This is the Economic Development Commission meeting. It's Tuesday, August 18th, and it is about 4.07 p.m.
We're late because I came here late, my apologies. This meeting has been posted in accordance with the
open door law, et cetera, policy, et cetera, et cetera.
Okay. Um, why don't we do roll call? That's the first thing we're supposed to do. So. Liz Vidal. And.
Jim Hankey. And Kurt Zorn. And. Dee De La Rosa. Jane Coopersmith. And nobody in the audience. Just the
cats folks. Oh, okay. The real Chris MG. The real Chris MG. So Chris.
Is he, he's the attorney? Chamber. Chamber. Okay. Chris, you want to, we're doing roll call. You just
want to introduce yourself for roll call, please. Okay. All right. We'll just move on. Yeah. Approval
of minutes. I'll make a motion. I did read them. Okay. Motion is for approval. I'll second. And Mr.
Henke is going to second it. So I hear a motion.
And a second, any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? All right.
New business. We don't have any new business, right Jane? Nope. Okay. But we do have some old business,
so. Some old business and just some updates. Maybe the thing I didn't include that I should have included
is that the opportunity zone application went in in July. So that was really exciting.
We applied for designation of opportunity zones in three census tracts. One is the census tract that
includes Seminary Park in the areas south, kind of going down to South High School. One includes Hopewell
and goes west from Second Street, no, Third Street south and makes its way kind of all the way almost
to the highway. So it's a pretty large census tract. And then the third one,
is kind of 17th on the north, Rogers Street on the east, third street on the south, all the way almost
to the highway again. So that's another large census tract with several commercial areas. But we're
optimistic. We think our application was really strong. Our consultant thought our application was ahead
of the pack in terms of all the communities they were helping. So we'll find out, we're told we'll find
out in September. We're not obligated to find out until
October. So fingers crossed. What do you know about implementation? What's the timeline? Let's assume
we will get at least one of these, maybe hopefully all three. But what happens after you find out that
they've been? They don't kick off until January 1, 2028. So we still have another year.
I believe of the old opportunity zones. Let me, let me just check myself. I'm so bad with information
recall. Nope. Effective January 1, 2027. Great. So it'll happen fast. So we've started meeting with
our consultant team, our JL, um, to,
build a marketing plan. So there are two key activities after designation. One is we have to market
our sites. We have to market our community and make it attractive to opportunity funds, qualified opportunity
funds across the country. So there's one local fund, but funds can invest in any opportunity zone.
a lot of large real estate development firms or they're savvy investors know how these things work and
can implement them. But we have to really plant our flag and make sure it's clear that we have investable
opportunities here. So that's one thing we have to market. And then the other piece is I think it would
really be beneficial for the community if there were a local qualified opportunity fund investing in
local projects.
What would that be here? Do we have one? No, we don't have one. The city can't establish it. The program
is really built to foster private investment in these census tracts, so it really does sideline the
government in a way, in kind of a good way. So we could have multiple funds.
or maybe an entity would- How do people know to establish them or how do they get created? There are
some informed community members that are talking about it now. I know because they've sent me questions
off and on. There could be a convening, maybe by ROI or someone. ROI. Regional Opportunity Initiative.
Okay. Or people might establish their own funds. Okay.
Very open. OK. Is there any zoning changes that go along with any planned zoning? Not with that. That
is just purely about the tax relief for the investments. But that might be a good conversation to have about
specific area, were there specific areas you were thinking about? No, I mean, I've heard that there's
some conversation about taking some of that South Walnut Street out of the downtown zone to encourage
something to happen. Yeah. Because the downtown zone is hard. Yes. Because the downtown zone is so difficult.
Yes, it is. I think there is a lot of chatter about that and I think there's
um, not a real clear understanding of what process would have to be followed. But, um, I think it is,
um, but there, and this is something that I think we'll be talking about maybe at our next meeting too.
I've been working on, um, kind of compiling incentives that would apply for the area surrounding seminary
and South. So the opportunity zone being one of them, um,
But I hope to have maybe some business for you all to consider and approve at our next meeting related
to that. But it's not related to zoning. But that's coming up as part of this discussion. You
can incentivize. You can have the best suite of incentives. But if the zoning's wrong, then projects
still won't go forward. Yeah. The problem with the outside opportunity zone funds that the gentleman
that was at the Opportunity Zone meeting that wants to redevelop the fell site. Yes. Sorry, I can't
remember his name, but yeah. It doesn't come to mind, but out of town, big box apartment developers.
That's about all we've had. I don't think we're looking. We need to go beyond that. Yeah. Yeah. So the
benefit of the having a local fund is that the proceeds stay local, the projects
maybe more beneficial to the community rather than to the bottom line. But the fund doesn't have to
be nonprofit. Like the way the program is engineered truly is to foster investment in these highly distressed
census tracts. And I believe the Trump administration, when they crafted the 1.0 version of this, they
really wanted it to appeal to the private sector. And so there's no,
There's no affordable housing requirement. There's just no requirement other than making qualified
investments. So it's interesting in that way. Any more on that, or do you want me to jump to the? OK.
The next old business item is the strategic sites initiative. Just as a reminder, we
talked about this at our last meeting, the utility service board amended their rules and regs in January
to allow extension of service outside city limits for strategic economic development sites and projects.
And so staff recommended they issued a will serve letter to
the Monroe County Airport, which was great. And I think you all retroactively approved that. The timing
just didn't work out to come to this body first. And so at the end of our discussion, at our last meeting,
you all wanted to know what other sites could we consider for approval. And then we talked about what
other parts of the legislation needed to be created in order to make it work.
just preliminary, not even preliminary, discussions of potential sites have kind of filtered down to
one site where we think it's really needed. And I'll see if I can screen share to pull. I made you a
cohost, you should be good. Okay. I don't know if you need to take action today, you could, but.
really hard to get a full screen view from Beacon, so this is hard to see. Yeah, so this is Vernal Pike
and Woodyard Road, and it's 53.09 acres. It's zoned commercial. It was considered for different
key developments. It was considered for the YMCA at one point. It was considered for a print pack at
one point, but it hasn't really developed. There's a little more recon that I want to do. I'm waiting
for some historic information from City of Bloomington Utilities. There is a utility services stubbed
out adjacent to the parcel, which the property owner said was done when the road was complete.
for their benefit, which would have been 15 years ago, I think. But it's unclear whether there was a
commitment to extend service. In any case, it's a great site in that it's close to Bloomington. It's
well connected. It's, hi Steve, has proximal utility service and yeah.
and it's substantial, so it's large enough to do something meaningful. But this is the site that's really
risen to the top. Other sites that we- They didn't come up for jail discussion? It did come up for jail.
Not when I was donating with the jail. Oh, well, it came up in other conversations that I've had about
the jail. I thought it was circulating for that. Not when I was a part of it, this last summer. Interesting.
Well, and I think that's an interesting,
thing to think about because this program. We were supposed to find something in the city. Yeah. Right.
Yeah. I'm being careful to not be out over my skis and dipping my toe in the jail location conversation.
But you can talk about it all you want. Tell us anything. Tell us everything. I lost my train of thought.
But the purpose of this program is to return is really to foster economic development. That's the big
why. And it's also to drive revenue for the city. We're not that altruistic. We need to drive revenue.
And this is a way to do that that's also beneficial for everyone. And so I think that this strategic
sites program would only extend service
in exchange for major capital expenditures and job creation, going back on the tax rules. And annexation
or no? This program does not require annexation. Okay. Yeah. So this is not... It doesn't preclude it.
Like they could, I think they could probably swap their... Like if there were an employer that chose
this site, met requirements, got a recommendation from the commission and approval,
whatever approvals were needed. So that's right by the kennel. There's a kennel right there where it
says Wood Yard Road is to the right of the kennel. Yeah. Wayport Kennel is there. Yeah. So is it adjacent
to the city? Do you know? Yeah, let me put the boundaries. Let me make sure I've got the boundaries
up. There's so many. So many options. So many options.
Zoom out. It's hard to see sometimes. No. I think he is. Really? Yeah. Are you serious? I think so.
Tom, I'm gonna forget his name. Our contact is Tom.
I'm sorry, I can't get a view that shows where corporation limits are, but they're really close. They're
maybe multiple parcels away, but not a half mile away. I'm not requesting approval today because I
would like to button up the history of the discussion with CBU and just make sure I understand what
they, you died in 2014. What was committed, if anything, to the property. And then, otherwise, I think
this would be a really good one to consider. And the airport is not under consideration for, I mean,
for us to do anything? It's already done. It's done? Yeah.
So the last meeting, if I remember right, you were talking about different stipulations you would put
on it in exchange for sewer service. And we were to discuss that. But is that over? No. So last meeting,
we had two buckets that we were legislatively considering. And one is, how do we determine if it's a
strategic site?
Would we want to require a certain amount of CAPEX? Would we want to require a certain amount of jobs?
Would we want to require a certain, that wages be a certain percentage above AMI? So it's like, what
makes a strategic site? And then on the other hand, there was another question about like, what should
an agreement look like with
the recipient of a strategic site benefit. Should we set a flat rate at which they would be charged?
So if the employer, would they pay, for example, 75% of what they would be charged for property taxes?
A model similar to payment in lieu of taxes. Yeah, very similar to payment in lieu. And the city has
had payment in lieu of taxes and payment in lieu of
annexation agreements in the past. And this needs to go in a memo to the group, but just reflecting
on where I've landed with this. I think my recommendation is that we don't set a specific rate. These
agreements have existed for a long time. They've always been negotiated individually with the property
owner. And that seems appropriate to me, given that the range of capital investment
It could range widely. And so if we set a high bar for a small property but it's beneficial for one
reason or another, might we inadvertently count that project out by assigning too much burden to it?
Or conversely, if it is the project that can tolerate a heavy burden,
than we want to assign that to it. So it just seems like it's beneficial to retain flexibility in those
negotiations. Can this be used for housing? The policy that was introduced for the utility service board
rules and regs was for economic development specifically. So a part of the complex, so to speak, would
not be economic development.
I think so, even though we all know we need housing for our economy. But I mean, I can get a lawyer
to... I would like to find out actually. I mean, especially with SEMTRA going out there. They're a big
expansion and hiring more employees. Well, they're already under a PILOA. That whole property is under
a payment and loan agreement. I know. I know. We gave them an abatement and everything, but the county
gave them an abatement, I should say.
I think they'll have many more employees eventually out in that region and this property is very close
to that. So housing would be prime there. That would be so convenient. So I'd really like to know. That
would be lovely to find out. So where do you plan to move from here on that
on this subject. So I would, I'd like to come back with a memo that makes some kind of formal recommendation
to you guys. And the last meeting we looked at a proposed rubric for evaluating sites. And after sitting
with us for a little bit longer, I now think that's overwrought.
and so that was my opinion at the time yeah yeah oh good i mean it's similar to what you just said as
to the payment and lieu negotiation it's very hard to predict what some entity would bring to the table
because it could be jobs or it could be some other thing that we need in our community
You know, it could be a capital investment that somehow makes a big difference to us. I don't know.
But I would want, my thinking is that more general statement about bringing benefit to the community.
Curt, you've had more experience with that kind of... Jay and I have already talked a little bit. I'm
on the same track that Jay is.
Yeah. So why don't I just bring a more formal document back to you guys that you can, you can vote on.
I mean, it's interesting because legislatively there's not a, there's not a formal role. Like the, the
rules and regs at CBU say that staff can name a site strategic. I just preferred that we have it.
reviewed by the Economic Development Commission and have a recommendation from the EDC. So I think we
should basically identify a process for that. And some kind of basic rule of thumb guidelines that,
I mean, if we wanted to consider housing, we could recommend it. I'm not sure. Yeah. Okay. But flexibility,
I do think is important because it is very hard to look into the future and
you know, at that last meeting, there was talk about wage levels and numbers of employees and energy
use, et cetera, et cetera, and it gets, it's too much. Because somebody might use almost no energy and
that would make it a better use or, you know, it's just, it's hard to predict. Great. Yeah. Okay. I
think come back with a recommendation. Yeah. Okay. Awesome.
The next item is a quick update. We talked about this quite a while ago, the three-way alcohol permits.
I have been working with council member Asari. I mean, he's driving the legislation, but I'm just excited
that we're moving it forward. I wanted to circle back and update you on that. The first step is a piece
of legislation recommending eligibility criteria, which is the biggest
the biggest thing that the community and the council have to figure out who's eligible, what do we want
to use this for? That's what the current legislation does. It was introduced at the end of July and
we'll go back to the city council for second reading September 4th. I'm hopeful that we'll get to pass
that and then we'll consider legislation for what are
what we're calling district permits, basically a riverfront district and historic district. Um, and
then a downtown district are all allowed to have, um, additional three-way licenses, um, beyond the
state quota. And we have maps for downtown and historic. Uh, we don't have a proposed riverfront yet,
although initially we looked at Miller showers and that will come back. Like we think that's.
That should be one. We think that, um. Yeah. Any moving, moving body of water. Can we have a casino
water too? If you can float it. Yeah. Anything, anything you guys want, EDC, just to make it happen.
So that's, that's exciting. So it'll trail. There's a lot more to do with it, but it's moving along
and there seems to be good feedback and even support from some
previous detractors. So yeah, good for small, small businesses. Um, and then the last item on this list,
uh, David Hittle came to our last meeting to talk about, um, sorry, I need to find
please to talk about limited compliance updates to the UDO. So this is the staff presentation that went
to the plan commission on August 10th. And I thought we could just walk through it. I'm still working
to understand how this will impact potential developers or property owners. But so far, I think it
will be really positive. I think David's strategy was to put forth something that he thought could get
approved relatively easily. So that's what this is. This is David's vision. And I think Lynn Coyne,
our interim planning director, and I are still trying to understand whether this does enough. So we're
working on that. But if you're OK with it, I thought we would just walk through this together.
And then this will go back to the plan commission, I believe on September 14th. And then after plan
commission, it will have to go to the common council. A lot of words. So it's really trying to tackle
limited compliance. So from the planning perspective, they talk about limited compliance and full compliance.
And so there are a certain set of activities previously that would trigger limited compliance where
you have to do a large number of amendments to your property, adjust your parking lot, plant a bunch
of trees. Remove parking is often one of the things that is requested. And that was triggered just by an
a large number of activities. This removes the requirement that a subdivision, so subdividing a property
would require it to come into compliance, adjusts the threshold for a new building construction. So
if your new building is less than 25% of the square footage of the existing structures, it'll only trigger
limited compliance rather than full compliance. So if you're adding a structure, a small structure to
your property,
You would now be able to do that without having to go into full compliance provided you're within that
25 percent threshold Expansion of parking areas less than 25 percent to be exempt from limited and full
compliance Yeah, so there's a lot about parking Maximums allows existing parking lots with 14 spaces
or less and
to not have to remove parking spaces in situations where limited compliance is triggered. So this one
has come up a number of times in the past year where there's a modification to a site. Part of why the
business was interested in that location is because it came with a parking lot, but they find out that
if they're going to update anything related to their building, then they have to remove parking that
attracted them there in the first place. So this is just saying if it's 14 spaces or fewer, we're not
gonna touch it.
adjust threshold for building additions that was mentioned above, removes one of the change in use triggers.
A new use that is not in the same subheading as the previous use will no longer trigger limited compliance.
See, this one I don't understand. A new use. Would we have to see what Table 03-1 is? Probably. Does
it only apply to those uses in Table 03-1? Those last two items,
to me, among the most important. Well, let's figure it out. Let me pause. Or if you get the link first,
will you just chat it to me? Yep. It's so big. All right. I think it's just the big monster use table.
I think so, too.
Oh, my computer's having a hard time opening. Here I got it. Okay. Cool. So this is a funny version.
Is this what it is now? It's in a Google doc because of accessibility. So, um, did Lynn make an,
Additional presentation or you just ran with David's? Staff made this presentation we decided okay,
let's see What the discussion is and you know learn learn more about it, okay, so what we're looking
at though Those notes those were David's that was David's plan
the notes. Well, we were just getting on the screen. So that was the formal staff presentation to the
plan commission last week. So it may be more than what David suggested. It is the same as. It is the
same as. That's my question. Thank you. For some reason, I'm having trouble loading the table. Is this
the version that pops up for you? No, I took it from the BMC, so I just sent you a link to that chat.
Oh, OK, great. Sweet.
Yeah, I took it from Unicode, so you should be able to see it. There we go, that huge, awesome table.
Yeah, so... So the table of all uses? It's the whole thing. Okay. So I'm going to just go back to the
slide deck because I think that's...
So I'll give you guys an example of what we're talking about. There was a, on West 18th Street, somewhere
around J&S Locksmith, on the south side of the road, I think it was a daycare. They went out of business
or something. A school. Perfect example. Yeah, it's a good example of this issue. They went out of business
or something. Another business serving autistic kids came in and they were required
at least once. I don't know if it's changed or debated or anything else, but originally it was interpreted
that it was a change of use to serve autistic kids versus daycare. And that change of use required them
to spend a massive amount of money on landscape and sidewalk out front, eliminate some parking, do a
number of things. It was a really, it was
like hair splitting, it was required by the codes. Staff was following the code. But because the kids
were having one-on-one appointments, it functioned more like a clinic than a school, even though effectively
it was still service provision for children. So that was where the rubber hit the road. But under this,
so looking at the next to last bullet, this is saying,
it wouldn't trigger limited compliance. So removes one of the change in use triggers, a new use that
is not in the same subheading as the previous use will no longer trigger limited compliance. That double
negative is weird. I think the double negative is incorrect. So I think what the legislation does is
if it's under the same subheading. And I don't know if that's far enough or not. Yeah, okay. Personally,
I don't know if they're going far enough. Can you write that question down?
just clarifying the 0301 statement. In my opinion, we need to be much more flexible in that category
because it was a school for kids. Many of us would say similar use. The next one is interesting too.
Adjust the abandonment threshold. Improvements to a site will not be triggered by redevelopment unless
the property has been vacant for two years.
This applies for, I use the drive-through example. There are drive-throughs on South Walnut. They've
been vacant for a number of years. If someone had opened a new drive-through immediately after the previous
drive-through closed and there were no vacancy, then it would be able to operate. But because the property's
been vacant for a significant amount of time, under the previous
under the current rule, if it's vacant for a year, then... Are you certain of that? Yeah, because that's
what this... Oh, I think it's a year. I thought it was six months. Oh, you might be right. Two years
is better. Yeah. But to the same... Do you understand what I'm saying? I understand what I mean,
I'm hearing. So, yeah, so then the question is, does two years, it's an improvement, does it help?
I mean, those properties,
around Miller, around Seminary Park, for example. They've been vacant for so long. Yeah. Okay. So, so
my opinion is that there are a lot of things that are code and especially in this compliance triggering
that keeps people from improving businesses. And this is a step towards that. I don't know if it's enough or not.
It's not the two years it makes a difference to me. So now it's citing the changes. So these are the
edits. So I mean, this might be a little too granular for us to really comprehend in our public meeting.
We can link to this maybe in our, we can add the link to our agenda. That'd be helpful. And I can share
it. So are you wanting us to recommend what you have here? I'm informing you that, so backing the frame
way up. The EDC doesn't have a role in approving. You could choose to recommend, make a recommendation
to common council or plan commission. I think that would be totally fine.
That hasn't happened in the past, but again, we're trying to use this group as more of an advisory body,
which I think you have a lot of expertise we can benefit from. So if you wanted to make a recommendation,
you could. Otherwise, I'm just informing you that these UDO changes that were discussed a couple of
months ago are now going forward. And we raised the issue here because it was determined that
These are some of the problems preventing growth and real estate development from happening in Bloomington.
Yeah, I'd like to see us more involved in promoting economic development. And the two entities that
we would consult to, we are tonight. CBU for the strategic property and planning commission for this.
Yeah. I was supposed to meet with David and talk about that, this issue. And we met briefly once and
agreed to meet again and he moved. Nothing I said. It was nothing I said. But anyway, if we could,
you know, help nudge some improvements in these areas, we'll need it in places like,
the Opportunity Zone South, the seminary square. Yeah, absolutely. So does the language there, does
that apply to all city properties? Yes. It does, okay. It's a change in the UDL. Okay. So an example,
there was another business on West 17th Street that wanted to do a little addition and they would have
lost a lot of parking and the sidewalk and other improvements were massively expensive. And these little
businesses are going at it.
You know, we don't have as many local business as we used to have. It's too hard to be in business.
Yeah, they can't afford improvements. They can't afford anything. And then when you want to change your
storefront because it needs an upgrade, then you've got to change everything else. Yeah, this business
had a chance to get a different franchise affiliation or something. But they had to invest and it was
too expensive. Couldn't do it. Well, it makes me wonder what triggered what
is there now, right? So something triggered the language you have, right? Yeah. But our UDL, as David
Hittle and I agreed, is a massive layering of wish lists. And it's an ideal thing if we could pull it
off, but it becomes a... Well, there's rationality and there's reality, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And
I think the reality that we're living is we're seeing
we're seeing properties not develop. We're seeing blight. We're seeing blight in Bloomington. I mean,
it's shocking. Now we're getting accustomed to it because it's been happening for a little while. So
I think this is an attempt to readjust. And yeah, to Tim's point, the question is, does it do enough?
It doesn't in my opinion, but it's a start. Okay, so I'll add this to the agenda and share this
slide deck, I'll share the link to all the planned commission meeting materials so you can see it. And
then of course, Lynn is on his toes, but he's very, I mean, this is top priority for him, so. It is,
yeah, yeah. So if you want a meeting with him or anyone else, or I can invite him to our next EDC meeting.
And he knows his stuff. Yeah. Yeah.
I've been lucky to travel lately in some small towns and gosh, I see a lot more small business in other
towns than we have here. And there's a gentleman that I met recently, Student Alumni Association, and
he comes back from California and he said over the years, that's the thing that he knows about Bloomington
changing. You know?
If you watch Breaking Away or something, I know that's very nostalgic, but there are a lot of small
businesses, and we don't have as many anymore. And it's harder to be a small business. You know, Amazon,
who knows how many they put out. I mean, you know, Amazon, Walmart, et cetera. It is harder, but some
towns do it better. I don't know how or why. Any thoughts, Mr. Zorn?
We have a lot of specific challenges. I always think our nine month economy is part of it, right? We
have a dead month in the winter and two in the summer. And then our cost of real estate is so high.
So layers like this just make it totally impossible. And then for small businesses, cost of labor is
killing them and the way chains and
you know, national companies are dealing with it is through automation, but it's really hard for local
players to have automated solutions. So, you know, Dee is our small business development person and
you know, any advantage we can give our locals we want to. And I think another issue is that, you know,
it's not for people not wanting to start small businesses, but when you're talking about how much you
have to pay for rent and then a lease or how much you have to pay for a mortgage and then a lease.
to have your business. Like, I mean, that compounding right there in real estate, that'll put you off
pretty quick on trying to start, put something in a storefront. So, you know, I mean, it's, it's a multitude
of things that stuck upon each other. But I think that this is- You mean like the personal, your individual-
Yeah. Living costs of living are already high. Right. And you add high business operating costs on top
of that. Yeah. Yeah.
that really, I think that's stopping a lot of younger people from starting their businesses here,
for sure. But I think that these changes, although I do agree with you, probably don't go as far as
they should, are a start for those that we already have here. Now it's just trying to clear the path
and make way for others to start their business as well. I think some of it's attitude, too. We need
to preach this to our team
across around the building and our city council and county council people. We're all on the same page.
I do, flipping back to the alcohol permits, they're really specifically intended to benefit local restaurants
really. So I think they get the message. I think the council gets it. It's just what levers can we pull
cost of property though, that's been driven home. It's one of the property tax assessment board of appeals
now. And the assessed value, and it's not the assessor's fault, this is because it's the assessed value
of land is out of this world and people are coming in and paying over reasonable prices for property,
which just basically takes up everybody's value. So that's affecting both
business, property, and also personal, residential property. I don't know how you fixed that. As someone
who just bought a house last year, yes. Yeah, it's astounding. It really is. And some people are really
struggling. We see that with some of the appeals starting to keep up with the projected taxes.
focused on the assessed value. I don't know what the solution is. And winning the national championship
apparently didn't help. Because there are a lot of people coming in here and speculating because of that.
All the new apartment buildings, so many of them are brand new and they don't really start paying tax,
you know, for the first year because of the arrears. Right. Is that coming along and helping things
at all? Do you know? I mean, it's going to be a lot of assessed value.
I don't know the answer to that, but I think we have an apartment bubble right now where it's going
to burst over investment. You just drive around now. I rarely have seen over my 40 plus years associate
with the university.
property that's still for lease. Oh yeah. When the semester is about ready to start and there's a bunch
of properties that are for lease. I used to see signs that would say August of the next year. Right.
A 7,000 new bedrooms in the last three years. Yeah. Someone's gotta break them. And there's, you know,
what is it, north of 17th Street? That's 1,600 more being built right now.
and um west 17th street i'm sorry west arlington there's that yeah just by the stadium that that's owned
by the state west arlington's another one i think it's 600 bedrooms here you go guys yeah this um there's
another 800 across oh what's this this is 2024 part map of parcels by av so the blue
parcels have the highest AV. And we can update this for 2025. I would really like to look at that. Give
me a point of reference on this. Just point something. Where's the intersection of? Right. Here's the
B line. This is the trades district. Okay, that's good. Is that good enough? And then this is campus,
of course, where there's like none. And we know Bloomington has
52%. This is what Judy told me, 52% of our properties are tax exempt. So it's tough. So what side are
we looking at here? University is on the right. No, but I mean, I've never seen this map. This is a
city. Dee had it prepared, I think, by our GIS department. It was awesome. And so she fed them AV.
AV data, and they created this. So it's not a living document, but we need to make the 2025 one. Could
we send us a link? Yeah. Because you obviously can't see it from here very much, but I think it's great.
Can you dig down and see the streets a little bit more clearly? No, I'm just saying if you send it to
the streets. Yeah, so here's third. Good, because that would help. And then seven Lincoln. I'm just
trying to look for the square. It would be
non-taxable. So maybe this is the square. So this is the hotel. This is the Hyatt place. This maybe
is the graduate. That would make sense. Wait a minute, 2024. Yeah. Maybe. I don't know. Yeah, the square
is right there. The orange square.
And then this is the CVS building. Of course, this is now going to become the condos. So that'll jump.
Yeah. And color coding is what again? Lighter colors, lower AV. So the dark blues, blues and greens
have a higher AV. Yeah. So that was my question. Is that tripled down yet?
It would be interesting to see the difference between 2024 and 2025 data, I think, if you compare those
two maps. That would be fascinating to see. The property on 17th Street I know isn't on the books yet,
and that's got to be $70 million. So here's... So that should help with overall... This must be Dunn
Street, this must be Stadium, and so I'm looking for 17th. It is sort of disorienting. Okay, that's 11th.
But that one street is Walnut, I think. This is done. There's Lincoln. 16th, 17th. So this must not...
This is interesting. The red one there is... So the orange is the... That is making sense to me. That
flood complex, right? Yes, this is, but... Then what's all the A, B there? That should be all tax exempt.
Because that's where the dorms are. 17th and Fess. Yeah. That's where the... Interesting. So that...
Unless... That doesn't make sense. Unless you're off a block. Unless... This is what death... This is
definitely... It has to be the... It has to be... Student housing.
I think you're further south than you realize. It says 17th. No, no, no, that's not 17th. You're right.
Zoom back in. That's 12th. That was at 12th. Yeah. Is it? I don't know. It is 17th. Huh. Wow. Interesting.
Anyway, when you get the update, we'll have better links. I'd like to look at it too. Yeah, thank you.
It's very interesting. We'll put some markers. But that was my question. I just wondered. Because I'm
trying to think of a silver lining of having 10,000 more apartments than we need. Well, if the limits
on increases in assessed value, you'd think that that would help if you increased the overall base.
And there's a lot more coming on. In other communities, so this is all relevant for the impacts of SEA
1. Liz, you're going to be about at time. 457. I'm just telling it. I'm watching it.
With SEA-1, in communities that have full-time income-earning populations, the reduction in property
tax, that burden is just being shifted to income tax. But because we have so fewer income taxpayers
within city limits, that's why we're really getting burned. But in other communities, it's not an alarm.
And I think Jennifer told me, right,
We're down in Bloomington 142 million in AV for the SEA-1 changes. And one of the things there is businesses
are having their personal property exempted up to, I think it's a million dollars. Is it a billion or
is it two? It may be two. Yeah, it's painful. Which I'm not sure why.
How did that happen? The legislature decided that... But don't worry, because we're going to do away
with property taxes completely. I laugh because I'd like to know what we're going to replace them with.
Exactly. What's Plan B? We'll just close the schools. Yeah, we don't need fire. We don't need fire and
police. Is that a formal recommendation? No. Okay, good.
from the President. Thank you, Mr. President. Speaking of comments, I will move the adjournment. Any
additional discussion, general discussion? I think we've had it, so let's adjourn this thing. Thanks,
everybody. Thank you.