The URL can be used to link to this page

02/09/2021 - Meeting MaterialsBoard of Directors of the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY AGENDA February 9,2021 Tuesday 2:00 PM This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. SLCRDA.com This is a discussion among RDA Board Directors and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen,unless otherwise specified as a public comment period.Items scheduled may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers.Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. Generated:07:54:04 This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination: I,Ana Valdemoros,the chair of the Board of the Redevelopment Agency,hereby determined that conducting the Board of the Redevelopment Agency meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location.The World Health Organization,the President of the United States,the Governor of Utah,the Salt Lake County Health Department,Salt Lake County Mayor,and the Mayor of Salt Lake City have all recognized a global pandemic exists related to the new strain of the coronavirus,SARS-CoV-2.Due to the state of emergency caused by the global pandemic,I find that conducting a meeting at an anchor location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the location. For these reasons,the Redevelopment Agency Meeting will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all attendees will connect remotely. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure everyone interested in the RDA meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable.If you are interested in watching the RDA meetings,they are available on the following platforms: •Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ •YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings •Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ •SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7607 to learn more. As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an email: •24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654 •council.comments@slcgov.com More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ We welcome and encourage your comments!We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and voicemail,as always,to receive and share your comments with Board Members.All agenda-related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Board Members and added to the public meeting record.View comments by visiting the Council Virtual Meeting Comments page. A.Comments: 1.General Comments to the Board ~2:00 p.m. 5 min The RDA Board of Directors will receive public comments regarding Redevelopment Agency business in the following formats: 1.Written comments submitted to RDA offices,451 South State Street,Suite 118,P.O.Box 145455,Salt Lake City,UT.84114-5455. 2.Comments to the RDA Board of Directors.(Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public Hearing,as well as on any other RDA Business.Comments are limited to two minutes.) B.Public Hearing -individuals may speak to the Board once per public hearing topic for two minutes,however written comments are always accepted: NONE. C.Redevelopment Agency Business -The RDA Board of Directors will receive information and/or hold discussions and/or take action on: 1.Approval of Minutes ~2:05 p.m. 5 min. The Board will approve the meeting minutes of Tuesday,May 5,2020 and Tuesday,January 12,2021. 2.Resolution:Adopting an Updated RDA Art Policy ~2:10 p.m. 5 min. The Board will confirm the adoption of a resolution for an updated RDA Art Policy.The RDA’s original policy,adopted in 1990,authorized 1%of certain Agency construction project budgets for public art.The RDA is proposing the Agency’s art policy change to 1.5%and to include additional ongoing annual funding,RDA tools,and incentives to promote art. 3.Resolution:Housing Allocation Policies ~2:15 p.m. 5 min. The Board will confirm approval of the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy,which was given preliminary approval in December 2020.The draft Housing Allocation Funds Policy establishes guidelines for allocating funding and directing resources to develop and preserve housing in the City. 4.Informational:Housing Development Loan Program Policy ~2:20 p.m. 20 min. The Board will be briefed about the proposed Housing Development Loan Program Policy.The draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy creates a program that would centralize the application, underwriting,and approval process to streamline access for developers. 5.Informational:Disposition of Real Property for Block 70 Project Area Development (Walker Center)Follow-up ~2:40 p.m. 20 min. The Board will receive a follow-up briefing about the sale of RDA-owned property at 156 South Regent Street in the Block 70 Project Area.The 3,111 square-foot parcel is located underneath the Walker Center garage overhang. 6.Informational:Update on Sales Pricing Terms of the Utah Theater and Adjacent Retail Property at 144-158 South Main Street ~3:00 p.m. 30 min. The Board will receive an update about requirements to the sales pricing terms of RDA-owned property at 144 –158 South Main Street.As part of the potential project,the Board requested any redevelopment include certain public benefits such as affordable housing,a mid-block walkway,and repurposing of some historic elements of the theater. Upon approval of the sales pricing terms to Hines Acquisitions and 160 Main LLC in December 2019,the Board also required green open space in addition to the mid-block walkway and historic documentation of the theater.The public can access the Pantages Theater Archive here:https://pta.lib.utah.edu/ 7.Motion:Meeting Remotely Without an Anchor Location ~3:30 p.m. 5 min. The Board will consider a motion to ratify the determination that the Board will continue to meet remotely and without an anchor location under HB5002. 8.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director TENTATIVE 5 min. Report of the Executive Director,including a review of information items,announcements,and scheduling items.The Board of Directors may give feedback or policy input. 9.Report and Announcements from RDA Staff TENTATIVE 5 min. The Board may review Board information and announcements.The Board may give feedback on any item related to City business,including but not limited to; •Update on $700,00 of CARES Act Funding How It Was Split and Recipient Locations;and •Scheduling Items. 10.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair TENTATIVE 5 min. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair. D.Written Briefings –the following briefings are informational in nature and require no action of the Board.Additional information can be provided to the Board upon request: 1.Informational:University of Utah Research Park Project Area Creation Update The Board will receive a written update about potential creation of the University of Utah Research Park Project Area.In January 2020,the Board adopted a boundary survey resolution which started the process to determine whether project area development is feasible within the survey area.RDA Staff will update the Board on creating a draft Community Reinvestment Area (CRA)plan and next steps for consultants to analyze any future development. E.Consent –the following items are listed for consideration by the Board and can be discussed individually upon request.A motion to approve the consent agenda is approving all of the following items: 1.Resolution:Amending the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Project Area Budget The Board will set the date of Tuesday,March 23,2021 to accept public comment about,and may consider adopting,a resolution amending the 9-Line project area budget based on the terms of interlocal agreements with participating taxing entities. F.Tentative Closed Session The Board will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to: 1.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an individual; 2.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; 3.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property: (i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; 4.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if: (i)public discussion of the transaction would: (A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale;and< (iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale 5.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and 6.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. G.Adjournment CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder,does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not limited to adoption, rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711. MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 1 The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City, Utah, met on Tuesday, May 5, 2020 in an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. Attendance: Directors Amy Fowler, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Analia Valdemoros, Andrew Johnston, James Rogers, and Darin Mano. Staff in Attendance: Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; Danny Walz, RDA Chief Operating Officer; Katherine Lewis, City Attorney; Lisa Shaffer, Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff; Allison Rowland, Council Public Policy Analyst; Tracy Tran, RDA Project Manager; Benjamin Luedtke, Council Public Policy Analyst; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder. Director Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2:11 p.m. 2:11:36 PM A. GENERAL COMMENTS TO THE BOARD There were no public comments. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS #1. 2:16:06 PM Resolution: RDA Budget Amendment No. 3 for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. The Board will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution amending the final budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2019-20. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments in the Redevelopment Agency’s budget, including proposed project additions and modifications. View Attachments There were no public comments. Director Wharton moved and Director Dugan seconded to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution R-8-2020, amending the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 final budget of the Redevelopment Agency as proposed by the Administration, which motion carried, all directors voted aye, except Director Valdemoros, who was absent for the vote (roll call). #2. 2:17:11 PM Resolution: RDA Budget Amendment No. 4 for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. The Board will accept public comment about a resolution that would amend the final budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2019-20. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments in the Redevelopment Agency’s budget, including proposed project additions and modifications, and staffing changes. The proposed amendment includes recapturing $2.9 million from a proposed shared parking structure in the Station Center area to instead be used for potential property acquisition and development in the same MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 2 area, among other items. View Attachments There were no public comments. Director Wharton moved and Director Dugan seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all directors voted aye, except Director Valdemoros, who was absent for the vote (roll call). C. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUSINESS #1. 2:18:20 PM Resolution: RDA Budget Amendment No. 3 for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. The Board will consider adopting a resolution that would amend the final budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2019-20. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments in the Redevelopment Agency’s budget, including proposed project additions and modifications. View Attachments Benjamin Luedtke said if Board Members did not have any questions, the briefing did not need to be held. He said as a reminder, this was an annual true-up budget amendment where the difference between the expected tax increment and the actual tax increment was trued-up in the various accounts. Director Fowler said the Board adopted this during the public hearing section on Item B-1, no further discussion was necessary, and she had meant to skip Item C-1. #2. 2:19:09 PM Resolution: RDA Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2019-20. The Board will consider adopting a resolution that would amend the final budget of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2019-20. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments in the Redevelopment Agency’s budget, including proposed project additions and modifications, and staffing changes. The proposed amendment includes recapturing $2.9 million from a proposed shared parking structure in the Station Center area to instead be used for potential property acquisition and development in the same area, among other items. View Attachments Director Fowler said the public hearing was closed and action would be taken at a future date. Director Valdemoros joined the meeting at 2:20 p.m. Benjamin Luedtke provided an introduction and discussed the following: • Item #1 - $160,525 in new tax increment revenue (higher than projected) going to the taxing entities as required as part of the Agency’s interlocal agreements with those other agencies. MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 3 • Item #2 – $374,551 in new tax increment revenue going to the debt service reserve, bringing the reserve balance to just over $3.3 Million. • Item #3 - $44.6 Million for refinancing the 2013 bond (Eccles Theater). Refinancing was expected to create $326,000 in annual savings, and the bond was expected to be paid off in April 2031. • Item #4A - Request for recapturing $581,503 previously approved by the board for a shared parking structure in the Station Center area (envisioned as a development incentive and subject to future negotiations with developers for the area). Funds would be recaptured for Station Center acquisition and development. • Item #4B - $2.3 Million from Program Income Fund (PIF) for the same shared parking structure in the Station Center area. Combined with the recapture of $581,503 would allow for just over $2.9 Million for the Station Center acquisition and development. Danny Walz discussed the intent of the allocation regarding the $2.9 Million for the Station Center acquisition and development; the Agency having two possible options (one being the Road Home, and the other operated by ArtSpace). He said now that the Road Home was gone (along with any previous obligations to provide parking), the Agency was now subject to the option agreement to pay appraised/fair-market value for the property and were currently having discussions with ArtSpace and in the process of determining cost. Mr. Walz said if the Agency pursued the acquisitions, they would return to the Board for approval, and if they did not pursue the acquisitions then it was proposed that the funds be combined with existing funds for the infrastructure costs (being subject to the same Board approval for future allocation). Mr. Walz also mentioned (as it related to site-development/current site cost) that the Agency was the owner of the Serta building (located in the middle of the block) and that it had sustained significant damage from the March earthquake, and they were currently in the process of engaging contracts with an engineer, architect, and contractor to determine if the building could be saved (retrofitting, or improvements to the building for later re-use) and added that this pot of funds would be better used for those uses (acquisition, infrastructure, and site costs). Director Mano moved and Director Rogers seconded to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution R-9-2020 amending Fiscal Year 2019-2020 final budget of the Redevelopment Agency as proposed by the Administration, which motion carried, all directors voted aye (roll call). #3. 2:33:31 PM Resolution: Loan Adjustment for an Affordable Housing MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 4 Development in a High-opportunity Area at 2960 South Richmond Street. The Board will be briefed about, and will consider adopting, a resolution that would amend the Community Development Corporation of Utah’s loan term sheet for a 60-unit affordable housing development known as Richmond Flats, to be located at approximately 2960 South Richmond Street. The proposed amendment would phase in the $1.8 million loan to allow for property acquisition before needed rezoning occurs, and then roll that interest-deferred loan into permanent financing for the project. In December 2019, the Board approved this $1.8 million allocation in affordable housing funds for “high-opportunity areas” of the City. These are areas where residents tend to have better access to factors affecting their potential economic mobility, such as jobs, schools and public transit. View Attachments Tracy Tran briefed the Board with attachments and provided the following: • Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) Affordable Housing Overview ▪ Allocation of $4.5 Million for affordable housing ▪ Two competitive NOFA processes with no viable applications received ▪ Applications accepted on an open-ended basis ▪ Challenges related to building affordable housing in high opportunity areas • Details of the High Opportunity Land Uses Map, • CDCU application summary, approved terms/proposed amended terms, and considerations. Allison Rowland said the Board had the option to take action tonight or at the next RDA meeting on May 19, and that the motion sheet was recently made available for viewing. 2:44:30 PM Director Rogers moved and Director Johnston seconded to adopt Resolution R-10-2020, approving an adjustment to a property acquisition loan to provide $1.5 million for a loan to Community Development Corporation of Utah for the Richmond Flats project, which is part of the High Opportunity Notice of Financing Availability (NOFA), which motion carried, all directors voted aye (roll call). #4. 2:46:07 PM Report and Announcements from the Executive Director. Report of the Executive Director, including a review of information items, announcements, and scheduling items. The Board of Directors may give feedback or policy input. None. MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 5 #5. 2:46:45 PM Report and Announcements from RDA Staff. The Board may review Board information and announcements. The Board may give feedback on any item related to City business, including but not limited to scheduling items. None. #6. 2:47:00 PM Report of the Chair and Vice Chair. None. D. WRITTEN BRIEFINGS None. E. CONSENT None. F. CLOSED SESSION. The Board will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session, in keeping with Utah Code §52-4-205 for any allowed purpose. Item not held. This portion of the RDA meeting adjourned at 2:47 p.m. 7:11:46 PM The Board reconvened at 7:11 p.m. to conduct additional business. The following Board Directors were present electronically. Andrew Johnston James Rogers Daniel Dugan Amy Fowler Darin Mano Chris Wharton Analia Valdemoros Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; Erin Mendenhall, Mayor; Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Chief of Staff; Katherine Lewis, City Attorney; Cindy Lou Trishman; Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder; and DeeDee Robinson, Deputy City Recorder participated electronically. Director Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. OPENING CEREMONY MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 6 #1. 7:05:20 PM Pledge of Allegiance (A moment of silence was held while the American Flag/Anthem was displayed on the video screen) #2. 7:06:14 PM Welcome and Review of Standards of Conduct. Note: Opening Ceremonies were held as part of the May 5, 2020 combined Local Building Authority, Redevelopment Agency, and City Council Formal agenda. UNFINISHED BUSINESS #1. 7:11:59 PM Approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020- 2021. View Attachment Director Wharton moved and Director Valdemoros seconded to adopt Resolution R-11-2020, which motion carried, all members voted aye (roll call). CONSENT 7:13:06 PM Director Rogers moved and Director Wharton seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all members voted aye (roll call). #1. Confirming the dates of Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-2021. 7:14:10 PM Director Wharton moved and Director Dugan seconded to adjourn as the Redevelopment Agency, which motion carried, all members voted aye (roll call). The meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m. ______________________________ Redevelopment Agency Chair ______________________________ Secretary MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY TUESDAY, MAY 5, 2020 20 - 7 This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as additional discussion may have been held; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b). This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency meetings (afternoon and evening) held May 5, 2020. sc/dr MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, January 12, 2021 1 The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City, Utah, met on Tuesday, January 12, 2021 in an electronic meeting pursuant to Chair determination and Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2) (b). Virtual Attendance: Directors Amy Fowler, Daniel Dugan, Chris Wharton, Analia Valdemoros, Andrew Johnston, James Rogers, and Darin Mano. Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Executive Deputy Director; Danny Walz, RDA Chief Operating Officer ; Katherine Lewis, City Attorney; Lisa Shaffer, Mayor’s Deputy Chief of Staff; Ashley Ogden, RDA Project Manager; Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Chief Operating Officer; Benjamin Luedtke, Council Public Policy Analyst; Lauren Parisi, RDA Project Manager; Allison Parks, Senior City Attorney; Amanda Lau, Council Public Engagement & Communications Specialist; Robert Nutzman, Council Administrative Assistant; and DeeDee Robinson, Deputy City Recorder. Guests in Attendance: Ashley Patterson, Wasatch Community Garden (WCG) Executive Director (Item #3); Chris Parker, WCG Consultant (Item #3); Diane Banks, Walker Center Owner Representative (Item #5). Director Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. Link to the Audio File for the Meeting Link to the Packet Material provided for the Meeting The meeting was called to order at 2:03 p.m. A. Comments: 1. The RDA Board of Directors will receive public comments regarding Redevelopment Agency business in the following formats: 1. Written comments submitted to RDA offices, 451 South State Street, Suite 118, P.O. Box 145455, Salt Lake City, UT. 84114-5455. 2. Comments to the RDA Board of Directors. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public Hearing, as well as on any other RDA Business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) There were no public comments. General Comments to the Board MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2 B. NONE. C. 1. The Board will approve the meeting minutes of Tuesday, May 5, 2020. (00:07:49) Director Fowler questioned the date of the minutes being proposed for approval. Following further discussion, Staff said they would do some research and get back to the Board. 2. The Board will take a straw poll to nominate the Board Chair (a two-year term) and Vice Chair (a one-year term). The process includes expressions of interest from Board Members, nominations for each position, and then voting each for the Chair and Vice Chair positions. (00:09:08) Director Valdemoros said she was willing to accept the nomination and be elected to serve as RDA Board Chair. Director Dugan said he was willing to accept the nomination and be elected to serve as RDA Board Vice-Chair. Moved by Director Mano, seconded by Director Dugan to nominate Analia Valdemoros to serve as RDA Board Chair. AYE: Amy Fowler, Ana Valdemoros, Andrew Johnston, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers ABSENT: Chris Wharton Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Moved by Director Mano, seconded by Director Rogers to nominate Daniel Dugan to serve as RDA Board Vice-Chair. AYE: Amy Fowler, Ana Valdemoros, Andrew Johnston, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers ABSENT: Chris Wharton Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Approval of Minutes Redevelopment Agency Business - The RDA Board of Directors will receive information and/or hold discussions and/or take action on: Public Hearing - individuals may speak to the Board once per public hearing topic for two minutes, however written comments are always accepted: Election of Chair and Vice Chair MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, January 12, 2021 3 3. The Board will be briefed about, and will consider adopting, a resolution that wo uld approve a loan up to $250,000 to Wasatch Community Gardens for an affordable housing development at approximately 633 East 800 South. The proposed project consists of eight studio units and would be subject to a 50-year restriction keeping them affordable to those making up to 70% of area median income (AMI). (00:15:16) Ashley Ogden briefed the Board regarding Wasatch Community Garden (WCG) Loan ($250,000), including project overview, background, approval from Historic Landmarks Commission, financial overview (sources/uses), potential loan terms, to include: Option 1: Applicant requested – forgivable loan (no interest/no payment loan, for five years.), Option 2: Standard Housing Development Trust Fund (HDTF) recommended terms with amendment (2.25% interest, 30 year, annual hard repayments, etc.), Option 3: Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Staff recommended (cash flow loan, payments paid to Housing Trust Fund (HTF), 2.25% interest, 30 years, annual payments), and ways this project aligned with City Council priorities for affordable housing. Jennifer Bruno provided clarification on the forgivable loan concept (not a concept the RDA typically pursued), and WCG being their own lender/setting their own loan terms being untypical. Councilmember Wharton joined the meeting at 00:26:37 Ashley Patterson (Executive Director, Wasatch Community Garden) provided information regarding the mission of the WCG, existing size of the garden/how much would be added, details of the proposed studios, details of the request for special terms, how philanthropy could invest in affordable housing (being a model that could be duplicated by other non-profits), agricultural space in the City/Salt Lake valley being in crisis, Salt Lake City community food assessment survey (priority to grow food), and WCG being rooted in equity/diversity. Chris Parker (WCG Consultant) said this model of WCG was rare (no developer fee/donating half million of capital/donating land), it was a unique opportunity for the City, and proposed studios (425 sq/ft) allowing a max of 2 persons per unit. Councilmember Fowler left the meeting at 00:41:20 Ashley Ogden, Tammy Hunsaker, Danny Walz, and Jennifer Bruno provided clarification on Option 3 (cashflow/paid back), differences between Option 1 (forgivable loan/not paid back) & Option 2 (met all HTF guidelines/paid back), the project not warranting tax credits, RDA feeling the request was justified, recognition that the term “forgivable” was a sensitive concept (knowing it was not a Board supported concept), and model having adequate cashflow to repay the RDA loan within the 30 year loan (possibly Resolution: Loan to Wasatch Community Gardens for an Affordable Housing Development at approximately 633 East 800 South MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, January 12, 2021 4 earlier). Moved by Director Johnston, seconded by Director Mano to approve Resolution R-1-2021, authorizing a loan of up to $250,000 to Wasatch Community Gardens, with cash flow-based repayment terms as described in the staff memo as option 3, with the exception that a balloon payment of any outstanding balance shall be due at maturity. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Andrew Johnston, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass 4. The Board will be briefed about, and will consider adopting a resolution, that would approve the 9 Line Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake County and the RDA. The interlocal agreement would approve use of a portion of tax increment to support the implementation of the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan. (01:06:00) Benjamin Luedtke said the City Council & school board previously approved interlocal agreements (ILA) to participate in the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Project Area (CRA), and indicated the County was last entity to participate. Danny Walz, Lauren Parisi, Tammy Hunsaker, Allison Parks provided information regarding the County’s involvement in the interlocal agreement, including: terms differing from previously approved ILA’s with the City & school board (50% tax increment contribution instead of 75% – with future possibility of increasing to 75%, etc.), details on the mitigation payment, details/changes on the 9 Line/State Street CRA schedule, approval required of each taxing entity (through an administrative function) for the budget amendments, future opportunities to amend the budget if the project had greater needs, performance benchmarks, and potential for extending ADU program City-wide. Moved by Director Rogers, seconded by Director Johnston to approve Resolution R-2-2021, authorizing an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake County and the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency for a portion of property tax increment to support the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan implementation. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Andrew Johnston, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers ABSENT: Amy Fowler Final Result: 6 – 0 Pass Diversion of Property Tax for a Community Reinvestment Project Area: 9 Line Interlocal with Salt Lake County MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, January 12, 2021 5 5. The Board will be briefed about, and will consider adopting, a resolution that would approve the sales price of RDA-owned property at 156 South Regent Street in the Block 70 Project Area. The 3,111 square-foot parcel is located underneath the Walker Center garage overhang. (01:32:12) Danny Walz and Allison Parks provided details regarding proposed area size (3,111 square feet), location (south side of McCarthy Plaza under Walker Center parking garage overhang), buyer (Walker Center Holdings), negotiated price, $100,000 market value with possible conveyance reduction for small eastside area to remain a storage space for McCarthy Plaza (supplies to maintain plaza, storage for retail tenant), west side remaining for generator/compactor easement use (by Eccles Theater – securing perpetual use), the sale resolving the boundary issue for the owner (effectively owning all of the property under the footprint of their building, as well as financing issues), and history of the appraisal/transfer of property/purchase agreement. Diane Banks (owner’s representative) provided information on how the owner was able to build (1958/1959 – Walker Center parking structure) on RDA owned property, RDA acquiring the property in 2013/2014 prior to construction of the theater, permanent easement created/recorded on property for generator/compactor, and owners needing to refinance property this year (needing to own land and air rights of property to do so). Straw Poll: Support for continuing discussions regarding the sale of RDA-owned property. Directors present were in favor except for Director Rogers who was opposed. Directors Fowler and Johnston were absent for the straw poll. 6. The Board will be briefed about the proposed Housing Development Loan Program Policy. The draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy creates a program that would centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process to streamline access for developers. This item was moved to a future RDA meeting 7. Resolution: Disposition of Real Property for Block 70 Project Area Development Resolution: Housing Allocation Policies Informational: Housing Development Loan Program Policy Follow-up MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, January 12, 2021 6 The Board will confirm approval of the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, which was given preliminary approval in December 2020. The draft Housing Allocation Funds Policy establishes guidelines for allocating funding and directing resources to develop and preserve housing in the City. This item was moved to a future RDA meeting. 8. The Board will review and confirm approval of the Fiscal Year 2019-20 RDA Audit, which shows the Agency's financial conditions as of June 30, 2020. As required under 17C-1-605, the RDA timely filed a copy of the audit report with the county auditor, the State Tax Commission, and State Board of Education, and each taxing entity from which the agency receives tax increment. (02:06:00) Danny Walz provided an overview and introduction regarding the Audit Review. Moved by Director Wharton, seconded by Director Dugan to approve the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 RDA audit. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Andrew Johnston Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass 9. The Board will confirm the adoption of a resolution for an updated RDA Art Policy. The RDA’s original policy, adopted in 1990, authorized 1% of certain Agency construction project budgets for public art. The RDA is proposing the Agency’s art policy change to 1.5% and to include additional ongoing annual funding, RDA tools, and incentives to promote art. This item was moved to a future RDA meeting. RDA Audit Review and Approval for Fiscal Year 2019-20 Resolution: Adopting an Updated RDA Art Policy MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, January 12, 2021 7 10. The Board will consider a motion to ratify the determination that the Board will continue to meet remotely and without an anchor location under HB5002. (02:09:09) Moved by Director Wharton, seconded by Director Dugan to ratify the determination. AYE: Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers ABSENT: Amy Fowler, Andrew Johnston Final Result: 5 – 0 Pass 11. Report of the Executive Director, including a review of information items, announcements, and scheduling items. The Board of Directors may give feedback or policy input. (02:10:09) Danny Walz provided updates regarding the closing on disposition of 255 South State Street property (project was underway), and $700,000 of Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds being distributed to 19 recipients. 12. The Board may review Board information and announcements. The Board may give feedback on any item related to City business, including but not limited to; • Property Updates; • CARES ACT Funding; and • Scheduling Items. Item not held. 13. Report of the Chair and Vice Chair. Item not held. D. NONE. Motion: Meeting Remotely Without an Anchor Location Report and Announcements from the Executive Director Report and Announcements from RDA Staff Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Written Briefings – the following briefings are informational in nature and require no action of the Board. Additional information can be provided to the Board upon request: MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Tuesday, January 12, 2021 8 E. NONE. F. Tentative Closed Session Consider a motion to enter into closed session, in keeping with Utah Code §52-4- 205 for any allowed purpose. Item not held. G. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 4:14 p.m. _______________________________ BOARD CHAIR _______________________________ CITY RECORDER This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b). This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the Redevelopment Agency meeting held January 12, 2021. Consent – the following items are listed for consideration by the Board and can be discussed individually upon request. A motion to approve the consent agenda is approving all of the following items: ART IMPLEMENTATION Public Art Publicly-Visible Art on Private Property TYPE LED BY Art Design Board RDA OWNERSHIP Salt Lake City Corporation*Private Property Owner MAINTENANCE Salt Lake City Corporation*Private Property Owner FEES Up to 15% Admin, up to 15% for maintenance - REVIEW BY RDA Art Review Committee Art Requirement Art Incentive RDA Annual Art Allocation RDA TOOL/SOURCE OF CONTRIBUTION Budget allocation from program income fund (PIF) WHEN FUNDS ARE COLLECTED OPTIONS Interest rate reduction: .5% Interest rate reduction for art if 1.5 % of RDA contribution goes towards art At closing if contributing to art fund At closing if contributing to art fund Budget approval from Board Contribute to art fund Install art onsite or contribute to art fund 1.5% of infrastructure projects and up to1.5% of hard costs for RDA dispositions as determined in RFP/Q Install art onsite or contribute to art fund Purpose: The purpose of the RDA art policy is to integrate art in public spaces and private developments within RDA project areas that add to the experience and value of the built environment. The art shall be located in or visible from the public realm, typically without paying an admission. Types of art may be temporary or permanent and may include sculpture, murals, memorials, integrated architectural or landscape architectural art, digital new media, among other types of art. The purposes and types of art is pursuant to requirements in Utah Code 17-C and shall encourage, promote, or provide development or redevelopment for the purpose of implementing a project area plan. Art shall enrich the site and promote City, and/or neighborhood identity or initiatives and raise awareness of history, identity, cultures, or geography. RDA ART POLICY (DRAFT) - 7/20/20 MODIFICATIONS FROM CURRENT POLICY Aligns with city increase from 1% to 1.5% and specifies art requirement for dispositions New addition Continues allocating PIF funds as needed to supplement art; memorializes current practice ART POLICY Arts Council *In collaborative project, ownership and maintenance may a be partner entity (i.e. UTA) DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA BEN KOLENDAR DIRECTOR WWW.SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLCRDA.COM WWW.SALTLAKEARTS.ORG REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF MEMO DATE: November 20, 2020 PREPARED BY: Tracy Tran RE: Art Policy REQUESTED ACTION: Consideration of a resolution to adopt an updated RDA art policy POLICY ITEM: Art BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”) adopted a percent for art policy in 1990 that authorized the setting aside of funds for the acquisition of works of art and ornamentation to enhance development funded within its project areas. The policy authorized a percent for art provision similar to the program contained in Chapter 2.30 Salt Lake Design Board of the Salt Lake City Code for appropriate Agency construction projects. Currently, Chapter 2.30 designates 1% of capital improvement appropriations to go towards art. The Salt Lake City Arts Council (“Arts Council”) is currently working on amending Chapter 2.30 to increase the allocation to 1.5% and to include maintenance provisions within the Chapter. The Agency is updating the Agency art policy to align with the City’s proposed percent-for-art increase to 1.5% and to include additional Agency tools and incentives to promote art. Historically, in addition to following the percent for art policy, the Agency has included an art requirement within land disposition projects and the Agency Board has allocated additional art funding beyond the percent for art policy for art projects within project areas (i.e. Granary murals). The Agency has commissioned a large amount of art through the years, some of which have been led by Agency staff through a design review process and some through the Arts Council via the Art Design Board. The policy considers how we have operated in the past, includes new tools to support art, and lays out implementation details whether an art project is led by the Agency or the Arts Council. Agency staff has worked closely with the Arts Council in drafting this policy. The proposed policy can be found in Attachment A: Proposed Art Policy Chart. Agency staff provided a briefing to the Board on the draft art policy on September 29, 2020 and did not receive any comments regarding changes to the policy. Attachment B provides an approved as to form resolution that would adopt the updates to the RDA art policy. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Proposed Tools •Art Requirement: Art would be required for all Agency public infrastructure projects and disposition/RFP processes. 1.5% of public infrastructure projects and up to 1.5% of hard costs for dispositions would be required to go towards art. •Art Incentive: Art would be incentivized through the Agency loan program that would allow for an interest rate reduction if 1.5% of the agency contribution goes towards art. •Optional budget allocation: This option allows for the Board to allocate Program Income Funds (PIF) to fund an art project. Clarity The proposed policy would more clearly define under which circumstances the Agency or Arts Council would run an arts process. Essentially, anything located on public property or within the public right of way would be led by the Arts Council and anything located on private property or anything that would eventually be owned or occupied by a private entity would be led by the Agency. To maintain consistency, the Agency would ensure compliance with Arts Council contracts and procedures. In addition, the proposed policy specifies ownership, maintenance, and art review process: •For art projects on public property, the Agency would provide funds and associated maintenance costs to the Arts Council with the Art Design Board reviewing art, and Salt Lake City Corporation as the owner of the art. In some cases, a partner entity may own and maintain the art (i.e. UTA for art at Trax stations) •For projects with publicly-visible art on privately-used property, the Agency would continue to lead these art projects, which would be reviewed by an Agency Art Review Committee, and the ownership and maintenance would fall on the private property owner. The proposed policy would update the Agency’s art policy to align with the City’s capital improvement percent-for-art appropriations and the proposed policy would allow for additional Agency tools to support art within project areas. Process As funds accumulate, the Agency would assess annually the project area needs, timeline, available funds, details of what type of art project would be appropriate in which project area, whether it would be on property that would be publicly-used (Arts Council – managed) or on property that would be privately-used (Agency-managed). Any proposed art funding would go through the budget process annually. 2 Workload Agency staff does not currently anticipate any major changes to Agency or Arts Council workload in the short-term if this policy is adopted. However, the Agency will monitor impacts of this art policy annually to determine if impacts of the policy becomes greater than anticipated. Creation of Art Fund Under the proposed policy for art options, in some cases, a developer would have the ability to contribute monies towards an Agency art fund in exchange for an interest rate reduction. An Agency art fund would be created to collect these funds. These funds shall be placed within a holding account until funds are appropriated by the Board. o Agency Art Fund Guiding Principles: Once deposited into the Agency Art Fund, Agency shall seek to utilize the proceeds, subject to the budget appropriation process, to further the goals and objectives of improving project areas through art. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: May 10, 1990: The RDA Board adopted a policy establishing a percent-for-art program which authorizes the setting aside of funds for the acquisition of works of art and ornamentation to enhance development funded within its project areas. The resolution authorized a program similar to the program as contained in Chapter 2.30 Salt Lake art Design Board, which designates 1% of capital improvements appropriations to art. ATTACHMENTS: A.Proposed Art Policy Chart B.Art Policy Resolution 3 ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED ART POLICY CHART 4 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. _______ Redevelopment Agency Art Policy RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING AN ART POLICY WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (the “Board”) desires to formalize a policy with respect to the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City’s (“RDA’s”) art policy. WHEREAS, the RDA was created to transact the business and exercise the powers provided for in the Utah Community Reinvestment Agency Act (the “Act”). WHEREAS, the Act grants the RDA powers to sell, convey, grant, gift, or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property; provide for project area development; and receive and use agency funds. WHEREAS, the RDA integrates art in public spaces and private developments to encourage, promote, or provide development or redevelopment for the purpose of implementing RDA project area plans and Salt Lake City master plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, as follows: 1.Purpose. The purpose of the RDA art policy is to integrate art in public spaces and private developments within RDA project areas that improve and add to the experience and value of the built environment. The art shall be located in or visible from the public realm, typically without paying an admission. Types of art may be temporary or permanent and may include sculpture, murals, memorials, integrated architectural or landscape architectural art, digital new media, among other types of art. The purposes and types of art is pursuant to requirements in the Act and shall encourage, promote, or provide development or redevelopment for the purpose of implementing a project area plan. Art shall enrich the site and promote City, and/or neighborhood identity or initiatives and raise awareness of history, identity, cultures, or geography. 2.Tools. The following tools shall be used to implement and incentivize art. a.Art Requirement i.Public infrastructure projects: Public infrastructure projects are defined as public improvements that will be owned and maintained long term by Salt Lake City Corporation. 1.5% of the public infrastructure project’s total cost (planning, design, construction) shall go towards art as part of the project. ii.RDA dispositions: When the RDA disposes of RDA-owned property as defined by the RDA Real Disposition Policy, up to 1.5% of the hard costs shall go towards either the installation of art onsite ATTACHMENT B: ART POLICY RESOLUTION 5 or the contribution to the art fund. b. Art Incentive i. Public Benefit Incentive: A .5% interest rate reduction on an RDA loan may be provided to a borrower if 1.5% of the RDA contribution goes towards either the installation of art onsite or the contribution to the art fund. c. Annual Art Allocation i. Budget allocation: The RDA Board of Directors may allocate funds from the program income fund (“PIF”) to contribute to the art fund. 3. Options. By using one of the RDA tools listed above, art could either be installed onsite or monies could be contributed to the art fund. a. Installation of art onsite. The installation of art onsite shall follow one of the implementation processes listed in Section 4 depending on whether it is public art or publicly-visible art. b. Contribution to RDA art fund. This policy would create a holding account for the art fund within the RDA’s PIF that will be used to collect contributions. Once funds are deposited into the art fund holding account, RDA shall seek to use the proceeds, subject to the budget appropriation process, to further the goals and objectives of improving project areas through art. 4. Art Implementation Review. The review options below lay out whether the RDA or the Salt Lake City Arts Council (“Arts Council”) will lead the project. a. Public Art. Public art is art primarily located within an RDA project area or on an RDA-funded project on property that is both publicly-owned and publicly-used and includes, but is not limited to, art within a public rights of way. i. Arts Council Review Process. Any art determined to be public art shall follow the Arts Council public art process that is subject to review by the Art Design Board. ii. Ownership. Public art shall be owned and maintained by Salt Lake City Corporation. In a collaborative project with other public agencies, ownership and maintenance may be another public entity. iii. Fees. The RDA shall provide, from the art fund, a one-time contribution to the Arts Council of up to 15% of the project art costs for administration and up to 15% of the project art costs for maintenance of each public art project. b. Publicly-Visible Art. Publicly-visible art is art located within an RDA project area or on an RDA-funded project on property that may be privately- or publicly-owned but will be privately-used. This may include RDA-owned property that is developed and/or leased by a private or nonprofit entity. i. RDA Review Process. Any art determined to be publicly-visible art shall follow the RDA art review process that is subject to review by the RDA Art Review Committee. ii. Ownership. Publicly-visible art shall be owned and maintained by the private property owner and/or user owner of the improvements. In the scenario where RDA is leasing the land, art shall be maintained by the lessee. 6 Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this ____ day of ___, 2020 Amy Fowler, Chairperson Transmitted to the Executive Director on . The Executive Director: does not request reconsideration requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks 7 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SLC HOUSING POLICIES FOLLOW -UP RDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING –DECEMBER 8, 2020 Over the past several months, the RDA has been working to establish two housing policies: 1.RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Establishes guidelines for allocating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. 2.Housing Development Loan Program Policy Creates a program to centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process across all funding sources, providing a one-stop shop for community partners to access resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. BACKGROUND HOUSING ALLOCATION FUNDS POLICY A draft policy resolution is available for the Board’s review. Highlights include: 1.Housing Funds Provides for the establishment of 4 housing funds based on the fund source, thereby allowing the RDA to comply with statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. 2.Annual Budgeting Process Provides that on an annual basis, the RDA shall present for the Board’s consideration a Housing Development Funding Strategy that projects revenues for the upcoming fiscal year and proposes funding priorities and allocations. 3.Reporting The policy establishes standards for an annual report to the Board on housing expenditures, projects, and outcomes. PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND STATUTE & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES SOURCE OF FUNDING TI Statutory Housing - 9 Line: 10% - Depot District: 20% - Granary District: 20% - North Temple: 20% - Northwest Quadrant: 10% - State Street: 10% TI Supplemental Housing - Central Business District: Varies - Other Housing Allocations: Varies STATE STATUTE - 17C-1-412 - 17C-1-411 RDA HOUSING ALLOCATION FUNDS FRAMEWORK - 17C-1-412 NORTHWEST QUADRANT HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND Tax Differential - Northwest Quadrant: 10% Sales Tax & Other - FoF (housing development): Varies - Other revenues: Varies - n/a POLICY PRIORITIES - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI (Citywide): RDA-determined - AMI (Project Areas): Unrestricted - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - Other Activities - N/A Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the City’s housing plan. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the RDA’s project area plans. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as - Geographic: NWQ Adjacent Neighborhoods - Activities: Projects that improve opportunity indicators The RDA shall present an Annual Housing Development Funding Strategy, that proposes the programs and activities to be funded over the upcoming ﬁscal year, for the Board’s consideration. The Strategy shall be in accordance with the polices established through the RDA Housing Allocation Fund Policy and also consider any current funding priorities or objectives. ANNUAL STRATEGY Annual housing allocations, in alignment with the RDA Housing Fund Allocation Policy and Annual Housing Development Funding Plan, and as adopted through the RDA’s annual budget. ANNUAL BUDGET ALLOCATIONS Administration of funds pursuant to RDA policies and procedures. IMPLEMENTATION Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the City’s housing plan. Establishes accounts by source of funding Clariﬁes statutory requirements Deﬁnes eligible activities and policy priorities within the paramaters of statute and regulatory conﬁnes Deﬁnes the process for allocating budget based on speciﬁc objectives or priorities for the upcoming ﬁscal year Administrative implementation - DRAFT - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM POLICY RDA Staff is in the process of preparing a draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy for the Board’s review at a future meeting. Highlights include: 1.Centralized Program Establishes a centralized program, regardless of the fund source, to provide low-cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing. 2.Annual Funding & Priority Coordination On an annual basis, funding allocations and priorities for the HDLP will be proposed to the Board through the annual budget process as established in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. 3.Transparent NOFA Process Provides for the administration of funds through a transparent NOFA process. 4.Standardized Underwriting & Approval Process Establishes a standardized process for approving applications and a uniform set of underwriting policies to set expectations for both applicants and the Board. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND NWQ HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND FUNDING SOURCES ADMINISTRATION METHOD UNDERWRITING & APPROVAL POLICIES Loans provided through the HDLF shall be funded directly from an individual fund source, with revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments accounted for from the fund source to comply with applicable State and Local statutes. The RDA shall administer funds through a transparent NOFA process. Funds from multiple fund sources may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued from one fund source. - Generally be competitive and time-limited. - Open-ended NOFAs may be issued for speciﬁc policy priorities or to offer emergency gap ﬁnancing. - NOFAs will specify terms, conditions, and policy priorities for the revenue sources being used for the NOFA. (I.e. to carry out priorities of the Northwest Quadrant Housing account, etc.) - NOFAs may include speciﬁc requirements and/or funding priorities based on current City/RDA polices and objectives. (i.e. a set aside for opportunity areas.) A permanent and annually renewable program that consolidates and centralizes resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. PURPOSE NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY (”NOFA”) APPLICATIONS Applications will be centrally located and uniform across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop to apply for affordable housing funds. The program will include a standardized process for approving applications and a uniform set of underwriting policies to set expectations for both applicants and the RDA Board. - DRAFT - - DRAFT - PROPOSED BOARD SCHEDULE December 2020 •RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy –Board Review: The Board reviews the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. RDA Staff will incorporate any feedback into the policy resolution for consideration and potential adoption by the Board in January 2021. January 2021 •RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy –Board Adoption: The Board considers for potential adoption the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, with applicable revisions. •Housing Development Loan Program Policy –Board Review: The Board reviews the draft HDLP Policy. RDA Staff will incorporate any feedback into the policy resolution for consideration and potential adoption by the Board in February 2021. February 2021 •Housing Development Program Policy –Board Adoption: The Board considers for potential adoption the draft HDLP Policy, with applicable revisions. DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA BEN KOLENDAR DIRECTOR WWW.SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLCRDA.COM WWW.SALTLAKEARTS.ORG REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF MEMO DATE: November 20, 2020 PREPARED BY: Tammy Hunsaker RE: RDA Housing Policies Follow-up REQUESTED ACTION: Briefing on the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy and Housing Development Loan Program Policy POLICY ITEM: Briefing and policy discussion. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the past several months, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has been working to establish two housing policies, as follows: 1. An RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy that establishes guidelines for allocating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. 2. A Housing Development Loan Program Policy that creates a program to centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process across all funding sources, providing a one - stop-shop for community partners to access resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. The formation of these polices has been several months in the making. During this time, RDA Staff has provided multiple briefings to the Board on various RDA housing topics, including housing activities, requirements, and outcomes. Additionally, in February of 2020, RDA Staff briefed the Board on the Draft Salt Lake City Housing Implementation Framework, jointly developed by the RDA, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development (“HAND”), that defined the roles and responsibilities of housing activities across City divisions and departments. This memorandum is a follow-up to the July 2020 briefing that provided a basic framework for the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy and Housing Development Loan Program Policy (previously referred to as the Housing Development Trust Fund). The following information includes an update on the formation of both polices, as well as a preliminary draft of the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, Attachment A, for the Board’s review. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Additional information on the housing policies is as follows: Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy A draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy is provided as Attachment A for the Board’s review. Highlights of the policy include the following: • Housing Funds: The policy provides for the establishment of four housing funds based on the fund source. The revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments for each fund source shall be separately accounted for. Maintaining separate Housing Funds will allow the RDA to provide control and oversight to comply with the various statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. • Annual Budgeting Process: The policy provides that on an annual basis, the RDA shall present for the Board’s consideration a Housing Development Funding Strategy that projects revenues for the upcoming fiscal year and proposes funding priorities and allocations. This will allow the RDA to be flexible to address current needs, leverage current opportunities, coordinate with other city resources, and allow funding priorities to align with evolving plans and policies. • Reporting: The policy establishes standards for an annual report to the Board on housing expenditures, projects, and outcomes. Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy RDA Staff is in the process of preparing a draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy for review by the Board at a future meeting. In a previous briefing, RDA Staff proposed that this program be called the Housing Development Trust Fund. However, the program will not be a n individual trust fund but rather be a centralized program for the administration of funding that may come from any of the funds as established through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. As such, RDA Staff is proposing that it be called the Salt Lake City Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”) to prevent confusion about the program being an individual fund. Currently, RDA Staff is working with HAND and the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (“RAC”) to receive input on the draft policy prior to transmitting it for the Board’s review. Highlights of the program include the following: • The purpose of the program is to provide low cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. The HDLP shall provide a centralized application, underwriting, and approval process regardless of the fund source. • On an annual basis, funding allocations and priorities for the HDLP will be proposed to the Board through the annual budget process as established in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. Thereby establishing a process for HDLP resources to be directed to specific policy priorities depending on current needs and objectives. • Provides for the administration of funds through a transparent NOFA process. 5HYHQXH from the various funds may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued for a specific funding source. NOFAs could be offered on an annual basis or multiple times per year and can be competitive or open-ended depending on availability of funds, priorities, and demand. • Establishes a standardized process for approving applications and a uniform set of underwriting policies to set expectations for both applicants and the Board. The approval process will include a unified review committee that will review applications and provide a recommendation to the Board for consideration. Applications are currently reviewed by either the RDA Finance Committee or Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board depending on the source of funding. Next Steps RDA Staff proposes the following schedule to finalize the housing policies: December 2020: • RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy – Board Review: The Board reviews the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. RDA Staff will incorporate any feedback into the policy resolution for consideration and potential adoption by the Board in January 2021. January 2021: • RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy – Board Adoption: The Board considers for potential adoption the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, with applicable revisions. • Housing Development Loan Program Policy – Board Review: The Board reviews the draft HDLP Policy. RDA Staff will incorporate any feedback into the policy resolution for consideration and potential adoption by the Board in February 2021. February 2021: • Housing Development Program Policy – Board Adoption: The Board considers for potential adoption the draft HDLP Policy, with applicable revisions. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: • December 2017: The Board adopted a motion directing RDA Staff to draft an RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. • June 2019 and June 2020: The Board and Salt Lake City Council allocated sales tax funds to the RDA with legislative intent of consolidating loan administration for the development of affordable housing into a single location. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution B. Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Framework C. Draft Housing Development Loan Program Framework Attachment A: Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE ALLOCATION OF HOUSING FUNDS WITH RESPECT TO DEDICATING AND DIRECTING RESOURCES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF HOUSING. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has an adopted housing plan that identifies housing needs, priorities, and goals on a citywide basis (“Housing Plan”). WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has adopted project area plans that identify housing needs, priorities, and goals on a project area basis (“Project Area Plans”). WHEREAS, the RDA supports the implementation of the Housing Plan and Project Area Plans through various funding allocations that are utilized for the development and preservation of housing. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 17C Community Reinvestment Agency Act (the “CRA Act”) provides that a portion of tax increment is required to be allocated for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412. WHEREAS, the CRA Act provides that additional tax increment may be allocated on a discretionary basis for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-411. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11-58 Utah Inland Port Authority Act (the “Inland Port Act”) provides that a portion of tax differential generated within Inland Port Authority Jurisdictional Land shall be paid to the RDA to be allocated for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 11-58-601(6)(b). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council and the RDA Board of Directors (“Board”) may allocate other revenue sources, including but not limited to sales tax revenues, for the development and preservation of housing. WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a policy with respect to dedicating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, as follows: DRAFT 1. Scope. The RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy (“Policy”) contains the processes and guidelines for coordinating and allocating tax increment, tax differential, sales tax, and other revenues for the development and preservation of housing. 2. RDA Housing Funds. The RDA shall establish and maintain multiple housing funds based on the fund source and separately account for the revenues, expenditures, i nterest, payments and repayments for each fund source (collectively the “Housing Funds”). Maintaining separate Housing Funds will allow the RDA to provide control and oversight to comply with the various statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. The Housing Funds include: a. Primary Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: Tax increment required to be allocated for housing pursuant to the CRA Act. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412 of the CRA Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address citywide housing goals and objectives as identified in the Housing Plan. b. Secondary Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: Additional tax increment that may be allocated on a discretionary basis for housing pursuant to the CRA Act. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-411 of the CRA Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address the housing goals and needs identified in Project Area Plans. c. Northwest Quadrant Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: A portion of the property tax differential collected by the Inland Port Authority to be allocated to the RDA for affordable housing. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 11-58-601(6)(b) of the Inland Port Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized for the neighborhoods adjacent to the Inland Port Jurisdictional Land (generally defined as neighborhoods west of I-15) to 1) address and mitigate potential impacts from Inland Port development activities and 2) improve opportunity indicators within these neighborhoods. d. Housing Development Fund i. Source of Funds: Additional funds, including but not limited to sales tax revenues, that may be allocated to or obtained by the RDA for the development and preservation of housing. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Activities to promote the development and preservation of housing, including costs associated with site acquisition, site remediation, capital improvements, new construction, and rehabilitation. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address the housing goals and needs of identified in the Housing Plan. DRAFT 3. Annual Budgeting Process. The following steps shall be utilized to budget Housing Funds on an annual basis: a. Funding Strategy: Prior to the annual budget process, the RDA shall annually present to the Board a Housing Development Funding Strategy (“Funding Strategy”) that includes: i. A projected amount of revenue to be allocated to the Housing Funds for the upcoming fiscal year. ii. Proposed funding allocations for housing activities (i.e. gap financing loans, property acquisition, etc.) and funding priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. Proposed funding allocations shall be targeted to address current needs, leverage available opportunities, be coordinated with other City resources, and align with the standards and priorities for the Housing Funds as established in Section 2 herein. b. Annual Budget Allocations: The Board shall consider the Funding Strategy as part of the annual budget adoption process. c. Implementation: Once budget allocations are finalized, the RDA will implement projects and programs according to applicable RDA policies and procedures. 4. Reporting Requirements. The RDA shall provide a written briefing to the Board, within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year, which contains the following information: a. The year-end balance of the Housing Funds. b. An accounting of programs and projects funded from the Housing Funds over the last fiscal year, including the following information itemized by project: i. Project address ii. Development partner iii. Amount of Housing Funds committed iv. Total project cost v. The scope and status of improvements vi. The total number of residential units with a corresponding accounting of affordability levels by area median income (AMI). DRAFT Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this _______ day of ________________, 20__. ________________________________ Amy Fowler, Chair Approved as to form: __________________________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks Date:____________________________ The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. ________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: ________________________ City Recorder DRAFT PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND STATUTE & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES SOURCE OF FUNDING TI Statutory Housing - 9 Line: 10% - Depot District: 20% - Granary District: 20% - North Temple: 20% - Northwest Quadrant: 10% - State Street: 10% TI Supplemental Housing - Central Business District: Varies - Other Housing Allocations: Varies STATE STATUTE - 17C-1-412 - 17C-1-411 RDA HOUSING ALLOCATION FUNDS FRAMEWORK - 17C-1-412 NORTHWEST QUADRANT HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND Tax Differential - Northwest Quadrant: 10% Sales Tax & Other - FoF (housing development): Varies - Other revenues: Varies - n/a POLICY PRIORITIES - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI (Citywide): RDA-determined - AMI (Project Areas): Unrestricted - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - Other Activities - N/A Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objectives identied in the City’s housing plan. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objectives identied in the RDA’s project area plans. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as - Geographic: NWQ Adjacent Neighborhoods - Activities: Projects that improve opportunity indicators The RDA shall present an Annual Housing Development Funding Strategy, that proposes the programs and activities to be funded over the upcoming ﬁscal year, for the Board’s consideration. The Strategy shall be in accordance with the polices established through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy and also consider any current funding priorities or objectives. ANNUAL STRATEGY Annual housing allocations, in alignment with the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy and Annual Housing Development Funding Plan, and as adopted through the RDA’s annual budget. ANNUAL BUDGET ALLOCATIONS Administration of funds pursuant to RDA policies and procedures. IMPLEMENTATION Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objectives identied in the City’s housing plan. Establishes accounts by source of funding Clariﬁes statutory requirements Deﬁnes eligible activities and policy priorities within the paramaters of statute and regulatory conﬁnes Deﬁnes the process for allocating budget based on speciﬁc objectives or priorities for the upcoming ﬁscal year Administrative implementation - DRAFT - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND NWQ HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND FUNDING SOURCES ADMINISTRATION METHOD UNDERWRITING & APPROVAL POLICIES Loans provided through the HDLP shall be funded directly from an individual fund source, with revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments accounted for from the fund source to comply with applicable State and Local statutes. The RDA shall administer funds through a transparent NOFA process. Funds from multiple fund sources may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued from one fund source. - Generally be competitive and time-limited. - Open-ended NOFAs may be issued for speciﬁc policy priorities or to offer emergency gap ﬁnancing. - NOFAs will specify terms, conditions, and policy priorities for the revenue sources being used for the NOFA. (I.e. to carry out priorities of the Northwest Quadrant Housing account, etc.) - NOFAs may include speciﬁc requirements and/or funding priorities based on current City/RDA polices and objectives. (i.e. a set aside for opportunity areas.) A permanent and annually renewable program that consolidates and centralizes resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. PURPOSE NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY (”NOFA”) APPLICATIONS Applications will be centrally located and uniform across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop to apply for affordable housing funds. The program will include a standardized process for approving applications and a uniform set of underwriting policies to set expectations for both applicants and the RDA Board. - DRAFT - - DRAFT - DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA BEN KOLENDAR DIRECTOR WWW.SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLCRDA.COM WWW.SALTLAKEARTS.ORG REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF MEMO DATE: December 23, 2020 PREPARED BY: Tammy Hunsaker RE: RDA Housing Policies Follow-up REQUESTED ACTION: Consideration of an RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy resolution and briefing on a draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy resolution. POLICY ITEM: Housing funds and programs. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the past several months, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has been working to establish two housing policies, as follows: 1. RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy • Purpose: Establishes guidelines for allocating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. • Status: An RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution is provided as Attachment A for the Board’s consideration. The Board voted on the draft policy in December of 2020, with the finalized policy attached for the Board’s official consideration. 2. Housing Development Loan Program Policy • Purpose: Creates a program to centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop for community partners to access resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. • Status: A Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy Resolution is provided as Attachment B for the Board’s review and discussion. RDA Staff will incorporate the Board’s feedback and return with a finalized policy for the Board’s consideration at a future meeting. The formation of these polices has been several months in the making. During this time, RDA Staff has provided multiple briefings to the Board on various RDA housing topics, including housing activities, requirements, and outcomes. Additionally, in February of 2020, RDA Staff briefed the Board on the Draft Salt Lake City Housing Implementation Framework, jointly developed by the RDA, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development (“HAND”), that defined the roles and responsibilities of housing activities across City divisions and departments. REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: On December 2, 2020, the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (“RAC”) convened to review the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy (Attachment A), and recommended approval of the policy as presented. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Additional information on the housing policies is as follows: I. RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy An RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy resolution is provided as Attachment A for the Board’s consideration. Highlights of the policy include the following: • Housing Funds: The policy provides for the establishment of four housing funds based on the fund source. The revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments for each fund source shall be separately accounted for. Maintaining separate Housing Fun ds will allow the RDA to provide control and oversight to comply with the various statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. • Annual Budgeting Process: The policy provides that on an annual basis, the RDA shall present for the Board’s consideration a Housing Development Funding Strategy that projects revenues for the upcoming fiscal year and proposes funding priorities and allocations. This will allow the RDA to be flexible to address current needs, leverage current opportunities, coordinate with other city resources, and allow funding priorities to align with evolving plans and policies. • Reporting: The policy establishes standards for an annual report to the Board on housing expenditures, projects, and outcomes. II. Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy A draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy resolution is provided as Attachment B for the Board’s consideration. Once approved by the Board, this policy is intended to be utilized for the deployment of any housing funds allocated to the RDA for the construction and preservation of affordable housing. Due to the far reaching nature of this policy, the RDA is in the process of gathering feedback from the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (“RAC”), HAND, and various other stakeholders. Highlights of the policy include the following: • Purpose: The purpose of the program is to provide low cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. The HDLP shall provide a centralized application, underwriting, and approval process regardless of the fund source. • Intent: While specific funding priorities shall be established on an annual basis, the policy provides several overarching intent statements to clarify the desired outcomes of the HDLP. These intent statements include items relating to the equitable distribution of affordable housing, that funding be provided as a loan and not a grant, anti-displacement, and sustainability among others. • Funding Allocations & Priorities: On an annual basis, funding allocations and priorities for the HDLP shall be proposed to the Board through the annual budget process as established in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. Thereby establishing a process for HDLP resources to be directed to specific policy priorities depending on current needs and objectives. • Administration of Funds: Provides for the administration of funds through a transparent notice of funding availability (“NOFA”) process. Various sources of funds may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued for a specific funding source. NOFAs could be offered on an annual basis or multiple times per year and can be competitive or open-ended depending on availability of funds, priorities, and demand. • Underwriting Guidelines: Creates standardized underwriting guidelines for three types of loans: 1) Gap Financing: Rental Construction to Permanent, 2) Property Acquisition, and 3) Gap Financing: Homeownership Construction. A uniform set of underwriting policies shall set expectations for both applicants and the Board. • Approval Process: Establishes a standardized approval process that includes a unified review committee that will evaluate applications and provide a recommendation to the Board for consideration. Previously, the review and approval process for affordable housing development loans has varied based on the source of funds and/or program. In moving forward to finalize the HDLP policy, RDA Staff, along with the Administration, is working through the following considerations of which the Board may wish to offer policy direction: 1. RDA Staff and the Administration are determining the structure of the review committee and how that committee shall incorporate the RDA Finance Committee and/or the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. 2. RDA Staff and the Administration are determining if updates may be needed and/or desired to City Code Chapter 2.80 Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board that establishes the Housing Development Trust fund and corresponding review board. 3. RDA Staff is evaluating the feasibility of allowing loans to specific homeowners through the HDLP to further incentivize homeownership. Currently, the draft policy is limited to supporting homeownership through the construction of for sale housing that is deed-restricted as affordable rather than to specific homeowners. Next Steps RDA Staff proposes the following schedule to finalize the housing policies: January 2021: • RDA Housing Allocation Fund Policy – Board Adoption: The Board considers the policy for adoption. • Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy – Board Review: The Board reviews the draft policy. RDA Staff will incorporate any feedback into the policy resolution for consideration and potential adoption by the Board in February 2021. February 2021: • Housing Development Program Policy – Board Adoption: The Board considers the policy, with applicable revisions, for adoption. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: • December 2017: The Board adopted a motion directing RDA Staff to draft an RDA Housing Allocation Policy. • May 2018 to March 2019: RDA Staff presented a series of briefings to the Board regarding housing, including on topics such as historical practices and funding allocations, statutory requirements, and interdepartmental coordination. • June 2019 and June 2020: The Board and Salt Lake City Council allocated sales tax funds to the RDA with legislative intent of consolidating loan administration for the development of affordable housing into a single location. • February 2020: RDA Staff briefed the Board on the Draft Salt Lake City Housing Implementation Framework, a framework that outlines the various roles and responsibilities across City divisions and departments for the implementation of housing. • July 2020: RDA Staff proposed two draft frameworks that were envisioned to be expanded into legislative policies that would carry out the Board’s direction and intent to 1) direct the allocation of resources for affordable housing development and preservation and 2) consolidate loan administration for the development of affordable housing into a single location. • December 2020: RDA Staff presented a draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution and briefed the board on the forthcoming draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy. ATTACHMENTS: A. RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution – final for consideration B. Draft RDA Housing Development Loan Program Policy – draft for review C. Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Framework D. Draft Housing Development Loan Program Framework REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE ALLOCATION OF HOUSING FUNDS WITH RESPECT TO DEDICATING AND DIRECTING RESOURCES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF HOUSING. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has an adopted housing plan that identifies housing needs, priorities, and goals on a citywide basis (“Housing Plan”). WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has adopted project area plans that identify housing needs, priorities, and goals on a project area basis (“Project Area Plans”). WHEREAS, the RDA supports the implementation of the Housing Plan and Project Area Plans through various funding allocations that are utilized for the development and preservation of housing. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 17C Community Reinvestment Agency Act (the “CRA Act”) provides that a portion of tax increment is required to be allocated for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412. WHEREAS, the CRA Act provides that additional tax increment may be allocated on a discretionary basis for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-411. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11-58 Utah Inland Port Authority Act (the “Inland Port Act”) provides that a portion of tax differential generated within Inland Port Authority Jurisdictional Land shall be paid to the RDA to be allocated for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 11-58-601(6)(b). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council and the RDA Board of Directors (“Board”) may allocate other revenue sources, including but not limited to sales tax revenues, for the development and preservation of housing. WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a policy with respect to dedicating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, as follows: 1. Scope. The RDA Housing Allocation Policy (“Policy”) contains the processes and guidelines for coordinating and allocating tax increment, tax differential, sales tax, and other revenues for the development and preservation of housing. 2. RDA Housing Funds. The RDA shall establish and maintain multiple housing funds based on the fund source and separately account for the revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments for each fund source (collectively the “Housing Funds”). Maintaining separate Housing Funds will allow the RDA to provide control and oversight to comply with the various statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. The Housing Funds include: a. Primary Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: Tax increment required to be allocated for housing pursuant to the CRA Act. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412 of the CRA Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address citywide housing goals and objectives as identified in the Housing Plan. b. Secondary Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: Additional tax increment that may be allocated on a discretionary basis for housing pursuant to the CRA Act. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-411 of the CRA Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address the housing goals and needs identified in Project Area Plans. c. Northwest Quadrant Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: A portion of the property tax differential collected by the Inland Port Authority to be allocated to the RDA for affordable housing. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 11-58-601(6)(b) of the Inland Port Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized for the neighborhoods adjacent to the Inland Port Jurisdictional Land (generally defined as neighborhoods west of I-15) to 1) address and mitigate potential impacts from Inland Port development activities and 2) improve opportunity indicators within these neighborhoods. d. Housing Development Fund i. Source of Funds: Additional funds, including but not limited to sales tax revenues, that may be allocated to or obtained by the RDA for the development and preservation of housing. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Activities to promote the development and preservation of affordable and mixed-income housing, including costs associated with site acquisition, site remediation, capital improvements, new construction, and rehabilitation. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address the housing goals and needs of identified in the Housing Plan. 3. Annual Budgeting Process. The following steps shall be utilized to budget Housing Funds on an annual basis: a. Funding Strategy: Prior to the annual budget process, the RDA shall annually present to the Board a Housing Development Funding Strategy (“Funding Strategy”) that includes: i. A projected amount of revenue to be allocated to the Housing Funds for the upcoming fiscal year. ii. Proposed funding allocations for housing activities (i.e. gap financing loans, property acquisition, etc.) and funding priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. Proposed funding allocations shall be targeted to address current needs, leverage available opportunities, be coordinated with other City resources, and align with the standards and priorities for the Housing Funds as established in Section 2 herein. b. Annual Budget Allocations: The Board shall consider the Funding Strategy as part of the annual budget adoption process. c. Implementation: Once budget allocations are finalized, the RDA will implement projects and programs according to applicable RDA policies and procedures. 4. Reporting Requirements. The RDA shall provide a written briefing to the Board, within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year, which contains the following information: a. The year-end balance of the Housing Funds. b. An accounting of programs and projects funded from the Housing Funds over the last fiscal year, including the following information itemized by project: i. Project address ii. Development partner iii. Amount of Housing Funds committed iv. Total project cost v. The scope and status of improvements vi. The total number of residential units with a corresponding accounting of affordability levels by area median income (AMI). Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this _______ day of ________________, 20__. ________________________________ Chair Approved as to form: __________________________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks Date:____________________________ The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. ________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: ________________________ City Recorder December 20, 2020 Page 1 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. _____________ Housing Development Loan Program Policy RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM POLICY WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has an adopted housing plan that identifies housing needs, priorities, and goals on a citywide basis (“Housing Plan”). WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has adopted project area plans that identify housing needs, priorities, and goals on a project area basis (“Project Area Plans”). WHEREAS, the RDA supports the implementation of the Housing Plan and Project Area Plans through various funding sources that are further described in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. WHEREAS, through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, the Board may dedicate funds to be administered for the development and preservation of affordable housing. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“Board”) desires to create a program to centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop for community partners to access resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTO RS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, that the following policy for a Housing Development Loan Program are adopted: 1. PURPOSE The purpose of the Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”) is to provide low cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. The HDLP shall provide a centralized application, underwriting, and approval process regardless of the fund source. 2. INTENT The Board intends that funds allocated through the HDLP: Page 2 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy a. Provide a mix of affordable housing, serving a range of households and income levels, consistent with income limits and affordability requirements for each fund source, to promote housing opportunity and choice throughout the City. b. Foster a mix of household incomes in projects and neighborhoods and to disperse affordable housing projects throughout the City to achieve a balance of incomes in all neighborhoods and communities. c. Promote equity and anti-displacement efforts through the development and preservation of affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods where underserved groups have historic ties, including neighborhoods where low income individuals and families are at high risk of displacement. d. Contribute to the development of sustainable, walkable neighborhoods to expand housing choice near transportation, services, and economic opportunity. e. Incorporate green-building elements and energy efficiency to lower housing expenses, conserve resources, and promote resiliency. f. Leverage private and non-city funding sources to ensure the greatest number of quality affordable housing units are preserved or produced. g. Be provided as loans that are repaid over time and not grants, forgivable loans, or indefinitely deferred loans. 3. SOURCE OF FUNDS HDLP activities shall be funded through a combination of fund sources (collectively the “Housing Funds”) as established through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. Funding allocations shall be administered through the HDLP to a project directly from an individual fund source with revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments accounted for from the fund source. Each of the individual fund sources that comprise the Housing Funds operates under separate state or local laws and regulations. Laws and regulations include restrictions on the incomes of households served, maximum allowable rents, and eligible activities. 4. ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS As further described in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, the RDA shall present an Annual Housing Development Funding Strategy “Funding Strategy” prior to the annual budget process that shall include proposed funding priorities and revenues to be administered through the HDLP for the next fiscal year. The Board shall consider the Funding Strategy as part of the annual budget adoption process. 5. FUNDING PRIORITIES To provide flexibility to address current needs and policies, funding priorities will be proposed on an annual basis through the Funding Strategy, subject to approval by the Board. Funding priorities shall align with policies as adopted by the Board and Salt Lake Page 3 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy City Council including the Housing Plan, Project Area Plans, RDA Guiding Framework, and RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. 6. FUNDS ADMINISTRATION PROCESS Funding shall be administered through a transparent notice of funding availability (“NOFA”) process and shall incorporate the funding priorities as determined annually by the Board. Funds from multiple fund sources may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued from one fund source. NOFAs may be offered on an annual basis or multiple times per year and can be competitive or open-ended depending on availability of funds, priorities, and demand. 7. BASIC ELIGIBILITY Projects eligible for funding through the HDLP shall at a minimum meet these basic eligibility requirements, as well as specific requirements that may be set forth in individual NOFAs as they are issued. a. Applicant Types: Eligible applicants include entities and organizations with affordable housing development experience, as follows: i. For-profit corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, or sole proprietors. ii. Private incorporated non-profit agencies with IRS 501(c) designation. iii. Public housing agencies or units of local government. b. Project Types: The new construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable, mixed-use and/or mixed-income housing. c. Uses of Funds: Land/property acquisition, hard construction costs, site improvements, and related soft costs. d. Affordability Restrictions: Minimum affordability restrictions shall reflect the policies and regulations of the Housing Funds as defined through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. e. Financing Gap: Projects shall demonstrate that RDA funding is necessary for the project to succeed and that the request is reasonable. Applicants must obtain commercial loans sized with the highest loan-to-value and lowest debt service parameters that are commercially available in the marketplace and aggressively pursue other funding sources to the fullest extent possible to minimize the HDLP funding request. f. Site Control: Evidence of site control must be demonstrated through ownership, option, sale agreement, or long-term lease. g. Policies and Master Plans: Projects shall align with the Housing Plan, Project Area Plans, Master Plans, and other adopted plans and policies. h. Good Standing: Applications and all of their affiliated entities must be in good standing on all existing contracts administered by Salt Lake City, the RDA, Utah Housing Corporation, and other State and local entities. Page 4 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy i. Relocation Plan (if applicable): Displacement is strongly discouraged. However, if it is necessary and unavoidable, the developer must submit a relocation plan that complies with applicable federal, state, and local policies for temporary or permanent displacement. j. Design: Projects shall align with applicable design guidelines and comply with all applicable Salt Lake City building and zoning codes and ordinances. k. Affordable Housing Restriction: A restriction shall be recorded against the property that requires continued use of the specified units as affordable housing for a minimum of 30 years. 8. UNDERWRITING STANDARDS Funding shall expand housing opportunities for low-and moderate-income households by reducing a project’s financing cost. Flexibility shall be provided to accommodate a wide range of projects that may be dependent upon myriad of underwriting standards by outside lenders. With this flexibility in mind, funding shall generally be provided as loans pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined in Exhibit A. 9. EVALUATION & APPROVAL PROCESS For each issued NOFA, the RDA shall evaluate and consider applications for approval as follows: a. Eligibility Review: Funding applications are initially reviewed and evaluated in detail by RDA staff based on the requirements listed herein, specific Housing Funds requirements, and additional criteria published in the relevant NOFA. b. Review Committee: For applications that meet the basic eligibility requirements, applications and supporting materials shall be forwarded to a review committee that shall be comprised of RDA/City staff, finance professionals, affordable housing experts, and/or real estate development professionals. The review committee will analyze and rank applications based on the criteria published in the NOFA. Projects that the Committee finds to rank competitively compared with other proposed projects of similar type shall be recommended to the RDA Board for a funding allocation. c. RDA Board of Directors: The RDA Board of Directors shall make the final selection of projects to receive a funding allocation. d. Funding Commitment: The project funding process shall be carried out in two subparts as follows: i. Conditional Commitment Period: The RDA shall issue a Conditional Commitment letter to those applications that are selected for a funding allocation by the RDA Board. The Conditional Commitment letter between the RDA and the applicant shall contain the covenants, terms and conditions upon which the RDA may provide financial assistance to the proposed project once financial, legal, and regulatory approvals are obtained. Page 5 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy ii. Firm Commitment & Loan Closing: Projects that successfully meet conditions shall be invited to execute a Letter of Commitment that finalizes the loan terms, subject to a set of conditions precedent to closing. 7. MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE The RDA shall be required to monitor, or contract with a third party to monitor, the projects funded through the HDLP. Monitoring shall evaluate and ensure that projects are complying with affordability requirements and other requirements as determined in the loan agreement. Page 6 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy EXHIBIT A: Standard Loan Terms and Conditions Standard loan terms and conditions for I) Gap Financing: Rental Construction to Permanent, II) Property Acquisition, and III) Gap Financing: Homeownership Construction are as follows: I. GAP FINANCING: RENTAL CONSTRUCTION TO PERMANENT Limits to Assistance: • Maximize Other Sources: Applicants must demonstrate that they have maximized other available financing sources thereby limiting HDLP funding to the lowest amount necessary to close the funding gap and assure project feasibility. • Loan to Value: A loan-to-value limit is not applicable. However, land and project costs shall be reasonable as compared similar projects in size, scope, and location. • Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR): Repayment terms for amortizing HDLP loans will be calculated as described herein and will be based on a DSCR of 1.10 inclusive of the RDA’s loan and all senior debt. • Cash Flow: For loans that qualify for a cash flow repayment structure, pursuant to the standards contained herein, applicants must demonstrate an that the HDLP loan can be repaid within its scheduled term or at the end of the term. Repayment: • Depending on the project’s capacity for repayment, loans may be repaid as an amortized loan, a cash flow loan based on available cash flow, or a combination of both types of loan. o Amortized Loan: The RDA will determine what portion of its loan can be paid on an amortized schedule with required payments using the DSCR standards contained herein. o Cash Flow Loan: If full amortization is not feasible due to limited cash flow, funds shall be repaid from an agreed upon percentage split of surplus cash flow. Cash flow loans shall be considered only for projects that provide a high level of affordability, target a difficult to serve population, or include other significant public benefit. • At the RDA’s discretion, payments may not be required and interest may not accrue or accrue at a reduced interest rate during the construction and lease-up phase. Upon completion of construction, lease-up, project stabilization, or other fixed date, loans shall begin to accrue interest and shall be subject to repayment. • Any accrued but unpaid interest and principal is due in full at loan maturity. • Loans can be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty. Prepayment does not end the affordability period before its original end date. Term: • RDA loan terms will generally match the term of permanent senior debt, generally up to a maximum of 30-years for projects with non-HUD financing and up to a maximum of 40 years for projects with HUD financing. • Commencement of the loan term and/or repayment period may be deferred for a period of time to allow for completion of construction and lease-up phase. Interest Rate: • Base Interest Rate: The base interest rate shall be as follows: o Amortized Loans: 3% simple interest Page 7 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy o Cash Flow Loans: 4% simple interest • Funding Priority Incentives: Projects shall have the ability to reduce the Base Interest Rate if the project meets the current funding priorities as established annually pursuant to the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. For each funding priority met, the project is eligible to receive a .5% reduction from the Base Interest Rate, with the ability to reduce the interest rate to a minimum of 1%. • Interest rates are subject to an adjustment, of up a 1% deviation, based on project cash flow and debt coverage ratio calculated at time of application and underwriting. Affordability Restriction: • Affordability covenant shall be recorded on the property and shall extend for at least the same period as the senior financing or a minimum of 30 years, whichever is greater. Subordination to Senior Debt: • HDLP loans may be subordinated to leverage private financing, with the priority among subsidy lenders typically established based upon size of the loans. Security: • Adequate security shall be required, generally in the form of a deed of trust, promissory note, and guarantees. Developer Fee: • Given the rent restrictions on affordable housing projects, affordable housing developers do not make the majority of their profit through project cash flow like developers of market-rate rental housing. As such, developer fees are recognized as a significant part of the income on which affordable housing organizations depend for their operations. For projects utilizing a low income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”) program, the calculation to determine a maximum developer fee shall be consistent with Utah Housing Corporation’s policy, which caps the maximum developer fee as a percentage of total development cost generally excluding land/property acquisition, developer’s fees, consultant fees, permanent financing fees, marketing fees, tax credit fees, and reserves. The maximum developer fee for projects not utilizing LIHTC will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in the context of the proportion of affordable units and AMIs. Borrower Contribution: • Borrowers shall contribute a source of financing to the project, whether through an equity contribution or a deferred developer fee or a combination of both. The level of borrower contribution will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be evaluated based on the type of ownership entity and level of public benefit provided by the project. • For Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) projects, the borrower shall maximize the amount of deferred developer fee allowed under Utah Housing Corporation’s standards to be allowed in tax credit basis, this amount must be payable within a time frame allowed by the LIHTC program as approved by the project’s tax counsel. • Projects that have not maximized a developer fee, pursuant to the standards contained herein, or that serve lower AMIs or special populations, such as permanent supportive housing, may have the ability to waive the borrower contribution. Page 8 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy Disbursement of Funds: • Funding shall be disbursed as construction draws evidenced by supporting documentation demonstrating that work has been completed and that the project is in good financial and legal standing. Other • Loans are non-assumable without written permission from the RDA. Page 9 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy II. PROPERTY ACQUISITION Limits to Assistance: • Maximize Other Sources: Applicants must demonstrate that they have maximized other available financing sources thereby limiting HDLP funding to the lowest amount necessary to close the funding gap and assure project feasibility. • Loan to Value: Loans will be sized to a loan-to-value limit of 90% of the as-is appraised value inclusive of the RDA’s loan and all senior debt. Repayment: • Depending on the applicant’s capacity for repayment, loans may be repaid as a deferred or interest-only loan. • Any accrued but unpaid interest and principal is due in full at loan maturity. • Loans can be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty. Prepayment does not end the affordability period before its original end date. Term: • The maximum loan term shall be 24-months. Interest Rate: • Base Interest Rate: The base interest rate shall be 3% simple interest. • Funding Priority Incentives: Projects shall have the ability to reduce the Base Interest Rate if the project meets the current funding priorities as established pursuant to the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. For each funding priority met, the project is eligible to receive a .5% reduction from the Base Interest Rate, with the ability to reduce the interest rate to a minimum of 1%. • Interest shall accrue on all loan proceeds disbursed commencing on the date of disbursement. • Interest rates are subject to an adjustment, of up a 1% deviation, based on project cash flow and debt coverage ratio calculated at time of application and underwriting. Affordability Restriction: • Affordability covenant shall be recorded on the property and shall extend for a minimum of 30 years. Subordination to Senior Debt: • HDLP loans may be subordinated to leverage private financing, with the priority among subsidy lenders is typically established based upon size of the loans. Security: • Adequate security shall be required, generally in the form of a deed of trust, promissory note, and guarantees. Developer Fee: • Developer fees are not an eligible cost for a property acquisition loan. Disbursement of Funds: • Funding may be disbursed at loan closing. Other • Loans are non-assumable without written permission from the RDA. Page 10 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy III. GAP FINANCING: HOMEOWNERSHIP CONSTRUCTION Limits to Assistance: • Maximize Other Sources: Applicants must demonstrate that they have maximized other available financing sources thereby limiting HDLP funding to the lowest amount necessary to close the funding gap and assure project feasibility. • Loan to Value: Loans will be sized to a loan-to-value limit of 90% of the as-is appraised value inclusive of the RDA’s loan and all senior debt. Repayment: • Loans shall be repaid from the sale of housing units in the project. HDLP funds may be repaid after payout to senior loans have been accounted for. • Any accrued but unpaid interest and principal is due in full at loan maturity. • Loans can be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty. Prepayment does not end the affordability period before its original end date. Term: • The maximum loan term shall be 36-months. Interest Rate: • Base Interest Rate: The base interest rate shall be 3% simple interest. • Funding Priority Incentives: Projects shall have the ability to reduce the Base Interest Rate if the project meets the current funding priorities as established pursuant to the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. For each funding priority met, the project is eligible to receive a .5% reduction from the Base Interest Rate, with the ability to reduce the interest rate to a minimum of 1%. • Interest shall accrue on all loan proceeds disbursed commencing on the date of disbursement. • Interest rates are subject to an adjustment, of up a 1% deviation, based on project cash flow and debt coverage ratio calculated at time of application and underwriting. Affordability Restriction: • Affordability covenant shall be recorded on the property and shall extend for a minimum of 30 years. Subordination to Senior Debt: • HDLP loans may be subordinated to leverage private financing, with the priority among subsidy lenders is typically established based upon size of the loans. Security: • Adequate security shall be required, generally in the form of a deed of trust, promissory note, and guarantees. Developer Fee: • Developer fees will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be evaluated based on the affordability levels of the project, type of ownership entity, and level of public benefit provided by the project. Borrower Contribution: • Borrowers shall contribute a source of financing to the project, whether through an equity contribution or a deferred developer fee or a combination of both. The level of borrower contribution will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be evaluated Page 11 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy based on the affordability levels of the project, type of ownership entity, and level of public benefit provided by the project. • Deferred developer fees shall be paid after the HDLF loan has been fully repaid. Disbursement of Funds: • Funding shall be disbursed as construction draws evidenced by supporting documentation demonstrating that work has been completed and that the project is in good financial and legal standing. Other • Loans are non-assumable without written permission from the RDA. Page 12 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this _______ day of ________________, 2021. ________________________________ ___________________________, Chair Approved as to form: __________________________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks Date:____________________________ The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. ________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: ________________________ City Recorder PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND STATUTE & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES SOURCE OF FUNDING TI Statutory Housing - 9 Line: 10% - Depot District: 20% - Granary District: 20% - North Temple: 20% - Northwest Quadrant: 10% - State Street: 10% TI Supplemental Housing - Central Business District: Varies - Other Housing Allocations: Varies STATE STATUTE - 17C-1-412 - 17C-1-411 RDA HOUSING ALLOCATION FUNDS FRAMEWORK - 17C-1-412 NORTHWEST QUADRANT HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND Tax Differential - Northwest Quadrant: 10% Sales Tax & Other - FoF (housing development): Varies - Other revenues: Varies - n/a POLICY PRIORITIES - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI (Citywide): RDA-determined - AMI (Project Areas): Unrestricted - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - Other Activities - N/A Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the City’s housing plan. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the RDA’s project area plans. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as - Geographic: NWQ Adjacent Neighborhoods - Activities: Projects that improve opportunity indicators The RDA shall present an Annual Housing Development Funding Strategy, that proposes the programs and activities to be funded over the upcoming ﬁscal year, for the Board’s consideration. The Strategy shall be in accordance with the polices established through the RDA Housing Allocation Fund Policy and also consider any current funding priorities or objectives. ANNUAL STRATEGY Annual housing allocations, in alignment with the RDA Housing Fund Allocation Policy and Annual Housing Development Funding Plan, and as adopted through the RDA’s annual budget. ANNUAL BUDGET ALLOCATIONS Administration of funds pursuant to RDA policies and procedures. IMPLEMENTATION Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the City’s housing plan. Establishes accounts by source of funding Clariﬁes statutory requirements Deﬁnes eligible activities and policy priorities within the paramaters of statute and regulatory conﬁnes Deﬁnes the process for allocating budget based on speciﬁc objectives or priorities for the upcoming ﬁscal year Administrative implementation - DRAFT - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND NWQ HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND FUNDING SOURCES ADMINISTRATION METHOD UNDERWRITING & APPROVAL POLICIES Loans provided through the HDLF shall be funded directly from an individual fund source, with revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments accounted for from the fund source to comply with applicable State and Local statutes. The RDA shall administer funds through a transparent NOFA process. Funds from multiple fund sources may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued from one fund source. - Generally be competitive and time-limited. - Open-ended NOFAs may be issued for speciﬁc policy priorities or to offer emergency gap ﬁnancing. - NOFAs will specify terms, conditions, and policy priorities for the revenue sources being used for the NOFA. (I.e. to carry out priorities of the Northwest Quadrant Housing account, etc.) - NOFAs may include speciﬁc requirements and/or funding priorities based on current City/RDA polices and objectives. (i.e. a set aside for opportunity areas.) A permanent and annually renewable program that consolidates and centralizes resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. PURPOSE NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY (”NOFA”) APPLICATIONS Applications will be centrally located and uniform across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop to apply for affordable housing funds. The program will include a standardized process for approving applications and a uniform set of underwriting policies to set expectations for both applicants and the RDA Board. - DRAFT - - DRAFT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SLC HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM RDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING –JANUARY 12, 2021 Over the past several months, the RDA has been working to establish two housing policies: 1.RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Establishes guidelines for allocating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. ➢STATUS: In December of 2020, the Board gave preliminary approval and will confirm approval today. 2.Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”) Policy Creates a program to centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process across all funding sources, providing a one-stop shop for community partners to access resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. ➢STATUS: A draft policy has been transmitted for the Board’s consideration. BACKGROUND HDLP –PURPOSE & FUNDS Purpose •To provide low-cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. The HDLP shall provide a centralized application, underwriting, and approval process regardless of the fund source. Sources of Funds •A combination of fund sources as established through the Housing Allocation Funds Policy. •Funding allocations shall be administered through the HDLP to a project directly from an individual fund source with revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments accounted for from the fund source. HDLP –ALLOCATIONS & PRIORITIES Intent Statements •Intent Statements: The Policy includes general intent statements that are applicable to all funding sources and meant to remain relevant as conditions change. Annual Funding Priorities & Allocations •The RDA shall present an Annual Housing Development Funding Strategy “Funding Strategy” prior to the annual budget process that shall include proposed revenues and funding priorities to be administered through the HDLP for the next fiscal year. HDLP –INTENT STATEMENTS (1 of 2) The Board intends that funds allocated through the HDLP: 1.Provide a mix of affordable housing, serving a range of households and income levels, consistent with income limits and affordability requirements for each fund source, to promote housing opportunity and choice throughout the City. 2.Foster a mix of household incomes in projects and neighborhoods and to disperse affordable housing projects throughout the City to achieve a balance of incomes in all neighborhoods and communities. 3.Promote equity and anti-displacement efforts through the development and preservation of affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods where underserved groups have historic ties, including neighborhoods where low-income individuals and families are at high risk of displacement. HDLP –INTENT STATEMENTS (2 of 2) The Board intends that funds allocated through the HDLP: 4.Contribute to the development of sustainable, walkable neighborhoods to expand housing choice near transportation, services, and economic opportunity. 5.Incorporate green-building elements and energy efficiency to lower housing expenses, conserve resources, and promote resiliency. 6.Leverage private and non-city funding sources to ensure the greatest number of quality affordable housing units are preserved or produced. 7.Be provided as loans that are repaid over time and not grants, forgivable loans, or indefinitely deferred loans. HDLP –ADMINISTRATION PROCESS •Funding shall be administered through a transparent notice of funding availability (“NOFA”) process and shall incorporate the funding priorities as determined annually by the Board. •Funds from multiple fund sources may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued from one fund source. •NOFAs may be offered on an annual basis or multiple times per year and can be competitive or open-ended depending on availability of funds, priorities, and demand. HDLP –BASIC ELIGIBILITY Projects eligible for funding through the HDLP shall at a minimum meet basic eligibility requirements, as well as specific requirements that may be set forth in individual NOFAs as they are issued. •Applicant Types •Project Types •Uses of Funds •Affordability Restrictions (years & AMI) •Financing Gap •Site Control •Policies and Master Plans •Good Standing •Relocation Plan (if applicable) •Design HDLP –UNDERWRITING STANDARDS Loan Type Limits to Assistance Repayment Term Base Interest Rate Interest Rate Reductions Gap Financing –Rental Construction to Permanent 1.10 DCR Amortized, cash flow, or a combination. 30 years or length of the senior loan Amortized Loan: 3% Cash Flow Loan: 4% Projects shall have the ability to reduce the Base Interest Rate if the project meets the current funding priorities. For each funding priority met, the project is eligible to receive a .5% reduction from the Base Interest Rate, with the ability to reduce the interest rate to a minimum of 1%. Property Acquisition 90% LTV Loans may be repaid as a deferred or interest-only loan, with unpaid interest and principal due in full at loan maturity. 24 months 3% Gap Financing – Homeownership Construction 90% LTV Loans shall be repaid from the sale of housing units in the project. 36 months 3% The Policy includes underwriting standards for three types of loans. Highlights as follows: HDLP –EVALUATION & APPROVAL PROCESS For each issued NOFA, the RDA shall evaluate and consider applications for approval as follows: 1.Eligibility Review •To ensure basic eligibility requirements are met. 2.Review Committee •Applications and supporting materials shall be forwarded to a review committee that shall be comprised of RDA/City staff, finance professionals, affordable housing experts, and/or real estate development professionals. •The Review Committee shall make a recommendation that is forwarded to the RDA Board for consideration. 3.RDA Board of Directors •The RDA Board of Directors shall make the final selection of projects to receive a funding allocation. 4.Funding Commitment •The RDA shall issue a Conditional Commitment letter to those applications that are selected for a funding allocation by the RDA Board. HDLP –MONITORING &COMPLIANCE The RDA shall be required to monitor, or contract with a third party to monitor, the projects funded through the HDLP. Monitoring shall evaluate and ensure that projects are complying with affordability requirements and other requirements as determined in the loan agreement. QUESTIONS? DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA BEN KOLENDAR DIRECTOR WWW.SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLCRDA.COM WWW.SALTLAKEARTS.ORG REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF MEMO DATE: November 20, 2020 PREPARED BY: Tammy Hunsaker RE: RDA Housing Policies Follow-up REQUESTED ACTION: Briefing on the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy and Housing Development Loan Program Policy POLICY ITEM: Briefing and policy discussion. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the past several months, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has been working to establish two housing policies, as follows: 1. An RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy that establishes guidelines for allocating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. 2. A Housing Development Loan Program Policy that creates a program to centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process across all funding sources, providing a one - stop-shop for community partners to access resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. The formation of these polices has been several months in the making. During this time, RDA Staff has provided multiple briefings to the Board on various RDA housing topics, including housing activities, requirements, and outcomes. Additionally, in February of 2020, RDA Staff briefed the Board on the Draft Salt Lake City Housing Implementation Framework, jointly developed by the RDA, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development (“HAND”), that defined the roles and responsibilities of housing activities across City divisions and departments. This memorandum is a follow-up to the July 2020 briefing that provided a basic framework for the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy and Housing Development Loan Program Policy (previously referred to as the Housing Development Trust Fund). The following information includes an update on the formation of both polices, as well as a preliminary draft of the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, Attachment A, for the Board’s review. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Additional information on the housing policies is as follows: Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy A draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy is provided as Attachment A for the Board’s review. Highlights of the policy include the following: • Housing Funds: The policy provides for the establishment of four housing funds based on the fund source. The revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments for each fund source shall be separately accounted for. Maintaining separate Housing Funds will allow the RDA to provide control and oversight to comply with the various statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. • Annual Budgeting Process: The policy provides that on an annual basis, the RDA shall present for the Board’s consideration a Housing Development Funding Strategy that projects revenues for the upcoming fiscal year and proposes funding priorities and allocations. This will allow the RDA to be flexible to address current needs, leverage current opportunities, coordinate with other city resources, and allow funding priorities to align with evolving plans and policies. • Reporting: The policy establishes standards for an annual report to the Board on housing expenditures, projects, and outcomes. Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy RDA Staff is in the process of preparing a draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy for review by the Board at a future meeting. In a previous briefing, RDA Staff proposed that this program be called the Housing Development Trust Fund. However, the program will not be a n individual trust fund but rather be a centralized program for the administration of funding that may come from any of the funds as established through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. As such, RDA Staff is proposing that it be called the Salt Lake City Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”) to prevent confusion about the program being an individual fund. Currently, RDA Staff is working with HAND and the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (“RAC”) to receive input on the draft policy prior to transmitting it for the Board’s review. Highlights of the program include the following: • The purpose of the program is to provide low cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. The HDLP shall provide a centralized application, underwriting, and approval process regardless of the fund source. • On an annual basis, funding allocations and priorities for the HDLP will be proposed to the Board through the annual budget process as established in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. Thereby establishing a process for HDLP resources to be directed to specific policy priorities depending on current needs and objectives. • Provides for the administration of funds through a transparent NOFA process. 5HYHQXH from the various funds may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued for a specific funding source. NOFAs could be offered on an annual basis or multiple times per year and can be competitive or open-ended depending on availability of funds, priorities, and demand. • Establishes a standardized process for approving applications and a uniform set of underwriting policies to set expectations for both applicants and the Board. The approval process will include a unified review committee that will review applications and provide a recommendation to the Board for consideration. Applications are currently reviewed by either the RDA Finance Committee or Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board depending on the source of funding. Next Steps RDA Staff proposes the following schedule to finalize the housing policies: December 2020: • RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy – Board Review: The Board reviews the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. RDA Staff will incorporate any feedback into the policy resolution for consideration and potential adoption by the Board in January 2021. January 2021: • RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy – Board Adoption: The Board considers for potential adoption the draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, with applicable revisions. • Housing Development Loan Program Policy – Board Review: The Board reviews the draft HDLP Policy. RDA Staff will incorporate any feedback into the policy resolution for consideration and potential adoption by the Board in February 2021. February 2021: • Housing Development Program Policy – Board Adoption: The Board considers for potential adoption the draft HDLP Policy, with applicable revisions. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: • December 2017: The Board adopted a motion directing RDA Staff to draft an RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. • June 2019 and June 2020: The Board and Salt Lake City Council allocated sales tax funds to the RDA with legislative intent of consolidating loan administration for the development of affordable housing into a single location. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution B. Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Framework C. Draft Housing Development Loan Program Framework Attachment A: Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE ALLOCATION OF HOUSING FUNDS WITH RESPECT TO DEDICATING AND DIRECTING RESOURCES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF HOUSING. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has an adopted housing plan that identifies housing needs, priorities, and goals on a citywide basis (“Housing Plan”). WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has adopted project area plans that identify housing needs, priorities, and goals on a project area basis (“Project Area Plans”). WHEREAS, the RDA supports the implementation of the Housing Plan and Project Area Plans through various funding allocations that are utilized for the development and preservation of housing. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 17C Community Reinvestment Agency Act (the “CRA Act”) provides that a portion of tax increment is required to be allocated for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412. WHEREAS, the CRA Act provides that additional tax increment may be allocated on a discretionary basis for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-411. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11-58 Utah Inland Port Authority Act (the “Inland Port Act”) provides that a portion of tax differential generated within Inland Port Authority Jurisdictional Land shall be paid to the RDA to be allocated for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 11-58-601(6)(b). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council and the RDA Board of Directors (“Board”) may allocate other revenue sources, including but not limited to sales tax revenues, for the development and preservation of housing. WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a policy with respect to dedicating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, as follows: DRAFT 1. Scope. The RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy (“Policy”) contains the processes and guidelines for coordinating and allocating tax increment, tax differential, sales tax, and other revenues for the development and preservation of housing. 2. RDA Housing Funds. The RDA shall establish and maintain multiple housing funds based on the fund source and separately account for the revenues, expenditures, i nterest, payments and repayments for each fund source (collectively the “Housing Funds”). Maintaining separate Housing Funds will allow the RDA to provide control and oversight to comply with the various statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. The Housing Funds include: a. Primary Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: Tax increment required to be allocated for housing pursuant to the CRA Act. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412 of the CRA Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address citywide housing goals and objectives as identified in the Housing Plan. b. Secondary Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: Additional tax increment that may be allocated on a discretionary basis for housing pursuant to the CRA Act. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-411 of the CRA Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address the housing goals and needs identified in Project Area Plans. c. Northwest Quadrant Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: A portion of the property tax differential collected by the Inland Port Authority to be allocated to the RDA for affordable housing. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 11-58-601(6)(b) of the Inland Port Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized for the neighborhoods adjacent to the Inland Port Jurisdictional Land (generally defined as neighborhoods west of I-15) to 1) address and mitigate potential impacts from Inland Port development activities and 2) improve opportunity indicators within these neighborhoods. d. Housing Development Fund i. Source of Funds: Additional funds, including but not limited to sales tax revenues, that may be allocated to or obtained by the RDA for the development and preservation of housing. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Activities to promote the development and preservation of housing, including costs associated with site acquisition, site remediation, capital improvements, new construction, and rehabilitation. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address the housing goals and needs of identified in the Housing Plan. DRAFT 3. Annual Budgeting Process. The following steps shall be utilized to budget Housing Funds on an annual basis: a. Funding Strategy: Prior to the annual budget process, the RDA shall annually present to the Board a Housing Development Funding Strategy (“Funding Strategy”) that includes: i. A projected amount of revenue to be allocated to the Housing Funds for the upcoming fiscal year. ii. Proposed funding allocations for housing activities (i.e. gap financing loans, property acquisition, etc.) and funding priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. Proposed funding allocations shall be targeted to address current needs, leverage available opportunities, be coordinated with other City resources, and align with the standards and priorities for the Housing Funds as established in Section 2 herein. b. Annual Budget Allocations: The Board shall consider the Funding Strategy as part of the annual budget adoption process. c. Implementation: Once budget allocations are finalized, the RDA will implement projects and programs according to applicable RDA policies and procedures. 4. Reporting Requirements. The RDA shall provide a written briefing to the Board, within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year, which contains the following information: a. The year-end balance of the Housing Funds. b. An accounting of programs and projects funded from the Housing Funds over the last fiscal year, including the following information itemized by project: i. Project address ii. Development partner iii. Amount of Housing Funds committed iv. Total project cost v. The scope and status of improvements vi. The total number of residential units with a corresponding accounting of affordability levels by area median income (AMI). DRAFT Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this _______ day of ________________, 20__. ________________________________ Amy Fowler, Chair Approved as to form: __________________________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks Date:____________________________ The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. ________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: ________________________ City Recorder DRAFT PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND STATUTE & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES SOURCE OF FUNDING TI Statutory Housing - 9 Line: 10% - Depot District: 20% - Granary District: 20% - North Temple: 20% - Northwest Quadrant: 10% - State Street: 10% TI Supplemental Housing - Central Business District: Varies - Other Housing Allocations: Varies STATE STATUTE - 17C-1-412 - 17C-1-411 RDA HOUSING ALLOCATION FUNDS FRAMEWORK - 17C-1-412 NORTHWEST QUADRANT HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND Tax Differential - Northwest Quadrant: 10% Sales Tax & Other - FoF (housing development): Varies - Other revenues: Varies - n/a POLICY PRIORITIES - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI (Citywide): RDA-determined - AMI (Project Areas): Unrestricted - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - Other Activities - N/A Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objectives identied in the City’s housing plan. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objectives identied in the RDA’s project area plans. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as - Geographic: NWQ Adjacent Neighborhoods - Activities: Projects that improve opportunity indicators The RDA shall present an Annual Housing Development Funding Strategy, that proposes the programs and activities to be funded over the upcoming ﬁscal year, for the Board’s consideration. The Strategy shall be in accordance with the polices established through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy and also consider any current funding priorities or objectives. ANNUAL STRATEGY Annual housing allocations, in alignment with the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy and Annual Housing Development Funding Plan, and as adopted through the RDA’s annual budget. ANNUAL BUDGET ALLOCATIONS Administration of funds pursuant to RDA policies and procedures. IMPLEMENTATION Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objectives identied in the City’s housing plan. Establishes accounts by source of funding Clariﬁes statutory requirements Deﬁnes eligible activities and policy priorities within the paramaters of statute and regulatory conﬁnes Deﬁnes the process for allocating budget based on speciﬁc objectives or priorities for the upcoming ﬁscal year Administrative implementation - DRAFT - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND NWQ HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND FUNDING SOURCES ADMINISTRATION METHOD UNDERWRITING & APPROVAL POLICIES Loans provided through the HDLP shall be funded directly from an individual fund source, with revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments accounted for from the fund source to comply with applicable State and Local statutes. The RDA shall administer funds through a transparent NOFA process. Funds from multiple fund sources may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued from one fund source. - Generally be competitive and time-limited. - Open-ended NOFAs may be issued for speciﬁc policy priorities or to offer emergency gap ﬁnancing. - NOFAs will specify terms, conditions, and policy priorities for the revenue sources being used for the NOFA. (I.e. to carry out priorities of the Northwest Quadrant Housing account, etc.) - NOFAs may include speciﬁc requirements and/or funding priorities based on current City/RDA polices and objectives. (i.e. a set aside for opportunity areas.) A permanent and annually renewable program that consolidates and centralizes resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. PURPOSE NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY (”NOFA”) APPLICATIONS Applications will be centrally located and uniform across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop to apply for affordable housing funds. The program will include a standardized process for approving applications and a uniform set of underwriting policies to set expectations for both applicants and the RDA Board. - DRAFT - - DRAFT - DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA BEN KOLENDAR DIRECTOR WWW.SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLCRDA.COM WWW.SALTLAKEARTS.ORG REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF MEMO DATE: December 23, 2020 PREPARED BY: Tammy Hunsaker RE: RDA Housing Policies Follow-up REQUESTED ACTION: Consideration of an RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy resolution and briefing on a draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy resolution. POLICY ITEM: Housing funds and programs. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Over the past several months, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has been working to establish two housing policies, as follows: 1. RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy • Purpose: Establishes guidelines for allocating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. • Status: An RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution is provided as Attachment A for the Board’s consideration. The Board voted on the draft policy in December of 2020, with the finalized policy attached for the Board’s official consideration. 2. Housing Development Loan Program Policy • Purpose: Creates a program to centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop for community partners to access resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. • Status: A Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy Resolution is provided as Attachment B for the Board’s review and discussion. RDA Staff will incorporate the Board’s feedback and return with a finalized policy for the Board’s consideration at a future meeting. The formation of these polices has been several months in the making. During this time, RDA Staff has provided multiple briefings to the Board on various RDA housing topics, including housing activities, requirements, and outcomes. Additionally, in February of 2020, RDA Staff briefed the Board on the Draft Salt Lake City Housing Implementation Framework, jointly developed by the RDA, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) and Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development (“HAND”), that defined the roles and responsibilities of housing activities across City divisions and departments. REDEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: On December 2, 2020, the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (“RAC”) convened to review the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy (Attachment A), and recommended approval of the policy as presented. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Additional information on the housing policies is as follows: I. RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy An RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy resolution is provided as Attachment A for the Board’s consideration. Highlights of the policy include the following: • Housing Funds: The policy provides for the establishment of four housing funds based on the fund source. The revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments for each fund source shall be separately accounted for. Maintaining separate Housing Fun ds will allow the RDA to provide control and oversight to comply with the various statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. • Annual Budgeting Process: The policy provides that on an annual basis, the RDA shall present for the Board’s consideration a Housing Development Funding Strategy that projects revenues for the upcoming fiscal year and proposes funding priorities and allocations. This will allow the RDA to be flexible to address current needs, leverage current opportunities, coordinate with other city resources, and allow funding priorities to align with evolving plans and policies. • Reporting: The policy establishes standards for an annual report to the Board on housing expenditures, projects, and outcomes. II. Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy A draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy resolution is provided as Attachment B for the Board’s consideration. Once approved by the Board, this policy is intended to be utilized for the deployment of any housing funds allocated to the RDA for the construction and preservation of affordable housing. Due to the far reaching nature of this policy, the RDA is in the process of gathering feedback from the Redevelopment Advisory Committee (“RAC”), HAND, and various other stakeholders. Highlights of the policy include the following: • Purpose: The purpose of the program is to provide low cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. The HDLP shall provide a centralized application, underwriting, and approval process regardless of the fund source. • Intent: While specific funding priorities shall be established on an annual basis, the policy provides several overarching intent statements to clarify the desired outcomes of the HDLP. These intent statements include items relating to the equitable distribution of affordable housing, that funding be provided as a loan and not a grant, anti-displacement, and sustainability among others. • Funding Allocations & Priorities: On an annual basis, funding allocations and priorities for the HDLP shall be proposed to the Board through the annual budget process as established in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. Thereby establishing a process for HDLP resources to be directed to specific policy priorities depending on current needs and objectives. • Administration of Funds: Provides for the administration of funds through a transparent notice of funding availability (“NOFA”) process. Various sources of funds may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued for a specific funding source. NOFAs could be offered on an annual basis or multiple times per year and can be competitive or open-ended depending on availability of funds, priorities, and demand. • Underwriting Guidelines: Creates standardized underwriting guidelines for three types of loans: 1) Gap Financing: Rental Construction to Permanent, 2) Property Acquisition, and 3) Gap Financing: Homeownership Construction. A uniform set of underwriting policies shall set expectations for both applicants and the Board. • Approval Process: Establishes a standardized approval process that includes a unified review committee that will evaluate applications and provide a recommendation to the Board for consideration. Previously, the review and approval process for affordable housing development loans has varied based on the source of funds and/or program. In moving forward to finalize the HDLP policy, RDA Staff, along with the Administration, is working through the following considerations of which the Board may wish to offer policy direction: 1. RDA Staff and the Administration are determining the structure of the review committee and how that committee shall incorporate the RDA Finance Committee and/or the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board. 2. RDA Staff and the Administration are determining if updates may be needed and/or desired to City Code Chapter 2.80 Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board that establishes the Housing Development Trust fund and corresponding review board. 3. RDA Staff is evaluating the feasibility of allowing loans to specific homeowners through the HDLP to further incentivize homeownership. Currently, the draft policy is limited to supporting homeownership through the construction of for sale housing that is deed-restricted as affordable rather than to specific homeowners. Next Steps RDA Staff proposes the following schedule to finalize the housing policies: January 2021: • RDA Housing Allocation Fund Policy – Board Adoption: The Board considers the policy for adoption. • Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy – Board Review: The Board reviews the draft policy. RDA Staff will incorporate any feedback into the policy resolution for consideration and potential adoption by the Board in February 2021. February 2021: • Housing Development Program Policy – Board Adoption: The Board considers the policy, with applicable revisions, for adoption. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: • December 2017: The Board adopted a motion directing RDA Staff to draft an RDA Housing Allocation Policy. • May 2018 to March 2019: RDA Staff presented a series of briefings to the Board regarding housing, including on topics such as historical practices and funding allocations, statutory requirements, and interdepartmental coordination. • June 2019 and June 2020: The Board and Salt Lake City Council allocated sales tax funds to the RDA with legislative intent of consolidating loan administration for the development of affordable housing into a single location. • February 2020: RDA Staff briefed the Board on the Draft Salt Lake City Housing Implementation Framework, a framework that outlines the various roles and responsibilities across City divisions and departments for the implementation of housing. • July 2020: RDA Staff proposed two draft frameworks that were envisioned to be expanded into legislative policies that would carry out the Board’s direction and intent to 1) direct the allocation of resources for affordable housing development and preservation and 2) consolidate loan administration for the development of affordable housing into a single location. • December 2020: RDA Staff presented a draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution and briefed the board on the forthcoming draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy. ATTACHMENTS: A. RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy Resolution – final for consideration B. Draft RDA Housing Development Loan Program Policy – draft for review C. Draft RDA Housing Allocation Funds Framework D. Draft Housing Development Loan Program Framework REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING A POLICY FOR THE ALLOCATION OF HOUSING FUNDS WITH RESPECT TO DEDICATING AND DIRECTING RESOURCES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVATION OF HOUSING. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has an adopted housing plan that identifies housing needs, priorities, and goals on a citywide basis (“Housing Plan”). WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has adopted project area plans that identify housing needs, priorities, and goals on a project area basis (“Project Area Plans”). WHEREAS, the RDA supports the implementation of the Housing Plan and Project Area Plans through various funding allocations that are utilized for the development and preservation of housing. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 17C Community Reinvestment Agency Act (the “CRA Act”) provides that a portion of tax increment is required to be allocated for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412. WHEREAS, the CRA Act provides that additional tax increment may be allocated on a discretionary basis for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-411. WHEREAS, Utah Code Title 11-58 Utah Inland Port Authority Act (the “Inland Port Act”) provides that a portion of tax differential generated within Inland Port Authority Jurisdictional Land shall be paid to the RDA to be allocated for housing and used for the purposes described in Section 11-58-601(6)(b). WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council and the RDA Board of Directors (“Board”) may allocate other revenue sources, including but not limited to sales tax revenues, for the development and preservation of housing. WHEREAS, the Board desires to establish a policy with respect to dedicating and directing resources for the development and preservation of housing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, as follows: 1. Scope. The RDA Housing Allocation Policy (“Policy”) contains the processes and guidelines for coordinating and allocating tax increment, tax differential, sales tax, and other revenues for the development and preservation of housing. 2. RDA Housing Funds. The RDA shall establish and maintain multiple housing funds based on the fund source and separately account for the revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments for each fund source (collectively the “Housing Funds”). Maintaining separate Housing Funds will allow the RDA to provide control and oversight to comply with the various statutory requirements for each funding source and to allow for the prioritization within each funding source for a specific purpose, need, or policy objective. The Housing Funds include: a. Primary Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: Tax increment required to be allocated for housing pursuant to the CRA Act. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412 of the CRA Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address citywide housing goals and objectives as identified in the Housing Plan. b. Secondary Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: Additional tax increment that may be allocated on a discretionary basis for housing pursuant to the CRA Act. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-411 of the CRA Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address the housing goals and needs identified in Project Area Plans. c. Northwest Quadrant Housing Fund i. Source of Funds: A portion of the property tax differential collected by the Inland Port Authority to be allocated to the RDA for affordable housing. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Funds shall be utilized for the purposes described in Section 11-58-601(6)(b) of the Inland Port Act. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized for the neighborhoods adjacent to the Inland Port Jurisdictional Land (generally defined as neighborhoods west of I-15) to 1) address and mitigate potential impacts from Inland Port development activities and 2) improve opportunity indicators within these neighborhoods. d. Housing Development Fund i. Source of Funds: Additional funds, including but not limited to sales tax revenues, that may be allocated to or obtained by the RDA for the development and preservation of housing. ii. Eligible Uses of Funds: Activities to promote the development and preservation of affordable and mixed-income housing, including costs associated with site acquisition, site remediation, capital improvements, new construction, and rehabilitation. iii. Policy Priorities: Funds shall be prioritized to address the housing goals and needs of identified in the Housing Plan. 3. Annual Budgeting Process. The following steps shall be utilized to budget Housing Funds on an annual basis: a. Funding Strategy: Prior to the annual budget process, the RDA shall annually present to the Board a Housing Development Funding Strategy (“Funding Strategy”) that includes: i. A projected amount of revenue to be allocated to the Housing Funds for the upcoming fiscal year. ii. Proposed funding allocations for housing activities (i.e. gap financing loans, property acquisition, etc.) and funding priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. Proposed funding allocations shall be targeted to address current needs, leverage available opportunities, be coordinated with other City resources, and align with the standards and priorities for the Housing Funds as established in Section 2 herein. b. Annual Budget Allocations: The Board shall consider the Funding Strategy as part of the annual budget adoption process. c. Implementation: Once budget allocations are finalized, the RDA will implement projects and programs according to applicable RDA policies and procedures. 4. Reporting Requirements. The RDA shall provide a written briefing to the Board, within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year, which contains the following information: a. The year-end balance of the Housing Funds. b. An accounting of programs and projects funded from the Housing Funds over the last fiscal year, including the following information itemized by project: i. Project address ii. Development partner iii. Amount of Housing Funds committed iv. Total project cost v. The scope and status of improvements vi. The total number of residential units with a corresponding accounting of affordability levels by area median income (AMI). Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this _______ day of ________________, 20__. ________________________________ Chair Approved as to form: __________________________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks Date:____________________________ The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. ________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: ________________________ City Recorder December 20, 2020 Page 1 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. _____________ Housing Development Loan Program Policy RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY ADOPTING A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM POLICY WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has an adopted housing plan that identifies housing needs, priorities, and goals on a citywide basis (“Housing Plan”). WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has adopted project area plans that identify housing needs, priorities, and goals on a project area basis (“Project Area Plans”). WHEREAS, the RDA supports the implementation of the Housing Plan and Project Area Plans through various funding sources that are further described in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. WHEREAS, through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, the Board may dedicate funds to be administered for the development and preservation of affordable housing. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“Board”) desires to create a program to centralize the application, underwriting, and approval process across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop for community partners to access resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTO RS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, that the following policy for a Housing Development Loan Program are adopted: 1. PURPOSE The purpose of the Housing Development Loan Program (“HDLP”) is to provide low cost financial assistance to incentivize the development and preservation of affordable housing within Salt Lake City municipal boundaries. The HDLP shall provide a centralized application, underwriting, and approval process regardless of the fund source. 2. INTENT The Board intends that funds allocated through the HDLP: Page 2 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy a. Provide a mix of affordable housing, serving a range of households and income levels, consistent with income limits and affordability requirements for each fund source, to promote housing opportunity and choice throughout the City. b. Foster a mix of household incomes in projects and neighborhoods and to disperse affordable housing projects throughout the City to achieve a balance of incomes in all neighborhoods and communities. c. Promote equity and anti-displacement efforts through the development and preservation of affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods where underserved groups have historic ties, including neighborhoods where low income individuals and families are at high risk of displacement. d. Contribute to the development of sustainable, walkable neighborhoods to expand housing choice near transportation, services, and economic opportunity. e. Incorporate green-building elements and energy efficiency to lower housing expenses, conserve resources, and promote resiliency. f. Leverage private and non-city funding sources to ensure the greatest number of quality affordable housing units are preserved or produced. g. Be provided as loans that are repaid over time and not grants, forgivable loans, or indefinitely deferred loans. 3. SOURCE OF FUNDS HDLP activities shall be funded through a combination of fund sources (collectively the “Housing Funds”) as established through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. Funding allocations shall be administered through the HDLP to a project directly from an individual fund source with revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments accounted for from the fund source. Each of the individual fund sources that comprise the Housing Funds operates under separate state or local laws and regulations. Laws and regulations include restrictions on the incomes of households served, maximum allowable rents, and eligible activities. 4. ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS As further described in the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, the RDA shall present an Annual Housing Development Funding Strategy “Funding Strategy” prior to the annual budget process that shall include proposed funding priorities and revenues to be administered through the HDLP for the next fiscal year. The Board shall consider the Funding Strategy as part of the annual budget adoption process. 5. FUNDING PRIORITIES To provide flexibility to address current needs and policies, funding priorities will be proposed on an annual basis through the Funding Strategy, subject to approval by the Board. Funding priorities shall align with policies as adopted by the Board and Salt Lake Page 3 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy City Council including the Housing Plan, Project Area Plans, RDA Guiding Framework, and RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. 6. FUNDS ADMINISTRATION PROCESS Funding shall be administered through a transparent notice of funding availability (“NOFA”) process and shall incorporate the funding priorities as determined annually by the Board. Funds from multiple fund sources may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued from one fund source. NOFAs may be offered on an annual basis or multiple times per year and can be competitive or open-ended depending on availability of funds, priorities, and demand. 7. BASIC ELIGIBILITY Projects eligible for funding through the HDLP shall at a minimum meet these basic eligibility requirements, as well as specific requirements that may be set forth in individual NOFAs as they are issued. a. Applicant Types: Eligible applicants include entities and organizations with affordable housing development experience, as follows: i. For-profit corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, or sole proprietors. ii. Private incorporated non-profit agencies with IRS 501(c) designation. iii. Public housing agencies or units of local government. b. Project Types: The new construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable, mixed-use and/or mixed-income housing. c. Uses of Funds: Land/property acquisition, hard construction costs, site improvements, and related soft costs. d. Affordability Restrictions: Minimum affordability restrictions shall reflect the policies and regulations of the Housing Funds as defined through the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. e. Financing Gap: Projects shall demonstrate that RDA funding is necessary for the project to succeed and that the request is reasonable. Applicants must obtain commercial loans sized with the highest loan-to-value and lowest debt service parameters that are commercially available in the marketplace and aggressively pursue other funding sources to the fullest extent possible to minimize the HDLP funding request. f. Site Control: Evidence of site control must be demonstrated through ownership, option, sale agreement, or long-term lease. g. Policies and Master Plans: Projects shall align with the Housing Plan, Project Area Plans, Master Plans, and other adopted plans and policies. h. Good Standing: Applications and all of their affiliated entities must be in good standing on all existing contracts administered by Salt Lake City, the RDA, Utah Housing Corporation, and other State and local entities. Page 4 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy i. Relocation Plan (if applicable): Displacement is strongly discouraged. However, if it is necessary and unavoidable, the developer must submit a relocation plan that complies with applicable federal, state, and local policies for temporary or permanent displacement. j. Design: Projects shall align with applicable design guidelines and comply with all applicable Salt Lake City building and zoning codes and ordinances. k. Affordable Housing Restriction: A restriction shall be recorded against the property that requires continued use of the specified units as affordable housing for a minimum of 30 years. 8. UNDERWRITING STANDARDS Funding shall expand housing opportunities for low-and moderate-income households by reducing a project’s financing cost. Flexibility shall be provided to accommodate a wide range of projects that may be dependent upon myriad of underwriting standards by outside lenders. With this flexibility in mind, funding shall generally be provided as loans pursuant to the terms and conditions outlined in Exhibit A. 9. EVALUATION & APPROVAL PROCESS For each issued NOFA, the RDA shall evaluate and consider applications for approval as follows: a. Eligibility Review: Funding applications are initially reviewed and evaluated in detail by RDA staff based on the requirements listed herein, specific Housing Funds requirements, and additional criteria published in the relevant NOFA. b. Review Committee: For applications that meet the basic eligibility requirements, applications and supporting materials shall be forwarded to a review committee that shall be comprised of RDA/City staff, finance professionals, affordable housing experts, and/or real estate development professionals. The review committee will analyze and rank applications based on the criteria published in the NOFA. Projects that the Committee finds to rank competitively compared with other proposed projects of similar type shall be recommended to the RDA Board for a funding allocation. c. RDA Board of Directors: The RDA Board of Directors shall make the final selection of projects to receive a funding allocation. d. Funding Commitment: The project funding process shall be carried out in two subparts as follows: i. Conditional Commitment Period: The RDA shall issue a Conditional Commitment letter to those applications that are selected for a funding allocation by the RDA Board. The Conditional Commitment letter between the RDA and the applicant shall contain the covenants, terms and conditions upon which the RDA may provide financial assistance to the proposed project once financial, legal, and regulatory approvals are obtained. Page 5 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy ii. Firm Commitment & Loan Closing: Projects that successfully meet conditions shall be invited to execute a Letter of Commitment that finalizes the loan terms, subject to a set of conditions precedent to closing. 7. MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE The RDA shall be required to monitor, or contract with a third party to monitor, the projects funded through the HDLP. Monitoring shall evaluate and ensure that projects are complying with affordability requirements and other requirements as determined in the loan agreement. Page 6 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy EXHIBIT A: Standard Loan Terms and Conditions Standard loan terms and conditions for I) Gap Financing: Rental Construction to Permanent, II) Property Acquisition, and III) Gap Financing: Homeownership Construction are as follows: I. GAP FINANCING: RENTAL CONSTRUCTION TO PERMANENT Limits to Assistance: • Maximize Other Sources: Applicants must demonstrate that they have maximized other available financing sources thereby limiting HDLP funding to the lowest amount necessary to close the funding gap and assure project feasibility. • Loan to Value: A loan-to-value limit is not applicable. However, land and project costs shall be reasonable as compared similar projects in size, scope, and location. • Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR): Repayment terms for amortizing HDLP loans will be calculated as described herein and will be based on a DSCR of 1.10 inclusive of the RDA’s loan and all senior debt. • Cash Flow: For loans that qualify for a cash flow repayment structure, pursuant to the standards contained herein, applicants must demonstrate an that the HDLP loan can be repaid within its scheduled term or at the end of the term. Repayment: • Depending on the project’s capacity for repayment, loans may be repaid as an amortized loan, a cash flow loan based on available cash flow, or a combination of both types of loan. o Amortized Loan: The RDA will determine what portion of its loan can be paid on an amortized schedule with required payments using the DSCR standards contained herein. o Cash Flow Loan: If full amortization is not feasible due to limited cash flow, funds shall be repaid from an agreed upon percentage split of surplus cash flow. Cash flow loans shall be considered only for projects that provide a high level of affordability, target a difficult to serve population, or include other significant public benefit. • At the RDA’s discretion, payments may not be required and interest may not accrue or accrue at a reduced interest rate during the construction and lease-up phase. Upon completion of construction, lease-up, project stabilization, or other fixed date, loans shall begin to accrue interest and shall be subject to repayment. • Any accrued but unpaid interest and principal is due in full at loan maturity. • Loans can be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty. Prepayment does not end the affordability period before its original end date. Term: • RDA loan terms will generally match the term of permanent senior debt, generally up to a maximum of 30-years for projects with non-HUD financing and up to a maximum of 40 years for projects with HUD financing. • Commencement of the loan term and/or repayment period may be deferred for a period of time to allow for completion of construction and lease-up phase. Interest Rate: • Base Interest Rate: The base interest rate shall be as follows: o Amortized Loans: 3% simple interest Page 7 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy o Cash Flow Loans: 4% simple interest • Funding Priority Incentives: Projects shall have the ability to reduce the Base Interest Rate if the project meets the current funding priorities as established annually pursuant to the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. For each funding priority met, the project is eligible to receive a .5% reduction from the Base Interest Rate, with the ability to reduce the interest rate to a minimum of 1%. • Interest rates are subject to an adjustment, of up a 1% deviation, based on project cash flow and debt coverage ratio calculated at time of application and underwriting. Affordability Restriction: • Affordability covenant shall be recorded on the property and shall extend for at least the same period as the senior financing or a minimum of 30 years, whichever is greater. Subordination to Senior Debt: • HDLP loans may be subordinated to leverage private financing, with the priority among subsidy lenders typically established based upon size of the loans. Security: • Adequate security shall be required, generally in the form of a deed of trust, promissory note, and guarantees. Developer Fee: • Given the rent restrictions on affordable housing projects, affordable housing developers do not make the majority of their profit through project cash flow like developers of market-rate rental housing. As such, developer fees are recognized as a significant part of the income on which affordable housing organizations depend for their operations. For projects utilizing a low income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”) program, the calculation to determine a maximum developer fee shall be consistent with Utah Housing Corporation’s policy, which caps the maximum developer fee as a percentage of total development cost generally excluding land/property acquisition, developer’s fees, consultant fees, permanent financing fees, marketing fees, tax credit fees, and reserves. The maximum developer fee for projects not utilizing LIHTC will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in the context of the proportion of affordable units and AMIs. Borrower Contribution: • Borrowers shall contribute a source of financing to the project, whether through an equity contribution or a deferred developer fee or a combination of both. The level of borrower contribution will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be evaluated based on the type of ownership entity and level of public benefit provided by the project. • For Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) projects, the borrower shall maximize the amount of deferred developer fee allowed under Utah Housing Corporation’s standards to be allowed in tax credit basis, this amount must be payable within a time frame allowed by the LIHTC program as approved by the project’s tax counsel. • Projects that have not maximized a developer fee, pursuant to the standards contained herein, or that serve lower AMIs or special populations, such as permanent supportive housing, may have the ability to waive the borrower contribution. Page 8 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy Disbursement of Funds: • Funding shall be disbursed as construction draws evidenced by supporting documentation demonstrating that work has been completed and that the project is in good financial and legal standing. Other • Loans are non-assumable without written permission from the RDA. Page 9 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy II. PROPERTY ACQUISITION Limits to Assistance: • Maximize Other Sources: Applicants must demonstrate that they have maximized other available financing sources thereby limiting HDLP funding to the lowest amount necessary to close the funding gap and assure project feasibility. • Loan to Value: Loans will be sized to a loan-to-value limit of 90% of the as-is appraised value inclusive of the RDA’s loan and all senior debt. Repayment: • Depending on the applicant’s capacity for repayment, loans may be repaid as a deferred or interest-only loan. • Any accrued but unpaid interest and principal is due in full at loan maturity. • Loans can be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty. Prepayment does not end the affordability period before its original end date. Term: • The maximum loan term shall be 24-months. Interest Rate: • Base Interest Rate: The base interest rate shall be 3% simple interest. • Funding Priority Incentives: Projects shall have the ability to reduce the Base Interest Rate if the project meets the current funding priorities as established pursuant to the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. For each funding priority met, the project is eligible to receive a .5% reduction from the Base Interest Rate, with the ability to reduce the interest rate to a minimum of 1%. • Interest shall accrue on all loan proceeds disbursed commencing on the date of disbursement. • Interest rates are subject to an adjustment, of up a 1% deviation, based on project cash flow and debt coverage ratio calculated at time of application and underwriting. Affordability Restriction: • Affordability covenant shall be recorded on the property and shall extend for a minimum of 30 years. Subordination to Senior Debt: • HDLP loans may be subordinated to leverage private financing, with the priority among subsidy lenders is typically established based upon size of the loans. Security: • Adequate security shall be required, generally in the form of a deed of trust, promissory note, and guarantees. Developer Fee: • Developer fees are not an eligible cost for a property acquisition loan. Disbursement of Funds: • Funding may be disbursed at loan closing. Other • Loans are non-assumable without written permission from the RDA. Page 10 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy III. GAP FINANCING: HOMEOWNERSHIP CONSTRUCTION Limits to Assistance: • Maximize Other Sources: Applicants must demonstrate that they have maximized other available financing sources thereby limiting HDLP funding to the lowest amount necessary to close the funding gap and assure project feasibility. • Loan to Value: Loans will be sized to a loan-to-value limit of 90% of the as-is appraised value inclusive of the RDA’s loan and all senior debt. Repayment: • Loans shall be repaid from the sale of housing units in the project. HDLP funds may be repaid after payout to senior loans have been accounted for. • Any accrued but unpaid interest and principal is due in full at loan maturity. • Loans can be prepaid in whole or in part at any time without penalty. Prepayment does not end the affordability period before its original end date. Term: • The maximum loan term shall be 36-months. Interest Rate: • Base Interest Rate: The base interest rate shall be 3% simple interest. • Funding Priority Incentives: Projects shall have the ability to reduce the Base Interest Rate if the project meets the current funding priorities as established pursuant to the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy. For each funding priority met, the project is eligible to receive a .5% reduction from the Base Interest Rate, with the ability to reduce the interest rate to a minimum of 1%. • Interest shall accrue on all loan proceeds disbursed commencing on the date of disbursement. • Interest rates are subject to an adjustment, of up a 1% deviation, based on project cash flow and debt coverage ratio calculated at time of application and underwriting. Affordability Restriction: • Affordability covenant shall be recorded on the property and shall extend for a minimum of 30 years. Subordination to Senior Debt: • HDLP loans may be subordinated to leverage private financing, with the priority among subsidy lenders is typically established based upon size of the loans. Security: • Adequate security shall be required, generally in the form of a deed of trust, promissory note, and guarantees. Developer Fee: • Developer fees will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be evaluated based on the affordability levels of the project, type of ownership entity, and level of public benefit provided by the project. Borrower Contribution: • Borrowers shall contribute a source of financing to the project, whether through an equity contribution or a deferred developer fee or a combination of both. The level of borrower contribution will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will be evaluated Page 11 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy based on the affordability levels of the project, type of ownership entity, and level of public benefit provided by the project. • Deferred developer fees shall be paid after the HDLF loan has been fully repaid. Disbursement of Funds: • Funding shall be disbursed as construction draws evidenced by supporting documentation demonstrating that work has been completed and that the project is in good financial and legal standing. Other • Loans are non-assumable without written permission from the RDA. Page 12 – Attachment B: Draft Housing Development Loan Program Policy Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this _______ day of ________________, 2021. ________________________________ ___________________________, Chair Approved as to form: __________________________________ Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Allison Parks Date:____________________________ The Executive Director: ____ does not request reconsideration ____ requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. ________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Attest: ________________________ City Recorder PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND STATUTE & REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS & ACTIVITIES SOURCE OF FUNDING TI Statutory Housing - 9 Line: 10% - Depot District: 20% - Granary District: 20% - North Temple: 20% - Northwest Quadrant: 10% - State Street: 10% TI Supplemental Housing - Central Business District: Varies - Other Housing Allocations: Varies STATE STATUTE - 17C-1-412 - 17C-1-411 RDA HOUSING ALLOCATION FUNDS FRAMEWORK - 17C-1-412 NORTHWEST QUADRANT HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND Tax Differential - Northwest Quadrant: 10% Sales Tax & Other - FoF (housing development): Varies - Other revenues: Varies - n/a POLICY PRIORITIES - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI (Citywide): RDA-determined - AMI (Project Areas): Unrestricted - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account - Geographic Area: Citywide - AMI: 80% AMI < - Tracking: Separate Account Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - TI Reimbursement Program Other Activities - Property Disposition & Acquisition - Capital Improvements for Housing Programs - Housing Development Loan Prog. - Other Activities - N/A Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the City’s housing plan. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the RDA’s project area plans. Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as - Geographic: NWQ Adjacent Neighborhoods - Activities: Projects that improve opportunity indicators The RDA shall present an Annual Housing Development Funding Strategy, that proposes the programs and activities to be funded over the upcoming ﬁscal year, for the Board’s consideration. The Strategy shall be in accordance with the polices established through the RDA Housing Allocation Fund Policy and also consider any current funding priorities or objectives. ANNUAL STRATEGY Annual housing allocations, in alignment with the RDA Housing Fund Allocation Policy and Annual Housing Development Funding Plan, and as adopted through the RDA’s annual budget. ANNUAL BUDGET ALLOCATIONS Administration of funds pursuant to RDA policies and procedures. IMPLEMENTATION Priorities recommended by Admin & approved by the Board, such as the housing goals and objective identied in the City’s housing plan. Establishes accounts by source of funding Clariﬁes statutory requirements Deﬁnes eligible activities and policy priorities within the paramaters of statute and regulatory conﬁnes Deﬁnes the process for allocating budget based on speciﬁc objectives or priorities for the upcoming ﬁscal year Administrative implementation - DRAFT - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM PRIMARY HOUSING FUND SECONDARY HOUSING FUND NWQ HOUSING FUND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND FUNDING SOURCES ADMINISTRATION METHOD UNDERWRITING & APPROVAL POLICIES Loans provided through the HDLF shall be funded directly from an individual fund source, with revenues, expenditures, interest, payments and repayments accounted for from the fund source to comply with applicable State and Local statutes. The RDA shall administer funds through a transparent NOFA process. Funds from multiple fund sources may be combined into a consolidated NOFA or a NOFA may be issued from one fund source. - Generally be competitive and time-limited. - Open-ended NOFAs may be issued for speciﬁc policy priorities or to offer emergency gap ﬁnancing. - NOFAs will specify terms, conditions, and policy priorities for the revenue sources being used for the NOFA. (I.e. to carry out priorities of the Northwest Quadrant Housing account, etc.) - NOFAs may include speciﬁc requirements and/or funding priorities based on current City/RDA polices and objectives. (i.e. a set aside for opportunity areas.) A permanent and annually renewable program that consolidates and centralizes resources for the development and preservation of affordable housing. PURPOSE NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY (”NOFA”) APPLICATIONS Applications will be centrally located and uniform across all funding sources, providing a one-stop-shop to apply for affordable housing funds. The program will include a standardized process for approving applications and a uniform set of underwriting policies to set expectations for both applicants and the RDA Board. - DRAFT - - DRAFT - BLOCK 70 PROPERTY DISPOSITION: 156 S. REGENT STREET •Location –South side of McCarthy Plaza under Walker Center parking garage overhang •Size –3,111 square feet •Buyer –Walker Center Holdings Eccles Theater BLOCK 70 PROPERTY DISPOSITION: 156 S. REGENT STREET View of subject property located underneath Walker Center parking garage overhang looking southwest Trash Compactor/ Emergency Generator BLOCK 70 PROPERTY DISPOSITION: 156 S. REGENT STREET View of subject property located underneath Walker Center parking garage overhang looking west REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director DANNY WALZ Director REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF MEMO DATE: February 3, 2021 PREPARED BY: Danny Walz RE: Update on disposition of Agency-owned property underneath the Walker Center garage overhang at 156 S. Regent Street REQUESTED ACTION: Written Briefing POLICY ITEM: Land Disposition BUDGET IMPACTS: Sale of real property at fair market value EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“Agency”) property in discussion is located directly under the northern overhang of the Walker Center’s parking garage at 156 S. Regent Street and is approximately 3,111 square feet. In April of 2019, the Agency entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) to sell the eastern portion of the property to Walker Center Holdings (“WCH”). At the January 12th Board meeting, staff presented for consideration a resolution approving a discount of the sales price for the western portion of the property. Following discussion, the Board tabled the item in order to provide additional time to review information and consider the resolution. Agency staff and WCH have continued negotiations and WCH has agreed to purchase the western parcel at current appraised value rather than continue to pursue a property discount. When combined with the existing PSA, this transaction represents fair market value for the property disposition and therefore is solely an administrative transaction which does not require approval from the Board as per the Agency’s Real Property Disposition Policy. The purpose of this memo is to provide additional information on the property and updated terms for the disposition. No Board action is required. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: The parcel is located at 156 S. Regent Street and consists of 3,111 square feet located directly under the northern overhang of the Walker Center’s parking structure. The western half is occupied by the emergency generator and trash compactor that serve the Eccles Theater. The eastern half currently provides storage and short-term parking for the theater and Agency tenants. At the January 12th Board meeting, staff presented for consideration a resolution approving a discount of the sales price for disposition of the western half of the property. Pursuant to the Agency Real Property Disposition Policy, property discounts are subject to approval by the Board if Agency property is to be sold at a discount greater than 10% from the as-is appraised fair market value. The proposed purchase price and related discount was in consideration of a perpetual easement in favor of the Agency and limited future utilization of the western parcel as well as ductwork that the Agency installed on the north façade of the parking garage owned by WCH that serves the generator and compactor. Staff also noted that the disposition is practical in that it enables WCH to maintain and clarify ownership of the property directly under its own building, while continuing to allow Agency access to the generator and trash compactor through an access agreement at no cost to the Agency. The Board discussed the background of the property, history of negotiations, and the terms for the disposition as part of the proposed discount consideration. Ultimately the Board tabled the item in order to provide additional time to review information and consider the resolution. Following the January meeting, staff and WCH have continued to negotiate the agreement terms for the disposition. Final negotiated terms are as follows: • Executed PSA: o The sale price listed in the executed PSA was set at fair market value of $56,924. o The executed PSA provides for the transfer of the eastern portion of the parcel with the condition that the Buyer agrees to make reasonable efforts to build out and lease the space as retail or restaurant use. • Addition of Western Portion to the transaction: o Taking into consideration the Board’s discussion as well as the timing for their upcoming re-financing, WCH has agreed to purchase the western portion of the parcel at the appraised fair market value of $9,499 rather than continue to seek the Board’s approval of a discount. o This transaction would represent fair market value for the property disposition and would therefore not require approval from the Board as per the Agency’s Real Property Disposition Policy. The overall proposed terms for the disposition include the following:  Total Purchase Price for the eastern and western portions: $66,423  WCH to grant perpetual easement on eastern parcel for compactor and generator use free of charge  Allocation of additional space to Agency for storage to activate and maintain McCarthy Plaza  WCH obligation to build out western parcel for retail with priority for lease by local food and beverage provider  Agency option to lease/sublease western parcel in the event that Buyer is not able to find a tenant  Legal remedies if Buyer does not comply with the material terms of the agreement The proposed disposition resolves outstanding issues related to the development of the Eccles Theater. Most importantly, consolidating WCH ownership of the entire parcel underneath their building. This is important to the owner in terms of long-term control as well as providing clarity for any future property financing. The perpetual easement provides the Agency the necessary security for the ongoing use for the Theater’s emergency generator and shared trash compactor. In addition, WCH has agreed to provide the Agency additional space for storage as well as the option to lease the improved retail space and ensure future activation of the property. Next Steps – Agency staff will finalize negotiation of the terms for the amended PSA with a potential closing by the end of February, 2021. No Board action is required. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Property Photos Attachment A: Property Photos Subject property underneath Walker Center parking garage overhang facing southwest. Subject property underneath Walker Center parking garage facing west. DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WWW.SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLCRDA.COM WWW.SALTLAKEARTS.ORG ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA BEN KOLENDAR ACTING DIRECTOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF MEMO DATE: December 23, 2020 PREPARED BY: Danny Walz, Jim Sirrine, and Lauren Parisi RE: Purchase and Sale Agreement for a portion of RDA-owned property underneath the Walker Center garage overhang at 156 S. Regent Street REQUESTED ACTION: Consideration of a resolution approving a discount of the sales price for the 3,111 square-foot parcel underneath the Walker Center garage overhang POLICY ITEM: Disposition of real property for Block 70 project area development BUDGET IMPACTS: Sale of real property at a discount greater than 10% of fair marker value, but no less than $56,924 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In April of 2019, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) to sell a portion of RDA-owned property where the Eccles Theater is located to Walker Center Holdings (“WCH”). The portion of the Agency property in discussion is located directly under the northern overhang of the Walker Center’s parking garage at 156 S. Regent Street and is approximately 3,111 square feet (See Attachments A and B for location details). The sale resolves several outstanding issues related to the Eccles Theater project. Most importantly, it resolves the ownership conflict between the parcel itself and Walker Center’s parking garage overhang. WCH (“Buyer”) has agreed to the terms of the sale in exchange for granting the RDA an easement to access the emergency generator and trash compactor located underneath the overhang that serve the Eccles Theater. The proposed purchase price and related discount is in consideration of the RDA’s perpetual easement and limited future utilization of the property as well as ductwork that the RDA installed on the north façade of the parking garage that serves the generator and compactor. The updated terms for the disposition and reduced purchase price reflect recent negotiations which now warrant approval by the RDA Board of Directors (“Board”) as per the Agency’s policy. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: The parcel is located at 156 S. Regent Street and consists of 3,111 square feet located directly under the northern overhang of the Walker Center’s parking structure. This property has been a part of the larger Eccles Theater property for some time, though the reasoning for this is not certain. The western half is occupied by the emergency generator and trash compactor that serve the Eccles Theater. The eastern half currently provides storage and short-term parking for the theater and Agency tenants. This vacant space was originally envisioned to provide an active use or tenant adjacent to McCarthy Plaza. The original Purchase Agreement anticipated transfer of property with the condition that the Buyer agrees to make reasonable efforts to build out and lease the space as retail or restaurant use. As part of ongoing discussions, the Agency is now proposing to convey the property to the Buyer with the option to lease back the parcel. The Agency would evaluate its potential need for long term storage to support the plaza as well as the feasibility of building the space out for an active use. Pursuant to the RDA Real Property Disposition Policy, the sale of RDA property may be exclusively negotiated if the sale is to an adjacent property owner to facilitate objectives defined in the associated project area plan. This is the case of the subject “Tier 2” property where the parcel is adjacent to and underneath the WCH parking structure. This transaction is also practical in that it enables WCH to maintain and clarify ownership of the property directly under their own building, while continuing to allow RDA access to the generator and trash compactor through an access agreement. Also pursuant to the RDA Real Property Disposition Policy, property discounts are subject to approval by the Board if RDA property is to be sold at a discount greater than 10% from the as-is appraised fair market value. The sale price listed in the original purchase and sale agreement was set at fair market value; however, that price reflected a smaller piece of the subject parcel – or 1,498 square feet of the 3,111 square feet total. The original intention was always to dispose of the entire parcel under the building overhang and the executed PSA was not updated to reflect the final negotiated square footage or value. In consideration of the perpetual easement, site constraints and limited potential for utilizing the parcel, staff is proposing to hold the purchase price at $56,924 as originally negotiated and requests a write down of any increase in the value of the land. An updated appraisal is currently being conducted, but has yet to be finalized for the Board’s review. Staff anticipates the finalized appraisal will be brought to the Board at the January meeting. Without this appraisal, it is still estimated that the property will be sold to WCH at a discount greater than 10% given that the property is twice the size of what was reflected in the original appraisal. WCH has asked that RDA staff request Board approval of the property discount without the updated appraisal because they must finalize this sale before their refinancing deadline in early March. The proposed disposition resolves outstanding issues related to the development of the Eccles Theater. Most importantly, consolidating WCH ownership of the entire parcel underneath their building. This is important to the owner in terms of long-term control as well as providing clarity for any future property financing. The perpetual easement provides the RDA the necessary security for the ongoing use for the Theater’s emergency generator and shared trash compactor. In addition, it preserves the option for the Agency to utilize the remaining parcel for storage to support activation of McCarthy plaza as well as the opportunity to further improve and activate the space. Next Steps – If the Board authorizes the sale of the subject property at a discounted sale price, RDA staff will work to fulfill the requirements of the updated PSA including finalizing the appraisal, plat of subdivision and all necessary easements in order to close on the property as soon as possible. The RDA will also continue to work with WCH on the potential development of the parcel and any related lease or development options. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Property Photos • Attachment B: Proposed Subdivision Amendment • Attachment C: RDA Board Resolution Attachment A: Property Photos Subject property underneath Walker Center parking garage overhang facing southwest. Subject property underneath Walker Center parking garage overhang facing west. Attachment B: Proposed Subdivision Amendment ” ” ” 5 7 4 6 S o u t h 1 4 7 5 E a s t O g d e n , U t a h 8 4 4 0 3 Main (801)394-4515 S.L.C (801)521-0222 Fax (801)392-7544WWW.G R E A T B A S I N E N G I N E E R I N G .C O M ’ W:\12N911 Utah Performing Arts Center\dwg\12N911-Plat - 2nd Amd.dwg, 12/1/2020 9:32:49 AM, drew, 1:1 For Review 12/01/2020 9:33:15 AM Attachment C: RDA Board Resolution 1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. of 2021 156 South Regent Street (Portion of Utah Performing Arts Center Property) RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY APPROVING THE SALES PRICE OF RDA-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 156 SOUTH REGENT STREET IN THE BLOCK 70 PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) and WCH, LLC (“Buyer”) entered into a purchase and sale agreement on April 5, 2019 (“Purchase Agreement”) for the RDA to sell to Buyer 1,498 square feet of real property under the overhang of the Walker Center parking garage owned by Buyer at 156 South Regent Street. The 1,498 square feet encompasses only a portion of the real property under the overhang. WHERAS, at the time the RDA and Buyer entered into the Purchase Agreement for the 1,498 square feet of real property, the market value of the 1,498 square feet was $56,924. WHEREAS, now, the RDA desires to dispose of all of the real property under the overhang of the Walker Center parking garage, which is approximately 3,111 square feet (“Property”), all of which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto. WHEREAS, the market value of the Property as of an appraisal conducted in December of 2020 is greater than $56,924. WHEREAS, the RDA is requiring certain public benefits as part of the sale of the property, including Buyer granting the RDA an easement to access the existing generator that serves the Eccles Theater on the Property, granting the RDA and nearby property owners an easement to access the existing trash/recycling compactor, and granting the RDA an easement to maintain the sprinkler and ductwork that the RDA installed on the north façade of the Walker Center garage. Further, Buyer may lease a portion of the Property to the RDA for storage that will assist the RDA in maintaining and activating McCarthy Plaza. In the alternative to leasing this space to the RDA, Buyer will maintain the Property directly underneath their building overhang and make an effort to improve a portion of the Property for retail use to activate McCarthy Plaza and and support the implementation of the Block 70 project area plan (“Public Benefits”). WHEREAS, the RDA has agreed to reduce the value of the Property in exchange for Buyer's commitment to implement the Public Benefits. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY that the Board hereby authorizes the disposition of the Property to Buyer for a minimum of $56,924 so long as the Buyer meets the terms of an agreement with the RDA which will include any other terms as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. 2 Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this day of , 2021. Board Chair Transmitted to the Executive Director on . The Executive Director: does not request reconsideration requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office _______________________________________ Attest: City Recorder December 23, 2020 3 EXHIBIT A Property Legal Description: A PART OF LOT 1A UTAH PERFORMING ARTS CENTER SUBDIVIS ION - 1ST AMENDMENT (SALT LAKE COUNTY RECORDER'S BOOK 2016P, PAGE 120), BEING A PART OF BLOCK 70, PLAT A, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY: BEGINNING THE MOST SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 1A, SAID POINT IS 429.27 FEET NORTH 0°02'13” WEST ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF MAIN STREET; 68.40 FEET NORTH 89°57'47” EAST; 165.00 FEET NORTH 89°53’07” EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1A; AND 213.20 FEET SOUTH 0°03’21” WEST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1A FROM THE SALT LAKE CITY MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF 200 SOUTH STREET AND MAIN STREET, SAID POINT IS ALSO 295.27 FEET SOUTH 0°03'21" WEST FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5, BLOCK 70, PLAT A, SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0°03’21” EAST 31.44 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 1A; THENCE SOUTH 88°40’08” EAST 52.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°40’05” EAST 15.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°47’01” EAST 34.87 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF REGENT STREET; THENCE SOUTH 1°15’14” WEST 29.35 FEET ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1A; THENCE NORTH 89°52’37” WEST 102.13 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1A TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 3,111 SQ.FT. 144-158 MAIN STREET DISPOSITION FOLLOW UP RDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING –FEBRUARY 9, 2021 Site Location: 144 –158 South Main Street Size: 0.89 acres Zoning:D-1 Central Business District Background 2010: Acquired the Property 2010 –2016: Explored various preservation and reuse options in collaboration with third party consultants and interested user groups. 2015: Began to engage adjacent property owners to explore a partnership on redevelopment of the Property. 2019:Determined that it was challenging to preserve the Theater due to several barriers, including the significant public investment that would be required to bring the structure up to current building and seismic code, as well as the lack of a viable end user. 2019:With Hines acting as the lead developer, Hines and 160 Main proposed the construction of a mixed-use tower that is approximately 375 to 400 feet high with commercial and residential uses and includes affordable housing, public space, historic repurposing of Theater elements, structured parking, and public art. Sales Pricing Terms On December 3, 2019, the Board approved a resolution authorizing the sales price terms of the Property for $0 so long as certain public benefits are incorporated into the Project, including the following: 1.Affordable Housing: The Project will include a minimum of 10% of the residential units affordable to households earning 60% to 80% of the area median income (“AMI”). 2.Midblock Walkway: The Project will include a privately-maintained, publicly-accessible, midblock walkway that extends into the interior of the block from Main Street. 3.Historic Repurposing: The Project will include the reclamation and incorporation of historic theater elements. Contingencies 1.Open Space Contingency Confirmation that the Developer intends to build green open space in addition to a midblock walkway as part of the proposed Project, and prior to closing, the Developer will provide to the Board of Directors detailed plans for the open space, and proposed costs to (a) construct the open space, (b) ensure the open space is publicly accessible and (c) maintain the open space. Prior to closing, the Board of Directors may consider providing incentives to the Developer, or through the City Council, related to the open space. 2.Historic Documentation Continency Prior to demolishing the Utah Theater, the RDA ensures historic elements of the theater are sufficiently documented through measured drawings, film, photographs, and/or written data to provide a detailed record to the Board and public of the property’s significance. In addition,the Board included the following contingencies: Open Space 1.The midblock walkway has always been contemplated to be privately owned and maintained yet accessible to the public. The level of public accessibility of the park space has been an ongoing negotiation between the RDA and Hines. 2.Due to the context of this particular park space, the Administration determined that it is more appropriate for the park space to be privately owned and maintained rather than part of the City’s open space inventory. 3.Encouraging privately owned open space that is publicly accessible is a great way to leverage the City’s limited resources and participation, as well as provide numerous benefits to the City from a design, sustainability, and civic standpoint. 4.To fulfill the open space contingency, Hines is planning to provide to the Board detailed plans for the open space at an upcoming Board meeting. Utah Theater Historic Documentation Modern Out West – •Updated intensive level survey to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office’s standards involving the collection of Sanborn maps, original blueprints, newspaper clippings, tax files, title reports, historic concert programs, etc. •Experimental drawings including pencil sketches, charcoal drawings, watercolors and streetscapes of the existing and original building •Architectural drawings including a site plan, elevations, floor plans, cross sections, reflected ceiling plans, analytiques and detailed drawings of architecturally significant features throughout the building •Photographs including a collection of historic photos as well as new, professional photos taken of the existing building and architecturally significant features •Drone video footage of the Theater’s interior •3D scan of the building and associated point cloud data •Virtual reality tour of the building •Interactive online archive/website accessible to the public at https://pta.lib.utah.edu/ Utah Theater Historic Documentation Information is accessible at: •Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)/ University of Utah’s J. Willard Marriott Library •The Pantages Theater Website hosted by the Marriott •Internally accessible on City’s Laserfiche system Experimental Drawings Architectural Drawings Photographs https://pta.lib.utah.edu/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director DANNY WALZ Chief Operating Officer STAFF MEMO DATE: January 22, 2021 PREPARED BY: Danny Walz, Tammy Hunsaker, and Lauren Parisi RE: Update on the Conditions for the Sales Pricing Terms of RDA-owned Property located at 144 – 158 South Main Street REQUESTED ACTION: Briefing. POLICY ITEM: Disposition of real property for Central Business District project area development. BUDGET IMPACTS: N/A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) has been working on the disposition and redevelopment of 0.89 acres of RDA-owned property located at 144 – 158 Main Street (“Property”) in the Central Business District. The Property is the site of the Ut ah Theater (“Theater”) and adjacent retail spaces. On December 3, 2019, the RDA Board of Directors (“Board”) approved resolution R-23-2019 authorizing the sales pricing terms of the Property conditioned upon the incorporation of certain public benefits and subject to certain contingencies. This memorandum provides an update on the disposition and redevelopment of the Property, including an update on the following sales pricing term contingencies: 1. Open Space Contingency Confirmation that the Developer intends to build green open space in addition to a midblock walkway as part of the proposed Project, and prior to closing, the Developer will provide to the Board of Directors detailed plans for the open space, and proposed costs to (a) construct the open space, (b) ensure the open space is publicly accessible and (c) maintain the open space. Prior to closing, the Board of Directors may consider providing incentives to the Developer, or through the City Council, related to the open space. 2. Historic Documentation Continency Prior to demolishing the Utah Theater, the RDA ensures historic elements of the theater are sufficiently documented through measured drawings, film, photographs, and/or written data to provide a detailed record to the Board and public of the property’s significance. ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Additional details on 1) the project’s background, 2) open space contingency, and 3) historic documentation contingency are as follows: I. Background In 2010 the RDA acquired the Property with the intention of potentially utilizing it as the site of a Utah performing arts center, which was ultimately sited across the street as what is now the Eccles Theater. Between 2010 and 2016 the RDA explored various preservation options in collaboration with third-party consultants and interest user groups, which did not result in a viable path forward for the Property’s rehabilitation and reuse. In 2015, to address site constraints of the Property that limit its redevelopment potential, the RDA began to engage adjacent property owners Hines Acquisitions LLC (“Hines”) and 160 Main LLC (“160 Main”) in negotiations on redevelopment of the Property. In 2019, the RDA determined that it was unfeasible to preserve the Theater due to several barriers, including the significant public investment that would be required to bring the structure up to current building and seismic code, as well as the lack of a viable end user. With Hines acting as the lead developer, Hines and 160 Main proposed the construction of a mixed-use tower that is approximately 375-feet high with commercial and residential uses and includes affordable housing, public space, historic repurposing of Theater elements, structured parking, and public art (“Project”). On December 3, 2019, the Board approved a resolution authorizing the sales price terms of the Property for $0.00 so long as certain public benefits are incorporated into the Project, including the following: • Affordable Housing: The Project will include a minimum of 10% of the residential units affordable to households earning 60% to 80% of the area median income (“AMI”). • Midblock Walkway: The Project will include a privately-maintained, publicly-accessible, midblock walkway between 14 and 40 feet wide by approximately 200 to 220 feet long that extends into the interior of the block from Main Street. • Historic Repurposing: The Project will include the reclamation and incorporation of historic theater elements, with elements to be identified through a collaborative effort between Hines and RDA in coordination with historic preservation experts. In addition to these public benefits, the Board resolution authorizing the sales pricing terms requires the following contingencies: • Open Space: The Project will include green open space in addition to a midblock walkway. • Historic Documentation: The historical significance of the Theater will be documented and available to the public prior to demolishing the Theater. Since the sales pricing terms were approved by the Board in December of 2019, Hines has been working on due diligence, entitlements, design, and financing for the Project. The RDA anticipates closing on the Property within the next few months after checking in with the Board to verify the contingencies have been met. II. Open Space Contingency The Project will include a publicly-accessible midblock walkway that is terraced and leads to park space atop the parking structure that spans between the Property and the Kearns Building property to the north. Entering into agreements with property owners to provide for the public enjoyment of privately-owned spaces is a common model utilized by cities across the nation. The midblock walkway has always been contemplated to be privately owned and maintained yet accessible to the public. The level of public accessibility of the park space has been an ongoing negotiation between the RDA and Hines. The RDA analyzed options to facilitate public accessibility of the park space and reached out to the City’s Division of Public Lands to discuss these options. Public Lands is very supportive of adding new open space to the downtown urban fabric whether through new publicly-owned inventory or through privately-owned inventory that is publicly accessible. Due to the context of this particular park space, the City determined that it is more appropriate for the park space to be privately owned and maintained rather than part of the City’s open space inventory. This is because of several reasons including but not limited to the following: • The park space is to be located atop the parking structure which, while being an innovative way to incorporate open space into the built environment, would create challenges with adding it to the City’s open space inventory from both a legal and logistical perspective. • The City’s resources for new park space in the urban core is limited and, as such, the City wants to prioritize using these resources for new park space that better aligns with current plans and priorities. Encouraging privately owned open space that is publicly accessible is a great way to leverage the City’s limited resources. The RDA and Public Lands agree that the Project’s open space, both the midblock walkway and park space, will provide numerous benefits to the City from a design, sustainability, and civic standpoint. It is important to note that while the park space will have a certain level of public accessibility, this accessibility will be limited with time, place, and manner restrictions that provide a balance between public use and private property rights. To fulfill the open space contingency, Hines is planning to provide to the Board detailed plans for the open space, and proposed costs to (a) construct the open space, (b) ensure the open space is publicly accessible and (c) maintain the open space. Hines has completed this work and is prepared to present an update at the March Board meeting. III. Historic Documentation Contingency To satisfy this requirement, the RDA released an RFP for the Theater’s historic documentation in March of 2020 and the selection committee ultimately chose local design firm Modern Out West to complete the project. Modern Out West’s team began their documentation work inside the Theater in July of 2020. This work involved diligently sketching, painting, scanning, photographing and filming the Theater building to cr eate the following deliverables: • Updated intensive level survey to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office’s standards involving the collection of Sanborn maps, original blueprints, newspaper clippings, tax files, title reports, historic concert programs, etc. • Experimental drawings including pencil sketches, charcoal drawings, watercolors and streetscapes of the existing and original building • Architectural drawings including a site plan, elevations, floor plans, cross sections, reflected ceiling plans, analytiques and detailed drawings of architecturally significant features throughout the building • Photographs including a collection of historic photos as well as new, professional photos taken of the existing building and architecturally significant fea tures • Drone video footage of the Theater’s interior • 3D scan of the building and associated point cloud data • Virtual reality tour of the building • Interactive online archive/website accessible to the public at https://pta.lib.utah.edu/ Modern Out West completed their work on November 1, 2020. The material was submitted to the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) per their intensive level survey requirements. SHPO’s digital archives are housed by the University of Utah’s J. Willard Marriott Library where the materials created as a part of this project can be accessed by the public. Any originals that were created such as the pencil sketches, charcoal drawings and watercolors were donated to the Marriott Library to keep within their physical archives. All of the materials were also submitted digitally to the RDA. The Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office is currently working on the creation of a retention schedule for the archives, which will eventually be scanned into the City’s Laserfiche system that can be accessed internally. In addition to these required archives, a substantial amount of the project materials were compiled and included on an interactive website that can be accessed publicly at https://pta.lib.utah.edu/. Here, the public can read more about the Theater’s history and namesake Alexander Pantages, view photographs and architectural drawings, and even take a virtual tour of the Theater. The website link will be posted on the RDA’s and City Planning’s websites and the virtual tour is also accessible on Google Maps. The Marriott Library will host the website for at least five years, after which they will review their digital preservation plan and capacity to continue hosting the site. Marriott staff have also i ndicated that they may create a physical exhibit with the project materials in addition to collecting oral histories from those who visited the Theater during its heyday. The RDA is grateful for the work Modern Out West has done not only for creating an extremely thorough archive, but for capturing the spirit of the Theater’s original grandeur and preserving its memory forever. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: • December 2019: The Board approved resolution R-23-2019 authorizing the sales pricing terms of the Property conditioned upon the incorporation of certain public benefits and subject to certain contingencies. • August 2019: RDA staff submitted a briefing on an opportunity to partner with Hines and LaSalle on redeveloping the Property as a mixed-use development that maximizes public benefits including affordable housing, public open space, structured parking, thematic repurposing of Theater elements, public art, and the activation of Main Street. • August 2018: RDA staff submitted a briefing that 1) provided context and background for the acquisition of the Property, 2) summarized the existing contracts and critical provisions within those contracts, and 3) summarized the studies completed to date to assess the redevelopment potential of the Property. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Watercolor samples • Attachment B: Architectural drawing samples • Attachment C: Photograph samples Attachment A: Watercolor Samples Attachment B: Architectural Drawing Samples Attachment C: Photograph Samples February 9, 2021 As Chair of the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency, I hereby determine that conducting the Redevelopment Agency meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. The World Health Organization, the President of the United States, the Governor of Utah, the Salt Lake County Health Department, Salt Lake County Mayor, and the Mayor of Salt Lake City have all recognized a global pandemic exists related to the new strain of the coronavirus, SARS- CoV-2. Due to the state of emergency caused by the global pandemic, I find that conducting a meeting at an anchor location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the location. Sincerely, Ana Valdemoros Chair, Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency Budget Amendment Description Amount RDA Lessees 200,000$ Eccles / Gallivan 500,000$ Lessee Adjusted Grant Amount Location Bolt Cutter (Bud's)58,299.76$ Gallivan Ave. Retail Good Grammar 66,693.13$ Gallivan Ave. Retail Pulp Lifestyle Kitchen 37,503.55$ Gallivan Ave. Retail Fireside Restaurant 37,503.55$ Regent St. Retail Broadway Parking (Block 56) (Hamilton Partners)100,000.00$ Parking Structure Ocean Properties 100,000.00$ Gallivan Owner Wasatch Properties 100,000.00$ Gallivan Owner Beckett & Robb 22,732.88$ 144-158 S. Main St. Arys Barber Shop 44,067.51$ 144-158 S. Main St. Southam Gallery 19,862.85$ 144-158 S. Main St. Twisted Roots 50,108.42$ 144-158 S. Main St. Children's Theater 5,000.00$ 100 So. Storage Fill The Pot (SDI)5,000.00$ Station Center Tenant Green Team Garden (Howa)1,806.67$ 100 So. Property Home Inn 5,000.00$ Rio Grande Hotel (SRO) SDG (Print Tex USA)10,000.00$ Station Center Tenant Utah Arts Alliance (Howa)36,421.67$ 100 So. Property 700,000.00$ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245 MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL Executive Director DANNY WALZ Chief Operating Officer STAFF MEMO DATE: January 21, 2021 PREPARED BY: Tracy Tran RE: University of Utah Research Park Update REQUESTED ACTION: Written Briefing POLICY ITEM: Project Area Creation BUDGET IMPACTS: Future tax increment generated by the CRA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In January 2020, the RDA Board of Directors (“Board”) adopted a boundary survey resolution, which initiated the process that authorizes the preparation of a draft community reinvestment area plan (“Draft Plan”) and analysis to determine whether project area development is feasible as a proposed community reinvestment area (“CRA”) within the University of Utah Research Park. CRA Plan and Public Benefits Analysis The Agency has begun the process for preparing the Draft Plan in accordance with Utah Title 17- C (“Title 17C”) and has engaged consultants to analyze the feasibility of a CRA within the University of Utah Research Park, which is based on the vision laid out in the associated University of Utah Research Park Master Plan. The Draft Plan will include further establishing a vision for the development of the area, the full evaluation of infrastructure needs including transportation, utilities, protection of natural resources, and the funding sources required to achieve these goals. The establishment of a CRA would enable the RDA to capture incremental increase in building and property values from new development in the area and to invest these funds in projects that would promote and realize its potential envisioned in the Master Plan. Agency staff will return to the Board in upcoming months to share a draft CRA Plan and associated Public Benefits Analysis. In general, project area plans are required to include a description of the geographic boundaries of the survey area; an analysis of existing conditions; an overview of standards to guide development; demonstration of conformance with the general plan; an explanation of how project area development will further Title 17C; and project area development activities. As required in Title 17C, a Public Benefit analysis must be conducted as part of the project area creation process. The analyses will evaluate the proposed project area’s beneficial influences on the tax base, associated business and economic activity likely to be stimulated, and whether the 1 project area is necessary to undertake the proposed project area development. In addition, this process will include engaging with City Departments, property owners, stakeholders, and Taxing Entities (County and School District) to guide development of the Draft Plan for the Board’s consideration. Community Reinvestment Area Creation Process: • Step 1: Board authorization of RDA staff to prepare a Draft Plan. (Adopted in 2020) • Step 2: RDA staff creates the Draft Plan, which includes a public benefits analysis and proposed budget as outlined by Title 17C. RDA Staff engages with taxing entities in the initial review of the Draft Plan. • Step 3: Make Draft Plan available for public review. A public plan hearing is also organized with notification sent to property owners, State Tax Commission, participating taxing entities, and the County Assessor and Auditor. All written and oral comments collected from participants during the hearing are considered by the RDA in connection with the preparation of a revised Draft Plan. • Step 4: Following a 30-day public comment period, RDA Board approves of a resolution adopting the Draft Plan as the Community Reinvestment Project Area Plan (the “CRA Plan”). After adoption by the Board, the City Council adopts an ordinance that designates the approved CRA Plan as the official community development plan of the project area. • Step 5: Once City Council approves the CRA Plan, a notice will be placed in the local newspaper providing a 30-day protest period. • Step 6: The RDA enters into negotiations with participating taxing entities for the terms of the Interlocal Agreements. Included within these agreements are the respective participation terms that will make up the final project area budget. Notices of the finalized Interlocal Agreements with each entity are published in the newspaper with a 30-day protest period. • Step 7: Based on the final terms negotiated with each of the participating taxing entities, the RDA prepares a CRA Budget and makes it available for public review. After a 30-day noticing period, with notifications sent to property owners, State Tax Commission, participating taxing entities, and the County Assessor and Auditor, the Board holds a budget hearing and then consider a resolution adopting the CRA Budget. • Step 8: Once the CRA Budget is adopted by the Board, a notice will be placed in the local newspaper providing a 30-day protest period. PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: January 14, 2020: The RDA Board adopted a boundary survey resolution that authorized the preparation of a Draft Plan and allowed for the further analysis of a community reinvestment area at the University of Utah Research Park. June 9, 2020: Representatives from the University of Utah provided a briefing to the Board on the Research Park Master Plan. ATTACHMENTS: • A: Map of University of Utah Research Park Community Reinvestment Survey Area 2 ATTACHMENT A: MAP OF UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH PARK COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT SURVEY AREA 3 Legend 0 0.125 • University of Utah Research Park Survey Area 0.25 0 .5 Miles N A DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WWW.SLCGOV.COM WWW.SLCRDA.COM WWW.SALTLAKEARTS.ORG ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA BEN KOLENDAR ACTING DIRECTOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF MEMO DATE: PREPARED BY: RE: December 23, 2020 Danny Walz, Tammy Hunsaker, and Lauren Parisi 9 Line Project Area Creation REQUESTED ACTION: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the 9 Line Interlocal Agreement between Salt Lake County and the RDA POLICY ITEM: Community Reinvestment Area Creation BUDGET IMPACTS: 9 Line Tax Increment Revenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In August of 2018, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) adopted the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area (“CRA”) plan. The CRA plan acts as a guiding document for the utilization of tax increment funds in the 9 Line project area. Since that time, RDA staff has been negotiating terms of tax increment participation with the Salt Lake City (“City”), Salt Lake City School District (“School District”) and Salt Lake County (“County”). Pursuant to Utah Code 17-C Community Reinvestment Agency Act (the “Act”), all participating taxing entities are required to enter into an interlocal agreement (“ILA”) with the RDA, which the Board must subsequently adopt to trigger the effective date of the agreement. The Board adopted resolutions approving ILAs between the City and the School District for both the State Street and 9 Line project areas in October of 2020. Salt Lake County Council approved the 9 Line ILA in December of 2020. The purpose of this memo is to request the Board’s consideration of the adoption of a resolution approving this ILA for the 9 Line CRA between the County and the RDA (Attachment B). ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Additional information on 1) County 9 Line Participation Terms 2) CRA budget amendments, and 3) a tentative schedule are as follows: 1.County 9 Line Participation Terms – RDA Staff requested County participation in the 9 Line CRA at the same terms approved by the City and the School District as follows: •Base taxable year – 2016 •Base taxable value – $228,048,136 •Collection period – 20 years •Tax increment participation rate – 75% •The amount of project area funds by activity – o Redevelopment Activities: 80% o Affordable Housing: 80% o Administration and Operations: 10% After much negotiation, the County Council approved the following participation terms included in the ILA (Attachment B). The terms highlighted in red differ from the RDA’s original participation request: •Base taxable year – 2016 •Base taxable value – $228,048,136 •Collection period – 20 years •Tax increment participation rate – The County’s participation rate is 100% with a repayment, or “Annual Mitigation Payment”, of 50% back to the County. Accordingly, the amount retained by the RDA, or the “Agency’s Share” will be set at 50% with a maximum share of $2,081,211 over the project area’s 20-year term. Subject to completion of performance benchmarks described below, the County’s participation rate may increase to 60% with a maximum share of $2,491,388 at year six of the term, which may be administratively approved by County staff, and to 75% with a maximum share of $3,122,000 at year eleven of the term, which may only be approved by the County Council. Performance Benchmarks (initiatives to be completed by year six to qualify for increased County participation in years six and eleven) – o Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program. The Agency will establish a loan or subsidy program to facilitate the construction of ADUs specific to the Project Area; o Anti-Displacement Strategy. The Agency will endeavor to develop an anti-displacement strategy specific to the Project Area; and o Sustainable Development. The Agency will endeavor to create a sustainable development policy that incentivizes or requires sustainable building technologies be utilized at specified levels of RDA financial participation in the Project Area. •Tax Increment Pass Through – Because the County will initially pass 100% of their tax increment within the 9 Line CRA to the RDA, the Annual Mitigation Payment that they receive back from the RDA can be used however the County sees fit instead of going into the County’s general fund where the certified tax rate is applied on an annual basis. The City and the School District are participating at a contribution rate of 75% of annual tax increment without a pass through or mitigation payment. •The amount of project area funds by activity – The County requested that the RDA limit the use of their tax increment for RDA administrative fees to 4% (8% of 100% of tax increment). They also requested that the County receive 3% of their tax increment back (6% of 100% of Tax Years of the Term County's Contribution Annual Mitigation Payment Agency's Share % Maximum* 1 - 5 100% 50% 50% $2,081,211 6 - 10** 100% 40% 60% $2,491,388 11 - 20*** 100% 25% 75% $3,122,000 Activity Agency’s Share Level 50% 60% 75% 1. Redevelopment Activities 76% 78% 81% 2.Housing 10% 10% 10% 3. Agency Administration and Operations 8% 7% 5% 4. County Administration and Operations 6% 5% 4% Total 100% 100% 100% tax increment) for their own administrative fees. This decreases the amount of funding dedicated to redevelopment activities. However, if the County’s participation rate increases in year six and eleven, the administrative allotment will decrease as illustrated below. 2.CRA Budget Amendments – Pursuant to Utah Code, a consolidated CRA budget must be adopted by the Board for both the 9 Line and State Street CRAs. Negotiations with each of the participating taxing entities have resulted in different participation terms than those reflected in the consolidated CRA budgets originally adopted by the Board with the CRA plans. As such, the consolidated CRA budgets will need to be amended to reflect the final participation terms agreed upon by each of the taxing entities. The main discrepancies include a reduced project area term from 25 to 20 years, a different maximum cumulative dollar amount that can be collected by the RDA and the different terms approved by the County as highlighted above in red. All terms have been finalized for the 9 Line CRA; however, negotiations regarding the State Street CRA are still in process with Salt Lake County. RDA staff anticipates that all terms will be finalized for the State Street CRA in early 2021. Next Steps – The process to amend a CRA budget includes the following legislative actions: a.Public Noticing: In addition to the standard 14-day newspaper notice, Utah Code requires that all property owners within project area boundaries and participating taxing entities are sent notice of the budget amendment hearing 30 days in advance. b.Public Hearing: The Board holds a public hearing regarding the proposed budget amendment. c.RDA Resolution: At the public hearing or a subsequent board meeting, the Board may adopt the amended budget by resolution. 3.Tentative Schedule – A resolution authorizing the terms of the 9 Line CRA between the County and the RDA has been transmitted for the Board’s consideration (Attachment B). Budget amendments for the 9 Line CRA consolidated budget will be brought to the Board in February. Contingent on finalizing the State Street ILA with the County, a resolution authorizing this ILA is anticipated to be brought to the Board in March and the State Street CRA budget amendments will be brought to the Board in April. A tentative schedule has been broken down as follows: January 2021: 1.Board: Transmitted for the Board’s consideration – •RDA resolution approving the interlocal agreement between the Salt Lake County and the RDA for the 9 Line CRA 2.Board: Set date for public hearing to amend 9 Line CRA budget February 2021 (tentative): 1.Board: Hold public hearing for 9 Line CRA budget amendment 2.Board: Transmit for the Board’s consideration – •RDA resolution amending the 9 Line CRA budget March 2021 (tentative) 1.Board: Transmit for Board’s consideration – •RDA resolution approving the interlocal agreement between the Salt Lake County and the RDA for the State Street CRA 2.Board: Set date for public hearing to amend State Street CRA budget April 2021 (tentative): 1.Board: Hold public hearing for the State Street CRA budget amendment 2.Board: Transmit for the Board’s consideration – •RDA resolution amending the State Street CRA budget PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: •March 2015: The Board approved a list of several areas to be evaluated and adopted evaluation criteria. •April 2015: The Board shortlisted six potential project areas for further staff analysis. •May 2015: Staff provided a recap of previous policy direction on the project area creation process, including clarification of the potential project area boundaries and the short-list evaluation criteria. •June 2015: Staff provided a written status update on the project area creation process. •August 2015: Staff presented its research on seven short-listed potential project areas to the RDA Board. The Board requested staff return with a matrix to assist in an informed discussion and project area selection prioritization in September. •September 2015: The Board selected the State Street, Ball Park, and 9-Line areas as the top ranked potential project areas. Staff commenced meeting with the Salt Lake City School District and Salt Lake County taxing entities to discuss the three areas and collect feedback on the potential terms of new project areas. •November 2015: The Board amended the State Street project area boundaries to include portions of the Ball Park project area. The Board approved the State Street and 9 Line project areas to move forward in the Community Development Area creation process. •December 2015: The Board authorized staff to proceed with the draft community development area plans for the 9 Line and State Street Project Areas. •April 2016: The Board authorized staff to proceed with the draft community reinvestment area plans for the 9 Line and State Street Project Areas as redefined in Utah Title 17C. •November 2016: Staff presented an update to the Board regarding the State Street and 9 Line proposed project areas, including schedule and scope of work; results of a community outreach campaign; and draft project area redevelopment activities and geographic target areas. •January 2017: Staff presented to the Board regarding the following: the Board’s roles and opportunities for input during the project area creation process, including drafting the project area plan; the basis and components of the project area plans, including the purpose and components of the public benefits analysis; and an updated proposed timeline for next steps in the project area creation process. •February 2017: Staff presented to the Board plan components, including a statement of existing conditions and reasons for selecting the project area. •October 2017: Staff presented to the Board regarding the updated timeline for creating the 9 Line and State Street project areas. • November 2017: Staff provided an update on the Public Benefit Analyses for the proposed 9 Line and State Street Community Reinvestment Areas. • February 2018: The Board adopted a resolution authorizing the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Area boundary for the proposed State Street Project Area. • May 2018: The Board gave preliminary approval of the draft State Street and 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) plans, allowing RDA staff to draft legal descriptions of the CRA, provide public notice of 30-day comment period and public hearing, and conduct a second round of community outreach on the draft CRA Plans. • August 2018: The Board approved resolutions adopting the State Street and 9 Line CRA Plans • August 2018: The City Council approved ordinances adopting the State Street and 9 Line CRA Plans. • September 2020: City Council approved resolutions authorizing the terms of the interlocal agreements between the City and the RDA for the State Street and 9 Line CRAs • October 2020: RDA Board approved resolutions adopting the interlocal agreements between the School District and the RDA as well as the City and the RDA for the State Street and 9 Line CRAs to trigger their effective date ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: 9 Line CRA Plan • Attachment B: RDA Resolution and County/RDA ILA for 9 Line CRA 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 1 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY I DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN RDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS James Rogers, District 1 Andrew Johnston, District 2 Chris Wharton, District 3 Derek Kitchen, District 4 Erin Mendenhall, District 5 Charlie Luke, District 6 Amy Fowler, District 7 MAYOR RDA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Jacqueline M. Biskupski DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RDA CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Lara Fritts RDA CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Danny Walz ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 3 CONTENTS i) INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................4 1) COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ANALYSIS (17C-5-105) ................................................7 1(a): PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION .............................................................................8 1(b): EXISTING LAND USES AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT ...........................................................9 1(c): STANDARDS TO GUIDE PROJECT AREA DEVELOPMENT .........................................................15 1(d): FURTHERING PURPOSES OF UTAH TITLE 17C .....................................................................16 1(e): GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ...........................................................................................21 1(f): ELIMINATION OR REDUCTION OF BLIGHT ............................................................................21 1(g): SPECIFIC PROJECT AREA DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................21 1(h): PROCESS OF SELECTING PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................21 1(i): REASON FOR SELECTING THE PROJECT AREA ......................................................................22 1(j): EXISTING PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .........................................................23 1(k): FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OFFERED TO PARTICIPANTS ...........................................................28 1(l): PUBLIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS SUMMARY ................................................................................29 1(m): HISTORIC PRESERVATION .................................................................................................31 1(n): INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT .................................................................................................31 1(o): OTHER INFORMATION - GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS AREAS ............................................................31 1(o): OTHER INFORMATION - COMMUNITY OUTREACH ..................................................................32 2) PROJECT AREA BUDGET (17C-5-303) ......................................................................35 1(a): BASE TAXABLE VALUE .......................................................................................................36 1(b): PROJECTED AMOUNT OF TIF ..............................................................................................36 1(c): COLLECTION PERIOD ........................................................................................................36 1(d): TIF PAID TO OTHER TAXING ENTITIES ................................................................................36 1(e): IF TIF COLLECTION AREA IS LESS THAN CRA BOUNDARY .....................................................36 1(f): PERCENTAGE OF TIF AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE ....................................................................37 1(g): MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE DOLLAR AMOUNT ...........................................................................37 2: SALES AND USE TAX REVENUE ..............................................................................................37 3: PROJECT AREA FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THIS CRA PLAN ...........................................................37 4: RDA’S COMBINED INCREMENTAL VALUE .................................................................................38 5: PROJECT AREA FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATION ................................................................38 6: EXPECTED SALES PRICE FOR PROPERTY THE RDA OWNS .........................................................38 ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP ATTACHMENT B: DEFINITIONS ATTACHMENT C: PROJECT AREA BENEFITS ANALYSIS AND BUDGET 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 4 iINTRODUCTION Through this 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan (“Plan”), the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“RDA”), contemplates the creation of a Community Reinvestment Area (“CRA”) to utilize tax increment as a funding mechanism to implement the community vision that has been established through the Westside Master Plan and that has been reaffirmed through the community engagement process utilized to develop this Plan. In addition, the creation of a CRA will assist in closing the gap in identified disparities by providing housing stability, economic development, and improved neighborhood conditions. COMMUNITY OVERVIEW The 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area (“Project Area”) is located less than two miles from downtown Salt Lake City, and spans the communities of Poplar Grove to the north and Glendale to the south. The area is characterized by single-family neighborhoods, industrial uses, and small to mid-scale commercial centers. In addition, the area is rich with natural and recreational resources, including several parks and two trail corridors. Despite having tremendous strengths, the area has experienced some important disparities from the city as a whole. As compared to the city, the Project Area has a higher rate of poverty, a lower median household income, and a lower rate of educational attainment. Neighborhood conditions, as compared to other areas of the city, may act as a barrier to fair housing and limit access to opportunity. Vacant, underutilized, and neglected properties have impacted the surrounding neighborhood’s potential for revitalization. This has limited private sector investment and the development of neighborhood amenities that enhance residents’ quality of life. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 5 Existing neighborhood assets include unparalleled natural areas, parks, trails, and green space. Although the highway system has created geographic barriers that limit physical connectivity, the neighborhood is in close proximity to downtown and employment centers. Commercial and light industrial centers, while currently underutilized, have the potential to act as economic drivers if they are better leveraged to ensure local impact. In addition, the Project Area has a number of significant local and community-based institutions that can engage as partners in community improvement efforts. Perhaps the greatest asset of the neighborhood is the diverse, youthful, and engaged population, which will be essential in furthering neighborhood revitalization activities. NEIGHBORHOOD NODES Many of the area’s residents are optimistic that revitalization will occur within the Poplar Grove and Glendale neighborhoods to enhance strong, stable residential communities connected by recreational opportunities and vibrant community activity centers. Through the Westside Master Plan, these activity centers, also referred to as community and neighborhood nodes, are areas that have been identified for growth and development. As such, this Plan identifies these nodes as geographic areas to target RDA programs, tools, and resources. As neighborhood change occurs, it is important that policies and practices promote equitable development that considers existing residential groups while also serving the needs of a growing and changing community. Flexibility has been built into this plan to allow for modifications as conditions evolve. BUILDING ON STRENGTHS This Plan sets forth Goals, Objectives, and Tactics for the utilization of tax increment to leverage the neighborhood’s existing assets while encouraging commercial revitalization, housing stability, economic development, and enhancement of the public realm. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 6 PLAN REQUIREMENTS This Plan complies with the community reinvestment project area plan requirements as per Utah Code Title 17C-5-101. The RDA does not anticipate using eminent domain within the Project Area. Since the RDA is not carrying out a blight study or a blight determination, the Project Area is authorized through interlocal agreements with individual taxing entities, rather than a taxing entity committee. As per 17C-5-108, prior to adopting a board resolution, the RDA Board of Directors (Board) has determined that the Plan: • Contains a boundary description of the Project Area • Contains the RDA’s purposes and intent with respect to the Project Area • Serves a public purpose • Produces a public benefit as per 17C-5-105(2) • Is economically sound and feasible • Conforms to the community’s general plan • Promotes the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community PLAN & POLICY COORDINATION Salt Lake City has recently carried out various planning efforts focused citywide as well as specific to the westside. As components of the city’s general plan, these efforts have established a clear vision for future development, and are based on extensive data gathering and community engagement. It is important that this Plan draws from, builds upon, and integrates these prior plans and studies. Plans referenced and the hierarchy of the these plans is outlined below. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS & STRATEGIES COMMUNITY & SMALL AREA PLANS CITY SYSTEM PLANSCITYWIDE VISION • Plan Salt Lake • Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan • Transit Master Plan • Grow SLC: A 5-Year Housing Plan • Other plans • Westside Master Plan • 9 Line Corridor Master Plan • 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 7 1COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ANALYSIS OVERVIEW Section 1 of the Plan fulfills requirements of 17C-5-105(1), and includes the following information: a. Project Area Boundary Description b. Existing Land Uses and Neighborhood Context c. Standards To Guide Project Area Development d. Furthering Purposes of Utah Title 17C e. General Plan Consistency f. Elimination or Reduction of Blight g. Specific Project Area Development h. Process of Selecting Participants i. Reasons for Selecting the Project Area j. Existing Physical, Social, and Economic Conditions k. Financial Assistance to be Offered to Participants l. Public Benefit Analysis Results m. Historic Preservation Requirements n. Interlocal Agreement 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 8 RDA Area Boundary 500 South Redwood RoadI-215Su r p l u s C a n a l American Ave. 800 South 300 South I-80 Ram p 1000 West 800 West I-15800 South I- 1 5 700 West1300 South 1400 South 800 West 1000 West Cannon Ave. Amiga Dr. 1000 South Jordan Riv e r1200 West Post St.Emery St.700 South Navajo St.1500 West9 Line Railroad Corridor600 South1000 West 400 South 900 West 900 South Indiana Avenue Redwood Road900 West N 9 Line Project Area Scale: 1” 1100’ 9 Line Trail Corridor Jordan River Corridor Scale: 1” = 1100’ 1(a): PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION The project area is generally defined by the north/south alignment of 900 West from I-80 on the north and 1400 South on the south, and the east/west alignment of Indiana Avenue (800 South) from I-215 on the west and I-15 on the east. In addition to portions of the 900 South, Indiana Avenue, and Redwood Road corridors, the project area also includes a large underutilized area west of Redwood Road, as well as portions of the 9 Line and Jordan River Parkway trail corridors. Refer to Exhibit A for a complete legal description of the Project Area. FIGURE 1.1: PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY MAP 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 9 1(b): EXISTING LAND USES AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT This section includes a general statement of the existing land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities, and building intensities of the Project Area and how each will be affected by the project area development. FIGURE 1.2: LAND USE ZONING MAP LAND USES The 738 parcel-acreage Project Area includes a range of land uses, including single-family residential, multifamily residential, industrial, commercial, parks and open space, schools, and publically-owned facilities. Through redevelopment, some existing structures may be demolished or renovated, new buildings may be constructed, and the reuse of existing buildings for new uses may occur. In addition, infrastructure upgrades, streetscape improvements, and public space enhancements may occur. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 10 • MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL Multifamily residential uses, currently comprising 1% of current land uses and 5% of zoned area, are primarily located in the northeastern portion of the Project Area between 900 South and I-80. As project area development occurs, additional well-designed and contextually-sensitive multifamily and mixed-use residential development is anticipated to occur near commercial and neighborhood nodes to diversity the housing stock. TABLE 1.1: CURRENT LAND USES Property Type Acres % of Total Tax Exempt 185.66 25% Residential 235.53 32% Commercial 45.4 6% Industrial 124.12 17% Vacant 103.55 14% Office 10.85 1% Residual Road, Right-of-Ways & Easements 33.04 4% TOTAL 738.15 100% Anticipated Changes by Land Use: The land use changes are intended to enhance stable residential neighborhoods; facilitate commercial revitalization; strengthen employment centers; improve gateways and connectivity between the westside and adjacent areas of Salt Lake City; and to reinforce the area as a primary destination for outdoor recreation. • SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Single-family residential uses, currently comprising about 30% of current land uses and zoned area, are concentrated between 800 West and Redwood Road. As project area development occurs, single-family uses are not anticipated to be expanded. However residential rehabilitation and infill development will likely occur within existing single- family neighborhoods. In addition, moderate-density residential development - including townhouses, fourplexes, courtyard apartments, or live-work units - is anticipated to occur near neighborhood commercial nodes to diversify the housing stock. FIGURE 1.3: RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE ZONING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING MULTI FAMILY ZONING MIXED USE ZONING FORM BASED ZONING 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 11 • INDUSTRIAL Manufacturing uses, comprising 17% of current land uses and 29% of zoned area, are concentrated in areas west of Redwood Road and between I-15 and 800 West. As project area development occurs, the light manufacturing zone between I-15 and 800 West should be reevaluated to determine whether a new zone is more appropriate to encourage uses conducive to a neighborhood setting. In addition, the light manufacturing zone west of Redwood Road should be reevaluated to determine if a new zoning type is more supportive to multimodal corridor development by allowing commercial development with a more measured approach to building and site design. • COMMERCIAL & OFFICE Commercial and office uses, comprising 7% of current land uses and 16% of zoned area, are concentrated to areas along the Redwood Road corridor, with smaller pockets located at the Indiana Avenue at Navajo Street node, and along the 900 West corridor. As project area development occurs, commercial and office uses will be integrated into mixed-use neighborhood and community nodes. ZONEDCURRENT USE Acres% of Total Acres% of Total INDUSTRIAL20529%13117% COMMERCIAL / OFFICE10214%526% TOTAL307183 FIGURE 1.4: LIGHT MANUFACTURING ZONING FIGURE 1.5: COMMERCIAL ZONING TABLE X: INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCIAL / OFFICE ZONING COMMERCIAL ZONING MIXED USE ZONING FORM BASED ZONING LIGHT MANUFACTURING ZONING 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 12 • PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Parks and open spaces uses includes the Jordan River and 9 Line corridors, Jordan Park, and other neighborhood parks. According to the Westside Master Plan, 83% of the residential properties in the westside are within a quarter- mile of public green space. As project area development occurs, project area acreage dedicated to park and open space uses is not anticipated to be expanded. However, enhancements to existing park and trail infrastructure is anticipated to occur. OPEN SPACE ZONING PARK ACRES ADDRESS Jordan River Park 34 1060 S 900 West International Peace Gardens 12 1060 S 900 West 9th South River Park 4.5 1000 S Genesee Ave Poplar Grove Park 6.75 800 S Emery Street Bend in the River Park 4.25 1054 W Fremont Dr Modesto Park 5 1175 S 1000 West Post Street Tot Lot 0.5 487 S Post Street Bike Pump Track 1.3 700 West 900 South FIGURE 1.6: OPEN SPACE ZONING TABLE 1.2: SIGNIFICANT PARKS 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 13 LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STREETS The streets in the Project Area are set in a grid pattern, with the exception of a few streets that run along or near the Jordan River. The following streets within the Project Area are identified as part of the Transit Master Plan’s Frequent Transit Network: Redwood Road, California Avenue, 400 South, 900 West, 900 South, and Indiana Avenue. Interstate highways delimit the Project Area to the west, north, and east (I-215, I-80, and I-15, respectively). 400 South and 1300 South/California Avenue are important east-west arterial streets that access I-15 and the east side of Salt Lake City, while east-west arterial streets 800 South and 900 South also handle a large volume of traffic because they connect to downtown Salt Lake City. Source: Salt Lake City Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, December 2015, Figure 6-4 Bicycling Network Existing Conditions + Short Term (0-10 Years) Recommendations Map 509 513 217 516 516 509 513 217 15 min. 30 min./60 min. twice AM/twice PM 30 min. Bus Frequency Source: www.rideuta.com, Rider Tools, Schedules & Maps, September 2016 Bus Route 9 Line Project Area Proposed and Existing Transportation Scale: 1” 1100’ RDA Area Boundary I-15 N I-15 S (HOV) I-215 Freeway Access N FIGURE 1.7: TRANSPORTATION MAP 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 14 POPULATION DENSITIES The population density of the CRA Area east of Redwood Road is estimated to be 10.2 people per acre.* With a lack of residential zoning in the western region of the Project Area, the population density west of Redwood Road is estimated to be few to zero. Population densities are anticipated to increase in the Project Area, in part because the Westside Mater Plan calls for nodes along 900 West, Indiana Avenue, and Redwood Road to be developed for increased residential density and appropriately-scaled mixed-use and commercial development. It is anticipated that some of the current uses in the Project Area could transition into medium- and high-density residential and mixed use developments, while the areas that are currently low-density residential shall maintain that character. Overall, the increases in building intensities at specific nodes (discussed below) shall result in increased population densities. *Note: The population density for the CRA Area east of Redwood Road was calculated by dividing the population by the land area of the following census block groups: Census Tract 1026, Block Groups 2, 3; Census Tract 1027.01, Block Groups 1, 2, 3; and Census Tract 1028.01, Block Groups 2, 3 BUILDING INTENSITIES Buildings in the area are generally single or two-story residential structures, with large-footprint commercial, institutional and light manufacturing located in the eastern and western portions of the project area. The latter typically can be characterized as large buildings surrounded by surface parking. New increased intensity, mixed-use projects are anticipated to be developed at targeted nodes. Commercial and mixed-use development will add density where appropriate while preserving the character of single-family neighborhoods. As per the Westside Master Plan, the following nodes have been identified for growth and development: • 900 West at 400 South • 900 West at 700 South • 900 West at 800 South • 900 West at California Avenue • 900 West at 900 South • 900 South at the Jordan River • Indiana Avenue at Navajo Street/Pueblo Street • Redwood Road at Indiana Avenue • Redwood Road at 900 South 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 15 1. Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure and community investment to spur development that meets the community’s vision while maintaining the character of Westside’s existing stable neighborhoods. 2. Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low-density residential neighborhoods while providing well designed, compatible and high density residential development where needed, appropriate or desired. 3. Recognize, develop and foster opportunities for unique, mixed use neighborhood and community nodes in the Westside that reflect the diverse nature of the community and provide resources to allow for their growth. 4. Recognize, develop and foster opportunities for regional nodes that strengthen the community’s employment base while providing large-scale commercial retail and services for residents and employees of the Westside. 5. Make the Westside a destination synonymous with recreation, trails, open space and the outdoors by celebrating and spotlighting the Jordan River, the Jordan River Parkway, the 9 Line and the community’s parks and natural spaces. 6. Enhance and expand the internal network of assets, nodes and resources ensuring that all residents and employees in the Westside have access to goods, services and activities and the opportunity to walk or bicycle safely to them. 7. Strengthen the connections both within and between the Westside and other parts of Salt Lake City by improving the community’s gateways and corridors and strengthening the transportation network for all modes of travel. 8. Maintain the stability of the industrial districts and the employment base in the community while incorporating appropriate land use buffers and urban design features to soften the transition between them and adjacent neighborhoods. 9. Create a beautiful community with a system of guidelines to create and strengthen public spaces that will foster community interaction and pride and catalyze ongoing redevelopment and growth. 1(c): STANDARDS TO GUIDE PROJECT AREA DEVELOPMENT The goals set forth in the Westside Master Plan shall be used as the standards to guide project area development, as follows: 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 16 1(d): FURTHERING PURPOSES OF UTAH TITLE 17C By implementing the CRA Plan, the RDA shall leverage private investment with tax increment financing to provide redevelopment opportunities, create and preserve affordable housing, and enhance neighborhood livability. Implementation shall be carried out through the following objectives and tactics. TACTICS: a. Develop and maintain an inventory of vacant, blighted, and underutilized properties to strategically prioritize for RDA programs and tools. b. Implement a program to incentivize the adaptive reuse of underutilized or economically distressed buildings into a more productive use. c. Identify catalytic project sites to target for redevelopment. Projects must be sufficient in location and scope to encourage complimentary revitalization efforts on surrounding properties. The identification and implementation of catalytic projects will spur economic development and job creation, assist in revitalizing commercial nodes, and expand housing opportunities. d. Collaborate with Salt Lake City’s Civil Enforcement to ensure that ordinances and regulations are enforced, with focus on properties with repeat code violations that detract from the neighborhood’s quality of life and wellbeing. e. Ensure that redevelopment activities support high-quality, enduring projects and promote sound architectural and urban design principles to encourage safe, sustainable, and livable neighborhoods. f. Collaborate with Salt Lake City’s Division of Planning to ensure zoning is conducive to neighborhood revitalization and master plan implementation. OBJECTIVE1 NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION UNDERUTILIZED LAND IS RETURNED TO A PRODUCTIVE USE THROUGH A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF NEGLECTED BUILDINGS AND VACANT LOTS TO REDUCE CRIME AND IMPROVE THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 17 TACTICS: a. Work with Salt Lake City’s Planning Division to adapt land use and zoning policies to allow a mix of uses on the ground floor of buildings at strategic locations along the 900 South and Indiana Avenue corridors. b. Target RDA programs and tools to leverage private investment for the revitalization of existing commercial and retail space while avoiding the displacement of established, locally-owned businesses. c. Consider developing project area-specific programs to incentivize locally-owned businesses to purchase and rehabilitate commercial space to operate their businesses from. d. Diversify the mix of businesses and services to leverage local demand that is not being captured. e. Encourage neighborhood-serving uses to increase access to fresh food, day cares, and other services that promote health and well-being. f. Enhance commercial corridors to not only create safe, pedestrian-friendly streets, but also to encourage private investment for commercial revitalization. g. Target RDA programs and tools to revitalize distressed commercial space by offsetting the cost of code compliance and facade improvements. OBJECTIVE2 COMMERCIAL NODES & CORRIDORS NEW AND REVITALIZED COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT SUPPORTS THRIVING STORES AND RESTAURANTS LOCATED AT NODES CONNECTED BY PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. LOCAL AND REGIONAL NEEDS ARE SERVED THROUGH THE RETENTION OF EXISTING BUSINESSES, WITH THE ADDITION OF NEW RETAIL, COMMERCIAL, AND SERVICES TO THE AREA. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 18 TACTICS: a. Ensure appropriate levels of office, commercial, and retail spaces are integrated into redevelopment projects to create synergies between uses and encourage a critical mass of people. b. Work with Salt Lake City’s Business Development team to retain, recruit, and expand businesses within the Project Area. c. Work with Salt Lake City’s Planning Division to determine planning and zoning solutions to develop buffers between industrial and residential uses, and to encourage transitional uses that are more conducive to a neighborhood setting. d. Target redevelopment activities to improve the interface between industrial and residential neighborhoods. e. Encourage the development of active employment centers in transitioning industrial areas to provide livable-wage jobs and enhance business prosperity. f. Target RDA resources for land revitalization efforts in transitioning industrial areas to facilitate previously contaminated land to be put back into productive use. OBJECTIVE3 EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ACTIVE AND VITAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS TO SUPPORT THE RECRUITMENT, RETENTION, AND EXPANSION OF BUSINESSES TO PROVIDE HIGH-WAGE JOBS AND ECONOMIC PROSPERITY. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 19 OBJECTIVE4 HOUSING HIGH-QUALITY HOUSING OPTIONS TO PROVIDE HOUSING STABILITY FOR EXISTING RESIDENTS AND ESTABLISH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN OPTION FOR ECONOMICALLY-DIVERSE INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES. TACTICS: a. Implement a model high-quality, context-sensitive multifamily or mixed-use project to demonstrate a successful mid-density project. b. Target RDA resources to promote new construction, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse for a diverse range of housing options, from affordable to market rate, to accommodate a range of household incomes. c. Collaborate with Salt Lake City’s Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development to stabilize and improve the existing single-family housing stock. d. Consider utilizing the Salt Lake City Community Land Trust and deed restrictions to capture the value of public investment to preserve long-term affordability. e. Utilize RDA programs and tools to support the implementation of mixed-income, mixed-use, and multifamily residential targeted to appropriate locations that are compatible with existing development. f. Utilize RDA programs and tools to support the implementation of infill development within existing single-family neighborhoods, with focus on mid-density housing types including duplexes, townhouses, courtyard apartments, and accessory dwelling units (will require a zoning update). 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 20 OBJECTIVE5 PUBLIC SPACES & TRANSPORTATION A HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH REGIONAL CONNECTIVITY, A UNIQUE IDENTITY, ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE, SAFE STREETS, ACCESSIBILITY TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION. TACTICS: a. Promote the community’s unique identity through public art, signage, gateway markers, and other art amenities in parks, street corridors, and gateways to the neighborhood. b. Collaborate with the Transportation Division to improve pedestrian safety, walkability, and neighborhood connectivity through street and trail improvements, to include bicycle amenities, public transportation enhancements, traffic calming, safety improvements, and streetscaping. c. Enhance active recreation opportunities, including trail improvements, community gardens, access points, facilities, safety improvements at trail/street crossings, and park amenities. d. Improve neighborhood parks and plazas to enhance passive recreation and gathering spaces. e. Integrate sustainable design features and green infrastructure into projects to mitigate impacts of new development and promote a resilient urban environment. f. Collaborate with the Salt Lake City Arts Council to identify opportunities to integrate public art into community spaces. g. Work with developers and property owners to integrate publically-accessible space into privately-owned and managed developments. h. As population density increases, ensure adequate public space is available to serve neighborhood needs. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 21 1(e): GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The Westside Master Plan is the current community general plan for the Project Area. The Project Area Plan is consistent with the Westside Master Plan’s goals and objectives of developing mixed-use nodes at the neighborhood, community, and regional scales, creating a network of neighborhood destinations for residents, improving mobility, promoting recreation, strengthening connections both within and between the Westside and other neighborhoods, and providing a growing economic and employment base for Salt Lake City. The construction of all new buildings and improvements and the rehabilitation of any existing buildings or improvements in the Project Area will be done in accordance with the standards set forth in the Westside Master Plan, and the 9 Line Corridor Master Plan, as well as citywide plans (including the Community Housing Plan, Transit Master Plan, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan, Sustainable Salt Lake Plan, and Plan Salt Lake). Building permits for construction or rehabilitation will be issued by the City in order to assure that project area development is consistent with the Westside Master Plan and City ordinances. 1(f): ELIMINATION OR REDUCTION OF BLIGHT The RDA is not carrying out a blight study to make a determination of blight. However, project area development activities are anticipated to revitalize neglected buildings and infrastructure, and put vacant and underutilized land into a more productive use. 1(g): SPECIFIC PROJECT AREA DEVELOPMENT Specific projects and project sites have not been identified. Rather, project area development activities will facilitate housing and community revitalization activities as further described in Section 1(d). 1(h): PROCESS OF SELECTING PARTICIPANTS The RDA may enter into participation agreements (also known as tax increment reimbursement agreements) with property owners within the project area, for the purpose of providing incentives in the form of tax increment to redevelop the property. Program participants shall be selected through an evaluation process as per the RDA’s Tax Increment Reimbursement Policy. Potential participants must provide sufficient evidence that tax increment funding is necessary for the proposed project to succeed. In addition, the proposed project must align with project area objectives and involve significant private investment so as to assure adequate yield of tax increment. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 22 1(i): REASON FOR SELECTING THE PROJECT AREA After conducting research into each of the above evaluation criteria, it was determined by the Board that the 9 Line Project Area met the selection criteria and was selected as a proposed project area by vote of the Board members. Some of the reasons for this selection included the following: • Opportunity to improve east-west connectivity between neighborhoods in the 9 Line Project Area to other parts of the city to the east. • Opportunity to implement some of the specific and well-established goals of the 2014 Westside Master Plan. • Opportunities for infrastructure improvements to improve residential areas and to attract commercial, retail, and mixed-use development. • Opportunity for large-scale commercial development, especially west of Redwood Road. • Existing commercial nodes at intersections that could be strengthened and reinforced using RDA financing tools. • Opportunity to diversify the housing stock. • Open space and recreational opportunities along the Jordan River and 9 Line corridors that can be preserved/promoted. • Conformance with the Salt Lake County Project Area Creation Policy. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 23 1(j): EXISTING PHYSICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CONDITIONS The following is a demographic profile of the Project Area, including a snapshot of social, economic, and physical conditions. The data sets used for this existing conditions analysis are primarily U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimate data, taken from all the Census tract block groups that most closely align with the Project Area boundaries. Although these block group boundaries are close to the Project Area boundaries, they do not fall exactly within them, so some of the data displayed in this section might reflect properties and conditions of the surrounding neighborhood. FIGURE 1.8: AGE STRUCTURE - SALT LAKE CITY & 9 LINE PROJECT AREA Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Note: 9 Line Project Area study boundaries include Census Tract 1026, Block Group 2, 3; Census Tract 1027.01; Census Tract 1028.01 Residents living in the 9 Line Project Area and surrounding neighborhood are younger than the population of the city as a whole, as shown in Figure 1.8. About 30% of 9 Line residents are under the age of 18, as compared to 22% of citywide residents. FIGURE 1.9 HISPANIC POPULATION: 9 LINE PROJECT AREA & SALT LAKE CITY FIGURE 1.10 2016 SCHOOL ENROLMENT - HISPANIC & MINORITY: 9 LINE PROJECT AREA SCHOOLS Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-15 ACS 5-Yr Estimates Note: 9 Line Project Area study boundaries include Tract 1026 Block Group 2, 3; Tract 1027.01; Tract 1028.01 Source: Salt Lake City School District 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 24 The Project Area is diverse, about 47% of the population is Hispanic or Latino, compared to just 21% for the city as a whole, as shown in Figure 1.9. The school-age population is more diverse than the Project Area average, with racial and ethnic minorities accounting for between 85% and 93% of elementary school enrolment, as demonstrated in Figure 1.10. FIGURE 1.11 2016 SCHOOL ENROLMENT % OF STUDENTS QUALIFYING FOR FREE OR REDUCED LUNCH - 9 LINE PROJECT AREA SCHOOLS Source: Salt Lake City School District Note: A student from a household with an income between at or below 130% of the poverty threshold is eligible for free school lunch, while a student from a household above 130% and up to 185% of the poverty threshold is eligible for reduced lunch. The vast majority (86% - 97%) of elementary-age children who attend schools that draw from the Project Area are eligible for free or reduced lunch, as demonstrated in Figure 1.11. The federal poverty level income threshold or a family of four is $24,300. A student from a household with an income of up to 130% of the federal poverty level ($31,590 for a family of four) is eligible for free lunch. A student from a household with an income above 130% and up to 185% of the federal poverty level ($44,955 for a family of four) is eligible for reduced lunch. FIGURE 1.12 POVERTY RATES: INDIVIDUALS & FAMILIES - 9 LINE PROJECT AREA, SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-15 ACS 5-Yr Estimates Note: 9 Line Project Area study boundaries include Tract 1026 Block Group 2, 3; Tract 1027.01; Tract 1028.01 As demonstrated in Figure 1.12, over 35% of individuals and 31% of families residing in the area are living in poverty according to the U.S. Census Bureau. This is significantly higher than the citywide and countywide averages. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 25 FIGURE 1.13 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 9 LINE PROJECT AREA & SALT LAKE CITY Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-15 ACS 5-Yr Estimates Note: 9 Line Project Area study boundaries include Tract 1026 Block Group 2, 3; Tract 1027.01; Tract 1028.01 FIGURE 1.14 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE 9 LINE PROJECT AREA & SALT LAKE CITY Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-15 ACS 5-Yr Estimates Note: 9 Line Project Area study boundaries include Tract 1026 Block Group 2, 3; Tract 1027.01; Tract 1028.01 The median household income for the Project Area and surrounding neighborhood is $39,420, which is 83% of the city’s median of $47,243, as shown in Figure 1.13. This is particularly significant because, as shown in Figure 1.14, the Project Area’s average household size is significantly larger than the city as a whole, 3.31 compared to 2.47 people. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 26 FIGURE 1.15 % OF HOUSING UNITS BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE STRUCTURE - 9 LINE PROJECT AREA Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-15 ACS 5-Yr Estimates Note: 9 Line Project Area study boundaries include Tract 1026 Block Group 2, 3; Tract 1027.01; Tract 1028.01 The Project Area has more homeowners than renters, 58% to 42%. Citywide, it is more of an even split with 48% of household being homeowners and 52% being renters. As demonstrated in Figure 1.15, single-family residential comprises 80% of the housing units in the Project Area, with few high-density, muti-family residential units. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Fair Housing Equity Assessment, 2014 According to a 2014 Fair Housing Equity Assessment completed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (now the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute) at the University of Utah, the westside of Salt Lake City, including the Project Area, is considered a low opportunity area. The index measures school proficiency, poverty, labor market engagement, housing stability, and job access. The general geographical area of the Project Area is shown in the black box in Figure 1.16.FIGURE 1.16 STANDARDIZED OPPORTUNITY INDEX BY CENSUS TRACT - SALT LAKE CITY 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 27 FIGURE 1.17 CRIME HOTSPOTS - PART I & II OFFENSES 9 LINE PROJECT AREA Crime within the project area has been concentrated at 800 South and 900 West, as well as various areas along Redwood Road. Source: Salt Lake City Police Department, March 2016 through February 2017 data. Map drawn by Kevin Bell, Salt Lake City Corporation. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 28 1(k): FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OFFERED TO PARTICIPANTS To promote investment in real property and consequent increases in property values, the RDA has established programs to assist property owners and businesses within RDA project areas. The most widely used forms of RDA assistance are loans, tax increment reimbursements, and the property acquisition/disposition process. However, the RDA may also develop project area-specific programs strategically targeted to promote the goals and objectives of the 9 Line Project Area. An overview of existing programs is as follows: 1. TAX INCREMENT REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM The RDA Tax Increment Reimbursement Program may provide project developers a tax increment reimbursement for the development of improvements that meet the goals and objectives of this Plan and provide significant public benefit. Tax increment reimbursements shall be based upon the difference between the initial taxable value of a property prior to improvements and the increased taxable value resulting from said improvements. The developer will receive a percentage of the tax increment generated from its project for a specified time frame, and the RDA will receive the residual tax increment generated by the project. 2. LOAN PROGRAM The RDA Loan Program may provide financing to facilitate various development projects, including new construction, building rehabilitation, and energy efficiency upgrades. Funding is made available for construction costs or hard costs. Loan funds may also be used for site improvements associated with a development project and short-term land acquisition for affordable housing development. Use of funds for environmental remediation or demolition shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. 3. PROPERTY ACQUISITION/DISPOSITION In addition to programs, the RDA may implement this Plan by acquiring property to market for strategic redevelopment, particularly to stimulate private investment, improve community conditions, and increase economic development with the area. As per the Utah Community Reinvestment Agency Act, the RDA may sell, convey, grant, gift, or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property to provide for project area development. Disposition of all RDA-owned real property, including land write-downs, shall abide by the RDA’s real property disposition policy, all applicable laws, and be conducted in a competitive and transparent manner as deemed appropriate and effective. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 29 1(l): PUBLIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS SUMMARY According to the Utah Code 17C Community Reinvestment Agency Act, the RDA shall conduct an analysis to determine whether this CRA Plan will provide a public benefit. The RDA contracted with Lewis Young Robertson and Burningham (“LYRB”) to carry out this effort. A summary of the resulting analysis, as completed by LYRB, is as follows. a. An evaluation of the reasonableness of the costs of the proposed project area development An evaluation of the reasonableness of the costs of the proposed project area development is based on a comparison of the costs of the development compared to the revenues and benefits it will generate for the various taxing entities. In 2016, the total assessed value of the Project Area was $228,048,136. In 25 years, the estimated total assessed value is $373,461,283 considering the utilization of tax increment. This equates to $145,413,147 in incremental assessed value. This estimate is based on the following development assumptions over the 25-year collection period: TABLE 1.3: DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSESSED VALUE - 25 YEARS Development Square Feet/Units $/Square Feet Total Building Value Incremental Land Value Personal Property Value Incremental Assessed Value* Commercial 451,356 $113.11 $51,054,836 $190,551 $7,658,225 $66,389,138 Office 114,829 $141.28 $16,223,332 $101,811 $2,433,500 $21,137,709 Residential 258 units $114.15 $16,152,898 $76,416 -$18,287,596 Industrial $489,789 $62.16 $30,443,127 $132,243 $4,566,469 $39,598,704 Total $113,874,193 $501,021 $14,658,194 $145,413,147 *25-year assessed value includes a 1.0% growth rate b. Efforts that have been, or will be made to capitalize private investment Efforts to capitalize on private investment include the following: • The RDA Loan Program provides gap financing that leverages private investment and secured financing. • The Tax Increment Reimbursement Program incentivizes private investment by providing a reimbursement only after a project has been implemented and is generating sufficient tax increment. • The RDA’s disposition process leverages private investment through competitive marketing of property for development, thereby incentivizing private equity and financing. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 30 c. Rationale for use of project area funds (“but for” analysis) The collective taxing entities are currently receiving approximately $3,359,833 in property taxes annually from this Project Area. At the end of the life of the project area, the taxing entities will receive all of their respective tax increment thereafter. At the end of 25 years an additional $2,142,372 in property taxes annually is anticipated, totaling approximately $5,502,205 in property taxes annually for the area. “But for” the assistance provided by the RDA through tax increment revenues, this increase of approximately 64 percent in property taxes generated for the taxing entities would not be possible. d. An estimate of total amount of funds and the length of time during which funds will be spent Because of the high costs associated with comprehensive community revitalization, the RDA anticipates the need for 75 percent of tax increment for a period of 25 years. Assuming a 25-year timeframe, with 75 percent of increment flowing to the RDA, the RDA would receive a total of approximately $26.5 million. e. The beneficial influences on the community’s tax base In addition to property tax revenues, development within the Project Area will also generate sales taxes and franchise taxes. The following table shows the total revenues anticipated to be generated by the Project Area over the 25-year timeframe. TABLE 1.4: TOTAL REVENUES - 25 YEARS Entity Property Tax Sales Tax Franchise Tax Total Incremental Revenues Salt Lake County $5,700,032 $20,642,836 $26,342,868 Salt Lake City School District $14,857,106 $14,857,106 Salt Lake City $10,955,312 $8,975,146 $3,738,904 $23,669,362 Salt Lake Library $1,694,864 $1,694,864 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water $839,018 $839,018 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement $411,095 $411,095 Central Utah Water Conservancy $961,625 $961,625 Total Revenue $35,419,052 $29,617,982 $3,738,904 $68,775,938 f. The associated business and economic activity the proposed project area development will likely stimulate Project area development will promote new and revitalized commercial space that will generate business and economic activity. In addition, project area development will promote employment centers that will support the recruitment, retention, and expansion of businesses to build local economic and employment prosperity. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 31 g. Whether adoption of the proposed community reinvestment project area plan is necessary and appropriate to undertake the proposed project area development The west side of the City, particularly the Project Area, has suffered from a lack of reinvestment over the previous decades. This has led to neglected properties, and underutilized land uses. “But-for” the creation of the CRA, and use of public funds, the west side of the City will continue to remain in its underutilized state. Site remediation, small lot sizes, and aging infrastructure are a few of the obstacles that are currently deterring development within the Project Area. 1(m): HISTORIC PRESERVATION If any of the existing buildings or uses in the project area are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register, the RDA shall comply with Section 9-8-404 as though the agency were a state agency. 1(n): INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Per the requirements listed in Utah Code 17C, the Project Area is subject to an interlocal agreement with taxing entities, rather than a taxing entity committee, because the RDA is not carrying out a blight study. 1(o)(i): OTHER INFORMATION -GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS AREAS Strategic geographic locations that are vital to the revitalization of the Project Area are as follows: 1. 400 S at 900 West: To promote a neighborhood commercial node that provides a gateway to the Poplar Grove and Glendale neighborhoods. 2. 700 W - 800 W at 900 South: Fremont Ave: To promote economic development while implementing land use buffers with adjacent residential uses. 3. 800 S - 900 S at 900 West: To promote neighborhood commercial nodes that provide gateways to the neighborhood while also enhancing regional connectivity with parks and trail systems. 4. Indiana Avenue at Navajo Street: To promote a neighborhood commercial node with connectivity to the 9 Line corridor. 5. Indiana Avenue at Redwood Road: To promote Redwood Road as a commercial corridor that is also an important access point to the 9 Line corridor. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 32 These focus areas were determined through public outreach, an analysis of redevelopment potential, and identification of opportunities to leverage other resources. Since the primary land use of the Project Area is residential, redevelopment potential is greatest at neighborhood and community nodes with zoning that supports changes in the existing land use pattern. The zoning at these intersections will provide for economic development, increased residential densities, and the establishment of mixed-use development. 1(o)(ii): OTHER INFORMATION -COMMUNITY OUTREACH To develop a Plan that reflects community values and priorities, the RDA used a variety of public engagement methods between January and August 2016 as part of the initial public outreach process. A summary is as follows: FIGURE 1.17: GEOGRAPHIC TARGET AREAS 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 33 OUTLETS FOR PUBLIC OUTREACH • An open house, held at the Sorenson Unity Center on May 12, jointly hosted with the Planning and Transportation divisions • Community council meetings – Glendale and Poplar Grove • School community council meetings • Stakeholder interviews with property owners, housing, community development, transportation, planning, local business, economic development, and governmental stakeholders • Community festivals, including Get into the River, Sorenson Community Fair, Groove in the Grove, and Night Out Against Crime • Comunidades Unidas targeted additional engagement efforts to residents and local businesses, with focus on the Spanish-speaking population MODES OF COLLECTING INPUT • A community preferences questionnaire was distributed at community council meetings, the open house, and community festivals. The RDA received responses to a total of 668 questionnaires, 353 English-language responses and 315 Spanish-language responses. • The open house was well-attended, with 200+ stakeholders attending. Participants provided input by filling out questionnaires and comment cards; leaving comments on neighborhood visioning boards; and ranking project and geographic target areas on priority boards. • RDA staff documented input received through interviews with key stakeholders. • Stakeholders were also able to submit written comment to RDA staff via email. KEY TAKEAWAYS • Recreation & Open Space 1. Residents consider the area’s parks and trails as an invaluable asset that should be promoted and celebrated. 2. Residents perceive a need for improvements to trails to mitigate the growth of puncturevine weeds (goatheads); improve landscaping; add pedestrian-scale lighting and other trail amenities; and improved access to the Jordan River for boaters. 3. There is a concern with safety issues along the Jordan River Parkway, particularly in areas of the trail that are secluded and/or overgrown. 4. Residents are favorable of additional urban agriculture projects in the area. • Transportation & Accessibility 1. Connectivity to other areas of the city is perceived by residents as limited due to the physical barriers of I-15 and I-80. The project area’s limited east-west connections (400 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 34 S, 800 S, 900 S, and 1300 S) are considered unappealing and unsafe for pedestrians and bicyclists. 2. Public transportation is perceived by neighborhood residents as limited in both scope and frequency. Residents are particularly concerned with the frequency of bus service on nights and weekends. • Streets & Infrastructure 1. Traffic calming, improved pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and streetscape amenities are perceived as one of the neighborhood’s greatest needs. 2. Residents are concerned about the condition of neighborhood streets, citing that several are inadequately maintained. • Housing 1. Many residents cite the neighborhood’s housing affordability as the reason they moved to the neighborhood. 2. The impact of future redevelopment activities on housing affordability is a common concern. 3. Residents value the area’s single-family neighborhoods and would like the context of these neighborhoods preserved. 4. While some residents perceive that the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods have too much affordable housing compared to the rest of the city, other residents would like additional units of affordable housing. 5. Other housing needs expressed by residents include accessible (ADA) housing, accessory dwelling units, and improvements to existing single-family housing. • Community & Economic Development 1. Residents perceive a lack of neighborhood services, including restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, grocery stores, and pubs/bars. 2. Residents expressed an appreciation for existing locally-owned businesses that celebrate the neighborhood’s cultural diversity. 3. Many residents express pride in the neighborhood’s diversity of cultures, and believe this diversity should be reflected in redevelopment activities. 4. The community would like to see more public art, with focus on pieces by local artists. 5. Residents express a need for an improved neighborhood identity. • Geographic Targeting Of the nine Project Area nodes identified in the Westside Master Plan, residents identified the following top three, in order of priority: 1. 900 West at 900 South 2. 900 West at 400 South 3. Indiana Avenue at Navajo Street tied with 900 West at 800 South 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 35 2PROJECT AREA BUDGET OVERVIEW Section 2 of this CRA Plan conforms with the requirements of 17C-5-303, and includes the following information: ( 1) Receipt of Tax Increment a. Base taxable value; b. Projected amount of tax increment to be generated within the CRA; c. Each project area funds collection period; d. Projected amount of tax increment to be paid to other taxing entities in accordance with Section 17C-1-410 (if applicable); e. If the area from which tax increment is collected is less than the entire community reinvestment project area: (i) a boundary description of the portion or portions of the community reinvestment project area from which the agency receives tax increment; and (ii) for each portion described in Subsection (1)(e)(i), the period of time during which tax increment is collected; f. Percentage of tax increment the agency is authorized to receive from the community reinvestment project area; and g. Maximum cumulative dollar amount of tax increment the agency is authorized to receive from the community reinvestment project area. 2) Receipt of Sales and Use Tax Revenue 3) Project Area Funds to Implement this CRA Plan 4) RDA’s Combined Incremental Value 5) Amount for Administration 6) Property Owned and Expected to Sell 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 36 1(a): BASE TAXABLE VALUE The base year is anticipated to be 2016, with a base year taxable value of $228,048,136. 1(b): PROJECTED AMOUNT OF TIF TABLE 2.1: INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES GENERATED - 25 YEARS Incremental Tax Revenues - 100%Total – 25 Years Salt Lake County $5,700,032 Salt Lake City School District $14,857,106 Salt Lake City $10,955,312 Salt Lake Library $1,694,864 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District $839,018 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District $411,095 Central Utah Water Conservancy District $961,625 TOTAL $35,419,052 1(c): COLLECTION PERIOD The collection period shall be 25 years. 1(d): TIF PAID TO OTHER TAXING ENTITIES TABLE 2.2: INCREMENTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO TAXING ENTITIES - 25 YEARS Incremental Tax Revenues to Taxing Entities Total – 25 Years Salt Lake County $1,425,008 Salt Lake City School District $3,714,276 Salt Lake City $2,738,828 Salt Lake Library $423,716 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District $209,754 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District $102,774 Central Utah Water Conservancy District $240,406 TOTAL $8,854,762 1(e): IF TIF COLLECTION AREA IS LESS THAN CRA BOUNDARY Not applicable. The TIF collection area is the entire CRA boundary. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 37 1(f): PERCENTAGE OF TIF AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE TABLE 2.3: REQUESTED PARTICIPATION FROM TAXING ENTITIES Taxing Entity Percentage Length Salt Lake County 75%25 Years Salt Lake City School District 75%25 Years Salt Lake City 75%25 Years Salt Lake Library 75%25 Years Salt Lake Metropolitan District 75%25 Years Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement Dis.75%25 Years Central Utah Water Conservancy District 75%25 Years 1(g): MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE RDA Based on a conservative projection of tax increment generation, the RDA estimates receiving approximately $26,500,000 in tax increment revenues over a 25-year period. Actual receipt of tax increment may vary depending on absorption rates, market conditions, and taxing entity participation. As such, tax increment budget estimates and maximums, if applicable, will be established through an interlocal agreement with each of the participating taxing entities. Estimated tax increment revenues are as follows: TABLE 2.4: TAX INCREMENT REVENUES TO RDA AT 75% PARTICIPATION RATE - 25-YEARS Incremental Tax Revenues to RDA Total – 25 Years Salt Lake County $4,275,024 Salt Lake City School District $11,142,829 Salt Lake City $8,216,484 Salt Lake Library $1,271,148 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District $629,263 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District $308,321 Central Utah Water Conservancy District $721,219 TOTAL $26,564,288 2: SALES AND USE TAX REVENUE: Not applicable. 3: PROJECT AREA FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THIS CRA PLAN TABLE 2.5: BUDGET FOR TAX INCREMENT REVENUES TO RDA - 25-YEARS Activity Percentage Amount Administration & Operations 10%$2,656,429 Housing 10%$2,656,429 Redevelopment Activities 80%$21,251,430 Total 100%$26,564,288 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 38 The RDA shall implement this plan through the following activities: • ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS: The tax increment expected to be used to cover the operating costs of administering and implementing the CRA Plan. • HOUSING: The tax increment allocation required to be used for housing activities pursuant to Section 17C-2-203, 17C-3-202, or 17C-5-307 for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412. • REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES: The tax increment expected to be used to carry out project development activities as further described in this CRA Plan. Activities may include, but not be limited to, land acquisition, public improvements, infrastructure improvements, loans, grants, and other incentives to public and private entities. 4: RDA’S COMBINED INCREMENTAL VALUE TABLE 2.6: RDA’s COMBINED INCREMENTAL VALUE PROJECT AREA ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE BASE TAXABLE VALUE INCREMENTAL VALUE SLC CBD In $2,253,069,110 $136,894,100 $2,116,175,010 SLC CBD Out $468,564,069 $0 $468,564,069 West Temple $131,625,455 $50,234,090 $81,391,365 Baseball $2,994,111 $0 $2,994,111 West Capitol Hill $83,471,701 $28,322,952 $55,148,749 Depot District $419,610,969 $27,476,425 $392,134,544 Depot District Non-Collection $17,069,143 $0 $17,069,143 Granary $90,443,298 $48,813,397 $41,629,901 North Temple Viaduct $64,730,133 $36,499,680 $28,230,453 North Temple $106,098,060 $84,073,572 $22,024,488 Block 70 $158,846,344 $58,757,937 $100,088,407 COMBINED VALUE $3,796,522,393 $471,072,153 $3,325,450,240 5: PROJECT AREA FUNDS USED FOR ADMINISTRATION The RDA anticipates utilizing up to 10 percent of the funds captured and retained by the agency, which is estimated to be $2,656,429. 6: EXPECTED SALE PRICE FOR PROPERTY THE RDA OWNS The RDA does not own property within the Project Area. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 39 ATTACHMENT A: PROJECT AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION & MAP Beginning at the Southeast Corner of Block 2, City Park Subdivision as recorded in Book ‘A’ Page ‘96’ in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office and running thence along the west line of Post Street N00°13’36”E 2271.76 feet more or less to the Northeast Corner of Martins Subdivision as recorded in Book ‘B’, Page ‘54’ in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office; thence along the south line of 300 South Street N89°55’54”W 426.97 feet to the Northeast Corner of Block 32, Plat C, Plat 3, Salt Lake City Survey; thence along the west line of 1000 West Street N00°14’07”E 422.63 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Kelsey & Gillespie Subdivision as recorded in Book ‘B’ Page ‘76’ in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office; thence along the south line of Interstate 80 the following 3 courses, 1) S89°39’57”E 237.87 feet; 2) S79°27’34”E 186.25 feet; 3) N00°19’17”E 33.39 feet; thence along the north line of Pierpont Lofts, a Planned Unit Development as recorded in Book ‘2014P’ Page ‘85’ in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office the following 6 courses, 1) S89°45’59”E 40.01 feet; 2) S77°09’00”E 122.96 feet; 3) S71°41’22”E 77.84 feet; 4) S89°45’47”E 45.99 feet; 5) S00°20’31”W 15.00 feet; 6) S89°45’47”E 90.03 feet to the west line of 900 West Street; thence along the west line of 900 West Street S00°13’41”W 224.04 feet to the Southeast Corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Heaths Subdivision as recorded in Book ‘A’ Page ‘106’ in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office; thence N89°47’17”E 133.03 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 15, Block 1, Heaths Subdivision as recorded in Book ‘A’ Page ‘106’ in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office; thence along the east line of 900 West N00°13’41”E 120.02 feet to the westerly line of Interstate 15; thence along the westerly line of Interstate 15 the following 13 courses, 1) S44°46’36”E 169.72 feet; 2) S33°27’24”E 159.09 feet; 3) S12°28’25”E 253.53 feet; 4) S02°37’50”E 270.39 feet; 5) S25°38’34”E 82.77 feet; 6) S01°24’53”E 74.30 feet; 7) S05°22’40”W 120.82 feet; 8) S04°13’28”E 794.84 feet; 9) S18°08’10”E 337.02 feet; 10) S30°34’56”E 58.65 feet; 11) S00°12’41”W 178.24 feet; 12) S89°47’19”E 109.23 feet; 13) S35°35’19”E 309.33 feet to the Northwest Corner of Lot 27, Block 2, Kimballs Subdivision as recorded in Book ‘B’, Page ‘47’ in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office; thence along the east line of 800 West Street S00°16’30”W 1451.33 feet to the Southwest Corner of Lot 4, Block 11, Plat C, Plat 1, Salt Lake City Survey; thence along the north line of 800 South Street S89°47’24”E 727.11 feet to the westerly line of Interstate 15; thence along said westerly line the following 5 courses, 1) S00°13’37”W 370.09 feet; 2) S17°30’56”E 268.18 feet; 3) S25°31’31”E 199.64 feet; 4) S50°04’03”E 192.21 feet; 5) S40°02’50”E 375.58 feet to the west line of a railroad right of way; thence along said west line of a railroad right of way the following 8 courses, 1) S00°22’22”W 294.30 feet; 2) N89°48’53”W 77.71 feet; 3) South 76.02 feet; 4) S36°53’15”E 8.90 feet; 5) S00°11’07”W 204.03 feet; 6) S89°48’53”E 24.75 feet; 7) S02°57’05”E 1440.68 feet; 8) S00°13’24”W 640.83 feet to the south line of 1300 South Street; thence along said south line of 1300 South Street N89°57’21”W 624.14 feet to the Northeast Corner of Lot 1, Mellen Subdivision as recorded in Book ‘K’, Page ‘5’ in the Salt Lake County Recorder’s Office; thence along the west line of 700 West Street N00°11’16”E 1511.85 feet to the Southeast Corner of Parcel #15-11-428-060; thence along the south line of said Parcel N89°48’54”W 759.24 feet to the east line of 800 West Street; thence along said east line of 800 West Street the following 3 courses, 1) S00°13’47”W 1443.41 feet; 2) S13°54’25”E 101.39 feet; 3) S00°22’49”W 755.90 feet; thence along the south line of Parcel #15-14-204-015 S89°58’22”W 857.84 feet to the west line of 900 West Street; thence along said west line of 900 West Street S00°13’12”W 68.73 feet to the south line of 1400 South Street; thence along said south line of 1400 South Street N89°37’51”W 563.04 feet to the east line of 1000 West Street; thence along said east line of 1000 West Street S00°25’29”W 941.05 feet; thence along the south line of Cannon Avenue N89°33’25”W 344.11 feet to Natura Street and a 15 foot radius curve to the left; thence along said curve a distance of 23.57 feet (chord bears S45°26’00”W 21.22 feet); thence along the east line of Natura 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 40 Street S00°25’25”W 128.00 feet to a 15.50 foot radius curve to the left; thence along said curve a distance of 9.18 feet (chord bears S16°32’16”E 9.05 feet) to a 55.01 foot radius reverse curve to the right; thence along said curve a distance of 119.86 feet (chord bears S28°22’04”W 97.52 feet) to the south line of Amiga Drive; thence along the south line of Amiga Drive the following 3 courses, 1) N89°32’54”W 104.02 feet to a 565.82 foot radius curve to the right; 2) along said curve a distance of 128.12 feet (chord bears N83°03’41”W 127.85 feet); 3) N76°34’28”W 313.01 feet to the east line of Parcel # 15-14-129-011; thence along said parcel the following 5 courses, 1) S15°10’59”W 187.84 feet; 2) N89°49’01”W 38.23 feet; 3) N36°49’01”W 100.02 feet; 4) N85°49’01”W 55.66 feet; 5) N00°16’31”E 285.25 feet to the southeasterly corner of Parcel# 15-14-129-009; thence along the south line of said Parcel N76°52’25”W 109.96 feet to the easterly line of the Jordan River; thence along the easterly line of the Jordan River the following 26 courses, 1) N00°10’59”E 80.01 feet; 2) N52°38’59”E 72.75 feet; 3) N31°08’59”E 75.81 feet; 4) N18°36’38”E 313.12 feet; 5) N44°15’59”E 132.27 feet; 6) N19°39’59”E 224.92 feet; 7) N09°25’13”E 224.83 feet; 8) N58°27’35”W 246.37 feet to a 75.87 foot radius non-tangent curve to the right; 9) along said curve a distance of 108.87 feet (chord bears N14°07’03”W 99.77 feet); 10) N29°32’29”E 102.42 feet; 11) N44°27’55”E 311.81 feet; 12) N70°05’49”E 550.86 feet to a 613.06 foot radius non-tangent curve to the right; 13) along said curve a distance of 378.12 feet (chord bears S83°52’45”E 372.15 feet); 14) S71°52’35”E 147.32 feet; 15) N79°27’08”E 80.70 feet; 16) N49°00’17”E 117.74 feet; 17) N30°23’45”W 407.44 feet to a 463.30 foot radius non-tangent curve to the right; 18) along said curve a distance of 398.63 feet (chord bears N07°45’24”E 386.44 feet); 19) N28°07’15”E 64.20 feet to a 163.36 foot radius non-tangent curve to the left; 20) along said curve a distance of 204.20 feet (chord bears N34°19’35”W 191.16 feet); 21) S86°02’26”W 110.85 feet; 22) S71°12’47”W 156.82 feet; 23) N87°58’19”W 479.74 feet to a 40.18 foot radius non-tangent curve to the right; 24) along said curve a distance of 90.53 feet (chord bears N32°01’12”W 72.56 feet); 25) N27°24’51”E 330.45 feet; 26) N01°40’25”E 140.26 feet to the south line of Parcel # 15-11-332-005; thence along said Parcel the following 2 courses, 1) S89°55’56”W 121.82 feet; 2) N00°05’13”W 125.02 feet to the Northwest Corner of Parcel # 15-11-332-004; thence along north line of said parcel N89°57’56”E 43.10 feet to the westerly line of the Jordan River; thence along said westerly line the following 4 courses, 1) N06°03’26”W 135.10 feet; 2) N54°00’08”W 349.65 feet to a 334.84 foot radius non-tangent curve to the right; 3) along said curve a distance of 309.49 feet (chord bears N21°55’40”W 298.59 feet); 4) N14°59’01”E 93.42 feet to the south line of Mead Avenue; thence along the south line of Mead Avenue the following 3 courses, 1) N89°50’12”W 605.98 feet; 2) N73°39’47”W 52.06; 3) N89°50’08”W 1320.74 feet to the west line of Navajo Street; thence along the west line of Navajo Street N00°14’33”E 193.47 feet to the south line of American Avenue; thence along the south line of American Avenue N89°53’09”W 1123.63 feet to the west line of 1500 West Street; thence along the west line of 1500 West Street N00°10’33”E 422.15 feet to a 5694.74 foot radius non-tangent curve to the right; thence along said curve a distance of 741.34 feet (chord bears N85°13’34”W 740.81 feet) to the Northeast Corner of Parcel # 15-10-257-002; thence along the east line of said parcel S02°41’30”W 269.54 feet; thence along the east line of Parcel #15-10-257-003 the following 2 courses, 1) S02°47’47”W 357.83 feet; 2) S04°41’07”W 99.87 feet; thence along the east line of Parcel# 15-10-401-005 the following 2 courses, 1) S04°41’07”W 212.54 feet; 2) S01°39’57”W 38.42 feet; thence along the east line of Parcel # 15-10-401-001 S00°19’05”W 50.01 feet; thence along Parcel# 15-10-403-015 the following 2 courses, 1) S02°41’02”W 185.19 feet; 2) N89°40’55”W 539.32 feet; thence S00°19’05”W 100.02 feet; thence N89°40’55”W 103.49 feet to the east line of Redwood Road; thence along said east line S00°11’44”W 1839.47 feet to the north line of California Avenue; thence N80°56’50”W 130.02 feet to the intersection of the north line of California Avenue and 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 41 the easterly line of the Surplus Canal; thence along the easterly line of the Surplus Canal the following 4 courses, 1) N00°11’44”E 96.08 feet to a 1413.20 foot radius non-tangent curve to the left; 2) along said curve a distance of 436.53 feet (chord bears N37°09’04”W 434.79 feet); 3) N54°18’09”W 1585.32 feet; 4) N48°29’41”W 1224.01 feet to the east line of Interstate 215; thence along the east line of Interstate 215 the following 3 courses, 1) N03°07’41”E 1899.46 feet to a 2900.49 foot radius non- tangent curve to the left; 2) along said curve a distance of 1100.30 feet (chord bears N06°44’53”W 1093.71 feet); 3) N17°30’38”W 1340.78 feet to the north line of 500 South Street; thence along the north line of 500 South Street the following 4 courses, 1) S89°47’55”E 942.07 feet; 2) S88°28’53”E 1008.30 feet; 3) S89°38’53”E 995.09 feet; 4) N85°59’19”E 110.31 feet to the east line of Redwood Road; thence along the east line of Redwood Road the following 4 courses, 1) S00°11’34”W 66.01 feet; 2) S02°15’07”W 279.22 feet; 3) S00°11’57”W 1722.34 feet; 4) S01°12’51”E 181.66 feet to the north line of 800 South Street; thence along the north line of 800 South Street S89°53’36”E 3543.84 feet to the west line of 1200 West Street; thence along the west line of 1200 West Street N00°08’29”E 664.99 feet to the north line of 700 South Street; thence along the north line of 700 South Street S89°52’17”E 394.03 feet to the east line of Emery Street; thence along the east line of Emery Street S00°11’25”W 675.21 feet to the north line of 800 South Street; thence along the north line of 800 South Street S89°47’06”E 656.67 feet; thence S00°06’58”W 66.01 feet to the north line of Parcel # 15-11-131- 011; thence along said Parcel the following 2 courses, 1) along a 136.65 foot radius curve to the right a distance of 172.68 feet (chord bears S53°41’07”E 161.42 feet; 2) S17°29’06”E 154.04 feet to the north line of Indiana Avenue; thence along the north line of Indiana Avenue N72°44’46”E 168.58 feet to the west line of Goshen Street; thence along the west line of Goshen Street N00°11’41”E 964.75 feet to the north line of 700 South Street; thence along the north line of 700 South Street S89°46’29”E 358.03 feet to the west line of 1000 West Street; thence along the west line of 1000 West Street N00°04’35”E 766.35 feet to the north line of 600 South Street; thence along the north line of 600 South Street S89°50’19”E 377.34 feet to the point of beginning. Contains 945.46 Acres, more or less. 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 42 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 43 ATTACHMENT B: DEFINITIONS 1. The term “Act” or “Utah Code 17C Community Reinvestment Agency Act” shall mean the “Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Community Reinvestment Agency Act” as found in Title 17C, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. 2. The term “Affordable Housing” shall mean housing to be owned or occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, as determined by resolution of the RDA. 3. The term “Base Taxable Value” unless otherwise adjusted in accordance with provisions of this title, shall mean a property’s taxable value as shown upon the assessment roll last equalized during the base year. 4. The term “Base Year” shall mean, except as provided in Subsection 17C-1-402(4)(c), the year during which the assessment roll is last equalized 5. The term “Board” shall mean the governing body of the Agency, as provided in Section 17C-1-203 of the Act. 6. The term “City” shall mean the city of Salt Lake City. 7. The term “Housing Allocation” shall mean tax increment allocated for housing under Section 17C-2- 203, 17C-3-202, or 17C-5-307 for the purposes described in Section 17C-1-412. 8. The term “Income Targeted Housing” shall mean housing to be owned or occupied by a family whose annual income is at or below 80% of the median annual income for Salt Lake County. 9. The term “Northwest Quadrant Master Plan” shall mean the Community General Plan as required by the Act, which acts as the master plan, adopted by Salt Lake City on August 16, 2016. 10. The term “Project Area” shall mean the area described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 11. The term “Project Area Budget” shall mean a multiyear projection of annual or cumulative revenues and expenses and other fiscal matters pertaining to the Project Area that includes: (i) the Base Taxable Value of property in the Project Area; (ii) the projected Tax Increment expected to be generated within the Project Area; (iii) the amount of Tax Increment expected to be shared with other taxing entities; (iv) the amount of Tax Increment expected to be used to implement the Project Area Plan, including the estimated amount of Tax Increment to be used for land acquisition, public improvements, infrastructure improvements, and loans, grants, or other incentives to private and public entities; (v) the Tax Increment expected to be used to cover the cost of administering the Project Area Plan; (vi) if the area from which Tax Increment is to be collected is less than the entire Project Area: (a) the tax identification numbers of the parcels from which Tax Increment will be collected; or (b) a legal description of the portion of the Project Area from which Tax Increment will be collected; (vii) for property that the RDA owns and expects to sell, the expected total cost of the property to the RDA and the expected selling price; and (viii) the following required information: (a) the number of tax years for which the RDA will be allowed to receive Tax Increment from the Project Area; and (b) the percentage of Tax Increment or maximum cumulative dollar amount of Tax Increment the RDA is entitled to receive from the Project Area under the Project Area Budget. 12. The term “RDA” shall mean the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City. 13. The term “Taxable Value” shall mean the value of property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll as certified by the Salt Lake County Assessor. 14. The term “Tax Increment” shall mean the difference between: (i) the amount of property tax revenues generated each tax year by all taxing entities from the area within a Project Area designated in the Project Area Plan as the area from which Tax Increment is to be collected, using the current assessed value of the property; and (ii) the amount of property tax revenues that would be generated from that same area using the Base Taxable Value of the property. 15. The term “Taxing Entity” shall mean a public entity that levies a tax on a parcel or parcels of property located within the City. PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS & PROJECT AREA BUDGET 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA (CRA) REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MARCH 2018 Page | 2 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3 SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ................................................. 3 SECTION 3: GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AREA BUDGET ....................................................................... 4 SECTION 4: PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT .......................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 5: COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT A: PROJECT AREA MAP ......................................................................................................................... 8 EXHIBIT B: MULTI-YEAR BUDGET .................................................................................................................. 10 Page | 3 Section 1: Introduction The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (the “Agency”), following thorough consideration of the needs and desires of the City of Salt Lake (the “City”) and its residents, as well as understanding the City’s capacity for new development, has carefully crafted the Project Area Plan (the “Plan”) for the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Project Area (the “Project Area”). The Plan is the end result of a comprehensive evaluation of the types of appropriate land-uses and economic development opportunities for the land encompassed by the Project Area which lies west of I-15, east of I-215, between 300 South and Amiga Drive. The Plan is envisioned to define the method and means of development for the Project Area from its current state to a higher and better use. The City has determined it is in the best interest of its citizens to assist in the development of the Project Area. This Project Area Budget document (the “Budget”) is predicated upon certain elements, objectives and conditions outlined in the Plan and intended to be used as a financing tool to assist the Agency in meeting Plan objectives discussed herein and more specifically referenced and identified in the Plan. The creation of the Project Area is being undertaken as a community reinvestment project pursuant to certain provisions of Chapters 1 and 5 of the Utah Community Reinvestment Agency Act (the “Act”, Utah Code Annotated (“UCA”) Title 17C). The requirements of the Act, including notice and hearing obligations, have been observed at all times throughout the establishment of the Project Area. Section 2: Description of Community Development Project Area The Project Area lies west of I-15, east of I-215, between 300 South and Amiga Drive, and is located within the City’s western boundaries. This area in particular serves as the primary destination in the City for river recreation and active parks. The property encompasses approximately 738 acres of land. A map of the Project Area are attached hereto in EXHIBIT A. Page | 4 Section 3: General Overview of Project Area Budget The purpose of the Project Area Budget is to provide the financial framework necessary to implement the Project Area Plan vision and objectives. The Project Area Plan has identified that tax increment financing is essential in order to meet the objectives of the CRA Project Area. The following information will detail the sources and uses of tax increment and other necessary details needed for public officials, interested parties, and the public in general to understand the mechanics of the Project Area Budget. Base Year Value The Agency has determined that the base year property tax value for the Project Area will be the total taxable value for the 2016 tax year which is estimated to be $228,048,136. Using the tax rates established within the Project Area the property taxes levied equate to $3,359,833 annually. Accordingly, this amount will continue to flow through to each taxing entity proportional to the amount of their respective tax rates being levied. Payment Trigger This Budget will have a twenty-five year (25) duration from the date of the first tax increment received by the Agency. The collection of tax increment will be triggered at the discretion of the Agency prior to March 1 of the tax year in which they intend to begin the collection of increment. The following year in which this increment will be remitted to the Agency will be Year 1, e.g., if requested prior to March 1, 2018, Year 1 of increment will be 2019. The Agency anticipates it will trigger the tax increment by March 1, 2020 but in no case will the Agency trigger the first tax increment collection after March 1, 2022. Projected Tax Increment Revenue – Total Generation Development within the Project Area will commence upon favorable market conditions which will include both horizontal and vertical infrastructure and development. The Agency anticipates that new development will begin in the Project Area in 2018. The contemplated development will generate significant additional property tax revenue as well as incremental sales and use tax above what is currently generated within the Project Area. Property Tax Increment will begin to be generated in the tax year (ending Dec 1st) following construction completion and Tax Increment will actually be paid to the Agency in March or April after collection. It is projected that property Tax Increment generation within the Project Area could begin as early as 2020 or as late as 2022. It is currently estimated that during the 25-year life of the Project Area Budget, property Tax Increment could be generated within the Project Area in the approximate amount of $35.42 million or at a net present value (NPV)1 of $19.06 million. This amount is over and above the $83.99 million of base taxes that the property would generate over 25 years at the $3,359,833 annual amount it currently generates as shown in Table 4.1 below. 1 Net Present Value of future cash flows assumes a 4% discount rate. The same 4% discount rate is used in all remaining NPV calculations. This total is prior to accounting for the flow-through of tax increment to the respective taxing entities. Page | 5 Section 4: Property Tax Increment Base Year Property Tax Revenue The taxing entities are currently receiving - and will continue to receive - property tax revenue from the current assessed value of the property within the Project Area (“Base Taxes”). The current assessed value is estimated to be $228,048,136. Based upon the tax rates in the area, the collective taxing entities are receiving $3,359,833 in property tax annually from this Project Area. This equates to approximately $83,995,830 over the 25-year life of the Project Area. Site and building demolition will need to occur in order to facilitate the envisioned development as outlined in the Plan. This demolition will initially lower the assessed value of the Project Area to a level below the base year value, however it is anticipated that the assessed value within the Project Area will be above the $228,048,136 base year value by year 1 of the Project Area life. T ABLE 4.1: T OTAL B ASE YEAR TO T AXING ENTITIES (OVER 25 Y EARS) Entity Total NPV at 4% Salt Lake County $13,517,553 $8,446,892 Salt Lake City School District 35,233,437 22,016,783 Salt Lake City 25,980,384 16,234,705 Salt Lake Library 4,019,348 2,511,623 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District 1,989,720 1,243,343 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District 974,906 609,202 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 2,280,481 1,425,034 Total Revenue $83,995,830 $52,487,583 Property Tax Increment Shared with RDA (75% Participation Rate for 25 Years) All taxing entities that receive property tax generated within the Project Area, as detailed above, will share at least a portion of that increment generation with the Agency. All taxing entities will contribute 75% of their respective tax increment for 25 years. The County and the State will not contribute any portion of their incremental sales tax to implement the Project Area Plan. Table 4.2 shows the amount of Tax Increment shared with the Agency assuming the participation levels discussed above. T ABLE 4.2: SOURCES OF T AX INCREMENT FUNDS Entity Percentage Length Total NPV at 4% Salt Lake County 75% 25 Years $4,275,024 $2,300,249 Salt Lake City School District 75% 25 Years 11,142,829 5,995,587 Salt Lake City 75% 25 Years 8,216,484 4,421,018 Salt Lake Library 75% 25 Years 1,271,148 683,963 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District 75% 25 Years 629,263 338,586 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District 75% 25 Years 308,321 165,897 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 75% 25 Years 721,219 388,064 Total Sources of Tax Increment Funds $26,564,289 $14,293,364 Page | 6 Uses of Tax Increment The west side of the City, particularly the Project Area, has suffered from a lack of reinvestment over the previous decades. This has led to blighted properties, and underutilized land uses. “But -for” the creation of the CRA, and use of public funds, the west side of the City will continue to remain in its underutilized state. Site remediation, small lot sizes, and aging infrastructure are a few of the obstacles that are currently deterring development within the Project Area. The majority of the Tax Increment collected by the Agency (80%) will be used to overcome these obstacles. Including: offsetting certain on-site public infrastructure costs, land assemblage, relocation of current businesses and land uses, Agency requested improvements and upgrades, desirable Project Area improvements, and other redevelopment activities as approved by the Agency. 10% will go towards affordable housing, as outlined the Act. The remaining 10% will be used to offset the administration and operation costs of the Agency. T ABLE 4.3: USES OF T AX INCREMENT Uses Total NPV at 4% Redevelopment Activities @ 80% $21,251,431 $11,434,691 CRA Housing Requirement @ 10% 2,656,429 1,429,336 Project Area Administration @ 10% 2,656,429 1,429,336 Total Uses of Tax Increment Funds $26,564,289 $14,293,364 A multi-year projection of tax increment is included in EXHIBIT B. Total Annual Property Tax Revenue for Taxing Entities at Conclusion of Project As described above, the collective taxing entities are currently receiving approximately $3,359,833 in property taxes annually from this Project Area. At the end of 25 years an additional $2,142,372 in property taxes annually is anticipated, totaling approximately $5,502,205 in property taxes annually for the area. “But for” the assistance provided by the RDA through tax increment revenues, this increase of approximately 64 percent in property taxes generated for the taxing entities would not be possible. T ABLE 4.4: T OTAL B ASE YEAR AND END OF PROJECT LIFE ANNUAL PROPERTY TAXES Entity Annual Base Year Property Taxes Annual Property Tax Increment at Conclusion of Project Total Annual Property Taxes Salt Lake County $540,702 $344,775 $885,477 Salt Lake City School District 1,409,337 898,653 2,307,991 Salt Lake City 1,039,215 662,648 1,701,863 Salt Lake Library 160,774 102,516 263,290 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District 79,589 50,749 130,338 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District 38,996 24,866 63,862 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 91,219 58,165 149,385 Total Revenue $3,359,833 $2,142,372 $5,502,205 Page | 7 Section 5: Cost/Benefit Analysis Additional Revenues Other Tax Revenues The development within the Project Area will also generate sales taxes, energy sales and use taxes for natural gas and electric. Table 5.1 shows the total revenues generated by the Project Area. This total includes the anticipated property tax increment, sales tax, and energy sales and use tax. T ABLE 5.1 T OTAL REVENUES Entity Property Tax Sales Tax Franchise Tax Total Incremental Revenues Salt Lake County $5,700,032 $20,642,836 - $26,342,868 Salt Lake City School District 14,857,106 - - 14,857,106 Salt Lake City 10,955,312 8,975,146 3,738,904 23,669,362 Salt Lake Library 1,694,864 - - 1,694,864 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District 839,018 - - 839,018 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District 411,095 - - 411,095 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 961,625 - - 961,625 Total Revenue $35,419,052 $29,617,982 $3,738,904 $68,775,938 Additional Costs The development anticipated within the Project Area will also likely result in additional general government, public works, and public safety costs. These costs, along with the estimated budget to implement the Project Area Plan, are identified below. T ABLE 5.2 T OTAL EXPENDITURES Entity CRA Budget General Government Public Works Public Safety Total Incremental Expenditures Salt Lake County $4,275,024 $231,049 - - $4,506,073 Salt Lake City School District 11,142,829 2,771,952 - - 13,914,781 Salt Lake City 8,216,484 228,121 2,172,913 3,779,395 14,396,913 Salt Lake Library 1,271,148 - - - 1,271,148 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District 629,263 68,095 - - 697,358 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District 308,321 7,535 - - 315,856 Central Utah Water Conservancy District 721,219 17,251 - - 738,470 Total Expenditures $26,564,288 $3,324,003 $2,172,913 $3,779,395 $35,840,599 The total net benefit to the taxing entities of participating in the Project Area is $32,935,339, with the City’s net benefit being $9,696,165. Page | 8 T ABLE 5.3: T OTAL CITY REVENUES Total NPV at 4% Property Tax Increment $12,650,176 $6,806,641 Sales Tax 8,975,146 4,869,701 Telecom Tax 828,526 443,709 Energy Sales & Use Tax (Natural Gas) 522,461 274,543 Energy Sales & Use Tax (Electricity) 2,387,917 1,254,804 Total City Revenue $25,364,227 $13,649,397 T ABLE 5.4: T OTAL CITY EXPENDITURES Total NPV at 4% CRA Budget $9,487,632 $5,104,981 General Government 228,121 119,902 Public Works 2,172,913 1,142,093 Public Safety 3,779,395 1,985,693 Total City Expenditures $15,668,062 $8,352,668 Total City Benefit $9,696,165 $5,296,729 *Note: Total City Benefit includes Salt Lake City and Salt Lake Library. Page | 9 Exhibit A: Project Area Map Page | 10 Exhibit B: Multi-Year Budget Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake CityASSUMPTIONS:9 Line Project AreaDiscount Rate4.0%Increment and Budget AnalysisGrowth Rate 1.0%Payment Year2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045Tax Year2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044TOTALS NPVCumulative Taxable ValueYearYear 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16 Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24 Year 25Tax District 13Commercial$1,812,374 $4,177,890 $7,130,537 $11,274,440 $15,384,354 $20,098,393 $24,795,438 $29,492,483 $34,189,528 $38,886,572 $44,791,867 $51,871,422 $58,916,989 $59,506,159 $60,101,221 $60,702,233 $61,309,255 $61,922,348 $62,541,571 $63,166,987 $63,798,657 $64,436,643 $65,081,010 $65,731,820 $66,389,138Office$585,158 $1,339,915 $2,281,241 $3,604,188 $4,910,166 $6,411,197 $7,903,744 $9,396,290 $10,888,837 $12,381,383 $14,264,035 $16,519,823 $18,758,643 $18,946,230 $19,135,692 $19,327,049 $19,520,319 $19,715,522 $19,912,678 $20,111,804 $20,312,922 $20,516,052 $20,721,212 $20,928,424 $21,137,709Residential$503,691 $1,156,175 $1,970,188 $3,113,626 $4,244,329 $5,542,929 $6,835,161 $8,127,393 $9,419,624 $10,711,856 $12,339,882 $14,290,966 $16,229,313 $16,391,606 $16,555,522 $16,721,078 $16,888,288 $17,057,171 $17,227,743 $17,400,020 $17,574,021 $17,749,761 $17,927,258 $18,106,531 $18,287,596Industrial$1,083,349 $2,494,753 $4,256,253 $6,728,965 $9,179,637 $11,991,425 $14,792,192 $17,592,960 $20,393,728 $23,194,495 $26,717,495 $30,940,687 $35,141,839 $35,493,257 $35,848,190 $36,206,672 $36,568,739 $36,934,426 $37,303,770 $37,676,808 $38,053,576 $38,434,112 $38,818,453 $39,206,637 $39,598,704 Total Assessed Value:$3,984,571 $9,168,733 $15,638,219 $24,721,219 $33,718,486 $44,043,943 $54,326,534 $64,609,125 $74,891,716 $85,174,307 $98,113,279 $113,622,898 $129,046,784 $130,337,252 $131,640,625 $132,957,031 $134,286,601 $135,629,467 $136,985,762 $138,355,620 $139,739,176 $141,136,568 $142,547,933 $143,973,413 $145,413,147Value of Current Property$228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136 $228,048,136Less Base Year Value(228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ (228,048,136)$ $3,984,571 $9,168,733 $15,638,219 $24,721,219 $33,718,486 $44,043,943 $54,326,534 $64,609,125 $74,891,716 $85,174,307 $98,113,279 $113,622,898 $129,046,784 $130,337,252 $131,640,625 $132,957,031 $134,286,601 $135,629,467 $136,985,762 $138,355,620 $139,739,176 $141,136,568 $142,547,933 $143,973,413 $145,413,147TAX RATE & INCREMENT ANALYSIS:2016 RatesSalt Lake County0.002371 9,447 21,739 37,078 58,614 79,947 104,428 128,808 153,188 177,568 201,948 232,627 269,400 305,970 309,030 312,120 315,241 318,394 321,577 324,793 328,041 331,322 334,635 337,981 341,361 344,775 5,700,032 3,066,998 Salt Lake City School District0.006180 24,625 56,663 96,644 152,777 208,380 272,192 335,738 399,284 462,831 526,377 606,340 702,190 797,509 805,484 813,539 821,674 829,891 838,190 846,572 855,038 863,588 872,224 880,946 889,756 898,653 14,857,106 7,994,116 Salt Lake City0.004557 18,158 41,782 71,263 112,655 153,655 200,708 247,566 294,424 341,282 388,139 447,102 517,780 588,066 593,947 599,886 605,885 611,944 618,063 624,244 630,487 636,791 643,159 649,591 656,087 662,648 10,955,312 5,894,691 Salt Lake Library0.000705 2,809 6,464 11,025 17,428 23,772 31,051 38,300 45,549 52,799 60,048 69,170 80,104 90,978 91,888 92,807 93,735 94,672 95,619 96,575 97,541 98,516 99,501 100,496 101,501 102,516 1,694,864 911,950 Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District0.000349 1,391 3,200 5,458 8,628 11,768 15,371 18,960 22,549 26,137 29,726 34,242 39,654 45,037 45,488 45,943 46,402 46,866 47,335 47,808 48,286 48,769 49,257 49,749 50,247 50,749 839,018 451,448 Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District0.000171 681 1,568 2,674 4,227 5,766 7,532 9,290 11,048 12,806 14,565 16,777 19,430 22,067 22,288 22,511 22,736 22,963 23,193 23,425 23,659 23,895 24,134 24,376 24,619 24,866 411,095 221,196 Central Utah Water Conservancy District0.000400 1,594 3,667 6,255 9,888 13,487 17,618 21,731 25,844 29,957 34,070 39,245 45,449 51,619 52,135 52,656 53,183 53,715 54,252 54,794 55,342 55,896 56,455 57,019 57,589 58,165 961,625 517,419 Totals:0.014733 58,705 135,083 230,398 364,218 496,774 648,899 800,393 951,886 1,103,380 1,254,873 1,445,503 1,674,006 1,901,246 1,920,259 1,939,461 1,958,856 1,978,444 1,998,229 2,018,211 2,038,393 2,058,777 2,079,365 2,100,159 2,121,160 2,142,372 35,419,052 19,057,818 TOTAL INCREMENTAL REVENUE IN PROJECT AREA:$58,705 $135,083 $230,398 $364,218 $496,774 $648,899 $800,393 $951,886 $1,103,380 $1,254,873 $1,445,503 $1,674,006 $1,901,246 $1,920,259 $1,939,461 $1,958,856 $1,978,444 $1,998,229 $2,018,211 $2,038,393 $2,058,777 $2,079,365 $2,100,159 $2,121,160 $2,142,372$35,419,052 $19,057,818PROJECT AREA BUDGET2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045Sources of Funds:2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044TOTALS NPVProperty Tax Participation Rate for BudgetSalt Lake County75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%Salt Lake City School District75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%Salt Lake City75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%Salt Lake Library75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%Central Utah Water Conservancy District75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75%Property Tax Increment for BudgetSalt Lake County$7,086 $16,304 $27,809 $43,961 $59,960 $78,321 $96,606 $114,891 $133,176 $151,461 $174,470 $202,050 $229,477 $231,772 $234,090 $236,431 $238,795 $241,183 $243,595 $246,031 $248,491 $250,976 $253,486 $256,021 $258,581$4,275,024 $2,300,249Salt Lake City School District$18,468 $42,497 $72,483 $114,583 $156,285 $204,144 $251,803 $299,463 $347,123 $394,783 $454,755 $526,642 $598,132 $604,113 $610,154 $616,256 $622,418 $628,643 $634,929 $641,278 $647,691 $654,168 $660,710 $667,317 $673,990$11,142,829 $5,995,587Salt Lake City$13,618 $31,336 $53,448 $84,491 $115,241 $150,531 $185,675 $220,818 $255,961 $291,104 $335,327 $388,335 $441,050 $445,460 $449,915 $454,414 $458,958 $463,548 $468,183 $472,865 $477,594 $482,370 $487,193 $492,065 $496,986$8,216,484 $4,421,018Salt Lake Library$2,107 $4,848 $8,269 $13,071 $17,829 $23,288 $28,725 $34,162 $39,599 $45,036 $51,877 $60,078 $68,233 $68,916 $69,605 $70,301 $71,004 $71,714 $72,431 $73,156 $73,887 $74,626 $75,372 $76,126 $76,887$1,271,148 $683,963Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District$1,043 $2,400 $4,093 $6,471 $8,826 $11,529 $14,220 $16,911 $19,603 $22,294 $25,681 $29,741 $33,778 $34,116 $34,457 $34,802 $35,150 $35,501 $35,856 $36,215 $36,577 $36,942 $37,312 $37,685 $38,062$629,263 $338,586Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District$511 $1,176 $2,006 $3,170 $4,324 $5,649 $6,967 $8,286 $9,605 $10,924 $12,583 $14,572 $16,550 $16,716 $16,883 $17,052 $17,222 $17,394 $17,568 $17,744 $17,922 $18,101 $18,282 $18,465 $18,649$308,321 $165,897Central Utah Water Conservancy District$1,195 $2,751 $4,691 $7,416 $10,116 $13,213 $16,298 $19,383 $22,468 $25,552 $29,434 $34,087 $38,714 $39,101 $39,492 $39,887 $40,286 $40,689 $41,096 $41,507 $41,922 $42,341 $42,764 $43,192 $43,624$721,219 $388,064Total Property Tax Increment for Budget:$44,029 $101,312 $172,798 $273,163 $372,581 $486,675 $600,295 $713,915 $827,535 $941,155 $1,084,127 $1,255,505 $1,425,935 $1,440,194 $1,454,596 $1,469,142 $1,483,833 $1,498,672 $1,513,658 $1,528,795 $1,544,083 $1,559,524 $1,575,119 $1,590,870 $1,606,779 $26,564,289 $14,293,364Uses of Tax Increment Funds:2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045TOTALS NPVRedevelopment Activities (Infrastructure, Relocation, Incentives, etc.)80.0%$35,223 $81,050 $138,239 $218,531 $298,065 $389,340 $480,236 $571,132 $662,028 $752,924 $867,302 $1,004,404 $1,140,748 $1,152,155 $1,163,677 $1,175,314 $1,187,067 $1,198,937 $1,210,927 $1,223,036 $1,235,266 $1,247,619 $1,260,095 $1,272,696 $1,285,423$21,251,431 $11,434,691CRA Housing10.0%$4,403 $10,131 $17,280 $27,316 $37,258 $48,667 $60,029 $71,391 $82,753 $94,115 $108,413 $125,550 $142,593 $144,019 $145,460 $146,914 $148,383 $149,867 $151,366 $152,880 $154,408 $155,952 $157,512 $159,087 $160,678$2,656,429 $1,429,336RDA Administration and Operations10.0%$4,403 $10,131 $17,280 $27,316 $37,258 $48,667 $60,029 $71,391 $82,753 $94,115 $108,413 $125,550 $142,593 $144,019 $145,460 $146,914 $148,383 $149,867 $151,366 $152,880 $154,408 $155,952 $157,512 $159,087 $160,678$2,656,429 $1,429,336Total Uses$44,029 $101,312 $172,798 $273,163 $372,581 $486,675 $600,295 $713,915 $827,535 $941,155 $1,084,127 $1,255,505 $1,425,935 $1,440,194 $1,454,596 $1,469,142 $1,483,833 $1,498,672 $1,513,658 $1,528,795 $1,544,083 $1,559,524 $1,575,119 $1,590,870 $1,606,779$26,564,289 $14,293,364REMAINING TAX REVENUES FOR TAXING ENTITIES2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045TOTALS NPVSalt Lake County$2,362 $5,435 $9,270 $14,654 $19,987 $26,107 $32,202 $38,297 $44,392 $50,487 $58,157 $67,350 $76,492 $77,257 $78,030 $78,810 $79,598 $80,394 $81,198 $82,010 $82,830 $83,659 $84,495 $85,340 $86,194$1,425,008 $766,750Salt Lake City School District$6,156 $14,166 $24,161 $38,194 $52,095 $68,048 $83,934 $99,821 $115,708 $131,594 $151,585 $175,547 $199,377 $201,371 $203,385 $205,419 $207,473 $209,548 $211,643 $213,759 $215,897 $218,056 $220,237 $222,439 $224,663$3,714,276 $1,998,529Salt Lake City$4,539 $10,445 $17,816 $28,164 $38,414 $50,177 $61,892 $73,606 $85,320 $97,035 $111,776 $129,445 $147,017 $148,487 $149,972 $151,471 $152,986 $154,516 $156,061 $157,622 $159,198 $160,790 $162,398 $164,022 $165,662$2,738,828 $1,473,673Salt Lake Library$702 $1,616 $2,756 $4,357 $5,943 $7,763 $9,575 $11,387 $13,200 $15,012 $17,292 $20,026 $22,744 $22,972 $23,202 $23,434 $23,668 $23,905 $24,144 $24,385 $24,629 $24,875 $25,124 $25,375 $25,629$423,716 $227,988Salt Lake Metropolitan Water District$348 $800 $1,364 $2,157 $2,942 $3,843 $4,740 $5,637 $6,534 $7,431 $8,560 $9,914 $11,259 $11,372 $11,486 $11,601 $11,717 $11,834 $11,952 $12,072 $12,192 $12,314 $12,437 $12,562 $12,687$209,754 $112,862Salt Lake City Mosquito Abatement District$170 $392 $669 $1,057 $1,441 $1,883 $2,322 $2,762 $3,202 $3,641 $4,194 $4,857 $5,517 $5,572 $5,628 $5,684 $5,741 $5,798 $5,856 $5,915 $5,974 $6,034 $6,094 $6,155 $6,216$102,774 $55,299Central Utah Water Conservancy District$398 $917 $1,564 $2,472 $3,372 $4,404 $5,433 $6,461 $7,489 $8,517 $9,811 $11,362 $12,905 $13,034 $13,164 $13,296 $13,429 $13,563 $13,699 $13,836 $13,974 $14,114 $14,255 $14,397 $14,541$240,406 $129,355Total$14,676 $33,771 $57,599 $91,054 $124,194 $162,225 $200,098 $237,972 $275,845 $313,718 $361,376 $418,502 $475,312 $480,065 $484,865 $489,714 $494,611 $499,557 $504,553 $509,598 $514,694 $519,841 $525,040 $530,290 $535,593$8,854,763 $4,764,455TOTAL INCREMENTAL VALUE:INCREMENTAL TAX ANALYSIS: TaxInc Budget9 Line CRA Analysis (City Copy) 3.1.18.xlsx 1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY RESOLUTION NO. of 2021 Interlocal Agreement Authorizing Use of a Portion of Tax Increment to Support the Implementation of the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING USE OF A PORTION OF TAX INCREMENT TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5, Community Reinvestment, of Title 17C of the Utah Code (the “Act”), the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (“Agency”) may approve a community reinvestment project area plan for the purpose of supporting community revitalization within a designated project area. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Agency approved the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area (“Project Area”) to facilitate the capture of tax increment within the boundaries of the Project Area which is further depicted in Exhibit A. WHEREAS, tax increment will be used to support commercial corridors and employment hubs to support living-wage jobs; attract and expand neighborhood retail and services; provide an array of housing choices to meet the needs of current residents while attracting new residents including new families; and increase neighborhood livability and safety. WHEREAS, Salt Lake County (the “County”) has approved the use of its tax increment from the Project Area to support the community revitalization activities in accordance with the Act, and doing so will require authorization of an interlocal agreement between the County and the Agency. WHEREAS, the parties desire to execute the interlocal agreement in which the County will consent to the Agency being paid its share of the tax increment from the Project Area and will detail the Agency’s collection period for the tax increment. The interlocal agreement does not create an interlocal entity. 2 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City: 1.It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE COUNTY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY [9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA TAX INCREMENT] 2.Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City or her designee is hereby authorized to approve, execute, and deliver said agreement on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, in substantially the same form as now before the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City Board of Directors and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such minor changes that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the Redevelopment Agency thereunder and as shall be approved by the Executive Director, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. Passed by the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City, this day of , 2021. Board Chair Transmitted to the Executive Director on . The Executive Director: does not request reconsideration requests reconsideration at the next regular Agency meeting. Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director 3 Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office _______________________________________ Attest: City Recorder December 23, 2020 4 EXHIBIT A [Attach Depiction of Project Area] PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY MAP 9 LINE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AREA PLAN 5 EXHIBIT B [Attach Form Interlocal Agreement] 0000002713 WHEREAS, Section 17C-5-204 of the Act authorizes the County to consent to the payment to the Agency of its share of Tax Increment generated from the Project Area for the purposes set forth in the Project Area Plan. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Base Y ea r and B ase Tax abl e V al ue. The calculation of the annual Tax Increment shall be made using the 2016 tax year (the "B a se Tax Year") and the base taxable value shall be the assessed taxable value of all Property within the Project Area for the Base Tax Year, which is $228,048, 136 (the "Base T axa ble Va lu e "). 2. Budget. Pursuant to Subsection 17C-5-204(6)(c) of the Act, the County's portion of tax increment in the Project Area budget is reflected in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference. 3. P ayment of Tax In c rem e nt and Coll ection Period. The County hereby agrees and consents that the County shall pay 100% of the County's portion of the Tax Increment from the Project Area (the "Co unty s Co ntribution"), subject to the Annual Mitigation Payment defined below. The County's Contribution shall be paid for a term of twenty (20) years beginning with the 2021 tax year. Pursuant to Subsection l 7C-5-204(6)(d) of the Act, the County is prohibited from proportionately reducing the Tax Increment the County consents to pay to the Agency by the amount of any direct expenditures the County makes within the Project Area for the benefit of the Project Area or the Agency. This Agreement does not include a contribution of sales and use tax, and the Agency shall not seek a contribution of sales and use tax from the County with respect to the Project Area. (a) Annu a l Mi t ig at io n Pay ment . Notwithstanding Section 3 of this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree that for each tax year during the collection period, the Agency shall transfer an amount equal to 50% of the County's Contribution back to the County (the "Annua l Mi ti gation P ay me nt"). The Agency's transfer of the Annual Mitigation Payment to the County each year shall occur no later than three months following the Agency's receipt of County's Contribution from the Salt Lake County Treasurer. The amount equal to the County's Contribution less the Annual Mitigation Payment is hereinafter referreq to as the "Agen cy's Share ." However, the Parties agree that if this Annual Mitigation Payment in this Subsection 3(a) is ever held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or as a result of legislative or administrative action, or if the County ever provides a written notice to the Agency calling for the elimination of the Annual Mitigation Payment in this Subsection (3)(a) from the Agreement for any other reason, then the Parties agree that, in lieu of the Annual Mitigation Payment under this Subsection 3(a) and starting with the next tax year for which County Tax Increment has not already been paid to the Agency, the County's Contribution under Section (3) will be reduced by 50% -in addition to any reduction for the County's administration and operations -and that the Salt Lake County Treasurer shall pay the remainder of County's Tax Increment directly to the County. Such reductions in the County's Contribution should be adjusted proportionally to any Page 2of12 increases in the Agency's Share as provided under Sections 5 and 6 of this Agreement. Furthermore, if a reduction to the County's Contribution is triggered under this Subsection 3(a), the Agency agrees that it will not seek repayment of and will waive any claim to any portion of the Annual Mitigation Payment that has already been paid to the County. (b) Affordable Housing Set Aside -Agency Obligation. Agency agrees to encumber at least 90% of its Affordable Housing Set-Aside increment received from the County, within 5 years ofreceipt, for projects that satisfy Section l 7C-l-412. The objective of this provision is to use the County's Contribution to create an increase in affordable housing within the Project Area and not to replace affordable housing already available. 4. (a) Representations. To induce the County to execute and perform this Agreement, the Agency hereby represents to the County as follows: i. Local Community Contribution. The Agency and the City have entered into an interlocal cooperation agreement wherein the City has agreed to contribute 75% of its Tax Increment to the Agency for the duration of the collection period. ii. Sufficiency of Tax Increment. To the best of the Agency's knowledge, the amount of Tax Increment that the Agency expects to receive from the County, is sufficient to carry out and accomplish some of the objectives of the Project Area Plan. iii. Legal Requirements. To the best of the Agency's knowledge, the Agency is not in violation of any legal requirements pursuant to this Agreement and no violation of legal requirements exist with respect to the establishment of the Project Area. iv. No Violation of Other Agreements. To the best of the Agency's knowledge, the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this Agreement and the performance of this Agreement will not result in any breach of, or constitute a default under, any agreement or other instrument pertaining to this Project Area. b. Effect of Disbursement of County 's Contribution to Agency. The Agency agrees that its receipt of the County's Contribution under this Agreement each year during the collection period, constitutes an affirmation that the representations of this Section remain true and correct as of the date thereof, unless the County is notified to the contrary prior to the Agency's receipt of County Contribution. 5. Increase in Agency Share in Year Six. If each of the performance benchmarks listed under Subsection 5(a) has been accomplished prior to December 3 lst of the fifth (5th) tax year of the collection period then, starting with the sixth (6th) tax year of the collection period, the Annual Page 3of12 Mitigation Payment shall be reduced to an amount equal to 40%, thereby increasing the Agency's Share to 60% of the County's Contribution for the remainder of the collection period. The Agency will establish it has met the performance benchmarks by providing a written report to the County prior to December 31st of the fifth (5th) tax year, which report is subject to a review by the County within 30 days ofreceipt. If the Agency provides such written report and the County has confirmed that the Agency has accomplished the performance benchmarks listed under Subsection S(a), the increase in the Agency's Share shall not be unreasonably withheld by the County. This increase is not subject to the Salt Lake County Council's approval. a) Performance benchmarks: The performance benchmarks are as follows: i. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Program. The Agency will establish a Joan or subsidy program to facilitate the construction of ADUs specific to the Project Area; ii. Anti-Displacement Strategy. The Agency will endeavor to develop an anti-displacement strategy specific to the Project Area; and iii. Sustainable Development. The Agency will endeavor to create a sustainable development policy that incentivizes or requires sustainable building technologies be utilized at specified levels of RDA financial participation in the Project Area. 6. Increase in Agency Share in Year Eleven. If requested by Agency and approved by the Salt Lake County Counci 1 prior to December 3 pt of the tenth (1 oth) tax year of the collection period, then, starting with the eleventh (11th) tax year of the collection period, the Annual Mitigation Payment shall be reduced to an amount equal to 25%, thereby increasing the Agency's Share to 75% of the County's Contribution forthe remainder of the collection period. If the Agency is not in default under this Agreement, the County Council's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 7. lnterlocal Cooperation Act. In satisfaction of the requirements of the lnterlocal Act in connection with this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: b) This Agreement shall be authorized and adopted by resolution of the legislative body of each Party pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act. c) This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each Party pursuant to and in accordance with the Section 11-13-202.5(3) of the Interlocal Act. d) Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each Party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action taken pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs. Page 4of12 e) A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed immediately with the keeper of records of each Party pursuant to Section 11-13-209 of the Interlocal Act. f) No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby designated the administrator for all purposes of the Inter local Act, pursuant to Section 11-13-207 of the Inter local Act. g) Following the execution of this Agreement by each of the Parties, each Party shall cause a notice regarding this Agreement to be published in accordance with Section 11-13-2 I 9 of the Interlocal Act. h) No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the Parties as a result of this Agreement. To the extent a Party acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such Party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such Party. 8. Notices. All notices, communications, requests, and waivers required under this Agreement must be in writing. All notices shall be given (i) by delivery in person, (ii) by a nationally recognized next day courier service; or (iii) by first class, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices may also be given by electronic mail, provided that any such communication is concurrently given by one of the methods set forth in the preceding sentence. All notices shall be addressed in each case as follows (or to such other address as either party may specify in writing from time to time): To Agency: With a copy to: To County: With a copy to: Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City 451 South State Street, Room 118 PO Box 145518 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5460 Attn: Chief Operating Officer Salt Lake City Attorney's Office 451 South State Street, Room 505A P.O. Box 145478 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5460 Attn: Senior City Attorney Salt Lake County Office of Regional Development 2001 South State Street, S2-100 PO Box 144575 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4575 Attn: Director Office of the District Attorney 35 East 500 South Page 5of12 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Attn: Mr. Jason Rose 9. Event of Default. An "Event of Default" is the failure of a Party to comply with any of the material terms, conditions, covenants, or provisions of this Agreement, or any action or activity of the Agency using the County's Contribution within the Project Area that, materially deviates from the actions or activities contemplated by the Project Area Plan or the Project Area Budget, that is not fully cured by such Party on or before the expiration of a sixty (60) day period (or, if the other Party approves in writing-which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed-such longer period as may be reasonably required to cure a matter which, due to its nature, cannot reasonably be cured within 60 days) commencing upon the non-defaulting Party's written notice to the defaulting Party of the occurrence thereof. Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, the non-defaulting Party may, in its sole discretion, pursue all remedies conferred by law or equity or other provisions of this Agreement. 10. Liability. Both Parties are governmental entities under the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Utah Code Ann.§§ 63G-7-101 et seq. (the "lmmunitv Act"). Neither Party waives any defenses or limits of liability available under the Immunity Act and other applicable law. Both Parties maintain all privileges, immunities, and other rights granted by the Immunity Act and all other applicable law. 11. Modification and Amendment. Any modification of or amendment to any provision of this Agreement shall be effective only if the modification or amendment is in writing and signed by each of the Parties. Any oral representation or modification concerning this Agreement shall be of no force or effect. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and all prior agreements, representations, negotiations and understandings of the Parties hereto, oral or written, express or implied, are hereby superseded by this Agreement. 13. No Waiver. The failure of either Party at any time to require performance of any provision or to resort to any remedy provided under this Agreement will in no way affect the right of that Party to require performance or to resort to a remedy at any time thereafter. Additionally, the waiver of any breach of this Agreement by either Party will not constitute a waiver as to any future breach. 14. No Obligations to Third Parties. The Parties agree that the Agency's obligations under this Agreement are solely to the County and that the County's obligations under this Agreement are solely to the Agency. The Parties do not intend to confer any rights to third parties unless otherwise expressly provided for under this Agreement. 15. Agency. No officer, employee, or agent of the Agency or the County is intended to be an officer, employee, or agent of the other Party. None of the benefits provided by each Party to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance, health insurance and unemployment insurance, are available to the officers, employees, or agents of the Page 6of12 other Party. The Agency and the County will each be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its officers, employees, or agents during the performance of this Agreement. 16. Ass ignment. No Party may assign its rights, duties or obligations under this Agreement without obtaining prior written consent from the other Party. 17. Governing L aw and Venue. The laws of the State of Utah govern all matters arising out of this Agreement. Venue for any and all legal actions arising hereunder will lie in the District Court in and for the County of Salt Lake, State of Utah. 18. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be illegal or unenforceable in a judicial proceeding, such provision will be deemed inoperative and severable, and, provided that the fundamental terms and conditions of this Agreement remain legal and enforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall remain operative and binding on the Parties. 19. Coun te rpatis. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and all so executed will constitute one agreement binding on all the Parties, it being understood that all Parties need not sign the same counterpart. Further, executed copies of this Agreement delivered by facsimile or email will be deemed an original signed copy of this Agreement. 20. further Assura nc e. Each of the Parties hereto agrees to cooperate in good faith with the other, to execute and deliver such further documents, to adopt any resolutions, to take any other official action, and to perform such other acts as may be reasonably necessary or appropriate to consummate and carry into effect the transactions contemplated under this Agreement. 21. Authori zatio n. Each of the Parties hereto represents and warrants to the other that the warranting Party has taken all steps, including the publication of public notice where necessary, in order to authorize the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by each such Party. This Agreement will become effective when all the Parties have signed it. The date this Agreement is signed by the last party to sign it (as indicated by the date stated under that party's signature) will be deemed the date of this agreement. [The balance of this page was left blank intentionally -Signature pages follow] Page 7of12 Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Allison Parks REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY Erin Mendenhall, Executive Director Page 8of12 Kimberly Barnett Digitally signed by Kimberly Barnett Date: 2020.12.17 10:57:41 -07'00' Dina Blaes Digitally signed by Dina Blaes Date: 2020.12.17 09:58:10 -07'00' Dina Blaes Director, Office of Regional Development EXHIBIT A [Attach Project Area Plan] Page 10of12 EXHIBITB Salt Lake County's Tax Increment from the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City ("Agency") shall be entitled to retain a portion of Salt Lake County's ("County") portion of the Tax Increment from the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area (the "Project Area") for twenty (20) years beginning with the 2021 tax year. The calculation of annual Tax Increment shall be made using (a) Salt Lake County's then current tax levy rate for the District, and (b) the 2016 base year taxable value of $228,048, 136, which taxable value is subject to adjustment as required by law. As further defined in the Agreement, the Agency shall receive 100% of the County's portion of the Tax Increment from the Project Area as the County's Contribution . The Agency shall transfer a portion of the County's Contribution back to the County as the Annual Mitigation Payment, with the balance to be retained by the Agency as the Agency's Share. The schedule of the County's Contribution, Annual Mitigation Payment, and Agency 's share shall be as follows: Tax Years of County's Annual Mitigation Agency's Share the Term Contribution Payment % Maximum* 1 -5 100% 50% 50% $2,081,211 6 -10** 100% 40% 60% $2,491 ,388 11 -20*** 100% 25% 75% $3,122,000 *Note: The Maximum shall be the maximum cumulative amount collected as the Agency's Share over the collection period. **Note: The Agency's Share shall increase to 60% at year six (6) with a maximum cap of$2,491,388 only ifthe Agency establishes it has met the performance benchmarks as further described in the Agreement. If the Agency does not establish it has met the performance benchmarks, the Agency's Share will remain at 50% for the remainder of the collection period unless the Agency's Share is approved to be increased at year eleven (11) pursuant to the provisions outlined in the Agreement. ***Note: The Agency's Share shall increase to 75% at year eleven (11) with a maximum cap of $3, 122,000 only if requested by Agency and approved by the Salt Lake County Council as further described in the Agreement. If the increase is not requested and/or approved, the Agency's Share shall remain unchanged . I. BUDGE T ALLO CA TfO NS The Agency 's Share shall be utilized to implement the 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan (the "Project Area Plan") as follows: Activity Agency's Share Level 50% 60% 75% 1. Redevelopment Activities 76% 78% 81% 2 . Housing 10% 10% 10% 3. Agency Administration and Operations* 8% 7% 5% 4 . County Administration and Operations* 6% 5% 4% Total 100% 100% 100% Page 11of12 *Note: The percentage of Administration and Operations fees shall be calculated based on the County's Contribution and be paid out of the Agency's Share. The percentage of the County's Contribution will remain constant, at 3% for County Administration and Operations and 4% for Agency Administration and Operations. However, the percentage of Administration and Operations as a percentage of the Agency's Share varies with different contribution levels . Description of activities is as follows: 1. Redevelopment Activities: The tax increment expected to be used to carry out project development activities as further described in the Project Area Plan . Activities may include, but not be limited to, land acquisition, public improvements, infrastructure improvements, loans, grants, and other incentives to public and private entities. 2. Housing: The tax increment expected to be used for housing activities pursuant to Utah Code 17C. Housing funds generated from the District's portion of tax increment shall be geographically restricted for use within the Project Area. 3. RDA Administration and Operations: The.tax increment expected to be used to cover the RD A's operating costs of administering and implementing the Project Area Plan. 4. County Administration and Operations: The tax increment expected to be used to cover the County's operating costs of establishing and administering this interlocal agreement and transferring subsequent tax increment to the RDA during the Project Area's term. Page 12of12