05/29/2018 - Minutes MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2018
The Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake
City, Utah, met on Tuesday, May 29, 2018 in Room 326, Committee Room,
City County Building, 451 South State .
In Attendance: Directors James Rogers, Chris Wharton, Amy Fowler, Erin
Mendenhall, Charlie Luke, and Andrew Johnston.
Absent: Director Derek Kitchen
Staff in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director;
Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Executive Director; Jacqueline Biskupski,
Mayor/Chief Executive Officer; David Litvack, Mayor' s Deputy Chief of
Staff; Katherine Lewis, Senior Attorney; Danny Walz, RDA Chief Operating
Officer; Benjamin Luedtke, Council Public Policy Analyst; and Cindi
Mansell, City Recorder.
Director Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 1 : 11 p.m.
A. GENERAL COMMENTS TO THE BOARD
There were no public comments .
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings .
C. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUSINESS (RDA)
#1 . 1:12:15 PM Approval of Minutes. The Board will approve the
meeting minutes of Tuesday, May 15, 2018. View Minutes
Director Mendenhall moved and Director Wharton seconded to approve
the minutes as proposed, which motion carried, all directors present
voted aye .
(M 18-6)
#2 . 1:12:39 PM Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget: Unresolved Issues . The
Board was briefed about unresolved issues relating to the recommended
budget. View Attachments
Danny Walz, Ben Luedtke, Cindy Gust-Jenson, and Jennifer Bruno
briefed the Board with attachments . Ms . Bruno provided background and
suggested additional items for consideration.
18 - 1
MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2018
Discussion followed regarding general long-term policy questions
such as Program Income Fund (PIF) and spending proportional to the
contributing areas; flexibility of PIF dollars for other uses; Housing
Program/Fund Inventory; potential to create abundance of funding
opportunity in the 60-80 Area Median Income (AMI) ; and overlap/reduction
of maximum AMI availability for citywide housing fund contribution.
Mr. Luedtke suggested nuances involved such as consideration of
maximum/minimum funding or where funding actually was served. Discussion
followed regarding the Housing Trust Fund/AMI considerations and where
these projects were actually serving. Ms . Gust-Jenson suggested that
might be a different conversation in that the Council policy regarding
mixed-income in all developments did not lend itself well to the
comparison chart . Ms . Bruno clarified projects applied for funding based
on cap levels for that particular part of the mixed-income project
(affordable units versus market rate) . She said the chart was helpful to
see the housing programs laid out side by side and compare/draw role
clarity boundaries to ensure funding was appropriated as intended.
Mr. Walz said viewing the programs and levels could help define the
RDA and Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) roles . He said that
could be done on a policy level or department level, but an annual basis
could provide flexibility to specify target or priority at that time . He
said there could be conversations with HAND regarding roles (policy/work
plan) in terms of moving forward. The Board expressed desire to view
actual usage (who programs were open to/who was accessing them) . Ms .
Bruno said there had not been a good constructive interim study item
relative to RDA, and suggested this scenario could serve as a good
candidate to mirror/adopt in conjunction with the budget/formalize its
intent.
Mr. Walz discussed pros and cons surrounding PIF spending
proportional to areas such as : broad structure considerations,
prioritizing, leveraging funds on an ongoing basis, and the overall goal
to continue to grow tax increment . He said advantage of having
flexibility/not spending those funds in a project area was they could
start using as seed money for new project areas, setting aside funds at
a quicker pace than normally could for younger project area, or could be
used as a catalytic project (outside of project area that supports) . He
suggested setting up policy similar to the land policy ranking system.
Ms . Bruno said the Central Business District (CBD) had been rich
with tax increment funding (TIF) , and project areas that did not generate
TIF had needs (PIF was a convenient way to get money to those) . She said
the downside was that in years where the CBD felt the pinch financially,
not having that income made it a challenge to meet the needs . She said
keeping funding in the generating districts would be a policy decision.
18 - 2
MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2018
Discussion followed regarding homeless assistance funding, the RDA
Mission Statement, and the question whether the intent was to continue
funding homeless services out of RDA. The Board considered the Mission
Statement to ensure increase to economic development and create
opportunities for low-to-mid housing as well as homeless assistance.
Concern was expressed that State Law did not define homeless assistance,
how the City would define it, and how RDA would work with HAND in this
regard. It was stated this discussion kept reoccurring and there
continued to be need to define and understand what that meant in regards
to policy.
Ms . Bruno said long term, it would be up to the Board' s discretion
as to whether to appropriate RDA funds to go towards homeless assistance
(policy call for the Board versus Staff to determine) . Ms . Gust-Jenson
discussed the importance of tax increment and said a question to ask
would be whether it was appropriate or preferred, how to prioritize, and
how to fund those priorities .
Discussion followed regarding whether the $1 . 2 million would be a
one-time appropriation or whether there would be a similar request next
year. The Board discussed Operation Rio Grande being a difficult
situation involving the City, the City not driving the project, yet
funding having to be found. It was stated there were definite benefits,
the State and County had partnered effectively with the City in this
case, and realizing the City did not have the resources available to
fund everything that needed to be done. The Board discussed the benefits
of connection and role with other partners, whether or not there would
be requests for more funding in the future, continual increase of costs,
and whether this was the best use of funds . Discussion followed regarding
whether it made sense to have $1 .2 from RDA for this instance and the
option to see what happened in the future (i .e . whether responsibilities
would fall more to the General Fund) .
Director Johnston said the policy consideration would be whether
RDA should be funding housing to address homelessness . He said such a
policy could apply the majority of the time and there would be instances
where it did not apply and the Board might need to weigh reasons why
they would be making an exception to policy. He said Operation Rio Grande
would be an example of one of those instances where for the sake of
getting it done, the Board had to agree to terms . He said he wanted to
see policy, discussion, and rationale to assist going forward. He said
he preferred flexibility and wanted to preserve options . He expressed
concern regarding funding services for which the County had typically
been the funding mechanism. He discussed the need to be clear about why
this had been done as a City (outside of RDA) and how it fit with overall
objectives .
18 - 3
MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SALT LAKE CITY
TUESDAY, MAY 29, 2018
Ms . Bruno said Staff could draft Legislative Intent to clarify as
to why, in this particular year/for this one time, the Board would be
willing to consider spending $1 . 2 million for this purpose and that in
the future, the RDA funding should be more focused on providing housing
(as opposed to services) . Clarification was suggested there was no
interest in pulling funding back for this year but there was need to
define clarity for future years .
D. CONSENT
1:48:24 PM Director Mendenhall moved and Director Luke seconded to
approve the Consent Agenda, which motion carried, all directors present
voted aye .
#1. Set the date - RDA Budget Amendment No. 5 for Fiscal Year 2017-
18 . The Board set the date of Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 1 p.m. to accept
public comment and consider adopting a resolution amending the final
budget of the Redevelopment Agency for Fiscal Year 2017-18.
View Attachments
The meeting adjourned at 1 : 48 p.m.
Redevelopment Agency Chair
Secretary
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 meeting held
May 29, 2018 .
clm
18 - 4