The Summit County Clerk’s Office has verified more than half the signatures needed for the Dakota Pacific referendum to make it onto the November ballot, but a new bill passed by the Utah Legislature could supplant the will of voters.
As of 9 a.m. on Tuesday, the Clerk’s Office has counted 2,507 verified signers from people seeking to overturn the Summit County Council’s 4 to 1 decision approving the Dakota Pacific project on Dec. 18.
Yet Senate Bill 26, passed on Friday during the last day of the 2025 general session, would amend Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zones while also appearing to codify the amended development agreement near the Park City Tech Center by including language that prevents the county from preventing or creating impediments to the mixed-use development.
The legislation was introduced by Sen. Wayne Harper, the same Republican who sponsored controversial bills in 2022 and 2023 forcing Summit County to create a Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone in Kimball Junction — which led to a subsequent lawsuit between Summit County and Dakota Pacific in 2023.
Summit County Manager Shayne Scott and Deputy County Manager Janna Young said they were expecting a bill related to the development, though they weren’t quite sure what it would look like.
Scott planned to meet with Chief Civil Deputy Dave Thomas on Tuesday afternoon to better understand the details of the S.B. 26, though he understands the legislation would “memorialize” the decision to approve the 725-unit development.
“Anytime the Legislature takes control from the local authority, that is something we have a problem with, but it also was one of the least surprising bills, for me, to pass in the session,” Scott said.
He said he had several questions about how S.B. 26 would impact the County Council’s Dec. 18 decision as well as the ongoing referendum effort.
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth has said the development firm plans to adhere to the county-approved development agreement, though it’s unclear what exactly S.B. 26 would require.
“Our primary intent continues to be to move forward under the approved development agreement. Until we get better clarity on the status of the process challenging that pathway, it is premature to discuss alternative paths,” Stanworth said in a statement. “In the meantime, our focus remains the same, and that is to work closely with county officials to propel the UDOT process forward as quickly as possible. We encourage those who dislike the traffic situation in Kimball Junction to get behind their county leaders and help drive toward unity and solutions for this important regional issue.”
S.B. 26 does not mention the developer or Summit County by name, but the specifics of the mixed-use project described are nearly identical to what Dakota Pacific has proposed. It also prevents a county from taking any action or enforcing an agreement, ordinance, regulation, or requirement that would interfere with the development.
Summit County would also approve or implement the development as an administrative action rather than a legislative one, which means the County Council does not have a say.
Instead, Scott expected specific elements of the Dakota Pacific project to go through the planning commission process like a conditional-use permit would. Planning commissioners may issue a recommendation, but the county manager would ultimately have the final say.
The Dec. 18 decision amended the development agreement so that the land could be rezoned to allow for 725 residential housing units. However, county councilors also advocated for a public-private partnership to create additional community benefits such as a new transit center, underground parking and 165 units of county-owned affordable housing.
While phases of the Dakota Pacific development are tied to the progress of the public-private partnership, the actual details of the multi-million dollar agreement have yet to be worked out.
“How do we go about that and get the same thing? How do we make sure that happens? How do we make sure we have deed restrictions? … How do we ensure that all of those things continue to happen?” Scott wondered.
He speculated that Dakota Pacific has not signed the amended development agreement because it’s waiting for details on the referendum. If the referendum failed, Dakota Pacific would likely sign the development agreement.
But if it moves forward, the development firm will probably not sign the amended agreement and instead rely on S.B. 26 or its proposed preliminary municipality — Park City Tech — to build its project. The boundaries of the new town do not include the land tied to the public-private partnership either.
Members of the county council advocated for the project largely because of the additional community benefits it would create, not to mention potential interference from the state that would take control away from the local government.
Scott said he doesn’t like S.B. 26 because it appears to allow Dakota Pacific to circumnavigate the referendum process, likely making it moot. He also wants to ensure officials receive what they negotiated for, and approved, last year.
“The point I’ve always made is I want everyone to do their homework. If they chose to sign the referendum, knowing all the facts, that’s wonderful. If they choose not to, knowing all the facts, that is also wonderful. It is a beautiful process. A referendum can be a beautiful thing. They’re hard to come by. [The State of Utah] does not make them easy,” Scott said.
County Clerk Eve Furse has until March 24 to finish counting the 77 signature packets submitted by Protect Summit County, the movement started by the seven referendum sponsors. However, staff do not have to render an official decision on whether the referendum petition is sufficient or insufficient until June because of the 45-day withdrawal period for signers.
Summit County asserts it is neutral in the referendum process, and has not taken a formal position nor done anything to “quash” the referendum. Officials and staff may be involved on an individual basis.
Scott and the Clerk’s Office encourages the referendum sponsors to file a legal challenge if they feel an error has occurred, saying they welcome judgment from an objective third party.
“This has been a tough, tough thing for our community. … I love when we do things that unite us, like the Olympics, and it’s challenging when we do things that divide us, like this entitlement. I think we’ll get through it, and we’ll be better for it perhaps,” Scott said. “I think we still have these issues looming like affordable housing and traffic and these things continue today and we’re going to do our best to alleviate them and mitigate them as best as we can.”