►
From YouTube: Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency (RDA) 3/20/18
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
And
at
that
board
meeting
there
was
actually
some
public
comment
to
include
some
additional
parcels
to
the
east
of
the
project
area.
So
in
February
you
approved
a
resolution
authorizing
us
to
look
at
amended
project
area
boundaries
and
to
conduct
further
investigation
and
update
the
project
area
plan
which
we've
done
for
you
are
provided
in
your
packet.
A
So
you
have
the
updated
project
area
plan,
a
resolution
authorizing
adoption
of
the
project
area
plan
by
the
RDA
and
city
ordinance,
approving
that
would
approve
the
project
area
plan
on
the
city
side
and
also
resolutions
authorizing
us
to
execute
a
new
interlocal
agreement
and
essentially
what
all
of
these
documents
would
do.
It
would
amend
and
replace
the
project
area
plan
and
the
agreements
that
have
already
been
executed.
A
So
the
risk
with
that
with
the
current
legislative
decisions
is
that
project
areas
that
have
been
executed
and
all
the
agreements
executed
prior
to
March
1st
2018,
are
remain
intact
under
the
current
legislation.
But
any
new
project
area
is
at
risk
of
the
tax
increment
being
kind
of
reallocated
reallocated
to
the
inland
port
authority.
The
new
board
that's
being
created
so
with
that
being
said,
there's
some
risk
of
moving
forward
with
adopting
and
replacing
the
project
area
as
we've
presented
in
the
packet
today,.
B
So,
can
you
just
quickly,
for
this
board
remind
us
what
the
tax
increment
can
be
like
whoa?
What
are
the
limits
to
the
tax
increment,
considering
the
the
agreement
that
we
had
in
place
before
March
1st
and
after
the
bill
it
looks
like
100%
of
our
tax
increment
is
on
the
line
potentially
so
readjusting
the
boundary
puts
all
it
puts
all
of
our
agreements
in
limbo,
because
we
don't
know
exactly
if
we'll
be
able
to
uphold
the
language
and
then
those
agreements
are
correct.
A
C
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that,
right
now
the
project
area
plan
is
created.
We
we
have
entered
into
the
inner
local
between
the
Redevelopment
Agency
in
Salt
Lake
City.
We
have
not
entered
into
any
interlocal
agreements
with
any
other
taxing
entities.
So
what
we
were
talking
about
right
now
being
grandfathered
is
simply
the
city's
portion
of
tax
increment
for
that
project
area,
and
so
that
is,
that
is
all
that
we
were
able
to
quote-unquote
protect
as
part
of
that
grandfathering
language.
C
There
is,
if
you
there's,
there's
no
way
to
necessarily
expand
and
amend
the
existing
project
area,
but
at
the
the
advice
or
direction
of
the
board.
If
you
wanted
us
to
look
at
those
additional
properties
and
setting
those
up
as
a
separate
new
project
area,
that
would
be
an
option.
However,
any
new
project
areas
are
still
subject
to
the
inland
Port
Authority
in
their
power
to
collect
increments.
C
C
Have
we
have
reached
out
to
boi
and
Romney
the
property
owners?
We
have
indicated
what
the
issue
is
in
terms
of
amending
the
project
area
and
how
we
feel
that
that
would
be
viewed
as
a
new
project
area
and
would
put
that
agreement
in
jeopardy.
They've
understood
our
concerns.
They
are
obviously
sensitive
to
the
position
we're
in.
D
Chair
if
I
may,
it
seems
like
there
is
the
potential
for
greater
clarity
on
SB
234
in
the
time
after
a
special
session
takes
place
and
I
would
like.
My
thoughts,
are
around
allocating
staff
resources
prior
to
that
clarity
to
develop
a
potentially
additional
CRA
over
those
properties
when
that
may
all
be
shifted
by
the
May
special
session
that
we're
hearing
about.
D
So
if
our
property
owners
are
willing
to
to
wait
with
us
for
that
clarity
until
May
I
think
I
would
rather
not
direct
staff
to
spend
much
time
when
we
really
don't
know
quite
what
we're
dealing
with
just
yet
and
I.
Think
for
the
property
owners
sake.
They
would
benefit
from
the
same
clarity
that
we
seek
to
gain
in
that
special
session.
Thanks.
D
C
Administration,
we're
still
looking
at
as
part
of
what
our
options
are
for
the
northwest
quadrant
strategy
overall
I
think
they
would
probably
share
the
same
concerns
of
to
what
level
we
want
to
dedicate
staff
resources
I.
Think,
generally
speaking,
they
feel
that
there
is
benefit
in
continuing
to
move
forward
on
the
city's
behalf
of
putting
the
pieces
in
place
for
Danny.
C
E
You
that
I
guess
I
just
had
one
question
and
one
comment:
I
agree
with
board
member
Mendenhall
I'm
gonna
go
a
little
bit
further.
I.
Do
think
that
you
know
with
the
legislation
the
actions
that
we've
already
taken
to
create
the
CRA
on
the
northwest
side,
since
that
is
not
impacted
directly
well,
not
impacted
as
much
not
directly
by
the
legislation.
E
You
know,
while
I
am
disappointed
that
we
can't
move
forward
the
way
that
I
think
would
make
sense,
I'm
not
willing
to
spin
wheels
either
and
I
do
think
that
we
can
there.
There
are
still
things
that
we
can
and
should
continue
working
with
the
property
owners
in
the
community
within
the
current
RCRA
boundaries,
and
that's
where
I
would
like
to
see
as
a
board
member,
where
I
would
like
to
see.
E
F
Yeah
I
would
like
to
know
I
feel
like
this
is
probably
gonna,
be
something
that
might
be
a
recurring
issue
of.
How
do
we
move
forward
until
we
have
clarification
on
what's
gonna
happen
or
something's
going
to
happen
in
May,
with
the
special
session
I
think
I
would
like
to
see.
Is
there
a
way
that
we
could
do
a
letter
to
the
bodies
that
would
appoint
potential
board
members
to
the
inland
port
to
say
and
sort
of
notify
them
that
we
would
this
isn't?
This
is
a
problem
that
we
have
under
the
existing
law.
F
We
would
like
to
include
these
companies.
We
would
like
to
move
forward
and
then
maybe
just
asking
for
feedback
from
them
about.
You
know
explaining
the
problem.
That's
been
created
by
SB
234,
with
this
particular
issue
and
seeking
feedback
on
how
they'd
like
us
to
move
forward,
because
I
think
it's
important
that
we
we
do
continue
to
move
forward
and
I
think
that
we
show
that
we
want
to
collaborate
to
move
forward
and
that
we
want
to
have
a
collaborative
exchange.
F
B
I
could
jump
in
there
as
well.
I
agree
board
member
Warren
that
we
do
need
to
be
moving
forward
and
communicating
to
all
parties
involved
that
we
want
to
participate.
Obviously,
this
bill
has
created
some
confusion
and
a
little
bit
of
issues
with
clarity
on
how
we
move
forward
and
where
our
authority
actually
lies
and
what
would
be
an
appropriate
agreement
for
us
to
enter
into
with
these
private
property
owners
and
I
agree
with
you
as
well
a
board
member
Mendenhall
about
concern
with
staff
time.
B
B
Some
of
the
issues
that
have
been
presented
in
the
bill
and
I
think
that
there
will
be
other
issues
as
well
that
we
need
to
get
some
clarity
on
so
that
we
can
effectively
lobby
on
behalf
of
ourselves
for
the
clean
up
bill.
So,
let's
definitely
be
taking
notes
on
issues
as
they
come
up
as
staff
RDA
staff.
Can
you
point
to
any
additional
concerns
or
issues
with
other
project
areas
or
potential
agreements
that
you
may
want
to
bring
up?
At
this
point,
yeah.
C
So
with
that,
when
you
have
the
same
options
of
whether
you
want
to
do
nothing
or
whether
you
want
to
proceed
with
approving
that
plan
and
the
interlocal
agreement
between
the
agency
in
the
city,
as
well
as
a
reimbursement
agreement
with
the
developer,
or
you
even
have
the
option
of
that
one.
As
you
could
approve.
The
plan
enter
into
the
interlocal
agreement
with
the
agency
in
the
city
and
then
simply
wait
to
enter
into
the
reimbursement
agreement
with
the
developer.
C
So
you
would
set
up
all
the
pieces
in
terms
of
the
legal
and
statutory
requirements
for
creating
the
plan
in
the
inter
local,
and
you
would
wait
until
you
potentially
recent,
receive
some
clarity
or
have
the
interim
session
and
get
some
clarity
on
SB
234
before
you
actually
just
enter
into
the
agreement
with
the
developer,
and
that
would
be
the
agreement
that
actually
pledges
the
tax
increment
to
the
developer.
Have.
E
You
know
what
what
decisions
the
Port
Authority
is
going
to
do
and
whether
you
know
any
potential
changes
to
the
legislation
come
to
fruition.
I
think
you
know
expecting
that
to
happen.
I
would
argue
against
that.
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
the
legislation
that
we
currently
have
and
operate
as
if
that
is
going
to
be
the
legislation.
E
If
we
can
get
it
changed
at
some
point
fantastic,
then
we
can
revisit
it,
but
again,
I
would
rather
focus
all
efforts
on
the
area
that
we
can
actually
do
something
with,
which
is
the
area
the
the
existing
CRA.
And
while
it
is
unfortunate
that
we're
in
the
position
we're
in
that's
the
position,
we're
in
and
the
Statler
needs
to
understand
that
this
isn't
you
know
us
not
wanting
to
move
forward
with
them
or
us
not
agreeing
with
them.
E
But
at
this
point
anything
we
do
is
a
waste
of
time
until
we
know
what
happens
because
you
know
if
we
keep,
if
we,
if
we
work
towards
something
where
we
hope
is
going
to
happen,
that
we
it
just
may
not
so
I
would
rather
have
that
discussion
once
we
have
clarity,
if
we
get
clarity,
but
until
then,
let's
focus
on
you
know
the
area
that
we
have.
You
know
the
landfill
issue
has
now
been
resolved.
E
I
think
we
have
property
owners
who
have
been
working
with
us
throughout
this
process
and
and
in
good
faith
and
I,
think
we
owe
it
to
them
to
be
spending
time
on
moving
forward
with
with
the
plan
that
we
see
fit
and
that
does
match
what
the
state's
intention
is.
You
know
this
idea
that
the
legislation
that,
if
you
don't
support
the
legislation,
you
don't
support,
the
inland
port
is
nonsense.
E
The
city
has
been
working
on
the
inland
port.
We've
been
working
on
this
on
this
concept
for
years,
we're
making
progress,
we
have,
you
know,
made
good-faith
efforts
with
the
property
owners.
I
think
we
owe
it
to
them
to
focus
our
efforts
on
the
area
until
we
have
broader
and
until
we
have
some
clarity
and
then
we
can
have
a
direction
on
expanding
any
services
that
we
may
be
able
to
do.
I
think.
G
High
board
Katy
Lewis.
Thank
you
for
the
question
board
member
Rodgers
to
the
extent
that
the
city
and
RDA
decided
to
pursue
project
area
creation,
interlocal
agreements
and
tax
increment
reimbursements
with
various
property
owners
in
the
area.
That's
now
the
Port
Authority
jurisdictional
land.
Those
contracts
would
all
clearly
say
that
they're
subject
to
the
senior
right
of
the
Port
Authority
to
take
the
increment,
and
that's
then
that
becomes
a
business
decision
for
the
developer
of
whether
that's
something
that
they
want
to
rely
on
as
they
begin
doing
their
developments.
D
Wanted
to
reiterate
my
desire
for
that
Chris
brought
up
for
us
to
put
together
a
letter
and
I
could
foresee,
as
he
said,
that
this
is
one
that
we
send
multiple
times
as
we
feel
opportunities
are
being
delayed
in
the
northwest
quadrant
because
of
the
ambiguity
and
the
conflict
in
the
language
of
SB.
234
I
want
us
to
be
able
to
work
in
a
transparent
manner
with
those
state
partners
and
show
that
we
want
to
continue
in
this
dialogue
as
they
consider
the
substance
of
the
special
session.
D
I
want
us
to
highlight
the
ambiguities
and
the
conflict
that
arise
through
this
unique
opportunity
that
arise
through
Sadler's,
unique
opportunity
and
whatever
other
ones
come
along
before
the
special
session
happens,
and
that
we
that
we
articulate
that
these
opportunities
are
being
delayed
by
the
ambiguity
and
the
conflicts
in
this
bill,
that
the
city
has
a
process
in
place
and
has
partnerships
that
they're
ready
to
begin
development
immediately.
So
it's
a
letter
I
see
us
reusing,
but
reorienting,
maybe
portions
of
it
too.
D
Each
unique
circumstance
and
I
think
that
our
public
wants
to
see
that
we
are
omnipresent
in
our
care
and
our
work
to
develop
the
northwest
quadrant
and
to
be
a
transparent
partner
and
to
be
very
sharp
on
the
details
of
what
SB
234
does
I
think
it's
important
for
all
of
those
relationships
with
the
private
property
owners,
the
state
and
with
our
public.
Thank.
H
Of
that
letter,
I
think
it's
important
that
we
state
because
of
SB
234,
not
say
the
state.
Did
this
I
mean
it's
I,
know
you'll,
formulate
it
that
way,
but
I'm
just
worried
that
know
more
and
more
that
we
continue
to
harp
and
pick
it
hills
and
do
finger-pointing
I
think
we
just
lay
it
out.
We
cannot
move
forward
because
of
XYZ
because
of
this
that.
C
Wanted
to
add
something
that
I
just
thought
of
with
relation
to
two
Stotler
and
on
behalf
of
staff
I,
probably
at
least
keep
and
still
set
the
date
and
time
for
a
hearing
and
push
this
to
the
April
meeting.
And
the
reason
for
that
is
it's
our
understanding
and
I
would
probably
like
the
opportunity
to
verify
this
before
we
do
anything.
C
Number
one
number
two:
it
leaves
our
options
open
as
an
agency
that
lease
come
back
in
a
few
weeks,
be
able
to
have
that
discussion
again
and
see
if
there's
any
benefit
in
at
least
proceeding
with
setting
up
the
project
area
for
them
to
keep
their
options
open
in
terms
of
acquiring
the
property.
They
are
out
doing,
site
work
on
it
and
so
I
think
it
might
be
fair
to
them
to
at
least
preserve
that
option
and
see.
If
we
can
report
back
to
that.
B
C
B
B
F
Just
wanted
to
hear
your
feedback
on
sending
these
letters
and
reiterate
that
I've
received
this
as
I
said
at
the
beginning,
happening
on
a
number
of
issues
and
trying
to
document
each
one
and
being
very
specific
and
why
we
can't
move
forward
what
provisions
of
SB
234,
make
it
impossible
or
ambiguous
as
to
what
are
how
we
move
forward
and
I
would
like
to
see
that
each
instance
separated
out
and
sent
to
all
of
the
those
interested
parties.
Okay,.
B
B
Just
I
would
like
to
reiterate
what
I
what
I'm
hearing
from
my
colleagues
here,
and
that
is
that
we
we
want
to
take
every
opportunity
to
communicate
back
to
the
legislature
in
the
governor's
office
whenever
we
see
a
conflict
that
presents
itself
due
to
SB
234
and
our
continuation
of
a
conducting
business,
that's
in
the
pipeline,
and
so
we
want
to
definitely
send
one
with
regard
to
the
boundary
adjustment,
potentially
one
for
stodla
rail,
specifically,
and
just
articulate
that
this
bill
has
created
an
enormous
amount
of
uncertainty
for
us.
Mr.
I
Chair,
yes,
sir,
can
I
clarify
on
that
piece?
The
statement
was
made
about
the
letter
to
send
it
to
the
stakeholders
identified
in
the
legislation,
which
would
include
a
lot
of
other
people
outside
of
the
house.
The
senate
in
the
governor's
office.
Is
that
the
indication,
or
is
this
for
the
legislature
and
the
governor?
What.
F
B
B
B
I
J
And
so
that
the
business
owners,
the
property
owners,
understand
that
we
are
trying
to
move
forward
and
that
we,
these
are
the
issues
that
we've
run
into
so
I
I
think
everybody
that
is
involved.
All
of
the
stakeholders
need
to
have
that
piece
of
letter
and
our
thoughts
on
that
so
that
we
are
making
sure
they
understand
that
it.
We
are
not
we're.
Trying
we're
really
trying
we've.
G
B
B
F
B
G
B
D
B
D
J
J
It
makes
the
most
sense
after
to
see
what
happens
in
the
special
session
and
so
long
as
the
RDA
staff
continues,
and
we
as
staff
continue
or
as
a
board,
continue
to
discuss
and
be
in
contact
with
property
owners
so
that
they
understand
why,
in
what
we're
doing,
then
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
put
it
on
after
the
potential
interim
session.
I
think.
B
That's
a
really
important
point
board
member
Fowler,
because
I
agree
that
we
don't
want
to
send
any
indication
that
we
are
done
with
this
and
so
I
would
actually
look
for.
Maybe
a
motion
from
you,
a
substitute
motion
or
somebody
from
a
board
member
here
about
tabeling
this.
Until
we
have
further
information
that
way,
we
could
pick
it
up
at
a
later
date.
D
E
D
E
B
G
Very
much
today
we
are
here
to
discuss
request
from
NeighborWorks
for
a
six
loan
extension
on
the
marmalade
courtyard
project.
I
should
note
this
is
a
second
loan
extension
request
that
they
had
made.
They
made
their
first
request
a
year
ago
through
an
administrative
process
which
is
in
our
loan
policy.
G
They
are
building
in
30
townhomes
on
771
North,
300
West.
The
note
is
four
hundred
and
seventy
five
thousand
dollars
with
a
zero
percent
interest
rate.
This
was
approved
by
the
RDA
board
in
December
of
2013.
I
should
note
that
this
request
was
issued
by
NeighborWorks
shortly
before
the
loan
went
into
default.
So
we
have
issued
a
default
letter
to
NeighborWorks,
so
they
are
unnoticed
that
it
is
in
default.
G
We
met
with
the
Finance
Committee
back
in
January
middle
of
January,
and
they
recommend
approval
of
the
extension
subject
to
the
primary
loan
being
paid
off
of
the
title
and
an
off
title,
which
it
has
been
and
also
that
we
do
not
grant
any
other
loan
extensions.
If
the
board
approves
this
loan
extension,
this
loan
will
be
doing
payable
on
June
20th
of
this
year,
and
so
what
we're
asking
today
is
your
a
consideration
of
this
loan
request.
G
C
C
C
I
C
I
C
Part
of
our
loan
program,
we
do
charge
an
interest
rate
that
is
set
off
the
Treasury
rate
and
300
basis
points
over
and
above
and
it's
only
if
they
accomplish
some
of
the
public
benefits
that
they
get
a
reduction
of
that
interest
rate
and
so
to
answer
your
question,
I
I,
think
from
a
policy
standpoint.
It
makes
sense
to
continue
with
that,
because
that's
the
the
incentive
and
motivation
for
them
to
to
do
components
of
the
project
that
we
would
like
to
see.
The.
C
G
The
and
the
ownership
I
should
add
is
another
component
that
we
have
advocated
for
in
West
Capitol
Hill
to
have
more
ownership
product
as
well
as
there
are
two
older
buildings
on
three
hundred
west
that
we
have
asked
NeighborWorks
to
to
renovate
and
convert
into
condominium
units,
which
was
the
RDA
incentive
for
for
getting
the
the
reduction
in
the
loan
interest
rate.
Okay,.
B
I
B
L
D
H
B
H
H
And
I
think
that
it
needs
to
be
pointed
out
that
I
Drive
by
these
units
every
single
day
on
my
way
to
work
and
neighbor
works,
has
gone
from
siting
it
with
actual
metal
siding
to
going
to
stucco,
because
the
metal
wasn't
holding
up
it.
Didn't
look
good,
so
I
want
to
commend
NeighborWorks
for
seeing
a
problem
that
they
had
that
they
could
have
finished
the
project
the
way
it
was,
but
they
saw
the
project
and
they're
actually
doing
a
better
job
than
what
it
was
initially
looking
at
great.
B
Okay,
I
have
a
motion
by
board
member
Rogers,
second
by
board
member
Johnston
friendly
amendment
by
board
member
Mendenhall
that
we
will
not
extend
this
loan
beyond
june
of
22
and
20th
of
2018,
all
in
favor
I,
all
right.
That
motion
carries
and
it
has
been
brought
to
my
attention
that
board
member
Warren
would
like
for
us
to
go
back
to
item
number
three.
The
interlocal
agreement
for
the
northwest
quadrant
area
plan
and
I'm
gonna
toss
it
over
to
board
member
Wharton.
Just.
F
Really
quick
I
just
wanted
to
add,
because
I
thought
we
were
gonna
be
discussing
three
separately.
That
I
would
like
to
ask
if
the
economic
development
could
coordinate
small
group
meetings
with
council
members
so
that
we
can
get
updates
on
what
the
business
strategy
is
between
now
and
and
when
this,
when,
if
and
when
the
special
session
comes,
and
we
would
like
to
have
a
little
bit
more
information
on
that
as
well.
So
that
was
just
a
request.
C
B
C
I'll
set
it
up
at
the
high
level
and
then
I
will
defer
to
Kerr
and
Jill
in
terms
of
the
details
for
the
specific
projects.
You
may
recall
that
this
this
is
essentially
a
follow
up
in
an
evolution
of
the
conversation
and
discussion
that
the
board
had
regarding
the
station
center
project,
as
well
as
other
projects
that
were
in
consideration
for
the
bonding
discussion
and
as
follow-up
to
that.
C
We
presented
a
memo
to
the
board
regarding
a
strategy
for
how
we
could
fund
the
station
center
project,
and
one
of
the
major
components
of
that
funding
strategy
was
the
possibility
that,
as
part
of
our
negotiations,
right
now
with
the
developers
for
two
of
the
parcels
and
station
center.
Currently
in
those
agreements,
the
RDA
is
obligated
to
provide
the
infrastructure
improvements.
We
would
sell
the
parcel
to
the
developer
and
then
the
idea
is
that
the
land
proceeds
would
be
used
in
part
to
build
out
the
infrastructure
for
station
center
as
far
as
gathering
the
funds.
C
So
the
two
developers
are
a
combination
of
Kowboy
partners
and
Boyer
on
one
parcel
and
then
the
housing
authority
on
another,
and
what
we're
requesting
today
from
the
board
is
approval
to
consider
that
land
sales
right
down
up
to
the
full
sales
price
of
the
property
for
the
purpose
of
doing
the
infrastructure
and
utility
upgrade
improvements
for
those
specific
properties,
as
it
relates
to
the
station
center
project.
And
then
the
agency
would
essentially
pay
for
the
remaining
infrastructure
upgrades
out
of
our
budget
funds
and
future
allocations.
C
Right
now
on
on
the
Boyer
cowboy,
we
have
an
option
to
purchase
agreement
with
them
that
we're
under
contract,
and
so
we
are
working
under
an
extension
of
that
right
now
and
what
this
would
do
is
essentially
allow
us
to
enter
into
renewed
negotiations.
For
what
would
be
a
new
agreement
with
this
term
is
one
of
the
main
components
of
that
with
regard
to
the
housing
authority.
B
C
Right
now,
both
of
these
parcels,
the
current
sales
price
of
the
properties,
is
higher
than
the
estimated
cost
for
infrastructure.
So
we
feel
that
we
can
cover
those
costs,
and
so
that's
a
fair
trade-off
and
there's
still
some
opportunity
there
for
adjustment,
as
the
project
is
fully
designed.
Great.
D
D
You
on
the
I'm
on
the
Boyar,
cowboy
property
I'm,
looking
at
the
four
point:
seven:
five
million
in
the
land,
sales
revenue
potential
and
a
2.4
in
the
infrastructure
costs,
and
that
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
that
the
two
point
four
and
the
infrastructure
cost
is
just
to
complete
seventy
percent
of
the
design
of
that
infrastructure.
And
then
the
remaining
thirty
percent
is
left
to
the
RDA.
It's.
M
Don't
know
what
that
means,
so
the
construction
documents
are
completed
to
seventy
percent,
which
means
the
the
infrastructure
and
the
utilities
are
basically
designed
fully.
It's
just
not
a
bit
of
a
package.
It
can't,
it
is
not
doesn't
have
all
the
notes
in
the
drawing
sheets
and
everything
that
would
make
it
so
it
could
go
out
to
bid,
but
the
design
is
essentially
complete,
and
so
that
estimate
is
for
the
full
construction
based
on
that
design.
What's.
C
To
what
level
you
can
actually
estimate
costs,
and
so
right
now
we
are
at
if
you
were
to
think
of
when
you
have
your
drawings
and
you
can
actually
go
out
and
bid
and
pull
a
permit
and
do
construction.
That's
one
hundred
percent.
We
are
only
at
70
percent
in
terms
of
how
we
find
that
design
and
those
numbers
are
and
part
of.
C
D
C
Our
estimate,
right
now
at
the
70
percent
level
of
design,
yes
and
so
there's
a
chance
that
those
numbers
can
change
that
they
can
go
up
or
down.
Our
hope
is
that
they
will
go
down.
That
is
the
developers
incorporate
them
as
part
of
their
development,
their
larger
project?
There
will
be
economies
of
scale
in
terms
of
a
lot
of
the
the
reason
we.
D
C
What
we're
essentially
proposing
right
now
is
that
you're
approving
a
write
down
up
to
the
four
point:
seven,
the
full
sales
price,
but
we
anticipate
only
needing
two
point:
seven
on
that
or
whatever
the
actual
cost
will
be,
but
we
would
not
necessarily
come
back
and
ask
the
board
to
fund
anything
over
and
above
what
could
be
sustained
by
the
purchase
price.
Why.
D
Would
we
I
understand
that
bids
today
and
contracts
tomorrow
have
different
numbers
sometimes,
but
why
would
we
set
ourselves
up
for
double
the
estimated
amount
I
understand
that
we
want
to
give
some
headway,
but
I
I,
I,
guess
I
would
expect
more
of
a
case
here.
If
we
were
going
to
write
off
four
point:
seven:
five
million
dollars.
It's.
C
C
C
J
C
You
can
you
can
do
it
with
a
few
options.
You
could
do
it
where
we
come
back.
You
could
do
it
where
you
set
it
at
a
dollar
amount
and
if
it
stays
at
or
below
that,
then
you're
comfortable
with
us
proceeding
or
you
could
do
it
to
where,
depending
on
where
that
you
know,
if
it
goes
over
that,
then
we
could
come
back
and
get
approval
at
that
point
as
well.
Okay,.
D
To
thank
the
RTA
staff
for
the
way
that
we're
doing
this
now
the
conversations
that
we're
having
now
and
without
beating
a
dead
horse.
The
way
we
got
to
this
place
is
not
the
way
we
do
things
now
and
I
think
this
is
a
really
good
option
for
us,
realizing
the
circumstances
that
that
Opa
a
put
us
in
under
a
different
scenario
from
previous
times
I'm
I
would
like
us
to
reduce
the
up
to
amount
and
I'm
open
to
your
consideration.
D
D
I
also
I
don't
want
to
give
an
impression
which,
maybe,
in
years
past,
even
before
your
time,
I,
have
that
I'm
opposed
to
land,
write,
downs,
I
think.
On
the
contrary,
it's
a
great
tool
that
the
RDA
uses,
but
I
don't
want
to
set
a
precedence
that
we
do.
This
Thanks
I
mean
that
we
do
it
like
this.
Whatever.
C
First,
benefit
would
just
be
obviously,
construction
costs
are
increasing
and
we
know
we're
only
at
70%
design
level,
and
so
throughout
this
whole
process,
we've
seen
those
costs
go
up
and
down
so
that'd
be
the
biggest
reason.
The
second
reason
is
until
we
really
get
in
the
details
of
what
the
specific
projects
and
developments
are,
there
may
be
changes
to
even
what's
in
our
design
and
and
that
allows
us
the
flexibility
to
adjust
the
design
based
on
those
developments.
But
I
certainly
think
we
can.
I
C
I
I
C
I
M
So
we
estimated
we
took
the
high
estimate
as
a
conservative
estimate,
of
how
much
it
could
cost
to
remediate
and
included
that
in
what
would
be
written
down
from
the
property
sale
and
in
this
year's
budget
200,000
dollars
were
appropriated
or
allocated
for
environmental
remediation.
So
what
we
put
in
this
memo
is
the
remainder,
so
it
would
be
another
four
hundred
forty-seven
thousand
dollars.
Okay,.
I
M
There
there's
also
petroleum
hydrocarbon
contamination
at
the
site,
that
is
from
a
former
bus
garage
that
was
there
and
that
has
been
covered
by
the
petroleum
storage
tank
fund
at
the
DEQ.
So
there
is
a
chance
that
that
fund
could
be
used
for
some
of
the
remediation,
and
it's
just
something
that
we
need
to
enter
into
conversations
with
the
DEQ
to
figure
out
and-
and
at
this
point
we
don't
know
if
it
will
be
the
RDA
entering
into
those
conversations
or
the
future
owner.
C
B
Additional
questions
before
we
look
for
a
motion
on
this.
All
right
so
does
them.
Does
somebody
have
a
motion
they'd
like
to
pitch?
If
not
I
have
some
language
I'd
like
to
propose
okay
building
on
what
member
Mendenhall
you
threw
out,
a
number
of
30%
I
believe
is
that
right
above
construction
costs
or
estimated
cost
of
construction
I.
B
B
C
C
M
B
B
We
are
now
on
to
item
number
7
feasibility
study
and
development
plan
for
a
public
market
in
the
station
center
neighborhood
I
have
Danny
waltz
Kara
and
we
also
have
a
listed
number
of
folks
from
the
downtown
Alliance
G
SBS,
architects
and
urban
food
connections
of
UT
I.
Don't
know
if
you
want
to
join
us
or
not,
but
you're
welcome
to.
M
M
K
You
so
today
we
are
following
up
from
the
the
previous
time
we
were
here
last
July
and
as
everyone
is
aware,
there
was
a
mistake
in
the
report
that
has
been
corrected
and
today
we're
going
to
go
through
which
parts
of
the
report
were
changed
and
which
parts
remain
the
same.
As
a
quick
reminder,
the
scope
of
the
report
addressed
three
main
questions.
K
The
so
the
revised
report
shows
that
a
mixed-use
development
does
not
provide
a
direct
financial
benefit,
but
there
are
secondary
benefits
of
having
a
mixed-use
development
associated
with
the
public
market,
primarily
the
benefit
being
that,
if
you
combine
a
mixed-use
development
on
top
of
the
public
market,
it
allows
for
residential
to
be
located
on
500
west,
which
is
part
of
the
the
code
and
and
design
guidelines
for
that
area.
It
also
allows
you
to
meet
the
height
requirement
of
a
development
in
that
area,
so
that
the
report
has
been
changed
to
reflect
that
that
correction.
K
K
Previously,
the
size
of
the
market
was
based
on
the
extending
the
market
out
to
the
property
lines
of
the
site,
which
is
a
requirement
of
the
design
guidelines,
but
we've
pulled
that
back
in
order
to
minimize
the
the
overall
size
and
bring
the
cost
down.
The
overall
size
was
decreased
by
removing
the
three-day
portion
of
the
public
market,
where
the
it
would
just
be
open.
K
Three
days
a
week,
instead
of
the
full
seven
days
a
week
like
the
rest
of
the
market,
it
also
removed
the
office
component
that
was
going
to
be
rented
by
a
partnership
organization
so
with
a
smaller
market
size.
Overall,
the
amount
of
parking
needed
also
decreased
proportionally,
which
brought
down
the
the
cost.
K
So
those
those
are
the
significant
changes.
The
the
remainder
of
the
report
remained
primarily
the
same
where
the
other
two,
the
other
two
questions
that
were
addressed
is
that
the
data
shows
that
a
public
market
will
not
require
ongoing
operational
subsidy.
In
fact,
it
should
be
able
to
have
an
operating
profit
within
two
years
and
then
the
second
major
question
that
the
report
was
asking
is:
can
it
fit
on-site
five,
and
the
answer
is
yes,
it
can,
with
minor
modifications
to
the
design
guidelines,
specifically
the
the
property
line,
thing
that
was
brought
up
earlier.
B
M
K
M
The
zoning
requirement,
I
believe,
is
for
residential
to
be
constructed
on
fifth
west.
So
that
is,
is
that
your
interesting
okay
and
so,
and
that
is
in
upper
levels
right
so
a
ground
floor
could
be
retail,
it
could
be
public
public
market
and
the
change
from
the
zoning
I
believe
would
be
if
office
were
put
on
top
of
the
market.
If
residential
were
on
top
of
the
market,
it
wouldn't
be
a
chain
and
I.
M
G
We
have
we've
had
a
lot
of
discussion
in
the
past
about
whether
the
role
of
RDA
is
to
follow
the
city
codes
and
implement
the
master
plan
or
whether
it's
to
be
in
a
different
place.
And
it
sounds
like
this
is
in
a
slightly
different
place,
although
not
in
a
material
way.
So,
but
it's
worth
noting
that
that
this
doesn't
comply
with
the
city's.
D
K
There
are
other
ways
that
the
code
could
be
met
by
providing
additional
additional
programming
on
that
first
level
in
order
to
bring
the
building
out
to
the
property
line.
But
that
wasn't
part
of
this
study.
We
were
trying
to
bring
the
cost
down
of
the
market,
and
so
we
were
pulling
back
the
overall
size.
K
The
revised
report
shows
that,
through
the
right
management
and
operation
of
the
public
market,
all
these
goals
can
be
accomplished.
The
report
identifies
urban
food
connection
of
Utah
as
the
most
qualified
management
group,
based
on
their
proven
track
record
of
the
farmers
market
and
the
winters
market
and
Alison
is
going
to
explain
how
the
urban
food
connection
of
Utah
is
able
to
accomplish
these
goals.
I.
L
Won't
go
too
heavily
into
how
we'll
accomplish
all
of
those
goals,
because
there
are
a
lot
of
things
that
we
don't
know.
Yet
what
we
do
know
is
that
for
27
years,
we've
operated
one
of
the
largest
and
most
successful
farmers
markets
in
the
West.
We
know
that
we
have
created,
we
have
helped
to
create
more
than
two
dozen
businesses
go
from
small
booth
to
brick-and-mortar
business,
go
from
small
booth
to
national
and
international
distribution.
We
know
that
we
have
the
tools
to
identify
the
right
vendors.
We
know
how
to
cultivate
a
product
mix.
L
That's
been
very
successful
for
five
years
now,
we've
operated
the
winter
market
in
the
Rio
Grande
Depot.
That
has
been
a
great
partnership
with
the
state
where
we
activate
that
building
and
also
continue
to
provide
economic
return
for
vendors
all
year
long,
instead
of
just
in
the
summer
months
this
year.
For
the
first
time
we
are
every
week
at
the
Rio
Grande,
it
has
been
very
successful
we've
the
turnout
has
been
great.
The
reception
has
been
great.
L
We
have
a
proven
track
record
of
getting
people
to
a
neighborhood
that
maybe
they're
unsure
of,
and
we
have
a
proven
track
record
of
giving
people
the
confidence
that
the
markets
we
create
are
really
really
special.
And
so
we
know
that
a
park
market
is
really
just
extension
of
our
ability
to
do
that
with
a
lot
more
amenities
like
a
demonstration
kitchen
and
event
spaces
and
educational
kitchens,
where
we
can
engage
more
children
in
our
programming
and
a
beautiful
vendor
mix
on
the
main
floor.
B
Any
questions
at
this
point
board
members
I,
have
a
question
about
item
number
three
about
the
feasibility
of
a
private
developer:
constructing
a
public
market.
Have
you
begun
to
engage
any
private
developers
any
folks
that
might
be
interested
in
a
partnership
with
urban
food
connections?
How
can
you
break
this
out
for
me
a
little
bit
more
and
help
me
understand
what
it
might
look
like
if
this
were
to
be
the
direction
that
we
went
well.
I
I
I
think
Allison
did
a
great
job,
laying
out
our
expertise
in
operations.
We
know
how
to
run
a
market.
We
know
who
the
vendors
are.
We
know
who
the
consumers
are.
We
have
a
great
relationship
with
thousands
and
thousands
of
people,
but
we've
never
built
a
public
market
before
that's
just
something
we
don't
know
necessarily
how
to
do.
I
We
feel
like
the
report
that
Jesse
went
through
and
that
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
sets
a
foundation
for
how
this
might
happen
more
important,
even
than
this
report,
though,
is
the
expertise
that
private
developers
would
bring
to
this
project
because
they
actually
do
know
how
to
create
a
development.
They
do
know
how
to
build
retail
space
and
integrate
it
with
retail
and
office
space.
We
don't
have.
B
I
That's
what
the
report
is,
anticipating
and
I
think
we
were
comfortable.
It
won't
be
more
than
that.
They
have
made
some
suggestions
about
value
engineering
that
could
actually
bring
the
cost
down,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
we're
prepared
at
this
point
to
say
what
that
would
look
like
I
think
we'd
like
to
hear
more
from
Boyer
and
Kowboy
about
what
that
might
look
like
I
feel,
like
the
number
that
came
as
part
of
this
feasibility
study
anticipates
every
conceivable
cost
and
is
a
fairly
high
number.
B
I'm
gonna
keep
asking
questions
unless
port
numbers
have
something
to
okay,
I
believe
the
previous
iteration
of
this
board
authorized
site
five
and
so
I,
don't
know
exactly
what
that
action
was.
Maybe
staff
can
help
us,
but
if,
for
instance,
you
decided
to
move
forward
with
the
partnership
with
a
private
developer,
we're
looking
at
a
different
site
right,
that's
580,
West
300
south.
Is
that
correct?
No,
no.
B
C
Was
going
to
say,
I
think
I
think
what
you're
talking
about
is
site
five,
but
with
the
opportunity
to
either
combine
the
projects
and
and
build
them
out
together
and
or
look
at
opportunities
like
shared
parking
that
could
be
shared
between
the
residential,
the
office
component
and
and
the
market
and
I'm
not
sure
we
have
any
of
those
details
yet
other
than
the
downtown
Alliance.
Is
that
at
this
point
just
reached
out
and
looked
at
whether
that's
an
opportunity
or
conversation,
that's
worth
continuing
with
with
cowboy
partners
employer?
Excuse
me.
D
Thanks
for
coming
back
to
us
with
some
clarity
on
our
questions
from
before
I've
been
I,
keep
coming
back
to
what
is
Paige
I
think
you're.
The
report
isn't
actually
the
pages
aren't
numbered,
so
in
my
packet
at
page
19
of
369,
but
it's
the
chart
that
summarizes
income
and
expense
scenario
for
the
market,
and
it's
really
that
capital,
that's
our
biggest
hurdle
right,
and
so
it's
encouraging
to
hear
that
you're
having
conversations
with
these
private
developers,
but
I
kept
noticing
the
public
and
philanthropic
opportunity
and
clearly
we
have.
D
We
already
have
a
dialogue
going
on
here.
I
think
it
will
come
down
to.
Let
me
say
first,
though,
that
I
am
supportive
of
this
market
in
this
location.
I
think
that
you
Alice
and
you're
absolutely
right
that
the
market
is
a
way
to
bring
people
into
a
neighborhood
that
they
would
otherwise
not
go
into
because
there
wasn't
a
draw
or
they
may
be
intimidated
by
going
into
and
the
market
creates
a
community
experience
that
would
be
valuable
in
this
station
center.
D
As
an
aside,
I
think
it's
I
loved
hearing
that
we
should
rebrand
the
station
Center
area
because
I
never
liked
the
name
of
it
anyway.
So
the
Salt
Lake,
City,
Market
district
sounds
great
to
me,
but
this
I
I
guess
my
encouragement
and
my
sentiment
at
this
point
is
to
continue
or
to
ask
you
to
continue
exploring
the
philanthropic
side
and
the
private
partnership
side
of
this.
As
we
look
we're
having
sales
tax
option,
discussions
right
now.
D
General
obligation
bond
discussions
this
year
around
literally
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
of
really
foundational
needs
in
our
city,
that
we
don't
have
the
money
for
that.
It
becomes
difficult
for
us
to
look
at
participating
with
tens
of
millions
of
dollars,
potentially
in
a
public
market,
even
though
we
all
maybe
like
the
idea
so
help
us
get
there
with
other
partnerships
that
bring
it
along
I.
I
Would
say
that
I
think
it's
our
hope
over
the
next
few
months
to
come
back
with
really
what
is
the
gap
if
we
do
partner
with
player
and
cowboy
if
they
do
incorporate
some
other
elements
of
the
sort
of
holistic
neighborhood
development
into
this
market?
If
we
do
some
shared
parking,
there
are
lots
of
ways
that
we
think
we
can
bring
the
cost
down
and
I
also
think
that
we
can
have
a
really
pretty
solid
understanding
of
what
we
might
hope
to
expect
for
philanthropy.
I
We
need
to
find
lots
and
lots
of
people
who
can
do
that.
I
think
that's
the
value
of
a
public
market
that
it
appeals
across
many
cross-sections
and
many
industries
and
many
interests.
So
that's
our
that's
our
commitment
to
you,
as
these
numbers
start
to
solidify,
and
we
start
to
get
an
even
better
understanding
of
what
it
looks
like
with
the
private
sector
partners.
I
appreciate.
D
That
and
I
believe
that
there
is
a
lot
to
be
gained
from
that
holistic
development
vision
and
a
lot
of
us
have
explored
recently
developed
parts
of
Denver
and
looked
at
the
the
contrast
when
you
issue
an
entire
area
to
a
single
developer
and
there's
costs
and
benefits
to
be
sure.
But
there
I
think
are
some
great
benefits
to
be
gained
with
this
particular
consideration
in
the
context
of
office,
retail
residential
development
all
under
the
same
think-tank
so
to
speak
of
development.
So
keep
working
that
angle
and
come
back
to
us
as
it
progresses
board.
I
Thank
you
for
coming
back
with
this
and
I'll
paint
just
to
wait
and
see
what
you
come
up
with
for
the
overhead
funding.
I
continue
to
be
concerned
by
talking
about
this
in
the
context
of
Westside
food
desert,
I'm
concerned
that
push
comes
to
shove,
you
have
to
be
able
to
make
a
pencil
right
and
right
now,
I
haven't
seen
a
public
market
that
is
really
truly
open
to
low-income
residents,
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
I
If
that's
one
of
the
fundamental
tenants
number
five
on
here,
I'd
really
want
to
hear
back
specifically
exactly
how
that
happens
versus
just
saying:
there's
a
food
desert.
This
is
closer
to
it
and
we
can
potentially
use
snap
or
double
bucks
that
doesn't
translate
to
actually
action
folks
using
it.
So
I'd
like
to
hear
more
of
that,
if
we're
gonna
continue
to
talk
about
in
that
context,
I'll.
L
Just
briefly
say
that
we
do
work
with
a
lot
of
community
partners
like
you,
towns
against
hunger
and
a
community
work
force
services
to
make
sure
that
we
are
as
open
and
as
welcoming
to
all
populations
as
we
can
be.
Hence
the
SNAP
program
and
the
double
up
food
bucks
program
that
we're
currently
working
on
refunding
with
the
Department
of
Health.
It
is
a
major
focus
in
order
to
make
this
a
truly
welcoming
public
space.
B
C
That's
what
we
listed
is
the
next
steps.
I
I,
don't
necessarily
anticipate
that
being
in
a
position
to
come
back
next
month
as
much
as
working
with
the
downtown
Alliance
and
giving
them
the
opportunity
to
explore
their
possibility.
And
at
that
point,
if
there's
a
conversation
to
be
had,
we
will
come
back
as
part
of
a
discussion
on
what
would
ultimately
be
a
disposition
of
site.
B
I
want
to
be
cognizant
of
our
time.
We
have
an
agenda
work
session
for
the
City
Council
at
four
o'clock,
but
given
that
we've
finalized,
at
least
this
item,
I-
think
that
there
is
one
unanswered
question
here
with
regard
to
the
public
market,
and
that
is
action
that
the
Board
took
a
couple
months
ago,
maybe
a
year
ago,
on
the
fair
Park
and
we
allocated
some
resources
for
a
potential
feasibility
study
at
the
fair
park
and
I
feel
like
that
is
kind
of
a
lingering
question
that
needs
some.
B
We
need
to
get
some
clarity
on
what
we
intend
there
and
what,
if
we
you
know,
are
we
moving
forward
in
that
direction,
because
you
know
we
have
a
potential
partner
in
urban
food
connections
of
Utah
and
I.
Don't
know
if
you
know
we
decide
to
move
in
a
different
direction
as
far
as
site
goes.
What
that
does
to
the
report
that
we
just
read.
H
You
say
that
I
mean
I
know
that
we've
all
voted
on
this
before,
but
you
know,
even
though
the
report
might
have
changes,
I
mean
I
know
we
all
knew
what
was
gonna
come
back
and
say:
I
mean
we
knew
it
was
gonna
say:
oh,
this
is
the
first
perfect
spot
for
it.
This
is
the
perfect
place
to
have
it.
I
mean
this
is
what
the
whole
problem
with
this
whole
scenario
is
I
feel
like
it's
made
as
instructed,
maybe
it
as
it
was
supposed
to
be
intended
for
that's.
H
Why
I
think
we
need
to
have
something
to
have
comparison.
I
think
that
we're
saying
yeah,
you
know
that's.
The
problem
is
that
we
have
people
who
say,
oh
there's,
I'm
afraid
to
change
this
contract
of
the
airport
for
janitorial
who's
gonna.
Do
it
what
if
these
are?
What,
if
case
scenarios,
we
need
to
move
forward,
see
if
there
are
other
stakeholders
that
are
just
as
interested
and
moving
forward?
This
could
be
the
spot.
The
fairgrounds
really
could
be
the
spot
for
it,
but
until
we
have
a
comparison,
we
can't
make
that
decision.
J
And
I
obviously
was
not
here
for
any
vote
regarding
the
money
and
feasibility
of
having
the
public
market
out
at
the
fairgrounds
I.
Do
support
the
public
market
being
here
at
site,
5,
but
I,
understand,
council,
member
or
board
member
Roger
is
concerned,
I'm
wondering,
however,
if
there's
a
way
to
as
we
look
at
that
feasibility
study
look
at
the
fair
park
as
sort
of
a
more
broad
feasibility
study.
If
you
will
and
can
say
what
would
be
really
good
there,
maybe
maybe
incorporate
what
the
farmers
market
work
there.
J
The
component
of
that
feasibility
study
but
then
broaden
that
feasibility
study
to
say
are
there
other
things
that
would
better
fit
this
community,
so
I
think
in
that
way
we
kind
of
we
certainly
hope
to
address
board
member
Rogers
concerns,
but
then,
but
then
maybe
there's
a
better
idea.
Besides
the
farmers
market
there
right
and-
and
maybe
if
that
feasibility
study
is
broadened,
we're
looking
at
what
really
can
reactivate
that
space
and
and
be
a
good
use
of
space
for
the
for
the
fair
park.
J
So
I
mean,
as
we
consider
this,
it
is
a
lingering
question
and
I
would
ask
you
know
as
we
consider
that
feasibility
study
and
as
we're
kind
of
framing
the
issue
around
it
is
to
kind
of
make
it
a
little
bit
broader.
So
we're
actually
looking
if
not
the
market,
maybe
it
doesn't
work,
but
it's
certainly
addressing
hopefully
board.
Member
Rogers
concerns
what
would
really
work
out
there
and.
H
D
Yeah
I
think
that,
for
the
most
part,
I
agree
with
board
member
Fowler
and
I
also
agree
that
we
allocated
this
money
and
we'd
like
something
to
happen
on
it.
This
is
an
example
of
when
we
come
up
with
whether
there's
a
board
or
a
council.
We
come
up
with
funding
for
something
that
we
didn't
coordinate
and
create
momentum
on
the
staff
and
for
and
it's
it's
they're
not
to
blame.
Sometimes.
I
D
You're
gonna
do
it
right
and
all
the
rest
of
life
and
your
work
flow
happens
and
without
momentum
it
doesn't
happen.
So
I
think
you're,
right
and
I
understand
that
I
think
board.
Member
Rogers
knows
more
about
this,
but
that
there's
other
types
of
markets
in
other
parts
of
the
country
that
maybe
would
work
well
with
our
state
partners
in
bringing
in
broader
regional
I,
don't
want
to
say
just
farms,
but
look
at
what
happens
out
there
at
the
State
Fair
Park
on
special
event,
basis
ease
and
that
there's
a
different.
H
We
remember
Mendenhall,
I,
understand
and
I
appreciate
it
and
I
appreciate
everyone's
concerns.
The
issue
that
I'm
having
time
and
time
again
is
coming
back
to
I've,
been
at
this
for
two
years,
trying
to
get
a
feasibility
study
on
this
and
I'm,
not
gonna
badmouth
the
downtown
Alliance,
but
they
have
a
lot
of
pressure.
They
have
a
lot
of
pull
with
the
city
and
I
feel
like
there
has
been
that
pressure.
H
There's
been
that
poll
so
that
there
has
not
been
any
direction
any
push
in
trying
to
push
this
forward
and
Here
I
am
and
I'm
calling
him
out
cuz.
This
is
wrong.
I'm
sorry
I've
been
at
this
for
two
years.
Trying
to
get
this
done
and
I
feel
like
it
hasn't
been
pushed
forward
because
there
have
been
certain
individuals
trying
to
prevent
this
from
going
forward
because
they
have
their
own
personal
interest
in
trying
to
see
it
go
here.
All
I'm
saying
is:
let's
look
at
it.
H
Let's,
let's
have
some
good
data
and
analysis
to
look
at
and
not
something
that
was
made
as
instructed
it's
that
simple
I
mean
here
we
are
in
in
in
in
here.
We
are
I'm
telling
you
it's
probably
gonna,
be
the
same
thing
unless
somebody
else
calls
it
out
and
says:
let's
move
forward
with
this,
because
we
cannot
actually
say
yeah,
let's
go
forward
with
this
proposal
until
we
have
something
else,
I
mean
here:
I
am
blue
in
the
face.
I
feel
like
when
I
bring
something
up,
I'm,
don't
push
it
and
I.
H
I
C
Agency
accounts
and-
and
the
best
answer
I
can
probably
give
is
I
think
we
were
waiting
for
the
conclusion
of
this
before
we
looked
at
the
Fair
Park
and
I
apologize
to
board
member
Rogers.
That
I
can't
answer
beyond
my
knowledge
on
that.
But
I
think,
if
it
was,
is
to
please
the
board
that
we
can
certainly
allocate
those
funds
and
put
that
project
together
and
put
it
out
and
whether
the
board
wanted
to
run
that
as
a
parallel
path.
Is
we
allow
the
downtown
lines
to
look
at
this
side?
I
think
that's
entirely
possible.
C
D
D
Who
may
want
to
play
ball
and
be
foolish
of
us
for
us
to
say,
stop
at
this
point
and
I
would
having
voted
on
the
prevailing
side
of
the
allocation
of
that
money
a
year
ago
or
two
years
ago,
or
whatever
it
is.
I
guess
I'd
like
some
clarification
about
what
we,
whether
or
not
we
instructed
the
staff
to
conduct
a
fees
or
contract
a
feasibility
study
instead
of
this
location
or
whether
it
was
to
look
at
all
viable
market
possibilities
for
the
State
Fair
Park
location,
which
is
what
I
would
like
to
support.
B
If
I
may
jump
in
really
quick,
I
am
really
sympathetic
to
have
board
members.
Rogers
I
think
you
know.
We've
experienced
this
with
the
mural
project
and
the
granary.
You
know
I
think
that
Aaron
made
it
really
clear
that
sometimes
when
we
take
action
and
we
don't
get
buy-in
from
the
other
side-
it
it
prevents
it
from
being
successful
as
soon
as
we'd
like
it
to
be,
and
so
I
think
that
was
maybe
something
that
we
could
have
coordinated
or
behind
the
scenes
and
and
in
advance
of
our
vote
last
time.
B
However,
I
think
that
I'm
personally
I
also
voted
for
this
allocation
of
175,000
I
believe
for
a
study
at
the
Fair
Park
I
think
it
serves
an
important
purpose
and
I
want
to
keep
it
there.
However,
I
don't
want
it
to
be
limited
to
a
public
market
feasibility
study.
I.
Don't
think
that
that
makes
very
much
sense.
I
would
like
for
us
to
look
at
the
fairgrounds
and
how
we
can
activate
the
fairgrounds.
How
I
can
make
an
investment
in
the
fairgrounds
that
will
help
us
achieve
our
goals
on
north
temple?
B
How
we
can
maybe
pull
in
partners
like
the
state
and
how
we
can?
Maybe
you
know,
look
at
economic
development
opportunities
along
the
corridor
and
at
the
fairgrounds.
You
know,
I
know
that
we
just
made
an
investment
in
the
the
stadium
for
the
route
for
the
days
of
47,
as
well
as
I've
heard
through
the
grapevine
that
there
are
some
state
economic
development
actors
that
are
looking
at
the
fairground
for
a
potential
investment,
and
so
I
would
hate
for
us
to
invest
a
hundred
and
seventy-five
thousand
dollars
in
a
singular
study.
B
When
we
could
make
a
we
could
identify,
maybe
our
goals
for
the
fairgrounds
and
then
get
that
off
the
ground
as
soon
as
possible.
So
I
don't
know
how
the
board
feels
about
broadening
the
scope.
To
you
know
economic
development.
You
know
achieving
our
RDA
goals
and
activating
the
fairgrounds,
which
could
and
should
include
the
market
as
well,
but
it
doesn't,
it
seem
like
we
should
broaden
it
a
little
bit.
Mr.
B
C
C
I,
wouldn't
think
so,
I
think
what
you
may
not
include
in
the
scope
of
services.
You
may
not
be
as
heavy
on
some
of
the
demographic
data
if
you're
not
specifically
looking
at
the
operations
and
funding
a
public
market
and
whether
one
would
be
successful.
But
if
you
were
looking
at
a
broader
base
in
terms
of
what
the
scope
of
a
project
would
be
for
activating
the
fairgrounds
I
mean
you'd,
be
looking
at
a
different
kind
of
level
of
urban
planning
in
site
usage.
Rather
than
just.
B
B
H
It's
great
I
mean
let's
just
get
something
moving
so
that
we
can
actually
analyze
what
what
we
can
do.
I
mean
without
that
we're
we're
seriously
doing
this
and
I
think
that
I'm
sorry
I
feel
like
that's
the
ploys
that,
let's
just
go
around
in
circles
till
everyone
gets
sick
and
tired
of
it,
and
we
can
say:
let's
just
move
on:
okay,
a.
E
C
E
I
do
think
that
I,
like
the
idea
of
a
broader
scope,
to
look
at
this,
because
I
do
think
that
the
Fair
Park
has
an
incredible
amount
to
offer.
I
do
think
that
the
area
itself
is
ripe
for
attention
to
Andrews
point
about
the
food
desert.
That
is
real
and
I
think
that
there
are
limited
opportunities
there
for
residents
near
the
Fair
Park,
and
so
you
know,
I'm
I'm,
supportive
of
broadening
the
scope.
But
at
the
same
time
you
know
I.
E
You
know
I'm
still
interested
in
seeing
what
the
analysis
is
of
the
potential
of
having
a
market
at
the
Fair
Park
and
having
something
to
really
compare
it
against
to
to
what
we're
seeing
here.
So
while
I'm,
supportive
of
broadening
it
and-
and
you
know,
I-
also
wish
that
we
had
had
something
sooner,
but
we
don't
so
what
I'm
not
interested,
though
and
doing
is
getting
too
far
down
the
path
on
the
other
location
without
having
the
actual
information
on
on
what
the
markets
going
to
do?
You
know
if
the?
E
E
I,
don't
feel
that
we
have
that
information
I
would
hate
to
move
to
get
too
far
down
the
line
and
on
station
center
and
then
come
back
and
say:
oh
wait,
you
know
this
could
have
been
much
much
different,
so
I
encourage
us
to
move
forward
with
the
with
the
broader
scope,
but
I'm
not
interested
in
moving
forward
on
anything.
Until
we
have
that
survey
back
and
it
would
have
been
nice
to
have
had
it
done
soon,
a.
J
J
Luckily
we
don't
have
a
decision
to
be
made,
but
I
again
really
don't
think
that
we
should
discount
what
is
being
have
what
is
being
proposed
here,
because
I
I
don't
think
that
we
are
thwarted
by
saying:
let's
do
another
farmers
market
out
there.
If
the
feasibility
study
comes
back
and
says
yeah
a
public
market
that
looks
a
little
different
would
go
well
out
there.
Okay!
Well,
let's
have
to
this
is
they're
very
different
areas,
very
different
needs
and
varied,
and-
and
it
could
really
address
the
food
desert-
I
mean
there's
a
there's
a
whole.
J
We
need
to
activate
that
area,
and
now
we
have
people
that
want
to
activate
that
area.
With
this
proposal,
I
mean
it
just
seems
to
make
sense
to
at
least
allow
them
to
continue
moving
forward
with
the
conversations
and
get
obviously,
the
feasibility
study
to
see
how
we
can
also
activate
the
doubt.
The
Fair
Park.
I
Don't
want
to
be
clear,
though
the
point
it's
not
to
hold
anything
hold
anything
up.
The
point
was
we
asked
for
this
same
study
a
year
ago,
and
it
hasn't
happened
yet
so
to
say
we're
not
gonna
hold
it
up
now.
Because
of
this,
it
misses
the
whole
point
that
we
asked
for
the
same
thing
a
while
back
and
we
were
down
a
path
now
they're
saying
we're
already
down
the
path.
Let's
keep
going
down
the
path
without
this
and
I
want
to
make
sure
we
learn
from
what
happened.
I
I,
don't
know
why
the
study
wasn't
done.
I,
don't
know
where
the
workload
issues
and
everything
else
in
the
chaos
over
the
last
few
months,
especially
but
I
want
to
be
clear
that
holding
this
up
is
not
the
point.
The
point
for
me
was
we're
trying
to
come
back
a
year
later,
if
not
more
and
figure
out
well,
I
have
no
idea
how
you
do
two
pockmark,
it's
that
close
together.
I
can
ask
you
right
now.
I
Is
that
feasible,
I
think
I
think
if
the
markets
were
very
different,
it
could
be,
but
I
do
think
you
wouldn't
have
want
to
have
two
identical
markets
together.
I
also
just
want
to
mention,
because
of
the
affection
or
especially
after
James
I
promised
James.
We
have
never
tried
to
slow
anything
down.
I
wish
we
had
that
much
power
and
sway,
but
we
promised
downtown
Alliance
has
not
tried
to
slow
anything
down
with
the
Fair
Park.
If
anything
we'd
be
happy.
I
B
Like
to
jump
in
really
quick
and
maybe
get
some
clarity
on
this,
so
if
I'm
a
pro
I
know,
you
have
a
question
I
think
board
member
Mendenhall,
but
I'd
like
for
us
to
get
some
direction
on
all
of
this,
so
I'm
gonna,
I'm,
gonna
request
at
least
two
straw
polls
and
I'd
be
receptive
to
others.
If
people
have
ideas
so
please
enter
you
know,
toss
it
out
and
let's
entertain
what
everybody
has
on
their
mind.
B
But
I
want
to
get
some
clarity
first
on
the
study
for
the
Fair
Park,
and
so
my
question
to
this
body
is:
do
we
support
collectively
broadening
the
scope
beyond
just
a
market
but
activating
the
Fair,
Park,
Fairgrounds
and
figuring
out
how
we
can
best
make
an
investment
along
North
temple
in
line
with
our
RDA
project
area
goals?
So
that's
my
question
for
a
straw
poll
and
I
have
a
question
from
board
member
Johnston.
I
Have
a
lot
of
research
being
done
over
there?
No
actions
happening
the
problem
for
us.
One
section
of
10th
to
7th
west
essentially
have
any
other
study
like
almost
be
for
Jane's,
but
look
I'm,
not
gonna
turn
down
help
over
there.
However,
I
don't
want
to
throw
more
money
at
something
that
we
need
projects.
We
need
something
done
right
and
if
this
money
allocated
will
get
there,
okay,
but
the
point
of
it
was
to
give
a
balance
to
say
in
public
market.
I
B
I
mean
if
you
really
want
to
get
to
the
root
of
that
question,
then
we
need
to
be
looking
citywide.
Where
would
a
public
market
fit
best
not
just
between
one
project
area
and
a
second
project
area,
because
then
we're
putting
two
project
areas
against
each
other,
so
I'm
more
interested
in
entertaining
James
idea
about
getting
something
done
in
the
Fair
Park,
so
that
we
can
start
seeing
some
movement
over
there
and
so
I'm
just
trying
to
build
on
that
a
little
bit.
So
that
was
the
intent
of
my
straw
pool
so.
H
I
I
would
be
comfortable
with
that,
but
it
if
we
used
it
or
phrase
the
phrase
that
for
the
consultant
to
discuss
that
which
location
would
be
a
better
location
and
if
it
turns
out
that
the
Fair
Park
is
not
a
better
location.
What
would
be
a
good
thing
to
go
into
that
spot?
I'm,
fine
with
that
I
mean
I,
think
that's
what
we
were
looking
for
from
all
the
beginning,
but
for
us
to
say
which
one
is
better.
Well,
let's
find
out
for
sure
which
one
is
better.
H
D
Think
that's
a
more
complicated
question
than
it
sounds
like
because
to
mr.
Matheson's
point:
what
kind
of
market
really
influences
this
whole
feasibility
study
is
built
on
on
page
I
of
the
executive
summary
the
demographic
profiles
of
different
for
different
types
of
residents
and
and
vendor
or
visitors
to
the
market,
and
that
would
be
different
for
the
Fair
Park
one,
the
type
of
market
that
is
created
based
on
who
would
be
shopping.
There
would
probably
be
different,
so
I
think
it's
it's
pretty
complicated.
D
H
Crazy,
why
are
we
diving,
I
mean
North
temple
has
tracks,
North
temple
has
parking,
North
temple
has
a
state
and
the
county
right
there
with
them.
I
mean
yeah,
they're
different,
but
come
on.
Let's
just
do
the
same
feasibility
study
just
to
compare
it
and
say
hey,
which
one
is
better
I
mean
we're
diving
into
the
weeds
here.
All
we
wanted
was
a
feasibility
study
to
say:
would
this
be
a
good
place
for
a
public
market?
If
that
doesn't
work,
what
would
they
suggest?
It's
not
that
difficult
I'm.
Sorry,
it's
not
well.
D
I,
disagree
that
at
this
point
we
have
this
feasibility
study.
It's
done.
Your
work
is
done
Jesse.
Thank
you
very
much
now
his
downtown
Alliance
job
to
pick
up
this
feasibility
study
and
the
capital
requirements
of
it
and
run
the
ball
and
come
back
to
us
when
you
feel
like
you've
gotten
somewhere
that
we
would
want
to
play
ball
and
I
think
we're
seeing
in
very
clear
agreement
that
we're
not
there
yet,
but
the
North
temple
I
just
think.
D
We've
come
into
a
place
where
Europe
James
is
upset,
and
this
is
becoming
the
crux
where
we
can.
What
that
are
the
lever
that
we
can,
that
James
can
use
to
get
at
studying
this
date,
Fair
Park
area
that
we've
asked
you
to
do
a
long
time
ago
and
for
whatever
lack
of
clarity,
it
hasn't
happened
so
I'm
going
to
propose
a
straw
poll,
yeah
I
know
you
did,
but
I
think
it
was
I
guess.
D
D
So
I
I
want
to
be
as
specific
as
we
can
in
our
feasibility
request
so
that
it's
as
usable
as
possible.
Now
whether
I
agree
that
it
may
not
be
a
market.
That's
best
there,
but
I
I
think
that
to
include
all
of
North
temple
and
the
activation
of
the
community
is
around
the
whole
North
temple
district
is
too
broad,
so
maybe
we
could
refine
it.
Some
more
I
have.
B
Okay,
I
think
we
need
to
figure
out
how
to
best
activate
the
fairgrounds,
make
an
investment
there
I
think
we
should
solicit
potential
partners
in
the
state
in
the
county
and
we
need
to
evaluate
the
market
idea
in
addition
to
anything
else
that
might
work
well,
so
I
want
it
to
include
the
market,
but
I
wanted
to
also
have
I
want
the
consultant
to
whoever
we
hire
with
this
money
to
be
able
to
look
at
alternative
uses
that
could
serve
the
fairground.
Well,
so
that's
my
intent
here
can.
B
D
F
F
B
Is
that
we
move
forward
with
with
a
feasibility
study
for
the
fairgrounds,
with
the
money
that
we've
already
allocated
or
set
aside
to
identify
how
to
best
activate
the
fairgrounds
to
identify
the
partners
that
we
would
need
in
order
for
this
to
be
successful?
Obviously,
the
state
in
the
county
are
two
that
come
to
mind
and
we
want
to
include
the
market,
the
idea
of
a
market
of
some
sort,
as
well
as
other
components,
to
activate
the
fairgrounds
and
include
master
plans
and
existing
documents
that
may
already
be
out
there.
B
B
B
I
Think
we
just
like
to
work
on
this.
The
interest
from
the
private
developers
is
fairly
recent.
It's
happened
in
the
last
six
weeks,
we'd
like
to
put
some
numbers
together
with
them
and
come
back
to
you
with
a
more
detailed
proposal
that
hopefully
makes
sense
and
limits
the
city's
liability.
That
really
is
one
of
our
top
goals
in
this
project.
Great.
B
Board
members,
would
you
like
to
add
anything
else
before
we
close
out
this
item?
Okay,
thank
you
all
very
much
appreciate
it.
Thank
you
all
right.
Moving
on,
we
have
just
a
few
minutes.
Left
I'd
like
to
finish
this
agenda
out.
We
have
reports
an
announcement
from
the
executive
director.
Do
you
have
anything
from
the
administrative
side?
No
okay
staff,
the.
C
Only
item
I
have
I
think
is
a
follow-up
to
one
of
the
items
listed
and
an
email
from
council
staff
regarding
the
RDAs
notice
of
funding
availability
for
the
ten
million
dollars
in
housing
funds.
That's
something
we
are
actively
working
on.
We
plan
on
taking
that
to
the
redevelopment
Advisory
Committee
in
April
and
then
bring
it
to
this
board
as
an
update,
either
as
a
written
briefing
in
April
or
in
May
as
a
briefing
with
further
information.
C
C
Are
deep
in
interviews
and
in
fact,
I'm
afraid?
I
may
actually
lose
some
staff
because
of
how
many
interviews
were
asking
them
to
participate
in,
but
we
are
essentially
wrapping
up
the
interviews.
The
second
round
of
interviews
with
our
project
managers
and
I
hope
to
have
some
candidates
that
we
are
extending
offers
to.
C
We
are
in
the
middle
of
doing
the
interviews
for
the
deputy
director,
the
jobs
for
the
accounting
position
and
the
admin
secretary
have
closed
and
we're
in
the
process
of
starting
those
interviews,
so
we
hope
to
get
staff
soon
and
get
everyone
working
and
start
training
new
members
of
Godspeed.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
B
Okay,
moving
on,
we
are
item
deed,
written
briefings.
I
have
one
question:
does
anybody
else
have
anything
they'd
like
to
ask
about
the
written
briefing
okay,
so
I
was
looking
at
the
timeline
for
this
mural
program.
I
really
like
it.
So
thank
you
for
putting
in
the
work
staff.
But
my
question
is
on
the
timeline:
it's
pretty
ambitious
to
have
submissions
by
April
or
May
17th,
that's
just
under
two
months.
So
how
do
you
plan
to
promote
this,
and
how
do
you
plan
to
spend
the
money
make
sure
that
we
spend
the
money
I.
C
Think
it
would
be
a
combined
promotion
through
the
RDA
business
development
and
Main
Street,
America
and
I
think,
depending
on
how
that
initial
promotion
and
response
went,
then
we
could
also
potentially
look
at
just
having
an
open
on
an
ongoing
basis.
But
I
think
you
wanted
to
at
least
the
initial
offering
you
wanted
to
have
a
deadline
for
people
to
respond
to
and
have
proposals
and
then,
depending
on
that
level,
you
could
determine
if
you
want
to
keep
it
open
and
going
until
the
funds
are
fully
expended.
Okay,.
B
C
Yeah
I
think
I
would
just
reiterate
my
earlier
comments.
That
I
would
hope
that
I
would
ask
that
the
board
just
approved
the
consent
agenda
set
the
date
and
time
allow
us
the
opportunity
to
reach
out
to
Stotler
and
maybe
get
some
information
from
them
in
terms
of
where
they're
truly
out
with
their
purchase
agreement
and
to
what
extent
the
creation
or
non
creation
of
an
RDA
project
area
affects
them
moving
forward,
and
we
could
report
back
to
you
on
that
in
April
and
then
at
that
point
you
could
decide
to
take
action.