Eagle Mountain Redevelopment Agency Board, 18 August 2026

In short: Sitting as the city's redevelopment agency just after midnight, the same five councilmembers approved the four documents that set up the Mid-Valley shopping-center deal on roughly 53 acres — a project area plan, its budget, and two agreements routing a share of new tax revenue back into off-site roads and utilities. The plan and budget passed unanimously; both agreements passed 4-1, with Rich Wood against. Nobody came to either public hearing.

Present: Chairperson Jared Gray (the mayor chairs the agency under its bylaws); Board Members Melissa Clark, Brett Wright, Craig Whiting, Rich Wood and Zac Huish. All five board members voted on every item, so none was absent.

Staff: Lacie "Lacey" Messerly (city recorder, who confirmed nobody had signed up to speak at either hearing). Abby Ivory (the agency's executive director) was expected but not present — the chair noted "I don't even see Abby."

Decisions

#	Agenda ref	Motion	Moved / Seconded	Vote	Result
1	2.A	Approve the minutes of the June 16, 2026 regular Redevelopment Agency Board meeting	Clark / Whiting	5-0 (roll call: Huish yes, Clark yes, Wright yes, Whiting yes, Wood yes)	Passed
2	3.A	Approve a resolution adopting the official project area plan for the Mid-Valley Community Reinvestment Project Area	Whiting / Clark	5-0 (roll call: Clark yes, Wright yes, Whiting yes, Wood yes, Huish yes)	Passed
3	3.B	Approve a resolution adopting the official project area budget for the Mid-Valley Community Reinvestment Project Area	Whiting / Wright	5-0 (roll call: Wright yes, Whiting yes, Wood yes, Huish yes, Clark yes)	Passed
4	4.A	Approve a resolution approving an interlocal cooperation agreement between the agency and Eagle Mountain City for the collection and remittance of incremental sales tax collected within the Mid-Valley project area	Whiting / Wright	4-1 (roll call: Whiting yes, Wood no, Huish yes, Clark yes, Wright yes)	Passed
5	4.B	Approve a resolution approving the Mid-Valley CRA participation agreement between the agency, Eagle Mountain City and Terra Smith's Eagle Mountain, LLC	Whiting / Clark	4-1 (roll call: Wood no, Huish yes, Clark yes, Wright yes, Whiting yes)	Passed
6	5	Adjourn	Whiting / Clark	Voice vote	Passed

Settled without a vote:

• The board agreed to drop the items it had been holding for a closed session. Raising it only after the gavel had fallen, the chair said "I think the consensus is that we're going to punt," acknowledged the meeting was already adjourned, and said the agency would have to come back to anything time-sensitive at a later meeting.

Meeting map

Agenda ref	Topic	~Start (elapsed)	One-line note
1	Call to order	~0:00	Called to order at 12:13 a.m., the chair having to ask aloud what day it was.
2.A	June 16 minutes	~0:27	Approved without discussion, 5-0.
3.A	Project area plan — public hearing and resolution	~1:06	Hearing opened and closed at 12:15 a.m. with no speakers; adopted 5-0.
3.B	Project area budget — public hearing and resolution	~2:25	Hearing opened and closed at 12:16 a.m. with no speakers; adopted 5-0.
4.A	Interlocal agreement on incremental tax	~3:24	Chair corrected the packet on the record; passed 4-1.
4.B	CRA participation agreement with the developer	~4:21	Passed 4-1, the chair announcing the tally aloud.
5	Adjournment	~5:06	Adjourned about 12:18 a.m.

Discussed but NOT on the agenda: the closed-session items the board decided to defer, raised after adjournment.

On agenda but little/no discussion: effectively all of it. No board member asked a question on any of the four Mid-Valley resolutions, and no member of the public spoke at either public hearing. The chair's repeated invitation — "Do we need anything on this?", "Any questions?" — drew no response each time.

What was discussed

2.A — Minutes of June 16, 2026

The board's first item was the routine approval of its own prior minutes. The chair asked whether there were questions, got none, and took a motion. It passed 5-0 on a roll call.

3.A and 3.B — The Mid-Valley project area plan and budget

A community reinvestment area (CRA) is a tool Utah cities use to help pay for a development: the agency draws a boundary, adopts a plan and a budget for it, and then routes part of the new tax revenue the development generates back into the project instead of to the usual taxing entities. Mid-Valley covers roughly 53 acres under review for a commercial retail development. According to the agenda's background, the budget assumes a tax increment financing arrangement funded by sales tax, with 55% of new revenue paying down a TIF bond for negotiated off-site infrastructure, and incentives ending after 20 years or fewer, starting from the completion of the first building.

None of that was rehearsed at this meeting, because the board had just been through it. "It's the exact same thing we just went through," the chair said, referring to the city-side versions of these documents the council had voted on minutes earlier in its own meeting. Both items required a public hearing. The chair opened the first at 12:15 a.m., asked the recorder whether anyone had signed up, asked the room, and closed it in the same breath; the same happened at 12:16 a.m. for the budget. Each resolution then passed 5-0 without debate.

4.A and 4.B — The two agreements, and the split vote

The last two resolutions were the contracts that make the arrangement work: an interlocal cooperation agreement between the agency and the city for collecting and handing over the incremental tax, and a participation agreement binding the agency, the city and the developer, Terra Smith's Eagle Mountain, LLC.

Taking up 4.A, the chair caught an error in the board's own materials and corrected it aloud: "In the packet, this one's wrong. This is the same as the other one. Sales tax is —". The published agenda describes 4.A as covering incremental property taxes, but the motion as moved and voted describes incremental sales tax, consistent with the sales-tax-funded structure the budget assumes. Anyone comparing the agenda against what the board actually adopted should read the motion, not the heading.

Both agreements passed 4-1. Rich Wood voted no on each, the only votes against anything all meeting. He gave no reason on the record, and no one asked him for one — his "No" is the entire extent of the dissent in the transcript.

Notable moments

• The meeting was noticed for 8:00 p.m. and started at 12:13 a.m. The agency meets "immediately following the council meeting," and that night the council ran past midnight. "It is 12:13. And we'll call this meeting to order of the— What day is it?" the chair began. "It was noticed for yesterday. It's, it's August 18th, as far as I'm concerned, at 12:13." Everything the board did on the August 18 agenda therefore happened in the small hours of August 19.
• Two public hearings drew nobody. Both were opened and closed inside a minute, with the recorder confirming no one had signed up. When the chair said "Nobody wants to speak on that," another voice answered "Better not" — the room was down to officials and staff.
• The chair kept correcting himself on which body he was. Twice he brought an item "back to the council — or board. Sorry, you're right," a slip that comes with the same five people changing hats without leaving their seats.
• The closed session was abandoned after the gavel. The chair raised it once the meeting was over, conceded the point himself — "we've already adjourned the meetings, so that ship's kind of sailed" — and took the blame: "That's my bad."

About this transcript

This is a machine transcription with automatic speaker separation, and on a meeting this short the separation is weak: the recognizer found only two voices, one for the chair and one shared by everyone else. Individual board members are therefore not distinguishable by voice here. The attributions in this summary come instead from the chair's own words — he names the mover and seconder for every motion and calls each member by name before their vote — which is a reliable record for who moved, seconded and voted, and no basis at all for attributing anything else.

Recurring mis-hearings: "Hewish" and "Hughes" are both Councilmember and Board Member Zac Huish; "Lacey" is City Recorder Lacie Messerly; "Terra Smith's" is rendered "Tara Smith's" in one motion; "Regulatory Development Agency" in the opening line is the Redevelopment Agency. The developer's name appears in the agenda as Terra Smith's Eagle Mountain, LLC.

One substantive gap: the roll call on item 4.A is recorded vote by vote, but the chair moved straight on without announcing the tally, saying only "I'm assuming the same thing." The 4-1 figure for that item is counted from the five individual votes in the transcript; the 4-1 on 4.B is the chair's own announcement.