SB 258

SB 258 – “Preliminary Municipalities” 

A new Utah law, effective May 1, and seemingly tailored (yet again) for the Kane Springs Development,  allows developers who own unincorporated land to create a “preliminary municipality” on vacant land, appointing a mayor and town council to pass all land use laws with the same powers as the elected government of an ordinary town.  

Though the ramifications of this bill spread far outside Moab, this would allow the developers of the proposed, controversial luxury resort at Kane Creek, who were just denied a sewage treatment plant permit, to completely bypass county law, while also forcing the county and Moab City governments to pay for things like road expansion. 

The law, sponsored by State Senator Curtis Bramble, allows up to three “preliminary municipalities” per year to bypass County land use controls by incorporating and passing their own laws governing development, so long as they meet a few simple criteria—which are mostly there to ensure that the developers actually build a municipality there.  

The law was introduced March 19th, less than two weeks for the end of Utah’s legislative session. It was subject to less than four minutes of Senate hearings with no witnesses and one question, and less than ten minutes of House hearings with no witnesses and one questioner. It received no media coverage.  

In the hearings and in subsequent talks with Utah residents, both State Sen. Bramble and House Rep. Dunning, the bill’s sponsors, have emphasized that the bill is “about affordable housing.” However, SB 258 requires only that developers “intend,” at the initial application phase, to make 10% of the units onsite affordable housing. The concept appears nowhere else in the bill and is thus completely nonbinding.  

Though the law exempts Utah’s larger counties for unexplained reasons, it applies to the more real counties in the state. It is most likely to affect two counties that have tangled with the state or developers on where and how developers can build—Summit County (Park City) and Grand County (Moab).  

A similar bill in 2023, HB 359, which appeared to be tailored to assist an unpopular development in Summit County, was repealed in a special session. Moab citizen group Kane Creek Development Watch calls upon the Utah Legislature, especially those legislators who appear to have voted for this bill without paying attention to its contents, to repeal SB 258 as a fundamental contradiction to the idea of democratic government—allowing 3 or fewer landowners to write their own laws, overriding those passed by the democratically elected County government.   

SB 258’s sponsor, State Sen. Bramble, is a Provo Republican who has twice previously sponsored legislation that overturned a law or government action in Moab or Grand County. The last time, in 2023, was to help the Kane Creek developers control their sewer plant oversight board. It dissolved the County’s board and allowed the developers to create their own. Bramble admitted to the Moab newspaper that the law was targeted at Grand County. 

Kane Creek improvement district helmed by developers, not county

What is this law? 

Facts: 

• New Utah law, SB 258, went in effect May 1st, 2024 
• Allows a developer to create a “preliminary municipality” on his private property so long as he intends to develop it to at least 100 residents within 6 years 
• A “preliminary municipality” has all the powers of a city or town, including all land use, zoning, and utility authority, except taxation and eminent domain 
• This allows developers to completely bypass County laws and build what they want 
• The City Council and Mayor and (called the Board and Board Chair in most of the new law) are appointed by the landowners (except one member of 4 Council may be appointed by the County) 
• Only three proposed preliminary municipalities may apply per year 
• Complete requirements for approval to make this new town: 

1. No minimum population (can be zero) 
2. 3 or fewer landowners and all agree (Kane Creek proposed development has 3) 
3. Contiguous land area (unless some federal land is needed to connect common interest ares) 
4. Within 1 county 
5. At least 50% of land area undeveloped 
6. At least 0.25 miles from an existing city or town 
7. Cannot be in 1st or 2nd class counties: Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Weber, or Washington 
8. The proposed municipality cannot contain parts of another proposed municipality or annexation area 
9. Developers must “INTEND”
   1. When fully developed, residents (undefined re: vacation homes) will be at least 100 
   2. Average population density of at least 7 people per square mile 
   3. 10% of total housing is affordable (note: affordable housing appears ONLY as an “intent” in the initial application. The affordable housing “requirement” is not binding as it appears nowhere else in this law).  
10. A state assessment of the development plan must conclude that, once developed, it is likely to generate enough tax revenue to cover its municipal expenses 

• The public and other government agencies have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposal, but the review process has no ability to change anything. The sole requirements are the ones above. 
• As soon as the population of the preliminary municipality reaches 100 people, that it must transition to an ordinary town and hold elections. It must do this within six years, or it is dissolved, and the control, duties, and infrastructure revert to the county. 
• Early in the process, developers are required to post a bond, a cash deposit, or a letter of credit showing that they can pay for the completion of the infrastructure in their plan. They are gradually refunded this money as they build infrastructure. If they fail to complete within the time period, the remainder of the money stays with the municipality. However, the municipality would be run by the board and board chair that the developers appointed. The legislation does not specify how a letter of credit might ensure that money to complete infrastructure strays available in the event of bankruptcy or dissolution of the development company.

Click here for Kane Creek Development Watch’s Annotated PDF of the Bill

Click here for more specifics on the Bill and transcripts of the Hearings: