Dakota Pacific Real Estate (DPRE) returned to the Summit County Council Oct. 30 to update a draft term sheet for a proposed public‑private partnership at Kimball Junction. Presenters Mark Stanworth and Steve Burrup summarized a proposal that would combine a land swap, a county‑owned transit center, a shared parking structure, mixed‑use development above a parking podium, and a package of public‑benefit elements including plazas, parks and civic uses.

Key elements presented by DPRE included:

- A development footprint that DPRE said totals roughly 1.1–1.2 million square feet when including previously built commercial space, new vertical development and P3 elements. The firm cited roughly 500 market‑rate units and a target of about 250 deed‑restricted affordable units (planned at a mix centered near 60% AMI with some units at 44% and a small portion up to 80% AMI). DPRE said the affordable units would be delivered as tax‑credit‑driven housing in partnership with the county.

- A two‑level parking garage estimated at about 1,050–1,200 stalls (site and design dependent), with an allocation model that apportions cost by stall utility (DPRE presented an example allocation of roughly 64% county/affordable‑housing benefit and 36% private commercial capture for certain shared stalls).

- Public‑space commitments from both parties. DPRE said it would increase its previous plaza/park contribution to $3,000,000 and added $300,000 for pedestrian‑bridge betterments (total DPRE contribution presented as $3.3M), with the county and DPRE each covering roughly 50% of plaza and park costs under the term sheet framework.

- A proposed county‑funded transit center and other civic buildings located within the P3 footprint; DPRE said the transit center would be a county responsibility under the current offer.

Councilmembers pressed DPRE for transparent, line‑by‑line cost accounting and for clearer identification of which proposed community benefits are funded directly by DPRE vs. those the county would pay for in its capacity as partner or owner (for example, parking stall allocations, plaza contingencies and the cost of a transit center). Councilmembers also asked DPRE to clarify the market‑rate mix (rental vs. for‑sale), senior‑housing vs. assisted‑living priorities, and which parts of the site the HTRZ/tax‑increment calculation would cover. DPRE agreed to provide an updated presentation deck for public posting prior to the Nov. 7 public hearing and to run additional financial and HTRZ scenarios for council review.

The Oct. 30 session was an informational briefing; the public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for Nov. 7 at Newpark.