RIVERTON — Mayor Mont Evans says residents need to trust that their elected officials are doing what is best for Riverton's future.

Evans said the Hamilton Land project, the largest commercial/residential development in the city's history, has its benefits.

"This provides a tax base for the future of this municipality," Evans said in a phone interview last week.

The large development, which may include a Wal-Mart, has been met with opposition by some citizens, who say the development is not welcome amid five existing public schools. Citizens also say they want to keep Riverton's rural feel for as long as possible.

"There's a positive aspect to this thing," Evans said, pointing out that the Hamilton development could produce an estimated $20 million in sales tax revenue for the city over the next 15 years, or about $1.8 million a year. Those are much-needed funds for city services and future growth, Evans said.

But the controversy over the development has spilled into the courts. Last week, a group of citizens asked the Utah Supreme Court to weigh in on a move by the City Council to, they say, thwart their referendum by rescinding the rezone and breaking the project into four parts.

The high court has been asked by citizens to force the city to stop granting building permits to Hamilton Land and to hold a special referendum election.

The same citizens have also filed a lawsuit against Riverton City, claiming city officials knowingly interfered with their constitutional rights to post a referendum in a special election.

Evans lauded the City Council's decision to vote in favor of the development. "I saw their vote as a courageous move on their part," he said.

In a 40-page response filed with the Utah Supreme Court Thursday, Riverton City Attorney David Church argued the referendum was "moot" because it focused upon the old ordinance being repealed and replaced with four new ordinances. Residents argued the referendum applied to the new ordinances because they are virtually identical to the original.

Church's reply suggested that even if the high court found that the referendum applied to the new ordinances, Utah law may not allow a referendum recall because the action is more "administrative" than "legislative." The state supreme court has clarified that legislative actions can be subject to referendum but administrative city actions cannot.