The claim
Sponsors can't circulate until they sign a city agreement
“We still cannot legally circulate this petition. The city is holding us hostage over a new statutory requirement that must be put into writing with the city.”
Seen: Referendum organizing post, Eagle Mountain Facebook group, October 2026. First seen October 7, 2026.
True as far as it goes, and it leaves out something that changes the picture.
The requirement is real: state law bars the sponsors from gathering signatures until they sign an agreement with the city recorder. But the law asks that agreement to settle two things only, the packet format and the packet numbers, and whether the city is the one holding it up isn't on the record.
The numbers
What’s true
Utah Code § 20A-7-604(6)(a), as amended in the Legislature's 2026 session and in force since May 6, says the sponsors “shall, before gathering signatures” complete the state's online circulator training, get a range of packet numbers from the county clerk, and “sign an agreement with the local clerk.” Until that agreement is signed, signatures can't lawfully be gathered, and a packet numbered any other way can't be circulated or submitted (§ 20A-7-604(6)(b)).
What it leaves out
The agreement the statute describes is short. It specifies two things: whether the sponsors will circulate traditional packets (with a copy of the resolution bound in), condensed packets, or both; and the range of numbers they will use, which comes from the Utah County clerk, not the city (§ 20A-7-604(6)(a)(ii) and (iii)). Neither the city's draft nor any correspondence about it has been published, so whether the city has delayed it, or the two sides disagree over its terms, can't be checked. For now that is the sponsors' account.
More detail
The sponsors also say the city attorney's draft adds a waiver of the right to a jury trial and limits on legal remedies. Section 604(6) names the two terms above and provides for no others. Whether the draft contains anything more, this page can't say until it is public, through a court filing or a records request.
On October 7 the sponsors said they had hired a lawyer and expect to go to court. If a case is filed, this card will be updated from the filing.
Where this comes from
Every finding here is drawn from an open-meeting recording or a published document. Check it yourself.
Read more on this site
More checks on how it was decided
- Unsupported by the recordThe tax was rushed through in secret
- Accurate, but incompleteSigning the petition repeals the tax
- Not accurateThe mayor's pamphlet argument was filed late
- Accurate, but incompleteThe city published sponsors' home addresses
Checked October 8, 2026. Nothing goes on the fact-check list unless an open-meeting recording or a published document can settle it: the rules. Spot a mistake? civicrollcall@gmail.com