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.