Judge rules petition to advance Dakota Pacific referendum moot in light of new state law

An aerial view of the proposed Dakota Pacific project site. Photo: Dakota Pacific Real Estate

Decision leaves dispute over Ordinance 987 referendum unsettled

PARK CITY, Utah — Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik on Tuesday rejected a bid to advance a referendum on Dakota Pacific’s amended development agreement, ruling the petition for summary judgement was moot. Mrazik found that SB 26, enacted in March, already grants the same uses and zoning as Ordinance 987, the measure targeted by Protect Summit County’s challenge.

Mrazik cited precedent from Matthews vs Tooele County (August 7, 2025) where incorporation of the City of Erda shifted zoning authority and rendered a referendum fight moot. He said passage of SB 26 similarly changed the legal landscape in Summit County. 

“Put simply, the Utah Legislature, when it passed SB26, determined what will happen at the DPRE property, not my office, the referendum, or the referendum lawsuit,” Summit County Clerk Eve Furse said in a statement. “Ultimately, my office’s responsibility is to uphold the law, which I’ve remained committed to throughout this entire process.”

Because the petition was deemed moot, the court did not rule whether signature gatherers complied with state law. That issue has been contested by both sides since January.

Protect Summit County, the grassroots group behind the referendum, says the outcome fell short of resolving the central issue, but is still an important step forward. In a statement, the group noted Ordinance 987 remains on the books and could still be used as the basis for a new application if not repealed.

“We respectfully disagree with the determination of mootness,” said Protect Summit County. “County Attorney Dave Thomas confirmed at last Wednesday’s Summit County Council meeting that Dakota Pacific can come back and submit an application under Ordinance 987 if it remains intact. In other words, if anything happens to prevent Dakota Pacific from achieving their plans under SB 26, they’ll be keeping a backdoor option available as long as 987 stays on the books.”

Dakota Pacific canceled its application under Ordinance 987 on August 14 and asked the County to repeal it. Summit County Council drafted Ordinance 987-A to do so and intended to adopt it Wednesday August 17, but voted 4-1 to keep 987 in place. 

Protect Summit County criticized the County Council for not repealing the ordinance outright when given the chance, saying litigation has already cost taxpayers tremendously. The group also questioned if Councilors were aware petitioners supported the repeal.

“We essentially asked Summit County to stipulate to mootness back on August 6,” said Protect Summit County. “But Clerk Furse and the legal team refused. However the loophole is closed on 987, whether by ballot referendum or by action of the County, we just want to end the battle and the waste of taxpayer money.”

The group has urged supporters to write the Council in support of reconsidering 987-A, warning it will appeal the court’s determination of mootness if no action is taken.

County officials noted that the broader referendum has already drawn attention from state lawmakers. In July, the Utah Rules Review and General Oversight Committee voted to begin drafting reforms to clarify the referendum process for both voters and local governments.

“The Clerk’s office looks forward to seeing how the legislature clarifies the referendum processes for both voters and local governments across the state,” Furse said.

The case has not been formally dismissed and for now, Judge Mrazik’s decision keeps the referendum off the November ballot.