Good evening, everyone. Welcome. It is 5 o'clock. So let's get started. This is the Redevelopment Commission
for the city of Bloomington, Indiana for our November 3rd, 2025 meeting. So we'll begin with a roll
call of commissioners. Lord, Ernst McRobbie present. Randy Cassidy present. John West here. Sam Flinger
present. C. Scambaleri here. So thank you, and let's go to staff. Anne-Hélène Hansen, hand here.
Christina Finley, hand. Tammy Caswell, hand. Hannah Dragovich, ESD. Jane Coopersmith, ESD. Justin. Jessica
McCallan, city controller. Roy Aithen, engineer. Dana Kerr, legal. Great. Did we miss anyone? No. OK.
Good. Thank you, everyone. First item.
On the agenda for us to take up is claims registers for October 24, 2025 for 309,170 minutes. Minutes.
Minutes. My bad. Minutes for October 20, 2025. Are there any additions, corrections, changes? If not,
may I have a motion to approve? Move for approval. Second. John was on it.
We don't have anybody online, so we could do a voice vote. All those in favor of approval indicate by
saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Those are approved. OK, now to claims registers for October
24, 2025 for $309,170.65. Are there questions on claims registers? John and then Randy. Page five of seven.
Pay number 5900, there's two invoices for VET Environmental. Why wouldn't they be paid out of the 4445
account? Oh, there they are.
They are paid by what the funding line is on the resolution. Let me look into that while we're discussing
here. All practical purpose is its infrastructure. Yeah. So we've got other vet invoices out of the
4, 4, 4, 5 account.
And that was my question. Well, you know, I do need to look into this a little bit further. I will say
that both of those resolutions are for the oversight portion of those projects. They're not necessarily
remediation exactly. So the first one is S&P. So it's a soil management plan oversight for Jackson Street
construction.
And then oversight, yeah, both of those are for the oversight of the Jackson Street construction project,
two separate bills. But I will look into that. Typically, those bills, though, are paid based on how
the resolution specifies the funding line. So let me double check that. Maybe we need to be. Where our
options are pulling that out, if we need to, if we approve the rest of the claims register. What's that?
When we can approve the payment, it's just
Which account is being charged to it? I don't have a problem with the payment, so I just would question
anything like that going to this account. Okay, we need to do a review of the funding line when you
guys are approving the resolutions to make sure that they match up. Randianne, you said you had the
same question? Similar question under the 444 account on vet environmental. Which page are you on? Okay,
well seven of seven.
And it would be the one, two, and the four, four, four. It's the third account down. It's the, again,
vet environmental on the contamination cleanup portion of it. And while that's the place for it to be,
is this finish up that cleanup? Or is there other based upon what our resolution was because? I believe
that was the final invoice for the contamination cleanup. OK. So with that, now once we get our letter.
Closure letter, yes. Closure letter.
Part of the business that you'll see tonight as one of the final resolutions is part of that closure
process. So the independent closure process. Because the tanks were found, they are requiring some ERC,
so environmental restrictive covenants. And so we can discuss that a little bit further. But this is,
we're taking the next step to get back to that. We don't expect additional.
Billings based upon resolution based upon the contamination. Thank you. The resolution does specify
the 2519. That was why it was paid out of that. I will say that historically as we've started to look at
I've done a pretty deep dive into all the resolutions previously and how they're tied to different projects.
It was very inconsistent whether a funding line was on the resolution or not. One of my initiatives
this year was to make sure that we're putting the funding line on the resolution so we know how to pay
it appropriately. So now that those are being plugged back in, I think it's probably a good exercise
for everyone to just know that they're there. And if you have a dispute with where we're paying it up,
that's the time to bring it up.
At the resolution point those funding lines will be usually so many whereas clauses that I'm sure that
it gets lost sometimes but We are trying to make sure that they're consistently in there Okay, if necessary
not everything requires Thank you additional questions I'll make a motion to approve second
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you.
Those are approved. That brings us to payroll registers for October 17, 2025 in the amount of $56,316.86.
Are there questions on payroll registers? If not, may I have a motion? I'll move approval of the payroll registers
The current payroll register. No worries. Is there a second? Moved and seconded. All those in favor
indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Those are approved.
That brings us to reports. Is there a director's report this evening? Sure. I'll give you a brief update.
So I do want to say thank you to Randy Cassidy, who showed up in the middle of his trip to paradise
to attend a citizen advisory committee meeting. We had our organizational meetings on October 23rd for
our CAC, which helped decide what projects the CDBG, Social Service and Physical Improvement,
funding will go towards. So thank you for being there, Randy. As far as RDC goes for Hopewell, I want
you to know that I applied for and received a grant from the Community Foundation for our initiatives
at Hopewell South to the tune of $53,500. So thank you to the Community Foundation for that.
As far as our changes at Hopewell South, just so you know, these days are in flux, so please know that
don't hold my feet to the fire on this, but we are targeting the December 2nd Development Review Committee
for the PUD filing and January 12th for Plan Commission. As far as the Trades District goes, I'm sure
Jane will update you on the Innovation Week, which is happening next week.
The trades district garage humidity issue has been resolved to the best of our knowledge. We did do
the mold sampling that you guys approved, and everything came back in acceptable limits. So I think
we're good to go as far as that's concerned. And I'm happy to answer any further questions. Have I moved
it? Not yet.
I have another meeting with them this week. They have some various federal agencies that they have to
get approval from, so we're working on it right now. Remind me, was there a possession or rent requirement
start date? They have and continue to pay rent. Oh, they do? Yeah, but we are likely going to credit
them back what the dates they've been unable to
As far as we're concerned, this space is occupable right now. So that's an amendment to the lease? I
believe so. And Director Coopersmith is working on that as well. And that will come to us? Potentially.
I think that we have determined that. Do you want to speak to us, Jane? Hi. Hello, Ms. Jane.
Jane Coopersmith. I am staring at you blankly because I
didn't think that we needed a lease amendment in order to credit them for the days it wasn't occupied.
So I think we'll just talk with legal and look over the lease. And if that's needed, we'll bring it
back to you. Yeah, I'm not certain it wouldn't be needed. While the lease is in progress, it's a glitch
that has occurred that wasn't anticipated. And so I think that,
We should bring it back to you to approve that it is okay to credit them because that's an expenditure
of money, so to speak. But by doing that, I do not believe that there needs to be a lease amendment.
Well, there certainly needs to be written a record of it. Yeah. And we'll have the resolution of you
approving that. Last question on that, if I can?
What it cost us to fix it? To fix it? Oh gosh. We had to install a dehumidifier and then I don't know
how many service calls that we've had but it was a lot of different various adjustments to make sure
that the units were no longer short cycling and that we were getting the proper air exchanges. So I
don't know that we've received all the service calls yet.
I can't answer that question, but I'm glad to follow that up. But nothing compared to what we initially
were told. This is good. Can I chime in on that and just call out Director Killian Hansen and our facilities
director JD Boroff. Their expertise on HVAC systems really did save the Redevelopment Commission significant
resources and they were able to really navigate some
I don't know, not questionable advice, but they were able to navigate it well, so. It was a
tricky circumstance. We designed it for one thing, we ended up with something else. Right. Right size
your equipment, folks. Always. Additional questions? Question on the community foundation grant,
the $53,000, what is that to be used for again? It's to be used towards our initiatives
So the way that we wrote it could be used for any of our outreach sessions with developers or lenders.
We're doing some training sessions. It can be used for that. It can be used for our work with Flintlock.
So it's pretty flexible. And we have not determined exactly what we're doing with it. It's coming to
the Housing and Neighborhood Development Department directly. And so we will definitely put it to good
use. So it's not something that will come through the RDC? It's not coming into development.
Does that mean you consider taking some of the resolution dollars out tonight? I don't know about tonight.
Maybe. I think that their hopes were that it was going to be for community good, so help with the developers,
with the lenders, just trying to do the trainings would be definitely part of that. It could go towards
a credit for the book of pre-approved plans that could be transformative for the community. There's
a number of things
It could be used. It can be utilized to quickly as possible get dirt moved to people living there. Yeah,
we're doing the best we can within our own parameters. But at the end of the day, it's subsidizing,
helping to subsidize that project. Yes. And therefore, it's less RDC. Less RDC money in the long run.
So it does benefit. It does. Yeah. The community as a whole. Anything else, Hannah? No. OK. Thank you.
Legal. Dana? I'm here for a bunch of questions, if you have them.
Any questions for Ligo? Seeing none, let's go on to the Treasurer's Report and the Annual TIF Report.
Anna, this is, just for the benefit of the public, this is one of the items on the agenda that has seen
a change in materials very late in the afternoon. That is correct. And Justin, who is from Levy Financial,
can draw attention to maybe some of the changes if you're not aware of them. Yes.
Hi, everyone. My name is Justin. Quick introduction. I don't think I've met any of you, but I've actually
been working with Reedy for five years. I started in 2020 when I was an intern while attending IU. And
I've been working full time with RFG ever since. Probably haven't seen me much. I was supposed to be
here at the last meeting, but opportunity leave kept me out of the game. So I'm back this time. Thank you.
But yes, there's actually quite a bit on the agenda for me, so I'm not going to ramble on too long.
I'm going to start with the TIP impact. So yes, there were certain changes to the packet. Really, all
that was updated was because of AIM. It took us a little longer to update the actual financial plan
itself. And one of the pages of the TIP impact presentation was the financial positions of the
of the TIF funds for the REC. So really nothing changed other than page four of this, and I will go
over that with you all as we go. So we can start with this one as we go to the second page for BG reporting
requirements tab. Just an overview of the TIF impact presentation. It's an annual presentation we have
to do just to give the public and underlying units an overview.
of the REC, so many of you might already know quite a lot of the information that I'm about to present,
but much of this is actually meant for the public and underlying units who are part of the REC every
single day. So, in terms of reporting departments, there used to be five, there are now six total reporting
departments. The first four check marks, you'll see they're all completed already. These reporting
departments are always from April to August.
The two that are left for us to complete today are the December 1st TIF spending plan, which is a new
reporting that we will do right after this, and then this current December 31st end-of-year TIF impact
presentation.
Next page is inside the RDC, which gives an overview of the TIFFs within the RDC. One item to note here
is that, because we did consolidate most of our allocation areas, so we just list one Bloomington
Consolidated Allocation Area and that one North Kinser Pike, that isn't within the consolidated area.
Why wasn't it included in the consolidation? Not particularly.
That kid will have more. OK. For the expiration year, really quickly on that, 2029 is the earliest area
within the consolidated allocation area that expires. It is not the date when the entire area expires.
So is that a peel-off situation where each TIP area expires where 2029 is the earliest? Yes. That particular
area, that will fall off
So that increment in 2029 will go back to the other taxing entities for that piece. Yes. And then we
have decreasing amounts or decreasing years over that next continuation. Yes. And under the financial
plan, that will go over what actually has a list of all of the areas that have been consolidated. And
it'll show which ones will follow up the soonest. In page 125, the consolidated TIP area has had $1.1
billion in criminal AB. And North Windsor PAC
Pike had 4.9. Now this is all the information that we're required to present, but for the RDC, just
a little informational. We don't get abstract till March of 2026, but we did finish the neutralization.
So just a heads up, we're looking at about $1.4 billion in incremental AD for the Bloomington Consolidated
Allocation Area and 6.9 for North Kinser Pike. So in terms of revenue,
in for a consolidated that's from 20 million to 24 million and eighty four thousand to a hundred and
nineteen hundred and twenty thousand dollars. So just information for the RECD and that'll be part of
the financial plan later as well. The next page is the financial question for Jessica and I'm not trying
just where we allocated looking for things on North Kins or Pike because that tip is going to close
out by this then
being proactively and ahead of that, is that something that gives Anna, Roy, and them the ability to
start looking from a dollar amount because they're that tough out? Yes. That information gives us good
information for how much revenue we're going to get next year. Yeah, because next year will be the end
of that North Kinser Pike tip. So if we're going to do something. We take our cash balance we have now,
plan on getting that, and we know our project size. That gives us the ability to determine our project
size. OK, thank you.
Next page is the financial positions page. That is the tab that I had to update, really. This is it.
Because we weren't sure what the expenditures were until later last week. So we really, the expenditures
in any of your bonds was zeroed out when we initially sent this out for review. Obviously, we have numbers
in here now. For Bloomington Consolidated, we started the year. I don't have numbers. Yeah, mine's still
showing. Mine's still showing.
dollar and yellow dollar and all dots. Mine is showing that. So I did print out our copies. Could we
ensure that those get updated in the packet too? I do apologize for that. We sent out two.
Can you have this afternoon so that? Oh, don't worry. You'll get the blame. It's OK. But we appreciate
that you got it done. Hopefully next time I'll get it done soon. So that will be up with page four or
five, right after the inside the RDC page. OK. Perfect. OK.
Keep in mind, these are projections for what will happen at the end of the year, so this is not where
we currently stand. For the Bloomin' Teen Consolidated Area, we're starting at $17.2 million. We expect
about $25.4 million in revenue. Keep in mind, that's not all TIF revenues. That includes interest. I
know we had a land sale in February or March. That's included in there as well. TIF revenues accounts for
projected for about roughly 19 to 20 million dollars of that 25 million dollars. Expenditures we're
looking at 16.3 and we're looking to end the year at 26.2 million dollars so about a 9 million dollar
increase in cash balance for the consolidated TIF. For North Kinser Pike we started at 648 thousand dollars
expecting about $111,000 with $350,000 in expenditure, looking to spend that down to $410,000. And that
is the allocation area that will expire next year. So if we were to look project-wise, projection-wise,
we don't know until the settlement comes through, which will be March. Abstract, yes. Abstract. OK.
We could look at potentially around $400,000 for a project.
$410,000 plus about $120,000 for next year in 2026. Because we will have that time frame before it expires.
When we're looking at it, I'm just trying to get an idea.
the individuals that are starting to identify the projects for that area. Essentially, they got around
half a million bucks to look from a project standpoint. Just roughly about half of them. And a question
about this, too. Whatever project we undertake, does it have to be completed by the end of the fiscal
year? Or does the money simply have to be allocated, the project underway? Does anything carry over
into 27 if it has already been voted on, allocated,
intended or does all the money have to actually leave the account by the end of the fiscal year? So
I will say we've never actually seen a TIF allocation area expire. This will be the first,
so congratulations. This will be the first year due to the extension of the legacy TIF and all that.
So to answer your question, we're not really sure. We're always talking illegal about issues like this,
and sometimes they change their minds.
Good question, though. Yes, that's a really good question. We'll definitely keep it out. I thought that
we were told previously that the money didn't expire. It's just that you're not collecting any additional
revenue. So we would have that funding to be able to put towards the project. Yeah, exactly. Yeah,
so in fact, that's so much of what we had to hear more.
I think so. It couldn't just sit there, even though we weren't collecting more. It had to be earmarked,
but not spent. Yes. It'll still need to be part of the spending plan, because that is TIP dollars that
there's no allocation anymore. I wouldn't have to include it in the TIP impact, because there would
be no impact. All that would have gone to the basing is. It's already been collected. Yes. The next
page is the How TIP Work page is that chart.
This is an informal page essentially letting y'all know how we collect incremental AV. I'm sure you
guys have seen this many a times, but it's just... We have, but would you mind just kind of quickly
going through it, because we have the public that may not quite understand it. You're an expert on it.
So when we establish a tip, let's say a cornfield, we're going to tip a single parcel list. Let's say
the cornfield has
$100,000 in AV at the time we that tipped this parcel list. That $100,000 of NAB will go to the base,
which is that green at the bottom over there that you see, the base AV. That will stay with the underlying
units. So the county, the city, library, schools, it'll stay with all of them. And then let's say that
core field gets demolished and then we put in a bank. The incremental AV of that bank or a hotel, whatever
we put in there,
let's say it becomes $20 million. That $20 million will now go to the TIF. The $100,000 will stay with
the underlying units. The TIF will receive what is built on top of the cornfield that we use as our
example. And that will be that turquoise color, what we call incremental AV versus the incremental
assess value that comes in due to using the TIP. And for the benefit of the public, AB is? Assess values.
Thank you. It's just what assessors will say. That is how much your home is worth or how much this property
is worth. And currently, the law is there's no expiration if there's no bonds. That doesn't apply to
Bloomington because all allocation areas are placed to a bond. But the rule, the law is once
a TIF is a plus to the repayment of a bond, then a 25-year clock starts, which is that North Kinser
Pike that will expire in 2026. Once it expires, all that base, so let's say that $20 million for that
Banco Hotel, that will all go towards the base units assessed values. So it will no longer be part of
the TIF. So the revenue that typically would go into TIF would go to the school corporation, the libraries,
and the other
taxing units? Yes, that goes into the impact that will go with that. That will be part of the... Yes,
yes, yes. So the next page is a TIF impact questions page. This is to set up the next page because the
next couple of pages are a lot of numbers. Essentially what the TIF impact is, it's saying if we were
to not TIF and the development was to come
Anyways, which normally is not the case, right? Normally we have to do some sort of incentive for these
developments to happen. But we're saying, what if, what if we don't do it, don't do any incentives and
they still come anyways? That's number one. And number two is Indiana is a levy based state, meaning
the city's general fund.
that levy is the same regardless of what happens to assessed value. So even if assessed values goes
up, that levy stays the same, what will change the tax rate? What we're saying is, okay, what if the
tax rate stays the same and the levy is what changes, which again, does not happen in Indiana unless
it's like CCD fund. So this is a hypothetical scenario of what could potentially happen.
So on the next slide is the TIFF impact chart, which is the impact of the TIFF on the underlying units.
That blue section in the middle is what the impact really is. And if we look at, these are all on the
left, these are all the overlapping units of the TIFF, so which the units are that have assessed values
in those parcels within the TIFF. You'll see that circle breaker impact, that's essentially what
If that AV was to go to the base, what would be the reduction in circuit breaker? Because that's essentially
what would happen. Levee would not move. What would circuit breaker be reduced by? And keep in mind
that this is a very, very conservative approach that we're doing to this calculation. The impact is
really way less than what we're seeing here. But we don't do a parcel by parcel analysis when we look
at this. We look at the overall.
taxing district's tax rate, and we apply a circuit breaker impact to that. With that said, we can see
the largest impact is actually to the city itself. The circuit breaker impact, we'll go into the regional
funds later, but the circuit breaker impact is at $75,000. So that's a very minimal number if we look
at that $20.3 million that the RDC is expecting to collect.
That number goes down. Bloomington, Civil City goes down from Monroe County, the school, and then all
the townships that we have. So each unit could look at their impact. But the idea is these are really,
really low impacts. The reason is because we're in a relatively lower tax rate environment here in Monroe
County. Were there any questions? OK. That's surprising. Yes. At least on property taxes being due next
week. Yes.
So, right next to Circuit Breaker Impact, that's a rate-driven fund impact. That's essentially, so the
city and the county, we have what we call cumulative funds. Essentially, these are funds that actually
have the rates stay the same. So the CCD cap that 5 cents for the city, that stays the same. So if the
AV of the TIF was to go into the base, so for the city, we will actually collect on all of that.
and that will be a $534,000 impact. What that means is for the city of Bloomington, even though we add
those two numbers up, the 75,000 and the 534, the total impact is about $610,000, but the actual increase
in levy that the city would have seen would be that $534,000. So again, very minimal and
Compare that to the $20.3 million that is a relatively small amount. And to the right, just to show
really what it means in terms of budget, that impact for the city of Bloomington, it's less than about
half a percent of the city's overall 2025 budget, that 0.49. And again, that's the highest impact of
all the units. The next up will be Monroe County at 50.54%.
And then it drops all the way down to 0.12. So very minimal impact for most of the units. Are there
any questions on this page? So just verifying on the levy basis, each governmental entity, then we're
talking civil city and Monroe County, the only thing this would do if it was all gone away is lower
the tax rate.
Yes, correct. Lower the circuit breaker. Except for the city and the county, though, we actually see
a little bit of gain from cumulative funds, because those are rate-driven funds. The rate stays the
same, and the levy will go up. Irregardless. Now, does that rate have the ability to be changed and
go up, or is that? We're at the max. They're at the max right now? Yep. Those funds do have our max
in statute, and we are at the max. We're at the maximum now. OK. Yes. Sam, do you have any questions
from the MCCSE perspective?
No, I don't think so. I want to make sure I take this back and show it to RCFO though. So the next page
is TIF Impact Explained. It's really that previous slide, but instead of all the numbers for the TIF
as a whole, we have this term we call the TIF margin, which means for every $1 that the TIF receives,
how much of it
was due to the city's utilization of the TIF and how much of it would have gone to underlying units
in terms of circuit breaker impact and ray joint funds, so the CCD fund impact. So 94 cents margin needs
for every dollar, 94 cents was because we used the TIF. Six cents would have gone to the underlying
units as an impact. As a whole, $20.3 million is expected to be received in 2025.
$19.1 million of that is because we use the TIF, and 1.1 would have been shared across all the units
if we did not utilize the TIF. So that concludes the TIF impact presentations. Are there any questions?
How do we compare to the rest of the state and what you guys do? 94 is probably the best that I've seen,
and that's
Jokes aside, that is really probably the best I've seen. The closest would be 80 something. But again,
since we are in a relatively lower, we're in a lower tax rate environment plus there are certain, there
are communities with lower tax rates. So say Noblesville, for example, they have lower tax rates, but
so much of their assessed value is in the one and two percent bucket that
They're still at the tax camp, right? So there's still a lot of impact to the 1% and 2% bucket. That's
not the case for Bloomington. We have a lot in the 3%. So that gives us a really, really good tip margin.
Just for the generalization of everybody, what is the 1%, 2%, 3%? So 1% is residential and homestead.
So the homes we live in, 2% are what we
Agricultural land, that's 2%. If they're apartments, that would count as 2%, even though that's almost
like residential, but apartments would count as 2%. 3% is really everything else. It's commercial, so
we'll think about a Target, a Walmart, anything that's useful commercial purposes. Any retail,
that'd be 3%. And then personal property, so that would be property, plants, and equipment that are
used by businesses. Those would count as 3% as well.
So that would go under the 3% budget. All right. So we have completed one of our last two requirements
for the year, HRDC. You've gotten the TIF impact update. And there isn't anything that I have to do
about that. But we do have to do something for the next part. So we're going to present this.
To you for the first time, but we're not asking you to vote on this tonight. Is that correct? Yes We're
not asking for a vote on this tonight. We'll be on your agenda again As the spending plan asking for
a vote with a resolution at the next meeting so any questions you have or think of between Now and like
a week from now, please send to us so that we can work on them for this But no later
I feel like I need to get you a bottle of water, but are you doing okay? I'm okay. Thank you. Thanks
for asking. I'm okay. Okay. I think if everyone's ready, we can move on to the draft spending plan.
Yes. And you're good with what he just presented. Oh, yeah. Yeah, it's great. Yes. Very good. Very good.
Yes, it all makes sense. Okay.
One of two spending requirements done. The next one is the tip spending claim. I'll try to... Okay,
so we have the financial update up. I will present this with the financial update because they are very
much linked together. Since we have the financial update up over there, I'll start with that. Before
you start, do you have printouts of this that I should pass out? Are they in here? The update? I do.
I will do that too. Do they need the spending claim as well?
So the plan is, I don't have all of the plan. I only have a few. The plan didn't change, did it? The
spending plan did not change, so what's on there should be. Well, Jessica's passed it out. So this is
the RDC tip spending plan that we keep.
for the RDC. It's not really in a reporting requirement, even though a lot of the information here is
used on our reporting requirements. Really what this is for is for the RDC to see where they stand on
a quarterly basis, financially. What dollars have they spent? How much are they receiving in revenues?
And how are we expecting the end of year cash balance to be? And if we have any new projects, will it
always include that in the plan to see okay let's say we have a three million dollar project next year
well how will that impact our bottom line and it includes any any debts that the RDC has so again this
isn't really a spending plan but a lot of this is used on the reporting requirements so we go to is
that page four okay page four so that is the that is the RDC overview tab that shows all the
That shows all of the areas that are in the consolidated tip allocation area when the assessment dates
are and when they are expected to expire. When we look at this, one of the reasons we want to do this
is so we can effectively plan for the future and know what revenues are coming off.
It's not really a problem as much for Bloomington, but we have another client where they have, similar
to North Kinser Pipe, they have an allocation area that's expiring. In their scenario, instead of $100,000,
it's $1.4 million that's expiring, and they collect a total of $1.8 million.
So that's why a page like this is really important. And we try to work with legal on this, because legal
are the ones that provides us their opinion on what the type of explorations are. And we just keep it
on track here for you all to see. The next few pages are the claims pages, which I'm not going to go
too far into, because there's three pages and there are a bunch of claims. But the reason we kept it
there, we included this time around, is because we were asked to include 2519.
Fund number 2519, and then we just wanted to show all of their shins actions this time around. Yes.
2519, that's the 444 replacement. It's the RDC property management fund. Yes. You're correct. I can't
remember what its old number is. Oh, it is that number? It was 444. I just wanted to clarify the 25.
That's how we all know it. OK. OK. Old numbers. Yeah, that change really messed a lot
We kind of memorize from all of our clients. Yes, but in the future, we will probably exclude all of
these 2519s and we'll just include the TIF consolidated fund transactions for you all. I'm good with
this. If you would like to see this, we can do that. It's a push book for you. Either way. It never
hurts to have more information that way you can always look. Okay, perfect. We'll make sure to do that.
And then we go to page eight.
Eight, nine, and 10, they're all the monthly balance by fund tabs. This is where we, as we update the
plans, we make sure we allocate the funds to where they're expected to be, to when they're expected
to be spent and when they're expected to be received. For Bloomington RDC's case, this is helpful, but
it's a little different because we have certain units where they may go negative in May, but they don't see that.
unless they see a page like this, because they'll say, oh, we're going to get June settlement, so we're
going to have that money. But they might go negative in April or May, and they don't know that. But
in the case of low-income RDC, that's really not an issue. But in this tab, we keep track of when we
expect revenues to come in. So that's why you'll see June and December revenue projections,
that 10 million, 10.1 in June and 9.4 in December. That's higher, because that's when settlement comes in.
And debt payments, you'll see that staggered all over the place because that payments are paid at different
times. That $3.9 million in September, we transferred a lot of money to another fund to pay those debt
payments. That doesn't mean we actually paid them just yet. It just means we transfer that money and
then they're ready to pay. That's for our bond funds. Yes, debt service funds, yes. The next page is
a North Kinser Pike allocation area.
Um, it's similar situation, similar situation here, right? Um, we expect this fund to expire in 2026.
One area that we actually did not update on this is that we were not sure if we were going to ex we're
supposed to receive North concern pikes to revenues next year. So we did not include it in the monthly
cash bonds by fund because at the time we weren't sure until neutralizations were done in August.
But now we neutralize, we've gotten our parcel list. It looks like, yes, we will be receiving those.
So that will be added to this tab. And the next tab is Fund 2519. It's that property fund.
For this tab, this is new. We don't track a lot of these. If there's anything specific you guys all
would like to see,
And there's the actual fun cut that you'll see later. But if that's something you guys like, anything
you guys like to see, please let us know and we can add them in at any time. So fun number 4445, this
is the big one. I'm not gonna go through every single number in here, but a few big ticket items.
That 5.2 million dollars you see up top, that's highlighted in blue. About four and a half million of
that makes up
our land sale proceeds, so that's why it drops to a million dollars next year. We're not, unless we're
expecting to sell another four and a half million dollars of land, we drop that to a million dollars
next year. And then for TIF revenue collections, you'll see we had 19.2 this year, that goes up to 24.1
in 26 and 27.
That's due to the incremental AV jump. We don't know what will happen in 2027. Maybe SB1 will have a
large impact and the revenues will drop. Or like this year, gross AVs go up so much that SB1 was almost
a non-factor. That's my question regarding how SB1 is going to impact our TIF funds in the next three
year period. I know you can't say exactly, but an idea because we plan expenditures.
The easy answer is yes, right? Because with deductions coming in, it is expected to happen. But this
is more of a little bit of an accessory question because we've seen gross AVs grow by so much that the
new deductions by SB1 didn't really do anything this year. So that's 6%, 2% deduction for 2%. So apartments
and agriculture, that really didn't do a whole lot.
And we'll have to look into it. We'll have to see what makes up for Bloomington RDC's assessed values.
Yes, there is not a whole lot of personal property. So that exemption for personal property jumped from
$80,000 to $2 million. That will have no effect on Bloomington RDC. That might have effect on others,
but not for Bloomington. I'll have to check on how much of Bloomington RDC's AVs are 2%.
because that increase in deductions might have an effect. We currently do not have a residential TIF,
so all of that change in deduction of credits will have absolutely no effect to us. So to answer your
question, I don't think there will be a whole lot, but easy answer is really yes if gross AV stack needs.
And in the future, if we decide to do a residential TIF in order to increase some residential, will
that residential TIF, if we calculate it now, it would be X,
your basis of what I'm understanding is that it would be lower based upon what the SB1 is doing.
So no, because we know what SB1 is going to do, but we've had residential TIFFs where we started in
23 and 24 and then we go into 25 and we have to change the entire economic development agreement.
because new credits came in, new deductions came in. So we had to recompute what our revenues would
be. But since we already know what the deductions and credits are from SB1, we will incorporate that
into all of our analysis. So our expectations should not change because of SB1. SB1 will not impact
something that we're potentially going to put in. Yes, correct. So we'll know what our revenues are
projection-wise, so any bondable projects would have a cash flow stream.
Yes, correct. Thank you. Okay, so we won't do that. Jessica might want to chime in a little bit on this
part, but if you look for 2026 under that debt payments, that blue big box, there is an estimated, three
estimated, a summit debt, a police debt, and HOPAL bonds. Those are not for certain yet.
but those are projects that we're working on with Jessica and Anna and Dana. But we included them in
there just to see what the cash flow would be like if we were to issue these bonds next year. So a caveat
on that. That's perfect. I don't have anything else to add. Yeah, those are potential projects. You
guys know that we are working on them, and we've done the math, and that's what the potential debt service
payment would be.
That'd be the debt service payment on each one, but we don't know exactly how much the total that would
be. We're just making the assumption that we'd make a $1.2, $1.4, and $1.9 million. It's just an assumption
that can change to anything. It could be none of those projects. It could be two. But if we added debt
to our cash flow, if we added debt service to our cash flow, and the amount of that total amount is,
oh, god, where are we at? 1, 2, 3, 4, like $5 million.
cash flow looks really good. Cash flow is still good, and then it's just a matter of what the total
overall cost is and then what the total overall bond interest rate is that we calculate through that
would throw us back down on our cash flow. Those numbers are actually based on analysis that we've done.
We didn't pull these numbers out.
numbers and just put them in there. This is based on actual bonds analysis using coverage calculations
with the RDCs. What is our coverage ratio that we typically go for? Is that a 1.1, 1.2? So it depends
on the bonds. Currently, we need to maintain a 1.25, but we're way above that right now. We're still
trying to keep it above 1.5.
But we try to keep it above 1.5, but we can go down to 1.25. Being conservative, we've got a 1.5 coverage,
and the requirement would be approximately 1.3. So on the cash flow side, if you see right under 4,
2026 at the very bottom just above that green row, you see that 224%. That's the pass-through calculation.
So what that means is every June we have to do a TIP pass-through report requirements, which I'm sure
you all have done many times. That's actually supposed to be under 200%. What that means is we're going
to have to look at some more potential projects for the RDC to get that number lower.
So he's saying we need to spend money. Yes, he's telling us to spend money. Now, is that state statute
or is that just state statute? State statute. State statute says get yourself under 200%. Yes, or they
take away your money. Or we have to pass it through to them. Pass through the others? Yes, pass it through.
OK, so right now we've got 24%. Pass it down. Yes, and the tube 24 is taking that 24 million in TIF
revenues divided by that 11.6 in total spending.
So it doesn't include the interest that we receive and any state grants that comes in. The next tab
is the North King's Pike Allocation Area. There hasn't been a whole lot of conversation between Jessica
and our group about this fund, but we will make sure this gets updated as we go. Right now it's the
Cascades Trail, but again, we'll make sure this
And we'll try to spend the money here as quickly as possible, I guess, to make sure right after the
tip expires. Next tab is that 2519 tab fund, which is the properties fund. It includes interest revenue
and lease revenue that has all the expenditures that the REC pays.
for out of this fund. And again, because this isn't something that we track for all RDC, so if there's
anything specific you'd like to see here, we can add in certainly. Only item for me to know is that
$4.5 million in inter-fund transfer. That is the exact same increase in Fund 4445, because that's where
it was transferred from and transferred to. So it's not a real expense for this fund itself. It's just
a transfer.
to another fund of the REC. If I'm reading this right, we're deficit spending. We just happen to have
enough cash to cover it. Correct, correct. Next up is the debt overview. We use this to do the April
reporting requirement, which requires debt information as well. But it's essentially all the bonds and leases,
RDC is paying, when they mature, how much of it is outstanding, and how much we've paid in this year.
So informational, we don't really need it at every meeting, but we keep track of it as the year goes.
So that's the financial plan. Are there any questions for me?
What are you doing in your spare time? This is my spare time. Oh yes, my baby. That's my baby. Yeah,
yeah, yeah. Oh yeah, they're babies. I know spare time. I'm assuming you lost a lot of sleep last night.
We're going through sleep regression right now. I'm grateful my wife takes care of that because I won't
be able to wake up. I'll get no sleep if I have to take care of the baby at 4 a.m. as well. So the next,
the final one, I promise, is the TIF spending plan. This is the last point requirement. And I say this
follows the financial plan because the expenditures that is on the TIF spending plan
based off loosely on the financial plan. The first half is just a letterhead because this is supposed
to go to the mayor, the city council, and the DLGF so we make it professional for RDC. We'll upload
this on Gateway after it is signed by the RDC next meeting. When we go to the next page, that's the
actual spending plan. It's this, yes.
We don't have it. It's actually in, I think, a different version of the packet. I think the first final
version of it. I don't see it in the second version of the packet. I have two extra copies of this.
I'm seeing it on page 29. I think it's a new packet. It's in the old packet. It's in the original packet.
That's true. I have it on page 29, too.
That's page 29 right there. You guys have the old packet open, so you should be good. Now I don't know
what you're talking about. I'm going to look and see if you're on the right thing. All right, yeah,
that's page 29 in the new packet. Yes. Yeah, you got it. You got it. Page 29. You're too slow. I don't
think Sue has it. You're good? I'm good. OK. Do you have numbers? You don't have any pages? No, no.
There you go. OK, you got it. Good. Perfect.
Apologies for the confusion. Again, this first page is just a letterhead to the City Council Mayor when
we send this to the DLGF, when we upload it to the DLGF, just saying this is the 2026 tip spending plan.
If you go to the second page, which is the green bar up top, that's what the actual spending plan is.
This is a new report, new reporting requirement. There's two ways that we really could go about it.
The number one way is be conservative and put lower numbers in here. As we spend, we update the spending
plan, but updating the spending plan isn't just putting new numbers in. We have to pass a new resolution.
We have to upload the gateway again, provides a mayor and city council. So that's why we go with the
different approach, which we say we let's,
put larger numbers in here, add a buffer so the RDC can spend money out of the fund without having me
to come here and do another 40 minute presentation again. So for your benefit, we try to do it one time.
Now, for most of these expenditures, they tie with what is in the financial plan with a 15% buffer.
For example, for the debt payments, that $12.8 million, that's what's in the plan, including the Summit,
HOPL, and police bonds. The 15% buffer, just in case, what if we have to issue the bond interest rate
goes up? Again, this is to avoid having to do all this paperwork again. We added a 15% buffer. The larger
increase would be that capital expenditure, because the capital expenditure currently is a little lower.
And for the consolidated TIF, we just
beef those numbers up just to give the RDC the same flexibility that we would have had if not for this
reporting, this new reporting requirement, right? So, this is the spending fund that we'll upload to
the DLGF. This includes all of our TIFFs, excluding 2519, so it does not include the lease, the properties,
because that is intently part of
the RDC's TIF collections. Question. Yes. I get professional expenses. What would be an example of an
operating expense? So operating would be there's, and most of the time this is very narrow because most
RDC's aren't actually able to spend on a lot of operating. But certain would like, let's say we have
a client that has a park
a park that they help maintain. So every year they would transfer about $100,000 to help with the operating
expenses of the park. So that's what that would be. There is no actual operating expenses that we are
projecting in the financial plan to say. So that is a number that we put in there just in case there
is anything.
Wouldn't our operation of the Busker at Jumley, what we contribute to that, would that not come out
of the operating? I like it better out of, do we have anything in grants and contributions? There's
nothing in there. There's nothing in there? I like that you thought of that expense. We could pull that
out in grants and contributions, because we don't care what they do with it. It could be operating or
capital. We just call it a grant.
doesn't restrict it? I'm not suggesting a change. I was just trying to find an example. Oh. What do
you think about giving money to another organization that's not the city to do? So it depends on what
the money is for. Like, yes, we could put it in grants definitely. That's not really a problem for us
to do. We normally put it in capital expenditures because most of those are done for capital
So that's why we put it in there. But if there is any that we know that we're giving out in grants,
we could put those dollar amounts under grants and contributions. It's kind of like, it is operating
support. If I read this right, you've currently got 150,000 in operating expenses, correct? Yes. And
that's just kind of a swag number, just a placeholder. Yes, it's a placeholder. We do see,
So the reason is we do see quite a few of our clients spend a little bit every year on operating. So
we add a little bit to it. Not saying you have to. Again, I want to specify, this doesn't obligate the
RDC to spend. It just allows for the RDC to spend these dollars. All right, so back to my original question.
The plus group channeling then actually is capital expenditure because there's nothing under grants
and contributions. Yes. So that's the shift you might tend to make.
Wouldn't that give more flexibility in regards to what they utilize it for? Because when we say capital
expenditures in that line, that's a typical situation it would be. It wouldn't be operating costs. Right.
OK. Yeah, we would go up to that. OK. I have a question on the other anticipated expenditure. It's not
a round number, let's say, is it, a percentage? So it is a round number, and then we add a 15% to it.
So that's why it makes it a non-round number.
So I believe that is $55,000. So we add 15% to 55, that gets us to 56. Again, it's like so much of like
the payments, we add a little bit to it just so we don't run low. All of it actually, we have that for
most of these, even professional expenses we have. I believe that's actually 60,000. Just a question.
And when we're looking at this total overall spending plan, we tie it back to page 11 on your financials
for your capital expenditures while we're looking forward. Yes, but no. And generally, yes, but because
we still have a lot of capital expenditures that we're planning for. So that's why that number
is significantly higher. But again, it doesn't obligate us to spend it.
thing we're looking at would be our three potential debt payments, which would be the million,
million four, and million nine. And cash and a lot of extra cash for capital not related to debt service.
Not related to debt service or utilization of cash. Yep, exactly. That we have or utilizing. So the
capital expenditure number, the $12.8 million, well, $12.873, that is
potential capital expenditures and then the debt service payments for all of our current debt and the
potential of other debt projects is in the first 12.8 million, 12.832. That includes the other potential
debt we may incur. So to ask the question, I don't want to get ahead of myself because it may have to
change. Of those three expenditures we're talking about,
What is the approximate amount we're calculating now to calculate the debt service on them? The project
size? Where it says, where are we going? Summit, police, HOFA. These are all speculative. Yeah,
it's all. And we do not have a dollar amount tied to them. We're just calculating a debt service in
order to verify. OK. Yes. That works. Yes. So that's the spending plan itself.
If there are any questions, we can make any changes. And then we do have to pass the spending plan and
sign the resolution by December 1st and then have that uploaded and provided to the Mayor and City Council.
Any changes, any questions, we're happy to answer. But yes, or we do have a December 1st. I have a question
about the 200%. Yes, the password. Are we in danger?
I can't remember when in the calendar we have to declare that. I think it was earlier this year in September.
Are we in danger of not passing that test this year or next year? No. So we did it in June for 2025.
For 2026, we'll do it June of 2026. So we have nine months, seven months to do it. Quite a bit of time.
Yeah, but quite a bit of money, so. Yeah. And remind me what exactly the 24% is that needs to be spent.
200. I know it's 224, but the difference to 200. So the 24%. What is the dollar amount that correlates
with that? Oh, you're testing my math. 24.1 divided by 2, 12. So we're looking at $1.5, $2 million maybe.
We can spend that. Just kidding. Just spend three, just to be sure. Exactly. Why don't we collect more,
you know? Just to make sure we're under 200%. I guess. But yes. Those are my presentations. Good job.
Thank you, Joseph. So coming at you at the next meeting. We have any changes, please?
Thank you. Congratulations. Can I have a business development update?
Two PSA innovation week is actually this week and it starts tomorrow with a day of health tech and innovation
programming and culminates on Friday with the block party. So we really hope to see the public and especially
members of our redevelopment commission there on Friday from five to eight. That was my first PSA and
second PSA.
which really is for the record for the public and also for our commissioners. The college and Walnut
study is being put in front of the public for public feedback. And there's a really great website from
our planning department where the public can review the proposals and complete a survey to make their
feelings known about the project. It's really essential that we have good public feedback on that.
Thank you. And that website is?
I don't, if you Google College and Walnut Study Bloomington, it pops right up. Thanks. Good question,
Jackie. Yep. Since we're in ASD, our hotel and everything moving forward here? Yes, they'll be going
to the first Plan Commission meeting in January. I don't know the date offhand. They're going to BZA
this month, and so they are targeting the January Plan Commission. It all goes according to plan, yeah.
Thanks. I'm excited to be the guy that follows the guy who tells Jeannie to spend a bunch of money.
Good evening, Commissioners. My name is John Zote. I'm the Executive Director of CDFI Friendly Bloomington,
and I want to introduce Emma Yoder. Emma joined us in July as our program coordinator, so hired a second
staff position this year. We're glad to provide our annual update to you, which will be quick.
about what we do. We have some new faces. So Mr. Kern, Mr. Fleener, you weren't here last year when
I presented, so I'm glad to share some updates with you on who we are and what we do. So what are CDFIs?
Part of our process is to always educate the public on what our organization does and what CDFIs do.
CDFIs are community development financial institutions that are mission-based lenders.
They are dedicated to that type of lending to fill gaps in financing for people in places that were
previously sort of locked out of the financing process. So we all know of banks. We work with banks.
They hold our money. We partner with banks to try to make that process of financing a little more seamless.
So if someone is told no from a bank for a mortgage or a loan for a housing project or for their small
business, there are times where a CDFI can step in and be that
that lender to the potential borrower who may not have the same financial background or may not have
generational wealth in place, or it may just be a complicated project that can be filled from an alternative
lender. And so we want people to try to avoid putting things in high interest debt. So credit cards,
lenders that really can get money quickly but might charge a pretty high interest rate.
The CDFI lending community, which is about 60 years old, is a $500 billion sector of lending across
the United States. Those are the network of CDFIs that exist in every state and in our territories across
the United States. Move ahead there. So what does the friendly mean in our name? Because there are so
many CDFIs across the country, 1,400 organizations are certified by the US Treasury.
as a CDFI, Community Development Financial Institution. But there are places in the country where they
are not really present and have not been historically. And that has been in Indiana.
And so our job when CDFI Family Bloomington was created back in 2018, 2017, 2018 was to help fill that
gap here in the South Central part of Indiana. So we served 13 counties to try to bring CDFI financing,
that sector of financing that wasn't previously here for all intents and purposes. It was here, but
not in a robust way. Try to bring that financing into this part of the state to fill those gaps and
to get more community development projects, more businesses, more jobs created.
so that we can see a higher level of impact from community development. So you can kind of call us a
matchmaker. Our job, mine and Emma's, and our board is to identify those projects on the ground, help
provide technical assistance in what their financing needs might be, and then to go to our network of
potential lenders to say, hey, there's this cool community development project or business in our part
of the state, come talk to us, come talk to the potential borrower, and let's get a deal done.
Move ahead there.
So far, just to talk about our impact as an organization, we were formed in 2018, so we're about seven
years old. Our big piece of our job is to provide technical assistance to potential projects. So far
this year, we've done about 235 hours of technical assistance to projects in Bloomington and in our
region. It's important for this body that we tell you that about 62% of that has been within the city
of Bloomington. Bloomington, as I don't have to tell this group, is a very active place. A lot of projects,
a lot of ideas, a lot of potential in the pipeline for
housing and small business and actually in the child care world there's a lot going on there and so
but most of what we've been doing in Bloomington is is is housing related and so a large percentage
of our activity has been here within the city. It's a little bit of both so technical assistance might
be anything from
Here's what loans can do. Here are the different types of financing to here is your project budget.
Let's look through it and talk about it and just be another set of eyes. If it's an individual who wants
to start a business, it's have you talked to the Small Business Development Center and just sort of
bridging those gaps and connecting dots to make sure they've talked to the right people. So it's a good
question, Commissioner.
So just to put a little finer point on what I told you earlier about the sector of financing from CDFI
is not always being present here in Indiana. So if you look at the CDFI lending industry for the last
50 years, there's been a lot of money.
invested and loaned and borrowed. In the first part of this century, if you will, from 2005 to 2022,
which is a data set that the Treasury puts out, why those years are a little bit unique. If you spread
all that CDFI loan money across each resident in the United States, you'd get about $714 per capita.
During that same time in Indiana, that number drops to $169.
In the region we live in, in our 13 counties, that number was $22 during that time period. So we were
trying to close that gap. We were trying to get more people in this region to have access to financing.
It doesn't always have to be from CDFIs. This is a CDFI number that we track.
You can see that there's a disparity, a lack of access to credit, a lack of access to different types
of financing, because in rural areas especially, which most of our region is, financing and the resources
that are there are not always present. That just gives you a little bit more of how they play out here,
statewide, and nationally.
There is a map. You can go to cdfifriendlyamerica.org, and there's a map that will identify every place
in the United States, every congressional district, every state legislative district, every county.
It will tell you what that per capita number is. So there are CDFI, what we call deserts around the
country, and why it's important to fill those gaps of access to financing. Sure. And maybe this is later,
but going back to 2018 when CDFI Friendly Bloomington started,
Do you know what the corresponding number was? In other words, have you made that number go up? We have.
That number right now is in the $50 per head range, so it's gone up.
So we're working to get that up there. Not close to 714 yet, but we're getting there. So this is just
sort of some more numbers on our impact. So since our creation, so since 2018, we've been able to help
facilitate about $26 million in additional CDFI investment here in the region. Most of that's been in
Bloomington.
for total projects at about $57 million. So that $26 million was a piece of the larger project scope,
which impacted about 370 housing units that were created or retained. Vast majority of that is in Bloomington
or Ellensville. So yeah, because we've had some big developments here and early in our existence, we
worked mostly in Bloomington and then
Got over to Ellensville a little bit. This year we were, there's been a lot of CDFI investment that's
going to be part of the new low income housing tax credit project in Ligoti, which is going to be a
50 unit affordable housing building with a child care attached to it. So that's a lot of the CDFI. Well,
you're going to get us success stories here in a minute. Yeah, we'll get to one that you guys learned
about last year a little bit.
just want to say thanks this this body gave us money to loan money out in the within the city of Bloomington
more specifically within the TIF district to impact multifamily housing and we've got a couple of projects
in the pipeline where we will continue to hopefully use those funds and the city of Bloomington support
overall has been great they've been a partner the hand department has been very intentional about working
with projects and figuring out how grant money from the city
Loan money from CDFI-friendly Bloomington and loan money from a CDFI partner can be used to get some
housing projects done here on a smaller scale in Bloomington, which is really important. It doesn't
always have to be 100 units. It can be 610, that kind of thing here. And so as a point, we are also
partners with the Urban Enterprise Association and utilize funds similarly to the RDC money
in the city of Bloomington to impact business and also housing and so we are working with a CDFI right
now that will we will give some of that capital to them so they can make business loans within the city
of Bloomington and help provide help bring their expertise to to the region. We gave an x number of
dollars the BUEA has x number of dollars right how do we how do you get that out
Sure, and we have CDFI is not a bank. It is not we're a loan fund So we don't hold we don't hold individual
money. We hold those loans funds loan funds we can hold grant money or other lending capital and so
we That money was granted to us at a zero percent interest rate It was just grant money that RDC and
the Urban Enterprise Association gave us so we have terms where we lend it out at a certain interest
rate and the terms as far as time can vary
But the high value of that money, and I can't really overstate this because interest rates are coming
down, but they're still higher. And pooling that money, pooling money from the RDC or the Urban Enterprise
Association with a CDFI partner who will lend their money at more market rates, so seven and a half.
We have a below market interest rate that we lend our money. We're a small shop, so we can do that right now.
do the low market interest rate, that brings down the overall interest rate for the project and makes
it a lot more workable. We just saw that happen with the project. When you put our money in, our money,
your money, the city's money, it made the project here in Bloomington, it will make it a lot easier
for the borrower to provide that service. And so we live that out of certain terms, then we service
those loans. So we have a loan portfolio that we were-
funding that will be coming in based upon the loans and on the buy-down. Yeah, so that money goes toward
different things, but right. So that is money that is loaned out, we service the loans in-house, and
then if the CDFI partner is involved, then we also, they usually service their piece of the loan, but
we do what's called an inter-creditor agreement. And so we do our own loans and then we have a loan
agreement together. What kind of pool do you have now to work with? Our assets are about two and a half
million. Excellent.
So as of July, big news this year, and I want to throw compliments to Jane Coopersmith, my predecessor
and your ESD director, helped tee up our certification to the U.S. Treasury. So to be certified as a
CDFI by the U.S. Treasury is a vetting process and a distinction that is done. It's a five-year certification.
It helps us build better relationships with banks. It can streamline some of those relationships under
federal banking regulation. We also were awarded a $300,000 grant from the CDFI fund that is helping
with operations over this year and mostly next. Jane really teed up that application.
About the first thing I did when I came in was to finish that application up and get it submitted after
Jane left to come back here. And so we were awarded that last fall. That was exciting. So John, is that
more staff? That was Emma. Emma came on. I was going to say. You can do that, Grant. And so,
and I'll talk, the next slide, we'll talk a little bit more about that. So, do you have a question?
No, just CDFI and something from the Treasury based on what I'm reading in Bloomberg about the potential
possibility of them
Can a CDFI, is that real or is that just another spec? It's real, but it's fluid, I would say. So this
year we spent a lot of time talking about in addition, in another way, the impact of community development,
financial institutions. So the current administration has had mixed feelings about CDFIs and through
their history, they've had really
big bipartisan support in Congress. So what's been happening since the beginning of the year has been
some ups and downs about where the future of the CDFI fund is. The Congress was in the process
of appropriating money. The money that was already appropriated to the CDFI fund was withheld by the
administration and was not released. And so now during the shutdown, the CDFI fund employees received
RIF notices, reduction in force notices that they all
We're going to be terminated in December. So the agency has taken some hits this year. The CDFI community,
with the help of a majority of Congress, is pushing back and saying this is important work. This is
the impact of these dollars that go out. I'll take the opportunity to say that for every federal dollar
that goes out from the CDFI fund, it's estimated that eight comes back in those projects. You saw the
leveraged impact of $26 million of CDFI money.
leveraging out $57 million in projects. So this money does have an impact. Some of the administration
feel differently. And so Congress is, like I said, pushing back to tell you what pushing back means.
In the last couple of weeks, 105 Republican members of the House and Senate and 120 members of the House
on the Democratic side sent a bipartisan letter to Congress saying,
Hey, this is important. This agency is important it has an impact. Please consider what's happening
here and reconsider your actions and so the advocacy and the time spent on that we have to be careful
as a nonprofit we can't just be advocates but we certainly can go and talk about our impact and so we've been to.
DC a number of times talking about why the CDFI fund is important and why it should be preserved. However,
we don't know where it's going to go just yet. And on a local basis, if something happened on a federal
basis, would we still be able to utilize it in the way you have been using it with the two and a half
million to be able to help buy down and continue? We would because that money that we loan is not federal
money, that is local money. And it's not subject to that. It is not. What is subject, so the grant that
Funds a large part of our operations right now. We also get support from banks, and the city has been
helpful. That federal grant, that is one of the programs that the administration proposed eliminating.
The Congress has put money back in, and now the government shut down. So I can't tell you today what's
going to happen with that one piece that is
One tool that you can access once you become certified, as I talked about, is what's called financial
assistance money. And that is lending capital from the CDFI fund that is given to certified CDFIs who
can then lend it in the region. So what we would love to do is to be able to access that money to partner
it with other lending money, like the RDC money, the BUDA money, and be able to do that out in the region.
your money and the BUEA money within the City of Bloomington, which has been awesome. But we can't use
it outside the City of Bloomington for obvious reasons, so we'd love to have other money to lend outside
of the region. If they don't close the CDFI, is that something that's a process? Yeah, it's an application
process. Which you would look to do. We would. Once we identify. Yeah, that's right.
Just have to see where things are going to go right now. So there's been, again, a positive movement
in the last couple of weeks. We'll see where the shutdown goes and where appropriations go in Congress.
So it's kind of on the question mark, a little bit of a question mark right now, but we're pushing through.
So last year, I came to you and I
went back and looked to make sure I put this picture in. So last year I told you we were working on
with the hand department's help and the help of LEAF, which is Local Enterprise Assistance Fund. It's
a CDFI based out of Boston that partnered with Bloomington Cooperative Living to build a new seven-bedroom
house on the west side that's a cooperative housing model. That's the drawing to your left. That's the
finished product to your right.
We all walked through in July. That picture was right at the end of July that picture was taken. So
there's grass there. It's fully occupied.
going well. This is the latest cooperative housing model which the cooperative housing model is getting
a lot of attention around the state and it's an interesting concept I think to explore in rural parts
of Indiana as well. So we're glad to see that project moving and look forward to more down the road.
Quick question on that particular project itself because I know we approved some funding for it. When
we look at the overall cost of it and then how the CDFI percentage wise ends to give
And I just I'm looking at we got seven bedrooms. I know we put in a few hundred thousand and then CDFI
added dollars or added technical services in order to assist that to make it a reality. Yes. So all
of those things. So I would say overall project budget, the city granted about a third CDFI friendly
Bloomington loaned a third at a low interest rate. And then the CDFI leaf loaned at the last third.
at a higher interest rate. And so when we pool our two loan amounts together, that brought, it came
to a median interest rate, right? It blended, divided the interest rates in two and you got a median
interest rate. So that's how the money worked together. And then there was a contingency built in. There
was a little bit of cash from the nonprofit, but it was really a third, a third and a third. Okay.
John, what's your next coolest success story? Well, that's a great question, Commissioner. We've got
a couple of projects in the pipeline right now that I wish I could give you some more detail on, but
I'm hoping that those will be exciting this time next year. Here in Bloomington? Yes, here in Bloomington.
I will say two other things. We are looking at how to make our small business pipeline a little more
robust. That's probably our
lightest area right now because we've been so housing focused, which is good. There's just a lot of
activity with housing. The other third in our strategic plan we did last year is affordable housing,
small business, and child care. The Community Foundation and regional opportunity initiatives have a
huge child care initiative going on in the region and there is a place for the CDFI community to be
involved there both with technical assistance and with financing. Child care is
There's a lot going on there right now with some funding cuts from the state and federal government.
So there's a place for CDFS to come in and help providers do that. So we're working with regional opportunity
initiatives, or ROI, right now to see what that looks like going forward. We partnered with them on
a grant earlier this year to do project assessments. So there are three projects in the region. Lagodi,
which I talked about earlier, and then
one project, which I'll put to the side for a second, but then the Bloomington Center for Global Children
was one of the projects. And so that grant money was utilized to help those organizations plan their
projects, expansion or retention. And there are CDFIs out there that can provide the kind of technical
assistance that will help providers say, I want to expand. How many sinks do I need?
How many square feet do I need to have to make sure that I can fit this many seats for child care in
there? So trying to get into that child care world a little bit is going to be really important for
the access to child care in the region, which our access to child care in our region is lower than where
it should be. And so we need to help amp that up. And so that's where we kind of come in as a partner.
So I hope this time next year we're going to see some help with child care being in effect from us.
That's fun.
Additional questions? One last question. Sure. And this goes back into history and see how you can help
out. We have four lots we bought on Dodd Street. Yes. How do we turn those into housing, child care,
or something? Because we bought them to help out, and we've held them for at least two and a half, three
years now. Yeah. Well, as a matter of fact, you cannot sell them unless you put them up for public offering
for the average of the two appraisals. Right. So I'm just looking to see how that would be able to help.
CDFI could help on that. Potentially, so a lot of CDFIs focus to maintain status as a mission-based
lender. CDFIs need to have, especially those that are certified, need to have a majority of their activity
focusing on low to moderate income households or geographic areas of economic distress. That area is
one. But I will say, Dan and I have talked a little bit, but I do think,
I want to be clear that there's been no tie here. But I think this is a good opportunity to talk about
what Flintlock does and their infill development and the really cool stuff that Ali Quinlan and her
group does. We've worked with them a little bit this year from our organization. Just do a lot of good
work. And I think there are a lot of really neat ideas out there that could make an impact
there, Commissioner. So I don't have an answer for you. No, no, I'm just asking where that parallel
organizations come through in order to provide housing at the cost that it needs to be for. I'll say
two things just to illustrate the point. If what would be constructed there is housing, which is I think
the most likely use of that, if they're affordable for rental or if they're affordable for sale, there
are ways that people who would like to purchase those properties could access a flexible mortgage and
maybe access the city's down payment
programming or access some city incentives that would partner with the CDFI loan for construction. You
just have to have the right builder, the right amount of risk and volume to make the numbers work. Project
has the pencil out. And it's capital A affordable, so 80% AMI. 80% AMI. Yeah. And that's where most
CDFIs will say that affordable to them also means 80% AMI below. So those are things that are potential
for partnership between the city and us.
Anything else before we move on to the real solutions? OK. John, thank you so much. Thank you.
Thank you, John. Appreciate it all. Good to see you. Hey, John. Where do we find out about the cooperative
housing model that you talked? So Bloomington Cooperative Living, they have a website. There's also
the Indiana Cooperative Development Center, which is a statewide group trying to amp up housing cooperatives
as well as food cooperatives. So there's a statewide organization. And Hugh Farrell, who is the president
of Bloomington Cooperative Living, is the executive director
Indian Cooperative Development. So we've got a Bloomington guy doing that statewide. And are you open
to additional follow-up questions by email? Absolutely. OK, great. Please do. You're glad to spread
the word. Thank you. Thank you so much. Let's move to resolution 25127. This is a resolution to earmark
funds for infrastructure design in the southwest quadrant of the city of Bloomington. Dana and Andrew
both had a third. Yeah, and Roy's here as well.
So do you want to provide a little bit of an on-ramp in the context, because we talked about this last
time, obviously. Right. There was a question about where actually would this infrastructure be located.
Well, it depends on how it goes and what happens, what's decided to be funded, what's not.
provided in the packet a map that does show the roadways that might be constructed. Of course, they
may move because of cars or whatever reason, topography. But basically, the road segments would be looking
at the bottom of the map going up. Can you make that better?
So what we have is app road here. I understand, but I can't hear anything back here. Oh, OK.
I'm trying to speak up, too. So one location for a roadway would be connecting Vanguard. There's a small
piece of Vanguard already here that was part of the PIC development. So bringing it all the way up to
Weemer, because most of Weemer, particularly in this area, is floodplain. There is also a one-lane bridge there.
that is dangerous. So development in this area, which is one of the few areas left in Bloomington to
develop, will need more infrastructure for safety with traffic flow and police and fire. So Vanguard
is one of those. And Weimar Road, then, would become part of the trail system.
could be used for that. So at Tapp and Weaver, there would need to be probably a roundabout, either
a controlled signal or a roundabout, and probably a roundabout. There would need to be an intersection
connection here as well.
Over on the right, you see this is Adams Street. And it ends just behind Summit Elementary School. And
then it's, you can go up a little bit. And then you have Adams that comes down here. It ends. And this
is part of the Summit development. And what this would do would create another north-south passageway between
this part of town and the lower connection. And then Sudbury is this road. It's already to here, but
it would come over. There'd probably be a roundabout structure there. And there would be some other
roads inside the development that wouldn't be anything that the RDC would do. And then scroll up a little
bit to the last of it. The intersection at Bloomfield Road
And Weimar, they'll rename Weimar Vanguard. So that intersection is not a very good intersection as
it sits right now. And so increased traffic would just be even more problematic. Now, some of this lane
in here is actually in the county. It's in one of those donut holes in the city. And so the city and
county would need to work together on this intersection. And if anything was to be done,
that stretch. Also, when you bring Adams up, where Adams and Allen is, is also a smaller intersection
that would require some sort of work in order to control traffic, as well as Bloomfield and Adams.
But again, Adams would give you a second north-south, and then Vanguard would be
much more upgraded for that and then a connector between the two. So these are the kinds of projects
that engineering has come up with that they believe are needed to facilitate growth in that area. So
turn it over. Oh no, you did an excellent job, yeah.
I know when the development came through, they were looking at traffic impacts, the amount of units
coming in, how that's going to impact the traffic situation or current infrastructure. They had some
recommendations through that traffic impact that the actual solutions we don't have yet. We just know
that these impacts are coming. So we want to work with the development and try to get ahead of this
game and then work with the designers.
to try to start designing this infrastructure so that we're ready for when that development is coming.
In the thought, too, is if the development or the infrastructure could get started, that would bring
more interest in that area than that we're wanting to grow. So that would be an advantage of working
at it on the front end. It could bring a lot more interest
their properties down there. And if you have anything to add or move on. Sorry. Are there questions
for Dana? Yes, John. It would have been nice to have the TIF overlay so we can see the district as it
overlays onto the geographical area that you're talking about.
Well, we get a picture of me instead. Is this already in the consolidated TIF? Yes. It all is?
It all is. Unless the GIS has got something majorly wrong. I'm working on trying to pull it up for you.
We've done a little research since our last meeting.
trying to calculate when that 2014 expansion number two occurred on the tap road TIF. I couldn't find
the ordinance. But again, I was researching through the documents.
really intense looks, but I don't see any. There we go. Sorry, I'm still training. The southern part
from Wapahani South is part of the Tacro Tif.
part in Sudbury. Yeah, there's a part of Sudbury that isn't. But the thought is when each new development
comes in, we would like to create a new TIF area for carve out a TIF for that particular development.
And that would allow
start to block again. But two, you could use those. It's part of the consolidated. You could use those
revenue anywhere. But you could use it to help fund infrastructure in where that subdivision would be.
This is not real helpful. Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. That's the best we can.
So here's Tap Road. Vanguard is here. What's the purple represent? Tap Road. And below that is the Fullerton
Pike. And then the expanded Tap Road. And you're showing is the expanded Tap Road where that roadway
is coming in? See the little
Take yourself up to the far left hand side. There's a little white spot that would be indicated in You
see where I'm saying right up just up the screen Yeah, little road right there. It's a little red. No
Right there. You just passed it He's talking about this. Oh, so this is the expanded well Now
I do just want to chime in here. Randy, you did have to recuse yourself. I am recusing myself. Yeah.
So I think that you need to be careful right now. I recuse myself. I do have some questions. So. Just
for clarification, does Randy need to recuse himself from the vote or from deliberations as well? I
think he needs legal to weigh in on that. Technically, it would be from the vote.
because otherwise he can act like any other citizen and ask questions. So he'll just step away from
his role as commissioner and ask as an ordinary citizen? Yeah. Is what you're saying. OK, Randy. So
your comments will be very public. Yeah. Sorry. No, we're good. No, let's get it right. Are there additional
questions? You ever stated why you were
Because I'm an adjoining property owner. I just wanted to make sure, yeah, you had meant property last
time. Are there additional questions from commissioners or comments? Just a clarification with respect
to this, that there is, and not to get too specific, because I realize the map isn't that precise, but
that there is a piece of the area that's proposed for infrastructure improvements that is not in the
consolidated TIF.
is from what I get on the GIS, right, there's a part of this Sudbury that's not, but at the time that
would come online, it would be, you would create a TIF before expending funds in that area. With respect
to the infrastructure improvements, how, just generally, if we start to put, if those projects start,
because they connect into the,
sub-area area, would we not have to create that to find a way? To be clear, this resolution is simply
for the design work of that infrastructure. That infrastructure is not taking place. We don't know where
that's going. That's right. This is simply for the design work. OK. And it's an idea of where the things
might go. It's not hard set. We would bring back any
contract, any specific spending on any project would come back to you for approval for your review and
approval or disapproval that you see fit up. So this is probably going to take a while to get down this
road, so that's why we're just hoping to get it started. And what really helps with this is being able to
give confidence to the developers who want to be down there that the city is interested, the RDC is
interested in making this area work. And so again, it's not spending anybody. It's just setting aside
for the confidence of the people that live down there and for developers that
This is an interest in RDC that RDC has. But you're marking this money now. That's not a commitment
to spend all of that. Right. And it's not a commitment to not move some of it elsewhere, should another
need arise. Right, right. This is a priority. Yes. It's establishing that at this time, to the RDC,
this is a priority that the RDC would like to see come to fruition.
and understands that there would need to be design work. For instance, on Vanguard, you can't even know
where that road would go. You'd lie until you get design work going to find out what kind of right of
way that you would want from the developer. So there's just a lot of unknowns without having design
work done.
And I think you can also weigh in on what you believe your priorities are. Is it getting Vanguard secured
north-south? Is it getting Adams secured north-south? What goals you have, you can definitely weigh
in on what direction you'd like to see this go.
We are trying to work out agreements with a couple of the developers down there. And again, this goes
to show that the RDC is interested in this infrastructure, that it is necessary to develop that part
of town. And the fact that there's not much other undeveloped land in Bloomington.
Um, so that's why the discussion about, um, Alley, uh, some of Gwendolyn's, uh, projects in, in trying
to increase, you know, the density a little bit for more affordable housing. You know, models like that
may be able to go other places, but as far as just open land, this is about it. So Vanguard definitely
goes through the Tap Road tip. Yes.
Yeah, it definitely goes. These offsite infrastructure improvements are really a good example of how
projects struggle to get off the ground without knowing exactly what they need to get into
for the infrastructure period. So just because their project is here,
they have to consider the infrastructure that surrounds the project. And it can really cause a significant
math problem to get the project to pencil out. Additional questions from commissioners? All right. Well,
I'm on it. I'm going to go to the resolution specifically. OK. And I want to address the resolve item
three. Can you explain to me what you're saying?
That the RDC understands the city staff may work with property owners and developers in the southwest
quadrant and that the city may approve MOUs or may bring MOUs to the RDC for approval.
as staff being necessary to incentivize development and economic development in the Southwest Squadron.
What that means is that when you're talking about a big development, it is difficult to get projects
going like that and keep the properties in an affordable amount when you don't have things
like infrastructure in place, or at least the major infrastructure.
And so we might work out an MOU with a developer that says, hey, we need this road to cross your land.
We'll design it. We'll build part of it. We'll do whatever. But you've got to give us the land. That's
the kind of thing that might be in an MOU. OK, so I'm going to be a little more specific.
in the part where you say may bring MOUs to the RDC. I'm not sure what you mean by may bring, but where
I'm going with this is that any MOU that had any impact on the TIF or the RDC must be brought. Yes,
it has to. May just means we may not have MOU. So we may bring an MOU. We may not. If there is an MOU,
yes, it has to come here.
Or I mean, it's just you cannot, it would be illegal if it didn't come here and get passed by you. So
the may means we may have MOUs, we may not. So we may bring it in to that. Well, I get that. But as
Elaine in reading that, it certainly sounds like it's the option of the day.
Is there any language you would suggest to clarify that further? Either of you. As I said, anything
that would impact the use of TIF dollars or anything if it was RDC ground or it just must. I don't know.
The May part just bothered me.
Well, Dana's point is that if there is business, if there is an MOU that is needed, then it will come
to the RDC. But I think the language in the resolution is trying to leave the possibility open that
perhaps this is allowing for the possibility of funding this design work. Is that correct, Dana? Exactly.
It's any MOU that affects.
the RDC has to come to the RDC to get the proof. That's a legal requirement. So the staff can't enter
into a MOU on behalf of the RDC without the RDC doing it. It's a memorandum of understanding. It means
that the parties have come together and understand that this is what is going to happen in this particular
incidence.
I guess I could change and say, if there are MOUs, they will come. That require the approval of the
RDC. Well, I understand your explanation. I don't think what you wrote exactly matches what you said.
I believe what you said. Right. OK. Well, I can make up. But I'm only one vote, so maybe
Do other commissioners have a comment on this language? I'm satisfied with the language as it is. OK.
Are we looking for public comment on the resolution, or do we give him an opportunity? Oh, Travis. Yeah,
he's public. Are we commenting on the resolution, or on?
On the language change? On the language. We don't have a proposed language change before us. Sit tight.
We don't have a proposed language for the public to respond to. I made my point. Let's just move on.
So language stands as it stands as presented. Yes. And I did get a message from Margie that she is concerned
RDC doesn't leave the earmark money for the infrastructure. Because if the RDC could take it away, then
that's not much of an incentive to the developers to make agreement. Again, it doesn't authorize a contract,
but it does
Can you undo it with another resolution and take away from the earmark? If the need arises, if the earmark
wasn't needed and they need to rise to do something else, it would require another resolution, which
would give the RDC another opportunity to let the public view this earmark and determine if it should
stand or not.
Given the amount of design work that needs to be done to, again, even determine right-of-ways and things
like that, I guess I should make it clear that if you earmark it, yes, it's going to stand as it is.
But can RDC change its mind there? Yes, but we hope that is the commitment
this resolution passes, that we really do intend to do this. We don't have any intentions of taking
it away. We can't say what's going to happen in the future. Maybe something won't be needed. So you're
saying it's only an incentive if it is an earmark. It is an earmark. It needs to look and talk and walk
like an earmark. Yeah. OK. I'm not hearing a groundswell of support for changing this language in point
three. Am I mistaken?
finally the way it reads. I think the intent is clear. OK. John, I think I dropped the floor. OK. So
with that, we know, are there other comments or questions on this resolution from commissioners?
If not, we'll go to public comment. OK. Welcome, Travis. Travis Vensel here on behalf of Summit Development
and the large parcel.
Um, for clarification, after much looking, all of Sudbury that's remaining, which is the Sullivan Summit
development is within the tip. It's within a couple of areas of expansion of the tap rope tips, but
all of the remaining 135 acres is in some part of the consolidated tip as of now from long discussions
over the last two years with
hand and legal. So if something's changed from that, we haven't been notified, but it's all within the
existing consolidated tip. And I think that map even shows that. But that's our understanding after
working with the city for a long time on that. We're here to ask for support of this because we came
forward and we realized after doing a traffic study of 22 different intersections and road improvements that
there was a lot of decisions that the community made at the city on where the priorities were. There
were intersections in that traffic study that failed today. There were intersections that needed work.
Some work now, there were intersections that would need work in 15 years. There's a couple of other
projects stewing down there and trying to put these all together and anticipate which was coming first
and which intersection was gonna happen.
who was responsible for which offsite improvement gave us great angst because we couldn't commit to
what improvements we were gonna do because if somebody else came along first, they would have to do
that improvement and we would get shifted to another priority down the list. Well, that gets really
hard to figure out. So this, by doing a potential study of the entire area of engineering,
You know, we've done some preliminary engineering on right-of-ways of Adams, but what has seen happen
in the past is you plat, okay, we're gonna do a hundred foot right-of-way. And then when the engineering
really gets in there, well, we need 125 feet as we go down this hill to get the right slopes. Well,
now you're replatting, reparsal or condemnation because if you already plat and give it to the city,
we've given ours. Now to build the road, we gotta do something else. So this really gives us the support
And I believe the other developers down that area to know the city is committed and we're going to start
prioritizing the design of this stuff through future requests coming back here. Those requests might
be to pay for all the design that might be part of the design. It might be to pay for Weamer and Tapp
and we're going to look at that. It'll be different things that go along the line. But that's that's
why we're here in support of this because I think this will give us the knowledge we need from the city
standpoint. They can't handle all this.
in-house, someone else has to be able to do it. So this is why we're here in support of this proposal
in front of you to at least earmarks the light so that we can proceed down the line on our other design
and the other stuff that has to be done to connect into this. This is a lot of moving pieces,
it's a big area, it's about three miles of road that needs to be redone.
you know, a four block residential subdivision that needs to be designed here, and we know exactly where
it's going to go. So happy to answer any questions, but we're asking for your support. Actually, it's
just public comment, not questions for you. But I mean, if you have any questions. Follow up with Travis,
and you'll be happy. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. Randy, did you have comments? The
comment I make in regard to it, I have no issues with being able to design roads. Adams Street in itself has
They've completed a good portion of it to the south. Kenny Blackwell's done another 400 feet that I
think he's got approved for. Michael Polley did another. We have been waiting for that connection for
approximately 20-plus years to get our north-south corridor there. So as far as design on Adams Street,
I think that should move forward. Some of the other areas, my comment in regards to it was,
The thing because in Bloomington Docks, I could not find where that portion of Sudbury coming off Sudbury
Drive was an ordinance that expanded the TIF. And with the redevelopments responsibility to work within
their TIF areas, that's where I had a concern. So I couldn't find it. I looked and I just wanted to
make sure that as we're moving forward, that would be within the scope of what we are doing.
Thank you for your comment. Thank you. Are there other members of the public who wish to comment? We
don't have any members of the public. OK. Seeing none, let's come back to the Redevelopment Commission.
Are there any other questions from commissioners? If not, is there a motion related to resolution 25-127?
Approval of resolution 25-127. Second.
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Are there any opposed?
Thank you. And we have one recusal. Thank you. That passes with three votes. Dana, does that cover what
you need? Yes, it sure does. OK. Great. Thank you, everyone. Let's move to resolution 25-130, approval
of an agreement with Flintlock Limited Co.
comprehensive and coordinated design of Hopewell South Blocks 9 and 10. So we'd like to speak to this.
I'm happy to do it. Dana, if you want to do it, that's fine too, either way. Yeah, I can get started
at least. We decided that the best way to develop Hopewell South is going to be to create a planned
unit development, PUD,
And in doing that, it allows you to be flexible because you're kind of doing it outside of the zoning
ordinance. So the UDO, you're not necessarily bound by everything. Of course, it still has to pass and
get approved, but it allows flexibility like, can the lot sizes be smaller? Can the homes be smaller?
the setbacks be smaller, can the riderways for the roads be smaller, and what kind of designs go in
there. And so to make that happen, we would need to create the PUD. And Flintlock is capable, willing,
and able to
help us do that process, because it is a process. They're designing the layout. They know what. They've
already reviewed the ADO. So they know what our codes allow and what restrictions they would like to
deviate from. And that's what the PUD does. Instead of doing variances on a lot of different things,
you're creating that.
variance for the whole community that you're trying to develop. And the key to that is if you didn't
do that and you went by code, it's the presentation we had earlier from Ali that says, you know, you're
going to have, I can't remember the percentage of the houses. Yeah, the current R4 zoning would only
allow for 28 homes across both those blocks. And with the major, what was it?
Up to 118, somewhere between 84 to 118 homes instead of just 28. So as you know, PUDs, you can write
your own rules. It seemed like a much better avenue to go down than just trying to get variants after
variants. Also, their original contract included the design work.
They have been great to work with they've made quite a bit of progress, but it did not include Getting
over the hump of our own internal barriers, which this is one of them some zoning changes that are needed
The nice thing about the PUD for the city is that you know the location that this is in it's not you
know on main roads and things like that
She has done this. Allie has done this in a lot of other locations with great success. But if Bloomington
decides, yeah, we really don't want to change the UDO entirely to allow these things to happen, this
can be like a pilot test for this and see how well it does. How well does it give us that affordable
housing, which my understanding is the RDC's number one goal
two number one goals for Hopewell South is to spend as little as necessary to get the project off the
ground and done, plus to maximize the affordability of the houses. And when you talk about things like
the right of way to the roads, that can be very limiting.
And the goal is that in 200 years, all of our roads would be of this larger size and things. But the
fact of the matter is, if you go south on Fairview, it's not very wide. So maybe it could, instead of
being 60 foot, it could be something less than 60 foot. I don't know why. I don't know what to propose.
I'm not the architect engineer. But I do know that when you,
Don't give up as much right away. That gives you more land to develop. And that gives you the opportunity
for more houses. But all the considerations are going. There's discussions about fire trucks and trash
collection. And different things like that are ongoing because we just want to make sure these kind
of things are considered. And they are being considered.
Valley has actually provided some extremely detailed answers to some of the questions that's been asked
so far. So again, going through the PUD process is not something that the city normally does an activity.
Yes, they review them, but we don't create them and we need the assistance of somebody
knows the project, knows the UDO, and her company has already reviewed the entire UDO and knows what
would work with it and what wouldn't. And so in my opinion, she's the best one situated, her company
is, to help us get to PUD and make sure that we get what is going to do the very most
You can increase right away, increase infrastructure costs and such, decrease right away, get you more
affordable housing. So there's all those benefits of having the PUD. If we tried to go to variances,
again, there'd just be too many necessary. So we're just being encouraged to go around the PUD and, again,
I do believe she's the company's best fitter to help us get through that. Great. Thank you. Are there
questions for Dana or for anyone? John? I've got no quarrel with PUD, so thank you for that. But I thought
that was a good plan from the get-go. What I guess I'm going to ask you is, is the $300,000 going to
get us to the finish line?
Can you repeat that? Well, $300,000 get us to the finish line. Having had the experience of doing this
once in my life, it took an enormous amount of engineering expense and legal expense. And $300,000 seems
like a pretty good sum, but does that
get through Plan Commission? Does that get through the City Council? Or are we going to be coming back
for it because we didn't cover all our bases? This should be to cover that portion. So we know that
it has to go to Plan Commission. We know it has to go to City Council. This is all part of that plan.
And the $300,000 was actually for the
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're right. I stand corrected. It's like 145. Yeah, I stand corrected. That's
what I meant. Yeah, and she's given a pretty detailed scope of what each dollar amount will provide.
Yeah, I read that.
That is our intent. So going through the DRC. So that's your understanding also. Yes. And she, under
compensation, has given it as a flat fee. Yeah. So. Laurie and then Randy. Just really quickly, I had
a crap-related question. The previous resolution that allocated the $300,000, is this
Or will we now have $155,000 remaining on that? How does this relate to that $300,000? It's an additional
service. So it's $445,000, $500 total when we're done. That's a pretty good sum. So I just want to hope
it's inclusive. Yes, but the original $300,000 included
developer training through incremental development alliance. It included a lot of other ancillary services,
not just getting our project. So it included the home catalog and included several other things. Has
that money been, have we spent any of that yet? We have spent some of it. Yes, but not nearly all of
it. No. Wasn't that a catalog that we kind of solved? Yeah. Yeah.
So with that, grand total right now, we haven't spent all of our $300,000, but that would be an ongoing
situation based upon how this project goes through, or process goes through. So we don't know right
now off the top of our head, we don't know what we spent so far. And some of that allocation could not
be spent. That's correct. We have not spent all of it yet. $145,500 is a flat fee to take us through
the PUD process, which we really don't know what will happen. That's correct. It is a not to exceed.
Yeah, not to exceed on that. It's a flat fee, which quite frankly, from a commitment standpoint I'm
leading, seems to be reasonable based upon the process. Because PUD planned unit development, or if
you are the PUD participant, you are planning under duress. OK.
So that editorial comment. Yeah. But that's depends on which side you're on. Yeah. Anyway, long story
short, when we look at this, if she can pull this off, we increase ourselves from 28 to potentially
84 to 100. So it appears that we've only spent about $100,000 so far. So if anything balanced
out accordingly, this could actually be offset some because that $145,000 is an absolute definite that
we would spend to go through the process.
Well, it is enough to exceed. Well, it's not to exceed, but it's a flat fee. Yes, each step has. When
you get flat fee contracts, it's flat fee. Yeah. Unless someone is not going to get a refund.
Probably not. She's well worth it. She did a great presentation in the city council chambers. And she's
been very forthcoming in regards to helping.
$145,000 flat fee. We're not sure how the $300,000 will allocate in. We're going to have to go from
$28,000 in our current portion of R4 zoning that we have. But we are allocating $145,500 to a process
that is not going to determine an outcome, because it will go to the city council. It will go to the
planning commission with a recommendation, and it will go to the city council for approval.
And then that gets me to the next question of what's our realistic timeframe that yourself Dana and
Ali have lined out and and excuse me. Thank you. The realistic timeframe for hitting all of those various
meetings. The process. Hold on. I will tell you. So.
We are targeting December 2nd Development Review Committee meeting, a January 12th planned commission
meeting. If we have to do a second hearing, it would be February 9th, and City Council targeting March
11th. Then that would take us to the plaque process. So the DRC filing by March 20th and the plaque
filing by April 6th.
and hopefully the plaque hearing by May 11th. So we're still on target for our original timeline. And
we're really working hard to meet that. But we have to get this contract approval in place before she
can really hit the ground. Now with that, since Allie is in Fayetteville, Arkansas, will she have a
team here? Is she working here? Or will she have local?
Local help? If you saw part of the proposal, it did include travel time to Bermuda. OK. And then will
she have some local assistance, or will you or your staff be allocating time to assist in this? We will
all be involved. Our team RDC, so Director Cooper Smith, Controller McCollin, Dana Kerr, Margie Rice,
and myself will be shepherding
shipping the project through because in our class UDO with the city of Bloomington, we wanted to remove
PUDs. And we did. But isn't this an interesting case study of why we need to do that? I have no issues
with it at all. I just want to point out that 145,000, if she will commit to going through the process,
that is a reasonable fee for the amount of work that's got to be done. But we need to take into consideration that we
don't have a guarantee that this is going to come through. No, but that's beyond the scope of our job.
That's right. OK. There we go. So we have a very specific role here and a very specific question before
us. Let's focus on that. Any other questions? If not, have we done public comment on the whole thing? No.
No. Is there public comment on resolution 25-130? Seeing none, let's come back to the commission. Are
there any final comments or questions? If not, is there a motion? I'll move approval of resolution 25-130.
I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Thank you. That passes.
That takes us to resolution 25131, approval of an agreement with American Structure Point, Inc. for
a feasibility study of 714 South Rogers Street for reuse as a public safety facility. Who's up? I can
do it again. You all chip in when you can. There was a group that met with four
Different three. Four were invited. Three architects who are geared up for public safety projects. And
invited four, three showed up and gave us some proposals. Then in evaluating the proposals, the team
and a very rich kind of led us in this process.
and she did use this process. And it was determined that the American structure point seems to be the
best suited for this particular project. Since it's professional services, there is not a need to put
this out to bid. We could if we wanted to, but again, there's only certain architect
groups that focus on this area. And so we just reached out to those. And again, American Structure Point
just rose to the top. And this would be a preliminary beginning step just to see if it is feasible to
use the 714 building for public safety.
And they'll evaluate structurally, is it structurally sound to be able to do it? Is there enough space?
Is there extra space? They'll also be looking at design of the site. And if you saw in Ali's group's
proposal, that part of that is coordinated
with whoever's working on the site design to determine, where is that line between the 714 and the other
part of the residential Hopewell South? Where is that line going to be drilled? What are the needs of
the public safety structure? And possibly, does it need a garage or whatever? How much land does it
need? And then that'll help determine final design
on the Hopewell South project. It is part of Hopewell South and would be part of the PUD. That way,
any of the this would also help us determine what variances would they have had to have gotten for this
to include that in the PUD so that once the PUD is done, it's going to follow through with the entire project.
So again, this feasibility study, the nice thing about it is if we like American Structure Point, if
we like the results, if we like the work that they did, they would apply it to the next steps because
this is part of the work that we need to be done. A lot of times it's good to stay with whoever does
the feasibility study because they already know that much about it.
somebody else would come in and all they'll do is try to figure out a way to redo everything. But that
is a big benefit of having this applied to the next steps. To get anywhere with having any idea of what
it's gonna cost, you know, can you do it? What's it gonna cost? Then, you know, we would need the help
of someone. And again, American Structure Point kind of rose to the top.
through the vetting process. I believe they already work with the city on some things, don't they? I
think that they are who was contracted with for the permitting process analysis with CBU and planning.
OK. So they do a lot of work here. Yeah. So in working with that, they, of course,
without familiarity with the UDO and what changes we need to be made in a PUD to make this facility
work. So we're asking for your approval. Does anyone want to add anything? No. Anna, do you have anything
else? No, I think I'll just add that they've done a lot of horizontal work here in Bloomington.
They have done vertical work with the Lafayette Police Station and the Mystery and City Police Station.
So they have really good experience there and really good cases to point to. But I think Dan and I gave
a really good summary of the process and the decision making thus far. So. And Chief DeKalb had viewed
the Lafayette Station and thought that they had done a really good job with that project. Thought it
was really well laid out. It all made sense. It all helped.
the processes go. And that's part of it, too. With this feasibility study, they'll look at what's being
done in the structure, and where can they do it in the structure best, and in what areas are best for
what. And so they'll be working very, very much with the police department in determining that. I guess
we asked for your approval. Yeah.
questions from commissions. I've got one. I had no questions and then you raise one. Say somebody else.
I don't know it's a big deal but you said one of their charges would be the structural integrity of
the building. Haven't we have already spent money to determine that that's not a problem? I think I
mean I think
And that wasn't just this year. I think that's before me. It was. But we have not spent money on a structural
engineer. We have had numerous folks come through the building. But that resolution that authorized
a lot of that pre-development assessment has not totally been exhausted. So a lot of it was with additional
consultants, but not a structural engineer. They have a structural engineer.
hand that can go through and look through the building. We've been dealing with a lot of moisture intrusion
issues. Yeah, none of that. But it was, we were contemplating tearing it down at one time and I thought
we had some engineering work to help guide us in that decision. So it seems to me there might be at
least some information sharing available. They don't want to, they don't have to do everything twice. Yeah.
There are several things that they'll be able to utilize. The 3D scanning of the building that we had
done and some various other things. I think feasibility means two different things for this. Feasibility
of this is specific to their engineering crew and whether it can be used as a police station. The previous
analysis was less so for specific police use.
whether it would stand on its own. Is it a building that can be reused? Is it structurally sound? Yes.
Has an actual engineer gone through and done an analysis and done the calculations? Part of the concern,
too, is that we've got a lot of materials in the building that need to come out. And so we're concerned
about doing selective demolition beyond where the mold mitigation was.
for removing certain materials, are we then compromising the structure? We don't know. So we need a
real detailed analysis to say, yes, you can move forward with X, Y, or Z without additional construction
work. And it would be an additional service, not part of the 57.5, but it would be to help develop a
selective demolition scope to, again, determine
the structural and architectural assessment of the existing structure is complete. So basically, we
would want them to help develop a demolition plan. The benefit of that is that if we gut it, there's
no more material to fall apart or cause problems. You're also uncovering any issues that there might be.
with the inside that you don't see because of the skeletons behind the walls. And so that's an additional
service that they couldn't give a price for. But our hope is if we progress through this, then we'll
come back and ask to help for a demolition plan. And it may be that the demolition would be such that
the RDC could pay with cash.
to get the interior demo. And again, if that's done earlier in the process, that gives more insight
into the design process. Additional questions? Ready? OK. First thing, question aspect. Cost-wise,
not hard. Not bad.
When we're looking at this from a going through the PUD as you mentioned Dana and brought this up is
that going to be part of Flint Locks that the police station force will be included also? So PUDs in
Bloomington have to be a minimum of five acres and so yes and no. So Structure Point will collaborate
with Flint Lock in the development of the PUD. The PUD has to include the 714 South Rogers Street to
get to that five acres.
Okay, so Flintlock will be assisting. The contract we just approved with American Structure Point once
they get the structural. Yes, and as part of her scope for the Flintlock agreement, it does spell out
the coordination between the BPD and whatever architect is selected. Right, that's why I saw the BPD.
The Structure Point are the engineers.
I understand it. The only question I would have in regards to it is we're spending another $50,000,
$7,000 on a building that we talked about tearing down. The police station, the police need it in place.
And this has been the best selected portion. It's still an ugly building. It is still an ugly building.
However, to replace that building in today's market, I think you're looking at several million dollars.
So yes, I understand.
The RDC saw some numbers in the past that indicated that it would only be about $250,000 to tear down.
But the real question is, how much is it to replace? And that leads me to my next question in regards
to what the value of the structure it is itself. I know there's been discussions about co-locations
of communication police stations over the last couple of years, and what
dollars besides our TIF dollars that we put into a new police station, we had a PS lit that we purchased
the showers for, and there was money allocated for the police station remodel. Is there dollars that
would be allocated towards not this thing, but if we do this and it says it's great, is it something
that will be coming back to the RDC or will that be a PS lit?
So unfortunately, because of SEA 1, we are no longer able to use public safety lit for the project.
And Jessica, would you like to comment on the bond or buyer? She missed your question. I'm sorry. No,
I got it. OK. I was just curious and encouraged through the first allocation as we look at redoing that
would already be able to be transferred over.
The public safety bond was a general revenues bond by city council and the police station project in
showers west was one of many projects in that bond. The other projects were all fire related. And when
the carries administration decided not to put the police station in showers west,
They went forward with another fire station project that was on the list. So three fire station projects
were done instead of two fire stations and the police station. So all of that bond is expended. There
is no funding left from that bond. There is no PS-lit, public safety-lit money for this project. All
income tax bonds are up.
We cannot bond with any income tax revenue right now because it's so volatile. And so there are really
very limited options, but we have been working with Reedy and Bond Council on some kind of proposal
to bring to you that explains how we could fund the police station. Yes.
The options are just much, much, much more limited as of like April of this year. So we were going along
this path with an idea of what to do. And then when that law passed on April 15th of this year, everything
changed. Just revenue-wise, that's why I wanted to ask earlier about where our revenue sources are coming
from. So realistically, RDC would have a significant portion in that. A significant portion, yeah, supporting
the police station. In police and fire.
facilities, capital improvements are a listed item of the TIF and other stuff to places. But this is
specifically listed in the list of projects for RDCs that's appropriate use by statute. We need to support
our police. And they've not had a nice place for a long time. Last question, what do you think our time frame
That's a very good question. If you ask Chief DeKalb, he would like it to start next month.
Like construction. The timeline for this initial feasibility study is six to eight weeks. But the holidays
are coming up. So in reality, I think it'll be a 10 bit later. 8 to 10. But we'll have it back in time.
That's why I'm asking the timeline with Flintlock in order that coordination as we look through to go
through the planning
commission that they parallel accordingly. Because if this report comes back bad, we may be in a completely
different scenario. That's correct. So that's why if we approve this, my concern is just aligning those
timelines so that it rolls through at the same time and we don't have any hiccups in regards to that
line. Because we need to build housing. We need to take care of our police. In the discussions with
them, we did tell them the importance
knowing what changes for the PUD that we would need as early as possible to align with the project of
the PUD. So they are aware of it. They do know that that's a primary thing that we want up front. The
other thing is make sure that it's structurally capable of doing the project. It's nice to know.
If not, stop early.
spend more than we have to. And Anna, you'll be shepherding through to make sure that they keep on time.
Yes. And it'll be a team effort. I can't do it without the rest of this group. Additional questions
on 25.31? Seeing none, let's go to public comment. I want to note there's one up on chat. Just read
it into the record. Can you scroll up, please?
I have to go prepare dinner. This is from Seth at 6 o' 6 p.m. I have to go prepare dinner, so I cannot
wait till the item comes up for discussion. Please pardon my putting in public comment in advance. I'd
like to voice my opposition to the item studying the building at Rogers and Wiley for a new police station.
I'm a McDougall's resident living just down the road from there, and I have personal reasons I don't
want the building to be the new station. Sorry, but I don't want to be a newbie.
If we're just out, I would leave well enough alone. I'm not familiar enough with the current building
situation to know if it can be repaired. And that's a scroll, please. What I do know is that regardless
of whatever the study may say, that building is not appropriate for a new police station because it
is far too large. The building is nearly three times the current building.
From 2020 and BLM to our current authoritarian state and federal government, to our nation's history,
we should as a progressive community be focused on reducing the police and carceral system, not expanding
it. Now is the time to invest in community members, not a larger police headquarters, which inevitably
will need more police.
I understand the moral question is not exactly your purview, but I ask you to please consider tonight's
decision and decisions moving forward. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments on chat? Any
other comments from the public? I see no public. All right, we'll come back to commissioners. Are there
any additional questions on 25-131? Seeing none, is there a motion? Move approval of 25-131. Second.
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of 25131, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Thank you. That passes. That takes us to resolution 25132, approval of environmental restrictive covenant
for Hopewell West, box four through seven.
And there was also a change made to this one in the two different versions of the packet, if I remember
correctly. So if you could speak to that as well. Originally, this resolution was going to be to actually
adopt the ERC and get it signed. The issue that came up is that when this project started, Hopewell
had not been planted yet. And so the legal description is tied to an old deed
that does not reflect the plan of development. And this environmentally restrictive covenant is to cover
the entire area of those blocks, including right of way as well. We had some questions. Mr. Aitken brought
up some great questions, too.
when he was looking at this and IDEM has a deadline of November 7th to have a report on this project
that's been going on at Hopewell and the due date is then and the question on the board is have you
recorded your ERC or do you not need one? Those are the two choices. So what
We have done, as there's been a lot of discussions with VET and IDEM and ANAVET, to determine
what restrictions there actually would be needed for IDEM to say, fine, you're good. And so the discussion
was had and it was decided, well, we can't actually get it recorded because
We've got to deal with the plat. And so we may be talking about a plat amendment. And that's not going
to be done before Thursday or before 7. And so what could we do to give IDEM some sort of confidence
that we're going to complete the process of doing the ERC? So what we've done.
is amended this resolution from what it was sent out on Friday. And this all, of course, come up today.
But amended to say, OK, well, we're just going to approve the language of the ERC and say that, yes,
the RDC is fine with the language of the ERC, fine with
you know, how it's structured, fine with what the restrictions are, which actually are a little bit
better than we hoped at one point. So there's been a lot of work to try to limit what it is. So this
is what IDEM is willing to go for. And so this has been prepared based on what they want to see. And
so our thought was that if you approve the language,
And whereas Austin's saying, you're saying that this is your intent to do this, to put the ERC on the
property covered by the item that's covered by the ERC. You will do that. And then approving the language,
and then we'll just record the language with the Monroe County recorder in miscellaneous. So it's a
public record that way.
minutes and anyway but this further puts the world on notice that you know this is the intention of
the RDC to follow through with this ERC process. The work that was done to prepare the ERC was just
being completed recently and as early as Friday we were still
getting some final language together on what the restriction was going to be. And so we moved to, so
the delay is due to the complexity of the platting process, basically, is the major thing. And the fact
that the environmental stuff took up until this time to be able to even look at what the ERC was going
when to cover and where. So again, we're asking that you approve the ERC language and the commitment
that we record that it'll be brought back to you as likely a flat amendment to be added, because that
way it does get added to everything under the flat. There's going to have to be some coordination with
Bloomington Housing Authority.
Green liked to go ahead with the work that they were going to do there, but they still have part of
this process. So like the last first move to the plaque that you did that adds meets and bounds language
and corrected a couple of things, it was signed off by the RDC Board of Public Works and Bloomington
Housing Authority. And it was able to go through the plaque committee
which is what I'm hoping, because there's no survey work involved with this. That's all been done. It's
just adding this environmental restrictive covenant. And the restrictions are critical. So the first
is that there would be no use or extraction of groundwater for any purpose, not for watering your plants,
not for any purpose whatsoever. There's potable water.
applied by the city. So groundwater and groundwater availability is very limited anyway. So that's not
a big issue. It shall not be used for any agricultural use. Well, that's not the plan for this area.
There is a soil management plan that was already being followed by doing the Jackson Street Nally work.
It's already a couple of the invoices you talked about earlier.
So we're already doing that anyway. And then there is a, the last one is about a vapor mitigation system.
And those are often very, very similar to what you would do with radon, a radon system, mitigation system.
And that's oxytocin shower. There's a shallow there, I don't know if they, but anyway, that's a specific,
buildings issue. But, but with inside that Hope Will West area, these four conditions restrictions would
be made. So we'd ask as if, you know, on your review of those restrictions didn't change. All that actually
did change was I pulled out the specifics about the deed and the legal description.
I did include the soil management plan, though, in case you didn't want to review that. But I wasn't,
you know, exhibits A and B are the legal description and the map. And we want to coordinate with whatever
the amendment for whatever process we have to do. Again, I believe it's a flat amendment, but we'll
need to work with planning on that.
So that's the only thing is I pulled that language out about the specific acreage of the property. And
I just called it Hopewell West for the most part, instead of four it's blocks four, it's seven, which
is what it is. So we asked for your approval. Thank you. John? So this is required by IDEM at the end
of the day. It is.
Not a lot to talk about. So if you remember the history of this, this all started due to 24 CFI or Park
58 review that was being done, environmental review that was being done. The laws of aggregation require
that if you're contemplating similar activities like housing or anything like that, any adjacent land
has to be aggregated into one environmental study, which is why we have the whole of blocks four through
seven for this, unfortunately.
really is what triggered all of this. And there's going to be a requirement of each homeowner in their
individual property to do the testing? Is that what you're saying? They want to test, do they? Yeah,
no. They wouldn't have to test. It depends on, I mean, they'd have to follow the soil management plan,
yes. Right. So well, yeah, that's it.
I thought you said it was like radon testing. You compared it to radon testing. Radon mitigation. The
radar mitigation system essentially just helps pull. Right, I know that. Yeah, just like a radon system.
So it's a very inexpensive way. So they would have to do that though. Yeah, on the, if it's not that,
it would have been a restriction to not have any ground level residential.
That is not here. I feel very fortunate that this is language that item will improve. I'm not disputing
the language. I'm just making sure we understand the homeowner responsibilities. And there's been quite
a bit of thought in my understanding that this would be more multi-family housing in the development
of overalls as well. Yet to be determined, but the slope of that
area does yield itself to more height. Okay, thank you. Additional questions? Randy? When we get into
that, we'll get back to the number of units that we can have and the conditions accordingly as we look
at the portability that we're trying to identify these restrictions that occur.
can impact that affordability. That's right, but we have absolutely no choice. This is Hopeful West.
It does not impact Hopeful East. Oh, I understand. I understand. I'm just looking at that particular
area, something we found out. And then what is this going to do? Because if we sell this land or anything
of that, we've got our environmental restrictions, which are there regardless. Yeah, they're going to
have to follow the soil management plan. They're going to have to follow.
Is that something that we would end up helping them through or end up doing ourselves? It remains to
be seen. I mean, the scope of hopeful less has not been determined yet. So I don't know that we can
get into that quite yet. OK. This is a requirement of IDEM. And we can have first floor residential
if this is accepted. And there's three parties that have to be enjoined to this. If it's a flat amendment.
Flat amendment.
And the other parties feel as though we'll have no issues accordingly. Right. And while we went through
this environmental work, the plaque was kind of happening over to the side. So they were not working
in conjunction with each other, if that makes any sense. OK. But now we are. Well, we found the tanks.
So now we found the tanks. We have to deal with it. OK. Thank you. Any other questions?
OK, let's go to the public for comment on resolution 25132. I see none here in the room. Is there any
in chat? We're not seeing any in chat. So let's come back to the RDC for the motion on 25132. I'll make
a motion to approve 25-132 as in version 2.
It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you.
That passes. So is there any additional business or general discussion? If not, thank you for hanging
in there. We're adjourned. Yeah. Thank you.