- and I'd like to call to order the redevelopment commission meeting for the city of Bloomington for December
- 1st, 2025. We'll start the meeting with a roll call, please. I see Scambalieri here. Randy Cassidy here.
- John West here. Laura, you're next. I don't think she can hear. We've got a red light on our owl. Oh,
- we have an angry light. It also has a blue light, too. Do you want me to try that? Can Laura hear you?
- You don't hear anything either? I don't think it could be on my end. Are you muted? Yeah, you can tell
- by the look on her face. Oh, wait. Is that one muted? Hold on. Oh, it's nice. OK. Hold on. Hold on.
- Can you have them both? Yeah. It is muted. There we go. Now we're good. Laurie, can you hear us? Yes.
- I can hear you, but I can't see you. I can't see you. We'll get it. We got it. Thank you. OK, we are
- part way through our roll call, and you are next, Laurie.
- Lauren McBrownie, present. And Deborah Meyerson, present. And then we have staff present, please. Hannah
- Curley-Hanson, present. Christina Finley, hand department. Cami Capsule, present. Jane Coopersmith,
- economic and sustainable development. Hannah Dregovich, economic and sustainable development. Matt Sweeney,
- hand department. Dana Curley, legal department. OK.
- On our agenda this evening, we have our minutes from November 17th, 2025. Any comments from commissioners?
- If not, I'll take a motion. Move for approval. Second. Well, first and a second, we'll do a roll call
- for approvals because we have a member online. C. Scandalari, aye. Rainey Dasty, yes. John West, yes.
- Laurie McRobbie, yes.
- Debra Meyer saying yes, minutes passed unanimously. Next item on the agenda is examination of claim
- register for November 21st, 2025. Any comments or questions from commissioners on this item? John? I
- emailed my question and got it answered, so I'm good, thank you. Perfect. Okay, just about three. Van
- Asda and Farrar, number one, page two.
- That's for our scanning. Digitation of all the previous records. Do we know how many more we have to
- get? A lot. OK. So that'll be a reoccurring cost sometime in the future. Yes. We just don't know. We
- have been in the process of digitizing our rental files for quite some time. We have a lot of them.
- Currently, what do we have? More than 30,000.
- And so this goes back to all of history. And so we've been in the process of digitizing that. We're
- really rounding out the majority of the files that we have here. But there are likely some other files
- that are in offsite storage that need to be now digitized. So some time into that. It'll be an ongoing
- thing. Well, we really hope that this will be falling off of our budget soon enough. But at this present
- time, I'm starting to say there are still three files to digitize. OK.
- block group in safety for $81,000. Yeah, it's a security trailers that we had for neighborhood safety.
- I think those are two different security trailers. The cameras. So that way we're able to.
- BPD has found them extremely helpful. As they're placed throughout town, they're mobile. If they're
- having issues in one area or another, they have found them to be extremely helpful. Real agreement or
- proper? It's a lease. It's a lease. Long term? I think it's two years. Two years. So this is for one
- year time? I think so. I'd have to pull it out. I don't remember off the tongue of my head. OK. And
- then I think the last question I have is
- A Duke question on the Showers West. Yes. Is that one month's worth of electric bill? Which one? It
- would be $223 under hand, $25.19, and it's for $7,614. It most certainly is. One month. One month. I
- think you've heard me repeat.
- on multiple occasions that at times during peak usage, it can be six, $7,000. So we have had those.
- So as we go through on a budgetary basis on Showers West and what we're going to do with identifying
- that continual cost. Okay, I'll come back to that. It's a poorly insulated building with vaulted ceilings
- and yes. Historic building. Yes, that's correct.
- With it comes some costs. That'll be something that we'll be looking at. That answers the question.
- Thank you. Okay. Thank you. If there's no other questions or comments from commissioners, I'll entertain
- a motion please on the claim register from November 21st. Move approval of claims registers from November
- 21st, 2025. Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call please. Steve Scambler,
- yes. Randy Gaste, yes. John West, yes.
- Laurie McRobbie, yes. Debra Meyers, yes. Motion passes unanimously. Next item on the agenda, examination
- of payroll register from November 14, 2025. Any comments or questions from commissioners on this item?
- I'll move for approval as presented. Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll
- call, please. Cece Campbell, Laurie, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. John West, yes. Laurie McRobbie, yes.
- Deborah Meyers saying yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next in our agenda is reports from
- officers and committees. Do we have a directors report, please? We don't have a formal directors report
- this evening, but I do want to update you guys on the process at Hopewell South. So it's been a moving
- target and up to the last day for filing for the development review committee.
- The site plan and ordinance was in limbo and changing, but it did hit the deadline. It did get filed
- a week ago from Friday. It will be going to the Development Review Commission tomorrow for feedback.
- It is not a public meeting, but there are a number of partners that review everything in that PUD filing
- for feedback. The goal is to try and get to the January 12th
- plan commission meeting but that's subject to a lot and you guys have not seen a formal site plan or
- ordinance or anything so once we get the feedback from the DRC you're likely going to have at the next
- meeting everything in front of you to take a look at and to prove whether we are or are not going to
- the January 12th plan commission meeting. Is that a realistic date that we're gonna hit? I think so.
- I mean but it depends. There's a lot of moving pieces and parts to the project.
- scenario where we have a window of opportunity to look at it prior to the meeting? Yes, absolutely.
- Absolutely. Appreciate that. Thank you. So that would probably be at our December 15th meeting? December
- 15th meeting, yes. And then so the feedback that we receive and the final ordinance and site plan that
- we have so far, of course, may be changing. Everything in those site plans can change up to the time
- it gets to council, pretty much.
- But yes, you will have a version of it hopefully within the next week to take a look at, give us your
- feedback, and then decide whether you're ready to move it forward to the next step or not. Thank you.
- Do we have a legal report? I just wanted to take a moment to kind of make sure that people understand
- the Redevelopment Commission.
- and what the statutory roles and duties are. I want to start by stating that the Redevelopment Commission
- was established for the purpose of trying to take politics out of the economic development and to try
- to put it in the hands of people that the elected officials felt
- would serve their community well, was looking out for the economic development of the community, looking
- out for the best interests of the city of Bloomington. And the statute has bestowed a lot of flexibility
- that the RDC has. And other legislative bodies or executive bodies
- do not have a lot of the powers that you guys have in economic development areas. And so you control
- your economic development funds that you receive, the TIF funds that you receive, and try to apply those
- to what you all believe is the best use of that. And others do play a role.
- The executive branch plays a role by the fact that the executive, or the, I'm sorry, the director of
- the RDC is Annika Hansen from the hand of the director, the hand department is the director for here.
- So the executive branch is involved in that way. The legislative branch is involved in
- some fiscal areas. The spending plan, which you'll see today, is required for the RDC to show the legislative
- body what you're doing and what your plans are for the future. If you're gonna do any bonding, it has
- to be approved by the legislative body. If you are going to enter into certain leases,
- It has to be approved by the legislative body. If you're going to amend the redevelopment plan, that
- has to be done through the legislative body. If you are going to change the increased TIF areas or TIF
- additional areas, then that needs to go to the legislative body. If you're going to annex properties
- outside of
- the city limits and go into the county where ATIF exists. There are a number of things that needs to
- be done through the legislative body for that. So the legislative body appoints two of you commissioners
- and the mayor's office appoints three. And they do that on
- what they believe you think is the right thing to do for the community and for the economic development
- of the city. So there's different entities involved in what the RDC does. But the RDC needs to know
- that they are autonomous. They're a separate body from the other
- from the executive branch, from the legislative body. You're a separate body with separate powers bestowed
- upon you. And again, the reason the legislature made it this way was to try to keep politics out of
- things, try to keep it so that it was purely about economic development, purely about making the city
- of Bloomington better. And so,
- Whoever appointed you feels like you have the knowledge and the skill and the ability to do that. And
- so your role is to exercise your judgment on what needs to be done here. So just wanted to kind of explain
- that. I've had questions in the last few days about
- different people's words, and I just felt that I could summarize that. And after the first of the year,
- all your appointments are for one year. So whoever's appointed next year, whether you're all reappointed
- or others join, we will have a very detailed training session.
- to really help make that clear. I've talked about that since I got here, but things have been so busy
- here and being due to get everything in line. But I do make that a high priority for January to make
- sure that everybody understands the role. So beyond that, I'm available for questions. Three questions. Yes, sir.
- One, based upon what you're saying in regards to, we have the ability to annex or eminent domain. I
- haven't read that in the books. You don't have the power to annex and you don't have the, the RDC does
- not have the power to annex. Right, but they have the, we have the power to initiate an annexation or
- eminent domain? No, if there's going to be an annexation and it's going to include the TIF area,
- then the RBC would be involved. If you were trying to annex something that was in a county TIF, then
- they may have obligations on that. And so the RBC would need to work with the legislative body to make
- sure that whatever part of those bonds would be attributable to the annexed area, that money get captured
- to pay those bonds. So you don't annex. But if there is an annex in a TIF area,
- There's work that the RDC has to do to ensure that you don't upset the obligations that the county TIF
- has. As far as eminent domain goes, the RDC does not have the power of eminent domain. It specifically
- states that in statute. However, if eminent domain or if
- Yeah, so eminent domain is listed up to the legislature, the legislative body. But if you acquire property
- in a means other than eminent domain, and you purchase it from a willing buyer, there are provisions
- in the statute related to inverse combination. So that means if you get a property such as Chavis West,
- And it has leasehold interest. You obtained the property from a willing seller. And so therefore, you
- didn't have to use them in domain. But if their leases would state, and they do, I'm trying to get too
- much into that part. But anyway, yeah, if their leases state that if the property is taken for award,
- If their interest, their interest in property, not the owner, but outside of other interests, likely
- sold interest. That those interests can be terminated by the RDC, and their lease allows that. And therefore,
- you can have the power in that case to use anybody's condemnation to take their leasehold interest.
- And when you deal with sophisticated landlords like what we've had with CFC, they know that if property
- is going to be taken by eminent domain or otherwise for a public purpose, that there has to be just
- compensation for that. And so what they did in their leases
- is made sure that that portion of whatever compensation that they would get would be theirs. They want
- the large share. So they can't limit what others would get, what the tenant would get in those cases.
- So you have the power of condemnation. You do not have the power in the domain.
- Imminent domain is taking the property from the property owner in an adversarial way. Luckily, we didn't
- have to do that for showers. Well, I wasn't even concerned about showers. I was just reading through
- the redevelopment books that have been provided by the financial advisors. With that, when you brought
- that up, I wanted to clarify in regards to it. And then the last question in regards to it, when we're
- talking about scheduling something so we can all get together to do that, what kind of timeframe would
- we be able to do that?
- everything comes at such a quick pace. If we were going to do that, is that something we would, whether
- it be us or any other individuals that are appointed, would that be something we'd want to try to schedule
- for February, March? So we went ahead and had it, because as you put it, Dana, with everybody being
- so busy and so many things coming up, if we plan it far enough ahead, then we can actually utilize it,
- because, you know. Right. The question is, do we plan it now?
- hoping that everybody gets reappointed and we have the right time frame, or I would suggest that we
- set that date and time at the first meeting. You're talking about scheduling the training? Yeah. Oh,
- OK. I wasn't sure if you were. No, I apologize for miscommunication. But no. Go ahead and try to schedule
- a training, irregardless of when it is. Because as you put it, while we may know our roles, and I've
- been fortunate enough to have been given the redevelopment statute by a couple of financial
- people and it's you know it's about 250 pages and it's you gotta you gotta have some coffee just trying
- to identify thinking ahead we can include it on the calendar approval which is one of the first resolutions
- of the year for organizational meeting because based on how things go all appointments may not be done
- by the first meeting but I'd like to try to get we can at least try and get
- Get something scheduled so everybody gets busy and there's a lot going on. I would encourage the legislative
- body and the mayor to make their appointments sooner than later so that those individuals can be.
- I do believe that they're able to serve up to 90 days after that deadline, right? It's 90 days and then
- you're scheduling when all appointed folks for 2026 are in there you might not be actually getting on
- till March or April or March, December. Anyway, that's just trying to, I understand trying to get ahead
- of the calendar. But anyway, we can do that the first meeting of the new year.
- can be as early as possible and be good for the appointments. Yes, absolutely. As early as possible.
- There's a lot there. Great, thank you. Any further questions for our legal report? Thank you very much,
- Mr. Kerr. Next item is the treasurer's report. Our treasurer's report today. Thank you. And any business
- development update? Not today, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, we are on to our new business.
- Our first item of business is resolution 25-136, which is supporting the Convention Center Host Hotel
- on the College Square property. Who would like to speak to that? I'm happy to do it. I think it would
- be really helpful. We've received a lot of comments on this particular resolution, including at least
- three emails from city council staff. What I'm concerned with is making sure that we
- loop everybody in where we've been, and I don't know if you're interested in it. I'm happy to do it.
- I'm happy to give what I think is an overview, and my colleagues can help jump in if that's necessary.
- So as I'm reading through the packet, it occurs to me that this is the kind of legislation that would
- do very well to be preceded by a memo kind of giving you all a timeline for events. As any of you who've
- tuned into a CIB meeting know,
- the Redevelopment Commission was approached, staff was approached last fall after the CIB has gone through
- the selection process of a hotelier to serve to create a host hotel for the Bloomington Convention Center.
- That hotelier had a choice of sites on which to locate the hotel. Each site had different advantages,
- different challenges.
- The site of what we call the Bunger and Robertson property, which I believe is 100 South 216 South College,
- was selected for a number of reasons. The siting along the trail is great. The proximity to the new
- convention center and the existing convention center supported the use. The property is flat.
- I think just its availability for this potential use was considered. And so initially when this began
- to be discussed, staff really evaluated the use of the property for this. And it took us a while to
- come to the redevelopment commissioners with any kind of proposed information. Details were
- kind of abstract in the beginning. It was clear that there was a very significant financial gap to close
- for this developer. We looked at a number of different structures. We talked about, can I get into these
- details? I wouldn't get in too much. Don't give dollar amounts. Oh no, but we looked at a number of
- structures to try to- Define we. Yeah. Okay.
- I think my we is general over the entire past year, but I think details were really navigated
- when commissioners got involved. So commissioners became involved, I think in earlier 2025, and they,
- along with staff, looked at different potential structures to try to make the project work, including
- a shared equity model,
- and shared revenue. Is it land donation? Is it long-term land lease? The project was really kind of
- held up and looked at from a number of perspectives. And every time the deal fell short, the city staff
- and commissioners consulted with experts in this area from Indianapolis and other markets to try to
- understand
- what would be the best way to get this to yes. And I don't want to speak for the commissioners. Staff
- feels strongly that this is a great use of this site and so continues to push on this project. As many
- of you are aware, last month at the Capital Improvement Board meeting, when was the date where you asked for a
- December deadline. At the October meeting, it was asked that the Redevelopment Commission work to advance
- a deal and communicate by December 16th with the CIB if a deal was not able to be reached. At the November
- CIB meeting, Director Killian Hanson and Commissioner John West offered remarks indicating that
- the redevelopment commission was very interested in moving forward, but that a significant gap for the
- project remained kind of regardless of how the project was being examined. The legislation that's here
- before you commissioners today advances, formalizes the commitments that
- staff believes and is asking the Redevelopment Commission via this legislation to commit to. These are
- the supports that staff believes are necessary in order to get a project to move forward. This is less
- than what the hotelier has requested, but it is the maximum of what, given the other projects and priorities
- of the Redevelopment Commission, this is the maximum of what staff feels we can responsibly
- request and correct everything that I've missed, please. Just to add, any meetings with the commissioners
- did not have a quorum. There were only two commissioners at most present. So there was no quorum for
- those meetings, just to make that clear. And also, because this involves a transaction
- There have been executive sessions and so have been, but those are confidential by statute. So I just
- wanted to make clear that there were never any non-corporate meetings of the RDC. So do you have more?
- And the RDC did in a public meeting
- ask that John West and Randy Cassidy be the representatives at those meetings if at all possible due
- to scheduling issues and just making sure that we have somebody in the room that's hearing the same
- information. So those have been the commission members that have been present. And since the packet
- has gone out, I have had some communications come to me of suggestions. So you have in
- your packet one version of that that we were putting forth. I don't know if you can share screen to
- share the other version and then the commissioners could decide which version they prefer to work with.
- And I can point out the differences. I tried to share with you just a few minutes ago. I will try and
- get that up here now. But if you guys want to continue the conversation about this while I am pulling
- this up. I might just back the frame up one more level, if I can, in my overview, to say that the staff
- and ultimately redevelopment commissioners are not
- entertaining this project simply because a hotelier asked us to use this property for a hotel. It's
- because the convention center is a pillar of our community's economic development. It will drive our
- economic development, much of it going forward, and a proper host hotel is critical to the success of
- that convention center. It was understood from the beginning that the convention center was, or the
- host hotel would be needed and that it
- would have to happen separately from the development of the Convention Center proper. But this is very
- much aligned with everything that we're doing in our downtown core from Switchyard Park through Trades
- District up to the area surrounding Miller Showers Park. So then with out incentives, it's felt and
- it's factual that you would not be able to receive a hotel at the quality
- that you're wanting to serve as a host hotel. If you went strictly by private market, the market would
- not be there to put in that kind of a hotel. With incentives, you can get developers to go above and
- beyond what would traditionally be available so that you could have something that really supported
- your convention center.
- The first thing that I was asked to add was we talked about how in the first one that the whereas at
- the resolutions 1934 and 2325 authorized the purchase of the property and for the amounts that I was
- asked to put in there the first
- The property was the west side in the southeast corner basically, and that was $4,995,000. The second
- resolution four years later was for the northeast corner. It was parking lots up there, and that was
- for $1,900,000.
- So that's the two whereas clause I added. If we could go to the last whereas clause. In this one, the
- original said that in addition to the incentives already mentioned above, the RDC had determined that
- the real estate at College Square necessary for the Host Hotel would be made available in some form
- to the Host Hotel project at no or nominal cost to the project.
- This version changes the word would to may. And if you go to number three, that impacts number three.
- So we're now pre-reads that the voluntary development commission here provides notice of its further
- commitment to the Host Hotel project by making known that the real estate at College Square necessary
- for the Host Host Hotel, so only that part of it necessary for the Host Hotel, may be made available
- in some form
- to the hotel project that no or no more cost of the project if it furthers the best interest of economic
- development in the city of Bloomington. That way the RDC is retaining the ability to look at what the
- project is exactly to determine if they believe it is a project that's beneficial to the economic development
- of the city of Bloomington and the interests of the city of Bloomington. So this basically
- change it for spam a hard yes, it's available to a hard. We really will make the commitment but it has
- to be for the best interest of economic development and for the interest of the city of Wilmington.
- So those are things that were discussed since maybe from after the board packet or the commission packet
- went out. And so
- You can decide to take a hybrid approach, and I can make edits, or if there's one of these that the
- commission would prefer over the others, then the discussion could start on that particular person.
- OK. Thank you for those presentations from staff. I appreciate all of your contributions. I'm going
- to open it up now up to questions and comments from commissioners, please.
- Well, dealing just with the two different resolutions, it would probably be appropriate at least for
- us to land on one of the two. Correct. Correct. So our discussion now is just about which resolution
- to bring forward, not necessarily the vote on accepting the resolution, but which format, which version.
- for discussion, so I believe that a vote on that, and that would not mean you're for it or against it,
- it would just mean that you're willing to move forward with a discussion on that particular one. So
- it could either be, again, what's in the board packet, what was shared on the screen, and then, so that
- way we can build from that one if you want to make changes, further changes.
- When did you send that one out, the second version out today? I just showed it on the screen because
- I just finished it while we were voting on the minutes. Okay. So, I didn't give this information until
- today or most of it until today and so therefore I'm just trying to get it out to you before. Is it
- possible to get the second version printed out?
- It would be helpful to see it up on screen, and yet I don't want to take away from seeing the public
- that is with us today. So I'll get that done now. Thank you. And if you would like to table this to
- later in the meeting, be able to get your printed copies? Not necessarily. I mean, how long will it
- take to print? Just a second. OK. Are there any other comments or questions while we're waiting on a
- printed copy to be able to consult as part of the discussion?
- So I asked that the copy that Dana just showed be sent to that email. Just said it's shared to you on
- Google Drive. Or maybe for the sake of, again, public comment, it could be put in the chat box. Yep.
- And I realize that's maybe not as easy for folks that are in person, but we'll figure it out.
- Do you want general questions now? Yeah, I think now would be a good time to use this time for general
- questions, and then we can get more specific as needed for the- Once we have a version. Yeah.
- Define nominal, please. It just means notifying just like for a dollar or for $10. So for instance,
- my recommendation if the property was made available that one, as this
- both versions say it would be what would be needed for the hotel, because it may be that that entire
- site is not needed. It may be that it is, but if it's not, you want to keep what's not. You don't want
- to give away extra. And also, I would be recommending that you do a long-term land lease for the property.
- That will give you some extra
- control on the use of the property as opposed to simply turning over ownership. And so it could be a
- long-term lease for a dollar or a dollar a year or whatever you wanted. But nominal just means a tiny
- amount so that compensation is received. And then who makes the decision on whether something is nominal
- or not? We do, correct? Yes. Yes.
- Is the land lease something that could be memorialized in this, or I mean, I'm just interested in your
- recommendation versus what we've got in the resolution. This says made available in some form, and that's
- why I put it that way, because I didn't want to get too much in the weeds. The purpose of this resolution
- is to show the RDC support for the Host Hotel.
- puts it out there that you are doing what you can to help with the project. But by using the word maybe
- instead of would be, you're saying that you definitely want to be reviewing. I think you had the right
- anyway. But still, it's making it clear that you want to review
- any project to make sure that you believe it's in the best interest of the community development and
- the interest of the city to move forward with that. So, I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I'm going to wait to
- go last. Okay. So, thank you. They're collated already. What does the May language exactly obligate us to do?
- It doesn't obligate you to do anything, honestly. It obligates you to consider it. I would say that
- you would need to in good faith consider the offering of the property. But it does not require you to.
- It's the difference between may and shall in the law. May is more of
- more just showing that you're committed to the project. And if the right project came along, that that
- is something that you would do if it was the right project. But it does not obligate you to do anything.
- You may not believe the right project ever comes along. Let me put a finer point on my question. Does
- it obligate us to demonstrate anything? If a project comes along, I don't personally think it's
- a good use of our economic development opportunities. We agree on that, we vote no. Do we have to demonstrate
- why it's not? Why we don't believe it's in the best economic development interest of the city? I think
- in any resolution that you made, it would state in the whereas clauses, and it just has to mean that
- you gave a consideration. That's all. Thank you.
- Run me through what the solution is if we pass or if we fail. Because my understanding of reading our
- memorandum with the convention center and all the rest of it, that the amount that's been obligated
- by the city is the food and beverage amount. And that the CIB has the selection of the host hotel.
- Now, when it comes down to the property and the dollars, run me through the scenarios. If it passes,
- what that would be. Or if it fails, what would that be? Because if a, I will say that the gap is very
- large right now. Well, yeah, take the gap out of it. We know that based upon the circumstances that
- there's a substantial amount of subsidy that would be needed by anybody to make this up.
- particular transaction cannot be completed, that it does not meet the interests or it just can't be
- because it doesn't supply what money's asked for, then that would be the end of RDC's discussion with
- the proposed developer and it would go back to the CIV to
- relook at how they did the RFP, see if they could maybe hone in on a few things, try to see what they
- can do to control the cost of the project, and start again with a new RFP would be my recommendation.
- But it's up to the CIV to do what they please. Basically, if a deal fails with the REC,
- It falls back to the CIB to do what they believe is in the best interest. So I just want to get one
- clarification on that. If this passes, we continue with the selected hotel development discussion. Yes.
- You mean this resolution? OK. What this resolution does, if it passes, just shows, not with this particular, just this
- developer, but with any developer. So you could pass this resolution and the current deal is trying
- to be worked out fail. And it just shows the CIB that, hey, you know, we're committed to doing this
- if the right project comes along. And so you can pass this resolution and the current deal can fail,
- which again is likely at this point. But if this resolution fails,
- It sends a signal to the CIB that they're not necessarily committed to having the land as part of the
- consideration, part of an incentive for the hotel project. Because of the gap in the quality of what
- is wanted by the CIB and the community for the host hotel, I would say,
- You're not going to get that quality unless there is some incentives available. Because the developer
- can't make up that kind of expenditure in the amount of time that they'd be running in the red for a
- long period of time. And you're not going to find a hotelier that wants to run in the red. They're concerned
- if they're running in the red the first year.
- If you don't do something to bridge that gap, you will not get the quality of the hotel that is envisioned
- for that property. And so that's the importance. Let me also chime in and say that even with a reduced
- scope, the CIV has discussed potentially reducing the scope of the hotel to help make up that difference.
- There is still a substantial gap that we can't fill.
- We have looked to other partners to see if anything else is on the table. We have explored every option
- possible and we're hitting dead ends. Would you be able to maybe just briefly illustrate if possible,
- and this might be for Director Cooper-Smith as well, in terms of there are other hotels that are in
- progress in the community. And just from a general public point of view, what's the differences between,
- let's say,
- hotel or the trades district hotel and what's needed for the convention center hotel that in terms of
- what the market can support and where subsidies needed just might help illustrate the difference and
- I'm trying not to get into really you know granular numbers but just the real estate picture of why
- this gap exists and why subsidy is needed. Well construction right now is expensive period and it's
- only going up so let's just that's
- just the market the way that it is. But I think one of the bigger differences between both of those
- hotels has to do with no parking garage. So yeah, the trades district hotel is going in without subsidy,
- but there'll be leasing spaces from the trades district garage where there is availability. And so that's
- saving $20 million of investment. So it's not a direct subsidy, but it's
- it's effectively supporting the project. You asked about kind of comparing and contrasting with other
- hotels. Posh Hotel is super high end. The market for the Convention Center Host Hotel will be lower
- than that, but it will be a nice hotel. And the key for the Convention Center Hotel is that it have
- 200 beds. And what we're finding is that the way the developer would typically
- address the funding shortfall is through conduit, you know, conduising part of the property. So having
- longer term stay units and units that were not always available to Convention Center business. And that
- was unacceptable. And it is unacceptable from a business perspective for the Host Hotel. The other variable
- I'm going to lose track of it. Speak to amenities. Yeah. So, well, the initial list of amenities
- We're comparing, say, Posh to the proposed hotel for the convention center, full service, number of
- rooms. Yeah. I can't speak to the number of rooms at Posh. I'm sorry. And this would be a full service
- hotel. So it would have a full service restaurant. But some of the pieces that we're trying to move
- around in order to drive costs down are looking at, for example, the initial version included its own
- meeting room space.
- That's already off the table, and it's been determined that that's not necessary. That's a high cost
- per square foot, so that's reduced. I'm sorry, there was one other subsidy factor that I wanted to mention,
- and it's just about the business model, and I completely lost track of it. It's the conduit, oh,
- room rates, sorry. The other major, major difference for the host hotel versus other hotels in Bloomington
- is that they are not allowed to price gouge on event weekends.
- So with the host hotel, they're booking multiple years out into the future and they have to guarantee
- low rates for convention and visitor business, whereas our other properties in the city, I said price
- gouging, which is of course not appropriate, but they're able to charge higher rates during those peak
- demand times to offset
- other slower periods. And this hotel would just not have access to that. The way that the hotels in
- this market do that is by not releasing room blocks until after the sports, IU athletics calendars have
- been released. So again, just that timing difference. The host hotel has to book out two to three years
- in advance. The rest of our hotels in Bloomington are holding onto those rooms until the 12 months or
- less until the calendars are released.
- I think those were some of the big functional ones. And then to try to get at your point, which is what's
- the difference in amenities between the others in this one? Well, you mentioned some of them. Yeah.
- Full service restaurant, full service bar. Yeah. Conference space. And I think, I wish I could quote
- the posh, the number of beds in posh, but it's significantly different. I can look it up. It's not $200
- on the point.
- So it's just a different animal. Pardon me? It may be under 100. Yeah. It is under 100. So there's just
- not enough rooms to generate. 100 would not get done with the host of them. 45. Yeah. All right. So
- that alone is a huge gap. Or his hand has been up for a second.
- Okay, I just have to get, I'm really sorry, I have to get off in about five minutes. My question really
- has to do with if we pass the, what is called the May resolution, the second one that we may offer,
- have we foreclosed any other possible option for how the land is handled? That is to say long-term lease,
- some kind of arrangement where there's, we forego interest payments on, I'm not real estate savvy enough
- to know, but certainly, really my question is, are we locking ourselves into, we can only do this if
- we do it for free for nominal cost, which is potentially open to interpretation.
- I can answer that if that's OK. So the structure is not proposed in this legislation, but this legislation
- just acknowledges that it's something that would be considered not at market value. So I think that
- a long-term lease or any other kind of structure could still be on the table for the project. That was
- your second question. Your first question was, had we pursued all other types
- I actually heard earlier that a lot of things have been investigated and I've been part of conversations
- about other, I'm really asking whether we have any option to reconsider any previous, previously discussed
- options for how, frankly, how the city retains ownership of the property as it's giving it away.
- understand your question. And this doesn't preclude you from making any type of deal regarding the property.
- For instance, it may be that the proposed project is one that that did not have a significant gap. And
- there was no need to provide that much of an incentive. Could you provide it for half price?
- Sure, you can do that. So you're still open to all other options that the deal might be structured.
- And that's why it says that basically it has to be the right project. And if it's the right project,
- then you can determine what that kind of incentive might look for. This right now is considered the
- maximum that the RDC could do. So by making that statement,
- That allows CIB to go back and figure out, you know, if the deal falls through, you can go back and
- figure out another strategy for getting the host hotel. And if they know that that could be available
- and they let that be known, they might attract, you know,
- Working on the CIB, my recommendation to them would be a different RFP with different parameters. And
- if they can let it be known that if the right project comes along, this could be a possibility, then
- that might entice a higher quality hotel to come in for whatever it is that the CIB believes would be
- what they would want to see in the host hotel. So the answer is no, you are not limited in anything
- that you move forward in the future. If this were to drag on and 18 months from now another use of the
- property comes available, you can do that. But I think by giving the CIB
- some comfort that this would be able to be included as an incentive would really help in bringing in
- a better development than if they had to reach out with no incentives. The CIV doesn't have the ability,
- doesn't have funding themselves at this point in time, so they can't put anything into it. They have
- to rely on other entities, and we did pursue
- other avenues and for other ways within the city and area to try to get further funding. And we just
- weren't able to succeed in getting it. So this again is merely saying that you really think the host
- hotel is important to the city.
- You believe in it, you believe in the Commitment Center. And this is something that you might be able
- to offer if the right project came along. But it doesn't mean you have to offer it as is. It may be,
- again, that the incentive is $3 million. And so you would offer it for the $3 million discount or something
- like that. So it doesn't stop you from doing any type of negotiation.
- OK. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you all. I'm afraid I have to sign off. Thank you, Lori. We still
- have a quorum. Back to where I was trying to go. Sometimes I'm thick-headed, and it takes a minute to
- get through to me. So when I'm looking at this, based upon the gap we have, this is authorized in the
- Senate, but it's still going to go back to the CIB. They've got a December 17th.
- timeframe that they put, we've got a significant gap run, unable to meet at this present moment. And
- whether it passes or fails, it's still going to go back to the CIB for... It's still going to go back
- to the CIB. This would just say what, if you're committed to it in this manner or not. Well, we purchased
- the property, so that's a pretty significant commitment that we've made. Now we're talking about how
- we either get repaid
- back since this was purchased with TIF funds and Convention Center has been F&B in the Convention Center
- portion. So as we've talked about Posh, we've talked about Trade Center Hotel, we did make a concession
- on the Trades District Hotel where we discounted the land and we allowed for a payment structure that
- didn't start until after they were open.
- So when we look at how we're looking to do this, because of the way the dollar's in at the 6.895 million
- that we've got in it, it's a matter of how, whether it be a year, two years or such, we actually would
- be able to get those dollars back into the TIF funds, whether it be long-term land lease. And as I look
- at this, it seems as though we need to be able to give very clear direction to the CIV from a financial
- standpoint
- of what we're able to do and then be able to make sure that the TIF can get repaid in whatever manner,
- whether it be land leaks, whether it be delayed payments, whether it be in the overall tax revenues.
- So that's my concern. It's going back to the CIB is what I'm gathering here, irregardless of which way
- this goes. Right. It's just what kind of comfort level the CIB is going to have
- And this type of incentive wouldn't be one that was paid back. This would be one where you're providing
- the land for the project for economic development purposes or what the value of the increase in the
- economy that you would receive and Bloomington would have. So you're basically, by putting in the money,
- you're buying
- um, by economic success, I guess in a way, by, you know, the success won't happen to the extent that
- it could without this incentive. And so the purpose is to provide this incentive so that you can draw
- in the right project. And again, you get to decide if that's the right project or not.
- My main concern is I'm hearing between what we don't from a gap standpoint, the selection of the hotelier
- that's there, the discussion CIB has had in regards to reduction, which you don't want to reduce if
- you don't have to. It's still not enough. Still not enough. Irregardless. It's not enough.
- And my understanding of the resolution was also to signal, this is all we have. There's nothing left
- on the table. Quit asking.
- Because this is all we have to give to the project. We can't meet the gap. We can't get the deal done.
- So we'll go back to the CIB here, regardless. And as I look at this, we put in $6.895 million into that.
- And whether it be something similar we've done previously, where we gave a discount or allowed for the
- payment to come back in a two-year, five-year, 10-year, whatever that time frame is,
- that we have a definitive plan that can be put out in the CIB can do that from an RFP standpoint so
- they know specifically what it is. That is up to the CIB. The only reason that we're involved at this
- point is because they selected our site, right? So we have absolutely done everything that we could
- to try and figure out how to get the deal done. And ultimately, the wall is the wall. We are at the
- wall. It's the financial wall.
- two questions. One is, is it possible, even though I realize we don't have an actual specific proposal
- right now, but in terms of the figures, we're talking about the gap and how what the RDC has in front
- of it in terms of this resolution is not going to fill the whole gap. Is there any way that we could
- put some relative number on there to illustrate for people, public who are listening, what the
- relative gap might be just because I think that's not fully appreciated without hearing something even
- though I realize again we're not talking about a specific proposal right now but I think it's important
- to understand what the RDC has in front of it in terms of our commitment of where that helps and where
- you know where they're still and just trying to again illustrate that for folks. In the real estate
- world and maybe John you want to speak to this as well is that sometimes those terms can come back to bite you.
- If you disclose them, it may hurt the CIB in future negotiations to know what has already been out there.
- So that's why you have executive sessions to talk about real estate transactions. Some of this stuff
- is confidential. I would be very leery about disclosing what that gap is, but please understand that
- it is significant. Okay. Now that's helpful. Even just to put it in relative terms. Again, I understand
- the hesitation of putting a specific figure on it, and I'm not asking for that, but just
- to give the sense of that what's in here is not all that needs to be addressed at this point. I have
- some non-local examples that might help just for scope. Hotel Carmichael in Carmel, Indiana. I'm sorry,
- I can't remember when it was initially built, but I think it's 10 years old. I think they were in $45
- million 10 years ago, and they have a shared profit model. They have never collected on that shared profit.
- And they just did an expansion, or they committed to an expansion this year that will add rooms. I apologize.
- I don't know how many. And I think that was for $16 million. And I'm sorry. I can't tell you how many
- rooms that's buying, adding 60 rooms. So that's a large number. And then in Indianapolis, the numbers are even
- larger than that, I think it's like $100 million for their host hotel, which is not, you know, it's
- not really an appropriate comparable, but it can kind of indicate the numbers are significant. Given
- as a percentage of the total development cost, right, in terms of like what that subsidy is as a portion
- of the total development cost, again, I realize that's kind of off the cuff, so I'm not asking you to
- do the math on that right now unless it's easy. But I think that would be helpful to understand
- the share of public subsidy that's going into the other examples that you're looking at just so we can
- try and get our heads around, you know, the picture that is part of our discussion. I also believe that
- we discovered along the way as we were discussing potentially shared ownership model that other examples
- of these projects not only, I should say, they're in the red. They're not producing the payback that
- you think that they are.
- Which was surprising to us. Sure. But from an economic development standpoint, even if the hotel itself
- is in the red, presumably there's the larger economic development that is intended to be a benefit to
- the community. I'm not sure that we have that off the top of our heads. Right. No. And I'm just trying
- to, again, kind of connect certain dots in terms of like, why do you do something if it's just going
- to put you in the red while there's the ancillary benefits of having
- that lost leader, let's say. Anyway, so I'm just trying to put it out there so that, again, the bigger
- picture is understood in some way. And I think we also have to talk about how capital stacks come to
- be, too, because if we were to retain the ownership of property, it can be a barrier to financing for
- developers as well. So we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot or anyone else for that matter.
- So I just want to be very clear.
- So I can speak a little bit to the model in Carmel if that's helpful for the group. It looks like that
- deal went over budget. It opened in 2020. And they did the math in 2017. The total project was $58.5
- million. And then it looks like they had $15 million in bonds and $25 million private loan that I believe
- was not repaid.
- So that's 40 million city incentives, and that's 68% of the total project cost. OK. Thanks. So that's
- helpful, just to have those relative numbers in terms of hundreds. And that's just an example. I'm not
- saying that's industry standard, but just for scope. Well, it talks about operating in the red. It just
- doesn't mean that the hotelier is operating in the red. It just means the structure put back to where
- they get some reimbursement.
- is in the red because there's not enough, you know, the hotel has to make a profit to be able to run.
- So it makes a profit to be able to run, though after it does that, there's nothing left over. Which
- gets to my second question, which is related to what Commissioner Cassidy was asking about, which is,
- one, there is an example from the trades district hotel in terms of how they structured that business
- model so that
- There would be compensation, but it's deferred. And then the other part, which is I was a little confused
- in terms of his question about the possibility of instituting a long-term land lease that could potentially
- have some repayment. And I felt like your comment was saying that this resolution would not allow that
- possibility. So I'm trying to get some clarification on that. It would allow that possibility. OK. This
- is basically saying this is the most
- that we could do. We may not do the most, because it may not be the right project, or you may not need
- that much of an incentive, or we may be able to structure it in a way where, you know, you do lease
- the land, but for the first 10 years, it's a dollar, and then after that, it actually has some sort
- of value. It depends on what kind of structure the deal would turn into. So, again, it's like, Laurie asked,
- This resolution does not obligate you to do anything or limit what you can do down the road. It's just
- a formal statement from the, especially, everybody's been talking about the May, I think, and especially
- using the May language. But without some sort of support,
- expand that this RDC is making for the support of the CIV and looking at other options would not be
- able to say that this is a decent possibility. That's what you're saying. This is a decent possibility.
- If the right thing comes along, we'll do something like this. But it doesn't mean that you can't structure
- some other type of deal. Again, maybe they don't, maybe they only need the incentive for
- four years, five years, 10 years, whatever. Yeah, then that opens the door for being really creative.
- So this does not stop you from being creative going forward. Again, to me, it's merely telling the CIV,
- look, we are committed. If the right project comes along, we could do this much. Right now, don't know
- that we could do more. We know that we're not getting in
- from any other partners. But I think the CID, when they leave, needs to have some confidence that in
- the right scenario, you would support offering that up. So again, by using the word may, you have, and
- I think even with wood, you would need to approve what the project was anyway.
- But May really kind of makes that clear. And I think that the CIB would like to hear at least that this
- is something that they can say is on the table when they're trying to get the right project. OK. Thank
- you for that clarification. Madam President, would it be accurate to say that we are leaning toward
- version two of the May language before we go further?
- Whoever makes a resolution can state which one you're making the motion on. Which resolution you're
- on. And before we do any resolution or, you know, we're obviously going to open for public comment.
- Sure. Yeah, we do have some folks online that would like to comment. I would say when you do your may,
- or that, you know, I propose this, you state what, which one you're making the motion on. And that way
- it'll be clear. Yeah.
- Are there comments from commissioners or questions before we open it for public comment? One last comment
- in regards to it because we do have two resolutions that we'd be considering that would change things
- and we just received it. I feel a little uncomfortable voting on a different resolution when the public
- as a whole has not had a chance opportunity to look at it. So are you proposing that we table it until our
- December 15th meeting so that there's a chance for the public to review the amended version? From a
- complete transparency standpoint, I would like to see something of that nature. And Dana, you've done
- a great job by trying to get it down so we can get things moving. But to come in at the last minute
- concerns me. Not anyone here. Everybody here has the opportunity. Do we have a quorum for our December
- 15th meeting? I'll be here. I'll be here.
- And I don't want to kick the can down the road, but I want everybody to have the opportunity to look
- at it. Yes. Yeah, I don't necessarily object to that, but I would strongly insist that everyone who
- has come here tonight to offer comment be allowed to offer comment. I agree that that would be appropriate
- and necessary. So before we, I just want to clarify, are we moving from commissioner comment to public comment?
- Will we have an opportunity to return to commissioner comment? Before we vote? Yeah. We should. I'll
- ask that again. Will we have opportunity for comment by commissioners after public comment? As long
- as I believe that's the protocol. There's no restriction in doing that. OK. I mean, it didn't honestly
- make good sense.
- hear what people have to say. Yeah. Because I think public comment may inform some of our comment and
- thinking. Exactly. However much time. Can we do in person and then online? OK. So we'll start with in
- person, and then we'll do online comment, please. So in terms of public comment, who would like to go
- first? Is there anyone in the room? Please, if you would come to the table and use the microphone.
- If you are online and you want to speak, please raise your hand. Hi. And your name, please. My name
- is Greg Alexander. First off, this seems like a bad way to treat the taxpayers. Looks like giving $7
- million to a private business with the twist that we were told that wouldn't happen. Second, it looks
- like a bad process. Do you want to stick your necks out for this boondoggle? It looks like the mayor's process.
- I haven't even seen that she's like announced that this is her plan. So it's like it hasn't even been
- sold to the people. And a failure to plan is no excuse to rush into a mistake. Third, it's a bad way
- to treat the city itself. This commission, the rest of the city's parks department has bought a lot
- of land in the last couple of decades since I've been paying attention that is sitting empty. That's
- worse than private ownership.
- It's not good stewardship. We have a real estate scarcity and this buddy is contributing to it. If we
- don't have a good plan, we need to come up with a better plan. We can't abandon stewardship. And finally,
- it's just a bad way to develop the Convention Center. The City Council Center letter to the CIB at the
- beginning of this year, I think, asking them to refrain from building any gerbil tubes. Instead, we
- need to integrate
- pedestrian center transportation into the city's transportation. If the city can't serve the needs of
- the pedestrian transportation, it sure as heck isn't going to drive pedestrian foot traffic, literally
- foot traffic. The stated mission goal of this whole project, foot traffic, literally foot traffic pedestrians
- downtown. That's not going to happen if we have segregated transportation within the facility. And so for this
- particular property the answer for transportation is obvious the beeline already exists it already has
- a bridge over third street we've already paid for that facility we already maintain that facility we
- already own that facility we should use that facility the whatever is developed here whether it's a
- hotel or some anything else needs to connect to the beeline as its first priority and the existing convention
- center needs to connect to the beeline and the CIB has abandoned this even though the council has asked them
- consider this a priority. If we're going to give something away, get something in return, get it in
- writing from the CIB, we're not building any more gerbil tubes, we're going to use the beeline, or,
- you know, we have to do something, you can't just give a blank check to another unit of government.
- You have a responsibility for this redevelopment. Thank you.
- Okay, is there anybody else? Hi, it's about Piedmont Smith City Council District 1. So I wanted to refresh
- everybody's memory that on May 6, 2024, eight of the nine city council members signed a
- a letter to this body regarding the property in question and its use for a hotel for support of the
- convention center. And we clearly stated that we did not want to have any other taxpayer funding go
- to this project, including the hotel, other than the food and beverage tax.
- And that we, you know, we recognize the two purchases that added up to almost $7 million by the RDC
- for this property. And we felt that money needed to be refunded back into the TIF because there are
- many more important and urgent community needs than a hotel for the convention center. That's eight
- out of nine council members.
- Although Attorney Kerr did outline at the beginning of the meeting, you know, the different responsibilities
- of the RDC versus the counsel versus the executive branch, this is taxpayer money, and we are the elected
- representatives of the taxpayers. And I feel strongly that we should have a say in this. And the only
- reason it didn't come
- to the City Council as a purchase to begin with is that it was divided between two parcels that individually
- did not add up to $5 million, but if they had been done together, that would have been something that
- would automatically go to the City Council for approval, as it should. I very much respect everybody
- who serves on the RDC and the director of the RDC and our economic development director.
- But we are elected and we also have the best interests in mind of the city of Bloomington and the economic
- development of Bloomington. And we should be looped in, at least as a courtesy that this was happening
- today, but more profoundly be consulted as to what is done with this high amount of
- taxpayer revenue. Just to me, it seems premature to kind of broadcast that you'd be willing to give
- away this property. It seems to me that the CIB could do another RFP with revised qualifications and
- then see what happens. This whole thing is premised on one developer demanding certain things.
- And along the way, we've heard from the CIB that some of the things are fungible. Well, let's throw
- it out there. Let's see what other developers might take a bite before we give away the farm and say,
- hey, you know, you don't really have to negotiate. We're just going to give this to you, which is what
- you would be signaling with this resolution. So thank you very much.
- Good evening, John Weichard. I'm here as president of the Capital Improvement Board. I came to speak
- in favor of your wood resolution, so I'm just speaking generally now and making observations about whether
- it's your wood or may resolution that you intend to look at. I've written my remarks to keep myself
- disciplined and to save you time, because otherwise I could ramble for more time than you might care
- to listen.
- And I want to express my appreciation to Jane to Anna to everybody who's been involved in this project
- it's taken it's taken time, but it's complicated and that's why it's taken time and I appreciate everybody's
- efforts as we move this forward. And I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in regards to
- this project, as you know, in 2019.
- The College Square property was purchased and offered in support of the Convention Center expansion
- project, which has always included a host hotel. That's always been part of the project. Since then,
- the property has been off the tax rolls and generated no property tax revenue for the RDC or for TIF
- benefit. But priorities change. Goals change. The new administration has different priorities than the
- previous administration. And I respect that.
- In October of 2024, the Capital Improvement Board selected Dora Hospitality as the developer of the
- hotel and Dora had a preference for your site over the locations the CIB offered in the RFP. The reality
- now is there is a significant funding gap that exists for development of the hotel as described in the
- RFP and which including the purchase price of the property. There's a significant gap.
- Although all three of the hoteliers who responded to the RFP told us they could in fact build what we
- described in the RFP. They were confident they could do that. In an effort to narrow the gap that exists,
- the CIB has offered to reduce cost in the design by approximately $15 million from Indora's estimate
- by revisiting those design elements because we too want to help close this gap.
- That's a bell we won't be able to unring, just like it's a bell that you will not be able to unring
- if you offer this property in some fashion. We know that. Even with that, a significant funding gap
- still appears to exist. Let me acknowledge in this debate there are goals in conflict, and all of these
- goals are legitimate public goals, be they those described by the council, be that those described in
- this project. But I would like to point out that the economic benefits
- of the expansion and host hotel have been identified in market analysis to include the potential for
- $9 million in new annual revenue to our community from increased visitors who will frequent our hotels,
- shops, restaurants, galleries, and performance spaces. $13 to $18 million annually if you include new
- jobs and increased revenues in food and beverage, innkeepers, and property taxes.
- 500 new jobs associated with the expansion, a new hotel, and downtown businesses. The College Square
- property is clearly the best location for the host hotel because of its proximity to our square,
- our shops, our galleries, our restaurants, and the best walkable opportunity for visitors to interact
- as pedestrians with our communities. If the resolution, if whatever resolution passes, I am confident,
- I am totally confident
- that both the RDC and the CIB have done everything possible for the development of the host hotel on
- this site. We can ask no more of you, and we have given what we can give. It will be left up to Dora
- Hospitality to increase its investment of private capital to close any remaining gap. That's up to them.
- We've each done what we can do. If the resolution fails, the RDC and Dora
- If resolution fails and the RDC and DORA cannot reach agreement, the CIB will continue to work with
- DORA on their interest in our available properties. We selected them based on an RFP that offered South
- and West properties. If this fails, if this project fails with you, we will still go back to DORA and
- say, South and West were in the original RFP. Do you have interest in South and West since this was
- not possible with the North site?
- If that is unsuccessful, the CIB will be back at square one with a new RFP for hotel developers.
- To be clear, a full-service 200-room host hotel is a requirement. It's not an option. If a new RFP happens,
- I see the same funding obstacle to development on your site of a hotel if the developer is required
- to purchase it at full price to recover cost. I simply see that as happening.
- And if not a hotel, I'm not certain what other private developer can offer you what provides the same
- economic benefits to our community on that site as what a host hotel will provide. So I urge your support
- for a resolution to move this forward. And I hope you will view this as an investment and not a loss.
- And I thank you for your time.
- Okay, let's move to online public comment, please. Jerry, can you unmute? Okay. Can you hear me now?
- a little late to the party and a little bit late to this meeting, so I really just have some questions.
- First of all, I'm in favor of the host hotel on that site. But if it can't be built on that site, just
- either west or south would be okay with me. So the questions I have are, what did the city pay for that
- property, the bugger ownership property?
- Do you want to clarify the purpose of this period of time? Yeah. So I'm just going to clarify that public
- comment. You are certainly welcome to answer questions. However, it is not a Q&A period. So we will
- certainly take your questions into consideration. But that's not part of our part of today's public
- comment. So comments are one way. I will note in terms of the revised resolution, which again,
- We may wind up timing this so that the public can see it and that would answer the question, but the
- revised resolution does include the information on the figures on what the city paid for the site. So
- I'm just going to mention that because it's something that public in person and online. I don't remember
- if online it was put in the chat, but just anyway. It is in the chat and we did share it on the screen
- for everybody. Anyway, so just bottom line is public comment is welcome, but it's one way.
- Okay, so I'm in favor of the hotel, but I'm not in favor of giving away the land. As someone mentioned
- earlier, it is tax-prepared money, and it should be just given away. I would recommend that they be
- considering a long-term lease with maybe a dollar a year for
- I think the economic life of a hotel is about 40 years. They could probably live a little over 50 years,
- maybe. That's without any renovations. So I'd recommend, at least the city would retain ownership that
- way and be able to use it for hunting in the future if they choose to. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.
- Anybody else online for public comment? Does anybody else have a comment?
- see a hand raised. Hi, good evening. Thank you for letting me speak. This is Hopi Stossberg, City Council
- District 3. I appreciate that my colleague Councilmember Piedmont-Smith was there in person and already
- spoke to the letter that we sent and I just wanted to highlight that as well and say that I am still
- in agreement with
- that letter that we sent over, I think it was earlier this year. I don't want to give that land away.
- I think that that's not appropriate. And I understand having to close a financial gap in terms of,
- I mean, I think I looked at the assessed value of that land earlier today, and we paid significantly
- more than the assessed value of that land. And that's one of those disappointing realities that I'm
- looking back at what I know before I was involved.
- It was this decision made by somebody who might not even be at this table at this point. And now we
- have to manage the consequences of land purchase that now we can't get back in full value. But I think
- that the resolution as it is currently written, I have not reviewed the revised edition. I think that
- it goes too far in saying that we could potentially just give it to somebody
- So I hope you take that into consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next public comment.
- Andy? Yeah. Yeah, I'm here. Can you hear me? Mm-hmm. Yes. I can be heard? Yes, sir. Well.
- Uh, Isabel Piedmont-Smith, my colleague on the council was very well spoken in her comments. And, uh,
- as, uh, President Hopi Stossel also explained, uh, she feels the same. And my discussion with council
- members is that the vast majority, super majority of council members still feel very much the same.
- And that sort of takes me back to, uh,
- point was made very early in the meeting or a comment that was made at the early part of the meeting
- about politics and about the difference between the duties and responsibilities of jobs and workings
- of the various elected representative bodies in the community. And, you know, I've always objected to
- that term, use of the term politics as something that a legislative body does, particularly at the local level.
- somehow not primarily motivated and done in the interest of the community overall. I think politics,
- its simplest definition is just the activities associated with governing in an area. And we all share,
- all of us share the interest of bettering the community in what we do. That's why what we do and it's
- what drives our decisions, whether it's the RDC,
- the CIB, the city council, the county council, the mayor's office, whatever. But part of that, a big
- part of that community interest and bettering the community that I feel is not really being touched
- on here is the issue of trust and trust in the larger community. The community believes and understands that
- F&B tax was what was going to fund this project. Now, we can't say on one hand, oh, the hotel is an
- absolute essential integral part of the project. Mr. Whitecarb just got done saying it is part of the
- project. It's part of the project. And yet also, on the other hand, say, oh, but it's actually a different
- part of the project. So we can sort of think about it differently, pretty differently when it comes
- to funding that.
- It's not. The public will see that as not a face on a space argument, I feel like. I feel very strongly
- that that's how the public will feel about this. Council members have been supportive in large part
- or in part due to the understanding of
- the food and beverage tax being the source of revenues, then we're not gonna have mission creep and
- we're not gonna be taking from other funds that are critical and essential for other uses in the city.
- And the council members who were skeptical, those council members who've been supportive, that was part
- of the understanding. The council members who have been skeptical predicted just this kind of thing,
- just this kind of cost overruns and the need to dip into other revenue sources
- And I really believe that this undermines the public trust. At the very least, please take, table this
- for now, postpone until the next meeting. There's a lot of things to think about. Maybe, you know, maybe
- there is an arrangement. Mr. Hayes' comments.
- supporting the idea of not giving it away, but having some kind of a lease arrangement where the city
- retains. Maybe there are some good options that would be acceptable to the majority of people
- and stakeholders and preserve the interests of the community, but also allow the project to move forward.
- But there's no time right now for a lot of us to actually to get our head around.
- some of those options. So at the very least, please postpone. One last question. I just want to throw
- out, for example, a statement was made earlier that, well, the hotel for the convention center won't
- be able to charge premium pricing during events like other hotels can. Well, if they're not having an event,
- at the convention center, but there is a major community event going on, like a football game with the
- new success we've seen, and with the IU program, or other large event. Does that mean that the convention
- center will not be allowed to, or will not increase their prices at all, or premium prices for rooms
- during those events, because they're not having any kind of convention possibly during that event, and if so,
- Does that undercut the other hotels that someone earlier in this meeting said kind of rely on those
- big events to make up for the down times? I mean, there are still a lot of questions here. Please postpone,
- at least for tonight. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else online who would like to make a public
- comment? It appears none.
- So I will return it to commissioners if you would like any further discussion before either a motion
- or a table. I'd like to see us determine which resolution we're going to look at either further tonight
- or whether we defer it. We ought to land on one resolution, so let's do that.
- So with that said, I'm going to move for version two that has May in it and make that our kind of our
- binding document. So we have a motion on the table not to vote on the resolution, but to opt for which
- resolution will be part of our business agenda. I'm just restating that for clarity. So we have a motion
- for that. Do we have a second?
- Okay, we have a first and a second on opting for the revised for the agenda. We don't need to do a roll
- call vote because Lori is no longer online. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so we have
- unanimous approval for the revised resolution for discussion. So the next item for discussion is,
- want to vote on this. Do we have any further discussion about which resolution we're talking about?
- It's the amended version. Any further discussion about that? And at the point that discussion may be
- done, again, I've heard a couple different options, which includes either a motion to vote on this or
- possibly tabling this because of some other issues that are part of the discussion tonight, not the
- least of which is that
- While the commissioners can see this and while some of the public has seen the revised amendment, that's
- not universal. I would make a motion to table this to the next meeting so that there's full transparency
- in regards to it. I'll second it. Okay, we've got a first and a second to table this amended resolution
- until the December 15th meeting.
- where we can have any further clarity or information that's needed, again, starting with sharing the
- revised amendment for public circulation. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, so that table, motion
- to table passes unanimously. I have one request, if I may, in terms of what may be on the agenda for
- December 15th.
- So certainly the revised resolution will be there. At the beginning of her presentation, Director Coopersmith
- mentioned that normally a memo might accompany this kind of resolution. I think that's definitely needed
- here. I mean, certainly the comments we've heard today, the clarification we've heard is all good stuff.
- Having it in writing for people to review, especially people who are not literally at this meeting right now,
- would be really helpful. So whether it's a memo that just explains a lot of the good information that
- we've already covered today, but just to put it in a written form that can be part of the discussion
- that would be really helpful. Okay, that was our first resolution on the agenda. We have about 20 more.
- So we are going to move ahead.
- to resolution 25-137, approval and extension of resolution 22-18 for construction inspection agreement
- for improvements along 17th Street between Monroe Street and Grant Street. It looks like we have Mr.
- Ayton here to talk to us about it. Thank you. Roy Ayton with City Engineering Department. These next
- three resolutions as well as the last three resolutions, we'll hear the CV, is they're more of a housekeeping
- item. These are all resolutions that have already been approved.
- funding's been added for projects. For one reason or another, the project's gone over. We're asking
- for extensions in the expiration dates on the resolutions. The first one is for the 17th Street project.
- The original resolution expired, I'm not sure, yeah, December 2023, but we actually have VS Engineering
- still on that project and we're still working out with it's an in dot job so there's issues with in
- dot and a final change order and the final construction record and it's been idle for a while but that
- is coming back up so there would maybe some more funding that will have to be applied to that we're
- not asking for additional funding from any of the resolutions just the extension of the
- the expiration date to December 31st, 2026. Okay, thank you for that presentation. Any questions or
- comments from commissioners on resolution 25-137? Yes. Yeah, you just mentioned this has been idle for
- a while. Is there a reason this hasn't come to us sooner with the expiration date of 2023? We did not
- realize it expired. Okay. And then when we submitted a
- Invoice it was caught this hey, this is actually expired resolution. Let's go ahead and Extend it. So
- yeah We wouldn't process the claims As they shouldn't and this one was already expired some of the others
- that you're gonna see this evening There are expirations in at the end of the December of this month
- It's not going to let us we're not going to be finished with the project. So those were just asked it
- for extensions and
- But it is a good time for us to go through all of our resolutions to make sure we're right with our
- expiration dates. And on some of them, based upon the state additional funding, you may have to come
- back for something. Yeah, well, additional time, the existing funding. Yeah, we don't need any additional
- funding at all. That's okay.
- Okay, well, if there's no further questions or comments from commissioners, I'll open up to public comment
- on resolution 25-137, either online or in person. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion for this resolution,
- please. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 25-137. Second. 25-138 and 25-139 together. Can that be done?
- Well, we didn't present it that way in terms of the vote, but we can look into that for the next resolution.
- Would you like to stay with 137? 137, I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Okay, first and a second,
- all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Okay, so we now have resolutions
- 25-138 and 25-139, which it sounds like Commissioner Cassidy might like to suggest that we consider together.
- Since they're just time? Right. Is it still an extension? It's just an extension of time for the last
- two as well? On both of these, it's once again just an extension of the expiration dates, changing the
- funding. But I can go over any details on either resolution if you want to. But for clarity, it is 25138,
- 25139, and then also 25149 and 25150. Is that correct? Later at the end of the agenda, yeah.
- 148, 149, 150. 138 and 139 are basically the same project. And it's a different project at the end.
- So I suggest you split them up. OK. So we'll keep 138, 139. You can talk about both. When someone makes
- a motion, make clear that you're making a motion for both. And then commissioners can decide if they
- want to accept that motion. So we'll listen to Mr. Eaton explain.
- for the next take. Thank you. So resolution 25138 and 25139 are both for the B-line extension project.
- That project was delayed for environmental reasons. It was pushed out for about a year. So once again,
- we had some expiration. The two resolutions before you expired. All the other resolutions that were
- with that project had all, although expired, we've already expended the funds. We didn't need it.
- These two resolutions, the first being for railroad flagging, for safety flagging that's on the railroad,
- and then also for our construction inspection contract with the project. We're asking for extensions
- on their expiration dates. We will have additional invoices coming in for those two projects.
- Not much left, but there will be some funding.
- In both situations, we're asking the expiration date to be extended to December 31st, 2026.
- And once again, no additional or no changes in funding requested. Thank you very much. Any questions
- or comments from commissioners on these two? If not, I will entertain a motion, please. Clarification.
- You said there's additional funding, which I assume are additional invoices that will need to be paid. Yes.
- but you're not gonna be in front of this body asking for additional money. Yeah, so at this point, these
- contracts already have a not to exceed amount. Resolutions are matched, those not to exceed amounts
- were under that for what we're paying out on the contracts. So we do not need any additional. I assume
- that's what you meant, but I wanted you to clarify. Yeah, thank you. Okay, thank you for that clarification.
- If there's any further comments or questions, if not, I'll entertain a motion.
- Again, the proposal is that the motion would be for both resolution 25-138 and 25-139. I'll make a motion
- to approve 25-138 and 25-139 for extension as presented. Second. We've got a first and a second. All
- in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion for both of those resolutions passes unanimously. Thank you.
- Next item on the agenda is resolution 25-140, approval rank credit for Dimension Mill, Incorporated.
- Who would like to speak to that? I'll speak to this. As commissioners undoubtedly remember, the south
- wall of the Dimension Mill at 642 North Madison failed earlier this year due to tuck pointing issues.
- That wall, well, the commission approved repairs, emergency stabilization, and then repairs. The wall
- was taken down.
- and then rebuilt brick by brick with new mortar, proper tuck pointing. It looks great. It's back in
- service. However, it was offline for 122 days. This caused major revenue challenges for the mill. That's
- some of their premium space that when they're leasing it, they're able to really drive a lot of revenue
- into their operation. We're not trying to make up for that revenue.
- we did want to recommend that the RDC issue a rent credit based on the percentage of the event, the
- percentage of the total square feet of the event hall and the days it was out of service. So that's
- what this resolution does. Just to back up one more step, the lease does not offer a provision for this.
- It was silent on this. It makes a recommendation.
- offers a provision for if the redevelopment commission is inactive and doesn't make a correction or
- repair in an appropriate time frame, then it gives the tenant the ability to go ahead and pursue that
- and get reimbursed for it. But it really doesn't speak to this particular issue. And since 122 days
- was such a long time, Anna? I thought that so there's two different
- Lisa, I thought the first one did specify loss of use. Okay. We should check on that. Will you look
- at that? I'm looking. I'll talk through how we got to the math. So for the total amount, we looked at
- the rent payment. I just noticed, I think I noticed a mistake.
- Nope, that's correct. For the rent payment, we took the total rent with the 2% annual increases for
- 2025, and the rent amount is $104,040, which breaks down to $285 a day, and at approximately 19% of
- the 18,563 square feet.
- That yields an amount of $6,657.89. There is a slight discrepancy. If you use a flat 19%, it's less
- than the 6657.89. I was doing this in a spreadsheet, and the actual percentage is 19%.
- 0.14561224, and that's the rate that I used for the calculation in the legislation. So if you notice
- that, that's what the difference is. Thank you for that. And that's for 122 days. Thank you for that
- map. Yeah, sorry. I knew somebody would catch that. So we're trying to clarify the lease. Yeah. At least
- the renewal from 2012. Dana, do you remember looking at that?
- one of them offering help? I do not. Whether it was in there or not actually is irrelevant if the RDC
- determines that it is something that they should give a credit for. They have the ability to do that,
- whether it's in the lease or not. What that would make a difference is whether the RDC had to work it out.
- that I do not remember. Well, I think it makes a little difference, at least in my mind. If there's
- language in there that requires it, I'd like to know what the terms and conditions of that requirement
- is. If it's not in there, then to Dana Kerr's point, we can come up with a determination.
- If you want to return to this item, I'd be happy to port over the lease while you... Such repair,
- restoration, or rebuilding, all of which are herein called, the repair shall be commenced within a reasonable
- time after such damage or destruction, and shall be diligently prosecuted to completion. During the
- period of repair, and so long as the damages or destruction is not caused by the tenant, tenants, sublices,
- members, or signs,
- the rent payable by tenant herein shall abate if tenant is a totally deprived possession of the premises.
- If the tenant is able in good faith to continue its operation of its business during the period of repair,
- then the rent payable by tenant shall be reduced in the proportion that the floor area of the premises
- that is under repair bears to the total floor area of the premises. For example, if 25% of the premises
- is under repair, tenants rent during their repair period shall be reduced by 25%.
- This is section 801 of the original dimension DMI agreement. 1866. Yep. Resolution 1866. Wow. What section
- was that? That takes care of that. That takes care of that. What section was that? 8.01. So commissioners,
- you might want to consider, and Dana can give you the right language, but the whereas clause, the third
- to last whereas clause is not correct.
- So that perhaps that whereas clause could cite, was that eight, what number was it Anna? 801? 8.01.
- So it could say whereas section 8.01. Yeah. Where Dana do we, I'm so sorry. Is it even necessary because
- we followed exactly what the lease stated to the letter.
- Since it was followed through the letter, I think it's, I don't think it'd be necessary to change it,
- but I could, and if they make the decision to make that edit, I would like to do so. General Fernandez
- has his hand up. Well, Mr. Fernandez? Hi, you all. Sorry, I can't join you in person.
- in my car, so hopefully you can hear me okay. But, you know, our reading of the lease was one that is
- consistent with the resolution in that it shall, you know, you shall, you know, give us a credit based
- on the proportion of the space. You know, I would note that, you know, the way the mill's set up, the
- event hall is a different kind of space compared to coworking.
- So if we lost a section of the building for 120 days and we couldn't accommodate, let's say, eight desks,
- we could probably move that around within the mill and make it work, because there's some capacity.
- The event hall is a very different mill offering. It's leased for specific events. The lease doesn't.
- include any lost revenue, which I would note in that 120 days, we lost over $40,000 of event revenue
- where we had to give back a deposit and help these customers find alternative accommodations, which
- in almost every case, we were able to do that thanks to the great partners that we have throughout the
- city and that were able to accommodate those events.
- So I think the reading of the lease is pretty clear, in my view at least, in that the Redevelopment
- Commission as the landlord shall provide a credit. And in this case, I think it's a reasonable amount
- of money considering the total economic impact of losing the event hall.
- Thank you for that clarification. I have opened up to questions and comments from commissioners now
- if the presentation part is done. Mr. West. I have no quarrel with the abatement, but I do think the
- resolution needs to read consistently with the lease, and that sixth whereas does not. So I would suggest
- we amend it.
- And then I'd be happy to bring it up for a vote. Is that necessary, Dana? No, but I'm almost there.
- OK. I think it is. Well, it makes me feel better if you approve the work that we did. So should we just
- pause on this and come back to it so that we can have the amended language to approve it? Does that sound OK?
- can provide you that language now, if you'd like to. Okay, if that's okay with commissioners to move
- ahead with the amended language. Reflected. So the six whereas would be replaced with what language?
- Would be changed to per section 8.01 of the lease, the RDC shall provide a credit based on the percentage
- of square feet that could not be utilized.
- close enough. You've recited the section, so. People can find it if they need it. That's exactly right.
- Okay. Okay. So we have the amended language to replace the six whereas that specifically cites the part
- of the lease that applies that has been successfully otherwise done in the lease. So do we any other
- comments or questions for commissioners before we get a motion? Okay. Motion? Anybody? Yeah, I'll make
- one. Okay. I'll second. First and a second. We'll make it first.
- We have a first and a second. All in favor say aye for resolution 25-140. Aye. I didn't know I made
- it. I thought you said you made a motion. I hadn't yet. Okay, sorry. That's what I heard. Okay,
- so retroactive first. We had the vote. We're good. Okay. Okay. Okay. So that 25-140 is passed unanimously.
- Thank you. As amended.
- Okay. We're on to 25-141 approval of agreement with Adaptive Commons for comprehensive and coordinated
- design of Hopewell West Block 4. Who would like to speak to that? We would like to actually table that
- for this evening. We would like them to give you a presentation on this just to be able to provide some
- more context for the resolution. And they were unable to make it this evening. Okay. So do we need to
- approve a table?
- Okay, so do I have a motion to? Motion to table 25-141. Second. First and a second. All in favor say
- aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, tabled unanimously. Resolution 25-142 is approval of an agreement for BCMU
- Subjection Street and Alley at Hopewell West Development. Who would like to speak to that?
- Dragovich, capital projects manager with ESD. 25-142 is about an agreement between RDC and BCM who is
- the contractor at the core building. The city of Bloomington engineering department is in the process
- of finalizing construction on Jackson Street to the west of that building and then an alley to the north
- and what this agreement would
- establish is BCM's responsibility for any potential damage that they make to the street once crater
- is out of there and before the street is transferred to the Board of Public Works. Because there are
- so many constraints around the core building, they need kind of areas to place their construction materials,
- set up cranes, things like that, and they are kind of landlocked into using
- uh, those two adjacent streets just because they're so close to their building. So we want to make sure
- that, um, any damage that does happen, we don't hope that there will be, but if there is any, we want
- to make sure that, um, the RDC is covered. Okay. Thank you. Does that make sense? Any questions or comments
- for commissioners on 25 142? Yeah. Um, I see where, and I may be
- I'm practicing law again, this always upsets Dana. I see where they have an, they meaning BCM has an
- obligation to protect. I get that. But I don't see anywhere where it requires them to restore. And I
- think that the language needs to be a little stronger.
- is a brand new road. So I don't know how to I don't have a I don't have amended language. Our best management
- practices referenced somewhere else in a way that would include that. I mean it doesn't define what
- best management practices capitalized like it's a like it's a
- Is that a reference to a specific document? So it's an actual document that can be referenced? And it
- sounds like it just has to deal with stormwater anyway. It is a permit, and they have a grading permit.
- So yes, it is a document that they're already tied to.
- But it only, I agree, because it only relates to stormwater, you said? That's my understanding. That
- would be my understanding also. So it's not, it doesn't attend to everything we want it to attend to.
- Are they currently using Jackson Street now? Without authorization, is this authorization to use it?
- They, I think it's because they are, because Crater and Crater, quote unquote, owns it now because it's
- their construction site. They had been using it when it was subgrade. And so they were using it. I'm
- referring to Roy because he's more experienced and versed in the details. I'm so glad you're here, Roy.
- So Crater and Crater.
- are currently constructing the Jackson Street project, and they're not completed yet. So we have not
- gotten to substantial completion. So they are in charge of everything that they have built so far. Jackson
- Street, the alley, and everything like that. They have not allowed them on the new, because they're
- responsible for it, until we take it over. They are not allowing them on there. There are some violations.
- They're kind of moving around, but they've got it roped off right now. We are close to accepting.
- that section of street from them, and hopefully we can do that before the end of this year. At that
- point then, engineering department will accept it, get a substantial completion, Crider and Crider will
- be pretty much off the hook for everything they've built, and the possession of it goes back to the
- RDC redevelopment commission. So it's your responsibility then once we accept it. So this agreement
- then is because they want to use that area,
- is let's protect this. If they're going to be allowed to use it, they need to protect it until it's
- completed. When do they want to use it? Like as soon as possible. Tomorrow? Yesterday. So they're very
- ready. And there is language in number 12 that says that BCM shall return possession of the property
- in the same or improved condition as when BCM took possession.
- Any improvements must be improved by city staff. Where does it say that? Number 12. I'll keep going.
- There's an exhibit. No, it's in the exhibit. It's not in the resolution. The resolution is acceptable.
- I see it. Yeah, page 56 of the packet. So we did try to put protections to
- get it back at least. Okay, that's helpful. Yeah. Roy, I got a question. How are we going to make sure
- what you guys accept is what comes back? So after we accept the engineering will be done with it, except
- for we have what we call a warranty period. So we'll do a one year inspection.
- on the project to make sure it was built and there wasn't latent defects that have appeared. In the
- interim then, I believe, is it Anna? I don't want to speak for you, but you'll be watching with our
- help in engineering this also. But I think she's involved with core building in that project. So that's,
- it'll come through that.
- I understand you took photographs of existing conditions, so you would have evidence of what it was
- prior. Yes. Then it's a matter of who tore it up, and who's going to fix it, and what's the cost to
- fix it. And then, you know, unfortunately, as it is, then we as a community end up having to repair
- something that we had brand new, that we've got one contractor that finished it, and we've got another
- contractor that wants to use it to finish up the project.
- Can they work around and not get on the new road? Typically on our projects then they're turned up they're
- accepted by the Board of Public Works and become public right away and then we make them get a right
- away excavation permit because these are private private parcels still owned by the RDC they will not
- have excavation permits on them. The Blooming Housing Authority who owns the property claims that they
- will incur additional cost to try to build affordable housing
- by any delays of the BCM not being able to use these. So that's the claims that we received from BHA
- asking for this resolution. And of course, whether or not they took, planned ahead enough,
- to make sure they had some place to put their crane and things like that beforehand. I think there's
- more on them. But that is what we're being told, is that if there's a delay, it's going to cost them.
- Well, if they do damage, then it's still going to incur a cost. I can't imagine how putting that kind
- of equipment
- on a new road won't cause damage. Sounds like a timing and sequence problem that they created. They're
- probably going to try to use it anyway, if you get right down to it. Yes. And that's the realities of
- what happens in the construction world. So what's a solution to make sure that we're
- able to financially have anything fixed without finger pointing which you know because we got a brand
- we got a contractor it's got a one-year warranty period we've got a another contractor that is trying
- to build affordable housing of which we have been involved because we provided the land and we provided
- some other incentives.
- to make sure that when it's all said and done, we have affordable housing that's right and we have our
- roads that don't have to be reconstructed or we walk out and find out we just bought a brand new car
- and it's got a dead end door. I think you're on the right track. First of all, you established that
- you're not allowed on the property until you get this resolution signed and you have a memorandum of
- agreement between you and BCM saying you understand, you break it, you bought it type agreement.
- Then also you get what you inspect. So you're going to have to establish that, you know, after the project,
- you'll have to go in and you'll have to compare, you know, before here's our photos, here's your photos
- afterwards. And we'll have a collection of photos ourselves through engineering that's just involved
- with our project. Matter of fact, Criter and Criter has a selection of photos already because they're
- protecting their investment as well, because they have to warranty it. So if they do have a latent defect
- or anything that we go back on warranty, they're going to also want to prove it wasn't if it was someone
- else. And then if anyone else wants to get out there to make sure. And then we'll just have to remember
- when BCM is complete and that projects being accepted over or the expiration whenever your agreement
- is somebody goes out there to make sure that we're covered.
- My understanding of Public Works is that once the Board of Public Works accepts them into their inventory,
- it now becomes the city's, and they must get permits to be on the property through the engineering
- department. So if they accept the roads later this month, then this agreement is stated that it terminates,
- and then it becomes an issue for the Board of Public Works
- determine what they want to do. So this is a stopgap to try to get for them to continue working. Again,
- it is I make no recommendation. We're going to only this is what has been asked. And this is what's
- for you. But you said that. So we're only looking at a stopgap for what, three weeks? No.
- I wouldn't say that. Before the Board of Public Works takes it over, is what you're saying, from that
- point where Crider and Crider has completed substantial completion, and it's presented at the Board
- of Public Works, and they accept the right of way. The problem with that is I'm not sure that's going
- to happen any time soon. I don't think we're going to be taking that plat, because that would be all
- the right of way. And this is a project that you have not developed out.
- Hopewell West yet. So it's not, they're not going to assume responsibility for all the ride away to
- Hopewell West until, I believe the RDC, and you may have to correct me on this, until the RDC is completed
- with that entire block, what you're going to do, you're not going to want to give the ride away yet.
- So, and some planning may change. So it may be longer than that. Okay, now I get it. Yep. Okay.
- How do we, rather than just visual inspecting and say, you know, you're responsible, you're responsible,
- because unfortunately, you know, in these construction projects, finger pointing occurs, and then as
- a community, we end up with something that is less than desirable from our end result. Is there a solution
- to work around it, or we have none? Because we're talking change orders to summit,
- to BHA from a scheduling conflict that they can't do this to work around? I'm just looking to try to
- figure out a solution so that the community as a whole, we don't get caught up in a... What do you mean,
- summit to BHA? Well, BHA is the property owner. Summit Hill Community Development Corporation. I may
- slash that as BHA, which is...
- previously, I understand. The question I have is based on what I just heard in regards to BHA indicating
- or summit development indicating there may be a cost associated if they're not able to utilize this
- road to help complete the project. So we're in no financial situation, irregardless. If they don't tear
- everything up, it's all great. But is that our responsibility to pay for the
- No, it shouldn't be our responsibility. But what my concern is that from a standpoint of the community
- as a whole is that we buy something branded, we put it in, it has a warranty period, and then someone
- else comes in to rightfully try to do things in a sequence. Obviously, there's some schedule conflict
- that has occurred because they should probably already be at this point. And then at the end, Roy and
- Anna have to go out and say, well, it's either fantastic or
- Hey, we got a problem. And then you got to determine how we're going to get someone to actually fix
- that problem. I guess I don't understand where you're headed. I'm just trying to figure out how we get
- resolution I think speaks to it to that. Now, I also think that we take the risk of negating the warranty because
- someone else was on the property and we're going to have the great American debate forever as to whose
- responsibility it is. I'm not particularly in love with doing this, except that I know the end product
- is something that we're really trying to achieve, but I think we're
- because of their bad scheduling or whatever the case may be, you know, we're stuck approving something
- that's not really in our best interest. So... What's the consequence if we didn't pass the resolution?
- They'd have to figure out a different way to do it. Either that or they use it either way and we have
- no protection in writing. Well, if they use it, I mean, they just use it. I mean, have you been on a
- job site before?
- As soon as you know a place that's out of the mud, they're on it. You're listing our concerns with it
- as well. They're running into a phase now where they're going to start doing their subs, their electrician,
- their plumbing, their drywall people, each of their own companies. And all of them are going to park
- wherever they can park, as close to the building as possible. It's going to be nearly impossible for
- us to keep everyone off. This way, we assign
- a responsibility to somebody. BCM is the general contractor for it. All the subs are under that general
- contractor. Let them watch and let them be responsible. They violate this agreement, then you have something
- to prosecute back onto the whip. No good resolution, but we have to get the building built and we have
- to have our roads.
- This may be the most protection that we have. And you've got good pictures. You've got good experiences.
- And Anna's going to go out there every day. All good. OK. Do you feel like we've reached a level of
- satisfaction for questions on 25-142? If so, I will open it for public comment. Anything online or in
- person? Seeing none, I will entertain. Margie's got her hand up. Oh, Margie, did you have?
- Oh, sorry, I didn't see that. That's a cursor. What was it? Oh. Is it? Well, it's white. It's a cursor.
- Yeah. Yeah. OK. OK. It was positioned on Margie, but she was like, not me. OK. So there are no public
- comments. We are now open for a motion for Resolution 25-142. Approval of Resolution 25-142.
- I'll begrudgingly second it. First and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye.
- Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Since we are now well past the two hour mark for this meeting,
- I'm going to invite a momentary break of like three minutes just to kind of catch your breath, whatever
- you need to do, but be back at 721. Three minutes. Everybody good? Can we jump back into action?
- I would suggest taking the resolution 25-143 through 146 together. They're all just renumbering. Okay,
- thanks for that recommendation. Recording in progress. Okay, so we are now on resolution 25-133. We've
- had a recommendation from the director that
- We take 143 through 147 together. 146. 146, I apologize. Because they all are the same kind of renumbering
- of this. So I will invite you to talk about that to us. Yeah, we got a request from John Fernandez and
- team to renumber some of the units at the forge for ease of
- mail service, I believe it was. So Bloom was originally unit two, they would like to go to unit 200.
- Folia was unit four, they'd like to go to 103. K23 Films was unit five, now going to unit 104. Vivum,
- it was unit three going to unit 201. So this is just that amendment. Yeah, so each lease would need
- an amendment to the number.
- So any approval of the four leases would be approving the renumbering. Okay, so you got the gist of
- the next four resolutions. Any questions or comments from commissioners before we make a motion? Quick
- question. This may be for John. He's still online. I assume these new numbers were
- set up by someone other than the tenant just randomly picking a number. So this is some sequence that's
- going to work going forward. I can speak to that. Yeah, this is on me, frankly. I mean, as we were doing
- the leases, we were basing the unit numbers almost on that.
- a time basis of when someone came in and as we were developing our internal directory and internal signage,
- we thought it would make a lot more sense to come up with a rationale or a structure for the suite numbers
- or unit numbers that were more effective in terms of like wayfinding within the building. So that's
- the proposal we came up with was to have everything on
- The first floor is starting with the 100, and everything on the second floor was the 200. Just a simplified
- thing. So, you know, apologize for having to come back and spend the commission's time on these amendments,
- but it'll make a big difference in just terms of how the property's presented to tenants, but also to
- their customers. Thank you.
- Okay, with that clarification, any further questions or comments from commissioners? Otherwise, I'll
- entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. I move for approval for resolution 25, 143, 144, 145, and 146.
- Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motions passed unanimously.
- Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we are now on to resolution 25 147, which is the approval of a first
- amendment to the 2024 CDBG physical improvements grant agreement when you help her families. Looks like
- we are have to speak here to that. Yeah, Matt Sweeney with hand. This is just an extension of the agreement to
- December 31st of 2026, much farther than we should need, but basically due to prior issues with environmental
- reviews for previous projects has kind of shoved the current project back farther, so we had to extend
- the agreement. I would note that because of extending the agreement, legal has changed some of the wording in our
- agreements, our basic agreements, and so felt it prudent to bring this wording into line with our new
- set of wording as it relates to the recipient of the grant. Sub-recipient. Okay. You can get it done
- by this time next year. Yeah, it really should be.
- completion, but in the spirit of doing it once, we decided to push it out farther. And just for the
- public benefit, this is CBDG funding, this is not TIF funding. Thank you for that clarification. Okay,
- if there's no other comments or questions from commissioners, we'll open it for public comment. Seeing
- nothing online or in person, I will invite a motion please.
- I'll make a motion to approve resolution 25-147 as presented. Second. First and a second all in favor
- say aye. Aye. Any opposed passes unanimously for 25-147. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay we are
- now on to and this is a question if 148 through 150 are comparable for grouping because they appear
- to all be with extensions for the same project. Yes they would be.
- Okay. Okay. So we now have, I'll just read the names of the resolutions we're going to be talking about
- next and then invite a presentation. This is 25148, which is an approval of an extension for resolution
- 2245 for construction inspection agreement for Hopewell phase one east. Then we have 149, which is an
- approval of an extension of resolution, an extension of resolution 25101 for extension
- construction agreement for Hopewell phase one east and finally 150 which is an approval of an extension
- for resolution 2455 for hardware and camera installation for Hopewell phase one east. It looks like
- Mr. Eaton will be telling us about these. All three resolutions in this package would be for the Hopewell
- east project
- the construction, the construction inspection, and the camera installations that went in around the
- park area. All three of the resolutions were for agreements that, although the agreements are still
- active, the resolutions had expired. The expiration dates are at the end of December, I think, for all
- three of them, December 31, 2025.
- We are asking for extensions of the expiration dates for the resolutions to December 31, 2026. And all
- three of these, we are not asking for any changes in the funding levels for the agreements. OK.
- Thank you. Any questions or comments, commissioners, on these three resolutions?
- Hearing none, I will open it for public comment on resolutions 148 through 150. Seeing nothing online
- or in person, I will entertain a motion for these extensions. Move approval of resolution 25, 148, 149,
- and 150. Second. With a first and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously
- for 148, 149, and 150. Thank you.
- Okay, new business is concluded. Anything for general discussion? Yes. So we've deferred two resolutions.
- Resolution 25-141, I think we've got somewhat of a plan in place whereby staff is going to make a formal
- presentation and do
- whatever magic you do, but it will have a lot more information. We deferred 25-136, but I think that
- there needs to be some discussion about what we're gonna do with this two weeks besides everybody trying
- to wrap their head around it. It seems pretty clear that there's some miscommunication or no communication
- between various parties.
- I don't know whether we want to host a meeting or what. I'm not suggesting that. I don't know the answer.
- But I think we ought to walk away with here with using that time wisely and not just come back in two
- weeks and see what we think. I agree. We did request the memo, which of course might just be part of
- at least default part of the packet, which would make it part of the same timeframe.
- I'm just interested in that suggestion of what kind of options there might be for perhaps a more informal
- opportunity to share information if that's what you're suggesting. You know it might even be the memo
- is available before the rest of the packet is as a way to kind of have the talking points to talk through
- it because I think again having a written
- or printed or visual version of something is helpful for people in addition to any chance for further
- discussion or conversation. So in seeking proposals from staff of what that might look like, of course,
- scheduling it and locating it is the next part of that. And trying to get on count. If we're talking
- about a potential work session or an executive session with, like, counsel,
- I have found it quite difficult to get onto their calendar. So I don't know, I'm happy to try, but we
- may also want to just send some communications, say one of us is available, not in a quorum, to discuss
- sort of where we are, answer any questions that are remaining. I don't know, what does legal feel? Yes,
- you definitely wouldn't want to do any discussions in a quorum. You could post a work session.
- and that based on your schedules and anybody who wanted to come, you could decide and work sessions.
- Well, at no time do you have to take public comment, but you could. And you could gain information that
- way. Again, you could send it to your schedules and whoever could make it to provide information could
- make it. Meanwhile, as you say, the memo, if you can try to get that out soon, I know that
- We work as a team on that thing, so we have the information. It's just a matter of getting it down.
- So I think we can get that out fairly soon. And if we got that out before work session, that might give
- the talking points for work session. If you don't want to be that formal, then it could be where we
- get that information, make it available to the public and move it over to the public.
- They could contact commissioners on their own as they choose. So you have quite a few options. It just
- depends on what you want to do. What's the one that gets the people to the table or gives everybody
- the opportunity to come in so we can get some discussion items? The memo's a great idea. Some sort of
- work session or something to try to- How long would it take you to get a memo together? Just days. We
- have the information. We just need to articulate it in one place. Yeah.
- What about planning on that? I'm doing exactly that. And then booking a time for a meeting a week out
- so we'll have a chance to review the memo and then meet. Yeah, I think that sounds like a good proposal.
- I don't know in terms of if we can get something on the calendar because it's obviously like a week
- from now or
- Approximately. And we have to consider public notice requirements for both council and ourselves if
- they are included in that. Suggesting a work session or something? I'm suggesting a work session because
- I feel like that would provide but again I don't know the requirements in terms of public notice if
- it's a work session if even if it's not a decision making it's a work session but if we need to have
- a quorum in order to call it an RDC work session. If you need a quorum for the work session
- work session, you cannot take final action then. Right. It's not the purpose. Right, the purpose is
- for discussion. Let me throw R&D. For counsel, if they don't, if a quorum does not show up at one time,
- then they wouldn't need to notice it, but my concern would be if they did. What you can do is they can
- notice that they're having
- and if they don't get a quorum, then they don't get a quorum. But you still get a quorum and you can
- conduct. Why don't we just set our work session and then we can make invitations and how they've got
- to manage it is not, we can't manage that. So I'm gonna just throw out a date to get this moving. What's
- our public notice that we have to hit? This is well in front of that. I'm gonna throw out a date at
- Wednesday, December 10th.
- At what time? Late in the day, but I didn't lock that. What day? I'll just say 4 o'clock for the sake
- of discussion. Wednesday, December 10th at 4 o'clock. What are you looking for around me? Well, again,
- trying to at least aim for a quorum. Is anything like 5 o'clock? 5 o'clock. I'm OK with that. I wasn't
- locked into the time. OK. So what is this?
- It looks like the Allison room is available at five o'clock on the 10th. Okay. So it's the one upstairs.
- It's the one we always use. Council chambers is open, but they have a meeting that night at six 30.
- So what's Allison rooms for? Yeah. Let me do that. You're going to hold it. So for the public notice.
- Yeah. Okay. So it gets on the kiosk and who here to make that day?
- And time. How long should we allow? I'd allow an hour and a half. Four hours. Four hours. We'll find
- out a little fun with that. I would suggest that you put a limit if there's an argument with people
- on how much time to comment and possibly even
- what some do is present overall time that you'll take comments. So as the meeting doesn't go on at all.
- I would suggest I was encouraging them if you have something new to say. Yeah, I envision this work
- session not as formatted where they can't ask questions and we can't respond. So it's a two way street,
- not a one way street.
- And so it's hard to put time limits on a two-way discussion. Christina has blocked the room for two
- hours. That's wrong. I mean, at some point we have to just call it a day. Generously reasonable. Is
- there any possibility with the memo that we're talking about for the purpose of a work session that
- it could be streamlined into a few slides?
- I'm just asking because I'd love to start a work session with everybody, not having to assume
- that everybody's read the memo, even though we want it to be available, but just again, visuals kind
- of gets everybody on the same page. Again, I don't want to pile so much stuff on staff, but I'm still
- trying to figure it out. Okay, so just.
- you know, something that would help present the memo in a way that's visual, that's easy to communicate,
- that everybody who's at the work session can see it, and that becomes the basis for discussion. That
- would be much appreciated. It'll be brief, though. Yeah, brief. You know, just, I mean, the memo's gonna
- be brief. The memo's like probably two pages at most, right? So I'm guessing, but, you know, whatever.
- So, yeah. But that would be terrific. Thank you very much. Okay. Sounds like a plan. Anything else I've
- confirmed?
- General discussion. Last question. And it's a Jessica question. I'll just email her. Are you sure? Yeah,
- I'll just do it. I'm just curious, the $4.7 million, did that get sequestered into a different fund
- from that or is that just in our $444 account? Not the previous $444 account. You're right. That is
- a Jessica question. I know that there was some moving of that money to make sure that it was in the
- right spot. I cannot remember.
- I appreciate that. And that money is what, Randy? Where we sold the property. I thought that's what
- you, you didn't define it. The trades, property, sale, allocation where the funds are. Okay, let us
- know what you find out. Jess will let us all know. Yes, absolutely. Okay, great. Well, if there's no
- other business general discussion, have a motion to adjourn, please. So moved. Okay. Thank you all.
- Thank you.