At the February, 2008 club meeting, it was mentioned that the NWPC is in conversation with the DNR regarding the road, its maintenance, and questions about access. Because the NWPC represents such a large group of potential road users, the DNR has afforded us the courtesy of actively participating in a solution that meets their needs as well as ours as we make plans going forward.
Also mentioned was that we were looking at some kind of electronic key system. However, before any new system could be implemented, it was essential that we hear from the membership to determine the requirements for the new system to be seen as both FAIR and APPROPRIATE for all members of the club – those who drive, those who take the shuttle, and those who hike.
What follows are the frequently asked questions and answers regarding the keys. Tightly related to this are the questions regarding insurance, Land Use Licenses (LUL’s), and expectations for solo, tandem, and commercial pilots. All together, these are NOT trivial issues.
This worksheet will be used to help us calculate what the fees need to be.
There will be a survey going out to all members, both NWPC and CBCC to find out at what levels they would and would not be willing to purchase keys. From that, we will be setting prices that allow us to hit the mid-point of our financial obligations.
It's similar to the security badges that so many places use for buildings, except that it opens a padlock. It has the advantage of being uniquely coded to the individual owner, it is capable of opening more than one lock, and it permits a system where those who use the road more will pay more for its upkeep. It also allows for ensuring that annual contributions are made to the road maintenance fund, and that those who either leave the club or who are cited by DNR for violations can have their access revoked. In exchange for these "controls", the club is securing a source of funding for road maintenance which DNR will be requiring, and we are also ensuring that we do not lose our access completely as DNR becomes more restrictive.
Yes. DNR has already secured $100,000 in grants, which is the primary source of funding for upcoming road improvements that are planned for later this summer. In part, DNR’s actions to seek and secure the grant in the first place was because we (the club) made that recommendation earlier and the DNR listened. It is why we are not being asked to pay more than we already are.
The NWPC and its membership are believed to be the primary users of the road, and this is most likely true.
The DNR will be expecting the NWPC to contribute between $3,000 and $5,000 per year towards the maintenance of the road.
Note: The figure above was updated on 4/2/08 (it was 2-4K) we are targeting to raise 3K/year)
Since the NWPC is the largest road user, and in exchange for the consideration we are getting to use the road, the DNR is dealing with us first. If we execute our key and road access plan well, other organizations may also be asked to use a system similar to ours. The NWPC is essentially piloting a new access program.
The issue of insurance requirements is complex, and differs based on whether you are a solo or tandem pilot, and whether you are flying recreationally or commercially. (Being a tandem pilot does not necessarily mean that you are operating commercially). Insurance and the LUL will be covered separately from the issue of the keys.
The current count of users who have keys, did not turn them in for their refund of deposit, and said that they wanted to keep their key is about 100 people, about half of whom are CBCC members. We know that there have been additional requests for keys that were unable to be granted in the past. We also believe that fewer people will want them if they have to pay an annual or per-trip fee to use it. Thus, we don't know exactly how many people will want keys under the new arrangement which is being proposed. That is where the assumption spreadsheet comes into play.
Under the existing system, no new keys are available to be issued. Also, all key-holders were counted as equal regarding the potential use of the road. Thus, somebody with a key who seldom used it was seen the same as somebody who used theirs on a regular basis. Under the proposed plan, using an electronic key, we will be able to show that not all key-holders make active use of their keys. While the actual number of keys is still being discussed, the electronic keys will allow us to meet DNR’s goal of reduced use, while also addressing NWPC and CBCC’s goal of increased access.
This is well within the norm for the DNR. For example, every time you go skiing at a commercial site that is on DNR land, a portion of your ticket goes towards a per-user fee. Additionally, this is not something within the club's direct control. We are, however, looking at options to reduce insurance burdens where possible.
Commercial pilots are recreational pilots too. Purely from the standpoint of keys, it would be difficult to account for two types of uses. Thus, each issue is being dealt with separately. From the standpoint of the keys, we are moving towards a pay-per-use system, regardless of whether you are recreational or commercial. However, those who are commercial will end up paying more for two reasons. First, if they use the road more, then they will pay more because of the pay-per-use system. The second reason has nothing to do with keys, but is instead related to insurance and the Land Use Licenses, which are addressed separately.
Please note, your payment is not going to the club for access, but rather through the club towards maintenance, via a separate account..
Yes, the keys are expensive. However, the club is not in the business of selling or profiting from keys. If the club purchases keys in bulk and can get them cheaper, we will pass the savings on to club members. Members are also free to obtain a physical key on their own, and the club can “code” the key for access. If access to the road is essential to your business, then this is a business expense. If you are only a casual user of the road, you must weigh that cost against the value you receive. If the math does not work out positively in your case, then purchasing a key and access may not be an attractive option for you. You do, however, still have other ways up the mountain.
One of DNR’s objectives remains to keep access and use of the road to a minimum. For people who actively use the road, either recreationally or commercially, this is not a major issue because they will indeed use the road in exchange for their road maintenance contribution. It is only an issue for people who want access, but really don't know that they will be using it, or whether they will be using it enough to justify paying for it. For these people, hiking, taking the shuttle, car-pooling with somebody who has access, or making other arrangements is a more viable alternative.
The reason for requiring an annual $50 contribution towards road maintenance is that DNR expects the NWPC to make an annual contribution between $2,000 and $3,000 per year towards the upkeep of the road. The NWPC needs to secure a source of funding for that maintenance that is fair and appropriate to the entire club. That includes members who are geographically distributed, and local members who use the road to varying degrees. The proposed system is structured so that all members can make their own choice regarding whether paying for personal access makes sense to them or not, and so that access is granted within a system that is both fair and appropriate.
Please note that in all cases, your payment is not going to the club for access, but rather through the club towards maintenance, via a separate account..
This “just once” access is part of what DNR wants to prevent, since the entire population of Greater Seattle could fall within that category. Limiting access to the road is not the club’s responsibility, but rather an expectation of the DNR. The arrangements that we are working out with the DNR are an attempt to maximize our access to the road, while simultaneously limiting its use per DNR’s objective. Yes, those objectives are mutually exclusive. That is precisely why we are moving towards an electronic key option – so that we can show proper accountability and traceability to counter DNR’s more restrictive goals. It’s a balancing act, and the electronic keys are an effort to provide greater flexibility and control to the club.
Yes. They key itself is just a piece of hardware. The club does not own the key – you do. The club own the lock and the ability to turn the key on and off. If you sell your key to somebody else, that person must meet the same set of eligibility requirements that you did, and you must notify the BOD about the transfer. Otherwise, you will still be responsible for the actions of the person to whom you sold the key. Further, if you do not notify the BOD about the transfer, then the key will be de-activated when the transfer is discovered, or the end of the club’s calendar year, whichever comes first.
Additionally, you may turn in your electronic key to the BOD and we will sell your key on consignment to the next person who wants one. This is something the BOD will do for convenience of the members – please remember that the BOD has no desire to be in the business of selling or profiting from keys.
The answer to this rests on a technicality. While you cannot “charge” people for taking them up the road, you may ask them to “share the expenses” which you incur for going up the road. That would be gas, wear and tear on your vehicle, and a portion of what you spent to use your key. The difference between charging and sharing the expenses is not currently defined, and it is in our best interest to leave it that way. Were somebody to start charging for trips up the road, that would put them into the commercial category (similar to Michael Miller’s shuttle), and they would then be required to get a Land Use License (LUL). This is not something that the club wishes to monitor or control.
Initially, the key will only work on the gates at Tiger. Depending on how widely adopted they keys become, it is possible that we will use the same keys on a storage container which may be placed up on tiger, underneath where the water tower is. This has not yet been finalized, and is purely speculative at this point. Whether these electronic keys will also replace other gates (e.g.: Baldy) has yet to be determined. Tiger is the test program, and we will continue to work with DNR and to keep the club members informed.
After we switch to the electronic keys, your traditional key will be useless. You have two options. First, you may turn your old key back in for a refund of your deposit. Second, should you wish to purchase an electronic key, your $50 deposit can be counted towards the cost of the key and annual road maintenance contribution.
The tentative plan is to put the electronic keys in place in April or May. Critical factors related to the implementation date are the time to get new keys to existing members, and to provide appropriate time for members and key-holders to comment on the proposal.
No more than the existing padlock. The electronic keys are held by club members. The actual lock looks just like a regular padlock, except that the key-hole accepts the electronic key that is similar to a Kryptonite key in design.
First, the plan is to keep the funds raised within the range stated in question 5. The largest factor that would throw that off is during the period where we actually set prices based on the number of people who want keys and estimates of trips. We recognize there is some guessing involved, so the more accurate all members are in their own estimates, the less likely that the club will raise too much, or too little. If we raise too little, it is very challenging to change the rules mid-stream without being unfair to people. If we raise too much, we have flexibility to give more to the people who purchased keys, such as increasing the number of trips on their keys without charging them anything more, else by allowing some of their trips to otherwise carry forward to next year. The main point is that the board will do everything in its power to hit as low a number as possible for as many people that want keys as possible, and also to be as transparent as possible.
Also, if too much money is raised from the key project, it would be very tempting to use that money for other purposes. However, we are declaring that all moneys raised from the key project are specifically earmarked for the maintenance of and access to the road. The financial records will be kept to reflect this fact, and of course, the financial records are posted about twice a year. Note that the money from the keys is not going directly to DNR. It is going to the club, and being managed by the club, knowing that we will need to show DNR that we are contributing in various ways towards the maintenance of the road over the course of the year.
Remember that DNR is not managing the key project, nor are funds from the keys going directly to DNR. Instead, the NWPC is managing the keys in an effort to secure a fair and appropriate means of meeting our financial obligations to DNR. To put things into perspective, the equestrian club(s) also pay DNR for access to the trails, and the Grays Anatomy film-crew that used the north launch for a brief segment paid DNR over a thousand dollars for a single day's of access with their vehicles and equipment.
Concerns over privacy are always valid and important. The information that DNR gets will be based on DNR's permitting process for the keys, and not from any of the electronic monitoring. At the lowest level, all that even could be delivered to DNR would be the key number, and the date-time stamp of when the key was used. With the key number, both DNR and the club have the ability to know who the key is issued to. Further, the easiest way to ensure that confidential information does not end up where it does not belong is to not provide it in the first place. In the club's case, the information that we need to manage the keys is actually less than what we already use for management of basic club membership.
No. The NWPC board decided that road access did not really fall under "site preservation" as we understand it. In extreme, the site would still be flyable and viable even without the road. Further, given that there are already NWPC members who object to general club funds being used for DNR road maintenance, overcoming resistance of people across the country to pay for our local road would be exponentially more challenging.
The concerns over trip-counts are from DNR. In large part, their concern is that as the number of trips goes up, the probability of collisions goes up, and that it is only a matter of time before somebody goes off the road completely. Whether we agree with DNR's concerns or not, they do have the right to raise them. For comparison, take a look at what happens on the road up Baldy during a fly-in with cars frequently going both up and down at the same time. An image like that on the road up Tiger would quite possibly put DNR right over the edge.
The keys may be configured in a number of ways. One, as the question suggests, is to put a certain number of passes on the key. Using that method, given that a trip actually takes two passes through the gate, “trips” would be allocated in pairs. However, even the possibility of somebody getting “in” the gate, but not being able to get “out” is an unacceptable risk. Therefore, the better configuration is to not limit the passes on the key at all, but rather to account for their use. A user would pay for N trips, but the key itself does not turn off after N. When the data is collected, if N+4 trips were used, the key holder owes for those extra 4 trips. The key holder either pays for the 4 and any additional trips desired, else the key is disabled, and will not likely be re-enabled unless and until those 4 are paid for. Additionally, this method does not penalize somebody who opens/closes the padlock within a short period, such as might occur more than once from a single pass through the gate if there is any fiddling with the padlock.
Both the key and the lock have programmable chips in them. Using a master programmer key, either the key or the lock or both can be updated. A disabled key can be re-enabled by updating the key via physical access to the key. Alternatively, the lock can be told that the key is now active again via physical access to the lock with the master key. Both of these options require some access to a laptop and/or the software, though (I believe) it is not necessary to take a laptop to the lock. Instead, a laptop (or PC) programs the master key, and the master key can be taken to the lock to pass on the necessary updates. Regardless, these operations should be transparent to key holders.