Wakefield ponders solution to Iron Belle extension

WAKEFIELD — Last summer, an expansion of the Iron Belle Trail linked Bessemer to Ramsay, meaning that the trail in Gogebic County now stretches from Hurley to Ramsay, with a paved trail for silent sports such as hiking and biking.

A new hurdle now exists in how to continue the trail expansion from Ramsay to Wakefield — action highly anticipated by trail lovers and by business owners who might stand to gain sales from the added activity.

The city of Wakefield now finds itself squarely in the midst of the effort because it is one of five owners of property surrounding Plymouth Lake — also known as the Open Pit — just north of Old U.S. 2.

City Manager Robert Brown Jr. said there is one property deemed “critical” to the Michigan’s Western Gateway Trail Authority’s effort to create what it defines as the “most cost-effective and safest route.”

The issue is that the property owner on whom that route depends has indicated a willingness to allow trail easement through his property only if, in Brown’s explanation, the city enters “a deed covenant to not allow motorized watercraft from accessing the lake through” city property there.

The authority has stated that it could save “millions of dollars” by using that route as opposed to being forced to seek other much more costly alternatives.

To add to the complications, there is also a question as to how to even define the body of water. Although locals refer to it as Plymouth Lake, Brown told the Daily Globe last week that Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources actually regards it as “a non-navigable waterway” or, as Brown put it, “pretty much a big puddle.”

If that holds true, he said, “Our rights would only be on the shore.” Moreover, he added, “So, the question then is what rights the property owners have.”

The city manager said the state attorney general’s office is expected to provide further clarification after Paul Anderson of the trail authority visited the Wakefield City Council last week to discuss the issue.

Brown said the city’s property, which is Parcel ID 53-25-000-900, is now part of the city’s Natural Resource Inventory within the city’s Community Recreation Plan.

He said it includes 36 acres and 700 feet of west-end waterfront and is the only public-owned property on the lake. Three of the acres are considered subsurface or underwater.

According to Brown, the lake is not easily accessible to the public because the city land there has been “left to wildlife” and provides no feasible means to launch a boat.

He also emphasized the related danger, cautioning that the body of water lacks the “gradual decline” of many other lakes, instead descending immediately to about 300 to 400 feet.

“I believe at the deepest point (center) it’s a thousand feet,” said Brown, referring to the site’s history of mining in the 20th century.

The city manager said that, in past years, the city already had sold some of the land it owned by the lake, whether via land swaps or actual sales.

“The city forfeited interest on properties on the east end,” he said. “I know, looking back, we kind of regret giving up some.”

If the city did decide to maintain public access on the property, Brown said it is not clear what — if anything — might be developed there in the future.

In years past, he said a variety of options have been discussed, including potential for a casino, a fishery or a diving school.

Moreover, he said, “There is no public park on that side of town,” pointing out that if a hotel or condos or apartments ever were developed in that vicinity, there would be no recreational park access to the lake.

For that reason, he said city officials have been hesitant to let the remaining lake property go even though they have no immediate plans for it.

Still, said Brown, “Obviously, we know that trails are an important part of the economy.”

Council members last week voted to refer the matter to the planning commission, which also does double duty as the city’s recreation board.

“I think the city’s biggest issue is the permanency,” concluded Brown, who pondered that commissioners will need to consider whether the trail is “valuable enough to the community” to outweigh city access to the lake.

Or, he speculated, is there a compromise in perhaps settling for a certain number of years with no access, followed by reconsideration at a future date?

He said the council hopes that, after consideration, the planning commission will recommend a viable solution to the council.

Brown said he expects commissioners to spend about two to three months in discussion “just to get through the nuts and bolts” of the details.

Beyond that, he said, “I know the planning commission is going to seek public input.” He said the city wishes to seek voices of both motorized and nonmotorized interests.

After all, claimed Brown, “It’s definitely a community issue. It’s not just a city and trail group issue.”

He also clarified that the current discussion pertains only to plans for extension of the authority’s nonmotorzed trail. He stated that the motorized trail, envisioned as a companion route, “is still a problem.”

Abandoned railroad lines traditionally have been a popular choice for trails but, as Brown noted in a written report to the council, “With the now abandoned railroad lines held by private property owners, a safe and feasible trail route from Ramsay to Wakefield has proven to be highly time-consuming and challenging.”