Rachel Dahl
During the regular County Commission meeting last week, Commissioners agreed to an extension of the purchase agreement with Vertex Fund 3, a Colorado housing developer for two parcels of land on Colemen Road and heard from Vertex representatives regarding the future of the proposed multifamily housing development. The development is intended to be a 420-unit apartment complex aimed at addressing local housing shortages and contributing to economic growth.
The original purchase and sale agreement with Vertex Fund 3 was approved on April 7, 2022, with an anticipated 15-month entitlement period. However, that period lapsed in July 2023 without final map approval. An amendment was signed in June 2024, extending deadlines, but progress remained slow due to external agency approvals, including the Tahoe Carson Irrigation District (TCID), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP).
Steven Tuck, a managing member of Vertex Fund 3 said, “We are at the one-yard line of that process,” reporting that the company a project investment of approximately $1.8 million. He admitted that he was overly optimistic in his previous timelines but says they are dedicated to moving the project forward.
Tuck elaborated on the challenges faced, particularly with the slow pace of external agency approvals. He stressed that while the TCID and NDEP processes were moving along, the BOR timeline is unknown and could be lengthy. “Our only goal, once we borrow that money with an interest clock ticking, is to get heads and beds for a profit,” he said
Commissioner Matt Hyde asked about maintaining the county’s rights, “If we cannot, if we don’t like the agreement, we’ll still have the option to terminate.” Civil Deputy District Attorney Joe Sanford confirmed that as correct.
Commissioners questions the project's financial situation, which Tuck clarified that while the project was not “fully funded” in a traditional sense, Vertex Fund 3 was in a strong position to secure the necessary financing. He cited discussions with UC Funds in Boston and Builders Capital in Seattle as evidence of the project’s viability. “We are a lendable, capable group that have delivered products over the years,” Tuck asserted.
Commissioner Eric Blakey voiced concerns about the infrastructure phase of the project, particularly if only a portion of the development moved forward. “What kind of assurance would we have that at least the county portion would be completed?” he asked. Tuck acknowledged that not all infrastructure might be completed in the first phase but promised to work closely with county planners to mitigate risks.
Sanford outlined the county’s options: a 60-day extension, allowing the agreement to lapse, or pursuing a negotiated amendment. Sanford advised against a short extension. “A 60-day extension ultimately doesn't meet the needs of the county or the developer,” explained Sanford, who suggested commissioners consider an amendment that could provide both parties with a clear path forward.
The commission ultimately voted unanimously to extend the agreement from March 2 to March 6, providing a brief but critical window for attorneys and developers to finalize an amendment. Sanford assured the commissioners, “No matter what, there will be an amendment here for us to look at on March 6.” He stressed that if an acceptable agreement was not reached, the county would retain its full rights, which include the right to terminate the agreement.
The project aims to provide much-needed housing to help address availability and affordability in the community. However, the commission also stood form on importance of accountability.
“The batteries are almost worn out on this clock,” Blakey said.
Tuck concluded by stating, “We want to work with you… we are fully invested in this.”
Comment
Comments