Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee clarifies use of tax-increment housing set-asides and developer delinquency treatment
Summary
The committee adopted the second substitute and recommended SB 250, clarifying how tax-increment housing set-asides may be used (including for nonprofit housing funds), and permitting agencies to consult with county treasurers to address delinquencies in participation agreements.
The committee unanimously adopted the second substitute and voted to recommend SB 250, community development modifications, which clarifies how community reinvestment agencies (CRAs) and inland port entities may use housing set-asides and how participation agreements interact with delinquent property taxes.
Senator Cullimore (recorded in the transcript as the presenting senator) said part of the bill clarifies inland port authority options if they choose to use a discretionary housing set-aside and explains how that money may be used where inland port areas are not cities or counties. The bill also clarifies that CRAs may place housing set-aside dollars into nonprofit housing funds organized to support rural communities.
A committee witness and UAC representative explained that county treasurers currently lack authority to intercept participation-agreement payments owed to developers; the bill clarifies that agencies should consult with county treasurers so delinquent property taxes within the project area can be satisfied before payments are disbursed to developers. The language applies to delinquencies inside the project boundaries and does not affect delinquencies outside the boundary.
Danny Waltz of the Utah Redevelopment Association, also director of the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency, spoke in support and asked for additional technical drafting conversations to avoid unintended consequences in participation-agreement implementation. UAC staff and other witnesses said the change "does not create anything new" but clarifies existing practices and gives counties additional options for using housing-set-aside funds.
Representative Fiafia moved adoption of the second substitute; Representative Fisher then moved that committee recommend the second substitute favorably to the House. Both motions carried unanimously. Representative Shelley expressed reservations and suggested a possible two-year sunset for broader affordable-housing policy reforms; sponsors said this legislation primarily clarifies existing authorities and options rather than creating new tax tools.
