Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM022607S District No. 1 Commissioner: Phil Johnson District No.2 Commissioner: David W. Sullivan District No.3 Commissioner: John Austin County Administrator: John F. Fischbach Clerk of the Board: Lorna Delaney MINUTES Special Meeting February 26,2007 Chairman Phil Johnson called the Special Meeting at the Quilcene Community Center to order in the presence of Commissioners David Sullivan and John Austin. Consultant Presentation re: Off-Highway Vehicle Feasibility Study: Approximately 100 interested citizens were present when Matt Tyler, Parks and Recreation Manager, introduced Tom Beckwith, Consultant for the Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Feasibility Study, several members of the Focus Group, and several members of the Parks Advisory Board. Tom Beckwith explained that when he met with the Parks Advisory Board last week they asked several questions and requested additional information regarding the study. · They asked for a financial estimate to develop the OHV facility. · The annual cost to maintain the facility. · If there was potential revenue that could be collected. The handout shows twelve tasks for the implementation of a site. A low range estimate and a high range estimate are provided. He reviewed the funding sources which include an lAC NOV A grant. The County would need to match 30% for NOVA grants in order to be competitive. Of the 30%, 18% would be like- kind value from the County and 12% would be like-kind value from volunteers. NOVA expects the development and construction of the trails to be done by the users but they provide funding for the County to oversee that part ofthe project. The low and high range estimates are a balance between the two proposed sites, Skidder Hill and Penny Creek. The difference is the number of miles ofOHV trails to be developed, the size of the staging area, and if the access road to the site needs to be improved. The estimates are somewhat generic because a specific site hasn't been chosen. However, they feel that the numbers will hold up for a specific site. Page 1 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: February 26, 2007 The bottom line on the low range estimate is $2.9 million and the high range estimate would be about $3.2 million. lAC grants would cover $500,000 of the low estimate and $719,000 of the high estimate. The real value is contributed by the volunteers that will construct the trails. The cost to the County for the low range estimate is $371,000 and the high range is $419,000. Out-of-pocket costs for County oversight ofthe trail construction would be $68,000 on the low range and $101,000 on the high range. The Parks Advisory Board was concerned about the timeline to create the facility. A master sight plan would be developed and comments from various agencies would be required. Emergency response agreements would be necessary. It could take several years for the user groups to build the trails. They also asked the annual cost to the County to maintain the system? Ifthe 23 to 26 miles of OHV trails are in place, it would cost the County between $17,000 and $26,000 for Matt Tyler's time. The Parks Board asked about possible revenue to be generated that would off-set the County's costs. The user groups were asked ifthey are willing to help develop, operate, and maintain the facility and if they are willing to pay a fee to use the facility. The amount mentioned was $10 per visit which would be a charge to use the site and for vehicle inspection. Inspection is mandatory for sound, safety, and fire suppression. They estimated that 33% of the users in a four county area would come to the facility. They estimate that the revenue per year for a fully operational site would be between $63,000 and $87,000. The net revenue would be between $46,000 and $61,000. In other areas these facilities are treated as enterprise accounts like a golf course or a gun range. One of the questions that the Parks Advisory Board asked was if there is a need for an OHV trail system? According to a survey done by lAC in 2005, 14% ofthe population within the County are OHV users. In contrast, approximately 7% of the population are ballplayers that are more organized and visible. Jefferson County currently provides 10 youth and 4 adult baseball fields that ballplayers use for 3-4 months a year. OHV users would use the facility year round. There was a brief discussion about the lAC survey process. They were asked why more OHV users didn't attend the Parks Advisory Board meetings? Tom Beckwith stated that, at the beginning ofthe process, Jefferson County asked each OHV organization to provide one representative to work on the Focus Group. They didn't feel that creating a feasibility study required OHV users to demonstrate their numbers. A local survey went to OHV groups to help determine the organizational response to site issues, willingness to do the volunteer work developing the trails, and if they were willing to pay a fee. They did not do a blanket survey of all the households in Jefferson County. Page 2 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: February 26,2007 ~"",',..,',,',","',' f" ... ...,!,-~ tlslf',',,'(,'\,,'" The next question focused on illegal or inappropriate activities. It is illegal to ride OHV on private property without consent of the property owners. It is inappropriate to ride OHV on public lands where there is not a site designated for such use. The OHV trail system would discourage illegal or inappropriate activities by creating a designated, safe site where OHV users can test equipment, learn and develop skills and interact with other OHV enthusiasts. The question of siting the facility was brought up by the Parks Advisory Board. A twenty year lease is required to qualify for lAC funding and this would not be feasible on most private land. None of these facilities are sited on private property in Washington. The reason it isn't feasible on U.S. Forest Service land is because they already provide five trails within the OHV service area, but they are stub systems located on the edge of the forests and they are not suitable for a trails system. State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) land is available and feasible. There were eleven sites proposed in the Feasibility Study and the two that were chosen are the most feasible. However, the DNR Olympic Region doesn't operate this type of facility and they have said that they would not want to be the operator/manager/overseer. They do not have the budget and DNR actually is a competitor for some NOV A grants. The Parks Advisory Board asked what impacts there would be on the physical environment? A detailed SEP A checklist is attached to the report. There are concerns about streams and wetlands, but these can be buffered or mitigated. DNR is able to clear cut property without harming the environment which would have more of an impact on the environment than OHV use. The State is expected to adopt stricter noise standards in the near future. There is a traffic management plan for the site to control the volume during peak hours. There will be a camp host to provide law enforcement and report the need for emergency response. There would be a need to resolve effective methods with response agencies using E & E grants. Tom Beckwith explained that the OHV Trails System would be a regional attraction. A campground, athletic field complex or regional park facility would have a similar impact on the area. A question was raised at the last meeting was how property values would be affected by the facility? Property values were not addressed in the SEP A checklist, however there have been studies in California to determine if there is an impact. Each site is unique. He suggested that property values near Burnt Hill or Tahuya could be researched. The cuts in the Parks budget are a concern. The Focus Group thinks that user involvement in developing and maintaining the facility reduces the amount of money that the County would need to invest. Ifthe Board approves the feasibility study, there are still several steps in the process, including site selection, creating a master plan and E&E response agreements. If the Board chooses not to approve the study, the OHV Focus Group would like to know the reasons and what they would need to do to demonstrate that there is a need and interest in a facility. They are willing to work with the County to address any concerns. People may have expectations that DNR land won't change, but that is not necessarily the case. Page 3 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: February 26,2007 t~""\'\ +- -'!o f.I-It'h(I~'" Chairman Johnson asked about the future of NO V A grants? Tom Beckwith explained that the revenue for these grants comes from gas tax. It is more sound than other lAC programs that are subject to funding approval by the Legislature every few years. The issue is the competition for the NOVA grants. The reason lAC approved the feasibility study grant is because ofthe increase in the use of other OHV facilities in other areas ofthe State. Commissioner Austin asked ifliability for injuries was discussed during the study? Tom Beckwith replied that the entity that manages the facility would probably self-insure. The proposed facility would have to be managed by Jefferson County or DNR. The OHV parks throughout the State are managed by DNR or the County where they are located. The OHV Trail Systems are managed by DNR. The DNR in this region has made it fairly clear that they don't want to participate. The County Administrator asked how many incidents have resulted in claims against the County or DNR at other OHV facilities? Tom Beckwith stated that they didn't research this issue. When they did a site visit of Tahuya, two incidents were mentioned although he is not sure ifthey resulted in claims. A fire started from faulty equipment and there was an accident that wasn't on an OHV trail but was on an access trail within the forest. When an entity self-insures, there are standards in place for the trails and they are monitored. Chairman Johnson noted that the startup tasks mention the need to identify and buffer critical and sensitive areas and work with the Forest Service and Fire Districts to create emergency incident data and resulting response requirements. He asked if this is calculated into the assessment? Tom Beckwith answered that a portion of the NOVA grant is done on a two year funding cycle and the emergency response agreements can developed during that time. That is one ofthe start-up efforts. Matt Tyler summarized the recommendation from the Parks Advisory Board. They are supportive of the activity, but they are concerned about the financial implications. They feel that the Board should continue to support existing parks and recreation programs. They also have concerns about the human and environmental risks of an OHV facility. Commissioner Sullivan stated that there is a huge interest about this subject and the Board has received many e-mails and letters. He said that all the people working on the project have clearly identified what needs to happen if an OHV facility is going to be located in East Jefferson County. However, there are some questions that can't be answered and he thinks the Parks Advisory Board speaks to those questions. There is the uncertainty of lAC funding for the next 20 years. There is the uncertainty of politics. There are the expectations that people had when they moved into the area and they expect it to stay the same. He doesn't really see a need for the facility, but does see a demand. What it comes down to for him is the change in expectations for nearby property owners. He doesn't think the proposed sites are the right location for the facility. Page 4 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: February 26, 2007 fi(, {t Chairman Johnson stated that he has concerns about some of the language in the study regarding the Skidder Hill site on page 60 which states: Intermittent streams also drain the southern slopes of the ridge located in the southern parcel of Andrews Creek, and then into Leland Lake. The streams are located on the steepest portions of the hillsides and outside of the area likely to be used for OHV trails. He asked for a clarification of the sentence. It also mentions erosion hazards and may avoid these zones. He thinks the wording is nebulous. Tom Beckwith stated that the trails will be developed using County regulations which are very exacting about critical areas. The facility has to be approved by the County. Tom Beckwith explained that an issue raised by the County and the City of Port Townsend was the watershed. There is a transmission line just north of Snow Creek across the property, but the proposed use area is considerably uphill from it. Vehicles would drive over the line on the road to get to the site. However, ifthat area is logged, logging trucks would be driving over the transmission line. Again, construction would be subject to County regulations. Chairman Johnson said that the study noted that people are already using OHV s on these trails. He stated that 31 % of the surveys returned came from Jefferson County residents and 65% of the survey respondents stated that they were familiar with Skidder Hill. Tom Beckwith explained that OHV enthusiasts travel for the sport. Commissioner Austin stated that he is concerned about the liability issue for the County. Another concern is the impact on people who have settled in the area and have expectations of a rural ambiance. He has visited Tahuya State Forest on the weekends and it was noisy. He went on nearby properties and could hear the sound. The property owners would be affected. The Board received correspondence from people on both sides of the issue. Personally, he feels more moved by the people who are going to be affected by the noise on a daily basis than by the people that occasionally use the facility. He doesn't think that OHV sites should be located in this part of the County. Commissioner Austin moved to accept the recommendation from the Parks Advisory Board that the County discontinue the OHV feasibility study in this area. Commissioner Sullivan stated that he feels the Board has learned a lot about the nature of OHV users, what a valuable part they can play in the community, and how important this is to them. He seconded the motion. Chairman Johnson stated his added concerns about the impact on emergency services. Chairman Johnson called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by unanimous vote. Page 5 Commissioners Special Meeting Minutes: February 26,2007 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: The Special Meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 5, 2007 at 9 a.m. -...., "..,-- ~ .- - "',", MEET~.ef~,'",~, ".. .", .I)"....." .: ,,' " .., .- . '. j / '~\ ' . 6 SEAIj: .,-, ~ ,,~. ~,' " ..-c ~ ~ ;\- \ '\ '.. =- ; "'> . ,\). (fj . \ ! J_,. / .~ .. " r~~,(?h1C Julie Matthes, CMC Deputy Clerk of the Board JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DaVi~~ ~tin,~ Page 6