#1 Report from Sidewalk Task Force Committee and possible aciton on suspended 2012 sidewalk program
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
July 2, 2012
TO: City Council
FROM: Carl J. Weber P.E., Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Report from Sidewalk Task Force Committee and possible action on
suspended 2012 sidewalk program.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council:
1. Accept or modify the criteria prepared by the Task Force and direct that it
be used for reviewing the balance of the PTCP Seven Year Implementation
Plan.
2. Determine whether to proceed with all or some of the recommendations
related to the specific streets.
3. Select a financing option. Certain financing options may preclude
completion of any installation in 2012 if approved to be implemented this
year.
City Manager’s Recommendation
The Sidewalk Task Force has worked diligently over the last 45 days to bring back
a recommendation on the 2012 program as outlined in the PTCP.
During this period of time the task force has laid out criteria with individual
weightings.
They have determined that one of the key areas impacting the Sidewalk
plan is the financing component and have been in the process of evaluating
this area.
They have provided initial recommendations of streets in Area 1 and 2 of
the PTCP. These recommendations go for sidewalks included currently
2012 and 2015 program years.
th
Due to a concern after the meeting the week of June 25, the Committee
th
Chair requested a meeting on July 5 to discuss the recommendations
th
going to City Council on July 9.
Any action coming out of that meeting will be forwarded to the City Council
prior to the meeting.
The City Manager recommends that the Council approve the sidewalk presented
by the Sidewalk Task force for completion in the 2012 year. I also recommend
that the City Council provide any necessary feedback for the future program years.
The City Manager further recommends that the City Council evaluate the financing
questions in conjunction with the 2013 Budget. The financing element has many
1
variables to be considered. The City Council could move forward on the second
recommended bullet in 2012.
Suggested Motion
City Council member moves to move forward with the streets recommended by
the Sidewalk Task Force which are in the current 2012 year program.
Request
The City Council, at its April 30, 2012 special meeting, adopted Resolution No.
2012-907 which:
1. Delayed the previously established 5/31/12 limit for the installation of
sidewalk abutting certain parcels as identified in Zones 1 and 2 of the
Pedestrian Transportation Corridor Plan (PTCP).
2. Directed that a task force be created to review all aspects of the PTCP and
make recommendations for appropriate modifications thereof.
3. Directed that the task force report back to the Council with its
recommendations as they affect the 2012 sidewalk program in time for the
July 9,2012 Council Meeting.
The Sidewalk Task Force has meet six times between 5/23 and 6/27 and has
scheduled further meetings on 7/5 and 7/11. While the Task Force had not, as of
the 6/27 meeting, completed a recommendation for the streets included in the
2012 program, staff was asked by the Task Force to report on the decisions which
had been made as of that date.
Background
City Council Direction
Make recommendations for appropriate modifications to the PTCP.
Criteria
The Task Force adopted a Criteria and Rating System which took into
consideration:
Street Classification (traffic volume)
o
Population density,
o
Proximity to schools,
o
Proximity to transit stops,
o
Proximity to retail (major clinics, drug stores and
o
grocery/convenience stores) and public facilities (parks, public
buildings and churches),
Gaps between existing sidewalk (1 block or less)
o
Accident history
o
That criteria and ranking system is show on Attachment A. City staff then
used the City’s mapping system to apply the criteria to each street included
in Zones 1 and 2 of PTCP rounds 1(2012) and 2 (2015 and 2016). That
2
application is shown on Attachment B ranked in numerical order from high
to low.
Criteria Filters
In addition to the adopted criteria, the Task Force adopted filters to review
the ranked streets in an effort to address extenuating circumstances which
may affect individual streets. Those filters include:
Side of street (two, one and, if one, which side)
o
Connectivity to existing sidewalk
o
Cost vs. Benefit (looks at physical barriers which may increase
o
construction cost)
Property owner and neighborhood preferences
o
Common Sense
o
Site Visits
The Task Force felt that there may be a need to view the recommended
locations directly in the field to determine if conditions were appropriately
considered in the evaluation process.
Review of Ranking
The Task Force began, but did not complete a review of all of the blocks
within Zones 1 and 2 that appear on the current PTCP. This includes
streets located within both rounds 1 and 2. Their recommendations are
marked in Attachment B as retain in the PTCP plan, hold for further review,
modify or delete. A comments column is also included.
Financing
The Task Force discussed financing options for sidewalk financing. The
committee agreed to provide series of approaches to the City Council for
consideration:
1. Notice to the affected property owners shall be provided 18 months
in advance of the sidewalk program.
2. Administrative costs shall be paid by the general tax payers and not
be placed on the sidewalk assessment to the individual affected
property owners.
3. All ordered repairs of existing sidewalks shall be placed on the
general tax roll.
4. The installation all new sidewalks shall be placed on the general tax
roll if the issue of past inequity can be mitigated.
cc: Eric Levitt, City Manager
Jacob J. Winzenz, Assistant City Manager/Dir. of Administrative Services
3
Attachment A
Revised 6/22/2012
Sidewalk Task Force
Criteria and Rating
Criteria Sub Criteria Rating Maximum
1 Street Classification (Traffic) 25
Prinicipal
Arterial 25
Minor Arterial 20
Collector 15
2 Connectivity to Schools 20
1/4 Mile 20
1/2 Mile 15
3 Gaps 15
1 block or less 15
4 Population Density 15
4 or more units 15
> 2 Units 10
5 Connectivity to Retail or Public Facilities 10
1/4 Mile 10
1/2 Mile 5
6 Connectivity to Transit Designated Stops 10
1/4 Mile 10
1/2 Mile 5
7 Accident data (5 year history) 1 or more 5
Total 100
4
ADDENDUM
th
The Sidewalk Task Force met on Thursday, July 5 to review their
recommendation for sidewalks to be included. The sidewalks being recommended
are included the attached Spreadsheet. It is identical to the spreadsheet sent out
th
additional columnrecommended July 9
in the Council packet with an stating .
The recommended sidewalk extends approximately 12,000 linear feet or
approximately 2 miles.
The committee may bring forth additional sidewalk for the 2012 plan at the July
rd
23 City Council meeting.
5
Attachment B
6/27/2012
Janesville Sidewalk Task Force
Sidewalk Priority Ranking Table
LimitsSidewalk RankingsRecommendations
#
Total Rank
StreetFrom StreetTo StreetStreet ClassSchoolTransit StopGapsPublic FacilitiesPopulationAccidentsConstructionInstallation YearLengthRetainHoldModifyRecommend July 9DeleteComments
1
WrightSkyviewBrunswick20201015100075120121355HHold to review topography
2
PrincetonPark ViewStuart02010151015070120121095RX
3
StuartSuffolkWright0151015101506512012365R*Defer until developed
4
WrightRugerSkyview201510010005512012875HHold to review topography
5
Wuthering HillsPark ViewEastridge151501510005512012445R
6
WrightPalmerEnterprise2001015100055120122657Rx
7
SkyviewBeacon HillMargate1520100100055120121393Rx
8
SkyviewMargateTudor15155155005512012818Rx
9
Wuthering HillsSkyviewWilshire15150155005012012810R
10
WrightEnterpriseRacine200101550050120122417Rx
11
SkyviewWrightBeacon Hill151510010005012012468Rx
12
SuffolkStuartMilwaukee015101510005012012935MMove to East Side & hold for future notice
13
Wuthering HillsEnterpriseRacine150515100045120121162R
14
RugerBrakefieldRoyal200100100040120121478Rx
15
WrightCanterburyPalmer20010010004012012796Rx
16
WrightRugerCanterbury200100100040120122130R*Defer until developed
17
RugerWrightRoyal20010010004012012183Rx
18
ChelseaWoodhallPArk View02010010004012012707R
19
WoodhallSussexWright02010010004012012418R
20
WoodhallSuffolkSussex02010010004012012270R
21
SussexSussexWoodhall02010010004022015746
22
GreendaleGreendale CtWoodhall02010010004012012500
23
GreendaleSussexGreendale Ct02010010004022015945
LimitsSidewalk RankingsRecommendations
#
Total Rank
StreetFrom StreetTo StreetStreet ClassSchoolTransit StopGapsPublic FacilitiesPopulationAccidentsConstructionInstallation YearLengthRetainHoldModifyRecommend July 9DeleteComments
24
Wuthering HillsWilshirePark View15150010004012012647R
25
Wuthering HillsEastridgeBristol15150010004012012274R
26
BrakefieldCanterburyPalmer15010010003522016476
27
SuffolkWalkwaySussex01510010003512012864D
28
GreendaleGreendaleSussex01510010003522015552
29
MorningsideLaramieAudubon01510010003522015791
30
PalmerBrakefieldWright150100100035220161529
31
Wuthering HillsOldwyckSkyview1515005003522015609R
32
MidlandMidland600 Block00101510003512012292
33
SomersetDoverWexford01510010003522015629
34
DoverDoverSussex01510010003522015483
35
RugerI 90-39Greendale2001005003512012730Rx
36
SuffolkSussexStuart01510010003512012375MMove to East Side & hold for future notice
37
DoverSomersetCul-de-sac01510010003522015260
38
SomersetWindsorDover01510010003522015519
39
MidlandPalmer400 Block0010155003012012427
40
SomersetWexfordStafford0155010003022015707
41
SomersetGreendaleWindsor0151005003022015321
42
MargateSkyviewBurnswick020505003012012255
43
MargateBurnswickWilshire020505003012012216
44
WilshireMargateTudor020505003012012928
45
LaramieMorningsideAudubon0151005003022015242
46
Wuthering HillsRugerHearthstone1500010002522015545R
47
Wuthering HillsValenciaBordeaux1500010002522015578R
48
Wuthering HillsBristolValencia1500010002522015718R
49
NantucketAlpineBurnwyck0001510002522015514
50
MargateBryn MawrSkyview015505002522015260
51
Bryn MawrMargateBeacon Hill015505002522015536
LimitsSidewalk RankingsRecommendations
#
Total Rank
StreetFrom StreetTo StreetStreet ClassSchoolTransit StopGapsPublic FacilitiesPopulationAccidentsConstructionInstallation YearLengthRetainHoldModifyRecommend July 9DeleteComments
52
ExeterSouth WyckOldwyck015505002522015241
53
ExeterOldwyckBeacon Hill015505002522015265
54
WilshireTudorWuthering Hills015505002512012280
55
SurreyRoyalHampshire0010010002022016466
56
CanterburyYorkshireWright0010010002022016280
57
CanterburyWalkwayYorkshire0010010002022016905
58
CanterburyBrakefieldWalkway0010010002022016747
59
YorkshireHampshireCanterbury0010010002022016321
60
HampshireSurreyYorkshire0010010002022016538
61
HampshireGreenbeltSurrey0010010002022016319
62
HampshireBrakefieldGreenbelt0010010002022016892
63
RoyalSurreyRuger00100100020220161014
64
Wuthering HillsBordeauxMilwaukee150005002022015285R
65
Wuthering HillsHearthstoneSouth Wyck150005002022015249R
66
Wuthering HillsSouth WyckOldwyck150005002022015250R
67
SummerhillBedfordNantucket000155002022015175
68
BrakefieldRoyalHampshire0010010002022016998
69
BrakefieldRugerRoyal0010010002022016488
70
BrakefieldHampshireCanterbury0010010002022016435
71
MorningsideAudubonMilwaukee0010010002022015281
72
EnterpriseWrightWuthering Hills0010050015220162557
73
GreendaleRugerSomerset001005001522015911
74
SomersetStaffordMilwaukee0010050015220151583
75
PickwickAlpineBurnwyck000010001022015262
76
Wynd TreeNantucketSummerhill000010001022015130
77
NantucketWynd TreeSummerhill000010001022015460
78
HearthstoneSouth WyckWuthering Hills00505001022015451
79
ExeterHearthstoneSouth Wyck00505001022015143
LimitsSidewalk RankingsRecommendations
#
Total Rank
StreetFrom StreetTo StreetStreet ClassSchoolTransit StopGapsPublic FacilitiesPopulationAccidentsConstructionInstallation YearLengthRetainHoldModifyRecommend July 9DeleteComments
80
BurnwyckPickwickSummerhill000010001022015130
81
SummerhillNantucketWynd Tree0000500522015350
82
LyndhurstLindhurstWalkway0000500522015129