►
From YouTube: Salt Lake City Council Work Session - 03/14/2023
Description
To view the agenda for this meeting go to https://slc.primegov.com/public/portal
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Thank
you,
Cindy
Lou.
Welcome
to
today's
city
council
meeting.
We
continue
to
host
hybrid
meetings
to
keep
everyone
healthy
and
safe.
Our
meetings
are
public
and
you
are
welcome
to
join
us
in
person
on
WebEx
or
by
watching
from
the
council's
agenda
page
Facebook,
YouTube
or
SLC
TV.
We
hope
you'll
continue
to
join
us
in
whichever
manner
you
feel
most
comfortable.
This
is
a
work
session
meeting
during
which
there
is
no
public
comment.
Please
join
us
on
March
21st
during
our
7
PM
formal
meeting.
To
share
your
comments.
B
While
you're
pulling
that
up
I
just
want
to
let
the
public
and
council
members
know
I
think
you
may
have
heard
this
already,
but
we're
going
to
switch
items
two
and
three
so
we'll
do
through
the
Adu
discussion
immediately
after
the
administrative
updates
and
then
the
public
asset
yield.
Informational
discussion
will
be
following
the
Adu
discussion.
C
C
Is
with
ballpark
next,
we
wanted
to
give
a
quick
reminder
that
the
ballpark
next
competition
ends
this
Friday
at
midnight.
So
there
is
no
time
like
the
present
for
community
members
to
send
in
their
ideas.
Last
night,
the
ballpark
Community
Council
also
hosted
a
dialogue
on
the
departure
of
the
bees,
the
ballpark
next
competition
and
the
future
of
the
ballpark.
It
was
a
great
dialogue
which
included
the
mayor
and
council
member
mono.
C
B
Just
interrupt
you
for
a
second
and
just
say
thank
you
to
the
community
members
who
organized
that
I
actually
thought.
That
was
one
of
the
most
productive
and
positive
meetings,
albeit
sad
for
a
lot
of
people.
But
it
really
helped
me
hear
the
community
and
I
think
it
helped
the
community
hear
each
other
and
hear
us.
So
thank
you
to
the
it
was,
and
it
was
all
led
by
community
members.
So
thank
you
for
those
community
members
who
put
that
together.
C
Our
next
announcement
is
the
Earth
Day
cleanup
that
Katie
Riser
on
our
team
is
organizing
Salt
Lake
City's
annual
Spring
River
cleanup
is
returning.
It's
going
to
be
held
April
22nd,
starting
at
8
A.M.
You
can
enjoy
a
free
volunteer
breakfast,
followed
by
a
community
work
day
with
projects
that
include
tree
planting
canoeing,
Trailside,
cleanups,
art
projects
and
more
all
along
the
Jordan.
River
registration
is
required
for
the
event,
and
you
can
learn
more
and
sign
up
at
our
City's
events.
C
E
The
eim
Liberty
Park
will
be
a
focus
this
week
for
the
larger
efforts
with
the
county
health
department
in
the
city
currently
about
34
heart
tracked
camps
across
the
city
and
voas,
looking
at
eight
camps
and
active
engagement
with
them,
trying
to
get
them
into
services
and
resolve
those
and
then
10,
plus
another
15
site
rehabilitations.
For
for
the
rapid
intervention
team
across
the
city,
there
was
a
planned
resource,
Fair
last
Friday
that
was
canceled
due
to
the
weather.
E
However,
they
were
able
to
move
the
resources
essentially
over
to
RIT
and
encampment
work
and
added
a
warming
tent
to
some
cleanup
efforts
so
having
a
warming
tent
at
the
same
time
for
folks
to
go
to,
while
their
cleanup
is
happening,
so
they
can
be
out
of
the
cold,
get
some
resources.
There
is
helpful,
so
we'll
continue
to
do
that
as
much
as
they
have
the
resources
to
do
it.
E
The
next
fair
is
April,
14th
I
think
it's
scheduled
right
now
for
a
location,
but
we
may
be
talking
about
using
it
as
part
of
the
closure
of
the
current
overflows.
So
we'll
give
you
more
information
as
we
get
closer
to
that
and
then
maybe
exciting
news
for
you
all
kayak
Court
restarts
for
this
year
on
May
19th
weather
pending,
obviously
so
go
out
on
the
on
the
river
again
and
then
operation
homeless.
Connect
is
on
March,
24th
and
I
know.
E
E
E
They
have
the
ability
to
stay
open
until
the
end
of
April,
essentially
based
on
city
and
and
state
ordinance,
and
so,
instead
of
remaining
completely
open
until
the
end
of
that
date,
and
then
that
date,
they
just
sort
of
end
and
everyone
gets
sort
of
turned
away.
They
tend
to
ramp
down
over
a
period
of
time,
starting
now,
and
so
what
they'll
do
is
in
the
mornings.
E
They
have
some
beds
that
are
hold
for
multiple
days
and
some
beds
that
are
every
night
and
then
the
Overflow
beds
that
are
nightly
so
in
the
morning.
They
ask
people
who
want
to
stay
in
the
next
night
if
they
want
to
stay
in
and
they
can
stay
there
and
go
forward
in
that
same
bed,
but
generally
every
day,
there's
a
couple
of
beds,
a
handful
at
a
time
that
just
don't
get
re-upped
immediately
and
generally
those
get
repurposed
during
the
day
to
somebody
else.
E
What
they
do
in
the
ram
down
is
those
particular
beds
that
are
not
accounted
for
in
the
morning.
They'll
actually
close
those
so
over
time
they
descend
the
number
of
beds
available
until
the
end
date.
So
there's
not
a
sort
of
harsh
turn
off
that
first
night,
but
it's
more
of
a
gradual
process
of
that.
It's
still
difficult
and
I'll
be
very
clear
with
you
from
the
operator
perspective,
this
is
the
worst
part
of
their
year
when
they
have
to
decrease
beds
and
turn
people
away
at
that
point,
some
sometime
in
the
springtime.
E
So
it's
not
permanent
closure
until
the
end
of
April,
but
based
on
situational
needs.
It
could
increase
the
beds
on
a
nightly
basis.
The
different
it's
a
different
situation
in
St
Vincent
de
Paul
and
Mill
Creek,
as
those
are
all
overnight
only
not
day
in
day
out
all
day
long
and
so
Saint
Vincent
De
Paul
does
close
the
April
15th
based
on
the
conditional
use
from
the
city.
That's
the
same.
D
D
E
Yeah,
so
we
had
three
projects
that
were
funded
through
the
city:
homelessness,
housing,
Grant,
two
of
them
are
moving
forward
with
Renovations,
have
permits
I,
believe
and
I
think
they're
on
track.
I
think
May
May
1st
is
probably
the
deadline
for
that.
A
debt
majority
of
beds,
the
third
one
we
are
working
with
them-
it's
probably
a
slower
rollout,
but
they
will
have
beds
available
from
what
we're
seeing
right
now.
E
B
Great
council
members
any
other
questions
for
the
administration.
Thank
you
so
much
for
being
here
and
for
those
updates
appreciate
that.
Okay,
moving
on
to
item
posted
item
number
three,
the
second
thing
we'll
do
tonight
is
a
follow-up
discussion
on
our
accessory
dwelling
unit,
ordinance
amendments.
B
F
B
We've
spent
a
lot
of
time
saying
laying
out
our
policy
positions
and
I.
Some
of
that
may
be
necessary
here
as
well,
but
I'd
ask
that
we
don't
reiterate
the
the
reasoning
behind
things
and
just
focus
on
these
possible
solutions
with
the
intent
that
the
public
can
be
as
informed
as
possible
next
week
when
they
come
to
give
us
another.
B
We
have
a
second
public
hearing
scheduled
because
of
this
additional
discussion
so
that
they
can,
if,
if
possible
and
for
staff
purposes,
attorney's
office
purposes,
if
possible,
for
us
to
get
down
to
like
a
couple
options
that
we're
considering.
That
would
be
the
most
efficient
for
staff
resources.
So
they
don't,
they
can
actually
draft
alternate
motions
and
ordinances
if
that's
possible.
That
would
be
great,
but
just
laying
out
this
chart,
the
from
the
spectrum
of
keeping
owner
occupancy
requirement
to
all
the
way
removing
it.
There
are
a
few
things.
B
B
The
next
closest
would
be-
and
this
is
up
for
discussion-
maybe
they're,
not
you-
don't
think
they're
in
the
same
Spectrum,
but
the
next
would
be
keeping
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
for
now,
but
allowing
that
to
sunset
in
two
years.
Unless
the
council
acts
again,
the
next
one
would
be
the
idea
of
requiring
owner
occupancy
for
the
construction
of
adus.
B
But
after
a
certain
number
of
years,
and
no
substantiated
enforcement
actions
against
or
code
enforcement
violations
that
could
be
applied
to
remove
the
owner
occupancy.
They
could
then
move
or
sell
to
someone
that
is
not
owner
occupied.
That
would
allow
on
non-owner
occupied
Aid
use
to
sort
of
trickle
into
the
city,
rather
than
allowing
a
big
run-on
developers
or
organizations
coming
in
and
buying
big
swaths
of
of
the
community
and
seeing
if
those
sort
of
Adu
the
non-owneroccupied
adus
that
trickle
in
do
present
problems
or
not.
B
Personally,
I
would
like
that
to
be
removed
because
we're
putting
additional
restrictions
on
single-family
uses.
When
they're
in
multi-family
zones,
which
are
sort
of
under
utilizing
their
land
value
and
so
I
to
me,
it's
sort
of
backwards
for
us
to
say.
Well,
you
already
don't
have
as
much
density
as
you're
allowed
to
do,
but
we're
not
going.
But
if
you
do
an
Adu
we're
going
to
make
you
have
that
owner
occupied.
G
G
B
G
So
at
the
last
council
meeting
council
member
Pui
said
that
this
is
about
housing
and
I,
agree
that
this
is
about
housing.
The
owner
occupancy
requirement
allows
us
to
help
homeowners
and
renters.
At
the
same
time,
with
the
changes
supported
by
six
out
of
seven
council
members,
we
can
increase
the
number
of
rental
units
without
eliminating
the
one
thing
that
new
and
existing
homeowners
have
that
investors
and
developers
don't
to
remove
the
owner.
Occupancy
requirement
would
be
to
surrender
the
last
competitive
Advantage.
This
city
government
can
offer
them.
G
We
know
that
hundreds
of
existing
single-family
homes
owned
by
corporations
is
happening
right
now
in
our
city
and
in
the
study
that
I
just
sent
to
you.
It
says
that
Utah
actually
ranks
sixth
in
the
nation
for
the
number
of
institutional
investors
purchasing
homes,
which
is
16
percent
and
developers,
and
corporate
owners
have
access
to
Capital
that
individual
home
buyers,
especially
first-time
home
buyers,
will
never
have.
This
is
not
a
theoretical
argument.
G
The
purpose
of
the
and
duty
of
a
corporation
is
to
generate
profits,
and
while
there
are
homeowners
that
could
also
benefit
from
having
more
than
one
property
with
more
than
one
Adu.
There's
no
question
that
those
homeowners
are
outnumbered
and
outgunned
by
corporate
Developers
on
in
the
enforcement
category.
The
owner
occupancy
requirement
helps
the
city's
enforcement
efforts.
Last
week
we
heard
from
our
city
attorneys
planning
staff
and
enforcement.
Tell
us
that
owner
occupancy
makes
it
easier
to
regulate
short-term
rentals,
identify
absentee
landlords
and
address
nuisance
issues.
G
I
fully
agree
that
we
must
meet
the
demand
for
more
enforcement
from
our
constituents.
However,
the
cost
of
doing
so
should
will
ultimately
come
out
of
their
pockets.
It's
not
going
to
come
out
of
the
profits
of
landlords.
It's
not
going
to
come
out
of
the
profits
of
corporate
owners.
They
will
pass
that
on
to
the
renters
state
law,
already
limits
the
most
valuable
tools
that
we
have
in
addressing
these
issues.
G
Regarding
costs
and
financing,
every
study
that
I
have
read
and
the
local
experts
that
have
spoken
to
us
have
said
that
Adu
financing
is
the
single
biggest
problem.
Removing
owner
occupancy
does
nothing
to
reduce
the
construction
costs
for
adus.
A
majority
of
council
members
are
ready
to
commit
more
funding
to
adus
than
Salt
Lake
City,
and
any
City
in
Utah
ever
has
so
I
want
us
to
focus
on
coming
together
on
that
accomplishment,
because
that
is
a
lot
bigger
than
owner
occupancy
in
terms
of
equity.
G
Owner
occupancy
supports
the
city's
Equitable
goals
of
thriving
in
place.
It
also
supports
Aging
in
place,
giving
new
buyers
and
struggling
homeowners
a
way
to
help
make
their
mortgage
payments
protecting
the
unique
identity
of
neighborhoods,
promoting
economic
housing,
diversity
and
keeping
money
in
the
local
economy.
A
lot
of
the
arguments
that
I
made
earlier
about
housing
also
apply
here.
So
rather
than
repeat
them.
Let
me
just
say
that
there
is
nothing
Equitable
about
taking
the
keys
to
every
single
family
home
left
in
this
city
and
dangling
them
in
front
of
Corporations.
G
Regarding
the
process,
the
changes
recommended
by
the
administration
and
in
our
straw
polls
are
supported
by
our
normal
public
process.
Removing
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
is
not.
On
the
one
hand,
we
have
Salt
Lake
City
specific
data
from
staff
and
Community
Partners
on
the
other.
We
have
a
few
studies
with
no
isolated
data
on
owner
occupancy
in
state
jurisdictions
that
simply
do
not
compare
to
ours.
If
Salt
Lake
City
was
not
preempted
from
a
whole
host
of
issues
regard
from
rent
control
to
landlord
practices,
this
would
be
a
very
different
conversation.
G
Think
it's
clear
that,
while
removing
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
would
add
more
units
likely,
the
known
costs
are
too
high
and
the
potential
risks
too
vast
to
move
forward
with
it
right
now.
Finally,
regarding
the
the
suggestion
of
a
sunset
or
a
trigger
option,
that's
been
discussed.
I
reject
the
notion
that
time
spent
considering
and
debating
a
major
policy
change
like
this.
Even
if
we
choose
not
to
adopt
it
is
wasted
time.
G
I've
seen
this
Council
waste
time
on
music
subscriptions,
Fireworks
shows
door,
hangers
versus
postcards
Phase,
One
versus
phase
two
analysis
and
disbursement
of
local
business,
arpa
grants
and
many
more
discussions.
We've
had
and
I
am
just
as
guilty
as
anybody
on
this
Council
as
contributing
to
those.
However,
of
all
the
examples
out
there,
this
major
policy
change
is
not
one
where
we
should
draw
the
line
with
an
automatic
Trigger
or
sunset
in
the
time.
G
In
the
last
few
years,
since
the
council
amended
our
Adu
ordinance,
there
was
a
pandemic
two
major
labor
impasses
declared
by
City
represented
unions
once
in
a
gender
Jennifer
once
in
a
generation
police
reform,
including
a
zero-based
budget
audit
and
the
largest
investment
in
parks
and
public
lands
in
the
city's
history.
My
point
is
economies,
change,
markets,
change,
priorities,
change
and
in
a
democracy,
elected
officials,
change
a
trigger
law
is
an
arbitrary
Line
in
the
Sand
that
no
matter
how
well-intentioned
it
may
be
it
is.
G
G
I
I
I
know
I
just
got
here,
but
I
was
listening.
I
was
in
court
anyway
and
not
I
just
want
to
say,
I
agree
with
council
member
Wharton
and
I
appreciate
all
of
the
conversations
that
I've
had
with
many
of
you.
If
not
all
of
you
regarding
this
particular
component
of
the
adus
I
appreciate
the
time
we
spent
prior
in
getting
the
edu
ordinance
to
where
it
is
now
and
I
really
want
to
say,
Chris
and
I.
Excuse
me,
council,
member
Morton
and
I
talked
about
this
the
other
day
and
I.
I
I
There
will
always
be
work
to
be
done
and
we
hope
that
there
will
always
be
that
work
to
be
done
so
that
we're
actually
doing
what
our
jobs,
both
as
Administration
as
staff
members
and
as
council
members
is,
and
that's
to
truly
evaluate
our
policies
and
say:
are
we
doing
what's
best
for
our
residents?
Are
we
doing
what's
best
for
the
people
that
elected
us?
Are
we
doing
what's
best
for
this
city,
and
so
I,
I
and
I
hadn't
thought
about
that
point
until
we
talked
the
other
day
and
I
want
to.
B
Thanks
I
want
to
just
sort
of
respond.
I
want
to
agree
with
you
actually
that
I
think
this
discussion
has
been
I.
Think
whether
or
not
we
end
on
the
same
on
the
same
page,
I,
don't
think
we're
going
to,
but
I
think
having
this
discussion
in
public
has
been
really
positive.
I
hope
it
has
for
me
I
hope
it
has
for
everybody.
B
I
know
that
there's
been
frustration
but
I
hope
that
the
public
looks
at
this
and
and
understands
reasonable
people
can
disagree
and
that
we
really
care
about
these
ordinances
that
we're
passing
and
we
don't
do
it
lightly.
We
don't
take
our
jobs
lightly,
so
I
will
first
agree
with
you
on
those
things.
It's
like
councilman
Dugan
had
a
comment.
I
just
wanted.
D
J
Think
I
was
trying
to
broker
an
agreement
about
either
we
do
the
trigger
or
or
an
or
an
intent,
and
there
was
a
suggestion
by
by
a
former
mayor
that
that
we
could
actually
put
like
put
language
in
the
ordinance
in
the
future.
That
will,
we
might
be
able
to.
You
know,
know
that
we're
going
to
be
like
very
clear
that
we're
going
to
actually
review
this
in
two
or
three
years,
whatever
timeline.
J
But
then
we
I
was
informed
that
that
it's
not
possible
either
so
we're
kind
of
back
at
where
it
might
have
to
be
a
legislative
intent
versus.
Actually
that
is
written
in
in
the
ordinance-
and
you
know,
I
I
am
in
in
that
sense,
I'm
in
the
middle
I,
I
know
where,
where
the
group
that
would
like
to
see
the
trigger
is
at
because
I
do
agree
with
councilmember,
petro
and
I.
Think
council
member
Fowler
will
agree
with
this
too.
J
We
move
too
slow
sometimes,
and
we
are
always
talking
about
efficiencies.
So
obviously
the
trigger
would
actually
make
us
move
faster
for
sure
and
I
agree
on
that.
At
the
same
time,
at
the
same
time,
the
legislative
intent
we've
used
legislative
intents
in
the
past
to
get
things
done
and
we
we
have
done
it
as
well.
We
have
said
okay,
this
is
legislative
intent.
We
have
to
do
that.
J
J
You
know
with
some
movement
of
that
audits
of
programs
and
and
departments
Etc
just
to
see
where
we're
at
and
what
things
we're
doing,
maybe
to
all
them.
We
don't
need
too
much
and
we
might
not
need
that
now.
So
I
appreciate
that
and
I
appreciate
that
we
did
so
I
think
the
very
list
list
with
the
legislative
intent.
If
we
are
all
committed
that
we
are
going
to
look
at
this
in
two
three
years,
because
in
two
three
years,
like
council
member
Wharton
things
change,
economics
might
change,
things
might
change.
J
We
should
commit
ourselves
if
we're
in
this
position
again
in
two
three
years
that
we
are
actually
going
to
bring
it
up
and
whoever
would
like
to
take
the
lead
on
that
need
to
start
loving.
You
know
people
in
four
three
four
years
and
reminding
them
that
we
actually
had
this
conversation.
It
was
very
lengthy
and
we
are
going
to
you
know
to
review
it
again,
because
you
know
I
think
the
public
is
split.
I,
think
there
are
plenty
of
of
well-intentioned
lenders.
J
Are
there
out
there
and
maybe
some
developers
that
will
be
great
neighbors
and
we'll
take
care
of
these
adus
and
you
know,
and
and
things
will
be
fine,
but
at
the
same
time
I
want
their
pocket.
Do
go
a
little
bit
deeper
than
some
of
my
neighbors
and
my
constituency
in
District,
4
and
I
would
like
to
help
those
first
first
then
then,
others
that
do
have
the
deeper
pockets,
and
so
last
week
when
I
said
I
wanted
to
be
bold.
J
We
talked
about
this
at
the
RDA
meeting
earlier
that
the
RDA
in
the
nine
line
is
already
focusing
on
that.
I
would
like
to
go
a
step
further
as
a
council
and
actually
do
Your
Mark
a
million
dollars
for
that
it
could
come
out
of
our
very
healthy
fund
balance.
It
could
come
out
of
our
funding
our
future
pot
of
money,
but
that
this
Council
this
year
we
decide
that
we're
going
to
lead
on
ideas
and
we're
going
to
actually
tackle
WhatsApp
hand.
J
That's
one,
and
the
second
thing
that
I've
heard
from
my
constituency
is
enforcement
and
that's
another
proposal
that
I
would
like
to
you
know
for
us
to
discuss
that.
We
set
aside
at
least
money
for
one
ft
1ft
a
year
for
the
next
three
years,
so
that
they
can
actually
start
tackling
the
enforcement
issues
that
we
all
hear
about
all
day
long
because
that's
what's
actually
happening
and
we're
not
being
really
good
at
it
enforcing.
So
that's
my
position.
That's
far,
thank
you
for
listening.
Thank.
B
So
I
heard
three
additional
options
to
consider
in
their
one
a
legislative
intent
that
we
revisit
this
in
two
years:
two
one
million
dollars,
possibly
from
fund
balance,
earmark
or
either
just
allocated
in
this
current
open
budget
amendment
or
somehow,
but
would
go
to
the
Adu
financing.
Yes
tools,
so
like
seed
money
for
the
Adu
financing.
B
K
Yeah
I
mean
we've,
we've
approved
it
like,
for
example,
we've
approved
employees
with
the
understanding
that
they
will
sunset
when
the
bond
expires.
I
I,
don't
know
that
we've
ever
pre-funded
an
FTE.
So
let
me
talk
with
Mary,
Beth
and
Katie
about
that,
but
at
the
very
least
you
could
fund
one
year
with
an
intent
to
you
know
revisit
in
three
years.
But
let
me
check
with
Mary.
L
J
So
so
the
difference
is,
let's
keep
the
owner
occupancy,
but
with
the
legislative
intent
that
we're
going
to
review
and
revisit
that
requirement
of
owner
occupancy
in
two
or
three
years
as
a
legislative
intent.
What's
going
to
take,
is
that
one
of
us,
or
or
actually
four
of
us
in
in
the
next
two
three
years
actually
do
remember
this
and
bring
it
up
again?
Because
if
not,
we
can
forget
it.
But
I
feel
like
this
group
feels
very
strongly
about
reviewing
that
in
two
to
three.
B
M
Can
I
also
add
that,
in
addition
to
the
legislative
intent,
we
need
some
parameters
for
what
will
be
contemplating
as
part
of
it.
As
my
co-counselor
correctly
pointed
out,
the
world
is
very
different
from
2018
when
this
was
originally
passed
and
yet
I
have
no
context
for
the
conversation,
except
for
what
I
may
have
picked
up
from
having
attended
a
previous
public
meeting
or
the
stats
of
how
many
were
permitted.
M
You
misinterpret
me
when
you
say
that
the
public
hearings
are
a
wasted
time.
Our
deliberations
are
wasted
time.
That
is
not
what
I'm
pointing
to
as
a
wasted
time.
What
I'm
pointing
to
is
wasted
time
is
our
failure
to
make
the
work
we're
doing
be
as
powerful
into
the
future
as
possible.
Reinventing
Wheels,
where
new
people
looking
to
make
potentially
political
names
for
themselves,
can
use
this
pla
this
as
a
platform
to
create
a
reputation
for
themselves
instead
of
centering
the
possibility
that
there
may
be
power
in
a
tool
that
we're
leaving
on
a
table.
M
So,
if
we're
going
to
do
a
legislative
intent,
it
is
incumbent
upon
us
to
create
metrics
to
create
outcomes
that
we're
looking
for
things
that
we
cannot
tolerate.
That
would
be
signals
that
it
cannot
go
forward
and
we
need
to
shape
a
discussion
that
is
responsive
to
actual
Salt
Lake
City
circumstances
and
just
like
all
of
the
positive
possibilities
that
could
be
imported
from
other
markets
can't
be
imported
right
now,
because
we
don't
have
Salt
Lake
City
specifics.
M
The
negative
possibilities
cannot
be
assumed
because
we
don't
have
Salt
Lake
City,
specific
statistics,
and
so,
if
we
do
a
legislative
intent,
I
am
fully
willing
to
concede
that
removing
owner
occupancy
in
any
way
right
now
might
not
be
where
the
city
is.
However,
we
know
that
there
is
potential
power
in
a
tool
and
it
might
solve
a
problem
that
persists
into
the
future.
We
need
to
create
a
framework
for
future
discussions
that
does
not
create
redundancies
for
our
staff
for
future
council
members.
That
creates
a
record
that
is
reliable.
L
L
I
would
like
to
just
say
that
I
still
fail
to
see
and
find
evidence
actual
evidence
about
the
missing
link
between
removing
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
and
this
hypothetical
increase
of
predatory
companies
buying
swaths
of
the
city.
That
is
not
a
study
in
the
nation
that
proves
that
point.
That
is
not
one.
L
So
we
still
basing
much
of
this
conversation
into
feeding
into
this
hypothetical
fears.
The
reality
is
that
companies
are
buying
parts
of
our
city
and
we
they're
doing
it
right
now,
but
there
is
no
link
in
that.
This
will
actually
start
opening
the
floodgates
and
the
whole
city
is
going
to
be
a
rental
unit,
but
I
just
wanted
to
to
say
I
still
I'm
going
back
to
the
specifics
of
about
the
the
legislative
intent
I,
don't
know
if
I
lost
you
because
I
didn't
lose,
we
can
still
hear
you.
L
We
can't
see
you,
okay,
the
specific
legislative
intent
I
feel
like
that's
as
teethless.
There
is
nothing
to
do.
I
prefer
not
to
even
do
that.
I
think
it's
it's
to
me.
It's
it's!
A
bit
of
you
know
just
tippy-toeing
around.
Nothing
is
saying:
oh
we're,
gonna
do
something
in
the
future
filing
on
a
sticky
note,
put
it
on
the
drawer.
Thank
you.
We
see
you
in
three
years
might
as
well.
Just
let
the
council
whomever
is
sitting
in
those
seats.
L
L
Thank
you
very
much
file
move
on
to
the
next
topic.
So,
let's,
let's
discuss
it.
Let's
put
some
parameters
about
studying
these
fears
about.
You
know
the
the
corporate
Corporate
America,
buying,
Salt,
Lake,
City
and
I.
Think
that's
one
of
the
main
fears
and
the
second
fear
that
was
mentioned
here,
which
was
an
enforcement.
Let's
find
out
a
little
more
about
that
and
how
do
we
can
we
solve
the
reinforcement,
issue
and
I
suggested
last
meeting
to
fund
two
people
and
the
council
didn't
want
to
make
a
decision
at
the
moment.
L
J
So
we're
just
going
to
do
this
just
for
for
faces
like
for
face.
So,
let's,
let's
not
say
that
legislative
dances
are
toothless.
I
understand
that
they're
not
binding,
which
is
something
that
we
are
annoyed
about,
that
they're
not
binding,
but
for
sure
not
Toothless.
Otherwise,
there's
never
the
legislative
intention
from
now
on,
you
know
tell
the
administration,
and
you
know
what
to
do.
Mr.
G
Just
I
just
want
to
clarify
about
what
council,
member
Petra
said
and
and
I
appreciate
that
you
are
not
saying
that
it's
wasted
time.
That
wasn't
only
two
comments
that
that
you
have
said.
Other
people
in
our
discussions
have
characterized
it
as
wasted
time,
specifically
and
I
think
that
people
in
the
public
have
characterized
it
as
wasted
time.
So
to
the
extent
that
that
you
thought
that
I
was
just
addressing
your
comments,
I
apologize
because
I
was
not,
but
I
do
think
that
that
there-
and
there
are
things
that
are
well.
G
G
We
want
you
to
come
back
to
us
in
a
couple
years
and
we
want
to
talk
about
making
changes
to
parking
and
making
changes
to
removing
the
conditional
use,
and
that
worked,
and
we
did
that
through
a
legislative
intent.
So
to
to
your
point
and
to
council
member
pui's
Point,
the
legislative,
our
track
record
shows
that
putting
those
legislative
intents
actually
does
lead
to
the
outcomes
that
that
that
we
hope
to
see
in
the
future.
It.
M
Does
so,
then,
my
point
of
clarification
is
I
would
like
a
more
directed
outcome
that
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
because,
as
someone
who
wasn't
here,
who
didn't
have
the
benefit
of
the
historical
knowledge,
the
likelihood
that
we
have
new
council
members
by
the
time
we
come
to
reevaluate.
This
is
pretty
statistically
high
and
I
would
like
to
create
a
framework
that
helps
guide
the
conversations
that
helps
us
maximize
time
and
speaking.
I
G
I
I
appreciate
that
I
agree,
I'm,
not
I,
don't
I
think
we
do
need
to
have
more
specific
language.
I'm
fine
with
that,
but
I
want
to
my.
My
bigger
point
is
to
say
that
legislative
intents
are
still
something
that
we
vote
on.
There's
still
something
that
we
are
required
to
go
over
and
until
the
council
decides,
we
don't
want
that
intent
anymore.
Then
we
vote
to
take
it
away
or
it
drops
off
based
on
having
been
fulfilled
by
the
terms
that
that
we
put
in
place
so
I
know.
G
There
is
a
lot
of
concern
that
that
isn't
enough
that
that
doesn't
go
far
enough,
that
that's
not
bold
enough,
but
the
the
track
record
with
legislative
intent
shows
that
we
typically
follow
through
with
them,
unless
there's
a
really
good
reason
not
to
or
to
change
course
and
I.
Think
that
that's
the
best
course
here,
which.
L
L
It
was
we're
going
to
review
this
in
two
or
three
years.
Thank
you
for
I
mean
to
me
that
was
non-in
legislative
intent
that
I
I
I
felt
like
it
did
anything
now
going
a
little
more
specific.
Is
this
Council
willing
to
remove
the
audio
occupancy
requirement
in
the
next
three
years?
Come
back,
come
back
to
with
good
study
and
look
at
what
you
know
reporting
to
us
good
information.
L
B
You,
okay,
council
members,
I
I,
appreciate
all
the
discussion.
I
think
I
would
like
to
start
eliminating
some
of
these
options
so
that
we
can
narrow
it
down
to
what
what
we
have
at
least
more
than
one
council
member
interested
in.
Can
we
can
we
cut
out
things
that
only
one
or
two
people
are
interested
in
I'm
gonna
start
at
the
most
the
furthest
to
the
right.
I
B
A
B
I
might
well,
you
were
in
court
I
apologize.
The
goal
is
to
narrow
it
down
to
a
couple
options,
because
staff
has
informed
me
that
if
we
have
seven
options
right
now,
we
have
eight
I
think
if
we
have
that
it's
impossible
for
staff
to
draft
motion
sheets
or
for
really
the
public
to
know
what
we're.
What
they're
supposed
to
comment
on.
So
the
idea
is
to
eliminate
anything
of
all
these
options
that
we
put
on
the
table,
eliminate
ones
that
we
know
there's
very
little,
support
for
and
try
and
narrow
it
down
to
two.
B
Ideally,
maybe
three
things
that
that
we
are
still
considering
that
we
can
ask
the
attorney's
office
to
draft
the
ordinance
and
the
motion
asked
after
draft
the
motion
sheet
and
ask
the
public
to
come
next
week
to
say
on
this
issue.
Yes,
on
this
issue,
no
or
whatever
the
case
may
be
other,
if
we
can
do
that,
that's
the
goal,
if
we
can't
so
the
goal
is
to
eliminate
the.
K
18
different
agencies
and
I
think,
to
the
extent
that
the
council
is
interested
in
acting
next
week.
I
think
just
making
sure
we're
acting
on
things
that
are
legal,
like
would
be
great,
so
just
making
sure
that
we
coordinate
with
the
attorney's
office
ahead
of
time
on
any
new
ideas
that
come
up
got.
B
It
okay,
I'm
gonna,
then
I'll
do
s
drop
holes,
let's
do
it
as
troubles,
and
this
is
not
based
on
the
discussion
not
based
on
what
my
I
would
like
to
have.
The
outcome
I
think
based
on
where
the
council
is
at
and
what
I'm
hearing
we
should
remove
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
from
consideration.
We
should
remove
entirely
removing
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
from
consideration.
B
So
if
you
support
not
considering
that
correct,
so
a
thumbs
up
would
be
that
that
we
we
agree
that
we're
not
at
the
point
yet
to
completely
remove
it.
Okay.
So
that's
six
to
zero
with
council
member
Pui
voting
no
six
to
one.
Thank
you,
you're,
not
a
zero
councilmember,
you're,
very
important
council
member
I
also
assume
that
removing
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
and
establishing
a
fee
sounds
like
well.
Actually,
I,
don't
know.
I
I
still
like
that
idea,
but
does
someone
want
to
strop
pull
up
or
down
on.
B
It
immediately,
but
establishing
a
fee,
so,
okay,
the
so
I
guess
the
straw
poll
was
to
remove
a
medium
establish.
A
fee.
I
have
counts,
I
have
two
to
five:
two
being
myself
and
councilman
rupui
and
five,
so
I'm
gonna
cross.
That
off
the
list
is
this.
Does
this
work?
Is
this
a
process
that
we
can
okay,
how
about
keeping
the
owner
occupancy
requirement,
but
allowing
it
to
Sunset
automatically
in
two
years.
B
B
L
I
I
just
don't
know
why
that
wouldn't
be
a
palatable.
You
know
option
for
for
some
of
us
I.
You
know
it.
It
addresses
the
issue
of
corporate
of
America
buying
pieces
of
Salt
Lake
City,
which
is
you
know,
been
said.
You
know
a
lot
IT
addresses
the
issue
of
enforcement.
It
addresses
all
like
many
of
the
issues.
None
of
these
things
are
perfect
and
it
also
creates
an
opportunity
for
more
house
and
density
and
gentle
density
in
areas
that
are
now
happening.
So
I,
just
don't
understand
you
know.
L
I
could
could
I
see
some
other
options
on
this.
Could
we,
you
know
talk
a
little
more
about
this
option?
Is
there
even
a
warm
place
where
some
of
the
council
members
could
be
because
again,
it's
not
moving
we're
not
doing
anything
and
I
know
that
you
know
we
want
to
feel
good
about
what
we
accomplished,
but
we
could
accomplish
more.
You
know
on
housing
is
our
biggest
battle,
an
affordable
housing
and
they
you
know,
we
we
just
read
from
the
RDA
the
shortly
gigantic
shortage
of
housing.
L
G
On
the
other,
the
reason
council,
member
Pui
was
saying
I,
don't
see
why
we
can't
look
at
this.
Is
that
we
don't
have
any.
We
don't
even
have
a
fully
fleshed
out
idea
of
how
this
would
work,
let
alone
any
input
really
from
staff
on
that
like
if
this
was
a
an
alternative
that
was
being
seriously
discussed
as
something
other
than
just
sort
of
a
half-baked
idea.
G
Then
I
feel
like
we
could
vote
on
something
I
don't
feel
like
we
have
I
mean
we
don't
even
have
the
terms
defined
in
this
piece
of
paper
that
we're
looking
at
so
without
looking
at
those
and
without
knowing
what
that
is.
Who
would
enforce
it,
how
it
would
work
and
how
much
it
would
cost?
Most
importantly,
I
don't
see
how
we
could
vote
Yes.
Okay,
let's
council.
L
B
G
But
again,
yet
another
month
has
gone
by
where
we,
where
we're
going
departing
from
an
option
that
we
could
pass
today.
Well,
not
today,
we
could
pass
next
week
and
there
is
one
week
left
between
now
and
the
public
hearing
to
put
this
together
so
that
the
public
can
comment
on
it
and
I.
Don't
know
when
we're
going
to
present
that
to
them
so
that
they
can
intelligently
discuss.
B
B
B
Why
don't
we
go
to
well,
let's
keep
with
the
green
ones,
we're
moving
the
owner
occupancy
requirement.
So,
instead
of
based
on
use
based
on
zones,
so
all
single
family
zones
would
be
would
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
would
remain.
But
if
there's
a
single
family
house
in
a
multi-family
zone
or
a
commercial
Zone,
they
could
build
an
Adu
without
owner
occupancy.
On
that.
I
Good
clarifying
question,
because
this
was
something
that
came
up
last
week
of
the
zones
versus
the
uses
and
if
you
have
a
duplex
and
then
you
build
something
and
that's
allowable
without
it
being
under
occupied
already.
So
this
seems
more
complicated
to
me
than
just
I'm
not
opposed
to
this
I.
Just
don't
know
that
we
could
write
a
substantial
ordinance
in
time
without
me,
fully
understanding
everything
that
we
went
through
last
week
and
how
that.
N
Sure
so
I
think
it
probably
depends
on
the
extent
that
you
want
that
to
apply
so
in
the
code
right
the
proposed
code
right
now.
It
includes
some
exceptions
like
we
said
for
that
owner
occupancy
isn't
required
when
it's
the
principal
use
is
the
dupe,
is
a
duplex
multi-family
dwelling
or
non-residential
land
use,
and
so,
as
I
understand
this,
it
would
say
it
would
add,
or
when
a
single
family
dwelling,
that
is
in
a
zoning
District.
That
is
not
a.
B
Single
family,
Zone
right
I
think
that
the
requirement
would
just
run
with
the
zone,
so
any
single
family,
and
we
can
include
the
we
can
discuss
whether
we
want
to
include
the
foothill.
Whatever
transitional
zones
as
well,
but
any
Zone
that
is
a
single-family
Zone
would
remain,
would
retain
the
owner
occupancy
requirement.
The
zones
that
are
not
would
it
would
be
removed,
regardless
of
principal
use.
N
Okay,
so
I
think
just
just
to
give
some
idea
of
what
that
means.
So
we
have
several
zones
in
the
city
where
single-family
dwellings
are
are
permitted.
Some
of
them
cover
some
extensive
areas
of
the
city.
For
example,
the
sr1
and
sr1a
zones
are
pretty
much
most
of
the
Avenues
Capitol
Hill,
some
neighborhoods
on
the
west
side.
So
those
would
because
those
zones
allow
duplexes
they
would
no
longer
be
have
the
owner
occupancy
required
under
that
proposal.
Even
if
it's
a
single
family
dwelling
in
those
zones,
okay,.
B
B
Let
me
we'll
get
to
the
question.
Let
me
indicate
what
the
goal
my,
what
I
the
reason
why
I'm
bringing
this
one
up
is
because
when
single-family
homes
exist
in
multi-family
zones
or
in
commercial
zones,
those
are
zones
that
we've
already
said
are
up.
It's
appropriate
for
multi-family
for
apartments
for
non-owner
occupied
housing
to
be
in
those
areas.
B
It
seems
like
we're
putting
that
this
additional
restriction
on
those
single-family
homes
which
to
me
is
actually
creating
an
incentive
for
developers
to
come
in
tear
them
down
and
build
multi-family
units
on
them
as
opposed
to
if
a
developer
is
or
a
property
owner
has
a
single
family
home
in
a
in
a
multi-family
Zone.
This
may
actually
be
a
way
for
us
to
preserve
those
single-family
homes
rather
than
incentivizing.
The
only
way
that
you
can
increase
density
on
your
law
is
to
tear
down
the
single
family.
B
We
have
a
lot
of
single-family
homes
existing
in
multi-family
zones.
I
think
this
would
open
it
up
to
allowing
the
Adu
to
be
created,
keeping
the
primary
renter
housed
and
allowing
another
renter
to
be
housed
without
tearing
it
down
completely
starting
over
and
doing
seven
million
dollar
town
homes
on.
G
G
N
G
A
B
They're
trying
to
add
additional
density
to
that,
so
they
have
another
stream
of
Revenue
their
only
option.
If
we
keep
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
for
single
family
uses,
not
zones
is
to
tear
it
down
and
build
a
duplex
or
a
Triplex
or
a
townhouse
which
they
are
allowed
to
do
depending
on
the
size.
So,
for
instance,
the
rmf-30
ordinance
that
we
passed
last
year.
B
If
there's
a
single
family
home
in
that
zone,
those
that
that
owner
can
not
build
an
Adu
because
they
don't
live
in
it,
but
they
could
tear
it
down
and
build
a
duplex
or
a
Triplex
or
a
series
of
site-oriented
Townhomes
or
other
things.
They
could
keep
the
primary
dwelling
with
the
preservation
bonus
that
we
put
in
the
rmf-30,
assuming
the
geomet.
The
geometry
works.
Well
for
them
the
so
the
preservation
density
bonus
would
apply
and
would
tend
to
keep
more
homes
than
not
having
it.
I
A
heart
now
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
I
voted
against
RMF
30,
but
that
and
I
apologize
if
I
missed
this
conversation
in
the
last
several
Adu
conversations
we've
had,
but
this
seems
like
somewhat
of
a
new
er
idea
and
maybe
based
on
some
of
the
things
we
heard
last
week,
I
mean
and
so
I'm
not
like
totally
opposed
to
it.
In
fact,
I
think
that
there
are
some
potentially
really
good
things
here.
I
O
K
B
It
I
I
think
the
intent
is
to
my
intent
is
to
say
if
this
is
something
we
want
to
continue
exploring,
then
let's
keep
it
on
the
table.
Have
the
public
come
give
us
listen
to
the
public
hearing,
see
if
people
have
thoughts
on
that
continue
to
have
discussions
about
it,
flesh
it
out
a
little
bit
more,
but
I
I
think
it's
something
that
we
a
compromise.
I
Heard
of
this
is
like
efficiency
and
and
staff,
time
and
administrative
staff
time.
That's
like
we're.
Creating
part
of
the
ordinance
in
there
and
I
know
that
if
I
look
at
any
of
our
staff
or
the
attorney
staff,
they'll
be
like
no,
we
can
get
it
done
and
it'll
be
fine,
because
it's
they
always
tell
us.
Is
there
a
way
to
like
keep
it
on
and
hear
from
the
public
about
it?
I,
it
just
seems
like
I.
D
Chair
councilmember,
Dugan,
so
I
agree
with
councilmember,
Fowler
and
Wharton
on
this,
because
even
if
I
was
the
public
out
there.
Listening
into
this
conversation
and
Nick
said
about
the
SR
zones,
which
are
on
the
Avenues
in
the
west
side
and
other
zones
that
are
have
single-family
homes
on
them,
but
they
are
zoned
for
multi-family
houses.
D
This
could
take
us
a
long
time
to
get
to
that,
because
this
could
be
really
complicated
because
it's
gonna
it's
gonna,
grow
and
make
a
lot
of
spider
webs
as
far
as
the
SR,
instead
of
just
RMF.
It's
also
going
to
be
the
SR
zones
and
I,
don't
know
where
those
are
across
the
city,
so
I'm
I
am
I'm.
I
want
to
explore
it,
but
I'm
also
hesitant
to
it
to
explore
it,
because
it
could
just
extend
the
discussion
period.
B
B
Think
the
intent
of
this
work
session
is
to
discuss
these
things
and
then
the
intent
of
the
public
hearing
is
for
them
to
come
for
the
public
to
come
and
give
us
input,
and
so
I
kind
of
think.
This
discussion's
already
told
them
that
this
is
an
item
on
which
we're
still
considering
so
I
kind
of
feel,
like
the
discussion
has
already
led
to
yes,
public
come
tell
us
what
you
think
about
this.
It.
G
Has
but
I
it's
more
that
I'm
concerned
about
like
Nick's
answer,
saying
like
there
could
be
12
different
answers
to
this
I,
don't
even
know
what
the
first
answer
is
well,
I
guess,
I
know
what
the
first
one
is,
but
I
don't
know
what
the
other
Dar
12
are
or
11
are.
So
it's
hard
for
me
to
to
vote
on
it
and
I
think
it
might
be
hard
for
members
of
the
public
to
take
a
position
when
they
hear
you
know
City
officials
saying
I,
don't
know
what
what
the
impact
could
be.
G
That's
so
it
would
be
like
it's
almost
like.
We
would
need
another
time
to
address
that,
rather
than
just
putting
the
question
to
Nick
right
now
and
having
him
answer
right
now,
that's
the
concern
I
have
so
I
wouldn't
want
to
like.
If
it's
the
choices
between
adding
this
and
taking
yet
another
month,
I
would
rather
just
vote
on
adus
I.
N
D
N
Those
yeah
yeah
I
can
those,
depending
on
the
Zone
those
zoning
districts,
aren't
just
single
family,
only
zoning
districts,
so
they
have
different
requirements
for
different
densities.
So,
for
example,
the
I
might
get
the
numbers
wrong,
but
the
sr1a
has
a
minimum
lot
size
for
a
single
home
and
they
have
a
minimum
lot
size
for
a
duplex
too,
and
so
in
order
to
do
that,
duplex
you'd
have
to
make
sure
you
you
have
to
meet
the
minimum
lot
size
right
and
then
meet
all
the
other
requirements.
N
Setback
side,
Etc,
RMF
and
rmu
zones
are
very
similar
to
that
only
they
allow
apartment
buildings
a
smaller
scale
and
the
density.
The
number
of
of
apartment
buildings
that
you
could
have
in
one
of
those
properties
is
based
on
the
lot
size.
So
the
bigger
the
lot,
the
more
units
you
can
have.
So
you
know
when
we
did
the
RMF
30
proposal.
B
D
N
Three
different
Sr
zones,
so
there's
sr1,
sr1a
and
sr3
the
the
sr1
Zone
used
to
be
its
own
Standalone
Zone,
it's
kind
of
scattered
it's
the
upper
Avenues
is
sr1.
The
lower
Avenues
is
I
mean
up
to
the
foothill
zones
and
then
the
lower
Avenues
is
sr1a.
The
difference
between
those
is
the
lot
sizes
and
some
setbacks,
and
things
like
that.
N
Both
of
those
zones
are
found
in
other
parts
of
the
city,
just
not
as
consistently
the
sr3
is
almost
exclusively
inner
city
blocks
found
in
the
Central
City
neighborhood,
where
this
Stark
development
pattern.
As
we
broke
up,
our
10
acre
blocks
was
to
have
smaller
mid-court
streets
and
small
lots,
and
they
have
a
variety
of
housing
on
those,
whether
they're,
single
family
or
town
homes
or
apartment
buildings.
N
D
B
B
M
J
And
I
would
like
Victoria
council
member
Petra
to
help
me
also
trap
other
than
the
three,
so
first
of
all,
very
specific.
Consider
removing
the
owner
occupancy
three
years,
fine.
By
also
who
are
we
going
to
get
information
from
and
the
metrics
that
we
are?
You
know
that
we're
going
to
have
really
good
information
in
three
years.
I,
don't
you
know
so
I'm,
not
sure.
If
council
member
Pedro
has
a
suggestion
that
we
talked
to
the
the
politics
Gardner.
J
That
Gardener
can
start
collecting
information
for
us
so
that
in
three
years
we
have
a
really
good
resource,
a
local
resource.
That
knows
us
and
can
give
us
really
God
information.
So
those
three
things
in
the
legislative
intent
three
years
to
reconsider
the
owner
occupancy
requirement
and
with
information
data
from
the
gardener,
Institute
of
policy
or
policy
Institute
I
can
remember
yeah.
G
J
B
I
I
M
I
actually
want
to
say
that
I
support
that
with
council
member
Fowler
and
I
would
like
to
girl.
I
have
been
on
your
side
so
many
times.
I
am
not
taking
this
first
public
descent
as
okay,
but
I
would
like
to
also
put
the
enforcement
on
budget
considerations
to
allow
the
mayor
and
her
staff
to
know
that
I
am
anticipating
strong
increases
to
enforcement
and.
P
M
J
Clarify
or
at
least
clarify
what
I'm
trying
to
accomplish
As
I
understood
our
RDA
intent
of
the
Adu.
The
Adu
project
in
the
RDA
area
was
specific
for
the
nine
line,
so
it
will
be
funded
with
those
funds
that
are
proceeds
of
the
nine
line
project
area.
So
therefore,
if
that's
the
case,
then
I
would
like
to
fuel
if,
if
that's
the
word
to
fuel
that
program
so
that
it
becomes
city-wide.
J
But
that's
why
I
wanted
to
you
know
to
to
ask
you
now
that
we
do
have
this
intention
so
that
then,
when
we
have
to
look
at
budgets
or
when
we
review
or
when
the
stuff
comes
over
and
tell
us,
this
is
how
we're
going
to
do
it
that
we
have
the
money
already
earmarked
otherwise
I
feel
like.
If
we
don't
do
it
now
it
might,
you
know
we
might
other
priorities
come
into
place.
M
H
M
K
D
Mr
chair
I,
I
I,
like
that
you
want
to
get
aggressive
and
put
on
this
budget
amendment,
but
I
think
that's
kind
of
quick
to
do
this,
because
I
think
that
at
this
point
it's
still
very
soft.
As
far
as
we
want
to
put
this
funding
there,
but
is
it
for
all
residents?
Is
it
going
to
be
for
some
different
levels
of
income,
Equity
side
of
the
house,
so
I
like
the
idea
that
we
want
to
do
it
across
the
city-wide,
but
we
we
may
have
some
other
thresholds
to
do
it.
D
G
I'm
also
concerned
about
I
mean
you,
you
all
of
us
well,
I,
think
I
think
between
at
this
point,
all
of
us
have
made
very
public
statements
and
statements
Offline
that
we
are
going
to
support
and
increase
I.
Don't
think
that
the
standard
of
putting
something
in
a
budget
amendment
needs
to
be.
Is
this
support
important
or
are
we
serious
about
it?
Because
then
there
is
no
line
of
where
we
can
put
it.
G
It
has
to
have
an
element
of
urgency
because
a
broken
boiler
so
that
we
can't
pay
people,
because
we've
used
up
too
much
too
much
overtime
hours.
Those
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
we
need
to
talk
about.
We,
it's
not
fair.
To
say
all
of
these
things
are
important
to
us,
but
some
are
more
important
than
others
in
this
moment.
G
Right
now
and
then
they're
separated
out
from
the
broader
budget
discussion,
there's
a
reason
why
we
pass
a
budget
once
a
year
and
why
certain
things
we
amend
when
we
absolutely
have
to
just
because
we
don't
put
this
in
the
budget
amendment
doesn't
mean
we're
not
going
to
do
it.
It
doesn't
mean
that
it's
not
important,
but
we've
got.
We
have
to
draw
a
line
about
and
create
some
standard
for
how
we
tip
or
some
Norm
for
using
budget
amendments,
or
this
will
never
end.
Okay,.
J
I,
don't
care
where
it
comes
from,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that
this
is
the
boldest
thing
we
can
do.
I
feel
about
adus,
I,
obviously
granted
that
the
other
Boulder
thing
would
have
been.
You
know,
remove
the
requirement
altogether
what
we
should
set
it
on
you
know,
but
the
next
bold
move
you
know,
move
that
this
Council
can
have.
The
city
is
to
say:
yes,
let's
set
aside
money
because
the
biggest
hurdle
right
now,
it's
the
construction
cost.
We
need
to
help
people
build
these
adus
because
we
need
the
house.
M
I
think
we
should
I
think
we
should
wait
until
budget
season
two
because
I'd
be
committed
to
looking
for
more
than
that.
If
we
know
that
it's
250
for
a
650
square
foot
in
Guadalupe,
that's
four
that
were
potentially
so
so,
let's,
let's
put
it
off
the
budget
season
and
I'll
look
I'll!
Look
with
you
for
more
money!
For
that.
J
K
Ahead,
I'm
just
saying
logistically,
because
the
budget,
the
annual
budget,
is
not
in
front
of
you.
It
would
also
be
a
legislative
intent
because
there's
no
way
to
force
the
mayor
to
include
it
in
her
budget
and
you
would
have
to
add
it
and
that's
fine
and
you
can
do
that,
but
that
it
would
be
a
legislative
intent.
I
J
J
The
next
idea
legislative
intent
issue
or
proposal
it's
to
have
to
also
earmark
some
funds
for
at
least
one
full-time
employee
to
enforce
on
adus
and
that's
to
prevent
more
people
being
in
an
edu.
That's
supposed
to
be
to
prevent
landlords
from
being
absent,
and
you
know
being
bad
neighbors
to
prevent
short-term
rentals
people.
Taking
advantage
of
you
know
of
those
adus,
they
are
supposed
to
be
how
housing,
people
long
term
and
not
night
nightly
so
I
heard
from
other,
and
obviously
you
guys
council
members
go
ahead
and
mend
or
propose
something.
J
L
B
D
B
M
I
I
B
I
I
B
I
I
Q
J
D
B
P
B
Okay,
so
we're
moving
on
to
item
number
two,
which
is
a
report
of
on
a
potential
public
asset
yield
model
to
enhance
the
Community
Land
Trust
at
the
table.
We
will
have
Jennifer
Bruno,
who
is
here:
Philip
Walters
from
Urban
three
Ben
McAdams
from
Common,
Ground,
Institute
and
available
for
questions
are
Blake
and
Tammy
from
the
Department
of
Community
neighborhoods.
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
H
M
I
need
to
disclose
I
work
for
former
Congressman
mayor
McAdams
on
conceptual
issues
like
this
I
do
not
work
on
anything
having
to
do
with
any
City
issues,
and
we
are
very
close,
we're
very
clear
about
delineating
what
things
I'm
allowed
to
work
on
and
when
I'm,
not
as
there
is
no
consideration
tonight
being
given
to
any
action.
I
am
going
to
stay
in
the
room
for
the
presentation
in
the
future.
I
will
be
mindful
of
any
recusals
I
need
to
make.
B
K
I
can
just
do
a
really
brief
intro
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
these
guys
to
continue
just
to
orient
the
council
in
2021
the
administration
hired
the
Consultants
Urban
3
and
the
Common
Ground
Institute
to
recommend
strategies
to
expand
the
city's
Community
Land
Trust.
Currently
that
trust
is
administered
by
the
Department
of
community
and
neighborhoods.
K
The
resulting
studies
before
you
guys
tonight,
which
focuses
on
how
the
city
may
choose
to
use
current
real
estate
assets
in
order
to
maximize
Revenue
the
revenue
Source
could
then
be
used
to
expand
the
City's
community,
land
trust
or
other
public
policy
goals.
The
study
in
transmittal
referred
to
this
as
the
pay
model
which
you
may
see
throughout
the
staff
report
in
transmittal
and
that
stands
for
public
asset
yield
and
the
yield
refers
to
the
revenue
generated
from
the
public
assets
as
council
member
Petro
mentioned.
K
O
Okay,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
on
the
city's
public
asset
yield
study.
This
study
was
initiated
in
June
2021
and
urban.
Three
and
Common
Ground
Institute
are
with
us
today
to
discuss
the
ideas
and
Concepts
included
in
the
report.
Can
Administration
housing
stability
and
the
RDA
were
on
the
selection
committee
and
each
department
with
asset
Holdings,
participated
in
the
working
group
meetings
throughout
the
course
of
the
study.
The
purpose
of
the
study
was
to
conduct
an
initial
brainstorm
on
how
to
best
leverage
the
city's
assets
to
meet
long-term
policy
objectives.
O
Urban
3
and
Common
Ground
Institute
will
present
a
holistic,
multi-departmental
and
innovative
Municipal
approach
to
how
we
think
about
Capital
Asset
Management.
One
of
the
possible
outcomes
of
implementing
the
study's
recommendations
would
be
the
facilitation
of
additional
and
affordable
housing
units
to
address
the
housing,
Supply
and
affordability
crisis
that
our
community
and
much
of
the
nation
is
currently
experiencing.
O
R
S
Yes,
there
we
go.
Thank
you
Ben
how's,
my
how's,
my
internet.
Doing
all
the
way
from
Asheville,
North
Carolina
today
I
seem
to
be
be
hearing
you
guys
just
fine,
you
sound
great.
We
can
hear
you
that's
great,
very
good.
Thank
you.
Let's
see,
if
it
will,
let
me
oh
okay,
so
it
looks
like
I
won't
be
able
to
share,
but
that's
probably
okay.
We
have
the
same
copy
of
everything.
S
So
go
ahead
and
take
me
to
the
next
slide
very
good.
So
what
I?
What
I
have
to
explain
to
you?
First,
because
we're
a
little
unusual
at
Urban
three
is
how
how
we
look
at
the
world
and
why
it's
a
little
different,
and
it's
really
at
its
core.
It
comes
out
of
Our
Roots
as
a
real
estate,
Our
Roots
in
a
Real
Estate
Investment
corporation,
which
taught
us
some
of
these
lessons,
and
it
really
taught
us
that,
frankly,
we
could
look
at
our
cities.
S
R
R
S
Is
still
this
is
just
the
metaphor
that
I
think
can
help
everybody
see
that
see
the
world
the
way
I
see
it
so
that
this
presentation
makes
a
little
more
sense.
But
if
you,
if
you
think
about
it,
the
way
a
farmer
thinks
about
it,
they
know
or
well.
They
hope
that
what
they're
going
to
spend
on
that
field
is
going
to
going
to
pencil
when
they
get
that
crop
out,
and
they
know
that
per
acre
their
bushel
price
for
the
corn
is
going
to
cover
their
costs.
S
S
Is
it
going
to
pencil
out
for
you
in
the
in
the
long
run,
and
so
that
fundamental
idea
of
thinking
about
our
cities,
the
way
we
think
about
a
farm,
a
farm
where
we
think
about
their
Farm
or
frankly,
the
way
you
probably
already
think
about
your
gas
tax,
your
gas
tank?
Are
you
really
concerned
with
the
size
of
the
gas
tank
in
your
car,
or
are
you
more
interested
in
how
many
miles
per
gallon
you're
going
to
get
and
how
efficient
it
is
and
how
far
it's
going
to
take?
S
K
If
you
can't
I,
don't
know
if
he
has
permissions
too,
but
if
you
can
that
might
work,
our
staff
is
having
to
download
the
link.
Sorry,
we
didn't
realize
that
we
had
to
download
it
until
just
now.
I'm
sorry,
too,
that's
see
if
your
permissions
will
allow
you
to
share
and
then
in
the
same
time
our
our
staff
is
downloading.
It
sorry
about
that.
S
S
No,
no
problem,
here's
so
right.
We
can
think
about
it
as
a
farmer.
Here's
the
example
that
turned
us
on
to
this
notion.
It
was
literally
a
building
in
our
downtown.
It
was
worth
for
about
40
years,
just
stagnating
and
worth
only
300
000.
But
when
you
look
at
that
building,
that
number
doesn't
quite
compute.
Well
today,
it's
worth
11
million.
The
city
got
involved
in
this
case,
just
with
the
little
streetscape
upgrade,
which
really
helped
the
public
realm
and
help
the
parent
company
make
the
investment
that
essentially
grew
in
15
years.
S
An
order
of
magnitude,
3500
growth,
that
is
a
spectacular
investment
I,
think
if
I
was
a
farmer,
that's
the
kind
of
crop
I
would
want
to
grow,
and
so
that's
that
became
a
very
important
perspective
for
us
at
Urban
three,
and
but
we
almost
always
hear
this.
This
notion,
that's
just
the
way
we're
used
to
looking
at
property
taxes
as
people,
we're
used
to
the
total
value,
and
somebody
said
well.
The
Walmart
is
worth
twice
that
downtown
building
it's
worth,
20
20
million
dollars,
not
11
million.
S
We
said
that
is
true,
but
if
we
go
back
to
thinking
about
it,
like
a
farmer,
the
Walmart
uses
34
Acres,
instead
of
a
fraction
of
an
acre,
which
means
that
per
acre
that
downtown
building
is
far
more
productive.
It's
got
far
better
fuel
efficiency.
It
also
even
actually
has
more
sales
taxes
per
acre
than
the
Walmart
because
of
how
much
space
it
does
not
use
up
and
still
manages
to
have
some
retail
uses
it.
S
Actually,
it
also
provides
this
other
thing:
a
city
needs
which
is
residents
places
for
people
to
live
and
then
actually
even
more
jobs
per
acre.
So
this
this
story
really
flips
on
its
head,
because
we've
started
looking
at
it
from
a
different
perspective
and
that's
what
we
call
an
economic
MRI.
If
we
can
do
these
kinds
of
Imaging
of
our
brain
to
figure
out
what's
going
on,
why
can't
we
do
that
for
our
cities
and
in
fact,
that's
exactly
what
what
we
try
to
do.
So
here's
here's
that
first
image
again.
S
So
that
is
the
first
piece
of
that's
my
perspective.
That
helps
me
see
you
and
your
potential
a
little
differently.
So,
let's
talk
about
your
assets.
This
is
my
real
Focus
here
this
again
at
your
county-wide
scale,
is
really
really
simple:
three
kinds
of
assets:
private,
that's
not
really!
What
we're
here
to
talk
about
today
and
it's
a
lot
of
the
area
in
your
case
really,
but
all
over
the
mountain
West
there's
a
dark
yellow
here
for
yeah,
it's
public,
but
that's
like
Federal
forest
or
something
mostly,
that's,
not
really.
S
S
S
So
there's
an
awful
lot
of
potential
here
from
that
way
of
looking
at
it,
there's
a
lot
of
open
grounds,
but
let's
look
at
it
one
more
way:
let's
put
back
together
these
two
Notions,
here's,
your
your
productivity
of
your
Parcels,
the
value
per
acre.
That's
that's
existing
right
now
and
let's
take
that
down
to
just
the
public
stuff
and
I've
I've
left
in
all
the
public
stuff,
so
that
you
can
get
the
sense
here
that
that
you're
a
piece
of
a
larger
story
of
land
that
is
currently
controlled
by
the
public
in
our
communities.
S
It's
it's
a
really
large
large
percentage
of
our
land,
some
of
it
already
very
valuable
others
then
we'll
get
into
this
in
a
little
more
detail
for
you.
Some
of
these
areas
May
well
not
be
suitable
for
certain
kinds
of
Investments,
but
we
need
to
at
least
get
a
sense
of
what
we're,
starting
with,
which
is
where
we
start
assessing
the
value
again
a
little
differently.
S
Let's
look
at
just
just
your
Parcels,
the
ones
owned
by
Salt,
Lake,
City
and
all
of
its
legal
sub
entities,
we're
back
to
that
9.4
square
miles
around
3
billion
of
value
right
now
or
in
in
the
terms
that
I
like
to
use
those
efficiency
terms
a
little
under
a
half
a
million
dollars
per
acre
on
average.
You
can
see
a
few
really
really
valuable
things
near
downtown,
of
course,
and
then
some
that's
the
Parkland
or
undeveloped.
Not
surprisingly,
that's
on
the
low
end,
let's
do
a
little
thought
experiment.
What?
S
If
all
of
that
now
averaged
something
like
the
rest
of
the
city
averages
that
would
be
2
million
per
acre,
the
city-wide
average?
That's
that's
a
feasible
to
think
about
at
least
that
could
be
12
billion
dollars
of
value
or
what,
if
we
can
think
about
even
a
5
million
per
acre
average.
That
means
that
you're,
looking
at
a
30
billion
dollar
value,
Asset
portfolio,
now
Ben's
going
to
get
into
it,
but
I
just
have
to
say.
We
all
know
that
you
probably
wouldn't
want
to
build
on
every
inch
of
all
of
your
Parcels.
S
But
the
thought
experiment
here
is
is
how
much
potential
you
have
and
I
see
for
you
around
30
billion
dollars
of
potential.
So
what
if
you
could
find
a
little
bit
of
low-hanging
fruit
and
get
started
on
some
of
that
that
you
own
you
control,
you
have
the
equity
stake
in
and
it
could
do
something
more
for
you,
but
I
get
ahead
of
myself.
R
For
you,
okay
thanks,
so
some
of
you
had
the
opportunity
to
meet
dog
deader
when
he
was
here
in
Salt
Lake.
When
I
was
mayor,
we
brought
dog
to
come
and
talk
about
this
stuff
and
Jen
I.
Think
you
were
there
right,
so
he
is
thought
when
people
ask
like.
Has
this
been
done
before
so
dog
pioneered
this
work
in
Sweden?
It's
it's.
You
know
done
in
Europe
and
Asia
and
pretty
common
outside
of
the
U.S.
R
It's
it's
much
less
common
inside
of
the
us
about
using
these
assets,
but
I
often
tell
the
story.
I
feel
like
I'm,
going
to
depart
a
little
bit
to
tell
the
story
of
my
daughter
right.
So
when
we
think
about
what
we're
doing
here,
you
know
our
constituents,
the
residents
of
our
cities,
have
figured
this
out
right.
They'll
find
their
assets
they're,
not
using
oftentimes.
R
It's
a
your
house
when
you
go
out
of
town
you're
not
going
to
be
using
your
home,
so
you
put
it
on
on
a
timeshare
or
an
Airbnb
which
I
know
is
the
bane
of
existence
for
councils.
So
I
don't
mean
to
I'm
not
endorsing
that
concept,
but
our
constituents
right
have
figured
out
how
to
use
assets
they
own
that
are
underutilized
and
put
them
to
work.
R
R
R
But
I
tell
the
story
to
say:
people
have
figured
out
how
to
use
their
assets
and
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here
when
I
was
mayor,
I,
remember,
I,
got
elected
mayor
and
I
wanted
to
focus
on
early
childhood
and
we
were
trying
to
come
up
with
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
an
early
childhood
initiative
and
I
went
to
like
every
naively
new
elected
official.
We
go
to
staff
and
say:
I
need
five
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
they're
like
okay.
R
What
are
you
gonna
cut
because,
like
the
money
there's
not
money,
every
penny
spent,
you
know
and
I
I
thought.
Well,
we
have
a
billion
dollars.
There's
got
to
be
like
money
lying
under
the
sofa
and
there's
got
to
be
money
everywhere
and
the
reality
is
it's
pretty.
Every
penny
is
pretty
well
programmed,
so
I
asked
at
the
time.
Well,
it
was
actually
several
years
later
that
I
asked
when
we
think
about
our
government
budgets.
We
think
about
what
money
we
bring
in
and
what
money
we
spend.
R
That's
our
process
of
balancing
our
budget
every
year.
What
we
don't
think
about
is
our
balance
sheet
our
assets,
so
I
could
figure
out
what
my
net
worth
is.
I'd
add
up
my
student
loans
on
the
negative
side,
my
my
mortgage,
you
know
all
the
debts
that
I
have
and
then
I'd
say
on
the
positive
side.
I
own,
my
home,
I
own,
a
car
and
I
can
figure
out
my
net
worth.
I
can
Google
and
tell
you
what
the
net
worth
is
of
Microsoft.
What
Holdings
do
they
have?
What
debts
do
they?
They
have.
R
R
So
it's
worth
twenty
dollars.
It's
like
I
I.
Don't
think
that
you
know
two
acres
of
land
in
downtown
Atlanta
is
worth
twenty
dollars
like
you
know,
I,
don't
really
think
so.
Anyway,
that's
kind
of
how
government
approaches
when
we
do
have
a
value
for
our
land
is
really
kind
of
our
book
value
or
acquisition
value.
Sometimes
that
number
could
be
decades
old.
R
R
So
how
do
we
use
our
assets?
So
this
is
a
public
asset.
Yield
is
a
framework
for
thinking
about
our
assets,
so
the
first
thing
I
would
say
is
and
Philip
said
this:
not
every
asset
is
going
to
be
developed
every
square
inch
of
every
asset
right.
So
we
would
recommend
you
think
about
your
assets
and
roughly
three
large
categories
you're
going
to
have
Legacy
assets.
This
could
be
City
Creek,
Canyon
that
you
want
to
preserve
or
the
Jordan
River,
Parkway
or
city
hall
right.
R
So
this
would
make
a
great
Hotel
like
that
hotel
in
Europe
you're,
never
going
to
do
that.
I
wouldn't
recommend
it,
but
that's
a
legacy
asset
right,
something
that
you
are
preserving,
that
has
value
to
the
community.
Beyond
its
its
market
value,
go
to
the
next
one.
You
have
policy
assets.
These
are
assets
that
don't
necessarily
have
an
emotional
attachment,
but
it's
a
housing
project,
an
affordable
housing
project
or
the
public
safety
building.
Chief
Brown
probably
does
have
an
emotional
attachment
to
that
building,
but
think
about
a
fire
station
right
or
a
school.
R
These
are.
These
are
facilities
that
serve
a
purpose.
Now
they
could,
they
could
overlap.
You
could
have
a
historic
building
that
also
serve
as
a
library
that
you
want
to
preserve,
but
those
are
policy
assets
go
to
the
next
one
Phillip,
so
the
last
one
we
would
talk
about
is
hybrid
assets,
and
this
is
where
they
serve
multiple
functions,
so
think
of
our
our
main
library
here.
That
is
not
only
a
library
but
is
also
you
have
retail
in
the
library
that
generates
Revenue
to
help
support
the
library
operations.
R
So
you
rent
out
spaces
in
that
Library,
so
you're
using
it
not
only
for
its
policy
function
of
providing
a
library
to
the
community,
but
you
figured
out
how
to
also
generate
some
revenue
from
that
to
further
support.
Library
operations
go
to
the
next
slide,
Philip
I.
Guess
we
lost
the
site
on
yield.
The
last
one
is
maybe
asset
that
you
have
no
emotional
attachment
to
that
can
just
be
you
used
to
generate
a
return.
You
know
whether
it's
a
financial
return
or
some
other
benefit
back
to
the
community.
R
That
can
be
the
you
know
the
parking
lot
that's
underutilized
across
from
Atlanta
City
Hall
that
had
no
real
actually
did
have
a
a
function.
It
was
used
by
Corrections
for
prisoner
transport
and
our
person
we're
working
with
Atlanta,
went
to
their
Corrections
and
said.
You
know
this
parking
lot
that
you're
using
here.
R
Could
you
consider
some
other
use,
we're
trying
to
put
affordable
housing
into
our
downtown
and
they
said
absolutely
not
like?
We
can't
do
anything
because
it's
used
for
prisoner
transport-
and
he
said
well,
your
parcel's
actually
worth
like
20
million
dollars.
What,
if
you
could
get
paid
to
allow
us
to
put
housing
on
this
parcel
they're
like
sold
right?
They
don't
have
an
emotional
attachment
in
that
parking
lot.
R
It
had
a
policy
function,
but
they
were
able
to
re
think
about
how
they
met
their
policy,
need
and
and
also
were
able
to
free
up
this
piece
of
land
to
become
affordable
housing
and
some
Mark.
It's
mixed
income
housing
is
what
they're
talking
about
they're
doing
an
RFP
on
that
right
now,
actually
to
do
some
mixed
income,
housing
that'll
generate
some
Revenue
back
to
the
city
that
can
help
oper
the
operations
of
their
Department
of
Corrections,
but
also
provide
much
needed,
affordable
housing
in
their
downtown.
So
I
like
to
use
this
asset.
R
This
is
Rio
de
Janeiro,
Brazil,
Copacabana
beach,
and
what
you
see
here
is
Pena
High
School
right
on
the
right
facing
the
beach.
They
were
trying
to
figure
out
this
high
school
was
old
and
dilapidated
and
they
didn't
have
money
to
rebuild
the
high
school,
and
so
they
were
trying
to
figure
out
what
they
do
with
this.
So
in
our
vernacular,
I
would
call
that
high
school
as
a
policy
asset.
It's
not
particularly
a
historic
building.
R
It's
serving
an
important
function
for
the
community
of
providing
place
for
kids
to
go
to
school,
but
doesn't
need
to
be
in
that
location
and
can
there
be
a
different
way
to
Envision
it?
So
you
look
at
what
this
building
is
surrounded
by
and
it's
very
high
value
market
rate
investment
go
to
the
next
slide.
You
zoom
out.
You
can
kind
of
get
a
feel
for
the
value
of
this
real
estate.
So
they
looked
at
this
and
they
said
what,
if
we
were
to
find
a
different
location
in
the
same
vicinity
for
our
high
school.
R
R
So
what
we
look
at
this
these
public
assets
here,
you
could
go
through
an
asset
classification
and
go
through
that.
Go
to
the
next
slide.
We
one
that
we
focused
on
and
I
would
just
classify.
So
this
study
was
done
about
a
year
ago.
I
don't
mean
to
we're
going
to
talk
about
the
public
safety
building.
I
am
not
current
on
conversations
with
the
city
about
the
public
safety
building.
R
So
if
you
can
think
about
this
in
more
of
a
hypothetical
than
a
real
asset
because
you're
you
may
have
policy
Direction,
that's
gone
elsewhere,
so
but
think
about
the
public.
We
wanted
to
just
model
this
as
a
concept,
so
you've
got
the
the
main
building
that
occupies
a
half
an
acre
floor
area
is
95
000
square
feet,
go
through
go
to
the
next
slide.
Assess
value
is
16
million
dollars,
the
entire
site
is
2.7
acres
and
the
assessed
value
is
16
million
dollars.
R
So
go
to
the
next
slide,
so
you
could
think
about
this
as
a
here's,
the
building
itself.
It
is
an
asset.
It's
probably
it
was
a
policy
asset
when
it
was
served
as
the
public
safety
building.
Now
it
is
a
city-owned
asset
that
I
would
say,
you're
thinking
about
from
what
I
know
a
year
ago,
you're
thinking
about
some
affordable
housing,
so
that
would
be
a
policy
function.
I
think
it
probably
is
a
historic
building
that
you
want
to
preserve
from
what
I
understand
at
least
the
architecture
of
it.
R
So
it
maybe
has
some
Legacy
value
as
a
model
of
architecture,
but
it
also
like
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
blank
slate
right
of
what
you
want
to
do
with
it.
So
go
to
the
next
slide.
So
here's
some
hypothetical
ideas
of
what
you
could
do
with
it.
Formerly
it
was
a
private
sector
building.
It
belonged
to
the
Northwest
Pipe
company.
It
was
a
private
sector.
Building
housed
housed
275
employees
today
it
would
have
a
value
of
24
million
dollars
or
48
million
dollars
per
acre
next
slide.
R
R
R
Go
to
the
next
slide,
so
options
for
the
future.
You
could
do
one
option.
You
could
turn
it
into
a
fully
market
rate
building
that
would
generate
Revenue
that
could
come
back
to
the
city
to
do
what
you,
maybe
you
were
using
it
to
fund
a
an
affordable
housing
seed
fund
or
it
could
go
into
funding
child
care.
Any
other
initiative
that
the
city
values.
R
That's
one
approach
you
could
take
next
slide,
maybe
you
could
do
it
as
entirely
affordable
and-
and
that
would
be
a
different
approach
and
that
would
certainly
provide
a
public
benefit
as
well.
Next
slide.
You
could
also
think
of
as
a
hybrid
right.
So
what
we've
got
here
is
the
ground
floor
serving
a
function
of
child
care.
Some
things
we've
heard.
You've
talked
about
the
UTA
break,
room,
Community
Resources,
other
amenities.
R
You
can
maybe
do
some
affordable
housing
in
this
building,
and
then
you
could
also
do
some
market
rate
and
maybe
that
market
rate
helps
to
offset
the
cost
of
the
affordable,
generate
some
return
to
go
back
into
the
building
or
come
back
into
the
city
general
fund
to
do
other
priorities
that
the
council
designates.
So
this
would
be
an
example
of
a
hybrid
asset
use
of
that
facility.
Next
slide,
then,
we
think
about
the
rest
of
the
2.4
Acres
that
you've
got
there
go
to
the
next
slide.
R
R
So
you
look
at
that
public
safety
building
and
what
that
could
do,
then
is
you
can
generate
Revenue
that
can
then
go
to
other
parts
of
the
city
to
support.
Maybe
the
cultivation
of
this
public
asset
policy
and
generating
kind
of
lubricate
the
the
concept
and
generate
New
Opportunities
and
new
benefits
to
come
back
to
the
public,
or
it
can
come
back
to
the
the
city
general
fund
and
do
other
priorities.
So
we
are
working
with
six
cities
right
now
around
the
country
through
our
putting
assets
to
work
policy
incubator.
R
R
Like
my
daughter
unlocked
value
from
her
car,
so
this
is
a
very
rough
framework.
This
is
again
theoretical
and
would
have
to
be
tailored
to
the
the
specific
idiosyncrasies
and
needs
of
each
jurisdiction
where
it
applies.
But
where
you
are,
as
as
we've
done
this
map
of
your
assets,
you
could
go
and
categorize
those
assets
and
start
to
think
through
them.
You
have
a
lot
of
assets.
R
I
I
would
have
I
would
encourage
you
to
not
get
paralyzed
by
a
decades-long
discussion
about
whether
a
parcel
is
Legacy
or
yield
and
really
start
like
what
we've
advised
other
jurisdictions
to
do
is
just
go
for
the
low-hanging
fruit.
If
something's
tricky
move
on,
you
can
come
back
to
it
at
some
point
in
the
future,
but
for
now
there's
some
you're
going
to
have
some
easy
cases
and
and
and
and
how
you
can
approach
this
so
you're,
going
to
set
the
priority
you're
going
to
take
an
asset.
R
Let's
say
again,
the
public
safety
building
you're
going
to
figure
out
what
approach
you
want
to
take
to
that.
That
is.
You
have
the
structure
to
do
that.
That's
an
interplay
as
you're
as
you're.
Looking
to
Surplus
a
property,
that's
an
interplay
between
the
executive
branch
and
the
legislative
branch
to
figure
out
what
parameters
you
want
to
ascribe
to
that
facility.
Do
you
want
it
to
be
Net
Zero?
Do
you
want
it
to
have
X
percent
affordable?
Do
you
want
to
preserve
some
open
space
on
the
parcel?
R
Those
are
all
things
that
you
have
public
processes
to
decide
right
now,
so
that's
that
second
column
in
that
chart
there
at
the
point
that
you
are
ready
to
then
offer
up
an
asset
to
a
process
like
this
you
would
we
envision
a
pay
team.
A
public
asset
yield
team
that
can
then
take
a
and
they'll,
probably
be
that
they
would
be
a
team.
That's
maybe
working
with
the
council
and
the
mayor's
office
to
to
figure
out
the
approach.
R
What
that
you
want
to
take
on
each
individual
parcel,
each
parcel,
presumably
can
be,
is
going
to
be
different,
you're
going
to
want
to
take
a
different
approach
and
at
some
point
then
you're
going
to
want
to
engage
with
a
developer
or
a
finance.
Finance
professionals
who
are
going
to
come
in
this
is
going
to
require
private
capital
and
private
Partners
to
come
in
and
to
to
take
that
asset
from
the
state
that
it's
in
in
the
present
to
Something
in
the
future.
That's
going
to
meet
the
goals
of
the
of
the
city.
R
You
can
do
that
through
various
mechanisms
we
can
get
into
some
of
the
specifics
of
how
we
see
that
happening
with
the
cities.
We're
working
with
different
cities
are
taking
different
approaches.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
room
to
customize
it
to
what
you're
comfortable
with
and
what
is
going
to
help
you
to
scale
it
and
move
this
initiative
forward.
Ultimately,
that
parcel
then
starts
to
create
a
yield
and
that
yield
can
again.
You
would
decide
what
you
want
to
do
with
those
revenues
that
that
Revenue
can
go
into
an
affordable
housing
initiative.
R
That's
what
Atlanta
is
doing
is
they
have
a
goal
to
create
6,
000
new,
affordable
housing
units
in
the
next
six
years?
It
can
go
into
other
programs.
It
can
come
back
into
the
general
fund.
We
are
encouraging
people
to
to
to
appropriate
a
portion
of
that
to
help
to
build
this
function,
so
you
have
more
capability
to
do
it.
D
Could
you
go
back
to
the
the
spike
chair,
charts
or
something
like
that?
I
just
I
love,
this
idea
and
I.
Think
I
read
an
article
basically
on
this
same
subject,
but
it
was
also
it
Incorporated,
the
like
the
infrastructure
costs,
the
costs
associated
or
the
negative
side
of
the
house
of
development.
Why
density
is
in
invaluable
to
a
city
and
it
costs
a
lot
less
also
because
you
have
the
density
and
because
you're
you're
building
in
a
tighter
area
than
than
having.
R
That's
right:
yeah
Philip
didn't
go
through
that
when
he
was
talking
about
the
Walmart,
but
certainly
that
Walmart
has
a
lot
of
square
footage.
Frontage
that's
going
to
be
expensive
to
plow
snow
and
to
fill
potholes
when
you
think
about
Frontage
per
value
or
dollars
per
value.
That's
spent
on
storm
water
and
sewer
and
snow
removal
and
maintenance,
and
that
yeah
it's
going
to
be
really
expensive.
So.
D
So,
thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
it
because
that's
that
was
my
point.
It's
like
hey
this
value.
This
plan
may
be
valued
Great
Value,
but
it's
also
going
to
cost
us
a
lot
of
not
not
the
example
used
at
the
safety
building,
but
some
place
out,
I
think
they're
out
in
the
middle
of
nowhere,
oh
yeah,
but
we
gotta
build
roads.
D
B
R
So
that's
that's.
That's
great,
the
approach
of
when
you
think
about
what
this,
what
the
arrangement
looks
like
when
you're
forming
a
public-private
partnership
and
I
I.
Think
oftentimes
in
my
observation
that
public-private
partnership
benefits
one
of
the
parties,
not
both
right
and
there
are
probably
better
ways
to
do
that.
Let
me
tell
you
an
example
of
something
we
did
when
I
was
mayor,
so
you're
you're,
all
familiar
with
the
district
attorney
building
here
on
Fifth
South
and
just
just
a
block
from
here
right.
R
If
I
took
this,
stop
right
next
to
a
Transit
line
right
by
the
freeway
and
just
did
a
low-rise
building,
and
so
we
what
we
did
was
we
took
the
most
the
least
desirable
portion
of
that
land,
the
mid
block
and
we
built
the
district
attorney
building.
That's
a
five-story
building,
I
want
to
say:
if
you
look
on
the
west
side
of
that
building,
there
are
no
windows
right.
It's
just
a
wall
and
people.
Ask
me
why
that's
so
ugly
right.
R
R
So
it's
meaningful
when
you're
trying
to
find
pennies
to
to
fund
Criminal
Justice
Reform
initiatives,
so
you
can
do
you
can
sell
it
right.
I!
Think
in
my
I
think
it
pains
me
a
little
bit.
Some
there
can
be
times
where
the
right
answers
to
sell
it,
I'm
not
going
to
say
that
that's
never
the
right
thing,
but
what
I
would
hate
to
see?
Is
fire
sale
liquidating
all
your
assets
to
just
plug
a
hole
in
your
budget?
You
spent
100
years
acquiring
these
parcels
and
to
just
plug
use
it
next
year.
R
R
The
other
approach
that
we're
modeling
with
what
the
governments
were
working
with
is
an
equity
approach
so
where
you
contribute
the
land
and-
and
you
become
part
of
the
capital
stack
essentially
so
you
would
have
other
private
dollars
coming
in
and
and
you
do
that
development
and
let's
say
you
own-
that
parts
of
lands
worth
five
million
dollars
and
you
are
have
a
capital
stack
of
20
million
you're
going
to
own
25
of
the
development.
So
when
that
development
moves
forward,
you
get
25
of
whatever
that
generates.
I
like
that
approach.
R
It's
again,
it's
not
always
going
to
be
that
that's
the
right
approach,
but
I
do
like
that
approach,
because
you
are
similarly
situated
with
the
private
sector,
so
you're
going
to
do
as
well
as
the
private
Partners
do,
there's
no
win
or
loser
in
that
it's
it's
a
win-win
and
you
get
to
capture
the
upside
I.
Think
that's
a
particularly
interesting
approach.
R
When
government
has
the
ability
to
create
its
own
weather
system
sometimes,
and
what
what
does
pain
me
is
when
you
see
government
will
sell
a
parcel
and
then
put
in
a
Transit
stop
put
in
a
park,
put
in
a
trail
improve
the
amenities
of
the
neighborhood
and
whoever
benefit
the
person
who
benefits
was
somebody
who
bought
that
parcel
for
pennies
on
the
dollar
and
then
saw
the
appreciation
go
exponential
when
you
could
stay
in
and
maintain
a
piece
of.
You
know
that
you're
going
to
create
a
new
weather
system
in
a
community.
R
Why
shouldn't
the
people
of
Salt,
Lake
City
benefit
from
the
hard
work
and
investment
you're
going
to
make
in
a
neighborhood
and
I?
Think
one
of
the
things
we
see
a
lot
of
times
with
those
efforts
to
to
remedy
blight
is
the
unfortunate
outcome
is
gentrification
with
the
people
who
were
trying
to
help
then
get
priced
out
of
the
neighborhood
and
I
think
there's
a
better
approach
where
you
can
capture
the
benefit
that
you
create
and
put
that
back
into
the
people.
R
So
they
can
afford
to
stay,
and
maybe
even
it
could
be
an
affordable
housing
initiative
or
a
home
buyer
assistance
program
or
a
rental
assistance
program,
but
something
so
that
people
who
can
who
lived
in
that
Community
who,
who
supported
the
Investments
that
happen
in
that
Community,
can
stay
there
and
benefit
from
from
the
upside
from
the
benefits
that
occur.
That's.
R
I
Amazing
back
then,
anyway,
so
I
I
do
apprec
iate
this.
But
when
I
look
at
this,
I
can
distinctly
remember
a
graphic
very
similar
to
this.
That
Tammy
put
together
for
our
RDA,
because
I
think
that
our
RDA
does
exactly
this
in
in
a
lot
of
ways
and
that
Revenue
generating
is
the
whole
point
of
the
RDA
and,
and
so
it's
you
know.
I
There
and
kind
of
as
I
mean
it's
all
limited,
and
it's
all
legal
and
it's
all
done
by
structure
and
where
it's
all
transparent,
but
there's
just
a
little
bit
different
but
creative
tools
that
we
have
there
and
we
again
I,
go
back
to
this
and
say:
I
can
like
picture
the
mission
and
the
value
and
the
priorities
that
we
have
within
there.
That
I
can
praise
Tammy
for
having
these
amazing
graphics
and
then
really
everything.
I
R
Well,
I
would
say
first
of
all
the
we're
not
here
to
recommend
a
structure
right
at
this
point.
This
is,
if
you
want
to
go
down
this
path,
I
would
encourage
you
to
like
we
are
we're
working
with
our
six
other
jurisdictions.
Each
jurisdiction
is
taking
a
different
approach
to
how
they
structure
it,
and
it's
based
on
kind
of
again
idiosyncrasies
of
each
entity
and
and
you're
welcome
to
do
that.
R
Now
there
can
be
some
overlap
in
that,
but
not
every
publicly
owned
asset
is
within
an
RDA,
nor
should
it
be,
but
you
know
certainly,
the
RDA
is
one
vehicle
that
can
be
used
to
do
that.
One
of
the
things
well
I
used
to
teach
law
school
before
I,
branched
off
into
public
service.
I
taught
here
at
the
U
and
I
would
start
I
taught
Securities
Law,
so
the
investment
law
and
stocks
and
bonds,
and
that
and
I
would
start
my
class
with
a
story.
I
would
say
a
joke.
R
I
would
say
there
are
two
economists
walking
down
the
street
and
one
Economist
says
to
the
other
I
think
that's
a
10
Bill
lying
on
the
ground
up
there
and
the
other
Economist
says
you're
such
an
idiot.
It
is
not
a
10
Bill.
If
there
was
a
10
Bill
lying
on
the
ground,
somebody
would
have
picked
it
up
already.
So
again,
I
think
that
you
know
why
you
could
say
it's
already
happening.
It's
already
been
the
10
Bill's
already
been
picked
up.
R
I
would
say:
I
would
go
back
to
the
map
of
publicly
available
assets
that
are
underutilized
and
say
we
are
missing
an
opportunity
to
put
assets
to
work
for
the
benefit
of
our
constituents.
It's
up
to
you
to
decide.
What's
the
best
way
to
do
that,
I
agree
with
you
that
the
RFP
approach
is,
is
it's
what
we
have
right
now?
There
are
better
ways:
you're
never
going
to
get
to
scale
when
you
do
an
RFP
approach.
P
B
G
You
know
with
the
high
school
that
makes
sense
even
the
example,
with
our
own
old
public
safety
building
makes
sense,
but
a
lot
of
the
property
that
well
I
won't
say
a
lot
one
of
the
pieces
of
property
that
stuck
out
to
me
was
like
all
of
this
area
around
like
a
spaghetti
bowl
of
a
freeway
and
to
me
those
are
I
mean.
How
could
you
ever
find
something
that
how
could
you
ever
unlock
that
you
know?
Do
you
have
any
examples
of.
R
R
Of
well,
let
me
give
you
an
example
of
a
time
when
I
was
mayor
and
I.
Think
the
goal
here
is
to
first
of
all
is
to
just
create
a
shift
in
how
we
think
of
assets,
not
every
asset.
Do
you
want
to
put
to
work
and
not
every
asset
can
be
put
to
work
right,
but
to
maybe
shift
the
mindset
to
say.
Are
we
getting
the
most
out
of
this
asset
that
we
could
be
getting
so
the
example
that
comes
to
mind
when
I
was
mayor
was
we
were
trying
to
build
a
convention?
R
Hotel
and
Convention
hotels
do
not
happen
without
some
type
of
public
partnership.
That
was
an
impossible.
We
had.
We
had
tried
for
30
years
to
get
a
public
partnership
to
make
a
convention
Hotel
happen,
and
it
just
wasn't
going
to
happen
in
Utah,
but
we
started
looking
and
we
identified
that
there's
a
there's
land,
that's
currently
occupied
by
the
Salt
Palace
right.
R
It
wasn't
viewed
as
Surplus
land,
but
we
looked
at
it
and
said
this
corn
corner
of
the
you
know
this
entrance
I
remember
I've,
been
to
you
know
the
Allies
dinner
used
to
be
there
I,
remember
going,
and
that
like
was
always
just
an
empty
kind
of
black
hole
of
the
convention
center.
That
was
dead
and
just
kind
of
sucked
the
life
out
of
any
convention
that
was
there.
It
also
sucks
the
life
out
of
our
downtown
and
we
thought
that's
not
really
the
best
use
of
our
public
space.
R
That
would
would
come
off
of
that,
but
was
not
there
was
it
wasn't
generating
sales
or
property
tax
at
the
time,
and
so
we
committed
the
land
for
a
period
for
20
years,
I
think
and
the
sales
and
property
tax
for
20
years,
and
that
was
enough
to
get
an
incentive
that
got
us
a
hotel
developer
to
the
table
and
got
a
convention
Hotel.
So
I,
don't
I'm,
not
speaking
about
the
spaghetti
Global
per
se.
I'm
I'll
tell
you
about
an
Atlanta
example,
but
to
but
what
I
want
to
First
say
is.
R
B
R
In
in
the
broader
sense,
yes,
it'll
bring
Revenue,
but
I
I.
Don't
know
that
I
would
think
about
every
asset
as
having
to
create
a
dollar
back
to
the
city's
general
fund.
So
what
Atlanta
wants
to
do?
Is
they
don't
want
cash
in
their
general
fund?
They
want
to
use
their
upside
to
buy,
affordable
housing
units
right
so
I
would
say,
and
so
I
kind
of
use
the
word
opportunities
opportunities
can
be
cash,
but
opportunities
can
be
affordable,
housing
units,
it
can
be
a
convention
Hotel.
J
It
in
into
words,
and
in
a
good
graph,
to
understand
the
importance
of
buildings
and
the
categories
that
you
have.
It's
amazing,
because
we
can
do
a
lot
of
good
things
for
the
taxpayers
for
years
to
come.
And
that's
why
you
know
I've
stressed
the
importance
of
of
holding
on
to
our
assets
for
a
little
bit
longer.
J
To
go
but
for
the
most
part,
what
I
heard
you
say:
it's
it's!
You
know,
let's,
let's
keep
them
for
longer,
so
that
we
can
have
that
ongoing
revenue
and
for
our
budget,
so
I
appreciate
all
that
was
set
today
and
I
hope
that
we
take
this
in
consideration
as
a
group
and
keep
moving
forward
as
we
think
of
the
future
of
our
city.
So
thank
you.
Ben
thank.
M
So
I
probably
should
just
stay
quiet
but
I.
Think,
especially
as
we
look
at
things
like
the
North
Point
small
area
plan,
we
are
desperate
to
try
to
preserve
some
of
that
Natural
Area
and
to
preserve
some
agricultural
land
and
our
general
fund
just
isn't
sustaining
it
in
Annapolis,
which
we're
working
with
they're,
literally
losing
Coastline
to
climate
change
because
of
unique
issues.
They're
reinvesting
exclusively
in
green
structures,
they've
created
a
resilience
Authority.
M
These
kinds
of
revenue
streams
are
the
kinds
that
not
only
protect
us
on
the
fronts
that
we
need
and
making
the
assets
work
is
required
for
that.
It
also
maintains
a
livable
City,
because
we
cannot
continuously
go
back
to
Property
Owners
as
the
one
Revenue
source
that
we
control.
We
have
got
to
find
other
sustainable
revenue
streams
and
things
like
protecting
the
shores
of
the
Great
Salt
Lake
is
the
perfect
example
of
not
everything
should
be
subject
to
capitalistic
pressures,
but
we
always
have
them
so
having
Capital
not
dependent
on
already
stressed
out.
M
Property
Owners
is
like
it's
it's
my
dream.
This
is
this
is
what
this
is
literally,
why
I
continue
working
and
it's
and
it's
something
I've
seen
Cleveland
and
Chattanooga
in
particular.
Do
so
well
and
I
really
would
love
in
in
Cleveland
they're,
rewriting
literal
generational
disenfranchisement,
using
these
revenue
streams.
M
B
I'm
trying
to
parse
through
the
I,
because
it
it
seems
like
a
good
idea,
I'm
trying
to
parse
through
how
it's
different
than
what
we're
already
doing
and
I
don't
want
to
use
this
example.
But
I'm
going
to
so.
The
Utah
theater
was
an
asset.
Okay,
I
I!
Don't
want
to
use
this
example,
but
anyway
it
was
a
public
asset.
B
So,
for
instance,
if
that
public,
if
that
building
was
100
market
rate
and
highest
and
best
use
in
terms
of
economic
dollars,
a
percentage
of
that
10
25
50
of
that
comes
back
to
the
city,
and
we
have
then
an
ongoing
Revenue
stream,
and
we
also
have
ownership
in
the
project
so
that,
if
the
value
the
land
value
increases,
we
could
like
our
value
goes
up
as
well.
So
that's
creating
a
revenue
stream
that
we
then
use
that
Revenue
stream
to
go,
invest
in
affordable
housing
over
here
or
improve
public
parks
over
there.
B
R
So
I
would
say
we're
not
saying
that
that
is
the
the
approach
you
have
to
go.
Certainly
taking
an
asset
and
exchanging
your
value
in
the
asset
for
other
community
benefits
is
one
approach
right.
Another
tool
in
your
tool
belt
might
be
to
do
a
market
rate
development.
We
call
it,
we
analogize
it
to
like
environmental
space.
So
when
you
think
about
doing
a
net
zero
building
right,
you're
gonna
you're
going
to
use
double
pane
windows,
you're
going
to
insulate
you're
going
to
use
low
energy
appliances
different
things
at
the
end
of
the
day.
R
You
might
not
be
there
so,
but
then
what
you
do
is
you
take
a
little
bit
you're
you
get
this
so
we're
going
to
buy
renewable
energy
from
a
utility
scale,
solar
somewhere
else,
and
it's
going
to
get
the
last
little
bit
to
get
us
there.
So
we
talk
about.
You
can
think
about
an
on-site
benefit
I'm,
going
to
take
this
parcel
and
build
affordable
housing.
An
off-site
benefit
would
be
we're
going
to
take
this
parcel,
build
market
rate
housing
and
use
the
revenue
to
fund
an
affordable
housing
budget
right
or
something
like
that.
R
You
may
still
come
back
and
say
on
this
particular
asset.
We
want
to
go
with
this
approach
now,
I
would
say:
what's
not
happening
currently
is,
and
we
don't
see
outside
of
like
Europe
and
Asia.
There
is
no
government
in
the
United
States
doing
this
right
now,
where
they.
This
is
systematically
the
approach
they
take
with
all
of
their
assets
and
thinking
about
how
do
we
so
here's
here's
an
analogy
I
like
to
use
you
do
this
already
in
the
context
of
your
Pension
funds
right,
so
you
take
money
out
of
your
employees
paycheck.
R
Now
some
of
your
employees,
many
of
your
employees
at
this
point
are
going
to
be
tier
two,
but
think
of
your
tier
one.
Employees
who
are
have
a
pension
with
URS.
You
are
collecting
money
from
their
paycheck
and
that
money
doesn't
go
in
the
vaults
downstairs,
those
beautiful
full
historic
vaults.
You
don't
store
it
and
wait
for
that
employee
to
retire.
To
then
start
paying
you
put
those
dollars
to
work.
You
hand
it
to
Utah
Retirement
Systems.
They
take
your
assets.
Sometimes
they
buy
real
estate.
Sometimes
they
invest
in
hedge
funds.
R
Sometimes
they
invest
in
startups.
Sometimes
they
invest
in
Blue
Chip
companies,
but
their
job
is
to
use
your
assets
to
maximize
the
return
so
that
when
that
employee
retires,
there's
money
there
to
pay
their
pension,
and
so
what
I
would
say
is
not
happening
with
any
city
in
the
U.S.
Right
now
is
thinking
about
your
assets
as
a
portfolio
that
should
be
actively
managed
to
maximize
the
benefit
and
opportunities
back
to
the
community.
Now.
P
R
D
D
Dugan
I
love
the
discussion
and
I
and
I
really
appreciate
this
and
it's
a
great
discussion.
We
have
a
number
of
policy
questions
here
that
you
know
we
can't
answer
tonight
and
I,
don't
think
we
can
answer
in
another
session,
so
I'd
like
to
take
this
to
it.
The
next
step
is,
you
know,
finding
some
time
to
re
readdress
this
issues
readjust
this
type
of
idea,
in
maybe
small
groups
and
kind
of
go
further,
go
further
on
this,
but
I
think
we're
I'm
I'd
like
to
move
on
to
the
next
item.
Okay,.
B
You're
requesting
that
we
move
on
to
the
next
item:
I
no
I,
just
we
are
behind
schedule.
I
I,
guess
my
take
away
from
this,
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
missing
the
point,
but
my
takeaway
is
that
we've
been
we
have
public
assets
and
we've
been
putting
them
to
work
in
one
specific
way,
but
there's
like
maybe
a
whole
spectrum
of
ways
that
we
can
consider
so
not
just
disposing
of
the
land,
potentially
writing
down
the
property
value
for
public
benefits,
but
there's
this
whole
other
Continuum
and
I.
B
H
K
P
B
R
C
K
B
T
T
The
community
and
neighborhoods
department
is
looking
into
options
to
use
the
remaining
two
million
dollars
for
additional
rent
assistance
through
other
programs
and
Partnerships.
Since
the
state
said
they
were
not
interested
in
taking
more
than
the
2
million
that
you
approved.
We
don't
have
those
options
today.
We
hope
to
have
them
for
next
Tuesday,
so
I'll
jump
to
A9
and
then
go
through
the
council
added
items.
T
A9
is
police
officer
bonuses,
it's
a
revised
proposal,
so
it's
slightly
different
than
what
is
in
the
transmittal
and
in
the
staff
report.
We
received
the
revised
proposal
from
the
administration.
This
morning
the
total
dollar
amount
Remains,
the
Same
five
and
a
half
million
dollars.
This
is
split
between
two
funding
sources:
4.3
million
from
arpa
American
Rescue
plan
act,
funds
and
1.2
million
from
general
fund
balance.
T
T
This
would
be
offered
to
all
existing
officers.
I
believe
the
one
exception
is
executive
officers
of
deputy
chief
Rank
and
hire.
There
are
also
hiring
bonuses
that
are
proposed
to
be
ongoing.
So
this
is
you
only
get
the
bonus
once
you're
only
hired
once,
but
there
would
be
additional
funding
needed
in
the
annual
budget
in
order
to
continue
providing
this
hiring
bonus
in
future
fiscal
years
same
amount.
Eighty
five
hundred
dollars
for
the
same
two-year
commitment
to
continue
employment
with
the
Department.
T
The
department
currently
has
39
vacant
sworn
police
officer
positions.
The
intent
of
the
bonus
program
is
to
incentivize
longer
retention
of
current
employees
and
hiring
more
faster,
the
end
goal
being
reaching
full
Staffing
or
functional
full
Staffing.
Since
it's
always
a
moving
Target,
it's
different
day-to-day
week
to
week
the
number
of
police
officer
positions,
taking
into
account
the
39
that
are
currently
vacant
would
be
a
93
percent
of
police
officer
positions
are
currently
filled.
T
T
The
bonus
is
a
higher
cost
to
the
city
than
just
the
8
500.
There
is
a
pensionable
contribution
required
by
the
Utah
Retirement
System,
so
in
addition
to
the
8
500,
there's
a
little
more
than
four
thousand
dollars
that
has
to
be
paid
into
the
pension
for
that
officer,
so
the
total
cost
to
the
city
is
over
twelve
thousand
dollars
for
each
of
these
bonuses.
T
If
the
item
is
approved
using
the
recommended
funding
sources,
the
total
amount
of
arpa
funds
that
have
not
been
spent
is
a
little
over
21
million
dollars
and
a
reminder.
Half
or
more
of
those
are
potentially
needed
in
the
next
annual
budget
for
Revenue
replacement,
as
well
as
some
ongoing
costs
that
were
previously
approved
in
the
last
annual
budget
like
eligible
ftes.
T
The
remaining
arpa
money
is
a
little
over
21
million
dollars.
If
this
item
is
approved
and
half
or
more
of
that
could
be
needed
in
the
next
annual
budget.
Revenue
replacement
is
by
far
the
biggest
item,
but
there
are
also
eligible
ftes
that
the
positions
are
currently
filled,
that,
in
previous
discussions
were
planned
to
continue
to
be
funded
with
arpa.
T
U
U
U
But
there
is
a
there
is
a
crisis
across
the
country
right
now,
and
it's
not
just
here
in
Salt,
Lake
City,
but
across
the
country
when
I
meet
with
other
Chiefs
from
different
agencies,
they're
all
strong,
struggling
to
hire
good
qualified
candidates
and
to
retain
good
qualified
candidates.
New
York
just
recently
reported
that
in
January
and
February
of
this
year,
2023
239
officers
have
left
the
force.
That's
in
two
months.
U
U
We
have
558
because
of
those
39
vacancies,
but
we
currently
have
57
officers
in
an
academy
position
or
in
an
fto
training
position
that
are
not
on
the
street
and
and
that's
that's
kind
of
the
draw
you
just
can't
hire
flip
a
switch
and
say
they're
on
the
street.
It
takes
24
weeks
of
an
academy.
It
then
takes
24
weeks
of
field
training,
so
it
takes
44
weeks
from
the
day
you
set
them
in
a
seat
to
the
day
they
can
take
their
first
call
in
our
community.
That's
11
months.
That's
a
lot
of
work.
U
One
of
the
fastest
ways
that
we
can
bring
good
officers
into
our
ranks
is
through
a
lateral
hire.
A
lateral
officer
is
an
officer
from
another
agency,
whether
it's
in
state
or
out
of
state
who
already
has
police
officer
certification
when
they
come,
we
can
put
them
through
a
two-week
Academy
and
then
put
them
into
a
10-week
field,
training
officer
course
and
have
them
on
the
street
within
12
weeks,
much
faster.
They
embrace
our
policy
and
our
culture,
and
they
are
really
good
officers
that
serve
our
community.
Well,
next
slide.
U
The
total
number
of
resignations
retirements
for
2023
is
35..
That
is
something
that
is
really
crippling
us.
If
you
take,
if
we
continue
at
that
pace
of
4.6
employees
per
month,
we
would
be
looking
at
55
officers
leaving
our
department
by
June
of
2023..
We
have
got
to
stop
this
loss.
I
mean
the
institutional
knowledge
and
experience
this
walking
out.
The
door
is
killing
us.
These
are
great
officers
that
have
served
our
community
for
many
years
and
still
have
a
lot
to
give
back
to
this
community.
U
Another
thing,
that's
really
difficult
is,
as
we,
our
numbers
dwindle,
we're
we're
having
to
rely
upon
overtime,
and
this
is
mandatory
over
time.
We're
having
officers
coming
back
and
filling
additional
shifts
so
that
we
can
continue
the
service
that
our
our
community
expects,
but
the
one
problem
with
mandatory
over
time
is
really
hard
on
morale.
U
U
U
U
That
is
a
gap
that
is
a
a
lot
of
officers
that
we
have
never
been
able
to
recover
from
we've.
We've
continued
our
hiring
practice.
We've
we've
continued
our
academies,
we've
looked
for
qualified
laterals,
but
we
have
never
been
able
to
catch
up
next
slide
this
next
proposal.
This
current
proposal
really
does
provide
that
retention
bonus
for
the
sworn
members,
no
matter
if
they're
hiring
date
or
Rank,
and
that
would
be
8
500
with
a
two-year
commitment.
U
It
also
provides
a
hiring
bonus
for
lateral
officers
of
8
500
for
a
two-year
commitment
at
one
time
we
were
thinking
they
may
be
different,
but
we
felt
very
strongly.
After
thinking
about
it,
the
officers
that
sit
every
day
in
our
in
our
in
our
department,
the
officers
that
serve
our
community,
deserve
the
very
same
monies
that
we
would
give
anybody
else
wanted
to
join
our
ranks
next
slide
and
then
what
I'd
like
to
show
you?
This
is
a
model,
and
if
you
look
at
the
top,
it
says
the
monthly
attrition.
U
The
rate
is
four:
that's
four:
a
month
if
we
hire
two
basic
academies
in
January
and
may
of
20
officers
each
if
we
hire
a
lateral,
Advanced
officer
Academy
of
five,
that's
typically
what
we
we've
been
getting.
If
we
have
a
new
hire
a
Salt
Lake
City
exclusive
Academy
post-certified
officers
in
in
of
nine
in
September.
U
U
U
it's
at
the
rate
we're
going
and
with
an
attrition
rate
of
four
a
month,
it's
going
to
take
us
until
October
of
20,
or
it's
going
to
take
us
until
April
of
2028
to
be
fully
staffed
next
slide.
Now,
if
you,
if
you
keep
all
the
variables
the
same
and
we
we
keep
one
more
officer
per
month,
and
we
only
have
three
that
leave
our
department,
we're
going
to
be
fully
staffed,
600
officers
by
January
of
2025.
U
U
It
really
focuses
on
the
current
employees
in
the
future.
We
have
558
officers
that
have
made
that
commitment
to
our
community.
This
proposal
recognizes
the
positive
impact
that
these
officers
are
having
on
our
community
and
it
also
provides
a
path
for
officers
from
different
organizations
ladder
officers
to
expand
their
career
income
work
at
this
great
Police
Department,
the
Salt
Lake
City
police
department.
So
with
that
Council
any
questions
you
may
have.
M
Thank
you
chief.
We
all
know
money
is
always
good.
Have
we
polled
our
officers?
Is
this
a
response
to
something
that
they
directly
said?
Would
incentivize
them
staying?
Are
there
other
things?
I
know
that
during
the
legislative
session
there
were
conversations
about
improving
retirement
packages?
Is
this
something
that
the
officers
that
we
are
concerned
about
retaining
have
told
us?
This
is
something
they
need
that
will
work.
Are
there
other
things
we
need
to
be
looking
at
too
I.
U
Think
I
mean
the
officers
have
been
watching
and
listening
to
the
the
council,
staffs
and
knowing
this
was
coming
up.
There's
been
a
lot
of
interest
and
so
I
think
this
would
make
a
difference.
Now.
It's
not
everybody's
not
going
to
take
this,
but
I
honestly
think
that
if
somebody
was
thinking
about
leaving
this
may
be
something
that
would
incentivize
them
enough
to
give
us
two
years
more.
T
B
M
H
B
D
Yeah
Mr
chair
good
question
on
you
know
the
the
scale
that
you
said
that
every
had
attrition
of
two
months
and
then
four
months
and
there's
you
know
a
five-year
Gap
there
or
difference
11
months
to
train
a
new
hire
three
months
to
change
a
lateral,
the
cost
to
train
a
new
higher
11
months.
What's
that
cost
of
the
force,
do
you
have
a
cost?
Yes,.
D
So
that's
what
I
was
getting
at,
so
eight
eight
thousand
dollars.
Yes,
it's
one
time
we
have
a
four
thousand
dollars
for
for
the
retirement
price,
but
the
cost
to
to
train
one
officer
really
takes
25
years
because
he's
got
to
get
born,
he's
got
to
be
20
years
old
or
something
like
that
major
and
then
it
takes
on.
We
did
this
in
the
military
pilot
wise,
so
it's
a
long
time
to
train
someone
to
get
there
and
to
be
qualified
for
it.
T
T
So
the
remaining
the
remaining
items
are:
are
the
placeholder
for
holding
some
form
of
Street
activation
downtown,
if
not
the
open
streets
that
was
done
the
last
three
years,
something
in
its
place,
we're
waiting
for
information
from
Economic
Development
and
their
discussions
with
the
downtown
Alliance
about
what
it
would
take
and
what
are
the
options
for
downtown
Street
Activation?
So
I
don't
know
if
that'll
be
ready
for
next
Tuesday,
but
we
do
have
the
placeholder.
K
Or
at
least
confirming,
if
I
understand
right,
that
I
think
Lisa
is
meeting
with
the
downtown
Alliance
in
the
coming
weeks.
I
don't
know
that
we'll
have
a
final
like
path
forward
before
you
adopt
the
budget
amendment,
and
so
it
may
be
best
if
you're
interested
in
preserving
options
to
adopt
a
placeholder,
knowing
that
the
amount
might
not
be
final
or
that
it
could
be
smaller.
Okay,.
B
T
All
right
next
item
I2:
this
is
forty
thousand
dollars
for
technology
upgrades
to
this
room,
the
chamber
across
the
hall
and
the
Canon
room.
Most
of
the
improvements
are
related
to
communication
and
networking
for
successfully
holding
hybrid
meetings.
Some
some
of
the
funds
could
also
be
used
for
removable
Ada
ramps
up
to
the
Deus
in
the
chamber.
K
T
That
takes
us
to
I3.
This
is
a
placeholder
based
on
previous
Council
discussions
about
interest
in
more
physical
improvements
to
this
building
and
this
block
for
safety.
So
we
have
a
placeholder
of
one
million
to
three
million
dollars.
It
would
go
into
a
holding
account
in
the
CIP
fund,
so
it
would
not
lapse
to
fund
balance
at
the
end
of
the
fiscal
year.
The
funds
would
sit
there
until
specific
proposals
are
available
to
come
to
the
council,
for
your
consideration.
B
T
Q
B
B
T
One
last
item:
it's
a
request
for
two
hundred
and
eight
thousand
dollars
for
reconstructing
three
sections
of
Lockhart
alley.
This
is
located
between
13th
South
and
Kensington
Avenue,
and
between
Major
Street
and
State
Street.
The
funding
would
not
go
to
fencing
lighting
or
other
enhancements.
It's
just
for
repaving
the
alley
to
address
drainage
issues
and
some
safety
issues.
We
we
have
one
policy
question.
The
council
has
made
two
previous
Appropriations
for
alleys
in
CIP
this
fiscal
year
as
well
as
two
years
ago
for
the
alleyway
pilot
program.
B
Yes,
I
do.
This
is
I,
feel
incredibly
urgent
there.
It's
that
I
can't
understand
how
bad
the
alley
actually
is.
The
grade
of
the
alley
is
higher
than
the
grade
of
the
doors
of
the
auto
body
shop
or
the
Lockhart
Enterprises
building,
and
it's
also
an
alley
that
is
used
for
that
is
used
for
things
that
we
that
create
public
health
hazards,
so
there
are
literal
biohazards
flowing
into
a
private
business
every
time
it
rains.
So
this
is
incredibly
urgent.
B
I
personally
would
like
to
use
the
fund
balance
for
that
and
keep
the
money
in
the
alleyway
pilot
program
so
that
we
can
con,
because
to
me
this
is
a
little.
This
is
quite
different
than
we're
trying
to
create
great
Urban
spaces
out
of
our
Alleyways.
This
is
we're
trying
to
solve
a
really
urgent
problem.
I
I
There
are
several
apartments
in
my
district
that,
because
of
the
different
grade
and
every
time
it
rains,
the
same
thing
is
happening
and
like
I
have
every
ever
literally
every
time
it
rains
we
have
like
homes
and
not
a
big
fancy
home
on
the
east
side,
we're
talking
apartment
buildings
and
same
type
of
drainage
issues
that
are
happening
and
I
I.
Don't
disagree
with
you
on
the
urgency
of
having
something
done
and
in
that
area
I.
Just
like
I
I'm,.
I
I
Telling
on
telling
my
residents
that
have
called
and
said
this
is
a
city
problem,
why
isn't
this
being
fixed
and
me
saying:
I
I
we're
gonna
I'm
gonna
talk
with
streets,
I'm
gonna,
get
there
I'm
gonna
help
you
out
and
then
having
a
budget
amendment
opening
and
being
like
ooh.
Sorry
well.
This
went
to
somewhere
else
because
that
was
apparently
more
important.
May.