At a recent meeting, Milford City Council heard a proposal from Public Works Director Willis Schafer regarding sidewalk repairs. The proposal was created from a committee established to determine the most equitable way to keep sidewalks in good condition with a recommendation that the city cover 80 percent of the cost of repairs with residents paying 20 percent.
“The program would include the ability for those at a certain income level could apply to have the 20 percent reduced or waived,” Schafer said. “The committee also felt that sidewalks should continue to be owned by the resident and that the city continue payment programs with no percentage established.”
The committee also felt that the city should establish a low-income sidewalk account that could be used to cover the cost of repairs for those identified as low income. They also felt the city should not reimburse residents from the previous two payment programs.
“That’s fine, but you just screwed all the people that came up with their own money to fix sidewalks,” Mayor Todd Culotta said. “We mandated the repair. They gotta be reimbursed.”
Councilman Jason James stated that there are still sidewalks that need addressing, such as Southwest Front Street. Culotta commented that he was aware since he walked that street with his children all the time.
“So, the entire city has been inspected,” Shafer said. “Every resident has had the chance to be part of this program. I was not involved in the initial inspection program. I do know that it lasted three or four years, so I think that any sidewalk that was inspected four years ago, the condition may not be the same. Some of the ones that were fixed have failed and some that were determined to be acceptable may not be now.”
James pointed out that there are some sidewalks identified as needing repair that were still not fixed. Culotta felt that was one of the reasons reimbursements were important.
“The 80/20 is certainly a move in the right direction,” Culotta said. “I’ve always said I’d like to see us take care of sidewalks period. My own personal opinion is five years ago, eight years ago, they looked at sidewalks and said we want a more walkable city, more connected city and they said our sidewalks really need to be addressed. They looked back at the charter and charter said the owner is responsible for sidewalks.”
Culotta explained that the city created a program that was inefficient in that when a property owner was required to fix three blocks on a sidewalk, contractors cut the sections out when it is sometimes less expensive to replace the entire sidewalk.
“So, I think we take over that process. We dictate what sidewalks need to be addressed and then we are responsible for the cost. I’m okay with that,” Culotta said. “That was when we first started talking about the idea, the cost to do all the sidewalks was not anywhere near as much as I thought it would be. It is nice to talk about parks, plan this and that, but all that money is from the same pot. Why can’t we fix the damned sidewalks? Why are homeowners responsible for the sidewalks.”
Councilwoman Madula Kalesis approved of the 80/20 rule for sidewalks as a good sidewalk added value to the property.
“A nice sidewalk adds value when you sell it,” Kalesis said. “To me, the homeowner needs to be responsible for something, so for the city to pick up 100 percent of the cost, then what gives a homeowner any incentive to keep the sidewalk looking nice? So, maybe the 20 percent makes sense.”
Councilwoman Lori Connor felt council could not pick and choose when they would be financially responsible and when they would not.
“When I purchased my home, I knew that my sidewalk was my responsibility. I am blessed to be able to take care of my sidewalk and I do understand there are people who are not able to do that,” Connor said. “I think this is fair in the fact we have addressed those people. They do have an option to not have to pay the 20 percent if they fall within those incomes. It also allows us to retain money by making those who can afford it pay.”
Connor continued, pointing out that council needed to address those that had been inspected but were still not fixed.
“They’ve been given this opportunity to be on a payment program in one phase of it and now we’re moving into a new program, so paying back all those individuals who had to pay to fix their sidewalks seems irresponsible. How far back? How many years?”
Culotta reiterated that the 80/20 was a good compromise although he preferred 100 percent. He saw that this would give property owners “skin in the game,” but he was not comfortable ignoring those who had paid to have sidewalks repaired over the past four years. James stated that he wrote the language and procedure in the charter. Councilman Michael Stewart, who had been sitting with his hand raised, interrupted Culotta and James.
“I believe that when someone raised their hand five minutes ago, that they actually should have a chance to speak instead of everyone still sitting here talking. I’ve been interrupted at least six or seven times now,” Stewart said. “I’ve been patient, waiting. I was on this committee, and we didn’t even know how far back to go and now everyone’s jumping on four years. Do we even have a number of how much it would cost the city for four years of reimbursement for everyone who has paid?”
Culotta commented that the information was available, and Stewart asked where it was because he had not heard it, nor had the committee. Shafer stated that the cost was $288,000 that would have to be reimbursed if council chose a 100 percent reimbursement.
“We’re saying four years, but what happened before that?” Connor said. “Did people just pay for their sidewalks, and we just didn’t inspect them? The homeowner noticed they needed repairs and they just did it? Maybe they were not mandated to do it, but they did it, so then do we go back and say we will pay them for those repairs?”
Culotta explained that the sidewalk inspection program began four years ago where the city would mandate repairs.
“Understand, too, that when people build new houses in developments, it is the duty of the developer to put in sidewalks and usually an HOA oversees the repairs,” Culotta said. “So it is not like we are going to have to reimburse every single person who put in or repaired a sidewalk. I’m saying it was the city’s fault for letting the sidewalks get to the condition they did, so it was unfair to make the homeowner pay for something we ignored.”
Stewart explained that this could open up issues as people may have been told to repair one section and decided to do the entire sidewalk which was their choice and not mandated by the city. They could also have decided to do four sidewalks at one time and figuring out what to reimburse could be difficult.
“I don’t know that this would be difficult because we sent out letters to those who needed to repair sidewalks,” James said. “Those letters had an estimated cost as we offered to do the repair and collect the money in utility or tax bills.”
Connor was still concerned that property owners would be reimbursed above what the city would pay those under the 80/20 rule. Culotta suggested that the city only reimburse 80 percent of the cost estimated by the city going back four years.
“Can I ask that you could kind of summarize when we speak about this again, the amount of work that it’s going to take to find those required repairs and figure out the 80 percent mark, separating from what they chose to repair and what they were mandated to repair,” Connor said, directing her question at Shafer. “Because I think that is a very important piece of making this decision, is to know how much time is going to be focused on computing that because that is dollars, too. That’s money. People don’t work for free.”
Culotta asked the committee to review the recommendations made by council and come back with the details necessary to make the decision.
“I don’t want to speak for the rest of the committee, but I think my opinion is we still stand by our recommendation. My point of just bringing that to the table as it seems that some people might feel uncomfortable with this decision and I feel it is an important piece to be brought before everyone in this room,” Connor said. “This way everyone can have the information and make a decision, but that is my stance and I am on the committee.”
Council will review the recommendation at a future meeting.
