Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dos Rios Extension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dos Rios developer asks Grand Junction for another extension as market delays vertical buildout
Summary
Developer May Riegler (Dos Rios) asked the City Council for an extension on remaining land purchases, citing high construction costs and high interest rates; staff and council discussed GID bond servicing and scheduled a Nov. 19 resolution to amend the purchase-and-sale agreement.
May Riegler representatives and developer Nate Reblair told the Grand Junction City Council on Nov. 3 they want another extension on the remaining Dos Rios land purchase deadline, arguing market conditionshigher construction costs and elevated lending yieldshave delayed vertical development.
Kevin Riegler and Nate Reblair described the long-term vision for Dos Rios (mixed residential, hotel, retail along the river) and emphasized that the city has already invested in public infrastructure and bonds to support development. The developer said the group has invested nearly $7 million so far and that large components such as a hotel and apartment towers require lower borrowing costs to be financially viable. "We kind of just missed out that window from a macroeconomic standpoint," a developer representative told council, and asked for patience and a one-year extension to keep marketing and find financing partners.
City staff and council examined the fiscal implications. Jay (city finance) explained the GID bond structure: approximately $10.7 million in project proceeds were issued; the GID annual debt payment is about $705,000 in 2025, rises to roughly $936,650 in 2026 and to about $1,033,000 in 2027 unless development produces new tax revenue or the district is restructured. Staff noted bond provisions allow refinancing but also require charging the maximum allowable mill levy if revenues fall short. The city attorney cautioned that extensions are contractual choices and emphasized avoiding breach-of-contract scenarios but acknowledged the extension would not affect the parcels the developer already owns.
Council discussed alternatives: carving off smaller commercial parcels, pursuing other buyers or enforcing contract remedies if necessary. Several council members signaled support for a time-limited extension to maintain the partnership while preserving the citys contractual remedies. Staff said it would bring a resolution to amend the purchase-and-sale agreement to the Nov. 19 council meeting for formal action.
