vinyard_logo_color_sideways

MINUTES OF A VINEYARD REDEVELOPMENT

AGENCY BOARD MEeting

City Council Chambers

125 South Main Street, Vineyard, Utah

May 25, 2022, at 7:11 PM

 

_______________

 

 

Present                                                             Absent

Chair Julie Fullmer                                         

Boardmember Tyce Flake

Boardmember Amber Rasmussen

Boardmember Mardi Sifuentes

Boardmember Cristy Welsh

 

Staff Present:  City Manager Ezra Nair, City Attorney Jayme Blakesley, Finance Director David Mortensen, City Engineer Naseem Ghandour, Water Manager Sullivan Love, City Recorder Pamela Spencer, RDA Director Jacob McHargue

 

Others Speaking: Eric Towner with X Development

 

1.       Play >> CALL TO ORDER

Chair Fullmer opened the meeting at 7:11 PM.

 

 

2.      CONSENT AGENDA

2.1  Approval of the May 11, 2022, RDA Meeting Minutes

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer called for a motion.

 

Motion: BOARDMEMBER FLAKE MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT ITEM AS PRESENTED. BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

3.      BUSINESS ITEMS

3.1  PUBLIC HEARING – Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget

The RDA Board will hear public comment concerning the adopted Tentative Fiscal Year 2022-2023 RDA Budget. The RDA Board may review any items that were the proper subject of consideration in the Public Hearing. Approval of the final budget is tentatively scheduled for June 22, 2022.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer called for a motion to open the public hearing.

Play >> Motion: BOARDMEMBER WELSH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:11 PM. BOARDMEMBER SIFUENTES SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer noted that there were no public present. She called for comments from the council. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close the public hearing.

 

Play >> BOARDMEMBER FLAKE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:12 PM. BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

   

3.2  discussion and actionX Development Funding Request Application

City Manager Ezra Nair will present an application from X Development requesting assistance from the RDA to help pay for site enhancements. The RDA Board will take appropriate action. (This item was continued from the May 11, 2022 RDA Board meeting.)

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer turned the time over to RDA Director Jacob McHargue.

 

Play >> RDA Director Jacob McHargue reviewed the changes to the proposal. He also reviewed the stipulations listed on his staff report. He noted that staff had met with the developers to discuss the proposal.

 

Play >>  Chair Fullmer called for questions from the board.

 

Play >> Eric Towner with X Development stated that with the approval of the staff recommendations they would be able to comply with the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) requirements. He said that they were seeking assistance with a containment measure for the Topgolf property. He felt that this development would bring sales tax revenue, jobs, entertainment, and other revenue to the city. He noted that they wanted to place a requirement on Topgolf to complete construction this year. He said that, because of the revenue that would be generated, Topgolf had asked for full cost reimbursement for the containment measures and extend the reimbursement out a couple of years to a total of $900,000.

 

Play >> Mr. McHargue felt that the board could change one of the requirements from being open in 2022 to being issued the certificate of occupancy in 2022. He said that the proposal was to payback 75 percent of the costs, which was typical for most remediation contracts. There was a discussion about the difference in percentages and tax revenues. There was a brief discussion about other projects that were being reimbursed by the RDA.

 

Play >> Boardmember Welsh felt that the infrastructure they were asking for met the standards they had set for the city. She said that she liked the idea of setting a precedent on environmental remediation. She stated that she was open to incentivizing the infrastructure and only reimbursing 75 percent of the environmental. There was a discussion about incentivizing infrastructure.

Play >> Boardmember Sifuentes stated that she was comfortable with the 75 percent for environmental remediation but was not sure about reimbursement on the pedestrian gathering portion.

Play >> Boardmember Flake stated that he would approve 75 percent but no more. HE said that his interpretation of the RDA was taking tax money from every community in the valley to facilitate the growth of the community, not the economic growth. There was a discussion about economic value of the project.

 

Play >> Boardmember Rasmussen asked what the difference would be if they funded 100% of the ask. Chair Fullmer replied that they could say they would fund 100% of the environment but not the gathering portion. The was a discussion about tax increment.

 

Play >> Mr. McHargue felt that 75 percent was all the assistance they could give from the RDA. If they wanted to tie them down on the infrastructure, they could fund 100 percent over five (5) to seven (7) years. There was a discussion about funding the pedestrian amenities.

 

Play >> Mr. Towner stated that his biggest issue was to get the certificate of occupancy issued this year. He thought that they could share the costs on the infrastructure and reduce it five (5) years. If they wanted to add a public gathering space then they needed to incentivize to the full amount as well as the pedestrian gathering space, lighting, etc. He reviewed the locations of the pedestrian gather space, crossings, and lighting plan. There was a discussion about the gathering spaces.

 

Play >> Boardmember Sifuentes asked if they would be installing security cameras in the parking lots. Mr. Towner replied that security cameras were being installed on the buildings pointing out towards the parking lot.

 

Play >> There were discussions about the reimbursement costs using difference percentages and which amenities they should incentivize. Boardmember Sifuentes asked what amenities they could include if they gave them 87.5 percent.

  

Play >> Mr. Towner felt that they could install the additional crosswalks, the street lighting, the pedestrian crosswalk down the center of the parking lot. He suggested that they leave out the expanded gather space. There was further discussion about the amenities. Mr. Towner said that he would like to see Topgolf being required to add a miniature golf course. The discussion continued.

 

 Play >> Mr. McHargue reviewed the stipulations and suggested adding a third stipulation. Mr. Towner suggested that all the $500,000 and future increment be subject to Topgolf getting a certificate of occupancy this year.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer asked if they did not want to incentivize some of the amenities to the environmental would the amenity go away. Mr. Blakesley replied that they would be paying for the environmental and connecting it with requirements that there be certain conditions. Unless they had an agreement demanding those conditions then the developer would not be bound to include the conditions. Chair Fullmer felt that they should do the agreement as a match.

 

Play >> Mr. Blakesley reviewed the amenities that had been discussed: Crosswalks in the parking lot and across the street; environmental work; pedestrian level lighting; putting course; outdoor amenities that would be open to the public; and a general description of the facility. Mr. Towner explained that it would be a golf entertainment venue featuring a 72-bay facility, with full-service food and beverage, outdoor gathering space open to the public, a miniature golf course, 23 pedestrian sidewalk light poles, a pedestrian pathway in the middle of the main parking field , an additional crosswalk to the north of the main parking lot.

Play >> Mr. McHargue explained that the initial application was for the environmental and infrastructure at $4.3 million. If they wanted to look at it as a match it would be around 70 percent of the total application cost.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer called for further comments.

 

Play >> Motion: BOARDMEMBER WELSH MOVED TO APPROVE THE RDA APPLICATION AT 87.5 PERCENT WITH A CAP AT $790,122 WITH $500,000 IN UPFRONT COST BEING PAID OUT UPON DEVELOPER RECEIVING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND REMAINING COSTS PAID OVER FIVE YEARS, WITH THE STIPULATIONS AS PRESENTED:

STIPULATIONS:

1.      THE AVAILABLE INCREMENT IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE ANNUAL PAYMENTS EACH YEAR, IF IT IS NOT, ANY REMAINING AMOUNT DUE WILL ROLL OVER TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

2.      ALL THE INCREMENT TIED TO THE REIMBURSEMENT ONLY PAID OUT IF THE FACILITY RECEIVES A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN 2022.

3.      THE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF A GOLF ENTERTAINMENT VENUE FEATURING A 72-BAY FACILITY, WITH FULL-SERVICE FOOD AND BEVERAGE, OUTDOOR GATHERING SPACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, 23 PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK LIGHT POLES, A PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MAIN PARKING FIELD , AN ADDITIONAL CROSSWALK TO THE NORTH OF THE MAIN PARKING LOT.

BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES AND WELSH VOTED YES. BOARDMEMBER FLAKE VOTED NO. THE MOTION CARRIED FOUR (4) TO ONE (1).

 

 

4.      ADJOURNMENT

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer called for motion to adjourn the meeting.

 

Play >> BOARDMEMBER SIFUENTES MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:15 PM. BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

MINUTES APPROVED ON:  June 29, 2022

 

CERTIFIED CORRECT BY:    /s/ Pamela Spencer

Pamela spencer, city recordeR