H.B. 510 Municipal Incorporation Modifications

What this bill does

The bill changes a pilot program that lets landowners pursue a new town without a resident vote. Applicants would need 18 months of documented county coordination before filing, counties could add data to feasibility studies, and infrastructure funds would have tighter financial safeguards.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the sponsor’s presentation in committee and on the floor. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 9 yes, 0 no, 3 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 9 yes, 0 no, 3 absentHouse Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 25, 2026Who voted how
• 68 yes, 0 no, 7 absentFinal House vote · Feb 27, 2026Who voted how
• 4 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to change the bill · Mar 4, 2026Who voted how
• 5 yes, 0 no, 2 absentSenate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee: vote to approve it · Mar 4, 2026Who voted how
• 14 yes, 12 no, 3 absentSenate vote, which failed · Mar 6, 2026Who voted how

Hearings and debates

• Feb 25, 2026 House Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (29 turns)

  1. Committee chair1:10:19

     Okay. Thank you. We'll go to item number three, house bill five 10 municipal incorporation modifications. Representative ey are welcome. Thank you.

  2. Rep. Tiara Auxier1:10:40

     Oh, Um, last year, this, uh, the legislature had a serious conversation about whether the preliminary municipality pilot program should continue at all. A bill was run to repeal the provision entirely in response to concerns that had arisen as applications began moving forward. That repeal effort passed the house with 53 votes, a very strong majority, but it ultimately did not advance in the Senate. I share that history because it reflects something important. There's broad recognition that current framework has created real challenges, and I'm, I'm not here today asking for a full repeal, um, instead house Bill five 10 is a measured approach to address the specific issues we've been, um, seeing while preserving the pilot in a more accountable and workable form. Um, all interim, I've met with Property Rights Coalition, the land council box here. Just to be clear, are you speaking to the first sub? The first sub, yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Sub one of five 10, um, and Lieutenant Governor's office and other interested parties, um, especially King County, Morgan County, and, um, other counties. This bill is an effort to refine and strengthen the process by which preliminary municipalities are proposed and considered in our state. At its core, this is a conversation about responsible growth, local coordination, and making sure our statutory framework works not just on paper, but in practice for counties, taxpayers, and future residents. Um, it is about bringing clarity, accountability, and cooperation to a process that carries long-term consequences for infrastructure, fiscal health, and community stability. The preliminary municipality pathway was created as a pilot, as an alternative incorporation route, allowing a small number of landowners to pursue municipal status without a traditional resident vote. The original intent was clear that this was meant to be a last resort if a developer was unable to reach an agreement with county, um, with a county without, um, after meaningful effort. However, in practice, we have seen something different. And a couple of instances, applications for preliminary in corporations were submitted after development plans had already been agreed upon with counties. And in other cases, developers submitted incorporation paperwork at the same time they filed their initial county application. That is not what the process was designed for. It was never intended to function as a parallel leverage during routine land use negotiations. And so the first sub of HB five 10 addresses the, um, this concern directly. First, it requires earlier and meaningful coordination with county officials. Before an applicant can file a feasibility request with the lieutenant governor, they must engage in at least 18 months of documented good faith coordination with the county. This includes submitting a land use application or proposed development agreement, and clearly stating their intent. This coordination period specifically, um, is in response to what we've experienced. And the option should not be triggered simultaneously with a county application. It should come only after substantial effort to resolve issues locally. This restores the process to its original purpose of the preliminary incorporation being a last resort, not a negotiation strategy. Second, the bill ensures that counties have a meaningful seat at the table and the feasibility process we've seen, um, with many of the feasibility studies and just this process in general, that counties had no seat or say at this table. Feasibility consultants must consider county provided data and analysis, including infrastructure costs, projected service needs, deferred maintenance, and long-term fiscal impacts. A few things that I could say is that many times we've seen, um, in the municipality applications that there showing their costs as level of the service in that area already. But many of these places are completely undeveloped. So you don't have any fire district costs already. You don't have a police force and you have no municipal buildings. And so ensuring that those are real costs that are included in the feasibility studies, um, could go a long way. Also, um, there was, there was a preliminary municipality request where, um, they found out it failed because the numbers they were using for their roads didn't take into account the terrain and the type of road that they would need to use. And so when a county was able to show a, um, development right next door who just did the same thing, they were able to show what kind of materials were needed and what the costs would be. And those were very different than what, um, the feasibility study said. I have received feedback that the feasibility study time is very short and they do the best they can, but, um, they, they don't always have all the information. And so letting counties give relevant data of, um, costs that they know are happening in their counties, I think would, would go a long way and be very helpful. So, um, it also states that the consultant must rely on independently verifiable objective data, ensuring that the study reflects real local conditions. And third, it strengthens the financial infrastructure, um, infrastructure safeguards by tightening bonding requirements, requiring executed improvement warranties and ties the bond release to actual infrastructure completion. If infrastructure is not completed within required timelines, protections are in place so that counties and taxpayers are not left carrying the burden. This came up because it was unclear in the current law if one of these municipalities failed, if everything would fall back on the county and they would be left holding the bag for something that they had no say and could have probably helped, um, show some data on some of these costs to begin with. And so, county leaders have asked for guardrails, not barriers. They're not asking to eliminate this program. They're asking for a process that ensures good faith engagement happens first, and that fiscal and infrastructure realities are fully considered before a new municipality is created. Um, this doesn't shut down this program, like I said, and it doesn't expand the program. It simply ensures that the process functions as originally intended as a structured accountable last step when local resolution truly cannot be reached. Um, growth can be a positive thing, and we know that it's happening here, and we need it to. We, um, our kids need places to live. And, um, I think counties are becoming more and more open to that. Uh, the reason why we had this in the first place is because there was a county that was unwilling to negotiate at all. Um, but now we see that happening with counties who are willing to negotiate and have had agreements in place and then had, um, been walked over in favor of this other process. So I think it needs to be intentional, coordinated, and financially responsible. It reflects the value of local input, fiscal stewardship, and cooperative governance restores balance, um, that was never meant to bypass meaningful county engagement. And with that, I'll open myself to questions.

  3. Committee chair1:17:50

     Thank you, representative Voxer. Let's go to the committee for clarifying questions. I have, I have one representative.

  4. Unknown speaker1:17:59speaker not certain

     What's the time period for the feasibility study, or how far in advance does it have to be done? So

  5. Rep. Tiara Auxier1:18:05

     I think after they apply, and they're accepted as one of the applicants that year, that, um, once the lieutenant governor identifies who's going to be the, um, the independent feasibility consultant on that, they have 120 days to get that done. And I think that the Lieutenant governor has like 30 to 45 days to name who the independent feasibility, uh, consultant will be by putting out an RFP.

  6. Committee chair1:18:34

     Okay, thank you. I see no questions from the committee. Let's go to the public. By raise of hands who would like to speak to this? We have one, two, and online. Okay. Come forward, please come on up. We'll do two at a time. Remember to sign in, please. You talk.

  7. Steve Waldrip, Governor's Office1:19:05

     You go. Thank you committee, uh, Steve Walder representing the governor's office and serving as the spokes model today for the Lieutenant Governor's office, although that's not my official title. Um, but you know, you get, uh, you get to have a, a double duty. Um, we really appreciate, uh, the representative's work on this, on this issue. I think what you just heard are a recital of very, very good principles for good governance. Um, and we agree with the principles that the representative stated in her presentation. Um, there are questions because this was a large sub that was dropped today. Uh, I won't even say their concerns. I'll just say their questions, uh, from Lieutenant Governor's office from, uh, our office. And, and we want a little bit of time to go through this, but we're not gonna pose getting it through committee to keep the process going with the representation that the, um, good representative made that she would continue to work on this. I will say that, um, one of the concerns, I spend a fair amount of my time Fielding calls from property owners across the state saying, I want to build houses. I want to build affordable houses. I can't do it because X entity or y entity is not willing to come to the table in good faith. And I spent a lot of time on this. And, and one of the concerns I have is that we have this artificial limitation on these of two to a year, which we've already seen. Uh, literally property owners are coming in with these because they're so frustrated with the process and they're trying to get 'em in at 12 o'clock and, and one, 1000000th of a second after January 1st to be first in line for the two spots that we have open. So there's still, I think there's still some concerns that we have that we haven't landed this structure correctly, because clearly there's a need for it. We have a need for, uh, homes for our kids in our communities. I agree that, that the, the tenor of the conversation is changing around the state. Um, and people are rec recognizing the fact that we have to do things differently. And I recognize good representative from, uh, Northern Utah who spent some time working on that issue. So with that, um, we, we have questions. We are going to continue to work with the representative on this. Uh, again, speaking on behalf of myself and the, uh, Lieutenant Governor's Office. Thank you. Thank

  8. Committee chair1:21:20

     You, Mr. Waldrop. Go ahead, sir.

  9. Chris Gamvroulas, Ivory Homes1:21:22

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris Gales, um, ivory Development and Property Rights Coalition. First off, I wanna thank Representative Sier. I was really pleased to see the sub that came in today. We've, as, uh, uh, Mr. Waldrop just mentioned, haven't had a chance to fully digest it. Um, but, um, many, many, many of the changes in the sub were suggestions that we made. Um, we've been, we've been working for six or seven months with representative Boxier and, um, representatives of Morgan County and, and particularly Cain County actually spent a lot of time with their, uh, several of their county commissioners, um, trying to brainstorm how to improve the process. And, and just there, there is a reason that the tool was created. And, and it actually wasn't just to bypass county governance. It actually was because there was a, there was a property owner, there is a property owner that had a development agreement with the county. Their property was entitled. And they, and the county would not engage in good faith with them to process their land use application. So it wasn't that they were going around them to establish land, use it. This, the land use had been established. Um, I was before you a couple of days ago, uh, in the morning, uh, uh, presenting with, uh, chair Dunnigan, uh, on, uh, house Bill 4 57. And, and the suggestion that we made was that, uh, and, and you were good enough to to, to sub that into, uh, chair Dunnigan Bill was about county planning. And it was about looking at the counties and saying, how are we going to plan for future growth? We need to do that. We do, we need to do it orderly. We need to do it with infrastructure. And we should be looking at how to make those areas be their own municipalities in the future so that they have a sense of place so that we are looking at, at, you know, where is the, where's the jail gonna go? Where's the, I I didn't wanna start with the jail. Where are the schools gonna go? Um, where's the, where's the city hall gonna be? What are the parks gonna be? And doing those plannings with the property owners there are in, in these counties, um, where, where there's going to be growth pressure. You have property owners that have very small properties, and you have ca you have property owners that have very large land ownings that, uh, that they have had for generations for decades. And they, and there are many of them that want to repurpose their property and they want to see something happen on that property. And how do we do that? Um, and, and make it make sense? And I think that, that working with, uh, representative Waxier, um, she has, she has really, uh, spent a lot of time on this. I do have to hand it to her, um, because, uh, I think we've, we've probably spent more time, um, talking with her than, than just about anybody. Um, but I do think that, um, we, we'll continue working in good faith. We know that the current tool has flaws. Uh, we think we can, we can work on fixing those. And we would not object to passing this out today favorably with the, with the commitment that we'll just continue to work in good faith on, on things where we still have some disagreements.

  10. Committee chair1:24:46

      Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. We have one online, Mr. Stewart.

  11. Seth Stewart1:24:58

      There we go. Yeah. I'm Seth Stewart. I'm from American Fork and I'm representing myself. Um, I was recently involved in a city council race in which I asked my, um, city recorder a very interesting question. I asked if our city had a charter. And the response I got was rather interesting because in Utah we have a, a doctrine that, uh, municipalities are creatures of the state. And we can trace that all the way back to United States Supreme Court ruling in 1868, uh, which created Dylan's rule, which asserts in essence that, uh, the, the municipalities are exist at the, at the will of the state. And, uh, one of concern I've had with this longstanding doctrine though, is it has been subsequently challenged through the home rule doctrine as well as, uh, by what preceded it. And in Utah's constitution, we have that all political power is inherent in the people. And this encodes the principle of popular sovereignty. And so, uh, my, my concern around creating additional barriers and impediments to, um, incorporating a municipality is that we are in, in many ways, thwarting our own growth. And, and to some extent, we can't blame this on the state because, um, at the time of Utah's founding, for example, there was a very large seizure of all unincorporated lands by the federal government as a prerequisite to statehood. So our solutions, our options are limited. And I grant that, uh, so we have a very, uh, challenging situation here in our state. But I would, um, invite the legislature to consider options that follow more of a, an early United States founding type of a theory where citizens come together, uh, with their private lands and they form a mutual compact. What is there to prevent them from, uh, issuing a charter, uh, and creating a municipality in that way. Our constitution actually allows for that under Article 11, section five students, uh, or sorry, not students, um, residents can, can, uh, vote to ratify a, a charter for their municipalities and a grant of power. So, uh, my question is, why don't we simply allow for that in addition to whatever we're currently doing with the incorporation doctrine for municipalities? So that's, uh, at a high level, that's my recommendation. And, uh, I think there's a lot of, uh, clearly a lot of, uh, desire for more land and more ability to develop that land so that people can have places to live and room to grow and so on. So with that, I appreciate consideration of, of this, uh, recommendation. Thank you.

  12. Committee chair1:27:26

      Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Next, we'll go to Celeste Myers. Celeste, you're welcome to join us. Go ahead and turn on your camera if you'd like.

  13. Celeste Meyeres1:27:51

      Okay. Am I ready now? Yeah, we can see you. Go ahead. Perfect. Thank you so much. Um, as Chris alluded to, as well as representative, we've been working really closely for well over a year on this issue. And, um, we're so grateful for having a spot in the room with everyone, including the developers, the legislature, and the counties, uac, et cetera. And I would just say this bill might not be in a perfect place, and I think that we can still continue to work on it, but it's in a, a good enough place, I would say to, um, pass out of committee favorably and, and go onto the house floor and, and progress. Um, some of the things that are really important to our county that we feel have been incorporated is more of an insurance of actual feasibility rather than just paper feasibility. And the reason that's important for counties like ours is when we have a preliminary come in that, um, looks with the feasibility study that it might work, but then it doesn't actually work. There's, um, weak protections in the, the existing statute for how a county is gonna be made whole if the project should fail. So that's why it's important to us that there be actual feasibility and a, and a careful process to make sure, uh, of that. And I believe the substitute comes, uh, much closer to doing that. Thank you very much.

  14. Committee chair1:29:20

      Thank you for your comments. Anyone else here in the room that would like to speak to this? We'll close the public comment period and come back to the committee for consideration. Representative Kohler.

  15. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:29:42

      Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to move, uh, first substitute HB five 10. We Have to adopt, we have to adopt the sub first.

  16. Unknown speaker1:29:51speaker not certain

      Oh, oh, no, we don't. Which Sub do you want? Yes, We do. The first sub. First sub Go ahead.

  17. Committee chair1:29:56

      Representative Kohler, that's in order.

  18. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:29:57

      I'd like to move first. Sub, uh, HB five 10. What was the number did you say? 5 5 10 first Sub five 10. Did I say it wrong?

  19. Committee chair1:30:10

      Okay. The motion is to dot first substitute house Bill five 10. Would you like to speak to your motion?

  20. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:30:17

      I'll waive To the committee for discussion.

  21. Committee chair1:30:22

      Seeing none, representative ox here waive Representative Kohler motion is to first substitute house Bill five 10. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries. A substitute is adopted. Representative Kohler.

  22. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:30:39

      Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd like to mo move that we move favorably. Uh, HB five ten first substitute. The motion is that we recommend favorably first substitute house Bill five 10.

  23. Committee chair1:30:50

      We'd like to speak to your motion

  24. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:30:51

      Just briefly. I appreciate the work that Representative Oxe has done. I think she's got this in a good place and it's moving in the right direction. I do have some experience back in the day where negotiations with developers and counties can be come a little bit problematic. It doesn't help that they can go to the state and get the rules changed, but I think this is in a place where I think we can, uh, come to an agreement that's probably better than it used to be. And I'll support the movement to the next step. But for now, I think we're ready to move.

  25. Committee chair1:31:22

      Thank you, Representative Kohler to discussion to the motion Representative Hansen.

  26. Rep. Leah Hansen1:31:26

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, because I am new to this committee and new to this understanding, I don't know much about this situation yet, but I am cautiously voting in favor of this for now.

  27. Committee chair1:31:42

      Thank you, Representative Hansen. Further discussion. Seeing none, rep San Vox here for summation. Yeah,

  28. Rep. Tiara Auxier1:31:47

      Thank you. Um, this bill came after a lot of negotiations. I mean, we spent hours and hours together with the stakeholders talking about, um, you know, what we could agree on and, and not, and like, like I said, I'm happy to continue those negotiations. Um, so I would appreciate that favorable vote. Thank you.

  29. Committee chair1:32:07

      Thank you for your good work on this. Rep Sand here, rep Sam Cole for summation. I waive, summation is waived. The motion is to adopt or to favorably recommend first substitute house Bill five 10 municipal incorporation modifications. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Say no. Motion carries unanimously. Congratulations.

• Feb 27, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Floor clerk (unnamed)31:15

     Madam Marine Clerk First substitute house Bill five 10 municipal incorporation modifications by Representative Voxer. This bill was heard in political subdivisions with the vote of 9 0 3.

  2. Speaker (presiding)31:32

     Representative Representative MacPherson. Motion to circle that motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it? Um, sponsors off the floor.

  3. Rep. Matt MacPherson31:40

     Thank you. Representative. Uh, the motion before us is a house circle.

  4. Speaker (presiding)31:43

     First substitute HB five 10. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes. The bill's been circled. Madam reading Clerk

• Feb 27, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (9 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)40:13

     Circle, HB five 10. That motion is an order will go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the house encircle HB five 10. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes the bills encircled then before the body for its consideration. Back to er.

  2. Rep. Tiara Auxier40:29

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Last year this body had a serious conversation about whether the preliminary municipality pilot program should continue and voted 53 to 19 to repeal it, but ultimately it didn't advance in the Senate. Since that time, I've been working with stakeholders to come to a compromise that would address the specific issues we've seen in a more accountable and workable form. First, it requires earlier and meaningful coordination with county officials in good faith. Before developers can go to the Lieutenant Governor's office and ask to create a city. Second, the bill ensures counties have a meaningful seat at the table. In the feasibility process, feasibility consultants must consider county provided data and analysis, including infrastructure costs, projected service needs, deferred maintenance, and long-term fiscal impact. Third, it strengthens financial and infrastructure safeguards. HB five 10 Titans bonding requirements and ties bond release to actual infrastructure completion. If the infrastructure is not completed within the required timelines, protections are in place so that counties and taxpayers are not left carrying the burden. County leaders have asked for guardrails, not barriers. They're asking for a process that ensures good faith engagement happens first, and that fiscal and infrastructure realities are fully considered before a new municipality is created. And with that, I open myself to questions.

  3. Speaker (presiding)41:53

     Thank you, representative er, uh, discussion to the bill court Representative Monson.

  4. Rep. Logan Monson42:00

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. There are a lot of issues with this specifically in my district, and I've been working with the county leaders to find some solutions they've been very hands on and, and supportive of, of the process. I want to commend the representative or the sponsor on this and and appreciate the work going into it and would urge my colleagues to support the bill as well. Thank you.

  5. Speaker (presiding)42:36

     Thank you, Representative Monson. Uh, further discussion to the bill. Let's go to Representative Roberts. Go to Representative Kohler.

  6. Rep. Mike L. Kohler42:49

     Thank you Mr. Chair. I also rise in support of this bill. Uh, the last couple of years of these have taken shape and as they start to progress, the problems have been obvious to those of us who've been in local government before. Um, our good representative colleague from Morgan County has met with the players in this many, many times to make sure that what we do have going forward works better than the, the forms that we have now. And I think it's going the right direction. So I encourage support as well.

  7. Speaker (presiding)43:21

     Thank you Representative Kohler. Uh, discussion to further discussion to the bill. Seeing none, back to representative er for summation.

  8. Rep. Tiara Auxier43:30

     Thank you. Like I said, this has been a long, um, time coming. It's been months and months of negotiation, so I would appreciate your support. Thank you very much.

  9. Speaker (presiding)43:40

     Thank you. Representative er voting will now be open on first substitute HV five, seeing all present. He vote and Bonney is now close. Uh, first substitute, HB five 10 passes this body with 68 yes votes, zero no votes, and will be sent to the Senate for its consideration matter. Meeting clerk

• Mar 4, 2026 Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (23 turns)

  1. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)28:16

     Uh, first up, we've got first substitute house Bill five 10, uh, municipal incorporation modifications.

  2. Rep. Tiara Auxier28:23

     Representative officer, Mr. Chair. Sorry, my phone's on. Okay. Got taken care of. Okay, great.

  3. Rep. Tiara Auxier28:31

     Um, thank you for letting me come and present HB five 10. Uh, last year, the legislature had a serious conversation about whether to repeal the preliminary municipality provision altogether. And that, uh, repeal effort passed 53 to 19 in the house and then ultimately didn't, um, advance in the Senate. And I just share that history because it reflects something important that there's a broad recognition that the current framework has created real challenges. And so today I'm trying to find a way to refine and strengthen this process. And, um, at its core, this is a conversation about whether or not, um, this statutory framework works not just on paper, but in practice as well for our counties and our taxpayers and our future residents. And so, the preliminary municipality pathway was created as a limited pilot program, and, um, allowing a small number of landowners to pursue municipal status without a traditional resident vote. And the original intent was clear that this should be a last resort. And so in practice, we have seen something different, whereas in a couple of instances, um, some applications for preliminary municipalities were submitted after development plans had already been agreed upon with different counties. And in some cases, the developers submitted incorporation paperwork at the exact same time that they filed their initial county application. And so that's not what this process was designed for. It was never intended as a functional, um, parallel leverage during routine land use negotiations. And five 10 addresses that directly. I am gonna be speaking to the second sub. Okay. There were a few more things just after some meetings, um, with property rights and the governor's office and Lieutenant Governor's office, I had a sheet and I, I incorporated almost all of that. And so the first thing that five 10 asked for is that it requires earlier and meaningful coordination with county officials. Before an applicant can file a feasibility request with the Lieutenant Governor, they must engage in at least 18 months of documented good faith coordination with the county. Um, the, the counties wanted two years, the Property Rights Coalition, and others wanted 12. So I split the difference at 18. And so that includes submitting a land use application or proposed development agreement, clearly stating their intent. So this coordination period specifically is in response to what we've experienced, and that the preliminary municipality option should not be triggered, triggered simultaneously with a county application. It should only come after substantial effort to resolve issues locally. This restores the process to its original purpose that the preliminary incorporation is a last resort and not a negotiate negotiating strategy. Second, the bill ensures that counties have a meaningful seat at the table for the feasibility process. And it just says that feasibility consultants must also consider county provided data and analysis, including infrastructure costs, projected service needs, and deferred maintenance, and long-term fiscal impacts. Counties may commission an audit of the feasibility study if they want to, and the consultant must rely on independently verifiable objective data, ensuring that study reflects real local conditions. And so we've, we've had some reports that some of these feasibility studies have said that they can fund an entire police force for less than it costs that same county to hire one. And so just making sure that we're using real data, uh, from local conditions. And then third, the most important thing is strengthening the financial and infrastructure safeguards. Right now, developers have to put up a certain amount of money to help pay for the infrastructure along the way. And, um, the question was, if this municipality failed or the preliminary municipality failed, would that money still be available to finish that infrastructure? And so, um, this would just tighten up that and let the, the county and the developers have kind of co authorization to access that money to finish the infrastructure that that money was provided for. So I would, I would just like to end by saying that county leaders have asked for guardrails, not barriers. Um, and they're asking just for a process that ensures good faith engagement happens first. So with that, I'll open myself to questions.

  4. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)33:01

     Uh, we need to back up here. You've been talking to the second substitute, so we need to, to take care of that. Oh, you Adopt it first, We, huh? Do you usually adopt it first? And that's what we're speaking to. Oh, that's what you want. Okay. We may as well have the bill in front of us. Oh, that's true. So in the house, we just do it after.

  5. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)33:17

     Okay. Senator Vickers.

  6. Sen. Evan J. Vickers33:19

     Yeah. Mr. Chair, I would make a motion that we delete and title and body for substitute. Ask bill five 10, replace with second.

  7. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)33:26

     Okay. Discussions in that motion. Seeing none. All those in favor of deleting title and body of first substitute house bill five 10. And replacing it with second substitute house bill five 10 say, aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. So we're clear. We're all on the same page. Great. Same bill. Okay. So, uh, she's done with her presentation. Any, uh, questions? Clarify on that? Seeing none, let's open it. Public comment. Are there people here that would like to address this? Bill? Bill? Okay. So we got three in the room. All right. Why don't you come up and fill the, the seats there. Uh, we'll have you sign in the roster, want your name and who you're with, where you represent, and, uh, right now.

  8. Commissioner Patty Vea, Kane County34:24

     Okay. Uh, good afternoon, chair Winterton and committee members. I'm Commissioner Patty Vea from Kane County. I'm here today to ask for your consideration and support of Approving House Bill five 10 sub two preliminary municipality. Bill. Many hours have been dedicated to collaboration between Representative Ox, Senator Colmore, other lawmakers, Utah counties, developers, property right organizations, the LGS office, and many others. This hard work has paid off in getting to the current bill under consideration. It isn't perfect, but it makes critical changes needed to correct the original legislation that established preliminary municipalities a couple years ago. This cleanup bill is results of lessons learned during the preliminary municipality process that counties have experienced over the past couple years, which King County is one of 'em. I respectfully request your support in passing house. Bill five 10 sub two. Thank you.

  9. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)35:21

     Thank you. Thank you.

  10. Steve Waler, Governor's office35:27

      Is that button on? Yeah. There We go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, committee members, uh, Steve Waler with the Governor's office. Um, we've been tracking this legislation for some time, uh, had meetings with good representatives. She's put a lot of time into this bill. And, and this is a very, very complicated, uh, structure and process and statute, and obviously there's some who want to see this tool done away with altogether. We're not in favor of doing away with the tool. We think there needs to be paths multiple for opportunities for, uh, property rights to be exercised in our state. Um, having said that, this latest sub has two, what I would call fatal issues. One is the requirement for a statement of perjury by both the applicant and the feasibility consultant, and requiring that standard. Um, and, and the LGS office is here to answer questions, but that is a, uh, that, that will prevent feasibility consultants from even taking this on, we just won't have anymore. Um, and the second is retroactivity. There's still retroactivity in here where this, there's a potential to go back and have this retroactively apply to existing applications, which is tremendously problematic for reasons. And so, again, in the, in the spirit of trying to figure out how to make something work, we're, we're putting a lot of lipstick on this thing and, and, and, uh, we're not confident that it's gotten to a point where we can, uh, have something that actually works at this point.

  11. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)36:51

      Thank you. Thank You. Next, thank you. Thank you.

  12. Chris Gales, Ivory Development36:57

      Uh, chair Winterton, Chris Gales Ivory development, uh, also with the Property Rights Coalition and, uh, TECA, what Steve said that Representative Auxier has put in a lot of time. We've been meeting since like July, and she's put a lot of time and effort into this. And as recently as like 1 29 this afternoon, she was emailing us and, and so we appreciate the communication. Um, there's still some things that I think we can, uh, work out. Um, uh, but I did want to give you just a little bit of background on, on why this tool even exists. And, and it exists because, um, there was one case, and a lot of times we do, we legislate by anecdote. Uh, but it was no small anecdote. It was a, it was a property owner had property in a county that had a development rights, it had a development agreement invested, uh, development rights and zoning. And the, that county refused to honor that development agreement. And so there are, there are significant cases where, where this tool is necessary. I don't disagree necessarily that it should be a tool of last resort, um, but there are times when there are applicants like ivory development where we develop in eight different counties and 40 different municipalities. And, and if you have a county that you've been working with for four years and you're still not able to get through the planning commission process, um, even though it's a different application, you have a pretty good sense of where your new application's gonna go. And so this, this is an important tool. We recognize that there are, uh, uh, reasons to have some guard rails around it, um, and to make the, the policy better. And, and we've been working on making sure the language is good about good faith and some of those other things with, uh, with representative ox here. Um, so thanks for your time. Happy to answer any questions,

  13. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)38:46

      Dean? None? No. Okay. Did we have all three of them? Do we have anybody in mind?

  14. Rep. Tiara Auxier38:53

      Chair? Could I respond to a couple of those?

  15. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)38:55

      Yeah, let's close public comment and then I'll, I'll let you.

  16. Rep. Tiara Auxier39:00

      Okay, thank you. Um, I just wanted to respond to the governor's office. Um, we have had a lot of conversations and recently the governor's office has gotten involved and I listened to a lot of those concerns. And I would say that the lieutenant of governor's office was brought in, um, by the request of the governor's office asking for this statement of insurance. It was not in the original sub, and it was something specifically that the Lieutenant Governor's office asked to make sure that the developer was saying, Hey, this is our plan and this is what we're expecting to do. And the Lieutenant Governor's office said it was so that they wouldn't actually get sued if the developer didn't end up doing what they had said. And so they wanted, uh, that liability taken off of them. If there's a better way to do it, I'm open to it. But that is specific from the Lieutenant Governor's office and was not something that I put in myself, the retroactivity. Um, if there's pilots in place or if there's applications in place, then obviously I would say yes, they don't have to go back and do that 18 months with the county. And that's fine. And I'm, I'm willing to look at language around that. That was, um, kind of new. And then obviously just the negotiating in good faith for 18 months. If, if this was in place at the time that the original, uh, bill was put in place for, it would've covered that property owner who had been negotiating and had those, um, rights and agreements. And so they, they definitely would've been able to be helped by this process. And so, um, while that might have happened in that one area, we, we can see how it's being misused and others, and I, I definitely think that we need to consider making this stronger for all the other counties.

  17. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)40:44

      Okay. Thank you. Alright, we'll, we'll, uh, come back for further clarifying questions, answers, actions from the committee.

  18. Sen. Evan J. Vickers40:56

      Senator Vickers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you, you mentioned those, those two questions that came up. Um, and is that something that you're, uh, willing to work on? It looks like you're center sponsor, Senator Cullimore.

  19. Rep. Tiara Auxier41:15

      Yeah, I mean, I can talk to him and see if there's any idea about the statement of insurance or like I said, it wasn't in the bill to begin with. And so if people don't think that's important for the Lieutenant Governor's office to have, then I'm happy to strike it as well. Um, it was just something that they'd asked for. And so, okay.

  20. Sen. Evan J. Vickers41:30

      Uh, Mr. Chair, I would make a rec make a motion that we, faith, liberty recommend, um, second substitute house bill five 10 with the con with the idea that there's still a little work there.

  21. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)41:41

      Okay. Discussion to that. Let's go back to the summation from the sponsor.

  22. Rep. Tiara Auxier41:47

      Yeah. You know, I, I think like what I said earlier, the counties aren't asking for barriers, just guardrails around this process. And also this bill passed unanimously in the house. So I think that it is a clear indication that that changes need to be made. And that was on the original sub before I even changed to more things. So I would appreciate that favorable recommendation.

  23. Committee chair (Sen. Ronald M. Winterton)42:09

      Okay. And back to you, Senator Vickers. I a Okay. All those in favor of second substitute house bill five 10 out favorably say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. See a post. Okay. That is five zero. So thank you for your presentation. Thank you.

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Presiding officer2:23:10

     Motion to delete title and body of second substitute house bill five 10. And replace it with third substitute house bill. Five 10. Motion is to delete and title second substitute house Bill five 10. Replace it with third substitute house Bill. Five 10. Would you like to pre state what the difference is?

  2. Rep. Tiara Auxier2:23:34

     The operative changes here is that this sub authorizes the Lieutenant Governor's office to charge and collect a fee and it also modifies the use of the municipal incorporation expendable special revenue fund.

  3. Presiding officer2:23:46

     Okay. Thank you for that presentation. It's a discussion to the motion to substitute Seeing none. All in favor. The motion to delete and title embody second substitute house bill five 10. And replace it with third substitute house Bill five 10 say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I'll rule that passes. The bill is substituted now to the substituted bill. Senator Comore.

  4. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore2:24:11

     So this bill deals with, uh, municipal in corporations and it requires, first off, it does three key things. It requires earlier and meaningful coordination with county officials in a good faith and effort to resolve issues locally. So before you can even submit an application, uh, to the Lieutenant Governor to become municipality, uh, you're supposed to engage for 18 months of good faith negotiations. This was a compromise between the counties and the Property Rights Coalition Counties won 24 months, property rights won 12. And so 18 was, was this bill splitting the difference? Second, the bill ensures counties have a meaningful seat at the table. In feasibility process, feasibility consultants must consider county provided data and analysis including infrastructure costs, projected service needs, deferred maintenance, and long-term fiscal impacts. And then third, it strengthens financial and infrastructure safeguards. So this bill will tighten bonding requirements. It requires executed improvement warranties and ties bond release to actual infrastructure completion. If, if infrastructure is not completed within required timelines, protections are in place so that counties and taxpayers are not left carrying the burdens. So we're looking for guardrails to protect the counties and, and, uh, in the incorporation of these new uni new municipalities. And we're not trying to put up new barriers.

  5. Presiding officer2:25:38

     Hey, thank you for the presentations. Oh, do we have discussion? Go ahead. Well, Let me, let me circle this right now as we do not have an up-to-date fiscal note for the new sub. So motion to circle. Okay. All in favor of the motion to circle, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed or rule that passes That bill is circled until the fiscal note catches up.

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (20 turns)

  1. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore3:23:14

     Uncircled. Senator Comore, This is the bill we discussed not too long ago. The fiscal note has caught up, but just to refresh, it deals with, uh, municipal incorporation. It does three things. Requires meaningful coordination with county officials, ensures counties have a seat at the table for feasibility process and strengthens financial and infrastructure safeguards to ensure that counties or taxpayers are not left carrying the burden in the event of a failed, uh, initial initiation of a municipality.

  2. President Adams (presiding)3:23:42

     Thank you for that presentation. It's their discussion to the bill. Senator Winterton?

  3. Sen. Ronald M. Winterton3:23:49

     Yes. I appreciate the, the sponsor of this bill in the house. They've worked hard and, and in my district, I have two counties that this would be very good. We always hear that we keep taking power away from the locals and trying to do their work for them. And this bill is headed in the right direction and she's worked long and hard and I think it's a good start on where we need to be with this.

  4. President Adams (presiding)3:24:15

     Okay, thank you. Further discussion to the bill Senator Millner.

  5. Sen. Ann Millner3:24:20

     So these are always really complex issues and everyone's, every issue's a little bit different. Um, I I think it's time for us to step back and say how do we approach this for the long term? Bring all the constituents to the table and build a better ongoing framework going forward. Instead of doing incremental things, it feels like this would be something that we ought to be doing during interim, uh, with the right stakeholders at the table.

  6. President Adams (presiding)3:24:53

     Okay. Thank you. Further discussion to the bill saying none. Senator Colmore back to you for summation or a motion.

  7. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore3:25:04

     I will move that we pass. Third substitute house Bill five 10.

  8. President Adams (presiding)3:25:09

     And the question is, shall third substitute house bill five 10 under suspension of the rules pass.

  9. Unknown speaker3:25:16speaker not certain

     Roll call vote. Senator Spery Lewin. Bramer Bus. Bremmer Bus. Colmore. Aye. Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. K Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens Pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson. Stratton Stevenson. No. Stratton Bickers. No. Byler Aye. Wilson Winterton Aye. Plum Aye.

  10. President Adams (presiding)3:26:21

      President Adams Aye.

  11. President Adams (presiding)3:26:24

      Third substitute house Bill five 10. Having received four 14 Yay. Votes. Votes. 12 nay votes, three being absent, fails to pass and will be returned to the house for filing.

  12. President Adams (presiding)3:26:47

      We've Got time for one more. Uh, one more Bill maybe. Uh, I'm gonna go to Senator Sandall.

  13. Sen. Scott D. Sandall3:26:55

      Thank you Mr. President. Uh, I need to, uh, make a motion to recall second substitute house bill four 16 Firefighter cancer amendments from the house.

  14. President Adams (presiding)3:27:09

      We have a motion to recall. Do we have, uh, do you want to explain that?

  15. Sen. Scott D. Sandall3:27:13

      Yeah. We missed a sub that was not online. That directs some funding that needs to be corrected.

  16. President Adams (presiding)3:27:20

      Better get it back. Do we have discussion of the motion to recall seeing? Not all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Roll. That motion passes. We'll wait for that bill to come back.

  17. President Adams (presiding)3:27:29

      Thank you. Now to Senator Mussel. We have the bill. Do we have the bill?

  18. Unknown speaker3:27:34speaker not certain

      Yes. Oh, we do have the bill.

  19. President Adams (presiding)3:27:36

      So, uh, Senator, we're gonna try to deal with this bill before we, uh, break for dinner because it does have a, it looks like a fiscal note to it. So, uh, let me go ahead and call the bill. I think it's, uh, let me place that bill now if we have it back, I'll take communications. Maybe that's the best way to start this with communications. Communications. Do we have the bill back? I'll put it. Let me, let me just start, go with communications. I'll place it on the top of the second reading calendar. Yes. I think we need to have communication from the house. Getting it back. Mr. President, the, uh, following our transmitted for further consideration. Okay. I'll just go ahead and place the bill at the top of the second reading calendar. Okay, we can do that. So let's place that bill on the top of the second reading calendar. I'll, I'll go ahead and call it. Let's Get it on the top. There it is. Second substitute house bill. Four 16 Second substitute house bill four 16 Firefighter Cancer Amendments. Senator Sandall.

  20. Sen. Scott D. Sandall3:28:49

      Senator Sandall. Thank you Mr. President. I need to, uh, move to delete and title embody second substitute house bill four 16