Feb. 21, Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson's office said the development company meets the initial requirements for incorporation.
The Salt Lake City-based developer has applied to form what a 2024 law calls a “preliminary municipality.” That’s a type of town that can develop before it has a population, which the state legislature has allowed on mostly undeveloped areas “owned by no more than three persons.”
The law aims to give developers land use authority through a self-appointed board, superseding any agreement with a city or county.
Dakota Pacific has 50 acres around the Skullcandy headquarters, where the Summit County Council approved it to build 725 units, nearly half of that workforce housing.
The development passed 4-1 in December. After that, Dakota Pacific didn’t sign the agreement, which includes provisions ending pending litigation between the parties with each assuming their own legal costs.
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth has claimed the company’s signing or not signing isn’t relevant since residents have started a referendum to block the agreement.
Then on Jan. 8, the developer applied for a preliminary municipality, using the 2024 law that referendum sponsors claim violates Article Six, Section 28 of the Utah Constitution. KPCW was unaware of a formal legal challenge as of Feb. 24.
What's next?
As eastern Summit County residents have seen with the controversial proposed West Hills incorporation near Kamas, the next step is for the state to hire consultants to crunch tax revenue numbers.
Basically, Dakota Pacific’s western Summit County town would be considered feasible if it can raise enough tax money to provide future citizens with services.
The Utah Population Committee, which includes various heads of departments and state agencies, also has to sign off. State law says the committee determines whether Dakota Pacific's town meets “population, population density, and contiguity requirements.”
Those requirements are looser for preliminary municipalities than they are for traditional town incorporations.
One iteration of West Hills’ proposed boundaries was rejected for not meeting the 100-resident requirement. Dakota Pacific need only “intend to develop” its area to that size.
If its plans are deemed feasible, the developer will be able to appoint four members of a five-member board with land use authority. Summit County gets to appoint the other.
After that, Dakota Pacific wouldn’t need voter approval to develop.
The feasibility study process can take months. Utah’s first preliminary municipality application, Kane Creek near Moab, still hasn’t completed the process. It received certification from the state in June 2024, and the feasibility study was completed in January 2025.
Eventually, there may be another public hearing about Dakota Pacific’s plans for Kimball Junction.
Referendum effort
At previous hearings, the chief concern from residents opposed to Dakota Pacific’s development has been traffic. They say adding additional homes to an area that already fills up with skiers and commuters won’t help the situation.
Some of those residents are organizing a referendum to put the county council’s December approval on the ballot this November.
They need 4,554 active voter signatures by March 3. The group suffered a setback last week when Summit County Clerk Eve Furse said 21 of the first 25 signature packets she received may not have been bound correctly.
She told KPCW that calls into question if the pages could’ve been signed while they were separated from the voter information packet.
The referendum sponsors say the clerk is out of line and misinterpreting state referendum law. They say they’ll challenge Furse’s decision to reject packets in court and are telling voters not to sign twice because they say it will invalidate their signatures.
Another packet of signatures has since been submitted and accepted. As of Feb. 24, 433 signatures had been verified.
