Elizabeth Park & Rec asks Elbert County for land support and grant help for 150‑acre park; consultants highlight trail links with developers

Representatives of the Elizabeth Parks & Recreation District (EPR) asked the Elbert County Board of Commissioners to consider a county land commitment that would allow the district to apply for a Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) community impact grant to develop a regional park on a roughly 150‑ to 151‑acre county parcel near Spring Valley.

Consultants told the commissioners the parcel lies in the fastest‑growing part of the district but currently lacks municipal water service, and that water availability will affect the park’s programming. They said the parcel could still be designed without full water service, but developing restroom and certain amenities would likely require water access or utility agreements.

EPR representatives said county land would strengthen a GOCO application; consultants explained GOCO now funds some community‑impact projects up to $2,000,000. EPR asked for a county commitment before August so the district could submit an application in the current grant cycle. Presenters said if the county cannot meet that timeline the district will pursue a later cycle.

County participants said they could probably work with the requested timeline but would need to consult the county attorney about whether any land support would be structured as a lease, deed transfer or other arrangement before making a formal commitment.

Separately, the presentation detailed coordination on trails and on incorporating park elements into new developments. EPR and consultants said they are in ongoing discussions with the EC West metro district and other developers (including Crescent/“EC West,” Miller Ranch and a proposed Morstead development) about trail connections, playgrounds and playground‑scale amenities. The consultants said EC West’s metro district plan was approved by county and state authorities without an overlay agreement the park district expected; EPR is negotiating what form of contribution or agreement — development fees, improvements in‑lieu, or contributions — could satisfy the district’s objectives.

The consultants highlighted specific opportunities to create a connected trail network using road rights‑of‑way and private developer connections: a potential trail connection through a privately owned parcel east of Cimarron that could link middle and high schools to Stage Run, a series of “phase 1” trail segments near EC West/Crescent that could be constructed with new development, and several smaller, locally feasible loop trails (identified at Semoran and Elizabeth & The Pines) that EPR characterized as “low‑hanging fruit.”

Road and bridge constraints were discussed: county staff and consultants acknowledged that retrofitting existing county roads with detached multiuse trails is challenging where shoulders and easement widths are narrow, but that new development or road reconstruction provides opportunities to install detached trails. EPR asked to remain on the county’s referral list for land‑use applications so it can weigh in when plats and PUDs present opportunities to secure trail corridors.

Presenters said the Spring Valley parcel and other county‑owned properties could be programmed to address community needs, and they asked the commissioners to consider the land commitment as part of broader park and trail implementation plans. No formal county decision was made during the meeting.