- We're going to welcome everybody to the Redevelopment Commission meeting of September 2nd, 2025.
- We will start the meeting with a roll call, please. C. Scandaluri, here. Randy Cassidy, here. John West, here.
- Laurie McRobbie, here. Deborah Meyerson, here. Staff present, please. Anna Killian Hansen, Housing and
- Neighborhood Development. Christina Findley, Hand Department. Roy Aten, Engineering Department.
- Jane Cougarsmith, Economic and Sustainable Development. Jessica McClellan, City Controller.
- Amy Caswell, Hand Department. Dana Kerr, Legal Department. Thank you, everybody. We will start with
- our minutes. We've got minutes from Monday, August 18, 2025. Is the attachment of the RDC versus tenant
- properties, is that also from August? That was from the previous meeting. OK. I mean, I knew that.
- I appreciate that it's on there. I just wanted to make sure, in terms of what we're doing, that it's
- the same set of minutes.
- OK, well, any questions or comments on these minutes from August 18th or the attachment? If not,
- I will invite a motion. Move approval of the minutes for August 18th. Second. We've got a first and a second.
- We'll take a vote by roll call. C. Scambler, yes. Raney Cassidy, yes. John West, yes. Lauren McCrobby, yes.
- Deborah Meyerson, yes. Motion passes unanimously. Next on our agenda, we've got a claims register.
- for August 29, 2025. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this claim register? If not,
- I will invite a motion. So I move approval of claims register for August 29, 2025. Second. We've got
- a first and a second. We'll do a vote by our own call, please. C. Scambler, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes.
- John West, yes. Lori McRobbie, yes.
- Debra Meyer saying yes. Claims register passes unanimously. OK. Next on our agenda is the payroll register
- for August 22nd, 2025. Any questions or comments from commissioners about this item on the agenda? If not,
- I will invite a motion, please. Move for approval. Second. First and a second. I'll vote by roll call, please.
- C. Scambler, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. John West, yes. Warren McCraven, yes. Debra Meyer saying yes.
- Passes unanimously.
- um legal report well we're going to go to to reports from staff please so um uh from the hand director
- please sure i don't have a formal report to this evening i will say that we have a lot of activity over
- at the hope well site right now um not only do we have the jackson street sub going in we also have
- the remediation underway which they're actually starting now which is great um they have also started
- the remediation at the 714 south
- Rogers Street building, it does look like there may be some additional work that may be coming to you
- sooner than later, just due to the fact that the air handler was off for so long. So we will probably
- have to have another resolution for that. And then the core building did have a little bit of trouble
- last week. They were installing a radon mitigation system, drilled through the slab and hit some sort of
- Substance they're not sure what it was. They've taken a sample. It's been sent off I will keep you posted
- as soon as we hear anything Yes, we have discussed the Memorandum agreement with the American Red Cross
- and they had wanted a few changes it was in the
- section regarding the indemnifications and hold harness and the commercial insurance to more match up
- with what they have in place. And it went through Corporation Council, and those changes were
- all agreed to and so it's in your final form. You approved it under resolution 25-100. The resolution
- itself does not change. It's only the attachment that changes. So you would simply need a vote to replace
- the attachment on resolution 25-100 with the one that you have before you tonight.
- Any questions or comments from commissioners about this updated resolution in terms of the attachment, per se?
- Does this finish everything else where we can have a blood drive and we don't have any issues? Yes,
- it does for the RDC. It still does need to go to the Board of Public Works for their side of things.
- But as far as the RDC property is concerned. OK, so we'll be covered on this. And will this addendum
- cover not just the Red Cross, but also other things, or specifically the Red Cross?
- Yeah, it's just the Red Cross. OK. And then what we previously approved as far as setups and such,
- it still has to be approved by Public Works before anyone can schedule it. It would need to be approved
- by Public Works if it was going to be in a non-RVC property. And so they will take it to their board
- in a week or so, I believe, and hopefully approve it through there so it'll be done with everybody.
- For instance, they couldn't do one on the city side right now, but they could do one in Showers West
- right now, if you adopt this. Thank you. That's lovely. OK. Well, thank you for that legal report.
- Anything else from commissioners about this attachment before we move to our next on the agenda?
- Do we have to approve or adopt? We do need to. Oh, we do need to. OK. I wasn't sure since it was. Yeah. Yeah.
- exchange, replace the attachment one from resolution 25-100 to the MOU you have in front of you tonight. Okay.
- I'm going to suggest, if you don't mind, that we just wait for the rest of our reports for now,
- and then we'll go back to maybe, can we, even just at the end of the reports, under old business,
- just to kind of keep it top of mind. Okay. So thank you. We'll just kind of pause that for a moment
- and get back to that.
- Do we have a treasurer's report tonight? No. No treasurer's report. OK. Business development update?
- Not this evening. Thanks. OK. Well, our list went through really quick. And we are back to resolution
- 25-100 with the newly revised attachment. We've had our questions and comments. I will open it up for
- public comment. Anything online or in person? Seeing none, I will invite a motion for this. Move for approval.
- First and a second, we'll do a roll call vote, please. C.S. Kimbler, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. John West, yes.
- Laurie McRobbie, yes. Deborah Minersing, yes. Passes unanimously. And that is the goal report for resolution
- as added to resolution 25-100 for the attachment from the Red Cross MOU. OK. Well, we will now move
- on to new business. And that starts with resolution 25-106, which is approval
- funding for a change order one for Hopewell West. Senator Eaton. Good evening, Roy Eaton with the City
- Engineering Department. This is part of our Hopewell West project that was awarded to Crider and Crider
- in the amount of $1,687,318.85. This is change order number one that has come before us. It's a result
- of the project had a soil management plan that's being managed by a vet that wasn't realized
- prior to bidding. So after bidding, there was some additional charges. This is a scope change order
- that we've gone through where it's additional stockpiling until it's tested by vet and then the soils
- move to another location and it's managing those stockpiles and keeping all the soil on the project.
- So those are the items that weren't aware of prior to bidding, but we're aware of now. So we're asking
- that through change order number one to have
- those items added to the project. The change order is in the amount of $153,000 for 153,444,070.
- And then an additional 14 days are being added to the project. So our final completion date now would
- be November 15, 2025.
- Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 25-106? Yeah, I've got one. With all that said,
- isn't resolve number two incorrect? That not to exceed number is the old total, not the new one.
- Yeah, so the original amount is for the bid was $1,687,318.85. This would be an add of $153,444.70. The final
- The contract amount will be $1,840,763.55. So you're correct. That will need to be revised. Thank you
- for that catch. Any other questions or comments from commissioners on this? So based on the soil management
- plan, we didn't know we had nasty soil, essentially. Whoa. We do.
- from the environmental review that we were doing. They were charging forward on Jackson Street and ended
- up taking it out for bid without talking to us to say what's going on there. So there was definitely
- a disconnect that we've now realized. The city was aware of it. That's why it's a change in scope instead
- of an unforeseen site condition. What did it affect to the original bids?
- This amount would have been incorporated in the original bid. So the original bid would have come in.
- This is just work that needs to be done. And on that, we were given numbers by Crider and Crider for this.
- They came in exactly what the estimate would have been for it. So there was good numbers. And when we
- deal with this remediated soil, it's going to stay on site and be capped? At this point, we've incorporated
- into the plan to keep this on site. It'll be tested. We're testing everything.
- out there so we're anticipating that none of the tests will come back yet but the test results will
- be considered safe and it's just better to leave it on site from a environmental impact page so yeah
- we're going to just there's plenty of room on this job site to have Phil placed in it so that won't affect us
- Is it in a negative context with any additional residences? We're not keeping contaminated soil.
- If it comes back clean through the testing process, then it will be reused. Otherwise, it will have
- to be taken off site, which will come back for a different, for an additional. Well, you've already
- proved that through vets. Well, we will have additional if we have to, depending upon how much we have
- to dump. But that's through the vet contract. OK, so the vet contract is for the site as a whole,
- not just our site.
- For the west side, yes, the west entirety of the west side of Hopewell, not just the isolated area where
- we identified a previous gas station. Due to our environmental review, we are required because we aggregated
- it under, I can't cite the CFR, but
- we are required to now have the soil management plan for the entire aggregated site of blocks four through
- seven. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 25106?
- If not, I'll open it for public comment, either online or in person.
- Seeing none, I will invite a motion for this resolution, please. Move approval of Resolution 25106. Second.
- Second. Got a first and two seconds. Do we have a roll call vote, please? Sue Scandallari, yes. Randy Cassidy,
- yes. John West, yes. Laurie McCrobby, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Resolution 25-106 passes unanimously.
- Next item on our agenda is approval is 25-107, approval of funding for addendum number two
- to the professional service contract for the beeline trail and multi-use path. This is awesome, Mr. Aiden.
- This is me, Roy Aiden with City Engineering. This is our beeline multi-use path project. This is the
- section of path that's between Adams and Fountain Drive that has yet to be constructed. We had hired
- Caramida to do an environmental and test the soils.
- There were some soils out there that had lead impacted soils. They were very low levels. We went ahead
- and we have already approved to the RDC the resolution to have them do the actual contracting work of
- picking it up. What we did not have though was, because we did not know the quantities of soil until now,
- there's a disposal fee that is from waste management to take the soil up at twin bridges.
- They have invoiced us now. We've added that to our agreement with Caramida. So this addendum number
- two to their resolution is in the amount of $11,666 and is the disposal fees from Twin Bridges. Thank you.
- Any questions or comments of commissioners on resolution 25-107?
- There are none. I will open it for public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none, I will invite
- a motion for Resolution 25-107. Move approval of Resolution 25-107. Second. Got a first and a second.
- We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Sue Scambaleri, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. John West, yes. Laura McRobbie,
- yes.
- Deborah Meyer saying yes. Resolution 25107 passes unanimously. Next item on our agenda is resolution 25-108,
- which is approval of a lease for the 4th Street Garage commercial office space with Visit Bloomington.
- Who would like to speak to that? I'll be happy to speak to that. Jane Coopersmith, Economic Development,
- and then Mr. Kerr, I'm sure, can provide additional context if needed. We approved this lease under
- a previous
- resolution and visit Bloomington the process that was 2559 the visit Bloomington team director Mike
- McAfee took that back to the board his board and they really and they also investigated in a more detailed
- way the costs of building the site out and so they came back with a request to reduce the annual rent rate
- know, a fair amount. And so after communicating with Director Killian Hanson and doing some additional
- market research, we determined that this is on par with market rents. And the staff feels really good
- about recommending approval of the requested rent rates. John West, you had asked about the renewal terms.
- And this does include four additional renewal terms.
- allows for addendums to be approved at the time of renewal. So those rates would be negotiated at that time.
- And I think Visit Bloomington was really interested in having those additional renewal terms because
- they're making significant investment in the site and in the property, and they're really committed
- based on the presence of the convention center. So again, from a staff perspective, we feel really good
- about making a recommendation for approval for this resolution.
- And I'm happy to take additional questions and say Mr. McAfee was really disappointed not to be able
- to be here to take questions as well, that he had significant conflict. OK. Thank you very much. Questions
- or comments from commissioners on resolution 25-108? I'll just make a comment. I had the opportunity
- to look at this document and also consult on the rental rate
- I find it to be in the city's best interest to go ahead and move forward with this lease. Thank you.
- Any other questions or comments from commissioners? If not, I'll open it for public comment.
- Either online or in person, seeing none, I will invite a motion for a resolution 25-108. I'll make a
- motion to approve 25-108. I'll second it. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call,
- please. C.S. Campbell, Larry, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes.
- John West, yes. Laura McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Resolution 25108 passes unanimously.
- Next item on our agenda is resolution 25109, which is approval of a second amendment to the CARES Act
- Community Development Block Grant Award to the Bloomington Housing Authority. Who would like to speak to that?
- Cody Toothman from our department who will be speaking to it.
- if everybody can hear me. Yeah, this amendment would actually grant an extension of time for actually
- all the recipients that are on the board for tonight. The original contract it stated that they had
- until May of 2023 to expend all funds, but the paragraph right underneath it would also have given them
- six years to completely expend.
- the HUD deadline for these funds before they are reverted back or unable to be used is actually September
- of 2026. So we're seeking to expand that time to actually line up with HUD's cutoff date for the use
- of those funds. Thanks. And so I'm actually going to introduce this just real quick as we discuss it,
- and especially if staff have feedback on it, if it would be apt to group the extension because they're
- pretty much the same for all organizations.
- So this would be for resolution 25-109, which is currently on the table, all the way through 25-112.
- So that's four amendments or four resolutions that are being comparably amended. So I'm just proposing
- that we would approve those as a group. And if there's any, again, if staff have any, either endorsing
- that idea or reasons not to do that in addition to what commissioners might.
- I would recommend going ahead and doing them together. We do a lot of our CDBG contracts the same way,
- grouping those social services or physical improvement projects, and these all are the same.
- So with that report and that proposal being recommended by staff, any questions or comments
- from commissioners on any of these four resolutions on CDBG funds or the
- extension of the deadline. Not seeing any. I'll open it for public comment either in person or online.
- Not seeing any. I will invite a motion for the resolutions 109 through 112. I'll move approval of resolution
- 25109 through 112. Second.
- We've got a first and a second. We'll do a roll call vote, please. C. Scambaleri, yes. Brady step down. Oh,
- John West, yes. I was just listening. Lauren McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyer, saying yes. Motion passes
- unanimously with one abstention, shall we say? Okay, well, thank you.
- Next item on our agenda is resolution 25-113, which is approval of an agreement with the Weddle Brothers
- Construction Company for temporary storage at the convention center parking lot. Who would like to speak
- to that? I'll speak to that one. You have the resolution before you. There is a part of the parking
- lot at the convention center where the city of Bloomington owes two parts of two parcels and the
- RDC owns the other part. It's actually owned by the Bloomington Municipal Facilities Corp. But there
- is a deed where they have transferred it over to the RDC that we've come across and we are going to
- be recording that, but the deed has been signed. So the RDC does own the property.
- and part of the property. There is an attachment that has a map that shows the, at the top of the map
- would be the hotel that's adjacent to the convention center on the south side. Then there's a parking
- lot owned by others. And then the blue hatch area on the right is the location where Weddle Brothers
- would like to store materials during the construction
- of the convention center expansion. So they have asked for a right of entry to do that. And we have
- a right of entry agreement and a resolution accepting that agreement. So the blue hatch is ours.
- The blue hatch is the northern part of it is RDC. The southern part of it is the city of Wilmington.
- longer strips the city of Bloomington does. Then it goes into the county? Yes. How's that going to affect
- parking? You mean current parking for the convention center? Yeah, current parking. I was going to ask
- that same question. That's my concern as far as we're
- I didn't negotiate that. Do you guys want to jump in? That's a lot of parking that you're taking off of.
- They're taking all three of those. You got too many lines here. Anyway, both of those blue hash.
- They're taking both of them? Yes.
- the blue hatch here. That's dozens of parking spaces. Was the Convention Center consulted? Yeah.
- I wasn't even consulted about this. I don't know anything about this. OK. Sounds like we have some additional
- questions before. Yeah, who negotiated this to begin with? This was brought to our attention by the CIV.
- with whether we need to store the materials. Just to move things forward, I'm assuming they don't need
- this within the next week or so. Well, it'll be a couple weeks. Yeah, no, a couple weeks because of
- our next meeting. It's going to come back to us and I would have a hard time approving it without making
- sure the Convention Center knew about it and I don't want to, you know,
- put them out of business while we're, mm-hmm. Hey Jane, were you present for any of these conversations
- about this? No, I mean I was at the last CIB, but I didn't, this wasn't discussed at that meeting.
- What's the procedure for table until we have the ability to have some additional conversations? We just do it.
- Just do it. Yeah. I'll make a motion to table until such time as our economic development director can
- have conversations with the convention center and see how that's gonna impact.
- Or whoever. Or whoever, yeah. Yeah. Toysha Coppock was on that email list, so she's aware of it.
- And John Weichardt and Jim Weillach, along with the controller and Margie and I, and the Weigel Brothers
- project manager were all on the request to draft that. But we don't know yet.
- Somewhere in the world, there's emails and socks. Margie Rice, Corporation Counsel, is online and has
- her hand up if anybody would like to consult with her. Margie, you're up. Hey, everybody. I do want
- to make sure, Dana, I did hear Dana just say that the Convention Center is aware of this. They're super
- excited about the
- convention center construction. They've been communicating on a regular basis with the CIB and their
- representatives, and they brought this to our attention to bring to you guys through your consideration.
- And so that's what we're doing tonight, agreeing to your consideration. There's been no concerns at all.
- Talisha was on the original email when Little Brother said, hey, we're gonna need some area for staging.
- And so they asked,
- you know, what area was available. And so Dana put this together for your guys' consideration. But for sure,
- the Convention Center is aware of this request. And I think they're on board because they want to do
- whatever they can to facilitate the construction of the Convention Center. My only concern, Margie, is,
- well, it's an email trend. There's been conversation that says it's not how it's going to affect them
- from an operational standpoint.
- I'm sorry, you're concerned because you think it's going to? No, I don't. I don't know. We as a community
- as a whole have confirmation from the Convention Center operator, which... It's Talisha. Yeah,
- Talisha Coppock, that this is a good place for a lay down area and it won't negatively impact any of
- the operations that they're currently doing during the next year when we have construction.
- So Talisha is the one who initiated the request and said that the project manager for Weddle Brothers
- needed to apply for a permit for construction staging and that it required an affidavit from the property
- owner, which is why, since a couple of the parcels are owned by you guys, we wanted to get your approval.
- I don't think Talisha would have been recommending this
- she thought it was gonna affect their operations. Okay, she's recommended it, so. She's the one who
- initiated it. Okay, that's what we're trying to clarify. Yeah, and so, you know, a lot of these,
- as you can imagine, a lot of things that come to you guys have gone through a lot of different conversations
- with staff before it lands in a public meeting. And so, this is just an example of that. I think the
- different boxes have been checked
- um, before it came to you guys for consideration. Now, if anybody in the room thinks, you know, that that's,
- you know, there are concerns about this from a city standpoint, like if we care about it, um, let us know.
- But we, we also are trying, you know, it's a little bit one of those truth bags. We're trying to do
- what we can to facilitate the construction of the Convention Center and save costs because
- It's coming out of our pocket, our food and beverage pocket. And so we have an interest in trying to
- facilitate the construction of it. And we're often accused of dragging our feet or slowing things down.
- And so we're trying not to do that. So Margie, I don't have a, with what you said, I don't have a problem.
- I think that this probably would have gone smoother if the resolution had maybe indicated that the convention center
- operators were involved in this and approved it. Because the way we got it, it was kind of a dead end topic.
- And as Randy said, it looked to me like we were just taking away parking spaces that the convention
- center might likely need. So that was the issue. Yeah. I can appreciate that. I'm glad we were able
- to answer these questions. But I do think that they're not concerned about it. And certainly, Dana,
- the way this is
- written, it can be adjusted as needed, isn't that right? The way you've drafted it? Yes, as far as the
- area that they have, yes, it could be negotiated. Let me pull it back in here. Yeah, it's such a weird
- site because they are using all of that parcel for construction. They need some place to put their stuff
- nearby. I get it.
- I think we're okay. I'm okay with it after you said that Talisha specifically initiated it in regards
- to the Operating Convention Center. We just want to make sure we didn't come back, as you said,
- as a community and appear that we were slow-walking anything in regards to the construction of this
- Convention Center. This is a community project that we're all involved in and the City of Bloomington
- is financing it through our F&D, so it's important to make it. Yeah, and you guys know, I mean, you've
- already allowed Wilder Brothers to use
- an RDC on building for space. We're trying to be as accommodating as we can be, just so that we are
- not causing extra delay, which is cost. Well, I guess because there is the agreement reads that with
- 30-day notice, it could be terminated either in whole or in part.
- When Talisha found out or decided that she just took off too much parking, we could redo the agreement
- and cut down on the allocation space and try to accommodate her. We can, yep, for sure. The only other
- thing I have is just to make sure that, and I know Weddle Brothers will do a fantastic job,
- to make sure that it gets put back in the same condition it was, or better. Yes, it states that Weddle
- Brothers shall return possession of the property in the same or improved condition as when Weddle Brothers
- took possession. Any improvements must be approved by city staff. Perfect. Thank you, Dan. I just wanted to,
- it's just kind of an editing thing,
- At the top of the resolution, sorry, I'm just trying to get to the space. Sorry, I was just scanning
- to make sure that my question wasn't answered in the resolution and now I'm getting back to the space
- where it says that they all agree. Well, that's what I'm trying to recapture where I was looking at.
- It was a statement that said,
- the city RDC all agree on this. Sorry I just lost it. Let me just quick look do a search because there
- was an abbreviation of BCM and I was looking to see if that was specifically indicated what that stood for.
- OK so this is page 205 in the packet. This is I guess from the previous
- Because it says on the second day of August. Should that say second day of September? Or is this, again,
- I'm trying to like just, anyway. So my question is specifically in the middle of the page where it says,
- now therefore in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and conditions of this agreement, the city,
- RDC, and BCM agree to the following. I just don't see.
- a specific reference that says what BCM refers to. That's a good catch. Bench or construction management.
- And that was related to construction at the pool world. Yeah, good catch. And also was the date then
- incorrect also?
- Yeah, the top. Right, where it says 2nd of August. It's supposed to be 2nd of September. It's got to
- be wrong because your resolution. Right. I, again, was trying to make sense of if there was some addendum
- that was from a previous reference or whatever, but. And I can have that modified here. So this is under
- the contract cover memorandum is the first page of it and then the summary of the contract is what I'm
- looking at.
- And then that's the next page that says agreement for temporary storage at conventions under parking lot.
- So it's the date that needs to be updated to September instead of August. And then the other parties
- to the agreement, again, BCM is obviously left over from a different document. So just, is there a third
- party that should be in there? Is that Weddle Brothers? I guess it'd be Weddle Brothers. Right.
- I'm just quick scanning the rest of the summary to see if it's all consistent as far as I can tell.
- But it looks like Weddle Brothers is a consistent reference. And then again, I was just looking at the
- signatures, which is again, Weddle Brothers should be Bloomington and the REC. So it seems like the
- rest of it is as needed was just those two edits. Okay. Any further comments or questions for commissioners?
- Otherwise I'll open it for public comment either.
- Online or in person. Seeing none, I will invite a motion for Resolution 25-113 as amended. I'll make
- a motion to approve 25-113 as amended with the date and the Weddle Brothers being added. I'll second. Second.
- OK, first and second. Can we do a roll call vote, please? C. Scambleri, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. John West,
- yes.
- Lori McRobie, yes. Deborah Meyers, yes. Motion passes unanimously for resolution 25-113. Thank you.
- Next item on the agenda is resolution 25-114, which is approval of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith,
- Incorporated, Care of Bank of America, National Association, key provisions of lease termination.
- Who would like to speak to that? OK. I can, or I'm not sure if Margie was planning on that.
- So I can move forward with that one. I'm happy to chime in whenever. Dana, why don't you do that since
- you have the resolution right in front of you. You do the start and I'll answer any questions. All right,
- will do. OK, so we negotiated with Merrill Lynch their termination of their lease at Showers West.
- What they requested was to be able to stay until March 31st, and they'd like to not have to remove their
- equipment and furniture. They want to just walk away. And in return for that, the city would not need
- to reimburse them for any moving expenses or anything under the lease agreement. So this is, we considered it a
- win-win, because the RDC is not paying anything. And they will be out. And we still got some tenants
- that we're working with. And so we feel that this is a good way to go. And if others wanted to do the
- same thing, stay till March 31st. And the RDC not have to pay any moving expenses, then
- they could set forward and do that as well. Who paid for the original furniture and equipment? Sorry,
- they did. I was about to invite questions. Yeah, they did. They had done a build out, plus they provide
- the furniture and equipment. My understanding from the discussions is that they're actually going to
- be downsizing the office some. There was only three people that worked there, and this was
- a larger space and they're probably going to do something smaller and may just update their equipment.
- And again, they just want to walk away from it. What is meant by equipment exactly? Here's where I'm
- headed with this. If any of this is computer related and requires us to wipe hard drives or follow up
- with dispositional confidential material or anything like that, I'm just trying to get at that.
- Yes, no, they would be liable if they transferred data that was personal or identifying information to us.
- That would be opposed to their contracts with their clients. It would be opposed with their business practice.
- It could really set them up for liability. So I wouldn't anticipate anything like that happening.
- So they're going to pay rent through March. Yes, well, that's my understanding. Yeah, and I can jump in here.
- I have been working. Merrill Lynch reached out to CBRE, which is a company that works in multiple states.
- I've been working with one of their transactions personnel at Cleveland.
- He's been interacting with Merrill Lynch in New York. And so the local team, I had originally reached
- out to the local team, Eric Seuer, and met with him, and then was quickly directed to these
- other professionals to work with. And I think this is a great deal for the city of Wilmington. Frankly,
- it's probably the nicest office space in Showers West.
- They had not long ago updated that office. And so the fact that they want to leave their furniture,
- and then I don't know exactly if they're going to take any of the furniture with them, but what they
- don't want, the leave and their fixtures, will not be a problem for us. It's to the city's advantage
- to walk away. And they've been very professional. They understand the terms of the lease, I think,
- kind of a more global perspective, and they have been very good to work with, and I would highly recommend
- that we take this offer. So Margie, I've only got really one question, and it's a bit of a delay from
- what you were trying to achieve. How does bond counsel feel about that? You know, it's not ideal. Ideally,
- I wanted them out in October,
- um, REC granted until December, but if we are able to, um, just get the keys back and not have to pay
- a settlement, I think that is worth the extra delay. There may be, if we have to end up litigating, um,
- you know, if we had to litigate, it could take longer. Um, so I think that- I don't, I'm not, I'm not,
- you don't have to justify the arrangement. I like the arrangement. I just didn't want, uh,
- I didn't want a bonding issue January 1 because we didn't move everybody out. That's where I was heading.
- One of the conversations I've had with Bond Council also is just sort of the ratio of the quicker.
- We've got somebody who's going to be able to potentially move out in October. This will hopefully be
- the longest tenant that holds over.
- but we will we are slowly but surely reducing the percentage of space that is privately used and increasing
- the amount of public space and so I I'm not that I'm not concerned that we're going to get a finding
- in in January as we are actively and we can prove that we're actively working on getting the tenants
- out and reducing the private use. Thank you. Quick question in regards to
- The only potential possibility we would have from a financial situation is if they leave and then we
- have to move something out in order to make room. Because they're going to walk away. I've been in that
- space when I went over for the first time to look at it. I don't think there's anything that's going
- to cause our facilities team a big problem. No, I just want to make sure. Hopefully you can reuse it as is.
- It's a great space. It's a nice space. I was going to ask if there was any
- inventory that had been, you know, even preliminary just again kind of following up a little bit with
- Sue's question about what does equipment mean and then partly with Randy's question about, you know,
- that any cost that might be incurred would be the cost of moving which again because we don't know yet
- how the space is going to be used if all of what they leave is going to be useful or not. I just was
- wondering if there was any
- to have an inventory of exactly what they have and ideally even what's likely to be left behind that
- would make it easier to say oh this is a good deal because I have no idea what they're leaving behind
- and I realize there's uncertainty in terms of how the space will be used and if what's left behind can
- be used so there's not every question can be answered but a little bit more in terms of an inventory
- would make it a little more practical to be able to gauge whether the trade-off is worthwhile to me at least.
- I can tell you they have a receptionist desk that is fixed. That's a fixture. They have individual offices.
- They do have a server room. They will be taking their equipment, their computer equipment, all information
- that's confidential. Obviously, they're going to take that information and any of the equipment that's
- got that information on it. There is nothing. Again, I've been in the space.
- I consider this, you know, they spent six figures outfitting this space. It's a very nice space.
- And the fact that they are willing to and that we were able to negotiate their departure without having
- paid them any damages is worth it. And I don't think that there's any, you know, anything in there that's
- a deal breaker that's going to cause this problem.
- It may be space that is, again, I don't know what the long-term plans are other than using it for public use.
- There are no details. There's not been a master plan done for that space yet. But it's definitely space
- that you could move into right now and use. I would just chime in and say that I've been in this space.
- And I would feel that anything that's in that space that it's been left behind would be an asset and
- not a liability.
- it's got marketability. Okay well even just because I don't know that they may take some stuff so yeah
- you know like just trying to kind of gauge but it's helpful certainly to hear the people who've seen
- it engaged you know even if we don't know exactly what they're taking what they're leaving just trying
- to kind of. It would be wonderful for the city if we could utilize it.
- Quick question in regards to, is Merrill Lynch's downsizes, are they going to be staying and keeping
- an office in Bloomington, Indiana? Yes, yes, for sure. In fact, their agent from CBRD has asked for
- my recommendations on agents or places they might go. And they're definitely wanting to stay in town.
- And so I intend to.
- talked to him, I told him I would follow up with him after this meeting. But yeah, they definitely want
- to stay. It's just they have a fairly small office. Mayor Lynch, again, is a company that's got offices
- all over the United States. And they don't need as much office space as they were using in Showers West.
- And so they're just looking to find the right smaller space here in Bloomington. Wonderful. As it becomes
- a requirement that we have to move them out for our bond, I just want to make sure that we
- capture that company still in our community as a whole. They've already downsized the number. As I went
- in there, there was eight or nine rosers. It was a fairly big operation and now it's what, three?
- So that's really good. Yeah, I think, yeah, it's a smaller. Two on a staff person. I mean, it's really
- shut down. Yeah, well, COVID changed everything. Yeah. So with that. Well, technology does too. Yeah. Well,
- thank you for those questions and responses. I will open it for public comment, either online or in person.
- Seeing none, I will invite a motion for resolution 25-114. Move approval of resolution 25-114. Second.
- We've got a first and a second. We'll do a roll call vote, please. C. Scandler, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes.
- Next. Lori McRobbie, yes. Oh, John West, yes. Sorry. You're dragging. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Resolution
- 25-114 passes unanimously. Thank you. Last resolution on our agenda this evening is 25-115,
- approval of Bloomington Health Foundation incorporated key provisions of lease termination.
- So going along a theme, who would like to speak to that? Before you do, I need to recuse myself because
- I'm on the board of directors for the Health Foundation. Thank you. This resolution is similar to the
- Merrill Lynch, but this is the Bloomington Health Foundation. And the key terms that were negotiated
- with them was that the RDC would waive the
- the lease payments for August, September, and up to October 15, that they would leave the property by
- October 15 of this year. And for their moving expenses, they are asking for the sum of $19,542.50, again,
- with the other
- potential is margined with litigation and things like that. The fact that they're going to be out earlier
- and be able to get moved to a new location, I believe this would be a benefit to the RDC and the community.
- Thank you. Questions or comments from commissioners on 25-115?
- They're staying local. We've reviewed the moving costs, find it adequate and within reasonable amounts. Yes,
- we determined that this was within reason based on what they declared their expenses would be for moving.
- And if this is approved, how many additional do we have to deal with? Margie, do you remember how many
- are still there? You know, right now, stop.
- I have seven in my hand, but that could be, I don't have the sheet correctly. Yeah, I think there's
- five left after these two. Five left, okay. I believe it is. And we're still in active negotiations
- with those individuals? Yes. Okay, because Bloomington companies, we want to keep them in Bloomington.
- Yes, absolutely. And there are multiple factors that go into these kinds of negotiations, and there's
- not a cookie-cutter approach. This is a nonprofit organization. They do great work here in Bloomington. Again,
- I have talked to an exec team of their board members. I found them very reasonable to deal with, even
- though their cost is
- obviously higher than, and we're not paying Maryland anything, but they're getting out earlier.
- They do have increased rent cost. They're a very tiny space, and so they're having to move to a little
- bit larger space. Frankly, they were, again, very good to work with in the negotiations. We value them
- as a community partner. Don't think that these costs for the increased rent they're gonna have,
- extra parking costs they're gonna have,
- We don't think that these are unreasonable costs to pay to keep this good community partner in downtown.
- They're going to work with Cook, RCFC. And so all in all, I find this to be, again, an RDC in the city's
- best interest. So I would recommend approval. And again, I just want to reiterate that
- We are trying very hard to work with the tenants and not against them. It's easier with some than others.
- But I found that Health Foundation be really sincere and helpful in the negotiation process. Any other
- questions? The 19-5-42-50, what is the source of that payment from our perspective?
- Oh, Margie, you're in me. I made it myself, yeah. So there are some forgiven rent, some costs for parking,
- costs and increased expenses that they're going to have for rent, some moving of technology,
- some IT disassembly, relocation costs, and AV equipment, some of those things that have to be moved.
- So essentially, moving.
- packing supplies, relocation of equipment, and then the costs that they're going to, like actual costs
- that they're going to incur. And then what are we paying that out of? Out of what account? Is Jessica
- in the room? Yes, can you repeat the question? It's probably the two-sided one. There's the same problem
- we pay all of the
- I don't know if it's the, is it, used to be called the. Oh, what we're playing the settlements out of.
- It's the 2519. I would imagine that's probably the 25. The same phone we collect around. Exactly. Yeah.
- Got it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. And again, what they actually would be entitled
- to is likely different from this number, but given that they're a community partner, they need help
- in relocating
- And they are getting out early. We do believe it's an acceptable number. Okay. Okay. I'm going to open
- it up for public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none, I will invite a motion for resolution
- 25-115. I'll make a motion to approve 25-115 as presented. Second. We've got a first and a second.
- We'll do a roll call vote, please. See Scamblary, yes.
- Randy Cassidy, yes. John Wissemstein. Warren McRobbie, yes. Motion passes unanimously with the abstention.
- I don't know if that's the right terminology, but that's what we got. Okay, well that's all the item
- under our new business tonight. And is there anything else that is remains for business or general discussion
- before we adjourn?
- I have one thing I want to ask, and I think today we've approved 100 and obviously seven rep solutions.
- How much have we spent, Jessica, since January 1st? Oh my gosh. Well, give me a minute. You get time.
- It doesn't have to happen today, but in a couple weeks. I'm just curious. How much have we spent since
- January 1st? It's a whole lot less than what we committed to. There we go. I'll go with that.
- Isn't that just a...
- We've still got a few more months in the calendar year. Well, isn't that just updating the
- TIF reconciliation, whatever you call it? Yeah, I think that will answer the question. Yeah, yeah, it will,
- definitely. Let me just... We're probably due to get an update on that. Yes, we're due to get an update
- on that. I was going to say, I can put my thinking cap on real quick and get to that. It's not something
- I need immediately. It's just something that I thought... Not very much, to be honest.
- The feeling. And you're talking about, Randy, out of the TIF account, right? Not out of the operational
- account. Yeah, operational, just out of TIF. TIF was my primary concern. The other one is an operational
- account, but we don't have as much flexibility. Can you most certainly give me a report for the next week?
- Sure. For sure, for sure. I know we'll be coming up with a quarterly report. Consolidating TIF.
- Just request for future. I just would hate for it to be answered off the cuff. Oh, no. I would prefer
- to have a little time. That's why I asked, possibly by next meeting. Perhaps we could remove the pressure now.
- Yeah. We'll recognize that control and follow-up have to be buttoned in. That could be part of the business
- report. Next month. Next two weeks. Is that 1.1?
- $1.4 million in August, and so far this year we spent $5.3 million. There's a $2.1 million in January,
- and I can't remember what that is off the top of my head. Was that the payment for IU Health? Oh yeah,
- it was the payment. The final payment for IU Health was $2.1 million, and then very low months, like $400,000.
- 180,000, 74,000, so our months have been running really low. 300,000, 335,000, and then 1.3
- million last month, which must be a milestone thing. Or we required some documentation. So we have running
- very low. So we have way less than what we had last year. Our internal rule is that we update that report
- every quarter, right? So it'd be the beginning of, it'd be October, the first meeting in October. Yes,
- I think so. So, I mean, I'd like, I don't want you to have to do the report in the middle just because
- we're on the air. More or least fine. Can we just stick to what we've already agreed to? Yeah, we can do that.
- Just making sure as we, as we- You're concerned and you just wanted a general update. Well,
- it's not even a concern, it's just a matter of being able to update the public and ourselves as we know.
- what our actual spend is and the accomplishments that we have. We have a plan that we're going to do. Well,
- and I just also want to flag that even just because it's what's spent is not what we committed to.
- There are two different things and so don't think that just because we've only spent five million dollars
- or whatever the number is that there aren't more things coming down the pipeline. I'm just trying to
- look at that.
- Actual spent dollars versus commit dollars to make sure that we don't get ahead of our skis and cars to it.
- We are not going to get ahead of our skis. Wonderful. We have a wonderful control over our skis.
- Nana will not let us get ahead of our skis. I won't. Trust me. I'll send it right back. And I have.
- Would you trust us, Finn? Yep. Thank you. I appreciate it. You're welcome. No problem. OK. So we will
- look forward to that next month. In the meantime, I will
- request a motion to adjourn. So moved. Okay, thank you everybody.