Meeting in a special session Tuesday night, the Hideout Town Council declined to revive an effort to annex into Summit County on land planned for development by business partners Nate Brockbank and Josh Romney.
The Council made the decision on a revised proposal from the developers, reducing the acreage in the area near Richardson Flat and Highway 248.
This comes two days before the Hideout Council has a regular session.
Also, this morning, Summit County is scheduled to go to a Third District Court hearing in their lawsuit against Brockbank and Romney. The county is seeking a Temporary Restraining Order against the developers, alleging they attempted buying two Richardson Flat parcels in an improper foreclosure sale involving Wells Fargo Bank.
Tuesday’s meeting had only three Town Council members present and they were legally advised that any motion would have to be unanimous. That comes after the recent resignation of one Council Member Kurt Shadle, while another, Robert Nadelberg, was unable to attend.
Council Members were asked to consider a Resolution Indicating an Intent to Annex in the Richardson Flat area, plus Authorization to allow Mayor Phil Rubin to enter into pre-Annexation talks with the developers.
The town approved similar motions in July. That brought a lawsuit from Summit County and the town’s subsequent decision to rescind its plan to annex.
A controversial law passed by the Legislature last winter allowed cities to annex into other counties without their approval. That law was repealed in a recent special session, but the repeal would not take effect for 60 days.
Attorney Bruce Baird and developer Brockbank said they were revising the acreage in their proposed annexation. The proposal would cut out 210 acres, leaving 380 acres.
He said they dropped some parcels because they just received a letter from Park City, asserting that the acreage is subject to a Development Agreement with the city.
Baird said they don’t necessarily accept that claim, but they dropped the parcels just to have a cleaner proposal for Hideout. He said their current proposal is comprised of two annexation areas.
“The Mayflower annexation proposes to go up north on the 248, turn left on Richardson Flats road and go to the Mayflower property, for which there will be consents. There are consents on file from Mayflower. The second annexation would take off of 248, continuing north up 248 where Richardson Flats Road is, and go up and annex the Wells parcel, to the immediate north of 248.”
Brockbank added that the parcels they dropped were slated for open space and recreational activity in their original plan. That left some Town Council members saying they were disappointed.
Council Member Carol Haselton said she doesn’t favor another annexation effort now because she wants to pursue regional planning.
“Again, I think all of you know that my major focus is to work regionally with all the entities involved, and all the problems that we share mutually. So my feeling is that, in the interest of working with the other involved entities, to develop some thought-out regional plans that would be beneficial to those of us that live on the 248 corridor and around the Jordanelle, as well as people who live in Park City and Summit County. I feel that to go ahead with annexation is inappropriate at this time.”
Council Member Chris Baier said she’d like to put off action until their meeting of the 10th—partly so she has time to digest the revised plan, and partly so Council Member Nadelberg could be present.
But she also said that the town needs to be a stakeholder in Summit County. She said that to be at the table, they need to have land-use authority.
“We have not been included in Wasatch County’s Master Planning, and planning around the Jordanelle. We’re not part of Summit County, even though we’re surrounded by Summit County. We’re certainly not Park City, even though we feel a tremendous kinship to Park City and the people that live there, and all that Park City does and stands for. We feel very close to that. That’s one of the reasons we live here. Our area is, without being a land-use authority, we won’t have any say in what happens around the Richardson Flat area. We want the ability to find that area that we could make as a Town Center, which is part of our General Plan aspiration.”
Council member Jerry Dwinell said his major question is about what the Legislature intended to do.
“I am completely on board with the direction that this is the right step for the town. What troubles me about us moving forward with this is, we know the law is still the law today. It was repealed and we have the 60-day window. And so, to me this feels a little bit like, the door was closed, but they left the window open, and now we’re looking to climb in the window. And I’m sorry if that’s a crude analogy, but that’s kinda what it feels like a little bit, without understanding what the intent of the legislators were in leaving that 60-day window open.”
To get an answer, they heard from their legislative representatives. Senator Ron Winterton said he had just spoken with Rep. Calvin Musselman, who sponsored the original annexation bill last winter, and who also sponsored the repeal in the Special Session.
“He said, ‘Our intent was to repeal the original bill and to back up, and to give us time to go through a regular session, in which there’d be plenty of time for public comment.” One of the reasons that we did have a repeal bill was the Utah Association of Counties did not agree to the legislation. And it was mis-spoken, and mis-represented. And so they felt in all fairness, let’s back up, let’s go through that process. And so the sponsor agreed to have this on the call to repeal it and to give us time to have those discussions. It was not intended to leave the window open or anything like that.”
Rep. Tim Quinn made similar remarks. Asked by a Council member if he will support their annexation, Quinn said he understands the town’s plight, needing revenues to support their services. He said he would help to get all the parties together to work out a reasonable agreement.
