Park City Tech — the municipality proposed by Dakota Pacific Real Estate on its 47 acres in Kimball Junction — appears to meet the requirements to support a new town.
The findings of a feasibility study conducted by Zions Public Finance Inc. were released this week after the development firm filed to incorporate a preliminary municipality near the Park City Tech Center in January. Zions Public Finance determined Park City Tech would be successful within the proposed boundaries, therefore allowing the incorporation to proceed.
A preliminary municipality can transition to, and incorporate as, a new town under a state law that went into effect last May. S.B. 258, passed during the 2024 general session, amends the Utah Municipal Code to provide for a pilot program for the incorporation of a preliminary municipality, giving “all the powers and duties” of a town, including zoning and land use decisions.
However, Summit County Manager Shayne Scott said the preliminary municipality seems unlikely because the mixed-use development project is already approved under an administrative development agreement required by state law.
According to the feasibility study, net revenues in the Park City Tech over the first five years after incorporation would be positive, exceeding the 5% threshold.
The proposed preliminary municipality would also need to have a population of at least 100 to proceed with the incorporation. The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute in March said that the requirement is also met with an estimated 1,905 residents upon completion.
However, the September feasibility study estimated the population would be closer to 1,680 with 725 households on less than 1 square mile. The density in Park City Tech would be much greater than that of surrounding cities in Summit County because the concentration of people would be higher in a smaller area. For example, Coalville has an estimated population of 1,915 people per 6.2 square miles, or a population of 309 per square mile, compared to Park City Tech’s 21,527.
The feasibility study also examined the proposed town’s demographics, tax base, five-year cost and revenue projections, risk and opportunities, analysis of new revenue sources and the fiscal impacts.
“The results of this study indicate incorporation would cost Park City Tech residents a negligible $20 of additional money per year, on average, over the five years, assuming a median primary residence with a market value of $660,000,” Zions Public Finance said in its report.
That’s assuming Park City Tech contracts with Summit County for public safety and public works services, and that the county doesn’t reduce its general fund tax rate to offset the additional contract monies it will receive for services already provided.
Consultants added that net revenues are positive because the proposed incorporated area already has an existing municipal-type services area tax that Park City Tech would receive.
Since the county provides public safety services to municipalities out of its general fund at a low additional cost to the municipalities, the consultants said the primary revenue sources for these services are existing property and sales taxes, which Park City Tech would pay regardless of incorporation.
This creates cost savings for residents of smaller municipalities compared to a scenario where municipalities would have to contract with the county for all public safety services, according to the study.
Park City Tech residents would pay reduced taxes to the county — a savings of about 20 cents per year annually for a primary residence with a market value of $660,000 — if the county were to reduce its general fund tax rate to account for the additional contract revenues from the new city for services that the county is already providing.
“The fiscal impact, to the county, of the new development will be positive,” the feasibility study said.
Park City Tech is estimated to have a total revenue of $1.8 million after five years, with $1.5 million in expenses. The net revenue is $368,310 and the revenue margin is 24%.
Consultants said Park City Tech is projected to have a taxable value of more than $402 million by year five. Summit County’s taxable value will increase as the new Park City Tech assets are delivered and its property tax rate will correspondingly decline, barring any Truth in Taxation in future years, according to the study.
The cost per capita at year five in Park City Tech is estimated to be around $285 compared to $648 in Coalville and $1,959 in Kamas. This is because of the area having significantly less road mileage, limited public parks and other indirect costs. The consultants added it’s more appropriate to compare Park City Tech to communities like Oakley and Kamas rather than Park City proper because the proposed town wouldn’t have nightly rentals, hotels or an emphasis on tourists.
The study, conducted from August to September, did note that the development would generate negative net revenues for the Park City School District and the Park City Fire Service District if levels of service remain as they are now.
However, the school district is experiencing declining enrollment, driven in part by a lack of affordable housing for young families. Summit County is expected to lose population in the 5 to 19 age cohort, which means the student cost might be lower than initially projected. Park City Fire’s costs are not likely to rise linearly with population growth either, the consultants acknowledged.
The results of the feasibility study will be presented during a public hearing in the future. A date had not been announced as of Thursday afternoon, but state law requires a public hearing to be conducted within 60 days of the feasibility study results.
Community opposition at a public hearing would not stop the plans from advancing. There wouldn’t be a vote on the incorporation either, unlike the West Hills proposal near Hoytsville, because Dakota Pacific filed to create a preliminary municipality rather than a standard one.
Once incorporated, the development firm would designate a board chair and three of the four board members who would serve as the town council.
Summit County has the authority to choose one board member. Board members do not have to be residents, and they would be replaced once an election is held if Park City Tech is fully incorporated. 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 Dakota Pacific does not file a petition for incorporation to transition within six years.
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth said the development firm will maintain incorporation as a viable alternative to its project “until we have full confidence that our current path will not be further challenged and delayed.”
Park City Tech closely mirrors the 725-unit, mixed-use development approved by the Summit County Council in December, which quickly became subject to a citizen-led referendum effort. The County Council plan also included 165 units that would have been county-owned, but Park City Tech will not have the elements of the public-private partnership if incorporated.
The development firm was criticized for lobbying the state Legislature to pass S.B. 26, seen as a tactic to circumvent the referendum by forcing Summit County to approve the development as an administrative act rather than a legislative one, as well as filing to incorporate Park City Tech. The two options were seen as a fail-safe to guarantee the development would happen, much to the ire of many county residents.
Stanworth said Dakota Pacific has turned its full attention to the project that was approved by Scott in July. The agreement includes five fewer units than what Summit County approved for a total of 885 units.
Last month, the Third District Court also determined the vote to overturn the development would not appear on the November ballot. Judge Richard Mrazik ruled a lawsuit challenging the Summit County Clerk’s Office’s declaration that the referendum was insufficient is moot.
Stanworth said now that the legal pathway is cleared, Dakota Pacific is working on what was committed to under the development agreement, such as designing the first phase of affordable housing and preparing plans for the public-private partnership with Summit County and High Valley Transit.
“It is exciting to finally be able to devote resources and energy toward helping make this project an incredible reality and a great part of the Basin community,” Stanworth said in a statement to The Park Record. “As for the incorporation status, the formal review remains ongoing with the Lieutenant Governor’s Office.”
Scott said he has asked staff to dedicate as little time as possible to the Park City Tech project, only what is required by state law.
“Summit County staff was asked to provide information to the consultant chosen by the Lieutenant Governor’s office. I look forward to the time when the preliminary municipality is no longer a possible scenario in the Kimball Junction area,” Scott said.
Representatives from the Utah Lt. Governor’s Office were not available for comment by the time of publication.