The big news this week is that Summit County was awarded $40 million grant from the Federal Forest Legacy Program for the purchase of the 910 Cattle Ranch property along East Canyon Creek. They struck a deal to buy the 8,700 acre ranch back in August of last year. The deal was an option to purchase for $55 million, with interest and interim lease payments due until closing.
At the time, I was more than a little puzzled. The voters had approved $50 million in open space bonds, with at least the tacit understanding that it would be spent acquiring land in the Kamas meadow. They made a deal to purchase the Ure Ranch, which was a great beginning. That also cost $25 million. So add on the 910 deal, which isn’t in the assumed target area, and they had spent $80 million out of the $50 million bond money.
I’m not great at math, but that seemed to be a bit of a problem, leaving a $30 million hole to fill. Both deals were structured to allow some time to figure out how to pay for land — the Ure Ranch is still under an option, with the closing yet to come.
I thought they were nuts. But the county was successful in winning a very big grant that covered the shortfall and then some. County Council members have been quick to give the credit for the successful grant application to Jess Kirby, the county’s open lands manager.
Summit Land Conservancy has also come up with a $22 million grant that can cover part of the Ure Ranch acquisition and other lands critical for watershed protection.
The result is that they have leveraged the bond money into about double what the taxpayers are on the hook for. Pretty good return on the investment. I wonder if they would manage my IRA account.
The acquisitions take big swaths of potentially developable land off the table. The Ure Ranch has had a number of development proposals through the years. Some of it is hidden and not necessarily high value conservation land. Other parts of it are critical watershed, and letting development happen on that portion would open the floodgate. Kamas Valley would look like Snyderville in a matter of a couple of years.
The 910 property is mostly steep enough to protect itself. It’s too low for skiing, too steep for subdividing at any density, and with the exception of the areas along the creek and road, it was less threatened. But conserving both is a good move.
The long-term plan on them is still to be determined. They are very different properties and will take very different kinds of management. It is a mistake to assume that open space just sits there. Both will take active management. We’ve all seen the mayhem on the Forest Service and BLM lands, where despite big federal agencies having exhaustive plans and enforcement powers, the land gets trampled and abused.
Park City’s experience with Bonanza Flat is similar — the management of that seems to be a bigger job than anticipated. In the case of Bonanza Flat, the users recreating there generally aren’t the Park City taxpayers who paid for it, either. The 910’s proximity to a million people in Salt Lake is a threat.
And that all gets back to an issue I raised with all of these purchases when they were first announced: Is Summit County (and in the case of Bonanza Flat, Park City) the right entity to be holding and managing these properties? They don’t fit a normal local government soccer-field/rodeo grounds/park model. Would it be better if Bonanza Flat were sold to the State Parks Division, and the 910 Ranch came under State Parks or Wildlife Resources? It depends a lot on what the management goals and plans are.
The mountain biker in me would love to see a trail system covering the 910, which immediately would become a regional attraction and demand trailheads, parking lots and aggressive (and expensive) maintenance and management.
The conservationist in me thinks it would be great if it stayed off limits as it has been since the Jeremy family acquired it in the 1890s. It’s been private and unmolested through all those years, other than grazing. Maybe that’s the best use for it — leaving it alone.
The rancher in me sees some practicality in grazing it to reduce fire danger rather than letting the grass get waist high and tinder dry, waiting for a lightning strike in August.
There are a lot of options, and at about 13 square miles, there probably are ways to accommodate a lot of competing interests and still protect it.
Congratulations to the county for getting the deal to work. I suspect the hard part lies ahead of us, and hope they will take the time and thought to clearly define the goals and how to get there, including engaging with other agencies with relevant experience in managing similar land.
Meanwhile, I received notice that this is National Mailbox Improvement Week and will plan appropriate observances. Mine could use some improvement like pounding out the snowplow damage, or possibly even replacing it after years of rust have destroyed the hinges. So enjoy the festivities, and let your letter carrier know you appreciate them.
Tom Clyde practiced law in Park City for many years. He lives on a working ranch in Woodland and has been writing this column since 1986.