The Summit County Council on Wednesday appointed Malena Stevens to serve as interim Summit County Clerk, a role she will hold until voters decide who should fill the position for the next four years on Election Day.

“I’ve been serving in different capacities for nearly 15 years, whether as a staffer or an appointed or elected position on the County Council or (Snyderville Basin) Planning Commission,” Stevens said. “It feels like a natural next step to be able to serve the community in this position. … We’re at a critical time to make sure that whoever has this position has both the administrative and political experience to be able to hit the ground running.”

Stevens’ appointment follows former Summit County Clerk Eve Furse’s retirement earlier this month. Furse, who had already announced her decision not to run for reelection, originally intended to stay in office until voters selected her successor. However, her plans changed unexpectedly due to personal reasons that she said would have interfered with her ability to dedicate herself to the job.

Furse, in a previous interview with The Park Record, said she chose April as her new retirement date because it would give her interim replacement enough time to get settled before administering the primary elections this summer.

“To her credit, the previous clerk has done so much within this office to streamline the process and to have staff extremely well trained,” Stevens said. “The staff are the people who are going to be running the election, with this being an election year for the clerks. My understanding is that I will have to appoint someone, likely the deputy clerk, to be the elections official because I cannot touch ballots when my name will be on the ballot in the general election.”

Voters will see Stevens’ name on the ballot in November, as she is running for the office as a Democrat against Republican challenger Suni Woolstenhulme. Woolstenhulme received the GOP nomination for the position at the party’s nominating convention.

Ari Ioannides, the chair of the Summit County Republican Party and a columnist for The Park Record, recently decried what he sees as a political trend in Summit County in which an elected Democratic official seemingly retires from their position shortly before an election. Ioannides claimed the retirements often open the door for a Democratic candidate running for office to be appointed to the interim role, giving them a potential advantage at the polls.

“I’m honestly very torn on the situation,” Woolstenhulme said about Stevens’ interim appointment. “When I saw Eve’s announcement in the paper, the emotional side of me read that and I thought, ‘Oh my gosh, I really hope everything’s OK.’ I don’t understand all the nuances or what is happening behind the scenes, so I can’t discount that. I have to give the benefit of the doubt. But removing the emotional side of it, as the person sitting opposite of the situation, I think I would have handled it differently if I were in the same circumstance.”

Woolstenhulme said she would have preferred it if someone else within the Clerk’s Office, such as the deputy clerk or a longtime employee, had asked to be considered for the interim nomination instead.

“I would never have wanted anyone sitting on the ticket opposite from me to feel that I wasn’t giving them an equal opportunity or that I was trying to tip the scales in a certain way,” Woolstenhulme said. “I wish Eve well, and I hope things are OK for her on a personal level, but I’m making the personal commitment that I would not do that.”

Woolstenhulme said it was also frustrating to her because interim appointments for the Clerk’s Office are based on party lines. She said she thinks the clerk’s position should be non-partisan, especially because of their role in administering elections.

“I am not a party-first person. It should be based on the qualifications of the person and whether this is the right person for the right moment,” Woolstenhulme said. “I do feel that there’s too much political jockeying going on within our county. … My commitment is to the thriving success of the community as a whole and the individuals of that community, helping others feel empowered to vote and participate in the process. We should welcome great ideas from Democrats to Independents to Republicans. We just want good ideas and good people to rise to the top.”

However, Stevens pushed back against the idea that the Democratic Party is using interim appointments to give candidates an advantage. She pointed out that David Ure, the last Republican elected to the County Council, also resigned from the position halfway through his term, leading to the appointment of Tal Adair.

“As far as this being a ploy of the Democrats, like it was framed (by Ioannides), is factually inaccurate, and it has been done by both parties because it is a statute that was designed by the state Legislature, which is predominantly Republican,” Stevens said. “Eve had some concerns with her family, and I’m happy to step in and take over at this point.”

Stevens also said that in her specific situation, she already has name recognition through her time on the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission and as a Summit County councilor.

“I’ve done many things in this community, and I don’t think that’s the factor that’s going to push me over the edge in a competitive election,” she said. “I think somebody needs to do the job, and I’m happy to participate and do this job since Eve needs to retire.”

Woolstenhulme and Stevens expressed interest in a debate leading up to the election, with plans to further engage the community in their campaigns over the summer. Voters can view information on both campaigns by visiting malenaforclerk.com and suniforclerk.com.

The post Summit County Council appoints Malena Stevens to serve as interim county clerk appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County Clerk Eve Furse doubled down on her decision to reject 30 signature packets supporting the referendum petition to stop Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s mixed-use development in Kimball Junction.

Attorneys representing Furse responded to the citizen-filed lawsuit against her in Third District Court on Monday, defending her choice to invalidate dozens of packets and opposing the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The hearing could allow the judge to make a ruling without a full trial if certain facts of the case aren’t disputed; Furse’s court filing says they are.

Before Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik rules on whether the disassembled signature packets satisfy the binding requirements under state law, Furse asked the court to “answer whether the superseding state legislation renders the current county referendum moot.”

The clerk was referencing the Utah Legislature-backed Senate Bill 26, which allows for the same zoning change and use as Ordinance No. 987 — the Summit County Council’s December approval of the amended development agreement. The filing argues the state law supersedes the county’s legislative authority and that a successful referendum in November would not halt the project. Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved the Dakota Pacific project for the second time late last month.

Likely, a determination about whether the referendum complied with state law would only be made if the court determines the will of the voters has more authority than S.B. 26. The issue then becomes whether the separation of the initial packet pages before they were submitted to the Clerk’s Office is enough to invalidate them.

Furse argues it is. She referenced the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office vote.Utah.gov website, which includes information for local referenda and references sections of state code (Utah Code 20A-7-601, 603, 604, and 605), providing instructions for signature gathering. 

Packets “cannot be taken apart or rearranged once they are bound. The packets will be rejected if this is done,” according to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. Furse rejected packets one through 29 and packet 39 for improper circulation. 

Furse’s court filing says there was evidence indicating the signature packets were removed or added after the packets were prepared. Several had page numbers crossed out and renumbered. The initial packets didn’t appear to be uniformly prepared or correctly preserved, in contrast with the packets the Clerk’s Office did accept. 

There were additional discrepancies in the petition declaration filled out by the circulators, such as the number of signatures reported versus what was actually inside the packet. The packets had other issues, such as unreadable, duplicative, undated and unmatching signatures, along with signers who were not registered to vote or lived outside of Summit County. Those signatures were not counted.

The complaint — filed by Summit County residents Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — said only a few packets were separated after preparation and alleged the Clerk’s Office universally rejected packets with three-hole punches without verifying if the pages had been removed. The group argues Furse erred in her judgment and that the referendum sponsors followed state law.

The clerk disagrees. Court documents say Furse has been the subject of the ire of frustrated citizens. 

“It is easy, and perhaps natural, to shoot the messenger. But doing so will not produce the lasting change, or local control, these advocates desire,” the filing states.

Furse asserts she reached out to the referendum sponsors when the initial packets were rejected and offered ways for the group to overcome or resolve the issue. The court filing states that the sponsors did not reply. Moschetta emailed the clerk, saying all the packets were compliant. However, Moschetta is not a sponsor.

The court filing was critical of Moschetta’s involvement because it is unclear what role she had in the referendum effort, based on the court filings, other than being a concerned citizen volunteer. Furse also noted Utah Code declares “sponsors or an agent of the sponsors shall create referendum packets,” yet the petitioners do not identify who, what, when, where or how the initial packets were created.

The Clerk’s Office agreed to provisionally post the signatures, which total 2,454 and would be enough to put the referendum on the November ballot if the rejected packets are deemed valid. Furse questioned the integrity of the signatures in those packets, but she said she’ll follow whatever determination the Third District Court makes.

The summary judgment hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19.

The post Summit County clerk cites concerns in Dakota Pacific referendum dispute appeared first on Park Record.

Five residents are suing the Summit County Clerk’s Office over its rejection of signature packets aimed at overturning the approval of the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project.

Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein filed the 82-page complaint on Thursday. The group claims that County Clerk Eve Furse erred in declaring the petition challenging the adoption of Ordinance 987, which approved the amended Tech Center development agreement, null. They’re asking a Third District Court judge to issue an order that the petition is legally sufficient.

Diaz and Weinstein are two of the seven original community members who sponsored the referendum application, organizing under the name Protect Summit County, which allowed the process to proceed if certain standards were met. One of the requirements for putting the issue 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.

The petitioners said they followed the appropriate steps to challenge Ordinance 987, including meeting the signature requirement. They asserted that they obtained the “requisite number of signatures in the requisite locations” to put the referendum on the ballot, but Furse did not verify all signatures.

In February, the Clerk’s Office rejected dozens of packets because of “improper circulation” under Utah Code. At the time, she said there were three-hole punches that indicated the signature and voter information sheets may have been separated. 

The group argues the county clerk was incorrect and that her interpretation of the binding requirement is “unsupported and contrary to” the state law. If the signatures in the rejected packets had been counted, the sponsors said the referendum would have enough signatures to satisfy the requirement to be eligible for the general election.

“Instead, she categorically rejected thirty bound packets of signatures and, based on that, determined that the Ordinance Petition was insufficient,” the complaint states. “Specifically, the County Clerk stated that she ‘was not able to verify a number of packets’ because according to her ‘they had not been bound as a unit throughout the petition process.’”

The lawsuit argues the Summit County Council’s 4-to-1 approval of the development project in December will have “profound adverse impacts on residents … and the public infrastructure,” inspiring the referendum challenging Ordinance 987. 

The approved amended development agreement allows Dakota Pacific to build 725 housing units and other commercial amenities. Summit County would also enter into a public-private partnership with the developer to create 165 additional county-owned affordable housing units as well as amenities like a new transit center and underground parking.

Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan in January declared the referendum was “legally referable to voters,” and the Clerk’s Office emailed the referendum petition packet documents to the sponsors. The lawsuit alleges Furse calculated the deadline for signature packets to be returned based on a Jan. 16 start date, although the referendum sponsors hadn’t signed an agreement with the Clerk’s Office until the following day — “shortening the sponsors’ and petitioners’ time to gather valid signatures.”

Referendum sponsors said they prepared 30 packets for collecting signatures using three-ring binders for the initial packets, but the packets were rebound using spiral binding before submitting them to the Clerk’s Office for review. An additional 47 packets were prepared for collecting signatures until March 2, the day before the deadline, according to the lawsuit.

The sponsors submitted most of the initial packets to the Clerk’s Office on Feb. 18 and received a letter from Furse the following day informing them she would not accept 21 of the packets because of the hole punches. The remaining nine were also rejected when they were turned in.

Photos showed signature pages from several referendum packets separated from the rest of the referendum packet, which is required to provide information to voters about the ordinance. However, the sponsors said the pages were separated from the packet so people could read the referendum and then decide whether or not to sign the petition, but maintain they were presented as a single unit in compliance with state law. 

“The County Clerk incorrectly concluded from those photos that the signature pages from all the three-hole punched packets were ‘being circulated without being in a bound packet,’” the lawsuit said. It continued, “Contrary to the County Clerk’s concern, none of the pages from the Initial Packets were separated or circulated apart from the Initial Packets.”

The sponsors in a Feb. 20 email to Furse said the initial packets that had been rejected complied with Utah Code and asked her to verify and count the signatures. She responded later in the day, according to court documents, saying staff have started processing the packets they can, and the rejected packets will be maintained but not counted. The sponsors were encouraged to ask people who signed the rejected petition packets to resign, but Protect Summit County did not heed the advice.

The Clerk’s Office had until March 24 to finish verifying the signatures, with initial counts adding up to 3,214 or about 70% of what was needed. The formal certification would come on June 23. 

In another correspondence with Furse on June 18, the sponsors sent a letter explaining that the initial rejection was unfounded. They cited state code stating packets are prepared by “binding a copy of the referendum petition with the text of the law that is the subject of the referendum and no more than 50 signature sheets together at the top in a manner that the referendum packets may be conveniently opened for signing.”

Still, the Clerk’s Office declared the referendum petition insufficient five days later.

The petitioners said that unless the court intervenes, thousands of Summit County voters will be disenfranchised. They argued for a judge to order the Clerk’s Office to accept and verify the signatures in all referendum binders and put the referendum on the ballot if the petition then satisfies the requirements. Protect Summit County estimated it collected about 6,000 signatures in total.

“We are disappointed that circumstantial evidence, arbitrary invalidation of packets, and clear misinterpretations of both code and case law are disenfranchising 2,687 Summit County voters,” the group said in a statement last month. “People signed packets in good faith and with a clear will to put Dakota Pacific and Ordinance 987 on November ballots. As the clerk has confirmed it’s her duty to do, she should be validating Summit County voters and not succumbing to pressures of the developer or the lieutenant governor and Legislature who are working in Dakota’s favor.”

Protect Summit County launched a GoFundMe after the formal declaration to help cover research, an in-person meeting with the clerk and the appeal filing. The group had raised $4,728 of its $6,500 goal through 25 donations at the start of the week. It plans to raise the fundraising goal to pursue a higher court review if needed. Any surplus will “support voter outreach to ensure turnout in November.”

Summit County had not responded to the lawsuit as of Tuesday morning. A court hearing had not been set either.

“Throughout this process, the Clerk’s Office has followed state statute as interpreted by our attorneys and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office,” Furse said in a statement. “My office is ready to follow whatever determination is made.”

It’s unclear how legal action could affect the development project as Dakota Pacific has submitted a new agreement for the property under Senate Bill 26, a new law that essentially guarantees the project will be built with — or without — Ordinance 987.

S.B. 26 did not mention Dakota Pacific or Summit County by name when it was approved during the general session, but the specifics of the mixed-use project described are nearly identical to what the developer has proposed in the Kimball Junction area. The law also prevents a county from taking any action or enforcing an agreement, ordinance, regulation or requirement that would interfere with the development. 

The post Summit County residents challenge clerk’s rejection of Dakota Pacific referendum petition appeared first on Park Record.

Protect Summit County has collected about 70% of the signatures referendum sponsors need to put Ordinance No. 987, a decision to repeal an amended development agreement with Dakota Pacific Real Estate, on the November ballot.

The Summit County Clerk’s Office counted 3,174 verified signatures as of 9 a.m. on Friday, with 1,380 signatures, or about 30%, still needed to meet the minimum collection requirement. The total number of signers must also make up 16% of voters countywide plus 16% from three of the four voter precincts. 

County Clerk Eve Furse has until March 24 to finish verifying signatures. 

Utah Code states the Clerk’s Office must complete the verification of a packet within 21 days of receiving it. Staff then posts the name and voter identification number of each signer on the lieutenant governor’s website, which will remain online for 45 days. During that time, signers can also request their signatures be removed from the petition.

Protect Summit County, the movement led by referendum sponsors Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith, estimated around 77 packets were turned by the 5 p.m. deadline on March 3. The sponsors expected their actual total to be greater than 6,000 signatures. 

Furse said the signature count will continue to increase as the Clerk’s Office reviews names and verifies signatures. 

Clerk’s Office staff in February rejected several packets for “improper circulation,” meaning the signatures will not be counted. Furse said the packets were rejected because of three-hole punches, indicating they could have been improperly bound and the signature sheets may have been separated from the voter information pamphlet. 

Protect Summit County has asserted the signatures are valid. The sponsors plan to pursue a legal remedy if the referendum petition is declared insufficient.

State code dictates how petition packets must be printed, bound, circulated and numbered. Statutory requirements say the packets must contain a cover page, a copy of the law subject to the referendum, one to 50 signature sheets, and a circulator verification sheet. Packets must also be properly bound before they’re circulated, and cannot be taken apart or rearranged once bound. Otherwise, they will be rejected.

After the signatures are verified by staff, the County Clerk’s Office will issue a declaration on whether the petition is sufficient or insufficient and will immediately notify the referendum sponsors. Furse said the decision might not come until June 23 because of the 45-day withdrawal period.

If the state declares the petition sufficient, it will appear on the general election ballot. The ordinance approving the Dakota Pacific development, passed by the Summit County Council in a 4 to 1 vote on Dec. 18, would be “placed on hold” and not take effect until the voters approve — or reject — it. 

A ballot title would then be drafted, and the state would assign a proposition number to the referendum and prepare an impartial title not to exceed 25 words as well as an impartial summary no longer than 125 words.

The county would also publish a voter information pamphlet, which would be distributed to voters. The pamphlet would contain information about the referendum including an impartial analysis prepared by the county’s Chief Financial Officer and County Attorney, text of the law subject to the referendum and arguments for or against it.

If the referendum makes it to the ballot, a vote in favor of the referendum repeals the ordinance. A vote against the referendum leaves the ordinance in place. 

Groups raising or spending money related to the ballot proposition are required to register as a Political Issues Committee with the Lieutenant Governor’s Office and are required to disclose finances. Furse expected there would be campaigning for, and against, the referendum if it made it onto the November ballot.

Dakota Pacific formed Wasatch Back Future as a PIC to counter the Protect Summit County movement. Protect Summit County doesn’t have such an affiliation because it is a volunteer-led effort, according to the sponsors.

The verified signature list is updated at 9 a.m. every weekday on the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office website. 

Even if the referendum petition is declared sufficient, and Ordinance No. 987 is annulled by voters, Dakota Pacific could still move forward with its development. 

The passage of Senate Bill 26 during the 2025 general session amends elements of Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones but also codified the amended development agreement near the Park City Tech Center. 

The Salt Lake City-based development firm has also filed to incorporate a preliminary municipality, Park City Tech, that would give Dakota Pacific “all the powers and duties” of a town including zoning and land use decisions if it’s allowed to proceed. 

The state approved a feasibility study for the new town last month to determine if the developer’s plans are economically viable. 

This article has been corrected to clarify Ordinance No. 987 is a local referendum, which has a different process than a state referendum.

The post Dakota Pacific referendum petition nears 70% of signature count requirement appeared first on Park Record.

The referendum petition to overturn Ordinance No. 987, the approval of an amended development agreement with Dakota Pacific Real Estate at the Park City Tech Center, is nearing the halfway point of the required signature threshold.

As of Friday morning, 2,234 verified signatures had been counted. 

Referendum sponsors still need an additional 2,320 voters to have signed on for the referendum to appear on the general election ballot. They also need to collect signatures from 16% of voters countywide plus 16% from three of the four voter precincts.

The effort led by Summit County residents Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith had until 5 p.m. on Monday to submit 4,554 verified signatures.

Protect Summit County, the sponsors’ name for the referendum movement, estimated they submitted 77 packets containing more than 6,000 signatures collected during the 45-day effort. The verified total on Wednesday morning was 1,464 signatures, and the list continues to increase as Summit County Clerk’s Office staff review the names. 

Clerk Eve Furse said it’s not informative to provide specific numbers on how many packets have been counted because the number of signatures can vary from a dozen to 100. As a result, she wasn’t able to provide a definitive timeline for when the count might be finalized.

“We have until Monday, June 23, 2025, to declare whether the referendum petition is sufficient or insufficient, and we are focusing on that determination at this point,” Furse said. “We will take the time necessary to ensure the accuracy of the process and to protect the processes by which Summit County residents express their political will with guidance from the Lieutenant Governor’s Office and the Summit County Attorney’s Office.”

Protect Summit County has asserted that “the only way Ordinance 987 doesn’t end up on November ballots is if election interference succeeds.” 

Sponsors have raised concerns about Wasatch Back Future, a countermovement funded by Dakota Pacific executives, interfering with signature-gathering efforts and with the Clerk’s Office for rejecting more than a dozen petition packets for “improper circulation.” Protect Summit County said all packets adhere to state code and all signatures are valid.

Furse maintains the packets were rejected because of three-hole punches, indicating they could have been improperly bound and the signature sheets may have been separate from the voter information pamphlet. 

Utah Code states the county clerk may not count a signature on a packet that is not verified or does not have a date next to it. A packet cannot be verified if it was not signed in the presence of someone at least 18 years old, if the verification on the last page of the packet isn’t completed, or if each signer didn’t read or understand the law the referendum seeks to overturn.

Summit County officials say the Clerk’s Office is neutral in the process and is following state law like it would in any election.

Protect Summit County plans to pursue litigation if the Clerk’s Office determines the referendum petition does not meet the signature requirements. Sponsors have said they would seek an injunction, forcing a judge to decide which packets can be counted.

If the referendum petition does meet the threshold, voters will decide this fall whether Dakota Pacific’s development near the Park City Tech Center should be allowed. Furse expected there would be campaigning for, and against, the referendum leading up to November as is common with any ballot issue.

The Summit County Council voted 4 to 1 in December to approve the amended development agreement, granting the development firm permission to build its 725-unit mixed-use project on about 50 acres in Kimball Junction. 

The agreement gives Dakota Pacific the ability to build 340 affordable housing units and 385 market-rate units over several years and phases tied to roadway improvements in the S.R. 224 corridor.

The development firm would also enter into a public-private partnership with Summit County to develop an additional 165 workforce units as well as a town center with a plaza, pedestrian bridge, amphitheater, subterranean parking structure, new transit facility and other civic amenities such as a library or common green.

If a voter has changed their mind about signing, the individual has 45 days to request their signatures be removed from the petition. Removal forms can be found on the Summit County website and must be returned in person or mailed to the Clerk’s Office.

The verified signature list is updated at 9 a.m. every weekday on the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office website. 

However, the Dakota Pacific development could still move forward even if the referendum succeeds. The development firm filed to incorporate a preliminary municipality called Park City Tech near its Kimball Junction land in January. The proposed boundaries do not encompass the land included in the public-private partnership.

A 2024 state law would give Dakota Pacific “all the powers and duties” of a town, including zoning and land use decisions if Park City Tech is allowed to proceed through the incorporation process. 

The state approved a feasibility for the new town last month to determine if the developer’s plans are economically viable. 

The post Dakota Pacific referendum petition nearly halfway to verified signature requirement appeared first on Park Record.

Protect Summit County, the volunteer-led referendum effort against the Dakota Pacific Real Estate development in Kimball Junction, is confident they gathered enough signatures to put the ordinance on the ballot. 

But they have less faith that the referendum effort has not been undermined.

Monday evening was the deadline for the seven sponsors — Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith — to submit 4,554 valid signatures to the Summit County Clerk’s Office for verification. The group estimated that they submitted 77 packets containing over 6,000, about 33% more than the minimum threshold.

“Per the code, we needed to reach 16% thresholds in terms of overall Summit County voters and in three out of four voter participation areas. We ended up with more than 21% of overall voters and over 20%, 26%, and 28% in three voter participation areas,” Protect Summit County said. “The numbers speak for themselves. The only way Ordinance 987 doesn’t end up on November ballots is if election interference succeeds.”

Protect Summit County said it upped its signature collection goals “once the extent of the sabotage became evident.” Sponsors have raised concerns with the Clerk’s Office after more than a dozen petition packets were rejected for improper circulation. They’ve also questioned efforts by Wasatch Back Future, a Political Issues Committee formed by Dakota Pacific executives, encouraging voters who signed the referendum to remove their signatures, calling those efforts “intimidating.”

Referendum sponsors and many residents also took issue with a partner from a lobbyist firm, Foxley & Pignanelli, hired by Summit County three years ago to help advance county issues working separately with Wasatch Back Future. During KPCW’s “Local News Hour” on Feb. 25, Summit County Manager Shayne Scott said “there is no conflict” of interest because the county has taken a neutral position on the referendum.

Protect Summit County disagreed.

“Our own Summit County lobbyists are working harder to kill the voter referendum than they are to advocate for us voters down at the Legislature,” the group said in a statement to The Park Record.

Sponsors started obtaining signatures about 45 days ago, bringing on dozens of volunteers and hosting numerous collection drives to reach the minimum threshold to put Ordinance No. 987 on the ballot, letting voters decide whether the mixed-use project near the Park City Tech Center should be allowed.

Public criticism regarding the development has been loud since the first iteration of the Dakota Pacific application was submitted about five years ago. The referendum sponsors said the 4-1 County Council vote approving the amended development agreement in December was “in opposition to the people.”

Those who signed the referendum petition said they feel they weren’t well represented by the County Council, seek an opportunity to better understand the details of the development agreement, or want to repeal the ordinance to force the officials to negotiate for a better deal with the developer.

If the referendum makes it to the ballot, voters will decide during the general election whether the approved development agreement should stand.

“The people hired by those working to kill the referendum started tracking our locations and showing up to interfere. In certain instances, those people actually helped draw more attention and support for our efforts. And once news broke about Summit County’s own lobbyist taking money from Dakota Pacific to kill the voter referendum, it motivated a whole late wave of signers to come out and stand up for democracy in Summit County,” Protect Summit County said in a statement.

Summit County Clerk Eve Furse expected an update on the signature packets by Tuesday afternoon. Furse has maintained the Clerk’s Office is neutral in the process and is following state law. She said the packets were rejected because they could have been improperly bound, meaning the signature sheets may have been separated from the voter information pamphlet. 

“The Summit County Clerk is currently reviewing signature packets submitted for the referendum. At this time, we are working through the verification to ensure it is accurate and protects the processes by which Summit County residents express their political will,” Summit County officials said in a statement to The Park Record. “The Clerk’s Office is committed to following state statute with guidance from the Lieutenant Governor’s Office and the Summit County Attorney’s Office.”

Utah Code states the county clerk has 21 days after a packet is submitted to certify on the petition whether each name is that of a legal voter; post the name, voter identification number and date of each signature on the lieutenant governor’s website; and deliver the verified packet to the local clerk. 

It also states the county clerk may not count a signature on a packet that is not verified or does not have a date next to it. A packet cannot be verified if it was not signed in the presence of someone at least 18 years old, if the verification on the last page of the packet isn’t completed or if each signer didn’t read or understand the law the referendum seeks to overturn.

The sponsors estimated that 31 packets were turned in on Monday. Protect Summit County maintains that all the packets adhere to state code and all the signatures are valid. The sponsors plan to pursue a legal remedy if the Clerk’s Office declares the petition effort insufficient, they said.

“Win or lose, the people of Summit County have spoken out against legislative interference, a County Council that sided with a developer over its constituents … repeated attempts at sabotage, and a county clerk acting outside her scope of duty and introducing chaos mid-process,” Protect Summit County said. “This is a clear mandate for the highest levels of government in Utah to stop interfering in local issues and for local elected officials to represent the people who elected them.”

The post Protect Summit County confident in referendum signature gathering effort appeared first on Park Record.

To sign or not to sign, that is the question registered Summit County voters must answer by Monday.

Referendum sponsors must submit 4,554 valid signatures by 5 p.m. on March 3 for Ordinance No. 987 — the County Council’s approval of 890 residential units, 725 of which would be owned by the developer and have a variety of affordable and market-rate housing — to make it onto the November ballot. It would then be up to voters to decide whether to annul the amended development agreement permitting the mixed-use project.

The Summit County Clerk’s Office has rejected 27 of the 45 submitted signature packets as of Thursday afternoon because of “improper circulation,” though the sponsors disagree.  

Clerk Eve Furse accepted the 18 other packets because they did not have three-hole punches, indicating they hadn’t been separated from the voter information sheet. The decision was made after consulting with the county’s legal team. Furse said staff are required to inspect the packets before reviewing signatures because state laws dictate how a packet can be circulated.

“That includes that it has been circulated as a single unit, where all of the signature pages are attached to the pamphlet that has the request for the petition and has the law in it and then has the statements in favor, and all that. It has to be connected,” Furse said. 

Utah Code requires the local government to issue a neutral proposition information pamphlet to registered voters that includes a complete copy of the ordinance to ensure voters are well informed. The Clerk’s Office released the 100-plus page document with the referendum application, fiscal and legal impact estimate and arguments related to the referendum effort. 

In this case, only the sponsors’ letter in favor of repealing the ordinance was included. The seven Summit County residents who sponsored the application — Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith — used the allotted 500 words to support their application for a referendum. 

Summit County did not submit a statement for or against the effort.

Furse asserted the Clerk’s Office is neutral in the process, just like it would be in any election. When she learned several packets were considered invalid on Feb. 18, Furse emailed the sponsors to let them know. Furse said she was not required to notify the group, but did so as a courtesy.

The letter also suggested alternatives on how to proceed such as contacting people who signed the rejected packet and asking them to resign. Yet Protect Summit County, the name of the sponsors’ group, has encouraged residents not to sign the petition twice. 

This could be because the group has said it plans to file an injunction, allowing a judge to decide whether the rejected packets should be counted toward the total. A Third District Court case had not been filed as of Friday morning.

Normally, a signature that appears twice on a referendum petition is considered invalid and not counted. There could be concerns that might happen to the original signatures if a judge compels the Clerk’s Office to count them.

However, Furse clarified that’s not actually the case. Clerk’s Office software allows staff to differentiate between qualified and disqualified signatures.

“We would be happy to review those signatures (in a bound packet) and not consider those individuals having voted twice or having signed the petition twice,” she said.

Protect Summit County is continuing its signature-gathering drive over the weekend. Volunteers will be at the Kamas branch of the Summit County Library from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Park City Brewing in Kimball Junction from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., the intersection of Sackett Drive and Homestead Road in Jeremy Ranch from 2 to 4 p.m. and the Jeremy Ranch Park and Ride from 5 to 6 p.m. on Saturday. They’ll also be at Park City Brewing from 11:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the Jeremy Ranch Park and Ride from 4 to 6 p.m. on Sunday. 

An opposition group paid for by Wasatch Back Future, a countermovement funded by Dakota Pacific, has discouraged residents from supporting the referendum at the sponsors’ events with signs saying “Think first” and “Don’t sign.” 

The group also provides information on removing a signature from the referendum petition. Summit County has received a few requests to do so, but Furse said they can’t be signed electronically and can only be submitted in person or by mail.

Protect Summit County in a statement said they will have delivered more than 4,500 valid signatures by 5 p.m. Monday to get the referendum on the November election ballot.

“City councilors, planning commissioners, a mayor, the sheriff, political party leaders, firefighters, police, teachers, developers, real estate agents, small-business owners and other community leaders have all lent a hand in what we maintain is a clean petition process,” the group said. “Summit County has never seen this kind of broad bipartisan support, which should serve as a wake up call to officials at all levels working against voters.” 

Each petition packet can hold a maximum of 100 signatures, which means the sponsors need to collect and submit at least 28 full packets to meet the minimum signature-gathering threshold. The signatures also need to come from 16% of voters countywide plus 16% from three of the four voter precincts. 

Staff from the Clerk’s Office will make sure there are enough signatures before checking that the percentage requirements are also met. Furse expected the first estimate would be available sometime next week, but it will take longer to develop a more accurate picture.

The post Sign or decline? Summit County voters have until Monday to decide on referendum petition appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County Clerk Eve Furse has proposed a fee increase for business licenses. The extra revenue would help offset the cost of software that would help Clerk’s Office staff track short-term rentals throughout the county.

“We think that having a software solution that collects and aggregates data about the short-term rentals in Summit County will help us zero in on what the issues are and how we want to address them,” Furse told the Summit County Council on Wednesday.

Short-term rentals, often listed on sites like Airbnb and VRBO, have been a concern for the County Council and other county departments for almost a decade. There are currently no regulations other than a required business license. Short-term rentals often have a negative effect on housing affordability, too, according to Economic Development and Housing Director Jeff Jones.

The County Council has considered adopting ordinances that would limit where nightly rentals can be located based on community character, for example. However, the Utah Legislature limits how local governments can handle rental operations.

Right now, Summit County leads the state in nightly rental listings with 23.8% of total housing listed as a short-term rental, per a recent report by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.

“In 2021, the short-term rental licenses were 765, and, as of now, the short-term rental licenses are 1,290, so they have grown more than anyone else,” Furse said. She presented a graph displaying the number of active commercial, in-home and short-term rental licenses in Summit County.

Furse estimated that slightly over half of the short-term rentals in unincorporated Summit County actually have a business license.

“We don’t have great business license enforcement because we rely on our code enforcers, who are very busy enforcing planning and building issue licenses rather than business licenses, which is understandable, but it does make it hard to have increased compliance with business licensing requirements,” she said.

The short-term rental software Furse hopes to implement would sweep websites for rentals in Summit County and provide a packet to the county government for review.

“They get our authorization and can send a letter to those individuals encouraging them to comply,” Furse explained. “If they don’t, that would be submitted initially to a compliance officer for a citation and then if that is unsuccessful, then through the attorney’s office.”

Some other counties in Utah have already adopted the software and reported success, Furse said.

“It was a really interesting system, and they use it in a lot of resort communities,” said County Council Vice Chair Tonja Hanson. “It seemed like it would help us solve a lot of problems.”

Furse proposed increasing fees to pay for the software and an enforcement officer specifically designated for licensing violations.

Currently, a commercial license is $200, an in-home license is $75 and a short-term rental license is $200. Furse’s first proposal would change the cost of commercial licenses to $250, in-home licenses to $125 and short-term rental licenses to $325.

“We’ve increased the fee more for the short-term rental license than for the commercial license because of the software being solely directed to the short-term rentals, but the enforcement officer would spread over all of them because we would use them for all business licensing enforcement,” Furse explained.

However, she also proposed a second option that would increase fees even more. This would also allow the Clerk’s Office to hire a part-time employee to respond to the higher number of people applying for licenses. Under the second option, a commercial license would cost $275, in-home licenses would cost $125 and short-term rental licenses would cost $350.

“I think this is actually a very conservative step in this process,” Furse said when County Councilor Chris Robinson asked about pushback from the community. “Enforcement of one’s ordinances is certainly an important piece. Having an ordinance you don’t enforce hurts everyone. I think it doesn’t change our ordinance in the sense of we are not putting additional regulations, we are simply trying to pay for the enforcement of what we’ve got. I don’t see how that could garner any concern. The fees themselves, in comparison to what businesses are making, are really quite small.”

The change is not yet official, but the county councilors expressed their support for the second option that would allow for the software, an enforcement officer and a part-time position within the Clerk’s Office. 

Furse said she plans to send out a letter to businesses informing them of the anticipated increase so that they can budget for their renewal in 2025, assuming the increase is approved by the County Council in December.

The post Business licensing fees may increase next year to better track short-term rentals appeared first on Park Record.

Community members stopping by The Market at Park City for their weekend essentials also had the chance to pick up a beloved symbol to represent their civic pride.

Summit County Clerk Eve Furse was stationed near the grocery store’s drop box on Friday for Vote Early Day to remind residents to turn in their ballots, answer questions, help people register and pass out the much-loved stickers to those who cast their vote. 

Vote Early Day was the last day to register to vote by mail for the general election, though registration is still open for in-person voting. 

Furse heard from several voters that they never received a ballot by mail despite them being distributed early last week. She encouraged them to contact the Clerk’s Office as staff can fulfill requests until Monday. After that, voters are encouraged to amend their plan to in-person voting.

Residents who have not voted since the last presidential election in 2020, or who did not respond to requests to verify their status, may have been marked as inactive. So, a ballot may not have been sent by mail. 

If a voter is inactive, all they need to do is show up in person to vote to reactivate it.
Early voting is available for voters at the Summit County Courthouse from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 31; Friday, Nov. 1; and Monday, Nov. 4; as well as from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 2. The Kimball Junction branch of the Summit County Library will also be open from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. that Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday for early voting.

Election Day voting is open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. at Coalville City Hall, Park City Hall, and the Kamas and Kimball Junction branches of the Summit County Library.

Ballots returned by mail must be postmarked at least one day before the election. They can also be left in drop boxes throughout the county until 8 p.m. on Nov. 5.

Drop boxes are located at the Summit County Courthouse in Coalville, the Park City Library, the Quinn’s Health Department, The Market at Park City, the Jeremy Ranch Park and Ride, Oakley City Hall, Henefer Town Hall, Francis City Hall as well as the Coalville, Kamas and Kimball Junction branches of the Summit County Library.

Utah largely conducts elections by mail, according to Furse. She’s committed to a secure election process, and the Clerk’s Office uses various privacy measures to count votes.

“Our systems have multiple security measures to prevent anyone from having multiple votes counted,” she said. “If someone tells you something about voting that doesn’t seem quite right, please reach out to our office or the Lieutenant Governor’s Office to verify. Please be aware that there is a lot of misinformation out there.” 

Clerk’s Office staff have started processing ballots, but the actual count won’t start until the general election. Furse expected great participation, estimating 6,000 ballots would be returned with Friday’s mail. She anticipated voter turnout would be around 90%. 

Voters can track their ballot through the BallotTrax program. Information on how to sign up is included at the top of the ballot envelope. 

There are several important issues on the ballot this year, including the elections for president, U.S. House and Senate, Utah governor, Summit County Council, board of education, Prop 18 which is the 0.5% emergency services sales tax, the $114 million North Summit School District bond and proposed constitutional amendments. 

Furse encouraged residents to take inspiration from Leadership Park City Class 29’s Let’s Talk project and call someone they haven’t connected with in a while after casting their vote. She acknowledged the political divide in the United States and reminded community members, “We’re all in this together.”

Anyone can call 435-336-3040 or email elections@summitcountyutah.gov for additional information about voting.

The post Summit County residents encouraged to create voting plan for Election Day appeared first on Park Record.

Less than three weeks remain until the general election, and voters should expect to see ballots arriving in their mailboxes soon.

The Summit County Clerk’s Office sent out envelopes to active voters on Tuesday, 21 days before the election, per Utah state law. Ballots could start showing up as soon as Friday.

Voters can return their ballot by mail as long as it’s postmarked one day before the election, Nov. 4, or by putting it in one of several drop box locations throughout Summit County by 8 p.m. on Election Day. 

Ballot drop boxes are located at the Summit County Courthouse in Coalville, the Park City Library, the Quinn’s Health Department, The Market at Park City, the Jeremy Ranch Park and Ride, Oakley City Hall, Henefer Town Hall, Francis City Hall as well as the Coalville, Kamas and Kimball Junction branches of the Summit County Library.

Most elections in Utah are conducted by mail, according to Clerk Eve Furse. She said she is committed to maintaining the integrity of the election process, and uses a variety of security and privacy measures to securely and accurately count votes. 

For example, county election officials compare the signature on a ballot envelope to make sure it matches previous ballots the person has cast as well as their voter registration form. Individuals will be notified if it doesn’t match and a “cure letter” will be mailed to affirm the signature is correct. The ballot is only counted once the affidavit is received, according to the Clerk’s Office.

The Summit County Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges earlier this month against four people accused of double voting in the June primary election. In those cases, the individuals received ballots corresponding with their registered party, Republican, and also requested a ballot for the open Democratic primary. The individuals voted in both elections, which is not allowed.

“Our systems have multiple security measures to prevent anyone from having multiple votes counted,” Furse said in a statement at the time. “If someone tells you something about voting that doesn’t seem quite right, please reach out to our office or the Lieutenant Governor’s Office to verify. Please be aware that there is a lot of misinformation out there.” 

The votes were not counted twice because of the voting machines in the Clerk’s Office. The system keeps track of who has already voted and dispatches an alert if a name appears twice. The Clerk’s Office performed its logic and accuracy test of the automatic tabulating equipment that will be used in the 2024 election last week. It was open to the public and ran smoothly.

Voting can also be done in person. 

Early voting is available for Summit County voters at the Summit County Courthouse from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 31; Friday, Nov. 1; and Monday, Nov. 4; as well as from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday, Nov. 2. The Kimball Junction branch of the Summit County Library will also be open from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. that Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday for early voting.

Election Day voting is open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. at Coalville City Hall, Park City Hall, and the Kamas and Kimball Junction branches of the Summit County Library.

Furse anticipates there will be around 90% voter turnout in the general election. The vast majority of ballots are submitted by mail and around 5% of votes are cast the day of or in person a few days before.

People who have not voted since the last presidential election in 2020 or responded to requests from the Clerk’s Office to verify their status could be marked as inactive, meaning they may not automatically receive a ballot by mail.

Summit County residents have until 5 p.m. on Oct. 25, 11 days before the election, to register to vote in time to receive a mail-in ballot. Ballots will be sent out until about Oct. 28 to guarantee they arrive in time for Election Day.

There are several important issues on the ballot this year including the elections for president, U.S. House and Senate, Utah governor, Summit County Council, the 0.5% emergency services sales tax, the $114 million North Summit School District bond and proposed constitutional amendments. 

Please call 435-336-3040 or email elections@summitcountyutah.gov for additional information about voting.

The post General election ballots arriving soon appeared first on Park Record.