Developer seeks crossing of Centennial Trail; commissioners debate safety, maintenance and annexation

Scott Poorman, representing Rose of Sharon Enterprises Inc., asked the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners for permission to create a vehicle crossing across the Centennial Trail in Post Falls as part of a city‑approved subdivision. The two narrow parcels at issue lie between the Centennial Trail and Interstate 90 and have been annexed into the City of Post Falls with R‑1 zoning allowing up to five units per acre, Poorman said.

Poorman said the crossing would carry a gated secondary road from Lundy Boulevard across the trail into the subdivision; the gate would be closed but not locked for general access, and the crossing design would use a raised “tabletop” to slow vehicles and provide a smooth transition for trail users. He said the city is acquiring a small parcel from the developer to permit access and that Friends of the Trail were not opposed to the crossing.

Commissioners asked several questions about safety and long‑term maintenance. One commissioner noted dangerous undertows and drownings in the nearby river and urged that any trail access be designed with safety in mind. County commissioners expressed concern that the county currently maintains portions of the trail while city impact fees and annexation policies leave maintenance funding unclear. One commissioner suggested that Post Falls annex the entire stretch of trail within city limits so the city would assume maintenance responsibility rather than the county.

Poorman and city staff said the crossing is intended primarily as emergency ingress/egress and occasional local use (for example, weekly garbage pickup), and Poorman said if the county required emergency‑only locked access the developer could accommodate a locked gate with aux‑box access for fire and EMS. County counsel (Mr. Braden) said an easement could contain conditions and could terminate if conditions are not satisfied; commissioners noted that termination would reduce the utility of an emergency access but that a locked gate with authorized access remains feasible.

No formal vote was taken. County staff said they would report back to city counterparts to pursue solutions, including whether the city would accept ownership or maintenance responsibility for that section of trail or whether a locked gate with emergency‑only access could meet county conditions.

The discussion included a request that future easement requests explicitly state maintenance responsibilities and costs and that any crossing design include signage and traffic control to ensure trail user safety.