Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Streets Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Eighth Avenue West reconstruction plan stalls after council splits over sidewalks
Summary
Councilors debated whether to install sidewalks on both sides of the dead-end Eighth Avenue West street during a reconstruction project; plans and specs failed on a roll call vote after residents and some councilors opposed sidewalks on both sides.
The Oskaloosa City Council on July 7 declined to approve final plans and specifications for the Eighth Avenue West Reconstruction project after a prolonged debate about whether sidewalks should be installed on both sides of the street.
City staff presented plans prepared by Gardner and Associates with an engineer's estimate of $192,138 and a scope that included surface removal, subgrade preparation, subbase and surface restoration. The project as presented included sidewalks on both sides of the roughly five- to six-house, dead-end street and a fully reconstructed 26-foot roadway.
Resident Les Martin addressed the council in favor of resurfacing but opposed sidewalks on both sides. "Collectively, we are not in favor of having sidewalks on that dead end road," Martin said, arguing that money would be better spent elsewhere and that sidewalks on both sides would be unnecessary on a low-traffic cul-de-sac.
Council members and staff debated several points: safety and connectivity; whether one-sided sidewalks would serve pedestrians adequately; utility relocation costs; and emergency access for fire and service trucks. Supporters of sidewalks said they increase connectivity and long-term mobility, pointing to a broader sidewalk/connectivity plan. Opponents said a 26-foot road narrowed by sidewalks could impede large farm equipment, garbage trucks and emergency vehicles and would create parking restrictions for full-size vehicles.
City staff noted that franchise agreements generally require utilities to bear the cost of moving lines, reducing the city's share of utility relocation costs. Staff also said the design included a full subbase replacement and a concrete section intended to withstand fire and garbage trucks.
After discussion and two proposed alternatives floated by council members — including returning with a single-sidewalk option — the council moved to approve the plans as presented and, on roll call, the motion failed. The council did not approve a contract; staff said the item could be brought back with revised options (for example, a single sidewalk or alternate cross sections) for further consideration.
The engineer's timeline indicated a notice to proceed on or around Aug. 4 and 30 working days to complete the project if a contract had been approved. With the plans not approved, those timelines are on hold.
Council members encouraged staff to return with clearer options — including a single-sidewalk alternative and illustrations showing parking and emergency-vehicle turning clearances — so residents and councilors could weigh trade-offs before the council votes again.
