Janesville details sidewalk plan
ON THE AGENDA
The Janesville City Council will meet at 7 p.m. Monday in City Hall, 18 N. Jackson St.
Council members will be available at 7 p.m. to meet informally with residents.
Items on the agenda include action to buy five tax-foreclosed properties.
JANESVILLE — Janesville city staff propose the city build 5.1 miles of sidewalk in 2012 with the abutting property owners paying the cost.
The proposed 2012 sidewalk program would affect about 200 property owners on the city’s east side.
This is the second year of a seven-year plan to close sidewalk gaps in the city.
A public hearing on the plan is scheduled Monday before the city council. The meeting begins at 7 p.m.
This year, 4.7 miles of new sidewalk is being built in the north and northeastern sections of the city, affecting about 120 property owners, most of them in commercial areas.
About 70 percent of next year’s program would be residential.
Staff prioritizes sidewalks to be built based on factors such as traffic and proximity to schools.
The council in 2008 approved the seven-year sidewalk plan because members believed gaps in the city’s sidewalk network are a safety issue. Implementation of the plan was delayed until 2011 because of the poor economy.
Some of the sidewalks targeted in the plan have been on the city sidewalk plan for years.
Sidewalks became increasingly controversial over the last 50 years because some property owners are required to have sidewalks and maintain them and others aren’t.
Staff every year have recommended that some sidewalks be built, but council chambers filled with residents protesting sidewalks being ordered along their properties. Council members often backed down.
The city council in 2008 decided that safety demanded some sidewalks, and they voted to begin filling the gaps over seven years.
The sidewalk plan schedules work through 2017, and the goal is to give residents time to save money to pay for their sidewalks.
After council action Monday night, residents whose sidewalks remain on the 2012 program will receive letters listing the proposed city rate to build sidewalks. The rate uses the base of last year’s $27.70 per foot and adds 3 percent for inflation.
About 45 percent of residents hired private contractors in 2011.
The council several years ago approved a policy levying a $75 fee on residents who choose to build their sidewalks privately. The council later backed off on that policy, and the city has never charged the fee, Mike Payne, engineering manager, said.
Payne said council members changed their minds about the fee after they received feedback from residents with concerns about fairness. He expects the fee to be officially rescinded by the council in the near future.
Residents said it wasn’t fair that one resident would be charged the $75 fee for one square of sidewalk when another resident would be charged the same $75 fee for 100 feet of sidewalk. Residents also asked why the owners of adjoining lots should be charged the $75 fee for each lot. The policy requires a fee per lot.
Residents who elect to have the city, rather than private contractors, install sidewalk can:
-- Pay in cash when the work is done.
-- Attach the cost to their property tax bill the first year after the work is done.
-- Make payments over five years and pay 6 percent interest.
PROPOSED SIDEWALKS
The Janesville City Council on Monday will consider building sidewalks in 2012 on the following streets:
-- The west side of Midland Road from Racine Street to Palmer Drive.
-- The south side of Ruger Avenue from the Interstate 90/39 overpass to South Wright Road.
-- Both sides of South Wright Road from Racine Street to Ruger Avenue.
-- The west side of South Wuthering Hills Drive from Racine Street to Enterprise Drive.
-- The west side of Chelsea Place from Woodhall Drive to Parkview Drive.
-- The west side of Greendale Drive from Greendale Court to Woodhall Drive.
-- The west side of Margate Drive from Skyview Drive to Wilshire Lane.
-- The west side of Princeton Road from Parkview Drive to Stuart Street.
-- The north side of Skyview Drive from North Wright Road to Tudor Drive.
-- The south side of Stuart Street from Suffolk Drive to North Wright Road.
-- The west side of Suffolk Drive from 2,205 feet south of East Milwaukee Street to East Milwaukee Street.
-- The north side of Wilshire Lane from Margate Drive to Wuthering Hills Drive.
-- The north side of Woodhall Drive from Chelsea Place to North Wright Road.
-- The east side of North Wright Road from Ruger Avenue to Brunswick Lane.
-- The west side of North Wuthering Hills Drive from Skyview Drive to Bristol Drive.
Oct 23, 2011 at 7 a.m.
Suggest removal
The city mandates a sidewalk, which the property owner nearest is forced to take all responsibility & liability for, even though the property owner does not necessarily benefit from its existence. In fact, some potential property owners may view sidewalks as an undesirable deterrent to owning property. If the reason is to provide a path for public foot commute, then it should be treated just as the public streets are for vehicle traffic. Public tax dollars should be used, not fines, to clear where volunteers do not do the work. If the citizens do not want tax dollars used in this way, then pressure should be given to not add, or even eliminate, sidewalks. There is no difference between city streets/ road right-of-way and rural Sate/County/Town roads in my opinion. Any road right-of-way (an area dedicated for public highway) should ultimately be maintained by the general public, not a select group of property owners.
A more detailed comparison would be rural road ditch maintenance (brush, mowing, trees). I would gladly challenge any invoice or fine for the maintenance. In fact, I am concerned about my ability to work in the road right-of-way without permission from the municipality & the liability that I assume, as anyone should, even though I do it.
Again, I say if the purpose of sidewalks is to benefit the general public, then the general pubic (as a whole) should pay for it. If the general public's cost can be reduced by the maintenance assistance of a nearby property owner, then it should be welcomed, not required.
For those that would like to argue that sidewalks are not in the road right-of-way, I say to you that I do not want a mandated sidewalk on my property (yes I do also own property in the City of Janesville with sidewalks along it and I do not feel the asset is greater than the burden).
Sep 27, 2011 at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
hizzoner- well said. I didn't vote for the Bozos who were elected so I will complain!
Sep 27, 2011 at midnight
Suggest removal
jv93 wrote..."you people complaining BETTER HAVE VOTED! Otherwise I don't want to hear it."
I've got news for you. The determining factor in "complaining" is not voting...it's the tax bill.
If I pay taxes, I've paid for the right to complain.
Voting has nothing to do with it. You think I should vote for some unqualified BOZO just so according to your way of thinking I am granted the right to complain?
Think again....and if you don't want to hear it...get yourself some earplugs.
Sep 25, 2011 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the majority of residents in Janesville already had to pay for sidewalks in front of there homes, it's time for everyone else to join the real world and pay up too. Just because you're a member of a union doesn't mean ...DOH! I'm sorry, my mistake.
Sep 25, 2011 at 11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
This isn't about sidewalk but have no other place to put it. Go Packers!!! Beat them Bears!!
Sep 24, 2011 at 12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
freedomfighter608: You will have to pay the city $70.00 if you decide to have someone else do it.
Sep 24, 2011 at 10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
It maybe cheaper to have the homeowner put bids in for someone else do it, so the homeowner saves on the property taxes, then for the city to have just one contractor gouge the property owner and the city.
Sep 24, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Consider the money you have to pay for that sidewalk your penalty for not voting and next time wake up.
Sep 24, 2011 at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Here's my complaint and I'm not necessarily targeting posters on here but citizens in general. Last November when the elections for city council were held, you people complaining BETTER HAVE VOTED! Otherwise I don't want to hear it.
Sep 24, 2011 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
When will the get one next to the COURTHOUSE!!!????
Sep 24, 2011 at 7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
To those three below, stop voting these same people into your council. Start sending a bill to the city,once the sidewalk is placed, for mowing the portion of lawn between the sidewalk and road. After all, the city claims that five feet of terrace is theirs but expect you to maintain it. They should be properly charged for your time to tend to their property then.
Sep 24, 2011 at 12:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
The city will be paying for mine if they push this. It's called a HUD home and Wisconsin can have it! First they make us pay for garbage pick up, increase home owners tax, and now this. I am done as I can not pay fot it all.
Sep 23, 2011 at 11:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
I've been saying the very same thing for years.
Sidewalks should be treated as all other infrastructure...paid for from the general tax fund.
But the mentality of the people is... I had to pay so, so should you.
And the mentality of the city council is...we've always done it this way.
Sep 23, 2011 at 8:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
OMG, here we go again! It's apparent that few people really want sidewalks. Of course the spiteful, vindictive people will say "Well WE had to put in sidewalks, so EVERYONE should have to put them in!" Yikes! My biggest gripe about sidewalks is if their purpose is for public safety, then the public (aka the taxpayer) should pay for them. The property owners shouldn't have to pay for the honor of allowing all kinds of strangers to walk through their front yards.
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.