Entrepreneur pitches county public‑land RV parking model promising revenue share

An entrepreneur representing a private firm described a public‑private proposal to use county‑owned land for managed RV parking and industrial outdoor storage during the Planning Commission meeting Oct. 13.

Lev (first name only), who said his company manages large outdoor storage and RV parking projects and has partners who operate similar programs in Europe, outlined a model where the county would retain ownership of land and the operator would finance and construct basic improvements (paving, utilities) and manage operations. The presenter said the developer would keep one‑third of revenues and remit two‑thirds to the county.

“It's not really a destination,” the presenter said. “If I'm traveling to Grand County… it's a place for me to basically park overnight pretty affordably.” He said the model targets short‑stay travelers who otherwise might park illegally on public lands and described a separate industrial outdoor storage product for longer‑term 3‑ to 6‑month leases to construction companies and truck operators.

Commissioners and staff raised a range of operational and policy questions. Commissioner Trish Hedin and others asked whether the proposal would compete with private RV parks. The presenter said his product is lower‑amenity and targeted at short, one‑to‑two night stays and the overflow that otherwise results in illegal parking, and therefore is not intended to compete with amenity‑rich private parks. Commissioners suggested an option to restrict eligibility to employed local residents or to target event‑period parking, and asked whether the operator would accommodate multi‑month leases to construction contractors; the presenter said industrial/contractor leases are already part of his core business model.

County commissioners and staff asked whether the county or the operator would pay for infrastructure. The presenter said his company would manage the site and lead the improvement process; in the pitch he proposed the county keep two‑thirds of revenue and the operator one‑third. Commissioners discussed potential concerns about using county land to host tourist parking vs. reserving county land for local workforce housing or other public uses.

County staff said similar concepts were discussed during recent conversations about an off‑grid overlay and RV/campground planning. Commissioners asked staff to examine whether a partnership of this type would be compatible with county goals and whether legal, procurement or competition concerns would prevent parks on county land. No formal decision or contract was proposed at the meeting; staff and commissioners requested that the presenter stay in contact while staff evaluates compatibility with county policy and procurement rules.

The presentation was listed as an informational item and lasted under the 15‑minute presentation allotment; commissioners thanked the presenter for sharing the idea and signaled they would ask staff and legal to evaluate next steps if the proposal proceeds.