Welcome to the redevelopment commission meeting for the city of Bloomington July 7th 2025. Call the meeting to order. We'll do a roll call please. Laurie McRobbie present. Cece Campbell-Larry here. Brandi Caston present. John West here. Deborah Mayerson present. And staff present please. Christina Binley, Hand Department. Tammy Caswell, Hand Department. Jane Cougarsmith, Economic and Sustainable Development. Jessica McClellan, City Controller.
 Kevin Kenoki, engineering. Roy Aitin, engineering department. Julie Mitchell-Ox, the mayor. Anna Dragovitsky, SDU. Dana Kerr, legal. Thank you. Anybody online who is part of the staff present? We will move on to the next item on the agenda, which are the minutes. We've got a batch of minutes I'm going to propose.
 approval of all, but certainly if you'd like to call one out for comments or questions, you should do that. So the minutes that are up for approval are the minutes for June 2nd, 2025, June 16th, 2025, as well as two executive session summaries for June 18th and June 30th, 2025. Any questions or comments from commissioners on any of these? If not, I'll entertain a motion. There's one correction. I can't take exactly where it is, but instead of saying RDC, it says RDV. It's not in there.
 No. No, it's further in the evening. Further in the evening? Okay. I noted it too. Nice. Okay. Well, we will revisit that at the apt time. But for the current minutes, any other comments or questions for commissioners? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move approval of all four sets of minutes. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously.
 Next on our agenda is the examination of claim registers. We've got two June 20, 2025 for $273,830.41 and July 3rd, 2025 for $171,460.50. Any questions or comments from commissioners on either of these claim registers? One question just on a grant, and I'm assuming it's under 4915 under account 53960, and that's on a grant. It's just Van Horn.
 wrapping the parks trailer or a separate? It's the parks trailer? Yeah. OK. Any other questions or comments? Yeah. Question on the June 20th payment, 7,255, which is the solar panels. Can you remind us how that program works?
 what we're paying for here. The solar panels, is that what you're saying? Yeah, in 2017, the city did a group buy of solar panels through the guaranteed energy savings contract. A portion of those panels were purchased by RDC, some were purchased by parks, and some were purchased by
 CBU, Jessica can jump in and correct me if I missed something. And so this would be just the bond payment, right? I am looking for the payments. Of the RDC's portion. Those are some of the same panels that are just sitting in storage. Uh-huh, likely.
 Well, we, yes. Well, no, it's not clear, because we think that we had a bunch of progress in determining which panels were in storage. We wanted to know whether they were CBUs or the redevelopment commissions. And the way the contracts were issued, it wasn't solar panel by solar panel, but they were issued by guaranteed kilowatt savings.
 So it makes it very challenging to determine. Who had the majority of panels that created the most. Dana and Shania and I have been working on this. And I think we need to probably pick that ball up again. Basically, it appears that CBU did not get an installation at the Luther Poole facility. And all the other installations did occur. So there's a strong likelihood that those actually
 belong to the CBU. But everybody's been paying pro rata on the bonds as if everything was installed. So there might have to, once that determination's made, there may have to be adjustments on reallocating what actually was installed and who's getting paid for those. And what to do with any proceeds that may come out of transferring the equipment,
 that we do have. When's the bond paid off?
 23. Okay, so we'll have to be tapping that for a while still. Well, we need to see that it'd be nice for the panels to be used. Right. Because we're paying for assets that are just sitting around. Yeah. I'll see if we can get a more thorough update together for the next meeting, but I know it sounds crazy, but it's
 a complicated issue with a lot of different stakeholders involved. So we were working toward asset disposition for those panels. But I'll see what kind of update we can provide at our next meeting. The main thing I'd like to see is some finality in regards to where we think we're going to be on this since it's this 2017 issue. And I know you guys inherited it as an administration. So they're trying to get specific finality of what we're looking at on a dollar for dollar basis so we can calculate into the future on financial commitments.
 Okay, if that resolves that particular question, we have others. We got one other one. On the July 3rd claim, there's claim number 9300 to Cassidy Electric.
 This has got nothing to do with the claim, Randy. I'm just suggesting that in the description, most time we do, but in the description, we identify the property where the service is being performed. And generally we do, but there's a case where we didn't. So I just think it's good to know which RDC property we're paying an invoice for.
 provide that information. I have no idea. It was in the trades district before freeze fest. Which is good for our edification so if you could add it to the description that would be great. And just maybe as a general practice then. Yeah that's what I meant. Yeah. I was just showing that as an example. Right. Well thanks for catching that. Any other questions or comments from commissioners on these claim registers?
 One real quick question, just a question in regards to the 15-year account, 53990, on the H&K maintenance and RTC-owned property. Is that inclusive of the Hopewell? Mm-hmm. OK, because they need to clean the islands. Gotcha. I'm just going to mention that any time there is anything on the table that was a curinary
 interest to any of the members, it would be, even if you've done a disclosure, it would still be good to at least abstain from even that little portion of it. Just so that, you know, it's out there that everybody knows that just for transparency. So that's always a best practice. Brady, did you say the islands? Yeah, just the islands. They did a great job on the grass and the
 project. And that was the Hopewell area? Yeah, it's just the Hopewell area around the 714 building, primarily. The expectation that RDC properties or any properties that are publicly owned should set the example in regards to our community as a whole. Yeah, and I don't want to speak for Anna Dragovich, but she did a site visit a week ago and is communicating with HAND to get some of those outstanding areas taken care of.
 So I'm not sure why it hasn't happened yet, but it's in the process. It's summer. If there are no further comments or questions, Commissars, I will request a motion for the examination of claims registers as presented. Approval of claims registers for June 20th and July 3rd, 2025. Second. The first and the second, all in favor say aye. Aye. I will abstain based upon our legal counsel. Okay.
 Four ayes and one abstention. And so the motion passes with a majority ayes. Thank you. Next on our agenda is our examination of payroll registers, June 13th, 2025 and June 27th. Any comments or questions from commissioners on these registers? Hearing none, I will request a motion
 to approve. I have approval of payroll for June 13th and June 27th. First and a second? Okay. First and a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. We've got our reports from officers and committees. Is there a director's report? I know that Ms. Killian Hansen is not available, but if there is an alternate. No report for you. Thank you.
 I just want to know that I'm going to work on. We've talked about what kinds of projects the RDC can participate in and that kind of thing. I am working on kind of a training schedule, a time that we can get together in the next month or two.
 to discuss that, other roles and responsibilities of RDC members and in conflicts of interest, those kind of things. It's good to have a refresher of all that every now and then. So sometime in the next month or two, we'll be covering that. OK, terrific. Thank you. Is there a treasurer's report? No treasurer's report today. OK, thank you. This is a development update? Nothing today. Happy to answer any questions. OK.
 Okay, we will move on to our items of new business. First on our agenda is Resolution 25-86, approval of Addendum 1 to the Professional Service Contract for the Beeline Trail and Multi-Use Path. Looks like Mr. H is here to talk to us about that. Hello, this is Roy Hayton with the City Engineering Department. This is our Beeline Extension Project, which started a couple years ago. This is the extension of the Beeline Trail from Adams Street
 terminus there to Fountain and then a multi-use path that goes up Fountain Crescent and connects to the network on 17th Street. During construction last year it was discovered in the parcel that is adjacent to Adams Street that there used to be a salvage yard in that area. So Wiedermann's salvage yard I think it was called back in the 60s or 70s. Most of it's been cleaned up all through
 most of our lifetimes, but we discovered some different colored soils in the area so we wanted to go ahead and get them tested. We hired out a company called Caramida to go in and do some initial testing and we discovered that there were some very low levels of lead that's in just the top layer of the soil. So what we did was we worked with them to go ahead and go back
 and do some additional testing but also we want to do some remediation in the area. Just have that top layer of soil disposed of where we'll have it through them and that service we'll go ahead and have it trucked up to Danville, Indiana and disposed of in the waste management facility there. The resolution this evening covers the agreement with Caramida.
 to go ahead and have that tested. And then also they will hire out the contractor, do the excavation, and then get the area, the bad soils removed from the project. The total cost of the agreement at this time would be $37,115. And then I think we're still scheduled though to try to get that project wrapped up this year.
 and get it open, that section. Most of the section of the Maltese path is already opened up. But we want to finish off the project here this summer. So we'd like to get this closed out. Is this near the tracks at Adams Street? Just north of the tracks, yeah. Just north of the tracks. So it's that parcel that we had purchased. We purchased half of the parcel, and that's where we've kind of pushed our right of way through, north of the tracks. So now that's public right of way, that section there.
 The portion of the parcel we purchased was from air photos used as a, it looked like a salvage yard. I think that's what we're all calling it, for lack of a better word. Some sort of, but that way the trail will be able to continue and connect and not have to go over the tracks? Exactly. Yes. We'll stay on that side of the tracks, continue all the way over to Fountain Drive and then connect up to what we've already built up on Fountain Drive. Okay. So with this, I understand.
 are specialized contractors that you do have to have some some special training in order to hire this out so I think they were hiring out who's your contractors they have that certification to remove this yep so that way this will clean up the area that has to be done and it's city property so given the area that needs to be cleaned the city won't have to come back and be responsible for any additional remediation in the future
 nothing that is indicated that we'll have to come back afterwards. Yeah. And this is just the stuff that's on the surface and the levels we picked up would be good for like commercial areas. They're under closure limits. But for a trail facility where there's a direct line to exposure for people, those levels are a bigger threshold. So we just want to get cleaned up. So
 for a trail facility. And we won't have to have continual monitoring and testing in regards to it. No one's indicated anything. Once it's cleaned up and it's gone, we should be good to go. Thank you. John? A question about, maybe more about organization question in our materials. It looks like the exhibits precede the resolution, but are referred to
 in the body, the resolution as being attached. I suppose you can attach them ahead of time. But it's confusing. There's no exhibit A or exhibit B following it. There's exhibit C. And then there's more than. Or way out of order. Way out of order, yeah. So it just made it very hard to follow exactly what the deal was. And there are additional exhibits that I don't believe are referenced in the resolution. There's an exhibit D, I think.
 And then the segue on to that the resolution, maybe I just don't understand where we're going with it. I understood what Roy said and I heard the number, but the resolution refers to 5340. So I don't know what that means. It could kind of.
 summarizes all of that, but again, that's... $5,340. I don't know what that refers to. That's a question for me? Yeah. Throwing it out there. So the original agreement was an amount of $5,340. That was just then to go in and at that point, we didn't know what we had. We were basically, it's just dark soils. We need some testing done real quick. It was a small amount of an agreement.
 with them to go in and do the testing. That was already approved by the board at an earlier version. Once we discovered what was determined, that's why this is for an agenda one to that agreement, the original agreement being $5,340. Then this addendum does an addition of $31,775 to that agreement. And then the final not to exceed amounts, $37,150.
 Okay, but to your point, resolution 2586 looks like it's current, not an old resolution, and it's not signed by anybody, so... It's the... It's the Public Works, isn't it? Yeah, 2586 is this current resolution that's coming through. The original one for $5,000, both of them have been approved by the Board of Public Works. The first one for just the agreement, the initial agreement, $5,000, we did not bring to the RDC at that time.
 So this is the first time the RDC's seen both the agreement and the addendum together. Can you just clarify why this would have been only before Public Works before and now it's coming to RDC as well? When it was only $5,000, we could handle it under our own department. We can pay that. We still can pay that amount, $5,340, just out of our own.
 funding from our own department. When things were discovered that they're more complicated than just going out and doing some tests, that's when we decided it'd be better to bring it to the board so that you're aware and the money and the funding's higher amount. So just to clarify, if from a board standpoint, we've been trying to be fiscally responsible in regards to it, we could deduct the $5,200, $5,300.
 We're fine with that. And you're okay with that, so we could amend it and we could pay $27,000 or $32,000. $31,775. We're appreciative of whatever funding we can get to cover the expenses. And it won't negatively impact the future of Public Works. Yeah, it won't impact this job. We'll keep the job moving for that. So the original funding went through. We understand that, yeah, we didn't take the original agreement through you, so you didn't have a fair shot on it.
 So that's fine. But budget-wise, I mean, it still has an impact on our budget. Well, as long as we get the project done, hit the time frame, have environmental safety and no public input, we're able to get things done. But the resolution will need to be revised. So it needs to be rewritten. I have it up. I figured you could. I would say something that represents the original
 for the public works resolution. I mean, if we're not paying that, if we're not paying that 5,000, maybe that's not as necessary, but it might be an opportunity to just clean up the exhibits so that they're, they clearly follow the resolution and support the resolution. The original contract, the original agreement, which the board doesn't do resolutions, they just approve the original agreement. And so those exhibits are probably attached to that original,
 Exhibit. Exhibit A, for scope of work. B, project schedule. Those are just put into the packet and C, for your information. So, but it does... I was saying, weren't you noting that it's just in our packet, it's not in a comprehensible order. Yeah, that's right. I think it's fine, at least that's what I'm understanding. Yes, it's fine. Again, for me, I've got it bookmarked so it's in order, but now I'm seeing that the actual
 you know, page numbers are wack out, so. So just to have the actual narrative of, you know, the resolution that this body is going to consider so that the exhibit A is clearly attached and not, again, in our packet, it's not in order, so. So is that something Dan can clear up? Yes, and the agreement that was
 that I found as exhibit B does say that it's agreement between Public Works and Caramita. But if you approve the amount pending legal review of the amendment, you could go ahead and move forward and not hold things up. And then we could get those details ironed out so that it can be signed.
 You just said that that agreement was exhibit B, but it's exhibit A in the resolution. But the amendment is... The original agreement is exhibit A, and the addendum one to the agreement, so this was an agreement with Public Works, so what we can do again is redraft it, just changing it over to the Redevelopment Commission, and then we can get the
 You can authorize the president to sign it and we can get it signed and moved over. The important thing is the amount that you're going to do and again saying that legal can make any necessary edits. The only thing that would substantially change would be the change in RDC from the public works. Well, substantially is the not to exceed number is not 37.
 It's 31. From an RDC. Well, from RDC. From our staff. It's also just under there. I'd kind of like to see it done correctly. That's just me. There's, I think, enough moving parts here that even if it was just the sum that we were changing, but now it's who's signing off on the amendment, right? Because it was Public Works, and now it's the RDC that's providing the majority of the funding for this.
 agreement so it seems like it would be helpful to have everything cleaned up so it's just all done. And point of clarification I just want to make sure our portion based on what year is thirty one hundred thirty one thousand seven seventy five dollars okay just want to make sure that number is right and then the next question is Dana since there's a potential another meeting coming up here next first week is that something could be a move
 be adjusted and brought at that meeting? Yeah, you can. I don't know what to do. On Friday morning when it's the executive session? Yeah, no. You can't do resolutions. Just want to make sure. And just to be aware that our contractor is ready to go tomorrow. They're just holding off right now just for this meeting. So if we push them out two weeks, which is too late.
 We still have the rest of our agenda ahead of us. If there is any opportunity to make the changes as needed and present it at the end of this meeting, then we could revisit at the end of this meeting. Really important thing is the amount of money. And the signing authority, I think, because... Yeah, she's going to have to sign it. It ought to be written right there. Supposed to cross it out. The Board of Public Works and writing an RDC. We'll come back to it and I'll read what the changes are.
 And then that way you can approve it based on those changes. Okay, thank you. Okay, so we will postpone this until we have the amendments that can be read fully at the end of our agenda. And we'll work through the timeliness of it to hopefully get it through just with those changes that has been discussed. So that is tabled for now. Is that the right term? Yes. Okay.
 We are going next on our agenda to resolution 25-87, which is approval of construction agreement with Crater and Crater for Hopewell West. Would I speak to that? Ken Okanoki, engineering department. Pleasure to be here tonight. So this is the approval of the funding for the Hopewell West Jackson Street project, which is the first phase of construction for Hopewell West. The awarded bidder
 Their bid amount was $1,687,318.85. So this is, if you remember back in 2021, when all this started, we did a full subdivision of Hopewell West. That effort ended up taking a little bit more design money because we had to go, we originally anticipated 30% construction plans.
 And we had to switch that to 60%. They're really closer to 90%. So we're very close. If you want to do another phase of Hopewell West, we can get those construction plans together pretty quickly. But we got the Hopewell West subdivided. And then this is the construction of the section of Jackson Street, which is west of the core building, the alley that's to the north, and then the reconstruction of Rockwell.
 So the whole point of this phase is to support the core project, which is also ongoing. So this contractor will be working directly adjacent to and essentially with the core contractor. So that's why leading up to this construction contract put into place a couple agreements. So in their right of way use permit and their use of RDC properties, the core contractor must make way for the city of Bloomington's contractor to do their work if there's a contract.
 So they're going to coordinate as best they can. But we have in writing that they have to get out of our way if they need to, if there's any kind of issues out there. So construction will take place approximately August 1st to November 1st. And we should have everything wrapped up by the end of the year. And this will include a full- Can you say that one more time, just so I got the time frame? Yep. August 1st to November 1st. Of this year? 2025. Yep. And you've got that in writing?
 Yeah, it's in the contract. So they don't do it. Well, they brought it up. Could you show it to me in the contract? Yeah It's not under term so I don't know where it is it could very well be in here night because I just plans to advise That on this resolution We are working legal and
 and engineering are working with getting with IDEM to make sure that this would not impact part 58. So, because we don't want to do anything that would miss.
 So I added at the bottom of that one that city staff and legal will authorize the start date in writing after consultation with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, IDEM. And if confirmed, the project has been authorized by IDEM as part of the contamination plan for the part 58 environmental review of Oakville West. There shall be no ground disturbance before the start date.
 So you're authorizing it to move forward, but the actual start date, we're going to make sure that IDEM is good with us before we move forward. And it's important to make sure that nothing is going to happen until we get this through by. Do we feel comfortable with moving forward, that IDEM will be able to meet the time frame based upon what our contractual obligation is? I think they've already, Hannah Hanson's already been reaching out to them.
 seemed to indicate that they could get an answer pretty quick. We just want to make sure that that happens. And so once it does, then legal and ENA get together and send a note on to break ground. Yeah, because the base we're looking at, anything that IDEM are permitting slows us down on will then extend the time frame. Yeah, if this would impact what
 areas known to be contaminated, that's an issue. We don't believe it does, but that area that's there, Rogers and Second Street, the extent of contamination has not been exactly defined yet. And so we want to make sure that they're good, that that's far enough away, that that's not going to be a problem. And we feel very confident that it is. But again, if we
 If the RDC decides to approve something and it moves forward and it does negatively impact that, then that's going to bring on a lot of issues and possibly fines and fees and cost. But with it being uphill and contaminated areas downhill, the chances are fairly reasonable that we won't have any issues. Because Jackson Street's not going all the way to Second Street, is it?
 No. OK. That answers that question. 2.02. 2.02. It's written as a 90-day window. Yeah. It's not an exact expiration date. So if there is a delay, if there's a line at the start, the 90 days will just carry accordingly. We just want to get it before snow flies. That works. OK. Thank you. Appreciate it.
 I was happy to answer any other questions. If there's no other questions or comments from commissioners, I'll open it for public comment. Seeing none, either in the room or online, I'll entertain a motion for resolution 25-87. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 25-87 as presented.
 We have a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. The next item on our agenda is resolution 25-80E, approval of a permanent blanket stormwater easement at the trades district lot 2A. Who would like to speak to that? I'm happy to. Do you want to, Dana? I'm working on this. No, no, you're good.
 The title suggests is approval of a permanent stormwater easement in the trades district. This is because there is stormwater detention below ground, and so CBU will need to be able to access that in order to maintain it and eventually replace it. This mentions a couple of other resolutions related to covenants and stormwater in the trades district.
 It also mentions the restrictive covenant that eliminates or prohibits the food service establishment from entering the space. And that is because there is no grease interceptor at the location. So I think it's pretty straightforward. Happy to answer any questions. And that kind of just addresses the purpose. I got two. This is where
 Randy was referencing RDV. There's a typo in the whereas five. And also, does anybody have a map of where this even is? I was just working on that. It's lot 2A as it's listed on the plat, not lot 2 as is listed in the marketing materials. So there's renovating the HR suites.
 They may be doing the noisy part after hours, and it won't disturb anyone. So the stormwater detention is located kind of adjacent to the Stefan Rice OT-987 piece, just north of 10th Street and east of Madison, under a sort of brick section. So I was just.
 You got it? Yeah. Basically, it's in the area where the plaza is, the grass area, where the net just to the west of where the new sculpture is. OK. It's where the storm interceptor is, or the swirl. Sorry. Nice Dan corrected. So Lot 2, the access is to Lot 2, which is it was
 So two contains the forge. There's two A and two B. And so two A would be to the forge building, to the forge lot. Would it be possible to request that a map be included as an exhibit with this resolution just because, you know, it's great that we're all here hearing you describe it now, but it seems for the permanent public record that having something more precise would be warranted.
 I think actually, not to add future work, but if we want to add that for you to sign it, I don't think this is time sensitive. Do you want to bring it back next time? Yeah, we're happy to do that. That's something that always should be looked at when you're bringing resolutions. If there's mapping required, it'd be nice. We saw the legal description, but that's not worth it. I have the plat, but it needs to be in the document.
 public records so that, because legal description is good, but nobody, you know, it takes a little more legwork to figure out what that means. A whole lot more legwork. Oh, yeah. So the map attachment would be helpful as a standard. And also you can make the corrections. And it is lot 2A, not lot 2U. Lot 2 is? Lot 2 is an old name for what's now the Forge
 parcel south of the forge. And so we just need to verify that 2A is that forge line. And it doesn't affect both 2A and 2B, it's just 2A. So we'll bring that back. Yeah, that's what it says in the resolution. And Jane, what was the purpose of Exhibit A, because it refers to the green roof,
 Why was that an exhibit? Well, I guess I'm a little confused. Because the green roof is part of the stormwater infrastructure that the blanket easement would need to cover. Okay, I apologize. So what I think CBU is, are they maintaining the green roof of the forge? In order to get through the permit process, they need
 a blanket stormwater easement, and part of that is covering the stormwater facilities, and part of that's the facilities that are on the roof, which means that's why that particular parcel is added a blanket easement so that they can inspect it. That's why they have the 24-hour notice unless it's an emergency. OK. I misunderstood. Let us just bring this back, and I'll give a succinct and accurate presentation at that time.
 The stormwater is paid for the green roof in order to use it as an educational process, if I remember correctly from a previous resolution when we approved the forage. Right, Dave. Okay, so they were going to use it as far as stormwater education based on payment of the green roof. The only other question, if you can check on this, Jane, is the stormwater fee that is going to be charged, which is a different fee in my understanding of attending a CBU,
 for those particular areas since the RDC still owns the dimension mill to identify if we're going to have financial responsibility on that additional stormwater fee. Yeah. Because I don't know if they've identified what that additional fee for those structures is that will be added to all of the parcels. Right. So you're talking about the rate for that. Right. That hasn't been finalized yet. OK. As we move this forward, not to try to hold up anything in the trades district because we've got momentum going.
 if we could just identify if there will be additional fiscal responsibility that would be put to us. I'd like to just know what that is. Right. From our flat rate that they have now to the increased special rate. There shouldn't be. I know. There shouldn't. I just want to verify that if there's not, it's not an issue. So in the early, at my understanding, I wasn't here at the time, but when the Trace District was established, the idea that there would be the equivalent of an HOA that would address
 um, increased costs of the underground stormwater infrastructure. That's how the fees would be handled by the, uh, property owners. And since that time, um, it, and there's like staff, staff level agreement. I don't think it has been to, um, the utility service board yet, but that a better way to handle it instead of the HOA is for there to be a special rate for the trades district.
 that would be charged on the utility service bills so that CBU would then be able to service and maintain the infrastructure because they feel more confident about their own ability to manage that than to have the group of property owners hire a third party to do it. That would be true. Yeah, it's the right thing to do. Yes, but in terms of its legal status, I'm not sure where we are with that. So we'll bring this
 resolution back, I'll bring whatever formal update I can deliver about that part of the process at that time. And that way, Randy, that would be the utilities are billed to the user so that our tenant, for instance, it would be part of their responsibility. Even though we own the building, the tenant will pay the rate. I just want to make sure that as we approve these tenants and people going in to these that we don't have any
 Any oh by the way, you know, there's a Delta that we're going to be missing our talents. They're aware. So yeah, appreciate it. Okay, I think I have all those questions listed for myself. Okay, so we will also then be tabling resolution 25-88 pending the map that was requested. In addition to the green roof question of how that
 just to make sure we all understand how that connects to this transaction. Mr. Kerr, can we head back to 25-86 on the agenda? We've got an exhibit to approve. Or at least somebody needs it. Oh, yeah. One more. Exhibit C. Oh, sorry. I had that filed separately. It should have been... Okay.
 Sorry, just getting my stuff in order. So what is the clarification on Exhibit C? Well, Exhibit C was an exhibit to the lease with UC Berkeley Regents for the renter ES net, which is in the trades district garage. That lease has been started as of April 1st, 2025.
 In the lease, in the original lease, this exhibit was blank. And so it's just now time to acknowledge that the lease term started on April 1st. And then that creates an end date of March 31, 2030. And so we would like for you to sign this tonight, acknowledging those dates. And that's it. That's a common practice in leases. So I think it'd be fine.
 And in terms of handling that for tonight's business, this is a matter of public record, because on the agenda we've just discussed it, but we do not need to make any other further adoption or anything. No, because it's... So the lease has already been approved. It's just so that Exhibit C is in the public record, and we'll sign off on it tonight. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Okay, so we've covered all the primary items on the agenda, but we're heading back to 25-86. Excuse me. Yeah, 25-86.
 I have a side question that we could like move to other business and then get back to it which is mostly just we in the minutes that we approved this evening included a
 Amongst others, the executive session for June 30th, but there is also a notice meeting on June 30th, but the minutes for that weren't in this packet. They'll be in the next packet. They'll be in the next packet. That's fine. I just wanted to clarify that. Yeah. Thanks. And we will be having the executive session on Friday at 9 a.m. Yes. Thank you. It is confirmed. Yes. Any other other business while we wait on the amendments for?
 while we're just generally talking. Jessica, how we doing on money? Any particular account, Randy? No, just in general. I just want to make sure that you're feeling good about it. It's a positive cash flow. Positive cash flow.
 Would you hurry up? I'm ready whenever you want. I don't want to answer the questions. I'm ready. I'm sorry. And I'll only refer to the ones that have changed. So, whereas the Board of Public Works considered and approved an agreement. You guys tell me where you are and I'll answer. Okay, one, two, three, four, five, the six, starting with the six of whereas.
 what's the previous whereas and then what's the to the one that you are reading. The previous one was step seven of the project. Okay thank you and is this an addition or a revision to the next whereas? It is a revision. Okay. You're talking about the seventh whereas? Step seven is the one after that.
 Whereas the Board of Public Works considered and approved an agreement with Caramida Inc. to provide the services for an amount not to exceed $5,340 agreement, which is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and will be paid by the Board of Public Works. Whereas additional testing, transportation, and disposal of lead contaminant soil are required,
 Whereas due to the cost of further services, additional funds are needed from the RDC to move forward. And whereas the contract amount of said further services is $31,775, whereas the RDC shall take the place of the Board of Public Works
 the additional services contract presented with this resolution originally and replace exhibit B once approved by city legal and executed and the city has brought the RDC and amended project by us the same and the others the same so what I've done in the now therefore is in number two it says the RDC continually approves conditionally proves the
 contract upon clarification of parties by city legal and will be attached here to you as Exhibit B and approves funding in an amount not to exceed $31,775, and that's a numerical after that, for the environmental remediation services. The RDC president is authorized to execute said contract, and everything else is the same.
 that seem to have any questions or comments from commissioners on these revisions for an amended resolution. So what we're going to sign, or what Deb's going to sign off tonight, we'll read just as you said. So you'll print it out. Yes. I'll send it to Christina. She'll print it out and get it signed by you guys. OK.
 If there are no further questions or comments from commissioners, I'll open this for public comment because we haven't done that yet on this resolution 25-86 as amended. Seeing none online or in person, I will open this for a motion. I'll make the motion to approve 25-86 as amended and read by Dana Kerr, our legal counsel. Second. Got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
 Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for your help with the amendment and for passing that. Okay, so we have technically gone to our additional business. Anything further before we have a motion to adjourn? Just a quick question. I wasn't listening very well typing this. In the blanket easement, was there anything wanted besides a look at the plat
 area. There was the question just making sure we understood the green roof kind of connection. It's an exhibit in there and it was maybe just a little... It's pretty confusing. Yeah. The green roof. Well, yeah. Try to tie it in somehow. I have all the questions Dana. We can talk in the morning about it if you want. Yeah, I was just saying if it was just to look at the plan you could look at it in the meeting. Well, it ought to be attached and
 We made the comment that in the future, if you're trying to recognize an area that's mapped, we ought to be able to attach a map to the resolution. And I'd have to read a legal description, which most of us couldn't figure out where we were anyway. And Ms. Cooper-Smith noted that this was not a time-sensitive resolution, so it seemed just as well to address the questions that we raised earlier in a future meeting. But thank you for that opportunity.
 Okay, if there's nothing further, I will take a motion to adjourn our meeting. Thank you all.