Wasatch and Summit counties’ leaders are banding together in opposition of developer-led towns known as preliminary municipalities.
It’s a “hot button issue” in the community, Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau said at a joint meeting with Summit County on Wednesday. That’s why he suggested a partnership with Summit County to create a coalition that opposes preliminary municipalities.
“Our council’s position is they’re highly problematic,” Grabau said.
The Wasatch County Council is in opposition to Senate Bill 258, passed in 2024, which allows up to three landowners in unincorporated areas to apply for a preliminary municipality in “rural” counties. The law gives all the power and duties of a town, including zoning and land use decisions, to the preliminary municipalities.
Next week, the Wasatch County Council will consider a resolution calling for the state to repeal the law.
Grabau said he understands that the state is “trying to promote growth.”
“We feel like this is not the right way to go about that and it was an unfair balance of priorities, and we think that there are better ways to address it,” Grabau said.
If affordable housing is the goal, Grabau said, preliminary municipalities seem to worsen the problem. Wasatch Highlands is the only proposed preliminary municipality still being considered since the state rejected Bear Canyon for incorporation in July.
Phase one of the Wasatch Highlands preliminary municipality would include about 82 single-family homes, a hotel with approximately 200 rooms and approximately 100 nightly rental or glamping units spread over nearly 146 acres.
“It’s going to create excess affordable housing need,” Grabau said.
Summit County Councilor Roger Armstrong agreed.
“To create a 10% affordable housing requirement for some of these developments is disingenuous to the notion of creating affordable housing,” Armstrong said.
And it’s not just local leaders in either county who oppose preliminary municipalities. Summit County Councilor Canice Harte said area citizens are aware of the problem.
“Our citizens talk about it. It’s not just us, the people involved in planning commissions and councils and things. It’s the average citizen, knows what this is and understands the problem,” Harte said.
That’s the case for Wasatch County, too. The joint meeting on Wednesday came one month after Wallsburg residents mobilized against preliminary municipalities in their county.
Harte added that he is concerned the state may “weaponize” S.B. 258.
“Right now, it’s limited to two a year. What if they took it to 10 or 20 or some other number? This is problematic. I don’t think just for our counties either, but statewide,” Harte said.
He added it’s local government and community residents who are best at making local land use decisions, not new preliminary municipalities.
“I feel like we’re probably all united on this idea that this is a horrible idea, and it’s usurping local land use control,” Harte said.
Summit County councilors, including Harte, added that Morgan County may be apt to join the partnership with Wasatch County. There, the proposed incorporation of Nine Springs went through the feasibility study process with the state Lieutenant Governor’s Office last year.
“I think the Wasatch Back story is a better, stronger story,” Harte said.
Grabau said that preliminary municipalities come with “serious powers” that impact long-lasting consequences. To put that in the hands of as few as three developers is unwise, he said.
“The time is right to maybe pull back on some of those state-level priorities and to push for more local land use control,” Grabau said.