Residents ask Utah County to take over Whittemore Road; commissioners hear water, easement and precedent concerns

Richard White presented to the Utah County Commission a request that the county accept the paved portion of Whittemore Road as a county road. White said the road is used year‑round by cabins, homeowners associations (HOAs), a Mount Nebo School District camp, and members of the public for recreation; he argued that the paved portion is effectively serving the public and that the county should assume maintenance responsibility if the road is brought up to county standards. "We have agreed that we will get it up to the county standards…we're willing to get it there so that the county would take a brand new road, and then the county take it from there and maintain it," White said.

Commissioners probed the history and legal footing: staff and counsel described an uneven record of maintenance agreements across subdivisions dating to the 1970s and 1990s, and commissioners cautioned about setting a precedent for the county to mediate long‑standing private disputes. One commissioner noted the county could be seen as stepping into mediation among private property owners and that careful consideration is needed before taking private roads into public ownership.

Several members of the public spoke. Janice Reeb, who said she lives in Hobble Creek Canyon, urged a broader review of watershed and water‑right implications if development and road acceptance proceed. Reeb asserted the issue is not limited to six lots but could affect hundreds of lots and said she has documentation of historical easements and maintenance agreements going back to the 1970s. She told commissioners that declining drainage and ongoing adjudications make water availability a critical unresolved concern.

Dionne Baron, representing residents in the cottages, urged the commission to consider the unequal maintenance burden local owners shoulder, saying county non‑enforcement of prior occupancy limits has increased year‑round use and thus maintenance obligations for the cottages.

Commissioners acknowledged both practical concerns (maintenance burden, public use) and legal complexity (existing easements, differing HOA obligations, potential litigation). One commissioner suggested incremental steps and local negotiations rather than an immediate county takeover; another said the county could facilitate discussions but must avoid creating an open precedent. No action to accept the road was taken at the meeting; commissioners allowed public comment and signaled further staff review and potential follow‑up.