Written comments on the proposal will be accepted until Jan. 21, which also is the deadline for letters of interest from people willing to serve on the proposed district’s three-member board.
Funding for future maintenance of the many trails being developed has long been a major concern among council members. The proposal for the new district puts these trails under its purview to ensure resources for their maintenance.
County councilman Gene Ciarus expressed concerns about defining the construction and improvement of commuter trails, or the maintenance of paved public trails, as transportation. “They are recreation by definition,” he said as he suggested assigning responsibility for trails to the Grand County Special Service Recreation District.
Council chairman Bob Greenberg expressed concern about advice from Grand County Attorney Happy Morgan that a section intended to assure coordination between the district and the council must be removed because it undermines the independence of the district from the council as required by state code.
That language states that because transportation projects would be owned by the county, “the district and the council shall approve project agreements for each project ... undertaken by the district.” In a memo to the council, Grand County Council Administrator Shawn Warnke wrote that the language would be dropped from the final resolution following the county attorney’s advice.
Greenberg questioned the wisdom of allowing a non-elected board so much authority over decisions that affect all county residents.
“I have real concern about the proposal to drop the language,” he said, calling it a safeguard to prevent the new district from following the path of a district that was established in the early 1990s to construct the Book Cliffs highway.
During last year’s discussion of how to set up this new district then-councilman Jerry McNeely often recalled how the dissolution of that road district by the newly formed county council resulted in a recall election for six of the seven members of the council. The recall failed.
One of the two residents who spoke during Tuesday’s public hearing identified herself only as Rita. She said she objected to restricting “transportation” to include only motor vehicles.
“I think encouraging bicycling, walking, whatever, as transportation ... is highly beneficial for individuals, the community ... our health, everything. I do think [bicycling] is transportation. It is how I got here. It is how I’ll get home,” she said.
The other speaker was Sandy Freethey of the Trail Mix Committee. She told council members that as more and more paved trails are being developed the county needs to ensure resources are made available to maintain them.
The proposed resolution states the district’s responsibilities will include construction of roads, resurfacing old roads with asphalt, any project big enough to require the county to bid it out, and replacement and construction of bridges and culverts.
Construction and improvement of commuter trails that link Spanish Valley with Moab City, and maintenance of paved public trails are also included.
The district will not be allowed to construct roads or trails for which the county collects impact fees from developers. Those will remain responsibility of the county roads department.