Daggett County RDA weighs trail easements, kiosk and grant application

The Daggett County RDA on an agenda item addressing proposed hiking and mountain‑bike trails and a kiosk discussed whether to pursue a short‑term outdoor recreation mini‑grant to pay for surveying, signage and a kiosk, while several members urged more research into easements and land ownership before applying.

The issue attracted detailed discussion about trail status, ownership and grant readiness. One board member described the routes as "pioneer trails" rather than formal, authorized trails and said the RDA should document easements and ownership before investing in large grant applications. A staff member or project representative said local outdoor recreation partners were "very excited about these projects" and that the county could be competitive for funding that carries a 20% match requirement instead of higher matches some other programs require.

Board members and staff outlined specifics for next steps: surveying costs were estimated at about $2,500, a kiosk and wayfinding signage roughly $1,000, and engineering and staff time would add to total project work. The RDA’s trail crew and an outdoor recreation crew were described as able to supply labor for trail work, reducing some construction costs, while much of the short‑term expense would be surveying and engineering.

Speakers repeatedly raised legal and practical questions about easements. The transcript shows Aaron had been asked to prepare a map of land ownership but had not yet delivered one; members said they wanted Kent and the town attorney involved to clarify whether public or recorded easements would be required and how easement language should be recorded. One board member suggested the RDA could apply for the mini‑grant rather than the town of Dutch John, since parts of the proposed work are on county/RDA property, but others said the application approach should be coordinated with the town.

Discussion also covered alternatives and constraints: some members recommended limiting work to two trail segments (referred to in the meeting as the top green and brown segments) and a kiosk location, with the RDA and the town researching easement feasibility and options to route certain segments across Forest Service land instead of private property. Participants discussed mechanisms that other Utah jurisdictions use to protect trails—agreements requiring developers to relocate trails if land is developed—as ways to reduce long‑term risk.

Board members cited economic and recreational benefits: expanding trails in the Flaming Gorge area could broaden the visitor base beyond anglers and attract mountain bikers and hikers, which some speakers said supports housing and development interest in other communities. At the same time, members stressed they would not assume an easement would exist just because a trail is used and emphasized that applications for larger grants should wait until ownership and easement questions are resolved.

No formal vote was recorded in the transcript. Participants agreed to gather more information as the next step: consult with Kent and the town attorney about easement language and recording, ask Aaron for a land‑ownership map, assess survey needs and costs, and coordinate with Dutch John representatives before pursuing larger grants. The meeting recessed for five minutes at 11:10 a.m. while members prepared to continue the discussion.

The RDA discussion left the door open to applying for a mini‑grant that would cover kiosk, signage, surveying and limited engineering, but several members said they preferred to see recorded easements or a durable agreement framework—similar to models used in Heber or Richfield—before committing to larger grant applications or formal trail development.