Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb. 2007 (2) - MinutesJEFFERSON COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Quilcene Community Center, Quilcene February 7, 2007 OPENING BUSINESS Rick Tollefson, Chair, called the meeting to order at 12:05 PM in the large meeting room of the Quilcene Community Center. Members Present: Joan Linderoth, Judith Lucia, Judi Mackey, Brian Miller, Phil Siemion, Rick Tollefson Members Absent: Steve Crosland Staff Present: Matt Tyler Guests: 35 audience members, including three county commissioners Agenda: Matt Tyler noted an addition to the agenda: Annual Report of the Parks and Recreation Division — PowerPoint presentation. The agenda was approved, as amended. Minutes: Joan Linderoth noted that her reappointment to the Parks and Recreation Board had been effective as of the January meeting. The minutes for January 3, 2007 were approved, as amended. ROAD VACATIONS There were no Road Vacations for review. REGULAR/OLD BUSINESS OHV Feasibility Study Presentation — Consultant Tom Beckwith Mr. Beckwith began by noting that the purpose of this meeting was to present the completed OHV (Off Highway Vehicle) Feasibility Study to the Parks and Recreation Board. He said he had brought 12 printed copies and a disk copy, which could be reproduced or used to print additional copies. He noted that Appendix A, the SEPA checklist is included, and other appendices will be mailed out within two days. The full text, all graphics, and all appendices will be published on the web. However, some of the graphic maps will need to be reduced to be downloaded. Mr. Beckwith described each of the seven chapters in the report, and noted that the report includes much of the background that was summarized during the workshops, but in more detail. Chapter 1 describes the background of this process, which actually started in 2004. This particular project began in 2006, funded by IAC (Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation). Chapter 2 covers the IAC and NOVA (Non -highway and Off Road Vehicle Activities) Funding Programs, including eligible ORV projects, and grant assistance limits. He noted that most funds are applied to education, security, start up operations, and basic site improvements. However, the bulk of the trail systems are built state-wide by users or user/volunteers. Page 1 of 7 Chapter 3 covers the demand statistics. The three sources used were: the National Survey of Recreation and the Environment, Washington State IAC household diary -based surveys, and local OHV surveys (2005 and 2006). Key results are that OHV enthusiasts are atypical for outdoor recreation; they do more outdoor recreation than the average user, and do OHV activities as an adjunct to other activities. The IAC survey indicates what activity is done and where it is likely to be done. There are projections for this County for three types of vehicles: trail bikes, ATVs, and 4-wheel drives of peak event times and riding occurrences for a 12-month period. Chapter 4 examines the OHV facilities within the service area (Jefferson, Kitsap, Mason and Clallam counties), and other facilities within the Puget Sound area. It examines the implications for Jefferson County, and concludes that there are too few facilities to meet the growing demand. One of the concerns of IAC is that if no more facilities are built, the activity will happen in unauthorized sites. Chapter 5 covers OHV management concepts and specific lessons from the Tahuya site/ site visit, and the Wenatchee National Forest as well as other case studies. Chapter 6 looked at the 11 DNR sites that were identified for the purposes of the study. He pointed out the reasons that private timber company land owners declined to have their properties listed. He noted that five of the DNR sites were not studied as extensively as the others because they were not seen as easy to do as the other on in the process. In the second round, three others were eliminated leaving Skidder Hill and Penny Creek, for which the greatest detail is provided. In the second survey of users, they were asked about these finalist sites, how they would use them, and how having this trail system would change their behavior. A slight majority preferred Skidder Hill over Skidder Hill, which was influenced by its proximity to home for those users. In this survey, close to 50% were from within the County; the remaining were from within the region, with some as far away as Pierce County. When asked about their characteristics, they were generally similar to those in the first survey. Seventy-four mail backs from both surveys. Close to 60% were willing to be involved to participate, develop or maintain. Sixty-three per cent were willing to pay some fee, and amounts varied $5 to $35. Mr. Beckwith provided other highlights from the survey. He noted that, while 74 responses is a significant sample, the percentages per se may not be statistically indicative of the wider group expected to use this facility. In general, the responses of the 74 "may be somewhat typical of what you could expect to see." In Chapter 7, the implementation tasks that would be needed to designate such a system are laid out — whether or not either one of these two sites is the final site. He referred to the table on page 72, which shows 12 tasks involving multiple players. The tasks are organized into three major stages, showing the role of each player by task, and the likely funding sources for each task. He stressed the importance of the Camp -Host monitoring option proposal. He noted that both sites would have non -motorized, as well as OHV, trails, which might have connections to other off -site trails. He said the OHV trails would be on -site only, and buffered acoustically and visually from surrounding neighbors. The two types of trails would be separated but could use the same property. Both of these trail systems would be built by volunteers. The final tasks would be to set up ongoing monitoring and annual assessments. The report recommends some type of coalition with representation from all stake holders and government agencies. He said that the first five tasks would take one year. If the Board selected a site, it would take about one year to develop a detailed master plan and prepare the full SEPA Page 2 of 7 document. Another year would be required to initiate the trailhead and user development of the trails. Therefore, the fastest path would be about two years before something is "on the ground". Following the narrative report is Appendix A, SEPA Checklist (41 pages). This checklist is a format that is designed by the state, and administered by the County Department of Community Development. There are a series of explicit questions about the nature of the proposal, including all the elements of the physical environment and the human environment. There are two types of checklists: project -specific action, and non -project specific action, based on a proposal. For the latter, then, based on the outlines of the proposal, what is expected IF it becomes a project? Since there are two feasible sites, project level information is provided for each, even though there is insufficient information at this point to say exactly where the trails would be, or how much use the site would need to accommodate. Mr. Beckwith discussed the key issues: Protecting critical areas — any action on either of these two sites would avoid them; there are no endangered species in either area; Drainage — For both sites, streams drain into Snow Creek or Penny Creek, which are important for salmon habitat and potentially for flood potential. Noise — The recently completed state report is cited here. The current maximum decibel level allowed for this type of vehicle in this state is 101 db. This is the highest allowed by any of the 13 states that have these standards. The study cited is going to propose a change that reduces the level to 94 db, which is the lowest (as in California). Other steps to manage noise include: stay below the ridge line and any slopes close to development to avoid noise transmittal. Emergency Response — The mitigating factor is the camp host and a working agreement developed via state grants with emergency response agencies: fire, police and health services. "Anywhere you have people recreating, there is a possibility of accident or injury." The key issue is how fast can the incident be identified and called in, and how fast can medical help or response be obtained? Economics — This is not usually part of SEPA. For DNR Forest Lands, the revenue for timber harvesting goes to the school trust fund and is dispersed back to the school districts across the state. If this is timber trust land, then the monies are split between the state and the county. This question of revenue potential has been explored in the report, including "what if' scenarios for various reserved portions of each site. Mr. Beckwith noted that the Focus Group had gone through this document with a very fine tooth comb, to make certain that facts, inventory and assumptions are correct. However, Mr. Beckwith stressed that he was responsible for the content of the document and the SEPA checklist. Questions should be referred to him. Timeline — Mr. Beckwith reviewed the schedule, particularly in light of grant requirements. That is, the report/recommendations must be submitted to the BoCC before April to conclude this phase for the IAC grant. Mr. Beckwith said that he would be willing to meet with the PRAB in the interim to discuss or answer any questions about the report. Rick Tollefson, Chair, said that Mr. Beckwith had done a great job on the report. Mr. Beck with gave much credit to the Focus Group. Page 3 of 7 Matt Tyler said that the consultant's meeting with the County Commissioners was scheduled for February 26 at 10:45 AM. At this time, Mr. Beckwith will give essentially the same presentation to the BoCC. Ms. Lucia noted that much of the report is actually compilation of items received previously. Mr. Beckwith agreed that the PRAB had seen the summary points, but that this contains more detail. She added that they hadn't seen the second survey, and expressed her surprise that there were exactly the same number of respondents to both surveys. Mr. Beckwith clarified that they did not represent the exact same people, although there was probably overlap. The first survey had a higher percentage of Jefferson County residents than the second survey. There was a brief discussion about the timing of the recommendation to the BoCC. Phil Johnson noted that the three County Commissioners were present at this meeting, and would welcome a recommendation as soon as possible. After considering the time needed to review the report, the PRAB agreed to meet with Mr. Beckwith on February 21, Noon, at the Jefferson County Library, Port Hadlock in the large meeting room. Mr. Beckwith said he would transmit the other Appendices by Friday, February 8. Matt Tyler said he would copies of the disk available to members of the public within 24 hours, to be mailed or picked up at the Public Works office. The guest sign in sheet was made available for attendees to request copies of the report. Ms. Lucia asked about the list of funding sources in steps 11 and 12 of the Implementation Plan, specifically DNR. She recalled that DNR had stated that they did not wish to partner. Mr. Beckwith said that the DNR had not wanted to make any commitments until this study was done, and the Board had made a decision. One option is that the land remains under DNR, and the County leases it. If the land remains under DNR ownership, DNR can be a pass -through for some of the NOVA grants or can receive grants directly. Another option is that the land is reconveyed to the County, in which case DNR would not be involved. Chair Tollefson noted that much hard work by many participants had gone into this project, and that the effort and serious consideration was appreciated. He said the PRAB would continue to follow that example. Judi Mackey requested of Matt Tyler that for the meeting on February 21 that he bring budgetary information about any costs to the County so far for this project; Mr. Tyler agreed. She also requested projections for the Implementation Plan, to the degree possible. Mr. Tyler said that he could estimate a range for each item, but cautioned that it would be ball park only, based on his experience and not on any definitive data. Rick Tollefson asked if there were any private groups with funds to contribute. Mr. Tyler said he did not know the answer to that question. An unidentified member of the audience asked if the PRAB intended to make the recommendation to the PRAB on February 21. Mr. Tollefson said that was the intention, assuming that all questions could be answered during that meeting. Page 4 of 7 In response to an earlier question about private funds, an audience member, Eric , identified himself as a 4 X 4 group member; he stated that his club had discussed the possibility of contributions in the range of $5,000 per year. An unidentified audience member asked, "Can this county afford to add on to Parks and Recreation another item to be paid by taxpayers?" He referred to the existing 19 parks and recreational facilities, and asked if there was adequate money to maintain them, as well as to fund this project. "Do we have any money available, period?" Mr. Tollefson replied briefly, "Probably not." Jim McCrae noted that the consultant had expressed a sense of urgency, noting the April deadline for the BoCC, in order to make the next round of funding. He stated that the entire state of urgency had been caused by delays in getting to this point. He said the report was supposed to be available last year, and had been delayed twice. He said that now that it is available there is a crunch to review it. He noted that the scheduling changes posed difficulties for those who wished to attend meetings. He asked that Mr. Tyler and the PRAB make the document available as soon as possible, and he offered to help break the document down into manageable electronic pieces. He noted that some of the people who live adjacent to the proposed sites have not been receiving timely notification of proceedings. He urged that the local coalition of interested citizens be given the same opportunity to meet with the consultant after reviewing the document. Chair Tollefson clarified that the February 21 meeting was open to the public and all were welcome to attend. Frank Trafton said that he was a life time resident of the County, that he has always been concerned with youth and family, as well as ways to keep them occupied and out of trouble. He spoke in favor of OHVs/ORVs as a satisfying recreational activity, more suited to him and many others than watching TV/drinking beer on Super Bowl Sunday. Mr. Tollefson said he would like to honor Mr. Trafton for his input over the last 15 years, without which "we would not have gotten to this point". (Applause) An unidentified audience member said that she had recently moved to the area. Soon after moving in, her property was trashed with beer cans by teenagers, who were also shooting guns at one point. She was concerned with safety and security and managing disrespectful and inappropriate behavior by visitors to the OHV sites. Another Wolfpack 4 x 4 member, said that the OHV participants routinely clean up the areas they use, including trash/debris left by non-OHV people. Frank Trafton added that the advantage of having a specified OHV location is consolidation and self -policing and control. He said this would clear up the littering, the gun firing, and allow a proper place for the activity. He said he thinks it will solve all the problems. An audience member said that he lives on the west side of Lake LeLand. Because of the topology, every truck or cycle traveling up the road can be heard from his house. He asked, "If the permissible db level is lowered to 91, what will be the cumulative noise of 5 or 6 vehicles?" Page 5 of 7 A woman suggested that the PRAB ask the consultant why there have been so many ORV parks closed by the DNR and Forest Service throughout the nation. Another woman added that it was well -documented on the west side and on the DNR side that despite all efforts of working with users and educating them to ensure public safety and protection of the environment, they have been unsuccessful. She noted that OHV areas had been closed down in Watcom and Snohomish Counties just last year. There was a follow up comment noting that in Snohomish County, there were user built trails on DNT property that was never designated for a trail system, and they are looking at doing an adoptive site agreement. This would provide for an organized group taking responsibility for managing and controlling it. Chair Tollefson asked if there were private ORV sites in the state. The previous speaker said that he had heard of large private properties where OHVers are invited to ride. Jim McCrae asked for clarification on any site specific SEPA information. He said that he understood from the consultant's comments that there would need to be a great deal more analysis done as the project moves forward. He advised that there is always the option of stopping the process, and avoiding further expense. Jim Christianson agreed with an earlier speaker that there was value in supporting family and youth activities. However, he suggested that there were much better ways to do that than what is being proposed. He noted that a recent meeting at the Quilcene Community Center had given rise to many ideas for family activities and uses. He said that OHV interests are limited to a relatively small number of people. Another comment concerned who and how would monitoring and police, fire and rescue services be provided, when DNR is not going to take that responsibility. An OHV proponent suggested that there were grant possibilities to fund that. Another proponent said that even if neither of the final sites were considered appropriate, he would ask that the County just find another place for this type of recreation to take place. A final comment from a member of the audience: "I cannot support anything that destroys the environment." Chair Tollefson closed this portion of the meeting, calling a short break before Matt Tyler's presentation. Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Annual Report 2006 Matt Tyler presented a PowerPoint demonstration with highlights of the year. A copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes. The presentation included an overview of parks and fields: conservancy sites totaling 549.2 acres, showing both freshwater and saltwater access; campgrounds, playgrounds, basketball and tennis courts; athletic fields; and trails. Mr. Tyler described the many benefits of fields and parks for the community. He described the Port Townsend Recreation Center and its facilities, as well as the 26 programs (arts, cultural, sporting, educational, health and wellness) managed by Parks and Recreation. Page 6 of 7 The update, management and maintenance of these considerable facilities and programs was accomplished with only 4 full time employees and 2.98 seasonal/part time employees. The annual expenses for 2006 totaled $472, 840: Recreation - $149, 569; Parks $155,369; and Fields $167,900. PRAB members complimented Mr. Tyler on the report and accomplishments for the year. They noted the value of the programs and that the breadth of services had expanded under his direction, Chair Tollefson added that the advisory board could discuss future additions to the program at a retreat, which will be scheduled in the near future. Mr. Tyler noted that about $35,000 had been placed in reserve; this was due in part to the Assistant Manager position being vacant for a time. The position has now been officially filled by Chris Mackland, who had been serving on an interim basis. The budget for 2007 has been approved. Mr. Tyler noted that this budget is generous and he feels good about what can be accomplished in the following year. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE Broad Spit — Phil Siemion offered his boat to transport members wishing to make a site visit to this location. Mission Statement — In answer to a question about the status of the mission statement, Mr. Tyler said that a draft had been included in the Strategic Plan, but that it had not been officially approved/adopted. It was noted that the plan needs to be updated in the coming year. The statement, as posted on the website, is as follows: The mission of Jefferson County Parks and Recreation is to improve the health, welfare, and safety of the citizenry; protect the environment, and promote economic development through state of the art recreational and educational programs and facilities supported by public tax revenue, fees, grants and private donations. The vision of Jefferson County Parks and Recreation is not to serve every purpose, but to lead towards cooperation and comprehensive community solutions. Mr. McRae said that encouraged the PRAB to be guided by this statement and the priorities of the strategic plan, i.e. that protecting the environment was highly important and that OHV was at the bottom of the list. He requested that any update of the plan include public input. Skateboard modules — Phil Siemion suggested this project get underway soon, and noted he was ready to assist. Tarboo Bay slope protection — Phil Johnson said that he was continuing discussions with Northwest Watershed, DNR, and the Land Trust regarding slope protection in the Tarboo Bay area. There is hope of protecting up to 1,000 acres, which is critical to salmon, shellfish and other wildlife, from development and erosion. SET MEETING DATE/ADJOURNMENT The next PRAB meeting will be held on Wednesday, March 7, 2006 at the Jefferson County Courthouse, Port Townsend. The meeting was adjourned by Chair Rick Tollefson 1:45PM. Page 7 of 7