I'd like to welcome you all to the City of Bloomington Redevelopment Commission meeting for Monday,
April 20th, 2026. We can start with meeting with a roll call, please. Laura McRobbie, present. Steve
Scamigler, present. John West, here. Deborah Meyerson, here. Not in attendance is Mr. Cassidy.
First item, and staff present, please. Hannah Tillian-Hansen, Housing and Neighborhood Development.
Christina Thinley, Hand Department. Kami Casper, Hand Department.
Jeff McKibben, city controller. Kendall Kenoki, engineering department. Dana Kerr, legal. Thank you.
First item on the agenda is the minutes from April 6, 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners?
If not, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Second. We have a first and a second. All in favor say aye.
Aye. I am abstaining. I was absent for that meeting.
Motion passes unanimously for the minutes. Next item on the agenda is the claims registers from both
March 27, 2026 and April 10 of the same year. Any questions or comments from commissioners on either
of these items? I've got a comment. On the March 27 claim, page six, we're issuing payment to American
Structure Point.
They've been on board for a while, and we've spent a lot of money on reports, and we haven't seen. Well,
that's a little problematic. Correct. They know my understanding, and I did get a driver's wrench.
Yeah, she is really the project lead on that particular item. The last time I checked with her, they
were working on getting us a draft report. That was a couple weeks ago. I haven't seen anything. So
I'm not sure if she's since received anything. But my understanding is no. Have we paid them anything
to date? Yes. We've paid a couple different claim cycles, which we can look up. Well, I guess.
For some reason, I mean, do you think they're dragging their feet where they're not a priority? Part
of me is suggesting that we hold payment until we see some evidence of some work. Okay. I think there's
about three, so here's another piece of information for you.
I do believe that their contract is now expired. And there's, I believe, a balance on the contract right
now. So I know that Anna was working to bring forward the contract renewals so that they can finish
out the dollar amount. But that hasn't come before you yet, likely coming in the next few weeks.
The person of the hour just walked into the room, Anna Dragich. Hey, Anna, there's a question on the
claims register related to the American Structure Point contract and whether we've received that draft
final report yet or not. Sorry, hot spot. OK, great.
No, I'm really glad my colleague Nick was listening online, and he told me to come in here.
So Anna Dragovich, capital projects manager. I think we're definitely near the end. They're in the process
of putting together the final draft. Last I heard, the end of last week, it was going through their
communications team to put the final,
touches on it, but I really think it's a future conversation for an executive session to kind of run
through those details and what they discovered. Well, my question was not what they discovered. Sorry.
It was that we haven't seen anything from them, and we're into them for three payments, and then we're
here to collect another check, and we're no further along. Right. They may be. We just don't know it.
We just keep writing checks. Right.
I apologize. I'm not quite sure how to answer that question. If that's on me as a project manager and
not looping in the RDC for those conversations, I apologize. But I do think we're getting close to a
time for when communication with you does need to happen. Does that help? So it looks like they've expensed
$54,926.18 out of a $58,250 contract, so there's only
about $3,300 left on their contract, right? That's after this claim. So is the check in this claim,
is it going out? Yeah. Well, my comment's not relevant. Well, we could certainly hold. And we actually
have to now that the contract has expired as well. OK. Well, thank you for the additional information
about that question.
Any other questions or comments from commissioners on the claims registers from March 27 or April 10,
2026? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve the claims register for March 14 to 27. There's
actually two claims registers, unless we want to separate them. One is the one for the period ending
March 27, and the other is for the period ending April 10.
Sorry. I'll move approval for both. Second. Got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item of the agenda are two payroll registers from April
2nd and April 17th, 2026. Any questions or comments on either of those? Move for approval. Second. Got
a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.
We'll move on to reports. Do we have a director's report? No formal report. I do just want to report
out that we did have a productive work session last week. I felt like we are on the agenda for council
for Wednesday for Hopewell South. So we'll see what transpires at that time. But I do think that we
had a productive session with council last week. So thank you for those that could attend. That was great.
add my thanks to council for the opportunity for that work session. I felt like a joint work session
was the direction we needed to go in, and I appreciated that everybody could be there, and I felt like
it was a good discussion. So thank you. Do we have a legal report? I just want to give you an update
on the summit residential TIF. It's progressing very well. We have filed for the council meeting, and
it will be on the April 22, so in two days. It will be at their regular meeting.
And that is just a resolution of their approval. And then after that, it will come back here on May
4th for the actual public hearing on it and a confirmatory resolution that you will consider at that
time. It did go through the planning commission on April 13th and received their approval.
Notice of the hearing was published in the ATHT. It showed up today, so it's well in advance. The impact
analysis statements that needed to go out to the other taxing authorities has gone out. Those were mailed
out by Regio Financial this morning. So those have gone out. So we got the council meeting and then
the meeting here on May 4th.
And those are the last steps in getting the Senate TIF residential TIF done. So we're looking forward
to finally getting one of those completes. And it's actually been a very fast process and appreciate
all the entities that's been involved with this. Thank you for that report. We have a treasurer's report.
Nothing to report. Business development update.
Nothing major, I'll just, I know we have CIB on the, we'll pop up on our agenda later today, but I wanted
to point out that CIB is collecting public feedback for the four finalists for the Convention Center
of Public Art. They circulated a press release that had a link in it, and I will push that out on the
Arts Commission socials and can share that with commissioners, but we want the public to complete the
survey, check it out, and say what you like. This is your big opportunity.
very much. Do we have an engineering update? Yes, Kendall Kenoki, engineering department. And I've been
tasked with managing the Hopewell South contract. And you had requested regular updates. So just wanted
to kind of update on where we're at. Hopefully this will pop up here in a sec. Yep. So the first thing
is we were doing a lot line adjustment of, it's shown up as two lots on GIS, but it's actually three.
And that is currently, it's been submitted to planning for kind of final review. But by the end of the
week, we'll have, you can see there, two new lots and then the remainders in the third lot. But this
will allow us to build three buildings, which is four units early under current zoning. So once this
is approved by the end of the week, Flintlock range is going to submit for building permits. That goes
through the class two structure process. So in two weeks, those will be ready.
Whenever you're ready, basically to pick up. I think the building department will just hold them until
you can select a builder or someone's identified. They can go pick up those permits and we can get some
construction started on the Hopewell South property. So that's really exciting. That's something that
we were able to get moving. The other item I wanted to show was
We filed initially for Plan Commission, and this is kind of just an overall view of the development.
Of course, we're on pause right now. We're waiting for City Council to kind of do a final zoning approval,
and then as soon as they do, we'll pick back up and whatever changes we need to make, we'll make and
then we'll file for the next Plan Commission meeting. So we're kind of just holding at that point, but
we are continuing to work on things that affect
the property no matter what is decided to be built there. So things like detention, the design of the
new water main that has to happen, things like that. So later in the meeting today, I'll be asking for
a contract amendment to talk about some additional funding we'll need. But I'll talk about that during
that time. So that's kind of the update. Is there any questions on hopeful? Just could you point out
on the map the two, three replanted pieces where they are? Yes.
Right up here, it's one, two, three. So there's three buildings. This one's going to be a kind of a
duplex shared wall. So once the full subdivision is approved, they'll split that lot into two lots.
These are the first three. Those are the ones. So four units, three buildings. Thank you very much.
Yep. OK. Any other comments, questions?
We are going to move to our first item of business, which is resolution 2626, the approval of a notice
of offering for College Square located at 200-226 South College Avenue. Who would like to speak to that?
I'm happy to speak to that. So as you know, we've been dealing with this site for a number of years.
It is currently sitting vacant, except for Weddle Brothers, who's using it as a construction office
to manage the Convention Center expansion project. As you heard earlier this year, we have a letter
from eight of nine council members that would like
us to receive the full value of what they paid for the land out of it.
Yeah, so at the same time, this has been out there for some time that we were working on an offering.
And so the CIB at their last meeting did send us an email and asked us to hold this offering for 30
days to consider a potential land swap. So you all have been in receipt of that email. And so at this
point, you guys can either move to table this for 30 days or move forward with the public offering.
The offering will not exclude them from responding.
So they very much can respond if they choose to do so. But really, truly on you guys to decide how you
want to move forward with this, we did receive two appraisals. One was less than $7 million,
but one was more. There are some environmental conditions that are on the property. So there is some
additional work that's going to be needed at the site. So the average of those two appraisals, though,
ended up being $7.59.
And I'm not sure that the appraisal that was over the $7 million mark fully considered the environmental
conditions that were present. But these are the average of two. This is what we're statutorily required
to do. So if you do move forward with the offering, for the first 30 days, you are not allowed to accept
any offerings that are less than that 759 number.
The RDC has a different statutory authority than other governmental entities in that you have put a
lot of criteria in the offering of what it is you want to see in a project. And that is how you can
evaluate the project. It is not based on money. It's not like the highest bid for the buy of the property,
like other
public entities would have to do, you're able to select what project you would like to see at that property.
So, you know, I heard somebody had concerns that, well, if somebody came in and bid a lot of money for
the project, they would, you know, for the property, they'd be able to take it. Well, not necessarily,
because money wasn't necessarily the criteria. There's a whole large list of criteria.
that will be evaluated to determine the best project here. So I just wanted to put that out there that
it's not based on the money offered necessarily. That's a factor. But it's based on the quality of the
project. Thank you. OK. Well, with that presentation, I will open this to questions or comments from
commissioners for Resolution 26-26. And that will include both the offering as well as
Request for negotiations, that's part of the packet under this item. Question. I've got the same email
that you did. I don't know what's going to happen in 30 days. Is there any other discussion as to what
actually will occur specifically?
Are they going to do appraisals and provide them, or are we going to get anything in 30 days? You mean
if you chose to pause the offering for 30 days? I did inquire as to whether there was a current appraisal
of the south parcels to consider for the swap. To my knowledge, there is not one currently. We also
don't have any information on the environmentals of the property or the current condition or the rent
roll. So we don't have quite a bit of information that we would normally want to see.
to discern. It's hard to know if that particular property is also worth $7 million. There are several
buildings there, two of which are historic. So that may require us to cooperate with the Historic
Preservation Commission and possibly a demolition delay. So we really don't know at this time what would
be needed. So typically, appraisals take at least 30 days.
I have not heard that they are able to provide that within 30 days. So we'd wind up essentially where
we are right now in 30 days without knowing really what we would be swapping? Potentially, yes. What's
the timeline if the proposal goes out for how long respondents have to respond to the RFP?
So just backing up, typically it would be really hard for anyone responding to an offering like this
to respond within 30 days. I mean, I think typically we would want to put it out there for 60 to 90
days. So we have a statutory requirement to publish this offering in the paper. And of course,
right now, it takes some time, even if I called today. So what we were anticipating is that if you did
vote to approve the offering, it would be published on April 27.
And we would be collecting offerings until July 20. We would open those on our regularly scheduled July
20 meeting date. That's 84 days. So that would be enough time to get appraisals or anything of the like
for us to consider a trader offering. But at that 84-day mark, we would then try to sort through them
and make some decisions.
It's probably going to take 30 days at least after that to really know what we're dealing with based
upon. We don't know how many we'll receive. We don't know if we'll receive. We have no idea. $7 million
is a lot of money for that kind of property. And we have specifically excluded student-centric developments
that are rent bedroom by bedroom as something that the RDC does not want to see in any public offerings.
And typically, those income producing properties would be
the ones that would maybe consider a purchase price of that sort. So. Thank you. Any other questions
or comments from commissioners on this resolution before we open it for public comment? Just to follow
up on your statement, the CIB would, whether we delay or don't delay the public offering, the CIB would
be welcome to respond just like anyone else, correct? Correct. And is there anything different about
what they would propose
Is there anything different or different obligations that they would have in responding based on a proposed
land swap as opposed to anything else? I don't think so. OK. They'd be evaluated side by side with anything
else. Correct. OK. Thank you. And we do have language in the offering as well that says that if we get
any responses for a host hotel, that it would be on the respondent to get the necessary approvals from the CIB.
as a condition of the offering. Thank you. Thank you. I'll rip the Band-Aid off. I don't think the land
swap as proposed is a good opportunity or even a good deal for the city. I remind the commissioners
that when we all got together,
a year and a half ago or whenever we started. Our mission was to do two things. One is finish projects
that we already had underway that we have a really hard time getting finished, well-being one. The second
was that we have a lot of land inventory. And it's off the tax roll, not on the tax roll.
And we've been land banking for years and years and years, and we really have no business doing that
either. So this swap ends up being contrary to those two things. Not to mention that at the end of the
day, it's my opinion, I've never appraised it, but I don't think you're going to see equal value. So
I don't know how we get to the,
to 7.5 million. But almost as importantly is that, unfortunately, the buildings that are on site have
not been maintained. And there's a lot of deferred maintenance that somebody's going to have to pay
for. Somebody's going to have to bring them up to some kind of standard, because I'm not even sure if
they would meet today's hand inspections. I don't know for sure.
I would guess it'd be some problems. So it's not only taking on buildings and land. We also have to
pile a bunch of money into preserving buildings that are not meeting current rent rates. I know the
commercial tenants are, at least the ones that I know, are leaving. So we'll have a lot of vacancy.
I just don't see an opportunity there that would make any sense. Our role is not as developers. That
may be a good property for a seasoned developer to take on, but that's not what we do. And we've kind
of proven it by taking us along with Hopewell. We're struggling. We've been down several different,
past to get that accomplished. Hopefully we're on the right one now. But taking on more ground requiring
development that we have no idea how we're going to make it productive and get it back on the rent rolls
is probably not in our best interest or the city's best interest. So I will be voting for a resolution
to move our offering forward and not considering a land swap.
And I just wanted to clarify, as it's stated in the RFP, it looks at how the RDC seeks transformative
mixed-use redevelopment project, and the offering is intended to catalyze the long-term private investment,
enhance downtown vitality, and advance the RDC's economic development objectives. So just trying to
confirm that kind of ties in with Mr. Kerr's
in terms of how the RDC can look at responses to this proposal, to this RFP, in the sense of that the
goal of selecting and evaluating responses is really based on the RDC's economic development objectives
and not on, you know, again, highest and best use, or it's really just based on the mission of the RDC.
Okay. Anything else before we open it for public comment?
We will open it for public comment. We're going to alternate between in-person and online, but we can
start with in-person. Hi. I'm standing in for John Weichart today. I'm Jim Whitlash. I'm the attorney
for the CIB, and I appreciate your time. And I have a statement that John prepared that I'll read to
you. The Capital Improvement Board is hopeful that you will respond favorably to begin negotiations
for a land exchange of your College Square parcels.
for the parcels south of the current convention center approved for transfer from the county to the
CIB last week. This past December, after 14 months of effort to reach a deal for the College Square
site with Dora Hospitality, the RDC considered but amended a resolution to make the site available for
free or at a nominal cost for a host hotel. The initial draft appeared to have the support of the Thompson
administration, but members of the city council expressed their opposition
although publicly identifying a land exchange as one possible alternative. The CIB was later notified
that month by Dora and the city that there was not a path forward in your discussions. This was followed
in January by mayor Thompson stated intent to develop a plan for a public officer in of the site, which
brings us to this evening and the CIB request for negotiations in response to the CIB's request.
Communications from President Meyerson and Executive Director Killian Hansen this past week identified
a current appraisal of the South Parcels as a condition of any negotiations. There is no appraisal of
the South Parcels since their acquisition, but to our knowledge, they were purchased by the Convention
and Visitors Commission with in-keepers tax revenues and two separate 2010 transactions for approximately
$3.2 million.
Your proposed public offering identifies for potential bidders a college square price to $7.6 million.
If the CIV offer of land exchange consideration is viewed simply through the lens of a cost benefit
analysis of a transactional real estate swap for equal valued properties, then on the surface, the CIV
does not have that to offer in a negotiation. What we propose is that prior to your public offering,
you consider a different cost benefit analysis.
one of opportunity for the public good, rather than simply a transactional one based on cash value.
Perhaps there is a different return on investment to consider. We each have parcels of lands that may
have equal public value if the cost-benefit analysis is re-envisioned around achieving stated community
goals rather than cash transactions.
The College Square site has never been identified by the administration as appropriate for affordable
housing development, and the CIB South parcels are not a better site option for a host hotel than College
Square. Analyzed together, there may be opportunities in a land exchange to achieve both the economic
development goals generated by a host hotel and the public goals shared by many for affordable housing
development in the core downtown area.
The 30 day period the CIB proposes can allow us to demonstrate to Bloomington that two public bodies
have the capacity to meet and perhaps come to agreement on a proposal that both supports our downtown
businesses and local economy and addresses one of our most critical community issues. The CIB is willing
to pause in our next step for a host hotel for that period if you are willing to pause as well. The
Sea of Bloomington has a history over different administrations of acquiring property
seeing that as an investment for development for the public good rather than an expense to be recovered.
The selection of the Convention Center Host Hotel on the site is the duty of the CIB. We all recognize
how much time has already been lost. If you decide tonight to release your public offering and invite
the CIB to throw its hat in the ring with other potential suitors, if there are any, then the CIB
will meet to decide if instead we reengage immediately in hotel development for the south and west properties
we now have to offer. Further delay of more months with the possibility that primary consideration may
ultimately be the best cash offer transaction for reimbursement is not in the best interest of our project.
Thank you for time and consideration. We hope you'll agree to a brief pause for discussions. Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm going to, again, alternate between in-person and online. Is there somebody who's online who is here
for public comment on resolution 26-26? OK, so not seeing any hands raised. I beg your pardon? OK, so
not seeing anybody online. We'll just continue with our in-person, but please let me know if anybody
does raise their hand online. Thank you. Hi. Courtney Daly, member of Common Council.
here to ask you to please postpone the resolution for the 30 days as requested by the CIB. I am the
holdout from the letter who did not ask for the full $7 million in exchange for the property. So this
is my moment to speak then, I guess. I basically want to reiterate everything that Mr. Whitlatch said.
I think that there is no better
place for a host hotel. It doesn't make sense to put a host hotel for the convention center down on
that South property. It is simply too far away. I would love support and cooperation in trying to get
the host hotel closer back up where we had been looking at the Bunker Robertson property. The South
property, while it may not be worth as much, I think is respectfully disagree that it's not an opportunity.
I think it is actually a great opportunity for the city. It is so close to Hopewell.
We're out looking for more affordable housing. We could do something wonderful with that land, if not
putting in more affordable housing, more amenities for Hopewell. I think we can really revitalize that
entire block area if we can pull off that land swap. So I really hope that you will please consider
doing the land swap. Thank you. Thank you. Next, for public comment. Would you like us to speak to the
microphone or just? Yes, just come speak to the microphone. Please sit that way.
Hello, my name's Barry Herbers. I live down the street from the South Parcel. Bloomington is in sort
of an affordable housing crisis, not just of market rate housing, but particularly of prices below the
average, which an average is, of course, made of things above and below it. Seminary Point, the South
property, represents 30 odd units of super affordable housing. I've got a few friends living at Seminary
Point right now. One of them is actually here. And I live down the street from there.
And having Friendly Beast in walking distance, which is one of the commercial space attendants, has
been wonderful for engendering a sense of community in my neighborhood. And as a nearby resident, I'm
overjoyed at the prospect of more community infrastructure and small businesses being integrated there.
And when I was first told about the idea of the land swap, what really got me interested is that sense
of neighborliness that's down there. It's there, but it's lacking in some ways at the moment.
And I've been hearing a lot of older folks lately talking about preserving the spirit of old Bloomington.
Now, I'm a bit of a transplant. When I moved here, one of the first things that happened is a bunch
of my new friends showed me that movie, Breaking Away. I'm sure you've all seen it. It's sort of like
about that tension between the city slickers at the university and the rough and tumble kids down who
just want to ride their bikes and are probably going to be cutting limestone someday. Now, things aren't
the same as they always were, but one of the friends I do have living at Seminary Point, he's not able
to make it today.
He works in construction. And he was actually laid off recently. And that apartment has been a lifeline
for him and his second baby that's on the way with his partner. And we just, it would make me, it hurts
me to imagine him getting displaced, even if he can find a place of similar price, like far off, like
in that downtown area, it's really the only option for someone like him. And to speak to that Bloomington
spirit as I understand it,
It's communal and it's also working class. And to me, that's what this is sort of all about. It's a
promise to Bloomington's working class that we can preserve that lower bracket of super affordable housing
that gets people on their feet alongside building these new single-family homes, perhaps in Hopewell,
that people can get to once they've gotten stabilized with their families and such. And the CIB has
made it sort of clear that they can't maintain the affordable housing at that place. We've talked to
them a fair amount.
They might not even be legally allowed to, it's unclear. And what they can do though is swap it for
land that's perfectly suited to their purpose, their legal purpose, which is to help the convention
center with a new hotel. So I want to come out in favor of delaying this process so that the CIB has
an opportunity to make their case heard and that organizations like the RDC will have an opportunity
if they take that land to
steward it into some sort of grassroots organization. Like maybe I've heard people talk about a community
land trust and to like build permanently, well not build, but build and maintain permanently affordable
housing for Bloomington's working class. And I hear rumblings that they're actually working on a presentation
as we speak. So hopefully that comes by soon. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there someone else
who would like to present for public comment at this time?
Don't hurt yourself. Don't hurt yourself. This is the cost of public civic engagement. Busted elbows.
Hi, I'm Bryce Green. I've been living in Bloomington for around a decade now. And I'm in favor of you
guys delaying this offering because, well, like what everyone else has been saying, there is a lot of
value in what this land can offer the community beyond the monetary value of the land.
seems to be no reason that it can't go forward that it can't that this land swap can't go forward other
than a confusion about what that would mean for the city. I know you and your comments mentioned that
like this would take a lot of city resources to develop and to maintain and there's been a lot of deferred
maintenance and that's all you know I think valid concerns but I think what the
the residents of the Seminary Point apartments and what community members have come together and really
been working hard on is a plan that doesn't involve too much more resources from the city that actually
builds off of existing models of affordable housing of cooperative ownership that exists in the city
already. Right now there are a very small number of super affordable
housing units in the city. I mean these are the units that are standing in between someone and being
homeless and almost all of them are offered under cooperative structures and the fact that we have people
in the room today in the community now who are willing to put in the time and effort to develop that
I think that should be taken into account because these this property can be a lot more than you know
either a hotel or even a standard addition to
what Hopewell could be. It could be something a lot more. It could be something that is a fixture of
the community on the beeline, you know, has friendly beasts, all this nice stuff. And it can be one
of those fixtures of Bloomington that makes it unique and a really lovely place to be. So I think that
take time to consider this, look over the details. You know, if this whole thing is stupid and we're
stupid, then, you know, we can
We might be able to figure that out. But I don't think we are. And I think this is worth at least taking
30 days to look at. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any others who would like to speak for further comment,
please move forward. Anyone online? Come forward, please. Thank you. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. My
name is Matthew Joseph.
Um, I've been a resident of Bloomington for about six years. Um, I'm also in favor of the delay, um,
and starting negotiations with the CIB. I think like the question that starts for me is like, is there
a world where we can build out a hotel for the convention center and save precious affordable housing
in Bloomington? Pleasing like both future tourists and existing Bloomington community.
A negotiation between the CIB and the RDC gives us all the chance to answer that question and to see
what that world could look like, to explore what that world could look like and, I mean, give us a chance
to dream a little. I mean, get a little creative. This is what we're here to do as community members.
And it's all of us to see as a community how we can build a win-win for the city and its residents,
for the future of it and the current maintenance of it and the flourishing of it.
And I want you to know, I don't think you'll be alone in this process. It might feel like the weight
of it is gonna be on you, but I think what Bryce said, there is organizations that exist to solve problems
like this and to build up flourishing communities like this. Bloomington Cooperative Living, actually
the housing that I'm myself a part of, and Avalon Land Trust, as well as others, are some of the biggest
and most successful affordable housing initiatives in Bloomington.
And they have built projects like this and we're already like we're working with them already to build
plan pulling from evidence based models from different states of how they've done similar things with
similar types of projects pulling specifically from a city within Michigan that had.
in a similar way maybe affordable housing that needs some revitalization and then turn it into something
that was really incredible for the city and actually became one of an incredible hot spot for that city
not just like affordable housing right that maybe we might have that idea and also like please like
I really mean it's like don't be convinced that this is like a dump I know like this is how we kind
of the society looks at affordable housing it's like oh it must be some
First of all, please don't let that bias take over because it's actually something that might surprise
you. We actually saw Randy from the RDC. I think he's an electrician or something. And we showed him
around the space. We happened to walk into him. We showed him the commercial spaces. We showed him a
unit, actually. He was very surprised and honestly amazed
Of course, it's not perfect. I'm not saying not a dollar is gonna get spent on it, but it's more like,
oh, am I going over time? Okay, I'm sorry, forgive me. I haven't done this a lot. This is just something
I'm passionate about. But yeah, in general, this gives us the time to take this seriously, get creative,
see what we can do as a community, and engage our organizations that are already doing stuff like this.
And the last thing I'll say is I think what makes a good city is not always what is
perfect on the income statement or some perfect equal transaction. Although I think this plan could
be something that flourishes that area, but it's something that's good for its people. And I think this
30 days will allow us to explore that more. Thank you. Thank you for speaking. Will the next public
speaker please move forward to the hot spot. My name is Audrey Smith.
Some of you might recognize me because I spoke in December against transferring this land for nothing.
You might remember that I really hate public speaking. I didn't have the opportunity today to prepare
exactly what I wanted to say and I came in a little bit late so I haven't heard everything that's been
discussed. But I heard a little bit about
the cost benefit analysis being considered and different ways to look at that and the highest and best
use of different properties. One thing that I wanted to note is that it's just difficult to calculate
the economic benefit of the hotel being located in its ideal location. The whole point of the convention
center is for economic development.
and that hotel is intended to support that. So I'm sure there are people who are better at analyzing
that than I am, but I think that's something that's important to consider. And I think it's also important
to consider that having housing available for people that is affordable near where they want to work
or where they're able to work is really important to economic development as well. The last thing I want to,
add is just that in the grand scheme of how long things take, a month is not very long. So I want to
encourage you all to just take the time to weigh the options and figure out what is best for this property.
Delaying for one month is really not going to make a big difference in how long it takes to build whatever
ends up on that property. So thank you.
Are there any others who would like to be part of the public speaking on resolution 26-26? Hi, my name
is Sarah Mosier, and I wanted to echo what my neighbors have said about approving the land swap for
the two properties, the north and south. I live right up the hill from the south property.
I go down there all the time to Friendly Beast, but also to talk to the folks that live around there.
And I actually took a cost benefit analysis course in my MPA here at IU. And so I remember one thing
that they don't take into account when we're doing those calculations is the kind of very long-term
impacts that can happen from individual people. And there's families that live in those apartments now
that could be
starting small businesses or bringing all kinds of other development to the city in the future, they
won't get a chance if they get kicked out and have no place to live and have to move out to the county,
move out to other cities that are more affordable than Bloomington. So approving the land swap would
just give them a little bit more of a chance. And that's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you for
coming to speak tonight. Anyone else who would like to be part of the public comment on resolution 26-26?
Seeing none, we are going back to the commissioners. Any comments or questions from commissioners based
on the public comment or anything further that would be worthwhile to discuss on Revolution 26-26? Point
of clarification, because I just don't remember, is it the case currently that the current tenants
have leases that expire in July? Is that correct? And have we, I don't believe, have talked about how
any kind of land swap would affect that date. But perhaps that's intended to be part of the discussion.
My understanding is that the leases are not being renewed as of July 7. So we would not have any say
over those leases right now.
this board. So it would be really up to the CID to manage the leases in terms of any further discussion
about a land swap or other considerations? Correct. At this time, my understanding is that the Monroe
County Partnering Association has worked with the remaining 15 tenants to try and find suitable or similar
housing. I'm not sure exactly what the current status is. I just know that what has been communicated
to me from Mr. Weichart is that
As of July 7, there will not be any remaining tenants unless they choose to extend the leases or something
to that effect, which we have not had any discussions about. OK. Thank you. Other questions or comments
from commissioners on resolution 26-26? Yeah, I can't reward. I have no further comments. OK. Thank you.
and members of the public who have offered comments. I appreciate it. And to those representing the
CIB as well, whenever I listen to public comment or to a proposal, I tend to think in terms of compelling
arguments and less compelling arguments or not compelling arguments. And there are several things that
I find very compelling.
One is the caution and statement that we receive from most council members, council member Daley accepted,
stating that we not undervalue this land when engaging in a transaction with that. I hear that, and
I find that a compelling statement on behalf of our city council. I also find it compelling that 30
days is not a long time. 30 days.
The notion that a great deal can change in 30 days isn't compelling to me. I don't see how an appraisal
can be done, environmentalists can be done. I don't see how that can possibly get done. So the notion
that 30 days will make a significant difference in negotiations without all of that critical information
that we are obligated to pay attention to.
I don't find that a compelling argument. I also don't find it compelling to argue that the CIB is at
an inherent disadvantage compared to deeper pocket developers. That's my expression. We are not obligated
to only look at the finances of this. And we've said that many, many times in this meeting. So we can
look at the whole of a project and the whole of its potential.
and indeed are expected to do so. So I find that very compelling. So I am actually going to move forward
and support the issuance of this offering. Thank you. Any other? I want to make a couple of clarifications.
There's nothing in the offering that will prohibit a hotelier from making a proposal. So that, just
because we don't
If we don't do the land swap, it doesn't make that College Square site off the table for a hotel. I
agree with Sue Scambaleri. 30 days is not going to get us much further than we are now. So we're just
kind of kicking the can down the road. There's also a misnomer, I think, that this body, the RDC, our
builders and developers, we're not. It's not what we do.
That's not what we use taxpayer money for. We do infrastructure, but somebody else has to build it and
manage it. We're not landlords. So if we take over existing facilities or buildings that have tenants,
we don't have managers, we don't have a landlord, we don't even have a way to collect rent. I mean,
that's not what we do.
So I just want to make it clear that we're not incredibly sensitive to the position that the residential
folks are in. And in a best world, we could find a third party to take those properties and do something
real positive with them. But this isn't the body.
And so we have to move on and do what we're charged to do. And it's just not taking on properties and
being a landlord. So I just kind of want to make that clear. Thank you. Can I add one more thing, too?
And I should have said this earlier. I also want to extend my gratitude to everyone who took the time
to come and speak. And I agree with my fellow commissioner that
Much of what you said, all of it was compelling and heartfelt, and I think we do definitely take it
seriously. I think trying to find a solution that allows us to do the best we can with both parcels
of land in cooperation with the CIB is in everyone's interest. And I agree, though, as well with my
fellow commissioners that 30 days is not going to change anything.
And that in a sense, moving forward as quickly as we can actually starts to open up some other possibilities
and opportunities that may not be evident to us because we haven't been clear about what our vision
is for College Square, haven't perhaps explored enough about what the options are with some mythical
but hopefully not too mythical third party who could come in and help us think about
what could happen south of the convention center. So my own feeling as well is that we need to start
bringing some other players into the picture because I think that's going to help us find the best outcome
for both College Square and for the property south of the current convention center. Thank you. I will
add my own final comments. I do appreciate the public speakers tonight.
appreciate when there are voices there for housing visions for the community because we definitely need
that. I do feel, as I've heard from my colleagues on the commission, that I feel that the advantage
of voting yes on the offering for the College Square property tonight for resolution 26 actually offers
an advantage of time for both what the CIB could bring
for what potential hoteliers could bring, as well as for coming to an efficient end to what happens
with the color square property. In addition to looking more creatively at, again, at visions for the
southern properties, it just may not be the RDC's vision. It may need to be of other parties in the
community. So it's not at all rejecting the ideas of what we've heard. It's just finding the right channel
for that initiative.
So again, I appreciate the voices and hearing that and looking at the way to move forward on that.
With that, I think we are ready for a vote. I'll move approval of resolution 2626. Second. Move a first
and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you all.
We are now on to the next item on our agenda, which is resolution 26-27, the approval of first addendum
to the preliminary design contract for Hopel South. Who would like to speak to that? Kendall Kenoki,
engineering department. I'll speak to that. So in front of you is a contract amendment to our Hopel
South design contract. There are two items that came up as additional
design services that we needed for this project, one of which right here is the additional survey that's
required for some offsite utilities that are required for CBU. This is, regardless of what you do with
the property, these things are required. So one of them is the water main. I think I've mentioned this
to you before, but a new water main from Rogers all the way to about halfway down Wiley.
This is replacing, I believe it's a 1927 water main. No matter what you did on the property, this is
something that CBU would require. This was not included in the initial CEC survey that we used just
because they were only surveying the Hopewell South property. This would be additional topographic survey
that we'd have to do. The other item is detention for the west portion of Hopewell South. So this all
drains this way. Our detention basin is here.
This all drains this way. We were initially asking CBU if we could over detain this area to accommodate
this area. They said, no, they're splitting issues down here. We really want you to do something. And
we have a right of way along Wiley where you can do something. So they have asked us to do some detention
somewhere along here in this existing right of way along Wiley. Basically, Wiley, for some reason, was
built west of the initial dedicated right of way. And then that was dedicated later.
It's actually a really wide right of way here. So we already have a property. But we need to go in and
survey and get the utilities located and figure out where we can do detention. We also have to get our
storm sewer over there. So it kind of just becomes this whole lump. And we may actually run it down
the platted alley, too. So we're kind of just picking it all up so we can do a full design of this area.
Our consultant actually did not give us an increase in their design fee for
the design of the detention in the water main. They just had kind of assumed that they would have to
do a certain level of detention design. So there's no additional cost for that. But this is really all
for topographic survey. And then the other item is for geotechnical exploration. So we were going out
and doing pavement design, geotech work for the entire Hopewell South development. We were already doing
a lot of exploratory borings on the 714 South Rogers.
building, and American Structure Point was doing their study. And we just reached out and asked, we're
already going out there. What kind of geotechnical testing do you need to make a really good decision
about whether or not you can use that property? What can be done there? And so they gave us some geotechnical
tests that they wanted to do, that when combined with our already going out there, scope of work would
be a lot cheaper. So the other part of this is additional geotechnical testing for the 714 South Rogers.
And these are the tests that were requested or recommended by American Structure Point for that. So
those are the two items in front of you. They are defined in exhibit A is where the cost is.
So it's $20,000 for the additional topographic survey, 19,000 for the additional geotechnical work,
additional 39,000. So this will be ultimately, you know, this will get added to the entire contract and
You know, once everything is completed, that'll add on to the final contract amount. So this is stuff
that, you know, it's going to have to happen either way, is my understanding. And I wanted to go ahead
and get the survey, you know, undergoing and the geotechnical work since it's all, it's both kind of
preliminary works. That's why it's in front of you right now, even though we're on pause for former
rezone approval.
So happy to answer any questions. I think that. This is really a little off the wall. But if you were
to guess, since some of that geotech work is going to be contributed to the 714 property, what percentage
of the 39,000 would be
be used by them and not by StructurePoint and not necessarily have anything to do with the Hopewell
sub the PUD? It is $19,000 because we already had it. Yeah, this is this is solely for that 714 project.
Any other questions from commissioners on
Resolution 26-27 and the scope of the topos or the geotechnical? Yeah, I'm going to continue my thought
What concerns me about that portion is that I'm getting a sense because we're not getting really good
feedback from structure point that I don't know what we're going to see when we get it back and whether
project that's planned for that property is doable. And we're going to spend another $19,000 on top
of it, which would be useless if we can't use the building the way we want to. So I'm throwing it out
there. I just don't know. I'm a little tired to continue to spend money on something that it's a flyer
right now.
I'm just going to ask some clarification, and maybe this is what you're going to provide. But just if
the structure point study will be available, and if that would be of available use before the expense
for this additional engineering work is needed. So would that be a decision point of whatever's in that
report would then inform the scope of work?
Forgive me if I'm incorrect here, Kendall, but it was my understanding that these borings were being
done in the current parking lot, which is where the potential stormwater detention would go. And so
they overlap a little bit in that way. So it's in the 714 parking lot currently, but those projects
overlap. And so the expense for one project is a little bit blurry versus the expense for the other project.
Yeah, I mean, I don't we're already drilling. So this is just additional testing that they were going
to do with those. I don't know exactly how it works, but you're already you have the equipment out there.
You're doing a big boring. They're running additional tests and they might be sampling additional material.
But when you think about they're already out there, that's why we were kind of asking the question.
Well, what do we really need to know for the 714 building to help with the evaluation of that?
So the 19,000 truly is the additional
Testing that and I was trying to find the email where they they were specifying what testing they they
needed to help in the evaluation Yeah, I mean It would certainly cost more if if you no matter who you
approached if they asked for these tests You'd have to then have someone go back out and do it Additionally
if you'll recall we don't have construction plans for that building so it makes it difficult to
to understand the building fully. And so doing these borings underground will help us know what that
building is capable of housing. So instead of structure point informing this, this may be informing
structure point? Is that what you're saying? Yes. And it could inform this group on whatever goes there.
Because that information will be good to know. OK. So I believe this is additional work. This was not included.
in their original scope of work. That's correct. This is additional work for additional information.
I understand that part. OK. That's not a question. It was more just trying to determine if the pending
report from StructurePoint would inform the scope or not. And it sounds like this will. I don't want
to put good money on bad. Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. And to that point, there's sort of,
I mean, so the sequence here, the borings before we see something back from StructurePoint, is that
what I'm understanding?
Yes, I think it will reinforce what path we're possibly already going down. Does that make sense? Yeah.
I'm trying to be diplomatic and neutral and OK. Well, and I guess what I'm asking, too, is then I will
ask the question about length of time. So we earlier talked about,
getting more information from StructurePoint. It sounded like that was imminent, maybe, or should be
imminent. This is going to delay that further, maybe appropriately. I'm just trying to get a sense of
what the timing is now, if that makes sense. So this work is going to go forward. So are we going to
see something from StructurePoint before the testing happens? Well, I mean, if this isn't approved tonight,
we will pull it from Patriots.
scope, but they're already scheduled to go out there. So that's another advantage we have. Yeah. I'm
not objecting to that. I'm just trying to understand. I'm trying to set our expectations for when we're
going to get information that we've been waiting for. The report from structural point is not contingent
on the study. But the study can help them hone in better in the report.
potentially a good thing, I understand that. I'm just trying to get a sense of the timing. Yeah. Some
of the options that they're looking at may be looking at the parking lot or at least the portions of
the parking lot a little differently than parking lot. And so this would provide them information if
that would be suitable. So this would be variations of how to use the property and whether that particular
variation might be
might work. So, it's looking at one of the alternatives that will be discussed. Is that a way to put
it, Anna? Are you asking when will the RDC receive information on what Structural Point has found? Yes.
Okay, to be clear. I think that there are a couple of things
Well, I guess I'm not sure. I'm not quite sure how scheduling or how coordination for the RDC works.
Forgive me if we're not doing. But I think I would expect something coming soon. But given that internally
there are still some questions that we want to run by various departments just to make sure that we've
kind of thought some things through before we presented to you. Sort of anticipating questions from you
So I don't know, I don't always like to attach a timeline on things when I don't exactly know, but as
the project manager, I would hope soon. What a great political answer. Yeah, I mean, that's fine.
I really, I just, as I say, going off the earlier discussion where there were concerns raised about
the time that's elapsed already. I'm just trying to get a sense of us. So it sounds like we're maybe
still yet to spring. Is that a fair statement? This spring? This spring. All right. Well, by the year.
I think that's reasonable. Is that reasonable? I think it's reasonable that we will have some ideas
in the near future. Yeah. OK. All right. I think that is as good as we can get right now. Thank you.
And I did want to add, I found the email, the big thing was performing a shear wave velocity test, which
is a critical first step in determining next steps in the structural evaluation of the building. Oh,
I understand that. I don't know if that's helpful or not. It sounds very official and important. It
sounds like to me it's something that anyone who wanted to do something at that site would want.
Yeah, I will not dispute the value of the information. OK. Well, I hope that explains most any other
questions or comments from commissioners. If not, I'll entertain a motion on resolution 26-27. I'll
move approval of resolution 26-27. Second. First and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you. The next item on our agenda is resolution 26-28, which is the approval of a first amendment
to the agreement with Mother Nature Landscaping, Incorporated for the Landscaping Services at the Trades
District and Trades District Garage. Would you like to speak to that? Yes. Nick Blanford, Economic and
Sustainable Development. We have discovered that trees are growing into the tree grates throughout the
Trades District. This will cause harm for future growth. It's already
damaged electrical boxes that are contained within those tree grates. We've consulted Haskell Smith,
our urban forester here with the city. Mother Nature Landscaping is capable of doing this work. They've
given us an estimate of $20,850.70. And we simply need to amend their service agreement to work within
this scope and not to exceed the quota figure. I'm trying to share right now a picture, and it is
It was up at one point, but it is not anymore. I do have some photos of those electrical boxes that
are going into the trees right now. For some reason, technology is not helping. So if I can get it up,
I'll try to while you discuss. Thank you. Just a point of clarification. And I may not be reading this
properly, but in the
Third, whereas, it mentions a bid that came in from Mother Nature at $19,275,000. In the fifth, whereas,
it's proposing that the agreement be made for $20,850.70, just trying to understand the difference between
those two numbers. 2590 was for 19,275. That was the base contract.
That's what I missed. That's what I missed. Sorry. This is an amendment. Yeah. And this is an amendment,
too. So we're in that right. Because it's in place and adding this to it to deal with the tree grades.
Yeah. Thank you. I missed the beginning of that sentence. I do have an image up if you guys want to
take a look, but there's a little box in there. So, Nick, have we learned anything in future development?
Well, the good news is that these grades are designed to be expanded.
So it's not a matter of completely ripping them up, it's a matter of removing the pavers there and basically
cutting into the grates as designed. So the lesson is to do this sooner.
Here's a place where code could be very helpful. Well actually the reason for that is when you have
a larger opening and a lot of space in between that and the tree itself it creates a trip hazard so
that's why they're designed to be opened but even though not all are overgrown there are 41 I believe
trees in the district we are going to go ahead and expand all of them so we don't have to go a second
round on this.
So would there typically in the future be some kind of schedule for, like, plant the trees, have the
tree great so it's not too big so it doesn't make a trip hazard, but then, like, every, I don't know,
two years, look at it, enlarge it? Like, what's the expected protocol and how does that differ from
what the current protocol is? That's an excellent question. I don't know that there is an established
protocol right now. So, yeah, I think we should, I think, yeah, an examination every year or two would be wise.
Okay. I assume that this is within the purview of the RDC and that's the responsibility. Yes, it is.
Those right of ways have not been accepted into the city. So it's still owned by the RDC. And so this
would fall under the good old 2602 maintenance coming out of the 251 thing. One just additional question.
I understand that the original base contractor was awarded the lowest responsive or responsible bidder
when there's an amendment such as this. Is that not subject for additional bidding? Because this is
basically more than the original contract. It is not because it's professional. It's a services agreement,
which is different than a purchase agreement. So you can select whomever you choose for services agreement.
They did a bidding process because
They felt that that was the best way to select initially. But since they built a relationship with them,
they can continue to service them. So they didn't have to the first time, but they did. And then the
second time, they didn't have to and they didn't. Well, the first time, they didn't have to and they
did. That's what I said. Yes, yes. OK. Exactly. I'm trying to follow you. Yes. OK. Well, thank you for
that clarification. Any other questions? I see we have some interest in public comment. Just want to
make sure commissioners are
I'm a member of the Tree Commission. Just introduce yourself by name, please. George Higaman.
Thank you. And Hapskell-Smith has a two-year cycle of reinspecting tree grades with respect
to the possibility of their need for renovation and enlargement. So there is a policy in place. I don't
know how it's funded. I think there are different sources of funding depending on where the site is.
It's different from around the square than in other areas, but it's complicated. OK. But it's a common
practice. Yes. OK. Thank you for that additional information. I didn't do that. Yeah, me neither. OK.
Anything else before we move for a vote? And we'll look at the motion, please. I'll move approval of
resolution 2628. Second.
For the first and the second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion for 2628 passes unanimously.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. The last item on our agenda this evening is resolution 2629,
which is the approval of a first amendment to the agreement for public art in Hopewell East.
And we have Ms. Dragovich to speak to that. Thank you. Yes.
This is for an extension of the agreement between the RDC and Bunyama, the artist John Racic, who is
fabricating and installing the Hopewell public art called Andulet. The contract and the resolution have
both expired, and so this is an extension of those dates.
The resolution would be extended to this year, December 31st. And then the contract would be extended
to September 1st of this year. We worked with the artists to find that date, and we think that it can
be achieved. They have the piece fabricated. It's really at this point finding a concrete contractor
to lay the foundation
um, letting the concrete cure for a month and then installing the fabricated art pieces. So we're really
close to the finish line. And, um, like I said, we worked with the artists to come up with that timeline
and, and we think that it's achievable. So, yeah. Any questions or comments from commissioners on resolution
2629? Well, we certainly haven't been on.
time with everything else we've done, so I think it's a perfectly good request. And there's nothing
in the discussions about possible modifications to the design of Hopewell that will change the location?
Oh, no. I don't know. Yeah. No. I wasn't here for the original resolution, so I'm not sure what this
looks like or where it's supposed to go. It's in the common area. In the commons area. In the commons
area west of
I always get Madison and Maple mixed up. Yeah. Don't ask me. That's fine. That was all, again, not having
had the background. Any other questions, comments from commissioners? Otherwise, I'll open it for public
comment. I don't see anybody online or in person except the motion on resolution 2629. Move approval
of resolution 2629.
Second. First and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you. We are now towards the end of our new business. Anything else further before we adjourn?
Seeing none, I will accept a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you all. Appreciate your time this evening.