After five years of debate, public fatigue appears to have set in.
A little more than a baker’s dozen residents attended Thursday’s Park City Tech incorporation hearing, a noticeable shift from the packed rooms that previously defined discussions surrounding Dakota Pacific Real Estate.
There were only a handful of public comments during the meeting, but everyone who spoke highlighted concerns about transparency, representation and long-term liabilities.
Consultants with Zions Public Finance Inc. presented the results of the feasibility study, declaring the proposed preliminary municipality financially feasible with a 24% revenue margin.
The key takeaway from the feasibility study is that net revenues in Park City Tech over the first five years would be positive and exceed the 5% threshold for incorporation. The estimated population is projected to be 1,680 people spread across 725 households on less than 1 square mile, and Summit County is expected to benefit from the increased property and sales taxes.
Staff from the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office, which oversees incorporations in the state, explained the legal and procedural framework regarding the project that would give Dakota Pacific “all the powers and duties” of a town, including planning, zoning and development agreements, but not the ability to tax.
The Park City Tech proposal is similar to the mixed-use development approved by Summit County in December 2024, but does not include the elements of the public-private partnership, such as a new transit center and 160 units of county-owned affordable housing.
In July, Summit County approved an administrative development agreement for an 885-unit development as required by Senate Bill 26. The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission is considering the architecture guidelines of the project, with a follow-up meeting scheduled for Nov. 25.
Representatives from Dakota Pacific and Summit County have indicated their focus is on the administrative development agreement rather than Park City Tech. However, the development firm has not withdrawn its application for the new town because it’s seen as an alternative way to ensure the project happens.
Community members repeatedly noted the absence of county officials and representatives from the development firm. Attendees also appeared frustrated about the scope of questions the consultants and the state could answer, limited to the feasibility study itself or the incorporation process.
Steve Borup, Dakota Pacific’s director of commercial development, was in the audience but did not identify himself. Neither Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth nor Park City Tech sponsor Scott Swallow, the director of acquisitions and development for Dakota Pacific Real Estate Partners, returned a request for comment by the time of publication.
Summit County Manager Shayne Scott was unaware of anyone from the county who attended the meeting.
“I have told staff I don’t want to spend any staff time on that option that is not required by law. I am hopeful that as we go forward with the administrative (development agreement) option that this option will officially be withdrawn,” he said.
Pinebrook resident Shawn Stinson said he expected a lack of representation from Dakota Pacific, but not from Summit County. Stinson also raised concerns about the developer changing the zoning, height and density of the area and then abandoning the project, saddling the county with the burden.
Snyderville Basin resident Robert Phillips said it was “despicable” that county staff were not present. Phillips added that he wants to vote out the Summit County Council and Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson for whatever “went on behind the scenes” regarding the failed referendum effort.
“There’s an old Southern phrase about putting lipstick on a pig, but you can’t get rid of the smell. This project smells bad,” he said.
Dakota Pacific submitted an application for the Park City Tech feasibility study in January, and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office determined the following month that it complied with state statute regarding preliminary municipalities. The feasibility study was commissioned in May, with the final draft released in September.
The Lieutenant Governor’s Office paid for the $27,500 feasibility study. However, the sponsors are required to pay for the feasibility study as part of their petition for incorporation if the process continues.
Following the public hearing, Park City Tech sponsors have one year to submit a petition for incorporation. However, state law does not require a vote on the incorporation because it’s a preliminary municipality.
Once the petition is filed, Dakota Pacific would designate three board members and Summit County selects the fourth. An election, run by the Summit County Clerk’s Office, would take place after the preliminary municipality transitions.
Park City Tech would be required to file to incorporate as a town once the population exceeds 100 people. The state would also dissolve Park City Tech if Dakota Pacific does not file a petition to shift to a municipality within six years or if the area has not transitioned within four years after the first record sold certificate has been issued.
If dissolution occurs, the area, including roads and infrastructure, reverts to the jurisdiction of Summit County. Dakota Pacific would also be liable for damages caused to the county.
