Council members debated reviewer assignments and timeline policies during the Aug. 6 meeting, with some members urging earlier notification of who would review each application and others warning that early contact could create unequal advantages.

Why it matters: Reviewer assignment and applicant contact rules influence perceived fairness of the competitive grant process and can affect the time available for thorough technical review.

Brody Johnson (ATV representative) urged that applicants be told which council members would review their proposals so applicants could "reach out if they have some concerns" and start communication earlier. He said earlier contact would allow more time to ask "those hard questions" and get clarifications.

Other members disagreed. Cheryl Butler, the Forest Service representative, said applicants should be able to reach out when necessary but cautioned that allowing applicants to "pitch" projects directly to reviewers risks uneven access and could be "overwhelming" for reviewers. "I want the applicants to do a good job with their applications and...it's then our job to seek clarification," Butler said.

Mike Cook (Uinta County trails manager) and Jason Curry (Division director) voiced concern that early assignment and multiple direct contacts would create an uneven playing field. Curry said the centralized deadline keeps competition fair: "This process is designed to have a level playing field ... to have everything happen at the same time." He warned that early review of applications that applicants later change or retract could waste reviewer time.

Staff and council noted practical constraints. Rachel Toker said staff already speak with a substantial share of applicants during intake and help correct eligibility and budget problems, which is factored into the current schedule. "I probably spoke with at least 25% of these people...closer to half," she said. Toker said she prefers to assign reviewers after the grant closes to balance workloads and keep assignments fair; she acknowledged the current cycle's short turnaround and said staff would explore giving reviewers more time in future cycles.

Council members suggested compromise options: annotated sample applications, earlier staff-led eligibility checks and more review time in future cycles. Patrick Morrison recommended producing annotated example responses so applicants understand how questions will be evaluated.

No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting; staff said they would consider timeline adjustments and try to expand review time in the next cycle.