Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ambassador Programs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses for details across multiple ambassador funding requests
Summary
At an April 9 review the board asked detailed questions of four ambassador‑related proposals — National Elk Refuge Community Engagement Specialist, Pathway Ambassador Program, Teton Pass sustainability efforts, and Ambassadors for Responsible Recreation — seeking clarity on position status, cost breakdowns, equipment reuse, and future funding plans.
Board members reviewed multiple FY27 Ambassador Services applications and requested written answers and May presentations to clarify how proposed positions and services would be funded and implemented.
For the National Elk Refuge and Community Engagement Specialist the board asked whether the positions are new or restorations of cut roles, where ambassadors would be based, whether the request is a backfill, which specific positions and what percentage of salary funding is sought, and how ongoing funding would be sustained.
On the Pathway Ambassador Program the board questioned whether leased e‑bikes should instead be purchased for reuse, why reimbursed physical items (tents, equipment) justify a nearly unchanged request (only a $2,500 decrease from last year), where ambassadors would be stationed, the duties per location and how stipends operate. The board also asked whether increased funding would enable the additional law enforcement presence noted in the application.
For the Teton Pass sustainability proposal the board asked why the program name is changing, why JHTTB remains the largest funding source, why payroll rose compared with last year's request and what outcomes the increases support, how vehicle leasing costs were estimated, and whether shuttle/fuel increases correspond to added trips.
On Ambassadors for Responsible Recreation the board sought clarity on volunteer compensation, share of staff salaries funded by JHTTB, vehicle leasing assumptions, whether reduced funding reduces the program scope, organizational oversight (Friends of Bridger‑Teton), and the working relationship with Forest Service staff.
The board did not take funding action at the April meeting; staff requested applicants return in May with the requested details.
