Elizabeth Parks & Recreation presents master plan to Elbert County; requests county help on 151‑acre park and trail coordination

Elizabeth Park & Recreation District officials presented a draft parks, recreation and trails master plan to the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners and asked the county to consider supporting two near-term items: (1) continued coordination on a multi‑mile trail network that would rely heavily on county road rights‑of‑way and (2) a county land commitment for a roughly 150–151 acre site south of Spring Valley that the district would pair with a Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grant application.

Mike Barney, director of the Elizabeth Park & Recreation District, said the plan reflects community input collected over several months and from public events and surveys. "For us and for many residents parks and recreation is not just nice to have. It is an essential service," Barney said during the presentation.

Consultant Critter Thompson, identified as working with Catamount Studio and SCJ Alliance on the project, summarized the outreach and findings: the team conducted stakeholder interviews and community events that the presenters said reached roughly 700 people, including targeted work with student government that produced substantial participation from 12–17‑year‑olds. The plan maps existing publicly owned parcels (town, school district and county-owned sites), inventories amenities and conditions, and identifies gaps — particularly in the northern part of the county where the presenters said most population growth is occurring.

Thompson said the plan identifies priorities that include preserving open space, adding trails and neighborhood‑level walking loops, upgrading existing parks, and evaluating a recreation center and aquatic facilities. "The Elizabeth community envisions a future where the rural countryside thrives through preserved open landscapes, connected parks, trails, and open spaces that foster community, promote well‑being, and sustain our community's unique character," Thompson said.

Key findings the presenters highlighted include: many residents travel outside the Elizabeth area to reach open space, trails and recreation centers because local parks lack some amenities; active play spaces, community gathering spaces and aquatic facilities scored highly in the community survey; and about half of respondents live in homeowner associations (HOAs), which affects how residents currently access local amenities.

The district and consultants described several specific sites and concepts in the draft plan. They identified a roughly 150–151 acre county parcel south of Spring Valley (presenters used both "150 acres" and "151 acres" in discussion) as a potential regional park site. Presenters noted that parcel currently lacks a water connection, and the conceptual design assumes limited water availability unless the district or county secures water from a nearby developer. The district said it would like the county to consider providing the parcel as a match or site commitment to strengthen a GOCO grant application; GOCO was described in the presentation as a grant source that funds community park and trail projects and that currently awards projects of up to $2,000,000.

District staff asked the commissioners for an approximate timeline: if the county could commit land or an acceptable form of site control before the district's next GOCO application cycle (presenters cited an internal August deadline), the district would apply in the current cycle; if not, it would pursue the next cycle. A commissioner responded that the county would need attorney review and said they believed the timeline was likely workable but did not make a formal commitment during the meeting.

The presentation also included plans and phasing for trail connections across the district. Because public land is limited, many of the proposed trails would use road rights‑of‑way or be built in coordination with new development. The district said it has discussed trail design guidelines with County Road and Bridge and noted constraints including narrow existing rights‑of‑way and varying easement widths; Road and Bridge staff were described as pragmatic and supportive but flagged engineering constraints. Presenters urged the county to continue coordinating early in the plat and PUD review processes so trails can be incorporated when roads are built or upgraded.

Presenters described ongoing negotiations and coordination with developers. They said EC West (also referenced as a metro district or developer in the presentation) had included parks and recreation elements in its metro district proposal but that an overlay agreement with the Elizabeth Park & Recreation District had not been finalized; the district said it was in active discussion with EC West about playgrounds, trails and other on‑site amenities. The consultants also identified other potential developments in or near the study area by name (Miller Ranch, Morstead) as projects the district is tracking for trail connections.

The district proposed a set of smaller, near‑term trail projects it called "low‑hanging fruit," including soft‑surface loop trails near Semoran (a ball‑diamond site the district partly owns) and a short walking loop at Elizabeth and The Pines park. Presenters said smaller, achievable projects could build momentum while the larger network is phased in over time.

On funding and cost, the presentation included a willingness‑to‑pay slide showing a numeric range for a recreation center fee and noted 84 respondents for that question; during the meeting a presenter said the range shown equated to roughly $24–$27 per month, but the numbers on the slide and the speaker's verbal math were not consistent in the record. The presenters also described GOCO's recent change removing most match requirements while noting that showing local match improves competitiveness for grant scoring.

No formal motions or votes were taken during the presentation. The district said it would provide the county with the draft master plan report and presentation once published and requested continued engagement during plat and development reviews, early coordination with County Road and Bridge on trail design, and discussion about site control for the 150–151 acre parcel to support a GOCO application.

Next steps identified in the meeting record: the district will publish and deliver the final master plan report to county staff and the commissioners; the district may apply for GOCO funding if county site control can be arranged in time for the cited application cycle; county staff said they would consult the county attorney and return with guidance on options for property transfer or lease; and the district and county will continue to coordinate on trail corridors and developer agreements.

Votes at a glance: none — no formal county votes or ordinances were recorded during this agenda item.