vinyard_logo_color_sideways

 

MINUTES OF A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE

VINEYARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD

City Council Chambers

125 South Main Street, Vineyard, Utah

December 27, 2023, at 7:41 PM

 

_______________

 

Present                                                             Absent

Chair Julie Fullmer                                          

Boardmember Tyce Flake                               

Boardmember Amber Rasmussen

Boardmember Mardi Sifuentes

Boardmember Cristy Welsh

 

Staff Present: City Manager Eric Ellis, City Attorney Jayme Blakesley, Lieutenant Holden Rockwell with the Utah County Sheriff’s Office, Community Development Director Morgan Brim, Public Works Director Naseem Ghandour, Environmental Utilities Manager Sullivan Love, City Recorder Pamela Spencer

 

 

1.      CALL TO ORDER

Play >> Chair Fullmer opened the meeting at 7:41 PM.

 

 

2.      CLOSED SESSION

Play >> Motion: BOARDMEMBER SIFUENTES MOVED TO GO INTO A CLOSED SESSION IMMEDIATELY IN THE CITY OFFICE’S CONFERENCE ROOM TO DISCUSS THE CHARACTER, PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OF AN INDIVIDUAL. BOARDMEMBER FLAKE SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

The meeting resumed at 8:04 PM.

 

 

3.      BUSINESS ITEMS

3.1  DISCUSSION AND ACTION – Appointment of an RDA Director (Resolution U2023-12)

(This item was continued from the December 13, 2023 RDA Board Meeting.)

Chair Fullmer will present a recommendation for the appointment of an RDA Director. The RDA Board will act to adopt (or deny) this request by resolution.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer presented the appointment of Josh Daniels as the RDA Director.

 

 

Play >> Motion: BOARDMEMBER WELSH MOVED TO ADOPT RDA RESOLUTION U2023-12 AUTHORIZING THE BOARD CHAIR TO ENTER INTO A CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH JOSH DANIELS FOR THE POSITION OF VINEYARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DIRECTOR. BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

3.2  DISCUSSION AND ACTION – The Forge Tax Increment Participation Agreement (Resolution U2023-11) (This item was continued from the December 13, 2023 RDA Board Meeting.)

Dakota Pacific is requesting approval of a Tax Increment Participation Agreement. The RDA Board will act to adopt (or deny) this request by resolution.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer turned the time over to Steve Borup with Dakota Pacific.

 

Play >> Mr. Borup gave a brief background on The Forge development and reviewed the changes to the tax increment agreement since the last board meeting.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer asked about timeline for development. Mr. Borup replied that there was a timeline in the development agreement.

 

Play >> Boardmember Sifuentes asked about the projected tax revenues and the percentages requested in the tax increment participation agreement. Mr. Borup reviewed the projections. A discussion ensued.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer asked about 2b in the agreement. Mr. Borup explained that they would have to submit a request for reimbursement and prove that the request was for qualified expenses. Chair Fullmer asked if they could tie the qualified expenses to an anchor in phasing through the tax increment agreement. There was a discussion about repayment conditions and phasing.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer asked if Section B was capping the reimbursement. Mr. Borup replied that if there was a particular user, supported by the city, there could be additional support by the RDA. Mr. Blakesley felt that it was a signal of intent and if they wanted more than 75 percent, they would have to come back to the RDA Board.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer asked the board if they liked the structured parking, pedestrian, open space and public infrastructure listed in the agreement. Mr. Borup reviewed the phasing and the impact of structured parking on returns. A discussion ensued.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer asked about opportunities for phasing. Mr. Brim explained that some of the phasing would be tied to the reimbursement agreement. There was a discussion about the phasing and tying them to reimbursements. Mr. Blakesley suggested they tie a certain amount to each phase. Boardmember Welsh suggested that this agreement be tied to the development agreement. The discussion continued.

 

Play >> Mr. Blakesley gave a recap of the discussion. Approve the agreement as drafted with 2 revisions:

·         Bring in the revocation provision from the development agreement, that if the initial phase did not begin by December 31, 2026, the city could begin the process of revoking the reimbursement agreement

·         The city would reserve 30 percent of the expenses eligible to be reimbursed in Phase 1, until the developer pulls a building permit and begins vertical construction on the subsequent phase with a 30/70 split for all subsequent phases.

There was further discussion about the split. Use the same language included in the development agreement.

 

Play >> Mr. Blakesley reviewed the changes:

·         Carry over the rescission language from Section 2.2 of the development agreement. Adding identical language that if by December 31, 2026 they have not pulled a building permit and began vertical construction on the initial phase then the city shall have the right to revoke the reimbursement agreement.

·         Thirty percent of the eligible reimbursable amount as determined by the assessed value of the property will be held by the city until a building permit is pulled and vertical construction begins on a subsequent block of the development and each block of the development shall have similar 70/30 to create an incentive that the entire project be built.

The discussion continued.

 

Play >> Chair Fullmer felt that it was important to talk about Section B which mentions the intent to come back for additional increment. She felt that the goal was to incentivize incredible anchors.

 

Play >> Motion: BOARDMEMBER WELSH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION U2023-11, APPROVING THE FORGE TAX INCREMENT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT AND ALLOWING THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE NOTED CHANGES AS READ BY THE CITY ATTORNEY BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION:

·         CARRY OVER THE RESCISSION LANGUAGE FROM SECTION 2.2 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ADDING IDENTICAL LANGUAGE THAT IF BY DECEMBER 31, 2026 THEY HAVE NOT PULLED A BUILDING PERMIT AND BEGAN VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION ON THE INITIAL PHASE THEN THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT.

·         THIRTY PERCENT OF THE ELIGIBLE REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS PULLED AND VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION BEGINS ON A SUBSEQUENT BLOCK OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND EACH BLOCK OF THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL HAVE SIMILAR 70/30 TO CREATE AN INCENTIVE THAT THE ENTIRE PROJECT BE BUILT.

 

Play >> There was a discussion about the agreement and phasing. Boardmember Sifuentes wanted to tie the continued phases to reviewing the site plans. The discussion continued.

 

 

Play >> ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, AND WELSH VOTED YES, BOARDMEMBER SIFUENTES VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED 4 TO 1.

 

  

4.      ADJOURNMENT

Play >>  Motion: BOARDMEMBER FLAKE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:51 PM. BOARDMEMBER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. CHAIR FULLMER, BOARDMEMBERS FLAKE, RASMUSSEN, SIFUENTES, AND WELSH VOTED YES. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

 

A close up of a letter Description automatically generatedMINUTES APPROVED ON:    March 13,2027                   

       

CERTIFIED CORRECT BY:  

A blue circle with text Description automatically generated  Pamela Spencer, CIty Recorder