The Salt Lake City-based developer can turn its land near Skullcandy into a “preliminary municipality” that gives a self-appointed board the power to determine zoning and start construction.
It hopes to build 725 housing units, nearly half of those workforce housing for different income levels, and partner with Summit County on additional amenities along state Route 224. A referendum is underway to block the deal.
Days after the referendum began Dakota Pacific applied to create a town under a 2024 law which may circumvent the referendum. The Times-Independent reports the Utah Legislature appeared to pass Senate Bill 258 to facilitate a luxury development outside of Moab.
As of Feb. 6, KPCW’s unaware of any lawsuit challenging the law, but the seven Summit County residents sponsoring the referendum claim it’s unconstitutional.
“It’s a law that is in direct violation of Article Six, Section 28 of the Utah state constitution,” referendum sponsor Brendan Weinstein said.
That part of the Utah Constitution reads, “The Legislature shall not delegate to any special commission, private corporation or association, any power to make, supervise or interfere with any municipal improvement, money, property or effects, whether held in trust or otherwise, to levy taxes, to select a capitol site, or to perform any municipal functions.”
SB258 lets Dakota Pacific appoint most of a five-member board to govern the area that would become a town. Summit County gets to appoint one member.
The so-called preliminary municipality has “all the powers and duties of a municipality,” with some exceptions.
It may not tax residents. It may not receive sales or gas tax revenue. It may not take land with eminent domain.
It can zone land and contract with utility providers.
An attorney may argue those functions violate the state constitution, but only a judge can make that determination.
Unless that happens, Dakota Pacific is likely to get the zoning it needs to build 725 units of housing — or more, because the county wouldn’t govern the land.
For sponsor Joe Urankar, the referendum is worth the effort regardless.
“We are focused just on this referendum. And if the battle over SB258 can be won, if it is wholly unconstitutional, that's its own battle,” Urankar said. “I think if we can do that, and then we turn around and say, ‘Oh, wait, we never challenged [the development agreement] at all,’ then we still end up with the same project.”
It’s possible the developer and county’s agreement to partner on a new library, pedestrian bridge, transit center, underground parking and additional affordable housing will hold up no matter what happens with the town.
The referendum process began shortly after the Summit County Council voted 4-1 to greenlight the 725-unit neighborhood and accompanying public-private partnership after months of negotiations Dec. 18.
All five councilmembers indicated they expected retaliation from the state legislature if they voted “no.”
KPCW initially reported Councilmember Roger Armstrong’s dissenting vote allowed the referendum to begin. He clarified on KPCW’s “Local News Hour” program that’s not the case.
A unanimous vote may only have prohibited a referendum if it was a city decision.
Any new land use regulation at the county level is referable to voters — unanimous or not — unless the land is formally designated a transit area.
Even if it’s allowed to set its own zoning, Dakota Pacific tells KPCW it’s committed to the development plan approved by the county.
