►
From YouTube: Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) 2/13/2018
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).
B
C
B
D
Now
they're
they're,
probably
not
aware-
and
we
can
certainly
speak
to
them
but
being
included
in
the
survey
area-
does
not
necessarily
present
a
negative
connotation
as
in
traditional
or
older
project
areas
where
you
had
a
finding
of
blight.
That
would
be
the
condition
that
some
property
owners
had
had
qualms
about,
but
whereas
this
is
doesn't
affect
them
and
actually
just
provides
them
additional
opportunities.
I
wanted
anticipate
that
they
would
be
opposed
to
it.
Okay,
thank
you.
B
C
E
C
We
definitely
wouldn't
want
to
go
east
of
the
eastern
expansion
boundary
we
have
here
because
that
is
into
the
airport's
planned
area.
I
I.
Think
that's
why
we
incorporated
all
of
these
parcels
that
you
see
here
I
suppose
there
could
be
potential
for
property
owners
to
the
south
and
the
International
Center
to
be
interested
in
the
future
are.
D
F
C
D
D
So
that
was
a
consideration
that
we
didn't
want
to
end
up
here.
For
some
reason,
either
FedEx
wanted
to
expand
and
and
had
issues
that
related
to
the
site
conditions
and/or.
They
sold
the
property
to
a
property
owner
who
then
wanted
to
come
in
and
be
included.
So
while
that
property
is
developed,
we
thought
it
made
sense
at
least
included
as
consideration
and
if
nothing
else,
if
the
the
board
wanted
a
direct
staff
to
keep
the
lines
clean
and
have
a
nice
natural
deviation
of
where
the
project
area
ended.
F
Yet
it's
difficult
to
say
the
inclusion
of
f1
wouldn't
lead
one
to
believe
that
that
parcel
directly
south
of
f1
wouldn't
also
fit
it's.
It
looks
like
where
you
can't
even
I
mean
I've
worked
out
there.
I
know
there's
roadways,
but
you
can't
see
you
can't
distinguish
the
difference
between
f1
and
the
property
south
of
it
they're
both
fully
developed
property
so
and
I.
C
Think
one
of
the
deciding
factors
for
us
to
include
that
in
the
proposed
areas,
f2
is
the
undeveloped
parcel
and
that's
to
the
east
of
the
developed
one.
So
FedEx
could
potentially
expand
or
sell
that
off
for
development
and
they,
the
new
owner,
could
come
back
wanting
a
boundary
amendment
in
the
future.
But
we
could
always
take
f1
out
and
just
have
it
jog
over
and
down
to
include
f2
I.
F
Don't
know
that
I'm
asking
for
that
yet
I
guess
I
wanted
to
raise
it
for
discussion,
consideration
that
that's
our
one
parcel
now
that
has
a
building
on
it
and
this
whole
CRA
is
undeveloped.
So
does
what
we're
getting
into
a
new
discussion
here
or
we're
gonna?
It
may
be
harder
for
us
to
say
no
to
an
abutting
property
owner
that
has
a
development
on
it.
That
would
like
the
advantages
of
inclusion
in
the
CRA
and
there's
other
RDA
tool,
some
that
we
just
very
recently
developed.
F
D
For
us,
where
we
understand
and
agree
with
everything
you've
said,
which
is
why
the
initial
conversation
of
not
including
the
International
Center,
but
we're
also
fans
of
straight
lines,
and
it
makes
it
a
lot
easier
over
time
as
as
properties
sell
and
redevelop
and
as
you're.
Looking
at
long.
You
know
development
timeframes
of
twenty.
A
B
F
H
Was
just
gonna
say
that
I'm
comfortable
with
f2,
if
that's
really
what
it
is
over
there,
that
I
can't
see
just
because
Aaron
there's
no
other
property.
That
really
has
the
land
to
help
develop
in
that
and
we're
expand
and
f2
is
the
only
one
in
that.
That's
the
only
one
with
that
parcel
ride
that
we've
included
with
that
extra
land
for
that
reason
alone,
so
I'm
comfortable
moving
forward
with
it.
Thank.
A
B
I
C
C
A
F
A
B
G
A
D
A
Right
so
item
c3
is
a
real,
proper,
real
property
disposition,
proceeds
policy
and
just
by
way
of
reminder
board,
we
had
a
discussion
back
in
October
with
a
former
iteration
of
this
board
where
the
board
chair
at
the
time,
Lisa
Adams
asked
staff
to
go
through
potential
other
options,
and
this
item
is
back
before
us
today.
So
I
will
go
ahead
and
toss
this
to
our
DEA
staff
to
to
update
us.
C
So
it
was
during
the
October
10th
meeting
that
we
initially
brought
the
real
property
disposition,
proceeds
policy
as
the
recommended
version
by
administrative
staff
to
the
board,
and
this
is
a
follow
up
to
that
discussion.
The
draft
policy
sets
forth
guidelines
to
establish
a
holding
account
actually
for
each
project
area
and
also
a
holding
account
for
the
citywide
housing
fund,
so
proceeds
from
the
sell
of
any
RDA
owned,
real
property
shall
be
deposited
into
these
holding
accounts.
Here
it
is
it's
up.
Let
me,
let's
see
the
screen
this.
C
Yes,
so
based
on
the
source
of
the
acquisition
source
of
funds.
So
if
this
example
here
is
in
Depot
district,
so
for
this
property,
the
program
income
fund
and
depot
district
project
area
fund
was
used
to
purchase
the
property
for
project
area
development,
so
the
disposition
holding
account
would
be
for
the
Depot
district
and
then
the
policy
also
sets
forth
guidelines
to
guide
RDA
staff
as
we
develop
our
proposed
budget.
So
it
provides
guidelines
for
how
artiest,
already
staff
will
prioritize
those
funds.
So
the
first
priorities-
project
area
development
within
the
Depot
district
project
area.
C
For
this
example.
Second
priority
would
be
priority
projects
and
other
project
areas
or
seed
funds
for
a
project
area,
that's
new
or
just
being
created,
and
then
a
third
option
would
be
the
revolving
loan
fund.
So
that's
kind
of
the
example
for
project
area
holding
accounts.
Then
we
also
have
the
citywide
housing
fund.
So
if
city
wide
housing
funds
were
used
to
purchase
a
property
for
affordable
housing
development,
the
holding
account
would
be
the
citywide
housing
fund
and
then
the
guidelines,
RDA
staff
would
use
to
reprioritize.
C
Those
funds
in
the
budget
would
be
for
future,
affordable
housing
and
the
the
thought
process
behind
this
model
was
that
it
helps
keep
tax
increment
generated
from
a
project
area
within
that
project
area,
as
funds
are
turned
over
and
also
keeps
citywide
housing
funds
regenerating
for
more
affordable
housing.
That
being
said,
I
believe
in
your
packet
city,
council
staff
had
prepared
some
other
policy
options
that
could
be
provided.
A
J
We
can
we
can
run
through
those
quickly,
and
just
an
important
point
is
not
all
RDA
dollars
are
the
same.
A
dollar
of
tax
increment
is
different
than
the
dollar
after
a
sale,
because
the
tax
increment
used
say
purchase
land
has
fulfilled
the
statutory
requirement
for
that
tax,
increment
dollar
once
that
sale
is
finished
and
the
proceeds
come
back
to
the
RDA.
That
dollar
is
no
longer
bound
by
the
tax
increment
statutory
requirements.
J
J
The
first
one
is
a
centralized
surplus
land
account
and
this
would
mirror
what
the
city
does
in
CIP,
where
all
sales
go
in
to
the
surplus
Land
Fund
and
they
sit
there
until
the
city
wants
to
purchase
a
piece
of
land,
but
it
also
helps
pay
for
some
due
diligence
when
the
city
is
looking
at
buying
property
and
some
of
the
pros
and
cons
the
pros
would
be
that
it
increases
flexibility,
because
you
can
spend
that
money
in
any
project
area.
It's
not
bound
to
the
project
area
where
the
tax
increment
was
generated.
J
It's
also
much
simpler
to
have
one
account
and
to
have
multiple
accounts,
one
for
each
project
area
and
it's
easier
to
save
for
large
projects,
because
you're
pooling
all
of
the
proceeds
into
this
one
account.
But
on
the
flip
side
the
cons
would
be
it's
possible
that
the
dollars
from
project
areas
don't
go
back
to
the
original
project
area,
where
the
tax
increment
was
generated,
and
so
there
might
be
some
equity
issues
there.
J
J
I
Say
that
just
add
just
from
the
general
fund
perspective
and
the
experience
of
the
general
fund,
there
does
tend
to
be
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
technical
term
for
it,
but
maybe
like
an
emotional
allegiance
to
reusing
property
funds
on
property.
So
there's
nothing
that
legally
required
that
legally
binds
the
city
for
using
surplus
land
account
money
on
only
land,
but
that
tends
to
be
what
the
city
uses
it
for,
because
it's
sort
of
been
a
historical
practice.
So
there's
sort
of
like
the
organizational
momentum
that
I
think
just
keeps
that
practice
in
place.
I
J
Two
so
number
two
is
dedicating
proceeds
to
the
citywide
housing
fund
and
the
citywide
housing
fund
is
flexible.
In
that
you
can
spend
the
money
citywide.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
within
an
RDA
project
area,
but
it
would
be
limited
to
the
80%
of
area
median
income
for
affordable
housing
projects,
and
it
has
similar
pros
to
the
first
approach
where
it's
centralized
in
this
one
account
it's
easier
to
save
money
for
the
larger
projects
and
is
easier
to
administer.
K
So
Tammy,
with
the
the
what
the
you
have
proposed
under
that
sort
of
first
column,
example
number
two:
when
we're
getting
the
funds
from
the
program
area
and
those
three
priorities,
if
we
go
down
to
then
how
we're
going
to
budget
the
proceeds,
I
am
looking
for
my
own,
so
I
can
look
at
it
close
up,
but
and
so,
for
example,
the
project
area
development
is
priority,
number
one,
and
then
you
have
number
two
and
number
three.
Does
this
mean
if
we're
in
a
project
area-
and
we
say
well,
there's
really
nothing
more.
K
C
We
there
in
order
of
priorities,
so
the
intention
would
be
first
and
foremost
to
keep
those
funds
within
the
project
area
that
generated
them,
but
Ben's
exactly
correct
there
once
they've
been
used
once
they're
flexible
and
you
can
use
them
in
other
project
areas.
That
being
said,
I
think
it
was
director
penfold
when
he
was
still
on
the
board
mentioned
that
he
specifically
thought
that
project
funds
generated
from
an
area
should
be
prioritized
for
that
area.
So
that
was
kind
of
the
direction
we
were
basing
our
proposal
off.
C
We
could
then
look
at
allocating
funds
that
way,
and
yes
in
a
perfect
world,
which
probably
would
never
happen,
we
could
look
at
allocating
to
the
loan
fund
and
it's
really
just
direction
for
staff
to
bring
back
our
budget
proposal
to
you.
Everything,
of
course,
is
subject
to
board
approval.
As
far
as
the
budget
goes
now,.
K
That
that
could
and
could
create
if
there
were
seemingly
inequities
right,
but
I
do
also
see
some
concerns
with
saving
up
like,
like
Ben
has
brought
up.
So
how
would
this
proposal
kind
of
address
some
of
that
of
multiple
accounts,
which
seems
a
little
worrisome
I'm,
not
an
accountant,
so
I
just
like
start
to
have
anxiety
with
it,
then
also
kind
of
this
idea
of
saving
up
for
a
bigger
purchase
or
something
along
those
lines.
If
we
have
this,
is
there
a
way
to
address
kind
of
combine
off
all
of
those
concerns
somehow
I.
D
D
That's
what
we've
traditionally
done
and
in
fact,
as
part
of
the
the
RDA
revamping
our
budget
we've
scaled
back
significantly.
The
number
of
accounts
we
have,
and
so
that's
been
helpful,
but
as
far
as
saving
up
for
larger
projects,
I
think
is
Tammy
mentioned.
This
allows
you
the
flexibility
to
do
both
and
adjust
your
priorities
as
the
funds
come
in.
D
And
so
what
you
have
in
front
of
you
is
that
flexibility
to
do
both
that
as
those
funds
do
come
back,
you
can
take
a
look
at
that
in
terms
of
where
we
out
with
the
project
area
versus
where
are
we
looking
in
the
future
and
or
is
there
a
priority
of
saving
up
for
a
larger
chunk
of
money
and
and
what
we've
presented
here
kind
of
gives
you
the
flexibility
across
all
of
those
to
kind
of
make
sure
that,
as
those
come
in,
you
can
adjust
your
priorities
and
allocations.
Accordingly,.
A
Just
to
be
clear
as
a
point
of
clarification
at
the
proposed
disposition
roadmap
here
when
we
put
that
the
proceeds
from
a
project
area
into
a
holding
account
for
each
project
area,
I
assume
that
holding
account
doesn't
yet
exist
right.
So
we
would
have
to
set
that
up
for
each
project
area.
I.
Believe.
D
A
To
set
the
administrative
concern
would
be
the
same
based
on
your
point
right
been
say
again,
so
you
brought
up
a
the
pros
and
the
cons
of
the
three
options
you
laid
out
and
one
of
the
cons
was.
You
know
the
administrative
time
and
effort
to
create
the
holding
account
so
I
guess
that
would
be
a
concern
here
as
well
right
with
all
of
our
project
areas.
J
I
That
said,
I
think
that
there's
there's
been
significant
improvement
over
the
last
two
years
or
so,
as
the
finance
department
kind
of
continues
to
work
with
the
RDA
staff
and
being
able
to
quickly
pull
up
those
accounts.
So
I
think
that
what
was
a
concern,
maybe
a
year
ago,
I
think
we'll
be
less
of
a
concern.
The
more
automated
that
kind
of
financial
reporting
gets.
Thank.
H
H
My
question
is
so
if
that
money
is
taken
and
used
in
another
area
and
then
for
you
know,
reinvested
and
then
that
property
sold
or
vice
versa,
that
money
can,
how
are
you
gonna,
be
able
to
track
that
money,
so
it
doesn't
start
to
get
washed
and
then
start
being
broken
down
into
these
different
areas.
Does
that
make
sense?
Yes,
so.
C
A
point
of
clarification:
the
program
income
fund
just
for
ease
we
are
proposing
not
to
have
a
holding
account
for
piff,
so
we'd
simply
keep
track
of
it
by
the
acquisition
source.
So
in
the
example
and
the
chart
provided
that
property
was
used
purchased
with
both
piff
and
Depot
District
funds,
but
it
would
go
back
into
the
Depot
district
account
which
I
knows
a
little
not
as
clean
as
we
would
like
it.
But
we
just
felt
that
that
was
easier,
because
properties
usually
appreciate
over
time.
So.
D
C
H
D
H
D
Think,
as
we've
laid
out,
I
think
the
first
priority
should
always
be
right
back
in
the
project
area
by
which
they're
from
that's
that's
kind
of
the
charge
of
the
RTA
is
to
continue
to
put
the
funds
back
into
the
project.
Darrien
continue
to
build
the
tax
base,
as
we've
mentioned.
Eventually
you
get
to
either
the
end
of
the
project
area
or
you're.
Looking
at
where
you
have
other
needs,
and
this
allows
you
that
ability
to
say
okay,
we've
done
what
we've
need
to
do
now,
we
can
start
putting
these
funds
into
other
programs.
D
It
also
allows
you
to
do
to
do
that
at
any
time.
If
you
have
another
project
or
something
that
you
want
to
build
up
for
and
then
the
bottom
line
is
you,
you
have
your
revolving
loan
fund
or
your
piff
account.
That
gives
you
the
maximum
flexibility
to
do
anything
across
all
project
areas,
and
so
for
us.
This
is
the
cleanest
way
to
number
one
separate
between
what
one
sits
in
housing.
D
It
stays
in
housing
and
and
those
allocations
should
probably
be
done
initially
as
part
of
our
annual
budget,
so
that
you're
meeting
the
statutory
requirements,
as
well
as
the
the
policies
and
the
preference
of
the
board
and
the
mayor
of
how
much
we
want
to
put
towards
housing.
But
then
this
also
keeps
that
line
clear
between
where
you
want
to
maximize
your
your
reinvestment
in
project
areas
where
you
want
to
keep
your
housing
funds,
while
still
maintaining
the
highest
amount
of
flexibility
throughout
the
entire
process.
Two.
H
Priorities,
this
is
where
I'm
struggling
right
is
with
the
policy
question
is:
where
is
north
temple?
We
really
don't
own
much
property
there
right,
whereas
in
the
Depot
district
or
the
granary
district,
we
own,
we
own
a
lot
of
property
right
and
then
in
order
to
build
that
catalytic
project
for
a
North
temple
or
these
areas
that
have
been
struggling.
That's
where
my
I'm,
having
a
dilemma
trying
to
figure
out
to
me.
H
H
Not
to
be
modified,
I
guess
I'm,
just
I'm
struggling
personally
with
the
policy
question
of
where
I
can
see
advantageous
for
us
to
be
able
to
have
fluidity
with
this
money
that
we
can
say
you
know,
North
temple
or
the
granary
is
really
struggling.
Let's
take
the
CBD
money
and
dump
it
and
and
get
something
moving
so
for
me,
I
mean
I,
understand
that
we've
been
doing
things
for
so
many
years,
and
you
know
we're
tired
of
it.
E
Agree
I,
like
the
recommendation
of
example,
number
one.
The
reason
is
because,
from
an
accounting
perspective,
I
understand
that
you
may
talk
a
little
bit
about
multiple
accounts,
but
it
does
clarify
exactly
where
the
money
was
where
it
is
and
it's
easier
to
track,
I
think
long
term.
It
also
gives
flexibility
because
exactly
example,
number
two:
is
you
go
into
housing
a
stays
in
housing
period,
at
least
in
the
first
one,
James
I
agree
with
you.
E
You
have
the
ability
to
prioritize
projects
in
that
particular
area
or
use
it
towards
a
priority
project
in
another
area.
There's
flexibility
inherent
in
that
and
we
can
track
exactly
where
it
took
the
money
from
if
we,
if
we
decided
to
take
money
and
put
it
into
north
temple
from
somewhere
else,
we
know
where
it
came
from.
We
know,
maybe,
where
there's
a
ledger
in
our
head
to
our
on
paper.
That
says
well
north.
E
We
need
to
get
somebody
back
to
that
area
again
because
they
put
it
in
the
reality,
though,
is
a
CBD
pays
for
everything.
It's
be
clear
here:
kind
of
our
project
area
spun
themselves.
For
anything
we
do
so.
This
is
an
accounting
thing
for
me,
it
is
saying
for
an
accounting
perspective,
I,
like
individual
accounts
that
have
some
flexibility,
that
we
can
track
very
easily
across
time.
I
Gonna
say:
I
think
if
the
board
wanted
to
make
it
a
priority
to
fund
a
catalytic
project
in
the
North
temple
project
area,
I
think
you
could
you
could
absolutely
still
do
that
and
it
wouldn't
wouldn't
necessarily
be
limited
to
funds
only
from
the
sale
of
property,
I.
Think
anytime,
you
talk
about
the
budget,
whether
it's
capital
funds
or
anything.
You
can
look
at
the
program
income
fund
or
the
revolving
loan
fund
and
decide
you
know
of
all
your
policy
priorities.
Where
does
it
make
sense
to
spend
those
dollars?
K
Again,
I
don't
want
to
reiterate
things
too
much,
but
again,
these
are
simply
a
guiding
principle
for
our
d8
say,
for
example,
if
if
we
had
the
proceeds
and
used
it
came
from
one
area-
and
we
said
he
said
well,
here's
some
prior
here's,
some
things
that
could
be
done
in
this
area,
although
this
area
is
thriving,
but
priority
number
two.
Maybe
this
that
still
comes
down
to
us
in
saying:
let's,
let's
go
with
priority
number
two:
where
we're
going
to
have
that
catalytic
project
over
in
North
temple
or
something
along
those
lines
correct.
K
C
A
I
think
that's
exactly
what
we're
hearing
and
it
sounds
like.
Maybe
we
need
to
if
that's
what
we
agree
agree
upon
today,
we
might
consider
having
a
shared
surplus
land
account
that
we
then
create
policy
around
I.
Don't
know
if
that's
for
disposition
yeah,
so
we
could
hold
the
funds
in
one
account,
come
back
to
it
and
create
policy
at
a
later
board
meeting.
If
we
wanted.
D
A
K
B
B
A
A
E
A
D
What
you
have
before
you
is
a
point
of
discussion
that
we
wanted
to
come
and
have
with
the
board
of
directors.
You've
been
involved
in
the
process
for
creation
of
the
State
Street
nine
line
and
northwest
quadrant
project
there,
as
we
are
wrapping
those
up
in
their
various
forms
of
the
CRA
plan
and
getting
ready
to
present
those
to
our
taxing
entity,
partners
for
discussion
and
potential
participation.
There
have
been
several
conversations
that
staff
has
had
with
developers,
as
well
as
other
city
departments
and
internally,
about
the
potential
of
looking
at
other
RDA
project
areas.
D
The
future,
obviously
State
Street
9
line
in
northwest
quadrant,
are
progressing.
They
have
a
timeline
and
a
schedule
attached
to
them
by
which
we
want
to
get
those
approved.
However,
some
of
the
other
ones,
we
don't
need
to
necessarily
take
action
right
away,
but
they're
ones
that
we
wanted
to
put
on
everyone's
radar
as
possibilities.
So
Danny.
D
This
one
has
started
coming
about
in
conversations
both
with
developers
as
well
as
issues
that
the
city
and
the
agency
would
like
to
look
at
first
and
foremost,
is
the
conversation
of
whether
we
would
want
to
participate
at
all
in
the
redevelopment
of
gateway
and
and
the
repositioning
of
that.
One
of
the
other
priorities
would
be
as
we
continue
to
work
with
in
operation,
Rio
Grande
and
regarding
the
the
homeless
shelter,
whether
we
would
want
to
be
able
to
be
in
a
position
with
the
redevelopment
of
that
property
or
surrounding
area.
D
The
majority
of
that
surrounding
areas,
property
that
the
agency
owns
with
Station
Center,
and
so
as
we
look
to
put
those
properties
out
for
sale
and
development,
we
would
also
be
in
a
position
to
participate
anyway
with
that,
as
well
as
other
properties
that
are
still
in
the
Depot
district,
our
undeveloped,
whether
that's
vacant
property
or
something
like
the
UTA
property.
Those
are
opportunities
that
would
still
exist
and
overriding.
D
All
of
that
or
conversations
regarding
the
potential
for
bearing
powerlines
right
now,
that's
something
that
the
RDA
is
really
not
able
to
have
that
conversation
on,
because
we
don't
have
an
ongoing
funding
source,
and
so,
if
that
was
something
that
we
wanted
to
be
in
a
position
to
participate
in.
That's
how
the
depo
district
extension
is
kind
of
come
about
with
regard
to
granary
a
lot
of
the
same
issues.
This
is
an
older
project
area
that
just
never
really
developed
to
its
potential
for
various
reasons.
D
But
what
that
means
is
that
there's
still
significant
needs
in
terms
of
infrastructure,
there's
still
significant
property
available
for
redevelopment
that
we
could
participate
in
and
then
there's
still
the
conversation
of
whether
we
would
want
to
have
that
project
area
and
be
able
to
participate
with
the
development
of
the
fleet
block.
So
a
lot
of
moving
pieces
there
as
well
that
we
would
just
need
to
decide
if
we
wanted
to
have
the
agency
available
to
participate
in
the
next
one
is
the
north
temple
viaduct.
D
This
is
a
project
area
that
was
created
for
the
primary
purpose
of
servicing
the
debt
related
to
bill.
Rebuilding
the
North
temple
viaduct
and
it
included
surrounding
property.
This
is
not
necessarily
started,
throwing
off
the
increment
necessarily
to
service
that
debt,
but
we
hope
that
that
is
going
to
happen
in
the
short
term,
but,
as
part,
we've
also
been
approached
by
property
owners
within
that
area.
Who
would
like
to
redevelop
one
of
the
key
blocks
of
that
and
this
project
area?
D
We
are
very
limited
that
the
tax
increment
can
only
be
used
for
a
debt
service,
and
so
the
conversation
surrounding
this
is
whether
we
wanted
to
participate
in
a
large
project
there
and
have
the
opportunity
to
provide
some
tax,
increment
reimbursement
or
incentives
to
the
property
owner.
That
would
hopefully
actually
start
throwing
off
more
money.
That
would
then,
in
turn,
potentially
pay
the
debt
down
sooner.
D
So
that
is
one
that
is
just
very
preliminary,
but
we
wanted
to
put
it
out
there
if
it
was
something
we
wanted
explore
to
see
if
there
was
a
cost
benefit
there
for
the
city
and
the
agency
to
do
that
and
then,
finally,
as
a
conversation
of
the
grand
boulevards,
this
is
one
that
has
been
looked
at
in
the
past.
With
the
board
in
terms
of
potential
project
areas
is
an
idea
that
dates
back
several
years.
A
H
D
Has
come
up
at
least
internally
in
our
staff
conversations?
This
is
not
one
that
we've
really
reached
out
to
a
lot
of
stakeholders
yet,
but
that's
something
that
we
we've
identified
as
a
potential
and
and
the
advantage
of
having
a
project
area
set
up
is
then
you
could
have
a
funding
mechanism
that
could
also
be
tied
to
that
special
assessment
area.
G
D
G
So
mr.
chair,
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
I
would
recommend
is
that
we
would
have
asked
our
DEA
staff
to
look
at
each
of
the
project
areas
that
we
have
work
with
streets
to
go
through
that
list
and
figure
out
what
exactly
the
infrastructure
needs
are
going
to
be,
how
those
would
be
prioritized,
because
we're
gonna
be
having
a
I
mean.
It's
gonna,
be
tough
enough
for
us
to
figure
out
how
to
fund
all
of
the
different
infrastructure
needs
that
we
have
in
the
city.
A
Think
you
count
board
member
Luke,
I
agree
with
that
statement
and
I'd
actually
like
to
strawpoll
the
board
members,
so
I'm
looking
for
support
for
whether
we
would
be
able
to
direct
RDA
staff
to
come
back.
Take
a
look
at
the
street
study
across
compare
with
our
D
project
areas,
both
existing
and
proposed.
That
way
we
can
have
a
visual
and
an
understanding
of
where
crossover
is
so
if.
A
So,
in
addition
to
comparing
with
the
street
study,
we
will
have
RDA
staff
prioritized
based
on
redevelopment
priorities
for
the
project
area,
so
if
I
could
get
a
thumbs
up
or
thumbs
down
on
that
all
right,
all
seven
of
us
are
in
favor.
Okay.
Moving
on
with
comments
on
this
item
board
member
men
and
hell,
did
you
have
something
to
add.
F
Yes,
I
started
at
the
bottom,
with
the
grand
boulevards
I.
Think
the
difficulty
here
and
I'll
I
will
always
speak
frankly
about
billboards.
Is
that
I
don't
have
any
interest
in
deepening
their
need
to
be
on
our
grand
boulevards
and
when
we
make
investments
to
improve
this
area
without
removing
billboards,
we
are
further
entrenching
their
existence
in
those
places,
so
I
think
that's
part
of
what's
kept
past
administrations.
When
this
conversation,
you
know
I've
been
around
longer
than
a
current
with
our
current
administration.
F
I
think
it's
part
of
what's
kept
us
from
looking
harder
at
the
infrastructure
and
the
other
improvement
needs
that
could
happen
there.
That's
my
two
cents
and
I
still
feel
that
way
that
until
we're
gonna
be
able
to
uproot
some
billboards,
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
that
this
rises
above
these
other
potential
project
areas.
B
D
I
think
our
I
mean
obviously
our
priority
or
the
three
that
are
in
motion
right
now.
Those
those
are
ones
we
want
to
see
through
and
and
have
those
get
approved.
Beyond
that,
I
I
would
say
that
the
Depot
and
the
granary
are
ones
that
probably
have
more
projects
in
hand
right
now
in
terms
of
the
impact
and
what
we
could
do
still
to
improve
those
areas.
D
North
temple,
viaduct
one
is
one
potentially
that
we
may
not
necessarily
need
to
do
a
project
area.
We
could
look
at
other
tools
to
see
if
we
could
make
that
happen.
Obviously,
a
project
area
gives
us
the
the
biggest
bang
for
our
buck,
but
that's
something
that
we
could
reach
out
to
the
developers
and
see
if
we
could
find
another
way
to
do
that,
and
then
the
grand
boulevards
is
another
one.
D
Following
up
on
board
member
Rodgers
comments,
I
think,
that's
one
that
again
we
could
look
at
other
tools
as
well
to
make
that
happen
or
identify
what
our
goals
are
and
then
align
what
the
funding
source
is
with
it.
So
those
those
last
two
I
think
are
the
ones
that
probably
require
the
most
amount
of
work
still
to
look
at
what
the
the
needs
are
and
the
cost
associated
and
and
then
we
could
come
back
and
present
a
toolkit
that
that
maybe
make
sense,
and
that
may
not
involve
a
project
area.
D
F
A
D
A
D
I
think
I
think
you
would
get
it
a
little
bit
more
focused
on
projects.
You
would
address
your
needs
and
what
you'd
be
extending
it
for
I
think
you
could
be
looking
at
doing
a
shorter
term
and
or
increasing
the
amount
of
the
percentage
of
increment
that
flows
to
the
taxing
entity
so
that
they
can
see
a
benefit
sooner
than
later
and
looking
at
what
the
best
way
to
maximize.
That
is
whether
it's
the
term
or
the
percentage.
A
G
G
D
I
think
that's
something
that
you
could
certainly
entertain,
and,
and
would
you
know
you
you
could
look
at
in
terms
of
what
that
would
would
take,
how
you
would
structure
that
and
what
the
benefits
would
be
in
terms
of
versus
the
agency
in
the
city
and
making
sure
you're
still
targeting
agency
funds
to
what
the
directive
is
of
how
the
agency
was
initially
set
up.
But
I
think
when
you
do
look
at
that
map.
D
It
starts
speaking
to
the
complication
of
of
having
these
project
areas
and
the
different
parameters
of
funds
and
timelines
and
priorities,
and
if
you
were
able
to
to
kind
of
take
that
in
a
more
global
and
universal
approach,
there
could
be
certainly
some
benefit
to
that.
If
you
could
figure
out
a
way
to
do
that,
to
where
it's
kind
of
a
net
impact.
D
I
I
think
the
concern
would
actually
probably
this
is
where
the
hats
of
the
city
and
RDA
might
be
in
competition,
because
I
think
the
concern
would
be
from
the
city
side
is.
That
would
be
the
entire
possibility
of
new
growth
revenue.
You
know
flowing
to
the
RTA,
which
you
know
might
be
worth
it
from
a
policy
perspective,
but
you
just
have
to
know.
You'd
have
to
go
into
that
conversation,
knowing
that
you're
dealing
with
both
sides
of
your
we
were
wallet
so
to
speak
and.
D
I
think
there
could
be
a
way
that
you
could
either
limit.
How
much
goes
to
the
agency?
How
much
of
that
new
growth
you
capture
and
and
what
the
goals
and
objectives
are
and
I
think
if
you
went
into
it
the
idea
that
you
were
trying
to
basically
hold
the
city
in
the
agency
somewhat
neutral
in
terms
of
where
they
are
at
now
and
where
they
could
be.
A
H
A
Wonder
if
there's
an
opportunity,
instead
of
looking
at
it
as
three
separate
project
areas,
if
we
could
maybe
look
at
it
as
one
new
project
area
that
includes
areas
of
the
depot
components
of
the
Grand
Boulevard
and
certain
properties
within
the
granary
that
we
want
to
target.
Because
maybe
we
could
just
look
at
these
puzzle
pieces
a
little
differently.
D
E
E
D
E
I
comes
back
to
a
resource
allocation
question
for
me:
I,
don't
know
how
we
effectively
do
a
great
great
job
on
any
one
area
unless
we
drop
everything
else
for
a
few
weeks
like
we
have
northwest
quadrant
and
do
it
and
let
everything
else
slide
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
we
affect.
We
pull
out
the
mission
of
the
RDA.
If
we're
gonna
keep
diluting
the
resource,
we
need
to
I
think
as
a
board
discuss.
Are
we
willing
to
invest
everything
needs
it?
You
didn't
all
these
or
do
we
need
to
prioritize
things?
E
They're
gonna
yield
biggest
bang
for
the
buck
in
5-10
year
or
whatever,
and
look
at
and
and
target
those
with
the
belief
that
generating
return
on
investment
can
help
the
entire
RDA
in
other
areas.
My
concern,
I
guess,
is
looking
at
if
northwest
quadrant
continues
on
and
which
is
a
question
at
this
point,
various
levels.
E
A
E
My
discussion,
I'm
thinking,
if
I
go
through
and
look
at
a
North
temple
of
iodide,
for
instance,
how
much
staff
time
would
it
take
to
increase
it
by
that
amount
to
bring
in
a
new
development
not
much
not
much,
but
the
return
on
the
investment
could
be
substantial
and
paying
off
that
loan.
How
much
right
years,
yep
yeah
I
mean
it's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
interest
saved
on
consider
right.
E
E
Think
for
me,
in
this
discussion
to
be
helpful,
to
have
some
idea
about
that
as
well
saying
not
all
these
are
great
at
created
equal
in
any
way.
Some
of
them
may
vary
staff
intensive
with
a
lot
of
return
on
investment.
Some
of
them
may
not,
but
they
may
be
critical
to
a
particular
piece
of
the
neighborhood
that
we
need
to
look
at
mm-hmm.
So
that'd
be
helpful.
My
just
in
sort
of
thinking
about
this
for
me
how
much
staff,
how
much
time?
What's
the
return
on
investment
in
these
potentially
that's?
E
Why
I
liked
what
you
had
here
with
Depot
and
granary
and
North
temple
viaduct?
Well,
those
would
be
able
from
me
and
discussing
this,
but
then
I
as
a
board.
I
think
we
need
to
also
talk
and
have
how
much
staff
do
you
need
if
we're
gonna
pull
out
these
off
at
the
level
we
and
we
anticipate,
we
can
we.
A
D
L
Yeah
thanks
during
the
December
board
meeting
the
board,
there
was
a
discussion
about
the
900
South
off-ramp
and
whether
or
not
it
could
be
included
in
the
State
Street
project
area,
either
when
West
temple
gateway
expires
or
even
prior
to
that.
So
our
understanding
of
that
idea
is
that
the
board
wishes
to
preserve
the
options
for
redevelopment
in
the
future.
L
Should
the
configuration
of
the
900,
South,
off-ramp
change
or,
if
there's
an
opportunity
for
a
partnership
with
UDOT
to
help
affect
that
configuration
change
and
the
parcels,
as
we
I
just
stated,
are
currently
in
the
West
temple
Gateway
project
area,
but
Utah
code
17c
does
allow
for
parcels
to
be
included
in
more
than
one
project
area.
If
the
board
wants
that
to
happen.
So
in
the
board
memo
that
was
submitted,
there
were
the
RTA.
We
looked
at
three
potential
options
like
Ben
said
earlier.
L
These
are
just
three
options
that
we
came
up
with
they're,
certainly
more
options
out
there,
but
these
are
options
that
we
thought
could
be
workable
moving
forward.
So
the
first
option
is
to
make
no
changes
to
the
boundary,
but
to
include
language
in
the
project
area
plan
that
specifically
states
that
the
RTA
has
a
priority
of
helping
to
effect
change
on
that
900
South
off
ramp,
if
possible,
using
the
tool
of
using
project
area
funds
outside
of
the
project
area
on
public
infrastructure.
L
Even
if
those
parcels
aren't
included
in
the
project
area,
so
I
guess.
The
pro
of
that
option
is
that
we
can
keep
moving
forward
as
planned.
We
would
be
able
to
we're
on
track
to
bring
a
draft
project
area
plan
back
to
the
board
in
March
for
the
board
meeting,
and
hopefully
that
would
mean
potential
adoption
of
the
project
area
plan
in
May.
L
If
everything
went
perfectly
and
but
a
con
would
be
that
the
only
tool
that
the
RTA
would
have
is
to
help
fund
that
public
infrastructure
change,
but
but
no
tools,
a
court
for
actual
redevelopment
around
that
off-ramp.
If
that
off-ramp
were
to
change
if
it's
not
included
in
the
project
area,
so
I
think
that
summarizes
the
first
option.
L
The
pros
for
this
was
to
allow
all
RTA
tools
to
be
used
in
these
parcels
and
preserves
all
redevelopment
options
for
the
future
and
doesn't
require
any
future
action
by
a
future
board
or
future
City
Council.
It
does
on
the
con
side.
It
does
increase
the
project
area
slightly,
but
only
by
about
eight
and
a
half
acres,
and
it
would
increase
our
timeline,
probably
by
about
a
month
to
be
able
to
revise
the
maps
that
are
associated
with
the
project
area
plan
and
also
the
public
benefit.
L
Okay,
so
the
third
option
would
be
to
include
about
three
blocks
around
the
nine
hundred
South
off-ramp,
which
is
about
21
acres
of
land,
but
in
on
the
other
hand,
we
would
remove
about
three
blocks.
It
actually
would
result
in
a
net
loss
of
fifty
six
acres.
The
way
I
have
proposed
it
here
at
the
time
that
I
was
putting
together
the
board
memo
technical
difficulties,
we're
not
allowing
me
to
see
how
many
acres
were
included
and
we're
being
removed,
but
I
have
now
discovered
that
it's
about
56
acres.
L
A
L
Entirely
but
yes,
they
would
the
county
complex,
which
is
the
southernmost
area
to
be
removed,
is
completely
tax
exempt
like
that
area
entirely
is,
and
it's
that's
about
32
acres
in
and
of
itself
that
southernmost
area
and
then
the
next
one
to
the
north
is
slick
and
also
Whittier
Elementary.
But
there
are
a
few
just
private
parcels
on
there
that
are
not
tax
exempt
and
then
the
one
that's
farthest
to
the
north.
That's
between
eighth
and
ninth
south
and
between
second
and
third
east.
Is
there
isn't
much
on
that
block?
G
G
All
right,
so
if
I
mean,
if,
if
they're,
if
you're
not
hearing
any
necessary
opposition
to
it,
and
you
think
you
can
move
it
forward
quickly,
I'm
less
opposed
to
it.
I'm,
not
as
optimistic,
because
my
fellow
board
member
Mendenhall
is
about
removing
the
the
parcel
but
I'm
fine
with
it
in
the
study.
But
if,
if
it
was,
if
there
would
have
been
an
impact
on
a
project
that
we
know
of,
then
that
would
raise
concern.
But
thank
you.
F
You
for
going
through
this
process
and
I
I
think
we
learned
a
couple
of
interesting
things
about
it.
I
want
to
be
clear
that
I,
don't
I'm,
not
counting
on
this
off-ramp
going
away
anytime
soon.
F
I'm,
just
not
that
much
of
an
optimist,
but
we
did
fund
a
study.
That's
now
to
RFP,
with
the
Transportation
Department
to
look
at
utilization
and
UDOT
is
in
those
conversations.
So
it's
not
beyond
the
realm
of
possibility,
and
my
I
also
want
to
be
clear
that
if
this
is
to
be
included
in
the
project
area,
I
don't
want
it
to
the
the
potential
removal
of
the
off
ramp
or
the
reorientation
of
the
off
ramp
to
be
a
criteria
of
success
of
the
project
area
by
any
means.
F
It's
really
about
what
you
said
at
the
beginning,
Sue's
to
be
able
to
offer
the
tools
of
the
RDA
to
the
potential
redevelopment
of
these
acres
of
land
that
really
divided
this
neighborhood
right
now,
and
also
that
there
would
be
language
to
continue
this
conversation
toward
the
possibility
of
reorientation
or
removal
of
the
off-ramp,
because
I
think
the
this
project
area
plan
and
the
West
temple
Gateway
project
area
plan
recognizes
the
interruptions
truly
to
the
continuity,
the
fabric
of
the
community,
that
RDA
project
areas
work
to
build.
Although
unique
to
each
project
area.
F
This
type
of
incredibly
long,
freeway
off-ramp
through
a
single-family
neighborhood,
basically
is
not
complementary
to
the
work
that
we
try
to
do
right
so
I'm
just
looking
to
include
it
for
the
potential
of
tool
use
and
include
language
around
continuing
the
conversation
toward
its
potential.
Not
that
the
success
of
this
area
hinges
on
the
removal
of
this
offering
and.
L
F
I
Maybe
there's
a
way
and
I,
don't
know
the
language,
the
exact
language
but
I
think
the
intent
is
that
kind
of,
like
you
said
you
don't
expect
it
to
be
completed
prior
to
you,
know,
completed
meaning
like
removed
or
something
prior
to
the
expiration
of
the
project
area,
but
that
the
intent
is
to
including
it
the
intent
is
to
keep
the
conversation
moving.
Is
that
yes
yeah?
Yes,.
L
F
L
Once
I
found
out
how
what
the
acreage
was
on
all
of
these,
that
was
kind
of
my
exact
thought.
To
was
that
maybe
we
just
we
could
consider
just
cutting
out
that
county
piece
and
it
just
eliminates
all
of
the
tax
exempt
and
maybe
leaving
the
others
in
I.
Don't
know
how
important
it
is
to
like
Salt
Lake,
Community
College,
or
what
are
your
elementary
that
they're
actually
within
the
project
area
boundaries.
F
B
I
And
I
think
now
the
way
we
understand
it
now
I
think
it
facilitates
spending
money
on
the
property.
So
just
because
you
don't
collect
money
from
the
property
doesn't
mean
you
can't
spend
spend
money
on
the
property
and,
as
RDA
staff
pointed
out,
you
can
spend
money
adjacent
to
project
areas
if
you
think
that
it
benefits
the
project
area.
I
But
if
you
know
that
you
might
want
to
eventually
I
don't
know
make
an
improvement
for
the
community
at
Whittier
Elementary,
like
maybe
there's
a
way,
maybe
you
consider
leaving
it
in
the
project
area,
but
I
can't
imagine
I,
maybe
I'm,
not
thinking
broadly
enough,
but
I
can't
imagine
a
scenario
where
the
RDA
would
spend
money
on
the
county
complex
to
improve
it.
Somehow
you
know
I
think
that
you
would
look
for
a
partnership
with
the
county.
Probably
to
do
that.
D
The
only
two
things
that
come
to
mind
of
what
you
would
immediately
see
is
a
need
to
spend
funds
as
if,
for
some
reason,
you
thought
that
those
would
transform
into
something
else
which
hopefully
wouldn't
happen,
because
those
are
uses
or
depending
on
how
you
draw
the
boundaries
of
the
project
area.
Typically,
we
try
to
include
the
street,
and
so,
if
you
ever
had
any
street
improvements
or
curb
cut
or
sidewalk
improvements,
we
just
did.
F
F
G
F
F
A
L
F
L
B
So,
wouldn't
we
want,
you
know
it
thinks
the
friendly
neighborhood
Senior
Center?
Yes,
so
is
there
any
benefit
to
keeping
that
in?
Because
it's
got
the
city,
because
that
is
a
City
Housing
Authority
spot
site?
If.
D
You
anticipate
that
that's
going
to
stay
housing,
then
you
don't
necessarily
need
to
incorporate
it,
because
you
can
always
spend
housing
funds
outside
of
a
project
area.
So
unless
you
thought
that
that
was
going
to
turn
into
something
other
than
housing,
then
you'd
want
it
in
the
project
area.
But
if
we
think
it's
going
to
be
housing,
then
then
we
can
always
spend
those
funds.
Citywide.
E
L
L
A
I
may
jump
in
here
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
support
for
the
off-ramp
boundary
in
option
number.
Two
and
I
would
just
like
to
have
everybody
look
at
option
number
three,
which
is
on
the
on
the
screen
here,
and
the
the
red
boundary
there
for
the
off-ramp
includes
I.
Think
all
of
West
Temple
current
get
West
temple
Gateway
project
area.
Is
that
correct?
Well,
right
in
the
middle
of
that
Utah
shaped
boundary
is
Henry's
drycleaners,
which
we're
walking
away
from
the
West
Temple
Gateway
project
area
with
that
project
or
that
property
completely
unaddressed.
A
I
know
that
the
some
private
folks
have
done
some
I
think
they've
done
phase
1
and
phase
2
environmental
work
on
this
and
have
found
that
you
know
the
part
of
the
whole
block
between
second
west
and
third
west
has
been
contaminated,
and
so
I
can't
imagine
a
critical
corner
like
this
in
our
city.
In
a
you
know,
applause
IMing,
neighborhood,
I
can
I
mean
the
the
dry
cleaner
is
not
going
to
be
addressed.
A
In
my
opinion,
on
on
its
own,
it's
going
to
need
the
public
help
at
some
point
down
the
road,
so
I
would
make
the
case
for
the
larger
property
or
the
larger
boundary
just
so
that
we
can
include
the
cleanup
as
one
of
our
goals
in
this
project
area
and
have
all
the
tools
and
resources
available
to
do
that,
but
I'm
also
not
married
to
it.
But
I
do
think
that
we'd
be
missing
an
opportunity
not
to
at
least
talk
about
that
here
and
then
I'm
very
flexible
on
the
rest
of
the
boundaries.
F
Am
warm
to
that
I
think
you're
right
that
that
kind
of
a
significant
PCB
cleanup
is
that
is
going
to
be,
is
going
to
take
some
city
assistance
and
partnerships
and
are
could
be
a
good
tool
for
that
when
that
private
property
owner
is
ready
to
to
come
to
the
table
with
us,
I
I
was
I.
Think
I
was
trying
to
be
too
pragmatic
and
I'm,
not
very
good
at
that
most
of
the
time
anyway.
So
I
would
support
the
larger
boundary,
especially
even
though
it
looks
big
Suze.
It
lets.
F
F
B
Wanted
to
point
out
as
I'm
looking
at
these
this
map
and
the
one
in
the
last
presentation.
It
definitely
goes
over
to
second
east
right
because
in
the
presentation
before
of
all
the
RDA
areas
you
having
it
that
map
stopping
at
State
Street
for
most
of
the
properties
on
state
or
between
nine
thousand
15
South,
it
stops
at
State
Street.
L
L
E
E
Maybe
that
comes
later
on,
but
we
can
very
easily
come
back
and
find
project
after
project
or
project
and
have
to
sort
of
figure
out
what
we're
gonna
do
because
original
everything
I
remember
it.
Everything
west
of
the
core
straight
Street
thing
was
based
on
the
homeless,
Resource
Center.
Everything
over
there
was
for
that
period,
so
the
creep
a
little
bit
sort
of
the
creeping
of
other
things
come
in
I.
Don't
want
to
be
aware
of
that,
as
we
get
into
this
we're
not
expecting
to
pull
in
everything
else.
E
B
A
K
We
do
that
didn't
council
member
Johnston
bring
up
that
we
were,
or
somebody
did,
of
what,
how
that
conversation
included,
that
little
residential
area
and
that
we
were
going
to
come
back
and
find
out
why
that
little
residential
area
was
originally
included
in
this
CRE
in
this
particular
project
area.
Did
I
hear
that
correctly,
I
think.
L
You,
yes,
you
heard
that
correctly
and
he
was
I.
Think
you
were
talking
about
the
block
between
eighth
and
ninth
south
and
second
and
third
east
and
I
was
informed
that
that
was
included
to
target
older
office
buildings
on
second
east
which
maybe
could
still
be
potentially
targeted,
included
West
Side
if
they
were
on
the
west
side,
but
not
if
they
were
on
the
east
side.
So
how.
F
F
Guess:
I'm
I'm
there's
some
single-family
homes
in
there
between
the
exit
for
the
Community,
College
and
McDonald's,
and
also
on
that's
on
the
north
side
of
that
street.
So
I
just
want
to
get
clarity
that
it's
the
south
side
of
Kensington
that
be
cut
out.
Okay,
is
that
the
case
I'm
asking
a
question?
Oh.
B
L
F
A
F
A
L
L
Can
I
say
sorry,
one
other
thing:
it's.
It
sounds
like
from
information
I'm
getting
from
others
that
the
office
buildings
that
we
were
really
intending
to
target
along
second
east,
where
that
little
thumb
is
to
the
north,
were
farther
to
the
north
of
this
particular
block.
So
I
am
Not
sure
this
particular
block
is
entirely
nice.
Sorry
for
the
project
area,
but
it's
also
fine
to
leave
it
in.
If
you
know,
we
think
that
it
can't
hurt
or
having
that
information.
A
In
that
case,
I
am
asking
for
a
straw
poll
to
gauge
the
temperatures
to
see
who's
interested
in
moving
forward
with
option
C
option.
Three
excuse
me,
with
the
exception
of
most
of
the
Community
College
block
and
all
of
the
Salt
Lake
County
block,
but
leaving
in
business
and
residential
properties
adjacent
to
the
schools.
L
F
A
E
E
B
Friendly
amendment
to
council
member
mminton
board
member
Mendenhall's
motion,
I
am
open
to
that.
Thank
you
and
if
we're
gonna
include
the
housing
from
the
slick
block,
I
would
like
to
include
the
housing
I'm
Salt
Lake
County
government
block.
To
do
that.
We
cut
out
the
office
buildings,
you
keep
the
residents
in
and
we
keep
the
residents
in
and
around
this
lake
block
as
well.
But
we
cut
out
the
school.
H
L
I
A
A
B
A
L
A
D
Only
other
item
I
have
is
following
up
on
board
members
Johnson's
common
regarding
staffing,
just
to
clarify
that
we
do
have
five
positions
right
now
that
are
open.
We
have
our
deputy
director
position,
project
coordinator,
slash
project
manager,
positions
and
then
we
have
received
over
the
past
week,
both
Lou
Luis
Garcia
has
turned
in
her
two
weeks.
D
She
has
taken
a
position
with
the
streets
department
as
well
as
crayola
Berger,
who
is
our
accountant
who's,
taking
a
position
in
the
finance
department
or
sorry
treasurer's
office
as
a
financial
analyst,
so
we're
sorry
to
be
losing
both
of
them.
Lou's
been
with
us
just
over
two
years.
Crayola
has
been
with
us
18
years,
and
so
that
is
a
huge
chunk
of
institutional
knowledge
that
we're
losing.
Fortunately,
she
is
staying
in
the
building.
D
So
we
have
told
her
that
we
will
be
having
regular
lunches
with
her
to
continue
the
brain
dump
of
information
that
she
holds
and
then
make
sure
that
we're
trying
to
transition
as
smoothly
as
possible.
So
all
of
those
positions
have
been
posted,
and/or
closed
and
received
resumes
so
we're
in
the
process
of
evaluating
those
and
trying
to
fill
them
as
soon
as
possible.
Can.
D
A
F
Yes,
please
to
make
a
comment
that
we,
your
staff,
has
been
exceptional
in
giving
us
the
tools
that
we
need
to
do
the
emergency
business
that
we've
been
doing
that
we've
been
about
lately
around
the
northwest
quadrant.
Last
week,
our
City
Council
rearranged
its
schedule
to
have
robust
discussions
around
the
northwest
quadrant
and
leading
up
to
that
and
following
that,
it's
really
been
yours,
laughs
that
has
created.
F
B
D
Your
comments,
I
think.
The
only
thing
we
probably
would
ask
for
is
patience
as
we
go
through,
and
we've
obviously
had
to
adjust
some
priorities
and
schedules
for
projects
we'd
like
to
be
doing
and
then
obviously
headed
in
a
budget
season.
It's
not
a
good
time
to
be
losing
someone
with
without
knowledge,
and
so
we
will
get
through
that
and
give
us
a
little
bit
of
leeway
if
we
need
to
get
some
information
that
we
were
not
prepared
to
speak
to
so
is.
D
We
have
been
asked
that,
as
part
of
our
reports,
one
of
the
things
that
would
help
us
tremendously
is
if
the
board
were
willing
to
consider
setting
the
public
hearing
date
for
both
the
northwest
quadrant
amendment
plan,
as
well
as
potentially,
if
we
can
get
everything
put
together
in
time,
thus
toddler
single
property,
CRA
plan,
and
so
the
reason
Tammi
came
back
up
here.
She
has
some
language
if
you
would
so
entertain
that
that
motion
and
direction
so
that
we
could
get
those
on
the
agenda
and
keep
those
projects
moving
according
to
schedule,
I
think.