So we will begin the October 20th, 2026 Economic Development Commission meeting. And this meeting has
been posted in accordance with Indiana Open Door laws. And it's about 4.02 in the afternoon, the first
order of businesses roll call. And I will turn to my right. Liz Vidal. And to my left. Vanessa McCleary.
And Kurt Zorn.
And the second order of business is approval of minutes. And we don't have minutes this meeting, so
I think we've accumulated a backlog, and I'll look to clear that in the next. We only have two months
left this year, so we'll deal with that. So the next order of business is Seminary Park area abatement.
And I know something about this, but Jane, you want to give
us the in-depth discussion? Yes, I'm just going to verify that the right, I'm going to stop and reshare
to make sure the public is seeing the tab that I want them to see. Okay. Yes, this memo is doing a couple
of things. First,
kind of describes the condition, what's happening with our properties around in the area surrounding
and south of Seminary Park. There's been some reduction in value based on appeals through the assessor's
office. And then it also enumerates the different strategies and incentives that are in place around
this area. So maybe what I could do is
walk through the memo, but keep it kind of high level. And then we can dive into detail wherever that's
desired. Our assessor, Judy Sharp, was going to attend the meeting today, but she may not have been
available. But I thought that her voice would be important since she's the one hearing appeals. She's
talking to all the property owners. So she's been engaged with this. And that's where,
I became familiar with this because Jane and Judy and I met. I'm on the Property Tax Assessment Board
of Appeals now, so I know Judy's been talking quite a bit about the concerns that property owners have
in the Seminary Park area and further south. Yes, and so the
You know, the work of the Economic Development Commission largely is to deploy incentives to drive growth
in the community where we need it. And we know that there's been, again, a reduction in property value
here. So the question kind of arises, what tools are available? What can we do to incent development
and turnover of some of these parcels?
It is a critical gateway area. So if we think about development in Bloomington overall, we've got downtown
happening. Hopewell is in the works. We've had some nice redevelopment along the beeline south of Morton
Street. Kroger's made significant investments in their store. And then, of course, Switchyard Park is
a huge investment. But there's really a gap in terms of development
between the areas south of First Street and to Grimes Street. So this area is not developing for a number
of reasons. The primary reason is that a lot of these parcels are in the floodplain. They're technically,
hey Tim. Hi, it's Raleigh. You're good. We're just walking through this memo, kind of high level. So
a lot of these parcels are in the floodplain and
That means that it's difficult to get insurance. And of course, you're assuming a lot of risk if you
try to build anything there. And so is that a good idea? Well, probably not. And that's why no one's
been building anything there. CBU this year has commissioned a feasibility study for the Clear Creek
Corridor Renewal Project that has the end goal of increasing stormwater capacity and ultimately down
the road, removing as many of those parcels from the floodplain
as possible. The first part is increasing stormwater capacity. That's the primary goal, right? It's
to address. We built increased capacity downtown. We had that horrible flood in what must have been
2021. And then we increased capacity downtown to eliminate that. But now it's all coming downstream
down here. So now we need to really address it here in a way that is
sustainable and will be manageable. The secondary impact of that would be hopefully pulling some of
these parcels out of the floodplain. We just don't know what the outcome will be yet, but that's a goal.
Sorry, I'm gonna read this one so I can face you guys when I'm chatting with you. And then a secondary
kind of driver of the, or another driver of kind of the challenges in redeveloping
developing this area, we have a lot of unhoused impacts. And just framing this, I'm not assigning value
to that. I'm just saying this is a direct impact. So really the presence of beacons day shelter there
causes just a ton of activity. And then there's a lot of daytime activity in the park. And we've obviously
seen that the post office has erected their fence, which isn't a really great sign.
Um, and then there are a lot of behaviors there that are challenging. Um, many of you probably saw that
there was a significant drug bust there a few weeks ago, but this just isn't the kind of, um, activity
that really attracts, um, you know, businesses or so it's, yeah, people, it's just been challenging.
It's not like you don't want to stroll through the park if you're not sure if there's a drug deal going
down. Um, so the city's done a number of things to kind of try to mitigate this. The big.
The big effort is really the city's partnership with Heading Home, and they are going through the process
of the Streets to Stability program to comply with, I think it's how, yeah, Senate Enrolled Act 285.
So that's the state Senate Enrolled Act that closes the state to sleeping outside. So that is in process,
and the downtown zone is now officially closed. So I think that this will also
take time, and it'll be longer than any of us want. But the goal is for people to be. I think the downtown
zone was in four sections, as I remember. So they've done one, as I remember. They've done one, yeah.
So the goal of this program is to get people housed. It's very much the Bloomington way, where they're
getting apartments for 12 months and counseling and support to make sure that, with the end of that
12-month runway,
residents aren't just kicked back out onto the street, but that they're really teed up to be in a more
stable position. Not to go too far into that, but that's just to say that the big investment from the
city is really in heading home. We made those investments with ARPA funding and that, when that came
out in 2021 and 2022. Um, and then on the smaller level out of this department, we're funding the seminary
park portalette, which has been really important for the businesses in the area. They've, um,
been cleaning up a lot of human waste. So that started last year. And then we also fund the small business
safety, security, and cleanliness grants, which gives businesses funds to like if a window gets smashed
or they need to invest in cameras, whatever, lighting, anything related to that, they're able to get
some small dollar grants for that. And then unrelated,
to the city's efforts, Beacon has always been planning to move. And they recently announced that they're
going to go ahead and begin phase one of their move, which is for the permanent supportive housing units.
So the day shelter will stay in place, but Beacon is going to start their project. I don't have details
on the remaining gap. Well, I guess it's $4 million, but I don't have a lot of detail about that. The
county allocated a million. Yes.
So maybe it's down to three. I know it's down to three. It could be less, but I know it's down to three.
That's great. Thank you. And then the next issue, let me scroll down. The next issue that's really preventing
this area from redeveloping is the limited compliance requirements with the UDO. So these are
the requirements that are triggered when a property has been vacant for 12 months or more.
It basically means that the property is treated. It's still limited compliance. Like they're not having
to do everything, but they're having to bear a really significant burden with parking lot updates, tree
replacement, all kinds of things pop up for this. So in response to that, the planning department has
proposed changes to the UDO. They were approved by the plan commission and then were heard by city council
last week. And actually I,
don't know the status of that and he's not here. I've been trying to find out too. I don't think it
was maybe I think it was the first reading. So just a real quick. Yeah. So it should go back this Wednesday
and I can share an update on that when I'm back in the office tomorrow. So this helps. So basically
it adjusts several regulations that trigger site improvements on a property and would
adjust the items required to bring a property into compliance. The proposed amendments do three things.
They adjust the activities that trigger the UDO's full or limited compliance. They reduce the burden
of improvements, so they narrow the scope of improvements that are required when compliance regulations
are triggered. And then finally, they remove the requirement that an entire developed site be brought
up to current code when only a portion of it is to be improved or altered. So if you're only improving
or altering part of a site,
You're only required to bring that part of it up to code. So these are proposed. It's not approved yet.
But those are kind of the key strategies that the city is implementing to adjust the current state.
And then in terms of impacts on property value, Kurt might be able to say more about this. But the total
reduction in property tax revenue based on the appeals
I didn't give a year, but I think this is so far this year is $347,131. So the total reduction in AV
is almost $17 million. So that's a hit. We feel that as a community. So we talked about the current
state, why things aren't developing here, the reduction in property value, and then the existing financial
incentives.
We just had a big win with getting opportunity zone approval. This is a complicated incentive. Developers,
especially out of town developers who have access to opportunity funds will know how to deploy it. But
we're working on the city side to build a website that will promote our opportunity zones. It's a two
step incentive that if a fund is established, then that fund can
invest in a qualified opportunity zone and that fund can receive 10 years of protections from capital
gains tax. So they have to park their money in that zone that is highly distressed census tract for
10 years. So it's a federal incentive that really seeks to drive private dollars into places of need.
And I think it's been somewhat successful
Last year it was made permanent, so that's why it's been such a big to-do when they announced the new
opportunity zones. These zones will be 10 years. The zones will live 10 years and then they'll
get reevaluated. But the program will be permanent. So that's a big one. The enterprise zone investment
deduction is eligible in this area. So this is basically an 80% buy right
personal property abatement, that's what it acts like within this footprint. It's not officially an
abatement though, it's completely through the enterprise association and that's why these deductions
don't come through to EDC. You guys don't evaluate these, these are by right. They technically have
a personal property program, but it's not applicable when it's in the
footprint of a TIF district. So if there's an enterprise zone and a TIF, then the TIF trumps the enterprise
zone. So you can't claim that real property deduction in the TIF, but you can still claim your personal
property deduction in the TIF. And just for the public or anyone who's super excited about this topic,
the personal property is anything that you use in your business to generate revenue.
a restaurant that would be all of your kitchen equipment and any of your wares. So it's huge for companies
like Novo. It's modest for companies like whatever restaurants and grocery stores, but still meaningful.
And then... Jane, I'm sorry, I missed your first couple sentences, but this program is only personal
governing, not... Yes, personal, not real.
And then there's a ton of grant funding, or not a ton, I'm sorry, that's not specific. There is grant
funding available for this area also through the Enterprise Association. So the BUBA, the Bloomington
Urban Enterprise Association, they approve these deductions. The deductions are for 100% for 10 years.
But in order for the business or property owner to participate, they have to remit a 20% fee. So that's
why I said,
it's like an 80% abatement. So the Enterprise Association collects those 20% fees, and then they dole
those out for business grant making, arts, whatever. That's where they get their budget from.
So in this area, the relevant grants would be the Business Building Improvement Grant, which is $10,000,
Minor Improvement Grant, which is $1,000, the Small Business Safety and Security, which is 10,000 max,
There's an accessibility modification grant. So this one's really important. If you are required to
upgrade your property through that limited compliance requirement, then you could get access to funding
to improve your sidewalks or make your front door handicap ADA accessible. And then there's also an
historic facade preservation grant, but that's not relevant here because I don't think we have any qualifying
properties. So these grants,
would be tiny for a real estate developer. A real estate developer is not going to care about them,
but a business operator is really going to care about them. So we're kind of operating at two different
levels. The opportunity zone is really going to be for real estate developers. All the BUBA stuff is
going to be for smaller players, the operators. And then the last thing, this area is currently in the
consolidated TIF.
And that's managed, of course, by the Redevelopment Commission. Their charge is to facilitate economic
development through disposition of real estate and investment in infrastructure, primarily. That's not
a quote. That's me summarizing. There are no discussions for the RDC to make investments in this area,
but it is what they do. So I'm not sure. Where do they get their funding? So their funding, I can pull up.
Let me see if I can pull up. There's a good tiff. And I'll share this for the public too, if it comes.
Yep. Okay. Stop sharing. Okay.
I'm sorry, I'm trying to expand this. Okay. Oh, it's still not doing it. It's showing the wrong screen.
Hold on. So basically when a TIFF is established, that sets the baseline for assessed value in that
area. So the base AB you can see in blue there.
that's everything that is already going to all the regular taxing districts, then the top of that blue
line would signify the TIF being created and there would be bonding against it perhaps or infrastructure
investments. But after there is a commitment from the TIF, debt leveraged from the TIF, it's really
the bonding against the TIF
that sets the green up arrow in process. But then that incremental AV, the property tax revenue generated
by that incremental AV goes back into the TIF fund for a set period of time. I think it's 25 years.
And this cycle is really what allows investment, it's one of the avenues that allows a lot of investment
in infrastructure and redevelopment to happen.
This green incremental AV is how the community is getting hope well. So Jane, if I may, so you have
the base AV and then that basically is frozen once the TIF comes in. And then you anticipate that you're
going to have development. Quite often it's infrastructure that is improved and the increased
AV and the revenues coming from that go to pay the bonds that generally pay for that infrastructure.
So that's what the incremental AV is basically financing quite often municipal bonds. Sorry, yes, and
that's why it's triggered by the issuance of debt. So my question, I think you've answered it, the Green
Development Commission is managing that green money to pay the bonds and so on. Yep. Okay, let me get
back. And then once the TIF
goes away, then that AV then goes back to the taxing units, the new AV. Yeah, the entire community.
Or all the taxing units. Okay, I'm gonna stop sharing and come back over here. We're gonna jump over
to the other share. It's like a person who knows what they're doing. And then you said consolidate TIF.
Redevelopment Commission manages all TIFs that we put in place. That's correct. That's the way I understand
it. And we don't even really
need to stay consolidated anymore, but it's just a holdover from the fact that Lewington used to have
a bunch of smaller TIFFs, and in 2016 they were consolidated sort of in order to reset that clock. So
it's a big, it's a biggie. Okay, so they manage that. It's technically in the TIFF, but there's no discussion
of infrastructure investments down here at this time. And per our previous chatter, well anyway, I won't
go there. So other positive pressures,
What did I even say in here? Yeah, the convention center. So this neighborhood, I think it's on the
verge. There's a lot of positive happening. We kind of focused on what the negative is. Hopewell is
in development. Those ground will be broken in 2027, and really 2027 is what we're hoping for. The convention
center, I don't know.
number right the convention center is expected to welcome that that number is not correct i'm sorry
i quoted the hunden study but anyway the convention center is getting ready to open and that will be
bringing people into the neighborhood that's going to push people toward kroger even the location of
the convention center hotel which is now on the south side of that property along second street that's
that's the fact that the hotel is down there it's drawing people
into the neighborhood more. So they're naturally gonna be connected to the square. Pedestrians are going
to find the square and they're gonna find the beeline trail. And now they're gonna start out across
the street from Seminary Square, which is the Kroger development and then also from the park. So there's
gonna be a lot more activity in that area. So what I wanted to talk to you all about today was whether
the EDC should consider
something like a short-term tax abatement to grease the wheels and see if there's a way to incent some
development in this area and whether a short-term tax abatement, which seems like it would be pretty
low risk because there's nothing, the properties are losing value if we do nothing. And if properties
were abated, they would have to
claim the property owner would have to make that investment in order to actually trigger the abatement.
So it's kind of low risk. And then the fact that it's short term, I think would mean that it would not
harm the TIF. So long term funds would ultimately flow back into the TIF, which is that's the plan since
this area is in the TIF.
but the short duration rather than a 10-year looking at a five-year, that's a little more aggressive,
which is kind of, you know, sorry, I'm coming in cold from a trip. I think what Jane's saying is it's
a way to prime the pump for developing that area. If we do nothing, we're going to continue to see property
values decline in that area. The county assessor is very sensitive to this from property owners, and I know
When the appeals come in, one of the things we look at is we look at the neighborhood factor, what's
happening in the neighborhood. So I can't speak for the Board of Appeals, but it's likely that the appeals
will become successful if the neighborhood continues to go on the blighted way. So this is a way to
hopefully reverse that blight without
As Jane said, and I didn't think about the TIF, but without affecting the TIF significantly. In fact,
you could argue that by reversing the blight, you're actually helping the TIF become more prosperous
as time goes forward. Right now, there's a reduction in tax revenue with no benefit. I know when Judy
and Jane and I met, we talked about various options, and this one seemed to be one that would be the
easiest to implement.
So that's the reason she's here talking about it. Would you all like me to pause? Or do you want me
to continue going through what I'm saying? I'm saying it's a recommendation, but it's really for discussion.
I want to know. I think what Jane wanted to do is, and we talked about this, is changing our criteria
for abatements to include light remediation. I think that's the terminology you're using here. And we'd
have to change our.
the language in our criteria. And is it just us that would have to change it? The city council would
have to. Yeah. Yeah. They'd have to approve it. So right now, it's employment and affordable housing
are the only two options for abatement in the current law. Yeah, I'm seeing a critical error. I didn't
link to our current
Criteria but yeah here it's you have the wording. Yeah anyway jobs wages affordable housing and then
what I propose here is that we specify that we want to remediate blight in this geography and we include
a map and so I made a draft map that is just Me guessing I mean making an educated guess and then recommending
So what are the boundaries of that educated guess now? Uh-huh. About? Here we go. Oh, is it there?
I'm sorry. Yeah, it's OK. It didn't print in yours, Liz. Let me do my stop share and reshare again.
Makes public. So Jane, I'm embarrassed, but I don't recognize this document. Did you send that out?
It was a link in the email she sent. I didn't say it. I'm sorry.
You know what, the new system is that we send, the agenda contains links to everything. And so it might
just look like an old agenda. Like a plain old agenda. That's okay. So we have second street here.
The park is right here. This scoops. I mean, these are decisions that commissioners could make. This
scoops the Kroger parcel. Maybe you want to do that. Maybe you don't. This comes up to Smith Avenue.
Some of these areas or some of these parcels could stand to some redevelopment. And I don't mean raising
the historic properties, but I mean investing in them.
And then I carved out properties that have already been redeveloped. And then these are primarily commercial
properties all along. This is Walnut Street. So scooped the commercial properties. And then these become
residential. So I came back into Walnut, grabbed this commercial property. And then this is just down
to Dodd Street. But in hindsight, I think
There was some discussion of taking it all the way down to Hillside. Yes, to Hillside or to Grimes.
Because Hillside was one that Judy mentioned. Yeah. She was looking at helping property. So I'm wondering
if I included the wrong map. But again, this is for discussion. So I could also pull up Beacon and we
could look at that together. So this is a very small footprint. And again, we could take it further
south to get closer to the park.
So is down to Hillside also floodplain? Do we know? So the floodplain, yeah, not all the way down to
Hillside. The floodplain is the worst in this block north of Dodds and south of First Street. So this
is kind of the epicenter. But it does happen. It comes in down here south of Dodds over by Warren Wood
Builders. And really, it follows that Clear Creek all the way.
down to the park. Well, in the old days, we called this urban renewal, and we've been out of that business
for a long time. I'm just going to stand here. I don't want to try to juggle all the different screens,
but yeah. And they only
The real rub against urban renewal, I think, mostly has been gentrification. I don't think that applies
that much on commercial properties, or this location. No, urban renewal and also dividing communities,
because that was part of it. Because urban renewal included the interstate highways going through downtown
cities. So you're right, Tim. I'm thinking back to early in my career, there were all kinds of programs to do
rehab buildings and housing and so on that the point was to improve the neighborhood and the building.
It wasn't, it did provide some affordable housing, but there was never affordable housing necessarily
attached to it. It was all about the improvement, which is, you know, it has its place. I think
it disappeared quite a while ago.
Yeah, and maybe just detaching from the vocabulary of urban renewal, because I don't have that expertise.
I'm not a planner, so I don't want to speak to a technical term. But in terms of economic development,
I think we need all the tools on the table to incentivize any investment. We're years into not a lot
happening here, although,
you know, stall furniture's on the market. I know they have an interested buyer. So there's, you know,
I think there's, I think there's good opportunity in the moment. And if we could push toward a tipping
point. Today, speaking of opportunity, first I heard about the Opportunity Zone. We were awarded. We
were awarded three. All three that we applied for. All three. And we were, I mean,
It's kind of a big deal. And the program becomes official the first of the year. That is a big deal.
Could be a very big deal. Yeah. Yes, and it's a complicated, it's a complex program. So I don't know
whether it's realistic that there would ever be a local opportunity fund. The city cannot establish
an opportunity fund, only the private sector can.
However, as of January 1, our three Opportunity Zones will be able to receive investment from Qualified
Opportunity Funds. So the issue on the floor, I think you already realized that I think this is a good
idea. We may want to play with the map a little bit,
The basic idea, I think, is a good one that we should seriously consider. That's my personal perspective.
Was there a preference on the 10 or the 5-year? Sorry, the 10-year is our standard abatement term, and
the 5-year is what I recommend for this. So recommended the 5-year, so it has less impact on the TIF.
Because if you have the... Less long-term impact. That's right. Okay. You set those. Anytime an abatement
is proposed, you review the terms and recommend them to council. So I think the idea of... Any applicant
can request any term, but I think that by advertising this term,
the commission could take a stance and say, you know, we don't really want to consider 10-year abatements
for this blight project. We want development to happen. So we're really interested in short abatements.
And that would just be what you approve when you get a live one. Do we think the council would be more
receptive to the five? I've spoken to a few council members about it.
I so I can't speak for them, but the individuals were receptive and then if you look at the average
If you look at the average rate It's It's less that we're foregoing less revenue than if for the 10-year
right I can do that. Yeah I think some of the concern that might be voiced might be for from financial
perspective because
As we said before, you issue bonds based on projected increases in AV and the revenue that comes, the
property tax revenue comes to that. So I think by doing it this way, you're doing less, I don't want
to say damage, but you're having less of an impact on the financial impact. So from my perspective as
a person who deals
in the finance area, I think it's a good compromise. You're trying to balance helping reduce blight
through development versus the impact it has on the existing TIF. And then you could re-evaluate it,
it seems to me, like after the five year, right?
Maybe something else will come up. You can evaluate. You can work on the guidelines any time. And I
think they were last updated in 2022. One of the things with the basement, sorry to interrupt, one of
the things with our basement is we require them to come in each year with information on what they've
done. So we'll have a look each year with the effect on AB and so forth.
What, compare if you could for just a minute, the affordable housing abatement, the 10-year abatement
that we have available now, that requires a process that goes through the city council first? It comes
to this body first. And then to the city council? Yes, so the applicant files an SB1, a statement of
benefits, and that's the formal document where they show what you would get for issuing an abatement.
It illustrates that but for test. And then if that's approved, if you all approve it, it's a recommendation
to the council. And then council would review and approve that. Sorry, and it's a two-step. So you have
legislation that approves the statement of benefits and creates the ERA, which is the economic revitalization
area. So that's the map of the abatement. And so then you recommend that to council and then council
I think they have a two hearing process for it to approve a new abatement. And then, so then that's
fine. Then the property owner has an abatement in hand and they go, they factor that into their capital
stack and they go build their building or make their investment or whatever. And then they come back
the year, they come back after they've made the investment to file the CF-1
Sorry, I'm thinking about all the forms. The 322RE form. So they file another form that says we did
it. And then annually after that, they'll file the compliance form. So then they file the compliance
form for all five or 10 years of their approved abatement. And we now have a track record of holding
property owners accountable when they're not performing according to standard. So we've done that. We
have had hearings.
We had a hearing in 2025 and we withheld the benefit in 2024 from a particular company. So I think that
we're, in my opinion, we're providing the transparency that's required. So that's our process for the
abatement we have today. You would expect this to follow the exact same process? Yes, because it's according
to state statute. Okay. And then the ERA,
would be property specific every time. Yes. You can make the ERA whatever you want. But it wouldn't
make sense to make it larger than the property where the incentive is requested. So my only point about
the five or 10 years is I've been through this process. That's a heck of a lot of process.
for a small project, I'm not sure it'd be worth it for a five-year payment. Not worth it what? I'm not
sure that that process would be worth, unless you stacked it with other benefits, which you might do,
it might be more process than it's worth doing for a five-year payment. It depends on the project and
how much improvement you're doing, because you only get debasing on the improvement.
So if you had a project where you're making it 20% better or 25% better or something like that, five-year
abatement would not probably, it's a lot of process, maybe not that much benefit. I don't know if you
could tier it based on the size of the project or the amount of the abatement. I just think it's worth
thinking about.
Well, I guess with the proposed schedule, the reason I proposed any schedule was to say, basically to
signal that if we do a shorter term abatement, we could be more aggressive with the deduction. But again,
this schedule is not fixed until you review individual applicants. So my question to you, Tim, is
Would it make a difference if the shorter term were more aggressive? It might. I mean, as you said,
you put your stack together. It depends. But the other thing that I'd point out, if you were trying
to put housing into this picture, I mean, it's a different scenario if you're trying to do commercial
development, where you can have retail business or who knows what kind. But housing.
You could really make, you may not have to bring very much else to the table if you had 10 year abatement.
You could have some level of affordability if you had 10 year abatement. Many of our properties,
if it's new, property tax alone can be 25% of the rent. So you could accomplish a lot. Good luck.
The property tax alone could be 25% of the rent. Yeah, so if you took 25% of the cost away, then maybe
you could have an affordable project at some level. That's helpful feedback. But Tim, if you're talking
about affordable housing,
already exists, if somebody wanted to put affordable housing down that corridor. That's true. Yeah,
that's what I'm trying to figure out, to be honest. So this is really something to help the stall or
the Thai restaurant, if that business would change, to get people to come in. Because right now, people
don't want to put any investment in. So this is... Yeah, I hear what you're saying.
the affordable housing, what we get for affordable housing is usually a long-term affordability period
and very low-income people. I don't know how much that's required now. And do you know what I'm saying?
Well, typically, okay, so for, so the affordable housing developments that access our abatement program
use this 10-year deduction, and then typically they have other
they have other affordability requirements that they meet. So we will put that into our agreements that
they have to have X number of years affordability. I think under the previous administration, we were
saying like 100 years. I don't know what we're saying now. We're not saying 100, but I think we're saying
like 50. We haven't had anyone. But anyway, so it goes into the agreement. So that's already a fixed
process. And I don't think that this area, this footprint,
I mean, if the footprint is expanded significantly, it could include areas that might become affordable
housing, like retreated switchyard already happened. But in this smaller concentrated footprint just
around the park, I think that's going to be more likely to be smaller redevelopment projects. I'm thinking
about the business project that's going in at Dodds and College, which is going to be
a trades showroom and they've done significant work to invest in that property. I don't think they purchased
it yet, but that's like a locally owned commercial project that'll be bringing traffic into the area.
And then stall could be another good example too. Yeah. I mean, there's that kind of a commercial.
I was, I was picturing more about
affordable housing light because the current 10-year tax abatement, again, in the previous administration,
they wanted 99 years of affordability and rents at a certain level. And so the point was to serve very
low-income people for a very long time. I was thinking more, serve less low-income people for a shorter
time. You could use a 10-year abatement to accomplish that.
But I don't know that it's practical. I'm just throwing it out there. I think this is a great discussion
and it helps me understand. It's probably what I'm talking about should only be dealt with through the
affordable housing abatement. Maybe that could be looked at in a different light.
Because 99 years of affordability is really not a practical commitment. I mean, nobody really can make
that. I mean, people do. And then they sell the property, and they're gone. Well, and they make that.
I think that the affordability piece, like I'm trying to think what are the larger affordable projects,
are usually light tech. And so then they already have their federal
requirements baked in. Usually it's 30 years and then they refinance and then they make a new 30 year
commitment. And so they're pretty comfortable with the long term. 30 years is a different scenario.
Right, yeah. But the point is that what gets recommended to council, so you all approve the SB1 and
you approve the ERA and typically you approve, I'm sorry, I'm trying to think what type of agreement
it's called.
you approve an MOA, a memorandum of understanding, between the city and the developer. And that all,
that whole thing, it's recommended to council. So it's really an administrative decision what
the affordability, the affordability that gets baked into that MOA. So, I mean, this sounds like a question
that would be good to answer for this body anyway, so we can keep that discussion going.
And then for this seminary park discussion, Kurt, I heard you, and I think maybe it sounded like everyone
was supportive of a larger footprint than this kind of compact footprint. I should have brought you
both so we could A, B it. I'd like to drive around it. Yeah. I mean, I'm 100% in favor of an incentive
program to get things going down there. Yeah. But could you provide?
The problem with these links is sometimes it's hard to pull up in a separate document. So it's a little
bit cumbersome. I was able to get the document up, but I wasn't able to get the map. The irony being
that these are our new accessibility terms. But yeah, you want me to just send it as an attachment?
If you could send it as an attachment, because I too would like to take probably a walk around this
neighborhood, just to get an idea of the difference between
Hillside and what was it Dodd just said? Yeah. Yeah. There's Hillside, Grimes, and Dodds would be all
potential. Do you have a current floodplain map? I can share that. Because that'd be really helpful.
A nice day would be a nice walk up and down the street, seriously. Yeah. I wish we could all go together,
but that would constitute business. Yeah, it would be a meeting. But you could go in pairs. Yeah.
Okay. So floodplain map. Hopefully we could revisit this next month and possibly get some action on
it to get it moving. And then conceptually to do like the idea, are you supportive of the idea of just
adjusting these guidelines and including the map as our strategy? And then it's something we could advertise.
I think so too. What do you guys think? We need to do something.
Yeah, we do. OK, great. Good talk. So we're not taking any action on that, but you'll provide us with
some of those maps, scenario maps. And I'll talk to Dana, who's our, EDC has a new attorney. We're working
with Dana. Oh my gosh, why have I lost his name?
Yes, sorry. Jane is suffering from jet lag. Oh, I know. It's true. Welcome back. It's a true statement.
Welcome back. That's right. It's tough when you get back. Yeah. It's like, oh, goodness. But anyway,
I can talk with Dana and make sure we have everything that. So we're good on this, Jane. So let's, we
don't have any old business, I don't believe. No. And anything you two want to bring up? No.
I'm not trying to push it. Oh, I did have two old business sites. Oh, I'm sorry. Can I just give you
guys updates? Yeah, please. OK, so strategic sites we were working on. I brought you guys a memo and
proposed matrix for strategic sites. And the commission was very supportive of extending service wherever
we can. And you wanted me to come back with a list of what the strategic sites are beyond the property
Vernal and Woodyard, which again, I'm sorry, the name of that property escapes me right now. So I talked
to my economic development partners and called properties and there were no additional sites. So I think
that we might not need to do that. So when I talked to the property owner at Woodyard and Vernal, anyway,
there was some,
indication that there had been conversations with CBU decades ago. So CBU is doing some research. So
it may be that service would be available there without using the strategic sites initiative, or it
may be that they would need this strategic sites initiative in order to get service. So when CBU is
done and has pulled all of the information that they have, then I'll come back to the commission. I
thought the city council had already taken this up.
I don't know why. Decades ago? No, the strategic sites. I thought I saw it in a debated city council
or discussion. Maybe not. Unless they were debating it without me, which they could totally do. Yeah.
Do whatever they want. So there's no action needed on that right now. And then, which is kind
of anticlimactic, but also it's good, ultimately. So there's just one site.
And then quick update on the three-way alcohol permits. I just wanted to share this since this has come
up a handful of different times that those were approved by city council a month ago and a month and
a half ago. And we're working on the application process. And I believe that if everything goes through
with ATC, we'll have a total of 17 permits added to our. 17 ecosystem. So I think that will,
make for some meaningful change. And then I have a question. I don't know if it's for you all or if
it's for me to come back and make a recommendation, but I need to put together a group. And I was thinking
it would be good to have some representation from the commission to review applications against a rubric.
So I don't need to put you on the spot in this meeting, but I wondered if a commissioner might be up
for the task.
Yeah, that's true. Or Esau, he didn't even, he's not here. So, and it was Esau's legislation, so I assume
he'll want to do it. But anyway, so that's moving forward. So, I don't understand 17 new permits, how
did that happen? So two, two were from what, what was SB 89, and I don't know what the enrolled act
number is. Those were,
That's the specific legislation where the state names Bloomington and says, Bloomington, you shall have
two more permits eligible for your downtown district. And then the 15 others would be allowable through
the historic Courthouse Square district. And this was discussed originally like 15 years ago.
and it kind of stalled out, it was controversial at the time. City Council just moved it through and
we've done a lot of work to determine and prove our eligibility for these 15 permits and the ATC will
unfortunately not just create the quota, but they will create it once they have live applications in
their process. So it will be determined when we have applications to move through, but all of the legal review
indicates that we meet these pretty stringent standards, which are having a jail, an opera house, and
a courthouse adjacent to each other. So the opera house was the fountain square mall. Had an opera house
on the northeast corner. So all of those 15 have to be in a pretty tight district? Not as tight as you'd
think. It's within a certain number of
feet of that area. So it ends up being most of the broader downtown area. And then the City Council's
developed this rubric, right? They listed some criteria that they want considered and then staff is
making a rubric so that we can kind of turn that into a math problem and to intake the
We want to remove bias. Some of the subjects here. Yeah. So hopefully that means we'll have new restaurants
opening. I've had a lot of questions from businesses. That's great. Good news. Yeah. OK. Thanks, Kurt,
for letting me rewind. I don't think we have anything for general discussion. Are you ready for adjournment?
I'll move adjournment. We can adjourn.
We are adjourned.