The city's alleged tactic: influencing voters by overestimating the cost of the change.

Friday, the residents took their claim to the Utah Supreme Court.

"The present city administration desires to prevent passage of the citizen's initiative and the fiscal impact estimate was created to further that aim," the petition claims.

Currently, the mayor's position in the 85,000-resident community is part time. The mayor votes as a member of the City Council, while the city's day-to-day operations fall to the city manager.

To force the change - it would put the mayor in charge of running the city - voters would have to approve the idea. To get that concept onto the ballot, the citizens group must gather the signatures of 2,974 registered voters. A 100-word financial-impact statement prepared by the city is attached to every one of the signature forms.

That statement estimates it would cost the city $780,000 the first year of the change. A portion of the money would be used as severance pay for the current city manager and the salary for the final years of the current mayor's term. The total drops off in subsequent years, but the analysis puts the cost at $2.7 million over five years.

To pay for that, the city could pass a property-tax increase that would bump taxes on a $175,000 home by $15.57 annually.

"Those numbers come out of thin air," said Jay Sheen, one of the petitioners.

Sheen argues the analysis added staff members and attorneys to represent both the mayor's office and the City Council. The citizens say the only additional costs would be the mayor's salary, pay for another city council member and the one-time severance to the city manager.

"It's wholly inadequate," City Attorney Roger Cutler said of the Supreme Court filing. "This was a very careful and thoughtful analysis that was put together."

jsantini@sltrib.com