Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik on Tuesday denied Summit County’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Dakota Pacific Real Estate from building at the Park City Tech Center without county approval or until the ongoing lawsuit is resolved.
The Summit County Attorney’s Office failed to convince the judge that irreparable harm would likely occur without a court order, as representation for Dakota Pacific maintained the development firm has no plans to start construction at the site. If circumstances change, however, the county can once again seek an injunction.
Mrazik indicated that he was not convinced there was an immediate need to enact a preliminary injunction because the status quo would not change. Dakota Pacific would still be expected to go through the necessary processes, such as obtaining permits, before starting construction. This also ensures the county would become aware of any attempts by the development firm to start work.
Richard Burbidge, an attorney representing Dakota Pacific, acknowledged the permit process and indicated the development firm would continue communicating with the county about its plans. Burbidge added that county officials previously indicated the mixed-use development proposal would be desired, rather than harmful, in the area. He maintained that Dakota Pacific has no plans to start construction until the lawsuit is resolved.
“As the court will discover, this case is not about an aggrieved local county or so-called legislative ‘cronyism,'” a Dakota Pacific filing responding to the inquiry concerning alleged irreparable harm stated. “It is about delay and disorganization within Summit County’s governance; the scapegoating of Dakota Pacific for the County’s lack of planning for traffic and infrastructure; and a loud faction of locals who welcome services from the working class, but are insensitive to the needs and concerns of those who serve them.”
However, a lawyer representing Summit County, Mitch Stephens, noted the development firm has objected to any attempts at making the statement enforceable by a court, including rejecting the county’s proposal to resolve the preliminary injunction.
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth filed a declaration in response to the county’s request for a preliminary injunction stating that the development firm has vested rights to develop the property under Senate Bill 84, but no immediate plans to start construction. He said Dakota Pacific will notify the court should those plans change.
“DPRE caused and can correct the current situation,” a response filed by Summit County stated. “DPRE repudiated the development agreement and has doubled down on that position in its filings to this court. That repudiation was a total breach of the development agreement and justified Summit County’s filings. However, Summit County is willing to accept DPRE’s alternative alleged offer to preserve the status quo if that offer is made enforceable. Thus far, DPRE has refused to move that offer into a binding obligation. That duplicity should not continue.”
Stephens said the injunction was needed to prevent the county from losing rights it originally secured in the 2008 development agreement, which limits what can be built at the Tech Center to mostly tech and research-related office buildings, because of Dakota Pacific’s assertion that S.B. 84 provides greater rights than what’s included in the existing development agreement. He argued the irreparable harm fell within the threat that could come with a breach of the agreement.
Mrazik said Dakota Pacific’s position is inconsistent with the county’s view of the development agreement and the court has yet to make a ruling on which is right. While that’s being decided, the judge did not think there was any immediate risk of irreparable harm.
No rulings were made on the motions requesting partial summary judgment on two of Summit County’s claims, which have not yet been heard by the court. There have been several filings made in the case, including motions to dismiss made by both Dakota Pacific and the state, but it was unclear what the order of events should be.
Mrazik planned to issue an order explaining what will be briefed next and when the next hearing will be.