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 However, the development firm has not withdrawn its application for the new town because it’s seen as an alternative way to ensure the project happens.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.

The post Park City Tech hearing draws sparse crowd appeared first on Park Record.

Dakota Pacific Real Estate is collaborating with Summit County to build its mixed-use project in Kimball Junction, but the development firm is also still exploring the possibility of incorporating a new town on the nearly 50-acre site.

This week, the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office plans to present a feasibility study indicating the new town, dubbed Park City Tech, could sustain itself within the proposed boundaries. The findings released in September cleared a major hurdle for Dakota Pacific to incorporate the new town under the state’s new pilot program for preliminary municipalities.  

The public hearing is scheduled from 6 to 8 p.m. on Thursday at Ecker Hill Middle School. Consultants with Zions Public Finance Inc., which conducted the feasibility study, will present the findings. Residents can then share their opinions on the proposed incorporation and established boundaries, as well as ask questions about the results. 

Feedback received during the public hearing is unlikely to alter the proposal. The public hearing is only for educational purposes. Neither the Utah Lt. Governor’s Office nor the consultants has the authority to deny the incorporation petition and must remain neutral. Summit County also doesn’t have the authority to approve or deny the creation of a new town.

Community members have been largely opposed to the Dakota Pacific development since it was proposed more than five years ago, a sentiment that only grew when Park City Tech was introduced.

There wouldn’t be a vote on the incorporation either, unlike the requirements for the proposed West Hills incorporation, because Dakota Pacific filed to create a preliminary municipality rather than a standard one.

Dakota Pacific has one year from the completion of the public hearing to proceed with the incorporation process by filing a petition for incorporation of the proposed preliminary municipality.

The development firm would designate a board chair and three board members who would serve as a town council once incorporated. Summit County has the power to choose the fourth board member.  The group “has the same authority as another municipality,” minus imposing taxes or exercising eminent domain.

Board members do not need to live within the proposed boundaries and would be replaced during an election if Park City Tech fully incorporates as a standard municipality.

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 previously 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. But Park City Tech will not have the elements of the public-private partnership if incorporated.

However, Stanworth said Dakota Pacific has turned its full attention to the project approved under an administrative development agreement through Senate Bill 26 in July.

The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission is currently considering the architecture guidelines for that 885-unit development, which includes 160 units of county-owned affordable housing. That project is similar to what was approved in December but was not subject to a referendum. A follow-up meeting is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 25.

If the Planning Commission finalizes its recommendation by December, Summit County Manager Shayne Scott could potentially approve the design guidelines before the year ends. Dakota Pacific plans to build the project in several phases over about five years.

Scott previously 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.

The post Park City Tech public hearing set for Thursday appeared first on Park Record.

“Mountain Modern” might be the chosen aesthetic for Kimball Junction’s newest neighborhood, according to draft building plans presented by Dakota Pacific Real Estate.

The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission met with the developer on Tuesday to review the proposed architectural design standards for the 885-unit mixed-use project near the Park City Tech Center that was approved this summer. Now, officials want to ensure there are clear standards and a shared vision for the future of the development, including the residential portion and the public-private partnership — an area that would include mixed-use commercial space and a civic green space — before it’s finalized.

“We’re at the administrative development agreement stage. The development agreement itself actually contains all the normal uses, vested rights … things that have gone into this project already delineated by law,” explained Summit County Community Development Director Peter Barnes. “But what’s missing is the vision, the color, the character, what we expect to see in this project.”

Summit County was forced to adopt the administrative development agreement under Senate Bill 26, enacted during the general session, which shifted the approval process from legislative to administrative. County Manager Shayne Scott then adopted the “state-imposed entitlement” because the law prohibited creating any impediments to Dakota Pacific’s project. The development mirrors what the Summit County Council approved in a 4-1 vote in December.

However, the development agreement does not provide specific architectural standards or designs. So Dakota Pacific has to go through the Planning Commission to review the plans. Commissioners have 45 days to complete their assessment and form a recommendation. That’s sent to Scott, who has final authority to approve the guidelines or request changes.

Dakota Pacific partnered with AO, which is characterized as a “full service architectural, master planning and design firm specializing in retail, residential and mixed-use projects,” to create a narrative for the project area. 

Technical details such as building heights, setbacks and land use have clear requirements under county code, while features such as style do not. Dakota Pacific and AO opted for a “mountain modern” feel with clean, modern elements that also have a distinctive sense of place because of its location at a major gateway to Park City.

Dakota Pacific’s 59-acre project is intended to prioritize people and places in alignment with the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan. The design principles include making the area walkable and connected with space for community gatherings and events, creating people-oriented streets and paths while integrating transit and considering future connections, consolidating parking, offering varied housing choices and an adaptable built environment.

Tech Center Drive, which could be renamed, and other supporting roads would have greenery, street furniture, lighting, public art and signage. Streets would also be complemented by off-street paths acting as a pedestrian trail system that connects the residential neighborhoods to the west of the project with the public-private partnership site and pedestrian bridge across S.R. 224. There would also be a new transit station and bus stops as well as e-bikes and electric vehicle charging. 

The public-private partnership area would have mixed-use residential and commercial buildings, civic green space looking at Utah Olympic Park, a parking structure and reserved space for a future civic building. The plan also imagines a future gondola “to support long-term mobility.”

Meanwhile, the residential neighborhoods would include workforce housing, multifamily apartments, senior-living facilities, townhomes and market-rate housing. About half of the total 885 units are designated affordable or attainable. The area will emphasize “livability” by incorporating pocket parks, open spaces, a trail network and accessible streets.

“The main talking point … is connectivity, the opportunities for a very walkable site, whether it’s jogging, walking, bikes. The perfect community is one that can be interconnected between uses, where you don’t have to get in your car just to go down to the commercial area,” said AO design partner Richard Clarke.

However, planning commissioners weren’t convinced. 

Members voiced a desire for more walkable, human-scaled neighborhoods and questioned whether the current guidelines emphasize pedestrian and cyclist connectivity. The Planning Commission also emphasized the value of thoughtful approaches to street and bridge designs so that walking routes become an interesting experience that encourages people to use them.

Planning Commissioner Matt Nagie asked to see more details about how the project would be accessible for different populations, such as a mom with a stroller, a jogger or someone using a wheelchair.

“Seeing bog-standard ADA compliance that, just like, has so much room for improvement. I would love to see specifics here. It’s 2025 — it’s not the ’70s anymore — we know how to design pedestrian accessibility,” he said.

Other suggestions included a trolley or shuttle service to reduce car traffic and creating engaging streetscapes that blend commercial and residential spaces.

Planning commissioners also pointed out that the architecture needs to feel authentic to the region. They said they wanted future buildings to reflect the unique spirit and history of the Park City area rather than have a generic, bland look.

“The question is, how do we create something that looks good in 100 years? Because that’s really what we’re doing. We’re not creating an old Park City,” said Planning Commissioner Eric Sagerman. “This is a new place, and how do we make it accessible, interesting, so that people want to walk, has variations and looks great in 100 years?”

Participants similarly discussed practical matters such as how to ensure the development functions smoothly for residents and visitors and how to keep it attractive and accessible year-round. They also talked about snow removal and storage, EV charging, transit and parking.

They planned further refinements to details such as connectivity diagrams, signage policies and the narrative describing local influences on design. A follow-up meeting is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 25.

If the Planning Commission finalizes its recommendation by December, Scott could potentially approve the design guidelines before the year ends. Dakota Pacific plans to build the project in several phases over about five years.

The Dakota Pacific project has been controversial since it was proposed more than five years ago, facing scrutiny from community members and local leaders. Proponents advocate for workforce housing opportunities and neighborhood improvements, while those opposed are concerned about worsening traffic and density.

The post Summit County considers architecture guidelines for Dakota Pacific development appeared first on Park Record.

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.

The post Park City Tech clears major hurdle toward incorporation appeared first on Park Record.

Ordinance No. 987 — the Summit County Council’s 4 to 1 approval of Dakota Pacific’s mixed-use project in Kimball Junction — has formally been repealed. The development will still be built, though, much to the ire of many residents.

Summit County residents launched a referendum effort to rescind the ordinance, but a Third District Court ruling effectively deemed the proposed ballot initiative moot. Judge Richard Mrazik last week determined that state law supersedes the county’s legislative authority regarding the Tech Center property, and that a referendum would not change “the practical reality” of what’s been approved under Senate Bill 26.

The law, passed by the Utah Legislature earlier this year, forced Summit County to approve the development as an administrative act rather than a legislative one, rendering Ordinance No. 987 ineffective. 

S.B. 26 provided the same use and zoning changes as the amended development agreement adopting the mixed-use development. Summit County was also limited in its ability to stop Dakota Pacific’s approval under S.B. 26. Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved an administrative development agreement with Dakota Pacific on July 28, which closely mirrors what the County Council approved in December.

The County Council was asked to repeal the ordinance on Aug. 20. However, councilors declined to do so because they wanted to wait until the Third District Court ruling.

County Councilors Roger Armstrong and Canice Harte explained on Wednesday that they had hoped to receive clarity on the rules of the referendum process, which was called into question by a group of residents who sued the Summit County Clerk’s Office for rejecting dozens of signature packets.

County Councilor Megan McKenna was the lone vote in favor of the repeal then, saying she hoped to save taxpayers money from drawing out legal proceedings.

Mrazik’s ruling did not address the signature collection issue. 

“I think we were hoping that maybe the court would sidestep mootness and maybe make a determination as to what’s required under the current law as it relates to referendum. That did not happen,” Armstrong said.

Summit County Clerk Eve Furse invalidated 30 packets for “improper circulation” and declared the referendum insufficient earlier this year after sponsors did not meet the minimum signature count.

Protect Summit County, the group organizing the referendum, argued Furse overstepped her duties. If she had counted and verified the signatures in the rejected packets, the referendum would have met the requirements to put it up for a vote in the general election.

The mootness ruling, as well as repealing the ordinance, means there’s nothing for voters to decide on, so it will not appear on the ballot.

The group said it planned on appealing the mootness ruling to “fight to get Ordinance 987 on the ballot as quickly as possible” if the County Council did not repeal the ordinance.

“Summit County could have resolved this matter weeks ago when we asked them to stipulate Ordinance 987 has no force and effect. This would’ve saved both sides over $150K,” the group previously said in a statement.

While Dakota Pacific withdrew its application under Ordinance No. 987 and requested the County Council repeal it because of the new administrative development agreement, the development firm could have technically come back and submitted an application again if it still existed. 

The County Council unanimously voted to repeal the ordinance, saying it is obsolete since it’s no longer tied to an active application.

Harte was also critical of community members who used the disagreement about the rules of the referendum process as an opportunity to make “personal attacks” against Furse. County Councilor Chair Tonja Hanson agreed.

“I think we as a people in the county value the right to a referendum. (The state doesn’t) make it easy on us, that’s for sure. It certainly would have been nice to get some clarity on that, but that doesn’t mean it’s OK to malign a person, and so I’m sorry that that happened to you, Eve,” Harte said.

Attorneys representing the Clerk’s Office asked Mrazik to dismiss the case on Aug. 29 because of the mootness ruling. A decision had not been made as of Friday morning.

Under S.B. 26, Dakota Pacific is approved to build a 725-unit development on nearly 50 acres in Kimball Junction as well as 160 county-owned affordable housing units — for a total of 885 units. There would also be a senior living facility, public plaza, new transit center, structured parking and a pedestrian bridge developed through a public-private partnership.

The post Summit County Council repeals Ordinance No. 987 appeared first on Park Record.

The Summit County Council considered repealing Ordinance No. 987 — the goal of a referendum movement aimed at overturning the approval of Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s mixed-use development in Kimball Junction — but chose to keep it in place, opting to wait for a Third District Court judge to clarify the rules of the process next week.

Chief Civil Deputy Dave Thomas told the County Council on Wednesday that the referendum is likely moot anyway. Thomas described 987 as an “orphaned ordinance,” because the application it’s connected to no longer exists.

“The application upon which Ordinance 987 rested has been withdrawn, and they never signed that amended development agreement,” Thomas said.

Dakota Pacific rescinded its original application after officials signed an administrative development agreement late last month. 

Summit County Manager Shayne Scott was forced to approve a project closely resembling what the County Council adopted in December 2024, and what the referendum is based on, after the Utah Legislature enforced a “state-imposed rezone” on the land through Senate Bill 26 this spring. The law added certain restrictions limiting the county’s ability to reject or delay the development. 

The period to appeal the administrative development agreement passed last week, and none were filed. 

The County Council was divided on whether to repeal the ordinance, which would essentially accomplish the goal of the referendum, or keep the ordinance in place to allow a lawsuit challenging the insufficient declaration made by Summit County Clerk Eve Furse to play out in court despite the legal fees.

Judge Richard Mrazik was supposed to hear oral arguments about whether rejected petition packets were improperly circulated or if the Clerk’s Office should have counted the signatures inside, which would impact whether the referendum effort meets the minimum threshold to advance to the ballot, this week. However, the court hearing was moved to Tuesday.

Thomas said he wasn’t sure if the hearing would proceed should the ordinance be repealed. State statute says that if the legislation a referendum is based on is annulled, then the ballot effort becomes void as the referendum itself seeks to overturn the decision.

In other words, there’s nothing for voters to decide on.

However, there’s still a chance the court hearing will continue as planned if the ordinance remains in place. County officials didn’t seem worried about the Dakota Pacific referendum moving forward, though — they’ve said there’s little anyone can do to stop the development with S.B. 26 in place. Instead, they hope the judge will provide clarity for future referendum movements.

Summit County Attorney Margaret Olson said she expected there to be robust oral arguments next week and anticipated Mrazik would make a ruling from the bench. She also addressed complaints from several community members about taxpayer dollars being spent on the clerk’s legal defense, noting that the county didn’t have a choice because it’s the one being sued.

Defense attorneys representing Furse cited several concerns the Clerk’s Office had when reviewing 30 petition packets. The packets were ultimately rejected for allegedly being taken apart and rearranged. They also want Mrazik to address whether S.B. 26 supersedes the amended development agreement.

The complaint — filed against Furse by Summit County residents Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — says Furse says she overstepped her duties as clerk by rejecting the packets, and argues they didn’t violate state law. 

Had all of the rejected signatures been included, the referendum sponsors would have been able to put the issue on the ballot.

County Councilor Roger Armstrong was in favor of keeping Ordinance No. 987 in place to avoid a perception that the county is trying to quash the referendum by putting the question before the court.

“If it’s going to be declared moot, I would prefer a court declare this moot. Not that we intentionally tried to make it moot. … I think there has been enough to try to disrupt the process here intentionally, or accidentally, or otherwise,” Armstrong said. “I’m just curious, the next time somebody is unhappy with something we’ve done, what do the packets have to look like?”

Fellow Councilors Canice Harte and Chris Robinson agreed with Armstrong, saying it would be good for a judge to provide clarification for the future. Thomas said the Legislature plans to refine the referendum law next year to make it clearer.

Officials hope a final ruling on whether the referendum is eligible for the general election ballot will be made before the Aug. 29 deadline for ballot printing. That way, Summit County voters won’t be asked to vote in the referendum if it’s declared moot or invalid.

The County Council voted 4 to 1 in favor of keeping Ordinance No. 987 in place. County Councilor Megan McKenna was the dissenting vote.

“We’ll wait and see what the judge says,” County Council Chair Tonja Hanson said.

The post Summit County Council waits to repeal Ordinance No. 987 pending Third District Court ruling appeared first on Park Record.

Snyderville Basin residents delivered their last words regarding the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project in Kimball Junction before officials approved the development for a second time in seven months.

On Monday, Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved an administrative development agreement for the mixed-use project at the Park City Tech Center. The decision came after the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission earlier this month forwarded a positive recommendation for the development, which includes 885 residential units, including 160 units of county-owned affordable housing, as well as a new transit center, civic buildings and commercial spaces.

Scott and the Planning Commission were bound by the parameters of a new state law created by Senate Bill 26, essentially shifting the process from a legislative one to administrative, mandating the approval of the “state-imposed entitlement” and prohibiting the county from creating any impediments to the development.

Still, four community members used the opportunity at the required public hearing to voice their opposition to the development.

Park City-area resident Kathy Mears said she’s been following the Dakota Pacific development since it was proposed five years ago and assisted with signature-gathering efforts after a group of residents launched a referendum petition to overturn the Summit County Council’s 4-to-1 vote approving the project in December. She was also critical of the development firm’s efforts to “change” laws in Summit County by turning to the Utah Legislature to override local land use authority. 

“Nobody here really wanted Dakota Pacific’s development, and they still don’t,” Mears said.

Robert Phillips similarly questioned why Summit County officials would want to partner with Dakota Pacific, and he said he didn’t want his tax dollars to be used to help pay for the project. Phillips referenced Elliot Richardson, who resigned as attorney general during the Watergate scandal rather than carry out orders he disagreed with. He asked Scott to consider doing the same.

Colleen Connelly, who lives right off S.R. 224, added that even though there were only a few people to speak during the public hearing, the community has raised its voice against the development many times before, including through the referendum effort. 

Pinebrook resident Ed Rutan said he, his wife and most of the community have spoken against the project at numerous meetings. He expressed frustration that neither county officials nor Dakota Pacific have acknowledged the opposition to the project and asked for a reasoned explanation for the decision.

“My wife, Lynne, and I were two of the thousands of Summit County residents who signed the referendum petition that circulated,” Rutan said. “Personally, I hope that it is on the ballot in November. I suspect that if it is on the ballot once again, the public will express its opposition in a very resounding way that makes it all the more important.”

A court hearing that may determine whether the ordinance approving the development appears on the ballot is set for Aug. 19. Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth previously said the development firm decided to pursue the administrative development agreement to avoid the uncertainty of the referendum effort and move forward with the agreement that the County Council approved.

Scott explained his approval was based not only on S.B. 26 but also because of the months and years county officials have spent negotiating with Dakota Pacific on the Tech Center project. He recognized many residents might not feel heard, but Scott said their comments have been integrated into the project each time the density was reduced, a traffic solution was included and a community amenity was added. 

Overall, Scott said the project lives up to the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan, which emphasizes community connection, unanimously adopted by the County Council before the Dakota Pacific project was submitted. 

“I am hopeful. I hope that there’s a moment sometime in my life where I come with my loved ones, and I stand in this area and I see some activity that worked,” Scott said. “I hope that there are folks who get up there and get on transit, and maybe they work for the county. Maybe they go to the library and they live (around) there, and we don’t import them from the Salt Lake Valley. They don’t come up Parleys Canyon. They don’t get off at Kimball Junction. They don’t get on 224. They walk to work. That would be a really exciting thing for me to be able to see.”

Dakota Pacific plans to build 385 market-rate units and 275 affordable housing units on the back half of the property. A proposed public-private partnership would also create 225 workforce housing units and a senior living facility near a public plaza surrounded by mixed uses. Dakota Pacific representatives reaffirmed their commitment to building options for local seniors.

There would also be a new transit center, structured parking and a pedestrian bridge connection to the east side of S.R. 224. The existing Kimball Junction Transit Center and the Richins Building would be demolished, too.

The project approved this week also includes five fewer units than approved in December. It also had a tweaked phasing plan that was designed to align more closely with the Utah Department of Transportation’s S.R. 224 improvement project. Scott inserted language to extend phase six of the project from five months to nine months.

The post Summit County approves Dakota Pacific Real Estate development, again appeared first on Park Record.

Whether the referendum petition to put Ordinance 987, the approval and adoption of an amended development agreement with Dakota Pacific Real Estate for the Park City Tech Center, will make it onto the November ballot could be decided in court next month.

A summary judgment hearing, a potential decision that determines the outcome of a case without a full trial under certain circumstances, was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19. 

Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik’s ruling could allow the petition to advance to the ballot. If it does, and the referendum succeeds in November, the people suing the Summit County Clerk may challenge the constitutionality of a new law approving the project regardless.

The purpose of the hearing is to “eliminate the time, trouble, and expense … when it is clear as a matter of law that the party ruled against is not entitled to prevail,” according to a motion filed by a group of residents suing Summit County Clerk Eve Furse on Monday.

Earlier this month, Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein filed the 82-page complaint arguing that Furse erred in declaring the signature count in the submitted petition packets insufficient, making the issue ineligible for the general election.

“Ultimately, over 5,000 voters from Summit County submitted signatures in support of placing Ordinance 987 on the November 2025 ballot,” the motion for summary judgment states. “Based on an incorrect factual assumption and unsupported legal determination, the County Clerk nullified those signatures, preventing the voters of Summit County from determining whether adding over 700 housing units to an already bloated development near Kimball Junction is in the best interest of the county.”

Furse rejected 30 referendum petition packets for improper circulation, stating they were not circulated as a unit and those with three-hole punches across the top were also dismissed. Clerk’s Office staff verified 3,214 signatures, not including the rejected packets.

If the packets are deemed legal, approximately 2,500 signatures will be added to the total count, surpassing the minimum 4,554-signature requirement needed to advance the issue, assuming there’s the right representation from each voter area.

However, the referendum would only appear on the ballot if Mrazik sides with the sponsors and finds that the signature packets were not misdistributed.

The referendum sponsors argue most of the rejected packets meet the statutory requirements because they included a copy of the ordinance petition, full text of the ordinance, signature sheets and the required information pamphlet that were bound using a method that allowed each packet to be “conveniently opened for signing.”

The motion for summary judgment said that 25 of the 30 packets were never separated and alleges that the Clerk’s Office universally rejected packets with three-hole punches even if the pages weren’t removed. 

The lawsuit argues that temporarily removing a signature page from the binder doesn’t invalidate the packet because all of the other required information was presented nearby. Court documents state that signature pages were removed so voters could sign them while other people reviewed the petition information.

“Utah law requires that sponsors present the required referendum materials to voters as a unit without requiring additional, proactive steps to access the materials. That is what the Sponsors did.”

The court filing acknowledged that at least one packet containing 98 signatures was improperly circulated. Still, sponsors argued that even if several other packets were invalidated, the petition would still have enough signatures to meet the requirement.

The Clerk’s Office proceeded with provisionally posting the 2,454 signatures on the Lieutenant Governor’s Office website after reaching an agreement with the five residents who filed the lawsuit. The signatures were provisionally posted under the court order pending resolution of that case.

The order is not to be intended as an admission of the “legal sufficiency” of any signature or referendum packet. Furse has said her office has followed state statute, and she’ll follow whatever determination the Third District Court makes.

The residents suing Furse said they will consider challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 26, a new state law that effectively approved the Dakota Pacific project through a new administrative development agreement, in court if the referendum to overturn Ordinance No. 987 is successful. 

Referendum sponsors say the mixed-use development will “overwhelm public resources and exacerbate the existing congestion problem in Kimball Junction.”

The post Summit County judge may decide fate of Dakota Pacific referendum next month appeared first on Park Record.

About 2,500 voters appear to have signed 30 referendum petition packets originally rejected by the Summit County Clerk’s Office, potentially giving the effort to overturn Ordinance 987 — the approval of a mixed-use development project at the Park City Tech Center — newfound momentum.

However, the issue would only appear on the November ballot if a Third District Court judge rules that the signature packets were not improperly circulated. 

Clerk’s Office staff deemed that dozens of packets could not be counted because they did not comply with the statutory packet requirements that include ensuring the signature binders are compiled as part of a packet. 

The referendum sponsors disagree. The group argues Furse erred in her judgment and stepped outside of her duties by refusing to count the signatures in the rejected packets. 

The Clerk’s Office proceeded with provisionally posting the 2,454 signatures on the Lieutenant Governor’s website after reaching an agreement with the five residents — Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — who filed the lawsuit against Furse. The signatures were provisionally posted under the stipulated court order pending resolution of that case

The order is not to be intended as an admission of the “legal sufficiency” of any signature or referendum packet. However, it allows the process to continue moving forward until a formal Third District Court ruling can be made.

This will help “speed up” the process if the court rules the signatures should be counted, so that the issue has enough time to appear on the general election ballot, according to Summit County officials.

“This is an opportunity for people to review the names that were submitted in the unverified petitions to see if someone else added their name or to give them the opportunity to remove their name,” Furse said in a statement provided to The Park Record. “Both parties agreed to this to ensure the Clerk’s Office is prepared if the court rules against the county so we can move as quickly as possible to add this to the 2025 ballot.”

State law requires the Clerk’s Office staff to post the names of each signer on the website after counting the signature, which remain online until the voter requests their name be removed from the petition or the 45-day withdrawal period concludes.

Referendum sponsors and volunteers, organizing under the name Protect Summit County, needed to collect 4,554 valid and verified signatures by March 3. The total number of signers also needs to make up 16% of voters countywide, plus 16% from three of the four voter precincts.

The referendum effort was declared insufficient by the Clerk’s Office last month after the verified signature count, excluding the rejected packets, was 3,214. However, the 2,454 provisional signatures from the rejected packets would surpass the minimum requirement, increasing the total to 5,668. 

“This means the mandatory 45-day signature removal period can run concurrently with our court proceedings and conclude in advance of the judge’s ruling. If Judge (Richard) Mrazik rules in our favor next month and reinstates packets 1 through 30, then we will make the deadline for ballot printing,” the petitioners said in a statement. “We are currently awaiting a confirmed briefing schedule and hearing date. And in the meantime, we are raising money to support this Herculean and urgent effort to stay in the fight against Dakota Pacific’s interference and overreach by getting on the ballot and passing the referendum.”

It’s unclear if the provisional signatures would meet the required number of voters in each precinct. However, Protect Summit County previously estimated it obtained signatures from more than 21% of voters, including at least 20% in three of the four voter areas.

The insufficient petition from June 27 was 281 signatures short in Area 1, 710 signatures short in Area 2, 164 signatures short in Area 3 and 185 signatures short in Area 4.

​​“Throughout this process, the Clerk’s Office has followed state statute as interpreted by our attorneys and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office,” Furse previously said in a statement. “My office is ready to follow whatever determination is made.”

If a judge rules the packets should be counted and the referendum makes it onto the general election ballot, the final outcome may not be relevant. Officials have said Senate Bill 26 could render Ordinance 987 irrelevant.

Dakota Pacific applied for a new administrative development agreement under the new state law, which essentially guarantees the project will be built. The project area involves an 885-unit, mixed-use development across six parcels, including those owned by the developer and Summit County, totaling 64 acres.

The Snyderville Basin Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation for the development to Summit County Manager Shayne Scott. 

A tentative public hearing date has been set for July 28.

The residents suing Furse said they would consider challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 26 in court if the referendum to overturn Ordinance No. 987 is successful. A GoFundMe was created to pay for the petitioners’ legal expenses. As of Tuesday, $6,328 has been raised toward the $15,000 goal.

The post Provisional signatures could land Dakota Pacific referendum on ballot, pending judge’s ruling on rejected packets appeared first on Park Record.

The Summit County Clerk’s Office will proceed with provisionally posting signatures from 30 petition packets, originally rejected earlier this year for improper circulation, after a resident-led lawsuit challenged the insufficient declaration of the referendum effort aimed at overturning the approval of the Dakota Pacific Real Estate development.

The five residents who filed the lawsuit — Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — reached an agreement with Clerk Eve Furse on Friday, resulting in the previously submitted, uncounted signatures being published on the Lieutenant Governor’s website.

Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik granted a stipulated motion filed by the petitioners that requires Furse to submit the names, voter identification numbers and dates of signatures consistent with the state’s existing protocols to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office no later than Monday. The following day, the names will be posted on the state website for no less than 45 days. 

This will help “speed up” the process if the court rules the signatures should be counted so the issue has enough time to appear on the general election ballot, according to Summit County officials.

“This is an opportunity for people to review the names that were submitted in the unverified petitions to see if someone else added their name or to give them the opportunity to remove their name,” Furse said in a statement provided to The Park Record. “Both parties agreed to this to ensure the Clerk’s Office is prepared if the court rules against the County so we can move as quickly as possible to add this to the 2025 ballot.”

State law required the Clerk’s Office staff to post the names of each signer on the website after counting the signature, which remained online until the voter requested their name be removed from the petition or the 45-day withdrawal period concluded.

“The referendum petition previously was declared insufficient by the Local Clerk,” the court order states. “Individuals supporting the referendum have challenged that decision in court. These signatures are being provisionally posted pursuant to a Stipulated Court Order pending resolution of that case.”

The order is not to be intended as an admission of the “legal sufficiency” of any signature or referendum packet. However, it allows the process to continue moving forward until a formal Third District Court ruling can be made.

One of the requirements for putting the referendum on the November ballot was receiving 4,554 verified signatures, the total number of which needed to make up 16% of voters countywide, plus 16% from three of the four voter precincts. Furse said the sponsors missed the minimum count by 1,340 signatures and failed to meet the minimum percentages in the voter areas.

Furse invalidated 30 of the 77 packets because they allegedly did not comply with the statutory packet requirements that include ensuring the signature packages are bound as part of a packet. It’s unclear how many signatures were subsequently disqualified, but each packet can hold a maximum of 100 signatures. 

​​“Throughout this process, the Clerk’s Office has followed state statute as interpreted by our attorneys and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office,” Furse previously said in a statement. “My office is ready to follow whatever determination is made.”

The sponsors, meanwhile, said they collected 6,083 signatures representing more than 21% of Summit County voters, including at least 20% in three out of four voter precincts. The group argued Furse erred in her judgment and stepped outside of her duties by refusing to count the signatures in the rejected packets.

If the Clerk’s Office had, the group said, the effort to overturn Ordinance No. 987, which approved the amended development agreement with Dakota Pacific for the Park City Tech Center property, would have made it onto the ballot.

If there are still not enough signatures to meet the minimum threshold count or petition requirement after the rejected packets are counted, the referendum will have failed. However, if the count exceeds what’s required with the rejected packets, it will be up to Mrazik to decide whether the signatures should be accepted.

Regardless of what happens with the referendum process, Dakota Pacific will likely be able to build its project. 

The development firm applied for a new administrative development agreement under a new state law created by Senate Bill 26 last month. On Tuesday, the Snyderville Basin Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation for the development to Summit County Manager Shayne Scott.

The administrative development agreement application did not increase the commercial or residential density adopted in the 2024 development agreement. The project area involves an 885-unit, mixed-use development across six parcels, including those owned by the developer and Summit County, totaling 64 acres.

A tentative public hearing date has been set for July 28.

The post Court order may revive rejected signatures in Dakota Pacific referendum battle appeared first on Park Record.