Summit County community members who would be affected by the proposed West Hills township are voicing opposition to the development ahead of a public hearing set for Monday.
“I’ve been following the incorporation process since last summer when I found out that my property had suddenly been declared as part of the map,” said Jennifer McCaffrey. “I had not been contacted. Nobody asked me. I was chagrined to find out that suddenly my property off in the sticks is part of this town.”
The West Hills boundaries were created by sponsor Derek Anderson, a Salt Lake City real estate attorney, and have been redrawn at least three times since the new town was first proposed last year. Each map so far has run into issues because of the state’s population requirements for town incorporations as property owners have asked to be excluded from the project.
Now, however, the Lieutenant Governor’s Office is no longer accepting or granting exclusion requests, including those submitted by property owners who were not previously included in the boundaries, like McCaffrey. The law also states that Anderson doesn’t need prior approval from a landowner to include them in the proposed boundary.
“I’m frustrated with the way the law is written that is allowing this whole thing to happen,” said DeEtte Earl, another property owner within the West Hills boundaries. “People are complaining about all the growth and all this stuff, and I know that growth is going to happen. That’s just inevitable in Utah, but it is the way it’s all to Mr. Anderson’s advantage so that he can just pull up properties and throw them into a city. That’s what I’m really frustrated with.”
McCaffrey also expressed her frustration with the state. Her property in Summit County is a secondary home, and only homeowners with primary residences within the West Hills boundaries will have the opportunity to vote on incorporation. That leaves property owners like her — as well as property owners who have not yet built homes — without a voice, she said.
“I have a house there, and I pay property taxes, but I will not be able to vote in the town because I’m not a registered voter [in Utah],” McCaffrey explained. “I got involved because I seem to have no say. I’ve read through all the feasibility reports, I’ve been emailing the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, I’ve been talking to lots of people, and I even talked to some attorneys to see if there’s anything you can do to change the process, change the state, and in that respect, I’ve decided that there is not much that can be done.”
Lindy Sternlight, who was able to opt out of being included in West Hills, said that the proposed town is not only affecting the properties within the boundaries.
“We are 40 acres of open-grazing properties,” Sternlight said. “The Garff Rodger Ranch LLC runs the grazing rights. They have the deed restriction rights, and they run cattle and they run sheep, and if we don’t fence it in, they graze on our property. There’s elk on our property. The deer run on our property, and we all get along. The plus side for us is we get (agriculture)-based rates, but we don’t have to run cows and we don’t need to fence our properties. That’s what this community was predicated on.”
In the most recent feasibility study, which was released earlier this month, there is no mention of fencing or cattle, leading to concerns about how the development will affect agriculture outside of its boundaries.
“If this goes forward and West Hills does not build another fence, then they’re not going to bring cattle back on our side,” Sternlight said. “That means all of us on our side, unless we run cattle on our own and run the numbers on how much fencing is, we will not be able to get the ag (agriculture) rates. We lose our rights. It’s an economic hardship to us.”
The feasibility study claims that West Hills has the potential to be financially viable with its latest proposal. Without constructing a government office building, the town would have a revenue margin of 5.56%, allowing for incorporation. However, the town would also need to rely heavily on commercial development, a prospect that McCaffrey finds risky considering the rural area and proposed timeline.
“The fiscal viability is dependent on the commercial development, so that means by sometime in 2026 — so that’s not that long — we’re going to have more than 30,000 square feet of commercial space, and yet when I queried the developer as to what that was going to be, he said he didn’t know yet,” McCaffrey said. “My question is, how in the world are you going to get the revenue coming in 2026 and you don’t even know what kind of commercial space it is? These things take time.”
If commercial spaces in West Hills can’t cover the town’s expenses, the burden would fall to property owners through an increase in property taxes. However, the town does not plan to offer enough services to make a tax increase attractive, McCaffrey said.
“You would think that a town would offer some sort of public service,” she said. “You’d think that maybe you’d want a library, a community hall, road maintenance, garbage collection, that sort of thing, but none of that is planned. There’s no changes in public services planned. We will still all be maintaining our own roads. We will still be digging our own wells. Just no change in public services. … My concern there is that if the commercial development, which is paying for zoning changes, is going to be delayed or never happens, who’s going to pay the bill? It’s going to mean me with my property taxes for having no benefits whatsoever.”
McCaffrey said her only hope as someone within the boundaries as a secondary homeowner is to talk to her neighbors and convince them to vote against incorporation.
Earl, who will have a vote if it ends up on the ballot next year, said she also hopes that her neighbors and others within the boundaries vote against incorporation.
“I would hope that all of the citizens that have been pulled into this proposed incorporation vote against it. That’s my first thing,” she said. “We’ve been content being a part of the county. We have all of the services that we need with the county. We’re on wells, we’re on septic tanks. We have what we need, but [the citizens] need to come up with a plan with the county to somehow protect us so that this can’t keep happening over and over to us.”
The next public hearing on the West Hills development is set for 6 p.m. on Jan. 6 at South Summit Middle School. Summit County residents are invited to submit questions for the firm that conducted the latest feasibility study, LRB Public Finance Advisors, about West Hills for the second public hearing.
After the public hearing, a petition for incorporation will be filed. Anderson has until September 2025 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.