City housing staff and the city attorney told the Grand Junction City Council on Sept. 18 that the Salt Flats project is a city‑led land‑banking and infrastructure effort intended to produce a mix of affordable and attainable housing on about 21.78 acres of infill land.

Tamara and Ashley, housing division staff, described the site’s grant funding and developer selection. City staff said the city received a land‑banking grant (state round described as the Prop 123 land‑banking program) that, together with a city match, financed acquisition. Staff also said the city received a DOLA (Department of Local Affairs) infrastructure award for up to $2,000,000 with an $800,000 city match and that the seller provided an additional $1,000,000 for infrastructure work.

The Salt Flats master plan is intended to produce a variety of housing types and meet the city’s Prop 123 commitments. Staff said grant requirements call for a minimum of 324 affordable units on the site and an overall goal of roughly 400–550 units over 10 years; 70% of all units must meet the affordability categories set in the Prop 123 award (rental units up to 60% AMI; ownership up to 100% AMI), with up to 30% of the site available for attainable market‑rate or commercial uses.

Staff described a developer selection process that produced four selected teams: Brickwell (master developer, with a 4.42‑acre parcel and two planned multifamily phases), Rural Homes (homeownership via modular construction), Volunteers of America (veterans housing proposed in two phases) and Vertical (homeownership). Ashley said Brickwell proposes an initial 144‑unit multifamily phase to pursue 4% tax‑credit financing (a LIHTC 4% application due Sept. 1). That phase, staff said, would target income‑averaging around 58% AMI and include an early childhood education space.

City Attorney John Shaver and staff walked council through the documents scheduled for the Sept. 20 council meeting: a 99‑year lease to Brickwell for the specified acreage so the developer can demonstrate site control for finance applications; a resolution authorizing the city manager to sign a letter of intent to enter a partnership with Brickwell; and a resolution to sign a purchase‑interest letter for a future purchase of approximately 42 acres (city staff explained the documents are draft LOIs to allow Brickwell to meet application requirements without binding the city to final terms).

Council members asked about contingencies in the lease if tax credits, site plan approval or sufficient funding are not secured within five years; John Shaver said the lease includes a termination right for Brickwell if they fail to secure tax credits, site plan approval or funding prior to the fifth anniversary. Shaver and staff also noted that low‑income housing tax credit and bond financing impose deed‑restriction and performance requirements (for example, a 30‑year deed restriction for 4% LIHTC financing) that would be enforced by lenders and housing‑finance investors rather than the city.

A key point of council discussion was the city’s possible role as an equity partner or a special limited partner to help secure tax‑exempt status for building materials and property tax treatment. Staff said Brickwell has proposed an equity share in the project approximating 11% of the land value (staff estimated the city contribution of land value at about $2.3 million) and that the developer asked whether the city could act in a special limited partner role to enable tax exemptions used in housing finance. John Shaver said he will seek counsel on whether the city can take that role; he said housing authorities commonly use special limited partnership structures to secure tax exemptions, and he flagged legal and conflict‑of‑interest considerations if the city were both regulator and equity participant. Staff said any final partnership agreements would return to council for approval.

Staff said milestones in the Prop 123 award require development entitlements by the five‑year point (2030) and permitting/construction activity by year 10 (2035). Staff also described a projected four‑phase buildout that initially totals about 465 units across all phases, with a minimum of 326 deed‑restricted affordable units and additional attainable units. Several council members asked about developer experience, construction‑defect risks for townhomes, and whether the housing authority could be a cleaner vehicle for the project; staff replied that developers were vetted for experience and that construction‑defect litigation typically pertains to condominiums rather than townhomes.

Council direction / next steps: staff said draft letters of intent and LOI materials would be added to the Sept. 20 council packet for council review; staff reiterated that the LOIs are intentionally nonbinding and that any sale, partnership or equity agreement would require future council approvals.

Ending: The council did not vote on project agreements on Sept. 18; staff will post the LOIs to the Wednesday packet and return with detailed agreements for council action in future meetings.