The Summit County Clerk’s Office will proceed with provisionally posting signatures from 30 petition packets, originally rejected earlier this year for improper circulation, after a resident-led lawsuit challenged the insufficient declaration of the referendum effort aimed at overturning the approval of the Dakota Pacific Real Estate development.
The five residents who filed the lawsuit — Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — reached an agreement with Clerk Eve Furse on Friday, resulting in the previously submitted, uncounted signatures being published on the Lieutenant Governor’s website.
Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik granted a stipulated motion filed by the petitioners that requires Furse to submit the names, voter identification numbers and dates of signatures consistent with the state’s existing protocols to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office no later than Monday. The following day, the names will be posted on the state website for no less than 45 days.
This will help “speed up” the process if the court rules the signatures should be counted so the issue has enough time to appear on the general election ballot, according to Summit County officials.
“This is an opportunity for people to review the names that were submitted in the unverified petitions to see if someone else added their name or to give them the opportunity to remove their name,” Furse said in a statement provided to The Park Record. “Both parties agreed to this to ensure the Clerk’s Office is prepared if the court rules against the County so we can move as quickly as possible to add this to the 2025 ballot.”
State law required the Clerk’s Office staff to post the names of each signer on the website after counting the signature, which remained online until the voter requested their name be removed from the petition or the 45-day withdrawal period concluded.
“The referendum petition previously was declared insufficient by the Local Clerk,” the court order states. “Individuals supporting the referendum have challenged that decision in court. These signatures are being provisionally posted pursuant to a Stipulated Court Order pending resolution of that case.”
The order is not to be intended as an admission of the “legal sufficiency” of any signature or referendum packet. However, it allows the process to continue moving forward until a formal Third District Court ruling can be made.
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. Furse said the sponsors missed the minimum count by 1,340 signatures 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. It’s unclear how many signatures were subsequently disqualified, but each packet can hold a maximum of 100 signatures.
“Throughout this process, the Clerk’s Office has followed state statute as interpreted by our attorneys and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office,” Furse previously said in a statement. “My office is ready to follow whatever determination is made.”
The sponsors, meanwhile, said they collected 6,083 signatures representing more than 21% of Summit County voters, including at least 20% in three out of four voter precincts. The group argued Furse erred in her judgment and stepped outside of her duties by refusing to count the signatures in the rejected packets.
If the Clerk’s Office had, the group said, the effort to overturn Ordinance No. 987, which approved the amended development agreement with Dakota Pacific for the Park City Tech Center property, would have made it onto the ballot.
If there are still not enough signatures to meet the minimum threshold count or petition requirement after the rejected packets are counted, the referendum will have failed. However, if the count exceeds what’s required with the rejected packets, it will be up to Mrazik to decide whether the signatures should be accepted.
Regardless of what happens with the referendum process, Dakota Pacific will likely be able to build its project.
The development firm applied for a new administrative development agreement under a new state law created by Senate Bill 26 last month. On Tuesday, the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation for the development to Summit County Manager Shayne Scott.
The administrative development agreement application did not increase the commercial or residential density adopted in the 2024 development agreement. The project area involves an 885-unit, mixed-use development across six parcels, including those owned by the developer and Summit County, totaling 64 acres.
A tentative public hearing date has been set for July 28.