At last week’s City Council meeting, Black Desert Resort presented a proposed development agreement for the Red Mountain Resort property. The concept is to redevelop the existing resort on 56.5 acres with up to 500 “visitor lodging” units managed as part of a destination resort, plus an unspecified amount of related commercial space. About 30% of the land would be preserved as open space.
- (Note: “visitor lodging” means resort rooms, villas, houses, etc., hotel/motel rooms, condo-hotel units, and short-term rentals (STRs).)
I’ve identified more than 30 issues in the draft agreement, from vague definitions and missing phasing/timing to open-space delivery and infrastructure capacity. Raising these concerns is not about opposing the project; it’s about making sure the agreement is strong, balanced, and protective of Ivins residents. Once we sign a development agreement, the City is locked into those terms, so it’s essential that we get it right up front.
My stance, and how this project fits
I’ve been outspoken in my opposition to adding more visitor lodging in Ivins, especially short-term rentals (STRs). They hurt housing affordability and create disproportionate demands on infrastructure and water, among other things.
To be fair, what’s proposed at Red Mountain is not STRs. These would be resort-managed visitor lodging units within a true destination resort with on-site management, consistent standards, guest services, and amenities. That model is far better than STRs.
That said, Ivins is becoming top-heavy in visitor lodging overall. Even resort-managed lodging strains water, traffic, public safety, and neighborhood character if it isn’t done with discipline. That’s why I’ve consistently voted against rezoning more land to allow additional visitor lodging:
So why not just say no to the Red Mountain proposal? Because the underlying resort Commercial zoning already allows visitor lodging on this property. The City cannot simply prohibit it. What we can do is insist that the development agreement truly protects Ivins and its residents.
Lock in protections or lock ourselves out
A development agreement is a legally binding contract. It provides the developer with stability and predictability, but it also binds the City for years to come. Once signed, we can’t add new protections later. That’s why we must be thorough now.
In my view, the primary purpose of a development agreement should be to protect the City and its residents. Assurances for the developer are part of the bargain, but only if they come with equally strong protections for the community.
Large-scale, multi-year projects like this one affect Ivins in profound and lasting ways. That’s why these agreements must be held to a higher standard than the more routine agreements we approve for smaller subdivisions.
In my opinion, past large-scale development agreements in Ivins have not gone far enough. They left out critical issues which has limited the City’s ability to respond when problems surfaced later. We can’t afford to repeat that here.
What this agreement should do
My intent in raising concerns is not to oppose the project, but to make sure the agreement is as strong and balanced as it needs to be. A development agreement for a project of this complexity and scale should do two things at once:
- Protect the community: reflect our General Plan, safeguard the character of Ivins, give residents confidence that their quality of life is protected, and avoid surprises.
- Provide the developer stability: ensure predictability so they can pursue what will hopefully be a very successful and profitable investment.
Those are different objectives, and it’s the City’s role to make sure the community’s interests are fully protected. By addressing issues now, we can avoid conflicts later and ensure this project proceeds in a way that benefits both the developer and, most importantly, Ivins residents.
The bigger picture
Today Ivins has about 1,000 visitor lodging units in operation. With zoning already in place on other parcels, that number could eventually grow to around 3,000 units. That’s a massive increase.
We’ve already succeeded in making Ivins a resort destination community. But if we’re not careful, we risk letting tourism crowd out what residents value most: the small-town character that makes Ivins special.
Moving forward
I will continue to oppose expanding STRs or adding more visitor lodging to new areas of Ivins. That’s why I fought for restrictions on a rezone to Resort Commercial off of Highway 91 (successfully) and voted against a rezone to Resort Commercial on Kwavasa near Kayenta Parkway (unsuccessfully).
But with Red Mountain Resort, the zoning is already in place. That means our decision now is not about whether visitor lodging is allowed, it already is, but whether we secure an agreement that truly protects our residents.
The developer is seeking long-term stability for what they hope will be a very profitable investment. The City should seek the same stability for its residents:
- Clarity on what’s being built,
- Certainty on timing and phasing,
- Commitments on usable open space and amenities, and
- Accountability for infrastructure, blasting, noise, and traffic impacts.
This is our chance to put strong guardrails in place. If we do it right, Ivins can welcome a well-managed destination resort without sacrificing the quality of life that makes our city unique.