Utah Supreme Court
Must Utah cities receive annual fair market value in economic development agreements? Price Development Company v. Orem City Explained
Summary
Price Development challenged Orem City’s financial incentive agreements with University Mall retailers, arguing statutory preemption and constitutional violations. The trial court granted summary judgment for the city on most claims and denied Price’s motion for additional discovery time.
Analysis
In Price Development Company v. Orem City, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether cities must receive fair market value consideration in each year of multi-year economic development agreements, not just over the agreement’s entire term.
Background and Facts
When J.C. Penney announced its departure from University Mall and Z.C.M.I. considered relocating, Orem City entered into financial incentive agreements to retain existing retailers and attract Nordstrom as a new anchor tenant. The agreements provided millions in city payments to Z.C.M.I. and Woodbury Corporation, measured by increased sales tax revenue. Price Development, developer of a competing Provo mall, challenged the agreements’ legality.
Key Legal Issues
Price argued the Utah Neighborhood Development Act preempted local economic development ordinances, the agreements violated constitutional uniform taxation requirements, and constituted illegal gifts of public funds lacking adequate consideration. The central issue became whether each annual payment required independent fair market value analysis.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed that the Development Act does not preempt general economic development activities lacking eminent domain or tax increment financing. However, it reversed on the adequate consideration issue, holding that constitutional and statutory requirements demand fair market value consideration in each year of multi-year agreements, not merely overall fairness. The court also found the trial court abused its discretion in denying Price’s Rule 56(f) discovery motion.
Practice Implications
The decision establishes that municipal economic development agreements receive a presumption of validity when supported by independent valuation analysis, but challengers may pursue discovery beyond legislative records. Cities must ensure annual consideration meets fair market value standards, with thorough documentation by qualified, independent evaluators strengthening the presumption of validity against constitutional challenges.
Case Details
Case Name
Price Development Company v. Orem City
Citation
2000 UT 26
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 990145
Date Decided
January 28, 2000
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
The Utah Neighborhood Development Act does not preempt local economic development ordinances, but municipal expenditures of public funds require fair market value consideration in each year of multi-year agreements.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment and statutory interpretation; abuse of discretion for Rule 56(f) motion denials
Practice Tip
When challenging municipal economic development agreements, seek discovery on annual fair market value exchanges rather than relying solely on legislative records, as courts must analyze each year’s consideration independently.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.