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.