Taking the next step
I’ve gotten a good response about working to get a pedestrian bridge over Troublesome Creek and now people are wondering what they should do.
Good question.
First why not start off by asking your city council member or other city official about the project. I would tell them that it is unsafe to ask people to cross the Olive Street bridge, especially considering the city has access to a pedestrian bridge from the county. Tell them that a solution exists and that you would like them to look into it.
Ask them to put the issue on the agenda of a future council meeting so the discussion can begin. Invite county officials and residents to attend that meeting – when it comes to city government numbers speak loud and clear.
Then we can find out how much this project will cost by asking the city to get some estimates. At that point, depending on the cost, perhaps volunteers could be organized to raise money, or even find people to donate some of the work. It’s true that the city budget is tight, so every little bit would help.
But the first step is to get it on the radar of city officials. Call them, email them, whatever it takes. Spring is just around the corner and summer is not far off, so the time to move ahead is now. As they say, where there is a will there is a way.
How to contact your city official:
Atlantic City Officials
Mayor
John Krogman
902 Chestnut Street
712-243-4059
John Krogman
krogman4@msn.com
City Administrator
Ron Crisp
City Hall
23 East 4th Street
Atlantic, IA 50022
Telephone: 712-243-4810
Fax: 712-243-4407
Ron Crisp
roncrisp@mchsi.com
First Ward
Kern Miller
406 Pine Street
712-243-2918
Kern Miller
kernmiller@mchsi.com
Second Ward
Dave Wheatley
106 East 10th Street
712-243-8669
Dave Wheatley
wldwheat@mchsi.com
Third Ward
Pat Simmons
802 West 10th Street
712-243-6801
Pat Simmons
patsimmons60@yahoo.com
Fourth Ward
Linda Hartkopf
1505 Bake Street
712-243-4206
Linda Hartkopf
vandhart@msn.com
Fifth Ward
John Rueb
1614 Lomas Circle
712-243-6374
John Rueb
jrueb@mchsi.com
At Large
Dave Jones
405 East 5th Street
712-243-6826
Dave Jones
djagency1001@qwestoffice.net
At Large
Steve Livengood
403 Maple Street
712-243-5445
Steve Livengood
aplewood@metc.net
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Cooler heads needed in OWB debate
If you've ever wondered why the wheels of government turn so slowly, you need look no further than the recent debate over outdoor wood burning (OWB) furnaces. It would be hard to find a better example of why so little gets done, why so little progress is made on projects that actually improve the community.
For months now the council has been fighting amongst itself and, in the case of two councilmen, with the planning and zoning commission, over how to regulate the devices.
The issue is often cloaked in the emotional guise of protecting sick children and old people from the dangers of smoke induced asthma, heart and lung disease and cancer. Residents have attended council meetings and work sessions to relate that they have considered living in hotels because of the danger and others have described homes filled with smoke so thick that visiting councilwomen were literally driven to tears and had to flee.
Action is so urgently needed, we've been told that it simply could not wait. They had to be banned, and banned now. The city could not take the chance of more of these devices being installed, and our lives endangered by the callous and uncaring owners and merchants.
At least that's how it seems when you listen to some of the arguments put forth at the various meetings.
Well, I've listened to this debate for weeks now, and I admit that different times I've sympathized with both sides. It seems to me there are good points to be made in regards to health concerns and I see the need for regulation. As a community we regulate lots of things, I don't see why these are any different. But I think a ban goes too far.
For the record, there are currently three of the devices in the city limits. Two are located at the homes of Forrest and Tim Teig on Sunnyside Lane and one on Mick Allen's property off Redwood drive. Just one of those units, Allen's, has been the focus of the complaints, primarily by his neighbors Loren and Denise Coder.
There is also a petition containing a reported 80 signatures, although Allen has said some of those that signed have called him and apologized saying they didn't know what they were signing. There have been other "complaints" although the nature and urgency of some of those have been debated.
I find it hard to take seriously councilman Wheatley and Miller's claims that their primary concern is the health of those living around OWBs, especially considering that the solution they propose, banning new units, does NOTHING to help the aged and ill they claim to be fighting for.
Right now the city has no regulations for OWBs. None. There are no height restrictions for smoke stacks, no set back requirements, nothing.
The one document that proposes some restrictions on the devices is the ordinance that has been recommended by the Planning and Zoning commission. Will it solve all the Coder's problems? I don't know, but is at least a starting point. If the rules need to be tightened later on, they can be. Yet Miller and Wheatley adamantly oppose this idea and have fought it from the beginning.
It appears that, despite their claims to the contrary, the two councilmen are more concerned with the banning the devices, than protecting citizens health.
There are other reasons the ban makes no sense. Councilman John Rueb, who supported the ban, said last week that he intended the ban to be temporary while the city works out new regulations. He expected it to be repealed within six months once the city comes up with some regulations.
Huh?
The city HAS a set of proposed regulations, the P&Z ordinance. It doesn’t make any sense at all for the council to start over and create a new ordinance, especially considering the controversial nature of the issue.
If the intention is to use the P&Z ordinance as a starting point then why not get to it and stop wasting time? Council members have said the ban is needed to avoid a mad rush from residents trying to install the devices before the regulations go into effect. But that doesn't seem to be a very realistic worry.
The issue has already been debated for weeks, the devices cost between $7,000 and $10,000 and any one who may have been interested in buying one surely knows by now that regulations are coming down the road. Regulations that could very easily apply to existing units. Would it be smart to hurry and install an expensive piece of equipment knowing that you may have to move it or make other modifications? Wouldn’t it be smarter to wait until the smoke settles, so to speak?
It appears the public thinks so. I checked with Tim Teig who sells the units, who told me that since the debate began they have not sold any of the devices. None. Over the many years he and his father Forrest have sold the units, they have sold just five in Cass County. The feared mad rush isn't even a trickle.
If the council had taken up the ordinance to begin with, regulations could have been in place by the end of the month, or next month at the latest. That won't happen under the current plan.
It seems to me Councilman Dave Jones has the right idea, pass the Planning and Zoning ordinance first, including any modifications the council sees fit (limiting the months they can be operated might be a good idea). At least then some regulations are in place so that Mick Allen knows what is expected of him, and hopefully, it will take care of the his neighbors concerns. If it doesn't the neighbors should return to the council and demand further action, which could then toughen the rules.
It doesn't make sense to me that, when faced with a problem, the council would immediately jump to the most extreme option, rather than trying to find a moderate solution that addresses the issues and leaves room for strengthening. It seems to me a ban is appropriate only when all else fails, not as the opening move. Yes the neighbors have the right to enjoy their homes and property, but so do the owners and retailers of OWBs.
Councilman Steve Livengood, alone has stood against this nonsense, good for him. Hopefully others will come to their senses before Wednesday and the city can begin to take some action that will actually address the issue.
Knee-jerk politics are rarely the best politics.
"It doesn't make sense to me that, when faced with a problem, the council would immediately jump to the most extreme option, rather than trying to find a moderate solution that addresses the issues and leaves room for strengthening."
If you've ever wondered why the wheels of government turn so slowly, you need look no further than the recent debate over outdoor wood burning (OWB) furnaces. It would be hard to find a better example of why so little gets done, why so little progress is made on projects that actually improve the community.
For months now the council has been fighting amongst itself and, in the case of two councilmen, with the planning and zoning commission, over how to regulate the devices.
The issue is often cloaked in the emotional guise of protecting sick children and old people from the dangers of smoke induced asthma, heart and lung disease and cancer. Residents have attended council meetings and work sessions to relate that they have considered living in hotels because of the danger and others have described homes filled with smoke so thick that visiting councilwomen were literally driven to tears and had to flee.
Action is so urgently needed, we've been told that it simply could not wait. They had to be banned, and banned now. The city could not take the chance of more of these devices being installed, and our lives endangered by the callous and uncaring owners and merchants.
At least that's how it seems when you listen to some of the arguments put forth at the various meetings.
Well, I've listened to this debate for weeks now, and I admit that different times I've sympathized with both sides. It seems to me there are good points to be made in regards to health concerns and I see the need for regulation. As a community we regulate lots of things, I don't see why these are any different. But I think a ban goes too far.
For the record, there are currently three of the devices in the city limits. Two are located at the homes of Forrest and Tim Teig on Sunnyside Lane and one on Mick Allen's property off Redwood drive. Just one of those units, Allen's, has been the focus of the complaints, primarily by his neighbors Loren and Denise Coder.
There is also a petition containing a reported 80 signatures, although Allen has said some of those that signed have called him and apologized saying they didn't know what they were signing. There have been other "complaints" although the nature and urgency of some of those have been debated.
I find it hard to take seriously councilman Wheatley and Miller's claims that their primary concern is the health of those living around OWBs, especially considering that the solution they propose, banning new units, does NOTHING to help the aged and ill they claim to be fighting for.
Right now the city has no regulations for OWBs. None. There are no height restrictions for smoke stacks, no set back requirements, nothing.
The one document that proposes some restrictions on the devices is the ordinance that has been recommended by the Planning and Zoning commission. Will it solve all the Coder's problems? I don't know, but is at least a starting point. If the rules need to be tightened later on, they can be. Yet Miller and Wheatley adamantly oppose this idea and have fought it from the beginning.
It appears that, despite their claims to the contrary, the two councilmen are more concerned with the banning the devices, than protecting citizens health.
There are other reasons the ban makes no sense. Councilman John Rueb, who supported the ban, said last week that he intended the ban to be temporary while the city works out new regulations. He expected it to be repealed within six months once the city comes up with some regulations.
Huh?
The city HAS a set of proposed regulations, the P&Z ordinance. It doesn’t make any sense at all for the council to start over and create a new ordinance, especially considering the controversial nature of the issue.
If the intention is to use the P&Z ordinance as a starting point then why not get to it and stop wasting time? Council members have said the ban is needed to avoid a mad rush from residents trying to install the devices before the regulations go into effect. But that doesn't seem to be a very realistic worry.
The issue has already been debated for weeks, the devices cost between $7,000 and $10,000 and any one who may have been interested in buying one surely knows by now that regulations are coming down the road. Regulations that could very easily apply to existing units. Would it be smart to hurry and install an expensive piece of equipment knowing that you may have to move it or make other modifications? Wouldn’t it be smarter to wait until the smoke settles, so to speak?
It appears the public thinks so. I checked with Tim Teig who sells the units, who told me that since the debate began they have not sold any of the devices. None. Over the many years he and his father Forrest have sold the units, they have sold just five in Cass County. The feared mad rush isn't even a trickle.
If the council had taken up the ordinance to begin with, regulations could have been in place by the end of the month, or next month at the latest. That won't happen under the current plan.
It seems to me Councilman Dave Jones has the right idea, pass the Planning and Zoning ordinance first, including any modifications the council sees fit (limiting the months they can be operated might be a good idea). At least then some regulations are in place so that Mick Allen knows what is expected of him, and hopefully, it will take care of the his neighbors concerns. If it doesn't the neighbors should return to the council and demand further action, which could then toughen the rules.
It doesn't make sense to me that, when faced with a problem, the council would immediately jump to the most extreme option, rather than trying to find a moderate solution that addresses the issues and leaves room for strengthening. It seems to me a ban is appropriate only when all else fails, not as the opening move. Yes the neighbors have the right to enjoy their homes and property, but so do the owners and retailers of OWBs.
Councilman Steve Livengood, alone has stood against this nonsense, good for him. Hopefully others will come to their senses before Wednesday and the city can begin to take some action that will actually address the issue.
Knee-jerk politics are rarely the best politics.
Monday, March 10, 2008
A plan we should all get behind
Normally when I receive a letter without a name, and that's most of them, it goes straight to the circular file. But a letter I received Friday is worth sharing.
"Dear Mr. Lundquist Our Wednesday Afternoon Tea Club visited with interest this afternoon about your article in the newspaper concerning the trail by the well fields. We came to the conclusion that you are not a Christian. A Christian would not commit a sin and belittle another individual publicly. By reading your article it seemed like you are not as interested in a trail system as much as you are about belittling someone. Shame on you!!! Isn't the City already in the process of developing a trail system at the old Schildberg Quarry? Who would pay for this new trail, AMU, which would probably cause our electric and water rates to go up. Elderly people are on fixed incomes and can't afford to pay for something they will never use. The City has enough to pay for it seems after hearing lately on the radio and reading in the newspaper about the millions of dollars that a new sewer plant will cost and the thousands of dollars that the airport will cost..."
It goes on to state that I misspelled Jon Martens name, (I did and I apologize) and that because of my "non Christian values" they will not be renewing their subscriptions to the News Telegraph.
Goodness. Sounds like a lively afternoon.
But at the risk of further offending the WATC, not to mention imperiling my eternal soul, I have this update.
In his letter, AMU General Manager, Allen Bonderman mentioned that, among other things, "Consideration also needs to be given to a pedestrian bridge across Troublesome Creek." There are lots of issues to be worked out when it comes to paving trails in the well field, not the least of which is the cost and maintenance, as well as maintaining the safety of the city's drinking water.
I'm confident those issues will be worked out, and at some point, at least part of the trail will be paved. But it seems unlikely that will happen anytime soon.
But the pedestrian bridge is an idea that should be pursued, and soon.
Right now the only way for walkers, joggers or bikers to get to the well field without driving is to follow the "bike trail" along the east side of Olive Street. But anyone who has done that knows that it is not a safe solution. The path across the bridge is narrow and marked only by paint, which is almost completely worn away. The shoulder on either side of the bridge is wider than normal, and paved, but in many places the asphalt is broken and buckled. Other than that there is nothing to protect pedestrians from the nearby traffic, not even a curb.
To make matters worse, the "trail" is the only path to the Little League ball fields. I just can't imagine young children being exposed to the traffic along Olive Street without even a minimal level of protection and yet that seems to be the case here.
A pedestrian bridge would solve that problem once and for all. And the good news is the city already has the bridge! City Administrator Ron Crisp and County Supervisor Dave Dunfee have both told me that the county has a bridge saved specifically for that spot. That is good news. Now let's put it in.
I have no idea what it will cost, but I imagine that at least some of the work of installing the bridge could be done by city or county employees, which isn't free, but could be cheaper. And maybe the city and county could share some of the expense. Maybe some of the work could be donated, or volunteers could help building the trail to and from the bridge. Work on trails in the Schildberg Quarry is already planned for this summer, maybe the projects could be combined? I don't know how it would work but I think we should find out.
The way I imagine it is the trail would follow Olive, north from Second Street to about Commercial Street where it would turn east and angle towards the small dam on Troublesome Creek where it would cross and connect into the existing well-field trail system.
The bridge would have to be high enough over the water to avoid flood problems, but it could be raised on berms to mitigate that problem.
It's a great idea, one that will make the community safer and enhance what Dunfee referred to as its "livability." It's a good word, and a good idea.
Communities need to look forward and find ways to make themselves places people WANT to live. There are lots of ways to do that, with issues involving housing, business development and, yes, recreation. Businesses, and the people they employ, can move anywhere, so we have to give people a reason to move to our community. I've referred to studies and opinions of business leaders on the topic previously. There simply is no question that "livability" plays an important role when businesses and people look for a place to settle.
A while back, during the city elections, there was a lot of talk about the importance of keeping and attracting young people to the community.
This is an idea that helps advance that goal. It's not the answer, but it is a piece to that puzzle.
This is a project that COULD be completed this summer, and it should be. I'm sure there will be the usual complaints, and foot dragging, but someone needs to step forward and carry the ball for the city.
Over the past couple of weeks there have been councilman tripping over themselves trying to protect us from wood smoke and yet not one has voiced a concern over sending children, unprotected, across a narrow bridge along a busy road. It seems crazy to me.
It's time to move ahead with the pedestrian bridge, sooner, rather than later, and before something tragic happens.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
The Response from AMU
Allen Bonderman, the General Manager of Atlantic Municipal Utilities responded to the NT version of this Blog. Below is his unedited response.
To the Editor
I am writing in response to your March 4 “From the Blogs” editorial, in an effort to provide more information to the community.
AMU owns a large parcel of land, north of Troublesome Creek, and east of Olive Street, on which there are a number of wells supplying drinking water to the community. This is the area where the surfacing of trails is being discussed, and the topic of your editorial.
Over the past 20 to 30 years, public water systems have been encouraged by regulators to take steps to avoid contamination of the aquifers we use. One of the earliest actions was to establish zones around all wells, in which no herbicides or pesticides would be used. In Atlantic, this was accomplished by planting bluegrass in a circular area around each well, and not allowing the farm tenant to apply chemicals in that area.
As time went on, more and more emphasis was placed on expanding the zones near wells, and where possible, stop use of chemicals on other adjacent land that “directly influences” the wells. In the late 1990’s, AMU came up with a plan to stop utilizing the wellfield land for any type of agricultural crops, and the related application of fertilizers and chemicals. The plan involved planting a large portion of the land in native prairie grasses and forbs (prairie flowers), as well as development of walking trails throughout the property. With the help of some grants, AMU was able to follow through on that plan.
The purpose of removing the land from agricultural use was to improve the protection of our community’s water supply. Not farming the ground was just one part of that effort. AMU determined that it would not itself use herbicides or other chemicals, and would avoid other forms of contamination.
AMU also wanted to allow the public to utilize the land for various recreational purposes, as long as those uses did not cause any risks to the water supply. The softball and soccer fields are on AMU’s wellfield property, and are subject to the ban on use of chemicals. The rocked and concrete trails within the wellfield are used by a number of people, for walking, jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding. Dog owners greatly appreciate having a place to exercise their dogs, and nature enthusiasts enjoy the prairie grass and wildlife.
Several years ago, there were scientific studies which indicated that road oils can and do leach into the groundwater. Certain varieties of road oil contain known and suspected carcinogens, so AMU opted to not utilize them in the wellfield development. The portions of the trails in the wellfield that AMU chose to be hard-surfaced were constructed of concrete, to avoid the use of any road oils. This was not due to any law or regulation, but was a common sense decision.
Asphalt paving usually includes spraying a “tack coat” of road oil on the underlying rock or gravel, prior to laying the asphalt in place. Obviously, this is something AMU should have concerns about. The asphalt itself, as far as we can determine, should not be a cause for concern, as long as the tack coat can be left out. If the tack coat is essential to the process, then we would be extremely reluctant to allow asphalt to be installed. This is partly why there has been no absolute answer provided to the City, or Councilman Jones, or anyone else. There also are unanswered questions regarding the source of funding for any surfacing work, as well as responsibility for ongoing maintenance and repairs. These things will, I believe, all be worked out in due time.
I would like to remind your readers that AMU’s primary responsibilities are to provide safe, affordable, and high quality drinking water, and reliable electric power and energy, to our customers. To the extent possible, we also want to help provide recreational opportunities, and to cooperate as best we can with trails developers and other organizations. In the same respect, the wellfield is primarily a wellfield. As the designated steward of this very important resource, AMU must consider its protection a high priority.
As the T-Bone Trail is expanded into Atlantic, I personally believe that at least a portion of AMU’s trail should be included - whether surfaced with asphalt or with concrete – to connect the rural portion of the trail and Atlantic. Consideration also needs to be given to a pedestrian bridge across Troublesome Creek, so that users of the softball complex or the trails can avoid the use of Olive Street. Meeting the financial challenges involved will require all interested parties to work together constructively.
Finally, I would like to point out that there is no such thing as an “AMU councilman”. Kern Miller is a private citizen, elected by the voters of Atlantic, who happens to be an employee of AMU. His words and actions as an elected official are not dictated, or even suggested, by AMU. In this instance he was stating what he believed to be true regarding longstanding policy of AMU.
Allen Bonderman
General Manager
Atlantic Municipal Utilities
I appeciate Mr. Bonderman taking the time to respond and would like to point out that we share the same goals. I too value safe drinking water and agree that it might not be necessary to pave the entire trail. And as someone who has crossed the Olive Street bridge, think a pedestrian bridge across Troublesome Creek is a GREAT idea. Thanks again
Allen Bonderman, the General Manager of Atlantic Municipal Utilities responded to the NT version of this Blog. Below is his unedited response.
To the Editor
I am writing in response to your March 4 “From the Blogs” editorial, in an effort to provide more information to the community.
AMU owns a large parcel of land, north of Troublesome Creek, and east of Olive Street, on which there are a number of wells supplying drinking water to the community. This is the area where the surfacing of trails is being discussed, and the topic of your editorial.
Over the past 20 to 30 years, public water systems have been encouraged by regulators to take steps to avoid contamination of the aquifers we use. One of the earliest actions was to establish zones around all wells, in which no herbicides or pesticides would be used. In Atlantic, this was accomplished by planting bluegrass in a circular area around each well, and not allowing the farm tenant to apply chemicals in that area.
As time went on, more and more emphasis was placed on expanding the zones near wells, and where possible, stop use of chemicals on other adjacent land that “directly influences” the wells. In the late 1990’s, AMU came up with a plan to stop utilizing the wellfield land for any type of agricultural crops, and the related application of fertilizers and chemicals. The plan involved planting a large portion of the land in native prairie grasses and forbs (prairie flowers), as well as development of walking trails throughout the property. With the help of some grants, AMU was able to follow through on that plan.
The purpose of removing the land from agricultural use was to improve the protection of our community’s water supply. Not farming the ground was just one part of that effort. AMU determined that it would not itself use herbicides or other chemicals, and would avoid other forms of contamination.
AMU also wanted to allow the public to utilize the land for various recreational purposes, as long as those uses did not cause any risks to the water supply. The softball and soccer fields are on AMU’s wellfield property, and are subject to the ban on use of chemicals. The rocked and concrete trails within the wellfield are used by a number of people, for walking, jogging, bicycling, and horseback riding. Dog owners greatly appreciate having a place to exercise their dogs, and nature enthusiasts enjoy the prairie grass and wildlife.
Several years ago, there were scientific studies which indicated that road oils can and do leach into the groundwater. Certain varieties of road oil contain known and suspected carcinogens, so AMU opted to not utilize them in the wellfield development. The portions of the trails in the wellfield that AMU chose to be hard-surfaced were constructed of concrete, to avoid the use of any road oils. This was not due to any law or regulation, but was a common sense decision.
Asphalt paving usually includes spraying a “tack coat” of road oil on the underlying rock or gravel, prior to laying the asphalt in place. Obviously, this is something AMU should have concerns about. The asphalt itself, as far as we can determine, should not be a cause for concern, as long as the tack coat can be left out. If the tack coat is essential to the process, then we would be extremely reluctant to allow asphalt to be installed. This is partly why there has been no absolute answer provided to the City, or Councilman Jones, or anyone else. There also are unanswered questions regarding the source of funding for any surfacing work, as well as responsibility for ongoing maintenance and repairs. These things will, I believe, all be worked out in due time.
I would like to remind your readers that AMU’s primary responsibilities are to provide safe, affordable, and high quality drinking water, and reliable electric power and energy, to our customers. To the extent possible, we also want to help provide recreational opportunities, and to cooperate as best we can with trails developers and other organizations. In the same respect, the wellfield is primarily a wellfield. As the designated steward of this very important resource, AMU must consider its protection a high priority.
As the T-Bone Trail is expanded into Atlantic, I personally believe that at least a portion of AMU’s trail should be included - whether surfaced with asphalt or with concrete – to connect the rural portion of the trail and Atlantic. Consideration also needs to be given to a pedestrian bridge across Troublesome Creek, so that users of the softball complex or the trails can avoid the use of Olive Street. Meeting the financial challenges involved will require all interested parties to work together constructively.
Finally, I would like to point out that there is no such thing as an “AMU councilman”. Kern Miller is a private citizen, elected by the voters of Atlantic, who happens to be an employee of AMU. His words and actions as an elected official are not dictated, or even suggested, by AMU. In this instance he was stating what he believed to be true regarding longstanding policy of AMU.
Allen Bonderman
General Manager
Atlantic Municipal Utilities
I appeciate Mr. Bonderman taking the time to respond and would like to point out that we share the same goals. I too value safe drinking water and agree that it might not be necessary to pave the entire trail. And as someone who has crossed the Olive Street bridge, think a pedestrian bridge across Troublesome Creek is a GREAT idea. Thanks again
Monday, March 3, 2008
Trail Talk II
Update
Thanks to Atlantic City Councilman Dave Jones who responded to this blog last week and seems to be taking up the trail issue. Good for him.
In his response he brings up a good point. He states:
"Last year I asked if we could put an asphalt overlay on the trail out by the Little League Park and was told by Ron Crisp we could not because of the well fields out there. Ron was told that by our city councilman at AMU. A couple of months ago I was coming home on Olive street and thought: Wouldn't all the traffic and asphalt on Olive St. harm the well fields? So I asked Alan Bonderman about it and he told me he couldn't see any problem with the overlay. I then brought it up at a council meeting or work session and I was told by our local AMU councilman that it could not be done because of the same reasons that were stated earlier. I informed the council and Ron Crisp what Alan had said and they are to be looking into it. I will bring it up again at the next City Council meeting."
Jones has indeed brought this up at several council meetings and work sessions including last Wednesdays work session. And, he's right councilman Kern Miller, who he refers to as the "AMU councilman" has been downplaying the idea, claiming that there were Environmental Protection Agency regulations that prohibited asphalt trails in the well field. Well it turns out that may be baloney. (Miller has been a serial foot-dragger when it comes to recreational issues that don't involve a skate park.)
I called the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Friday to ask about this issue and was referred to a Roy Ney who told that the EPA does not regulate those types of issues. He also stated that the Iowa DNR does NOT have separation distance requirements for asphalt roads and trails in or near well fields. They do prohibit the storage and use of certain types of chemicals, but asphalt trails are ok.
He did add that city or local rules could be in place that prohibit them, but there is no state rule against them.
So I contacted John Martins at AMU who confirmed that there are no state or federal regulations prohibiting asphalt trails, but he did say that he was looking into the issue to make sure asphalt trials posed no health risks, or dangers to the city's water supply.
He added that AMU has not made a decision one way or another about paving the trails, but it seems safe to say that there are no plans to for that anytime soon. That's ok, at least it's on the agenda and being considered. It would be a wonderful addition to what could be come a first class community trail system.
As Martins pointed out, maybe we don't need to pave the entire trail system, especially since the lower trail tends to flood - which leads to serious maintenance issues. I would rather have gravel trails than broken up asphalt. Paving the top part would still provide a good sized loop and could act a connection to the T-Bone trail at some point in the future.
There is also the question of routine maintenance. Right now AMU re-grades and rocks the trails, but it is unlikely it would want to take on maintenance of paved trails.
But that’s not to say the city couldn’t.
So keep up the good work Dave. Trails are important to a community's future and its growth. Recreation areas in general, attract people to the area, who spend money, hopefully have a good time and end up spreading the word.
Want an example? Drive up to Littlefield Lake east of Exira nearly any weekend this summer and count how may campers you see. That's a small lake, with few amenities, several miles from the nearest town, and yet it is routinely full. Imagine what a park like the one envisioned at the quarry, with an extensive trail system connected to the well field and eventually the T-bone trail - one with three lakes and a river - could be!
It seems Jones gets it. And the city is slowly, I emphasize the word SLOWLY, moving ahead.
Update
Thanks to Atlantic City Councilman Dave Jones who responded to this blog last week and seems to be taking up the trail issue. Good for him.
In his response he brings up a good point. He states:
"Last year I asked if we could put an asphalt overlay on the trail out by the Little League Park and was told by Ron Crisp we could not because of the well fields out there. Ron was told that by our city councilman at AMU. A couple of months ago I was coming home on Olive street and thought: Wouldn't all the traffic and asphalt on Olive St. harm the well fields? So I asked Alan Bonderman about it and he told me he couldn't see any problem with the overlay. I then brought it up at a council meeting or work session and I was told by our local AMU councilman that it could not be done because of the same reasons that were stated earlier. I informed the council and Ron Crisp what Alan had said and they are to be looking into it. I will bring it up again at the next City Council meeting."Jones has indeed brought this up at several council meetings and work sessions including last Wednesdays work session. And, he's right councilman Kern Miller, who he refers to as the "AMU councilman" has been downplaying the idea, claiming that there were Environmental Protection Agency regulations that prohibited asphalt trails in the well field. Well it turns out that may be baloney. (Miller has been a serial foot-dragger when it comes to recreational issues that don't involve a skate park.)
I called the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Friday to ask about this issue and was referred to a Roy Ney who told that the EPA does not regulate those types of issues. He also stated that the Iowa DNR does NOT have separation distance requirements for asphalt roads and trails in or near well fields. They do prohibit the storage and use of certain types of chemicals, but asphalt trails are ok.
He did add that city or local rules could be in place that prohibit them, but there is no state rule against them.
So I contacted John Martins at AMU who confirmed that there are no state or federal regulations prohibiting asphalt trails, but he did say that he was looking into the issue to make sure asphalt trials posed no health risks, or dangers to the city's water supply.
He added that AMU has not made a decision one way or another about paving the trails, but it seems safe to say that there are no plans to for that anytime soon. That's ok, at least it's on the agenda and being considered. It would be a wonderful addition to what could be come a first class community trail system.
As Martins pointed out, maybe we don't need to pave the entire trail system, especially since the lower trail tends to flood - which leads to serious maintenance issues. I would rather have gravel trails than broken up asphalt. Paving the top part would still provide a good sized loop and could act a connection to the T-Bone trail at some point in the future.
There is also the question of routine maintenance. Right now AMU re-grades and rocks the trails, but it is unlikely it would want to take on maintenance of paved trails.
But that’s not to say the city couldn’t.
So keep up the good work Dave. Trails are important to a community's future and its growth. Recreation areas in general, attract people to the area, who spend money, hopefully have a good time and end up spreading the word.
Want an example? Drive up to Littlefield Lake east of Exira nearly any weekend this summer and count how may campers you see. That's a small lake, with few amenities, several miles from the nearest town, and yet it is routinely full. Imagine what a park like the one envisioned at the quarry, with an extensive trail system connected to the well field and eventually the T-bone trail - one with three lakes and a river - could be!
It seems Jones gets it. And the city is slowly, I emphasize the word SLOWLY, moving ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)