Summit County lobbyist accused of double-dealing on Dakota Pacific development

"The lobbyist we pay to defend us at the legislature is also taking money from Dakota Pacific and using our own resources against us." - Protect Summit County, Referendum sponsors

SUMMIT COUNTY, Utah — A high-profile lobbyist with deep ties to Summit County government is said to be working against the Dakota Pacific referendum, raising concerns among elected officials and local party leaders about potential conflicts of interest.

Elected officials, political party leaders, and referendum sponsors publicly asserted this week that Renae Cowley, a partner at the lobbying firm Foxley & Pignanelli—which is contracted by Summit County to lobby at the Utah State Legislature—is involved with Wasatch Back Future, a group organized by Dakota Pacific to oppose the Dakota Pacific development referendum.

The referendum seeks to bring the Dec. 18 Summit County Council decision approving the amended development agreement between Summit County and Dakota Pacific Real Estate to a public vote.

Cowley and her firm did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Marc Stanworth, Dakota Pacific CEO, has also not responded to requests for comment regarding Cowley’s and Foxley & Pignanelli’s alleged involvement in Wasatch Back Future or their work with Dakota Pacific.

Summit County lobbyist

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Renae Cowley (@capitolcowgirl)

Summit County has paid Foxley & Pignanelli close to $300,000 over the past three years to lobby for the county’s interests at the legislature. One of the firm’s partners, Cowley, has been actively involved in legislative discussions on behalf of Summit County, including providing public updates on the Dakota Pacific development project in Kimball Junction, SR-224 traffic congestion. She has also participated in multiple executive session meetings with county officials regarding the lawsuit between Summit County and Dakota Pacific.

Cowley, a Summit County resident who lives in Peoa, was not representing Dakota Pacific during those closed-door meetings, county officials said.

Conflict of interest concerns

Cowley’s alleged involvement with Wasatch Back Future concerns referendum supporters, who worry whether confidential county information may now be benefiting Dakota Pacific’s efforts to prevent the issue from going to a public vote. Summit County Manager Shayne Scott, who said he talks to Cowley and other employees of Foxley & Pignanelli multiple times a day, said during a live interview with KPCW that “there is no conflict” and that Foxley & Pignanelli can take on clients as they wish.

When TownLift asked Scott to comment on Cowley’s involvement with Wastach Back Future he said, “I can only say that whatever Renae or anyone else does with their own business or private time is their business.”

Scott has maintained that the county remains neutral in the referendum process.

Cowley’s alleged involvement with Wasatch Back Future was also brought up during a meeting held by La Société Deux Magots via Zoom on Tuesday morning in which Stanworth was a guest speaker. During the question and answer session, current GOP leader of Summit County, Karen Ballash, asked Stanworth to speak to Dakota Pacific hiring Summit County’s own lobbyist to try to defeat the referendum.

Stanworth declined to provide comment on the particulars of their process. He also said that Dakota Pacific via Wasatch Back Future is working to educate the public about the benefits of not signing the referendum.

Also in that meeting Summit County Council member Canice Hart said it was “shady” of Dakota Pacific to hire one person out of the lobbying firm to run the anti-referendum campaign. Hart added it is something that is technically allowed, but not something that the county would support.

During a subsequent conversation with TownLift about Dakota Pacific’s tactics, Hart said, “They just make bad decisions all the time,” referring to Dakota Pacific’s creation of the Political Issues Committee, Wasatch Back Future, and its website and mass email, which initially did not disclose the company’s involvement.

It is still unclear how the newly formed Wasatch Back Future group gained access to registered Summit County voters’ email addresses across the county.

High stakes for Summit County voters

Referendum sponsors and Protect Summit County, the group working to gather needed signatures before the March 4 deadline, said the conflicts of interest have never been clearer, nor the stakes higher for Summit County voters.

“Marc Stanworth calls the referendum ‘a bad deal.,'” Protect Summit County said in statement to TownLift. “The referendum is the most powerful check on our elected government and a cornerstone of democracy. Yet, while Dakota Pacific claims to be our community partner, they work to undermine it. Meanwhile, the lobbyist we pay to defend us at the legislature is also taking money from Dakota Pacific and using our own resources against us.”

They said the referendum petition sends a clear message to county and state officials, that Summit County voters will not tolerate manipulation of their elected government or our election process.

Reed Galen, co-founder of The Lincoln Project and a Park City resident, has raised ethical and transparency concerns over the ongoing controversy surrounding the Dakota Pacific referendum in Summit County. In a recent interview, he questioned whether legal loopholes were being used to undermine the public interest, arguing that legality does not always equate to ethical responsibility.

“Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should,” Galen said. “Maybe it’s legal, but does that make it right?”

One of his primary concerns is the role of taxpayer dollars in a situation where a county lobbyist is working alongside a developer who previously sued the county and has yet to sign a development agreement.

“Anybody who lives in Summit County is in some way paying this woman’s salary,” Galen said. “Those are our tax dollars at work, and she’s turning around and utilizing not only our money but also money from a developer working against the county’s interests. That just stinks.”

The referendum sponsors need to gather 5,000 signatures by March 4. Last week, Summit County Clerk, Eve Furse, said 21 binders containing approximately 2,000 signatures are invalid due to a binding error.

More information and background on the controversial development is available here.

Information about how Summit County voters can sign the referendum can be found at ProtectSummitCounty.org.

Dakota Pacific executives behind anonymous group urging residents to reject referendum