Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pickle And Hyde topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After heated debate over demolition, CRA board approves modified Pickle and Hyde tax-increment term sheet, 6–1
Summary
The CRA board approved modifications to the Pickle and Hyde tax-increment reimbursement term sheet after staff said the Utah Pickle Building had been demolished and rebuilt; board members expressed strong disappointment over the demolition and sought stronger safeguards; the motion passed 6–1.
CRA staff told the board on April 14 that the developer of the Pickle and Hyde project demolished the Utah Pickle Company building on May 20, 2025, after subsurface investigations showed stabilization work and costs higher than anticipated. Christina, a CRA staff presenter, said approximately 40% of original materials were salvaged for reuse and that the demolition calls into question whether the project still satisfies the staff-defined public benefit for building preservation (previously worth 10% of the reimbursement calculation).
The demolition and reconstruction prompted a lengthy and emotional debate among board members. Multiple members said the loss of the original Pickle Building was ‘‘disappointing’’ and raised concerns about transparency and whether the developer had acted in a manner consistent with the partnership the city expected. One board member argued the board should revert to the 60% base participation and treat the demolition as a breach of expectation; another urged balancing the city’s preservation goals with practicalities of obtaining affordable housing outcomes.
After discussion, Board member Carlton moved to approve modifications to the previously approved tax-increment reimbursement term sheet for the Pickle and Hyde project. The motion, as stated on the record, kept the 90% annual distribution but changed the cap mechanics and set a reduced maximum reimbursement amount of $5,078,005.45; it also included the renewable/community participation language and specified sustainable-development waivers described in the motion sheet. The motion was seconded and passed by a recorded voice vote of 6–1 (one board member voted no).
Board members who opposed reducing the preservation-related reimbursement emphasized they were not against the project’s overall benefits—affordable units and commercial spaces—but wanted clearer definitions and contractual safeguards to avoid similar cases in the future. Staff told the board they would take the recommendations and, if directed, finalize the tax-increment reimbursement agreement with the developer.
Next steps: staff said they will incorporate board direction into a revised term sheet and return with any final documentation needed to execute an agreement.
