Whether the referendum petition to put Ordinance 987, the approval and adoption of an amended development agreement with Dakota Pacific Real Estate for the Park City Tech Center, will make it onto the November ballot could be decided in court next month.
A summary judgment hearing, a potential decision that determines the outcome of a case without a full trial under certain circumstances, was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19.
Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik’s ruling could allow the petition to advance to the ballot. If it does, and the referendum succeeds in November, the people suing the Summit County Clerk may challenge the constitutionality of a new law approving the project regardless.
The purpose of the hearing is to “eliminate the time, trouble, and expense … when it is clear as a matter of law that the party ruled against is not entitled to prevail,” according to a motion filed by a group of residents suing Summit County Clerk Eve Furse on Monday.
Earlier this month, Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein filed the 82-page complaint arguing that Furse erred in declaring the signature count in the submitted petition packets insufficient, making the issue ineligible for the general election.
“Ultimately, over 5,000 voters from Summit County submitted signatures in support of placing Ordinance 987 on the November 2025 ballot,” the motion for summary judgment states. “Based on an incorrect factual assumption and unsupported legal determination, the County Clerk nullified those signatures, preventing the voters of Summit County from determining whether adding over 700 housing units to an already bloated development near Kimball Junction is in the best interest of the county.”
Furse rejected 30 referendum petition packets for improper circulation, stating they were not circulated as a unit and those with three-hole punches across the top were also dismissed. Clerk’s Office staff verified 3,214 signatures, not including the rejected packets.
If the packets are deemed legal, approximately 2,500 signatures will be added to the total count, surpassing the minimum 4,554-signature requirement needed to advance the issue, assuming there’s the right representation from each voter area.
However, the referendum would only appear on the ballot if Mrazik sides with the sponsors and finds that the signature packets were not misdistributed.
The referendum sponsors argue most of the rejected packets meet the statutory requirements because they included a copy of the ordinance petition, full text of the ordinance, signature sheets and the required information pamphlet that were bound using a method that allowed each packet to be “conveniently opened for signing.”
The motion for summary judgment said that 25 of the 30 packets were never separated and alleges that the Clerk’s Office universally rejected packets with three-hole punches even if the pages weren’t removed.
The lawsuit argues that temporarily removing a signature page from the binder doesn’t invalidate the packet because all of the other required information was presented nearby. Court documents state that signature pages were removed so voters could sign them while other people reviewed the petition information.
“Utah law requires that sponsors present the required referendum materials to voters as a unit without requiring additional, proactive steps to access the materials. That is what the Sponsors did.”
The court filing acknowledged that at least one packet containing 98 signatures was improperly circulated. Still, sponsors argued that even if several other packets were invalidated, the petition would still have enough signatures to meet the requirement.
The Clerk’s Office proceeded with provisionally posting the 2,454 signatures on the Lieutenant Governor’s Office website after reaching an agreement with the five residents who filed the lawsuit. The signatures were provisionally posted under the 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. Furse has said her office has followed state statute, and she’ll follow whatever determination the Third District Court makes.
The residents suing Furse said they will consider challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 26, a new state law that effectively approved the Dakota Pacific project through a new administrative development agreement, in court if the referendum to overturn Ordinance No. 987 is successful.
Referendum sponsors say the mixed-use development will “overwhelm public resources and exacerbate the existing congestion problem in Kimball Junction.”