What are people saying?
These comments were compiled from publicly available sources.
Our community is in desperate need of affordable workforce housing. The benefits of having this type of housing available are significant and have lasting impacts: first responders, health-care workers, teachers, and service employees can live in the communities they serve.
With adequate workforce housing, which this project helps address, we have a stronger local economy, workforce stability, and reduced road congestion, to name just a few of the benefits.
Mixed use development and density incentives are two ways to directly address affordable housing shortages. The negative impacts of continued delay to having attainable housing available are serious. Many of us already know friends and neighbors who have chosen to move from the area because of rising costs.
Skyrocketing rental and home prices push middle- and lower-income residents out of the market. More and more current residents will continue to be impacted without action to help address the lack of attainable housing.
This project is not going to go away, referendum or no. If the referendum passes, it will not stop housing from being built here, but could strip away the negotiated public benefits.
-Park City School Board Member, Meredith Reed
I support the project because I think what the council was able to negotiate is a much better agreement. I think the community benefit is much greater than the original development agreement.
I've heard many say, build what you bought. I think we should ask the developer to build better than they bought, and I think that this amended development agreement is. I think it's better than the original.
I would just encourage everyone to know before you sign and make an informed decision. The referendum certainly will impact the future of Summit County and our land use authority.
-Councilwoman Megan McKenna
(If the referendum is successful…) We would not get a new transit center, but I think more important to High Valley Transit is that we fully supported the council's vote. We thought it represented a significant step toward achieving the visionary goals outlined in the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan and we were excited about the positive impact that the project would have on our community and its alignment with our shared objectives for a more connected future.
We don't see any scenario in which it remains open space, and we fully believe that the community should be allowed to realize all of the benefits that the council extracted from the developer.
-Caroline Rodreguez
https://www.kpcw.org/show/local-news-hour/2025-01-22/high-valley-transit-ridership-increases-by-16
There's a tremendous amount of traffic. And I think most of you are very concerned about the traffic. We will have a transit center. We're going to have bus rapid transit. We're going to have with this proposal, a lot of parking.
I believe this is a good project.
- Chris Robinson, Dec 18th County Council Hearing
https://www.facebook.com/SummitCountyUT/videos/1546262596021547
I do not believe building what you bought is the answer.
I think it would exacerbate the congestion in the Kimball Junction area, and create unimaginable light pollution with no community benefits except for a few more high-paying jobs for people to commute to the Wasatch Front.
We desperately need affordable housing in this community. It is really heartbreaking to me that our kids are raised here and they can't afford to come back and live here. That is very unfortunate. We don't want to give up a chance for affordable housing.
-Tonja Hansen, Dec 18th County Council Hearing
https://www.facebook.com/SummitCountyUT/videos/1546262596021547
When I see social media, especially, I see a lot of incorrect information out there.
Where we're sitting today is 57% or 56.8% of this project would be affordable housing. Any other city or county would just kind of do backflips to figure out how we got to a 57% or 58% affordable ratio.
- Canice Hart, Dec 18th County Council Hearing
https://www.facebook.com/SummitCountyUT/videos/1546262596021547
When I look at my eight-year-old son and the future that I hope for him and for his friends and for all of our children, it's a place that we can gather. It's a place where we can have community gathering spaces like Rogers Amphitheater or have libraries like the library that Canace has been fighting for since the beginning of this project, fighting for civic spaces where we can gather, that we can come together, that we can meet, that we can explore ideas, where we can civilly disagree at times because that's also a healthy part of our democracy and a healthy part of our community.
We've come together and come to a project that has many community benefits, we have multiple gathering spaces, both indoor and outdoor, that can serve our community and allow us to come together and to meet socially, to happen upon one another, we have, even within the podium and the public-private partnership, we have spaces where people can meet each other, can run into each other, can shop, can visit, kids can play in a safe manner. We have non-profit spaces, which we know within our community and we have seen at Live PC, Give PC, is a huge pillar within our community as supporting our non-profits that provide so much for the needs of so many people within our community. And that's also included in this project.
We have heard over and over again from our senior community how important that is for our seniors. We also have deeply affordable housing that's included in this project and over 50 percent of the project, including the county's portion, is affordable. That's a deed-restricted that will remain affordable.
The deeply affordable housing matters because of our high median income within this community.
We have our capture parking lot that is addressing some of our concerns with traffic that we have been working very heavily on.
As I look at this development agreement, the time and the attention that has been put into this, I can say for myself that there's been a lot of thoughtfulness, that we have listened to the community as far as what are the concerns that you want to be addressed.
- Malena Stevens, Dec 18th County Council Hearing
https://www.facebook.com/SummitCountyUT/videos/1546262596021547
When I look at my eight-year-old son and the future that I hope for him and for his friends and for all of our children, it's a place that we can gather. It's a place where we can have community gathering spaces like Rogers Amphitheater or have libraries like the library that Canace has been fighting for since the beginning of this project, fighting for civic spaces where we can gather, that we can come together, that we can meet, that we can explore ideas, where we can civilly disagree at times because that's also a healthy part of our democracy and a healthy part of our community.
We've come together and come to a project that has many community benefits, we have multiple gathering spaces, both indoor and outdoor, that can serve our community and allow us to come together and to meet socially, to happen upon one another, we have, even within the podium and the public-private partnership, we have spaces where people can meet each other, can run into each other, can shop, can visit, kids can play in a safe manner. We have non-profit spaces, which we know within our community and we have seen at Live PC, Give PC, is a huge pillar within our community as supporting our non-profits that provide so much for the needs of so many people within our community. And that's also included in this project.
We have heard over and over again from our senior community how important that is for our seniors. We also have deeply affordable housing that's included in this project and over 50 percent of the project, including the county's portion, is affordable. That's a deed-restricted that will remain affordable.
The deeply affordable housing matters because of our high median income within this community.
We have our capture parking lot that is addressing some of our concerns with traffic that we have been working very heavily on.
As I look at this development agreement, the time and the attention that has been put into this, I can say for myself that there's been a lot of thoughtfulness, that we have listened to the community as far as what are the concerns that you want to be addressed.
- Malena Stevens, Dec 18th County Council Hearing
https://www.facebook.com/SummitCountyUT/videos/1546262596021547
I am writing to you today to express my strong support for the Dakota Pacific project and to warn the community about the potential dangers of a ballot referendum opposing this crucial development.
The Dakota Pacific project promises to bring significant benefits to our local economy and community.
The Dakota Pacific project will bring needed affordable and attainable housing for workers in our economy and vital public service workers (teachers, firefighters, law enforcement, and other public sector staff) and is designed with sustainability and environmental stewardship at its core.
The developers have committed to using green building practices and incorporating renewable energy sources. When 100% renewable electrical energy becomes available in Summit County, by 2030, this will be a net zero community, likely the largest in Utah.
However, the opposition to this project, as proposed in the upcoming ballot referendum, poses a significant threat to these potential benefits. This could result in missed opportunities for improvements in the transportation infrastructure at Kimball Junction and the needed increase in affordable housing.
Those who oppose the project often cite concerns about increased traffic. These concerns are valid. There is no denying the daily traffic congestion at Kimball Junction during both morning and evening commutes. In that S.R. 224 is a state highway, only UDOT can fix the problem.
The political reality is that Summit County is in competition for UDOT funding with much more populated parts of the state with measurably more significant traffic volumes and congestion and with political support in the Legislature.
When I was council chair in 2021, I received a letter from the president of the Senate and speaker of the House pledging their support for funding the Kimball Junction improvements if the project was approved. Without this support traffic congestion will continue to deteriorate.
There is also a faction of the opponents who are in the “Close the door, no growth ever” camp. It should be obvious to a very casual observer of our current Legislature and governor that this attitude will not be tolerated by the leaders of our state.
As a former council member, I absolutely hate the idea that the state would take over development decisions that should be made locally. That result is inevitable if there is a threat of a referendum.
Our current council has done a magnificent job of obtaining benefits for the county from this agreement including county-owned affordable housing, senior housing and potential memory care, non-profit space, retail/restaurant and community gathering spaces, amphitheater, library,and an enhanced transit center.
A referendum rejecting this project could jeopardize all of those benefits.
In conclusion, I urge my fellow residents to carefully consider the long-term benefits of the Dakota Pacific project and the potential risks of voting against it. I highly recommend against signing the referendum petition.
- Glenn Wright
Last month the Summit County Council voted 4-1 to amend the Dakota Pacific development agreement. While I was not yet sworn in, I support and stand by the council’s decision.
They know the complexities of the issue more than most and gave a very thorough explanation prior to voting.
Since then, a referendum to overturn their decision has been filed and a petition is now circulating to gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot this November.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion surrounding the issue. An anonymous website spreading misinformation, while claiming to protect Summit County, certainly isn’t helping.
I encourage voters to educate themselves on the community benefits/impacts, seek out reliable/known sources of information, question anonymous claims, reach out to your county councilors, and know before you sign.
I’ve heard some supporting the referendum say the developer should “build what they bought.” While a tech park may have been viable in 2008, when the original development agreement was made, a tech park today would bring thousands of commuters to Kimball Junction at peak traffic times.
I say the developer should “build better than they bought” and address the 2025 needs of Summit County. The amended agreement the council passed last month does just that.
The recent community support for our local ski patrol was tremendous, but wages alone aren’t enough. Supporting working people in Summit County also requires a wide range of affordable housing options.
Where better for much-needed housing than next to a transit center, a library, trails, urgent care, a theater, restaurants, gyms, stores, shops and more? If not Kimball Junction, where? Mixed-use here is not only inline with the Kimball Junction Neighborhood Plan, it also addresses critical community needs and prevents further sprawl, which protects open space and the rural parts of our county.
In my successful campaign for Summit County Council last year, I had the unique opportunity to talk to a broad spectrum of residents from across the county. The concerns I heard most often included affordability, sustainability, traffic, a sense of community, and the ability to age in place from one generation to the next.
The county’s recent visioning exercise, in addition to significant public input throughout the developer’s application process, identified much the same and informed the council’s decision.
While many are frustrated with Dakota Pacific and legislative overreach, not everyone is opposed to working together and finding real solutions to our community’s greatest challenges. In fact, many understand the critical need for housing and have expressed a interest in negotiating with the developer to minimize the impacts and maximize the community benefits.
Lastly, the referendum will not make Dakota Pacific go away or teach our legislators a lesson. In reality, they own the land, the state needs to build housing, and something will end up there.
The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want a seat at the table or do we want to risk our land use authority and leave it up to the state? Whether the legislative fix is incorporation, zone overlay, or another surprise bill this session, I’d rather secure the traffic solutions, phased construction, civic spaces, new library, improved transit center, capture lot, public plaza, senior care facility, transit funding, and various needed housing options (a significant portion being affordable) that the elected council negotiated and approved last month.
Informed decisions make for better outcomes. I encourage all to know before you sign. If you’ve already signed and change your mind, it’s not too late. You can remove your signature at https://www.summitcountyutah.gov/2562/Signature-Removal-Information
- Megan McKenna, Summit County Council
First a disclaimer. I am not writing in my role as a city councilor or on behalf of the Park City Council. I am, like many of you, also a resident of Park City who feels a deep obligation to think about how we shape our future.
Times change; people don’t. In my college days you could predict the daily appearance of a letter to the editor in the school paper that started off, “I am shocked and appalled …” The current cause du jour is the recent approval of a vastly evolved development proposal for property owned by Dakota Pacific in Kimball Junction, and the effort to overturn it California style, by referendum.
There are many people who will agree Dakota Pacific has done a number of things wrong. Let’s review those faults.
First, this being Utah, they have committed the cardinal sin of being from the “valley.” People here in Summit County love their teams, and folks from the valley are perceived to be not on the team. This may explain why they might incorporate as their own municipality.
Then they had the temerity to propose what is likely the most well-thought-out development proposal that Kimball Junction has seen since the time when the only thing between Parley’s Pass and Tollgate Canyon was the Kimball Stage Stop.
Next, they chose the ground-breaking path to seek a change of zoning/entitlement for the property. This is something no developer or landowner has ever done. This violates the time-tested mantra of “build what you bought.” I mean it is not like Park City took a former rail yard that was zoned commercial, changed the code and created the Engine House workforce housing project. Clearly that could not happen under “build what you bought.”
Last but not least, Dakota Pacific let it be known that they have some allies in the state Legislature that could help light a fire under UDOT to address the issues at Kimball Junction that Dakota Pacific has not caused. You know, all that traffic that was created by projects that are far less thoughtful than what is currently approved.
All of this has led to a Covid-like outbreak of ULDS (Utah Legislature Derangement Syndrome). I am not here to tell those who are afflicted that you are wrong, or that you should support your county council, which along with staff spent thousands of hours working to get you a better outcome. A vastly better outcome.
Sure, those of you who dusted off the red shirt a couple of times deserve some of the credit. But your planning commission, planning department, county managers and council who have somehow negotiated one of the most restrictive, and protective, development agreements that you will likely ever see deserve the lion’s share.
Are there major issues in our region? Yes. Can we do more to address them? Yes. Kimball Junction is broken and this project is the first step in beginning to address it.
Prior to the negotiation and evolution there was no transit parking proposed for Kimball Junction to support the $75 million-$100 million Bus Rapid Transit Plan. I don’t think I can support that kind of investment without the dedicated parking capture we are now getting. The transit improvements are a good start and will serve to motivate my jurisdiction to act boldly on our other entry corridor to the east.
I am not telling you to support or not support the project, or referendum. What I am here to say is that every resident of Summit County owes the council a debt of gratitude for the work they have done and the deal they have negotiated. And I say that as someone who has not voted for all of them. Doesn’t matter; they represent us all.
I hear you when you say we need bold and drastic change. I have talked about that in detail — even with some of you who are signing the petition on the referendum. In many of those conversations, I often hear, “Oh, we don’t need to do that. The problem isn’t that bad.” Well, it is that bad and no, this project won’t make it worse.
I would ask all of you to be honest with yourself and think about whether we can say “no” to everything and just stick our head in the sand because we don’t like it. The only result we get from that is one we will like exponentially less than what we have negotiated now.
Governance California style by referendum is something we should all be wary of.
- Bill Ciraco, Park City Council
https://www.parkrecord.com/2025/02/01/flawed-development-still-much-better-than-alternatives/
Plenty of people ignorant of or discounting the repercussions of a successful referendum blame the council, and that’s a shame.
Over the course of five years, they were able to shave a development with 1,100 residential units and some light industrial buildings to 720 units and community amenities including 340 affordable-housing ones, senior housing, a town center, pedestrian bridge, amphitheater, common green and Olympic View park, underground parking, transit facility, library and the like in part through a private-public partnership costing the county $39 million. The county would develop 165 more worker residences on adjoining land, as well.
Still, it’s fairly clear to me that those much maligned county councilors struck the best deal we’re going to see in reality, and that they’ve done their homework beyond Facebook familiarity.
It would be a shame in the worst case for a great emotional victory at the ballot box that leaves the traffic worse and makes it that much harder for regular folks to find housing.
- Don Rogers, Editor of The Park Record