The Common Council voted yesterday to have the city pay for replacing sidewalk slabs damaged by roots from city-owned trees — but only if residents complain about it.
Residents who do not complain will still be assessed 50% of the cost of replacing the damaged sidewalk if the replacement is done as part of a larger project, such as the sidewalk replacement project in Story Hill last fall.
Aldermen Michael Murphy and Joe Dudzik voted against the measure, sponsored by Ald. Robert Bauman.
Murphy, who represents the Story Hill neighborhood on the Common Council, said the ordinance could cause “huge financial problems for the city.”
The city estimates the measure will cost a maximum of $50,000, but Murphy was skeptical of that figure.
“There’s going to be a lot of unfairness in the system,” Murphy said in an interview. Some residents will be unaware of the ordinance and won’t request that their sidewalks be replaced. Homeowners hit with a special assessment for a sidewalk replacement project probably won’t be particularly happy if their neighbors did not have to pay for similar work simply because they complained.
Residents who notice city sidewalk slabs damaged by the roots of city-owned trees may be able to avoid future special assessments of several hundred dollars (depending on the number of slabs damaged) by contacting the Department of Public Works and requesting a slab replacement.
I believe the $50,000 number is to be treated as a cap in a given year.
So I hear, but there is absolutely no cap in the ordinance, nor was there a cap mentioned during discussion at the Public Works Committee. The $50,000 was just the high side of a fiscal estimate.
If you are the resident who has a sidewalk damaged by a city tree, you likely will not react well when DPW says, “Sorry, fixing your sidewalk would take us over $50,000.” That would mean, in essence, that you subsidized, through your property taxes, other people’s ability to have assessment-free sidewalk replacements, AND you are going to be hit for a special assessment yourself because of an arbitrary spending ceiling. I’d like to see your typical alderman explain that one.