Donna Schmitt For City Council

Monday night, July 27, 2009, the city will be discussing the proposed pedestrian bridge design.  Whether you are for replacing the bridge or not, at this point it seems we are committed and it is a little late to back out.

Designs have been sent:

switchback-layout_51409

spiral-layout_51409

bridge-concepts_revised-040709

If you check out the designs, the city engineer is saying that the switchback design is the most cost effective, that is stated at $85,300.  The spiral design is being listed at $147,000.  I did initially favor the switchback on the west side and the spiral design on the east side.  But with such a difference in cost I am now hesitant to recommend the spiral.

My reasoning for the initial decision are as such:  The goal of this bridge is to see that students as well as adults continue to use the bridge as a means to get across highway 65.  Right now, the majority of the people that cross at that intersection do use this bridge.  There may be 10-15% at that intersection that do not.  Half of the ones that I have seen just walk across the intersection are running to catch a bus or not able to use the current bridge because they are in a wheelchair. That does not take into account the students and adults that jaywalk across the highway further south of the current intersection.  There are a number of pedestrians that would rather cut across the highway rather than wait for a light at a controlled intersection or even use the pedestrian bridge.

Currently, the pedestrian bridge is used because it really is not that much further to walk than if someone walked across at street level.  To add  a ramp and force everyone to use the ramp, I feel that this may deter more students from using the bridge.  The city might want to rethink the design and add steps at both ends for those that are able to use them.  Steps will add to the cost but the goal is to encourage the use of the bridge rather than discourage it’s use and if the ramp is positioned further down Central Ave. I fear more students will just choose to run across.

In comparison to many other pedestrian bridges that I have seen, this is the busiest bridge, especially during the school year.  I would rather see students use this than dash across in front of traffic.

Design-wise, I prefer the C! design. with the switchback on one side only and the loop on the other side.  Again, the goal throughout this is to get kids to use the bridge.  What kid isn’t going to love taking their bike and riding down the circle loop?  The only hesitation at this point for recommending this design is the additional cost.

One of the items that the city is looking at is copying Crystal’s Vacant Building Ordinance.  In looking at that ordinance it involves an annual registration with the city and a fee of $500 paid to the city, annually, to register a vacant property.  Some of my questions are:

1.  What will the city be charging for this registration?  (Cities all over the nation are charging anywhere from nothing to over $3,000.)

2.  What penalties will you have for non-registering?

3.  How will you be able to confirm that this is really vacant and not just being maintained from a company that checks in on this property occasionally?

4.  What will this money pay for?  Lawn mowing? Winterizing? Demolition? Will this include an annual inspection? Does this mean the city will be replacing locks and holding keys for these properties?  Does this mean the city will be responsible for repairing any vandalism?

5.  This could potentially be giving the city the rights to this property without actually having to own the property.

6.  Is this a way to collect taxes on a property without having to call it property tax?

7.  How do you expect to collect money from these properties if they are vacant?  There seems to be an inability to collect for mowing the grass and many other accounts.  What makes this something that the city will be able to collect?

9.  What happens if the city decides to demolish a vacant property and it is found out later that the person is in a nursing care facility?  Such information could be considered patient confidentiality and not easily attainable by anyone other than an approved family member.

10.  If the city collects this fee, would the county or the state come and claim that this money should have been paid to them, first and ask for a portion or possibly all of that fee?  Or even take this as a partial payment of property taxes and reduce our tax portion based on the fees that we have collected?