Kane County prepares unified strategy for Lieutenant Governor hearing on Willow feasibility study

Kane County commissioners, staff and residents met on Jan. 2 in Kanab to coordinate a unified response and evidence for a Jan. 6 Lieutenant Governor public hearing on the Willow preliminary municipality feasibility study. The session, led by the chair of the county commission, focused on preparing priority questions, assigning witness roles and documenting technical and fiscal concerns to submit to the Lieutenant Governor's office and the study's consultants.

The meeting centered on how the hearing will be conducted and how participants can most effectively participate. "The way that this works is a little different than, like, your normal public hearing," said Taylor Glover, the county's Government Affairs Director, demonstrating the online question-submission form and urging attendees to submit focused primary questions and a secondary question in case time permits. Glover advised residents to use the county's sample questions packet and to bring printed materials to the hearing.

The county and local partners have already put material into the hearing record. A participant said the county has passed a formal resolution opposing the proposal and that the Vermillion Cliff Special Service District and Kanab City have passed resolutions declining to provide structural fire protection to the proposed area. "We have passed a formal resolution that we're in opposition of this," one attendee said during the meeting, and staff confirmed those documents were submitted to the Lieutenant Governor's office and the consulting firm.

Technical critiques dominated the meeting. Tom, the county engineer, and other technical participants said the consultant relied on optimistic pro forma assumptions that make the study appear feasible on paper even though key implementation costs are missing or understated. Tom said the pro forma projects 117 lot sales in year one while the surrounding Kanab area recorded 67 single‑family sales in 2025, and that the consultant doubled the county's historic growth rate to make the figures work. He also warned the study counts roughly four times the lot density that state on‑site septic rules permit (the county was told state rule limits lots served by on‑site septic to a minimum size of 20,000 square feet). "Their pro forma or their estimated development numbers are counting in 4 times the density than what is allowed by state rule," Tom said, noting the alternative — a collective large‑underground disposal system (LUDs) — would require several acres and multi‑million dollar construction and collection systems not included in the study's costs.

Engineers and residents also flagged transportation and emergency‑service gaps. Tom said a designated major access point to Highway 89 requires turn lanes and other improvements that could cost on the order of $1 million or more, and other meeting participants noted Mountain View Road's condition, single access implications for evacuation and the lack of a thorough condition or cost assessment in the feasibility report. "You're talking another million on the hook for the fire stuff," one commissioner said, stressing that the study does not appear to include the full operations and infrastructure costs for fire protection.

Several attendees questioned the study's revenue modeling. One resident who had spoken with Lieutenant Governor staff said the statute does not require a market study, allowing sponsors to present pro forma projections without independent market verification. Attendees called out the study's use of a municipal services fund assumption (modeled on another county) and hotel occupancy and average daily rate assumptions as inconsistent with local market data and not uniformly applied in other feasibility analyses.

Meeting participants took practical steps. They reviewed 21 sample questions prepared by staff, assigned specific primary questions to volunteers to submit on the Lieutenant Governor portal, and prioritized possible witnesses if the hearing allows oral testimony: Tom and other technical experts on septic and road access; a real‑estate expert (Becky Glover) to address sales and market assumptions; the county assessor or other county staff to critique revenue assumptions; and legal staff to make the county's statutory arguments. Staff also discussed soliciting formal letters from the county assessor, health department and other experts for the hearing record.

Attendees planned contingency measures in case the Lieutenant Governor's hearing limits oral comment. "We've already prepared statements and submitted them," the chair said, urging residents to bring printed packets and to consider submitting letters at the hearing as a papered record. The group agreed to show a strong, focused presence at the Jan. 6 hearing in the Kanab Center ballroom from 6–8 p.m. and to continue coordination by email and the county website.

The county's immediate next steps are to file the assigned primary questions on the Lieutenant Governor's submission site, compile printed packets of the county's redline comments and resolutions, and deploy priority speakers and expert letters to ensure the record documents the county's technical and fiscal objections to the study. If the Lieutenant Governor's office determines the feasibility findings meet statutory metrics, the study could be approved; meeting participants said their goal is to document objective, provable flaws that create reasonable doubt about statutory compliance and to press for additional review or delay of any approval.

The commission and staff said they will continue outreach to state legislators and recommended residents also write to elected officials if they want broader statutory changes to the preliminary municipality process.