Summary
The Utah Supreme Court considered a petition for extraordinary relief challenging Riverton City's refusal to place a referendum concerning a zoning ordinance on the ballot after the ordinance was repealed and replaced. The court held that resolving whether the City Council acted in bad faith to evade the referendum would require deciding disputed factual issues, and it dismissed the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Utah Supreme Court could grant extraordinary relief when the parties disputed the city council's purpose in repealing and replacing an ordinance subject to referendum.
- Whether petitioners established on undisputed facts that Riverton City acted in bad faith to evade the referendum.
Holdings
- The Utah Supreme Court generally will not adjudicate a petition for extraordinary relief when the requested ruling depends on resolving disputed material facts and there is no adequate evidentiary record before the court.
- Petitioners failed to demonstrate through undisputed factual allegations that Riverton City acted in bad faith to evade the referendum; the petition for extraordinary relief was therefore dismissed.
Key quotations
“Where a petition is presented on uncontroverted material facts (e.g., by stipulation or unopposed affidavits), and it is otherwise appropriate for this court to exercise its jurisdiction to issue extraordinary relief; it may issue a judgment on the merits.” (128)
“Accordingly, petitioners have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating with undisputed allegations of fact that the Riverton City Council acted in bad faith, and we therefore dismiss the petition.” (130)
Factual background
Riverton City enacted an ordinance adopting the Hamilton Properties Specific Plan as the zoning requirements for large tracts of land. Opponents obtained the required signatures for a referendum challenging that ordinance. The city later repealed the January Ordinance and enacted four replacement ordinances addressing subdivided tracts, and the city recorder refused to place the original referendum on the ballot. Petitioners alleged that the replacement ordinances were enacted to evade their referendum rights, while the city and intervening property owners asserted that the changes were intended to cure procedural defects and provide greater flexibility.
Procedural history
Riverton City enacted a January zoning ordinance adopting the Hamilton Properties Specific Plan. After citizens obtained the required referendum signatures, the city repealed the January Ordinance and enacted four replacement ordinances, then refused to place the referendum on the ballot. Petitioners sought extraordinary relief in the Utah Supreme Court, asking that the referendum be deemed applicable to the replacement ordinances. The court dismissed the petition because the alleged bad-faith purpose of the city council presented disputed factual issues that could not be resolved on the petition record.