Court OKs referendum on project in Beaver

Beaver County residents opposed to a pricey mountaintop development have the right to have their say through the referendum process, according to a Utah Supreme Court ruling Tuesday.

Justices unanimously agreed the process is constitutionally guaranteed to residents and can't be thwarted by government simply terming a development agreement "administrative" rather than "legislative."

At issue is the agreement between Beaver County officials and backers of the planned $3.5 billion Mount Holly Club development. The 1,800-acre development was approved via a county-adopted ordinance despite objections by local residents who then sought to have it put to a public referendum.

They were turned away, despite gathering more than 800 signatures, after being told the ordinance's adoption constituted an "administrative" action and was thus not eligible to be put to public vote.

Opponents sued in district court, and after a trial in 2007, a judge sided with the county. An appeal of that decision ultimately landed the issue before Utah's high court.

In their ruling, justices said Beaver County can't have it both ways. When officials initially denied the opponents' appeal of the ordinance's adoption — arguing that the matter should be resolved in court instead — they opened the doors to terming their own actions as legislative, the court said.

Joel Ban, who represented the citizens groups collectively known as BRAVE, called the ruling a good victory that follows the stance justices have long taken on upholding residents' rights to the referendum and initiative processes.

"We are happy about it," he said.

The ruling comes on the heels of another decision in October by the high court that struck down as unconstitutional a state law that limited the scope of the initiative process.

"I think it is a disturbing trend by our Legislature," Ban said. "I wish they would be more mindful and willing to accept the will of the people instead of developers and the Utah League of Cities and Towns," which represents local government interests.

Ban and Dan McDonald, who argued the case on behalf of the developers, were both quick to point out that the ruling is not a death blow to the Mount Holly Club development.

The specific agreement is subject to a public vote, but Beaver County officials and Mount Holly can proceed with development plans through other means.

The ruling also slapped at McDonald's clients, saying even though they are property owners they have no stake in the issue of deciding when a referendum is or is not appropriate.