County manager signs off on Dakota Pacific development; public concerns persist

Summit County Manager Shayne Scott, at left and county attorney David Thomas during the Dakota Pacific Public Hearing at the Summit County Courthouse in Coalville on Monday, July 29, 2025. Photo: TownLift//Randi Sidman-Moore

COALVILLE, Utah — Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved a revised development agreement on Monday for the long-disputed Dakota Pacific Real Estate (DPRE) project in Kimball Junction, following a public hearing held under the authority of new state legislation that shifts decision-making power away from the County Council.

The approval, made under Senate Bill 26 (SB 26), comes after years of debate and public pushback. Unlike earlier iterations of the project, this version bypassed the traditional legislative process and instead followed an administrative review pathway allowed by SB 26. That law, passed earlier this year, gives final decision-making authority to the county manager if a project meets specific criteria laid out in the statute and a previously approved development agreement.

“This is an administrative decision,” Scott said before casting his approval. “Whether this is a good project or a bad project is immaterial today. All the T’s have been crossed and the I’s have been dotted.”

Similar Reads On TownLift

The revised development includes 845 housing units, a new public plaza, entertainment and retail space, and a two-level parking structure with up to 1,100 stalls. The plan also calls for relocating the Summit County Library to the county-owned Skullcandy building, and includes space for a potential senior living facility and medical provider. According to DPRE’s Steve Borup, the project also commits $4 million in public open space funding and dedicates land to preserve key view corridors.

Borup said the project reflects years of community feedback and design adjustments. “Earlier versions received criticism for being too dense and urban,” he said during the hearing. “We’ve broken it up into smaller structures and incorporated pedestrian-friendly design that better fits Summit County’s scale.”

He also said that DPRE is actively negotiating with senior housing operators and medical providers. “This is not just lip service,” Borup said, adding that their participation would be incentivized through development agreement terms.

The project’s phasing is tied to planned improvements to State Route 224 and the Kimball Junction area. Borup said DPRE worked closely with UDOT and the county to ensure traffic impacts are managed over time. Scott modified the development agreement slightly before approval, extending one construction milestone from five to nine months, citing concern about how quickly traffic infrastructure would be completed.

In contrast to many previous public hearings on the Dakota Pacific project, the chambers inside Coalville’s county headquarters were sparsely filled.

Still, members of the public continued to express strong disapproval. Pinebrook resident and former Salt Lake City attorney Ed Rutan, who has spoken at multiple public hearings on the project, urged Scott to explain why the county was moving forward in the face of sustained opposition.

“My hope is that when you make your decision, you will also will acknowledge that strong public opposition. I think it’s extremely important not just that you acknowledge that opposition, but when you make the decision if you decide as recommended and approved, that you offer an explanation of precisely why it is that the county is taking this action contrary to such strong public opposition.”

Other speakers echoed that sentiment. Robert Phillips, a Summit County resident, called the process “unethical” and “immoral,” and said it had undermined public trust.

“This will be the Council’s legacy long after their terms expire,” he said. “Closed-door, backroom deals, shady buddy buddy relationships, a duplicitous lobbyist who is on both the Dakota Pacific payroll and Summit County’s, an ousted federal judge who runs unopposed as county clerk and disallows 1000s of signatures. The hits in this project go on and on.”

Scott acknowledged the emotional weight of the issue but emphasized that the county’s role in this stage of the process was procedural.

“This project has changed dramatically since 2019,” he said.

Scott also said he understood the sadness some feel at seeing change. “I remain hopeful this can become a place that serves the people who live and work here,” he said.

After the hearing was adjourned, developers and county officials signed the agreement—unlike the Dec. 18 decision, when the amended development agreement was approved by the council but never formally executed.

With Monday’s decision, DPRE can move ahead with formalizing agreements with Summit County and High Valley Transit, completing design guidelines, and submitting individual site plans for further approval. Meanwhile, the fate of a citizen-led referendum effort remains uncertain. The Summit County Clerk ruled the petition insufficient last month, but referendum sponsors will challenge that decision in court in August.