Park City Tech, a new town proposed by Dakota Pacific Real Estate, will be studied to determine whether a municipality could feasibly exist on roughly 47 acres near the Skullcandy building in Kimball Junction.
The Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office announced Friday the preliminary municipality filed on Jan. 8 meets the requirements for a feasibility study to be conducted. The state has 90 days to hire a consultant to investigate the plan.
A 2024 state law would give Dakota Pacific “all the powers and duties” of a town, including zoning and land use decisions, if Park City Tech is allowed to proceed through the incorporation process.
Senate Bill 258 went into effect on May 1 and applies to land that is privately owned by three or fewer people who intend to develop it with at least 100 people and 10% affordable housing in six years. It gives the property owners the right to form a board that can make land use decisions on the land until it becomes fully incorporated as a town — superseding any existing land-use regulations on the property.
Next, the Lieutenant Governor’s Office will hire a consultant to determine whether the boundaries could support a new town economically. They’ll look at the potential population, demographics, tax base, five-year cost and revenue projections, risk and opportunities, analysis of new revenue sources and the fiscal impacts. Utah Code states the consultants have 120 days after they are hired to conduct the study.
The incorporation process will be allowed to continue if Park City Tech can bring in at least a 5% budget surplus. A public hearing presenting the results of the study would be held at a later date, though community opposition wouldn’t stop the plans from moving forward.
Park City Tech became the second proposed municipality to file for incorporation following the West Hills request in April 2023. However, the rules are less stringent for Dakota Pacific because it filed to create a preliminary municipality rather than incorporate as a full one.
For example, West Hills sponsor Derek Anderson had to redraw his town boundaries several times to meet the 100-person population requirement for incorporation for example.
Yet Park City Tech has more time to meet the threshold under the new state law, which Dakota Pacific’s proposal says it intends to do. The development firm said the first phase of the plan involves building 40 townhomes, 120 apartment units and 160 affordable housing units deed restricted to 80% of the area median income or less. Those 320 units would be spread out over 21 acres.
The second phase calls for 405 units built out over 26 acres. Dakota Pacific plans to build 65 condos, 120 townhomes, 40 apartments, 100 attainable units deed restricted for 100-120% AMI, or average median income, and an additional 80 units reserved for households earning 80% AMI.
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth has said Park City Tech would still have 725 units and maintain the same level of affordable housing included in the amended development agreement approved by the Summit County Council in December.
Stanworth affirmed the development firm is focused on moving ahead under the county-approved plan.
“As we continue to reiterate, our goal remains to develop in accordance with the approved County Council plan — not because that is the most profitable path possible, but because that is what we believe strikes the best balance of private and public interests and delivers the maximum community benefit while maintaining economic viability,” Stanworth previously said. “All efforts to explore alternative development paths in the event the County Council is unable to execute the proposed development agreement are subordinate to that primary intent.”
However, seven people — Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith — are seeking to overturn the County Council’s decision. The residents launched a referendum petition that would put the ordinance approving the development on the ballot, potentially putting the decision in the hands of Summit County voters.
Days after the referendum petition was submitted to the Summit County Clerk’s Office, Dakota Pacific filed to create Park City Tech.
The preliminary municipality is regarded as a fail-safe for the development firm, allowing it to proceed with the residential units in the project regardless of the outcome of the referendum, if the incorporation is successful.
Park City Tech would not include the public-private partnership elements, such as an underground parking structure or a new library, established in the amended development agreement. State law would also allow Dakota Pacific to build according to its own timeline rather than the one approved by the County Council, which sought to tie the project to infrastructure improvements in the S.R. 224 corridor.
Dakota Pacific would designate a board chair and three of the four board members who would serve as the town council if Park City Tech incorporates as a preliminary municipality. Summit County has the authority to choose the last board member.
The group “has the same authority as another municipality” minus imposing taxes or exercising eminent domain. Dakota Pacific would be required to file to incorporate as a town once the population exceeds 100 people.
The lieutenant governor would dissolve the preliminary municipality if the Dakota Pacific does not file a petition for incorporation to transition within six years. Then, all roads and infrastructure would revert back to Summit County’s jurisdiction. The development firm could be liable for damages if it doesn’t.
Summit County officials recognize the community is at a crossroads. If the referendum effort is eligible to make it onto the ballot and passes, Dakota Pacific will likely pursue its plans for Park City Tech — circumventing voters and possibly, the amended development agreement.
The referendum sponsors aren’t deterred, though. They criticized S.B. 258 as “an unconstitutional scare tactic meant to discourage opposition.” They claim the referendum ensures Summit County voters retain control over development, though county staff say otherwise.
Referendum sponsors need to collect more than 4,554 valid and verified signatures by Monday, March 3, for the issue to appear on the ballot. The group submitted 25 binders to the Clerk’s Office for review last week, but 21 of the binders were rejected.
Summit County Clerk Eve Furse in a Feb. 19 email to sponsors informed the sponsors several of the signature packets did not meet petition requirements. The packets had three holes punched along the top and were spiral-bound. She referenced a section of the Utah Code that implies the binding must occur before the signing to ensure signatories have all the information.
“If you have evidence that would show the packets had been bound prior to their being signed, we would be happy to consider that, and if persuaded, verify those packets,” the email states. “Alternatively, because we will not count those signatures, if you wanted to obtain signatures in a bound packet from the individuals who signed the rejected packets you could recontact them and have them sign in a bound packet. We would not consider those individuals as having signed the petition twice.”
The referendum sponsors, who call their effort Protect Summit County, disagree with the conclusion from the Clerk’s Office. The group said it plans to file a formal injunction, allowing a judge to decide whether the 21 packets should be counted toward the total. There have also been allegations of election interference.
Furse said in an email copied to The Park Record that she appreciates the sponsors seeking clarity on the law from the court. She said the rules around referenda are complicated and not obvious.
“If my legal obligations are other than what I understand them to be, I will welcome the clarification from the court,” Furse wrote.
No court filings had been made as of Tuesday. An attorney representing the sponsors did not reply to a request for comment by the time of publication.