You may recall some of the rigamarole that took place regarding a bill from a past legislative session that allowed for a limited “experiment” with what were called “preliminary municipalities” (see the June 26, 2025 post of this blog).  The original bill was passed in 2024, ostensibly to help accommodate a development on the outskirts of Moab city where the applicant was having a tough time getting cooperation from county officials, nor any strong desire from the adjacent community to annex it (see this news story).  The idea took off, not just with that one development, but with several others.

The following legislative session, one of the House representatives who voted for the bill kind of got “buyers remorse” when he saw what was happening under the provisions of the bill and sponsored a bill to repeal the whole preliminary municipalities concept.  But by then, there was a lot more juice behind it and the bill failed.  Others were also somewhat concerned about what the original legislation allowed, and during the interim Rep. Tiara Auxier of Morgan came to talk with the Land Use Task Force about things she felt needed to be modified in the law.  She has filed a bill this session that would not do away with the concept, but make some substantial changes.  In the meantime, while the original law appeared to be intended for one particular development, the concept has mushroomed.  There are several potential PMs out there now, as detailed in this KCPW news story.  In the meantime, a lawsuit has been filed by area residents against the source of the whole thing.

The changes to the PM provisions are found in HB510 – Municipal Incorporation Modifications, and include a number of planning requirements, such as that the applicants must present their development plans to county officials and consult and confer with them.  Language in the bill also says:

“The feasibility consultant shall consider data, information, and analysis provided by the county under Subsection (4)(a) and:(i)use the data, information, and analysis in the feasibility study; or(ii)if the feasibility consultant determines that any or all of the data, information, or analysis provided by the county is not relevant to the feasibility study, provide a thorough explanation of the determination in the draft feasibility report.”

The bill is generating media interest, as these stories on KSL and in the Park Record indicate.

I’ve talked to some of my developer friends about this, and they see this as a good option to help move new housing developments ahead when local officials are reluctant and drag their feet for all the typical anti-development reasons.  On the other hand, is this really the best way to deal with growth in communities in an orderly and planned fashion?  Depends on where you sit, I guess.

The bill has been assigned to a legislative committee for hearing, but a date has not yet been set.