Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah Senate approves 20% redevelopment tax‑increment mandate for affordable housing on SB 186
Summary
The Utah Senate on Feb. 23, 2000, approved an amendment to the second substitute of Senate Bill 186 to require redevelopment agencies to set aside 20% of tax‑increment revenues for moderate‑ to low‑income housing; debate centered on mandates versus local control and the effect on small redevelopment agencies.
The Utah State Senate on Feb. 23, 2000, approved an amendment to the second substitute of Senate Bill 186 requiring redevelopment agencies to allocate 20% of tax‑increment revenues to moderate‑ to low‑income housing and then passed the bill to the House for further consideration.
Sen. Thomas Davis, sponsor of the amendment, told colleagues, “Basically, what this does is make sure that, 20% of the tax increment goes to moderate to low income housing.” Proponents said the requirement would force participating cities and counties to invest in affordable housing rather than ignore it. Sen. Mansell argued the change “ensures the fact that each city that desires to participate in the redevelopment process will at least participate to some degree in providing low income housing.”
Opponents warned the statewide mandate could complicate future efforts to stop diversion of tax increment from schools. Sen. Stevenson said he was “concerned that this mandate may make it more difficult… to prevent the increment from being taken from schools,” and asked that the amendment be recorded on a roll call. The roll call on the amendment was announced as 21 aye and 8 nay, and the chair ruled the amendment passed.
Senators then debated the bill as amended, including whether the 20% requirement would impose undue burdens on very small redevelopment agencies. A senator noted some small RDAs “might only bring in $2,025,000 a year,” asking whether the mandate would leave them without meaningful funds for housing. The sponsor said he had discussed the issue with representatives of smaller RDAs, who agreed to allow the amendment to proceed.
A tally of the final vote was read on the floor; the clerk recorded an initial count of “24 aye votes, 3 nay votes, 1 absent,” and after several senators requested changes to their votes the final announced tally recorded 23 aye, 5 nay and 1 absent. The Senate recorded passage and transmitted the bill to the House for consideration.
Next steps: SB 186, as amended, will go to the House. The floor discussion flagged implementation questions for small redevelopment agencies and noted the bill’s interaction with other legislation restoring taxing-entity votes on redevelopment projects.
