Summit Cnty. v. Town of Hideout

1

2024 UT 39

Summit County, Appellee, v. Town of Hideout, Appellant.

No. 20220573

Supreme Court of Utah

June 13, 2024

Heard March 6, 2023

Amended October 10, 2024

On Direct Appeal Fourth Judicial District, Wasatch County The Honorable Jennifer A. Mabey No. 200500107

Margaret H. Olson, David L. Thomas, Ryan P.C. Stack Coalville, Mitchell A. Stephens, Lara A. Swensen, Salt Lake City,

for appellee Troy L. Booher, Caroline A. Olsen, Taylor P. Webb Robert E. Mansfield, Megan E. Garrett, Salt Lake City, Polly Samuels McLean, Park City, for appellant

Justice Pohlman authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Durrant, Justice Petersen, Justice Hagen, and Judge Oliver joined.

Having recused himself, Associate Chief Justice Pearce does not participate herein; Court of Appeals Judge Amy J. Oliver sat.

AMENDED OPINION ^[*]

POHLMAN JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION

¶1 For just over one hundred days in 2020, Utah law authorized a municipality to annex an outlying, unincorporated area without an annexation petition and without county consent. During this period, the Town of Hideout-aware that the legal window was closing-undertook to annex an area located in nearby Summit County.

¶2 After Hideout received a certificate of annexation from the Lieutenant Governor, Summit County challenged the annexation and the attendant municipal ordinance (annexation ordinance) in the district court. Both parties moved for summary judgment, Hideout disputing Summit County's standing, and Summit County seeking judgment on the merits of one of its five claims. The district court ruled against Hideout on both motions, concluding that Summit County had standing to challenge the annexation and declaring the annexation ordinance invalid from its inception.

¶3 We reverse the district court's decisions. The relevant statutory scheme-the annexation code-does not provide Summit County with a legally protectible interest that would allow it to obtain the relief it seeks. Similarly, the statutory provisions outside the annexation code that Summit County relies on do not provide Summit County with a legally protectible interest in the controversy. Finally, the doctrine of public interest standing, on which the district court alternatively relied, is inapplicable here.

¶4 Because we conclude that Summit County lacks standing to pursue its claims, we also reverse the district court's award of summary judgment in Summit County's favor without addressing the merits of Summit County's claims and we remand the case to the district court for dismissal.

BACKGROUND

¶5 We begin by describing the statutory scheme the legislature has established to govern land annexation, including relatively recent changes to that scheme. We then summarize Hideout's annexation and Summit County's challenge.

The Legislature's 2020 Changes to the Utah Annexation Code

¶6 The Utah Legislature has the authority to determine municipal boundaries. Sandy City v. City of South Jordan, 652 P.2d 1316, 1318 (Utah 1982); see also Kearns-Tribune Corp. v. Salt Lake Cnty. Comm'n, 2001 UT 55, ¶ 21, 28 P.3d 686. This includes regulating land annexation see Kearns-Tribune Corp., 2001 UT 55, ¶ 21, which is the extension of town or city boundaries into unincorporated areas. The legislature has long delegated its annexation power to local governments. See generally Utah Code §§ 10-2-401 to -429 (the annexation code).

¶7 Prior to the 2020 general legislative session, the annexation code generally permitted annexation only when the area to be annexed was contiguous to the annexing municipality. See id. § 10-2-402(1)(a) (May 1, 2020). An annexing municipality also typically had to initiate a petition to commence the annexation process. See id. § 10-2-403(1) (May 1, 2020); see also id. § 10-2-402(2) (May 1, 2020). And if a municipality wanted to annex property located in a county different from its own, the other county had to consent. Id. § 10-2-402(6)(a) (May 1, 2020).

¶8 During the 2020 general legislative session, the legislature enacted H.B. 359S1, which created an exception to these requirements.^[1] Under the bill, later codified as Utah Code subsection 10-2-418(3), a municipality was permitted to annex a non-contiguous, unincorporated area "without an annexation petition or the consent of the county in which the area proposed for annexation is located" if certain conditions were met. See id. § 10-2-418(3) (July 1, 2020). The proposed annexation area had to meet specific criteria and be located "within two miles of the proposed annexing municipality's boundary." Id. § 10-2-418(3)(a)-(b) (July 1, 2020). Further, "each owner of private real property within the area proposed for annexation" had to consent "in writing to the proposed annexation." Id. § 10-2-418(3)(c) (July 1, 2020).

¶9 Besides meeting these criteria, a municipality carrying out an annexation under subsection 10-2-418(3) had to satisfy other requirements. The annexing municipality had to adopt a resolution indicating its "intent to annex the area" and describing "the area proposed to be annexed." Id. § 10-2-418(6)(a) (July 1, 2020). The annexing municipality was further required to publish notice of and hold a public hearing on the proposed annexation. Id. § 10-2-418(6)(b), (7) (July 1, 2020).

¶10 So long as the pertinent statutory requirements were met, a municipality conducting an annexation under the process established by H.B. 359S1 was permitted to "adopt an ordinance approving the annexation of the area proposed for annexation." Id. § 10-2-418(9)(b)(i)(B) (July 1, 2020). And it could do so "without allowing or considering protests." Id. § 10-2-418(9)(b)(i) (July 1, 2020). "[W]ithin 60 days after enacting" an annexation ordinance, the annexing municipality had to file "a notice of an impending boundary action," as well as "a copy of an approved final local entity plat," with the lieutenant governor. Id. § 10-2-425(1)(a) (July 1, 2020).

¶11 The lieutenant governor must review notices of impending boundary action "[w]ithin 10 days" of receiving them. Id. § 67-1a-6.5(2). The lieutenant governor determines whether a notice meets the statutory requirements and, if she determines it does, certifies the annexation. Id. An annexation carried out under H.B. 359S1 was deemed "completed" and "conclusively presumed to be valid[]" once the lieutenant governor certified it. Id. §§ 10-2-425(4)(b), 10-2-418(9)(b)(ii) (July 1, 2020).

¶12 The process permitting a municipality to annex an area without a petition or county consent-the process that the legislature enacted through H.B. 359S1-did not last long. About two months after the bill became law, the legislature passed H.B. 6007, which removed the exception that H.B. 359S1 added.^[2] As with other legislation, H.B. 6007 was set to become law sixty days after close of the legislative session.^[3] See Utah Const. art. VI, § 25.

The Annexation

¶13 In July 2020, while H.B. 359S1 was still in force, Hideout initiated the process to annex an area of land in Summit County. After one stalled attempt, Hideout began again, omitting some of the property from its first go-around.^[4]

¶14 For its renewed attempt, Hideout secured written consent from the owners of about 350 acres of unincorporated property in Summit County. Hideout held a town council meeting soon after and adopted a resolution conveying its intent to annex the area. At the same meeting, Hideout empowered its mayor to enter into a pre-annexation agreement, which provided that an agreement between Hideout and the private property owners in the annexation area-the Annexation Master Development Agreement (AMDA)-would be executed as part of the annexation.

¶15 Hideout published notice that a hearing on the proposed annexation would be held on October 12, 2020. It held the hearing on the scheduled date and then, on October 16, adopted the annexation ordinance. The annexation ordinance approved the annexation, authorized Hideout's mayor to execute the AMDA, and amended Hideout's zoning map to include the annexed area.

¶16 On October 19, Hideout delivered a notice of impending boundary action to the Lieutenant Governor. Hideout informed the Lieutenant Governor that it had approved the annexation under Utah Code subsection 10-2-418(3). Hideout also attested that the annexation ordinance was "duly adopted" and that "all of the requirements for the annexation . . . ha[d] been met and comply with Utah law." Attached to the notice were copies of the annexation ordinance, final local entity plats, and the AMDA.

¶17 On October 20, H.B. 6007 took effect. See supra ¶ 12 n.3. That same day, Summit County wrote to the Lieutenant Governor's office, requesting that he not certify the annexation. Summit County alleged that the annexation ordinance was not in effect, that Hideout's annexation process violated the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA), that Hideout's agreement to zone and develop the annexation area was invalid and unlawful, and that the annexation resulted from illegal bribery.

¶18 On October 26, Hideout posted notice of the annexation ordinance in three places around the town.

¶19 The Lieutenant Governor certified the annexation on October 28. The written certificate stated that Hideout had "filed . . . a notice of annexation . . . complying with Section 10-2-418, Utah Code Annotated."

Summit County's Challenge

¶20 Summit County promptly filed suit, challenging the annexation, as well as the annexation ordinance and the AMDA on five grounds. Summit County claimed that during the annexation process, Hideout

(1) failed to hold public hearings as required by the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act (LUDMA),

(2) did not comply with the enactment procedures required for a land use

...