Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables SoJo Marketplace PID amid state auditor uncertainty
Summary
After applicant presentations and public comment, councilors and staff spent over an hour debating accounting and audit risk from recent State Auditor guidance; legal counsel and the CFO offered competing explanations, and the council voted to table the PID resolution until the July 21 meeting to seek clarity.
The South Jordan City Council opened a public hearing on a proposed 17‑acre SoJo Marketplace Public Infrastructure District (PID), a financing vehicle for a planned retail and commercial development near South Jordan Parkway. Applicant representatives said site plans for the first phase are ready and that PID approval is needed to finalize lease and financing terms.
Developer representatives described two ready‑to‑go phases and ongoing tenant discussions; John Guest said the team has been working on the project for two years and has coordinated with university and infrastructure partners. David Cannon, representing Larry H. Miller Real Estate, spoke in support and emphasized transportation connections.
The hearing turned to legal and fiscal risk after council members raised a State Auditor interpretation that may require cities to treat PIDs as a component unit in financial reporting. City CFO Sunil Maidu said that under the auditor’s current interpretation, “if the district files for bankruptcy, it falls back into the city,” and that component‑unit reporting could show PIDs on the city’s financial statements and might, depending on timing, appear in audits and affect reporting.
Outside counsel Matt Entz, representing the applicant, countered that the accounting requirement to report a PID as a component unit is an auditing and reporting determination and does not create a legal obligation for the city to repay PID debt. “The city would be no more liable for the PID’s bond issuances than the county or state would be on a bond issued by the city,” Entz said, arguing the finance structure limits bondholder recourse to PID revenue streams.
Council members voiced concern about fiscal uncertainty and the practical effect of state action; several urged prudence. With developers saying they need PID clarity to complete leases and an application expiring in October, the council balanced economic development interest against audit risk. After discussion councilors moved to table consideration and revisit the matter at the July 21 council meeting to allow staff and elected officials to seek clarification from the State Auditor and legislative contacts. The motion to table passed on a roll call vote.
The council did not approve the PID resolution; instead it directed staff and the applicant to pursue resolution of state‑level uncertainty and to return with updated guidance or revised documents before final approval.
