Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Green Bay committee deadlocks on 338 Harton sidewalk bill; matter sent to counsel
Summary
A 2–2 split left the Improvement & Services Committee without a recommendation on a $10,838.40 sidewalk invoice for 338 Harton Street; the item will go to counsel and the full council on Feb. 3. The property owner says work was completed Jan. 15 but the city says it received no completion notice.
A Green Bay Improvement and Services Committee meeting Jan. 28 ended in a 2–2 deadlock over an appeal by the owner of 338 Harton Street of a $10,838.40 invoice for sidewalk replacement, sending the matter to counsel and then the full council.
Public Works staff told the committee the case began with a May 21, 2025 written order giving the owner 30 days to repair sidewalks and requiring the property owner to call or email when work was completed so the city could perform a final inspection. The law department, in a written opinion read to the committee, concluded the owner had ongoing communications about scheduling but did not provide a notification that the work was complete: "Given the original notice in writing and the time and communication that went on, it is unreasonable for the city to hold the burden of confirming if he ever did the work he said would be done," the written guidance said.
The property owner, identified in the record as Mr. Kirsten, testified that he verbally told city staff the work would be completed on Jan. 15 and that the contractor finished the one‑day job on that date. "I told her it was gonna be the fifteenth and it was. It was a 1 day job," he said, adding that the contractor spray‑marked repaired sections in orange and that he believed that marking made the work obvious.
Committee members disagreed on whether verbal notice and contractor markings satisfied the order. Public Works staff pointed to inspector notes that list 445 square feet of 4‑inch panels and 114 square feet of 6‑inch panels and reiterated that the city's standard requires an owner call or email when repairs are complete so staff can confirm compliance with city specifications.
Two separate remedial motions failed by 2–2 votes. One sought to reduce the owner's bill to $3,250 (calculated as 50 linear feet at $13 per foot); another proposed subtracting the owner's contractor costs from the city's billed amount to arrive at $9,198.40. With no majority, staff said the law department's guidance means the committee forwards the matter to counsel without a recommendation; counsel is scheduled for Feb. 3 and the full council will subsequently take up the item.
The committee record shows members emphasized communication and fairness: some members said the owner incurred costs that deserved credit, while others said the plain language of the order required written notification. The committee did not adopt a compromise and took no final financial action.
Next step: the item will be considered by counsel on Feb. 3 and then by the full council; the committee's 2–2 tie and the law department opinion will be noted in the referral.
