Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Scr12 Trappers Loop topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House urges Forest Service to reconsider 1,320‑acre land swap for Snowbasin development
Summary
The House passed a concurrent resolution urging the U.S. Forest Service to reconsider its decision and approve a 1,320‑acre land swap to permit development at Snowbasin for a potential world‑class ski resort; record shows strong local government and tourism support, and the resolution passed 65‑1.
The Utah House on Feb. 19, 1990, adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 urging the U.S. Forest Service to reconsider an initial trade decision related to the Snowbasin/Trappers Loop area.
Representative Holmes told colleagues the resolution reflects local and regional support — including the Weber County Commission and chamber of commerce — for a 1,320‑acre swap necessary for the owner to develop a north‑facing slope at Snowbasin into a destination resort. Holmes said the prospective developer, identified in debate as Earl Holding, had indicated he would not seek state incentives but needed the land swap to proceed.
Holmes said the Forest Service’s initial offer of roughly 220 acres was inadequate for development; the resolution asks the governor and the Legislature to urge the Forest Service to reconsider the larger trade. Supporters emphasized potential economic benefits, citing possible increases in sales, income and property taxes and noting Snowbasin’s selection as an Olympic downhill venue if Utah hosts the Games.
Representative Fuller and others added that local infrastructure (citing the Trappers Loop and Darlington Valley road connections) had been planned or funded with the expectation of broader resort development and argued the swap would preserve the state’s investment and economic opportunity.
The resolution passed the House by voice and recorded vote: SCR 12 received 65 affirmative and 1 negative vote and will be transmitted to the Senate and, if agreed, forwarded to the Governor.
The resolution itself is an expression of legislative support and does not change federal land‑management law or bind the Forest Service; it requests reconsideration and expresses the Legislature’s position in favor of a larger trade.
