Council splits over Klein/Dolly RFP and housing strategy as staff lay out RFP schedule and appraisal issues

Summit County staff presented a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Klein/Dolly property (also referenced as Cline Valley in discussion) at the Aug. 28 council meeting and outlined a compressed timeline: a final draft to return to the council Sept. 25, RFP promotion and submissions through November, county review by Nov. 25, and a recommendation for exclusive negotiating rights on Dec. 18. Staff said a final disposition and development agreement could follow in March 2025 depending on rezoning and negotiations.

Jeff Jones, the lead presenter, summarized the RFP packet: respondents must submit a cover sheet, a development budget Excel, a financial‑sources form, sustainability and trip‑reduction plans, and a development program form spelling out unit counts, square footage and AMI targets where applicable. Jones told the council the county is evaluating both master‑lease and sale options and is obtaining an initial as‑is appraisal (staff noted an earlier purchase price of roughly $3.7 million and said about $1.2 million of that originally came from open‑space funds, which raises constraints on disposition or requires conservation easement alternatives).

A central dispute at the meeting was whether to issue or finalize the RFP now, or to wait for a council‑led housing strategy that sets firm targets (who the housing is for, density, AMIs, and geographic priorities). Council member Roger (last name not specified in the transcript) said he opposed moving forward with the RFP now and urged a council process to set policy first. "I don't favor this RFP. It's half baked," he said, arguing the council should set targets — which populations to serve and where — before soliciting development proposals.

Other members said they supported advancing a more prescriptive RFP while the council also pursues a planning conversation. Council members asked staff to clarify the appraisal and the legal requirements if the county pursues a land exchange with the Park City Fire District; staff and the county attorney said state code calls for an appraisal to authorize a land exchange, and staff proposed keeping appraisal drafts internal if necessary during negotiations.

Jeff Jones briefed the council on updated housing demand numbers. He said an older University of Utah estimate had been cited historically (600 units), but an updated county analysis shows a projected range of roughly 518–652 new dwelling units per year (total, not all affordable); with inclusionary set‑asides (20–50%), that converts to an annual range of roughly 100–300 affordable units under current local policies. Jones also noted the role of employment growth projections and the complexities of AUE (Average Unit Equivalents) formulas when mixing commercial and residential uses under the county's NMU and community commercial zoning.

On the fire‑district exchange, some council members said including the fire parcel (about 1.2 acres) within the RFP boundary would ensure proposals accounted for the district's needs and avoid orphaned parcels; others worried that an appraisal and exchange before a master plan could distort respondent proposals and public evaluation. Staff said they would proceed to produce a stronger RFP draft for Sept. 25 and also recommended a targeted council planning session (a retreat or work session) to define policy priorities and guardrails concurrently.

The council did not take a formal vote to issue the RFP at this meeting; staff said they would return with a revised RFP and additional analysis on the appraisal, rezoning implications, and options for including the fire district parcel. Council members requested clearer guidance in the RFP around desired uses, AMI targets, and whether any portion of the site would be for public uses such as a fire station or open space.