A controversial state law passed in 2022 required Summit County to create a housing and transit reinvestment zone in Kimball Junction, but officials sidestepped the mandate by agreeing only to consider establishing the zone without formally adopting it.Instead, the Summit County Council included a provision in its amended development agreement with Dakota Pacific Real Estate to collaborate on a housing and transit reinvestment zone near the Kimball Junction Transit Center in exchange for approving hundreds of housing units in the area.Because the zone has not been officially formed, Summit County voters are now able to pursue a referendum on the decision under Utah law — but it could cost the county millions if it passes.Deputy County Attorney Helen Strachan sent a letter to petition sponsors on Monday informing them the proposed referendum is legally referable to voters. However, it will only appear on the November ballot if the sponsors gather enough signatures. Ordinance No. 987, approved in a 4-1 decision by the County Council on Dec. 18, is an amendment to an existing development agreement and rezone, making it a land use law as defined by state law.Utah Code says a land use law is eligible for a referendum if it was a legislative decision on a land use regulation. The proposed referendum only applies to one law, and the petition was filed on time. Seven people, more than the five required, signed the application: Scott Greenberg, Joe Urankar, Ruby Diaz, Robert Lattanzi, Shawn Stinson, Brendan Weinstein and Jennifer Sexsmith. They live in the Summit Park, Kimball Junction and Prospector areas. Yet the proposed referendum may have failed to move forward if Summit County had formally adopted a housing and transit reinvestment zone, according to the County Attorney’s Office. State law prohibits a referendum for a transit area land use, land in a qualifying transit area such as near the Tech Center site, if it was passed by a two-thirds vote. Dakota Pacific Real Estate wants to build a residential neighborhood west of the Skullcandy building in Kimball Junction. Then, the development firm would partner with Summit County to create a mixed-use town center near the existing Richins Building. Credit: Dakota Pacific Real EstateCounty Councilor Roger Armstrong was the lone “no” vote in the 4-1 decision.Matt Leavitt, the county’s chief finance officer, was also required to submit an initial fiscal and legal impact statement for the proposed referendum. He determined the consequences of repealing the ordinance could result in a loss of $266,800 in annual taxes; $4 million in rental income; $4 million in developer contributions; community amenities including an amphitheater, Kimball Junction interchange improvements, an S.R. 224 pedestrian safety crossing, and property donated to Summit County by Dakota Pacific.Leavitt also warned repealing the ordinance, and not allowing the Dakota Pacific development to move forward, would jeopardize eligibility for the county to receive Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) and Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) money from the Utah Department of Transportation. The County Council was in favor of approving the development because it would help address infrastructure issues in the Kimball Junction area.Summit County could also lose state and federal grants related to the bus rapid transit project and fail to meet state-mandated moderate-income housing requirements if the referendum passes.County officials planned to build 165 affordable units near the existing Richins Building as well as an underground parking structure to address housing and traffic needs in the community. Without the public-private partnership included in the amended development agreement, Summit County would have to issue at least $55 million in bonds to pay for the project.The legal feud between the county and development firm could also pick up. Leavitt said the ordinance resolved the pending litigation, and repealing it could prolong the lawsuit and lead to additional legal costs.The Summit County Clerk’s Office is preparing a voter information pamphlet with an impartial summary of the issue. Then, the sponsors have a strict 45-day timeline to collect thousands of signatures. They’ll need 16% of voters countywide as well as at least 16% in three of the four districts to make it onto the ballot.Clerk Eve Furse estimated staff would know by March whether there are enough signatures to meet the requirement. If not, the petition fails. It’s fair to assume those who sign the petition are against the Dakota Pacific development and would vote to repeal the ordinance.The Clerk’s Office has until the end of June to review the signatures and make sure they match. Unlike when casting a ballot, signatories will not have the opportunity to correct a mismatched signature. If the petition requirements are met, then the referendum is put on the ballot for the general election in November. However, the Utah Legislature can still interfere. Any laws passed during the upcoming legislative general session, which begins Jan. 21, that impact the Kimball Junction area or the Dakota Pacific project site would supersede the proposed referendum. Members of the County Council expressed concerns legislators would target the community if the Dakota Pacific project is not approved, taking away local land rights.Since the referendum was announced, Dakota Pacific filed a petition to incorporate its land as a preliminary municipality. If deemed feasible by the Utah Lieutenant Governor’s Office, the development firm would have the right to make land use and zoning decisions regardless of whether the ordinance is repealed.The post Dakota Pacific referendum allowed to proceed appeared first on Park Record.