Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
- Two developers say they tapped an alternative incorporation route in pursuing their projects after hitting roadblocks in dealing with county leaders.
- The developers behind Willow in Kane County and Echo Canyon in Grand County seek preliminary city status as outlined in a new Utah law.
- The preliminary municipality process has sparked concern among some.
KANAB — The developers behind two proposed Utah cities that would be created via a new mechanism that bypasses local officials' scrutiny say they tapped the alternative incorporation route after hitting roadblocks in dealing with county leaders.
"We worked closely with Kane County for nearly two years before applying for a preliminary municipality," said Greg Whitehead, representative for Kanab 600, the developer behind Willow, a proposed new development 1.4 miles east of Kanab in Kane County.
Realizing the applicable county zoning guidelines wouldn't allow for the higher housing density project that developers sought, they opted to pursue incorporation via a mechanism created in Utah law just last year — a process that's raised concerns among some. Going the route outlined in SB258, developers create the plans for the sort of locale they seek — called preliminary municipalities — and the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office reviews, considers and, if they pass muster, approves them.
"The best path forward to achieve our vision — one that aligns with the governor's and state's priority of increasing accessible housing — was to pursue a preliminary municipality," Whitehead told KSL.com. The Willow plans, fully developed, call for 1,276 housing units, including 794 single-family homes, 206 townhomes, 168 apartments and 108 vacation rentals, spread over 595 acres. The request to become a new city, filed Jan. 1, is still in the works.
In Grand County, Kane Creek Preservation and Development and G&H Miller Family Holdings are pursuing a proposal on around 180 acres of land about a mile southwest of Moab. Fully developed, their community, previously called Kane Creek and now named Echo Canyon, calls for 478 housing units, 48 of them identified as affordable housing, and 102 "overnight accommodation units."
A spokesman for the project — which has sparked strong opposition from some — said the developer initially worked with the Grand County Commission to try to get support for the plans. After four years of what the spokesman described as fruitless efforts, they also applied for preliminary incorporation with the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office.
"We've never asked for a favor. We just wanted a fair processing of our application, and that clearly hasn't happened. So that's why we started pursuing this," said the spokesman, who asked not to be named given the intense sentiments the issue has spurred. The developers, still open to working with Grand County officials, submitted their preliminary municipality petition on May 1, 2024, and it is still under review, though it is much further along than the Willow request.
The Echo Canyon developers' plans fall within guidelines spelled out in the zoning laws of Grand County, home to Arches National Park and a popular tourist destination. But county officials have rebuffed, stalled and delayed action, the spokesman charges, because of a "no growth" mindset. Thus, when they learned of the mechanism spelled out in HB258 that gives them leeway to work with the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office in creating a city, opening another route for their plans to move forward, they jumped.
"If nothing else, even if it just brought the county to the table to treat us fairly, that'd be an OK outcome, too," he said.
The Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office has yet to grant final approval to any of the four preliminary municipality requests it's received since last year.
A delicate topic
Development is a delicate topic in fast-growing Utah, and the preliminary municipality process as spelled out in SB258 was targeted by another measure during the 2025 legislative session, HB540. HB540 — pursued amid concerns that SB258 gives developers too much leeway and weakens the authority of local government on development questions — aimed to halt or limit use of the process, but the measure ultimately stalled.
At any rate, as described by the Willow and Echo Canyon developers, their moves to go the preliminary municipality route aren't about flaunting local officials or local development guidelines.
"Throughout our collaboration with the county, we explored ways to create a master plan that would allow for more attainable housing, which generally sits on less than 1-acre lots," said Whitehead. "However, given the existing zoning restrictions, we ultimately realized that we wouldn't be able to provide the level of affordability and variety of housing options that we felt were truly needed — homes that allow young families, first-time buyers and longtime Utah residents to stay close to their roots and build their futures."
Furthermore, Whitehead noted, the plans still face scrutiny by the state, which requires studies for proposed new locales to make sure they are financially feasible, among other things. "We welcome ongoing conversations and community engagement to help shape this new city in a way that benefits everyone," Whitehead said.
The Echo Canyon spokesman stressed the fact that the proposed development falls within development parameters already spelled out in Grand County zoning ordinances. The developers sought "zero variances," he said.
While the traditional incorporation route is spearheaded by registered voters in a development who want to convert the locale into a city, developers are the key force behind preliminary municipalities, typically on undeveloped land. Still, the Echo Canyon spokesman noted that a traditional elected city government would have to be created in preliminary municipalities on reaching 100 residents, among other requirements.
Developers behind two other projects, Park City Tech in Summit County and Nine Springs in Morgan County, have also applied to become preliminary municipalities.
Summit County Manager Shayne Scott, however, said the Park City Tech developers, Park City Junction, plan to work with county officials in finalizing their plans. Park City Junction reps didn't respond to queries seeking comment.
Brach Nelson, who represents the Nine Springs developers, Spring Mountain Ranch and SISO, declined comment.
