[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.