##VIDEO ID:se0PbAuWpfE## good morning everyone I'd like to welcome you to the committee the whole work session today Tuesday September 17th and as you can see on our agenda we have um minutes from our previous Committee of the whole work session and then we are going to be discussing tax abatement for the Heights Apartment project and we have a couple of guests with us this morning welcome to both of you and we're looking forward to getting a little update on the heights thank you for having us well do we need minutes for or no okay sorry I thought we don't vote on anything we take no action information for the public we should say our guests are Jason ha executive director of The Cook County Housing and Redevelopment Authority and Gary Latz with the Cook County real estate fund thank you m uh and to bridge off of uh your comments and we're here today to help explain any questions you might have about the project and the financing particularly the tax abatement the objective is that you will be in position to make an A A an informed decision next week at your meeting where we will be bringing this to um to a vote for for approval maybe double tailing off that Carri um uh so we with the city council last week in a similar Forum to just help explain here's where we're at here's the project and of course you have if you have any specific project questions Gary has a lot of details for you um and he's managing the project more actively of course I'm in the side representing the HRA and city and county in this case trying to advocate for housing generally right so I thought what might be useful is to bring us back to February of 2024 uh when the this board reviewed this initial request um is as did city council and it was an up to amount for an up to term uh because didn't know the details we know today uh and we needed to get uh that approval for to leverage for the ITR application that we were submitting which was due in March and then of course we were awarded $630,000 from ITR the ask with I believe was $750 but there's only so much to go around and I think Cook County made out pretty well in that funding ground um so again we're grateful for that uh for I um but since then of course we've done in particularly the Gary but I think I don't know how many hours of spreadsheet we've been working on together on Zoom um but a lot of work and in the last month and month and a half or so particularly I've been working closely with ERS and I know the city and county both uh contract and consult with Ellers which has actually been really useful in this regard um my role has been uh and I kind of tease the area about this but it's true uh my role is to figure out what the project actually needs not what they want um because the the H's rol is to try to advance how housing of course and to bring resources to get it over that finish line but not to over uh subsidize or provide more than is needed to make the project viable so that's one of the roles that um Ellers plays is we rely on their robust and thorough expertise and they're doing these projects across the state all the time to look at what the projections are for this project what the um irr internal rate of return is projected to be all of the perform analyses to understand is this reasonable and isn't in line with what they would expect I want to make a statement that I made at city council that I think is important to remind generally the public everything's a projection until reality happens from like what you're going to eat for lunch to to how this project will perform in 10 years right um so all we have is the best data we have to make informed decisions and so Elders actually plays a really useful and fundamental role they had their system is they have a proprietary spreadsheet that I've got glimpses of I would love to get it someday um but it's just Ro so robust in how they fill all the information out and we have done a lot of back and forth with them to answer questions as we've got more data all of that leads to I believe James I don't know if you provided in their packet ERS had a memo that I sent no no I did not okay I wasn't sure um I'm happy to send that I don't know if it would be helpful I didn't I didn't know Jason if you wanted that included that was if we're going to wait on that sure um that's fine uh I can I don't know what would be more useful I can send it to you we can put it up on the screen if that's helpful there's would that be helpful you could email it certainly Jen I'll do that right now it's not something you can summarize I I can but there's a lot of numbers and keeping them in your brain would be difficult without seeing them maybe I'm underestimating Your Capacity I couldn't do it uh go ahead the visual will really help with that Dave so while I sending it um here we go I guess the other the other reason I didn't include it is because we were still talking about whether this would be presented at the meeting on the 24th or into October and so I was unclear sure no it makes that makes sense um and I mean that's I think evidence in some sense of it's important to acknowledge that both the county and the city have to my understanding have never done like fully executed an abatement a tax payment um so this is just I guess it's worth highlighting this is a learning curve and opportunity for everybody involved with this uh and so we're trying to figure out the different puzzle pieces to make it work in Co County and the City of gr right U Jen I just tried to send that to you okay sometimes I have difficulty with this network things actually sending hang oh sure oh look at yeah just in Cas yeah let's do that I use my Hotpot here usually because the Outlook doesn't like the county for some reason I don't know why I'm sorry um while we're doing that the um it it is important that we get it on the agenda for the 24th mostly for a timing point of view we have a shot of getting the site work done this this year of October November and then into this snowfall and and stuff in December um if we wait till the October meeting we almost certainly would have to wait until March to start the the uh the site work um and the beauty of getting the site work done or some of it done this year is just to take it off the list so that remember our Factory um Dynamic will make this in Jan Feb and March they will be able to ship it you know on the date we want them to ship it you know at the end of March or early April get it on site and and set it they call it a set um so that part is predictable all the site work is completely unpredictable you know how long it's going to take them what kind of obstacles they're going to um um incur while they're doing it so getting a start on of this year and being able to check some of that off the box would be really really helpful and and that that is the the main reason for uh trying to get it done now yeah on top of that I think nobody here would be surprised to learn that um cost just 10 tend to Trend upward over time so uh that's I think every every project ever in the last I don't know how many years uh if if you can do it earlier it's you save money to do it earlier than later so I think that's part of the incentive to try to get this wrapped up uh on top of I should say that we have some time time frames with the ITR grant that we have to adhere to um to make make sure that we don't lose those funds so we're trying to adhere to those um of course in the moment of need my computer is saying hm I don't think I want to cooperate um well while I'm trying to get test I was actually a virus I did not follow the protocol I thought i' Get Trust I guess I cannot Wy the least expect go um well I'm going to try to do this but in the in the inter room I think I can lay a couple things out one when we came in February again we didn't know what uh this project would quote unquote need um so what we did in both the city and county instances is we said okay up to 15 years which is the uh not longest but the longer abatement term per statute you can go up to 20 years if you ask this uh uh the school district and they participate or if you ask the school district and they decline to participate that's the sort of statutory trigger we're not doing that um in part because well it doesn't matter the point is we don't think it needs it for 20 years so what we are what we have done is uh originally the request or the amount was I believe up to 450,000 over the 15year abatement we're not asking for that we're reducing that um because again we're only trying to provide with the project needs so there are two things that have I think that have importantly changed uh since the original request one is again that amount uh and two um the developer has agreed to sorry housing articles are popping up but I can't get this document up um the developers agreed to what's called a look back Clause um most developers actually everyone that I've ever met with doesn't like them um because for obvious reasons what it means is uh 's recommendation the H's recommendation is to agree to provide a batement for eight years 80% of the abatement so there are three things here that are built in to assist I say to the benefit of the county the one is they would be abating um getting an abatement of 80% so not the full amount of their taxes so in other words this project is going to increase in value um pretty significantly from what the tax burden is now so I think right now the county receives or the the total tax liability with everything baked in is about $3,000 a year this parcel uh the increase of that uh for the the total City County increase um of the 20% right so not the full amount but what would be left over is about $113,000 a year so the city county would be receiving an additional approximately $133,000 a year during the abatement period so what the recommendation is is we provide abatement for eight years for sure because the project projects to need that for sure and then beyond that between 8 and 15 depends on this what's called look back Clause so um every project multif family reaches a point it's called stabilization or God willing it stabilization if it doesn't there's very big problems um stabilization is a fancy way of saying the project was built uh tenants moved in and it's been sta occupied for about a year so it's when St property stabilizes usually the the metric is around 90% plus occupancy that means it's stabilized you kind of know what the rents are going to be based on what you've been able to fill and once you reach that point again it's for a year in time so it's not just initial movement it's like okay it's had a year of of basically working that's what's the look triggers the look back period so what happens and this is the language we're providing to the city and the county via Ellers and at attorney been a lot of back and forth on this to try to get it right at at stabilization which is usually between year two and three um they uh the Ellers or whomever the county would like but let's just pretend it's Ellers is the Financial Consultant will look will receive all of the perform information for how that building is performed they will look at it and they will say based on this performance do you actually need the full abatement from years 8 to 15 9 to 15 yeah I'm sorry correct years's nine from 15 so after the first initial abatement run if the answer is no you don't need the full abatement ERS will provide the recommendation to the county this is how much they should get um the answer could be yes because I'll speak from from my experience and my perspective uh I will be very very surprised if they don't need it based on the revenues that they're projecting it based on the rents and in part because there's another project that's being built at the same time so there's a lot of units to absorb for this small community right so there's a there's a risk there um so I hope that they don't need it that would be terrific for the project for them but on the other hand if they do it means rents are staying about where they project they're going to stay so there's sort of a pros and cons on either side of that argument but the larger point I wanted to make there were three things one is 80% of it would be abated for whether it's for the eight years or the full 15 years 20% of that's going to be generated coming back to the community um 8 years is the the the recommendation for at least three year eight they receive the abatement but year 9 to 15 depends on this look back Clause that Ellers does on behalf of the county and the city to say they don't need all of it they need half of it they need all of it whatever that recommendation is so there's sort of three built-in mechanisms there to try to protect and provide what the project really needs I was a lot but any questions about that I'll add just a little bit too um back in February we didn't have com complete knowledge of our costs they were they were estimates and they're still estimates because we haven't got all the bids and stuff and we were doing it slightly differently anyway our scope for back then but we've added a half a million dollars to our budget the project being that much more expensive so that that that that that that's a fact also at the time um Ellers did did not really offer us a look back there there was vague talk about it but in this round they they they understand the extra half a million dollars we can show show them that that's real and maybe it'll even be higher but also we felt it was very fair the way that they constructed the look back fair to to us um we have a we have a chance of getting that look you know getting the abatement for those offline years 9 to 15 and as Jason said if we're above the threshold that they set we don't need the abatement and and and if we are there then we're you know as an investment uh we would be very happy with the performance of the project but as um as Jason said the likelihood of that is rather small um partially partially because half of the units are set in their price we cannot raise more Revenue we only have 18 units to raise revenue against and there's the other project so uh which we knew about so that that that's that's the same anyway but with only 18 units if uh if we're a half a million dollars short in operating or 100,000 short in operating budget we can only advertise that over the market rate units and then if the market doesn't pay us then you know we're out anyway so that that's where the abatement um has legs going into years 9 and 15 is that um this is not a pure Market rid driven thing um we we have limitations and we have to live with those limitations and so having that underlying support is a is a big deal for us and we thought there the the way they built this the program was was very fair there are two other things I would think that's worth the board knowing sorry I had to restart my computer I don't I don't know why um it's feeling the pressure I guess um two things worth mentioning that I'm saying from again age rate perspective one is that the develop this developer is I mean that's like 40 something limited partners I don't know what the number is now um there's a lot of local people that have various amounts uh invest in the equity piece of this project um they are deferring a devel uh there's a thing in in development called deferred development fee so every project almost every project unless it's very special uh even nonprofits even one rof community housing they build in what's called a developer fee because it takes a lot of time and effort and I can attest this is taking a lot of time and effort um for this team to work on this before they even have a you know a shovel on the ground because it's totally possible this is the risk of development is totally possible that you do all of that and then nothing happens so as a part of the reward or compensation for that almost every project especially multif family builds in a developer fee and the memo I'm trying to send you um ERS alludes to this that there's it's very common and usually it's between 2 and 3% of the total development cost I'm bringing it up because in this particular instance they are postponing they're deferring their developer fee which is a common or somewhat common use you defer it usually what happens is if they're trying to get the capital stack right so that they can actually fund the project a developer will defer it for a couple few years uh to get it stabilized that stabilization and then they'll start taking the fee in this case they're deferring it for I think eight years so they're taking a very small piece for uh one uh partner um uh the I think the Northfield based outfit who's been sort of originally was involved with assembling this the rest of it they're deferring for 8 years and they're not even doing the full amount that would be normal for this sort of project so I'm just highlighting that because that's not common in my experience they're not getting paid maybe they don't ever get paid but if they do get paid it starts in near Eight which there's a look back is that factor end to whether it's needed or not or how does the development well others includes the developer because it's reasonable they're including like yeah this is a very modest developer fee starting in year eight and they're projecting that as part of it yeah they're they're you they're looking at this as a 10year um project they're using numbers through 10 years so the that developer fee is included as Jason said um in the profitability of the project but Cashwise we're not we're not well actually we won't be able to pay that until year nine or so anyway I mean TR truly uh the net cash flows by year are are not substantial enough to make those payments and the uh the rent restricted units that Gary referred to um are through for 15 years so it's beyond that sort of 10year window the so half of them are C at 80% Ami was the the agreement for the last number of months the other thing I just want to point out is uh assessor Thompson um for abatement we have to ask the county assessor hey what do you think this is worth um based on the numbers like what is your and they have to be careful but you know caveats and asterisks like future data will change you know I understand generally speaking based on the projections we have today that lrs is verifying if what do you think this project is actually worth when it's done his projection was 6.1 million the reason that matters is because the cost to build this is about 8.6 million so my point is without assistance like we're trying to provide these aren't worth what they cost to build this is a problem across the country across the state this is why public private Partnerships are becoming much more ubiquitous because it doesn't make any Financial sense for folks to build something that's that the income won't Qui it would be the the the way around that would be for a developer to be really really modest with their rents and then say look this is only what we're going to get um and then Jack the rents up after the fact that's not the case here uh Ellers and I both agree I'm hopeful that they can get the rents that they're projecting um to make their Project Healthy and work so my point is saying that is clearly there's like a $2.5 million gap in what it's worth in from an industry perspective and what the cost to build and that's why we have the ITR Grant the H has an agreement coming tomorrow for this project to provide that some of those match dollars I just think it's useful to know like there's a lot of entities looking at this to see what makes sense what doesn't make sense and that's why we're proposing what we're proposing anything you want to add to that sure so some basic math here um between the I and and um l Johnson Eda uh funds arpa funds we're looking at about a million of that 2.4 million um amount um the value of I I the value of the abatement is has not been added to that amount yet and then um the the rest of it comes from equity and our 45 limited partners myself included as a limited partner have pledged 2.4 well we've actually pledged 2 $6 million Al together but that includes B birch bark which is already spent so we we have 2.4 million for this project of our own money and that is that money is funding that gap of of you know is this a good a saying project to build or not and and you the difference between 8.6 and 6.1 is $2.5 million that's basically all of our money um or less a million that we're getting for the for that assistance um so it it is it's no joke to say nobody would build these projects anywhere in the country without uh without adequate sources we 45 are a little bit insane in in doing this but it every single one of those investors is highly motivated by providing housing to the county um and these are your friends and your neighbors you know them um and they're they're they're more interested in the net result than they are in the profitability of the project yeah and just a disclaimer the the I mentioned the local investment because I just wanted to highlight that there's local folks trying to solve a local problem um I will also say concurrent with that the at doesn't really care who is the equity investor is per se our role is to not favor local investors or otherwise rules to make the math make sense I think it's a cool story but that doesn't justify or not justify the need so just to be clear on that um for reasons I do not understand my computer is not doing anything uh it's taking the day off um but James you may have it in your so I was looking you're saying a memo from ERS cuz I'm not seeing that in my inbox is it this one that's the one yeah one well we could pass it around I suppose yeah I would be happy to send it to you if you don't have it when did you send it like maybe nine o'clock last week someday I don't know okay sorry I find I did find some draft documents that you sent on the n9th but they were not they didn't include a memo from others okay yeah if you if you don't recognize this then that's there's a there's one I think the really Salient thing to point out is the on the and I don't know if it's the very it's the second to last page it's not the to run it's what basically it's the amount there's a box on the third page that has the amount of the city and the county proposed amendment and I think the County's version is 300 something 323 or something yeah 353 it's on there yeah the city is a little less than that it's it's based on the tax um numbers which of the total Levy I think 43% is County and 34% is City and so the that relationship is about the same y on this but not about the same it is those are the numbers they're using and something that tax nerds may like and maybe you one of you are is in that category uh but just mechanics if if the property there are two ways that the ABAB well aside from the look back so let's say the look back back happens and the project still needs it like so in other words they're not like they're not just like going gang busters either their costs are way less than they thought which I don't know how or their rents are way higher which nobody really want wants actually so let's just assume that they're going to continue along the way that they project there are two ways that the abatement would be shorter because what we're proposing is up to 15 years or that amount whatever happens first that amount so the the 353 or whatever it is for the county portion uh and the original request is up to 450 so we're you know almost 100 I think I thought it was closer to 80 yeah so it must be is it 36 thank you yeah I couldn't remember something oh no excuse me the original amount was um 475 up to 475 right no 450 375 was 375 a lot of numbers bouncing around my empty head um the point is it's obviously we we did the upper amount to see just in case we didn't know and now we're like well we don't need that let's get down to what we think we do need um the if in the event so the the lr's numbers are based on the Assumption because this is the best best practice frankly that there is no appreciation of value over time because the the reality is there probably will be um and what that means is if the property value goes up they pay more pay more in taxes which is good for City and the county and they reach that amount faster so they reached that 363 I think Chris Mills said so either if the valuation goes up their their tax burden will go up theoretically right all else being equal if everybody's property value goes up then nothing changes but that never howkins so if a property tax liability goes up it's from one or two reasons either the value of the property has gone up or the tax rates have gone up could be both of those things you know if the levy increases tax rates have to go up to compensate right so my point is if they end up paying more Prine taxes and is projected then they reach that maximum threshold faster and the abatement is done sooner or they could like an example would be if they're if they get a lower interest rate in the in the memo talk about this if they able to refinance at stabilization which is very common you know the banks like we want to wait till the risky period's done great you were stabilized we can refinance the project projects do different points in time they refinance at a lower rate that they're anticipating because the fed's been talking but who knows what's actually going to happen um then they will not then the look back will say that they won't need as much as they need so there are lots of these mechanisms that's why it's important for us to build in here's the amount based on the current today's current assumptions but it's structured in such a way that accommodates if things get better for the project that amount isn't change you just hit it sooner because if it's better for your project it means you don't need the abatement as much or you don't need it as long so those things are accounted for and how it's formulated I know that's complicated but sure so an illustration of this is It's a bucket there's a little hole in the bucket and what comes out of the hole is the abatement per year which is which will uh fluctuate so if if tax values go up taxes go up um more water comes out faster and when it's empty it's empty so there the the risk to the county is only what's in the bucket not more which is the amount that we have diligently tried to figure out what the right amount of liquid in that bucket is and that's what they'll be asking for at the meeting next week and with the city council so analogies aside any questions a good well I appreciate the effort that's gone into the explanation and the fact that you know you've shortened up that period of time um potentially and that we have a look back Clause I mean I think there are all kinds of things there that um make this look better and I appreciate all the work you've put into it thank you commissioner Johnson thank you thank you for the information I'm trying to take notes and I need time to process so it would have been helpful to have some of this in writing just heads up next time um so I have a question about lookback Clause because I've heard the term before but I don't quite understand how you're applying it here yep so something said one to two years one thing said 80 90% occupancy is it either or I mean in year five it's 90% that triggers the look or is it I don't didn't quite understand how that works yeah so it's um you're talking about the language and the look back itself that you saw yes yeah understand why that's confusing it's it's whichever happens first so it's saying basically typical stabilization is when you reach 90% right that's the 90% number they also Elders wanted to put a cap on how long that would be so in other words you don't want to wait five years okay um so you're saying it's either after two full years of the like C ofo in other words people are moving in start date it's not not when the construction starts because that's not useful right it's after it's done and yep and leases are signed it's after two full years of that or it's stabilized at 90% whatever is first because theoretically they could be fully leased up in 6 months in and then a year from that 18 months right so you don't need the full two two-year term so they're looking at either two full years after Construction done or 90% stabilized okay yeah I know it's confusing thank you you're welcome so in practice that will be somewhere between years two and three uh well I mean two two is the cut off but remember as Jason said construction period doesn't count so only when we get our SE and we start moving people in now that first year in our budget is a Lisa we hope to start at % occupancy you know with some pre- leases and then each month that number will grow until we H the full occupancy is considered 95% for an apartment and the reason is you somebody leaves you got to clean up their unit before you can move the next person in so there's always little gaps even in the tightest of markets anything over 95 is almost unsustainable but the the cap for this the abatement would be at 90 because because then you've got good estimates of both revenues and costs and theoretically after 2 years of operating you'll have a pretty good dial in of what management costs are what like how the building performs all that yeah and I should add to to that e the revenue you know just because we have rates in in the memo you know we expect both for for market and for um uh Emi what if we can't get either one or both of those I mean it's possible that that nether of those will will happen um the the Ami units are capped 18 units of these various prices okay uh but again that's not known so we may get to this 2ear 90% time where we're not even realizing the full Ami revenues and then of course Market is Market who knows what it is but I'm pleased to say that the the ex our competitive project um is is still projecting those same prices uh the rates that they're they're they're they're they're advertising right now are the rates that are on the table there or in in the table in the in the memo which is on the table also but well on the so there was 363 but then there's some factor that adjusts and so it is 353 okay just a lot but I was reading this big one 3 report that's the Run y thank you for that clarification and that's the uh I'm not going to go too deep in these weeds because they will get confusing but that's the the present value of the funds what in other words the 353 is the literal amount that the county is sending back via the actual dollar amount it's not worth that to the project because they have to borrow the money but that's the amount that's the most important usually for the public is like well what what is the check that they're getting it's the total over 15 years up to 353 in the Count's case could be could be less if they don't need at all couple other things I gleaned off of the memo is there going to be 18 apartments rented to only those who qualify at 80% Ami or less uh and then 18 at Market um of the market 12 or bedroom uh six are two bedroom um of the 18 at the 80% Ami there's nine Studio six one bedroom two or three two bedroom and then the studio uh rate for that Ami is um 1,358 that's the cap that's the maximum amount according to state of Minnesota so that's the just be clear that's the 80% today they they updated it annually depending on their data State white rents and such but that's the the most at 80% that could be charged for each of those units if that makes sense oh okay so how I was reading this is that people would not qualify unless they made less than 80% at Ami but what you're also saying is that the rent is set correct at 30% of an annual salary of 80% of Ami yes more or less yes yeah yeah yes yeah so it's both of those things so that's the I would say the the one thing that's challenging and frustrating is and and I was asked this in WTF and I'll repeat it here um we we would like if we could provide enough uh resources to the rents were $600 a month or something fantastic um but that's money that doesn't come from nowhere so it has to be right so the the math here they I mean the whole time we've been talking about the 50% of these units being cap um because this development team particularly is trying to fill a niche of Workforce housing my point is it could be the case because I don't know the last 10 years have been kind of a wild ride it could be the case that rents just you know Progress way faster in Cook County than anybody thought right the advantage here is doesn't matter for these 80% units market rate quote unquote could go wild I I don't think it will but it could go wild but for 50% of these units they have to align at maximum with what the state says every year they every year so that's really from I guess the H hat that's the uh one of the aside from housing period which we need that's one of the advantage to anytime we able to lock in some of these units is no matter what happens in the market or the world this is the most you can charge and you're agreeing to that for this ter of time which is up you know 15 years they can do beyond that please after that's great too but at least 15 years and our overall performa is very conservative in most uh categories for example we're anticipating rates you high higher rates like 8% kind of thing and they may get we may get a good surprise as they as they move down but on the um on the revenue side are are the we're using the math of the maximum amount and there's some risk there that we're going to achieve the maximum amount on the on the Ami units uh because again that that there is a market element to that if there not enough people that will pay 1358 for a studio then we're going to have empty units or we're going to lower the price um in all likelihood we would lower the price because it's a better deal to have the building occupied at a lower price than have units empty in in almost all math scenarios that it works that way but then we have to find bodies to fill those spaces so even if you lower the price to 600 at that point is there anybody who who wants and needs the the the unit yes and you know we say unfortunately we have competition there's more there but fortunately for the for the county we do have we're going to have a lot of options for people and that'll put pressure on those prices so um but for now we're holding that we're going to get those revenues yeah and that's not a secret I think from the h perspective part of the reason we want to support more of these units is because there's competition for people to fill them so if you know if we if we were helping 10 units well you know there's a lot more pressure than 10 people but both of these projects is I mean May the developers don't love this but don't care that's that's our job how do we provide more competition because if there aren't enough people I would love to see the project should be healthy but rents you know come where they need to come for people to to rent those units yeah so that's the risk that every developer takes is they have to the rents and try to make sense of it and if those if the result is you know at least initially for a while that rents have to be lowered like that's a win for people renting those units in my mind so of course we have to be cognizant of like what's the threshold how much is too much for units we don't want to create problems and and frankly Banks I mean I I just talked to someone today somebody called me from an appraisal in Bank asking for details on the project in Cook County I didn't even know if it was a housing project anyway I think it was an Eda phone call whatever the bank calls and they if they're doing their due diligence which they today are very much doing they want to know what what the actual demand is what are we seeing in the market they were asking me today like who are the big employers is the hospital expanding does the county have vacancies like they're trying to figure out what's the real pressure and demand for this sort of thing so all of that's to say we're at a point where we don't really know the full absorption we won't know until things open up so we're trying to create some competition see how this works and then we've got other options in the future if they fill up so anyway talk about that all day I'm not going to do you happen to know the one bedroom and two bedroom for the Ami units yes the the one bedroom is 1455 and the two-bedroom is 1746 and things may have changed um from the other project that I have written down for subsidized I think is how it was put subsidized and market for the view right uh studio is 108 that's for the 60% Ami units a mhm how many different are there there's two sets there's 60 and 80 in that project in that project to oh so there's three there's the 60 it's true mixed income yeah nice okay yeah and uh very good yeah and I can say that they uh those ones have had the most interest as you might imagine and they've least or they' have five units spoken for the last time I talked to them about it and David I commissioner Mill I should say sorry the uh I'm worried about those 60% units because they're the same as my 1350 units they're $350 cheaper they will lease before mine they may drag us down on those now again that's bad for us good for the renters good for the city and county and all so even though we have those Ami numbers in there it may turn out to be a better deal for people than than we're talking about um and and it's just the way Jason worked with that developer to to do uh to to get what he needed they offered up some units at at the 60% so in a lineup they will always sell faster than than ours how many are there uh there's 24 units that are rent restricted 11 of those are 60 13 or at 80 and uh I don't have the breakdown and you don't need to get it but I had uh 122 bedroom 24 one bedroom and 15 studio and so there's some that's total to oh for that for that I'm just trying to keep it sounds approximately correct I have to double check though but then I don't know the 6080 Market down there so it's not they have relevant so they have um I will say that two doing two bedrooms uh uh the larger the bedroom count the harder it is to do the subsidize units they're just bigger units and they cost more build they cut so plus you know Minnesota housing appropriately it's not a single person applying for that you know that doesn't make any sense the presumption is there's at least three people in that household so it's it's uh and growing yeah yeah and and their their units I will say that the one of the things I'm appreciate about this Heights project is they have a number of these two-bedroom units and they're classic two-bedroom size units um the the gun view has uh two bedroom this the second bedroom is smaller it's you because they wanted it to be flexible sort of a OnePlus Den or two-bedroom mck you know there's obviously a lot of people now who are working remotely and want an office whatever those are for the market rate units they can rent it and have an office in their apartment great and doing an analysis of this their two bedrooms our two bedrooms at the Ami will be the first ones to go in our set if if people are shopping both because our two bedrooms at the Ami 1746 is a steel comp it's $400 almost $500 lower than their two bedrooms and they don't have any two-bedrooms in the Ami pool so um is we'll we'll win on that one so we're different and that's good yeah that's good we the two projects will figure out how to position ourselves against each other or or else we'll we'll fail one other question I had I guess is in the memo they had the range for rents being the 1358 right that's the studio Ami one and up to the 1900 Market that's not 1,00 for two bedrooms is it I'm the P the difference between I mean every dollar counts but the difference between 1746 and 1900 for a two bedro you know it's kind of like well that market is not so far off it's even closer on the one bedroom 1455 and 1600 or 1555 you know somewhere in there um the 1600 number is the the the plan number that everyone Ed um I could see us lowering it to say 1555 and having a $100 spread so the the spreads are not as you as you point out they're not huge between Ami and regular um but the spreads grow they they're tightest on the studios they widen a little bit on the one bedrooms and they're humongous on the two bedrooms so the two-bedroom better have you know you know a two income housing and in fact the dollar um wage uh U limit goes up a little bit on two bedrooms is kind of it's fun I'm having trouble with this but it's $54,000 is the income limit limit for a one person household for a studio or a two bedro a one-bedroom but the two-bedroom number goes up to 64,000 assuming that there's more people working in that two-bedroom unit than there are one so they the the the household income is higher and then they get the Ami break but if that happens I mean at $60,000 a year they can afford 1746 very easily it's a it's a about it's the lowest cost per square foot of all of the units of all of the of the mix that's in between us and them so if you haven't gleaned it's gets complicated are complicated how calculated U commissioner Mills I wanted to highlight one thing you said uh you said the third the one bedroom or this Studios that were 1350 is that what you had said okay oh yeah I'm this is just from for illustrative purposes um according to the state you know that that's the and I think that was for the 80% that's Ami that's 80% Ami State quote unquote Market is approximately 1675 or 1,700 correct so so they're in their perform they're not assuming that much so the point I'm trying to make is Market is sort of an amorphous more than you know 100% Ami or above we don't really know what the rent will be because no one knows so they're the the numbers are even in here and the numbers that Gary and his team are assuming are not 100% Ami is according to the state they're because I have encouraged and as we've talked through like it less than that more pragmatic and be conservative and plan on renting them for less than that especially in light of other units coming online so all that's just to be clear the state has this you know the calculator for every County all 89 89 877 thank you 87 87 counties um and and this is what they project for Cook County they publish it each spring annually uh so it's not the full 100% Ami it is less slightly less than that because they want to be maybe more pragmatic about what they can get so I just wanted to clear that up and that's the same for all unit sizes okay any other questions I will of course as soon as my computer decides it's done vacating um I will send you that memo so you can share with folks uh if anybody has any questions please don't hesitate um there's a lot of calculations and Nuance here but we can try to muscle through any specifics you have for sure and ERS is more than happy of course to to help explain stuff if need and I guess pardon me just to to follow up so there there was a lot of back and forth on this last week yeah um because these guys have been working to get information from outs to to share with the council and the commission and we still we're still not clear the development agreement that we would actually be using to to enable this evate we're still waiting on that from fryberger correct uh it shouldn't be so the how we work no it's okay there's so in one of the many emails that I sent you last week about this we had contemplated the like tying both of the city and the county agreements to the at development agreement which is tomorrow is going before the board uh and then having the look back language in the H group we're trying to figure out structurally how to do this the best way right the the ideal way is to have the city and the county on the same documents signed with the developer so to be clear the HRA has actually nothing to do with the abatement we don't have any abatement Authority we're providing technical assistance and hiring uh Ellers to help vet this to make a recommendation for the project so after working with Ellers and the at attorney at fryberger lots of figuring out we determin okay what we think is the cleanest and makes the most sense is that each the city and the county have this baked in their agreement and we provided both uh you and Mike language and the look back language to put in whatever agreement you want um attached to that email you should have one of them the most recent I think that had meat on it um has the uh template agreement that I sent that you used in February some names and dates probably need to change slightly but uh and if you want the H or freedberg to help with any of that we're happy to but again it's not our documents we're trying to be careful with you know the city's going to do its own thing the County's going to do whatever whatever it needs to do but we' tried to provide everything that we think that is needed um so again if we need any clarification on any of that we can take care of that pretty quickly I think but the the now the mo that we're that ERS that our attorney that we're recommending is cityan County each and and Mike Roth from our conversation last week is planning on this he's working with his attorney you each have your own abatement agreement that stipulates the amount that the county up to amount termin amount includes the look back language refers to the development agreement with the HRA just to point to the fact that this is all a part of a larger project that and there are terms and conditions in the HRA is development agreement like the 50% Ami units or the 50% units um and like no short-term rentals allowed like those things were all capturing an our agreement so the thought was let's just at least point back and say we're all doing this we're rowing in the same direction here for this particular project in your jurisdiction with the abatement is here's what we're providing abatement for up to these amounts but also hey dat to ra is working with them look at their document too so again I'll resend assuming I can uh anything that you need in that regard but the hope is we can obviously get this on the agenda for for the next week's meeting and I believe the city said that they're ready to do it and the county already held a public Hearing in February right um the city is doing that next week we do have to redo the the resolution not the public hearing yeah of the resolution itself and we've engage fryberg or a different attorney oh sure oh yeah so he's yeah so they're working within the communication Bob and uh H attorney yeah okay great yeah um so so that that's the cave they've got to get that language back to us and the development agreement it it appeared before this was last week Bob there were some blanks in the agreement yep and we'll have to fill that in Molly and I will have to both of those resoltion that it comes to the board to CH so so assuming that's the cat you got to get that and be sure that it's it's got it yeah if you need anything from me or the let me know again I'm trying to yeah I I think I've sent you enough to probably too much um but I'm trying to respect you know jurisdictions to this is your document I want you to own whatever you want to own we get it will probably be a contact sure okay commission would it be appropriate to have right a first refusal in these development agreements to buy them if someone wants to appropriate for whom for uh any public I mean if we're going to be investing in these and I'm just thinking about other projects that we've done public investment and but then it's gone I mean there's always the threat of just all market right and so um I know we're not in a position right now to do that but in 15 years uh and you know all all strings are are cut and it's free and clear um and developers decide to sell I think it might be in the community's best interest to have that option to buy I would say yeah go for it from my perspective you know you don't have to exercise it right but build a right in into 15 20 years whenever you know a lot of these types of projects um and I'm I don't know this particular case some there are what call Merchant Builders who will build something get it stabilized so that they have a rent roll to show and then they'll sell it so the view project that's not their model I don't believe that's what this group is anticipating doing I don't know um 15 years is a long time but no my point is often they'll sell it after three years sure but either way I mean if if they're not ready to buy it after 3 years you don't exercise the right but if they hold it for 15 or 20 years sure building the right you know then you can just I it's probably as simple as saying you know using a third party assessor to establish the value of the building the county or city or whomever has a right to acquire this building first right after you refusal like you said why not you could say so that would be something we'd have to communicate with well yeah and it's not going to work I mean I would say for this project it might be a little it's a little late in the game to do that because the agreement is going for the at tomorrow and it's already right but I think commissioner Mills it's not a bad thing to think about with future projects um I don't know why they would bulk at it necessarily either yeah right I wouldn't see the the problem with it but just wanted to ask sure thank you yep any other questions no there's a lot of stuff Tax well thank you very much it's been very informative and we'll look forward to getting additional documents and uh getting this on our agenda for yeah and I apologize you didn't get the memo in advance I thought that those were all sent out so um apologies on my part I know some people got them some people bar so um I'll send those as soon as they get back if I could make a couple concluding remarks um first of all I don't why abatement and we did address it very briefly you know we needed it financially as a fund but um in our why why is our project asking for an abatement as opposed to the other projects and stuff and and that is you know first of all we bought our own land um we saw an opportunity to buy that lot when we first formed our group so we jumped on it knowing that that would be a good housing thing then Jason is Wizard of Oz behind the screen and he's he's helping all the projects to to achieve what they need some we already had the land he didn't need to help us with the land and so um we looked at the Tiff and the tax incremental financing program and the Taff and the Tiff was if you think Taff is bad Tiff is even worse so it it was a issue of simplification let's let's let's go for this um and and this this is the only financial uh request that we're making of the county um yes we have an revolving Loan Fund uh uh commitment from from from the fund and that is the county but we are also going to be paying 8 plus per on that uh when we start that loan so the county will be earning up to $20,000 a year in interest on our loan um and we it's an integral part of our financing but in terms of um you know any handout any any anything this there is nothing and of course there's only a $3,000 tax value on the property now that goes Tod 16 so there's an immediate return one could argue there's there's really no cost but if you think of it as a cost it is the only thing we're asking of you for for support for the program and um I phase what what's very exciting to us is that we have a phase two of this project and we we're going to be beaten down and worn out by the time phase one is over and U and so the we we our goal is to sell Phase 2 to another uh Builder developer who will do a complimentary proess project and the best thing we have is we we have an interested party whom who is going to be here on on next Monday I hope to introduce them to James um and we have an opportunity to sell the the county to them to to come in and do it um it we if we talk about a lot of units now there would be a potential other 24 units and one of the concepts they're looking at is a daycare center inside the building um which would be a you know home run and so they're doing layouts and things like that to kind of see how that would work but potentially this could be another really interesting twist and those units will probably be almost all in the 60% range um first of all we want them to be at 60% so they don't interfere with our one and two bedroom stuff but and we can we can make that happen and finally I'd like to conclude U by saying what you're doing here now is you're talking about a tool for development tax abatement that if we get this going in the in the county and the city that this is a legitimate to that people understand that this is a legitimate tool to help drive this I'm speaking for the you know the 20 projects that will come in the future that will be be asking for help from from the county and the ones that you deem to be worthy y of this benefit uh we are Paving the way for them I like to think of it that way um because these are the kinds of things that will really help projects get over the hurdle and and and and and make it and that that's what Cook County needs and that's what you have the opportunity to to fuel here with your with your boats so thank you all very much have one cherry on top just that I wanted to add at the end um of if this project if this project is built um the according to sesser's office and current tax rates and such it will generate about $71,000 a year in taxes oh yeah so that's I I just like to remind folks in phrase it is this is like the gift that gives for as long as the building is in service um helpful to keep in mind thank you yeah thank you there was a lot of time I appreciate it very much well we appreciate the work and effort you put into this um we appreciate the concern that people in the community have about housing we've had this need for a long time and we appreciate the work that's being done to fill today's housing need as well as lay ground work for the future that's really important I will send that to you all right thank you thank you very much commissioner appreciate have a great day all right well we have um talked at length about tax abatement for the Heights Apartment Complex um up the hill next to up yonder and now we're going to move into some other numbers as we look at the 2025 budget planning that we've been engaged in um we set a preliminary Levy last week and we're continuing to want to spend time in our work sessions to look at different mechanisms different approaches um to get that love down and I will ask um auditor to join us up here of the microphones as we get ready to take a look at budget planning so again last week at our regular business meeting we approved the preliminary Levy at 9.81% um one thing I'd like to share and I'm sure other Commissioners have looked as well I've been following other counties and the range is um really interesting when we look at some of the levies um I looked at nobl County 12% um it seems like the range is coming in between 7 and 12% from from what I gather and for those that were at the AMC policy committee I'm sure you talked with a lot of other Commissioners about what's um going on in their communities um commissioner Mills or storle anything you would like to share that you've learned about count Le nothing other than their trying to figure out how they got 12 and 13% but you just as we're doing too looking it all over again and sometimes they pray for hidden fund somewhere that nobody knows about except their auditor well I know that um it seems like everybody is experiencing you know they're looking at Cola um some of the the counties I spoke with um Co County CS to my mind they were doing a market rate correction um so that's some of the things that we've done already that other counties are looking at that are causing some of those higher like 12% um rates but uh anyway it looks like all counties are kind of in the same boat right now and and um are setting their preliminary levies and and looking at what they can do um we really would like to achieve a final Levy we talked about that Target of 5% looking at historically um what kind of an average is and want to be consistent so we don't have those really high spikes that we've had in some years where we've had double digit increases in the levy and we don't want to have a zero where we're not preparing for the future um so at this point I guess I'll uh turn the conversation over to administrator yorie and auditor poers to uh talk a little bit about their work in the last um week with the direction that we've given all right thank you madam chair so in the last week I have been talking with uh department heads and also going through the um the proposed budget to look for places where we could do some trimming um you know we do have as as you saw on the one pager with the request for additional resources for next year uh we do have a couple of new positions in the general fund one is a HR generalist the other is a maintenance position um and those are really um the the impetus for including those is of course the implementation of the capital Improvement plan and then also the HR generalist is really driven by the uh strategic plan which you all approved uh in Spring of this year um there's a lot of new work for the uh HR department to be doing um under that strategic plan and then we also know that um even without that plan um the last few years the workload has been um pretty pretty enormous and we've lost a couple of uh directors uh because of burnout and so that's something that that we're trying to avoid moving forward um the maintenance position again just we've got a lot of deferred maintenance and if we're going to get caught up and get our um our facilities Department in a position where they're being more proactive about how they maintain and operate our buildings um that's a resource that that we need um and and that's supported by national averages uh about how many maintenance staff you need based on square footage um and so you know if when we're looking at I think commissioner Johnson you mentioned that figure of about $550 some thousand that we need to reduce to to hit that 5% Target um there there's a lot of you know perhaps a lot of nibbling that we can do across across the general fund and the other two big funds Public Health and Human Services and Highway um but there aren't I mean in my initial scan through all of it there aren't a lot of big chunks that we could eliminate unless we're talking about really cutting back Services right um and I I haven't heard the board say we want to look at that possibility but I mean that's what this conversation is about is for the board to to talk about what um what it would like to see moving forward um some of these things uh looking at the the one pager again um I've already done some trimming from commissioner department head and staff training uh whittel that down from um what was it it was about 150 some thousand perhaps even more than that um right now that's sitting at 31,000 and we could do some further trimming there um we do have already in the budget some money for for training and so um that's that's a potential opportunity um I heard last week also commissioner Johnson you were looking at a couple of deline items for the highway department the uh seasonal environmental worker and saving for the future maintenance worker and a tandem truck um I did talk to Robbie about that he um he agreed that you know the not saving for the truck is something that we could probably dispense with fairly easily he was a little resistant to the idea of not budgeting more for a seasonal environmental worker but um of course everything is subject to negotiation at this point so um you know there are other things that looking at this list the $60,000 to maintain our equipment replacement schedule I think I've heard based on discussions that we've had about that that the board is pretty adamant that it doesn't want to uh get behind in replacing equipment um so that's you know that's $60,000 that um based on my understanding what the board is is wanting probably need to stay in there um some of these other items we've already agreed to uh back in May or June I believe it was the board agreed to fund the extra point2 FTE for probation to the administrative assistance so that they could require so they could uh they could hire a full-time admin assistant um the extent exension contract price increase that is kind of a fixed quantity and that's been approved already um payroll software that's something that um has a cost but it also has some potential benefits in terms of uh reducing workload and reducing redundancy of effort in processing payroll so that's that's something that um Mis and HR both have been working with the auditor's office to to explore um um so I guess I I'll just pause there and say there's really there aren't a lot of big chunks that we can take out of this um so the other thing that we have we can talk about reducing things on the expense side and we also can look at the revenue side and we do have the ti blatnik funding that we had been setting aside um that has amounted in the past years to about $2.15 million um that is something that potentially we could use to offset some of these new expenses um and we could do it pardon me we could do it in a way to kind of gradually have the levy absorb those costs over the next say four to five years so for example if and I mean and I'm not saying that we're not going to further reduce expenses but I'm saying if we were not to reduce expenses we could use the the tiic funding to get pretty close to that 5% Target and then in subsequent years like if we used 500,000 of it this year in future years uh we could use like 426 327 2 28 and so on to the point where you would have spent like 1.5 of that $2.1 million you still have $600,000 left over at the end I just need to clarify so you're talking about the money that we save that we aside that we thought we have to right yeah which I was hoping was going to be set aside for our building projects yes otherwise you got to come up with the money there so right I mean it's all it all it all comes from the same place it's be choices yeah we did have two uh two changes that I've put onto the the levy um one of them is for sure that was the Airhead Regional Corrections uh Stacy gave me those numbers last week so that's a reduction of about $30,800 from what was in the budget and then I sent out an email uh adjusted the Professional Service cost in maintenance and we've got a new director he hasn't seen the budget yet um but it's it's one option uh we looked at the last two years when Brian was here and we had two let's say one one really abnormal year and in this item this is snow plowing is the major cost it's also garbage collection and other things but the things that really swing big are snow basically and heat cost so those were those were uh the snow plowing was exception and then so over this 2-year period and then looking at the cost at 6 months it looked like uh you could budget between 130 and 160 because we'd had 165,000 in that line item but over a longer range uh we were averaging between 80 75 to 85,000 [Music] so it's going to swing back and forth a little bit it's it's trending up but it's probably not going to sit at the 130 so I said well we could cut 20 out of there and that we said 110 when we' been 85 we just took a big jump because of these last two years re thought it said that's probably reaction reac actionary yeah we can cut back and still kind of mdle ground so those two are about 50,000 51,000 to the grid one thing that I said I would check on is that Boundary Waters appraisal U money that we would potentially set aside um and I have nothing back from St Louis County yet so um still nothing from our partners um Lake County um is continuing to talk about it but there is no doubt C again the thought there is that might be more appropriate for the 2026 budget yeah we're doing we're doing with with with the last page with the 2025 requests for additional resources we're doing a lot of big lifts in that list and um some of some of the lifts that aren't as big but still add up are for future big lifts down the road such as the you know replacement schedule as well as the a future maintenance worker as well as that reappraisal um as well as the training um these are all kind of future ongoing things but if we're really trying to emphasize the lift with our staff and supporting staff with that PHR generalist as well as making sure we have our maintenance taken care of and then as we've seen with the the family services case manager just if we're really holding in on the addition of Staff then maybe we should really shrink those other LTS and put it off if we can for next year um I feel like we need to invest in people at this point more than um um our budget or our our schedule I mean we need it all but we just can't afford it all right now and so that's what I'm trying to strategize what can what can should we need to do now versus what can we as much as I hate to say it put off till next year um that's kind of where I'm at is the way we could so Brady phone 50 50 Grand we cut back in all the training um again even though uh we need that it's just we need it all and we can't necessarily do it all um now so that would get us another um 36 36,000 and then and is contra to our strategic plan but we do have other items that we are working on and towards with our strategic plan so I'm not I'm not uh trying to be flippant about the strateg plan is trying to be strategic about under the saw too Bluffs is that something that it can be into the future for another year yeah I think I mean without uh fulltime parks and trails we can do it the the planning for the but without that fulltime position I don't it seems like a it seems like a hard thing to do as well but um I haven't asked Tim or Mitch directly about about that strategy and and the timing of it um you know we talked a little I've talked a little bit with Tim about the the county comp plan and I think that is really important um and I really value his expertise um and that's it doesn't get any more broad as far as our planning is concerned so it seems really important to there um but as far as the Sai Bluffs itself I I'm less inclined with that one without that full time staff member it's not gu what we put together so far is 116,000 commissioner white we haven't heard from you any thoughts that you have at this point well I know that that Robbie does an incredible job with his budgeting with the new equipment and everything we just recently approved a Backup backup piece of equipment because it was a good deal and and U but it's like at some point you you could get you can become Insurance poor like you have back you can become backup poror with all of the additional pieces of equipment that you buy just in case the second piece of equipment bu just case the third piece of equipment guys so it's not a u I think that our Highway engineer has done a quite a incredible job of his managing of monies and getting monies from the out side but um I think I would agree with commissioner Mills with the employees of the the employees of the county is are what makes the they're very important in keeping the county running in a healthy Manner and so we need to not skimp on res resources for the employees that we already have but when it comes to Acquisitions and buildings and uh new perhaps that's where the uh post Pony not eliminating but maybe putting things aside and not wanting to not going forward but just saying okay we know money will always be tight but at this moment in time let's just get ready and this is what Robbie often does is he's ready for when when the monies can show up he's got the data ready to jump on it for the future Pro future projects so um so I'd like to ask um auditor treasure Powers if we were to look at utilizing some of the Boundary Waters money um and I'm so appreciative that you saved and have planned for our organization regardless of what happened with that appraisal um do you have any recommendations about how we might utilize that that fund to let's say um support these key staff positions that we're looking at well I think the the basic plan administrator Yorkie laid out would be you know that um a sum this year if assuming we didn't do anything else enough to get it to your target this is assuming you do nothing else um and then use less each year going forward as needed it's that money is um is typically used in our budget year to year that's what it's forced offset our Levy we weren't able to use it for those few years so um it's not it's not in our um unreserved ly that is was actually put into or due uh due to other governments that's where we that's where it resides so um I think that makes sense but so if we were to utilize those funds um for those positions would be would we be looking at four years five years to kind of Glide from that 2.1 million down there's no way to really know that because it's it has to if there were no other changes of any kind in our budget um you might be able to make a calculation like that but there's there's so many variations each year I don't think you I don't think that uh you can it's just an estimate okay it's the best you can do commissioner story was that did that money um incur um interest everything carry incurs interest but we don't keep there's probably three things we keep track of interest because uh uh the state state auditor did away with that many many years ago because there's always a tendency to keep each set um everybody wants their money to earn interest and they want to get that interest so we all of our uh um monies go into one it's called pool interest so everything goes into one pool and ears interest we do have to calculate it for e911 and a couple of other things but otherwise uh yes but yes it is ear interest and it's been good yeah and that's going in that's going into our fund balance and so it'll I don't have that to report today yet but I think within maybe next week's meeting certainly the meeting after that I'll be able to give you the um what our our snapshot is for the end of 2023 we've got it the end of 2022 when we have all our audited numbers so we'll have that number either next week or the following meeting it took me until just while you were speaking to really change my this whole time since our last meeting I've been thinking about the cut the cut the cut what can we cut and so for you since even though you've said it a little while ago it took until now for me to really internalize that and so now I'm like oh wow so you're saying we can do everything but we have to tap into the dollars that I also was thinking was towards our capital capital needs but um that balance you know this is a budget proposal and ultimately it's up to the board to decide which pieces of it you like and which pieces you would like to change um and I'm not necessarily advocating that we just solve our problems by by using but I mean that it is available and like R said it's to offset the levy and now that we have certainty about that Revenue moving forward and we know that we don't have to pay that that money back to the feds that's the key it's it's an opportunity so yeah it's a new paradigm for me because forever I've been advocating for saving and saving because we don't know and now we know and so I got a lot of adjust mental adjustments here do so I'm thinking about a couple of things I'm thinking about the tiic um funding I'm also thinking that we have some information we'll be getting in the near future from bkb which will talk about what expenditures we might be considering for um rehab or additions to our buildings and I would like to see that information as well um to have in my head as we're making our budget decision because that is a big piece to not just the puzzle for 2025 but the puzzle as we move forward and we need to be thinking about 2025 what's right in front of our nose but we need to be thinking out a decade or two decades and so it's balancing that shortterm work that we know we must do with a longterm vision for our compy James when when is Henry and his group coming in two more weeks no next week next week that is and he will be coming with some preliminary numbers correct correct so they'll they'll present the results of the master planning study for the courthouse in the community center and then also we'll have the proposal for the architectural services for the LEC Edition I think it would be really helpful for us to have all that information before or we make decisions about our 2025 budget because that's part of our future and there is time I mean you got until December to finalize this yeah so we're not making any motions today just oh we can't commissioner Johnson yeah so You' met with department heads and went over M items I haven't talked to all of them but put I'm just there were some departments where revenues have decreased projected and I'm just wondering if you can provide any perspective of why um some list fees which I assume is charges for things that that they do substantially decreased others just are expecting less money and I don't know why I'm wondering if you have any I don't have those answers off hand but if there's specific line items have questions about we can get the answers but that's what I'm wondering if you asked any of the Departments when you're going over their budget numbers of what can be cut what can be trimmed if you've asked them about why about revenues I've really focus more on expenses okay I think that's another thing that we need to be thinking about as an organization is our fee structure um correct is it appropriate for the services we're provided iding um and I I think and this is where I we need government we need br's office to take your tax statements without a charge but there's other things that we do or provide that maybe um it would be appropriate you charge for those things and I'm in favor of because we have such a wealth Gap in our community that we look at a structure I think especially Land Services when you can build a five-bedroom house for Less I mean less per square foot than a 600t square foot house to me that does not make sense when we want to encourage those smaller homes so and I get you can't make that happen today but talking about land use issues that's an area that I think we should be looking at we should be encouraging our department heads to look at what fees are you currently collecting when's the last time you updated that and what's it really cost us to do that and you know we I'm so glad you brought this up we um did look at some fees and update some things but I was looking as I've been thinking about the budget at the lure for vacation rentals and comparing it to other counties of communities and it's like you know I remember the discussion could we have it double what it is right now and still allow business to operate but gain some revenue for so I think looking at TH all those fees is a really wise thing I thought you're going to go to cannabis dispensary I'm thinking a community center though because we did we set a a wedding fee yep and then we doubled it because oh wait a minute that fee was not high enough people it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to Pro provide that service for a community I guess we're still getting it but it helped offset so those are the kind of things that I appreciate when the department looks at those things what is it actually costing us to provide this service what are we getting in return for it and some of it is we as Government need to provide services but then there's extra services and that is where we should need to be thinking thank you for commissioner and that's for another thought I was having too just about opportunities for revenue and um really um I got excited from our Highway Department's presentation with the grant writing the reporting on the grant writing that that engineer pass has done and it just got me thinking why don't we have a just a grant writer a county grant rer that I mean there's a it's a lot of work to apply administer and report all the grants um there's a lot of Grants coming and going from each department and generally each department needs to be an expert or the grant need to be an expert like a Content expert or um but I feel like that is a opportunity that we should really consider and maybe it's a little late in the game for this year and but just trying to think of other ways to get dollars and knowing that there's dollars out there that was one of the reasons I really advocated hard for uh and still will the pars and trails director being full-time is there's a lot of money out there and each organization whether it's a Snowville club or a bike club um can go after that but they don't have that Staffing capacity really so it's on a volunteer basis inste of trying to manage all that it's just not as efficient and not as effective as I think we can do for our community um it's another cost of course but I know there's dollar so something to think about years to come commission and is there any way to tap into more of the tourist revenues that come into this County like the the um there is a we get the lodging there's a loding tax we get we get a portion of it but but we provide services for all of these people that show up here like law enforcement streets highways all of this and is there any way to capture more of the revenue that comes from our visitors for the county for County Services that we that are required that we just like yeah well we're going to plow the road we're going to fix the roads we're going to do this and it's not just County people that it's like come visit Cook County and yeah please come visit Cook County but but we have to pay for you to be able to get around and visit cook for you to um in the city takes I think even a greater hit with the sanitation and services that are provided but and I don't know yeah there's so there's uh Enterprise uh options and those are limited this city has the municipal liquor store and and the camp those together offset 50% of their Ley so that's nothing to sneeze at at all but there it's very limited our Enterprise opportunities but that is an option um there's local option sales taxes those are also applied to Residents though but it disproportionately taxes visitors or maybe that's the wrong word we get more dollars from visitors of course than than residents but the locals still feel that so it's less than ideal um beyond that um also there's a moratorium on local option sales taxes through 2026 and that's given granted by the state um there's s there's a sales ta um transportation sales tax so that's on fuel and then there's just um just the the 1% sales tax and the way the legislature is leading right now is the maximum is going to be 1% so that really ties our hands quite a lot um and then the lodging tax um um we can capture part of that um and I think that we maxed that out now um there was like a 3 to 5% window I think and we now went to the 5% and it was 3% or something on the lodging tax head fee yeah we went to the max the 5% so otherwise we're not allowed to touch that that goes to just Vis County if we have a lobbyist we could work um to make adjustments to that formula but um but there's some competing interests that work to so well the other thing we can um look at this is more on a legislative Viewpoint and and something to talk and work with AMC and our colleagues about is looking at property taxes and making sure that seasonal recreational properties are taxed differently than they currently are and that is probably the biggest issue and the hottest issue and the biggest opportunity and a great opportunity and you know that's where I believe we should be focusing our efforts yeah and I I had the opportunity to sit in the general government committee at AMC and um there was discussion around that and people have ideas much like uh Florida or California where people are getting I think maybe Texas as well um um and we hear about it here to people getting taxed out of their homes right because the values keep going higher and and their incomes are not going they're not following um and so in Florida and California they have like a freeze on your property tax actually it's a freeze on your property value which on increases it's a it's a cap on increases is that what you're talking about because like some areas your your taxes cannot increase more than like 10% in a given year and that's in in response to in a lot of jurisdictions um you know assessed values so we we've got a flat Levy some places have a mill Levy where you're tax tax uh burden is is proportional to the assessed value of your home and in some areas that's caused people's tax bills to to you know Rise by double digits and so so there's some there's some states where they have capped the amount by which your taxes can increase in any given year your property taxes yeah so there's I mean so there's another mechanism but I thought there was ALS they were reporting on something in Florida um where the property value was frozen they've done it here in the '90s and I don't know when it ended early 2000s I think it was called limited market value and it just capped the percentage that it could go up in a year and I I remember two different numbers had changed during that like 12% or 15% so sometimes we get these 50% increase in value of a certain type of property or some individual it's just it would take here that limit would stay in effect So eventually if unless all values are going up at Double Digit rate eventually it would catch up and it and it wouldn't it just it helped with those big jumps yeah and it it it wasn't hard to administer and I'm really not sure why they they just let it expire the legislature they forgot about possibility well so there there was different different structures discussed there and really what AMC is looking at is what do we already have in place and is there something we can leverage along those lines to make things more avitable instead of introducing these new I mean that doesn't sound new but because people other Commissioners are referencing other states and they didn't quite fit and uh it seemed like there would be drop offs or you know just it didn't seem as level of um a level way to address the problem so um but I've also I was also asking just about rebates um if there are ways we as a county can administer rebates property tax rebates to either seniors or if it's income based or or whatever for property taxes um and I talk a little bit with gr years back about it and sounds like our Authority might be a little limited there but I've also talked with others a little bit just socially it was Bruce and I forget who he introduced me to but it was I have his card uh and um and they weren't so sure about that they thought there might be there might be opportunity there but I hav't had um the time to dive in with them or necessarily the authority to either but um those are some of the things I like to think about because um there are huge discrepancies in our um our income too so at all those options I suspect it's that would be it wouldn't be simple to get that through and pass for the same reason that um the state has such a tight control on assessments all across this they want to make sure it's the you know everybody's treated the same across the state because so many people have properties in different places right and they're very aware of it so they they make darn sure that we're all same page be the same thing here they might do it but it's I think it's going to be something Statewide and tell to you'd be allowed to do it as a as an individual County but yeah could be wrong and they're also talking about the homestead exclusion you know increasing that um but the the reason I thought well maybe we can is because of what we do with the child care um provider subsidy that's just our money that we're giving to the child care providers and it's just like wait this other counties aren't doing that and we're following kind of a state model um so maybe the state's just looking the other way but I was just thinking why can't we do it for anything else that we see necessary like keeping people in their homes or you whatever well I think there's a lot of work for us at the legislature there always is but I think in particular this is going to be really important for us to to look at and be engaged in um and something to talk about our district meeting and also in St Paul in December so I want to come if I could I want to come back to what you said and commissioner Johnson what you said about your hope of using the tie blading dollars for for Capital Investments we are going to be receiving a lot of information in next week's business meeting that will provide some additional context for this discussion I think what we can do in the meantime is I can I'll talk about with department heads about the revenue question and see if fees could uh you know help us out I I don't see that that's going to be a big source of new revenues I mean you know it would certainly help and and we should always be trying to recalibrate those based on what we think uh people can and should pay um and and maybe the vacation rental fee I mean maybe there's some room to to know increase that um but is about one night for what a lot of places for so so so I mean there there's some opportunities there but again I mean we're kind of ning around the edges the big chunks are always Personnel okay and you know and and for future year budgeting I mean health insurance increases are always going to be a big issue um hopefully now that we're past really uh pronounced inflation we're not going to be looking at huge colas in future years but you never know how things are going to go there so um but we do have the tiadc dollars and they are intended uh to to offset the levy and and so I think makes sense to to look at that and the degree to which we use that to kind of have have the new costs fully absorbed in the levy that's that's decision for you all to make um and then we should also be looking for other ways to reduce expenses so I think maybe we should continue this discussion after next week when we have a clear picture of what the uh Lac Edition is going to involve and what your you know what your uh desires are regarding the community center and the the courthouse and one thing you were probably seeing in the revenues because you were looking at the gross numbers I I think rather than each looking at each department in the budget uh we didn't budget have not entered the budget for aquatic invasive species we haven't always budgeted for that because there's no Levy for it we get more uh funds than we can spend and so we're just saving money we' got a a reserve for that but we've put it in it was in the budget last year so there were 226,000 of Revenue and and expense no Levy last year that's not in the budget this year so that's 226,000 in the total revenue number that you're not seeing I made a note we'll fix that so it'll be consistent thank you I was going to say I mean I appreciate your point about nibbling on the edges and the big chunks I do think the vacation rental could be a big chunk pretty easily because when we up that it paid for a position you a half time position thank you yeah half time position and so when you start that adds up pretty quick depending on how we would adjust that but but I yeah more information going December is when it's going to come down to it so well I appreciate everybody digging in and coming up with ideas and looking at things from different perspectives um is that's how we're going to ultimately get to a reasonable Levy amount for 2025 so thank you all for that um we have minutes from our standing committees Airport Budget facilities building committee Highway advisory Personnel um one thing to note is um the airport commission me minutes are noted as draft actually all of these are draft they haven't had their meetings yet to approve them um so just so everybody understands that and we'll start putting a watermark on those so to indicate that they draft good idea especially for the public then I have have a question certainly do once they're approved do they need to go on the next one or I think if they're approved they go on that web page for that committee and it says that they're approved I think that's the place where then you see the approved minutes all right well with that we are ad joury thank you all very much sure M so did you Quarter Two yeah