S.B. 221 Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Amendments: transcript

Thank you. Appreciate, uh, being placed on the agenda. There's been a lot of discussion over the last, uh, couple years since we've created, uh, HG Zs and Viz and hops and, and TR Zs and whatever alphabet soup we wanted to do with, with those. This bill is, is, uh, it is a clarification bill with a couple different additions to that. Um, there's been a, uh, question, what is the definition of extraterritorial affordable housing? We've included that. We defined the base year for the, uh, there's been some question questions to what is the base year on these things? Is it any year that it's triggered or is it the year that it is adopted? So we've clarified that for the, uh, CCRZ, which is convention center reinvestment zone, of which there's only one. And that's in Salt Lake City. And it's been, uh, established already. It's said it's based here at December 31st, 2023 per the action of, of the committee. But we wanna make sure that was in there. There's been some question as to how many times you can trigger, uh, certain of these project areas. Some people have said, well, it's just one, somebody people have said it's unlimited. So we've clarified that you can do triggering, meaning you can start the develop or the attack, the, uh, triggering of tax increment no more than five times. So we've limited that and ratchet it down. Um, clarifies, uh, we, there's a, something that's passed, I think two years ago about, uh, if you have two or three transit stations, um, if you can have a linear rather than one that goes around and I think that's more logical and reasonable. So we've done that to clarify that it can be linear, but it cannot exceed the, the goals or the aspiration or the acreage amounts. Um, it goes through and clarifies some of the entitlement processes to make it cleaner, um, goes through and if there's a, a potential boundary adjustment it goes through and says that if, if you want to go through and do that, sometimes there's a parcel that inadvertently overlaps in and outside of the project area. It goes through and says it's the, the county auditor will go through and discuss that, make a recommendation with goo, and then it would be brought back to the HTRZ committee, which establish it to make any modification. Um, uh, talks about, uh, uh, clarifying what happens if there's a large retail development as part of, of these zones. What happens with those? And that's generally in a, uh, you know, closed shopping center or a transitioning, uh, mall to handle those, uh, uh, clarifies that the, uh, affordable housing is 120% of the median area median income. So that's, uh, reflective of where you are in the state, not just Salt Lake City or Salt Lake County goes and rules everything. Um, there's some definitional changes. Let's see, what else? Um, and yeah, the proof of process. One of the things I think is better in this is that, um, GOO is supposed to be a, a going out there and promoting things between this bill and Senate Bill 2 0 6, we've moved the regulatory and the administrative functions into, uh, the HJC committee and into the, what's currently known as the MCAT system that supports all the taxing entities. And I think that's, uh, there's a, there's a lot of stuff that's, that's in this that is just clean up from lessons learned. And that's basically Mr. Chair, what this bill does.

Thank you. Um, I, I, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I I do have a couple of concerns when we, when we look at like base year, uh, line four 70 as I understand it, right? I mean, that, that, that's a, that's a, that's a heck of a change. And so, and so I'm wondering if, if we were to go ahead and change that definition from to, uh, base here, won't, won't, won't that increase incentive for the, the developers? Am I right looking at that, that's going to increase the incentive for the developers?

Yeah, that's a great question. The, in the, that's one of the problems that I highlighted before is because we didn't know exactly what the base year was and people were calling that the year that is, um, you know, anytime before you trigger it could be now, it could be five years down the road. And if you take a look at this, it means the first year the property tax increment is triggered, it's intended to reign that in, not expand it.

So the, okay. Okay. Um, let me ask you one, I think I just have one more question. When ex explain to me when we change this calculation from three to five, three to five periods, um, explain to us why, why, why you would want to change that, what that would do.

Okay. Um, there's a number of project areas that are, they trigger it in one year, and it's one and done in some of these larger ones, like we'll take South Salt Lake, they go through and say, well, it's going to the whole area. The whole a hundred plus acres is not ready for development, but we know at some point it will, therefore we are going to go through and, and just, um, make sure that, I'm sorry, I lost my train of thought.

Would you repeat your question? Well, When we go from, from three to five,

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, the three, the five. So yes, some of these are one South Salt Lake is, has interpreted theirs. They can be open-ended, they can have 15 or 20. Uh, most of the people are saying that, uh, yeah, three's kind of normal for the other, for project areas, but when we get into these HGS and that, we wanted to make sure that as development is ready, it can, we can have a starting point, which is the trigger date, but we wanted to cap that at five rather than open-ended, as some people say that it is now. And the three was in there, and that was put in after we had, um, one or two of these that were created to say, Hey, there, it's open-ended. So we're just trying to reign that in.

If, if you had to, I dunno if you can put a number on it or if you've calculated this Senator, I, I just wonder how much, when, when you look at those things as well as other parts that are in the bill that concern me, I, I just wonder how much, uh, how much more money is gonna be going to developers and how much less is it gonna be ended up going? And I know it's, it's, it's gonna depend on the size of the project, but every time we do this, we just take money from, from, uh, public safety, we take it from, we take it from, uh, education, we take it from, from roads. That might happen in an effort to, to grow to, to incentivize developers. But it, it just, it just concerned me.

No, and, and I think that that's a valid concern. And I think that's why you'll see in the bill here, it requires that right now you can overlap an HT RZ with a redevelopment project area or something else. This bill prevents that you can not overlap anymore and, and potentially double take or extend the, the timeframe of that. Um, the basis of tax increment, which has been since I think, established in I think 1974 is when it first came in. The state of Utah is a condition that's called, but for, but for this tax increment, the development would not be built or the improvements would not be made. And one thing that we've made been very careful on with this HT RZ committee, there are two Senator Vickers, two representatives on the committee. There's, uh, locally elected officials, there's state school board, there's local school boards. So the, uh, predominance of the people that are on that committee, there's a couple people that are like, you know, state auditor and things like that. But the majority of the people on this are, are elected and accountable, you know, every, every time they're up for election. So we've tried to re that in. It used to be much more open and fluid where you'd have a couple groups being able to roll other people and we didn't want to have that happen anymore.

It just seems to me when you mo when you moved from three to five, that is an expansion. And when we moved from, uh, was my other one that I had, anyway, it, it seems to me we're making it easier and, and, and more and more, more, uh, incremental financing that again kind of worries me, but

Yeah. And, and, and I think that's a valid position to take a look at. The intent is to go through and clarify. There are a couple things in here that like the three to five that could, can be seen as an expansion, but the majority of this is just clarifying the operation and the approval process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's, uh, I'm, I'm trying to work through in my mind whether having multiple phases and triggering, uh, the tax increments starting in different years is better for the taxpayer or, or better for the, uh, the community or better for the developer. Can, can you help me walk through why we would want to have more and more phases?

It's, it's just when the development is ready. Now remember, you can only trigger it for a 25 year period for 25 years within a 45 year period. So maybe you wanna wait 10 years before you start and trigger. It's more of when the city and the developer are ready for that.

That seems like that's an advantage to, um, to developer. But I guess it can also be advantage to the, to the city because if you, if you trigger it too early, then uh, maybe the increment is not gonna be available for the,

To make the development. And just remember, none of these project areas are started unless they're presented and sponsored by a, a municipality or county.

Great point. Thank you. There's a lot of talk in here about, uh, convention center re reinvestment zone in a capital city. Is there any specific policy that you're, that's trying to be changed around the Salt Palace Convention Center project?

No, the only thing that we're, we tried to do that was clarify what their base year was. The rest of that should be new language or move from one section over. There was nothing since that's already triggered and in place we did not want to go through and change the policy there.

Thank you very much. Alright,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, some of my questions have been kind of partially answered, but I kind of want to dive into a little bit more of those. Uh, you had mentioned the, but for argument, I do wonder how much of an argument, um, that is rather than a, than a guarantee. And I've had concerns about the, um, the increment, uh, tax capture seeming to kinda lock up, uh, funding, um, for decades, uh, essentially. Um, and so I, I'd I'd wanna ensure that if we are clarifying this in a way that, um, you'd mentioned the triggers right now that they are in some sides, that, that the understanding is there's just one and in some, uh, camps, the understanding is there's unlimited. Um, how did you come up with five and I guess what is the, the rationale for that, uh, number and, um, is currently is that kind of matching the practice that we're seeing in these HV zs?

Um, each HDRZ is different and as it's brought by the, the sponsoring, uh, political subdivision, um, there, you know, there are some that are, don't have a cap on them, we feel like there should be a cap so that we have finality, I think going through and, and talking about, you know, how long some of these, uh, taxing entities have been receiving increment. That's the purpose of my Senate bill 2 28 is to go through and, uh, it's called a dormancy period, but it's really, once you have your plot project area plan and budget have met their goals or their timeframes, they close within six, within six months, and they're, all the extra funds are, are dispersed back to the different taxing entities. So we're trying with three different bills to go through and clarify reins on the stuff in. And on this one here, it's more of a cleanup, but yeah, it's, it is intended to address the very things that you're talking about. It may be in elegant, but there's a lot of stuff in here that we're trying to get cleaned up. So it enhances transparency of what's goes on.

Thank you. And I do have two follow ups, if that's okay, Mr. Chair. I'll try to be quick. That's fine. Good. Um, so the other piece is about the extraterritorial spending piece. Um, my question is, is are we, uh, essentially, um, generating tax revenue in one place in order to spend it for housing in another? And is this, and I'll, I'll make it two questions. Is the effect of any of this going to increase or solidify higher density bills in some of the, uh, transit Loa, uh, nearby transit, uh, locations?

Okay. We have as, as as state and taxpayers put a lot of investment into mass transit, it makes sense to have higher density within a tight geographic area. One of my favorite things of this bill is the fact that, that if you can't reach that density, or if you want to do something even better, you go through and take some of that increment and shift it outside of the area for owner occupied housing deed restricted, owner occupied. And that's, that's one of the big things I like about this. When you're talking about the extraterritoriality, it's going like and saying, okay, within the city it might be zoned for four units per acre. This will allow seven or eight units per acre, but they're gonna be, uh, single family owner occupied homes. So we're not concentrating everything in one spot, which is good, but you're going through and addressing some of the affordable housing issues.

So will that move then, um, or change the, um, density landscape of some of the, uh, outside of that zone areas? Or is that only looking at existing plots that are already zoned for that level of density?

That, that, uh, if the, if a, uh, city so chooses to do that extra toter extraterritoriality program, they would have to rezone it for that before they could use the money

And, and, and, but this, this does incentivize that, that

Incentivizes home ownership.

Yes. Okay. This change. Thank you. Alright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, could you walk us through, uh, the boundary adjustments section specifically all the blue and red on lines 1417 through, uh, 1465? Just walk us through.

Yeah. In initially it was determined that if there was a boundary adjustment being needed, then the city or the developer would go to GOO and they would approve it. Um, after looking at that, talking to some stakeholders, I, it was deemed that that was not the way to do it. So the municipality and the develop would have to go through and say, Hey, we have a boundary problem here. They would take that to the county, um, auditor who reviews all this type of stuff. They would go through and say, yeah, there needs to be boundary adjustment. We need to go through and, and do this type of stuff. They would make that recommendation and then it would go back, it would go to go EO for the review, say, make, do you have all the paperwork and all that type of stuff. Once they're all in agreement, then that whole package goes to the HTRZ committee for review and action. And then based on that committee result, that then that boundary of the HRTZ changes,

It can be changed? Yes.

Yeah, or yeah, if they, if they favorably say what everybody's brought up, then yeah, they'd move to adjust that boundary. Yeah. Okay. What, and it's generally supposed to be just a little bit to make sure all the parcels in or something that was not seen when the application was made to make, to do minor corrections,

What would be an example of, of a boundary dispute that would co kick that in

Principally to be a, uh, a parcel of lamb that where it was, when the boundaries were adjusted was deemed that all that boundary, all that parcel was inside the HTRZ or CCRZ and, um, it wasn't, so you'd go back through to go through and bring in that little sliver that was left out that would be brought in. Or conversely you could say, Nope, that, that, that parcel should not have been included. So they kick it out of the project area.

Okay. I'll be honest, uh, I get a lot of pushback on these HRT zs from my constituents and my hometown. And so can you walk us through what the benefit is of these and why people push back so much on them? Yeah.

Uh, a lot of that is concern with the, uh, use, if I can be frank here, the use of tax increment, and it should be going, as was stated up here for some other uses. The benefit of this is that if you do it right, then there's more tax increment generated than otherwise. There would be if you build, you know, if you build, uh, a mixed use development with, with office and retail and, and, uh, residential and it's 15 units per acre and you get a hundred thousand square feet of, of the other stuff. But if you do this and you can go more vertical and it's around the, uh, it's around a track station or front runner station where we've invested hundreds of millions of dollars already, you can maximize that. You can get pe additional people off, off of the roads and put them into, into the, uh, trains or in the, uh, bus vehicles. And mostly it is is that after this is done, there's an additional amount of tax increment that is generated. You don't hurt any of the, you've got your base year, which is, this is the amount you collected in 2026, and you're just looking at the growth of that based on what is the, the, the factoring and the additional benefit, the additional revenues that could come in. Um, there's other things that, that are run fa into place. There's potential additional sales tax and things like that that can come in, but it's the belief that without these changes, then you would not have as good of benefit and, and, um, and development to the communities as you would with, with it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I am not as familiar with these HT Zs and so this has been very educational, getting up to speed on this, something that you've been dealing with for many, many years. Um, on line 1739 at the very end of the bill, I noticed that it's changing, uh, online, I think 1732, it says a hundred percent of the property tax increment and a hundred percent of the sales and use tax, and it's taking out increment and putting revenue described in subsection whatever. Um, I was just curious, is that a policy change? What revenue are we talking about?

No, this is co this is actually a coordinating clause with Senate Bill 39, which has already passed, which goes through and, and, uh, clarifies that the CCRZ may, uh, propose to capture the property tax and the sales tax for 30 years. Um, so that is just unique to the one CCRZ that's in Salt Lake City, clarifying how much of the increment that they can actually get. They're issuing bonds and, and just remember the CCRZ, none of that money is going to a developer that CCRZ was created in order to fund the rebuild of the Salt Palace. So Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County has said that they're gonna put 100% of the property tax and sales tax increment in to rebuild the Salt Palace. You wanna Talk about That? And it's associated parking structures.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair,

Mr. Chairman. So that is, that is just reflecting the decision that they have made already.

Okay. Senator, I've got a question for you and, uh, you know, forgive me for my ignorance. Uh, this is not new to me, but I certainly haven't got the depth of understanding that you do. Um, so the question is, how much is too much and what have we gone too far? We, we hear that we have some communities that have already, uh, have already committed 80, 80% of their tax increment to, to projects and things, uh, already. So is there anything in this bill, in this language of this bill that would protect a community that maybe has already overextended itself? Um, is that considered in here and what, what have you learned over time regarding that?

I, I share your concern with that. I do believe from my own research that there are overlapping project areas already. This bill is intended to prohibit that from happening again. We actually don't have a great handle on what happens right now with all these project areas. I think once we hit, we pass Senate Bill 2 0 6, which is the, um, change in the multi-county assessing, collecting trust bill, that, that all of that information will be aggregated and accumulated together into one location so we can actually find out what is going on and how much increment we have and if some of these project areas are still committing, getting, uh, uh, collecting tax increment when their project area has expired. Don't know that I've been asking staff, our good staff here for over two years to get that information. And I think these changes in bills that we're running this year will give us that information. So next year we will be able to come back and say, here's exactly where we are. This is much more transparent, this is working, this is not, and we can go through and, uh, have some much better educated policy calls.

Okay. I do, personally, I do have concerns as well about, uh, uh, goed. I guess we changed it back to Goed. I I heard that, um, from Goo Once the bill is signed Yeah. And it passes All the way. Yeah. Okay. But I do have concerns about, uh, an unelected group being the driver. I understand they make the request for boundary adjustments and, and I was reading that on, uh, and I moved down up on line 14. Let's see, where was I? Uh, yeah, the boundary adjustments, uh, boundary adjustments are, yeah, uh, 1430 and, and on down it, it, it is a little bit concerning. This is with, with with the tax increment for a municipality that we have non-elected officials that are, uh, making the request. I appreciate the fact that you've changed it, uh, to make it so that elected officials are on the committee that actually approves those. Uh, but the question I had is there, is there ever a time when they small down the, uh, HTRZ or is it always enlarging it? I'm I'm just curious about that.

No, the HTRZ has a maximum acreage and it has a maximum life. And I believe that once we get this information out and we do this type of stuff, we'll be able to go through and potentially terminate things that have not been triggered or not triggered or not operating properly. Okay. Thank you. Um, And again, that's in Senate Bill 2 28. Not in this bill.

All, uh, thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Carson AERs with the Utah of Cities and Towns. Uh, first I wanna say we appreciate Senator Harper for bringing this bill forward and, uh, many of the other tax increment bills that we worked on collaboratively this year and in the past couple of years. Um, I wanted to just kind of try to answer a couple of questions here, but first I wanted to, um, I think emphasize the framing that Senator Harper alluded to, which is this bill is not a standalone piece. This bill is in a suite of other bills regarding tax increment financing. That's everything. That's the, uh, um, Senate Bill 2 28, also from Senator Harper, senate Bill 2 0 6, also from Senator Harper House Bill 5 0 7 from your colleague, Representative Roberts. All of these bills are looking to sort of tweak tax increment financing, provide more transparency, provide more disclosure, both to taxing entities and the public. And we think overall the suite of bills will help, uh, shed more transparency, shed more information about how tax increment is working. Um, I do think HT Z's tell a success story. I've got a couple of quick data points that I wanna share here. And again, HT ZS are limited to areas around a station. So it's not a, it's not anywhere, um, it's not, um, a whole city by any stretch. It's a small area. Um, but in those small areas with a handful that have been approved so far, they were, there're about 42,000 housing units planned. 26,656 of those are demonstrated to be beyond what the market would've borne anyway. Um, about 6,000 of those are affordable between the 60% a MI and the 80% a MI range. The reason that this is important is that, uh, housing and transportation, as you all know, are two of the household's greatest costs. And by trying to locate affordable housing near transit lines where, uh, transportation's a little bit more affordable, then you can actually bring down those household costs pretty significantly and help those families, uh, save and move on to other, other housing opportunities. So, um, I think HD Zs tell a good success story. Much of what you're seeing in this bill is sort of, um, we've tried a lot of different changes over the years and are sort of, um, going back to points and saying it worked best when we set the base year here. Um, or, uh, the, the extraterritorial homes we've, that was a successful component that we're pulling out of the first home investment zone authorized a year or two ago. Um, so really what you're seeing in a lot of this particular bill is just trying to clarify the process. Now, I do wanna mention one important thing, which is that House Bill 5 0 7 is actually going to sort of work to transition all of these different tax increment tools. The HTRZ, the first home investment zone in the home ownership promotion zone, into a regionally significant development zone that has more parameters. That'll be in 2 20, 28 after there's more studies being done. That bill also creates a, uh, subcommittee of the economic Development and Workforce Services interim committee to try to examine these policies more holistically. So, um, with that all said, there's a lot happening in the tax increment space. We think generally this is moving in the direction of making sure the tools are working as, as effectively as they can, making sure there's more transparency, more information for the public, for other taxing entities, and trying to just create a better process for everybody trying to make sure we're using value capture tools in the most appropriate form we can. So once again, we appreciate Senator Harper and all the other stakeholders for bringing this bill forward for working, uh, collaboratively on not just this bill, but all of the bills in this space and try to make sure that as a whole we provide a better, uh, tax increment policy for the state. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I want to tell the sponsor that I really appreciate his work and I respect his, uh, deep expertise here. I'm a fan of tax increment financing. I think it's an important tool that we need. I am troubled by this last, uh, and we, we use it in my district station park and, uh, RDA we had in, in Centerville. It's a very important tool, but I'm really troubled by this section at the very end of the bill, which seems, which says it's supersedes what's in SB 39 saying that a, a convention center reinvestment zone proposal, meaning any convention center, not just the one in Salt Lake can propose a hundred percent tax, uh, revenue, property tax or sales tax. And uh, and then the, the one, the, the accompanying phrase on, on 1739, uh, that says the reinvestment zone in a capital city may propose a hundred capture of a hundred percent of the property tax and a hundred percent of the sales and use tax. To me, that's a tremendous policy change from what we've done in the past where we talk about increment financing. So I, I think it's, I think increment financing is really important, but a hundred percent of property tax revenue is a, is a different policy question that I haven't seen us address before. Has this been addressed anywhere else that you're aware of?

No. And, and if I may, Mr. Chair Yeah, please. Okay. There is and will only be one convention set of reinvestment zone in Capital City. And again, that is a three block area around the Salt Palace. Um, the a hundred percent is the city and the county's per portion of the sales tax generated in that zone, not in anywhere else in the city. And the 50% of the sales and use tax is the additional half a percent sales tax that we authorize Salt Lake City to impose when, uh, they, uh, were granted the relocation of the Utah State Prison. And again, it's only within the boundary of the zone. So, and it cannot be expanded any place else. It's So

You're, you're saying this is only that extra half a percent of, of proper, well why would it, why would it include property tax? 'cause that was only sales tax, wasn't it?

No. Yeah, the, the second line down there going on 1745 is the 50% of that half a percent that was given with the, with the prison. The rest of that, the a hundred percent is the sales and property tax in that zone. And that's what Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County asked for in order to help fund the, uh, salt Palace reconstruction. It, it is weird cons, it looks like a whole lot of money, but I don't know if it's enough money for them to go through and actually do it. But again, it's in, in that couple block area and it's a sales tax and property tax and the convention center in its of itself and the, uh, bra Hill Hall, which they're gonna try to rehab with this, there'll probably be one other building a commercial generating building on that. And there'll be some retail operations, small ones. It's not gonna generate a whole lot, but that's, that's what they asked for is stuff on their property that's generating it. They get all of it that, that's why it looks so funky.

Thank you. That's, that's very helpful. They, the part about not the capital investment zone in a capital city, but the regular conventions that a reinvestment zone also seems to be, have been thrown in there as well. And I wonder how many other zones we have. Don't we have that around the Mountain America Expo

Center in a couple of other places? No, no, No. This, this is the only one and this one you can, if you have another first class city, you can actually create A-C-C-R-Z, but it's not in a capital city. So that just limits it to Salt Lake City. So technically yes, you could potentially do one in Sandy City around the expo center and you can do one downtown, but it's not the capital city and the rules for the regular one are quite different.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, because of, it doesn't seem like anybody's jumping at it and because a lot of the questions and stuff, I think I'm gonna make a motion to hold. Okay. That's in order. Do you wanna speak to the motion? I think, I think I just explained it. I think, uh, we've had a lot of discussion, a lot of questions, and, uh, uh, apparently nobody is jumping at the opportunity to pass it through, so I thought it might be good just to hold it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I, I've been somewhat confused I guess by this, uh, bill and the conversation too. And, um, but I guess my, my only real question is, is I'm not certain what'll happen if we don't pass this bill. Maybe is the, the biggest question I have is really understanding what we're trying to solve here and knowing what we're getting at as a benefit out of it, and putting them both on the scales and being able to weigh together. Um, so I, I guess I'd be as supportive of a motion to hold, uh, for right now as well.

Thank you. Um, you know, I'd prefer to have it pass out, uh, favorably. Um, what, without, with not passing it out, not putting into, into place, we go through and maintain goo as an administrative, not just administrative, but as a regulatory function, which they're not supposed to be. We will go through and potentially have some other, uh, HJ Z's created that may want more than three or five triggers. We will also have the, uh, lack of clarity for what happens around the Salt Palace Convention Center. Um, and we will also have things like, you know, lack of clarity for the developer if they need to do a boundary adjustment, some of the roles of the auditors and the assessors in each county of what their, their roles are, and also, um, how we go through and, um, make sure that there is the compelling public interest met, which I think has strengthened in this bill in creating these new ones. Uh, that's, that's kind of my concern with doing that. But, uh, there's a lot of stuff that, that, that we could go over, so.

Thank you. Uh, this is a bill that, uh, is a cleanup from, uh, what we've learned with these, uh, housing incentive programs, HGRZ, fs, CZs Hops, uh, what it does. And there is a substitute that after the bill came out, there's a lot of good commentary that came. This basically goes through updates, provisions for the projects, clarifying, uh, housing, affordable housing options, clarifying if there's an amendment to the, uh, uh, to the project theory that has to go back through the, the committee goes through and clarifies if you have a couple, uh, transit stations next to each other, you can go through and consolidate those into a single HTRZ. Um, and that clarifies the boun of the, uh, acreage of those. And then, uh, clarify, we, we did one of these project areas in a third class in a fourth class city, but it was not in code. So we added four sa fourth class in it to make sure that in the future it goes through. Um, and it clears, clarifies, uh, the adoption of a long reach plan, that these things need to be in those, and, uh, clarifies when the tax increment is triggered that Mr. Chair is what the substitute and the original bill do. Thank

Yeah. So moved. Alright, we have a motion to delete Senate Bill 2 21 entitled and Bonnie replace it with first substitute, uh, Senate Bill 2 21.

Yeah, thank you Chair. There there is one little piece of this bill that I'd still like to discuss, but Senator Harper knows what it is. But with that, um, I'll make the motion though that we favorably recommend.

Thank you for the committee's, uh, interest in this.

Yes. Um, this is the annual cleanup bill for CRA's HG Zs, the of things that we need to clarify and to improve. After we got the bill out there, we had, uh, stakeholders and, and other end parties come back and make some, uh, technical cleanups to this bill. And this, uh, second bill goes through and clarifies definitions on, on, uh, fizz, on extraterritorial units, uh, notices and, uh, and, uh, some of the, uh, duties of GO EEO dealing with these zones.

Yes. Thank you. Um, one of the big changes in this substitute is a coordinating clause with another bill goes through and clarifies, uh, uh, zoning or density changes that would impact the, uh, the approved, uh, programs goes through and allows, um, CRAs to go through and, and submit separate notices when they begin the collecting taxing increment, uh, goes through and, uh, updates some of the reporting requirements that are allowed, uh, and goes through and, uh, has reviews if the, uh, requires reviews of the HD Zs or the other project areas have not been triggered within a certain period of time.

Thank you. I'd move that second substitute Senate Bill 2 21. Be read for a third time.

Senator Vickers, Mr. President, motion to encircle third substitute Senate Bill 31.

Vote. Senator Vickers Baldry Lewin Aye. Brammer bus Fillmore Aye. Escamilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Aye. Kins Aye. Ipson Aye. Johnson Juab McKay Mikel Milner Musselman Owens pitcher Plum Rebe Sandal Stevenson Stratton Bickers ler Wilson Winterton.

President Adams Aye.

Motion to encircle first substitute Senate bill two 18. We have a motion to encircle first substitute Senate bill 2 18 2 18.

Uh, Motion to delete title and body of first substitute Senate bill two 18 And replace