Council Provided Information - 5/9/2023CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:RDA Board Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget and Policy Analyst
DATE:May 9, 2023
RE: Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Budget
Amendment Number Three Fiscal Year (FY) 2023
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW INFORMATION
Comparing Actual Property Tax Increment to Annual Budget and County’s Estimates
The County provided final property tax increment amounts for FY2023. In total across all project areas, the RDA
has $5.5 million more than estimated in the annual budget but $620,681 less than the County estimated in
December (amounts used for the earlier transmittal and staff report). While every project area has less property tax
increment than the County estimated a few months ago, every project area has more property tax increment than
the City’s estimates in the FY2023 annual budget except for the Central Business District. This reflects the City’s
approach of conservatively estimating property tax increment growth in the annual budget. The below table
summarizes the changes and resulting actual property tax increment amounts.
Note: Only property tax increment is shown in the table above; it does not include other RDA revenue sources like
interest income, rental income, or internal transfers
Pro j e c t A re a
Fu n d s
FY 2 0 2 3 C i t y
A n n u al
Bu d g e t
C o u n t y 's
De c e m ber
E st im at es
A c t u al
Pro p ert y T ax
I n c re m e n t
Differe n c e
fro m A n n u al
Bu dge t
Diffe ren c e
fro m C o u n t y
Fo re c ast
Ce nt r a l Busine ss
Dist r ic t 2 7 ,5 7 3 ,1 5 0$2 6 ,0 2 9 ,3 0 6$2 5 ,9 4 1 ,7 83$(1 ,6 3 1 ,3 6 7 )$(87 ,5 2 3 )$
Blo c k 7 0 1 ,9 2 2 ,3 2 3$1 ,9 2 6 ,0 2 9$1 ,9 2 5 ,5 0 3$3 ,1 80$(5 2 6 )$
De p o t Distr ic t 3 ,9 9 9 ,5 87$5 ,5 7 0 ,2 6 4$5 ,3 1 6 ,1 1 3$1 ,3 1 6 ,5 2 6$(2 5 4 ,1 5 1 )$
Gr anar y Dist r ic t 6 3 3 ,5 4 6$1 ,0 87 ,3 2 4$1 ,0 81 ,6 7 5$4 4 8,1 2 9$(5 ,6 4 9 )$
No r th Te m p le 4 4 4 ,0 5 3$9 9 5 ,82 5$9 88,9 3 6$5 4 4 ,883$(6 ,889 )$
No r th Te m p le
V iad u c t 1 ,2 0 5 ,1 0 9$2 ,85 8,9 3 4$2 ,7 2 0 ,0 1 9$1 ,5 1 4 ,9 1 0$(1 3 8,9 1 5 )$
No r thwe st Qu a d r ant 9 0 3 ,1 0 0$1 ,4 5 0 ,2 6 1$1 ,3 7 1 ,1 2 5$4 6 8,0 2 5$(7 9 ,1 3 6 )$
St ad le r Rail 7 2 ,4 2 0$1 3 8,5 2 7$1 3 8,5 2 6$6 6 ,1 0 6$(1 )$
St at e Str e e t 2 ,6 3 1 ,1 83$4 ,3 5 1 ,6 4 0$4 ,3 3 7 ,0 7 0$1 ,7 0 5 ,887$(1 4 ,5 7 0 )$
9 -Line 1 ,4 7 7 ,7 2 7$2 ,6 3 5 ,0 6 7$2 ,6 0 1 ,7 4 6$1 ,1 2 4 ,0 1 9$(3 3 ,3 2 1 )$
T o t al 40 ,862,198$4 7 ,0 4 3 ,17 7$4 6 ,4 2 2 ,49 6$5 ,5 6 0 ,2 9 8$(6 2 0 ,6 81)$
Project Timeline:
Set Date & 1st Briefing: April 11, 2023
Public Hearing & 2nd Briefing: May 9, 2023
Potential Action: June 13, 2023
Page | 2
Summary of Discretionary Items Adjusted for Actual Property Tax Increment
The prior transmittal and staff report used the County’s December estimates of property tax increment. The RDA
has proposed adjustments based on actual property tax increment amounts all being lower than the County’s
December estimates. Legally required items such as taxing entity payments, reimbursement agreements with
private property owners, and affordable housing contributions are all automatically adjusted and not reflected in
the table below. A detailed list of all line items and adjustments based on actual property tax increment is provided
in the updated transmittal on pages 16-23. The table below focuses on discretionary item adjustments.
Pro j e c t A re a /
Fu n d I t e m
I n c rease / De c re as e
fo r A c t u al T ax
I n c re m e n t
Ne w Bu d g e t
T o t al
Op e r at io ns and Maint e na nc e -$ 6 6 0 ,0 0 0$
Ch a r ge s and Se r v ic e s (87 ,9 5 0 )$ 4 1 9 ,2 81$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n (1 6 3 ,1 3 7 )$ 2 ,5 9 4 ,1 7 8$
Pr o pe r t y A c q u isitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt (4 89 ,4 1 0 )$ 2 4 4 ,6 5 1$
Blo c k 7 0 Re g e nt St r e e t Par king St r u c t u r e Re s e r v e
Ho lding A c c o u nt 2 ,2 2 6$ 1 0 2 ,2 2 6$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n 1 9 7 ,4 7 9$ 7 9 7 ,4 1 7$
Tr ansitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt 1 ,80 5 ,4 7 3$ 1 ,80 5 ,4 7 3$
Mis c e llane o u s Pr o p e r t y Ex p e ns e s 2 5 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 0 ,0 0 0$
Fu lly Re p a y Re v o lv ing Lo an Fund fo r a
Pr o pe r t y A c q u isitio n Tr a nsfe r 2 5 ,2 6 8$ 5 5 0 ,0 0 0$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n 6 7 ,2 1 9$ 1 6 2 ,2 5 1$
Tr ansitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt 2 9 1 ,2 84$ 2 9 1 ,2 84$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n 5 4 ,4 89$ 9 8,89 4$
Tr ansitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt 3 4 3 ,2 7 7$ 3 4 3 ,2 7 7$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n 2 2 ,7 2 3$ 4 0 ,80 0$
A nnu a l Bo nd De b t Se r v ic e Pa y m e nt to the
Ge ne r al Fu nd 1 ,4 9 2 ,1 87$ 2 ,6 80 ,7 1 9$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n 4 6 ,80 3$ 1 3 7 ,1 1 3$
Sh a r e d Co st s Ho lding A c c o u nt 4 6 ,80 2$ 1 4 2 ,1 1 2$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n City and
Sc h o o l Dis tr ic t Funds 1 7 0 ,5 89$ 4 3 3 ,7 0 7$
Tr ansitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt 1 ,3 6 4 ,7 0 9$ 1 ,3 6 4 ,7 0 9$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n City and
Sc h o o l Dis tr ic t Funds 1 4 1 ,9 5 7$ 2 6 0 ,1 7 5$
Tr ansfe r to RDA A dm inis tr a tio n Co u nt y
Fu nd s 2 2 ,4 1 5$ 2 2 ,4 1 5$
Tr ansitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt 80 2 ,2 0 8$ 80 2 ,2 0 8$
Pr o pe r t y A c q u isitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt (1 ,0 83 ,0 3 4 )$ 5 1 6 ,84 6$
Ho u sing De v e lo p m e nt Lo a n Pr o g r am 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0$
Sc h o o l Dis tr ic t Fam ily & Wo r kfo r c e
Ho u sing A c c o unt 3 81 ,3 4 7$ 3 81 ,3 4 7$
Ho using
De v e lo p m e nt
Fund
Ho u sing De v e lo p m e nt Lo a n Pr o g r am
(2 ,3 82 ,0 0 0 )$ 1 ,84 8,0 0 0$
Pr o pe r t y A c q u isitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt 4 4 0 ,2 2 6$ 4 4 0 ,2 2 6$
Tr ansitio n Ho ld ing A c c o unt 4 3 3 ,880$ 4 3 3 ,880$
No r t h we st
Qu a d r ant
Stat e Str e e t
9 -Line
Pr imar y Ho using
We stsid e
Co m m u nit y
I nitia tiv e
A d m inis tr a tio n
Budge t
Ce ntr al Bu sine s s
Dis tr ic t
De p o t Dist r ic t
Gr a nar y Distr ic t
No r th Te m p le
No r th Te m p le
V ia d u c t
Page | 3
$4 Million Seed Funds for Westside Community Initiative Changing Source, Transfer, and Use for
Property Acquisition in the 9-Line Project Area
The RDA is requesting the Board approve a $4 million transfer from the General Fund to the Program Income
Fund. There is a corresponding item in General Fund Budget Amendment #6 to transfer $4 million from General
Fund Balance to the RDA. The funds are proposed to be combined with $959,774 from an existing 9-Line property
acquisition holding account and $440,226 from an existing Westside Community Initiative property acquisition
holding account. The three funding sources have a total of $5.4 million for the property acquisition.
These funds were originally approved in FY2022 Budget Amendment #4 coming from the City’s American Rescue
Plan Act or ARPA fiscal recovery funding as seed funding for the Westside Community Initiative. The proposal is to
keep the total funding at $4 million but switch from using ARPA dollars to using General Fund Balance. This
approach helps reduce the administrative workload to monitor, document, and report compliance to the federal
government. General Fund dollars are also more flexible than ARPA funds which are subject to many limitations
under U.S. Treasury guidance.
At the time of publishing this staff report, the Administration’s transmittal was being updated to reflect the $4
million coming from General Fund Balance and not ARPA.
Board Questions from April 11 Briefing
Administration Budget
The Board expressed interest in developing a policy for how transfers from each project area and fund to the
Administration budget are calculated, and how the RDA Administration budget should adjust when revenue is
significantly different than expected. The Board discussion included revisiting the idea of a General Fund transfer to
the RDA’s Administration Budget. Some project area interlocal agreements with taxing entities set limits on
contributions for administrative costs. Newer project areas may not generate enough tax increment to fully cover
administrative costs. The RDA plans to prepare recommendations for a future Board discussion on developing an
Administrative Budget policy.
Block 70 Regent Street Parking Structure
The Board asked what is the extent of the RDA’s responsibility for maintenance, repairs, and replacement of the
Regent Street parking structure? Is there a cost estimate available? Under an existing contract the RDA is
responsible for regular maintenance based on a pro-rata share of how many parking stalls are marked for Eccles
Theater patrons. Revenue from theater operations helps offset some of the regular maintenance costs. Major
expenses for repairs and replacement do not have cost estimates. They will be influenced to an extent by how many
parking stalls are needed for Eccles Theater patrons in the future. The parking structure predates the Eccles
Theater. Minor repairs were made at the time of constructing the Eccles Theater, however, the age and estimated
remaining useful life of the parking structure is unknown.
North Temple Viaduct Bond RDA Payments to General Fund
The Board asked whether the bond could be repaid early and when the General Fund is projected to be fully
reimbursed for making the bond payments? The original 2012A bonds were refinanced as part of Sales Tax Revenue
Bond 2022A. This refinancing saved taxpayers $1,013,504 compared to the original bond debt. The new Sales Tax
Revenue Bond does not have an option to be refinanced again or paid off early before the call date in 2031. The
remaining principal on the bond is $8.32 million. The Administration provided the below table detailing the RDA’s
remaining obligation to reimburse the General Fund.
Total Principal and Interest Payments $ 20,856,087
RDA Contributions to Date ($ 8,649,069)
North Temple Blvd Project ($ 3,000,000)
Pro-rated share of interest for excess ($ 1,185,636)
RDA Remaining Balance $ 8,021,382
Northwest Quadrant Shared Costs Holding Account
The Board asked what kinds of projects would be eligible for the shared costs holding account, and are there any
legal or timeliness requirements for these funds? The Administration replied that “Shared Costs are defined as
“redevelopment activities that benefit the entire Project Area, are system wide, or that benefit multiple property
Page | 4
owners or parcels.” There are no legal timelines or requirements for these funds outside of the project area term
and conditions. The reimbursement agreements do provide the ability for developers to apply to the Agency for
additional expenses that could be reimbursed from these shared costs, subject to Board approval.”
Two Property Acquisition Holding Accounts with $1 Million Each; One in the Primary Housing Fund and Another
in the Housing Development Fund
The Board asked how the two holding accounts relate and whether they could be combined? The Administration
clarified that the two separate holding accounts are mainly for accounting and reporting purposes. The funds could
be combined for a specific project or added to an affordable housing Notice of Funding Availability or NOFA. State
law requires project areas to set aside a portion of property tax increment for affordable housing which goes to the
Primary Housing Fund. Additional funds for affordable housing beyond the statutory requirements go to the
Housing Development Fund.
Housing Trust Fund
The Board asked for additional details about the Housing Trust Fund. FY2023 is the first full year for the RDA to
administer the Housing Trust Fund since it was transferred from the Community and Neighborhood Department’s
Housing Stability Division. The RDA provided the below updates in response:
- There are currently 38 active Housing Trust Fund loans.
- The total outstanding principal balance as of 4/18/2023 is $18,057,285.85.
- Does the Administration have the ability to create aging reports / accounts receivable reports by fiscal year to
help inform how much should be budgeted annually? Once the review of loan documentation and financial
information is complete and the migration is finalized, we will be in a position to provide this information. In
addition to budget information we anticipate providing semi-annual reports, similar to our commercial loan
program report.
- Are there additional tools that would help manage the Housing Trust Fund? Not at this time. The Agency has
acquired new loan software and is working on configuring the system to manage and report the data.
Information below was provided to the Board at earlier briefings
RDA Budget Amendment Number Three includes requested changes to 15 project areas and funds. Total
expenditures are $10,312,004 for 46 items in this amendment. Total revenues across all funding sources are $6.1
million more than budgeted. Two significant revenue decreases below budget are a $1.5 million drop in the Central
Business District and a $1.3 million drop in the Housing Trust Fund. Most of the proposed items are true-up
adjustments based on preliminary property tax increment numbers from Salt Lake County. The actual tax
increment received could be adjusted up or down. An updated transmittal will be sent later this month or next when
the final numbers are available. Note that in this staff report the amounts in red font are negative numbers.
The annual budget uses a conservative forecasting of property tax increment which results in an end of fiscal year
“true-up” budget amendment to recognize and adjust budgets based on actual tax increment revenues. The
“Amended Budget Totals by Fund” section on pages 13-19 of the transmittal provides line-item detail of revenue
and expense changes by project area and fund. The additional and background information section near the end of
this staff report includes project area expiration dates, allowable uses of RDA funds per state law, and an update on
the Board’s FY2023 legislative intent to review all RDA accounts. The Board may wish to reference Attachment 1 –
The RDA’s Guiding Framework for evaluating and prioritizing budget requests.
LEGALLY REQUIRED ITEMS
Many items in the budget amendment are legal requirements for the RDA which mostly fall into three categories
listed below. Detailed breakouts of the individual obligations within these line items can be requested from the
Administration if Board Members would like additional information.
Taxing entity payments which are pass throughs from the RDA to the School District or Salt Lake County as
required by interlocal agreements.
Page | 5
Property tax increment reimbursements to property owners that have agreements with the RDA. If certain
conditions are met, then a portion of their property taxes is reimbursed. This is called post-performance
because reimbursement is only provided after the property owner has met the conditions and the County
Assessor confirms higher property values.
State law affordable housing set aside which is required only for some project areas which mostly goes to
the primary housing fund (can be used citywide for units with rent affordable to 80% AMI and below).
DISCRETIONARY ITEMS
The items below are not legal requirements of the RDA. If desired, the Board could decide to take additional time to
consider some or all the items below or could decline to fund any of the items. In recent years the Board’s
preference has been to limit duplication of funding requests for items in the last budget amendment of the year and
the proposed annual budget. This approach can provide the Board with greater flexibility to consider all competing
needs and funding sources together. The Administration is working to implement this approach while transitioning
to a new financial system. Holding accounts are typically for capital projects so the funding does not lapse to cash
reserves at the end of the fiscal year, and the Board would need to approve specific uses at a future meeting.
Transitioning between Financial Systems
The City is transitioning to a new financial system as part of the WorkDay Enterprise Resource Planning software
platform. The transition is expected to go live on July 1, 2023 to coincide with the start of FY2024. The RDA and
Finance Department are working to reconcile and convert accounts between the old and new financial systems. As
part this process, there are five transition holding accounts proposed in this budget amendment. The transition
holding accounts reflect remaining property tax increment revenues above budget after meeting legally required
expenses and anticipated obligations this fiscal year. This approach will be reflected in an updated transmittal. The
Administration plans to return to the Board for a comprehensive review of all RDA accounts once the new financial
system is implemented (per the Board’s FY2023 legislative intent in the Additional Info section for reference). The
new system is expected to include improved tracking such as whether an account is for housing, commercial, or
infrastructure so these categories can be easily shown across all project areas and funds.
Administration Budget
(All project areas contribute to the Administration budget. There is no policy guiding how the costs are shared
between the project areas.)
A. $360,000 increase to a new balance of $660,000 for the Operating and Maintenance budget.
B. $288,671 increase to a new balance of $507,231 for the Charges and Services budget.
Policy Questions:
1. Does the Board want to provide policy guidance for a) how RDA Administrative transfers are calculated
from each project area, and b) how the RDA Administration budget should adjust when revenue is
significantly different than expected? For example, administrative expenses may fluctuate unrelated to
the activity and revenue from project areas. Because RDA revenues are estimated and can come in
either higher or lower than projected, the Board may wish to discuss how those overages or shortfalls
should be applied. A little more than half of the RDA Administration budget is for ongoing personnel
costs (salary and benefits). The rest is used for property maintenance, operations, equipment,
administrative fees, and charges and services. The CBD provides more than half of the revenue for the
RDA Administration budget as shown in the table below.
Overview of Revenues from Project Areas to the RDA Administration Budget
Page | 6
2. The Board may wish to ask for additional information about the $200,000 for a remodel of the RDA
and Economic Development Department office space such as the project scope and cost breakout.
Central Business District (CBD)
C. (-$1,543,844) decrease in revenue from the adopted budget. As a result, there are three proposed
corresponding reductions in expense budgets. A (-$929,306) decrease to a new balance of $12,357,345 for
legally required taxing entity payments is based on the terms of those interlocal agreements. The other two
proposed reductions are up to the Board’s determination:
(-$154,384) decrease to a new balance of $2,602,931 for the CBD transfer to RDA Administration expenses
which is available, and
(-$463,153) decrease to a new balance of $270,908 for the property acquisition holding account.
Policy Questions:
1. What is causing the $1.5 million or 6% decrease in CBD property tax increment revenue? The
Administration mentions in the transmittal that the reduced property value assessments are potentially
driven by hotels and shopping centers. There could also be an increase of property tax appeals.
2. What is the funding target to purchase property downtown? The Board may wish to discuss with the
Administration how much funding would be needed to acquire property in the CBD and what policy
goals could be advanced by such purchases.
Block 70
(Eccles Theater and Regent Street between 100 and 200 South, and Main and State Streets)
D. $2,594 of additional funding for the Regent Street Parking Structure Capital Reserve holding account. If
approved, then the new total budget would be $366,275.
Policy Question:
1. Regent Street Parking Structure Responsibility – The Board may wish to ask the Administration to
what extent is the RDA and other entities responsible for maintenance of the parking structure. Note
that the agreement for maintenance is related to the guarantee of a certain number of parking spaces to
serve the Eccles Theater.
Depot District
(2024 is the last year for property tax increment collection. Note a tax increment reimbursement agreement
expired last year which resulted in a $1 million reduction in that legal obligation. This frees up funding that can
be used on discretionary items.)
Pro je c t A rea T ran sfer t o
RDA A dm in ist rat i o n Bu d get Bu dg e t A m e n dm e n t
#3 Fo re c ast V arian c e Pro je c t A rea
T ran sfe r % o f T o t al
9 -Line 1 1 8,2 1 8$ 3 1 0 ,6 7 3$ 1 9 2 ,4 5 5$ 7 %
Ce ntr al Bu sine ss Distr ic t 2 ,7 5 7 ,3 1 5$ 2 ,6 0 2 ,9 3 1$ (1 5 4 ,3 84 )$5 6 %
De p o t Dist r ic t 5 9 9 ,9 3 8$ 83 5 ,5 4 0$ 2 3 5 ,6 0 2$ 1 8%
Gr a nar y Distr ic t 9 5 ,0 3 2$ 1 6 3 ,0 9 9$ 6 8,0 6 7$ 4 %
No r th Te m p le 4 4 ,4 0 5$ 9 9 ,5 83$ 5 5 ,1 7 8$ 2 %
No r th Te m p le V iaduc t 1 8,0 7 7$ 4 2 ,884$ 2 4 ,80 7$ 1 %
No r thw e st Quad r a nt 9 0 ,3 1 0$ 1 4 5 ,0 2 6$ 5 4 ,7 1 6$ 3 %
Stadle r Ra il 7 ,2 4 2$ 7 ,4 2 6$ 1 84$ 0 %
Stat e St r e e t 2 6 3 ,1 1 8$ 4 3 5 ,1 6 4$ 1 7 2 ,0 4 6$ 9 %
We st Te m p le Ga te way *5 ,0 0 0$ 5 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 %
TOTA LS 3 ,9 9 8,6 5 5$ 4 ,6 4 7 ,3 2 6$ 6 4 8,6 7 1$ 1 0 0 %
*Th is pro je c t a re a no lo ng e r c o lle c t s p ro pe rt y tax inc re m e nt. I nte re s t inc o m e is g e ne rat e d fro m u ns p e nt
Page | 7
E. $235,602 increase to a new balance of $835,540 for the Depot District transfer to RDA Administration. See
policy question #1 in the Administration Budget section above about the Board providing policy guidance for
how the RDA Administration budget should be adjusted when revenue is significantly different than expected.
F. $1,970,671 for a new transition holding account. See the transitioning between financial systems at the start of
the discretionary items section above for more. As the funds are going into a holding account, the Board would
need to approve specific uses of the funds at a future meeting.
G. $25,000 increase to a new balance of $150,000 for miscellaneous property expenses which includes costs such
as utilities, maintenance, and minor repairs.
H. $25,268 increase to a new balance of $550,000 to fully repay the Revolving Loan Fund for a Central Station
property acquisition transfer last fiscal year.
Granary District
(2025 is the last year for property tax increment collection)
I. $68,067 increase to a new balance of $163,099 for the Granary District transfer to RDA Administration. See
policy question #1 in the Administration Budget section above about the Board providing policy guidance for
how the RDA Administration budget should be adjusted when revenue is significantly different than expected.
J. $294,955 increase to a new transition holding account. See the transitioning between financial systems at the
start of the discretionary items section above for more. As the funds are going into a holding account, the Board
would need to approve specific uses of the funds at a future meeting. Note that the $421,805 existing property
acquisition holding account remains available.
North Temple
K. $55,178 increase to a new balance of $99,583 for the North Temple transfer to RDA Administration. See policy
question #1 in the Administration Budget section above about the Board providing policy guidance for how the
RDA Administration budget should be adjusted when revenue is significantly different than expected.
L. $347,616 for a new transition holding account. See the transitioning between financial systems at the start of
the discretionary items section above for more. As the funds are going into a holding account, the Board would
need to approve specific uses of the funds at a future meeting.
North Temple Viaduct
M. $24,807 increase to a new balance of $42,884 for the North Temple Viaduct transfer to RDA Administration.
See policy question #1 in the Administration Budget section above about the Board providing policy guidance
for how the RDA Administration budget should be adjusted when revenue is significantly different than
expected.
N. $1,629,018 increase to a new balance of $2,817,550 for the annual bond debt service payment to the General
Fund. This is an ongoing annual payment to reimburse the General Fund for fronting annual bond payments
when the property tax increment revenues were insufficient to cover the debt service. Note that the General
Fund carries the responsibility to cover the debt service each year, but when the debt was issued, the
understanding was that the RDA would eventually fully cover those payments.
Policy Question:
1. The Board may wish to ask the Administration when is the General Fund projected to be fully
reimbursed for all bond payments? The Board may also wish to have a discussion with the
Administration about policy goals for these funds. For example, in the FY2022 annual budget the
Council transferred $1 million from that year’s reimbursement to the General Fund to the North
Temple Strategic Intervention Fund, as it was more than what was needed to cover the General Fund’s
bond obligation.
2. The Board may also wish to ask has the Administration evaluated whether the City could repay the
bond early?
Page | 8
Northwest Quadrant (NWQ)
O. $54,716 increase to a new balance of $145,026 for the Northwest Quadrant transfer to RDA Administration. See
policy question #1 in the Administration Budget section above about the Board providing policy guidance for
how the RDA Administration budget should be adjusted when revenue is significantly different than expected.
P. $54,716 increase to a new balance of $150,026 for the shared costs holding account. This account is intended to
be used for projects that benefit the entire project area or multiple properties. No specific projects are currently
identified for use. Note this is the second year the RDA budgeted revenues from the Northwest Quadrant.
Policy Question:
1. The Board may wish to discuss with the Administration what kinds of projects would be eligible for
these funds. There may be opportunities to plan for these kinds of projects in the upcoming Capital
Asset Plan (five-year CIP plan) to leverage multiple funding sources with the Northwest Quadrant
shared costs holding account. For example, public infrastructure improvements in the area might be
eligible to use transportation impact fees in combination with the NWQ shared costs funds.
State Street
Q. $172,046 increase to a new balance of $435,164 for the State Street transfer to RDA Administration. See policy
question #1 in the Administration Budget section above about the Board providing policy guidance for how the
RDA Administration budget should be adjusted when revenue is significantly different than expected.
R. $1,373,365 for a new transition holding account. See the transitioning between financial systems at the start of
the discretionary items section above for more. As the funds are going into a holding account, the Board would
need to approve specific uses of the funds at a future meeting. Note that the $2,107,974 existing property
acquisition holding account remains available.
9-Line
S. $192,455 increase to a new balance of $310,673 for the 9-Line transfer to RDA Administration. See policy
question #1 in the Administration Budget section above about the Board providing policy guidance for how the
RDA Administration budget should be adjusted when revenue is significantly different than expected.
T. $770,952 for a new transition holding account. See the transitioning between financial systems at the start of
the discretionary items section above for more. As the funds are going into a holding account, the Board would
need to approve specific uses of the funds at a future meeting. Note that the $959,774 existing property
acquisition holding account remains available.
Primary Housing
(state law allows the RDA to fund housing at 80% or below AMI citywide – not just in project areas)
U. (-$635,647) decrease to a new balance of $964,223 for the property acquisition holding account.
Policy Question:
1. How does the Primary Housing property acquisition holding account relate to the Housing
Development Fund Affordable Housing property acquisition holding account? The Board adopted a
legislative intent with the FY2023 annual budget (see Additional Info Section) to review all RDA
accounts to see whether they still align with the Board’s priorities. The Board could identify potential
streamlining of multiple holding accounts for the same purpose.
V. $1,124,053 for additional funding to the Housing Development Loan Program.
W. $375,947 for a new School District Family & Workforce Housing account. The interlocal agreement between the
RDA and the School District limits a portion of that taxing entity’s property tax increment for family-sized
(three bedrooms or more) and workforce housing. Placing the funds into a separate account would allow for
better tracking and reporting.
Housing Development Fund
Page | 9
X. (-$1,382,000) decrease to a new balance of $2,848,000 for the Housing Development Loan Program.
Policy Question:
1. Details of Housing Trust Fund Portfolio – The Board may wish to ask the Administration for details on
the funds’ portfolio such as how many loans exist, what is the total future repayments, is an aging
report being developed so the agency knows how much revenue to budget each year from repayments,
etc.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
FY2023 Legislative Intent Update
The legislative intent below was adopted by the Board along with the FY2023 annual budget. The review of all RDA
accounts is pending implementation of the new Work Day Enterprise Resource Planning financial system which is
expected to go live on July 1, 2023 (first day of FY2024). There are several new holding accounts and additional
funding to existing holding accounts proposed in this budget amendment. Those accounts can be included in the
comprehensive review of all RDA financial accounts next fiscal year.
New Program Funding Allocations. It is the intent of the RDA Board in the current budget year, and in
future budget years, to consolidate the budgeting and policy development steps for new programs so that
funding is allocated after the Board has had the opportunity to get a full understanding of the proposal and
to exercise their policy making discretion. It is further the intent of the Council to review by December 2022
all RDA accounts that contain balances to determine whether the appropriations still align with the goals of
the Board.
Gallivan Utah Center Owners Association (GUCOA)
GUCOA is the managing agency for the entire block through Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CCRs) and is
responsible for maintenance and programming. The RDA is the majority owner (over 51%). The CCRs originally
contemplated a contractor to provide maintenance and programming which has been provided by the Public
Services Department after an RFP process. An assessment is levied on the first floor of adjacent commercial
properties to contribute funding to administration, programming, and events. The programming contract has
requirements for a set number of events that must be open to the public annually. Gallivan also provides many free
events to activate the space consistent with the Council/Board’s public policy goals for downtown.
Project Area Expiration Dates
Project areas have a designated expiration (aka sunset) date. State law allows RDAs to continue spending tax
increment already collected in expired project areas such as Sugar House. Sometimes project areas can be
extended/renewed for a longer length which happened to the Central Business District. The table below
summarizes project area timeframes from creation to expiration.
Project Area Initial Collection
Year
Last Collection
Year
Central Business District*†1983 2042
West Capitol Hill**1998 2022
Depot District†1999 2024
Granary District†2000 2025
North Temple†2012 2039
North Temple Viaduct CDA 2012 2037
Northwest Quadrant 2019 2038
Block 70 CDA 2016 2040
Stadler Rail 2019 2038
Block 67 2021 2040
9-Line 2021 2040
State Street 2021 2040
NOTE: Only project areas that generate tax increment are listed in the table
*The RDA Board extended the CBD from the original expiration year of 2007
Page | 10
** The RDA Board extended the original expiration year to focus on 300 West streetscape
improvements
†In October 2021 the Board approved two-year extensions for these project areas. State law was
changed to allow extensions for projects areas negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic
Statutory Definition of Project Area Development (Utah Code 17C-1-102(48))
The section of Utah Code below is a key list of allowable uses of RDA funds. The Utah Legislature updated this
statute in the 2016 General Session.
(47)"Project area development" means activity within a project area that, as determined by the board, encourages,
promotes, or provides development or redevelopment for the purpose of implementing a project area plan,
including:
(a)promoting, creating, or retaining public or private jobs within the state or a community;
(b)providing office, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, parking, or other facilities or improvements;
(c)planning, designing, demolishing, clearing, constructing, rehabilitating, or remediating environmental
issues;
(d)providing residential, commercial, industrial, public, or other structures or spaces, including recreational
and other facilities incidental or appurtenant to the structures or spaces;
(e)altering, improving, modernizing, demolishing, reconstructing, or rehabilitating existing structures;
(f)providing open space, including streets or other public grounds or space around buildings;
(g)providing public or private buildings, infrastructure, structures, or improvements;
(h)relocating a business;
(i)improving public or private recreation areas or other public grounds;
(j)eliminating blight or the causes of blight;
(k)redevelopment as defined under the law in effect before May 1, 2006; or
(l)any activity described in Subsections (48)(a) through (k) outside of a project area that the board
determines to be a benefit to the project area.
ATTACHMENTS
1. RDA Guiding Framework
ACRONYMS
CBD – Central Business District
CCR - Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions
CDA – Community Development Area
FY – Fiscal Year
GUCOA – Gallivan Utah Center Owners Association
NWQ – Northwest Quadrant
PIF – Program Income Fund
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
RFP – Request for Proposals
TBD – To Be Determined
Redevelopment Agency FY22-23
Budget Amendment #3
BB
Project Area Revenue Changes
46,422,496 40,862,198 5,560,298
Budget BA #3 Variance
Tax Increment Revenue Change
1,477,727
2,631,183
72,420
903,100
1,205,109
444,053
633,546
3,999,587
1,922,323
27,573,150
2,601,746
4,337,070
138,526
1,371,125
2,720,019
988,936
1,081,675
5,316,113
1,925,503
25,941,783
9L
SS
SR
NWQ
NTV
NT
GD
DD
B70
CBD
1
0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Tax Increment Revenue Changes by Project Area
Project Area & Funds Expense Changes
1,370,68 5,560,298 4,189,611
Ti Revenue Increase Obligations Discretionary
Total Project Area Fund Changes
Total Obligations Total Discretionary
=+
Project Area Funds 2023-B 2023-BA3
Variance to
Budget
Transfer to Primary Housing Fund 1,523,880 1,940,846 416,966
Transfer to Primary Housing -School
District Family & Workforce
Housing
0 381,347 381,347
Transfer to Administration 3,993,655 4,554,376 560,721
TI Reimbursements 4,090,606 3,477,535 (613,071)
Taxing Entity Payments 14,085,314 13,162,670 (922,644)
Miscellaneous Property Expense 1,130,000 1,155,000 25,000
Debt Service Payment to Salt Lake
City 1,188,532 2,680,719 1,492,187
County Administration Fee 26,996 16,811 (10,185)
Capital Reserves -School
Construction Fund (10%)31,084 69,226 38,142
Capital Reserves -Regent Street
Parking Structure 100,000 102,226 2,226
Total 26,170,067 27,540,755 1,370,688
Project Area Funds 2023-B 2023-BA3
Variance to
Budget
Capital Reserves -Property
Acquisition 3,064,721 2,104,947 (959,774)
Revolving Loan Fund Repayment 524,732 550,000 25,268
Capital Reserves -Shared Costs 95,310 142,112 46,802
Capital Reserves -Housing Property
Acquisition 734,061 1,204,425 470,364
Capital Reserves -Transition
Holding Account 0 4,606,951 4,606,951
Total 4,418,824 8,608,435 4,189,611
Housing Funds Changes
Discretionary Expenses by Housing Fund
7,630,2997,339,880 290,419
Budget BA #3 Variance
Housing Funds Revenue Change
Fund Line Description 2023-B 2023-BA3 Variance to Budget
Primary Housing Dev/Loan Fund Capital Reserves -Housing Property Acquisition 1,599,880 516,846 (1,083,034)
Capital Reserves -Housing Development Loan Program 0 1,500,000 1,500,000
Capital Reserves -School District Family & Workforce Housing 0 381,347 381,347
Housing Development Fund Capital Reserves -Housing Development Loan Program 4,230,000 2,848,000 (1,382,000)
Westside Community Initiative Capital Reserves -Housing Property Acquisition 0 440,226 440,226
Capital Reserves -Transition Holding Account 0 433,880 433,880
Total 5,829,880 6,120,299 290,419
500,000
5,230,000
1,599,880
1,374,106
3,848,000
2,398,193
Westside Community Initiative
Housing Development Fund
Primary Housing
1
8
1
7
1
5
Revenue Changes by Housing Funds
1,599,880
0
4,230,000
0
957,072
433,880
4,348,000
381,347
Housing Property Acquisition
Transition Holding Account
Housing Development Loan Program
School District Family & Workforce Housing
Expense Changes by Description
Administration Fund Changes
Administration Fund Expense Changes
Line Description Budget BA #3 Variance
Operating & Maintenance 300,000 660,000 360,000
Charges and Services 218,560 507,231 200,721
518,560 1,079,281 560,721
4,559,3763,998,655 560,721
Budget BA #3 Variance
Administration Fund Revenue Change
218,560
300,000
419,281
660,000
Charges and Services
Operating & Maintenance
Administration Fund Expense Changes