About 2,500 voters appear to have signed 30 referendum petition packets originally rejected by the Summit County Clerk’s Office, potentially giving the effort to overturn Ordinance 987 — the approval of a mixed-use development project at the Park City Tech Center — newfound momentum.
However, the issue would only appear on the November ballot if a Third District Court judge rules that the signature packets were not improperly circulated.
Clerk’s Office staff deemed that dozens of packets could not be counted because they did not comply with the statutory packet requirements that include ensuring the signature binders are compiled as part of a packet.
The referendum sponsors disagree. The group argues Furse erred in her judgment and stepped outside of her duties by refusing to count the signatures in the rejected packets.
The Clerk’s Office proceeded with provisionally posting the 2,454 signatures on the Lieutenant Governor’s website after reaching an agreement with the five residents — Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — who filed the lawsuit against Furse. The signatures were provisionally posted under the 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.
This will help “speed up” the process if the court rules the signatures should be counted, so that 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 requires the Clerk’s Office staff to post the names of each signer on the website after counting the signature, which remain online until the voter requests their name be removed from the petition or the 45-day withdrawal period concludes.
Referendum sponsors and volunteers, organizing under the name Protect Summit County, needed to collect 4,554 valid and verified signatures by March 3. The total number of signers also needs to make up 16% of voters countywide, plus 16% from three of the four voter precincts.
The referendum effort was declared insufficient by the Clerk’s Office last month after the verified signature count, excluding the rejected packets, was 3,214. However, the 2,454 provisional signatures from the rejected packets would surpass the minimum requirement, increasing the total to 5,668.
“This means the mandatory 45-day signature removal period can run concurrently with our court proceedings and conclude in advance of the judge’s ruling. If Judge (Richard) Mrazik rules in our favor next month and reinstates packets 1 through 30, then we will make the deadline for ballot printing,” the petitioners said in a statement. “We are currently awaiting a confirmed briefing schedule and hearing date. And in the meantime, we are raising money to support this Herculean and urgent effort to stay in the fight against Dakota Pacific’s interference and overreach by getting on the ballot and passing the referendum.”
It’s unclear if the provisional signatures would meet the required number of voters in each precinct. However, Protect Summit County previously estimated it obtained signatures from more than 21% of voters, including at least 20% in three of the four voter areas.
The insufficient petition from June 27 was 281 signatures short in Area 1, 710 signatures short in Area 2, 164 signatures short in Area 3 and 185 signatures short in Area 4.
“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.”
If a judge rules the packets should be counted and the referendum makes it onto the general election ballot, the final outcome may not be relevant. Officials have said Senate Bill 26 could render Ordinance 987 irrelevant.
Dakota Pacific applied for a new administrative development agreement under the new state law, which essentially guarantees the project will be built. 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.
The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation for the development to Summit County Manager Shayne Scott.
A tentative public hearing date has been set for July 28.
The residents suing Furse said they would consider challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 26 in court if the referendum to overturn Ordinance No. 987 is successful. A GoFundMe was created to pay for the petitioners’ legal expenses. As of Tuesday, $6,328 has been raised toward the $15,000 goal.