The Summit County Council, meeting last Wednesday in Kamas, heard from another audience supporting the $50 million open space bond on the November ballot.
Council members answered questions and talked about the opportunities possible with the bond.
The council meeting, at the South Summit Services Building in Kamas, drew some 30 to 40 people.
The county’s chief financial officer, Matt Leavitt, talked about the bond’s residential costs, in particular for properties in South Summit. He said the price tag would be $30 annually for a primary residence of $450--460,000.
Some Kamas-area residents have asked if the council can promise that bond proceeds will be spent in that region.
County Council Chair Glenn Wright answered, “absolutely not.” He said it’s a county-wide bond. But Wright told KPCW that the council is focused on preserving east side open space. And in particular it understands that the Kamas Valley is important for both sides of the county.
“The meadows there, the banks of the Weber River are particularly vulnerable places. We had a major issue in front of us in preserving water quality. Everybody in the county gets water from that watershed. The folks on the East Side get it directly through their local water systems in the towns or if they’re in the unincorporated county, from various wells and distribution systems. But everybody on the west side of the county gets some of their water, at least, from the Rockport Reservoir. And we need to maintain that water quality.”
Responding to other questions, Wright said the bond is not permanent, but would be paid off, likely, over 20 years.
A resident asked, if the bond proceeds purchase a conservation easement on a property—that is, buys the development rights off the land—what happens to that entitlement? Wright said it is just extinguished.
Another citizen suggested if the county preserves property as open space, the county loses the tax value that would have resulted if the land had been developed as residential. But Council Member Doug Clyde responded that the county’s expenses also would have increased to service the property.
Nine people spoke at the hearing. Among the comments, David Darcy said that for farmers and ranchers, their land is their retirement. He said the bond gives them the chance to continue in agriculture but sell off their development value.
“It would be a way to be able to hopefully keep that farmer, keep that rancher, to be able to graze his cattle, raise hay, be able to keep it in the family, and have it locked up. And for me that is good enough to be able to come over 248 and look out over the valley and see cows and hay in the heart of the valley. It’s what makes this valley special is that agricultural component. And a lot of people come here for it.
Natalie Souza said plans to purchase land should give priority to land with a greater ecological value.
“Like, we have some fields that are just a field. And we have some that are really vital to certain habitats of frogs, or maybe it’s a migration pattern, whatever. And so my thing would be how are you gonna rate these parcels to make sure that what we do bond for, and what we do want to purchase and conserve does have that value. We want to preserve wetlands, but we don’t want to preserve something that’s just a man-made swamp.”
Glenn Wright said the bond is important given the population growth and the change the county has seen over 50 years.
“ West side is now pretty much built out. Most of that growth is going to go to the east side of the county. It’s important for all of us to understand how that growth is managed. And developing open spaces and concentrating development in the existing towns, close to those towns, has got to be part of our planning effort. And you can’t do it if you don’t have a method of acquiring open space.”
Summit County Council Chair Glenn Wright.
