Welcome to the Redevelopment Commission meeting for the City of Bloomington for July 21, 2025. Let's start the meeting with a roll call, please. C. Scambaluri, here. Randy Cassidy, present. John West, here. Deborah Meyerson, here. I don't believe our fifth is with us today. Staff present, please. Christina Bentley, hand department. Jessica McClellan, controller. Tammy Caswell, hand department.
 Jane Cooper Smith, Economic and Sustainable Development. Holly Ward, Economic and Sustainable Development. Roy Aten with the Engineering Department. Anna Dragovich with Economic and Sustainable Development. Thank you. Thank you, Dana. Next item on our agenda is the minutes for both June 30, 2025, and July 7. I think we technically approved the June 30 minutes. At the last meeting, we just didn't approve the executive session meeting minutes.
 That's my recollection. We actually did the executive session last time, but not the regular ones. Oh, sorry. I reversed it. OK, great. Thanks for it. Because the meeting was like the day before. Right. Yeah. OK, great. Thank you. And in addition to the minutes from June 30 and July 7, we have the executive summary for July 11. So any comments or questions from commissioners? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve as a note. Second. First and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
 You now notice approval of that motion. Next on our agenda is the claims registered for July 18, 2025. Any questions or comments from commissioners? No, a motion is not made. I guess I've got one quick question. On page 6, item 9,700, which is the forage furniture, that's all part of the total that we approved. The total was like $150,000, maybe? OK.
 I was asking about the claim register, the forged furniture. Was that part of the end? Was that part of the, what was it? There was a resolution not too long ago where we approved, I think it was 150 total. Is this 98 part of it? The 98 was part. So the original bid from building associates included $150,000 allotment for furniture, fixtures, and equipment. And we have approved expenses in that category
 It's detailed in 2590. But it's like up to 123 or 122. So you haven't approved the 150, but just up to that point. OK. But is this 98 part of it? Yes. That was my question. Yep. Exactly. Thank you. For the record, the total is $324,867.87 for the claim register.
 Page three of six, just for the benefit of the public, could you say more about the Habitat for Humanity of Monroe County Supplementary Down Payment Assistance? I think that was for Cody's. You probably paid the claim. Do you know what it was for, just the down payment closing costs? Yeah. I mean, it was just down payment closing costs. For? You want the specific address? Is that what you're looking for? Well, or for whom, or what is that arrangement?
 that it comes to the RDC. It's out of our grant money. Hold on one second. CDBJ or ARPA? I think that one is home. Yeah, I don't think so. Do you have your fame registered, Jessica? I can't pull it up with this. I can do that, yes. So we are looking at Habitat, this one right here, Habitat.
 Was that home funds? Yeah, that comes out of the ED-LED fund. Yeah. That was Cody's. He's one of our program manager. I have no idea what the specifics is for that one. I just know it's for down payment and closing cost. OK. I didn't. Sorry. So for individual homeowners? Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh, and habitat program. Yeah. OK. Thank you. One last question.
 33 on Williams Creek management. This is just a comment. I know it's only $890, and it's for Evergreen Village. But at some point, probably before I die, we will be able to. I'm not going to guarantee that, Randy. Thank you. I know exactly what you're talking about, though. I totally enjoy the same thing. I was like. I understand it's in the past, and it's something that at some point, I'd really like to see the homeowners step up or us be able to work with them to.
 get this so it's in their care, custody, and control. Maybe we could assign Randy to take that on. I really like that idea. I'm going to volunteer you. Not a problem. It's just a comment. It's been so many years. And I know you guys, this administration inherited. You've got a lot of other things going on. But at some point. Well, this is going back several administrations. Yes, this is going back three administrations. And that's why I'm just looking at some point, we have to clean a few things up. Other than that, these guys do a great job.
 I appreciate it. Thank you. OK. If there are no further questions or comments from commissioners, I will invite a motion to approve the claims register of July 18. Move. Go ahead. No, ladies and gentlemen. Move approval. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next on our agenda is examination of payroll register for July 11, 2025. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this item? Move for approval. Second.
 First and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. For the record, it was $55,383.19. Sorry to interrupt. Thank you for that clarification. Next item on our agenda is the report from officers and committees. Do we have a director's report from the assistant director? Anna included her director's report in the packet. OK. Do you have anything you want to comment on in person?
 No. OK. Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners on the director's report, as long as we have that on our agenda? Nothing on the report. I just think she's worked really hard and has a well-deserved vacation. Absolutely. OK. Legal report. Just like to say, one of the things that I'm working on, there's many.
 There's a lot of small properties that the RDC owns that are right away and things like that, that we should just get transferred and get some of those things cleared up. So I'm working on getting a list of those compiled to try to clean up some of these areas. There's a part of a park that maybe all parks around it, except one little bitty piece, the parking lot or something, is RDC. So I'm trying to work and try to
 cleaned up some of that. Is that founded on an inventory of also lots? Just because I know that that has been a challenge in terms of not always recorded in a comparable way, so getting them all in one place can be a bit of a challenge. Right, yeah. It's not an easy process, but the ones that we can find, we're going to try to get cleaned up. So it'll make it easier when people search for properties that they're not inundated. It may be part of that massive list that's floating around as a property. Thank you for your efforts. Yeah, there's a massive list. With that, Dana, as you
 do these, they'll be transferred to the different city departments that actually utilize them, whether it be a parks department, whether it be the public works department. Right, or just the city in general, depending on what the problem is. OK, and then that'll be prepared from just a quick claim deed, or? OK, so we won't have to go through significant expenses in regard to warranty. Or have many agenda items for, you know,
 Small property. We'll probably bring a list at a time because you can put multiple properties on it. You don't want to put too much because it gets confusing for the auditor. But we'll probably just do a few of those at a time until we get it cleaned out. But I do think the public would like to, if they search for RDC properties, be able to
 actually find the ones that are significant. So anyway so that's that's on the horizon sometime but there are a lot of things going on so it's not like really up there high on the list but I am working on it when I can. Okay great well thank you for your efforts on that. Next in our agenda is treasurer's report.
 We messed up. We had a Q2 update, and I was just scrolling through the packet to bring it up so that Cole could talk about it. And I actually do not see it in the packet. I think we just missed it in the merge. So I apologize. Cole, I'm looking up at you, up at the screen. It is not in the packet for this meeting.
 And so I will put it in a packet for the upcoming, the next meeting, and then we can hopefully go over it at that time in two weeks. I think you're cutting out a little bit. Sorry. Can you still print? I think you can still present them, can't you? It would be nice to have an opportunity, at least a day, to look at it. So if we have any questions, we can ask them.
 The document that you sent wasn't merged into the packet, and we would like to do the update in two weeks at their next regular meeting. OK. I apologize. Let me look at my calendar. That one would fall on? Monday, August 4.
 Thank you, Cole. Yeah, no problem. Have a good night. You too. Thanks. Jess, will you go ahead and send that out to us now? Yes. So that'll actually give us a couple weeks to take a look. Yeah, definitely. Appreciate that. No problem. OK, anything else for the stretchers report? No, sorry. I'm sorry. Just want to make sure the postponed QT report and the business development update. Nothing.
 specific to report, I just wanted to note that the commissioners had asked for some additional information about the solar panels and storage, and I don't have that ready for you today, but I'm not losing sight of that, and we'll hopefully have that at the next meeting. Thanks. Thank you. We will move on to new business, and our first item of business is Resolution 25
 which is the approval of a permanent blanket stormwater easement for the trades district lot 2A. Who would like to speak to that? I will do that one. This was what we talked about last at the last meeting and it was requested to have a map to show lot 2A so I included that and this is a blanket easement which means it covers all of lot 2A.
 So it's not like a little part of it. So it's the entire lot. And one of the reasons it does that is because of the green roof structure that's part of it. It would be very difficult to try to cut that out. Plus, you need to get access to it through the building. And again, lot 2A is the forage property. So we just ask for your approval.
 Okay, thank you for that presentation. Any comments or questions from commissioners on resolution 2588? And of course we did look at this, this is mainly with the addition of the maps, so thank you for that addition. If there are no further questions or comments, any comments or questions from the public, either in person or online? Seeing none, I will ask for a motion. Approval of resolution 2588.
 Second. We have a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item on our agenda is resolution 2589, which is the approval of partnership agreement with Busker-Chumley BCT Management, Incorporated. Ms. Warren is here to speak to you. Sorry. I'm sorry. I'm just cumbersome my way up here.
 Hi everyone, my name is Holly Warren. I'm the Assistant Director for the Arts in the City of Bloomington. I work with Jane in the Department of Economic and Sustainable Development. And I'm here tonight to request your approval of our lease agreement with the Buzzkirk Chumlee Theater Management Company. This is the group that has been managing the Buzzkirk Chumlee Theater that is owned by the city since 2001.
 And so historically, as part of that agreement, the RDC has allocated up to $74,000 each year to help with expenses that are meant to upgrade the facility. So not a straight repair, not a straight replacement, but something that just makes the facility operate better. We are requesting that we keep that clause in this agreement that again will run through 2027.
 In addition to that funding that would come from the RDC, which again is on a case-by-case basis, we don't just give them that money. They would have to come and make a proposal to use a portion of that money for any upgrading. You all would have to approve it. But in addition to that, because it's a parks-owned facility, the Parks Department allocates up to $15,000 each year for the repairs were contractually obliged to do. This is things like repairing the marquee and repairs to the HVAC unit and things like that.
 agreements. Historically, the council has given $55,000 each year for them just to operate, just to keep the lights open, especially in times when there's a pandemic or there's an ongoing recovery for every arts institution for the pandemic. So we're also proposing that the only change for this agreement is the funding would actually be moved from the council's budget into ESD's budget. I think the agreement there is just we have more transparency in what is going on there. I serve on the board as an ex officio member. We have pretty tight relationships with the
 their staff and their board and just have a better understanding of what they're doing and have more oversight into them holding up their end of the contract. So I think, you know, they weathered a very tough pandemic. They've weathered some significant staff changeover in the past couple of years, and I'm really happy with where they are in keeping the facility open and engaging to our public. So I highly recommend your approval of this, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have.
 I wanted to just add a little information for the commissioners. We do, um, work to capture outside funding for improvements to the BCT as well. And as part of our sustainability program, um, Sean Mia was able to capture $508,000 from the state for their Epic, um, which I can't remember what it stands for their Epic program, which is replacing the HVAC system. And I believe adding solar and battery storage, which will also help the bus chums serve as a cooling center.
 in future, so it'll be guaranteed that, you know, it's well conditioned, dark, great place to be during high heat days, so that will obligate them to open their doors to the public on certain days. If we're doing solar, let's check the roof.
 and what it means before we put panels on it. Yes, that was a big part. They did an entire assessment of the facility with the Epic team before they made specific recommendations on how to upgrade those sustainability upgrades. The facilities I made it to make sure of. Can they use panels out of your inventory? I don't think they'll do so. Oh, OK. Holly, is there an action plan or a plan
 three to five year plan for what these funds will be paying for the kinds of projects that will be used in the upgrades that are planned? Great question. So I actually did a walkthrough with Rebecca Swift from the Parks Department a couple of weeks ago. And we just walked through the entire facility with the director and the director of finance as well. And we just talked about everything that could potentially break or could potentially need an upgrade or was just
 a great candidate for some kind of sustainability-oriented upgrade together. And so our next step there is for Rebecca and I to go review that list and make some recommendations to the BCT and kind of come to an agreement with them as to what we're prioritizing and what source of funding that we would be looking for to pay for an expense. And like Jane said, we would also be looking for outside grant opportunities, donation of in-kind equipment, and things like that to kind of offset their costs.
 And is there a point at which you'll be sharing with the RDC what we paid for specifically? I'm happy to do that. Again, I don't think the RDC has actually paid for any of their expenses in the past couple of years. I think actually the last time it happened was before it even started, and that was in 2021. Oh, so it's gone. Yeah, yeah. But again, so you all would have to approve.
 any use of the $74,000 funds that you're kind of giving a blanket approval from today. So they will come back to you all and say, hey, we're interested in, for example, an upgrade of our lighting system. Do you all approve this as an upgrade? And then we would do a specific contract with the vendor that they would work with to do that upgrade. And you would have oversight into that. Got it. Thank you. The $74,000 are what we're looking at on 2589 on this agreement.
 Is this something that this has not come to us before? Oh, yeah. I believe it's so, yeah. When you made that comment in regards to council, the ESD judge, that's just a budgetary standpoint from the city council on its budget to the EDC's budget. And the redevelopment, this is a consistent source that we've provided over the years. That's correct. It's been in the contract since it was started in 2001.
 There's no rollovers, I understand. If they don't use it, so be it. Next year we have to reallocate it. Right. Yes. Do you know the history of why it's owned by Parks and Recreation as opposed to, let's say, ESE? I do not know that history. Just because in terms of at least the current line of conversation, it's not like Parks and Rec comes to these meetings in terms of the financial part of it.
 Anyway, just curious. Anyway, I mean, I certainly understand that Park supports outdoor theater. But anyway, it just seems like this might be more.
 But as long as y'all get along, it works. I'm honestly very happy with the arrangement right now. I think that because they have somebody in their department who is very focused on facilities, like if there is an emergency repair, they can just get on it like that. They have a familiarity with that building and the contractors and all those things. So I'm really comfortable with it. I'm always happy to take
 that conversation on, but I would wonder what my mom would feel about us taking them. When we look at the Buskirk Chumley Theater over a period of time where Carasotas donated it in the city and the donations that came in to give us one of our public theaters and performance areas that keeps the cost low and still provides that entryway from the town gown feel.
 It's very worthwhile that we contribute to it and that we ensure that it stays in good shape. Because when you start letting it go down, then we lose part of that worldwide corridor of Kirkwood. So ECT is a very important part that links. We're fortunate to have it. Thank you for that comment. We are, again, I'm going to open up for public comment. Not seeing any.
 online or in person, I will entertain a motion for resolution 25-89. I'll make a motion to approve 25-89 as presented. Second. First and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. Next item on our agenda is resolution 25-90, approval of agreement with Mother Nature Landscaping, Incorporated for Landscaping Services at the Trades District
 trades district garage. Who would like to speak? I'll speak to it. This should be a fairly straightforward resolution. This is related to landscape maintenance within the trades district for areas that are not controlled by the mill and their property management agreement for the forage. So we have had contracts in place in the past with Nature's Way. We've had good
 service from them. It was time to do a new RFP to determine if we were getting the best deal and the best service out there. We had two respondents. The lowest responsive bidder was Mother Nature. And this resolution proposes that the RDC support a resolution for landscape maintenance in the amount of $19,275. Happy to take any questions. Can you share what the difference was between the two bids?
 You know, I don't know that I have. Anna reviewed the bids. It was significantly lower. I know Nature's Way was 44,000 last year, and I believe they were in that ballpark again. I'm just reviewing the materials. These guys are almost half. Yeah. We feel really good about it.
 The company's been really responsive and proactive. I know the company. I'm not concerned about the company. I'm just concerned about the bid. That's abnormal to be that far apart. And so it just makes me wonder whether you're going to get the same service. And they were comparing apples to apples. It was just not. Yes.
 I apologize. She described this all to me when she asked me to present this. She reviewed the bid. She said the bids were difficult to compare side by side, so she made a spreadsheet that really broke it down by service and dollar amount. And in that review, which, Dana, I don't know if she did that with you. Yeah. Yeah, she did. So.
 Well, it is slightly less coverage based on the mill management agreement, including the mowing. The mill is mowing the large lots on the north side of the property. Well, then you would have figured that Nature's Ways bid would have come down accordingly. And if it stayed the same, then shame on them.
 It's a big red flag, that's all I'm saying. Not that I have any problem with Mother Nature landscaping. It's just that there's a huge discrepancy there. We've got 100% difference. It's concerning, far scope. I don't think it is 100% difference. I mean, I think I probably was speaking out of turn when I was saying, I just remember that the previous bid was $44,000 last year. That was the value of the contract, and we extended that contract. But to Mr. Fernandez's point,
 there is significantly less property that's being managed. Yeah, the Mother Nature's landscaping for the Trades District garage was $4,785 and Nature's Way was $8,313.52. The Trades District was a
 Another significant difference, $14,490 for Mother Nature's landscaping and nature's way was $51,428.58. My understanding from ANA 2 was that there is a connection between Mother Nature's landscaping and businesses in the trades district.
 And they really wanted to be a part of what was going on. So that was part of the reasoning for giving a little bid. But again, beyond that discrepancy, I don't know. I do have the spreadsheet that where she made the comparisons. Not sure how to go.
 through that at the moment. You've answered it for me. Thank you. All right. I have a question. Can we give the $19,000 to the mill and let them manage it all since it's in their area? Because otherwise, who's overseeing? It's not all in their area. So parts of the property just are outside of the purview of that contract. And those are the pieces that we're working on now. So we would have to give.
 all of the trades district to the mill and renegotiate that contract, which I'm sure they would handle swimmingly. I don't think you're going to get that done any time soon. No, all I'm looking at, and when I make that comment, is not to create and complicate things. But since the mill has taken over the district in regards to the development, to make sure that as we ensure that we do have a difference in regards to the ones that consist.
 have no complaints with Mother Nature or Nature's Way. They both do a phenomenal job. They're both local individuals that do a great job. I'm just wanting to make sure that from a quality standpoint, and I'm sure John being here, and ESD will make sure it's done right. A helpful piece of information is that the mill, in securing their own landscape management, issued a contract, extended a contract to Mother Nature. So Mr. Fernandez could certainly speak to the quality
 of that management and that is also to highlight that this is actually, you know, the award is not because this company is managing the other part of the trades district. The award is because this was the lowest responsive bidder.
 but it has the effect of streamlining it. So rather than two companies trying to manage different footprints, it's one company manage the entire footprint and just the billing is separate. Just answered my question, took care of all my concerns. I'm good with the way it's set up. Who from the city actually oversees their work? I would say it's a team effort between me, Anna and JD Boruff. But in terms of like,
 I guess what's your question? Is it the billing or the visual inspection? The visual inspection. I'd say that's more in my department. We're up in the district. We're going to be interested just to see how they do. Yeah. Since it's a new vendor and there's some discrepancy in pricing just to see if it's something that we want to continue with. We've been really pleased so far with what we're seeing on the north side. They're very responsive. Yeah. OK. OK. Good questions. And I think it's a good conversation if we're changing vendors. The big thing.
 look at from my standpoint is making sure that quality and continuity of what we put a lot of money into, a lot of heart, money, and a lot of our future economic development of when we want to grow our communities entrepreneurial is there. And if we, your first appearance makes all the difference in the world. So with that, I will be quiet and make multiple maps. OK. Promise.
 Any public comment, questions online or in person? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. I move for approval of 25-90. I'll second. We have a first and a second for resolution 25-90. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.
 Next item on our agenda is resolution 25-91, which is approval of agreement with Marshall Security LLC for security patrols at Hopewell Properties. Would you like to speak to that? I can. What we have here is that Marshall Security has been providing services for a number of years at the Hopewell. Their previous contract actually had run out.
 but they were continuing to operate under it and there was still funds remaining in the balance of it to cover the additional work that was being done. And so the expired contract terms, it expired March 1st of 2025 and going to June 30th of 2025, they total for that and you have all the invoices and Attachment 1.
 was $39,469.56, again, which was available in the remaining funds of that. And then their agreement for July 1 of 2025 to June 30 of 2026 is an amount of $121,056. And so by this resolution, you would be ratifying
 the payment of those invoices that from the time period where their contract actually expired to June 30th and then approving the new contract moving forward to the next year. You also did see in the report of the director that there have been issues and the marshal has done a good job of
 getting right on them and recognizing them and taking the appropriate steps to make sure things are remedied. So that's where we're at. So we ask you to approve this resolution, again, ratifying the four invoices that were attached and approving the contract for this next year that was attached.
 Thank you for that presentation. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2591? Can someone tell me what the contract total was for the last contract we had? Back on the previous topic.
 62, an amount of $269,657.33. That's the not to exceed amount grand total. So I'm not sure if that summarizes a few of the proceeding. I also have an exhibit from 2024 that was noting that from 2022 to 2024. So that's for a two-year total.
 Uh, 269,657. So I'm not sure if that, how that compares to what you just noted, but I'm just mentioning that for two years. Yes. And then it looks like 2438 of resolution earlier in that year, we added $35,162 and 40 cents to the contract. So that was how we got to the new grand total from your number Deb.
 This is the 121,000 is for what period of time again? That's for a period of a year. So it's actually a little bit less than half of the two-year amount. And is that because there's less to oversee? I would say since the my guess, and it's just a guess, is that because of the development that's already been
 completed there is much easier to check on than it is when construction was going on and things were behind fences. And now it's a very wide open area to at least in Hopewell East to look at. And Hopewell West has been cleaned up quite a bit as well. Some of the buildings were taken down, I'm not sure when, but on Hopewell South. So I think that it is
 a less intensive inspection. Are we still responsible for the core building? We are not. The core building has been transferred. So we are not responsible for the core building. All right. I'm good. Thanks. What's the geographic area we're actually doing? Because is the parks area security on Hopewell East being security under?
 the parks department now, or is that still being done under the redevelopment? I understand the security is still being done under the RDC. OK. At what point does that transition? I mean, because I realize, of course, that Hopewell East includes not just the parks area, but the areas that are poised for redevelopment. So that may be the reason for keeping it all under the RDC. But I'm just wondering, in terms of, to Randy's point,
 I just wanted to see if I could see a specific description of which areas are under contract. And I'm not sure if I've done that yet. And my question on that, as we look as we talk, Dana, you had indicated earlier about transferring things over. Some of these responsibilities that throw, because while we're fortunate enough to have a well-funded TIF, we need to be fiscally concerned about where we are. And the 714 building.
 the parking garage, which we don't have firm commitments of when the dates will be activated. And security is important in that area, just for the neighborhood and the people around. I just want to make sure that we're moving forward so we have residents and occupied businesses instead of having to have security. That's the hope, and so there's the duty.
 new process that's been going on for Hopewell South. So as these areas fall off, that would be reasons to do that. And I think it's also the kind of economies of scale. If you already have them, they're checking on the 704 building or 714 building and the parking garage and some of those open areas and those areas around Hopewell South, checking out the
 the park is in a real grill. It's just nice to have the same people doing it and getting the same reports from them. If you would like to consider working with parks to break out payment of that in the future, we could. I just want to be cognizant, as we've taken on this project for several years and we've got $10-plus million invested,
 We move forward, we get residents and businesses occupying so that the community feels safe around there and we're regenerating back. Because we don't wanna just have continuation of having to have security when we can have residents and businesses actively participate. I understand the security, I apologize for getting on my high horse on some of this, but it was only 250,000 to tear the 714 building down.
 And we've spent a significant amount more than that in saving it. There's reasons to save it. But as it is, I'd like to see where security would go away in the next couple of years, or at least a portion. Because core building should be occupied in the next year. So that will assist. And again, the core building is off of it. It's off the security, but it's not occupied still. So when you have security, even in a construction site, these individuals do assist in that.
 Marsha does a great job. Yeah, there's no disagreement from the staff on your points. We are really motivated. And frankly, we're feeling just incredibly optimistic about the relationship with the consulting firm on Hopewell South. And as certain areas develop, that's going to reduce the need for security. And I think it's just we're getting some momentum going for the first time in a long time. And we're really, really motivated and really agree with you on the status.
 It seems like especially with that happening, and this isn't legal, but just from what I've seen, there's a lot more interest in really moving forward with Hope Well. And I think there's a lot of excitement. So I think there's good momentum going on right now, or at least it appears to be from my perspective.
 Just a technical question, and I just don't remember. I guess I could have seen the last invoice here and been able to tell. Is this expense out of the consolidated TIF, or is it out of our operating account? It is out of the consolidated TIF, is what I understand. I believe it is. So that's allowed.
 In light of the discussion of continuing to look at how to transition responsibility for security or as we're peeling back from security as property gets developed, on the current invoice or service quote that's on page 88 of the packet, location only says Hopewell site.
 And I'm not seeing anything more specific that I've noticed. Again, please let me know if I missed it in the contract or in the resolution that specifies the area that is under security supervision. And that's helpful both for an operational standpoint so that the contractor knows exactly what they're responsible for, but also for a public accountability to say, okay, hey, we no longer supervise the core building or
 We're no longer doing the parks when that comes about or as that comes. So I'm just asking if there's a way to modify this readily that would help reflect the area that the contract is for. And that can be hopefully updated when the next renewal comes up next year, because that would help with just for historical records as well as, again, for operational purposes to be able to record that. Yes. Well, we don't want to.
 But Dana, I wonder if we should just bring this back with a map or is there an urgency to signing this agreement today? And I take your point about being able to modify it in future as the site develops as well. The contract has expired. If it's at the pleasure of the Commission what they choose to do.
 I believe that it's important to go forward, I believe, because it says Hopewell, it's the RDC invoice, it's the RDC's property that they are doing at Hopewell. And so if Hopewell's boundaries that the RDC owns are reduced, then it would be reduced.
 uh... with the unlikelihood of having a significant change in the next year I would suggest unless you have don't want to move forward with it and then next year that's something that we need to do to have something in there where as the area decreases we can renegotiate the fees that they have I'm okay with
 potentially moving forward to approve this resolution tonight. I'm just wondering if there's a protocol for having an addendum even to an adopted resolution that would be for this year's year of service because I certainly understand the principle that this is about what the RDC owns and yes we can look up what the RDC owns but
 it'd be nice again for the purpose of this contract as well as for ease of reference to have that even again just maybe just a map just you know highlight in yellow this is what they're servicing because rather than having to look up like who owns this did the property transfer from the core building you know all that stuff that you can find that and track it down but it's not in one place. No that's a good idea and I would think because they've been a partner for so long that if we remove parts
 of it during this next year that they would entertain negotiating a change because if they don't, then the chances of them getting the project next year might be reduced.
 So they're going to be motivated. And some people are worried about, like, if something is changing mid-year on the contract. Although, of course, if there were a significant transfer of property, yes, we might want to revisit that. But it's more just even this time next year, we're looking at the contract and wanting to say, OK, what were they doing last year? What are they doing this year? Just like we just talked about for last year. But we don't have a point of reference, even though we can kind of pull it together. That's a good point. So would it be possible to approve this with the request for that?
 a map to be appended afterwards. Any other comments or questions for commissioners on resolution 2591? If there are nothing from commissioners, anything from the public, either online or in person, seeing none, I will entertain a motion.
 I'll make a motion to approve 25-92 as amended. Excuse me, 25-91 as amended with a map for approval with a map. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next on our agenda is resolution 25-92, which is approval of expenses for the furniture fixtures and equipment for the forge. Who would like to speak to that?
 I'll be happy to speak to that. This resolution requests approval for additional furniture fixtures and equipment. As I mentioned earlier, there was a budget of $150,000 approved as part of the building associates bid for the project. So there was 150,000 approved in FF&E. Then we added to that charges for
 selecting furniture for the interior, purchasing furniture for the interior, and some additional small wares. That brought our total costs up to $127,898.01. The request today is for two additional charges from Tech Electronics, and that brings the total, that
 makes the total for the FF&E budget exceed the budgeted amount by $3,243.81. So this resolution makes two moves. One, it approves the two additional charges from Tech Electronics. And two, it approves the additional $3,243.81 in charges. I also wanted to explain the Tech Electronic charges. There were three charges total from this company.
 15,687 was approved and paid for. That was the original scope of work with building associates. The two additional invoices exceed that scope of work. This work is related to security and badge access for the building. So it's critical for the functioning of the building. And I think it just wasn't, we didn't scope it properly in the initial round. Do you agree with that summary? I do. And I'm happy to take questions.
 Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2592? It still falls within the budgetary basis of what we had. So we're not really exceeding our maximum amount. Not our maximum budget for the project. I'm just looking at the budget. We committed x for the project. We're still under that. And we did this as just a scope issue. Yeah, I mean, I'll jump in here.
 On the building associates, I guess I and others didn't look at the original every line of it, because in the first, on the access control, I just assumed it included everything. And so the equipment's there, but it's not wired. And I think the thinking of the original design scope, which went on for
 You know, quite a while before I joined the mill. The assumption, I believe, was that all that would get resolved as you were locking in the number of tenants because it was designed to have multiple tenants. So nobody wanted to spend the money on the wiring until they knew exactly how many badges or door devices would be activated. And now we have better scope. We got a scope. We're still under budget. Yeah. OK. OK. Thank you.
 OK, any other questions or comments from commissioners? Anything from the public, either online or in person? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion for resolution 25-92. Move approval for 25-92. Second? Got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you.
 Next item on our agenda is resolution 25-93, approval for agreement with BCM LLC for temporary storage at Hope Hill Development. Who would like to speak to that? I'm happy to speak to this. And we also have Anna Dragamitch here if there are additional questions that I can't answer. This agreement is for Brinshore Construction Management, which is the construction company working on the core building.
 available space to lay down materials on site at the core. And so BCM has requested the ability to do that on one of the lots west of the 714 property. This resolution gives permission for the company to store materials there up to December 31st, 2025. And then we can also terminate it in advance of that if that's necessary.
 That's pretty much it. I'm happy to take any questions. There is a map included. I've got an issue and maybe I missed it, so I will back off if I did. But I think we've had this conversation before. If the tenant damages the property,
 or in the unlikely event the tenant damages the property. I don't see where it's their responsibility to put it back the way it was. I'm just reading from the insurance requirements to make sure I understand. And I understand Dana's going to tell me to look at paragraph 5 where it talks about being reckless and negligent, but that doesn't accommodate my need. Well, yeah, 3 and 5 read.
 together is, I believe, sufficient that they're responsible for anything damage that they do. And that- 3 is an insurance claim. Right. I'm not talking about an insurance claim. Well, it's also, yeah. Well, if they didn't fix it, then it would turn into an insurance claim. So.
 Or is there anything that would be clarifying, you know, like leaving it in, you know, the state in which it was found? I realize it's an undeveloped site, so. It's not tough. Exactly. But just, you know, there's not debris sitting, you know, lying around. That's not going to be insurance going into clear debris. But if there's debris on there, you know, nobody else wants to clean it up either, so. Or there's chunks of asphalt that got dug up that they left over. I don't know. It's just, I don't.
 It's a common practice in most leases that the tenant returns it in the same shape in which they got it, except for normal wear and tear. And I just don't know why we don't do that. Is that an edit we can make on the fly, or will that require a wait until the 8th floor meeting? I can have that changed by the time they sign.
 Does the City Commissioner feel comfortable with that? I'm comfortable with that as long as it returns in the same or better shape. And the specific reason I ask that is when the redevelopment purchased the hospital property in the 714 building, there was not a large gouge in the parking lot of the 714 building. And it appeared sometime during the deconstruction that the hospital was done. And now we have a parking lot that has a hole in it.
 And nobody's sure when or where or how. So with this, if we can make sure we amend it to that. And then one other question, which I don't see in here, that they fence their lay down area. Because since we are responsible for it and they're using a lay down area, if it's not fenced, then the public can transfer right through it. While we may be kept from liability, if there's a fence around it, then that is their defined area that we've allowed.
 We can require a fence. I didn't put it there, but there's absolutely no liability we already see for any of their other things. But I can definitely put that in there, too. If you could put that in, because there's a specific- Are you going to make the resolution conditioned on that? I would like to see it on a fence. And the reason I ask that for the specific lay down area- I understand the reasoning. And I don't disagree with you, except the pushback is going to be
 somebody going to pay for the fence, it's not going to be us, and it's not going to be cheap. It's not horrible. It's not going to be great. It's a big area. I'm just saying that helps to find the area they actually need. They're not going to know this, and they're going to find out that they're going to have to put in a fence. I understand, just standard construction. And the reason I say this is specifically when Milestone was doing the reconstruction of
 First Street, I literally watched an individual who had something was going to ride a bicycle right into the construction material across our lot. So I understand the liability. My concern is always safety and the rest of it. And expense is extremely important without a question. And defining the area, I just want to make sure that we ensure public safety.
 Because we're not charging them anything to do it. It's a six-month lease, so it is short-term. I'd be willing to make it their prerogative, given that the IDC is not going to be liable for anything. And because it's right now for only six months, and it would potentially entail a significant cost, at least in relationship to the total time. So I certainly think you're making an excellent point.
 It's just mostly trying to kind of not make the perfect enemy of the good here. I don't want to make an enemy at all. I want to do it right. I just want to ensure safety. So I'm hearing one in support of not requiring, one supportive of requiring. I'll go with what John indicated in regards to damage and the rest of it and leave it at their prerogative to install a fence. I think it's a good idea.
 Stepping on your toes. I was just trying to make sure they were summarizing. You're summarizing. You're summarizing what we each said. And yeah, I was fine with making it their prerogative. I certainly can see the wisdom of doing it. But given that condition. Yeah, exactly. Their prerogative and their expense. Yes. Yeah. That's suggested. But we are going to approve the resolution with the additional language. But I'm guessing you're going to have it in there. Yes. So we'll actually be able to see it.
 Yes, it will. I'll talk slow now. We do have one more resolution. Do we want to return to this so that we can have the sample language? OK. So we'll table Revolution 2593, pending the language of.
 restoring the property to its original condition. And we'll move, for the moment, to resolution 2594, which is approval of change orders four and five for the 17th Street Multimodal Improvements Project. Mr. Aitman, is here to speak. Yeah. Roy Aitman, City Engineering Department. This is approval for the funding for the change orders. This is our 17th Street Project, which is completed construction about a year ago. We're still in the process now. It's an end-dot project.
 So we're doing all the counting, end of it, audit. The change orders themselves were approved through NDOT last year. Change order four was for there was a utility conflict with one of the utilities out there and some redesign that had to happen with the storm sewer. So those charges, because they're a utility conflict, they are non-participated by the federal
 federal money. So when that happens, NDOT will invoice us for the whole local charge. And then change order five, there was an item in it that was for a new casting and an adjustment to grade. It also was determined to be non-participating by NDOT. So those two items were clumped together, put an invoice into the city for payment.
 And what we're doing now is asking for approval for the funding for $34,244.16 to submit for the invoice. Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 1294? Approximately what the RDC's total contribution was to this project? I think I have that here. As a consolidated TIF, the total
 was $3,964,26924. That's after this approval. Prior to this approval is $3,930,250.08. I guess that's attached. Sorry about that. I scrolled all the way to the end. What's this $34,000, Roy?
 It's just a situation we thought it would be included. They say it's not. Yeah, so it was unforeseen site condition. The utility did not put their location on the plans. So what happened was the whole storm structure had to be lowered to miss AT&T. In doing so, the way the NDOT specifications read, the contractor then gets paid for that stone that they had to get out of the trench. Otherwise, it's included in the price.
 unforeseen, but it's also non-recoverable. Because if it was on the plans, the contractor would have put that into their bids. So it was kind of a surprise to them as well of us. And because it's utility-related, NDOT has a policy where they will not participate with utility-related delays or claims. Does the utility have any responsibility at all since they failed to put it on the plan?
 Yes, I can't really speak to that. I mean, they did not. They had a chance to review the plans. They looked at it. Some of it had to do with location and depth. So there's only so much the utility knows with buried utilities prior. So we have not had that argument with them yet for it. I think they have some claims to get out of it. But we can approach them and see.
 The reason I ask, I know protected arguments in public work projects is never a good thing, but to ask to see if we could recover it or have a discussion about it with the utility. It has to be paid because it is part of an unforeseen situation. True. And typically, if there's any way to get someone else to pay for it, I pursue that, or before it ever comes to you. I knew you would do that. I just wanted to ask that question, since you indicated it was a utility relocation.
 Are there questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2594? Otherwise, we will look to the public, either online or in person. Seeing no further comment, I will request a motion for resolution 2594. I'll make a motion to approve 2594 as presented. Second. The first and the second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. You'll have it done here. Is it just down to the paperwork now?
 There's actually one more change order that will be coming your way. It is sitting on Indut's desk right now. And it has to do with accessibility. So we don't have a value on anything yet. But no, I'm not done yet. I will come back. We can talk about it again. Of course you will. We look forward to seeing it. We've got something else to do on Mondays. Thank you. Thank you. So what do you think, Mr. Kern? Can we go back to 2593 with the amended language? Yes.
 The amended language to the contract with BCM is paragraph 11 is added and says that BCM shall return possession of the property in the same or improved condition as when BCM took possession. Any improvements must be approved by city staff so they can argue what's improvement what's not.
 And 12, I did add that BCM is encouraged to provide fencing for public safety at their discretion. However, BCM is responsible for any and all injury to the public. OK. Well, thank you for that amendment. Do we have? I can't recall if we got to public comment on this yet, but I'm going to just do it just to make sure we're being thorough. Any public comment on 2593?
 Seeing none, I will entertain a motion, please. With those changes, I'll move for approval of 25-93 and I'll second. First and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all. OK. Are there any other items for new business or on our agenda or any after new business, any other general discussion? Anything else?
 for this evening, otherwise I will ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. OK. Thank you, everybody. Nice and efficient meeting, just about an hour.