- Hello, and this is the Economic Development Commission meeting on Tuesday, June 2nd, and it is about
- three minutes after the floor. And everything, this meeting has been posted as required, so public notice
- has been done. And I thought we'd start with a roll call, and we'll start to my right.
- Present Esau. Vanessa McClary and Kurt Zorn. And our second order of business after roll call is approval
- of minutes. And that would be the proof of the minutes of our last meeting, which was the main 19th
- meeting. I'll make a motion to approve. Second.
- I have a motion to second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed, say the same. We pass
- them unanimously. We actually have to do a roll call because Vanessa is on. Oh, OK. Vanessa,
- how do you vote? In favor. OK. Aye. Good. I also vote in favor. I'm in favor. I vote in favor.
- It's unanimous. Thank you, Dee. Keep us honest.
- So our new business, this is our annual tax abatement presentation for the past year. Well, we did send
- an amended packet with an updated agenda to add, if you choose to call this item, that David Hittle,
- the director of planning for the city. I'm so sorry, I thought I sent that with the updated minutes,
- but I guess I did not. Oh, okay, because I was looking at the most recent email. I'm so sorry, I thought
- that I had fixed that. No, no, no, that's all right.
- We have an amended agenda, and we have David here, and we don't want to make him sit through the whole
- meeting, so. I mean, the tax abatement report is riveting. Well, it is. But David's probably got other
- stuff to do, so. If I can intro David. Hey, Tim. Oh, Tim. Tim Timing. I'll be here. Thanks. Is it OK
- if I introduce him and why I've asked him to come visit us? Sure. Please do.
- So like I mentioned, David's our planning director and I thought it would be really great to have him
- visit the EDC because he's working on a range of updates to the UDO that will support small businesses.
- And this is something Tim especially has been interested in talking about. So it's in development and
- David was willing to come chat with us about kind of what is coming up in the list and where the process is.
- Do you agree with that summary? I agree with that summary. Okay, cool. Thanks, David. Hi, I'm David
- Hill, Planning Transportation Director, as Jane just noted. So we are putting together a packet of UDO
- amendments intended to make life easier for local, small, independent businesses. The centerpiece of
- the amendment will be a look at what the UDO calls limited compliance requirements.
- In the two years I've been here, I've seen this knock down six, maybe half a dozen efforts by small
- businesses to expand or move to Bloomington and either send them packing or keep them in the position
- they're in, which is not where they want to be. In short, it's a requirement that
- Any new use introduced to a site or any expansion of physical structures on a site triggers the requirement
- for a whole host of site improvements. Now any one of those improvements isn't necessarily a deal breaker,
- well maybe one of them is, but there's 12 of them. So there's 12 things from adding bike racks to
- retrofitting your landscaping so it meets the current list perfectly. The thing that's kind of the real
- game changer though is it requires that you take away any excess parking. So any number of parking spots
- that is over the maximum parking that the ordinance allows. Now our ordinance is a little bit different
- than most ordinance is in that we don't require a minimum number of parking spaces for say a restaurant.
- We have a maximum.
- Most ordinances say if you have a 4,000 square foot restaurant, and you need three parking spaces per
- 1,000 square feet or something like that, and then another number per employees on your largest shift.
- But ours is quite a bit more progressive than that, and it imposes a maximum number. But lifting up
- asphalt and replacing it with,
- you know, required landscaping is super expensive for a small mom and pop that just wants to relocate
- from their, you know, their much smaller place on the other side of town into this, you know, former
- pizza hut or whatever it is that's been vacant for two years. And so they don't do it. And so I've,
- you know, again, a half dozen times seen that, you know, just, just
- kill ideas and desires to expand and just improve business. And so that's kind of the centerpiece of
- what we want to do is change not only the things that trigger the need for site improvements, but then
- also change the level of improvements that are needed once they're triggered. So instead of having a
- list of 12 things you need to bring up to code, maybe it's five or six things and then we can
- maybe even make some things discretionary so that if they're super, if the cost is so exorbitant that
- it just kills everything, that there's some flexibility to say, well, you don't have to do that, but
- you can do these two other things that are much more manageable. So... So are any of these things in
- place now that you're hoping to change? Yeah, they're all in place now. These requirements are...
- been in place for a while. In fact, they've sort of expanded over the years. And how is it working now
- to put them in place? Well, it's prohibitive. It's burdensome. Still? Well, David's recommending some
- reductions and some flexibility, because it can be hundreds of thousands of dollars for somebody to
- add on to their business, or if there's a minor change in use, or whatever.
- It kills businesses. Where it's manageable is with the Starbucks and Chick-fil-A's of the world, where
- they have all the resources to take all these things on. Where it's not manageable is for local, independent,
- smaller shops, where these types of improvements are just way too costly. And sometimes, most of the
- time, business want to improve. They want to make it better. But the level of requirement now is immense in some
- of settings depends on the site. So we get nothing instead of improvement in many cases to my opinion.
- You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. That's perfectly put. Another, go ahead. I was just
- going to say, so do the small businesses come in with Plan B or how do they approach that? They either
- go through with it and cripple themselves financially or they just don't do it.
- Or they go somewhere else. Is there an option for them to suggest a Plan B? They can request a variance,
- which is itself a very heavy lift. A process. Yeah. A process and money. A process and money. It always
- requires drawings, engineered drawings and that sort of thing. Sometimes legal representation. All to
- go through a non-guaranteed process, because you don't know what the BZA is going to vote.
- So the relief is not in place. Another requirement in our ordinance states that if you perform
- any subdivision on a large lot, then the entire lot, not only the subdivided portion that's carved out,
- but then everything else needs to be brought up to code.
- As an example, I forget the name of it, but pick your mid-century multi-tenant shopping center that's
- got dry cleaners and a hair salon and a barber shop and maybe a food restaurant or something like that
- in there. We had somebody come in, and there's plenty of room in the parking lot to subdivide and build
- another shop or another business.
- But if that were to happen, that would trigger the need for the entire lot to come into compliance with
- the ordinance. So at that point, you're creating new parking islands in a 60-year-old parking lot, and
- you're creating new perimeter landscaping, and you're probably bringing up part of the parking lot.
- You know, again, a very expensive, very costly proposition that results in this new business, this new
- building not being built.
- It's not viable to do that. So we want to take away the requirement that says that the entire law, the
- entire commercial center needs to be brought up to code perfectly. How did we get to the point where
- that was happening? Why did we make that a requirement? I can answer that with a very broad statement
- about our unified development ordinance, which
- that it is the receptacle of everybody's dreams and desires for utopian society. So it represents the
- dream. It sucks. It represents the dream. It's a huge pile of aspirations. Yeah, not reality. Right.
- Yeah. All well-intended. Yes. And one at a time, it's not so bad if you start stacking them.
- over the years where the stream then becomes bigger with the next update and the next update and then.
- So it's just a, that's very well put. It's a big stack of aspirations. So this is an attempt to do what
- never happens, which is to pull some of those things back rather than add to the ordinance.
- wholesome things away from it, at least selectively. And what's the process for that? Well, it goes
- through the plan commission. We as staff will draft an ordinance amendment language, we'll take it to
- the plan commission. They're an advisory body that makes the recommendation that then carries to the
- city council, which will ultimately vote on it.
- And I'm speaking to this group because at some point we're probably going to ask for support, even ideas.
- I think you have some things we've talked about that can be added to this packet. But just as a heads
- up, because you're certainly a pertinent body to this endeavor. So what's the thinking for the two groups,
- the Planning Commission and the City Council, where they might be at with any of this? I don't really
- know. I don't really know.
- All of the ordinance amendments that have brought us to this point have gone through the plan commission
- and the council. You know, we're talking about decades of aggregated things. They each go through one
- at a time and when they come through they seem like that's a great idea, but then you just don't see
- the quiet piling up of the aspirations and it's time to see it and to peel it back a little bit.
- So I think it's very rational and reasonable and so I hope that the Planning Commission and the council
- sees it that way. And is there a timeline on all of this? Well, the council goes on break soon and we
- want to bring it back to get it in front of the Planning Commission probably in August. And then the
- council then after that? The Planning Commission will view it and
- and maybe bring it back and talk about it a few times. They'll eventually release it with their
- recommendation and then it goes to the council. Council, you know, will review it and we'll hear testimony
- and they might, they could vote on it the first time that they see it and hear about it. They could
- continue it for more information. They could have questions that need to come back with answers for.
- So probably two hearings in front of the Planning Commission and probably two more before the City Council
- as a guess.
- And do we know how many businesses have been impacted by where we're at right now? That's a good question.
- I've been here two years. And I've seen, again, half a dozen businesses literally turned away because
- of this. And I think that you could probably talk with folks who are in the world courting businesses
- get a longer list. It's a long list, though. You can get turned off by a phone call. You can call the
- city and ask for the process. Very true. Well, no, no. Also, the folks who just never start the process
- because they know what it is, right? But even if we take six as the real number, imagine that you have
- six spaces in the community activated with increased tax revenues.
- Yeah. That's big enough. Yeah. I have an orthogonal question, which maybe, I mean, I think, by definition,
- interacts at some place with this. But you know, we had that anecdotally, the person who wanted to open
- an emergency vet. Yes. Was this also caused by a similar thing? They persevered.
- And I think, oh gosh, that was a year long process. Two years. So they're moving forward with it now?
- They cut the ribbon. Oh, they're opening them. Oh, wow. I didn't follow that. Great. It was perilous
- the entire way through. It was perilous the entire way through. I think they relied on the good graces
- of an engineer that kind of
- you know, sort of gave it a little bit of profile. Was that a very similar? It was the exact same thing.
- This was within the compliance that trapped them. Right down to parking. Right. So this is, I mean,
- this is for me the exact case study of something that we've asked for for 10 years. Finally, somebody
- says they want to do it. They run into all of these barriers. I'm very glad that they followed through
- it, that I have to go.
- I don't know, caused my animals to have to go there or something. Good luck. It's really hard to get
- an appointment. Really? Well, see, because there's so much, but it's the point is that there's been
- so much demand and anytime we ever needed it, everybody had to go to Indy. And so, you know, I mean,
- so I think that's an exact case study of like, we want things to be able to move faster. We want people
- who want to do good things in the community to be able to do them as quickly as possible. And there
- was a vacant building, literally perfectly suited. I mean, it was a,
- a medical clinic, so it was a human clinic wanting to convert to a pet clinic. Triggered everything.
- A vacant building, long vacant, perfectly suited that our ordinance is so onerous that left to its own
- devices, it would have just required that the building remain vacant and that the vet clinic maybe set
- up shop somewhere else. So it was really fortuitous that it was able to get through. I think it took,
- real perseverance from a number of people. Their realtors were very heavily involved and very patient.
- My only thought then in that case, seeing that it's not orthogonal, is I think adding to those six,
- it's the many stories of near misses, of delayed processes, of delayed value to the residents of Bloomington
- and the surrounding areas and so on. I think that that shows it's a big issue beyond
- Even I think six is big enough, but like and perception to me, this is a huge issue. It adds to the
- reputation, frankly, that it is a tough place to do this. Exactly. 100%. So I'm glad you're doing it.
- Great. So hopefully we can review it, support it. When you go to the council, you'll say,
- And it won't be complex. This is not a huge bundle of changes. We're simple people here. I'm in that
- boat. That's all I got. Great. Good. Thank you. OK. Thanks, David. Thank you. We'll see you again. That's
- exciting. Thanks, David. Thank you. Thank you, David. OK. OK, now we'll move to the next item on the
- agenda, which is the abatement report.
- Correct? Yes. Very, very exciting.
- Okay, hello everyone. Hello. So this is the annual tax rate presentation. This is reviewing tax year
- 2025. I will be taking care of the tax payments and then at the end of this, Jane will be reviewing
- the pilot programs that we went over last year, correct?
- So we're going to cover the summary of the tax abatement program, economic impact of abatements, and
- then review active pilots. I'm going to try and keep this as short as possible because it can get pretty weedy.
- But the slide decks are in, we'll have the slide decks for public reference and also supporting materials
- are in your packets in an accessible format. I also want to note that there were some minor changes
- that happened today before we, like right before we came into this meeting. So I will be updating the
- packet that we have now with those minor changes and then reposting it to onboard for public. Oh yes,
- Andy, yes.
- All right, so tax abatement. It temporarily reduces taxes on new investment in real and personal property.
- It applies only to the increment, the increase in assessed value due to the project. The property's
- original value continues to be taxed. Eligibility and approval.
- Projects must be located in a designated economic revitalization area. Some residential projects require
- designation as an economic development target area. Approval, uh, involves review by city staff, a formal
- recommendation from the economic development commission, uh, and final designation and authorization
- by the common council through public process. All right. How these work.
- Most abatements last one to 10 years and follow a sliding scale. Personal property abatements can go
- up to 20 years. State law allows for alternative schedules if justified by the project. Each application
- includes an SB1 form, which sets baseline projections for investment, assessed value, job creation,
- and wages.
- We also evaluate community-based goals such as affordable housing, sustainability, full-time employment,
- and contributions to local character. So compliance review process consists of the roles and responsibilities
- of tax abatement approvals. These approvals are set by city staff reviews, which is what I'm doing right now.
- You guys take a look at it. EGC does. Common council authorizes it, authorizes them, and then the county
- administers. Hey, Diaz, Chris M.G. in the waiting room. Oh, I thought I admitted him before.
- I don't know. We lost him. Hi, Chris. Sorry about that. I thought I had admitted you earlier. Is Vanessa
- still on? No, I think it might have just dropped. Hi, I'm here. Oh, yeah, Vanessa's still here. Thank you.
- Projects are monitored annually through CF1 filings. Yes, there we go. Staff evaluates the actual performance
- against the SB1 commitments and projects are classified as compliant, substantially compliant,
- or noncompliant. These are actually the official titles of those standards.
- EDC forwards the report to the Council for final action and the Council may approve the report or individual
- abatements as compliant or substantially compliant or request a hearing for additional information if
- they wish to consider a finding of noncompliance. Departments like HAND also review specific commitments
- like affordable housing. A hearing is important for findings of noncompliance because the Council must
- determine whether failing to meet commitments was due to factors outside of the filers control.
- Factors must be found to be within the company's control to merit a finding of non-compliance. So the
- economic impact overview. As far as real and new, I'm sorry, new real and personal property investments,
- we've seen $539 million in proposed investment. So that's the SB1. And then $411 million in actual investment.
- The assessed value of all of the properties increased from 164 million to 230 million. This increase
- meets the but for standard. These gains wouldn't have occurred without the abatements. And I'm just
- going to put a little caveat here. You're going to have to apologize if I mess up a lot of these huge
- numbers. I will likely stop.
- The residential numbers have been changed. I think we that was the slide that we were working on today.
- Yeah. All right. So jobs and wages projects reported. Oh, you know what? I didn't fix that in mind.
- Projects reported 19.
- 138 total jobs and 152 million in salaries combined. Okay. Yeah, that slide is not in there. This is
- why I want that we do this. So it's 1,938 total jobs. So this is the 71 and the 1867 added together.
- And then the total is 152 million in salaries. So that is the cattelent salaries. We separate out cattelent,
- which is now Novo and used to be Cook, because it's just such an engine. It's got so much. We just feel
- like it's a little bit more helpful to separate that out. We could combine them together, but. Yeah.
- Additionally, Catalan has like five separate abatements. They're like three personal property and two
- real property. So we try to show all of that in this. So is that right, the average new and retained
- family? Yes, that is correct. So can you help explain why there's such a big difference between Catalan's
- plan than actual's? Yeah.
- So, and we can add some context about the salary on the top section too, which is low. So, Catalan's
- retained versus actual, I think it's their abatement 2206, they've only triggered one of the two, so
- they had planned a ton of growth and then with the way the economy
- went and specifically with the vaccines that they were manufacturing, vaccine demand tanked. And so
- a lot of the growth that they had planned didn't happen. And so for a few years, they had retained a
- lot of the jobs numbers. And then I think next year when we come around, we'll see another reduction
- in those total jobs. But the salaries, as you can see, are really great. And it kind of goes back to
- the question about factors
- within or outside of the company's control. And in the past, when this has been discussed with
- the commission, we viewed those market forces as being outside of the company's control for that vaccine
- demand. And then just big picture, the site is in transition in, I think, a good way. NOVA's taken over
- the site, all of the projects and intellectual property
- the previous company in there retaining the contract development manufacturing capacity and moving through
- those clients while they're also bringing in all of those Novo products directly to the site.
- So the site, which would have been vaccine heavy, is shifting its focus, which will be good and I think
- productive. Is that helpful on the Cadillac jobs? And then on the jobs,
- I know what average is, but it depends on how many are low. I mean, that is not captured as part of
- the SB1. We can look for that information. I would be very interested in that. And I'll tell you, they
- don't tend, in the past, they're a public company. Some of that might be available, but I think they
- tend to provide entry-level salaries and then less information about the higher salaries. But we can
- see what we can do.
- But on the other hand, the average salary includes those higher salaries, right? Yes, absolutely. Well,
- there you go. But I think that they're paying well. And they went through, as the new company took over
- the site, they went through a complete site evaluation and pay banding and raised salaries, I think,
- pretty much across the board. So I think we will have confidence. Let me ask for the average salary
- in a different way. So if we had the median.
- I'd be interested to know what the average of the median is all the way down to the bottom. I'd be really
- interested in that. Yeah, and I just don't know that we have access to that because it's not, they're
- not required to provide it. But we can ask for it. Okay. Are you tracking that or? Yeah, I'm writing
- notes in my script right now. Okay. I will say that the, as far as individual salaries on the SB1, they
- projected to be giving 66, I think it was 66.5,
- a year. So as the average salary. So this is like, you know, 25 above what they were predicting for
- their SB1. So yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And then the on the new and retained salaries in the section
- above for the rental properties and the woolery. This is that issue that we've run into in the past
- where the primary purpose of these residential
- properties is to create affordable housing units, but the SB1 is really created to track jobs and capital
- investment only. So the jobs reported here are largely part-time and temporary. And in the case of the
- Woolery, they are service industry. And so in the service industry, you're allowed to pay reduced salaries
- since tips come in. So I think that they had two years ago
- $15 an average, our current, our 2025 living wage was I think 16-22. So maybe we can get that question
- answered. Have you talked to the company about whether they're meeting that minimum? Waiting to hear
- back. Okay, you just said legal, so I didn't know. So each company with an abatement is required to
- fill out a living wage ordinance certificate.
- Gotcha. So we're waiting on that. So I'm getting some of those back from legal. And so you can approve
- all of these on the condition that we received that before this goes to the council. And tell me about
- that form. So the form is just basically, uh, it's, it's an agreement saying that, yes, we are paying
- the minimum minimum living wage set by the city of Bloomington, which is $16 and 20 or 16, 22 an hour.
- currently for the city of Bloomington. It asks about positions. I think it asks about hours as well.
- But those who have an abatement fill this form out to back up the information that they're putting in
- here. I will say that I have been involved in a salary survey for entry-level jobs just to see what's
- competitive. And I think they offer, we think,
- the group did the research thought it was about $24 an hour for their lowest entry walk in the door
- spot. Even with this kind of work? The lowest. That's like line work. So most workers there probably
- a little bit above that. Yeah. Agreed. I had trouble understanding that. Could he repeat that one time,
- please? What Tim said?
- I was involved in a private survey to try to find out what entry level jobs were paying in Bloomington,
- just to see what's competitive. And my understanding was that Nova Nordis was about $24 an hour for
- their lowest position, which would be like a line position or something like that. So not necessarily
- somebody with a college degree or technical skills.
- All right, thank you. Yes, I couldn't understand everything earlier. Thank you. Ready? Affordable housing
- outcomes. Abatements also supported deeply affordable housing. New urban station has 15 affordable housing,
- or is required to have 15 affordable housing units at or below 80% with a, with a, sorry.
- with a specified rent range of $641 to $1282. Tenants currently have an average AMI of 41.75%, and the
- average rent is $815 a month, and the occupancy is at 104, oh, I'm sorry, 153%, I didn't fix it in my
- script. So they're actually providing more than they have, than they're required to.
- So this is based off of the 23 bedrooms against the 15 bedrooms, which is why it comes out to 153. Southern
- Knoll has 31 units at 28% AMI on average, and that's a 94% occupancy. And then Union at Crescent,
- has 102 units allocated at or below 60% AMI with 15 units flexible for market rate or affordable, and
- 63 are currently occupied at 62%. We'll dig a little deeper into each of these. Southern Noel is in
- its sixth year of abatement and has exceeded investment, job, and wage commitments.
- Its assessed value is at 130% of its SB1 projection. 26 units serve households at or below 60% AMI and
- the staff recommends finding of compliance for this project. And also stop me at any point you have
- a question or want to dig deeper. Union at Crescent. Union at Crescent is 146 unit mixed income development
- I'm sorry, mixed use development with 120, I'm sorry, 102 units committed as affordable at 60% AMI.
- 63 of those 102 committed units are currently occupied at 62%. This is lower than the 2024 occupancy
- rate of 64%. However, the property has undergone significant effort and expense to support a turnaround.
- Property management reverted to the developer, the annex group, March 2025. A May 2026 report indicates
- that a million dollars was spent directly on replacing HVAC units, exterior siding and other items covering
- 30 units in total. Five units had significant mold issues that needed remediation. It was 120,000 for
- just those five units. Evictions were required as part of the turnaround to remove problem tenants.
- The property now holds an occupancy permit from the city rather than being stuck in an ongoing re-inspection
- cycle due to problems at the property. And the property passed all compliance inspections handed January
- IHCDA in April and home units in April. Can we, oh, you're still going through this one? Yeah, absolutely.
- So new investment is actually at 159% of its SB1 projection. Full-time staff wage doubled the SB1 projection,
- so it's 163% more than the actual Bloomington living wage, so it's $26.49 an hour. They've
- hired a third-party consulting service to hit 85% total occupancy
- goal by August 26. And given the major investments, the eviction, renovation, new lease and reputational
- repair, city staff believes that the annex group is doing everything within its power to bring the property
- back to the required occupancy rate. So. Can you remind us on this one? Because last year we found that
- we recommended non-compliance revenue that went to city council through the hearing and we then
- Yeah, so in this body We were really concerned about compliance because they were under the rate they
- were actually at 64% occupancy last year, which is below the commitment and Yeah, this the information
- that we had at the time this body just didn't feel confident and we didn't recommend we didn't want
- to stand before the public and say I
- you know, the terms of this tax abatement are being met when it was clearly like below the occupancy
- rate. So that allowed council to request a hearing. And then during that hearing, there was a presentation
- from the property management company or the property owner. And there was also a lot of context offered
- by the director of housing and neighborhood development about the site and what it had been through.
- And so it was determined that
- condition of the site was really due to factors outside of the company's control. And further, they
- presented this five or 10 point remediation plan and they were committing to all these investments that
- they were going to make. They were part, they were at the very beginning of that. So there was some
- nervousness on everyone's part. Like is this real or really, are they really gonna get through these
- investments? Are they really gonna turn it around? Well, we met with the housing,
- development director and the housing affordability manager to talk about the site and where it was.
- And they were feeling very much like the turnaround was going well and is in process. So part of why
- the occupancy is low right now is that one of the things they had to do was have a large number of evictions.
- So they evicted problem tenants. They began the
- construction remediation, um, doing the renovations. So there were empty units as a result of that.
- Um, they made, you know, all these significant investments in that mold remediation. And then they've,
- um, they got their occupancy permit finally in January, 2026, and they've been working on lease up ever
- since then. And so the current 61% rate, um, based on our conversations with housing and neighborhood
- development, we really feel good about it. Their context is.
- there are kind of two pieces of information. One is a turnaround really can take time. And especially
- when you're really emptying the property out for these reasons, then getting at full capacity and fully
- leased up just takes time, especially when there was a reputational damage to the property. And then
- simultaneously, Bloomington's occupancy rate is going down. So we have this significant increase in
- apartments in the market. And I don't have a formal rate yet, but anecdotally, the information that
- we've received via hand is that the rate is, the vacancy rate is higher. So it used to be 6% on average
- in Bloomington, and then we're kind of hearing seven to eight now. So I think that's interesting context.
- We have access to that.
- multiple point plan. I was trying to find it. Yeah, I can absolutely send you a copy of their report
- to us on that plan. I remember seeing it and I remember coming, but I just couldn't then find it when
- I went back to... Do you think we should put that in the packet for Council? My follow-on question was
- exactly this, is that whether we, EDC, need to just be very judicial, which is to say, you know, this
- is the agreement
- find them X or Y with some you know we can add qualitative recommendations and then because I know council
- has a little bit more latitude to make those type of decisions so I'm just I guess the question is you
- know I mean I mean regardless I think council could pull it up either way right I mean so we could all
- say we recommend it and then council could say we don't but
- But I think it would be useful because that was a substantial conversation. There was one point they
- asked for an extension. I remember that as well. And then they sort of said, OK, no, but these are things
- we're going to do. And I think we were all like, OK, we're convinced this was outside of your hands.
- But that came right at the end of a very long discussion, basically. And I think otherwise, people might
- have voted against it. So I just think we want to shepherd that part correctly as to not relitigate
- things. Would you mind if I went on just a minute
- So I think it's especially important for you, Esau, as a council person. And the housing authority last
- week was talking about, they did not talk about $90 million, which I was kind of offended by, but you
- should be aware of that. It's a really big deal. I think their effort is a great idea, but this is an
- indication of how hard it is. It's a hard thing to do. That kind of housing takes a lot of management.
- The other thing is all these projects were built on pro-formers like they're going to examine, right?
- And those pro-formers, these projects, so, you know, I owned affordable housing, built and went through
- the whole process. We went through tenure tax abatement from the city. We graduated, we went through
- the tax credit, you know, that's how old I am. You know, I've been through the whole thing. Anyway,
- it was, and we did it very successfully and loved it.
- It's hard, and those 60%, that 60% income level, they're projecting a lot of, if you don't get section
- A government assistance, and there's not enough of that to go around, there aren't enough people that
- can afford to pay rent. So it's a small market. It's not like you can rent to anybody. If their income
- is low enough to qualify, it's a small group that,
- can afford the rent, because if it's very much lower, then they can't afford it. So it's harder than
- it looks. And the other thing I want to say is we have new apartments in the city, and roughly speaking,
- we pay $200 per month per bedroom in property taxes. That's how important this piece is to keeping a
- project affordable. It's a big part of the rent.
- Anyway, so it's hard to do. So if they're investing money and if they're responsive. Yeah, and I agree.
- And that's the reason why I'm bringing up the, you know, they gave us this eight point plan or however
- many things that it had on. Because I think with our recommendation, it would be very useful to say,
- we see that they're doing all of the things that you agreed were enough
- to continue their abatements, right? So rather than, if we divorce those two things, I can imagine it
- coming back up at council, sir, that would look for our recommendation. So I sent the executive board
- to all of you that they sent to us. If you read that and you feel that something should be more detailed,
- let me know and I'll reach out to them.
- Oh, no, you're fine. So we're recommending a finding of substantially compliant for this particular
- property. Can I lift up something Esau said a minute ago? I think you were focused on process and equitable
- treatment of the filers. And so I think your question was, does this body evaluate this
- with the context we've been discussing and say substantially compliant, which to be frank, that's the
- staff position. We think that the evidence is there, that they are doing everything within their control
- to comply. But then your question was, is that the correct way or is the correct way to look at the
- hard numbers and then punt to council? So just not debating
- the validity of the staff recommendation, but just lifting up your question about what's the right way.
- I think that either will result in council asking detailed questions in the public record, and I think
- that it's likely that Filer could be present to also talk about them. I would say no.
- As a commissioner, my view is that it's very helpful for us to give texture to the recommendation, and
- I think it's very helpful, Tim was just saying, I think it's super helpful to sort of add that in, and
- maybe this year you add a little bit of a memo, right, that says, you know, we've talked about it, we
- heard them, you know, and this is the status of that. They put a little beat behind the recommendation
- that you've made and that we agree to.
- Okay, thanks. All right. Urban Station. Urban Station is a four-story mixed-use building with 7,000
- square feet of commercial space and 148 bedrooms. It has exceeded investment commitments
- fell short unemployment, but retained wages above the proposed SB1. Provided 123 bedrooms at or below
- 80% AMI, which is exceeding the commitment by 40%. It has 100% occupancy in affordable units, and the
- staff recommends a finding of substantially compliance.
- I'm sorry, I keep adding all that information, but I just want to note this is another property. I think
- we had, they were not meeting the requirement two years ago. So we're happy to see this being totally
- compliant. All right, Woolery Mill is a historic mill redeveloped on Tap Road, reported 4.3 million
- in real estate investment towards a $6 million commitment.
- Phase one is completed, the events phase. Phase two, the condo hotel has been delayed due to market
- conditions. Let's see. So, Willard Mill has created 60 jobs versus the 45 projected full and part-time
- salaries met or exceeded their goals from the SB1 and the assessed
- Value currently is at 2.55 million and on track relative to the development stage. Staff recommends
- a finding of substantially compliant as we see that they're moving towards the real estate investment
- goal and towards the salaries. I'll have the living wage ordinance certification to confirm
- that 99, I'm sorry, $990,000. So there's a common theme going on, because this is another project that
- has been under our auspices for quite a while. It has, and I think my understanding is that they've
- triggered one part of the abatement, and I actually, they are working to redevelop the property, but
- I don't know that this,
- remainder of the abatement is able to be triggered. So I think this is what it is. Yeah. But this is
- much further than we were 10 or 15 years ago. Yeah, absolutely. Where it didn't look like it was going
- to get off the ground at all. Yeah, totally. And it's a critical, it's a community asset. Right. Yeah,
- that's great. And they have, you know, they're looking at some exciting opportunities there that hopefully
- will also go in that theme of community.
- Um, Catalint, uh, formerly Cook, uh, Firmica, uh, and is, uh, now under Novo Nordis, uh, late
- 2024 acquisition. Uh, sorry. Um, uh, Catalint is, has resolutions, uh, 1506 and 1904, um, which exceeded
- investment and salary targets. And the staff recommends, uh,
- that is, I'm sorry, that 1506 and 1904 are compliant with tax abatement commitments. I feel like one
- of those edits might have erased part of my script. Oh, really? Yeah. It's okay. We would have known.
- Yeah. No, that's fine. This is where I get to do this.
- Very friendly and forgiving bunch, and will tell me gently that I have messed something up. Let's see.
- So this is resolution 1506. As you can see, this personal property investment has exceeded the SB1.
- Resolution 1904 is a real estate and personal property. Both have vastly exceeded their initial investment
- commitments. And this is resolution 2206. There's been a total of 210 million in investment over the
- life of the abatement, which
- makes this substantially compliant. The CF-1 only reflects from this past year. So the filings of average.
- So if you don't have any questions about those three as far as like the property investments. Okay.
- So now we're going to get into the employment. The CF-1 filings reflect aggregate employment across
- all sites.
- Across all three resolutions, 1506, 1904, and 2206, Cadillac consistently reported a total year-end
- headcount of 1,867 employees. This slide compares projected and reported salary outcomes for resolutions
- 1506, 1904, and 2206 based on the CF1 filings.
- 1506 and 1904, the projected salaries of 34.2 million plus the 52, 57.2 million are around 91.4 million.
- I don't like how that part of the script goes. The actual reported salaries for all employees is around
- 150 point, I'm sorry,
- 150.8 million. Projected average salary range for the SB1 was around 55 initially, but the actual average
- wage is around 80,000, 81,000. And then resolution 2206 projected salary was around 267 million with
- the actual reported as the 151 million.
- Sure. Total salaries for resolution 1506, 34 million. CF1 shows 150.8. Got it? Yes. Resolution 1904
- says 57.2. Again, it's 150 and looks like they're using the same 150.8 for all three resolutions. So
- why wouldn't it be the sum of those resolutions against the 150?
- opposed because you know I understand why they're lagging on 2206 I think we already talked about that
- mm-hmm yeah but just that didn't make sense to me why the 150.8 is showing up in the CF one on all three
- resolutions I think that we were this
- This table originates from Alex and me, however many years ago, and I think that when we were parsing
- out the original SB1s, we were concerned that on the personal and property, there were duplicate promised
- job numbers reported, so there wasn't like a separate personal property job number increase, and so...
- It's possible that the 2206 is a chemo tip as well, the 266.
- Well, the... Includes the other two? The 20... No, that's, that's... That SB1, that 266 is for this
- 4212. So, but I think, Kurt, if you, we could add a total column, that would be really easy to do. I'm
- just questioning aloud why we stayed away from that in the first place. Yeah, it just... It doesn't
- make sense. I mean, the way I look at it right now,
- It doesn't make sense just by looking at the numbers, because you have, again, the 150.8 showing up
- three times identical, and then the resolutions each have some goal. That's what the resolution is.
- My resolution is I'm going to do 34.2 in salary, but they did 150.8. Well, they haven't done three times
- that. They haven't done 450 or 500 million total. Right. Right? I think it's because it's like,
- nesting dolls where 1,039 includes the 620 jobs. I'm on the previous, or no, I'm on the following slide,
- the 620 jobs. And then the 4212 includes 1,039 and 620. And so that would stand to reason that the 266
- also includes the previous resolutions. And so you almost just look at the new resolution as the total,
- as the starting point. So you look at 2206 as the total for all. That's our measure of success. Which
- would include 2206, basically have the other two. That makes some sense to me. I guess I would
- quibble with the way it's presented though, because the way it's presented is a little misleading. Yeah.
- And it's not intentional and I'm not being critical. No, for sure. But the way it's set up is that against
- that particular resolution, they're meeting those standards for that particular resolution. So it's
- not looking at the chart cumulative across, but cumulative in each two columns. So I see why it's confusing for sure.
- They're not separating the investment that they made in 1506 and saying that investment led to $34 million.
- They're saying all of our investments have led to $150 million so far. And this is why I was sitting
- for two days trying to figure that part out. They're not applying certain individuals with
- certain resolutions. Exactly. 150 is kind of a total plan. So they're presenting it as just a
- you know, a growth chart in terms of, from the time they first started getting these to now, with the
- idea that they're still trying to get to 266 million. And so when you look at the CF-1 form and how
- you fill it out, there's no real way of expressing, or there's no instruction on how to express that
- on the form. It's just basically like, what did you say you were gonna do and what are you doing right
- now? So on the form, this is,
- And this is why it's always really difficult and complicated to kind of deal with this one in particular.
- Is there a way that, just thinking out loud, is there a way, because I think these are all timed differently,
- I guess, so I think I've answered my own question. But is there a way of consolidating abatement? Because
- I know that these are for all separate parts of their building and operations and things like that.
- Well, it's interesting that you ask. The county has struggled with the same challenges. And so they
- presented D with a workbook, like a data workbook, that had basically combined all the abatements and
- treated each investment as a layer. So within each abatement, it striated. So they may have made three
- different capital investments to get to their $100 million capital investment.
- total, and so when the county's evaluating it, they're more concerned about those layers, and so they
- have a stack that reflects the abatements in that way, but for our reporting and compliance, because,
- council, you have to decide whether each individual abatement was compliant, and because they're on
- different timelines. But I think the nesting doll analogy is
- is helpful and I think this conversation is helpful and we really are looking at the jobs numbers on
- the 2206 resolution. They cleared it on 1506 when they made that investment. They sort of cleared it
- on 1904, but to evaluate the current state, we're really just looking at
- disagree I'd like to see with and they probably can't do it this way but how many employees they say
- they were gonna you know total employment 620 and I'd love to see a CF one that basically says on that
- particular investment we had X number of employees because what we're seeing we're seeing the aggregate
- over all three I think we could provide
- We could do it for 1506. I think what we could do is go back to see what is the CF1 that they filed
- after they completed their capital investments. So that might be in 2017. But then it gets tricky with
- the 1904. I think that would be more challenging. They just laid off 400 people, which maybe they laid off
- people from the 1506 since, you know, it's really, it would be, from the company's point of view, I
- can't imagine how they could even provide that information. Yeah, I just wonder if our historic forms
- could illuminate it, but. It's all right. It's all right. It's all right. It's all right. Come on, Dean.
- I'm almost there guys. I really do appreciate that I get to present this to you guys before the council.
- So we recommend compliance for 1506 and 1904 and substantial compliance
- for 22.06 with continued monitoring, which I think that's exactly what you have all said to us at this
- point. The last one which isn't active is retreat at Switchyard, which is really exciting and I hope
- to get an actual picture. This is just the rendering because it is up and running. So they have 75%
- for low to moderate income residents. At this point, the construction is complete and 41 of 64 of the
- housing units are occupied and 35 of those units are at or below 60% AMI. This looks really great on
- South Walnut and it's really nice to see some development and some life kind of being breathed back
- into that South Walnut corridor.
- We're pretty excited about this project. Currently. Hang on, I've got another one on that. Oh, sure.
- They're groundbreaking, and it's next Thursday at 11 a.m., and I'm gonna forward this. You should have
- received it. Yeah. Okay, I'll just make sure it's at the top of your inboxes. And I would love to go
- on. I'm out of town. All weeks I can make it. Thanks. Because that's been a long project.
- Yes, and has been. So at this point, the real estate investment is, if this were to be evaluated now,
- they have far exceeded their original investment commitments. They've also far exceeded their salaries
- at this point in time, and the assessed value is about double of what it was. So it's a great project.
- They're on track. And once again, we're very happy to see some more affordable housing in the city of
- Bloomington. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, everyone. I mean, I have a little to report. Okay. Evergreen Village.
- It's a 115 unit residential care facility.
- this term is tied to the IHCBA extended use agreement. And so as long as the company is compliant, if
- they keep seeking tax credits, whenever it's time to renovate, they can, they can tie this pilot to
- that agreement. So that just facilitates the continued use of the property as affordable assisted affordable
- assisted living and residential care. It says 2026 payment, not yet received. We're having a little
- trouble tracking it down. They sent it,
- Uh, they sent it to the wrong attention of the wrong person. So, um, I believe that they've done their
- job and hopefully by next Wednesday, I'll be able to say payment received, um, country view, uh, has
- paid for 2026. This is on South Brockport road. It's a 30 year agreement, um, for 260 unit facility.
- This pilot supported the renovation of that, um, of that property and it's for residents at 60%.
- AMI in below, and I did just look that up to see what it is. For a one-person household, 60% AMI is
- $45,540, or it was in 2025. And then the following two pilots were approved by this body and then common
- council last year, and so they have not had a payment due yet and have, I think, moved through their
- renovations. I'll get an update on that. I think council will probably want
- And this is, there's not a reporting or approval requirement. This is just informational. Pilots were
- kind of in a, they were not, we were approving them and then we weren't tracking them in any kind of
- public way. So this is just an effort to do that. Okay. Any questions or more comments on
- Presentation. Very nice. Great information. Thank you. So do we need a motion to approve your findings?
- So essentially, yes. Before we do that, Isak reminded me there are some people from the public who,
- if they want to make any comments,
- Wasn't there somebody on there? I think Chris M.G. was up there. I don't know if he's still on. Vanessa,
- how about you? Is the game started yet? No. Where's she going? Baseball game. Oh, baseball game. I think
- she said Jasper. OK. All right. No comments, so we have to. So it'll be motion to approve under the condition
- that the living wage ordinance certificates are submitted before the council meeting. Would somebody
- like to make that? There we go. I second. I got a motion and a second. Any discussion? And we have to
- do a roll call because Vanessa's going to baseball. Liz? Yes.
- Vanessa yes yes and I vote yes so we are all past all right and we have any old business
- Anything to discuss for the? I just will tell you guys, we were busy today, so there wasn't enough time
- for more strategic sites, but I hope to bring that back to you at whatever the next meeting is. I don't
- know if the commission plans to meet in July or if we'll have, we'll reach out about that. When would
- that be in July? The second week in July? Yeah, yeah, I'll look. This is the first week. Yeah, we moved
- this one up. Oh, that's right, we did. It's the 21st.
- Well, I know I will not be here on the 21st. I'll be in El Salvador, but I can join virtually. Maybe
- in Portugal. Come on. It would be harder for you to join virtually. Good job, everyone. And I'm not
- joining virtually since. Would you be here on the 21st of July? 21st of July. Oh, July. I'll be back.
- Yeah, this is our June date. You guys can be without me since school. I'm sorry. OK. So when are you
- available?
- All right so no general discussion anything for the good of the calls if not we sit adjourned.