Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RDA board votes to study expanded Lakeview Parkway CRA area after debate over wetlands, property history and Walmart proposal
Summary
The Redevelopment Agency governing board approved a motion to adopt a study area map that includes parcels south of Lakeview Parkway and a city parcel south of Epic Sports Park (possible hotel site). Board members debated past property disputes, wetland status and incentives tied to an anticipated Walmart development; staff were directed to study property history, wetlands conservation options, economic projections and impacts on adjacent landowners.
The Provo Redevelopment Agency (RDA) governing board voted to adopt an expanded Lakeview Parkway study area at its Dec. 2 work session, authorizing staff to research property history, any outstanding boundary or title concerns, wetlands status and conservation options, and to prepare economic projections linked to proposed incentives (including a potential Walmart development and a hospitality site adjacent to Epic Sports Park).
RDA director Melissa McNally presented two candidate study maps. Map 2 — the version the board approved — adds several parcels south of Lakeview Parkway, including a small city parcel south of Epic Sports Park that staff identified as a possible hotel site. Board discussion was extensive: some members objected to including parcels south of the parkway because of prior property disputes and optics; others said including them in the study would enable transparent examination of technical issues and helps evaluate feasibility for commercial reuse and potential tax‑increment incentives.
Board members requested staff analyze several discrete issues during the study: the history and current status of any property disputes (including records on boundary lines and any outstanding claims), whether wetlands or Army Corps mitigations limit development and what conservation or mitigation approaches might be available, the likely extraordinary site‑development costs tied to floodplain and fill needs (the city and developer cited such costs when discussing support for a Walmart), and the economic development tradeoffs (sales tax capture, impacts on nearby retailers in other cities, and effects on adjacent landowners, including agricultural operators).
The board first considered a substitute motion to adopt the smaller map excluding parcels south of Lakeview Parkway; that substitute failed. The original motion (map 2, expanded study area) passed by recorded vote, 6–1. After the vote, the board asked staff to return with detailed project‑level materials, including sales‑tax projections and a project plan if the study supports incentives.
Ending: Staff said it will return with the requested analyses and that, if the council approves a study area resolution at tonight’s meeting, staff will prepare a project plan with financial projections and recommended next steps.
