Last month, a senior housing adviser to Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Steve Waldrip, warned the Heber City Council that Wasatch County's state funding was in jeopardy. The warning, delivered during an August 18 council meeting, stemmed from the county's rejection of a development proposal and its opposition to a new state law concerning preliminary municipalities. However, following a subsequent meeting, state and county officials confirmed there would be "no negative impacts to state funding in Wasatch County."
Waldrip's message at the Heber City Council meeting addressed the rejection of a proposal to build 144 homes on approximately 740 acres of land owned by the Utah Trust Lands Administration, located about six miles east of Heber. Philo Development, the company behind this proposal, has also been working for years on a larger plan to develop about 3,500 acres of privately owned land nearby. Philo Development has petitioned to establish a new town, Wasatch Highlands, under a new state law, SB258, which allows up to three landowners to apply to create a preliminary municipality.
After Wasatch County rejected the 144-lot proposal, Philo partner Greg Whitehead expressed frustration to KPCW, stating it "sounds like we’re getting some retaliation" for pursuing a preliminary municipality. Whitehead told the radio station, "We’re getting punished because we are considering a preliminary municipality. Because we considered it, we’re not welcome to develop in Wasatch County, is what that sounds like." Wasatch County leaders have opposed SB258 as a "problematic development practice" that allows developers to bypass local land use authority.
Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau told Utah News Dispatch that county leaders had planned a resolution to ask the Legislature to repeal or amend SB258, seeking support from other counties like Summit, Morgan, and Grand.
During the Heber City Council meeting, Waldrip characterized Wasatch County's rejection of the 144-unit development as sending a message of "we don’t care." He added that news reports highlighted the county "working in concert with Summit County to thwart state law relative to development." Waldrip interpreted this as an effort to "deny preliminary municipalities" despite their allowance under state law. He expressed frustration that this occurred while state leaders, including the governor, have been advocating for more housing construction statewide to address the housing shortage.
Waldrip reiterated his perception of the county's message, saying, "We don’t care what state law says. We don’t care about (the Trust Lands Administration) and the constitutional mandate that they have to put their land to good use. Sue us and see what happens." He then conveyed a message from Governor Cox: "your funding as a county is now at risk." Waldrip specifically pointed to state transportation funds, known as B and C road funds, distributed to counties based on road mileage. Wasatch County receives approximately $2.1 million annually in these funds. He stated, "B and C road funds, any other state funding to counties who openly declare war on the state over these growth issues... that funding is now suspended."
The message was not well-received by Heber City Council members or Wasatch County residents. Heber City Council member Yvonne Barney told Waldrip, "If our governor is trying to use the tactic of threats to our community, that doesn’t go over well either," and called for more understanding of residents' concerns. Utah News Dispatch reported receiving multiple emails from concerned residents expressing frustration.
In the weeks that followed, Wasatch County leaders and the governor’s office engaged in discussions. On August 28, county officials posted on social media that Wasatch County Council Chair Erik Rowland and County Manager Grabau met with governor’s office staff, including Waldrip. The county's post stated, "The conversation was productive and it’s clear that we want the same outcomes." It further acknowledged that the state officials "acknowledged their initial approach in response to our decisions was not the most constructive path forward and confirmed there will be no negative impacts to state funding in Wasatch County."
In a prepared statement issued in response to an interview request, Waldrip stated, "Meeting Utah’s housing needs isn’t always easy, and there will be disagreements along the way. But I’m grateful we’re moving forward in partnership with Wasatch County to find the right solution for the SITLA property." The governor’s office declined interview requests for Governor Cox and did not respond to questions about Waldrip’s comments.
Grabau told Utah News Dispatch that Waldrip’s initial comments seemed to be a reaction to an "untrue rumor" that Wasatch County intended to "collude with other counties to defy state law related to preliminary municipalities." Grabau noted that the subsequent meeting was cordial, allowing them to "correct that and kind of avert any real consequences based on that" regarding state funding, although he confirmed Wasatch County would continue lobbying to repeal the preliminary municipality bill.
Earlier this month, the Wasatch County Council approved a resolution calling for the Legislature to repeal SB258. A report accompanying the resolution details concerns that SB258 allows developers to entitle "large-scale projects while sidestepping the infrastructure, housing, oversight and accountability standards every other community in Utah must meet." Grabau also clarified that the Philo Development project, with its 144 five-acre lots, would not contribute to affordable housing, describing it as a "private, gated community" that the County Council felt did not align with their general plan or community values.
Grabau affirmed that Wasatch County leaders are committed to addressing state housing issues and are open to "creative solutions" for the Trust Land Administration-owned property, such as a land swap to enable more affordable housing in a suitable area. He described county officials' reaction to Waldrip's initial threat as "confusion," given their understanding of their position, contrasting it with the "outrage" expressed by Wasatch County residents, who viewed it as an inappropriate pressure tactic.
