Daggett County commissioners debate whether redevelopment agency acts separately as project funds sit idle

Members of the Daggett County Commission discussed whether decisions involving county land and projects should be conducted as actions of the county or of the county's redevelopment agency, known as the RDA, and debated how RDA funds and project areas are managed.

The discussion began after the commission returned to open session. Unidentified Speaker 2 asked for clarification, saying he wanted to "know there won't be a problem with the RDA and the county in these discussions" and asking whether "the county and the RDA [are] synonymous enough" or whether they are separate entities. Unidentified Speaker 4 replied that the RDA is a separate entity with "different funds" and that commissioners often "wear both hats as the RDA and the commission." Speaker 1 said that when an official agreement is ready it is posted under the RDA listing.

Why it matters: The distinction affects legal and financial reporting, which entity posts agenda items, and which fund pays for projects. Several speakers stressed that the RDA has funds that are separated from county funds, but that community members in places such as Dutch John have expressed distrust because projects have not yet been launched.

During the discussion, commissioners and staff noted that some RDA project areas, such as a project area in Greendale, currently have no active expenditures. Unidentified Speaker 1, who described prior experience as an economic development director and treasurer, cautioned that using tax increment financing or establishing property improvement districts (PIDs) can create additional tracking and administrative work for the county treasurer. He said, "that's a lot more work on the ground for the treasurer" and that PIDs would require parcel-level tracking.

Concerns about community trust surfaced. Unidentified Speaker 2 said residents of Dutch John "don't think we're helping them" and that some believe "the RDA is crookery." Unidentified Speaker 1 confirmed he had heard similar complaints and said part of the frustration was seeing funds held without clear projects: "we have this big bank account there, and it's not doing anything."

Procedural actions: The commission made and voted on two routine motions. The body voted to return to open session after an initial motion (moved and seconded on the record) and later made and seconded a motion to adjourn; several members said "Aye," Speaker 2 was recorded as abstaining from the adjourn vote, and the chair declared the meeting adjourned at 01:09.

Next steps and context: Speakers suggested that the commission could create a project area where needed and that staff or commissioners need to clarify when the RDA is acting in its own capacity versus when the commission is acting as the county. No formal policy change or expenditure decision was made at this meeting; participants framed much of the exchange as a request for clearer procedures and better communication about when RDA funds will be deployed.