WEBVTT 00:00:01.538 --> 00:00:11.540 - Hello, and this is the Economic Development Commission meeting on Tuesday, June 2nd, and it is about 00:00:11.540 --> 00:00:22.038 - three minutes after the floor. And everything, this meeting has been posted as required, so public notice 00:00:22.038 --> 00:00:30.654 - has been done. And I thought we'd start with a roll call, and we'll start to my right. 00:00:31.746 --> 00:00:43.603 - Present Esau. Vanessa McClary and Kurt Zorn. And our second order of business after roll call is approval 00:00:43.603 --> 00:00:54.789 - of minutes. And that would be the proof of the minutes of our last meeting, which was the main 19th 00:00:54.789 --> 00:01:00.158 - meeting. I'll make a motion to approve. Second. 00:01:01.314 --> 00:01:09.671 - I have a motion to second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed, say the same. We pass 00:01:09.671 --> 00:01:17.940 - them unanimously. We actually have to do a roll call because Vanessa is on. Oh, OK. Vanessa, 00:01:17.940 --> 00:01:26.386 - how do you vote? In favor. OK. Aye. Good. I also vote in favor. I'm in favor. I vote in favor. 00:01:26.386 --> 00:01:30.654 - It's unanimous. Thank you, Dee. Keep us honest. 00:01:31.394 --> 00:01:37.906 - So our new business, this is our annual tax abatement presentation for the past year. Well, we did send 00:01:37.906 --> 00:01:44.229 - an amended packet with an updated agenda to add, if you choose to call this item, that David Hittle, 00:01:44.229 --> 00:01:50.553 - the director of planning for the city. I'm so sorry, I thought I sent that with the updated minutes, 00:01:50.553 --> 00:01:57.128 - but I guess I did not. Oh, okay, because I was looking at the most recent email. I'm so sorry, I thought 00:01:57.128 --> 00:02:00.446 - that I had fixed that. No, no, no, that's all right. 00:02:00.834 --> 00:02:08.755 - We have an amended agenda, and we have David here, and we don't want to make him sit through the whole 00:02:08.755 --> 00:02:16.677 - meeting, so. I mean, the tax abatement report is riveting. Well, it is. But David's probably got other 00:02:16.677 --> 00:02:24.444 - stuff to do, so. If I can intro David. Hey, Tim. Oh, Tim. Tim Timing. I'll be here. Thanks. Is it OK 00:02:24.444 --> 00:02:30.366 - if I introduce him and why I've asked him to come visit us? Sure. Please do. 00:02:30.722 --> 00:02:37.680 - So like I mentioned, David's our planning director and I thought it would be really great to have him 00:02:37.680 --> 00:02:44.773 - visit the EDC because he's working on a range of updates to the UDO that will support small businesses. 00:02:44.773 --> 00:02:51.731 - And this is something Tim especially has been interested in talking about. So it's in development and 00:02:51.731 --> 00:02:59.166 - David was willing to come chat with us about kind of what is coming up in the list and where the process is. 00:02:59.522 --> 00:03:06.886 - Do you agree with that summary? I agree with that summary. Okay, cool. Thanks, David. Hi, I'm David 00:03:06.886 --> 00:03:14.471 - Hill, Planning Transportation Director, as Jane just noted. So we are putting together a packet of UDO 00:03:14.471 --> 00:03:21.908 - amendments intended to make life easier for local, small, independent businesses. The centerpiece of 00:03:21.908 --> 00:03:28.094 - the amendment will be a look at what the UDO calls limited compliance requirements. 00:03:28.258 --> 00:03:36.583 - In the two years I've been here, I've seen this knock down six, maybe half a dozen efforts by small 00:03:36.583 --> 00:03:45.075 - businesses to expand or move to Bloomington and either send them packing or keep them in the position 00:03:45.075 --> 00:03:51.902 - they're in, which is not where they want to be. In short, it's a requirement that 00:03:54.242 --> 00:04:04.090 - Any new use introduced to a site or any expansion of physical structures on a site triggers the requirement 00:04:04.090 --> 00:04:13.846 - for a whole host of site improvements. Now any one of those improvements isn't necessarily a deal breaker, 00:04:13.846 --> 00:04:22.782 - well maybe one of them is, but there's 12 of them. So there's 12 things from adding bike racks to 00:04:23.298 --> 00:04:30.044 - retrofitting your landscaping so it meets the current list perfectly. The thing that's kind of the real 00:04:30.044 --> 00:04:36.856 - game changer though is it requires that you take away any excess parking. So any number of parking spots 00:04:36.856 --> 00:04:43.602 - that is over the maximum parking that the ordinance allows. Now our ordinance is a little bit different 00:04:43.602 --> 00:04:50.413 - than most ordinance is in that we don't require a minimum number of parking spaces for say a restaurant. 00:04:50.413 --> 00:04:51.646 - We have a maximum. 00:04:52.386 --> 00:04:59.807 - Most ordinances say if you have a 4,000 square foot restaurant, and you need three parking spaces per 00:04:59.807 --> 00:05:07.300 - 1,000 square feet or something like that, and then another number per employees on your largest shift. 00:05:07.300 --> 00:05:14.575 - But ours is quite a bit more progressive than that, and it imposes a maximum number. But lifting up 00:05:14.575 --> 00:05:16.830 - asphalt and replacing it with, 00:05:17.378 --> 00:05:23.931 - you know, required landscaping is super expensive for a small mom and pop that just wants to relocate 00:05:23.931 --> 00:05:30.420 - from their, you know, their much smaller place on the other side of town into this, you know, former 00:05:30.420 --> 00:05:36.845 - pizza hut or whatever it is that's been vacant for two years. And so they don't do it. And so I've, 00:05:36.845 --> 00:05:41.214 - you know, again, a half dozen times seen that, you know, just, just 00:05:41.378 --> 00:05:48.351 - kill ideas and desires to expand and just improve business. And so that's kind of the centerpiece of 00:05:48.351 --> 00:05:55.463 - what we want to do is change not only the things that trigger the need for site improvements, but then 00:05:55.463 --> 00:06:02.436 - also change the level of improvements that are needed once they're triggered. So instead of having a 00:06:02.436 --> 00:06:08.926 - list of 12 things you need to bring up to code, maybe it's five or six things and then we can 00:06:09.538 --> 00:06:15.903 - maybe even make some things discretionary so that if they're super, if the cost is so exorbitant that 00:06:15.903 --> 00:06:22.205 - it just kills everything, that there's some flexibility to say, well, you don't have to do that, but 00:06:22.205 --> 00:06:28.507 - you can do these two other things that are much more manageable. So... So are any of these things in 00:06:28.507 --> 00:06:34.622 - place now that you're hoping to change? Yeah, they're all in place now. These requirements are... 00:06:35.170 --> 00:06:42.747 - been in place for a while. In fact, they've sort of expanded over the years. And how is it working now 00:06:42.747 --> 00:06:50.251 - to put them in place? Well, it's prohibitive. It's burdensome. Still? Well, David's recommending some 00:06:50.251 --> 00:06:57.607 - reductions and some flexibility, because it can be hundreds of thousands of dollars for somebody to 00:06:57.607 --> 00:07:03.198 - add on to their business, or if there's a minor change in use, or whatever. 00:07:04.642 --> 00:07:11.735 - It kills businesses. Where it's manageable is with the Starbucks and Chick-fil-A's of the world, where 00:07:11.735 --> 00:07:19.310 - they have all the resources to take all these things on. Where it's not manageable is for local, independent, 00:07:19.310 --> 00:07:26.265 - smaller shops, where these types of improvements are just way too costly. And sometimes, most of the 00:07:26.265 --> 00:07:34.046 - time, business want to improve. They want to make it better. But the level of requirement now is immense in some 00:07:34.178 --> 00:07:41.822 - of settings depends on the site. So we get nothing instead of improvement in many cases to my opinion. 00:07:41.822 --> 00:07:49.392 - You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. That's perfectly put. Another, go ahead. I was just 00:07:49.392 --> 00:07:57.037 - going to say, so do the small businesses come in with Plan B or how do they approach that? They either 00:07:57.037 --> 00:08:02.974 - go through with it and cripple themselves financially or they just don't do it. 00:08:03.074 --> 00:08:10.562 - Or they go somewhere else. Is there an option for them to suggest a Plan B? They can request a variance, 00:08:10.562 --> 00:08:17.979 - which is itself a very heavy lift. A process. Yeah. A process and money. A process and money. It always 00:08:17.979 --> 00:08:25.252 - requires drawings, engineered drawings and that sort of thing. Sometimes legal representation. All to 00:08:25.252 --> 00:08:31.742 - go through a non-guaranteed process, because you don't know what the BZA is going to vote. 00:08:32.514 --> 00:08:41.787 - So the relief is not in place. Another requirement in our ordinance states that if you perform 00:08:41.787 --> 00:08:51.938 - any subdivision on a large lot, then the entire lot, not only the subdivided portion that's carved out, 00:08:51.938 --> 00:08:57.502 - but then everything else needs to be brought up to code. 00:08:58.274 --> 00:09:05.981 - As an example, I forget the name of it, but pick your mid-century multi-tenant shopping center that's 00:09:05.981 --> 00:09:13.763 - got dry cleaners and a hair salon and a barber shop and maybe a food restaurant or something like that 00:09:13.763 --> 00:09:21.621 - in there. We had somebody come in, and there's plenty of room in the parking lot to subdivide and build 00:09:21.621 --> 00:09:24.190 - another shop or another business. 00:09:24.322 --> 00:09:30.969 - But if that were to happen, that would trigger the need for the entire lot to come into compliance with 00:09:30.969 --> 00:09:37.553 - the ordinance. So at that point, you're creating new parking islands in a 60-year-old parking lot, and 00:09:37.553 --> 00:09:43.945 - you're creating new perimeter landscaping, and you're probably bringing up part of the parking lot. 00:09:43.945 --> 00:09:50.528 - You know, again, a very expensive, very costly proposition that results in this new business, this new 00:09:50.528 --> 00:09:52.190 - building not being built. 00:09:55.522 --> 00:10:01.683 - It's not viable to do that. So we want to take away the requirement that says that the entire law, the 00:10:01.683 --> 00:10:07.725 - entire commercial center needs to be brought up to code perfectly. How did we get to the point where 00:10:07.725 --> 00:10:13.827 - that was happening? Why did we make that a requirement? I can answer that with a very broad statement 00:10:13.827 --> 00:10:16.638 - about our unified development ordinance, which 00:10:16.770 --> 00:10:26.142 - that it is the receptacle of everybody's dreams and desires for utopian society. So it represents the 00:10:26.142 --> 00:10:35.421 - dream. It sucks. It represents the dream. It's a huge pile of aspirations. Yeah, not reality. Right. 00:10:35.421 --> 00:10:43.966 - Yeah. All well-intended. Yes. And one at a time, it's not so bad if you start stacking them. 00:10:44.546 --> 00:10:51.699 - over the years where the stream then becomes bigger with the next update and the next update and then. 00:10:51.699 --> 00:10:58.921 - 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 00:10:58.921 --> 00:11:05.310 - never happens, which is to pull some of those things back rather than add to the ordinance. 00:11:05.442 --> 00:11:11.567 - wholesome things away from it, at least selectively. And what's the process for that? Well, it goes 00:11:11.567 --> 00:11:17.815 - through the plan commission. We as staff will draft an ordinance amendment language, we'll take it to 00:11:17.815 --> 00:11:24.002 - the plan commission. They're an advisory body that makes the recommendation that then carries to the 00:11:24.002 --> 00:11:26.942 - city council, which will ultimately vote on it. 00:11:28.706 --> 00:11:35.688 - And I'm speaking to this group because at some point we're probably going to ask for support, even ideas. 00:11:35.688 --> 00:11:42.406 - I think you have some things we've talked about that can be added to this packet. But just as a heads 00:11:42.406 --> 00:11:49.453 - up, because you're certainly a pertinent body to this endeavor. So what's the thinking for the two groups, 00:11:49.453 --> 00:11:56.172 - the Planning Commission and the City Council, where they might be at with any of this? I don't really 00:11:56.172 --> 00:11:57.950 - know. I don't really know. 00:11:58.242 --> 00:12:05.326 - All of the ordinance amendments that have brought us to this point have gone through the plan commission 00:12:05.326 --> 00:12:12.208 - and the council. You know, we're talking about decades of aggregated things. They each go through one 00:12:12.208 --> 00:12:19.022 - at a time and when they come through they seem like that's a great idea, but then you just don't see 00:12:19.022 --> 00:12:25.566 - the quiet piling up of the aspirations and it's time to see it and to peel it back a little bit. 00:12:26.114 --> 00:12:33.679 - So I think it's very rational and reasonable and so I hope that the Planning Commission and the council 00:12:33.679 --> 00:12:41.098 - sees it that way. And is there a timeline on all of this? Well, the council goes on break soon and we 00:12:41.098 --> 00:12:48.445 - want to bring it back to get it in front of the Planning Commission probably in August. And then the 00:12:48.445 --> 00:12:53.246 - council then after that? The Planning Commission will view it and 00:12:53.506 --> 00:12:58.839 - and maybe bring it back and talk about it a few times. They'll eventually release it with their 00:12:58.839 --> 00:13:04.782 - recommendation and then it goes to the council. Council, you know, will review it and we'll hear testimony 00:13:04.782 --> 00:13:10.337 - and they might, they could vote on it the first time that they see it and hear about it. They could 00:13:10.337 --> 00:13:15.948 - continue it for more information. They could have questions that need to come back with answers for. 00:13:15.948 --> 00:13:21.891 - So probably two hearings in front of the Planning Commission and probably two more before the City Council 00:13:21.891 --> 00:13:22.558 - as a guess. 00:13:24.034 --> 00:13:34.161 - And do we know how many businesses have been impacted by where we're at right now? That's a good question. 00:13:34.161 --> 00:13:43.816 - I've been here two years. And I've seen, again, half a dozen businesses literally turned away because 00:13:43.816 --> 00:13:53.470 - of this. And I think that you could probably talk with folks who are in the world courting businesses 00:13:53.698 --> 00:14:01.727 - get a longer list. It's a long list, though. You can get turned off by a phone call. You can call the 00:14:01.727 --> 00:14:09.913 - city and ask for the process. Very true. Well, no, no. Also, the folks who just never start the process 00:14:09.913 --> 00:14:18.020 - because they know what it is, right? But even if we take six as the real number, imagine that you have 00:14:18.020 --> 00:14:23.294 - six spaces in the community activated with increased tax revenues. 00:14:23.778 --> 00:14:34.049 - Yeah. That's big enough. Yeah. I have an orthogonal question, which maybe, I mean, I think, by definition, 00:14:34.049 --> 00:14:44.031 - interacts at some place with this. But you know, we had that anecdotally, the person who wanted to open 00:14:44.031 --> 00:14:51.806 - an emergency vet. Yes. Was this also caused by a similar thing? They persevered. 00:14:52.130 --> 00:14:59.458 - And I think, oh gosh, that was a year long process. Two years. So they're moving forward with it now? 00:14:59.458 --> 00:15:06.714 - They cut the ribbon. Oh, they're opening them. Oh, wow. I didn't follow that. Great. It was perilous 00:15:06.714 --> 00:15:14.114 - the entire way through. It was perilous the entire way through. I think they relied on the good graces 00:15:14.114 --> 00:15:16.126 - of an engineer that kind of 00:15:16.418 --> 00:15:22.012 - you know, sort of gave it a little bit of profile. Was that a very similar? It was the exact same thing. 00:15:22.012 --> 00:15:27.339 - This was within the compliance that trapped them. Right down to parking. Right. So this is, I mean, 00:15:27.339 --> 00:15:32.773 - this is for me the exact case study of something that we've asked for for 10 years. Finally, somebody 00:15:32.773 --> 00:15:38.261 - says they want to do it. They run into all of these barriers. I'm very glad that they followed through 00:15:38.261 --> 00:15:39.486 - it, that I have to go. 00:15:39.714 --> 00:15:44.778 - I don't know, caused my animals to have to go there or something. Good luck. It's really hard to get 00:15:44.778 --> 00:15:49.791 - an appointment. Really? Well, see, because there's so much, but it's the point is that there's been 00:15:49.791 --> 00:15:54.855 - so much demand and anytime we ever needed it, everybody had to go to Indy. And so, you know, I mean, 00:15:54.855 --> 00:16:00.069 - so I think that's an exact case study of like, we want things to be able to move faster. We want people 00:16:00.069 --> 00:16:05.083 - who want to do good things in the community to be able to do them as quickly as possible. And there 00:16:05.083 --> 00:16:08.542 - was a vacant building, literally perfectly suited. I mean, it was a, 00:16:08.834 --> 00:16:16.190 - a medical clinic, so it was a human clinic wanting to convert to a pet clinic. Triggered everything. 00:16:16.190 --> 00:16:23.692 - A vacant building, long vacant, perfectly suited that our ordinance is so onerous that left to its own 00:16:23.692 --> 00:16:31.193 - devices, it would have just required that the building remain vacant and that the vet clinic maybe set 00:16:31.193 --> 00:16:38.622 - up shop somewhere else. So it was really fortuitous that it was able to get through. I think it took, 00:16:39.042 --> 00:16:46.347 - real perseverance from a number of people. Their realtors were very heavily involved and very patient. 00:16:46.347 --> 00:16:53.439 - My only thought then in that case, seeing that it's not orthogonal, is I think adding to those six, 00:16:53.439 --> 00:17:01.170 - it's the many stories of near misses, of delayed processes, of delayed value to the residents of Bloomington 00:17:01.170 --> 00:17:07.198 - and the surrounding areas and so on. I think that that shows it's a big issue beyond 00:17:07.330 --> 00:17:13.904 - Even I think six is big enough, but like and perception to me, this is a huge issue. It adds to the 00:17:13.904 --> 00:17:20.609 - reputation, frankly, that it is a tough place to do this. Exactly. 100%. So I'm glad you're doing it. 00:17:20.609 --> 00:17:26.526 - Great. So hopefully we can review it, support it. When you go to the council, you'll say, 00:17:26.690 --> 00:17:35.155 - And it won't be complex. This is not a huge bundle of changes. We're simple people here. I'm in that 00:17:35.155 --> 00:17:44.040 - boat. That's all I got. Great. Good. Thank you. OK. Thanks, David. Thank you. We'll see you again. That's 00:17:44.040 --> 00:17:52.505 - exciting. Thanks, David. Thank you. Thank you, David. OK. OK, now we'll move to the next item on the 00:17:52.505 --> 00:17:55.774 - agenda, which is the abatement report. 00:17:57.026 --> 00:18:02.398 - Correct? Yes. Very, very exciting. 00:18:30.466 --> 00:18:40.549 - Okay, hello everyone. Hello. So this is the annual tax rate presentation. This is reviewing tax year 00:18:40.549 --> 00:18:50.532 - 2025. I will be taking care of the tax payments and then at the end of this, Jane will be reviewing 00:18:50.532 --> 00:18:56.222 - the pilot programs that we went over last year, correct? 00:18:59.106 --> 00:19:06.463 - So we're going to cover the summary of the tax abatement program, economic impact of abatements, and 00:19:06.463 --> 00:19:14.622 - then review active pilots. I'm going to try and keep this as short as possible because it can get pretty weedy. 00:19:14.722 --> 00:19:21.344 - But the slide decks are in, we'll have the slide decks for public reference and also supporting materials 00:19:21.344 --> 00:19:27.591 - are in your packets in an accessible format. I also want to note that there were some minor changes 00:19:27.591 --> 00:19:33.963 - that happened today before we, like right before we came into this meeting. So I will be updating the 00:19:33.963 --> 00:19:40.335 - packet that we have now with those minor changes and then reposting it to onboard for public. Oh yes, 00:19:40.335 --> 00:19:41.022 - Andy, yes. 00:19:43.874 --> 00:19:54.170 - All right, so tax abatement. It temporarily reduces taxes on new investment in real and personal property. 00:19:54.170 --> 00:20:03.792 - It applies only to the increment, the increase in assessed value due to the project. The property's 00:20:03.792 --> 00:20:09.950 - original value continues to be taxed. Eligibility and approval. 00:20:10.178 --> 00:20:17.517 - Projects must be located in a designated economic revitalization area. Some residential projects require 00:20:17.517 --> 00:20:24.925 - designation as an economic development target area. Approval, uh, involves review by city staff, a formal 00:20:24.925 --> 00:20:31.984 - recommendation from the economic development commission, uh, and final designation and authorization 00:20:31.984 --> 00:20:37.086 - by the common council through public process. All right. How these work. 00:20:37.954 --> 00:20:45.630 - Most abatements last one to 10 years and follow a sliding scale. Personal property abatements can go 00:20:45.630 --> 00:20:53.610 - up to 20 years. State law allows for alternative schedules if justified by the project. Each application 00:20:53.610 --> 00:21:01.210 - includes an SB1 form, which sets baseline projections for investment, assessed value, job creation, 00:21:01.210 --> 00:21:02.046 - and wages. 00:21:03.842 --> 00:21:12.246 - We also evaluate community-based goals such as affordable housing, sustainability, full-time employment, 00:21:12.246 --> 00:21:21.050 - and contributions to local character. So compliance review process consists of the roles and responsibilities 00:21:21.050 --> 00:21:29.854 - of tax abatement approvals. These approvals are set by city staff reviews, which is what I'm doing right now. 00:21:30.530 --> 00:21:37.396 - You guys take a look at it. EGC does. Common council authorizes it, authorizes them, and then the county 00:21:37.396 --> 00:21:43.478 - administers. Hey, Diaz, Chris M.G. in the waiting room. Oh, I thought I admitted him before. 00:21:43.478 --> 00:21:50.345 - I don't know. We lost him. Hi, Chris. Sorry about that. I thought I had admitted you earlier. Is Vanessa 00:21:50.345 --> 00:21:57.342 - still on? No, I think it might have just dropped. Hi, I'm here. Oh, yeah, Vanessa's still here. Thank you. 00:21:57.666 --> 00:22:09.202 - Projects are monitored annually through CF1 filings. Yes, there we go. Staff evaluates the actual performance 00:22:09.202 --> 00:22:19.164 - against the SB1 commitments and projects are classified as compliant, substantially compliant, 00:22:19.164 --> 00:22:27.134 - or noncompliant. These are actually the official titles of those standards. 00:22:30.402 --> 00:22:35.799 - EDC forwards the report to the Council for final action and the Council may approve the report or individual 00:22:35.799 --> 00:22:40.850 - abatements as compliant or substantially compliant or request a hearing for additional information if 00:22:40.850 --> 00:22:46.049 - they wish to consider a finding of noncompliance. Departments like HAND also review specific commitments 00:22:46.049 --> 00:22:51.149 - like affordable housing. A hearing is important for findings of noncompliance because the Council must 00:22:51.149 --> 00:22:55.902 - determine whether failing to meet commitments was due to factors outside of the filers control. 00:22:56.546 --> 00:23:05.444 - Factors must be found to be within the company's control to merit a finding of non-compliance. So the 00:23:05.444 --> 00:23:14.603 - economic impact overview. As far as real and new, I'm sorry, new real and personal property investments, 00:23:14.603 --> 00:23:24.286 - we've seen $539 million in proposed investment. So that's the SB1. And then $411 million in actual investment. 00:23:24.962 --> 00:23:33.508 - The assessed value of all of the properties increased from 164 million to 230 million. This increase 00:23:33.508 --> 00:23:41.970 - meets the but for standard. These gains wouldn't have occurred without the abatements. And I'm just 00:23:41.970 --> 00:23:50.600 - going to put a little caveat here. You're going to have to apologize if I mess up a lot of these huge 00:23:50.600 --> 00:23:53.054 - numbers. I will likely stop. 00:23:57.314 --> 00:24:10.418 - The residential numbers have been changed. I think we that was the slide that we were working on today. 00:24:10.418 --> 00:24:23.018 - Yeah. All right. So jobs and wages projects reported. Oh, you know what? I didn't fix that in mind. 00:24:23.018 --> 00:24:25.790 - Projects reported 19. 00:24:26.402 --> 00:24:40.464 - 138 total jobs and 152 million in salaries combined. Okay. Yeah, that slide is not in there. This is 00:24:40.464 --> 00:24:54.526 - why I want that we do this. So it's 1,938 total jobs. So this is the 71 and the 1867 added together. 00:24:56.898 --> 00:25:06.228 - And then the total is 152 million in salaries. So that is the cattelent salaries. We separate out cattelent, 00:25:06.228 --> 00:25:15.129 - which is now Novo and used to be Cook, because it's just such an engine. It's got so much. We just feel 00:25:15.129 --> 00:25:23.774 - like it's a little bit more helpful to separate that out. We could combine them together, but. Yeah. 00:25:23.938 --> 00:25:33.018 - Additionally, Catalan has like five separate abatements. They're like three personal property and two 00:25:33.018 --> 00:25:42.008 - real property. So we try to show all of that in this. So is that right, the average new and retained 00:25:42.008 --> 00:25:51.444 - family? Yes, that is correct. So can you help explain why there's such a big difference between Catalan's 00:25:51.444 --> 00:25:53.758 - plan than actual's? Yeah. 00:25:54.050 --> 00:26:03.781 - So, and we can add some context about the salary on the top section too, which is low. So, Catalan's 00:26:03.781 --> 00:26:13.511 - retained versus actual, I think it's their abatement 2206, they've only triggered one of the two, so 00:26:13.511 --> 00:26:19.966 - they had planned a ton of growth and then with the way the economy 00:26:20.546 --> 00:26:26.841 - went and specifically with the vaccines that they were manufacturing, vaccine demand tanked. And so 00:26:26.841 --> 00:26:33.199 - a lot of the growth that they had planned didn't happen. And so for a few years, they had retained a 00:26:33.199 --> 00:26:39.557 - lot of the jobs numbers. And then I think next year when we come around, we'll see another reduction 00:26:39.557 --> 00:26:45.914 - in those total jobs. But the salaries, as you can see, are really great. And it kind of goes back to 00:26:45.914 --> 00:26:47.614 - the question about factors 00:26:48.098 --> 00:26:55.950 - within or outside of the company's control. And in the past, when this has been discussed with 00:26:55.950 --> 00:27:04.629 - the commission, we viewed those market forces as being outside of the company's control for that vaccine 00:27:04.629 --> 00:27:13.225 - demand. And then just big picture, the site is in transition in, I think, a good way. NOVA's taken over 00:27:13.225 --> 00:27:17.854 - the site, all of the projects and intellectual property 00:27:17.954 --> 00:27:25.754 - the previous company in there retaining the contract development manufacturing capacity and moving through 00:27:25.754 --> 00:27:32.607 - those clients while they're also bringing in all of those Novo products directly to the site. 00:27:32.607 --> 00:27:40.189 - So the site, which would have been vaccine heavy, is shifting its focus, which will be good and I think 00:27:40.189 --> 00:27:45.438 - productive. Is that helpful on the Cadillac jobs? And then on the jobs, 00:27:52.674 --> 00:27:59.201 - I know what average is, but it depends on how many are low. I mean, that is not captured as part of 00:27:59.201 --> 00:28:05.924 - the SB1. We can look for that information. I would be very interested in that. And I'll tell you, they 00:28:05.924 --> 00:28:12.516 - don't tend, in the past, they're a public company. Some of that might be available, but I think they 00:28:12.516 --> 00:28:19.109 - tend to provide entry-level salaries and then less information about the higher salaries. But we can 00:28:19.109 --> 00:28:20.414 - see what we can do. 00:28:20.514 --> 00:28:27.360 - But on the other hand, the average salary includes those higher salaries, right? Yes, absolutely. Well, 00:28:27.360 --> 00:28:34.205 - there you go. But I think that they're paying well. And they went through, as the new company took over 00:28:34.205 --> 00:28:40.854 - the site, they went through a complete site evaluation and pay banding and raised salaries, I think, 00:28:40.854 --> 00:28:47.436 - pretty much across the board. So I think we will have confidence. Let me ask for the average salary 00:28:47.436 --> 00:28:50.398 - in a different way. So if we had the median. 00:28:51.810 --> 00:28:58.689 - I'd be interested to know what the average of the median is all the way down to the bottom. I'd be really 00:28:58.689 --> 00:29:05.308 - interested in that. Yeah, and I just don't know that we have access to that because it's not, they're 00:29:05.308 --> 00:29:11.862 - not required to provide it. But we can ask for it. Okay. Are you tracking that or? Yeah, I'm writing 00:29:11.862 --> 00:29:18.611 - notes in my script right now. Okay. I will say that the, as far as individual salaries on the SB1, they 00:29:18.611 --> 00:29:21.726 - projected to be giving 66, I think it was 66.5, 00:29:21.826 --> 00:29:29.279 - a year. So as the average salary. So this is like, you know, 25 above what they were predicting for 00:29:29.279 --> 00:29:37.105 - their SB1. So yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. And then the on the new and retained salaries in the section 00:29:37.105 --> 00:29:44.559 - above for the rental properties and the woolery. This is that issue that we've run into in the past 00:29:44.559 --> 00:29:48.062 - where the primary purpose of these residential 00:29:48.290 --> 00:29:56.439 - properties is to create affordable housing units, but the SB1 is really created to track jobs and capital 00:29:56.439 --> 00:30:04.357 - investment only. So the jobs reported here are largely part-time and temporary. And in the case of the 00:30:04.357 --> 00:30:12.582 - Woolery, they are service industry. And so in the service industry, you're allowed to pay reduced salaries 00:30:12.582 --> 00:30:17.118 - since tips come in. So I think that they had two years ago 00:30:18.146 --> 00:30:26.875 - $15 an average, our current, our 2025 living wage was I think 16-22. So maybe we can get that question 00:30:26.875 --> 00:30:35.434 - answered. Have you talked to the company about whether they're meeting that minimum? Waiting to hear 00:30:35.434 --> 00:30:43.908 - back. Okay, you just said legal, so I didn't know. So each company with an abatement is required to 00:30:43.908 --> 00:30:47.806 - fill out a living wage ordinance certificate. 00:30:47.906 --> 00:30:55.026 - Gotcha. So we're waiting on that. So I'm getting some of those back from legal. And so you can approve 00:30:55.026 --> 00:31:02.147 - all of these on the condition that we received that before this goes to the council. And tell me about 00:31:02.147 --> 00:31:09.198 - that form. So the form is just basically, uh, it's, it's an agreement saying that, yes, we are paying 00:31:09.198 --> 00:31:16.318 - the minimum minimum living wage set by the city of Bloomington, which is $16 and 20 or 16, 22 an hour. 00:31:16.546 --> 00:31:25.139 - currently for the city of Bloomington. It asks about positions. I think it asks about hours as well. 00:31:25.139 --> 00:31:33.817 - But those who have an abatement fill this form out to back up the information that they're putting in 00:31:33.817 --> 00:31:42.495 - here. I will say that I have been involved in a salary survey for entry-level jobs just to see what's 00:31:42.495 --> 00:31:46.494 - competitive. And I think they offer, we think, 00:31:46.882 --> 00:31:54.510 - the group did the research thought it was about $24 an hour for their lowest entry walk in the door 00:31:54.510 --> 00:32:02.214 - spot. Even with this kind of work? The lowest. That's like line work. So most workers there probably 00:32:02.214 --> 00:32:10.148 - a little bit above that. Yeah. Agreed. I had trouble understanding that. Could he repeat that one time, 00:32:10.148 --> 00:32:11.902 - please? What Tim said? 00:32:15.074 --> 00:32:22.435 - I was involved in a private survey to try to find out what entry level jobs were paying in Bloomington, 00:32:22.435 --> 00:32:29.514 - just to see what's competitive. And my understanding was that Nova Nordis was about $24 an hour for 00:32:29.514 --> 00:32:36.733 - their lowest position, which would be like a line position or something like that. So not necessarily 00:32:36.733 --> 00:32:40.414 - somebody with a college degree or technical skills. 00:32:43.010 --> 00:32:53.040 - All right, thank you. Yes, I couldn't understand everything earlier. Thank you. Ready? Affordable housing 00:32:53.040 --> 00:33:03.258 - outcomes. Abatements also supported deeply affordable housing. New urban station has 15 affordable housing, 00:33:03.258 --> 00:33:11.774 - or is required to have 15 affordable housing units at or below 80% with a, with a, sorry. 00:33:11.874 --> 00:33:21.601 - with a specified rent range of $641 to $1282. Tenants currently have an average AMI of 41.75%, and the 00:33:21.601 --> 00:33:31.234 - average rent is $815 a month, and the occupancy is at 104, oh, I'm sorry, 153%, I didn't fix it in my 00:33:31.234 --> 00:33:39.262 - script. So they're actually providing more than they have, than they're required to. 00:33:39.394 --> 00:33:52.679 - So this is based off of the 23 bedrooms against the 15 bedrooms, which is why it comes out to 153. Southern 00:33:52.679 --> 00:34:04.734 - Knoll has 31 units at 28% AMI on average, and that's a 94% occupancy. And then Union at Crescent, 00:34:05.154 --> 00:34:15.698 - has 102 units allocated at or below 60% AMI with 15 units flexible for market rate or affordable, and 00:34:15.698 --> 00:34:26.035 - 63 are currently occupied at 62%. We'll dig a little deeper into each of these. Southern Noel is in 00:34:26.035 --> 00:34:34.718 - its sixth year of abatement and has exceeded investment, job, and wage commitments. 00:34:38.434 --> 00:34:48.098 - Its assessed value is at 130% of its SB1 projection. 26 units serve households at or below 60% AMI and 00:34:48.098 --> 00:34:57.481 - the staff recommends finding of compliance for this project. And also stop me at any point you have 00:34:57.481 --> 00:35:07.614 - a question or want to dig deeper. Union at Crescent. Union at Crescent is 146 unit mixed income development 00:35:07.938 --> 00:35:16.031 - I'm sorry, mixed use development with 120, I'm sorry, 102 units committed as affordable at 60% AMI. 00:35:16.031 --> 00:35:24.205 - 63 of those 102 committed units are currently occupied at 62%. This is lower than the 2024 occupancy 00:35:24.205 --> 00:35:32.702 - rate of 64%. However, the property has undergone significant effort and expense to support a turnaround. 00:35:33.858 --> 00:35:41.245 - Property management reverted to the developer, the annex group, March 2025. A May 2026 report indicates 00:35:41.245 --> 00:35:48.915 - that a million dollars was spent directly on replacing HVAC units, exterior siding and other items covering 00:35:48.915 --> 00:35:56.160 - 30 units in total. Five units had significant mold issues that needed remediation. It was 120,000 for 00:35:56.160 --> 00:36:03.262 - just those five units. Evictions were required as part of the turnaround to remove problem tenants. 00:36:03.842 --> 00:36:11.501 - The property now holds an occupancy permit from the city rather than being stuck in an ongoing re-inspection 00:36:11.501 --> 00:36:18.879 - cycle due to problems at the property. And the property passed all compliance inspections handed January 00:36:18.879 --> 00:36:26.398 - IHCDA in April and home units in April. Can we, oh, you're still going through this one? Yeah, absolutely. 00:36:29.570 --> 00:36:41.579 - So new investment is actually at 159% of its SB1 projection. Full-time staff wage doubled the SB1 projection, 00:36:41.579 --> 00:36:51.513 - so it's 163% more than the actual Bloomington living wage, so it's $26.49 an hour. They've 00:36:51.513 --> 00:36:58.718 - hired a third-party consulting service to hit 85% total occupancy 00:36:58.882 --> 00:37:05.154 - goal by August 26. And given the major investments, the eviction, renovation, new lease and reputational 00:37:05.154 --> 00:37:11.604 - repair, city staff believes that the annex group is doing everything within its power to bring the property 00:37:11.604 --> 00:37:17.816 - back to the required occupancy rate. So. Can you remind us on this one? Because last year we found that 00:37:17.816 --> 00:37:23.550 - we recommended non-compliance revenue that went to city council through the hearing and we then 00:37:25.250 --> 00:37:33.981 - Yeah, so in this body We were really concerned about compliance because they were under the rate they 00:37:33.981 --> 00:37:42.798 - were actually at 64% occupancy last year, which is below the commitment and Yeah, this the information 00:37:42.798 --> 00:37:51.359 - that we had at the time this body just didn't feel confident and we didn't recommend we didn't want 00:37:51.359 --> 00:37:54.526 - to stand before the public and say I 00:37:55.042 --> 00:38:00.973 - you know, the terms of this tax abatement are being met when it was clearly like below the occupancy 00:38:00.973 --> 00:38:07.255 - rate. So that allowed council to request a hearing. And then during that hearing, there was a presentation 00:38:07.255 --> 00:38:13.362 - from the property management company or the property owner. And there was also a lot of context offered 00:38:13.362 --> 00:38:19.292 - by the director of housing and neighborhood development about the site and what it had been through. 00:38:19.292 --> 00:38:21.054 - And so it was determined that 00:38:21.346 --> 00:38:27.371 - condition of the site was really due to factors outside of the company's control. And further, they 00:38:27.371 --> 00:38:33.636 - presented this five or 10 point remediation plan and they were committing to all these investments that 00:38:33.636 --> 00:38:39.661 - they were going to make. They were part, they were at the very beginning of that. So there was some 00:38:39.661 --> 00:38:45.746 - nervousness on everyone's part. Like is this real or really, are they really gonna get through these 00:38:45.746 --> 00:38:50.686 - investments? Are they really gonna turn it around? Well, we met with the housing, 00:38:51.074 --> 00:38:59.336 - development director and the housing affordability manager to talk about the site and where it was. 00:38:59.336 --> 00:39:07.680 - And they were feeling very much like the turnaround was going well and is in process. So part of why 00:39:07.680 --> 00:39:16.768 - the occupancy is low right now is that one of the things they had to do was have a large number of evictions. 00:39:16.768 --> 00:39:20.734 - So they evicted problem tenants. They began the 00:39:21.410 --> 00:39:27.584 - construction remediation, um, doing the renovations. So there were empty units as a result of that. 00:39:27.584 --> 00:39:33.944 - Um, they made, you know, all these significant investments in that mold remediation. And then they've, 00:39:33.944 --> 00:39:40.366 - um, they got their occupancy permit finally in January, 2026, and they've been working on lease up ever 00:39:40.366 --> 00:39:46.664 - since then. And so the current 61% rate, um, based on our conversations with housing and neighborhood 00:39:46.664 --> 00:39:50.430 - development, we really feel good about it. Their context is. 00:39:50.978 --> 00:39:58.235 - there are kind of two pieces of information. One is a turnaround really can take time. And especially 00:39:58.235 --> 00:40:05.634 - when you're really emptying the property out for these reasons, then getting at full capacity and fully 00:40:05.634 --> 00:40:12.820 - leased up just takes time, especially when there was a reputational damage to the property. And then 00:40:12.820 --> 00:40:19.934 - simultaneously, Bloomington's occupancy rate is going down. So we have this significant increase in 00:40:20.162 --> 00:40:28.812 - apartments in the market. And I don't have a formal rate yet, but anecdotally, the information that 00:40:28.812 --> 00:40:37.809 - we've received via hand is that the rate is, the vacancy rate is higher. So it used to be 6% on average 00:40:37.809 --> 00:40:46.978 - in Bloomington, and then we're kind of hearing seven to eight now. So I think that's interesting context. 00:40:46.978 --> 00:40:49.054 - We have access to that. 00:40:49.250 --> 00:40:55.728 - multiple point plan. I was trying to find it. Yeah, I can absolutely send you a copy of their report 00:40:55.728 --> 00:41:02.271 - to us on that plan. I remember seeing it and I remember coming, but I just couldn't then find it when 00:41:02.271 --> 00:41:08.877 - I went back to... Do you think we should put that in the packet for Council? My follow-on question was 00:41:08.877 --> 00:41:15.420 - exactly this, is that whether we, EDC, need to just be very judicial, which is to say, you know, this 00:41:15.420 --> 00:41:16.510 - is the agreement 00:41:16.802 --> 00:41:22.795 - find them X or Y with some you know we can add qualitative recommendations and then because I know council 00:41:22.795 --> 00:41:28.564 - has a little bit more latitude to make those type of decisions so I'm just I guess the question is you 00:41:28.564 --> 00:41:34.333 - know I mean I mean regardless I think council could pull it up either way right I mean so we could all 00:41:34.333 --> 00:41:37.694 - say we recommend it and then council could say we don't but 00:41:38.210 --> 00:41:43.548 - But I think it would be useful because that was a substantial conversation. There was one point they 00:41:43.548 --> 00:41:49.150 - asked for an extension. I remember that as well. And then they sort of said, OK, no, but these are things 00:41:49.150 --> 00:41:54.489 - we're going to do. And I think we were all like, OK, we're convinced this was outside of your hands. 00:41:54.489 --> 00:42:00.038 - But that came right at the end of a very long discussion, basically. And I think otherwise, people might 00:42:00.038 --> 00:42:05.323 - have voted against it. So I just think we want to shepherd that part correctly as to not relitigate 00:42:05.323 --> 00:42:07.966 - things. Would you mind if I went on just a minute 00:42:09.794 --> 00:42:17.081 - So I think it's especially important for you, Esau, as a council person. And the housing authority last 00:42:17.081 --> 00:42:24.227 - week was talking about, they did not talk about $90 million, which I was kind of offended by, but you 00:42:24.227 --> 00:42:31.373 - should be aware of that. It's a really big deal. I think their effort is a great idea, but this is an 00:42:31.373 --> 00:42:38.590 - indication of how hard it is. It's a hard thing to do. That kind of housing takes a lot of management. 00:42:39.394 --> 00:42:45.631 - The other thing is all these projects were built on pro-formers like they're going to examine, right? 00:42:45.631 --> 00:42:51.990 - And those pro-formers, these projects, so, you know, I owned affordable housing, built and went through 00:42:51.990 --> 00:42:58.166 - the whole process. We went through tenure tax abatement from the city. We graduated, we went through 00:42:58.166 --> 00:43:04.280 - the tax credit, you know, that's how old I am. You know, I've been through the whole thing. Anyway, 00:43:04.280 --> 00:43:07.582 - it was, and we did it very successfully and loved it. 00:43:08.610 --> 00:43:16.982 - It's hard, and those 60%, that 60% income level, they're projecting a lot of, if you don't get section 00:43:16.982 --> 00:43:25.273 - A government assistance, and there's not enough of that to go around, there aren't enough people that 00:43:25.273 --> 00:43:33.645 - can afford to pay rent. So it's a small market. It's not like you can rent to anybody. If their income 00:43:33.645 --> 00:43:37.790 - is low enough to qualify, it's a small group that, 00:43:37.986 --> 00:43:46.346 - can afford the rent, because if it's very much lower, then they can't afford it. So it's harder than 00:43:46.346 --> 00:43:55.038 - it looks. And the other thing I want to say is we have new apartments in the city, and roughly speaking, 00:43:55.038 --> 00:44:03.398 - we pay $200 per month per bedroom in property taxes. That's how important this piece is to keeping a 00:44:03.398 --> 00:44:07.454 - project affordable. It's a big part of the rent. 00:44:08.802 --> 00:44:15.676 - Anyway, so it's hard to do. So if they're investing money and if they're responsive. Yeah, and I agree. 00:44:15.676 --> 00:44:22.484 - And that's the reason why I'm bringing up the, you know, they gave us this eight point plan or however 00:44:22.484 --> 00:44:29.159 - many things that it had on. Because I think with our recommendation, it would be very useful to say, 00:44:29.159 --> 00:44:33.918 - we see that they're doing all of the things that you agreed were enough 00:44:34.082 --> 00:44:40.833 - to continue their abatements, right? So rather than, if we divorce those two things, I can imagine it 00:44:40.833 --> 00:44:47.583 - coming back up at council, sir, that would look for our recommendation. So I sent the executive board 00:44:47.583 --> 00:44:54.599 - to all of you that they sent to us. If you read that and you feel that something should be more detailed, 00:44:54.599 --> 00:44:57.246 - let me know and I'll reach out to them. 00:45:03.746 --> 00:45:13.128 - Oh, no, you're fine. So we're recommending a finding of substantially compliant for this particular 00:45:13.128 --> 00:45:23.261 - property. Can I lift up something Esau said a minute ago? I think you were focused on process and equitable 00:45:23.261 --> 00:45:31.518 - treatment of the filers. And so I think your question was, does this body evaluate this 00:45:31.650 --> 00:45:38.933 - with the context we've been discussing and say substantially compliant, which to be frank, that's the 00:45:38.933 --> 00:45:46.430 - staff position. We think that the evidence is there, that they are doing everything within their control 00:45:46.430 --> 00:45:53.570 - to comply. But then your question was, is that the correct way or is the correct way to look at the 00:45:53.570 --> 00:45:57.854 - hard numbers and then punt to council? So just not debating 00:45:59.202 --> 00:46:09.128 - the validity of the staff recommendation, but just lifting up your question about what's the right way. 00:46:09.128 --> 00:46:18.958 - I think that either will result in council asking detailed questions in the public record, and I think 00:46:18.958 --> 00:46:27.166 - that it's likely that Filer could be present to also talk about them. I would say no. 00:46:27.330 --> 00:46:34.060 - As a commissioner, my view is that it's very helpful for us to give texture to the recommendation, and 00:46:34.060 --> 00:46:40.790 - I think it's very helpful, Tim was just saying, I think it's super helpful to sort of add that in, and 00:46:40.790 --> 00:46:47.455 - maybe this year you add a little bit of a memo, right, that says, you know, we've talked about it, we 00:46:47.455 --> 00:46:54.186 - heard them, you know, and this is the status of that. They put a little beat behind the recommendation 00:46:54.186 --> 00:46:56.734 - that you've made and that we agree to. 00:46:57.122 --> 00:47:11.139 - Okay, thanks. All right. Urban Station. Urban Station is a four-story mixed-use building with 7,000 00:47:11.139 --> 00:47:23.614 - square feet of commercial space and 148 bedrooms. It has exceeded investment commitments 00:47:23.746 --> 00:47:33.436 - fell short unemployment, but retained wages above the proposed SB1. Provided 123 bedrooms at or below 00:47:33.436 --> 00:47:43.126 - 80% AMI, which is exceeding the commitment by 40%. It has 100% occupancy in affordable units, and the 00:47:43.126 --> 00:47:48.446 - staff recommends a finding of substantially compliance. 00:47:51.426 --> 00:47:59.678 - I'm sorry, I keep adding all that information, but I just want to note this is another property. I think 00:47:59.678 --> 00:48:07.694 - we had, they were not meeting the requirement two years ago. So we're happy to see this being totally 00:48:07.694 --> 00:48:15.553 - compliant. All right, Woolery Mill is a historic mill redeveloped on Tap Road, reported 4.3 million 00:48:15.553 --> 00:48:20.190 - in real estate investment towards a $6 million commitment. 00:48:20.450 --> 00:48:30.416 - Phase one is completed, the events phase. Phase two, the condo hotel has been delayed due to market 00:48:30.416 --> 00:48:40.681 - conditions. Let's see. So, Willard Mill has created 60 jobs versus the 45 projected full and part-time 00:48:40.681 --> 00:48:47.358 - salaries met or exceeded their goals from the SB1 and the assessed 00:48:47.810 --> 00:48:57.572 - Value currently is at 2.55 million and on track relative to the development stage. Staff recommends 00:48:57.572 --> 00:49:07.529 - a finding of substantially compliant as we see that they're moving towards the real estate investment 00:49:07.529 --> 00:49:16.510 - goal and towards the salaries. I'll have the living wage ordinance certification to confirm 00:49:16.674 --> 00:49:25.737 - that 99, I'm sorry, $990,000. So there's a common theme going on, because this is another project that 00:49:25.737 --> 00:49:34.536 - has been under our auspices for quite a while. It has, and I think my understanding is that they've 00:49:34.536 --> 00:49:43.422 - triggered one part of the abatement, and I actually, they are working to redevelop the property, but 00:49:43.422 --> 00:49:45.534 - I don't know that this, 00:49:45.794 --> 00:49:52.214 - remainder of the abatement is able to be triggered. So I think this is what it is. Yeah. But this is 00:49:52.214 --> 00:49:58.762 - much further than we were 10 or 15 years ago. Yeah, absolutely. Where it didn't look like it was going 00:49:58.762 --> 00:50:05.310 - to get off the ground at all. Yeah, totally. And it's a critical, it's a community asset. Right. Yeah, 00:50:05.310 --> 00:50:12.112 - that's great. And they have, you know, they're looking at some exciting opportunities there that hopefully 00:50:12.112 --> 00:50:14.718 - will also go in that theme of community. 00:50:20.674 --> 00:50:30.877 - Um, Catalint, uh, formerly Cook, uh, Firmica, uh, and is, uh, now under Novo Nordis, uh, late 00:50:30.877 --> 00:50:42.273 - 2024 acquisition. Uh, sorry. Um, uh, Catalint is, has resolutions, uh, 1506 and 1904, um, which exceeded 00:50:42.273 --> 00:50:48.894 - investment and salary targets. And the staff recommends, uh, 00:50:48.994 --> 00:51:00.192 - that is, I'm sorry, that 1506 and 1904 are compliant with tax abatement commitments. I feel like one 00:51:00.192 --> 00:51:11.500 - of those edits might have erased part of my script. Oh, really? Yeah. It's okay. We would have known. 00:51:11.500 --> 00:51:17.598 - Yeah. No, that's fine. This is where I get to do this. 00:51:17.762 --> 00:51:26.982 - Very friendly and forgiving bunch, and will tell me gently that I have messed something up. Let's see. 00:51:26.982 --> 00:51:35.934 - So this is resolution 1506. As you can see, this personal property investment has exceeded the SB1. 00:51:37.826 --> 00:51:51.029 - Resolution 1904 is a real estate and personal property. Both have vastly exceeded their initial investment 00:51:51.029 --> 00:52:03.492 - commitments. And this is resolution 2206. There's been a total of 210 million in investment over the 00:52:03.492 --> 00:52:07.070 - life of the abatement, which 00:52:07.842 --> 00:52:17.090 - makes this substantially compliant. The CF-1 only reflects from this past year. So the filings of average. 00:52:17.090 --> 00:52:25.733 - So if you don't have any questions about those three as far as like the property investments. Okay. 00:52:25.733 --> 00:52:34.375 - So now we're going to get into the employment. The CF-1 filings reflect aggregate employment across 00:52:34.375 --> 00:52:35.326 - all sites. 00:52:35.810 --> 00:52:46.932 - Across all three resolutions, 1506, 1904, and 2206, Cadillac consistently reported a total year-end 00:52:46.932 --> 00:52:58.611 - headcount of 1,867 employees. This slide compares projected and reported salary outcomes for resolutions 00:52:58.611 --> 00:53:03.838 - 1506, 1904, and 2206 based on the CF1 filings. 00:53:04.386 --> 00:53:17.504 - 1506 and 1904, the projected salaries of 34.2 million plus the 52, 57.2 million are around 91.4 million. 00:53:17.504 --> 00:53:30.497 - I don't like how that part of the script goes. The actual reported salaries for all employees is around 00:53:30.497 --> 00:53:33.246 - 150 point, I'm sorry, 00:53:33.794 --> 00:53:46.632 - 150.8 million. Projected average salary range for the SB1 was around 55 initially, but the actual average 00:53:46.632 --> 00:53:58.865 - wage is around 80,000, 81,000. And then resolution 2206 projected salary was around 267 million with 00:53:58.865 --> 00:54:03.710 - the actual reported as the 151 million. 00:54:10.882 --> 00:54:21.407 - Sure. Total salaries for resolution 1506, 34 million. CF1 shows 150.8. Got it? Yes. Resolution 1904 00:54:21.407 --> 00:54:32.037 - says 57.2. Again, it's 150 and looks like they're using the same 150.8 for all three resolutions. So 00:54:32.037 --> 00:54:38.878 - why wouldn't it be the sum of those resolutions against the 150? 00:54:39.490 --> 00:54:50.287 - opposed because you know I understand why they're lagging on 2206 I think we already talked about that 00:54:50.287 --> 00:55:01.294 - 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 00:55:01.294 --> 00:55:05.278 - resolutions I think that we were this 00:55:06.050 --> 00:55:13.937 - This table originates from Alex and me, however many years ago, and I think that when we were parsing 00:55:13.937 --> 00:55:22.133 - out the original SB1s, we were concerned that on the personal and property, there were duplicate promised 00:55:22.133 --> 00:55:30.097 - job numbers reported, so there wasn't like a separate personal property job number increase, and so... 00:55:30.097 --> 00:55:34.814 - It's possible that the 2206 is a chemo tip as well, the 266. 00:55:35.586 --> 00:55:43.806 - Well, the... Includes the other two? The 20... No, that's, that's... That SB1, that 266 is for this 00:55:43.806 --> 00:55:52.272 - 4212. So, but I think, Kurt, if you, we could add a total column, that would be really easy to do. I'm 00:55:52.272 --> 00:56:00.492 - just questioning aloud why we stayed away from that in the first place. Yeah, it just... It doesn't 00:56:00.492 --> 00:56:04.766 - make sense. I mean, the way I look at it right now, 00:56:05.474 --> 00:56:12.631 - It doesn't make sense just by looking at the numbers, because you have, again, the 150.8 showing up 00:56:12.631 --> 00:56:19.788 - three times identical, and then the resolutions each have some goal. That's what the resolution is. 00:56:19.788 --> 00:56:27.303 - My resolution is I'm going to do 34.2 in salary, but they did 150.8. Well, they haven't done three times 00:56:27.303 --> 00:56:34.174 - that. They haven't done 450 or 500 million total. Right. Right? I think it's because it's like, 00:56:36.898 --> 00:56:50.885 - nesting dolls where 1,039 includes the 620 jobs. I'm on the previous, or no, I'm on the following slide, 00:56:50.885 --> 00:57:04.606 - the 620 jobs. And then the 4212 includes 1,039 and 620. And so that would stand to reason that the 266 00:57:06.306 --> 00:57:15.338 - also includes the previous resolutions. And so you almost just look at the new resolution as the total, 00:57:15.338 --> 00:57:24.196 - as the starting point. So you look at 2206 as the total for all. That's our measure of success. Which 00:57:24.196 --> 00:57:32.446 - would include 2206, basically have the other two. That makes some sense to me. I guess I would 00:57:32.578 --> 00:57:39.336 - quibble with the way it's presented though, because the way it's presented is a little misleading. Yeah. 00:57:39.336 --> 00:57:46.223 - And it's not intentional and I'm not being critical. No, for sure. But the way it's set up is that against 00:57:46.223 --> 00:57:52.659 - that particular resolution, they're meeting those standards for that particular resolution. So it's 00:57:52.659 --> 00:58:00.254 - not looking at the chart cumulative across, but cumulative in each two columns. So I see why it's confusing for sure. 00:58:02.690 --> 00:58:10.636 - They're not separating the investment that they made in 1506 and saying that investment led to $34 million. 00:58:10.636 --> 00:58:18.067 - They're saying all of our investments have led to $150 million so far. And this is why I was sitting 00:58:18.067 --> 00:58:24.762 - for two days trying to figure that part out. They're not applying certain individuals with 00:58:24.762 --> 00:58:31.678 - certain resolutions. Exactly. 150 is kind of a total plan. So they're presenting it as just a 00:58:31.810 --> 00:58:38.584 - you know, a growth chart in terms of, from the time they first started getting these to now, with the 00:58:38.584 --> 00:58:45.225 - idea that they're still trying to get to 266 million. And so when you look at the CF-1 form and how 00:58:45.225 --> 00:58:51.933 - you fill it out, there's no real way of expressing, or there's no instruction on how to express that 00:58:51.933 --> 00:58:58.774 - on the form. It's just basically like, what did you say you were gonna do and what are you doing right 00:58:58.774 --> 00:59:00.766 - now? So on the form, this is, 00:59:01.058 --> 00:59:07.994 - And this is why it's always really difficult and complicated to kind of deal with this one in particular. 00:59:07.994 --> 00:59:15.191 - Is there a way that, just thinking out loud, is there a way, because I think these are all timed differently, 00:59:15.191 --> 00:59:22.127 - I guess, so I think I've answered my own question. But is there a way of consolidating abatement? Because 00:59:22.127 --> 00:59:28.670 - I know that these are for all separate parts of their building and operations and things like that. 00:59:28.962 --> 00:59:36.278 - Well, it's interesting that you ask. The county has struggled with the same challenges. And so they 00:59:36.278 --> 00:59:43.740 - presented D with a workbook, like a data workbook, that had basically combined all the abatements and 00:59:43.740 --> 00:59:51.275 - treated each investment as a layer. So within each abatement, it striated. So they may have made three 00:59:51.275 --> 00:59:57.054 - different capital investments to get to their $100 million capital investment. 00:59:57.762 --> 01:00:05.648 - total, and so when the county's evaluating it, they're more concerned about those layers, and so they 01:00:05.648 --> 01:00:13.534 - have a stack that reflects the abatements in that way, but for our reporting and compliance, because, 01:00:13.534 --> 01:00:21.266 - council, you have to decide whether each individual abatement was compliant, and because they're on 01:00:21.266 --> 01:00:25.982 - different timelines. But I think the nesting doll analogy is 01:00:26.178 --> 01:00:34.168 - is helpful and I think this conversation is helpful and we really are looking at the jobs numbers on 01:00:34.168 --> 01:00:42.159 - the 2206 resolution. They cleared it on 1506 when they made that investment. They sort of cleared it 01:00:42.159 --> 01:00:47.934 - on 1904, but to evaluate the current state, we're really just looking at 01:00:57.538 --> 01:01:06.174 - disagree I'd like to see with and they probably can't do it this way but how many employees they say 01:01:06.174 --> 01:01:14.981 - they were gonna you know total employment 620 and I'd love to see a CF one that basically says on that 01:01:14.981 --> 01:01:23.874 - particular investment we had X number of employees because what we're seeing we're seeing the aggregate 01:01:23.874 --> 01:01:27.294 - over all three I think we could provide 01:01:28.898 --> 01:01:37.217 - We could do it for 1506. I think what we could do is go back to see what is the CF1 that they filed 01:01:37.217 --> 01:01:45.785 - after they completed their capital investments. So that might be in 2017. But then it gets tricky with 01:01:45.785 --> 01:01:54.686 - the 1904. I think that would be more challenging. They just laid off 400 people, which maybe they laid off 01:01:55.490 --> 01:02:04.786 - people from the 1506 since, you know, it's really, it would be, from the company's point of view, I 01:02:04.786 --> 01:02:14.269 - can't imagine how they could even provide that information. Yeah, I just wonder if our historic forms 01:02:14.269 --> 01:02:24.030 - could illuminate it, but. It's all right. It's all right. It's all right. It's all right. Come on, Dean. 01:02:24.354 --> 01:02:37.792 - I'm almost there guys. I really do appreciate that I get to present this to you guys before the council. 01:02:37.792 --> 01:02:47.006 - So we recommend compliance for 1506 and 1904 and substantial compliance 01:02:47.490 --> 01:02:57.431 - for 22.06 with continued monitoring, which I think that's exactly what you have all said to us at this 01:02:57.431 --> 01:03:07.179 - point. The last one which isn't active is retreat at Switchyard, which is really exciting and I hope 01:03:07.179 --> 01:03:16.830 - to get an actual picture. This is just the rendering because it is up and running. So they have 75% 01:03:17.474 --> 01:03:26.080 - for low to moderate income residents. At this point, the construction is complete and 41 of 64 of the 01:03:26.080 --> 01:03:34.601 - housing units are occupied and 35 of those units are at or below 60% AMI. This looks really great on 01:03:34.601 --> 01:03:43.038 - South Walnut and it's really nice to see some development and some life kind of being breathed back 01:03:43.038 --> 01:03:45.822 - into that South Walnut corridor. 01:03:46.050 --> 01:03:53.127 - We're pretty excited about this project. Currently. Hang on, I've got another one on that. Oh, sure. 01:03:53.127 --> 01:04:00.343 - They're groundbreaking, and it's next Thursday at 11 a.m., and I'm gonna forward this. You should have 01:04:00.343 --> 01:04:07.420 - received it. Yeah. Okay, I'll just make sure it's at the top of your inboxes. And I would love to go 01:04:07.420 --> 01:04:13.726 - on. I'm out of town. All weeks I can make it. Thanks. Because that's been a long project. 01:04:13.890 --> 01:04:23.225 - Yes, and has been. So at this point, the real estate investment is, if this were to be evaluated now, 01:04:23.225 --> 01:04:32.651 - they have far exceeded their original investment commitments. They've also far exceeded their salaries 01:04:32.651 --> 01:04:42.078 - at this point in time, and the assessed value is about double of what it was. So it's a great project. 01:04:42.274 --> 01:04:53.957 - They're on track. And once again, we're very happy to see some more affordable housing in the city of 01:04:53.957 --> 01:05:05.985 - Bloomington. Okay. Thanks. Thanks, everyone. I mean, I have a little to report. Okay. Evergreen Village. 01:05:05.985 --> 01:05:10.910 - It's a 115 unit residential care facility. 01:05:11.042 --> 01:05:16.824 - this term is tied to the IHCBA extended use agreement. And so as long as the company is compliant, if 01:05:16.824 --> 01:05:22.492 - they keep seeking tax credits, whenever it's time to renovate, they can, they can tie this pilot to 01:05:22.492 --> 01:05:28.670 - that agreement. So that just facilitates the continued use of the property as affordable assisted affordable 01:05:28.670 --> 01:05:34.339 - assisted living and residential care. It says 2026 payment, not yet received. We're having a little 01:05:34.339 --> 01:05:36.606 - trouble tracking it down. They sent it, 01:05:38.178 --> 01:05:45.490 - Uh, they sent it to the wrong attention of the wrong person. So, um, I believe that they've done their 01:05:45.490 --> 01:05:52.661 - job and hopefully by next Wednesday, I'll be able to say payment received, um, country view, uh, has 01:05:52.661 --> 01:05:59.831 - paid for 2026. This is on South Brockport road. It's a 30 year agreement, um, for 260 unit facility. 01:05:59.831 --> 01:06:06.718 - This pilot supported the renovation of that, um, of that property and it's for residents at 60%. 01:06:07.074 --> 01:06:14.889 - AMI in below, and I did just look that up to see what it is. For a one-person household, 60% AMI is 01:06:14.889 --> 01:06:23.094 - $45,540, or it was in 2025. And then the following two pilots were approved by this body and then common 01:06:23.094 --> 01:06:30.987 - council last year, and so they have not had a payment due yet and have, I think, moved through their 01:06:30.987 --> 01:06:36.926 - renovations. I'll get an update on that. I think council will probably want 01:06:37.442 --> 01:06:47.623 - And this is, there's not a reporting or approval requirement. This is just informational. Pilots were 01:06:47.623 --> 01:06:57.703 - kind of in a, they were not, we were approving them and then we weren't tracking them in any kind of 01:06:57.703 --> 01:07:06.686 - public way. So this is just an effort to do that. Okay. Any questions or more comments on 01:07:08.514 --> 01:07:19.053 - Presentation. Very nice. Great information. Thank you. So do we need a motion to approve your findings? 01:07:19.053 --> 01:07:29.187 - So essentially, yes. Before we do that, Isak reminded me there are some people from the public who, 01:07:29.187 --> 01:07:32.734 - if they want to make any comments, 01:07:38.114 --> 01:07:46.870 - Wasn't there somebody on there? I think Chris M.G. was up there. I don't know if he's still on. Vanessa, 01:07:46.870 --> 01:07:55.625 - how about you? Is the game started yet? No. Where's she going? Baseball game. Oh, baseball game. I think 01:07:55.625 --> 01:08:04.798 - she said Jasper. OK. All right. No comments, so we have to. So it'll be motion to approve under the condition 01:08:05.442 --> 01:08:14.710 - that the living wage ordinance certificates are submitted before the council meeting. Would somebody 01:08:14.710 --> 01:08:24.069 - like to make that? There we go. I second. I got a motion and a second. Any discussion? And we have to 01:08:24.069 --> 01:08:29.758 - do a roll call because Vanessa's going to baseball. Liz? Yes. 01:08:30.882 --> 01:08:56.286 - Vanessa yes yes and I vote yes so we are all past all right and we have any old business 01:08:58.946 --> 01:09:05.566 - Anything to discuss for the? I just will tell you guys, we were busy today, so there wasn't enough time 01:09:05.566 --> 01:09:12.185 - for more strategic sites, but I hope to bring that back to you at whatever the next meeting is. I don't 01:09:12.185 --> 01:09:18.677 - know if the commission plans to meet in July or if we'll have, we'll reach out about that. When would 01:09:18.677 --> 01:09:25.297 - that be in July? The second week in July? Yeah, yeah, I'll look. This is the first week. Yeah, we moved 01:09:25.297 --> 01:09:28.734 - this one up. Oh, that's right, we did. It's the 21st. 01:09:29.218 --> 01:09:36.429 - Well, I know I will not be here on the 21st. I'll be in El Salvador, but I can join virtually. Maybe 01:09:36.429 --> 01:09:43.568 - in Portugal. Come on. It would be harder for you to join virtually. Good job, everyone. And I'm not 01:09:43.568 --> 01:09:50.850 - joining virtually since. Would you be here on the 21st of July? 21st of July. Oh, July. I'll be back. 01:09:50.850 --> 01:09:58.061 - Yeah, this is our June date. You guys can be without me since school. I'm sorry. OK. So when are you 01:09:58.061 --> 01:09:58.846 - available? 01:09:59.298 --> 01:10:25.246 - All right so no general discussion anything for the good of the calls if not we sit adjourned.