Morrow casts only no vote on changing method to fund sidewalk repairs
By Brandi Makuski
Alderman Shaun Morrow was the only member of the Stevens Point City Council to vote against changing the way the city pays for sidewalk repairs and the Sidewalk Continuation Project.
Morrow, who represents the city’s 11th District, voiced concern early in the Aug. 9 discussion about a proposal from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Street Safety Commission to change the funding mechanism. Sidewalk continuation, and sidewalk repairs, currently are paid by special assessments levied to individual property powers. The proposal was, to place that burden on the city’s general tax levy, which is shouldered by every property owner in the city.
On Aug. 9, Morrow raised his concerns about the numerous unknowns in making the change, saying, “We haven’t really discussed this at all and there are a lot of ramifications to this.”
Mayor Mike Wiza agreed with Morrow, but the votes of the other 10 Councilmembers carried the proposal to passage.
At the Aug. 16 Council meeting, only one member of the public spoke, Michael O’Meara, a retired WisDOT civil engineer who previously served on the City Council but now serves on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Street Safety Commission.
“I think changing the funding of sidewalk replacements from special assessments to the tax levy is good for two reasons, and they’re equity reasons,” O’Meara said on Monday.
Not everyone pays the special assessment, O’Meara said, pointing largely to special projects, like those within a historic district, that are paid for by the state.
“The second one has to do with where we need sidewalk replacements—we tend to need them in the older parts of the city where people are least apt to be able to afford the special assessment,” O’Meara said. “They also happen to be the place people need pedestrian access more than anyplace else. I think ‘equity’ would say we should pay for those.”
Alderman David Shorr (District 2) was initially against making the change, saying the existing procedure was sufficient. After voting against the change on Aug. 9, he said he’d “come around in my view” by Aug. 16.
“We talk about the burden on staff, and some of the challenges in the budget to adding more staff,” Shorr said this week. “Particularly in terms of repairs, it must be very challenging to administer all of those special assessments, because it’s a large number of them. My initial impression about some of the larger property owners is that equity would cut the other way, this is would be regressive instead of progressive on the tax burden. I’m now inclined to support it.”
Councilwoman Mary Kneebone (District 7) said she’d received one comment from a constituent in her district who is on a fixed income and was supportive of the change.
“[They] felt it would be so much harder to come up with an assessment than the change in a tax levy. It’s easier to bear a nickel on a $1,000 than maybe $3,000 or $4,000 on an assessment,” Kneebone said, adding she felt the city should also address the expulsion of nonprofits from paying taxes, adding, “that’s not fair,” but she stopped short of asking for an ordinance amendment.
Some concerns discussed on Aug. 9 also included future Councils allocating the funds to another capital expense and asked City Treasurer Corey Ladick if there were other options, such as creating a segregated fund designed to hold funding for the specific purpose of sidewalk continuation and repair.
Ladick addressed that idea during the Aug. 16 Council meeting, saying he would need to study state laws to determine the best options—but that he wasn’t a fan of creating additional funds unless they were necessary because it created additional bookkeeping work.
“We could also make it clear in the ordinance that if a future council does not fund this is a capital budget, we could look at some kind of language going back to special assessments if the funds aren’t in the capital budget,” he said, adding it would be difficult to bind a future council to any action because they can always change it.
Morrow argued against making the change because he felt the current system was the best way to sustain funding sidewalks.
“Year after year, City Council can go, ‘I think we need it for this road,’ ‘I think we need it for the bandshell,'” he said. “Each year, we always switch our funds around based on whatever our needs are. So there’s no guarantee this money would be put into sidewalks.”
Ladick pointed out that Monday’s vote was only to change the policy, and the Council would still need to update its ordinance at a future meeting. The Council would need to determine how to implement the change, whether all at once or in phases. He specifically asked the Council to “provide guidance” at some point in the future on what they wanted.
Council President Meleesa Johnson (District 5), said the current Council has already approved “an amazing capital plan” based on Ladick’s advice and would rely on his advice for future decisions.
“Future councils can go, ‘Ya know what? We don’t care, we’re going to blow it out of the water,’ so worrying about what future councils do is worthy of worry, but we can’t control that. We have to do what’s right for now,” Johnson said.
Prior to the vote, Wiza clarified that the Council was voting on “the policy that will put sidewalk continuation and sidewalk repairs on the tax levy, at an amount to be determined at some point in the future.”
The final vote was 10-1, with Morrow voting against. It wasn’t immediately clear when the issue would return for a possible ordinance change.
