Summit County may shift from at‑large to district elections under HB 356; public and local officials weigh options

House Bill 356, approved by the Utah Legislature this year, will replace Summit County’s five at‑large county council seats with seats elected from geographic districts, county officials said at a Summit County Council of Governments meeting on April 15, 2025.

The change, county Attorney Dave Thomas told the Council of Governments (COG), was passed late in the legislative session and signed by the governor with a note that the law’s “unintended consequences” could be addressed in a possible special session. Thomas described the enrolled version of HB 356 and the legal limits on how the county can respond.

"Under the current Open Meetings Act rules, if there is a quorum of the County Council, it has to be formally convened for them to conduct any business," Thomas said. "The districting commission was not changed; it consists of the mayors of each of the cities and one member appointed by the county council, with an ex officio member being the County Clerk."

Why it matters

The bill represents a structural shift in how residents will choose county representatives. Under Summit County’s current system every registered voter could cast a vote for all five seats; under the law each voter would generally cast one vote for the council seat representing their district. Proponents of districts told the COG they expect districts will give rural and unincorporated areas a clearer path to representation; critics and some speakers urged preservation of at‑large seats or a hybrid approach.

What county staff told the COG

Thomas walked through the versions of the bill and changes made during the final hours of the session. He said the county proposed a hybrid approach during negotiations—allowing 60% of seats to be districted while preserving two at‑large seats—but that the final enrolled bill eliminated at‑large seats in favor of single‑member districts.

He summarized the implementation and legal constraints the county faces: the districting process is legally a legislative act that requires County Council approval; the districting commission as enrolled consists primarily of the county’s mayors plus one council appointee and an ex officio county clerk; and the law as written would trigger implementation in 2026, which could leave current council members assigned to districts where they are not residents unless the council or legislature changes the implementation plan.

Public comment

Public comment—limited to three minutes per speaker—filled much of the meeting. Dozens of residents, many from unincorporated and eastern parts of the county, urged the COG to press for five single‑member, geographically balanced districts. Rory Swenson of Colville urged a “hybrid” approach during his remarks but later reiterated support for preserving countywide accountability. "If it's implemented in its current form...under a fully distributed system, each voter would only cast one vote every four years for one position," Swenson said, arguing that would reduce the number of council races any single voter influences.

Multiple speakers from eastern and rural communities said the current at‑large system dilutes their votes because much of the county population is concentrated in the Snyderville Basin and Park City area. Colville resident Corey Welch said the present system "essentially leaves out half the county, geographically, probably more than half the county population wise," while Jerry Heck of Oakley urged equal‑area single‑member districts as a remedy for what he called "hegemony" by Park City and the Basin.

Comments also raised procedural concerns: Rebecca Taylor, who said she had long experience with the county’s emergency services, urged that districting not result in diminished protections or resources for volunteers and first responders in unincorporated areas. Several speakers criticized the bill’s late‑night passage in the Legislature and asked local officials to seek changes during any special session the governor might call.

Local elected officials’ responses

Mayors around the table generally said they support districting, though they differed on details. Mayor Jeremy Foreman of Francis and Mayor Mark Marsh of Colville told the COG they had heard strong constituent support for five single‑member districts that would better reflect the county’s geographic diversity. Park City Mayor Nan Worrall said she supported districting as a concept but criticized the legislative process used to pass the bill.

Several mayors and Council members expressed concern about two specific implementation issues: (1) the membership and balance of the districting commission, and (2) how existing council members would be assigned to new districts. Some officials suggested adding an additional at‑large seat on the redistricting commission to represent unincorporated areas; others said the mayors are an appropriate bipartisan body to make initial map proposals.

On assigning sitting council members to seats, the enrolled bill’s language contemplates using a lottery in some circumstances. That approach drew criticism from multiple speakers. "The method proposed for assigning current council members to new districts, by lottery, is deeply flawed," Rory Swenson said, recommending that lotteries be limited to districts where two sitting members reside rather than applied across the board.

Legal and procedural constraints

Thomas emphasized that redistricting is a legislative power and that the County Council must approve any map the commission submits; he also said the council's approval is constrained by constitutional and statutory rules. He warned that the way the bill is written could produce "a legally sham public hearing" if the council cannot modify maps or meaningfully consider public comment under the constraints placed by the statute and related case law.

Votes and formal actions at the meeting

The COG took routine administrative votes before and after the HB 356 discussion. Highlights:

- Approval of COG minutes (09/16/2024 and 11/19/2024): motion carried; multiple members abstained because they were not on COG at the earlier meetings. The quorum requirement and whether a county council quorum appearing at COG amounts to a separate county council meeting was discussed at length, with Thomas advising that members present at COG were acting in their capacity as COG members unless the County Council was formally convened.

- Approval of draft minutes for 02/04/2025: the COG approved the minutes by motion and second; the motion carried.

- Motion to adjourn: moved and seconded; all in favor.

The COG briefly considered a motion proposed by a mayor to ask the COG to advocate to the legislature for an additional at‑large seat on the districting commission to represent unincorporated areas. That motion was proposed and debated, but it did not gain the support needed to advance as a formal, carried action at the meeting.

What’s next

County officials said they expect the matter could appear on the agenda of a legislative special session the governor might call to address veto overrides and other late‑session bills. Thomas said the county and mayors plan to continue conversations with legislative sponsors and to share public input gathered at the meeting. Several mayors asked the county attorney to circulate the COG bylaws and other materials so municipalities can coordinate any legislative outreach.

Closing

The COG closed its public comment period after more than a dozen speakers and then spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing drafting and representation options for the districting commission and the new district maps. The county council and mayors agreed they would continue outreach and return to the topic at a future COG meeting in May or June to consider transportation tax proposals and housing authority topics as well.

Quotes used in this article come from the COG meeting transcript and are attributed to the speakers who made them.