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.