Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalk Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green Bay committee holds appeal over $11,000 sidewalk invoice for 338 Hartung; asks owner for proof of private work
Summary
A property owner who paid Ray's Wright to mud-jack and grind sections of sidewalk at 338 Hartung Street disputed a roughly $11,000 city invoice. The committee voted down a partial-billing proposal and instead voted to hold the item and refer it to staff and legal for review, asking the owner for documentation of the private contractor's completion date by Jan. 28.
A Green Bay Improvement and Services Committee on Jan. 14 heard an appeal from property owner Steve Kirsten challenging an invoice the city issued after its contractor removed and replaced sidewalk at 338 Hartung Street.
The committee heard background from the Department of Public Works director, who said city procedure gives property owners a 30-day deadline to make repairs (a requirement cited as coming from state statute) and that the city scheduled its contractor to complete work on Sept. 19, 2025 but the contractor did not arrive until Oct. 2. The director said staff had no record that the owner had notified the city that privately contracted repairs were complete and that, without a notification and inspection, the city could not verify whether the owner's work met city specifications.
Steve Kirsten told the committee he hired Ray's Wright, which completed 23 of about 33 sidewalk sections. He said the private contractor marked completed sections with a red "r," provided a receipt for roughly $1,640 (he later said the mudjacking cost was closer to $2,000), and presented photos and a letter from the contractor. "I got a bill for almost $11,000. They tore out everything," Kirsten said. He said he had spoken with city staff multiple times and asked why his property alone was subject to full replacement after a single complaint.
Committee members pressed staff on two issues: whether mudjacking and grinding performed by the private contractor reduced the city contractor's scope or cost, and whether the city received the required notification so staff could re-inspect. The director said staff could not determine whether the private work would have reduced the city scope without having performed an inspection after the owner reported completion.
After discussion the committee voted on two proposals. Alder Eck moved to bill the owner for 10 sections of sidewalk rather than the full quantity; that motion was seconded by Alder Ritterbush but failed on a 2-2 vote (Elder Eck and Elder Ritterbush in favor; Elder Presley and Elder DeLee opposed). The committee then approved a motion to hold the item and refer it to staff and the legal department to review the city's Option 2 notification/inspection language (specifically the bullets referenced in the packet). The committee asked the property owner to provide documentation of the private contractor's date of service or completion for inclusion in the Jan. 28 packet. The item will return to the Improvement and Services Committee on Jan. 28 and any final approval or denial is expected from the full council on Jan. 20.
The committee's action was procedural: it did not remove or reduce the invoice but directed staff and legal to review whether the verbal communications and any provided documentation satisfy the city's notification requirements. The property owner, the director and the alder whose office filed the appeal will provide follow-up materials to staff before the next meeting.
