- Well, let's go to work. It is 5.02. Welcome, everyone. It is Monday, April 6. This is a meeting of the
- City of Bloomington Redevelopment Commission. We will begin with a roll call, please. Laura McRobbie,
- present. Randy Cassidy, present. John West, here. And Sue Scambillari, present. And among staff, please.
- Anna Killian Hanson, director. Christina Finley, hand department. Cameron Caswell, hand department.
- Jess McCamp, station controller. Roy Aitken, city engineering.
- Anna Dragovich, yes, D. And that's everyone. Thank you much. OK. Let's move first to approval of minutes
- for March 16, 2026. Are there any changes or corrections? If not, may I have a motion? Move to approve
- as a present. Second. It's been moved and seconded. We'll do, no, we actually can do a voice vote. All
- those in favor of approval indicate by saying aye. Aye. Are there any opposed?
- Thank you. That passes. And those are approved. So we'll go now to the claims register for March 13,
- 2026. Click. And are there any questions or comments from commissioners? One question on our lit for
- the First United Church. Which page, please? OK. Thank you. I apologize. Page 205.
- Okay, just curious on under our lit does that that just falls under previously presented situations
- that occurred in February or January for emergency shelter. Oh, the emergency shelter. That was actually
- an agreement that was executed in.
- the previous year and was encumbered. It was for the BSWRs, which is the Bloomington. Gosh, I keep the
- acronym escaping me now. Severe winter emergency. Thank you. Severe winter emergency response shelter.
- There are two churches that are in partnership for that. And this was just a grant for the reimbursement
- of paper materials and just used to the building for hosting it.
- One of the churches did not turn in their claim until late, which was actually this year. But thankfully,
- we had it encumbered. And there you go. That's where that came from. All the things were encumbered?
- Yeah. It was already allocated, yes. Are there any of the things that we look at that would have where
- the encumbrances are that people haven't?
- submitted like in a year or from our timeframe standpoint? Every year at the close of the year we have
- a responsibility to go through all of our open purchase orders and kind of touch base with at least
- in our department who has a project that's moving forward or which ones need to be closed out that haven't
- spent all their money so I think we've gone through that process to make sure that everything is active
- that is as far as the hand department goes I'm not sure what other
- processes are in place. And we do have the ability to retrieve any encumbrances. To run the report on
- the encumbrances so we know at least what's out there that should have been paid or will need to be
- paid. I don't know that that will actually tell you that though, because sometimes projects either finish
- up early or they may not spend all the funding. That's a lot of our federal projects. If there's money
- left, then it's generally the reason. Yeah, many of the encumbrances will lapse.
- Yeah, because of the calendar year and the way the projects go. Okay, thank you. Other questions?
- Seeing none, is there a motion to approve? So moved. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor
- of approval for the claims register for March 13th, 2026 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you.
- Claims register is approved. We'll move now to the payroll register for March 20th, 2026. Are there
- any questions? Move approval for payroll March 20th, 2026. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All
- those in favor of approval indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And that payroll register
- is approved. We'll go now to reports. Is there a director's report?
- Well, I'd like to touch on a few things today. As you guys are aware, we've been working through the
- Hopewell PUD process. And there's a number of proposed reasonable conditions that are out there that
- impact the project. But we really need to have some discussions related to the trade-offs. I do believe
- that there is, at this time, a deliberation session that's scheduled next week to go through that.
- I also want to call attention to some of the civil work that's being done right now. So civil work to
- date has been primarily to get to the point of the primary plat filing. And today was the deadline to
- file for the May Plan Commission meeting to get that plat. Based on the number of reasonable conditions
- that are present,
- I'm not sure if you guys would want to continue moving that ball forward. There is some risk associated
- with that. If council is to change the site map or how that plot is handled, we run the risk of really
- duplicating work and paying for something twice, right? So we're really rapidly running out of time.
- We do have the ability to.
- hold that from the May agenda at this time. I really need your input. I do think that the downside of
- that is that if we're not able to get to plan commission for this plaque by June, there is almost little
- to no hope for actually getting some homes constructed. And if you remember, part of the plan for the
- Hopewell South PUD was to do this lot line adjustment so that we did have some houses coming out of
- the ground yet this year.
- I'm not sure that it looks promising at this point. So I'm looking to you guys for direction. If you
- want to move forward with the May plan, commission, primary plat, understanding that that is a giant
- risk, that we don't know what the final plat is at this time, as we're still talking to council. There
- are benefits and problems with that. Feedback for Ann or questions? Well, I think the.
- risk outweighs the benefit. We have soaking a tremendous amount of money into this project, particularly
- in engineering, and the redo part of it just doesn't seem to be fiscally responsible. And judging from
- all of the council comments, I can't believe that we get through this without some kind of a plot adjustment.
- I would agree with that.
- When we look at missing the May deadline, what's that going to put us to timeframe? Is that a 30, 60,
- 90 day? Well, we're definitely 30 days delayed. But if anybody that works in the building world understands
- that if we start to get into a frozen ground situation, then the opportunities to get a foundation in
- are limited. So right now, that's part of the issue.
- Cuz you have to go through the primary plan, you have to go through the secondary plan. We need to file
- for building permits. We still need to get an operating account. So the more that this gets delayed,
- the less likely we're gonna see anything until 2027. So from a civil standpoint that we've already engaged.
- we can have the ability based upon how it was put forward to pause at any particular time. Correct.
- That was one of the caveats that we had approved that contract with. And Kendall would have loved to
- be here tonight, but he couldn't be. So I'm hoping to relay that message that we really are running
- out of civil work to do. And we may want to trigger that pause until we come to some negotiation with those.
- the way we're set up, it may be a timing standpoint getting building permits, but at this present moment
- in order to be able to be fiscally responsible, instead of time sensitive, this is gonna be our best
- bet to put it off for. Do we get our reasonable considerations reviewed with the council? I think so,
- and I think, I would hate to waste money and time
- by continuing down a path that we know is not going to happen at this point. Right now, we don't know
- what's going to happen. So I think we need to spend a little more time figuring out those reasonable
- conditions and what we're OK with, and really what that means to the overall site plan, what the trade-offs
- are. So those conversations need to be ongoing. But I do think the physically responsible thing at this
- point is to pause the civil contract and to pull the May plan commission
- But that's up to you guys. I think you have a consensus. I think you do. Thank you. Thank you.
- Anything else? There's a lot, but no, we're good for a moment. I will say that we are going to table
- one of your agenda items tonight. So resolution 2623 will be tabled for this meeting. Got it.
- An illegal report. Dana. Yes, I'll just add on just a little bit regarding Hopewell South and the proposed
- reasonable conditions. I know you don't want to get into a legal lecture at this point in time. I was
- hoping you would. I'm sorry? Oh, you want one? OK. But I just wanted to explain that some of the discussion
- has been about,
- whether some of the proposals are proposals to the amendment, to the legislation, and what proposals
- are conditions and what proposals are reasonable. Council's temporary attorney uses a very broad brush
- in painting what a reasonable condition is.
- And I believe overlaps into what would be amendments, which are not allowed by statute. But reasonable
- conditions are, which I agree with. And there's some of the proposed reasonable conditions that are
- contrary to state law in other areas. But I believe that the best foot forward is trying to collaborate and
- look at these reasonable conditions or their proposals and determine what effect they have, what trade-off
- there might be, and what just is the best process going forward. And I'm happy as we go along in that
- process and talk about if you have concerns about one or not. Now, if it's an amendment, the RDC can
- agree to that.
- And it does not have to go back to planning commission to go back to council and be accepted. If it's
- a reasonable condition, the council can simply impose it on the PUD and you can't have a say in it.
- It is what it is, and that's what it is. So it's just which way through the process it would go. And
- so I'd be happy to assist with that along the way.
- But that'll just be a part of it that I think we need to keep our eyes on as it goes through, just to
- make sure that everything's done as perfectly as it can be. Just to clarify, make sure 100%, the negotiations
- regards to the RDC as a whole, looking at reasonable conditions or even amendments has the ability to
- work with the council in order to get some resolution.
- Yes, and the biggest case is called Misty Woods, as most of us refer to it. And Misty Woods doesn't
- allow amendments to a zoning map change, which that's what changing to a PUD is. And to me, the entire
- ordinance of the PUD is the map change. And so therefore, but the court said that if the petitioner
- the RDC agrees with the amendment or works with the council and agrees to an amendment that it can move
- forward without amendment, without any further action of the rent commission or whatever. And if it
- is a reasonable condition, the council can just impose it. But it seems like from what it appeared
- the meetings with the council and the mayor's comments that everybody would like to work together and
- move forward collaboratively to try to get a good product. Thank you. Anything else? Dan? No, I'm sorry.
- That will be it. Okay. Treasurer's report. Jeff? Yes. Excuse me. Before you leave that topic, are you
- taking public comments? No, not during the report.
- And I apologize right after I give mine, I'm gonna have to zip up to the airport, so thank you for letting
- me start right now. I have a report on the 4th Street parking garage. Believe it or not, the 4th Street
- garage has reached its five-year mark and requires preventative maintenance services to extend its service life.
- So following an assessment conducted by parking services in collaboration with the engineering firm
- CE Solutions, the recommended approach focuses on low-level preventative maintenance along with targeted
- repairs to the drainage system. So to preserve the integrity of the concrete, waterproofing is recommended
- for the most heavily trafficked levels, specifically levels one, two, three, and the roof deck.
- This measure will help prevent water infiltration and reduce long-term deterioration. By the way, there's
- good news at the end of this, so don't think there's going to be a good time. Additionally, the drainage
- system is currently underperforming due to insufficient pipe slope, which limits the ability of sediment
- to flow through the system. As a result, drains have become clogged, leading to water pooling on the
- concrete surfaces, which you can clearly see in the garage after a large rain.
- Addressing the slope and clearing blockages will restore proper drainage function. There's also some
- isolated areas exhibiting minor cracking and spalling. These should be repaired using epoxy injection
- to prevent further degradation. By addressing these low to medium priority maintenance items proactively,
- the overall lifespan of the garage can be extended while minimizing future repair costs.
- So you'll remember that the construction of the garage was paid for by two TIF bonds, 2019 TIF revenue
- bonds for the public component of the garage and 2019 TIF revenue taxable bonds for the commercial component.
- Parking Services, who maintains the garage, is intending to use the remaining funds in the 2019 TIF
- revenue taxable bonds proceeds fund, which is Fund 4657 for the record, to support these repairs.
- Currently $441,894 remains and parking services estimates that this amount should cover the engineering
- and repairs. Engineering should be around $35,000. The waterproofing will be the big ticket item and
- will be around $200,000 and the rest is minor repairs. Legal has already run this by bond council and
- determined this is an appropriate use of the bond proceeds. Further, the 2019 TIF revenue taxable bond
- has already been paid off.
- No approval of the RDC is required for these repairs, but we wanted to make sure you were informed as
- the owners of the garage. If you're interested, we can ask parking services to provide an after action
- report after the repairs are completed. And I can try to answer any questions you might have, although
- I'd probably have to come back with any technical questions about the garage repairs. Questions for
- Jeff. Are their estimates based on actual quotes, or are they just
- They are based on analysis from an engineering firm that is used to working with companies providing
- these repairs. Are they going to get quotes? I'm sorry? Are they going to get quotes? They will get
- quotes before they proceed, yes. What I'm interested in knowing is, so far it's kind of an estimate,
- and it's one thing to have the cash available, it'll be another if
- They're the overruns, and then they're coming back for more money. And so I'd like to head that off
- and know that there's some concrete numbers that they're working from. So what is the request? They
- are planning to proceed with doing the engineering and getting quotes for the repairs. That's the request.
- You would just like to know to receive copies of the quotes that they have. Well, as long as they can
- stay within the
- the budget number that's available to them, I don't need to see the quotes. They're well aware of the...
- It's just that when they don't, we don't want to see them. Yeah, I mean, the amount that's available
- in the bond is the amount that's available, and we're assured that it's more than sufficient to cover
- the cost of the repairs.
- So we just need to say it quoted out so we know that we're not going to come back with any additional.
- I will make sure ParkingSend sends you any additional information that they get during the process.
- They've already done their evaluation. We've got a five-year-old garage that's supposed to last 50 years,
- and we're five years in and doing repairs. And their engineering services company says that it is important
- to do this work to make sure we're actually able to
- that the garage lasts as long as it's supposed to do. And the after-action report is simply a report
- back saying the work was done, it came in under budget. Is that a particularly detailed? No, that was
- a suggestion I made just in case you were interested in hearing the results. I think we probably would
- like to get the after-action report. And you say the bond is paid off. The bond is paid off. That's
- a good news part.
- Well, just that there's already money there also. Nobody's here asking for you for more money. We're
- saying let's spend money that was already raised for the construction and maintenance of the garage,
- spending it on construction and maintenance of the garage. Thank you for that good news. Anything else?
- Any other questions for Jeff? OK. Thank you very much. You travel safely. Be careful. Thank you. Business
- development updates. Jane is at the airport. Jane is online, also from the airport.
- Yeah, we're all converging tonight. No business development update. Okay, thank you. That takes us to
- new business, in particular resolution 2622, approval of a bill of sale and assignment with Merrill
- Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, Incorporated, Care of Bank of America, National Association. Who will
- be speaking to this?
- I'm happy to speak to it, or Dana, if you'd like to take it, it's up to you. Essentially, when they
- moved out, Merrill Lynch left a significant amount of furniture and equipment, all very nice. I did
- a walkthrough with them. They left the unit in really nice condition. But this is just a sale and assignment
- to cover their bases of that list of items. And I do believe it's in your exhibit A.
- that lists all of the items that they've left behind, which include U-shaped desks, overhead cabinets.
- There's a really nice coffee maker in there. There's flat-screen TV. I mean, they left some really nice
- equipment. So does the RDC actually own this? They do. So we own artificial plants. We now have a space.
- You do. They are very nice.
- For my own knowledge, what happens to this property now? Right. That will be up to you guys to decide
- at this point. Well, what are the options for that? That's a very good question. I think at this point,
- we're leaving it in the suite if they can be reutilized, but. Right. We probably should see if it can
- be utilized for whatever future functions are there. If not, we could look at alternatives and surplusing it.
- You know, either selling it or transferring it to another government entity, or a 501C3 entity, or there
- are different avenues selling it. You know, in the open market, there's a variety of things that can
- be done with it and surplus it. Are there city departments that would like to look at moving into that
- space given the need to expand
- My understanding that there is a use study going on. So conceivably they could. Perhaps in the future.
- It's hard to say at this point. Basically, this is on your agenda tonight. The tenants that have moved
- out would really feel more comfortable having something signed acknowledging that you guys are in receipt
- of these. We're in receipt of those
- Items that they left so that they understand that they no longer have any additional liability for that.
- At this point, it'll become up to the RDC to make the decision of what to do from a dispossession of
- them or a realization of that space and the equipment that was left. Correct. Items of value and the
- stuff we've got to get rid of. Other questions?
- Is there any public comment on resolution 2622, either here or online? Seeing none, let's come back.
- For resolution 2622. May I ask what that resolution, does that pertain to the
- It is the approval of the bill of sale and assignment with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith,
- Incorporated, Care of Bank of America, National Association. I'm sorry, could you repeat? It is the
- approval of a bill of sale and assignment with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith, Incorporated,
- Care of Bank of America, National Association. They're going to purchase city property? No.
- No. They're leaving their office stuff. They vacated jobs for us. They vacated and leaving their office
- stuff. And again, this is resolution 2622. Do you have comments on resolution 2622? Yes, I would say
- that if the city were to take possession of these material items, that they should be offered up to
- the general public. Thank you very much. My name is Joe Davis. Thank you.
- Are there any comments online? I'm not seeing any. OK. Let's come back to the commissioners. Are there
- any further comments or questions? And if not, may I have a motion on resolution 2622? Move approval
- of resolution 2622. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor indicate by saying aye.
- Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That passes. And then?
- You indicated that we're tabling 2623. We are tabling 2623. OK. That takes us to resolution 2624, approval
- of conveyance of Convention Center parking lots to the Monroe County Capital Improvement Board of Managers.
- Who will be speaking to this? Jane is going to introduce this topic this evening. Jane? Hi, everyone.
- I'll introduce this. And then legal can obviously answer some questions. And then I believe Mr. Whitehart
- and Mr. Whitclad are in the room as well.
- So resolution 2624 pertains to the transfer of real property to the Monroe County Capital Improvement
- Board from the Bloomington Redevelopment Commission for use relating to the Convention Center. This
- property that would be conveyed tonight if approved is only parking lots that are currently in use.
- I want to say for the public, this does not pertain to any property
- that has buildings on it. And this represents, other than Bunger and Robertson, the bulk of the properties
- near the Convention Center that the Redevelopment Commission owns. So just for a little detail,
- these parcels, all three parcels were transferred to the RDC at different times. The first parcel, which
- is west of the Beeline Trail, apologies for the airport noise,
- which is west of the Beeline Trail, was transferred to the Bloomington Municipal Facilities Court in
- 91, and then to the RDC in 2023. The property was promised for $1. The other two parcels are south,
- two lots south of the Convention Center. There's one lot, anyway, two lots south of the Convention Center.
- and were transferred to the RDC in 1995 from the Bloomington Advancement Corporation. The RDC also purchased
- these parcels for $1 each. All three parcels currently serve as parking lots for the convention center
- and do not have any structures on them. They have been used for the convention center since
- their acquisition. And for this reason, staff recommends to the redevelopment commission via 2624
- that they be transferred to the Monroe CIV, which is best positioned to continue using them for the
- convention center and its expansion. There is an agreement in place with the current hotel operator
- to lease 20 parking spaces. The lease transfers with the deed can be terminated with 180 days notice.
- With that, I'd be happy to take questions or have my colleagues also take questions.
- Mr. Whitehart and Mr. Whitlatch, did you have comments or things to add? No. OK. Questions?
- Just to verify, this is something that was done through a previous bond issue with Wilmington Municipal
- Facilities Corporation that at the end transferred it to the Redevelopment Commission. Yes. The two
- parcels earlier this year
- that we transferred or accepted the transfer from the Bloomington Municipal Facilities Corporation that
- were from a bond that was used for a bonding that was two of the parcels. There are two other parcels
- to the south of that that I notified you about earlier that, by email,
- said it was owned by the city of Bloomington. But when I went back to the 95 and pulled the 1995 beads,
- it was actually city of Bloomington, Department of Redevelopment. So it's owned by the RDC. And so therefore,
- those two parcels were part of those properties as well that are used for the convention center parking lot.
- and have been used for the Convention Center parking lot, and have been requested by the CIB to be part
- of the parcels transferred to them. So those are included in the resolution. And then as Jane said,
- there is that lease. There's two ways to, one is to not terminate it, but change locations of where
- they can park.
- That 60-day notice terminating the lease is 180 days notice There's also and it's included as well in
- the resolution attachments that when seminary was developed lot 27 Which is on the north part where
- the lots that we talked about from BMFC earlier
- was in lot 28, where the other two that thought belonged to the city of Bloomington were, are separated
- by a right-of-way. If you extrapolate that right-of-way to the east and west, as we move forward. So
- the parcels we talked about
- from GMFC is this parcel here and this one here. This is owned by somebody else. These two on GIS on
- the property report card all said it was owned by the city of Bloomington. But again, it's owned by
- the city of Bloomington Department of Redevelopment, so it's owned by the RCPC. There is a right of
- way right here that this was part of Seminary Lot 28. This was part of Seminary Lot 27.
- And this was originally a right-of-way that was platted when seminary was platted. This became West
- Smith Avenue here and here. You've got the B line coming through here. This was just utilized as part
- of the parking lots, but it's never been technically a part of either parcel.
- So depending on what further use the CIB may have with that, they may need to vacate that. They may
- use it as a drive or something. It just depends on what their future use might be. But they can determine
- that as they determine what their plans are going to be. So for tonight, you're simply transferring,
- if you move forward, transferring these four lots
- over to the CIB so that they can continue. Now look. Point out those four lots again. Okay. Those four
- lots are this blue. That is, was from BMFC. This small little lot here. No, not that one. The one below
- it. I'm so sorry. This little one.
- And then these two lines here. And they show up under the same parcel because since they were the same
- ownership, back a few years ago, they were condensing, trying to get less parcel numbers at the county.
- And so they condense it under one parcel number, but it's two separate tracks of land. And so those
- are the other two tracks of land under one parcel number.
- So essentially, you are cleaning up something that should have happened about 20 years ago. Yes, yes.
- It's cleaning it back up from what I understood from Jane's work that it believed they were purchased
- for $1. And they were supposed to be used for convention center use. I will say that it was discussed that
- It was important from when we discussed this earlier in year about those parcels from BMFC that the
- RDC wanted to make sure that this property was used for Convention Center purposes and so therefore
- let me put up
- itself there is a condition subsequent. Now courts aren't happy with these so they have to be very well
- laid out and so the condition subsequent is that the real estate herein shall be used solely for the
- purpose of directly supporting the Bloomington Convention Center by used as a host hotel parking or
- other such direct support should the real estate herein fail to be used for the same
- or be under active development for the same, which could be a variety of ways, for a period of more
- than two years, the real estate shall revert back to the city of Bloomington Redevelopment Commission
- in fee simple. So the whole purpose of the CIB asking for it is for the convention center. I know there
- was concern of what about if it's used for something else down the road.
- This allows it to come back to the RDC if it was. It wouldn't be allowed to be sold off to the higher
- bidder for use for student housing or something like that or something that you didn't want to go there.
- It could come back to the RDC so it could be used for redevelopment purposes. Obviously, the chances
- of that happening are extremely small.
- to address the concern that was had that, you know, I put that in there for your interest. So the base,
- what we're looking at is transferring something back to the CIB that was always intended to be utilized
- for a convention center basis, of which the bonds were paid off, RDC assumed it from BMFC for a dollar.
- It has a value, but the primary value will go to the CIB for the benefit of the convention center and
- the community as a whole.
- And that clause just says what the conventions are. Thank you, Dan. Additional questions from commissioners?
- Nothing? OK. Does the CIB want? I'm sorry? Does the CIB want? Well, let's go to public comment. I know.
- So is there any public comment either online? Please use the raise hand signal or you're in person.
- So yes, we have a comment.
- Yes, my name is Joe Davis, and I want to point out the fact that this is the people's property, though
- it is a parking lot, and though it was only purchased for $1. There are higher and better uses for the
- public than providing unnecessary parking or unnecessary use by the CIV, because we do not need this
- expanded convention center. We have many more
- issues where valuable properties held by both the county and the city, which are located downtown and
- no more land is being created downtown. It's all that there is. We need to reserve this land for a new
- jail justice center, co-location with the courts. We need this land for housing. We need this land to
- serve the community. A hotel does not serve the community.
- It serves those who come into the community. The convention center is designed to be a moneymaker, a
- loss leader, mind you, a loss leader that is going to benefit only a handful of players. Those are the
- hoteliers, the restaurateurs, those who are making a dollar. The average Joe like you and me are not
- going to benefit at all. I strongly encourage
- the RDC to not transfer these parking lot properties to the CIB. Thank you very much. Thank you for
- your comments. Are there other comments here in person? Seeing none, let's come back to the Redevelopment
- Commission. Oh, my fault. What did I miss? No, I didn't see any hands raised. I don't see any. OK.
- All right, seeing no further comments, let's come back to commissioners. Any additional questions or
- comments? And if not, may I have a motion? I'll move approval of resolution 26-24. I'll second.
- Thank you. You have a motion and a second. All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?
- Thank you. That passes.
- And that takes us to resolution 2625, approval of supplement number three to construction engineering
- contract for the beeline trail and multi-use path. And welcome. Yep. Good evening. Roy Dayton with City
- Engineering Department. This is our beeline construction project that's nearing its end. We have just
- a little bit of construction left to be wanted. Some soft work and some fencing to put up in the last
- inspections.
- And then there's the paperwork phase. It's a federal funded project, so there's a lot of paperwork that
- has to be submitted to the state or anything like that. Through the project, we hired Crossroad engineers
- to do our construction inspection for the project. Their contract has wound down. Some of that was,
- we've had, this is a third supplement that we had done to the project. The first supplement did not
- regard funding at all. It was just,
- changing wage rates, but we did not change the notice to exceed amount on the project. The second supplement
- was for $40,000, where we had added to the contract. And that was due to some environmental remediation
- issues that we had on the project with one of the lots that we had to go through. It added some delays
- to the project. That was to cover these delays. This last ask is for a supplement
- or $15,000 just to give us enough hours on the contract just to wind it up down and get us
- through completion. Thank you. All right, questions? We're down to paying for the paperwork. We are
- down to paying for it, yes. OK. Thank you. OK. Additional questions?
- Seeing none, let's go to public comment. If you are online, please feel welcome to use the raise hand
- function. I see one, and then are there comments here in person? All right, let's do in person first,
- then we'll do online. Hello, my name is Joe Davis, and as a user of the Beeline Trail, I have noticed
- that even though there have been many improvements, the side access or the side that runs along the
- paved surfaces
- where quarter minus gravel is placed has been largely missing and making the area where joggers who
- try to run on that gravel to reduce the impact on their knees and hips, where walkers walk along the
- side of that, it also helps to provide a margin of safety from all the bicycles and the scooters that
- are zipping up and down the beeline.
- areas on either side of the paved surface need to go back and have more gravel placed and also to some
- larger aggregate on its edge to prevent washout because when we have heavy rains those rains wash away
- all of the quarter minus or the number 11 gravel and we are left with very unsafe conditions
- along that beeline trail. I hope that this will be remedied and there will be a long ongoing maintenance
- to make sure that this is kept safe and usable by the public. Thank you very much. Thank you. And let's
- go to our online comments. Ms. Piedmont-Smith, welcome. Yes, thank you.
- I really didn't have a comment on this, but I didn't see any other opportunity to just introduce myself
- as the liaison from the Common Council to the RDC. You may have heard that the Common Council now assigns
- council members to be liaisons to all of our resident board of commissioners. And so I am the liaison
- to the RDC. That's why I've been working on Zoom meetings. And so if there's any,
- a way that I can help with communication with the council. Just let me know. Thank you. Thank you, council
- member Piedmont-Smith. I see no further comments, no further raised hands online. So let's come back
- to commissioners for any additional comments or questions. Seeing none, may I have a motion for resolution
- 2625? Move approval for 2625. Second. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor indicate by saying
- aye. Aye. Are there any opposed?
- Thank you. That passes. But is there any other business we have before us this evening? Or any good
- news? Well, we did close the Trades District Hotel on the 25th. So we haven't had a meeting since that
- time. So that was something marked off of our to-do lists. But other than that, I do not. We are in
- the trenches with the Hopewell South PUD.
- We'll continue to work with you all. OK. I've got a question. Yes. This is to Christine. Is there any
- way that you can send a consolidated packet and not, we don't have to hit multiple links? Can I or will I?
- Where did IT land on that? If we say please? One of the things we have to be careful about is the end
- of April is the deadline for compliance with the new federal regulation for accessibility, which is
- why your packet flipped over. I don't have a problem doing what you're doing, but for our purposes.
- Well, the one thing that we have to be careful about is creating inaccessible documents like PDFs.
- Because as soon as we create it and send it out, we could get into trouble because that's what we're
- not supposed to do. So I don't know where IT landed on that particular. The issue is that once we create
- a document and send it out, if somebody asks for that particular document in a public request, then
- we don't have it as I can talk with that IT asset, maybe because we have it in a different form that's
- accessible.
- We could do that. So let me check with ITS to see if we could, as long as we have it in another version,
- maybe we could. Maybe we can consolidate it into one. I'm not trying to undo what you're doing for public
- access. We know. This is for commission access. We've received a lot of comments. This is not a workable
- system. Yeah, and if it's allowed, I don't know. We don't have to do that.
- We just need to make sure that we're allowed to do it. I don't want to cause problems for the city.
- We can always go old school and just send it out on Friday at the bail. I'll have paper copies waiting
- by the front door. Well, I mean, if you're doing it, if you're not sitting in an office environment
- and you're trying to pull this up, it's impossible. If you're sitting at the airport trying to review
- this, forget it.
- This cover says nuts. Well, let us talk to IT and the other city departments and make sure that it's
- OK. And if it is, we're more than happy to get you guys the packet that you like while still also producing
- the accessible version. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. Thank you. I understand. I'm sorry.
- Anything else? With the good of the order? If not, may I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second.
- Second. Always the quickest. Oh, wait. We do have public comment. No public comment tonight? Well, typically
- we do public comment on specific resolutions. Well, yeah. My name is Jeff Richardson. Thank you so much
- for kicking off the questions about HOPA. And thank you for your response, Councilor Kerr, legal Councilor
- Kerr. I just want to make a plea.
- to all of you, and I did the same at the City Council, and to any other entity, to let's work together
- to figure this out. I mean, I'm so concerned that we have a golden opportunity. Everyone I talk to wants
- improved housing. Everyone I talk to wants to figure out how best we can do this. And I'm just saying,
- and I think you suggested it, and your question was the catalyst for it, let's find a way where we can
- find common ground.
- and work through this. I know there'll be some people that will agree to disagree about certain paths
- we may go down, but we can do this. And I just want to cheer you on along with the council and the mayor
- and all the other stakeholders to make this happen. So that's my plea on a Monday evening. And we've
- got until May 6 to make this happen. I think we've got a lot of time. And I'm, my, you know,
- President Truman said, it's amazing how much you've accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit.
- We can do this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. I second Jeff's comments. So thank you, Mr. Richardson.
- We can do this together, but the public needs to be involved, the public. This is not anything for behind
- the scenes, closed doors. The public needs to have, to hear, they need transparency, and they need to be given
- much opportunity for anything. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else for the good of the order? All right.
- We've had a motion and a multiple seconds to adjourn. Is there any discussion? All right. All those
- in favor? Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.