Summit County Third District Court Judge Matthew Bates decided to defer his decision on a lawsuit claiming the proposed West Hills incorporation violates the state Constitution until after Election Day.
The 10 plaintiffs are a mixed group of longtime residents in unincorporated Summit County, near the proposed West Hills boundaries, and second-home owners frustrated with the state’s incorporation process. The lawsuit, filed in May, names Salt Lake real estate attorney and town sponsor Derek Anderson and Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson as defendants. The state Legislature was also named, but ultimately dismissed from the case.
Only the 47 registered voters living within the boundaries of the proposed township will have the opportunity to vote on incorporation, preventing second-home owners registered to vote in other states from participating in the decision this November.
The original map Anderson created for the West Hills boundaries was submitted to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office in 2023, but it failed to meet state requirements for incorporation after multiple property owners opted to be excluded from the township. Anderson then submitted a second, revised map, which did meet the requirements.
However, the lawsuit alleged Anderson “manipulated the contiguity of boundary requirements” and intentionally included second-home owners who would be unable to vote on incorporation.
The complaint additionally challenged the legality of Utah’s municipal incorporation process in general, alleging the legislation violates the Utah Constitution by offering only some property owners the chance to exclude their land from being included in the proposed boundaries.
That point in particular took center stage during an evidentiary hearing on Tuesday, in which attorneys representing the 10 plaintiffs asked Bates for a summary judgment, or decision on the case without a trial, regarding the specific claim that the incorporation process is unconstitutional.
Janet Conway, one of the residents’ attorneys, argued the Utah Constitution, which states that “all laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation,” mandates everyone be treated equally unless the legislation in question explicitly applies to a particular subsection of the population.
In the case of municipal incorporations, Conway said, the state law inadvertently separates property owners into categories and treats them differently depending on which group they fall into. The law governing incorporations allows landowners within the proposed boundaries to ask for an exemption, but the exemption window ends after the first public hearing.
The first public hearing for the West Hills proposal was held on Feb. 12, 2024.
However, sponsors can revise the proposed boundaries of the township and submit a modified map to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office, even if the first iteration did not meet statutory requirements, as in West Hills’ case. If that happens, property owners included in the second version who may not have been in the first don’t have an opportunity to request an exemption, which Conway claimed violates their constitutional right to uniform treatment.
Anderson’s legal counsel, meanwhile, argued the West Hills incorporation simply followed the law as it was written, with the ultimate goal of clearly defining a map for voters. They said whether homeowners included in the second round have the chance to ask for an exemption is moot because those homeowners can still participate in the democratic process by voting on the incorporation question.
The defense attorneys also argued rendering the West Hills incorporation process unconstitutional affects other proposed incorporations as well. That would force multiple town sponsors across the state, including Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s Park City Tech, to restart the incorporation process.
Conway rebutted that there was no evidence that the other proposed incorporations had a modified map with a second round of property owners included, which means they may not be affected if Bates were to rule in her clients’ favor. She also pointed out that many of her clients are second-home owners who are barred from participating in the ballot decision.
Bates had also previously asked about second-home owners within the proposed boundaries, saying he could see a hypothetical situation in which a town sponsor purposefully includes second-home owners to meet the necessary statutory requirements while still retaining control of the vote because those owners would be unable to participate in the election.
Ultimately, Bates told the courtroom he planned to issue a decision on whether the West Hills incorporation process was unconstitutional after Election Day. He said he preferred to wait until voters have a chance to decide, especially considering the case is likely irrelevant if incorporation fails.
Bates said he would give attorneys 10 days to submit a brief contesting his decision if they disagreed and saw a need for an immediate ruling, but no additional documents had been filed as of Wednesday afternoon.
West Hills is a proposed township covering 3,600 acres along S.R. 248 near Kamas. It has been largely opposed since its creation two years ago, with community members citing concerns over property rights, economic viability and the sponsor’s motives.
Meanwhile, West Hills supporters said they believe the incorporation will give residents more flexibility with their property, help control expected growth in the area and encourage open land preservation.