Right now, if a new town is proposed in Utah, residents only have 30 days to opt out of joining that new town’s boundaries. The clock starts right after the first public hearing on the issue.
But down the line, if the maps change — adding new properties and ditching others — should people still be given the chance to opt out? And if so, should that be up to a judge, or Utah lawmakers?
The question stems from a lower court judge’s October decision that halted an election in Summit County.
That election was supposed to determine whether the new town of West Hills could incorporate, which developer Derek Anderson and a group of other landowners near Kamas wanted.
But not everyone was a fan. A different group of residents who cherished their rural lifestyle sued to stop it.
In the lower court, when 3rd District Judge Matthew Bates halted the election, he determined the state law that governs the creation of cities and towns is unconstitutional.
He ruled that because the law only lets some landowners opt out of a new town’s boundaries. Anyone later added to the map doesn’t get the same exclusionary rights.
Lawmakers had a reason for drawing that line, Caroline Olsen argued before Utah’s newly expanded Supreme Court early Friday, representing Anderson.
She told the court if there is a flaw in the law, it should be up to legislators to fix, not the courts, describing it as “quintessentially a legislative decision.”
If property owners are upset, she added, “their recourse is with the Legislature.”
Yet there’s “inherent unfairness” in the way the law is written, Janet Conway argued on behalf of the landowners who originally brought the lawsuit.
Lawmakers didn’t have to give people the right to opt out, she said, but “because they did,” she argued, everyone else down the line should be “entitled to those privileges.”
It’s why she wants the court to be the deciding factor in the matter, not lawmakers.
‘Disparate treatment is manifest’
Anderson first proposed the new town in 2023. It’s sandwiched by the towns of Hideout and Kamas, on an expanse of rolling hills near Jordanelle Reservoir that used to be Garff Ranches.
The sprawling space was partitioned into 40-acre lots in the 1990s, and while people could build a home, cattle could still roam and graze until they were moved into the Uinta Mountains for the summer.
(Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune) Mount Timpanogos looks into Summit County at dawn where residents are suing to stop the incorporation of the town of West Hills, on Friday, May 30, 2025.
Residents maintain their own roads, water and garbage collection, and the community has a volunteer fire department.
Anderson argued that incorporation would give residents more flexibility and control over land-use decisions, including potentially dividing lots. The original proposed boundaries were fairly contiguous, straddling State Route 248.
It took three efforts to land on a map that the state let go to an election.
After the first attempt, 50 landowners exercised their right to opt out of the township. The lieutenant governor’s office then rejected the second try because it fell three residents short of the 100 people required to form a town.
The third map tacked on peninsulas and carved out unincorporated property that would be almost entirely surrounded by the proposed town.
(Summit County) The proposed boundaries for West Hills, a possible new town sandwiched by Hideout and Kamas near Jordanelle Reservoir.
But under state law, those who were added to the final map didn’t have the same right to exclude their land as those in the original map. So incorporation opponents sued, contending they had been unconstitutionally deprived of rights others enjoyed.
Bates, in the 3rd District Court, agreed, ruling that “the disparate treatment is manifest” and that identically situated landowners “are treated differently based on one arbitrary factor” — the timing of their inclusion in the boundaries.
His ruling voided the election last year after ballots had already gone out. Weeks later, the state’s highest court refused to reverse the ruling, delaying the election at least a year.
‘Asking us to substitute our judgment’
On Friday, Justice Diana Hagen said legislative decisions on where to draw lines are “necessarily somewhat arbitrary,” adding that courts generally allow it as long as it’s related to a reasonable government purpose.
Olsen argued that without the opt-out cutoff, there would be endless boundary changes or no incorporation at all, and that there’s a public good to sponsoring a new municipality in a growing state.
Hagen agreed with Conway, acknowledging that the law could have been more fair. But she questioned why that isn’t a policy decision for legislators to make.
Arguing that it shouldn’t be up to legislators asks the court to ignore its own interpretation of the law, said Judge Angela Fonnesbeck, who was pulled up from 1st District Court covering Box Elder, Rich and Cache counties to make up the full panel of seven.
“You’re asking us to substitute our judgment,” Fonnesbeck said, and ignore lawmakers’ intent.
Conway clarified that wasn’t what she meant, but rather argued courts have an “independent duty to make sure that the Legislature hasn’t infringed on an individual’s rights.”
While the court considers the arguments, one lawmaker has proposed changes to the process that would essentially codify Bates’ ruling.
Under that proposal, HB477, a clerk would be required to notify any new landowners included in modified boundaries when there’s an update to a feasibility request.
The notice would tell them they have 30 days to request that their property be excluded. The bill is assigned to a committee but hasn’t been considered.
There are 13 pending petitions with the lieutenant governor’s office to form new municipalities.
But Bates wrote in his decision that his ruling pertains “as applied” only to the circumstances in the West Hills case, so it remains to be seen what ripple effects the decision may have.