George Street residents brought attention to current policies
By Dave Fidlin
Correspondent
For the first time in nearly two decades, Whitewater officials are putting back under the microscope a longstanding policy on specially assessing property owners for infrastructure projects.
At a meeting March 3, the Common Council discussed with City Manager Cameron Clapper and Assistant City Manager Chris McDonell the city’s existing policy on special assessments. The issue bubbled up to the surface after residents living along George Street decried some of the city’s plans for the area this summer.
The city has long had some form of special assessment policy on its books, going back nearly three decades. The last review and amendment to the document was undertaken in 1996.
During deliberations for this year’s budget, the council decided to add a number of components to the George Street construction project, including plans to install sidewalks, curb and gutter and repaving the existing roadway.
A number of residents living within the effected area balked at the installation of sidewalks — a feature that has since been removed from the project. Alongside the concerns were questions from residents on the rationale behind specially assessing property owners.
As a follow-up to the George Street discussion, council members directed Clapper and McDonnell to research the city’s past practices with special assessments, particularly in the past decade.
In almost all instances, Clapper and McDonell maintained the city has held true to its ordinances and existing policies concerning special assessments within the past decade. But they singled out a few exceptions.
“During the recent Milwaukee Street project, there was a section of sidewalk that was replaced and not special assessed,” McDonell said. “This sidewalk repair was an add-on to the scope of work after project was approved by council.”
Pointing to another instance, McDonell readily pointed out last year’s East Gateway project in the heart of Whitewater’s downtown was an exception when it came time to replacing existing sidewalks.
“Using special assessments on this project may have complicated the time sensitive process of property acquisition,” McDonell said.
As they went over the city’s ordinances, Clapper and McDonell did encounter some language that could arguably be tightened up for greater clarification.
“The current special assessment resolution does not specify whether curb and gutter assessment applies to reconstruction or only new installation,” McDonell said. “In the last 10 years, the city has consistently assessed curb and gutter when it was installed in an area where it did not previously exist, but did not assess when it was replaced.”
Although the city has not touched its existing special assessment ordinance since 1996, officials have broached the legitimacy and extent of specially assessing property owners.
A decade ago, former City Manager Kevin Brunner sought feedback from his peers across the state on how different municipalities handled funding for infrastructure projects.
“What is evident is that communities approach special assessments in many different ways,” McDonell said. “A good number of communities do not use special assessments. For the communities that do assess, there is no consistency for what improvements they assess for, and what percentages are charged to the residents.”
Adding to the complexity of the statewide review, McDonell said, “Several communities stated that they have an assessment policy, but their city council chooses not to enforce the policy.”
Further discussion, review and possible tweaks to Whitewater’s special assessment policy are anticipated in the months ahead.
