09/25/2020
Statement from Scott Broadhead, Tooele County Attorney, with the approval of Marilyn Gillette, Tooele County Clerk, Regarding the Tooele Temple Project Referendum
In response to many inquiries and questions about the Temple Project referendum, we have prepared the following brief history and statement.
On June 2, 2020, the Tooele County Commission approved Ordinance 2020-16, which is an application by Suburban Land Reserve on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“Church”) to rezone 167 acres of land on the corner of Erda Way and SR-36 from the RR-1 zone to the Planned Community (“P-C”) zone. The P-C zone allows for a mixed use of residential, commercial, recreational, and light industrial uses. The Church’s plan entailed the construction of the Tooele Valley Temple with a housing development and recreational uses surrounding the new temple.
On June 9, 2020, a group of citizens filed an application for a referendum seeking to overturn Ordinance 2020-16. Shortly thereafter, the Tooele County Clerk provided the due date of August 21, 2020 to return the required number of valid signatures. She also provided the number of valid signatures required for the referendum to be placed on the ballot. The ordinance was determined to be a “local law,” which requires that valid signatures from 9.5% of the active voters in the county be obtained, both in total and in four of the five council districts.
Towards the end of the first week of August, we began to receive inquiries as to whether the signature requirements for the referendum should be based upon the “land use law” standard of 16% rather than the “local law” standard of 9.5%. The Tooele County Attorney’s Office researched the issue and consulted with a handful of attorneys, including counsel from the State Legislature and the Church’s attorney. The consensus opinion was that the definitions in the statute for “local law” and “land use law” are not as clear as they could or should be. Therefore, differing opinions were offered as to the appropriate standard.
On August 13, 2020, I wrote a legal opinion to the County Clerk concluding that the “land use law” standard (16%) was the most likely correct interpretation of the law (see legal opinion below). Based upon this opinion, we decided that the County would use this standard for future referenda. We met with the County Commission and discussed the issue and its application to the Temple Project referendum. The group decided that we could not change the standard given to the sponsors with only 8 days remaining until the signatures were due. I contacted the Church’s attorney and informed him of the County’s position. We discussed whether the Church wished to formally protest or file a legal action. I expressed that I believed that the County should have applied the “land use law” standard. The Church chose not to file a protest or objection at that time.
On Tuesday, August 18, 2020, the Church issued the following statement regarding the Tooele Valley Utah Temple: "We acknowledge the efforts of those who have raised questions and sincere concerns about the Tooele Valley Temple project, including the residential development surrounding the temple. There is a sincere desire on the part of the Church to avoid discord in the community. Therefore, regardless of the outcome of a pending signature-gathering effort, we have determined to withdraw our rezoning request for the residential portion of the temple project. We look forward to working with local officials and community members to determine next steps to move forward with the construction of the temple. We hope those from all viewpoints on this matter will treat one another with kindness, civility, and Christlike love."
As referred to in the Church’s statement, it can build the temple at the planned location without the residential portion of the project. The current zoning for the property allows for the temple to be built on the property regardless of the status of the referendum and it currently has a permit application on file with the County.
On August 26, 2020, the County Clerk determined that the petition was insufficient because two of the districts did not have enough valid signatures. Council District #1 was short by 34 valid signatures and Council District #5 was short by 7 valid signatures.
On September 8, 2020, the referendum sponsors filed a petition for extraordinary writ with the Third District Court challenging the County Clerk’s determination that the referendum petition was insufficient. The sponsors specifically challenged the invalidation of signatures in Council District #5.
The County referred the new claim to its insurance carrier, which recommended that the County hire attorney Robert Keller. After consulting with Mr. Keller, we believed that the Court would likely require a recount of the signatures in Council District #5. The County hired one of its experienced election judges to perform an impartial recount of all signatures in Council District #5. The recount was observed by one of the deputy county attorneys. The recount resulted in several invalid signatures being reversed and the district having 12 more signatures than required.
I informed the Church’s attorney of the results of the recount and that we believed that the referendum petition has sufficient signatures to be placed on an upcoming ballot. I raised the issue of whether the Church wished to intervene in the court case and assert any claims, such as the number of signatures required.
On September 17, 2020, Mr. Keller informed the Church’s attorney that the County intended to file a stipulation with the Court that the referendum petition is sufficient and can be placed on an upcoming ballot. He offered time to the Church to intervene in the court case and object. Mr. Keller also informed the sponsors’ attorney of the County’s decision.
The following day, the Church informed the County in two separate emails that it did not wish to intervene in the court case and did not object to the County’s decision. The Church’s decision is consistent with its prior public statement and desire to “avoid discord in the community.”
The County intends to respect the Church’s wishes. It has publicly stated that it was withdrawing its plans for the residential portion of the development and doesn’t want the contention which has come from this project. Privately, the Church’s representatives have reiterated this position numerous times. Although many in the community want to continue the fight for the temple project for various personal or economic reasons, the Church has clearly stated that it doesn’t want this fight and has not asked or encouraged the County to continue this fight on its behalf.