| trail_use_concerns_to_city_admin_2.pdf |
| tennis_yukon_support_letter_final.pdf |
| associate_letter_to_city_concerning_heartbreak_hill_signage.pdf |
| _heartbreak_hill_trail_response_final.pdf |
| e-mail_to_council_interactive_trails_map-2.docx |
To: Mayor and Council
From: Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
Re: Questions
Date: June 30, 2026
I have a number of questions to which I would appreciate a response.
The Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan was adopted at the June 26, 2017 meeting of City Council. The plan outlined 26 initiatives that were to have been completed over a ten-year period.
1. Which of the 26 initiatives have been achieved to date?
2. For those that have not been completed, which ones will be completed by June 26, 2027?
3. What steps are being taken at present to ensure that work will begin promptly on the development of a new revised management plan when the plan’s ten-year mark is reached.
4. There are currently four City of Whitehorse regional parks, only one of which has a management plan.
When will work finally commence on developing management plans for Paddy's Pond/Ice Lake Park, McLean Lake Park, and Wolf Creek Park? It should be noted that these parks became regional parks sixteen years ago.
5. There has been little information about what is happening with regard to Chasàn Chùa/McMcIntyre Creek Territorial Park since its establishment on June 19, 2025. As a result, ATWA contacted Shannon Trott (Yukon Parks) in February, and received the following information:
“The next steps for the park include forming a planning committee to produce a recommended park management plan. This planning process will include future opportunities for public and stakeholder engagement and updates will be provided when they become available.”
Four months have passed since this information was received and still it appears that no planning committee has been formed and, as a result, no progress made on the development of a management plan.
Could the City of Whitehorse provide citizens with an update as to what is happening with regard to the establishment of a planning committee and the development of a management plan for this new territorial park?
6. Within this newly established territorial park is a signed Trans Canada Trail TCT) named the Yukon University trail. Sections of this trail are located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
Provision 15(4) of the Snowmobile Bylaw states that “At no time shall a person drive a snowmobile in or on . . . an area designated as environmentally sensitive."
We have been told by administration that “the City has not identified environmental sensitive areas for the purpose of the Snowmobile Bylaw and therefore provision 15(4) of the bylaw does not currently provide any restrictions.” (Email dated 11/23/23 from Parks and Community Development)
However, I believe that the bylaw does clearly identify Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Evidence that leads me to reach the above conclusion is found in the Open Data for the City of Whitehorsefound at https://data.whitehorse.ca/. Go to this site and open the section entitled, “Environmental.”
This document clearly states that when the Snowmobile and ATV Bylaws were written, that sensitive areas (ESAs) were identified for both bylaws.
It states that the provided map shows the “Sensitive Areas as used by Bylaw for 2011/12 ATV and Snowmobile bylaws.”
The Open Data supporting map identifies these Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and shows quite clearly that a good portion of the YUT is located within an ESA, as are areas surrounding various sections of the trail.
It appears that the Snowmobile Bylaw does identify areas that it considers to be ESAs for the purpose of the bylaw in question. As the bylaw is a law, it can be enforced with regard to user restrictions within ESAs, as identified on the Open Data supporting map. (On the Open Data supporting map, the top “dot” within the ESA orange area is the bridge on the TCT (University Trail) that crosses McIntyre Creek.)
Why does the City of Whitehorse believe it can open this trail to snowmobile use when it appears that doing so would be in violation of the Snowmobile Bylaw?
We believe that this trail should return to its non-motorized (summer and winter) status, and be signed appropriately. Will this be done?
7. The draft plan and review of public findings with regard to the Downtown Trail Plan were “slated to be presented to City Council this spring.”
When will this now take place?
Will the findings be placed on the Engage Whitehorse website for public review prior to their presentation before City Council?
8. Apparently, the City of Whitehorse will be receiving an 8.7-million-dollar federal investment to help build the proposed Whistle Bend Connector paved active transportation trail. As both the federal government and the City of Whitehorse define active transportation as being free from motorized use, it would follow that this entire trail should be closed to winter snowmobile use.
As the Snowmobile Bylaw does not allow for such a restriction outside the Downtown Area, the trail will have to be added to the Excluded Trails section of the bylaw in order to ensure it is free from snowmobile use, or the bylaw amended to restrict snowmobiles to designed and designated motorized multiple use trails as are ATVs.
If and when the trail is completed, does administration intend to propose one of these two options to City Council, as the failure to do so will disqualify it from being an active transportation trail, as defined by both the City of Whitehorse and the federal government?
One expects that the City of Whitehorse will act in good conscience and ensure the paved trail (if and when built) will be a safe, non-motorized (summer and winter) active transportation trail.
What is the projected yearly cost of maintenance for this five-kilometre-long trail?
Who will pay for the maintenance costs?
9. There is a need for a public education campaign regarding ATV & Snowmobile bylaws. It seems obvious that many members of the public are either unaware of the rules concerning ATV/snowmobile use, or simply choose to ignore them.
Unfortunately, it is often children who suffer the consequences when parents ignore the rules.
Although the City of Whitehorse does provide some information with regard to use of these machines, it is not as effective as one would hope.
One of our members has suggested a mailout to all residences at the beginning of the ATV and snowmobile seasons that would clearly spell out the rules associated with their use.
Others have suggested more active enforcement of the respective bylaws.
What steps are being taken by the City of Whitehorse to enhance public knowledge of the ATV and Snowmobile Bylaws?
Thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions.
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
https://www.activetwa.org
To: Whitehorse Star (Letters to the Editor)
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA)
Re: Pee Wee Hill new trail construction
Date: 4/20/2022
The newly built (September 2021) trail adjacent to the old Pee Wee Hill trail is a fait accompli. Unfortunately, instead of making it easier “to allow a wide range of users to access the trail network in [the area] in all seasons,” as is called for by the 2020 Trail Plan, its construction has simply added to the numerous problems faced by trail users of the area over the last several years.
In order to address these problems it is suggested that the following actions be taken:
As soon as weather conditions permit place signage at the top of the old Pee Wee Hill trail asking bikers, skiers, snowboarders, and those using sleds to walk their equipment to the bottom of the approximately 148 metres long hill. The sign should be two-sided, so that both ascending and descending trail users can read it. (It should be placed in a position making it obvious that it refers to the “old” Pee Wee Hill trail and not the new one.)
In the coming summer reduce the grade of the old Pee Wee Hill trail as the city proposed in 2017. This would help address the concerns related to the steepness of the trail and the related slippery conditions encountered at certain times of the year.
Address drainage concerns related to the old Pee Wee Hill trail, which have allowed a “channel” to develop down the middle of the trail creating a very uneven surface for users. The new trail should be monitored to ensure drainage problems do not emerge on it as well.
The lack of protective fencing at certain points between the old and new trail is a cause of concern due to the steep drop between the two. This should be rectified.
Ensure the exit/entrance at the top of the new Pee Wee Hill trail does not enter the old Pee Wee Hill trail, which it currently does in more than one place. This situation is dangerous and it needs to be corrected. There should be no exits or entrances that connect the old trail to the new trail.
Consider using a snow fence on the new Pee Wee Hill trail in an effort to prevent parts of the trail from being snowed in during the winter months.
Consult with Fire Protection Services (FPS) to see if widening the “old” trail would facilitate getting their equipment above the Pee Wee Hill trail.
Going to the expense of widening the trail for the safety of recreational users would not be necessary if the suggested signage was placed at the top of the old Pee Wee Hill trail.
Should that signage prove to be ineffective in getting bikers, skiers, snowboarders and those using sleds to walk their equipment to the bottom of the old Pee Wee Hill trail, then close the old Pee Wee Hill trail to such users and restrict them to the use of the new Pee Wee Hill trail.
Update the Trail Development Policy to reflect the intent of various city policies and plans to ensure public participation in trail related issues such as new trail development and maintenance.
The Pee Wee Hill issue has made it obvious that all new trail construction, and not just those that are 500 metres and over in length, should undergo public oversight.
We are very concerned that a similar situation may arise when the city embarks on trail “improvements” to both the Heartbreak Hill and Crocus Ridge trails, if it does so without public consultation.
The above actions need to be taken in order to address the multitude of problems associated with the old Pee Wee Hill trail that have now been exacerbated by the construction of the new “switchback” trail, and to ensure that a similar situation does not arise when “improvements” are made to the Heartbreak Hill and Crocus Ridge Trails.
Background information on this issue can be found at https://www.activetwa.org. Click on “Issues” and scroll down to Pee Wee Hill Trail.
You can view fall and winter photos of the old and new Pee Wee Hill trails by going to https://www.activetwa.org. Click on “Photos” and scroll down.
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
www.activetwa.org
March 14, 2022
Dear Mayor Cabott,
Apparently, the subject of the Pine Street Extension paved trail came up recently in a discussion you had with [one of our associates]. I thought that you should be cognizant of this issue, as it is a perfect example of some of the frustrations that ATWA has had in its dealings with the City of Whitehorse and, in particular, with Parks and Community Development.
The Pine Street Extension paved trail, which is part of the Porter Creek connector trail, is a gas tax funded trail.
Although these paved gas tax funded trails are primarily built to promote active forms of recreation and transportation, they apparently can be motorized if the funded body wishes to do so. So, the City of Whitehorse could motorize a paved gas tax trail, as long as non-motorized uses are included. (The logic behind this escapes me, but it is what it is!)
However, the Pine Street Extension paved trail was always envisioned as a non- motorized summer and winter trail.
In an on-site meeting with Mr. Hnatiuk (former Parks Manager) the non-motorized (summer and winter) status of this trail was confirmed. If I recall correctly, Wayne Tuck was also at that meeting along with Brian Boorse, and the president of the Klondike Snowmobile Association, Mark Daniels. I was there as a representative of the Porter Creek Community Association, as at that time I was a member of its board of directors. This meeting was held on August 29, 2013.
A press release of Nov. 14, 2013 in which our previous mayor was quoted, also emphasized that the gas tax paved trails in Whitehorse were intended for active forms of transportation. There was no suggestion that when built, the Pine Street Extension paved trail would be open to motorized use in winter. (See https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2013/11/whitehorse-welcomes-new- active-transportation-paths.html.)
On July 31, 2017 Mr. Hnatiuk (Parks and Community Development) confirmed before City Council that the paved trail on the Pine St. Extension would be non- motorized (summer and winter), and that there would be (as usual) a Klondike Snowmobile Association (KSA) groomed snowmobile trail for snowmobile use on
the Pine St. Extension gravel road in winter. The KSA was also going to groom the paved trail for non-motorized use.
Mr. Hnatiuk also said that the paved trail would come before City Council for designation as a non-motorized (summer and winter trail). (The Snowmobile Bylaw would have had to be amended in order to add the Pine Street Extension paved trail to the Excluded section of the bylaw, in order to legalize the non-motorized summer and winter status of the trail.) You can view the video of Mr. Hnatiuk’s comments at the following
site: http://video.isilive.ca/whitehorse/2017-07-31.mp4.html (See #10)
It is interesting that Wayne Tuck suggested at the beginning of the video that the trail would be open to motorized use, but when asked to clarify this Mr. Hnatiuk gave the above response.
In an August 17/2017 article, the Whitehorse Star reported that, “City council voted . . . in favour of awarding Norcope the $171,210 contract for the paving of the third section of the non-motorized path.”
The article went on to state that, “The path is part of the city’s efforts to encourage more non-motorized commuting throughout the city. As explained in an earlier report to council: The purpose is to install sidewalks and asphalt paths to provide safe and accessible connections for commuters between residential areas, public facilities and the downtown core. The asphalt commuter path project is the construction of new paved bike/pedestrian trails to connect neighbourhoods and provide an active transportation option that avoids arterial roadways where possible.” (See https://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/pedestrian-path-paving- work-awarded.)
When the paved trail was completed in the late summer or early fall of 2017, it was signed multi-use with symbols indicating that both snowmobile operators and pedestrians could use it.
I was away hiking in Europe when the paved trail was completed and did not find out about this situation until my return in late October. Initially, I thought that the city had simply made a mistake and that it would be quickly corrected when the error was pointed out to Parks. However, by the end of November 2017 nothing had been done to rectify the situation.
In December of 2017, I visited the Parks and Community Development office on two occasions concerning the incorrect signage. On my second visit Dexter Kotylak (the then Trails Coordinator) said that the incorrect signage would be removed shortly and replaced by signs that indicated the appropriate use of the paved trail, and that improvements would be made in the spring (2018) to ensure that in winter there was an obvious distinction between the KSA groomed snowmobile trail, and the paved gas tax trail, although they would continue to be located side by side.
When nothing had happened by January 14 of 2018, I again visited the Parks and Community Development office to find out when the signs would be replaced. I was told that a meeting was to be held concerning the paved trail. After hearing the word “meeting”, I was certain that administration was going to come up with an excuse to justify motorizing the paved trail.
My expectation was realized when in a January 19/2018 email from Dexter Kotylak that a safety issue had arisen and that snowmobiles would have to use the paved trail.
In the email Mr. Kotylak said that, “Doug [Hnatiuk] and I met with the transportation department to discuss snowmobile use beside the paved trail. We determined that there is not enough space for dump trucks and snowmobiles to share the road safely. Pedestrians and snowmobiles will share the paved trail as permitted by the snowmobile bylaw. However in summer, all-terrain vehicles are not permitted on the paved trail, but are permitted on the snow dump road.”
The explanation given for designating the paved gas tax funded trail as a multi-use trail that permits snowmobile use defies belief.
One finds it hard to believe that after five years of planning (2013-2017) the city would only determine (several months after construction) that the corridor was “too narrow to safely accommodate heavy equipment and snowmobiles at the same time.”
No explanation was given to indicate how the city came to this conclusion, who was consulted, or why the paved trail was signed Multi-Use allowing snowmobile use as soon as the trail was completed, and well before the safety issue was raised as a reason to motorize the paved trail.
It appears as though the city was expecting that no one would raise any concern about signage indicating snowmobiles were allowed on the paved trail. When someone did, it forced the city to come up with excuses to justify the action, but only after the fact.
The city was well aware of what uses the Pine Street Extension would have to accommodate when the paved trail was constructed.
As Taylor Eshpeter of the city’s Engineering Department indicated to me in an email of Jan. 24, 2018, “The intention is for motorized vehicles to use the roadway [where the KSA has traditionally placed a groomed route] or the ditch, rather than the paved trail. The paved trail is a multi-use trail, but not a motorized multi-use trail.”
It is strange that the City of Whitehorse had no problem mixing 500 pound snowmobiles with non-motorized users on this steep snow-covered three-metre wide paved trail, an obviously greater safety hazard than the virtually non-existent safety concern that administration came up with to justify motorizing
the active transportation paved trail.
You will notice that for good measure, administration threw in the Snowmobile Bylaw reference: snowmobiles are allowed to use any so-called non-motorized trail that is not included in the Excluded Areas/Trails section of the bylaw. Of course, to include the paved trail in that section would have necessitated amending the Snowmobile Bylaw, a process that is both time-consuming and expensive.
One can only speculate as to the real reason or reasons why administration changed its position concerning the trail, and why despite numerous appeals backed with applicable supporting documentation to both Parks administration and City Council, nothing was done to address the issue.
I personally found the lack of a meaningful response by councillors and administration concerning the issue to be both frustrating and disheartening. It did not say much for proper process and certainly undermined my faith in how the City of Whitehorse conducts its affairs.
Unfortunately, ATWA continues to see similar issues occurring on a regular basis, situations that result because of a lack of proper process, a lack of completeness in city communication, a lack of public notification and involvement, a lack of understanding as to which policy or plan that deals in some way with trails, regional parks, or open spaces has the highest order of precedence, a lack of initiative on the part of administration to ensure the contents of policies and plans are reflected in applicable bylaws, a lack of council oversight and direction of city administration, a lack of equity between mechanized and non-mechanized trail users in that the former appear to be the more favoured group, and a lack of adherence to previous commitments.
The recently approved Whitehorse South Trail Plan and the newly constructed alternate Pee Wee Hill trail are current examples of such issues.
Hopefully, you have had a chance to review the documents that ATWA sent to the Community Development Committee concerning the newly constructed alternate Pee Wee Hill trail and the Snowmobile Bylaw. A meeting with you to discuss these issues and others mentioned in this document would be appreciated.
Thank you for reviewing this material.
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
www.activetwa.org
From: Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
Re: Questions
Date: June 30, 2026
I have a number of questions to which I would appreciate a response.
The Chadburn Lake Park Management Plan was adopted at the June 26, 2017 meeting of City Council. The plan outlined 26 initiatives that were to have been completed over a ten-year period.
1. Which of the 26 initiatives have been achieved to date?
2. For those that have not been completed, which ones will be completed by June 26, 2027?
3. What steps are being taken at present to ensure that work will begin promptly on the development of a new revised management plan when the plan’s ten-year mark is reached.
4. There are currently four City of Whitehorse regional parks, only one of which has a management plan.
When will work finally commence on developing management plans for Paddy's Pond/Ice Lake Park, McLean Lake Park, and Wolf Creek Park? It should be noted that these parks became regional parks sixteen years ago.
5. There has been little information about what is happening with regard to Chasàn Chùa/McMcIntyre Creek Territorial Park since its establishment on June 19, 2025. As a result, ATWA contacted Shannon Trott (Yukon Parks) in February, and received the following information:
“The next steps for the park include forming a planning committee to produce a recommended park management plan. This planning process will include future opportunities for public and stakeholder engagement and updates will be provided when they become available.”
Four months have passed since this information was received and still it appears that no planning committee has been formed and, as a result, no progress made on the development of a management plan.
Could the City of Whitehorse provide citizens with an update as to what is happening with regard to the establishment of a planning committee and the development of a management plan for this new territorial park?
6. Within this newly established territorial park is a signed Trans Canada Trail TCT) named the Yukon University trail. Sections of this trail are located within an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
Provision 15(4) of the Snowmobile Bylaw states that “At no time shall a person drive a snowmobile in or on . . . an area designated as environmentally sensitive."
We have been told by administration that “the City has not identified environmental sensitive areas for the purpose of the Snowmobile Bylaw and therefore provision 15(4) of the bylaw does not currently provide any restrictions.” (Email dated 11/23/23 from Parks and Community Development)
However, I believe that the bylaw does clearly identify Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
Evidence that leads me to reach the above conclusion is found in the Open Data for the City of Whitehorsefound at https://data.whitehorse.ca/. Go to this site and open the section entitled, “Environmental.”
This document clearly states that when the Snowmobile and ATV Bylaws were written, that sensitive areas (ESAs) were identified for both bylaws.
It states that the provided map shows the “Sensitive Areas as used by Bylaw for 2011/12 ATV and Snowmobile bylaws.”
The Open Data supporting map identifies these Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and shows quite clearly that a good portion of the YUT is located within an ESA, as are areas surrounding various sections of the trail.
It appears that the Snowmobile Bylaw does identify areas that it considers to be ESAs for the purpose of the bylaw in question. As the bylaw is a law, it can be enforced with regard to user restrictions within ESAs, as identified on the Open Data supporting map. (On the Open Data supporting map, the top “dot” within the ESA orange area is the bridge on the TCT (University Trail) that crosses McIntyre Creek.)
Why does the City of Whitehorse believe it can open this trail to snowmobile use when it appears that doing so would be in violation of the Snowmobile Bylaw?
We believe that this trail should return to its non-motorized (summer and winter) status, and be signed appropriately. Will this be done?
7. The draft plan and review of public findings with regard to the Downtown Trail Plan were “slated to be presented to City Council this spring.”
When will this now take place?
Will the findings be placed on the Engage Whitehorse website for public review prior to their presentation before City Council?
8. Apparently, the City of Whitehorse will be receiving an 8.7-million-dollar federal investment to help build the proposed Whistle Bend Connector paved active transportation trail. As both the federal government and the City of Whitehorse define active transportation as being free from motorized use, it would follow that this entire trail should be closed to winter snowmobile use.
As the Snowmobile Bylaw does not allow for such a restriction outside the Downtown Area, the trail will have to be added to the Excluded Trails section of the bylaw in order to ensure it is free from snowmobile use, or the bylaw amended to restrict snowmobiles to designed and designated motorized multiple use trails as are ATVs.
If and when the trail is completed, does administration intend to propose one of these two options to City Council, as the failure to do so will disqualify it from being an active transportation trail, as defined by both the City of Whitehorse and the federal government?
One expects that the City of Whitehorse will act in good conscience and ensure the paved trail (if and when built) will be a safe, non-motorized (summer and winter) active transportation trail.
What is the projected yearly cost of maintenance for this five-kilometre-long trail?
Who will pay for the maintenance costs?
9. There is a need for a public education campaign regarding ATV & Snowmobile bylaws. It seems obvious that many members of the public are either unaware of the rules concerning ATV/snowmobile use, or simply choose to ignore them.
Unfortunately, it is often children who suffer the consequences when parents ignore the rules.
Although the City of Whitehorse does provide some information with regard to use of these machines, it is not as effective as one would hope.
One of our members has suggested a mailout to all residences at the beginning of the ATV and snowmobile seasons that would clearly spell out the rules associated with their use.
Others have suggested more active enforcement of the respective bylaws.
What steps are being taken by the City of Whitehorse to enhance public knowledge of the ATV and Snowmobile Bylaws?
Thank you for taking the time to respond to these questions.
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
https://www.activetwa.org
To: Whitehorse Star (Letters to the Editor)
From: Active Trails Whitehorse Association (ATWA)
Re: Pee Wee Hill new trail construction
Date: 4/20/2022
The newly built (September 2021) trail adjacent to the old Pee Wee Hill trail is a fait accompli. Unfortunately, instead of making it easier “to allow a wide range of users to access the trail network in [the area] in all seasons,” as is called for by the 2020 Trail Plan, its construction has simply added to the numerous problems faced by trail users of the area over the last several years.
In order to address these problems it is suggested that the following actions be taken:
As soon as weather conditions permit place signage at the top of the old Pee Wee Hill trail asking bikers, skiers, snowboarders, and those using sleds to walk their equipment to the bottom of the approximately 148 metres long hill. The sign should be two-sided, so that both ascending and descending trail users can read it. (It should be placed in a position making it obvious that it refers to the “old” Pee Wee Hill trail and not the new one.)
In the coming summer reduce the grade of the old Pee Wee Hill trail as the city proposed in 2017. This would help address the concerns related to the steepness of the trail and the related slippery conditions encountered at certain times of the year.
Address drainage concerns related to the old Pee Wee Hill trail, which have allowed a “channel” to develop down the middle of the trail creating a very uneven surface for users. The new trail should be monitored to ensure drainage problems do not emerge on it as well.
The lack of protective fencing at certain points between the old and new trail is a cause of concern due to the steep drop between the two. This should be rectified.
Ensure the exit/entrance at the top of the new Pee Wee Hill trail does not enter the old Pee Wee Hill trail, which it currently does in more than one place. This situation is dangerous and it needs to be corrected. There should be no exits or entrances that connect the old trail to the new trail.
Consider using a snow fence on the new Pee Wee Hill trail in an effort to prevent parts of the trail from being snowed in during the winter months.
Consult with Fire Protection Services (FPS) to see if widening the “old” trail would facilitate getting their equipment above the Pee Wee Hill trail.
Going to the expense of widening the trail for the safety of recreational users would not be necessary if the suggested signage was placed at the top of the old Pee Wee Hill trail.
Should that signage prove to be ineffective in getting bikers, skiers, snowboarders and those using sleds to walk their equipment to the bottom of the old Pee Wee Hill trail, then close the old Pee Wee Hill trail to such users and restrict them to the use of the new Pee Wee Hill trail.
Update the Trail Development Policy to reflect the intent of various city policies and plans to ensure public participation in trail related issues such as new trail development and maintenance.
The Pee Wee Hill issue has made it obvious that all new trail construction, and not just those that are 500 metres and over in length, should undergo public oversight.
We are very concerned that a similar situation may arise when the city embarks on trail “improvements” to both the Heartbreak Hill and Crocus Ridge trails, if it does so without public consultation.
The above actions need to be taken in order to address the multitude of problems associated with the old Pee Wee Hill trail that have now been exacerbated by the construction of the new “switchback” trail, and to ensure that a similar situation does not arise when “improvements” are made to the Heartbreak Hill and Crocus Ridge Trails.
Background information on this issue can be found at https://www.activetwa.org. Click on “Issues” and scroll down to Pee Wee Hill Trail.
You can view fall and winter photos of the old and new Pee Wee Hill trails by going to https://www.activetwa.org. Click on “Photos” and scroll down.
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
www.activetwa.org
March 14, 2022
Dear Mayor Cabott,
Apparently, the subject of the Pine Street Extension paved trail came up recently in a discussion you had with [one of our associates]. I thought that you should be cognizant of this issue, as it is a perfect example of some of the frustrations that ATWA has had in its dealings with the City of Whitehorse and, in particular, with Parks and Community Development.
The Pine Street Extension paved trail, which is part of the Porter Creek connector trail, is a gas tax funded trail.
Although these paved gas tax funded trails are primarily built to promote active forms of recreation and transportation, they apparently can be motorized if the funded body wishes to do so. So, the City of Whitehorse could motorize a paved gas tax trail, as long as non-motorized uses are included. (The logic behind this escapes me, but it is what it is!)
However, the Pine Street Extension paved trail was always envisioned as a non- motorized summer and winter trail.
In an on-site meeting with Mr. Hnatiuk (former Parks Manager) the non-motorized (summer and winter) status of this trail was confirmed. If I recall correctly, Wayne Tuck was also at that meeting along with Brian Boorse, and the president of the Klondike Snowmobile Association, Mark Daniels. I was there as a representative of the Porter Creek Community Association, as at that time I was a member of its board of directors. This meeting was held on August 29, 2013.
A press release of Nov. 14, 2013 in which our previous mayor was quoted, also emphasized that the gas tax paved trails in Whitehorse were intended for active forms of transportation. There was no suggestion that when built, the Pine Street Extension paved trail would be open to motorized use in winter. (See https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2013/11/whitehorse-welcomes-new- active-transportation-paths.html.)
On July 31, 2017 Mr. Hnatiuk (Parks and Community Development) confirmed before City Council that the paved trail on the Pine St. Extension would be non- motorized (summer and winter), and that there would be (as usual) a Klondike Snowmobile Association (KSA) groomed snowmobile trail for snowmobile use on
the Pine St. Extension gravel road in winter. The KSA was also going to groom the paved trail for non-motorized use.
Mr. Hnatiuk also said that the paved trail would come before City Council for designation as a non-motorized (summer and winter trail). (The Snowmobile Bylaw would have had to be amended in order to add the Pine Street Extension paved trail to the Excluded section of the bylaw, in order to legalize the non-motorized summer and winter status of the trail.) You can view the video of Mr. Hnatiuk’s comments at the following
site: http://video.isilive.ca/whitehorse/2017-07-31.mp4.html (See #10)
It is interesting that Wayne Tuck suggested at the beginning of the video that the trail would be open to motorized use, but when asked to clarify this Mr. Hnatiuk gave the above response.
In an August 17/2017 article, the Whitehorse Star reported that, “City council voted . . . in favour of awarding Norcope the $171,210 contract for the paving of the third section of the non-motorized path.”
The article went on to state that, “The path is part of the city’s efforts to encourage more non-motorized commuting throughout the city. As explained in an earlier report to council: The purpose is to install sidewalks and asphalt paths to provide safe and accessible connections for commuters between residential areas, public facilities and the downtown core. The asphalt commuter path project is the construction of new paved bike/pedestrian trails to connect neighbourhoods and provide an active transportation option that avoids arterial roadways where possible.” (See https://www.whitehorsestar.com/News/pedestrian-path-paving- work-awarded.)
When the paved trail was completed in the late summer or early fall of 2017, it was signed multi-use with symbols indicating that both snowmobile operators and pedestrians could use it.
I was away hiking in Europe when the paved trail was completed and did not find out about this situation until my return in late October. Initially, I thought that the city had simply made a mistake and that it would be quickly corrected when the error was pointed out to Parks. However, by the end of November 2017 nothing had been done to rectify the situation.
In December of 2017, I visited the Parks and Community Development office on two occasions concerning the incorrect signage. On my second visit Dexter Kotylak (the then Trails Coordinator) said that the incorrect signage would be removed shortly and replaced by signs that indicated the appropriate use of the paved trail, and that improvements would be made in the spring (2018) to ensure that in winter there was an obvious distinction between the KSA groomed snowmobile trail, and the paved gas tax trail, although they would continue to be located side by side.
When nothing had happened by January 14 of 2018, I again visited the Parks and Community Development office to find out when the signs would be replaced. I was told that a meeting was to be held concerning the paved trail. After hearing the word “meeting”, I was certain that administration was going to come up with an excuse to justify motorizing the paved trail.
My expectation was realized when in a January 19/2018 email from Dexter Kotylak that a safety issue had arisen and that snowmobiles would have to use the paved trail.
In the email Mr. Kotylak said that, “Doug [Hnatiuk] and I met with the transportation department to discuss snowmobile use beside the paved trail. We determined that there is not enough space for dump trucks and snowmobiles to share the road safely. Pedestrians and snowmobiles will share the paved trail as permitted by the snowmobile bylaw. However in summer, all-terrain vehicles are not permitted on the paved trail, but are permitted on the snow dump road.”
The explanation given for designating the paved gas tax funded trail as a multi-use trail that permits snowmobile use defies belief.
One finds it hard to believe that after five years of planning (2013-2017) the city would only determine (several months after construction) that the corridor was “too narrow to safely accommodate heavy equipment and snowmobiles at the same time.”
No explanation was given to indicate how the city came to this conclusion, who was consulted, or why the paved trail was signed Multi-Use allowing snowmobile use as soon as the trail was completed, and well before the safety issue was raised as a reason to motorize the paved trail.
It appears as though the city was expecting that no one would raise any concern about signage indicating snowmobiles were allowed on the paved trail. When someone did, it forced the city to come up with excuses to justify the action, but only after the fact.
The city was well aware of what uses the Pine Street Extension would have to accommodate when the paved trail was constructed.
As Taylor Eshpeter of the city’s Engineering Department indicated to me in an email of Jan. 24, 2018, “The intention is for motorized vehicles to use the roadway [where the KSA has traditionally placed a groomed route] or the ditch, rather than the paved trail. The paved trail is a multi-use trail, but not a motorized multi-use trail.”
It is strange that the City of Whitehorse had no problem mixing 500 pound snowmobiles with non-motorized users on this steep snow-covered three-metre wide paved trail, an obviously greater safety hazard than the virtually non-existent safety concern that administration came up with to justify motorizing
the active transportation paved trail.
You will notice that for good measure, administration threw in the Snowmobile Bylaw reference: snowmobiles are allowed to use any so-called non-motorized trail that is not included in the Excluded Areas/Trails section of the bylaw. Of course, to include the paved trail in that section would have necessitated amending the Snowmobile Bylaw, a process that is both time-consuming and expensive.
One can only speculate as to the real reason or reasons why administration changed its position concerning the trail, and why despite numerous appeals backed with applicable supporting documentation to both Parks administration and City Council, nothing was done to address the issue.
I personally found the lack of a meaningful response by councillors and administration concerning the issue to be both frustrating and disheartening. It did not say much for proper process and certainly undermined my faith in how the City of Whitehorse conducts its affairs.
Unfortunately, ATWA continues to see similar issues occurring on a regular basis, situations that result because of a lack of proper process, a lack of completeness in city communication, a lack of public notification and involvement, a lack of understanding as to which policy or plan that deals in some way with trails, regional parks, or open spaces has the highest order of precedence, a lack of initiative on the part of administration to ensure the contents of policies and plans are reflected in applicable bylaws, a lack of council oversight and direction of city administration, a lack of equity between mechanized and non-mechanized trail users in that the former appear to be the more favoured group, and a lack of adherence to previous commitments.
The recently approved Whitehorse South Trail Plan and the newly constructed alternate Pee Wee Hill trail are current examples of such issues.
Hopefully, you have had a chance to review the documents that ATWA sent to the Community Development Committee concerning the newly constructed alternate Pee Wee Hill trail and the Snowmobile Bylaw. A meeting with you to discuss these issues and others mentioned in this document would be appreciated.
Thank you for reviewing this material.
Keith Lay (Active Trails Whitehorse Association)
www.activetwa.org