It's been more than six months since Pleasant Grove officials swept the Manila township into their city, but the promised deannexation of some property back into Cedar Hills still has not happened.

None of the nine requests for annexation into Cedar Hills have been granted, which according to Cedar Hills officials, represents a breach of trust with those annexed into Pleasant Grove.Pleasant Grove Mayor Ed Sanderson says there's no broken trust. It just takes time - a lot of time - to make the kind of moves various residents are asking about.

"We are not in trouble. We are going to do this," Sanderson said. "But it's not in the best interest of Pleasant Grove to let anybody out until I have the sewer lines in place that we need.

"We will do it as quickly as we are able."

Some would disagree that Pleasant Grove's intent is to move quickly or at all when it comes to disconnecting those who want to be in Cedar Hills.

Kaye Pead has been trying to get questions about her property resolved since the night of March 18, when her land was included in the township annexation. Friday afternoon she got a message from Sanderson that said there would be no boundary adjustments until the sewer situation is resolved and under control.

Cedar Hills Councilman Ken Cromar said that amounts to taking residents hostage. He said Cedar Hills has done everything it can do to expedite and complete the boundary adjustment for several property owners who made it clear early on they wished to remain in Cedar Hills.

In a letter from Cedar Hills Mayor Elizabeth Johnson to Sanderson dated May 29, she said the ball was now in Pleasant Grove's court.

After Sanderson made a public announcement in a recent city council meeting, declaring that Pleasant Grove was ready to extend sewer lines along 900 West from 2600 North to Cedar Hills Drive and to the north edge of the township, another four-page letter was sent from the Cedar Hills council basically stating that establishing a boundary line along the Murdock Canal would be the most practical and reasonable solution.

Sanderson said he wants to avoid duplication of services and costly inefficiency.

Cromar says that's what Cedar Hills wants as well, but that there is not enough trust left between the two communities to prompt Cedar Hills to consider jointly laying the lines. He said the unilateral annexation on March 18 convinced Cedar Hills officials their best line of defense would be to avoid any "future entangling alliances."

Cromar says he believes Pleasant Grove just wants to hang onto the properties requesting de-annexation until taxes have been assessed on them in November.

He's also unhappy that it's taken so long for Pleasant Grove to acknowledge ideas that Cedar Hills suggested long ago - like cost-sharing and interlocal agreements.

Sanderson said the whole situation, while complicated to a degree, "is not as complex as you would think."

He said those, such as the owners of the Pead property, can go ahead and subdivide as they wish while still in Pleasant Grove. They can sell their land or develop.

"There are things that aren't even problems that can be resolved with or without the annexation," he said.