The general area of Kimball Junction that the Dakota Pacific project will develop if given the 'green light' sits to the west and south of the Skullcandy building. Photo: Dakota Pacific

PARK CITY, Utah — A little more than two years after suing the State of Utah over what it called unconstitutional legislative overreach, Summit County is now moving to approve the very development it once fought in court: the controversial Dakota Pacific project in Kimball Junction.

Last week, the Summit County Planning Commission recommended approval of a revised development proposal from Dakota Pacific Real Estate. The project would rezone the 50-acre Summit Tech Center property to allow 885 residential units, commercial space, a transit hub, and a portion of affordable housing.

The move comes under the shadow of Senate Bill 26, a 2025 law that once again circumvents local control by creating a new legal pathway for the project to proceed—despite being the subject of a voter-led referendum effort. Thousands of residents have opposed the project since its original version surfaced in 2020, and more than 6,000 signed a petition earlier this year seeking to bring the issue to the ballot. The County Council voted 4–1 to approve a revised development agreement in December.

From legal challenge to legislative compliance

The latest steps toward approval mark a notable shift in tone from 2023, when the county sued the state over SB84—a last-minute legislative amendment that forced the county to approve Dakota Pacific’s earlier proposal. At the time, county officials denounced SB84 as a “state-mandated rezone” and argued it violated the Utah Constitution by infringing on local zoning authority and the separation of powers.

In June 2023, Summit County secured legal victory when Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik ruled that SB 84 did not apply to the Dakota Pacific property at Kimball Junction. Mrazik found the legislation did not meet the statutory definition of a “land use application” required to trigger the bill.

As a result, Summit County’s core argument—that SB 84 unlawfully superseded local land-use authority—stood, and the court’s ruling effectively blocked the legislative override.

Now, with SB26 in place, the project is advancing through the planning process once more—this time without legal opposition from the county.

While leaders in Summit County have decried SB26 and another bill, SB356, a 2025 law that mandates redistricting and the elimination of at-large county council seats, as further loss of local authority, they have taken no formal stand against it.

“We’ve lost a fundamental element of local control,” said Summit County Council Chair Tonja Hanson in an April meeting about SB356. “And we’re not done fighting to get it back.”

County Manager: Laws are made at the State level

In a statement to TownLift, Summit County Manager Shayne Scott defended the decision not to pursue further legal action on Dakota Pacific or SB26. He emphasized that the legislature has the authority to make laws that impact counties, and that legal challenges should be limited to exceptional cases.

“‘Local control’ is a problem throughout the state, with every jurisdiction susceptible to the state taking control away from local decision makers,” Scott said. “Summit County will not sue the legislature on a regular basis as it passes laws that affect the county—especially when the law passed looks to uphold decisions made by local officials,” Scott said.

Scott acknowledged the county’s past legal success with SB84 but framed it as a unique situation. He argued that collaboration—not continued litigation—is the best path forward when it comes to influencing state policy.

“Ironically, the more that organizations deny housing applications—like Dakota Pacific Real Estate in Kimball Junction, for example—the more susceptible to laws being passed that remove that local control we become,” he added.

A contrast in Wasatch County

Neighboring Wasatch County, by contrast, has taken a firmer stance, stating it will not comply with SB356, arguing that the redistricting law violates its home rule authority.

County Manager Dustin Grabau told KPCW “Local News Hour” host Leslie Thatcher Wasatch county decided not to follow the law because state leaders promised to amend it so Wasatch County is no longer affected.

“Wasatch County hasn’t formed the committee yet, largely just because we have coordinated with multiple state officials, and they’ve assured us that they were going to amend the bill so that we don’t need to redistrict,” he said.

Despite voicing opposition, Summit County has moved forward appointing its redistricting board and beginning to draw new council districts, which are due to the state by Oct. 1.

What’s next

The final decision on Dakota Pacific’s revised application now rests with Summit County Manager Shayne Scott. A decision is expected July 28. It is not yet clear how the referendum effort will affect the simultaneous administrative advancement of the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project.