[ad_1]
The referendum to overturn Ordinance No. 987, the Summit County Council’s 4 to 1 approval of the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project in Kimball Junction, will not be up for a vote in November.
Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik on Tuesday afternoon denied a motion challenging Summit County Clerk Eve Furse’s declaration that the referendum signature-gathering effort was insufficient. Mrazik determined that neither the court’s decision nor the referendum “will have any practical effect on the mixed-use development authorized” by Senate Bill 26, and the lawsuit was deemed moot.
“… Petitioners have failed to show how granting their motion will have a meaningful impact on the practical positions of the parties,” the ruling states.
Five residents — Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — sued the Clerk’s Office in July over the insufficient declaration, which stems from the rejection of 30 signature packets, and asked the judge to reverse the decision to allow the referendum to appear on the general election ballot.
Diaz and Weinstein are two of the seven original community members who sponsored the referendum application, organizing under the name Protect Summit County. The group said it disagrees with the mootness argument, but found the ruling to be “the second best outcome.”
The Utah Legislature passed S.B. 26 during the general session earlier this year. The law took effect in the spring and provided the same use and zoning changes as the ordinance approving the mixed-use development. Summit County was also restricted to taking an administrative role and was limited in its ability to stop the project’s approval under S.B. 26.
Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved an administrative development agreement with Dakota Pacific on July 28, which closely mirrors what the County Council approved in December.
Mrazik’s ruling states that even if the petitioners show the County Clerk was incorrect and that the referendum was legally sufficient, “the practical reality of the parties, and the citizens of Summit County at large, will not be changed.”
“The argument is unavailing because Petitioners have not identified any legislative act within Ordinance 987 that is not also granted by S.B. 26. Similarly, Petitioners have not shown how S.B. 26 fails to completely supersede Summit County’s legislative authority regarding the land that is the subject of Ordinance 987,” the ruling states.
In other words, Mrazik argued he would not be able to provide meaningful relief even if he ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared the referendum sufficient because S.B. 26 supersedes the court’s authority. The ruling asserts there was a change in circumstances with the passage of S.B. 26, essentially eliminating the “legal controversy between the two parties.”
A court hearing was originally scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, but it was subsequently cancelled. Mrazik did not hear oral arguments from the two parties. He determined the mootness of the motion upon studying the briefs in preparation for the hearing, according to the ruling. Then, the hearing was nixed to prevent unnecessary costs.
“Put simply, the Utah Legislature, when it passed SB26, determined what will happen at the DPRE property, not my office, the referendum, or the referendum lawsuit,” Summit County Clerk Eve Furse said in a prepared statement. “Ultimately, my office’s responsibility is to uphold the law, which I’ve remained committed to throughout this entire process.”
Mrazik did not rule on the signature collection issue because the referendum was deemed moot.
One of the requirements for putting the referendum on the November ballot was receiving 4,554 verified signatures, the total number of which needed to make up 16% of voters countywide, plus 16% from three of the four voter precincts.
Earlier this year, Furse said the sponsors missed the minimum signature count and failed to meet the minimum percentages in the voter areas.
Furse invalidated 30 of the 77 packets because they allegedly did not comply with the statutory packet requirements that include ensuring the signature packages are bound as part of a packet. The packets contained about 2,500 signatures, enough to meet the ballot threshold if they had been deemed countable.
Meanwhile, the petitioners said only a few packets were separated after preparation and alleged the Clerk’s Office universally rejected packets with three-hole punches without verifying if the pages had been removed. The group argues Furse erred in her judgment and that the referendum sponsors followed state law.
However, the Utah Rules Review and General Oversight Committee voted to begin drafting reforms to the state referendum statute following the dispute in Summit County.
Furse said she looks forward to seeing how the Legislature helps clarify the process for both voters and local governments across the state.
The County Council last week declined to repeal Ordinance No. 987, instead waiting for the Third District Court ruling to interpret the state’s referendum rules. Officials will likely do so at a future meeting.
If officials leave the ordinance in place, Protect Summit County said it will appeal the mootness ruling and “fight to get Ordinance 987 on the ballot as quickly as possible.”
“Summit County could have resolved this matter weeks ago when we asked them to stipulate Ordinance 987 has no force and effect. This would’ve saved both sides over $150K,” the group said in a statement.
The county’s chief civil deputy, Dave Thomas, said during the County Council meeting last week that Dakota Pacific could technically come back and submit an application if the ordinance remains intact.
However, the development firm also requested the County Council repeal Ordinance 987. It’s unclear how a new or revived application could differ from what was approved under S.B. 26, which legislatively changed the zoning of the Park City Tech Center.
Dakota Pacific plans to build 385 market-rate units and 275 affordable housing units on the back half of its property. A proposed public-private partnership would also create 225 workforce housing units and a senior living facility near a public plaza surrounded by mixed uses. Dakota Pacific representatives reaffirmed their commitment to building options for local seniors.
There would also be a new transit center, structured parking and a pedestrian bridge connection to the east side of S.R. 224. The existing Kimball Junction Transit Center and the Richins Building would be demolished, too.
Related Stories
[ad_2]