Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Arches Shuttle topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand County approves $500,000 local match for Arches shuttle pilot over commissioners' objections
Summary
After an hour of public comment urging more transparency and debate among commissioners about budget risk, Grand County approved a $500,000 local match from TRT mitigation funds for a $3 million, multi‑agency Arches National Park shuttle pilot. The vote passed 4–3; county attorney and staff will complete legal and procurement steps before contracts are finalized.
Grand County commissioners voted 4–3 on May 19 to commit $500,000 as the county’s local match toward a three‑party, $3 million pilot shuttle for Arches National Park.
Commissioner Brian Martinez presented the plan as a partnership with the National Park Service (NPS) and the Utah Department of Transportation, saying the capital stack would include $1.5 million from the NPS (centennial funding, not yet fully confirmed) and $1 million from UDOT, with Grand County’s $500,000 providing the final match. Martinez told the commission the shuttle is intended to address a “vehicle problem” at Arches by reducing private vehicles in the park and freeing parking, and that the pilot would produce data to evaluate longer‑term options.
The item drew more than an hour of public comment before the vote. Diane Allen, a retired National Park Service chief of interpretation, told the commission she worried the operational details and procurement were unclear and asked whether Via had already been selected as a provider. ‘‘Most of us have no idea what’s been going on or is planned,’’ Allen said. Several residents and former elected officials urged the commission to slow the process and allow more public review of contracts, budgets and contingency plans.
Commission debate focused on where the county would draw the $500,000, the appropriate fund source, and whether the county had done sufficient public engagement. Some commissioners pressed for legal review and a cooperative management agreement before finalizing contract terms; County Attorney Steven Stocks said his office should review any substantial contract ‘‘with a fine tooth comb’’ and asked for time to do so. Alternatives to spending TRT mitigation funds — including using optional sales tax reserves (fund 47) — were proposed; a substitute motion to use fund 47 failed, and the original motion to allocate TRT mitigation funds passed.
The motion was introduced by Commissioner Bill Winfield and seconded on the floor; the commission recorded a final tally of 4 yes, 3 no. Commissioners who spoke against the allocation cited competing needs in the county budget — flood mitigation, staff cost‑of‑living adjustments and essential services — and urged a more deliberative process. Supporters said recent increases in tourism revenue and outside commitments justified moving ahead and that the pilot could protect long‑term local economic activity.
Next steps: commissioners authorized moving to set up the county’s portion of a cooperative arrangement but directed that any contract be returned to the commission for legal review and public comment. County staff said the NPS centennial funding was verbally committed but not yet formally confirmed, and that a cooperative management agreement and scope of work would be brought back once matching funds were secured.
The commission’s approval does not authorize immediate spending; staff indicated the allocation would be handled through a future budget amendment and that legal and purchasing reviews will occur before any contract is executed.
