Utah Court of Appeals
Does a contingent effective date delay when a city ordinance is considered passed? Taylor v. Heber City Explained
Summary
Appellants filed a ballot referendum application on January 23, 2025, seeking to overturn a Heber City ordinance that was voted upon December 17, 2024, but contained contingent language delaying effectiveness until two development agreements were executed. The city denied the application as untimely under Utah Code section 20A-7-601(6), which requires referendum applications to be filed within five days of passage.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed an important timing question for ballot referendum applications in Taylor v. Heber City, clarifying when a city ordinance is considered “passed” for purposes of Utah’s referendum statute.
Background and Facts
On December 17, 2024, the Heber City Council voted 3-2 to approve an ordinance concerning the North Village Development Annexation. However, the council amended the ordinance before voting to make it “contingent upon the approval and execution of” two development agreements. These development agreements were not approved until January 21, 2025. Appellants filed their ballot referendum application on January 23, 2025, believing the ordinance had not passed until the contingent conditions were met. The city denied the application as untimely under Utah Code section 20A-7-601(6), which requires referendum applications to be filed within five days of passage.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the ordinance “passed” on December 17, 2024, when the council voted, or on January 21, 2025, when the contingent development agreements were approved. This determination was critical because it established the five-day deadline for filing the referendum application.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
Applying the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Bissland v. Bankhead, the court held that an ordinance is considered “passed” when “the deliberative process required of the council” is completed, not when “the last ministerial formality” occurs. The court distinguished between passage and effectiveness, explaining that the contingent language merely delayed the ordinance’s effective date until the development agreements were executed—it did not delay the passage date for referendum purposes.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the importance of carefully monitoring council votes rather than waiting for contingent conditions to be satisfied. Practitioners should advise clients that the five-day referendum filing deadline begins running immediately upon the council’s vote, regardless of contingent effective date provisions. The court’s sympathy for the pro se appellants highlights the need for clear public guidance on these timing requirements.
Case Details
Case Name
Taylor v. Heber City
Citation
2026 UT App 84
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20250940-CA
Date Decided
May 29, 2026
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A city ordinance is considered passed when the deliberative process required of the council is completed, not when ministerial formalities occur, even if the ordinance contains contingent effective date provisions.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging city ordinances through ballot referendums, carefully distinguish between passage date and effective date—the five-day filing deadline runs from passage, not effectiveness.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.