All right, welcome everyone to the September Bloomington Urban Enterprise Association board meeting.
It is 1204 by my clock and take it away Heather for a roll call. All right, everyone welcome. Thanks
for flexing the schedule this month. Appreciate that. So we'll do around the room roll call.
Kate Rosenbarger, BUEA. Jane Cooper-Smith, BUEA. Heather Robinson, BUEA. Megan Gardner, Staff. Virginia
Gethary, BUEA. Vidal Rosa, Staff. Ron Whistler, BUEA. And then our guests in the back. Tanya. John Scowette.
Sue West. And then our folks online. Felisa, you want to start? Felisa Spinali, BUEA. And then
And then Eric, if you don't mind introducing yourself. Great. Thank you. All right. Thanks, everyone.
Welcome. What's up? Approval of minutes. Yes. Did anyone have any comments, corrections on the minutes
from the August meeting?
Hearing none, if we can do a roll call for approval of the minutes. Oh, we need a, sorry, we need a
motion. Sorry, my brain. Second. And then a roll call for approval. Okay, Michael Humber, yes. Kate
Rosenberger, yes. Jane Coopersmith, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Virginia Getheter, yes. Remisler, yes.
Felicia Spinelli, yes. All right, great. All right. The director's report. OK. As you can tell, we're
whizzing through everything because we have a lot of grants to get through. First of all, mission, vision,
and values planning. So according to everybody's schedules, it's been difficult. But we've set a date
for Monday, October 5 at 530 at the mill.
Obviously, we don't have to have every single person there, but I would like to have at least four or
five board members there. So if this is, I just need to know who can make it and who cannot. If we end
up having low attendance, then I will do my best to try and reschedule something, but it's been really
difficult just coordinating schedules. So it was just like, I gotta pick a date and we gotta do it.
So that is that.
So we'll have a sense October 5th, which is a Monday evening. It's going to be an hour. No,
this is the 30th. Yeah, the commissioner's training is the 30th. That's the thing that I forgot to put
in my director's report. The board and commission training for every board member and commissioner is
September 30th.
In city council chambers from 530 to 730, there's also an online option. It is required of every board
member and commissioner to take this training. So if you have not yet, please do. And I know that there
were a couple of people who may have taken it in June. We're still trying to figure out the record of
that. Oh, sorry. Oh, OK.
So that's required. Do you guys want to know on the public record who still needs to take their training?
Yep. I know I do. I signed up. OK. OK. So sorry, back to October 5. So that is the day I'll be back.
So I may or may not be here. OK. So here are the people, Felisa, Katarina, Heather, and Virginia. OK.
So you guys are good. So that's the mandatory training on September 30. Do you want me to send an invite to you?
I've got it. I'm signed up. OK. OK. So October 5th. Kate, what's your? I'm out of town. I am out until
mid-November, basically. There's a chance on October 5th I could zoom in if that is a possibility. But
I know it just changes the dynamics. OK. Good to know.
You may or may not? Yeah, I'm tentative. I should be traveling back that particular day. Tentative,
Brad? I am in town. I have a conflicting event on my calendar that I think I can move. OK. So 60%, yes.
60%, yes. I can make it. I'm supposed to be making it.
But this is not the training that I need. No, this is not the training that you need. So the mission,
vision, and value planning is for our overall strategic plan for the PUEA. Essentially what's going
to happen, it's an hour long. We're going to go through training with Michelle King, who has a company
called Phone Box. And she's done this for major corporations and nonprofits.
just to kind of get our bearings as a board. I don't think that that's happened in a really long time
for the BUEA. And this is gonna inform some of the decisions and the planning for the budget for 2027
and in the future. Like I said, it's an hour long training. She's going to take that information,
process it, which will take her probably about a couple weeks, and then kind of come back with her findings.
And then we'll be able to kind of make a plan moving forward from there.
Um, but, uh, it's a really important input session. It's nice to take it out of city hall and have it
someplace else so we can kind of get out of the framework and mindset of just this one hour meeting
that we have monthly, um, and trying to make this as efficient as possible. So, um, okay. So, okay.
Andy, I have, um, you have redevelopment commission. No, I have.
town hall with the mayor, but I'll see if I can get someone else to take it, because I really don't
want to miss this. It was really important. I just did. If there are questions I could answer ahead
of time for the October 5th, I would. Sure. OK. Because I am bummed. I want to just add, if this is
like a medical situation for me, I'm not going on a fun trip.
So I just want to put that out there. But if I could do some stuff ahead of time for it. For sure. OK.
So I have five. Yeah, I think we're good. Great. And then I'm meeting with Michelle next week.
So we'll see. I'll hit her up and see if there can be some type of questionnaire or something to get some
critical information from those of you who can't make it. OK? Great. So also, I mentioned the budget.
I was going to have a draft for you guys to be able to look at today because we have so many
grant applications that came in between our last meeting and this meeting. I want to make sure that
these all get
through and into the process before we start all of our administrative stuff for the end of the year,
because I know that our meetings are probably gonna end up running longer if possible, and we're just
kind of on a tight timeline to the fourth quarter of the year, which is insane to say out loud. I would
like to extend the regular session meeting next month by 30 minutes, either before or after, whichever
works best.
Um, and then, um, the November and December meetings had, uh, we had, according to, um, the calendar
that I made at the beginning of the year already had extensions, um, for 30 minutes because we'll be
going through the budget process. So, um, that I would like to have that by vote or I guess I don't
need it by vote. I think I just need to have a confirmation as to whether
we can do an extra 30 minutes next month. I can do an extra. I prefer it on the later end. OK. Let me
look at that. So that is October 21st. I pushed that. No, you're up. OK. I'm good. And you're good.
Yeah, either way. Me too, either way. OK. I would rather it be earlier. Yeah. I can do it either way.
Either way.
Okay. Yes. Before or after? Okay, great. Okay, wonderful.
And then I will confirm all of that via email to the board as far as that schedule change. Oh, and Jane,
how about you? Good? Yes. Before or after would be better? For which? For October. I'm sorry, guys.
No, you're good. I think before. OK. All right. Let me see what I can do.
Either is good, Dee. OK. So next month, MCCSE and CDFI are going to give their annual reports, which
is partially why I wanted to extend the meeting so they have enough time. All right. So I guess let's
get right into it.
We have several capital improvement grants, which I'm really excited about. I put them in order
of submission. The first that we have up is, and I guess I shouldn't inform you guys, because we do
have so many, I kind of put a little bit of structure on this. So I'm going to just present the proposal
in general to the board, and then they're going to get round one of questions.
either I can answer them or you can answer them when we're to your grant. And then you have about two
minutes to three minutes to answer the question. And then we'll do a second round of questions if necessary.
I wanna make sure in the first round that everybody gets all of their first round questions in before
somebody asks the second question. And then we can have some deliberation time if necessary after the
fact, okay?
So first up is Merth for a business building improvement grant and I'm gonna start sharing. Give me
just a second.
Sorry about that, guys. There we go. So Merth is on Kirkwood in Fountain Square Mall. This property
is a lease property. They are renting from CFC. The project summary is the removal of drywall and plaster
to expose and refurbish an existing brick wall, per Bolden instruction group change order.
The total renovation cost of this project was $19,813. Their funding request is $9,550. So they have
absolutely hit the matching requirement. And they have not ever received a grant from us. So there is also.
If you would like to see the finished product, if I can get in here. I think this will open it up. So
that's the wall.
And it's a larger expansion. So the entire expansion of the business was over $100,000. I think it was
$150,000. So major improvement to the downtown. I went to the opening. It was fantastic. I cried. Yeah,
I totally cried. I was super choked up. These ladies have been working really hard from pop-up to this. So yeah.
amazing landlord that CFC is for, you know, also putting in everything they did for construction and
what they do for the building in the downtown. So they did some really cool, I think I would hope the
board members feel invited to go in there and check it out. They did some really cool stuff like exposed
brick and exposed some steel beams that were original and
So do any board members have any questions? We do have Susan West here from Merth. If you do have any
questions regarding this. No? And I mentioned they would be here, but they are both on a buying trip
today. It's only two days a year, once in the spring and once in the winter. And today's the day. They
are on a buying trip, and Indianapolis are both on a buying trip. So lucky to you guys. It's a nice place.
All right. My only question is, so is this a, are we reimbursing or is there still work that's? This
is a reimbursement. Okay. Yes. So all of the work has been completed. Okay. I will say it's similar
to Andrew Davis. We had a grant. I'm not sure, Katarina, if you were here for that one. We had a grant
that came to us for Andrew Davis who also has a retail in Fountain Square and
It was a similar situation as a reimbursement against CFC put a lot into it as well, as did the tenant.
And so it was a reimbursement for work. And I do want to add that they were not expecting this wall
to be there when they did their initial, like the initial project was not supposed to include the restoration
of this wall, hence the additional cost and the potential for a grant to help them out with that.
Any other questions? One other question, please. So the 9550, is that going to the business or to CSE
properties? That will go to the business. So that's part of their portion. As I read through the materials,
my right, too, on that, as I went through part of the portion that they paid for. So their total was
just under $20,000. So they're asking for the 9550.
It's reimbursement for the business building. And that wall is beautiful. I mean, what an improvement,
truly, for the space. All right. Are we good? Do we feel good? Are we ready to vote on this? Do we have
a motion? Motion. Second? Second. All right. Roll call. Michael Hooger, yes. Kate Rosenberger, yes.
Jane Coopersmith, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Virginia Gutierrez, yes. Henry Nicole, yes. Brad Whistler, yes.
Lisa Spinelli, yes. All right. Thank you very much. All right, Dean, what's our next one? Next, I don't
think we have a representative from the Cherry Canary Building. So this is a historic facade grant.
This is two facades, and I'll pull this back up.
So if you're not familiar with the Cherry Canary Building, it is on 4th Street, the corner of 4th and
Gentry. Am I the only person who had to look up Gentry? I honestly lived here for how many years?
I was like, Gentry? How did I? OK. I was like, oh.
So this is a facade grant basically for tuck pointing, masonry restoration, and limestone silver placement
to be a craft and chipped brickwork on both facades. Olympus Properties is the property manager, and
Fox Property Development is the contractor. This property is actually owned by Stardust Development.
And so yeah, I think that you can tell
There's some serious repair that does need to be done to this property. As far as I know, they're still
in the process of making this happen. The total cost of the project is $48,200. And for the historic
facade grant, just to remind everyone, we're able to grant $10,000 per facade.
So they're asking for the $10,000 for the 214 West 4th Street, and then $10,000 for the 127 South Gentry
Street. And they're both in the historic district, or the buildings in the historic courthouse district.
And I know I ask this all the time, so this one has been through HPC. This was recommended or referred
to us by HPC.
out who the grantee would be. Olympus is the property manager. Stardust development is the applicant.
It looks like it's owned by the Ferguson's. They're the representative. So they're serving as the point
of contact for the applicant. So it's local. It's all local. It's all local. OK. Not that that's one
of our criteria, but I'm just
The only question I have beyond who was actually applying, is it for the entire facade? I see there's
two addresses from Gentry on, and I just want to make sure it's giving the whole side of the building.
Yes. OK. Most of the pictures were on the 4th Street. Right. So this guy, and then I think that this is
the section that is gentry. So if you, I don't know if they do a full photo of that, but I have walked
up, there it is. Yes. So to the left of the picture, there's another property with the rest of the facade.
I'm just making sure that, is it the whole facade or is it just the front half of the facade?
I believe that it's the whole facade. I can clarify that if you'd like before we move forward. Just
something to consider. It would be kind of odd further to be a brake line where half has been restored
and half is not. No, absolutely. I'm just kind of curious about that. For sure.
I was just trying to look again at not the ownership. So it looks like Stardust Development owns it.
Is that also Ferguson Law, basically? I mean, it looks because it looks like it was Ferguson and then
it was transferred. From my understanding from the application, that yes. They're like the same, but
it's an LLC. OK. Yeah, it looks like David and Tyler Ferguson or Stardust Development.
Any other questions for me? I will do my best to answer them. I know this is dense. There's a lot in
there. So everyone, take your time if you need to. And then looking at, we do want to table this so
I can get some more answers from the group.
Happy to do that. If you want to move forward, that's fine, too. I'm trying to untangle the addresses
directly. I think it's 117 is the other address. I think so, but it's listed in the report as 127. So
I think it's 117 South Gentry is what it is. And that's on the Gentry side. There's two addresses on
that facade. 127 is, I think, the chairing.
So there's 214 West 4th Street, which is Cherry Canaries door and 127 South Gentry is what's listed
as that West side door. However, the address on Gentry is actually 117 in the adjacent building and
like physically separate brick building is listed as 113. So the building. Yeah.
by Mike Smith is 113. So I suspect the 127 is actually 117 and is that whole building. But I wonder
if we're going to, if we vote to approve, if it could be conditional upon desverification of the address.
I guess in my mind it actually, I mean, I'm just curious, but I mean, the money is still per facade.
I think it's an improvement that can be done.
Regardless, I still would like it to be done. But I'm just kind of curious if they drew a line where
the business owner was responsible for it or not. So it sounds like we need some clarification on that
side of the facade. OK. Other thoughts or questions about the swim?
Does everyone feel good being able to vote on it with a condition that D clarifies the facade? Though,
I mean, what's then? So if it comes back. Yeah, I don't think it would change my mind. I still think
it needs done. But I'm just kind of curious how that all works. OK, so we need some clarification.
Does everyone still feel OK about voting to approve the facade work for this one? It has been through
HPC, so. Personally, I feel fine voting on it. OK. All right. Any final questions or thoughts? All right.
Do we want to then have a motion with the? A motion. OK. Do we have a second? Second. OK. And roll call.
Approval? Michael Hover, yes.
Rosell Barber, yes. Jane Cooper-Smith, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Virginia Gethier, yes. Kevin McCall,
yes. Brad Whistler, yes. Lisa Spinelli, yes. All right. Andy, you could even just email us on that one
if you get some clarification. For sure. Sorry. I do have it. It's in Beacon as 120. So the west side
of the facade is in Beacon as 127. OK.
So I think you're good. I think it's the full building. I think it's the two of us. Great. The two separate,
sorry. All right. Cherry Canary in the. I did see some more. It's like 139 feet back, I think. So that
makes sense too. Yeah. All right. So next. OK. Next is World Food Market. This is an accessibility grant
for, let's see.
They will be adding an accessible bathroom. And then I believe that Eric is present here. Let me see
if we can find, there's everybody. It's pretty straightforward construction of a new accessible restroom.
The whole project costs about $15,000. They are asking for, they're requesting $10,000.
which is actually 25% the matching for an accessibility grant. They have not asked, they have not had
a major capital improvement grant, but they have received a minor improvement grant for $1,000. And
it is escaping me right now what that was for. But we do have Eric online. Hi. Hi, Eric.
I'm going to turn it over to the board to ask you questions. Sure. Any questions from the board? The
only thing that I noted, sorry, I have two small things. Actually, just one. I didn't see that there
was a quote for the work being done, and I saw it was a nice round number of $15,000. Is there like
an invoice or a breakdown of those costs? It does exist.
We do have an estimate. So this is part of a broader project that is a coffee shop that we're adding
to the building in an existing space. And we've gotten past the licensing and whatnot with local government
and are now in the construction phase. We're entering into that. So we do have actual quotes and whatnot
paperwork available. So the total
I think it's probably included in the total contractors quote. It looks like it was pulled
from a spreadsheet. It probably has other things around it. Yeah. I mean, I think I did have some paperwork
that was quoted. Yeah. But we haven't had people come in since. The sample budget PDF, maybe?
There's the ADA quote PDF, but it's not hot for us. I don't know. It's like page 35 of the PDF. There's
an ADA quote PDF. I still don't know. Well, my mistake, I think, is not providing enough information
for you. There's a statement on the PDF. Yeah, we might be able to. Yeah, I don't know why that's not
included. So right there, Dee, that ADA quote, can you, is that, it's not hot.
If you will give me just a second, I will find that over here and then pull it up for everyone. I just
want to see which file it is before I start going through everything right now. While Dee's looking
for that, were there any other questions? That was my one question on this one too was,
I know we had a really long conversation about it and it's been a minute but we we waived all matching
requirements so the fact that they're putting in part of it is great but it's not
necessary or is still necessary on these? We haven't officially done that for this. Every time we have
waived a match, it's because a board member has suggested or motion to waive a match. And then I guess
for Alex or whoever knows the policy, what is the current match requirement? 25%. Oh, OK. So they're there.
like the breakdown of the total cost of the bathroom, or are we looking for this broader project in
the bathroom? Just the bathroom. Just the bathroom. I think that when this was submitted, the layout
was put in for the ADA quote and not the actual form or the actual listing. So I am sorry about that,
guys. I really thought that I had that in there. That's OK. Just to be clear, Eric, this is Jane Coopersmith.
quote from your contractor. So since we're dealing with public funds, we have to make sure that not
that you guys would, but that it's not a made up number. We have that. We have that. I'm on the line
with one of my stakeholders. She is turning up that information. Great. I don't think she expected I
wouldn't have it, unfortunately. My only thought and concern is that this is more of like a building
improvement grant and less of an accessibility grant.
the facilities and the ADA would be like the handrail you know we're talking about the whole project
which is a bathroom where that accessibility is only parts of the bathroom is my only concern. Right
yeah I've got wider doorways stuff like that. Okay so I'm just kind of curious what that looks like.
Yeah I mean I feel like this could go could qualify for either one really and maybe we should look at
it from whichever one we have more
Funds available. Which one has more available funding? I was about to say, that's why I brought this
up, because it would let us over budget in this particular. In ADA? In ADA, it is actually over budget.
I saw that. So it might apply for a building improvement. Be more appropriate for building improvement
and work better for the budget. Right. OK. Where might I drop this file? If you want to email it directly
to me right now,
That would be great. Or if you can link it in the chat, we could also do that as well. So I think we're
just waiting on the quote for this. So just in the interest of time, yeah, you can link that into the
chat or get that to us.
Move on to the next one, and once you get that up, we'll come back to you. OK? Thank you for your patience.
All right. Just quickly to answer the question about the categories, if I did some math on what's before
us today, and if we do approve everything that's on the docket,
our business building improvement balance will be down to $577. So switching the request from accessibility
to business building improvement wouldn't really make a difference in that. I think the bigger picture
is that we have four zone grants in general. We have like kind of a total pot of money. And again, if we
approve everything that's before us today, we will not exceed that total amount for that particular
cat, those categories, like in total, like right there, the zone improvement grants D. Yeah, sorry,
I can't make it any larger. Um, so overall for the zone improvement grants, um, if we were to approve
everything today, we would still have, uh, about 45,000 left in that budget category.
And I will mention, though, 20 of that, I think, is for seal. And you expect that to come through.
So really, it's probably more like 20. So we would go essentially in the red for potentially a category.
But for the overall grants under zone improvement, we would not exceed the budget. So just for the awareness
of the board to know that.
So it may just be a category, one specific line. OK. All right. So while Eric's working on that,
what's next, Dean? Next we have Davis Music Academy. This property is owned by Craig and Emily Davis.
And this is a business building improvement project.
This is on 336 South Walnut near Chocolate Moose, that sort of area, if you're not familiar. So they
are looking to do a roof replacement to address active leaks. They will also be
adding exterior security cameras and flood lighting. This is not part of the project that they're asking
for funds for, but this is the reason that they need to do the roof replacement so that they can install
this material. The total funding request is $9,227.23.
When you look at the separate quote of the $7,500, they definitely hit a matching. And they are seeking
another grant from the city for $3,000. They just gave us that information to be transparent. However,
they have not received any grant funding from us.
So it's the one above it. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So as far as the photos go, yes, this is. So this area where
they will be likely putting a flood light there, there's a lot of water damage going on right there.
But it looks like this is the area in which they will be putting in most of the security. This is some
of the leakage that's happening because of the repairs that need to be done.
what page the application starts in the packet. It's 42 on the PDF. OK, got it. Thanks. I thought the
RBC quote was for the 1122 Madison. Oh, we're on the one before that. Yeah, I think we're on Davis,
which is security. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Wait. There we go. Yeah, right there.
I had a question on this one, because you spoke briefly that they meet the matching, but the quote says
$9,227. For the total project of the security and the roof replacement, because one can't happen without
the other? I see. So exterior security and lighting is $7,500, and roof is $9,200. Right. And they're
requesting $9,200-ish. Is that right?
Yes, for the total, because they're taking consideration the total project. So the total project to
do all of this would be around like 17,000.
So this is not a safety and security, this is a building improvement because they're asking for assistance
with the roof. So the security can't happen without the roof, but the roof can happen without the security.
So it's a little
You know, I mean, yeah, right. And I understand what they're saying is that these all are being improved.
They're not asking us for money for safety and security, but that's part of the general improvements.
Right? Do you know what their follow up ask is for? Assuming it's not for safety and security for the
other grant 3000. And do you know what that's for? I will have to go look.
that up that's for us too or where no that's a city grant yes but I just okay so the reason I asked
that is because I got $17,000 grant on this they're declaring a $7,500 match so then if they apply on
the city side for right
for something, is there an issue there? I guess that's maybe a legal question. Meaning, would they be
applying for reimbursement for part of the grant that's being used as a UVA match? It doesn't matter.
So this is 336 South Walnut. Is that the only use of the building? I believe so.
I'm glad for all the work that they're, like I often look at this building and I'm like, man, they're
going like they're still going. And I think you can imagine that these dollars would make a huge impact
for a music academy and that it's a neighborhood that with the construction and then just being kind
of a thoroughfare for different types of activity. I'm sure this is really critical. I just wanted to
make sure that lines were
Yeah, great. I mean, you'll review the $3,000 grant, so you'll understand if there's, OK. Yeah.
All right. Yeah, I still haven't reviewed the city grant that they've submitted yet. So that will definitely
come into play, depending upon what the board decides today.
Do they own the building? They do own the building. It's weird, because in the other applications, it
was image, application, but then this one goes to applications. That's not in there. Yes, it is. We
saw it up here. Oh, really? Yeah. But then she was on the wrong one. I think it's up. I think the pictures
are that 1122. Yeah. Oh, OK. So we're looking at that. All right. So for this particular one, the three
classes, 336 South Walnut Street. Do we have clarity? Is everyone good? Happy to give more information
if you'd like. It's not a problem. I think only just to caveat is that that $3,000 doesn't apply towards
this project. Right, that it's kind of like double dipping. What they said they were telling us. They
were giving a 50% match on. We're already going over that 50%. Yeah. I think what the city said.
city funds are not considered eligible as part of the match. Well, I think, and I don't know if Alex
is on the call. It frankly, it's a gray area. So I think it's just a something that the best practice
to not do, to not do that. Yeah. And, um, there's the, the funds are separate. They have separate. Yeah.
Yeah. I'm here. Um, there is a question. Yeah. So the question was,
So this $17,000 project, $7,500 is a match. The property owner is requesting a separate grant from the
city in the amount of $3,000 for a project that's not identified yet. And the board had some discomfort
with perhaps a separate application
being a separate grant from the city being used to cover the match for this project. We don't have any
indication that that's the case, but it just raised a question for the board. And so the board wondered,
what are the rules relating to the way funding is applied between city funds and BUEA funds? Can the
board make a motion that says, yes, we'll approve this as long as the
city funds don't cover the matching part of this grant? Or is that not allowed because the BVA can't
place restrictions on how the city applies its funding? I don't know the answer off the top of my head.
So I see the application, there's a $3,000 project call. They're seeking additional grants. So we do
know that that's a city grant? Yes.
And did you say it's a different project? It is the security portion of this project. Oh, it is? Yes.
Oh, so it is to cover the $7,500. So a different way the board could consider this, sorry for, what
was the $9,000 component? 92, $9,223.
25%. So then we're covered. Because even if $3,000 goes, they're still paying $4,500 out of, which is,
if you put $4,500 with the 92, it's there. I mean, they're putting in 30-some percent. They're still
over 25%. This is a business improvement grant that should be 50%. Well, but if I understand correctly,
it doesn't really
Didn't they just give us the information about the security just to let us know, just as a knowledge
piece? Because they're just really wanting money for the roof. So I'm guessing. And they would only
be eligible for $4,500. Yes. OK, so they have to combine it. I would suggest waiving the match if that's
an issue. I mean, there's not necessarily a reason that they have to do the match. We're waiving them.
We have that option.
Do you want to motion? Yeah, I would motion to waive the match so that there's not an issue with, well,
I would motion it however you want me to phrase it. Do you need a second before we talk about it? No.
OK. I want to make sure that we actually need that waiver, because it makes me pretty nervous from an
administrative perspective if we make exceptions.
in one area, but not to others. Like, we didn't waive the match for World Foods Market. So to Brad's
point, the project match required, oh, it's at 50%. So the required project match, oh my god, Jane.
Sorry, I'm almost there. And then we could approve up to 9,000
even, because they would be matching 50% of the 9,000 with their 4,500. Yeah, or for the total project,
you could approve 8,361.5, I think. So Brad, I think that math is, well, if we're only looking at the
roof, it's 9,200. So if it was the roof project, they would need to provide 4,500 of that. If it's the
entire project, that's basically
$17,000, their half would be $9,000. So I think the haves are getting kind of eluded. So is it 50% of
the total project cost or 50% of the grant amount that they have to match? That's the debate, because
it's two separate projects that have to happen in tandem to work. But they're two separate quotes. So
they're combining it for the portion of reimbursement. But you know what I mean? Normally, it would
be two separate projects.
I think they should revise. I do too. I think it would be too murky. Because again, I'm still stuck
on the fact that they don't want money from us for security. But they added that to tell us the total
cost. So I think they should revise. And the great question is, can you mash up to 50% of your total
funding request? And their funding request is $9,200, right? The funding request is $9,200. So they
would only have to match half of that, right?
I know we have a motion on the table for a match waiver, but I'm with Dr. G. I think either a revise
and resubmit, or if staff, if we could do legal review with Alex and see if we even need to go there,
but if we can get some additional information and either clarify, and then if that doesn't work, then
revise and resubmit and bring back to the board. So I don't know. If there's no second, I guess that
motion dies.
Yeah, and then so, but that's. Yeah, we did have a motion. Is there a second? OK, so that dies, so I
want to get clarification because it feels like we're trying to piece together a puzzle and I think
it would just be simpler if they just come back. I agree. I think that early comment about like you
can't do the security without the roof, but you can do the room without the security. And so I feel
like we're there.
Yeah, we're kind of... Is it one project or two? Right, so I think just some clarity. Thank you, Dee.
Thanks everyone for that. I know we're time is tight. Eric, were you able to... I do have it. Okay,
let's go back to that so we can finish that out.
This is from Man Plumbing. They gave them a round number. Round number. Yes. 15,000. 15,000. But it
is in detail as to what will be happening. Well, that feels like a contractor quote, if I may add. Yeah.
OK. All right. So it is in detail. All right. Thank you, Eric, for that clarity. Was there anything
else on this one? So going back, this is World Foods Market.
The ADA restroom. The only portion was that the board preferred to see it as a building improvement
and not an ADA. Which, again, changes the match requirement. Which does change the match requirement.
If you go to the quote, it'll tell you what the ADA was, which was the toilet and sink. I also saw a
handrail in the packet. But if it's a building improvement,
The only thing I guess that matters to me is that if they come back later down the road and wanting
another building improvement grant or asking for another ADA, just putting it in the right bucket so
that we're not doing the double. So ADA grants say applicants are limited to a one time only grant award.
Because I was just looking up the accessibility modification grant is what it's called because you were
kind of asking about.
Is this for brand new? I mean, the way it is phrased on our website, it's very much modification for
things that are grandfathered. So I do wonder if this is better placed in the building because it is
brand new. I mean, I think we could always change the ADA grant, but it looks like, according to our
website, the purpose is bringing things up to ADA. Yeah. That would be my only caveat. OK.
can move back to the business building improvement section. And if I would just ask that be part of
the point. Eric mentioned that this is part of a much larger improvement project, that the bathroom
was just a piece of it. And I'm asking for their match requirement. If this is like $15,000 of a $30,000
project, I hate to move them to business to building improvement.
if they have a much larger project and would be eligible then for more. Well, flip that. Flip that just
a little bit. It's more like, keep it business building improvement, but get additional documentation.
Yes. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I think, yeah, I'm with you. So Eric, do you have a ballpark for the
full cafe project? I don't have. I mean, like I said, it's
closer to $60,000 or more than that, I think. Actually, it's $100,000. I just got word. So if we were
to vote on this as is, we could only approve half of the project costs, so $7,500. So I'm afraid if
you don't revise and resubmit, you're leaving some money on the table, personally. Yeah. So I think.
You might, I don't know. Heather, how do you? OK, wait a minute. I can't, as a board member, coach him.
Right. So the request was, all right, am I looking at the $10,000? $10,000. Does he have to resubmit
or go in motion to move it? Well, the max on what BBI would be $10,000. So can we approve the $10,000?
We don't have documentation of the full project, because this is only for the bathroom project. Is it
not 50% of the requested funding? 50%, but it's one to one. I get exactly what you've been saying, Brad,
and you're thinking 50% that they get double, but it's one to one.
That's not what it says. 50% of the requested funding, not 50% of the project cost. I mean, I'm- Typically,
the grant. Hold on, Brad. The language- If the requested funding is $10,000, then we have to match $5,000.
Right, correct. You're absolutely right. And we have a $15,000 quote, so there's no reason- It's $7,500,
right? It's going to be $7,500.
I'm working on producing the more equipment. So typically, how this works is that someone gives us,
when they give us the entire budget, for instance, like we've just done with Merth, the entire project
costs over $100,000. And we're helping them with one area of that project. So they can leverage the
entire cost of the project against what they're asking for. I'm reading right here on.
on our website. And it says, for example, if you are requesting $5,000, you must show $2,500 of personal
financing for the project.
So therefore, if you're requesting $10,000, you must show $5,000 of personal funds. So we really just
need documentation of the entire project at this junction. I mean, but we already have documentation
of a $15,000 quote. So I don't see any reason why we couldn't just do it. We don't need anything other
than what we have, right? I see. Yes. Earlier, I was like, I don't think that's right. But it is right
because of the way our wording is. I'm sorry. I'm just getting my numbers reversed. You basically have
to show what you are funding a third of the project the way everything is written here.
Like it's not, it doesn't seem to be one to one. It's not right. So we could approve the 10,000 the
way it is right now. I agree. I completely agree that your verbiage was right. We were just kind of...
I was seeing where everybody was disagreeing. My bad. I wasn't trying to... I was getting my numbers
reversed. I apologize. The $15,000 quote that we're seeing is only for the plumbing, not even for
Right. Drywall and everything else in the bathroom. That's not even the total cost of the bathroom,
right? That's just the- So I'll just approve this as a building, business building grant for $10,000
as requested, just a different grant type. Wonderful. Do we have a second? Second. Awesome. Roll call
approval, please. Michael Hooper, yes. Felisa. Oh, go ahead, Felisa. Felisa Spinelli, yes. Kate Rosenbarger,
yes. Jane Cooper-Smith, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Virginia Mactheer, yes.
Can we call yes? Brad Whistler, yes. All right. OK, Dee, we're at time. What did we not get to? 1122
North Madison, LLC, and True Ketamine, which is vanished aesthetics. Separate. Yes. Legal entity, though.
Separate legal entity.
We can table these for the next meeting. If the board wants to stay longer, we could potentially do
that. Up to you guys. I did put these in order of submission. So these two are the most recent submissions
that we have gotten. I can't stay longer. OK. It was just submitted September, start of September. Yes.
OK. I think we hold off. Do we have a motion to table these?
Do we continue these to the next meeting? Yes. I move that we continue the 1122 North Madison Street
and the True Bloom Ketamine applications to our next meeting. Second. I will call. Michael, yes. Hey,
Rosemary, yes. Jane Cougarsmith, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Virginia Gutierrez, yes. Terri Collier,
yes. Brad Whistler, yes. Melissa Spinelli, yes. All right. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Are we adjourned?
We're adjourned.