The Streets, Sidewalks and Parking Committee unanimously voted to ask the law director to revise the city’s sidewalk ordinance to remove a cul‑de‑sac exemption for lots whose rear or side yards abut a thoroughfare, and held an extended discussion about possible cost‑share programs to spur sidewalk repairs.

Committee members said the change is intended to address safety and accessibility where sidewalks were omitted during development and now force pedestrians into roadways. The committee directed the law director to draft ordinance language and return to the committee for review before sending legislation to council.

Why it matters: committee members and staff framed the issue as public‑infrastructure and pedestrian‑safety driven. They said reliance on property owners alone has left many sidewalks in poor condition; the committee discussed tradeoffs between voluntary incentive programs and mandatory enforcement tied to property assessments, bonds or city‑led contracts.

Discussion highlights and background: members described several funding and program models. Staff and council members discussed a voluntary cost‑share or discount model in which the city could procure materials or arrange a contractor pool so homeowners pay a reduced share; alternatively, the city could run an assessment program in which homeowners are given an opportunity to prepay and, if they do not, the city completes the work and places an assessment on property tax rolls.

Costs and prior work: staff provided rough cost figures during the meeting. One staff estimate for concrete‑only material was reported as about $56,100 for what the presenter called a “1 meter mile” unit (staff clarified this as a high‑level, material‑only estimate). A contractor‑style estimate mentioned a contractor price in the range of $10–$12 per square foot to remove and replace concrete; meeting participants noted that those figures did not include labor, forms, traffic control or administration. Committee members recalled a past multi‑year, quadrant‑based plan and a previously awarded engineering management bid that nearly moved forward but was not implemented for affordability reasons.

Enforcement and program design: members emphasized that any city program would need “teeth,” meaning clear enforcement and council‑level backing to ensure property owners comply or that assessments can be collected. The law director was asked to review existing ordinance language (including technical specifications such as width and surface that may reference older concrete standards), federal and state standards that the city follows, and to prepare draft language that addresses cul‑de‑sac frontage and enforcement mechanisms.

Next steps: staff will develop several program options (voluntary cost‑share, assessment model, and mixed approaches), work with the law director on ordinance language, and return proposals to the committee. The committee voted unanimously to direct the law director to revise the ordinance so that cul‑de‑sac parcels fronting or abutting another street would be required to provide sidewalks; the motion was moved by Committee Chair Josh Palmer and seconded by Committee member James Niemeyer, and carried by the committee members present.

Taper: committee members and staff said they do not expect an immediate, citywide fix this year and stressed the need to refine costs and prioritization before recommending bond issuances or assessments to council.