being here for our meeting today on this hot and muggy day in June. So we will start with our roll call.
Kate, do you want to start, please? Kate Rosenbarger, BUEA. Keterita Ka, BUEA. Jane Cooper-Smith, BUEA.
Heather Robinson, BUEA. Brad Whistler, BUEA. Michael Hover, BUEA. Elisa Spinelli, BUEA.
detail the rest of the staff. All right. Sorry, Dee. Oh, bye bye, Lawson. You got this. You got it.
That's right. So welcome. All right. Roll call has been completed. We have our minutes from last month's
meeting. Did anyone have any comments or corrections to the minutes as presented from last month?
All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second and then we'll need to do a roll call. In favor
police, if you want to start on the minutes approval, please. Police is finale, yes. Kate. Yes. Katarina,
yes. Jane, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Brad. Brad Whistler, yes.
Michael Hover, yes. Virginia Guthrie, yes. Welcome, Virginia, to the meeting. All right. So Dee, I think
you're up with director's report. OK. Yep. Yeah, we'll do the director's report and then launch into
financials.
So first, after reviewing grant disbursements, we found that there's an overpayment to secretly group,
unfortunately. This happened from a processing error on my part. In their application, they had not
factored in the matching. Within the meeting, we discussed the matching part and that we would only
grant against a matching amount. And then when I went in,
I accidentally made it for the full amount. So I have asked secretly for the difference with a due date
of one month from now. I'm very sorry for this mistake. I apologize, and I will do everything to rectify
it as soon as possible. We have signed the contract with Stone Municipal Group, who has been evaluating
our eases for the past few years.
I'll start music again with them later this month and something I forgot to add to this director's report,
which I will amend later. The Office of Financial Analysis, Financial Management and Analysis, something
to that effect. They're doing a review of all of the enterprise zones within the state.
So what they're asking for for me is either a shapefile or every single address within the zone, which
actually isn't that hard because GIS is wonderful here. And then an analysis of our EZ from 2019 to
the present. Thankfully, the records that we've had with Stone have been really great. So that part
is awesome. There's some just archival diving that I have to do for things that are here prior to
my employment. So I'm not super concerned about that. We've performed pretty well. Yeah, excited to
speak with them and see what they have to say about that. So moving on to the financial report, we have
no first quarter financial report and I gave a little summary and I'll just go ahead and read it for
the record.
We're experiencing difficulties obtaining statements from German American Bank, which is making
it challenging to reconcile our first quarter statements. These ongoing issues with timely bank statement
reconciliation are hindering our ability to make informed decisions regarding project funding. To address
this, we're evaluating our collection approval payment and reconciliation processes and considering
implementing
view only access to accounts for the executive director. This change would alleviate the administrative
burden to our financial agents who are the director of ESD and the deputy controller by simplifying
the process of obtaining documents required for quarterly reporting and monthly maintenance. Additionally,
staff is exploring online banking tools that could enhance our control over transactions and improve
visibility. The current banking tools we have lack the necessary flexibility for efficient management.
So our three goals are to enhance access for designated financial agents and visibility, improve end-to-end
process in four key areas, collection, approval, payment, and reconciliation, and increase the overall
efficiency and promptness of the reporting. If you've been on this board for a while, you know that
this is a struggle that we've had on a pretty regular basis. Some of it is just the processes that we've
had forever that need updating, some of it is actually obtaining the information in a timely manner.
So here's one example. Because our meeting is on the second week of the month, sometimes a bank statement
isn't ready until the third week of the month. So that tends to be a hiccup, something that we can't
always work on. So one of the things to solve that is that
and some of you were here for this when we decided to have the financial report from Cheryl a month
behind. So then we wouldn't have that lapse. But we're still having some issues getting, like asking
for paper statements and not getting them or getting the paper statements on a regular basis or having
the appropriate access to get a statement just because it's very,
kind of convoluted who has access and who does not. As the executive director, I have zero access to
any bank account, hence trying to get some of you only things so that when, because it's a matter of
urgency for me, because I am your executive director, I can get to that sooner rather than later. So
those are the things that we're working on at this point in time. D, just to punch in there a little
bit, I fully support
you having view-only access to these accounts and maybe was kind of unaware that you didn't at least
have some of that. I get why you wouldn't be able to initiate any transactions. There's an internal
control for all of these processes. But just to be able to view activity and print statements to me
is an absolute no-brainer. And as executive director, I'm quite sorry that you haven't had that access already.
because it would allow you just to see activity flowing through the account or, you know, what grants
are being dispersed. I mean, you know, there's all different kinds of things that would benefit your
role by having that access. So just for the record, I would say I fully support you having view-only
access to all of the accounts associated with BUEA. Are other departments having the same issues with
this bank?
You know, specifically or can I chime in? Sure. Um, so the BVA is, it's the only commission that's like
this, that has its own funding. Everything else is housed within the city's controller's office and
the city's accounts. But, um, I, anyway, I nevermind. I just wanted to follow up with you afterwards
because I found that March statement has been on.
been posted since March, so I don't know why. Oh, really? Yeah, but we'll find it. But when I talked
to German American, when we talked internally, someone else said, yes, we've been having trouble getting
our statement. And then when I talked to German American, they said, no, we haven't really heard about
this. But they're happy to facilitate that online access. And then, yeah, so I think we're on the verge
of a breakthrough, which will be really good. Yeah, this is pretty much top priority for me at this
point in time, because it really is hindering what I can do.
and be able to, you know, when I talk to someone about getting a grant and they're like, well, do you
have money for it? Well, in theory, yes, I do. But to not be able to solidly be like, oh, yes, we have
this amount of money for the rest of the year for this particular, you know, grant or whatever would
be incredibly helpful when I'm working with people. So, so yeah. Yeah, for sure. I am going to
pull up our spreadsheet if I can, if I know what's happening here. I set this up and walked away for
like a half an hour, so I've kind of forgotten where everything is. Let's see.
is problematic. Great. Sorry, this mouse is giving me a really hard time. Here we go. Yay. I think that
that might be as large as I can make it at this point in time. Sorry about that.
The equations from last time have been corrected, so they're actually subtracting and not adding. I'm
so sorry for that. Sometimes I just throw in a number and then think everything's fine. Very quick rundown.
Education budget, we have 77.5 thousand in commitments and disbursements with a $15,000 balance. In
the entrepreneurship area, we have 48,000
in commitments and disbursements with 7,800 as a balance. Arts and culture, 25,000 in commitments and
disbursements. That's the operations grant constellations, which is formerly when it's been presented,
it's kind of been housed within all of the operations grants that the BAC provides via the BUEA. This
has been broken out separately this year.
and we have $185,000 balance in arts and culture. Zone improvement. Katie, can I have just one question
on the arts incubator? Any update on that for us? Paige and I have had some really good discussions
about it. It has still been part of the funding that supports
The ready grant? Oh, that would be fantastic. Yeah. I've been working on this. Awesome. Yeah. So we
had significant staff turnover earlier this year. And prior to that, they had been working
on the accessibility piece, which was what this funding was intended to support. And the preliminary
work to figure out what it would take to put a ramp on this building revealed that it was really not
going to be
super feasible, which is problematic, because that's now a public facility. So this has to do with two
things. Well, and Brad, you know this building well, the OG Scrap Box building. So the ramp would have
to go along the east side of the building, which would make it super long, the entrance over there.
Or there was some idea that it might connect over to the trail, which was also sort of weird. And then
for it to connect alongside the building,
which would make the most sense because that's where parking is, there would be required major parking
lot improvements, which were not feasible for the property owner. The property owner, however, has made
significant improvements based on feedback from the tenants. So they added lighting. They've, I can't
remember off the cuff. Sorry, I wasn't prepared for this. But they made some other changes that were
requested. And then simultaneously,
The REDI 2.0, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the REDI program, which is IEDC's, the Indiana Economic
Development Corps' main vehicle for supporting economic development across the state. We're in a REDI
region for the uplands. And then the Lilly Foundation partnered with REDI to do a round of grant funding
across the state that is specifically arts and culture focused. And so the city partnered with
local, it's like a consortium led by IU for a kind of four point project that would really
drive Bloomington's arts economy forward and make it support not just Bloomington but the region with
a kind of umbrella goal of entrepreneurship for artists, right? Like helping artists be able to make
a living at the work that they do.
So with that as the umbrella, then the incubator was a really critical part of that. But the grant proposes,
primarily because of this accessibility challenge, relocating the incubator to a different site inside
the Enterprise Zone. So it's been, this information will be released in early July. And so from the
staff perspective, not my Enterprise Zone hat, we were planning to come talk to you all about that in
July. So hopefully we'll have some,
some kind of news and some kind of recommendation for how to go forward, but would hopefully like to
hold onto that funding in order to drive this arts facility need. Okay, is that? Yeah, that's fantastic,
awesome. Thank you for the detail. Thank you for the update on that. Basically all of a sudden it's
like, Paige and I talked about it, we're gonna try and keep the funding there, details to come, so thank you.
Super important. Awesome. Wonderful. Thank you. Sorry, Dee, go ahead. Oh no, you're absolutely fine.
Love to hear it. Zone improvement grants. We have 51,000 committed or dispersed and 159,000 as a balance.
The highlighted section is that's the rub and this is another error on my part. I'm very sorry.
When you see my spreadsheet of grants, you can click down and say, ready to go, ready to go, not ready
to go. And somehow I clicked that's the rub as ready to go.
got it halfway through the process, realized that there was nothing in our minutes that officially approved
it. So that is why we are reviewing that grant today. So nothing has been dispersed, nothing has gone
out, so we still can amend that. But I'm glad that we caught it before anything else happened, and very
sorry about that. What category are you talking about?
Oh, you've got it highlighted in yellow. Yes. So there's no harm, no foul, right? Yeah, no harm. I don't
think you need to apologize. We can be excited that we're going to hopefully have a name for it. Yeah,
you're going to give some money to some people today. Yeah, no apology needed. And that pretty much
is it for financials at this juncture. Once again, when I can give you something more detailed and concrete,
I will have it to you as soon as possible.
Yeah, so let me stop sharing this. In light of just the challenges that we've had with getting
the financials, having this spreadsheet and allowing the board to sort of track and like what's going
out and what's committed and all of that, I think this is extremely helpful. So thank you very much
for putting this together and keeping it, you know, updated and so forth. It's incredibly helpful to
me too because I mean, you know, the wheels are going to be turned slowly and sometimes it takes a little
bit longer to get
things through the grinder than it should. So it's nice to know what I do have committed before I try
and commit to anything else. Yeah. So those are my two reports thus far. Yeah. I think we have that
grant. Yeah, we can launch right into the grant language. Yeah. OK.
So in the packet, which was incredibly long, the reason it was long was because I put in all of the
current grant guidelines and language so everyone could have a very clear picture of what grant applicants
are seeing when they're applying for a grant. There is a highlighted section within that
which this is also part of a solo page in here that has the capital improvement grants eligibility.
With these eligibility criteria, this is nothing new from what's already kind of been in the grants.
It's just incredibly clear what we're going for. We haven't really had a whole lot of
issues necessarily as far as people asking for things outside of this criteria that don't fit outside
of this criteria. Also with applicants, as we saw with the Wonder Lab and the maintenance ask, that
is something that I think that when we were creating the grant and we put it out there, it's assumed
that you're not going to ask for perpetual maintenance.
but now we came to a point where someone has asked for perpetual maintenance, so now we need to just
clarify that that's not something that we're willing to cover. So that's what this eligibility criteria
is. It's very clear in our minor improvement grant, but it was very much, it very much felt inferred
with the other capital improvement grants. So this is, this is,
feel that the board should approve this particular language because this is what I will be putting forward.
This will be public facing on the site and for any packet material for any applicants or people interested
in this. So there's that part. Does anyone have any questions about the eligibility criteria or feel
that anything else should be added to the eligibility criteria? Is only the highlighted section in the
first part
the change or is it changed throughout? We're just highlighting that is pretty much applicable on each
grant. Yeah. So the way it's structured and this is an accessible packet, so it'll look different on
the website. But the headline is basically capital improvement grants and then the eligibility criteria
will be right underneath it before you go into any of the other grant guidelines. So off the cuff,
this is the eligibility criteria for all capital improvement grants, if that makes sense, yeah?
All right, and then moving forward, if there are no other questions, and of course we can come back
to it if you would like. Oh, go for it. Sure.
clearly must be located within the Bloomington Urban Enterprise Zone. So we're saying for businesses,
they must be in the zone. For nonprofits, they must be in the zone or serve residents of the zone. So
thank you for catching that. There should be some clarification as we've like we discussed our grants.
So I will update that to the language that we had clarified in prior meetings.
Yes, thank you. I have a question just for clarification that I didn't see previously. The language
of ineligible major renovations or structural overhauls, is that further explained somewhere or is there
some type of
dollar amount, what's the, how would you know what that means? No, that's actually another really good
catch because that falls under the, wait a minute. Are you looking in the highlighted section? Oh, no,
maybe I'm not. I think I'm going too far. There's a minor improvement grant that specifically says that
the minor improvement grant is not for major renovations or construction. Okay. Okay. So that one is
a, that's,
very much a micro-grant. You're fixing a window, you're putting in a new lock or something. So it can't
go towards some type of major, if somebody needed to fill in a gap, they were doing something and it
was maybe $10,000 and they had $9,000. No, this one is, we want to keep this one specifically for that
section. Because there is a considerable amount of money for the other larger programs. Okay, great.
Thank you.
And just for clarity on that D, that is that sort of flexible up to $1,000 grants that you and team
internally can approve that doesn't have to come to the board. It's reported to the board, but that
way it allows quick flexibility. So if someone has a broken window or something and they need that fixed
quickly, you can have that flexibility to approve it and get the money out.
Is it equipment? I have a question, sorry. Sure. In the capital, purchases of new equipment not related
to repairs is not eligible. I guess I viewed capital as like, what if they need a major piece of equipment
to do their business? I don't know, like a printing press. What? I don't know. Is that capital? Are
we just looking at building repairs? We're looking at building repairs. That's more acquisition of personal
property. Oh, OK.
My interpretation when we talk about capital improvement is the physical space in which the building
resides. I think that if we want to venture into something about personal property, like a major personal
property investment, that's something that we should discuss. But I think that that's very much separate
from the real property that we're talking about. Great. OK. Thank you.
Okay, so all of these are under this header. This header is applying to the minor improvement, the business
and safety, everything. Okay. The language on in-kind staff labor,
At the bottom? Yeah. Oh, so moving forward. Cool. Oh, well, I guess I was under the ineligible expenses.
Oh, yes. OK, I just. So this will change, barring our next conversation. I was going to say, it's a
little bit confusing. Yes. OK. So the first part is how the grants stand on the public facing without
the highlighted text.
Our next step is to look at the in-kind labor match option that we had discussed at the last staff meeting.
Teagan was wonderful to get this together before she left for Ireland. We'll see her in July, maybe.
The purpose of the in-kind labor match is to reduce a certain amount of financial burden for the matching
requirement that we have for
our grants. Actually, I'm going to talk about the additional match waiver that is in the packet after
the in-kind labor match. I think that both of these programs could be options. I think that it would
be better to choose one. But we've discussed having in-kind labor,
to assuage some of the burden of having the matching. Then last meeting, we also discussed getting rid
of the match entirely. We inserted a match waiver option as well. I think that it satisfies both the
idea of larger businesses having some skin in the game and not just getting some free money,
because some people just know how to write a grant. Some people know who to ask and how to ask and when
to ask. And some people are gun shy about asking for grants because A, they don't have the money to
match, B, they've never done it before, C, they don't know about the program or find out about it late.
So with the match waiver, which I think is a great option, it's fewer than 50 full-time part-time,
full-time and part-time employees and less than a million dollars in annual gross revenue. We're really
targeting smaller businesses. It's very succinct as to who can ask to not have to match. It's a pretty
simple process. I think that this satisfies a lot of the conversations that board members have had time
and time and again of
Why are we doing a match? Do we do a match? When is the best time? And the match waiver is really just
that simple. How many employees? Are you less than a million? And are you within the zone? This one
is particularly, are you physically located within the zone? The in-kind match I think is also a very
good option, however,
It can get more complicated for a small business who may not have the staff ability to do that. Some
small businesses are really only a couple people. In kind is kind of a vague term. It can be hard to
kind of put those things on there. However,
The worksheet that's put together is a simple worksheet that I personally think does actually satisfy
all of the requirements of what you would want to see in an in-kind labor match when someone is applying
for the grant. So I would love to hear your opinions on either of these as you've read through them.
happy to take any questions on any of them. I'm a fan of the word G. I think it is succinct and gets
straight to the point. Easy to fill out. Put that together and calculate what we're looking at. So are
we also saying that someone could use the in-kind labor match and well,
I guess it wouldn't matter then if they use the waiver because it's one or, now that I'm thinking all
of that through, it would be one or the other. Yeah. Or neither. I mean, they may not, but it's one
or the other then when we're talking about the labor match, or they might just submit a waiver to completely
waive the match. Yes. Okay. I guess I have a question. Sure. Okay.
The umbrella goal of the BUBA is to foster economic vitality within the enterprise zone. We've unpacked
that a little more to understand that grants can go to zone impacting organizations. It doesn't just
have to be physically located in the zone. It can be zone impacting. So I guess I'm curious why we would
require the waiver to have a physical
within the zone. What's the economic, what's the benefit to that? How does that balance? None, but I
wanted to make sure that there were some pretty clear-cut restrictions on the match waiver, and this
can be changed. I mean, there is nothing set in stone here. If that is something that the board wants
to get rid of, I'm happy to get rid of it. I mean, my personal opinion is just that this is an add-on
the grant will already go through all the criteria, eligibility criteria, through the evaluation process.
And so this is just for the match waiver, right? So I don't think that really, for me, it doesn't belong
there. It's just one more filter. So that was one question. And then fewer than 50 full time, less than
a million in annual gross revenue, I think that
The intent is for it to be truly a small business. So that makes sense. And I just wonder if that,
are those, are those correct for a match waiver? Are you trying to, who are we trying to support? If
we're trying to support really vulnerable businesses for the match waiver, then is this the right way
to identify them?
Isn't that the Small Business Administration's definition for 500,000? Five million is the minimum,
but 50 employees. We kept it at 50 employees because of restaurants who may have a large roster of employees.
Absolutely. That's not FTE, that's just employees. It's not full-time. 50 employees.
Yeah, so the SBA definition, just non-manufacturing businesses under 7.5 million, they must have increased
that. And then what I thought it was 500 employees. So that's really something different altogether.
And it makes sense to me that the BBA has a different standard. Yeah, I love this idea. I guess I don't
know what some of the small business,
Is that an average growth? So, you know, I don't know. Some of those bars that have 40 employees, I'm
sure they're killing it. Like Kilroy's, I don't know how much they're bringing in with it. But,
you know, so I kind of have that question too. I fully, fully support this waiver, but just want to
make sure we're dialed in right. I think the 50 employees sounds solid because you
definitely want to be able to capture some restaurants that might have like 30 or 40 fluctuating part-time
employees or things like that. You don't want to exclude because of that number. But I'm wondering about
the gross receipts. And that's just me simply not knowing. I mean, Brad, you're a business owner. Do
you have thoughts on that? And of course, Virginia as well. And Felicia's on. Business owners have thoughts.
I'm fine with these, with these definitions. I mean, I think a million in gross revenue would be a lot
for a, you know, for a small, particularly for any kind of, for a retail business, that would be, that
would be a lot. I don't, yeah, I don't think we, but certainly Kilroy's is doing more than. Yeah.
They're probably good. I think that's a pretty good number. Can we do some other kind of examples? What
about the owlery? Because I don't know gross revenue at all, either. Would they have fallen into this
category? I think $1 million. No, I think $1 million is not much for a restaurant. Food prices are really
high, and anyone who's turning a fair amount of tables, I don't
want to share information I'm not empowered to share, but like, I think, um, pre pandemic, certain coffee
shops may have been in that neighborhood. So I think when you add food to it, the dollar goes really
high. And I guess that's why I want to get at that question of like, who are we trying to help? Because
with this, with these filters, there's not a demonstration of need. So, but it's a demonstration of
size and that's fine. If that's what the board wants you to do, like we want to,
offer the waiver to small operations, and this is how we're gonna define small operations. I always
am thinking more about like, who are the struggling operations? How can we define that? Like, did they
declare a loss on their income, on their K-1s or whatever? Is that a way? I think I would- I mean, you
could use an earnings test, a profit test instead of a gross revenue test, if you wanted to. I would
probably struggle with, if there were a battle between need and size,
I would probably have an objection to need, especially if they would extend the size, because you could
easily, you know, have 2 million and claim a loss of 1.5. That would be a little crazy, but, you know,
you could, but it's conceptual, right? So, and if it were, okay, if you're in the zone and the loss
doesn't matter and you could, I mean, I guess what I'm trying to say is I think both would have to be true.
to make it make sense. I don't think it would be reasonable to also allow just claiming a loss because
you could potentially have 200 employees and I mean, who didn't claim a loss, right? Who hasn't claimed
a loss depending on how long you've been established and if you were in COVID and you know, so I would
argue that both would have to be true or it would just have to be at the size irrespective of need.
But that's just my...
And excuse me, can I say something, please? Yeah, of course. And this is what I meant. And maybe my
passion overweighs sometimes what I'm trying to reach. And I didn't mean to disregard Brad or Regina
being business owners when I spoke last month. I just meant the smaller businesses in the zone because it's
in this time right now is different for smaller businesses. And just like Virginia said, even as a larger
business, you could have the need. And I don't want our level of criteria to outweigh the need of people
in the zone, no matter what size you are or
how many employees you have, because in this time right now, there's need to help businesses. And that's
how we stand aside from banks. So I think that is a beautiful compromise to what you guys are doing
by putting the waiver out. But then again, on another hand, it still sets
people would leave aside because you're biased on how big or how large the business was before these
triumph times. And that can happen to any size business, especially in the zone. Yeah, I do fully agree
with your point, or I fully understand your point.
I would say though when it comes to, I think that part of the idea of keeping it for smaller businesses
with smaller revenues is money attracts money. And so larger companies, larger businesses tend to have
an easier avenue to obtain more funding.
they can usually get more traditional funding and have those different tools to use. Whereas when smaller
businesses go into and have an issue, it's harder for them to get traditional lenders and to get traditional
funding, which is why I think that we were focusing on smaller revenues and smaller numbers. But I fully
understand what you're saying for sure.
And because our budget is limited for these particular categories, I mean, there is some consideration
around that, to your point, D, that we've essentially sort of, the waiver exists because we don't have,
you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars in budgets for these grants, so that the waiver really tries
to reach some of the most vulnerable small businesses, whereas to your point, larger business can have
greater access to other funding resources. So, I mean, I think that also might be a point of decision
or discussion with us as well, you know, that we could still base it with around some need, but with
some of these other criteria because we've set as an organization, we want to, because we have just
a finite amount
of money from our budget that we want to make sure that those that are receiving waivers are some of
our vulnerable small you know might you know what might be some of the micro businesses I you know just
kind of throwing that out there for thought and discussion. I'd like to say so this waiver is for
funding for capital improvement, buildings, safety and security and accessibility. It's not for operations.
It's not for paying staff to do business as usual. I'm thinking about Lotus. We would fit under 50 employees,
under a million dollars, but I wouldn't have any money for capital improvement at all in my budget.
If I need to do a capital improvement, safety and security accessibility, I have to get outside money,
because that's not part of, like, we operate under this money, and there's nothing, there's nothing
extra, you know? And the building is, I mean, for us specifically, it's a historic building, right?
It's like something that needs to be maintained. But like, the waiver, it's like why, why even,
Why have the barrier of the in kind when most businesses are not going to have the money for these kinds
of expenses anyways? I mean, I don't know how many businesses in the zone have money for building
improvements, unless they own the building, but how many own the buildings?
I have a personal example of that actually, because depending on, well, now that the economy's a little
different, so a lot of, if you're leasing, a lot of places will do certain leasehold improvements, whereas
10 years ago, it was all on the person renting, right? So in commercial, a lot of times they're doing
it because they want you in the space, and it's just harder, it's more of a buyer's market, right? But
you find the money.
I mean, I'm just saying, like, if you have to improve the space to fit it to what you need, you figure
out how to get the money. So, I mean, I just, I would agree that sometimes- You're applying for a grant,
right? Yeah, yeah. Or asking for investors or something like that. So you're saying that it's a barrier?
Yeah, it's not outside of your regular operations. We're not paying for anyone's salaries. We're asking,
like, people are coming to us to ask for something that's outside of their budget.
So whatever size you are, whatever kind of business you are, if you are in the zone, shouldn't you just
have access to capital improvement? Because that is what is actually making the zone better, is having
a better looking, better structured community in this area. I think there's two competing principles
here. One is we want to make it as easy as possible for
struggling organizations and businesses to access capital. On the other hand, we want to make this money
go as far as we can make it go and support as many organizations as we can. So we don't want businesses
that are thriving who don't really need this money to come in and scoop it all up. So we don't have
money to support the ones that are in the most need. So I think what we're trying to do here is create
some test for the need
that we could that we can apply so that so we're making sure the money goes you know to the to the people
who really need it so I was just gonna say it references here applicants seeking the match waiver must
complete the match waiver request form we don't have an actual we don't have that form I would just
suggest that on that form there's some portion where they
describe the need or the hardship that should justify the waiver of the match. It doesn't have to be
a strict quantifiable guideline, but I think we can judge relative to the other applications that we're
seeing at the time where the need falls. That's really helpful. I was just pulling up the bylaws just
to orient us
And so briefly without the big preamble, the corporation may coordinate zone development activities,
serve as a catalyst for zone development, promote zone to outside groups and individuals, establish
a formal line of communication with residents and businesses in the zone, act as a liaison, blah, blah,
blah, blah, blah, blah, initiate and coordinate any community development activities that aid in the
employment of zone residents, improve the physical environment,
or encourage the turnover or retention of capital in the zone. So I don't have an argument. I'm just
offering that as centering. Yeah. I think all the comments here are really good. And I think that your
point's good, Brad, in that being able to just simply make the case. If Lotus came to your point, you
don't have money
for capital, but you have found that suddenly there's a $7,500. I think in the waiver application, then
make the point of the need. It's not in the regular budget for the organization. I don't know another
example. Someone who'd be outside of that $1 million in under 15 points. Someone who operates.
a business in the zone who's above that, but would still have, not necessarily have funding for these
specific kinds of things. And the only things that I can think of are like the Buskirk Chumley or something
or like, but again, these are historic buildings, so maybe it's a little different or. And they could
go through the historic facade potentially if it's like facade. I'm just, we're,
kind of nitpicking a little about who should be getting this money. But it feels like the zone, if you're
in the zone, you have a need, don't you? Isn't that the whole point of the zone? The whole point is
the distrust of low-cum-census. Yeah. So whether you make over a million dollars or not, you might still
have a need. And let's just say you are trying to really invigorate
the building that you're in that, yeah, I don't know. I'm just trying to understand a little more like
why do we need to be so specific and limiting of those that apply when this whole, like everybody, like
we need to be supporting businesses so they can actually do stuff, right? And it feels like we're actually
hindering. And these are only for the waiver.
All of the other businesses can't apply. They just have to bring the match. They have to bring the match,
right? Yeah, so OK. So if you have over a million dollars, does that necessarily mean that you have
money outside of your regular business to be putting into building improvements or safety and security
and accessibility? I appreciate what you're pushing on. And so I might summarize kind of what I see
as the types of things we're talking about.
On one hand, we have this proposal for a match waiver that is focused on business size. We have one
discussion that I think we backed away from about need, because I think we think there's a need. And
then I don't know what the third category is kind of questioning. Do we need a match at all? Is that
kind of where you're pointing to? Or do we need a criteria for a waiver? But either way, the third option, I think,
more expansive, less of a barrier. Is that how you guys are understanding where we are? Yeah, I would
say that the options that are on the table right now are match waiver, no match at all. Those are the
two clear ones that I am getting from the board in general. I personally favor no match at all.
From an administrative point of view, it's very helpful. I think it maximizes the amount of people who
are willing to apply for something. I think it's a major barrier when they see that they have to match
up to 50 percent of their ask. Because when people are asking for money, it's usually because they don't have any.
I am partial to that. I have given options, and it is up to you to decide. I'm sorry. I just want to
add one more thing. So we're talking about building safety and accessibility in the zone, but then we're
also talking about businesses applying for these grants who are serving the zone and outside of it.
The fact that it's funding for physical improvement, does it make sense to apply that?
that same accessibility to people who are outside the zone. Is that, am I? So like the benefit of having
the address requirement is that these investments are going to the physical improvement of the zone,
which is cited in the bylaws. And so therefore you would want that barrier because you're ensuring that
the dollars are going to the improvement of the zone itself. I'm fine with that, like I do think that
The bar for businesses that are physically outside the zone should be a little bit higher. I'm not saying
we should eliminate it completely, but I'm totally fine with saying if you're outside the zone, you
gotta pay the match. We're reserving match-free grants for businesses and organizations inside the zone.
I don't have any objection to that.
I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt you Kate. I do want to note our time and we have not reviewed the
one grant request we have for today. I think this is an awesome discussion and I wonder if we could
D if you could maybe refine this a little bit on basic and if we could pick this up Kate I didn't want
to take your comments there off the table but I wonder if everyone is is good with that so we can
actually do the business of approving one of our rights today. Thank you for the discussion. I will
come back with some more fine-tuned things for this. Yeah, let's move on. If that's okay that this is
cutting into another meeting, I can do a little off, but I do have two more thoughts actually. Okay.
All right, so that's the rub. AD is located in the grant building. They are doing physical improvements.
This is a business building improvement grant. There is painting, patching, and priming of walls and
treatment in the hallways. This is a CFC building. CFC is a fantastic support of small businesses. They
are incredible landlords.
They are putting up part of the match as per usual with most of their projects. They're also helping
with tenant improvements. This is pretty straight forward, I feel. So do you have questions if there's
anything specific? Sorry, because the time is limited. I don't really. I just can't. I think I need
to log in to Civvy Forms if you. Oh, to see the. Yeah. Hold on. I can't see a picture. Yeah.
I can, I got pictures. I think you have to make them really small. If you're doing that, it sounds good
to me. I'm not, I pulled it down and say that to my desktop center. I think too, they're in a really
difficult location, that huge one way street and stuff. So yeah, so hard to get foot traffic. Is anything
so I look through the pictures,
from a contractor perspective, it looks like there's maybe some humidity issues. Do we know if that's
being addressed? That is being addressed by CFC. OK. So there are other improvements that CFC is doing
to this so that these don't come back in a year. Yeah, so it doesn't come back in a year. So they're
not painting for painting sake. OK. All right. But yeah, some moisture, some cracking.
about this one? Okay, do we feel good about approving this grant? I'll move that we approve this grant.
Second. Okay, we'll deed a roll call for it. I think it's still up there. Sorry, if you want to start
the roll call for approval of that. Okay.
So that's a yes from you. Yes. OK. At least for now. Michael Hoover, yes. Fred Whistler, yes. Virginia
Guthrie, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Jane Coopersmith, yes. Katerina Carl, yes. Kate Rosenberger, yes.
All right. Kate, so sorry to cut you off. Please finish with your comments. We have like two or three
minutes here. I don't remember. I had two things I don't remember. I think one was because we are becoming
more flexible with them,
zones that impact or businesses and nonprofits that impact the zone that are outside of the zone that
do want to be careful with like how much we give to one organization for sometimes the match might be
useful in order to leverage dollars that we can then use to help other organizations I guess like I
think if organizations or businesses have dollars to leverage I
I am interested in keeping that part still. And if they aren't, I think it makes sense to not have that
match. I don't know. It's just something I think about, I guess. But I definitely get to like improving
anything in the zone is useful. I mean, I think about some like facade grants that whether or not we
did the grant, they would be doing the facade renovation, right? So that was like nice to have, but
didn't need to have, which is okay, because definitely facade grants make the zone look much better.
I think about that sometimes too, I guess. Well, this grant in particular, they're leveraging CFC money,
which obviously CFC is, if they're the ones who are owning the properties, the match, well, it extends
our ability to, we don't have to give as much, it extends our ability to give more money to other people,
but then also,
Like maybe CFC is more willing to do these projects for the leaseholders because they're getting a little
bit coming to them. That makes sense too. So yeah, I don't know. I'll dissect this for all of you guys.
Good discussion. We'll continue that next month. And Dee, I think you were going to check July is a
tough one. Yes. So July, because we missed meetings earlier in the year, I would like to keep the July meeting.
Probably not the second week of July as it's right after the holiday. I know that usually we take this
month off or July off. I will send out a doodle poll to see if either of the remaining Wednesdays are
good around the same time. But there's just obviously we didn't get through all the business today.
I'd like to get through that business on Wednesday or on July. I'll be remote in July. That's not a problem.
All right, thank you all so much for your time.