CONNECTING FLORENCE AND CANON CITY Connecting the FSDs

CONNECTING FLORENCE AND CANON CITY Connecting the FSD’s Communities in a Safe and Responsible Manner

WHY A TRAIL EXTENSION? Safety Recreation Connection

SAFETY Travel t/f Cañon City and Florence is Dangerous By Foot By Bicycle Hwy 115 is only reasonable route presently Will only get worse in decades to come Need a reasonable access between the communities

RECREATION Pathfinder Regional Park Great focus for recreation of all kinds for decades to come. Linking families from Florence with families from Cañon City No reasonable non-vehicle access point to Pathfinder now. Riverwalk Has become an economic engine Would vastly increase trail size Would build more tourist opportunities and visibility

CONNECTION Connecting the Two Largest Communities in Fremont County Connecting the two Bases of Population for the Sanitation District Providing Easier Access for Sanitation District to its Line Part of a Larger Project to Connect the Communities

NOT A NEW IDEA Colorado State Trails Master Plan, 1980. Original Concept for Riverwalk, early 1980 s. Eastern Fremont County Trails and Open Space Master Plan, 1997. Eastern Fremont County Trails, Open Space and River Corridor Master Plan, 2015. Arkansas Riverwalk Trail System Technical Workgroup Recommendation, 2018.

NOT A NEW IDEA Even supported by this Board’s predecessor “A motion that this Board approve the concept of a green belt area from Cañon City to Florence for recreational purposes and at such time as the project materializes and is controlled by a governmental entity we would be agreeable to negotiating an easement on lands owned by the District. ” Motion approved by LPSD 11/11/1981

OPPOSITION EXISTS Adamic Family addressed points of opposition with letter to agencies on April 29, 2013. They have since addressed those and other points with the agencies involved. Other adjacent landowners have also addressed similar concerns.

HOW TO ADDRESS OPPOSITION The Recreation District has listened to all concerns in various public and private forums. The Recreation District has made a commitment throughout this process to address every single concern. The cost of the trail project has increased due to the Recreation District’s concessions on every point.

MAJORITY OF FSD’S CONSTITUENTS WANT THIS The opposition to this project has been vocal. The opposition has made threats, to include legal action. The opposition, however, is a small minority. The vast majority of FSD’s constituents want this project For example, in recent survey of Cañon City citizens, 81% stated they supported this project.

OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED TWG Tasked with Exploring All Options for Trail Extension Seven Different Options Considered for This Stretch Only Viable Option Adamic offered certain easements for 115 option, but those were very limited and unrealistic CDOT nixed most options along 115, along with private landowners River routes eliminated because landowners, including Adamics, opposed.

CONCERNS RAISED FOR THIS STRETCH Adamic family has raised objections to trail being placed between two parcels of their land. Trail would not be on any Adamic land. Adamics are concerned that effects of trail would harm them as adjacent landowners.

LISTENING TO CONCERNS Met With Adamics at least Three Times During TWG Process Adamics and Supporters Have Spoken at Dozens of CCRD Board Meetings Even When Nothing Relating to Extension is on Agenda Met With Adamics During 2015 Trails Master Plan Process CCRD Staff and Board Members Have Met With Adamics to Try to Address Concerns

ADDRESSING EVERY CONCERN Tim Payne: BOCC “wants landowners to be treated fairly. ” Every time a concern was raised, an effort was made to address that concern. CCRD has agreed to invest hundreds of thousands more in engineering and construction costs due to efforts to address these concerns. The CCRD has negotiated and listened in good faith. Adjacent landowners have been treated fairly. There is a difference between fair treatment and capitulation to the unreasonable demand that all planning stop altogether. To be clear, this is NOT a “private property rights” issue. There are no legal “rights” being affected.

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Movement Between Properties RESPONSE: Adding crossing(s) across the trail. Gates to prevent trespasser access. CCRD Expense

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Interference with 1949 Easement RESPONSE: 1949 Document was not an Easement. Was a “Lease of Land (Short Term)” Assigned to LPSD in 1977 Difference between an “easement” and a “lease” No unreasonable interference with use

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Cattle Access to Water RESPONSE: Six Foot Culvert Trail would bridge culvert Cattle could freely walk to and from access to water In addition, there is a spring on the south side of the trail.

“BUT COWS WON’T USE IT”

“BUT COWS WON’T USE IT”

“BUT COWS WON’T USE IT”

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Animals leaving trail / Calves entering trail RESPONSE: Original plan called for barbed- wire fence. After this was raised, plans were changed to call for “progressive woven wire” fencing that would not allow small animals to get through fencing.

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Trespassing by Trail Users RESPONSE: No evidence this is an issue anywhere else along Riverwalk. CCRD has agreed to include “No Trespassing” signs. CCRD has agreed to include signs educating public on ranching operations. Studies do not show that trespassing on private land on a trail like this is a real issue.

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Liability Concerns for Adjoining Landowners RESPONSE: Adjoining landowner has no “duty” to trail users. Only responsible for own acts Deliberate or reckless conduct re: trespassers Colorado’s Recreational Use Statute C. R. S. § 33 -41 -101 et seq. Further limits liability in Colorado

LIABILITY CONCERNS ARE OVERSTATED Rails-To-Trails Conservancy Study Studied 362 Trails over two-year period Only 19 of those trails reported any claims of any kind Of those 19 claims, only two involved suits against private property owners Of the two remaining claims, one involved a homeowner planting shrubbery on a trail curve. The lesson here? Don’t plant shrubbery on the Riverwalk. Experience with Riverwalk proves this Experience with other Colorado trails proves this The Cowboy Trail in Nebraska – case study

SPECIFIC CONCERNS Insurance Issues RESPONSE: Same Rails-to-Trails Study Extra cost for trail-specific policy was $1000 -$4500 annually FOR THE TRAIL OWNER Presumably much less for owners of short adjacent sections Insurance Company Letter Opinion of Agent not Compelling That’s not how insurance works Trails would not exist if this was true.

RIVERWALK OPPOSITION IS NOT NEW “Commissioner Roy Canterbury voiced his concern for ranchers whose property is near the proposed trail. ‘Ranchers will have to put up with a lot of crap even if they have a woven wire fence, ’ said Canterbury. ‘When you invite people to come and do things down there, you are inviting trouble. ’”

RIVERWALK OPPOSITION IS NOT NEW

RIVERWALK OPPOSITION IS NOT NEW

THIS IS NOT A NEW IDEA Trails exist in conjunction with ranching across Colorado and across America. In many of those projects, doom and gloom was promised by adjoining landowners. Not one of those predictions have come true. The Riverwalk adjoins dozens of private landowners, including ranchers. The experience has been mostly incident-free. Nobody is going out of business. Period. That has not happened anywhere else, and this mile-stretch of land owned by the Sanitation District is not a magical place where things are any different.

BRAVERY TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS Controversy should not mean that the District should oppose. The Lincoln Park Sanitation District courageously supported this plan over 30 years ago amid similar opposition. Safety and connectivity are important to the taxpayers of the FSD. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, tell your children you were on the right side of this issue. Every single issue has been addressed. The FSD Board tasked the CCRD with working in good faith with the landowners. CCRD has done that. We will continue to work with the landowners. Please support this request from the CCRD.