County Council - Regular Meeting

Who's tax is abated.

Are you ready over there?

That's true.

I call the August 12, 2026 meeting to order. We'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. This last week we lost a member of the county, the assessor, Cindy Roberts. So I ask at this time for a moment of silence in our honor.

Thank you.

All right. We're going to start at 8.30 a.m. We're going to start with the noncompliant CF1s. The first one up is CIVF. VIN 1B02, LLC, Park 70 Partners. Is someone here on their behalf? Yeah, it's CIVF and it says aka Park 70 Partners.

That is not what I see, but yeah, I think it sits in Park 70 Distribution Way is the physical address. Yep, yep, that's it, yeah.

All right, you were deemed non-compliant at the June meeting. What's the situation with the employees is the issue?

We had a lease terminate upon expiration, so we had some vacancy. And since then, we've backfilled that space with a new client that's in the process of hiring and ramping up their operations. They occupied in May, so they're going through the hiring process. What's that company? It's called Mochila. Mochila?

Yeah. And how many employees and salaries are they planning on bringing to the...

They plan on roughly 30 at 1.4 million for that operation. And that's just one of the two tenants there.

Oh, so you have a split building?

Yeah.

And what's the other tenant?

The other tenant's called Atcor. It's a construction company. It's sitting dark right now until they ramp up there. Their main project is a chip factory in Columbus, Ohio, which is set to go in 2027. So that'll also ramp up for 2027. They're going to make chips in 2027? Chip plant in Columbus, Ohio.

You're talking about, like, technology chips. Got it. Okay. I want to make sure it's not a food chip.

It's not food chips.

No, it's the world's largest chip company. They passed us up. Remember, it was a $70 billion project. They passed us up two years ago. Private company, right?

Intel. Oh, Intel. Well, I know that.

It's public. Yeah. Yeah, they came here first. We couldn't provide the water, so they went to Columbus.

I have a quick question. Have they actually signed a lease, these new people?

Yeah, they occupy the property. Okay.

Yep.

Thank you. They are paying their taxes up to date, and this is the seventh year of a 10-year abatement. So were you guys on the 190-80 scale?

I'm new, so I don't quite have that. They are?

Okay, so they're down to 30%. Yes. Okay. Right.

Could you state your name just for the minutes and spell the name of the company that you're speaking of?

Yes, my name is James, last name Hook, H-O-O-K, and I work for Link Logistics, L-I-N-K.

The Mochella?

Yes. Mochella is M-O-C-H-I-L-A. And the other company is Unistrut, also called Atcor, but Unistrut is who's saying the least, U-N-I-N-S-T-R-U-T. Yep.

I'll move we approve the CF1 for Park 70 partners.

Second. Okay. A quick discussion. I guess no more questions for him. Everybody read the email from a concerned citizen, correct?

This morning.

This morning?

Yeah, we just got it.

Well, I mean, you got it yesterday. Does anybody need to hear from him before you make any decisions?

I think the request was to speak before we voted, so I would like to hear from... That's fine with everybody else.

Okay, you can take a seat. There was one concerned citizen. Mr. Overhauser, if you can come forward then. Since everybody did not complete reading, somebody wants to hear from you. I've read it. I'm good with your one and three. Number two, I don't completely agree with you on, but other than that. You can give a short synopsis of your email to everybody.

I'll be brief. My name again is Paul Overhauser, and I'm here to speak about the noncompliant tax abatements on the agenda. I urge the council to discontinue the abatements for any real property owners, not just this one, but the other seven that are going to be discussed this morning. For any seven that have not met their original commitments, based on Nicole Byerly's summary of the eight noncompliant or late-filed CF1 forms, I've prepared a spreadsheet which I've emailed to each of you yesterday. It shows that if the county waives these noncompliant filings, the eight corporations will receive very substantial tax benefits. Their total taxes for the year are roughly $4 million. I think there are three reasons why the abatements should be terminated. First, the business owners didn't hold up their end of the deal. They failed to meet their hiring or salary commitments, or they failed to file their paperwork on time. Second, it unfairly shifts the tax burden to lower income residents. Because the county's overall tax levy is fixed by the state across all property, tax abatements don't make taxes disappear. They reallocate them. Properties sitting under their 1% tax cap, typically modest, lower value homes, absorb that shortfall. It's unacceptable policy to shift substantial taxes, nearly $4 million, away from big corporations and onto our least wealthy homeowners. Third, I believe we need stronger fiscal discipline in Hancock County. With state-imposed limits restricting how local governments raise revenue, Hancock County must be more vigilant about which tax abatements it grants and maintains. Thank you. Thank you.

Who was the first speaker? His name was James. James, is there anything you wanted to say? Okay, I just want to make sure and give you a chance. All right, I have a motion on the floor, first and a second. Any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. All right, motion carries 7-0. All right, number two for be approved, by the way. Okay, number two is Chill Pharma MC LLC, which is Ambrose number two. Please state your name for the record.

JOSH SHLAKEY- Yes, good morning. My name is Josh Shlakey with Ice Miller on behalf of Chill Pharma MC. I'm also joined with two representatives from Chill Pharma. If you have additional questions, I'm happy to dig into those. We're here. The CF1 that was filed in 2026 listed zero employees. At the time, that was correct. The property does now have a tenant who is set to go into the property starting September 1 of 2026. Tenant is expecting somewhere between 30 and 40 employees in 2026 and anticipates that will increase to 50 or 70 in 2027. Happy to answer your questions or walk through this a little further, but...

So as you know, the SB1 states 125 employees with 3.9 million, so they're not... Coming up to that level. Is this the only tenant or is there gonna be multiple tenants?

So this this abatement is a little complicated So let me walk through that when the real estate developer initially applied for this. It's three facilities three different buildings and the Capital investment and the employees is anticipated to be across all three of those buildings when they fully come into development AT THIS TIME, THIS IS WHAT I WOULD CALL BUILDING NUMBER ONE, THE FIRST BUILDING. IT WAS FIRST PUT INTO PLACE IN I BELIEVE 2023 WAS THE FIRST ABATEMENT FILED. THE SECOND BUILDING IS NOT OWNED BY CHILL PHARMA, IT'S OWNED BY AN UNRELATED THIRD PARTY, HAS BEEN SOLD BY THE DEVELOPER TO THAT ENTITY. I BELIEVE IT FILED ITS ABATEMENT THIS YEAR, BUT I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT BEYOND THAT. The third building has not yet been placed into service. So as you look at this, it is one of three buildings across three different owners. And that 125 is supposed to be across all three of those buildings. So when you look at that 30 to 40 and growing to 50 to 70 next year, I think you need to look at that as part of the overall 125. I don't think there was ever an intention that all three buildings would individually hold the entire 125.

The effective date to be assessed is January 1st. Was the building assessed on January 1st at 100% and it is now in the tax system as being 100% complete?

I believe so, if I understand your question.

Yeah. It is 100% built. And then on the filing date of your CF1, it's May 11th. So who was in your building on May 11th?

So at that time, there was...

The building that we were referring to, that's 100%.

Yes, and that's the only building that Chill Pharma owns.

It's the only building we're here... That's what I... Yeah, yeah, yeah. I just wanted to make sure. So who was in... How many employees were there on May 11th?

At that time, there were none. So the building was first put in place in 2023. At that time, it was still owned by, I believe, Ambrose Property Group at that time. They held that building until December 1, 2025. December 1, 2025 was when Chill Pharma purchased the building. At that time, it's my understanding there was not a tenant in place. Chill Pharma has gone in, purchased the building, they've done substantial, or they're in the process of doing substantial tenant improvements to allow a new tenant to come in. That additional investment is somewhere in the range of $30 to $40 million. They now have that new lessee, that new tenant who is supposed to come in in approximately three weeks or so, September 1st.

And once again, I'm sorry, once again, have they actually signed the lease?

Yes, there's a lease in place.

How many square feet is this particular building?

I believe it's 750,000. Yeah, 753,035.

The only reason I asked was because on the original filing.

I believe it's 2.2.

I have here the SB1 from this year, but I don't know about the original filing. When you say the original filing included three buildings and 125 employees. You know what the original SB1 said? Do you have that with you?

We don't have that with us.

The original SB1?

Yeah, your CF1 says 125 employees, 3.9 million salaries on 753 square feet. Yeah. If the original filing, the intent was that many employees and salaries across three buildings... it would make sense for us to check if that's what we approved initially, or whether it said there would be that much in this building.

So I have the original resolution and the original SB1, and when it was applied for, when the council approved the confirmatory resolution back in 2020, it said that the $88 million investment, the 125 would be across the facilities, which it defined as the three buildings. It did not break down.

It doesn't describe it on the CF1 like that.

The original SB1 also described it as three buildings. It said development of three speculative industrial buildings totaling over 2.2 million square feet. One building will be first, and then subsequent buildings will come upon lease of the most recent constructed building. So it was, I believe, always intended to be three buildings. And the capital investment of the employees would be across all three of those.

And I was, I started in January of 21, so I was not here to recall.

Do you think the third building's not in service, but is it completed?

I don't know. Again, it's owned by... We're not talking about this one.

Yeah, I know, but it...

I believe it's under construction. I just, I don't know for sure if it's under...

I have a problem with it because it is newly assessed, and on the assessment date, it was showing... zero employees, zero salaries tied to that. So how can we approve something on a building that has not even got started yet? So my suggestion would be is start year one next year, which you can do that. And you can pause a year even if you're not compliant. And then the next year you could start again. It doesn't remove the abatement as a whole if we didn't want to do that. But we can just say at this point in time, it's not meeting the level that it should be meeting to receive abatement if there's a hundred percent built building. And on the date that the CF one was filed, it had no occupancy of any kind and it had no lease agreement signed at that time. So that's just my feelings on this.

Can they, they are in year four. Could they, I mean, cause that in the middle of that.

Yes. Yeah. You can pause a year. And so they're in year four. this year would be paused, and then if you meet the numbers that are supposed to be there, you can start again with year five.

What I would say, understanding everything you just said, what I would say is the legal standard for not allowing an abatement is that the taxpayer did not take reasonable efforts to substantially comply with the statement of benefits. You have an owner, Chill Pharma, who purchased the property in December of 2025, has made substantial investments into the property, and has worked diligently to get a tenant in there as quickly as possible. I think those are reasonable efforts to substantially comply. I understand the assessment date concerns, but I think, you know, you have a taxpayer doing exactly what you want, what you're trying to incentivize in this community. They took a relatively new building, they're investing significant capital in there, and they're getting workers in place. I think that is reasonable efforts to comply.

That's fine, but it is the council's discretion as to when they feel like you've met your obligation, and if a year lags, we can remove that abatement for that year. And to say that we are trying, that's great. I hope you get all of that figured out, but as of right now and the assessment date that we have in front of us, it's not compliant, in my opinion.

So on the employees, I mean, obviously you're falling short. I hear your argument. What's the salaries? You never mentioned what the 30, 40 people are going to be making.

I don't know that I have that with me right now. We can follow up with the council.

That's obviously concerning because, you know, I understand your legal argument, being a attorney myself, but I'm also saying you're not meeting the SB1. Okay. And not even close. I mean, even with what you're working towards, if this is the only tenant, that's an issue. I mean, if this was multi-tenant like the last person, it's a little different then. Are you current on your, is your client current on the abatement fees and all taxes? I believe so, yeah.

This is a problem that's always going to be there with spec buildings, with tenants, because owner-occupied, you can be very specific with your questions. And with spec buildings, you may or may not know what their salaries are current or number of employees are current or when they're moving out or when they're moving in, unless you have a signed document giving you that information that you can share with us. So this is just typical for spec buildings.

Yeah. For me, I wasn't here when this was approved. You guys know my voting record in 21 and 22. I would have voted no to any spec offering at that time. But in all fairness, If this is proportionate, you know, if 30 employees is proportionate and the salaries are proportionate to a three-building package that a council approved before I was here, I would give it compliance.

Well, proportionate would be one-third, which would be about 41 and two-thirds.

Well, unless the other buildings, I would take the square foot into consideration also. You know, if the other two buildings were bigger than this building, then I would prorate for that myself. So I don't have enough information about the original filing that was voted on to be ready to vote myself.

I'm looking at you. Are we required today to make a ruling, or do we have the ability to continue?

No.

Okay.

Could anybody hunt down the original filing while we go through others? Okay.

I appreciate it. So we will hold yours. I apologize. As an attorney, you have to stick around for your client. I apologize to them. But we're going to have you stick around a little bit, and we'll go through the others, and hopefully you can answer the questions we have for some of the members. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Number three on the list is Suda, CTC02 LLC. Okay. And this is a late filing that we received June 19, 2026. It comes with a CF1. SB1 said 20 employees with $624,000. They have 57 employees with $2 million. They're in year 5 of 10, building 1, and 4 of 10 for building 2. So, if you could, you're late. Oh wait, there's someone raising their hand, hold on.

You said C-T-C-O-2?

Yeah, this is C- I thought you said Suda.

We did. We did say Suda. So, I've got number three is, I have two- Yeah, they're not in order, it doesn't look like it. No. No. The last page, Scott.

Oh, okay, I'm sorry. We'll go with Suda. We'll go with Suda then. All right, let's go Suda. I go reverse this. Suda, number eight on our packet, okay. Late filing received July 17, 2026. This was originally turned in with personal property filing, but was not turned in to auditor's office, okay? Per SB1, you have 111 employees of 5.541 million in salaries, and your CF1 says 136 employees with eight. I can't understand that. What's your salaries for the- It's 8.7 million. 7 million, okay. We have some weird numbers. Doesn't make any sense. All right, $8.7 million. Got it. You're 10 of 10 years, so this is your last year of your abatement? Because they just did nine, so this is the beginning of last year.

So, Deb, did it go to the assessor's office and sit in their office for a while before it was brought down to your office? I believe that's exactly what happened with Suda. Yeah, so I don't see where it's his fault that anything.

Well, we didn't ensure that the assessor's office got their copy either. I mean we didn't we didn't help from that perspective.

We just didn't have it in our office and that's not saying that they didn't submit it.

Yeah and that has happened before. They just include it with their personal property filing and don't mail them in two different envelopes.

Typically in the past we have so that's why. I move we approve.

I want to say I appreciate you coming in even though it was just a I mean to me it was probably a little overkill that we brought you in for this last year payment. You're $3 million ahead of your salaries. And back when SUDA was first started and they took a shot at how many employees they have, they're holding very close in standards. You know what I mean? So I appreciate you coming in. I'll second his motion.

I was going to say, do I have a second?

All right. Any other discussion?

All right, with a motion and a second to approve SUDA's CF1, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you very much for coming. And you can go now if you want. Thank you. Jason, are you here for another one? Oh, okay. Okay. All right. How do we go to C2? Go to C2. Okay, we're going to go to CTC02, LLC. This, I have him come up. Sorry about that. Late filing received June 19, 2026. SB 120 employees of 624,000. Or CF1 says 57 employees of $2 million. Five or 10 years building for number one. Four of 10 for number two. I guess you start. Tell us why you were late.

Sure, no problem. I was switching over. I was doing the CF1 myself, and I switched it over to let CBiz do it and gave them all the information. April 22nd to fill it out. She filled out the form. I signed it, sent it back. She thought I sent it in. I thought she sent it in. So everything else is in compliant and these are smaller buildings and there are three tenants in them.

So we're only talking a month late. Right.

I know, but these are, I mean, as an attorney that's done these before, I can tell you it is so important, I mean, I don't do multimillion dollar buildings because I don't feel like my insurance covers enough. Obviously, Ice Miller does because of malpractice. You put this on an attorney or you put it on someone else, a third party, because then you can countersue them for not, if you lose your abatement because they messed up. So this to me is very serious. I know you guys don't think it's serious, but I can tell you from my perspective, it's very serious to be on time. Because even if you're saying zero employees, it's so important to be on time. It's just like doing your taxes on time.

Yeah, and I've always thought that as, not you particularly, but suits will come in and start asking for these abatements, and then they get approved. They go back to their jobs, and then they They cut this abatement and they can't file their paper on time. If someone was willing to abate a million dollars in taxes on the first year, I think I'd get my paperwork done in time. But I've heard that story many, many times where, is your accountant living in another state?

CBiz, the large firm. So, no, they're here.

They're here. Because a lot of times these accountants, they don't know Indiana tax laws, so they don't. They don't get on it as quickly as some that are local, but this is just one month, so it's just discretionary.

Well, and in all fairness, they're doing almost three times the employees and more than three times the salary on 30,000 square foot buildings. We're not talking about the mega monsters sitting empty out there.

Everything's great about them, it's just that For me, you know, I want everyone to realize the importance of turning these on time. It's just like when you do your taxes. Are you ever late on April 15th? Probably not. You file your extension. I'm guessing you're probably, there's a few people that are out there and they're probably, you know, they're in trouble at the IRS if they're not doing it on time. Same thing here. You know, you hit that date. That's like, if I'm saving a million dollars, you know, of taxes, I'm like, yeah, I'm going to make sure I file that like way in advance. As soon as I can.

That's always been my complaint.

And I'll personally hand it to the lady if it's worth a million dollars. You're like, here you go, auditor, please. Is everything good? Okay, thank you. And again, it's not.

I move we approve CTC02. Well, I like the idea that you came in, okay, and maybe the next five years we won't have the issue again. But also, though, I want to thank you for tripling what the original thing was. We do know we have companies out there that are doing more than what they –

Thought they would be doing and we're getting better more bang for the buck than then we originally thought when we give people Incentives to come in and I'll second that motion You know the two offices we were in that happened occasionally But I look at the history if you continue not to get it in on time Then I think we Scott's right. It's really serious but if it's a one-time thing and somebody made a mistake, that's a mistake and And so I don't have that much of a problem with it.

Yeah, it's only a month. I mean, where's the line on only? But only a month's not much to me.

And again, the tax abatement, it doesn't benefit me as an owner of the buildings. It benefits the tenants.

All right, so I have a motion, a second. Any other discussion?

Yeah, I think that's for me. It's just that tripling what's done. And hopefully a lot of those are county employees. I think it'd be much different if the numbers weren't in compliance, but that's probably 60 or 57 people that have a job and supporting their families. And so I can get behind that. I'll call for the question.

All right. Well, don't. I think he learned his lesson here. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Hopefully, I see you all in good terms from now on.

Who was the first and second on that?

First was Shelby and second was Fisk, which I think has been the case for all three, I think.

We can take turns.

All right. Next on the list. Oh, which list should I go by? Okay, I'll just go with the packet still. Walmart Fulfillment Center Services LLC, GDI number four. This one was a late filing received on June 29th. SB1 was 242 employees of the 7.7 million. The CF1 says TBD was notated to be determined.

Why? Does anybody know why?

Someone's here, so can you tell us your name?

I'm Eric Hanks, Government Affairs for Walmart, based here in Indianapolis, new to the region, so thank you all for having me. If you don't mind, I'd like to kind of step back about the entire economic incentive package that we're working through and then specifically address this. So this site we call Indy 6. We have our Indy 3 property that has the expansion going on currently and the jobs that are going to be associated with that. That's the large facility. Indy 6 is the new one that's just across the street. You all had a developer agreement with that property and that contractual obligation that we then acquired when we acquired the property. So as I understand it, as that was filed, it was... like 242 jobs with about $7 million in salary. Our projections for what we're going to be doing out there is more like 300 jobs with $20 million in salary. The issue is we're not underway yet. The cart is a little bit before the horse on this one. So we've asked to be placed on the budget, council budget, on September 2nd. to talk both our Indy 3 and our Indy 6 abatement process with you all. I understand the duration of those initial vehicles that we talked about, like the 10-year abatement, had some concerns from members. So we've taken that into consideration. We filed both at 50 over five. We very much look forward to your support, hopefully, on those issues. We did similarly, as you've heard here, we have nothing underway there with physical bodies in the building. and had not filed because it was zero. And we're informed by staff that we needed to file, so we filed it at zero because we're not underway yet.

So your CF1 has an estimated completion date not until April of 27. Correct. So was the building 100% January 1st of this year?

This is a building you bought, right? Yeah, it's the building. They just purchased it. Purchased it in June. When did you purchase this building?

We purchased it in 2025.

So I don't know what this means.

Late in 2025 is when it was our purchase date. And there's one more disconnect that, again, the way I understand it, it was explained to me. The developer agreement that you all had with the original property and building owner had a schedule affixed to it, which we inherited when we purchased the building. And I think there's a disconnect on that. So you have staff that is obligated to enforce what was passed and what was passed doesn't necessarily align with what had been given to the developer. So there might be some things you all need to talk about internally to address those concerns. And we're hoping it all comes together next month on September 2nd when we kick it all off and work together.

Oh, as of this filing date, there was zero employees in the building? Correct.

There's still zero in the building.

So I don't know how we can evade something when there's nobody there.

Well, but last year there were over a million dollars paid on this property, despite no employees from what I see, right? We had... Or I'm sorry, it's under half a million last year, under half a million this year, plus the EDA payments and the 5% abatement fee. So, you know, we are talking, despite the building being empty and changing ownership and getting ramped up, we are talking about somebody who's paying significant amounts.

And this was a building that has been empty from the time they would just... And now we've got somebody coming in and they're going to use this building in their...

Is this the building? I get confused because I know Walmart's got several buildings. Is this the building where you're going to do the large, like the big TVs? There's going to be a lot of employees in there because it's not going to be robotic, as much robotics as the other buildings. Indy 3 is the great, big, massive building.

That's a massive building that we're currently undergoing our expansion in there. And the timing of all this really is perfect for us, too, from the perspective of we're just getting ready to do our seasonal hiring. And then... Your action in September will help to inform us on which of those seasonal employees will be able to keep moving full-time going forward and how all that works on the Indy 3 piece, plus then Indy 6. We'd like to have go with that, frankly. So Indy 6 is across the street. It's a smaller building, but it's still big. I mean, we've got a lot going on out there right now. We've got some transformer issues that have come in with our energy supplier teams and how they're installing. So there's people out there working. There's like two Walmart associates physically there at the moment managing the thing until we get all of our hiring and stuff done.

What is the date that you think that you'll be operational in that?

Oh, that's a good question. Let me see if I've got the note here from them. I think it might be in the late filing that we did. Do we have that?

It says the building has been vacant ever since 24.

This is April 30th, 2027. That sounds about right. To get us through the balance of this year and through first quarter, I think, is what I have in my notes. So our second quarter at Walmart, our quarter starts on February 1st. So that's just about when we're up and running in second quarter.

Eric, when you get that facility up and running, what's your projection?

For Indy 6, it's in 2027, the second quarter for us, so April.

No, the number of employees and employees.

For Indy 3, our seasonal hiring is going on right now. That's a separate building. That's not the one that you see physically on your agenda for this one. For that one, that employee process will start here at the end of this year. And the hiring will go through first quarter so that we're up and operational with our Walmart associates in the building. I think it's April 1st or whatever. April 30th.

I just want to say that I feel this is just like the one that I mentioned earlier. It's hard to abate a building and there's nobody in it. And you can skip a year and then the abatement continues the following year for that year designee. You don't lose a year. It just jumps it because of zero employees, zero salaries, zero, zero.

And as I said, we're hoping that Everything goes the way you all would like it to go and budget on September 2nd. And we're all on the same page moving forward with a brand new schedule for all these new jobs and salaries and everything affiliated with it.

I have a question. Did you say, did you buy the building off GDI or are you leasing it?

I think we purchased it directly, right?

You did buy it?

Yes, ma'am.

You know, I always worry with leases. When rents go up at the end of an abatement, those people will jump ship and go elsewhere. But if Walmart bought the building, that does... We own the building. Okay.

And they close in either October or November flash.

Okay. And again, Eric, I missed, when you get that building up and going, what's your... April of 2027. No, no, no.

Number of employees. Oh, I'm sorry. 300 is the number we have with $20 million in salary. Okay. And it'll, like I said, our activities with you all in September will help us to finalize those hard numbers. Right. We're being very careful to set a very low bar for us to hurdle. We very much anticipate exceeding these numbers for the Indy 3 project that's currently going and for this project here for Indy 6. But out of caution, we're keeping our reported numbers as low as possible so we make sure it's absolutely above board and we hurdle that number.

The average salary there is about $67,000, which is some of the others that we have approved. I did the math. The average salary was $30,000. So this is more than double that.

These are good jobs. I just came back from I was doing community relations in Houston and Dallas. We have associates that live in Houston that drive up to Dallas to work their four-tens or their three-day weekend. specifically because these are such good jobs at these facilities. Because they'll have full Walmart benefits. They're going up, spending the week, and then coming back.

Well, hopefully here, because the intent is for most of these to be Hancock County residents.

Exactly.

And that's what the facilities we have here, 100%.

That's what we're trying to do.

And you said you're on the agenda for the next meeting. Can you clarify what... What that's about?

He's going to do a presentation of the new abatements.

The abatements that we would be seeking for both Indy 3, the large facility that is being expanded currently, that abatement, and then we'll tie this property, Indy 6, with that, be on September 2nd.

Okay, so you're trying to start this building over with your ownership. Right.

with the new filings, with the new numbers, and that's why I said there is a bit of a disconnect. This gets way above my pay grade in a hurry. What the county agreed to with the developer, and I guess the schedule that was attached to that, which then we inherited when we purchased it, is a little bit disconnected than the schedule that was passed by the body. And so staff is limited to what this body passed as an enforcement issue rather than maybe what the original development agreement was. So we're also again hoping internally you all with your economic development team, your finance team, corporation council can kind of work through all that internally and we're here to help and make it all work together moving forward.

Can we, we have to vote today?

Yeah, sure. This one's late. This one's late. So you can vote today compliant or non-compliant. And if you vote non-compliant, then he'll come back next month, which then this would be all part of a package deal, it sounds like, sort of.

Right. I mean, there's no guarantee. You all have to vote. It's got to come on a budget before then goes before you all. So there's a couple of votes you got to take there. This one's different.

The late ones are compliant or non-compliant. The ones that we already voted on that aren't late, that we already voted against non-compliant last month, those you have to say whether approve or disapprove.

To be clear, we were late, we have filed it, and it is then there before you, right?

Why move we approve GDI number four? So you'd be compliant? Yes. Okay.

There's a motion for compliancy.

Okay, so... You're not going to catch me trying to punish Walmart for anything because the amount that they're doing for us, especially not with a new building that they just bought. They didn't have to buy this building. They didn't have to bring what they're going to bring to us. They didn't have to pay... the wages that we're doing, it's amazing to me how we can sit here and try to punish people that are actually going to carry us in the future. And so, This is a paper fiasco mess. It has nothing to do with the quality, has nothing to do with what's actually good for our county if we would vote to punish these people for something. So I will second that. I know, but yes, you do. You try to control what, and this company has done more for our county and will do more for our county than any other company we have out there. And And nobody thinks past 60 days or one year. I'm thinking 10 years, 20 years from now. This is a huge benefit to us that they're here, not someplace else. And we did the right thing by bringing them here. And they're expanding. And their jobs are, like Clark said, their jobs are good paying jobs that we get so many offers of people that don't have good paying jobs. But so I'll second the motion. That's my spiel. I'm sorry.

Additional discussion.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

So I know everyone's going to want to chime in here. I have a first and a second for compliancy. Remember, noncompliant is almost like a continuance to me, okay? So that's how I'm viewing it. All right. Now discussion. We can go just down the row if you want to.

So then... sounds like the next meeting they're coming back to to essentially start over with this with this whole deal and in that case if if its compliancy is approved today and then the council has a will to move forward with a new then at that time this just this gets canceled this ceases to exist entirely what we're even voting on today is that sure it's a question

It's interesting, isn't it? Because if you vote noncompliant today, then essentially you're opening the door also to discuss a different one. If you vote compliance, you're kind of like, oh, well, we want to keep it the way it is. So it's kind of weird. This one's very weird. That's why a noncompliant to me is just a continuance so we can figure it out next month.

If we're in three of 10 years of abatement, they're going to come ask for a brand new 10-year abatement. I mean, is it not worth considering just continuing this one that's already three years in and considering? That's the discussion that will be had at the budget meeting.

But what they're asking for in an abatement is going to be personal property.

You're not coming back on the real property.

Right, that's where, again, that's where it gets above my pay grade. That's where I think the disconnect is.

So you're saying next year you'll be in year four of this and it'll just continue on.

That schedule, I think, that was given to the developer on that, that we inherited. is a little different than I think the schedule that the body voted on. So that will give you all a chance to read through that and clean that up.

Yeah, it does make me want to see what he's talking about, about the discrepancies in what was the schedule that was voted on.

You're wanting to file for tax abatement for personal property?

Not now. Not now. I've got some pinch hitters that are willing to help, but I just wanted to say to Ken, we agree completely and we love being here. It has been a wonderful relationship for us, for our associates, with the county, with the emergency responders and everything we're doing. We are fully committed to working with you all to get this resolved and keep us here for 20, 30, 40 years.

So in the budget meeting next month, you're going to be bringing an abatement application for personal property?

For three and for six. Personal property. Not real. Jim says not real property.

I want him to say it.

Just on the equipment.

on just the equipment, and then this abatement that we're discussing currently is going to stay as is, or you're going to want to renegotiate that? That's where I think.

Yeah, so I wanted to explain what happened. So they came in, an abatement was approved, and then went back, and then an EDA was approved. And the EDA did not match the confirming resolution. And so per Scott Beakey, we were supposed to go off of the confirming resolution. Well, when you go off the confirming resolution, they're paying more in taxes than they would without their abatement. because of how it was figured with the EDA payment. So I just, I think that that's what he's referring to. They're trying to see if we could go off of the EDA instead of a confirming.

Yes.

As opposed to it being something that was. This was the GDI building that we had an issue with like last year, year and a half ago.

Well, we're on year three of it. So this is going into their third year of an issue.

I do remember that. And so this is the building that they bought. Yeah.

Okay.

And I think the county, as I was here for the first EDAs, which I think, was this part of that Sullivan Building site? Yes. So this would have been the very first EDA that was ever done. Yes. Terry McCardwell and GDI were asked to work outside the box with the county to bring in the first EDA agreement. It does not... And we had a commissioner at the time that was very hasty to get things on paper and try to do a lot of it. And it does not surprise me that there's now confusion or things that don't reconcile. I don't know how to move forward today because I've not yet reconciled.

Well, that in the spirit, that's exactly the spirit of what we're saying.

Yeah.

To be clear, we were late on this filing because we had zero and we didn't think we needed to file zero and we did. So we have now filed that. That's I think what's properly before you all. And then you all know now internally the cleanup, cleanup on aisle five that maybe we need to do on that one. while we'll be here next month for the fresh abatement on the property for both Indy 3 and then this property.

So if we were to... We're all together on all of it. Yeah, if we were to grant compliancy today, but after the further discussion have negative feelings, then you're just waiting for next year's filing. You're locked in, right? Right.

I think we're going to have to work out the EDA agreement with the commissioners. I think that's an entirely separate. That's their bailiwick.

They're the ones that created it.

Our bailiwick is do we want to pass the rules.

Remember, today is, it seems like we're going to need an hour or so conversation. Next month and which brings me to the point. We're probably gonna need start looking at going because I can't I postpone three items today guys We're looking at having to probably start going to 1230 or one. This is it's getting it's getting hot and heavy fast But we have a motion on the table in a second. Is there any other discussion among the council members?

I mean, I think today it's it's the first reading and all the other ones we deem compliant or non-compliant on the facts and And then we move to the second one, and that's where they present and talk about it. And for the most part, we give the waiver of noncompliance. So I think here today, I lean more towards just saying noncompliant because that's what the facts are, but I fully support everything we've discussed. So that's where I stand. Currently it's noncompliant, but I'm fully supportive of a further discussion.

I just want to comment that I appreciate the fact that you took a building that's been empty from the beginning and you're going to do something with that spec building because that's kind of a sore spot for all of us, these spec buildings that don't,

You know, they just said it really the building really does meet our needs for what we need to do for your constituents, our customers, both as associates. And then, of course, our customers that it will serve. So it works really well.

I think we all appreciate the fact that you're. We're gonna have another spec building.

That's gonna be fall again on the bus I think we're making something that is pretty straightforward too complicated. It's Okay, this is straightforward.

I'd like to have a question, but I'd like Cole call roll. Yes. All right. We're gonna do a roll call on this Yes Yes

When we say yes, we're saying yes to the non-compliance. Okay, yes. No. No, no. Fifth? Yes. No.

No. No.

All right, motion passes four to three that they're compliant. I will sign that today. And then we will see you next month, September 2nd, for a presentation. There will be no vote. Yes, sir. And we'll probably try to set it for probably about an hour. Maybe 45 minutes to try to get done quicker maybe. We'll do the best we can.

And I want you to know that my no vote was because we have an empty building with no people and no salaries, and that's the whole premise behind abatement. But we're glad you're working on it.

Fully understand. Thank you very much for your action today, and we look forward to working with you. It'll be good. All right. Thank you. Yep.

All right. Yes. I think you guys moved past it. I'm really sorry about being late.

Oh, no, no, you're fine. You're actually two away. I'm going in order. Our packet's completely different, so I apologize. So we're not going in order. I apologize. You're fine. And I'm just jumping around a little bit, but we had to... So on the packet, to make it easier for us, next up, I'll let you know that the order is Madison, Exeter, Amazon... And then that'll be it. So the next up is Madison River Investments. This is a late filing received June 23rd, 2026. Their SB1 has eight employees, 41,500 yearly in salaries. Their CF1 said 10 employees with 60,000 yearly in salaries, six and seven of 10 years. and you are here today because you were late, and we need to have a discussion of why you were late.

Good morning. My name's Mike Wright. I own Madison River Industries, or Investments, I should say, and I also own the company that occupies the building. I am the chief cook and bottle washer. I don't have the great story about hundreds of employees. I've been, you guys were gracious enough to grant us with economic development six years ago so we could build a building. The fact of the matter is my mom passed away basically during this period of time and my brain went that way. And I will tell you that Nicole's been great. She sends me a letter and, you know, she saved my butt because quite frankly, I mean, she's great to talk to, but I got it and I filed it right away when I got the letter. We have done some corrective action. We are growing a little bit. We hired a CFO. I transferred that responsibility to the CFO. So next time it comes up, it's not whatever's happening in my world. It's not going to be missed and have to wait for Nicole to send me a letter. So, you know, I throw my mercy on the court and that's the story. And like I said, we're, we're growing slowly, but I did hire a CFO and You know, and now I've transferred some of those responsibilities, which, you know, in the early days, it was like, I could do this. And we've gotten busier. And my response...

I really like... This is an owner-occupied building that we're talking about. And we've already granted a compliance seat when...

they were within a month or they're right there close of being late it's almost like a grace period that we've kind of given into so i have no problem with this well i don't think it's grace period but i i understand the situation i'm sorry to hear about your mother but but i mean it and you were here earlier when i stressed the importance of getting us in on time and so that's the biggest thing that people in our state because because otherwise it's taking time out of our day like i said i've had to postpone a lot of things for this yeah So a lot of important things people want to discuss with us. So I can tell you that you just don't want to see it again. And I appreciate that you took a path that say, OK, how am I going to fix this? This is what I'm doing. And that can be appreciated. And you're growing. And we do like small businesses. We just gave. the only abatement we've given in a couple years to a small business recently.

And he is surpassing his original estimates on both number of employees and salaries, which I think is... Yeah, I've been able to maintain that for seven to ten years, so he is... Was that a motion?

It can be, yes.

Go ahead, make a motion. I'll make the motion that we have... Compliance. Compliant.

I'll second that.

Thank you. All right, I have a motion and a second for compliancy on Madison River Investments LLC. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you all.

I appreciate it. Thank you. Next up is Exeter Mount Comfort Land LLC. Aye. This one was deemed non-compliant at June's council meeting. It had SB1 of 56 employees with 1.7 million in salaries, and the CF1 building is vacant. It's for 10 years, and they have a 5% abatement fee. Please go into why the building is vacant and what's going on with that.

Yeah, so this was... Plan to be developed or development start started in 2021. As you guys know, was the hottest. Industrial market of all time. It was delivered in late 2022. Where there was a nationwide steep decline in leasing, but specifically this area, as you know, this spec buildings, a ton of them, especially the big ones, have just sat vacant. We do have a lease out. It's been redlined by both sides. The economic terms have been agreed to with Quince, who's like the online e-commerce. They do clothing, couches. So that lease is set to begin in 2022. I mean, sorry, in October of 26. And I know they plan to invest $30 to $40 million in TI. The SB1 employees are only, I think you said, 56. The broker told us 600. We think, based on discussions with them directly, it'll probably be 300 to 400. Again, it's not signed yet. Lease is out. It's been redlined to both by both sides. We're just working on language But obviously the economics of the lease kind of depend on an abatement as Is customary in this part of the state? So I understand like Our incentive since development has been single-mindedly to lease the building. It has not been due to lack of effort. That is the only way that we make money. We've lost a lot of money on carry costs. But it's just the reality of the market. And hopefully now it's getting leased. In the coming weeks, we'll have one signed, hopefully. And yeah, it's worked out, so hopefully.

Go ahead.

I move we approve Exeter.

Are there any questions on here? Second. Is there any questions?

How many buildings does Exeter own in Hancock?

In Hancock County? I know that we own 2.8 million square feet. I think maybe six.

I was just curious because I remember at this time when abatements for speculative warehouses became really controversial, developers told us, we said, what if there's not enough demand for all these buildings? And what developers told us is that won't happen because we won't build something that there's not a market for. And then you have a lot of developers all go in at once and build at the same time. And that's not the way it played out. We ended up with too much supply exactly as I suspected at that time. And so while I'm sure you have made an effort and you are the ones with the most to lose, as far as us answering for taxpayers, you've not been able to do what Exeter said that they would do. And a lot of people today have said, yes, we have a signed lease agreement. Somebody's moving in in the next 90 days. But did I hear you right that you're working on something, but a lease is not signed, right?

It's not signed, but it's like right before. We're as deep as you can get in the negotiation of a lease without it being signed. It's gone back and forth from legal on both sides multiple, multiple times.

So you're still negotiating?

Well, the economic terms are negotiated. We're just working on language.

Have they told you how many employees, what the salary would be?

I don't have the salary numbers. As I said, the tenant broker told us 600, but our internal leasing officer thinks that it's more realistic that it's 350. Employees? Yeah, 350 employees.

But you don't have the salaries?

We do not.

That's not a hard number yet.

No, but it's going to far exceed the SB1 for sure. either option, even if you cut, it's 56. And to your point, I agree 100%. I mean, I think people don't realize that they're in a bubble until it's popped, but there was a bit of an industrial development bubble. Well, there was a worldwide COVID outbreak. Yeah, so and the other thing I would add in our defense is that we're not built We haven't built most of the things that we own in Hancock County. I believe this is the only Building that we've developed is is this building always been empty? Yes, it is.

It has literally never been tenanted.

We've just been carrying it for four years. I

Any other questions?

So this is the, is Exeter's only building that has never been leased before or? In Hancock. In Hancock, okay. And this is the first time it's been deemed noncompliant, right?

Well, we probably would have waived compliance every year till now because if it's always been vacant and it always has always been vacant.

But yeah.

And it was completed in 22. Right. And they've always paid their taxes.

Yes.

We've always submitted our numbers on time. Yeah. They're easy numbers.

So that would make it noncompliant since the building was completed. And that was in the year of 2022.

Yeah, I don't know when the employment period...

I thought you said it's been vacant since it was built.

Yeah, I know, I know, but I don't know what the SB1 said in terms of the timeline.

Oh, it said estimated to be complete June of 2022 when they... On the current CF1, it says June 22. Okay.

So, I mean, I'm glad you came in because... We now have information that we could end up with a building with 300 people in it that's sitting out there vacant now for the last three or four years. And for that reason, I'll second Jim's motion.

All right, well, Jim's motion was that Exeter is

Approved to be approved to be compliant.

Yes, it's an appeals.

Okay, right because This would interrupt the negotiations for the for the new tenant My thing is if if this doesn't work out and it would be devastating to us at this point You guys can deem it non-compliant next year, right and

Any year, yes. We can take away an abatement for a reason, for just cause, for not meeting certain terms.

But this seems very likely to kill the lease if it happens before this deal is done, but if they move in, then it's a non-issue.

All right, I have a first and a second. Any other discussion? All right, we'll do a roll call.

Council Member Shelley?

Yes.

Did they do a roll call?

Yeah, yeah, I didn't hear you.

Sorry, Council Member Shelby?

Yes.

Fletcher?

No.

Fowder? No. No. No. Fisk?

Yes.

Wooldridge?

No.

And Smith?

No. Okay, so that motion failed.

Is there another motion? I'm not familiar with this, but Mary brought it up earlier. Is there a... I didn't realize we could pause for a year.

Yes.

Is there...

I would entertain that if somebody can better explain that option.

If they file again next year and we can just do our review and we can see that they're meeting the numbers that they're supposed to be meeting, we can reinstate it. And they just lose a year. You don't lose the assessment year. You just basically skip a year.

I mean, I'm not even well aware of that as an attorney because I've never seen it done before, but would they have to reapply then?

No. It's part of the Regulation 16, which is... Yeah, yeah, come on up. I've got that in my red book.

So pretty much the way that it's going to work is they're in year four. And so if you guys decide to deny this abatement for this year, so that would be for 26, pay 27. So their year four would be zero abatement. And then next year, if they sent in their CF1 on time and they had the numbers that they say they're going to have, you guys deem them compliant. So they have lost year four. So they're going to be in year five. So whatever abated percentage that is in year five, I don't know if it's 50%.

I don't think they lose the year.

Well, they do. They would lose this 26 pay 27. They wouldn't have it, and they would just continue on from year five is how Frank at Nexus explained it to me.

Without applying again. Would you just go ahead and drop that extra 10% the next year? You paid the full load.

Yeah, I'll have to get my, I thought they, it froze it basically.

No, you lose that. He would lose 26 pay 27. and it would just continue on the years of, so year five, because we've had properties where they have submitted, or they hadn't submitted a CF1, they lost that year, submitted the following year, and it just is continuing down the line of whatever year that was supposed to be in.

The point is they don't have to refile the whole thing anymore. No, they don't have to refile the whole thing.

They would just file for that CF1 timely, is what we hope, and then you would reevaluate it, and then it would just be in the year five.

They have lost that year four. They're only noncompliant. When you evoke noncompliant, it is only for one year, and you're not negating the rest of it. That's correct.

That's CF1, not the abatement. You're not saying you're noncompliant. We're taking your abatement away. Right. That would be required to promote it. I don't think that's right.

Actually, you would have to have a resolution to... Remove the abatement.

Okay. Well, I hate this for you. I do understand what you're saying. Had you guys just acquired this building, if you weren't always the owner of the building, I mean, if there was other circumstances, but I know without rolling the tape back that we would have sat here the last four years every year and say, we'll give you one more chance, we'll give you one more chance. And I know it's market dictated, but we do have a responsibility to do what taxpayers expect. And when we've already given exceptions, unfortunately, I can't bring myself to do that. But I wouldn't want to negate the whole rest of the abatement, even though this year is not compliant. So I will make a motion particular to this year to deem non-compliancy on the CF-1. I'll second that.

All right, I have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Yeah, this means that basically this year and then... Next year we'll have to have a vote again to start it back up or this just this year and then we'd have to vote it non-compliant again.

They'll file again next year.

Okay, so we're they're basically just used losing one year at this point. The abatement is still in effect but you're gonna lose the compliance for this year.

If our CF1 is good next year, then we won't even It'll just be, the CF1 will be announced. Right, right. If you come in on time and you file in time.

If next year you file and you have more than 56 employees with more than 1.7 salaries, you won't even come in here.

Right.

You will have compliancy without your attendance. On time, more than 56 employees, more than... Basically 1.8 million salaries.

And if you have questions, you can definitely talk to Randy Sorrell.

Can I just, I want to note something real quick.

So, excuse me.

On the CF1, so in June's meeting, we said property owner is not in substantial compliance, okay? And so now, today, we denied them. And it says, see instruction 4 above, and it says, a property owner whose deduction is denied by the designating body may appeal the designating body's decision by filing a complaint in the office of the clerk of the circuit court or superior court together with a bond conditioned to pay the cost of the appeal if the appeal is determined against the property owner. And then it says here again, if the designating body determines that the property owner has not made reasonable efforts to comply, the designating body shall adopt a resolution terminating the property owner's deduction. If the designating body adopts such resolution, the deduction does not apply to the next installment of the property taxes by the property owner or to any subsequent, sorry, installment of the property taxes. the designating body shall immediately mail a certified copy of the resolution to the property owner, the auditor, and the county assessor. So I just wanted to read that so you guys knew what the CF1 read.

And Randy, did the 5% abatement fee would go away then for this year? Is that correct?

Oh, yes. If they don't get an abatement, they pay 5% of their abatement. If it's zero, it's zero.

We had an interesting situation occurred. Randy, go to the mic. The BWI building? Yeah. So BWI underperformed, then ultimately closed operations. So the city terminated that abatement. That was fine. Well, now West Pharmaceuticals is in there. But since that abatement had been terminated, to attract a new business, you can start the clock again. And so I think that BWI, that building, had four years left. It had just been terminated. But the city council rewound the clock. And as a part of the incentive to get them there, they started to back up, even though it had been out of abatement for like four years, just because it was unlimited what they could do. The company was happy to get four years. Now they're on year one. It did not go back to year one. But the fact that they didn't count the three years that it was unoccupied. Oh. Because BWI had it for six years. It was out of abatement for three years. So in theory, you would have thought they'd had one year left. But no, they could go back and restart that clock up. There were six years. They gave them four more. So we could potentially restart the clock up, is what you're saying? Well, that was, I don't believe so. Because this was an incentive to attract a new user. Oh, so, but if he has a new user and they come forward to us, then they could? Yes. Okay, I understand. And say, if someone lost their abatement, but someone comes down three years later, you guys can go back and say, okay. So that might be something to advise him on. Okay. He's hired.

Did you finish the vote?

No, he needs a job. All right, so I have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? We will do a roll call. Wait, so just to be clear.

We've already done it.

Back and forth.

No, no, we haven't. This is for noncompliance for this year.

One year suspension, basically.

Your abatement, this all stays relative, and next year when you file, you need to have more than 56 employees and $1.8 million in salaries. Yeah.

Okay. And then it reverts to... And then it keeps going. This year or... Yeah. This year is gone.

Marry the club different differing views on whether you miss a year, but it's one.

Okay. Hold on does the other have any questions?

Yes, could you repeat the motion? Please repeat the motion I made a motion to deem the Exeter cf1 filing for this year non-compliant And Mary seconded I said, okay And then we went through roll yes that councilmember Shelby I

You can go against me, Jim.

She's not going to bite you.

I pass. I don't understand the motion.

I'm noncompliant. I said noncompliant.

He's not compliant. For this year.

For one year.

For this year.

So if you say yes, you agree that he's noncompliant. If you say no, you don't agree. I'm sorry. How did you vote?

Pass.

You're abstaining. Okay. He's voting present. All right. Voting present. I vote yes. And louder?

Yes, on the non-compliance.

No?

Yes.

And Fisk?

I didn't know we could vote present.

I'm allowed at this time. You can't.

I think it's a viable compromise with what we're doing, so I'll vote yes.

Okay. Aldridge?

Yes.

And Smith?

Yes. All right, 6-0. Uncompliant. Okay. Get your stuff in in time next year, and we won't see you again. Yeah.

And get your new tenant. Is there any way just with the tenant we could get, if this comes up and they see that our building is not abated, I would like them to have some assurance besides us telling them.

Right. We would have to pass a resolution to kill the abatement, and we have not done that.

We can clearly put that in the minutes and provide you with a copy of the minutes. And then also, if you have any questions, I know that Nicole will be more than happy to take your call. She's not going to give you any legal advice. She'll make sure that you have the information that you need.

All right. Thank you. All right, next up is Amazon Services LLC, Red Rock number two. Is there someone here for Amazon? They were deemed non-compliant at June's meeting. Their SB1 says 321 employees with $10 million. CF1 building is vacant, three of 10 years, 5% abatement fee. Nicole, can you come up? Please tell us about how you notified them.

So I mailed them a letter to let them know that they needed to come to today's meeting and also I want to note that they do have an EDA payment and we only mail them a letter one time a year and that's before property taxes go out to let them know how much they owe for the May installment and the November installment and they have yet to make their EDA payment. I've not seen it come through. And the building has been consistently vacant since it was assessed in 24 pay 25.

So they've paid their taxes. They paid their 5% HEDC abatement fee, but they did not make their EDA payment.

Correct. Is this a building they just bought? Yes. Yeah. Actually, I spoke to Kayla Brooks. It's been a while back. She said that they have been pulling permits to revamp this building. So that's the only information I know about it.

And Amazon did purchase it from RedRock or they're leasing it? They purchased it. They bought it. They bought it. Yes.

Randy, could you come to the mic? Let me confirm. Did they make their 5% abatement fee to you this year? I don't know. Yes.

So I collect the 5% fee and then I send it to him.

Okay. So the Amazon bought the building from Red Rock last fall. Do you know when? Last fall? I think September. It's the newest building, right? But I have a question that I don't know the answer to. Okay. So the economic development payments, if you recall, those economic development agreements, as you say, there are some issues to be worked through. I don't know, I haven't read, I haven't seen the agreement. So for example, we know that we pay taxes in arrears here, right? The taxes for 2025 get paid in 2026. If an economic development payment is in lieu of a tax payment, does it also accrue in arrears? So for example, what I'm getting at is, Somebody owes that a payment, but I don't know if it's Red Rock because they own the building in 25 and the payments due in 26 or if in fact in real time when it transfers you owe the payment. I'm a lawyer, but I didn't draft that document. I'm not going to opine on it, but there's certainly some equivalencies there to be dealt with.

Isn't that the same question that we've kind of got with Walmart and GDI?

I think. That's among them, yeah. But they clearly separate from abatement. Yeah, so if you're making this payment instead of this payment, do they operate under the same clock? I don't know the answer to that question.

One thing I'd like to say about EDAs, they were never created for the benefit of the customer. Okay. So, I mean, it was a benefit to the county, not to the customer, which the debatements are the benefit to the customer, not the county. And so we have to put EDAs in their right mind. And I personally wouldn't If there's confusion, which there obviously is, we haven't worked out yet, I personally wouldn't make my decision on a company based on an EDA issue.

Well, the only thing about that, Kent, is those schedules were higher. Those abatement schedules were higher deductions because they would be paying an EDA payment. So if you take the EDA payment out of it, they have a bigger abatement than they would have had just to have an abatement, you know? And so...

I don't know if that's true. True, but I think the question is who owes it? And that comes down to the when they bought it and, you know... That's part of the purchase agreement, who's paying the taxes. And in this case, the EDA is really part of the tax. So you probably got... Lawyers, you know saying yeah, what is this?

Well, and I hate to punish anybody for working that out But what I don't want is to set the precedent that oh you Red Rock signed that EDA It doesn't mean anything anymore Amazon comes in and takes over a higher tax abatement schedule than you would have got by standard and we can double-check that but I do know we did that on some of them we gave a higher abatement schedule and because of the EDA payments. So if the EDA payments go away and you just inherit a better than standard confirming resolution tax abatement, I'm definitely not okay with that. So I guess we need to work out, you know, is somebody going to put it in writing that they're going to keep paying this fee for the duration of what was intended?

And I also want to note, Randy did say that Amazon bought the building back in fall of last year. I mailed the, so if they bought it in fall of last year, I mailed a letter in March to Amazon.com services to let them know that they owed for the EDA payments. Now, were that, I mean, I don't know.

We're going to follow those dates and timelines and the contracts that we have in place regardless of what they're doing out there because that follows the building and so does the EDA until we have legal... were directed not to do that so that should still be in play no matter who buys it according to how everything was set up so that's how we're going to look at that from the auditor's office so if there's any other action that needs to be taken that's going to have to be a directive from our legal counsel because we're going to we're just going to continue those same dates and those same agreements because that's what That's what we have in place.

That's a legal agreement that was made by someone.

Right, but if you sell a building, I mean, we've got lots of attorneys in the room, and I'm not one of them. But if you sell a building to somebody and don't tell them you signed an agreement, and then we come in and go, no, you're obligated to that thing you didn't know existed. I don't know what kind of weight you'd have in court.

Well, we... If they don't pay, then we would not, they would not be abated. I mean, that would, we would have to take action on that.

My question is different than that, though. My question isn't whether or not the payment is to be made, it's when is it due? Because, like I said, if you treat an economic development payment like taxes, you pay them in years. It's like 26 pay 27.

Well, the EDAs, we do have a resolution in place that gives us that it's April and November. We changed it.

Yeah, but what they're saying, though, is. Which year?

Which April and which year? Yeah, it's like taxes.

So with Amazon, for what we're talking about is for 26 pay 27, so that would be year three. Well, this year is 25 pay 26, and it was year two. And so that was their first year of EDA payments. So when I mailed out this letter.

That's kind of like when you purchase property and you decide whether or not you're going to prorate the taxes. Yeah. So that would have to have been discussed in their purchase agreement. It shouldn't affect the dates that we have. We don't know who owns those.

I don't like those. Scott.

Well, they're not here to work that out. And so, President, would you entertain a motion? Yes.

I will be entertained. Motion. I just wanted to make sure the auditor got clear that service was done properly. That's the only thing I'm concerned about, that service was done properly. Okay. Yeah, I entertain a motion.

Okay. I will make a motion to deem Red Rock 2 Amazon.com services noncompliant.

I'll second that.

So this is the second vote on them, correct? So this would be like... So this would be the same thing we just did.

But it would continue like we discussed before. It doesn't go away, right? For this year, you don't get a deduction. It's a wake-up call. We can be convinced that you're in compliance.

I have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion? Yeah, so... Why are you saying they're non-compliant? Is it because of the EDA payment? Because we haven't determined who owes the EDA payment yet.

Well, I don't think you can... I don't think you can...

Well, the building's vacant, so they're not meeting their employees or their salaries. Well, you didn't say why you thought they were noncompliant. You just said they're noncompliant. And they didn't show up to this meeting, so I don't know how to give them compliancy.

I'm not sure that they're noncompliant if you talk about the EDA. Yeah, it's not the EDA.

It's the fact that, well, they're not here, but properly noticed. The building's vacant, so we don't even know how many employees or the salaries that are going to come in there, which would be very concerning. Is the building still vacant? Yes.

Yes, the building's vacant. And the building has been consistently vacant. So this building has been consistently vacant. Amazon bought it last fall. They've been revamping it. But when they turned in their CF1, which was turned in on time, they noted no employees with no salaries. So I feel like it's twofold, no employees, and then they did not make their EDA payment.

I agree with what Mary said. You can't abate a building that's empty and there's no salaries and everything. The other one, we kind of put that on hold a little bit because it was kind of messy. But this is pretty clear cut, I think.

Well, we've abated buildings that weren't even built yet. That's when you do abatements, yeah. Yeah, so what do you mean you can't abate a building that's empty? We abate buildings that aren't even built yet.

We abate buildings with a premise of when they're going to be completed and the abatement starts when the building's done. They don't get an abatement on something that's not there. And this is now literally something that's not there, meaning people and salaries.

And they didn't come here to argue how they're compliant either. And that's part of the elements of why you can take away an abatement, as discussed earlier with previous councilors.

When people purchase buildings off of other people, there has to be a better way of The abatement's being recognized at the time of the purchase. There has to be something, because we're six months out, and it's just now coming to some issue.

I mean, I feel like it's due diligence on their end, but also, as a reminder, on our Beacon website, we have an economic development layer. So I upload all of the... declaratory, the abatement application, the confirming, the CF1s, their SB1s, any documentation that we have with these buildings is on our economic development layer. And anytime anybody calls me, emails me, anything like that, I always send them to our website because it has all current information on there.

And the legality is upon the submitter. So that we process work. We don't instruct. Right. So that is outside of our scope. So I don't know where it would fall, but it's we process what comes in.

So the motion on the floor is for Amazon to be noncompliant. Correct. Just on this year.

This building. Yes. This year.

Just on that building this year.

I'll call for the question. Roll call, please. Roll call, okay. We'll do it. We have a motion sitting on the floor. Can you please do roll call?

Yes. Council Member Shelby?

Yes.

Council Member Veteran? Voting for non-compliant.

My motion was non-compliant.

Yeah, I know.

For one year.

It's been so confusing. For this year.

We'll know next year if they meet their numbers and they're back in business.

I'm a yes on it being non-compliant for this year. Yes.

No.

Wildridge?

Yes.

Smith?

Yes. All right, motion carries 6-1. All right, we now have to go back to Chill Pharma, MC, LLC. Ambrose, did you get the information for us?

Nicole?

Nicole?

Yes, I did.

Okay, if you come up first, we'll have her come up first, and then I'll have the attorney come up.

So in resolution, all it says is that when fully developed, employment for approximately 125 persons with annual salaries and wages of $3.9 million. It doesn't specify for each building, all buildings. It just says that general terminology of 125 persons with $3.9 million in salaries.

When fully developed?

When fully developed. Okay.

So there's no indication on that filing that there would be more than one building at all? I mean, certainly if that abatement was intended to apply to multiple buildings, that would be in writing somewhere.

So it does say that they are seeking tax abatement on three buildings.

And there's no square footage. Yeah, it'd have to be on there. The resolution should say that.

Let's see the square footage here.

Is that the confirming resolution you're looking at? Yes.

I'm going to see if it's on their abatement application of the square footage because there's an attachment. Of course, it's blurry. So planning plus or minus three buildings at approximately 2.2 million total square feet is what it says. Let me look at their attachment here.

And we changed that on this new application that they have to fill out an application for each building. Right. $2.2 million.

Yeah, but this didn't happen.

It even says on the abatement application, 125 plus or minus employees with $3.9 million.

Okay, so 753 square feet would have been representative of a third, basically. He's got to sign the lease.

Yeah, so he has a signed lease, correct? And the employee count and everything is... Yeah, let's have him come up. And, of course, we're not dealing with 125. We're dealing with at least a third of that if we can, okay? But you have a signed lease. Everything is going forward. It's... It's not your fault that we didn't require each building to have its own separate thing because you have no control over the other two things, in my opinion. But I do appreciate you guys having a signed lease in a building that has actual employees that are meeting our other standards. And for that reason, I'll make the motion that we deem this compliant.

Second. All right, I have a motion and a second to deem this compliant. Is there any discussion?

Did you provide the salaries?

We did not. I am joined here by Chad Gooding, who's with Chill Pharma. We can talk a little bit more about what's going on there, what the employee situation should look like.

Is the average salary over $31,000? Okay, that's my only question.

And this one building is 753,000 square feet? The building we're talking about is at 753,000 square feet? Okay.

life science yes significant building with a significant it's a really it's really important okay when's your effective date for the lease to start uh we're occupying nine one okay yeah we've been working on it continuously we brought the tenant to around the country and three around the building for this tenant and

I'll call for the question.

Did you have a second?

Yeah, I have a first. Is there any other comments?

All right. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for your patience. Sorry about the legal fee there. All right. I've got to have a recess. Okay, we're going to take a small recess, and I'm going to sign some documents during that time. I've got some business issues.

This storm is kicking my butt.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you

I'm going to call the meeting back to order. Next up at the 10 o'clock was the prosecutor and public defender salary issue. I think Brent must have stepped back out. Jeremy, come on up. I know the judges also get $5,000 besides the prosecutor and public defender. Does the sheriff get $5,000? No. Okay, I just want to double check on that. So it's just the judges, the magistrate, and the prosecutor. He's asking for his.

The sheriff gets a portion of what the prosecutor gets?

Yes, a percentage.

And the judges, that is mandated with the letter that we're sent every year.

Okay. And that doesn't play into my request, really. The pay parity issue with the comprehensive plan is just between my office and the prosecutor's office. There's no requirement for the judges to get involved because those are a separate branch.

And that's mandated from the state. Yeah.

Well, I think our agreement kind of is that we will, I believe, isn't it, that we will pay... the public defender and his assistant the same as we pay the state pays the prosecutor and his assistant?

For their pay, yes. But this is about the $5,000 that we pay the prosecutor and his chief.

And whether we do it for him and his chief. Well, there's also an issue, though. budget that we approved. We approved a 3% increase in the public defender and his assistant. Yeah, that needs to be taken out. And I understand. I understand that.

And that's not an issue. So do we need a motion on that? Yes. Okay, we need a motion, Mr. Shelby.

I'd make a motion that we... approve for the Chief Public Defender for the 2027 budget, $183,513, and for the Deputy Chief Public Defender, $137,635. Those numbers sound right to me, sir. I almost called it your honor. I'm used to it. Okay, I have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

All right, I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. Motion carries 6-0. All right, now we're talking about the $5,000, and I know Mr. Eaton's also here because you, I don't want to say, you kind of talked about him, and I know it came up that he didn't take it part of the year. So, Brent, could you come up briefly and tell us, you know, why you didn't take it in the beginning and why you started taking it? I know that came a question of our last meeting last week. Of course.

In 2015, when I first became prosecutor, the 5,000 was in the proposed, and I worked with Ms. Papino, and we cut it, and we took it out for the budget years 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22. In the fall of 2022, with... maybe an hour's notice, the Hancock County Prosecutor's Office had to evacuate and subsequently could not enter the building ever again. And it was incumbent upon me and our team to find a way to keep the justice system operating and functioning from approximately mid to late October through approximately the first part of January without a building. And the world doesn't want excuses, they want results. In all of my life, with all of the things I've ever had to do, that was probably, without question, the most challenging task that has ever been before me. We have an amazing team. Everybody pulled together. But that was, frankly, impossible. And we made it work. After we made it work, You know, there were, boy, that was just really, really, really hard. And so after doing that, yes, in the 2023 budget, after we had been able to survive that, I said, yes, I'm going to put that and ask for that in the 2023 budget. So the approximate reason why the request was not in the 2022 budget but was in the 2023 budget was because of the degree of difficulty that it took to survive 2022 without a complete and total collapse of the Hank I. County justice system. That's the reason. That's why. Happy to answer any questions if you have.

Do I understand it correctly with the recently approved motion, the salaries themselves are now at parity on the two that we agreed to. And the only compensation outside of that coming up now or later is a $5,000 subsidy that you just are receiving the last few years, right?

There's no other? Humanities chief deputy, yes.

Right. Oh, each. Oh, your chief deputy does get the $5,000. Okay. And the comprehensive plan that keeps getting referenced about pay parity, I remember talking about it years ago. I do not remember everything it said.

That's because a different board set that up.

Yes. And that is just their guidance. Yes. It is not a legally binding document.

Well, it could cost you reimbursement of money from the state. That's the issue.

Okay. And did it specify?

Otherwise, you're right. They can't control us and tell us what to do. You're absolutely right.

Did it specify that parity is on salary or total compensation? What was that verbiage?

What does it say? From the CCA, the Council on Court Appointed Attorneys, their standard is that pay parity between salary and compensation. That's why it includes bonuses.

And that includes workload too, is that correct? that the comparable positions and the workload is similar? Is that where the parity need is? Because I remember from that time that we had the big discussion that we were questioning whether or not the – Yeah, that was his junior attorney.

That was forever. These two. This one's different.

No, that's not what this was. This was – we discussed whether or not the – I'm not sure what you call them, your chief deputies in your offices.

Oh, he's got one chief deputy.

Yeah. Your employee that you're trying to give the $5,000 to each has a similar workload. And I thought, at least from what I remember back, that they were not similar in their workload.

One, in my memory, there wasn't a discussion between his chief deputy and my chief deputy as far as actually staff attorneys and support staff, whether they were. Well, this was a couple years ago that I remember. That's what it was. And ultimately it was determined that they were. I think Mr. Geritas even did his study on.

We figured out who in his department was comparable. That's how we did it. So they're fine now. Everybody's fine. The only issue is this $5,000 issue. Yeah, there's no other issues right now.

I just have a question. It's a pay parity. It's on total compensation. And we're now questioning the $5,000. What about this bonus that you're going to be getting? Wouldn't that be total compensation that he would be getting?

Well, we approve that.

We voted on that.

For Brent also? Well, Brent's is paid by the state. And that is $137.

But that would be total compensation. I mean, if you're going to go by that rule, I'm just saying. $635. I'd like some clear direction for my payroll.

Back to that. That was offered by the state, and it's being... Yeah, Mr. Rankin's getting that, I think. I don't know if Mr. Rankin...

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. I'll do my best. Sometime early to... Salary for record. Prosecutors in chief. Static, I think, for the last... The state pays them to state is that in July or so it's not circulated by.

Oh. Office it's on a different.

I'm going is to go to. And now that you know zero salary, that was not something that was in the original. But it or. Something that is necessary. Got a letter. I want to say that we got back as part of our deposit. Buzz and. Give me like I've got a copy of the letter I do, which said it was a one time bonus. I never had seen or heard of this happening in the history of Indiana, so I've noticed reference point for the ins and outs of it, but that's what it was.

That came from the state. It wasn't something that was supposed to come from payroll.

Yeah, and then what we were talking about is that is being taken out of our public defender supplemental fund, which is any county line item, but none of that money is funded by the county. That is funded by defendant expenses, by fees, ordered by the courts. So it's not county dollars per se that county taxpayers have paid in. County General or anything along those lines.

We are taking yours out. Yeah, we passed that one. Yeah. I just wanted to be clear.

Last week we passed it. Okay.

And then what we just reduced over what was approved at the budget hearing basically was a reduction of what? Almost $6,000.

It was the 3%. Correct. Because he should not get 3% more than the parity thing is to make them equal. Yeah.

So by adding the five, my point there is by adding the $5,000, we subtracted $6,000. For each of them? No, just from Jeremy. We take the 3% raise back out. That was something close to $6,000 backed out. So if we give him the $5,000 from supplemental, we're not negative to what we approve. It would be his second in command. I don't think that reduction was...

It was 3%, whatever the number was, but... It's probably around $4,000. $137?

Uh-huh. Yeah. So by doing the two $5,000 increments, we're within a very small margin of what we had approved with the 3% increase.