IN THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR GRAND COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
RUTH DILLON, MARCY CLOKEYTILL, and ELIZABETH TUBBS,

RULING AND ORDER ON RULE
65B PETITION FOR
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

Petitioners,
vs.

Case No. 200700047

GRAND COUNTY,

Judge Don M. Torgerson

Respondent.

This is before the Court on Petitioners’ Petition for Extraordinary Relief filed under
Rule 65B of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. On September 29, 2020, the Court
conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Petition. Petitioners were present and
represented by attorney Stephen Stocks. Respondent was present through its elected
County Attorney, Christina Sloan. Having carefully considered the arguments of
counsel and evidence presented at the hearing, the Court enters the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Before 1992, Grand County was governed by a three-member commission.
2. In 1992, the voters adopted an optional form of government, resulting in the 7member Grand County Council that remains today.1
3. To form the Council in 1992, the voters approved a “Plan for County
Government” adopted under the “Optional Plans for County Government” statute in
Chapter 35a, Title 17, Utah Statutes.
The Grand County Council recently voted to change its name to “Commission”. But for clarity
and continuity, the Court refers to the Grand County legislative body as the “Council”.
1

 4. Under § 2.04.130 of the 1992 Plan, and consistent with the statutory language
of Utah Statutes § 17-35a-7(5) (1992), the Council could amend the 1992 Plan, as
follows:
“…by a two-thirds vote of all its members; but amendments
adopted by the council which are contrary to a specific
requirement of the Optional Plan Statute applicable to the
‘general county (modified)’ structural form of government shall
not be effective unless submitted to and approved by a majority
of the voters casting a vote on the question at a general or
special election.”
5. Although the term “optional plan” was used substantively and regularly in the
1992 statute (and before), its meaning was not statutorily defined. That changed with
the 1998 enactment of Utah Code § 17-35a-102(2). In that codification, “Optional Plan
means a plan establishing an alternate form of government for a county as provided
in Section 17-35a-401.”
6. Since 1998, the Utah Code has been amended many times, but the definition of
“Optional Plan” has remained exactly the same.2
7. In 2018, the Legislature again amended the statute known as “Changing Forms
of County Government”, located at Utah Code Title 17, Chapter 52a.
8. The Council was advised that its form of county governance did not comply
with the new amendments and needed to change. And if it did not change, the Grand
County legislative body would revert to a 3-member commission form of
government.
9. Acting on that advice, the Council initiated the process to form a study
committee that would recommend a different optional plan, avoiding default to a 3member commission.
2

The statutes have been renumbered.

2

 10.The Study Committee Plan is complete and will be submitted to the Grand
County voters for approval on November 3, 2020, as Proposition #10:
“Shall Grand County adopt the alternate form of government
known as the Council-Manager Form, pursuant to the
Optional Plan for Grand County Government that the study
committee has recommended?”
11. Sometime after the Study Committee made its recommendation, the Council
apparently received updated legal advice from its current County Attorney.
Thereafter, on August 21, 2020, the Council substantially amended the 1992 Plan by
unanimous vote of its 7 members. The purported purpose of the amendments were to
make the 1992 Plan compliant with current law, and avoid a 3-member commission if
the voters did not approve the Study Committee Plan.3
12.Among those amendments, the Council voted to send two additional
propositions to the voters in the 2020 General Election:
Proposition #16: Shall Section 2.04.030 (Governing body) of
the Grand County Plan for County Government be amended
to change the composition of the Commission from seven
members to five, as follows: “The governing body of the
county shall be a five-member county commission (the
Commission), which shall…”
Proposition #17: Shall Section 2.04.040.A (Election,
qualifications, terms and nominations of commission
members) of the Grand County Plan for County Government
be amended to remove district seats and elect all commission
members at-large, as follows: “All Commission members shall
be elected from the county at large.”

The Court does not reach the merits of those amendments or whether the amendments are
permitted by law. The Petition for extraordinary relief was limited to the issues concerning the
ballot and whether the Council could legally add propositions on the same general election
ballot, alongside the Study Committee Plan.
3

3

 13. The next day Petitioners filed this case, arguing that the County cannot put its
propositions on the ballot until the Study Committee Plan has been voted upon.

RULING
A. The 1992 Plan is an Optional Plan, amendable by the Council under Utah Code §
17-52a-504.
Under Utah Code § 17-52a-504, an optional plan that went into effect following
an election …may be amended by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the county
legislative body. But certain changes do not take effect until a majority of registered
voters voting in the election approve the amendment. Those changes include (1)
changing the size or makeup of the legislative body, (2) distribution of powers between
the executive and legislative branches of county government, or (3) changing the status
of members from full-time to part-time or vice versa.
Petitioners, at the hearing, argued that the 1992 Plan cannot be amended by the
Council because the statutory process for voter approval of an “Optional Plan” —
outlined in § 501 and § 504 — did not exist in 1992. And though the 1992 Plan was
called an “optional plan”, it does not comply with the current requirements for an
optional plan and could not be approved by the voters in its current form.
But that argument ignores the substance of the 1992 Plan. First, the plan was a
permitted alternative to the typical three-member commission — which is the same
type of alternative governance as an “Optional Plan” under the current statute. Second,
the 1992 plan was adopted by a majority of the voters, as required by current § 504(4).
Finally, the process to amend the 1992 Plan — detailed in both the 1992 statute and the
1992 Plan — largely mirrors the statutory requirements for amendment by the Council
under the current version of § 504.

4

 Accordingly, the Council has both statutory authority (under § 504) and specific
authority under the 1992 Plan (§ 2.04.130 ) to make amendments, but those changes may
have to be approved by the voters before they go into effect.

B. The Council may add propositions to the same ballot as the Study Committee Plan.
Utah Code § 17-52a-301(3) prohibits concurrent study committee plans. For
purposes of this case, the process to adopt a new optional plan cannot be initiated until
after the 2020 general election. But the prohibition only applies to new study
committees and study-committee plans initiated under § 302 or § 303. It does not
include amendments to an existing optional plan under § 504. And there is no specific
statutory prohibition against the Council amending the 1992 Plan before — or as part of
— the 2020 general election.
Plaintiffs argue that the Legislature’s intent was obvious. That the Legislature
plainly intended for only one optional plan to be presented to the voters during a single
election.
The Court may not consider evidence of legislative intent if the statutory
language is plain and unambiguous.4 And § 301 is plain and unambiguous because a
literal reading of the statute does not create an absurd, unreasonable, or inoperable
result. Under the statute, a new optional plan process must conclude before the next
new optional plan process begins. But the statute does not reference amendments to
existing optional plans. And since amendments to an existing plan are not the same as
an entirely new plan, those amendments can presumably proceed at the same time as
the Study Committee Plan. In other words, if the Legislature intended to restrict the

4

See In re Estate of Morris, 436 P.3d 189, 191 (Utah Ct.App. 2018).

5

 Council from a § 504 amendment, the statute would have specifically said so in the
language of § 301.
Since the Council’s amendment under § 504 is not prohibited by statute, it
follows that those amendments can be submitted to the voters under § 504(2) at the
general election, regardless of the Study Committee Plan.
The Court certainly understands why voters and study committee members
might be concerned by the suspicious timing and political shenanigans involved in
amending the 1992 plan. Apparently, the County may initiate a study committee at
great expense, spend important resources and effort toward gathering a
recommendation, and then undermine the study committee’s recommendation with its
own last-minute ballot propositions. As unpalatable as it may seem, § 504 allows for
that result and is not restricted by § 301.
Accordingly, the Council’s Propositions #16 and #17 can run on the same ballot
in the 2020 general election as the Study Committee Plan.

C. The Council’s propositions are subordinate to the Study Committee Plan.
The County concedes that its Propositions are subordinate to the Study
Committee Plan. So if the voters adopt the Study Committee Plan, that plan will
supersede the 1992 Plan and the Council’s recent amendments to the 1992 Plan.
The Court agrees. Under Utah Code § 17-52a-501, the Study Committee Plan
must be declared as “…adopted by the voters if a majority of voters voting on the
optional plan vote in favor of the optional plan.” Competing amendments to existing
plans do not share that same statutory language for implementation.

6

 ORDER
Because the Council can amend the 1992 Plan, subject to approval by the voters
for some amendments, the Council’s Propositions #16 and #17 can run on the same
2020 general election ballot, alongside the Study Committee Plan as subordinate
propositions.
Dated: 10/1/2020

By: __________________
Don M. Torgerson
District Court Judge

7