Council postpones action on donation of trail property after neighbors raise proximity concerns

Midway City Council considered Resolution 2025-21, which would accept a charitable donation of land from Haumea Development LLC (Tyson Miller) intended to complete a north–south segment of the city’s trail master plan. Staff said the owner is prepared to deed the property to the city so the trail can connect existing segments; the owner sought council approval of the appraised value to support a tax deduction.

Staff presentation and rationale: Paul (city staff) and Michael (planning) explained that Miller does not expect to develop the property in the near term and is willing to deed the parcel to the city so the city can finish a trail connection between an existing northern trail and an existing southern trail. Staff said the gift would provide earlier connectivity to the trail network without the city paying for land. Michael noted that future subdivisions could reconfigure exact trail location and that donations of fee interest can make trail delivery sooner than waiting for a development that would be required to provide a trail later.

Neighbor concerns: Carl Berg (identifying himself in public comment with his address) said the proposed trail alignment would pass very close to his home — about 10 feet from his property line — and called that proximity “a very bad precedent.” He said the city has previously required larger setbacks for other land uses and asked whether the city should accept a trail easement or require a wider corridor to protect adjacent homeowners. Carl also raised the risk that a future adjacent owner could install a privacy fence that would create a narrow, tunnel-like corridor adjacent to the trail.

Staff responses and legal/administrative points: Michael confirmed the donation would be fee interest (a deed) not merely an easement. Staff said the donor pursued an appraisal to establish the donation value for IRS purposes. Michael and other staff noted that if the property later developed, the city and developer could negotiate minor adjustments to the trail alignment; Council asked whether acceptance of the deed would limit the city’s future negotiating position. Staff replied that a deed gives the city ownership now but that adjustments could still occur later through negotiated allotment or relocation if a development application made a different alignment preferable.

Council discussion and procedural outcome: Council members expressed support for trails as a public amenity, noted the city’s master-trail plan shows a needed north–south connection, and also acknowledged the neighbor’s concerns about proximity and potential fence/tunnel outcomes. Several members suggested staff should seek further conversation with the donor and the adjacent property owner to explore alternatives (for example, a wider public corridor, landscaping buffers, or different trail routing) or to secure a larger easement (staff discussed 12-foot versus 20-foot width possibilities). Council moved to continue the resolution to allow staff to reopen discussions with the property owner and adjacent neighbors; the motion to continue passed in a roll-call vote.

What it means: By continuing the resolution, council left open the possibility of accepting the donation after further negotiation on corridor width, trail placement and mitigation measures to address adjacent homeowners’ privacy and safety concerns. Staff said the gift, if accepted, would provide an early, low-cost way to complete the master trail connection but also noted that accepting deeded land limits some future negotiation power and could lock in an alignment without additional protections unless those are negotiated up-front.

Ending: Council directed staff to re-engage the donor and affected neighbors, consider options including a wider dedicate corridor or temporary agricultural fencing until development occurs, and return with proposed compromises. The resolution was not adopted at the meeting; the item was continued for further staff negotiations.