Hideout staff outline tax-increment outlook for Richardson Flat CRA

Consultants for the town presented a high‑level fiscal model on Oct. 9 for creating a Hideout Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) and a potential project area covering the Richardson Flat annexation. The presentation, led by Rob Sant and Spencer Foster, outlined assumptions and the “tax increment financing” approach that would be negotiated with taxing entities.

The consultants said the model assumes about 120 developable acres of the 350‑acre annexation would build to roughly $3 million of building value per acre. That would yield a little north of $300 million in new taxable value, producing roughly $2.4 million in annual property tax from all taxing entities at full buildout. Under one illustrative sharing assumption — 70% of increment shared with the CRA for 20 years — the town could realize about $26 million in tax‑increment proceeds over two decades and roughly $1.6 million annually available to reinvest when the area is fully built out.

Why it matters: a CRA (unlike some state redevelopment tools) negotiates participation and term with each taxing entity — including the county, school district and special districts — rather than imposing a single statutory rate. Sant and Foster stressed that the numbers shown were illustrative and that the actual economics depend on the final development program, negotiated participation rates and whether each taxing agency agrees to share a portion of its incremental revenue.

What the consultants told the council: the model used a 20‑year term and 70% participation rate in their example, but they said individual agreements with Summit County, Park City School District, Park City Fire, Weber Basin Water and other special districts could vary. Sant said the money could pay for infrastructure, developer incentives, housing, administrative costs and off‑site improvements that benefit the project area.

Questions and uncertainties: Council members asked how taxing entities would be persuaded to participate, given their budget needs. Sant and Foster replied that participation is pitched as a “but‑for” argument — without shared incremental finance, some higher‑value development may not happen — and that participating entities sometimes gain more revenue over time than they would without the project. They also warned that the CRA process requires detailed “but‑for” and fiscal analyses and interlocal agreements, and that numbers could change once the landowner’s specific development program is known.

Next steps: the consultants said the town must finalize a certificate of creation (filed with the lieutenant governor) and then negotiate project‑area interlocal agreements with each taxing body. The consultants recommended a property‑owner meeting to refine assumptions and anticipated bringing a more detailed budget once a specific development program is available.

Ending: Sant emphasized the presentation was a high‑level starting point, not a firm commitment, and recommended further work with the property owner and taxing entities before the town adopts a CRA or a specific tax‑sharing structure.