Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Infrastructure District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks Slate Canyon PID to finance trails, utilities; council presses for stronger 'but‑for' case
Summary
Lennar and legal counsel presented a proposed $5M tax‑debt public infrastructure district (PID) capped at 6 mills to finance on‑site utilities, trails and amenities for the Slate Canyon development; councilors asked for clearer 'but‑for' justification, legal review and disclosures before any decision.
Presenters for the proposed Slate Canyon public infrastructure district (PID) told the Provo City Council the financing tool would allow early construction of roads, utilities, trails and on‑site amenities for a planned 10‑lot for‑sale community, while spreading infrastructure costs over time.
Betsy Fowler (counsel for the petitioners) and Lennar representatives described a reduced tax‑debt cap of $5 million and a maximum 6‑mill levy as the proposed PID parameters. Staff and the underwriter explained a 30‑year maturity with a possible 10‑year extension is typical; the levy is applied to assessed value and therefore rises and falls with assessments. Sam, speaking for the underwriter, said market practice is to issue bonds at higher rates initially and refinance to lower rates as the development reaches a critical mass of occupied parcels.
Councilors pressed for a clear "but‑for" statement: what the project could not accomplish without PID support. Several members asked why the PID was being proposed after the development agreement and zoning actions rather than earlier, and they warned that post‑hoc PID approvals risk creating precedents. A councilor asked for legal review of PID documents; staff confirmed city legal review had not yet been completed.
Lennar representatives emphasized the build‑out pace and company capacity: one presenter said, "We are the second largest builder in the country," and said Lennar intends to move quickly and install the amenities and infrastructure in coordination with the city. Developers said PID proceeds would cover only part of roughly $4.7 million in estimated public‑improvement costs and that the PID helps make the project feasible and to deliver amenities earlier than private capital alone would allow.
Council direction: members asked staff to obtain further documentation quantifying how the PID changes project viability, to ensure disclosure protocols are clear for prospective buyers, and to return with any recommended policy language (for example, a PID policy that sets expectations about when the city will consider PIDs in relation to zone changes and development agreements).
Ending: The work session did not take a vote on the PID; staff and petitioners were asked to provide additional 'but‑for' analysis, disclosures, and to submit the governing document for legal review before the council considers any formal action.
