Coos Regional Trails Partnership
Meeting Minutes – April 15, 2008 amended and approved May19, 2008.
In Attendance: Don Luce, Mike Smith, Dave Gray, Bob Golden, Tom Baake, John Bragg
Currently 5 board member positions filled, so 4 members represent a quorum.
Approval of previous meetings minutes:
Mike Smith presented minutes for the February Meeting. They were approved.
Committee Reports:
Multiuse Committee- Mike Smith reported that the “Big Loop” proposal which is a comprehensive area wide multiple use trail plan was not adopted as a CRTP project mainly due to the objections of some hikers on the board that believe that hiking and motorized uses can not be mingled successfully.
Since that vote it was suggested to the committee that to avoid that potential conflict the “Big Loop” proposal should be resubmitted leaving out the hikers thus avoiding any potential conflict. There is huge support among Equestrian, Mountain Bike and OHV groups. The Multi use committee would prefer hiker involvement but will now resubmit the proposal to the CRTP at the next meeting eliminating the hiker involvement to avoid the conflict that was objected to. Hopefully by eliminating this conflict the partnership can now adopt this project.
* An overview of the “Big Loop” project proposal is attached.
Don Luce said that he had spoken with various hikers in the South Coast Striders hiking group and they had expressed the feeling that the experience being sought by non-motorized users was not compatible with motorized use on the same trail. Most hikers do not have a problem with other non-motorized use on the same trail provided it is wide enough for safe passing, but the noise represented by motorized use spoiled the experience they were seeking in the woods. Don acknowledged that both motorized and non-motorized users need and deserve good and adequate trails, just not sharing the same path. He said that he was willing to support the “Big Loop” connectivity of major trail systems as long as the language defining multiuse was flexible enough to allow various combinations of users to include either/or motorized and non-motorized use. He felt that this would make the project more likely to get accomplished.
Mike Smith said that based on his experience this wording would almost certainly lead to the exclusion of motorized users from most of the system.
John Bragg expressed that based on his experience as a trail user in every form except equestrian, he did not think it was inconceivable that a trail system including all users could work. He did understand that at times he did seek a quiet solitude type experience himself and could see how some trail users would not want motorized sounds. As an OHV trail user he could also see how they might not want to have to worry about hikers in the trail.
South Coast Striders – Don Luce reported that 56 people attended the last hike to Eel Lake. The next hike is to Rocky Peak on April 26th and the next hike after that is Bandon Beaches out of Coquille Pt. on May 10th. Don reported to the group that the only problem that the Striders were having was the increase in the numbers of hikers coming to each hike and that they would need to either increase both the number of hikes and hike leaders or begin to limit the number of people on some hikes. There has been an appeal at each hike for people to sign up to become hike leaders and the offer of “hike leader mentors” for those who want it. There has been some limited response. Don told the group that he had received an email from Katherine Hoppe requesting permission to advertise SCS hikes on the Chamber of Commerce web site. He had not responded yet, because he was concerned about increasing the numbers coming to hikes and the subsequent degradation of both the experience and safety for the participants.
He asked the group for advice. John Bragg and others said that they thought he should let the Chamber know about his groups need for more hike leaders and that they would probably be able to help. Don will do this and report back to the group.
New Business:
Examination of CRTP Mission – everyone was provided a copy of the CRTP mission to read and asked whether they thought it was still relevant and properly reflected our mission. Everyone agreed that it was a good statement and didn’t need changing.
Measures to streamline decision making process.
Don Luce passed out a copy of the bylaws with the proposed changes indicated. *A Copy is attached and will be posted on the CRTP website following the meeting. He is submitting this revision to the Board and asking that it be put to a vote of the general membership at the next meeting. An email will be sent to inform current members 30 days prior to our next meeting on May 20th.
Here is a brief summary of the changes being proposed:
Executive committee would be eliminated and their powers would be added to the list of board powers.
Officers would still be elected as before with the exception of the at-large position. Their duties would not change.
The Boards decision making requirement would be changed from “consensus” to 2/3rd majority.
2/3rd majority is 66.6%. That’s 2 out of 3, 3 out of 4, 5 out of 7, 6 out of 8, 6 out of 9, 7 out of 10, 8 out of 11, 9 out of 12.
Mike Smith expressed that he did not think that we could change the bylaws other than by one provision at a time based on a proposal and vote of the board put forth by Reg Pullen. Don Luce said that Article 10 of the bylaws provides for either individual amendments or a complete revision of the bylaws and Reg Pullen’s stipulation that amendments to the bylaws could only be done one at a time was in error.
A copy of the exact language contained in Article 10 follows for everyone to examine:
Article 10: Amendments or Suspension of Articles
Any number of amendments, or an entire revision of the bylaws, may be submitted to the Board and voted upon by the general membership, and adopted upon a majority vote of the general membership. Notice of proposed amendments or suspensions shall be posted on the CRTP Web site and made available to members by email at least 30 days prior to submitting such an amendment for a vote, except at the annual business meeting, when amendment may be proposed without notice.
Don asked the group what their opinion was about contacting the signers of the MOU to see if they see the organization as relevant and how we can improve. The general consensus was to leave this issue alone for now.
Tom Baake was nominated to fill the conservation seat on the board of directors and was elected by unanimous vote.
The current board consist of the following individuals:
Tom Baake – Conservation representative
Donna Bishop – Equestrian Trails representative
Dave Gray – Foot Trails representative
Don Luce - Tourism representative
Reg Pullen – Water Trails representative
Mike Smith – OHV Trails representative
There will be a meeting on May 20th to vote on the revised Big Loop Plan as presented by Mike
Smith and to conduct other business as shall be deemed necessary.
We agreed that the next regular meeting will be held on July 15th, 2008.
Meeting was Adjourned.
Attachment follows:
The Big Loop – (taken from PowerPoint created by Mike Smith).
Who are the Coos Regional Trails Partnership?
· A broad group of agencies, organizations, business and individuals dedicated to enhancement, development and promotion of land and water trails in the Coos County region.
What is the Big Loop?
· A large multiple use trail that links existing trail systems, towns and points of interest in western Douglas and Coos Counties.
· A large inclusive and visionary effort amongst diverse interests to produce a cooperative network of community, by working collaboratively, on this network of trails.
Where?
Insert map
Why do it?
· Provide a first class accessible trail system for the recreation of locals and visitors.
· Help implement state wide goals referenced in OPRD’s trails plan.
· Assist local agencies in their recreational planning priorities as well as maintenance and management problems.
· Assist public and private land owners in unmanaged trail usage on their lands.
· Bring tourism dollars to local communities.
· Create cooperative working relationships between agencies and user groups.
Why the Big Loop?
· A large project like this involves almost all land owners, agencies and user groups in the region whereas most trail projects may involve one agency and one user group.
· Surveys of trail users indicate more trail opportunities are needed and existing areas should be linked.
· Big enough to be a regional tourist draw.
· It’s an adventure. It’s sexy.
Why multiple use?
· Fosters cooperation.
· It is an inclusive and positive trail management tool whereas restricted use trails are exclusive and negative.
· More resources:
o More volunteers.
o More grant money.
o More community support.
The big hoops?
· The users.
· The agencies.
· Private land owners.
· Funding.