Preliminary municipalities have become the latest development tool to take the Wasatch Back by storm, but county leaders and residents alike have repeatedly voiced concerns about companies’ ability to bypass local governments and push controversial proposals forward through the state. The proc ess may soon change, however, depending on a new bill working its way through the state Legislature. A preliminary municipality can transition to, and incorporate as, a town under a state law that went into effect in 2024. The law amended the Utah Municipal Code to provide for a pilot program for the incorporation of a preliminary municipality, giving “all the powers and duties” of a town, including zoning and land use decisions. The law applies to land privately owned by three or fewer people who intend to develop it with at least 100 people while meeting certain affordable housing benchmarks in the first five years of the preliminary municipality’s existence. Dakota Pacific Real Estate last year filed for a preliminary municipality in Summit County, dubbed Park City Tech, as a safeguard for its planned development in Kimball Junction. Ivory Homes similarly submitted a request in January to explore a preliminary municipality in Browns Canyon, but the Lieutenant Governor’s Office ultimately declined to move forward with the proposal. State Rep. Tiara Auxier, a Republican who represents parts of Summit, Morgan and Rich counties, said she fundamentally disagreed with preliminary municipalities and how the original legislation was passed, which is why she filed an unsuccessful bill last year to repeal the statute completely. “I don’t agree with voters and taxpayers in an area getting totally leapfrogged because (developers) can come to the state and make their own city without any input from the communities they’re impacting,” Auxier said. “I’ve been told that there is no appetite to repeal it altogether, so I’ve been trying to think of what I could do to put some guardrails around it.” Auxier’s suggested guardrails are outlined in House Bill 510, which she filed two weeks ago for consideration in this year’s general session. The legislation would require the sponsors of a preliminary municipality to work directly with the county where the development is being proposed, especially in regards to the mandated feasibility study, which determines whether the municipality would be financially successful enough to proceed. “Many people felt like it was basically picking numbers out of a hat when the counties had actual data that would speak to what they were talking about,” Auxier said. “They wanted the ability to share that with the third parties doing the feasibility studies or with the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. The bill is still in the works and we’re still negotiating, but right now my biggest focus is to give the counties a seat at the table.” Developers would need to inform counties of their intent to file for a preliminary municipality at least 120 days before submitting their application to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. The county would then be responsible for providing a written response within 90 days to offer “any information the county determines is useful.” “I think the counties know their counties the best,” Auxier said. “So many of the assumptions that go into these preliminary municipalities is that they’re going to plug into the existing infrastructure there and go along, but are you expanding the size of the sewer? Is that talked about? If it’s not, then who’s going to cover that? If you’re not having these conversations with the county, how can they expect that community to incorporate itself?” Auxier said H.B. 510 would protect counties and taxpayers from paying for the infrastructure costs of a preliminary municipality if the incorporation were to fail, which was the intent of the 2024 law. However, Auxier said there have been issues in other areas of the state with preliminary municipalities trying to push the costs of road maintenance and infrastructure onto the county. “I’m pushing to say, no, that is actually part of your own development that you have to be in charge of,” Auxier said. “If it fails, who’s left holding the bag? Is it falling back on the county and the taxpayers who had no say in the first place about this development? … The bill would make sure that there was enough capital set aside for these developers to be in charge of covering anything that happened as far as the city failing or something like that.” So far, Auxier said she’s received positive feedback on the bill from counties confronted with preliminary municipalities in their area, including Summit County. She said she’s also had constituents reach out to her, encouraging the publication of the bill and supporting its passage in the Legislature. “It’s not a well-known process outside of the communities that are impacted by it, but people who are impacted are grateful for any movement to make these things less painful than they are,” Auxier said. “Everyone besides developers think they shouldn’t exist. Obviously, I have pushback from the ones who benefit from it, but besides that, I would say the general public at large thinks the public should have a say in what the community they live in looks like instead of having three developers be able to start their own city.” The state House of Representatives’ Political Subdivisions Committee is expected to discuss and vote on the bill in the next few weeks before potentially sending it to the full House for further consideration. The general session ends on March 6. The post Summit County representative files bill to put ‘guardrails’ on preliminary municipalities appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less