The Summit County Council met Thursday, Nov. 7, to hear public input on the recently proposed Dakota-Pacific plan for the development at Kimball Junction. The proposal on the table had been negotiated in secret by two council members in conjunction with Dakota-Pacific and is soon to be voted on by the council. The meeting was very well attended, and many of the residents spoke. It was apparent that most residents, including myself, do not support the proposal, either in its entirety or its timing. I, and many of the other speakers, have multiple concerns: 1) The number of residences and commercial space is largely unchanged from Dakota-Pacific’s original proposal, which was turned down by the council and aggressively fought against by Summit County residents.2)  In February 2024, when the previous proposal was turned down, the council came back with a counter-suggestion including a significantly reduced number of residences and more open space. The secret negotiations appear to have completely ignored this earlier council opinion and the council now represents Dakota-Pacific interests and not constituent interests.  3) Traffic congestion is a major issue in Kimball Junction. The proposed project will only lead to worse congestion. Dakota-Pacific is relying on a traffic evaluation that was done on a Saturday in May during the COVID pandemic (no skier or commuter traffic was present, and during COVID, driving was reduced). The proposed project doesn’t address the current traffic problems and will bring in more traffic due to the increased residential density. 4) Dakota-Pacific stated that approval of the project would push the state Legislature and UDOT to quickly allocate funds and address traffic conditions. This is an extremely high-risk gamble that is unlikely to occur since UDOT has stated it has no plans for modification to the Junction-I80 intersection for the next 10 years. 5) The secret negotiations have added a new condition to the project: a “public-private partnership.” In other words, Summit County taxpayers are now being asked to “help” a for-profit company and pay for the project. Since the County Council has the ultimate say on approval of the project, they should establish what the project involves, including any public facilities such as a transportation hub. Dakota-Pacific, and not residents, should cover any additional costs since the facilities will only be needed if the project occurs.6)  Dakota-Pacific purchased the land under the condition that it would develop a tech center on the site to bring in high paying jobs and thereby diversify the county economy. Despite the large expansion of start-ups and established companies in the Salt Lake City area, Dakota-Pacific has made no significant efforts to recruit industry to the site. As proposed, the project will neither increase high-paying jobs nor diversify the economy. 7)  The large increase in residential and commercial units will require significant expansion of county infrastructure (schools, fire, police, emergency services, etc.). The Summit County tax rate is already inadequate to cover existing costs as evidenced by our increasing tax rates. The proposed project will not sufficiently expand the tax base to cover the additional infrastructure costs associated with the project. Neither the County Council nor Dakota-Pacific have a plan for how these additional costs will be covered.  In summary, there are many conceptual and practical reasons against the proposed Dakota-Pacific development project. Many Summit County residents, including myself, are disappointed in their County Council members who have gone behind their backs to negotiate what appears to be a sweetheart deal with Dakota-Pacific, a deal that includes we the taxpayers paying for a project we do not want.  The County Council is not representing the people who elected them. The increased residential and commercial densities are not supported by most Summit County residents and approval of any project at the site is premature until UDOT fixes the current traffic congestion and has in place a plan for curtailing future traffic congestion.         Suzanne RosenbergPark CityThe post Letting us down appeared first on Park Record.