Forest Park delays vote on Gillum Logistics tax incentives; board presses for higher wages and local-hire commitments

The Forest Park Downtown Development Authority discussed a developer request for tax incentives tied to two buildings at the Gillum Logistics Center and agreed to return the proposal for a formal vote at the board’s November meeting.

The item, introduced during the meeting as “the tax incentive request for Gillum,” centered on two existing speculative warehouse buildings the developer is marketing to potential tenants: a roughly 106,000-square-foot building identified in the packet as “Gillum 651” and a roughly 570,000-square-foot building referred to as Building 600. Robinson Weeks Partners, the master developer and the presenter, laid out a 10‑year abatement structure that would begin at 50% in year one and decline 5 percentage points annually, and described proposed authority-fee and clawback provisions tied to job and wage commitments.

Robinson Weeks vice president Frances Jackson, who identified herself to the board as both the company’s vice president of asset management and the president of the Gillum Logistics Owners Association, summarized the developer’s case and the market rationale for an incentive. “We’ve brought Amazon, HD Supply, GXO, Boeing, really notable names, Kroger,” Jackson said, describing Gillum’s tenant mix and the role an incentive plays when recruiting large users against competing sites.

Staff and the developer presented financial estimates for the two buildings. For the smaller building (Gillum 651) the presenter reported a $12,000,000 assessed value (40% assessment shown as $4,000,008) and an example 10‑year abatement that would produce about $684,000 in tenant savings under the schedule shown. For the larger building (Building 600) the presenter listed a $39,000,009 total value with a 40% assessed value of about $15,000,009, and a tenant-savings estimate on the example schedule of about $2,000,002.74. The developer’s spreadsheet also showed two authority-fee options: an administration/authority fee calculated at one-eighth of 1% (the value used in the developer’s draft) and an alternative quarter‑of‑1% fee that would raise materially more revenue to the authority (example figures shown ranged from about $81,006 for the smaller building at one-eighth of 1% to roughly $165,000 at a quarter‑percent; for the larger building the one-eighth figure shown was about $274,000 and the quarter‑percent option was larger).

Ed (last name not specified in the meeting record), who shared the spreadsheet and calculations, told the board the county decides whether it will participate in abatement contracts and that the DDA should consider whether to ask the Clayton County School Board to participate. “We are obligated to ask the county and...acquiesce whatever their wishes are. We’re not required to do that about the schools,” Ed said, describing the sequence of approvals the presenter expects.

Jackson and Ed said the abatement proposals include clawback provisions tied to job and wage targets. The developer listed projected job counts and wage levels the tenant would have to meet for the abatement to remain in force: about 20 full‑time jobs at a stated wage of $17.50 per hour for the smaller building and about 50 full‑time jobs at a stated $17.50 per hour for the larger building. The board was told earlier precedent includes clawbacks and that staff does annual compliance reports; the presenters cited one past case (Ocado) in which the authority recaptured value when targets were not met and later reinstated benefits after the company achieved goals.

Mayor Angeline Butler pressed the developer and staff for more context on the proposal and the overall inventory of abated parcels at Fort Gillum. “I’d like to see Fort Gillum on a holistic scale. I want to see all the tax abatements that we’ve given out, and then what properties are there still left for Robinson Weeks to market,” Butler said, asking for a clear accounting of remaining developable parcels and how many sites have already received abatements. Board members also pressed for stronger assurances that jobs would go to Forest Park residents and raised concerns that the $17.50 hourly wage in the proposal is too low to be considered a living wage.

Several members suggested wage targets should be indexed or adjusted over time. One board member asked whether wage commitments could be increased annually, for example by tying the wage floor to the consumer price index; staff said wage indexing and clawback design are negotiable elements of the agreement and can be set in the final transaction documents.

Jackson and Ed offered to return with supplemental information: an updated side‑by‑side analysis that compares the Gillum buildings’ likely market wage levels and job counts against the proposed abatement, and a full listing of remaining parcels and existing abatements across Fort Gillum. The board did not vote on the abatement at the meeting; presenters and staff said the formal action will be scheduled for the DDA’s November meeting after the board has had time to review additional details.

Votes at a glance from the meeting (administrative items): the board adopted the meeting agenda with a motion by Jay Evans and a second by Lizzie (all in favor recorded). The board approved the Sept. 24, 2025 meeting minutes (mover/second not fully specified on the record; vote recorded as aye). Later in the meeting the board moved and seconded to go into executive session (mover and seconder identified as Eric and Nancy in the record); the motion was put and seconded on the transcript.

The DDA staff said the county tax roll typically precedes the city billing cycle, which affected the city millage figure in the developer’s packet. Staff also noted the DDA can require job fairs and local‑hire outreach but faces legal limits in prescribing a fixed number of local hires for private employers; the board can, however, make local‑hire goals part of the incentive’s performance conditions and clawback language.

The developer will return with a revised package that staff and the DDA asked to include: (1) a full list of parcels at Fort Gillum and which already have abatements, (2) an industry‑comparator wage analysis and recommended wage floor (and any proposed indexing mechanism), (3) an explanation of the authority fee recommendation, and (4) confirmation of which public taxing authorities (county, school board, city) would be asked to participate in the abatement contract.

If the board votes in November, the outcome and the final ordinance/contract terms will determine the extent of tax savings for tenants and the authority fee revenue returned to the city or DDA.