Residents urge Kenosha committee to reconsider sidewalk assessments tied to tree damage and notice procedures

At the Kenosha Public Works Committee meeting on March 9, multiple residents asked the committee to reconsider preliminary sidewalk assessments for projects 26-1207 and 26-1208, saying parkway trees and unclear notice procedures have left homeowners facing unexpected bills.

Sean Gorman, of 3506 87th Place, told the committee a parkway maple snapped during a storm and that he paid $800 to remove the tree. He said at least two sidewalk squares listed in the assessment were directly impacted by the tree's roots and asked whether those squares would be treated as tree damage. Greg, the city sidewalk inspector, and staff member Kader said Greg would inspect the property and that parkway trees marked for removal are handled as tree damage; staff encouraged the resident to speak with the inspector after the hearing.

Laura Rickerski, who said her family has lived at her address for more than 40 years, told the committee that two large maple parkway trees have been marked for removal for about three years and that earlier street work left her driveway apron pitched incorrectly. She said previous contact with the parks department and the public-works inspector had not resolved the trees' removal and asked that trees be removed before any sidewalk replacement. "We've worked through most of the sidewalk square issues, thanks to [Greg] and his prompt response," Rickerski said, but she asked for confirmation that squares at her property were related to tree roots and for clarification on why notices were not sent to all affected homeowners.

Aaron Wright, of 2514 81st Street, said he first received a letter saying his sidewalk would be reevaluated in three years but later received a notice saying his approach was bad and that he faced an assessment of $984. "I didn't get any notification that there was gonna be any inspections," Wright said, and asked for photos or an explanation of the damage. Staff again recommended an on-site review with the sidewalk inspector to walk through the inspection report and determine whether the assessment reflects snowplow or curb damage (which the city said it would not assess).

Randy Sparks said a notice listed 17 sidewalk squares for replacement at his home and said he lives on disability and cannot afford the cost; he said a contractor indicated the number might be reduced to eight squares. "I have no extra money," Sparks said. Staff and committee members encouraged on-site review and discussed whether grinding high spots could reduce the number of required replacements. Staff noted that the assessments discussed were preliminary and that the final assessment amount would be established after construction.

Committee members and staff repeatedly told residents that the current notices reflect preliminary assessments and that the sidewalk inspector could meet on site to clarify which squares are tree-related and whether grinding or other measures could reduce assessed replacements. The committee then moved and approved taking items 1 and 2 together after the public hearings; the motion passed.

What happens next: staff and the sidewalk inspector will meet individually with residents who requested review; the committee reiterated that final assessments will be set after construction and noted options such as spreading costs over three years via the tax assessment program.

Clarifying details: the city described the assessments as "preliminary" and said final billing is determined after construction; staff added a $30.30 administrative rate used in assessment calculations (covered in a later agenda item). For specific assessments residents referenced figures in notices (examples in the hearing included $984 and a homeowner report of paying $800 to remove a tree).