The Summit County Council denied the Canyons master developer’s request for a public infrastructure district in a 3-2 vote Dec. 17.
PIDs can allow private property owners to issue bonds and access low-interest financing usually reserved for governments. They pay back the loans by taxing themselves.
Only about half the density Canyons Village is entitled to is built.
Councilmember Roger Armstrong predicted a public infrastructure district would accelerate the rest of its development. He voted to deny the request from developer TCFC, an affiliate of Talisker Corporation.
“[Development] is going to happen anyway,” Armstrong said. “The question is, do we want to throw a match on it, and make it happen in three years?”
Councilmembers Megan McKenna and Canice Harte also voted against the public infrastructure district.
However, Harte acknowledged the argument that Canyons Village is mostly second homeowners who pay more in taxes yet may consume less of the county’s services. Extra revenue might stave off tax hikes on locals.
“Which one do you value more? The tax revenue?” he said. “Or do you value — maybe you're not going to ever avoid the growth — maybe you just slow it down, and it just sort of evens out the pace of it.”
Attorney Sam Elder told the council efficient financing may not bring faster development so much as better quality development.
Councilmember Tonja Hanson was concerned about anecdotes she hears from former colleagues in the ski and lodging industry. They tell her Deer Valley East Village is pulling business, and tax revenue, across the county line.
“I personally would love to see a conference hotel to offset — the biggest meeting space in our area right now is the new Grand Hyatt in Deer Valley East,” she said. “It was [Stein Eriksen Lodge] followed by Grand Summit.”
Developer TCFC’s representatives pointed to the 1999 Canyons Village development agreement, which they say lays out what Summit County wants to happen at the ski area. And a PID would facilitate that.
Snyderville Basin resident Nic Schapper was one of two locals skeptical of the newly popular financing mechanism.
“What guardrails are you putting in these different pots of money that are popping up around the county?” he asked councilmembers.
Councilmember Chris Robinson said the irony is Summit County does not want to put guardrails on public infrastructure districts, which by law are independent.
That’s because the Utah state auditor suggested last month that, if counties and cities have authority over PIDs, they’re financially responsible for them.
That could make PIDs a financial liability, and the auditor’s opinion has garnered pushback from the Utah legal community.
Dave Thomas, Summit County’s ranking civil attorney, explained the auditor based their opinion off of best practices recommended by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
“Which I think was what was infuriating with the state auditor's opinion. Because GASB is not a law, GASB are policy provisions for accountants,” Thomas said. “They mixed law with policy, to try to bring PIDs under the authority of counties and cities, which is absolutely contrary to what a PID is.”
Hanson and Robinson were assured that a Canyons Village PID was set up to be suitably independent, not a liability or drag on Summit County’s credit. They were open to approving it.
Robinson said the PID was actually Canyons’ plan B. The developer previously asked Summit County to take on liability during the rest of the base area development.
“The county was asked to consider using its full faith and credit, or a portion thereof, in helping TCFC pledge properties, and we elected not to do this,” he said.
Without access to government financing, TCFC may end up with higher interest rate loans. It’s unclear what that means for the development timeline.
Summit County is a financial supporter of KPCW.
