Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State inland-port authority outlines financing tool for Green River development
Summary
Inland Utah Inland Port Authority representative Jenna Draper told the council the authority can designate project areas that capture tax increment from new development for local infrastructure, citing a Salina example and stressing that money generated in Green River must be spent in Green River.
Jenna Draper, a representative of the Inland Utah Inland Port Authority, told the Green River City Council that the authority can help local development by creating project areas that capture new tax increment and use it to finance infrastructure and housing investments.
Draper said project areas do not change local land-use authority or zoning. ‘‘We don’t own any land in Green River. We aren’t developing land in Green River. You retain full control over your planning and zoning,’’ she told the council, adding that revenues generated in the project area must be spent in the jurisdiction where they were produced. Draper described a typical allocation where most of the incremental revenue is available to the authority to support projects, while taxing entities continue to receive base-year revenues; she said the authority takes a small administrative fee and reinvests remaining funds in local projects as directed by the city.
Draper cited Salina City as an example: the authority provided a $4.6 million infrastructure loan for a development that is planned to produce about 300 housing units in several phases, she said. The loan helped cover water, sewer and road improvements and was repaid from the development’s tax differential once the project was triggered. Draper also described the authority’s work to market parcels and to support expansions by existing local business owners as well as outside companies. She emphasized the authority cannot move tax revenue generated in Green River to other jurisdictions.
Councilors asked about administrative fees and how much of the incremental revenue would be retained for projects versus administrative costs; Draper said the authority retains an administrative percentage (she cited an example of roughly a five-percent administrative fee) and that the remaining increment is reinvested according to the city’s direction. The presentation closed with an invitation for the council to review the Castle Country project-area plan and budget documents available on the authority’s website; Draper encouraged local business owners and developers to contact her office for tailored assistance.
The council did not take formal action on the presentation; Draper said next steps would include staff review, potential boundary amendments, and follow-up meetings with local officials and taxing entities.
