Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Responsible Recreation Trail Ambassadors topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Grand County commissioners debate future of Trail Ambassadors program; form working group to pursue grants

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At an Aug. 19 workshop, Grand County commissioners discussed whether to keep the county-run Responsible Recreation/Trail Ambassadors program under county administration or move it to a nonprofit, and agreed to form a working group to pursue near-term grant opportunities; no formal policy change was made.

Grand County commissioners met in a workshop Aug. 19 to discuss the future of the county’s Responsible Recreation/Trail Ambassadors program, whether the program should remain under county administration, and how to pursue near-term grants such as the Outdoor Recreation Initiative (ORI) and state OHV/OHVR opportunities. No formal action was taken during the workshop; commissioners agreed to form a working group to refine next steps and to allow staff to pursue a grant application that is due later this month.

The discussion matters because the program — started in 2021 — is positioned by county staff and some commissioners as a stewardship and visitor-education effort that reduces damage to trails, decreases search-and-rescue demand and aligns with the state outdoor recreation strategic plan released in October 2023. Commissioners also noted budget pressure: transient room tax (TRT) revenue previously used to help fund the program has declined, and several commissioners said the county must weigh continued taxpayer support against a plan to move the program under a nonprofit umbrella.

Commissioners and staff described competing rationales. Supporters of keeping the program in county government said an in-county structure strengthens the program’s ability to win grants by offering county fiscal and in-kind match capacity and administrative oversight. Those favoring a transfer to a nonprofit said community-run nonprofits can attract private contributions and remove ongoing general-fund exposure for county taxpayers. Several commissioners also raised the practical difficulty of starting a new nonprofit, noting it can limit immediate access to grant funding during a startup period.

Staff and commissioners identified specific near-term funding and program issues. County staff reported the ORI (Outdoor Recreation Initiative) grant application is due at the end of the month and that the county previously voted at earlier meetings to pursue OHV/OHVR funding and had approved a memorandum of understanding with the public health department. Staff asked for direction on whether to apply as a county entity, to pursue a pass-through arrangement, or to wait until a future home for the program is identified. Commissioners asked staff to proceed with applying for grants where feasible and to bring any required formal approvals back to a future meeting for ratification.

Participants also discussed program structure: keeping the motorized-trail and OHV-related work inside the county (possibly under public works or the sheriff’s office) while spinning off the nonmotorized visitor-education components to a nonprofit was raised as a possible hybrid approach. Commissioners and staff agreed the working group should explore the fiscal impacts, potential host organizations (including local nonprofits and land-management partners such as the Bureau of Land Management), and whether a partial county-hosted model would strengthen grant competitiveness.

Several staff members and commissioners volunteered to participate in a working group; staff named Maddie and Responsible Recreation Coordinator Anna as immediate contacts, and a representative from the health department and federal land managers (Jennifer Jones of BLM was suggested) were identified as potential participants. Staff said the ORI deadline and a related selection committee schedule make the coming weeks time-sensitive for grant strategy.

No county policy change or formal vote on moving the program was taken in the workshop. The meeting closed with a separate motion to enter a closed session to discuss the character, professional competence or health of an individual; that motion (moved by Commissioner McCurdy and seconded by Commissioner Martin) passed unanimously.

Next steps: commissioners requested a working-group framework and suggested placing a formal action item on a future commission agenda if any member wants to change the program’s status at the county level. Staff will continue preparing grant applications and seek formal ratification from the commission as required.