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.