The Utah Division of Outdoor Recreation’s grant scoring committee voted unanimously to approve the recommended Recreational Trails Program (RTP) awards and advanced multiple blocks of smaller projects and larger regional proposals for further consideration after a daylong grant‑scoring session. Committee members also spent hours debating how the program should prioritize community parks funding, maintenance obligations and large regional assets such as community bike parks and a volunteer‑run small ski area.

Committee members approved the RTP slate recommended by the RTP review committee. Evan Veitch, who presented the RTP packet for the Recreational Trails Program, told the committee the RTP panel received 42 non‑motorized applications and five motorized applications and that the program had $5,000,000 in available RTP funds; Veitch reported the selected RTP awards total $2,531,620. The committee then voted to accept the panel’s recommendations.

Why it matters: RTP and similar state grants fund trails and trailhead projects used by thousands of Utah residents and visitors each year. Winners typically must deliver construction documents or shovel‑ready projects and then maintain them; the committee’s approvals set which projects will receive the state’s next round of funding and move into contracting and construction.

In the committee’s mini‑grant block, members accepted multiple top‑scoring mini grants and approved a set of projects that met the panel’s scoring thresholds. That vote cleared dozens of small projects — playground connectors, shade, small trail links and accessibility upgrades — and included a formal roll‑call on multiple motions. Committee members said they will defer some borderline projects to later funding rounds or to partial funding where applications permit scaling.

The committee devoted a large portion of the session to discussing the new Community Parks & Recreation (CPR) category, a debut funding lane this cycle. Members debated whether CPR should prioritize regional‑scale amenities that attract tourism and tournaments, or smaller local parks in communities that lack tax bases or impact‑fee revenue. Several members argued the state should primarily fund projects that leverage municipal or private match and that demonstrate regional draw or clear maintenance plans; others argued the state should fill gaps for under‑served rural communities where local funding tools are limited.

Actions and outcomes
- RTP award approvals: Motion to approve RTP projects as recommended by the RTP review committee; moved by Erin O’Brien, seconded by Scott Strong; passed by roll call (unanimous). The committee recorded the RTP total awards listed on the program printout: $2,531,620 (Veitch, Recreational Trails Program presentation).
- Mini grants: The committee voted by roll call to move groups of top‑scoring mini grants and a set of projects scoring above the panel’s threshold forward for final approval and contracting. Several motions established cut lines by score and advanced blocks of projects rather than considering each small ask individually.
- CPR category: The committee did not adopt a final funding list for CPR but advanced a number of rural and regional CPR applications for further consideration and requested staff follow‑up on match, maintenance and opportunities for partial funding.

What the committee discussed
- Maintenance and state role: Members repeatedly emphasized that the state must consider long‑term maintenance capacity when funding parks and hard infrastructure. They asked applicants to clarify who will maintain paved surfaces, pump tracks and skate features and whether maintenance budgets are sustainable without recurring state support.
- Federal lands and trail restoration: Several requests covered improvements on federal land. Members discussed whether state investments on federal lands should be prioritized where visitation is high and federal maintenance capacity is limited; staff noted past examples where state grants filled gaps in federal stewardship and suggested compiling a targeted report for lawmakers.
- Accessibility and program partnerships: Committee members pressed applicants to include ADA features and to identify program partners (bike co‑ops, adaptive recreation groups, schools) that will use the facilities. Several larger applicants were asked to supply letters showing program commitments and anticipated operating or insurance plans.

Regional asset presentations and next steps
Later in the afternoon the committee heard five regional asset presentations. Presenters described how proposed multi‑year projects would serve both residents and visitors: an expanded Midway ice‑skating and year‑round events space; an all‑wheels bike and skills park in Grantsville; a 25‑acre Spring Creek open‑space park in Heber City with boardwalks and wetlands restoration; a multi‑phase renovation to re‑open “Snowland,” a small, community‑operated ski area that partners with schools and Snow College; and a Cottonwood Canyon trail restoration package intended to repair heavily used Salt Lake area trails.

Staff were asked to return with additional due diligence on several items before final project commitments are made: 1) whether large regional applicants (for example the small ski area) can obtain commercial insurance or other third‑party coverage before any construction dollars are disbursed; 2) for CPR projects, greater detail on long‑term maintenance budgets and community match; and 3) for trail work on federal land, an accounting of how many state dollars in recent cycles have supported federal‑land projects.

What’s next
The committee did not finalize awards for the CPR or regional asset buckets on day one. Members instructed staff to: compile outstanding clarifications (insurance, maintenance, match sources), return with an itemized list of projects that could be partially funded, and prepare a short report on state funding of projects on federal lands. The scoring committee will reconvene to finalize the larger regional asset awards once staff have collected the requested clarifications.

Ending
Committee members emphasized two policy signals for applicants: the panel favors projects that demonstrate strong local match and maintenance plans and that provide measurable regional benefit, and it will require clearer evidence where funding would be used to meet ongoing operating or insurance obligations.