With a temporary halt in place on city-mandated installation of sidewalks next to privately owned properties, some city officials are now questioning whether city code has actually required them at every property in the first place.
Multiple members of the city council are now saying the current policy is out of compliance with the city charter, and they are using the opinion of the city's chief legal counsel to back up their claims. The city charter, they say, gives the council power to decide if new sidewalks are needed. Because of this, some at city hall are calling for a complete overhaul of the sidewalk policy.
“The (city code), in my opinion, is very ambiguous,” said Councilor Matthew Smith, who has been publicly critical of the sidewalk policy in recent months.
“I don't think there is a consensus on what the code actually states,” Smith continued. “The code needs to be rewritten and reworked.”
Until a six-month moratorium passed in August, the policy carried out by city officials made sidewalks mandatory along all city streets. The city could make property owners put sidewalks in front of the properties at the owners' expense. For those who did not comply, the city could install the sidewalk and charge the owners over five years on their tax bills.
Engineering officials and local advocacy organizations have said the city policy should ensure people with disabilities and mobility issues have the same access as others to all areas of the city. Many of the current policies are dictated by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, and some say sidewalk, curb and ramp installations are required by that act.
The policy has been enforced incrementally, by adding sidewalk work to road improvements, construction permits and other projects, according to city engineers.
But in a recent memo written to multiple city officials, Corporation Counsel John Rossi states that the city council has the authority to direct those sidewalk installations.
And Rossi stated he does not believe the city code makes it necessary to put sidewalks in front of all properties where they don't already exist.
“It is my opinion that the Code language is poorly written and is ambiguous and, in any event, does not mandate the installation of sidewalks throughout the city,” Rossi stated in the memo.
Later, he states “the City Council is empowered to direct the installation of sidewalks based upon, and in conjunction with, all of the Charter provisions relating to this issue.”
While the code states the construction of sidewalks “is declared to be required adjacent to all lots within the city,” the charter states in different sections that the council “may require” sidewalk installation, and “at any time it deems it advisable.”
The city charter also states that a public hearing should take place before such a move is made.
The charter has the ultimate authority, and can only be changed through a vote by the public. The city code must adhere to the charter's guidelines, and can be changed by the council.
Smith said if sidewalk installation was never mandatory, the moratorium wasn't needed in the first place. The council should now form a clear policy that puts the power to decide where sidewalks go in the hands of elected, not un-elected, officials, Smith said.
He also said the policy should not impose sidewalks on people who currently do not have them.
“It's an unfunded mandate by the city,” Smith said. “It's a policy that is well-intentioned, but totally not feasible.”
Councilor William Graney also said he believes taxpayers should not be forced to pay for new sidewalks in neighborhoods where none have existed for decades.
Graney said other city officials have led the council to believe it has little power to make prevent that from happening. But it's very clear the city council has the ultimate say here, according to Graney.
Hopefully, the council will be moving forward in the coming months with changes to the code, he said.
“This comes up every two or three years,” Graney said. “Put a policy in place so we don't run into this problem down the road.”
Staff writer Christopher Caskey can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 282 or christopher.caskey@lee.net
“The (city code), in my opinion, is very ambiguous,” said Councilor Matthew Smith, who has been publicly critical of the sidewalk policy in recent months.
“I don't think there is a consensus on what the code actually states,” Smith continued. “The code needs to be rewritten and reworked.”
Until a six-month moratorium passed in August, the policy carried out by city officials made sidewalks mandatory along all city streets. The city could make property owners put sidewalks in front of the properties at the owners' expense. For those who did not comply, the city could install the sidewalk and charge the owners over five years on their tax bills.
Engineering officials and local advocacy organizations have said the city policy should ensure people with disabilities and mobility issues have the same access as others to all areas of the city. Many of the current policies are dictated by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, and some say sidewalk, curb and ramp installations are required by that act.
The policy has been enforced incrementally, by adding sidewalk work to road improvements, construction permits and other projects, according to city engineers.
But in a recent memo written to multiple city officials, Corporation Counsel John Rossi states that the city council has the authority to direct those sidewalk installations.
And Rossi stated he does not believe the city code makes it necessary to put sidewalks in front of all properties where they don't already exist.
“It is my opinion that the Code language is poorly written and is ambiguous and, in any event, does not mandate the installation of sidewalks throughout the city,” Rossi stated in the memo.
Later, he states “the City Council is empowered to direct the installation of sidewalks based upon, and in conjunction with, all of the Charter provisions relating to this issue.”
While the code states the construction of sidewalks “is declared to be required adjacent to all lots within the city,” the charter states in different sections that the council “may require” sidewalk installation, and “at any time it deems it advisable.”
The city charter also states that a public hearing should take place before such a move is made.
The charter has the ultimate authority, and can only be changed through a vote by the public. The city code must adhere to the charter's guidelines, and can be changed by the council.
Smith said if sidewalk installation was never mandatory, the moratorium wasn't needed in the first place. The council should now form a clear policy that puts the power to decide where sidewalks go in the hands of elected, not un-elected, officials, Smith said.
He also said the policy should not impose sidewalks on people who currently do not have them.
“It's an unfunded mandate by the city,” Smith said. “It's a policy that is well-intentioned, but totally not feasible.”
Councilor William Graney also said he believes taxpayers should not be forced to pay for new sidewalks in neighborhoods where none have existed for decades.
Graney said other city officials have led the council to believe it has little power to make prevent that from happening. But it's very clear the city council has the ultimate say here, according to Graney.
Hopefully, the council will be moving forward in the coming months with changes to the code, he said.
“This comes up every two or three years,” Graney said. “Put a policy in place so we don't run into this problem down the road.”
Staff writer Christopher Caskey can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 282 or christopher.caskey@lee.net
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 1 comment(s)
crazybabes wrote on Oct 11, 2009 1:20 AM: