PMWSID Board Chairman Andrew Stark said in an email Thursday evening that no final decision has been made and no contractor has been selected. The board, he said, is preparing to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for qualified entities to submit bids.

“The Board of Trustees has been concerned for some time about the high cost of sewer and water charges, hook-up fees and stand-by fees which have escalated over the past 10 years,” Stark wrote. He said the board has also been focused on the need for substantial capital improvements and a more efficient way to carry those out alongside new development.

Uncertain future

Documents obtained through a public records request tell a more complicated story in which the district’s largest customer, Powder Mountain, has already expressed interest in becoming the contractor.

The district provides water and sewer service to approximately 800 connections and standby accounts on and around Powder Mountain in Weber County. The resort has been majority-owned by Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings since a $100 million investment announced in September 2023. After the purchase, the resort entered a 10-year development partnership with a firm known for building private luxury clubs and residential enclaves.

According to an operational outline posted as a public information handout on the Utah Public Notice website alongside the district’s Feb. 10 board meeting, the district is considering contracting with another entity to manage operations. The scope described in the document encompasses water systems management, all financial recordkeeping, billing and collections, new service applications, board meeting coordination, records custodianship, and website administration. The document plainly states that Powder Mountain “has expressed interest in serving as the Contractor.”

Stark did not mention Powder Mountain by name. He described the outsourcing proposal in general terms, saying the board is looking for “a contractor who can provide significantly increased efficiency.”

Addressing concerns

A legal memorandum dated Feb. 6, 2026, written by attorney Ari Bruening of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless and addressed to the Board of Trustees, outlines a series of legal issues with the proposal. The memo was also posted as a public handout with the Feb. 10 meeting notice.

Bruening wrote that, while an arrangement with Powder Mountain as contractor “would likely generate significant efficiencies,” there is a risk that the resort, as the district’s largest customer, “could from time to time act in its own interests to the detriment of other customers.”

Asked how the board has addressed the conflict-of-interest risks identified in the Bruening memo, Stark said the RFP process itself would serve as the safeguard. He wrote that potential conflicts of interest on the part of responding entities “will be part of the evaluation” and that the RFP will invite respondents to identify potential conflicts and propose mitigation measures.

The Bruening memo recommends several additional safeguards beyond the RFP process, including retaining board oversight of budgeting and expenditures, requiring third-party engineering review of contractor work, structuring the contract so the contractor has financial incentive to keep costs low, and retaining at least one district employee or independent contractor to provide daily oversight.

The memo also notes that the legal risks “create the potential for lawsuits” and that “there are undoubtedly other risks involved in the proposed arrangement, including public relations/perception and even the potential for state audits and legislative scrutiny.”

Stark confirmed that no independent cost-benefit analysis has been conducted comparing continued in-house operations against outsourced operations. Instead, he said, the proposals submitted through the RFP process would themselves serve as the basis for cost-benefit analysis.

The proposal would create a hybrid arrangement in which the district retains its public structure and board oversight while contracting out all operational functions. Under the proposal, ownership of infrastructure, equipment, water rights and property would remain with the district. The Board of Trustees would retain authority over strategy, budgets, rates, capital planning, annexations and policy. The contractor would be required to provide monthly operating reports and quarterly presentations.

Stark also said that contract terms would include “the ability to terminate the agreement for cause or for convenience, along with numerous other protections for the District.” However, he indicated that the content of proposals and status of negotiations would remain confidential until a final decision is made.

Who is making the decisions

PMWSID’s five-member Board of Trustees was entirely reconstituted between January 2025 and January 2026 through appointments by the Weber County Commission, according to county commission resolutions and Utah Public Notice records. The current board consists of Stark, who was elected chairman during the Jan. 13, 2026, meeting; Xavier Helgesen, treasurer; James Harvey, a sitting Weber County commissioner who also serves as a PMWSID trustee; and trustees Michael Mayra and Will Donovan.

Harvey’s dual role as a county commissioner who participates in appointing PMWSID board members and as a member of the board itself is permitted under district policy. A 2017 PMWSID vacancy notice explicitly states that a board member may be a member of the Weber County Commission.

Asked whether any current board members have a financial, employment, or business relationship with Powder Mountain, Summit Mountain Holding Group, Reed Hastings, or any affiliated entity, Stark wrote: “We are not aware of any … relationships between any current board members and Powder Mountain, Summit Mountain Holding Group, Reed Hastings, or any affiliated entity.” He added that if a board member discloses a conflict related to an entity that responds to the RFP, “the board member in question will be asked to recuse himself.”

Unknowns for current district staff

The operational outline addresses the district’s existing employees. During a transition period, current staff would remain district employees while working under the contractor’s direction. The contractor could then offer to hire those employees directly. Staff who do not accept would either remain in an available district position or, according to the document, “be separated from PMWSID employment.” Stark wrote that a contractor would be “free to hire current employees, which [the board] will encourage.”

Jamie Lythgoe, a fourth-generation Powder Mountain local and granddaughter of Dr. Alvin Cobabe, who founded the Powder Mountain ski area in the early 1970s, said she has concerns about the proposal. Lythgoe grew up on the mountain and worked for the water district in the 1990s. Her father and grandfather were instrumental in establishing the district.

Lythgoe, who has managed properties on the mountain for decades and is a former Ogden Valley planning commissioner, said she worries the proposal would displace a small but experienced staff in favor of a contractor with no prior experience operating the system.

“I have concerns about getting rid of the people who currently know how to operate the Powder Mountain water and sewer system to take a bid from a contractor with no prior experience operating the system, due to its complex nature,” Lythgoe said. “It sounds like they have a large staff, but it is really only a handful of people — five or six employees. The money saved by laying off those employees will end up being spent later mitigating issues the current staff already have the knowledge to prevent.”

Lythgoe said she doubts the RFP process would attract competing bidders given the system’s complexity and liability. This concern raises questions about whether the process could ultimately lead to the sole-source exception Bruening identified in his memo.

“I don’t imagine that even if there is an RFP that anyone else is crazy enough to want to take that on,” she said. “The resort has enough motivation that I expect they would be the only ones to apply.”

Rather than a full outsourcing arrangement, Lythgoe said she believes the district needs a combined effort that includes the current staff and gains added help from the resort as a supplement, not as a replacement for those who handle day-to-day operations.

“The trustees don’t have the adequate training or hands-on experience to operate the system that the employees of the district have,” she said.

Few opportunities for public comment

The outsourcing proposal was first introduced at a Feb. 3, 2026, work session, where the agenda listed “District functions, efficiency, outsourcing and cost savings.” The public notice for that session stated in uppercase letters that no public comments would be taken.

Asked what public engagement process is planned before a final vote, Stark did not describe any public hearings or comment periods. He wrote that “confidentiality will be required as to the content of proposals and status of negotiations until a final decision has been made,” adding that the board is “being advised by sophisticated counsel.”

Here is the information about the upcoming meeting:

Powder Mountain Water and Sewer Improvement District Board Meeting

When: Friday, April 3, 2026, at 3:30 p.m.

Where: 298 24th St., Ste. 150, Ogden, UT 84401

Zoom: Meeting ID 327 888 9056. Email comments to czenger@pmwsid.gov.

Online: Meeting notices and documents are available at the Utah Public Notice website, utahpublicnotice.com.