Third District Judge Richard Mrazik said the legal petition filed by supporters of a referendum on Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s project is legally irrelevant.
That's because of a new state law, Senate Bill 26. Mrazik determined it accomplishes the same thing as Dakota Pacific’s December development agreement, which the referendum sought to block.
The written ruling handed down Aug. 26 states that, because Dakota Pacific can build its project under SB26, a November referendum wouldn't have any effect on the outcome.
Residents had asked the court to rule whether Summit County Clerk Eve Furse was right to invalidate about half the signatures they submitted in their referendum petition. If they’d been counted, the development might have made the November ballot.
Furse said in a statement that state lawmakers “determined what will happen at the DPRE property, not my office, the referendum, or the referendum lawsuit.”
“Ultimately, my office’s responsibility is to uphold the law, which I’ve remained committed to throughout this entire process,” she continued.
Because he ruled SB26 makes the whole matter legally irrelevant, Mrazik did not address whether Furse followed the law.
In his ruling, Mrazik wrote he canceled oral arguments Aug. 26 “to prevent the parties from incurring unnecessary costs.” He said precedent set days earlier, in the Utah Supreme Court’s Aug. 7 ruling on Mathews v. Tooele County, decided the issue “authoritatively.”
In a statement, the group running the referendum Protect Summit County said it disagrees with the ruling.
“Judge Mrazik did not rule that we did anything wrong, and he did not rule that Clerk Furse was right to reject our packets. He denied our petition for summary judgment on the basis it is moot because SB26 supersedes Ordinance 987. We disagree,” Protect Summit County said. “Summit County could have resolved this matter last week by repealing 987. They still can, and they should. If they refuse, we will appeal the mootness ruling and fight to get Ordinance 987 on the ballot as quickly as possible.”
The case has not been formally dismissed, but it is unlikely Summit County will vote on Dakota Pacific’s project in November.
The development that sparked the controversy is a new neighborhood and mixed-use area slated for western Kimball Junction. It would bring 890 units in all, about half of them for the local workforce.
Part of the development includes a public-private partnership between Summit County and Dakota Pacific.
Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved the development July 28 as he said SB26 required.
Summit County is a financial supporter of KPCW. For a full list, click here.
