Developers pitch Provo Town Center overhaul, seek rezoning and HTRZ financing

Developers presented a detailed concept to repurpose the Provo Town Center mall into a mixed‑use, transit‑oriented district and asked the council to approve zoning and financing changes that would make the project feasible.

Robert Schmidt of PED Companies introduced the team and said the project aims to ‘‘turn the mall inside out’’ by demolishing the old Sears box, converting interior mall space to covered parking and street‑facing retail and adding multifamily housing and a central plaza meant for events and daily activity. Justin Long of Brixton Capital said the plan reduces unworkable interior retail and increases leasable, exterior‑facing storefronts.

The developers stated they have secured some anchor support — notably a portion of the Dillard’s space that Target has agreed to occupy — which they called ‘‘a first domino’’ for recruitment of other retailers. Justin Long said the final product would include about 110,000 square feet of new retail, roughly 100,000 square feet of commercial space and a 20,000‑square‑foot coworking component, trimming roughly 300,000 square feet of underutilized mall interior.

Much of the conversation with council focused on three formal requests the developers plan to bring back to the city: a rezoning of the north end of the mall to ITOD, text amendments to ITOD to allow certain for‑sale townhomes and revised setback/height transition rules adjacent to residential zones, and a Housing Transit Reinvestment Zone (HTRZ) application to capture incremental tax revenue for infrastructure. Cody Hill, representing the development team, described the HTRZ as a tax‑increment tool that can capture up to 80% of incremental tax revenue for a maximum period (developers cited a 25‑year span) and noted it requires at least 50 dwelling units per acre and minimum affordable housing set‑asides (developers clarified a 9% requirement at 80% area median income and 3% at 60% AMI in their model).

On financing, developers said their underwriting shows a bondable up‑front amount around $20–25 million to bridge immediate infrastructure costs; they also described a larger total ‘‘gap’’ in the range of tens of millions that TIF, a proposed PID and sales‑tax sharing would help close. Justin Long told the council: "What we're looking for is an upfront bond... offset infrastructure cost of approximately $20 [million]," and later characterized a bondable ask near $25 million as the practical request.

Councilors pressed for details on several fronts. Multiple members raised concerns about vehicle circulation and the plan’s central roundabout — which developers defended as deliberate retail visibility and access strategy — and about whether the plaza design would require frequent street closures for events. Several councilors also questioned the financial assumptions behind the tax increment modeling and asked for more complete dollar projections and recent sales‑tax figures.

Affordable housing and displacement were a central line of questioning. Developers said they plan to meet affordability requirements through a mix of for‑sale and rental units, pointing to a cluster of proposed for‑sale affordable townhomes on the site of an existing mobile home park. Robert Schmidt and Ben Wilhelm said the developer would provide at least 18 months’ notice to displaced residents and work individually on relocation, and that for‑sale affordable units would be subject to deed restrictions while rental units would be managed and income‑qualified in the usual way. Council members pressed for firmer guarantees and asked whether direct relocation assistance would be offered; a city representative relayed that the mayor’s office had suggested exploring a $10,000 relocation allowance as one option for residents in immediate need.

Developers also said they had taken the project to the planning commission and that commissioners had recommended against two of the requested text amendments (allowing for‑sale townhomes in ITOD and the proposed transition rule), which the developers said would reduce project density by an estimated 250–300 units and put HTRZ eligibility at risk. The team asked the council to consider the rezone and text amendments together with HTRZ eligibility because of the interdependence of density, infrastructure costs and financing.

Next steps: developers told the council they would return with more granular financial models, updated unit counts and refined language on setbacks and townhome treatment. Multiple councilors asked for additional written projections, recent sales‑tax figures and clearer commitments on relocation assistance before any final zoning or financing decisions.

Why it matters: If the council adopts the requested text changes and supports an HTRZ application, the city would position a large central parcel for a high‑density, mixed‑use redevelopment with taxpayer‑backed financing elements; opponents and some residents warned that displacement and park/traffic impacts will require sharper protections and clearer benefits for affected households.