No Bookmarks Exist.
20/8/2024 the time is 6:00 PM. | 00:00:00 | |
It's OK. | 00:00:08 | |
All right. Is that working? | 00:00:17 | |
Today is August 28th, 2024. The time is 6:00 PM. It's Wednesday and we are going to start our Redevelopment Agency board meeting. | 00:00:21 | |
We're going to start out with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance by Council Member Cameron. | 00:00:29 | |
Our dear Father in heaven, we come before Thee this evening to ask for Thy Spirit to be with us as we hold this meeting and pray | 00:00:42 | |
that they will help us to be mindful of. | 00:00:47 | |
The needs of the citizens and that will be considerate of each other and that we'll work together. | 00:00:53 | |
For the best of this community, we love thee and are grateful for all the blessings and abundance that surround us. And we say | 00:01:00 | |
these things in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, Amen. Amen. | 00:01:05 | |
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, | 00:01:15 | |
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. | 00:01:22 | |
All right, we'll move on to our consent agenda. I need a motion. | 00:01:31 | |
I move to approve consent items as presented. OK, we have a first by Amber. Can I get a second? | 00:01:38 | |
Second Second by Sarah. Any discussion? | 00:01:44 | |
All in favor, aye? | 00:01:48 | |
All right, that brings us to 3.1, our RDA update and our RDA Director, Josh Daniels will give us a. | 00:01:51 | |
On the RDA. Thanks. | 00:01:59 | |
Good evening council members. Well board members, do we have the can I get the little? | 00:02:03 | |
Yeah, thanks. | 00:02:11 | |
So I just have been doing some financial research that I think will help to answer some questions that have been raised over the | 00:02:16 | |
course of several weeks. And then also if there are, if there are additional questions, we could maybe spend a few minutes, I | 00:02:22 | |
could you know, spend a few minutes responding to them. | 00:02:27 | |
Let me pull open our presentation here. | 00:02:34 | |
It's just taking a little bit of time. | 00:02:52 | |
There we go. | 00:03:08 | |
OK, so a couple of points. | 00:03:15 | |
First of all, since the beginning of the use of increment within the project area of the RDA, which phases were first triggered in | 00:03:18 | |
2017, the cumulative total increment revenue that's been collected and paid to the RDA is just over is, you know, 76 and a half | 00:03:27 | |
million. | 00:03:35 | |
The bulk of that is spent on a reimbursement basis. | 00:03:46 | |
To those contractors and developers that are doing work in the project area on environmental remediation as well as. | 00:03:50 | |
City infrastructure, roads and, and get curb and gutter and sewer and some of those sorts of things. That's, that's really where | 00:04:01 | |
the bulk of those dollars are spent and it's really where the bulk of the dollars will be spent over the lifetime of of the | 00:04:07 | |
existence of the project area for the RDA. | 00:04:12 | |
Now a questions kind of come up about the fiscal impact on the Alpine School District. So I just wanted to review the theory of | 00:04:20 | |
why the school districts around the state will agree to participate in increment, which is to essentially give up revenue for a | 00:04:28 | |
period of time. And it's because you're talking about land that is not valuable. | 00:04:36 | |
But that if this investment is made, the the land will become more valuable and then in the long run, the school district will | 00:04:45 | |
actually receive more total tax revenue over time. | 00:04:50 | |
And so I've got some data I want to share with you that will kind of show that. But just as a summation point, to date the Alpine | 00:04:55 | |
school districts share of that 76,000,000 is 39, just under 40 million. So it's about 52% of the revenue I. | 00:05:04 | |
Comes from the Alpine School District share, which makes sense. Alpine School District makes up, you know, 50%. Actually a little | 00:05:13 | |
more of all tax revenues collected. You know, when people pay property tax, over 50% is going to the school district. That's the | 00:05:19 | |
largest user of property tax revenues. The city's share is 2020 million and again, that's over the course of time since 2017 | 00:05:26 | |
cumulative. | 00:05:32 | |
I I think there's been some misunderstanding about the payment of property taxes. All properties in the city, in the RDA, in the | 00:05:40 | |
project area, all properties are being assessed property taxes at the current property tax rates that everybody has to pay. So no | 00:05:49 | |
land owner is given any kind of special treatment. | 00:05:58 | |
You know, unless they have, you know, some sort of an exemption. | 00:06:07 | |
Which there are certain things, certain property owners might have certain exemptions, of course, there's like Greenbelt and those | 00:06:11 | |
kinds of things, but outside of those, normal. | 00:06:15 | |
Programs all land owners, including the developers that own, you know, a good chunk of the project area, they are paying property | 00:06:20 | |
taxes on all those properties that they own. | 00:06:26 | |
And at those current rates and so the property tax revenue that is then collected a share of that property tax is then potentially | 00:06:33 | |
rebated back in the case of let's say a developer doing work on a reimbursement basis as they are spending money to build | 00:06:40 | |
infrastructure. But then you know those that 75% share, that's the increment that goes to the RDA and the RDA then pays that out | 00:06:48 | |
on a reimbursement basis. Another important principle that I. | 00:06:55 | |
Sometimes isn't well understood is that in Utah generally and specifically in the case of the Geneva project area and this RDA, | 00:07:03 | |
all of the agreements to to spend tax increment financing funds are post performance. There are other states where economic | 00:07:10 | |
development and tax increment financing might be used in some sort of a subsidization basis to incentivize things. That's not | 00:07:18 | |
really the approach. | 00:07:25 | |
That we've taken, the approach that we take is post performance. So it's not really an incentive. I mean, it does incent people to | 00:07:33 | |
do things, but people are only paid once they've actually created something and done their end of the bargain. In this case, you | 00:07:40 | |
know, performed certain environmental cleanup projects that they've expended funds to do or actually built certain infrastructure | 00:07:48 | |
projects that they then get reimbursed for after. | 00:07:55 | |
Fact so why that's important is the city wins because the city gets the infrastructure 1st and the developer in a sense is acting | 00:08:03 | |
like. | 00:08:08 | |
An investor or a bondholder or but they're taking the risk and so they're fronting the city a street in the hopes that the city | 00:08:15 | |
will then collect sales tax or property tax revenue through the increment that's sufficient to pay them back. | 00:08:24 | |
And so they're taking risk with their dollars today to build infrastructure and they're on the hook essentially to finance it. And | 00:08:34 | |
then they get reimbursed once they've once they've done the performance. Now that's a really great model because the city doesn't | 00:08:41 | |
have a whole lot of risk in that environment. And you get streets and other kinds of infrastructure and the environmental cleanup | 00:08:47 | |
up front rather than maybe a traditional model. | 00:08:54 | |
Where you have to bond for something, get the money. | 00:09:00 | |
Then go out and build the road and you're not going to be able to bond if you're not able to demonstrate certain revenues in that | 00:09:03 | |
moment as you're trying to qualify or or yeah, basically qualify for that bond. | 00:09:11 | |
And so this particular feature that we're as a city able to utilize is a is a great advantage because you're able to build a lot | 00:09:19 | |
of infrastructure quickly and therefore able to build out the city fairly quickly with, you know, housing and, and other kinds of | 00:09:25 | |
projects. | 00:09:32 | |
So any questions before I jump into the next charter graph about any of those points? Yeah, I have a question. | 00:09:40 | |
So we met myth with. | 00:09:46 | |
And he mentioned that the Forge, we did a lot of the infrastructure first thinking that they were going to go ahead. And so is | 00:09:50 | |
that different than a TIF fund? Like why did we do that? And they haven't done anything with the land yet. | 00:09:57 | |
So you're saying this this city spent money to build the infrastructure? Yeah. I mean, that's in that scenario. I wasn't around at | 00:10:04 | |
the time, you know why that was maybe the idea. But I mean, you could do that, right? You could build infrastructure in hopes that | 00:10:11 | |
it would attract development. Maybe. I don't know if the mayor has more insight as to why. Yeah. So the roads that were put in | 00:10:19 | |
served both sites. So it was infrastructure to service the whole area and then. | 00:10:26 | |
The idea was that they were going to come in and build and the yard was going to come in and build. So I believe there's a lift | 00:10:34 | |
station, mill roads and things like that. That equaled about $4 million in total. | 00:10:39 | |
I think there was about 600,000 specific to that site, but it was to service the whole area. And so we've seen growth on one side | 00:10:44 | |
and then on the other side has not yet performed, but that's why it is. It's a similar thing that happened in the yard where we | 00:10:52 | |
put in the cleanup or the water infrastructure so that they could build on the site. And rarely do we do upfront funding. It's | 00:10:59 | |
usually a very small amount, but this one in particular was to service the entire. | 00:11:07 | |
Area SO. | 00:11:14 | |
OK. | 00:11:19 | |
Any other snow? | 00:11:21 | |
All right. | 00:11:22 | |
OK, so. | 00:11:25 | |
Here's a chart that will show why. | 00:11:27 | |
The investment in the utilization of increment financing to help development, why that might make sense and probably what the | 00:11:31 | |
school district was thinking when they chose to participate, you know, voting to participate 15 years ago. So here you have two | 00:11:41 | |
lines going all the way back to when the project area just slightly before the project area was first designated and the. | 00:11:51 | |
The RDA was created and the increment financing was approved, which are activities that took place between 2009 and 2014. | 00:12:01 | |
And so the real work of actually doing the environmental remediation and working on development and the creation of infrastructure | 00:12:11 | |
began in earnest after 2014. And So what this chart shows is it shows the value of all property within the project area of the RDA | 00:12:18 | |
in blue. | 00:12:25 | |
And it shows the value of all other property in the city of Vineyard that is not within the project area. | 00:12:33 | |
And the thing that's interesting to look at in the chart is the differences in the slope of the line, which is the rate of | 00:12:43 | |
increase of the value of the land. And So what you see is that once the investment in the development, environmental cleanup and | 00:12:53 | |
infrastructure of the area, the project area begins, you see a real significant increase in the value of that land. | 00:13:03 | |
Versus the value of the other land that's not in the project area and so. | 00:13:15 | |
What that's showing you is that the the net effect of the upfront and well, not upfront, but it was upfront investment on the part | 00:13:21 | |
of developers. But the net effect of that upfront development for them, which they're incentivized to do because there's a | 00:13:28 | |
reimbursement agreement that they have increases the value of the land faster than land that is not that is not undergoing that | 00:13:36 | |
same type of investment. Now granted some of the areas in the red are sort of already built. | 00:13:43 | |
Out. So you're just looking at maybe appreciation versus land that's fallow, that's being built on, right. So that also makes | 00:13:51 | |
sense as to why there would be a steeper line and faster growth. But because of that, so the question is how fast can we make land | 00:14:00 | |
that is blighted and like the former Geneva site, how fast can we make that land more valuable for the purpose of tax revenue? | 00:14:09 | |
That's what the school district is wondering because. | 00:14:19 | |
And that's what every tax entity is wondering is they're saying, well, if nothing happens on this property, it will remain not so | 00:14:22 | |
valuable and we will not receive very much tax revenue. But if, if we can invest in making, you know, developing this land, | 00:14:30 | |
increasing its taxable value quickly, we will get more property tax revenue both in the near term and over the long term. And that | 00:14:37 | |
is the reason that taxing entities choose to participate in giving up some of their property tax revenues for a period of. | 00:14:44 | |
Time so that it can accelerate the development of that land, that blighted land and and then they can have that that pay off, | 00:14:52 | |
which is that they'll receive tax revenues quickly that they wouldn't have otherwise received. And over the long term, they'll | 00:15:00 | |
also receive more revenue and, and on a faster timeline. So now to actually look at that, I've got this other chart and these are | 00:15:07 | |
the two main charts I wanted to show before I switch the other chart. | 00:15:15 | |
Questions about this? | 00:15:22 | |
OK. So now this is just using the school district as an example. You could also look at Vineyard if you wanted as well. But since | 00:15:26 | |
they're the biggest and they're the ones that have come up in conversation, I'm using them as an example. So this is the revenue, | 00:15:32 | |
the tax revenue to Alpine School District that is collected from within the project area. So those are those are properties that | 00:15:38 | |
might be subject to the tax increment financing, which means a portion of those revenues are going to the RDA and not to the | 00:15:43 | |
school district. | 00:15:49 | |
And that's versus those non RDA properties in Vineyard? | 00:15:56 | |
So here's an important thing to think about if we go back to 2009. | 00:16:01 | |
We see that the total amount of annual property tax revenue that's collect, that's what this is, this is annual property tax | 00:16:08 | |
revenue. This is the actual revenue that Alpine School District actually receives, including the haircut that happens when, when | 00:16:15 | |
tax revenues are sent to the RDA and not to the school district, that's the increment revenue. So if you go back to 2009, you can | 00:16:23 | |
see there's it's pretty close between the project. | 00:16:30 | |
Area tax revenue and the rest of Vineyard. | 00:16:38 | |
But then if you look to the very last line, the blue line at the very end in 2024, so these are RDA properties, you can see that | 00:16:42 | |
Alpine School District today is receiving more revenue from just the RDA properties where they're only receiving 25% of the | 00:16:50 | |
revenue there was. So they're 25%. | 00:16:57 | |
Is more than they were receiving from both all of Vineyard and the project area combined in 2009. | 00:17:05 | |
And so and so that, so if you follow the blue line, you notice that it goes up because that's appreciation and property values | 00:17:14 | |
that's happening plus some development because there were neighborhoods being built in Vineyard that were built within the project | 00:17:20 | |
area. And so that's contributing to the increase in the blue line until you hit 2016. And then what happens is after 2016 when you | 00:17:27 | |
get to year 2017. | 00:17:34 | |
Some of the first phases, the 1st 3 phases of the RDA were triggered. | 00:17:41 | |
Meaning that 75% of the property tax revenue that would have gone to the school district now goes to the RDA instead. So you see a | 00:17:46 | |
drop in the revenue that's expected, but then what happens is the school district is now only receiving 25% of the revenue they | 00:17:56 | |
would have received previously. And that 25% share increases over time as the whole project area is being developed and so. | 00:18:05 | |
This this is exactly why. | 00:18:15 | |
School districts will participate is they know that while they'll take a haircut in the short term, they'll be back to where they | 00:18:18 | |
were before and far beyond that. | 00:18:22 | |
And so that's kind of what this what this chart shows. And in in both cases, you can see the blue line is pretty steep in the | 00:18:27 | |
beginning, which shows the value of just building neighborhoods. But you also another reason those lines are steep is you're | 00:18:34 | |
coming out of a recession at that time as well. And so property values were going up. | 00:18:41 | |
More than they might otherwise go up just naturally. | 00:18:48 | |
I know it's kind of complicated. There's a lot of moving parts on this chart that's it represents a whole lot of data. | 00:18:52 | |
But I tried to simplify it so that you can kind of see some comparisons. So any any questions about that? | 00:18:58 | |
It's OK, you can kind of Stew on it if you want, but. | 00:19:14 | |
I don't think we have questions. It's good, OK. | 00:19:17 | |
OK, let me think here. I think there was one other. | 00:19:23 | |
One other thing, Oh no, I was going to maybe revisit the taxing entity question that we had discussed in a previous meeting, but | 00:19:28 | |
we really did I think hammer that issue pretty well, which is that the taxing entity committee exists kind of as needed one off. | 00:19:35 | |
It's not a continuing entity. It exists for the purpose of bringing together these participating taxing entities like the school | 00:19:42 | |
districts to approve their participation initially in opting into the the tax. | 00:19:50 | |
OK. Thank you all. | 00:20:01 | |
Thank you, I honestly really appreciate it. | 00:20:05 | |
I would just say that I mean, in the most not kindest terms, I think this is a manipulation of data and I don't think it | 00:20:12 | |
represents. I mean, obviously if I were to. | 00:20:18 | |
We need to be very clear with our words that. | 00:20:24 | |
When we say that they pay taxes, they pay taxes. | 00:20:27 | |
But then it's remitted back to them in January, right? | 00:20:31 | |
So it's a kind of a play on words. | 00:20:36 | |
No, so they pay taxes so like, like using the example of a developer, right, right. So if you have a developer in the project area | 00:20:38 | |
that owns property, they're paying all the property taxes that they would that any property owner would normally pay based on the | 00:20:45 | |
value of the land which the value of a lot of the land that is still undergoing environmental remediation is quite low. It and it | 00:20:53 | |
and I believe it actually qualifies essentially for the same type of treatment as a as a Greenbelt, but. | 00:21:00 | |
Nonetheless, they pay those taxes. | 00:21:08 | |
Then what happens is not in January, but at the at whatever time is appropriate based on invoicing and based on contract, you | 00:21:10 | |
know, contractual agreements, the RDA pays them per a separate contract. That has nothing to do with how you know what they paid | 00:21:17 | |
in taxes. It's like they have a specific contract. If they do this project or that project that they're working on this or that, | 00:21:23 | |
then they're reimbursed. | 00:21:30 | |
A certain amount of money per the contract. | 00:21:37 | |
What I'm saying though, is how amazing it would be if, let's say, my landscaping wasn't done because it's done now. | 00:21:40 | |
And I paid taxes like a normal person and then I had a blighted area and it's like I got that back because then therefore it would | 00:21:47 | |
improve the value of my property. That's what we're doing right, is it's a special area where only 50% of the properties are | 00:21:54 | |
getting that and we're hoping that it will increase in value. | 00:22:00 | |
And I get it, we're not going to convince each other tonight on where we stand, but I just think it's incredible to look at how | 00:22:09 | |
data can be used to show one thing and the exact same data can show the other. | 00:22:15 | |
And so I don't want to belabor the point tonight, but I do think that if we're giving one side of the argument a voice to do it, I | 00:22:22 | |
think that those specialists that are of the other voice should be, have the ability to come on the agenda and teach the other | 00:22:28 | |
side of things. Josh, do you see another side of things that you would feel comfortable? I, I guess I'm not understanding | 00:22:35 | |
completely. | 00:22:42 | |
What what your goals are with the well, I mean, we're coming to do the same exact presentation to kind of belabor the point. And | 00:22:49 | |
it's like I think if we're trying to sell us on. | 00:22:55 | |
Locking everybody into the what, 2011 tax rate and allowing them to do that and then saying, oh, but they're really not getting it | 00:23:03 | |
back. But they're getting it back in a different way. I mean, they are. It's just kind of a, a play on words. And I, I mean that | 00:23:08 | |
in the nicest way, but it's just. | 00:23:13 | |
Everyone went through the tax comparison to see that it's not functioning like we're not getting. | 00:23:19 | |
You know what, the 70 million that we've pushed back, I don't think we've gotten the 70 million back. | 00:23:25 | |
Who are hoping in the future it would be but it hasn't come to fruition yet right but you didn't in total revenue but what's your | 00:23:32 | |
I guess so you're saying that you're worried that this is like a sales pitch right and so. | 00:23:38 | |
Which is great. I mean, we all want the RDA to be successful, right? Well, for me, I'm looking at numbers. | 00:23:45 | |
And so I don't, I don't necessarily feel it's a sales pitch as much as trying to understand how the RDA works. And so I guess. | 00:23:51 | |
I think more importantly, it would be good at some point I would really like to understand your concerns and what your goals are | 00:23:59 | |
with your concerns. There are there are professional sort of sat down with us. Well, I mean, I have a lot of faith in our RDA | 00:24:06 | |
director. I mean, he has a really impressive resume. Yeah. May I just interrupt and say I can't speak for the rest of the council, | 00:24:12 | |
but I don't believe been you've been manipulative. I appreciate you bringing the data. No, I'm not done. | 00:24:19 | |
And correct me if I'm wrong is that. | 00:24:56 | |
We are just providing the algorithm or the calculation by how? | 00:24:59 | |
We provide taxation with the RDA. It's not a opinion, it is just a calculation and it's done according to the RDA flaws that are | 00:25:05 | |
in place. And that's what we are discussing. And so I think we can find clarity in it. We can post it, we can send you guys all of | 00:25:14 | |
that information. But let's go ahead and move on to the next point. I would just marry the two comments, right, So you have. | 00:25:23 | |
39 million. | 00:25:33 | |
That didn't go to schools. And then you have the 20 million that that came in, right? So you have a total of 60 million. In your | 00:25:35 | |
last meeting, Josh, you showed that, hey, the property of X Mission went from what was it 8 to 6000 to 46,000 or something like | 00:25:42 | |
that. I mean, so it's like, hey, we saw 30,000% increase in property value. And it's like, right, That 36,000 is much smaller than | 00:25:49 | |
the 40 million right now. That's only one year. | 00:25:55 | |
But still, that's a small increment for. | 00:26:03 | |
Will it actually pay back? And so I just think modeling, and I'm not saying Josh is manipulating the numbers and you can | 00:26:06 | |
manipulate data to look at different things to to show out different things. I think everyone knows that. And I just wanted to | 00:26:11 | |
point that out that I think it's important that the RDA. | 00:26:17 | |
Get second and third opinions. And we do, we actually work with financial advisors that look at all of these numbers and they're | 00:26:23 | |
very well known in the state. And I think we've presented data that is very clear tonight. So Josh, if you don't have anything | 00:26:30 | |
else, is that the end of your update? OK, I'm adjourning this meeting and we'll move on to our next meeting in about 10 minutes. | 00:26:37 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
20/8/2024 the time is 6:00 PM. | 00:00:00 | |
It's OK. | 00:00:08 | |
All right. Is that working? | 00:00:17 | |
Today is August 28th, 2024. The time is 6:00 PM. It's Wednesday and we are going to start our Redevelopment Agency board meeting. | 00:00:21 | |
We're going to start out with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance by Council Member Cameron. | 00:00:29 | |
Our dear Father in heaven, we come before Thee this evening to ask for Thy Spirit to be with us as we hold this meeting and pray | 00:00:42 | |
that they will help us to be mindful of. | 00:00:47 | |
The needs of the citizens and that will be considerate of each other and that we'll work together. | 00:00:53 | |
For the best of this community, we love thee and are grateful for all the blessings and abundance that surround us. And we say | 00:01:00 | |
these things in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, Amen. Amen. | 00:01:05 | |
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, | 00:01:15 | |
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. | 00:01:22 | |
All right, we'll move on to our consent agenda. I need a motion. | 00:01:31 | |
I move to approve consent items as presented. OK, we have a first by Amber. Can I get a second? | 00:01:38 | |
Second Second by Sarah. Any discussion? | 00:01:44 | |
All in favor, aye? | 00:01:48 | |
All right, that brings us to 3.1, our RDA update and our RDA Director, Josh Daniels will give us a. | 00:01:51 | |
On the RDA. Thanks. | 00:01:59 | |
Good evening council members. Well board members, do we have the can I get the little? | 00:02:03 | |
Yeah, thanks. | 00:02:11 | |
So I just have been doing some financial research that I think will help to answer some questions that have been raised over the | 00:02:16 | |
course of several weeks. And then also if there are, if there are additional questions, we could maybe spend a few minutes, I | 00:02:22 | |
could you know, spend a few minutes responding to them. | 00:02:27 | |
Let me pull open our presentation here. | 00:02:34 | |
It's just taking a little bit of time. | 00:02:52 | |
There we go. | 00:03:08 | |
OK, so a couple of points. | 00:03:15 | |
First of all, since the beginning of the use of increment within the project area of the RDA, which phases were first triggered in | 00:03:18 | |
2017, the cumulative total increment revenue that's been collected and paid to the RDA is just over is, you know, 76 and a half | 00:03:27 | |
million. | 00:03:35 | |
The bulk of that is spent on a reimbursement basis. | 00:03:46 | |
To those contractors and developers that are doing work in the project area on environmental remediation as well as. | 00:03:50 | |
City infrastructure, roads and, and get curb and gutter and sewer and some of those sorts of things. That's, that's really where | 00:04:01 | |
the bulk of those dollars are spent and it's really where the bulk of the dollars will be spent over the lifetime of of the | 00:04:07 | |
existence of the project area for the RDA. | 00:04:12 | |
Now a questions kind of come up about the fiscal impact on the Alpine School District. So I just wanted to review the theory of | 00:04:20 | |
why the school districts around the state will agree to participate in increment, which is to essentially give up revenue for a | 00:04:28 | |
period of time. And it's because you're talking about land that is not valuable. | 00:04:36 | |
But that if this investment is made, the the land will become more valuable and then in the long run, the school district will | 00:04:45 | |
actually receive more total tax revenue over time. | 00:04:50 | |
And so I've got some data I want to share with you that will kind of show that. But just as a summation point, to date the Alpine | 00:04:55 | |
school districts share of that 76,000,000 is 39, just under 40 million. So it's about 52% of the revenue I. | 00:05:04 | |
Comes from the Alpine School District share, which makes sense. Alpine School District makes up, you know, 50%. Actually a little | 00:05:13 | |
more of all tax revenues collected. You know, when people pay property tax, over 50% is going to the school district. That's the | 00:05:19 | |
largest user of property tax revenues. The city's share is 2020 million and again, that's over the course of time since 2017 | 00:05:26 | |
cumulative. | 00:05:32 | |
I I think there's been some misunderstanding about the payment of property taxes. All properties in the city, in the RDA, in the | 00:05:40 | |
project area, all properties are being assessed property taxes at the current property tax rates that everybody has to pay. So no | 00:05:49 | |
land owner is given any kind of special treatment. | 00:05:58 | |
You know, unless they have, you know, some sort of an exemption. | 00:06:07 | |
Which there are certain things, certain property owners might have certain exemptions, of course, there's like Greenbelt and those | 00:06:11 | |
kinds of things, but outside of those, normal. | 00:06:15 | |
Programs all land owners, including the developers that own, you know, a good chunk of the project area, they are paying property | 00:06:20 | |
taxes on all those properties that they own. | 00:06:26 | |
And at those current rates and so the property tax revenue that is then collected a share of that property tax is then potentially | 00:06:33 | |
rebated back in the case of let's say a developer doing work on a reimbursement basis as they are spending money to build | 00:06:40 | |
infrastructure. But then you know those that 75% share, that's the increment that goes to the RDA and the RDA then pays that out | 00:06:48 | |
on a reimbursement basis. Another important principle that I. | 00:06:55 | |
Sometimes isn't well understood is that in Utah generally and specifically in the case of the Geneva project area and this RDA, | 00:07:03 | |
all of the agreements to to spend tax increment financing funds are post performance. There are other states where economic | 00:07:10 | |
development and tax increment financing might be used in some sort of a subsidization basis to incentivize things. That's not | 00:07:18 | |
really the approach. | 00:07:25 | |
That we've taken, the approach that we take is post performance. So it's not really an incentive. I mean, it does incent people to | 00:07:33 | |
do things, but people are only paid once they've actually created something and done their end of the bargain. In this case, you | 00:07:40 | |
know, performed certain environmental cleanup projects that they've expended funds to do or actually built certain infrastructure | 00:07:48 | |
projects that they then get reimbursed for after. | 00:07:55 | |
Fact so why that's important is the city wins because the city gets the infrastructure 1st and the developer in a sense is acting | 00:08:03 | |
like. | 00:08:08 | |
An investor or a bondholder or but they're taking the risk and so they're fronting the city a street in the hopes that the city | 00:08:15 | |
will then collect sales tax or property tax revenue through the increment that's sufficient to pay them back. | 00:08:24 | |
And so they're taking risk with their dollars today to build infrastructure and they're on the hook essentially to finance it. And | 00:08:34 | |
then they get reimbursed once they've once they've done the performance. Now that's a really great model because the city doesn't | 00:08:41 | |
have a whole lot of risk in that environment. And you get streets and other kinds of infrastructure and the environmental cleanup | 00:08:47 | |
up front rather than maybe a traditional model. | 00:08:54 | |
Where you have to bond for something, get the money. | 00:09:00 | |
Then go out and build the road and you're not going to be able to bond if you're not able to demonstrate certain revenues in that | 00:09:03 | |
moment as you're trying to qualify or or yeah, basically qualify for that bond. | 00:09:11 | |
And so this particular feature that we're as a city able to utilize is a is a great advantage because you're able to build a lot | 00:09:19 | |
of infrastructure quickly and therefore able to build out the city fairly quickly with, you know, housing and, and other kinds of | 00:09:25 | |
projects. | 00:09:32 | |
So any questions before I jump into the next charter graph about any of those points? Yeah, I have a question. | 00:09:40 | |
So we met myth with. | 00:09:46 | |
And he mentioned that the Forge, we did a lot of the infrastructure first thinking that they were going to go ahead. And so is | 00:09:50 | |
that different than a TIF fund? Like why did we do that? And they haven't done anything with the land yet. | 00:09:57 | |
So you're saying this this city spent money to build the infrastructure? Yeah. I mean, that's in that scenario. I wasn't around at | 00:10:04 | |
the time, you know why that was maybe the idea. But I mean, you could do that, right? You could build infrastructure in hopes that | 00:10:11 | |
it would attract development. Maybe. I don't know if the mayor has more insight as to why. Yeah. So the roads that were put in | 00:10:19 | |
served both sites. So it was infrastructure to service the whole area and then. | 00:10:26 | |
The idea was that they were going to come in and build and the yard was going to come in and build. So I believe there's a lift | 00:10:34 | |
station, mill roads and things like that. That equaled about $4 million in total. | 00:10:39 | |
I think there was about 600,000 specific to that site, but it was to service the whole area. And so we've seen growth on one side | 00:10:44 | |
and then on the other side has not yet performed, but that's why it is. It's a similar thing that happened in the yard where we | 00:10:52 | |
put in the cleanup or the water infrastructure so that they could build on the site. And rarely do we do upfront funding. It's | 00:10:59 | |
usually a very small amount, but this one in particular was to service the entire. | 00:11:07 | |
Area SO. | 00:11:14 | |
OK. | 00:11:19 | |
Any other snow? | 00:11:21 | |
All right. | 00:11:22 | |
OK, so. | 00:11:25 | |
Here's a chart that will show why. | 00:11:27 | |
The investment in the utilization of increment financing to help development, why that might make sense and probably what the | 00:11:31 | |
school district was thinking when they chose to participate, you know, voting to participate 15 years ago. So here you have two | 00:11:41 | |
lines going all the way back to when the project area just slightly before the project area was first designated and the. | 00:11:51 | |
The RDA was created and the increment financing was approved, which are activities that took place between 2009 and 2014. | 00:12:01 | |
And so the real work of actually doing the environmental remediation and working on development and the creation of infrastructure | 00:12:11 | |
began in earnest after 2014. And So what this chart shows is it shows the value of all property within the project area of the RDA | 00:12:18 | |
in blue. | 00:12:25 | |
And it shows the value of all other property in the city of Vineyard that is not within the project area. | 00:12:33 | |
And the thing that's interesting to look at in the chart is the differences in the slope of the line, which is the rate of | 00:12:43 | |
increase of the value of the land. And So what you see is that once the investment in the development, environmental cleanup and | 00:12:53 | |
infrastructure of the area, the project area begins, you see a real significant increase in the value of that land. | 00:13:03 | |
Versus the value of the other land that's not in the project area and so. | 00:13:15 | |
What that's showing you is that the the net effect of the upfront and well, not upfront, but it was upfront investment on the part | 00:13:21 | |
of developers. But the net effect of that upfront development for them, which they're incentivized to do because there's a | 00:13:28 | |
reimbursement agreement that they have increases the value of the land faster than land that is not that is not undergoing that | 00:13:36 | |
same type of investment. Now granted some of the areas in the red are sort of already built. | 00:13:43 | |
Out. So you're just looking at maybe appreciation versus land that's fallow, that's being built on, right. So that also makes | 00:13:51 | |
sense as to why there would be a steeper line and faster growth. But because of that, so the question is how fast can we make land | 00:14:00 | |
that is blighted and like the former Geneva site, how fast can we make that land more valuable for the purpose of tax revenue? | 00:14:09 | |
That's what the school district is wondering because. | 00:14:19 | |
And that's what every tax entity is wondering is they're saying, well, if nothing happens on this property, it will remain not so | 00:14:22 | |
valuable and we will not receive very much tax revenue. But if, if we can invest in making, you know, developing this land, | 00:14:30 | |
increasing its taxable value quickly, we will get more property tax revenue both in the near term and over the long term. And that | 00:14:37 | |
is the reason that taxing entities choose to participate in giving up some of their property tax revenues for a period of. | 00:14:44 | |
Time so that it can accelerate the development of that land, that blighted land and and then they can have that that pay off, | 00:14:52 | |
which is that they'll receive tax revenues quickly that they wouldn't have otherwise received. And over the long term, they'll | 00:15:00 | |
also receive more revenue and, and on a faster timeline. So now to actually look at that, I've got this other chart and these are | 00:15:07 | |
the two main charts I wanted to show before I switch the other chart. | 00:15:15 | |
Questions about this? | 00:15:22 | |
OK. So now this is just using the school district as an example. You could also look at Vineyard if you wanted as well. But since | 00:15:26 | |
they're the biggest and they're the ones that have come up in conversation, I'm using them as an example. So this is the revenue, | 00:15:32 | |
the tax revenue to Alpine School District that is collected from within the project area. So those are those are properties that | 00:15:38 | |
might be subject to the tax increment financing, which means a portion of those revenues are going to the RDA and not to the | 00:15:43 | |
school district. | 00:15:49 | |
And that's versus those non RDA properties in Vineyard? | 00:15:56 | |
So here's an important thing to think about if we go back to 2009. | 00:16:01 | |
We see that the total amount of annual property tax revenue that's collect, that's what this is, this is annual property tax | 00:16:08 | |
revenue. This is the actual revenue that Alpine School District actually receives, including the haircut that happens when, when | 00:16:15 | |
tax revenues are sent to the RDA and not to the school district, that's the increment revenue. So if you go back to 2009, you can | 00:16:23 | |
see there's it's pretty close between the project. | 00:16:30 | |
Area tax revenue and the rest of Vineyard. | 00:16:38 | |
But then if you look to the very last line, the blue line at the very end in 2024, so these are RDA properties, you can see that | 00:16:42 | |
Alpine School District today is receiving more revenue from just the RDA properties where they're only receiving 25% of the | 00:16:50 | |
revenue there was. So they're 25%. | 00:16:57 | |
Is more than they were receiving from both all of Vineyard and the project area combined in 2009. | 00:17:05 | |
And so and so that, so if you follow the blue line, you notice that it goes up because that's appreciation and property values | 00:17:14 | |
that's happening plus some development because there were neighborhoods being built in Vineyard that were built within the project | 00:17:20 | |
area. And so that's contributing to the increase in the blue line until you hit 2016. And then what happens is after 2016 when you | 00:17:27 | |
get to year 2017. | 00:17:34 | |
Some of the first phases, the 1st 3 phases of the RDA were triggered. | 00:17:41 | |
Meaning that 75% of the property tax revenue that would have gone to the school district now goes to the RDA instead. So you see a | 00:17:46 | |
drop in the revenue that's expected, but then what happens is the school district is now only receiving 25% of the revenue they | 00:17:56 | |
would have received previously. And that 25% share increases over time as the whole project area is being developed and so. | 00:18:05 | |
This this is exactly why. | 00:18:15 | |
School districts will participate is they know that while they'll take a haircut in the short term, they'll be back to where they | 00:18:18 | |
were before and far beyond that. | 00:18:22 | |
And so that's kind of what this what this chart shows. And in in both cases, you can see the blue line is pretty steep in the | 00:18:27 | |
beginning, which shows the value of just building neighborhoods. But you also another reason those lines are steep is you're | 00:18:34 | |
coming out of a recession at that time as well. And so property values were going up. | 00:18:41 | |
More than they might otherwise go up just naturally. | 00:18:48 | |
I know it's kind of complicated. There's a lot of moving parts on this chart that's it represents a whole lot of data. | 00:18:52 | |
But I tried to simplify it so that you can kind of see some comparisons. So any any questions about that? | 00:18:58 | |
It's OK, you can kind of Stew on it if you want, but. | 00:19:14 | |
I don't think we have questions. It's good, OK. | 00:19:17 | |
OK, let me think here. I think there was one other. | 00:19:23 | |
One other thing, Oh no, I was going to maybe revisit the taxing entity question that we had discussed in a previous meeting, but | 00:19:28 | |
we really did I think hammer that issue pretty well, which is that the taxing entity committee exists kind of as needed one off. | 00:19:35 | |
It's not a continuing entity. It exists for the purpose of bringing together these participating taxing entities like the school | 00:19:42 | |
districts to approve their participation initially in opting into the the tax. | 00:19:50 | |
OK. Thank you all. | 00:20:01 | |
Thank you, I honestly really appreciate it. | 00:20:05 | |
I would just say that I mean, in the most not kindest terms, I think this is a manipulation of data and I don't think it | 00:20:12 | |
represents. I mean, obviously if I were to. | 00:20:18 | |
We need to be very clear with our words that. | 00:20:24 | |
When we say that they pay taxes, they pay taxes. | 00:20:27 | |
But then it's remitted back to them in January, right? | 00:20:31 | |
So it's a kind of a play on words. | 00:20:36 | |
No, so they pay taxes so like, like using the example of a developer, right, right. So if you have a developer in the project area | 00:20:38 | |
that owns property, they're paying all the property taxes that they would that any property owner would normally pay based on the | 00:20:45 | |
value of the land which the value of a lot of the land that is still undergoing environmental remediation is quite low. It and it | 00:20:53 | |
and I believe it actually qualifies essentially for the same type of treatment as a as a Greenbelt, but. | 00:21:00 | |
Nonetheless, they pay those taxes. | 00:21:08 | |
Then what happens is not in January, but at the at whatever time is appropriate based on invoicing and based on contract, you | 00:21:10 | |
know, contractual agreements, the RDA pays them per a separate contract. That has nothing to do with how you know what they paid | 00:21:17 | |
in taxes. It's like they have a specific contract. If they do this project or that project that they're working on this or that, | 00:21:23 | |
then they're reimbursed. | 00:21:30 | |
A certain amount of money per the contract. | 00:21:37 | |
What I'm saying though, is how amazing it would be if, let's say, my landscaping wasn't done because it's done now. | 00:21:40 | |
And I paid taxes like a normal person and then I had a blighted area and it's like I got that back because then therefore it would | 00:21:47 | |
improve the value of my property. That's what we're doing right, is it's a special area where only 50% of the properties are | 00:21:54 | |
getting that and we're hoping that it will increase in value. | 00:22:00 | |
And I get it, we're not going to convince each other tonight on where we stand, but I just think it's incredible to look at how | 00:22:09 | |
data can be used to show one thing and the exact same data can show the other. | 00:22:15 | |
And so I don't want to belabor the point tonight, but I do think that if we're giving one side of the argument a voice to do it, I | 00:22:22 | |
think that those specialists that are of the other voice should be, have the ability to come on the agenda and teach the other | 00:22:28 | |
side of things. Josh, do you see another side of things that you would feel comfortable? I, I guess I'm not understanding | 00:22:35 | |
completely. | 00:22:42 | |
What what your goals are with the well, I mean, we're coming to do the same exact presentation to kind of belabor the point. And | 00:22:49 | |
it's like I think if we're trying to sell us on. | 00:22:55 | |
Locking everybody into the what, 2011 tax rate and allowing them to do that and then saying, oh, but they're really not getting it | 00:23:03 | |
back. But they're getting it back in a different way. I mean, they are. It's just kind of a, a play on words. And I, I mean that | 00:23:08 | |
in the nicest way, but it's just. | 00:23:13 | |
Everyone went through the tax comparison to see that it's not functioning like we're not getting. | 00:23:19 | |
You know what, the 70 million that we've pushed back, I don't think we've gotten the 70 million back. | 00:23:25 | |
Who are hoping in the future it would be but it hasn't come to fruition yet right but you didn't in total revenue but what's your | 00:23:32 | |
I guess so you're saying that you're worried that this is like a sales pitch right and so. | 00:23:38 | |
Which is great. I mean, we all want the RDA to be successful, right? Well, for me, I'm looking at numbers. | 00:23:45 | |
And so I don't, I don't necessarily feel it's a sales pitch as much as trying to understand how the RDA works. And so I guess. | 00:23:51 | |
I think more importantly, it would be good at some point I would really like to understand your concerns and what your goals are | 00:23:59 | |
with your concerns. There are there are professional sort of sat down with us. Well, I mean, I have a lot of faith in our RDA | 00:24:06 | |
director. I mean, he has a really impressive resume. Yeah. May I just interrupt and say I can't speak for the rest of the council, | 00:24:12 | |
but I don't believe been you've been manipulative. I appreciate you bringing the data. No, I'm not done. | 00:24:19 | |
And correct me if I'm wrong is that. | 00:24:56 | |
We are just providing the algorithm or the calculation by how? | 00:24:59 | |
We provide taxation with the RDA. It's not a opinion, it is just a calculation and it's done according to the RDA flaws that are | 00:25:05 | |
in place. And that's what we are discussing. And so I think we can find clarity in it. We can post it, we can send you guys all of | 00:25:14 | |
that information. But let's go ahead and move on to the next point. I would just marry the two comments, right, So you have. | 00:25:23 | |
39 million. | 00:25:33 | |
That didn't go to schools. And then you have the 20 million that that came in, right? So you have a total of 60 million. In your | 00:25:35 | |
last meeting, Josh, you showed that, hey, the property of X Mission went from what was it 8 to 6000 to 46,000 or something like | 00:25:42 | |
that. I mean, so it's like, hey, we saw 30,000% increase in property value. And it's like, right, That 36,000 is much smaller than | 00:25:49 | |
the 40 million right now. That's only one year. | 00:25:55 | |
But still, that's a small increment for. | 00:26:03 | |
Will it actually pay back? And so I just think modeling, and I'm not saying Josh is manipulating the numbers and you can | 00:26:06 | |
manipulate data to look at different things to to show out different things. I think everyone knows that. And I just wanted to | 00:26:11 | |
point that out that I think it's important that the RDA. | 00:26:17 | |
Get second and third opinions. And we do, we actually work with financial advisors that look at all of these numbers and they're | 00:26:23 | |
very well known in the state. And I think we've presented data that is very clear tonight. So Josh, if you don't have anything | 00:26:30 | |
else, is that the end of your update? OK, I'm adjourning this meeting and we'll move on to our next meeting in about 10 minutes. | 00:26:37 |