Layton's redevelopment agency added $1 million to JL Ventures incentive and raised developer's increment share

The Redevelopment Agency of Layton City approved an amended and restated development agreement with JL Ventures, LLC on Nov. 6, 2025, adding a $1,000,000 up-front incentive for a project near 3675 North Fairfield Road. ^[1]

Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Lon Crowell said the project would grow from 55.47 acres to 90.05 acres with additional property being purchased from Kihomac. The amendment also fulfills an option agreement covering two more properties owned by the agency. ^[1]

Crowell said a 165,000-square-foot building was complete and buildings 3 and 4 were under construction. ^[1]

The 2024 terms and the changes

Crowell said the 2024 agreement included a $1,704,640 up-front incentive, an annual reimbursement to the agency of 8% of collected increment, and 70% of increment going to the developer, with the remainder to qualifying expenses. ^[1]

The amendment replaces the 8% reimbursement with a defined dollar reimbursement to the agency starting with 2026 collected increment, gives the developer any remaining increment for qualifying expenses, and raises qualifying increment to the developer to 100%, per a matrix. Crowell noted that Northrop Grumman was designated a Prime Defense Contractor. The minutes do not state the reimbursement amount. ^[1]

Asked for questions, board members had none. Chair Joy Petro said the area might not have developed without the agency's participation. Boardmember Dave Thomas moved to approve RDA Resolution 25-05, Boardmember Tyson Roberts seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. ^[1]

The packet that went with the agency's Nov. 6, 2025 agenda includes the amended agreement. A staff cover sheet says the amendment raises the up-front funding limit by $1,000,000, to be repaid to the agency through a required annual reimbursement over the remaining 10 years of the plan starting with tax year 2026, and raises the share of qualified increment reimbursed to the developer from 70% to 100%. It says qualifying developer costs, about half of total development costs, would be reimbursed from remaining increment only after the agency has retained its annual payment. ^[3]

In the agreement, Section 3.1 caps the up-front incentive at $2,704,640 minus anything already paid under the former agreements, so the figure is a combined ceiling, not a new $2.7 million. Section 3.1.1 says the payments are not a lump sum before development. The agency pays after it receives the contractors' invoices and evidence the developer paid them, within 30 days. The incentive is to be repaid with tax increment and is backed by a promissory note and a trust deed. ^[3]

To collect on those payments, the agency retains $265,326 of the annual tax increment each year, beginning in 2027 for 2026 property taxes and ending when the project area ends in 2035. That is separate from a 0.25% administrative fee. Section 3.2 says the developer would receive 100% of the tax increment, minus those agency costs, for as long as it meets the conditions for qualifying. The Ledger has not multiplied the retention into a total or tested it against actual collections. ^[3]

The agency chair's signature line is blank in the packet copy. Pages with the developer-side signatures, including East Gate 3 and East Gate 4, are notarized Oct. 20, 2025, so the document is partly signed, and the Ledger has not seen a fully executed copy. ^[3]

A related water agreement

On May 7, 2026, Public Works Director Stephen Jackson told the City Council that Kihomac planned a new facility on a lot near its current site, and that the city needed about 0.41 acres of Kihomac land for a Fairfield Road extension with a roundabout. ^[2]

Under the proposed agreement, Resolution 26-24, Kihomac would convey the land in exchange for water exaction credits of up to 12 acre-feet; the city would keep its water shares and rights. Jackson said the land and credits were roughly equal in value. No dollar figures were given, and the work meeting minutes record no vote. ^[2]