Rice County delays County Road 20 reconstruction to 2028 amid debate over adding shared-use trail

Dennis Luby, representing Rice County Highway, told the County Board at the Feb. 3 Committee of the Whole work session that the County Road 20 reconstruction project is roughly 50% through phase 1 design and that the board needs to provide direction on whether to combine phase 1 and phase 2 and whether to include a shared-use trail.

Luby said combining the two phases into a single contract could reduce overall cost — he estimated a potential savings in the range of $300,000 to $500,000, after considering inflation and delivery timing — but that committing to a combined-build approach would likely delay phase 1 from 2027 into 2028. He also said he has observed clear public opposition to the trail portion of the project while road improvements themselves had broad support.

“We think we could save maybe 300 to $500,000 by combining one project in the two,” Luby said. “If you wanted to combine phase 1 and phase 2…that’d be a year delay on phase 1, but it would also deliver phase 2 a year earlier.”

Commissioners discussed trade-offs including construction staging to limit disruption across the project’s approximately 6.5 miles, maintenance obligations for trails, right-of-way impacts and the need for a countywide trail plan. Several commissioners supported postponing phase 1 to 2028 if the board wanted to combine phases and asked staff to return with options for whether the county should produce the trail plan internally or hire an outside consultant.

Luby said state funding opportunities exist for trails and noted that construction financing for the roadway (with or without a trail) typically comes from construction state aid and local option sales tax; he emphasized that county property taxes are not the usual funding source for roadway construction. He also said the highway fund’s regular operational revenues do not cover construction and that staff would prepare frequently asked questions for public distribution to clarify funding, right-of-way and maintenance issues.

Public commenters at the meeting strongly opposed the proposed trail and raised cost and drainage concerns. Francis Hahn told the board he had surveyed residents along the route and said none of them wanted the trail; he argued the path would eliminate front-yard trees, complicate farming operations and add maintenance obligations. Mick Kennedy reiterated an estimate that the county’s share could be about $650,000 beyond grant funding and questioned feasibility of costly structures such as tunnels at Highway 3 intersections. Ingrid Khan, a long-time homeowner, said recent flooding in 2024 left her roadside ditch deep and she worried a trail would alter drainage and increase flood risk on her property.

Those taxpayer-cost figures were claims by members of the public and were not verified in the session. Staff said grant and state-aid options exist and that the county’s construction funding typically comes from state aid and local-option sales tax rather than the property tax levy.

After discussion, Luby said he perceived a board consensus to move the County Road 20 project into 2028 and to return with consultant proposals and cost estimates for adding trail design to the roadway contract or for designing the roadway alone. He also said he would bring a proposed 10-year construction plan back to the board for approval to enable external funding requests and potential resolutions for state-level advocacy.

No formal vote was recorded on the project delay; commissioners instructed staff to develop options and return with cost, timeline and public-engagement plans.