The Summit County Clerk’s Office has officially deemed the petition aiming to place the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project approval on the November ballot insufficient.
On Monday, Clerk Eve Furse certified the results for Ordinance 987, which sought to repeal an amended development agreement between Summit County and Dakota Pacific at the Park City Tech Center in Kimball Junction.
The referendum sponsors gathered 3,214 signatures, falling short of the required 4,554 signatures needed to put the matter to a vote.
In addition to the overall count, the petition also had to meet specific thresholds: it needed to account for 16% of the county’s total voters, as well as meet requirements in three of the county’s four voter precincts.
However, the Clerk’s Office reported that the petition did not reach the necessary numbers in the precincts.
In Area 1, the petition garnered 900 signatures against a requirement of 1,181.
In Area 2, there were 447 signatures collected, while 1,157 was needed.
Area 3 saw 945 signatures collected, falling short of the 1,109 needed.
Lastly, Area 4 had 922 signatures, yet it required 1,107 to be valid.
“We respect the efforts of the petition sponsors and all those who volunteered or signed the petition,” Furse mentioned in a prepared statement.
She emphasized that her office took the necessary time to validate and accurately count every packet and signature to ensure the integrity of the process, stressing her commitment to upholding the political will of Summit County voters.
The Protect Summit County group, which led the referendum effort, initially believed it had surpassed the signature requirement by the submission deadline of March 3, turning in around 77 packets.
However, a significant number of these packets were rejected by Clerk’s Office staff earlier in February due to “improper circulation.”
Many of the packets contained signatures that were not counted as they were improperly bound, contravening state regulations which dictate how a petition should be presented.
Utah law requires that signature pages must be bound together as part of a packet, including the legislation that petitioners aim to overturn.
It appears that some submitted packets were not properly assembled, as the binding seems to have occurred after signatures were collected.
Furse explained that any signature packets that are not in compliance with the state’s election code may not be certified.
While she indicated that signatures could potentially be counted if they were resubmitted in the correct manner, the referendum sponsors were discouraging residents from signing again.
The Protect Summit County representatives maintained that the original signatures were valid, though they ultimately fell short by 1,340 signatures.
Furse’s statement also addressed the common issues that arise with signatures, noting that many were unreadable, duplicative, or undated, and that others involved signers who were either not registered voters, had mismatched addresses, or resided outside of Summit County.
Originally, Furse had until March 24 to tally the petition packets; however, the formal certification was delayed to allow for a 45-day period during which signers could withdraw their names from the petition.
It appears that no one chose to have their name removed, given that the signature count remained unchanged from March 24 to Monday.
In response to the outcome, Protect Summit County indicated its plans for potential legal action to challenge the Clerk’s decision regarding the insufficiency of the petition.
As of Monday afternoon, no lawsuit had been filed in the Third District Court regarding the matter.
Dakota Pacific recently sought an administrative development agreement that would allow it to proceed under modified zoning prompted by Senate Bill 26.
The new legislation facilitates the development firm in securing a zoning change and an additional funding source for the project, which could render Ordinance 987 irrelevant, according to representations from Summit County officials.
S.B. 26 also appears to solidify the development project by incorporating language that limits the county’s ability to impose barriers to the mixed-use development.
This new requirement shifts the approval process to an administrative level where the county manager has the final say, rather than the Summit County Council overseeing legislative actions.
Specific aspects of the development will still be reviewed by the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission, tasked with issuing recommendations.
Nonetheless, the county manager maintains the authority to make the final decisions regarding the agreement, despite existing constraints on denying the project’s progress.
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth has asserted the firm’s commitment to adhering to the county-approved development agreement, which aims to facilitate the construction of 725 residential units alongside community enhancements like a new transit center, underground parking, and affordable housing initiatives.
Shortly after the referendum petition was submitted, the firm also filed to create a preliminary municipality, Park City Tech, on its 51 acres adjacent to the Tech Center.
Senate Bill 258 would grant Dakota Pacific the ability to make zoning and land-use decisions independently of Summit County.
February findings determined the viability of the proposed new town, and efforts have begun to hire a consultant for further exploration of the plan.
It remains unclear if Dakota Pacific will continue to pursue the establishment of the preliminary municipality in light of the new development agreement and the recent disqualification of the referendum petition.
No comments were received from Stanworth by the time of publication.
image source from：parkrecord
