Mar 27

Written by: Steve Erbach
Friday, March 27, 2009 8:24 AM

I had a very stimulating time talking with a couple of folks on Baytree Lane while I was making my rounds last weekend.  I followed up my visit with an email detailing the portion of the March 24th Public Services & Safety Committee meeting as well as e-mail correspondence with the City Attorney and the Deputy Public Works Director.  Here's what I wrote:

The sidewalk issue is big.  It's also convoluted.  I did a bit of research before the Tuesday night Public Services & Safety Committee meeting and I came prepared to ask for more information.  Here's what I said before the committee:

When I was out knocking on doors in the Baytree Lane area the other day, I talked with a couple of people that had signed a petition asking the city not to build sidewalks on their street for the possible construction of the school out in that area. I talked with them for about half an hour, and it was a measure of how steamed they were about it, and you know as well as I do how steamed people can get about sidewalks.

The reason I'm speaking now is: I looked through the Sidewalk and Trail Construction and Repair ordinance in the municipal code and, seeing as how the Public Works Director and the Deputy Public Works Director and the former Public Works Director are here, I thought possibly I could get some authoritative information.

Is Baytree a "neighborhood collector" or a "subcollector" street?

Gerry Kaiser answered, "It's a neighborhood subcollector."

It is a subcollector, OK. Then, according to the ordinances, a subcollector street shall have sidewalks or trails installed if any of the following criteria are met; there are three simple ones:

• The first one is: designated by the city at the time of plat approval
• Second is: when unsafe conditions are determined by the city
• And the third is: when the combined vehicle and pedestrian counts warrant sidewalk or trail installation

There isn't any detail in the ordinances, of course, about what the threshold is for the combined traffic and pedestrian count; the definition of "unsafe conditions" is not defined; and what I'm curious about is: this section of town -- that whole area south of Breezewood, where all the houses have been built within the last 15 years or so -- none of them or very few of them have sidewalks in front of them.  So here are all these houses and they're facing...every single one is facing having a sidewalk built in front of it because of some designation.

What I'm curious about is: what criteria have been met in that area?  I'm presuming that the plat had sidewalks sketched in in the approved plat. I'm not going to ask for a really definitive answer now; but I'm trying to follow up to see, is there anything that these folks can do?

It appears, with the school budgets as unsettled as they are and, possibly, remaining so for some time, that the construction of a school is only a question mark at this point; it isn't set in concrete like the Breezewood interchange on highway 41 is.  So it might be a moot point if that school is not built or if it's pushed way off into the future.

I'm curious about what the status of sidewalks are: is it going to be like Alexander and Bruce last November at the Council meeting where the budget was approved, where a petition is signed by every resident on this little street, and they do a survey of how many kids actually walk on that street. In that case it was one kid who walked to a bus to go to a different school than Lakeview which is the closest one to that street.

On Baytree, neighbors were told that that is, more or less, a corridor to get to Neenah High School.  They're riled. Right now it's fine because a year ago they submitted the petition and the sidewalk construction was deferred until 2011.  In the ordinance the statement is made that compliance with the state guidelines will be met by 2010; so that makes me curious, too. If it's pushed off by a couple of years but the guidelines have to be met by 2010...whoops!  Where are we?  What's the definitive answer?  Can these people say (makes slashing motion across throat) to sidewalks? Can a petition be effective for them?  That's what I'm trying to find out.

Gerry Kaiser was asked by chairman Zaretzke to give an answer:

Well, I'll touch on a couple points quickly.  The guidelines you mentioned, those aren't mandates.  Basically, what we're looking at, what we developed back when that ordinance was prepared, was a city-wide network of trails and sidewalks to connect, basically, every neighborhood by sidewalk.  So the arterial streets, collector streets, and then the neighborhood subcollectors would penetrate into those individual neighborhoods and are used by all the residents in those neighborhoods, in an effort to provide the pedestrians with the same opportunity that the motorists have.

The pedestrian element is one that we need to keep in mind in all of these neighborhoods.  We don't want to have everyone have to get around by car; it's not sustainable, if you want to use the current parlance.

So that ordinance change was a) an effort to clear up what, prior to that, was a very nebulous, kind of muddy ordinance; and then, from that, the sidewalk and trails map was developed and reviewed by the Council.  In the capital improvements budget we've been identifying segments that we can fill in on that sidewalk and trails map, so that we can get that network built out.

That's where Alexander and Bruce came into play.  Current budget conditions will certainly dictate how aggressive we can be with any of that sidewalk and trail installation.

Chairman Zaretzke asked me if that answered my question.  I replied, "Not really, but it's a start!"

Then the Mayor contributed:

I think the general answer is that as with any CIP (Capital Improvement Project) issue or project, "the Mayor proposes and the Council disposes."  And so, certainly a petition can be considered by both entities, by the Mayor and by the Council; but I guess the legitimate question would be: Has the area clearly, for example, met safety concerns?

But people that live there say, "Well, we just don't want a sidewalk because we don't want to have to shovel and we don't want to have to do all this and that", then you have to balance those.  I think that it's not always as simple as just taking a head count; because you can have, today, a small number of residents that drive on the street, you can have a small number of pedestrians that use the street...in a few years the neighborhoods change over, younger families might move in, now all of a sudden you've got a fairly large number of kids using the area.  So I think there's all kinds of factors that have to enter into making a decision about any capital project, but especially sidewalks because, oftentimes, residents don't want them for reasons that are different than what the city has considered.  They don't want them because they're inconvenient, they're a lot of work -- you've got to maintain them, you've got to shovel them, all kinds of things. 

Those are all factors that we look at; but the CIP budget has not been released yet; it will be on Friday, and then the Council will deliberate -- not just on Alexander and Bruce, but Baytree and all the other ones that are included in that five-year plan.

Alderman Hillstrom asked Deputy Public Works Director Kaiser, "We are,Gerry, talking about sidewalk on one side only, right?"

Kaiser responded, "Yeah, with a neighborhood subcollector, it would be on one side."

The Mayor added:

It would be hard, I think, to justify putting a sidewalk in on Baytree if we have no sidewalks feeding into it.  That's sometimes been the case.  West Cecil Street, for example, has a sidewalk; none of the streets that feed into West Cecil Street have sidewalks. So kids walk in the road until they get to Cecil Street, then they have a sidewalk.  At the time I didn't think it was a good thing; now I tend to agree that it was necessary but probably sidewalks -- places like Babcock and Pendleton and maybe some other places -- should be considered as well.

Then Council President Stevenson chimed in:

I'll just chime in that -- the Mayor alluded to it -- the ultimate decision on sidewalks is a political decision.  The rationale and justificaiton that the politicians use to make that political decision is based on guidelines that we asked the city to develop and maintain.  As politicians, we look to those guidelines to determine whether it's a safe walking route by the school district and the pedestrian crossings; and all the criteria.  You can be meeting every criteria but the politicians choose not to put it in for whatever reason.  Mr. Schroeder on Baytree is very vocal -- that might be one reason.  Or we may meet none of the criteria and we choose to put it in.

My point is: it's a political decision based, theoretically, on rational justification.

I apologize for laying this all out in such detail.  I transcribed my recording of the Public Services & Safety Committee so that you could read for yourselves exactly what was said.

I got a couple big points out of all this:

1. The argument can be made -- quite strongly, I think -- that the cost of sidewalk installation should be borne by those "younger families" that "might move in", as the Mayor said.  Yes, neighborhoods grow and change, but, currently, you've only got two high school age kids that live on the street -- and they drive cars to school!  Why not defer the building of the sidewalks and have the cost borne by those "younger families"?
2. There are no state statutes that require sidewalks to be built on neighborhood subcollector streets like Baytree Lane.  The city has language in its ordinances that define the basic criteria for making the decision to build sidewalks, but...
3. The decision to install sidewalks is a political one.  That is, the property owners have a say through the petition process and through regular communication with their aldermen.  As President Stevenson said, "Mr. Schroeder on Baytree is very vocal -- that might be one reason" not to build sidewalks.

I think that this was very positive.  I went further, though, and wrote yesterday to the City Attorney, Jim Godlewski, and to Deputy Public Works Director Kaiser.  Here's the text of my e-mail:

Dear Jim and Gerry,

On Tuesday night I asked several questions about sidewalks and began to get an answer to some of them.  I would like to follow up to get a better idea of when and where sidewalks are installed.

Specifically:

1. Is a copy of the map laying out projected sidewalks available to me?  Is there one showing school routes?
   
2. Are there guidelines or more specific policies that help determine the thresholds for "combined vehicle and pedestrian counts" to support city ordinance 14-57(4)?
3. Did the plats for the area south of Breezewood Lane have designated sidewalks?  If so, why would that one criterion be enough to require the installation of sidewalks?
4. What agency determines where the school routes are?
5. If Baytree Lane is a school route, what about Pinehurst, Wedgewood, or Mulberry?  I see that all three of those streets have sidewalks installed in small stretches; what happened there?  They're all closer to the high school than Baytree south of Breezewood.  Would they not be better candidates for school route designation and sidewalk installation?  I've talked to people on those streets who shake their heads at the hot-rodding that goes on.  Are they not greater safety hazards than Baytree south of Breezewood?
6. Which criteria under 14-57(4) does Baytree south of Breezewood meet?
7. Have there been pedestrian and vehicle counts taken on Baytree or the surrounding streets?  Are the results available?
   

I'm sorry to lay this on so thick; however it does seem odd to me that:

1. If a plat is approved with sidewalks sketched in before anyone has a home built there, why does that trump the interests of the people that actually built homes there?  Sorry if that question is confrontational, but when there is a unanimous or near-unanimous desire on the part of property owners not to install sidewalks, it's pretty hard cheese to be told that their wishes are all for naught because of lines drawn on a map before any houses were built.  Paragraph a. of ordinance 14-57(4) seems entirely too slanted towards municipal control.
2. Considering the large number of streets without sidewalks in the city I have to wonder why -- especially in the recent subdivisions -- sidewalks weren't built right away.  This type of question would never arise.  Why require sidewalks long after the houses are built?

Thank you for your attention and for helping me understand these matters.

Sincerely,

Steve Erbach
1017 Babcock St.
Neenah, WI
920-725-6095

Yesterday afternoon, I received a reply from the City Attorney:

Steve:

Gerry is much more versed on sidewalk policy, so I think he may be best to
respond to your specific questions.

With regard to sidewalks and new plats, typically the projected sidewalks
are shown or noted on the plat and are referred to in the development
agreement that is recorded.  People buying lots in those subdivisions are
therefore on notice that sidewalks will come eventually.  Sidewalks are
planned in accordance with the City's sidewalk policy, which is approved by
the Council.  In my  experience, the vast majority of people would say that
they do not want sidewalks in front of their house.  But the council
considered other factors when developing a sidewalk policy, including the
need for promoting pedestrian safety and encouraging pedestrian activity.
When to put sidewalks in is a political decision that depends on a variety
of factors, ultimately determined by the Council.

Jim Godlewski
Neenah City Attorney
PO Box 426
Neenah, WI  54957-0426
920-886-6106
920-886-6109 (fax)

Again, the City Attorney stresses the political nature of the decision to install sidewalks; that is, citizen pressure on the aldermen and on the Council can be used to divert the juggernaut of sidewalk construction.

I will relay to you any further communications I have.

Sincerely,

Steve Erbach
725-6095

Tags: