Council rejects CDBG-funded sidewalk infill plan after neighborhood opposition

Cedar Falls City Council voted 2-5 on March 3 to reject a resolution adopting plans and an estimated cost for the 2025 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) sidewalk infill project, which the city estimated would cost $113,242.50 and be funded entirely with CDBG dollars.

City staff described the project as a targeted infill effort intended to improve connectivity and provide “safe routes” to destinations including the Cedar Falls aquatic center and the Cedar Prairie Trail. “The total estimated construction cost for this project is $113,242.50. And the project is fully funded by the community development block grant funding,” city staff member David Wiecky said during the public hearing.

Residents from the Colorado Road and Dallas Drive area urged the council not to approve the plan as presented. Darryl Crest, who said he lives at 303 Colorado Road, told council the road is a dead-end with sparse traffic and said adding a sidewalk would create safety and maintenance burdens for mostly older homeowners: “I believe there will be a safety issue if you put the sidewalk in because when I back out of my garage now, there’s gonna be two lanes. I gotta look for a sidewalk that's now gonna be close to the post and trees that ... people can emerge from.”

Other residents raised similar concerns about loss of yard space, snow removal obligations and liability for older homeowners. Kathy Taylor, 225 Colorado Road, told the council that multiple households on the block opposed the project and questioned staff comments that the grant funds could be moved elsewhere. “We were told that this money could go elsewhere,” Taylor said. “Nobody said it had to be used by June.”

Supporters of the concept, including members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, said sidewalk infill generally improves neighborhood connectivity and safe access to parks and trails. Andrew Troll, chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, said the commission provides input to staff and noted the project “is near a school and on a route to the Aquatic Center” and could benefit neighborhood access to those facilities.

Council members debated whether the project’s location matched the CDBG program’s low-to-moderate-income (LMI) requirements, how and when residents are notified, and whether the short segment constituted a useful infill or a “sidewalk to nowhere.” Council discussion also referenced HUD’s timeliness requirements for CDBG funds and the city’s June 30 expenditure deadline for the award.

Councilors said staff had held a public information meeting in early February and that the site had been identified in prior consolidated plans. Several council members suggested the funds might be better used elsewhere in the city if reallocation were feasible, but staff warned that design, environmental review and HUD approval timelines limit the ability to change the funded project before the grant deadline.

After discussion, the council took a roll-call vote; the clerk announced “2 voting aye, 5 voting nay,” and the motion failed. Council members who opposed the resolution cited resident opposition and questions about whether the selected block would deliver substantial public benefit compared with other possible infill locations.

Council members and staff said they would continue to explore sidewalk and trail projects and the city’s broader Safe Routes and connectivity priorities, but no formal direction to reallocate the 2025 CDBG funds was adopted at the meeting.