© 2025 KPCW

KPCW
Spencer F. Eccles Broadcast Center
PO Box 1372 | 460 Swede Alley
Park City | UT | 84060
Office: (435) 649-9004 | Studio: (435) 655-8255

Music & Artist Inquiries: music@kpcw.org
News Tips & Press Releases: news@kpcw.org
Volunteer Opportunities
General Inquiries: info@kpcw.org
Listen Like a Local Park City & Heber City Summit & Wasatch counties, Utah
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Kamas-area landowners sue West Hills sponsor and state of Utah

Connor Thomas
/
KPCW
The boundary of the proposed town of West Hills is at the county line on state Route 248 (above).

The lawsuit to block Summit County's newest town, if successful, could reshape incorporation statewide.

The 10 landowners and residents suing town sponsor and real estate attorney Derek Anderson, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson and the Utah Legislature claim the current process to form a new town violates the Utah Constitution.

In the lawsuit filed May 13, they allege Utah’s incorporation law lets town sponsors “gerrymander” their own boundaries.

The plaintiffs want 3rd District Judge Richard Mrazik to stop the vote on West Hills this November by ordering the lieutenant governor's office to decertify the town incorporation petition. Furthermore, they want him to deem parts of the state’s incorporation law unconstitutional.

This is the final map of West Hills' proposed boundaries. It is roughly 3,600 acres.
LRB Public Finance Advisors
This is the final map of West Hills' proposed boundaries. It is roughly 3,600 acres.

Six of the plaintiffs own land that was not within the original boundaries for West Hills, which have been twice redrawn. All were surprised to learn they’re now within town limits, but Utah law doesn’t require the state to notify landowners when boundaries change.

According to the lawsuit, the Utah Constitution implies everyone should have been notified when they got included.

The other four plaintiffs say the West Hill’s boundary encircles their homes like a horseshoe, even though they’re not part of the town. They claim incorporation would irreparably harm them — but they don’t get a vote this November.

Only the estimated 47 voters who live within West Hills’ proposed boundaries can vote “yes” or “no” on incorporation.

The plaintiffs claim that’s unconstitutional because it’s unfair for the incorporation laws to let Anderson exclude people who would vote against the town and include people who can’t vote at all.

They are also skeptical of a third-party consultant’s study that found West Hills would be economically viable; that is, it could raise enough taxes to provide municipal services.

But the plaintiffs say they weren’t able to meaningfully challenge that conclusion, which if it results in a tax increase, would violate their due process rights under the constitution too.

The feasibility study assumed there would be some new development.

The plaintiffs are Jennifer McCaffrey, Kurt Larsh, Kris and Patsy Klein, Tyler Gough and Chanelle McGregor, Lindy and Dan Sternlight, and Scott and DeEtte Earl.

Some are active members in the Kamas Valley Preservation Association, a new nonprofit born out of West Hills opposition with ambitions to protect the valley’s rural lifestyle. KVPA’s website indicates it intends to file lawsuits if necessary, although it’s not named as a plaintiff in the one against West Hills.

Anderson, the Legislature and the lieutenant governor’s office haven’t filed responses in court.

Anderson did not respond to a request for comment May 13. The lieutenant governor’s office said it had not been served with the lawsuit and could not comment.

Related Content