- at 9 o'clock. Welcome to the Redevelopment Commission meeting on February 23rd, 2026. We'll start the
- meeting with a roll call, please. C. Scandaleri, here. Brandi Cassidy, here. John West, here.
- Laurie McRobby, present. Deborah Meyerson, here. Can we attend to staff present, please? Anna Killian-Hanson,
- here. Martin Rice Corporation Council, present for the legal update, and then I'll be leaving. Christina
- Finley, Hand Department.
- Jeff McCann, city controller. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Online. Any others online? Okay. Thank you.
- So the first item on the agenda is the minutes. The packet includes the minutes from February 2nd, 2026.
- I noticed that the agenda mentions the minutes from January 5th. Is that an outstanding item? I didn't
- recall that. That's fine. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't like two sets of minutes or anything
- that missed. OK. So this is for the minutes from February 2nd, 2026. Any comments or questions from
- commissioners?
- Move for approval. Second. Got a first and a second. We'll do a roll call vote, please. C. Scambler,
- yes. Brandi Cassidy, yes. John West, yes. Lauren McCraw, yes. Deborah Meyerson, yes. Most of them passes
- unanimously. Next item on the agenda is examination of claim registers. We've got two from January 30,
- 2026 and February 13, 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners on either of these items?
- I'd like to go to the January 17th to 30th claims, page 4, claim number 7255. I just need an explanation.
- I'm sure it's fine, but there's a lot of monies being transferred for bond issues.
- I just don't understand it. You are on page four or five. And remind me to say that again. It was claim
- number 7255. It was payment to EOKF.
- I don't remember which bond I'm still waiting for this agenda to come up, but BOKF is one of our bond
- trustees. The annotation invoice description says TIF revenue refunding bids 2024 to February 2026.
- And at least the first total for BOKF, there's three in total. But the first one is for $670,000. And
- then the second one is for $629,375.
- And the third is for $350. I'm sorry, what bond did you say that was again? It says it begins with 06SYPTIFF
- revenue refunding bonds to 2024 to February 2026. And this is again page 405 of the Cleaners Register
- that is January 17 to January 30, 2026.
- payments don't go through hand, so I can't help you with that. It's like there's a principle on the
- tip refunding bonds. Yeah, I read all that. But there's about $1.3 million that's passing through, and
- I just wondered what bond transaction that was.
- coming from the consolidated to 7255. Should have probably. Yeah, seven minute. What we could do is
- move this to the end of the agenda and give us a second to. That's fine.
- get an answer. And I just need to note that that claim register needs to come back up for approval.
- OK. So we'll pause on this claim register until the end of the agenda. But I will at least keep open
- for the February 13th claim register, if that can be addressed during this moment. This is from January
- 31st to February 13th, 2026. And since we're going to leave it open,
- Another question on that same page is the Flintlock payment claim number 9941. And I get confused with
- the shifting of account numbers, so I'm not always right. But is that being paid out of the right account?
- I'm not questioning the payment or the amount. But there's some other things being paid out of 53.990
- that are more just expenses, not
- not things that were approved for TIF disbursement. It comes out of other services. It's the right.
- It is. So it would be that's so it's like Nature's Way and some other services. The only part that makes
- a difference is the beginning part. That's what your fund number is. So that would be the most important
- part. So if it was, you know, a different fund, that number would be different. But the 53990
- Multiple things come out of that. It's a different fund. It's a category, so to speak. It's a subcategory
- of that funding. OK. Thank you. Two quick questions. It's under the unsafe bill, under Fund 2234,
- page 205, the 18036
- four-year-long landscaping abatement located in 1919 South Walnut. Where actually is that abatement
- because that was 1919 South Walnut is McDonald's. I do believe it is the McDonald's site that was abated.
- There was an encampment behind there.
- And then the other question I have is under Fund on page 204, Fund 2209, 73-72 on the CDFI-friendly
- of Bloomington. So what's the? Each year a grant is provided to CDFI-friendly for the affordable housing
- development. This has been going on for more than five years. Is this a continual?
- applications is something we've got in long-term benefits. It's an annual grant that's provided to CDFI
- for their work. It existed before my time. It has been incorporated in the budget, annual budget approval.
- I'm just curious, because I know at one point didn't we see that CDFI was a million. Correct, but that's
- for use in projects, not for administrative purposes.
- We've got a $40,000 continuing grant that gets utilized through the LIT. Correct. Do we have a term
- on that, or is that just? Each year, the grant agreement is renewed. So city council can choose whether
- or not they want to fund it next year. I do believe that the ED LIT funds are going away. Is that correct?
- Yeah. So when that is gone, there will not be an opportunity for a grant.
- Well, as we look towards what the funding is, as our community, identifying how we look at these things
- so that people aren't caught off guard, that the dollars will go away. Thank you. And just to follow
- up on the ED lit, the current state of the legislation is it goes away in 2029. There was an amendment
- that pushed it off from 2028 to 2029. Anything could still happen.
- Any other questions or comments from commissioners on either of these claim registers except for the
- outstanding question as mentioned previously? If there are none, I will entertain a motion specifically
- for the second claim register on our agenda, which is the invoice date range from January 31 to February
- 13, 2026. Move approval for the claims register, February 13, 2023. Second.
- Then a first and a second, we'll do a roll call vote, please. C. Schimbler, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes.
- John West, yes. Warren McCrory, yes. Deborah Meyers, yes. Motion passes unanimously for the February
- 13, 2026 claim register. And we will return to the other one at the end of this agenda. Next item on
- our agenda is we have two payroll registers, one from February 6, the other from February 20, 2026.
- Any comments or questions from commissioners on either of these?
- If not, I will entertain a motion, please. Move for approval. Second. We have a first and a second.
- We'll do a roll call vote, please. Sue Scambler, yes. Randy Gassley, yes. John West, yes. Laura Nicarabe,
- yes. Deborah Meyerson, we ask motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next on our agenda, we've got reports
- of officers and committees. Do we have a report from the director? We do. Thank you so much.
- We have not had a meeting since we received unanimous approval for the Hopewell PUD through Plan Commission.
- We did try to turn that around to City Council. It did not get read into the record for first reading.
- We're hoping to go for first reading next week on March 4th. So just FYI, that's happening. I need to
- alert you that we've been asked
- Um, the gravel lot surrounding the, um, forge. That building slated for the hotel project, um, the hotel
- project is moving forward. They do want to close on March 31st. Unfortunately, um, Deborah is unavailable
- to sign at the closing. So I do need to see if potentially Sue or another commission member would be
- present on the 31st, um, to sign for that closing. I can be present. Okay. Wonderful. So that's great.
- The gravel lot next to the Forge though, IU Cycling Club, is hosting a race in the trades district on
- Sunday, March 8th. Criterium is what it's called. It's a fast-paced bike race held on a short closed
- circuit course. They are requesting access to the gravel lot west of the Forge for the storage of barricades
- from Friday morning to Monday afternoon.
- portable toilets for racers and spectators, team tents for clubs and hospitality areas. Apparently,
- it's a community-friendly event for all ages, live music, food available. Unfortunately, my right of
- entry approval has expired. It expired on January 31st. That's one of the items on your agenda this
- evening for approval, but I did just want to bring it up
- let you know we have this outstanding request, make sure that this is something that you guys are comfortable
- with, and then we can address the right of entry approval for me later today. So we also have a need
- for a commission member to serve on the Neighborhood Improvement Grant Council. The application deadline
- for the Neighborhood Improvement Grants are
- And then you would receive materials to review. And then there's only two meetings. So presentations
- would be April 13th from 6 to 8 PM, and then a work session from April 15th from 5 to 7 PM. So is there
- anyone that might consider serving on that committee? If you would like to consult your calendars and
- then let me know after the meeting, that's fine too. I can send you an email.
- April 13th and 15th the 13th is 6 to 8 and the 15th is 5 to 7. The other thing I want to call attention
- to is that we have a strange back-to-back week meetings here because we're off schedule today so our
- next meeting is scheduled to be March 2nd
- Do I have a quorum? I think we've already checked this once, but I just want to make sure that we do
- have a quorum. Who is going to be present in person? Oh, wow. OK. Fabulous. The other meeting that I
- hear. Awesome. Thank you. So the other meeting in question is March 16. That is a week that both Dana
- and I will be gone. Will we have a quorum? And will you guys want to meet? No. OK.
- What's the date again? It's March 16th. That's spring break week. It's spring break week. So do we want
- to move the meeting or keep it on that week? You will be without dinner. You may not have a quorum anyway.
- Yeah. I'm here, but it sounds like we don't. Yeah, too. Where's Laura? Laura, you're available. I'll
- be here in person. I'll be there in person. OK. So we do have a quorum.
- Will you be gone? And you'll be gone? I'll be gone. Dana will be gone. I'll be here to staff, you know,
- from the legal perspective, but I don't, but you'll be without Hannah. Can you, between now and the
- time in which you have to make public notice, decide, or can we look at an agenda? Yes. Absolutely.
- If there's anything pressing. So timely that we have to have it? Absolutely. Yeah. No problem.
- No, I would like to know. OK, that concludes the director's report. Happy to answer any questions.
- Moving on. Thank you. Next on our agenda is a legal report. I have a legal report. So I want to give
- you a little bit of an update on the Showers West situation and ask for approval of a specific amount
- to pay CASA, which is one of the tenants.
- So we've been continuing to work with and try to resolve situations with the existing tenants, two of
- whom you'll remember filed suit against the city in August. We answered the complaint. Both sides filed
- motions for summary judgment. We had a hearing on those motions for summary judgment December 9th. We
- filed our findings of fact
- law in January and are awaiting the result of the judge's ruling. While it's unfortunate that we're
- involved in litigation, nothing that I wanted to have happen. When you do get sued, you have to respond.
- And so we have, and we are letting that legal process play its course. I am in contact with the attorney
- who is the same attorney representing both parties. My last contact with him was late last week. I've
- asked him for some additional information.
- And so not going to get into the details, the nitty-gritty details here in public, because that is not
- what we do. We do not litigate in public. But I just wanted to give you that update. One of the other
- tenants, CASA, did get approval from their board that if the redevelopment commission would pay the
- sum of $45,751.50 plus provide two parking garage passes for a year
- that they would accept that and then move out of the space. I believe that is a fair amount. I would
- encourage this redevelopment commission to agree to pay that amount. I'd like some indication tonight
- that you also think that's a fair amount and then I will prepare that paperwork or Dana, I will prepare
- that paperwork and bring it back to you next week.
- for your signature. And we got word. We've been back and forth, and they've been great to work with.
- We got that news on Friday. Your packet deadline was noon. And so we thought it better to just put it
- on your next agenda for a formal vote. That figure represents some moving costs, lost staff
- time, compensation for the recognition that they're going to have
- rent at the next place. So, again, I think, you know, we had met with them last year and with their
- relitter and got down to this figure that I think is a very fair figure. Again, $45,750 and two parking
- passes for a year. Adam Wason said that we can definitely accommodate those two additional parkers in
- that garage, so I did check with him, and we can quantify the value of what that
- those parking passes are for us. But remember, the Redevelopment Commission is paying the bond on that
- parking garage. And that is something we've done for other tenants who have moved to CFC space and want
- to use that garage. So if you will give me the green light, I will, and say, yes, that's going to be
- acceptable to you next week, then I will prepare the paperwork and get that to you next week. Questions?
- How many square feet did
- Mike, do you have that? I don't have that off the top of my head. Give me just two seconds. 2882. Yeah,
- yeah. 0.74, but yeah. What fund will it be coming out? What used to be that one fund? We renamed it.
- It was the 251.
- Or it was the 444, it's now the 2519. Yeah. The overall RDC general fund. Yeah. What's that fund number
- again? 2519. Used to be 444? Used to be the 444, yes. I loved it. 444, easy to remember. Yeah. I would
- support your bringing that back. Are there any objections to that? No. No? OK.
- I'm going to be back for approval on Monday, next meeting. And the rest of them, yes. And we can share
- details about litigation in an executive session. But the reason we have an executive session to be
- able to talk about those details is so that we are not talking about it in public. So I am happy to
- schedule an executive session to talk about any questions you might have about litigation at that time.
- But just please know that.
- We are working through the process of both responding to the litigation that was filed against the city
- and actively talking to, although we haven't reached an agreement yet, actively talking to the attorney
- that represents the other side. To clarify, the legal litigation is against the city, inclusive of the
- RDC or the RDC? The litigation was filed against the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission.
- And as the Corporation Council, you're stuck with me as your lawyer. So I represent the city of Bloomington.
- The city of Bloomington is under the umbrella of the city of Bloomington. And entities are not allowed
- to hire outside counsel without Corporation Council approval. But Dana Kerr is also involved actively
- and has been a great active partner in this.
- With any, it's unfortunate. I hate the best litigators are the ones who try to stay out of court. But
- sometimes you can't. And then you got to do what you got to do. That's the plaintiff? Am I allowed to
- share? This is not a time for public comment. And we are also not litigating this in court. OK, anything
- else we can go for? No, nothing for me. Thank you. Thank you. Next in our agenda is the treasure report.
- Just two things. First of all, I do have that whenever this comes back up, I do have the detail on the
- bond payment that was referenced in the claims earlier. And second, as I think you know, you have engaged
- with Weedy Financial Group to do your TIF reporting, and they have delivered their fourth quarter of
- 2025 report.
- their intention is to, assuming this all, I think there was some question about whether there's going
- to be a quorum, but their intention will be to present those results to you in March, and then we can
- discuss the report as well. The report will be part of the packet. So that's all I have. Thank you.
- In regards to that, the meeting where we will have a quorum, but we won't have a full board order,
- our director that is the intended meeting on the 16th? I've been in contact with Reedy. We're going
- to wait and find out what exactly our schedule is going to be. So it may be the 16th and maybe another
- day, depending upon what we decide. The reason I'm asking that question is specifically that
- all commissioners would be here and or 90% plus our staff. I agree with Randy.
- see us push that off till we're all present and staff is present. They are flexible. I've mentioned
- it to them. They're aware. Move it into April. If that's flexible, that'd be preference since it's of
- such substantial financial. Although could the report be made available at the next packages
- for informational purposes? Yes, we have done that before.
- just give them the information and then read it for them. And then we can have the presentation after
- that. We'd actually have time to- It might be prepped for questions. That'd be great. Sounds good.
- Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to our business development update. Okay, there you are.
- Thank you. Okay. And I've got Hopeful Engineering Report. Is that- Yep, that's me. Okay, awesome.
- Kendall Kenoki with the engineering department. So I just wanted to give you a brief update on the actions
- taken so far on Hopewell South. You'll remember three weeks ago when the contract was approved, you
- had requested regular updates for the time being. So that's what these are. So so far, we've done a
- lot in three weeks when I was putting it together today. We have received a topographic survey from
- a previous surveyor. We evaluated that and determined it's good to use for design.
- for this, so that saved us some time and money, which is great. However, we're still doing boundary
- survey, setting vertical, horizontal control. These are things that, because we have a new surveyor
- doing the subdivision, they have to do all this work. So they're still doing that work to establish
- boundaries, get started on the subdivisions, so that's happening right now. Also, geotechnical explorations
- are ongoing, so you may see surveyors and then geotechnical, like soil borings being done.
- on the site, so that'll include testing to determine rock elevations, evaluate the proposed detention
- area in kind of that northeast corner there, the 714 lot. Just geotechnical evaluation of the site.
- And then we also have drainage analysis ongoing, so we're preparing for a March 2nd meeting with CBU
- where we're gonna talk about our preliminary drainage strategy, both for detention and water quality.
- for the development. And again, this is something we'd have to do no matter what we're putting on the
- site. Pretty much all of this stuff is. And then preliminary utility layout for what is being proposed
- in the PUD is being put together to also talk to CBU at that meeting. Kind of making sure that we can
- fit everything in there. It's not a detailed utility design, but it's kind of a high level. But now
- we're starting to get into the things that are more specific to
- the project that's being proposed and considered by council. So there's also the grading plan that we're
- working on, kind of a preliminary grading plan with the streets and lots as they are laid out in the
- current PUD plan. And I think this is where the farther we get along with that, the more it's gonna
- be, if there's changes, like some kind of a road is pulled out of the design or the lot layout completely
- changes, that's where there might be some rework.
- So that's something that, you know, kind of I'm going to need your feedback on how far we want to move
- forward with that. And then, you know, we're working on filing this preliminary plat, which is subject
- to the zoning that's going to be approved in the PUD. So with the updated schedule that Anna gave you,
- you know, right now there's kind of, we need to be charging forward full speed to make a May plan commission date.
- for our approval of the primary plat, but there is some risk to doing that. So those are kind of the
- aspects I think right now. Just want to get your feedback on how much and how far we should go or if
- we should hold on a few things and continue forward with all the things that are going to have to happen
- anyway. Is that feedback you're asking for tonight? Yes, that would be great. Just checking. Open it
- up to commissioners for response to Mr. Committee.
- I'm not sure yet where I lie on that, but did I remember reading that the council has now agreed to
- an ordinance where they start commenting at first reading? Correct. Yes. So sometimes at a first reading
- you can get kind of a sense of what they're thinking, which in the past you couldn't.
- My understanding and legal can correct me is that since that passed at the last meeting and our ordinance
- was not adopted or for the first reading that there will or could be discussion. We're anticipating
- that there will be discussion on March 4th. Um, so you should, my opinion is that you will likely have
- some feedback at that time next week. Yeah. It's after our meeting though. It is. That doesn't mean
- we can't put a meeting together.
- comments from commissioners. I would I would recommend especially since there is an opportunity for
- comment at the first council hearing. You know as you know the two things I wrote note of that you said
- were maybe more kind of at risk in terms of backtracking would be the preliminary grading plan and the
- preliminary platform zoning. So I would love to hear the comments from
- council members before plunging ahead with that. And I appreciate the suggestion that if we need to
- convene maybe a special noticed RDC meeting as a result of that, that I'd prefer to do that than to
- err on the side of budget backtracking. So thank you for alerting us to that. And I appreciate your report.
- Um, anything further from the Hopewell Engineering Report at this point? Nothing. Okay. Just wanted
- to confirm. Um, I am gonna, before we move on to new business, would love to just wrap up the, uh, since
- it sounds like we've got the answer to the question on the examination of claim register from January
- 30th, 2026. I wanted to just see if we could reopen that and, uh, vote on, uh, that if, if we have the
- information that's being sought.
- So actually the claim referred to it actually kind of does say that in the claim that it is, this is
- the bond payment for the, or one of the two biannual bond payments for the 2024 TIF refunding bonds,
- which I think originally refunded 2015 bonds. The payment is $670,000 in principal and $629,375 in interest.
- And then also a $305 fee that goes to the bond trustee, which is BOK Financial. And you'll see another
- one of those in August for $685,000 in principal and $612,625 in interest. Is that a consolidated bond
- or is that for a specific project? That's one of the consolidated bonds.
- And it's, yeah, it's 2024, so it matures in 2040. Just for the record. But I'm just saying you're gonna
- see another big number like this later in the year, twice a year for quite a while. Just to follow up
- on that refunding bond of which we all went before previously. Idea of projects that that actually would've
- entailed with the funding of the homes. That I don't have.
- Just a question, because it was a refunding bond that saved us a substantial amount of money. Yeah.
- I'm going to have to go back and do some research on that for next meeting, if you want. Not a problem.
- Thank you. Appreciate it. OK. If that has hopefully provided the information sought, I'm going to see
- if we could have a motion and a vote on the examination of claim register for January 30, 2026. Move
- for approval. Second. First and second.
- First in two seconds, we've got a vote by roll call, please. C. Scandaleri, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes.
- John West, yes. Lauren McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyers, yes. Motion passes unanimously for the January
- 30, 2026 Examination of Plan Ministers. Thank you. Back to our new business. First item on the agenda
- is resolution 26-12, approval of the First Amendment to the 2023 CDBG Physical Improvement Grant Agreement
- with New Hope for Families.
- Would like to speak to that. We have Matthew Sweeney from the hand department. Hello. This is much like
- what I usually bring to you guys. New Hope for Families needed a little extra time. The project's actually
- completed, but we have some paperwork and payouts to finish up. So we're extending the time. And we're
- also increasing the amount
- They had some unforeseen costs, so we're raising the grant amount to help cover that and finish up the
- project. So raising the amount by $8,587.60 for a new total of $41,087.60. And we are extending the
- agreement to December 31st to 2026, which we should not need.
- If we're going to extend it, let's go ahead and push it out to where we don't have to do this again.
- And we're also doing some, since we're opening the agreement, we are adding in some of the new requirements
- and regulations for CDBG. So that's what you see with the addendum. And happy to answer any questions.
- Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 26-12? We still follow.
- fall within your budgetary basis of the grants as a whole. So we're not having any issues there. And
- my question is, is that gap filling of the $8,587.60? Is that CDBG funds or is that a city? CDBG. I
- thought that's what Randy was asking. OK. Open it up for public comment, either in person or online.
- Seeing none, I will entertain a motion, please, for Resolution 26-12. Move approval of Resolution 26-12.
- Second. Got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. See scan number, yes.
- Randy Cassidy, yes. John West, yes. Laura McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyers, yes. Motion passes unanimously
- for Resolution 26-12. Next item on the agenda is Resolution 26-13, which is approval of a First Amendment
- to a 2024 CDBG Physical Improvement Grant Agreement
- with the Summit Hill Community Development Corporation. Me again. Yes. Yeah. Rinse and repeat. Yeah.
- This is a very big project overall and a very important project to the community with the Early Learning
- Center and also the housing units that are above it.
- there's always a gap there. So we were able to take some funding that we had and increase their budget
- by $51,012.43 for a grand total of $200,000 for the project. And also, again, we had to extend the agreement
- expiration date, and we did that for December 31st of 2026. We also amended the scope to encompass concrete work
- that we get from the street level all the way into the playground. So yeah, we included more concrete
- work into the scope. And again, with the regulations, since we opened the agreement, we added in the
- addendum number one, which adds in the new regulations. So again, happy to answer any questions. Same
- question. Yeah, we have money to cover.
- Um, projects, some projects come in under budget. So whenever we have that, then we were able to move
- those forward to other projects that don't come in under budget. So, um, we keep trying to pay back
- into the community as much as possible. This project is complete. Uh, this project is, the work is complete,
- um, with the concrete, uh, the playground itself.
- is not complete. So it's still an ongoing project, but the majority of it will be paid out immediately.
- So we won't have to go come back on this? No. Thank you. If there are no other questions or comments
- from commissioners, I'll open it for public comment, either in person or online. Seeing none, I'll entertain
- a motion for resolution 2613, please. I'll make a motion to approve 26 stat.
- 26-13 as presented. Second. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. C.
- Scandallari, yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. John West, yes. Laura McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyersing, yes. Motion
- passes unanimously for resolution 26-13. Next item on the agenda is resolution 26-14, which is the approval
- to allow the, sorry, getting my,
- new formal agenda on approvals that allow the Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development to grant
- rights of entry to the Redevelopment Commission properties. Would you like to speak to that, Director?
- What can I say? You guys have approved this previously. It expired on January 31st. Of course, we received
- another right of entry request right as it expired. So in order to grant the IU cycling event there,
- ability to use that gravel plot on March 8th, I believe it is, we will need to have this authorization
- in place. Any questions or comments from commissioners on this resolution? If we grant this to you,
- are you going to grant them the right? Well, I am looking for your feedback. I'm going to do the resolution first.
- With any right of entry, I always report it back to you guys if we are granting it. So this is not just
- a blanket approval that goes without any kind of accountability. Just a step we have to do. Just like
- those first five resolutions of the year. Approval of resolution 2614. Second.
- I technically wanted to invite public comment, because that's how we do it. Just check in person, online.
- I don't see any, so we can return to the motion, please. Move approval of Resolution 2614. We'll second
- it already. Oh, OK. We've got a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Steve Scambaleri,
- yes. Randy Cassidy, yes. John West, yes. Corey McRobbie, yes.
- Debra Mayer saying yes. Motion passes unanimously for 26-14. Now, just for what is the right of entry
- that was being asked? So everybody's aware. As I mentioned in my director's report, it's Cycling Club
- at IU. They're hosting a Criterium Race in the Trades District on Sunday, March 8. Criterium is a fast-paced
- bike race held on a short closed-circuit course. They're requesting access to the gravel lot west of
- the Forge.
- for the following club needs, storage of barricades from Friday morning 3.6 to Monday afternoon 3.9,
- portable toilets for the racers and spectators, teen tents for club hospitality areas. And then,
- of course, they wanted you to know that this is a community-friendly event for all ages, live music,
- food that's available, and vendor-sponsored tents on May 1st way. As a requirement of any rate of entry,
- We require that there's a certificate of insurance that also names the redevelopment commission before
- any approval takes place. So they're aware of that. There's no ROE that's being offered without that.
- We're also indemnified by the whatever. Do they have to sign an agreement? Yes, they do. Perfect.
- Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Thank you for that additional information.
- We will move now to the next item on our agenda, which is resolution 26-15, which is the approval of
- agreement with Centerstone of Indiana Incorporated for temporary parking at 1714 South Roger Street.
- And I can speak to this one. Centerstone has been using the parking lot at 714 for many years when the
- Bloomington Hospital was present. They just needed the extra space.
- This is an agreement that actually ties that up. Because of the flexibility of what's going on at 714,
- we wanted to make this very flexible. So there is a 15-day clause that we can terminate the agreement,
- give them some time to try to find alternative parking. And so this is just a way to make sure that
- we're indemnified
- make sure that they realize that the RDC is not clearing the parking lot. They're not doing repairs.
- We're not doing anything. We have no idea what we're going to use that for exactly or what that's going
- to look like. They can use it basically as is. And again, we can terminate this with 15 days notice.
- Real quick, Dana, do we also not give permission at one point for the construction individuals on the
- core building to utilize this? I think that's a different block. I just want to verify. It was the back
- lot on block nine. Any of the construction people that are parking there don't have the agreement to
- do it. So this will be center. I just would like to make sure that we don't end up with a conflict with
- the center stone individuals
- the construction of the whole lot? Yeah, we didn't grant the 714 lot for the construction. They were
- granted a different lot. They're under a different agreement, which covers our interests. So any enforcement
- issue of this would be based on Centerstone's responsibility to make sure. Correct. And it is a limited
- license. The agreement, section one, says that this is a limited
- non-exclusive license. So they get a chance to go on there and chop for a space. It's not guaranteeing
- them those spaces are there. It's just letting them know that to the extent they are, the RDC is willing
- to let them be there as long as they have that indemnity and such. And again, the strict limitations
- on what RDC is going to do
- And this is just, it's going through the end of the year. Yes. You know, if projects garage on and there's
- ability to push it past that, you know, we could bring that back to you. It was good to have some sort
- of an end date at this point. Okay. Thank you. Dana, do they need the entire lot?
- basically didn't take me up. But we've had no other requests of anybody wanting to use that space. But
- we're not going to enforce it as far as parking permits or anything like that. It's just going to be
- as open for them to use. But they asked for the law. OK. I've got another question.
- In the resolution, in the therefore section number two and three, you refer to storage, not parking.
- I'm assuming they're not doing any storage on the site. Is that just a title? No. Well, there's stories
- of cars there while they're working. That's a stretch. There's not anything other.
- I would like that, it would be my opinion that we need to be consistent with the, with the intent of
- the resolution where we've got parking throughout and then in two and three is a storage. Yeah. And
- the second we're going to say the park vehicle. So it's what's going to be stored. Yeah. It's saying
- that therefore says temporary storage.
- So there's number three. So if you could change that to parking. I can do that and get it through. Any
- other questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 2515?
- Let's make a really minor comment that the title of the resolution, it should say South Rogers Street,
- not South Roger Street. Add that S in there, it'd be awesome. Any public comment on this resolution?
- Seeing none, I will entertain a motion for resolution 26-15 as amended. I move approval of resolution
- 26-15 as amended. Second.
- First and the second, that will do a vote by roll call, please. Steve Scandler, yes. Randy Gaste, yes.
- John West, yes. Lauren McRobbie, yes. Deborah Meyer, saying yes. Motion passes unanimously for resolution
- 2615. The last item on our new business agenda this evening is resolution 26-16, an addendum with VET
- for environmental services at College Square. Let me chime in. We need to actually poll.
- agenda item today. Um we'll be bringing a modified version of that amendment to you on Monday. Okay.
- Next week so. Thank you for that clarification. Um okay so we will move on to just other business general
- discussion. One item I'm gonna mention is that um when we at the beginning our first meeting of the
- year we did our
- organizational meeting with officers etc but not everybody had had their appointments renewed and I
- believe everybody now has had so that we are all confirmed for the rest of 2026 and wanted to. Has everyone
- signed their bond? Okay yeah okay if that's the case then we can do election officers at the next meeting.
- Okay so just wanted to see if people want to do that tonight or just since it was not on the agenda
- originally we are meeting again on March 2nd if there's any
- desire to do that on the second, either one is fine. I just wanted to make those options available.
- Did we not appoint, did we not elect officers? It was a preemptive period. So technically you can serve
- up to 90 days. So we're not quite there, but I think if we can get that done. So we're just closing
- a loop? Yeah, exactly. All appointments are done, is it?
- Well, I'll propose something just to get this move this along. I would recommend for the balance of
- this calendar year that we leave the slate of officers as is. I'll second. OK. We'll do a vote by roll
- call, please. C. Scandaler, yes. Randy Casta, yes. John West, yes. Oren McRobbie, no. Debra Morrison,
- yes. Motion passes unanimously to retain the current composition of officers for the remainder of the
- calendar year.
- Thank you. Any other items for business or general discussion before we adjourn? Public comment was
- asked at an earlier point. On a non-agenda item? Yeah, it was on a non-agenda item. Yeah, we're not
- public. We do public comment. There is a general session. OK. Dana? Yes? Can you weigh in on that?
- Yes. A couple different things. One, the statute doesn't require your public comment.
- hear something public just trying to make sure that we're all aware of the circumstances. Thank you.
- Appreciate it. Okay. With that clarification, anything else for general discussion? Otherwise, I will
- take a motion to adjourn. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate your time this evening.