The Scott County Fiscal Court voted to decline an offer from the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, which aimed to potentially acquire the county’s reservoir property.
The original purpose of the property was to develop another source of water for Scott County, but the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prohibited the development and issuance of permits as a way to protect the property’s tracts of running buffalo clover, which had been placed on the endangered species listing in 1987. The plant came off that list in mid-2021, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Army Corps Engineers also alerted the court the property is “not the least environmentally impactful source” for future water needs, noting there were several other locations that wouldn’t be as harmful.
In the midst of figuring out what to do with the acquired property, adjacent property owners and others throughout Scott County have used the land for recreational purposes. Today, the area is a well-known location for mountain bike enthusiasts who travel its Skullbuster trail, as well as for horseback riding and hiking fanatics.
In the court’s work session on Sept. 2, state Fish and Wildlife officials expressed an interest to convert the tract of land into a wildlife management area (WMA) similar to that of Veterans Memorial WMA on Rogers Gap Road.
Though the proposal presented by Wildlife Division Director Ben Robinson seemed to be a good fit for the county at the time, magistrates seemingly shifted their thoughts on the matter when locals and visitors questioned how the property woould be used. Following a number of letters submitted to the News-Graphic and opinions brought to the attention of the magistrates, the fiscal court decided to hold a work session with concerned individuals about the property. The meeting was held Oct. 11 and lasted nearly two hours.
“We intentionally made an effort to get input from a variety of folks and interest groups, and we heard a lot,” said Judge-Executive Joe Pat Covington during the courts Oct. 14 meeting.
Covington summarized the option to lease the property to Fish and Wildlife, recapping the work session held with those who enjoy the recreational aspects of the land. He said it was time for the court to make a decision: accept or deny the proposal from Fish and Wildlife.
“If we do not proceed with the lease with Fish and Wildlife, then we need to look at our next steps. One of those would be to do more research, come back and report to the court about options. It was mentioned forming an advisory board,” Covington said. “I’d like to see what other models are used if that’s the direction the court wants to go and what we would charge that advisory board with. I think we’d want to have an outline and a focus and not just a broad range.”
Magistrate David Davila asked if the county’s parks and recreation officials could come before the court to discuss details regarding what services the group could provide at the property if it were to be maintained as a sort of recreational area. Covington said it would also be an option to ask parks and recreation officials to give their input.
District 3 Magistrate Chad Wallace said the plan to use the reservoir property as an additional water source was approved long ago for that goal. Since then, Wallace added it has gone in different directions, noting the biking and horseback riding groups.
“I think what the court needs to focus on is are we going to continue to make efforts toward that goal, and what I mean by that is, are we going to continue to fund water supply for Scott County. If that’s something that this court and the courts in the future are going to continue to do then that’s going to drive what we do with this property, meaning whether we’re going to potentially sell it to Fish and Wildlife or continue the way it is going now or maybe there’s a hybrid version out there that we sell some of the property and then continue some of the activities that are going there,” he said.
Wallace added if the court doesn’t plan on any of those options, magistrates would need to consider the budget amounts necessary to continue the way they have with requests from GMWSS that support the initiative started in the 1970s. Davila agreed, saying even though the county couldn’t make it into a “lake” at this moment in time, that’s not to say it couldn’t happen years later.
“I’m going to share what has been shared with me more than one time: that it is not the least environmentally impactful source for future water needs, that there are identified other sources that would have less of an impact on the environment. Thus, they would not permit a reservoir there. That’s what’s been shared,” Covington said.
He added it could change years later, but “if I was a betting man I would not put a dime on that bet. But, it could change.” Covington said he doesn’t disagree with Wallace, but since the purchase took place, the property has “morphed” into what it is today.
“It has really changed into a recreation resource other than a water resource, whether we like it or not. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, big picture. Do I believe that this court will continue to be asked to support needs for water and fire protection and a variety of issues, sewer as well? One thousand percent. If we don’t, we’re not doing our job.
“I’m aware of more than a few projects that, in my mind, the court should consider helping with. So along your lines, we need to make budgetary commitments, too. One thing about this property is 1,452 acres or whatever it is, if we sold that, we’d have a return. But if you sell that, you will never have an opportunity to replace that type of resource for recreational purposes ever again. Period. That ship will sail, and I think that’s reality,” Covington said.
Magistrate Kelly Corman, said he would like to see the county keep the property and potentially expand on its recreational aspects and create a park instead. He added he thought a lease with Fish and Wildlife seemed like a good idea at first, but after hearing locals’ input, he didn’t think, “it’s conducive and can work with what we maybe thought it originally could.”
After discussion, Covington requested a motion to officially accept or decline Fish and Wildlife’s proposal, to which the court voted to decline.
“That’s fine, I’m okay with that. I just think that we need to have a picture going forward of what we need to do and how that works and how that looks with property because I think that’s important,” Wallace said.
Magistrate David Livingston said he agreed with Wallace on the vision of the property moving forward, but added he didn’t want to see a vision without an investment.
“We have several projects throughout the city and county that have never been completed to fruition. It’s frustrating because there’s this big, great idea and then it doesn’t get finished. I don’t want us to see that,” Livingston said. “If we do this, I would like for us to look at potentially contracting with a grant writer that can go chase grants for specific things for this because this could be a tremendous project. I think that there are enough grants out there, state and federal, to be able to do a project.”
District 1 Magistrate Rick Hostetler said even though the court moved to decline the offer today, it doesn’t “shut” Fish and Wildlife out from potentially purchasing the property later on if the court felt moved to do so.
“In my mind, we’d split the property up because it’d be a big deal. You can make more money if that’s the way the court wanted to go. That’s not the way I want to go, but if the court decided to do that, you’ll make more money by splitting that up.
“You’ve got two roads involved and other former property owners would have a chance to come back. Some of those folks still live there and connect to it. I don’t see that this shuts Fish and Wildlife out if the court decides to vote in favor of the motion, that offer’s off the table for now. But in the future, if we want a different direction, they’d be right back in the game. It wouldn’t matter,” Hostetler said.
Corman said the crowd at the court’s Oct. 11 work session was “huge, but they presented very well.
“I was very proud of everybody there. I thought they all did a great job, and the follow up I’ve had since then has been positive. I agree we should keep this property,” he said.
Covington said it is his plan to look into additional information about advisory boards and then share his research with the fiscal court.
“I will reach out to Michael Johnson that testified from Fayette County about how their advisory boards work,” he said. “I will notify Fish and Wildlife that we appreciate their interest, and at this time, we’re going to decline.”
