Garfield County hears months-long public opposition to proposal to recognize Donald J. Trump on rural roads

Garfield County commissioners held a public hearing at the Fair Building to consider proposals to add recognition of former President Donald J. Trump to two rural road names, drawing hours of public comment and a split roll-call vote on at least one item.

Supporters and opponents traveled to speak and submitted petitions and written comments. Opponents said renaming or re-designating historic local roads would erase family and pioneer heritage and confuse visitors; supporters framed the change as recognition of presidential support for rural policy. The commission conducted roll-call votes on proposed actions relating to both roads during the meeting; the transcript records a roll-call for one item as “my vote is yes,” “my vote is no,” and “my vote is no,” indicating one yes and two no votes.

Why it matters: Commenters said the two roads hold local historic and tourism value and that changing names would impose costs on residents and businesses. Supporters argued a presidential recognition would honor policies they credited with helping local industries.

Public comment and evidence

Dozens of people spoke during the public hearing. Several said the roads carry multi-generational family and community meaning. Brian Berber, identifying himself as the great-grandson of John Atlantic Byrd, told commissioners, “It's just inappropriate to do it, take on the bird trail, and take our legacy away.” Phoenix Funky of Boulder said she was opposed to renaming either road and called the proposal “a symbolic gesture that's gonna cost us a lot of money.”

A speaker representing petitioners said a packet before the commission included “85 pages of signatures” and that an online petition had attracted 4,513 signatures with over 50% from Utah; the packet also contained 293 written comments opposing the change. Commenters proposed alternatives, such as plaques or naming non-road facilities, rather than altering historic road names.

Commissioners' remarks and votes

Commissioner Pollack (identified in the transcript as a commissioner) told the hearing he represents county residents and cited local surveys and outreach; at one point he said, “the county you're in right now is 93% of the plan,” in remarks about public-land context and local economic history. He and the other commissioners discussed balancing recognition of presidential support for rural policy with local heritage concerns.

A motion was moved and seconded to take a roll-call vote on the Byrd (referred to in the transcript also as “Bird”) Trail designation; recorded statements in the roll-call were one yes and two no votes. The commission then moved to take a separate vote on Johns Valley Road; the transcript records the motion being moved and seconded but does not record final tallies for that second roll-call in the provided excerpt. The meeting transcript shows the commission subsequently adjourned.

What was not decided or not specified

The transcript does not provide formal ordinance or resolution text for the proposed designations, nor does it specify the exact new legal street names or signage plans. Mover and seconder names for the motions are not recorded in the excerpt. Final roll-call tallies for the second road vote are not specified in the provided transcript.

Context and next steps

Speakers frequently framed their remarks around local heritage, tourism branding and the costs of renaming rural roads. Petitioners urged the commission to preserve the historic “Byrd/Bird Trail” and Johns Valley Road names; others urged nonroad alternatives to honor a president. The commission indicated it would proceed by formal roll-call votes and concluded the public hearing at the Fair Building before adjourning.

Ending

The hearing made clear there is strong local feeling on both sides. The transcript records at least one roll-call with one yes and two no votes; the record provided does not include final tallies or ordinance language for every item, and any formal name changes would require follow-up administrative steps and clear documentation of the adopted ordinance or resolution.