H.B. 507 State Coordination of Regional and Local Economic Development Projects Amendments

What this bill does

H.B. 507 would end four existing state-created tax increment tools and replace them with one new tool that can capture up to 60% of added property tax for up to 25 years. It would also prohibit project areas that are not contiguous and require disclosure to home buyers, with automatic dissolution once debt is retired.

Plain-English summary written by AI from the official description. Check the official text below.

Your legislators on this bill

Enter your address to see what your own representative and senator did on this bill.

Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording.

Take action

This bill's session is over, but your legislators still want to hear from you. Ideas that died often come back next year.

Enter your address to get your legislators' contact information and a ready-to-send message about this bill.

Every vote

• 7 yes, 1 no, 2 absentHouse Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee: vote to change the bill · Feb 18, 2026Who voted how
• 7 yes, 1 no, 2 absentHouse Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee: vote to approve it · Feb 18, 2026Who voted how
• 69 yes, 1 no, 5 absentFinal House vote · Feb 25, 2026
• 3 yes, 0 no, 3 absentSenate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee: vote to approve it · Mar 2, 2026Who voted how
• 22 yes, 2 no, 5 absentFinal Senate vote · Mar 5, 2026
• 27 yes, 1 no, 1 absentConference Committee - Final Passage · Mar 6, 2026
• 57 yes, 1 no, 17 absentConference Committee - Final Passage · Mar 6, 2026

Hearings and debates

• Feb 18, 2026 House Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (68 turns)

  1. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)1:35:58

     The next item on the agenda is, uh, HB 5 0 7, state coordination of regional and local economic development projects. Uh, Representative Roberts.

  2. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:36:08

     Yeah. Gimme one second. I'm gonna, can I, oh, do we have screens here? Yeah, we Do. Okay. Yeah, let me, let me just pull, put this up on the screen 'cause I think it'll help frame this issue. Gimme one second. Okay. Thank you.

  3. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:36:33

     As a packet, is this, is this our homework that you're handing out? Eight page summary. Wow. Yes, there'll be an exam after, it's an exam after written and oral 10 page summary. Come on. A glossary of terms. I love it. Expect you to Read that. Yeah, I, yeah, yeah. It's our syllabus, so, Okay. Uh, well thank you. Committee. I'll, I'll, I'll try to be quicker. Unfortunately, like this is probably a longer discussion than the last bill, but I'll, I'll try to, I'll try to tighten it up. Here's, let me just frame this issue on the economic development side. So over the last several years, the legislatures created what I think are just too many economic development tools at the state level. So you have tools, fizz, H-T-R-Z-C-C-R-Z hops, it's the alphabet Soup of economic Development tools. And my argument is that we've created too many of these economic development tools for some new problem that popped up this legislative session or some new, you know, some new economic development opportunity. We need to customize a new tool, and I think many of these tools are too rich. And what I mean by too rich is that they give away too much of the future tax base of cities, schools, and counties for too long. Um, the core of these tools is what's called tax increment finance or tiff, where you basically capture the incremental property tax value over and above a certain baseline assessment. And many of these tools can extend for 40 years and they can extend up to 80% of that incremental tax value. So you can imagine an economic development deal where either a, a city or, or maybe a county comes and they want to, they want to drive in some new kind of business opportunity into the city or their county. And so they offer these deals where they'll say, Hey, for 40 years, we will not, we will basically allow you to divert 80% of the increment tax stream to some kind of infrastructure improvement or some, you know, benefit to the project. Now, the problem with these tools, and there's a lot of benefits, but one of the problems is that when you give away so much of your tax base, the cities, the counties, and the schools still have to provide the services and who pays for the services, the existing taxpayers. And yet you're bringing in new growth that's putting a burden on that existing taxpayer, and they're not getting the offset of that new property tax, let's say. And so what ends up happening is you then see the local government or the school board or the county have to raise their taxes because they still have to provide the same amount of services. And so what can happen is if you have bad economic development deals or too many of these tools, you can have a situation where the, your property tax base is being pledged away and the existing taxpayers, us, our neighbors, end up having to foot the bill. Now, the argument for the economic development tools is that down the road, they'll generate enough economic benefit, ultimately to the taxpayer, and the taxpayer will come out on top. That certainly happens with some, some deals, but it also happens the other way too. And I wanna just give you a quick example of a deal that that happened, um, in my city, and hopefully my city doesn't get too mad at me, but be several years ago, there was a large company called Pluralsight. It was one of the unicorn companies. It was a success story in the state of Utah. They were founded in Farmington. They grew rapidly, they were a billion dollar startup company. They wanted to move their headquarters. And so Mr. Vice chair, he, he knows, he might've been mayor at this point close by, but they looked at putting in, you know, they got all the cities lined up who could put together the best incentive package for the company. And they ended up pitting some cities together. Draper one, good for us, Draper one. And, um, ultimately you had this, the, the company relocate, relocate its jobs away from Farmington down to Draper. Now, what ended up happening with that company is they spun their IP out to Ireland. They shifted a bunch of tech jobs, it jobs over to Poland. They got acquired by a large private equity firm on the West coast, who then took on too much debt, faced some economic, uh, headwinds declared bankruptcy. New owner came in and they moved and relocated the jobs to Texas. And you have to ask yourself, well, like, who won in that situation? And the reason why I give you that story is to just show you how, um, you know, how there's, there's a, a bad side to sometimes how these economic development tools work. So what we're trying to do in this bill is focus on consolidating the state created tax increment tools into one tool that is less rich and less long in duration. So look, if you look here at this, this, uh, this fancy chart I put together, you'll see the land authorities, you'll inland port MI a, you'll see STA state created TIFF tools, HT RZ physics. Um, and then you'll see the local tools, which the C-R-A-R-D-A. And then you'll see generally, these aren't all perfectly correct 'cause some, there's some flex or some differences in and, um, ambiguities with some of these. Um, but you'll see how long the duration is and, and some of these tools, what the increment allowed is, right? And then, and then ultimately the application process. Is it the city that does it? The county, the schools who gets dragged, who doesn't? So what this bill is trying to do is really just focus on these state created TIF tools, and it's acknowledging that there's been a proliferation of these tools and perhaps some of these tools that aren't working so well, maybe we can Sunset and consolidate into a tool that's less rich with less long duration. So right now, you have some tools that can go up to 80% of increment for as long as 40 years. That's a long time. What the proposal is, is to replace is to Sunset A-H-T-R-Z fizz hops CCRZ, and to replace it with this single tool. And the single tool, uh, will be capped at 60% of the real property tax increment, and it will be capped at up to 25 years. And the idea, this is a small baby step forward, but what I am, um, arguing to this committee is that we have to get these tax increment tools under control, not just the state created ones, but also the, you know, potentially some of the state land authorities, um, as well. And that's what this is, this bill is trying to do. Now, the second piece to the bill is to try to put in some real reforms around public infrastructure districts where, which are different than tax increment tools, but they're, I'd call 'em their, I don't know, their ugly stepsister, maybe something like that. But what we're doing here is, um, we're eliminating non-contiguous PI districts. We're gonna provide a clear dissolution process for PI districts. So typically you create a pi, you have a bond, it's secured by the, the, the, a new assessment, um, on the property owners. And sometimes these PIs can just continue on in perpetuity. This bill has a clear dissolution process for those pigs. And it says once the indebtedness is gone within 30 days, you dissolve. And so there's not these, these creatures just living, you know, in perpetuity. Uh, the other thing is that it does is it forces disclosure to the final buyers. Oftentimes what you have is, um, land property owners, someone that buys a house and, you know, they don't realize it, but they've got this new PIT assessment on them, and it's this additional, basically property tax. And so we're trying to force some disclosure upfront. Um, and then you'll see too, just some clarity around reinforcing statutory protections to cities. Cities ultimately have to, you know, approve of the, the pit districts. There's been some questions on whether or not if a pit bond goes bad, does it have ultimate recourse to the city? This is trying to make it very clear that this, the city, there's a, there's a firewall between the city and the, the bond holders and the city's not at risk. So, um, there's a lot to discuss. It's a big bill. You've got, um, you've got this packet if you want to get into more of the details of how it works, but that's high level what we're trying to accomplish. And, and with that, Mr. Chair, that concludes my presentation.

  4. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)1:46:06

     Thank you, representative. I'll bring it back to the committee for clarifying questions. Representative Cutler,

  5. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:46:21

     This is a lot. Uh, I appreciate your efforts and, um, your efforts to Sunset existing specialized zones. I, I want just to make sure I understood, uh, clarify this. First of all, it's admirable. I'm worried that you'll be successful because a new representative will come and think they have a great idea and create a new zone. Uh, that's likely to happen. But, so in your slide, you suggested you're only focusing on the state, um, tax increment financing, but it looks like you capture a number of local tax increment financing zones in this as well. That would be phased out in 2028. Is, is that correct?

  6. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:47:05

     Or is you're standing No, No, there, so there's state created tools, like let's, let's take, you know, HTRZ or fizz, right? Those are tools that the state created in statute and said cities, you can use this tool if it meets these, these policy objectives. One of which was, you know, putting density around transit stations. Another one of was to try to create affordable housing. Um, it's basically saying we're gonna Sunset those. The city tool is the C-R-A-R-D-A and it's not touching that Tool. So that will still be available, correct. They're not gonna touch that. They still have a redevelopment area that they wanna focus on.

  7. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:47:44

     Are commercial development area and Correct. That will still be available. And will, will it be subject to the 60%?

  8. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:47:51

     Nope, you're not just, you're not touching up. Just the state created those state created tools. Uh, C-C-R-Z-H-T-R-Z, fizz hops.

  9. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)1:47:59

     Great. Thank you. Further questions, Representative Shelley.

  10. Rep. Troy Shelley1:48:06

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as, as I, as I look at this, does, does this bill touch maa?

  11. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:48:14

      It doesn't touch MA a, which is one of the land authorities. So the, the big land authorities in the state are MAA and the inland port. Um, it doesn't have an impact on those, those land authorities, but I think it, there's an important conversation to be had in our body about whether or not those tools are, are, are pushing forward and, um, the public good. And I think there's some conversations that we could have about how to potentially try to put better guardrails in place around the land authorities. This bill, though, is not trying to tackle that issue.

  12. Rep. Troy Shelley1:48:51

      It does, uh, um, is Midas property tax 75%? Is that too high?

  13. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:48:58

      Yeah, I mean, if you look at that chart I showed up, you'll see that the, the, the land authorities have up to 75% on real property that's lower than where typically, um, the CRAs RDAs, they can go up to a hundred percent. But here's the thing with the C-A-R-D-A, you have to go get the school district and the county to participate. And so what happens typically is that deal gets negotiated down somewhere in the sixties, right? So they can go statutorily up to a hundred, but oftentimes practically, because you have to get all three of those local taxing jurisdictions on board, and in a participation agreement, the deal gets negotiated down into the sixties. If you look at those land authorities, let's take Mida for example, it can go up to 75% as long as it's invited in by the city. You can drag counties and school boards along with you. And, um, you know, I, again, I, this bill is only touching the state created increment tools, just those four tools, there's more, you know, it's, it's not touching all of them. Um, but I think it's an important conversation we should have is, is how much of the tax base should we be giving away? And is the public getting enough of the benefit? And are these tax incentives to economic development actors? Are they too rich and too long in duration? I think you could make a strong case that some are,

  14. Rep. Troy Shelley1:50:25

      Can, can I just ask you another question? Does, uh, does Mida have additional mill levies that can assess over and above what the Inland Port Authority

  15. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:50:35

      Can? Yeah, so it's a good question. If you look at what some of those independent land authorities can do is they, they have some additional, uh, mills that they can assess on, uh, for certain projects. And so they can go above and beyond the property tax and they can assess, um, richer property tax, not the increment, just the actual new tax stream. And again, I think it's an important conversation that we need to have ultimately about, you know, whether or not that is, is driving at the public good or not. It, it seems to me, um, their initial scope was based around military installations. What's their current scope? Yeah, you know, you, you'd have to ask them. I think, um, if you look at Maday, it was, it started out and was very successful with Falcon Hill, which is up in Weber County, and a lot of the aerospace and defense industry that we have in the state, which I think has been very positive for the state, has flowed out of that. Um, but I think there's a case to be made that in many, uh, in some situations that there's been scope creep and, um, you know, you've got some of these land authorities going beyond what the original intent was. Again, this bill is not touching the land authority piece, but I think it's an important conversation to have.

  16. Rep. Troy Shelley1:51:53

      Yeah, I think it's a way to maybe reign in the, uh, the, uh, the corporate welfare. So I, I like your bill. Thank you.

  17. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)1:52:05

      Thank you, Representative Shelley. Representative Fiefia.

  18. Rep. Doug Fiefia1:52:08

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my head is hurting from your bills. These may be dumb questions, but I I I, I am hoping I I understand your bill as I read it. Um, how long can these projects keep taking future, um, property tax growth? And is there a hard cap on it?

  19. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:52:29

      Yeah, so depends on the tool and depends on the authority. Um, I can pull, pull it back up, but the, the way that the state created tools work is you have a 25 year period plus a 15 year extension. And so you could have a situation where the increment, let's say it's 80%, so property tax assessment today, new development comes on, property value goes up, 80% of that incremental tax is diverted away from the taxing entities for up to 40 years. And, um, what this is trying to do is, in a small way, say that's too long and we need to be, we need to tighten that up. And so it's the tool that's replacing the tools that it's getting rid of, says 25 years.

  20. Rep. Doug Fiefia1:53:27

      Okay. In, in, in your bill, you use the words regionally significant, what keeps that from slowly meaning almost any project?

  21. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:53:39

      Yeah, well, ultimately, so the way the governance works is you'll have, you'll have a board much like the HTRZ. So right now, the way the HTRZ works is you've got this board cities bring an application, you know, to do, to use the HTRZ tool, and there's this approval process. It basically creates a similar process. Um, so city initiated, cities have to choose to want to use the tool. If a city doesn't want to use it, it doesn't get used, right? So it starts with the city. It's not the state coming in and forcing a tool on somebody's head. There was a bill last year that got a lot of press that, that tried to do that. This is, this is trying to push back on some of that, but, um, the idea is that, you know, the city would come and they could make the application. Now there's ongoing discussions. It's, it's a complicated bill with a lot of lines that, you know, you can go through about what the, what the right role is for the county to play for this tool. Um, I'd be open to feedback from this committee. Right now with many of these tools, there is no participation from the county. It, it, if the city wants to do it, they can drag the county and the school boards along with 'em kicking and screaming. I think there probably should be some kind of county input on the way the tool on, on the tools. And, and so right now it doesn't speak to that. It doesn't make it worse, it doesn't make it better, but I think I'd be open to ideas. I'll put it that way. Does that answer your question? Yeah.

  22. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)1:55:15

      Thank you. Thank you. Representative Fiefia.

  23. Rep. Doug Fiefia1:55:19

      Uh, Representative Cutler, A couple of questions. I'm, uh, struggling a little bit to understand the state reinvestment restricted account that's set up. It seems like only a small portion of the revenue flows to that account, but it also says that account also determines that the, the allowable uses in his own. Can you talk about that account and what money goes in, what money comes out a little bit more? And then I have a Follow up. Yeah,

  24. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:55:46

      it's a, it's, I should have mentioned that in the description. Um, one of the, one of the arguments I'd make is that these, um, some of the, the way our economic de policy, economic development policy works is that, um, you know, too often the state facilitates the creation of these economic development opportunities, and yet there's not a statewide capture of the benefit back to the, the Utah taxpayer. And, and so what it's trying to do is to say you're gonna have this tool, you've got all the increment tools available to you, that committee in, in discussion with the cities, you know, with the city who's ultimately gotta put in the application, they can, they can take a piece of potential parts of the increment and put it into what I'm calling like an income, you know, a tax reduction account for a statewide benefit. And let me, let me just crystallize like how this could work in practice. So let's say you have like a data center that wants to come in and we can debate whether we want data centers or not. Like I think there's, there's some certain leads, some drawbacks to having data centers. Um, but there's some benefits too there. It's a huge amount of CapEx, right? And we are living amidst one of the largest CapEx booms, you know, in the last a hundred years. Um, in many of these deals, you might have a big data center that wants to come in and, um, it's willing, well, lemme, lemme, lemme pull back. It is, um, when you build a data center, about 80% of the value of the data center isn't in the real estate. It's not in the shell, the tilt up, you know, shell, where you store the GPUs, it's actually in the GPUs and the servers. And in fact, it, it, depending on the size of the data center, it can be a billion dollars invested every, you know, four to five years. Now, that's probably on the higher end, but it's a significant amount of investment that goes in the state or, um, local taxing jurisdictions can capture that personal property tax base. So you actually pay a tax on the, you know, those, the, that personal property, the GPUs and the servers and all those kinds of things. In some of these like data center deals, um, you have a situation where, uh, the local taxing entity can't really underwrite to that investment because it's so cyclical and it depreciates so quickly. So you make, you put in a billion dollars within four years, it depreciates down to $0. And so it's very lumpy in the tax base. And yet, you know, the data center, let's say it's a data center that's coming, is willing to pay that. And so what this is trying to do is to say, well, we should try to capture that value in some way to the benefit of the taxpayer of Utah. Here's the way you can capture that benefit. And ultimately the legislature would have control, you know, over that fund. And what I could see it being used over many, many years is to try to, you know, to try to lower some kind of tax maybe one time or ongoing or to make a strategic infrastructure investment. And then the second thing I'd, I'd say just with that fund is you'll note that it also provides a way to send, um, some of the, some of the, the differential from the inland port back to the state. And, you know, I think I got friends here from the inland port who maybe can talk to that in more detail, but that's what it's trying to do. So it's, it's not meant to flow all of the tax coming through the fund, it's just meant to have an opportunity to capture some of that and use it for a statewide purpose.

  25. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:59:31

      Correct. For example, I think you had great Salt Lake and you had other, other large purposes. Sure. Instead of only using that within the zone, recognizing that some of these projects have impacts outside the zone in which they're created

  26. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:59:45

      In Correct. Now you might say, well, well what about the local taxing jurisdiction in the city? Don't they want it? They'd Have to participate. They, well, They, it's their choice, right? Like they, if they don't want to use the tool, they don't have to use the tool.

  27. Rep. Paul A. Cutler1:59:57

      Um, and, And you're not requiring the percentage, you're saying this is, this is an option. You could structure the deal so that some benefit goes to a larger state rather than all the benefit just going to say one community for data center.

  28. Rep. Calvin Roberts2:00:13

      Correct. I could see that being an attractive way to do an economic development deal to say, okay, it's not just my city that's benefiting, I'm gonna benefit and state with this Great spot on that. That's what it's trying to do.

  29. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:00:24

      Okay. Uh, next question. You have a name, uh, something in here about large load customers, uh, which is addressing people that come in asking for a hundred megawatts or more of new electrical load? Yeah. Can you, can you talk to that? I don't quite understand what they're, what you're doing with that.

  30. Rep. Calvin Roberts2:00:43

      That's the data center piece, it, that definition. And I do think I have friends from the league here, maybe not. Um, but that there, we could probably find a better way to define that because there's other things beyond data centers that are a hundred meg users could, and we could be Yeah, we don't, we don't want to grab those in there. And so I think there's an ongoing discussion, but right now it's, yeah, it, it's sort of, that's the, that's the, the, the baseline. But it's basically saying you can't incentivize somebody that's gonna come and use all our electricity unless you do some things. Well, remember last year we passed, uh, was senate bill 1 32. Again, I think I have some friends in the audience who could probably speak to what that was trying to do. But basically it was trying to say, you know, you're, you're putting the large, uh, the large, um, energy demand, you know, behind the, the meter and then has a whole process set up there so that you don't ultimately have us the regular rate payer, you know, bear the cost. And so it's just adopting and borrowing that same construct, not trying to create any new, any new construct there. Thanks.

  31. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:02:06

      Thank you representative. I don't see any other lights, so.

  32. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:02:09

      Oh, thank you. We'll, uh, we'll open this to the public for comment. Is there anyone that would like to comment on this Bill? Seeing none. No. Just kidding. No, I'm just kidding. Is there anything you want? No, I mean, just whatever feels relevant.

  33. Cameron Diehl, Utah League of Cities and Towns2:02:30

      Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Cameron Dale, executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns. And we appreciate Representative Roberts on both the last bill and this bill. This bill has been an extraordinary amount of work as, as you can tell, and there are several key principles that he's trying to accomplish here. And he's been very collaborative working with local governments as he tries to achieve those principles. And so there are several questions that have come up in the committee. I think Representative Roberts answered those questions, but I'm, I wanted to make myself available for any follow-up questions. Uh, if you have any couple key points, I want to just make sure to drive home here. Number one, with House Bill 5 0 7 and the regionally significant tool that is a local government driven option. So essentially what Representative Roberts is saying is when there's this regionally significant opportunity that then a local government city, if it's within city boundaries or county, if it's an unincorporated county, has the opportunity, if it meets that definition to put together this sort of incentive package. But I want to emphasize that under that House Bill 5 0 7 tool, it still has to pass what we often refer to as a, but for test, it still has to demonstrate that this project would not have happened, but for the investment in the infrastructure to support that area. And it's gotta be bigger than just that project. That's why talk about regionally significant. It's more than just the project area. You're looking at that significant benefit across the way. So the first point is an important one that this is a partnership concept where local government says, here's here's the potential plan, and then we work with, with the, the second thing is it talks about sunsetting a variety of tools. And we've had some success stories in those tools that I think have made a positive difference. Um, but I think the, the model that he's going to 5 0 7, particularly with the transparency around PIs will be a benefit to the state. Thank you.

  34. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:04:20

      Thank you. We do have a question for you, Mr. Deal? Yep.

  35. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:04:27

      Representative Miller.

  36. Rep. Tracy Miller2:04:28

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. So did the League of Cities and Towns have a formal position on this? You support?

  37. Cameron Diehl, Utah League of Cities and Towns2:04:34

      Yeah. Thank Mr. Chair. I'll, I'll answer the question. So we presented this bill to our committee yesterday, and because it's a complicated bill, we wanna make sure everybody had a chance to look at it. So right now we're officially positioned pending as everybody's taken a look at it, but we've been working in collaboration with representative and the other stakeholders for the better part of several months now as we've been working through the language. So I expect we'll get to support but officially position pending because we wanted our people to have a chance to look at it.

  38. Rep. Tracy Miller2:04:59

      Understood. I appreciate it. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

  39. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:05:02

      Thank you, representative. Okay. We do have, um, Jen Brown online. So Jen, if you'll, I think you know the drill. Yeah. Unmute and show your camera.

  40. Jen Brown, Utah Citizens for the Constitution2:05:28

      Hello. Thank you. Yes. And I would also like to thank the sponsor for his work on this bill. I represent the citizens and the taxpayers of the state of Utah. We, we are pleased with, uh, two of the PID reforms, which are the non-continuous annexation as well as the, uh, dissolution piece. Unbelievable unbelievably, the PIs were allowed to be put into statute with this non-continuous annexation, which could arguably be, uh, the, a state that even has outdone California and Colorado with the special privileges to the developer. So this was definitely something that needed to be addressed. We do assert that, uh, kids are inherently problematic, whereas the appointed pit board issues the taxation, which we do assert that that is taxation without representation. And another concern that we have within the statute, under definitions, under PIs, privately owned buildings, are, can be considered infrastructure that is something that needs to be fixed. And we assert that that is an abuse of the taxpayer, that these developers can go in and own the building completely and they've had the taxpayer pay for it. And then as we go to the TIF tools, we very much, uh, appreciate the sponsor, uh, Sunset these, and I did just did just wanna make the final point that in SB two six past last session in the downtown area, a hundred percent of the tax increment will go for 30 years to Ryan Smith and his company. So there's some absolute, uh, reform that needs to be done. So thank you so much to the sponsor and to the legislators.

  41. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:07:15

      Jen, can I have you just state your name and, and the organization you're with?

  42. Jen Brown, Utah Citizens for the Constitution2:07:19

      Yes. Jen Brown, Utah Citizens for the Constitution.

  43. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:07:23

      Thank you. We also have, uh, one more late entry. Um, we've got Hartley. Um, all right, Jeff,

  44. Jeff Hartley, High Tech Solutions2:07:43

      Thank you. Can you hear me? Yeah, Thank you. I'm Jeff Hartley. I represent High Tech Solutions, a nuclear power developer. And I wanted to address, um, representative Cutler's question about data centers in, in the past 15 years ago or so, in, in Utah, we were all excited about data centers coming to the state. And after a couple of years, uh, as a state, uh, the message started to go out of, Hey, they don't create many jobs. So these six jobs aren't worth, um, the, the giant consumption of energy that they use. But today, under Operation Gigawatt, under the leadership of Spencer Co, governor Cox and, and President Adams, primarily, there is an interest in getting data centers to Utah, especially these, these large load data centers that want nuclear power. And that's because they will pay the freight for, for the, um, more expensive nuclear power development. They're willing to pay it because they need that, that abundance of energy, and that will actually lower the cost for residential consumers. And so there's a benefit to bringing the big data centers in with nuclear power. And I just wanted to remind the committee of that because it's part of the conversation that we're having under Operation Gigawatt. Thank you.

  45. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:09:02

      Thank you. Um, okay, Mr. Ward, oh, wait, let me reset the timer.

  46. Ben Hart, Utah Inland Port Authority2:09:12

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ben Hart, uh, executive director. You're good. Uh, uh, executive director of the Utah Inland Port Authority. Uh, I think I got called up, uh, to make a comment. Uh, Representative Roberts does have good friends that, uh, supported him and have been working with him on this bill through the process. We're always in favor of, uh, disciplined use of our tools, certainly at the inland port, as he referenced. We are in this bill. Uh, we are going to be contributing some of our funding streams, uh, back to the state of Utah for, uh, their use and purposes as, as is outlined in the bill. Um, a couple of those me mechanisms though, I just wanna speak to, um, we actually purchased a landfill, uh, a couple, well, about a year ago now. We're remediating it on the west side of Salt Lake City. Um, there's gonna be an opportunity for us to be able to help create some pretty robust, uh, revenue streams coming back to the state of Utah. The purpose in all of this is that we want the state to get benefit from what we are doing. Uh, and we feel like what's happening at the inland port, uh, not only should pre create, uh, economic and, uh, job opportunities for those in the project areas where we're located, but also, uh, benefit back to the statewide citizens as a whole. And, and Representative Roberts, uh, did well making that point. I just want to emphasize that's why we're here. We're here to create a better Utah for future citizens. So we wanna work together, make sure that we're part of this, and create a, a robust, uh, funding streams wherever we can to benefit citizens all across the state. Thank you.

  47. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:10:38

      Thank you. Thanks, Ben.

  48. Andrew Gruber, Wasatch Front Regional Council2:10:43

      Mr. Chair, members of the committee? I'm Andrew Gruber. I'm executive director of the Wasatch Front Regional Council. While we also have not yet had a chance to take a formal position on this bill, I'll add my voice to the chorus of appreciation for Representative Roberts and his work on these issues. Um, I would note that under a goyo sponsored analysis recently on the capacity of infrastructure to allow for more housing, they've recognized that a balanced approach is needed for development in around transit stations in suburban infill and in greenfield development. And what one of the things we appreciate about this bill is that it recognizes the tools can help development in all of those areas. And some of the tools that are in place already have been extremely successful in enabling more housing to come forward. But this bill also recognizes, does not mandate that any of these tools be used. They have to make sense for the local community and the character of that community. So it preserves the ability to use these tools effectively and streamlines them so that there is more transparency in their use, but recognizes and, uh, continues the locally driven, uh, and the, uh, uh, structure and the character of the development that is appropriate for that local community. So we appreciate that.

  49. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:12:10

      Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else in the room? Okay. We'll go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to the Committee for action.

  50. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:12:24

      Representative Cutler?

  51. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:12:25

      Yeah, I had another question just to follow up on the large load. So I, I wanted, just to clarify, does, does this, it looks like this prohibits any incentives for large load customers such as data centers after, uh, May 6th of this year, unless it's done through this new tool, the regional help me regional significant development zone. So does this mean that locals will not be able to use any other tax increment tools to, um, I guess it, it include even small data centers as part of a redevelopment effort and everything basically has to go to this state tool if it involves, uh, a data center over a hundred megawatts watts?

  52. Rep. Calvin Roberts2:13:24

      Yes. That's what it current, this current draft does.

  53. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:13:27

      Is that your intent?

  54. Rep. Calvin Roberts2:13:32

      It, it's hard because, um, there's a lot of ongoing discussion about where that lands. Here's what I'd say. There's some data centers right now in local cities. I can, I can think of one Eagle Mountain. That's the one I'm thinking of. Yeah. And so we don't want to get in the way of obstruct or block what they're currently trying to do. Um, but what we are recognizing is that we need to have a sensible approach to the way the data center policy works. And so, yeah, I mean that, that Basically saying, if, if, if you're, if you're gonna, if you're gonna incentivize a data center, go through this new tool and let's get broader agreement at at the large, and we may want some something that benefits beyond the zone, then Yeah. In The past, at the large load, and here's what I'm, here's what I'm saying. There's ongoing discussions. The league is gonna be going to their committee. I can think of a couple representatives in our body who care a lot about the, you know, how we do that. So I would anticipate that there could be some change there from this process forward. It's, you know, it's, it's obviously a big complicated bill, but you know, I can, I can the commit to the committee of what that the intent is and, um, is that great. That's, that's, that's what I, I I think this is an important policy that probably needs some thought. Certainly there's counties in central Utah that care very deeply about this and are very involved in this. And we need to think carefully about how we do this, this, this is putting a moratorium on that pretty quick it Looks like. Yes. And here's what I'd say. There's a couple senate bills right now that, you know, have looked at potentially, yeah. Precluding all local jurisdictions, uh, from doing the data center side. And so I would imagine at some point, you know, this bill collides with those bills and, you know, we gotta work that out. We will see how that works out. But let me just, let me just, 'cause I'm equivocating a little bit, but lemme just clearly say we, we want,

  55. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:15:44

      if this wasn't supposed to be a data center bill, right? That's, that wasn't the intent of it actually. Right?

  56. Rep. Calvin Roberts2:15:48

      The intent of it was to try to pull these things back. But the data center is the, the thing in the room, because it's the big investment, they're looking, you know, to go everywhere. And, um, we wanna have a sensible policy on how that investment works in the state, who it benefits, how it works. And so that is entering that conversation is entering its way into this bill. And my commitment is to try to preserve that some of those local priorities around how they're doing that while also, you know, having some kind of state benefit.

  57. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:16:24

      Great. I appreciate that. And, and I agree, agree with your approach. My understanding, if I understand this bill, is the, the, the regionally significant development zone starts with the locals. So this can't be a state down. Correct. You can't have state economic, uh, economic development going out and recruiting data centers and putting 'em in somebody's community.

  58. Rep. Calvin Roberts2:16:45

      No's, this has to start with the locals and Come back. All right. All city driven.

  59. Rep. Paul A. Cutler2:16:48

      All city driven. Okay. I, I, I like the balance because these are regionally significant decisions to have something like that in our, in a community. And it, and it affects all of us with the large load. So excited to see where this goes.

  60. Unknown speaker2:17:04speaker not certain

      Me too. Me three.

  61. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:17:08

      So further discussion or action. Yeah, I think you did actually,

  62. Rep. Jon Hawkins2:17:23

      I'll make a motion as a prerogative of the chair. Um, I'm going to, I move that we adopt first substitute HB 5 0 7. Um, and I'm gonna waive, uh, summation on that, but we'll go to the sponsor. I'll waive Okay. Discussion to that motion. Okay.

  63. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:17:42

      The motion is to adopt first substitute HB 5 0 7. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That passes, uh, 7 1 7 to one SHALLENBERGER ago. God, that guy's a ghost. All right. Yeah, it's good. Um, okay.

  64. Rep. Jon Hawkins2:18:06

      Um, I also moved that we favorably recommend first substitute HB 5 0 7, um,

  65. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:18:13

      discussion to that motion Representative Cutler, I'll just,

  66. Rep. Jon Hawkins2:18:17

      I'll just comment that I think hopefully the sponsor would agree this, this is not done, but it's a fabulous effort to try to get our hands around some really tough economic development issues. And appreciate this, appreciate the, the concept of there can be a regional benefit or even a statewide benefit to some of these economic development projects. And this starts to provide a mechanism for that.

  67. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:18:43

      Thank you. Um, further discussion of the motion. We'll go to the sponsor. I'll waive Okay. I'll waive summation as well. Um, so the motion before us is to favorably recommend, uh, first substitute HB 5 0 7. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Okay.

  68. Committee chair (Rep. Jon Hawkins)2:19:02

      That passes seven to one with Representative Hansen voting. No thank you. Committee. Thank you. Sorry for blowing up your whole committee. It's all good.

• Feb 24, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (4 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)8:32

     Third reading calendar, Our substitute house Bill 5 0 7. State coordination of regional and local economic development projects. Amendments by Representative Roberts, this bill of served in economic development and workforce services with the vote of 7 1 2. Representative Roberts motion to circle that motion is in order. Uh, would you like to speak to it?

  2. Rep. Calvin Roberts8:53

     Yes. There's a sub that's not Been been made public, but it will be soon. And I want to give the body a chance to review.

  3. Speaker (presiding)8:58

     Thank you, Representative Roberts. Uh, go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the house circle. First substitute HB 5 0 7. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bills been, uh, circled. Let's go to Representative Teuscher.

  4. Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher9:18

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Personal privilege.

• Feb 25, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (17 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)1:31:22

     We'll go ahead and place the motion, the motion before us the house encircle HP 5 0 7. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? HP 5 0 7 is encircle before the body for its consideration. Back to you, Representative Roberts.

  2. Unknown speaker1:31:36speaker not certain

     Motion to adopt. Second. Substitute That motion. Thank

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:31:40

     you, Representative Roberts. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  4. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:31:43

     This just adds a working group list in the interim to focus on how to protect our property tax base into the future.

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:31:49

     Thank you Representative Roberts discussion to the motion to adopt second substitute on HB 5 0 7. None. We'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House adopt second substitute HB 5 0 7. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been substituted before the body for its consideration. Back to your Representative Roberts.

  6. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:32:16

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. Our property taxes have increased, partly because we've given away so much of our property tax base in the form of economic incentives. We've recently seen a proliferation of state tax increment finance tools. What this bill does is it tries to Sunset four of those tools and replace them with one tool that's less rich in the economic incentive, and that lasts for a shorter time of duration. The other thing the bill does is it tries to reform PIs. It does three things. Number one, it disallows or prohibits non-contiguous PIs. Number two, it, um, it requires disclosure for ultimate home buyers who are in these pit districts who oftentimes don't have any idea that they're gonna be having a PIT assessment. And then number three, it creates an automatic dissolution process. So within these pit districts, as soon as the debt is retired within 30 days, the PID district dissolves colleagues. The last thing it does is it creates a working group in the summer to, to explore how we can better protect our property tax base into the future. There are some cities in the state of Utah who have pledged up to 40% of their property tax base in the form of economic incentives that is not sustainable. And we need to do hard work going forward to fix that. I'm open. Uh, and with that, I'm open to questions and urge your support.

  7. Speaker (presiding)1:33:47

     Thank you, Representative Roberts discussion to the bill Representative Albrecht.

  8. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:33:56

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good to have you back. Good to be. Uh, I think the, uh, representatives done a good job in trying to craft this bill and, and take care of some of the things that needed to be taken care of as far as tax increment incentives. And appreciate him, uh, working with me on some of the language. I think, uh, what he's done here is commendable and, uh, it, it required a lot of work, uh, on his part and I think, uh, we should get behind him and support him. Mr. Speaker, it's a good bill.

  9. Speaker (presiding)1:34:38

     Thank you, Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the bill Representative Walter.

  10. Rep. R. Neil Walter1:34:44

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I also rise in support of this, uh, legislation. I appreciate, uh, the sponsor's efforts here. This is an issue that we've talked about, uh, each of the sessions that I've been in the legislature and, and in each of those sessions in one form or another, we've actually had growth in, uh, uh, entities that are issuing increments. Um, there's been a lot of debates about what they should be used for and how they sh how often they should be used. Um, I really appreciate the efforts to consolidate, organize and appropriately, uh, provide some boundaries on, um, how we can move forward in a proper balance between, uh, economic development tools, public finance tools, which I think have a purpose and a place, um, but also they need to be balanced with the, uh, needs of the community. And, uh, there needs to be care about how we are transferring the costs of development from, uh, develop, from existing, from new development to, uh, the existing residents. I appreciate the sponsor's efforts to try and, uh, uh, achieve a good balance in this regard and help us really move forward by, uh, coordinating these, uh, these, uh, uh, local development projects in a, in a way that I think is gonna move us forward in a positive way in the state. So thank you Mr. Speaker.

  11. Speaker (presiding)1:36:14

      Thank you, Representative Walter. Further discussion to the bill representative warden.

  12. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:36:19

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of the, of the bill and, and just with a wish that, um, the colleagues that this won't be, this will be the first time we talk about this, but that really will be willing to put some work into it in an ongoing fashion for, for several years in a row. We, we've kind of added these tools, added these tools, added these tools without ever stopping to think that the sum total of their effects might, may well not be the same when you kept adding and adding and adding them. I, I have many constituents who are concerned about unelected boards making decisions about taxes. Um, and each of these increments has something along that nature where once a person gets on that board, they wind up making land use decisions, they wind up making tax decisions. And even when they're elected officials, they wind up making these decisions for jurisdictions that are not their own constituents. So that people who are then affected by those decisions don't, um, have a way to come back and vote someone out of, out of office. Um, and we just need to be careful it, like we have a bonding capacity. We say you can't go above this limit somewhere. We need to think about how much tax increment is going outta the places where we set. It ought to go to a specialist district or a city, or a county or a school. And then when we let more and more of that go out, uh, to other places, we run some other risks. So I really commend the sponsor on this and I hope that this is not the last discussion, uh, that we have about these, uh, important tools.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:37:53

      Thank you Representative Ward. Further discussion to the bill Representative Kohler.

  14. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:37:59

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this bill as well. And I support a hundred percent. I think this is gonna bring regulation into the process. There's gonna be a couple of other bills come through that as we've talked in the past, will give us an idea how much increment financing is being drawn, uh, away from property taxes. Yeah, there's, there are large projects my county has benefited from. One that's up there, a big ski resort that's taken literally millions and millions of dollars from property tax and given 'em to this project, it's obviously at some point in the future because of this increment, we'll get it back. But in the meantime, it's, it's going to the project and I think this is a way to start curving that. Thank you.

  15. Speaker (presiding)1:38:44

      Thank you Representative Kohler. Further discussion to the bill. None back to representative, Representative Roberts for summation.

  16. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:38:52

      I'll waive summation has been waived.

  17. Speaker (presiding)1:38:55

      Voting will now be open on second substitute HB five seven Representative Gwynn, would you like to vote? Seeing all present hand voted second substitute HB 5 0 7 passes this body. 69 Yes. Votes one no vote will be sent to the Senate for its consideration. Representative Tom Peterson.

• Feb 25, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (14 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)1:31:35

     Back to you, Representative Roberts. Motion to adopt. Second. Substitute That motion. Thank you, Representative Roberts. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?

  2. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:31:43

     This just adds a working group list in the interim to focus on how to protect our property tax base into the future.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:31:49

     Thank you Representative Roberts discussion to the motion to adopt second substitute on HB 5 0 7. None. We'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House adopt second substitute HB 5 0 7. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bill's been substituted before the body for its consideration. Back to your Representative Roberts.

  4. Rep. Calvin Roberts1:32:16

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. Our property taxes have increased, partly because we've given away so much of our property tax base in the form of economic incentives. We've recently seen a proliferation of state tax increment finance tools. What this bill does is it tries to Sunset four of those tools and replace them with one tool that's less rich in the economic incentive, and that lasts for a shorter time of duration. The other thing the bill does is it tries to reform PIs. It does three things. Number one, it disallows or prohibits non-contiguous PIs. Number two, it, um, it requires disclosure for ultimate home buyers who are in these pit districts who oftentimes don't have any idea that they're gonna be having a PIT assessment. And then number three, it creates an automatic dissolution process. So within these pit districts, as soon as the debt is retired within 30 days, the PID district dissolves colleagues. The last thing it does is it creates a working group in the summer to, to explore how we can better protect our property tax base into the future. There are some cities in the state of Utah who have pledged up to 40% of their property tax base in the form of economic incentives that is not sustainable. And we need to do hard work going forward to fix that. I'm open. Uh, and with that, I'm open to questions and urge your support.

  5. Speaker (presiding)1:33:47

     Thank you, Representative Roberts discussion to the bill Representative Albrecht.

  6. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:33:56

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's good to have you back. Good to be. Uh, I think the, uh, representatives done a good job in trying to craft this bill and, and take care of some of the things that needed to be taken care of as far as tax increment incentives. And appreciate him, uh, working with me on some of the language. I think, uh, what he's done here is commendable and, uh, it, it required a lot of work, uh, on his part and I think, uh, we should get behind him and support him. Mr. Speaker, it's a good bill.

  7. Speaker (presiding)1:34:38

     Thank you, Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the bill Representative Walter.

  8. Rep. R. Neil Walter1:34:44

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I also rise in support of this, uh, legislation. I appreciate, uh, the sponsor's efforts here. This is an issue that we've talked about, uh, each of the sessions that I've been in the legislature and, and in each of those sessions in one form or another, we've actually had growth in, uh, uh, entities that are issuing increments. Um, there's been a lot of debates about what they should be used for and how they sh how often they should be used. Um, I really appreciate the efforts to consolidate, organize and appropriately, uh, provide some boundaries on, um, how we can move forward in a proper balance between, uh, economic development tools, public finance tools, which I think have a purpose and a place, um, but also they need to be balanced with the, uh, needs of the community. And, uh, there needs to be care about how we are transferring the costs of development from, uh, develop, from existing, from new development to, uh, the existing residents. I appreciate the sponsor's efforts to try and, uh, uh, achieve a good balance in this regard and help us really move forward by, uh, coordinating these, uh, these, uh, uh, local development projects in a, in a way that I think is gonna move us forward in a positive way in the state. So thank you Mr. Speaker.

  9. Speaker (presiding)1:36:14

     Thank you, Representative Walter. Further discussion to the bill representative warden.

  10. Rep. Raymond P. Ward1:36:19

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of the, of the bill and, and just with a wish that, um, the colleagues that this won't be, this will be the first time we talk about this, but that really will be willing to put some work into it in an ongoing fashion for, for several years in a row. We, we've kind of added these tools, added these tools, added these tools without ever stopping to think that the sum total of their effects might, may well not be the same when you kept adding and adding and adding them. I, I have many constituents who are concerned about unelected boards making decisions about taxes. Um, and each of these increments has something along that nature where once a person gets on that board, they wind up making land use decisions, they wind up making tax decisions. And even when they're elected officials, they wind up making these decisions for jurisdictions that are not their own constituents. So that people who are then affected by those decisions don't, um, have a way to come back and vote someone out of, out of office. Um, and we just need to be careful it, like we have a bonding capacity. We say you can't go above this limit somewhere. We need to think about how much tax increment is going outta the places where we set. It ought to go to a specialist district or a city, or a county or a school. And then when we let more and more of that go out, uh, to other places, we run some other risks. So I really commend the sponsor on this and I hope that this is not the last discussion, uh, that we have about these, uh, important tools.

  11. Speaker (presiding)1:37:53

      Thank you Representative Ward. Further discussion to the bill Representative Kohler.

  12. Rep. Mike L. Kohler1:37:59

      Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this bill as well. And I support a hundred percent. I think this is gonna bring regulation into the process. There's gonna be a couple of other bills come through that as we've talked in the past, will give us an idea how much increment financing is being drawn, uh, away from property taxes. Yeah, there's, there are large projects my county has benefited from. One that's up there, a big ski resort that's taken literally millions and millions of dollars from property tax and given 'em to this project, it's obviously at some point in the future because of this increment, we'll get it back. But in the meantime, it's, it's going to the project and I think this is a way to start curving that. Thank you.

  13. Speaker (presiding)1:38:44

      Thank you Representative Kohler. Further discussion to the bill. None back to representative, Representative Roberts for summation. I'll waive summation has been waived. Voting will now be open on second substitute HB five seven Representative Gwynn, would you like to vote? Seeing all present hand voted second substitute HB 5 0 7 passes this body. 69 Yes. Votes one no vote will be sent to the Senate for its consideration.

  14. Speaker (presiding)1:41:55

      Representative Tom Peterson.

• Mar 2, 2026 Senate Economic Development and Workforce Services Committee▶ Watch
  Transcript (22 turns)

  1. Committee chair37:04

     Um, I'm going to call up now, HB five oh seven second subs, state coordination of regional and local economic development projects. Amendments. Is Representative Roberts here he is? No, Just go ahead when you're ready. Representative Roberts.

  2. Rep. Calvin R. Albrecht37:31

     Well, thank you, committee. I'm glad to be in front of you again. Um, so this bill before you does a few things. Number one, it, it sunsets some of the state created tax increment finance tools that we've created over the last several years. And some of those tools are specifically HTRZ, fiz Hops, and CCRZ. And it says, Hey, instead of having four different separate economic development tools, let's Sunset these in 2028 and let's replace them with one tool that you can use for these economic development projects. That one tool we've negotiated, uh, hard with all different parties, but that one tool is less rich on the real property tax increment that can be given away. And it's a shorter duration than some of these other tools. So it's capped at 60% of the total real property increment. And then it's, it's capped at 25 years for the length of the eec, the economic incentive that you can give away. So that's the first part of the bill. There's a few other pieces. One other piece is that it creates a fund and it, it, um, directs the Utah Inland Port Authority to begin sending a portion of their tax differential back into this fund. This fund is ultimately to be appropriated out by us, the, the state legislature. And the idea there was you have a significant amount of cash balances being built up at the state land authorities, and we wanted to start to return some of that cash back to the taxpayer, um, via this fund. And I'm calling it the income tax reduction fund, but we could, it's really up to the discretion of the legislature. Ultimately, we could use it for strategic infrastructure or other things. The other thing the bill does is it tries to reform, uh, public infrastructure districts. It has four components. Number one, it says, as soon as the indebtedness in a pit I is retired, then the PI automatically dissolves within 30 days. Sometimes these PIs can stay out there in perpetuity, even though the original goal and intent of the pit has been fulfilled and the debt's been paid off. This just says once, once the debt's paid off, you're done. Uh, number two is that it prohibits non-contiguous pit districts. So anytime a city wants to create a pit, they can sometimes, or, or you can create a pit where you'll have, it'll look like an archipelago, if you know that word. A bunch of little islands spread out. And what we're trying to do here is just to put it into one zone and prohibit having non-contiguous pits. Um, the third thing it does on the PI size is, is it forces some disclosure to the ultimate home buyers. So oftentimes in PI districts, the home buyer might have a PIT assessment fee that they have to pay, and they're not really aware of it. And so what this does is it, it forces, um, some disclosure at the closing table for home buyers within the pit. Those are the major elements of the bill. There's, there's other things, um, probably worth discussing if it's of interest to the committee. But I'll, with that, I'll, I'd welcome questions. Thank you, Representative Roberts.

  3. Committee chair40:50

     Uh, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments and I'll turn it over to Senator Owens.

  4. Sen. Derrin R. Owens40:58

     Thank, thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome representative. Um, I like what you're doing here and streamlining, I just wanna be careful on unintended consequences. So I have a constituent who, uh, is working down in Juab County, and this is one of the seven projects that's applied under, uh, with Rocky Mountain Parowan of the SB 1 32. And I'll just, I'll just read it. He's, uh, had a concern. He who says, uh, having trouble deciphering if, if it, uh, I can't decipher if the inland port stuff is exempt, and it only applies to cities and counties, but would, would the Inland Port be a political subdivision? Just the same. Um, on, and then, so maybe you could address that one first. I'm gonna try to read into that question. I think, I think that constituent, um, I, my guess is there's probably a, do they have a data center that they're working on? Okay. Um, so what the tool does currently right now, cities can use their C-R-A-R-D-A tools to do data centers. Okay? Or they can have mid a or the inland port help them do a data center. What this bill does is it says, Hey, going forward, if you're a large load, big data center, if you're over a hundred megawatts of use and you're a data center, and I wanna be very clear, it's probably only a handful of those types of opportunities throughout the state, but we want you to use this particular tool. And the reason why we want you to use this tool is because we've limited the amount of the increment that can give be given away. One of the concerns we've had, and, and I've worked with actually colleagues of yours on the Senate side around this issue, which is we don't want it to be a race to the bottom where different counties are, especially our rural counties, are offering huge incentives and competing against each other. And then by the end of it, no one's a winner because they've given away the entire tax base. And so what this bill is trying to do is to say, if you are a large load data center, and you have one of those projects right now, we are not trying to mess with your deal. So there is a grace period where they can transition. And Senator, I would say, I would be welcome to talk to your constituent to make sure if they've got an important data center project lined up right now, we don't wanna mess with that. And we've tried to carefully tailor the language to make sure that, that they're carved out. But it does say within a two year period, we want you to migrate into this tool because it's going to cap the amount of the incentive you can give. You could still give an incentive. You've got all the tools, real property, personal property, MET, but we want there to be some cap. Uh, that's perfect representative. Um, you just, you just calm my nerves on it. Um, and actually you address the next question, which is on two lines. It's on two line 2 77, which says May 6th if they're already in place. Yes. This one's way down the road. And that was the concern. So you've, you've addressed that, so I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

  5. Committee chair44:05

     Thank you, Senator Owens. And I will turn some time over to Senator Johnson. Now,

  6. Sen. John D. Johnson44:12

     I, I think I have some of the same concerns. Okay. 'cause I, I think the incentive prohibition is, is more like a cartel arrangement, uh, not a market fix. And so I, I really think that prohibiting counties and municipalities from offering data center incentives outside state approved zones doesn't eliminate the incentive raise. Okay. I, uh, I think it centralizes it. And maybe, maybe you can convince me that's a good thing. Right. The other thing is, uh, you know, this seems like a tiff on steroids in a way. 10% diver diverted upward. You know, the bill allows up to 60% property tax increment capture, and 80% per personal property tax diversion within zone. Then it skims 10% of that increment off the top the state reinvestment account. I, I don't know. I, I know I'm not convinced that's a good thing, but, uh, because I, I think that creates a fund with, uh, pretty vague dis disbursement. Uh, the, uh, the county energy excise tax is a new distortionary tax layer. Uh, you know, so I I'm not, I'm, I'm just not sure.

  7. Unknown speaker45:30speaker not certain

     May, maybe you could explain That. Oh, I would like to, yeah. Better.

  8. Rep. Calvin R. Albrecht45:33

     Well, to be, so to be very clear, senator, this tool is less rich than the other tools. And so if you feel like the existing tools right now are too much of an incentive, what this is trying to do is to actually constrain them and to put a cap. And so right now, if you are a city, you can offer a hundred percent of your MET and my bill says 80%. Okay? You can offer, this isn't how it plays out usually 'cause you're negotiating with the county and the school boards. But you could offer up to 80, 90, a hundred percent of your, you know, real property increment. It doesn't play out like that in practice oftentimes because it gets negotiated by the counties and the schools, this though caps it at 60. And, um, so I think what I'm trying to do with this bill is to actually get rid of some of the existing increment tools that are much more rich, straight created, uh, state created tools that are much more rich to try to say, let's have a sensible policy around increment. And there's another part in the bill, it creates a working group after this interim, or excuse me, after this session in the interim, because I think we need to have real conversations about how much increment can really be made available by, say, a city or a county or a political subdivision. Because at a certain point, we've given away a huge chunk of the tax base. And what happens when you do that, it, it gets socialized amongst all the existing taxpayers, right? You still have to provide the services if you do a bad increment deal and you don't get the return to the taxpayer, they still have to, you know, deliver the services to all the residents. And then what do they do? They, they raise the property tax on the existing base. And that's my, my worry and concern. I'm pro economic development. I think these tools can be used, uh, for, for good things to drive economic growth and jobs and sales tax revenue to the state. But my, my view is that we've gotta make sure we have a sensible approach. We're being very careful and we're trying to constrain some of the worst excesses. That's what we're trying to do in this bill. Um, so, you know, in statute, let's say it's a CRA or an RDA tool, the state, it's in our state code. That local tool is available, right? HTRZ, fizz hops, these various tools we've created over the last four or five years, we created them in state code. What I'm trying to do here is just to, just on the large load data center side, is say, we don't want to have a race to the bottom on these incentives. We know we're going to get billions of dollars of investment into the state. Let's not just give away the farm and make sure that, you know, we have some guardrails. And so that's what that part of the bill is trying to do. The larger part of the bill though is to, is it's trying to Sunset some of those existing tools and say, we don't need a new tool for every different public policy thing that comes up here every year at this, this at the, uh, in the legislature. Let's just have one tool and let's, let's, you know, let's constrain it and have limits on it. So I, I'm trying to read into your comment. I think we're, you know, we're trying to accomplish the same thing. And I, I think that's what this bill is doing. Thank you.

  9. Sen. John D. Johnson48:55

     But I'd be, I'd be happy to have back and forth if there's follow up. I, I just wanted To get that discussion out. Yeah. Out in The open. Thank you.

  10. Committee chair49:02

      Thank you. Uh, Senator Johnson. Uh, seeing no other comments, um, I'll open it up to the public. Is there, uh, anyone here who would like to speak to this? Great. Come on up. Go ahead.

  11. Lincoln Shurtz, Utah Association of Counties49:22

      Thanks, Madam Chair, members of the Committee of Lincoln Shirts here on behalf of the Utah Association of Counties, appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of this legislation. We've been spending the better part of six months working with Representative Roberts on this bill. Appreciate his attention to the issue and his willingness to allow local governments to still maintain its current economic development tools, but then also providing a new path wherein local governments on regionally significant projects can partner with the state in putting a project to area, uh, project area together. Uh, also allows the state to capture some of the revenue associated with project development and put that into a state fund that could be to the benefit of kind of the region instead of just the local jurisdiction. Uh, we think this is a great path forward, uh, to Senator Johnson's concerns. I do think there has been some value, and I think we're going to be spending a lot of time in the interim, uh, working on how these tools can be used and making sure that they are constrained, that we are appropriately, uh, giving increment when we think it's beneficial to the state, but not overly, uh, enriching a project area in times in which it's not to the benefit of the overall state or the region. So, uh, with that, and on behalf of the Association of County speak in support of the bill, thank you so much.

  12. Committee chair50:33

      Thank you. Go ahead.

  13. Cameron Diehl, Utah League of Cities and Towns50:42

      Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the committee, Cameron Deal, executive director of the Utah League of Cities and Towns. In many ways, I could just say, uh, ditto to what was just described. We've been working with Representative Roberts over the last, uh, few months on what is now, before you is House Bill 5 0 7. I wanna emphasize one key point that is, uh, crucial here is, as you consider House Bill 5 0 7, this is still a locally driven tool. It's still initiated at the city or county level, which means that those decisions are still being made locally to initiate the project. And then the coordination will occur regionally and with, with other state leaders, uh, through this particular tool. Uh, we have seen some good success with HT Rzs and with other tax increment tools, and I think we've learned some lessons from others and, and so appreciate the continuation of this dialogue. We're, we're support of the bill and still working on some final amendments with the, with the bill sponsor over the next, uh, couple of days. Thank you.

  14. Committee chair51:35

      Thank you. Well, thank you, uh, for the presentations. I will, uh, bring it back to the committee for, um, further clarifying questions or comments. Uh, Senator Owens.

  15. Sen. Derrin R. Owens51:49

      Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm gonna make a motion, I move that we pass out House Bill 5 0 7 second substitute to the full body of the Senate.

  16. Committee chair51:59

      Uh, thank you. It's been moved, excuse me, it's been moved to pass out favorably, HB 5 0 7 second sub state coordination of regional and local economic development projects, amendments. Is there any discussion to that motion? Uh, Senator Johnson?

  17. Sen. John D. Johnson52:17

      Yeah, I, I appreciate the, the clarifications. I think, uh, you know, this disclosure, the PI disclosure requirement, I think is probably one of the cleanest wins in this, right? Uh, requiring sellers to disclose the expected annual cost of the public infrastructure, district certified tax rate. Uh, I, I think that's an important part of this. I think that, uh, I, I think you framed the incentive prohibition, uh, carefully. Uh, you know, I, I, I like, I, I like your response there, and I'm glad that you've worked with the cities and the counties in developing this. I can see where this does offer constraint on there, and I just kind of wanted to have that discussion. So I, I think I can support this. Thank you. And I, I will also say thank you for your work on this. Um, I, I am a little disappointed that we did not get the slideshow. Uh, it's a little bit of a razzle dazzle, and I was hoping to see that today. But, uh, you know, I I'm sure that, uh, you can send that to me and I can watch it on my own.

  18. Rep. Calvin R. Albrecht53:23

      I'd be happy to send you the Slideshow. Great. It is very exciting.

  19. Committee chair53:26

      Uh, well, and seeing no other, uh, questions or comments, would you like to sum I I'll waive And Senator Owens,

  20. Sen. Derrin R. Owens53:34

      Uh, just briefly thank you, representative. I, I see the woods. I'm in your work now, and it's, it's really helpful to have our witnesses come as well from the county. Uh, and this is how it works. Uh, this is the vetting process of the committees, and you've, you've, uh, were very well articulated, um, and demonstrated what this does and removed any of my concerns. So thank you.

  21. Committee chair54:02

      Thank you, uh, Senator Owens. And I'll put it to a vote now. All those in favor of passing out favorably passing out, uh, HB 5 0 7 second sub indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any, uh, oppose indicate by saying no. I rule that passes unanimously three to zero.

  22. Unknown speaker54:22speaker not certain

      Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee.

• Mar 5, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (19 turns)

  1. Unknown speaker1:49:39speaker not certain

     and body of second substitute house bill 5 0 7 replaced with third substitute house bill 5 0 7.

  2. Senate President (presiding)1:49:44

     Thank you. Explain the amendment or the substitute.

  3. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:49:47speaker not certain

     The the amendment deals. It, it brought in PIDs to the, to the conversation. And PIDs are, uh, inherently, uh, a private, a private function or a private entity. And so the third substitute, or this substitute deals with how records can be exchanged with that private entity and government to entities to ensure that, uh, there's as much transparency as possible.

  4. Senate President (presiding)1:50:12

     Thank you. See no discussion. I'll place the, all those in favor of the motion to substitute say aye. A. Any opposed? Will that motion passes the bill Now substitute. Do we have discussion to the bill?

  5. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:50:26speaker not certain

     You want me to explain the bill?

  6. Senate President (presiding)1:50:27

     You wanna go ahead and explain? Yeah, go ahead and present the bill. Senator.

  7. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:50:29

     Okay. So this bill, uh, deals with certain economic development tools that we have in the state. It's Sunset existing specialized zones, including the, uh, uh, municipal and county home ownership promotion zones, uh, uh, colloquial called hops, HTRZ zones, fizz, the first home investment zones and major sporting event venue zones. In place of that, we are creating regionally significant development zones. These things are authorized by the county or municipality, which is important, so they have to be invited in. And then a proposal would be sent to, uh, goed. Uh, it requires the proposal to demonstrate, uh, boundaries and, and everything that you'd expect out of these economic development zones. And it changes things in that it is not as rich as some of these other increment authorizations might be from some of the prior ones. And so it, it caps, uh, increment authorization. Um, it creates a board, uh, that will, that will negotiate the, the increment up to the, the cap amounts as, as authorized or as set in this particular bill. And, and then like I said, put some technical and clarification issues in there. Regarding PIs. Uh, there is oversight and reporting and compliance on these requirements on these, uh, economic development zones. Uh, they're being called RSD Zs. And with that, I'm open to any questions,

  8. Senate President (presiding)1:52:07

     Seeing no questions. Senator Cullimore to you for a motion.

  9. Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore1:52:12

     I'll move that under suspension of the rules we pass. Third substitute house bill 5 0 7.

  10. Senate President (presiding)1:52:16

      Thank you. The question is, shall thirst substitute house bill five oh seven pass roll call vote.

  11. Senate clerk (roll call)1:52:21

      Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin Brammer bus Comore Aye. Escamia Fillmore Grover Harper Kins Aye. Ipson Johnson. Kwan McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebi Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weyler Wilson Winterton Lewin, president Adams Aye. Third substitute house Bill 5 0 7.

  12. Senate President (presiding)1:53:18

      Having received 22 yay votes, two na votes, five being absent, passes this body and will be returned to the house for further consideration.

  13. Senate President (presiding)1:53:26

      Senator Mikel,

  14. Sen. Michael K. McKell1:53:29

      President motion to encircle house bill 4 0 8. Motion to circle house bill. Uh, 4 0 8.

  15. Senate President (presiding)1:53:40

      Yeah. First substitute house Chair amendments. All in favor, say aye. Again, that's me. Call that again. Motion to unc encircle first substitute house bill 4 0 8. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed?

  16. Senate President (presiding)1:53:51

      Will let motion passes. Go ahead. Senator.

  17. Sen. Michael K. McKell1:53:53speaker not certain

      I I'm going to stand here and, and take, take a substitute. I think there's wisdom to the substitute that's gonna be proposed and so I'll I'll wait for the sub.

  18. Senate President (presiding)1:54:06

      Thank you. So Senator Harper.

  19. Sen. Wayne A. Harper1:54:11

      Thank you Mr. President. Move to delete and title embody first substitute Senate bill or house bill 4 0 8 and replace it with third substitute house bill 4 0 8.

• Mar 5, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (7 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)43:46

     Third substitute house bill 5 0 7. State coordination of regional and local economic development projects. Amendments by Representative Roberts. Representative Roberts.

  2. Rep. Calvin Roberts43:57

     Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to not concur with Senate amendments.

  3. Speaker (presiding)44:09

     Thank you. Representative. Would you like to speak to that motion?

  4. Rep. Calvin Roberts44:13

     I would. This bill was about protecting our property tax base, constraining increment tools and we have some work to still do.

  5. Speaker (presiding)44:20

     Thank you. Representative, uh, discussion to the motion to not concur with the Senate amendments.

  6. Rep. Calvin Roberts44:27speaker not certain

     To refuse to concur with the Senate amendments and ask that they recede from their amendments.

  7. Speaker (presiding)44:34

     See none will go ahead and place that motion. All in favor say aye. A. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes that, uh, be sent to the Senate, uh, and ask them to recede from their amendments. Okay. Representatives, we'll now be going to the Senate

• Mar 6, 2026 Senate floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (5 turns)

  1. Senate clerk (roll call)49:46

     Fillmore Grover Harper Kinins Ipson Johnson k Juab McKay Mikel Milner Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Vickers Weiler Wilson Winterton.

  2. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)50:28

     President Adams

  3. Unknown speaker50:32speaker not certain

     Aye.

  4. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)50:33

     Fourth substitute house Bill 5 0 7. Having received 27 a votes, one na vote, one being absent, passes his body and will be returned to the house for further consideration.

  5. Sen. J. Stuart Adams (presiding)50:48

     Uh, well, let's go back when and we now have Senator Johnson here for a conference committee for

• Mar 6, 2026 House floor debate▶ Watch
  Transcript (6 turns)

  1. Speaker (presiding)1:19:23

     Motion to adopt the conference committee report. Thank you, representative. That motion is order. Would you like to speak to it?

  2. Rep. Calvin R. Roberts1:19:27

     Yeah, just in, uh, the changes from the last sub, we added some additional pit protections to make sure that cities aren't liable for bad pit debt. And we added a coordination clause with some legislation from the representative from Ogden. Um, and then most importantly, I'd say we removed a duplicative process around energy zones and tax increment to make sure that the Energy Council maintains its position, um, in energy development and incentives. And with that, I'm open to questions.

  3. Speaker (presiding)1:19:55

     Thank you Representative Roberts discussion to the motion to concur with, or sorry to adopt the conference committee report. Representative Albrecht was on. There we go. Representative

  4. Unknown speaker1:20:14speaker not certain

     Ball. He didn't want me to talk, but that's okay.

  5. Rep. Carl R. Albrecht1:20:17

     Uh, no, I just wanna stand in support of, of what the good representative has done here. He is put in a lot of hard work on this bill and including the conference committee and it, it does a lot of good things, uh, including the energy council. And so I, I, I'd urge your support of this bill. Thank you.

  6. Speaker (presiding)1:20:35

     Thank you, Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the motion to adopt the conference committee report. See none going Place the motion, the motion before us the house. Adopt the conference committee report on four substitute HP 5 0 7. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes. Conference committee reports been adopted in this final, uh, its final vote. Voting is open for final passage on four, substitute HB 5 0 7 vote quickly. Representatives seeing all president having voted voting is now closed for substitute. P 5 0 7 passes this body with 57 yes votes, one no vote and be sent to the Senate for the, uh, signature of the president.