1. What is the petition for?

On December 18, 2024, Summit County Council passed Ordinance 987 (4-1), modifying Dakota Pacific’s Development Agreement (DA) to allow significantly more density and impacts than originally permitted. Despite years of public opposition, the Council cited external pressures in approving the deal. This petition enables voters to decide whether to keep or reject Ordinance 987. If enough signatures are gathered, it will appear on the November 2025 ballot.

2. What is a referendum, and does it apply in Summit County?

A referendum allows voters to approve or reject a law passed by the County Council. To qualify, 4,554 signatures must be collected across Summit County’s four voter participation areas. If successful, Ordinance 987 will be suspended until the election, where voters can decide its fate. Utah courts have upheld voters' supreme authority in similar cases.

3. Where is the Dakota Pacific property?

Dakota Pacific owns 51 acres at Kimball Junction, called the Park City Tech Center—nearly the size of Newpark and Redstone combined.

4. What does Dakota Pacific want to build?

Originally limited to only office buildings, Ordinance 987 now allows 715 housing units, office/tech space, commercial areas, new streets, an amphitheater, a plaza, a view park, and more. These developments will increase traffic and impose financial burdens on taxpayers, with Dakota Pacific contributing only $4M toward “public benefits” while taxpayers cover the rest.

5. Is Dakota Pacific compromising by reducing its housing proposal?

Dakota Pacific initially proposed 1,100 units, then reduced it to 895 after public opposition. The County rejected this, and Dakota Pacific sought legislative intervention. After legal challenges, they revised their proposal again, leading to the approval of Ordinance 987. While they reduced the number of units, their original agreement allowed only office buildings—so any housing is an expansion of rights, not a compromise.

6. Why is housing at Kimball Junction a problem?

Kimball Junction already has severe traffic congestion, which 700+ housing units and 1,500+ new residents will worsen. Additionally, Dakota Pacific has not committed to building affordable housing. Ordinance 987 allows “up to” 330 workforce housing units, but with no actual requirement to build them.

7. What about the senior living facility?

Dakota Pacific will only build a senior facility if an operator is found within a year. If not, they can convert it into 90 market-rate units, incentivizing them to avoid securing an operator.

8. Will Dakota Pacific fund the proposed amenities?

No. Their contribution is capped at $4M, while taxpayers will cover the remaining costs of a parking garage, amphitheater, park, and plaza.

9. What is Dakota Pacific claiming about UDOT improvements?

Dakota Pacific argues that SR224 upgrades depend on their development, but UDOT has not finalized plans or funding. Kimball Junction remains a priority due to the 2034 Olympics, regardless of Dakota Pacific’s project.

10. Does Utah SB217 require Summit County to build housing at Kimball Junction?

No. SB217 requires identifying a Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ), but it does not have to be at Kimball Junction. Dakota Pacific is pushing for this location because it benefits them financially.

11. Who is behind the petition?

Local residents. Seven sponsors initiated the referendum, supported by volunteers and bipartisan community members.

12. Where can I sign the petition?

Visit the “Sign The Petition” section of the website, check NextDoor/social media, or email protectsummitcounty@gmail.com to connect with a signature gatherer. Ensure you are a registered Summit County voter.

13. What about SB 258 and Dakota Pacific’s new town proposal?

SB 258 is an unconstitutional scare tactic meant to discourage opposition. The referendum ensures that Summit County voters retain control over development.

14. What happens if the referendum fails?

Ordinance 987 remains in effect, granting Dakota Pacific increased density and taxpayer-funded infrastructure. Additionally:

1. Dakota Pacific has not signed the amended DA, avoiding commitment to promised community benefits.

2. Workforce housing is discretionary, meaning they may not build it.

3. The County negotiated a lopsided “public-private partnership” where taxpayers bear most costs.

Additional questions? Email protectsummitcounty@gmail.com.