Summary
The Utah Off‑Highway Vehicle Program Advisory Council voted on Aug. 20 to allow volunteer hours and other in‑kind contributions done up to 12 months before a contract to count toward grant matches, and approved revisions to the program’s grant calendar while awarding a slate of recreation and safety grants.
The Utah Off‑Highway Vehicle Program Advisory Council voted on Aug. 20 to amend its grant rules to allow volunteer hours and other in‑kind contributions to be counted as grant matching funds when the work was completed within 12 months prior to a grant contract being executed.
The change, offered as an amendment to the rule cited in materials as R650‑301 (OHP Recreation Grant rules), passed after several hours of discussion over how to verify that pre‑award work was directly tied to a given project and how to avoid gaming the system. Council members also approved a related clarification to keep the program’s two grant cycles per year, with staff publishing final dates and guidance for applicants.
Why it matters: The in‑kind rule was aimed at recognizing legitimate volunteer planning, NEPA and on‑the‑ground trail work that communities and partners already undertake before a grant is awarded. Council members said counting properly‑documented pre‑award work can increase leverage on state funds and raise the quality of applications. Staff said the change must include documentation requirements and discretion by program staff to reject in‑kind claims that are not clearly tied to the awarded project.
Key council debate and outcome
Councilmember Scott (Sheriff) Curtis moved the amendment after members raised repeated concerns about specificity and verification. “I want to make sure on that in kind this is one that’s really got me concerned,” Curtis told the council during debate, arguing in favor of limiting in‑kind to work that is directly correlated to the project scope in an application.
Division staff replied that the program would provide pre‑approval guidance and that staff would retain discretion to accept or reject claimed in‑kind match. Rachel (OHP program manager) cautioned against embedding detailed federal requirements into the administrative rule itself, and asked for flexibility: “I would be really cautious about putting in anything right now that’s specific like that even with respect to NEPA because the changes from the federal government are so frequent,” she said.
The council approved the rule change (12‑month pre‑award in‑kind window) with a roll‑call vote after adding language giving the Department discretion to require documentation and pre‑approval of significant pre‑award work. The motion was moved by Sheriff Curtis and seconded by Scott Weir (recorded in meeting minutes). The vote carried.
Grant cycle timing
Councilors also discussed timetable changes for the spring/fall grant cycles. Staff proposed tightening timelines to reduce the time between application and contract, and the council agreed to move to two grant cycles per year with a roughly 45‑day application window; staff will publish specific annual dates and a more detailed program guide for applicants.
Grants: approvals, scope and next steps
After the rule votes the council reviewed and approved a slate of recreation and safety grants that had been presented during the meeting. Members approved funding for a range of proposals — trail crews, trailhead and parking improvements, search‑and‑rescue vehicles and equipment, youth safety programs, and local outreach and marketing efforts — and directed staff to finalize contracts and follow‑up conditions.
Staff said that most awards will be administered as reimbursement contracts (applicants spend and then invoice the state), and that contracts will include documentation and reporting requirements tied to the in‑kind change. For awards that include infrastructure on federal or SITLA lands, staff emphasized that applicants must secure the appropriate land‑manager approvals before certain work begins.
Where applicants asked for capital equipment or major changes (for example, large parking reconfigurations or projects on mixed ownership parcels), the council asked staff to ensure that federal and land‑trust partners (BLM, Forest Service, SITLA, State Parks) were coordinated and that approvals were in place before funds were spent.
What the council asked staff to do next
- Draft and publish program guidance explaining the 12‑month in‑kind policy, documentation requirements (photographs, day‑by‑day logs, pre‑approval call notes) and staff pre‑approval options. - Publish the annual grant calendar (two cycles per year) and application windows for FY2026. - Finalize grant contracts for the approved awards and include conditions tying execution to required land‑manager approvals when work is on federal or SITLA lands. - Provide applicants with selected examples of acceptable documentation and sample language that will be used in contract terms.
Quotes
“I want to make sure on that in kind this is one that’s really got me concerned,” said Councilmember Scott (Sheriff) Curtis during debate on how narrowly to define qualifying pre‑award work.
Rachel, OHP program manager, urged caution about being overly specific in the rule text on federal regulatory items: “I would be really cautious about putting in anything right now that’s specific like that even with respect to NEPA because the changes from the federal government are so frequent.”
Ending
The council’s decisions change how applicants can document and receive credit for volunteer and pre‑award work and tighten up the program calendar to shorten the time from application to contract. Staff will return to the council with the final program guide and sample contract language and will circulate a list of approved awards and their contract start dates after the contracts have been executed.
For a complete list of grants the council approved and for contract‑level questions, contact the Division’s grants team; staff said they will circulate award letters and requirements once contracts are ready.
(Reporting note: this summary is based on the official Aug. 20, 2025 advisory council meeting transcript and roll‑call votes.)
