Powder Mtn. debate rages on, unsettled

POWDER MOUNTAIN -- With more than 100 residents and a multi-million dollar investment hanging in the balance, the fate of the proposed Powder Mountain Town will have big repercussions whether or not it is formed.

But for now, the potential city seems to be stuck in limbo.

Powder Mountain resort owners filed for incorporation in January 2007 under a former Utah law stating any group that owned a majority of land and property value in an area with more than 100 people can draw boundaries and form a municipality with no input from the future residents.

In August 2008, developers submitted to the commissioners a list of six candidates for appointment to town government. The commissioners added 12 names to the original list. Developers then cut that list down to 11 people, which the commissioners did not think allowed them to select a group representative of the town residents.

After the county commission refused to appoint the town council, the developers sued the commission to force the appointment. Several residents from the newly formed town also sued the commission, asking that an election be held for the town government.

A June 16 hearing was supposed to clear that up, but the parties couldn't agree on what the judge's order was.

Now both the Weber commission and possible residents have filed appeals with the Utah Supreme Court and were granted a stay Monday against appointing the town government until the appeal has gone through, despite objections from the incorporation sponsors.

Spokespeople for the town sponsors did not return calls for comment.

While the parties are caught up in seemingly endless litigation, residents are also pursuing other routes to avoid incorporation.

Jim Halay, a resident within the boundaries of the proposed town, said a recent fundraising dinner was a success to help finance the appeal, but residents are also hoping to get legislation passed to let residents dissolve the town immediately upon incorporation.

The legislation also was proposed last year, but the legislative session closed minutes before it was to be debated.

"We're hoping this year we have more success than we did last year," Halay said.

District 8 Rep. Gage Froerer, the sponsor of the bill, said he is also trying to get the three parties talking to reach a compromise.

While the talks are still very preliminary, Froerer said he thinks a deal is in everyone's best interest. If the negotiations are successful, Froerer will not re-propose his legislation for the coming session.

Froerer said he wants to go back to the beginning of the problem.

"We can pull the lawsuit, pull the incorporation off the table and start at the development agreement," he said. "The end result is everybody's putting a lot of time, effort and money into it. If we can resolve it without the time and legal costs, everyone comes out ahead."