks other than in established neighborhoods," he said.
The neighbors themselves should decide and put them in on an as-needed basis, he said.
Goal in serving on the committee? To reach a consensus within the committee on the qualifying criteria for sidewalks
Bob Yeomans
Nominated by: Councilwoman Deb Dongarra-Adams
Address: 2943 Timber Lane
Background: Owns Central Vending Co.
Has sidewalks: Yeomans owns two houses, one with sidewalks and the other without.
Opinions about sidewalks: Sidewalks are great in some places, and in some places they're not needed, he said.
"The thing that irritated me about sidewalks the most is it seems as if it was overkill," he said.
Goal in serving on the committee: To design a system for the placing sidewalks that people can understand.
"I think it's an important issue that's not going away," he said.
Jun 21, 2012 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
I got a corner lot property in which I had to replace and or raise/lower 7 pieces of my sidewalk because they were "toe kickers". Being next to the school for the visually handicap, I could see why. However, I had to foot the bill. If the present and future projects are going to be paid for by all property tax payers, will I get any credit for past work? This sidewalk plan is still a crock of dung if you ask me. Council should've never had allowed the plan to change from the get go. The storm brewed the year the plan took effect and I don't see the calm coming any day in the future in any of the council members term.
Jun 21, 2012 at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
The problem with switching to public funding of sidewalks NOW for these properties that have resisted getting sidewalks for up to 35 years is that they will now get something for free (well, their tiny share of city taxes) that has been paid for by everyone else. So not only would more than 9 of every 10 property owners have a sidewalk that they paid for, they would now be paying for the people who said they didn't want to pay. Sounds like a great deal!
.
The only way this will work is if the "general fund" approach only applies to properties developed from now into the future. The existing holdouts should still have to pay just like everyone else did. What makes them special? Why do they deserve special treatment?
Jun 21, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
I've lived in two other cities and the cost of the sidewalk was always put on the homeowner's tax bill in full or over a five or ten year payment plan - not socialized on the backs of everyone else. The taxed enough already folks want everything for free and don't want to pay for what more than 80% of us already paid for outright or in the purchase price of the home. It's time to pay up and join reality.
Jun 21, 2012 at 9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
and wisconsinheat curb and gutter improvements (not repairs) are paid for by the home owner. Not by the city. I found this out first hand.
Jun 21, 2012 at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
A ccuple years ago when Mineral Point road was widened out to Austin Road past Parker, I was very much against sidewalks. I had a similar view that no one would use it. The road was widened, curb and gutter was installed (at my expense because curb and gutter improvements are paid for by the home owner) and sidewalk of 160 feet was added along one side of my property. They day the project was completed, I got the bill. Luckily for me, I got a corner lot exemption on curb and gutter so I only had to pay 50% of the cost (which was still quite substantial-about 6 grand if I remember correctly) and the sidewalk had already been paid for by the Ingolds who developed the lots. That sidewalk get used a lot more than I ever thought it would. My speculation that no one would ever use it was WAY OFF. Plus it keeps people from walking down Mineral Point Road. It was worth every penny spent to get that sidewalk in. My point being that until that sidewalk is put in, you really don't know how much it will get used. I too would be willing to pay more in taxes and let the city put sidewalks everywhere they want them and pay for it. You really cannot put a price on good infrastructure like sidewalks. The benefits far outweigh the costs in my opinion.
Jun 20, 2012 at 10:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
I've been expressing to council members for years that sidewalks should be treated same as roads and other infrastructure and paid for from the general tax fund.
Always fell on deaf ears.
Jun 20, 2012 at 9:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
billnewbie and and baegugb are both right! Many of the problems we face are due to poor decisions made by past council members and especially the former City Manager (Hitler? No, I think his name started with an "S". Seems like City workers are only now starting to act like real people.)
-
We need to move beyond the damage those people caused in so many areas. Russ Steeber, please just leave and stop pushing the old agendas.
Jun 20, 2012 at 9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
billnewbie, you're more worked-up about sidewalks than you are about the lord. Apparently you've come to understand that you can't sustain a defense for the lord.
Any way, you will also lose your sidewalk battle.
Jun 20, 2012 at 8:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yea for Dan Warden and Bob Yeomans! Stand your ground guys. How did this "independent" group get so full of council members? Perhaps none of them should be on it because they are ultimately in the loop to vote on it anyway.
-
This really is overkill when there are more pressing issues around. Anyone want to bet the result is similar to what I proposed at a council meeting two years ago -- a fair proposition? Just make it a requirement that the sidewalks are put in when a property changes hands and there is a mortgage deal going down anyway.
-
For all the great logic that Ms. Tidwell expounds on, the real bottom line appears to have gone ignored -- financially stressed property owners just can't afford it right now and few of the missing sidewalks are not all that necessary. From what I've heard, that's really the only issue.
Jun 20, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
I personally would agree sidewalks should be put in by the city, and paid for by everyone. Not the individual property owners. Two caveats. Yep, the people forced to already pay will yell (maybe get a property tax break?). And I'd watch for fraud and bribes and cost, if a city contract was arranged.
And no, I don't have a sidewalk, nor am I on the city plans to have one.
Jun 20, 2012 at 8:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
A few years ago, 2 sections of my sidewalk were replaced for $500. I got the bill. If we are now going to have the city pay for sidewalks, I want a refund! You can put cost of my refund on the everybody's tax bill. It will only cost a everybody a buck or 2. I'd also like a refund for the cost of putting in the sidewalks in the first place. Back in the 60's that would have been a couple hundred bucks. You can put that refund on those tax bills too. That's whats called equal protection under the law. Otherwise, we keep the system we have now that has financed all the sidewalks in the city to date, property owners foot the bill. That's probably the only way to go since having the city pay for sidewalks now would almost certainly provoke a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the property owners whose property has been charged for sidewalk installation up until now.
Jun 20, 2012 at 6:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the sidewalk plan is followed, and the cost gets added to the property tax bills, how much will the average property tax bill go up? $5 or less?
Jun 20, 2012 at 6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Even though my property will be one of the last to get sidewalks (it wasn't even on the map that I saw), I'd gladly pay a little more in taxes to fund public sidewalks, rather than private owners.
It just seems to make more sense to me to treat them more like roads, except the city still wouldn't plow private owner's sidewalks.
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.