Skip to Main Content
Menu
Contact Us Search
OHV Title

City of Porterville Parks And Leisure Services

Preliminary Application Comments


 I feel the following needs to be accomplished for the existing OHV Park before the city buys additional land.

1. Build a permanent structure for the staff to check in riders and spectators.
2. Build a Picnic/BBQ area for families to use
3. Expand the restroom facilities to the area where the Quad track runs.
4. Expand the watering systems for the Quad track
5. Purchase equipment: Dozer & Quad
6. Bleachers for spectators
[Alana Garza - 4/5/09]



 I feel the following needs to be accomplished for the existing OHV Park before the city buys additional land.

1. Build a permanent structure for the staff to check in riders and spectators.
2. Build a Picnic/BBQ area for families to use
3. Expand the restroom facilities to the area where the Quad track runs.
4. Expand the watering systems for the Quad track
5. Purchase equipment: Dozer & Quad
6. Bleachers for spectators
 [Homero Garza - 4/5/09]



 On behalf of myself and the Merced Dirt Riders Inc. (MDR) I would like to object to the grant application as submitted by the City of Porterville Parks And Leisure Services.

There were other commenter's that brought up some major concerns with this grant as proposed. [Michael Damaso, President - 4/6/09]


 On behalf of CORVA and myself, I have a number of questions, and conditional support of the grant applications submitted by the City of Porterville.

First of all, the City of Porterville is to be commended for supplying OHV recreation facilities within the city boundaries. CORVA supports the creation of small OHV parks throughout California, recognizing the opportunities they supply to OHV enthusiasts.

Regarding the Acquisition Grant # G08-03-24-A01: From what can be determined by reading the grant request, the City of Porterville would like to purchase neighboring properties to the OHV park to insure continued OHV opportunities. But rereading the following statement in the grant application causes me to question whether the acquisition is truly OHV related, or if the ultimate goal of the city is to fund needed city infrastructure.

"Preservation of OHV recreational opportunities will be enhanced by relocating drainage flows and through control of the potential for housing development within close proximity to the OHV Park. The Project will also extend the public property buffer-zone beyond the OHV Park to protect the public agency investment in the OHV recreation facility."

I would closely determine whether relocating the drainage flows would truly result in increased and/or enhanced OHV opportunities.

The Development Grant #G08-03-24-D01 Also concerns the same runoff/drainage plans. Again, the following statement in the grant request raises more questions:

"The Porterville OHV Park currently serves a dual purpose as both an OHV recreational opportunity and as an area-wide storm runoff retention facility. Up-gradient (easterly & southerly from the OHV Park) development will increase the amount of storm runoff directed to the OHV Park. Storm runoff from approximately 450 acres of semi-developed municipal airport, and another 200 acres of semi-developed business park and other recreational lands is directed for retention within the active OHV riding areas. More than 460 acres of additional business park land is planned for future development and will contribute to this drainage area storm runoff."

It is unclear that these development plans truly concern the improvement and enhancement of the OHV park, rather than provide for future development for the City of Porterville. It's difficult to determine how much of the funding requested really involves OHV recreation, since none of the development money would go on the ground in the OHV Park.

In contrast, the Ground Operations Grant # G08-03-24-G directly relates to everyday operation in the OHV Park, and deserves to receive funding. The Law Enforcement Grant also deserves funding as it is proportional for the amount of OHV recreation opportunity available in the City of Porterville, and stresses education among the methods used to control illegal OHV activity. [Amy Granat - 4/4/09]


 In response to request for community input regarding 2008-2009 OHV Grant Funds Application as defined in the Porterville Recorded article dated March 3, 2009.

My family, friends and I have been riding at the Porterville OHV Park since it’s opening in summer of 1996. Our only wish is that this facility, not only succeed but thrive, so we all can have a safe, structured family oriented motocross riding facility for many years to come.

Questions, concerns and comments:

The City of Porterville has received $210,000.00 OHV grant money for 2007-2008, with the exception of the purchase of a used water truck, no physical or tangible improvements have been made to the OHV Park. Where is the remainder of the funds?

City of Porterville has applied for $1,244,083.00 for 2008-2009 funding year. It is noted that $676,051.00 is earmarked for moving the storm drainage retention, in an effort to prevent problems with the new industrial park building, Casino and the new fairgrounds that are to be built at a future date. Is such a costly endeavor necessary at this early stage?

Secondly; $568,032.00 has been earmarked to purchase a real estate parcel adjacent to the OHV Park, to deter residential home construction, suggesting there might be a problem in the future, again, is such a costly purchase necessary for something that might or might not come to pass. If so, won’t this purchase in fact cause more costs to be incurred. Who benefits from the proceeds of the citrus? Where will those proceeds go? Back into the OHV park fund?

There are multiple pieces of equipment that could be purchased and used on a daily basis to maintain the OHV Park properly. Dozer for maintenance, ATV mule for safety, Quad for safety and maintenance and spring tooth plow. These items are a must for any properly run track facility. Yet even after multiple requests to the City, we still have to operate with the same worn out equipment purchased with state money from 13 years ago.

All in all, is it possible that we could find a better solution to the problems at hand? It seems for 1.2 Million dollars we could relocate the park entirely, move to a location away from other structures and solve the possible flooding issues once and for all. [Naea Hughes - 3/18/09]