Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Infrastructure District topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council signals reluctance to proceed with Farr West Landing PID in its current form
Summary
Councilmembers raised concerns about a proposed six-mill Public Infrastructure District to fund roughly $3 million in improvements for the Farr West Landing project — notably that the small Pleasant View parcel could bear disproportionate assessments — and gave staff informal direction not to move forward while the application remains incomplete.
Andrea Steiniger presented background on the developer's petition to create a Public Infrastructure District (PID) covering parts of Farr West Landing, explaining the PID process under Utah law: a developer may issue bonds for public infrastructure within the district and repay them through a special assessment on properties included in the PID. She said the developer's current proposal included a six-mill levy and roughly $3 million in infrastructure costs.
Steiniger described the Pleasant View portion as a small triangular parcel at the top of the site and said the housing portion would be excluded from the PID. She warned the developer's petition had been corrected and resubmitted and that Pleasant View has not accepted the application. Council discussion focused on the potential for Pleasant View property owners to carry a disproportionate share of the levy for infrastructure that primarily benefits Farr West, and on the city's current interlocal arrangements: Pleasant View would provide roughly 70% of sanitary sewer service and about 90% of stormwater service for the development, and impact fees and sewer revenue allocations were noted as part of the complexity.
Councilmembers expressed concerns about a proposed six-mill levy ("six mills" equals $6 per $1,000 of assessed value) and about using a PID along with other public funding sources such as a Community Reinvestment Agency and WACOG road funds. Given the outstanding corrections to the application and the council's concerns, staff said there was informal direction that Pleasant View is not interested in moving forward with the PID in its current form.
