Red Rocks, Section 16, White Acres Meeting - Wed, Oct 19 - CRITICAL you attend
Wednesday, October 19 at 6:30 PM the city parks department will be holding
its third public master planning meeting for the Section 16 - White Acres - Red
rocks opens spaces.
They have added this additional meeting to work on TRAILS! They were supposed to do trails last week, but pushed it off for this new meeting.
THIS MEETING IS CRITICAL, as the PROPOSED TRAIL MAPS will be presented for
public feedback. If you care at all about mountain biking in these areas, this
is the meeting to attend.
The meeting is held at the westside community center at 1628 West Bijou Street at
6:30 PM on Wednesday, October 19.
Bring any and all trail ideas that you might have - what is important to you? What do you want to see happen with the trails here? Come speak up and make it happen!
Here's the thread on the last meeting to bring you up to speed...
discussion on last week's meeting
Last edited by manitoumtbr; 10-18-2011 at 09:19 AM.
3 Legged Big Top
Last edited by Curtis C; 10-11-2011 at 03:10 PM.
When did it change from the 19th to the 13th?
I've lost my mind...
For some reason I thought the meeting was this Thursday, 10/13 BUT IT'S NOT!!!
You're right, it is on Wed, 10/19.
Friends of Red Rock Canyon just sent this around
An additional Red Rock Canyon Open Space master plan meeting is scheduled for October 19. Like the previous two meetings, this meeting will be at 6:30 P.M. in the Westside Community Center, 1628 W. Bijou.
This meeting will discuss TRAILS.
The master plan team has prepared a map which includes the trail plan which the master plan team is suggesting. This high resolution single page map (4.64 MB pdf) can be downloaded at:
Since this map does not show the topography, Friends of Red Rock Canyon has prepared a six page portfolio of maps in which the topography has been overlaid on the master plan team's map. You can download this portfolio either as a high resolution pdf (6 MB) or as a quick download pdf (3 MB).
There are links for each these downloads on our home page, Friends of Red Rock Canyon
Hope to see you at the October 19 meeting.
bump for meeting tomorrow night...
Sorry I had to leave early. I spent last night in the ER and needed to get some rest.
Originally Posted by manitoumtbr
Hats off to Jim and Cory on representing the bikers interest. You guys put out some great ideas and I hope there is some buy in to make the pump track and new free ride areas work. You have my support 100%. Wish I had time to hear what everyone else proposed.
So I don't know who all you other guys are but endless thanks to all who participated. Even if you only made it to one meeting. Every little bit helps. You guys rock! I owe you all a beer... or two.
BTW, if you weren't able to attend you can still email your support for the pump track, freeride, trails, etc... to Sarah Briarly with City Parks.
I thought things went well at the meeting. I had a good table with a very knowledgeable gentleman from the FoRRC group who knew a lot of the history of the trails which was interesting to hear. I think he had a good perspective of which trails should NOT be closed, and I really liked his addition of adding a trail on the west side of Section 16 that drops in from where Section 16 T's off from Palmer Trail.
I liked that people seemed to be open to the idea of building trails that cater more to bikers, more to equestrians, and more to hikers so each group would gravitate to different trails without officially removing the multi-use access. Hopefully our inputs will be largely incorporated into the master plan.
Review and respond to draft plan.
Same place, same time if I'm not mistaken.
I heard a rumor that this meeting may get canceled. Haven't gotten a confirmation yet, however.
There should be a press release coming out on this, probably today, so stay tuned
City puts Red Rock / White Acres master plan on hold | Wildlife & nature
Originally Posted by manitoumtbr
"City parks leaders will continue to talk and meet with open space and
regional parks volunteers, and friends and users groups, officials stated."
"In the meantime, the planning consultant will continue to formulate the
draft plan for the Red Rock Canyon Master Plan, using input received thus
far from the public and others.
Everyone will have an opportunity to view the draft plan and make
comments and suggestions.
Future public meetings will be held to discuss maintenance, operational
practices, biological and cultural preservation and forest health and
So Jim(s), correct me if I'm wrong. The hiker/friends user groups will get to
have private meetings with the planners and city staff to complete the
plan, while the MTB'rs, because we do not have a strong representative
group and attended the meeting as individuals, are left out in the cold?
If you knew something about this why didn't you speak up so we could
do something to stop it?
Weren't we told in the first meeting that "no user/friends group will
have priority over individual citizens concerns" ?
Is it any wonder that we are all so discouraged by the process? Please
tell me we got something out of all the effort to show up and participate?
3 Legged Big Top
Originally Posted by UncleTrail
Thats the way it reads UT!
Ok, I was trying to stay out of this, but now I'm pissed... Who do I email/call?
Originally Posted by UncleTrail
I asked the city (Sarah Bryarly) about this and here is her response:
...this is a City-wide effort and not specific to the Red Rock Canyon Master Plan. All user groups and Friends groups are encouraged to participate and add their input. The Red Rock Canyon Master Plan process will pick up right where it left off, once this separate Relationship Building process is completed. Information previously gathered from the Red Rock Canyon meetings will still help formulate the ultimate master plan.
She also asked me to post the full text of the press release:
The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department has elected to temporarily place the Red Rock Canyon, White Acres, Section 16 Master Plan Process on hold. The Department will resume the master plan process in 2012.
While the master plan process is on hold, the Department will engage in a separate public process with open space and regional parks volunteer, Friends and Users groups across the community. The meetings will identify shared aspirations, goals and values of the volunteer groups and Department. The goal is to develop working agreements defining roles and responsibilities pertaining to needs of the land, needs of the volunteer groups, needs of the user groups, needs of the friends groups and needs of the Department - ultimately matching human and fiscal resources with those needs.
In the meantime, the planning consultant will continue to formulate the draft plan for the Red Rock Canyon Master Plan. Input previously received from the public will help shape the future plan. Once the master plan process is restarted, the public will have the opportunity to view the draft plan and make comments and suggestions. There will be future public meetings on maintenance, operational practices, biological and cultural preservation and forest health and management.
For information about the master planning process, visit the City’s website at www.springsgov.com/RRC
Contact Sarah Bryarly, Interim Design, Development and TOPS Manager, at (719) 385-6522 or email@example.com
for more information.
So, the question is who represents the biker community? In that past that has more-or-less been Medicine Wheel. If local bikers are satisfied with that then rattle some chains in MedWheel, otherwise get some people together and ask Sarah how you can contribute.
I think we should be patient and see what the Jim(s) have to say and I need to make a few phone calls to find out what is really going on.
Originally Posted by Short Bus
My impression is that we intimidated the FORRC with our participation,
cooperation and well thought out ideas during the master planning meetings
and we should be viewing this as a minor victory. They really couldn't
argue with the logic of the new riding area on 26th St, or some
of the other great trail ideas that came out of the process.
I'm also wondering if TOPS is not breaking a city code or state open
meetings laws by holding these meetings without public participation
or minutes of what is being discussed. Whatever FORRC is up to, I
don't trust them.
It's not just the MTB'rs that are pissed. Parents at my sons school are too.
No City pools, no summer programs, no rec centers, no toilets, no water, no
grass on the ball fields, no trash cans, the kids were only allowed to use the
infields during baseball season, but TOPS could spend millions on Section 16 even
though they leased it for $1/yr from the County/State, and it was already in the
states Land Conservation Trust, so it didn't need a conservation easement
put on it. There was no reason to buy it in the first place, unless you
have an agenda. I hate to say it b/c I've worked with many of these
people and I respect them a great deal, but maybe it's time for the
TOPS board to go? They seem out of touch with what the public wants.
Slow down guys, I think you will find this to be a good development once you get some info! Sorry for a delay in me posting, but here's the scoop.
First of all, all of the input from the Section 16 Master Planning meetings thus far is still being used and will go into the draft plan that will be published before the next Section 16meeting (once they start up again).
The Master Planning process was put on hold because many individual issues have popped up with trail maintenance and question on what the City's "trail standards" should be. These have primarily been voiced by individual mountain bikers, so it is a response to the issues that we are seeing. Trail sanitization, placement of stairs, etc. While this is an issue that impacts all user groups, it seems to be impacting cyclists more than others.
After the Section 16 stair placement (Section 16 Trail Luv), I met with numerous trail advocacy/building/maintenance groups and tried to brainstorm ways to ensure, moving forward, that these types of issues were avoided. So the idea of trying to get a better handle on this was the focus. While we didn't come up with anything concrete, the need for the discussion became apparent.
A couple of weeks ago, I got a call at work from a friend of mine that was out riding in RRC on the Roundup Trail. Turns out that some work was being done to clear the vegetation back a bit from the edge of the trail, but there was also some work being done that he regarded as trail sanitization (he thought they were changing the character of the trail). I haven't seen the work myself, but that's how he felt. He went back and talked to those doing the work (Friends of RRC and City Staff) and he left with the impression, whether explicit or not, that he was being told that maybe he should go bike in Section 16 instead and that they intended to keep changing the character of the trail.
Again, I don't know the details of the changes or if anti-bike sentiment was really what they were trying to convey, but it raised the issue again as a need to make sure all of those in the community that are doing trail advocacy/design/building/maintenance are on the same page with regards to expectations and embracing all user groups that have access to the trails.
So, TOSC started talking about how it should be handled again (and others in the community as well) when the City decided it needed to tackle the issue itself, delaying the Section 16 process since the outcome of the "trail standards" discussion might play into the process itself.
So, while I don't have alot of details yet, the City wants to get together all the Friends groups, trailwork groups, advocacy groups, etc. to figure out a solution to these types of issues. I don't know exactly how it will go down, but the City wants to hire a third party consultant to manage the process, just like the Section 16 process.
Will it be entirely open to the public - I don't know. Is it a good thing - I hope so - we plan on making it so. Will mountain bikers voice be heard - most definitley - both Medicine Wheel and TOSC (and probably others) will make sure of that.
The City is planning on presenting their ideas on this process tomorrow night at the TOSC annual meeting, which is open to the public. Please attend if you have questions or concerns. If you can't attend, I will post a summary of what the City presents. Here's the info on the meeting:
Thursday, November 10th TOSC's Annual Membership (and friends) Meeting
7 - 9 p.m. at the Gay & Lesbian Fund Building, 315 E Costilla. Learn the latest about the Incline, South Slope of Pikes Peak, Midland Trail, Rainbow Falls, Ute Valley Trail and more! Refreshments will be served.
3 Legged Big Top
Isn't TOPS and City Parks two different programs that are each funded by two different taxation's? City parks runs the rec centers, ball fields, city parks, and such, Trails and Open Space is just that. IIRC TOPS tax stated land would not be developed with rec centers, pools ETC. It would be managed as OPEN SPACE.
Last NOV or APR yall voted to allow a small amount of TOPS funds to be used by city parks for trash removal and a few other city services.
I could be entirely off base so feel free to correct if thats the case.
If the minutes from the original meeting state "no user/friends group will
have priority over individual citizens concerns" you should ask the planners to honor that by stopping all private meetings friends groups.
If TOPS needs to put in on hold they should put the entire process on hold
I dont live in COS or pay into the TOPS fund so I really have no voice on this. Just sharing some thoughts as an outsider.
Cyclists are well represented on the TOSC board as well (as are all user groups). I don't think that will be a problem. If you have specific concerns that you would like to be addressed, let me know and I will make sure they are heard.
UT - regarding the purchase of Section 16, you got it wrong. The State Land Board had jacked up the lease rate dramatically to where it was gettting to be nearly impossible to continue leasing it. In addition, the TOPS funds spent on Section 16 (along with a $1 million GOCO grant) couldn't have been spent on regional parks anyway.
No you're correct Curt.
Originally Posted by Curtis C
City Parks is funded by the General Fund and TOPS is a dedicated
The issue is the percentage of TOPS funds used for maintenance.
It's like a 94:6 split Capital:Maintenance, IIRC. Ridiculous. Even the extra
maintenance % that was approved is a drop in the bucket compared
to the backlog of maintenance projects. SOP is to just let facilities fall apart,
then replace them using capital.
When it comes to trail maintenance, the staffing level is so low that
there is only one maintenance person per 100 miles of trail. And even
the portion of TOPS used for maintenance doesn't even begin to take
care of OS maintenance, so you see City Parks using General Fund to
take care of OS (if they had money). That's why TOPS rely's on volunteers and friends
groups to take care of trails. TOPS doesn't even pay to take care
of the land they are buying. It's all spent on land acquisition or CIP.
It's not stewardship. It's not what OS should be about.
For a lot of us in town though, we're upset that the proposal to use
dedicate TOPS revenue for the next 5 years to address the lack of
maintenance was not supported by TOSC or the TOPS Board. It took two
election cycles to get it passed, and by then it was too late, the damage
to the City Parks facilities had already been done. Now General Fund has
to be used to pay for the damage that didn't have to happen in the first
place. It was selfish and stupid. City parks are OS too, just because
it's used as a ball field doesn't make it any less green. We're really cheating
our kids when we allow this type of thing to happen. That's why we're so
mad. Our kids lost out.
Corral Bluffs and Section 16 weren't going anywhere. They could have put
everything on hold and kept people in jobs, but TOPS choose to buy land
that they can't even afford to maintain and cheated our kids in the
You should talk to Scott Abbott some time and find out what he goes through
to take care of parks/trails. It's a nightmare that never get's better.
Anyway, I better stop ranting about this. It just makes me so mad to
think about it.
I don't know Jim... maybe you're right.
Originally Posted by manitoumtbr
I've held the lease in my hands though. It was $1/yr. Leased to the County and
subleased to the City. I can't say that hasn't changed, but IIRC that was
the case. Maybe there was an MOU I didn't know about, but the lease I
saw was $1/yr from the County to the City.
And of course the TOPS funds couldn't be spent on anything else, because
when it was proposed TOSC protested and shot it down with a PR
campaign. Now TOPS relys on volunteers to maintain everything, and
look at where we are... it's not a good place. I just can't support TOSC
any longer. The trust is gone. It goes beyond riding a bike. It's about
stewardship and responsibility. I just don't see it.
State Land Board Conservation Trust Leases: Look at Page 5. El Paso County Manitou Section 16 It's not leased to the City from the State.
Also, note all those Nature Conservancy leases in El Paso County. 140,000
Acres without public access (or by appt. only) and another 80,000 Acres
across the county line in Pueblo County. That's State Land, leased to the
NC, funded with a grant from the Federal Gov... with no public access,
that's is kept hush, hush anytime OS is mentioned in this county. When is
enough OS... enough?
Last edited by UncleTrail; 11-09-2011 at 04:51 PM.
Medicine Wheel Guy
I have known about the change in the works just since last Friday and have spoken to several well connected people about the proposed new process. It's too early to tell what the outcome will be, but UT, you are wrong when you imply that the MTB community isn't well represented. Medicine Wheel was among the first to be called directly by Sarah to explain the change in direction.
We have a board meeting this evening to discuss the situation, among other things, but please DON'T PANIC. MWTA is very much aware of the situation and not only are we working diligently to make sure MTBers are included, we have been explicitly invited to be a part of the process.
I would also point out that this change in direction isn't really about bikes, per se, at all. It's a more complex issue that is the result of city cuts, underfunding, volunteer groups trying to fill the gap, and turf. It is my hope that the final outcome will actually be beneficial to all the interested parties, including MTBers.
Keep in mind that MWTA has a member on the board of TOSC and a former Parks Advisory Board member on our own board, and I believe is generally well regarded by the land management community.
As I said, it's too soon to tell what the final result will be, but MWTA will be there every step of the way to make sure MTB's have a say in the process.
You see, therein lies the problem. All of us who attended the meeting
Originally Posted by Martlet
were on the same mailing list and we were under the impression that our voices
were equal to that of MWTA, TOSC, FORRC and others, and yet no one
bothered to contact the rest of us and let us know what was going on. We got to read it in the newspaper. Preferential treatment is being given
to your special interest groups, and I'm a little fed up with it.
I'm not a member of TOSC or MWTA for a reason.
So I'm sorry guys. Your groups do not represent me, and I demand that
the City start listening to the other people in the room.
I, for one appreciate your efforts. I have also been at every meeting so far to provide an additional voice of concern for MTBs. As for the next meeting, work may take me out of town, so I thank in advance all who continue to carry the torch.
All other things are rarely equal . . .
By Martlet in forum Colorado - Front Range
Last Post: 10-11-2011, 10:27 AM
By UncleTrail in forum Colorado - Front Range
Last Post: 10-04-2011, 06:22 AM
By Debaser in forum Colorado - Front Range
Last Post: 02-08-2011, 02:53 PM
By Dan'ger in forum California - Norcal
Last Post: 04-04-2005, 04:59 PM
By Dan'ger in forum California - Norcal
Last Post: 03-02-2005, 10:30 AM