BOCC weighs Colorado Energy Office sustainability-manager grant; staff recommend short-term contract over hiring FTE

Lake County staff briefed the Board of County Commissioners on a Colorado Energy Office grant to fund a sustainability manager position and recommended contracting for services rather than hiring a full-time employee while federal funding remains uncertain.

The county is the grantee for a three-year award totaling $240,000 (about $80,000 per year). County staff reported the grant is a reimbursement program and warned that it relies on federal funding passed through the state; if the federal program pauses, the reimbursement could end. Staff told commissioners only one of nine similar grantees statewide had hired an FTE so far; several others have used contractor arrangements.

Staff recommended the county avoid hiring a permanent employee now because onboarding and potential later layoffs would be administratively costly. A county staff presenter said, “We do not feel like moving forward with hiring a full time, staff member is wise at this moment,” citing the possibility that the grant could be paused and the administrative burden of HR, IT and finance to employ someone who could later need to be let go.

Advocates and community partners urged using the grant to provide capacity. Emily Olsen of Cloud City Conservation Center said local government participation matters: she recommended either contracting or staffing to ensure the county can coordinate on electrification, building-code updates and climate-action tasks. C4 staff argued the work requires sustained engagement across departments and with utilities and builders, including technical assistance on building codes and access to utility rebates.

Commissioners asked practical questions about how a contractor or staff person would fill 40 hours per week. One commissioner, identified in the discussion as Austin, said he would prefer to use grant funds to buy higher-quality, part-time contracted expertise rather than fund a lower-paid entry-level FTE, because $80,000 a year would not cover a full experienced FTE. A public commenter, Melissa, noted that experienced contractors can charge high rates and that the county should plan a clear work plan for any contracted role.

County staff also said the climate-action plan related to the grant will be jointly managed by departments (public health, public works, planning) and that the county will need a point of contact for billing and grant management even if it hires a contractor.

Former county and utility-affiliated speakers emphasized why local capacity matters. One longtime local official, Jeff, pointed to state electrification policy and utility planning in mountain communities and said the county risks being “not at the table” for decisions about gas infrastructure upgrades, electrification incentives and resilience if it lacks dedicated capacity to engage with utilities and the state. Staff described potential tasks for the position: grant management, coordination among department heads, liaising with utilities, helping secure grant or incentive funds for county building upgrades and updating the county’s building-code technical work.

The board did not take a final vote during the session. Multiple commissioners signaled openness to contracting as a lower-risk, more flexible option; one commissioner recommended delaying a final decision until the next meeting to resolve outstanding questions.

Ending: The BOCC deferred a final decision and asked staff to return with more detail on contracting scope, expected deliverables and financial risk to the county before committing to an FTE or contractor.