If two projects are successful, people will have a new way to access Caribou Lakes in the Creamer’s Field Migratory Wildlife Refuge.

The Interior Alaska Land Trust (IALT) plans to build a trailhead, with parking, just off Farmer’s Loop Road. The Interior Trails and Preservation Coalition (ITPC) has submitted a plan for a project to improve trails from that trailhead to the lakes.

The IALT has submitted a conditional use permit to the Fairbanks North Star Borough for the parking lot. As part of the process for the permit, there will be a public comment period and a meeting. Neither has yet been scheduled.

“Our goals for the trailhead are to improve access and to support existing usage patterns (primarily winter access) and to support any improvements to access that the Refuge decides to make to its trail system,” IALT President Owen Guthrie wrote in an email.

A trailhead already exists in the area, but it is small, poorly marked, and awkwardly located. It holds 5-6 cars and is across Farmer’s Loop from Shuros Drive. People using that parking lot must cross a driveway to access the trailhead.

“Also, the trail descends steeply down the side of the driveway and then makes a hard right turn in a very tight spot,” Guthrie wrote. “It is very difficult for skiers (especially novice skiers) to make that turn among the trees.”

The new parking lot would hold more cars (10-12) and users would have direct and better access to the trailhead.

The ITPC hopes to construct a non-motorized trail, with several branches, that would lead from the new trailhead to five lakes in the area. The group has submitted its proposal to the refuge arguing that it would improve access and protect habitat.

“There are well used existing trails in the area, but they are difficult to use due to boggy conditions, thick brush, steep banks, tussocks, etc.,” the proposal states. “The trails braid with people looking for an easier route. Having a single well-defined trail with signs asking people to stay on the trail will better protect the habitat.”

The ITPC cites a portion of the 1993 refuge management plan that calls for building “an access trail into Caribou Lakes from Farmer’s Loop Road.”

The ITPC plan would also implement steps to help protect birds that nest in the lakes. According to the plan, “signs would be placed where social trails continue into nesting habitat. Possible sign wording; CLOSED DURING NESTING SEASON MAY 1 – JULY 1.”

Also, pipe bollards would be installed at the trailhead to prevent ATVs from accessing the trail. According to ITPC President Stan Justice, the bollards should allow most snowmachines to use the trail. The state Department of Fish and Game, which manages the refuge, typically issues five-year permits for the public to use motorized vehicles in the refuge in winter. (You can see a copy of the most recent permit here: https://tinyurl.com/3abxeu6t.)

The plan calls for the “initial primary connector trail to Reindeer Lake” to be brushed, and then landscape fabric put down with gravel placed on top of that.

“The planned trails will perhaps take many years to construct, and some parts may not get developed beyond cutting of brush,” according to the proposal.

This map is strictly a proposal, NOT a map of existing trails. Please do not use this as a guide to finding trails to these lakes.

Last night, the Fairbanks Assembly passed the Comprehensive Trail Plan update – almost fully intact and by a 7-2 vote!

A last-minute compromise deal devised by Assemblyman Aaron Lojewski, and then refined by Mayor Bryce Ward and his staff, assuaged most of the private property concerns of several Assembly members. In the end, only Assembly members Barbara Haney and Brett Rotermund voted against the plan update. And during comments at the end of the meeting, Assemblyman Rotermund said he was pleased to see the compromise work.

“Even though I stuck to my ‘no’ vote, I’m pretty happy this thing passed,” he said.

To get the compromise, the plan update was changed in two significant ways.

• The definition of C trails was changed so that it now gives borough staff more latitude to expend resources on those trails.
• Several trails new to the plan were reclassified from A and B trails to C trails.

(For those interested, I’ll go into the drama of the meeting later in this post. And for another point of view on the meeting, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Reporter Jack Barnwell has a good story on it HERE.)

Here are the details of the compromise:

CATEGORY C TRAILS

The Trails Plan update has three categories of trails:

• A: Federal and State Recreational Trail Systems (Trails that cross “primarily state and federal lands. Primary management authority and maintenance responsibility for these trails are of the agency having authority over the land.”)
• B: Fairbanks North Star Borough Recreational Trail Systems (Trails that the borough has “primary management authority and responsibility over…once legal public access to each is fully established.”
• C: Neighborhood Recreational Trail Systems (Trails “which may be used primarily by a local neighborhood with less benefit to the community at large.”)

Until last night, the original Trails Plan and this Trails Plan update steered borough staff away from expending much in the way of borough resources on category C trails, especially those that don’t have public access. But new wording has now been added to the category C description that says “FNSB resources may be allocated to pursue and acquire public access where needed.”

RECLASSIFIED TRAILS

The added wording is important because the Assembly also reclassified several trails from the A and B categories to the C category. All are trails new to the plan (in other words, not also included in the old plan) that cross at least one parcel of private property. Now borough staff can pursue getting voluntary easements from those private property owners. If all are obtained for one of the trails and the remaining portion of that trail is on public land, the Assembly could then choose to reclassify the trail as an A or B trail. In explaining his amendment, Assemblyman Lojewski encouraged the administration to do just that.

The trails that were reclassified are as follows (with their previous categories):

• I-A15 Smallwood Creek Loop
• I-A17 Far Mountain Traverse
• I-A23 Salcha River Trail
• I-B27 Pearl Creek Commuter Trail
• I-B30 Haines – Fairbanks Pipeline
• I-B32 Social Security Mine Trail
• I-B33 Ester Dome Trail

Those are now all C category trails. (All can be found on pages 61 to 63 of the version of the Trails Plan update in the Assembly PACKET from the meeting (green page numbers 44-46).

One other trail, I-BR16 Birch Hill to Steese Highway, is new to the plan and crosses at least one private property parcel. However, Assemblyman Lojewski left that one off the list. That trail is critical to creating a trail connection between Birch Hill Recreation Area and the Creamer’s Field-ADMA trails. There were a couple of good reasons for leaving it off the list so that it continues to get stronger protections in the trail plan.

• The Assembly recently passed a resolution encouraging the state Department of Transportation to build a tunnel underpass under the Steese Highway for that trail connection. (See my pre-meeting post on that story HERE.)
• Bryant Wright, former borough Trails Coordinator, assured the Assembly that the property owner had been contacted and was interested exploring the option of allowing the trail. (I believe that is the property owner of the Birch Hill Cemetery.)
• Wright had earlier said that federal funding for the tunnel could be in danger if the trail was not included in the plan.

Assemblyman Lojewski decided to err on the side of caution and keep full protections for that trail. And the Assembly agreed. That’s a big win for proponents of that trail connection and tunnel.

ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE

So, that’s the meat of what happened. Most of the skeptical Assembly members were willing to let stand the easement protections for existing trails. After all, if they had voted down the trail plan update, the original trail plan would have still been in effect and voting down the trail plan update would not have changed the trail easement protections in Title 17.

Overall, I think this is a good deal, especially considering the strong likelihood the whole trails plan update would have been voted down. I was worried that the Birch Hill to Steese Highway Trail would have to be sacrificed for the overall plan, so I was pleased when Assemblyman Lojewski did not include it in the list of reclassified trails, and no one objected. Kudos to those skeptical Assembly members for letting that stand.

MEETING DRAMA

Assembly meetings of late are often dramatic, but it has usually been due to divisiveness. And this one started out that way.

But this time there was almost no one in the audience. The Trails Plan update had been before the Assembly in some form several times. And there was no public comment since comment had already been taken on this issue and the meeting was a continuation of the January 8 meeting, so there was no general comment period. The lack of an audience concerned me a bit, but in the end, it didn’t seem to matter. The Assembly had heard from the public plenty on this issue.

As debate started and continued, Assembly members fell into the two camps they have been in:

• Assemblymembers Kristen Kelly, Mindy O’Neall, Savannah Fletcher, and David Guttenberg supported the Trail Plan update. They feel it protects private property rights as it was written and that the extensive public process and many comments in favor of it showed the plan update had broad public support.
• Assemblymembers Tammy Wilson, Barbara Haney, Jimi Cash, and Brett Rotermund didn’t feel the Trail Plan update did enough to protect private property rights. In particular, they haven’t liked that category A and B trails on the plan are required to be given an easement during the subdivision process on any lands, public or private. (Those protections are outlined in Title 17. See my blog POST about an earlier attempt to change that.)
• I viewed Assemblyman Lojewski as the swing vote, but he has largely sided with Wilson, Haney, Cash and Rotermund. He was quiet for the first part of the meeting, but he is the presiding officer, so he must hand the gavel over to Assemblyman Cash, the deputy presiding officer, if he wants to speak. He didn’t do that for a long time.

But there were several things that happened over the course of the more-than-three-hour meeting that I think helped set the tone for the compromise that was to come.

The Assembly had many questions for borough staff and for Platting Board Chairman Randy Pitney. The Platting Board, in response to a request by the Assembly, had earlier come up with five RECOMMENDATIONS for the Assembly to change the Trail Plan update. The Assembly discussed the Platting Board recommendations but did not act on them. Most had to be written as separate ordinances and will come before the Assembly later.

The skeptical Assembly members seemed to like the Platting Board recommendations but said the recommendations didn’t fully address their concerns about private property. Pitney was supportive of the Platting Board’s recommendations and respectful to all the Assembly members. He was not combative and said he respected the concerns of the skeptical Assembly members. The Assembly really seemed to appreciate his comments and the work of the Platting Board.

The Assembly also questioned former Trails Coordinator Wright on several aspects of the plan update. Wright answered the questions as best he could and repeatedly pointed out that many changes in the plan would help protect private property either by moving trails from private property to nearby public property or by realigning trails so that they are more sustainable and less likely to cause problems such as erosion. Mayor Ward and Assemblyman Guttenberg pointed that out, too. I think that helped.

Mayor Ward also avoided being combative. He defended the process, the plan, and the borough staff, but he said he understood the competing philosophies on the Assembly and respected them. He said he and the administration would work with whatever the Assembly decided. That also helped.

But despite all that, as the debate wore on, I didn’t see any Assembly members budging. I thought there were two possible outcomes:

• 1) the Trails Plan update would be voted down, or
• 2) the update would be delayed again to deal with the Platting Board recommendations. In fact, Assemblywoman Fletcher tried to get a vote on the Trails Plan update postponed, but that amendment failed.

Finally, Assemblyman Lojewski turned the gavel over to Assemblyman Cash. We would finally get to hear his thoughts. That’s when he proposed his compromise. It took him a while to explain what he was proposing and – during a couple of short recesses – to work with Mayor Ward and borough staff to refine the proposal. (At first, Lojewski suggested a whole new category of trail in the plan, but finally the idea to tweak the definition of C category trails came about.)

As this was happening, the other Assembly members seemed curious and a bit contemplative. Nobody slammed the proposal outright or jumped on board right away. That was a good sign. I thought it might work.

Assemblywoman Fletcher did try to get one of the trails, I-B30 Haines – Fairbanks Pipeline trail, removed from the list of trails being moved from A or B trails to C trails. She explained that most of that proposed trail ran across Mental Health Trust land and that the Trust would be highly unlikely to grant an easement without being required to. However, the proposed trail, which is near Harding Lake, also runs across a couple of small private lots. Even if the skeptical Assembly members agreed with Fletcher’s argument about the Trust, I didn’t think they were willing to have even one small private property parcel involved. They weren’t. Assemblyman Lojewski said the staff could work to get voluntary easements on the small private property parcels. If that was done, then the Assembly could vote to return the proposed trail to category B. Assemblywoman Fletcher’s amendment failed.

There were some questions and concerns about the impact the changes might have on other trails and/or property, especially changing the definition of C trails so that borough staff “may pursue and acquire public access where needed.” But ultimately no one – Assembly members, mayor or staff – found any big concerns.

From comments Assembly members were making and the way votes were coming down on amendments, it seemed clear that enough members probably would be willing to pass the Trail Plan update if the changes passed. And while the changes would have a big impact on some proposed trails, it would retain protections for existing trails. And even the proposed trails were not removed from the plan. Nor were left to languish without the possibility of staff being able to work on them, since the other part of Assemblyman Lojewski’s plan allowed staff to work on getting public access for C trails.

HAPPY ENDING

At 8:50 pm, more than three hours after the meeting started (and seven months since the Trails Plan update was first postponed), the Assembly voted to pass the amended plan. Everyone seemed relieved and generally happy with the outcome. A short time later, during Assembly comments at the end of the meeting, most Assembly members made some sort of positive comment about the plan update, the vote, the process, and/or the staff work on it. And after the meeting there were a lot of smiles and congratulations going around. It was nice to see a good compromise on this contentious issue.

Kudos to Assemblyman Lojewski for coming up with the idea and to everyone who stayed reasonable and respectful during the process. I think both were needed to come up with this compromise.

Fairbanks trail advocates must again speak up in support of the Comprehensive Trails Plan update. Even if you have commented before, the Assembly needs to know this is still important to you.

Here are a couple of options on what to say:

• You support the Trails Plan and want to see the Assembly pass it in its current form
• You support the Trails Plan and support the Platting Board recommendations (see more info below)

You could also encourage the Assembly NOT to make drastic sweeping changes to the borough code in an attempt to protect private property rights (see more info below).

WAYS TO COMMENT

You can comment to the Assembly via email or phone. The contact page is HERE.

——

That was the short and sweet version. Here are more details.

DELAYED VOTE

The Trails Plan update was to have been dealt with at the June 8 Borough Assembly meeting, but testimony and debate on the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan took the meeting well past midnight. All remaining items from the meeting, including the Trails Plan, were automatically moved to a June 20 continuation of the meeting.

On the up side, the Trails Plan will be one of the first things to be addressed at the meeting. See the agenda HERE.

However, there’s no guarantee of the outcome. The Trails Plan update might be passed, it might be defeated, or action on it might be delayed again. That’s why people need to comment.

BUT…only via phone calls and emails. There will be no opportunity to comment at the meeting. A public hearing on the ordinance was already held and since this is a meeting continuation, there will be no time for general citizen comments before the ordinance is addressed. However, you can still come and watch the Assembly debate the ordinance and possibly vote on it. The meeting is scheduled to start at 5:30pm, June 20. You can also listen to the Assembly meeting via Zoom, live webcast, or KUAC radio. Find out how HERE.

WAYS TO COMMENT

Comment to the Assembly via email or phone. The contact page is HERE.

PLATTING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

At the June 20 meeting, the Assembly will address recommendations from the Platting Board. I wrote about these in this POST. I support these recommendations. It may be that these recommendations are enough to convince a majority of the Assembly to vote for the Trails Plan update. Maybe not. That’s why your voice is needed. If you support these recommendations, let the Assembly know.

DANGERS OF DRASTIC CHANGES TO BOROUGH CODE

Several of Assembly members have said they are concerned that current laws do not protect private property owners enough. I disagree. I think private property owners have plenty of protections under current law. I wrote about their concerns and my response HERE.

Because of their concerns about private property rights, some Assembly members earlier tried to pass a change that would have gotten rid of the trail easement requirement in Title 17, the borough’s subdivision law (again, see that previous post HERE). Thankfully, Mayor Bryce Ward threatened a veto and the effort failed.

I completely oppose changing Title 17 so drastically, especially because it would affect ALL landowners in the borough, that includes the state and federal governments and corporate landowners. Even the borough government. Combined, these entities own thousands of acres of land in the borough. If that aspect of Title 17 is changed, none of the entities would have to give trail easements when subdividing. Trail advocates would only be able to encourage or beg these entities to give easements. As a result, we could lose access to trails we have used for decades.

Local law is the only way we can guarantee that trails running across large tracts of land public land are given an easement if the land is subdivided. Or large tracts of land owned by semi-public corporations, such as the University of Alaska and Mental Health Trust. Many trails running across that land were used by the public long before those lands were given to those entities.

I hope all the Assembly members realize how damaging such sweeping changes can be to the borough, but the effort to change Title 17 might come up again. That’s another reason to let the Assembly know you support the Trail Plan and the status quo.

GOOD INTENTIONS BUT SEVERE CONSEQUENCES

Assemblywoman Barbara Haney recently introduced an ordinance, 2023-30, that would allow property owners to opt out of certain parts of the borough’s Comprehensive Plan, such as the Trails Plan. I believe her efforts, and the earlier attempts to change Title 17, are well intentioned. The Assembly members who support these efforts are worried about small private landowners being steamrolled by the Borough government. Unfortunately, these efforts would affect ALL landowners, even public agencies, like the State of Alaska. Without the power of local law, our Fairbanks borough becomes the little guy in danger of being steamrolled.

COMPROMISE SO THAT WE KEEP LOCAL CONTROL

In an effort to find compromise, I have suggested working with the idea of variances. I wrote about that in my last blog post HERE. Variances allow our local boards – Platting Board, Planning Commission, and Assembly – to lift requirements from Title 17 or the Comprehensive Plan on a case-by-case basis. By using variances, the power to lift those requirements would be in the hands of local Fairbanksans, not in the hands of agency directors or corporate CEOs, the vast majority of whom do not live in Fairbanks. This boils down to local control. Do we local Fairbanksans keep the ability to make decisions that affect our lives, such as whether to keep access to a trail we have used for decades, or do we give that control to out-of-town directors and CEOs?

Since I wrote my last post, I have learned more about variances to Title 17. There is an entire section of the code – 17.64 – dealing with variances. (See the whole Title 17 HERE.)

Here are the parts of 17.64 that would be relevant to trails.

The Platting Board may vary or modify requirements of this title if the variance request meets the criteria set forth below and the subdivision, with the variance, can be developed consistent with public welfare and safety:

2. The requirement is impractical or unnecessary due to specific circumstances or conditions of the subdivision or surrounding development.

So, if granting a trail easement during a subdivision is “impractical or unnecessary,” then a landowner can ask for a variance and, if the Platting Board is convinced, the board can grant that variance. (All decisions by the Platting Board can be appealed to the Assembly.)

TRAILS EASEMENT REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM

A variance from the trail easement requirement has been asked for – and granted – just once. It was done in 2020 regarding a subdivision of University of Alaska land, some of which was eventually included in Creamer’s Field Wildlife Refuge.

It needs to be noted that borough staff have worked with many other cases of subdivisions that involved trails on the Trails Plan and the staff have been able to work with landowners over any issues. Overall, the easement requirement for trails in the Trails Plan has NOT BEEN A PROBLEM.

Still, if the Platting Board recommendations are not enough for some Assembly members, then maybe some tweaking regarding variances is in order. It could be small, such as making sure that in the trail easement portion of the borough code there is a clear reference that variances can be asked for.

Or it might be larger, such as adding language to a particular section of code. For example, maybe adding language to the section about trail easements so that it says a variance may also be applied for if granting a trail easement creates an “undue burden” on the landowner. Then it would be up to the Platting Board to decide on a case-by-case basis, and its decision could be appealed to the Assembly. Making a change like that makes me a bit nervous. Surely, government agencies and corporations would look at that and ponder whether to use it to their own interest. But compromise usually requires some risk. A change like that would at least still allow Fairbanksans to set the terms with the huge government and corporate landowners.

LOCAL CONTROL

Whatever we do, I firmly believe we must retain local control. Any significant changes made to borough code affects ALL landowners. If we make such changes, we lose our power over the biggest landowners in the borough, including public agencies and semi-public corporations, which own thousands of acres in the borough. In this respect, they are the big guys and the borough is the little guy.

Getting rid of certain aspects of our local laws means those huge landowners get to decide things like whether to respect the public’s right to use a trail that has been used for decades. But if we instead rely on variances, then local Fairbanks citizens – members of the Platting Board, the Planning Commission, and the Assembly – get to make those decisions.

MAKE SURE TO COMMENT

If you have read this far, I hope you understand the need to comment now, even if you have already commented before.

Fairbanks trail advocates again need to speak up in support of the Comprehensive Trails Plan update this week.

The Fairbanks Borough Assembly will be dealing with the plan at its Thursday, June 8, meeting. (Unfortunately, another controversial topic, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, will be addressed at the same meeting and is on the agenda right before the Trails Plan. I suspect it will be a long meeting.) See the agenda HERE.

TESTIFYING ORALLY

While there will be no public hearing specifically for the Trails Plan, people can comment during the Citizen’s Comment section at the beginning of the meeting. However, be aware that that comment period recesses at 6:50pm and doesn’t start again until later in the meeting, which will be after the Trails Plan is dealt with. So, if you want to speak get signed up early. You can testify in person or by phone. Find out how HERE. (That page also gives information on how to listen to the Assembly meeting via Zoom, live webcast, or KUAC radio.)

OTHER WAYS TO COMMENT

You can also comment to the Assembly via email or phone. The contact page is HERE. If you don’t plan to attend the meeting, please do this.

PLATTING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

What’s new this time are recommendations from the Platting Board. In February, the Assembly referred the plan to the Platting Board with the instructions to “provide at least three alternative ways of connecting A and B trails without forcing landowners to give up their property through the platting process.” (The assembly also wanted a better map that showed trails and property lines, but that was not a controversial topic.)

The borough administration came up with several recommendations, which the Platting Board approved and forwarded to the Assembly. See my post about that HERE.

TRAIL ADVOCATES SHOULD SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS

I believe trail advocates should support the recommendations forwarded by the Platting Board. I don’t believe any are particularly controversial. I think the Assembly will support them, but if you support them – and passage of the trail plan update in general – please let the Assembly know.

Unfortunately, I don’t think a majority of the Assembly will believe the recommendations go far enough to satisfy their concerns about protecting property rights. I wrote about their concerns in this POST.

A POSSIBLE COMPROMISE?

I have been pondering this problem for quite a while. I have come up with a possible compromise solution. Below is an email I sent to the Assembly earlier today. I am unsure if people will think my proposal lacks any real substance and doesn’t change the current law or if people will think it goes too far in giving the Platting Board power to grant a variance. In the end, I’m not sure it would change anything regarding the powers of the Platting Board. But I’m just trying to find a compromise solution that would allow the Assembly to pass the Trails Plan update while still protecting both the rights of trail users and private property owners.

Anyway, take a look and see what you think.

Dear Assembly Members,

I know you have a tough meeting coming up on June 8. I don’t envy you. Thank you very much for serving.

One of the issues before you will again be the Comprehensive Trails Plan with the recommendations from the Platting Board. I like the recommendations. I think most of you will agree with them or at least most of them. But I am confident many of you do not believe the recommendations go far enough to address your concerns.

I have been pondering this for quite a while and I may have a possible compromise solution, though I don’t know how viable it is. Before I give you my suggestion, let me explain my reasoning.

TITLE 17

I think many of you still have concerns about Title 17 and the requirement for landowners to give an easement for trails in the Trail Plan when subdividing land. Assemblywoman Wilson brought this up at the Platting Board meeting. While there, she again brought up the situation of a landowning couple wanting to subdivide land to give to their children and that the trails easement requirement might cause problems regarding how that might work out. To my knowledge this has never come up, but nonetheless that is a powerful scenario and I sympathize with those concerns.

But let me paint another scenario if the trails requirement were stripped from Title 17. A large Outside corporation with no concern for local traditions buys land from a large landowner in the borough (such as the State, University or Native corporation). Across that land runs a well-used trail that currently has no easement. The trail has been used for generations by local Alaskans for a variety of activities, such as mushing, snowmachining, hiking, hunting, accessing a trapline, and collecting mushrooms, berries and birch bark. The Outside corporation subdivides the land and ignores pleas to keep the trail open for the public to continue using it. The land is subdivided, developed, and the trail is lost to the local citizens.

I suspect that many of you who are opposed to the Title 17 requirement would not like the scenario I painted. You would be more sympathetic to local traditional use over an Outside corporation’s desire to make money. Unfortunately, changing the Title 17 requirement would affect ALL landowners, not just that couple wanting to subdivide land for their children.

I don’t know how likely my particular scenario is, but I do know many of the long-used trails in the Trails Plan cross lands owned by large government or corporate landowners and that some of those trails don’t currently have easements. The loss of those trails is a very real possibility if the easement requirement is stripped from Title 17.

SOLUTION?

While watching the Platting Board debate this issue, the thought occurred to me that perhaps there could be a process clearly outlined in the law that would make it easier for local landowners to appeal the trail easement requirement and ask for a variance.

I know that a variance from the easement requirement is possible. It was done not long ago regarding a subdivision of University of Alaska land, some of which was eventually included in Creamer’s Field Wildlife Refuge. But after reading through Title 17, I don’t think most regular landowners know that they can ask for a variance. And I don’t know under which circumstances a variance can be granted.

But I don’t think a variance should be granted easily, otherwise any corporation wanting to subdivide and develop land will ask for the variance. Plus, the decision on granting a variance should be kept in the hands of regular local citizens, like those that serve on the Platting Board and Assembly. I would feel better about local citizens, rather than corporate lawyers, trying to balance traditional trail use against the rights of private property owners.

So, below is my suggested solution to be included in Title 17. Clearly, it would have to be cleared by the borough law department.

“If after working with borough staff the landowner still feels the trail easement would cause an undue burden, then the landowner may ask the Platting Board to grant a variance from the easement requirement that would mitigate or eliminate the burden.”

I’m not sure this would satisfy those of you who are opposed to the Title 17 requirement. And maybe that is too vague or would open up the process to too many variables. To be honest, just suggesting this makes me nervous. But it is the best compromise I can think of that keeps the Title 17 requirement but allows for the ability of landowners — from small families to large corporations — to appeal the requirement and leave the decision in the hands of local citizens.

Thank you again for your service,
Eric Troyer

Last night the Fairbanks Borough Platting Board adopted the administration’s recommendations on advice to the Borough Assembly regarding the Fairbanks Comprehensive Trails Plan update.

As a reminder: the Borough Assembly had directed the Platting Board to “provide at least three alternative ways of connecting A and B trails without forcing landowners to give up their property through the platting process.” (Check this POST for more details.)

After a lot of discussion, the Platting Board passed recommendations that had been crafted by Mayor Bryce Ward, Director of Community Planning Kellen Spillman, and Bryant Wright, former Borough Trails Coordinator who is on a temporary contract with the borough for this issue. See this POST about the recommendations.

The Platting Board voted:

to recommend to the FNSB Assembly approval of Ord. 2022-47: An ordinance adopting the updated Comprehensive Recreational Trails Plan as an element of the FNSB Regional Comprehensive Plan with consideration of the following four (4) implementation strategies and one (1) recommendation on mapping:

1. Amend the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) “FNSB Public Community Trails Program” project (AKA the “Trail-a-Year Program”) to specifically prioritize acquiring easements on Category A and B trails in the newly updated trail plan.
2. Amend the FNSB Land Management Code, FNSBC 20.12.020, to develop a more streamlined process explicitly allowing for the FNSB Administration to acquire trail easements for trails in the updated Trails Plan when fair market value is being offered without additional assembly approval.
3. Amend the FNSB Budget to allow for a fee waiver for Final Plats on subdivisions that are dedicating trail easements per FNSBC 17.56.040(A). This could be a free final plat or a reduced cost final plat.
4. Consider the option of having the FNSB clear and brush trail easements when subdividers are re-routing a trail easement covered in FNSBC 17.56.040(C).
5. Publish adopted Trail Plan alignments on the Borough’s online Interactive GIS Map.

Now the Trails Plan update goes back before the Assembly on June 8. The recommendations did not directly follow the Assembly’s instructions, so it will be interesting to see how the Assembly will react. In fact, Assemblywoman Tammie Wilson attended the Platting Board meeting and testified before the board, speaking for herself not for the Assembly.

Wilson was not opposed to the recommendations that ultimately passed. In fact, she said she supported the borough proactively trying to solve potential problems that might arise from the Trails Plan update. However, she brought up an issue about a portion of Title 17, the borough’s subdivision code (law), that the Assembly had tackled earlier. The current code wording resulted in the Assembly’s direction to the Platting Board.

Here is the current law (bold word mine):

On lands through which Category A and B trails pass, the Platting Board shall require the dedication of easements to conform to the adopted comprehensive recreational trail plan.

17.56.040 Trail easements

Some Assembly members, including Wilson, feel that requirement unjustly takes land from landowners. I disagree and have written about that HERE.

The Assembly members who don’t agree with that wording tried earlier to get that requirement struck from borough code by passing an ordinance that would have changed “shall” to “may” and by adding the words “if the property owner consents.” However, Mayor Ward threatened to veto that, in part because the Assembly did not first run it by the Platting Board for its recommendations. The Assembly then voted down the ordinance by a 5-4 vote. You can read about that HERE.

One of the Platting Board members (I’m not sure who, since I was listening in via Zoom) moved that the board recommend that the Assembly change “shall” to “may” in that section of Title 17. There was considerable discussion about that, but ultimately the Platting Board voted that down.

The next step will be when the Assembly again takes up the Comprehensive Recreational Trail Plan update at its June 8 meeting. I will have a post or two leading up to that meeting.