The Summit County Council considered repealing Ordinance No. 987 — the goal of a referendum movement aimed at overturning the approval of Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s mixed-use development in Kimball Junction — but chose to keep it in place, opting to wait for a Third District Court judge to clarify the rules of the process next week.
Chief Civil Deputy Dave Thomas told the County Council on Wednesday that the referendum is likely moot anyway. Thomas described 987 as an “orphaned ordinance,” because the application it’s connected to no longer exists.
“The application upon which Ordinance 987 rested has been withdrawn, and they never signed that amended development agreement,” Thomas said.
Dakota Pacific rescinded its original application after officials signed an administrative development agreement late last month.
Summit County Manager Shayne Scott was forced to approve a project closely resembling what the County Council adopted in December 2024, and what the referendum is based on, after the Utah Legislature enforced a “state-imposed rezone” on the land through Senate Bill 26 this spring. The law added certain restrictions limiting the county’s ability to reject or delay the development.
The period to appeal the administrative development agreement passed last week, and none were filed.
The County Council was divided on whether to repeal the ordinance, which would essentially accomplish the goal of the referendum, or keep the ordinance in place to allow a lawsuit challenging the insufficient declaration made by Summit County Clerk Eve Furse to play out in court despite the legal fees.
Judge Richard Mrazik was supposed to hear oral arguments about whether rejected petition packets were improperly circulated or if the Clerk’s Office should have counted the signatures inside, which would impact whether the referendum effort meets the minimum threshold to advance to the ballot, this week. However, the court hearing was moved to Tuesday.
Thomas said he wasn’t sure if the hearing would proceed should the ordinance be repealed. State statute says that if the legislation a referendum is based on is annulled, then the ballot effort becomes void as the referendum itself seeks to overturn the decision.
In other words, there’s nothing for voters to decide on.
However, there’s still a chance the court hearing will continue as planned if the ordinance remains in place. County officials didn’t seem worried about the Dakota Pacific referendum moving forward, though — they’ve said there’s little anyone can do to stop the development with S.B. 26 in place. Instead, they hope the judge will provide clarity for future referendum movements.
Summit County Attorney Margaret Olson said she expected there to be robust oral arguments next week and anticipated Mrazik would make a ruling from the bench. She also addressed complaints from several community members about taxpayer dollars being spent on the clerk’s legal defense, noting that the county didn’t have a choice because it’s the one being sued.
Defense attorneys representing Furse cited several concerns the Clerk’s Office had when reviewing 30 petition packets. The packets were ultimately rejected for allegedly being taken apart and rearranged. They also want Mrazik to address whether S.B. 26 supersedes the amended development agreement.
The complaint — filed against Furse by Summit County residents Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — says Furse says she overstepped her duties as clerk by rejecting the packets, and argues they didn’t violate state law.
Had all of the rejected signatures been included, the referendum sponsors would have been able to put the issue on the ballot.
County Councilor Roger Armstrong was in favor of keeping Ordinance No. 987 in place to avoid a perception that the county is trying to quash the referendum by putting the question before the court.
“If it’s going to be declared moot, I would prefer a court declare this moot. Not that we intentionally tried to make it moot. … I think there has been enough to try to disrupt the process here intentionally, or accidentally, or otherwise,” Armstrong said. “I’m just curious, the next time somebody is unhappy with something we’ve done, what do the packets have to look like?”
Fellow Councilors Canice Harte and Chris Robinson agreed with Armstrong, saying it would be good for a judge to provide clarification for the future. Thomas said the Legislature plans to refine the referendum law next year to make it clearer.
Officials hope a final ruling on whether the referendum is eligible for the general election ballot will be made before the Aug. 29 deadline for ballot printing. That way, Summit County voters won’t be asked to vote in the referendum if it’s declared moot or invalid.
The County Council voted 4 to 1 in favor of keeping Ordinance No. 987 in place. County Councilor Megan McKenna was the dissenting vote.
“We’ll wait and see what the judge says,” County Council Chair Tonja Hanson said.