Springdale council rejects proposed one-way conversions after public hearing on parking study

A public hearing and council votes on March 5, 2025, ended with the Springdale City Council rejecting two ordinances that would have converted Castro Lane and Ledro Street to one‑way streets.

The ordinances — No. 8‑20‑25 to establish Castro Lane westbound between Benadir Road and Ledro Street and No. 9‑20‑25 to establish Ledro Street as a counterclockwise one‑way — were debated after a presentation of a parking and sight‑distance study by TEC Engineering. The council conducted a second reading of both ordinances and then voted; both failed, 6–1.

The study presented by Ed Williams of TEC Engineering found about 119 legal parking spaces on Ledro and about 61 on Castro. Engineers identified roughly 20 spaces that would have to be marked no‑parking if the streets remained two‑way to meet stopping sight‑distance requirements. “There’s about 119 legal parking spaces on Ledro and about 61 legal parking spaces on Castro,” Williams told the council, and he explained that stopping sight distance thresholds differ by operation: “If it’s one way, it’s 155 feet. If it’s two way, then it’s double that because both cars have to identify the object and see.” The firm also reported an average travel‑time increase of about 15 seconds for some residents if a one‑way pattern were adopted.

Why it mattered: committee members and residents said the choice came down to preserving on‑street parking versus eliminating locations that engineers identified as sight‑distance hazards. Council member Megan Sullivan Weiskop said the conversion option was proposed to avoid removing parking: “We either take the spots away, or we make it one way.” Several residents said they opposed a one‑way conversion because of concerns that it could increase speeds or shift congestion to nearby streets such as Tivoli.

Public comment was extensive. Residents described long‑standing parking pressure, reports of near misses and single‑vehicle crashes, nuisance behavior they associate with high turnover rental properties, and enforcement gaps. A handful of speakers urged stronger enforcement or a residential permit system instead of a one‑way conversion. Mayor Hawkins told the hearing that police had been asked to focus on quality‑of‑life enforcement in the area, saying, “the edict has gone out to the police department that we do want quality of life enforcement with regard to parking, people parking in the grass, on yards, blocking driveways.”

Council discussion emphasized the committee origin of the proposal. Council members said the rental program committee studied property maintenance and parking issues for more than a year, and that the public hearing was convened to gather resident input before action. Council also noted other mitigation options remain possible if the ordinances were defeated: removing the roughly 20 unsafe parking spaces while keeping two‑way operations, pursuing residential parking permits, targeted traffic‑calming measures, or programs to help homeowners add driveway parking.

Votes and next steps: Ordinance 8‑20‑25 (Castro Lane) failed on second reading, 6 votes against and 1 in favor (Mr. Vanover voted aye; Missus Suggal Myska, Mr. Gleaves, Mrs. Webster, Mr. Jacobs, Miss McFarland and Mr. Anderson voted no). Ordinance 9‑20‑25 (Ledro Street) was defeated by the same margin. Council members noted that a defeated ordinance may be returned to the floor after the required waiting period under council rules and that administration can pursue enforcement, signage changes and other traffic‑calming or parking solutions in the meantime.

Council and staff said the committee and administration will continue to consider complementary measures including: improved enforcement, no‑parking buffers at intersections, temporary removal of specific on‑street spaces with outreach to affected residents, exploring a residential permit program, and targeted grants or incentives to help homeowners expand driveway parking where feasible. The council also asked that the implementation impacts on emergency response, school buses, trash collection and postal routes be addressed in any final plan; staff said those operational impacts were considered and would be phased if an ordinance were to pass.

The public hearing and votes followed earlier outreach and study: the rental program committee began work about two years ago examining nuisance/property‑maintenance issues and parking; the TEC Engineering analysis was presented to council as a technical basis for choices. With both ordinances defeated, council members said they would continue to evaluate alternatives and encouraged residents on both sides of the issue to remain engaged.