Estimated read time: 6-7 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
HIDEOUT, Wasatch County — A judge has issued a split ruling in the court battle around Hideout’s controversial attempt to annex about 655 acres of commercial development east of Park City despite protests from city and Summit County officials.
Fourth District Judge Jennifer Brown on Thursday granted Summit County’s motion for a preliminary injunction on Hideout’s existing pre-annexation agreement with developers Nate Brockbank and Josh Romney, son of Sen. Mitt Romney — but she didn’t necessarily block Hideout from starting a new annexation process under a current law that won’t be repealed until mid-October.
“To be clear, the effect of today’s ruling is the (temporary restraining order against Hideout) will be converted to a preliminary injunction as far as prohibiting the town of Hideout from pursuing any annexation of property based upon the pre-annexation agreement adopted on July 9, 2020,” Brown said in her oral ruling. “It does not prohibit the town of Hideout from taking different action under the existing statute.”
The ruling comes as a victory to Summit County in its lawsuit to stop Hideout from continuing with annexation — and, based on Summit County’s interpretation, blocks Hideout from trying again to annex those specific land parcels, named Richardson Flat.
“We believe that’s against the judgement, and we’ll challenge that if that is attempted,” said Summit County Manager Tom Fisher in an interview Friday.
Fisher said he wouldn’t be surprised if Hideout tried.
“I am not surprised by anything related to this anymore,” he said.
The judge’s ruling didn’t fully halt Hideout from starting a brand new annexation process that could proceed without buy-in from Summit County, so long as it happens before the 60-day window before the Utah Legislature’s repeal of legislation that would have allowed the annexation takes effect.
The town last week indicated in court filings that city officials, if the judge allowed, were looking to take advantage of that 60-day window before the repeal bill takes effect to start the annexation process anew.
“I realize this may well mean we’re all going to be back here again in the near future,” the judge acknowledged. “I sat down and kind of mapped out the effects of this ruling and how I could see basically the same issues being raised again under a newly passed resolution, which the town of Hideout has made no secret of its intent to at least discuss and potentially pursue.”
Still, Fisher said he was encouraged by the judge’s ruling, especially when considered alongside the Utah Legislature’s actions to repeal the law.
“And so that, followed by the judgement of Judge Brown, it is unconscionable to me and would strike in the face of those two actions for Hideout to continue to pursue this,” Fisher said. “To me, it is completely unethical if they do.”
Hideout Mayor Philip Rubin, who is out of town dealing with a family issue, did not return a request for comment Friday afternoon from KSL.
However, he did conduct the nearly two-hour meeting over Zoom, which got off to a rough start when several people mocked speakers and disrupted the meeting until everyone but council members, their attorney and the developer was muted. A number of people then began exchanging comments in the program’s chat feature.
It’s not yet clear what Hideout’s next steps will be, but that will likely become more focused after Tuesday’s 5 p.m. work session, where they will have more information on some of the issues raised Friday night, including traffic issues, environmental impact and how the pre-annexation agreement would have to be redrafted.
“If we were to decide to move forward then we would have to agree upon a new pre-annexation agreement covering the indemnity,” Rubin said, “and that would be something that we would have available for your review on Tuesday, if we elect to consider to move forward. If we don’t move forward, I think we should still consider a new indemnification agreement, regardless, because I imagine that there will be continued legal activity regardless of our decision.”
Friday night’s meeting was held to discuss the town’s options, and despite the backlash from some community members, several members expressed a desire to take control of what they see as inevitable development. Brockbank participated in the discussion and said the plan they’re offering has been completely revamped in light of the judge’s decisions.
The Deseret News last month uncovered how the legislation that allowed Hideout’s annexation without permission from any of the surrounding counties was misrepresented on the House and Senate floors. Since then, the Utah Legislature in a special session repealed that legislation, but it takes 60 days until the repeal bill takes effect. That effective date is Oct. 19.
Hideout earlier this month abandoned its initial annexation process after a Zoom meeting flub botched a crucial public hearing required by state law. But the town did not abandon its pre-annexation agreement with the developers.
Hideout officials, who want the commercial development, argue they need more commercial development to employ residents of thousands of future homes already headed for construction in the region and to help alleviate Park City traffic. Park City officials, who worry the development would turn into a Kimball Junction-like expansion on the other side of the freeway, say the development would only aggravate traffic gridlock in the area, not help it.
Layered on top of the controversy around whether the development should or shouldn’t happen are accusations from Summit County that Hideout’s annexation effort has been unlawful and made possible by “bait-and-switch” legislative maneuvering.
Summit County’s suit also accuses Hideout of violating open meetings law by not properly posting the pre-annexation agreement and the resolution of intent to the public. The county has also accused and developers of seeking “nothing less than to overturn decades of careful land use planning and community development with noncontiguous land in Summit County they do not own.”
Park City Mayor Andy Beerman in a prepared statement Friday said Brown’s ruling “validates the concerns of those along Wasatch Back: covert land deals intended to deprive the public of transparency have no business in Utah.”
“Now that the 4th District Court has ruled, along with the overwhelming response by the Utah State Legislature to repeal the law that mistakenly created this mess, I cannot imagine any other scenario for Hideout than to withdraw its plans to force an annexation across county lines for a massive new development,” Beerman said, thanking Summit County for “standing up to protect our quality of life.
“(I) truly hope Hideout will consider a regional planning process inclusive of public input and collaboration,” Beerman added. “Hideout should look within for their commercial development and mend fences with their partners so we can work together on addressing regional issues.”
Contributing: Amy Donaldson
