Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public split over proposed County Road 20 multi-use trail as board hears 10-year transportation plan
Summary
A lengthy public hearing on Rice County's 10-year transportation plan focused on whether to add a multi-use bike and pedestrian trail to a County Road 20 reconstruction. Supporters cited safety, connectivity and economic benefits; nearby rural residents and farmers warned of land takings, maintenance and safety concerns. No vote was taken; the board will consider action in February.
Rice County commissioners heard more than an hour of public comment on Jan. 13 during a required public hearing on the county's 10-year Transportation Improvement Plan, focusing on a proposed multi-use trail paired with reconstruction of County Road 20.
Dennis, the county highway engineer, told the board the plan lists 54 projects totaling about $115,000,000 and is funded by a mix of state aid, local-option sales tax revenue, bridge funds and partnership dollars. "This 10 year plan has 54 projects identified, about a $115,000,000 worth of total investment," he said, summarizing the scope and funding sources for the board.
Much of the public hearing centered on whether the County Road 20 reconstruction should include an off-road, multi-use path. Supporters—business and tourism representatives and regional trail advocates—said the trail would improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, connect communities and generate economic activity. Jane Barthold of the Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce told commissioners that, while Duluth's context differs, "estimated 36,000,000 to $48,000,000 annually are what the biking community brings to the Duluth area," offered as an example of a trail-linked economic lift. Ben Martig, Northfield's city administrator, said coordinating trail construction with a road project is financially sensible and can close gaps in a regional network.
Opponents—many living along Canon City Boulevard and other County Road 20 segments—raised concerns about property takings, loss of rural character, maintenance burdens and safety where slopes and ditches are steep. Farmer and landowner Sue Hollinger said she had worked land into no-till production and objected to losing two acres for the expansion; she asked rhetorically, "What does the bike path generate for money for the county?" Other speakers warned that utilities, existing driveways and graveled ditches would be disrupted and that snow storage and sight-line concerns would make life harder for residents.
Speakers also urged middle-ground design responses: several commenters asked whether the trail could be placed closer to the road, whether shoulders could be widened to serve both bikes and farm equipment, and whether design changes or guardrails could reduce risks in hilly sections.
The board did not vote on the plan or the County Road 20 trail component at the Jan. 13 meeting. Chair opened and closed the hearing and thanked participants; staff said the board will take the public record into account and revisit the Transportation Improvement Plan at a February meeting when commissioners and staff will be present to consider action.
