Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
Commissioner Betsy Barfield’s expressed dissatisfaction not long ago with the results of a feasibility study of the Wacissa River did not go unrewarded.
On Thursday evening, July 15, Barfield reported to her colleagues that she had related her concerns to Sand County Studios (SCS) and the firm had graciously agreed to her request.
“They are going to narrow the scope of the study to the best 10 parcels that we can buy, based on the criteria that we gave them,” Barfield said, adding that the result should be forthcoming within 30 or so days.
Unfortunately, she said, the parcels to be considered in the recommendation would be limited to a two-mile radius of the park, as opposed to some farther south on the river as some officials would have liked. But the fault, she said, lay with the county, which had somehow specified a two-mile radius in its specifications.
SCS, a Georgia-based urban design and environmental planning firm, conducted its study over a couple of months earlier in the year and presented the finding to the commission in May.
The presentation, however, failed to provide local officials with specific recommendations as to which parcels the board should pursue for acquisition.
Instead, the report gave a broad assessment of the existing park’s assets and the potentials for its undeveloped areas, all the while indicating that it would require a more thorough analysis to determine any specifics.
In terms of the park’s potential for expansion, the study identified 503 properties within a two-mile radius of the park and ranked them according to size, features, access to the river, and suitability for acquisition and development, among other factors.
But it did not say which were best suited for the county’s acquisition and why. The report merely identify 13 as being very high in suitability for acquisition, 21 as being high in suitability for acquisition, 72 as being of medium suitability for acquisition, and so on down the line.
At the board next meeting in June, following SCS’s presentation, Barfield vented her frustration with the study, mincing no words. She expressed utter disappointment with the report, given its flimsy conclusions.
“I can’t tell you how disappointed I am in that group of people,” Barfield said. “The study was irrelevant. It was lame. Weak.”
Barfield expressed amazement that a professional company could think that it could visit Jefferson County once or twice over a period of 13 weeks and produce a quality product.
She asked that the county hold payment on the up to $45,000 due the company for the study, until it returned and narrowed the result of the study more specifically.
“We need a drill down,” she said. “The study was nothing.”
At Barfield’s request, the commission agreed to have a letter sent to SCS stating the county’s displeasure and requesting that its representatives appear before the board again. It also instructed Clerk of Court Kirk Reams to hold payment until further notice.
The contract with SCS called for a detailed description of the park property and its structures; identification of potential uses for its undeveloped areas, such as for parking, stormwater retention, camping and wildlife observation; a rendering of the park’s long-term maintenance needs and estimated costs; and an assessment of the long-term risks and uncertainties associated with the different acquisition and improvement options.
Commissioners’ idea was to use the study as a tool to guide them in their decision-making when it came to acquiring additional property for the park’s expansion and to decide how best to convert any newly acquired property into a county-operated site, as well as identifying public uses and access improvements that could be made to the existing park.