Representative Ward, sponsor of House Bill 88, told the committee the bill would broadly permit a single accessory dwelling unit (ADU) — internal or external, but not both — on lots that already contain a single-family home in urban areas and would bar municipalities from requiring larger setbacks for the ADU than for the primary dwelling unless a safety exception applies.

The bill’s sponsor said the measure aims to expand small, lower-cost housing options and slow the long-term rise in house‑price‑to‑income ratios in Utah. He also said the bill would change the modern income housing reporting requirement from every year to every three years.

Representative Ward illustrated the point with local anecdotes: he described homeowners forced to remove nonconforming structures that depressed the home’s saleability and referenced developer accounts of rising local fees (impact fees, permit costs, fire sprinkler requirements) that increase home prices. Steve Waldrop, speaking for the governor’s office, told the committee Utah has a supply problem and cited a rise in the state’s house‑price‑to‑income ratio to “over 6 to 1,” arguing ADUs are a “light touch” option widely used across red and blue cities.

Public testimony split sharply. Homeowner Brooks Gibbs, who said he added an ADU in Bountiful, described it as a “lifesaver” that provided stable rental income and helped neighbors care for family. Representatives of cities and the League of Cities and Towns, including Mayor Troy Walker of Draper and Cameron Dale of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, opposed the bill’s preemption of local land‑use authority. They urged preserving local control over setbacks, infrastructure and development approvals and said broad preemption would not address entitled but unbuilt units already in local pipelines. Other witnesses — including Bike Utah, the Alliance for Better Utah and the Utah Association of Realtors — spoke in favor, saying ADUs can expand housing options with low taxpayer cost.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the bill’s details. Representative Peterson asked whether the bill limits owners to one ADU and whether cities could require owner‑occupancy; Ward said the draft permits one ADU but does not address owner‑occupancy and that safety exceptions are intentionally undefined and would be left for future interpretation. The sponsor said municipalities might later try to adopt requirements that could undermine the bill’s purpose and that unresolved boundary questions would likely require follow‑up work.

No committee vote was taken on House Bill 88 during the hearing. After public testimony and member discussion, the committee proceeded to the next agenda item without advancing HB 88.

Looking ahead, the sponsor and several committee members said housing supply and municipal infrastructure questions would likely require further negotiation and technical work before any bill could be reported out of committee for a floor vote.