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.