Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission and park board discuss CHAP hunting contract and hunting-rights authority; action deferred
Summary
Commissioners and the Clay County Park Board discussed a proposed Controlled Hunting Access Program (CHAP) contract, hunting-rights language in the park-board lease and liability allocation; the board asked for clarifying contract language and did not finalize the CHAP contract at the meeting.
The Clay County Commission and representatives of the Park Board discussed a proposed Controlled Hunting Access Program (CHAP) agreement for county parkland, including who should sign the CHAP contract and whether hunting-rights language is already granted to the Park Board in the existing lease.
Park board members and invited experts — including Todd Conover (private lands/habitat biologist) and Tony Keller (identified in the transcript as a current VP of a county park board) — joined the discussion. The park representative said the park board had expected to be the on-the-ground party to manage the CHAP agreement and wanted the ability to work out operational details (for example, limits on the number of hunters, rules for tree stands and requirements that temporary popup blinds be taken down each night).
Park board members emphasized two points: (1) the CHAP contract transfers many operational liability elements to the state CHAP program and (2) the park board prefers to manage day-to-day decisions (including negotiating operator terms) without returning to the county commission for every change. Several commissioners noted ambiguity in the current lease language about whether hunting rights were explicitly granted to the park board; lease language states the leasee will use the premises for farming and park/recreation purposes but does not explicitly mention hunting-rights assignment.
Because hunting season was underway and local hunters had expressed interest, the commission and park board discussed practical options: (a) have the park board confirm with the current operator (named in the transcript) whether hunting-rights were retained or passed, and then proceed; (b) add explicit lease language confirming hunting rights for the park board; or (c) have the county insert a clarifying line into the CHAP contract. Commissioners and park board members preferred resolving the lease/language question before signing a multi-year CHAP contract; one commissioner withdrew a motion and the parties agreed to return the matter after confirming current lease language and operator expectations.
No contract was signed at the meeting. Commissioners instructed staff to clarify whether hunting rights were included in the park-board lease and to prepare any needed lease language or contract amendments. Park and county representatives also discussed operational controls that CHAP would permit (numbering and labeling tree stands, limits on popup blinds and rules for temporary use, and the county/park’s ability to terminate the arrangement with notice). The parties agreed to revisit the CHAP contract once lease language and operator expectations are clarified.
