Now to relate the playout of a very specific situation involving a county (Summit) and a development proposal (Dakota Pacific).

There has been for some time now a proposed development by the Boyer Company in the Kimball Junction area of Summit County, originally called the Tech Center.  Let me first say that I am not going to go into much detail about the project here because it has a long history with much nuance and more than one side to the story.  I’ll include some links that will give more detail to those who are interested.

The project was intended to be a business/jobs development and some limited development occurred.  In 2018, the project was bought out by Dakota Pacific, who proposed changes to the plans, including an extensive number of residential units.  This generated considerably controversy with citizens in the area and delayed implementation of any changes through the county process.

Last year, in the now-well-known housing affordability bill, HB462, a provision was included that required a specificly-defined county (Summit) to create a Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone by the end of the year.  The provision was pretty obviously aimed at the Kimball Junction project by Dakota Pacific.  This was kind of alarming to see the legislature take such a specific action aimed at a particularly development in a particular jurisdiction, but there it was.  They were also required to make certain provisions in their MIHP.

Summit County was not happy about all this, as you can imagine.  The county did make modifications to its MIHP, but failed to create the stipulated HTRZ.

In this year’s legislative session, right as the session got underway, Rep. Birkeland, who represents portions of Summit County, introduced a bill – HB233 – which would have removed that HTRZ requirement.  The bill has languished, however, not going anywhere.

A week ago, a bill came out that would have done something extraordinary – something I have not seen to this scale in all my years of dealing with land use issues there.  The bill – HB446 – stipulated that if a specific county (definition matches that from last year’s bill, so Summit) has not created the HTRZ required by Dec. 31, 2022, then certain property defined in the bill would be allowed to have certain development rights.  The language is so specific that it stipulate the number of dwelling units per acre allowed, other types of uses allowed, and infrastructure allowed.  Wow!

As you might imagine, this generated tremendous outrage on the part of officials and citizens in Summit County.  See this story in the Park Record and this Facebook post from Summit County officials.  See also https://www.parkrecord.com/news/summit-county/about-dakota-pacific-an-open-letter-to-summit-county-council-from-friends-for-responsible-development-for-greater-park-city/

This, of course, raised the anticipation of the committee hearing that would be coming for HB446 and the likely huge outpouring of public sentiment.  But wait.  Three days later, on Feb. 15, just before the House was to take action on SB84 – HTRZ Amendments by Sen. Wayne Harper, a bill that was making some modest changes to the HTRZ provisions, a substitute bill was introduced that included the language from HB446.  The substitute was adopted by voice vote of the House, and then passed by a 71-0 vote.  The next day the Senate concurred with the substitute bill, and it was done.  The provisions of HB446 were now all approved, without ever having had a committee hearing, and apparently with little discussion.

As one might expect, the Summit county residents and officials are not happy.  A petition effort to encourage Gov. Cox to veto the bill quickly got going, but whether it will have any impact remains to be seen.  The citizens are angry enough I would guess they would try a referenda on this bill, but – it was passed by more than two-thirds of each chamber of the legislature, so it wouldn’t even be eligible to be referended.

I am in no position to comment on the particulars of this situation in Summit County and why it has played out the way it has.  Obviously, there are those in the legislature who feel that taking such an action is justified.  But for me, as a long-time land use practitioner in this great state, it is alarming to me to see that the legislature is indeed willing to take such an action.  Will there be other situations where they might feel so justified?  What’s the threshold for that?  Watch out, folks!