City, residents at odds over development

As a group of Riverton residents tries for a second time to put a controversial development to a vote this November, a state legislator involved in the fight says the city seems to be sitting on the issue as Election Day approaches.

And Rep. David Hogue, R-Riverton, says every day counts.

Hogue is one of the residents hoping to give voters a chance to decide whether to allow the Hamilton Land Development — possibly the biggest development the once-rural area has ever seen — to go forward, bringing with it new residents and a Wal-Mart store, among other things.

But city officials say they are working on the issue "as we speak" and that they are working within legal parameters. They say their actions have been validated by the state Supreme Court.

The residents were dealt a legal blow when the high court ruled Aug. 20 that city officials did nothing wrong by repealing the first ordinance allowing the development, but then paving the way for the development by passing four new ordinances — after petition-gatherers had collected enough signatures to get the original ordinance on the ballot.

But the citizens kept their fight going, working since May 18 — when the new ordinances were passed — to collect the necessary signatures to get all four new ordinances on the ballot. Hogue said the signatures were turned in to the county for certification, but the petition sponsors expected to wait as county officials wrangled with a statewide ballot initiative that would fund open-space preservation.

So when Hogue called the county last week to check on the status of the certification process, he was surprised to be told the signatures had been certified July 28 and picked up by the city recorder Aug. 4.

"Which is very disturbing to me because even today we haven't received notification," Hogue said.

But Riverton city manager Mark Cram said the referendum has come up in City Council meetings, including a closed meeting Tuesday evening. He said one council member made a motion to put the referendums on the agenda for discussion, but it died for lack of a second.

"Based on the action of the City Council that it not be placed on the agenda to be discussed, the city recorder and the city attorney are acting accordingly," Cram said.