►
From YouTube: Salt Lake City Council Work Session - 7/10/2018
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
We're
going
to
start
this
work
session
and
other
council
members
will
trickle
in
our
first
item.
One
is
the
central
Wasatch
Commission
approval
of
additional
members
and
I
believe
we
have
Sam
Owen
from
counsel
office
staff
and
carly
castle,
hi
Carly
from
Public
Utilities
special
projects.
Thank
you
for
being
with
us.
B
C
The
center
was
hedge
Commission
is
an
interlocal
agency.
Cooperative
agency,
Salt
Lake,
is
one
of
the
four
Salt
Lake
City
is
one
of
the
four
founding
members
among
sandy
city
and
cottonwood
heights
and
I'm
now
blanking
on
the
fourth,
so
Lee
County,
sorry,
so
a
County.
The
Commission
had
previously
expanded
to
seven
members
and
is
now
requesting
expansion
to
ten
members.
C
The
three
members
that
are
currently
the
subject
of
this
proposal
are
Mill
Creek
City
and
the
town
of
Alta
and
Park
City
Park
City
had
previously
been
represented
as
the
Wasatch
pack
and
will
now
be
represented
as
Park
City
and
Wasatch
back
will
be
represented
separately.
So
I
don't
know
if
there
are
other
things
that
David
or
Carly
would
like
dad
sure.
Thank
you,
Sam
and
thanks
for
the
report.
Madam
chair,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity,
so
just
as
a
quick
context.
C
C
That
were
the
initial,
and
at
your
insistence
in
the
interlocal
agreement,
you
really
drove
the
conversation
to
make
sure
that
there
was
ever
any
expansion
to
the
membership
of
CWC
that
the
council,
the
council's
of
the
four
founding
members,
would
need
to
approve,
and
so
that's
the
process
that
we're
engaging
in
right.
So,
as
Sam
has
mentioned,
the
three
new
seats
would
be
Mill
Creek
town
of
Alta
in
Park,
City
Sam's
explanation
about
the
difference
with
an
Wasatch
back,
and
so
that's
what
we're
coming
to
present
to
you.
Thank.
A
D
B
The
bylaws
currently
say
that
a
majority
of
the
council
members
present
wear
commission
members
present
need
to
approve
a
motion
for
it
to
pass.
So
if
it's
a
tie,
it
just
wouldn't
be
a
majority,
and
there
was
some
sort
of
consideration
if
we
wanted
to
keep
it
an
odd
number,
but
we
ultimately
sort
of
abandon
that,
because
we
didn't
want
to
keep
someone
off
the
board,
he
deserved
to
be
or
go
looking
for
an
11th
member
who
may
not
be
appropriate
and
just
truthfully,
we
don't
always
have
all
ten
members
or
all
members
showing
up.
B
C
I
would
just
I
would
just
add
council
member
Rodgers,
that
being
how
this
is
really
the
result
of
the
mountain
Accord
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
that.
This
process
is
about
building
consensus
and
in
some
ways,
if
it's
a
tie,
vote
there's
a
bigger
problem
on
whatever
it
is
that
they're
talking
about
in
terms
of
not
getting
to
that
consensus,
and
so
I
think
the
more
important
piece
as
carly's
saying
is
making
sure
that
those
that
need
to
be
represented
at
our
representative
and
and
have
a
voice
in
building
that
consensus
and.
D
A
The
individuals
know
the
mountain,
Accord,
the
individuals
and
/
and
I
suppose
the
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
mechanism
between
that's
purple's
between
the
town
of
Alta
and
the
city
that
there's
some
agreements
made
through
the
mountain
court
process
and
I.
Don't
remember
if
that's
an
interlocal
or
contract
or
how
those
nuances
work
out.
But
I'm
wondering
about
the
board.
The
proposed
board
members
agreement
with
what
was
decided
in
the
mountain
court
process
so.
C
I
know
that
Carly's
been
around
this
process
all
along,
but
let
me
take
an
initial
stab
at
is
I
would
say
that
for
the
town
of
Alta
and
Park
City
that
they
were
most
definitely
a
part
of
Mountain
Accord
and
a
part
of
the
agreement
amount
of
court,
the
specific
individuals
may
have
changed
the
electeds,
with
the
exception
of
Park
City,
assuming
that
Andy
Behrman
who's.
Currently,
the
representative
would
also
would
continue
to
be
the
represented
which
I
is
the
plan,
but
there's
been
a
change
in
the
mayor
of.
A
C
A
C
A
C
C
B
Well,
when
it
comes
to
Park,
City
and
town
of
Alta,
I
mean
they
were
part
of
this
process
from
the
beginning,
so
they
not
only
sign
the
Accord,
but
they
were
part
of
the
original
Isle
A's
interlocal
agreements
they've
given
money,
they
they're
invested
and
impacted
by
the
decisions
that
the
Commission
makes
so
I
think
it's
definitely
and
Mill
Creek,
City
I
think
would
have
been,
but
it's
hard
to
say
because
they're
so
new,
they
all
care
about
it.
They're
all
impacted
by
it.
They've
expressed
a
lot
of
interest
they're
coming
to
meetings.
B
Their
staff
is
working
on
getting
it
up
and
running
so
from
a
policy
perspective.
We're
not
going
to
be
able
to
create
consensus
without
them
on
the
board
and
it's
a
valuable
addition.
It
might
not
always
be
easy,
or
always
it
might
not
be
a
happy
marriage
all
the
time,
but
it
will
be
a
complete
one.
F
Fowler
I
understand
adding
Alta
and
Mill
Creek,
specifically
because
Mill
Creek
is
new
and
it
just
kind
of
makes
sense
to
have
a
voice
from
that
city.
That's
a
part
of
this,
their
Park
City
look
I
mean
they
already
have
a
board
member
there.
Why
are
we
adding
another
one
and
if
we
only
had
added
two,
then
we'd
have
an
odd
number
and
then
we
wouldn't
have
to
worry
about
the
potential
fact
of
having
a
tie.
So
what's
the
the
reasoning
for
adding
another
Park
City
representative,
so.
C
We
turn
off
the
recording,
no
just
kidding
just
to
some
of
the
the
politics
that
were
yeah.
What's
that
right,
some
of
the
politics
that
were
around
when
the
CWC
was
formed
and
some
of
the
factors
that
were
actually
out
of
control
the
for
regime
members
led
to
the
compromise
that,
instead
of
having
Park
City
specifically
named
on
the
in
the
inner
local,
then
and
then
a
Summit
County
that
was
combined
to
a
Wasatch
back
representative,
and
that
was
some
of
the
negotiations
at
the
time.
C
A
A
G
G
So
this
is
a
zoning
map
amendment
request
for
a
single
parcel.
As
you
know,
that
was
located
at
7:44,
West
Jackson
Avenue.
The
property
is
currently
split,
zoned
with
the
north
portion
of
it
in
the
SR
1,
a
single-family
residential
district
and
the
South
portion
of
the
property
and
the
TSA
urban
neighborhood
transition
zone.
G
Primarily
this
came
about
as
a
result
of
a
lot
line
adjustment
with
another
parcel
that
the
property
owner
has
to
the
north.
So
the
property
is
currently
split
zoned.
There
was
no
development
plan
with
this,
but
just
for
future
development
purposes,
the
owner
was
looking
to
have
uniform
zoning
on
the
property.
G
The
map,
if
you
can
go
to
the
next
slide,
shows
the
the
property
actually,
if
it
were
to
be
resumed,
would
make
those
boundary
lines
between
the
SR
1
and
the
TSA
zone.
More
straight
and
again,
this
is
currently
split
zone.
This
did
go
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
they
recommended
approval
of
the
rezone
by
City
Council.
A
H
H
D
A
A
G
H
I
A
I
I
G
I
Right,
thank
you.
I
asked
that,
because
we
had
another
parcel
south
which
isn't
a
TSA
zone,
they
tried
to
build
a
house
on
it,
but
he
was
required
to
come
closer
to
the
street,
have
more
glass
in
the
front
than
anything
else
around
it
which
caused
it
to
stand
out
from
the
neighborhood,
and
we
just
fix
the
zoning
to
make
sure
he
could
still
do
a
regular
residential
it
fit
the
neighborhood.
So
that's
all
gone
Thanks.
A
Anything
else
councilmembers,
okay,
that'll,
be
it
we're
set
to
take
action
on
this.
One
actually
will
hold
a
hearing
to
accept
public
comment
on
Tuesday
July
31st
and
take
action
tentatively
on
Tuesday
August
14th.
Thank
you
for
being
with
us.
We'll
probably
see
you
again.
Thank
you,
okay!
Thank
you.
David
and
Nick
that'll.
Take
us
to
item
three.
Our
230
West,
2nd
South
zoning
amendment
will
keep
Nick
at
the
table
and
did
Doug
Dan
see.
Will
I
fellas
I
Nick
turbot.
Do
you
want
to
start
us
off
on
this?
One
sure.
G
G
However,
the
Planning
Commission
for
a
recommendation
to
do
a
text
amendment
to
expand
the
D
for
additional
height,
the
overlay
and
the
applicant
did
still
request,
and
they
would
still
like
the
council
to
consider
rezoning
it
to
d1.
So
that's
just
the
overlay
of
where
we're
at
right
now
Doug
can
give
all
the
background
of
them.
Thanks.
J
Conversations
about
this
so
I'll
give
a
really
brief
context.
The
Planning
Commission
dealt
with
four
issues
regarding
this
project
plan
development,
conditionally
building
site
design,
review
conditional
use
in
the
zoning
amendment.
They
approved
the
first
three
and
recommended
positive
on
the
fourth.
Just
for
a
point
of
reference,
the
planned
development.
The
Ritchie
group
has
a
right
to
develop
on
this
site.
If
they
just
skip
the
Planning
Commission
of
the
City
Council,
they
could
go
and
take
out
a
permit
75
feet,
high
property
line
property
line.
J
J
That
is
a
commercial
parking
structure
above
and
beyond
their
required
parking.
Planning
Commission
approved
this
based
on
the
history
that
the
Delta
Center
van
arena
was
approved
in
the
90s
and
it
did
not
build
a
4,000
car
parking
garage
because
it's
kind
of
unwieldy
to
load
that
and
unload
that
at
one
time.
So
for
25-30
years,
we've
had
a
a
policy
of
trying
to
spread
that
parking
into
surrounding
uses
where
it's
shared.
J
This
is
just
another
the
context
of
the
site.
The
light
blue
is
the
first
phase
that
which
is
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission.
The
dark
bluish
color
is
the
second
phase
which
has
not
been
approved
in
the
red
here,
indicates
the
area
that
they
asked
to
rezone
for
the
extra
height
on
that
block
at
the
North
kind
of
top
and
right
side
is
the
Buddhist
temple
and
the
building
just
below.
That
is
the
multi-ethnic
high-rise
for
context.
J
This
is
the
basic
layout
that
the
Planning
Commission
saw
what
they
approved
as
the
plan.
Development
is
building
a
and
B
with
the
plaza
and
the
mid-block
Street,
and
this
is
the
general
massing
that
they
saw.
The
heights,
as
you
can
see,
are
on
the
south
east
corner
of
the
block,
where
the
existing
royal
wood
plaza
post
office
is
again
for
a
point
of
reference.
The
two
buildings
that
were
approved
are
actually
still
shorter
than
the
multi-ethnic
building.
That's
already
on
the
block.
J
This
is
the
hotel
that
faces
third
west
and
part
of
the
additional
height
for
that
was
approved
to
create
this
rooftop
sort
of
restaurant
gathering
space.
That
was
some
of
the
extra
height,
and
this
is
the
apartment
complex
that
was
approved
on
for
South.
So
that's
the
context
in
terms
of
the
zoning.
The
policies
for
encourage
that
would
support
rezoning
this
for
higher
height.
J
It
also
encourages
sort
of
stepping
up
of
the
skyline
both
to
the
east,
west
and
south.
There
is
sort
of
a
hard
stop
on
the
north
end
where
it
goes
into
Capitol
Hill.
This
is
the
same
slide
as
before,
but
overlaying
the
zoning.
So
you
get
a
sense
of
the
context.
There
is
d1
zoning
existing
to
the
south
east
of
the
proposed
site
and
directly
east
of
the
proposed
site.
The
Planning
Commission,
the
City
Council
amended
the
d4
to
allow
Heights
up
to
375
feet
tall.
J
The
other
policies
that
come
into
play
here
are
maintaining
the
view,
corridors
to
our
postcard
views
and
this
one
I
refer
to
them
as
the
postcard
we've
used,
but
basically
from
the
southeast.
It's
this
building
from
the
Northeast,
it's
a
Cathedral
of
the
Madeleine
and
from
the
northwest.
It's
the
LDS
temple,
and
this
is
just
a
diagram
that
shows
that
this
falls
outside
the
area
that
would
be
blocking
any
of
those
views
and
and
here's
just
the
insert
of
how
that
might
show
up
on
the
skyline.
J
J
The
staff
recommended
it
to
include
the
text
amendment
to
included
in
the
d4
height
overlay.
The
difference
being
is
in
the
d1
there's
no
design
review
until
a
building
gets
above
375
feet
and
that
Design
Review
is
is
kind
of
intended
to
create
an
interesting
skyline
if
you're
good,
that
tall
you're
gonna
be
up
there
and
it
should
be
interesting
but
including
it
in
the
d4
high
limit.
J
The
planning
commission
would
have
design
review
for
anything
over
75
feet
and
there'd,
be
a
maximum
at
375
feet
so
because
of
the
prominent
position
on
the
west
side
of
downtown
there's,
both
the
staff
and
the
Planning
Commission
felt
like
that
was
a
better
approach,
because
it
was
more
of
a
design
hands-on
for
such
a
prominent
building.
Now
the
staff
recommended
d4
instead
of
d1,
the
Planning
Commission
took
it
a
step
further
and
asked
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
rezone
area
by
50
feet
on
the
north.
J
J
A
J
This
red
area
is
what
was
requested
mm-hmm
and
so
basically,
just
on
the
north
end.
If
you
slit
that
South
50
feet,
so
it
becomes
a
smaller
north
to
south.
It
does
affect
the
developers
massing
proposal
back
in
here
and
that
and
this
could
all
change.
This
was
just
they're
massing
proposals,
but
it
is
what
the
Planning
Commission
saw.
J
You
see
the
tallest
building
in
this
is
on
the
actual
corner
of
second
south
and
second
west,
so
that
building
to
the
left
of
it
that
tall
building
sort
of
central
block
yeah,
it
would
be
right
of
the
block
that
would
be
affected
most
likely
because
it's
closer
than
50
feet
to
that
property
line.
I
do
need
to
point
out
that
this
diagram
doesn't
show
the
other
buildings
on
the
block
and
right
north
of
that
is
the
multi-ethnic
tower,
which.
J
A
J
Reduce
the
size
by
50
feet
and
I
there,
the
multi-ethnic
tower
is
there,
but
there's
also
the
little
antique
historic
building
and
then
right
north
of
that
is
the
Buddhist
church.
So
I
guess
that's
one
of
the
arguments
as
is
and
and
and
they're
showing
a
20-foot
walkway
along
the
north
side
of
this
building.
So
we're
really
talking
about
30
feet.
So
part
of
the
question
is
the
sensitivity:
is
it
really
sensitive
to
the
multi-ethnic
center
or
the
Antiques
building
and
what
are
we
being
sensitive
to?
But
but
that
was
part
of
the
thought
pattern.
J
J
J
K
K
I
think
in
our
downtown
zone
we
think
design
review
is
important
for
any
big
building
yeah.
You
know
the
downtown
master
plan
recognizes
that
our
zoning
hasn't
necessarily
caught
up
to
that
at
this
point,
but
it's
one
of
our
primary
concerns
from
the
Planning
Division
in
development,
in
particular
in
rd1
zone.
Okay,.
A
I'd
like
to
hear
from
the
applicant,
if
we
may
about
why
what
the
hang-up
is,
whether
it's
the
hard
cap
at
375
or
the
trigger
of
Design
Review
mr.
Richie,
would
you
like
to
join
us
for
a
moment
technically
I
think
I'm
supposed
to
give
you
five
minutes
to
talk
to
us?
If
you
want
to
take
that
time,
you
may
write.
L
I
M
L
L
Millions
of
people
I'll
try
to
keep
in
front
of
me
here.
Thank
you.
Alright,
we've
we've
noted
if
you
see
that
green
and
red
line
to
the
right
that
red
line,
let's
start
over
the
blue
line
that
you
see,
is
the
20
foot
line
that
we
we
had
proposed
as
though,
as
the
line
delineating
the
linear
linear
park,
and
that
was
becoming.
We
want
that
to
be
the
buffer
between
the
northern
property
lines.
My
recollection
and
the.
A
L
So
the
gray
line
is
the
property
line,
the
blue
lines,
the
20
foot
buffer
and,
and
so
we
pulled,
we
pulled
the
building
behind
that
gray
line
by
a
couple
of
feet
that
allows
us
to
put
our
footings
in
without
having
to
do
some
weird,
very
expensive
footings,
so
it's
2
to
3
feet
off
of
the
20
foot
line,
so
the
blue
is
20
feet
off
the
property
line.
Okay
and
then
the
structure
starts
another
2
or
3
feet.
L
South
of
that
we
wanted
to
demonstrate
if
you
see
where
that
green
line
goes,
that
green
line
and
in
fact
over
to
the
right,
the
red
is
the
50
foot
reefs
receding
line
if
you
drew
that
all
the
way
across.
Can
you
see
if
I
were
like
this?
If
this
line
went
all
the
way
across
that
50
foot
it
would
it
would
bisect
that
building
right
there?
Okay,
so
we
wanted
to
show
on
this
slide
the
impact
that
that
50
foot
would
have,
and
our
proposal
is
to
our
recollection
from
the
meter,
the
plank
Commission.
L
Is
that
what
they
were
most
concerned
with?
Wasn't
the
multi-ethnic
building,
because
the
multi-ethnic
building
already
we
one
thing
we
wanted
to
demonstrate
to
here-
is
there
there
are
already
four
and
a
half
feet
off
the
property
line
right
here,
they're
already
in
a
non-conforming,
you
know,
issue
already
and
they're
all
they're.
Also
a
bit
exceed
me,
they're.
Also
a
building.
That's
already
over
125
feet,
it's
about
a
hundred
and
forty
five
hundred
and
fifty
feet
by
our
estimate.
So
it's
already
a
taller
building.
L
So
our
recollection
was
that
there
was
less
concern
about
the
impact
of
taller
buildings
next
to
them,
as
it
was
the
historic
building
the
mansion
on
the
corner,
because
it's
a
smaller
two-story
building.
So
we
want
to
damage
trait
that
we,
but
we
could
still
respect
the
50-foot
buffer,
that's
being
required,
but
what
was
being
asked
by
the
Planning
Commission
and
then
still
be
able
to
you
know,
have
our
programming
for
the
residential
tower.
That's
mid
block
I'm
gonna
go
back
one
more
couple:
slides
I
want
to
show
you
something.
L
L
Exact
right
now
now
I've
turned
now
in
the
middle
of
the
block
and
I'm
looking
east
right.
That's
right,
and
this
is
the
the
building
in
the
middle.
So
there's
a
two
hundred
sixty
eight
foot
tall
building,
if
we,
if
we,
if
that
50
foot
line
bisects,
that
building
is
gonna,
require
me
to
push
that
building
all
the
way
back
down
to
125
feet
that
125
feet.
L
A
Haven't
we're
just
touching
the
tip
of
the
iceberg
on
the
size
of
this
project
here
with
conversations
today
as
lengthy
as
they've
probably
felt
right,
I've
understood
that
this
is
about
a
phased.
The
parking
component
is
about
the
phased
development
of
an
underground
parking
structure.
Talk
to
me
about
this
big
podium
deck
so.
L
You
see
that
this
block
these
three
right
there,
those
three
buildings
they're
on
one
block
you
have
you
have
a
hotel
which
doug
is
right
there
in
the
hotel,
it's
a
380
hotel
and
then
the
next
building
over
is
the
office
buildings
of
450,000
square
foot
office
tower,
and
then
this
is
a
residential
tower
behind
it
all
sitting
on
that
block
D.
So
it's
our
highest
concentration
of
programming
to
in
order
to
get
the
parking
counts
that
we
need.
We
have
two
two
plates
below-grade
here.
You
can
see
the
plates
here.
L
You
can
see
the
two
plates
below
great
here
and
then
you
have
programming
on
the
main
level,
which
would
be
twenty
to
twenty
five
foot,
high
lobby
space
retail
space
and
then
you'll
have
you'll
have
three
plates
of
parking
above
that
that's
then
covered
by
programming
on
the
outside,
so
will
be
hidden
behind
the
programming.
If
that
makes
sense
and
I
hope,
I
hope
this
has
some
pictures
of
that.
You
can
see
it
a
little
bit
there
right.
L
J
L
A
J
L
I
Slide
it's.
These
are
number
it's
a
view
from
the
north,
so
you
can
see
the
multi-ethnic
building
and
no
keep
going,
and
next
one
probably.
I
I
L
L
So
yeah
we
have
a
20
foot
buffer
on
ours
and
then
the
request
by
the
Planning
Commission
is
to
go
to
50
feet,
and
so,
if
we
were
to
so
this
building
is
in
compliance
with
that,
because
it's
less
than
120
feet
tall.
It
conforms
to
the
d4
which
are
currently
zoned,
that
this
respects
a
deef,
a
d1
or
a
d4
overlay
height.
I
A
Well,
mr.
Richie
I
I
understand
I
appreciate
the
layout
presentation.
You
did
on
the
slide
to
show
the
50-foot
setback
potential
due
south
of
that
building
and
I'm
inclined
to
not
go
ahead
with
the
Planning
Commission's
recommendation
with
the
50-foot
setback
in
that
regard,
but
I
I
personally
I
think
I
do
like
the
design
review
element
that
the
overlay
ensures
us
we're.
A
L
E
A
G
A
A
E
A
A
E
O
Whatever
I,
you
know,
I'm
all
about
transparency,
but
I,
think
a
lot
of
the
information
that
you
know
that
is
listed
here
is
fairly
standard,
so
I
don't
think
it
necessarily
rises
to
that
level.
I
think
we
can
move
forward
rather
quickly
and
in
spite
of
Jennifer
Selig
requesting
my
support
on
this
I'm
gonna
still
support.
No,
it's
actually
really
good,
so
I
think
it's
I
think
it's
will
be
helpful
and
I'm
happy
to
support
this.
I
I
was
personally
surprised.
We
didn't
require
a
photo
ID
previously,
obviously,
having
applied
for
a
business
license
with
my
recently
I
would
actually
support
the
public
process
going
forward
with
that
I'm
always
a
little
surprised,
perhaps
I'm
always
a
little
surprised
by
the
amount
of
emotion
around
any
regulation
on
business,
and
it
might
be
important
just
to
allow
the
public
an
opportunity
to
if
there
surprises
I
on
that
doesn't
require
photo
ID.
A
F
E
A
E
Parlors,
it
will
also
help
with
issues
with
booth
rentals,
where
you
know
they
only
have
one
license
for
say
like
nail
salons.
They
have
one
license
for
one
individual,
but
everybody
is
moving
that
license
around
inside
the
shop
this
these
these
doc.
This
documentation
will
help
in
all
of
those
instances
going
forward.
I
love.
A
A
A
N
A
N
N
Nevertheless,
Utah
is
a
one
of
the
fastest
growing
states
for
the
use
of
electric
vehicles
and
professor
Christensen
estimated
that
there
may
be
up
to
65,000
plug-in
electrical
vehicles
operating
in
Utah
in
the
next
10
years.
The
council
staff
has
listed
three
balancing
tests
for
this
proposed
ordinance
and
that
that
can
be
found
on
page
2
of
the
report.
A
N
Well,
so
these
are
the
balancing
tests
promoting
reduced
vehicle
admissions
over
a
wide
variety
of
vehicle
incentives
versus
designing
incentives
for
the
least
polluting,
most
fuel-efficient
vehicles,
recognizing
the
value
of
existing
low
pollution.
Fuel-Efficient
vehicles
versus
recognizing
that
the
auto
industry
probably
will
continue
to
improve
the
missions
and
fuel
efficiency
in
future
vehicles
and
three
continuing
and
incentive
for
a
variety
of
passenger
vehicles
at
a
potential
financial
loss
to
the
city
or
versus
limiting
and
incentive,
and
limiting
a
potential
financial
loss
of
the
city.
P
The
program
was
adopted
by
ordinance
in
2006
and
has
been
up
and
running
since
that
time.
All
Utah
residents
can
participate
in
the
program.
That's
the
case,
because
anybody
can
drive
downtown
and
if
they're
driving
downtown,
we
want
to
have
the
best
vehicles
we
can
operating
downtown.
So
that
was
the
thought
behind
that.
The
last
time
we
checked
back
in
2016
63
of
the
percent.
Sixty-Three
percent
of
the
permits
that
were
issued
were
two
people
with
Salt
Lake
City
addresses
the
remaining
37
were
the
addresses
outside
of
Salt
Lake
City.
P
When
the
first,
when
the
program
first
began,
the
number
of
qualifying
vehicles
broken
down
by
year
make
model
engine.
There
was
124
of
them
back
in
2006,
and
these
at
that
time
they
were
truly
the
best
performing
vehicles
that
were
out
there.
But
since
then,
vehicle
technology
has
improved
to
the
point
that
it
really
would
be
hard
to
argue
that
we
are
providing
an
incentive
now
to
the
to
the
best
vehicles
that
are
out
there
by
the
end
of
2017.
P
P
So
we
propose
that
the
qualifying
vehicles
should
annually
meet
the
standards
set
by
the
EPA
to
certify
as
a
smart
way
elite
vehicle,
and
this
will
ensure
that
ongoing
that
only
the
highest
performing
vehicles
qualify
because
every
year
they
update
that
standard
a
little
bit
and
if
we
go
back
and
look
at
all
the
vehicles
from
prior
years
and
say
well,
you
still
got
to
meet
this
year's
standard.
Then
we're
gonna
keep
dropping
vehicles
every
year
and
adding
new
ones,
and
so
we
will
always
have
the
top
performers.
I
Get
free
parking
for
my
bike,
still
alright
sure
alright
I
get
the
I
get
the
balancing
test,
especially
part
of
Russell
Russell
I
heard
today
was
that
as
technology
increases,
we
may
see
drastic
decreases
in
revenue
through
parking
citations,
moving
vehicle
citations,
those
kind
of
issues
for
cities,
and
so
we
may
have
to
start
looking
at
those
balance
and
test
even
more
going
forward.
The
the
only
question
I
have
is
I
know
the
incentive
is
basically
to
push
use
of
the
best
and
least
polluting
technologies,
then
advise
people
to
do
that.
I
My
concern
is
that
we
never
sort
of
catch
up
to
the
economic
issues,
a
majority
of
folks
who
maybe
have
a
vehicle
that
meets
these
standards.
Not
all
a
lot
have
probably
the
means
to
do
so.
Not
a
ton
of
these
vehicles
have
quite
dropped
in
price
to
the
point
where
it's
mass
accessible
to
a
lot
of
people
who
don't
have
a
lot
of
money
so
disincentivizes,
some
of
them
continually
because
they
never
catch
up.
I
A
P
Hope
and
have
designed
the
proposal
and
sustainability
fully
supports.
It
thinks
it's
the
right
balance
and
really
modernizes
the
policy
to
align
with
with
technology.
Fortunately,
there
really
is
a
large
number
of
vehicles
that
currently
qualify
and
that
will
grow
substantially
with
Tier
three
standards
becoming
the
norm
for
vehicles,
so
it
probably
needs
needs
to
be
done
and-
and
now
is
arguably
a
better
time
before
we
grow
from
3,500
vehicles
to
to
many
more
than
in
a
year
or
two
Russell.
A
While
I
understand
the
logic
behind
this
piece
of
the
evie
puzzle
in
city
policy,
I
can't
understand
how
we
loosened
our
restrictions
or
our
requirements
on
installing
Eevee
charging
infrastructure
in
our
city
when
we
are
faced
with
every
major
car
manufacturer
coming
out
with
Eevee
in
the
coming
years.
It's
it's
ridiculous
to
me
that
we're
looking
at
so
at
let
at
supporting
Eevee,
less
feminine
infrastructure
perspective,
so
I
get
this
I.
Don't
get
that
thanks
for
allowing
me
to
soapbox
Councilmember
kitchen,
okay,
anything
else
we'll
move
on.
Thank
you
guys
very
much
so.
Q
A
O
This
is
a
very
slight
adjustment
between
the
boundaries
of
Salt,
Lake,
City
and
South
Salt
Lake.
There
is
a
home,
a
2508
South,
500
East,
that
is
in
Council
member
Fowler's
district
and
the
adjacent
property,
and
that's
in
Salt,
Lake
City.
The
adjacent
property
is
the
Columbus
community
center,
which
is
in
South
Salt,
Lake
and
South.
Salt
Lake
owns
the
parcel
in
question
at
2508.
It's
a
vacant
home
and
a
portion
of
the
property
is
currently
being
used
as
a
ball
field
for
the
Columbus
community
center.
O
K
I
think
you
summarized
it
well
I
think
it's
important,
though,
if
we
look
down
50s
and
if
you
look
at
the
boundaries
between
our
two
cities,
there's
there's
no
real
rhyme
or
reason
to
it.
One
house
is
in
the
next
house
is
not
so
I
think
in
some
ways
this
actually
helps
to
clean
it
up
when
three
sides
of
the
property
is
actually
located
in
South
Salt
Lake,
there's,
not
a
substantial
impact
to
the
city
financially,
because
the
property
owner
in
South,
Salt,
Lake,
City's,
they're,
not
paying
property
tax.
K
Currently,
the
only
money
coming
in
is
any
sort
of
in
kind
of
utility
fees
or
things
so
we're
for
normal
home
would
have,
but
I
think
there
could
be
a
good
advantage
to
being
neighborhood
as
a
whole.
So
he'll
get
an
improved
and
improved
open
space.
It
really
anybody
can
use
and
Salt
Lake
City
doesn't
have
to
pay
to
improve
it
or
maintain
it
in
the
future.
K
I
assume
an
ACME
asking
residents
to
prove
their
residency
when
they
step
across
the
street
to
go
play
in
there.
So
the
process
has
gone
smoothly.
It's
pretty
straightforward,
but
not
a
common
one.
Something
the
city
has
done,
but
it
has
been
quite
some
time
the
Planning
Commission,
you
know
it's
unanimously
recommended
approval
of
the
boundary
adjustment
staff
has
not
received
any
public
comment
for
or
against
the
boundary
adjustment.
If
you
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
you
might
have.
I
K
I
mean
state
law
allows
you
to
do
that.
Two
cities
can
willingly
adjust
their
boundaries
without
going
through
more
complex,
D
annexation
and
annexation
process.
The
last
time
that
I
could
find
out
the
city
did,
that
was
with
the
city
of
North
Salt
Lake
in
the
90s,
and
that
was
a
little
more
acrimonious.
M
M
So
I
wouldn't
want
the
action
on
this
going
through
fairly
quickly
to
give
any
indication
of
the
time
that
it
would
take
to
process
a
larger
request,
I
think
with
the
North
Salt
Lake
issue,
there
was
a
lot
of
public
input.
There
was
a
lot
of
dialogue
between
the
cities
and
the
original
proposal
was
much
different
than
than
what
was
eventually
considered
before
the
council.
So
so
I
would
say
that
this
is
a
small
item
and
bigger
item
would
be
handled
in
it
in
the
more
formal
process.
So.
I
K
F
That
happened
to
be
on
the
east
side
of
500
South,
where
I
mean
so
I
think
it's
it
would
be
great.
I
know
that
they
will
continue
to
maintain
that
property
and
and
have
it
look
wonderful
as
they
and
use
it
as
a
community
benefit,
as
they've
done
with
the
rest
of
that
community
center.
So
and
I
appreciate
Cindy's
comments
on
the
the
potential
other
requests,
because
it's
much
larger
and
different
than
the
point:
zero,
six,
seven
acre
or
something
of
that
nature
that
this
is
requesting.
Is
that
correct?
That.
F
M
Councilmembers
Fowler's
comments
made
me
think
of
staff
mentioned
the
idea
of
kind
of
straightening
up
boundaries
and
that'll
be
something
that
the
council
will
need
to
think
about.
You
could
probably
spend
full
time
straightening
up
boundaries
in
this
city
and
in
this
country,
and
so
so
that
will
be
something
that
comes
up
and
how
do
you
weigh
that
with
the
the
other
many
policy
issues
so
again,
this
one
would
probably
not
be
a
precedent
for
future.
A
A
O
Set
the
date
of
October
2nd
for
a
public
hearing,
that's
to
meet
state
statute
requirements,
it's
a
complicated
process.
So
tonight
it's
on
consent
to
set
the
date.
The
council
will
consider
a
resolution
on
July
31st.
Then
the
statute
requires
no
less
than
60
days
between
adopting
a
resolution
and
holding
a
public
hearing.
Wow.
A
A
Thank
you.
With
that.
We'll
move
on
to
item
7
the
funding,
our
future
streets,
general
obligation,
bond
discussion,
I
think
we
have
Kiera
Luke
from
our
council
office,
matt,
cassel
I
think
is
here:
I
saw
Matt,
Liz,
Bueller
and
I,
don't
know,
subhan
come
on
up
and
I,
don't
see
Lihua,
but
I.
Think
here
is
fill
in
that
seat.
Awesome.
Q
I'll
just
take
a
quick
moment
to
orient
us
to
the
road
so
far,
funding
our
future
was
established
to
pursue
revenue
options
for
the
four
most
critical
unfunded
needs:
housing,
Public,
Safety,
transit
and
streets.
The
council
recently
approved
a
sales
tax
increase
which
can
fund
components
of
those
needs.
We're
moving
on
to
another.
One
of
the
options
identified.
A
potential
general
obligation
bond
that
the
council
could
put
on
the
ballot
for
voters
to
vote
about
in
November.
Q
So
far
in
this
effort,
there's
been
engagement
focused
on
the
full
scope
of
the
needs.
Lately
it's
moved
to
focus
on
the
bond
information
and
engagement
in
a
few
minutes.
Liz
we'll
go
over
that
a
little
bit
more
and
then
today,
we'll
also
cover
the
reconstruction
funding.
We
have
engineering
here
to
address
that
in
the
staff
report
and
we've
kind
of
gone
of
over
a
brief
overview
of
the
direction
that
staff
has
received.
So
far
from
the
council.
Q
Q
On
page
three,
we
have
a
high-level
summary
of
there's
two
tables
color-coded,
and
the
first
is
a
high-level
summary
of
the
total
reconstruction
cost
for
the
city's
roads.
That's
436
million
dollars
and
then
the
second
table
gives
you
a
breakdown
of
that
of
which
costs
are
covered
under
it's
like
just
overlay,
partial
reconstruction,
total
reconstruction
for
local
and
major
streets,
and
so
one
of
the
options
can
covered
in
the
potential
policy.
Questions
for
today
is
whether
the
council
would
like
to
identify
a
funding
policy
to
prioritize
how
far
they
want
to
go.
R
You
so
as
cure
was
mentioning
phase
two
of
the
engagement
for
funding.
Our
future
is
focusing
on
the
potential
streets
bond
and
it's
really
an
education
event.
People
might
ask
questions
about
sales
tax
and
we
will
of
course
answer
them,
but
most
of
our
materials
is
about
the
potential
streets
bond,
we're
working
very
closely
with
engineering
to
get
out
to
the
public
and
talk
to
people
about
the
needs.
Our
Street
infrastructure
has
and
ways
that
we
can
address
them.
R
So
we
started
on
May
30th,
with
a
focus
group
of
leaders
from
the
business
community
from
community
leaders
and
those
interest
groups
in
Street
reconstruction
we've
sent
out
a
postcard,
focusing
solely
on
the
potential
streets
bond
and
we've
also
completely
updated.
Our
website
know
if
anyone
has
visited
funding
our
future
SLC
comm
lately,
but
you'll
see
it's
a
complete
redesign
from
our
previous
website.
Again,
we
are
concentrating
on
the
streets.
Bond.
R
We've
just
opened
a
new
online
survey
and
we
are
still
well
short
of
our
2300
responses
from
the
first
round,
but
we
started
advertising
today
and
we're
already
at
88.
So
that's
a
pretty
good
pace
that
we've
started
for
the
survey.
The
big
meat
and
potatoes
of
this
intense
engagement
period
is
really
the
coffee
conversations
that
y'all
are
hosting.
Thank
you
very
much.
R
One
will
be
food
truck
Thursday
at
galavan
Center,
and
then
that
evening
we
are
going
to
be
at
the
main
library
in
their
share
space.
So
people
are
coming
in
and
out
for
library
events,
we
will
be
able
to
talk
to
them
about
the
streets
bond.
Some
other
things
we
are
doing
is
matt
has
been
excellent
in
doing
multiple
ride-alongs,
with
different
news
outlets
show
actually
taking
them
to
streets
that
are
both
in
need
of
repair
and
streets
have
been
recently
reconstructed,
so
people
can
see
and
get
the
word
out
about
what
our
need
is.
R
We
also
have
interviews
with
media
with
the
mayor
and
council
chair
Mendenhall,
and
another
thing
we're
doing
is
we
are
working
with
y2
analytics.
They
work
with
us
on
online
polling
for
other
things
like
our
biannual
citizen
survey
and
we're
working
with
them
to
do
a
statistically
valid
survey.
So
before
you
go
decide,
if
you
want
to
put
this
on
the
ballot
in
November,
you'll
have
that
data
as
well.
So
that's
just
a
brief
overview,
because
I
know
you
know
the
streets
is
the
most
important
things
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
Matt.
That.
A
Q
S
S
E
S
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
80/20
scenario,
being
the
preferred
scenario
and
if
there's
discussion,
we
can
talk
about
that
again
bond
issuance
based
on
how
we
can
do
the
design,
how
we
complete
the
projects,
there's
a
preferred
three
issuance
of
the
bonds.
So
it's
not
going
to
hopefully
not
issue
the
bonds
upfront
at
the
start
of
the
project
or
start
at
the
bottom
period,
but
do
it
in
three
separate
issuance
to
help
us
manage
the
funds
a
little
bit
better.
S
Our
primary
goal
is
first
worst
approach
and
but
the
other
three
transportation
priorities,
public
utilities,
priorities
and
other
utilities
will
impact
and
influence
the
the
projects
and
selection
of
the
roads
that
we
are
anticipating
to
do
as
we
take
into
consideration
those
other
elements.
The
shuffle
around
the
project
may
push
them
back.
S
The
summer
last
summer
was
when
the
survey
was
done
and
the
average
for
our
road
system
was
48.
We
are
probably
a
little
bit
below
48
now,
just
because
it
is
what
it
is
and
the
roads
are
deteriorating.
But
I
just
want
to
stress
that
as
we
try
to
develop
scenarios
and
ideas
of
how
funding
is
going
to
go
forward
and
how
the
projects
are
going
to
be
prioritized
and
done.
We
have
to
keep
in
mind
as
projects
as
roads
deteriorate.
S
They
don't
deteriorate
the
same
right
and
we
just
have
to
keep
our
eye
on
all
the
roads
and
all
that
or
in
possibly
poor
and
lower
condition,
make
sure
we're
doing
the
worst
ones
first
and
getting
them
taken
care
of
these
ones.
I
don't
have
a
whole
lot
to
say
they're
hard
to
see,
but
these
are
just
showing
the
50
worst
arterial
and
collectors,
the
next
ones
showing
the
50
worst
local
streets
and
the
it's
just
hard
to
root.
A
S
Okay,
you
just
have
to
keep
our
eye
on
the
ball
and
make
sure
keep
you
know
be
out
and
about
making
sure
that
we're
checking
on
roads
that
the
ones
that
we've
identified
to
be
the
first
ones
that
go
into
the
system
make
sure
that
they're
actually
the
the
worst
and
we're
pretty
positive
that
they
are
the
ones
we
sorted.
But
we'd
also
need
to
make
sure
that
we're
coordinating
with
the
other
companies
and
utilities
to
make
sure
that
they
don't
all
of
a
sudden
spring
up
with
a
new
project
and
cause
us
problems.
F
But
then
the
other
thing
that
you
just
said
was
that
plan
to
spend
86
million
in
six
years,
because
I
think,
if
we're
telling
residents
and
voters
this
is
a
20-year
bond
and
they're
thinking.
You're
gonna
spend
86
million
in
20
years,
I'll
never
see
my
street
get
fixed
right,
and
so
having
that
plan
we
just
kind
of
leaned
over
to
each
other
and
said
this
here
of
no
we're
gonna
spend
this
as
quickly
as
we
possibly
can
and
here's
a
plan.
I
think
that's
a
very
big
selling
point.
F
I
We
have
experts
who
are
handling
this
because
it's
very
difficult
to
do
and
it
can
to
explain
it
in
a
concise
way
to
answer
everything
right.
One
of
the
things
that
comes
up
for
me
continually
is
the
bond
is
meant
to
jump
start.
The
reconstruction
needs
not
the
maintenance,
the
reconstruction
of
serious
roads.
We
may
not
be
able
to
reconstruct
right,
however,
our
ability
to
keep
up
on
that
and
keep
the
the
curve
going
in
the
right
direction.
I
It's
really
related
to
the
sales
tax
and
our
maintenance
budgets
and
the
ability
to
retain
dissapointing
keeping
those
at
the
right
levels.
Is
this
a
part
of
our
our
discussion
with
folks,
because
as
they
come
in
and
say
well,
in
six
years,
we
reconstruct
roads
but
20
years
from
now
I'm
still
paying
for
that?
Alright?
Is
it
gonna
last
that
long?
So
it's
that
part
of
the
discussion
it.
R
Is
so
it's
as
it
was
in
the
sales
tax
portion
of
the
engagement?
We
always
talk
when
we
treat
improving
streets
it
it's
a
two-headed
beast,
so
it's
always
dual
part.
We
always
bring
up
that
Street
maintenance
talking
about
doubling
the
lane
miles
increasing
that
budget,
so
we
always
bring
up
the
fact
that
we're
also
improving
that's
it.
So
I
should
say.
Yes,
we
are
focusing
on
street
reconstruction,
but
the
one
portion
of
sales
tax
we
keep
bringing
up
is
that
sales
tax
for
Street
maintenance,
okay,.
S
One
run
the
scenario
of
what
it
will
take
for
us
to
reach
a
goal:
condition
of
the
roads
whatever
council
would
like,
and
our
idea
recommendation
is
a
fair
condition,
the
cost
and
time
to
get
to
that
goal,
and
then
we'd
like
to
run
a
second
scenario
which
will
be
what
will
it
take
in
the
future
to
maintain
that
goal?
Okay,
so
on
the
OCI
level
say
you
said
we
want
to
maintain.
We
want
to
get
to
60.
S
I
I
That
wasn't
the
intent,
I,
don't
believe
of
the
announcement.
Our
our
intent
has
been
it's
data-driven
we
go
were
going
with
worse.
First,
we're
aligning
all
these
projects
with
other
utility
projects.
There's
a
lot
of
reasons
why
you
choose
certain
streets,
certain
ways
do
we?
Are
we
having
a
good
grasp
of
how
we're
explaining
that
to
folks
so
that
the
the
headlines
don't
drag
us
down
this
other
path
and
distract.
R
We
we
really
push
the
the
technical
aspect
and
how
the
roads
were
selected,
that
it
was
non-political.
This
comes
from
engineering,
Spade,
mint-condition
survey,
and
then
we
also
talk
about
the
local
streets
and
the
commitment
from
council
and
leadership
that
for
the
local
streets,
we
are
looking
at
all
seven
council
districts,
okay,.
I
Q
A
Okay,
councilmembers
any
other
questions
comments.
Has
everybody
had
their
coffee
with
a
councilmember
coming
up,
you
know,
snow
cones,
pardon
me
could
be
doughnuts
whatever
I
had
mine
this
morning.
It
was
great.
This
staff
is
awesome,
the
materials
are
helpful
and
for
the
few
people
that
came
out,
I
had
positive
conversations
about
this.
What
brings
me
great
comfort
is
the
people
who
are
working
on
this.
You
guys
have
done
an
incredible
job.
I
know
we're
not
done,
but
I
am
so
pleased
with
how
this
is
going.
A
I
feel
like
I
can
sincerely
say
that
we
have
created
more
opportunities
than
I
can
enumerate
for
people
to
engage
and
in
different
avenues
of
communication
to
not
just
snow
cones
and
coffee
and
donuts,
but
online
surveys.
The
website
looks
great.
It
continues
to
be
updated
enough
that
it's
always
interesting
to
come
back,
so
I'm
really
impressed
with
the
work
you're
doing.
Thank
you
for
your
commitment
to
this
public
engagement.
Madam.
R
A
A
Let's
see,
we're
gonna
hold
a
public
hearing
today
and,
as
Kyra
said
also
on
Tuesday
July
31st
and
the
council
is
set
to
take
action
on
Tuesday
August
14th,
which
would
be
the
action
of
officially
putting
this
on
the
bond
or
on
the
ballot
in
November.
Thanks
everybody
John.
We
do
have
a
number
eight
on
our
agenda:
northwest
quadrant
inland
port
update,
which
was
tentative
but
I-
think
there's
been
a
lot
of
movement
lately,
which
isn't
news
to
council
members
and
probably
not
to
anyone
in
the
audience.
But
what
did
you
say?
D
O
The
progress
that
I
think
we're
seeing
you
know
in
just
a
short
month
since
weary
engaged
on
this
issue,
and
so
I'm
very
optimistic
I
think
that
you
know
we're
starting
from
a
very,
very
rough
spot,
much
different
than
where
we
were
prior
to
the
beginning
of
the
session.
But
you
know
some
of
the
progress
that's
taking
place
is
is
good
and
we
don't
really
have
any
choice
but
to
be
optimistic
at
this
point
and
hopeful
and
that's
what
I
am.
E
As
you
pointed
out,
Aaron
a
lot
of
movement
has
taken
place
and
I'm
sure
more
will
continue
to
evolve
in
the
coming
weeks,
especially
as
we
move
into
the
special
session.
But
it's
amazing
how
much
can
be
accomplished
when
we
approach
something
especially
policymaking
with.
You
know
multiple
layers
of
government
with
a
cooperative
and
engaged
approach
and
I
hope
that
this
is
a
lesson
to
the
council
body
that
you
know
at
any
future
legislative
session.
We
should,
as
the
policymaking
body
in
the
city.
E
E
If
we
had
jumped
in
right,
then
it
we
could
have
avoided
a
lot
of
this.
So
I
just
hope
that
going
forward.
This
is
an
opportunity
for
us
to
become
better
local
legislators
and
I'm,
proud
of
you
and
the
staff
and
everything
and
everybody
that's
had
a
hand
in
getting
us.
This
far
and
look
forward
to
a
much
better
result
for
the
city
of
Salt
Lake
and
our
residents
after
the
special
session.
A
Recognized
the
state's
enthusiasm
to
move
the
port
ahead,
I
recognize
in
talking
to
the
state
leadership
that
they
here
even
internationally
the
enthusiasm
and
excitement
for
a
port
here
in
Salt,
Lake
City,
and
that,
as
that
enthusiasm,
the
world
is
growing
actually
and
our
governor
and
state
leadership
are
hearing
that
and
have
a
strong
desire
to
correct
the
issues.
Sooner
than
later.
A
Of
course,
we
have
no
control
over
when
that
happens,
if
it's
in
a
special
session
sooner
or
later
or
in
the
general
session,
is
not
up
to
us,
but
the
opportunity
I
think
that
we
have
is
to
recognize
that
they
are
highly
motivated
to
fix
things
now
and
there's
a
window
of
opportunity.
So
we
are
going
to
take
the
opportunity
as
the
stewards
of
the
taxpayer
revenue
in
the
city
and
the
representatives
of
our
districts
to
Sakr
echt.
A
What
is
very
wrong
in
the
fourth
substitute
of
234
so
Wow
when
and
how
that
happens
when
that
happens
is
not
up
to
us,
but
how
that
happens?
We
get
to
have
a
say
in
at
least
at
this
point,
so
I
appreciate
our
councils,
unanimous
support
and
continued
conversation
amongst
us,
as
this
evolves
about
how
we
can
go
about
this
best.
Councilman
Rodgers,
you
guys
something
else.
I
was.
D
Just
gonna
add
that
you
know
whatever
changes
are
made,
there's
still
going
to
be
more
changes
throughout
years
and
decades,
even
of
inland
port
is
evolves
and
it
adapts
because
it's
not
going
to
be
the
same
thing
today
as
it
is
in
five
years.
So
as
it
moves
forward,
I
think
that's
why
it's
important
that
we
establish
our
foot
at
the
table
right
our
head
at
the
table
so
that
we
can
make
the
changes
that
we'll
implement
and
have
good
policy
for
Salt
Lake
City.
So
you
know
and
Derrick
said
it.
A
Absolutely
I
think
that
yeah
I'll,
second
that
and
the
this
is
really
illustrated.
The
uniqueness
of
city
staff
versus
state
staff
that
this
this
building
works
year-round
every
week,
basically
we're
here.
Our
staff
is
here
full-time
every
single
day,
Monday
through
Friday,
and
they
have
an
incredible
amount
of
expertise
that
has
come
to
bear
and
benefit.
The
state
also
they've
been
grateful
for
our
staffs
work.
So
thank
you
to
the
City
Council
staff
for
everything
you've
done
to
get
us
this
far
and
a
lot
more
work
to
do
so.
That's
the
last
item.
A
Before
we
get
to
report
and
announcements
from
our
executive
director
Cindy,
do
you
have
anything
for
us
tonight?
I,
don't
I
I
didn't
look
either.
Actually
I,
don't
think
we
have
anything
and
there's
that
the
report
of
the
chair
and
vice-chair
is
pretty
well
summed
up
in
the
northwest
quadrant
update
that
we
just
had
at
this
point.
We
are
going
to
exit
into
a
closed
session,
and
now
I
would
look
for
someone
to
make
a
motion.
That's
highlighted
on
that
section
of
our
agenda.
E
A
I
have
a
motion
by
councilmember
kitchen,
a
second
by
councilmember
Rogers,
we'll
roll
call,
this
councilmember
Johnston,
we
kitchen
Fowler,
Luke,
Rogers
and
I'm
a
yes
and
we
are
now
in
closed
session.
If
you
aren't
supposed
to
be
in
the
closed
session,
please
exit
and
council
members.
You
want
to
get
dinner
and
then
come
back
and
we'll
start.
Then,
okay,
great
see
you
in
a
minute.