Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors object to Algonquin pathway alignment; council keeps original route in 3–2 split
Summary
Residents told council they feared loss of privacy, increased noise, drainage and trespass with the proposed Algonquin Sports Complex path adjacent to back yards; after extensive public comment and staff testimony, council voted 3–2 to keep the pathway as originally planned but left open follow‑up buffering options.
Council took public testimony and staff input on June 23 before deciding whether to change the planned west-side route of a new multi‑purpose pathway at the Algonquin Sports Complex.
City Manager John W. Coffee summarized the project scope and the four alignment options considered, noting the path was approved in the FY26 budget to connect Crispino Court and reduce pedestrian travel along Winneco Drive. "The fiscal year 26 approved budget contained several projects to complement the Algonquin Sports Complex expansion project including a multi-purpose path..." he said.
Council member Neill Yorio and staff presented four alternatives: (1) move the paved path inside the existing outfield fence (closer to fields but farther from property lines), (2) route the path through the parking lot (reduces parking and flow), (3) leave the path as planned but add vegetation or screening between the path and private yards, and (4) install consistent perimeter fencing on the north side to increase separation.
Several residents who live adjacent to the planned alignment urged relocation or buffering. Deborah Jaffey (119 Algonquin Terrace) said, "I'm not here to oppose the path itself. I'm asking the council to consider a better location for it," citing a roughly 10‑foot gap between her property and the existing outfield fence, concerns about drainage, loss of privacy, and potential impacts from benches or gathering areas. Other residents described pets, prior trespass incidents and flooding in the low-lying buffer area immediately behind homes.
Public-works and parks staff warned of trade-offs. Public Works Director Scott Owen and Recreation Director Kusumoto said moving the path inside the fence would reduce safety buffers for athletes, complicate maintenance and utility access and could require removal of palm trees and replacement fencing. Staff estimated new fence removal and replacement could cost roughly $25,000–$30,000; a more extensive perimeter-screening option was estimated at $40,000–$50,000.
After further debate over safety, cost and neighbor impacts, the council voted 3–2 to leave the pathway in its originally planned location and direct staff to explore follow-on buffering options as a separate follow-up project. The motion to keep the plans as drawn carried 3–2; the council majority said retaining the planned alignment avoided construction delays and preserved field layouts, while the minority cited privacy and drainage concerns.
The council did not adopt immediate landscaping or fencing changes as part of the pathway contract; staff said they would return with options and cost estimates if council desired further mitigation.
