MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 2006 PUBLIC MEETING

Warwick Township to Ephrata Borough Rail/Trail Feasibility Study

The following provides an overview of the First Public Meeting held with regard to the Warwick Township to Ephrata Borough Rail/Trail (WERT) Feasibility Study.  The meeting was conducted on June 22, 2006 at the Warwick Middle School Auditorium.

1.          Dan Guers, Akron Borough Manager and Project Coordinator, called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.  63 persons were counted to be in attendance of which 59 signed-in.

2.          Mr. Guers provided an overview of the Feasibility Study and the First Public Meeting, including:

A.         Identifying the project partners: Akron and Ephrata Boroughs, Ephrata and Warwick Townships, and the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR).

B.         Outlining the principal purposes of the Rail/Trail Feasibility Study: throughout the 6 to 7 mile length of the rail corridor, identification of impediments, costs and available funding, demand, and purpose(s).

C.         Identifying the tentative dates of future Public Meetings (September 28^th and December 7^th) and the dates for future Study Committee Meetings (held monthly).

D.         Stating the purpose of the First Public Meeting: update the public on the status of the project to-date and obtain public comment with regard to opportunities and concerns.

E.          Providing an overview of the evening’s agenda.

F.          Identifying the members of the Study Committee and noting that they represent a cross-section of the various municipal partners.

3.          Rick Jackson and Damian Clawser, of the Project’s Consulting Team (ELA Group), provided a report/update on the progress of the project, since work began at the beginning of the year.  This report/update included the following:

A.         Identification of the project partners as sources of funding and, as such, the Scope of Work required for the conduct of a DCNR-funded feasibility study.

B.         Statement that the feasibility study is a step-by-step process in which issues and the means by which to resolve them (or not) are identified.

C.         Review of the Draft Purpose, Goals, and Objectives of the WERT Feasibility Study as determined by the Study Committee.

D.         Review of the highlights of the Inventory and Analysis process completed to-date, including identification of work yet to be completed: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, analysis of Cocalico Creek bridge crossing, and wetland delineation.

E.          Viewing of photographs taken within the rail corridor.

F.          Discussion of Key Issues, including:

1)          Findings to-date with regard to rail corridor ownership including deed research, tax record research, and review of property ownership issues with legal counsel.

2)          Need for determining impact of a rail/trail on Preserved Farms, once the rail corridor ownership has been researched to the extent possible within the framework of this Feasibility Study.

4.          Mr. Jackson then led a Facilitated Discussion, inviting attendees to verbally share their support, concerns, questions, and comments.  As well, attendees were requested to fill-out and submit written answers to the Survey/Questionnaire distributed prior to the Meeting.  A Summary of the Survey/Questionnaire Results has been separately prepared.  The following three questions formed the basis for public discussion:

·        What opportunities are provided to you and the community by this potential rail-trail?

·        What concerns do you have over the conversion of the rail corridor into a rail-trail?

·        What additional aspects of the rail-trail would you like to learn about in future public meetings?

A.         Bill Hazlett suggested that light rail could someday possibly provide a transportation resource we can’t imagine today.  Suggests that the rail corridor be acquired now.

B.         Don Reese inquired as to the number of users the rail-trail might attract.

C.         Ken Fillo expressed concerns that a dawn-to-dusk only timeframe for the usage of a rail-trail could impede its use as an alternate transportation route.

D.         As a landowner immediately adjacent to the rail corridor, Don Reese expressed concerns for his children’s safety as a rail-trail could provide an opportunity for lurking and mischief.  Mr. Reese indicated that he bought his property under the understanding that he owned into the railroad right-of-way.  He has been mowing and taking care of the railroad right-of-way since he has owned his home for the last five years; he was unaware that Pagnotti Enterprises had a quit claim deed.  Mr.  Reese indicated that he was leery of a rail-trail unless his concerns could be assuaged.

E.          Virginia Griffith lives near Mr. Reese and shares his concerns.

F.          Barb Kreider stated that, to the contrary, trail users exude a stewardship ethic.  In her years of trail usage, she has never witnessed the problems (mischief and lurking) that are feared.  The rail-trail would provide an opportunity for intergenerational use.

G.         Gerald Pfautz indicated that he has spoken with Attorney Ed Miller who has indicated that the railroad right-of-way reverts back to the landowners.  Mr. Pfautz also voiced that he believes the Lancaster Junction Trail has had problems of the nature expressed by Mr. Reese.

H.         Virginia Griffith asked about the nature and usage of the York Heritage Rail/Trail.  Mr. Jackson indicated that, while a rail/trail, it served a larger, regional area and extended into Maryland, as well.  He also indicated that the York Heritage Rail/Trail has been well documented through user surveys.

I.            Bill Hazlett, addressing the voiced concerns, stated that, on a countywide basis, Lancaster County does not exhibit problems with the usage of trails.  He further indicated that an advantage in making a rail-trail a public use facility would be the allowing for police surveillance; this would be an improvement over the otherwise illegal use of the right-of-way that now occurs.

J.           Mary Wendell repeatedly asked what the project would cost and how many people would use it.  She also expressed concern for litter.  Mr. Jackson indicated that it was too early in the Feasibility Study to determine costs and that levels of usage would try to be estimated based on similar trail scenarios in the local region.  Dan Zimmerman, Warwick Township Manager, citing the Township’s three current trails, stated that the Township has never received a complaint.  A stewardship ethic does appear to exist among trail users.  As for project costs it is too early to determine and, when they are, consideration would be given to phasing.

K.        Harold Snoke suggested that fencing could be judiciously utilized so as to reduce the safety concerns expressed by several attendees.  Mr. Snoke indicated that he is “all for” the rail-trail and the cardiac benefits the public could realize (including our youth, who studies indicate are becoming more obese).

L.          Mary Wendell suggested that, before investing in a rail-trail, investments should be made in improving traffic congestion.  This comment drew responses from the audience that a rail-trail could possibly help solve some of these very traffic concerns.  During this exchange, Gil Lutz intoned that he was concerned with the overall impact on the taxpayers.

M.               Don Reese asked where the idea for this project came from.  Messrs. Zimmerman and Guers reiterated that, as stated by Mr. Jackson during the earlier Report/Update, each of the four municipalities’ planning documents express support for recreational trails and several of the municipalities’ planning documents specifically address this particular rail/trail.  Mr. Reese responded to these answers to the extent that this rail/trail then seems to be a “foregone conclusion.”

N.                Jeff Balmer expressed his opinion that the terminology “encroachment” utilized in describing structures erected within the railroad right-of-way was negative in context.  Mr. Jackson replied that he did not intend to pass judgement; however, to the extent that structures are built within the right-of-way to which title may not extend to the structure’s owner, the term “encroachment” would be correct.

Mr. Balmer, citing a recent attack on a female user of the York Heritage Rail/Trail, reiterated the concern for trail users’ safety and adjoining property owners’ security.  Mr. Jackson acknowledged mischief can occur; but he also noted that just the preceding day, York County had announced plans to extend the Heritage Trail by some 15 to 20 miles.

O.        Richard Lipkowski expressed his support for the potential rail/trail and referred to the Lititz/Warwick Trailway as the “best thing that’s ever happened to Lititz.”  Women of all ages walk the trail alone.  Mischief can always happen; so perhaps emergency call boxes should be considered.

P.         Don Reese then asked whether Pagnotti Enterprises’ land could be taken by eminent domain; if so, Mr. Reese’s years of caring for the right-of-way would be placed in jeopardy.  Mr. Hazlett asked Mr. Reese which he would prefer: your municipality owning the rail right-of-way for a trail system or a private entity who could sell the property to any willing buyer for any purpose?

Q.        Luke Zimmerman indicated that he believed his property/deed description runs into the railroad right-of-way.  He is therefore interested in the research being done on property ownership and the means for compensating owners if rights to the railroad corridor are to be purchased.

5.          The floor was then opened for Public Comment/Questions & Answers.  During this time period, the following comments/questions were raised:

A.         Gerald Pfautz expressed his opinion that this trail is really unlike any other in Warwick Township, since several of the Township trails were developed at the same time as surrounding residential developments.  Mr. Zimmerman corrected him, reminding him that the Lititz/Warwick Trailway is very similar, but each trail system required a cooperative effort.  Mr. Pfautz pressed his point that this corridor is unique from an ownership standpoint; Mr. Zimmerman replied that a number of potential ownership scenarios exist here, but similar conditions existed along the Lititz/Warwick Trailway.

B.         Jason Deery expressed that, in future meetings, it would be helpful to hear of the firsthand experiences that other landowners have had with trails and rail/trails running past/near their properties.

C.        Don Reese asked who would perform the construction work if the rail/trail were actually to be built.  Mr. Jackson indicated that it is too early to contemplate this question, there is simply too much yet to be considered in the feasibility stage.

D.        Amos Hurst, referring to Photograph #14, asked how the trail would fit between his hedgerow and the adjacent commercial business site.  Mr. Jackson indicated that, similar to other locations along the corridor, the consultant would develop options for consideration and review with affected property owners.

E.          Janice Wenger concluded the public comment period by thanking all who participated and those, in the past, who have had foresight to consider such an opportunity as this potential rail/trail.  She also pointed out that, as for project costs, such an undertaking would never cost less to build in the future.

6.          Mr. Jackson indicated that the project’s next steps would entail assessing the feedback from the First Public Meeting and proceeding with the prescribed Scope of Work.  The next anticipated meeting of the Study Committee is scheduled for July 13^th (this meeting has been subsequently cancelled in favor of the regularly scheduled Study Committee Meeting in August).  Mr. Jackson also reminded the attendees of the Second Public Meeting scheduled for September 28^th at 7:00 PM at the Ephrata Public Library.

7.         The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15 PM.