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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]
 [MUSIC - "POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE"]