Some get a stay on sidewalks
In other business
In other business Monday, the Janesville City Council:
-- Voted unanimously for an ordinance change that sends sign permit requests for digital billboards to the plan commission instead of the zoning board of appeals. The commission can allow a billboard to be closer to another billboard than the standard 750 feet. City staff opposed the change, saying it would add too many digital signs, causing traffic hazards and detracting from the city's appearance.
Babcock Outdoor, which wants to erect a digital billboard in the 2800 block of Milton Avenue, must still get commission approval.
-- Voted 5-1 to allow a rezoning of 115 E. Conde St. so that it could be used as a softball complex in conjunction with the adjoining Back Bar. An application to allow alcohol consumption on the grounds is pending before the alcohol license committee. Jim Farrell said he voted "no" because it would compete with the city's Dawson Ball Fields and because of the alcohol issue. The property had been used for softball in the past.
-- Unanimously approved buying three tax-delinquent properties, for either demolition or rehabilitation. The properties are at 614 Wilson Ave., 614 S. Locust St. and 116 Oakland Ave. Net cost to the city is $20,481.
JANESVILLE — Some property owners will be able to defer installation of sidewalks for up to 10 years under a recommendation by the Janesville City Council on Monday.
The city sidewalks committee had asked the council for help after the committee could not agree on how long of a deferment to allow for property owners on local streets.
"We need further direction because we're stuck. We need a tie-breaker to move forward," said Sam Liebert, a member of the committee and the council.
The change does not apply to properties on arterial or collector streets.
The council voted, but it appears the final decision won't be made until November. The issue goes back to the committee when it meets Oct. 2, City Manager Eric Levitt said.
The committee hopes to have a complete proposal for the council to consider at its first November meeting, Levitt said.
The committee had not been able to agree on how long the deferments should be. Terms of 10 of 15 years were suggested.
There was little discussion and no debate.
The council voted 5-2 for 10-year deferments on local streets. Voting "no" were DuWayne Severson and Deb Dongarra-Adams.
A second issue the committee had failed to agree on was the issue of streets where sidewalks had been built on some properties but not others. Some, such as committee and council member Russ Steeber, wanted property owners to fill in those gaps.
Steeber said such gaps can be problematic for pedestrians, especially in the winter. He said such blocks with partial sidewalk coverage were especially prominent on the southwest side of the city.
Steeber moved to allow a five-year deferment for gaps, but the motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilman Matt Kealy then moved to allow 10-year deferments for gap properties. That passed 5-2, with Steeber and Sam Liebert voting "no."
The deferments would be allowed if a property owner signed an agreement with the city. The sidewalk would have to be built before 10 years were up, or when the property was sold, whichever came first, Levitt said.
The committee has already agreed on criteria to rank sidewalk segments, including proximity to schools and whether streets are arterial, collector or local.
Under a proposal the committee is considering, the committee would recommend a sidewalk segment and then forward the recommendation to the council, which could order a sidewalk.
Levitt said property owners will find out later this fall whether they will be ordered to put in sidewalks.
Survey says city economy is a top worry
Janesville residents see economic development as one of the city's biggest negatives.
That's just one tidbit in a mountain of information from a survey of city residents that city leaders will be poring over in weeks to come.
The scientific survey, conducted by Cobalt Community Research, found Janesville rated a 59 out of a possible 100 in the American Customer Satisfaction Index. That compares to a 62 for the nation, 62 and the Midwest and 67 for Wisconsin, said William SaintAmour, executive director of the nonprofit research organization.
The index is not a rating of how well the city services work but rather residents' overall satisfaction with the quality of life, things such as traffic congestion and the economy.
The survey respondents ranked Janesville shopping highly and generally liked the quality of local government, especially library, police and fire services.
SaintAmour said city leaders should look for ways to use the highly respected institutions to boost its scores for those that aren't rated so highly.
The biggest downer for those surveyed was the economy.
"Frankly, it killed ya, from a score standpoint," SaintAmour said.
The survey said jobs is the city's No. 1 issue, he added.
SaintAmour showed a graph that displayed the cost and popularity of various parts of the city. The highly rated police and fire departments are also among the most costly.
In contrast, economic development, which residents found so lacking, gets a very small part of the city budget, SaintAmour said.
The consultants sent letters to about 5,000 randomly selected Janesville addresses in mid-July. By the mid-August deadline, 971 had responded.
That's a good response rate and gives the survey a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percent, SaintAmour said.
Each letter came with a unique ID number needed to complete the survey, to make sure people wouldn't try to skew the results.
The city plans on conducting a survey once every two years so it can track progress, City Manager Eric Levitt said.
SaintAmour noted that the survey only shows what people's perceptions are, not necessarily the objective truth. But perceptions are important because that's what people use to make their decisions, he said.
SaintAmour said the long-term goal should be to get more people recommend their city as a place to live, remain in the community, plan to volunteer, encourage business start-ups and support the city administration.
The city rated a 61, 70, 55, 53 and 53 in those categories, respectively.
Oct 3, 2012 at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
and the blog goes away....guess nobody thought that one out huh
Sep 27, 2012 at 2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here is the problem....look down a street in 3,4,5 year....5 houses are sold...5 chunks of sidewalks that go to nowhere....or then kids ride their bikes down the chunks of side walk and those that dont have it complain because they are going across thier grass...this is just plain stupid
Sep 27, 2012 at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
With this council, what exactly does "FINAL DECISION" mean? I have yet to see and version of "our" city council or school board make any tough, fact-based, "final decisions" - and then stay the course - aside from wasting considerable taxpayer dollars on their pipe dreams and ice (arena) houses.
This ship of fools can't even keep the downtown river parking ramp functional to facilitate the few remaining business district occupants...at least until the deteriorating condition of the ramp FORCES them into some semblance of what one might very loosely term "action" - certainly not preventative, and likely 5-8 years too late!
Yeah, well, back to sidewalks. I want my MONEY BACK from the unnecessary sidewalks this city and its comedy council cavalcade forced me to put in before it spun in circles on the issue.
But I guess it'll have to be a court case...
Sep 26, 2012 at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
unreal....this city is just plain stupid....stupid is as stupid does.....to keep this issue is just dumb so now you want to sell your house and its required you have a sidewalk, so you cannt get it done before closeing and you will have to put money aside for that...and guarantee it will be more than the cost of the sidewalk just to cover incedentals...just dumb...should have just put them in and bit the bullet...there will be a ton of chunks of sidewalk that dont go anywhere with the sale of homes...that ought to look like crap
Sep 26, 2012 at 6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
unreal....this city is just plain stupid....stupid is as stupid does.....to keep this issue is just dumb so now you want to sell your house and its required you have a sidewalk, so you cannt get it done before closeing and you will have to put money aside for that...and guarantee it will be more than the cost of the sidewalk just to cover incedentals...just dumb...should have just put them in and bit the bullet...there will be a ton of chunks of sidewalk that dont go anywhere with the sale of homes...that ought to look like crap
Sep 26, 2012 at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
No onehappygma, you can't remove your sidewalk. Sigma, the sidewalk inspectors usually has a flat nosed shovel-like in which the end is raised about 1/2" at the tip. When sliding this on the sidewalk as one is walking, if the end hits the next and stops, that is determined to be what they would call a "toe kicker" or uneven sidewalks. I had my sidewalks marked back in 2008 and got a noticed to have my sidewalks fixed and or replaced by a deadline. Granted, the city will do it for you and charge you on your property tax. I on the other hand went to John Deer equipment rental and rented a concrete grinder for $75 bucks and grinded all my marked sidewalks. Welcome to the world of property ownership that is still governed by the city and state. Do a bit of research and save a few bucks.
Sep 26, 2012 at 12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
How do they determine if a sidewalk is bad? Back when they were going around marking them I seen some that were high painted orange, like needing to be replaced. Downtown I was walking and seen they used a huge concrete grinder to grind down a high edge. So what are they doing? Making the people pay to replace the entire thing and the city themselves get to get off cheap by just grinding them? Grinding works and The machine used probably isnt as accesible to homeowners as is the city.... why cant the city go around and fix these instead of making homeowners pay for replacement of the entire slab?
Sep 26, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Is the company that pours the sidewalks for the city running low on work?
Sep 26, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ok so I got a letter the city is looking for bad sidewalks in my area. If mine is bad can I just have it removed? I really don't use it much and it's a pain to shovel. Could the council members shovel it for me? Oh and could you pay the cost to replace it?
Sep 26, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
I for one will never forgive this council and will never vote for one of these clowns again.
Sep 26, 2012 at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
I for one will never forgive this council and will never vote for one of these clowns again.
Sep 26, 2012 at 8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sigma, roads are funded by city/state taxes. Sidewalks are the responsibility of the property owners. Stay on topic.
Sep 26, 2012 at 7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Great idea, wisconsinheat - I was thinking a yellow brick road, but now I'm torn between that or a red carpet.
Sep 26, 2012 at 6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Are sidewalks needed for fairness or necessity? If its fairness they city really needs to pull their head out...we need to focus on necessities....I guess the city council shows you the difference between educated and intelligent. There is no one intelligent running this city.
Sep 26, 2012 at 6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Good grief! How long is this sidewalk debate going to go on! Move on the more important issues! Make a decision and get it over with!
Sep 25, 2012 at 7:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why dont we focus on roads? A lot of the streets in this town are horrible, and the ones they patch up they make even worse. Enough sidewalk talk, fix the streets.
Sep 25, 2012 at 7:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wahoo
You probably could, but then you would have to pay for what you already have. So I guess You are just being sarcastic
Sep 25, 2012 at 7:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
In lieu of a sidewalk....can I just roll out a red carpet?
Sep 25, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Can I remove my sidewalk, wait ten years, and then put it back?
Sep 25, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm happy that this means an end -- mostly -- to people claiming "we didn't have a sidewalk here when I moved in so neener neener". Yes, peer pressure will start to have an effect, as will the muddy, snowy track in front of their property when people walk there anyway. Also, people will avoid planting trees there. It's not ideal, but at least the expectations are now in favor of the community.
Sep 25, 2012 at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Now the people on the block will be pissed at the other neighbor if they do a sidewalk. IF over 80% then you need to do your too.
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.