Community Reinvestment Agency - Regular Meeting

5-0. Thank you. I need a motion to recess to the Community Reinvestment Agency meeting. So moved. Motion by Fred. Second?

I'll second.

Second by Fred. All in favor of moving to, Fred, how do you vote? Yes. We're in?

Yes.

Tasha? Yes. Catherine?

Yes.

Mike? Yes. All right. We are now in the reinvestment. Agency meeting. Hope I can find the old. I'll call to order the reinvestment agency meeting. We have some items for board consideration. Item 2A is a motion to approve the June 2nd, 2026 and June 9th, 2026 community reinvestment agency meeting minutes. Item 2B is an action on approval of resolution CRA 2604 resolution adopting the 2026 annual report of the community reinvestment agency of Draper City. We'll have a report on that one by Jason Burningham. If you want to approve 2A before that, is there a motion?

I make a motion that we approve item 2A, the minutes from June 2nd and June 9th.

All right. So we've got a motion by Brens. Is there a second? Second. Second by Catherine. Yeah. All right. Bren, how do you vote? Yes. Catherine?

Yes.

Tasha?

Yes.

Fred? Yes. Mike?

Yes.

All right. Well, minutes are approved. Yes. Mr. Burningham, go ahead, sir. Come on up, Jason.

Good evening. Members of the Community Reinvestment Agency Board, I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening. My name is Jason Burningham. I'm a principal and owner of LRB Public Finance Advisors. And our purpose this evening is to review our June 30th annual CRA report, which has We're going to summarize but has been posted with the governor's office of economic development according to statute and Just quickly, our presentation outline is I wanted to give you a quick overview of the specific report and what elements that we report on and each of the individual project areas, as well as three historic project areas that still have active participation in terms of funding. As a quick summary, I mentioned this in an earlier work session, there are six active project areas. Those project areas are noted in that table below, three of which the collection period of receiving tax increment has ended, but they're still fund balances. Whereas there's also three current project areas that continue to receive tax increment. This is a breakdown of what was received for tax year 2025 received fiscal year 26. The frontrunner CDA, that was the portion of revenue that came to the agency. Then Crescent at $1.9 million, South Mountain $1.4 million, with a total tax increment received of just over $7.1 million. The next column is just a forecast of what we expect to be received over the remaining life of these project areas. Wanted to just focus first on the frontrunner CDA. This has been a really successful project area for the city there's some depictions of what consists of Development in that area this was a community development area just under 300 acres and its primary purpose was commercial development but also some mixed-use development and The base year for this was in 2012 at just over $6 million. That's what the land value was at the time. And as you can see, the current 2025 value is almost $590 million. So that's a significant increase, almost $9,700 million. increase over that time. And so this prior year, we received $3.7 million. It does have a useful life. So the remaining life or period of this is through fiscal year 2020, excuse me, 2035. Here's a map that shows of the 300 acres, how much of it has been developed. So we've got a good chunk of it has been developed. There's a little bit still undeveloped. And then there's almost 40 acres of residential development that has occurred within this project area. Here's how the actual uses of those funds were a portion of administrative costs, including some professional and technical services that are provided there. But the majority of the money have been used for public infrastructure and contribution to fund balance. We had an earlier conversation about continue to program those dollars, and that will be forthcoming as we have opportunity to meet about that. These are the percentages of each of the tax entities and what percentage they participate on this particular project The remaining budget for the frontrunner as you can see depicted there including next fiscal year through the end period of 2035 is just over 35 million dollars We do use a net present value calculation just to kind of put it in context of that $35 million comes over seven or eight years. If we had it in today's dollars, what's it really worth? That's what the $27.8 million is depicting. Notable, I think here is just the idea of, you know, what type of revenues are passing through to the taxing entities above the base. And as you can see here, those additional 20 or 30% figures that go back to those taxing entities has produced an increase of almost $1,900. well, 1,907%, so 1,907% increase over what they were getting in that base year of 2012. So they're continuing to get benefit along the way, as well as once this project sunsets in 2035, then they'll get the top level as well, which is that 1,462,000. We'll go back to the taxing entities. Crescent RDA is the next project area. I'm going to try to kind of be brief on the remainder of these slides, but this was an RDA area. It was first triggered back in 2001, and it still has an expiration period that goes through 2032. Crescent, similarly, started with a very low base year value of just under $780,000, and now almost $300 million, 37,000% increase. And this last year, fiscal year 26, it generated $1.9 million of tax increment, and we have six years remaining on this particular project. Of the acreage the 8890 acres most of it is developed so the project has Met what the objectives of the plan were there's still 11 acres or so that's undeveloped and a portion of this is residential I should mention there is a reason that we're showing residential in this in each of these and it's a statutory requirement one of the initiatives of the state through Governor's Office of Economic Development is to look at whether these projects have also promoted mixed-use residential or housing projects. One of the concerns that the state has I think that's even more nationally recognized as well, but just the shortage of housing supply, affordable housing product and so forth. And so one of the narratives that they look at in each project is of these redevelopment or economic development areas, are we seeing any residential components in them? And so you'll see in each of these, we have a residential calculation. The uses of funds, interesting on Crescent because the city had outstanding bonds for which it provided parks, recreation, the amphitheater. Those bonds are qualified. one time kind of unique expenditures that the rda excuse me the cra could take advantage of which it did and this goes back to 2009 and 2012 period and because of that almost a million dollars of that annual expense are qualified resources that were able to put towards that and uh... the remaining two thousand twenty six the table right below gives a depiction of starting in two thousand one how much tax increment came to the agency Versus 2006 that stepped down to 80 percent 2011 again stepped down to 75 percent and so forth but for these last remaining six years a hundred percent of the additional amount which is really haircut monies that would have flown Would have would have been captured by the taxing entities except for the school district comes back to the agency to meet these qualified projects, so going FORWARD, WE ANTICIPATE ANOTHER $6 MILLION IN TOTAL, ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR THAT WOULD COME INTO THIS PROJECT AREA THAT COULD THEN BE USED FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA, OR BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDITIONAL TAX INCREMENT MONIES, THEY ALSO COULD BE USED GLOBALLY THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO CRESCENT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TREATMENT THAN THE OTHERS. This growth of the project, obviously 37,000%. If you put that in terms of, well, what is the compounded annual growth rate? Another way to look at that is, well, if I invested a dollar, what would be my annual percentage increase over this period of time from 2000, in this case, 2012 to 2026? And it would be the equivalent of about a 25.6% average annual return to the city. South Mountain. This was, excuse me, initially intended to be incubation to bring plural site into Draper City. It's since been reconfigured and changed in a lot of ways, but I did want to point out it also has some significant metrics here in terms of the base value was 7.3 million. It's increased 175 plus million dollars. So even there, there's a significant tax base benefit and increase that has occurred. The expiration on this one is 2041. Of the 83 acres, not quite as much is developed, but still the majority of the project is developed. 25 acres is undeveloped, and there is a portion that's dedicated to residential. There's the uses of funds. So that breaks down both uses and sources of funds, and then also the tax increment participation levels relative to that project area. So this one has another 13, 14 years of which we're forecasting another $28 million that would be generated there. And there's the current expenditures for how it's being budgeted. This one actually has even a higher budget. Comprehensive, if you will, annual growth rate, which is 48%. So if you kind of think of that as an internal rate of return or return on investment, that's the annual percentage return. This last slide is just a reminder that there are three, we consider them active project areas. The one I didn't list here is the West Freeway, but of those three project areas, they no longer generate tax increment on an annual basis, but they do have unused fund balances. so one of the things that uh... we're asking uh... for the party a board to consider is uh... having a discussion in terms of programming those dollars going forward uh... and with that uh... if there any questions i'm happy to address those we just wanted to report This is a summary, obviously a really succinct summary of what has been published and produced. It's been posted on the Governor's Office of Economic Development database. It's available for public inspection. It covers all the elements that that I went through this evening You're in full compliance everything has been updated And really your project areas have been successful. I know I say this every year but Your project areas have been some of the most successful and fruitful project areas that we have in the state relative to RDAs and You don't have to just look at what's happened there, but from a true financial perspective, it's clearly the case. So that's my report. Happy to address any questions the board might have.

I appreciate these presentations that you gave tonight. I think they were really insightful and helpful. I guess my question is, you know, there were some at the bottom of the packet, there were some allocations in, I think, especially the East Bangor project area. If we as a council wanted to make some adjustments to those, what's the best way to do that?

Yeah, I think in terms of all of the fund balances discussion that we had in the work session and allocation in terms of the East Bangor, which was specifically almost $5 million, and there was some dedicated for housing and some dedicated for projects. I think the best is to provide input either through staff, John's group, Mike, or directly. I've included my information here. But I think we were also looking for direction from you as a board to say, okay, Our priorities are this. Can you go back and look at what options we have? And then we could come back and have that more kind of guided for the next five or seven, 10 years of listing those of how you want to meet those objectives. And of course, the timing's unique too, because like East Bangor, our window's shorter. So we have to do more with that money earlier. Crescent, we have a longer period of time, but the same with West Freeway and Sandhills. So that might be inappropriate. I think what the RDA has done in the past is by motion or something, you've accepted the report just in compliance. But if there's any direction that you want to give to us to go and then come back with some ideas or give us ideas of what you'd like to see programmed in here, we can certainly do that and come back.

I mean, I have some thoughts about the East Bangor. I think that we have a proposed development that is going in there and I feel like we could have some infrastructure needs that are not currently funded. Some that might even, we may need to talk to UDOT about if we could contribute to them possibly helping them, you know, do some of the improvements that we need. And so I think that would be my suggestion for the funds within East Bangor is to focus on because that project goal was to build Bangor, which it's built, but I think it needs some improvements, and so I think it would align closely with those project goals if we focused on improving Bangor and more of 138.

I sat in that tonight, so I second what Brynn said. Draper City is doing some wonderful improvements right there, but we need help from UDOT over the bridge.

I still think a lot of that is that light. We have to get that light reset. We just don't have the flow of traffic going across. It's horrible. Brynn's idea is really great, but the very first, lowest hanging fruit is that traffic signal.

Well, and I'm wondering, too, we have had some housing development on Third East, you know, some of those homes that have just been built and that some of that housing, you know, that's allocated to housing might be able to go towards improving, you know, that what we're seeing going on on Third East and on Bangor. And there's some housing that's come to us in just kind of initial stages, so I think we might see more redevelopment of that area for residential.

Right, and it would certainly be nice to appropriate some of this funding for those infrastructure expenses.

Yeah, and I think we'd be- Mr. Mayor. Oops, sorry.

Go ahead. I'd like to make a motion to adopt the report.

Mr. Green has made a motion to adopt the report. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms. Johnson. All right. Any further discussion?

I just think that there are some other areas that I would like for sure that we explore some ideas to use some of this funding, which would then necessitate that we would obviously revise this report if we find something we want to adjust. Use it or lose it, right? Right.

Yeah, and I think that's what we were hoping to accomplish this evening is just we know that you're aware, generally speaking. The earlier session, we hope it was more informative to tell you what kind of qualified projects we could look at. But everything that you've mentioned so far are qualified projects that we think we certainly could look Could do so now.

I think it's a matter of trying to pull this together So we have a plan before we then make this Second this motion and things mayor. Can I just ask about another? Idea to make sure to see if it's feasible that we have some of the undeveloped property up by the plural site area We had a public comment today. We've had it more than once about a type of museum and or civic center or something, is it feasible that we could use some of that land, this money to purchase some of the land there for that museum to go maybe in that area?

Yeah, possibly. You know, one of the things... And it would still be, then it would be a private... Yeah. One of the things we'd want to look at there is the actual project area plan for that. But I think generally speaking, as we've talked before, if it's public infrastructure that provides a benefit to the project area, I think that certainly qualifies it. Now, if we're talking about ultimately purchasing it for a private use, I don't think we're concerned about that either, provided that the project area plan kind of generally mentions that. It's a little different because usually we create the project area plans and the budget. South Mountain was unique in that it was really driven by Salt Lake County. I'm trying to look and see if anyone's still here from that, but it was David Dobbins would remember. Salt Lake County was the one that took the lead in that, even though that Draper RDA was the primary. Well, it's your under your responsibility. It's your CRA that did it.

But things shifted there, too, right?

Yes. Yeah. And things moved around a little bit. But that one was driven more by the Salt Lake County Regional Economic Group. And it was obviously for the job creation with that. So I'd want to go back and just look at the plan relative to your specific question. Generally speaking, they're broad enough that it would allow for that. But I would want to make sure that, you know, it's permitted in this particular case in the plan.

Well, it might be interesting if it's close to the Canyon's new building, that maybe the school district would be interested in doing some things with some other parts of the school district and some of their other programs that aren't necessarily tech, but maybe more like cultural or historical or performative or something.

All right. Ready for a vote? Mr. Green, how do you vote? I'm going to second his motion.

I think I said it.

Bren did. Mr. Green, how do you vote?

I vote yes.

Bren, how do you vote? Yes.

Yes.

All right, Fred? Yes. Sasha?

No.

Catherine?

Yes. How far did I get down like that?

All right, Adam passes four to one. Next item is a motion. We need a motion to adjourn back to our city council. That is a motion. So moved. So moved. All right, motion by Mr. Green, second. All right, Mr. Green, how do you vote? Yes.

Yes.

Fred? Yes. Tasha? Yes. Catherine? Yes. All right, we're back in the city council meeting.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

All right, we have a motion to adjourn, second? So moved. Second by Fred. I second. All right, all in favor of adjourning, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. We stand adjourned.