Kamas council holds work session on High Star Ranch PID; developers, attorneys and underwriters asked for written clarifications

Developers seeking to use a public infrastructure district (PID) to finance public utilities and related infrastructure for the High Star Ranch project presented a work session to the Kamas City Council on Oct. 28.

Attendees for the proposal included developer representatives (identified at the meeting as Mitch and Shane), attorney Matt Entz of Snow Jensen (who had drafted the governing documents), Piper Sandler financing representatives (including Ben Becker and Ali Blossom), and Gary Raymond, the asset manager for the development. The developers presented a revised PID boundary and materials intended to address earlier questions from council members and neighborhood residents.

Attorney Matt Entz read a portion of Utah law and emphasized procedural protections for property owners: "No property may be annexed into the PID without an annexation petition first being filed with the board of trustees, which petition is signed by 100% of the surface property owners in the area proposed to be annexed," he said, citing Utah Code. The project team said the revised exhibits exclude residences from the initial PID area and also removed agricultural acreage that will not be developed.

Council members focused on several technical and legal items before any formal city action:

• Parcel legal descriptions and tax treatment: Council members asked whether a proposed PID boundary would bisect an existing 30‑acre parcel. Consultants explained counties can create tax districts using legal descriptions supplied by the developer and that a future subdivision plat would clarify parcel lines. Developers agreed to provide recorded legal descriptions and a corrected map; one developer said he would deliver a corrected exhibit within 24 hours.

• Ownership and the clubhouse: The council and developers clarified that the clubhouse is not part of the developer purchase and agreed to remove the clubhouse parcel from the proposed PID expansion map. Developers said the clubhouse is leased to the homeowners association and is not intended for PID financing.

• Water, wells and development thresholds: The council repeatedly raised a development agreement provision that triggers construction of a second water tank and well when a set number of equivalent residential units (ERUs) is reached. The developers and counsel stated that infrastructure obligations are set in the development agreement and are the responsibility of the major owner (TriStar or designated developer), but council members requested a clear written allocation of responsibility and timing before any PID vote.

• Financing and marketability: Piper Sandler described the underwriting approach for PID bonds and noted that PID bonds place repayment responsibility on the district’s revenue stream rather than on the city. Representatives referenced illustrative numbers discussed in the meeting (developers discussed potential project costs and preliminary bond sizing), and emphasized bonds would be structured with typical protections and investor due diligence; they underscored that the city assumes no obligation to repay the district’s bonds.

• Annexation and land‑use authority: Council members asked whether listing future annexation areas on the PID exhibits would limit the city’s land‑use authority. Attorney Entz and the finance team clarified the PID is principally a financing tool and does not remove the city’s legislative land‑use authority. Nonetheless, some councilors said they would prefer any future parcel additions to require a separate council decision rather than allowing administrative expansion without a council vote.

Outcome: No vote or ordinance was adopted. The council asked for follow‑up materials: corrected, recorded legal descriptions and maps that clearly exclude the clubhouse and any parcels the developers do not own; a written statement clarifying who will finance and construct the second tank/well and the timing tied to ERU thresholds in the development agreement; sample disclosure language for future property owners; and clarification of whether any publicly‑owned parcels (such as the city’s tanks or open space) would appear in PID exhibits. The mayor instructed staff to circulate the requested documents and return the item to a future agenda after the council has had a chance to review them. The city also noted public‑hearing notice requirements would apply before any final PID approval.

Why it matters: A PID can lower the cost of capital for infrastructure by enabling bond financing secured by a district revenue stream. That can accelerate construction of utilities and other public improvements, but it raises local questions about parcel inclusion, HOA governance, disclosure to future buyers and the sequencing of water and sewer infrastructure. At the Oct. 28 session, council members asked for written clarifications on those issues before considering a resolution to create the PID.