Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
RDA board reviews redevelopment fund balances and weighs housing incentives for two proposed projects
Summary
Bluffdale's RDA reviewed balances in three project areas, discussed timing and restrictions (including a 20% low/moderate-income housing set-aside and encumbrance deadlines), and debated incentives for two housing proposals (Dakota Pacific and Centrum) while asking staff to continue negotiations and return with participation-agreement details.
The Bluffdale Redevelopment Agency (RDA) met during the council session to review the status of three redevelopment project areas and to discuss options for using tax-increment funds that are subject to statutory restrictions and expiration timelines.
Staff reported an estimated fund balance of about $30 million in the Eastern Bluffdale area and roughly $6.4 million in Jordan Narrows as of June 30, with tax-increment receipts projected for the coming fiscal year (staff estimated the Eastern Bluffdale tax revenue before admin and set-asides at a little over $10 million). By statute the agency must set aside 20% of certain proceeds for low- and moderate-income housing and must encumber that housing set-aside within prescribed windows (staff discussed a six-year encumbrance period for that portion). Staff described eligible uses (infrastructure, incentives, and housing) and noted flexibility to use funds for projects that demonstrably benefit the project area or, if not used locally, to direct housing funds to county/state programs as required by statute.
The RDA discussed two housing incentive requests. Staff said Dakota Pacific’s participation-agreement negotiations are near final and could appear on an upcoming RDA agenda. The Centrum proposal is earlier-stage and the board expressed reservations about providing incentives without more analysis; some board members preferred prioritizing in‑town uses of funds (for example, continued support for The Bluffs apartments, which house long-term residents) rather than large incentives for market-rate projects. Board members asked staff to continue negotiations with interested developers and to come back with specific participation-agreement terms and fiscal projections, including net-present-value considerations for moderate-income unit set‑asides.
Board members also discussed other ideas such as targeted mortgage assistance, trails and infrastructure within project areas, and preserving capacity to respond to future opportunities. Staff said they plan to return with more detailed financial scenarios and draft participation agreements for board consideration.
