Open Space Bond generates a mix of opinions by advocates, critics

CACHE COUNTY — The ballot proposition that is generating controversy here in Cache County is the Open Space Bond Issue.

The publication of a county mailer explaining Proposition 1 on the ballot in early October touched off a flurry of letters to the editor with pro and con views on the so-called Open Space Bond.

Most of the criticism of the proposed $20 million Open Space Bond issue centers on uncertainty about the cost of the initiative and how the funds will be administered in the future.

The Open Space Bond is the brainchild of former North Logan mayor Jack Draxler, entrepreneur Eric Eliason and Utah State University professor Steve Daniels, along with the members of an ad hoc committee who share their vision of the need to provide a legacy of open spaces in Cache County for future generations.

But those committee members aren’t alone.

Draxler reports that the idea of the Open Space Bond is supported by the Cache County Farm Bureau; the Nature Conservancy; Valley Implement; the Cache Trails Alliance; the Stokes Nature Center; the Bear River Land Conservancy; and, the Bridgerland Audubon Society.

Proposition 1, they contend, will establish a fund to protect scenic vistas; preserve open lands near valley gateways; add trails and trail connectivity; and, maintain agriculture, waterways and wildlife habitat.

Critics say that sounds like a pretty ambitious goal for only $20 million.

One of the few things that Cache County Executive David Zook and Cache County Council Vice Chair Paul Borup agree on is that $20 million will be a “drop in the bucket” when it comes to funding open space land acquisition.

Eliason also agrees, but discussed ways that the $20 million generated by the proposed bond issue could be used as matching funds to bring other dollars into play in a previous radio interview.

If the bond issue passes, he hopes for subsequent donations of land and money from individuals and non-profits groups as well as money from the state and federal government.

“Twenty million is only going to go so far …” Eliason acknowledged. But the entrepreneur added that there are state and federal matching funds set aside for land acquisition that Cache County normally isn’t eligible to receive because the county has no seed money.

“Some of this could be leveraged at three-to-one or even six-to-one,” he explained.

Its advocates say that the cost of the bond issue in additional property taxes will equal to a “milkshake a month,” which sound too good to be true.

But the county mailer stated that an annual property tax increase sufficient to pay the debt service on the $20 million bond issue over a period of 20 years is estimated at $26.85 for a $429,000 primary residence and $45.52 on a commercial property of the same value.

Draxler and his committee admit, however, that information is only an estimate and is not a limit on the amount of taxes that Cache County may be required to levy to pay the debt service on the bond issue.

As to management of the funds generated by the bond issue, its supporters say that a critical aspect of the program is the formation of an Open Space Board to develop and administer the program.

That volunteer board is seen as being similar to the one that evaluates requests for Restaurant/Recreation, Arts, Parks and Zoos tax grants for the county.

That means that its members will be selected by the County Council and will develop selection criteria, review proposals and make recommendations to the County Council, who will make the final decisions on projects to be undertaken.

The idea of a Cache Valley open space bond has been kicking around for years, Zook explained at a forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters in early October.

A similar proposal made it to the county ballot in 2008, but was defeated by voters made edgy by the housing market collapse and recession that year.

The idea resurfaced in 2020 at the same time as the coronavirus outbreak, leaving its local advocates certain that the time wasn’t ripe in the midst of that emergency.

But Zook, Draxler, Eliason and others agreed that the time was ripe now, particularly in the wake of recent polling that revealed strong support for open spaces.

Growth and change in Cache Valley is inevitable, according to Draxler, who insists that the Open Space Bond isn’t anti-growth or in opposition to development.

“The goal of this program,” he explains, “is to ensure that special lands will be our legacy even as growth occurs.”

The Open Space Bond issue is Proposition 1 on the mail-in ballots that were delivered to Cache County residents last week.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!

4 Comments

  • JimG October 24, 2022 at 2:12 pm Reply

    If the public pays for the land, then the public should own the land. This proposal would funnel money to private landowners (chosen by the appointed board) who were willing to take public money in order to not develop their land. They retain full ownership, with limitations on full development. Not a fair shake on this one for the taxpayer, but a huge cash bonus for a private land owner who has open space and can convince the board that they’d be happy to take the money. If taxpayers want open space, then we should develop a different structure to shift the ownership to a public entity and also put the conservation easement on the land. The current open space proposal is basically a money grab by connected private land owners who already own large swaths of land that the rest of us can’t afford.

  • Fred S October 24, 2022 at 2:25 pm Reply

    Taxes only go up. This one will be no exception.

  • Tom P October 25, 2022 at 7:10 am Reply

    Rich get richer on the backs of the rest of us. Bad idea

  • Abe Lincoln October 25, 2022 at 11:53 am Reply

    A great example of this type of deal is Zollinger’s Tree Farm. The conservation easement was purchased on the property about 15 years ago. This is a business that also serves to provide beautiful open space. This type of land is often owned by farmers, and then when they pass the property on to their kids, the kids don’t want to work the land so end up selling to developers who probably get millions of dollars in tax breaks from the ciites or county as incentives to develop. The owners will still get their money, and the county will still give away tax money. But when we’re done with it, the conservation easement exists instead of the land being developed.

    Many different charitable entities contributed to purchasing the conservation easement on the Zollinger property. The development rights were sold to the public. Now if the next generation of Zollingers don’t want to run the tree business, they should have an easier time finding another buyer who is willing to do so, since they will be able to afford it. The family has gotten the money they would have made by selling to developers, and the next generation of owners can afford to purchase it since the use restrictions keep the price low. It really is a win-win.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I agree to these terms.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.