We're going to get started for the Read Amount Commission meeting of December 15th, 2025. We'll start
with our meeting with a roll call, please. Lori McRobbie, present. Cece Campbell-Lurie, present. Marina
Cassidy, present. John Wedge, present. Deborah Meyerson, present. And staff available, please. Anna
Gillian Beathen, present. Christina Finley, and Amy Casperl, present. Jane Cougarsmith, economic and
sustainable development.
Dana Kerr, legal department. Where did you see staff? Mass Winning Hand Department. Thank you. OK. So
the first item on our agenda is the minutes from December 1, 2025. Any comments or questions, commissioners,
on the minutes? Move for approval. Second.
We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next
item on the agenda is examination of claims registers for December 5th, 2025. Any questions or comments
from commissioners on this item? Yes, I have a question. On page 44, number 223, can you remind me what
we own at 105 West 4th Street?
Is that a 4th Street garage? I'm not sure. That could be. I just couldn't remember the address. I'm
thinking it's the 4th Street garage commercial spaces. Yes, it is. All right. Thank you. Any other questions
or comments from commissioners on the claims registered from December 3? One question on the first one.
let alone one in general, on the neighborhood grants, just on Bluestone and Andrew Mars. That was a
combined grant to the Bentley homeowners for the 9,067. So it was broken up into actual physical and
then consulting. Well, one of them appears to be consulting, and one of them is actually the actual
installation.
Yeah, the Mars is consulting. So we're about even in regards to consulting the actual fiscal approval.
Yeah, and that's through our neighborhood improvement groups, which are not to funding. Right. Yeah,
I just wanted to clarify the difference between the two. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other
questions or comments, I will enter the motion for the claims register of December 5th. Move approval
for claims register for December 5th, 2025.
Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
Next item in the agenda, examination of payroll registers for November 26, 2025. Any questions or comments
from commissioners on this item? Make a motion as presented. Second. Second. First and two seconds.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item on our agenda
is the report of officers and committees. We have a director's report tonight.
If you don't, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Lincoln Report? Nothing specific. I'm here
for any questions. OK. Thank you. A Treasurer's Report. I don't know if we even have the controller
here. OK. Well, anybody get in touch with the controller if you have questions. A Business Development
Update. Not this evening, but also happy to answer questions. Thank you so much.
Um, so next item on our agenda is under new business. Um, but, uh, okay, old business until the end.
Okay. There we go. So, uh, first item on our agenda under new business is resolution 25-141, approval
of agreement with adaptive commons for comprehensive and coordinated design of Hopewell Block,
West Block 4. Who'd like to speak to that? We actually have them online ready to, um, give a presentation.
Welcome. Turn the captions on, that would be helpful. Thank you. Sorry, we're having computer. Just
under more, there should be captions option. Can we just turn up the volume? Well, both is fine. Thank you.
OK, you guys are welcome to share your screen if you would like. There was a proposal that was included
in your package. Great. Are you able to see that? Yes. All right. So, well, hello, everyone. We are
Adoptive Commons. My name is Riley Gibson. And I'm your assistant. And we're really excited to present
our proposal, our scope of work, to begin the pre-development work for the redevelopment of Block 4
at Hopewell.
So to start off, my name is Renee Gibson. I come from a background in architectural design and community
engagement. I have, since my career, focused on involving community members and neighborhoods in the
shaping of their built environment. And I am super excited to work as the portfolio manager of Adaptive
Commons, where I oversee our pipeline of investment projects and workforce affordable housing projects
across the country.
And just by way of background, I'm a native New Yorker. I went to high school in a much more affluent
neighborhood, a public high school, and a college campus. So I know firsthand what it's like to experience
living in two worlds, if you will. And I like to share that context because it essentially has illustrated
the work I've done ever since. It has dictated the work I've done ever since. And so after graduate
school, I landed in Memphis, Tennessee.
And Community Development Corporation founded a single site charter school, which went on to do really
well out the gate. And I realized pretty quickly I was doing the same thing to our kids. That was done
to me in that they were getting a great education, but they still had to go home. And no one was focused
on the built environment. And so that's when I rolled up my sleeves and got into real estate development,
all with a socially oriented lens. And from that point, I ended up acquiring 43 acres of land, 24 which
is a planet apartment complex, 394 units collected for $37,000.
and worked to reshape that space to what is now a middle school performing arts center, single family
homes, and partnership with Habitat for Humanity. And then we hired a shopping class directly across
the street from that, which is now a medical clinic, a dental clinic, elementary school, a high school.
So the full K-12 continuing on with the wraparound infrastructure. And I've continued to do that work
for almost 20 years now. I was also involved as a senior with the one and a half million square foot
redevelopment of the old Sears building, Mendis.
which is a now urban village, which includes not only a school, but housing, YMCA, art facility,
art space. So just wanting to demonstrate the work that's happened over the last two decades and continue
to do that work. Adaptive College really came about about three years ago as I took a look back with
a couple of colleagues to think about what might this look like at scale.
particularly as we think about the lack of workforce and affordable housing that's happening across
the country. And at the same time, what does it mean to look at underutilized assets? And so that's
essentially how Yachter Commons was born. And we're excited to share a little bit more about the RY,
as well as the work I hope we'll ask Block 4. So really, as you all are aware, I'm sure teachers and
other essential workers can't afford to live near where they work. And municipalities, like school districts
and cities,
own many assets that are either vacant or legalized. And so there's an opportunity to use that to lean
into that older supply and to catalyze really easy creative financing, the opportunity for adaptable
use or reuse for workforce housing. So a little bit more about what we do. We kind of have two main
focuses. So first and foremost, we build strategic partnerships with municipalities in order to transform
vacant civic spaces into workforce affordable housing and the other up around infrastructure that's
needed to really create a complete community that is comfortable and livable along with being sustainable
and resilient for the future. And then secondly, we also invest in workforce affordable housing across
the nation by providing low cost debt through a philanthropically enhanced fund that's at the national level.
So diving a little bit more into what our strategic public partnerships look like, we work with public
entities, with philanthropic partners, with private developers and other private community groups as
well to jointly finance and implement high impact projects that focus on workforce housing.
By doing that, we help to identify civic sites that are ideal for adaptive reuse or redevelopment. We
then design site-specific or portfolio-wide
strategies to incorporate stakeholder input to unlock financing and address the local housing need,
both at a community level, at a neighborhood level, or even at a larger, more regional approach. In
doing that, we assemble local development, design, and construction partners in order to make sure that
we are tapping into local knowledge, providing local jobs, and also building place-based
real estate development that makes sense for the communities we work in. And then finally, we invest
in these projects. So we provide efficient low cost capital, which often is the missing piece that gets
these projects over the hurdle to becoming a reality and becoming a place where people live and work
and thrive. So in terms of how the
creative financing works for us as we think about projects at a much larger scale. We think about this
national fund that Bradley mentioned as a part of, paired with our strategic partnerships. So at a typical
development level where the developer goes out to develop, even if they were to borrow from a CBI or
a high-impact institution, they're likely borrowing these days 8% or higher in some cases in the double
digits, which
causing these projects to look great on paper, but to ultimately not pencil. And so this is where our
capital comes into play, if needed, to bring the cost of capital down. As we all know, time is money.
If you can actually get these projects off the ground sooner rather than later, you then overcome the
challenges that might come when construction costs increase, or you're sitting on a project while you
wait for another sort of public subsidy to come through, like low income housing tax credits. And so
we see this as an opportunity to get ahead of that.
and a way to be paired with our strategic partnerships that create the value add for us and our partners.
And so ultimately our goal, if not stated,
Earlier, it is to really implement 10,000 high-quality, attainable homes in the next 10 years by working
in partnership with municipalities like yours and others across the country. We see this as thinking
about adaptive reuse and the reuse of civic-owned land to see it both as an environmental opportunity
as well as a social and financial impact, the opportunity to have a 33% reduction in carbon emissions.
and through adaptive reviews, when you're actually activating these blocks, these spaces and places
that are right now vacant or are blighted, there's an opportunity, a high opportunity to reduce crime.
That first project that I mentioned that I did almost 20 years ago now, that was a site that no one
wanted to go on by day. I remember walking that site with architects, and once it was ultimately developed,
that was a space that, and still is a space that everyone's comfortable walking on around at night.
And so we see this as a high impact
opportunity, not just the financial level, but most importantly, the social level. So to dive into exactly
the opportunity that we see at Hopewell and specifically on Block 4, I know you all have likely reviewed
the scope of work that we've put forward, but these next few slides just kind of dive into how we see
that scope of work going, and we would be happy to answer any questions you all have about what this
means for Bloomington, what this means for Hopewell at large,
and all of the above. So within the scope of work, we do see some research and due diligence that is
necessary, mostly to make sure that we look at past efforts that have been put forth towards the progress
at Hopewell and making sure that we're in alignment with the community needs, with the local context,
with anything that's kind of emerged since community engagement was done. And in that research and due
diligence period, we also see ourselves beginning to identify potential
Partnerships on the local level that was built in the workforce housing and ownership, which I know
is something that's in a priority specifically for this portion of the site. In the pre development
and planning phase, we hope to engage local and regional design and development partners.
and really dive into the pre-development of Block 4. So that looks like a master plan of Block 4. That
looks like beginning to think about what it looks like from a 3D perspective, from a massing perspective,
and really making sure that we update the housing unit types and affordability levels that you all foresee
for Bloomingtonians at this site specifically.
And then the final portion of this initial scope of work would be a financial feasibility analysis with
the ultimate goal of having a proposed capital stack. This would involve looking at home ownership models,
this would involve looking at leasing structures, and it would ultimately result in a pretty clear plan
of how to finance this whole portion of the site going forward, which in essence is also how we foresee
kind of getting to the ground and getting the ground running
development happening by the middle of next year. So this is just kind of that timeline that I was working
through on the last slide, but as you can see, all of this leads to the idea that by July 26, we would
be headed towards development and having a very clear plan for what the 12th last block for it looks like.
And so piggybacking off of Riley, really we see in terms of deliverables, we know oftentimes these projects,
the way they work, someone comes with a great plan and there's no plan to execute. And so this really
lands on us executing on the plan that gets delivered. So versus that block four plan that we described,
producing semantic mass and options,
for updating the unit count, the unit mix, so that it actually aligns and it's complementary to the
work that is happening. And then also block four based on just what the current marketing conditions
are and the available capital sources that we also help to source and bring to the table. And then lastly,
that capital stack so that the project that is delivered is something that can be executed on.
So with that we're happy to answer any questions. We're also looking forward to working with all of
you and we're really excited about the energy that's already gone into the whole redevelopment of football
and we're looking forward to being a part of what that could look like next. Thank you. Thank you. Any
questions or comments from commissioners or anything further from staff as well?
I don't have anything other than we encountered Darwin. We met him at Harvard in our fellowship as well.
He was also a faculty member during that fellowship and we're really impressed with him and his work.
And actually, Darwin and Riley both came to Bloomington and toured Hopewell and really got a feel for
what we were targeting, have had long conversations with the mayor. Derwin even met with MCCSE as well
to understand what their needs were and the gap in employment versus where you are capable of living.
So we feel comfortable with their work. I know that this is new to you guys, but we would like to see
it happen. Thank you very much. Excuse me. This resolution is
adopt the agreement between the RDC and Adaptive Commons, the amount of the fee would be an amount not
to exceed $125,200. And that could be paid from the fund line that's listed there. And so again, it
is approving the agreement that's attached to the resolution.
Thank you. I think we'll have two different parts to our discussion. One may be questions specifically
for the adaptive commons team. And then we may then conclude their presentation and have additional
discussion among ourselves. So questions or comments from commissioners, please? I have a question for
adaptive commons about, can you say more about exactly how your relationship with Flintlock Lab will work?
Yeah, I can start off speaking to that. So we are aware of the work that Flintmont Law is doing in Hopewell
South, and we have reviewed their proposal. And we honestly see ourselves as supporting that work, as
potentially helping to finance some of that work, and to also make sure that we're coordinating with
them from a construction standpoint, from an urban planning standpoint, all of the above. I know that
with the portion of Law Corps that we are now focusing on and
the southern portion that they're focused on, there actually isn't a direct connection to the two sites.
But we do want to support the overall redevelopment of Hope Row and see this portion of Block 4 as just
one component of a larger mission and a larger idea of this kind of complete neighborhood. And we hope
to support the entire project as best we can, both from phasing perspective, from a financing perspective,
and from a coordination perspective.
Let me also just call out that block four is the Hopewell garage. And so this type of housing is very
different than one flip block has done. I have talked to Allie about this as well. And this is just
not her wheelhouse to do a denser, more commercial building. We're envisioning condos that are wrapping
the garage. Can I add something else, too? Yeah. What was really illuminating when adaptive
Commons visited the site. Two things really stood out to me. One, the deep experience that Derwin has
with just different financial vehicles, including New Market's tax credits, which we haven't used a
lot of in this community. So I think when they talk about financing, they're really bringing a lot of
experience to the table related to those types of tools. And then to Anna's point about
thinking about the garage. I think their vision when they came to the site truly understood the garage
as an asset to the overall site that can really anchor and drive the development rather than how I think
we've become accustomed to thinking about it. Just we as staff or you all as the redevelopment commissioners
writing the checks. So they really viewed the position of the garage as a strength, especially as it
relates to the grocery store and the beeline.
I don't know if you want to say anything more about that, but I just wanted to. No, I mean. I'm sorry.
I wanted to speak a little bit more to that as well. I think the garage we do see with an asset, and
we also see it as an opportunity, because of its height, to add some density in this area in a way that
might not be as comfortable on the southern side, where Allie and the Flint Black Lab team is working,
whereas in this portion of the site,
It does make sense to add housing that could be four to five stories tall, that could kind of address
a different type of need and a different demographic than is maybe being addressed in Hopeville South.
And we like the idea that we could not necessarily compete with Valley, but instead kind of have these
two components that speak to different portions of the population of Livington and really open
up opportunities for housing, lots of different diverse populations in your community.
I just have a quick question that's based on Director Cooper Smith's comment, which is, do you see new
markets tax credits as being part of the capital stack for Block 4? Yeah, there's a huge opportunity,
especially if you think about the new markets typically is for commercial use. Right, that's my question.
And what's interesting about workforce housing is there's a way to bring workforce housing to address the
The workforce component of the market, but more than anything, any commercial component that goes call
that the ground level. So, say, let's just imagine you build a five story building and the four stories
about your housing.
The bottom floor can be early child care or some other community amenity. You would not only utilize
new market tax credits for that, but you could also leverage new market tax credits for the infrastructure
that would help to make that project viable. So then you get to think about new markets, not just for
that building alone, but the infrastructure in and surrounding that. So there are really creative ways
to address using new markets in ways that typically aren't used. Thank you.
I got a question. So to further your comment about financing, if you use that kind of financing, does
it limit the type of commercial uses that would be available to us? I would argue that it, in fact,
encourages and enhances more community-oriented uses. New Market's tax credits essentially wants to
ensure that more jobs are being created,
you're bringing workforce back into a neighborhood. And so this opens up all kinds of opportunities
that otherwise might be overlooked because of the lack of access to capital and markets would then be
that workforce scenario that allows it to happen. Does that answer your question or? Well, yes and no.
I get your point, and I would agree with you.
Just say it was going to be a law office or an accounting firm or a hair salon. I mean, is there a approved
list of uses that have to go along with that, with the use of that capital? Or is it pretty much open
to whatever our zoning allows? It's not so much an approved list, but the amount of jobs that you were creating.
you know, if you were building, if this were an accountant office versus, you know, a 10,000 square
foot warehouse that only housed a single employee, you're likely not going to get new market tax credits
for the 10,000 square foot warehouse, but for the accounting firm that now is bringing called 25 to
30 new employees to the neighborhood that would otherwise not be there but for the new market tax credits.
Okay. I don't envision that kind of commercial space there. So,
But I get what you're saying. Thank you. And I just want to chime in here and say, we've had some experience
with our public offerings that they're not specific enough to be successful. And we've wasted a lot
of time with those. By getting consultants or folks that can help us really hone in and carve out exactly
what we're trying to accomplish will help us be successful when it does come time to issue a public
That's why this work is very important to us. Can I trouble you to put some slides back up? There's
one about a third of the way in that showed a bar graph that divided up incentives versus financing
and so forth. Can you put that back up, please?
That's it. Yeah. And in particular, can you talk more about public subsidies? What have you seen in
the past? What do you envision being appropriate for this particular setting? Yeah. So if you look at
the dotted line, if you look at the two dotted lines, the one above the dark square and then the one
sort of in the middle of the dark square, at the top level, if you imagine without the right source
of creative financing,
So let's just step back. That first dotted line, the arrows that show that space between, that's capital
or public subsidy that would be needed if the Hopewell land was not available to be participated in
the project. So think about the land itself as public subsidy. So now we've already, we being Bloomington,
have brought the cost of development down because of the land being participated with. The other arrow
going up with that other dotted line shows
the space in between the public subsidy that will be needed, if you didn't have a five to six percent
cost of debt, but instead your typical eight percent higher, you would need to have more public subsidy.
So the public subsidy that light gray square would essentially take up, without the land being participated
and without the cost of capital being at a lower cost, you would essentially, that gray area would take
up the space in between both dotted lines.
What then would typically take the place of that public subsidy or what would be that public subsidy
is typically low income housing tax credits. And low income housing tax credits at that level would
likely be the 9% tax credits that give the highest level of subsidy and are also the most competitive
to come by and also take about two years to just even manifest if you get it and also cost a few million
dollars to get to that stage of application.
If not, the 9% tax credits is likely even the 4%.
bond slash tax credits, which are easier to come by, non-competitive if you will, but still that restrict
the kind of affordability we're talking about. As we understand it, this is open to workforce affordable.
So not big A, but little A affordable, which still can go below 80% AMI, but also includes that 80 to
120 AMI, that missing middle that is often left out of the conversation. And so in order to address that,
then that public subsidy needs to be replaced. And so this is a way to create a way to replace that
public subsidy. That's helpful. Thank you. That was a good question. I was wondering how long has Adaptive
Commons been in operation?
Adaptive Commons as a business has been in operation for two and a half years. As I shared, I was a
loan fellow at Harvard three years ago now, and this was my main focus to lift up a firm that actually
focused primarily on workforce affordable housing, be that adaptive reuse.
Prior to that, the work I had done had been tangential to this. It involved adaptive reuse, it involved
housing, it involved school development, and I realized that the next 20, 30 years, I know I look like
I'm 12, but the next 30, 40 years, I want to dedicate my life and career to work for support for housing
via adaptive reuse. And while adaptive commons is
two and a half years old, collectively, between Riley, myself, my partner Margaret, and Mike, we make
up decades and decades of experience, both on the real estate and on the finance side. Thank you. So
the reason for my question is because I'm interested in, I appreciate your big picture presentation
about the mission of Adaptive Commons. I'm interested in seeing examples of your portfolio that would
be most parallel to
what's intended for Hopewell Block 4 and I just need some more information about that if you could help
me with that please. Yes, and I can, you know, we're actually currently in Denver working with a client
that I would say is we're working with the school district on adaptive reuse strategy for their workforce
housing. So that's currently in our portfolio, but that's a, you know,
we'll be able to speak to that as that continues to manifest. I would say the most between the Sears
Crosstown work or the other project in Memphis, that might be the closest, which is why we share those
projects. Those are likely the closest aligned with Bloomington when you're talking about vacant land
that is ground up development using creative financing like the parking stock credits and also working
for affordable housing. Those are the closest representations.
I know that we shared a collective CV of our firm's joint experience and work that I think it wasn't
shared with you all. I'm sure we can make sure that it gets shared with you so that you have access
to a larger overview with the details of past projects that team members have worked on. I will just
note that I did get to see that. And I was a little concerned because the projects that at least were
featured in there were from, I think, 2016 to 2020.
kind of, you know, a little older than maybe some of your more recent work. It also wasn't clear to
me which members of your team were involved with which projects that were presented in that CV.
So I just, I feel like I need some more information about your firm to like really see that it's a good
fit for this project. And I don't know, again, you may not have that available now. You may want to
pull that together from some of your current projects. But, you know, I think it's really fascinating
what you're doing. And I appreciate, again, the big picture. I'm just still trying to look for a good
connection between
your expertise, and what's needed here. OK. And I can say, just off of my head of knowing what we submitted,
I was involved directly in most, but for one of those projects, or two of those projects, it would have
been another one on teammates. But I was at least involved in a majority of them. Thank you. Good luck.
Question? Everybody?
Have you guys, have they been provided with any structural report for the garage? I believe we have
shared some of that. I don't remember if they've seen the most recent one, though. We've shared some
information. It's been several months. The reason I ask that is, as they're looking at everyone with
this capital stack knowledge of how those structural components, because based on what I'm seeing, and
we're talking about condominiums in regards to wrapping this garage,
that structural component cost figure would have to be included in regards to it. So with that and that
question, then as you brought up the new market tax credit and our financing, which is the creative
thing that we need to look at, where do we get the residential dollars to build that? The new market
tax credit, is that a straight conventional financing or is that something that your debt financing
takes into consideration because of the
difficulty of financing condominiums in a workforce environment. The debt financing would be that would
go towards the residential. The new market tax credit would be more towards the infrastructure that's
necessary to build out everything that we're describing. But the debt financing would be for the residential.
OK. And then everything from a land standpoint that this sets on in your
capital stack situation would be a subsidy that would help to offset the overall cost? Yes, and the
expectation is that Bloomington would retain ownership of the land, that this would not need to be sold
to a developer in order for this to be successful. And then it would go? So you're saying it would be
leased? Ground lease, yes. Ground lease, OK. Ground lease then would be?
part of the ownership basis, not a lease basis on the units themselves. I think that there is an opportunity
to potentially consider homeownership and leasing opportunities on this portion of the site and across
the well. So any sort of ground-based structure, I think, we would collaborate with you all to make
sure that both of those components work. But yes, there is an opportunity here to look at a ground-based
structure, but then a condominium
ownership model where some of the units or all of the units in a portion of the site are of ownership
but under some sort of like trust model in which the ground lease is still held by the city. Do you
have examples of where that's been able to accomplish that? We can provide them. Yeah, there are several
community trust models that work with this structure. Thank you.
Any other questions for our presenters today? Appreciate it. Appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you. OK. So we do have in front of us, sorry, I'm just pulling the agenda back up.
Resolution 25-141, which is the approval and agreement with Adaptive Commons for a comprehensive and
coordinated design of Hopewell West Block 4. We had a chance to ask our questions directly of Adaptive
Commons. I am just now, as I mentioned earlier, opening this for a separate line of questioning just
among commissioners as opposed to with the prospective firm. Any comments or questions about the proposed
approval of this agreement? I have one.
in regards to, was this RFP put out to any other architectural? We have not issued an RFP. This is to
help us get an RFP together. OK. And the RFP would be for the? Any offering to help us get it built.
So this is to really laser focus in on how we're going to involve developers, builders, how we're going
to get this done. And with that,
selectiveness to try to get this in from a capital stack standpoint. And will this still create a situation
where we need to go back through into the planning, the UDO? Don't know yet. So this is a first step
situation that would still have to be looked at architecturally, engineering, and through a planning
process. And that's part of what they're going to do in their feasibility analysis, too. And the reason
I ask that is given the complexity as we have to move forward to try to actually get something built,
that schedule that they're looking at July
Next year. That's extraordinarily aggressive based on. Right. The longer you wait, the longer it's going
to take. Exactly. But, you know, given where we are on other projects in the process, how we change,
is this another situation where we have to go through a PUD? I don't know yet. I think, um, when Derwin
was here, you know, we've talked about the garage. It needs repairs. Is it, do we keep it? Do we let it go?
But in talking to him, it became very clear that it really is an asset. And it's an asset that a developer
could leverage to help get the product that we want, which is not student-centric housing. It's going
to be ownership models or a mix to accomplish more housing at Hopewell. And I don't have capacity to
do it on my own.
Further, Derwin has background in these creative financing methods that are really challenging to find.
And then based on the time frame and what they're looking at, is this part of my analogy, a soup to
nuts type situation where it's start to finish or do they need to engage other local partnerships in
order to do that and then the
continuation coming back and needing additional dollars on top of this. Well, I think that that's part
of this, is that they are going to be helping us engage with developers locally to try and figure out
what the next steps are. I don't think that this is one and done. I think this is the first bite at
the apple to get it done, get it going, get momentum, figure out what our zoning is, figure out what
the feasibility is, figure out what the capital stack needs to be, get a general master site plan together.
for that block, which is rather large, if you saw that on the platform. You already mentioned this,
but just so I'm clear, the current parking structure, the structural integrity of it, they're aware
of the current state of that parking structure and they have
They can work with what they know we have now. I think so. I think we talked when they were here about
the need to spend approximately $5 million on the structure itself. That was one of the last quotes
that I remember in that CE solutions analysis. But it's somewhere around there. But to replace the entire
parking garage is significantly more for sure. So it was worth the investment to try and get it fixed up.
We have that report that's available. To the point of block four and where the garage sits. And then
we have our open area, which has some environmental issues that we've discovered. That are being cleaned
up. Oh, no, we're in the process. Yeah, we're working towards that closure letter now. And we're very,
very close. So in fact, we had the covenants that were required to be recorded. And you guys saw them
earlier this year.
Yep, as we look through Block 4 and the pictorial that they brought in regards to condominiums
and surrounding the garage with residential housing, Block 4 also includes that area. So their creativeness,
they're looking at how they reutilize that lot, how this capital stack would work, and how we would
utilize residential or commercial mixed use in regards to the garage. That still leaves the area to
the east and north
It would still have to be determined what would go there. Correct. And that is not part of their scope.
Theirs is just block four. OK. Well, block four includes that area. So yes, they're master planning
the entire block. They would be master planning it with then just looking at the area. That's a pretty
significant area. Correct. That would be a big lot. A big lot that we'd have to look at what it is and
then what the community based on our previous
Needs are. Are they going to help decide that, or are we going to help direct them on that? I think
it's a little bit above. I also just want to say that the mayor has joined us, and she may have some
things she would like to comment on regarding the adaptive commons proposal. I'm happy to comment, but
I'm coming in
fresh to this particular conversation. I'll just say that we had a really pretty phenomenal site visit
with adaptive commons, and they were able to see things that really just hadn't been pointed out in
the past, some possibilities that we thought really were worth working towards, and there
Their ability to plan and tap different kinds of capital stacks for these kinds of things is really
an asset that I think we need in this community, and that especially if we're going to do some innovative
things that help while getting them on board is, I think, going to be a big asset to this overall project.
Thank you. Other questions from the commissioners?
Jane, can you just further explain to me why this is not a project for Flintlock? Yeah, I can. I think
because we're starting with block four, which is targeted for more density than what is appropriate
at South and what we're committed to for South. So this just isn't, it's not apples to apples. It's
a different animal and it requires different
financial modeling. So if you compare to what Flintlock's doing on South, for example, they're working
on baked-in affordability with maybe or maybe not contemplation of land value. But they're working on
just really increasing the affordability, reducing the cost through incremental decisions that we're
making, and making those improvements to the UDO, or making recommendations. Sorry, I'm out of line.
Sorry, the PUD.
baking that into the PV. So with adaptive commons, it's really site planning this block, planning for
density, and they're delivering us to a different phase of the development. So they're doing the strategic
thinking for the whole block, financial planning, and then we'll tee us up so that we can go after the
developers at the end of it. So I think what in that timeline when it said July, ready for development,
If we were a private entity, we would be like, yes, let's go break ground. But as they already see where
you would be at that moment is, let's go release a new public offering. So you've talked to Flintlock
about this. They've been. I have. All right. So they're aware. Absolutely. Flintlock has. And they can
be collaborative with. Flintlock is excited to work with. They know each other. Also, Ali was very clear
to say that this is not what we like.
More density is not there in the house as far as big multi-family structures or what we're talking about
here. She said she will not do it. That's not. Yeah, she said she will not do large-form residential.
She will support them. And so she's going to help by sharing her code analysis, by helping to prop them
up for success from what we've already learned
basis we're looking at because in Derlin, their past financial experience in regards to getting the
capital stack on unique sites and things is one of our primary goals while we're looking at hiring another
out-of-state firm. And then they would collaborate with some local firms in regards to architectural
and any other engineering things that are necessary. I believe, yes, it will be a collaboration. Because
in the past, we have went through out-of-state,
here's the idea, and then it's kind of fell flat. So it's in the past. It's in the past. We've fallen
flat with numerous RDCs. And it was prior to this administration, so I'm not putting anything out. I'm
just looking at the situation of another thing we're consulting, and we want to get to building. Right.
Well, and the RDC currently has an enormous number of projects. As you're well aware, by the fact that
we're in, what, 150 plus resolutions for the year.
We do not the staff does not have enough capacity to try and take this on as well. So if we want to
make measurable Momentum at hopeful we need someone that knows what they're doing They do refer to Under
financial feasibility as boots suppose this refers to financial entities, but they're they do talk about
identifying key partnerships as well as capital sources and
I was just looking to see if they're where they might reference community engagement, local professional
expertise. I don't particularly see it, but it's certainly something I imagine we can make clear. To
your point, Randy, that having more knowledge from potential other
entities that might participate in this. Having that knowledge early on is a benefit. I'm just going
to add, for me, I think it's truly exciting to hear from Adaptive Commons, some of their innovation
ideas. I'd love to see what that could bring to Hopewell. My main area of kind of hesitation is when
I went to their website, I did not see a portfolio of projects at all.
That was why I reached out to Anna to ask for a portfolio, and what I got was interesting, but did not
really fill in certain blanks for me. Again, interesting, but as I mentioned, I wasn't sure who on their
team had done what. I appreciate that Derwin had done some of them, but there's a wide range of projects,
not all of which are, at least in my mind, quite a fit with Hopewell.
I would appreciate the opportunity to get some examples of written deliverables from comparable planning,
pre-development engagements, in addition to the capital stack that they might want to bring to it. I
think it's great, the idea to think about bringing new markets tax credits into it, but I feel like
there's just some open-endedness. Again, I'm all for trying to move things forward, but I really want
to make sure it's being done with due diligence.
my comment at this point is about the due diligence of feeling like I want to know what they've done
that's really closely aligned with this project that would be an example of the portfolio that I'm looking
for to feel comfortable moving forward. I have the same concern as Deborah does and I did not look at
their website. This is purely from talking to them. I think they bring a lot to the table.
think having a firm like that or them would be beneficial. So I'm not opposed to having somebody on
board. But I also don't want to be their next resume builder. I want somebody that can really get the
job done. And so I wasn't convinced that they were ready for us, quite frankly. They talked a good game,
but I'm just not sure.
cheering response to that that might help us feel better? No. But I mean, I think that you guys have
a choice, whether you vote to approve, deny, or table it. Table it and allow us to get some more information
to use that we do feel comfortable. But the likelihood is that that's not going to come up until January
or February of 26. So that's completely your call. We can gather some more information.
Quick question. What's the first day of our next meeting? It is January 5th. January 5th. That's our
organizational meeting, however. So that'll be the meeting that we approve the calendar and be the 12th.
Well, that happens to fall on a holiday the following meeting. So I believe the meeting after that is
going to be the first week of February. I think so. Second meeting.
And also, your appointments are for one year. However, the code says that you continue to serve until
you're replaced by a qualified person. So it is always my hope that when the first of the year rolls
around that that could be done, appointments could be done from the mayor's office, from the city council,
so that we can make sure that we
We've got the team going forward. But it's the statute that holds you serve until you're replaced. There's
not a deadline on that, but sooner is better than later. So that actually works out fairly well because
that gives the time frame to ask any additional questions, have all the answers to whether it be the
group here or whether it be the next group so they have full understanding
and all of the questions that have been asked here, we don't have any issues. Now, I hate to put things
off anymore, but I will make a recommendation to table until that first available meeting to garner
all the information so that us or any new commissioners have everything to make the decision to move
this forward into a financing and a bill as soon as possible. So I'll put that as a motion. Riverdive.
We have a motion on the table.
We have a second. To table. The motion is to table. I'm just rephrasing to make sure it's clear.
To table, resolution 25-141, which is the approval of the agreement with Adaptive Commons for comprehensive
and coordinated design of both Boblock floor and West Boblock floor. I'll second. We have a first and
a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. With all
that information, it'd be fantastic. And then we'll just move it.
We have a comprehensive list of what information. We don't and I'm going to send you guys an email right
now. Please respond to that email individually to me with your questions. Thank you. OK, next item on
our agenda is resolution 25-151, which is the approval of the adoption of the Citizen Advisory Committee's
recommendations for the allocation of the 2026 Community Development
block grant funds, who would like to speak to that? This is also the public hearing portion. We're starting
the public hearing. We're starting the public hearing for this portion of the meeting for the approval
of the adoption of the Citizens Advisory Committee's recommendations for the allocation of 2026 community
development block grant funds. All right. Yeah, you guys should have known if I was here, we were going
to talk about CDBG. So I just thought you liked it. Some of you.
Anyway, I'd like to thank you guys for the opportunity to present tonight. I'm here to present the 2026
CDBG allocations that the CAC recently awarded based on the applications submitted and the guidance
that the new consolidated plan provided.
A little bit about CDBG. For the past 50 years, community partners have worked hand in hand with HUD
to deliver impactful change, especially for low to moderate income communities through CDBG. Since 1974,
HUD has invested over $170 billion in urban, suburban, and rural communities through the CDBG program.
HUD awards grants to entitlement community grantees, which the city of Bloomington has won, to carry
out a wide range of community development activities directed towards
revitalizing neighborhoods, economic development, and providing improved community facilities and services.
In order to receive funding, activities that are applied for by the applicants must meet a two-pronged
test. One, eligibility under federal regulation, and two, ability to meet a national objective. All
activities must meet one of the national objectives for the program.
which the three are benefit to low to moderate income persons, prevent or eliminate slum and blight,
and or meet an urgent need which fulfill community development needs that have a particular urgency
based on existing conditions that pose a serious or immediate threat to the health or welfare of the
community. A little bit about the process. Some of you actually were involved in the process, Randy.
Endeavor, we appreciate your willingness to serve and the work that you put in. So every year, we make
an estimate of what the allocation will be, and we base that on the previous year, what we received
as our actual allocation. For the 2026 funding year, which starts June 1st of 26 and runs through May
31st of 2027, we estimate the total allocation would be $778,293.
Our allocation is always broken down as follows. 65% for physical improvements, which would be $505,890.45,
15% for social services, which would be $116,743.95, and 20% for administration, which is $155,658.60.
In October, we start accepting applications.
Once they are checked for eligibility, they are presented to the CAC Citizens Advisory Committee. The
CAC examines the applications and listens to applicant presentations and then deliberates to determine
the allocations with contingency language for more or less funding once we find out our final allocation.
After the CAC, the allocations must be presented to the RDC and then to the city council.
As I said before, both the RDC and the City Council have representation on the CAC. We do this because
that is the way it is laid out in our Citizens Participation Plan, which we develop based on federal
regulations. I'm going to read through the projects that were presented, both the physical improvements
and the social services.
The Boys and Girls Club had a project for gym improvements and security access point upgrades. Life
Designs had a project for group home flooring. Middleway House is going to install a new fire panel
at 338 South Washington. My Sister's Closet has a major renovation project at the new location that
they've acquired. New Hope for Families.
is going to be doing HVAC work and a build out of the basement of the family shelter. And Summit Hill
Community Development Corporation is going to be redoing the Reverend Butler playground and surrounding
courtyard. The social services, I'll read that down through the list, but pretty much all of them is
mostly staff salaries and food distribution. We have community kitchen, beacon,
Hoosier Hills Food Bank, Boys and Girls Club, New Hope for Families, Middleway House, New Leaf New Life,
Courage to Change Sober Living, Pantry 279, Summit Hill Community Development Corporation, and My Sister's
Closet. So again, we are bringing you the 2026 CDBG allocations, which were voted on by the CAC, to
fulfill our federal obligation of fulfilling our citizens' position
participation plan. Easy for me to say. We do this every year. These are great projects. I never envy
the work that the CAC has to do to make these allocations. We typically get at least two times the amount
of request more than what we are awarded, so they have to do a lot of
hard work to determine who's going to get the funding and how much. So we really appreciate their efforts.
Available for any questions that you might have. I just note that exhibit A and B have the breakdowns
for each of the entities mentioned. And that is part of the resolution. Any questions or comments from
commissioners?
Quick question in regards to the allocations for the administration. That is for each individual recipient
for their administration of the grant and not 20% for taking care of or you having to administer. So
that 20% is for the city of Bloomington's administration of the grant. That's what I wanted to verify,
that it was to cover the costs of you
being able to administer these grants and verify that these projects aren't going to be done. Which
brings me to my second question. Based on what you see, Matt and Cody, and your experience there, you
feel as though these, not feel, but you know that these projects will be able to be done within the
time frame in order to hit the CBDG requirements. To the best of your knowledge. To the best of our
knowledge, the applicants did present timelines that would meet
what we need to to expend funds. Thank you. And I appreciate both of you guys' hard work on this.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? I'll just say, as somebody who's participated
in the Social Services Committee for several years, it is a hard work, but it's amazing the incredible
work that the nonprofits in our community do. And I appreciate having the opportunity to at least see
what they're doing and be part of supporting them in this way. But yeah, it's amazing.
you know, one small part of what they need. So I'm glad that this CDBG funds are available to support
them and that the city makes that happen. This is a public hearing. I'm looking for any public comment
on resolution 25-151 on the CDBG recommendations for 2026, either in person or online. Seeing none,
I will entertain a motion for this resolution, please.
I'll move approval of resolution 25-151. Second. I'll move a first and a second. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Motion passes unanimously, and the public hearing is now closed. Thank you very much. Thank you.
OK. Next item on our agenda is resolution 25-152, which is the approval of the conceptual, comprehensive,
and coordinated design of Hopewell South, blocks 8, 9, and 10 for rezoning. And I'll just note that.
The redevelopment commission was invited to be part of a city council convening with the mayor earlier
just before this meeting. And this is regarding that we did not have a chance to ask any questions,
which is fine. It was really the council's meeting. But I appreciate it being invited. But this is our
chance to discuss anything that may have come up in looking at the proposal as well as what's in our packet.
I will ask who's going to present this. I'm happy to talk about this tonight. So as you know, and you
learned earlier today or through this process, the Hopewell South site cannot be developed to achieve
the city's housing goals under the existing R4 zoning standards due to dimensional restrictions, minimum
lot area and width, and frontage requirements.
An analysis of development under the current zoning regulations allowed for only 28 homes to be constructed
at price points unattainable to a Bloomington resident earning the area meeting income. Hopewell South
plan unit development is designed to not only guide the redevelopment of these blocks, but to also serve
as a prototype for attainable urban housing in Bloomington.
The PUD seeks to demonstrate how smaller lots, context-based frontage, and simplified subdivision processes
can expand homeownership opportunities without compromising neighborhood form or environmental performance.
In doing so, it advances the city's broader objectives of fostering compact, connected, and inclusive
neighborhoods as outlined in the comprehensive plan and the Hopewell Master redevelopment strategy.
So what you guys are actually being asked to approve right now is the conceptual approval of what we've
filed for the plan commission, which is on January 12th. So in order to stay on track and to potentially
have approval this spring in order to hit the building season over the summer, we would need your conceptual
approval of what we have filed, the materials that were filed. They are also in the packet.
The project's overall aim is to deliver the homeownership opportunities and the PUD that is in front
of you can reduce the average home price by more than 30% and provide 70% more total homes than can
be built by right under the existing R4 zoning. This is not a final version yet.
Changes can be made. I think our last day to give the Planning Department changes on what we've filed
is December 29th. But we do need your approval to move forward to Plan Commission. And even at the first
hearing for Plan Commission, there are likely going to be changes and discussions as we gather community
input and hear how we need to zone in on what is right.
So this is just one of those steps that you're conceptually approving what we have filed. Thank you.
Open for questions and comments from commissioners on resolution 25-152, please. Go ahead. OK. Good question.
Okay, long story short, the PUD that's just been presented, we've looked through, Ali did a great job
at the council presentation. What's the number of homes we're presenting so the public has an idea?
I believe it's 98. Okay, so we're looking to go from 28 in the beginning to 98 in a walkable area.
close to our community that will generate more tax dollars. Yeah, and of course, these could change.
But right now, what we're targeting is ranging in sales price from $83,000 all the way up to $653,000,
only a couple of those units. With the very vast majority, I think at least 50% of the units being built
are going to be attainable to
100% of our area median income, which is really incredible considering building costs, land costs. That's
really not something that we're going to see with new construction. And there's the process that goes
through, we'll have planning commission, and then based upon it being a PUD, then it will need to go
to common council. It does go to council. Everything moves forward. That is correct. And then there's
a platting process as well that will go back through planning commission. So your original estimate
of being able to break ground
before the season is over next year is a realistic possibility. Assuming that we have approval as this
moves forward. So we're guesstimating that we'll have at least two meetings with the Planning Commission.
So we'll see. Right now, including platting, I think we're looking at the end of.
April beginning of mid part of May before we'll be fully done with the plotting process, assuming that
everything gets in person. It's an assumption process. It could go longer. I'm trying to look at the
best case scenario based on the cooperative nature that everybody has to get additional affordable housing.
We have been listening to your demands for get this done. I want this done next summer. We need housing.
And so to stay on target, we need this approval.
I believe there's a few units that may be able to get started sooner because they can do some quick
lot line adjustments to be able to break around as well. So you may see dirt moving sooner. Before the
PV is approved? What do you mean? I'm sorry? What did you mean by sooner? Yes, there's a few of the
lots that if they change the lot lines,
which you can do through an administrative adjustment, then they could go ahead and start work. It would
still end up being part of the overall PUD, but it would meet the criteria at that point in time to
go ahead and to be able to get it going. I'm just going to quick mention that even though it's not in
the redevelopment commission's packet,
members of the public want to see the presentation. It's a great presentation. It's really, really impressed
with what Flint Lot Lab has put together. And I think I invite people to see it. It's actually under
the city council meeting packets for December 15th. I invite you to take a look, because it's a great
presentation and really kind of gives a really strong idea of what's being considered as it starts to
move through towards the planning commission. But if there's no other questions or comments from the
commissioners. Yeah, sorry, John.
I should always make sure I look to my right when I'm doing it. Overall, I have a lot of support for
this. But there's some pieces of this design that I'm struggling with. But I don't want to hold up the
works because of that. So you said, conceptually, this is what we're approving. So we're in this process.
Does the RDC have the opportunity to discuss or explore some specifics of the plan and not dwell on
it here to hold up some vote for the overall PUD process, which I would like to support? Well, time
is of the essence, of course. So any time between now and, I would say, our February plan commission
meeting, we can receive your input. But I would prefer it sooner than later because each
If there are changes that need to be made, we need to do it now. Well, changes that... And are you concerned
with the home types? Because that's not necessarily what we're approving right now. What we're approving
is the layout. Well, that's a good example. I would question the marketability of some of the home types.
Now, I don't know if they're there just as examples or by this vote, is this what we're trying to make happen?
question, you know, in some cases whether it's reality or not. That's just one example of something
that has come to my mind. Sure. Well, you're not approving the house types right now. You are simply
approving the PUD, the layout, and where the infrastructure is going. So those conversations will come
back up. Okay. Will it come to this body? Yes.
But I guess I would also point out that there are other bodies that involved in that as well. There's
going to be other conversations with Flintlock, with Planning Commission. I mean, there's going to be
obviously other conversations about the housing time. So I don't think that this body necessarily has
100% control over that location. Understood.
Anything else from commissioners? Otherwise, I'm going to open it up for public comment, either in person
or online. Not seeing anything. I'll entertain a motion on resolution 25-152. Move approval of resolution
25-152. I'll second. We have a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes
unanimously. Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is resolution 25153, which is approval of funding for change order package number
one for Hopewell West. Mr. Kenoki is here to talk to us about that. Yes, Kendall Kenoki, engineering
department. Thank you very much. So Hopewell West, just as a refresher, this is the first phase of the
infrastructure that's under construction now. So this is Jackson Street directly adjacent to the core
building, as well as Roger Street. This specifically is approval for the funding of a package of four
change orders that
occurred on the project. I'll just go through them one by one, and then I'll be happy to answer any
questions. So the first one is for the addition of a sanitary manhole structure. This is because the
stub we were connecting to was not at the elevation that it was supposed to be at. And that was a different
project, the first street project. So getting that through NDOT and going through, the easiest thing
to do is just drop a new structure
keep this project moving along. So that's where that $5,225 is coming from. Change order number three
is the addition of some side for some stabilization. Number four is some additional conduit. So this
was essentially to prevent Duke Energy from ripping up our new road. So we decided to drop some conduit
in so they could go through there to serve the new core building. And then number five is the biggest
one in this group, but this is
where our consultant prepares a quantity takeoff of the proposed design, and he did not quite pick up
all of these items, so I'll just list them quickly. A gate valve with valve box, sanitary lateral, a
storm inlet, and PVC conduit. So these were listed lower on the quantity takeoff that the bidders used.
than what was actually on the plan. So we are over on these quantities, and that's added an additional
$42,977.50. So I'll say the consultant had a great design and a great takeoff on all the other items,
but miscalculated on the amount of conduit and things. But this is cost that would have been included
in the original bid had the quantities been correct.
And that's why it's non-recoverable, which it says there, which means we can't go after the consultant
trying to get the money back. I think that's it. I'm happy to answer any questions. And for the record,
change order two was in the amount of $5,225. And change order three was in the amount of $870.
Change order four was in the amount of $2,560, and you've already heard the change order four. Yes,
questions, please. Maybe I'm just not following the resolution, but it looks to me like we're approving
change order package one, and it doesn't even refer to anything else.
It's a little confusing because the exhibits are described as exhibit A through B, although then within
the text, it's change order two, three, four, and five. And yeah, the text of the resolution doesn't
appear to reference. Number two doesn't really reference anything but package one, even though the exhibits
are. In the whereas clause, it says that the tax exhibits A through B
collectively, a change order package number one. So then in the therefore clause, it's change order
package number one, whereas clause has described as those four exhibits. Yeah, but I thought we were
doing two through four. It's change order two through four, then it's a package of change orders. I
didn't draft it, but I'm just saying that's
Legally, it covers it. Because that's what the package number one is, and then it says approved in that
package. All right. Thank you. Long story short, we've got 153,444 177 tests. Well, this change order
is only for 51,632 50.
Okay, I apologize. We already did the other one. It's like a $52,000 miss, but we'd have paid for it
anyway, correct? That's correct. The $42,000 is the big thing. It's a quantity miss. Yes. How we missed
it is... Yes, approximately $43,000. The other three are, you know, just changes, construction changes.
satisfied with it as a professional? And is everything moving along in your time frame and the quality
that your expectations are? Yes, the contractor is in liquidated damages, LDs, so they're running behind
schedule. So there's a few things that they ran out of time before the winter. So next spring, we're
going to get the full payment markings put down. They weren't able to put those down before it got cold.
But generally, I think we're probably going to be actually under the total estimated cost for the projects.
There'll be a balancing change order at the end. I think we'll be a little under that. That's all over
what our original projected cost was. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? I agree it's
kind of eventually legible in terms of how the resolution is written.
I would strongly agree because there's not even one place where the total is. It's like subtracting,
you know, changing the total to the total. There's not anything that adds up exhibits A through D. So
I'm just asking from a legal resolution, whoever in the legal department is drafting this stuff. I mean,
there's occasionally times where we do come up with or do notice errors in numbers and we want it to
be as clear as possible so that we actually can make sure that the numbers are written accurately in
the resolution. And I believe they are in this case. I'm just saying that
It takes a little while to make sure that that's the case. And to the extent that the resolution can
be written clearly to say, you know, Exhibit A is for this much. Exhibit B is for this much. It totals
this much. And this is the change order. That would be much more helpful to make sure that we're, again,
doing the due diligence of, is this being approved for what it is intended to be approved for? So just,
again, that's just mostly from a legal resolution drafting question. Put it really clearly in there
so it's really easy to be like, yep,
That's what it is. We can check the numbers and make sure that it is delivering what it's intended to.
So that's my last word. OK. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any public comment? Commissioner,
comment is closed. Anything from the public, either online or in person, seeing none, I will entertain
a motion for resolution 21-153. Move approval of resolution 25-153.
We've got a first and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you. And our last item of new business for the evening is resolution 25-154, which is the approval
of a lease for the Fords with Bermudez Energetics LLC. Who would like to speak to that? Mr. Fernando.
OK. All right. Good evening. Thank you, everybody.
I think that memo I sent out, hopefully you had a chance to read, is pretty straightforward. This is
a proposed lease for possibly $2,400 swiffy on the first floor of the Forge. That's a company called
Prometheus Energetics. They're a company that's in the defense tech space that's a joint venture between
two really major players. So they're technically a startup.
But I guess in the startup world, you would consider a hyper growth startup. You may have read that
they're planning to build a very large scale manufacturing and engineering facility in Green County
as part of a large campus that's being developed in proximity to Crane. But they haven't started construction
yet. So they were looking for a space where they could
attract some of the professional staff, some of the engineering, some of the CEO and some of the other
executives so that they'd be able to have a good place to operate out of why they're doing the larger-scale
project. That's why this, unlike our previous lease, it's a three-year lease. Our prior leases were
all five. I felt that it was worth
compromising and doing a three-year lease with you know they have three options to renew at it for a
year because of the nature of the company the brand of the company it's a it's a pretty big addition
to our ecosystem I mean in that sector they're very well known and they're very well capitalized to
say the least the
The discussion I have with the leadership is that since we would be looking at a three-year lease rather
than a five-year lease, we'll work together on their tenant improvement plans to make them pretty basic.
Nothing hyper-customized so that it'd be much easier to re-tenant at the end of three years if they
decide that they don't want to exercise an option.
The only other difference in this lease is the rent you'll notice is just slightly higher than our previous
leases because we baked into all the leases a annual COLA or inflationary increase of two and a half
percent. So that's actually reflected in this lease since they would not begin paying rent until in
2026. So it's 2153 is the base rent plus cams plus their own electric charges.
They also have a request in the lease for a first-ride refusal for the remaining 1,800 square feet on
the first floor. I don't know if they actually, you know, use that or not, but they were just curious
if they could have that just in case they decided they wanted it spanned. I did not include, as John
West pointed out,
defined term in terms of how long they have to consider that. Retrospect, that would have been a good
thing to do. I think given the relationship, we can include that in the notice that we're required to
give that give them a set deadline for responding. I wouldn't want to hold up the lease over that just
because it's a very corporate bureaucracy, to say the least.
that it will take several weeks to go through the legal department and do an amendment for something
like that. Just not because it's complicated, not because it's controversial, it's just their corporate
governance requires board approval of any of their leases and then it will require chasing down two
executive signatures, so it'll take a while. So I hope you just give me a little grace on that
trust that we'll be able to manage that process. So I'll stop there. I'm happy to answer any questions.
I guess the good news with this is that we started the year with a goal of 50% occupancy. If the commission
approves this, we'll be up to 86%. So we're doing pretty well. Thank you very much. Open to questions
and comments from commissioners on resolution 25-154.
Any questions or comments? I'd love to have the entire facility, but it's good to have what we got.
Yeah, no kidding. I mean, we don't, well, that's a whole different topic, Randy, about where we would
do that. But yeah, appreciate your effort on that. Thank you. I did want to say that this is based on
the model lease that you approved. Thank you. OK. If there's no other questions or comments
from commissioners, we'll open it for public comment either online or in person.
Seeing none, I will invite a motion for resolution 25-154. I'll move approval of resolution 25-154.
Second. First and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank
you very much. Congrats, Sean. Thank you. Thank you. One more item of business. It is old business.
And that is resolution 25-136.
supporting the convention center host hotel on color square property We have this again revisited, but
I'll open it to staff for any comments before we move forward because there's been some Changes in the
resolution since we last met I'll take it and offer a little intro in context. You all are familiar
with it at this point and then I'll pass to corporation council who can
do a deeper dive into the legislation and the changes that have been included this week. So the Monroe
County Capital Improvement Board, via the internal local agreement signed in February 2024, is empowered
to select the site of a hotel, oversee that partnership, and manage development and collaboration with
the city and county.
The project, the hotel, the convention center and the hotel project have a long history but I'll begin
in June 2024 when the CIB issued a request for proposals for a host hotel developer. I misspoke there
that's the beginning of the hotel project to be clear the convention center is the one with a long history.
The CIB received seven responses to that request for proposals and they heard presentations from three
developers in September 2024. They selected a developer in Dora Hospitality and they communicated with
Dora Hospitality about available but not necessarily gratis sites to the hotel developer. The developer selected
the RDC-owned property at 200 to 216 South College Avenue, which is called College Square or the former
Bunger and Robertson property. They selected that as their preferred location. And so they engaged the
city in discussions in late 2024 at the staff level. Additional staff and members of the RDC joined
those discussions in 2025.
From the beginning of those negotiations or discussions, the hotel developers described a significant
gap in order to deliver on the scope of the host hotel. When the city, on our side of the negotiations,
required full land value as was previously requested, that amount simply appeared as a required subsidy
in a different part of their pro forma.
So the city considered a range of partnership structures to determine how best to advance the project
at the site. And this body approved expenditures totaling $400,000 to advance investigation of the site
and design of the building while it continued negotiating with the developer. Initial site work like
soil borings has gone forward. No design work has advanced in the absence of a letter of intent with
the developer. City staff put forth legislation to the RDC for consideration at its December 1st meeting.
The RDC held a public work session on December 10th in order to provide additional public space to discuss
the project, and more specifically, to do that with members of the common council. That discussion informed
amendments to the legislation, which Margie will discuss momentarily. For members of the public, you
can find access to the meeting packet for that work session by Googling Bloomington RDC and navigating
to the work session on December 10th. Broadly,
Staff recommends consideration of the hotel project, which is a critical piece to a major economic driver
for our community. The hotel will fill critical demand gaps, allowing the convention center to operate
at its full capacity. It will drive outside revenue into the community, and it will generate tax revenue
via the food and beverage and keepers and property taxes. And with that, I'll pass to Margie. So at
your last meeting, you guys discussed this resolution, and several council members came.
to the meeting and reminded the Redevelopment Commission that they objected to this parcel being offered
to a developer for free or for a nominal cost. So based on that meeting, staff went back and edited
this resolution. And I know some RDC members provided some feedback. So the amended resolution is based
on some changes that you guys had requested.
I would point you to, well, let me just say this has 14 kind of whereas clauses to give background and
then four resolutions. The third resolution has been edited and essentially it says that the redevelopment
commission provides notice of its commitment to a host hotel project by making known
that the real estate at College Square, which is bounded by College and 4 and then 3rd Street on the
south, may be made available in some form to the Host Hotel Project at a nominal cost to the project
if it furthers the best interests of economic development. It also makes very clear what this resolution
does not do. This resolution
shall not be construed as approving the final development terms, a land conveyance, or a specific financial
structure, all of which shall require separate RDC review and approval. You are not negotiating in this
resolution a deal with a hotel developer. So let's just get that off the table. What you are doing in
this resolution, if you pass it, is signaling to the world, to the city council, to hoteliers, to the CIB,
that the roughly 2.4 acre bit of land that you own that is in need of redevelopment, it is an underdeveloped
property in downtown Bloomington, you are signaling that you think this is a good location for a hotel
and you may make it available at a nominal cost. Nominal meaning, by dictionary definition, very small
or below the real value or cost.
Not saying you are, just saying you might. And the CIB has chosen this hotel here that we've been trying
to negotiate an LOI. We do not have an LOI. However, the world needs to know whether this underdeveloped
lot in downtown is intended for a hotel and going to be made available for a hotel or not. And you guys
are the owners, and so here we are tonight.
please do, you know, three of you are appointed by the mayor, two of you are appointed by the council.
Council has made its wishes known. The mayor is here tonight. I would encourage you to take all of the
feedback and input that you have been given to date into consideration, and you get paid the big bucks
to make these sorts of calls. And so with that, I'll entertain any questions you might have. And I would
add, in addition to that,
where you mentioned that you would only do the project at the nominal cost and if they less than fair
market value, if it furthers the debate in the past interest of economic development in the city of
Bloomington, that means you would have to be convinced that that was the right project and whatever
concessions you might or might not make would be the right concessions in order to make that project happen.
It still gives you the authority to choose whether or not you feel it's an economic interest to have
any. So you're retaining that authority. I also want to just say for the record that to date the county
has contributed
about an acre and a half of land for the Convention Center where it is currently being built. The assessed
value of that land is about 1.7 million. We know that's low for an acre and a half, but that's just
the AV. There's not a current sales price to bring that up. Property that you guys own is worth about
seven to eight million based on appraisal we received and the sales price. The city has also contributed
to the Convention Center project in general, about $46 million worth of bond.
So there's been a land contribution by the county, there's been a giant bond contribution of food and
beverage tax dollars by the city, and you're here tonight to discuss whether you want to make this lot
available for a possible post-hotel site. Questions or comments from commissioners? I will note in addition
to the comments that people have, I have a proposed amendment to this, but I want to
make sure that people have a chance to say what they want to say before I charge ahead with them. If
there's nothing, I will introduce it. So I have hard copies if you want to look at it in front of you.
Feel free to. I've got seven copies here, so if you want it, you can take a look at it.
The two main areas that I'm proposing an amendment to are on page two of the resolution. Um, and they
both are kind of centered around that word nominal, um, because even though I fully appreciate, um,
the hard work that staff has done, um, that, um, the having the meeting, the work session earlier, uh,
last week, um, all good to hear from people to really collaborate, to get towards, um, a fruitful outcome for this.
Talking about giving away our nominal cost of land, again, we will have a chance to revisit that later.
So just I'll go over the specific amendment first and then just provide my commentary after that.
So again, this is page two. The last whereas, my proposal is that
this would read, whereas in addition to the incentives already mentioned above, the RDC has determined
that the real estate at College Square necessary for the host hotel may be made available in a form
and on terms to be determined by the RDC and structured to protect the city's best interest and limit
public risk. So it's taking out the at nominal cost and then provided that such participation is, it
was just to kind of tighten that up to make it clear that
Again, the RDC is prepared to make this available, but we are not stating the terms under which that
availability is being made yet. And then the comparable one is under clause three.
The Bloomington Redevelopment Commission hereby provides notice of its further commitment to the Host
Hotel project by making known that the real estate at College Square, if necessary for the Host Hotel,
may be made available in some form and on terms to be determined by the RDC and structured to protect
the city of Bloomington's best interest and limit public risk. Again, taking out the at nominal cost
to the project because it feels like it's
let it's reducing leverage capacity of this so.
Just again, this is based on concerns that we heard about fiscal discipline, use of public assets, and
maintaining appropriate oversight. I feel like these are legitimate concerns, and they matter to me.
So that's the reason for my proposed amended language, taking out the phrases like nominal cost, which
can be read as a pricing commitment. Removing that language helps ensure this resolution does not signal
a subsidy level before the RDC has fully evaluated a concrete proposal from a hotel developer that reflects
the anticipated sources of financing,
beyond what the RDC can offer. From my perspective, the purpose of this resolution is to confirm that
the RDC is willing to consider making College Square site available in support of a host hotel while
preserving our leverage and financial responsibility. The amendment documents that flexibility without
pre-committing the RDC to a deal. Importantly, this amendment does not change the resolution's intent,
and a binding decision still requires a separate vote by this body in public.
With the convention center expansion already underway, I do believe it's appropriate to vote on an amended
resolution tonight to create a pathway to move forward on a key component of this project. So thank
you for your consideration of this proposed amendment. So. Do you need a second for the amendment? I
think I'm introduced to it. I think we need a first and then a second. That's my understanding of the
procedure, but I'll defer to our.
We have a first and a second. Would we like to discuss further before I vote? Yes. Oh, I'm just saying
we have a first and a second, so it's on the table for discussion. Right. OK. So any questions or comments?
Either obviously the amendment or the amended version of the resolution, because the resolution as a
whole is what's on the table. Why don't we just talk about the amendment? OK. Move back to the resolution.
I would be interested in staff's take and in particularly John and Randy's take based on the conversations
you had. Is there still a valid point to this resolution with the softened language? Does it still accomplish
what we need it to accomplish?
given what hoteliers are looking for? And that's a sincere question. Anna? No pressure. In the executive
session that we had, you guys asked for the resolution that gave a ceiling to the amount of subsidy
that you were willing to provide because the gap was so significant. So by amending and taking out the
nominal cost bit
You are essentially not giving a ceiling. We are just back to the drilling boards. The land has been
made available already. So I appreciate and understand the input that has gone into this. It's ultimately
up to you guys to decide how you want to move forward. We know that there is no deal with DORA. There
is no deal with DORA with the land donation.
That's not going to fix the problem. This resolution isn't going to fix the problem. The amendment isn't
going to fix the problem. I will add that I agree. I think unless the RDC is willing to make a statement
of how much commitment they might be willing to make if it was the right project and if it had the right
terms, then it
really isn't impacting on any future negotiations. This is a great opportunity to kind of fix
some misperceptions that's out there. The RDC went into this and into these negotiations under the assumption
that they were going to be compensated for the land in some manner. Though that assumption stayed strong,
until we got deep into the negotiations. Then around June of this year, it became apparent that there
was a gap that the developer was looking for a subsidy to fill. So then the RDC took time to look at
a variety of structures of deals, a variety of funding sources,
most of which, if almost all of which are outside your control, these other funding forces. And finally
came to the realization that even if the RBC did the most that it could do, and whether it's offering
the land at a nominal amount would be the ceiling because there's nothing else the RBC can do.
Senate Bill 1, Senate Rule Act 1,
changed the world. Paris has changed the world. Things are different now than they were even a short
year ago. And so it was determined in the November executive session that the RDC didn't make any decisions.
It just said legal. And it put together a resolution
So we have something to consider because we need now that it's obvious that even if the land was part
of the deal, as Anna said, the door deal was not going to work. So it's like, OK, well, the deal's off
the table. So our confidential negotiations are over with. And now we need to bring into the public
realm what the RDC considers
the possibility of abusing the land. It was nothing was ever assumed that that was going to happen or,
you know, behind, you know, in executive sessions or anything else. It was determined by this body that,
hey, we need to get this out into the public sphere and we need to get input. So it was on the December
1st meeting and input was received and enough input that said,
We need to look at this some more. So there was a work session on December 10th to make sure that everyone
was understanding where things were at. And so that, you know, I hope that clears up this misconception
that there was this plan to use this property. It was never the plan.
But in all of the negotiations we had in looking at all other projects that have host hotels and seeing
that nearly all of them have some sort of public existence, and some of them as much as 100%, we realized
that the RDC couldn't make the deal work because the RDC doesn't have the ability to do it.
Again, Senate-enrolled Act 1 has caused
the RDC funds to be needed for projects that may not that may have been funded in other ways prior to
that. So now the RDC has to be very careful with its if its funds and its revenues coming in. So but
this is an asset that is on the books. It is an asset that if this deal is going to be done if any deal
to be done
with the host hotel is going to require the significant contribution from public sources. And the land,
if that were a part of it, and again, you can structure the deal in many different ways to try to protect
the interests of the city, to try to control that the host host hotel maintains quality and things like that.
By doing this resolution, now we're turning it back to the CIB saying, look, we did it. We tried to
do it the best we could. We don't have the funds that DORA seeks to do this. Even with reduction in
the scope of work, we don't have the funds to do it ourselves. And they're going to require something.
But if you pass this resolution,
You're saying, as it's without the amendment, you're saying, look, we may go to a nominal amount. We're
not saying we will, but we may go to that amount if it's the right project, if it's the right economic
development, which the duties of the RDC is for the economic development
the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the city. And so that's your focus. And you were appointed
to these positions because your appointing person or body felt that you have the expertise and are qualified
to consider all these things and decide whether or not
you know, what you feel would be appropriate for you to do. Again, I feel that if you pass the amendment,
it really doesn't change much about where we're already at. We've already been in negotiations. It's
already been publicly acknowledged that the land is there. What this gives is the CIB now the opportunity
to say, OK, now I know that this
could be available. I'm not saying it is, but it could. Now we can use that in trying to figure out
what the best method going forward will be. And as Mr. Wieckar said, that could be going back the door
and seeing what they can do. Or if they're no longer interested, maybe going out for another RFP. But
it just became.
very evident that without a subsidy from the city or county or someone, the hotel will not be built.
I'm sorry, but it is that cut and dry. I'm trying not to make it clear. I'm just going to clarify that
this proposed amended language is not to take that possibility off the table. It's to keep options open.
And it feels that by,
continually inserting the nominal cost. That's, again, no matter what, that's still a possibility. But
it feels like it's preemptively putting that in here. And that's my feeling in terms of why I've proposed
this amended language. I think I can translate and then maybe help get us along a little bit. I think
to Anna's point about why staff feels it doesn't advance the project by tempering the language is
not really related to the deal with Dora that we've been discussing right now, but it's really, I think
what staff was trying to achieve was to move the negotiations along in the future. We really wanted
to signal to the CIB what the status is, and then they can, we can also collectively signal to the developers
what the limits are. But if the body is not comfortable with that, then that's a different signal that's
being sent, and we can understand that, too. But I think understanding that part of the purpose might
just be helpful in understanding where the differences lie. I think it has felt to me like we're trying
to accomplish two things that don't have to be at odds with each other. And I think, Debra, your amendment
helps bring them together. One is, what are we sticking with to develop?
And what are we signaling back to the CIB? And I agree with you that having the word nominal in there,
I'm not a hotel developer. I don't do anything like that. But I would be looking for any possible point
of leverage I could get. And if I see something like that, I think I can get those guys to give me the
land. I think the way this is structured now, it's much more ambiguous.
And to me, it doesn't give a little bit extra advantage to the developer to come in and demand that
we give them land away. We've still got a huge problem. But I think it does accomplish saying,
this is it. It's the land. Let's talk about whether there is a way to do this. And we've talked about
other options, land leases, land swaps. They may or may not work.
But it's not like we have completely exhausted all the possibilities, and that leaves that open. So
I support the amendment as it's written. Two things. I'd like to request procedurally that we take a
vote on the amendment and vote the amendment up or down before we actually vote on the resolution. So
just to be clear about that, because it does substantially change the resolution. Next, Marty, can you
redefine nominal?
Yeah, so just if it's not defined then you go to the dictionary and the dictionary definition nominal
is very small or far below the real value or cost. Far below the real value or cost. I'd love to change
the definition of nominal. I mean if you want to say, I mean if you don't want to go as low as nominal
and you want to say a reduced value you could use the word reduced. I mean there are other
adjectives or other words you could choose if you didn't want nominal in there. Again, you know, you
this body of RDC members didn't buy this land, but it was bought by your predecessors. And it is an
underdeveloped, very nice, nicely located bit of land. And the question is, and this came up at the
council work session with you guys, what do you want to see there?
You know, it looks like a prime location for a hotel going next to a convention center. Is that what
you want to see there? Do you want to see something else there? So I think that this resolution does
send a signal about what you're thinking about this. And that's a really important signal we need to
send now, because the convention center hotel's being built. Or the convention center's being built,
so. I kind of go one step further. With this amendment, I'm not sure why we need the resolution at all.
I would agree.
It doesn't change anything. It doesn't change anything. I believe it states, again, our interest in
the economic development of the community. Of course, that's the purpose of the RDC. I believe it makes
clear what our current engagement has been with this property. I think it just kind of level sets things
to move forward. Again, we still have all our options open with this amended language. It is not precluding
the option that is
currently in the resolution that the amended language seeks to broaden. So it's not changing that, it's
just not giving the concession before we have an actual pro forma on the table to say, this is how we're
going to plug that gap. We need you to do this.
So I want to see that as opposed to giving it away before we have that request. And I certainly understand
there have been lots of things, lots of hard work by staff. We've been part of these sessions to talk
about different options. But at this stage, this amended language is to make it clear that we are ready
to invest, but we need to hear what the investment need is. And also, I mean, obviously, all the public
discussion that's happened makes clear where that ceiling is, even if we don't
put the nominal language in the resolution. So I would argue that it helps to straddle a very fine line
with a lot of different vested interests. Obviously, the Convention Center is a very important product
for the community. And so it's trying to balance the various interests while still moving forward.
I just want to express where I am with this. I agree that the resolution, if we're trying to signal
a ceiling, the resolution as amended would not really do that. It just says we're open to talking.
It also doesn't say that we have really anything to offer yet. And I do think in order to negotiate
in good faith with whoever might be next, Dora's gap is too big at this point. In order to negotiate
in good faith with whoever's next, we have turned over every economic development incentive that we
can think of.
I don't think of providing the land at a nominal cost to be a gift. I think of it as an incentive that
would have to be in the economic best interest of the city. That means that we need to know it's going
to do more good for the city than what we're actually investing in it. And the only thing we have to
offer right now is the value of that land.
abatement, et cetera, none of that ends up making sense. So I'll just say, I think, I'm not sure why
the amendment would move forward with the amended language. It doesn't signal much. Matt? Does the reduced
language, I'm sitting here noodling about this reduced language, and that's pretty interesting to me.
Does that provide enough of a signal if we were to say nominal or reduced cost? The reason I think it
does send a signal is because there is inherent flexibility in the statute. Dana and I have talked about
this. The RDC has the ability, unlike other government entities, they have the ability to give land
to a developer for economic purposes or to
to do things at a reduced cost. So I think reduced matches the statute and nods to that flexibility.
The point of the redevelopment commission is to take blighted or underdeveloped properties and get them
back into a more productive state. And this property is purchased in 2019. We're not getting any taxes
on it right now.
You know, you got a couple acres in downtown to be used for something. So I think that you ought to
be thinking about using your tools and offering land at a reduced value in order to spur economic
development. And that's why you exist, to try to encourage economic development. So I think it does
send a signal, but I'd love to know what the redevelopment commission members think.
Would you consider revising your amendment to say reduced instead of nominal? I appreciate that proposal
to me, even reduced nominal. Again, to me, the purpose of this amendment is to take that leverage out
of this amendment
because I feel like that this amendment or this resolution opens up the opportunity for conversation.
Any developer worth their salt is gonna look at how to negotiate a deal, right? And that certainly could
include a concession of the land. It's not like they're not gonna ask because we didn't put it in the
resolution, right? They're gonna be like, okay, how do we put this deal together? The RDC owns it, they're
interested in economic development. Let's see what they'll come to with it for the table. I understand
the feeling that
Oh, the resolution isn't making movement if we take out the concessionary language. I don't feel like
it's the time to make that concession. We've already acknowledged that the the deal that Doris proposed
has a huge gap that we don't know how it's going to get filled and certainly conceding this land is
not going to fill it.
Okay. And so if we do that now, there's still a big gap to fill. So there may be need for we want to
keep this moving forward. This convention center needs a hotel and the RDC is always going to be there
with this land to say, how can we support it?
But we're not, I feel like this resolution is not the place to give that concessionary. Again, developer
can ask for it. They fully know that this land is here and the RDC has a role to play in the community.
I don't feel like we need to put that concessionary language in the resolution. And I guess, you know,
so anyway, so I appreciate the idea of trying to look at that.
I understand others may support that. I do not feel like I would be willing to, as someone wants to
propose an alternate amendment, I understand that. And I will be happy to participate in that part of
the business for my proposed amendment. To me, that concession, I prefer not to keep that in. That's
the point of my amended language. So.
And I guess I don't see it as concessionary language, given all the other tentative language that we
do have. So I think that the elephant in the room, when it comes to developing that property, is the
price of that land. It's the availability of land to actually build it on.
And I'm back to the notion of, if we don't even mention that, if we don't even acknowledge that, what's
the point of having a resolution? Are we signaling anything useful at all? If not, why are we voting
on it? But to me, it's not concessionary because there is so much other tentative language in here.
So that's the thought I would just offer in response.
All right, Margie, to your point, Leonard and Robertson, since the last time we paid taxes when we bought
it, we've lost $172,262 in tax revenue based on that. I want to take my feelings out of it because I
wear my feelings on my sleeve. I won't get down to the bath. Okay, and the math of it is we need a minimum
of a 200-room hotel, and that location is the best location.
But we also need to be able to hit a average room rate of $150 or less in order to bring in the 400
to 600 person conventions that we want to have on Monday through Thursday in order to help drive our
downtown economics, which also is part of bringing people in in order to help continue the food and
beverage tax. The county and the city of Bloomington, through your cooperative efforts, have made the
interlocal agreement.
bit of a miracle that it occurred and with that we got CIB appointed who has been negotiating in the
best possible way in order to achieve those goals that we have. The hotel selected person that was or
group that was selected came back with a a proposal that is unavailable for us to consider and that
was changed significantly as our community as a whole when SE1 was passed.
With that, we now, and I'm going to quote our mayor, have to do less with less. I think that was you.
I hope so. But what I'm looking at here is signaling. We've had multiple discussions. We've went through
executive committees. We've tried to keep everything so we didn't just throw out what we could do. The
math comes down. 200-foot room hotel, $150 under.
Land is available, and this is the best place for the hotel. Now the question is, how are we going to
get there? Now the amendment, nominal, as I said earlier, and try not to be in a joking way, it'd be
nice to change that term because it indicates in Webster's at a very low amount. And it's very difficult
to say that, say what we would do. Because when I look at what the hotels pay in taxes,
over and based on and I'm take I took the downtown hotels I took the seven hotels including the 45 foot
graduate on average you know total taxes years 1.69 to 777.8 million at the present moment which comes
down to approximately $1637 to per room in taxes
which gets us to a payback of our 6.85 day of 21.36 years average. Is that just property tax? That's
just property. You're not even counting in-keepers tax? No, I'm not counting in-keepers tax or anything
else. And the reason I say that is because our group is only based upon our incremental property tax.
I didn't want to get into the weeds because I get in the weeds. I'm sorry about that, but I just do.
So with that, how we get to it
with the developer to just be straight up. We've got 200 rooms. We've got to hit our room rate. Are
you able to do that? Because that property needs to be put back in service at the earliest possible
point. And had SE1 not come forth, we would have already been moving forward. We can't change that.
But what we can do is send the signals. Like, if anyone's looking from a developer standpoint, this
has been discussed a lot.
That's the place for the hotel. It's just a matter of how we're going to get there financially. And
unfortunately, the city, everybody thinks that a governmental entity has more money than we do. But
we have public safety. We have affordability. And we have economic development that needs to be put
forth, just like the Prometheus lease. That's bringing people into our town that aren't here to bring
our money in. So the convention center and the host hotel will bring that in. The matter is how quick?
And can we afford it? Because the other priorities that we have as a community to ensure safety, economic
success, and the vibrancy of our downtown, which is our heart, continues. And with that, I don't know
how we're going to get there unless we set a priority that says, we're not going to do a police station.
We're not going to work on affordable housing. And we're going to put a bunch of money to help close
the gap through a current hotelier. I honestly think.
between the city's administration, between John Weickart and the CIB, that we can come up with someone
to make this work. It's just a matter of how quickly. But sending the signal, we can't just give the
land away. But let's talk about what it is, whether it be $6.8 million or whether it be less. But nominal,
because of you, I greatly appreciate you putting that definition out. It indicates very low. And I don't know.
I'll put one on my sleeve. We're not a very low community. We're a high bar community. So thank you.
So are you supporting the amendment as it stands without changing to using the word reduced? To you,
it's OK. To me, it's potato potato.
Well, that's a fair question. Is reduced different than nominal? I think it is. So maybe that's the
second. Maybe that's another amendment. OK. So we have a first and a second for the current proposed
amendment. We have a possible other amendment, but that's separate. My question is, is public comment
only until we get to the resolution, or is it how does this work?
Because we've been asked to have this current motion be just about the amendment, not about the resolution.
So I'm asking for clarification in terms of point of order. Yeah, if you want to have public comment
on the amendment, you can ask for public comment. OK, that's the stage. But it has to focus on the amendment.
On the amendment, OK. And that's fine. So again, just because we've had the motion, we've had the discussion,
we're going to public comment before the vote. So we have public comment. And I understand that you've
heard me read it.
I have hard copies I gave to commissioners and provided by email to staff. But if you would like to
look at the hard copies, it's available. Anyway, so opening for public comment either online or in person.
And I'll give my seat up for in person. John Fernandez, I just have a comment on the amendment.
I've not been privy to all the discussions, but I'm just looking at this from an outsider's perspective
and someone who's been involved with lots of economic development deals. It was my understanding the
whole point of the original resolution was to send a signal that the city and redevelopment commission
was open to some pretty aggressive discussions regarding the land cost as part of the deal.
If you pass this amendment, you're going to send a message. I mean, the whole point of the resolution,
I think, was almost like a messaging bill to give the CIB a little bit more room to maneuver in their
conversations. I think passing this amendment is just the wrong messaging bill because, I mean, the
fact is that
you know, even if they had the flexibility to provide the land at a fairly aggressive discount, you'd
still have to go through, you know, a whole economic development proposal that would come back to the
Redevelopment Commission for your review. So you're not taking your ability to say no off the table,
but the message that you're sending is, if I'm the developer,
I'm saying, okay, so the land, you know, is, you know, an investment of the land by the redevelopment
commission is essentially off the table because that's the message because all the conversations that
have led up to this proposed resolution is basically looking for a signal from the city that that's
an option if it's a good enough deal.
And if you take that off the table, you might as well not pass the underlying resolution because you're
just basically going to be on a status quo. So I don't know. There's other people I've been in the room,
but I'm just looking at it from a messaging perspective. I would perceive this as probably to be the
wrong message. That's just my opinion.
John Weickart with the Capital Improvement Board. And thank you for the many opportunities you've given
me to communicate with you about this. And I'm certainly not here to speak against the chairperson's
amendment. But I do want to say, one of the things you did in your meeting of December 10th was you
changed the word would to may. The resolution that you looked at originally said that you would
offer the site at free or nominal cost, and you change it to May. May seems to me to give you all the
flexibility that you need in terms of negotiating with a hotelier. And I'm certainly not here to speak.
I'm not here carrying Dora's water in any fashion. Your resolution talks about a host hotel, and certainly
I know what that means. But if the goal is to signal
the CIB, DORA, or any other potential hotelier if we have to reopen the RFP. And I'm not sure what the
resolution does as amended. You signaled what you've already agreed to do, which is the design assistance,
the schematic design. I think you've already done the site preparation work.
So your resolution becomes historical. It becomes retrospective. It becomes this is what we've done
so far, really the perspective, like here's where we would see ourselves going. If the resolution passes
as amended, I don't know how the ball is moved down the field. I just don't see how it's happening.
We know that there's a gap.
We became involved in late October to see how large that gap was. We had not been involved in those
negotiations. We saw that gap. We agreed to consider what we could do to help close that gap. We don't
have financial incentives. So we agreed that we could make design changes to help close that gap. There's
still a gap. The resolution as not amended says you may consider some other things to assist with the
development
of a host hotel. If it comes back to us, and I'll tell you, we've certainly learned something through
this process as well. What we have done in working with that gap in terms of changing and reducing what
we would expect in the design of a host hotel, I've said before, is a bell that cannot be unrun. We've
already had an initial meeting of our hotel evaluation group to consider, what will our next RFP look like?
Because we have to be prepared for that if this doesn't work. Excuse me. And so what we've already agreed
to do is already becoming part of what we're looking at in our next RFP. How do we describe it in a
future RFP? This is what we need to have. This is what we'd like to have. But this is what we need to
have. And we've already made that reduction. And it was a $15 million reduction by Doris numbers. And
I said this the last time I spoke to you.
If you pass the resolution without amendment, saying you may make this part of your offer, and the deal
collapses, because at that point, you've signaled the CIB, you've signaled DORA, the current selected
hotel, how far you can go. We know how far we can go. And if DORA can't close the gap, then they need
to go home and provide us the opportunity to issue a new RFP
And that new RFP signals to a new host hotel developer or multiple host hotel developers, if they're
even out there, that this is what we can do in terms of reducing the scope, if you will, of design.
This is what the RDC and the city team are willing to do to assist. There's your incentive package.
That's it. That's all we have to offer. That's all you can offer. That's all we can offer.
But with the amendment, if the amendment passes, frankly, it doesn't signal anything to the CIB. It
doesn't give us any tool in our new toolbox to go forward with a new RFP to attract any new hotel developer.
They still don't know what's being offered. So I appreciate the conversation and discussion. This is
complicated. I congratulate and compliment again the staff. This has been hard work. And thank you for
the opportunity to say something to you again tonight.
So I have a memo that was written by four. My name is Daniel Bingham, a member of the public. I have
a memo that was, I believe, shared publicly that is from four city council members that was sent to
the RDC commission earlier today, but that people may not have time to read. And I think it directly
impacts on the amendment, so I'd like to read it into the record in case anybody missed it. And it was
sent by council members Flaherty, Piedmont-Smith, Rallo, and Rosenbarger.
We appreciate your service on the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission and your consideration of our
views expressed in this memorandum. We also appreciate you taking the time, along with the city staff,
to meet with city council members during a work session last week. Respectfully, we urge you to amend
the RDC's resolution 125-36 to remove or substantively alter the final whereas clause, which specifies
the College Square property, quote, may be made available at a nominal cost for a convention at a host hotel.
and Section 3, which similarly states the property, quote, may be made available in some form to the
host hotel project at a nominal cost to the project. One, in making this amendment, the RDC should make
clear that its expectation is to receive value for the property similar to its purchase price, $6,895,000,
in the form of payment or a land transfer from the Monroe County government. A long-term lease that
reflects the full market value of the property could also be explored.
Under no circumstance should the RDC sell, transfer, or lease the property for merely, quote,
nominal value. Two, we believe as a matter of due diligence that a second RFP should be issued by the
CIB to reconsider host hotel options given these cost constraints, since other hoteliers may find a
host hotel project to be economically viable without public subsidy. Three, we believe the CIB and the
RDC should explore in earnest other options for any additional public subsidy
for convention center expansion, including Host Hotel, especially funding sources that are expressly
for this purpose, unappropriated food and beverage tax revenues held by Monroe County, and Monroe County
Innkeeper's tax revenues and or land previously purchased using these revenues. Rationale for why the
RDC should take the steps outlined above. Bullet one, the City Council, which is the city's fiscal body,
established a formal policy position on this issue in a letter dated May 6, 2024, with eight of nine
members clearly specifying
Any land owned by the RDC that may be considered for an expanded Convention Center site must be purchased
by the CIB or other entity, for example, a hotelier, for, at minimum, the price the RDC paid to acquire
the property. Second bullet, the property's total purchase price would typically require the City Council's
formal approval and oversight, which we find meaningful and compelling, regardless of the fact the RDC
purchased the property without Council's approval, since the purchase was structured as two transactions
less than $5 million.
Their bullet directly counteracting the city council's established policy position on this issue will
reflect poorly on the RDC and the mayor's administration while undermining public trust in government.
The next bullet, to the best of our knowledge, the city has not meaningfully subsidized any other private
hotel developments in Bloomington. If this property was not already held by the RDC, it is hard to imagine
the mayor or RDC would propose using almost $7 million in tax increment financing
or other city tax revenues to subsidize a convention center host hotel. There are other viable alternatives
for any additional public subsidy, including Monroe County's unappropriated food and beverage tax proceeds
and innkeeper tax revenues or land purchased with those revenues. Unlike TIF revenues, these funding
sources are mostly or at least partially borne by visitors, i.e. non-residents, and are related to tourism
and a convention center. Mayor Thompson's pledge since the passage of
of Indiana State Enrolled Act SEA 1 has been we need to do less with less. A $7 million giveaway to
a private hotel, regardless of its usefulness for a convention center, belies this approach. The mayor's
prior position was that affordable housing is a more compelling use of these tax dollars, a position
we agree with. There are multiple ways to leverage this property to advance affordable housing and enable
downtown residency for those who otherwise could not afford it. These options include developing affordable
housing on the site,
exchanging the property for nearby land owned by the Monroe County government, and developing or even
preserving existing affordable housing there, or selling the property at market rate and reinvesting
the proceeds in affordable housing. Because the City Council did not have a regular session between
the December 10th RDC work session and the December 15th vote on Resolution 125-36, the Council did
not have time to formally reassert its policy position on this issue,
Five days is not an adequate amount of time for the city council to be meaningfully involved. However,
based on the council's formal policy position, May 2024 council member comments during the December
10th work session and conversations with our colleagues, we believe the majority of council members
broadly share these views. Just wanted to make sure that got entered into the conversation. The council's
position on this is really relevant. And as a member of the public, I share it. I do not think we should
be offering additional public subsidy for the
for the convention center, for a convention center hotel. There are no guarantees that the convention
center is going to succeed. It is a business. Most businesses fail. We've already seen market forces
that have drastically offended the effect of the convention business, like COVID, which has actually
shut it down for several years. There's no guarantee that this is going to have the effect we want.
And $7 million is an enormous subsidy that we need to be spending on other things.
My name is Hugh Farrell, and I will say that as a member of the public, my head's been spinning since
the beginning of this month. I thought I'd understood the level of public subsidy for the Commission
Center and related projects. And I think, as with many people in city and county government and the
public, that's been changing really rapidly. I would speak in support of the amendment because I think
it allows us to establish a new baseline from whence a new plan for basically regulating the level of city risk
and public subsidy can be made. And then in particular, there's an opportunity here to address, I think,
multiple of the goals. And I wanted to speak as well in support of the land swap proposal that was made
last week. I was glad to be able to attend that meeting. And specifically say that in the context of
a very messy process around the convention center, there's also the orphaned property owned by the county
at 222 West Second Street, where there are 29 affordable apartments.
that had potentially been held, the Convention Center, and now are really, I think, suffering for being
held by the county and without a concrete plan. I would say I trust the city and city agencies to be
able to better manage those affordable housing units and that the possibility of a land swap in order
to secure those for the city would be a good way to do that, but we need time
so that our heads stop spinning and we can actually develop a concrete plan within which an RFP can
be made and which affordable housing can be preserved and expanded. Thank you.
And I just want to start by thanking everyone for all of the time and effort that they put into this
resolution. I was able to attend the meeting last week, and it was really extensive conversation. So
I just want to thank everyone for that. I'm here to urge the Redevelopment Commission not to give away
the College Square property without compensation. It's clear that unexpected costs have come up on this project.
And we're at a point where we're going to need to piece together funding to make the hotel and the convention
center viable. Those costs should not fall solely on the city nor on the county, but should be shared
by both. Several properties were purchased as potential locations for the hotel project. Making an exchange
for the property to the south that's currently owned by the county would relieve the county of their
current burden of maintaining affordable housing without a structure designed to do
More importantly, it would help divide the burden of these unexpected costs of this project between
the county and the city. So I think that the current amendment is a step in the right direction, but
I encourage you to explicitly include such a land transfer or other real compensation in the resolution
that you're considering. Thank you.
Hi, my name is T. Randall. I am a resident at the Seminary Square Apartments that have been discussed.
I'm here to argue against inclusion of language, which would give away the northern property or the
College Square property for a nominal fee. The property owned by the county to the south of the current
Convention Center was purchased with funds specifically for supporting the Convention Center project.
The county has expressed its apprehension for being a landlord of the Seminary Square Apartments, and
the city is interested in maintaining
and providing affordable housing. The land swap proposed by the council members is the most direct path
towards me and my neighbors having secure housing and truly affordable rents in a central location.
The swap would also support the continued existence of several beloved local businesses downtown. As
was expressed last week, if this downtown property is sold on the market, what else can we expect to
go in its place but another student apartment high-rise?
We all talk about the value of affordable housing. Here is a chance to protect affordable housing downtown.
My name is Barry Herbers. I think that transferring the College Square property for a nominal fee or
even implying that that is an option misses out on the opportunity to protect genuinely affordable housing.
The exchange proposed that we've been discussing last week by the City Council is the most direct way
to achieve genuinely affordable housing. The county has expressed anxiety in the past that they aren't
enthusiastic about being a landlord, and the residential and commercial space in the Seminary Square
block is a wonderful opportunity to keep Bloomington affordable for everyone who lives here. Thank you.
Any other in-person or online public comment?
Hi, yeah. I am online. I wasn't sure how the process was. I can't really see who's from the public is
here from the current view. Thank you. Could you just introduce yourself, please? Yeah. My name's Eve.
I'm a Wilmington resident. And I just wanted to start off by saying thanks to everybody for
this conversation, for the intentionality, again, to this decision.
want to echo the memo submitted by city council members to dive deeper into alternative options that
won't require this long-term subsidizing of a hotel. It feels like a failing strategy, which
it's demonstrated in other cities around the country who have continued to operate their convention
centers at a loss because of these sort of subsidies. I also want to speak.
in support of the proposal for the city and county to negotiate a land swap that allows the city to
assume ownership of the seminary square lot. Similar to the other public comments, I think this is a
great opportunity to continue prioritizing the development of and protection of existing affordable
housing, especially downtown, which is increasingly unaffordable for Bloomington residents, especially
the working class.
And let's see. Yeah, I feel like potentially compromising affordable housing while in the same breath
promoting the convention center as an economic development strategy feels misguided. And I would like
to see creative strategies to continue prioritizing affordable housing. And this feels like a great
opportunity to do so. So thank you so much. And sorry that I'm online.
Thank you. Any other online comments? It looks like we have one person with their hand raised,
Kevin Keough. Can you hear me? Can you hear me OK? Yes, thank you. Yeah, I'm Kevin Keough. And I guess
what's troubling, it's not about politics that concerns me most. It's the process and really the accountability
And respect for the public, but getting pity to it is, it seems something happened last week at your
meeting with the city council where there seems to be a disconnect. And which, as a member of the public,
it's got to be recognized and acknowledged. And what really is burning inside me when I'm hearing tonight,
there seems to be
So use the political capital. And there may be some people tonight spending their political capital
based on who gave them the ability to be on this board. And that's concerning, because I would hope
we're acting in the best interests of the community. And as such, recognizing in these communications,
especially with the public, it needs to be clear.
I always, it helps if you try to speak to us. Sometimes if you're speaking to a six-year-old, I think
it's good to try to make it simple. What are we really trying to accomplish here? So that's my key point
is this transparency, how we're communicating things with the public. And what are we really trying
to accomplish? And this is a large amount of money. I don't have a timer, so I probably should switch it.
Stop here, but I just wanted to make that point as a member of the public my concern about You know
this again spending of political capital tonight. Thank you so much Yeah, we have one more person Eric
there isn't a last name Good evening, can you hear me? Yes, thank you Yes, my name is Eric
And I wasn't going to make a comment this evening, but I did want to support everything that's been
said so far, particularly the comments by Ms. Meyerson and Mr. Keough. And I also wanted to make a note
that the doors to St. Paul are locked, which is a violation of the open door law. And if I could have
somebody come and open the door for me, I would appreciate that. Thank you.
I don't know that this is the time. I mean, really the public comment was really supposed to be related
to the amendment only. But it seems that the comments have been about the resolution period. And I did
receive an email that is asking me to read it into the record tonight because they could not be here.
I'm not sure what the rules are.
I think it's fine. Yeah. While we're at public comment. First of all, I didn't support the resolution
presented at the December 1 meeting as stated in the minutes of the meeting.
I support building the hotel on College Square site but don't support donating the site to a hotelier.
Second, to make the hotel more profitable and require less subsidy, change the requirement that the
hotel is prohibited from charging superior room rates when major events occur in Bloomington to preventing
them from charging superior rates only when events occur at the convention center. As proposed,
Resolution 25136 currently states the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission hereby provides notice of
its further commitment to the Host Hotel project by making known that the real estate at College Square,
if necessary for the Host Hotel, may be made available in some form to the Host Hotel project at nominal
cost to the project if it furthers economic development of the city of Bloomington. Enormal cost is
vague and subjective term. If you were to pull a commission
members, they would likely all have a different definition of nominal cost. In lieu of a nominal cost,
it would be defined now or stated as a cap, such as an amount no more than. I still prefer a long-term
lease, $1 per year for 40 years. The resolution goes on to say, nothing in this resolution shall be
construed as approving the final development terms. It appears the RDC still has to review and approve
the transfer of any property. Each commissioner probably has an amount in mind
that would be a deal killer. If they establish that number now, the public would know too. By not defining
nominal cost now, it appears the commission is just kicking that can down the road. That is from Jerry
Hayes. Thank you for sharing that. Was there any other? Just making sure we're good. Nothing online
in person. OK. So we've had comments from commissioners. We've had public comment.
Final questions or comments from commissioners before we take a roll call vote. On the amendment, we're
not doing the resolution yet. As requested, we're voting on the amended language. And then depending
on that in terms of how the full vote on the resolution will go. I would like to make one thing clear.
I think everybody agrees this is the site for a hotel.
That's not a discussion of what we've all collectively seen and very transparent on ours, too. It's
not a political decision. It's more of how do we get here from a monetary standpoint. And with that,
in previous times, even with the Hotel for the Trades District, we discounted the land, $300,000. We
gave them time to pay for it. In past history, which most people weren't involved,
The Hilton Garden Inn has paid over $4.4 million since they were opened in 2006, and they didn't have
any land cost at that time. So that happened. Just to make it very clear, I am trying to look at it
through a mathematical standpoint where it's going to best benefit the community. I think we've sent
a good signal of what the financial circumstances are. If we had the money, we'd already be done with
Dora. We appreciate it.
And I just want to clarify, too, because there's been a lot of discussion about a land swap. There's
nothing that would preclude further discussions like that. Plus, there's nothing to say that the county
wouldn't do that. But that could be something that could be pursued even with this resolution passed.
So I just want to make that known that that doesn't take a land swap off the table at all.
Others make my final word for I feel that the amended language helps to straddle various points of view,
many of which we've heard this evening, in addition to supporting the direction of moving forward. I
understand that some have some doubts about whether the resolution has merit with the amended language,
but I would argue that the amendment helps to find a middle ground that helps us move forward. So I
will encourage support for that.
Could you read the amendment? Yes I'll read it one more time. Okay so the amendment focuses on two elements
of the on page two if you have the hard copy of the packet or a virtual copy of the packet focusing
on the last whereas the last whereas as amended would say
Whereas in addition to the incentives already mentioned above, the RDC has determined the real estate
at College Square necessary for the host hotel may be made available in a form and on terms to be determined
by the RDC and structured to protect the city's best interests and limit public risk. The other amended
area is for clause three at the bottom of this page, and that is the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission
hereby provides notice of its further commitment
to the Host Hotel project by making known that the real estate at College Square, if necessary for the
Host Hotel, may be made available in some form and on terms to be determined by the RDC and structured
to protect the city of Bloomington's best interests and limit public risk. So those are the two amended
areas. Again, if you have the packet available, you can compare that language.
Are we ready for a roll call vote? It would seem so. Okay. Lori McRabbie, I vote in favor of the amendment.
See Scambillari? No. Randy Gastey, yes. John West, no. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Passes three, two for
the amended language. Now we return to the resolution as a whole.
with the amendment that was just approved by three members of the commission. So again, even though
we separated this out, are there further things for we're now opening up discussion for resolution 25-136
with the amended language as just presented and the amendment is now
presented as part of this resolution. Are there further things that commissioners would like to discuss
or comment on based on anything else that would be relevant before we take a vote? OK. Question I have
is who's going to be moving forward on negotiation with that? Is that going to go back out to the CIB?
Jane, you're going to be? So the process going forward, regardless
I think in the outcome tonight, there's no deal with the current developer. So staff will report at
the CIB meeting this Wednesday that there's no deal. And then the CIB will decide what their next steps
are. They can consider other sites with DORA, or they can decide to release a new RFP. Or they could
go back to one of the two other developers who responded.
We have to pass the ball back to them on Wednesday for those next steps to take place. So my position
on this, that side is the best thing for the hotel. We just need to get to the money map of how it's
going to work as soon as possible. Anything further from commissioners before we open for public comment
on the consideration of 25-136?
Okay, open for public, seeing nothing in person or online. Making sure, because you can see the online
folks better than I can. Okay. So, do we have a motion to adopt resolution 25-136 as amended? Second.
Okay, we have a motion and a second. We'll do another roll call vote for 25-136.
Sue Scamblery, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. Debra Cribson. John West, no. Debra Meyerson, yes. So the resolution
passes 4-1. Procedurally, it will go back to the CIB, and then come back. After Wednesday, we'll report
to them Wednesday. I do want to compliment the staff and everybody for working diligently to try to
make this work.
I would appeal to our state legislators that may be listening to please take in consideration what the
bill has done to the communities as a whole in our state. And I'll leave that at that. Can we pass the
thanks back to you all for all the hours you've put into this and other projects? And the public, this
is a long meeting, and the work session was a long meeting. So yeah, thank you. Are you going to have
one last set of comments from the commissioners, or are you done?
We technically have other business before we adjourn, so just checking. Any other business before we
have a motion to adjourn? I have one thing to say. I want to thank the two people in the team that have
helped our economic movement throughout our community in the last two years. Hats off to Kurt Signetti,
Mendoza, and the FIU football team because
We've got a Heisman Trophy winner. We've got plenty. We've got plenty of enthusiasm nationally for Olmington,
Indiana. Motion to adjourn. So move.