A building code is a good idea

The latest dustup at city hall involves building codes and inspections. The city of Atlantic is in the process of adopting the universal building code, which means new construction and some remodeling work will now soon require building inspections. There will be a fee for these inspections and not surprisingly the idea has met with a fair amount of controversy.
The issue seems to be this, supporters correctly point out that the state has already passed codes for electrical and plumbing. Those codes require that electricians and plumbers be certified by the state. It also requires buildings to be inspected. The city, if it adopts the code, can use it’s own inspectors for the job or contract with another company to do them for the city.
The city does not have to adopt the new codes, but if it doesn’t, the state code will automatically be enforced. State inspectors will then be used. The bottom line is that inspections are going to happen one way or another.
The concern from some is that there won’t be enough state inspectors to go around, and it could be weeks before a state inspector can get to a job site in Atlantic. So the city has decided to contract with a company out of Pottawattamie County, JAS, to assist in adopting the code and setting the inspection fees, with the idea being that inspectors will be available in Atlantic when needed.
An additional concern is that of fees. There will be fees for the inspections regardless of who does them. The questions are, A) how much will they be, B) who gets the money?
The answer to the first question is, we don’t know yet. The city is in the process of forming an ad-hoc committee that will work with JAS to come up with a fee schedule. JAS officials have said that the fees for will be based on square footage, and will run around $2,000 to $3,000. There will also be fees for some types of remodeling work, additions including decks and things like that. Officials have not publicly said how much those fees will be, and there seems to be a lot of questions as to what kind of work will require a permit and inspections. Those questions will need to be answered.
As for who gets the money, if the city does the inspections, JAS will get 75 percent of the inspection fees and the city will get 25 percent. If the state does the inspections it will keep the fees.
Where do I stand in all this?
Building codes are a good thing. They are there for the public’s protection. Most people are unfamiliar with construction materials and methods and have no way of determining if their home is being built safely. A building code sets out minimum standards that everyone must adhere to. Simply put, it makes homes safer. That’s good.
It will also benefit low income residents, forced to rent in homes that may not meet those standards. Landlords won’t be required to bring homes up to standard, but any new construction, or remodel work, will have to meet the standard. As new homes are built and old homes retired, the overall housing standard in Atlantic will rise and the number of unsafe homes will be reduced.
Some citizens are justifiably worried that new fees will be restrictive and hurt the local construction market. Will it make construction more expensive? Yes, but it doesn’t have to be prohibitively so.
I think the city has made a wise move in expanding the size of the ad-hoc committee, a suggestion that came from JAS officials incidentally, to include contractors, electricians, plumbers, realtors and the general public. The city should seek out responsible, thoughtful, individuals for the job, even if they may oppose the idea at this point. A committee of “yes-men” serves no one, and the decisions they make, will live with for a long time. Once the rules are in place, they’re not going away. Let the committee take its time and work out the details so that everyone can live with the results.
City officials should also make sure the process is open and keep the public informed. There are a lot of questions out there, legitimate questions that deserve an answer, and not an attack on the questioner.
The process got off to rocky start, but if supporters can be less defensive and more open, and if those who oppose it can be less accusatory, and more open, then there may be a chance for putting in place something that will benefit everyone in the community.
That may be a lot to ask for, but here’s hoping.

It's time to
embrace
the future

Last March a group of concerned Atlantic residents got together over a few evenings to discuss the direction the community should be moving in.
Called the "Vision 2020: Atlantic's Plan For the Future," the meetings were hosted by John McCurdy, a community development specialist with the Southwest Iowa Planning Council (SWIPCO) but the ideas generated came from ordinary citizens concerned about the future of the community.
Some of the sub goals included making Atlantic a center for research and development in bio-fuels, develop area business parks, add 300 new primary income jobs and 100 managerial or professional jobs, increase available housing units by about 500 units, increase recreational trails and water recreation options, develop a venue for the arts, develop new leaders, increase lodging, and coordinate educational services to link individuals with appropriate learning services. The various sub-goals have target dates ranging like 2008, 2010, 2020 (the target date for the plan) and "on-going" meaning that they would be continuing efforts.
The goals identified were expressed in the format of "Atlantic will..." and included "lead the way in technology," "have many high quality jobs," "develop the necessary housing for a growing population," "expand recreational opportunities," "market itself locally and beyond," "welcome more people," "have a high standard of living," and "educate its people for the future."
I bring this up because I attended some of the meetings, and one of the issues that seemed to have a lot of support involved “leading the way in technology.” A number of ideas were discussed, but among them was the idea of providing city-wide wifi coverage.
This what I wrote at the time:

Why not create a fund that will assist local merchants to purchase computers and develop a website. Those websites could then be linked by a search engine that would allow residents to search for products in Atlantic, before they go out of town to shop.
Funding could come from the city, Community Promotion Commission, Chamber of Commerce, CADCO, P.R.I.D.E. and other service groups. The fund could be used to offer businesses technology upgrade grants or loans to purchase computers, software etc. Classes and seminars could be held to help businesses owners understand how to use the equipment and software, how it can impact their businesses and assist them in setting up internet storefronts.
Ultimately the goal would be to create a directory of local business websites and email addresses. Businesses could offer residents the opportunity to purchase merchandise online, which could be picked up or delivered later that day.
The price of PC's is low enough, under $1,000, that it wouldn't take an outrageous amount of money to get the project started. And there are several websites available that, through the use of templates, provide a low-cost, easy to use, solution to website design.
Our own AMU could perhaps act as the server and maybe offer discounts on high speed wireless service.
Or better yet, free high-speed internet access would attract businesses that need fast, reliable communications and want the benefits of a small town, (safety, good schools etc) and still have access to outside markets.
It could serve to attract small Internet type businesses which sell products all over the world not just Atlantic and allow us to seek out employees who may be able to work at home rather than in Des Moines or Omaha.
At the very least it would provide one more incentive for new downtown businesses and a boost for existing ones at a relatively low cost.

Anyway, I don’t know if you saw the front page of the Omaha World Herald this morning (7/10), but there is a story about the community of Tabor that will be launching a city-wide wireless internet system in a few months. It is apparently the community in the state to do so.
You can find the details here.
They’ve hire a company to implement the plan and it’s going to cost the city about $240,000 over two years, and residents can sign up for $27 a month. The charge will be included on their municipal utility bill.
Yeah it’s expensive, but communities across the state are already offering internet service through their municipal utilities, including Atlantic. And there’s no question that the internet will play an increasingly important role in our lives. With the price of gasoline going up (and it will continue to go up) the ability to work online will become more and more attractive. A community that is safe, has good schools, progressive ideas and the willingness to carry them out, a variety of recreation opportunities, and a thriving downtown may well be the community of the future. The community that thrives rather than survives.
Maybe it’s time Atlantic took the next step.

A idea for the Farmers Market
As you know, I don’t publish anonymous comments on my blog, but I got one this week that included a link to a website about a British community that was trying to become as self- sufficient as possible, mostly by growing their own food, and relying less on supermarkets. The idea is, I guess, to look for ways to promote a healthy lifestyle by becoming less dependant on processed foods. It also mentioned the need for alternative fuels (the comment came in the blog about wood burning furnaces).
Anyway it sort of reminded my of my college days in northern California where we had a local food coop, and lots of mother earth types to run it. Arcata California, home to Humboldt State University, is one of the most liberal places in the country thanks to a large college population.


It also sits smack dab in the middle of the more conservative Humboldt County, where many residents make their living from logging and fishing. Confrontation between the locals and the college crowd was inevitable, but, in my experience, infrequent and usually more loud than dangerous.
It is without question one of the most beautiful natural areas in the country, right in the heart of the giant Redwood forests. My love of the outdoors, and concern for environmental issues, are due in large part to the years I spent there. It is also where I first confronted the idea that when it came to emotional issues, such as logging old growth redwoods, there could diametrically opposed, but no less sincere or valid, arguments on both sides. Not every logger was a beer swilling, earth-raper, nor was every college student a pot-smoking, hippie, tree hugger. There were gray areas, and it seems to me that’s where reasonable people could come together, and if not agree, at least compromise.
I don’t think we need to abandon supermarkets, it’s thanks to them that we have access to the most healthy, diverse diet on earth. The fact that many make less than healthy choices is hardly their fault. Besides, the chance of that actually happening is, thankfully, zip.
But I do like the idea of giving consumers more choices, and developing a community identity, through ideas such as developing a vibrant Farmers Market.
I know we have a Farmers Market in Atlantic, last year it was set up in Orscheln’s parking lot. I believe it was held on Tuesday or Thursdays and seemed to be pretty well attended.
But maybe it could be better.
Wouldn’t it be nice if it could be held on Saturday mornings along Sixth Street between Chestnut and Poplar. The poo-pooers will claim you can’t close down the street because of the terrible traffic problems it will cause. But that section of street is routinely closed for other events without problem. And what it would do is draw people to downtown and the city park.
Events could be scheduled in the park such as craft shows, music concerts and art shows, to coincide with the Farmers Market. Maybe expand the idea to an outdoor market, and welcome other types of vendors.
Why not hold contests or games that draw people down Chestnut street? There are lots of walkers in this community, so how about a weekly 2, 3 or 5K walk through the downtown area that begins and ends at the city park? Maybe something like the “poker runs” motorcyclists and snowmobilers hold with downtown businesses? Maybe a historical tour?
Why not come together as a community and promote a healthy lifestyle, including exercise and fresh locally grown foods? If we can envision it, we can make it happen. The power to change is in our hands, we just have to use it.

Trail Update
Last week SWIPCO officials presented the “Cass County Recreational Trails Plan” to the County Board of Supervisors. Thanks to John McCurdy for the work he put into it. It’s an interesting plan, and filled with good ideas, and yet I can’t seem to get too excited about it.
It seems to me the key to developing new trails, an idea I support, depends on finding a committed, determined, individual to carry the ball. Without that the plan becomes little more than a dust-collector sitting on a shelf somewhere in the courthouse. I’m not sure we have that person.
That’s too bad because I believe trails are important to communities, not just for the recreation benefits they bring, but for the health and economic development aspects as well.
In fact the study references studies by the Center of Disease Control about the benefits of outdoor physical activity. It also noted several economic benefits, stating that a study in Minnesota, a state with lots of trails, “estimated that trails systems provide an additional $1 million in annual activity for cities with trails.” Nice!
A couple more from the study:
• In a 2002 survey of recent home buyers sponsored by the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders, trails ranked as the second most important community amenity out of a list of 18 choices.
• a 1998 study of property values along the Mountain Bay Trail in Brown County, Wisconsin showed that lots adjacent to the trail sold faster and for an average of 9 percent more than similar property not located next to the trail.
A couple of communities are already actively working expanding their trail systems, notably Lewis and Anita.
Atlantic, which has its own plan and was not included in the study, is also expanding its trail system. But it’s been a slow process, with little enthusiasm from council members, other than councilman Dave Jones.
Whether there will be a pedestrian bridge across Troublesome Creek, connecting to the well-field trails and Little League fields, remains up in the air. The city’s bike trail continues to cross the Olive Street Bridge, (now without paint marking the pedestrian area and in a state of disrepair.) It is, I believe, an accident waiting to happen, and a needless one, since a solution exists. Why not get some bids and find out what it costs? Maybe then we could start raising some money or help to install the bridge. Why the delay?

And So it Begins

A little cold this morning, (36 after I finished) but not bad. This morning's run was not as good as the other day, but it was still good. I felt pretty strong, though my legs were heavy at the end.
This week the training really begins. I've been averaging around 8 miles a week for the past few weeks. WAY TOO LOW. So this week I'm going to bump it up, I hope to somewhere between 15 and 20.
They say you're not supposed to increase your mileage by more than 10 percent a week, but mine has been so low, and I'm fit enough, I think I can handle the big jump. Last year, actually less than a year ago, I was approaching 40 miles a week. That was a lot for me, but I should be in the 20-30 range soon, with a long run of at least 6 miles.
Anyway, the weather is supposed to be great this week, with lows in the 40's so I should have no excuses.
The Dam to Dam 20 K is on May 31. That's my goal.
I'm off.

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

Cooler heads needed in OWB debate

"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.

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.

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

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.

Progress At Last?

"... areas with outdoor recreation amenities, lakes, bikepaths and parks, grew faster than those without them. These amenities appear to actually generate growth."

Doug Gross
Chairman, Committee of 82

In 2002 former gubernatorial candidate Doug Gross took what was left of his campaign war chest and formed a committee to look into development issues in rural Iowa. The so-called "Committee of 82," named after the 82 rural counties of Iowa made several recommendations, including the one quoted above.
It seems almost absurdly obvious to point out that people want to live in areas with ample opportunity for recreation. That's why we want to congratulate the five councilman, Steve Livengood, Dave Jones, John Rueb, Dave Dunfee and Pat Simmons, who voted Wednesday night to finally accept the old Schildberg quarry property and opened the door for the long-awaited development of a 177 acre park at the site.
Once completed it will include an expanded area for RV parking along the east side of lake two surrounded by native prairie and an expanded hiking trail system that was intended to loop trails around the lake, possibley using a floating bridge between Troublesome Creek and lake two. The trail system will also connect to the T-Bone trail system which reaches all the way to Audubon."

I wrote the words above in 2006. And still we wait.
The good news is just this week, Atlantic City Administrator, Ron Crisp, along with Snyder and Associates representative, Tim Teig, met with AMU officials to talk about extending water and electricity into the new Schlidberg Quarry park.
Finally, it appears real work is beginning out there and I couldn’t be happier.
For years, it seems, the project has been stalled for all kinds of reasons, none of which seemed like very good ones to me. Now progress is being made, trails are supposed to be laid this summer, power and water lines run and maybe it will actually begin looking like a real park. And maybe, in the not too distant future, it serve as another reason to visit Atlantic.
It just amazes me that NO councilman has taken the project up and pushed for its completion. Not one of them is coming to council meetings asking for weekly or monthly updates. And so the project sits. And sits. And sits.
It’s not as if city officials haven’t been told of the importance of developing recreational facilities and improving the quality of life for its residents. The study by Doug Gross, referred to at the top was done in 2002. At around the same time former resident Roger Underwood suggested the development of a privately owned lake surrounded by high-end real estate at a Chamber of Commerce dinner. The theory goes young, highly educated professionals, and their disposable income, would be attracted to the development.
And just a few weeks ago Google representative, Ken Patchett told chamber members at the annual chamber banquet, that quality of life issues were the deciding factor in choosing a site for its new facility in Council Bluffs.

“According to Patchett, livability is a community’s intangible elements such as how welcoming it is, along with elements the company wants for it’s employees such as bike and hiking trails, parks and other recreational amenities. It comes down to, he said, how receptive the company is to a community and how receptive the community is to the company. “A place is what you make it,” he said.”

Link to article

I know that sometimes you have to hit people over the head with a hammer to get their attention, but jeez, how big a hammer do you need? Where is the leadership on the council? Why has the popular project been sitting on the shelves for, what, 4 or 5 years now? It can’t be about money, both the state, through the Vision Iowa program, and the county, have kicked in funds. So what’s been the hold up? I know government moves slow, but this is downright glacial.
Instead of progress and vision from the city, lately the council has offered little more than personal vendettas and public sniping.
When was the last time the council discussed its vision for the city 10 or 20 years down the road? What action have they taken to advance those goals?
Remember during the election when there was all that talk about retaining young people in the community? What programs or ideas have been proposed to achieve that good idea? What has the city council done to encourage growth and economic development? What should we do to retain and help local businesses? How about families?
This is a project that addresses some of those goals and it’s a huge step in the right direction.