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 However, the development firm has not withdrawn its application for the new town because it’s seen as an alternative way to ensure the project happens.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

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.