Greg Adams, City Engineer with Cedar Corporation, presented the preliminary special assessment report and assessment schedule for the Elm and Washington Streets Project to the Prescott City Council Feb. 12.

“In general, the project includes a comprehensive reconstruction of the street; storm, sewer, curb and gutter, sidewalk, sewer and water laterals, are basically what make up this project,” Adams said.

He added that it’s similar to the Locust Street project completed last year.

As Mayor Robert Daugherty asked the council if they had any questions for Adams, a Prescott resident was told to wait for the public hearing.

“I have a question,” Alderperson Maureen Otwell began. “Will you identify if a homeowner has two laterals this time because there was some confusion on the Locust Street project?”

Adams confirmed a resident on the Locust Street project had two laterals, which is rare.

“In 31 years, I’ve never seen that,” he stated. “I’ve added a few more specification items that they have to coordinate in advance to verify.”

He said there are some duplicate laterals on this project, so the contractor will be identifying which ones are live or not and coordinate with the homeowner in advance of doing the lining, then slip lining through the old connection to essentially abandon it. 

As public comment opened, Shannon Toll, a Washington Street resident, asked what side of the road the sidewalk is going to be on. 

“Is it at the end or is it going to be in the middle of our yard?” she asked.

She also wondered what they will need to do if they can’t store their camper in their driveway anymore and expressed concern over the extra traffic and pet feces from people walking their dogs on the sidewalk if it’s on their side of the road.

“I don’t think that’s fair for us to have to clean up after this and deal with this. This is where our kids play,” she said.

After confirming the plans, Adams informed her that the sidewalk will be on their side but that it is within the city’s right of way “quite comfortably.”

It was asked if the city would consider installing the sidewalk on the edge of the yard like it is going towards St. Joseph’s. Adams said it would create a challenging snowplow scenario because “snow plowing would dump right onto the sidewalk.” He said that with a 5-foot boulevard, the grass area gives a place for the snow to be cleared and stored effectively.

“Could it be modified?” Daugherty asked. “I understand it would create the snow on the sidewalk.”

“That’s a pretty serious issue, not having any place for the snow to go,” Alderperson John Peterson spoke up.

“It would make shoveling very challenging,” Adams added.

Toll reiterated her concern about where to store their camper, saying that if the sidewalk is installed five feet in, there is no room left to park their camper in their driveway without extending onto the sidewalk and they would have to pay to store it at a separate location.

“Currently then you’re using the city’s right of way to park your camper. I just want to make sure you understand that,” Otwell said.

“If we’re responsible for maintaining the sidewalk, shouldn’t we have some kind of a say in whether it’s possible to have this sidewalk at the end instead of the middle?” Toll asked.

Jerry Zida of Elm Street approached the podium with a solution.

“No sidewalks and no parking lane. We don’t need them. I want somebody to tell me why we do,” Zida said.

He further stated that the sidewalks and parking spaces on Locust Street aren’t being utilized and, in his opinion, won’t be utilized on Elm either.

 “We’re one block over,” Zida referenced the fact that the city owns the boulevard where the sidewalks would be installed.  “I’ve had this question for 25 years, if I don’t own that then why do I have to mow it? And if you are going to put a sidewalk there, why are you going to require me to shovel it? You own it. Do the maintenance on it.”

Cheryl Brownell of Elm Street said she has the largest lot size of 238 feet with three power lines on her property. The boulevard on her property would be four or five feet in and she is concerned that it will be a lot to maintain that extra sidewalk with extra snow.

“That’s an awful lot if I can’t have the regular boulevard size for that sidewalk coming through,” she said.

She also said two trees on her property would need to come down, otherwise the roots of the trees would destroy the sidewalks.

“I don’t know if that’s supposed to be on me or if that’s on the city for those trees,” she said.

Adams said one of the trees is slated to be removed and thought the additional tree could be removed as well. He also explained that her boulevard is five feet and gradually tapers to four feet towards the neighboring property owner at the north.

After closing public comment, Daugherty asked for a motion to approve the preliminary assessment.

“Do we want to talk about reconsidering sidewalks or no?” Peterson questioned.

Alderperson Bailey Ruona stated that at Public Works meetings, several residents requested the sidewalks.

Wolf informed the council that a sidewalk that extends the length of Elm Street is included in the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

“That’s the difference between this project and the last project, why there is a sidewalk on Elm Street specifically because it’s a natural connection point,” he said.

“I just see so much encroachment on people’s driveways,” Alderperson Dar Hintz remarked.

Wolf said he has received positive feedback from Locust Street residents on the sidewalks, but he is aware that everyone’s opinion on sidewalks differs.

As discussion turned to the state of the previous sidewalk on Elm Street, why it was removed, and the issues surrounding that decision, Otwell spoke.

“I think we can’t be responsible for what a previous council did. We can only be responsible while we’re here in office.” She further explained, “I wasn’t even living in town when the sidewalk existed on Elm.”

Daugheryt allowed Brownell to return to the podium.

“If we were going to do Elm Street, wouldn’t it make more sense to be on the other side of Elm Street that actually is on the side as a school? So, if children are using that and going to school, they’re crossing one street not two,” she asked.

Adams explained that the homes on Washington Street and the other side of Elm are very close to the right of way and the project is working with the road to try to keep driveways similar. “There’s nowhere to put a sidewalk here because of this right of way shift. The right of way is right there, and the road is basically right there and it would either be radically shifting the street, which I think would have much more implications to changes over here to make it fit than just a sidewalk five feet off the asphalt,” he said.

Zida returned to ask the council, “So if the sidewalk is slated on Elm Street as part of the comprehensive plan, could then just the parking be removed?”

“And then you’ll have no parking along Elm and everybody’s ok with that?” Ruona asked.

“I don’t know. This is hindsight. What you should have done is a year ago you should have sent out a survey to every resident on Elm and Washington and asked them if they wanted parking. We’re the ones that live there,” Zida said.

“We’ve been having meetings on this, and it has gone to planning. These are all public meetings. Everyone is welcome to come. Everybody,” Ruona answered.

As more residents began to make comments, Daugherty called for order.

Ruona asked if the issue should be discussed at the next Public Works meeting.

Wolf added, “I think that if we are not going to follow our own plan, we probably should make sure that we discontinue the use of planning in general.”

Ruona said she doesn’t want to go to that extreme and that she is “trying to come up with a happy medium.”

Wolf stated a public informational meeting on Jan. 8 addressed these questions and that if it’s going to be changed now, there should be a chance for other residents who were for the changes to give their feedback as well.

Peterson said if a survey was sent out, some residents would be for the sidewalks, and some would be against.

“This happens on every decision we make; some people are on both sides of the fence. But again, I’m open to potentially exploring removing that parking,” he said.

“I’m not sure how you want to handle considering that if we’re going to have every street design project go through a complete community review?” Wolf asked. “We need to make that change now and start updating because we have other streets coming up that we’re going to have to change the process.”

“This isn’t a surprise that the sidewalk was going in and that the street project was going to be done,” Daughtery said. “We planned this long ago and now in the 11th hour you just can’t.”

He added that would push back the bidding and the project would have to be redesigned.

The council voted to authorize the preliminary special assessment plans and specifications to bid for the 2024 Elm Street (from Kinnickinnic to Walter) and Washington Street to Wacota Street project.

Other business

• The council unanimously approved the sale of 911 Pearl St. for $1 to the local food pantry.
• The council approved the cost and construction of parking along Dakota Street with the addition of 16 parking spaces not to exceed $60,000.

“The funds for this work would come out of Tax Increment District No. 4,” Wolf said. “This is currently not within our Capital Improvement Plan; however, since the expenditure period ends for TID 4 in March 2025, the project is proposed to be moved up to 2024.”