S.B. 278 Development Authority Modifications: transcript

Well, you just passed it a few minutes ago, so we're really quite, quite good. Uh, we're just gonna, we're just gonna have one, but I think there will be No, that's not what I meant. How many times have you Oh, You know, Modified this bill? Well, it isn't a modification. It's really an addition to, oh, as we get in construction down there, we've, there's been a lot of things and, you know, it's, it's very interesting. These are big bills, uh, big, uh, big concepts that, and, uh, for instance, I think I've ran, I've ran, uh, 15 Mi a bills in the last 17 this counting, this session, so 15 and 17, but I think we're getting really close to getting it right. So thank you. Thank you.

Um, the, I, I have with me, uh, Mike Ambre with, uh, he's our director, executive director at the point of the mountain, uh, land use authority, and also the project we have going down there where the old prison site was, if you remember. And then I think I got tied with this, if you ask how many bills I got tied with this, my first session here, I became the, uh, co-chair of the Prison Relocation Commission. And it's kind of rolled or evolved into this. And so it's been a, been a fun project, fun thing to watch happen. Uh, prison certainly moved to a different place. And we have what we think is one of the, the highest, uh, priority pieces of property, probably, and partially in a lot of places across our country right now with this site. But we're ready to go to work down there. And you're gonna start seeing some things pop out of the ground, uh, just very quickly. Uh, all the land, all of our land use authorities are different. Uh, this one happens to be all of, all of the property is totally owned by the state of Utah. And that's, uh, that does put it in a different place than maa or the Fair Park or the, or the inland port. This is, uh, this has got, its some very unique characteristics, but as I said, we are ready to go to work. And, uh, this, what we're gonna talk about here today has a little bit to do with, with how we finance and how we, uh, move forward on these projects and our relationship between the, with the communities that we work with. So, uh, with that, I'd like to kind of turn the presentation over to Mike and, uh, and then we'll go from there.

Uh, again, Mike Ambre with the, uh, point of the Mountain State Land Authority. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. So there's really, this is a cleanup Bill. Uh, I'll go through three separate items. The first item, uh, when this legislation was drafted, it really didn't contemplate selling the land very well. It, uh, it had more of a theme of leasing the land. Uh, currently we are contemplating selling a 50 acre parcel for owner occupied housing. When we do that, the authority reverts back to Draper City. And so we've been working with Draper City on how we stay with the objectives of the point. And so really what this is identifying is we will enter into a developer agreement. We will settle on some zoning codes with Draper, and so we can move forward with, uh, creating homes that fit into the development. The second item, uh, we ran a bill last year outlining, uh, privilege tax capture, and really the step down process for that. What we missed is identifying that it was only for the first 105 acres in phase one. We would like the opportunity to negotiate as we move outside of phase one different, uh, uh, privilege tax capture at that point. So this just addresses that and identifies that. And then the third thing is where the original legislation did identify the cell of land, it states that Palmville would retain 75% of that privilege tax capture, and then 25% would go to the taxing entities. We would like to reverse that. Um, we believe that it's in the best interest of the project to retain 25% to do some owner, uh, and maintenance of the facilities that we will be responsible for. But the other 75% would go to the taxing entities.

Uh, yes. Other than there's, again, these things are complicated. This is a different project than we've looked at with, again, the inland port and maa. And, uh, it has very unique cap properties because it is totally owned by the state of Utah. And, uh, it was decided a while back that we would develop that and the taxpayer would become the beneficiary of the profits on the, on the, uh, on the project. Uh, this will take a while, uh, but it's, it's very interesting because if you look at this as a, if this were a private project, we would be trying to figure out how to, uh, we would take our land and, and use it for collateral to borrow money. And that doesn't work in this instance. And also the relationship, I'll also say that the land use authority is one of the things that makes them attractive to development is that, that they land use authority can move very quickly. So if we have a project come to town, it doesn't take two years to get it approved. We can approve it quickly. And that's the reason these keep coming back. And we, we've got some, we've got some amazing things going down there. We've, uh, uh, Mike's got a, a note here in front of him. We've put in over six, um, actually over six miles, uh, of sewer storm drain already down there. But all this stuff has to be upfront because, because it's a large project, there's a large upfront cost. And that's the reason, if I were a developer, I would develop the edge and move into the, into the project. This isn't working that way because the planning we went through as a state. So, uh, that pretty well concludes our, my presentation. We'd be more than happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so on line 62 to 64, it's really on line 63. The, um, requirement that, that's, um, lifted on notice. Um, I, I absolutely understand in a specific case on housing, um, that makes sense so that the project can move forward. But, um, my concern with that, and maybe you can help explain, um, this a little bit better as we get more residents there, um, you know, in the next 25 years, 30 years, 50 years, uh, what protections do we have in the language here that the residents will, um, have a say, um, as they move forward? Um, you know, what will it look like in, in 50 years when we have residents there? Well, the transfer title would occur, so they would have a say. I think that what we envision is there to be, be an an HOA, that would be consistent with the zoning and CCNRs that we put in place. But as far as, uh, it, it wouldn't look anything any different. So would the, uh, municipality be exempt, uh, from providing notice though, if they were to transfer land to the, to a private entity? I, I'm not, am I reading this incorrectly? Well, I don't know if I understand your question, I apologize. So are you suggesting if Draper City were to sell land, So if, uh, if the state had more land that they wanted to sell? Sure. And Draper City, uh, needed to do notice, uh, but they don't have to do notice now because of this. Um, so again, I'm thinking in the future when there are more residents there, um, will this allow Draper City to not give notice? And then would the residents not have a say, uh, to give input? Or am I reading this wrong?

No, I think that's a good question. So I think that this really addresses the 50 acres that's contemplated for sale right now. If we were to, in the future, carve out additional land for owner occupied housing, it would, it would try to mirror this same language, right? So it would, it would be consistent. Um, right now that's not contemplated. I don't know that we have that much land available for owner occupied housing. So right now it's, it's really just tied to that 50 acres.

It, um, Madam Chair, if I may follow up again. Yes. So I, and I'm supportive of that. I just wanna know in the language here, what, uh, ties it ties this, um, what not, not having to do notice what ties it to only this project, because I thought this is open for any of the, um, state lands within the regional economic development authority and for an all time period, right.

I'm gonna take a shot at this. This project is tied directly to Draper City. This all falls into Draper City's, uh, uh, land, uh, or their property declaration city declarations. Um, what, what will take place, or if there are additional sales that would have to take place in the original board of director in our, in our, as we've set up the governance of the mountain of the port, uh, mountain, uh, the mayor of Le or the mayor, it's designated, the Mayor of Draper is on that board. So he, that's, he or she is on the upfront side of all of that that goes on. So I really believe that kind of covers, that should cover what we're doing there.

Uh, we have a amazing, amazing relationship with Draper City. They provide the water to the project, they provide the sewer that all, you know, the, uh, outflows on infrastructure. Uh, we work with department, but, but the point of the mountain has, its, has its own planning commission. Its council, if you will, but only in conjunction with what we do with Draper City.

So I, I I think that's great. You know, and I, I'm supportive of this project, um, on line 62, I don't see Draper City there. I see a municipal legislative body. So that's why my con my concern is does this go farther than we intend at this point? And

Well, this entire project is annexed and is inside of Draper City. So they're the only municipal project that would fit.

I, I'm sorry, I I don't mean to be combative and perhaps we need to take this offline. I, I bel I thought that this, uh, these lines 56 through 65 relate to any regional economic development authority area, not only point of the mountain. Is that incorrect?

Uh, I, you know, I would have to talk to the drafter.

Okay. We literally, this bill was put together specifically for the point of the mountain, which,

Which I am supportive. I just want everyone to know I am supportive of that. Again, I'm just wanting to make sure that this is written then specific to that,

Uh, project. I, I will have you an answer for that before this goes to the floor of the Senate if it passes committee.

Hi, Jeff Hartley, representing D Drer City. Just wanted to note that the city is, is been working closely, uh, with Sela and with Senator Stevenson, and we support this bill. Okay, thanks.

Um, I think we have one more, um, public comment here. Good morning, sworn Simonson. I'm the Executive Director of the Jordan River Commission. Happy to take just a minute to support and endorse, uh, this, uh, this bill. Uh, uh, a partner I serve on the Community Advisory Committee for the point development. And we have had many discussions with that community advisory committee about some of these changes that are proposed in this bill. And we encourage you to move it forward so it can continue to develop in a rapid, uh, way to, to meet all of the needs that it's envisioned to provide. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair. I move that we pass out SB 2 78 with a favorable recommendation.

Uh, again, this is, uh, I dunno how many bills I've ran with, uh, involving land use authorities in the state over the years, but it's probably in the range of, you know, 12 or 13. And, uh, they're really a great way for the state of Utah to do business, and they're a great way to create a camaraderie between the different entities in the state. But we haven't had a lot of, uh, consternation on anything we've done in any of the land use authorities. So, uh, I would just encourage you to vote for it. Thank you.

Okay. Um, Senator Kwan? Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I think that this is a, a good project, uh, that we need to, um, work together, uh, state and municipalities. Uh, but I do, uh, and I know that Senator Stevenson will work on that language to get my questions answered. Thank you. Yes.

It's not about what I'm doing. It's about what the state is doing. Uh, let me, uh, the state owns the point of the mountain. I think we all know that they own all the property down there. This is where the former prison, where our prison used to be. And, uh, we put together a state land use authority, uh, clear back in, I think 2018, maybe 17. Anyway, this land use authority, uh, was charged with the, with the demolition of the prison and the, and the redevelopment of that site. And it was determined at that time that it would probably be better for the state of Utah to go through and follow through that development process. And, uh, rather than, rather than jump in and, and, uh, put it up for, kind of put it up for auction and sell it, we felt that there was a lot more return there. Well, we, I think all of us know as we built various things, even right down to homes, that you have to put an investment into something before you get anything out of it. The prison has been completely torn down, demoed, uh, and gone almost other than it's being placed back underneath as fill for the various, uh, infrastructure that's going in. That being the case, uh, we have, we've had to make a few iterations on the, uh, the, the process we have for making that work. One thing that we did is we went in and we put, the very first phase of this project will be in the center of it. It is over 700 acres. And so the first phase will be 105 in the center. This, uh, this bill that we have before you this year, it modifies and streamlines the legislation for the point of the point of the mountain land use authority. And it clarifies amendments that we made in, in, uh, prior years. So I've, I've got a couple of changes. I, I need to make one little change, and I think it's on 93 and it's just the word, the word, uh, may to Shell and that is to accommodate Draper City. Uh, they are, they actually, the property sits inside of the city, but this land use authority will handle the development inside of it. We don't charge, there's not a tax, there's a user fee that's equal to the tax that's used on the property. Uh, I don't have that, I think that's on 93, that wording, but maybe 97 of the second sub. Yeah, I would, I I don't, I think it's on a different line. I'm, I apologize. I've got the first sub in front of me, and I forgot about this until I, we committed to that, uh, a couple of weeks ago, uh, with, uh, uh, Draper's lobby comm or lobby team. And, uh, and I neglected it until I got here this morning. So, but I, I will make sure that change is made before this goes to the, Um, did you wanna check to see if this sub that Put? Yeah. Oh, I, I, yeah. And I do need to adopt the sub, uh, and I'll explain that the sub just changes, uh, changes the tax distribution as far as the portion that, uh, goes to the state and how long the bond, the bond is being paid off by the sales tax generated. And when we get to the end of that bond, uh, basically it just, that goes back to the state of Utah. That's what the sub does. This, the sub also includes the amendment you just made. Oh, okay. And I also, I have a, well, I have a really wonderful intern. I want all of you to know that I am, uh, been tied up in budget, the budgeting process, but, uh, he said that that sub, that the one word changes is in the second substitute. So, uh, what I really would like is I would like the second substitute, um, uh, passed or adopted.

I'd, let's go ahead and adopt that substitute and then I will give you the rest of it. I'll give you the Reader's Digest version on the rest of it, if that's okay.

the, I can be as backwards as anyone here, I promise you.

Uh, so, so what the, we have the one word change that I've already mentioned. Uh, the first, uh, first change in this allows the point to move forward on allocating 50 of the acres that we have, uh, for us at a, as a for sale housing project to support the state's goal of increase for, for sale housing. So that's, that's what the, the first point does. And the amendment requires the point to coordinate with Draper City, uh, to ensure, uh, development of the transfer of the parcels, um, that it is done in accordance with the point's, objectives and with, uh, with the, uh, Draper City, we, the mayor of Draper is on the board by, uh, by resolution that we passed a couple of years ago. We have the mayor, uh, we have a five member board, and then we have the mayor of Draper and also the mayor of Salt Lake County. The second change defines that the, that the, the privilege tax that's allocated in phase one is restricted to it specifically says it's the 105 acres. It could be no more than that, and, um, can't be, and, and, um, anyway, and then this tax capture is outside of phase one will be negated. We don't want to, we want to do this in phases. That's the way it's planned. And finally, the third change covers the tax, uh, privilege, uh, tax capture on is trans, uh, on transferred land. The amendment, uh, dictates that the point capture of 25% of the privileged tax on the transfer land to fund operational maintenance costs while 75% go directly to the taxing entities, or in this case, the fee entities, which are equal to those of Salt Lake County and Draper City. And, uh, the state statute, uh, clearly directs that the point capture 75%, this reverses that and gives, it, gives the taxes according to those that, uh, provide the services to the, to the parcel. And I think that would conclude my, uh, my presentation. I would be more happy to try and answer some questions.

Land. The reason we do that is on state property, we can't, we, we just don't charge ourselves a property tax. So when we put this together, we, we put together a privilege tax equal to it will, uh, equal to the, the property tax. Uh, it is really the same thing, but because it is on state property, it's very difficult. It causes a lot of confusion. Uh, I don't know, it causes more confusion or less, but it causes confusion if we, if we revert back and use the word property tax on state property.

That's exactly right. The 25% will stay with the, uh, we'll stay with the, uh, the, the point of the Mountain Development authority. 75% will go to the state, but we have a lot of, a lot of infrastructure to take care of there before that's a completed project.

Just a, a couple clarifications. You said fee entity, is that referring to the state or is that referring to like the developers?

Uh, that's referring to the state. The state. Okay. Thank you.

The other, the other question I have is this privilege tax, does that only apply just to the point of the mountain development or is it other state property as well?

Yes, it would apply to other state properties as they, as they, or if they development, if they develop as a state, uh, state development. Really, other than the prison, this is probably the only one. We have one, the, and the prison here in the one in Gunnison, it would be the only one where we have large construction projects going, but a prison would not create attacks, so that would, would be negated. This is really the only one I can think of in the state of Utah.

Thanks for the clarification. Thank you.

Thank, thank you members of the committee. Um, I don't think I've ever testified, uh, in a committee before. And I thought I'd take the opportunity just to, to tell you how much I appreciate and love, uh, this good senator and his good work here. I've, uh, had the, let me introduce myself. I'm, I'm Jordan Tuscher. Thank you. We didn't, almost didn't recognize you with no beard and shorter hair, But I, I will say I, uh, I have the privilege of, um, being the co-chair of this, um, project for the last, uh, going on four years now. And, um, ha have, uh, had the great privilege to work with Senator Stevenson as he has been able to manage these different authorities and keep them all track, uh, all tracking in his mind. I don't know how he does it because they're all so different and so unique. Um, but just wanted to lend my support. I know these changes are gonna be really good for this project. It allows us to move forward with some for sale property that we'll be able to generate some, some funds, uh, in the project that allow, um, other, uh, development to, to parks and recreation. And part of the, the long-term plan that we have for the point. Um, and, uh, and, uh, we're really excited that, uh, in June, looking to June this year, we'll start to see vertical construction, um, on the property. So all the backbone infrastructure's going in. And, and this is really a generational project for the state. Uh, a lot of opportunities that are gonna be here for all of our constituents. And so, um, this is a good bill. It moves us in the right direction, and I am so excited to, to see it move forward today.

No, I'll wa And to, to the sponsor, That's what you'd like. I would just thank the committee. I, I, and I would express my thanks to Representative Teuscher. He's been a absolute pleasure to work with. I've worked with him on quite a few bills through the legislature, and, uh, I, you know, I, I'm a little different than most of you here, but I'm down to, uh, I counted up a little while ago, and I'm down to three days and 10 hours. And I will, I, I would love to come back and present to the committee next year, but I'm not sure what that would be. So thank you.

That is correct. Is that correct? Okay. That

My only, my only comment, uh, would be is that, uh, of these different projects, and I think this is the second time I presented to this committee here, uh, we, we worked on the, the inland board bill a little earlier in this session. Uh, these, these are entities that are really under construction. Uh, it took, uh, I've, in my tenure in the legislature, I think I've presented 15 mitta bills to get MIT a to the organization that it is. It's got a pretty strict military tie. But, uh, I just, I just would, this isn't the last time you'll see this, probably just because, uh, it's, you know, it's kinda like we're making it up as we go along, but not quite. So thank you very much, though. I appreciate the, the, uh, committee and, uh, and your, your attention to this. Thank you.

Thank you. I will present the substitute bill, the substitute, uh, parcel. I, and I apologize. I thought we were going to move this out of here, and I would just have that put in at the house and bring it back for conference. But what the substitute does is it just, it, uh, the point of the Mountain Land Use Authority has a large loan from the state of Utah. And what the substitute does, it allows the, uh, the, uh, state to capture the sales tax created there, uh, through the life of that loan. And not only that, through that, but through in perpetuity, that sales tax would come back, the state of Utah, not to the point of Mountain Authority. And then the other parcel is what I mentioned earlier, that it does apply a Sunset, a Sunset date with dealing with the City of Draper. Uh, with that, let me just run through the bill very quickly. Uh, it modifies and streamlines legislation from the point of the Mountain Land use authority. That, and it clarifies what we did last year, um, and in prior years that the first change allows for the point of the mountain to move forward with 58 or 50 acres of land that will be for sale housing. And that will, uh, support Utah's goal of increasing for sale, uh, housing stock. Uh, that property would roll to the city of Draper for their maintenance and so forth, and would not be tied with the land, with the land use authority any longer. The second change, uh, would define that a privilege tax associated with, uh, with phase one is restricted to the 105 acres that make up the first phase. And any capture, um, outside of the phase one will be, will need to be negotiated. Remember that we don't have a property tax on this property, but we have a privileged tax equal to the property tax reason being all that property is owned by the state of Utah. And then, uh, finally, the, the third thing that this bill does is it changes, um, well, that, excuse me. That was, uh, the third thing that it does is that, uh, that this, the state, uh, statute currently directs the point of a mountain to capture 75% of their privilege tax on the, and on the transferred land, while, uh, taxing entities would capture 25%. This bill just reverses that. So 25% goes to the, the, uh, state or to the authority and the balance goes back to the taxing entity. Uh, really quite three quite simple things. I hope I haven't, uh, confused anyone with that, Thank, thank you. Senator

Uh, I would, uh, I would move that, uh, Senate bill, uh, 2 78, be moved and read for a third time.

Thank you very much. Uh, this is, uh, legislation modifies and streamlines the, uh, legislation for the point of the mountain that we, and it clarifies amendments that we made in prior years. The first change allows the point to move forward with allocating 50 acres of land for, uh, sale housing, supporting the state's, uh, grant to increase for sale, uh, four for sale, housing, work, uh, or stock. Uh, the amendment requires the point to cooperate with Draper City to ensure that any transfer of parcels is done so in, uh, has done so in accordance with the point's, objectives, and also with Draper cities. Uh, it also has a Sunset clause that, uh, sunsets this process in, in 2026. A second change identifies the privilege tax associated with the point. Remember, the point has a privilege tax rather than a property tax. Um, anyway, and then this privilege tax is related only to the first 105 acres. That is the first phase of the project. And, um, and then finally the third change is that it revises this tax privilege tax capture on, on transferred land. The amendment dic, uh, dictates the point, uh, changes from the point it now has 75% of that, uh, capture and it would, uh, move the point to 25% and give Draper City and the other taxing entities 75%. So it's complete reversal. Um, so, uh, that's what the bill does. It's more cleanup than anything. And, uh, I would appreciate your vote. I I would take questions if there are any.

Thank you Mr. President. I stand in support of this bill and I wanna commend the good sponsor, not only for this bill, but for the, uh, many years of work that he has done in this space and in other spaces. I also wanna thank him for working with me on some language on the Sunset for 2036. I think that was very, um, working with him, uh, was, uh, a very good experience and I just appreciate the, uh, his, um, listening air. So thank you.

Yes. Uh, motion that SB 2 78. Be read for a third time.

So are we on the second first Substitute Senate Bill 2 78? Are we on the second or third reading calendar with this? We're on the third reading calendar, so I'm gonna take a motion to pass.

Yes. Motion to encircle Senate bill 2 44, cardiac emergency response Plan in schools. We

Thank you very much. This,

Need a couple minutes to fix something.

The motion before us the House circle.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ProAm. Personal privilege.

Yeah, it's a, it's another, uh, it's a change that was made to the inland port or the, I think pointing the Mountain Authority and uh, same issue we had before. They made some modifications to it. Were not acceptable so they changed them back and that's the reason that's where We are. Thank you.

Yes. I'd like to move the four substitute of Senate bill 2 78.

to speak to that motion? Yeah, I've Just been working closely with all of the different authorities. There's, um, some language in here that gives the state actually more control over any of the public infrastructure districts that are created.

Thank you colleagues. This is just the, uh, cleanup bill that we have for the point of Mountain State Land Authority. There's four main changes that you'll see here. The first one allows for the point to move forward with allocating 50 acres of land for for sale housing that will support the state's goal to increase, um, for sale housing stock. Um, the amendment requires the point to coordinate with Draper City to ensure that the development of any of those parcels are done in accordance with with the point's objectives. The second thing that it does is it defines the privileged tax that's allocated in phase one is restricted just that first phase, the 105 AC acres that's just in the middle of the project. Uh, any capture outside of phase one would've been negotiated. The third change that it does is, um, it re reverses the tax privilege captured on transferred land. Um, so right now this amendment dictates that the point captures 25% of the privilege tax on the transferred lands, um, and maintenance costs while 75% goes directly to taxing entities. It used to be the flip of that. So this actually gives more of the privilege tax back to the, the, the entities that are providing services on the land. And lastly, um, this, uh, substitute dictates that 25% of the sales, uh, the sales tax that was a portioned to, uh, palms they could take, um, or is coming back to the state. So actually the state will collect more of the sales tax rather than it going back to Poland. With that, um, Mr. Speaker, happy to answer any questions.

Yes. I'd like to move the four substitute of Senate bill 2 78.

Thank you colleagues. This is just the, uh, cleanup bill that we have for the point of Mountain State Land Authority. There's four main changes that you'll see here. The first one allows for the point to move forward with allocating 50 acres of land for for sale housing that will support the state's goal to increase, um, for sale housing stock. Um, the amendment requires the point to coordinate with Draper City to ensure that the development of any of those parcels are done in accordance with with the point's objectives. The second thing that it does is it defines the privileged tax that's allocated in phase one is restricted just that first phase, the 105 AC acres that's just in the middle of the project. Uh, any capture outside of phase one would've been negotiated. The third change that it does is, um, it re reverses the tax privilege captured on transferred land. Um, so right now this amendment dictates that the point captures 25% of the privilege tax on the transferred lands, um, and maintenance costs while 75% goes directly to taxing entities. It used to be the flip of that. So this actually gives more of the privilege tax back to the, the, the entities that are providing services on the land. And lastly, um, this, uh, substitute dictates that 25% of the sales, uh, the sales tax that was a portioned to, uh, palms they could take, um, or is coming back to the state. So actually the state will collect more of the sales tax rather than it going back to Poland. With that, um, Mr. Speaker, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Personal privilege. Personal privilege. Granted, Thank you.