Last month, a public Heber City Council meeting that included Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s senior housing adviser Steve Waldrip started as a wide-ranging discussion about housing, growth and water pressures — but then it took a turn. 

Waldrip started by telling the Heber City Council and mayor he had a message that “I wish I wasn’t sharing with you because you’re not the target audience, but it will get to the right target audience.” 

He then pointed to news reports that Wasatch County leaders had rejected a proposal to build 144 homes on about 740 acres of land owned by the Utah Trust Lands Administration on a mountain side about six miles east of the heart of Heber. 

The developer of that proposal, Philo Development, also has been working for years to develop about 3,500 acres of privately owned land near the trust lands property. Philo Development has petitioned to turn that land into a new town, called Wasatch Highlands, under a controversial new state law that allows up to three land owners to apply to create their own municipality. That law, SB258, was approved by lawmakers in 2024, creating the state’s “preliminary municipality” pilot program. 

After Wasatch County rejected the 144-lot proposal (which would include five-acre lots), Philo partner Greg Whitehead was left frustrated, telling KPCW that it “sounds like we’re getting some retaliation” for pursuing a preliminary municipality under SB258, which Wasatch County leaders have opposed as a “problematic development practice” that allows developers to sidestep local land use authority. 

“We’re getting punished because we are considering a preliminary municipality,” Whitehead told the radio station. “Because we considered it, we’re not welcome to develop in Wasatch County, is what that sounds like.”

That story also included an interview with Wasatch County Manager Dustin Grabau, who said Wasatch County leaders were planning a resolution to ask the Legislature to repeal or change SB258, and that county officials would be reaching out to other counties — including Summit, Morgan and Grand, maybe more — for their support. 

‘We desperately need to do more’: Utah Gov. Cox convenes mayors to urge more action on housing

Back in the Heber City Council meeting on Aug. 18, Waldrip said the rejection of the 144-unit development “kind of came with the proverbial ‘we don’t care’ message,” and he said the article “highlighted the fact that you now have Wasatch County working in concert with Summit County to thwart state law relative to development, and that’s not the right message to be sending right now.” 

Waldrip seemed to interpret that as an effort to “deny preliminary municipalities” even though they’re allowed under state law. And he expressed frustration that it came even as state leaders, including the governor, have been pushing for years to allow and incentivize more housing to be built in cities and counties all across Utah in order to alleviate the state’s yearslong housing shortage, which has fueled unaffordable prices. 

“That was the message: ‘We don’t care. 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,’” Waldrip said. 

Then came the apparent threat. 

“So my message back from our good governor, who cares deeply about these issues, is your funding as a county is now at risk. … Anything within my power, I will stop,” Waldrip said, while pointing to state transportation funds known as “B and C road funds” that get distributed to counties based on road mileage. 

Wasatch County receives roughly $2.1 million a year in state B and C road funding. 

“B and C road funds, any other state funding to counties who openly declare war on the state over these growth issues, without being thoughtful, without having discussions, with just saying, ‘we couldn’t care less,’ that funding is now suspended,” Waldrip said. 

The message was not well received, by either Heber City Council members or residents across Wasatch County. Utah News Dispatch received multiple emails from concerned residents expressing frustration and demanding answers about the threat. 

“If our governor is trying to use the tactic of threats to our community, that doesn’t go over well either,” Heber City Council member Yvonne Barney told Waldrip, calling for more conversations and understanding that “citizens are scared and concerned and looking at the situation … as ‘Wow, we have no say.’” 

County, state officials meet, agree the comments weren’t ‘constructive’

In the weeks since, Wasatch County leaders and the governor’s office appear to have made nice. On Aug. 28, county officials posted on social media that Wasatch County Council Chair Erik Rowland and Grabau met with governor’s office staff, including Waldrip, to discuss the issue. 

“The conversation was productive and it’s clear that we want the same outcomes,” county officials wrote in that post. “They 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 response to a request for an interview, Waldrip issued a prepared statement. 

“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,” Waldrip said. “Making homeownership more affordable and attainable is one of my top priorities. We have to build more housing choices so our kids and grandkids can afford to live, work and raise their families here in Utah. I appreciate our partners in Wasatch County and across the state who are working with us to make that possible.” 

The governor’s office declined requests for an interview with Cox for this story, and his office did not respond to multiple questions about Waldrip’s comments and whether the governor directed him to make them. 

In an interview with Utah News Dispatch last week, Grabau said Waldrip’s initial comments appeared to be a reaction to an “untrue rumor” that Wasatch County was somehow “going to collude with other counties to defy state law related to preliminary municipalities.” 

The meeting was cordial, Grabau said, and “we were able to correct that and kind of avert any real consequences based on that,” with regard to withheld state funding, though it is true that Wasatch County would continue to lobby to repeal the preliminary municipality bill. 

Earlier this month, the council approved a resolution calling on the Legislature to repeal it, which includes a report detailing why it’s a flawed law. That report says SB258 lets developers entitle “large-scale projects while sidestepping the infrastructure, housing, oversight and accountability standards every other community in Utah must meet.”

Grabau said there were also “misconceptions” that the Philo Development project would help state leaders toward their goal of increasing affordable housing stock, while the 144, five-acre lots would be anything but affordable housing. 

“There was a private, gated community proposed that the County Council felt like this did not align with our general plan or our general community values,” he said, which is why it rejected the proposed development agreement. 

But Grabau said Wasatch County leaders do want to play a part in helping solve the state’s housing issues — and he said they’re open to finding “creative solutions” for the Trust Land Administration-owned property, like perhaps a land swap to build more affordable housing in an area of Wasatch County that makes more sense. 

Grabau said county officials reacted to Waldrip’s apparent threat with “confusion” since they understood the full context of their stance on SB258 and the Philo Development project — but Wasatch County residents reacted with outrage, viewing it as an inappropriate tactic to pressure a county to approve a certain development or stop advocating against a problematic law. 

Utah governor doubles down on goal to build 35K homes in 5 years 

“It’s reasonable to be concerned about local control,” Grabau said. “This is just one of many, many areas in which counties and cities are trying to advocate for local control, because we really feel like the government closest to the people is best positioned to balance the competing interests of things like property rights. … SB258, we feel like, upsets that balance in a way.”

Grabau said in the wake of Waldrip’s comments, Wasatch County has seen “overwhelming public support for the county standing up for local control and advocating for better public policies related to local control.” Long term, he said he hopes that support continues through the next legislative session that starts in January and beyond. 

“I would just encourage people to continue to be involved, because a lot of the decisions that happen at the state level affect local politics,” he said. “So if people can get involved in those state politics, then they can have more influence on ensuring that local control is preserved.” 

The threat has been dropped, but an angry resident still wants answers

While Wasatch County officials and the governor’s office appear to be moving past Waldrip’s comments, focused on working cordially together, some Wasatch County residents feel like the issue — especially the apparent threat to withhold state funds — shouldn’t be dropped. 

Jeff Pierce — a Park City investor who ran for the Republican nomination for Utah House District 59 earlier this year but narrowly lost to Luke Searle — has been posting about the issue on social media, calling for accountability. 

Pierce told Utah News Dispatch in an interview that he believes Waldrip’s comments in the Heber City Council meeting amounted to an “illegal, quid pro quo threat.”

“Approve those lots, drop your lobbying efforts, otherwise we’re taking money. We’re going to choke you out of your entitled B and C road funding,” Pierce said. 

He argues there’s no legal mechanism that allows the governor or the executive branch to unilaterally block that funding over this issue. That would require legislative action. 

“So are they going to these other independent branches and directing them to behave in a certain way that is not part of their purview for their own political ends?” he questioned. “I don’t know, these questions need to be asked.” 

Pierce wants to know if the governor did in fact direct Waldrip to make the threat. He also questioned why 144 lots of luxury housing were so important to the governor, and why he believes SB258 should remain law and Wasatch County shouldn’t be able to lobby against it. 

He also noted that Philo Development partners have ties to the Gardner Group, whose leaders have been major donors to Cox’s campaign in recent years. He questioned whether that threat could have been in order to help a politically connected donor get a project approved. 

Even if the threat has been dropped, Pierce argues it raises questions about the governor’s tactics. 

“Is the governor behaving like this behind closed doors? Because we saw a rare glimpse into, like, some of the tactics they’re using,” he said. “What I would like is an answer about whether this is business as usual for them.” 

Pierce said the governor’s office should answer these questions — but he’s frustrated that they have largely remained silent on the issue. 

Utah News Dispatch sent a list of questions to the governor’s office after an interview with the governor was declined. The governor’s office didn’t respond, but it issued the prepared statement from Waldrip. 

Though Wasatch County officials and the governor’s office appear to be working together now, with county officials saying both parties agreed Waldrip’s comments weren’t “constructive,” Pierce said “public trust, in my opinion, has been breached.” 

“It seems like all sides have acknowledged what happened was wrong. They’re not actually able to withhold those funds, so why did they threaten to withhold those funds?” he said. “No one knows the answer to that.” 

Taking a further step back, Pierce said he’s frustrated with state leaders’ overall strategy with housing and economic development. Though a major factor of Utah’s housing crunch has been due to population growth outpacing the availability of housing, Pierce argued much of that growth and the housing crisis has been “self-created,” driven up due to economic development incentives that have brought businesses to Utah. 

Meanwhile, he said not enough focus has been placed on providing workforce housing for those businesses that attract people to move to Utah from out of state.

“It’s irresponsible and purchased growth,” Pierce said. 

For example, he pointed to Mayflower Mountain Resort, now known as Deer Valley East Village in Wasatch County, which was made possible due to tax increment financing that captures 75% of new taxes within the project area for 40 years and bonding by the Military Installation Development Authority, also known as MIDA. 

The East Village will need an estimated 6,000 workers within the next 10 years, the Park Record recently reported. 

Pierce said entities like MIDA and others that drive economic development haven’t come with enough local planning to make way for the housing needed to support those jobs. As a result, counties like Wasatch don’t have the infrastructure to support the growth that’s already coming. 

“It’s top-down growth without consulting the locals,” Pierce said. 

Withholding of transportation funding would make those issues worse, not better — which is another reason why Pierce bristled at the threat. 

“What the governor needs to do, if he wants to be honest, is he needs to work with local communities instead of being an adversary to them,” he said. “And what we saw on full display in front of the Heber City Council was an adversarial, authoritarian executive branch pushing policy on local communities without knowing what those local communities’ issues even are.” 

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE