Inside the Effort to Bring a New Public Ski Area to Utah

Utah is home to some of the best skiing in the world, but rising lift ticket prices and growing crowds are making the sport increasingly difficult for many residents to afford. Now, a grassroots effort is exploring whether a new publicly owned ski area could help address the problem.

The Utah Public Ski Area Coalition (UPSAC), founded by lifelong Utah resident Clint Richins, is working to determine whether a resident-focused ski area could operate in Utah. The proposal would prioritize affordable skiing and snowboarding over luxury amenities, with the goal of making the sport more accessible to Utah families.

• Related: Grassroots Effort Underway to Bring New Public Ski Area to Utah in the Northern Wasatch

The coalition is not ready to build a resort. Its immediate goal is to secure funding for an independent feasibility study that would determine whether the idea is practical, financially sustainable, and worth pursuing.

“It started 7-8 years ago,” Clint Richins, a lifelong Utahn who is leading the coalition, said when asked how this idea started in a Zoom interview with SnowBrains. “My entire life, people have complained about lift ticket prices. I was fortunate to work all summer as a kid to afford skiing, but the past couple of years there have been issues with skiing, and those are price and crowds, and those lead to difficult consequences. I always come back to those two problems, and it’s a catch-22 where if you increase the price and the crowds go down, but then fewer people can participate, and that has some very negative consequences for youth and people who can’t afford to do it. For a long time, I thought there was no solution.”

View this post on Instagram

A Supply and Demand Problem

Richins believes Utah’s growing population and relatively unchanged number of ski areas have contributed to the problem.

According to UPSAC’s research, Utah’s skier visits have increased approximately 117% since 1990, while the number of ski resorts has grown by only about 7%. The state went from roughly 3 million annual skier visits to 6.5 million, while the number of resorts increased from 14 to 15. “Utah ski supply has not changed significantly in the last 30 years while demand has doubled if you go off of population,” Richins said. “So it’s a supply and demand problem.”

The coalition also points to the rising cost of lift tickets as evidence that skiing is becoming less accessible. Its research estimates that Deer Valley’s peak single-day ticket price has risen from roughly $67 in 2002 to as much as $329 today. Adjusted for inflation, that original price would be approximately $121.

For Richins, the issue goes beyond the cost of a day on the mountain. He worries that high prices are preventing young people and lower-income families from participating in skiing, potentially making the sport less accessible to future generations.

With Utah preparing to host the 2034 Winter Olympics, he believes the state has an opportunity to address that problem.

“The Olympics are coming, and the Olympics are supposed to be a celebration of who we are as a state and what we have to offer,” Richins said. “If our youth don’t have access to be able to participate in skiing, how can they own the Olympics and feel part of it? Imagine if the World Cup was held in Utah but kids couldn’t afford to play soccer or didn’t have access; that is a major travesty.”

• Related: Utah Unveils ‘Utah 2034’ Olympic Logo—And Opinions Are Divided

Why Not Just Let the Private Sector Build It?

Richins believes traditional private resort development is unlikely to solve the affordability problem because private companies have different financial priorities.

Building a ski area requires substantial upfront investment in lifts, roads, facilities, utilities, and other infrastructure. Investors generally want returns that justify that expense, creating incentives to attract customers who can spend more on lift tickets, lodging, food, and other amenities.

“Private organizations are not going to build a ski area for the average Joe,” Richins stated. “Their operating model allows them to get revenue from medium- to high-income individuals with flexible schedules and pay more money for hotel, lodging, and food. I realized that building a new ski area needs massive amounts of upfront investment, and you’re not going to see a significant return compared to other investments. There are just better things you could do with your money. So it really comes down to what is the core mission of the ski area? You can run a self-sustained ski area and make a profit. Bridger Bowl, Montana, is a great example. So it’s a bad investment for a private organization, but for a mission-driven organization whose main objective is to get people outside, you can manage it. So that’s the question I want to explore.”

UPSAC wants to explore whether public funding or a nonprofit ownership model could support the initial investment while allowing the mountain to cover its operating costs over time. Richins said he believes public money can be used responsibly for a project like this, particularly if it creates lasting recreational opportunities for Utah residents.

“The state spends millions and millions on other outdoor projects,” Richins said. “This is no bigger than some of the other projects. I believe that using public money needs to be stewarded well.”

View this post on Instagram

What Would a New Utah Ski Area Look Like?

UPSAC’s existing proposal envisions a modest ski area built primarily for skiing and snowboarding, without the expensive restaurants, lodging, spas, and other amenities found at many destination resorts. The coalition’s hypothetical model emphasizes fixed grip lifts, basic food and beverage facilities, phased development, and pricing designed to favor Utah residents.

Illustrative plans for an initial phase include approximately 2,500 feet of vertical, five fixed grip quad chairlifts, and a beginner conveyor. Richins said the goal is to create a mountain that offers good skiing and room for people to progress, rather than simply building the smallest or cheapest possible ski area.

As for whether the mountain would remain uncrowded, Richins said that is not necessarily the objective. “I’m not saying there is going to be fewer crowds,” Richins said. “I’m increasing ski area supply. I’d rather have it crowded and have it self-sustaining than for a few people to get really nice powder turns every week.”

He acknowledged that demand could eventually create new challenges, but believes the priority should be expanding access to skiing. “If demand is over the top, you may have to rethink the financial model. If we get to that point, it is a good problem to have, but I don’t think that needs to be solved now. At the end of the day, I’m concerned about providing good access to the sport.”

Finding the Right Location

Choosing a suitable location will be one of the biggest challenges facing the proposal. The coalition has identified the Northern Wasatch Range as a general area of interest, but no specific site has been selected. The concept also emphasizes access that does not depend on a major canyon road.

The coalition wants a site with reliable snow, sufficient elevation to remain viable as the climate changes, quality terrain, and reasonable access for a large portion of Utah’s population. Ideally, much of the state’s population would be able to reach the ski area within 90 minutes.

Richins said the coalition is keeping potential locations confidential while it evaluates its options. “We are keeping tight-lipped on purpose,” Richins admitted. “There have been several development projects announced in the state that get significant pushback from local communities because no one wants something built in their backyards. I’ve already had people threaten me that if I try to build a ski area where they like to play, they will be waiting with a rifle.”

The coalition has several areas under consideration, but Richins emphasized that nothing has been finalized. The feasibility study would bring in outside expertise to evaluate snow conditions, elevation, slope aspect, road access, lodging needs, and other factors. The location also needs to offer terrain that works for a wide range of ability levels. A mountain that attracts beginners but gives them nowhere to progress could limit its long-term appeal.

View this post on Instagram

Environmental Concerns and Public Access

Building a new ski area would raise legitimate questions about development in Utah’s mountains, including potential effects on wildlife, water resources, forests, and surrounding communities. Richins believes those concerns must be considered alongside the potential benefits of expanding outdoor recreation. He argues that giving more people opportunities to experience the outdoors could help build a stronger constituency for protecting public lands in the future.

“The more people you get out into the outdoors, the more advocates you are going to have for public land and outside spaces in the future,” Richins said. “If we have a generation that is not getting outside, are they going to care when something gets turned into a housing development, or something else? The ski area can become a long-term public benefit that people can use for generations to come.”

That argument does not eliminate the environmental challenges associated with ski area development. Water supply, snowmaking requirements, access roads, and the impacts of construction would all need to be evaluated before a project could move forward. The coalition’s position is that these questions deserve a thorough examination rather than an assumption that a new ski area is either automatically beneficial or impossible.

The $400,000 Question

Before any construction can be considered, UPSAC needs funding for an independent feasibility study. Richins said the coalition has received estimates of approximately $400,000 for the study and has applied for funding through Utah’s Outdoor Recreation Initiative, a state grant program supporting outdoor recreation projects.

“We have quotes for about $400,000,” Richins said. “We have applied to get funding for that through the Outdoor Recreation Initiative, which is a grant program in Utah designed to fund outdoor recreation projects.”

The study would evaluate potential sites, startup costs, operating expenses, market demand, infrastructure requirements, and the possibility of running the ski area without permanent operating subsidies. It would also help determine what type of ownership and financing structure might work best.

Even a positive feasibility study would not mean construction could begin immediately. Environmental reviews, land acquisition or leasing, permitting, financing, and other approvals could still stand in the way. A site involving federal land could face a particularly lengthy approval process.

If the study finds that a full-sized ski area is not feasible, the coalition would consider other options. “If the feasibility study ends and it is determined that nothing works, we would explore the possibility of several smaller ski hills, things like rope tows, etc.,” Richins said.

For Richins, the study is valuable even if the answer is no. “The feasibility study takes something that is hypothetical and solidifies whether it is possible.”

The Goal Is to Find Out If It Can Work

Richins is careful to emphasize that UPSAC is not promising Utah a new ski resort. The coalition is trying to determine whether one can be built in a way that is financially responsible and serves the public.

He said he is open to changing the proposal based on what the research reveals and what Utah residents actually want. “I’m not married to anything in the plan,” Richins admitted. “I want to know if people want it and if it’s possible and if people want it, how do we make it possible?”

If a publicly owned ski area proves viable, it could give Utah families another option at a time when access to skiing is becoming increasingly expensive. If the idea does not work, the study could still identify smaller or alternative ways to expand access to the mountains.

Richins put the project’s purpose simply: “Success doesn’t mean a new ski area is built. It means we put some work in and gave it a shot.”

For now, the proposal remains an idea backed by research, preliminary financial modeling, and a grassroots effort to secure funding. The next step is determining whether the numbers, terrain, and public support are there to make it a reality. Whether Utah ultimately gets a new public ski area remains to be seen, but the idea raises an important question: Should skiing remain a sport that is increasingly out of reach for many families, or can Utah find a way to make it accessible to the next generation? With the 2034 Winter Olympics on the horizon, Richins hopes the state will at least give the idea a serious look. As he sees it, success is not necessarily building another mountain. It is finding out whether Utah can create a future where more kids have the chance to experience the sport that defines so much of the state’s outdoor culture.