The legal fight between Summit County and the town of Hideout is going to the next level – and it’ll be reviewed by the highest court in the state.
Next year, the Utah Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments from Summit County Attorney Margaret Olson and the attorneys for Hideout about the annexation of Richardson Flat in October 2020. The Wasatch County town has since appealed a 4th District Court decision against its attempt to bring 350 acres of Summit County land into its jurisdiction – without the county’s consent. The appeal could pave the way for the land dispute to be settled by the Utah Supreme Court.
4th District Judge Jennifer Brown in March declined Hideout’s request to stay the decision she made last summer voiding the annexation, which the town appealed. The state Supreme Court earlier this year indicated it was likely to take the case rather than have the Utah Court of Appeals issue a ruling.
Legal briefs filed by Olson and Hideout’s representatives provide insight into what their arguments, which will likely be scheduled for the summer or fall, could be.
The 54-page brief compiled by the County Attorney’s Office characterizes Hideout’s annexation as an attempt to expand its boundaries into an area of the county “with which it shares no common border” and to which it would only be connected by a “cherry stem – up State Road 248 and down a class B Wasatch County road.”
“That entirely undeveloped, unconnected land is the intended site of a brand-new town with urban levels of development,” the brief stated.
Developer Nate Brockbank is proposing to build what would be a new town center for Hideout, including 600 homes, commercial businesses and a new town hall, built over several phases, at the Richardson Flat site. Brockbank has agreed to pay for the development as well as the town’s legal fees.
The brief continued, “With the exception of 111 days in 2020, it has always been unlawful in Utah to annex non-contiguous, cherry-stemmed areas, or to annex across county lines without a prior resolution of consent and petition.”
The Utah Legislature passed a law in March 2020 removing those stipulations and later repealed it in a special session, but it remained in effect until October of that year. Olson argued the annexation attempt was void because Hideout did not receive a Certificate of Annexation in the 111 days the law was enacted.
The brief continues that Hideout agreed to permit high-density developments on Richardson Flat, if it ever acquired land use authority, and that a bank and the developers planned an “illegal constable’s sale” and later, a mock sheriff’s sale.
Olson also argued Hideout violated the state’s Open and Public Meetings Act and that the town is unable to provide basic municipal services such as water, sewer, fire and emergency medical services, law enforcement, recreation and more.
Hideout, in its brief, says that it annexed the land to provide amenities and services for its residents, who work in Summit County but cannot afford to live there. It continues that the effort was within state law at the time, complied with all notice requirements to enact the ordinance to annex the property and that voters approved the annexation in a referendum.
“That should have been the end of it,” the 15-page document states. “Even though Hideout complied with all statutory annexation requirements under the applicable Annexation Code — and had authority to complete every requirement at the time it was done — the court ruled the annexation was invalid because Hideout did not publish Ordinance 2020-10 until after the effective date of HB 6007.”
The appellant argues Summit County lacks standing and that the annexation should be deemed valid.
Once the Utah Supreme Court hears the case, it could take several months, or even years, before a decision is reached. Until then, Hideout is unable to do anything with the Richardson Flat land.