Oakland Park residents demand pause to sidewalk/drainage work, cite lack of notice and tree loss

A large group of Oakland Park residents pressed the City Commission on Dec. 3 to pause a planned drainage project that includes a sidewalk component on neighborhood side streets, saying they learned of the sidewalks only days ago and warning the work would remove mature trees, reduce parking and damage driveways.

"We ask for three immediate steps: suspend on‑the‑ground work, direct staff to present alternatives that avoid tree removal and driveway conflicts, and commit to a real public process," neighborhood coalition representative Gordon McNichols told the commission during the public‑comment period.

Residents cited several concerns: they said the sidewalk element was added to preserve grant eligibility rather than because studies showed a neighborhood need; they described narrow street widths that would lose parking space; and several speakers pointed to marked trees and said they had not received individual notices about impacts. "This project advanced on assertions that do not withstand scrutiny," McNichols said, urging an independent legal and factual review.

Other speakers gave specific examples. Angela Menemanchi said the proposed sidewalk would run through a tree her family planted 25 years ago and would "destroy the privacy of our home." Dr. Francis Fajon, a local veterinarian, said he received notice for a different city construction project but not for this sidewalk addition and argued state law requires individual notice to affected property owners. "There is no regular pedestrian traffic on our street," he said, arguing the curbside changes would reduce usable yard and parking space.

Several residents, including Jacqueline McNichols, said they had obtained written clarification from Resilient Florida and the state that the Resilient Florida grant funding for the corridor does not require sidewalks on side streets. "Resilient Florida has no authority over sidewalk side‑street selection," she said, urging the commission to pause and investigate whether the city had misrepresented the grant scope.

City Manager (staff) responded that staff has tried to work with granting agencies and that some elements of the multimillion‑dollar grant are tied to drainage work that the city cannot simply cancel without jeopardizing funding. He said staff has prepared letters to property owners who will be affected and that the city will continue to work individually with impacted homeowners. "I cannot in good faith recommend to this commission that the entire project be scrapped," he said, adding that staff will continue outreach and try to mitigate impacts.

Commissioners said they had heard residents' concerns and several pledged to walk the neighborhood with staff and gather addresses and photographs so the city can evaluate mitigation options. Mayor Arndt said he understood the neighborhood impact and would participate in site visits; Commissioner Lonergan asked staff to produce a list of affected properties and to prioritize outreach. Vice Mayor Gordon urged that the city follow open‑process requirements and said she will continue to press for clear public notice.

The commission did not take formal action to pause work that night. Staff and commissioners said they will continue individualized outreach to affected owners and explore adjustments where feasible, while noting that federal and state grant conditions constrain what can be changed without risking funds. The record of public comment will remain part of the official file and commissioners said they will pursue follow‑up briefings with staff in the coming weeks.