SB 258: Preliminary Municipalities Live

Toolkit for counties and cities

Wasatch County asked the Legislature to repeal SB 258. This toolkit gives other counties and cities the documents to do the same. Read each document on this page, then copy it, print it, or download it.

The model resolution and the report outline come from the resolution and the report that Wasatch County adopted. This site wrote the other documents. Ask your county or city attorney to review a document before you adopt it or send it.

Dates that matter

Only a legislator can open a bill file. A county or a city can bring the idea to a legislator. Talk to your legislators before the first deadline.

  1. All day

    Deadline for top-priority bill requests

    Legislators file their top-priority bill requests by this date. Bring the idea to your legislator before then.

    Add to Calendar
  2. 1:15 p.m. to 3:45 p.m., Mountain Time

    Political Subdivisions Interim Committee

    The last interim meeting of 2026, in Room 220 of the Senate Building at the Utah State Capitol. No agenda is posted yet.

    Add to Calendar
  3. All day

    Deadline for more priority bill requests

    The deadline for the second priority request of each representative and the third of each senator.

    Add to Calendar
  4. All day

    2027 General Session starts

    The 2027 General Session runs from January 19 to March 5.

    Add to Calendar
  5. By noon, Mountain Time

    Last day to request a bill without floor approval

    After this date, a legislator needs the approval of the full House or Senate to request a bill.

    Add to Calendar
  6. All day

    2027 General Session ends

    The last day of the 2027 General Session.

    Add to Calendar

Download All the Dates

Sources: 2027 session dates, Political Subdivisions Interim Committee, and How a bill becomes law in Utah

Could it happen in your county?

Answer five questions about a piece of land. Each one is a basic test in Utah Code 10-2a-502. This check is a guide, not legal advice.

Is the land in a county that is third class or smaller?
Preliminary Municipalities does not apply in a first-class or second-class county. Utah Code 17-60-104 sets the classes by population. The list under this check shows the counties where Part 5 can apply.
Is all of the land at least a quarter mile from every city, town, and other municipality?
No part of the land can be in a municipality, or within 0.25 miles of one. A preliminary municipality counts as a municipality (Utah Code 10-1-104).
Do three or fewer owners hold all of the land?
The law counts the owners on the day the request is filed, and all of them must agree. The county recorder can tell you who owns each parcel today.
Is at least half of the land undeveloped?
Is the land in one piece, inside one county?
The law calls this contiguous. The state rejected three requests, in Morgan, Kane, and Wasatch counties, because the land was not in one piece.

Answer the five questions to see the result.

Counties at risk

25 of the 29 counties in Utah are third class or smaller. Preliminary Municipalities does not apply in Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber counties.

  • Beaver, class 5
  • Box Elder, class 3
  • Cache, class 3
  • Carbon, class 4
  • Daggett, class 6
  • Duchesne, class 4
  • Emery, class 5
  • Garfield, class 5
  • Grand, class 5
  • Iron, class 3
  • Juab, class 4
  • Kane, class 5
  • Millard, class 4
  • Morgan, class 4
  • Piute, class 6
  • Rich, class 6
  • San Juan, class 4
  • Sanpete, class 4
  • Sevier, class 4
  • Summit, class 3
  • Tooele, class 3
  • Uintah, class 4
  • Wasatch, class 4
  • Washington, class 3
  • Wayne, class 6

Classes from the list "Current County Classifications" of June 3, 2025, by the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. That list cites Section 17-50-501. On November 6, 2025, the section became 17-60-104. Source

Documents

Five documents to adapt. Fill in the form, and the model resolution and the letter fill in as you type. Then copy the text, print it, or download the file. The Word files keep the blanks, so you can fill them in Word.

For example, Wasatch County
For example, County Council
For the letter
For example, Council Chair
Your entries stay in this browser. The site does not send them anywhere.

Model resolution

Based on Wasatch County Resolution 26-11, adopted on September 2, 2026, and the recommendation in its report. Ask your county or city attorney to review it before adoption.

Download Word File

Resolution No. [number]

A resolution calling for the repeal of the preliminary municipality law

WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 2a, Part 5, enacted by S.B. 258 in the 2024 General Session, created a pilot program that lets up to three owners of land ask the state to incorporate that land as a preliminary municipality; and

WHEREAS, a preliminary municipality receives zoning and land-use authority even if the area has no residents, and the landowners name four of the five members of its board; and

WHEREAS, [County or City] completed a general plan with public engagement, and a preliminary municipality can conflict with that plan and the community values it represents; and

WHEREAS, local governments whose officials answer to resident voters are best situated to balance competing property rights related to land use development; and

WHEREAS, [optional: one local fact, or the name and date of a local report]; and

WHEREAS, as of October 26, 2026, Wasatch County, Kane County, the Town of Wallsburg, and Summit County have adopted resolutions that ask the Legislature to repeal Part 5;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the [legislative body] of [County or City] that the Utah State Legislature should repeal Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 2a, Part 5, end the preliminary municipality pilot program, and convene a stakeholder process, including counties, municipalities, service districts, and the development community, to design a framework that meets a higher standard for current and future property owners.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any repeal should include rules for a preliminary municipality that already exists; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the [clerk] send a copy of this resolution to the state senators and representatives of [County or City] and to the members of the Political Subdivisions Interim Committee.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED this ____ day of ______________, 20___.

[legislative body] of [County or City]

______________________________

[Name], Chair

Attest:

______________________________

[Name], [Clerk]

Vote
MemberVote
[Name]______
[Name]______
[Name]______
[Name]______
[Name]______
[Name]______
[Name]______

Report outline

The five headings are the headings of the Wasatch County report attached to Resolution 26-11. The text under each heading summarizes the part of the law that applies. Replace each prompt with your local facts.

Download Word File

[County or City] Report: Problems with the Preliminary Municipality Law

Summary

[In two or three sentences, say what the law does, what your county or city saw, and what you ask the Legislature to do.]

1. Regional infrastructure is not a statutory consideration

Utah Code 10-2a-504(3) and 10-2a-102. The study counts the cost of public services, such as sewer and roads, at the level that the area around the land gets today, and the fiscal impact on other governments. It asks whether there will be enough water, with no standard for enough. It does not require a finding that wastewater can be treated, a traffic study, or an evacuation plan.

[Describe the zoning of the land today, its water rights, the wastewater plan, the road access, and the wildfire risk.]

2. The process can worsen, not improve, affordable housing availability

Utah Code 10-2a-501(1) and 10-2a-502(2)(e)(iii). The owners must intend that 10% of the housing is affordable. Part 5 does not say when, where, or how, and it has no step that checks that the homes get built.

[Give the prices in the plan, the jobs that the plan creates, and where those workers would live.]

3. Perverse incentives cloud regulatory oversight

Utah Code 10-2a-507(1)(f), 10-2a-508(1)(b)(i), and 10-2a-509(1), (2), and (7). Until residents elect a mayor and council, the owners name four of the five board members. Before the petition for its first election, the board selects the independent third-party engineer who reviews and approves all building permit applications.

[Name who reviews engineering, inspections, stormwater, and fire access before the city has voters.]

4. The feasibility study cannot test the plan it approves

Utah Code 10-2a-504(3) and (5). The budget test treats the land as a town of 100 people, with inflation and growth. The study does not ask whether the project can be built as planned. The study approves nothing itself. It decides whether the process can go on.

[List the assumptions in the study, such as occupancy, private roads, wastewater, and service costs, and compare them with local data.]

5. The law creates self-entitlement with no enforceable backstop

Utah Code 10-2a-507(1)(h)(ii), 10-2a-507(2), and 10-2a-507(3). If residents do not elect a mayor and council in time, the roads and infrastructure of the preliminary municipality go to the county. The owners are liable to the county for damages that the dissolution causes. The report says that this backstop is hard to enforce against a limited liability company. The bond is in favor of the preliminary municipality, not the county.

[Describe what the county would take on if the project stalls, and who owns the land.]

Optional: drafting errors in Part 5

Section 10-2a-507(3) and Section 10-2a-509(3)(a) refer to "Subsection 10-2a-503(5)(e)", which does not exist. The map is in Section 10-2a-502(5)(e). Section 10-2a-509(3)(a) refers to the engineer in "Subsection 10-2a-509(6)", but the engineer is in Subsection (7). Section 10-2a-501(7) refers to Section 20A-1-501, which is an election section.

Recommendation

[State your request. For example: repeal Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 2a, Part 5, and convene a stakeholder process to design a better framework.]

Sources

[List each document with its date and its web address.]

Hearing questions

At the public hearing, the consultant presents the feasibility study and answers questions from the public (Utah Code 10-2a-504(2)(c)(iv) and 10-2a-506(5)). These questions come from the list prepared for the Wasatch Highlands hearing of October 27, 2026. They name no project. Skip a question that does not fit the plan in front of you. Ask the consultant the questions about the study. Send the others, such as questions about the owners and their guarantees, as written comments for the record.

Download Word File

Questions for a preliminary municipality feasibility hearing

"The study" is the feasibility study. "The sponsor" is the person who filed the request.

Impact fees

Impact fees make new growth pay for the roads, parks, and public safety it uses.

  1. Does anything in Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 2a, Part 5 require the preliminary municipality to adopt the county impact fees, or to collect them and pay them to the county? If so, which section?
  2. After the preliminary municipality gets land-use authority, who will issue its building permits, and at what point will county impact fees be collected?
  3. Does the study count the county impact fee revenue that would be lost if the preliminary municipality does not collect county impact fees? Where does it appear?
  4. What is the consultant's estimate of the county parks, roads, and public safety impact fees that would not be collected? If there is no estimate, why not?
  5. If the new city provides no parks or public safety services, how will its growth pay for the county facilities that its residents and visitors use?
  6. If county impact fees are not collected, who pays for the added demand on county roads, parks, and public safety: existing taxpayers, the special service districts, or the new city?
Wastewater

The study counts the cost of public sewer service at the level that the area around the land gets today. Part 5 does not require a finding that wastewater can be treated and permitted.

  1. How many of the planned home lots meet the minimum lot size that the local health department requires for septic systems?
  2. Did the consultant check the engineering, groundwater, and regulatory feasibility of the wastewater plan? If not, on what basis does the study accept it?
  3. Has the local health department or the Utah Division of Water Quality reviewed the wastewater plan?
  4. If the plan includes a hotel, nightly rentals, or commercial space, how will their wastewater be treated?
  5. If central treatment is necessary, where will it come from, what will it cost, and how long will the permits and the construction take?
  6. What would wastewater fees cost a household in the new city, and are those fees in the study's estimate of taxes and fees?
  7. Does any part of the land drain to a drinking water source for existing residents? What analysis was done of that risk?
Water

Part 5 asks whether there will be enough water, but sets no standard for enough.

  1. Is there a signed water delivery agreement today? If not, what standard did the consultant use to find that the water will be sufficient?
  2. Which state approvals does the water supply need? Which of them have been applied for, and which have been granted?
  3. How many acre-feet of water rights does the land hold today?
  4. If those rights do not cover full buildout, where will the rest come from? Are they secured, or only identified?
  5. Who builds the pipelines, the storage, and the other water infrastructure? What is the route, what is the cost, and where is that cost in the study?
  6. Does the named water provider hold enough water rights to serve this project and its current customers? Has the Utah Division of Water Rights confirmed it?
  7. If the named provider cannot serve the land, what is the backup plan, what would it cost, and who would pay for it?
Roads, access, and evacuation

Part 5 does not require a traffic study or an evacuation plan.

  1. What improved roads reach the land today, and how much traffic can each road carry?
  2. Was a traffic study done for the full plan at buildout? Can it be entered into the record?
  3. What upgrades to county roads outside the boundary will the project need, and who will pay for them?
  4. Which entity decides whether the access meets fire, emergency, and development standards? Will that decision come before the preliminary municipality gets land-use authority?
  5. How many separate access routes will the development have for fire trucks and for evacuation?
  6. If the land is in the wildland-urban interface, was a wildfire evacuation modeled at peak occupancy, with visitors? How long would a full evacuation take?
  7. How will construction traffic be routed, and who will repair damage to county roads?
  8. What authority and what money does the preliminary municipality have to build or improve roads outside its own boundary?
Fire, EMS, and police

The study must estimate the cost of services at the level of the area around the land today.

  1. Did the consultant consult the fire district? Does the fire district agree with the study's estimate of the effect on its service?
  2. What are the expected emergency response times from the nearest fire station to the farthest point of the development?
  3. Will the development need a new fire station? If so, who will build, equip, and staff it?
  4. Does the sheriff or the police agency agree with the study's law enforcement cost? If not, why does the study keep its figure?
  5. Did the study estimate calls for service from hotels, nightly rentals, commercial space, and events?
  6. Do the projected revenues of the new city cover its share of fire, EMS, and police costs? If not, who makes up the difference?
  7. Could development at this density happen on this land under the current county zoning?
Snow and road upkeep

The preliminary municipality must maintain the roads that existed in it and next to it on the day the request was filed. It must also maintain connected roads within half a mile (10-2a-509(6)).

  1. What does the study's road cost per mile include? How much of it is snow removal?
  2. Where does the study's road cost figure come from? Why that source, and not an estimate for this site?
  3. What road grades does the plan include? Can snowplows clear those roads safely?
  4. What equipment, staff, and buildings will snow removal need? Who will own them, and who will pay for them?
  5. Does the study pass the 5% test only if the new roads stay private? If so, what recorded agreement keeps them private?
  6. If a homeowners' association stops maintaining private roads, or asks the city to take them, who pays?
Affordable housing

The owners must intend that 10% of the housing is affordable. Part 5 does not say when, where, or how, and it has no step that checks that the homes get built.

  1. How many affordable homes does the sponsor commit to build, and for households at what share of the area median income?
  2. Where will the affordable homes be built, and when, compared with the market-rate homes?
  3. What keeps the affordable homes affordable, such as a deed restriction, and for how many years?
  4. Does the study include the cost of building the affordable homes?
  5. How many people will work in the development at buildout, in the hotel, the commercial space, and the services for residents?
  6. Where will those workers live, and what effect will that have on housing in the rest of the county?
  7. After the state accepts the request, which entity checks that the affordable homes get built? What happens if they are not built?
Occupancy and the path to an elected government

Residents elect a mayor and council only after more than 99 people live there (10-2a-510).

  1. What share of the homes does the study assume will be lived in full time? What local data supports that figure?
  2. What full-time occupancy do comparable developments in this county have?
  3. What would the population be at those comparable rates?
  4. At the occupancy of comparable developments, in what year would the population pass 99 people? Does that fit the deadlines in 10-2a-507(3)?
  5. Did the study test other occupancy rates? If not, will the consultant add that test?
  6. Which costs, such as roads, snow removal, and fire protection, actually go down when homes are empty for part of the year?
City staffing and costs

A city has fixed costs before it has many residents.

  1. What staff and contracts does the first-year general government budget pay for?
  2. A city has fixed costs, such as a clerk, an attorney, an auditor, and insurance. If the study scales these costs by population, why does it not estimate the fixed minimum?
  3. Which cities and towns did the study use for its cost per person? Which of them is most like this project?
  4. Which services will employees provide, and which will contractors provide? What is the yearly cost of each?
  5. If the study shows a deficit in any year, who pays for city operations until revenue covers costs?
  6. Before the city has residents, who pays for planning, engineering review, and building inspection? Are those costs in the study?
Oversight

Before the city has voters, a board on which the owners name four of the five members makes its decisions.

  1. Before the city has resident voters, who makes its zoning and land-use decisions?
  2. Who selects and pays the independent engineer who approves building permits under 10-2a-509(7)?
  3. What rule keeps the engineer and the inspectors independent of the owners, and who can replace them?
  4. Before residents elect a government, who enforces state and federal stormwater, wetlands, and erosion rules on the project?
  5. Who confirms that road widths, grades, and turnarounds meet the fire code?
  6. Will the county or any other independent party have the authority to review plans or stop work for safety or code violations?
  7. Which conflict of interest rules apply to board members whom the owners appoint, when they make land-use decisions?
If the project stalls or fails

If residents do not elect a mayor and council in time, its roads and infrastructure go to the county (10-2a-507(3)).

  1. Who are the principals of each company that owns the land or sponsors the request?
  2. What bonds, guarantees, or escrow back the infrastructure promises and the duties in Part 5?
  3. The bond under 10-2a-507(1)(h) is in favor of the preliminary municipality. What protects the county if the preliminary municipality is dissolved?
  4. If the deadlines in 10-2a-507(3) pass, what happens to partly built roads, water systems, and wastewater systems?
  5. If the company behind the project dissolves or goes bankrupt, who becomes responsible for the obligations it leaves?
  6. Do the principals give personal guarantees for completion? If not, what other security backs completion?
  7. Did the study look at a case where the project fails or is only partly built? If not, why not?
  8. If the plan includes hotel or commercial uses and they are not built, how much of the projected revenue disappears? Is there a market study for those uses?
The feasibility finding

The process stops if revenue does not beat costs by more than 5%, unless a changed boundary passes a supplemental study (10-2a-504(5) and 10-2a-505).

  1. How much added yearly cost, or lost revenue, would push the margin below the 5% threshold?
  2. If the study lists risks with no cost attached, does the margin stay above 5% when any one of those risks happens?
  3. Which key assumptions came from the sponsor, and which did the consultant check?
  4. If the consultant says that some issues are outside 10-2a-504, which entity will evaluate them before the preliminary municipality gets land-use authority? Can that entity deny or condition the project?
  5. If the study says the future city can adopt fees for water, wastewater, or roads, what would those fees cost a household? Why are they not in the tax estimate?
  6. If the county's figures on impact fees, occupancy, or road costs differ from the study, would the consultant stand by the finding if the county's figures proved correct?

Letter to legislators

One local fact makes a letter stronger than any number of general points. Find your senator and representative at le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp.

Download Word File

[Date]

Dear Senator [senator's name] and Representative [representative's name],

I am the [Title] of [County or City], and I write [for myself, or on behalf of the body that adopted a resolution]. I ask you to repeal Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 2a, Part 5, which SB 258 created in 2024.

Part 5 lets up to three landowners ask the state to make their land a preliminary municipality. The preliminary municipality can get the zoning and land-use power of a city before anyone lives there. The owners name four of the five members of the board that holds that power. Part 5 gives the county no vote on whether the preliminary municipality is created.

The budget test in Part 5 treats the land as a town of 100 people. Part 5 does not require a finding that the wastewater can be treated, a traffic study, a wildfire evacuation plan, or a finding that the project can be built. Part 5 has no step that checks that the promised affordable homes get built. If residents do not elect a mayor and council in time, the roads and infrastructure of the preliminary municipality go to the county. The owners are liable for the damages, but the owner can be a limited liability company.

Wasatch County, Kane County, the Town of Wallsburg, and Summit County have asked the Legislature to repeal Part 5. In 2026, HB 510, a reform bill that kept the program, passed the House 68 to 0 and failed in the Senate.

Part 5 calls itself a pilot. Since May 2024, it has produced one preliminary municipality, and that one faces a challenge in court, with no ruling yet. Please repeal Part 5 in the 2027 General Session. Then bring counties, cities, service districts, and builders together to design a better process.

[optional: one local example in two or three sentences]

Sincerely,

[Name]
[Title]
[Phone or email]

One-page summary

Prints on one letter-size page.

Download the PDF

SB 258: A city with no people

Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 2a, Part 5, the preliminary municipality law. SB 258 created it in 2024 as a pilot. Utah Code 63I-1-210 repeals it on January 1, 2031.

What the law does
  • Up to three owners of land can ask the state to make it a preliminary municipality. 10-2a-502
  • A state consultant runs a budget test that treats the land as a town of 100 people. Revenue must beat costs by more than 5%. 10-2a-504
  • The public can speak at a hearing. Neither the public nor the county votes on whether it is created. 10-2a-506 to 508
  • Its board gets the zoning power of a city. The owners name four of the five members, who do not have to live there. 10-2a-507 and 509
  • Residents elect a mayor and council only after more than 99 people live there. 10-2a-510
The five headings of the Wasatch County report, with the text of the law
  1. "Regional infrastructure is not a statutory consideration." The study counts the cost of public services, such as sewer and roads, at the level that the area around the land gets today, and the fiscal impact on other governments. It asks whether there will be enough water, with no standard for enough. It does not require a finding that wastewater can be treated, a traffic study, or an evacuation plan.
  2. "The process can worsen, not improve, affordable housing availability." The owners must intend that 10% of the housing is affordable. Part 5 does not say when, where, or how, and it has no step that checks that the homes get built.
  3. "Perverse incentives cloud regulatory oversight." Until residents elect a mayor and council, the owners name four of the five board members. Before the petition for its first election, the board selects the independent third-party engineer who reviews and approves all building permit applications.
  4. "The feasibility study cannot test the plan it approves." The budget test treats the land as a town of 100 people, with inflation and growth. The study does not ask whether the project can be built as planned. The study approves nothing itself. It decides whether the process can go on.
  5. "The law creates self-entitlement with no enforceable backstop." If residents do not elect a mayor and council in time, the roads and infrastructure of the preliminary municipality go to the county. The owners are liable to the county for damages that the dissolution causes. The report says that this backstop is hard to enforce against a limited liability company. The bond is in favor of the preliminary municipality, not the county.
Who has asked for repeal: Wasatch County Council (7 to 0), Kane County Commission (3 to 0), Wallsburg Town Council (5 to 0), Summit County Council (unanimous). In 2026, a reform bill, HB 510, passed the House 68 to 0 and failed in the Senate, 14 to 12.
The request in the Wasatch County resolution and report: repeal Part 5, end the pilot, and convene counties, cities, service districts, and the development community to design a better framework.

Sources: le.utah.gov, Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 2a, Part 5. Requests: ltgovernor.utah.gov/incorporations. Report: Wasatch County Resolution 26-11, September 2, 2026. Facts checked on October 26, 2026. This summary is not legal advice.

Who has asked for repeal

If your county or city adopts a resolution, send it to your legislators and to the members of the Political Subdivisions Interim Committee.

Who decides

Your state senator and representative

A legislator must file the bill request. Ask yours to file a repeal, or to cosponsor one.

Find your legislators by address

The Political Subdivisions Interim Committee

This committee studies city and county law between sessions. Its chairs are Sen. Don L. Ipson and Rep. James A. Dunnigan.

The committee saw a draft 2027 reform bill on June 17, 2026. That draft keeps the pilot. The last meeting of 2026 is on November 18 at 1:15 p.m., in Room 220 of the Senate Building.

Committee page, with members and agendas

Sources