Home
Basic Dirt Bike How-To's - Video
Dirt Bike How-To's - Video
Living The Moto Life - Video
Bike Tests | Shoot-Outs - Video
Forums
What's new
Latest activity
Log-In
Join
What's new
Menu
Log-In
Join
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Close Menu
Forums
Other Dirt Bike Discussions
Who to Ride With, Where to Ride
By Region
Western USA
Thurston Co ORV Park update
Reply to thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
[QUOTE="bbbom, post: 958236, member: 16301"] [b]The Proposal[/b] September 2, 2005 TO: NOVA Advisory Committee Members and individuals with interest in the NOVA Program. BY: D. Scott Chapman, Outdoor Grant Manager SUBJECT: Grays Harbor County ORV Park Funding Background The Thurston County ORV Park is a 150-acre site located along State Highway 8, west of Olympia. Approximately 75 acres are located in Thurston County with the remaining 75 acres in Grays Harbor County (GHC). In 1977, the two counties acquired the property with funds from the Washington State All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) program, a predecessor to the NOVA Program. Since 1978, IAC granted Thurston County over $1,675,000 to develop and renovate the ORV park and over $2,700,000 to operate and maintain the facility. The Thurston County ORV park is one of three publicly owned NOVA Program supported ORV sport parks in Washington State and is the only facility located in western Washington. This facility had attendance of over 30,000 users and spectators during the 2002 season. In November of 2002, the Thurston County Commissioners voted to close the Thurston County ORV Sports Park. IAC Policy and Washington Administrative Code (WAC), however, requires that Thurston County have prior IAC approval before closing an IAC funded facility. After two years of unsuccessful negotiations with Thurston County to reopen the park, IAC filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (lawsuit) on November 19, 2004 in Thurston County Superior Court. A court date is currently set for early 2006. This year, a budget proviso was included in Washington State’s operating budget for the 2005 - 2007 fiscal biennium1. The proviso allows Thurston County to discharge its contractual obligations with IAC for the development of the ORV Sports Park if by June 30, 2007: 1. It sells the land, facilities, and equipment on the open market and after deducting reasonable expenses, returns the funds to IAC; or 2. With the approval of the IAC, it gives the land, facilities, and equipment to a state or local agency to operate for ORV recreation. The proviso further stated that IAC, “may award a one-time noncompetitive grant to the agency for renovation and other capital improvements and for initial operating costs.” On May 9, 2005, the GHC Commissioners sent a letter to IAC stating that they were interested in exploring the feasibility of taking over the operation and management of the ORV park. IAC staff has since met with the Commissioners on several occasions to discuss various issues related to reopening the facility. On August 24th, GHC submitted a formal request to IAC for NOVA ORV funding to reopen the park. GHC’s Noncompetitive Funding Request Short-term Proposal: GHC is very interested in protecting the nonconforming use status of the ORV park. With input from ORV user groups, GHC submitted a funding request for $59,000 for this purpose. The proposal indicated that it covers the minimum costs (salaries, utilities, supplies, insurance, fencing, etc.) needed to reopen the park for the one-month period and thereby protect the operational status. The facility would be open Friday – Sunday for the month of October providing camping, access to ORV trails in Capitol State Forest, and organized ORV track events. Long-term Proposal: In addition to the $59,000 in short-term funding, GHC is seeking an additional $350,000 in non-competitive funding to renovate and maintain the facility for the first two years of operation. This would provide GHC the funding needed to hire staff, upgrade and renovate the facilities, pay insurance costs, purchase materials and supplies, maintain equipment, etc. They feel this additional funding is critical and that without this long-term commitment of funding, it would be futile to explore the short-term funding commitment. It is important to note that the ORV park has been closed for almost three years and has received no annual maintenance during that time. Additionally, the facility has been vandalized on several occasions resulting in significant damage to the restrooms, gates, and concession stand. The GHC Commissioners have further stated that they will not put county general funds into the development or management of the facility. That means they would be depending upon IAC grants, ORV park revenues, and volunteer donations (labor, equipment, and materials) to operate and maintain the park. Prior to closing the park, Thurston County had been receiving approximately $100,000 a year from IAC to operate and maintain the park. Staff Preliminary Discussion Based on current zoning and land use laws, IAC staff recognizes that it would be extremely difficult and very expensive to establish a new ORV park in western Washington. The replacement value of the land and development could be well over five million dollars. Therefore, if providing an ORV sport park in western Washington is important to the ORV community, we feel the best investment of ORV funds would be to work with GHC to reopen the existing ORV facility. The availability of NOVA ORV funds is an important factor in considering GHC’s proposal. In May, when staff first met with the GHC Commissioners, it appeared that any funding we would provide to the County would come at the expense of NOVA applicants that had applied for a competitive grant (more funds were being requested than we had available). However, it now appears that we have the funding capacity to fully fund all the NOVA ORV grants submitted through IAC’s competitive grant process and enough remaining to fund GHC’s request. Based on this availability of funds, IAC staff suggests the following funding proposal: IAC Staff Funding Proposal IAC Short-term Funding Proposal: In recognition of the importance of protecting the nonconforming use status of the facility, IAC staff supports providing GHC a noncompetitive grant for $59,000 to operate the facility for one month in order to maintain the existing nonconforming use status. Pros and Cons for providing a short-term noncompetitive maintenance grant to Grays Harbor County includes: Pros • Protects the park’s nonconforming use status for either a public agency or private operator that may be interested in managing the facility for ORV recreation. • Requires a relatively small investment of NOVA ORV funds ($59,000 of the $1,660,000 available). • Provides twelve days of recreational use (camping, ORV competition, etc.) at the facility. • Proposal conforms to the provisions of the 2005 legislative budget proviso. Cons • Proposal was not reviewed, evaluated, and approved by the NOVA Advisory Committee through IAC’s regular competitive grant process. • Reduces the ORV funding available for projects that apply through the normal competitive grant cycle (excess funds could be held over for future funding cycles). IAC Long-term Funding Proposal: If supported by the NOVA Advisory Committee and the ORV community in general, IAC staff would support fully funding GHC’s request. If approved, however, we would recommend that funding be provided in two phases: a planning phase and an implementation phase. Planning Phase - Once the nonconforming use status of the facility is secured with a small maintenance grant, IAC staff would support providing GHC with up to $15,000 to complete the proposed NOVA planning project. The purpose for the planning grant is to insure the wise investment of NOVA ORV funds. IAC staff feels it is important to have GHC complete some minimum upfront planning. The information gained through such a planning project is needed before we can successfully enter into Project Agreements with GHC for development or maintenance grants. We see two goals for this planning project: 1) Complete a professional facility condition survey to accurately determine the true cost of renovating the facility to an acceptable public use standard; and 2) Complete a facility business plan to document how GHC plans to operate and manage the facility. Existing plans already prepared by Thurston County could provide much of the needed information. Pros and cons for the Planning Phase includes: Pros • Completing a business plan for the facility is a smart “business” decision for ORV parks. • Planning dollars would be contingent on securing the nonconforming use status. • Provides additional capacity for GHC analysis without using county funds. • Requires a relatively small investment of NOVA ORV funds. • A professional condition survey will provide detailed cost estimates that can be used for preparing Project Agreements. • The Business Plan would give GHC planning eligibility that is required for the NOVA program by WAC 286-26-080. • Proposal conforms to the provisions of the 2005 legislative budget proviso. Cons • Requiring GHC to complete the business plan and conditions survey could delay GHC getting Project Agreements for maintenance and/or development funding. • Proposal was not reviewed, evaluated, and approved by the NOVA Advisory Committee through IAC’s regular competitive grant process. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which ocean is California closest to?
Post reply
Forums
Other Dirt Bike Discussions
Who to Ride With, Where to Ride
By Region
Western USA
Thurston Co ORV Park update
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
Bottom