Crowd sharply challenges Willow feasibility study at January 7 public hearing

About 300 residents filled the Kanab Center on Janu­ary7, for a public hearing on the proposed preliminary incorporation of Willow, a large development east of Kanab. Speakers raised objections to the state-required feasibility study and broader concerns about growth, infrastructure and local control.

Residents line up to speak during a public hearing on the proposed Willow incorporation at the Kanab Center on January 7. About 300 people attended the state-required hearing. Photo by Don Jennings.

The hearing was part of a statutory process overseen by the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office, which reviews incorporation pro­posals under state law. No decisions were made at the meeting.

Consultants from Lewis Young Robertson & Burn­ingham, now operating as LRB Public Finance Advi­sors, presented the pre­liminary feasibility study, which assumes Willow would incorporate as a town and evaluates projected population, service costs, revenues and fiscal impacts over a five-year period.

Early public comment focused on technical chal­lenges to the study’s as­sumptions. Several speak­ers, including licensed and certified representatives of the local public board of health responsible for overseeing wastewater sys­tems, raised concerns about the proposal’s reliance on individual septic systems, saying the proposed lot sizes may not be sufficient to meet state requirements.

Fire protection was a central issue throughout the hearing. The feasibil­ity study assumes service would be provided through the Vermillion Cliffs Special Service District, a county-created entity established in 2025 to serve unincor­porated areas near Kanab. Speakers and local officials noted that the district was only recently formed and does not have personnel, equipment or operational capacity to provide fire protection directly, with its authority limited to con­tracting for services.

Kanab City officials have previously notified the lieutenant governor’s office that the city cannot provide fire protection services to the proposed development under the assumed struc­ture. Kane County Commis­sioner Celeste Meyeres said she agreed and questioned whether the feasibility study adequately accounted for the true cost and practi­cality of fire and emergency services.

Meyeres also cited infra­structure costs she said were missing or understat­ed in the analysis, including sewer systems, a potential Highway 89 turning lane and costs related to impact fees, warranties and bond­ing. She noted that power service, which would be provided by Garkane En­ergy, was not addressed in the presentation.

County Attorney Jeff Stott said he did not believe the feasibility study fully aligned with the project’s certified plan. Questions were also raised about revenue assumptions tied to commercial development and hotel use.

After prepared speak­ers concluded, public comment became more emotional. Residents questioned water avail­ability, road capacity, fire protection and population growth pro­jections, with several expressing skepticism that the development would fill as projected.

LRB representatives said the proposal in­cludes provisions al­lowing the county to seek damages if the development fails, though residents con­tinued to voice concern about who would ulti­mately bear municipal costs.

Speakers also raised concerns about popula­tion density, property values, affordability, dark skies, traffic and impacts to the area’s rural character.

Rep. Logan Monson, who represents the district, spoke during public comment and said he opposed the preliminary incorpora­tion process being used for Willow, not tradi­tional incorporation methods. Monson said he supported and voted for legislation backed by the Kane Coun­ty Commission last year that would have paused preliminary municipality filings while the process was reviewed and refined.

While several speak­ers acknowledged that the incorporation pro­cess is governed by state law and now largely outside county control, many said that reality made the proposal especially dif­ficult to accept, describ­ing it as an erosion of local self-governance.

No action was taken at the hearing. The incorporation process will continue through state review, includ­ing potential signature gathering and further steps outlined in stat­ute.