- Okay, well, this is the Economic Development Commission meeting on Tuesday, May 20th, 2025,
- and it's about 4.06 p.m. We're in the McCloskey Conference Room, Suite 135, and this meeting
- has been posted in accordance with the Indiana open door laws, and I notice we also have
- a Zoom offering, too, and it looks like somebody is on Zoom, so. First thing I thought we'd
- do is do a roll call, so. I'm here. Esau. Esau. City Council member at large. Boom.
- Liz Vital. County Council at large. Boom. Vanessa McClary. Commissioner. Boom. Tim Hankey. Member.
- Kurt Zorn. Member. No boom. D. Dolorosa. ESD. Jane Cooper-Smith. ESD. Boom. Hi, my name's
- Adam with Stoney Dispute Group. I am one of the outside consultants reviewing ECEA points.
- And Jen Pearl with the Blooms and Economic Development Corporation. Boom. All right. Approval
- of minutes. So, were these in the packet? Yes, they were. Or the first email? The first email.
- All right. That goes to show how careful I am. Okay, does anybody have any comments or
- corrections on the March 18, 2025? Motion to approve. That was last week. Huh? Or last
- month. Yeah. I think I was. Well, it says March 18, and then Liz isn't on there, but
- she was at the last one. So, is this not the last meeting? Yeah, because I was at the meeting
- of the... Yeah. I think we met in February and March. I don't think that we met in April.
- We did not meet in April. So, Liz, weren't you here? I was here for one of them. Let
- me see. I'm pretty sure I was here. So, that was February. Really? Yes. I thought I said
- March at the top. I was definitely not here. I don't remember coming that soon. And then
- here's March. We had a full house on March. And so, I think we need a correction to this.
- So, this one... So, because, see, there's a... So, February was the meeting where we didn't
- really have a meeting, technically. Right. Oh, that's what's going on. And then the month
- after that was March, and we went through the pilots. So, a small correction. I called the
- meeting to order, so I clearly was present. Uh-huh. So, I didn't say your name on there.
- Right? Yes. I need to make a correction. I prefer that you guys not approve this today.
- We have a couple of corrections to make, and I thought we had done it, but... It's just a
- statement of fact that the meeting was not called to order because we couldn't call it to order. No,
- we did do that one. In March, but this is not the March meeting. It is, because the approval of the
- February memorandum is at the bottom. But I'm sure we all were there. Okay. I'm sure we were all
- there.
- We were, and then here's... And then there's 2024, because we had two sets from 2024.
- I don't have it down that I attended March meeting.
- Okay. So I think the only correction is that I need to say... Well, that's the last meeting we did
- meet in April. That commissioner's present is... Oh, you were here with me the last week.
- Kurt. Mm-hmm. Exactly. In March. Yeah. Because they said we were going to meet in April,
- so you had to be here in March, because you were here with me. It's funny, I don't have it down.
- Okay. Yeah. So D states that... He just followed me.
- ...the correction needed is just to add Kurt to this commissioner's present list for March,
- and then they're correct. I don't know. Did we meet in April? We did not. We did not meet in April.
- So Liz was here in March. Somewhere along the line. I've been to one meeting before.
- Yes, that's correct. She was here in March. You were here also when we voted for...
- I voted on... That's right. Whenever that was. So, adding Kurt and you to the March 18th,
- when it really was. Yes, thank you. Sorry about that. That's okay. Oh, I do have it down. I'm going
- for the wrong thing.
- There you go. I have it down. Yeah, because that's when we voted for... March 18th, right there.
- Yeah, we were definitely all here for this meeting. Yes, yes.
- All right. Yeah. Okay. And so, but then the voting records are all off.
- Just let it... Let's... Yeah, okay. Sorry about that. That's fine. So, what's this next one?
- So, this is for March of 2024. I know. We had some lost minutes. That's right. Yeah. That's right.
- Wow. So, you had a presentation from Summit Development from... Yeah, I remember that meeting.
- That was a great meeting. Wow. But wait, there's more. You've got June 4th,
- which was the last abatement presentation that we had. Ah, yes. Yes, I remember that.
- We worked through that sheet. That was great. Good times, guys. Good times. I think we can
- improve the 2024 minutes. Right. And maybe you want to bring back 2025. Yes. So, your dates are
- March 19th and June 4th. Yes. So, I move that we approve those two meetings. Second.
- Any discussion? Any confusion? I'm sorry, y'all. No, it's just a year ago.
- Now's your chance to change the record as you remember it.
- So, all in favor of approving the minutes for March 19th, 2024 and June, whatever the date was?
- 2020. Indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? I'm staying because I wasn't
- here. All right. We've taken care of that. Good. And I think the next piece of business is going to
- our abatement report. Correct? Yep. And then will you add an error?
- Okay. All right. Hello, everyone. This is our annual abatement presentation.
- I'm Andrea de la Rosa, ESD. And so we're going to give you an overview of the current active
- abatements, one additionally that has not been triggered, but we have been monitoring and
- reporting and they report to us annually. I want to say thank you to Stone Municipal Group,
- their consultant of ours that's been helping us get the math together and get the presentation
- together, so they've been a great help. So on the agenda, we're going to take a
- look at the summary of the tax abatement program, just kind of what it is as a refresher.
- Evaluated criterion process, compliance review process, and then the economic impact of the
- abatements generally, and then we'll get into more detail and then Jane will give us a review of
- the
- active pilots that we have. So what is a tax abatement? A tax abatement is a temporary
- reduction or in some cases a pause in property taxes. The city offers this incentive to encourage
- private investment and development, particularly areas that need economic growth or revitalization.
- The abatements can apply in two types of property, real and personal, so real being real estate and
- personal being machinery, equipment used in those operations. It's important to note that the
- abatements apply only to the increment, the increase in the assessed value resulting from
- new investment or development. The base value of the property continues to be taxed as usual.
- To be eligible for a tax abatement, a project must be located within a designated ERA or in some
- cases
- an economic development target area, an EDTA, and that's by recommendation from you all, the EDC,
- and the city of Bloomington Common Council makes these designations required by state
- law for an abatement to be granted. Under Indiana code 611121-1, an area qualifies as an ERA when
- it
- has become "undesirable for or impossible of normal development or occupancy due to factors
- such as lack of development, deterioration of buildings, age, obsolescence, or other conditions
- that impair property values or limit everyday use." So these are underutilized areas or in decline.
- Within EDT, it gets a little bit broader where it can be a historical area or historical district.
- So how they work. Abatements work by phasing in the taxes on new investment. That means the new
- assessed value is temporarily exempt from property taxes. Most abatements are granted for 1 to 10
- years, but under certain circumstances, abatements for personal property like equipment can be
- extended up to 20. We don't typically do that here. Typically, the tax phase-in follows a sliding
- scale starting with 100% exception for the first year and then gradually decreasing. They tend to
- go 190 and sometimes they go 195. So it's usually in like either 10% or 5% increments.
- However, the city, the designated body can approve an alternative deduction schedule
- if a project requires a different structure. And NEI code does allow for that flexibility.
- So, evaluative criteria and application process. Abatements are evaluated and approved.
- It's key to ensuring transparency and accountability. Every request goes through a formal multi-step
- process beginning with a staff review and culminating in a public vote by council. The
- Economic and Sustainable Development Department, US, receives the application required and the
- required Statement of Benefits, which is an SB1. We'll be referring to that form a couple times,
- which is used statewide. From there, ESD reviews the proposal and recommends it to the Economic
- Development Commission, US. And then if you support the project, it moves forward to the common
- council.
- The council reviews whether the project qualifies as an ERA, an economic revitalization area,
- or if it meets the criteria for an EDTA, which is required for certain types of residential
- abatements. The council also determines whether the abatement term and schedule are standard,
- sliding scale, or an alternative schedule. This whole process concludes with a public hearing
- and the passage of a confirmatory resolution, which finalizes the abatement authorization.
- So, once a project is under review, the SB1 becomes a foundation for the future evaluation.
- This document sets the baseline for key projects, including the property's assessed value at the
- time
- of the application, current employment levels, the amount of new investment in the applicant's
- estimates for job creation and wage increases. These baseline figures gives a way to measure
- impact over time and hold the recipients accountable for the outcomes they projected.
- In addition to state-required information, our evaluation process also considers a range of
- community-focused priorities. So, affordable housing, quality of life, sustainability,
- climate action goals, support for community services, and the enhancement of local character.
- The ones that we'll be looking at specifically are mainly affordable housing and
- support of community, sort of community services, but they're more for capital improvement and job
- creation. So, the compliance review process. So, we're going to just recap really quick how we go
- through this whole thing. So, ESD conducts the initial review and handles the annual compliance
- checks. EDC provides recommendations, the common council authorizes the abatements, and then the
- county auditor handles the deduction themselves. The city's general standards for approving
- abatements are at the heart of this process. To receive one, a project must do more than just
- invest.
- It should create capital improvements that enhance tax base, significantly increase living wage,
- full-time, and permanent jobs, raise existing wages, or contribute to the development of
- affordable housing. Once an abatement is granted, we track the project through an
- annual compliance reporting. Every year, the taxpayer must submit a CF-1 form, the state's
- standard compliance report. It's filed with the county auditor who administers the tax deduction
- and the clerk so that the council can review it. ESD staff compares the CF-1 to the original SB-1
- to evaluate whether the business is following through on its commitments.
- This includes reviewing investment levels, job creation, and wage increases.
- We also work closely with departments like HAN to verify performance on other criteria,
- such as affordable housing, sustainability commitments, and community impact elements.
- Once again, affordable housing is really the only qualifier in the abatements that you're going to
- see. Based on this review, we make one of three determinations. Either compliant, the business has
- met its commitments. Substantially compliant, they made good faith effort but have fallen short in
- one or more areas. Or non-compliant, the business has not met key commitments or failed to submit
- the required documentation. After the Economic Development Corporation finalizes its report,
- it's submitted to the Common Council for review. Council may approve the full report or evaluate
- each abatement individually. For each, they can find the taxpayer compliant, substantially
- compliant,
- or request a hearing if they are considering finding non-compliance. If non-compliance is
- considered and it's not due to factors beyond the taxpayers controlled stated in IC 6-1.1-12.1-59,
- if the designated body determines that the property owner has not substantially
- complied with the statement of benefits and that failure to substantially comply was not caused by
- factors beyond the control of property owner such as declines in demand for the property owner's
- products or services, the designated body shall mail a written notice to the property owner.
- This notice begins the formal process of addressing potential non-compliance.
- Do you want to pause and see if anyone has questions before you move on to the impact?
- All right, so the economic impact of the tax abatements. This chart compares what companies
- originally proposed on their SB 1 forms with what they reported as actuals on their CF 1 forms,
- both in terms of investment and assessed value. Actual new improvements are based on
- CF 1 or actual assessed value listed per the rural county assessor. The SB 1 is an estimate
- of proposed results by the taxpayer, so we do not demand accuracy on the assessment,
- and SB 1 is an estimate, not a commitment. We've divided this into investment categories,
- mixed use, commercial real estate, commercial personal property, and residential. You'll see
- that in some cases, like mixed use, the actual improvements significantly exceed proposed assessed
- value, while commercial real estate saw a major increase in valuation despite a much lower actual
- investment than proposed. The total proposed investment across all projects is about $548
- million, with actual investments landing around $260 million. But in terms of assessed value,
- the actual outcome of $255 million exceeded the proposed value of $170 million, indicating that
- the incentive supported a higher than expected increase in assessed value. Because all tax
- abatements must meet a but-for threshold, the AV increase reflected would not exist without the
- support of the tax abatement. So, Dave, I want to see if I understand this table.
- The second column, new, new, actually new investment, is the money that
- the company or whomever invested, correct? The actual new improvements is the assessed value
- that actually showed up on the rolls? The fourth column? Yes. Okay.
- Clarify this one. It was the wording, actual new improvements, that threw me off. Because you're
- talking about proposed new assessment, actual assessment would be clearer to me if that's what
- it is. Okay. I'm taking notes. Thanks. Yeah, so the fourth column is assessor's assessed value.
- Yeah, that's what the assessor actually... That's what we all could look up on the books.
- Yeah. I think it'd be clearer if you just did that instead of new improvements.
- Were there other questions? Yeah, but just following up on that, so diving more into the SB1
- question, because that's changing the way that the assessed value can increase as well as the...
- I mean, the circuit breaker stuff is all the same, but it's like,
- what's your thoughts on how tax abatements will be affected by changes with SB1?
- Oh my gosh, we have so much material to get through today.
- Yeah. Is that a hard question to answer?
- Well, no. I think that we're still working to understand, Liz and I were just talking about
- this, to understand the impacts on real and personal property tax revenue. So we don't
- have a blanket question or a blanket answer, but we know that it's going to be reduced.
- We could possibly put that on a future... But for a tax abatement,
- it's on paper going to make the tax abatements look even better than they look currently,
- would it not, for the SB1 effects? Because I get that we're doing a parcel by parcel analysis on
- property tax across the city, but I'm just meaning specifically with what we're talking about with
- tax abatements as relates to SB1. Are there adjustments to it because there's been adjustments
- in values? Is that changes in tax revenues, those type of things?
- Well, the abatement is going to be related to the AV and the tax rate. So I think any shifts in the
- tax rate will come back on the abatement, right? So it'll be a direct impact in terms of whether
- the abatement is more or less valuable to the filer than pre-SB1. I think it remains to be seen.
- And I know, Jen, you're here, and my recall isn't good enough to think through the proposed changes
- to personal property. But they removed the-- or Adam, you're nodding your head.
- Yeah. The minimalist floor increased from essentially $80,000 to $2 million in business
- personal property. So that will have a-- essentially, that floor serves as a pseudo abatement.
- And we have some material as well we can share with the team specifically as it relates to SCA1.
- And the short answer would be the abatement is largely a percent deduction of the improvement
- assessed value. So if the assessed value on the improvements go up or down, the abatement tracks
- accordingly because it's consistent-- it really is computed as a percent deduction.
- Right. OK. Yeah, that's good. That was the thing I missed. I understand.
- I have a quick question. Why do we have a zero? How do you end up with a zero
- in that third column in the mixed use? I don't get that.
- Well, there is some creative form completion in these abatements, but--
- Yeah. So just to be really clear, these forms are very confusing. And sometimes we get zeros,
- and sometimes we get blanks. This specifically, the mixed use, I believe, is Urban Station.
- Do you want me to go to that slide? Yeah, if you could.
- Oh, it's not going to-- I'm going to have to-- OK, avert your eyes while I scroll.
- Spoilers. So the commitment-- oh, actually--
- Do they have assessed values?
- No, they do have assessed values in there.
- They had zero to start.
- So you're just picking up what was on the SB1?
- Yes. And that doesn't make any sense?
- To have zero.
- Yeah, it doesn't make any sense for the zero to be there. But you didn't make that number up.
- They made that number up.
- Right.
- Yeah.
- So they misunderstood the form, right?
- Yeah.
- Makes sense.
- I think that's a simple answer.
- And just for everyone's AI that's taking notes, there will be confusion between
- SB1, the form that we're talking about, and SB1, the bill that we were discussing earlier.
- For everyone's AI, I hope it picks up that.
- So we are on slide 12.
- So this slide provides a snapshot of the job-related outcomes reported on the CF1 forms.
- Across all projects, businesses reported a total of 3,692 jobs,
- both new and retained positions.
- The total salaries associated with those jobs amounted to just over $317 million.
- When we average out both new and retained positions, the reported average salary
- was approximately $85,895,000.
- This helps us understand not just how many jobs were created or preserved,
- but also the quality of those jobs in terms of wages.
- I'm curious, it sounds high.
- I actually have a comment first.
- It's average of all the jobs.
- Is it possible, because you have on the previous thing, you have what they wanted,
- what they put on SB1 and what they have on the CF1.
- I'm assuming this came off the CF1.
- Did.
- Could we have a comparison of what they proposed versus what happened on this slide?
- That would be my suggestion.
- I think I think the council may want that.
- Noting that.
- I'm still curious.
- Maybe explain it or maybe think about it.
- I don't think $85,000 is too high.
- I don't think there were 3,600 many jobs at $85,000 created.
- What am I missing?
- It is an average of everything, but we're also accounting for Catalan,
- which has a lot of higher paid jobs and does weight everything considerably.
- I think that the comparison of the SB1 and the CF1 might kind of clarify that a little bit.
- This can be broken out a little bit better.
- It gets into more detail as we go into the individual abatements.
- But I think a lot of that weight is probably due to the Catalan abatements.
- Well, it absolutely is.
- So with our abatement program, the state allows this program
- for job creation and capital investment.
- But in Bloomington, we're really looking at it for housing development.
- And so Catalan represents our main job creation abatement.
- And the most recent abatement was in 2022.
- Post-pandemic, they were hiring at $30 an hour.
- And that $85, $85 ends up being just north of $40 an hour.
- So I think it really does scoop the high and low of that employer.
- You just said Catalan was $30 an hour, which is like $60,000, right?
- Yeah.
- So the bulk of their jobs were coming in at that rate.
- But they had enough higher paying jobs that were also being created
- post-- in the Defense Production Act times that I think it skews high.
- OK.
- We can come over it, though.
- I mean, I think the proposed to be actual on that would be good.
- All right.
- Anything else on this particular slide?
- OK.
- So how did you get the 85, 895?
- Did you take the total salary?
- That is an average of total jobs versus total salary.
- So it seems like you should take 317 divided by 36.2.
- That's what they did.
- Yeah, that's what we did.
- I don't think I got that one.
- I did my little math here.
- That's why I'm looking, because I just did that.
- Did you get the same thing?
- Yeah.
- Did you get that number?
- I got it.
- Yeah.
- OK.
- Maybe I don't have them on this.
- Roundly.
- [LAUGHS]
- Yeah, I went with that.
- OK.
- All right.
- OK, so here we've summarized the affordable housing
- commitments made through tax abatements,
- including income levels served, unit counts, and occupancy
- rates for 2024.
- We're highlighting three projects, New Urban Stations,
- Southern Knoll, and Union at Crescent.
- Each development committed to setting aside
- a number of units for residents earning
- below a certain percentage of the area median income or AMI.
- New Urban Station serves households
- in an average of 29% with a total of 15 affordable units,
- all of which are designated affordable in 2024.
- 11 of those units are currently occupied.
- Southern Knoll serves at 52% AMI with 31 affordable units.
- And 27 are currently occupied.
- The Union at Crescent holds 20% AMI with 120 units
- originally committed and 116 designated as affordable.
- 74 of those units are currently occupied.
- Is that really 102 or 120?
- I think you said 120, right?
- No, I'm sorry.
- If I said 120, I didn't mean to say 120.
- It's 102 is the number of units that they're required to have.
- OK, ready.
- So we're getting into the individual abatements
- at this point in time.
- So Southern Knoll is a 31-unit, two-story affordable housing
- complex.
- And the development offers the following public benefits.
- Go to the next slide.
- All 31 units are affordable to households
- at or below 80% AMI with a current occupancy rate of 87%.
- Of those units, 24 units are affordable to households
- at or below 60 AMI with a higher occupancy rate of 92%.
- Seven units are set aside as permanent supportive housing.
- And additionally, seven units are
- designated for individuals with intellectual or developmental
- disabilities.
- The real estate improvements are complete,
- and the staff has found this project compliant
- with tax abatement commitments--
- or substantially compliant.
- I'm sorry.
- So they have 31 at 80%, and they have 24 at 60%.
- And then-- OK, this helps.
- So the substantial compliance is because they are--
- not at 100% for occupancy in those.
- OK.
- That was my question as well.
- So you just graded substantially compliant--
- If they're not at 100% occupancy.
- Thank you.
- So this property is in its sixth year of abatement at 98%.
- It exceeds the proposed benefits on the CF1 for capital
- investments, new employment, and salary.
- It is substantially compliant with affordability
- requirements.
- The current assessed value is $1,346,100.
- So it's at 130% of its SB1 estimated value.
- So are both of the jobs that they've added at 44,000
- or $21 an hour, or--
- Yes.
- OK.
- All right.
- Union Crescent is a 146-unit, five-story mixed income housing
- development, originally approved with the commitment
- to provide no fewer than 102 units for households earning
- 60% AMI or below.
- The original real estate improvements are complete,
- and ownership has since transitioned to the annex group,
- which is currently implementing phase one of a turnaround
- strategy to restore affordability and improve
- living conditions.
- The property has faced significant safety
- and operational challenges, including repeated trespassing,
- biohazards, disruption caused by individuals seeking shelter.
- These conditions have delayed leasing progress
- and require ongoing remediation.
- The annex group has partnered with a security
- firm for intervention.
- They have contracted with a professional cleaning service
- for biohazards, and they intend to commit over $500,000
- in property improvements, with the target
- of having all 102 affordable units fully restored
- by November 25.
- Despite these efforts, the staff has found the project
- to be non-compliant with its abatement commitments.
- OK, would you repeat that last--
- you said the staff have found them to be not compliant?
- Yes.
- I'll jump in.
- So our thinking is really just that--
- I'm sorry, Dee, are you saying that they have 102 units?
- No, they only have 64% of the original 70.
- I need to clarify that.
- Yeah, I'll read your notes.
- So basically, in the other-- we updated the slide deck.
- OK, that's why we were confused.
- Let me just say something else.
- I really wanted us to frame this discussion today.
- With the reporting period for tax abatements
- is determined by the earliest filer.
- So we have how many days from the earliest filer?
- 60, 45 days from the earliest filer.
- We had a very early filer this year,
- which meant that even though the deadline for tax forms
- was last Thursday, we had to turn the abatement presentation
- around by today.
- So the filers are allowed to send those snail mail,
- as long as they're postmarked.
- So we had last-minute updates come in and last-minute
- communications with this company.
- And so back to Union at Crescent,
- it's obviously a really substantial affordable
- housing development project.
- As Dee mentioned, the developer does
- have a plan for turning it around.
- But given that they're only at 64%
- of their committed occupancy, we really
- don't feel good about standing up to the public
- and attesting that the public's getting the value out
- of this tax incentive.
- We feel like we really want to see an improvement
- in that occupancy rate.
- So on one hand, they do have some committed plans in place.
- That's what they're telling us.
- But the number was not there.
- Can you go back one slide?
- Because we didn't have all of that status.
- I'd like to have that.
- I did update all of that.
- That's OK.
- Yeah, because I was really upset.
- I didn't see that.
- OK, thank you.
- Yeah, and then ownership has changed to the annex group.
- The annex group is the developer.
- And they've been on this project since the beginning.
- I think they have taken over active management
- of the project.
- So maybe it's a shift.
- Maybe it's not.
- So with our recommendation, that would
- trigger the process by which council would schedule
- a hearing with this filer.
- And it would give council the opportunity
- to do a deep dive on the status of the project.
- Am I right that there's no prescribed thing
- that the council has to do?
- I mean, you could pull the abatement or maybe not.
- Well, this finding-- so if staff recommends
- a finding of noncompliance, that triggers a couple of actions.
- It separates that abatement out from this approval process.
- So it pulls the abatement out of the approval process.
- The other abatements march along and go,
- have their hearing on July, June 4.
- Then this abatement necessarily, if we
- have that recommendation, it necessarily
- goes on a separate course.
- So you can't fold it back in for approval that way.
- But you can have a hearing, and then counsel
- can determine whether they will find it
- compliant or noncompliant.
- But what happens to annex groups?
- So if it's not compliant, can they
- become compliant again in years ahead?
- Yes.
- OK.
- And so it would be that this year, they would pay tax--
- assuming that all the process went through,
- they would pay taxes this year.
- But then the following year, they
- could resume their commitments and then pick up
- where they left off, essentially, having lost one year
- of the 10.
- Yes, if they're compliant.
- If they're compliant, right.
- Right, and the compliance--
- there is a stipulation where I think they can claim--
- sorry, I'm losing my language.
- They can claim that it's a situation where variables
- are outside of control, which is likely what would happen.
- But they would be able to explain that to you
- in public speaking.
- Yeah, sure, sure.
- And we have been through this cycle, I think,
- two years ago with Urban Station, who had a late filing.
- And we just didn't accept it.
- And that triggered the hearing process.
- And they've been really great partners
- and very communicative since, and they're back on track.
- And is there a--
- because the abatements go in with stair steps
- at some point, right?
- Is there the ability to approve a partial abatement
- in the middle of an abatement?
- So like you say, well, we don't find you compliant.
- So I mean, is it all or nothing at this stage?
- I think-- I mean, the schedule is set in the resolutions.
- And so if you were to want to choose
- to offer them a partial abatement--
- I mean, it already is a partial abatement,
- but you would have to approve an alternate deduction schedule.
- And then that would be probably a two cycle process.
- Right.
- Or a two meeting cycle.
- Do you know if this entity has layers of subsidies
- and performance requirements for others, like tax credits?
- They do.
- I believe it's a LIHTC property.
- And I know that they've been deeply engaged with hand,
- both for project support and violations on the site.
- The site's been challenging.
- And do we have any sense of why they've struggled with--
- What's their side of the story?
- -with housing?
- Yeah.
- Well, and I think they would be really
- happy to have the opportunity to talk about that.
- But it's security.
- It's a really vulnerable population
- that is living in this property.
- There's a lot of property damage that goes along with it.
- Many of our meetings have interesting themes
- and then related to human waste.
- And I think that is also a theme for this property,
- for example.
- There's just a lot of challenges that
- go along with the management.
- However, there are other affordable housing developers
- that are successfully managing their properties in town.
- We did it for 25 years, still do it.
- And it's difficult. It takes personnel.
- It takes ongoing investment.
- Yeah, but thus the tax evapement, right?
- Yeah, I mean, it takes good, confident people
- to be there every day.
- Right.
- And then do we know--
- so it's 60%-- it's at or below 60% AMI.
- Do we know what their average AMI is?
- 20%.
- It's at 20%, OK.
- Yeah, so they're really--
- Yeah, it's people who are experiencing some hardship,
- some serious hardship.
- Yeah.
- But I think these questions are really important.
- And from our staff perspective, it's
- not our place to make the judgment call in the gray area.
- It's really to just be transparent with you
- all about the information.
- And then EDC's role is to really tee this up for counsel
- to make a good, correct finding.
- And so the finding of noncompliance
- here really sets up the process for additional discussion.
- Yeah, yeah.
- Interesting you say gray area.
- I was going to ask, but I assume there's
- gray area somewhere north of 64%.
- You would have found them substantially compliant.
- Yeah, there is.
- And in fact, here, we're feeling pretty good
- about 87% and 92%.
- So here, we're recommending a finding
- of substantial compliance.
- So we're definitely more comfortable there
- and feel confident in our recommendation to you all.
- Which is a different location.
- It is a different location.
- It's a smaller property too.
- And so I think it's important to do that apples
- to apples comparison to see if you want to consider
- some other finding.
- I'm just wondering, like at Union and Crescent,
- if the council wants to say, or we wanted to say,
- we think you need to be at 80% or 75%,
- or if there's some number--
- there's some agreement.
- Right, right, to be substantial.
- So they would have a very clear target.
- Yes, and I think our MOUs related to the abatements
- in the past have not--
- they've only talked about the available units.
- They haven't talked about occupancy.
- And so it is a gray area.
- Yeah, I mean, because the marketplace
- can change such that they might have an available unit that
- has no available resident that qualifies.
- Yeah.
- Right?
- I doubt that that's the case here.
- But either way, all of that would be available to--
- during the hearing with council as things to explore, right?
- I mean, they could make the argument that
- it was outside of their hands, and it could
- go in a different direction.
- Yeah, and we would present a packet of material for you
- all that would have a deeper dive on all the data
- included and include the MOU.
- But I just want to restate that the MOU does not
- weigh in on occupancy rates.
- So if you're taking a hard line, you could say, well--
- They have the units.
- We understand that they're not all occupied,
- but we've made the units available,
- and that's what the MOU says.
- Yeah, we could take the position that if they
- had those 102 apartments ready to move into,
- then they've met their obligation.
- They're compliant, not irrespective of whether or not
- people lived in them.
- Yeah.
- Do you want to come back to this one, or do you want to--
- I'm just trying to learn from it.
- I mean, it seems like you have a process that makes sense.
- It can go to another level.
- I don't disagree.
- Well, we can come back to that.
- Is the hearing automatic with the council?
- It would be if that's required.
- Thank you.
- OK.
- All right, moving on.
- Urban Station is a four-story mixed-use building
- with 7,000 square feet of commercial space
- and 148 bedrooms.
- At least 15 of the units will be allocated
- to households with incomes at or below 80%
- of the average median income.
- Rent for the affordable units may not
- exceed 85% of the market rate, and the affordability
- must be in place for 99 years for this building.
- So these are workforce units, and--
- No.
- Urban Station is in its eighth year of abatement.
- The real estate investment exceeds expectations
- with a reported $14.5 million compared
- to the committed $11.5 million.
- Retained employment fell slightly short,
- with four positions retained out of the 10 committed.
- So staff have found this to be substantially
- compliant due to the higher actual average wages
- in comparison to the SB1.
- The business committed five new jobs for a new appointment,
- but has created two to date with salaries
- close to the projected rate, also substantially compliant.
- Retained salaries remain strong at approximately $150,000,
- resulting in higher average hourly wage than projected.
- The assessed value increased to $16.5 million,
- despite no original estimate provided.
- So we are assuming that this is on target at this juncture.
- The project also committed to providing 15 affordable units
- at or below 80% AMI.
- And that commitment has been upheld at 73 occupancy rate,
- which qualifies as substantially compliant.
- So I remember last year on this one--
- and I guess actually going back here
- helps, because we had broken this down by rooms rather than
- units here, correct?
- And so-- and I also seem to recall
- as having quite a long conversation about this
- at the council meeting that followed, that it was--
- and I think what we recommended last year
- was that they were compliant because they
- had the room occupancies.
- And they were fully full on the rooms, if I'm not mistaken.
- But this year, we're saying 73% of the rooms are full?
- No, this is units.
- So now they have 15 units available?
- Because last year, they only had 10 units.
- And 15 bedrooms.
- That might be a mistake right here.
- Do you have access to Stephanie's slide on--
- there's Stephanie's info sheet on that one.
- Thanks, Esau.
- Because 73% of 10 units is--
- puts us closer to that other situation,
- it feels like, right?
- Yeah, this one feels gray.
- Yeah.
- Gray also.
- And I might raise the same question about the employment.
- Now, the employment is a weird one to me,
- because it's over the space of so many years.
- But two of five is-- when do we decide for employment
- that it's substantially compliant?
- And if we have employment and salaries
- that are different than what we expected,
- looking at those collectively here is--
- I agree.
- And I think I just wanted to explain something else
- about the salaries.
- $1,550 is low, people don't live on that in this town.
- And it's not the living wage.
- The living wage is $1,622.
- And the reason-- this has been remedied since this time,
- but I believe the MOU does not reference the living wage
- ordinance.
- So there's no leverage there.
- That's prior to maybe.
- Well, I've read another resolution recently
- from 2016 that was all about the living wage ordinance.
- So it may be that this was 2016, but prior to it.
- So there's a total of 25 bedrooms
- available in the 15 units that are available.
- Of those, 17 are occupied.
- OK, so they have, since last year,
- added five new units of affordable housing.
- Are you looking at last year's presentation or something?
- I was.
- Let me pull it back up now.
- So D, you were saying they had 17 bedrooms--
- They have 17 bedrooms occupied out of a total of 25.
- 17 bedrooms.
- Sorry, let me pull it up and not be in two minds here.
- OK, so last year, we said that they had 10 total units
- with 15 bedrooms.
- So they had two one bedrooms at a particular average rate,
- three one bedrooms.
- So basically, they had five one bedrooms and five two bedrooms.
- That's the way it worked out.
- That makes it 15.
- That made 15 bedrooms, yeah.
- But if we're saying now that since last year,
- they've added five new units for a total of--
- We only care about the units that were--
- OK, so they have different reporting requirements
- for hand and for their abatements.
- So what I want to do is look at their MOU,
- because we have to go by the--
- The MOU, right.
- The MOU.
- And last year on the presentation,
- we said no fewer than 15 bedrooms will be allocated.
- I think on the slide before this,
- we mentioned bedrooms as well.
- So just--
- I say that the reason I'm also bringing this up,
- though, is that because if they haven't seen some increase
- in units with this, it helps appease me
- on the question of substantial compliance versus,
- do I have a concern with this one?
- The context matters, right, that actually they've
- added some new places and, you know.
- So I figured out 73% is of what, of the 15 bedrooms?
- Of the 15 units, because I was only going by units.
- Units, OK.
- I was not going by bedrooms.
- But it doesn't-- yeah, but-- under the MOU.
- Hold it, please.
- And did you say that the MOU doesn't include--
- We're looking it up right now.
- -no binding with the living wage work.
- It doesn't require that.
- Not that I recall.
- It seemed interesting to think that it would, though.
- Well, why not-- I don't want you guys to wait,
- but I also want to get through.
- Do you want to move on, and we'll come back to this one?
- Sure.
- Let me ask one general question on Urban Station.
- Are you in good enough communication with them
- to feel like they're trying to achieve
- the goal of 15 bedrooms or whatever it is in Fort Wayne?
- Absolutely.
- Since the last time they did not--
- since the last time they weren't found compliant
- because they didn't turn in their paperwork,
- they've been very communicative.
- When we've asked them questions, they have responded immediately.
- They are making efforts to make sure
- that they stay within the requirements of their MOU
- and of the resolution.
- OK.
- Consistently.
- And do you feel like they're substantially compliant?
- Yes, I do.
- I think that the effort is being shown.
- They also have-- I mean, whether you're
- talking about 15 bedrooms or 15 units, it's only 15.
- So when one is gone, your percentage
- decreases much more than something with 102 units,
- for instance.
- So they are obligated just for five one-bedroom and five
- two-bedrooms, so a total of 10 units, 15 bedrooms.
- And so D, I think on Stephanie's form, I would be curious
- if they have 17 renting at workforce rates.
- The workforce housing unit--
- 17 bedrooms at that rate?
- Yeah, that's what they have, and they're
- exceeding the requirements.
- Yeah.
- And all of those, and then the--
- But if they-- but see, so--
- but that would then tell us that they are actually compliant,
- not substantially compliant, because they're--
- and they would have a 73 occupancy.
- They'd have 110% percent.
- And so I guess, like, the 73% occupancy,
- I just want to think what this needs to do.
- I'm sorry, folks.
- Oh, don't worry.
- Dee, what is-- what's the number of units on Stephanie's report?
- The number of total units on Stephanie's report
- is 15, the total units.
- OK.
- And then, well, how do we get to the 73 number then, 73%?
- Because there are 11 units occupied.
- OK, so they're saying 11, 11.
- So a cent, which is-- we should interpret--
- yeah, so 11 rooms are occupied currently.
- Some of those are two bedrooms.
- So OK.
- Some of the units are two bedrooms.
- Right.
- So but a unit--
- no, but we count.
- Here, we're counting by--
- sorry if I'm overconfusing myself.
- No, no.
- For the MOU, you can count bedrooms or units.
- It's listed both ways.
- And so I think we should be able to report
- to counsel both ways.
- OK, so but here, we're saying 11 out of 15 rooms are occupied.
- That is--
- No.
- Here, we're saying 11 out of 15 units are occupied.
- But they only have 10 units.
- We are only requiring 10 units.
- Five of the units are two bedrooms.
- Right.
- Five of the units are one bedroom.
- But then why are they reporting--
- so are some of these two bedrooms,
- they could be two unrelated people?
- Like, is that-- oh my gosh.
- No.
- Listen, I think that they are compliant.
- OK, I mean, rather than substantially compliant.
- Yes, because if we're going by bedrooms, then yes.
- I see.
- Yes.
- That's the total required housing,
- and then how many are occupied on this spreadsheet.
- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
- 17.
- Or those are bedrooms, I'm sorry.
- No, that's fine.
- 17 affordable bedrooms is--
- and those are occupied.
- OK, this is compliant, folks, I'm sorry.
- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
- OK, so Jane, you just said you're
- staying with it compliant.
- Yes, we're recommending compliance.
- I think this is shaky.
- But the purpose of this abatement
- is really more about housing and job creation.
- So I feel comfortable with substantially compliant.
- And then D, I think we need to tighten up that occupancy rate.
- And so it would be 17 over 15.
- Thank you.
- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
- OK, emergent strategy.
- Here we are at 505.
- OK.
- OK, this feels clear.
- And then the big takeaway from that discussion
- is that we have to button up and talk about bedrooms and units
- specifically during that event.
- OK.
- The reason I looked up this one is
- because I remember having both a long conversation here
- and there about it and the council.
- I think we should present this in a way
- to avoid the conversation we just had, right?
- Well, thanks, CDC, for having us.
- I think we ought to have the full conversation.
- All right.
- Woolery Mill is a property at 2550 South Breaking Away.
- It's resolutions 0401 and 1314.
- This is an oldie but a goodie.
- We've all appreciated what redevelopments
- happened on this site.
- Dee, do you want to jump in?
- Yeah.
- The project has committed to $6 million--
- oh, I'm sorry.
- No, go ahead.
- OK.
- The project committed to $6 million
- in new real estate investment and has reported $4.3 million
- to date.
- While this is slightly below the target,
- the staff considered this substantially compliant
- given the scale and scope of improvements completed.
- The project has exceeded expectations
- in terms of job creation, with 60 new jobs reported
- compared to the 45 originally committed.
- Wages also outperformed projections,
- with $990,000 in new salaries, including part-time roles
- at $15 an hour and full-time roles at $20 an hour.
- And the assessment value has reached $300--
- what is it?
- Over $3 million, which is slightly
- under the projection, $4.2 million,
- but still considered unscheduled and meeting expectations
- based on the development time.
- And did we get-- is this current?
- I mean, I remember this is what we said last year,
- but $20 is not our housing wage in Bloomington,
- and $15 is below our living wage.
- It is.
- These are current.
- This was set in '04 and '13.
- So these in the MOUs and resolutions aren't--
- I'm just talking about their report.
- Oh, we don't mention it in the MOUs and resolutions?
- Yeah.
- OK, fine.
- So we can't judge on that.
- Yeah.
- We can only judge on that.
- Generally, for just our awareness,
- have they stopped with the capital investments?
- Are they still building a hotel?
- What's the--
- They've talked about redevelopment
- at that site and different projects.
- I think the hotel idea is on hold.
- And with the abatement, we're only
- abating the increase in AV that's happened.
- We're not putting anything on the table
- without also receiving the benefit first.
- So yeah.
- OK.
- OK, let's get into this monster.
- Let's frame it first.
- So everyone is surely tracking that Novo Nordisk
- has purchased Catalan, which is great news for Bloomington.
- Novo is a great company, in spite of maybe
- some challenging news in the last week.
- The purchase of Catalan took place December 26, 2024.
- So all of the numbers that we're reviewing here are for Catalan.
- And the abatement's transferred to Novo.
- It was an asset purchase.
- And so everything transferred to Novo.
- So Novo is filing the forms, but this is, again,
- last year's performance, last year's company.
- So we have three abatements, 1506, 1904, and 2206.
- And they are interwoven.
- So Dee, would you like to describe them?
- Yes.
- So I'm going to try and jump in the right place.
- And look over what you've already said.
- So resolution 15 supported Catalan's investment
- in building improvements, machinery, and equipment
- to expand capacity for formulating, filling,
- and finishing vials and syringes.
- This is a personal property abatement for 10 years at 70%.
- And it's currently in year seven.
- New personal property investment was projected at $25 million
- and reported at $31.8 million.
- The assessed value was projected at $10 million
- and is currently at $9.56 million,
- which staff finds on schedule and meeting expectations.
- 1904 supported phase one of Catalan's expansion,
- including building 15,000 square feet of manufacturing space
- to increase packaging capacity and support new device
- assembly.
- This is a real and personal property.
- The real estate abatement is 10 years at 80%.
- It's currently in year four.
- And the personal property abatement
- is also 10 years, currently in year five, at 95%.
- Real estate investment was projected at $40 million,
- but no qualifying costs were reported.
- Personal property investment exceeded expectations,
- projected at $85 million, reported at $107 million.
- Real estate assessment value increased significantly
- from the projection of $10 million
- to $52.2 million, exceeding expectation.
- And personal property assessment value
- came in slightly below the projection, $32.3 million
- versus $34 million.
- Any questions on this one?
- Yes.
- How do we have no new real estate investment
- but the big increase in assessed value?
- Can you look at the CF1, Dean?
- Yep.
- It's blank.
- The CF1 recorded was blank.
- In this specific instance, the company actually
- filed essentially not-- the form they provided
- had no information for investment.
- And that's because this was not for the real estate acquisition
- but just for the building improvements?
- Is that it?
- Yes.
- They still get an abatement on that RPSS value on the CF1,
- right?
- Yes, sir.
- OK.
- So again, it's already filled out the form.
- Yep.
- And I'll grab my glasses.
- So when you get finished, there's
- like another question between this and the previous 1506.
- Just a consistency check.
- Yeah, I mean, they just haven't reported them is what I think.
- Yeah.
- So if I look at 1506 and 1904, and I look at assessed value,
- commitment versus compliance, the staff evaluation
- is on schedule meets expectation for 1506.
- For 1904, you have $34 million and $32 million,
- and it's substantially compliant.
- Why are you using two different terminologies?
- Isn't it substantially compliant?
- I'm not sure where one schedule meets expectation meets.
- So assessed value meets expectation.
- OK, this is what Dee was sort of explaining earlier,
- where we're looking at assessed value to help us understand
- whether the project has been successful,
- but it is not something that can--
- it's not in the MOU.
- The assessed value is something that no one in the room
- has control over.
- The input is the investment, and the assessed value
- raises or lowers based on the market.
- And so we want to see it go up, because it's
- going to drive tax revenue up.
- But the filer can't commit to what the assessed value is
- going to be.
- We're flagging it informationally.
- I guess I'm just asking for consistency.
- Why is that different on 1904?
- Because 1904, you have 32 million
- substantially compliant.
- Yeah, that's the terminology.
- Right.
- Just consistency to avoid confusion.
- So for assessed value, we're going
- to use on-schedule meets expectations.
- That's what you used on the previous--
- No, that's what you used in the previous Woolbury mill.
- So that's where I was getting a little confused.
- OK, thank you.
- It's not a complaint.
- No, just terminology.
- It's a consistency check, that's all.
- All right.
- OK.
- I don't know what to do with this.
- With what?
- Zero under new real estate investment.
- Well, also, no new real investment
- could happen because they were under negotiation for--
- No.
- No?
- This is from 2019.
- They just didn't have it in their form.
- I know that they're compliant, but--
- OK, 2206.
- We saw this last year.
- Wait.
- We can also-- I had this.
- I should have kept it open.
- Sorry.
- Count that.
- I'm curious as to--
- I'm glad somebody's so organized, he has stuff from last year.
- Every now and then, you have to be a little organized
- just to give me a lure of being the slave.
- You know what I'm saying?
- I can take you to my email.
- Exactly.
- I am somewhere over there.
- It would take me about an hour.
- So last year, which one were we looking, 1506 or 1904?
- '22.
- 1904, they also said zero last year.
- And we wrote DNF.
- Did not file.
- Yeah.
- So I think maybe you followed up with them between then
- and when you presented to counsel.
- Yes, and we can do that again with our--
- we're in close communication with the--
- Oh, but maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly.
- Maybe I'm remembering this incorrectly.
- But I feel like there was a conversation
- that we had where they did something like they split it,
- because they had so many where they struggled to figure out
- which applied to each or something like that.
- Because they reported it on all their others
- and then didn't report on this one.
- They just reported it on one.
- I feel like there was something like that.
- But I mean, no.
- Well, we need an answer.
- Yeah, exactly.
- [INAUDIBLE]
- So I don't know what this group wants to do.
- If we need to get additional information, you can--
- I'm sure that they're compliant with their real estate
- investments, but we need to provide that information.
- This is one of the ones that came in very late.
- And that's why, again, I apologize
- we're not as orderly as we would normally be.
- When does this-- this goes to council in two weeks?
- June 4th, so we have time to--
- I mean, this group could choose to meet again
- if it's possible to schedule that.
- I think in this particular case, because it exceeds expectations
- under assessed value, the answer is probably
- there such that you can find them
- substantially compliant, as you suggested.
- Yeah, exactly.
- So I don't think it has to be read,
- unless you find that to not be true in the next--
- And I think we can make a sort of like a contingent motion,
- can't we?
- Like where we say, we recommend this one
- with the asterisks of getting the appropriate answer on CF1,
- or something like that.
- Right, sir president?
- I think what Tim said probably would be more comfortable
- is basically approve it with the understanding
- that staff will come back to us if there's information that's
- countervailing to what we think is going to happen.
- It's a way of doing the same thing with different levels.
- Right, because I think with yours,
- we'd actually have to come back technically
- to meet--
- Oh, no, I was saying that you can set it in such a way
- where if the conditions are met, then go forward.
- If they're not met--
- Yeah, so we're doing much the same thing.
- Exactly.
- All right, this is 2206.
- I updated two things here.
- So this is not filed because they haven't triggered that.
- They have triggered their personal property,
- part of the abatement.
- So this was--
- But for what it's worth, last year they
- did report on this $6,711,600 for 2206.
- OK.
- Under compliance, under--
- Under CA1.
- At least that's what was in our presentation.
- Adam, what do you have for that?
- I'm checking out right now.
- [INAUDIBLE]
- That was 2206, correct?
- Yes.
- I don't have one either.
- And any of these yet.
- [INAUDIBLE]
- I don't have anything on there.
- [INAUDIBLE]
- I'm seeing $6,711,600 at the same number as--
- That's from last year?
- Yeah.
- Thanks.
- That's what I have.
- I'm just feeling very frustrated at the lack of clarity,
- and I don't feel good about having you all--
- we need to have a buttoned up proposal that you guys give it
- an up vote, not a vote with all these qualifications.
- So I'm not sure.
- I think that these are correct, but I just
- don't feel like we merit your vote for it at this time.
- So I wonder how the board feel, or how the commissioners feel,
- Kurt, and whether we need to circulate a final-- continue
- walking through this presentation and circulate a final
- via email that--
- I don't know if you could do a proxy vote when it's buttoned up
- or if the commission might want to schedule a follow-up meeting.
- Personally, I'm fine with that.
- I think I see a lot of what we do here.
- Seeing that I get to do it twice, right?
- I see what we do here is being able to help refine,
- oh, we didn't get this question right.
- Let's make sure that this is the way that it goes before council.
- We're all interested in making sure
- that businesses who are doing what they said they're going to do
- get the things that we promised them.
- So I have no, personally, any issue
- with you all following up with this information,
- sending us an email.
- And should we need to call another meeting, we can.
- But there's nothing here that suggests
- that we're going to need another meeting, I think.
- I mean, does everyone agree with me on that?
- Speaking for me, I agree.
- OK, I mean, the heart of it is Catalan, of all companies,
- has circumstances outside their control.
- And it appears they've done everything
- they can to comply.
- You find them substantially compliant.
- That makes sense to me, including unemployment.
- And I know why I was confused about what was triggered.
- This is triggered.
- It's that-- so I'm changing it to DNF,
- and hopefully we'll update that.
- They triggered both abatements.
- Both abatements are active.
- When we get into the jobs numbers,
- they have three years per the MOU.
- They have three years to come into compliance
- with the jobs numbers.
- And so with 2206 in particular, it was in the middle of the Defense
- Production Act, and they were making enormous investments
- in COVID vaccines.
- And then the market fell out for that,
- and the site job growth was spent in at that time.
- And that really was outside of their control.
- They could formally make that case, but at this time,
- they're not non-compliant with the jobs at the site,
- even though the jobs related to 2206
- have not yet materialized as of the end of 2024.
- And now with the purchase, we are optimistic maybe more than ever
- that the jobs will return.
- I would think so, yeah.
- I also think you have to look at them collectively.
- It's funny to say, oh, you're not compliant on the 1,000,
- but you're over 1,000 extra jobs on 1506.
- So that's what that came from.
- OK.
- And then this breaks the jobs numbers down
- by salary, which again, you look at that bottom row,
- you can see those average salaries are sky high.
- Oh, you think so, that's $4,177?
- Because there's the unemployment salary.
- I mean, that's great.
- That's a lot of jobs.
- OK, I'm going to keep moving on.
- Oh, we've talked through all this, I think.
- Yeah.
- OK.
- This is informational retreat.
- The switch yard has not been triggered.
- They file forms in order to update you all
- on the status of this abatement.
- They've run into substantial challenges
- with site development.
- There's a ton of limestone under there.
- They had a fuel tank that was not
- detected in the initial environmental assessments
- turnout that required removal and remediation.
- And then they've-- yeah, there's just--
- it's one thing after another.
- But they're doing great.
- They're a great developer, and they're committed to it.
- So this slide just provides a snapshot
- of that 48 affordable housing units.
- It's a LIHTC project.
- They're partnering with Stone Belt.
- It will be a win-win-win for the community
- to have these residents living right next to the park.
- And then the final--
- well, sorry, this gets into the investment.
- And they did provide us with current investment numbers.
- So you can see that they're really
- making much more of a commitment to this project
- than they initially planned, but they're sticking with it.
- And then finally, with our pilots,
- we have two new pilots that were proposed this year.
- And we've kind of realized that we have not
- reported on pilots annually in this setting,
- and we wanted to start doing that.
- So this slide is just--
- it's an overview.
- There's not a formal requirement,
- as with the tax abatements.
- But we think we would like to fold this
- into our annual reporting.
- And so the overview sort of talks
- about what we get out of the pilots.
- And then there are some compliance pieces
- for our Green Village, for example,
- that I will have ready at the time
- that this is presented to council,
- but we believe that they're compliant.
- We vote on pilots separately from tax abatement compliance,
- right?
- You know, there's no required vote or approval.
- Didn't we approve the one to Anderson murder?
- We just do that here.
- You did that here.
- OK.
- You will have a separate agenda item on June 4th
- to consider that and vote on that pilot as a standalone.
- Right.
- As part of the annual compliance process,
- this is just informational.
- But we approve them to begin with.
- Got it.
- Yeah.
- OK, so I think Dee and I have a list of questions
- that we need to have answered before we go to council.
- I'd like to know if commissioners have additional questions.
- And if not, I think your action is to approve the report
- as presented.
- Or you can approve the report with the changes
- and additional information that was requested.
- That would be one thing you could do.
- I would move that, if the group's ready.
- Move approval of this report as with the edits and suggestions
- that we've discussed, and you should agree to it.
- I'll second it.
- I'm sorry, I was talking about something else.
- Please restate the motion.
- Well, I think there's a comment, though, before the motion.
- Yeah, so I think I would like to see something tightened up
- in the MOU where it talks about the living wage or the compliance
- of that.
- So how well we can get that in there, too.
- OK, and I think we can make sure that it's in that.
- The pilot agreements is the next thing, right?
- Because those are to be--
- Yeah, anything that reduces the liability for the person seeking
- funds from--
- needs to have that language, I think.
- However, I think you say that.
- That was the intent of the living wage agreement.
- We didn't want to have someone making money
- that would not--
- Be on the backs of our workers.
- I mean, we didn't want city funds or county funds
- to have any sort of liability, that way,
- for the person making the money.
- Yeah, I've noted that.
- Thank you.
- We should see that in all of our future agreements.
- Thank you.
- I move that we approve this report with the edits
- as discussed and agreed upon.
- I'll second.
- Any discussion?
- OK, well, all in favor, say aye.
- Aye.
- Anybody opposed?
- Anybody abstaining?
- All right, that's approved then.
- I'm assuming the next thing on the agenda is new business,
- and I'm assuming we don't have any new business.
- We just had a whole lot of business.
- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
- Can I comment on that?
- I mean, I have a question.
- I'm concerned that all of these things are old.
- Switchyard, that project that's not even on yet,
- was started four or five years ago.
- Yeah.
- What have we done for us lately?
- There are people in the community,
- and part of it was generated by the school board's analysis.
- They hired that consultant to find out
- the state of the community, and it was bad.
- We've lost population.
- Incomes are going down.
- It's not good.
- What's our role?
- And does the commission come up with ideas,
- or does the staff come up with ideas?
- Well, I think it's tricky, because there
- are a lot of projects that are being discussed
- through the Redevelopment Commission.
- Those don't touch the Economic Development Commission,
- and they aren't really ready.
- Often, they're not ready for public consumption,
- so there's a lot of hope well.
- So I think the city's doing a lot of work to advance projects,
- but then what comes to the EDC is really
- related to a specific set of incentives--
- economic development revenue bonds, tax abatement.
- We really don't even lean on tax abatement very hard
- in this community, because we have so
- prioritized TIF revenues.
- We do have a new abatement application
- that's in for an affordable--
- it might be senior affordable on the south side.
- That looks promising, so we just received that this week.
- So I think there are things that come in,
- but it's just the tools related to the EDC
- are so-- the toolbox is narrow or smaller.
- And so we just don't--
- we maybe don't get a ton of them.
- We're not doing grant making.
- But I think the baseline question is a really good one.
- And I think another way I would tackle it
- is by a question you had at our first meeting, which
- was about how we communicate about our incentives packages.
- And I've been working on that list.
- And I'm just trying to figure out how to get it posted,
- how to publicize it.
- But I've worked on it with Anna, the director of Housing
- and Neighborhood Development.
- And it has been really handy as a tool
- when I'm communicating with developers at Hopewell,
- for example, to say like, oh, have you tried all of these?
- Have you looked into all of these things?
- So I just haven't figured out where it goes on our website.
- But I think maybe having you guys look at that document
- and approve it and say, yes, go forth
- and plaster this all over the place would be helpful.
- So what would you like to see happen?
- I'm not really clear on our role, to be honest.
- And I think that's what you're trying to explain.
- It's really a few incentives that we--
- Just a small package that we--
- So we should do our best to promote those incentives.
- And that's-- at least we'll accomplish that.
- Yeah, at a minimum.
- But I think if the economic--
- words late in the day--
- the Economic Development Commission,
- its broad role is making recommendations to counsel.
- And so if the commission wants to have more active engagement
- and we want to be tracking what's happening nationally
- and trying to advocate for other tools
- to come into our local toolbox, if there are ways
- that we can do that, I think there would be appetite for it.
- That's a question that I asked here months ago, too.
- It's like, how do we expand that toolkit if we need more things?
- What else needs to be in our toolbox?
- I think the more I'm learning about it, it's really--
- and Kurt teaches it, so he can tell us more.
- But I think that, yeah.
- You bailed on that as fast as you could.
- Anyway, OK, well, it's a good conversation.
- I think we should continue it.
- And I have it on my tentative agenda
- to bring that document in June.
- And maybe we can kind of walk through the tools
- and talk about them and get a sense of them.
- I think it'd be worthwhile.
- I know that there's some tools that we apply in certain ways
- out of habit, agreements that were
- thought to be the right thing 10 years ago or 20 years ago.
- You know, what constitutes affordable housing?
- What should be the length of commitment?
- All those kinds of things that are attached to your tools,
- we could open up the discussion on that
- and make sure they're still relevant.
- Jen was going to say something.
- I'll keep it brief.
- I think the tools that are here are a narrow set of tools
- from the broader economic development tools
- we use in the community.
- So as the BEDC, we work community-wide.
- Other incentives are rapid permitting, very clear planning
- and permitting.
- I know the city is working on that.
- Land leases in this area.
- Excuse me.
- I'm involved in the permitting process.
- The city is a fail at that, period in the end.
- Anybody wants to debate me, I'll give you plenty of specifics.
- Mayor knows it.
- Everybody knows it.
- Maybe we'll make progress.
- But I've been trying to, as a quick example,
- develop some affordable housing on Miller Drive for five years.
- The number of obstacles is just mind-blowing.
- So I think the question was, what are the tools
- to bring to the table?
- Our organization has worked separate from the city,
- and we work across municipalities.
- So when we look at our larger toolkit, it's site readiness.
- It's planning permitting.
- It's incentives that we've discussed here.
- It's willing partners to come to the table.
- And so I think always the question
- is, how do we work together better to receive the companies?
- There are projects that we're working on
- that go beyond what was discussed at this table here
- that I know we're partnering with the city on,
- as well as partnering with other parts of the community.
- Sometimes companies don't even ask for incentives.
- And so there is more that's happening as well.
- That's good news.
- I just want to make a quick comment.
- I've been on the commission for a number of years,
- and I think this is the most thorough discussion we've
- had of the abatement report ever.
- So I want to thank the staff for--
- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
- I love the cream, especially.
- Yep.
- Oh.
- It was really clear.
- Thank you.
- I want to thank the staff, and I just
- want to thank the members for being so insightful
- and thoughtful of it.
- Yeah, thank you for your help, because this doesn't go forward
- without your input.
- And it's always-- I always learn something every year,
- every time we do this.
- And yeah, thank you so much.
- Thank you for your time, thanks for being here, and your volunteerism.
- People quite often will say, is there a motion to adjourn?
- You don't need a motion to adjourn.
- Then they'll say, we stand adjourned,
- but it looks to me we sit adjourned.
- [LAUGHTER]
- [MUSIC PLAYING]
- [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]