Summit County keeps Dakota Pacific Ordinance in place, awaiting court’s call

A pile of referendum packets at the county clerk's office on Monday, March 3, 2025. Photo: Protect Summit County

SUMMIT COUNTY, Utah – Despite requests from both petitioners and the developer, the Summit County Council voted 4–1 last week not to repeal Ordinance 987, the county’s December 2024 approval of Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s Kimball Junction project. County Manager Shayne Scott said Dakota Pacific requested the repeal after withdrawing its application on Aug. 14, adding that repealing Ordinance 987 was in the best interest of public health and welfare.

The decision stunned citizen petitioners, who said a repeal would have saved both sides money in a lawsuit challenging Summit County Clerk Eve Furse’s decision to declare a citizen-lead referendum insufficient. Council members who voted against the repeal said they want a judge to rule on the case, suggesting it could provide clarification for future decisions.

Petitioners are fighting to save the referendum, which could overturn the Summit County Council’s December 2024 approval of  the Dakota Pacific project if it makes it to the November ballot. Petitioners and the county along with the clerk’s office were scheduled to face county attorneys in Third District Court on August 19. On August 18, the judge requested a one-week delay for personal reasons. County officials then proposed repealing Ordinance 987 during their August 20 meeting.

“[The council is] not positioning on whether this is smart politically in any way,” Scott said in advance of the council’s vote. “If [Dakota Pacific] is withdrawing their application and they don’t need that portion to go forward, rescinding the ordinance makes sense too because it’s just cleaner and clearer.”

The county’s legal team drafted the appeal, notified petitioners’ attorneys and the court, and notified local news outlets in advance. 

In a joint statement to TownLift before the August 20th vote, the Clerk’s Office and County Attorney’s Office cited Utah Code 20-A-7-611(7), as a path to get the petitioner’s lawsuit dismissed. “Based on this code provision, the County Clerk’s Office will seek dismissal of the referendum lawsuit,” the statement read.

Protect Summit County, the group suing to reinstate rejected signature packets, supported the repeal, saying it would save both sides costly legal work and an August 26 court appearance.

The council did not take public comment at the meeting. Chief Deputy County Attorney Dave Thomas argued in favor of repealing 987, citing additional legal costs and a weaker position for the county if they don’t repeal it.

Petitioners say they expected a “yes” vote and called the county’s vote another rejection of residents’ will.

“Back on August 6th, we were the ones, through our attorneys, who asked for Clerk Furse to agree to a stipulated order declaring Ordinance 987 has no force and effect,” said petitioner Angela Moschetta. “But the response from her outside counsel conditioned such an order on us agreeing our entire petition is moot because of SB 26. That’s a legal trap we refused to fall into.”

Emails obtained by TownLift confirm the exchange. Moschetta added, “Since Dakota Pacific succeeded in getting both our County Council and Legislature to pass laws amending their Development Agreement, we have had two hurdles to clear.”

She said the first is to repeal Ordinance 987 through a ballot referendum and the second is to overturn SB 26. “The Clerk and Summit County officials could have saved taxpayers over $100,000 by repealing 987 themselves and eliminating the first hurdle. Instead, they opted to force dozens of pages of legal briefs arguing mootness and seem willing to gamble more taxpayer money in court,” Moschetta said.

Council Vice Chair Canice Harte initially seemed to side with petitioners on the benefits of repealing 987. “The advantage primarily is it’s moot anyway and it saves money,” Harte said. “We wouldn’t be burning taxpayer money by still going through court on something that doesn’t apply.”

Ultimately, Harte voted with the majority saying after that he and others who voted the same way wanted “to give everybody the best shot at hearing what the court has to say.”

Councilmember Megan McKenna was the lone vote to repeal.

County Attorney Margaret Olson noted most legal costs have already been spent so delaying a potential repeal will not add significantly to taxpayer bills. County attorneys defended using taxpayer funds for outside counsel, but did not explain why it was necessary. Petitioners say a Tuesday court hearing will cost them an additional $15,000.

From the county’s perspective, SB 26, not the Council or referendum, now controls the future of the Dakota Pacific project.

“SB26 imposed its own rezone of the Tech Center, shifted approval authority from the County Council to the County Manager, and prohibited the County from blocking development,” according to a county statement.

Under SB26, the county argues, Dakota Pacific filed a new administrative development agreement nearly identical to its earlier plan under Ordinance 987. “The County Manager approved it in July 2025, and Dakota Pacific withdrew its original application in August. The County Council then considered repealing Ordinance 987 as moot,” the county said.

Over 6,000 Summit County residents signed petitions last winter to overturn Ordinance 987. Clerk Furse invalidated nearly half the signatures, citing improper binding, leaving the petition short of the 4,554 signature threshold.  

Petitioner Reed Galen questioned county leaders’ sincerity.

“Are they on the side of the people, or aren’t they? Because if the county was on the side of the people, then the clerk wouldn’t be requesting dismissal of the lawsuit,” Galen said. “They talk out of one side of their mouth when people are paying attention, but do whatever they want the rest of the time. They say they care about our opinion, but they don’t. At this point, all these years later, no one should be surprised.”

For others, the fight is personal. Resident Bill Silliman recalled signing one of the early binders circulated by volunteer Ruby Diaz outside the Richens Library on a freezing day. “Ruby was the only person there and held the intact binder that I signed. That binder was one of the binders not accepted,” Silliman said. “I also knew what I was signing. After meeting Ruby, I decided to gather signatures, so I quit skiing for this important cause and collected signatures at my home, by the Post Office at Kimball, in Jeremy Ranch and held up signs at the Jeremy Ranch roundabout for many days.”

Councilmember Roger Armstrong said Judge Mrazik’s ruling could provide clarity for future referenda but also expressed exasperation over the referendum process and the legislators who discussed the  Ordinance 987 referendum process in a July 2025 Rules Review Committee hearing.

“I’m just curious next time somebody is unhappy with something we’ve done, what do the packets have to look like?” Armstrong said. “Now, maybe the legislature’s gonna fix that, maybe they won’t, maybe they got stirred up and they’ll calm down and forget about it and find something else to focus on Summit County for.”

At the July hearing, Senator John Johnson (District 3), who represents Summit County, defended petitioners. “Citizens have the right to petition government. Was there anything done to circumvent the spirit of the law? I don’t think so.”

Representative Trevor Lee (District 16) went further, questioning Clerk Furse’s intent. “In the end, it sounds like we had specific people who didn’t like what was being proposed here and didn’t want to see the signatures get through,” Lee said. “It’s almost like it’s malicious with accepting these [packets] or not.”

Moschetta said Deputy County Attorney Thomas confirmed that Dakota Pacific could still apply to develop its project if SB 26 falls through but and O 987 is in tact . She said this is why petitioners remain intent to repeal 987. 

In regard to Judge Mrazik’s upcoming decision, Moschetta explained it is limited to whether Furse correctly applied the law when she deemed packets invalid. 

Furse, a former federal magistrate judge, maintains her duty is to ensure voters are able to express their will while she upholds state law and court direction.
“No matter the outcome, we remain committed to moving forward in full compliance with the law,” Furse said. “The Clerk’s office looks forward to seeing how the legislature clarifies the referendum processes for both voters and local governments across the state.”