By Stephen Smoot
As warmer weather beckons residents and visitors alike to summer recreation spots, the Harrison County Commission continues to labor over questions regarding the Rail Trail. In their meeting last week, however, Commissioners held a vote to set a definite plan for expansion going forward.
First, however, Commissioners heard from Dave Oliverio, Mayor of Lost Creek. “Coming in from the south,” he stated, “the first town you see coming into here is Lost Creek.” Oliverio noted that the trail brings users close to a number of important stops, including convenience and dollar stores. Additionally, the trail also allows users access to the Lost Creek town park, including its picnic pavilion.
He then related efforts by the town to make the trail more aesthetically pleasing, such as removing dilapidated structures. The town also has arranged for law enforcement patrols to enhance safety.
Oliverio shared, however, that “the Council and citizens of Lost Creek are not really feeling the love at this time” from Commission discussions on what should happen next with the trail.
Since he spoke during the public comment period, elected officials legally could not address his statement. That served as the opening act for the extended discussion that came later in the meeting.
After Commissioners attended other business, which included arranging payments totalling $500,000 to help finish the new terminal at the Benedum Airport, the subject returned.
Commissioners opened discussion over an agenda item proposing that Thrasher be allowed to put out to bid a project to build a Rail Trail bridge near Meadowbrook.
Susan Thomas, Harrison County Commission President, registered her disapproval, saying “I think we’re getting the cart before the horse here because we don’t have a trail to and we don’t have a trail from” the proposed bridge.
She opposed “spending money on something that cannot be utilized at this time.”
Commissioner Patsy Trecost spoke in favor of building the bridge. “Bridges are always build first,” he noted, adding that “you build the bridge because the land isn’t going anywhere.” He then asserted that the issue had been decided by vote “ages ago.”
Commissioner David Hinkle replied that he saw neither evidence of a signed contract or the item on County Commission agendas. He also inquired how a new bridge at Meadowbrook seemed to now take priority over a grant funded bridge for the Rail Trail planned elsewhere over the West Fork.
Thomas and Hinkle then voted down Trecost’s motion to allow the Meadowbrook bridge to be sent out for bidding.
Thomas explained that she did not oppose constructing a Rail Trail bridge at Meadowbrook in the future, but explained “let’s utilize the trails we already have . . . get those trails up so the public can use the trails.” Trecost continued to advocate for the bridge at Meadowbrook, stating “Madame President, we as a Commission have voted to buy equipment, add employees, hire an engineer. We’ve done our due diligence.”
“We haven’t done our due diligence to get the trails we have up to where they’re passable, a lot of them,” Thomas fired back.
Trecost replied “why won’t you work on that while the bridges are being built,” to which Thomas said “because we won’t have any money.”
Hinkle then asked Trecost if he had “that report we asked for several years ago.” He referred at this point and at other times to a request made to Thrasher to provide a comprehensive cost estimate of completing the entire trail. Later in the meeting, Commissioners stated that the request came approximately two years ago.
“He (referring to a representative from Thrasher present at the meeting) was hired to give us the cost of the whole trail. He has not produced that,” said Hinkle. Trecost shot back “Dave that’s not fair. We just voted to give half a million to the airport.”
Hinkle then referred to a 2018 study that postulated $8 million to complete the trail, an amount come to prior to COVID, the supply chain crisis, and inflation. “So explain to me how we are going to accomplish this?” he continued, adding “that’s all I’ve ever asked is what the cost is and how we’re going to do it.”
He then said “you’re not asking me to go out to bid on the bridge we have a grant for (over the West Fork) Why not?”
One of the overarching goals for the Rail Trail lies in creating a “P to P connection,” which refers to a continual link of trails between Parkersburg and Pittsburgh. Trecost asked “why wouldn’t we want to build a bridge to go four miles to get us closer to P to P?” Thomas responded “we’re going to build a bridge (and) we’re not even sure we can get from P to P.” Hinkle had stated that 20 landowners would need consulted prior to connecting a bridge at Meadowbrook.
Hinkle made a motion that the Commission would support completing the Rail Trail segments between Clarksburg and Salem, between the Veterans Administration hospital and Lost Creek, between North View and Spelter, “and I’ll just go ahead and toss in from Shinnston to the Marion County line.”
“God knows what that’s going to cost us,” Hinkle said, adding that “those are pretty big projects.” His list specifically excluded state-owned sections of the trail and favored those already secured by the County.
Thomas said “they should have been projects all along.”
Hinkle’s motion passed two to one while Trecost’s concerning the Meadowbrook bridge did not. This action set named priorities for the Rail Trail, but concerns remained with Thomas and Hinkle about where to find funds to pay for the projects.