Star Valley Questions Require Study


I am disappointed that the report and editorial in Friday's paper, "Council Sends Star Valley Home Empty," were so negative. I didn't feel that was the case at all.

Some clarification: The council and staff did not know the primary objective of the Star Valley folks is incorporation. If we had, we would have been prepared to speak to that. Because we did not know, time was wasted relating to annexation. When the Star Valley group was asked, "How do you feel? Do you want to work with the town or want a denial of annexation and just go home?" They clapped to indicate that denial was preferred.

When we realized incorporation was the goal, we urged them to carefully consider this action before embarking on it. We offered the help of the town staff.

It was a good meeting, even though their intentions weren't clear at the outset. Mr. Roberson is a good spokesperson and I felt we asked pertinent questions and showed our respect for their concerns.

Buzz Walker's comments from 2001 stand: we do not want water from the shallow aquifer. Testing shows we are looking at a much deeper and different aquifer. There are state statutes re: source water approval; if not approved, the water is unacceptable to Payson. Frankly I was appalled at the potential pollution in that area and more appalled that nothing has been done about it.

All council members indicated we were not sending the Star Valley people "home empty." Once they decide exactly what they want to do, we expect them to come back when we are both better prepared. We may decide it is in the best interest of both parties to do a complete analysis of incorporation and annexation. There is more study needed on both sides.

We feel we are all working together and look forward to more dialog on annexation or incorporation. I am sorry the Payson Roundup didn't see it that way. This issue is controversial, complex and divisive; impartiality is more important than ever.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.