►
From YouTube: Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Meeting - 5/29/2018
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
A
A
motion
from
board
member
Mendenhall,
a
second
from
board
member
Wharton,
all
those
in
favor
aye
aye
any
opposed
the
minutes
pass.
Okay,
so
we're
just
here
sort
of
discussing.
We
did
have
a
budget
briefing
a
few
weeks
ago.
I,
don't
know
that
any
days
any
more,
they
all
run
into
the
same.
So
but
we
there
were
some
follow-up
items,
which
is
why
mr.
Walz,
you
are
at
the
table,
so
I
will
open
up
the
discussion
for
any
follow-up.
D
E
C
E
Staff,
just
madam
chair,
just
the
staff,
has
listed
out
some
of
the
questions
that
we
know
the
board
members
have
brought
up
in
recent
weeks.
We
don't
have
to
go
through
those,
but
if
the
board
wants
to
they're
listed
in
the
blue
for
reference
and
then
we've
also
included
the
overview
staff
report
that
was
briefed
on
that
first
Tuesday.
That
date,
I
can't
remember
either.
So
if
you
want
to
go
through
any
of
the
specifics
on
that,
we
can
go
there
too.
Okay.
B
Mendenhall,
thank
you,
madam
chair
I.
I,
do
want
to
ask
about
some
of
those
general
long-term
policy
questions
and
just
to
make
sure
that
if
we
aren't
going
to
address
those
in
this
meeting
today
that
they
are
something
that's
on
our
short-term
agenda
and
one
of
those
is
around
the
use
of
pith
and
whether
it
should
be
spent
proportional
to
the
area's
contributing
that
are
contributing
to
it
and
also
that
great
flexibility
of
the
piff
dollars
for
other
uses
and
then
about
the
housing
money.
B
B
Don't
have
my
notes
from
that
last
meeting,
but
so
basically
friends
right
now,
if
you
think
about
it,
we've
got
some
funding
that
goes
down
to
60%
and
funding
that
goes
up
to
80%
and
so
we've
got.
We
may
have
a
concentration
of
funding
availability
at
our
easier
end
of
the
housing
spectrum
to
have
built,
which
is
that
higher
ami
range,
and
we
may
want
to
divide
it
out,
so
the
funding
lines
up
and
everything's
covered,
but
we
don't
have
a
great
deal
of
over
opportunity
in
one
particular
area
that
isn't
the
hardest
need
area.
B
F
There's
a
little
more
nuance
that
doesn't
clearly
come
across
in
the
table.
These
are
the
the
maximums
and
the
minimums,
and
so
when
you
see,
for
example,
in
80%
max
it's
possible
that
a
project
that
serves
those
lower
ami
or
a
permanent
supportive
housing
development
would
receive
funding.
But
we
didn't
go
into
the
funding
history
to
show
that
level
of
detail.
But
it
is
a
little
more
nuanced
than
first
appearance
on
the
table.
I.
A
Guess
I
can
because
I'm
running
the
meeting
the
for
example,
I
think
to
what
you're
getting
at
is.
If
we
look
at
hand
under
the
Housing
Trust
Fund
its
60%
max
for
rental,
meaning
you
could
be
renting
at
a
40%
at
whatever
percent,
only
getting
up
to
that
60
percent
correct
correct,
but
it
does,
however,
seem
that
there
is
I
mean
I
guess
to
board.
Remember
Mendenhall's
point.
B
A
If
we're,
seeing
that
hand
is
their
projects
are
mostly
in
that
lower
forty
fifty
percent
sixty
percent,
then
maybe
we
just
make
sure
we're
creating
policies
that
support
that
and
if
it's,
the
60
to
80
percent,
that
RDA
we
see
more
of
them
were
creating
policies
that
support
that
and
kind
of
supporting
each
other
in
that
way,
but
I
think
we
would
need
to
see
where
the
projects
are
actually
serving
before
we
could
come
to
any
sort
of
policy.
Does
that
make
sense.
D
Just
just
to
add
to
that,
the
council
policy
about
mixed
income,
including
mix
in
all
of
the
developments,
is,
is
doesn't
lend
itself
to
the
chart
very
well.
So
a
couple
of
the
housing
authority
projects
and
others
have
a
mix.
That
includes
the
forty
percent,
and
maybe
we
can
think
of
a
way
to
refine
that
so
that,
if
you
want
to
have
that
conversation,
you
can
hone
on
in
on
it.
Some
more.
E
And
to
add
to
that
I
think
sometimes
projects
apply
for
funding
based
on
these
cap
levels,
for
that
particular
part
of
the
project.
So
it
might
be
a
mixed
income
project
and
the
part
they're
applying
for
from
the
housing
trust
fund
is
just
to
address
their
affordable
units
and
not
their
market
rate
units
and
so
I
think
the
chart
is
helpful
just
to
lay
out
all
the
housing.
This
was
the
first
time
we've
seen
all
the
housing
laid
side
by
side,
so
I
think
now
that
we
see
them
all
laid
side
by
side.
C
C
You
can
do
that
on
a
department
level,
but
I
would
also
like
to
mention
that
you
can
also
do
that
on
an
annual
basis
as
part
of
your
funding,
and
so
when
you
allocate
funds,
whether
it's
annually
or
every
two
years,
you
can
as
part
of
that
funding,
also
specify
what
potentially
your
target
or
priority
is
at
that
time.
So
you
may
not
necessarily
want
to
overly
limit
yourself
on
a
policy
basis
as
much
as
also
have
that
flexibility
to
where
this
year
we
want
to
focus
on
40%
ami
support
service
housing.
C
Next
year
we
want
to
focus
on
you
know:
50%
housing,
homeownership,
and
so
you
can
also
drive
that
policy
and
put
those
restrictions
on
the
specific
funding
allocations
as
well,
but
I
think
the
broader
conversation
of
agency,
hand,
programs,
roles,
I,
think
that
can
be
something
that
we
can
have
that
conversation
and
really
try
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
setting
up
that
overlap
initially
too
much.
So.
C
B
E
We
haven't
in
the
past,
used
the
construct
of
an
interim
study
item
as
it
relates
to
the
RDA,
but
in
my
mind,
I
think
that
this
would
be
a
really
good
candidate
for
that,
and
you
could
have
a
mirrored
one
that
you
adopt
in
conjunction
with
the
general
fund
budget
as
well.
Just
so
that
we
formalize
sort
of
what
the
intent
is
of
the
request.
So
we'll
work
on
language
and
then
get
it
out
to
you.
Guys
sounds.
A
A
C
Can
try
pif
historically,
has
been
the
fund
where
we
either
collect
income,
either
from
our
parking
structures.
And/Or
receive
income
proceeds
either
from
land
disposition.
I
think
there
are
times
that
it's
brought
in
funds
also
from
loans
which
now
go
to
the
revolving
loan
fund,
as
well
as
any
other
rental
income
that
we
receive
that,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
does
not
necessarily
have
the
restrictions
placed
on
it
that
it
has
to
continue
to
be
spent
within
a
project
area,
but
now
is
open
to
being
spent
across
all
project
areas.
C
Taxing
Herman,
the
Khan,
which
I
don't
know
if
I
would
necessarily
call
it
a
con,
but
the
advantage
of
having
the
flexibility
of
not
necessarily
spending
those
funds
within
that
project
area
is
those
are
the
funds
that
you
can
then
either
start
using
as
seed
money
for
new
project
areas.
And/Or
setting
aside
funds
that
at
a
quicker
pace
than
which
you
could
maybe
normally
do
within
a
project
area?
C
That
is
a
little
bit
younger
and
it's
not
throwing
off
as
much
TIF,
something
that
you
could
use
those
funds
as
a
catalytic
project,
either
within
another
project
area
or
even
outside
of
a
project
area
that
supports
it.
And
so
you
would
have
that
flexibility,
but
I
think
I
think,
overall,
with
piff.
C
What
we'd
probably
want
to
do
is
set
up
some
policy,
that's
similar
to
what
we
did
with
the
land
disposition
proceeds
policy
where
you
have
a
ranking
system
of
when
you
have
piff
funds,
here's
potentially
how
you
should
look
or
set
out
your
priority
to
how
to
spend
those
start
with
spending
them
within
the
project
area.
And/Or,
look
at
spending
within
another
project
area
or
identify
other
goals
of
what
you'd
like
to
accomplish
with
pith.
C
That's
a
conversation,
I,
don't
think
I've
thought
through
and
have
all
the
answers
to
right
now.
I
think
we
could
look
at
that.
I,
don't
know
if
we've
necessarily
ever
really
kind
of
put
that
priority
on
piff
as
much
as
we've
just
always
used.
This
is
something
that
has
a
flexibility
that
we
can
use
for
revolving
loan
funds
and
if
we
wanted
to
start
targeting
piff
and/or
the
revolving
loan
funds
to
a
priority,
that's
based
on
project
areas,
I
think
we
could
look
at
look
at
that
and
dive
more
into
those
pros
and
cons.
C
A
Chair
yes,
board.
Member
mminton,
we
asked.
E
I
think
that
in
the
past
the
central
business
district
has
been
so
rich
with
tax
increment
that
there
hasn't
really
been
the
need,
frankly,
to
keep
that
money
in
the
central
business
district
where
most
of
it
is
generated
and
the
project
areas
that
didn't
generate
TIF
had
a
lot
of
needs.
Big
sort
of
catalytic
needs
that
needed
to
be
filled
and,
if
is
a
very
convenient
way,
to
get
a
chunk
of
money
towards
a
project.
That's
not
in
a
district.
E
That's
throwing
off
a
lot
of
increment,
so
I
think
the
the
con
is
always
that
in
years
like
this
year,
where
the
central
business
district
is
feeling
a
little
bit
of
a
pinch
financially
not
having
that
consistent
central
business
district
parking
income
makes
it
a
challenge
for
central
business
district
to
meet
the
needs.
So
I
think
it
is
a
policy
call
in
terms
of
keeping
the
money
in
the
districts
where
the
money
is
generated
or
using
that
advantage.
E
A
I
suggest
that
this
seems
to
me
that
we,
this
could
create
that
situation
where
we're
in
right
now,
where
maybe
a
project
area
then
becomes
sort
of
subsidized
or
reliant
on
the
income
from
somewhere
else.
And
then,
if
something
happens,
where
we're
not
seeing
the
same
amount
of
TIF
from
the
CBD,
then
what
happens
to
those
other
projects
that
have
now
become
reliant
on
that
I.
E
Think
the
the
way,
the
way
that
you
could
address,
that
is
to
have
it
just
be
a
one-time
investment
and-
and
that,
frankly,
is
how
the
board
has
dealt
with
piff
over
the
years
is
just
sort
of
on
a
year-by-year
case-by-case
project-by-project,
which
is
probably
not
what
I
would
always
advocate
for.
In
terms
of
you
know,
it's
always
good
to
have
sort
of
long-term
goals
and
strategies,
but
I
think
it
makes
it
so
that
you're
protected
from
that
case,
where
it's
not
that
other
project
areas
are
guaranteed
to
get
that
piff
money.
E
It's
just
if,
like
there
happens
to
be
a
project,
I
keep
thinking
of
the
central
9th
streetscape
project.
A
big
portion
of
that
project
was
funded
with
piff
dollars
and
I
think
had
it
just
relied
on
increment
from
that
district.
It
might
not
have
happened
as
quickly,
and
so
it
was
sort
of
a
it's
a
fortuitous.
It
can
be
a
fortuitous
funding,
source
I
guess
in
a
one-off
case,.
B
G
B
Off
a
project
area
rather
than
waiting
for
a
decade
or
two
to
finally
have
enough
TIF
to
put
into
a
catalytic
project
and
I'm,
really
interested
in
this
evolution,
dial
on
our
policy
side
of
the
dialogue
and
I
think
the
piff
plays
perfectly
into
that.
So
I
I
look
forward
to
us
getting
closer
to
a
policy
decision
about.
Are
we
looking
to
shift
the
way
that
RTA
functions
to
an
extent
by
making
it
more
possible
for
early
catalytic
projects
to
happen
in
an
area?
I
hope?
The
answer
is
yes,.
G
Chair
I
think
to
piggyback
off
of
what
board
member
Mendenhall
was
saying.
Is
that
also
a
mean
you
look
at
catalytic
projects
that
when
you
start
a
start
out,
an
RDA
area
like
the
Eccles
theater
I
mean
look
at
what
it's
done
and
the
type
of
revenue
it
creates.
So
it's
a
policy
discussion,
I
think
when
we
even
look
at
RDA
areas
to
decide
is
this
an
area
that
could
use
a
catalytic
project?
Could
that
could
start
off
economic
development
in
these
areas?
A
So
sorry,
if
I
kick
the
dead
horse,
but
homeless
assistance,
funding
and
first
I'd
like
to
just
say
thanks
for
putting
in
the
mission
statement,
because
I
think
that
helps
this
conversation
that
we've
been
I've
been
trying
to
to
get
my
head
around
of
these
two
different
areas
and
what
we're
supposed
to
be
doing
and
what
the
mission
is
of
both
hand
and
RDA,
and
so
I
mean
I.
I.
A
Think
that
this
question
is
a
really
important
question
is:
are
we
going
to
continue
funding
out
of
the
RDA
homeless
services
and
if
you
look
at
the
mission
of
RDA
I
mean
it
certainly
is
talks
about
making
sure
that
we
are
increasing
economic
development
and
creating
spaces
and
capability
for
people
to
get
furlough
and
moderate-income
housing.
And
then
we
have
this
as
homeless
assistance
and
as
it
says,
in
our
staff
report,
you
know
this
state
law
does
not
define
homeless
assistance.
So
how
is
this
city
defining
homeless
assistance?
A
E
To
answer
part
of
the
question
of
what
is
the
money
going
for
I
think
the
it
was
in
there
was
a
chart
in
the
community
and
neighborhoods
budget
staff
report
from
I
think
last
week
or
the
week
before.
That
showed
the
categories,
but
it
was
generally
the
sort
of
cost
relating
to
operation,
Rio,
Grande
and
some
of
the
sort
of
specific
funding
sources
there.
So
I
think
that
that
would
be
the
short
answer.
I
can
pull
that
up
really
quickly
in
terms
of
what
is
the
money
going
for
this
year,
I
think
long
term.
E
A
D
A
D
Come
to
my
brother
I
want
to
confess
that
at
one
time
in
our
office
budget
work
we
were
looking
at.
How
can
we
use
some
RDA
money
to
clean
up
an
RDA
area
or
to
catalyze
development
by
first?
Getting
the
problems
addressed
so
I
want
to
confess
to
that
and
just
say
that
it
is
as
Jennifer
was
saying,
not
the
question
of.
Is
it
appropriate,
but
is
it
preferred,
and
so
this
board
could
decide
either
way
and
be
entirely
unfirm
ground?
So
it's
more
of
one
of
those.
H
The
thank
you,
madam
chair
yeah,
I,
think
this
is
we've
been
struggling
with
this
issue
for
quite
a
while
and
when
we
look
at
many,
not
all
but
many
of
our
already
areas,
we
do
we
deal.
There
is
a
you
know
and
homeless
issues
that
we
do
have
to
deal
with
in
those
areas.
The
benefit
I.
Think
of
us
as
a
board
also
wearing
dual
hats.
H
As
the
City
Council,
we
have
an
opportunity
to
really
look
at
both
areas:
policy,
wise,
but
also
look
at
both
as
a
revenue
source
and
how
do
we
pay
for
many
of
these
services?
I
think
when
we
talk
about
catalytic
projects,
one
of
the
things
that
you
know
that
I
would
like
us
to
begin
looking
at
as
a
way
to
deal
with
many
of
these
redevelopment
agency
areas.
Is
you
know
that
these
are
also
you
know,
really
good
areas
to
develop
better
housing
opportunities
and
not
saying
that
we're
gonna
put
all
of
our?
H
You
know
resources
or
all
of
our
affordable
housing
and
RDA
areas,
but
one
of
the
one
of
the
struggles
that
we've
had,
especially
with
our
downtown
area,
is
you
know?
How
do
we
have
the
you
know?
Do
we
have
a
population
base
that
is
going
to
you
know,
be
living
downtown
to
warrant
having
grocery
stores
to
warrant?
You
know
dealing
with
some
of
the
some
of
the
more
difficult
areas
and
and
with
population
you
know,
then
you're
able
to
start
bringing
some
of
these
some
of
these
other
amenities
to
areas.
H
So
what
I
would
like
us
to
do
is
you
know,
keep
our
dual
hats
and
instead
of
saying
well,
you
know
what
this
this
may
be
more.
You
know
more
of
a
benefit
for
the
general
fund
to
do,
and
we
don't
really
see
it
as
an
RDA.
The
reality
is,
you
know
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
what
word
what
we're
going
to
be
talking
about,
and
and
when
we
improve
homeless
services
in
these
RTA
areas,
it
is
going
to
benefit
that
RTA
area.
You
know,
which
will
in
turn
helped
generate
more
tax
increments.
H
So
I
do
think
that
the
RDA
does
have
a
role,
how
it's
managed
and
how
we
utilize
that
I.
Don't
necessarily
think
that
the
RDA
needs
to
you
know
have
you
know,
homeless,
coordinators
or
things
like
that.
I
think
you
know
contracting
with
hand,
or
you
know.
Another
city
agency
makes
make
sense
in
that
capacity,
but
but
I
do
think
that
it.
A
H
H
Yeah
I
mean
I
and
I.
Do
think
that
it's
you
know,
operation
Rio
Grande
is
a
it's
a
difficult
one,
because
you
know
there
were
yes,
the
city
was
involved,
the
city
wasn't
necessarily
you
know
driving
a
lot
of
this.
You
know
we
were.
We
were
involved
in
some
of
the
decisions,
but
when
it
came
down
to
funding
the
city
had
you
know
there
was
a
certain
amount
that
we
had
to
fund
what
I've
told
you
know:
community
councils
and
other
groups,
while
I
don't
necessarily
agree
with
everything
that
operation
Rio
Grande
has
done.
H
H
You
know
in
this
case
and
there's
no
way
that
we,
the
city,
has
the
resources
available
to
fund
everything
that
was
done
in
operation,
Rio
Grande.
We
just
we
just
don't
and
I.
Think
at
that
point.
Not
only
did
we
not
have
the
funds
in
the
city
to
fund
everything,
we
didn't
have
necessarily
the
funds
in
the
city
to
deal
with.
H
All
of
the
you
know
the
the
requirements
and
responsibilities
that
we
had,
which
is
why
I
think
we
ended
up
looking
to
the
RDA,
because
there
are,
you
know
there
is
a
definite
connection
and
I
think
a
definite
role,
and
so
you
know,
will
we
see
another
1.2
million
dollar
request
in
the
future?
I,
don't
know
you
know,
I
think
his
operation,
Rio
Grande
evolves.
H
You
know
and
we,
you
know,
see
the
state
kind
of
pull
out
from
from
there
police
roll
in
the
county,
pull
out
from
police
Roland,
and
more
of
that
you
know
shifts
to
the
city.
I
think
our
costs
are
going
to
continue
to
increase
on
providing
some
of
these
services.
The
1.2
million
dollars
that
that
we're
talking
about
here
they're
you
know
that
is
leveraged
with
with
state
money
and
and
and
County
money.
H
H
Homeless.
Services
is
not
something
that
that
is,
you
know
a
fun
thing
to
fund,
but
where
there
are
shared
responsibilities,
I
think
with
the
RTA
I
think
it
is
I
think
it
does
make
sense
to
to
have
that
1.2
million
coming
from
the
RTA
in
this
case
and
we'll
see
what
happens
and
in
the
future,
and
if
you
know
I
think
especially
with
with
the
responsibilities
falling
more
on
the
general
fund,
we're
gonna
see
the
continuation
of
that,
and
so
I
don't
see
that
this
discussion
is
going
to
end.
H
I
I
agree
and
disagree:
I
I
disagree
because
I
think
homeless
services
are
fun
to
fund
I'm,
a
big
fun
guy
about
that
the
rest
of
it's
pretty
close,
charlie,
I,
agree,
I.
Think
number
one.
The
policy,
in
my
view,
should
be
the
RDA
should
fund
housing
I.
Think
if
we're
gonna
address
homelessness
with
there
already
and
money,
it
should
be
in
housing
as
written
in
the
bylaws.
I
Now
that
being
said,
as
a
policy,
a
policy
should
apply
80
to
90
percent
of
the
time
and
then
in
the
10
to
15
to
20
percent
of
the
time
it
doesn't
apply.
We
should
have
a
robust
discussion
about
why
it
applies
in
here
and
take
this
as
the
lens.
What
he
basically
just
said
that
we
need
to
weigh
why
we
make
an
exception
to
our
policy
based
on
the
returns
on
that
money
for
economic
development
or
other
needs
in
an
already
area
operation.
Rio
grande
is
one
of
those
10%
times.
I
We
are
we
for
the
the
sake
of
getting
it
done.
We
had
to
agree
to
some
financial
terms
and
we
did
and
there's
a
way
to
do
this
this
year.
I
would
like
to
see
a
hold
up
policy,
though,
and
so
that
we
are
accountable
to
the
policy
ourselves
and
if
we
were
going
to
value
the
policy
or
or
use
an
exception
to
that
policy.
I
E
Madam
chair,
just
to
throw
out
an
idea-
maybe
that
was
a
little
bit
of
what
I've
heard
is.
E
Is
that
and
obviously
you
know
we
can
wordsmith
it,
maybe
at
the
next
RDA
board
meeting
or
send
it
to
you
guys,
but
just
to
kind
of
clarify
for
the
record.
Why?
It
is
your
concern.
It
sounds
like
there's,
not
the
interest,
necessarily
to
pull
the
money
back
and
so
absent
that
just
having
clarity
for
the
record
of
why
it
is
you
guys
approved
that
money,
so
that
you
know
in
future
years
we're
clear.
I
Yeah
I
agree,
I,
think
clarifying
between
services
and
infrastructure.
Sometimes
it's
helpful
I
think
we
need
to
wear
both
hats
as
board
member
Luke
said
to
make
sure
we're
talking
through
our
we
as
a
city
and
the
council
willing
to
fund
services
when
the
the
county
traditionally
is
the
funding
mechanism
for
those
behavioral
health
services,
and
we
need
to
be
clear
about
why
we
would
do
it
as
a
city
outside
the
RDA
and
how
it
fits
with
the
overall
objectives
in
that
discussion.
I
Therefore,
if
we
do
that
there
I
think
as
the
RDA
we
can
say,
let's
use
our
funding
for
housing
as
our
contribution
to
that
and
differentiate
that
from
the
services
piece.
Some
of
that's
gonna
be
tricky
because
you
take
pay
for
Portland
Lou.
Are
you
paying
for
the
actual
toilet,
and/or
the
services
of
monitoring
it,
and
we
have
to
get
a
little
specific
down
there?
Perhaps,
but
in
general
I
think,
services
versus
housing
would
be
an
interesting
thing.
A
Thank
you,
I
think,
that's
a
good
point,
because
I,
don't
Jen's,
Steven
I,
don't
think
yet.
I
certainly
don't
want
to
pull
them
money.
It's
my
and-
and
maybe
the
policy
question
is
a
tad
bit
premature,
based
on
the
fact
that
we
don't
know
how
this
is
all
going
to
look
out
come
about,
but
it
is
something
that
I
think
we
should
look
at
and
and
I
appreciate
the
housing
versus
services,
because
that
is
so
vague
and
undefined
and
I.
Think
again.
A
This
is
sort
of
my
lawyer,
bringing
where
there's
we
define
the
word
and
right,
and
so
there's
there's
some
of
that
that
I
want
yet
I
agree
that
there
should
be
some
flexibility
and
that
that
10
for
10
to
15%,
where
you're
saying
there's.
We
have
these
reasons
why
this
fits
that
that
exception.
So
it's
certainly
not
something
that
I
agree.
We're
gonna
solve
today,
but
it's
a
conversation
that
I
think
we
should
be
having,
so
that
we
can
really
be
effective
with
the
with
the
money
right
and
that's
the
goal.
E
A
Board
member
Johnston
did
you
want
to
say
something
else:
okay,
anybody
else
these
this
budget
stuff
that
case
there
is
that
I
can
think
of.
Do
you
have
any
announcements,
Danny.
E
Chair
sorry,
before
we
move
on
from
the
unresolved
issues
item,
we
had
a
question:
come
up
in
the
council,
chair,
Vice
Chair
meeting
of
whether
or
not
we
need
to
schedule
a
follow-up
briefing
on
June
5th
next
Tuesday
for
another
RDA
unresolved
issues,
discussion.
It
doesn't
seem
like
there
any
additional
unresolved
issues
unless
board
members
feel
differently.
So
we'll
we'll
communicate
a
draft
of
what
that
legislative
intent
might
look
like
and
circulate
that
with
the
board
members
electronically,
and
then
we
get
your
feedback
that
way
and
then
we
then
that
way.