Lake County weighs grooming options for 2025–26; staff recommends contracting as near‑term fix

Parks and Open Space Director Duncan Chisholm told the Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 23 that staff has developed four approaches to groom county cross‑country ski trails for the 2025–26 season and is recommending the least‑capital, contractor‑led option as a near‑term solution while the county evaluates longer‑term options.

Chisholm outlined four options: a contracted groomer to provide regular runs on the Mineral Belt Trail and other priority circuits; leasing a groomer plus hiring a full‑time equivalent (FTE) county employee to operate equipment year‑round; leasing a groomer plus hiring seasonal staff; or doing no county‑run grooming. "At this point in time, we're recommending option 1 for 2526," Chisholm said.

Staff estimates and assumptions

Chisholm gave commissioners a set of assumptions used to cost proposals: two scheduled grooms per week (suggested Monday and Thursday) plus additional runs when snowfall exceeds about 4 inches, producing an estimated ~32 grooms per season depending on conditions. Cost estimates provided by staff included:

- Contract/lease options: staff presented estimated contract/lease costs in the range of about $50,000–$62,000 for the season depending on included hours and logistics; one firm quoted roughly $62,000 with 500 hours of usage included; another option quoted about $56,600 with 300 hours included.

- Lease + full‑time FTE: hiring a year‑round, fully‑benefited employee to operate grooming equipment in addition to leasing would raise the all‑in cost; staff estimated an $80,000 all‑in salary/benefits figure for a full‑time hire and projected the blended seasonal cost if the position were shared across duties would be lower when comparing apples to apples.

- Lease + seasonal staff: leasing equipment and employing two seasonal workers was estimated by staff at roughly $71,000 (staff provided ranges depending on hourly rates and seasonal hours).

Chisholm told the board additional annual costs could include maintenance (staff estimated roughly $4,000 per year for maintenance on a leased machine) and fuel (roughly $3,000 a year). The county’s existing snow‑grooming equipment (an older snowcat and a side‑by‑side/UTV) could be used in some venues but has limits, and staff cautioned the county should have a backup plan if older equipment fails mid‑season.

Trail management, equipment and permitting issues

Commissioners and staff discussed several operational constraints: several trails contain wind‑blown snow, exposed stumps and narrow sections that can snag grooming machines; some sections may require tree removal or trail‑clearing work before mechanized grooming is safe. Several speakers said the Mineral Belt Trail had stumps and buried obstacles that increase the risk of damaging equipment or injuring operators if grooming is not preceded by a mechanical cleanup and staking of the corridor.

Forest Service permit language also featured in discussion. Staff said contractors and county machines must comply with the applicable Forest Service permit, which staff referenced as limiting grooming width (staff cited an 8‑foot width figure in the permit and noted ambiguity in how the permit’s acreage/width language has been interpreted in the past). Commissioners said the county needs clarity on permitted machine width so county equipment and contractor proposals meet permit conditions.

Community funding and role of volunteers

Several commissioners and community members described fundraising and in‑kind support possibilities. Chisholm reported the Mineral Belt Trail Committee has verbally committed to contribute toward grooming — staff cited a verbal figure of up to $30,000 but said no formal pledge had been received. Commissioners and staff discussed strategies to use visible QR‑code donation opportunities, events and race series to recover some grooming costs while keeping day‑to‑day trail access free.

Volunteers also figure into multiple operational plans: commissioners proposed that volunteers could run grooming on lower‑risk venues such as parts of the golf‑course loop (where a side‑by‑side could be adequate) while the Mineral Belt Trail receives mechanized grooming.

Board reaction and preferred near‑term course

Commissioners debated tradeoffs: several favored starting with the county’s existing equipment and a focused plan to groom one corridor well this winter while the county clarifies machine condition and permit constraints; others favored the contractor option to ensure a reliable baseline product. Chisholm and staff stressed the need for a quick decision so contractors can be secured and seasonal hiring or machine maintenance performed before snowfall.

Quotes from the meeting

Duncan Chisholm: "At this point in time, we're recommending option 1 for 2526." Commissioner Dan: "Daily grooming. Everyday. Daily grooming. Cool. It's the industry standard." Commissioner Matt emphasized measuring usage and donations so the county can evaluate cost recovery and scale services in future years.

Ending

Staff asked the board for near‑term direction; commissioners generally favored an incremental approach — secure a short‑term contractor or use county equipment with a dedicated operator for the Mineral Belt Trail this winter, pair that with stronger donation and event fundraising, and return with metrics and a cost‑recovery plan for possible expansion to additional groomed venues such as the golf course.