►
From YouTube: Redevolpment Agency (RDA) Salt Lake City - 8/24/21
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
Thank
you
very
much.
We
will
move
on
and
thank
you
for
those
are
providing
general
comment.
We
do
have
no
public
hearings
today,
so
we're
moving
on
to
item
c1
and
it
is
the
approval
of
minutes
we
are.
We
would
like
to
prove
the
minutes
of
tuesday
december
8th
2020..
A
B
Okay
motion
by
board
member
fowler
seconded
by
board
member
matt
mano
board
member
robert.
B
Oh,
I'm
sorry
but
board
member
dugan,
I'm
gonna
roll
call.
It
board.
Member
rogers,
yes,
board.
Member
ferris.
A
B
Wharton,
I'm
sure
he's
here:
dugan.
E
B
Mano,
yes,
color,
yes,
and
I'm
a
yes
so
that
passes.
We
item
number
two:
it's
a
motion
meeting
remotely
with
our
non
uncurrent
location
and
we
are
considering
a
motion
to
ratify
the
church,
determination
to
continue
meeting
remotely
and
without
an
anchor
location
due
to
the
health
and
safety
of
the
people
who
may
be
in
attendance
and
considering
to
considering
the
continued
closure
of
the
city
in
county
building
to
the
public,
so
moved.
B
I
have
a
motion
by
remember
fowler
and
the
second
bite
dugan.
Did
I
get
that
right.
E
B
Okay,
I'm
gonna
roll
call
this
rogers,
yes,
paris,.
E
A
B
E
B
C
B
A
B
B
Rda
we
also
have
university
of
utah
representatives,
jonathan
bates
and
jennifer
mcgrath
at
the
table.
If
we
have
additional
questions
so
go
ahead,
ben
or
danny.
F
Thank
you
airperson.
As
you
mentioned,
this
is
the
second
briefing
on
station
center
innovation,
district
concept
and
the
predisposition
report
for
potentially
selling
over
10
acres
of
rda-owned
property
to
the
university
of
utah.
F
A
quick
reminder,
page
five
of
the
transmittal,
has
a
map
of
station
center
showing
the
ownership
by
parcels.
If
you
want
to
reference
that
during
the
discussion
also,
this
morning
an
email
was
sent
to
you
at
9
33
listing
the
questions
that
staff
heard
from
you
at
the
last
briefing,
and
these
questions
were
passed
on
to
rda
staff.
G
Great
ben,
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
board.
Thank
you.
We
appreciate
being
here.
We
appreciate
the
board
continuing
this
discussion
from
our
last
presentation,
just
to
elaborate
on
what
ben
has
already
set
the
stage
for
we,
as
staff,
have
taken
notes
on
that
discussion
as
well
as
we've
received
the
questions
that
he
referred
to
from
council
staff.
G
Before
I
turn
over
to
ashlandcare,
I
just
want
to
simply
reiterate
what
ben
said
that
we
are
still
in
the
very
early
stages
of
this
project,
still
negotiating
with
the
university
of
utah
as
such
as
indicate
we're
not
prepared
to
answer
many
of
the
specific
questions
that
you've
been
provided
from
council
staff,
specifically
regarding
the
governance
or
the
programming
of
the
district.
G
However,
we
are
continuing
to
have
those
conversations
with
the
board
and,
just
as
we
are
here,
updating
you,
the
university
staff
is
working
with
their
stakeholders
and
continuing
to
update
their
board
in
order
to
get
answers
and
address
those
questions.
So
we
wanted
to
just
set
that
stage
as
we
go
into
this
conversation.
We
do
have
some
follow-up
info
on
some
of
the
items
that
ashley
and
cara
can
speak
to.
G
We
can
go
through,
but
there
is
a
lot
that
is
still
to
be
determined,
and
our
primary
goal
here
today
is
just
to
kind
of
sit
here
and
listen
and
continue
to
track
the
the
questions,
the
policy
concerns
and
the
discussion
of
the
board.
So
having
said
that,
ashley
and
cara,
I
think
you
both
have
made
it
back
into
the
the
meeting.
So
I'll
turn
it
over
to
you
for
a
presentation.
H
My
share
button
is
blacked
out.
Okay,
thank
you.
H
Okay,
can
everyone
see
the.
H
Okay,
thank
you
yeah.
So
the
the
first
question
that
we
felt
like
we
could
respond
to
was
related
to
a
concern
that
the
district
needs
more
than
a
single
single
anchor
tenant
with
some
longer
term
rda
control
and
involvement
in
order
to
create
a
diverse
built
environment
that
all
people
want
to
visit.
H
In
addition,
the
rda
feels
confident
in
the
place-making
efforts
that
we've
made,
which
we've
covered
before
so
I'll,
keep
it
brief,
but
these
include
relying
on
the
station
center
design
guidelines
that
we've
developed
to
influence
the
design
of
the
project.
We
also
support
the
adaptive
reuse
of
historic
wear
structures
that
still
exist
within
the
district.
H
We've
also
planned
for
the
really
unique
streetscape
infrastructure
and
community
space
improvements,
which
will
turn
third
south
into
a
festival
street
that
can
be
closed
and
used
for
events
on
the
same
topic.
Even
before
the.
U
was
involved
in
this
project,
the
rda
realized
there
were
advantages
to
working
with
one
entity
to
develop
the
district,
for
example,
constructing
new
streets
and
upgrading
utilities
across
multiple
sites
isn't
a
small
task
and
won't
require
a
lot
of
planning
and
coordination.
H
So
I'm
ready
to
move
on
to
the
next
question,
but
feel
free
to
stop
me.
If
you
want
to
discuss
that
one
or
let
me
know
if
it's
okay
to
move
on.
B
Board
members,
if
you
would
like
to
I
mean
if
you
have
a
burning
question
right
now,
please
pick
up.
If
not
we'll
have
her
go
on
with
her
presentation
and
have
those
questions
later
yep.
Let
me
see
you,
I
cannot
see
you,
don't
see
anybody
saying
anything
else
so
go
ahead
and
keep
going
ashley.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
H
H
So
we
did
do
some
additional
research
into
the
projects
that
we
mentioned
last
time,
that
included
research
triangle
park,
the
cortex
innovation
community
and
the
phoenix
core
project
I'd
be
happy
to
share
more
details
with
you,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
we
compiled
some
key
takeaways
from
those
case
studies.
H
So
first
innovation
districts
are
often
initiated
through
partnerships
between
many
players.
There
are
often
multiple
bid
anchors
involved.
H
But
if
we
consider
this
within
the
context
of
the
larger
tech
corridor
initiative
beyond
gestation
center,
there's
still
an
opportunity
for
other
universities
or
institutions
to
co-locate.
Within
this
area
districts,
we
found
that
districts
are
commonly
managed
by
fully
staffed
non-profit
entities
who
handle
master
planning
of
the
area.
They
regulate
development
through
things
like
protective
covenants
and
other
development
agreements,
and
they
implement
that
comprehensive
branded
programming.
H
In
two
of
the
three
examples:
the
managing
non-profit
sells
property
for
development
by
others.
In
contrast,
the
phoenix
project
is
largely
owned
by
the
city
of
phoenix.
The
land
is
largely
owned
by
them
and
the
city
ground
leases
property
to
other
entities
for
development,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
without
the
managing
non-profit,
it's
then
the
city's
responsibility
to
manage
and
program
the
campus
and
last
some
districts
are
located
within
special
tax
assessment
areas.
H
The
phoenix
project
is
not
located
within
a
special
area,
so
the
city
has
upgraded
infrastructure
and
made
other
public
improvements
to
their
capital
improvement
program,
and
the
only
development
incentive
that
we
could
find
on
the
online
was
that
the
city
provides
grants
for
the
adaptive
rays
of
historic
warehouses.
H
So
now
I'll
hand
it
off
to
care
to
cover
the
rest
of
the
slides.
I
Thanks
ashley,
so
we
wanted
to
relate
that
information
about
other
districts.
Back
to
our
proposed
disposition
strategy.
We
did
explore
several
different
real
estate
structures
that
could
be
used
in
station
center
and
ultimately
landed
on
the
proposal
to
sell
the
rds
property
to
the
university.
For
several
reasons.
I
It
could
also
allow
us
to
implement
to
use
the
land
sale
proceeds
to
implement
other
rda
priorities
across
other
project
areas,
including
north
temple
and
nine
line,
which
are
the
rda's
west
side
project
areas
and
then,
finally,
the
structure
would
position
the
university
of
utah
research
foundation
to
act
as
that
managing
non-profit
entity
for
the
district
that
we've
seen
in
other
districts
and
the
research
foundation
is
set
up
to
administer
research
parks.
So
they
have
the
infrastructure
and
the
staff
expertise.
That's
required
to
carry
out
that
kind
of
initiative.
I
I
The
next
question
was:
how
will
maintenance
of
the
public
infrastructure
be
funded
and
managed
and
are
enhanced
maintenance
services
expected
or
planned
more
than
cities,
basic
maintenance?
So
we
know
that
we
will
be
most
successful
here
if
we
use
a
district-wide
maintenance
approach
and
we're
working
with
the
university
to
determine
that
structure.
I
I
And
then,
finally,
you
asked:
what
niche
does
this
innovation
district
fill
that
isn't
covered
by
research
park
or
the
private
market,
and
how
would
the
district
complement
research
park
instead
of
competing
with
it?
So
we
wanted
to
hand
this
question
over
to
the
university
to
respond
to,
as
I'm
sure
they
put
a
lot
of
thought
into
this
aspect
of
the
project
and
I
believe
both
jonathan
bates
and
jennifer
mcgrath
have
been
assigned
as
panelists.
So
I
don't
know
which
one
wants
to
take
that
question.
J
J
We
definitely
feel
that
there
is
additional
demand
for
the
niche
market
that
research
park
today
sees
as
a
foundation,
which
is
the
life
sciences
and
the
health
sciences,
but
we
recently
commissioned
a
feasibility
study
with
hrna
in
partnership
with
the
rda
and
explored
asset
targets
around
innovation.
That
would
be
specifically
useful
in
the
station
center
area.
J
Those
included
areas
such
as
biotech
research,
healthcare,
tech
and
entrepreneurship,
food
security,
nutrition,
health,
equity
and
education,
and,
while
we're
not
able
to
get
into
specific
programming
that
the
university
will
bring
to
bear
in
this
area,
that
is
a
pretty
robust
portfolio
to
pull
from
and
we're
continuing
to
continue.
We're
excited
to
continue
to
plan
around
those
strategies,
the
land
uses
and
the
programming
that
will
leverage
station
center
to
be
a
a
beautiful
place
for
our
city
and
for
a
region.
B
Thanks
john
jonathan,
so
board
members:
do
you
have
additional
questions?
Are
you
ready
for
the
discussion,
or
maybe
I
wanted
to
ask
staff?
I
know
it's
that
informational
here,
but
are
you
looking
for
more
direction
from
us
or
it's
just
discussion
at
this
point
about
what's
being
presented.
G
A
All
right,
okay,
just
to
jump
in
and
clarify.
The
reason
is
that
property
disposition
and
acquisition
is
an
administrative
function,
and
so,
unless
there's
a
request
for
a
discount
on
the
land
value,
then
that's
it
falls
within
the
administration's
role.
B
Yeah,
thank
you
so
much
jennifer
for
for
that
clarification,
and
I
will
reiterate
that
if
the
mayor
would
like
to
dispose
of
this
property
at
fair
market
value,
she
can
and
that's
a
function
of
the
I
mean
of
the
executive
director
in
this
case.
If
she
would
like
to
dispose
of
the
of
this
land
in
a
way
that
for
an
exchange
of
something
and
so
basically
a
discount,
we
the
world,
need
to
discuss
that.
B
I
hope
that's
clear
so
have
that
in
mind
and
then,
if
you
have
other
questions,
or
I
mean
sorry,
if
we
want
to
start
discussion,
does
anybody
have
a
burning
desire
to
talk
about
this?
Go
ahead?
Darren.
D
B
G
Cara
ashley
can
jump
in
our
conversations.
Right
now
is
that
the
price
would
obviously
be
hopefully
a
fair
market
value.
We
are
negotiating
that
with
the
u
right
now,
but
to
kara
and
ashley's
earlier
comment.
It
has
always
been
anticipated
that
a
significant
amount
of
the
land
proceeds
that
the
agency
would
realize
would
be
needed
in
order
to
build
out
the
infrastructure
that
we
have
always
anticipated
building
out
as
part
of
this
project.
G
G
D
A
B
Any
other
comments
darren
on
that.
Did
you
have
a
follow-up
question
yeah
I
mean
it's
not
the
same
question.
D
But
I
guess
I'll
just
reiterate
my
concern,
which
has
remains
unchanged.
I
think
that
disposing
of
this
large
amount,
almost
two
full
city
blocks
of
rda,
owned
property
to
a
single
developer
as
great
of
a
partner,
as
I
believe
the
university
of
utah
to
be
my
concern
is
that
it
two
concerns.
One
is
an
equity
concern
of
we're
just
really
only
at
that
point
allowing
really
large
companies,
construction
companies,
architects,
engineers,
all
of
the
above-
to
participate,
because
the
project
scale
is
so
large,
so
an
equity
concern
of.
D
Are
we
empowering
small
local
businesses?
Are
we
really
sending
these
these
projects
only
out
to
large
out-of-state
firms,
or
only
the
few
very
large
in-state
firms
that
we
have
or
construction
companies,
and
then
also,
I
just
anytime,
two
city
blocks
is
designed
by
one
single
team
and
built
it.
It
turns
into
a
monotonous
urban
fabric
and
I'm
thinking
a
bit
like
city
creek
or
the
gateway,
where
my
concern
would
be
if,
if
all
the
buildings
kind
of
look
match
like
they're,
they
match
each
other,
then
it's
not.
D
It
sort
of
doesn't
lead
to
the
kind
of
vibrant
organic
community
that
I
would
hope
station
center
will
become,
and
I
I
say
that
all
understanding
that
it's
not
necessarily
me
that
gets
to
design
and
choose
what
station
center
would
become,
but
my
hope
would
be
that
it's
something
a
little
more
vibrant,
so
I
think
those
concerns
thank
you
for
addressing
them
ashley
today.
I
think
those
concerns
remain
unchanged.
D
C
B
C
Go
ahead,
amy
yeah,
I
just
I
I
wanted
to
ask
a
clarifying
question:
if
I
may,
how
long
have
we
been
with
this
property
and
waiting
to
develop
it
or
get
some
sort
of
action
going
on
there?
Danny.
G
I
It's
a
good
question.
I
think
we
started
acquiring
property
in
this
area
in
the
early
2000s
up
until
2011,
or
so
we've
been
working
with
a
consultant
to
do
the
site
planning
and
the
infrastructure
planning
for
probably
about
five
years.
I
C
I
remember
when
I
first
came
on
the
council.
This
was
one
of
the
first
things
that
we
funded
was
getting
back
to
the
infrastructure.
So
for
20
20
years
we've
been
acquiring
the
land
in
efforts
to
try
to
do
something
over
there,
and
this
is
the
project.
Forgive
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
this
is
the
project
that
the
uda
consultants
helped
us
on
correct.
I
Yeah,
I
have
no
idea
why
you
would
get
those
mixed
up,
but
you
uda
helped
us
with
the
station
area
plan
for
central
station,
which
included
uta
property.
So
this
is
station
center,
yeah.
C
B
You
thank
you,
we're
a
member
of
holler
anybody
else.
B
K
Yeah,
I'm
not,
I
don't
it's
more
of
a
comment.
I'm
just
excited
to
continue
down
this
process
and
talk
policy,
and
you
know
I
think
I
made
my
statements
last
time
that
I'm
in
favor
of
moving
forward
this
we
actually
before.
I
think
everybody
was
on
the
as
a
board
member.
Here
we
looked
at
going
single
property
single
parcels
and
it
didn't
work
out
very
well.
K
You
know
the
individual
started
and
couldn't
finish,
and
you
know
we
pivoted
completely,
because
that
is
not
going
to
work
with
the
type
of
infrastructure
needed
to
actually
spark
this
development.
K
The
architecture
school
that
would
make
for
a
great
opportunity
to
get
kids
involved
that
are
studying
architecture
to
make
this
something
that
would
be
unique
for
the
entire
area.
So
I'm
interested
in
hearing
the?
U
of
u's
response
to
a
lot
of
these
policy
questions
that
still
aren't
answered
for
us
to
move
forward.
But
for
me
I'm
all
in
on
this.
K
This
is
this
is
a
great
project,
not
only
I
feel
like
we're
killing
two
birds
with
one
stone
getting
the
infrastructure
taken
care
of,
as
well
as
doing
a
catalytic
project
or
a
catalyst
towards
the
other
rda
project
areas
on
the
west
side,
whether
it's
the
nine
line
or
north
temple.
So
there's
a
lot
to
be
said
with
20
years
of
trying
and
trying
and
trying-
and
here
we
are
having
a
willing
partner
to
actually
make
it
happen.
C
Madam
chair,
may
I
yes,
I
just
want
to
echo
james's
our
board,
remember
rogers's
thoughts
here
and
that
you
know.
I
think
that
and-
and
I
actually
had
this
discussion
with
miranda
hall
just
the
other
day-
that
at
for
for
a
long
time,
we
it
seems
like
the
default,
was
to
sell
our
land,
and
I
think
that
our
council,
when
I
first
came
on
the
council,
it
was
a
discussion
of
leasing
it
and
doing
those
things.
C
But
when
it's
right,
maybe
it's
the
right
thing
to
sell
it
and
that
really
evaluating
when
it's
right
and
when
it's
not
and
instead
of
making
it
a
default,
making
it
a
question
of
looking
at
when
we
have
the
partners
that
are
willing
to
buy
it
or
willy,
and
it
makes
sense
in
in
a
lot
of
different
ways
that
you
know
I
don't
want
the
pendulum
to
swing
so
far
to
the
other
side
that
we're
not
evaluating
properties
on
a
case-by-case
basis
and
saying
what
really
is
right
for
the
city
and
so
and-
and
I
think
that
we've
done
that
here,
I
really
do.
C
I
think
that
the
analysis
has
been
done.
We
have
a
to
james's
point.
We
have
a
great
willing
partner
and
we've
been
sitting
on
land
for
20
years
that
we're
still
like
need
something
to
be
done
right
and,
and
we
want
something
there
to
be
done,
and
I
think
that
we
have
an
opportunity
to
work
with
somebody.
That's
willing
to
to
look
at
this
and
say
what
can
we
do?
C
You
know
and
if
we're
looking
at
some
equitable
issues,
I
think
bringing
access
to
I'm
going
to
say
it,
because
I'm
a
you
alum
to
the
the
best
university
in
the
state
to
people
closer
to
some
of
our
west
side
area.
You
know
we
can
argue
about
what
side
is
the
west
side
and
what
side's
the
east
side,
but
this
is
certainly
closer
than
up
on
the
hill
and
we're
bringing
access
to
to
people
there,
and
I
think
that
we
have
a
real
opportunity
to
do
something
cool
here
and
I
look
forward.
B
Thanks
amy
anybody
else,
I
don't
see
you
know
I
I
I
agree
with
what's
being
said
in
general.
I
think
we
have
this
great
opportunity
with
this
great
partner
and
the
way
I
see
it
is
that
because
what
they
said,
you
know
they
they
want
a
stronger
presence
if
you
will
or
a
more
geographic
presence
within
our
city,
in
a
stronger
partnership
with
our
city
and
obviously
with
our
state,
and
they
are
an
asset
to
salt
lake
city
to
enter
the
state.
B
We
we
have
this
amazing
asset
that
wants
to
expand
and
provide
different
opportunities
for
life
sciences
and
health
sciences
and
they're
willing
to
do
more
for
equity
and
more
to
help
lower
income
populations
and
and
and
see
how
we
can
integrate
everything.
So
I
see
this
as
as
amazing,
star
opportunity.
Somebody
is
willing
and
wants
to
stay
and
expand
and
be
partners
with
us.
It
and
then
here
and
and
but
what
they
don't
have
is
the
land
and
that's
also
our
asset.
That's
our
biggest
asset,
as
they
see
us
right.
They
they.
B
They
would
like
this
piece
of
land
that
they
don't
own
at
this
point,
but
I
think,
regardless
of
that,
I
think
a
partnership
could
still
happen
and
perhaps
not
necessarily
having
to
dispose
of
our
land
and
again.
This
is
an
executive
director
decision.
If
that's
for
fair
market
value.
That
can
happen.
B
I
completely
understand,
but
I
think
there
should
be
a
way
for
this
assets
to
benefit
both
parties
and
when
I
say
both
parties,
I
say
the
institution
and
also
the
taxpayers
with
the
land
that
we
have
right
now
and
hopefully
we
can
guard
it
in
perpetuity
as
land.
It
becomes
more
valuable
and
less
and
finite,
obviously,
and
some
funds
that
we
will
not.
A
Is
there
I
know
that
you
has
had
up
several
like
think
tanks
and
or
no
not
think
tanks
like
incubators
for
small
businesses,
and
things
like
that
will
maybe
this
is
like
this
discussion
is
too
far
down
the
road,
but
is
there
a
way
to
address
what
councilmember
romano
is
saying
about
you
know
supporting
small
businesses
or
having
a
portion
of
the
this
area,
benefit
small
businesses
or
incubate
small
businesses
and
still
have
the
benefits
of
a
larger
institutional
partner,
and
is
that
a
discussion
that
we
can
talk
about
going
forward
or
is
there
already
plans
for
that
in
in
what
the
university's
vision
is.
J
Madam
chair,
if
possible,
I'd
love
to
respond
to
that,
as
well
as
to
a
couple
of
the
points
that
council
nano
brought
up.
J
So
councilman
morton
that's
an
excellent
point
and
something
I
didn't
elaborate
elaborate
on
well
in
my
answer
earlier,
but
we
absolutely
see
station
center
as
a
focal
point
for
startup,
spinoffs
and
and
company
creation
coming
out
of
the
institution
being
up
on
the
hill.
The
ability
of
those
startup
companies
to
grow
is
problematic.
J
We
still
feel
that
our
existing
research
park
is
the
ideal
place
for
early
stage
companies,
but
we
feel
that
creating
an
opportunity
for
those
companies
to
evolve
and
grow
in
space
closer
to
the
cbd,
as
well
as
to
the
northwest
quadrant,
will
strengthen
our
position
in
in
one
supporting
startups,
but
also
attracting
other
startups
to
our
region
from
outside
of
the
state,
so
we're
absolutely
focused
on
creating
affordable,
equitable
access
to
smaller
type
firms
in
station
center.
J
J
K
B
K
You
know
what
one
thing
I
failed
to
mention
is
that
the
life
science
spaces
are
are
really
almost
maxed
out.
I've
got
people
coming
to
me
all
the
time
asking
me
well
when
you're
going
to
build
a
building.
When
are
you
going
to
do
this?
We've
got,
I
don't
want
to
say
a
competitor,
but
we
do.
We've
got
the
silicon
slopes
and
we've
got
lehigh.
K
We've
got
all
those
areas
where
they're
building
sole
buildings
stand-alone
buildings
for
whatever
is
coming
their
way
and
I'm
afraid
that
if
we
don't
take
action
or
support
the
action
that
is
necessary
on
this,
it's
just
going
to
pass
us
by
and
this
next
hub
is
going
to
be
somewhere
else
outside
of
salt
lake
city.
So
I
don't
think
that
you're
going
to
have
developers
coming
and
knocking
out
the
door
to
tell
you
that,
but
that
is
what
is
being
spoken
of
out
there
currently
in
the
market.
K
I
have
people
approaching
me
all
the
time
we
have
a
vacant
parking
lot.
You
know
I've
expressed
that
to
you.
You
and
I
have
talked
about
spoken
offline
about
that.
But
you
know
there
is
just
they're
trying
to
gobble
up
anything
and
anything
anything
and
everything
that
they
possibly
can
in
order
to
fulfill
the
needs
that
are
currently
out
there
with
life
sciences.
We
know
boston,
we
know
san
diego.
K
B
B
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
we're
really
not
competing
with
them
in
a
way
they
are
where
they
are
and
they
will
stay.
We
need
to
provide
those
space
for
life
sciences
and
health
sciences
and
and
the
innovation
of
this.
You
know
that
might
not
necessarily
just
be
silicon
so
but
other
type
of
workforce
and
that
they
don't
have
and
that's,
I
think,
as
I
understood
my
meeting
with
the.
B
U
was
that
that's
what
they're
trying
to
capture
because
of
what
you
just
said:
there's
a
there's,
a
lot
of
need
and,
and
they
with
that,
need
and
then
you'll
be
wanting
to
be
more
present
in
our
city.
Then
station
center
will
be
the
perfect
space
for
them,
as
you
said,
and
I
completely
agree,
and
I
and
I
think
it's
a
great
opportunity,
I
think,
and
because
it's
a
great
opportunity,
because
we
have
entrepreneurs
here
like
in
people
like
like
clark,
you
know
this
great
champion
of
of
seeing
what
it
could
be.
B
You
know
what
more
it
could
be
and
the
opportunities
that
we
have-
and
you
know
we
we
can
dream
and
sky,
is
the
limit
and
I
think,
there's
a
way
to
make
this
deal
work
and
I
hope
it
happens.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
also
keep
in
mind.
You
know,
at
least
in
my
mind,
the
land
disposition
is
where
I'm
always
caught
up.
A
K
K
I'm
on
board
with
you
100,
and
these
are
I'm
not
speaking
with
non-profits,
I'm
talking
for-profit
developers
that
are
looking
at
this.
So
if
you
want
to
I'd,
be
more
than
willing,
I've
had
three
come
to
me
in
the
past
month
to
discuss
it.
So
if
you'd
like,
I
can
set
those
up
and
we
can
talk
about
it.
D
Yeah,
I
I
guess
so
I
I
hear
that
everyone's
goal
is
mixed
use
and
that
that's
going
to
be
a
priority.
But
how
do
we
ensure
that
if
we
sell
the
land-
and
we
turn
over
all
of
the
management
of
the
rfps
and
the
the
development
process
over
to
the
university
utah?
Do
we
have?
Is
there
a
way
within
the
development
agreement?
D
I'm
just
not
sure
what
that
looks
like
to
ensure
that
it
really
is
mixed
use
and
not
just
like
you
know,
a
cafe
at
the
bottom
of
a
large
research
building
like
what
you
might
see
on
a
university
of
utah
campus,
which
is
appropriate
on
us
on
a
college
campus.
But
I'm
hopeful
that
this
isn't
just
purely
an
extension
of
a
college
campus
that
it's
actually
a
a
vibrant
urban
center,
and
so
that
that's
I
mean-
and
maybe
it's
just
not
something
that
we're
going
to
get
out
of
this
project.
D
C
Madam
jerry
am
I
I
again
cara
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
thought
that
we
had
discussed
a
sort
of
governance
board
with
this,
that
the
city
would
still
be
a
part
of
the
conversation,
whether
it
be
the
city,
the
rda,
but
there
would
that
the
last
time
we
had
a
briefing
my.
C
I
remember
this
sort
of
structure,
although
it
had
me
not
have
been
all
the
way
flushed
out
yet
the
idea
of
having
a
kind
of
governance
to
this,
wherein
we
would
have
a
voice
still
in
this
and
and
make
this
really,
the
partnership.
Am
I
wrong.
Did
I
make
that
up.
B
C
C
I
think
that
it
seemed
to
me
from
the
last
briefing
that
the?
U
was
really
working
with
the
rda
and
saying
what
does
this
board
look
like,
making
sure
that
the
the
either
the
rda
board
or
the
city
council
or
administration,
the
city,
whoever
that
physician
may
be,
or
maybe
one
from
each
I
don't
know-
was
there
and
had
a
voice
right.
C
B
We
won't
be
able
to
persuade
you
know
the
majority
to
you
know
to
to
fulfill
our
hopes
and
dreams
of
when
we
sold
this
land
when
we
dispose
of
it,
and
so
I
think
that's
something
to
to
to
look
closely
how
this
government
board
will
work.
G
G
I
will
add
on
to
that
that
we
as
an
rda
then,
will
further
ensure
that
happens
not
just
as
a
function
of
what
our
design
guidelines
are
for
the
property
right
now,
but
also
within
our
development
agreements
and
participation
agreements
that
we'll
put
in
place
with
the
university
as
part
of
the
sale
and
then
to
board
member
fowler's
comment.
Yes,
we
anticipate
that
either
the
agency
or
the
city
will
hopefully
have
an
ongoing
role
on
the
governance
structure,
but
at
that
point
that's
primarily
just
governance.
G
Strict
at
that
point,
so
the
controls.
Don't
necessarily
happen
on
the
back
end
as
much
as
when
we
dispose
of
this
property
and
negotiate
with
the?
U?
For
that.
Initial
development
of
what
those
buildings
and
uses
are.
That's
where
we
will
ensure
that
this
is
a
major
part
of
the
innovation
district
and
how
it's
built
out
and
how
it
functions
and
how
it's
set
up
to
do
that
in
perpetuity.
B
B
We
are
moving
on
to
item
number
four,
which
is
a
resolution
for
fiscal
year:
2021-22,
affordable
housing,
development
funding,
priorities,
follow-up
and
at
the
table.
We
have
alison
roland
from
our
city
council
office,
danny
walls
and
tommy
hunsaker.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
as
a
reminder
for
the
board.
This
is
a
continuation
of
the
discussions
over
the
past
few
months
that
have
been
going
on
to
define
the
housing
development
funding
priorities
for
fiscal
year
2022.
I
So
these
discussions
and
and
the
resolution
that
comes
out
of
this
is
intended
as
policy
direction
for
rda
staff
as
they
consider
applications
for
an
fy22
nofa
which
they
hope
to
have
out
in
a
few
months
in
future
years.
The
annual
priorities
discussion
will
be
scheduled
during
march
or
april,
so
it
will
happen
before
budget
discussions
begin,
but
that
wasn't
possible
this
year.
I
L
Thanks,
madam
chair
and
allison
taylor,
is
it
possible
for
me
to
share
my
screen.
L
Hopefully,
okay,
yes,
moving
forward
as
alison,
provided
an
overview
of
this
annual
housing
funding
strategy
and
funding.
Priorities
really
comes
out
of
two
policy
resolutions
that
the
board
adopted
earlier
this
year.
That's
why
this
process
is
being
carried
out
a
little
bit
later
than
we
anticipate
in
the
future,
but
the
idea
with
the
funding
strategies
is
rather
than
having
static,
funding
priorities
that
live
within
the
root
policy
resolutions
that
would
last
over
years
or
even
decades,
the
board
will
have
flexibility
to
tailor
funding
priorities
on
an
annual
basis
to
take
advantage
of
current
opportunities.
L
Other
resources
and
address
current
community
needs
and
also
allow
the
funding
strategies
to
evolve
as
the
city's
housing
plan
is
updated
and
other
policy
priorities
are
put
in
place.
So
the
board
adopted
the
annual
budget
earlier
this
year,
as
you
know,
which
has
the
housing
allocations
in
it.
So
the
process
we're
at
right
now
is
these
annual
funding
priorities
and
then
staff
will
take
the
funding
priorities
and
administer
the
housing
funds
through
a
competitive,
no
fall
process.
L
So
the
housing
funding
priorities
are
applied
in
two
ways:
we've
talked
about
this
before
they
will
be
used
to
rank
and
prioritize
applications
that
we
receive
through
the
nofa
and
also
to
provide
interest
rate
reductions
to
the
base
interest
rate
of
loans
for
those
projects
that
are
selected
for
funding.
So
the
priorities
for
allocating
funds.
What
we
have
heard
as
rda
staff
from
board
members
in
previous
discussions
is
that
board
members
are
interested
in
elevating
certain
certain
priorities,
higher
than
other
priorities
that
were
proposed.
L
Also,
there
has
been
interest
in
making
the
sustainability
priority
a
threshold
requirement,
and
in
your
memo
and
transmittal,
we
have
proposed
this
threshold
requirement
and
it's
to
meet
enhanced
energy
performance,
and
it
would
apply
to
all
projects
receiving
400,
000
or
more
in
funding,
and
it
would
require
that
the
energy
use
intensity
of
the
project
is
25
lower
than
the
median
energy
use
intensity
of
similar
buildings
or
the
building
can
achieve
a
designed
to
energy
to
earn
energy
star,
and
that
is
the
energy
star
score
that
may
be
obtained
before
a
building
is
put
into
operation,
and
then
we
would
also
require
for
ongoing
tracking
and
monitoring
of
these
requirements,
that
the
city
that
the
projects
participate
in
the
city's
sustainability
department's
elevate
buildings
program
and
then
looking
at
priorities
for
interest
rate
reductions.
L
A
few
notes
on
how
these
are
applied.
There
is
a
base
interest
rate
to
each
loan.
That
is
around
three
percent.
So
each
funding
priority
that
a
project
qualifies
for
would
receive
a
0.5
interest
rate
reduction
and
the
the
kind
of
floor
on
this
would
be.
It
could
only
go
down
to
one
percent,
so
the
ceiling
is
three
percent
and
the
floor
is
one
percent
and
for
each
point,
five
percent
interest
rate
reduction.
The
project
qualifies
for
on
a
30-year
term
that
would
provide
about
77
000
in
savings
or
6400
annually.
L
L
So
we
have
reworked
the
funding
priorities
that
we
proposed
originally
earlier
this
year,
based
on
what
we've
heard
from
the
board.
So
this
is
a
possible
scenario.
This
is
in
your
transmittal
packet.
We
have
created
sustainability
as
a
threshold
requirement
with
the
language
that
we
reviewed
on
the
previous
slide.
We
also
elevated
fund
leveraging
to
a
threshold
threshold
requirement,
so
the
maximum
amount
of
rda
contribution
to
the
capital
stack
would
be
10,
so
those
would
be
required
to
receive
funding,
and
then
we
have
weighted
this
column.
L
Is
the
nofa
rank
weight
so
the
higher
the
number?
The
more
importance
we
would
put
on
that
funding
priority.
So
we
have
weighted
family
housing
target
populations
which
are
those
special
populations
and
at-risk
populations,
neighborhood
safety
which
is
revitalizing
and
redeveloping,
severely
distressed
properties,
home
ownership
and
transportation
opportunities.
We've
weighted
those
higher
at
a
three.
L
B
Thank
you
tammy,
so
I
think
it
would
be
important
to
remind
the
world
that
this
proposal
right
now
we
see
like
it's
flexible
as
tammy
mentioned,
but
it's
also
for
just
this
fiscal
year,
21
22-
and
we
will
have
to
review
this
again
in
march
to
see
you
know
what
we
need
to
to
switch
here
to
be
more
effective
in
our
priorities
to
make
an
impact
in
the
community.
B
So
this
is
in
a
way
in
a
few
months
so
that
we
can
get
this
nofa
going
and
then
we'll
review
it
again
in
a
few
months
from
now
so
more
members
yeah
go
ahead.
D
Thanks
yeah
tammy.
I
appreciate
that
presentation.
I
I
I
think,
as
laid
out
the
priorities
all
seem
good.
I
appreciate
some
of
the
thresholds
and
the
prioritization
of
them.
I
think
we
could
get
into
the
details
of
whether
we
want
one
versus
the
other
to
be
a
two
or
a
three
or
a
one.
But
what
would
help
me
with
that
conversation
and
I'm
not
proposing
necessarily
that
anything
change
for
this
year?
D
But
what
would
help
me
in
that
conversation
in
future
years
is
if
we
could
have
some
type
of
reporting
prior
to
our
discussion
on
that
of
in
the
past
year.
This
is
how
many,
how
many
units,
or
how
many
dollars
or
how
many
projects
hit
goals
one
two
three
one
through
thirteen
and
which
goals
were
missing
so
that
we
could
retool
that
and
say:
okay.
Well,
maybe
this
year
we
need
to.
D
We
need
to
really
focus
on
historic
preservation
and
adaptive
reuse
because
none
of
our
funding
went
to
that
last
year,
and
so
maybe
next
year
we
we
adjust
that
to
a
three
instead
of
a
one,
so
that
type
of
reporting
mechanism,
I
think,
would
be
really
helpful,
and
I
don't
know
if
that
goes
by
how
many
dollars
went
into
a
certain
project
or
how
many
units
included
a
certain
project
or
how
many
projects
total
were
there.
But-
and
maybe
it's
maybe
it's
a
matrix
of
all
of
the
information.
D
But
I
think
that
would
be
really
helpful
for
me
to
know
if,
if,
if
some
things
should
be
prioritized
differently
in
the
next
funding
year,
that's
what
I
would
hope
we
could
see.
I
don't
see
anything
right
now
that
I
want
to
advocate
for
having
changed
and
then
a
separate
comment.
D
I
appreciate
tammy
that
you
talked
about
the
mayor's
proposed
ordinance
and
I
was
I
was
reading
in
the
mayor's
2021
plan
about
a
proposed
city
council,
propose
a
city
council
to
the
city
council
in
ordinance
that
requires
all
new
buildings
to
be
funded
by
city
money
to
be
emission
free,
and
so
I
support
that
idea,
and
I
hope
that
that
will
be
included
in
that
larger
ordinance
that
we
get,
and
I
think
it
could
actually
also
potentially
be
included
just
in
this
interim
as
well.
D
So
in
addition
to
these
lower
energy
consumption,
but
we
also
are
requiring
the
buildings
to
be
emission
free,
which
I
think
means
that
it's
there's
no
gas-fired
utilities,
it's
it's
all
electric
which
is
cleaner
for
our
air.
So
those
would
be
my
comments,
I'm
interested
in
that
emission-free
thing
and
I'd
be
interested
in
potentially
including
in
this.
If
we
felt
comfortable
doing
so,.
A
L
Yes,
director
mano,
thank
you
for
your
comments
on
the
reporting
and
that's
exactly
how
we
want
to
structure
it
moving
forward.
We
didn't
really
have
time
this
year
to
get
into
that,
and-
and
I
think,
once
this
is
adopted,
it
will
kind
of
create
a
baseline
for
funding
priorities
moving
forward.
So
we
will
definitely
come
back
with
the
reporting
on
how
the
funding
priorities
were
applied
and
how
they
were
met
and
how
the
funding
essentially
was
executed
in
the
community
in
terms
of
number
of
projects.
L
Units
am
amis,
everything
of
that
sort
and
then,
in
regard
to
the
sustainability
policy,
you're
exactly
right
with
the
zero
emission
buildings
by
2023.
B
E
Thank
you
tammy,
and
thank
you
danny
for
putting
this
together.
I
I
really
appreciate
that
the
thought
that
went
into
these
this
ranking-
and
I
want
to
kind
of
echo
what
what
remember
mono
said.
I
agree
with
that,
and
I
think
this
is
a
great
starting
point.
As
chair
voldemort
said
we're
going
to
be
reviewing
this
again
in
a
matter
of
days
come
march,
and
so
I
think
this
is
a
great
starting
point.
We
look
at
this
and
we
can
adjust
from
there,
but
I
think
your
top
priorities
are
solid.
E
I
just
spoke
with
the
school
board.
I
think
it
was
yesterday.
I
spoke
with
the
school
board
and
you
know:
family
housing
was
one
of
their
big
concerns
at
the
school
level
and
I
think
that's
we.
We
got
to
keep
that
on
our
and
that
probably
also
dovetails
right
into
the
target
population,
so
I
think
we're
on
the
right
track
here.
E
If
we
have
to
tweak
things
you
know
come
march,
we
can
do
that,
but
then,
at
that
point
we'll
have
some
data
to
back
our
tweaking
up
with
what
we're
going
to
get
provided
over
the
next
few
months.
So
I'm
very
in
favor
of
moving
forward
with
this
and
then
adjusting
as
we
see
fit
come
march
time
frame.
So
I
appreciate
all
the
effort
and
the
thought
that
went
into
this
and
also
thank
you
allison
for
helping
out
that
appreciate
very
much.
B
Anybody
else,
let
me
see,
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
up.
If
I
don't
see
you
you
want
to
speak,
just
speak
all
right,
so
my
guess
is
that
we
are
mostly
in
favor
of
this
danny
and
tammy.
Is
that
what
you
wanted
to
hear
so
that
you
can
move
forward.
L
Yeah,
madam
chair,
I
forgot
to
tell
you
that
there
is
a
resolution
provided
in
the
packet.
The
resolution
does
not
have
funding
priorities
attached
it,
so
you
would
want
to
adopt
the
resolution
with
the
funding
priorities
as
presented
and
we'll
just
attach
those
or
if
there
are
any
modifications
we
can
do
that
as
well.
Okay,.
E
I
knew
that
the
board
adopted
the
resolution,
titled
fy2021-22,
affordable
housing
funding
priorities
for
the
final
funding
priorities
be
provided
as
presented
to
the
resolution.
B
Thank
you.
I
have
a
motion
by
board
member
dugan
and
a
second
by
board
member
ferris.
I'm
gonna
roll
call
this
board
member
rogers.
B
A
B
And
I
am
a
yes,
so
it
does
pass.
Thank
you
very
much
rda
staff
and
ourself
for
this.
This
is
awesome.
I'm
excited
to
see
what
comes
out
of
this
and
we
will
have
to
bump
one
of
our
items,
which
is
item
number
five
to
our
next
meeting
and
we're
going
into
item
number
six
reports
report
announcements
from
the
executive
director.
B
All
right,
thank
you.
We're
moving
on
to
number
number
seven
report:
announcements
from
the
rda
staff.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Just
a
quick,
a
few
updates
here:
number
one:
victor
dugan.
I
appreciate
you
lumping
me
into
tammy's
efforts
on
those
housing
priorities
and
thinking
that
I
have
really
anything
to
do
with
that.
I'd
like
to
thank
tammy
for
all
of
her
work
on
that,
because
she's
really
done
a
great
job
of
pulling
that
together.
So
I
I
would
feel
guilty
if
I
took
any
praise
from
you
for
that.
G
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
clear
that
that
was
entirely
tammy
and
honestly
rest
of
staff
as
it
relates
to
sustainability
efforts
and
everything.
But
thank
you
for
that.
So
other
updates
just
wanted
to
give
real
fast.
The
agency
has
closed
on
the
property
from
the
tongan
church
at
877,
west
and
400
south.
Thank
you
to
the
mayor
and
board
for
allocating
those
funds.
G
So
we
just
closed
on
it
and
we're
starting
to
to
then
focus
our
attention
on
the
next
steps,
but
want
to
let
you
know
that
that
is
now
in
the
official
agency
property.
So
thank
you
again
for
that.
G
Construction
has
also
started
on
the
600
south
main
track
station,
which
uta
has
sent
out
a
small
press
release
on
that
was
covered
by
a
couple
of
news
outlets,
but
that
has
begun
and
then
we're
also
if
it
hasn't
been
finalized.
Already
we're
looking
to
finalize
the
schedule
for
beginning
construction
on
the
300
west
streetscape
improvements.
These
are
the
ones
north
of
300
north,
not
the
mess
that
is
on
the
south
end
of
the
city.
G
But
this
is
the
beautification
on
the
north
side
of
300
west,
so
we
have
been
in
contact
with
the
capitol
hill,
neighborhood,
council
and
west
high
school
regarding
the
schedule
and
any
impacts
and
mitigation
we
can
for
that
corridor
and
then,
finally,
just
an
update,
if
you
haven't
been
participating,
letting
everyone
know
that
events
at
the
gallivan
center
are
in
full
swing.
They
are
primarily
booked
for
the
remainder
of
the
summer
and
fall.
G
So
some
of
the
events
that
have
already
happened
there
was
a
free
family,
friendly
drag
show
by
saying
that
five
times
fast,
as
well
as
the
first
afro-utah
festival.
I
recently
so,
and
then
this
past
week
saw
the
kickoff
of
the
five-part
twilight
concert
series.
So
if
you
have
any
questions
on
that,
I
would
invite
you
to
check
out
their
new
and
updated
website
for
their
schedule.
So
that
is
all
we
have
for
updates
appreciate
it.
Unless
there's
any
questions
from
the
members
of.
B
The
board,
I
don't
see,
anybody's
end
up,
so
thank
you,
danny
and
and
rest
of
the
staff
for
all
the
work
that
you
do
we're
moving
on
to.
We
have
amd,
which
is
a
briefing
so
please
take
a
look
at
that.
It's
informational
about
there'll,
be
a
commercial
loan
portfolio
and
if
you
have
a
little
question
you
may
ask
steph,
I
don't
e
it's
consent,
we
don't
have
any
any,
but
we
do
have
a
closed
session.
B
So
I
need
a
motion
for
a
closed
session
for
strategy
sessions
to
discuss
the
purchase,
exchange,
release
of
real
property
and
advisor
council
go
ahead.
K
Madam
sure,
I'm
sure
I'm
going
to
let
board
member
wharton.
Do
it
since
he's
really
good
at
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
in
our
email
we
received
a
some
comments
from
george
chapman.
He
was
unable
to
log
on.
I
just
wanted
it
on
the
record
that
he
we
all
received
that
email
he's
got
several
comments
on
that.
So.
A
Thank
you,
councilmember
rogers,
madam
chair.
I
move
that
we
go
into
a
closed
session
for
the
purpose
of
discussing
acquisition
of
property
and
advice
of
counsel.
Second,.
A
B
A
E
B
Tyler,
if
she
is
not
back,
follower
is
absent
and
I'm
a
yes
so
we're
moving
into
the
closed
session.
Let
me
see
if
we
have
a
different
link.