From Deseret News archives:

Aquarium may opt to buy RDA land

City Council thought Living Planet was dead

Published: Friday, Oct. 15, 2004 9:04 a.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
The Living Planet Aquarium may live to fight at least three more years.

While Salt Lake City leaders thought they could kill the aquarium next month, the City Council learned Thursday that the aquarium may exercise an option it has to buy the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency land near 400 South and 500 West, where the aquarium is to be located.

"I am writing on behalf of the Living Planet Aquarium to inform the RDA that the aquarium is considering exercising its option to purchase," aquarium attorney David Wolf wrote to RDA Board Chairman Eric Jergensen Thursday. "In addition, representatives from the aquarium would like to meet with you, and the appropriate representatives of the RDA, to discuss how best to coordinate the sale of the property from the RDA to the aquarium."

The agency has an agreement to give the aquarium a free lease on the land if it could meet several semiannual fund-raising milestones established by the RDA.

Story continues below
The aquarium, however, has failed to meet any of those milestones, and last April the City Council, serving as the RDA Board, gave the aquarium one last chance: If the aquarium could raise some $10 million or get a bond to fund part of the $47 million project on the Salt Lake County ballot by November, the agency would continue the lease.

If, however, the aquarium failed to meet one of these goals, the board promised to end its lease and thus kill the aquarium. The RDA could then take back control of the land and be able to use it for other development.

Thursday, after learning of the aquarium's new intentions, some council members complained they were previously unaware that the aquarium had such an option to buy the land.

"This strikes me as something we should have known if we didn't know," said Councilman Dale Lambert, who has repeatedly voted against the aquarium. "This is concerning to me."

Still, the aquarium's decision wouldn't mean the facility is a sure thing. It would, however, give aquarium backers another three years to raise the money needed for their project.

"It looks like this could go on," RDA executive director Dave Oka said.

According to the option, the aquarium can buy the land but must build an aquarium there by 2007. If the aquarium is not building on the land by 2007, the land will revert back to the RDA.

The aquarium can buy the land from the Redevelopment Agency for $3.8 million plus some holding costs. Oka said he may argue that the aquarium should have to pay the entire amount up front, while he expects the aquarium will want to pay the total amount in installments. Oka said the RDA Board will likely have to decide the purchase arrangement. Aquarium representatives are scheduled to meet with the RDA Board at its November meeting.

The move also may injure the city's effort to lure Utah's Major League soccer team, Real Salt Lake, to build a stadium near downtown. Some local real estate brokers figure the aquarium land, partnered with adjacent private land, would be one of the sites the city could offer for a soccer-specific stadium.


E-mail: bsnyder@desnews.com

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

Image
Deseret Morning News graphic

previousnext

Latest comments

I didn't know they needed protection. I wouldn't have a problem hiring a gay...

" Ask anyone who uses these things and they will tell you they want to keep...

5A football: Bingham over Syracuse

I'm a Bingham fan to the core but have to think that if your boy plays the...

The Coaches play a big part in building a team, but the make spark comes from...

Wyoming writer amazed by BYU

You may want to take a line from Mendenhall and have more class, oh but he...

Paa - I can answer your question. As for proof, just as with any...

To FOR Fort Hood victims. Could you please put your remarks in context of...

Wasatch defense stifles Desert Hills

Forum, to call out people, or to mock and make fun of in St George because...

Were the soldiers at Ft. Hood constitutional rights violated by Major Nidal?

U. hopes to keep clicking

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but here's a question for you. ...

Advertisements
Advertisement