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 referendum to overturn Ordinance No. 987, the Summit County Council’s 4 to 1 approval of the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project in Kimball Junction, will not be up for a vote in November.

Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik on Tuesday afternoon denied a motion challenging Summit County Clerk Eve Furse’s declaration that the referendum signature-gathering effort was insufficient. Mrazik determined that neither the court’s decision nor the referendum “will have any practical effect on the mixed-use development authorized” by Senate Bill 26, and the lawsuit was deemed moot.

“… Petitioners have failed to show how granting their motion will have a meaningful impact on the practical positions of the parties,” the ruling states.

Five residents — Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — sued the Clerk’s Office in July over the insufficient declaration, which stemmed from the rejection of 30 signature packets, and asked the judge to reverse the decision to allow the referendum to appear on the general election ballot.

Diaz and Weinstein are two of the seven original community members who sponsored the referendum application, organizing under the name Protect Summit County. The group said it disagrees with the mootness argument but found the ruling to be “the second best outcome.”

The Utah Legislature passed S.B. 26 during the general session earlier this year. The law took effect in the spring and provided the same use and zoning changes as the ordinance approving the mixed-use development. Summit County was also restricted to taking an administrative role and was limited in its ability to stop the project’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.

Mrazik’s ruling states that even if the petitioners show the County Clerk was incorrect and that the referendum was legally sufficient, “the practical reality of the parties, and the citizens of Summit County at large, will not be changed.”

“The argument is unavailing because Petitioners have not identified any legislative act within Ordinance 987 that is not also granted by S.B. 26. Similarly, Petitioners have not shown how S.B. 26 fails to completely supersede Summit County’s legislative authority regarding the land that is the subject of Ordinance 987,” the ruling states.

In other words, Mrazik argued he would not be able to provide meaningful relief even if he ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared the referendum sufficient because S.B. 26 supersedes the court’s authority. The ruling asserts there was a change in circumstances with the passage of S.B. 26, essentially eliminating the “legal controversy between the two parties.” 

A court hearing was originally scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, but it was subsequently cancelled. Mrazik did not hear oral arguments from the two parties. He determined the mootness of the motion upon studying the briefs in preparation for the hearing, according to the ruling. Then, the hearing was nixed to prevent unnecessary costs.

“Put simply, the Utah Legislature, when it passed SB26, determined what will happen at the DPRE property, not my office, the referendum, or the referendum lawsuit,” Summit County Clerk Eve Furse said in a prepared statement. “Ultimately, my office’s responsibility is to uphold the law, which I’ve remained committed to throughout this entire process.”

Mrazik did not rule on the signature collection issue because the referendum was deemed moot. 

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. 

Earlier this year, Furse said the sponsors missed the minimum signature count 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. The packets contained about 2,500 signatures, enough to meet the ballot threshold if they had been deemed countable.

Meanwhile, the petitioners said only a few packets were separated after preparation and alleged the Clerk’s Office universally rejected packets with three-hole punches without verifying if the pages had been removed. The group argues Furse erred in her judgment and that the referendum sponsors followed state law.

However, the Utah Rules Review and General Oversight Committee voted to begin drafting reforms to the state referendum statute following the dispute in Summit County. 

Furse said she looks forward to seeing how the Legislature helps clarify the process for both voters and local governments across the state.

The County Council last week declined to repeal Ordinance No. 987, instead waiting for the Third District Court ruling to interpret the state’s referendum rules. Officials will likely do so at a future meeting.

If officials leave the ordinance in place, Protect Summit County said it will appeal the mootness ruling and “fight to get Ordinance 987 on the ballot as quickly as possible.”

“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 said in a statement.

The county’s chief civil deputy, Dave Thomas, said during the County Council meeting last week that Dakota Pacific could technically come back and submit an application if the ordinance remains intact.

However, the development firm also requested the County Council repeal Ordinance 987. It’s unclear how a new or revived application could differ from what was approved under S.B. 26, which legislatively changed the zoning of the Park City Tech Center.

Dakota Pacific plans to build 385 market-rate units and 275 affordable housing units on the back half of its 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 post Dakota Pacific referendum lawsuit declared moot, judge rules appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County Clerk Eve Furse doubled down on her decision to reject 30 signature packets supporting the referendum petition to stop Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s mixed-use development in Kimball Junction.

Attorneys representing Furse responded to the citizen-filed lawsuit against her in Third District Court on Monday, defending her choice to invalidate dozens of packets and opposing the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. The hearing could allow the judge to make a ruling without a full trial if certain facts of the case aren’t disputed; Furse’s court filing says they are.

Before Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik rules on whether the disassembled signature packets satisfy the binding requirements under state law, Furse asked the court to “answer whether the superseding state legislation renders the current county referendum moot.”

The clerk was referencing the Utah Legislature-backed Senate Bill 26, which allows for the same zoning change and use as Ordinance No. 987 — the Summit County Council’s December approval of the amended development agreement. The filing argues the state law supersedes the county’s legislative authority and that a successful referendum in November would not halt the project. Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved the Dakota Pacific project for the second time late last month.

Likely, a determination about whether the referendum complied with state law would only be made if the court determines the will of the voters has more authority than S.B. 26. The issue then becomes whether the separation of the initial packet pages before they were submitted to the Clerk’s Office is enough to invalidate them.

Furse argues it is. She referenced the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office vote.Utah.gov website, which includes information for local referenda and references sections of state code (Utah Code 20A-7-601, 603, 604, and 605), providing instructions for signature gathering. 

Packets “cannot be taken apart or rearranged once they are bound. The packets will be rejected if this is done,” according to the Lieutenant Governor’s Office. Furse rejected packets one through 29 and packet 39 for improper circulation. 

Furse’s court filing says there was evidence indicating the signature packets were removed or added after the packets were prepared. Several had page numbers crossed out and renumbered. The initial packets didn’t appear to be uniformly prepared or correctly preserved, in contrast with the packets the Clerk’s Office did accept. 

There were additional discrepancies in the petition declaration filled out by the circulators, such as the number of signatures reported versus what was actually inside the packet. The packets had other issues, such as unreadable, duplicative, undated and unmatching signatures, along with signers who were not registered to vote or lived outside of Summit County. Those signatures were not counted.

The complaint — filed by Summit County residents Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — said only a few packets were separated after preparation and alleged the Clerk’s Office universally rejected packets with three-hole punches without verifying if the pages had been removed. The group argues Furse erred in her judgment and that the referendum sponsors followed state law.

The clerk disagrees. Court documents say Furse has been the subject of the ire of frustrated citizens. 

“It is easy, and perhaps natural, to shoot the messenger. But doing so will not produce the lasting change, or local control, these advocates desire,” the filing states.

Furse asserts she reached out to the referendum sponsors when the initial packets were rejected and offered ways for the group to overcome or resolve the issue. The court filing states that the sponsors did not reply. Moschetta emailed the clerk, saying all the packets were compliant. However, Moschetta is not a sponsor.

The court filing was critical of Moschetta’s involvement because it is unclear what role she had in the referendum effort, based on the court filings, other than being a concerned citizen volunteer. Furse also noted Utah Code declares “sponsors or an agent of the sponsors shall create referendum packets,” yet the petitioners do not identify who, what, when, where or how the initial packets were created.

The Clerk’s Office agreed to provisionally post the signatures, which total 2,454 and would be enough to put the referendum on the November ballot if the rejected packets are deemed valid. Furse questioned the integrity of the signatures in those packets, but she said she’ll follow whatever determination the Third District Court makes.

The summary judgment hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 19.

The post Summit County clerk cites concerns in Dakota Pacific referendum dispute 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 citizen-led initiative to overturn the Summit County Council’s 4-to-1 approval of Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s 725-unit, mixed-use development in Kimball Junction seems to have failed.

Referendum sponsors appear to have missed the minimum count by 1,340 signatures, possibly because of invalidated packets. 

Summit County Clerk’s Office staff finished counting the petition packets Monday, adding up 3,214 verified signatures or about 70% of what was needed to put Ordinance No. 987 — the December decision adopting the amended development agreement at the Park City Tech Center — on the November ballot.

Protect Summit County, the movement started by the seven residents who submitted the referendum petition, Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith, estimated volunteers collected 6,083 signatures representing more than 21% of Summit County voters including at least 20% in three out of four voter precincts. 

However, Clerk Eve Furse invalidated 30 of the 77 submitted packets for “improper circulation.” They weren’t counted by the Clerk’s Office because elements of the packets, such as the voter information sheet, may have been separated.

“The Clerk’s Office can only verify signatures on petitions that comply with statutory packet requirements. Our number one priority is to protect and implement the processes by which Summit County residents express their political will,” Furse said.

Staff were required to inspect the packets before reviewing signatures because state laws dictate how a packet can be circulated. Utah Code requires petition sponsors to ensure the signature pages are bound as part of a packet, including the law the sponsors seek to overturn. The binding must occur before the petition is signed. 

Several packets suggest the packets with signatures may have been assembled and spiral-bound after signatures were gathered. The county clerk may not certify a signature on a referendum packet that is not verified under the state’s election code.

“The statute is written this way to ensure that voters have the opportunity to read the full referendum information packet before signing the petition. The requirement is meant to make sure voters are not pressured to sign without information on what they are signing. The information is bound to where they physically sign,” Furse said. 

It’s unclear how many signatures were subsequently disqualified, but each packet can hold a maximum of 100 signatures. Others contained only 10. Furse said the Clerk’s Office reached out to the referendum sponsors for an explanation for the appearance of the packets, but they did not offer one. 

Protect Summit County maintains that all packets and signature gathering efforts have been compliant with state code. The sponsors assert the county clerk has no authority to invalidate packets and should only verify submitted signatures. Still, the group said it planned for a 10% rejection rate.

“Though she has 111 days after the signature deadline to make the call, we expect the Clerk to officially declare the petition INSUFFICIENT any day now. When she does, we will pursue legal remedy to reinstate the rejected packets,” Protect Summit County said on its website.

A lawsuit had not been filed in Third District Court as of Tuesday morning. If a judge orders an injunction, the development project could be delayed until a formal decision is reached.

Furse said staff will be reviewing the total number of signatures submitted, double and triple-checking the totals to be “absolutely confident in the outcome of the referendum.” The process is similar to when the Clerk’s Office certifies election results, which can take up to two weeks. 

More information will be provided with the final determination due by June 23. There’s a withdrawal period for voters to remove their signatures from the petition within 45 days of their name appearing. The Clerk’s Office will formally declare the referendum sufficient or insufficient no later than then.

In the time since Ordinance No. 987 has passed, Dakota Pacific has filed to incorporate a preliminary municipality, Park City Tech, on its 51 acres near the Tech Center. If the state allows the new town to move forward, the development firm would be allowed to make zoning and land-use decisions. The boundaries of the new town do not include the land tied to the public-private partnership. 

Dakota Pacific also obtained the zoning change, change of approval process and additional funding it needs to move its project forward through Senate Bill 26. The Utah Legislature approved the bill during the general session.

Summit County officials said the new town and S.B. 26 significantly reduce the practical effect of overturning the ordinance. Dakota Pacific hasn’t signed the amended agreement as of Tuesday.

“While we hope that the path to entering into the development agreement is now clear, until it becomes certain, we will continue to evaluate alternative options available to us,” CEO Marc Stanworth said in a statement. “We are committed to delivering a first-class project in line with our agreement with the county council, but we will utilize rights available as necessary to move the project forward as expeditiously as possible.”

The post Dakota Pacific referendum petition doesn’t appear to have enough valid signatures appeared first on Park Record.

Summit County Clerk Eve Furse said her office will meet the Monday deadline to finish counting thousands of signatures submitted in support of repealing Ordinance No. 987, the approval of an amended development agreement with Dakota Pacific Real Estate in Kimball Junction.

The verified count was at 3,207 as of 9 a.m. on Friday, only six more than the total reported earlier this week. Clerk’s Office staff have been tallying signatures every day since the final petition packets were submitted on March 3, but Furse said the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office hasn’t been updated over the past few days.

Furse was adamant that staff would finish counting the rest of the submitted packets by the deadline, though she wouldn’t speculate how much left there was to do.

The Clerk’s Office plans to submit the verified signature total to the state in time for a last count to be posted Tuesday morning. Then, a 45-day withdrawal period will start for people who want to remove their signatures from the ballot. 

The total number of signers listed online will be adjusted as the Clerk’s Office processes the removal requests. Furse estimated Summit County has received about 30 so far.

Protect Summit County, the referendum movement started by seven residents — Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith — still needs 1,347 signatures, or about 30%, for the petition to meet the minimum collection requirement.

Clerk’s Office staff checks the address associated with each signature to confirm it belongs to a registered voter and then the signature is compared with the county’s voter registration database to ensure it matches. Unlike when casting a ballot, voters will not have the opportunity to correct a mismatched signature. 

Furse disqualified several of the signature packets submitted by Protect Summit County in February for “improper circulation,” saying the documents were not bound correctly. State code dictates how petition packets must be printed, bound, circulated and numbered. 

Referendum sponsors estimated they submitted 77 packets to the Clerk’s Office containing more than 6,000 signatures. They maintain all documents meet state standards and they’re confident the referendum will advance.

If the referendum petition has enough signers, 4,554 total, then the Clerk’s Office will calculate whether the percentage requisite is met. The petition needs support from 16% of voters countywide as well as 16% from three of the four voter districts to qualify for the November ballot.

Furse doesn’t have to make an official determination on whether the referendum petition is sufficient or insufficient until June 23. She said it’s hard to know whether staff will need that long to calculate the percentages or process the withdrawal requests. Her priority is to ensure the process is conducted correctly.

“If we need to wait … we will do that,” Furse said.

If the referendum petition is declared sufficient, it will appear on the general election ballot. The ordinance adopting Dakota Pacific’s 725-unit mixed-use development, approved by the Summit County Council in a 4 to 1 vote on Dec. 18, would be “placed on hold” and not take effect until the voters approve — or reject — it. 

A ballot title would be drafted and the county would likely republish a voter information pamphlet with details about the referendum. There would be another opportunity for statements to be submitted for and against the proposition as well as an impartial analysis of the impacts of the referendum prepared by the county’s Chief Financial Officer and County Attorney.

If the referendum makes it to the ballot, a vote in favor of the referendum repeals the ordinance. A vote against the referendum leaves the ordinance in place. 

Furse expected there would be campaigning for, and against, the referendum if it made it onto the November ballot. 

Dakota Pacific formed Wasatch Back Future as a PIC to counter the Protect Summit County movement. Protect Summit County doesn’t have such an affiliation because it is a volunteer-led effort, according to the sponsors.

Protect Summit County said it plans to pursue legal action if the referendum effort fails, but Dakota Pacific might still be able to move forward with its project regardless of what happens with Ordinance No. 987.

Senate Bill 26, approved at the end of the Utah Legislature’s general session, essentially codifies the amended Tech Center development agreement. The development firm also filed to incorporate its land as a preliminary municipality after the referendum petition was announced. 

If deemed feasible by the Lt. Governor’s Office, Dakota Pacific would have the right to make land use and zoning decisions on its land even if the ordinance is repealed.

The post Summit County should know by Tuesday if Dakota Pacific referendum petition meets minimum count appeared first on Park Record.

The referendum petition seeking to overturn the approval of Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s mixed-use project still needs more than 1,000 signatures verified for the issue to make it onto the November ballot.

A total of 3,201 signers, or just more than 70% of the minimum collection requirement, had been verified by the Summit County Clerk’s Office as of 9 a.m. on Tuesday, according to the Lieutenant Governor’s website. 

If 1,353 more signatures are verified by the Clerk’s Office, Summit County voters will have the opportunity to vote on whether they want to overturn Ordinance No. 987, which would repeal the amended development agreement at the Park City Tech Center.

Staff has until Monday to finish counting and verifying the signatures submitted by Protect Summit County, the movement started by the seven referendum sponsors. 

Summit County residents Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith filed the petition seeking to overturn the Summit County Council’s 4 to 1 vote approving the 725-unit project and public-private partnership on Dec. 1.

Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan informed the group the proposed referendum was legally referable to voters in January. Utah Code states that a land use law, like the County Council decision approving the mixed-use development, was eligible for a referendum because it was a legislative decision on land use regulation.

Protect Summit County was then launched to help the sponsors gather as many signatures as possible before the 45-day collection period was over. They had until March 3 to submit a total of 4,554 verified signatures from 16% of voters countywide and at least 16% in three of the four districts to make it onto the ballot.

Although Clerk Eve Furse disqualified several of the signature packets submitted by Protect Summit County in February for “improper circulation,” the sponsors are confident they collected more than the minimum requirement. 

State code dictates how petition packets must be printed, bound, circulated and numbered. Statutory requirements say the packets must contain a cover page, a copy of the law subject to the referendum, one to 50 signature sheets, and a circulator verification sheet. Packets must be properly bound before they’re circulated, and cannot be taken apart or rearranged once attached.

Furse has until Monday to finish counting dozens of submitted packets. She’ll know by then whether the petition meets the total verified number to qualify, and staff will then confirm whether the percentage requirements are met. Unlike when casting a ballot, voters will not have the opportunity to correct a mismatched signature. 

The sponsors would be notified if the petition is sufficient or insufficient, but that decision might not come until late June because of the 45-day withdrawal period.

The Clerk’s Office staff is required to post the name and voter identification number of each signer on the Lieutenant Governor’s Office website after counting the signature, which remains online for 45 days. During that time, voters can also request their names be removed from the petition. 

Wasatch Back Future, a Political Issues Committee formed by Dakota Pacific executives in response to Protect Summit County, has encouraged signers to submit an application to take their name off. Summit County has received several requests.

The countermovement is focused on touting how the Dakota Pacific project has evolved based on community feedback as well as the positive impacts it could have on affordable housing and traffic.

Protect Summit County argues the development would exacerbate issues that already exist in Kimball Junction.

Summit County Chief Finance Officer Matt Leavitt estimated repealing Ordinance No. 987 could result in a loss of $266,800 in annual taxes; $4 million in rental income; $4 million in developer contributions; community amenities including an amphitheater, Kimball Junction interchange improvements, an S.R. 224 pedestrian safety crossing, and property donated to Summit County by Dakota Pacific.

Leavitt was also worried about whether the county would be eligible to receive Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) and Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) money from the Utah Department of Transportation as well as state and federal grants related to the bus rapid transit project on S.R. 224.

Officials expressed concerns about the Utah Legislature targeting Summit County if the Dakota Pacific project was not approved or if the referendum succeeded. Legislators ultimately approved Senate Bill 26 before the end of the general session, which ultimately codifies the amended Tech Center development agreement. 

Even if the referendum petition is declared sufficient, and Ordinance No. 987 is annulled by voters, Dakota Pacific could still move forward with its development. 

Since the referendum was announced, Dakota Pacific also filed a petition to incorporate its land as a preliminary municipality. If deemed feasible by the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office, the development firm would have the right to make land use and zoning decisions regardless of whether the ordinance is repealed.

Protect Summit County said it plans to pursue legal action if the referendum effort fails.

The post Dakota Pacific signature verification enters final week, final decision might not come until summer appeared first on Park Record.