Residents call for no sidewalk on Musky Court

At a committee of the whole meeting at City Hall on Monday night in Medford, residents of Musky Court made known their feelings about the possibility of a new sidewalk being placed in the cul-de-sac.

In 2007, the city council passed an ordinance stating that sidewalks must be installed on at least one side of the street during any road reconstruction projects, with placement being determined based on what worked best with utilities. The water and sewer main lines on Musky Court are due to be replaced this year as they were installed in 1976. With the repair of the lines due to take place, council members thought it would be an appropriate time to install the sidewalks.

But the residents of Musky Court thought differently.

“You’re making a sidewalk that goes nowhere,” said Musky Court resident Mark Albers.

Mayor Mike Wellner disagreed and reminded Albers of the information that was sent to the residents.

Wellner also cited safety concerns, stating that it is safer for people who walk to use a sidewalk rather than the road. Albers stated that nobody walks on that road other than the residents of Musky Court.

“Have you ever walked up there other than to have the petition signed? I’ve never seen you other than to sign the petition for your mayor [position], nobody walks up there.” Multiple people in the audience voiced that they have never seen Wellner in their neighborhood to walk.

“I walk all over the city,” said Wellner. Albers also expressed concern about the drainage of water on the street and reported that some of the residents see flooding in their backyards and have had to

See MEDFORD on page 3 take extra measures to create adequate drainage. Albers stated that he was worried that a raised sidewalk would lead to those same residents seeing an increase of water in their yards, which could lead to property damage.

“The whole street, from Musky Lane to round the corner to my place is basically below sea level,” said Albers. “You are going to create a moat.”

“I had to put a ditch in,” said Musky Court resident John Lemke. “Are you going to guarantee that the water is going to go over the sidewalk or is it going to flood my basement?”

Only one resident present stated he was in favor of the addition of a sidewalk.

Council member Peggy Kraschnewski questioned if the council has ever done a full reconstruction of a city street without adhering to the ordinance since it was put into place in 2007 with Wellner confirming that they have not.

Residents of Musky Court were also concerned about the buildup of snow from the city plows maintaining the street during winter. “I don’t know where you would dump all the snow that you currently put in our front yard and you don’t come back to clean it up,” said Steve Van den Heuvel.

Nancy Liazuk stated that she believes that the sidewalk would be useless because when the city plows residential streets, they create snowbanks over sidewalks that can become impassible to pedestrians.

Council member Laura Holmes questioned Albers’ concern about water drainage. “I would like you to address that water flow problem,” she said to Harris, and continued, “Just because I know on Pine Street one of my neighbors had a big issue with the water flow problem.”

“Well the reason we’re putting the storm sewer up there is we’re trying to keep the water off the road,” said Harris.

Council member Christine Weix was empathetic to the residents. “We don’t know what it’s like to live in your neighborhood,” she stated, and continued, “Our decision not only affects you, but every single resident that might live in your homes from now until the next reconstruction which is probably, according to this, 50 to 70 years in the future, so we have a decision that impacts a lot of future residents as well.”

“You guys are going to do what you want anyway, no matter how much we bitch,” said Lemke as he walked away from the podium and back to his seat. “We might as well give up and go on home.”

After hearing the public concerns, the committee originally decided to vote on whether or not to take the matter the the city council in two weeks, but eventually voted unanimously to table the discussion to gather more information. The committee will revisit the matter on February 10.

In other action, the committee:

• Voted to meet on the second and fourth Mondays of each month rather than once a week with all members agreeing to streamline. There will still be a delay in action as city council members will vote on items forwarded to them by the committee of the whole from two weeks prior rather than the meeting directly prior.

• Agreed to send to council keeping the summer help wages for 2025 pool and public works employees, reporting that they raised the rates last year and did better recruiting. 2025 pool fees will remain the same and the residents of Browning, Chelsea, Goodrich, Hammel, Little Black, Medford, and Stetsonville will have access to a better rate at the pool as their townships have contributed money towards fees.

• Voted to send to city council establishing a developer’s agreement for a housing loan. The loan’s guidelines state that applicants must build four apartments with four doors in order to be sure that it is open to those interested in developing creating housing within the city.

• Voted unanimously to send to council the purchase of a 2025 Ford police interceptor utility vehicle as a canine unit for a bid price of $44,147 without a trade in. This is in anticipation of the arrival of a canine officer in the Medford Police Department. The Taylor County Sheriff’s Department did have a canine, but after switching handlers so many times, and due to the age of the dog, the county opted to retire the animal with its last handler rather than pay for it be re-trained for a new handler, deciding it would be more economical in the long run to bring in a new canine. Medford Police Department’s canine would be in addition to the county’s dog.

Bub asked police chief Chad Liske if it was worth it for the city to acquire a dog if the county already had one on its roster. Liske responded, “You can never have too many,” reporting that the city and the county try to work together to be sure a dog is on duty as often as possible. This would be the first canine for the city.

• Heard that the electric utility department would like to replace their locating truck with a bigger truck to move reel trailers and plow snow. The wastewater utility department purchased a snow pusher for their skid steer, which is better suited for their needs, and is willing to sell their 2019 F250 with a snow plow to the electric utility department for the quoted trade-in price of $31,500. Wastewater would then purchase a new 1/2 ton 4x4 extended cab truck with the best bid being $41,486 which will ultimately cost wastewater $9,986 out of the vehicle replacement fund. The committee voted unanimously to send the purchase to council.

The committee adjourned to go to the city council meeting.

City Council

The council meeting began with a closed session as the members discussed a settlement agreement with Wal-Mart Real Estate Business which resolves actions they took against the city regarding Wal-Mart’s disagreement of the assessed value of their property for 2022, 2023 and 2024.

Upon returning from closed session, council members voted to assume the assessed value of Wal-Mart’s property at $6,039,000 for the three previous years as well as 2025.

Because of this agreement the city is required to pay Wal-Mart $20,891.07 as a refund payment payable within 30 days. These amounts are a result of mediation.

Dave Brandner, Clem Johnson, Ken Coyer, Randy Haynes, Kraschnewski, and Holmes voted in favor while Weix and Mike Bub voted against it.