Loading...
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