Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer revises Kimbell Junction deal; council and developer differ on phasing, costs and affordable housing terms
Summary
Dakota Pacific presented a counterproposal for Kimbell Junction: the developer offered a 1:1 market to affordable ratio (350 market/350 affordable) with detailed phasing tied to SR‑224/STIP milestones and sought cost‑sharing caps for public plaza, bridge betterments and related infrastructure. Council said some terms were "untenable" and negotiations will continue.
Representatives for Dakota Pacific and Summit County staff returned to the council on Dec. 4 to review a red‑lined amended development agreement for the Kimbell Junction project and to discuss a public‑private partnership (P3) for a plaza and associated infrastructure.
Chris (developer representative) said the developer proposes 350 market units and 350 affordable units overall, with 100 of those at a narrower set of targeted AMI tiers and the remainder using 9% and 4% tax‑credit models. The developer proposed that certain project costs — including raising an existing building, plaza improvements, an amphitheater and bridge betterments related to SR‑224 — be included as project costs with an overall cost‑sharing bucket capped so the county would pay 50% up to a notional $10 million (developer proposed a lower cap of $5 million in later remarks).
The proposal ties residential density and releases to milestones: STIP funding and design/construction milestones on the SR‑224 UDOT project, the start of P3 construction, and the completion of identified transportation work. The developer also discussed providing an assignment option for water shares to support units that require extra water capacity.
County council members expressed concern that the new proposal shifts millions in costs while reducing anticipated revenue, calling some combinations of terms "untenable" and asking developers to rework the economics. Council asked for clearer definitions of scope for the plaza and amphitheater, tighter milestone language to prevent an open‑ended commitment, and clearer guarantees on water capacity and phasing.
Both sides agreed to continue negotiations at follow‑up meetings (council scheduled discussions for Dec. 11 and Dec. 18 if needed) and to exchange red‑lines so staff and counsel could work toward a more defined joint development agreement.
No vote or formal action was taken; staff invited a developer counter‑redline and scheduled additional negotiation sessions.
