Arapahoe County briefs commissioners on High Line Canal maintenance agreement with Denver

Open Spaces Director Jenny Pincheno told the Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 11 that county staff are asking the board to note an updated intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the City and County of Denver covering trail maintenance on the High Line Canal corridor. The county inherited a set of IGAs when it took on stewardship of portions of the canal; most of those documents expired Dec. 31, 2026, while the IGA with Denver expired Jan. 1, 2025, Pincheno said.

The IGA before the board covers routine trail maintenance tasks — mowing, tree pruning, trash collection, sign upkeep and similar trail-corridor work — not canal infrastructure. Pincheno said Denver currently stewards about 7.3 miles of the canal that Arapahoe County manages and has publicly indicated it would like to resume direct responsibility for those miles as of Jan. 1, 2027. County staff drafted the agreement in an “evergreen” form to remain in effect whether Denver ultimately takes back those miles or not, Pincheno said.

Why it matters: county staff said clarifying who maintains different trail segments will limit uncertain recurring obligations for Arapahoe County and help budget for maintenance where Denver will not resume work. Greg (last name not specified in the transcript), who works on trail maintenance cost estimates, told commissioners the unit cost for trail maintenance on similar County-managed trail segments runs “somewhere in the neighborhood of approximately $22 to $25 per linear foot.” That figure, Pincheno and staff said, gives a rough sense of the savings if Denver assumes responsibility for the 7.3 miles, but it is not a contract price.

Pincheno and Glenn Poole (Open Spaces staff) said the county inherited about eight different IGAs tied to different maintenance tasks and that staff will bring additional refreshed agreements to the board over the next two years. Pincheno noted the board had passed a resolution last year authorizing the Open Spaces director to sign such IGAs; the board had also asked for a “flyby” briefing before staff exercised that authority. Commissioners indicated they had no objection to the IGA refresh and offered supportive remarks during the study session, but the item was not finalized as a consent-vote action at that meeting.

Staff emphasized two practical points: the current draft IGA applies to trail maintenance (not to work inside the canal’s waterway) and the county expects to continue negotiating with Denver and other partners to refine responsibilities for adjacent segments. Pincheno also told the board the county expects some maintenance cost exposures where IGAs have lapsed; she estimated the county could face as much as "close to $500,000" of additional maintenance obligations in gaps of the patchwork of agreements, and said that amount will be brought forward in upcoming budget materials.

Commissioners asked about the agreement’s duration (staff said the new IGA has no fixed end date and was intentionally drafted to be flexible) and whether Denver Parks and Recreation is the division handling the work (Pincheno confirmed Denver Parks and Recreation is the Denver counterpart). No statutory authority beyond the earlier county resolution was cited in the discussion; staff said the IGA language is intended to reflect existing maintenance practice and to modernize a 25-year-old exhibit that previously guided responsibilities.

The Open Spaces director said staff will continue work to modernize additional inherited IGAs and return to the board with those documents and any budget implications. Commissioners verbally indicated support for staff continuing the IGA refresh and for negotiating with Denver to accept responsibility for its 7.3 miles if Denver elects to do so.