Residents in NW opposed to trail

Diana Sahagun

Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2001 | 9:48 a.m.

Northwest valley resident Ed Console compares backing out of his driveway onto Pioneer Way with playing a game of chance.

Some mornings, he has narrowly missed bicyclists, who come barreling by on a 20-foot section of his front yard, which has been set aside by the city of Las Vegas as part of a multi-use trail system.

Console is among a group of homeowners who live on Pioneer near Elkhorn Road. Since 1996, these homeowners' properties have been situated in the path of a public trail system designed to snake through the northwest.

Though initially supportive of the idea, residents have for months fought the city after learning the public trail would not be a horse trail, as originally intended, but rather a concrete path. What's more, homeowners would be responsible for maintaining the trail. Their responsibilities would include trash removal, repair and irrigation of the surrounding landscape.

The residents were also told that they could be liable for injuries, or vandalism, on portions of the trail that cut through their property. After learning their homeowners' insurance could be canceled if the trail is built, residents have written letters, have threatened to sue the city and have criticized officials for what they say is poor planning.

In response to the residents' concerns, city planners said last week they would recommend the elimination of the Pioneer stretch from the trail system master plan, which is scheduled to be discussed by the Las Vegas Planning Commission on Thursday.

Residents, nevertheless, say the trail system would cause the same problem in other areas of the northwest.

The proposed master plan shows a 51-mile trail system that would run through the northwest from Ann Road to Kyle Canyon Road.

On Wednesday, the Las Vegas City Council is scheduled to decide what role the city should play regarding maintenance and liability issues as they relate to the trail system.

In 1999, just as Glenn Danner and his wife, Dianne Dickson, were purchasing their home on Pioneer, they were told of a multi-use, equestrian trail, the existence of which required them to grant the city a 20-foot easement, which runs through a piece of property at the side of the couple's home.

The Pioneer trail has been part of the city's general plan since 1996. It originally was designated as an equestrian, multi-use trail, according to a letter written to residents in June by Don Schmeiser, a senior planner for the city.

The easement was required of all developments along Pioneer as a condition of approval. The conditions were established prior to the sale of the lots, he wrote.

Other residents moved into the new neighborhood around 1999, separating the easement with landscaping and gravel.

This year, however, residents learned the trail would be a multi-use path, and not an equestrian trail. According the Schmeiser's letter, "Because of the constricted width of the trail (20 feet), the new plan proposes to eliminate the equestrian trail portion ... ."

City planners this year drafted a new master plan for trails in the northwest.

The multi-use trail would be concrete and would include benches and lights, intended to be used by pedestrians and bicyclists, according to the proposal. Residents say a multi-use trail anywhere in the city would be unsafe, because in some instances the trail runs through people's front yards and driveways.

"I didn't mind when it was just an occasional horse," Console said.

According to the proposed plan, the trail system would be maintained by homeowners' associations.

The problem, Pioneer residents say, is that several different builders have been involved in the neighborhood, and residents such as Console and Danner are not members of an association, as one does not exist in their neighborhood. They say it is unfair to burden individual homeowners with maintenance costs for a public trail.

The proposed master plan estimates it would cost $100 a mile per year to maintain the trail.

"Look at what they are asking people to do for that trail," Danner said. "It's the city of Las Vegas trail system, but the homeowners have to take care of it."

Chris Knight, deputy planning director for the city, said the abutting property owners would be responsible for maintaining the trail, just as they are required, according to the city code, to maintain the sidewalks in front of their homes.

Knight said the trails were meant to take the place of sidewalks.

Knight said the proposed trails are no less safe than sidewalks. When drivers back out of their driveways onto the sidewalk, they have to watch for pedestrians, just as they would for a trail, he said.

"My big concern is, if you're going to build a trail, just do it right," Danner said. "Don't build something that I'm going to look at and say I'm never going to use it."

The liability factor is unclear, partly because of a new bill adopted this year by the legislature, Assembly Bill 63, which addresses public trails.

Deputy City Attorney Bryan Scott said if the trails were likened to sidewalks, the residents would not be held liable for injuries or vandalism. A portion of the city's municipal code states that while homeowners are responsible for maintaining sidewalks, there is no transfer of liability. The city would be held liable for injures only if officials were told of hazards and failed to repair them.

The city's municipal code, though, does not have a specific section addressing trails, Scott said.

"Their liability could be none," Scott said. "We're trying to figure that out. I don't think it's the city's intent to shelve off any liability on anyone."

According to AB63, if a governing body requires a land owner to dedicate a tract as a trail, the governing body must accept ownership, maintenance, and ownership of the trail.

Scott said the city attorney's office is evaluating the bill in an effort to comply with the measure, as well as determine its intent.

Because of liability issues, Danner said he was told by State Farm that his homeowners insurance would be canceled if the trail was built.

Carol and Jerry Onstad, who live across the street from Danner and his wife, were told a similar story by their insurance company, United Services Automobile Association.

"This just doesn't make any sense," Jerry Onstad said. "An equestrian trail in the country makes perfect sense. It doesn't make sense now."

City Councilman Michael Mack said he's trying to balance residents' needs by giving horse owners a place to ride, while at the same time maintaining residents' quality of life. Mack is working with Clark County to draft an interlocal agreement specifying rural street standards, which could effectively eliminate some of the proposed trails.

"My main focus has always been that we give the horse community an opportunity to get them from the rural preservation areas to the wilderness trail areas so they can ride," Mack said. "It's hard in the middle of a dense residential area. When it all comes down to it, I'm sure we can't please everyone."