Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trails topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs trail priorities; contentious long‑range corridor through private property to remain conceptual
Summary
Councilors reviewed proposed trail corridors, discussed filling network gaps (especially north of SR 92 and along 6000 West), and debated whether to show a long‑range corridor through private parcels — ultimately directing staff to treat that alignment as a low‑priority conceptual route rather than a near‑term commitment.
Staff presented a trails map layered by classification (regional trails such as the Murdock Canal, multi‑use neighborhood paths and on‑road segments) and asked the council which missing segments the city should prioritize. The presentation singled out several gaps north of SR 92 and identified potential corridors along the utility corridor, Dry Creek and 6000 West that could improve connectivity to the Murdoch Canal regional trail.
A recurring item was a long‑discussed alignment sometimes called the “Bronx River”‑style corridor or shown in previous documents as “Trail 4A.” Some councilors urged retaining the corridor conceptually on plan maps; others objected because the proposed alignment would cross numerous privately owned parcels and—given current state restrictions on eminent domain for trail purposes and likely neighborhood opposition—would be infeasible in the near term. “It’s not worth it,” one councilor said of committing to the corridor now; another suggested keeping it on maps only as a long‑range concept with low priority.
The council reached a common approach: show potential corridors and connections on the map for informational purposes but emphasize their conceptual, long‑range status. Staff said they will mark contentious private‑property corridors as low priority and add implementation language clarifying that such corridors require negotiation, property acquisition or future policy changes before any construction. The council also discussed near‑term priorities: completing missing segments that reduce “dead ends,” improving sidewalk and multi‑use path connections (for example, adding a multi‑use trail along 6000 West where feasible), and completing funded trail projects such as the Mitchell Hollow connection funded through MAG (the Mountainland Association of Governments).
