Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kaysville seeks county participation in downtown CRA with $10 million cap; commissioners discuss timing and options
Summary
Kaysville city leaders asked Davis County to participate in a Community Reinvestment Area covering ~262 acres (about 40 vacant acres) with an ask for 60% participation by taxing entities for 15 years, a city commitment of 80%, projected $5.1M in increment and a $10M cap. Commissioners discussed UDOT coordination, bonding, reimbursement agreements and reducing the county cap if other funds are secured.
Kaysville officials asked the Davis County Commission at a work session to approve a Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) to encourage downtown redevelopment and preserve the old library building. The project area covers roughly 261–262 acres, of which city staff said about 40 acres are currently vacant. The city presented a financing request that would capture new tax increment beginning with base year 2023 and run for 15 years.
City staff said the CRA proposal would set a $10,000,000 cap on county participation, project a total of about $5.1 million in tax increment over 15 years and anticipate roughly $4.4 million available for revitalization after administrative fees and participation by other taxing entities. The city proposes to participate at an 80% level and asks other taxing entities for 60% participation during the term.
Kaysville officials said the CRA is intended to catalyze redevelopment on Main Street — including possible facade work, utility upgrades, parking improvements and historic preservation of the old library building — and to position properties for private reinvestment. Lenna Greenwood, Kaysville’s community development director, said the city won a Wasatch Front Regional Council grant and expects to combine city and grant funds for a $140,000 small‑area plan to refine the vision and engage stakeholders.
Commissioners questioned whether the county should provide a lump sum from available transportation funds (for example Prop 1 or other local transportation dollars) instead of sharing long‑term increment, and asked how a major private proposal would interact with the $10 million cap. Kaysville staff said bonding or reimbursement agreements are options — the city has discussed bonding to capture an early window of UDOT work — but noted that bonding against CRA revenues generally requires the project area to exist; staff described reimbursement agreements where a developer fronts costs and is later repaid.
County and city staff suggested a compromise: approve the CRA project area now to secure timing while including interlocal language that would reduce the county’s cap if other local transportation awards are secured. Staff said they have used that approach in prior CRAs and planned to circulate an interlocal agreement with edit suggestions. County staff said they would aim to place the CRA on an upcoming commission agenda for formal consideration; the work session did not include a vote.
Next steps identified in the work session included staff drafting interlocal changes, circulating the document to taxing entities and scheduling the CRA for a commission meeting.
