Oak Mountain development sparks disagreement

Quiet forest trails, peaceful lakes and a bustling hotel. To Rita Jablonski-Jaudon, one of these things just does not belong in Oak Mountain State Park.

Jablonski-Jaudon’s family frequently visits the park to fish, ride horses and bicycle amid acres of wilderness. She is also the president of Keep Oak Mountain Wild, a group opposing the possible construction of a hotel and convention center in the park. Based on the 2,400 signatures on the Keep Oak Mountain Wild online petition, many residents agree that the park is no place for new development.

The plan

The idea of a hotel and convention center in the park first appeared as part of an update to the Oak Mountain master plan. The city of Pelham, Indian Springs, Shelby County and the state parks division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources have worked together for months to survey the current park resources and get feedback from park visitors.

Chad Scroggins, the Shelby County development services manager, said the master plan is an in-depth evaluation of everything down to the swing sets and sinks in the park bathrooms. As part of this discussion, Key Advisors Hospitality Consultants was hired to perform a feasibility study for a hotel and convention center within the park.

“That’s part of master planning — to see if something has a viable use and to see how it would fit,” Scroggins said. “It’s just one part of the process.”

The feasibility study was concerned only with economic impact and potential demand. The consultants looked at the park’s visitor traffic, occupancy rates at nearby hotels, market opportunities and several other factors as part of their study.

The finished study said that current hotel occupancy could make the new construction difficult, but it would be possible with the right size and location. The study, released in January, recommends a 175-room lodge-style hotel with adjacent cottages, 20,000 square feet of meeting space and a 10,000-square-foot ballroom. 

The estimated construction cost for the project is $35 million.

If built, the project would join the Birmingham-Jefferson Convention Complex as the only major convention spaces in the metro area. However, the Oak Mountain project would be far smaller than the BJCC’s 100,000 square feet of meeting space, 220,000-square-foot exhibition hall and 770 rooms at the adjoining Sheraton Birmingham hotel.

Greg Lein, the state parks division director for the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said that the hotel and convention center have previously been considered in 1970 and 2002. Both times, the proposed location for the hotel was a plot of land overlooking the golf course and adjacent to the marina and lake on Terrace Drive. This is a likely spot again, Lein said, but formal consideration of locations has not yet begun.

Right now, this is as far as the plan has progressed. Scroggins said the master plan has focused on resident surveys, which ended Feb. 28, and there are months of evaluation ahead before the master plan is complete. No location has been chosen, no architectural plans have been made and the hotel and convention center are far from a certainty.

“Just because you have a study, does not mean it’s a reality,” Shelby County District 7 Commissioner Lindsey Allison said. “That’s why we’re having the survey. We want to see what people want.”

The opponents

Despite this, Jablonski-Jaudon and other members of Keep Oak Mountain Wild want to stop the project before it gets beyond speculation. Their main worry is that the project will damage the park’s ecosystem with chemical runoff into nearby lakes, disrupt wildlife habitats and increase noise and light pollution.

“If you start developing that state park, you lose the quiet and tranquility to enjoy,” Jablonski-Jaudon said.

Greystone resident Lew Wagner is at the park at least once a week to hike the trails. He doesn’t support development of the park because he fears it would ruin the solitude of his hikes and create traffic jams without a real economic benefit. He said that he’s seen Yellowstone National Park and the Rocky Mountains become more commercialized and does not want a similar outcome at Oak Mountain.

“God’s country is basically the way I view it,” Wagner said. “You really should keep this as pristine as it is right now because you do have enough money going into the park. You don’t need to go after additional money.”

Donna Cobb, another regular park visitor and former employee at Oak Mountain’s Alabama Wildlife Rescue Center, described the potential project as “horrifying.” While she would be supportive of individual cabins, Cobb thinks a hotel and convention center would have too large of an impact. She also believes that residents should be given a vote since the project would be located in a state-owned park.

“I don’t quite understand who in the world’s come up with this idea that Oak Mountain’s going to become this world-class destination,” Cobb said. “I’ve got probably about 500 other friends who feel the same way. I’ve not talked to a single person who is for this.”

Keep Oak Mountain Wild also has economic opposition to the park, which it discussed in a community meeting in January. The group released its own analysis of the feasibility study, which members believe is incorrect and misleading.

The analysis took issue with some assumptions in the study, such as the hotel being permitted to sell alcohol on Sunday and relying on weddings or other events as a steady revenue source. The group also pointed out that the area hotels mentioned in the feasibility study had an average occupancy rate of 52 percent in 2013 and 58 percent in 2014.

“It’s not like we’re in great need of rooms,” said Kathryn Harrington, Keep Oak Mountain Wild legal counsel and Indian Springs city council member. “We think that development is not a good fit for Oak Mountain State Park.”

The group’s analysis noted that the similar 2002 proposal had an estimated construction cost of $43 million. With cost increases over the past decade, Keep Oak Mountain Wild believes the cost of the project will be closer to $59.9 million instead of $35 million.

Instead of this development, the group wants to see more park activities with a low ecological impact, like hiking, canoeing and bicycling.

“We want to support recreational activities that are compatible with the park’s ecosystem,” Jablonski-Jaudon said.

The supporters

While the voices against the hotel and convention center have come out in force, there are supporters of the development. Two unlikely proponents are Renea Roper and Michael Roberts, the managers of Best Western Oak Mountain Inn and Oak Mountain Lodge Inverness, respectively. While a new hotel would technically be a competitor, both managers said the convention center could potentially bring enough business to the area to increase their own hotels’ occupancy rates.

“I think it’s going to be great for the area, and really I believe it would bring more business to my business,” Roper said.

The feasibility study places expected occupancy rates for the hotel at 59 percent in 2017 and 65 percent by 2021. The firm also projected 211 jobs and an economic impact of around $21 million from construction alone.

Additionally, the study estimated that by its third year in operation, the hotel would be producing $11 million in annual revenue and $7.4 million in local spending.

Lein pointed out the success that the Department of Conservation has had with the six other state park lodging facilities. Except for years with unusual inclement weather, he said the lodges are almost always profitable.

“They absolutely help carry the park financially,” Lein said. “I’m confident that if we do this at Oak Mountain we’d be equally successful.”

The environmental fears about the development are also misplaced, Lein said, because the Department of Conservation is concerned with ecological health first and foremost. A biologist by training, Lein said the state park studies environmental impact for every trail and bench they install, so a hotel would be given even greater scrutiny.

“It’s just inherent in our thinking. The last thing we want to do is put a facility in the park that will be negative to the environment,” Lein said. “I think we’ve got a fantastic track record of taking care of the resources in our park.”

He also noted that the average state park lodging facility takes up about 20 acres in total, which is about 0.2 percent of Oak Mountain’s acreage.

Keep Oak Mountain Wild has criticized the feasibility study for leaving out environmental impact, but Scroggins said that such a study is impossible when there is no definite location or architectural plans. If the project moves forward, he said all the necessary environmental assessments will be completed, as well as studies to see if any existing trails or amenities will be disrupted.

While a hotel may not be everyone’s idea of a nature experience, Lein said the development could entice more people to experience the park’s existing natural beauty.

“The outdoor experience is unique for each individual and when we have an array of amenities for our guests, we’re widening our net,” Lein said.

The future

The master plan is far from being complete, and Scroggins said the project won’t move into further consideration until the planners have assessed their options and evaluated the feedback they received in online resident surveys. Those surveys, which were collected through Feb. 28, will weigh heavily in the park’s decisions on the hotel and other possible amenities.

Keep Oak Mountain Wild is continuing its petition and efforts to campaign against the hotel and convention center before the project takes another step forward.

“If you don’t stop this kind of stuff in its track fast, then you’re in real trouble,” Cobb said. “It’s going to be a long, long process fighting this.”

Shelby County manager Alex Dudchock said he plans to hold a meeting on the development and entire master plan in March or early April.

“Much more analysis, meetings and actions are required before the parties can determine the project’s feasibility,” Dudchock said.

Residents with comments or concerns about the Oak Mountain development can attend a public meeting on March 2 at 6 p.m. at the Pelham Civic Complex. 

To learn more about Keep Oak Mountain Wild, visit komw.org. The entire feasibility study and more master plan information is available at discovershelby.com.