Draper City staff brought two design alternatives and construction estimates for a 12–13-property segment of the Phoebe Brown Trail and the council directed staff to proceed with the option that uses the full trail easement and clears private encroachments.

The trail segment sits between existing park connections and a canal; staff said completing it would close a key paved loop that links neighborhood hubs and regional trails. Brad Jensen, project manager for Parks and Recreation, presented two alternatives: Option A would use most of the existing 15-foot trail easement, keep the paved trail about 3 feet from the canal bank (avoiding a fence) and require removal of some private fences and minor yard encroachments; Option B would shift the trail toward the canal bank so several encroachments could remain but would require installing a fence along the bank and cost substantially more.

"Total construction cost estimate is about 550,000," Jensen said when describing the lower-cost alternative; staff later summarized total estimates near $600,000 for the full-easement option and $775,000 for the fence/shift alternative. Council members and staff noted the city currently has $350,000 budgeted in the CIP for the project. That leaves a shortfall: under the staff estimate the city would need roughly $250,000–$425,000 more depending on which option is chosen.

Council discussion focused on two linked issues: whether the canal-owner (the canal company) will permit a security/forklift gate along the canal and how to treat private encroachments into the city easement. Staff said the canal company favors installation of a fence or gated access because it permits maintenance access; the company’s recorded easement language also contains a plaque restricting certain uses, which staff said the canal company could manage. Multiple council members said allowing some residents to keep encroachments would risk unfairness, encourage further violations, and impose higher city costs. One council member framed the decision bluntly: either do the project fully and enforce easement limits, or do not build the trail.

On balance the council directed staff to proceed with Option A — the design that uses the full easement and requires removal or relocation of private encroachments — and asked staff to return with refined cost and funding options. Staff flagged a potential for litigation from property owners regardless of the chosen approach and said any fence requirement would be coordinated with the canal company.

The council asked staff to return with: a refined construction estimate, a proposed funding source (staff noted Park Impact Fees were available), a list of affected properties and required removals, and a timeline for next steps. No formal ordinance or appropriation was adopted at the meeting; the action was recorded as council direction to staff.

Ending: Staff will return to a future meeting with updated cost estimates and a funding recommendation; council members emphasized the need to treat similarly situated property owners equally if the project proceeds.