Covington officials debate revoking unopened America Street right-of-way after administration declines maintenance

Covington city officials discussed whether to revoke an unopened right-of-way along America Street after city administration representatives said the city would not assume responsibility for maintaining the road or its drainage.

The matter matters because the strip is a dead-end area with drainage problems that would cause flooding unless addressed, and revoking the right-of-way would shift maintenance and drainage responsibility to adjacent property owners or a future buyer. Council members discussed selling the parcel at its appraised value but did not record a formal vote in the provided transcript.

A staff member said, “Even if we do allow it to be a gravel roadway, there is more consideration than just the surface of the road. We do have to address the drainage issues and the fact that it forms a bolt at the end where the dead end in the road. And in order for the road to not go underwater during rain events, we would have to address that. Now, in order for it to be developed to city standards, it's typically not to the city to develop the right of way, to develop the street. It's the, the applicant, the petitioner that wishes also at their cost.”

A property owner responded that if the city revoked the street, maintenance would fall to property owners: “It would have nothing to do with the city, because we wouldn't own it. So my question is is that, if we revoked the street and everybody was in agreement, I'm just saying, the city would not be responsible for that from Sixteenth down to the dead end of, South America Street at all. It would be solely upon the, people that **** up to the property to maintain, drainage, everything else with that. The the the city would be relieved with that. Correct?”

A developer who said he had built streets for about 20 years argued that the city had not maintained the undeveloped right-of-way in his lifetime and opposed taking taxpayer dollars to maintain it: “And there- this is not a street. If you're going to build a street, it's going to have to be the city specifications. The city has not had to maintain this undeveloped right of way in my lifetime. And I really am uncomfortable with the idea that we're gonna start taking taxpayer dollars to maintain a right of way which we don't have to maintain. And so, correct. The administration does not want to take on that burden on behalf of the taxpayers of this city.”

Another council participant characterized the portion under discussion as “no longer needed for public purposes” and said what is before the council was to be sold for its appraised value, and urged administration to proceed. A council participant also asked the body to consider the effect on two families who have been involved since 2023 and noted prior conflicting evidence about whether the strip had been an official city street.

The transcript excerpts provided record discussion and proposals but do not include a formal motion, mover/second, or a recorded council vote. Participants repeatedly distinguished between leaving the right-of-way as an unopened (undeveloped) city right-of-way and revoking it so the city would no longer own or maintain the strip. Several speakers emphasized drainage and flooding risk as conditions that would need to be addressed if the right-of-way remained a roadway or if adjacent owners assumed responsibility.

Next steps discussed in the excerpts included giving the matter to administration to deal with and selling the parcel at appraised value; the provided transcript does not show that the council formally adopted either step during the recorded discussion.