- It is five o'clock. Welcome to the City of Bloomington Refillment Commission meeting of February 2nd,
- 2026. We'll start the meeting with a roll call, please. Lori McRobbie, present. Cece Campbell-Leary,
- present. Randy Cassidy, present. John West, present. Deborah Meyerson, here. Staff present, please.
- Hannah Killian-Hansen, Housing and Neighborhood Development. Tammy Caswell, Hand Department. Jeff McKim,
- City Controller.
- Kendall Kenoki, Engineering. Jane Coopersmith, Economic and Sustainable Development. Zach Rogers with
- Engineering. Hannah Dragovich with DSB. Dana Kurtz, legal. Thank you all. First item on our agenda this
- evening is the minutes from January 5th, 2026, as well as an executive session summary for January 27th,
- 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners on either of these? If not, I will.
- entertain a motion. Move for approval. Second. Got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye.
- Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item on the agenda, the examination of claim register,
- January 16th, 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this claim register? Not motion.
- That's my other question. My dissent, Christine's not here.
- I had a question about on page 204, number 6223. I wonder if we could get a little background on the
- hotel due diligence, what the money was spent on. That is the attorney, Scott Chen. You'll notice a
- number of expenses that went to him over the course of the project. And while we're talking about that
- specific project, you guys approved
- $100,000 towards due diligence. And as of today, you have spent, we have spent $85,913. A bulk of that
- expense was related to Scott's work. It was also related to, excuse me, financial analysis by Reedy.
- appraisals, geotechnical work, and then we had some limited investigations by VET, which we will actually
- get into later on this evening. Any other questions or comments from commissioners on the claim budget
- from January 16th? We've got $14,000 left to hit our due diligence, and then we're into something else.
- Correct and actually we again can talk about this later, but one of the resolutions that's in front
- of you this evening is in front of you because we didn't quite have enough money left in that line and
- the difference was $73.23. So had that amount been available, we wouldn't have had that business in
- front of us.
- That was one of my questions also. And then the other question is, what is the balance in the 2519 account?
- I think that that is a really big moving target. Because of the way that claims are held and processed
- only every two weeks, just whatever number he may be putting out there may not reflect the true balance
- of what you've committed to or what's in process.
- So just want to make sure that there's a huge grain of salt to say whatever he's saying today may not
- be 100% accurate as far as what you should think is there. In some future update, would it be possible
- to get both what's been paid out as well as what's been committed just in terms of having both of those
- figures? We're getting regular reports. Yeah.
- That has been something that, as you know, the previous controller was struggling to get a handle on.
- I think we do have a better handle on it at this point, but it wasn't tracked very well previously.
- So it shouldn't be hard for our new, wonderful controller to jump on board. The 2519 account also includes
- the balance from the trades district. It should. It was transferred in there recently, I believe.
- If you just check, it'll come out in the report. It'll be first quarter. Something that we talked about
- previously, Jeff, is that the transfer of those two parcels, it is in the 2519, right? Or did it get
- transferred out of the 2519? No, I can't remember. You and I did talk about that. And it was intended
- to. We have it. But if you just look at a lot of stuff. Yeah. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.
- So those questions.
- Anything else before we have a motion on the claims register of January 16, 2026? If not. Move approval
- of the claims register for January 16, 2026. Second. First and the second, all in favor say aye. Aye.
- Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next on the agenda is the payroll registers from January 9 and
- January 23, 2026.
- Any questions or comments from commissioners on these items? Move approval of the payroll registers
- for January 9 and January 23. 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, and I can read it in the,
- menu, but my menu's frozen for a second. But it's the resolution 2605, the approval of preliminary design
- contract for Hopeball South. Who would like to speak to that? We have reports for answers. Oh, sorry.
- Like I said, I was going off the cheat sheet on the left of my PDF because my menu has frozen. OK. Sorry.
- Yeah, if you don't mind, please. Directors first.
- Yes, good evening We have numerous things going on right now And I want to just give you guys a quick
- update on several things This Thursday February 5th at 5 30 p.m. And council chambers. We will be hosting
- a meeting on the creation of Bloomington's first residential TIFFs that will be for the future Sudbury
- neighborhood and as well as
- Hopewell South. So please join us if you're able. On Monday, February 9th at 5.30 p.m., Hopewell South
- will be going to the Plan Commission for their second meeting. Thursday, February 12th at 6 p.m., we
- will be hosting a nationally renowned planning whisperer and Incremental Development Alliance faculty,
- Eric Kronberg, for a lecture on incremental development
- hope well in our evolving approach to development and development reform. So we hope you guys can make
- it. You do need to register for that. So if you plan on coming, please do so. You were sent
- a link previously. Our communications department has also released a press release that has that information,
- and this is being broadcast widely.
- We appear to be without quorum for our February 16th meeting. I am attempting to see if we can get it
- rescheduled. I am exploring the next Monday, February 23rd, but haven't heard from everybody yet, so
- we'll keep everyone posted as we find that out. Unless anything has changed, I do have that we have
- a quorum for March 1st, so we should be
- able to move forward unless something big changed. As you know, with the snow we've had, we've had a
- lot of snow removal along RDC properties. So you're likely going to be seeing some claims related to
- that in the near future.
- You probably know that our department hand is responsible for ticketing for Title VI, which includes
- snow removal from sidewalks. 24 hours after the last snow, our busy inspectors have been responsible
- for this in addition to their rental inspections. And since last Tuesday, they have written more than
- 228 snow tickets to property owners. I have ordered appraisals on the four lots you own on Dodd Street.
- And once those are completed, I anticipate bringing you a public offering at some point. We'll keep
- you posted on that.
- I do want to alert you that HAND recently had our turn of accessibility training for documents to meet
- the April deadline, which is a federal requirement. This means that your packets are likely going to
- look very different in the near future. It will not be a full PDF altogether. There will be links to
- each individual document. So this is a federal requirement, just letting you know this is going to change
- how you're used to doing business lately.
- I'd like to formally welcome your new treasurer and the city's new controller to his first meeting,
- Mr. Jeff McKinn, who's off to a great and wonderful fast start. Last year, at the end of the year, we
- did bring you a
- allocation recommendation for the 2026 CDBG program year. We were recently at city council, which that
- did get approved. So that was the final step in getting that going. That does not actually start until
- June, and we are still waiting on formal allocation announcements, which should be in the next couple
- of months. So we'll keep you posted as that transpires. But other than that, happy to answer questions.
- On to the next.
- of that. Yeah, thanks. I'm recovered now. Thank you. I appreciate it. Yeah. Do we have a legal report,
- please? I'm here for questions, if you have any. OK. Thank you. Treasurer's report? I don't actually
- have a report yet. Thank you very much for the welcome. We do have a meeting with Reedy this week to
- discuss some kind of end of the year numbers.
- Results of that will be incorporated into a report at your next meeting. If there are things you would
- like to see in a financial report or any additional data from the controller's office, please let me
- know. It sounds like you already have something that you had worked on with the previous controller
- that was useful. I certainly want to be able to build on that. I'll work with Hannah to
- kind of see where we can go with what had already been developed. But again, if there are specific things
- you would like to see, that would be really helpful to know. So the example being for the 20, what's
- the new name for the- 2419. Thank you, 2519 account, the example raised earlier of commitments in terms
- of overall spending as well as spent today, just that would be helpful.
- In addition to that, you can probably look at the model that Jessica had earlier, that that was certainly
- a good foundation to replicate and we can kind of work through if there's any other tweaks. So you like
- the report that had each of the projects laid out along with what had been committed and what had been
- expensed? Yes. Yeah. And then by TIF allocation for each TIF district is helpful as well in terms of
- what's been spent to date.
- Next in our agenda is business development update. Yeah, I do have a small update for you today.
- Last fall, via resolution 25108, you approved a lease for the 4th Street garage with Visit Bloomington.
- And they have had to go back and receive a variety of approvals before we can execute that lease. And
- they received their last approval last week from the Convention and Visitors Bureau
- which allocated funding for the lease. So with that approval in hand, we can now get it signed. We're
- working for a start date of mid-February, if we can make that happen. At the outside, it would be pushed
- back to March 1st. So I just wanted to let you know that's alive and moving along. So the lease will
- be executed and they'll start construction? Well, yeah, they'll start design. Design, OK. So if we were
- to look at it,
- long term, are they thinking they'll be occupying some time? Do they give it some time? I don't remember
- how many months they had planned for design build. But it's approved. But they want to go as fast as
- possible. They're ready to be downtown. Excellent. Thank you. There is a lease agreement already signed.
- It had a January 1st date on it.
- The resolution said that everyone can sign the lease in final form. So we'll just have a did not have
- to start date in the resolution. So we'll simply do a very quick amendment to whatever that start date
- is going to be. And that can be signed next. And then you'll back up the end date, right? So the term
- will be the same. Yes. Everything after the start date is all based on term, not further dates. OK.
- Thank you.
- With that, I think we're on to new business. Our first item of business is resolution 26-05, approval
- of preliminary design contract for Hopewell South. Who would like to speak to that? I'll speak to that.
- Good evening, everyone. Kendall Kenoki, City of Bloomington Engineering. I have before you tonight the
- approval of the funding and approval to move forward with the design of Hopewell South.
- So I guess some key points here. This is for the subdivision and detailed construction document preparation
- for the infrastructure for Hopewell South. So Flintlock is your consultant that's doing the rezone,
- is doing the conceptual drawings, is doing the floor plans for homes, is doing the outreach to the builders.
- This is really all the engineering technical things for Hopewell South. So this will include the design of
- any adjacent roadway improvements that are needed, the reconstruction of Fairview, the construction
- of Jackson Street, all of the internal streets that are shown in the current concept plan, all of the
- utilities. And it includes kind of an early lot line adjustment on the parcel west of Fairview. So that
- property could be prepared to build some homes ASAP, like
- before all the other approvals are done. And then, of course, the full subdivision of the property.
- This includes the site of the former covalescent building, 714 South Rogers, because that entire area
- is just one parcel, as you're well aware. So that needs to be a part of the subdivision. Whatever ends
- up being approved by city council, we can move forward with that. So the engineer's ready with whatever
- we're assuming and hoping that
- exactly what's shown now will be similar to what's finally approved and that's the plan to move forward
- with. So the fee is not to exceed the amount of $424,200. Happy to answer any questions. Crossroad Engineers
- is the consultant we've selected. So they also did the complete subdivision of Hopewell West. So they're
- very well experienced in the area. They also made our kind of our
- engineering department shortlist of pre-approved consultants. We had about 30 consultants that submitted
- documentation. We selected the top 15 to put on our list. So yeah, happy to answer any questions.
- Is there, I assume there's no intent in spending any of the funds until the PUD has final approval.
- So we are planning on issuing an NTP and starting the
- design documents ASAP so end of this week. And what happens if the PUD gets modified or for some reason
- doesn't get approved? That is a risk I mean a lot of what we're going to be doing initially is like
- big picture drainage design you know things that we're gonna have to start coordinating with CBU you
- know downstream sewer upgrades anything that may be required
- for any kind of subdivision. So even if we were proceeding under current zoning, we'd have to do all
- these preliminary steps. But if there are delays or if there are serious changes that happen, we are
- going to have to probably pause and see what those changes are. The problem with not proceeding is that
- you guys are not going to hit June or the summer.
- the longer you wait for this because as soon as if you wait for approval then start civil then we are
- gonna miss building season. We've done quite a bit of engineering for the last design and so is that
- all abandoned or we're just starting again? We have it for south. Have done anything for south?
- No, all the previous engineering is done for west. So that's fully subdivided, construction documents
- ready to go. We did the RFPs. I thought we'd done some engineering too. Not on south. That gives me
- some pause. So my question is sort of related to this, which is that in the attachments exhibit C and
- talks about the project schedule, it says the project would be developed such that development can be
- ready for groundbreaking.
- in the fall of 2027. So does that need to be amended? Kendall, do you want to speak to that? Yeah, I
- can speak to that. The consultant originally put that in when we were still discussing schedule. And
- my deadline for legal was three weeks ago to go to BPW. So since then, we've talked about a more aggressive
- schedule. And I kind of have it here on my screen. But yeah, you're correct. That schedule is not.
- realistic, and so I don't know if it needs to be amended in the document or not. Or if the new schedule
- can be submitted as an additional document. What is the revised project schedule? I mean, I know we
- just had a little anecdotal talk about it, but I just want to know if you were revising this right now,
- what would you put in here? Well, so it's based on a lot of factors, a lot of unknown, a lot of discretionary
- approvals, but the current schedule is that we could
- Best case, get permits issued for homes to start being built in April of this year, and then get the
- infrastructure under construction with the contractor by August of this year. Now, that assumes that
- we can use the survey data we already have, which I think we can. I've done some looking into that.
- And we also don't have to go to two plan commission meetings for the primary plan. But if those two
- things work out, I think we can start construction in August of this year.
- Yeah, we've asked that the second plat approval be delegated to staff. So that's in the PUD filing.
- So hopefully we'll save some time. Because we're looking at an approximately 18-month difference between
- what's in this Exhibit C and what's being stated now. And I'm trying to understand what's changed to
- make that 18 months vanish. And so if you could help me with understanding that.
- Wasn't that just an anecdotal from your consultant? Yeah, that wasn't really based on any conversations
- about the schedule that we had yet. We just didn't update it while we were going through all the contract
- approval processes. So it shouldn't have ever been put in the packet. So the consultant has basically
- produced this timeline. So this is their best guess, assuming
- All the contingencies are met. Yes. So from a contract standpoint that we're approving, sequentially,
- we need to approve it or deny it anyway? And then it goes to public works? Yeah, and it's already been
- in public works. So if you approve it tonight, it's ready to go. OK. And if we're looking to approve this,
- from an amendment standpoint in order to not contractually get ourselves into a situation where we've
- got an additional, the consultants put it in, this contract that's in the written document, that would
- need to be amended in order to meet the schedule we're looking at. Because. Great. But we should know
- fairly quickly. We're talking about next Monday when we're going to play a commission and figure out
- what the lay of the land is. So to identify from a contractually
- a financial standpoint of a $424,000 contract, what's the amount that we anticipate would be spent out
- of this by the time we know? Do we have any idea or? In a week, I bet that they... Just not much in
- a week. Yeah. And we should have a solid answer. Correct. I mean, I hope to. But we should be better
- prepared after Monday.
- to figure that out. I mean, the risk with not charging forward at this point, again, is time. So it's
- your decision as to if you want to meet the time that we've been aiming for and that I've had people
- breathing down my neck to get done. I, for one, want to move forward as quickly as possible. But I also
- don't want to enter into a $424,000 contract that then has an additional year in the contract that then
- doesn't, without an amendment to this contract. Can you speak to that, Dana? Because normally,
- it's just. It's an estimated schedule. Being early doesn't hurt anything. You can approve this, and
- I don't think there's any risk, because they're going to want to earn the money. And so they're going
- to want to do the work. And they've already worked with Kindle on this, and it's a company they've worked
- with before.
- What we could do is ask them once we get a better idea nailed down at the next meeting, we can bring
- some sort of document from them stating this is what they believe the schedule will be. And then that
- way you can rely on that moving forward. But the risk of not pushing this forward and pushing things back is
- I extremely doubt anything would ever come of that project schedule. Just as a fiduciary concern, it's
- just a matter of entering into a contract that someone comes and says, well, you've got a contract for
- this amount. Yeah, we can take that long. Yeah, and we can take that long. Not that they will, or even
- an expectation of that, but just to be very well aware. And how do we amend or put ourselves
- We got a week or two. Yeah. If you would like, we approve this tonight, and so that they can move forward,
- we could bring an amendment back to it with a more revised project schedule. But again, it's going to
- be a contingent project schedule anyway. So it's not going to be perfect, but we could bring that back
- as an amendment to exhibit C. And then you could have that. We could work that out.
- OK, because we're trying to hit August to start building. That's hard. Summer season, yes. Summer season.
- I don't want to get to November and building season's done. No. And we're not going to put one house
- in without water, sewer, or roads. And storm water is a big component of this that has not been calculated
- yet. So we need the civil onboard to get the storm water figured out.
- And there are four lots that are on first street, that once we do a lot line adjustment, they could
- get started building much faster. So we'll see some movement quicker than that. But to move past that,
- we've got to get the civil work done. Yeah, I'm just trying to get that amended schedule figured out.
- That's all, because we signed a contract. We're obligated accordingly based on what's there. The other
- half of my question in terms of the schedule is, as we've discussed, it still goes to the Second Hearing
- Before Plan Commission, then it goes to city council. And I'm just trying to get a sense. I know we
- talked about this at the beginning a little bit, just trying to get a sense of what we're approving
- a resolution for today in terms of the sum.
- the risk of getting an amendment back for an increase in costs because we approved a SOM that may have
- been premature and I understand absolutely the reasoning so I'm just trying to weigh the pros and cons
- honestly of the expedited schedule and working with the building season but also that we've got some
- administrative stuff that could have some tweaks that
- could ultimately increase our costs with us. So I'm just trying to get a better sense of how to weigh,
- again, the schedule. Because the schedule then works, right? Like, hey, we need a little more time because
- it took a little longer. We've got these changes. But then we also may be looking at, again, an increase
- in cost because of unknowns that we're approving before we know it. So. I'd like to double down on what
- Debra said.
- Really, the project schedule, as Exhibit C calls out for, is not particularly relevant to me. What's
- relevant is to Deborah's point about spending the money. And then, well, we have to do it differently.
- Or it's no longer applicable. And I understand everybody's urgency.
- I'm not wired this way. Unless I know I've got a project that's firm, I don't spend the money. And I
- don't think waiting two weeks is a deal breaker. And I would consider kicking this can down the road
- to the next meeting. Well, just in terms of, again, I tend to agree with your caution on that. I'm just
- trying to clarify in terms of,
- where you're coming out on it, there's, again, it's not just another week, because another week is just
- the planning commission. There's still the council before it's all kind of said and done. And so trying
- to kind of is having the councils
- final approval, is that enough of a halfway point? Are you feeling more like you need the full nine
- yards? Well, in a perfect world, I like the whole nine yards. Right. Well, I would as well. I'm just,
- again, interested in your take up. The Plan Commission, I didn't get a sense whether they were on board
- or not sitting through that meeting. So it would be nice to have another meeting with the Plan Commission and
- get a really good idea of what changes are going to require. And I know the council could disrupt. But
- if it gets vetted well enough by the plan commission, maybe the council will accept it. We've spent
- a lot of money on Hopewell that's really not been applicable in anything. And we've spent money that
- I'd love to get back.
- I just don't want to make this another one. So to that point, money and schedule on this. Could we look
- at allocating a smaller sum of this particular contract as we move forward through the approval process?
- Yeah, I won't speak to whether or not you can do that right now as part of the contract, but I will say,
- There are things we can get moving on, like the lot line adjustment, like what Dana was talking about.
- That's based on current zoning. We already have the approval to do that. So if you authorize us to get
- going on that, we can work on that. We can work on drainage. These are things we have to do no matter
- what we're doing. We can just move forward on those tasks until we know exactly what's going to be approved.
- I think the challenge is that
- You guys changed this completely at this point. It has to go back to public works. It has to come back
- here for an improvement. Then we have X known amount of time. Kindle, how long do you think that this
- civil is going to take? I mean, it depends on for what. So like right now for the lot line adjustment,
- following the new class two procedure, April is when that would be done.
- all the engineering for everything, going through all the permitting, like I said, through August. So
- it's a process, right? Right at the beginning, we're going to be doing kind of big picture things. We're
- going to have a preliminary meeting with CBU. We're going to send the surveyor out so they can do the
- lot line adjustment subdivision. And then we start to get into more detailed design. So the farther
- along we get, the more important it is to know exactly what we're going to be doing.
- And right now I have by March us knowing exactly what the zoning of the property is going to be. And
- that works great. But if that turns into April, May, June, I don't know what kind of delays are possible.
- Yeah. We're definitely going to have to pause or decide how much risk we're willing to take on. Is there
- a provision in the contract that allows you to pause? Yeah. I mean, I can pause their work at any time.
- Okay. Pause or stop.
- Just stop spending money. Just asking. Because the commitments of the dollar amount goes to Jones. Which
- you're going to need to spend no matter what at some point. The dollar amount might go up based on changes
- that you may have. Sure. But we don't want redundancy. Right. Well, it's not redundancy. If we can get
- going and then press pause when we need to press pause,
- make adjustments as needed. I mean, it's up to you guys, but we are not going to hit your dates. Kendall,
- if we were to wait until March to approve this contract, what happens? That basically pushes everything
- back a month. So then that'd be September, October for
- Did you say it has to go back to public works then? When does public works meet next? They meet every
- two weeks, but you have to submit two weeks before their meeting to get on the agenda. I don't know
- how to get this done from a resolution standpoint, but what you suggested about doing some preliminary
- work that we're going to do anyway, that's not bothersome to me. And it takes money to do it.
- I wouldn't have a problem with the commencement of that work. What I don't like is having that 400 and
- some odd thousand hanging out there to be spent because we've already approved it. And we have no control.
- We don't have any control over when that money is spent. And that's just a bit of a wild card, knowing
- the political climate
- what we're trying to get approved, which is unique. So I don't know if there's a way to get that done.
- So what are our options at this point? Well, since it can be paused once you get through the other part
- and it pauses, it can be stopped if we're not doing the project, I don't see any harm in moving
- forward with it to at least do this because what you're relying on is city staff to stop them when they
- need to be stopped. And so that's, if you rely on city staff to do that, you don't have to be concerned
- because you're not turning this money over to, you're turning the money over to the control of engineering.
- You're not turning the money over to control of the consultants.
- so you have the engineering is in control of whether the money gets spent or not so engineering control
- you know they can say they hear you loud and clear you only want to do the things that you know have
- to be done and they can limit that to that until they know that the projects moving forward and then
- they can cut them loose on the other part about this how about if if we were to approve this
- about if you come back and meet with us in two weeks and give us an update, and then maybe come back
- two weeks after that and give us an update until we know we've been fully vetted by every party that's
- going to vet it and vote on it, and then we cut you loose. But that way, if we want to step up and pause,
- we can do that. We do bump our meeting in two weeks out. Well, whatever it is, the next meeting. Another week.
- So and you've heard us, so now you kind of understand our concern. Yes. Looking at Exhibit
- B here, essentially what we're talking about to move forward is $66,700. Is that the amount we're actually
- looking at under Exhibit B of the compensation?
- How'd you get that, Randy? Well, on the iPad, for god knows what reason, it says exhibit B. I got that.
- I just see the math. Page 49. How'd you come up with it? 40,000 in meeting and coordination. 40,000
- in 26-7. No, it's going to be a little bit of... It's going to be some A and it's going to be some C.
- And we're probably getting the geotech done.
- Soil moorings, that's going to have to be done no matter what. So getting that moving. So yeah, I mean,
- an initial amount, you know, even if you just approved 50,000, that'd probably be enough to get us going
- for, you know, a month. But I don't know if that's possible with how it's set up. Well, I'm not looking
- to rewrite the resolution so that it has to go back to public works. I was kind of trying to avoid that.
- Yeah. Yeah.
- If it's the will of the group to approve it, then maybe we can have regular, ongoing meetings until
- we can just cut you loose. Thanks. I have one other related question. In light of specifically the second
- Plan Commission hearing on Monday, since that's coming right up. And as noted, there was some outstanding
- stuff that they still need to think about, and that may be determined on Monday. So my question is,
- depending on what Plan Commission does with this,
- Let's just say, you know, scenario where there are significant changes of whatever kind. And that would
- potentially change the scope of the engineering contract. I'm trying to get a sense of like, you know,
- plan A is we go with it as is and tweak it along the way under engineering. Plan B is we, let's say,
- hear what planning commission does on Monday night and then use that to inform this current resolution.
- So I'm trying to get a sense for that plan B, what that looks like, what happens to this contract.
- Yeah. Basically, unless there's crazy, huge changes, I think we're prepared with this contract and this
- amount of money to do whatever. It's kind of like you have a big site. The site's the same size. The
- adjoining infrastructure's the same size. The needs are generally the same. So it's kind of like if
- you had an empty lot and you were trying to figure out where to put your building, where to put all
- your roads. I mean, the engineering cost is going to be the same no matter what your final iteration
- is, unless there's something substantially that changes.
- OK, that's helpful. So that between that, what you've said, and then the proposal of having kind of
- phased in reporting so that we have a sense of that the money is only being spent on things that we
- know we have to spend it on as opposed to what hasn't been decided fully yet, that would be helpful
- in terms of just knowing that the commitment is being managed appropriately. Sorry, any other questions
- from commissioners? That helps with mine.
- One last little question, does the boundaries for this project completely align with Hopewell South
- PUD, the same, or is there anything that's slightly different? No, it's the same. Just checking. I thought
- they asked that. It's good. Good time to ask. You know, they call it Hopewell South, but the PUD is
- a very specific geographic boundary, so just want to make sure there's no loose... We can also put out
- updates after each step.
- So you're fully informed as soon as Monday's meeting's over, we can push out an update. This is what
- happened. So this is what we're doing because of this. And if it gets approved, then we say, OK, we're
- continuing to do this stuff that just has to be done and moving forward until we get to the next step
- and so on. That's fine. I don't know how much detail we need. I don't expect somebody to write a report
- every week necessarily. I think just doing it as we get together will be, will suffice. Yeah,
- or even just, I mean, technically in my notes now we have places for a Hopewell update, right? So that
- can be just part of the reporting that we have at the beginning of the meeting. That would be welcome.
- We can actually bring back the Hopewell update. Yeah, I think that timing is seeming apt for that. My thing is,
- monthly what we're spending money out of this particular contract was approved. That way, if we have
- to hit pause or something, wild changes. We know you have spent this much today. Because until we hit
- those limits, we don't necessarily know. I think this would be a really good thing to include, too,
- in some of our financial reporting by resolution. That's one of the things that we've started looking
- at is the active resolutions that are actively spending money regularly.
- just so that you sort of have a running tally. That was the only thing I didn't see. Because previously,
- there was a complete Hopewell adding resolutions and dollars. The project form, yes, which sort of fell
- off when Larry left. Yeah. OK. I didn't see that. So that's why I was curious in regards to that, because
- that was showing a cumulative total of all the resolutions that we had with Hopewell.
- And I wasn't the attorney working on this contract, but in looking at Article 7 termination, the second
- paragraph says, the board may terminate or suspend performance of this agreement at the board's prerogative
- at any time upon written notice to the consultant. And the consultant shall terminate or suspend services
- on the schedule acceptable to the board. So you have the ability of the board.
- has the ability to stop this at any time. And it's not just pause it, where you still got to pay for
- something later. Just procedurally. Once we fund the, once this is approved, where does it go procedurally
- between us and the Public Works? Because is it a Public Works contract at that particular time? Yeah,
- and they've approved the contract already. So as soon as you approve the funding, we can go ahead and
- get the contract.
- The only problem we would have, if we said pause, it's actually Public Works contract. It's not our
- DCs. I'm asking a question from a legal standpoint. Yeah, the USP would be the one to pause it, or the
- Public Works, I'm sorry, would be the one to pause it. But they would, I can't imagine a World Wars
- Public Works
- would continue with the project. That wasn't funded. That wasn't going to go. They do meet every two
- weeks on a regular basis, so they would be able to stop it quicker than you guys unless you call it
- a special meeting anyway. Just asking a question from a procedural standpoint because
- hey, you approve this contract for this amount of money. We're the funding source. We're not the contract
- holder. Any other questions or comments or commissioners on resolution 2605? If not, open it for public
- comment, either online or in person. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion on this resolution, please.
- I'll move approval of resolution 2605. I don't expect an amendment to the resolution, but just
- an understanding that we're doing this with a working relationship here that we'll be meeting periodically
- to get an update to see how the spending goes. Second. Can I get a first and a second? All in favor
- say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay.
- OK, so we've got four in favor and one opposed. On resolution 2605. That's simply because we don't hold
- contracts. It's a month. Thank you. Thank you. OK, next item on the agenda is resolution 2606, which
- is the approval of the final balancing change order for the first street reconstruction project. Hello.
- I'm Zach Rogers with engineering. So I'm bringing a couple of change orders for the first street
- reconstruction project, as you all know, that was completed back this past summer. It started back in
- 2023. This is the remnants tying all the loose ends together with NDOT and that contract. So here I
- have two change orders. One is change order number eight. This was for $4,745.52.
- This is for sidewalk trench drains. This is along Rogers. There is, I believe, four or three sidewalk
- trench drains. And then this is also the final balancing change order. And it's for $307,732.60. And
- that addresses all the project overruns and underruns. The portion that we owe for this project due
- to the underruns
- The way NDOT puts together their change order, plus there's funding left over on this contract that
- is funding some of those $307,000. So our portion would be $89,484.36. And that would bring the total
- contract to $6,773,563.63. Is that right? Yes.
- So the revised, so not our full portion. This is a federally funded project. So this is partially federal
- money, partially our money. But the 89-484 is our money. Yes.
- Can you just read that final contract amount again? The revised contract amount after the change order?
- Yes. It'd be $6,773,596.63. OK, that's right. Did I read something different? In the resolution,
- it said $563.63. Yeah, $596.63 is the correct amount. I see that, yes. That is incorrect on the resolution.
- So the correct amount again?
- The revised amount would be $6,773,596.63. So the fourth paragraph needs to be amended. Or fourth water,
- excuse me. Yeah, so it's $3 off.
- Any other corrections that we need to flag or other comments, of course? I've got a question. Yes, please.
- Excuse my ignorance, but can you explain the sixth whereas where it talks about balancing change orders
- overruns versus underruns? Can you explain how that works? What is your question?
- So your question is about the balancing change order for the overruns and overruns. I'm just not familiar
- with the process. Yeah, so towards the end of a project, certain items may have ran over. It could be
- stone, common excavation, and then other items may have ran under the engineer estimate. And this is
- a combination of them put together of overruns and underruns. And one of the biggest overruns was rock
- excavation.
- We had about $207,000 worth of extra rock that was excavated out of First Street to get that road in.
- And then just giving you examples, so another example that was under was common excavation.
- So that was $27,000 less than the estimate from the engineer. Thank you.
- I know the questions are coming from commissioners. And you spoke to this, but I need you to run over
- it again for me. How was it determined that the 89.4 was our amount? So if you remember, there was a
- change order request package, resolution 2474, had construction changes. That was for $214,697.04.
- Not all of that was used for the construction change. So that money is still sitting with in our project.
- And then we can go even deeper. There's participating and non-participating. And that's all federal
- side on what items are participating and what's not participating through the feds. I'm not versed on
- that, so I don't want to explain that.
- That's helpful. Thank you. And I'm very hopeful this is the last time this project comes. But two years
- after NDOT does their audit, there's a possibility that you might be sure to change item. Just to be
- honest. It takes a while to close them out through their audit process. Yeah. It will be another two
- years before this project's probably actually closed out with NDOT. Anything else from commissioners
- before we open it for public comment? Aye. The details here?
- OK, so opening resolution 2606 for public comment, either online or in person. Seeing none, we'll entertain
- a motion for this resolution. I'll make a motion to approve 2606 with the change. We'll have a first
- and a second as amended with the corrected total. Yes. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion
- passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you.
- Okay, next item on our agenda is Resolution 2607, which is the approval of the conveyance of Convention
- Center parking lots to the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission. Who would like to speak to that? I
- can do that one. Back in 2000, back in 2000,
- In 23, at the beginning of 2023, the Bloomington Municipal Facilities Corporation had owned a number
- of parcels, including these two that are part of the convention center parking lot. And they signed
- a resolution in 2023 and a quick claim deed transferring over to the RDC. The way Indiana code
- 36-1-11-8 reads is that when you exchange property between two governmental entities, each have to pass
- a resolution that is substantially similar. So they pass a resolution transferring it to you and then
- you pass a resolution basically saying that you are receiving the property. These were signed in 2023.
- The Facilities Corporation was
- in business at that point in time. So the deeds are valid, their resolution is valid. But in order to
- change this with the county auditor, we need to have a resolution by you guys that basically equals
- their resolution to satisfy that code. I don't know if they didn't realize that code when they did that
- in 23 and didn't have you do it back then.
- But these are just something that we discovered was still out there. And there actually are a number
- of properties that they own. The facilities corporation was started because in Indiana, we're on our
- second constitution because after the first constitution, our country, our country, our state went bankrupt
- within a year. So they did another constitution that said that you can't
- basically go into debt in certain ways. And so what you do then is the property goes into this facilities
- corporation that you're bonding on, and they actually hold the bonds. And what you do is you pay lease
- payments to that facilities corporation and the amount of the bond payments so that the bond payments
- can be made. So it's a lease.
- a bond lease rental agreement. It's used all the time by local governments at the school that I'm part
- of the board on. We do it all the time. But once those bonds are paid off, you're supposed to transfer
- all the property and that they've got deeds were signed, but they never actually got transferred. I'm
- going through.
- them because some of the exhibits are different, some going to the city, some are coming here, but these
- two are ones that are coming here and I thought we'd start with them just so that you understand what
- we're doing and then whenever we get the other ones transferred and then what you do with the property
- is up to you, you know, whether you would keep it or whether you transfer it.
- whatever, however you would want to do that. But since those quick claim deeds are signed and their
- resolution is signed, in order to effectuate the transfer, you have to pass the resolution in front
- of you. So it's a formality for the most part. Yeah. Yeah. It's just to meet the statute. Is it appropriate
- to have some record of what
- those properties are worth, or is that outside this process? It's outside this process, but there are
- the GIS. It tells you what they're assessed at. Of course, there's not paying any taxes on it, but it
- tells you on there what it's assessed at. Who does the GIS show as the owner? I'm just curious.
- I'm sorry? Does the GIS show the RDCS owner? No, it shows the Boonton municipality facilities. OK, well,
- that's what I was wondering in terms of where the bug stopped. Yeah, it's still in their name because
- these deeds haven't been reported because we don't have this resolution. OK. And I thought, well, we're
- not going to be a part of that discussion. You're wrong. The larger of the two parcels was received
- by Facilities Corp from you.
- guys in 91. The other was, I have my notes, was received by Encore Hotels of Bloomington in 96, the
- small little piece. And the GIS traces it back to the O'Daniels. Yeah. Call O'Daniel, then it went to
- the RDC, then it went to the BMFC in order to do the convention center. Thank you for this walk down
- memory lane. Yes. Yes.
- It's Laurie's question. Assess value. You may or may not have any bearing on market value? Sure. Yeah,
- I understand that. OK. I understand that. And because we're transferring it between governmental entities,
- you don't have to do all the two appraisals, and all of that doesn't apply, because it's governmental
- entity to governmental entity. Yeah. This is our property that we own.
- And if you want to do an appraisal on it, then it might be simply be assessed value until we're looking
- at selling it. So at least you'll know what you have. And we've talked about going ahead and maybe just
- getting at least one. And then if we find you want to sell it in a manner that requires you, then we
- can get another one.
- Are we taking on any liabilities for doing this? Apparently, we already own it anyway we go about it,
- so what's our, is there any outstanding things that we're unaware of? There are no outstanding things
- that we're aware of, so I'd be advising not to take it. And I gather we've been maintaining it? Who's
- been maintaining it, I guess? Yeah, it's been part of a lease
- that went to the convention center. They were doing it, but I think that- They were taking care of it,
- because that was my question. Do I have to start dealing with- Right. We don't want you to have to.
- Well, that is a question. I think it's in their lease that they have to maintain that space. And the
- lease was entered by BMFC back then, and you guys, and the convention center.
- So we just need to verify with that lease in the time frame, just making sure that we're not taking
- on any additional things that we're unaware of. And the convention center, to your knowledge, maintains
- both parcels. It's my knowledge. Can we find that out? They do, because the city does not. And you do
- not. Yeah.
- They are continuing to. And again, I would think if you wanted to give it to them, they would be happy
- to take it. But it also sounds like you may want to know what it's worth first.
- a little baffling to have a law now therefore and then the RDC hereby approves the conveyance of the
- property in the 2023 resolution and there's no signature line for the RDC. It's just baffling to me,
- but anyway. This is a cleanup. Okay, any other questions on resolution 2607 in terms of what we need to know?
- if someone could just get with Convention Center to identify any leases or anything. May I just make
- one quick comment on this? Just to note that these parcels have been identified by the city administration
- as being appropriate for the Convention Center expansion project and that has been communicated to the
- CIB. So the CIB has those
- parcels in mind for potential hotel projects. It just puts you right in the middle of that process.
- We are aware. Which I know, you thought you just got out of the middle of that as well. Are these going
- to be included in our insurance quote in the next resolution? The insurance only covers construction.
- Okay, I just want to verify that. Otherwise, it relies just on the city.
- OK, then we've got under that we just under our liability. OK, thank you. OK. All right. If there's
- no other questions from commissioners, we'll open it for public comment, either online or in person.
- Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. This is for resolution 2607, please. Move approval of resolution
- 2607. Second. We've got 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 2608, which is the approval of payment to property insurance to
- Highland. And as clarified, that is for structured. Who would like to speak to that? I can, too,
- if you want. Our risk department deals with obtaining insurance for city properties and works with RDC
- properties as well. They're diligent about going through and who owns what properties.
- and determining what part of the insurance premium is applicable to whom. And the risk department has
- indicated that the RDC's portion of the cost for the coverage is $66,603, as shown in the invoice attached
- to the resolution. This would be paid out of the operating fund, the 2519 fund.
- And this would be for this year and say that the resolution won't expire until January 31st of 2027
- because that gives us the opportunity because Highland actually doesn't give us a bill until well into
- January, but it starts January 1st. So this will give us the ability to work with them and determine
- again what the next cost is gonna be that we bring back to you.
- So even though technically they want to do January 31st, 2026, it never gets paid then because it never
- gets to us in time to be paid then. But they know that, Rhys knows that and has assured me that that's
- not a problem. I did catch a small error on this quote.
- that includes the insurance of 615 West First Street, which was actually demolished as part of the Hopewell
- South project. So risk is working to get a credit back on that amount. So just that for you. That question
- I have in regards to it is properties and list of properties and what the appropriate dollar amount
- for each property is.
- When I asked risk for that property list, they were not able to break it out per property. But they
- were able to give me a list of the properties. I'm sorry. I had that just open. And this is a property
- with just improvements only? Yeah. I mean, I'm sorry. I lost my email that had it on there. It's the
- 714 building. It's the hospital parking garage. It's the forge. It's the mill.
- What's the charge? What's it? 627, yes, south, north, that was the former Innovation Center.
- College Square. Yeah, College Square. It's the structure. That's what the properties on the first part
- of our page is then, of our packet. In the very beginning of our packet, there was the pictures of all
- of the properties.
- It didn't have any discussion in regards to this. That was your request at the last meeting to put in
- some of those key problems. I'm trying to parallel and ask the question. Yes. If that parallels to this.
- It should. Mostly, yes. To the extent they have structures on them. Yes. Right. OK. They got that minus
- and then we'll get a rebate back on First Street. Thank you. He was working on that, but not in time
- for the packet. OK. Sorry. We have it in here.
- I was just wondering if it would be possible to have an addendum to this resolution that just shows
- what properties are being covered by the policy because there's nothing mentioned in the invoice itself
- or in the resolution and it's a little, I mean, I understand and appreciate that you just listed off
- what it is, but it seems like it should be part of the record. I asked for that as well. I got an email
- response and said it was not attached to that. So yes, I understand. Okay. Could that be a follow up
- to this resolution just to have that part of the public record whenever you get the full final?
- Yes. It's in there. Thank you. So it's that list that you received from Gary. Gary and I have had some
- back and forth on it. We've had some back and forth on it because of that 615. Yeah. Yeah. So we can
- bring that back and reflect it in minutes, maybe? Or would you prefer? Well, how would you put it? Yeah.
- What we can do is bring it in.
- You speak by resolution and your minutes, so we can come back and include that in the minutes. And we
- can say that we want that, what we'll do is we'll bring it into a document and you guys can vote that
- you want that added to and attached to the resolution that you passed tonight. And then that will be
- added to that when you're completing resolutions.
- Okay, so when we actually go ahead and adopt this resolution tonight, what do you recommend in terms
- of having that recorded in the minutes in terms of that request? That you're, yes, that you're our request.
- Pending. Yeah, well, you don't want it pending because you want to be able to pay the bill. Right, right,
- right. But that you expect there to be an appendage put on the resolution at the next meeting to actually
- show the properties.
- Okay. Okay. That will come attack in the minutes for that. Yeah, it'll come. You'll vote for that not
- as a resolution, but in the it is just an item of business. And then in that, you'll state that you
- want that added to this resolution. So cover it then. Have you covered now is how would you do her?
- You wouldn't have to do it. If you want to do it, you could say that you request that staff bring the
- list of properties to the next meeting. And then at the next meeting, you say that this attaches to
- the resolution of the specimen. OK. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, and it also includes things like the 4th
- Street garage, except for 90% of that is being paid from Public Works. 10% is only to you guys because
- of the commercial space.
- So that would be good to have part of the record, right? I realize it's probably a little sticky to
- get through, but nonetheless, once available, I would like to have it, to review it, and to append it.
- Yeah, I think it's 642 North Madison, 627 North Morton, College Square, 200 to 226 South College Avenue.
- They've got 49 West 10th Street. It's the 4th Street parking garage, Showers West.
- a Forge, 714 South Roger Street, et cetera. And actually, if you write that into the minutes, since
- you just went through the list, then it is in the minutes. And so you have it. But we can still bring
- you a resolution. Still want to append it to the extra resolution so that whenever it comes up again,
- no one's going to have to go find the minutes and find the resolutions. You'd all be in one place. Exactly.
- Well, thank you for your help with those questions. Any other questions from commissioners? Open it
- for public comment. Anything online or in person? Not seeing anything. A motion, please, for resolution
- 2608. Move approval of 2608. Second. The first and the second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
- Motion passes unanimously with the request for an appendix as discussed. OK. And that'll come from Dana.
- Next item on the agenda is Resolution 2609, which is the Approval of Intellectual Property Agreement
- with the Incremental Development Alliance for services related to incremental development alliance training
- sessions. Who would like to speak to that? I'm happy to give you guys the rundown. So essentially, you
- guys entered into a contract with Flintlock that included the incremental development training as part
- of that and the funding for it.
- However, we realize now that we're scheduling these training sessions that incremental development is
- not who we have our contract with. And they have an intellectual property rights agreement that's normally
- in their contracts if we were contracting with them. So in order to move forward with the training as
- planned, they just would like your blessing on their intellectual property.
- So it's paragraphs A, B, and C from a section of their contract 13. We're not actually entering into
- a contract with them. What you're doing is you're extending the reliance on this intellectual property
- to the Alliance. So what is it going to be? The contract is with Flintlock. Right, right. But you're
- right. Yes, you are.
- a contract with Flintlock. This does not change the terms of that contract, but you acknowledge by this
- resolution that that intellectual property language also extends to incremental development so that
- they may rely upon that. So they just are trying to protect their intellectual property. And we're to
- have a contract with Flintlock, so we don't have to worry about Flintlock, but they would like a resolution
- saying, hey,
- We want to follow under that same intellectual property. And so that's simply what you're saying, is
- you realize that this is part of that contract, and that you are acknowledging that intellectual development
- can rely on the contract language that you have for filling lock, as well. And who is this alliance?
- It's Incremental Development Alliance. Can you say more about the training they're providing? Oh gosh,
- there's a long list of trainings that they're gonna do. They're gonna do, so this is the recruitment
- lecture is set for the 12th of February, but then they're also going to do a weekly, I believe it is,
- session to train contractors to support the incremental development movement. There's also,
- Gosh, I don't have it exactly in front of me. Give me one second. The intellectual property are the
- templates and models and so forth that they use in these trainings that then people would be interacting
- with. And that's what they're trying to protect. So reading from the intellectual property exhibit A,
- any kind of trade secret or intellectual property, blah, blah, blah, first made by the alliance in the
- performance of this agreement?
- or which is derived from the use of information supplied by the host. Do you have any concerns about
- the data that we might produce, or do they also own that? Do you see where I'm reading? Which one is
- it? Letter A, it's number 13A under intellectual property and exhibit A.
- concerned about whether or not any data comes from this training, data about us, or that is unique to
- Bloomington, do they own that as well? It's not unique to Bloomington. OK. Yeah. Yeah, it's data as
- far as how many winds and all that, that's not intellectual property. Right. This is just what they
- bring in. Their slide deck in there. Right. Yeah.
- If they change names and put your name in the slides instead of somebody else's, then it'll have your
- name in it. But as far as the information that they've created that they're bringing to the table, I
- don't have any concerns that there's going to be anything created from that as far as, again, who went
- and how many went and those kind of things. And there are no examples of us
- of our developing materials or deriving materials from what they put, right? No, a lot of their training,
- and I've been to some of their incremental development alliance training, they go through, like an example
- might be that they're trying to train developers on how to look at a capital stack. And so they have
- worksheets that you work out.
- or how are you looking at properties and what things do you need to look at? And you're looking at building
- plans, what might you, so it's really training related. And so they have a packet, they have a workbook,
- they have specific. So if I, as a developer, fill out a worksheet on that kind of thing, does what I
- fill out become the property? Their property, yeah. I went home with my own
- from my training, but I would imagine they don't want you to duplicate those worksheets, right? I'm
- talking about the content of what's filled in. Not to my knowledge. Okay, thank you. This resolution,
- since our contract's not with incremental development, this is an amendment to the Flintlock contract.
- I'm trying to get the technical aspects down of Flintlock to incremental development.
- We don't have a contract with incremental development. It's an agreement with incremental development.
- Through Flintlock. But our contract that we've already approved is with Flintlock. Flintlock's already
- signed the incremental development contract for this process, but they would like our blessing as well
- to say that we're not going to swipe any of their materials. I think it's in clause 200 of the whereas
- where it says that the exhibit further
- that furthers the public's best interests and recognizes incremental development lives is covered under
- the Flintlock agreement. So that's, I think, where it's trying to bridge the gap that I hear you describing.
- Are we any other further questions on resolution 2609? We've already approved the money. We haven't
- approved the money. It's just approving the intellectual property agreement.
- they know coverage of presenting problems. There you go. Okay, so if there's no other questions from
- commissioners, open it for public comment. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to place. Move approval
- of resolution 2609. Second. First and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously.
- Thank you. I, of course, just came across the training. Do you guys want me to list that at this point
- now, what you've agreed to?
- from this incremental development training. Do you want to know what they are? The sessions. It's always
- good to know. OK. So there's a recruitment lecture, which is scheduled on the 12th. There's a small
- development seminar. There is a small scale development workshop. There is a small developer boot camp.
- So those are the various trainings that we've agreed to. And those will be held.
- on-site here at City Hall? Yes, potentially off-site, but likely here, yes. And in person? In person,
- correct. I do think that the boot camp, though, is online, because that's a four, I think, several week
- session that's like once or twice a week. OK.
- Our last, or maybe second to last, sorry. We've got resolution 2610, which is an agreement with VET
- for environmental services at College Square. Would you like to speak to that? Sure. I'll stay in the
- hot seat here. So as you know, we've been going through some due diligence at the College Square site.
- It was discovered.
- through conversations with IDEM that in order to receive a site status letter that we need to do some
- further investigation, which includes investigation to delineate petroleum impacts in groundwater and
- to confirm the groundwater metal impacts are dissolved. They gave us some further directions, but essentially it is
- groundwater sampling to satisfy what they would like to know. So we're trying to get that comfort letter
- or that site status letter. And in order to achieve that, we need to have the water sample done. As
- I said earlier this evening, this would not be in front of you if it weren't that we're shy $73 on a
- previous resolution that you approved. So.
- Do you approve $73 to move forward with? And then that will get us farther down the road on what we
- actually have or don't have on a property we've already purchased. Correct. OK. Any other questions
- or comments from commissioners on 2610? If not, we'll open it for public comment. Seeing none, entertain
- a motion on resolution 2610, please.
- I'll move approval of 2610. Second. First and second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes
- unanimously. Our last resolution in the agenda tonight is resolution 2611, which is a general municipal
- engagement agreement with the Reedy Financial Group. I'd like to speak to that. I can. The controller's
- office has been working with Reedy Financial Group on providing
- The various reports that are due throughout the year, they have done that in 24 and 25. This would basically
- be a new agreement for 26. They estimate that doing all of the activities that are in Attachment 1 would
- not exceed 14,085
- That looks like a take on there. It would not exceed $85,000. I'll fix that bottom part before it gets
- signed. It would not exceed $85,000 for those services. I believe that they said this year. Through
- December 31, 2027. Yeah.
- So again, this is just to continue working with them for the reports that you have to do as part of
- being an RDC. We've got a question. Yeah, and maybe this can't be answered without some research, so
- take that into consideration. But I'd just be curious to know what reading charges in 24 and 25.
- And look it up quickly. Not that quickly. This also, I will say, this is not just for the reports. If
- you look at the scope, this is actually also, this is really for potential bond analysis. If you're
- considering bonding for Hopewell, for the police station, for Summit,
- This is all the services associated with analysis in helping you through the process of doing future
- bonds. And if we don't use all that, then what happens? It's a not to exceed, so you just don't. So
- you just get billed for what you use. You just get billed for what you use. Or more if we need more.
- It doesn't include anything from a bond council standpoint, though. No. They are not bond council.
- They estimate total cost would be $74,000 actually, but a 15% buffer because they do have the unknowns,
- as Jeff had stated. So and if it, yeah. So they just.
- to give us some flexibility, they suggested $85,000 not to exceed. And this is only for the services
- provided to RDC and not other departments or commissions in the city? Correct. So last year, I'm showing,
- and I may not have access to all the lines, because I know that the previous controller had paid
- some certain invoices with them. But what I'm showing is that it was around $24,000, $23,000, $4,000,
- which may not be complete, because I may not have access. But sometime this year, we should have a good
- possibility of looking at some bonding, which would be part of the financial analysis
- Right, and it would be really helpful to just be able to pick up the phone and say okay we're ready
- for this instead of having to wait for another meeting to do an analysis. This question is why when
- we get to the financial reporting from the treasurer it would be helpful to have again the committed
- 25-19 funds and the expended 25-19 funds so then we would have let's say seen in the last quarter what
- we committed to reading and what had been spent so that
- would have been in front of us on a regular basis. So I'm just tying together that discussion from earlier
- in the meeting to what we're talking about right now in terms of what will be helpful for financial
- reporting. Yeah, I again just want to caution that any financial report is going to be a little bit
- fluid only because, like for instance, your maintenance resolution.
- it says anything less than $5,000, you guys don't need to approve. So we have random repairs that come
- up on buildings. And so you may not be aware that that's being spent, but you haven't totally committed
- to it or aren't aware until you see it on Clayton. It's more having the accounting is what I'm talking
- about as opposed to the approvals, right? And just being able to see, oh, well, we approved $85,000
- for reading, and we're halfway through the year, and then we've spent $25,000 for whatever it is. Yeah,
- that's kind of more of a project level
- reporting, which I think does make a lot of sense. It's sort of an earned value analysis. Especially
- for the 25-19 funds, which have a lot of latitude in terms of how they're spent. And again, so the question
- that we're talking about right now, we're approving up to 85, but the question of, well, how much have
- we spent in the last couple of years? So looking for a way to track that so that we have a sense of
- that before just asking on the fly with a specific resolution.
- So based on what you said, even if you're off by half, we're approving a whole lot more. I'm assuming
- staff is okay with this number? I think it's absolutely essential. If you're going to be considering
- bonding, it's essential that we have these services in place.
- like Anna said, so that we can call them up and have them do them. I mean, they've already done some
- very preliminary models. But this is assisting us throughout the process of doing up to three or even
- more different issues. And they know what we're doing. They've been involved with us for the last two
- years. So this is an estimate that they feel is a comfortable estimate for them.
- as we start going nuts bombing. They felt comfortable with this level. I have to say, also with Brady,
- my experience has been they've been very clear when they're doing analysis for us that they're representing
- us and trying to do what's right. So they'll say, this doesn't look like a good deal for you guys. Don't
- consider this. This isn't right. So they are our financial advisor and are very helpful. I think we
- saw an example of that.
- Yeah. Last year, so I would agree with you. I have no question. Jeff, I don't have any question about
- the services or their integrity or anything else. I was just questioning the amount. I have one logistical
- question with dates, which is the second page of the resolution says unless it is clause three, says
- unless extended by the RDC, the authorizations provided shall expire on January 31, 2027, whereas the
- first page of the reading appendix
- says in the first paragraph, this engagement shall be effective from the date of approval through December
- 31st, 2027. So just help me understand those two dates. This is authorized payments for anything that
- they would do in December. So authorizing to spend, you're authorizing staff to spend the money that
- might not be invoiced until beginning of January.
- for the work done in December. Yeah, but this is December 31st, 2027, and the page before it is for
- authorization through January 31st, 2027. It would be, if it was the following January for previous
- invoice, that would either be for 28, or this should say for 26, and it should be for 27, right? Yeah,
- the contract itself.
- Okay, so that means that the second page of the resolution should presumably say January 31st, 2028,
- so that you can account for spending of invoices issued in December. Is that correct?
- 31st, 2028. And it now says that. OK. Any other questions or comments from commissioners before we take
- a vote? So we're actually approving $85,000 for a much longer period. For two years, yeah. So that makes
- a difference. So to Anna's analysis, she was looking at one year, and we're almost looking
- I will also, I guess my other question then, the ANI's, the numbers that you're looking at, are they
- comparable? Were they doing the same bond support during that time or was that mostly just reporting
- activities? I just closed that window. That's all right.
- They did some training for us, too. I think it was in that period of time. I think they should do more.
- Their presentation to us was exemplary. One other correction that I think we noticed at the very beginning.
- I just want to call it out for amendment, which is the clause one at the bottom of page one.
- There's that $14,000 that's written in there. Yeah, it's hard. It needs to just be. OK.
- terms of the as amended when we approve this or we vote on it. That's the two amendments. OK. If we're
- done with questions, comments, public comment, seeing nobody, motion please. Move approval of resolution
- 26E1. Second. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye.
- Motion passes unanimously with the two amendments as discussed. Way to go, Lori. You made it within
- two minutes. You're a narcissist. I know. But I won't hold you to it. But at least we get you out on
- top. Yeah. OK. OK. We are done with our main agenda. Any additional items of business before we adjourn?
- How are you going to handle the next couple of meetings?
- I've sent you guys an email if you can respond to me with your availability. I think you already responded.
- I'm not sure if I've responded. Laurie did, too. Laurie did. I have not heard from, oh, and Sue did
- as well. So really, it's going to be up to Deborah and Randy whether they're available on the 23rd.
- If that doesn't work, then I'm going to send you a doodle poll. I'll be here on the 23rd.
- I do have one question that I wouldn't mind just including as part of the public record, which is there
- is a timeline for the residential TIF, and there was something that was supposed to be on the website,
- I think, about the residential TIF. Is that correct? Yes. We're still working on that. It wasn't required.
- We were hoping to get it up there, but the process is a little bit more complex. I have one of them.
- They're almost both done, and so I was going to get them up there. But we're also not making a decision
- on February, so they'll have time from there to at least the 16th, and if we don't, maybe the 23rd,
- maybe March 2nd, depending on how the dates fall. So we're getting around. So we're speaking of this
- in a little shorthand. Since I asked this as part of public record, would you mind just kind of making
- the complete sentence about,
- Yes. The residential test, what we're talking about, what's going on the website, when it's going up,
- and then when it needs to be discussed. The residential housing programs, the drafts and their drafts
- of those will be up on the website in the next one to two days trying to get cost of the infrastructure
- guess for the South as part of it. And I'm also working with Summit in regards to what part of Shasta
- Meadows would fall under a residential TIF and what would fall under a commercial TIF based on the number
- of units in the structure. So I'm trying to get that information in. If I don't get that.
- By the end of the day tomorrow, we'll go ahead and put on what we have. Because again, it's a draft.
- Most of the time, people just put it out at the meeting. I was hoping to get it out before the meeting.
- And so I apologize that it didn't get out that quickly, but they were, again, more enthilled than we
- envisioned them to be. So anyway, we'll have drafts that will be
- likely incomplete by the end of the day tomorrow. OK. Well, thank you. I appreciate that update.
- I saw two. Wasn't there two entries in the chat? Online. It just popped up and then it went away.
- It is the B Square saying that they didn't have audio at the beginning of the movie, but now they do.
- We don't care. Teaching history. It's been long since taken care of. OK. OK. Well, it's been ejected.
- Awesome. If there's no other items of business, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. Thank you.