Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Reimbursement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CRA board weighs Silo Park request for up to $51.5 million in tax‑increment reimbursement
Summary
Salt Lake City's Community Reinvestment Agency reviewed a proposal from the Silo Park developers for a 25‑year tax‑increment reimbursement totaling roughly $51.4–$51.5 million, alongside waiver requests to the CRA sustainable development policy and proposed offset payments of $5,000 per month.
Salt Lake City's Community Reinvestment Agency on June 9 considered a developer request to reimburse up to $51,500,000 in tax‑increment financing over a 25‑year term for the Silo Park mixed‑use project near 500 South and 400 West. CRA staff said the development would span about 8.2 acres, include more than 1,000,000 square feet of new construction and is estimated at roughly $390 million in total cost.
CRA staff described the reimbursement math: a base HTRZ reimbursement rate of 60% would yield about $34,000,000, with additional public‑benefit points raising a project to the 90% maximum. "The tax increment request that we're looking at here today ... is for $51,500,000 over 25 year term for eligible construction expenses," CRA staff said. Staff also reported the applicant has demonstrated approximately $51,400,000 in eligible reimbursable expenses that would serve as the project's maximum reimbursable base if verified.
The project is planned in five phases and includes a mix of market‑rate, workforce and affordable housing; staff said one early phase already produced a 180‑unit affordable project. Developers are proposing a public open space — "Silos Park" — and preservation of six historic grain silos. Staff outlined next steps, saying the board could approve a resolution authorizing negotiation and execution of a tax‑increment reimbursement agreement if it chooses to proceed.
Board members pressed staff on details that would determine final reimbursement amounts and protections. The chair asked for clarification on workforce‑housing AMI definitions and whether units would be deed‑restricted, and requested attorney input on how a proposed Public Infrastructure District (PID) would affect the city's liability for bond payments. No formal vote occurred; staff characterized the next step as preparing negotiated terms and suggested draft material elements and remedies be returned for board consideration.
