Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposed Resolution - 3/9/2026 1 SALT LAKE CITY COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY RESOLUTION NO__________ Adoption of the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between Salt Lake City Corporation, the Community Reinvestment Agency of Salt Lake City, and the Utah Inland Port Authority. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, AND THE UTAH INLAND PORT AUTHORITY WHEREAS, on October 25, 2022, Salt Lake City Corporation, the Utah Inland Port Authority, and the Community Reinvestment Agency of Salt Lake City (formally doing business as the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City) executed an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (“Interlocal Agreement”) setting forth a process for the distribution and expenditure of City Differential (as defined in the Interlocal Agreement); and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2024, the parties amended the Interlocal Agreement and addressed the expenditure of City Differential; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to again amend the Interlocal Agreement to further address the expenditure of City Differential, including the expenditure of City Differential for public safety measures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency City, Utah that the Second Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement, in the form attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. 2 Passed by the Board of Directors of the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency, this _______ day of 2026. ________________________________ Dan Dugan, Chair The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. ________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: ________________________ City Recorder [SEAL] APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __________________________ By: ____________________________ Allison Parks, Deputy City Attorney March 6, 2026 /s/ Allison Parks 3 Exhibit A 1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT (“Second Amendment”) is dated _____________, 2026, to be effective on the date the last keeper of records for each Party attests and files the Agreement (“Effective Date”), by and between Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation (“City”), the Community Reinvestment Agency of Salt Lake City, a Utah public entity (“CRA”), and the Utah Inland Port Authority (“UIPA”), a Utah public entity. The City, CRA, and UIPA are sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” R E C I T A L S A. During the general 2022 Utah legislative session, the Utah Legislature enacted HB443, which revised Utah Code §§ 11-58-102, et seq. (the “Inland Port Act”) to change, among other things, the distribution from Salt Lake County to UIPA, the City and the CRA of exempt area property tax differential, (defined in Utah law as the portion of property tax differential generated by a property tax levied by Salt Lake City in the port authority jurisdictional land (“City Differential”). Specifically, Utah Code Ann. § 11-58-604(4) specifies how UIPA may spend portions of the City Differential. B. On October 25, 2022, the Parties executed an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (the “Agreement”) to comply with Utah law, to establish a contractual relationship creating certainty on the 25-year distribution of the City Differential to UIPA and to commit to a process for the expenditure of a portion of the City Differential and the efficient processing of land use applications relating to authority jurisdictional land. C. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties committed to spending a portion of the City Differential defined in the Agreement as Environmental Differential as follows: (a) to engage an outside firm with national expertise to prepare a health impact assessment (“HIA”) analyzing the planned inland port development in the authority jurisdictional land within the City; and (b) to engage an outside firm with national expertise to prepare a traffic study using data-based analysis on best practices to mitigate environmental impacts on communities related to logistics hubs, railyards, and truck traffic (“Traffic Study”). D. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Parties committed to spending the first portion of the City Differential defined in the Agreement as the Community Differential to engage an outside firm with national expertise in community impact assessments to create a comprehensive community impact assessment (“CIA”) for the planned inland port development in the authority jurisdictional land and the impacts on the Westside Community (defined in the Agreement). E. The Parties agreed that the HIA, Traffic Study, and CIA would be complete by December 31, 2023. 2 F. On July 25, 2024, the Parties amended the Agreement (“First Amendment”) to reflect that, rather than conducting an HIA, Traffic Study, and CIA, a portion of the Community Differential and Environmental Differential would be spent to establish a baseline evaluation of current development trends and potential outcomes in the port authority jurisdictional land and the Northwest Quadrant, as well as a mutually agreed upon preferred scenario for future development in the port authority jurisdictional land and the Northwest Quadrant. This preferred scenario is intended to establish policies and metrics that could serve as an evaluation tool for allocating future resources from the Parties and could also identify potential changes, if any, to the City’s adopted Northwest Quadrant Plan. G. As the baseline and preferred scenario studies near completion, the Parties have jointly determined that each of their interests will be better served by amending the process by which the City Differential is allocated. For good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree to execute this Second Amendment to the Agreement as follows. Any sections of the Agreement that are not specifically amended in this Second Amendment shall remain in full force in effect. To the extent there is a conflict between the Agreement, the First Amendment, and this Second Amendment, this Second Amendment will control. Section 1: City Generated Differential. The Parties understand and acknowledge that Section 1 of the First Amendment was intended to repeal and replace in its entirety Section 3 of the Agreement. In this Second Amendment, Section 3 of the Agreement shall be repealed in its entirety and is hereby replaced with the following: 3. City Generated Differential. a. Notification by UIPA to the City of City Generated Differential. During the term of the Agreement, within fourteen business days of receiving the 25% Set Percentage and the Decreasing Percentage (defined in the Agreement, and collectively, the “City Generated Differential”), UIPA will provide the City with written notification of the amount of City Generated Differential it received. b. Notification by UIPA to the City of Budget and Accounting. Within 30 days of receiving the City Generated Differential, UIPA will provide the City with the most current accounting that reflects budget and accounting records that show allocations and expenditures from prior fiscal years, including where City Generated Differential funding remains unspent. c. Required Annual Meetings. Within 60 days after the City receives the written notification from UIPA described in Paragraph 3(a), the Parties shall meet to discuss UIPA’s proposed expenditure of City Generated Differential for the upcoming fiscal year and review the accounting of the allocation and 3 expenditure of City Generated Differential from the prior fiscal years. The Parties shall meet at least once per year to review UIPA’s progress on Preferred Projects (defined in the Agreement, below), including relevant policies and metrics as identified in the Preferred Scenario. d. Expenditure of the City Generated Differential. UIPA shall spend the City Generated Differential as follows and pursuant to the process set forth in Section 3(d), below: e. Strategies and Projects identified in the Preferred Scenario Study The Parties agree to prioritize the expenditure of the City Generated Differential on the following: i. Baseline Study. UIPA engaged with a mutually agreed-upon outside firm (which may subcontract with other firms for subject-matter expertise) which has analyzed the current development trends in the port authority jurisdictional land and the broader Northwest Quadrant, including by studying current traffic trends, possible health impacts of current development, and possible community and environmental impacts related to current development in these areas (“Baseline Study”). The Baseline Study considers current development trends in the port authority jurisdictional land based on current zoning and the broader Northwest Quadrant, using existing data related to building permit issuance/applications and requests for increased capacity in public infrastructure. The Baseline Study relies on existing environmental, traffic, emissions, and demographic data and plans compiled by Salt Lake City department experts. The purpose of the Baseline Study is to identify the potential impacts on the community, environment (including air quality, water quality, water resources, habitat, wetlands and the ecosystem), residents, economic development, including job creation (types and number of jobs) and Salt Lake City if development continues on pace with the trends identified in the Baseline Study. ii. Preferred Scenario. Upon completion of the Baseline Study, UIPA engaged with a mutually agreed-upon outside firm to identify a preferred development scenario for the Northwest Quadrant; the port authority jurisdictional land; the property adjacent to the Salt Lake City International Airport; and property directly affected by development in the port authority jurisdictional land, including the Great Salt Lake shoreline heritage area. The Preferred Scenario will take into account the trends identified by the UIPA Logistics Study, UIPA Sustainability Study, Baseline Study, as well as the Parties and stakeholders’ objectives related to community mitigation, environmental preservation, water consumption and water quality, air 4 quality and related human health impacts, sustainable transportation, job creation (both types of jobs and numbers of jobs) and economic development (“Preferred Scenario”). The outside firm will establish the Preferred Scenario by engaging with the community, Salt Lake City Corporation, property owners, developers, and the UIPA Board, and taking into consideration the priorities of each entity. Such engagement will include conducting a robust and equitable community engagement process using various means of engagement, including, but not limited to public hearings, multiple-language meetings, and small group meetings with key stakeholders and leaders within the community. The outside firm will compensate these community members and stakeholders for their participation in the engagement process. This engagement will be to effectuate the objective of creating new policies and matrices to guide future decisions related to the expenditure of the City Generated Differential. When completed, the Preferred Scenario will include a list of potential projects or investments the Parties could make to effectuate the Preferred Scenario (“Preferred Projects”). Except for City Generated Differential set aside for public safety and criminal justice initiatives and multi-year projects, the Parties will prioritize the expenditure of the City Generated Differential on the Preferred Projects , pursuant to Utah law. In addition, the Preferred Scenario will establish policies and metrics to serve as an evaluation tool for allocating future resources from the Parties, a plan for regular status reviews and long- term accountability to ensure the policies and matrices continue to achieve the Parties’ objectives under the Preferred Scenario. The Preferred Scenario will identify which policies and metrics are within the scope of authority of UIPA, the City, and/or other entities. The Preferred Scenario could also identify potential changes, if any, to the City’s adopted Northwest Quadrant Plan. The UIPA Board has the authority to make all final funding determinations consistent with this Agreement and State law. To the extent there is a conflict between the Preferred Scenario and any other plan adopted by the Parties, the Parties agree the Preferred Scenario will control, except as otherwise set for in this Agreement or in cases where there are cross-cutting regulatory or legal obligations that the Parties are required to meet future plans. In such an instance, the Parties will work towards maintaining the intent of the Preferred Scenario while meeting regulatory and legal obligations. Upon completion of the Preferred Scenario, the outside firm will present the findings and recommendations to the Salt Lake City Council and the UIPA Board, in public meetings which include public hearings, for potential formal adoption. 5 f. In addition, the Preferred Scenario will establish policies and metrics to serve as an evaluation tool for allocating future resources from the Parties, and a plan for regular status reviews and long-term accountability to ensure the policies and matrices continue to achieve the Parties’ objectives under the Preferred Scenario. The Preferred Scenario will identify which policies and metrics are within the scope of authority of UIPA, the City, and/or other entities. The Preferred Scenario could also identify potential changes, if any, to the City’s adopted Northwest Quadrant Plan. The UIPA Board has the authority to make all final funding determinations consistent with this First Amendment and State law. To the extent there is a conflict between the Preferred Scenario and any other plan adopted by the Parties, the Parties agree the Preferred Scenario will control, except in cases where there are cross-cutting regulatory or legal obligations that the Parties are required to meet future plans. In such an instance, the Parties will work toward maintaining the intent of the Preferred Scenario while meeting regulatory and legal obligations. g. Environmental Mitigation Projects within the Authority Jurisdictional Land: Under Utah law, UIPA will spend 40% of the City Generated Differential on environmental mitigation projects in the authority jurisdictional land within the City (“Environmental Differential”) according to the following: i. A portion of the Environmental Differential will be used by the City and UIPA to engage the mutually agreed upon and selected outside firm to create the Baseline Study and Preferred Scenario in a timely manner. Any additional Environmental Differential will be spent on either UIPA’s Community Enrichment Grants or other projects, to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties under the terms of this Agreement. ii. While the Baseline Study and Preferred Scenario are being established, any unspent Environmental Differential will fund UIPA’s Community Enrichment Grants, particularly grants that mitigate the environmental impacts on Salt Lake City related to the development of the authority jurisdictional land, or wetland conservation, or other environmental mitigation projects to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties. Such environmental mitigation projects may include, but are not limited to, net zero, electric, or equivalent building; mitigation of truck traffic; protection of wetlands and other areas important to the function of the Great Salt Lake and habitat; construction that supports migratory bird patterns in and around the jurisdictional land; low water usage; solar or renewable energy and/or transportation electrification, including rail, trucks, vans, transit and non-road vehicles and projects related to rail 6 and clean air. The Parties agree that the City and UIPA will establish mutually agreed upon standards for the Community Enrichment Grant applications, prior to releasing any grant applications, to ensure that the Environmental Differential is being allocated pursuant to Utah law. iii. Expenditure of the Environmental Differential for Community Enrichment Grants will only occur after the City and UIPA follow the process described in Section 3(g) below. After the establishment of the Baseline Study and Preferred Scenario, the Environmental Differential may fund the Preferred Projects, which will be prioritized pursuant to the process described in Section 3(g) below. So long as it is consistent with this Agreement and State law, the UIPA board will maintain final approval of any expenditure for Environmental Differential. h. Mitigation Projects for Communities within the City. Under Utah law, UIPA will spend 40% of the City Generated Differential on mitigation projects for communities that are within the City (“Community Differential”); are adjacent to the authority jurisdictional land; and are west of the east boundary of the right of way of commuter rail used by the City (“Westside Community”) according to the following: i. A portion of the Community Differential will be used by the City and UIPA to engage the mutually agreed upon and selected outside firm to create the Baseline Study and Preferred Scenario in a timely manner. Any additional Community Differential will be spent on either UIPA’s Community Enrichment Grants or other projects, to be mutually agreed upon by the Parties under the terms of this Agreement. ii. While the Baseline Study and Preferred Scenario are being established, any unspent Community Differential will fund UIPA’s Community Enrichment Grants, particularly grants that mitigate the impacts of development of the port authority jurisdictional land on the Westside Community, including but not limited to, projects that address community-identified priorities, including creating quiet zones, railroad crossings, new infrastructure to benefit adjacent communities, apprenticeship programs, career and youth development, scholarships for certain careers associated with UIPA, and clean air opportunities related to rail. The Parties agree that the City and UIPA will establish mutually agreed upon standards for the Community Enrichment Grant applications, prior to releasing any grant applications, to ensure that the Community Differential is being allocated pursuant to Utah law. 7 iii. Expenditure of the Community Differential for Community Enrichment Grants will only occur after the City and UIPA follow the process described in Section 3(g) below. After the establishment of the Baseline Study and Preferred Scenario and except for the projects listed in Section 3(f)(iv), the Community Differential will fund the Preferred Projects, which will be prioritized pursuant to the process described in Section 3(g) below. So long as it is consistent with this Agreement and State law, the UIPA board will maintain final approval of any expenditure for Community Differential. iv. The Parties may agree to allocate Community Differential to projects that are not specifically identified in the Preferred Scenario, but that the Parties mutually agree to advance the quality of life for the Westside Community and are uses consistent with state law. Such uses include projects related to public safety. Consequently, up to 35% of the Community Differential will be allocated each year through the 2029 tax year for the City to deploy on public safety measures, including dedicated policing and criminal justice initiatives. On the first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2030, the parties may continue to allocate up to 35% of Community Differential for public safety measures or may reevaluate whether such amount is necessary and may make any changes deemed necessary through a written amendment to this Agreement. i. Process to Review and Identify Expenditures for the Environmental Differential and Community Differential. By April 15 of each year, the Parties will develop a list of proposed projects on which to spend the Environmental Differential and Community Differential consistent with the terms of this Agreement (“Proposed Projects”). The Parties acknowledge that there will always be more ways to spend the Environmental Differential and Community Differential than there is money available, however, the Parties shall cooperate and agree upon a joint recommendation of Proposed Projects to be presented to UIPA’s Board no later than June 30th t of each year. If there is no agreement on a joint recommendation, the Parties shall independently present each of their Proposed Project lists to the UIPA Board no later than June 30th of each year. The Parties agree that the City Generated Differential, except for the percentage dedicated to public safety and any other funds previously designated as multi-year funds, shall be allocated entirely to Preferred Projects. The UIPA board may approve a multi-year option for significant projects, so long as such projects are consistent with this Agreement and State law. j. Economic Development Activities. Under Utah law, UIPA will spend the remaining 20% of the City’s Generated Differential on economic development 8 projects within the authority jurisdictional land in Salt Lake City (“Economic Differential”). UIPA will use commercially reasonable efforts to incentivize economic development projects that comport with the Preferred Scenario, the City’s Northwest Quadrant Master Plan, and/or the UIPA Northwest Quadrant Project Area Plan. Such projects may include, but are not limited to, road construction or reconstruction, railroad crossing improvements, and water infrastructure projects. Further, the Parties agree that public safety is of critical importance to the economic development of the authority jurisdictional land and the Westside Community. Up to 15% of the Economic Differential will be allocated to the City to utilize on public safety measures each year through the 2029 tax year, including dedicated policing and criminal justice, On the first tax year that begins on or after January 1, 2030, the parties may continue to allocate up to 15% of Economic Differential for public safety measures or may reevaluate whether such amount is necessary and may make any changes deemed necessary through a written amendment to this Agreement. Section 2: Interlocal Cooperation Act. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: (a) This Agreement shall be approved by each Party pursuant to Utah Code §11-13- 202.5 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, including by the Board of the CRA, the Salt Lake City Council, and the UIPA Board of Directors. (b) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party, pursuant to Utah Code §11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act. (c) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed with keeper of records of each Party, pursuant to Utah Code §11-13-209 of the Interlocal Cooperation Act. (d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each Party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action taken pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs. (e) Any Party may withdraw from the joint or cooperative undertaking described in this Agreement only upon the termination of this Agreement. (f) No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result of this Agreement. To the extent that a Party acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such Party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such Party. (g) No joint board or entity is created through this Agreement. 9 (h) The functions to be performed by the joint or cooperative undertaking are those described in this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties are executing this Second Amendment to Interlocal Agreement to be effective as of the Effective Date. Utah Inland Port Authority, a Utah public entity _______________________________ Ben Hart, Executive Director Approved as to Proper Form and Compliance with Applicable Law: ______________________________ _____________, Attorney for Utah Inland Port Authority Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation ______________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Approved as to Proper Form and Compliance with Applicable Law: ____________________________________ Mark Kittrell, City Attorney Community Reinvestment Agency of Salt Lake City, a Utah public entity ___________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Approved as to Proper Form and Compliance with Applicable Law: ____________________________________ Mark Kittrell, City Attorney Attest: _________________________________ Keith Reynolds, City Recorder