Wasatch County takes aim at ‘developer town’ law after state funding warning

The Wasatch County Administration Building in Heber City. The County Council passed a resolution Sept. 2 calling on Utah lawmakers to repeal the state’s preliminary municipality law. Photo: Go Heber Valley

Council action comes weeks after Gov. Spencer Cox’s housing adviser criticized Wasatch and Summit counties for opposing the state-created development process

WASATCH COUNTY, Utah — Wasatch County is asking the Utah Legislature to repeal the state’s preliminary municipality law, escalating a dispute over development and local land-use authority that has increasingly involved neighboring Summit County.

View this post on Instagram

The Wasatch County Council passed Resolution 26-11 on Sept. 2 calling for lawmakers to repeal changes adopted through SB 258 in 2024 and terminate the preliminary municipality pilot program. The county released the resolution alongside a five-page report outlining structural problems with the law.

The action comes less than three weeks after Steve Waldrip, Gov. Spencer Cox’s senior adviser for housing strategy and innovation, criticized Wasatch County during an Aug. 18 Heber City Council meeting for opposing the state’s preliminary municipality process.

As TownLift previously reported, Waldrip accused Wasatch County of working “in concert with Summit County to thwart state law relative to development” and warned that county funding was “at risk.” TownLift found no evidence that either county had violated the preliminary municipality law, and Summit County said it had received no formal notice that funding had been suspended.

Wasatch County’s new resolution moves that disagreement a step further by directly asking lawmakers to eliminate the program.

The Legislature created the preliminary municipality pilot program through SB 258 in 2024. The law allows qualifying landowners to seek creation of a preliminary municipality as a step toward developing an area and eventually incorporating it as a town. The process includes a feasibility study, public hearing, and bond requirement, and the lieutenant governor’s office administers it.

Under the law, qualifying property must be contiguous and, at the time of the feasibility request, owned by no more than three consenting owners, with at least half of the area undeveloped.

Wasatch County says its experience reviewing an active preliminary municipality application exposed five fundamental problems with the program.

Its report argues that the law does not adequately account for regional transportation, wastewater, and other infrastructure impacts, putting counties and residents at risk if growth outpaces services. It also says the law does not sufficiently ensure affordable housing requirements will be met; creates conflicts in regulatory oversight; relies on feasibility studies that may not determine whether a proposed development can actually be built as envisioned; and leaves counties exposed if a project fails.

“The County’s direct experience administering an active preliminary municipality application has surfaced five structural problems the Legislature should address,” the report states.

The county recommends repealing the preliminary municipality statute and convening a new stakeholder process involving counties, municipalities, service districts and developers to address those stakes directly.

The active Wasatch County proposal is Wasatch Highlands. The lieutenant governor’s office identifies Greg Whitehead as its designated sponsor. The feasibility request was filed Jan. 1. Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson certified the request Feb. 13 for further review.

A Utah Population Committee review released in February found the proposed Wasatch Highlands preliminary municipality met statutory population, density, and contiguity requirements. The review estimated a population of 2,205 at full buildout.

Wasatch County’s report does not name Wasatch Highlands in its detailed findings, but says an active application and a draft feasibility study informed its concerns. The county says those concerns reflect broader flaws in the statute.

The same state process has also surfaced in Summit County.

TownLift reported earlier this year that the lieutenant governor’s office did not accept a request to create a preliminary municipality called Lost Creek in Browns Canyon because two preliminary municipality feasibility requests had already been filed statewide that calendar year, the maximum allowed under the law.

The Browns Canyon proposal has continued through Summit County’s land-use process. TownLift has reported that Ivory Development and Garff Rogers Ranches LLC are seeking a new Lost Creek Community Zone that could ultimately accommodate roughly 2,200 to just over 3,000 housing units, depending on the final proposal.

Those disputes have placed Wasatch and Summit counties on the same side of a broader debate over how much authority the state should give landowners to create new communities outside traditional county land-use processes.

Summit County Councilor Canice Harte told TownLift last month that concerns about preliminary municipalities are not limited to the Wasatch Back.

“Several counties and cities across the state have raised similar questions about how the tool affects local land-use authority,” Harte said.

Wasatch County is asking the Legislature to answer those questions by starting over.

In its recommendation, the county argues that because the law was created as a pilot program, its experience should be treated as evidence that the framework needs reconsideration.

“Repeal is consistent with that intent rather than a departure from it,” the county report states.