Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Veterans Park feasibility study: commissioners pause master plan and direct timber management review
Summary
Consultants presented a feasibility study on the 641‑acre Veterans Park parcel, highlighting deed restrictions, wetlands, limited vehicle access and potential revenue from timber. The board directed staff to pause phase‑2 site‑plan work and prioritize timber and natural‑resource management while increasing local outreach.
County Parks & Recreation staff and consultants briefed the Clay County Board of County Commissioners on a feasibility study for the 641‑acre parcel known as Veterans Park on Sept. 10.
Consultant Nick (last name not provided in the transcript) and Parks Director Justin Pierce described legal constraints tied to the parcel’s acquisition through a federal program: deed restrictions and an MOU require passive‑recreation uses and a 10‑year program of utilization; changes would require a formal amendment to the National Park Service program and agreement of multiple parties, with reversion risk if conditions are not met.
Presenters noted the parcel’s eastern portion contains wetlands, flood‑prone areas and potential historic resources, while the western parcel has fewer on‑site constraints and is more suited to limited passive amenities. Staff also emphasized access challenges: current public access is hike‑in only, and vehicle access would likely require coordination with Jennings State Forest to upgrade Spencer Grade Road; alternative routes were flagged as longer and infeasible without extensive coordination with airport authorities.
Survey responses showed strong public preference for preserving natural resources and for trail access; respondents ranked paved and unpaved trails and restrooms among top amenity desires. The consulting team recommended four steps: (1) proceed to a revised site plan (phase‑2) with expanded public engagement; (2) review the site’s zoning; (3) prioritize timber and natural‑resource management (including thinning to reduce hazard and generate revenue); and (4) consider a name that better matches passive‑recreation uses.
After discussion — including concerns from District 4 about local outreach and access on Live Oak Lane — the board directed staff not to move forward with the phase‑2 site‑plan work immediately. Instead, commissioners asked that staff explore timber‑management options with state forestry and return with a plan and costs, and to improve public engagement with residents most directly affected by proposed access improvements.
What’s next: Staff will evaluate timber management opportunities and report back, and will coordinate additional local outreach before any site‑plan or zoning changes are pursued.
