Riverton CRA deal draws scrutiny over notice, valuation and public transparency

Riverton City officials described a downtown redevelopment transaction that transferred two city-owned parcels — including a UDOT detention pond — to the Riverton City Redevelopment Agency and then to a developer who assembled adjacent parcels.

"It was a pretty challenged piece of property," said Craig Smith, legal counsel to the Riverton redevelopment agency, describing marshaling, an underground detention solution and about $1,100,000 in work to make the site buildable. Kevin Hicks, the city's manager, said the developer undergrounded the pond and is building a retail center (referred to in the materials as the Page retail plaza).

Representative Walter pressed the city on transparency and public-notice practices: committee staff could not locate a January 12, 2024 notice on the Riverton website that the city said was posted there; the city said the notice was posted to the Utah Public Notice website on January 12 and the public meeting occurred Feb. 6, 2024, where Resolution 24-19 (conveying real property from Riverton City to the Riverton Redevelopment Agency) was discussed and passed.

Committee members also asked whether the city solicited competing proposals. Riverton officials said the developer had already assembled adjacent parcels and offered a technical solution for the detention pond that others did not propose, making the assembled developer the practical partner; they said no tax increment was pledged at closing. The city said it used appraisals and consultants; staff provided an appraisal dated Jan. 9, 2024 valuing the property at $1,100,000 and said the developer invested roughly $1.7 million to put the tank underground and about $2 million in additional enhancements.

Lawmakers questioned the fiscal assumptions. Riverton estimated approximately $200,000 annually in combined sales and property tax once fully developed and presented a payback period of roughly six years for the city's $1.1 million valuation under conservative assumptions; some legislators cautioned sales-tax projections can vary widely and asked for a more rigorous, documented ledger for the public interest analysis.

The committee asked Riverton to provide missing documents (the appraisal and marketing history) and signaled staff will work with sponsors to consider legislative options next session to increase CRA transparency, require clearer marketing and valuation standards, and codify 'but-for' analyses when property is conveyed below market value.

"If we're going to sell below market value, then there needs to be a public good that's identified," Representative Walter said, urging statutory guardrails so residents can follow property disposals.