Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rda Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daggett County RDA hearing focuses on tracking participation agreements in proposed 2025 budget
Summary
At a public hearing on the proposed 2025 Daggett County Redevelopment Agency budget, board members pressed staff to identify and track existing participation agreements (including with Matt Lucas, JRL Holdings and Red Storage), clarify whether condemnation and infrastructure costs apply to specific agreements, and add line items to the budget; no public comment was offered.
Presiding official (Speaker 2) opened the Daggett County Redevelopment Agency public hearing on the proposed 2025 budget and said, "This public hearing is regarding the proposed Daggett County redevelopment agency budget for the year 2025." The session included no public comment and centered on whether the draft budget identifies commitments tied to existing participation agreements.
Board members and staff spent the hearing clarifying which participation agreements are already in place and whether the proposed budget should show the fund-balance commitments associated with those agreements. Speaker 1 asked whether the budget "identify[s] commitments" and urged that agreements be tracked explicitly so the RDA can see how much of the fund balance is already committed.
Staff and board members identified at least two developers with existing participation agreements discussed in the hearing: Matt Lucas (the Lucas agreement, which participants said carries an amount in the range of $120,000) and JRL Holdings; a Red Storage agreement was also discussed, with Speaker 5 citing an infrastructure-assistance figure of about $112,500 for that project. Speaker 5 additionally relayed a larger figure tied to a Lassiter property—approximately $3,345,737—while noting that participants would need to verify the exact numbers in the written agreements.
Participants also debated how infrastructure paid for under those agreements would be handled. Speaker 2 and others said that infrastructure paid through participation agreements would likely be owned by Fund 28 and that projects discussed to date were focused on water and sewer improvements. Board members questioned whether condemnation-related expenses could be applied against a specific participation agreement (for example, the Lucas agreement); staff and counsel present discussed language in the agreements indicating infrastructure assistance applies to work improving horizontal infrastructure and that the agency typically verifies invoices and pays contractors directly rather than reimbursing developers.
Speakers agreed to follow up offline. Staff (Speaker 5) said they would send copies of the participation agreements to the requesting board members so budget line items can be created to track committed amounts and parcel coverage. Several participants noted the need to verify whether some agreements cover multiple parcels or were amended over time.
With no further discussion and no members of the public speaking, Speaker 2 adjourned the RDA public hearing by acclamation at 10:50 and said the body would reconvene at 11:00 for subsequent public hearings.
Next steps: staff will provide the participation agreements cited during the hearing and board members expect to add specific line items in the RDA budget to record committed funds and identify which projects or parcels they cover.
