An ordinance and a resolution were passed by the Fairbanks Borough Assembly at its September 14 meeting. These are good changes that came from a spirit of compromise after a long, often contentious, process to get the update to the Fairbanks Comprehensive Trails Plan accepted.

Ordinance 2023-50

This codifies recommendations from the borough Platting Board.

• It allows the borough to brush trails, if requested, when a trail easement realignment is required. (Previously, the landowner was required to do this.)
• It waives the $400 final plat fee if a trail easement is required.
• It makes it easier for the borough administration to accept trail easement dedications at or below fair market value.

You can see the ordinance HERE.

Resolution 2023-37

This allows funds from the Public Community Trails Improvement Program (aka Trail-a-Year) to be used for acquiring trail easements.

See the resolution HERE.

More info

The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner has a story on the items, including some of the debate regarding amendments. See the story HERE.

And HERE is my pre-meeting post about these items, which includes links to other posts that provide background on how these came about.

The public will have a chance to comment on two trail-related items coming before the Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly in September. Both are expected to come before the Assembly at its regular meeting on Sept. 14.

• Ordinance 2023-50: This will codify recommendations from the borough Platting Board. You can read about those HERE. You can see the ordinance HERE.
• A resolution (not given a number yet): This would allow funds from the Public Community Trails Improvement Program (aka Trail-a-Year) to be used for acquiring trail easements.

These are reasonable changes that would benefit from support by the public. You can attend the meeting (virtually or in-person) and testify or contact Assembly members via email and/or phone before the meeting.

The following was written by Ruth Henry of the Copper Country Alliance. This is a complicated and controversial issue. I have posted it here for informational purposes. I am not necessarily endorsing this stance.

From Ruth:

Ripe blueberries under red dwarf birch in autumn, unimpaired views of the Amphitheater Mts., half-turned ptarmigan croaking from willow tops in spring, caribou trotting along a ridge top: these favorite Denali Highway memories and more belong to many Alaskans and visitors. The region’s values are priceless to those who go there, but the University of Alaska wants to put a price on some of that land.

Recent legislation allows the University to help fund its important work by selecting, acquiring, and then selling, leasing, or in some other way making money from 360,000 acres of Alaska land. It can “over-select” lands—up to 500,000 acres—which will then be whittled down to the 360,000 acres. These lands will come from lands which the state has selected through the Statehood Act. (It, too, over-selected.) The first batch of desired lands that UA submitted to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) includes a 7,000-acre block east of Tangle Lakes, mostly on the south side of the Denali Highway.

The University’s “possible development/monetization options” are “1) Remote recreation (e.g., hunting and guide permits)” and “2) Subdivision and sale.” The Tangle Lakes area is a longtime favorite of hunters, fishers, hikers, campers, birdwatchers, paddlers, and folks who just like to drive through, enjoying the scenery and the chance of seeing wildlife. Public lands are that wonderful American feature that allows people to pursue their hunting and recreation without having to pay for the privilege as they do in many other countries. If these 7,000 acres become private, will they be dotted with scenic “no trespassing” signs?

So, to repeat, the University is vital for higher education, the arts, and northern research, but it can find other lands that are less scenic, less important to wildlife, and less treasured by Alaskans. Right now is the most effective time to tell the University, DNR, and BLM how much the Denali Highway means to you…just the way it is. Please contact:

University of Alaska Land Management: Adrienne K. Stolpe, Director, 907-7866, akstolpe@alaska.edu and cc: lacy.hamner@alaska.gov 

On August 10 (tomorrow), the Fairbanks Borough Assembly will hold a public hearing on an ordinance that would improve access, including trail access, to the Chena Lake Recreation Area (CLRA).

If passed, Ordinance No. 2023-20-1B would appropriate $366,984 from the general fund to be used as a required match for the Chena Lake Bike/Ped Path Project. That amount is about 10 percent of the total cost of the project. You can see the ordinance HERE.

This project would construct a second entrance into CLRA via Plack Road providing improved and direct access to the rec area for locals and non-local visitors. It would include a path, a boat dock, and a parking area, including snowmachine loading ramp. (See graphics below.) This project would encourage people to do a variety of activities, non-motorized in summer, multi-use motorized in winter. This is a great way to help people get outside, and live healthier lives. Hopefully, local residents would have to drive less to access the recreation area.

If you support this project, as I do, please let the Assembly know. You can attend the meeting (virtually or in-person) and testify, or contact Assembly members via email and/or phone. (The ordinance is one of the first items on the agenda, so it should be dealt with relatively early in the meeting.)

The Fairbanks Borough Planning Commission will deal with two items on Tuesday, Aug 8, that would have an impact on trails. One has an open public hearing, while the other has a limited public hearing.

For both issues, you can always contact Planning Commission members by phone or email. Find their contact information under “Members and Contact Information” HERE. You can see the meeting agenda HERE.

Proposed Creamer’s Trailhead off Farmer’s Loop

I wrote about this in the recent Interior Trails Newsletter. You can see the larger story HERE.

The Interior Alaska Land Trust is proposing to build a trailhead, with parking, just off Farmer’s Loop Road that would provide access to Creamer’s Field Migratory Wildlife Refuge. To do that, the trust needs a conditional use permit that must be approved by the Planning Commission.

This is a quasi-judicial hearing and so public testimony is limited. Basically, if you don’t already know about it, you probably can’t testify. But you can check under “Testify on A Quasi-Judicial Hearing Agenda Item” on this PAGE. And you can always let Planning Commission members know how you feel (though I’ve been told even that might not be allowed). (See second paragraph above for contact information.)

There have been rumblings that some people feel the trailhead and proposed trails would have negative impacts on wildlife habitats. Others believe the improvements would add an important access point to the refuge without undue harm to wildlife.

Ordinance Would Damage Comprehensive Planning

Ordinance 2023-30, submitted by Assemblywoman Barbara Haney, would drastically change comprehensive planning in the borough. It will have an open public hearing. If you want to comment on it and can’t make the meeting, you can always let Planning Commission members know how you feel. (See second paragraph above for contact information.)

This ordinance would gut the Fairbanks borough comprehensive planning process. I urge people to speak out against it.

A key part of the ordinance is a single line that would allow property owners to opt out of planning documents for anything that is to be “dedicated for public purposes, such as a park, trail or road.”

Other parts of the ordinance would change how affected landowners would be contacted and would require the borough to pay for required easements, though wording in the ordinance is unclear as to whether payment would be for just trail easements or trail and road easements. (Read the proposed ordinance HERE.)

But let’s consider that key opt-out line. I am uncertain if property owners can opt out at any time or only when a new plan is being adopted. In any case, the proposed ordinance would turn any comprehensive plan into an UN-comprehensive plan. Theoretically, all landowners could opt out, making the planning process useless. Even if some opt in, the plan would be patchwork, defeating the concept of a comprehensive plan.

The Fairbanks Comprehensive Trail Plan update recently passed, so it’s possible it may be protected. However, this ordinance could affect future updates. The Fairbanks Comprehensive Roads Plan, which is in process and has not yet been adopted, would definitely be affected.

I know Assemblywoman Haney is trying to respond to concerns by property owners who feel they shouldn’t be told what to do with their property or who feel they haven’t been properly contacted about the roads plan or the recently passed trails plan. I appreciate Assemblywoman Haney’s concern, but her solution does far too much damage.

I believe Assemblywoman Haney is trying to address problems with small private property owners, but her solution will affect ALL property owners in the borough. The largest landholders are public or semi-public agencies such as the State of Alaska, the federal government, the University of Alaska, and the Mental Health Trust.

From a trails aspect, consider what would happen if all landowners could opt out of a comprehensive trails plan. Trails that the public had been using for years, including those on public lands, could suddenly become off limits. Or sections in the middle of those trails could become off limits.

It’s also about local control. Under current laws, landowners must follow plans set forth by Fairbanksans, both the government officials and all the citizens who have participated in the public process. If we let all landowners opt out of comprehensive plans, we also turn over local control to the heads of agencies and corporations who live outside of Fairbanks.

I feel less strongly about the other provisions of the ordinance, but I still have strong concerns about them. One aspect would require that the borough pay for dedicated easements required by the comprehensive plans. According to the Planning Department people have not complained about not getting paid for easements. Should we start spending borough funds for something that has not been a problem? Is that fiscally responsible?

Other provisions would require first class mailings instead of postcards and would increase the scope of some mailings. Both would increase borough costs. A few people have claimed they have not had sufficient notice, but I don’t believe it is a widespread problem. Is that a reason to increase costs for everyone in the borough? I might be convinced, but I’m skeptical.

In the end, I feel this ordinance has too many flaws. I wish I could support it, because I know Assemblywoman Haney has good intentions, but I can’t. Please either attend the Planning Commission meeting or let the commission members know you oppose this ordinance. (See second paragraph above for contact information.)

The Planning Department is also recommending denial of the ordinance. Read the department report HERE.