Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weber County hears update on Black Pine bonds; legal and legislative fixes could clear way to market
Summary
County staff told commissioners Black Pine cannot access the bond market while the Inland Port faces a statewide lawsuit; staff said a pending bill to ratify existing inland-port contracts would allow bond counsel to proceed and avoid reopening a community reinvestment area (CRA).
Weber County commissioners received an update Jan. 27 on efforts to help Black Pine Infrastructure access the bond market for a joint infrastructure project in the Little Mountain service area.
The update centered on two problems preventing Black Pine from selling bonds: a statewide lawsuit against the Inland Port that has caused bond counsel to withhold market approval, and an incomplete Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) process the county started but never finished. "They're not able to go to the bond market right now because the Inland Port has a statewide lawsuit," said Stephanie Russell, who gave the presentation to the commission.
Why it matters: Black Pine needs bond proceeds to start infrastructure tied to ARPA funding that, staff said, must be "signed, sealed and delivered" by June of next year. County staff said the timing is urgent because two major prospective developments are seeking assurance that PID and development-agreement items have reliable funding.
What staff reported: Russell and county legal staff met bond counsel Randy Larson of Gilmore Bell and others to explore options. Lauren, identified in the meeting as a member of county legal staff, told commissioners that although the county had drafted the interlocal agreements tied to a CRA, none were executed and she had not found a legally sound way to create a CRA that would overlap the Inland Port while the port is the subject of litigation.
Staff said they briefed Ben Hart and Inland Port governing officials. According to Russell, the Inland Port was preparing a bill that would ratify existing contracts between counties and the Inland Port statewide; if the bill passes, bond counsel indicated it would be comfortable allowing the port and related projects to access the bond market. "Once they're ratified, bond counsel feels comfortable going to the bond market," Russell said.
County staff presented reopening a CRA as an alternative but reported legal obstacles because the project area is inside the Inland Port. Commissioners and staff framed the pending bill as the preferred path: if the legislature ratifies the relevant inland-port contracts, staff said, the conditional obstacles to bonds would be removed and a CRA would not be required.
What remains uncertain: Staff stressed the plan is contingent on legislative action. "Everything's pending legislative action," Russell said. Commissioners did not vote on any ordinance or interlocal at the Jan. 27 work session; staff characterized the item as an informational update and next steps depend on the pending bill and bond counsel guidance.
Meeting context and next steps: Staff said they will continue coordination with bond counsel, Inland Port representatives and local stakeholders. Commissioners did not adopt any formal policy during the update; they were briefed on timelines and legal constraints and directed staff to continue work toward a bond-market solution tied to the proposed legislative remedy.
Ending: County staff said they will report back as the legislative action and counsel guidance evolve. The commission moved on to other agenda items following the briefing.
