FINAL REPORT
FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAILS SYSTEM

AD HOC COMMITTEE
MARC H 17, 1988

Dale Shewalter, Chairman
Susan Slasor, Vice Chairman
Les Graff
Richard Oliver
Chri s Franks
Art Mathias
Mark Miles

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
SU~1~1ARY

FUTS EXECUTIVE

3

CONCLUSIONS •••••••.••••..••••••••.••••••

4

RECOMMENDATIONS •••••••••••••••••••••••••

6

..................................

7

J. NTRODUCTION

PHASE I
PROPOSED DEDICATION OF CITY PROPERTIES ­
PHASE I •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

LI NK #1
LII~K #2

.................................

l(J

.

11
14

LINK #3 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

16

PRIORITIZATION OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION ­
PH ASE I ••••••••••••••..••••..•.•.••••••••.••

19

PRIVATE •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

OTHER PUBLIC •••••.•••••••••••••.••••••••

19
19

TRAIL DESIGN AND BUDGET - PHASE I •••••••••••••

20

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES

29

PHASE II AND BEYOND
PRIORITIZATION OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION ­
PHASE II ••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••.•••

30

LI NK #1
LINK #2 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

30
30

LINK #3 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

31

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • It • • •

FUTURE TRAIL LINKS TO UNITED STATES FOREST
SERVICE LANDS...............................

32

COORDINATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS/ACTIVITIES ••

33

PROM 0TION S •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • •

36

1.

CITY CODE 9-1-4 •••••••••••••••••••••••••

2.

ELDEN TRAILS SySTEM
..
FUTS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 1511 •...•
THE ARIZONA TRAIL ••••••.••••••••••••••••

39
40
41
43

3.

4.

~1T.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 3
FUTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Therf~

exists a great potential" to enhance the recreational opportunities
and alternative transportation options for Flagstaff citizens and visitors.
The proposed Flagstaff Urban Trails System would provide non-motorized
links between neighborhoods, schools, parks, and business areas. A func­
tional, 3.2 mile system on 130 acres of City land is attainahle through
dedication and minimal improvements. Acquisition of flood plain and steep­
sloped links of private properties would greatly expand the system. Lead­
ership by the City \"ill help ensure access to the system through private
prope rty and othe r Ci ty 1and as i nfi 11 development occurs. Al so, Ci ty corn­
mitment will inspire other agency and private participation as evidenced by
Northern Arizona University (NAU), the United States Forest Service (USFS),
and the Arizona State Land Department and State Parks interest in the sys­
tem. Information regarding specific properties, trail design, .1nd funding
sources are di scussed within thi s report.
Although appropriate City guidance will be necessary, it is intended th.1t
the Flagstaff Urban Trails System be maintained largely through volunteer
effort.s. Citi zen input .11 ready suggests an interest in organizerl adoption
of the trail 1 inks.
This Committee, with excellent staff support, has held many long, informa­
tive meetings. The work of the members· \"as reinforced by a sense of posi­
tive community support for the trails system. The following conclusions
and recommendations are a result of the Committee's efforts.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 4
FUTS CONCLUSIONS

1. As the Flagstaff community continues to grow within and around the cor­
porate limits, the demand for walking, running, bicycling, ancJ related
recreational opportunities throughout the community I'Jill increasp.
2. The desire for non-motorized alternate modes of access to schools,
parks, and shopping, etc., will increase as well as the demand for
access from within the community to qual ity USFS recreational 1 ands
around the community.
3. As infill development occurs, opportunities for quality recreational
rights-of-way will dimini sh.

4. Without a specific system objective, and without City commitment,
Planning staff will have difficulty negotiating continuous rights-of­
way (easements) through new developments.
5. The City presently owns property that al ready affords some of the bene­
fits of urban trails, though it is not decJicatpd as such and needs
improvement. Even if the system does not expand immediately, the areas
recommended for dedication are "stand alone" segments.
6. Cooperative efforts with other agencies and projects will enhance the
recreational opportunities throughout the entire Fl agstaff area, e.g.,
the 1"1t. Elden Trails System, The Arizona Trail, Ft. Tuthill, Ptc.
7. The proposed Urban Trails System is supportive of and in accord .\vith
the Open Space/Greenbelt and Bicycle/Pedestrian Sub-elements of the
Growth Management Gu ide 2000 (GMG 2000). It is also a concept em­
braced in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
8. It is recognized that conflicts between pecJestrians, bicyclers, and
equestrian users can occur. Further involvement from the users shoulcJ
be sought to best accommodate these uses.
9. The expense of Phiise I of the Urban Trails System, inclucJing initial
clean-up, signage improvements, and projected annual operations and
maintenance, is minimal and very cost-effective, particularly if com­
pared to the alternative of purchasing and improving piirkliincJ for a
rapidly growing City.

10. Parts of the proposed system, particularly the Rio de Flag Canyon,
exhibit a diverse canyonl and habitat for animal and pl ant 1 i fe, ancJ
as such, could be used for natural science interpretive activities for
school systems, residents, and other system users.

11. An informal, cJe facto Urban Trails System already exists within the
City, particularly on the Phase I City links.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 5
12. Non-dedication of City properties would encourage the continued deyra­
dation, dumping, ~nd mis-use of the properties, particularly since the
properties have no real alternative economic uses other than drainage
and ut il ity co rri d ors.
13. Urban Trai 1 and Open Space systems analogous to thi s proposal suc­
cessfully exist in cities all across the United States, e.g., Ancho-­
rage, Alaska; Reston, Virginia; Scottsdale, Arizona.
14. Creation of an Urban Trail s/Open Space System will: a) increase prop­
erty values for both private and City-owned properties along the sys­
tem; b) serve as a catalyst and design opportunity for qual ity growth
and redevelopment; c) provide a very effective means for preserving
significant natural areas inside of the City; d) promote a better, more
flexible land use development pattern through continuous buffering and
trails system connections; and, e) in conjunction with drainageways,
will provide a solid basis for sound flood plain management by thl'l
City.
15. The IJrban Trail s/Open Space System wi 11 be a continuous source of corn­
munity pride and identity and would be a major, positive addition to
the quality of life in Flagstaff.
16. The most critical and opportune time to create an Urban Trails System
is now, before any more obstructions and impediments develop along the
proposed routes.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 6
FUTS RECOMMENDATIONS
1.

City-owned land trlat has been identified
Trails System should be dedicated. Upon
the City should firs~ embark on a course
system to the point of being operational
mended that this property be included in
campaign.

as necessary for ttle Urban
dedication to City parkland,
to clean up and improve the
and safe. It is also recom­
the City's Southside clean-up

2.

City-owned property adjacent to urban trails and not needed for aes­
thetic value or access should be sold or traded for acquisition of pri­
vate lands needed for continuity of the system. If possible, receipts
from sales should be specified for the Urban Trails System to reduce
competition with other City budget items.

3.

The City should retain adequate staff for the continual planning,
acquisition, improvements, and coordination efforts between volunteer,
inter-agency, City commissions, and different user groups of the Urban
Trails System.

4.

Planning and Zoning procedures should allow for consideration of the
Urban Trails System during deyelopment activities.

5.

Planning and implementation efforts should continue to pursue links
with points beyond the corporate limits, particularly USFS lands.
Also, as infill development occurs, opportunities to improve the Urban
Trails System should be acted upon.

6.

Public use of the Urban Trails System should be multiple-use, but be
1imited to non-motori zed means of travel, pursuant to City Code Section
9-1-4(A), and all applicable rules and policies of the City Parks Divi­
sion. Equestrian travel, where permitted, should be separated from the
main treadway.

7.

Funding possibilities are discussed in this report, but the Committee
recommends that sane of the Urban Trails System monies be obtained from
Proposition #304 (Bed, 8oard, & Booze Tax) since it: a) offers a
direct benefit to the people paying this tax, e.g., the tourists; and,
b) dedication, clean-up, and future acquisition would be a major con­
tribution to the City's beautification effort.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/A8, PAGE 7
I NTRODUCTI ON
The Flagstaff Urban Trails System Ad Hoc Committee was appointerl by the
City Council to study and make recommendations pursuant to implementation
of a City-wide Urban Trails System.
The Urban Trails System concept is an integral component of the Op~n Space/
Greenbelt Sub-element and Bicycle/Pedestrian Sub-element of the City's GMG
2000. The concept is also a recommended component of the City's Parks and
Recreation Master Plan.
On several occasions rluring the Spring of 1987, interested citizens met
with City Planning staff to discuss community interest and involvement in
urban trails. Representative members of the community and ar~a governmen­
tal agencies were invited to an infonnational meeting and field trip on
June 3, 1987. The field trip focused on segments of the proposed system
along the Sinclair Wash and Rio de Flag. Another field trip was held on
July 25, 1987 for a closer look at areas on the south side of the commu­
nity. It was well attended. Response by participants was very positive as
well as subsequent response to medi a ~overage of the event.
The momentum precipitated by this grassroots effort culminated with the
appointment of the Flagstaff Urban Trails System Ad Hoc Committee (herein­
after called "FUTS" Committee) of the Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commis­
sion. The City Council adopted a Resolution on October 20, 1987 convening
the Committee, and charging it with making recommendations to the Planning
and Zoning Commission regarding the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Dedication of appropriate City properties into the Urban
Trai 1 s System;
Prioritization of private properties to be acquired;
Other public properties necessary and desirable for
inclusion into the system;
Volunteer/promotional efforts to improve the system;
Funding sources;
Refinement of the GMG 2000 Urban Trails Plan;
Coordination with other organizations and activities
affecting the Urban Trails System;
Planning and Zoning procedures to address development
activities in Urban Trails areas.

The Ad Hoc Committee has been meeting weekly since November, 1987 to study
and discuss establishment of the Urban Trails System. The Committee has
taken field trips along various drainageways and potential trail, links and
rliscussed the aesthetics and logistics of the system. The Committee has
studied maps, patterns of land ownership, and the topography of various
sections of the City.
Representatives of several agencies, such as the Arizona State Lanrl Depart­
ment, the USFS, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), NAU, City
engineering, and others have provided input and answered questions from the
Committee concerning the effects of a trails system on other lands.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 8
As guides, the Committee has used the GMG 2000 and the Planning Guide for
Parks and Recreation, both of which call for a trails system, and a consul­
tant study that was done for the City on the Greenbelt Plan for the south­
sid e a rea.
Several themes have guided the work. The Committee recommends that the
Urban Trails System be a non-motorized multiple-use facility, and, prefer­
ably, rural and natural in nature. The system will link the various neigh­
borhoods, parks, and schools, and allow persons to use the trails as a
transportation corridor to travel to various areas within the City.
Significant steps have al ready occurred in regard to private participation
into the proposed system. For example, the Fairway Peaks development,
Woodlands Village, and Wal-Mart, Mesa Verde Village, Flagstaff Commerce
Park, and Canyon Del Rio have al ready planned and dedicated non-motorized
access easements through their properties for use as urban trails. In
addition, two pending offers of dedication, totaling 130 acres, are await­
ing City commitment.
Ultimately, the trails system would provide access to other public lands
such as Coconino National Forest, the National Park Service, State lands,
Coconino County lands, and cultural centers such as the Museum of Northern
Arizona, the Arboretum, and NAU.
Private groups, school and civic groups, and clubs can adopt po~tions of
the trail and keep them clean and free of debris through an Adopt-A-Trail
program which has proved successful in other areas through-out Arizona sllch
as portions of the Mt. Elden Trails System, the Olden Trail, etc.
The main recommendation of the FUTS Committee is for the City to dedicate
three corridors of own land as trails to form the initial core (Phase 1) of
the system. This first step is crucial for several reasons: 1) it demon­
strates the City's commitment to the trails system; 2) it provides the
basis and incentive for other landowners and government agencies to partic­
ipate in the system, allowing for its growth as development occurs; and,
3) it insures that planning activities will take the trails system into
account in all areas of the City.
These first three City links are identified and mapped in the body of the
FUTS Report.
The Committee al so recommends that the City sell or trade some of its sur­
plus land in order to acquire certain parcels which are privately owned and
which the Committee believes are essential to the integrity of the trails
system. These parcels, as v~ell as potential trade land, are also detailed
within this report.
Finally, the Committee proposes use of natural drainage areas, areas in the
flood plain, major water and sewerline corridors, and areas which are dif­
ficult to develop due to severe slope constraints. All of these areas have
also been targeted as Greenbelt areas in the GMG 2000, and all have very
little, if any, development value.
The City Resolution charged the FUTS Committee to produce a written report
containing its recommendations. This report is the product of our work.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 9

AREA MAP

Flagstall City Limits

eno

I

I

Linda Vista Dr.

.n.fT
u:

.1

LINK +3

..

;

CIl

~

l

L

LINK +2

LINK +1

FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAILS SYSTEM
CITY PROPERTY TO BE DEDICATED

FIaQltatl Citv limits

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 10
PHASE I
PROPOSED DEDICATION OF CITY PROPERTIES - PHASE I
The most important recommendation of this report is in regard to the dedi­
cation of three corridors of City-owned land that fortunately consists of
the most critical parts of the proposed system in tenns of: 1) strategic
location; and, 2) natural beauty.
It is also the most important recommendation because: 1) dedication of
these three corridors signals the commitment by the City to the Urban
Trails and Greenbelt Systems; and, 2) provides.~he basis and incp.ntive for
others to cooperate and participate and add to the system so that it will
eventually 1ink together.
As was previously discussed, this Committee proposes a rural setting for
the Urban Trails System as based upon the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
(ROS), a trail guideline adopted by the USFS for use in their trails sys­
tem. This means that, whenever possible within the City, the Committee
feels it is desirable to provide a setting for the users that exists in as
natural an environment as possible. As previously mentioned, this is in
accord with the Open Space/Greenbelt System as outlined in the GMG 2000.
Essentially, this overall philosophy has been factored primarily into the
Committee's recommendations regarding the City properties. This is in rec­
ognition of the following:
1)
2)

the undevelopable nature of the City property;
and, more so, the tremendous natural beauty of the Sinclair
Wash, the Rio de Flag, and the Bow and Arrow Canyons.

Hence, the City areas recommended for dedication encompass the 100-Year
Flood Plain, the sewer and water utility corridors, and the steep, heavily
wooded canyon side slopes. The total City area recommended for dedication
is approximately 13U acres (see area map).
In a few instances, areas that are adjacent to the canyons are recommended
to be retained because of their strategic location in relation to thp pro­
posed system's potential as City parkland. Specifically, critical areas
have been set aside for access, parking lots, and general staging areas
that are appurtenant to City park facilities. this will assure the sys­
tem's ability to serve as multi-use parkland, and in turn, reduce the
City's need to acquire parkland for future growth.
As a general note, all dedications should not preclude flexibility in
accommodating future City improvements in these areas, e.g., necessary
water, reclaimed water, sewer, and drainage facilities.
This Committee took several field trips to the different areas in order to
decide what was necessary in terms of land needed to provide this setting.
After walking the properties and consulting topographical maps, it was con­
cluded that within drainageway canyons, varying setbacks, depending upon
terrain and timber, would be used.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 11
In areas of steep slopes andlor heavy timber, which is applicable to 95% of
the City properties in Links #1 and #2, a 50 foot rim setback was decided
upon. In areas of gentle to moderate slopes and light timber, a 100 foot
setback was deemed necessary to eliminate the encroachment of future devel­
opment upon mesas overlooking the proposed trail. This took into account
the possibilities of development on the rims which included rock outcrop­
pings, heavy timber, and slopes in excess of 30% to 40%. Due to the narrow
width of City property in Link #3, this criteria was not applicable.
The Committee is recommending dedication of three major links of City-owned
property that transect three quadrants of the City. The links are outlined
as follows:
LI NK #1
The general purpose of Link #1, as shown in Exhibit "A", is to directly
connect this portion of the system with NAU, the southside neighborhoods,
Kinsey SctlOol, future on-street and street-side bicycle and pedestrian sys­
tems to be constructed with the Lone Tree Road and Butler Avenue street
bond projects, and future neighborhoods that will develop on surplus City
and private property in the area.
Per EXhibit "A", City Parcel #1, beginning at the intersection of Dome
Drive and the Sinclair Wash, runs east along the drainageway to O'Leary
Street. This area contains 16.19 acres.
Dedication should be subject to the right-of-way needed for the Lone Tree
Road street bond project, and a minor portion of land north of the Sinclair
Wash that may be desirable for expansion of NAU's multi-purpose field.
It is anticipated, and strongly recommended by the Committee, that the Lone
Tree Road realignment right-of-way should incorporate the Urban Trails Sys­
tem through Babbitt property northeast of City Parcel #1.
City Parcel #2, beginning at O'Leary Street and the confluence of the Rio
de Flag and Sinclair Wash drainageways, runs east through the Rio de Flag
canyon and drainageway to intersect the west line of property owned by
Stone Container Corporation.
This area contains 45.16 acres and runs along the drainageway and two City
sewer transmission lines, and is considered by the Committee to be the
backbone of the entire Urban Trails System. It is also this parcel that
provides for two staging and parking areas for the system that are out of
the 100-Year Flood Plain. This particular area also contains a large, wide
area of 100-Year Flood Plain that could support multi-purpose field use or
other parkland activities. Dedication should be subject to the Lone Tree
Road real ignment right-of-way.

EXHIBIT A

FUTS FHIAL REPORT, 03/18/88,' PAGE 12

F.U.T.S.
LINK.,. 1

"

14­

15

1.1

22.

Ave..

L,'H'<
A"'Lrf~'"

,.to
8.'
7

--sr~"

13.,

¥»

~

....

' J
('

~

~

-l../

6o,",

,. ... J

;.'"
- - - - - - - - - - - --

/3

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 13
EXHIBIT "B"
SALE OR TRADE rormrIAL/SURPWS CITY LANa>

LINK

#

PARCEL DESIQlATlOO

APPIUX. ACREAGE

#1

A

43.63

#1

B

1.35

#1

C

0.11

#1

D

2.25

#1

E

3.17

#1

F

4.21

#1

G

0.72

#1

H

0.87

#2

I

#2

J

3.05

#2

K

7.50

~

.

'IUl'AL SURPUJS ACREAGE

,

0.23

67.09

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 14
City Parcel #3, beginning at the southeast right-of-way line of Interstate
40 (1-40) and the Rio de Flag drainageway and running east to the west line
of property owned by the Little America Corporation contains 29.35 acres.
This section of trail, at the confluence of the Rio de Flag and Bow and
Arrow drainageways, is crucial to connecting eastern and western segments
of the Urban Trails System. Dedication should be subject to adequate
acquisition of the Stone Container parcel to the north, and to an approved
ADOT 1-40 permit.
Within Link #1, there are eight surplus, non-essential parcels of land that
will be isolated from other City-owned properties that are recommended for
dedication, and in most cases are completely landlocked. These pieces of
property do, however, border other larger, privately-owned property and are
consid~red by this Committee to have excellent trade potential.
This is
particularly true for those surplus City parcels that are adjacent to pri­
vate property owners who also own property that is recommended for acquisi­
tion and Urban Trails extensions. These are shown on Exhibits "A" and "C",
and are identified by designation and acreage on Exhibit "B".
Inside of Link #1, there are approximately 9650 lineal feet of urban trail
proposed within the properties being considered for dedication. This
breaks down into 1950 feet within City Parcel #1, 5300 feet within Parcel
#2, and 2400 feet within City Parcel #3. With the commitments of Woodlands
Village and NAU to the urban trails concept, this would give the citizens
of Flagstaff a section of trail that could be utilized almost immediiltely
as a recreational opportunity.
LI NK #2

The general purpose of Link #2 is to connect this portion of the system to
Foxglenn Park, the Fairfield Continental neighborhood, Knoles Elementary
SChool, the new high school, and to integrdte the system with the Canyon
Del Rio Urban Lands project, and eventually connect to Link #1.
As shown on Link #2, Exhibit "C", the Committee is recommending dedication
of City-owned property that is presently known as the old sewer treatment
plant site. Beginning on the south line that borders private property
presently owned by the Wil~ersons, the Committee is recommending dedication
of a parcel of land running north and then east to intersect the west line
of property presently owned by the Fairfield Continental Corporation. This
strip of land contains 29.45 acres, the majority of which 1 ies within the
existing drainageway. Dedication should be subject to demol ition of the
old treatment plant, and adequate acquisition of the Fairfield parcel link­
ing to Foxglenn Park.
Within Link #2, there dre three parcels of surplus, non-essential City­
owned property that are isolated from other City-owned property; again con­
sidered to be excellent trade potential. These are also shown on Exhibit
"c" and identified by designation and approximate acreage on Exhibit "B".
It is recommended that sale or trade of .City Parcel "K" be subject to re­
taining the Switzer Wash corridor.

EXHIBIT C
FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 15

F.U.T.S.
LINK +2

C.. ",

11\

I
-.I

(Io-~ w,7k"'S'A

23 24­
15

2"

4A

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 16
All parcels considered as trade potential could contribute yreatly to the
City being able to obtain easements or rights-of-way of urban trails sec­
tions through private properties needed to interconnect the entire system.
It is recommended that the sale or trade"'of City Parcel "K" be subject to
retaining the Switzer Mesa corridor.
Inside of Link #2, the land referred to as Parcel #3A being proposed for
dedication, contains 1900 lineal feet of urban trail that could lead to the
connection of Knoles Elementary School and Foxglenn Park.
LI NK #3
Another section of land being proposed for dedication, hereinafter called
Link #3, is shown on Exhibit "0". The general intent of Link #3 is to
connect Coconino Estates, Sechrist and Marshall Elementary Schools, and
Flagstaff High and Junior High Schools with the downtown area. Eventually,
with the possibility of trail development north to Cheshire and points
beyond, the system could tie in with the Museum of Northern Arizona, the
Pioneer Historical Museum, and the Mt. Elden Trails System.
Per Exhibit "0", Thorpe Park, beginning at the intersection of Elm and
Bonito Streets runs northwest to Beal Road and is already dedicated as
parkland. No dedication is necessary; only the route needs to be located
within this area in coordination with the Thorpe Park Master Plan. The
School District has concurred with the proposed concept and alignment.
City Parcel #5, beginniny at the intersection of Beal Road and the existing
drainayeway approximately 200 feet west of Navajo Road runs north to Meade
Lane and contains approximately 6.94 acres. This section of trail runs
along the existing drainageway and is currently used as a bicycle and jog­
ying route.
Immediately north of Meade Lane there are approximately 650 1 ineal feet of
drainageway presently owned by the area homeowners' association as ease­
ment. Immediately north of this, City Parcel #6 runs north along the
drainageway into Coconino Park and Lantern Lane. Dedication of City Parcel
#6 should be subject to acquisition of the 650 feet of private land south
of Parcel #6.
Within Link #3. there would be approximately 5300 lineal feet of urban
trail, 3000 feet through property which exists as parkland. and 2300 feet
which would be the result of the proposed dedication.
DEDICATION SUMMARY - PHASE I
By proceeding with the process of Phase I dedication, there would be within
the City approximately 17.000 lineal feet (3.2 miles) of trail and 130
acres of City parkland that could be utilized almost immediately. Total
surplus City acreage recommended for sale or trade to extend the Urban
Trail s System is approximately 66 acres (see Exhibit "8"). With future
development. the possibility exists to link entirely distinct geographic
areas within the City to each other and provide for the citizens of Flag­
staff a non-motorized recreational opportunity within a unique Open Space/
Greenbelt setting.

EXHIBIT'O

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 17

F.U.T.S.
LINK #3

+ 3

I'
43

51-f

------~:;-11·,-·---..+rL-,b-----\--------.....;.,-i-:'I"-O-------

I

NorfA
SoiL' 1"02000'

FI.~-r..-I.f
)1-; I,

Set./

\

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 18

PHASE I

PARCELS TO BE JE)ICA'reO AND LINEAL FOOl'AGE OF TRAIL

LINEAL FEET OF TRAIL

#1

16.19

2350'

#1

#2

45.16

5300'

#1

#3

29.45

2400'

============================-===================~=~===
=-======:=:===============

90.80

SUB-'IOrAL:

10,050'

================================================================================

#2

,

#3A

29.45

1900'

==========_=================x==========;==============
======:=======:=~=========

29.. 45

SUB-'IUl'AL :

1,900'

============================================================================-===

Thorpe Park

No Dedication Needed

3000'

#3

#5

6.94

1680'

#3

#6

2.75

620'

============================-===========-======-====-=-==-=-----===-====-------­

SUB-'lUrAL:

9.69

5,300'

===================r===================================
===~=====================

129.94

17,250'

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 19
PRIORITIZATION OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION - PHASE I
In order to develop a complete, interconnected trails system, access
through several different parcels of public and private property within the
different links must be acquired or gained. The first priority for acqui­
sition is for those pieces of property within drainageways that geographi­
cally separate City-owned segments of the trail and are identified as
"Phase I" within the following links:

PRIVATE PROPERTY - PHASE I
Within Link #1, a most obvious example is that portion of land transected
by the Rio de Fl ag and north of 1-40 as shown on Exhibit "A". Because the
entire portion of this property lies within the drainageway and steeps
slope leading to the rim of the canyon, its potential for development is
very limited, if not impossible. The Committee feels it necessary to
acquire from Stone Container Corporation this piece of property and
subsequently proceed with the dedication process for City parcel #3 to the
Urban Trails System.
Within Link #2, another area of property needed for the system is that cur­
rently owned by Fairfield Continental Corporation which lies immediately
south and east of Foxglenn Park. This parcel provides for a logical expan­
sion of Foxglenn Park and also provides a necessary connection of the parks
and schools within the Urban Trails System.
Acquisition of a trails system link through this parcel is two-fold: it
expands the Foxglenn Park area, and works well for connecting the school
and the parks to the Urban Trails System. Acquisition discussions are cur­
rently underway between the City Parks Division and Fairfield Continental.
OTHER PUBLIC PROPERTIES - PHASE I
NAU owns a portion of the Sinclair Wash, a link in the trails system west
to the Woodlands Village trail link and east to the Rio de Flag areas of
the trails system. NAU has already sent a letter to the City committing to
a cooperative effort to get that portion of the trails system established.
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has apprised the City of
its permit application procedure for obtaining a permit for trail users to
cross underneath the two ADOT rights-of-way: where the Rio de Flag trail
section crosses under I-40, and where the Sinclair Wash trails section
crosses under the realigned 1-17 and US 89A interchange. Applications are
currently pending with no significant problems anticipated.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 20
TRAIL DESIGN AND BUDGET - PHASE I
TRAIL WIDTH AND SURFACE
The FUTS Committee recommends that the desired width of the trail treadway
for the Urban Trails System should be a minimum of eight feet with a two
foot shoulder on either side, for a total of twelve feet. Optionally, a
total width of 20 feet is most desirable to allow for signage, slope area,
and landscaping, if necessary. (In certain areas the restrictions of the
terrain or property ownership might make this objective unobtainable.)
This width would make the trails system suitable for walking, jogging,
mountain-biking, and cross-country skiing. Because of the high cost and
installation of surfacing materials, the Committee recommends that during
the initial developmental stages, the trail surface be limited to hard­
paCked dirt or crushed rock. The only required improvement upon dedication
of City property would be a minimal amount of fill and grading in order to
upgrade existing sections of trail to a safe and useable condition. See
Table 1 for Phase I cost estimates.
CLEAN-UP
The majority of clean-up work along the trails system can be performed by
volunteer citizen's groups, but there are two dump sites located on City
property that will need more extensive efforts. The "Old City" and Stone
Container sites will require heavy equipment to clean up large metal debris
which could be hazardous to trail users and which severely detracts from
the scenic beauty of the proposed trail route. Cost estimates for Phase I
are shown in Table I, Phase I Budget.
BARRIERS
Barriers will need to be placed at designated locations to prevent motor­
ized vehicles from entering the trails system. At certain sites, signs
will serve a dual function as barriers, while at others, the installation
of more permanent materials such as boulders will be necessary. Cost esti­
mates are shown in Table 1 for Phase I.
SIGNING
Types of signs

Warning: \~arning signs and/or stop signs will be necessary to warn both
trail users and motorists of all locations where the Urban Trails System
crosses a roadway. It is anticipated that the Phase I dedication of the
three sections of City property to the system will necessitate the place­
ment of sixteen warning signs at designated intersections.
Crosswalks:

Locations where the trails system intersects existing, paved
roadways will require crosswalk striping. For Phase I, the following
street/trails intersections will need painted crosswalks:
Link #1:
Link #3:

O'Leary Street, San Francisco Street
Thorpe Perk, Beal Road, Anderson Road

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 21
CrosswalkS should be designed in cooperation with the City Traffic Engi­
neer and Traffic Commission.

Regulatory: Signs informing the public of ~he non-motorized status of the
Urban Trails System will be necessary at specific trailheads and intersec­
tions. For Phase I, approximately twenty-five to thirty signs of this type
will need to be installed at designated locations as shown in Table 1.
Boundary: These signs should be installed everyone-hundred to three­
hundred feet (distance dependent upon terrain and line of sight) along the
Greenbelt boundary to inform local residents, and the public at large, of
the system's boundaries and regulations. Phase I costs are identified in
Table 1.

Trailheads: These signs should be placed at principal trail heads and pro­
vide the following information: name of the trail, location map of the
trail, destinations, distances, and trail regulations. For Phase I, such
signs would be most beneficial at the Bonito Street, O'Leary Street, Fox
Glenn Park, and Thorpe Park trailheads.
Directional: Directional signs will be used at all intersections with
roads or other trails, where the correct route of the trails system is
subject to confusion by trail users. For Phase I, there are fifteen sites
alony the City portions of the trails system which will need directional
signage. Uniform signage shall be investigated.
NOTE:

See Table 1 and Maps 1, lA, 2, and 3 for cost estimates and
locations of trailhead signs, crosswalks, and barriers.

FENCING
Fencing will most likely need to be erected where the Flagstaff Urban
Trails System passes beneath 1-40 and 1-17 to control access on ADOT right­
of-way. Applications for ADOT Special Use Permits are pending. Table 1
indicates anticipated costs associated with permits.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 22

MAP 1

LINK :IF 1

i

i

I

L

\
.0
0(

MAP KEY

m

TRAILHEAD SIGN

® CROSSWALK
•

BARRIER

\

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 23

MAP -#1A
LINK -# 1

CIT.r ....

••
t
{

C,.,T •• "

.€r--------J

t-J.A.u.

....

COCo.'.a co. ".".

,

"."0." _ual.lC
' •• "IC'

MAP KEY

@
•

CROSSWALK
BARRIER

(

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 24
MAP 2
LINK #2

/

.. .

CM~CW

Oli ...

~IO

I

'.W.N T••• rtI4IMT .L...T

I

•
uri

/
J'
'<I
I •.••

erTT

L-"

MAP KEY

[!J

TRAILHEAD SIGN

~ CROSSWALK

•

BARRIER

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 25

MAP 3
Clf'l,.HU"

~'

I'CMIlI"

.e"OOL

"

MAP KEY
LINK +3

[i]

TRAILHEAD SIGN
TRAIL ROUTE

~

•

'CROSSWALK
BARRIER
,. .....

"

'I

"

"
,."
/I

"'......

-"

I ,--"

,,
II

,,
,,
I I

I,

I" I
\ I
\ \

, I

,'"
"

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 26
TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I
The exact routes of the entire trails system need to be field surveyed and
plotted. Priority in the layout of the trails should be given to safety
(e.g., hills, curves, road crossings) and to retaining the aesthetic natu­
ral beauty of our environment wherever possible. In most cases, the trail
already exists either as foot/bike paths as in Link #3, or as sewer and
waterline maintenance roads as in Links #1 and #2.
Once the routes are determined, they need to be made useable. In order to
utilize the system as quickly as possible, the following improvements are
necessary:
1.

Identify and remove any hazards such as utility pole guy wires, boul­
ders, etc. from the trail.

2.

~1inor filling and grading of trail, particularly along the spwer and
waterl ine maintenance roads. Recommended Phase I grading and fill ing
should be limited to that which can be accomplished without triggering
the requirements for FEMA hydrologic and hydraulic drainage reports.

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
Once the Urban Trails System is established, the primary responsibility for
maintenance should be assumed by a coalition of community volunteer orga­
nizations. In order to assure the safe condition of the trail, however,
for Phase I the Committee recommends a monthly inspection tour by a Parks
and Recreation employee. This inspection should include checking for
damaged or missing signs, obstructions, erosion problems, and any other
condition which might present a potential safety hazard to trail users.
Refer to Table 2 for estimated yearly costs.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 27
TABLE 1
PHASE I - START-UP BUDGET
TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
TOTALS
Mi nor Fill and Gradi ng

$

Fencing for ADOT R.O.W. (If Necessary)
(1960 linear feet @ $1.25/linear foot)

$

500 +/­
2,450

$ 2,950
CLEAN-UP COST ESTIMATES
Stone Container Site
"Old City" Site

$ 5,000 - $7,000
$12,000
$19,000 +/­

BARRIER COST ESTIMATES
No.

Cost Per Barriers

15

$100

$ 1,500

Type

No.

Cost Per Sign

Total

Warning

16

Regul atory

25/30

Crosswal

5

Barriers
SIGNAGE COST ESTIMATES

kS

Boundary

200 +/-

Trailheads

4

Di rect i ona 1

15

$

60
60

$

960
1,800 +/-

100

500

40

8,000

300

1,200

40

600
$13,060

TOTAL COSTS
Note:

$36,510 +/­

All sign cost estimates include mounting materials and installation.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 28
TABLE 2

.'.

ParkS and Recreation worker

$12.00 per hour
96 hours per year

$1,152

Replacement Signage Costs

Est imated at 5%
yearly loss rate

$ 653

TOTAL COST PER YEAR

$1,805

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 29
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
l.

AORCC (Arizona Outdoor Recreat i on Committee)

2.

Corps of Engineers

3.

Depa rtment of Water Resources

4.

Arizona State Pa rks

5.

Federal Grants

6.

Private Sector Contributions

7•

City of Flagstaff
a.

Proposition #304 (Bed, Board, & Booze Tax funds)

b.

Parks and Recreation Division

c.

Funds acquired from sale of surplus City property
adjacent to but not needed for the Urban Trails System

d.

Force Account work by City crews

e.

Appropriation for City's General Fund

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 30
PHASE II & BEYOND
PRIORITIZATION OF PROPERTY ACQUISITION - PHASE II AND BEYOND
This discussion centers on those public and private parcels critical to
Phase II of the Urban Trails System. The following recommendations are all
considered as having equal priority between links, and should be pursued as
opportunities arise.
There are other portions of private and public property beyond the three
major links needed to eventually interconnect the entire Urban Trails Sys­
ter". both internally and to the USFS system around the perimeter of the
City.
LI NK #1

Extension of Link #1 should ideally proceed both east to Link #2 and also
west through the Bow and Arrow Canyon to connect to existing and future
neighborhoods along Lake Mary Road, to the future City regional park which
is also the Pulliam Airport Approach and Clear Zone in Section 33; and to
permanent USFS properties.
The first priority in regard to Link #1 is the Little America property.
Little America has expressed an interest in acquiring City surplus Parcels
"E", "F", and "G" of EXhibit "A". The Committee recommends that the City
pursue a multi-parcel trade with Little America to secure permanent, non­
motorized access tllrough Little America property to the proposed Flagstaff
Urban Trails System in the Canyon Del Rio area adjacent to Link #2. Such
trade should assure the City access with the following prioritized options:
1.

2.
3.

Through the Rio de Flag Channel area;
Along the northern rim of the Rio de Flag;
Along undetermined routes north of the Rio de Flag to be
coordinated with Canyon Del Rio replanning process now
underway.

It is also recommended that this portion of the system should include a
southern link to Fisher Point and other USFS areas.
The second priority in Link #1 is the Bow and Arrow Canyon southwest of
City Parcel #3. This will require acquisition of an 800 foot strip of
land along the Wash to the north property line of Bar T Bar Corporation;
approximately 2200 lineal feet of Wash from Bar T Bar until it abuts City
land between NAU and Bar T Bar. At the intersection of Lone Tree Road and
Zuni Drive, the Fairway Peaks development has agreed to provide an urban
trail through their development to permanent USFS property in Section 35.
LI NK #2

Extension of Link #2 should proceed west to connect with Canyon Del Rio
and Line #1. The first priority for Link #2 extension would be across a
small corner portion of Rio flood plain across the Wilkerson property.

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 31
In addition, the Switzer Canyon flood plain and utility corridor should be
retained through City Parcel "K" for the trails system, and to points north
through Fairfield property, and Canyon Del Rio at Butler Avenue.
LI NK #3

North of Coconino Park, numerous property owners encumber the Rio de Flag.
As noted on Exhibit "0", north of Coconino Park you encounter two separat~
properties numbered 11 and 12. Development potential for either property
is severely limited because both parcels are mainly located within the flood
plain of the Rio de Flag. It is hoped that fee simply acquisition or an
Urban Trails System easement could be negotiated "through these undeveloped
(floOd plain) portions of property.
Once past Parcel #12, you encounter Crescent Drive, a local street within
the area. Immediately northwest of Crescent Drive lies an approximate 100
foot length of drainageway owned by the City of Flagstaff.
The west boundary line of this drainageway is the mid-section 1 ine of Sec­
tion 9, which also is the corporate boundary line of the City of Flagstaff.
Once northwest of this line, all properties along the Rio de Flag until
Cheshire Park lie within Coconino County.
Due to the complexity of numerous landowners and varying terrain, the Com­
mittee has proposed three alternatives to reaching Cheshire Park with the
urban trail (see Map 3A).
Alternative One would place the Urban Trails System within the Rio de Flag
drainageway, thus crossing some thirteen different properties. Easements
or rights-of-way would need to be acquired from all thirteen owners to
complete the system. In addition to this, the Rio bisects several of the
properties in half, thus isolating one half from another geographically.
Alternative Two is to climb onto a ridge running north and south at the
Ylest property line of Parcels #26-30 and then swinging east to the east
property line of Parcel #25. Because the trail would be at the property
extremity rather than the center, the possibility exists that an individual
landowner would look more favorably upon this. Once past Parcel #26, the
trail would then cross property owned by the Museum of Northern Arizona
before reaching Cheshire Park. Both alternatives follow the Rio de Flag
through Parcels #13-15.
Alternative Three is to obtain a temporary public access easement that
would coincide with an existing sewerline easement. Because a majority of
citizens already using the sewerline for biking, hiking, and jogging. this
route would make sense. However, if development ever occurred on Parcels
#18 and #19, it is possible that the developers would choose not to design
any type of development around an urban trail, thus Alternative One and
Two. In addition to this, the sewerline easement is a utility easement and
not an easement for urban trail so a public access easement would need to
be negotiated with the owners.

MAP #3A
AL TERNATIVE ROUTES

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 31A
PHASE /I & BEYOND

F.U.T.S.
LINK #3

.
~

-.I~'-------

CIT"

'f'

ALT. +1

•••••••••••••

+2

,••••••••••• ~ ••

A LT.

I

.. I'"

T.

FUTS FINAL REPORT(A), 03/18/88, PAGE 32
FUTURE TRAIL LINKS TO UNITED
1.

STATES FOREST

SERVle~

LAND~

Sinclair Wash

Ultimately, the Committee enV1Slons having the Urban Trails System connect
to the Arboretum west of Flagstaff. The USFS owns much of the land between
Ft. Tuthill west to the Arboretum. The Sinclair Wash runs through this
land and would serve as an adequate link of the trails system. The Commit­
tee was advised that much of this land has been identified by the USFS as
land to be exchanged. The Committee recommends that the City negotiate
with the USFS for an easement through the Sinclair Wash and/or the old
railroad yrade for use as a trail to connect to the Arboretum. Those nego­
tiations should occur before an appraisal is done and any offers accepted
by the USFS.
The Committee recommends similar negotiations and future trail planning
between the City and the USFS for other USFS exchange lands, such as:
1)

2)
3)
4)

USFS lands south of University Heights in the flood plain
south to Ft. Tuthill;
Section 29, exchange land south of Little America and north
of Fisher Point;
land north of Mt. Elden Lookout Road;
Section 25 south of Flagstaff.

The above list is some of the properties, but may not be all. The Commit­
tee notes that in some of these lands an easement for the trails system may
only be possible adjacent to USFS roads or within a powerline easement.
2.

McMillan Mesa

The Committee also sees McMillan Mesa as being a key component of the sys­
tem for linking Buffalo Park and the Mt. Elden Trails System with the rest
of the City.
3.

Other Links

Other significant trail links to the perimeter of the City that warrant
further study include: Observatory Mesa Link, North East Link, and South
Link to Fisher Point.

FUTS FINAL REPORT(A), 03/18/88, PAGE 33
COORDINATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS /ACTIVITIES
a.

Public Projects
Public projects have the potential to impact an Urban Trails System,
either positively or negatively. This is particularly true of City
street projects, as well as drainage and utility projects.
The off-street Urban Trails System has the potential to link with many
of the Flagstaff schools, parks and other public use areas. Often
though, short segments of street-side routes are necessary to make
these links. Street projects have the potential to block these links
or make them unsafe, or they have the potential to enhance safe access
to the primary trails system. All street improvement projects should be
reviewed for their potential to enhance the Urban Trails System.
The same is true for State roads within the City. Bridge improvement
projects on I-40, for example, could provide foot and bicycle access
underneath the freeway where none exists now.

b.

Private Development Projects - Planning and Zoning Procedures
Right-of-way ea3ements across private property for the primary trail
system are discussed elsewhere in this report. However, private devel­
opment may offer opportunities for expansion of the system that should
not be overlooked. For example, as development is planned near the
primary trails system, consideration should be given to planning access
through the development for future expansion of the trails system to
currently undeveloped areas. Hopefully, in the future, an Urban Trails
System will come to be seen as a desirable feature by subdivision
developers. However, they can only provide this feature to the extent
that access is available outside of their development. Long range
planning will be needed to make it possible for future developers to
provide this kind of lifestyle.
Because, currently, developers are not required to master plan urban
trails within a proposed development, every day valuable opportunities
for developing an Urban Trails System are being lost because of a lack
of applicable regulations. The Committee believe that through the
development process, annexation or subdivision regulations should
require urban trails just as it currently requires water, sewer,
streets, etc. Having this accomplished would add sections of trai 1 to
an already growing system, and would provide a very unique and desir­
able recreation opportunity for the citizens of Flagstaff.
Since a portion of the system is anticipated to occur in areas that are
presently outside the corporate limits, particularly beyond Link #3, it
is imperative that the City closely coordinate its efforts with Coco­
nino County's planning and development processes.

FUTS FINAL REPORT(A), 03/18/88, PAGE 34
c.

Arizona Trail System
Planning is underway for a State Trail that would traverse the length
of the State from south to north. The potential exists for this trail
to connect to the Utah trail and points north. The Arizona Trail will
pass through or around Flagstaff, the most desirable option being
through Flagstaff.
The proposed Flagstaff Urban Trails System is essential if the State
trail is to pass through the community. The existing Mt. Elden Trails
System on National Forest land provides a logical extension for the
route north. Access appears to be available from the south if only a
route is made available through the community.

d.

National Forest Lands and State Lands
It is well known that Flagstaff is surrounded by National Forest land.
The existing Forest Service Mt. Elden Trails System has two trailheads
within the City limits, one at Buffalo Park and one at the Peaks Ranger
Station. Both of these points can logically be tied in with the pro­
posed Urban Trails System.
There are other opportunities to connect the Urban Trails System to
National Forest land as well. However, the USFS has identified some of
these lands as base-for-exchange, meaning they are available for
exchange into private ownership. Should this take place, access to
National Forest land could be cut off.
The USFS does, however, have authority to retain public access through
these lands when they are exchanged. First, of course, the locations
needed must be identified and then the Forest Service must be convinced
that it is appropriate to reserve these rights-of-way. Since land
exchange proposals could be initiated at any time, it is important that
a plan be put together as soon as possible. It would be best to work
with the USFS in identifying the necessary segments.
Other forest activities could also impact the proposed trails system.
The current City proposal for water storage reservoirs north of
Christmas Tree Subdivision has pointed out the need for a detailed
evaluation of all activities in the general area. If there is a need
to connect the Doney Park area with the Flagstaff trails system, this
need should be identified during this evaluation.
The planned Fisher Point timber sale could adversely impact the pro­
posed State trail and its potential links with the Urban Trails System.
On the other hand, there is a possibil ity for the timber sale to gen­
erate revenues and be planned in a way that trails development would be
enhanced.
The Arizona State Land Department could also playa major role in urban
trails development in that several sections of State land, that eventu­
ally will develop, contain proposed corridors for the trail system.

FUTS FINAL REPORT(A), 03/18/88, PAGE 35
Opportunities to secure trails through State lands are potentially
available throuyh the Urban Lands Act legislation, as well as pending
"non-consumptive use" legislation expected to be enacted this year.
For all of the above reasons, it is important that trail planning be
accomplished as soon as possible.

e.

City Parks and Facilities
Many residential areas and lodging facilities will not have direct
access to the proposed Urban Trails System. Therefore, there is a need
for various public access points along this system in order for tt to
benefit the entire community. Existing City parks and other undevel­
oped City properties appear adequate to meet this need over most of the
system. These areas should be identified so that necessary development
can be considered by the City Parks and Recreation Department and be
prioritized along with other needed recreation facilities.

FLITS FINAL REPORT(A), 03/18/88, PAGE 36
PROMOTION
The Flagstaff Urban Trails will provide our City with a tremendous poten­
tial for increased recreation, an alternate transportation system (e.g.,
reduced road traffic), and improved quality of life for Flagstaff resi­
dents. The system could also be used to attract businesses that are look­
ing for an area with a quality environment and lifestyles as a place to
construct a southwest branch office. The impact of the Urban Trails System
on the Flagstaff community will depend upon the quality and usability of
the system.
Education of the public will be an important element in the optimum devel­
opment of a quality trails system. Our local schools, law enforcement
ayencies, fire departments and media can provide the educational avenues.
Each of Flaystaff's schools is directly or indirectly tied into the planned
trails system, therefore, it will be important to educate the children on
bicycle safety and courtesy.
It may be possible to sponsor "bike rallies" in the fall and spring to get
volunteer groups to clean and repair the trails system. The vol~nteer
groups could include: 1) students, public and university; 2) scout troops;
3) civic groups; and, 4) concerned citizens. The use of radio, newspaper,
and television for "public service announcements" might be possible.
Recent town hall meetings have identified a need to encourage visitors to
stay for longer periods in Flagstaf~ rather than just stop for the night as
they pass through. An Urban Trails System, particularly one that links
lodging faci lities to attractive National Forest lands, is one type of fea­
ture that might encourage longer stays. The potential exists for existing
and plilnned lodging facilities at the 1-40/Butler interchange, McMillan
Mesa and West Flagstaff to be linked with the Urban Trails System. Devel­
opment of this trails system would also provide an opportunity for the
revenues from the recently passed Proposition #304 (Bed, Board and Booze
Tax) to directly benefit the visitors who are helping to pay the bill.
POTENTIAL VOLUNTEER GROUPS
1.

Local stodents
A)

Flagstaff School District & private schools:
high school.

B)

NAU:

elementary through

students, faculty, & staff.

2.

Civic Groups, e.g., Chamber of Commerce, Veterans of Foreign Wars, &
Citizen's for a Beautiful Flagstaff

3.

Local Youth Organizations, e.g., Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Scout organ­
izations, & Special Olympics.

4.

Other Local Organizations, e.g., Sierra Club, I:nvironmental Action
Groups, and Hiking Club

FUTS FINAL REPORT(A), 03/18/88, PAGE 37
5.

Concerned Citizens
A)
B)

Private businesses
Private citizen sector
a)
b)

donat i on of work
donation of signs and other materials, e.g., name of donor
or "In Memory Of" could be indicated on the sign

PROMOTION ACTIVITIES
1.

Spring - Fi rst Saturday in May
A)
B)

Bike Ra 11 y
City wide declaration of "Earth Day",
1)

Litter clean-up ­
a)
b)

2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
2.

-- "Earth Day"

City & surrounding areas
trails system

art exhibit - "Earth Day" theme
poster contest
donated prizes
guest speakers - "environ'11ental consciousness"
spring concert

Fall - First Saturday in October
A)

Bike Rally
1)

B)

connect to Bike Trails System to promote awareness

Litter clean-up - "Take Pride in your Home-Flag"
1)

2)

Use of local medias to promote commu_nity pride in our City
City-wide and bike trails clean-up

The previous two clean-up activities would be designed to promote the
quality of our City environment and to act as a stimulus to keep the City
and our bike trails clean. In addition, it would help create awareness of
the Urban Trails System.
3. Adoption Policy - Segments of the Urban Trails System could be adopted
out to local groups (scouts, students, civic groups) and/or neighborhoods
for maintenance (clean-up). The Committee has already been approached by
local groups seeking maintenance responsibility.
4. General Maintenance - The City would maintain general repair and
maintenance of the systems in order to provide a safe system. Maintenance
would be directed toward seasonal uses by bicyclists, pedestrians, and
cross-country skiers.

FUTS FINAL REPORT(A), 03/18/88, PAGE 38
APPENDICES

1.

CITY CODE 9-1-4

2.

MT. ELDEN TRAILS SYSTEM

3.

FUTS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION # 1511

4.

THE ARIZONA TRAIL

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 39

9-1-4:
(A)

9-1-4

OPERATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES RESTRICTED:

No person shalJ operate 8 motor vehicle on any publicly owned property,
park or public easement other than on an established roadway;

9-1-4

(B)

No person shall operate a motor vehicle on any property reserved for or used
for surface water drainage channel purposes.

(Cl

No person shall ,operate a motor vehicle upon, across or over vacant real .
property without fim obtaining the written consent of th(: owner thereof.
(Ord. 883, 6-12·73)

-"

".'. ...

Lake

Mount Eiden-Dry
Trail System

Hills

- --.....
I

1b H.., w..A

­
--. .....................

~IIUIIiUIl"'"

=--- .

......

__ 0

~-~e-

_

I

--­
_.....-..
... _
...'00
..... -,--­

,­

... » . H··_

.
I\ser for Trail "des
S<cAd__,

1

,

SCALE ­

..

••

'.

t Miko

I

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 41

l{ ESOI, UTION NO.1

Cl

! I

:\ r~ES(;U:Tl\);< ESTAI1LISJ![NG A FL.ACST:\IT
SYSTI:'\: ,.1) IJOe CO~IiY1ITTEE.

l::(!~\\'

111. ... 11<

\\'HEHE:\S; the Planning nnd Zoning- COn1ml~si()n ::11,j li1l~ ('ily ("!llllI':\ !Iil\'"
adopted the G,'owth ~;lunHgcrncnt Guide 2000 which sets forth Ii pi,::) f;JI' ni"-') Si':"", (;1'1-\-1)1",1 \ '
Ilnd U r't)iln Tru.ils th'OiJ 6 i1UUt the Ci ty; Hnd

1:nrr::l{E,\S, the Porks Elnd Recreation C0n1I11i:;<.;j()11 11iIS UI
Recreation Plnrl whiell sets fortl1 n plan for creation of linen!" r'cc:'cil[j.i!lil!
provide tile bllsis 1'0;' lin Urbft!l TrA.ils System; nnd

1'\'1,

II

(";liTi':II!'>,

',','HEHL\S, ~hc City Council wishes to pursue estcr)lis!J:::cflt or
System for the benefit of t)le entire community;

illl

!"j)':,"';

t!::lt

L'l'tlllfl

:ill

I

1':(111:,

'['ilI1',

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED RY THE COU0'CIL OF Till', CITY ()!
FLAGSTAFF AS fOLLOIVS:
SECTIOt\ 1: There is hereby established A. F1n[;.'itaff L'r'tlilll Truil:-; ~,\'q\'!JI :\(1 If,l<'
Committee to consist or' 7 to 15 members appointed by the City Council rCilrc'c>C'l1tll1:; (ii\":!'''l
comm llni ty interests and views.
SECTION 2: The Committee shall appoint a Chninl1L1n f)\' inHjoritv \'ot0 of tll\'
members. The Committee shall meet at times and places as determil1cd :Jy lil" (':l/JII'lllIlll.
SECTIO~) 3:
The Committee shall study oncJ
Planning and Zoning Commission regarding:

rlIllf;C'

:-(:cor:lr;l(;n(~llti(m.;

to :1,.

1.

Dedication of appropriate City properties;

2.

Prioritization of private properties to be l1cC]uirccJ;

3.

Other public properties necessary and nesir(tJ]c
system;

4.

Volunteer/promotional efforts to improve the system;

5.

funding sources;

6.

Refinement of tlle GMG 2000 Urban Trails Plnn;

7.

Coordination with other organizations Ilnn Hctivities nffectin[; tl1e UdJll11
Trails System; and

for inC!llsinn Into tll\

FUTS FINAL REPORT, 03/18/88, PAGE 42

~'.

PIUI)llill~~ Htlcl z()rlii1~~ :,!'o('pduI'PS to [1(ltlres:-) dcve1opl!ll'jlt Ill'~!\!l;~l

Truils ilreas.
The Corn 111 i ttee shull sU\):l1 i t to the Plnnni ng and 7.oni n[; Com !:1I';~;i,l[: !",[ :: CI" : : . :,
Arril 1, 1988, a wI'itten rerort containing recommendations aocli'cssir1t; th,: ,::,1\'1' I :"lfIC ".
concel'n with f\ report to be given to tile Pllrks find Hecrention Cornr11issioll fOl' 1·'·\'1\'·...·.
SECTION 4: The City ~\lnnl1r;er shall desi;;nnte 1l[)[)rOprilltl' 5tl11'f -;tl!'i"':'"
c1eeln::: necessary to Rssist the Committee in completion of its Ilssi~;ned rllJtil'S.
SECTION 5: The Committee shall terminate not lntcr tlwn

ATTEST:

AP PROVED AS TO FORi'.I:

/s/ Joseph R.
CITY ATTORNEY

Bertoldo

I"

,)lllh' :\11, :";"'.

P/\SSED ~--\ND l\DOPTEIJ by the Council flnd flpp['ovcd by' tl1l'
20th day of October, ] 987.

FIa~taif, tbis

1:<

)1U~,'()l·

I):'

i !l'

\ ': ~ , III