Wasatch County representatives and staff for Gov. Spencer Cox made headway on Friday to resolve issues surrounding development in the Wasatch Back. A recent clash led the state to threaten withholding funding from Wasatch County.
Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau and County Councilor Erik Rowland sat down with representatives including Steve Waldrip, senior adviser for housing strategy on the governor’s staff, and Laura Hanson, senior advisor for long-range planning on the governor’s staff.
“They kind of came out and acknowledged the flaws in their original approach. But, ultimately, I think it was a misunderstanding, and really the county and I think the Governor’s Office really does want the same thing, and that is genuinely affordable housing for residents,” Grabau said.
County officials heard wind of the threat on Aug. 18, after Waldrip shared a message from Cox with the Heber City Council. Waldrip said that the county’s funding was then “at risk” and added that Summit and Wasatch counties openly “declared war” on the state over growth issues.
Grabau and Rowland said they were confused by the message’s tone and delivery at a City Council meeting rather than a County Council one.
The message came after Wasatch County decided not to work with Philo Development on a legislative development agreement that would have allowed the developer to build 144 lots on 740 acres owned by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, or SITLA. Current zoning would allow up to one unit per 160 acres.
Rowland said much of the discussion revolved around SITLA.
“Just helping them understand our viewpoint, why we are so concerned with what they’re trying to do in this piece with this property,” Rowland said.
He added that the location, slope, lack of utilities, lack of infrastructure and remoteness make it a poor candidate for affordable housing development. He sought to understand SITLA’s goal: Are developers seeking to extract value from the land or pursue affordable housing?
“We’re getting different messages,” Rowland said. “If we want to help find a better solution, we need to know what (their) ultimate objective is.”
Grabau said one suggestion was to pursue clustered development that falls within current zoning standards. Building out eight units that are “small and affordable” while leaving the rest of the land to conservation easements, Grabau said, is a plausible solution.
“Others were kind of more creative solutions that would include things like property exchanges or transfer of development rights … things like that, that might make affordable housing more achievable,” Grabau said.
Grabau and Rowland said their main goal for the meeting was to correct misconceptions that the Governor’s Office might have had. As representatives of Wasatch County, however, they sought to shore up their defense against preliminary municipalities.
Waldrip’s threat to withhold funding also followed Wasatch County’s efforts to join forces with Summit County 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.
Grabau said the county is not backing down.
“We were able to share the basis of our concerns with that,” Grabau said.
Those concerns center around the county’s perception that its power is usurped by the state’s approval of preliminary municipalities. Right now, one preliminary municipality known as Wasatch Highlands is under review by the state Lieutenant Governor’s Office.
Grabau said previously that the pilot program launched with S.B. 258 is “not working” in favor of counties like Summit and Wasatch. Grabau and Rowland expressed their concerns about preliminary municipalities with Cox’s staff.
The County Council is still seeking a full repeal of the law.
“And kind of going back to the drawing board in terms of future solutions that address the state’s priorities,” Grabau said. “We’re hopeful that this actually gives us more say than what we otherwise would have had.”
Rowland said Cox’s staff admitted S.B. 258 was a “problematic bill.”
Meanwhile, Rowland said Wasatch County is looking to join a Southern Utah lawsuit out against S.B. 258. Two advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in February in Utah’s 7th Judicial District Court to overturn the preliminary municipality law. That stemmed from the proposed Echo Canyon development near Moab.
“We’re going to actually join our files along with them, just to show support,” Rowland said.
Grabau and Rowland said the discussion with Cox’s staff was productive. Both emphasized that the county values working relationships with the state. In a post on social media, Rowland wrote that, regardless, the county “will not change its position on local decisions based on a threat.”
“Today’s conversation did not change that,” Rowland wrote.
The Wasatch Record has not yet received a comment from Waldrip regarding the funding threat or Friday’s meeting.
Wasatch County will continue to discuss its resolution opposing S.B. 258 in future meetings. Rowland encouraged residents with questions about S.B. 258 to ask them directly to the state.