Dunbar Partnership Representative Tom Dunbar: Tom Dunbar, of the Dunbar Partnership. I’m here today to talk about the trails plan that has been put together. This process is one that has been sponsored by the Iowa Department of Transportation. The reason that the DOT does this is that it’s related to the T-21 funding. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Enhancements portion is one of the ways trails are funded in the state. DOT found that…

Stutsman: Tom, excuse me. I think Charlie really needs to be here to be part of this. I don’t know where he went, if he’s getting a cup of coffee. Oh, here he comes.

Jordahl: He’s back. Tom Dunbar is here talking about trails.

Dunbar: As I was saying, this process has been supported by the Iowa Department of Transportation. Their interest is specifically related to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, the enhancement proportion. That interest lies in providing better planning, providing better applications that are fundable when local agencies come with (inaudible). We have gone through a process that is very broad based, including all communities, including as broad a base of users as possible. I’ll go through very quickly… I had a hand out that I’ll give you after this. I don’t have an easel but we can walk through this if I can get this where this might be easiest here.

Jordahl: We have a rolling blackboard around here. There it is.

Dunbar: Does that have a shelf on it.

Jordahl: Yes, on the other side there.

Dunbar: Well, we have easels at the office but unfortunately they were all gone this morning when we got there.

Jordahl: This is our new GIS system here.

Dunbar: This is going to be…

Jordahl: Like that, prop it out there. That microphone stand underneath it might help prop this out.

Dunbar: I will go through this. I am a little vertically challenged, so please bear with me. The group as I say was a very broad based group and they identified 5 goals. One is to create a cost-effective trail and capitalize on the economic potential. Goal 2 is create an environmentally friendly trail system. 3 is involve in the design, maintenance, and use of the facility. Goal 4, create a trial system with connections between communities, trails and destinations. Goal 5 is create trail system with a variety of opportunities. A series of opportunities were identified by the group including: enriching educational recreational opportunities in the County, the potential for economic impact and development, improved connections to other trails and destinations, build community spirit and support, and increase environmental awareness. At the same time we asked the group what the issues were. One of the large issues was trying to get as much community involvement, participation as possible. Planning a trail system that had a plan, that had a framework. Questions of ownership down the line, in terms of who owns it, who maintains it. The big one is always how is it going to get paid for, the finical issues, and then the environmental issues including resources, archeological resources, natural resources. And then lastly that this system could operate not only for recreation, but in the future operate for transportation as well, OK. So this is the basis from which we then jumped off and went through a series of resources. This is just one of the many maps we had. We had the topography, we had all the vegetation, we had all the County sites, the State sites, the rivers, and the communities. Here are just the rivers, the topography. And then we went through a series of exercises with these groups and we broke up in to smaller groups and asked them where they thought the trails should go. You can see by the dots that each group put down where they thought the trail should go how they should connect. This is just another group in another color. And then after we got through these groups, we put them all together into a system that would include all the potential alignments. OK, so you can see underneath all of the potential alignments that everyone suggested. Then we went through a second series of workshops and we asked them OK, what are the important ones, what are the ones that we should really think about. Because clearly in some cases we had duplicate alignments. And again we went through a series, folks wrote notes on it. Do this don’t do that. Then we put all those together.

Stutsman: What are the red dots for?

Dunbar: The red dots were to help us prioritize and help us understand which one of the routes were the most important, particularly when we had duplications. You know here, up here, through here. So we could begin to create the framework. Now one thing I will say is this is a framework plan. It is to give the County as it grows, as it gets into trails more, a path if you will, a path for the location of trails. It is not prescriptive and it doesn’t suggest at this level how you get particular trail links done, because you have to go through an entire other level of planning and design when you are talking about specific trial links. That is just another one showing the dots and the notes. A note here, separated trails for destination routes safer for families, limited paved shoulders for more looped type trials, potentially connected trails through Nichols, Conesville, Columbus Junction. All these notes from all these groups are included.

Jordahl: This is where we want to (inaudible) down here Duane, all over this area here.

Dunbar: OK, Jonathan, can you stick this one down. We then put the system together and the solid green are the existing trials, the red-green are the existing sidewalks, wide sidewalks. This is a combination of JCCOG’s plan, which included basically this area through here, plus the County’s plan that we are working on now. The green, these were proposed in the JCCOG’s plan and then we talked about adding potential trails in the purple and this is the compellation if you will of all the workshops and the prioritization. So you can see a framework plan that goes through the County, connects north in several places, connects east, connects south, and connects west. The group then went through a secondary prioritization and from the group’s point of view this loop, this loop, this stretch, and this stretch, were viewed as the most important or the highest priorities to them. In their last meeting the said well that is our priorities, and that is important and a lot folks have put a lot of work into this. However that’s all it is right now, so what we should give the County is a trails plan that recognized what the group came up with. But basically took those priorities out and showed the overall system intact. So as opportunities arose, as people, came up with trail options, plans, and notions, that the Supervisors could then look at the plan and say, yes, this fits and this doesn’t. Again the priorities are a notion of a particular group, but they felt that this should be the plan that the County dealt with and adopted and take those priorities that they developed as a secondary notion. Now what is this for? What this does is particularly when you are going after funding this shows that you have a system and your funding applications would be looked on as part of the system and therefore given a higher status and a higher rank because they are part of a system. Any questions?

Duffy: Yes, were does ECICOG fit into this or do they?

Dunbar: Well, they fit particularly as you go north we looked at Cedar Rapids’ trails plan. They’ve got a trail coming down, they don’t come down to the County Line but they show a trail that within about 2 miles of the County line. So there is a logical connection that you can see between one of these 2 trails.

Duffy: Well, through ECICOG though enhancement the dollars, there is 10% off the top. And one thing is trails, beautifying the highway, and all that kind of thing.

Dunbar: John what is the relationship between ECICOG and JCCOG?

Duffy: There is a money relationship looks like to me.

Jordahl: John Yapp, transportation planner.

JCCOG Transportation Planner John Yapp: John Yapp from JCCOG. Yes, any applications for the enhancement funds, which are targeted toward non-road projects in the unincorporated County, would be to ECICOG. OK.

Duffy: I wondered we they weren’t involved.

Dunbar: They were invited.

Duffy: They were invited. It’s the same way with our road system around here. But they would have to be a player, because it looks to me like well there is a lot of money. They would have to be a player, because there is a lot of dollars that go through there.

Dunbar: Yes, their staff people were invited.

Stutsman: So, to summarize basically what we are doing here then is a community process that came up with a plan. If the Board adopts this plan we are not committed to but when we apply for funding for enhancement dollars and that would put us in a better light when it comes time to grant funds.

Dunbar: Exactly, and it is not only T21, it is any funding, whether it is state trail funding, REAP funding, federal trails funding. If you have a plan and you have a framework, your funding applications are viewed in a better light.

Stutsman: How many people participated in this?

Dunbar: Totally, I think there were about 20, consistently at every meeting, 20, but there were probably a total of 50 to 60 over the whole, different folks.

Duffy: REAP funding is real important too. I would like you to know that there were a couple of meetings that we got quite a few dollars for that. How much did the State allot for REAP, one in 20,000,000, but it wasn’t quite that, was it? What was it, 12,000,000 or 14,000,000?

Yapp: Yes, somewhere in that range.

Duffy: Around the state.

Yapp: Statewide.

Dunbar: But they have also added the recreation infrastructure grants, which trails are eligible for, but they have been used for other things more than trials.

Duffy: Yes.

Jordahl: The economic development potential of a trail system is something that has figured prominently in our discussion of this through out these planning meetings and Mike has been to a number of them, the County Engineer and the Assistant Engineer have. We had good intergovernmental representation at these meetings as well, including Larry Wilson of the University was here for all of them I think, Dee Norton, was here for most of them and Ron Bandy.

Stutsman: Can you elaborate on the economic development?

Jordahl: The economic development notion is that people have shown themselves, look at the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa, to travel to make their vacation plans around coming to Iowa, for that bicycle event. We exist as a kind of magnet spot within the State where people who are oriented toward that kind of recreation might find other things that they might find interesting to do as well. We have interesting topography with the North Corridor we have the proximity to Cedar Rapids, the Hoover Library, the Amanas. I mean this is a rich bunch of things to do that would be within reasonable distance for people on bicycles to come here with this as a destination in mind to utilize the trails system. And as this grows one of the things that happens when the group prioritized, if you remember the map just before this one that showed the priority dots there was a very curious aspect of it. Amana Road, which is a dusty gravel road on the north side of the reservoir, going west from 965. Not to put a trail on it, but rather to put a trail on the Corps ground south of that road, through that area that might sometimes be flooded was one of the top priorities of people who wanted to use it for recreation. I am not sure that the Board would make it such a priority. But Tom suggested as we bantered that back and forth during the meeting, don’t let me represent your answer for you, but it was something about how funding might be easier to get for something that was more ambitious like that.

Dunbar: Well, you just had a discussion about acquisition and acquisition is always difficult. So if you find a willing participant that already owns the land then it kind of leverages the investment if you will, because you get a trail down on the ground with a cooperative, collaborative owner. Other things that I might say is that we have worked with Amana on their trail plan and they show the trail coming down this way. So they are very seriously talking about the importance of the link down into the Iowa City area.

Yapp: Regarding the economic development impact we have some information from the Heritage Trail, up in Dubuque, between Dubuque and Dyersville mostly. It is over 30 miles long, mostly it is a limestone trail, it is not paved. And they did a study a couple years ago that people coming to the county of Dubuque just to use that trial generated 1.5 million in revenue for the business along the County including restaurants, bicycle rental, people staying in hotels and bed and breakfasts, etc.

Stutsman: So it went just for the trail?

Yapp: That is correct, right.

Duffy: I think that…

Dunbar: We are also involved in doing the Statewide Trails Plan that within a year will have more specific numbers, take the Heritage Trail, but more specific numbers on what the economic impact in Iowa is directly associated with trails. The Heritage Trail that is the one that we have in hand that a study has been done on.

Jordahl: I think you are talking here about a kind of critical mass idea. We have had for awhile a few segments of trial in Johnson County and Iowa City, Coralville area in particular. There had been this thing from the Crandic Park over to behind Taco Bell along the river. It’s kind of like yes well OK that is nice but how do you get there were does it go? It is a piece of a trail, but now we are starting to have connections. It is like connecting the dots and seeing a picture develop. You are starting to see the picture develop. With the Prairie Du Chien Road project, now we are going to have paved shoulders going out a lot of the way to the dam and the traffic pattern on the latest DOT traffic numbers show that is where the traffic is going. They want to go over to the dam. They want to do that loop. We have got the West Overlook Road paved in. These dots are coming together. As we begin to have something that is a trial system where you can actually make loops and do it on safe routes that are appropriately marked, have wide enough roads, bike lanes, you are going to have the consciousness develop that this is a place where this is possible. It is already happening, Coralville has an elaborate plan, and that is how this all got started for us, is that I went to see the presentation that Tom Dunbar’s group did for Coralville and was very impressed with what was going on there. They are going to establish now, I learned at the meeting a week or so ago of our Trails Planning Group for JCCOG, they are going to dedicate a trail from 12th Avenue in Coralville, the center of the new downtown Coralville to West High. Talking about cutting down on your pollution. Think about the kids that drive to West High because you’ve almost got to take a car to be safe getting there, or a bus.

Dunbar: They got a state trails grant to do that based on a similar plan.

Jordahl: There is going to be a mood I think descend on the County that recognizes that this is very vital possibility. That is a reality that is coming into focus. Our adopting a plan, that again doesn’t obligate us to build any trail, but lays out where a community process has indicated we ought to consider putting trails would be an important step toward furthering the growth of that concept. Mike maybe, or you, or Charlie, would like to speak to the issue.

Duffy: Yes, well actually there are already plans from Johnson County up to Poweshiek County, you probably know that.

Dunbar: Yes.

Duffy: State plans. The other side of the coin, and not to talk negatively, but after trails are in, who is going to maintain the trails? Some people think it should be the County Conservation Board. I mean trails that are off of the highways, personally I like the 6-foot paved shoulders better. I don’t think you can condemn land now for trails through private property.

Dunbar: There is an acreage limit. I think if it is over 10 acres, you can’t condemn. There is an acreage limit to it.

Duffy: Well, that I don’t like to see the idea of condemning anyway, but we have to work with the people… The moneys that go through East Central and the 10% for these projects cannot be used for roads.

Dunbar: That’s right.

Duffy: So the people that have dust on their roads can’t touch this.

Dunbar: That’s right.

Duffy: These dollars, and that was set up by the feds. So, some people might have a little problem with that.

Jordahl: You know I think Charlie, I agree with you about the usefulness of the 6-foot paved shoulders because we can do that and the piggyback. It is very little cost. There is no additional land condemned and the maintenance can be done by just putting that wing down on the snowplow and off she goes, so it is a much cheaper way of doing things. We have not said it here this morning but one of the aspects of putting this plan together was this concept that we were going to be able to establish a lot of these connections by piggybacking on to road construction projects that are planned anyway. If we just put the 6-foot paved shoulder down, there you go you’ve got a connection. That is a transportation link. So if you look at 2 different types of purposes for a trail, as a recreation link and a transportation link, you can establish a lot of the transportation pattern for this thing. As is already in our 5 Year Plan, that we have got going up Mehaffey Bridge Road to 180th Street to Solon, you are going to have the 6-foot paved shoulders. We’ve got Prairie Du Chien Road under construction now. I would suggest we ought to prioritize that link to hook up the rest of Prairie Du Chien Road to the dam again with the 6-foot paved shoulders. That we can do with just minimal investment to establish a lot of the transportation component. To go off into the recreational area and to make a separate recreation trail, you’re right raises a lot of questions about who maintains this and how. But as for as the land accusation costs, one of the important things that came up in these discussions is that the Corps of Engineers is apparently very accepting of the idea of construction of trails on their property where we would not have land acquisition costs. So one of the things that has been proposed is going up the right side of the reservoir there. If you look at that purple squiggle going up from Prairie Du Chien there along the right side of the res., that is Corps ground. And so we could establish that off-road trail without the land acquisition costs. We would still have the question of how do you do maintenance on that, but I think it is a question that is answerable. John, do you have perhaps a suggestion toward that?

Yapp: Not at this time.

Jordahl: Well come up with one. You will get rich quick.

Dunbar: There are examples in the State. There are precedents. We are working with a group around Rathbun Reservoir and there if it ends up on Corps land, the Corps is willing to maintain it. The Saylorville Trail that goes up from Des Moines out to Saylorville, when it hits Corps land, the Corps maintains it. So there are already precedents set for that issue. I mean it is in their benefit. They get more users to their facility and it makes the use of their facility with more activity. So it is getting people there and making what they do have, more usable, by more people.

Jordahl: Hadn’t caught that piece of the argument, that the Corps is… Are you sure this is generally the case, or is this just the case of Rathbun, and you hope this is the case?

Dunbar: No. That’s the way it has been at Saylorville. If you remember, and Saylorville is in this district, while Rathbun is in the Kansas City district. 2 different districts and they work a little differently. But, the precedent has been set.

Duffy: The only thing, Jonathan, about the 6-foot wide shoulders, which we do get a good deal now. That’s 70% that is funded by other sources and we fund 30%. But some people might say that we live on a good hard-surface road now. So we have to be a little careful in saying that we need to pave this road anyway, we’ll pave the shoulders. I think there will probably be some questions asked about that, too.

Lehman: One of the other things that livened the discussion was the off-road trails were not necessarily…We think of bicycles. We’ve talked about trails through Corps ground. Might be wood chips to encourage hiking or that type of thing. We’re still talking about maintenance and upkeep and that, but it was to maybe also discourage bicycles, more to enjoy the nature, and there were people very aware of the environment, where we maybe didn’t want to go here to the reservoir. Maybe you’re going to have to get a boat to see certain sights. A trail may not give you certain access and they didn’t want to damage the environment. There was very good input in these meetings. People realized there were limitations on how far they thought they ought to go with getting to certain…

Dunbar: That’s the point that each segment will have to be planned and designed. To get where you want to go with the minimum of disruption of natural environment. In recreation, where people want to go, they want to see those natural areas. They want to interact with them. The challenge in recreation planning is always how close is close enough but not too close that you destroy the resource. It’s a design problem that when you get specifically on that piece that you saw.

Stutsman: If this plan is adopted, then is it revisited on a regular basis?

Dunbar: You would hope so. Particularly as things begin to happen. All plans need to be looked at as dynamic, because this is based on a point in time and a notion of a group of folks. If things start changing in the County, where they dynamics are slightly different, then you need to revisit it, absolutely. It needs to be a living document.

Stutsman: So, are we being asked to adopt this Thursday?

Dunbar: Yes.

Stutsman: Is that where we are at right now?

Jordahl: It’s on the agenda for Thursday, and I would like to see this plan, or one very much like it, adopted sooner rather than later. But I don’t want any member of the Board to feel that something is being attempted to push something through without adequate consideration either. If any form of consideration or period of time that members feel is appropriate should certainly be given it.

Stutsman: It certainly sounds like it was a good process. I don’t know what I could add to it at this time.

Dunbar: One question. The representative from FIRST was here and he had to leave and he was wondering if there was an opportunity to speak on Thursday to this issue?

Jordahl: We can certainly, I think, in terms of the idea that it should be presented in some summary way. Certainly, if it is going to be adopted it needs to be explained. It will be on television.

Stutsman: Thursday is a night meeting.

Jordahl: Yes, we have the evening meeting. So, it would have to be a brief presentation. We have a half-hour formal meeting before the public hearing on zonings and plattings. But, I would certainly be willing to hear a small presentation on this and how it fits into things. I would say that for me that is a little bit too soon. I think that the people that live along the proposed route… I don’t think that there is enough time. You might have people here, being that this is all laid out, that live on those roads where the trail will be.

Jordahl: Well, we haven’t…

Duffy: It’s cooperation Jonathan. This thing really isn’t set in stone, yet.

Jordahl: Right.

Stutsman: This is just a proposed plan.

Dunbar: This is a concept.

Duffy: Concept?

Dunbar: Your point is very well taken. Let’s say that you get a proposal to do this link. It’s at that time that you bring in everybody, the adjacent landowners. You’d look more specifically at what type of a trail this is, where specifically it goes. You have to address things like drainage structures. You have to address things like safety, width, surface, all of those issues. It’s a process that continues and as you go down to more specific trail links, the detail becomes more specific. That’s when you bring in the adjacent landowners, because until then you don’t know exactly where it’s going to go.

Stutsman: It seems like this is just one step in a long process.

Dunbar: Exactly.

Stutsman: That we are far from saying this is where is the trail will be built. There are many, many steps to be put into plan.

Jordahl: I would compare it to the transportation plan that we are supposed to be developing as a subset of the Land Use Plan. As we are looking at what point we need to be applying dust control or hard surfacing a road. Compare it to the 5 Year Road Construction Plan. This a framework for a trail development that I sort of see as a piece of that ultimate transportation plan that attempts to envision the pattern that we might wish to develop as we go forward into the future. But, as for the 5 Year Road Plan, and as Tom suggested, as population patterns may shift or as some resource may be developed… Let’s say Lone Tree decides to build a giant trail servicing facility, and a bed and breakfast, and a bike shop, and puts together an annual festival for bicyclists, we might have the thing shift towards doing something more to provide the resources in that area. We just have to see how the future develops. To have an overall plan that says we have looked at the whole picture and this is the way it seems to us now, then when we go to developing particular pieces, we adapt.

Dunbar: As part of the trails plan, just as the statewide trails plan that we have been working on, there are 2 pieces that are coming out of it. One is a planning guide for communities to help them plan how trails get across their communities. The other piece of it is a guidebook on how to take advantage of trails from an economic point of view. If you just have a trail, you are not necessarily going to have economic benefit, unless there are ways to capture that economic benefit, whether it’s bed and breakfast, whether it’s bike shops, whether it’s restaurants. There are things that communities can do to anticipate the opportunity and then make it happen. Those 2 pieces are coming out and they will help feed into this effort.

Stutsman: For one Board member, I don’t have a problem putting this on for Thursday to vote on this. Now, Charlie, you want some more time to think about it?

Duffy: I think there should be some input. One question I am going to ask is are they going to use the trails like the 6 foot shoulders or are they going to be all over the road? That’s what a lot of people would like to know. By law you don’t even have to use those 6 foot paved shoulders.

Jordahl: But, as a bicyclist…

Duffy: So, I think you’d better get your gang together and see if this is going to happen. The other trails, about a year or so ago I was down in Muscatine County. The abandoned railroad looked to me like that thing wasn’t used hardly at all. Who maintained the trails in Dubuque, or how much did it cost? You said it took in over a million dollars.

Yapp: Yes.

Duffy: How bad was the County Conservation Board?

Yapp: I believe it was the County Conservation that actually maintained it.

Duffy: I’ve been around quite awhile and this all started up in Wisconsin. Art Small, who used to be a State Senator, he went up there several times and used to know the Governor up there, Tony Earl, good enough to call him Tony. They do have good trails there, but that’s where it all started.

Yapp: That Sparta to Elroy Trail is very popular.

Jordahl: Have you got any statistics from Wisconsin, Tom, on the economic impact of trails for them? They have been at it longer.

Dunbar: Not off the top of my head. The only thing I know is this Sparta-Elroy Trail is incredibly popular. The trails in Minnesota, we have examples, and I can’t remember the name of one that is incredibly helpful for the community, but it is one of those that has all of the elements. It has bed and breakfast, it has restaurants, it has rest stops, it has bike shops, it has all of those pieces that support and compliment the trail.

Jordahl: Of course, Iowa City has bike shops, restaurants, trails, bed and breakfast. It is just like when we have an interstate exit ramp, people want to build stuff there because people are there ready to drive off of the road and get a cup of coffee and spend money. I think they are going to go hand in hand. The economic development will occur.

Dunbar: What we will do is we will leave all of this here for your Thursday meeting? OK?

Jordahl: Yes.

?: I’ve got a question.

Jordahl: Yes, sir.

?: Who provides the liability? Does the County provide the liability then for the trails? I have an example. I live along a trail and this summer a biker got hurt pretty bad along that trail below my place. The water head came down through a rain and washed a pretty deep gully. He came around this curve and he hit this ditch and he got hurt pretty bad. Now, is the County going to have to provide liability insurance then also for these trails? Who provides that?

Jordahl: We are self-insured and we stand to…

?: In other words there is going to possibly be some lawsuits for accidents that do happen and I was just wondering if that was going to provide another burden for taxpayers, also, plus the upkeep after the initial installation of the bike trails. Then the County will have to provide the maintenance? That will be a separate crew then to have to maintain the trails?

Jordahl: There is a question of whether we are talking about a separated recreational trail that is not with a roadway or one that is a paved shoulder that is essentially part of the roadway with a line there. It is pretty clear that Secondary Roads would be doing the maintenance on the road in any case and the shoulder is simply part of the road. But if it’s a separated trail, then it is a question of where are we. Are we on County property or are we on Corps property? If we are on County property, then we do have a question of who is doing the maintenance and how is that going to be done. Regarding liability, it is a County facility, I assume we have the same kind of liability that we have on a road.

Dunbar: In terms of the maintenance, it’s a question, no doubt, one that everybody is looking at now. But there are some things coming up. Some ideas and thoughts that were in the legislature last year to look at creating regional trail authorities, where in this case you might take JCCOG and the County and roll it into one trail authority. So, there was one trail authority that maintained and was responsible for all of the trails. I don’t believe any place has passed that legislation yet. I know in Central Iowa, the Des Moines Met MPO is looking at that. I don’t think they have gotten far, but people are starting to think about it. It is a very real issue.

Jordahl: Another thing that has come up in these meetings that needs to be emphasized and hasn’t been said here yet, is that we tend to think generically in terms of these being bicycle trails. All right, are these bicycles going to use the trails or are they going to be in the roadway. One of things that was said in the meetings is that a separated recreational trail does not have to be conceived as something where the snow has to be cleared off of it so that the bicycles can use it. A recreational trail might then become a ski facility or simply a nature hiking trail. If you look at West Overlook Road, you go out there, and yes, there are bicyclists there, but there are also people walking their dogs there, there are people walking there, there are people with baby strollers there. I mean it is a mixed use facility. It tends to be more of a bicycle trail when you get out 10 miles from town on a relatively major road. Prairie Du Chien Road, you know, is going to be more… Prairie Du Chien is a bad example. If you go out to Kent Park, for example, I don’t know how many people are going to walk all the way to Kent Park. It is probably is mostly a bicycle facility when you get multiple miles from town. But if you are in a quieter area, especially a separated recreational trail, what’s the urgency to clear the snow off of that. If it is a rec. trail, why not let people use it as it is and experience nature as it is. There is snow in nature. You’ve got snow on the trail. You can do some sort of what you see is what you get policy, I think. I’m not sure. I haven’t spoken with an insurance agent about that, and again this is part of a developing set of policies that are going to have to occur as we construct trails like that. Right now it is in the phase of if we build trails, where should they go, and we are building some in terms of paved shoulders.

Dunbar: Any other questions for me?

Duffy: Jonathan, some trails are even lighted at night and if you want to vote on Thursday, I’ll be ready on Thursday, but I think there are some unanswered questions. This gentleman here, I know where he lives. Lake MacBride, I think, ought to probably be a State issue, but then again our County trail hooks onto it.

Jordahl: There are questions, I think we can all agree, will need to be answered as the system develops. The policies on maintenance, the policies on the level of maintenance, public processes that we need to go through before we actually build trails. But what we are proposing here is none of those things, but rather a map of where trails may be desirable to be put that has been embedded through a public process. The Board’s approval would be for that concept plan and individual trails are like the 5 Year Road Plan. We have to sit down and chew on that and say, all right, what is the priority here, what kind of service are we going to put in, how much straightening are we going to do and so forth. So, I see this as separable questions.

Stutsman: Well, quite frankly, if we even want to do it. We have not committed to building a trail. This is just to approve the concept.

Jordahl: Yes.

Dunbar: Thank you very much.

Jordahl: Thank you for your assistance and involvement. Yes, Reverend Welsh?

Reverend Bob Welsh: What is the connection of this, is there any impact on Planning and Zoning?

Jordahl: Well, that is a very good question, Bob. If we have a proposed concept plan that says a future trail is desirable here. Someone wants to plat development in an area where a trail is proposed, then I would hope that it would be part of the process that we would look at it and say we want to put a trail through here. We’re thinking kind of like we have the right-of-way reserved for Oakdale Boulevard. We would then talk to the person about that. But we have not gotten to the point of reserving the right-of-way.

Stutsman: At this point I really don’t see the connection with Planning and Zoning. Sometime in the process, yes, but I think at this point I guess I don’t see it.

Jordahl: This does not constitute reserving right-of-way, this constitutes making a proposal and having it there to talk about as we go forward with the development of the county in general.

Stutsman: Can we take a break?

Jordahl: Yes, we sure can. Any other questions from the public? All right, what do we want, 10 minutes?

Recessed at 10:20 a.m.; reconvened at 10:32 a.m.

Jordahl: This presentation that I wanted to make sure members of the Board and public heard, was that one way of realizing such a plan, in asking how long is it before such a thing can get built? One aspect of this plan that we discussed frequently in those meetings, not mentioned here at all this morning, was that the seal coat roads that exist in various parts of the County that are very little traveled by cars are in many cases heavily recognized by bicyclists as good ways to get from here to there. For example, going down to Lone Tree, there are a few seal coat roads that we might make part of the trail system without any construction other than putting up some signs saying this is part of the trail systems, bicyclists turn here. It would be a way of establishing a county-wide set of links, recognizing this part of the trail system. Again, for economic development, it would be good to be able to say we’ve done that. That’s part of the concept. If we’re done with that topic, we have on the agenda the question of collective bargaining.

(Continued in Part 3)