Utah Openlands briefs Midway council on land‑conservation process, $16.5 million RCPP funds and local projects

Wendy Fisher, executive director of Utah Openlands, outlined how the nonprofit pairs federal, county and local funding to conserve farm and open land in the Midway area and described procedural, appraisal and water‑rights hurdles that affect timing and costs.

Fisher told the Midway City Council at a work session that Utah Openlands obtained a $16,500,000 award through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) and is identifying preselected projects in and around Midway that could be eligible for those funds.

The RCPP award and other federal programs, Fisher said, can be combined with local bond or county funding and private donations, but each funding source has its own requirements and matching rules that affect what language must appear in conservation easements and what portion of a project a landowner must contribute.

Why it matters: The RCPP grant and related programs could substantially reduce the cost to landowners and local governments for conserving farmland and open space in the “Northfields” area and other Midway properties. But Fisher warned that federal review, appraisal timing and deed language can stretch deals to 18 months or longer and raise costs.

Key funding rules and timelines

Fisher summarized several federal programs and their typical match requirements: NRCS’s Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) for farmland typically requires a 50% match when used for easements; NRCS funds for “grasslands of special significance” can cover up to 75% of an easement’s value, leaving a smaller match for landowners or local partners. Fisher said some private or foundation funds likewise want evidence that other sources are committed before awarding grants.

She emphasized that local bond funds give Midway an advantage in competitive grant applications because many funders look for demonstrated local commitment. “You guys as a city council oftentimes find yourself as the first knock,” Fisher said, describing the city’s role in pledging or committing matching funds early in the process.

Appraisals, timing and valuation

Fisher described the typical sequence for a bargain sale or purchase‑of‑easement transaction: a letter of intent, market analysis, appraisal(s), a purchase and sale agreement that identifies water rights and easement terms, then final closing and recording. She said conservation‑easement appraisals are specialized and costly, with values that can change over the 18‑month to three‑year window required to complete federal reviews.

She noted a specific appraisal timing rule: an appraisal done within 60 days before recordation of a donation does not meet IRS timing requirements for tax deductions, which adds complexity when deals take many months. Fisher also said NRCS frequently reviews easement language before it will finalize appraisal review, meaning a fair amount of drafting and negotiation happens up front.

Landowner contributions and valuation

Fisher explained the appraisal concept that determines easement value: an appraiser compares the fair‑market fee value (the property value without restrictions) with the restricted value (after easement terms are applied). The difference is the easement’s value. She said landowners are often asked to provide a contribution — commonly 25% — both to show “skin in the game” and to improve competitiveness for certain grant programs. That percentage is not fixed; Fisher said it sometimes is less or more depending on the project.

She cautioned that market fluctuations can leave landowners contributing more than initially expected if the final appraised value differs from the preliminary estimate used in grant applications.

Water rights, title and baseline documentation

Fisher told council members that water rights require careful attention in Midway and Wasatch County because many properties have water shares or certificates rather than discrete, transferred rights. She said Utah Openlands does not want to hold or exercise the water rights itself, and instead seeks deed and easement language that keeps water shares with the land and preserves beneficial use by the farmer.

She described possible steps to protect water shares, such as recording notices with irrigation companies so the conservation easement and the easement holder are on the title or company records. Fisher said the organization will continue to monitor changes in state practice and recommended ongoing legal diligence.

Project pipeline and local commitments

Fisher listed several Midway‑area projects that Utah Openlands included in the RCPP application as preselected or early candidates for funding. She described the application as covering an area commonly called the Northfields and said the list is not exclusive; landowners may opt out or new projects can be added:

- Holmes Dairy (Northfields; the organization submitted an application that separates the dairy operation from an adjacent parcel). Wasatch County committed $1,000,000 to the dairy project, Fisher said. - Pear Tree property (Gerald and Katie White): Wasatch County committed $750,000 and Utah Openlands has NRCS funding approval for that project, Fisher said, and the nonprofit expects to ask the Midway council for city funding in the near term. - Christian Mitchell (Mitchell‑Kissel) property and several other parcels in the “heart of Midway” that previously received $250,000 from Midway’s open‑space fund. - Additional preselected parcels mentioned included Kohler properties, the Giles property in the Northfields, Kem Gardner’s Snake Creek parcel, and the Horner River Ranch area near River Ranch; acreage varied by parcel and some ownership and settlement matters remain in progress.

Fisher said the RCPP award covers multiple properties across the mapped region and does not itself change zoning or prevent owners from pursuing development; it simply recognizes conservation values and can provide funding if landowners and local partners move forward.

Stewardship and enforcement

Fisher described the land trust’s ongoing monitoring and enforcement obligations: Utah Openlands maintains a stewardship fund to monitor properties, sends monitoring reports to co‑holders, and has insurance and legal resources to defend easements, including if condemnation becomes an issue. “We have a stewardship fund that is set aside that we can only use to go out and monitor the properties,” Fisher said. She invited the city to participate as a co‑holder and receive monitoring reports and enforcement rights where the city is a co‑holder.

Council questions and next steps

Council members asked about competitiveness for RCPP funds and how often projects that apply are awarded grants; Fisher said RCPP is competitive and that Utah Openlands was the only RCPP awardee in Utah in its round. When asked about the competitive ratio, she estimated roughly $42 million in requests for about $10 million in funding in one round, stressing that competitiveness varies by program.

Fisher asked the council to consider a graduated approval process — for example, a tentative or conditional city commitment early in a project, with a final approval to follow after appraisals, easement drafting and other due diligence are complete. She said that approach can help match the timing and requirements of federal funders while limiting the city’s need to spend or pledge funds before key legal and valuation steps are complete.

Ending

Fisher closed by urging patience with the multi‑step process and reiterated that combining local bond funds, county commitments and federal grants can make conservation projects feasible for landowners. The council recessed for five minutes after the presentation.