The Bayfield County Board room was filled Monday evening as it has been for virtually every board meeting where the agenda subjects have included the topic of the old Chicago Northwestern right of way.

The board had intended to consider three policy recommendations from the Tourism Committee about the trail, but postponed discussion of the matter because corporate counsel Bill Bussey has told the board that he cannot continue to advise the committee on the matter because of a conflict of interest.

Because of this, the board voted to delay consideration of the committee recommendations until the August meeting.

County administrator Mark Abeles-Allison told the audience the county had intended to make the recommendations public but delayed the matter until a replacement counsel could review the recommendations, which were completed just before Bussey retired from the case.

The recommendations included making public a legal position paper from attorney Charles H. Montange that says the county's argument for overall title of the right of way "appears compelling." The second provision is to make a statement that the county has "valid legal arguments" relating to the county's right to establish a public highway on the former railroad grade. The third recommendation was to negotiate with adjacent property owners to eliminate detours in exchange for permanent easements on the corridor between the city of Washburn and the south county line.

Board member Kenneth "Bucky" Jardine said it was a good thing to delay the consideration of the recommendations and said he was considering calling a meeting of the Zoning Committee to review the issue.

Members of the audience were allowed to make brief statements to the board as part of the regular audience participation portion of the meeting.

Attorney Pam Gillivray promised to give the county "quite a battle" if they tried to open the corridor for all terrain vehicle and snowmobile use.

"What authority do you have to establish a trail?" she questioned, saying assertions that the Mauler case gave the county "carte blanche" to open the corridor as a trail was just propaganda.

"That is not the case," she said.

Gillivray said the issues boiled down to one of fairness and said a 90-day negotiation period proposed by the tourism committee was inadequate. She urged the county board to deliberate the matter in public meetings and not to use the closed session provisions of the open meetings laws to "hide the proceedings from the public."

Patricia Anderson of Drummond said she had not heard any discussion of if there was a need for trails.

"Are these the only tourists we want? Will they drive away other tourists?" she said. "What are the other ways to improve the economy of Bayfield County? Tourism is part of it, but not the only part."

Anderson cited studies that she claimed showed a loss of 30 to 60 percent of value for properties located adjacent to trails.

"I feel like a second-class citizen," she said, noting that people who were part-time residents or retirees paid full-time taxes and contributed to the economy.

"We give to the economy but don't compete for jobs. Give that some consideration before you go charging into trails," she said.

Donna Lee Kennedy, who gave as her address as State Highway 13, said the trail would literally go through her house.

"This property has been in my husband's family for a hundred years. I don't want ATVs going by my front door," she said.

Board member Harold Maki questioned the county's legal fees incurred in the rail corridor issue.

"It seems we have money for nothing else, but we have money for legal fees," he said. "We need to think about where we are going and how much it is going to cost. We can throw money at this thing for 25 years," he said.

Abeles-Allison said it was in the county's best interest to have corporate counsel involved in the matter at the time the recommendations of the tourism committee were acted upon.

After considerable debate concerning attorney fees paid to date, the board voted to table releasing the recommendations of the tourism committee, but not before Gillivray pressed for the release of information related to the recommendations.

She also said that board member Jardine should remove himself from the decision because, she said, he had already made up his mind on the matter.

She continued to speak despite being told repeatedly that the time for public input was concluded and that she was out of order. She got a round of applause as she finally returned to her seat.

In the end, the matter of attorneys' fees was referred to the executive committee.

A motion to place the recommendations of the tourism committee before the August board meeting was passed.