6-11-12 Meeting NotesSidewalk Task Force Committee Meeting Notes
June 11, 2012
Approved June 13, 2012
PRESENT:
Committee Members - Scott Bever, Dave Hyde, Sam Liebert, Ed Madere, Tom
McDonald, Russ Steeber, Carol Tidwell, and Bob Yeomans
Staff - Eric Levitt and Duane Cherek
Visitors – Jim Fowler, Joe Jimenez (Local Vision), Nancy and Bob Kimball, Marcia
Nelesen (the Janesville Gazette), Ken Osborn, and Jim Westrick
ABSENT: Committee Members Chuck Behm and Dan Warden
Committee approved meeting notes of June 4, 2012.
Chair Carol Tidwell indicated she refers to the agenda as the “committee’s tasks”. She
asked that “#9 Personal preference of property owners” be added to the Sidewalk
Criteria list. She also asked that the committee add “Sidewalk financing: discussion
th
and possible options” as item #3 to the June 13 committee meeting agenda. Russ
Steeber recommended sidewalk gaps be added to the criteria list. Committee members
agreed by consensus.
th
The committee resumed where they left off at the June 4 committee meeting on the
Sidewalk Criteria list.
#3 Paved/ADA Trail connectivity
A. To trails via sidewalk
B. Trails as alternative to sidewalks
? – maintained in winter ?
Discussion: Ranking points will be considered on 1/8, ¼ and ½ mile radius from a
generator. Only 2 miles are maintained now in the winter time.
#4 Retail/Public Facilities (defined as publicly-owned or used; ie parks, public buildings,
ice arena) + Churches/Buildings. Again, ranking points will be considered on 1/8, ¼ and
½ mile radius from a generator.
Discussion: Chair Carol Tidwell recommended the committee consider cost benefit and
physical terrain criteria as a filter, thereby filtering the criteria through cost benefit and
physical terrain. Eric Levitt suggested the committee could rank cost benefit criteria by
figuring the average cost factor and use percentages above or below the amount to
establish cost benefit rank. Scott Bever added the sidewalk criteria will be used to
qualify an area.
#5 Physical terrain re placing sidewalk – desirability of installation vs. other side of
Filter #1 Physical Terrain
street.
Page 1 of 2
Discussion: rankings (criteria) vs. filter (apply criteria to)
Filter #2 Cost Benefit analysis
#5 Connections to future development
#6 Accident data (pedestrian) data
st
- Location on 1 pass, then perhaps more info.
Discussion: Summary report will provide general information for location over past 3-5
years. More detailed information requires review of each accident report.
#7 Population density
- Map re sites
Discussion: Duane Cherek will provide a map identifying multi-family units
#8 Personal Preferences of Property Owner(s)
Re: their lot – re why their property doesn’t meet criteria. *of undetermined step
Filter #3 Personal Preferences of Property Owner(s)
Discussion: Dave Hyde indicated public input needed to be included in the process.
Sam Liebert suggested an appeal process be added. Bob Yeomans suggested
personal preferences be used as a filter in the process. Property owners would apply
the criteria and point out to the committee or City Council where the criteria are
inaccurate.
#8 Address the gap – how long is a gap?
Committee agreed to talk about combining personal preference of property owners with
th
neighborhood preference. June 13 committee meeting will pick up with #8 Address
the gap – how long is a gap?
Public input:
Jim Westrick, 3104 Ruger Avenue – Has lived on Ruger Avenue for 41 years.
Sidewalks are on north side of street. City put him into floodway. City sweeps
bike trail; therefore, can snow plow it as well.
Jim Fowler, 4015 Wilshire Lane – Regarding connectivity, points should not be
used for rating within a concentric circle but applied by locations if connected.
Public input is a critical factor to be done before a decision is made.
Ken Osborn, 2206 Garden Drive – Sidewalk criteria should include which side of
street to get sidewalk, if single application; prefers both sides of street getting
sidewalk.
Submitted by Suzanne Wellnitz
Page 2 of 2