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.