Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement Union At Crescent topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bloomington council finds Union at Crescent made reasonable efforts, preserves abatement
Summary
After a lengthy hearing, Bloomington Common Council unanimously found the Union at Crescent property had made reasonable efforts to meet tax-abatement commitments and kept the 10‑year abatement in place while monitoring remediation work and occupancy progress.
Council members on July 30 heard more than two hours of testimony about Union at Crescent, a 146‑unit multifamily development that received a 10‑year, 100% tax abatement in exchange for allocating 102 units at or below 60% of area median income (AMI). Jane Cooper Smith, director of Economic and Sustainable Development, told the council occupancy of the affordable units had fallen from 72 in September 2024 to 43 in May 2025 and summarized city staff concerns about site security, biohazards and management lapses.
The city’s housing director, Anna Killian Hansen, described repeated complaint inspections, eviction efforts, and life‑safety violations identified in a June inspection; she said the property has until Sept. 5 to correct roughly 34 life‑safety items. In response, Sam Hurley of the Annex Group, the firm now managing the property, acknowledged the problems and said the owners had taken over property management on March 1, committed more than $500,000 in capital improvements, engaged 24/7 security and professional cleaning, and are prioritizing resident safety and long‑term stabilization. “We acknowledge we accept that those issues have occurred,” Hurley told the council.
City attorneys and staff framed the legal issue for the council as twofold: whether the owner has made reasonable efforts to carry out the undertakings described in the memorandum of understanding and whether any shortfalls resulted from factors beyond the owner’s control. Audrey Brittingham, the city attorney, told members that setting units aside in the MOU is not the same as achieving full occupancy and said the city could revisit the abatement if future off‑cycle compliance reports show continued noncompliance. “We firmly feel that 10 years of tax abatements does not equate to setting these units aside,” she said.
After questions by council members and further discussion, the council voted 8–0 to find the owner had made reasonable efforts to substantially comply and that failures were caused by factors beyond the owner’s control. The vote preserves the abatement for now, while allowing the city to require additional reporting and to revisit the matter if conditions do not improve. Council President noted the city can continue the matter later if inspectors find issues remain uncorrected.
Next steps: HAND will continue inspections of the life‑safety items and ESD may request off‑cycle compliance reports; council can reopen the matter if required.
