By Vince Phillips
In the first two parts of this series, I summarized the core facts and governance issues detailed in then-City Attorney Ben Kahn’s 61-page internal memorandum of December 31, 2016. That document highlighted serious TABOR risks stemming from the City’s heavy control over the Salida Natural Resource Center Development Corporation (NRCDC, also referred to as SNRCDC).What followed is now part of the public record.
After the City’s 2016 divestiture resolutions severed direct control, the NRCDC operated as an independent nonprofit for about two years. In December 2018, its board voted unanimously (Resolution 2018-01) to return the entit, along with its remaining assets and liabilitie, to the City of Salida. City Council accepted the return via Resolution 2018-53.
At the time, the board described the move as delivering Salida residents “nearly 100 acres of city land, now owned free and clear” for the benefit of the community. The board had sold portions of the Vandaveer Ranch property, including the U.S. Forest Service building and approximately 48.5 acres. Proceeds retired the outstanding debt (reported at the time as more than $4 million owed to High Country Bank). What remained was transferred back to the City. This is the outcome many residents recall: a volunteer board that “saved the land,” paid off the mortgage, and handed back roughly 100 acres debt-free.
A fuller picture, however, requires examining the entire financial journey documented in Kahn’s memo and subsequent public records. In 2009, the City had already paid off the original owner-carry note by drawing down reserves, $760,000 from the water reserve fund and $1,671,999 from the general reserve fund, leaving those accounts severely depleted.
The memo notes that the total cost of the original Vandaveer Ranch transaction (principal plus interest) reached approximately $3,651,358 by the 2009 payoff.Between 2009 and 2018, the City (and later the NRCDC) absorbed significant holding costs, interest, legal expenses, and operational burdens while the property remained encumbered. The Forest Service building was sold.
Yet specific details on individual parcel sales, net proceeds versus carrying costs, and the precise financial impact on Salida taxpayers have never been compiled into a single comprehensive public accounting, despite repeated requests.
Some of the land returned to the City includes floodplain areas or other less developable parcels. Whether Salida taxpayers ultimately broke even, or absorbed net losses, over the 14-year saga remains unanswered in the public record. These are not abstract historical details. They matter today. The City is once again the landowner and lead developer at South Ark, the same former Vandaveer Ranch property.
Current council members and staff, many of whom were not involved in the 2009–2018 period, are now pursuing infrastructure grants, seeking private development partners, and making land-use decisions on this site. The 2016 Kahn memo and the documented outcomes that followed illustrate recurring risks when the City assumes multiple roles: regulator, financier, landowner, and developer. TABOR compliance, conflict-of-interest concerns, transparency, and accurate long-term cost accounting, the very issues Kahn analyzed, remain relevant at South Ark.
No one claims the current effort mirrors the 2009–2016 period exactly. But history shows that when the City pursues large-scale development on this property without full transparency and rigorous financial safeguards, the costs, direct and indirect, fall on Salida taxpayers. The Kahn memorandum was never released publicly when written.
Today’s residents and elected officials deserve the full story of the NRCDC era, not just the version known to a handful of insiders. This series aims to provide that documented history so current leaders can avoid repeating the same structural and financial challenges. South Ark is too important, and the stakes for Salida taxpayers too high, to proceed without it.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 