[9:52] everybody and welcome to the

[9:56] first CRA meeting after school started. >> I hope you're all excited about school

[10:04] in being in session now. I can see all those exciting faces.

[10:10] » [laughter] >> Great to be here. And so, welcome to the

[10:14] 18th of August, 2026 Community Reinvestment Agency board meeting. Our

[10:18] meetings are public, and you're welcome to join us in person, on Zoom, or by

[10:22] watching from the city council's agenda page, YouTube, or SLCTV. We hope you

[10:26] continue to join us in whichever manner you feel most comfortable.

[10:30] Uh, we begin our meetings with comments to the board. I'd like to remind you

[10:34] that our written comments may be submitted to the CRA office via uh mail,

[10:39] PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115

[10:44] or by emailing at at councsil.comments at slc.gov or calling our uh phone line

[10:52] 8015357654.

[10:56] Before we start, I want to remind everyone about our rules at the quorum,

[11:00] which are in place to ensure our meetings move along well and and to help

[11:03] everyone feel comfortable sharing their comments. A copy of the full rules of

[11:07] the quorum are available. Uh just ask if you'd like to uh make a general comment

[11:13] today. We are accepting comments in person online on Zoom and Scott Corp

[11:17] from our staff will moderate our Zoom and we'll message you with any questions

[11:21] about your registration. If you need to speak with our staff, please select

[11:25] Scott from the list of participants or you can also raise your hand in Zoom to

[11:29] indicate that you need some help from the host. Staffs are handling many

[11:32] tasks, so please limit your messages to technical issues and minimalformational

[11:36] uh updates. ESAC Ganedo uh on our staff will be calling those who wish to

[11:43] comment based on the order in which we receive the names. If you're on Zoom,

[11:46] please unmute your mic when when ESAC calls your name. And now we will open

[11:51] our general comment periods. Isac, we'll take our first commenter.

[11:57] » Thank you, Council Member Dugan. I don't see anybody registered uh yet today.

[12:02] » Okay. Anybody here in person that was looking to make a comment?

[12:08] All right. Thank you. So, we'll move on to item B, which is a public hearing. Uh

[12:15] individual also may speak to the board once on the public hearing side of the

[12:17] house. Well, we just did that. No one's here for the

[12:20] Oh, wait a second. Sorry. Never mind. Excuse me. Uh,

[12:26] individuals may speak to the board once per public hearing topic for two

[12:29] minutes. However, written comments are always accepted. And now we're moving on

[12:34] to item B1, which is a resolution to the CR budget amendment number one for

[12:38] fiscal year 2026 to 27. And the same rules of theor apply. And uh, I will now

[12:44] pass the time over to Kate.

[12:50] and Danny.

[12:56] » Oh,

[13:01] great. Thank you. Um, this amendment includes the allocation of $6.5 million

[13:06] from multiple program appropriations to mayoral initiatives, including the Main

[13:11] Street Revitalization, Civic Center, and 500 West improvements.

[13:17] And with that, I'll turn it back to you. Thank you.

[13:24] » I have nothing to add. >> You have nothing to add.

[13:28] » Any questions? Any comments from the board?

[13:34] » All right. So, I'll look for a motion to uh

[13:38] approve them. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I move that the board

[13:42] closes the public hearing and adopt the resolution for fiscal year 2027

[13:47] CRA budget amendment number one. >> Second.

[13:51] » I have a motion from board member Pulio, a second from board member Carlson. Any

[13:55] uh discussion on this item? All in favor say I.

[13:59] » I. >> I. I. I'm

[14:04] any naz. That passes five to zero with two board members absent.

[14:10] Moving on to items C one, community reinvestment agency business approval of

[14:15] minutes. I look for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 24th, 2026,

[14:20] May 5th, 2026, May 19th, 2026, June 2nd, 2026, June 9th, 2026, and June 16th,

[14:29] 2026. >> Move for approval.

[14:32] » Second. I have a motion from board member Py, a second from board member

[14:36] Carlton. No. Wharton, excuse me. Uh, all in favor of that motion?

[14:42] » I >> I

[14:43] » I'm an I. >> I.

[14:45] » That passes five to zero with two board members missing.

[14:49] Moving on to item uh two, which is a straw poll on the nine item nine line

[14:55] property site works, excuse me. Tale is coming up and Tracy

[15:01] Taylor Fulgar and Tracy Tran.

[15:23] » Can you hear me? >> Yep. You get the light on, sir?

[15:26] » Yeah. Okay, bring it closer to >> How about now?

[15:31] » Yes. >> Okay.

[15:34] Awesome. All right. Good afternoon, board members. Uh today I'm here to

[15:39] request a straw poll to authorize $450,000

[15:43] from the Neline Strategic inter intervention program for site

[15:48] preparation and demolition at the Peacock Blocks which is located at the

[15:53] intersection of 400 South and 900 West. To provide a little background, the CRA

[16:00] Oh, let's see. Next slide, please.

[16:04] Next slide, please.

[16:10] One more. Okay, there we go. To provide a little background, the CRA was

[16:15] approached in 2025 by property owners interested in selling four parcels at

[16:22] this intersection. The properties included three single family homes and a

[16:26] six-unit apartment building. After receiving the board direction to proceed

[16:31] with the purchase, staff completed financial, structural, environmental,

[16:36] and market due diligence, and the CRA ultimately purchased and acquired all

[16:41] four properties in January of 2026. When we initially pursued the

[16:47] acquisition, the intent was to preserve the six-unit building as affordable

[16:51] housing and adapt the single family homes for commercial use. However,

[16:55] during our due diligence, we identified significant structural, environmental,

[17:01] and life life safety issues that made the rehabilitation of the properties

[17:06] infeasible. Based on those findings, we are now recommending the demolition of

[17:11] all four structures. The purpose of today's request is to prepare the site

[17:16] for this next phase of development, the $450,000.

[17:20] Let's go to the next slide, please. This will help. The $450,000

[17:26] will be used for hazardous material mitigation, asbestous abatement,

[17:31] demolition, environmental remediation, utility work, and grading. Within the

[17:38] Neline project area, the CRA is charged with implementing reinvestment

[17:42] activities that support the neighborhood improvement and align with the outcomes

[17:46] identified in the Westside master plan. The westside master plan identifies this

[17:51] intersection as a um community node which is a focal area

[17:57] intended for uses such as retail, restaurants and mixed use development at

[18:02] moderate densities. Looking ahead, that is the CRA's vision for Peacock Blocks.

[18:07] We want it to become a neighborhood hub with ground floor and community serving

[18:11] retail and opportunities for small and local small and local businesses and

[18:17] potentially a mix of housing options. These concepts will be further refined

[18:21] through our community engagement process before any formal redevelopment begins.

[18:27] Um, next slide please. From a funding perspective, the Neline

[18:33] Strategic Intervention Program has $5.46 $46 million available. We are requesting

[18:39] this $450,000 which would leave approximately $5.01

[18:44] million remaining in the program. So in conclusion, we are asking for the

[18:49] board's direction through a straw pole to move forward with the funding for

[18:53] demolition and site preparation. This would allow us to position the property

[18:58] for future redevelopment or disposition. With that, I'm happy to answer any

[19:03] questions. board.

[19:05] » Mr. Chair, >> yes.

[19:07] » So, less than less than a question, but maybe a suggestion and uh also uh sad

[19:14] that we couldn't save the structures uh but also uh excited that we are

[19:20] potentially a step closer to having our first node on the west side that we saw

[19:25] for so long. we envision um and if I remember right we own

[19:30] » other property >> uh in across the street and the corner

[19:34] right and correct we might all own other properties too in the area that might

[19:40] allow us to uh create a business now that so much the west side needs in that

[19:45] area I consider this almost like the gateway to popular grove um so I um I'm

[19:53] excited to see some things go up in Um what and this is what the suggestion

[19:59] comes. I'm I will struggle with the demolition and all that time where there

[20:04] site prep and nothing is happening in that site. Um you put a sign at you know

[20:09] a request in one of our properties on the west side where you put something up

[20:13] to seek feedback. I don't know if this is the place to seek feedback, but maybe

[20:17] I wonder if you could put something in there that

[20:21] allows people to to to hope that something is going to come up there and

[20:26] that they have an opportunity to to share input or to see what we're

[20:30] visioning if we have some of that already. Um, so that I wonder if that's

[20:33] a possibility. >> Absolutely.

[20:40] » I just have a question on the on the zoning side of the house. Is this all uh

[20:44] zoned right currently for mixed use or would we have to reszone the three uh

[20:48] single family homes or are they already zoned at in it?

[20:52] » They're zoned as mixed use. >> They're they're already zoned at all all

[20:55] four properties are already zoned at mixed use. Okay. So, we don't have to

[21:01] change that. Okay.

[21:05] » M3. Okay. All right. which I figured that would be but I wasn't sure about

[21:10] the three single family zones. Uh I don't

[21:15] use you same points any other questions any other concept. So look for a straw

[21:19] poll on moving forward. >> Mr. Chair, I propose a strap to allocate

[21:25] $450,000 from the Nineline Fund strategic intervention program to a new

[21:32] project for the demolition of site and site preparation activities at the

[21:36] Peacock Blocks located approximately 400 South and 900 West.

[21:41] » All right, show your feelings. >> Thumbs up.

[21:46] » Thank you. >> You got our feelings. I appreciate that.

[21:50] Thanks a lot.

[21:55] Moving on to item number three, the resolution to disaster relief loan

[21:58] program, the 323 LLC, Ty and Danny.

[22:08] » All right. Good afternoon, board members.

[22:12] Today, I'm presenting a the second of the um disaster relief loan requests.

[22:19] This is a $1 million loan request for 323 LLC for their the reconstruction of

[22:26] their property located at 323 South Main.

[22:31] Next slide, please. Um, I'll review the loan policy, loan

[22:37] details, and the board will have an opportunity to ask any questions before

[22:43] um and consider adopting a resolution to approve the loan.

[22:47] Next slide, please.

[22:51] One more slide. Okay, we talked about this last time,

[22:55] but uh I can refresh your memory. Um as you may recall, the property these

[23:00] properties were significantly damaged during the August 11th, 2025 Main Street

[23:05] fire. Uh for this specific property, the fire destroyed the roof and caused

[23:10] extensive damage throughout the interior of the building, resulting in a total

[23:15] loss of commercial activity at the site. In response, the CRA established the

[23:20] disaster relief loan program, which was approved by the board in October of

[23:24] 2025. Because the fire was designated as a

[23:29] qualifying event under the disaster relief loan policy, this project is

[23:33] eligible for assistance through the program.

[23:37] In conjunction with adopting the DRLP policy, the board approved $5 million a

[23:43] $5 million funding allocation for eligible properties affected by the

[23:47] fire. These funds were reallocated from prior commercial assistance programs

[23:53] within the central business district along with available program income

[23:57] funds. The DRLP funds, which is $2 million that remain uncommitted after

[24:04] the program concluded, which was August 11th, will now be transferred to the

[24:09] commercial development loan program to support future commercial lending

[24:13] opportunities. Next slide, please.

[24:20] Um, under the disaster relief loan program, eligible commercial storefronts

[24:24] may receive up to $1 million in assistance. Prior to the fire, the this

[24:30] property contained one commercial storefront, which was Whiskey Street,

[24:33] and you can see a photo over there. Whiskey Street is a long-term tenant and

[24:38] intends to res return to the space as soon as practical. The applicant has

[24:43] demonstrated a funding gap as required per the program's policy. Next slide,

[24:48] please. The total project cost for this

[24:53] reconstruction is $3.8 million and 2.8 of that represents eligible

[25:00] reconstruction costs under the program. The construction requires bringing a new

[25:06] building to current code after applying approximately $1.8 $8 million in

[25:11] insurance proceeds. There still remains an eligible funding gap of a million

[25:16] dollars. The requested loan helps fund that gap, but it does not fully fund it.

[25:21] The remaining project costs, including the planned upper story of the pro of

[25:26] the uh let's go to the next slide so you can see it. So, the planned um upper

[25:32] story is not eligible for disaster relief loan funds and they'll be funding

[25:36] that with outside um sources. The new building will have one

[25:40] storefront on the ground level and its intended uses are restaurant,

[25:44] hospitality, food, beverage, entertainment and rooftop/events,

[25:49] etc. The DRP funds will be used for ground floor and core system support,

[25:56] mechanical, electrical and plumbing, architectural and engineering fees.

[26:01] These are all eligible usage under the disaster relief loan program.

[26:06] Next slide, please. The proposed loan terms are the standard

[26:11] terms for the program. We are recommending a $1 million loan with 0%

[26:16] interest for the first 24 months, 2% thereafter, a three-year loan term, and

[26:22] a 10-year amortization schedule with construction draw dispersements and a

[26:27] lean position, which will be determined prior to closing.

[26:31] In summary, the staff CRA staff have determined that the project meets our

[26:35] eligibility requirements of the disaster relief loan program. The requested

[26:39] financing is consistent with the program's purpose of helping businesses

[26:44] recover from qualifying disasters, restoring restoring damaged commercial

[26:49] properties and returning them to productive use as soon as possible. The

[26:54] board may wish to consider adopting a resolution to approve the terms of a $1

[26:59] million loan for 323 LLC to finance the reconstruction of the property located

[27:05] at 323 South Main Street. That concludes my presentation. I'm

[27:11] happy to take any questions you have. >> Thank you very much for that.

[27:15] » Oh, we also have the applicant here. >> Okay. And any questions from the board?

[27:23] Maybe >> how did we come up with those

[27:25] percentages or on interest? >> That was part of the original uh policy

[27:31] that was approved by the board and that was simply based on trying to make it

[27:35] not become a financial burden for the first few years as they reopen and get

[27:39] reestablished. Okay.

[27:42] » The loan program does allow for an extension up to five years. So, if you

[27:46] go beyond that third year, the interest rate at that point does bump to 5%. And

[27:50] then would then be paid off within that 5-year period or paid off at the end of

[27:54] that 5-year period. >> And and the the agreement uh on this

[27:58] loan allows us to uh what are the remedies in case there was no, you know,

[28:05] if there is a default, >> what are the remedies if the loan

[28:09] defaults? Uh we will be recorded against the property. will be in a position

[28:12] that's appropriate for the amount, probably behind any existing financing,

[28:16] but we would have a lean recorded on the property.

[28:19] » Okay, that's good. Thank you. >> And these are the same numbers as the uh

[28:24] white horse next door. >> Sorry.

[28:26] » These are the same numbers as the uh other property that we just

[28:30] » The other property was a $2 million loan because two businesses.

[28:34] » Two businesses, right? Right. But the same numbers for them.

[28:37] » Yes. >> Yes. But just two million because

[28:39] there's two properties. >> Correct.

[28:40] » Right. and and they they also because this isn't they still have to go to

[28:45] planning for uh the waiver for the zone to

[28:51] » estimate all zoning and w any waiverss or restrictions or requirements. Yeah,

[28:55] » they have to do still do that portion. Exactly. Okay. All right. Appreciate

[28:59] that. Any other questions?

[29:04] » No question but just a comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just want to thank

[29:08] uh the CRA staff for this great work and for the mayor for rallying um the

[29:14] community around these businesses. Main Street is a jewel and it needs to be

[29:18] preserved and um I know so many people have just been waiting for this section

[29:23] of of Yes, you uh just this section of our city to be revitalized. So, want to

[29:30] thank everyone involved.

[29:34] » All right. Thank you. I'll look for a motion.

[29:43] Mr. Chair, I move that the board adopt a resolution approving the disaster relief

[29:48] program to 323 LLC term sheet for reconstruction to address fire damage at

[29:53] approximately 323 Main Street. >> I second that.

[29:57] » I have a motion for board member Carlson, second from board member Napier

[30:01] Pierce. Any discussion?

[30:05] See none. All in favor say I. >> I.

[30:07] » I. >> I.

[30:08] » I'm an I. And that passes. Uh 2 4 6 0. I had to count.

[30:20] And now we'll go to theformational the uh commercial funding priorities.

[30:27] Ashley Ty and um Hayden.

[30:42] We'll let Taylor take a break. >> Yeah, she gets a break. It's just us

[30:45] today. >> Yeah. All right. Thanks a lot.

[30:49] » Awesome. Um well, good afternoon board members. Um today we're presenting a set

[30:54] of commercial funding priorities along with some additional background on the

[30:58] activities that led us here. Uh next slide, please.

[31:02] We'll plan to go over some background and context on where this work came has

[31:06] come from. Um we'll spend the bulk of our time on the proposed priorities and

[31:10] how those fit into our existing CRA tools and then we'll um end it and open

[31:14] it up for discussion and feedback. Next slide.

[31:18] So as I mentioned the request is for your feedback on the proposed CRA

[31:22] commercial uh funding priorities and activities. Next slide.

[31:28] Um to give a quick recap of where we've landed on at least three activities and

[31:32] programs we previously brought to the board. Um we've created a loan program

[31:36] to support commercial and mixeduse development. Um proposed a grant program

[31:40] to support community and cultural initiatives. And then we're also working

[31:44] on implementing a strategy to catalyze more commercial activity um via

[31:49] acquisition and leasing of spaces to provide tenant types and attain at

[31:53] attainable rates. Um and I'll touch on each of these briefly. Next slide.

[31:59] Um, so for uh the commercial development loan program or CDLP, this policy was

[32:03] adopted March 2025. The first notice of funding availability was released April

[32:08] 2026, which offered up to $10 million um and 9 9.9 million is currently um under

[32:16] review um from applications that we received and we um are currently

[32:22] reviewing those and plan to bring those to finance committee in September and

[32:25] then to you the board in October. Uh, next slide.

[32:29] Um, the next program was proposed to amplify neighborhood identity through

[32:33] community and cultural resources. The plan was to structure it as a grant

[32:37] rather than a loan because these kinds of development uh projects are usually

[32:40] led by nonprofits and often can't support debt. We haven't advanced this

[32:44] program uh yet. There is funding allocated towards it. But as um other

[32:49] priorities such as the acquisition leasing strategy became a a priority of

[32:54] the board. So this wasn't this program hasn't been pursued. Uh next slide.

[32:59] Um this the so the next program is the uh commercial acquisition leasing

[33:05] strategy um which is a two-part approach um aimed at strengthening existing

[33:10] business districts and catalyzing new ones. The first part is acquisition. Um

[33:14] that would happen through the CRA purchasing or uh master leasing

[33:19] commercial buildings or spaces in strategic locations. The second part is

[33:23] leasing uh those spaces. So we could lease a c a space in a CRA controlled

[33:29] building that we own um directly to tenants or subleasase spaces um in math

[33:35] in spaces that we master lease. And in both cases, um, offering preferred

[33:39] tenant types, flexible rates, um, and terms. Some of this we already do, like

[33:44] property acquisition and leasing as a landlord. Um, what's new here is the

[33:48] idea of taking on master leases and, um, subleasasing those spaces. So, as we've

[33:54] dug into this, um, it's become clear that that taking on a bigger leasing

[33:57] role would add a significant amount of property management work. Um, so that's

[34:01] really the reason we want to set our we want to be able to set our commercial

[34:04] funding priorities first so that if we you know as we do expand into this type

[34:09] of program it's it's targeted and we have um some priorities to go behind it.

[34:13] Uh next slide. So [clears throat] before advancing

[34:18] other commercial activities um we identified um ways that it was important

[34:25] to establish clear clear priorities for each project area um for these

[34:30] commercial funds. So these pri these priorities are what will guide our

[34:33] future funding acquisition and leasing decisions. And so this next section of

[34:37] the presentation um is really the heart of what we would like your your feedback

[34:41] on or the are the actual priorities. Next slide.

[34:45] Okay, so to develop these priorities, we looked at a few things. First, we

[34:50] reviewed city adopted and CRA plans and other relevant studies to each project

[34:54] area. Then we reviewed the current business business mix. You know, what

[34:58] kind of business industries are there on the ground? Um, and then third, we

[35:03] incorporated anecdotal knowledge. You know, things that you wouldn't really

[35:06] you wouldn't see in data or reports, but more of um things that we know on the

[35:10] ground of uh different developments that are coming up. And then so then we

[35:13] synthesized all of those into project area priorities. Next slide.

[35:19] So overall there were actually four themes that were consistent across all

[35:23] project areas. So we're proposing these priorities to be applicable to all

[35:27] project areas. And these priorities are activating um vacant or under

[35:33] underutilized lots and ground floor spaces, creating a mix of publicly

[35:37] accessible commercial uses, improving the availability, affordability, and

[35:41] activation of commercial space for local independent businesses, and then invest

[35:46] in placemaking and pedestrian safety improvements that enhance commercial

[35:50] activity. So, while these priorities will cover

[35:53] all project areas, their application and execution will likely look different as

[35:57] they go. Uh, next slide. So, now look, we'll go through each each

[36:02] project area. Um, so in the central business district, our main focus is on

[36:07] Main Street in areas of the CBD that are not near major planned redevelopment.

[36:12] So, main street should be our pedestrian retail core, but right now it's dealing

[36:15] with um vacancies and some properties in disrepair. So, projects like the sports

[36:21] entertainment culture and convention district and Western Governor's

[36:24] University will bring a lot more activation downtown. So, but we want to

[36:28] make sure Main Street and the rest of CBD that aren't um benefiting from those

[36:31] redevelopments um will also benefit from that. So, and then we also want to

[36:36] prioritize supporting the rehabilitation um and adaptive reuse of historic

[36:41] structures in in CBD. Uh next slide. And in North Temple, we want to really

[36:48] focus on the North Temple 900 West corridors. Um so, quick bit of context

[36:54] for North Temple. Um there's actually been a loss of retail um space over the

[36:58] last decade as some of the older retail was replaced by housing um and some of

[37:03] the new ground floor commercial space has been um you know has remained vacant

[37:07] um over the past few years. So there's a gap in day-to-day amenities for

[37:11] residents. Um we also want to prioritize Fulsome Corridor and the City Creek

[37:16] daylighting um to help catalyze commercial activity similar to what

[37:20] we're seeing on the nine line. And we also want to a aim to maintain light

[37:24] industrial uses in in the area while encouraging them to include publicly

[37:30] accessible a publicly accessible component when it's appropriate. Uh next

[37:34] slide please. And then in the nineline project area

[37:39] um our priorities really center around the commercial nodes identified in the

[37:43] westside master plan. Um, so this would also involve support for higher density,

[37:48] mixeduse development on 9inth West and Redwood Road and then also supporting

[37:52] neighborhoods serving commercial uses along the Neline Trail where where

[37:56] zoning would allow for it. Uh, next slide.

[38:01] And then in State Street, uh, we plan to focus, um, efforts, you know, on State

[38:06] Street itself, Main Street and 1300 South corridors. parts of this area do

[38:10] have higher crime rates and they, you know, may be deterring customers, which

[38:13] is why we would target redevelopment of high crime land uses as a as a as a

[38:18] priority. That's also a priority in our State Street um project area plan. And

[38:22] then we're also prioritizing um support for life on state infrastructure

[38:27] improvements and then last transit oriented development um at the various

[38:32] track stations to take advantage of the um high transit um in the area.

[38:38] Next slide. Okay. So now I want to cover how these

[38:43] priorities could actually get built into our existing CRA tools. So starting with

[38:48] our funding programs um the C the CDLP housing development loan program and tax

[38:53] increment reimbursement. Um in all three cases we can incorporate priorities into

[38:58] program requirements incentives or the scoring criteria to steer funded

[39:03] projects towards them. So this these are um programs where we receive

[39:08] applications, we review them, but we can set the criteria and how those and these

[39:12] priorities um could be embedded into them. Um they may look a little

[39:16] different for each um and program, but the intent would be to also have these

[39:21] commercial priorities as part of all of our activities. Uh next slide.

[39:26] And then looking at the tools that we have um more of a direct direct action

[39:31] in. Um so these are a set of more hands-on levers where we have more

[39:36] direct control. So the property acquisition, disposition,

[39:40] um the potential leasing of commercialowned spaces and then

[39:43] infrastructure and art improvements. So these priorities can inform our decision

[39:47] directly here. Um since we aren't relying on an applicant to bring a

[39:51] project to us, we can you know find create uh come up with a project and and

[39:55] move these forward either through like for example our property disposition. we

[39:58] can include some of these commercial priorities depending on where it is in

[40:01] each project area into that as you know as a preference or a requirement as we

[40:05] go through that. Uh next slide. So as part of going through this

[40:11] exercise we identified a few gaps um that we that we have as we looked at

[40:18] these priorities first um to effectively support positive tening of vacant

[40:23] spaces. we'd likely take a more active role in acquiring buildings through

[40:26] purchasing or master leasing um for long-term occupancy, which is um

[40:31] something we currently don't do. Uh second would be prioritizing the infill

[40:36] of specific sub areas or are targeting different land uses um and defining what

[40:41] those actual target areas are. Um so we are, you know, helping catalyze certain

[40:46] business districts and nodes. And then third, we don't currently offer

[40:49] technical assistance to applicants um to navigate our our various processes. So

[40:54] there's an opportunity to to potentially partner with economic development um and

[40:58] community and neighborhoods on that front.

[41:02] Next slide. And then to ground our current

[41:05] activities and actual dollar amounts, the CDLP has about 17.5 million

[41:10] appropriated uh with 9.9 million requested in this first round. That

[41:15] could leave us about 7.6 6 million in in the CDLP program um for future round of

[41:21] applications once we um go through this first round. Uh and then there's the

[41:25] commercial assistance reserves which has about two 2.4 million. Um this is

[41:29] earmarked for nine line north temp and north temple which could support the

[41:34] acquisition and leasing strategy and this program is really set to help us um

[41:40] develop programs that we haven't quite um developed yet.

[41:43] » [snorts] >> And then lastly, there's the community

[41:45] and cultural initiatives has about 339,000

[41:48] which is tied to the central business district right now that could be re

[41:51] reallocated to other uh commercial activities. Uh next slide.

[41:57] Um so we did take this to the reinvestment advisory committee on

[42:00] August 5th um to get their feedback as well. Some of the the points that came

[42:04] up was taking on the the role of master leasing um can bring on certain risks.

[42:09] Um so becoming you know a landlord um as a master lease you have a little bit

[42:14] less control than you do when you acquire property. Um and then they also

[42:18] had a a recommendation of putting responsibility on developers to complete

[42:22] tenant improvements where that could be appropriate. And then uh given the

[42:27] limited budget and project area budget constraints um you know they recommended

[42:31] that staff focus funds on um you know programs that are more likely to work

[42:36] than spreading them across multiple programs. Uh next slide.

[42:41] Um so that's really the bulk of the presentation. So, the next steps would

[42:45] really be to get feedback from you all um at this point and then look at

[42:48] incorporating and and adjusting those priorities and then returning to the

[42:53] board with any other um activities or programs that would help fill those

[42:56] gaps. Be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Hayden. Uh questions,

[43:03] » questions, comments? >> Yeah. Yes.

[43:05] » Um thank you so much for this presentation and thank you for including

[43:09] the feedback from the um advisory committee. I found that really helpful

[43:13] to just have additional perspectives to consider. Um my question is about um

[43:18] targeting high crime areas, a diversity of uh commercial uses and particularly

[43:24] State Street. So this is something you'll probably hear me bring up often,

[43:28] but um if you drive along State Street, especially in District 5 and including

[43:34] on Main Street, um we see a proliferation of one type of business

[43:38] and that one type of business is massage massage parlors. And so as you think

[43:42] about uh commercial redevelopment, I would like to see um a diversity of

[43:47] business uses and a diversity of businesses present along State Street

[43:51] and see a role that the CRA could play in helping to spur some of that

[43:56] development of diversity of businesses. >> Thank you. That's helpful.

[44:02] » And board member Petro, >> thank you. Um and thank you for the

[44:07] presentation. Um we on North Temple of course is the one that um I'm most

[44:14] familiar with and and most eager to see developed. And what I'm noticing is that

[44:18] especially in TSA zones and other places, we have um a der of parking that

[44:24] even if we do master lease and provide affordable rents, I don't know that we

[44:27] can encourage the traffic um due to not just the public safety concerns, but the

[44:33] the relative lack of accessibility to people who would drive there. While I

[44:38] would love for everyone to get on tracks, it's just not the truth of how

[44:41] we operate. So, as part of this plan, and I don't know if this is a CRA

[44:45] function, if it's a separate parking authority that we develop or something,

[44:49] but I would love to see the city become more proactive in master leasing parking

[44:54] or even developing our own parking structures um and then making sure that

[44:59] we are setting ourselves up for success. this I I worry that this could become an

[45:04] investment that falls flat because um the low rent or the ability for people

[45:11] to get into the space is just one of the barriers. The sustain we're going to get

[45:15] them in but we won't be able to sustain if we can't help them drive foot

[45:18] traffic. Um so I would really love to see a forward-looking mechanism for

[45:23] parking as well and how we might participate proactively in that.

[45:28] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Sure. The I mean the the

[45:34] moment is here. Uh it took us a while but uh it it's uh quite amazing that

[45:42] what 3 years ago um I think it was 3 years ago um we came back with this idea

[45:49] from an urban exploration trip um and what this city was doing to um create

[45:57] this um you know to create this vibrancy on the sidewalk and to um and and assist

[46:06] smaller businesses in their uh path to um you know get a real brick and mortar

[46:13] which is very hard and very expensive and it takes a while. Um so I I'm very

[46:18] excited that we're here uh and I very thankful to CRA and the staff to work

[46:23] out all the kinks on on this ordinance and making sure that it works with our

[46:27] um with our current system. It's always challenging when we see a good idea from

[46:32] a different jurisdiction to really say let's do that here because we know we

[46:36] are a completely different system and we have different rules and different uh

[46:41] forms of government really uh and funding mechanisms but it's very

[46:45] exciting to see that this ordinance is here and I cannot wait until we uh start

[46:49] seeing some success from from from it. So, um I would love to see some updates

[46:54] from CRA um you know about the success story hopefully and and uh uh about how

[47:02] is it uh working out on the ground. Um and I agree with with Council Member

[47:09] Carlson that I hope to see other type of businesses but but those um I'm sure

[47:14] that there are some good businesses out there that do that type of work but uh

[47:18] there is other uh I think there is other opportunities in our city. So thank you

[47:22] C. >> Thank you. Any other questions?

[47:28] » Thank you Mr. Chair. Um just one question and maybe this is just my

[47:33] ignorance speaking but when you have a CRA project are there requirements

[47:38] embedded in the the contracts to say give extra points or you know um maybe

[47:47] deed restriction or something like that to local businesses. Um because

[47:53] I I would hate to invest in a place, get local businesses and then, you know,

[48:00] maybe some generica kind of business comes in after their lease is up. I I I

[48:06] don't know if that's something the CRA looks at.

[48:10] » Yeah, I can speak to that. Um so, uh well, first of all, I just wanted to

[48:15] point out um on page six of the memo, there's a table. Well, we we kind of

[48:19] have a section where we tried to address like not just setting priorities, but

[48:23] like right now with the tools and programs the CRA currently has, how

[48:28] could we um implement the priorities? And there's kind of um a distinction

[48:33] between, you know, we have funding programs where it's largely uh we're

[48:37] incentivizing. We can require um you know, but we we try to be reasonable

[48:42] with our hard requirements, but then we can also incentivize certain outcomes

[48:46] that we want to see. And then the other end of the spectrum where we can be a

[48:50] little more hands-on is, you know, through property disposition where we

[48:53] own the property um if we are the landlord leasing space or if we're just

[48:58] directly making investments in infrastructure and art. But um

[49:02] specifically about um getting, you know, having preferred tenant types. Uh that's

[49:08] something so far we've had as um incentives in various programs and it is

[49:16] it is a challenge because you know a lot of our applicants are developers um

[49:20] building projects on spec. They don't have tenants committed yet. They don't

[49:24] know what types of tenants they'll be able to get. Um, so we're saying, you

[49:28] know, we want you to put a local business in there and we're going to put

[49:31] it in our agreements and, you know, at the time of loan approval or whatever it

[49:36] is, they're they're like, "Yeah, sure." Like, "We'll try to do that." And, um,

[49:40] so it's really more successful if like the business is the applicant and, you

[49:44] know, like they're going into that space or they're going into that project. Um,

[49:49] and then I think the other challenge with um, especially with the specific

[49:54] tenant types is like the length of time we can keep that requirement in place.

[49:59] Um, you know, you kind of have to balance with like what we're offering,

[50:02] what we're contributing to the project and what's a reasonable ask. And I think

[50:06] it's hard, you know, for 40 years to say a local business has to be in a space or

[50:11] to control a space for 40 years. So, um, we tried I think we're we're still

[50:16] figuring out how to find a good balance with those.

[50:20] » Thanks, Ashley. Thanks, Shane. Uh, a couple couple questions and points and

[50:24] and if, uh, Isak can bring up the the priorities on slide whatever that was,

[50:29] three or four. Uh, but also just for the for the board's kind of understanding.

[50:33] So, this firstformational brief is on the the higher priority side of the

[50:37] house. And then there's other discussions have we do on the loans

[50:40] where we have a threshold and we say hey if you want this loan you have to meet

[50:45] these threshold items and then if you meet those threshold items and then we

[50:49] also have some incentives to meeting those threshold items. So we'll have a

[50:53] series of conversations on this whole process. This first discussion is more

[50:57] on the the big uh overarching priorities. Uh, and I I want to kind of

[51:03] sh appreciate the the uh staff's CRA's uh

[51:10] prioritizing each area different because each area is different. North Temple is

[51:16] different from Nine. It's different from uh Main Street. So, we have a priority

[51:22] for them, but they all fit into that bigger priority. And uh over the last I

[51:28] don't know the last couple years you know we've been talking about affordable

[51:31] housing and family housing and uh we're we're pressing in that area and we've

[51:38] also had made some conversations about uh local businesses local independent

[51:43] businesses and I I think that's been great and we've seen some development

[51:47] but uh on that front not a mixed development mixed uh success

[51:53] but the perception I I get from people coming into the city is that our city is

[51:58] developing into a 21 and over city and not so much the I'm going to say the 16

[52:05] and under city and we're losing this I guess I should I should I should say 18

[52:11] and under city. Uh we're losing the the kids and the families and we need to try

[52:16] to generate that more interest in in a lot of different ways. And my one

[52:21] conversation with this the CRA staff and Danny and stuff is how we take these uh

[52:26] top priorities. And if if we can get that presentation on uh ESAC,

[52:32] » I think it's Scott that's pulling it up. Scott, can you pull up the presentation?

[52:39] » Having the uh top priorities kind of focus on

[52:43] not just local independent businesses, but local independent businesses that

[52:48] have a uh propensity or lean towards the family side or the kids side to generate

[52:56] that interest for a family to come downtown and family to to go out to in

[53:00] the streets. not in the streets actually along the sidewalk, activate the

[53:05] sidewalks uh and and generate that interest and so that draws more families

[53:11] into the area not just from the housing side of the house but against the living

[53:14] the the living side. So add the family uh friendly angle toward the commercial

[53:22] side and give the developers that that focus instead of just any business

[53:29] because any business doesn't really do well and any business doesn't going to

[53:32] drive the the family. And then the next step would be we look at thresholds to

[53:37] get that loan and then incentives to incentivize that loan by reductions in

[53:43] percentages. Um so so that's the right side. Exactly. So

[53:49] those are the top four priorities we would apply across all of them. Yes.

[53:53] » And my focus would be uh embedding the family uh

[54:00] focus. I that's a a term I can use and maybe there's something better uh into

[54:05] those four uh priorities moving forward. So add it. Sorry, just to clarify, make

[54:12] it a priority that applies to all the projects.

[54:15] » Yeah, that's how that's how I'm looking at it. Yeah. And how do we how do we

[54:20] don't get me wrong, I want I want we need restaurants. We need bars, but I

[54:23] also need toy stores. I also need a place where a kid wants to hang out

[54:27] » and not just where you have to show your ID.

[54:30] » Yeah. >> Unless you have to show your ID if

[54:32] you're 18 and under. >> Yeah. No. Yeah, that's really good

[54:36] feedback. And I think as we look at especially like priority number two

[54:38] where it's creating a mix of publicly accessible commercial uses, it's um we

[54:42] do have we have looked at like business mix in each project area. So that's

[54:46] where we can dive a little deeper into that to see what those gaps are and

[54:50] where they are needed the most. >> Right. Thanks. And and and each area

[54:54] would be a little different because we also, you know, we want those elementary

[54:57] school kids and we want those families to come into our live in all seven

[55:00] districts. All right. Any other questions, points,

[55:06] comments? >> All right. Thank you very much.

[55:10] » Thank you very much.

[55:15] » Moving on to item number five, the resolution, the amendment to the

[55:18] interlocal agreement with Salt Lake City Library related to tax increment.

[55:23] Eric's here. Bailey and uh Jennifer, if we need her.

[55:28] Oh, Jennifer's coming up. Bailey's unfortunately

[55:33] » uh Bailey's unfortunately not feeling well so she's online for questions but

[55:37] it'll mainly be me whose voice you'll be hearing uh as we talk about exciting

[55:42] intergovernmental cooperation and decision-m I know it's just the funnest

[55:47] uh thing that you all get to do with your day. Um [clears throat] so uh we do

[55:52] have a request for you for proposed amendments to uh interlocal agreements.

[55:56] uh we'll tell you why this came about and and what we're proposing to change

[56:00] and what would impact if the change did not occur um and what what steps that

[56:04] you can take uh but this is in consideration of uh library

[56:09] participation in crate project areas. So our our request is to discuss and

[56:15] consider approval of these eight uh oh sorry next slide I real I'll look at

[56:21] this one instead. Uh [laughter] um yeah and next slide again sorry.

[56:27] Uh so the uh our request is discussed and consider approval of the proposed

[56:32] amendments to these eight interlocal agreements in the for seven project

[56:37] areas. Um and uh these are project areas that are governed by interlocal

[56:43] agreements. So it's not uh determined by like a state committee like a CBD or a

[56:47] north temple uh would be in the past. Um and uh so this is our request is to

[56:54] amend these to exclude library in uh library increment from these areas. Uh

[56:59] next slide please. Uh so the reason this is coming about is

[57:04] uh starting in tax year 2024 the Salt Lake County District Attorney's Office

[57:08] determined that the libraries taxing authority was not independent from the

[57:12] cities. Uh this had a lot of downstream effects that were we were grappling with

[57:18] for a couple a couple of years. Uh but uh after kind of extensive uh analysis

[57:23] and work by the city attorney's office, we've we've determined that this change

[57:28] does result in the library tax levy becoming subject to the city's

[57:31] interlocal agreements with the CRA and the amendments would be required to uh

[57:38] retain that initial intent that the libraries uh tax would not be

[57:42] participating in that area which luckily you as the uh uh you and your roles in

[57:48] the city council have the right to do. You have the right to amend that

[57:51] agreement to exclude the uh libraries taxing levy. Next slide.

[57:58] [clears throat] Uh so as as far as what we've done for

[58:01] the last two years that we actually have received uh increment from the library.

[58:05] So uh as we were figuring this out, we did we weren't aware of why the change

[58:10] happened and what like said what the effects would be. But uh we have

[58:13] received increment in accordance to in uh like as if the library was a

[58:18] component unit of Salt Lake City. Um as they were not previously

[58:23] um the last two years the CRA has made accounting adjustments to return the

[58:27] increment that we uh that would have previously been sent directly to the

[58:31] library. uh however that uh that practice can like as as we've discovered

[58:39] more I we've decided that these amendments are required in order for uh

[58:44] that money to continue to be sent back to the library. Next slide.

[58:49] Uh so this just as terms of budget impact uh the CRA has obligations to

[58:55] spend our receipt increment in certain ways based on state code and other

[58:58] contractual agreements. Uh, one of the most ironclad is 10% goes to affordable

[59:04] housing in in in the applicable project areas, which of which five of these are.

[59:09] Um, that is pretty ironclad. If we receive the money from the treasurer,

[59:13] we're determined you have to send that 10%. Uh, however, we also are uh by

[59:19] 17C's instate code, we are required to follow our project area plans. it might

[59:23] be hard to justify returning library increment to the library as part of

[59:28] those project area plans. Uh we also have debt bond service agreements, tax

[59:33] increment reimbursement agreements that all are based on our received increment.

[59:38] Um and so uh the library would see an impact

[59:44] you know if in the last this is last year's number on the screen somewhere

[59:48] between those two numbers definitely at least 231,000 and maybe up to 2.3

[59:53] million and so uh and it should be noted that the library really is the only one

[1:00:00] at loss here. We have not planned for this money. We have not budgeted this

[1:00:03] money. We were not expecting it. We have made no obligations based on this funds.

[1:00:07] So there's really nothing for the CRA here and a lot to lose for

[1:00:12] the library. Uh next slide, please. Uh so uh our attorney's office has uh

[1:00:22] determined that there's can be some really simple texts that we can have for

[1:00:26] all these agreements which uh you can see kind of the proposed text on the on

[1:00:30] that green bar there. Essentially, the the what we're intending to do with

[1:00:35] these amendments uh is have the city agreements amended to say

[1:00:41] that the library uh libraries tax levy is not included in their participation

[1:00:47] of the project areas. And that gives us uh the ability to return all funds to

[1:00:52] the library if we receive them or hopefully it gets sent straight to the

[1:00:55] city anyway based on the county processes. But regardless, we'd have the

[1:00:59] legal ability to send all of that back and it is backdated to start uh for in

[1:01:04] the first year that we received those library funds.

[1:01:08] Uh next slide.

[1:01:11] So as far as uh next steps, we have two resolutions on uh uh for your

[1:01:18] consideration. One would approve the seven agreements in which the city is

[1:01:22] party to. Um and the second resolution is the only agreement that the city is

[1:01:29] uh Salt Lake City is not party to that impacts the library which is uh block 67

[1:01:34] transportation funds between CRA and the county. Um

[1:01:38] and if you were to approve this, we would uh then take uh these amendments

[1:01:43] would then go to respective parties for adoption. Uh if uh for the Salt Lake

[1:01:48] City Council, would you all serve on it? It's going to it would be a written

[1:01:52] briefing in this meeting and then you could uh depoping

[1:01:56] those, but it would be up for consideration there. Um, and then we

[1:02:00] have uh we would also start the process of getting on the agendas for the Salt

[1:02:05] Lake County Council and the Salt Lake School City School District board

[1:02:07] because we do have some joint agreements that we would need them to also approve

[1:02:11] um uh so that we could get those adopted as well. Um we're our hope is to get all

[1:02:17] of that done before the end of the year so that when taxes are distributed uh

[1:02:22] that uh we can be sure to be ready and that the auditor and other county

[1:02:26] parties will be notified. Uh, next slide. I believe that's just any

[1:02:31] questions or discussion. I like I said, Jen is here for legal concerns. Um, I

[1:02:36] don't Oh, yeah. Tyler is now here from the library. Um, and, uh, you know, the

[1:02:41] whole CRA team if we need [laughter] >> questions, board,

[1:02:49] » really quickly, Mr. Chair, um, I just wanted to clarify on the motion sheet,

[1:02:53] we only have, um, one resolution referenced. So, I'm just making some

[1:02:57] edits to make sure we get both resolutions um covered. Is that Are

[1:03:03] there two resolutions

[1:03:08] » or is it one resolution covering two things?

[1:03:10] » There's one board resolution covering all eight of them and then there's a

[1:03:13] separate council resolution. >> Okay.

[1:03:15] » So, I think Yeah, I think in the slideshow you referenced two

[1:03:18] resolutions, but it sounds like there's one.

[1:03:20] » There's one. There's one motion, maybe two resolutions.

[1:03:23] » Wait, wait, wait. There's a there's a resolution. I misspoke. I misspoke.

[1:03:26] You're correct. And Eric was right. For the board, there are two. For the

[1:03:31] council, there's one. There are two separate resolutions.

[1:03:34] » Okay. So, I am just >> writing up some additional language for

[1:03:38] this motion, but if you guys could help and correct on the fly, please jump in.

[1:03:45] » Thank you very much. One more. What is the um

[1:03:50] status of like state legislation about or requests

[1:03:58] in front of the tax commission about this because I know that we disagreed

[1:04:03] with this change. >> Um

[1:04:07] and you know I'm happy to move forward with this one way or the other but um

[1:04:13] I would like to not have this change stay in place.

[1:04:20] » Um I can jump in with that. Uh the discussions have not been fruitful. Um

[1:04:27] and so I think we are in uh we are in a situation where we're now figuring out

[1:04:34] how to make it so that the library is not a separate taxing entity. Um, I

[1:04:39] think that there are still lots of unanswered questions about what that

[1:04:43] means in terms of budgeting and policym, but

[1:04:48] those are probably future discussions. In the meantime, these are more of like

[1:04:53] the legal documents to to clarify that. [snorts]

[1:04:56] » But this doesn't get in the way of any of that those efforts. I don't see how

[1:05:01] it would, but >> not necessarily. And I think that um in

[1:05:06] the discussions over the last two years, we've realized that because we're one of

[1:05:10] the only entities and because the library is one of the only entities that

[1:05:14] is the way it is um the way we've always had it, um the state and the county feel

[1:05:21] strongly that that we should have been doing it this way all along.

[1:05:25] » So,

[1:05:29] » happy news. >> Okay.

[1:05:33] Thank you. >> And just to on the uh clarification,

[1:05:37] after uh our decision tonight, you go to the county for uh a decision on their

[1:05:43] part, but the but the the money from the county and the school district are

[1:05:47] totally separate and it doesn't affect their what they've get because their tax

[1:05:52] increment is separate from ours anyways. So, it's really just a uh legality of

[1:05:57] saying we are excluding the library. It shouldn't affect you, but we need to

[1:06:02] have this change to our overall interlocal agreement between them, the

[1:06:07] three part three parties, the school board, this

[1:06:09] » city, and the county. >> Correct. Yeah. They weren't expecting

[1:06:12] this money to begin with. They weren't it was not in any plans or budgeted in

[1:06:16] any way. So, it should be just procedural and hopefully they'll agree

[1:06:20] on that. >> Okay. So, we have uh any other further

[1:06:25] questions?

[1:06:29] Thanks for that clarification and thanks for the explanation. Uh appreciate that.

[1:06:33] After I read the the staff report, it I was just the numbers were just kind of

[1:06:37] exclusion of the tax increment was really throwing me off and then you just

[1:06:41] kind of walked us through verbally and I'm like, "Oh, now I get it." So, thank

[1:06:45] you very much for doing that. That's where my learning skills come from.

[1:06:49] Sometimes I have to learn from reading and sometimes just telling me what it

[1:06:52] is. So, appreciate that. I will now look for a motion.

[1:06:55] » Mr. Chair, I move that the board adopt a resolution clarifying the exclusion of

[1:06:59] the Select City Library Tax Increment in the interlocal agreement amendments

[1:07:06] and approve the resolution revising block 67 interlocal agreement.

[1:07:15] » I have a motion from board member P second from board member Wharton. Any

[1:07:19] discussion? >> Seeing none, all in favor say I.

[1:07:23] » I. >> I. I'm an I.

[1:07:27] And that passes 5 to zero. Thank you very much.

[1:07:40] Moving on to item C6, Sedona Apartments Loan Amendment.

[1:07:47] Allison Roland's here. Tracy and Hayden.

[1:07:53] » Thank you, Mr. chair. I uh had prepared something to say and

[1:07:58] then I saw these guys uh Hayden and and Tracy's

[1:08:02] presentation and I I don't need to say anything. I'll just turn it over to

[1:08:06] [laughter] them. >> I had a plan to thank you for the

[1:08:09] introduction. So, >> um next slide, please.

[1:08:15] Um, so we are here to um ask the board to consider amending the payment terms

[1:08:22] of the CRA's 1995 loan to Sedonia Sedona Associates for the Pendleton House. Uh,

[1:08:27] next slide. Uh so the the request is to con consider

[1:08:34] adopting a resolution to amend those payment terms um by 5 years with a new

[1:08:39] condition that the loan becomes due upon sale, transfer, refinancing or

[1:08:43] redevelopment of the property. Uh next slide.

[1:08:51] So, to provide some background on this, um, in 1994, the then RDA board approved

[1:08:57] $150,000 construction loan um at 0% interest uh at a 30-year term with $50

[1:09:04] monthly payments with the balloon payment that was due at maturity. Uh,

[1:09:08] this property um is currently operating entity is Sedona Associates and the

[1:09:15] parent organization is the um Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation. Um, so

[1:09:19] this property has 16 units serving women transitioning out of homelessness and

[1:09:24] individuals with severe disabilities or mental illness. Um, there are other

[1:09:28] public lenders on on this as well, the state and the county. And we also have

[1:09:33] an equal priority agreement with them. Uh, and then the loan matured in April

[1:09:38] 2026 with the balloon payment of approximately $132,000

[1:09:43] due. Um, which is uh now triggering this request. Um the the the nonprofit

[1:09:49] housing corporation has asked the CRA to amend the terms to extend it. Uh next

[1:09:54] slide please. So the financial status uh so the

[1:09:58] financial records show that Sedona Associates do not have the capacity to

[1:10:02] pay the balloon payment. The property has relied on periodic uh support from

[1:10:07] the Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation just to cover operations and capital

[1:10:11] needs. Um the current rents and vouchers that they receive at the property do not

[1:10:17] uh come close to covering operating costs and maintenance. Um which is not

[1:10:21] unusual for a property serving extremely low income residents. Um the state

[1:10:26] actually just finalized a 5-year extension in May. Um and the county is

[1:10:31] expected to consider a similar request soon. Um but this property still

[1:10:35] continues to be missional aligned. Um it is still in its um 50-year deed

[1:10:40] restriction. um uh of affordability and continues to serve um a really in need

[1:10:45] resident. Uh next slide. So these are the proposed uh new terms.

[1:10:52] Pretty simple. Um the the table shows um that on the loan term we're proposing to

[1:10:58] extend it uh five more years with the balloon payment due at the end of the

[1:11:02] term. That um is just an extension. And then the $50 monthly payments will

[1:11:06] continue and remain in place. Um, however, we would we're adding um a

[1:11:11] stipulation that if the property is sold, transferred, refinanced, or

[1:11:14] redeveloped, the the balance would become due. Um, and then we're we're

[1:11:20] already developed. Um, the biggest consideration here is that they the

[1:11:25] Sedona Associate New Utah Nonprofit Housing Corporation is considering, you

[1:11:28] know, what a redevelopment of this property could look like to serve more

[1:11:31] residents. So this five years would give them um that time to to address those

[1:11:37] those plans. Uh next slide please.

[1:11:42] Um so as far as the consideration next steps uh you can may consider adopting

[1:11:46] the resolution extending the loan payment terms for Sidon Associates by 5

[1:11:51] years. Um and then if adopted CR staff will work with city attorneys to execute

[1:11:55] the documents um to modify those loan terms. Um but that's all I have and

[1:11:59] happy to answer any questions. And then the uh the borrower is also here um from

[1:12:04] Utah nonprofit housing corporation on Zoom.

[1:12:06] » All right. Thank you very much board. Any questions?

[1:12:12] » I I have a a a couple and uh so they've been paying $50 a month for

[1:12:19] 30 years that the payment's now 132,000. Uh and they can't pay make the payment

[1:12:26] for the balloon. uh and it's because they've the revenue

[1:12:32] is out there to pay for the balloon now. So after 5 years they have a seems

[1:12:39] like a soft idea how they going to get there. So after 5 years uh

[1:12:46] and say that the worst thing that happens is they can't pay the balloon

[1:12:49] again. Where do we go and what happens to the property and where do we how do

[1:12:54] we >> Yeah. I I in speaking to the borrower,

[1:12:57] we'd likely have another request, but we obvious we we obviously don't know what

[1:13:00] will happen in in five years time. Um but that is something that we could

[1:13:04] consider as you you all could consider as a board and a staff,

[1:13:08] » right? Because that we put a lean on it and then we then it's ours.

[1:13:12] » Yeah. It's kind of Yeah. Down the road five more years

[1:13:15] » basically. Right. Right. If you can't pay your bank owns your the bank owns

[1:13:18] your house but you can't pay it with the bank.

[1:13:22] » That would be like the biggest recourse that could be taken. Um and it's in as

[1:13:27] part of the promisory note loan documents,

[1:13:29] » right? Uh I mean it's a wonderful asset. We need

[1:13:35] the asset like this. Uh this is it's necessary for the city, but it's also

[1:13:40] necessary that we you pay your bills. So like that's my biggest concern is I I'm

[1:13:46] not looking that we don't approve this because we want to make keep keep these

[1:13:50] people in their house and we need to keep moving forward and we need to

[1:13:53] support uh uh the work of the borrower. But at the same time I'm like so what's

[1:14:00] what's the plan to pay us back because $50 a month is is is a pretty nice deal

[1:14:04] on a on a a house payment. Uh and so I'm just curious on that next 5 years and

[1:14:11] and their plan on moving forward. >> Yeah. And and if there is any

[1:14:16] redevelopment that or refinancing that does occur, that's we would also require

[1:14:20] that the loan um be repaid. >> Yeah. Because I also wouldn't want to

[1:14:23] make sure that the uh units stay in good shape and they're uh they're livable

[1:14:30] units and they don't uh they maintain the property at in the

[1:14:35] right state. Also, Uh >> and as part of those agreements that we

[1:14:39] have our deed restriction for example um there is the requirement to maintain the

[1:14:45] property at a high level. Um so there is so we do have those stopbacks that we

[1:14:49] can look to if we do see that the property is in disrepair. Um so we can

[1:14:54] we can look to those to reinforce anything like that. Yeah, because we it

[1:14:58] is uh I mean we've had other issues where units have had air conditioning

[1:15:03] issues and they you know they're when the when we had our excessive heat and

[1:15:08] then we had units that had no air conditioning them. That's very serious.

[1:15:12] Also, I know there's a lot of uh work to be that was done on that, but it's also

[1:15:17] one of those things where we we need to make sure that we are taking care of

[1:15:19] these most vulnerable. So, I'm just really uh want to just kind of press

[1:15:23] that issue that this is a nice deal. Let's uh uh uh let's make sure we uh

[1:15:30] everyone plays their part in making sure that these people take are taken care

[1:15:33] of, but but they also pay their bills, of course.

[1:15:38] » All right, Colette. >> Well, can those uh stipulations be

[1:15:43] embedded in whatever contract we have with them?

[1:15:49] » The just the the properties maintained at a certain level. Wow.

[1:15:52] » So, we already do have that in our current deed restriction on the

[1:15:55] property. Um, but we can look into seeing if that would make sense adding

[1:16:00] it to these terms and additionally. >> Yeah. Okay, that'd be nice.

[1:16:08] » Go ahead, >> Mr. Chair. Thank you. I to this point

[1:16:10] though I I think that this is another example how you know the select city

[1:16:15] neighbors disproportionately um put our tax dollars into helping on

[1:16:21] this issue and more than so many other communities and you know but it's it's

[1:16:26] to highlight how much of our tax dollars are uh embedded into the system to

[1:16:31] support um but uh to this point as far as like maintenance many times We hear a

[1:16:39] lot about that and and uh and since the the repayment of this loan might take an

[1:16:47] eternity. Um you know we value and and I will speak for myself I guess but it

[1:16:54] seems quite obvious from the conversation we value the work that this

[1:16:58] organization is doing to to to these neighbors u by providing these safe

[1:17:04] places. Um but we will want in exchange in in some ways for a a good deal of you

[1:17:14] know investment of our tax dollars into this good work is ensuring that uh the

[1:17:19] property is well maintained to me it's like it should you know how we define

[1:17:24] that is a good question too but I I will uh to me that's it's part of the deal

[1:17:30] it's it's one of the benefits that we get from the to the community back to

[1:17:35] the rest of the community back. So, I I would love to see that embedded into an

[1:17:39] agreement. >> Okay?

[1:17:43] » Because it it it's not uh I mean, it's probably obvious to everybody, but if

[1:17:47] this balloon payment had been paid back, that gives us $132,000 more to go to

[1:17:51] another project. So, this project is is uh is important, but it's also delaying

[1:17:58] support of another project that could be built using the same same money moving

[1:18:03] forward. So that's it's not so much that uh I'm against the project because I'm

[1:18:10] totally supportive of the project. I would love to see a lot of these

[1:18:14] projects across the city, but that's where I could use that 132 for another

[1:18:18] project. So but anyway, uh that's where we stand

[1:18:23] there on that one. Do we need Oh, we need a motion.

[1:18:27] Any idea to do something else?

[1:18:32] I move the board adopt the resolution amending the loan terms with Sedona

[1:18:36] Associates for the Pendleton House. >> Second.

[1:18:40] » Have a motion from board member Neighbor Pearson. Second from board member

[1:18:44] Carlson. Any discussion? See none. All in favor?

[1:18:49] » I. >> I.

[1:18:50] » I'm an I. That passes five to zero. Moving on to item number seven, art

[1:18:57] policy amendment. Tracy's at the table. >> Good afternoon.

[1:19:04] I can get those slides up for this item.

[1:19:15] Great. Thank you. So, I'm here to discuss the series art policy. Um, next

[1:19:19] slide, please. The SRA board adopted um the art policy

[1:19:25] in 2021, which did a few things. It aligned the CRA requirements with the

[1:19:29] city's percent for art increase from 1% to 1 and a.5% in chapter 2.30 of city

[1:19:34] code for capital improvements. Um it also included requirements for property

[1:19:39] dis dispositions and incentives to promote art. Um CRA staff is um now

[1:19:44] proposing a few updates now that the policy has been in place for about five

[1:19:48] years. Next slide. So this chart provides an overview of

[1:19:54] our current policy. shows the options for um these different um art require

[1:19:59] our art requirements, incentives and different allocations that we provide.

[1:20:04] So um art can be installed on site or it could be contributed to an art fund. An

[1:20:08] example of our art fund is some of our mural programs that we've run in the

[1:20:12] state street um project area and then um currently in the north temple project

[1:20:17] area. So if a developer can't build something on site, we can pull those

[1:20:21] monies together to do a something like a mural program. Um and then on the bottom

[1:20:26] part of the chart, it shows um how we work together with arts council to

[1:20:29] implement the art. So when um we do look at um implementing art um you can see

[1:20:35] here if it is in the public right away and considered kind of an um as part of

[1:20:41] as part of the public rightway that's completely led by arts council. Um but

[1:20:45] if it is pos publicly visible art on private property that's run through a

[1:20:50] CRA process. Next slide. Um so we are proposing four changes and

[1:20:56] I'll go through these in the next few slides. So we can um go to the next

[1:21:00] slide. So the first change um includes adding

[1:21:03] an art requirement for tax increment reimbursement require tax increment

[1:21:07] reimbursement agreements or tas. Um the current policy does not address tas. So

[1:21:13] we are proposing that one and a half% of the projected maximum reimbursement over

[1:21:17] the term of the tyra shall go towards art. Um so state code authorizes tas to

[1:21:23] be used within CRA project areas or when within HTRZ's which we've been seeing

[1:21:28] more of. Um and we do anticipate seeing more of these requests for tax increment

[1:21:33] reimbursement agreements. Um and then requiring art for these just ensures um

[1:21:38] that publicly supported developments create lasting community value. It

[1:21:41] improves placemaking and just general visible public value. Next slide.

[1:21:48] And then the next uh proposed change clarifies the 1 and a.5% for CRA

[1:21:52] property dispositions. Uh the proposed change would base the 1 and a.5% um on

[1:21:58] appraised property value as opposed to hard costs. Um basing this on hard cost

[1:22:03] may undermine the overall project, making the overall project infeasible.

[1:22:07] So, for example, if we had a $10 million um uh appraised property value, um that

[1:22:13] that property would um have to contribute $150,000 towards art, which

[1:22:18] we feel like is a little more doable. Um, if we based it on hard costs, if we

[1:22:22] were to assume $30 million for that property to for um to for the hard costs

[1:22:29] on that, that would be a $450,000 art project, which is a pretty big piece

[1:22:34] of art for a private like a privately owned piece of property. Um, so we think

[1:22:38] this is just um tying it to the appraised property values just a little

[1:22:42] makes it a little more feasible. Um, but we did include some exemption language

[1:22:46] for projects requiring affordable home ownership. We do know that affordable

[1:22:50] home ownership um is very difficult to build and may require substantial

[1:22:54] subsidy and we do have some long-term maintenance concerns for an HOA that is

[1:22:58] managing affordable home ownership. So, we just have some language um that

[1:23:01] allows for CRA director to um to remove that if if needed. Next slide.

[1:23:10] And then this uh next the third proposal would remove a specific interest rate

[1:23:15] reduction language. Um the current language states that a borrower would

[1:23:19] receive a specific 0.5% um interest rate reduction if contributing 1 and a.5% of

[1:23:24] the loan amount to art. Um the specific we believe that the specific reduction

[1:23:30] shall be determined um for different programs. So, we were looking at kind of

[1:23:33] our housing development loan program and which is more of a longer term um loan

[1:23:38] program and then our CDLP or commercial development loan program which is more

[1:23:42] focused on short-term um you know usually fiveyear loans loan terms. Um

[1:23:47] and we did some analysis that showed that um for shorter term loans um that

[1:23:52] may require an interest rate of point a half percent or more to incentivize art

[1:23:56] and then longer term loans with a lower interest rate reduction um as low as

[1:24:01] like 0.25 0.25 may still be beneficial to incentivize art. If you go to the

[1:24:05] next slide, um we have just kind of a few charts that show kind of what this

[1:24:10] looks like. Um so the slide provides um the interest rate charts that shows the

[1:24:15] interest rate savings for quarter percent, a half percent, and 3/4 of

[1:24:19] percent. And the chart provides the interest rate savings based on the loan

[1:24:22] amount and the loan term and compare that with the 1 and a.5% ARC

[1:24:26] contribution, which is the column in blue. So that orangey beige color cells

[1:24:32] um that orangey the orangey beige cells show that the interest rate savings is

[1:24:37] less than what that 1 and a half% contribution would be and maybe less

[1:24:41] likely a borrower would less likely be um contributing um to that u to

[1:24:49] additional art. Whereas um the green cells show that the interest rate

[1:24:53] savings is actually more than the contribution. So in those situations,

[1:24:57] they're more likely to to take on that um incentive. Um so overall, we think

[1:25:03] just loan longer term loans still provide an overall interest rate um

[1:25:06] savings even with a lower interest rate reduction. And then shorter term um

[1:25:11] loans may require an interest rate reduction of at least a half percent um

[1:25:15] to be financially beneficial to a borrower. So what all we're saying in

[1:25:19] the section is just we want to be able to kind of tailor it to each program and

[1:25:22] not call it out specific in this um policy. And the next slide.

[1:25:28] And then we just have general lang um language cleanup throughout the policy

[1:25:32] just updating references from RDA to CRA. Um and there's just some

[1:25:36] non-material language changes. Um it currently states that the board may

[1:25:39] allocate program income funds to art. We clarify the board that the board could

[1:25:43] also use pro project area funds. We've seen that with like our North Temple

[1:25:46] project area and um things like that. So we're just um clarifying that. And then

[1:25:52] we also currently reference an art review committee. We clarify that that

[1:25:56] CRA art review process is an advisory committee assembled by staff.

[1:26:01] Next slide. Um and we did uh present this to RACK on

[1:26:05] the their August 5th uh meeting and they recommended that the CRA board approved

[1:26:10] the changes with the condition that the staff consider some of the comments made

[1:26:13] during that discussion. Um and those discussion included just consider

[1:26:17] considering the TIFF requirements. Oh, sorry, that should say tier

[1:26:20] requirements. Um, consider the tier requirements and timing of when the

[1:26:24] requirements take effect. And then ensure that funds are collected upfront

[1:26:28] for the art fund or art installed in earlier stages. So, they don't want a

[1:26:31] situation where someone has committed to doing art but it's not on site for like

[1:26:36] 25 years and they um just want to make sure we we um prevented that. Um and we

[1:26:42] looked into these issues and kind of ran through different scenarios and we do

[1:26:45] think um we will be able to kind of ensure that these items are addressed um

[1:26:49] as we develop our legal agreements when we're working on our tax increment

[1:26:53] reimbursement agreements. Um next slide. Um yeah and with that um I can answer

[1:26:59] any questions. Um and we are looking for a motion on um to approve the resolution

[1:27:05] that's attached. >> Thank you Tracy board. Any questions,

[1:27:09] comments? on the uh one side there's about the uh

[1:27:15] mainten maintenance and the concern about if it's an HOA or if it's on the

[1:27:19] private property facing the public maintenance is by the owner of the uh

[1:27:25] structure the building and they they were they're required to maintain

[1:27:29] maintain it. Uh but there's no recourse if they if

[1:27:34] they're not retaining it after 5 years because we've we've already got the

[1:27:37] money and they it's it's basically on their plan.

[1:27:40] » It depends on um kind of what situation we're in. If it is a loan and we still a

[1:27:46] lot of our loans, if it's like a 15-year term, we will kind of want to make sure

[1:27:50] that they do maintain it for at least 15 years. We'll usually tie it to kind of

[1:27:54] the legal agreement that we have in place.

[1:27:56] » Okay. Okay. So, there's a legal agreement there that says, "Hey, you

[1:27:58] need maintain it at whatever standard we've already kind of dictated in the in

[1:28:01] the in the legal agreement." Okay. >> Yeah. And then with like tax increment

[1:28:05] reimbursements, because it's a 25-y year term, that could be a situation where

[1:28:10] well, we do have that agreement in place, so we should have like recourse

[1:28:13] if that's not >> So, the 1.5 uh on the tax in uh

[1:28:18] increment agreement. Now, that's the full tax increment uh payout.

[1:28:27] 1.5% of the full or was it 1.5 or whatever it is on the annual? It's

[1:28:33] » one and a half% of their reimbursement request

[1:28:38] » on an annual basis. >> Um for the full term

[1:28:41] » for the full term. >> But administratively we'll like figure

[1:28:45] out kind of okay how that >> how that works happens each year at

[1:28:50] » from the cap. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Thank you.

[1:28:55] Seeing none, uh, I will look for a motion.

[1:29:03] » Mr. Chair, I move that the board adopt a resolution approving the CRA art policy

[1:29:07] amendment. >> Second.

[1:29:09] » I have a board I have a motion from board member Carlson, second from board

[1:29:13] member neighbor Pierce. Any questions? Any discussion? See none. All in favor

[1:29:17] say approve. I >> I

[1:29:19] » I >> say approve.

[1:29:21] » Approve. >> Approve. Uh uh. Anybody against?

[1:29:26] Sorry, long morning. All right, that motion passes. I I'm an I. That motion

[1:29:30] passes five to zero.

[1:29:42] Item number eight, report an announcement from the executive

[1:29:44] director.

[1:29:51] uh and report from the chairs uh and the vice chair. We have nothing to say at

[1:29:56] this point. >> Danny,

[1:29:59] » Mr. Chair, uh let me start by thanking you and the the rest of the board as

[1:30:04] well as council staff for our agenda today. We know we threw a lot at you and

[1:30:10] want to thank staff as well. There's a lot of preparation that went into this

[1:30:14] and so uh we appreciate you providing us the time to get through the agenda and

[1:30:19] get through these items as we can continue to move those forward. Um only

[1:30:23] one announcement uh for you today. Next slide please. Um wanted to just announce

[1:30:28] the release of our two annual notices of funding availability. The first is for

[1:30:33] the housing development loan program. Both of these were officially released

[1:30:38] last week. You'll see press releases probably coming up in the next week or

[1:30:41] two that that formally announce these. Um, but they are out on the streets and

[1:30:46] active right now. Uh, this year's HDLP NOA is providing $3 million for the

[1:30:52] affordable housing development within the city. Uh, you'll recall that as a

[1:30:55] board and the housing funding priorities. You approve that the

[1:30:59] required threshold for developments to apply for this program is that at least

[1:31:04] 20% of the units are either serving households at 30% AMI or less and or not

[1:31:10] andor or or uh 3% or 20% of the units are familysiz units at three plus

[1:31:16] bedrooms. So projects have to have either one of those and some obviously

[1:31:21] have both but that is a threshold requirement for the HDLP. The other NOA

[1:31:26] is our residential wealth building program. This is providing $4 million uh

[1:31:29] to support affordable housing and wealth buildinging opportunities for low to

[1:31:33] moderate uh income households. The focus is projects that will include home

[1:31:38] ownership and/or shared equity models and essentially support long-term

[1:31:41] financial stability for families. >> [snorts]

[1:31:44] » Um the deadline for these is September 25th at which point staff will review

[1:31:48] the applications, present them to finance committee which will then

[1:31:51] forward a recommendation to you as a board and you will see these and approve

[1:31:55] them. [snorts] So these are the funds that you approved as a board in June and

[1:32:01] staff has worked hard and they're on the street today. So want to commend them

[1:32:06] for that. >> All right. Thank you. Appreciate that

[1:32:08] very much. This is awesome. questions

[1:32:12] for CRA? >> More of a just more of a comment. Um,

[1:32:15] thank you for this work and thank you to staff for putting these NAS out. I'm

[1:32:20] really excited to see what comes back from the residential wealth building

[1:32:23] pilot program. So, I'll be looking forward to that when it's ready.

[1:32:28] » Thank you. And I appreciate the conversations we had about the uh

[1:32:31] commercial loan priorities and stuff and uh and all the other briefings we had

[1:32:36] today. So, uh again, thank Thank you very much for across the board and with

[1:32:41] that we are adjourned until 4:15 is what we have in the agenda. I

[1:32:48] don't think we can start it earlier. >> I think we can start a little bit

[1:32:52] earlier. I think it says or call >> so let's let's do this then 4:00. Um

[1:32:58] okay 4:00. Thank you. Thank you.

Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency (CRA) Meeting - 08/18/2026

Transcript