© 2025 KPCW

KPCW
Spencer F. Eccles Broadcast Center
PO Box 1372 | 460 Swede Alley
Park City | UT | 84060
Office: (435) 649-9004 | Studio: (435) 655-8255

Music & Artist Inquiries: music@kpcw.org
News Tips & Press Releases: news@kpcw.org
Volunteer Opportunities
General Inquiries: info@kpcw.org
Listen Like a Local Park City & Heber City Summit & Wasatch counties, Utah
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Clerk asks court to dismiss case over Dakota Pacific referendum signatures

People signing to put the ordinance approving Dakota Pacific Real Estate's Kimball Junction development on the Nov. 4, 2025, ballot must include their addresses. Sponsors must get 16% of voters from Summit County's four voter regions.
Connor Thomas
/
KPCW
Signature gatherers spread across Summit County beginning in January to put a controversial development on the November 2025 ballot, but their petition was deemed insufficient.

A judge had ruled the referendum moot since the Kimball Junction development is allowed under state law.

The litigation between the county clerk and residents is in limbo since 3rd District Judge Richard Mrazik ruled the referendum effort by locals would be moot.

By that, he meant a countywide vote on Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s development plan wouldn’t have any practical effect. The developer is proceeding with a Kimball Junction neighborhood and mixed-use community thanks to a new state law regardless.

Mrazik didn’t dismiss the case Aug. 26, and now Summit County Clerk Eve Furse’s attorneys are arguing he should.

“There is no reason why the parties, the court, or the public should bear the cost of re-litigating the issue,” they wrote in a motion to dismiss Aug. 29.

Five residents challenged Furse in court earlier this year after she ruled their referendum petition on the Dakota Pacific project was insufficient. The clerk had said nearly half the gathered signatures were in packets that were unbound and rebound, and therefore invalid.

Mrazik's ruling didn’t address whether that reasoning was correct. The five petitioners argue that it’s not.

Residents launched the referendum effort in January, weeks after the Summit County Council passed an ordinance to greenlight the Dakota Pacific project. The referendum would have put the issue on the ballot for county voters to decide.

State lawmakers then passed Senate Bill 26 to push the project through and transfer approval authority to county staff. Staff decisions aren’t subject to referendums.

Summit County complied with the law and approved the project for a second time July 28; however, the original December ordinance remains on the books.

Two weeks ago, the county council discussed repealing it, but elected to wait for Mrazik’s ruling.

Referendum petitioners now want councilmembers to repeal the ordinance, so they can challenge SB26.

Wednesday, Sept. 3, the county council will take up the discussion again and may finally decide to repeal. The petitioners say they’ll appeal the mootness ruling if not.

Development would not occur along Olympic Parkway. It would most happen around Tech Center Drive.
Dakota Pacific Real Estate
Development would not occur along Olympic Parkway. It would most happen around Tech Center Drive.

The controversy is over 725 units of housing in western Kimball Junction — half for workforce — and a mixed-use public-private partnership with 160 more units of affordable housing. The county and developer’s partnership is to redevelop and expand the Kimball Junction Transit Center.

Residents’ chief concerns have been about the potential for more traffic in the area and bearing the majority of the cost of the public-private partnership.

Summit County is a financial supporter of KPCW. For a full list, click here.

Lea este artículo en español aquí.

Related Content