Utah County commissioners vote 2–1 to send optional mayor–council plan to ballot amid legal dispute

The Utah County Board of Commissioners voted 2–1 in an emergency meeting to adopt a resolution to place an optional mayor–council plan on the Nov. 5, 2019 countywide ballot, even as legal advisers and some commissioners warned that a recently filed petition could block the commission from acting.

Commissioner Nathan Ivy moved to adopt the amended resolution that would place the Good Governance Advisory Board’s optional plan on the Nov. 5, 2019 ballot but include a contingency: if a court or the state elections office determines the commission cannot act while a valid petition is pending, the ballot placement would instead be scheduled for the next regularly scheduled countywide election. The motion passed 2–1.

The vote followed sustained debate over whether the filing of a petition by five petitioners — and the subsequent withdrawal of one signer by email — removed the commission’s authority to forward an optional plan to voters. “It is the opinion of the county attorney’s office that this body has no authority to issue the finding that you want to make,” county attorney David Levitt told the commission, urging that the county clerk as the election officer is the official who should rule on petition validity.

Commissioners who supported the resolution argued the petition may be invalid or incomplete and that the commission should preserve any short window to send the advisory board’s recommendation to voters. “If there is a window, now is the time to take it,” Commissioner Ivy said on the record while proposing the contingency language and a directed review during the county attorney’s statutory review period.

Commissioner Bill Lee, one of the petition’s initial signers and a central figure in the dispute, disputed claims that he had acted in bad faith. “There was no agreement,” Lee said in public comment, rejecting assertions that petition signers had an explicit promise to halt signature gathering while the advisory board worked. Lee and other petition supporters said they intended the process to produce a public vote and complained that delaying the issue could frustrate public interest.

Public commenters, including several mayors and state legislators who testified at the hearing, urged caution and stressed the need for thorough public education if the commission moves the issue to the ballot. Mayor Richard Brunst de Vorm, who identified himself as one of the original petition signers, said he supported immediate ballot placement to respond to the county’s growth pressures and to give voters an up-or-down choice.

The county attorney recommended an orderly approach to resolving the legal questions: he suggested a commission resolution asking the county clerk to review the petition for bad faith or invalidity and noted that any party could seek judicial relief in the Fourth District Court. Levitt warned, however, that litigation could delay implementation past 2019: “If this devolves into a court battle … then that process will take it beyond the 2019 election,” he said.

The resolution adopted by the commission asked the county attorney to include a legal review during the standard review period and asks the county clerk to consider any bad‑faith or signature‑validity questions raised by the commission’s submitted concerns. The resolution’s language also states that if a court or the state elections office determines the commission lacked authority to act for the 2019 ballot, the measure would be rescheduled for the next regular countywide election.

Following the 2–1 vote, commissioners made brief closing remarks emphasizing their intent to continue collaborating on county business despite disagreement on this issue. The meeting adjourned immediately after the vote.

What happens next: the county attorney will complete his review during the normal statutory review period, the county clerk has been asked to evaluate any petition‑validity concerns identified in the commission’s submission, and any party dissatisfied with those administrative outcomes may seek judicial review in district court. The commission’s resolution is not itself a final determination if a petition ruling or court order bars action by the legislative body.