Eastern Summit County community members showed up in force to the second West Hills public hearing on Monday to express displeasure with the proposed township bordering Kamas and Wasatch County and question the sponsor’s motives.No one spoke in support of the idea during an hour-long public comment period.Derek Anderson, a Salt Lake City real estate attorney and the town’s sponsor, created West Hills and its boundaries. He’s had to redraw the new town lines at least three times since first proposing it.On Tuesday, he decried Kamas and Francis leaders denying annexation proposals and claimed he had plenty of support ahead of an effort to collect enough valid signatures by September to put the proposal on the general election ballot.“Along with the many other landowners in favor of West Hills, I place significant value on personal property rights, freedom and flexibility,” Anderson said. “As a group, we have done our best to be clear and transparent that the current zoning laws of Summit County need to be updated and that the only realistic options available to landowners are annexation or the incorporation process.”So far, each map has run into issues because of the Lieutenant Governor’s Office’s population requirements for town incorporations as property owners have asked to be excluded from the project.However, the state is no longer accepting or granting exclusion requests, including those submitted by property owners who were not previously included in the boundaries before the deadline passed. The law also states Anderson doesn’t need prior approval from a landowner to include them in the proposed boundary.LRB Public Finance Advisors released a second feasibility study in December, which state law requires to ensure that proposed towns will be financially successful. The feasibility study found that without constructing a government building, the town would have a revenue margin of 5.56% — a financially viable option for incorporation as it meets the 5% budget surplus requirement.A crowd of residents, mostly all in opposition of the proposed West Hills incorporation, gathered in the South Summit Middle School auditorium on Monday evening for a public hearing on the proposal. Credit: Clayton Steward/Park RecordIf West Hills did choose to construct a government building, which would cost an estimated $1.3 million, the revenue margin would be -25.85%, and the town would not qualify for incorporation, according to the consultants.The public hearing on Monday was intended for community members to learn about and comment on the feasibility study, but many took the opportunity to explain their position against the incorporation in general.Anderson did not attend the hearing but said he had a colleague in the room listening to feedback.“If, in fact, this nightmare gets passed, it’s all a junket for [Anderson] to get what he wants regardless of the zoning that existed when he bought the property,” said Barbara Toronto during public comment.The amended boundaries for the proposed town of West Hills. Credit: Courtesy Utah Lieutenant Governor's OfficeShe was referring to property that Anderson purchased prior to proposing West Hills. “He bought it knowing it was Agriculture-40, grazing easements, unless you fence your property,” Toronto continued. “He bought his property knowing that and also, most likely, knowing that he wanted to completely disregard it regardless of what the rest of us thought.”Twenty-two people spoke at the public hearing, all in opposition to the township. A majority of the speakers, like Toronto, mentioned Anderson by name or alluded to him as the town’s sponsor. Most identified themselves as residents of eastern Summit County from communities such as Garff Ranches and Francis. West Hills would be on S.R. 248 near Kamas and Hideout.“I moved up here for the open spaces to get away from the city and the problems that cities bring,” said Lamar Pierce. “That’s why I’m here, not for this crap, but then you have somebody come in that wants to change it all. They see the green in there, not the plants, the money, and they want to take it from you. They want to come in and tell you what you can do with yourself.”Lamar Pierce spoke in opposition of the West Hills incorporation. His son also spoke in opposition. Credit: Clayton Steward/Park RecordOthers expressed similar sentiments regarding property rights, saying that they were unable to opt out of being included in West Hills because their land was not in the boundaries until the new map was drawn in October — seven months after the final exclusion deadline in March.“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,” Toronto said.Other speakers said they weren’t even sure whether they were included in the latest boundary drawing, a deciding factor in whether they’d be allowed to vote for West Hills’ incorporation.Speakers also brought up risks mentioned in the feasibility study, such as an exponential increase in commercial space to create sales tax dollars for funding.David Darcey, a member of the Kamas City Council and Eastern Summit County Planning Commission, said the new feasibility study appeared to be as convoluted as the latest West Hills boundary map.David Darcey, a member of the Kamas City Council and Eastern Summit County Planning Commission, spoke in opposition of the proposed incorporation. Credit: Clayton Steward/Park Record“Contained in this study are 200 new homes and 67,500 feet of commercial space, and all of this growth must happen in four years,” he said. “In order to be viable, the proposed town must also generate $150,000 in annual point-of-sale sales tax. In order to do that, the proposed commercial space is equal to the size of Kamas FoodTown, the liquor store, Subway and the medical building and Ace Hardware. Do you think that’s going to be built within two years?”Speakers also frequently mentioned infrastructure, including water, sewage, snow removal and other capital improvements. Others questioned how the town would be able to properly provide services for a community with only a 5.56% revenue margin.Devin Earl, who identified himself as a civil engineer, said he was familiar with the high costs of capital improvement projects. “If a $1.3 million 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, but yet that conveniently got left out of the cost of the feasibility study,” Earl said.Devin Earl speaks about his position and concerns as a civil engineer and local resident. Credit: Clayton Steward/Park RecordThe feasibility study covered the financial aspects of the proposed municipality, but some issues were either outside the scope of the study, such as an in-depth environmental analysis, or were variables discussed in the risks section, according to the consultants. One named risk, for example, was the lack of a market feasibility study, which related to Darcey’s concerns about the viability of rapid commercial growth in the area.Additionally, some specifics, like how the town would operate and implement capital improvements, are decisions that the West Hills mayor and city council would make after incorporation.Tom Flosser, another property owner who spoke during the public hearing, said he didn’t understand why West Hills was being proposed instead of allowing nearby cities, like Kamas and Francis, to grow organically.“They already have the infrastructure,” he said. “They already have their community relationships. Why not support that? To impose this on this little valley seems unwise.”Anderson said on Tuesday that being denied annexation into neighboring towns and the county’s inflexibility regarding zoning led to the West Hills proposal.He had asked Kamas and Francis officials to annex the land into their boundaries, but both towns declined. The real estate attorney was also critical of Summit County, saying there’s not enough flexibility for landowners and leaving incorporation as the “only other path.” He encouraged residents to lobby the county courthouse to provide more zoning flexibility in the future to address growth.“Instead of working on solutions, Summit County, which is supposed to be neutral in this process, not only objected to the incorporation in writing and asked for land exclusion, but have also continued to object to feasibility determinations, had representatives quoted in the media objecting to the incorporation and sent representatives to each of the public meetings to voice objections and sway public opinion,” Anderson said.He asserted he’s made a great effort to reach out to individual property owners for their opinions, held Q and A sessions for those willing to attend, and offered to visit those with concerns. Anderson said he’s also done his best to accommodate any landowner who has asked to be removed from the West Hills boundary.“Many folks making these claims about the lack of transparency have ironically not accepted any of our attempts to communicate,” Anderson said. “It’s unfair to say we have not been transparent when we have clearly stated that our goal is to update the land-use laws, have followed the legal process and attempted to work with each individual landowner.”Lindy Sternlight asks a question on Monday evening. Credit: Clayton Steward/Park RecordThe public hearing was only for educational purposes within the community, according to representatives from the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. Neither the Lieutenant Governor’s Office nor LRB Public Finance Advisors — the two parties who attended and conducted the hearing — have the authority to deny the West Hills incorporation. They must remain neutral.Instead, the next step is for the town sponsor to file for incorporation. Anderson has until September to garner enough signatures to make it onto the general election ballot.The signatures must total at least 7% of the assessed land value and 10% of the land area, based on the value and acreage of each signer’s property, according to the state. It will be the registered voters who live within the proposed West Hills who decide if the area will be incorporated or not — if the process reaches that phase.Summit County does not have the authority to approve or deny the creation of a new municipality, nor can it vote on the incorporation as a government entity or property owner.Neighbors within and near the boundaries of the proposed West Hill incorporation organized after the meeting to stay connected. Credit: Clayton Steward/Park RecordThe post West Hills town proposal widely panned in public hearing appeared first on Park Record.