Dozens of Kamas Valley residents attended Monday night’s hearing, and those who spoke ranged from skeptical to downright angry and opposed to West Hills.
The town’s sole sponsor, Derek Anderson, didn’t attend. The Salt Lake City real estate attorney owns land along state Route 248.
“If you are so compassionate and you believe in this so much, why are you not here?” Lindy Sternlight, a vocal critic of Anderson, said at the hearing.
Anderson and his spokesperson did not return KPCW’s requests for comment Tuesday either.
The unanimous opposition struck Fred Philpot, vice president for LRB Public Finance Advisors, as different from other incorporation efforts.
LRB is a neutral party charged with determining if new Utah towns could balance their budgets, using development numbers provided by town sponsors.
“I'll share an experience you may have seen in the news: the incorporation feasibility study associated with the Ogden Valley incorporation,” Philpot told the crowd at South Summit Middle School Jan. 6. “I'll highlight one element that was different there, which is the voice of the people.”
The town of Ogden Valley will incorporate the area between the Nordic Valley and Powder Mountain ski resorts in 2026. It enjoyed the support of six sponsors, who’ve lived there as few as three years to as many as five generations.
Building Salt Lake reported Ogden Valley locals saw incorporation as a way to control growth and prevent becoming “like Park City” after the Weber County Commission greenlit denser mixed-use development.
In November, 68% of Ogden Valley voters approved the new town.
Far closer to Park City, the rural part of Summit County between Kamas and the ski resorts hasn't had as much growth — most of the proposed West Hills area is zoned for one unit per 80 acres.
And Summit County’s top planning official has taken a firm stance against it. Community Development Director Peter Barnes has said there are areas where the county believes denser development is appropriate, and West Hills isn’t one of them.
With the second public hearing required by state law come and gone, the map Anderson has drawn is final.
Now he’ll need signatures to put incorporation on the November ballot. Only people registered to vote within the 3,600-acre area may vote on West Hills.
Philpot and analysts from LRB used hypothetical development numbers from Anderson that aren’t binding to calculate tax revenue.
They said West Hills could raise enough taxes to survive, but if it builds even one government building, it will go over budget.
That’s why Kamas City Councilmember David Darcey called the potential vote a “high trust transaction” Monday, a vote on how confident West Hills residents would be in Anderson.
“It's obvious that the sponsors have an agenda about what they're giving in order to get what they want,” Jeramy Bristol of Spring Meadows said at the hearing. “I've met with Derek personally in his office. He yelled at me, and he hasn’t answered my calls since.”
The map has changed multiple times since West Hills was first proposed in April 2023. Bristol’s property was left out of the final version, and he thinks that’s because he and his kids would vote against it.
Barbara Tornoto wasn't happy her land north of state Route 248 was included in the final town boundary.
“I was told, ‘Sorry, you can't opt out. You missed that opportunity back in March,’ when I wasn't even part of this nightmare, which really makes me angry,” she said.
In a letter attached to LRB’s feasibility study, the mayors of Oakley, Kamas and Francis, plus South Summit’s school superintendent, call the town’s borders “obviously gerrymandered.” Barnes compared its shape to “somewhat arthritic fingers.”
The county planning department has raised concerns about the lack of sewer and water in the area.
Engineer Devin Earl grew up in the area and lives in Francis. He thought those costs would put West Hills’ tax balance in the red.
“If a $1.3 million [government] building put this project in the deficit by 26%, I can guarantee you the cost of some of those capital improvement projects to put in the wastewater and water facilities that would be required for the density they are talking about would far, far, far exceed $1.3 million,” Earl said.
LRB said those costs would be on the developer.
Either way, if the town doesn’t raise enough tax money from new homes and businesses and fails, Summit County’s taxpayers are on the hook to continue providing services to what’s left.
In previous statements, Anderson has said the town would encourage “modest new growth.” Development would be clustered to preserve open space and area for grazing, so people could maintain their greenbelt tax exemptions.
To make it to a vote, the sponsor must get signatures from at least 10% of all registered voters within the boundary. The signatories must own at least 10% of the land and 7% of the land value.
