crystal springs sno park
- Thread starter Snomofo
- Start date
When did this become about access?...is it not about a road that is plowed or not rather than access?...
It is not my knowledge... I just passed others knowledge and information along... there is a difference
knowledge lol
...from your link: "Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes..."...I get it now, thanks for clearing that up...I won't bother holding you accountable any longer...
..agreed...I'm in...who's collecting?
How about somebody starts a thread to see how much money we can get people to pledge. I think it would be better to see what kind of interest there is to help before anyone starts collecting any money.
I know that many people don't ride out of Crystal Springs much but if that snowpark gets FUBAR then that will push all those people to other areas that we do ride on a regular basis.
I know that many people don't ride out of Crystal Springs much but if that snowpark gets FUBAR then that will push all those people to other areas that we do ride on a regular basis.
Should be read as access to the riding from the snopark, not access to the snopark. Sorry for the confusion.
You sir, are a hard man to please... but that is correct. I have some information on the subject, but to call it knowledge would be a far leap right now... sh!t, I am still learning about this stuff... I have a long ways to go...
We could do it though paypal.... but they get you for a percentage... I wonder if there is a non-profit version of paypal? Though, with 1000 donations or more assumed, it would need to be smooth and efficient, as an error on any of this would stop anything like that from happening again.
What say you people? 10 bucks isn't much to get this issue gone.... Another way to look at it, is how much would you pay not to park at the very end of the road at gold creek. Or how much would you pay so that you don't have to ride the 5 or 6 miles (and burn 10 dollars in gas each way) to get to Stampede from Easton?
Input would be appreciated on this subject....
Very good point...
Last edited:
OK...I guess it's time to hold the horses head under water until it drinks...I'll type slow...LOL
It's not about access...it's about plowing...even if it's plowed you can still access it...it's just damned inconvenient and REALLY hard on the gear if it's plowed...
BTW - has nothing to do with pleasing me...but everything to do with identifying the specific issues clearly and concisely, focusing on those issues, preventing 'scope creep' in the issues, and a collective effort to focus and accomplish.
C
chief 8101
Well-known member
The actual cost for running the power from where it is in the road to where the groomer buildings are is closer to $25,000. The fire district doesn't have that kind of money, especially to run into a building that we hopefully will only be in for a winter or two. The fire district is alreay paying for a heater for the building and leasing a propane tank to heat it with and paying for a ground vault and transformer at the building location. That will be about $9000 total from the fire dept towards a resolution to this problem. Our pockets are only so deep, and that is the max we can spend.
The gravel pit was going to try and pay for most of the costs of running the power since they need power to, but between the cost to run the power and the money that State Parks is wanting to charge them for the easement, they don't know if they can afford it now.
The USFS and State Parks are the ones that offered up the small building for our use. The larger building has never been offered for our use. All we told the USFS and State Parks is that we were willing to negotiate a resolution to try and find a way to keep the road from being plowed, but that we had to have a facility to keep in service during winter months that we could respond out of on that side of I-90 and that was large enough for an ambulance and fire truck.
By no means is the small groomer garage ideal for us, it is smaller than our station and we won't be able to fit all the equipment in there from the other station, but we are trying to figure out a solution that everyone can live with, even if it is not "ideal" for anyone.
As for why I wasn't at the groomers meeting, a couple of reasons. First, I have a 2 year old and a 3 year old at home and I normally work nights so if I get a chance to spend some time with my kids I try to take advantage of it. Second, I didn't realize that there was going to be a major discussion regarding the fire station as I was under the impression based on the people that attended the public meeting that the snowmobiling community as a whole was satisfied with the solution that we had come up with.
I really think that some of this frustration needs to be directed to the USFS and State Parks instead of the fire dept regarding the small groomer building. They offered it to us as a solution, we didn't ask them for it.
Who I am or am not friends with has no bearing on this discussion. My role as fire chief is to look out for the best interest of the fire department and the public that we protect and serve, including the winter recreationalists in the area and the travelers on I-90.
I think that anyone who attended the public meeting held by the fire dept would agree that the fire dept has made a good faith effort to resolve this problem in a manner that does not negatively impact the snowmobile community.
It is encouraging to see people that want to step up and help find a resolution to getting the power run in instead of just dwelling on worst case scenerios.
I still have not got a response back from the USFS or State Parks regarding the information in Ice Cap's first post today.
The gravel pit was going to try and pay for most of the costs of running the power since they need power to, but between the cost to run the power and the money that State Parks is wanting to charge them for the easement, they don't know if they can afford it now.
The USFS and State Parks are the ones that offered up the small building for our use. The larger building has never been offered for our use. All we told the USFS and State Parks is that we were willing to negotiate a resolution to try and find a way to keep the road from being plowed, but that we had to have a facility to keep in service during winter months that we could respond out of on that side of I-90 and that was large enough for an ambulance and fire truck.
By no means is the small groomer garage ideal for us, it is smaller than our station and we won't be able to fit all the equipment in there from the other station, but we are trying to figure out a solution that everyone can live with, even if it is not "ideal" for anyone.
As for why I wasn't at the groomers meeting, a couple of reasons. First, I have a 2 year old and a 3 year old at home and I normally work nights so if I get a chance to spend some time with my kids I try to take advantage of it. Second, I didn't realize that there was going to be a major discussion regarding the fire station as I was under the impression based on the people that attended the public meeting that the snowmobiling community as a whole was satisfied with the solution that we had come up with.
I really think that some of this frustration needs to be directed to the USFS and State Parks instead of the fire dept regarding the small groomer building. They offered it to us as a solution, we didn't ask them for it.
Who I am or am not friends with has no bearing on this discussion. My role as fire chief is to look out for the best interest of the fire department and the public that we protect and serve, including the winter recreationalists in the area and the travelers on I-90.
I think that anyone who attended the public meeting held by the fire dept would agree that the fire dept has made a good faith effort to resolve this problem in a manner that does not negatively impact the snowmobile community.
It is encouraging to see people that want to step up and help find a resolution to getting the power run in instead of just dwelling on worst case scenerios.
I still have not got a response back from the USFS or State Parks regarding the information in Ice Cap's first post today.
Last edited:
Things seem to be getting clearer, but why is the new building only going to be used for a year or 2?
I assume that the sides of the plowed road will still be big enough to groom? With the amount of traffic on that short section of road, I would hope that we would have both sides available for 'one way' traffic!
I assume that the sides of the plowed road will still be big enough to groom? With the amount of traffic on that short section of road, I would hope that we would have both sides available for 'one way' traffic!
Chief,
I appreciate you answering those questions.
Would it be possible for you to post information about upcoming meetings that the public can attend?
I would definitely like to be involved so I can get first hand information.
I appreciate you answering those questions.
Would it be possible for you to post information about upcoming meetings that the public can attend?
I would definitely like to be involved so I can get first hand information.
C
chief 8101
Well-known member
The building is only going to be used for a year or two (hopefully) because the fire dept (with the support of USFS, DOT, State Parks, etc) is going to be applying to grant funding to build a new station near the current entrance to the sno park in the area of the "sand pit".
If we are successful in receiving the funding and building the new station at this location, the whole issue is a mute point and we would no longer need to use the small groomer building as a temporary facility.
If plowing does have to occur, the USFS has set out the conditions on how it is to be done. Basically the road is to be plowed the entire width of the pavement and the plow driver is to leave a minimum of 4" of snow on the surface for the snowmobilers to travel on. All the entrances and exits from the plowed portion will be sloped so that there are no "drop off's"
If I hear of anymore meetings that are open to the public I will definitely post it on here. I really think that it is down to finalized negotiations between USFS, State Parks and the Gravel Pit over how to pay for their portion of the electrical costs. The fire dept is just waiting to hear from those entities on how to proceed next with the power and heat etc.
If we are successful in receiving the funding and building the new station at this location, the whole issue is a mute point and we would no longer need to use the small groomer building as a temporary facility.
If plowing does have to occur, the USFS has set out the conditions on how it is to be done. Basically the road is to be plowed the entire width of the pavement and the plow driver is to leave a minimum of 4" of snow on the surface for the snowmobilers to travel on. All the entrances and exits from the plowed portion will be sloped so that there are no "drop off's"
If I hear of anymore meetings that are open to the public I will definitely post it on here. I really think that it is down to finalized negotiations between USFS, State Parks and the Gravel Pit over how to pay for their portion of the electrical costs. The fire dept is just waiting to hear from those entities on how to proceed next with the power and heat etc.
Any idea what 'fees' the Parks Dept. wants?...it would seem to me that granting an easement improves their situation...no fees should be levied...particularly given the fact that it was their suggestion in the first place...another case for a slight increase in parking pass fees/sled registration fees to help maintain/support the trail system/access.
Chief/Jet/et. al...thx for contributing...it is appreciated.
C
chief 8101
Well-known member
The fees that the state parks wants from the gravel pit have something to do with the easement that the gravel pit has over state parks land. I believe that they are somewhere around $15,000.
I agree, I think that since technically the buildings are owned by State Parks and they are both going to be used for the public benefit etc etc that it would be nice if state parks could waive the fees for the gravel pit or use the money being spent on the power in lieu of the fees, but not sure how it works with state agencies and if they can do that or not.
warrants investigation...a contact list would be great for a rep from each element...Fire/FS/Parks/Groomer/homeowners...etc...PM for contact Details would be fine...published list of 'point people' would be great also.
I love mute points.... LOL!
C
chief 8101
Well-known member
Just to try and keep everyone in the loop and updated. I was informed today that it sounds like the financial issues with getting the power run have pretty much been ironed out and things are starting to move forward again with getting the fire dept moved into the temporary building before the snow flies.
Thanks for the update....I guess there is a positive to not having snow quite yet....
Thanks for the update....I guess there is a positive to not having snow quite yet....
Ditto---thanks for letting us know---sounds like things are moving in the right direction for all
C
chief 8101
Well-known member
I really hate to say this, but things appear to be falling apart again. It doesn't look like the gravel pit is going to pay for power because they are at the end of a transmission line and the line may not even carry enough power in it at that point to do what they need it to. Even if it did, PSE is now saying that they couldn't get it completed before spring.
The fire dept is still trying to come up with solutions and are investigating installing a propane generator that is run by a timer and a thermostat. We are hoping that solution would still give us power when needed and keep the vehicles batteries charged and the equipment from freezing.
The second problem is that state parks is now starting to wafer on allowing us the use of the building. I will attach the last email from state parks below and my response to them.
I strongly urge all of you to notify state parks in Easton and the USFS in Cle Elum and encourage them to work with us on a solution. I don't want to see us have to plow FS road 54 any more than the rest of you do, but we do have to have a place to respond out of for emergencies.
I will continue to try and keep everyone updated as I know more info.
Monty Moore
Fire Chief
Kittitas 8
206-617-4521 cell
The fire dept is still trying to come up with solutions and are investigating installing a propane generator that is run by a timer and a thermostat. We are hoping that solution would still give us power when needed and keep the vehicles batteries charged and the equipment from freezing.
The second problem is that state parks is now starting to wafer on allowing us the use of the building. I will attach the last email from state parks below and my response to them.
I strongly urge all of you to notify state parks in Easton and the USFS in Cle Elum and encourage them to work with us on a solution. I don't want to see us have to plow FS road 54 any more than the rest of you do, but we do have to have a place to respond out of for emergencies.
I will continue to try and keep everyone updated as I know more info.
Monty Moore
Fire Chief
Kittitas 8
206-617-4521 cell
C
chief 8101
Well-known member
If after all this time the temporary use of the old groomer building does not work out and we are forced to revert to plowing the road, it is going to be a public relations nightmare for State Parks and the USFS. If we can solve the electrical problem with the installation of a propane generator for use while the fire dept is in the building, that should solve problem number 1.
With the lack of snow so far this year, if we didn't actually get into the building until mid dec, 16 weeks would take us into mid april. At that time new snowfall should be done and I wouldn't see that plowing one lane in to the old fire station would be that large of impact on users, or an extension granted for the groomer building.
I really don't see why the fact that the building was built with recreation dollars having an impact, the fire dept and emergency equipment stored in that building serves those people that come to the area and recreate. Would it make a difference if part of the equipment stored in the building was the fire dept's snowmobiles and winter rescue sled? Those items are especially used for winter recreationalists in the area?
When will we know about the long term lease and permit for the 200' X 200' piece of land? The grants are due by the end of december and we need an answer on that questions as soon as we can in order to move forward or examine other alternatives.
Monty Moore
Fire Chief
KCFD 8
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Angrisano Subject: RE: Follow-up items
Tim, I am investigating the possibility of putting a propane based generator inside the building that would turn on based on temp inside the building and cycle on/off based on time to recharge the vehicle batteries. There appears to be some options to make this happen.
I believe this can be a viable alternative that we can then take with us to a new building as a power back-up system.
The 16 week window is a tough one, in that we would have to plow a path to the old station if this one was out of service and there was still snow on FS5400. If this is workable with the FS, we can still move forward with this plan.
Bob Angrisano
From: Schmidt, Tim (PARKS)
Everyone,
Is is unfortunate to report that it appears the temporary use of the building at Crystal Springs by the fire district is not going to work out for two reasons.
1) There is a lack of funding to install the vault and transformer.
2) The fact that the building was built using federal recreation grant dollars has lead to the Washington State Agency that disperses these grants to determine that use of the buildings by the fire district under permit from State Parks is not an allowable use. The "RCO" was willing to allow use during a 16 week window this winter but again we do not have the funding. Attempting to gain the amount of funding needed in times of short budgets for such a short period of use is not feasible.
As for the long range use of a portion of Crystal Springs for a new Fire district building, there are still some questions that State Parks is attempting to get answered before we move forward with a long term permit.
I appreciate all the hard work that everyone involved on this project put in and hope that a resolution can be reached.
Tim[/I][/I][/I]
With the lack of snow so far this year, if we didn't actually get into the building until mid dec, 16 weeks would take us into mid april. At that time new snowfall should be done and I wouldn't see that plowing one lane in to the old fire station would be that large of impact on users, or an extension granted for the groomer building.
I really don't see why the fact that the building was built with recreation dollars having an impact, the fire dept and emergency equipment stored in that building serves those people that come to the area and recreate. Would it make a difference if part of the equipment stored in the building was the fire dept's snowmobiles and winter rescue sled? Those items are especially used for winter recreationalists in the area?
When will we know about the long term lease and permit for the 200' X 200' piece of land? The grants are due by the end of december and we need an answer on that questions as soon as we can in order to move forward or examine other alternatives.
Monty Moore
Fire Chief
KCFD 8
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Angrisano Subject: RE: Follow-up items
Tim, I am investigating the possibility of putting a propane based generator inside the building that would turn on based on temp inside the building and cycle on/off based on time to recharge the vehicle batteries. There appears to be some options to make this happen.
I believe this can be a viable alternative that we can then take with us to a new building as a power back-up system.
The 16 week window is a tough one, in that we would have to plow a path to the old station if this one was out of service and there was still snow on FS5400. If this is workable with the FS, we can still move forward with this plan.
Bob Angrisano
From: Schmidt, Tim (PARKS)
Everyone,
Is is unfortunate to report that it appears the temporary use of the building at Crystal Springs by the fire district is not going to work out for two reasons.
1) There is a lack of funding to install the vault and transformer.
2) The fact that the building was built using federal recreation grant dollars has lead to the Washington State Agency that disperses these grants to determine that use of the buildings by the fire district under permit from State Parks is not an allowable use. The "RCO" was willing to allow use during a 16 week window this winter but again we do not have the funding. Attempting to gain the amount of funding needed in times of short budgets for such a short period of use is not feasible.
As for the long range use of a portion of Crystal Springs for a new Fire district building, there are still some questions that State Parks is attempting to get answered before we move forward with a long term permit.
I appreciate all the hard work that everyone involved on this project put in and hope that a resolution can be reached.
Tim[/I][/I][/I]
Last edited:
Monty,
Before you can plow the road, doesn't the fire district have to get a judge to hear the arguments from the fire district and the forest service and then make a ruling?
Similar threads
