Alpine Rec Study - Council Meeting Oct 17th!

[bunny]

> The Alpine Recreational Strategic Study report is scheduled for the
> Council meeting on Monday, October 17, which starts at 7:00 p.m at the
> Municipal Hall Council Chambers, 355 West Queens Road. This report
> will make recommendations for setting policy affecting the future of
> Mountain Biking on Mt Fromme and the rest of the District. The
> Council Agenda and report will be on the District Web Site on
> Thursday, October 13 for review ( <file://www.dnv.org/> www.dnv.org
> under Council Agenda).
>
> Susan Rogers, DNV Parks Planner has invited those who wish to address
> Council have 2 minutes to do so, and can come to the Hall at 6:30 to
> sign up before the October 17th Council meeting. This is the last
> opportunity to address council prior to the Nov 19th election. The
> NSMBA recommends those interested to come out to support or debate the
> recommendations of the study. We'll let you know more once the report
> is available for review on October 13th.
>
> Happy trails!
> NSMBA

[Jerry-Rig]

Should be interesting.... I'm hoping everything pretty much stays the same but have a feeling that they will want to close some trails down.

[Sharon]

Go speak in support of Mountain Biking!

Lee and I would be there, but we're still in colorado riding...

Details of the agenda item that will be presented:

http://www.dnv.org/upload/documents/Council_Reports/552051.pdf

implementation and cost:
http://www.dnv.org/upload/documents/Council_Reports/552051E.pdf

5. Alpine Recreational Strategic Plan

File 13.6480.20/010.001

Tracking Number 2002-01306
(to consider endorsement, in principle, of the study’s vision, principles, strategic planning framework and preliminary recommendations)



Report: Section Manager - Parks Planning, September 12, 2005
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:



THAT Council:

1. endorse in principle, the vision and principles of the Alpine Recreational Strategic Study as outlined in the September 12, 2005 report of the Section Manager – Parks Planning, under Sections 1.1. and 1.2.;





2. confirm the key strategies within the planning framework as the basis of a detailed implementation plan as described in the September 12, 2005 report of the Section Manager – Parks Planning, under Sections 1.3 and 1.4.;



3. endorse the work plan in Attachment 5 to the September 12, 2005 report of the Section Manager – Parks Planning, to implement the priority items as outlined under Section 1.3 and 1.4. and refer these items to the context of the 2006 5 Year Financial Plan for consideration; and



4. direct staff to explore potential business partnerships with other land owners, GVRD and particularly those in the alpine recreation business.

[Rat]

whats going on at the entrance to Upper Bitches right now?

[LeeLau]

not sure exactly, the sign says the trail is being deactivated.

last time we rode to jbjg Grouse Mountain had an excavator in west of Mosquito creek widening the trail and putting in culverts.

[Big Dipper]

whats going on at the entrance to Upper Bitches right now?

They are deactivating the old logging road that goes to the bottom of the cut. Maybe future debris torrent hazard liability? I don't know.

I think it is both DNV and Grouse land so it's a joint effort. Too bad they don't have vision and leave in a nice singletrack.

[synchro]

you could always put one in afterwards

[Rat]

I thought mabey they had seen those piss poor bridges made out of one inch sticks and binder twine and decided to shut her down.

[thewwkayaker]

So where is the report? At the page "Alpine Recreational Strategic Study" there is no link to the report (it says it will be available on the 13th which was yesterday). Can anyone find it?

[Niggz]

My god, it took that long to create that 8 page piece of crap that gives council 3 choices to either continue doing nothing, fix the mountain or ban biking. Did they really need ot do all that work to be left with the same choices they had before?

Ernie's gonna be pissed.

[thewwkayaker]

My god, it took that long to create that 8 page piece of crap that gives council 3 choices to either continue doing nothing, fix the mountain or ban biking. Did they really need ot do all that work to be left with the same choices they had before?

Ernie's gonna be pissed.

No offense but you read the report wrong.

It clearly states the 3 options available (as you summerized) but indicates that "do nothing", and "ban biking" will not work [if you are uncertain, reread the report].

So supporting the report means "Support the Alpine Recreational Strategic Study recommendations and initiate active management of recreational activities in the Alpine Area, as described in this report" which EVERYONE NEEDS TO DO.

A few points of concern to some:

1) funding for staging areas, parking etc. My opinion is that the parking area, if provided, should be a "pay parking". Since I live here and pay taxes with DNV I have no interest in funding a parking lot. It also stands to reason that others in the city wouldn't support it either. We already have pay parking at the other mountains - they could just add it on to this system.

2) user pay system. Good luck enforcing it. However if there was a way to either enforce it or make it work I'd actually support it IF all funds collected went directly to NSMBA. If they could tie it to the liability aspect such that a) you are tresspassing if you don't pay to be using the trails and thus have no rights b) you sign a waiver if you do pay. Probably won't work in our legal system.

3) trail decisions - this is the one that scares me the most. In the past stunts and trails were designed at will. The concern is that if the district puts limitations on it the NS will eventually lose it's reputation as a top place to ride. You can see the effects already (stunts that are built too high (a relative term) are not accepted by the district), Whistler BP had to close a log ride that was very wide but considered "too high". In Bellingham WA they are looking at following the builders code: if it's more than 26" high (or something like that I can't recall) it must have a railing.

[dirty deeds]

My god, it took that long to create that 8 page piece of crap that gives council 3 choices to either continue doing nothing, fix the mountain or ban biking. Did they really need ot do all that work to be left with the same choices they had before?

Ernie's gonna be pissed.

I'd agree to a large extent.

To me, it just looks like they've written a lengthy paper 'trying' to look as intelligent and esoteric as possible to cover up the fact that they are saying nothing. They promised the report, elections coming up, they know that dealing with this hot potato is a no win situation, so they've just tried to put out something that won't rock the boat.

Remember, this report was 'prepared' by staff, but only after closed door consultation with council... this is essentailly councils report to itself... 'let's just sweep this under the carpet for now and worry about it next term and who knows, if we do nothing the problem might just go away' :rolleyes: politics.

[thewwkayaker]

Anytime you write a report like this you have to list all alternatives and only give a suggestion or opinion or recommendation (as it does).

But it does clearly state at the end:
"
Options:

1) Support the Alpine Recreational Strategic Study recommendations and initiate active management of recreational activities in the Alpine Area, as described in this report.

2) Prohibit all or some recreational use in the Alpine area, as directed by Council. This approach has been repeadedly rejected by Council in earlier discussions, and would incur ongoing operational and regulatory costs to manage closure of Alpine area from recreational access.

3) Retain status quo with no improvements to the Alpine area. In the long term, this approach is unsustainable and leads to numerous liability risks for the District.
"

They are saying 2) & 3) are not feasible nor supported. They also say that 1) is their recommendation.

So I'm not sure why some of you are saying the report gives no direction. Reports are crap but people need them to cover their asses. I would agree that the report doesn't bring to light anything new, nor should it have taken long to create such a report but - well thats how reports work. They knew what they were going to support long before completing the report but they had to make it look like they had studied it all all angles for a long time (it was fairly obvious what choice they had to make).

Bottom line: the "study" supports mtn biking on Fromme - thus we need to show support.

[Big Dipper]

Actually the jist of the report is to provide broad direction (vision and principals) and an idea of the process that the district will move forward with so that Council can show buy-in with their vote then cut the district staff loose to implement the recommendations. Specifically what is to happen is for council to approve that mananged recreational use of the alpine lands is legit and to give District staff the mandate to actively manage that recreation and make decisions without going back to council for clarification/approval. Seems like this is obvious but government bureacrasy requires this slow process.

What will be interesting is how it is implemted and how decisions are made. This is where interpretation comes into play and hence the importance of having a Mayor that can provide clarification and guidance to staff on council's decision. It is also important that an effective council be voted in that doesn't attempt to undermine the district staff and micro-manage every issue, which is what currently happens and why nothing gets done.

So , yes support the report but let them know that you are watchin and be very active in the implementation stage - that's where it counts.

[Big Dipper]

When disecting the report what concerns me most is the consideration of private public partnership with adjacent landowners. Read: Grouse Mountain taking control of all of Fromme for profit. This is why the NSMBA was formed in 1997 and sources tell me that Grouse has approached the District about the idea twice since then. It is obvious that Grouse throws around alot of political weight in this town so it is a possibility.

Other than that my critisim is that I doubt the District currently has the staff resources to do all they say they plan to do. I say this given what has been accomplished to date. However, James Ridge the new CAO with the help of the right mayor might be able to boost things with some top down direction.

[Bean]

When disecting the report what concerns me most is the consideration of private public partnership with adjacent landowners. Read: Grouse Mountain taking control of all of Fromme for profit. This is why the NSMBA was formed in 1997 and sources tell me that Grouse has approached the District about the idea twice since then. It is obvious that Grouse throws around alot of political weight in this town so it is a possibility.
I went to the workshop they had a few months back and while Grouse was one of the attendees their rep didn't seem particularly interested in getting involved. Certainly not as a operator. They seemed concerned about access to Grouse lands via Mtn Hwy and the Council was asking questions about whether Grouse had future plans for lift access biking.

- Bean

[Big Dipper]

Always remember there are two worlds - that which is public and that behind the scenes. Kind of like bike trails ;) . Any conversations about land aquisition/management would be kept confidential (closed camera meeting) until it was close to a done deal giventhe financial ramifications.

[thewwkayaker]

Actually the jist of the report is to provide broad direction (vision and principals) and an idea of the process that the district will move forward with so that Council can show buy-in with their vote then cut the district staff loose to implement the recommendations. Specifically what is to happen is for council to approve that mananged recreational use of the alpine lands is legit and to give District staff the mandate to actively manage that recreation and make decisions without going back to council for clarification/approval. Seems like this is obvious but government bureacrasy requires this slow process.

What will be interesting is how it is implemted and how decisions are made. This is where interpretation comes into play and hence the importance of having a Mayor that can provide clarification and guidance to staff on council's decision. It is also important that an effective council be voted in that doesn't attempt to undermine the district staff and micro-manage every issue, which is what currently happens and why nothing gets done.

So , yes support the report but let them know that you are watchin and be very active in the implementation stage - that's where it counts.

I agree completely.

During the discussion (and I'm assuming vote) next week we should put forth the idea we (NSMBA and mtn bikers in general) will be available and active on the implementation. ie. we need to a) support the report and b) indicate we plan to be (as you said) "watchin and be very active" - but in a positive way (not that you implied otherwise). I think some of our success has been the willingness of the biking community to work WITH not against the district.

[jace mace]

The civil Service as a meritocracy?...anyway the elected officials may typically act with/as the ochlocracy (which ironically/incidentally may [also]be implemented by a "vocal-minority") or perhaps a majority in the area of Upper-Mountain Hwy.,if they believe the de facto local media, gossip, and "Concerned Citizens" assembly groups etc. Anyway, better to be involved and/or have a representative group/individual, so I will try to be there.
As for the parking lot, user pay has seemed to not work in many ways and for a variety of reasons (signs/machines are disposed of, blatant disregard, unfamiliarity with payment system, total ignorance it exists, tourists or others choosing to stay away etc.; which may or may not aply to this parking lot and may or may not be good for it and the users.) That being said another approach may be to have GVRD tax money infused into the construction of a lot. They pay for the Seymour River lot and I think the Lynn Headwaters lot. This might have to be implemented by declaring a regional park (which would add an all new aspect.) Even the "frog pond" could be declared a part of it to placate certain components and have some stipulations and amendments ratified.
Time to stop typing on this subject and maybe add something later; for clarity etc. *Unedited*

[JCL]

I'm looking forward to the meeting. I've only been living in NV for a month or so but apart from the slight parking issue I can't see a problem with the mountain ? Considering the size of the area the amount of use it gets appears to be tiny. It seems to me that if mountain bikers didn't use it there would be no one up there !

[Tom]

It seems to me that if mountain bikers didn't use it there would be no one up there !

That's exactly what the very vocal minority of residents want...none of us dirty mountainbikers in "their" backyard. I even heard one of them refer to us as "those people" at a public meeting once!

[JCL]

Oh dear...

[Niggz]

I was just assuming that with all the hype about this report that something substantial would come of it...

[Tom]

I was just assuming that with all the hype about this report that something substantial would come of it...

It seems to be the exact same thing the DNV staff was saying at a public meeting a year ago. It's taken a year to be able to recommend that council adopt this stuff.

[Big Dipper]

http://www.dnv.org/upload/documents/Council_Reports/552051E.pdf

Here are the first strategic items that the District is looking for Council to approve. What is means is the Fromme is about to be actively managed by the District. We new it was inevitable. Best bet is to show support and stay involved in the process. The last item is to explore establishing an Alpine Recreation Implementation Committee which would be our future avenue for input.