Green River council declines purchase contract for proposed LIHTC housing after heated public comment

The City of Green River council heard a packed public‑comment period and a detailed presentation from developers about a proposed Low‑Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) project before moving to deny a purchase contract related to the project at the council’s March 10 meeting.

Developers seeking LIHTC support presented a conceptual site plan, described how tax credits finance below‑market rental housing and said the project would be roughly half family‑sized units with community gathering spaces. A developer representative (speaker 10) said the team planned a mix of townhomes and duplexes rather than urban stacked flats and described state scoring factors that make Green River competitive. An owner/operator (speaker 5) said he has built and operated LIHTC projects in other Utah towns, that his properties are audited frequently and that tenant screening and program compliance are designed to limit problems.

The presentation drew extensive pushback from residents and retired law‑enforcement officials who said they were concerned about public‑safety impacts, school interruptions and long‑term burdens on city services. One resident who identified community policing experience called for single‑family homeownership and said, “The developers are here for the money,” expressing skepticism about whether the project would benefit current residents. Another commenter urged greater focus on local infrastructure and jobs rather than tax‑credit projects.

Councilmembers questioned several technical and policy points: how many units the project would ultimately contain (presenters said 30–40 units at this conceptual stage), the area median income (AMI) tiers targeted, whether the project could include more mixed‑income units to serve local workers, and whether the city had been informed early enough about the RFP and county coordination. The developer said LIHTC rules limit some flexibility, that applications require extensive documentation and that the team sought a modest price concession on city land (market value minus $5,000) and, optionally, a letter of intent for a loan or other local public support to improve their competitive scoring.

A councilmember made a motion to deny the RDPC real‑estate purchase contract for the city‑owned parcel and the follow‑up loan letter; the motion was seconded and discussed. After debate about whether to allow more time for outreach and additional detail, the chair announced a voice vote and the chair later stated the motion to deny would stand (the transcript records the council’s denial of the item and that the action was nonbinding at this stage). No detailed roll‑call tally of council votes appears in the transcript.

What happens next: the denial as recorded stops the city from advancing a purchase contract at this meeting. Developers and some councilmembers indicated they remain willing to refine the proposal, pursue mixed‑income options and provide additional information; the council signaled interest in more outreach, clarity about AMI mixes and explicit documentation about impacts on services before any future sale or loan decision.

The council discussed that any sale of public land would require a noticed public hearing (14‑day notice) and a future formal vote; the developer repeatedly emphasized the application process for LIHTC is competitive and that local support points can be decisive in the state scoring process.

The article is drawn from the council presentation, public comments and the subsequent motion and voice vote recorded on the council’s March 10 agenda.