Utah Inland Port Authority outlines project‑area, tax‑differential model in Payson work session

Scott Wolford, vice president for business development at the Utah Inland Port Authority, and executive director Ben Hart briefed the Payson City Council in a July work session on the authority’s project‑area (tax‑differential) approach to economic development and infrastructure financing.

Wolford described the model in plain terms: “The increase is split into 2 streams. 25% of the increase continues to flow to the taxing entities at the same mill rates as normal. 75% comes to the port authority, but it can't be removed from the project area.” He said the authority uses the 75% portion as a dedicated funding stream to invest back into public infrastructure in the project area—roads, sewer, culinary water or other public improvements—with the goal of attracting private investment and jobs.

Why it matters: the Inland Port project‑area tool is similar to tax‑increment financing used elsewhere but structured under state law for the port authority; it can enable upfront infrastructure investment that developers or public districts might otherwise not be able to fund. The authority emphasized that it does not have land‑use powers and cannot issue permits or change zoning; local governments retain land‑use control.

Key points from the presentation: - Project areas are created by the local land‑use authority via a resolution requesting the port authority to establish a project area. - Base property valuation is frozen and increases are split; typically 25% of the new incremental value flows normally to taxing entities and 75% is reinvested into the project area for up to 25 years. - Project areas can be noncontiguous and flexible; the authority said communities frequently expand areas later by passing additional resolutions. - Financing for public infrastructure is commonly handled through a public infrastructure district (PID) or similar vehicle; the PID typically assumes debt service for improvements and is responsible for repayment, not the city nor the port authority directly.

Council reaction: members asked about traffic impacts, parcel‑by‑parcel inclusion and the governance of PIDs. Wolford and Hart said the port authority would work with Payson staff and elected officials to target industry types and to apply incentives only where desired; the authority also offered to provide a sample resolution to begin a formal invitation process if council wanted to proceed.

No council action was taken at the meeting. Staff and the port authority agreed to follow up with sample materials and additional, localized cost estimates that the council requested before considering any resolution to form a project area.

Ending: Council members signaled interest and asked staff to continue analysis; no parcel or formal invitation was adopted at the meeting.