WARWICK TOWNSHIP TO EPHRATA BOROUGH RAIL TRAIL

FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

October 12, 2006

ATTENDEES:  Present at the meeting were Rick Jackson (ELA Group), Damian Clawser (ELA Group), Mike Domin (LCPC), Lauri Ahlskog (LCPC), Dan Zimmerman (Warwick Township), Bob Thompson (Ephrata Borough), Dan Guers (Akron Borough), David Kratzer (Warwick Township), Curt Strasheim (WRRC), Carl Laws Landis (Akron Borough), John Williamson (Akron Borough), Ellen Rupp (Ephrata Borough), Tony Kilkuskie (Ephrata Borough), Jim Summers (Ephrata Rec Center), Ed Stone (Warwick Township), Janice Wenger (Ephrata Township), Karen Scheffey (Warwick Township),  Isaac Zimmerman (Warwick Township-resident), Gerald Pfautz (Warwick Township-resident), Gil Lutz (Warwick Township-resident), Amos Hurst Sr. (Warwick Township-resident), Jeff Balmer (Warwick Township-resident), Nathan Reiff (Ephrata Township)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:  The Study Committee unanimously approved the minutes of the September 14, 2006 meeting as submitted.

LETTER TO LANCASTER COUNTY AG PRESERVE BOARD & LANCASTER FARMLAND TRUST:  Chairman Thompson indicated that he has not received a response from the Lancaster County Ag Preserve Board (APB) as to whether any of their existing agricultural easements on the properties adjacent to the rail corridor are inclusive of the former railroad corridor.  Zimmerman noted that the APB will formalize their position at their October 26, 2006 meeting. 

UPDATE ON THE “INVENTORY & ANALYSIS”:  Jackson provided an update on the “Inventory & Analysis” phase of the study.  He articulated that he anticipates that this phase will be complete by next month.

REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE FROM RICHARD R. WILSON, ESQ.:  Jackson reported on the contents of the recent correspondence from Wilson, an attorney specializing in STB issues.  Such correspondence provided clarification on the condemnation process, the private negotiation process, the implications of both processes on any existing preservation easements, and issues of property tax payment.

FIELD VISITS WITH INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS:  Zimmerman stated that Warwick Township and ELA staff recently met with 4 landowners adjacent to the proposed trail corridor within Warwick Township.  He noted that the decision to meet individually with these property owners was a result of the potential difficulties (issues of privacy and security, encroachments, etc.) that would have to be overcome in those areas.  Thompson questioned whether Sawyer and Guers have conducted similar field visits.  If not, Thompson suggested that such be pursued.  Jackson indicated that he will discuss further with Sawyer and Guers.   

REVIEW OF SURVEY RESULTS:  Jackson noted that an additional 11 surveys have been received from property owners immediately adjacent to the rail corridor.  25 surveys (roughly 17%) from property owners immediately adjacent to the rail corridor have been received (56 surveys in all have been received).  Survey results will be available in draft appendix Z in the study’s final report.

REVIEW OF TRAIL DESIGN STANDARDS:  Jackson questioned whether any members of the Study Committee had any additional questions or comments concerning the proposed trail design standards.  No additional questions or comments were voiced. 

REVIEW OF TRAIL CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION:  The Study Committee reviewed an updated trail construction cost estimate prepared by the consultants.  The cost opinion provided two estimates of the construction costs and breakdowns of costs per municipality.  Consultant indicated that Steering Committee Members (municipal staffs, consultants, LCPC, and WRRC) will meet within the next two weeks to refine the cost estimates.

REVIEW OF GENERAL PRIORITIZATION/PHASING:  Study Committee continued its review of the handout entitled “Discussion Points,” which poses a series of questions concerning right of way acquisition, trail development/construction, and trail maintenance.  The questions were as follows:

·      Question #1:  How would the Study Committee recommend that the necessary interest in the corridor be obtained?

·      Question #2:  What entity/structure would the Study Committee recommend for acquiring, developing, and maintaining the Rail-Trail, should it be deemed feasible?

·      Question #3:  What approach would the Study Committee recommend for phasing/prioritizing the acquisition and development of the Rail-Trail, should it be deemed feasible?

Potential responses to each of the questions were discussed in detail.  No definitive answer to any of the three questions was provided.  Such questions will continue to be an issue of discussion throughout the remainder of the feasibility study.

PUBLIC COMMENT:  Gil Lutz (Warwick Township-resident) expressed his belief that members of the Study Committee and consultant team illegally trespassed on his land to evaluate the bridge structure over the Cocalico Creek.  Both Zimmerman and Jackson explained it was their understanding based on deed research and GIS data that no such trespassing occurred.  It was explained to Lutz that Steve Sawyer contacted the property owner on the other side of the creek (the owner on record of half of the bridge structure based on deed research and GIS data) and requested permission to access his lands and his half of the bridge to conduct a Wetlands and Phase I ESA and to evaluate the structural integrity of the bridge.  Lutz voiced his belief that the property owner on the other side of the creek was in error concerning his claim to ownership.

Gerald Pfautz (Warwick Township-resident) continued to express his belief that the former railroad right of way was included within his agricultural conservation easement and that the development of the trail on his land would be a violation of Act 149 of 1988.  Thompson indicated that the Study Committee requested the APB, the organization that holds the easement on the Pfautz property, to formalize their position on the issue.  Such a position statement is expected to be made at the next meeting of the APB.  Thompson stated that it is important to wait until such a position is articulated by APB prior to making any judgment on the issue.

Jeff Balmer (Warwick Township-resident) requested that Zimmerman retract a statement that he made at the 1^st public meeting concerning Warwick Township’s experience in developing trails through agricultural land.  Zimmerman clarified his statement by noting that Warwick Township has experience in developing a trail adjacent to active farmland but not through active farmland.  Balmer also expressed his belief that the makeup of the Study Committee has resulted in a bias that is pro-trail.  Zimmerman and Thompson expressed that the Study Committee is an objective evaluative body consisting of municipal officials and volunteers from the general public and that the level of debate throughout the process should be sufficient evidence of this objectivity.

ADJOURNMENT:  The meeting was adjourned at 9:24 pm.

NEXT MEETING(s): November 9, 2006 at 7:00pm at Ephrata Borough Hall

                                    December 7, 2006 at Ephrata Public Library- Final Public Meeting

Respectfully submitted,

David W. Kratzer, Jr.

Warwick Township

Assistant to the Township Manager