The Summit County Attorney’s Office filed a motion in Fourth District Court late last Friday, slamming the Hideout Town Council for certifying a citizen referendum vote that approved Hideout’s annexation.
Summit county contends that the Town Council’s action, called a canvass, defies a judge’s ruling striking down the annexation. The new motion asks Fourth District Judge Jennifer Brown to add enforcement language to her ruling.
On October 16th of last year, the Hideout Council approved an ordinance incorporating 350 acres of Summit County land in the Richardson Flat area without Summit County’s consent. Summit County sued Hideout in response.
Judge Brown's June 22nd ruling found that Hideout didn’t meet a deadline to officially enact the annexation, rendering it invalid.
Summit County said the judge's decision voided the annexation from its beginning. It contends Hideout has no jurisdiction over Summit County land, so there was no annexation for the citizens to vote on.
But on June 29th, the Hideout Town Council certified that the annexation was approved by a vote of 182 for and 87 against. A proclamation approved by the Council said Judge Brown’s verbal ruling had not yet been finalized and that the annexation was in “full force and effect,” though subject to further court rulings.
Summit County says that language was disingenuous.
Friday’s filing also says that on the same day the council met, Utah Director of Elections Justin Lee advised the town not to hold a canvass, since the judge had ruled against the annexation.
In an e-mail referenced in the county’s motion, Lee said the voting results could be presented to the council as a point of information. But he advised that the town should not declare an outcome “different from what the court has ordered.”
Summit County is now asking Judge Brown to include language in a written version of her order saying that Hideout can’t implement its annexation in any way, including accepting applications or issuing permits for lands inside Summit County.
Friday’s motion says that Summit County should not have to maintain constant vigilance over Hideout’s actions, nor should it have to keep taking legal action against the town “for ongoing and continuous violations of the court’s orders.”
Hideout’s attorneys have not responded at this time to KPCW’s request for comment.
