6-21-12 Meeting Notes
Sidewalk Task Force Committee Meeting Notes
June 21, 2012
Approved June 27, 2012
PRESENT:
Committee Members - Scott Bever, Dave Hyde, Sam Liebert, Ed Madere, Tom McDonald, Russ
Steeber, Carol Tidwell, Dan Warden, and Bob Yeomans
Staff - Eric Levitt and Carl Weber
Committee approved meeting notes of June 13, 2012.
Handouts distributed to committee members were:
Safe Route to School in Janesville document – Carl Weber indicated the information may
not be helpful to committee because routes encourage people to travel on existing sidewalk.
Carl Weber distributed a worksheet detailing the results of the committee’s applied criteria
and weighting to street blocks in zones 1 and 2.
Eric distributed new sidewalk rate history table.
Carl started the meeting with a presentation and brief overview of four maps staff prepared
applying the committee’s established criteria and weighting system to zones 1 and 2 of the
Sidewalk Plan. He explained what staff had done on each map so the committee could tell him
what to change.
Construction Round 1 and 2 Block Analysis Ranking Map (Map #1) – Map applied to
existing sidewalk plan and was coded by blocks with total ranking of 100 points. Those
blocks receiving 43-65 points were coded in red; 30-42 points in yellow; and 5-29 points in
orange.
All Sidewalk Analysis Ranking Map (Map #2) – Map included planned funded and existing
sidewalk coded by lot. Ranking system applied to first map was applied to this map.
School, Transit & Housing Analysis Map (Map #3) – Map included schools and transit routes
with ¼ and ½ mile buffer areas designated. Regular transit routes were used; school tripper
routes not included. Multi-housing units greater than 4 were also shown on the map.
Trail Connectivity, Park & Retail Analysis – Map included trail access points, retail
establishments, and park locations with ¼ and ½ mile buffer areas designated. Hospitals
and the Youth Sports Complex were not included in analysis.
Committee Member Scott Bever suggested schools and transit routes be separated in the criteria
classification. Eric Levitt will get the information Committee Member Bever requested regarding
transit use and school attendance (i.e. # of passengers per day per route and # of bus trips on
routes). Discussion continued with changing transit routes to transit destination stops. Committee
agreed by consensus to use destinations stops instead of routes as the new criteria classification.
Page 1 of 3
Committee Member Russ Steeber assumed hospitals were included as a Public Facility criteria.
Committee members discussed and agreed by consensus that the criteria would include
hospitals/clinics and churches; and be public facility destination points. Carl Weber defined retail
facilities as grocery and convenience stores; restaurants; pharmacies; neighborhood businesses;
etc. Committee agreed by consensus that Carl will define this category.
Committee Member Scott Bever suggested the committee may wish to itemize and weigh
categories under the Public Use Facilities criteria at this time in case they desire the information
later. Committee agreed by consensus schools, parks, bus stops, bike trail access points, retail,
churches, government buildings, and medical facilities would define Public Use Facilities.
Committee developed and voted on a new criteria list with the following results:
Criteria Votes
Traffic 11
Schools 9
Gap 6
Population Density 6
Transit Designated Stops 5
Retail/Public Facility 4
Accident Data 1
Trails
Future Development
Since Trails and Future Development received no votes, committee agreed by consensus to
remove from criteria list.
The following weighting of criteria was developed and approved:
Criteria Rating
Traffic 25 (principal arterial = 25; minor arterial = 20; collector = 15)
Schools 20 (¼ mile = 20; ½ mile = 15)
Gap 15 (1 block or less)
Population Density 15 (4 or more units = 15; > 2 units = 10)
Transit Designated Stops 10 (¼ mile = 10; ½ mile = 5)
Retail/Public Facility 10 (¼ mile = 10; ½ mile = 5)
Accident Data 5 (1 or more)
Public input:
Al Lembrich, 541 Miller Avenue – He questioned the rationale of the committee addressing
the whole sidewalk plan at this time instead of focusing on the 2012 sidewalk plan. Mr.
Lembrich stated the points systems and side issues discussed do not allow common
sensible solutions.
Linda Osborn, 2206 Garden Drive – When addressing school criteria, areas > ¼ mile should
not be considered. On sidewalk application, criteria should include which side of street to
receive sidewalk.
Matt Kealy, 1203 Winchester Place – Councilmember Kealy thanked the committee for their
volunteer efforts.
Page 2 of 3
Jim Fowler, 4015 Wilshire Lane – Criteria was not applied when PTCP (Sidewalk Plan) was
created. Committee should keep in filters because they need to be addressed.
A brief discussion on Council presentation followed. A member from the committee will do a
th
Powerpoint presentation at the Council meeting on July 9.
Committee Chair Carol Tidwell informed members that Carl Weber will be presenting what he has
th
redone at their next meeting on June 27. Members will define filters and assign points. Scott
Bever will send to the committee a list of discussed proposed filters. Sam Liebert proposed and
the Committee agreed by consensus that voting will be done by closed ballots.
Submitted by Suzanne Wellnitz
Page 3 of 3