Summit County Council to vote on repealing controversial Dakota Pacific ordinance

Summit County Council member Canice Harte speaks to a room of constituents during the meeting held Dec. 18, 2024 when the County Council approved the amended development agreement for Dakota Pacific. Photo: TownLift

County says if the ordinance is approved, new SB 26 will be used instead to move the controversial development forward

SUMMIT COUNTY – The Summit County Council is scheduled to vote Wednesday, August 20, on whether to repeal Ordinance 987, the hotly debated measure that approved Dakota Pacific Real Estate’s amended development agreement for the Kimball Junction area.

The repeal—outlined in Ordinance 987-A—follows a formal request from Dakota Pacific. County Manager Shayne Scott said this week that the developer sent the county a certified letter asking to rescind its application and, in turn, reverse the council’s December 2024 approval.

“Rescinding the ordinance…that’s the request from Dakota Pacific,” Scott explained in an interview Tuesday. “Legal believes that would be the cleanest way to go about it.”

The council’s December 2024 approval of Ordinance 987 allowed Dakota Pacific, operating as Park City Junction, LLC, to pursue a large-scale housing and mixed-use development on the site of the former Summit Research Park. But Dakota Pacific failed to sign the agreement and just days ago, the company pulled its application, leaving the ordinance without a binding agreement.

“It is in the best interests of Summit County and the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens to adopt this Ordinance in order to repeal Ordinance No. 987,” the ordinance states.

In late July, Scott separately approved an Administrative Development Agreement for the property under Senate Bill 26, a new state law requiring certain large-scale projects to move through an administrative process instead of a legislative vote. That agreement, recorded August 18, effectively supersedes Ordinance 987, county officials said.

Scott noted that repealing the ordinance may also have implications for the ongoing referendum effort, which drew more than 6,000 signatures this winter but was deemed insufficient by Clerk Eve Furse—a decision currently under court review.

“The referendum was filed in order to rescind Ordinance 987—that’s what the referendum is,” Scott said. “And the council is now looking at deciding to do that, which upholds the referendum. So there’s no need to have a referendum. But it’s a lot more complicated than that.”

A hearing in the referendum lawsuit, originally scheduled August 19, was delayed until August 26. News of the delay was announced Monday, referendum sponsors said. Scott said he still hopes the court will rule on whether the Clerk’s Office handled the petition correctly, even if the council’s repeal makes the question largely symbolic.

“I think even Eve would like the clarity of knowing if that was a right or wrong decision on her part,” Scott said. “I’d like to see her vindicated—or not vindicated—on that question. Regardless, I’ve said all along I don’t believe the referendum is going to do anything because of this other track, because of SB 26. But there are other complicated questions we’d like the answers to.”

The council is expected to take up Ordinance 987-A at its regular meeting Wednesday evening at the County Courthouse in Coalville. No public comment will be taken. For more information on how to listen to or participate in the meeting click here.

Editor’s note: Public comment will not be taken on the topic of Ordinance 987-A at the Aug. 20 council meeting.