Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Naming Addressing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables proposed Buckhorn Bath Avenue name change after mixed resident feedback, asks staff for more research
Summary
A public hearing on a resident-initiated proposal to rename Buckhorn Bath Avenue drew divided responses. Councilmembers directed staff to gather additional information and return with a clearer community survey and GIS-checked name options before the council acts.
The Saratoga Springs City Council held a public hearing Jan. 21 on a resident-initiated request to change the name of Buckhorn Bath Avenue in the Wanderers subdivision. The applicant said emergency-response confusion prompted the request and provided ballots showing 25 of 27 households returned responses, 18 of which favored a change.
"In the midst of a highly stressful situation in which our daughter was suffering and having difficulty breathing, they asked us to repeat the address 3 separate times," the applicant said, describing a 2023 emergency response he said motivated the request.
Several residents spoke both for and against the change. Tanisha Moody, who lives on Buckhorn Bath Avenue, said she had called emergency services multiple times and that responders had arrived in about two minutes and she opposed the change because of the personal cost and disruption of updating addresses. Another resident said residents disliked the current name because it is hard to say; others said an outright name replacement (for example, "Horizon Way" or "Serenity Way") might be preferable to merely dropping the word "Bath."
City planning staff noted the address-code process places the application as a legislative decision for the council and that applicants are generally required to cover the cost of replacing signs along the roadway. Staff and council members discussed the need to consult the city's GIS director about duplicate or confusing names, and to tighten the city code to clarify the process and costs associated with resident-initiated name changes.
After public comment, the council voted to table the proposal and asked staff to conduct a more formal survey of the affected addresses, consult GIS for name availability and conflicts, and return with options and clearer code language about fees and petition thresholds. The council did not approve any renaming at the meeting.
Why it matters: Changing a street name can impose material costs and administrative burdens on residents (driver’s licenses, utility accounts, mailing addresses, signage), and the council said it wants better staff analysis and a clearer, city-administered survey before approving a legislative change that affects multiple households.
What happens next: Staff will follow up with a city-led outreach and additional GIS analysis; councilmembers asked staff to craft clearer code language on resident-initiated street-name changes and to provide recommended thresholds and procedures.
