Welcome to the City of Bloomington Redevelopment Commission meeting for September 15, 2025. We'll start
the meeting with a roll call, please. Laura McRobbie, present. C. Scambillari, here. Randy Cassidy,
present. John West here doing electrical work. Deborah Meyerson here. We have staff present, please.
Christina Binley, hand department. Anna Killian Hanson, hand department.
Thank you all. So first item on our agenda is minutes from September 2nd, 2025.
Any questions or comments from commissioners? If not all, invite a motion, please. Move for approval.
Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
We do not. We are all here in person, at least for today. Next item in the agenda is examination of
claim register. We have September 12, 2025 for $77,669.42.
Any comments or questions from commissioners on the examination of point registers? If not, I will entertain
a motion, please. Move approval of the claim registers for September 12th. Second. I've got a question.
Go ahead and second, then I've got a question. Second. On page three, the Trinacom payment, should that
be out of that account or the TIF account?
Who is it? It's Tronicom, T-R-O-N-I-com, page three. I don't know who that is. I don't know who submitted
that claim. Well, I was looking at what the description was. And it just looked to me like it would
have been a TIF expense.
Because it's a capital expense, isn't it? It's not a routine maintenance or. Jane, it's for the Forge.
It's coming out of the 2519 account. It's doing an install, though.
I think it's an enhancement. That's our tech electronics charge. And it is installation and their invoice.
All right. Services. So I think you're right. So Jessica, that would mean? We'll do an expense adjustment. Good eye.
Any other questions or comments? Thanks for the catch. One question on two of five, and it's just got
to do with the Corps, Bloomington Housing Authority. That's the payment of four. Is that the fourth
payment? Is that all of them? Or is there additional payments that could be occurring? The Corps? I
would have to look it up. I'd have to look it up. Hold on. Anna, do you know?
I'm trying to understand, where are you seeing this? Well, it's under the hand department on page two
of five. It's one of the payments. I'm just verifying how many more we have to go, I think.
What was it, a million? Two? I'm sure there's probably more payments. We have a lot more payments. They
have not drawn down hardly all of it. I want to say they're...
I'm sorry. I don't quote me on this because this is off the top of my head. I know that they've only
turned in maybe about $600,000 worth of claims so far. So we're not there yet. OK. I just saw application
number four. So I was just wanting to verify the numbers. OK. Thank you. So with the redirected expense
to the TIF as
described by Mr. West. We have a first and a second. Would that amendment all in favor say aye? Aye.
Any opposed? Passes unanimously as amended. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the payroll register
for September 5, 2025. Any comments or questions from commissioners? Move for approval.
Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
Now we're onto our reports from offices and committees. Do we have a report from the director? I know
that there's something in the packet. Well, there is one in the packet. I do want to just go over a
couple of things with you guys. So as noted in the packet, we did receive our grant agreement from HUD
last week. It's been fully executed.
As of today, what that means is that they have accepted our consolidated plan, our annual action plan,
and we are now able to move forward with our allocation of a little over $1.3 million. So big pats on
our backs because that was a lot to get through, but we are there. We do need to commission members
to serve on the 2025 Citizen Advisory Commission.
one for physical improvements, and one for social services. Right now, it's only two days that would
require your attention, November 7th at 5.30 PM and November 14th at 5.30 PM. I'm not sure if we have
any volunteers to do that. And I apologize. I know you guys are already so committed with this commission,
but we would appreciate any help we could get. Anna, do you mean the 6th and the 13th? Yeah, because
those are Fridays.
at 530, which seems a little odd. That is the calendar that I was provided. It sounds like maybe they
didn't update it from the year previously. So the 6th and the 13th, right, it should be Thursdays. If
the 6th and the 13th are the corrected dates, I know that I will be away on the 6th, so not available,
unfortunately. Otherwise, I would be happy to volunteer. I'm actually traveling both weeks or else I
would do it.
I'll be here on the 6th, but not the 13th. I'll do physical, if someone wants to. It doesn't matter.
I'm here. I can't do the 6th. I could do the 14th. 13th. Or 13th. Is it possible? So we could record
the 6th, because I believe the voting is actually taking place on the 13th. So the 6th would be the
presentation. So if we were able to provide you guys with
a video and audio of the presentation, could I get a member that would come for just the one day on
the 13th? I would do social services if that could be arranged for the recording of the sixth. I really
appreciate it, and I'm sorry to ask. I'll follow back up with you individually following the meeting.
So also on the director's report, College Square, we're continuing to have some roof leaks.
We've been forced to deal with it while we still have tenants in the space, especially since Indiana
Legal Services is upstairs where a lot of the leaking has started to occur. Again, not trying to break
the bank, just trying to make sure that we're patched enough to make it through whatever we're doing.
Hopewell, I'm sure you guys have heard that during the remediation, we did uncover three fuel tanks.
on the first bucket we hit one on the second bucket we hit one and on the fifth bucket we hit one but
the good news is they are out of there at this point we do have some additional testing that we have
to do now and you do have an item on your agenda as a result of this same with 714 south roger street
when that got in there and i know i mentioned this last week or we'll try to our last meeting that there
is some additional
mold growth than what they had originally anticipated, so they're going to need to demo a little bit
more. We are having some issues at Hopewell Common. We're having transients take off some boards from
the swings. We're not really sure why, but it's continuing to happen. We're also having some other vandalism occur.
The HVAC at the Trades District garage, we're still working on. We think we're getting there, and we
do have techs going out again this week. So that's it for my report. Moving on to other officers. CLARE
DUDALE. I've got a question. Anna, is there, we don't need to get into detail. Does the administration
still intend on potentially utilizing 714 South Rogers?
Yes. OK. Do we have any idea when something might occur on that, Anna? Not to put you on the spot, I'm
just trying to identify, because we continue to spend money on a building that we had a cost to tear
down. It is underway. I mean, part of the exercise right now has been to really look at our financial
numbers just to see what can we afford, what can't we afford.
how much is left on the life of the TIF and then how, what have we committed to thus far? Just so that
we're looking at the whole picture. We don't want to get in over our heads here. And so that's been
an exercise that Jessica has been working on. And so I think we're getting closer to a point where we
feel comfortable moving forward. I do think that it's going to be utilized one way or another
I mean, the bad thing about the 714 building and something that we've talked about previously is that
during demo, they cut the main to the building. So it had no electricity. And trying to get it electrified
again was a real challenge. Add in the fact that each room is individually heated and cooled. So it's
not just go get the furnace on to dry off the air. It's individually heated and cooled rooms, which
makes it complicated. So the only thing that can be really
have controlled air in an air handler for the common spaces. Well, when you have a moisture intrusion
issue, no electricity, mold growth. I mean, it's just been a recipe for disaster here. That being said,
I do feel comfortable with this process. The business that's in front of me this evening, it's demo
work that would need to be
undertaken no matter what. It's just at this point that we'd be best to go ahead and get some materials
out of there so that we don't have any conducive conditions for further mold growth. But yeah, it was
a comedy of errors with that particular building. And my main concern on it, as you said, is from a
fiscal standpoint and what we're looking with SB1, what we can financially afford. And we're looking
at a building that we've been dealing with in and out for several years. And at some point, do we just
pull the plug and build a new police station. But personal opinion on that? So it's just I hate to keep
spending dollars on that particular building when we're talking biologics and mold growth and we're
looking to rehab it into something else as a public use. So. Duly noted, but again, I do think that
we would be spending this much, if not more, on demolition anyway at some point.
Looking back over previous things, it was $250,000 to tear it down when we tore the hospital, but that's
been a couple years ago. So we seem to have spent more than that just trying to save it. At some point,
and I'm trying to think of what's a reasonable, let's say, even end of calendar year to have a checkpoint.
I mean, quarterly, it would make sense to do this, and that would just be the end of this month in terms
of looking at how much money has been spent
you know, maintenance and repair so far, review what the maybe current cost of demolition might be.
It might even just be updating the previous quote based on inflation or something just something rough,
not to spend money to get the estimate, but just to get and to compare that and then to get the timeline
for at least just, you know, what the possible
use of the building might be in terms of renovation, et cetera, just to kind of try and have some decision
points to look at. So I'm just asking, one might be a reasonable time to have all of that information
in front of us to review to just have as a reference point.
I believe that we could probably have something to you rather quickly for that review. That being said,
September is going to be a very busy month for that building. We're going to have a lot more information
to share with you, likely October, November. OK. Is that something that we could maybe
have monthly or bi-monthly just to kind of have it on the radar because otherwise just stuff keeps coming
in and it's just it's that trickle effect right of like a little bit here a little bit there but just
to be like okay here's the revised calendar here's the total this you know to date and then again at
least the an updated cost of demolition just for comparison purposes at least it just helps with
maybe understanding the context of individual requests like mold remediation. Yep, absolutely. Because
we're to the same point on your report dealing with the College Square building. We have one tenant.
Is that a correct statement? And then we've got Weddle brothers. Two? Well, Weddle as well, yeah. Well,
yeah. I would like to hope that for free rent, Weddle's would fix the roof, but that won't happen.
But as it is, I mean, the great people, I have no issues. We cut our deal with them. But my main thing
is we're looking at two buildings at this present moment that we're looking to reutilize or to remove
in order to put our convention center hotel. And I just don't want to continue to put little bits of
money, as Deborah indicated. I'd like to know what that whole thing is and an idea of what we're going to do.
So we can be as fiscally conservative as we can, which I know you are, Anna. No questions. And then
the SB1 has gutted a lot of things. So with that, we want to kind of look at that. So to Debra's point.
Absolutely. And you know, Indian Legal Services lease is coming to an end. So when that terminates,
we really won't have such a need there until we can decide the future use.
Is that the end of the calendar year for their lease? Or what's the, I don't, just remind me the end
date? Yes. Okay. And they have indicated that they might be able to get out earlier. Okay. That'd be
nice just to have one less thing to shepherd along here. Okay. Can I ask one other question?
Please do. Hey, Anna, you kind of, you glossed over the vandalism at Hopewell Commons, but do we have
a plan of some sort to try to mitigate that problem?
Yeah, we're working right now with our MSI team and then with Parks as well. So MSI is employed by Parks
to patrol the B line and switch yard. And then we also have a Hopewell patrol. So we're trying to make
sure that we have full coverage over there. That being said, it seems like the issues are happening
after 2 AM.
So we're working on a plan to address that. OK, thank you. OK, thank you for that report. Next on our
agenda? Other reports. Yeah, next report on our agenda. Sorry, that's what I was trying to say. I'm
here for questions, but I have nothing specific. OK, thank you. Do we have a treasurer's report? No
treasurer's report at this time. Thank you. We still have enough money.
We'll ask that every time. Do we have a business development update? I don't think I have anything for
today. Thank you. OK. Thank you all for being available and present. So we're on to our new business,
which the first item on our agenda is resolution 25-116, the approval of an addendum number two to the
Vet Environmental Engineering LLC agreement regarding 714 South Roger Street, such as we were just discussing.
Who'd like to speak to that? I'm happy to speak to it again. So this is an addendum to an already passed
resolution for mold mitigation at the 714 building. When they got in there, they found that there was
mold growing even on steel and just on the main level, at least,
So it's going to require an additional amount that would increase it by $50,000 for the remediation
for a total not to exceed of $75,000. Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution
25116? If not.
I will welcome a motion. No one wants to move from old. All right, I'll move approval of resolution
25-116. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. So we've
got four in favor and one opposed.
Next item on the agenda is resolution 25-117. This is addendum number one to an agreement also with
VET Environmental Engineering for environmental remediation services at Hopewell. Who would like to
speak to that? Hi. Me again. So as you're aware, we approved VET to go in and do the remediation.
contamination remediation at Hopewell West. So primarily at the corner of 2nd and Rogers Street. Again,
when they got in there, they ended up hitting three fuel tanks. And so as a result, the costs have increased
to dispose of these oil tanks. So the original resolution was for $152,486.26.
The addendum adds $63,404.33. So, something that's required, it's something that we really needed to
take care of, and this is still aligning with our IDEM contamination plan as well. It just doesn't align
with our budget. I know, but I have to say that
I am pleasantly surprised by the amount for the contamination cleanup. I was actually originally anticipating
significantly more than both the original contract and the addendum. Was there any indication that there
were tanks? They just didn't know where they were as opposed to these were not a complete surprise,
right? I mean, there's some indication of what this land use was. So is the additional just because?
we'll know when we see it and the kind of thing, or just help me with understanding in terms of what
the due diligence was before the digging started and then what they found and how that all adds up.
I'm going to let Dana, who was a former environmental consultant, answer a lot of this. But let me just
phrase this by saying that this site is one of the most studied sites that I've ever seen. We've had
three phase ones and at least that many phase twos.
with including sonar radar to try and detect where any tanks might be. Dana, you want to kind of explain
from your point of view? Yeah. Basically, they did use technology to try to find underground tanks.
And it came up inconclusive that there wasn't. And the tanks were full. And so therefore, as far as
water, I'm sorry.
They were full of water, so therefore there was no hollow areas for them to have encountered. I actually
haven't read that particular study, but that was done. And there was a number of sampling done, but
it just so happens where you put down the holes and where you actually find the tank.
And to be honest, these three tanks were up against the road. To me, there could be additional tanks.
Because they're, looking at the sand board maps, when I looked at them, it looked like there were two
generations of gas stations there. The first one is shown in 1947, I believe, and it had three tanks
behind the building at Setcaddy Corner.
These are along the roadway and these were 10,000 gallon tanks. In 1947, you did not use 10,000 gallon
tanks. Two, three thousand gallon tanks were more the norm. So it is possible as they continue doing
their work and go farther west that they could encounter. Now those tanks may have been removed. They
may not have. There's just no way.
of knowing. I know that on one site that I had back when I did environmental work, there was two generations
of gas stations. And when they built a new building, they poured the foundation over top of the old
tanks. So the only thing I can tell you is on sites like this, you just don't know what you're going
to find until you get into them. You really don't. I know that other site.
locally where all the work was done and they ended up finding that there was a small gas station where
none was ever reported to have been and tanks remained that had to be dealt with. So I'm not surprised
personally that they found tanks here. I am actually
happy the fact that $60,000 to deal with the tanks is actually not that bad, to be quite honest. And
so because they were already there, they already had equipment. I do not feel that it was a bad price.
But on a site like Hopewell that has been part of the downtown and used for so many
century plus, there's going to be things there that you just don't know until you encounter them. But
they did try with the technology to try to locate these things. It was just inconclusive and they didn't
locate them that way. There was no way to know from the aerial photographs that were in the reports
that I looked at or the Sandborne maps for the 1963 didn't show where those things were located.
the second generation. So there was nothing to typically indicate that those were right there in that
location. So that's my two cents. Okay, that's good, just to get some perspective on that. A follow-up
question, Dana. I suppose there's been no soil testing to determine whether we've got some soil mitigation
that's going to have to be followed up with in these
in the area at these times? There had already been soil gas sampling in the general vicinity. And I
have not heard what they were doing for other waste management. So I can't tell you for sure. So as
part of our soil management plan, testing was required.
And so yes, we've had a ton of soil samples taken before, during, and after contamination. But was it
done at the specific spots where these tanks are, or is this going to be a new surprise for quality
of soil? I don't think that it's going to be a surprise. So one of the benefits of doing this project
while we have the Jackson Street under construction
was the soil management plan requires that when you're digging, that you take samples of the dirt that
you're digging. So as they're digging up for the Jackson Street project, they were taking samples of
it, confirming that it was clean before they put it back down into the contamination spot. They dug
down until they reached clean soil. It is my understanding that we now have a clean site. It's just
we're waiting to dump the
particular contamination barrels and fluid, which are in a holding tank right now until we can get the
sample results back. We've approved an expedited sampling. So the lab should be getting back to us instead
of in three weeks, hopefully in 10 days from the time of sampling. So more information to come.
That being said, we had no indication on blocks four through seven that there was additional contamination
beyond some arsenic in the soil up towards the corner building on 1st Street. So if there are more tanks,
we're not aware of them. It hasn't been part of any of the studies that have flagged that. But we have
had a ton of studies. I mean, a ton. I will say, too, that in looking at the US
disclosure spreadsheet that was attached to the amendment that they do have soil disposal. They do have
triaxles. They do have holding or the tanks for the liquids. So it appears that those and it does have
a significant amount of analytical testing. So it appears that those have been accounted for. Oh, I
see that now. Anna, I appreciate what you've said about this being one of the most studied sites you've
ever worked with. And this is where I get well beyond my area of expertise. But we seem to get a lot
of inconclusive
when it would really be helpful to have data, is there testing we are not doing? Is there technology
we're not using that would be somehow more reliable? Again, this is where I'm out of my area of expertise.
But if it's the most studied site and we're still being surprised, that concerns me a little. Well,
let me just say that it was not very clear that we had an issue until we
started our environmental review, our part 58 environmental review with VET. So there's been a multitude
of consultants on the site, many different ones. And so I can't say that the technology has, that we're
missing something on the technology. I can't tell you why things occurred the way they did, but we also
relied on studies that were done
on behalf of other organizations, not on behalf of the RDC until recently. Go ahead. No, I'm done. And
that we're doing, they came and found this. They weren't one of the previous individuals that did look
at this. They were not. So we had a couple other inconclusive individual
companies that did that, that flat missed it. And then we, as in me, when I voted to buy the hospital
side, I expected a clean side on the hospital. So while we may not have a legal right to ask them for
anything, I would hope that as a community member, they would have some moral obligation. I know that's
thinking way too big. But. I was not here nor part of this.
when this all was decided. But the offer to purchase the ground was an as-is offer. You're not going
to win that. Oh, I'm not looking to win. I'm just simply looking at it from a fiscal standpoint and
the standpoint. They tore the hospital down and expense. And this is something that was there for years.
Obviously, it was either missed or ignored.
And it's an environmental issue that, as a community, we have to deal with from a fiscal standpoint.
We are the people to clean it up. But it just strikes me that while we need affordable housing, and
we need workforce housing, and it's a good location, and we're moving forward in the right direction,
I continue to be concerned about the little things that are coming up at 50,000, 100,000 at a time,
because it's real money.
Just my two cents. I can't say that as part of the initial, I mean, I was not involved, and so I don't
know what the conversations were in the process of purchasing the former hospital site. But it very
well could be that the administration and those that were involved were aware that it was a possibility
and didn't care. Just to throw that out there, as the devil's advocate, we don't know what
that that process was. What I do know is that it was an as-is offer, and it's there, and we
have a responsibility to our community to get it cleaned up. I don't disagree. I just did. I think the
price that we settled on in part offset that. We took it as-is, and we also took a price reduction.
As I recall, you took a price reduction against count. Do you remember how big the price reduction was?
I kind of do, but I don't think I want to just blurt it out and be wrong. So somebody might repeat me.
It does strike me. I mean, I sort of hesitate to say this, too, but we're talking about, what, 200,000?
No, just over 200,000 on a site that is worth a lot. I mean, obviously, well in excess of that to the
city. But this is only one example.
run into some others. I bet you we're into this for a million. That's I think that's really the question
about what are we actually spending to deal with all of this. But it has to be done. It seems like a
little bitter pill to swallow. It is a bitter pill to swallow. Because our anticipation as we have looked
forward and hope well in previous administration,
No responsibility on this administration in any capacity. I understand. You received it. You've done
a great job, Anna, with it. But trying to continue to get it done, and we find these environmental issues,
and as we look to redevelop it into housing, into commercial aspects, these throw other concerns, because
then we have to have our testing and the
development end of it, as people are looking to reuse this site, these type of environmental issues
create pause in that developmental. Well, if they've been taken care of, we probably that will. Well,
that's why we're trying to make sure that we can get some closure letters up front so that it's not
part of that. I mean, I think it's one thing if you have contamination that's known and you have a wreck
that's going to require an environmental covenant that's going to be highly restrictive.
But that's not what we have at this point. We're still talking to IIDEM, and hopefully we can get a
clean closure letter and move forward with the housing that we really need. Dana, do you have anything
to add to that? No. I agree in the fact that there was an offset kind of explains a few things to me
from what I've seen from previous reports that were done before the transaction.
So, and again, whether, no matter what your report had, that this is not too common, you know, to find
these kind of things. And it is great, though, to be able to get them addressed and get the closure
letters because that is going to go a long way with assuring people that these are sites
You're developing. Because the people may want to buy and redevelop it, but the banks will have to back
it. And they're going to be the ones that will be concerned with any environmental aspects. And those
who I used to work with years ago, and they like closure letters. Thank you. Thank you for that discussion
on resolution 25-117. With no more comments or questions from commissioners, I'll open it for public comment.
Anything online or in person? Seeing none, I will open it for a motion. I'll move to approve 25-102.
That's 117. 172, excuse me. 117. 117? Second. Second. Got a first and a second. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. I'm going to take a quick aside from 116. I remember I did not
invite public comment, so I'm just going to ask.
Any advice in terms of that's been voted on and approved if you just want to make that complete? Obviously,
if there is no public comment, we can probably leave it as is, but I'm just going to ask legal how you
want to do it. That is fine. Technically, you don't have to have public comment. OK. I wasn't sure in
terms of obligation for that. Only school boards are required to have public comment. OK. Well, if there's
anybody that does want it, let us know.
before this meeting is over, but I'm not going to otherwise break from the agenda. Thank you for that
advice. So next item on our agenda is resolution 25-118, the approval of an agreement with VET Environmental
Engineering LLC for environmental mold inspection at the Trades District Garage. This is just an agenda
all about VET. So who would like to speak to that?
All right, I'll take it. So essentially, as you know, I've been reporting to you guys that we've had
some issues at the trades district garage with the HVAC equipment really started with the fact that
they are oversized and there is no hot air reheat on them. So it's short cycling instead of drying out
the air. We've had an incredibly hot and humid summer.
At moments of time this summer, we had water dripping from the ductwork in addition to condensation
on the walls. So we are working on a solution right now. We think we are hoping, fingers crossed, everything
crossed, that we got it figured out. The tenants have not been able to occupy the space right now. They're
federal subcontractors and are tied to really specific standards.
When we met with them recently, one of the things that would make them feel better is to make sure that
there's no additional mold growth going on in the building as a result of the condensation from the
HVAC units. So this particular resolution is for $1,300, 1309.38, excuse me, for that mold testing just
to confirm.
We have no signs of it. We haven't noticed anything, but we really need to do an indoor air quality
sample to confirm. Any questions or comments from commissioners? Thank you for that report. I've got
a question, and I'm really not debating $1,300. And I think we discussed this before, but I don't remember
the response. If the equipment was specced incorrectly, do we have any recourse?
I haven't found a mechanism for recourse because what was installed was on the architect's drawing.
I think part of the issue is that the HVAC units that were installed anticipated a restaurant being
in the space, which has a great big vent hood, which makes sense if you have a hot kitchen. But because
there's no hot kitchen after the build out, we started to see some issues.
Director Coopersmith is in the room, and she's also able to answer questions as well regarding the tenants.
Commissioner, do you have any additional questions? Well, in terms of the question about the specs and
understanding that maybe the original drawings were based on a different intended use,
And given that, there sounds like there, I don't know if there's yet a correlation between the original
specs, what was built, and the current issue. My question is, is there any, is this the tip of the iceberg,
or is there more stuff that's gonna be coming after this? Or, I mean, I realize we don't necessarily
know, but I'm just trying to get a sense of, again, that general theme we've got going this evening,
which is the scope. There's the little thing that's in front of us now on this resolution, but what's
the bigger picture for, in this case, the Trades Garage, right?
I mean, I can't promise that there will never be an additional issue with this space. But we have been
in the space with JD Boroff really carefully looking at windows and thresholds and talking to the tenant
about what was going on to try to make sure that we're not going to have additional issues. I will say
that the tenant took occupancy, if that's the right verb phrase, April.
first, and so they haven't been through a complete cycle. So I think the HVAC issues that we're correcting
now, I assume that those will support the space this winter, too, because we're working to adjust the
equipment and right size it for the space. So I think if we didn't make these corrections and then hit
winter, we would just have a different version of the same problem. Anna, do you have anything else
to add? I would like to jump in here because, look,
We got to be working smarter not harder and I think that that is my overall theme when we anytime we
build a building We absolutely need to be requiring any HVAC tech before they install equipment to be
running manual J and manual D calculations I reported that to you guys several times the fact that that
didn't happen appropriately is frustrating but
If we can make that requirement moving forward, then I don't think that we'll get into that kind of
a situation. But HVAC equipment has to be properly sized. At this point in time, we are not opting to
replace them, which was the first thing that I was told was that we needed to replace the units to the
tune of around $200,000. So right now we're making small changes
to try and make sure that we can get what we need out of the equipment. I mean, there's two 10 ton units
up there for a 4,500 square foot space that's way oversized. So we've tried just turning one off and
letting the fan run. We tried some other little adjustments to try and make sure that we're getting
the correct air exchanges. But again, there is a building science to this that
We really just need to be smart about and not get ourselves into projects without doing the evaluations.
Thank you. So is that being smart basically just using this as a lesson learned and kind of what we've
got in front of us is kind of the best fit for our current situation?
Yes, I am all about cost-effective repairs, and I do believe that this is, again, an inherited situation.
I had nothing to do with the designer scope of it, but now that my eyes are on it, Jane, me, facilities,
Dana, we're all over it and trying to make sure that we're making cost-effective repairs that
are appropriate, but then also making sure that moving forward, we don't get ourselves into this kind
of situation again.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but was this not a design build? What do you mean? That the city's designed?
I mean, it was like a spec. Yeah. The city's spec built. Yeah. It was spec built. Right. And the architect
just got it wrong, or the engineer. I mean, that's our understanding. Anna also observed, or Director
Killian Hansen also observed that there is inherently a pressure with sales relating to HVAC, where
you recommend a larger unit, you can
drive your revenues. I'm not speculating that about this particular vendor, but just that the calculations
that she's talking about become even more important for that reason, for the property owner to just
verify that what's being sold and recommended is actually correct. Randy, my recollection is that, well,
it was spec-billed. Correct me if I'm wrong, Anna, but we spec-billed it without a tenant.
We did the shell and the mechanical. And then we got a tenant. And then we did the leasehold. And the
mechanical was already there. That's my recollection. OK. That answers my question completely. So now
we're adjusting it for our tenant accordingly. So to her point about a restaurant, there was a 50-50
chance it might have been that use. I bet you it's probably got it.
a grease trap under it. Yeah. Well, there you go. There you go. That answers that question. Thank you.
Okay. But there's also way too much fresh air coming into the building. I mean, that's part of the problem
as well. So I think I am able to utilize a lot of my past knowledge and talk about insulated duct work
and making sure that we're right sizing equipment. And these are things that everybody should take home
with them for their own personal homes as well.
Right sized equipment. OK. Well, thank you for that discussion. If there's no further comments from
commissioners, we'll open it for any public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none, I will
invite a motion on resolution 25-118 in place.
I'll move approval of 25118. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Passes unanimously. OK. The last item on our agenda, which I notice is actually not on
the agenda, but it's in the packet. So just making sure that there's nothing else. OK. So we've got
25119, approval of crash research and analysis incorporated key provisions of lease termination. Who
would like to speak to that? That would be me. OK.
And this is another one of our Showers West tenants who has negotiated a termination of their lease.
It is with Crash Research and Analysis Inc. And they are willing to vacate early as of October 1st.
They have found a new location at Fountain Square.
And they would like the RDC to provide the moving services for their personal property. But the tenant
must pack miscellaneous items, and they must handle all their IT equipment and devices. And there is
an estimated cost of less than $1,000 for that. The RDC will supply the tenant with two parking passes
for the 4th Street garage.
which is covering from October 1st of 25 to September 30th of 26, which you own that garage. And the
RDC will pay the tenant a sum of $1,000, not to exceed $1,000, for other expenses related to the termination
of the lease. That being that they needed a new countertop at their new location.
for $815 and then potentially for box and bubble wrap and tape that they'll turn in a receipt for the
other. It was determined that this was a very fair and amicable item. We worked hard with the crash
release and analysis folks.
And everything remained amicable. And we found that this was a very reasonable request. The city does
have a group that they have contract services with to do moving. And so though the RDC didn't have a
contract with them, we would use that same group.
And we've been working with JD Whorf to get that selected and ready to go. And my understanding is if
it goes well tonight, the moving crew will be there the morning of October 1st and we'll remove them
from the premises. So our cash outlay is $1,000.
$2,000. One for the move and one for the parking spaces. OK, so we are going to pay for the parking
spaces even though we own the garage. Well, there won't be a separate payment for them, no. But the
payment of $1,000 is up to $1,000 would be for the moving expenses, the moving company. And then up
to $1,000 for their countertop they needed and their packaging.
supplies. So there's a, this should be simple. There's a moving piece and then there's a parking piece.
There's a moving piece, a parking piece, and then an improvement to their fountain square location to
accommodate what they would be losing at Showers West. Okay, so where, I only see two issues here, not three.
All right, so first- And there's a bunch of typos, by the way. Not a bunch, but several. So the first,
the direct payment for moving expenses would be at a cost of approximately $1,000 more or less.
And again, that is for the countertop and the, no, that is for the moving company. All right.
So the first $1,000 is for the moving company period. OK, stop there for a minute. In my opinion, that
needs to be a not to exceed number. And if it's an estimate and you think it's low, then make it $1,200.
I don't care. But that needs to be a not to exceed number, not an estimate. Yes, the estimate that we
received was $800 to $900.
I don't care what you want to put in there. I just wanted not to succeed. And then the second, that
there would be no payment for the parking garage because you own the parking garage. You wouldn't pay
yourself for those passes. So you would just issue those passes. Do we have the ability to issue the
passes even though we own the garage? Because that parking garage, don't we have an agreement with the
parking department?
public works for parking? And they're going to let the redevelopment have a couple free passes for a
year for a tenant for moving? And they're not going to ask us for reimbursement? Won't that cut into
the revenue in their budget? No, there's excess passes available. They're not sold out of passes.
And they're also, with those passes, they're non-exclusive. So there's technically not even a guarantee
that there will be a space. So it's not a specific location. When I look at that, and I know it's fiddly,
it's a small amount of money, but it only takes a second to pick up the penny, and that's $36 an hour
tax free. So when we look at this, what is the passes a year? I don't even know. I know that Margie was.
instrumental in negotiating this, I don't know what to do. I'm good with it. I'm just looking at that
revenue loss on the parking that is minor, but it is a situation where we require everybody else, and
we're paying for it. But it's six to one and a half dozen. It doesn't matter. It's left hand. It's left
pocket right. But my question is, wouldn't it make sense in terms of,
this is evaluating the total value or owed that even if it's an in-kind as opposed to a cash outlay.
One, I feel this paragraph is written in a kind of confusing way. It needs to be different whereas or
something because or somehow because there's just all this stuff packed in there. And again, I initially
misread it that the $1,000 was related to the parking. So two things. One, I think it should be written
more clearly so that each element
is clearly separate, not just one long run on sentence, and two, that the value of the parking passes
should be reflected in here, because somebody else is paying cash for those parking passes.
I agree with you. I thought it was, too. I misread it. So that's when you got into this county and I
didn't know what you're talking about. Right. And not to exceed language as well. Right. And while you're
at it, line two, I think you've got
property earlier, it should be then, not that. In line seven, I think fourth is spelled wrong. Do you
need this approved tonight, or do you want to come back to us for the correction? Actually, you won't
need to get it before October 1st. Oh, that's true.
Can we just map out the amended version so that this can be adopted with amendments? Yes. I mean, it
does need a little bit more than just fixing a single number. I mean, fine, typo, that's easy enough
to fix. Again, just writing this in a way so that it's understood the first time through, as opposed
to having to kind of figure it out while you're reading it what it's referring to. And then I guess,
of course, the value of the parking passes
I don't know if there's a way to look that up. I don't know if Ms. Cooper-Smith is still here, but in
terms of just knowing what the going rate is for a parking pass and be able to put that in there. Again,
just something to kind of show the full compensation that's being provided even if some of it's in kind
as opposed to in cash.
Or could we adopt it with a request for an amended version? Again, I'm asking from a legal point of
view. Do you just need us to stall and create a distraction while you edit? Yeah. We're still not going
to know what the parking value is. I can guess what I think it is, but I don't want you to go by. We
need something to go by. Garage monthly permit costs.
I'm looking up online. It wouldn't affect the agreement, because it's going to be given to them, and
RDC will not be paying for it. So it wouldn't affect the agreement. But it's an in-kind value that should
be reflected as part of the negotiation. January 1, non-reserved, 24 hours, seven days. That's monthly?
Yeah, monthly. So $116. So $116 times $12.
times two. 160? I'm not sure what that says. Wow. Now, again, it's double since I last looked.
This is Google. But it's on the city's website. It's on the city's website. We'll use it. City's website.
It's interesting just putting perspective, right? What the cash outlay is and what the in-kind value
is. But somebody else is paying cash for it, so. Yeah, I just want, as you said, transparency, clear
for the public as a whole. We have to move showers. We appreciate that the negotiation has been done
and the crash is willing to move out. I just want the reflection of the dollars to be corrected. OK,
so that $27.84 is the value of the two parking spaces at 116.
a month times 12 times 2. And we just need to figure where the period needs to get entered in here to
make this readable in terms of, again, trying to just get this amended in a way that we can agree on
and adopt. And we're not indicating that we're waiving future rental income. Right. Exactly. Right?
So that's the other reason for reflecting the value of payment. Yeah, I know.
We don't collect rent on those last months. So what are we paying out not to collect revenue? That's
kind of the question you need to be asking yourself. I sort of wondered why we just didn't let this
release run its course and move on. That would be an interesting cost comparison. What's the rental
income comparison? It's only a couple of months. Right. Is there any indication of what the rental income
would have been for the remaining
Basically, so that's December 13th, so it's even like 10 weeks, right? Mm-hmm. I agree 100%. I also
look at this as part of a healing process with our tenants, because we have to move them anywhere, anyway,
as opposed to having any continual
pushback, it's nice to be able to get resolution. I understand that, Randy. And if it was a long-term
lease, then I would agree with you. But it expires. It expires in 10 weeks. And there's no additional
add-on, or additional amendments they can do. So we don't renew. Well, I sort of assume they have to
take over the new space.
So they're going to move, be able to take over their new space. Right, but if their lease weren't being
renewed, they'd have to remove anyway. Right. I have the dollar figure on what they're paying if you
need that. Dan, is it OK to share that? Yes. $9.31 per month, according to their lease.
Yeah so it would cost less just you know I understand you know the point about good faith and all that
but I'm just noting that the actual rental income is less than what the early termination of the lease
terms are if especially especially if you include the parking value even but even if you just include
the out-of-pocket value it's pretty close
You actually do make more with the rental income than what you would pay with the anyways. I believe
there also were renewal options. That's what I was saying. That would have made a significant difference
with that. Again, I didn't negotiate this one, but I believe that is a significant factor. So they've
got renewal options. Are they mutual? I don't know how they're released. Are they mutual?
mutual renew, or if it's one-sided. It's one-sided. They had a set amount, and as long as they were
in good standing, then it would have to be. Well, that makes a little difference. These are all facts
that would be nice to know when we're having these conversations. Maybe just some preliminary thing,
because you don't necessarily have to have the
current, the lost rent revenue in the resolution, but it's helpful for our discussion to have those
numbers up front. So are we back to looking at how to amend this so we can? That's fine. I just wanted
to make sure we're all on the same page, so to speak.
tell staff when we're not going to be here in the next meeting. You have some calendars that we won't
have quorum. Is that what I'm overhearing? Should we take care of that while the editing is being done
and we can return to this resolution just to make a more efficient use of our time? OK. So we're going
to table 25-119 for the few minutes in this meeting.
And we're going to jump ahead to business general discussion, which at least one item of that will be
just lining up different commissioners' absences in the next couple months so that we just all know
that. So who was first in the calendar order? Well, the next week, why don't we go meeting by meeting?
Well, that's what I said in terms of calendar order. October 6. OK. So October 6. Who is not here? I
am not here. I'm not here. OK.
And then there's October is 20th after that. Is everyone else here in person on the 6th? Are you here?
I'll be here in person. OK. I'm not here on October 20th. OK. And I am also not here on the 20th. I'm
here on the 20th. I'm here on the 20th. OK. And then?
And November 3rd? Oh, yeah. I'm here on the 20th, so. OK. November 3rd, I am not here. I am here. I'm
a game day decision. I'm driving back, and if I make it, I'm going to try, but I can't. I'm here. OK,
so you've got a quorum without me. So who's our third on November 3rd? I'm here. OK. So on November
3rd, I have Debra not there, and possibly John West not there, anybody else?
17th of November. I am not here. I'm not here. I'm here. I am here. Okay.
Is that good for now? Do we need to jump ahead to December just to finish off the year? Sure, why not?
I'm here on the 1st. I'm here on the 1st. I'm here on the 1st. Yeah, I'm here. Yes. And last date in
December is the 15th. I'm here. Yes. Here. Here. OK. Yay. I'm going to finish the year off right. OK.
Let's play a party. OK. Anything else for general discussion before we return to?
Resolution 25 119. We're going to do general discussion now. Yeah, we just want to give as much time
needed to get this amendment done and take advantage of using that time. Who will be wanting to run
the meeting when Deborah is gone? That would be me. Are you going to, and you're going to be there on
October 20th and the 3rd, correct? Correct. Okay. All right. Just one double check.
Yes, please. Okay, so from a general discussion standpoint, you know, we've got a lot on our
plate Redevelopment wise and I think the staff is doing a good job with so I just want to say even though
we ask these questions in regards we appreciate everything the staff is doing and how they're doing
it and then just in a general discussion standpoint given the unfortunate circumstances occurred last
week on a national basis and occurred locally yesterday as far as a
vigil that was put together at the university. I just want to commend the university students and those
individuals that there was a significant amount of police officers there, but everybody in our community
acted respectably and with positive decorum last evening. This is the one thing we look at as we all
see what occurs nationally in there, that Bloomington
has the ability to work together and not have that divisiveness. And it was rather pleasant to see that
there were several students, about 300 or 400 that were there. And there was no incident in any capacity.
So I just want to say from a community standpoint, it looked very good from our community standpoint
that the students were able to embrace each other. And then actually some of them actually went into
the downtown last night. Very respectful situation.
has nothing to do with Rita Baum, but it has to do with our community. Thank you for that. Are you going
to print it or what? Or can you share a screen up there? We can look at it. We're going to have to sign
it, so. Well, yeah, but at least if we can approve the resolution by having an agreed version that we
can all see, we can
sign the other stuff, and then get a printout. You can share it, Dana. You're able to share it. I'm
able to share it? Uh-huh. OK. The problem is, it's not going to help. Because I'm not connected.
I'm not on. You're not on. So I print it quicker. I can see it. You can GChat it to me, and I can share it.
Well, that was OK. I don't even know what that means. But he also needed it. And I don't think he did
either. One more thing to look at. While you're still working on data, you also know the language on
the second page under be it resolved has to be adjusted as well to
to be not to exceed as opposed to cost of approximately $1,000. Yes, in number two. In number two. Yes,
it says not to exceed.
Did you get that, Anna? Just now. Hold on just a second. Uploading now. I'll send it again to you as
well. Can you guys see it? Yes. Well, you cut it off. Yeah.
Changes are in this whereas clause. So the city staff is negotiating lease termination with tenant.
That includes as key provisions that the tenant will vacate the property earlier than December 13, 2025
by doing so on or before October 1, 2025. And that the RDC will, A, provide moving expenses for their
personal property except the tenant's
Tenant must pack miscellaneous items, and tenant must handle moving all IT equipment and devices. This
is Shower Square, 2000 Square, with an estimated cost of less than $1,000. I'll get to the not to exceed
minute. Should we say that we're supposed to be not to exceed? Well, it's less than it. It'll say not
to exceed down in your actual resolution. Oh, not in the order of? B, the RDC will supply tenant with
two parking passes for the 4th Street garage.
be that time period that the RDC will pay the tenant a sum not to exceed $1,000 for expenses weighted
down below. So for number two, you have that the going to redevelopment commission finds it to keep
provisions detailed above are acceptable, including the direct payment for moving expenses at a cost
not to exceed $1,000. Two parking passes at the 4th Street garage
in-kind valued at 116 per month or 12 months for two passes for $2,784. That payment to tenant in amount
not to exceed $1,000 or for other expenses related to termination of the tenant's lease includes cost
of new countertop at the new location of $815 and cost for packing materials not to exceed $185. And
the RDC will forego additional lease payments
and the rest remain the same. Before going the additional lease payments, how does that get tied to
a specific term? What months is that? Well, it would be from since we're moving out on October 1, it
would be October 1 on. All right, so that doesn't need to say for the balance of their term or some
other language?
I definitely can put it in there. Well, I'm just asking. Yeah. How specific do you need to be? Honestly,
I think this is fine. OK. Can you go back up to the larger whereas paragraph of city staff blah, blah,
blah? The RDC will provide moving services. Do we mean that we will cover the cost of moving services?
You said expenses when you read that. But as written, it sounds like John and Deb and Randy and Laurie
and I are going to be hauling boxes. I'm busy that day, but. We will hire the moving company to move
them and pay directly the moving company for those moving expenses. So to provide moving services is
accurate. Yeah. OK. I can't believe we're debating this so long.
I don't have any problem reimbursing it. I don't have a clue why we would be hiring it. Because then
the move becomes our responsibility. If there is a mistake, if there's breakage, if there's anything
that goes on, it is now our problem. Why do we want to take on that liability? This is a key term. It's
not all the terms of the agreement.
We would definitely be limiting our liability in that. It is something that they specifically requested.
They didn't want to mess with calling a moving company and have it done. And so this is something they
specifically requested. And so it was negotiated. OK, we'll arrange it. Again, the city does hire a
moving company from time to time. And so we got in a relationship with.
with one and so um but yes there would all the other parts of the the con the agreement with them as
far as liability and such would would all be addressed notice the word except is in the original and
it's not in the revised so it's under it's the fourth line except that the
OK, sorry. I missed it. I just thought they accepted. I was looking at the wrong tenant. It's there.
Yeah. So RD supervised the Packing for Women Services, except the tenants got their miscellaneous and
IT. Yeah. And we told them off the bat, we're not touching their IT stuff, period. That's on them. So
we're just talking office terms.
And they're to packets. They're blocks. So they were spelled out there for us is good for me. I feel
like we've addressed the concerns that we raised by my take. Any other comments from commissioners before
we move on with this? OK. Public comment in person, online, seeing none. We can vote.
Who would like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve 25-119 as amended. Thank you. 119. We
have a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously, and we've
done our additional business. I will do a last call. Any additional business before we get a motion
to adjourn? No further general discussion? A motion to adjourn, please.
So moved. Okay, thank you everybody.