Prop 9: Uintah County Voters Decide Whether to Replace Their Commission

1. How It Got on the Ballot

This measure came from residents, not from the county commission. Five sponsors signed the plan: Anna Billings (designated sponsor), Brian Gorum, Dan Dilsaver, Jo Gardner and Nolan Jackson. The county clerk-auditor's office stamped it received on April 20, 2026.

On July 22, 2026, Clerk-Auditor Michael W. Wilkins certified the petition. His letter says his office received 48 signature packets and that the required number of signatures, 2,101, was obtained within 75% of the participation areas. That threshold is 11.5% of the county's 18,272 active voters as of January 1, 2026.

South Vernal (Area 3) came in below its own threshold. The rule requires 75% of the areas, which is three of the four, so the petition qualified with the other three.

How a citizen petition put this question on the ballot

flowchart TD
  A["Five residents
file a plan
April 20, 2026"] --> B["Signatures:
2,103 counted,
2,101 needed"]
  B --> C["Clerk certifies
July 22, 2026"]
  C --> D["Attorney review,
4 public hearings"]
  D --> E["Voter pamphlet
Sept. 21, 2026"]
  E --> F{"Voters decide
Nov. 3, 2026"}
  F -- "Yes" --> G["Council elected
in 2028; starts
Jan. 1, 2029"]
  F -- "No" --> H["Commission
stays"]

Timeline

• April 20, 2026Sponsors date the Proposed Optional Plan; the clerk-auditor's office stamps it received the same day.
• July 22, 2026Clerk-Auditor certifies the petition and sends the plan to the commissioners and county attorney for review.
• July 27, 2026County posts notice of four public hearings on the plan.
• Aug. 6, 8, 13 and 17, 2026Public hearings in Ballard, Vernal, Tridell and Vernal. Audio is posted. No votes were taken.
• Sept. 21, 2026Clerk-Auditor certifies the official voter information pamphlet.
• Nov. 3, 2026Voters decide Proposition #9.
• 2028 general electionIf approved, first election of five council members.
• Jan. 1, 2029If approved, the council-manager form takes effect and the commissioner offices end.

2. What Would Change

Today: who answers to whom

flowchart TD
  V["Every county
voter"] -- "votes for
all 3 seats" --> C["3 commissioners
make laws AND
run the county"]
  C --> D["County
departments"]
  V --> O["Also elects sheriff,
clerk, attorney
and others"]

If Prop 9 passes: who answers to whom

flowchart TD
  V["Voters in
5 districts"] -- "each elects
one member" --> K["5-member council
makes laws,
adopts budget"]
  K -- "hires, sets pay,
can remove" --> M["County manager
runs daily work"]
  M --> D["County
departments"]
  V --> O["Voters still elect
sheriff, clerk,
attorney, others"]

Everything in the right-hand column comes from the Proposed Optional Plan itself and the county's impartial summary in the voter pamphlet.

The plan also bars individual council members from pressuring the manager on hiring, firing or purchasing, and bars the manager from raising or giving money for anyone running for county office. Both rules repeat language already in state law. The plan recommends that the five districts start out matching the Uintah School District board districts, but it says it is not drawing the boundaries itself.

3. What the Plan Can't Decide

Two questions come up repeatedly about this measure: how much council members would be paid, and whether they would be part-time. The plan does not answer either one, because state law does not allow it to.

That means council pay, benefits and part-time or full-time status would be set later by the council, under state law, not by the plan voters are approving. Two statements circulating about Prop 9 should be read with that in mind: the For argument's description of council members who "receive limited compensation but no additional benefits," and news coverage describing a "part-time" council. Neither appears in the plan, and the plan could not legally guarantee either.

The same 2025 bill requires smaller counties (third through sixth class) that use the council-manager form to elect each council member from a single district. That is why the plan uses districts rather than at-large seats.

4. The County's Cost Estimate

State law requires a fiscal impact statement for this kind of measure. The one in the voter pamphlet is signed by Clerk-Auditor Michael W. Wilkins and Deputy Civil County Attorney Loren W. Anderson.

The statement says the $560,000 is only the average total wages and estimated benefits of a county manager and an assistant county manager in three comparable council-manager counties. It does not name the three counties. It lists no cost savings, and it does not estimate any difference between what three commissioners cost now and what five council members would cost. As Section 3 explains, the plan itself sets no council pay. The statement found no significant effect on vested property rights, other county ordinances or county legal liability.

5. What Each Side Argues

These are summaries of the written arguments printed in the county's voter pamphlet. The county notes that the arguments are the authors' opinions and were not edited by the county. Contact details printed in the pamphlet are not reproduced here.

Checking the factual claims inside the arguments

People in This Record

Everyone below is named in the county's own documents for Prop 9 or in the state law behind it. Private citizens are listed by name and public role only.

6. What's Confirmed, What Isn't

Questions Worth Asking, and Who to Ask

• Ask the Uintah County Clerk-Auditor's office: which three counties the $560,000 manager and assistant-manager average comes from, and what the three commissioners' salaries and benefits cost the county today.
• Ask the Uintah County Clerk-Auditor's office: for the sponsors' campaign financial reports listed on the county's referenda page, and whether any group opposing Prop 9 has filed one.
• Ask the Uintah County Attorney's office: if Prop 9 passes, who draws the five district lines, when, and whether the public gets a hearing on the map.
• Ask the Uintah County Commission: whether the commission has taken any official position on Prop 9, and where that is recorded.
• Ask your state senator (Sen. Ron Winterton, District 20) or state representative: why H.B. 356 (2025) requires district-only elections for council-manager counties of Uintah's size.
• Check the hearing record yourself: audio for all four August hearings and minutes for three are posted on uintah.gov.