Utah coalition proposes publicly owned ski area as prices and crowds rise

A grassroots coalition is exploring whether Utah could build a publicly owned ski area aimed at making skiing and snowboarding more affordable for local families. The proposal, led by Logan resident Clint Richins, remains at an early feasibility stage: no site has been selected, no construction has been approved, and the coalition is seeking funding for an independent study before asking Utah to commit to a major mountain project.

The idea arrives as Utah prepares to host the 2034 Winter Olympics and confronts a familiar contradiction: the state’s international reputation for exceptional snow is growing, while many residents say the cost and congestion associated with skiing are pushing the sport further out of reach.

A response to rising costs

Richins, a 31-year-old finance and economics graduate and lifelong Utah skier and snowboarder, founded the Utah Public Ski Area Coalition, or UPSAC. He says the objective is not to create another luxury destination but to preserve skiing as a realistic activity for Utah families and children.

“What I’m trying to do is preserve ski culture in the state of Utah,” Richins told Deseret News, arguing that rising prices and crowding have led more families to abandon the sport.

The coalition’s proposal reflects wider concerns about affordability. Deseret News reported that a day ticket at Wasatch-area resorts now averages around $200, with peak prices at leading Utah mountains exceeding $350. A 2025 analysis from the University of Utah’s Eccles Institute found that occasional and beginner skiers face prices about 60% higher than in the 1990s, while the number of individual skiers has declined even as total resort visits have increased.

UPSAC’s own analysis points to the same pressure: Utah skier visits have risen substantially since 1990, while the number of resorts has barely changed. The result is heavier demand concentrated across a limited number of mountains.

A smaller, simpler mountain

The proposed ski area would be deliberately modest. Instead of competing with Utah’s established destination resorts on lodging, restaurants, spas and high-speed lift infrastructure, UPSAC says it would focus on accessible terrain and straightforward facilities.

The coalition’s illustrative first phase includes:

• A location in the Northern Wasatch, roughly 30 to 35 miles from Salt Lake City.

• A base elevation of about 7,200 feet and a summit near 9,700 feet.

• Approximately 2,500 feet of vertical drop.

• About 1,000 acres of skiable terrain.

• Five fixed-grip quad chairlifts.

• A magic carpet and a terrain-park rope tow.

• Basic food, beverage and guest facilities.

• Phased development to limit upfront costs.

The choice of fixed-grip lifts is central to the concept. They are generally less expensive to install and operate than detachable high-speed lifts, although they provide slower uphill travel and would still require major investment in foundations, access roads, snowmaking and power infrastructure.

The mountain would also ideally avoid dependence on one of the major canyon roads leading from Salt Lake City—a significant consideration in a region where winter traffic, avalanche closures and limited access routes can affect both residents and visitors.

Resident-first pricing

UPSAC’s preliminary financial model proposes an adult day ticket of $59 for Utah residents, compared with $139 for non-residents. Other modeled prices include a $30 ticket for children aged 6 to 11, a $750 resident season pass and a $1,250 non-resident season pass. These are projections, not announced prices, and would depend on the outcome of the feasibility study and any eventual public approval.

The coalition estimates that the first phase could cost approximately $83.9 million, with a full buildout reaching about $104.1 million. Its plan considers a mixture of state funding, bonds and private donations, while Richins has said he does not want the project to require a new tax.

A separate account in Powder said the proposal’s financial assumptions include a projected 110-day season and an initial target of about 80,000 skier visits. The publication reported that UPSAC believes state recreation funding could help support the feasibility phase, rather than immediately finance construction.

That distinction is important. The group is not currently asking Utah to build a resort. Its immediate goal is to fund an independent analysis of potential sites, construction costs, water and snowmaking needs, demand, environmental constraints and long-term operating viability.

State support is not guaranteed

UPSAC plans to apply for assistance through Utah’s Outdoor Recreation Initiative, which has approximately $20 million available for state recreation projects. The initiative previously helped support Snowland Ski Area, a small nonprofit hill in central Utah.

However, state officials have not endorsed the proposed mountain. Jason Curry, director of Utah’s Division of Outdoor Recreation, told Deseret News that a state-owned ski area has not been part of Utah’s long-range planning and would require support from the governor and state lawmakers.

The project would also face difficult land-use questions. Richins has identified several possible areas but has not publicly named them. Some are reportedly on U.S. Forest Service land, where a project could require environmental review and a special-use permit; private land could present different challenges, including higher acquisition costs.

Water availability, wildfire risk, habitat protection, snow reliability and transportation would all be critical tests. A high-elevation site could improve natural snow prospects, but modern ski areas also depend heavily on snowmaking—a process that requires substantial water, energy and storage infrastructure.

Public skiing has precedents

Although a publicly owned ski area would be a major departure for Utah, the model is not unprecedented in the United States. Howelsen Hill in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, dates to 1915 and is municipally owned. Other nonprofit or public-interest examples include Bogus Basin in Idaho and Bridger Bowl in Montana. Deseret News reported that at least 50 nonprofit, cooperative or municipal ski areas operate across the country.

Utah already has a small-scale example. Snowland Ski Area in Fairview Canyon opened with a rope tow and two runs and received a $1.46 million grant for parking and lift improvements. Its scale is far smaller than UPSAC’s proposed mountain, but it demonstrates how public recreation funding can support winter sports infrastructure.

Nathan Rafferty, president and chief executive of Ski Utah, expressed support for expanding access but suggested that a network of smaller local hills might be a more practical route than building a large new resort. He pointed to Snowland as a model that could introduce more families to skiing without requiring an $80 million-plus development.

That debate goes to the heart of the proposal. A major mountain could provide a meaningful alternative to crowded Wasatch resorts, but smaller hills may offer a cheaper and faster way to expand beginner access throughout the state.

The Olympic question

The timing gives the proposal added significance. Utah is preparing for the 2034 Winter Olympics, when the state will again present itself as a global winter-sports destination. Richins argues that the state should also ensure that local children can participate in the sports being showcased to the world.

The coalition says the state’s average skier is getting older, and that declining youth participation could weaken the future pipeline of athletes, instructors, patrollers and mountain communities. Its proposed resident pricing is therefore framed not only as a consumer benefit but as an investment in Utah’s winter-sports culture.

Critics, however, could question whether public money should support an expensive, weather-dependent facility when Utah already has established resorts and smaller community hills. They may also ask whether a publicly owned mountain would truly remain affordable once construction, maintenance, insurance, staffing and snowmaking costs are included.

Those are precisely the questions a feasibility study would need to answer.

From campaign to case study

For now, UPSAC is an advocacy effort rather than a development project. The coalition must first secure study funding, identify viable land, establish a governance model and demonstrate that the mountain could operate without becoming a long-term burden on taxpayers.

Richins acknowledges the ambition of the plan and says he is prepared to abandon it if the numbers do not work. “I only want to do this if it makes sense,” he told Deseret News.

That cautious approach may prove as important as the proposal itself. Utah does not yet have a publicly approved large-scale ski area project, but the discussion exposes a growing fault line in the industry: how can a state celebrated for premium mountain experiences keep skiing accessible to the people who live there?

The answer may not be a new resort. It could involve smaller municipal hills, expanded school programmes, cheaper beginner products or changes to existing pass structures. But with the 2034 Olympics on the horizon and lift-ticket prices continuing to dominate the conversation, Richins’ proposal has placed public access to Utah’s mountains firmly on the policy agenda.