to the Redevelopment Commission meeting of March 2nd, 2026. We'll start the meeting with a roll call,
please. C. Scandalluri, here. Randy Cassidy here. John West here. Laura Hibrati here. Deborah Meyerson
here. And we do not have any minutes from last week. This is fine. Just staff. Sorry, staff. I'm just
jumping ahead. I apologize. Staff present, please. Hannah Killian Hansen, present. Christina Finley,
hand department. Kami Caspula, hand department.
Jeff McKim, City Controller. Jane Coopersmith, Economic and Sustainable Development. OK, thank you all.
And I know Margie Rice just stopped us on. OK, she's here. We will announce your initial attendance.
Oh, and we do have Dana Kerr online. OK, great. Anybody else online? OK, thank you so much. So we do
not have minutes from last week, but we will start with our reports from officers. We have a director's report.
Sure. So I did send you guys an email to try and see if we could get a quorum for a different meeting
date in March so that we could have our financial advisor present and go over our report that's due
April 1st. It has to be presented to you prior to that date. Unfortunately, I was not able to get quorum.
So right now, the only date that we have quorum for you guys to receive this information is March 16th
as scheduled.
Unfortunately, both Mr. Kerr and I will not be present for that meeting. So I think at this point, due
to the timing of April 1st, we really probably need to keep that on deck as planned. We'll try to get
you guys a copy of the report in advance, though. So if you have any questions before we leave, we can
try and get them answered. And Jeff, will you be here?
I'm just confirming who's the quorum on the 16th. Bear with me. I have to dig that back out. Just want
to make sure that I didn't misrepresent because I'm not here on the 16th. It must be Rami, Sue,
and Laurie. OK, that's fine. I just wanted to confirm as long as it was Sue. Laurie, what happened?
I'll be here in person. OK, perfect. Sorry, I'll be there in person. OK. Great. Thank you so much. Who's
presenting for us? Do we know?
Is it the little guy or the older guy? It'll be Mr. Cheney. OK, cool. But other than that, I'm happy
to answer any questions. Or if you guys need anything, please let me know. Thank you. A legal report
from either Mr. Kerr or Ms. Rice. We're just here to answer questions if you have them.
OK, thank you so much. Do we have a treasurer's report? No report. Thank you. Business development update?
No update this evening. OK. And amplify Bloomington. I don't see Mr. Kanuki here. I'll sneak up here
if that's OK. Thanks for doing this. You guys are part of our management agreement. We want to keep
you up to date.
I'm John Fernandez, the CEO of Amplify Bloomington. While we pull up, I don't have a long presentation,
but I did want to provide some updates on the progress we're making under our management agreement.
That's the end of it. It looks like it got messed up somehow. Oh, anyway.
As some of you know, we launched Amplify Bloomington about a week ago. Just for clarity, Amplify Bloomington
is a DBA. So all of our agreements between the Redevelopment Commission and DementiaMill Inc. are still
agreements between those two entities. We're just going to mark it as Amplify Bloomington. So it's not
going to change any of our contractual relationships.
Just go to the next slide. I'm not sure why we have that. So just three things I want to talk about
tonight is give you an update on the launch, update on the forge, and then the trades district development
writ large. So on the Amplified Bloomington, again, we've launched this new platform. If you want to
go to the next slide, that'd be great. What is it?
I got kind of screwed up here, but it's a civic platform that's bringing together all of the key assets
that we can leverage from an economic development perspective to help build a robust community and economy.
So it really unifies a lot of the activity from the university's research and talent pipeline with our
entrepreneurship community and all the cultural and kind of community building that we're doing.
came off to a big start here. If you want to just go to that slide. I don't know what happened here.
I don't either. It didn't look like that when I sent it. But we have three pillars that we're focused
on. Entrepreneurship growth, which is the core of what we do, supporting founders and scale-ups. We're
focused vertical on strategic business attraction and, you know,
trades district development itself. And then we have a pillar that's focused solely on the startup community.
I mean, that's what has always been the strength of the mill and the activities in the trades district.
And so I think it's important that we bring these things together in a way. The real important piece,
if you go to that next slide here, it might be easier to read. This kind of is how it all fits together.
So Amplify Bloomington is the umbrella.
That's our brand that we really lead with, whether we're marketing programs, places, or some of the
other civic involvement. The mill is the mill. It's still the mill. It's got a good brand. It's really
the startup community home, and it's the catalyst for much of what's happening more broadly in the trades
district and in the greater Bloomington community. The Forge is, as you all know, focused on
Companies that outgrow the mill or some of the businesses that we're attracting to the community. And
then the trades district, of course, is the innovation hub that has a lot of momentum and has a lot
of opportunity to be a really big market signal. That benefits not just the trades district,
but more broadly, the entire community, in some ways, our region. Go to the next slide here. Yeah, I
don't know what happened here. I should have just sent a PDF.
But we have three Keystone partners that are really core to some of the foundation that we've built.
The city of Bloomington, the Redevelopment Commission is certainly one of them. Indiana University and
the Cook Medical Group have all really put in significant capabilities into where we're going with this
organization. So the Forge.
You know, 86% occupancy. We have 1,800 square feet left that we're continuing to market. The most recent
lease that you all approved was Prometheus. Their schematic drawings should be done this week. Their
plan is assuming they get their building permit, which hasn't been a problem. I don't mean that as a,
that's not an editorial thing. It's just a process thing. They intend to start.
their build out at the end of March. We've really got a very stable financial position right now with
the Forge. It's doing really well. In fact, it's doing so well that we're paying back the redevelopment
commissions and the city's $100,000 operating fund reserve that you all approved as part of our trades district.
management agreement amendment. If it didn't happen today, it's happening this week. As you recall,
when we updated the partnership agreement, the forge was just about finished with construction, and
we were still waiting to lease it up. And the city was gracious enough to say, well, forward $100,000
reserve fund
that we could use for any operating expenses until we started getting the leases in place and collecting
rent. We spent out of 100,000, roughly 54,000, a little bit less than that, on some of those early operating
expenses prior to having revenue. The biggest chunk of that was around 20,000 to repair the vandalism.
the windows that were broken. But because we've had such a high occupancy rate very quickly, we have
the revenue now to pay the city back. Under your agreement, we could wait three years, but we don't
want to. We're going to do it now as a measure of good faith and I hope demonstrating sort of the momentum
and confidence we have in the plan.
We're going to continue to hold in reserve cash for any other unexpected community building events that
could happen and be really prudent. But we wanted to get that city's money back to you as soon as we
can. So that'll probably be this week. Yeah, so let's go to the next slide. It's for the trades district
itself. We started construction today.
in earnest on the remodeling of the mill that you all approved. We have, as part of this, the IU's Lulee
Endowment Grant. We have funding to expand the capacity of the mill because of the growth we were achieving.
So that work started today. It's going to add about 36 or so workstations. It's going to add.
three additional private suite offices in the 200, 250 square foot sizes where there's a high demand
for. And it's going to enable us to make some significant improvements to the large meeting space at
the lower level. That work should be completed by the end of June. So we're already marketing the suites
and marketing the event space.
to get moving on that. Just a little commercial. Today, SOMA opened at the kiln. They're part of our
community. There was a steady stream of people from our building to welcome them to the neighborhood.
So that's cool. Parcel One actively working on a owner-acquired project for that. But Nikon Wood will
be in a position to seek
our board's approval in the end of March, maybe the first week of June. Pretty excited about that.
The hotel, probably should do this in reverse order. But we're working with Dana and Nana on the closing
for the land. Under the sale agreement, we need to close by the end of this month. So we're pregnant
at the last week of March.
when the developers can be in town for some other activity. Related to that, they are very close to
finishing their schematic design so that they can start getting some solid bids on the cost and nailing
that down. And then they're really hoping to break ground early spring or early summer. I think they're
very anxious to get started.
One bit of news, if you want to go to the next couple of slides to give you an idea of what it looks
like. This is kind of the revised schematics as it continues to evolve. You got all the planning approval
done. The site plan was approved January 12th. Despite all the other stuff we hear, the city, the utilities
department, planning department did an exceptional job of moving this forward.
There was a lot of collaboration on the design and setup so that we didn't have a protracted long process.
So we're really grateful for that collaboration. The one big change, not a big change, but we went from
150 rooms to a design that's going to incorporate 171 rooms. The demands there.
and the footprint enables that. So if you go on that slide, that's the corner view. This gives you a
view if you're looking from kind of a northwest looking at the site. And then the next slide shows you
what this northern northwest piece looks like where it'll have some retail as well as rooms above it.
But we're really happy with the design ratio architects.
has been great to work with, with the developer, and it's come along really nicely. And that's all I
got. But I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about anything under the sun as it relates
to the trades district. And again, just super grateful for the redevelopment commissions for what we're
doing. What is the target open date for the hotel? End of 2027. Yeah.
They'd like to be open sooner, but it takes a while to get these things built. They're looking at those
sold out football games going, damn. I'm struggling with AmphiFly only as an entity. Is it an actual
operating business? I mean, are there employees? Yeah. So Dimension Mill Inc. is the nonprofit that
was established in 2018.
when the mill was redeveloped. We are the DBA of Amplified Dimension Milling. So everybody that works
with me, we work for Amplified Bloomington. Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. All right. That makes sense.
At first, I thought it was a branding exercise. No, it's way more than that. I think, and that's the
real important thing is that, you know, over the last half of 2025, we had some working groups
looking at a couple of areas. One of them was around the brand, but a lot of it was around the governance.
And so historically, the executive committee of our board was about five or six people. It wasn't even
that. It was about five people. And they were original supporters of the mill, mostly startups.
And we felt like to do what we really want to get done as a community, we wanted the executive committee
to have representation of our key stakeholders and institutions at a kind of C-suite level. Because
the challenges we have are real. And our organization by itself can't fix them. And so the two things
we've really been that's been on our radar is population loss.
which we have lost population for two years in a row. And that's a massive red flag, especially if you
look at where that loss is coming from. There's a just dramatic drop off in population in the 20 to
50 year old demographic. I mean, it is like radically declining. That's a real problem. The other issue
is just our wages are stagnant. And so
You know, for us to act as a civic alliance, and that's how we positioned Amplify Bloomington, we need
everybody at the table kind of locking arms on what are we going to do. Some of the stuff we'll own
as an organization and drive, but a lot of it we have to collectively deal with. But our North Star
is our increased population in that critical demographic. Get our wages up and elevate the brand of
Bloomington so that it's
properly viewed across the country as a place where innovation and startups and people can build,
you know, meaningful things here, whether it's companies, careers, families. So who are the
major placeholders that work with you? Our executive committee includes the city, university, cook group,
Chamber of Commerce, BDC, and then other corporate
Has the government structure changed then between doing the DBA as amplified Bloomington compared to
Dimension Mill? Just in terms of the internal, the executive committee has changed. We made some modest
changes where like terms of officers were extended so we weren't having turnover every year. And we
added a couple of advisory
standing committees around entrepreneurship, community, around business attraction, and around government
relations. But you don't have to be a board member to be on those committees. That was just an engagement
strategy. Thank you very much for your presentation. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good work. All right.
What time does Summo open? Pardon me? What time does Summo open? I don't know.
I know they were open early. Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you, John. Thank you. Thank you all. Sorry
about that. No problem. I should have just sent a PDF. That's on me. Will those slides be on the next
minutes of this meeting? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And we'll get them corrected. The PDF version? Yeah.
Thank you. Okay. We're on to new business. The first item on our agenda is resolution 26-17.
which is declaring and designating and declaring a certain area as an economic development area, the
summit district EDA and approving an economic development plan for the said area, establishing a residential
housing program in the said area and regarding related matters. Who would like to speak to that? Mr.
Dana Kerr, city legal will be speaking to that. Yes, I would like to kind of start with something
for all of you, but it's how a TIF works. Because what we're talking about tonight is a residential
TIF, which is different from a commercial TIF. But as far as how they work and operate, they're very
much the same. So what you do when you create a TIF is you establish the base assessed value, and that continues
go to all the other underlying taxing units in the area. But as economic development, residential development
occurs, then that increase, I believe that the gray area, I'm calling it blind, but that increase is
captured and goes to the RBC that can pay for a variety of project costs. The project costs can be costs
within the EDA,
in the allocation area or in areas that support those that you would need to, which we'll talk about
in the third resolution, that you need to construct to be able to make the development work for some
reasons. And beginning of the TIF, for commercial TIFs, it is 25 years from the first time you incur
a debt payment.
For a residential TIF, it is 10 years. The big difference is that in a commercial TIF, you cannot capture
the increment for residential properties. But it can, again, last up to 25 years from during the first
step. For a residential TIF, you can not only capture the residential
But you can also capture the commercial properties as well. But the maximum amount is 20 years from
your approach to project. So whether you choose a residential TIF or a commercial TIF basically depends
on how the EDA area or allocation area is going to be developed.
we're talking about today, Schatz to Meadows, is part of the assignment development. And that is primarily
residential. So it makes the most sense to make that as a residential allocation area. And so the, for
you tonight is a declaratory resolution, in that slide, that is going to encompass
all of the summit district PUD as an economic development area. So it establishes that there's parts
of the economic development area that live in part of consolidated EDA and it will be converted into
the summit PUD district PUD EDA. And to start with,
is, again, Shasta Meadow on the left, number one, that is the first area to be developed. It doesn't
really benefit to create all the different allocation areas within the economic development area at
one time because we're not sure of the time. We don't know when the developments want to start in those
different areas. We don't know if there are going to be shifts.
commercial or residential. So just by creating one allocation area for now, we're going to be able to
capture the income for Shasta Meadow, which again is the first development. But we will be coming back
over time in capturing other allocation areas, and we'll do that just before development.
And so the EDA is the overall TIF area. And an allocation area is an area within the EDA that says,
this is the area that we're, right now, going to establish as an allocation area and set the base value,
assess values, so that any incremental development at that point can be captured
and used to support the EDA. Now those funds can be used, we'll see later, for the design of infrastructure,
for the construction of infrastructure. It doesn't mean that the infrastructure has to be actually all
in that allocation area, but it has to be tied to the allocation area in a manner that shows that it is
supporting that development. And especially it gets more important when you can say, hey, without this,
let's say this infrastructure development, then Shasta Meadow couldn't develop because there's not the
infrastructure there for it. So tying it to existing infrastructure is very important. And so what
we're hoping to do is capture that criminal assessment as it shows and then determine ways that are
best to use that funds to support the overall EDA and those areas that support the EDA as well. So this
is a way that the RDC can generate some income
that can be used, potentially will be used within the development of the, and for the red road at Sudbury
and the green blue road at Adams. Those roads are very much necessary to connect this overall development
to the rest of Bloomington and provide some infrastructure that will support Bloomington as a whole,
Avenue Street, connecting it will now give another direct line from Bloomfield Road all the way to Hap
Road. So this really helps connectivity. It'll help connectivity for traffic flow to and from the APA.
So there's a variety of things that the funds can be used for. That is one that is often used, but you're
not going to
And you all understand this from the consolidated TIF that you have and what projects can be, the TIF
funds can be used within the consolidated TIF. And so technically these funds could be used outside
of the EVA Summit District as long as it supports the district economic development.
So what you have for you tonight is a statement saying, hey, we believe this is important. We believe
that establishing this EDA is necessary to help drive development of the Summit District area. We all
know that Bloomington is landlocked. And so we must take great care in dealing with the projects
for the land that we do have within city limits, which includes all of this area here. And so by providing
the TIF and generating revenue, that revenue can be used to help spur this development in ways that
it wouldn't happen without it. And again, the wonderful thing is the interconnectivity of the infrastructure
is going to be a huge benefit for all of the, for the southwest quadrant of Winnington. So again, tonight,
what you are saying is, hey, we believe this is very important that we, the findings are in the resolution
and in the plan attached thereto, that this is important for the development
in the best interests of the welfare of the community. You are not displacing anybody within the summit
district. These are all underdeveloped properties. You're not purchasing any land. We'll see later when
the land is donated to the city for infrastructure and the fire station. We'll get to that later.
And then you're saying for Shasta Meadow, we would like to start the first allocation area there. And
we want this to be a residential allocation area. Again, if there's commercial, if there's residential,
that do not necessarily, it's not necessarily, okay.
All the findings are presented with you. We just are really asking for your support. We ask that you
declare this declaratory resolution that you passed this. Next steps would be that it would go to the
Planning Commission for their review. It would also go to the Common Council for their review. And then,
hopefully, on April 16th or sometime thereafter,
It will come back to the RBC. And at that time, you will pass a resolution that says that you are confirming
that, yes, we want to do this, and we're going to make this happen. And there will be a hearing at that
point. That's the point where the public can be involved. We already had a public meeting. We had some
public show up and discuss the project. We did not receive any negative feedback.
during that public meeting. So we're following the statutory process. So we are asking you to approve
resolution 26-17. Thank you, Dana. Do the RDC members have any questions for Dana about the process
or the substance of what's in the resolution? Dana, I think you said this.
I want to just make sure I understood it. When does the baseline for value actually get established
for Shasta, for instance? It will be as of January 1st of this year. So as long as the declaratory resolution
is passed in this calendar year, it reverts to January 1st. It used to be different, but that's another
story if I can hear. But January 1st.
And that's the, and that's the, they, that's the, it's established just for, for phase one, correct?
Correct, yes. And as we add areas, then you would, we would add, the baseline would be determined then,
depending upon what year we establish the other ones. Right, right. And of course, as they start to
develop, before they develop,
establish the allocation area, start with another declaratory resolution to start that allocation area
when we know that before development is going to start to keep that base assessed value low. But we
don't want to start it too soon and inadvertently start a clock that we don't want to start. And as
we add allocation areas, does it go to the plan commission
City Council each time, or is this one large declaratory resolution that only gets approved once through
those various bodies? It will go through the process again. OK. So there's always opportunity for input.
And just like we'll have a hearing on this declaratory resolution in April,
they would be followed with a public hearing as well before they could be passed. Thanks, Dana. Can
I ask a question just about that, just in terms of the sequencing, what triggers the next one? Do we
just kind of jump through each of these allocation areas and get the resolutions passed? The development
is going to drive it. So if Denali would, the second one we're thinking about, it's going to start up.
two years, then in two years, we would create the allocation area for that. If it can install and it
takes four or five years, then we'll wait four or five years. We do want to do it before the development
occurs in there. But again, there are things that trigger the clock, like a debt, a signing debt. And
if you can do that, then you start the clock. But we don't want the clock to run too soon because we
capture that incremental increase for as long as we can. Yeah. One last question, Dana. Do you have
a larger map that shows where this is? I was playing around with Google Maps, and I couldn't quite figure
out where Sudbury and Adams intersect. Sure. Anna has one mission that's going to be used for the next
presentation.
Oh, I see. Okay. And Adams is constructed coming up from path and going down from Bloomfield Road, but
that white hashed area is not constructed. So that's making a much, much more interconnected area. And
then when you can attach the two together with Sudbury, that once again is making interconnections
through the city roadway system, street system, to help with traffic flow and safety and some of the
other things. Thanks. Dana, on the map you presented in regards to their sequencing, the map in our
resolution has different numbers in regards to it in the TIF area.
So I don't know if that needs to be corrected accordingly in our resolution, because what I just heard
was that Shasta Meadows, which is indicated on your map as TIF Area 1, is TIF Area 5 in regards to this.
Yeah, it is referenced in the, just the fact that in so many of these drawings done, it is reflected
in the name of the attachment itself, which area it is. So we follow the attachments, the sections
attachment to the resolution space, but this is we are referring to the Shasta Meadows. It still says
TIF Area 5 off Sudbury Drive. That wasn't created by that. That came from Sudbury. I understand. I'm
just trying to get it. Five is one. Right. That's what I'm looking at is any resolution that was passed,
do we need that corrected accordingly?
Yeah, for consistency. For consistency. It would be helpful if we're looking at slides that have it
labeled as one and the resolution is labeled as five. It would be helpful to have the same numbers across
all documents. But doesn't the exhibits and the resolution match, though? Yeah. They do? Yeah. And the
importance of that from that, that's identified. Yeah, allocation area includes TIF area five. Right.
I'm just looking at it from
a consistency of a presentation basis based on what we showed. Yeah, I agree. What was on the screen
doesn't match, but that's not part of the document. Right. It's part of the presentation. It's part
of his presentation. It's part of the presentation. So the allocation area that we're dealing with at
the present moment is on the presentation is one, and the resolution is tip area five, which is the.
But that colored document that you're looking at is from the PUD. We can't change that. I understand.
I'm trying to, when I'm asking these questions, it's not to be argumentative. It's simply to put that
the PUD resolution that went through the playing commission also matches some of the resolutions. And
they have different numbers. And they have different numbers. And they have different numbers. So the
confusion aspect of that, if someone's looking at it from the playing commission, is going to say tip
area one, but it's actually tip area five. Can you show that colored map again? I just want to make
sure you know that that is a
The document that's already gone through the PUD process that we can't amend. Right. I understand. That's
why I was asking in regards to this if this would be amended in regards to what they've done so it matches
our presentation. So if there's any public that indicate what area we're actually talking about, right
now we're talking about allocation area for the Shasta Meadows, which is TIF area one based upon the
PUD map that went through planning and was approved. And it's actually in our resolution, TIF area five.
Based on which is a bit based on the exhibit. So should be fun. Yeah, it should be one instead of five
So we should chat well, we can't check our presentation is rudimentary it just pulled out something
that was previously passed So I'm just trying to be consistent. Well, it's too very bad that we're hitting
for allocation areas
Yeah, I would focus on the resolution and the exhibit attached to the resolution. It is TIFF Area 5.
Right. We're not voting on the color. No, you are not. No, I know we're not voting on it. I'm just,
again, trying to be consistent in regards to where we're looking. But TIFF Area 5-4-3-2-1 did not include
the names of the neighborhoods as they're calling them out. So TIFF Area 5. I'm trying to get clarification.
TIFF Area 5 is the Shasta Meadow area, which is going to first
be allocated as an EDA in that area. That's the only thing we're really. The entire area is the EDA,
all five. The entire area is EDA. The allocation area. Just the allocation area. Yeah. So remember,
the EDA is the entire tip. Right. And then you have smaller allocation areas within it. And we're starting
with Shasta. Yeah, which would be.
Just to be sure, so when people pull this document up in 20 years, they're going to see that the numbers
match here. Your point is it doesn't match the PUD map, which was done some period of time ago. Right.
We can't change it. I'm just trying to keep everything. If people start looking for documents as we
look through the documents in our Bloom doc and such, they're difficult to find. And they don't always
correspond. So the allocation area that we hit on TIF Area 5
That's the amount of dollars we're going to capture to verify through the name of Shasta Meadows, which
from a development standpoint, is that going to include single family? Will that have multifamily? And
question for you, Dana, is the multifamily able to be captured from a revenue standpoint in the residential
TIF? Yes, most of it will be considered eligible for the residential TIF. What is not can still be captured
as the commercial aspect. But again, you're still limiting it to the 20 years instead of 25 years. So
that's why you have to do the balancing act of how much is going to be residential, how much is going
to be commercial, when is what going to be developed, what is the way to be strategic and flexible about
it to capture the greatest amount of incremental tip funds that you can
to support the area. That's why we're hitting our allocation area, Shasta Meadows first, because that's
the first one. Do we have any idea what, based on the preliminary PUD, what revenues would be generated
from that allocation area? Number of units? We don't at this time. Really, there is an overall concept
of how area five of the Shasta Meadows is going to be
developed, but it's not been filed out yet. So we were not going to, there have been reports that gave
estimates, but to me, I do not, I think KSM did a report a long time ago before going before me, but
that one is old and two, until we have the idea of how this might actually be
is going to be very difficult to say what's going to go in there. And then part of the dollars that
we're looking at, or EDTA, will be we set our baseline. It captures the incremental that's going to
come up. What kind of time frame do we typically look at for any recapture? Typically, we've been using
the maximum amount allowable for the different
allocation areas. So we would be looking at 20 years, not from today, not from any confirmments, but
from the time you have the first obligation from it. So if you do some bondings to help with infrastructure
costs, once that bond payment becomes first due, that starts to talk for the 20 years. So realistically,
Given the timeframe, this has got to go through EDT resolution from us, planning commission, city council.
Before anything would happen, realistically, this is probably a few months to a year away. Actually,
we're shooting to have it back to you to finalize it in April. OK. So do you have a question? Yeah.
Thank you.
Dina, can you say more about the type of housing that's envisioned for Shasta? You've talked
about single-family and multi-family. Do you have anything you could share in terms of the price ranges
we're likely to see? I would not know about the price ranges. There is in the PUD. I have to dig up
it. It gave estimates of what would be in each area.
Is it anticipated there might be any development agreement that would have a defined housing outcome
as kind of part of a leverage of the offer of the TIF and the allocation funds for the infrastructure,
you know, having some kind of agreement as opposed to just a projection? So when you say allocation
of funds, do you mean allocation of funds to a developer? I mean that obviously the
city is taking on the risk and the funding that would be allocated through this TIF that is to benefit
the development of the housing. So I'm asking if there is anticipated that there would be a development
agreement to guarantee certain kinds of housing, whether price points or housing types that the city
has an interest in, in terms of the city's own resources being put into the project. So one of the things,
and I don't know if this is going to be responsive to your question or concern or not,
We've sort of switched gears with this developer from the way things started. There was early conversation
with this developer about providing funds for incentives for them, doing bonds, that kind of thing,
developer-backed bonds. But where we're going with this area is really to just, and we talked about
this when we talked about the fear marking of the $5 million for design, and that's going to be addressed in that
MOU that's coming up later on the agenda. We do not anticipate giving the developer funds for housing
or tying our funds to housing. Our proposal is that we use our TIF dollars for building infrastructure.
And my question is not about funding for housing. It's about getting an agreement, like basically leveraging
the infrastructure funding
in exchange for a commitment to housing of certain price points, housing types that the city desires.
You know, obviously the developer has their own market analysis that they might do, but the city may
have, you know, priorities that are not always met by the market. And so in terms of in exchange for
the infrastructure investment that the city is helping to leverage through the TIF, I'm asking if it's
anticipated there might be an agreement
in terms of housing outcomes, that's not just a projection of what they might like to build, but what
the city would like to see as a priority from. In addition to, you mean more detail than like the PUD,
right? I mean, we've got the PUD, you're saying drill down and be a little bit more detailed.
And is that, I mean, we have, certainly, you know, there's, and Dana, you may want to address it.
I mean, certainly there can be that kind of thing. I don't think we've, I think that's kind of a conversation
beyond today. I mean, it's kind of a next step. It's not, you know, it's further down the road,
pun intended, than just getting this EDA created. But I don't know, Anna, if you have it from a housing
perspective, if you want to address any of those issues of trying to get certain kinds of housing. So
we did enter into an agreement with the developer to purchase
20 lots and require them to be under 100% of the area median income. So we know that those are coming,
but I do not have other information about what types or prices or kinds. I think that there's been discussion
of townhomes. I believe if it's more than four attached units, then it qualifies for commercial TIF.
Um, but I know that there's been conversation and maybe a few of those, but I do not have specific
information. Um, director Cooper Smith may have some additional contacts that she's been engaged as
well. I mean, hi everybody. I would be pulling the numbers up. So I think this is really just a reflection
of the current, I mean, this isn't an answer anyone likes, but it's the current marketplace where the,
in order to get any units to go, we really,
are having to figure out how to support this development. So Anna talked about that lot purchase. And
then we're working on some ready funding also to offset the cost. So it's not like the city is in this
or the RDC is in this alone. We're really working to leverage outside resources. We've tried to figure
out if this can go on an opportunity zone. It cannot, which is unfortunate. And so instead, we've been
talking about a deal structure like Margie described, which would really
put the control in the cities or in the redevelopment commissions within the redevelopment commission
and it would allow, yeah, just quality control as the funding is being dispersed if the redevelopment
commission ends up going that direction. But that's just kind of where it's step one. We're not negotiating
that deal right now and I don't think that
I might be going too far out of my lane, but I don't know that there's a desire for that on our perspective.
We just want to see the units created, period. And they're committed to the volume and the types that
are in the PUD. Yeah. As far as adding onto that, what you're going to want to see in 2619 is a discussion
about supporting the infrastructure design.
And that's under an agreement with separate partners, the developer. Once we get past that, more about
that later, when it comes to, you know, 2.8 prevent structure, there is the ability to negotiate with
separate partners about that.
what we can bring to the table, what we can. We still have to work on that. But is there a possibility
that we could do something that would lead towards some commitment to affordability if it's possible?
We just don't know as much about, again, how this is going to be plotted out to be able to say that.
As far as your question, would it be possible? It is possible. What happens, I'm not sure. It depends
on what effect we get to that point. But it is possible to say, hey, we make a payment infrastructure.
But by doing that, we want some sort of commitment, a minimal commitment or whatever that you're at
least going to do this much. And so that is a possibility.
I think it's also really important to come back to this idea of what new construction affordability
means. I mean if you're talking about the most expensive
housing to deliver. Right now our market is so constrained that any units will help at all price points.
The affordability and new construction are very difficult to understand. I get it. But right now it's
the laws of supply and demand. We need units. And what that does to the overall market is take pressure
off of existing units at similar price points.
helping the housing market, not necessarily the delivery of those specific units. And so I think we
really need to reframe some of those conversations around what the goal is. The goal is we need units,
period. We are short on units significantly in Bloomington. That is what will help drive down some of
our housing affordability issues market-wide.
And I specifically was not using the word affordability in my question, but I understand that's a common
and reasonable concern. So I appreciate your answer. Did you have follow up? It spawned an interesting
discussion, so I'm happy with that. I have one other question, which is, when does a financing plan
kind of emerge from this? Either the declaration, obviously the agreement that's later on the agenda
is really just a design focused agreement.
But I'm just trying to get a sense of, like, when do bonds get issued? Under what kind of repayment
terms? Like, when do those decisions happen? And does that come back before us? Or is it just kind of
gone once it leaves? There are going to be bonds that will come back before you. And it would also go
to common counsel. Common counsel is the only one that can approve the bonding. So when the bonds might
come in by, say, we get it all designed,
By design, now we know how much it costs to construct. Now we can talk about an agreement who may pay
for what for the construction and for the part that if the RDC is willing to pay part of the infrastructure
costs, is that going to be out of cash on hand or do they want a bond for it? And if they want a bond
for it, that's when you calculate how much revenue is anticipated and how much would the project cost.
So how long would the bonds need to be, which would be a maximum of 20 years, if we go beyond that.
So those terms would be developed then. But until we have ideas of construction costs, which we don't
have right now, we don't know. But it would be coming after the design process. And I want to clarify,
when he mentions bonds,
I think you were talking, Dana, about just RDC TIF bonds for public infrastructure. So there's
no conversation at this point about issuing developer-backed bonds for the housing. And generally, in
some conversations we've had with engineering, the reason we asked you for that $5 million earlier for
designing roads, and we'll talk about this when we get to the third agenda item,
we were estimating you know kind of what costs might be and the engineering rule is generally like five
million dollars worth of designs get you about 25 million dollars worth of roadway and we're like that's
a good place to start at this point. We don't know yet I mean there are no engineering contracts in
place yet and our engineering department is going to lead in that regard but
You know, we're not even there yet. We can't even do an MOU with the developer yet regarding construction
because we don't have the design check. We just got to get that piece done first. So I think we may
have presented this with just gone in with a lot of detail up front. That big picture, I think what
you can tell from what Margie's describing and just the fact that we're at this first step, it's
It's phased. There's no, what am I trying to say? We're not at a point where we've done all the legwork
and then we're going to surprise you with a really complex tip agreement that's fully baked. This is
incremental. It's developing incrementally. This is the first step. And even Mr. Fernandez mentioned
in his presentation, this is our two years of population decline. That is why we are really working
to figure out what's the kind of
way that we can protect public resources while leveraging to facilitate the creation of these housing
units. And the TIF is the way to get that done through leveraging that in some way. And we think that
we have a really good roadmap. But it's not finished yet. And it will continue to happen incrementally.
At this point, we have, Margie mentioned, a number of MOUs that are being sequenced.
it will be bringing the RDC along as the project evolves. And I would expect even things like, and I
entered and mentioned it in one of your previous meetings, like engineering contracts to come back through
RDC. I mean, you'll be apprised of the steps, the incremental steps, as we go along. OK. My creating
a tip that does give you all the authority to be in the driver's seat with what's going on.
And so you're able to, you know, the contracts would come to you. Any plans that, hey, should we do
some bonding for infrastructure? Or should we do this, that, or the other? That would all be coming
to you. This is just the first incremental step. Those things have to evolve as this project goes on.
It's not something we can plan in this far advance.
But my approach to everything has always been, how do you maintain as much flexibility as possible?
And so by doing one allocation in the area at a time, that gives us flexibility by not committing to
any particular path to where it gives us the flexibility. So I want the commissioners to be able to
have the flexibility to be able to guide
this using your knowledge and your reasoning and discernment. Yeah, do we? So I just want to be cognizant
of our time. Not to cut down any questions, but do you guys have any additional questions on this matter?
Yeah, I do. Yeah, go ahead. This question probably bleeds into 2620, but I'm going to ask it anyway.
Does the, before any kind of development can occur on any of these, in any of these areas, is it not
true that Adams and Sudbury have to be complete? That is true. That is in the PED. The PED requires
before any occupancy permit can be given is that Sudbury and Adams must be constructed
There's a few reasons for that. One is previous history where projects... That's okay. I just wanted
to establish that that had to happen. So from my standpoint, I think that any kind of TIF dollars that
can be used for that infrastructure is critical. And we've had decades of debates about how we were
going to get those roads and those utilities done.
So if this is a pathway to that, then it's a win from the get-go. This is definitely the start of that
pathway. Yeah. I mean, you're talking about the biggest PUD in Bloomington's history. To follow up on
what John's question is, those roads will have to be done even before Shasta Meadows is occupied or
done. So literally, this could be a couple of years just because of design and road construction.
Well, that's why we're, that's why we have to put this down. That's why we're here. I understand. I'm
just trying to put a realistic timeline to the standpoint of while we have significant other dollars
that have to be done, this is not going to generate enough revenue in the time frame to offset the cost
of the roads, according. And practically speaking, we have felt that getting the infrastructure moving
is going to spur development, because once you get these roads built, that area suddenly looks a lot
more interesting to the world than it does now. You know, once you have a road that goes north, south
between Second and Tap, and you have these approved roads, suddenly it's like, yeah, I could drive in
here. Yeah, that's why we're pushing the infrastructure. And we're looking from a road standpoint, Adams
and Sudbury. Those will be our primary things we're looking at.
Ultimately, we're also having conversations. I haven't brought anything to you yet, but we're talking
to folks about the north-south roads and talking to engineering about what's eventually going to replace
Weamer. Right, because Weamer is a bottleneck in regards to where we're going without Sudbury going
through and utilizing that as our thing. Yeah, there's going to have to be a new improvement in the
north-south.
Okay. Thank you. I just had one edit that needs attention on the bottom of page four of this resolution
number 17 that references Pike County in a couple places. That has been corrected and uploaded online.
Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Just wanted to make sure. Well, again, I want to take in the one off
It might not have been the linked version, which might have been corrected. I just wanted the whole
PDF, and that's what I grabbed off the website. It should be corrected in both the links and in the
packet. OK, thank you. OK, well, if there's no other comments from commissioners, we'll open it for
public comment, either in person or online. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion on resolution 26-17.
Go ahead. No, I'll be happy to relay it.
Well, thank you, John. That's kind of you. Prefer, not relent. Relent. Move approval of Resolution 2617.
I'll second. I feel that John should be the one to second. Okay, we have a first and a second. We'll
do a vote by roll call, please. Steve Scambler, yes. Brandy Gaste, yes. John West, yes. Laurie McRobbie,
yes. Deborah Meiersing, yes. Motion passes unanimously for Resolution 2617. Thank you.
Next item on our agenda is resolution 2619, which is an approval to terminate the Monroe County CASA
incorporated lease at Star Wars West. Who would like to speak to that? I will address that. So this
is papering up something that I mentioned to you during your last meeting, which is an agreement that
we've reached with CASA whereby they will terminate their lease and they have plans to move to a new
location in exchange for their termination of the lease. The redevelopment commission will pay a total
of $45,000
$751.50 for convenience sake, not because it changes that number, but in paragraph two of the agreement,
we've put in there that the value of the parking passes, because in addition to that number, we are
providing two annual parking passes to the tenant per year. Those are 24-7 passes that are $119 per month.
119 times 12 times two is $1,428. And so that was a question that we had with, we were having a sidebar
conversation prior to this meeting just to make sure that we both understood how I arrived at that number.
But the total amount the RDC is going to be asked to pay the cost is $45,751. I would encourage your
approval and entertain any questions you might have. Thank you.
Any questions or comments from commissioners on this resolution? No. That's everything she's had.
March 31. OK. And that gives them adequate time, too. Yes. I actually think, based on our conversations,
they may actually be out earlier than March 31, but they haven't done March 31 until they're all done.
OK. That just leaves us three or four additional. A few more. Yeah.
No other comments or questions from commissioners. Open it for public comment, either online or in person.
And seeing none, entertain a motion in resolution 26-19, please. I'll move approval of resolution 26-19.
I'll second. Second. OK, we've got a first and a second. A vote by roll call, please. Seuss, Campbell,
Larry, yes. Brandy, Cassidy, yes. John, West, yes.
Yes. Yes, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And the last item of new business our agenda is resolution
2620, which is an approval of an agreement between Sudbury Development Partners LLC and the City of
Luton Redevelopment Commission regarding Summit District plan unit development and planned and public
infrastructure improvements. Would like to speak to that please. I can speak to that. I'll try to be
brief at first but answer any questions.
As we have talked that Sudbury and Adams are integral roadways that will benefit not only some of the
district, but the entire Southwest quadrant of the city. We're going to connect the ability between
Lincoln and Tapp, and between Adams and Wimmer. And you had already earmarked $5 million for design
work. And so this is an agreement.
We've made sure in the agreement that city engineering is in the driver's seat. They need to approve
the vendor. But engineering does not have the capacity to run this project and other offsite improvements
that we're working towards or the
property of Vanguard to the south, so they just don't have the capacity to do it all. So the Sudbury
Group will act as the overseer of what's going on with oversight of the phim from city engineering.
And the great thing about this is when the roadway is designed, there's an agreement that Sudbury partners
will donate
all the right-of-way needed for Sudbury to happen. And so therefore, even though it said that in the
CED, we wanted in this agreement, in case for some reason some of it didn't happen twice like what we
wanted to do, we wanted to make sure that those right-of-ways were available for the construction of
those roads, because those roads, again, are so important. And so the cost.
design of those two rows has been estimated to be about a million dollars customized in that ballpark.
But basically the RBC, about five million dollars, would use about a million dollars to pay for the
design, and Sudbury would oversee that design work and the field work. Sudbury would donate all
But at that point in time, we said we would also donate money for a fire station. And so that will be
negotiated between the parties exactly where that is. But once these two roads do get constructed, there
is a great hope to have a raceway neighborhood fire station in that area.
is for you to approve this agreement with separate partners so we can begin the design of these two
roads. And once they're designed, of course, then we will be able to calculate much more accurately
what the costs are going to be involved, which will help guide further discussions on how we're going
to make those roads happen.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution 26-20? This will be paid for out
of our existing consolidated TIF, or which allocation area will? Yes. The earmark was made out of the
consolidated TIF. And that consolidated TIF is allowed to pay expenses incurred by the redeveloped commission
for local public improvements.
that are either in the allocation area or serving the allocation area. And so these, again, these roads
may be serving the current allocation area as, you know, because again, they either may be in or per
serving. But yes, I'm fully expecting that the engineering contract that any engineering contract that
our engineers bring for
improvements will come through the RDC because it's going to be paid for by RDC with chip dollars and
the MOU will allow us to reimburse Sudbury's engineers but remember paragraph two says the director
of the city engineering department shall establish the standards by which the infrastructure must be
designed and shall approve the vendors associated with the design and then it's
has a process for vendor invoices to go through for Sudbury then through the engineering department
and city staff so there's going to be a lot of adding of these but yeah I think this MOU puts our engineering
department in the driver's seat in terms of design. Do we know if there'll be local firm participation?
I believe that they have I think their engineer is not a
Bloomington engineer. Anna, Jane, Dana, did they tell us? Yes. Sorry, I can picture the Stantec engineering
firm. That is somebody that they've already had been working with. They've already done some work. Yeah,
they've done work. Yeah. I'm just asking the question because as we look at local tip dollars being
paid, there's some local firm participation to get.
Let's see. And then the dollars that are collected from the residential TIF, would that ever go back
to repay any of this or the agreement based on? I'll be honest. There's always more demands for TIF
dollars than there are more projects than your money. I can't imagine that we're not going to have plenty
of needs in that area for the additional infrastructure.
Yeah, I mean, so I don't know that it will come back to repayments. And then dealing based upon where
they said there'd be a location of the fire station, I mean, that's been an ongoing discussion for 20-plus
years. Has any discussion been had in regards to where? Because as we look at Sudbury and Adams coming
through, that our local fire and safety have an allocation area or discussions with it already, or is
it just up in the air?
No, I think they're talking about a location, haven't they? Yeah, but I don't remember exactly where,
Director Coopersmith, do you remember where they've said the fire station would be? Was it? It's on
an eastern, it's adjacent to the power line trail and on one of the eastern most car schools.
So I'm sorry, I don't know how to identify the exact location. It's in the middle, somewhere near Adam
Street. Yes, it's close to the intersection.
Thank you. Margie, I think you just answered this to Randy, but that really was my only question. You're
confident that we can support the expenses incurred within this
TIF area with consolidated revenues until it becomes self-supporting, which will be years down the road.
Yeah, the infrastructures, yeah. Yeah, I think so. Because again, I think these will be expenses incurred
by the redevelopment commission serving. There's that typically you're restrained and have to spend
your money within the allocation area unless it's
expenses incurred by the redevelopment commission. And back to our philosophy, we want to spend TIF
dollars on things that we need as a community. We need better infrastructure that happens to serve these
developers and help them do the things they want. So we're running all of these things through
the redevelopment commission. One, because we think that we need them for our community and to develop,
and two, so that we can
make sure that we use these dollars for the serving, you know, serving the allocation area. If you remember,
it's what we did with the dispatch center too. It was just on the edge. Yeah, but it was on the edge.
I mean, it was, it became a geographic conversation. And this is not on the, I'm not sure.
Is it on the edge? It's on the edge. Yeah, it's on the edge.
Certainly, Adams and Sudbury clearly will serve the entire community. But this is one of our last undeveloped
quadrants of the city. And if we don't create infrastructure and open it up, it's going to sit there
undeveloped in our opinion, the way it has been. I don't disagree with you. To answer. The consolidated
tip will surround this EDA. I'm sorry. The consolidated tip will surround this EDA, except for any
property of the county that might be in the county to the very, very west. So yes, and funding
the consolidated TIF can be used in infrastructure that supports the consolidated TIF, which is definitely
would do that. Also, I'd like to remind everybody that towards the end of last year, there was a discussion
about the different projects that RDC had going forward.
this on Hopewell and so on, and feasibility of doing them and putting funding in Hopewell was part of
that analysis that was done. That it knew that some of it was going to have to have some influx. And
so the controller at the time had considered that in whether or not we have a pathway moving forward.
And it was determined that, yes, the RDC can and consolidate can assist this project. Plus, as you say,
at some point, it's going to start capturing that increment, where hopefully not only by the end of
the whole thing has it not only continued to help itself, but it's then able to use funds in the surrounding
area to benefit that area
as well. So, you know, we're really looking down the road for revenue for the RDC for 2025, and depending
on if it takes, say, 10 years to develop, 35 years down the road, which you don't have right now. So
this is also a long-term investment for ongoing RDC.
Director Coopersmith, did you have anything else? No, Dana answered my question. It's just John was
asking really specifically whether it's adjacent and it is. And then Dana provided all the context for
that. It's adjacent to the existing tips. I'm just curious, in the agreement it mentions, in addition
to what the RDC is obviously providing for infrastructure, the REDI 2.0 grant of $4 million. Just wondering
what the contributions
are required under that grant. Just understand how that fits into this project. Well, that grant is
still going through economic impact analysis with ROI. So we have two more steps before there is a signed
agreement. So just making sure the status is clear is not official. And then your question was, what
contributions are required? I was just wondering, what's the terms of that grant? What's expected under
that? Well, the investment
that is being made or has been made by the developer through the purchase and the work that's been done
so far meets the bulk of that matching requirement. And then similarly, the commitment that the RDC
made through the resolution last fall to use $5 million in design and planning, that meets the public
match for that $4 million grant. In reality, this project is so large
there will be more than enough match to go around. But the timeline is the tricky part. And I apologize.
I don't remember off the cuff what the final spend down of the ready funds has to be for the second
round. But we're in touch with ROI regularly and believe that we're on track for that approval. So what's
the grant for, though? The grant is for, sorry, sewer
infrastructure contributes to a lift station upgrade. OK, just wanted to know what it was. Sorry, I
misunderstood your question. No, I appreciate the information. You got all of it. I got all the information,
so thank you. OK, any other questions or comments from commissioners? If not, we'll go to public comment.
It looks like there's no one left from the public except for our honorable reporter. Any public comment,
either online or in person?
Seeing none, I will ask for a motion for Resolution 26-20. I'll move approval of Resolution 26-20. Move
a second? Second. We have a first and a second. We'll do a vote by roll call, please. Cease scam alert,
yes. Randy Cassidy, I'm going to abstain from this. I'm not a direct...
the joist and the property owner to either one of these. But given the fact I am one of the owners of
Woolery Mill, I feel it's best to abstain from a vote on this in order to keep full transparency.
Thank you. Can I vote twice? It's a yes for me. I was going to vote one for Randy. Laura McBridey, yes.
Debra Meyers, yes, motion passes four with one abstention. OK, that's the end of our new business on
the agenda. Is there any other business or general discussion? If not, a motion to adjourn. OK.
Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.