Developer-backed opposition challenges referendum signature gathering events in Summit County

A representative from Wasatch Back Future and a volunteer for Protect Summit County at the Kamas Library parking lot during a signature gathering event held Feb. 15. Photo: PSC

"Dakota Pacific executives had five years to hold community information sessions and go door-to-door engaging with voters to glean our feedback and collaborate with us. Only now that a referendum process is underway are they bothering to interact with Summit County residents." -Ruby Diaz, referendum sponsor

KAMAS, Utah – A weekend signature-gathering event organized by Protect Summit County and sponsors of the referendum to put a Dec. 18 Summit County Council decision approving Ordinance 987 on the November 2025 ballot, met face-to-face opposition from paid representatives campaigning for a Political Issues Committee (PIC) formed by the developers of the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project.

Ordinance 987 passed with a 4-1 Summit County Council vote, approving an amended development agreement to build more than 850 housing units near the Skullcandy building in Kimball Junction. Opponents say the project allows too much housing density and is not truly “affordable” as well as citing concerns about exacerbated traffic problems and new county infrastructure that will cost taxpayers millions. The county and other supporters argue that the project is designed to address local housing shortages and enhance livability in the area. County officials have admitted that state pressure also played a role in the vote to approve the project.

On Saturday, as volunteers for Protect Summit County set up in their cars to gather needed signatures in support of the referendum from the east side of Summit County, paid representatives from Wasatch Back Future arrived holding signs that read “THINK FIRST” and “DON’T SIGN.”

Dakota Pacific Real Estate created the PIC, Wasatch Back Future, and has hired a Utah-based, political lobbying company, to run their anti-referendum campaign and build the Wasatch Back Future website. More than two WBF representatives told Summit County residents at the signature-gathering event Saturday they had been hired to campaign against the referendum.

Riki Case, a resident of Summit County, recorded an interview with one of the representatives from Wasatch Back Future at the library parking lot in Kimball Junction. The man told Case that she should not sign the referendum because if the Dakota Pacific project is allowed to proceed as voted on in December, UDOT will widen SR 224, alleviating traffic problems.

“You told me that building Dakota Pacific would cause UDOT to widen 224. Can you show me where you saw that in writing?” Case asked the representative.

“I don’t have my papers with me,” the representative replied. “You can find it on our website, Wasatch Back Future.”

Summit County Manager, Shayne Scott said Ordinance 987 has no official bearing on UDOT as they are an independent agency. He clarified that what the county has received in conjunction to the project is assurance from UDOT that the plans they have been working on have considered the details of the public-private partnership.

“UDOT agreed to work with Summit County on a Kimball Junction Interchange fix, including the funding for such. This was why Summit County tied so much of the density given to DPRE to the 224 fixes, funding, and steps (referred to in the DV Amendment as tranches). But Ordinance 987 otherwise only addresses Summit County and the property owned by High Valley Transit, Summit County, and Dakota Pacific in this area,” Scott said.

Case said the exchange showed that Dakota Pacific is actively trying to spread misinformation to undermine the referendum.

“Spreading misinformation and even paying people to do so is so unethical, and a clear indication that Dakota Pacific cannot be trusted,” Case said.

In Kamas, Mario Hernandez, 23, campaigning for Wasatch Back Future, expressed strong opposition to the current housing situation in the state, criticizing the trend towards private, exclusive living arrangements like condos. He emphasized the right to accessible housing for all Utah citizens, particularly the younger generation and future generations.

“I’m done with people trying to make everything private when we all have the right to have a right living in the state,” Hernandez said when asked why he was encouraging people not to sign the referendum. “We are Utah citizens and we have the right to have our own houses in the state. I am against people trying to stop construction in the state.”

In Utah, there is no law that guarantees citizens a right to housing. The Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability.

In response to reports of Wasatch Back Future representatives spreading misinformation, Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth said they continue to work with their supporters and partners to encourage the community to learn more about the approved project in light of the referendum initiative to overturn a near unanimous council decision.

“While we can’t be part of or control every conversation, we have provided critical information through multiple websites and other forms of communication, and those are the sources we instruct all of our supporters to direct community members toward,” Stanworth said.

Ruby Diaz, one of the seven sponsors of the referendum said the tactics being employed by Dakota Pacific are antithetical to the democratic process.

“Dakota Pacific executives had five years to hold community information sessions and go door-to-door engaging with voters to glean our feedback and collaborate with us. Only now that a referendum process is underway are they bothering to interact with Summit County residents. And it’s not even John Miller or Marc Stanworth engaging directly; it’s random people from Utah County shipped up to Summit County with the sole intention of undermining signature gathering efforts. This proves Dakota Pacific doesn’t care to know us, they only care to exploit us,” Diaz said.

Former Snyderville Basin Planning Commissioner, Thomas Cooke, who was volunteering to gather signatures for the referendum, underscored that the referendum is a legal process.

“The referendum is a legal process, by state statute, and deemed valid by the county. It literally is the most democratic of processes, and Dakota Pacific is spending gobs of money to suppress voters rights,” Cooke said.

Protect Summit County obtained First Amendment Permits to gather signatures in the parking lots of the libraries in Kamas, Coalville and Kimball Junction on Saturday and their volunteers were supplied with copies of them at each location, to ensure they could not be asked to leave the locations. It is unclear whether or not Wasatch Back Future had also obtained the proper permits as there were conflicting reports made by Summit County Sheriff’s office to members of Protect Summit County. A GRAMA request for copies of the Wasatch Back Future permits was submitted to the county by TownLift but not responded to by press time.

Summit County code defines a “First Amendment Event” as “an activity conducted for the purpose of persons expressing their political, social, religious, or other views protected by the first amendment to the United States constitution and article 1, section 15 of the Utah constitution, including, but not limited to, speechmaking, picketing, protesting, marching, demonstrating, or debating public issues on any county street or other property during the event.”

Summit County declined to make a statement about misstatements and inaccuracies said during signature gathering efforts and how it did or did not affect the referendum and electoral process.

Editor’s note: This article has been edited to clarify the issue of First Amendment permits by including the county code. 

Editor’s Note 2: This article has been updated to include Marc Stanworth’s comment speaking for Dakota Pacific.