WEBVTT 00:00:00.514 --> 00:00:07.813 - It's 5 PM. Welcome to the Redevelopment Commission meeting for Monday, May 24, 2026. We'll start the 00:00:07.813 --> 00:00:15.256 - meeting with a roll call, please. Aurene McRobbie here. Steve Scambaleri here. John West here. Deborah 00:00:15.256 --> 00:00:22.916 - Meyerson here. Directors present, please. Anna Killian-Eason, present. Christina Binley, Hand Department. 00:00:22.916 --> 00:00:30.142 - Tammy Caswell, present. Jeff McKim, City Controller, present. Kendall Kenoki, Engineering, present. 00:00:31.170 --> 00:00:42.302 - Thank you all. We will first item on our agenda is the approval of minutes from April 20th, 2026. We 00:00:42.302 --> 00:00:53.324 - have both an executive session summary and a public meeting minutes. I'm willing to take both and a 00:00:53.324 --> 00:00:58.174 - motion unless people prefer to separate it. 00:01:00.226 --> 00:01:08.312 - I'm assuming people accept both together. I'll move approval of the April 20th, 2026 executive session 00:01:08.312 --> 00:01:16.162 - summary and minutes. We've got a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes 00:01:16.162 --> 00:01:24.719 - unanimously. Next item on our agenda is the claims register from April 24th, 2026. Any comments or questions 00:01:24.719 --> 00:01:29.822 - from commissioners on this item? If not, I will accept a motion. 00:01:30.914 --> 00:01:38.700 - Move approval of the current register for April 24. Thank you. Thank you. Second. We've got a first 00:01:38.700 --> 00:01:46.486 - and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next on the agenda is the 00:01:46.486 --> 00:01:54.583 - payroll register for May 1, 2026. Any questions or comments from commissioners on the payroll register? 00:01:54.583 --> 00:02:00.734 - If not, I'll accept a motion. Move approval of the payroll register for May 1. 00:02:02.242 --> 00:02:08.693 - Second. First and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Next, we've 00:02:08.693 --> 00:02:15.144 - got reports on our agenda. We have a director's report. Just a brief update. I wanted to share with 00:02:15.144 --> 00:02:21.982 - you that the Hopewell PUD is going back to council on Wednesday. We'll talk about that a little bit more. 00:02:22.114 --> 00:02:29.827 - Kendall from Engineering will have a couple of things to discuss. Also to let you know that I was asked 00:02:29.827 --> 00:02:37.244 - by HUD to give a presentation, a spotlight, onto some of our programs. I think it was a week ago or 00:02:37.244 --> 00:02:44.735 - a week and a half ago they presented me with two awards. So it was a very nice event and I was happy 00:02:44.735 --> 00:02:49.630 - to participate, but certainly have turned around our relationship 00:02:50.754 --> 00:03:03.086 - Excellent. Congratulations. That's terrific. Do we have a legal report? Just coming up in the future, 00:03:03.086 --> 00:03:15.418 - we'll have the annual pass through resolution at the next meeting in May. And as Anna said, after the 00:03:15.418 --> 00:03:18.078 - rest of the business, 00:03:18.306 --> 00:03:25.486 - We would like to have a discussion about the Hopewell PUD and where council's at and see where the RDC's 00:03:25.486 --> 00:03:32.324 - at and talk through that. Maybe have a resolution, maybe talk about some of the things that they've 00:03:32.324 --> 00:03:39.299 - passed and haven't passed. But I think that would be a good discussion to have after the resolutions. 00:03:39.299 --> 00:03:44.222 - OK, thank you. We will return to that. Do we have a treasurer's report? 00:03:44.770 --> 00:03:51.809 - No treasurer's report today. I just wanted to let everybody know that I've been working on 00:03:51.809 --> 00:04:00.008 - kind of revitalizing and updating a report that the former controller used to provide that kind of listed 00:04:00.008 --> 00:04:04.958 - out for each of the TIF areas all your outstanding commitments. 00:04:05.090 --> 00:04:12.204 - and the expenses again against them and you know this is it's kind of an ongoing project because some 00:04:12.204 --> 00:04:19.179 - of these commitments go way way back so we're we're in the process of uh and by we I mean Christina 00:04:19.179 --> 00:04:23.294 - is in the process of updating them but our intention is to 00:04:23.426 --> 00:04:30.211 - Put them put the latest edition of the report in your next packet and actually speak to it in the Treasurer's 00:04:30.211 --> 00:04:36.379 - report at the next meeting. That was just thinking about that. I'm going to ask you, but you answer 00:04:36.379 --> 00:04:42.979 - it before I do. Thank you. Do we have a business development update? No, just a small update. As I emailed 00:04:42.979 --> 00:04:49.641 - the commissioners earlier this week, the trades district annual block party date has been set for September 00:04:49.641 --> 00:04:52.478 - 25th from 5 to 8 p.m. So mark your calendars. 00:04:53.410 --> 00:05:00.652 - have a party to go to and the public is invited. Lovely. Thank you so much. And do we have a Hopewell 00:05:00.652 --> 00:05:07.753 - engineering report? Yes, we do. So first is the lot line adjustment, which is the creation of three 00:05:07.753 --> 00:05:14.853 - lots, four units, kind of early, phase zero. That's going to get finished up this week. Probably on 00:05:14.853 --> 00:05:21.598 - Wednesday we'll have that recorded. And so the next step is for the consultant flintlock range 00:05:21.730 --> 00:05:27.615 - submit for building permits, and then those will be ready for a builder to pick up and construct whenever 00:05:27.615 --> 00:05:33.500 - that stage in the process is ready. So we're about wrapped up with that, which is great. The other update 00:05:33.500 --> 00:05:39.162 - is primary plat. So assuming everything goes well on Wednesday, we are ready to go to plan commission 00:05:39.162 --> 00:05:44.825 - in June. So fingers crossed on that. I think the last thing under consideration really doesn't affect 00:05:44.825 --> 00:05:47.934 - the plat at all. It's the affordable housing component. 00:05:48.258 --> 00:05:55.496 - So we're very excited to hopefully move forward as long as that passes on Wednesday. One thing I did 00:05:55.496 --> 00:06:02.806 - want to bring to your attention is we're trying to make some decisions here on certain aspects of the 00:06:02.806 --> 00:06:10.474 - design. And I'm going to share my screen again. But one part of that is First Street, which is, of course, 00:06:10.474 --> 00:06:14.846 - our newly reconstructed roadway adjacent to the development. 00:06:15.010 --> 00:06:20.922 - One thing we've kind of been looking at is should we go ahead and install parking on first street to 00:06:20.922 --> 00:06:26.775 - help with the needs of the new neighborhood. There's some pros and cons to that. So this is a newly 00:06:26.775 --> 00:06:32.745 - reconstructed roadway. However, as part of the build out of the subdivision, we're going to be making 00:06:32.745 --> 00:06:35.262 - some utility connections into the roadway. 00:06:35.522 --> 00:06:41.440 - There is a sanitary sewer that got crushed during construction. It's a completely separate item, but 00:06:41.440 --> 00:06:47.299 - they're going to have to go in and rebuild the sewer in the middle of that roadway. So we were kind 00:06:47.299 --> 00:06:53.334 - of, we had the consultant just take a quick look at what would it take to add parking adjacent to this 00:06:53.334 --> 00:06:59.486 - development along First Street, and they calculated about $218,000 was the expense to do that. So that's 00:06:59.650 --> 00:07:05.863 - moving the new street trees, moving the new street lights, building new pavements. So I kind of wanted 00:07:05.863 --> 00:07:12.016 - to get a temperature check about what the commissioners thought about going that route, understanding 00:07:12.016 --> 00:07:18.289 - that it's going to be an active construction site. There's very well going to have to be reconstruction 00:07:18.289 --> 00:07:24.562 - work from just damage during construction. However, probably not to this level. So there's kind of pros 00:07:24.562 --> 00:07:29.086 - and cons, and just wanted to see if I could get a little feelings on this. 00:07:29.218 --> 00:07:36.789 - Let me also just bring up that the McDowell neighborhood adjacent to Hopewell has expressed some concern 00:07:36.789 --> 00:07:44.216 - with parking and the lack thereof. These buildings, so the two Faulkner buildings that are part of the 00:07:44.216 --> 00:07:51.499 - site plan that front this first street potential parking are larger multifamily buildings that don't 00:07:51.499 --> 00:07:59.070 - have a lot of parking. So we could leave it as is, but you are already tearing up the road and sidewalk. 00:07:59.810 --> 00:08:07.192 - So is now the time to try and address that is kind of the question. OK. I'll open this up to comments 00:08:07.192 --> 00:08:14.864 - and questions from commissioners in response to either that or any other parts of the engineering report. 00:08:14.864 --> 00:08:22.391 - Can you go back to the exhibit yet? Yeah. Tell me what I'm looking at here. So this is, and that's what 00:08:22.391 --> 00:08:26.878 - I was trying to pull up, maybe to give a little more context. 00:08:29.282 --> 00:08:36.150 - So First Street currently has a tree plot and a sidewalk. And then there's kind of unused space before 00:08:36.150 --> 00:08:42.884 - you get to the right-of-way line. So what is sketched up is adding a lane of parking and then moving 00:08:42.884 --> 00:08:50.085 - the tree plot back behind that parking and then moving the sidewalk back behind that. So you're essentially 00:08:50.085 --> 00:08:56.886 - jogging your sidewalk down where the parking is and then jogging it back up. And so this would be for 00:08:56.886 --> 00:08:58.686 - this block and this block. 00:08:59.778 --> 00:09:07.786 - Correct, yeah. And this would be public parking? Yes. Public metered parking? Well, not metered. It 00:09:07.786 --> 00:09:15.794 - could be metered someday. It's up to the city, but right now we only meter in the downtown area, so 00:09:15.794 --> 00:09:24.202 - that would be a departure for that. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you said something to that effect. 00:09:24.202 --> 00:09:28.446 - So this would be public parking available to anyone? 00:09:28.706 --> 00:09:36.457 - Right. It could, you know, council could pass an ordinance to limit it to two hours. It could 00:09:36.457 --> 00:09:44.703 - be a residential permit parking zone. You know, there's a lot of things that could be done with it, 00:09:44.703 --> 00:09:52.619 - but right now, yeah, it would just be free parking. How many parking spaces looks like Kendall? 00:09:52.619 --> 00:09:57.566 - Looks like 21. Could you go back to the neighborhood? Sure. 00:09:57.762 --> 00:10:02.912 - My question is, as opposed to reconstructing First Street, which I understand that, but there's the 00:10:02.912 --> 00:10:08.319 - lane right there, which I know is supposed to be intentionally there and not have parking. But why would 00:10:08.319 --> 00:10:13.520 - you move First Street and do all the parking on First Street? Why not just at least consider whether 00:10:13.520 --> 00:10:18.772 - to widen the lane so that the parking that instead of on First Street, the next block over is on that 00:10:18.772 --> 00:10:23.973 - lane? Again, that's a kind of flintlock question, too. But I'm just trying to understand. You've got 00:10:23.973 --> 00:10:27.166 - another street that hasn't even built yet that's right there. 00:10:27.650 --> 00:10:33.338 - the parking there as opposed to redoing $200,000 worth of street that's just was just done in the last 00:10:33.338 --> 00:10:38.861 - year? It's a good question. I think part of the issue is that the right of way for first is already 00:10:38.861 --> 00:10:44.494 - there and we have it available so we can't push the buildings into that right of way. So that kind of 00:10:44.494 --> 00:10:50.459 - restricts us. There's also a lot of driveways and parking off of the lane so I'm not sure how much parallel 00:10:50.459 --> 00:10:53.662 - parking we'd actually be able to gain. Maybe a few spots. 00:10:57.794 --> 00:11:03.652 - And we're already digging it up, right? I mean, some of this we're going to pay for regardless of whether 00:11:03.652 --> 00:11:09.178 - we had parking or not. Some of it is being intentionally dug up for utility connections and things. 00:11:09.178 --> 00:11:14.814 - Others of it, you know, whenever construction, unless you're very intentional about protecting it, it 00:11:14.814 --> 00:11:20.451 - could get damaged during construction as well. So there's kind of two sides of that. Can you remember 00:11:20.451 --> 00:11:26.142 - what the deadline was in terms of doing the whole first street construction when we knew that Hopewell 00:11:26.142 --> 00:11:27.358 - South was going to be 00:11:28.194 --> 00:11:34.431 - coming up, I'm just trying to understand the kind of sequencing of the timing and all that. Oh, 00:11:34.431 --> 00:11:41.188 - like when? Like why First Street was redone first before this whole lot that we knew. I mean, obviously 00:11:41.188 --> 00:11:47.945 - all the hopefuls being redeveloped. So just help me understand why that order of operations was chosen. 00:11:47.945 --> 00:11:54.961 - It's really challenging to sequence the infrastructure versus the private development or the city-supported 00:11:54.961 --> 00:11:55.806 - development. 00:11:55.938 --> 00:12:01.342 - I know on Hopewell West we did it at the same time and that that's been a challenge because there's 00:12:01.342 --> 00:12:06.800 - been a contractor building a building and then another contractor building a road and they're all on 00:12:06.800 --> 00:12:12.528 - top of each other and who's responsible for what. That has been a challenge. First Street was a federally 00:12:12.528 --> 00:12:18.094 - funded project so we had to go through the whole tip process and of course that's you apply four years 00:12:18.094 --> 00:12:23.390 - out and then you get to it. So that was before my time but yeah sometimes though you can't really 00:12:23.554 --> 00:12:29.260 - do the infrastructure after the construction. You either have to do it during or before. And East is 00:12:29.260 --> 00:12:35.135 - a great example. We have our brand new park out there that we're going to have to try and protect while 00:12:35.135 --> 00:12:41.123 - all that redevelopment happens. And Second Street's about to be done this year. And you're kind of walled 00:12:41.123 --> 00:12:46.941 - in on what you can disturb during construction. Yeah, it's really challenging. There's not a great way 00:12:46.941 --> 00:12:48.862 - to perfect way to do it, I guess. 00:12:52.514 --> 00:12:59.334 - Just one really quick question. The 218,000 is just for moving the trees, creating the parking, moving 00:12:59.334 --> 00:13:06.485 - the sidewalk. It has nothing to do with the crushed sewer line. Is that correct? Right. That's a completely 00:13:06.485 --> 00:13:13.437 - separate issue. It's just something that's going to impact the new road as well. The crushed sewer line. 00:13:13.437 --> 00:13:20.323 - Whose responsibility is that? Because that's a new piece, and that's why I'm asking. The responsibility 00:13:20.323 --> 00:13:21.118 - is pending. 00:13:21.410 --> 00:13:27.736 - Again, it really has nothing to do with this body, but the city is asserting that the contractor damaged 00:13:27.736 --> 00:13:33.881 - it during construction. So the legal folks are talking about that. Long story short, we got a crushed 00:13:33.881 --> 00:13:39.966 - sewer line. When we put 90 plus people in here, it's going to have to be fixed. Yeah, I mean, it has 00:13:39.966 --> 00:13:45.991 - to be fixed no matter what. OK. So that's just a matter of what the responsibility goes to. At this 00:13:45.991 --> 00:13:49.726 - present moment, we've got an infrastructure that we paid for. 00:13:50.274 --> 00:13:57.228 - that as a community that has a problem. But we didn't pay for it. Well, when I say we, the community, 00:13:57.228 --> 00:14:04.454 - I want to be clear on that, not the RDC. Was that part of the federal? Yeah, I mean, that was an existing 00:14:04.454 --> 00:14:11.544 - utility that was just under there. It wasn't being replaced as part of the project, and it got crushed. 00:14:11.544 --> 00:14:18.430 - OK, so it was existing. Yes. When we hit that $218,000, we're essentially talking $10,380 per space. 00:14:19.618 --> 00:14:27.191 - for 21 spaces. And I'm not going to sit here and try to design it. What about the part right across 00:14:27.191 --> 00:14:34.915 - the street next to Core where Jackson Street is? Because Jackson Street is dead ends. I'm just asking 00:14:34.915 --> 00:14:42.639 - because we are tearing up something that is brand new. What about it? Well, can parking be put there? 00:14:42.639 --> 00:14:47.486 - Like on the empty lots? I'm asking the question just to clarify 00:14:47.586 --> 00:14:54.110 - If we don't have to tear something up and we can maintain and keep what we've already paid for. I think 00:14:54.110 --> 00:15:00.509 - the challenge is you don't have a plan for the rest. So you don't know how that might impact the rest 00:15:00.509 --> 00:15:06.845 - of it. Yeah, there's two parts of that. It's a temporary solution because we know that property will 00:15:06.845 --> 00:15:13.119 - redevelop at some point. The parking will go away. The other thing is I don't think planning allows 00:15:13.119 --> 00:15:14.750 - just parking vacant land. 00:15:14.882 --> 00:15:21.231 - So it's part of a planning process and changement of the UDO. When I say planning, it's the UDO, yeah. 00:15:21.231 --> 00:15:27.024 - Yeah, the UDO would need to be adapted accordingly because we're trying to get maximum amount 00:15:27.024 --> 00:15:33.311 - of affordability here. But it's still temporary. Well, I mean, two years from now, we could be taking 00:15:33.311 --> 00:15:39.537 - it out. Right. Well, and the PUD originally, where this road was all put together, only incorporated 00:15:39.537 --> 00:15:43.358 - approximately, what, 28 units for the area that we're talking 00:15:43.586 --> 00:15:52.676 - through the PUD at the present moment. So just so we can be clear, I realize that the 200 plus thousand 00:15:52.676 --> 00:16:01.591 - has nothing to do with the sewer line. But that all is going to get torn up to repair the sewer line, 00:16:01.591 --> 00:16:10.419 - whether we add parking or not. So the fact that we're tearing up existing road won't matter. Is that 00:16:10.419 --> 00:16:13.566 - the point? That's really why we're. 00:16:13.698 --> 00:16:22.461 - we're considering it so seriously is because we know that there's already impacts happening to this 00:16:22.461 --> 00:16:31.224 - road. I don't like adding parking to First Street particularly, but one of my concerns with the PUD 00:16:31.224 --> 00:16:40.162 - is the lack of parking. And if we can offset that with some parallel parking on the road, it's better 00:16:40.162 --> 00:16:42.878 - than I think where we are now. 00:16:44.354 --> 00:16:51.585 - The only consideration I have on parking. I hate that we have to tear something up that's brand new. 00:16:51.585 --> 00:16:58.817 - I understand the infrastructure. Because as I drive around town, I see where people cut into the new 00:16:58.817 --> 00:17:06.406 - roads. Because we only get one or two shots every 20 years to redo these. But we do have a parking garage 00:17:06.406 --> 00:17:13.566 - at some point in that particular neighborhood that can be utilized. We invested $200,000 into that. 00:17:13.954 --> 00:17:20.522 - The parking garage refurbishment, just saying, that's not the question that you're posing. It's just 00:17:20.522 --> 00:17:27.286 - something I'm wondering about. That garage needs millions of dollars worth of work. Exactly. So we know 00:17:27.286 --> 00:17:33.854 - that the garage needs investment to be sustained, even though the basic assessment so far is that it 00:17:33.854 --> 00:17:40.487 - can continue as opposed to what happened to the 4th Street garage. It is meaningful that the existing 00:17:40.487 --> 00:17:41.918 - residents in McDowell 00:17:42.594 --> 00:17:51.926 - this would benefit them at a point when there's going to be a lot of other disruption in their neighborhood. 00:17:51.926 --> 00:18:01.344 - So it also seems like a point in favor of doing that. I have a question about just parking demand prediction. 00:18:01.344 --> 00:18:10.334 - I don't see that as Flintlock's forte, per se, even though obviously they're designing the neighborhood. 00:18:10.786 --> 00:18:16.205 - and I don't know in terms of within the city, just trying to, because it's one thing to say, I already 00:18:16.205 --> 00:18:21.729 - see, should we put some parking spaces on First Street? But I don't have a good sense of how many spaces 00:18:21.729 --> 00:18:27.201 - are already in Hopewell South, what the predicted demand is, how this area in the neighborhood, whether 00:18:27.201 --> 00:18:32.462 - McDowell or adjacent neighborhoods, that's what a parking demand management study would do. And I'm 00:18:32.462 --> 00:18:38.302 - not saying we need to invest in a whole big thing, I'm just trying to get a sense of how do we get any kind of 00:18:38.434 --> 00:18:44.908 - figures about this as opposed to just, we think we need parking, which is not insignificant, but I want 00:18:44.908 --> 00:18:51.258 - something more specific, some data to say, OK, this is what we have, this is what we need, et cetera. 00:18:51.258 --> 00:18:57.483 - Well, we are more than happy to try and dig up some additional information. This is a very informal 00:18:57.483 --> 00:19:03.646 - conversation to kind of give you guys a heads up about the fact that they need to repair a crushed 00:19:03.874 --> 00:19:09.937 - sewer line, and while we're at it, do we want to take this on while we're there, or just leave it as 00:19:09.937 --> 00:19:15.999 - such? So we can decide to bring the business back to you with some additional supporting information 00:19:15.999 --> 00:19:22.182 - as much as available without spending a lot of money, because you would have to authorize the spending 00:19:22.182 --> 00:19:28.304 - of money for the study. So unless legal has a separate opinion. No, I thought it should be brought up 00:19:28.304 --> 00:19:31.966 - tonight for that very reason to see what questions you have. 00:19:32.354 --> 00:19:40.877 - so that we could answer those and bring back more information. You'll be asked to approve the overall 00:19:40.877 --> 00:19:49.566 - preliminary plat. So this would be a piece of that. So since it's not something that has been discussed 00:19:49.566 --> 00:19:58.590 - before, that's why we thought it would be important to bring it now and not wait. And so we could bring it. 00:19:58.978 --> 00:20:05.699 - back some answers to those things. And I do know that Allie has some answers to that because there is 00:20:05.699 --> 00:20:12.288 - some discussion of the parking and how many parking per unit and things like that. There is some of 00:20:12.288 --> 00:20:19.404 - that information out there. I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but we do have some information 00:20:19.404 --> 00:20:25.598 - that we can use and we can get with engineering. We can probably get some questions answered. 00:20:25.762 --> 00:20:31.866 - So yeah, that was the purpose of bringing this out early, was to make sure we could answer your, find 00:20:31.866 --> 00:20:38.150 - out what you're doing. Yeah, I think it's good timing to try and get a more specific prediction of what, 00:20:38.150 --> 00:20:44.254 - not just what the allocation is, find one and a quarter spaces per unit or whatever that may be, what 00:20:44.254 --> 00:20:50.060 - that ratio is, but what the predicted demand might be, again, especially hearing from neighbors. 00:20:50.060 --> 00:20:55.326 - And just, again, there's a bigger picture than just the acreage for the Hopewell South. 00:20:56.162 --> 00:21:02.312 - We know that parking does not necessarily commit itself to neighborhood boundaries. So trying to get 00:21:02.312 --> 00:21:08.461 - a little bit more of a handle on that to help with decision making moving forward would be terrific. 00:21:08.461 --> 00:21:14.063 - And we do know there's going to be a parking for 714 with Centerstone and things like that. 00:21:14.063 --> 00:21:20.273 - So that parking, when that gets developed, goes away, there's going to be much more parking demand in 00:21:20.273 --> 00:21:22.526 - that area for those reasons as well. 00:21:23.970 --> 00:21:30.242 - Two quick questions, one question, one comment. What's our time frame, Kendall, that this needs to be 00:21:30.242 --> 00:21:36.390 - dealt with, decided, so we can actually get it done? The sooner the better with everything. OK, are 00:21:36.390 --> 00:21:42.601 - you talking, coming back, asking for that money next, in two weeks? Well, I probably won't come back 00:21:42.601 --> 00:21:48.749 - and ask for the money until we have a contractor to award a whole contract. But I probably can come 00:21:48.749 --> 00:21:52.254 - back in two weeks with more specific information to help 00:21:52.834 --> 00:21:59.310 - maybe get some more guidance on this. OK. What I'm looking at, trying to hit your cost effective construction 00:21:59.310 --> 00:22:05.256 - schedule in order to make this happen, is hopefully we move forward in the Hopewell PUD. When you're 00:22:05.256 --> 00:22:11.143 - looking at this, are you talking six weeks, eight weeks, something done by January? I'm just trying 00:22:11.143 --> 00:22:17.089 - to get a time frame, because obviously with this crushed sewer line, there's a sense of urgency. Oh, 00:22:17.089 --> 00:22:22.270 - a timeline for construction? Yes. This would be constructed as part of everything else. 00:22:22.498 --> 00:22:30.506 - It would be. So you're talking spring, realistically. We'll have to get started this year. And then 00:22:30.506 --> 00:22:38.513 - when it comes to, this is a comment in regards to, it comes to our parking consideration. As we put 00:22:38.513 --> 00:22:46.921 - forth and we're trying to do a PUD that we get compact urban form that's walkable and close to downtown, 00:22:46.921 --> 00:22:52.126 - I hate to be concentrating on parking, parking, parking, because 00:22:52.450 --> 00:22:58.403 - If this project goes forth as it's been designed by Flintlock, we've moved it forward. The council has 00:22:58.403 --> 00:23:04.299 - started to move it forward. I don't want to get hung up on that we need tons of more parking. I don't 00:23:04.299 --> 00:23:10.484 - think we're talking about tons more parking. I think we're talking about a potentially reasonable addition 00:23:10.484 --> 00:23:16.495 - to one area. Sure. I'm good with that, 21. I'm just saying overall when we start talking about parking. 00:23:16.495 --> 00:23:20.830 - And just so it's clear, in the street sections of the PUD, it does give us 00:23:20.962 --> 00:23:28.800 - flexibility to potentially add parking to First Street if it was deemed necessary. So we just left flexible 00:23:28.800 --> 00:23:36.784 - language in there to accommodate if it came up at some point, because it had been expressed by the neighbors. 00:23:36.784 --> 00:23:44.114 - So not committing to it, but a possibility. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, I do have one more 00:23:44.114 --> 00:23:49.630 - thing. With the home builders and meeting with them, there's been a lot of, 00:23:50.082 --> 00:23:55.844 - discussions about how we can help facilitate just a really easy building process in Hopewell South. 00:23:55.844 --> 00:24:01.779 - And one of those is we were talking about right-of-way permitting, which is my department's thing, and 00:24:01.779 --> 00:24:07.944 - having all these builders out there. Normally, they would have to coordinate with us to do their closures, 00:24:07.944 --> 00:24:14.167 - maybe go to the board, all of these things. And so some strategies we came up with to maybe help facilitate 00:24:14.167 --> 00:24:17.278 - and streamline that is have the RDC's project manager 00:24:17.922 --> 00:24:24.093 - talk to all of the home builders and figure out what closures are needed, and then go to the board and 00:24:24.093 --> 00:24:30.503 - get those approved for them so they don't have to worry about them. So that's one thing we're considering. 00:24:30.503 --> 00:24:36.734 - The other thing is any kind of right of way permit fees, have those be covered by the RDC. It's really, 00:24:36.734 --> 00:24:42.905 - I mean, it's like $100 plus your closure fees. So I'm estimating like $2,000 to $5,000 total in permit 00:24:42.905 --> 00:24:47.518 - fees. But that could be something else we could do to kind of help them out. 00:24:47.746 --> 00:24:54.147 - But a much bigger item that was asked about was water and sewer connection fees. So this is something 00:24:54.147 --> 00:25:00.549 - that I'm going to bring to you more formally. But this, for 98 units, it's $4,308 per unit to connect 00:25:00.549 --> 00:25:07.075 - to our water and sewer. This covers the plant costs, the added infrastructure costs of connecting these 00:25:07.075 --> 00:25:13.790 - homes to our water filtration and sewage treatment plants. Say that figure again. $4,308 per unit. There's 00:25:13.790 --> 00:25:15.422 - 98 units, so that's $400. 00:25:15.554 --> 00:25:21.737 - and $22,184 in water and sewer connection fees that normally the builder would have to pay when they 00:25:21.737 --> 00:25:28.410 - make their taps. In this case, we are considering asking you to maybe cover those fees. That's a significant 00:25:28.410 --> 00:25:34.655 - additional investment, though. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention that we're discussing 00:25:34.655 --> 00:25:41.022 - it. That's going to come as a formal resolution maybe in two weeks or in an upcoming meeting. Just kind 00:25:41.022 --> 00:25:45.246 - of wanted to bring that to your attention. I think that's all I had. 00:25:45.730 --> 00:25:53.516 - On that same note, I've got a procedural question. When one applies for a building permit, if I heard 00:25:53.516 --> 00:26:01.379 - you right, the underlying developer, which is Fintlock, they're applying for the building permits, not 00:26:01.379 --> 00:26:09.242 - the contractor that's actually constructing the buildings? I know that's the case for the first three. 00:26:09.242 --> 00:26:12.830 - It may be the case for the entire subdivision. 00:26:13.122 --> 00:26:18.028 - But then the contractor, the license, who has the license, like the licensed plumber or the licensed 00:26:18.028 --> 00:26:23.031 - electrician, whatever, they're the ones who actually have to come pick up the permit from the building 00:26:23.031 --> 00:26:28.034 - department. Part of the building department, part of the permitting process of the building department 00:26:28.034 --> 00:26:31.774 - is that there's a sign off by a licensed plumber and a licensed electrician. 00:26:31.874 --> 00:26:37.485 - We can't dictate what the builders are going to, who they're going to use. So they would need to have 00:26:37.485 --> 00:26:43.371 - their electrician sign off or their plumber sign off, take that down to the building department to receive 00:26:43.371 --> 00:26:48.596 - their permit. So we're going to do everything up to that point. Then they would be responsible 00:26:48.596 --> 00:26:54.152 - for identifying their plumber and electrician to get the final, to pick up the final permit. OK. Are 00:26:54.152 --> 00:26:59.708 - the builders going to be responsible for buying the permit based on the square footage cost that the 00:26:59.708 --> 00:27:00.478 - permit costs? 00:27:00.834 --> 00:27:06.990 - That's not what you just said. Well, there's a lot of permitting costs to the building permit fees. 00:27:06.990 --> 00:27:13.145 - I don't know if we've discussed those yet. We haven't discussed that. I imagine this probably would 00:27:13.145 --> 00:27:19.424 - be up to each individual builder, but we would do all the legwork up until that point. So it's up for 00:27:19.424 --> 00:27:25.764 - discussion at this point, but it would be common for each builder to pay their permitting fees. Right. 00:27:25.764 --> 00:27:29.150 - Well, that's kind of what my question is, who actually 00:27:30.178 --> 00:27:38.116 - Who's the applicant? It's a pre-approved plan, so it would be Flintlock or on behalf of the city, but 00:27:38.116 --> 00:27:46.365 - then it will be them when they pick up. For each individual address? Yes. Okay. But that could be another 00:27:46.365 --> 00:27:54.147 - opportunity to cover another fee whenever the building permits. I don't even know what they are. It 00:27:54.147 --> 00:27:57.182 - lists piggy banks. Here comes Kendall. 00:27:57.890 --> 00:28:05.081 - It should be expensive, dude. You should ask me to stop coming. Now, I got to ask the question. Does 00:28:05.081 --> 00:28:12.273 - CBU have any care and consideration to help on this, because it's completely separate? Well, I think 00:28:12.273 --> 00:28:19.393 - the way they see it is they have to bear these costs one way or another. So it's essentially impact 00:28:19.393 --> 00:28:22.526 - fee for the plants to cover the additional. 00:28:31.170 --> 00:28:38.142 - And one more question which is related to just looking at the grading of the site and that is related 00:28:38.142 --> 00:28:45.456 - to the earlier request from the Council for Community Accessibility about adding as many no-step entrances 00:28:45.456 --> 00:28:52.291 - as possible not all of which would make quote-unquote accessible units but at least visitable units 00:28:52.291 --> 00:28:59.742 - and I'm just wondering if there's any kind of further insight in terms of the engineering to date that would 00:29:00.002 --> 00:29:05.800 - kind of add to that because that was kind of like the information that was needed to answer that question. 00:29:05.800 --> 00:29:11.651 - Yeah I'll probably have to update you at a future meeting. I know every accessible unit that was identified 00:29:11.651 --> 00:29:17.232 - we are providing level entry to and we've been directed to provide level entry to as many as possible. 00:29:17.232 --> 00:29:22.705 - I don't know what that number is so I'll have to get back to you on that. Okay yeah just in terms of 00:29:22.705 --> 00:29:24.222 - like bookmark of stuff that 00:29:24.322 --> 00:29:30.852 - would be helpful to come back with. It would be helpful to know if there's any differential between, 00:29:30.852 --> 00:29:37.318 - let's say, the original plat and, let's say, again, how many no-stuff entrances there could be. And 00:29:37.318 --> 00:29:44.107 - this isn't, again, just the accessible units. It's looking at making as many accessible, visitable units 00:29:44.107 --> 00:29:50.572 - as possible. So thank you. Anything else before we move on our agenda? OK. Thank you, Kendall. Yes, 00:29:50.572 --> 00:29:52.318 - thank you for your report. 00:29:52.994 --> 00:30:06.213 - Okay, so we are on to new business. We're on to Resolution 26-30, which is the approval of neighborhood 00:30:06.213 --> 00:30:16.382 - improvement grants. Would you like to speak to that? Is it okay for me to? Yes. 00:30:20.834 --> 00:30:26.953 - OK, so Angela Van Royen from HAND, happy to present to you the Neighborhood Improvement Grant funding 00:30:26.953 --> 00:30:33.252 - recommendations for this year. We did have seven applications this year. And first and foremost, I would 00:30:33.252 --> 00:30:38.891 - like to thank formally the council members who were the ones who got to make these decisions. 00:30:38.891 --> 00:30:45.310 - So first of all, we had Laurie McRobbie from the Redevelopment Commission, Tom Payne, who is the president 00:30:45.310 --> 00:30:48.190 - of the Near West Side Neighborhood Association, 00:30:48.834 --> 00:30:54.556 - Caleb Throckmorton, who is the president of the Matlock Heights Neighborhood Association, Maria McCormick, 00:30:54.556 --> 00:31:00.011 - who is from our city engineering department, and Dana Workman, who is from Public Works in the Street 00:31:00.011 --> 00:31:05.466 - and Traffic Division. So they made the recommendations for the funding of the projects that I'm going 00:31:05.466 --> 00:31:06.910 - to present to you tonight. 00:31:07.362 --> 00:31:13.221 - I'll get through this. I'm going to just hit the highlights here. So there are seven of them. 00:31:13.221 --> 00:31:19.580 - So we did, again, this year had a total budget of $30,000. And with seven applications, that meant we 00:31:19.580 --> 00:31:25.813 - had to spread things a little bit thin in certain places. But there are recommendations for funding 00:31:25.813 --> 00:31:27.870 - for all seven of these projects. 00:31:28.226 --> 00:31:34.734 - The first one is from the Bentley Court Community Association. This is the second year of a three-year 00:31:34.734 --> 00:31:41.115 - project. You also approved funding for them from last year. This is a continuation of their wildlife 00:31:41.115 --> 00:31:47.749 - corridor project along Winslow Road. And this year they were requesting $12,300. The recommended funding 00:31:47.749 --> 00:31:54.067 - is $8,000. They're at the point now that they're actually going to be installing gardens this year. 00:31:54.067 --> 00:31:55.710 - Last year it was a lot of 00:31:55.842 --> 00:32:00.766 - preparation work and getting the site prepared. So that's where they are at this stage of the project. 00:32:01.890 --> 00:32:08.477 - The second one was from the Bloomington Housing Authority Residence Council, and this is for Walnut 00:32:08.477 --> 00:32:15.064 - Woods Community Pantry makeover. There is a current pantry there, but they do not have capacity for 00:32:15.064 --> 00:32:21.718 - storage for the food that they get from Hoosier Hills, and so they need to improve the circumstances 00:32:21.718 --> 00:32:27.646 - and the infrastructure there. And so that one was recommended for full funding of $6,550. 00:32:28.930 --> 00:32:35.759 - The Gentry Estates Homeowners Association requested funds for cluster mailbox replacement. This one 00:32:35.759 --> 00:32:42.588 - was three separate locations within the neighborhood, not just the cluster mailboxes, but also this 00:32:42.588 --> 00:32:49.759 - concrete pads that they sit on, all of which were deteriorating. They requested $10,000. The recommended 00:32:49.759 --> 00:32:57.066 - funding for that one is $3,000. The Gentry Honors Homeowners Association was requesting money to refurbish 00:32:57.066 --> 00:32:58.910 - their main entrance signs. 00:32:59.330 --> 00:33:06.884 - They also requested 10,000. The recommended funding for that one is 2,600. The Prospect Hill Neighborhood 00:33:06.884 --> 00:33:14.010 - Association again this year is requesting funds for improvements in Rose Hill Cemetery. You've seen 00:33:14.010 --> 00:33:21.350 - this one in the past as well, helping to restore headstones in the cemetery. They requested 10,000 and 00:33:21.350 --> 00:33:24.414 - we're recommending 4,000 for that project. 00:33:25.634 --> 00:33:32.829 - The Sherwood Green Homeowners Association is looking to replace private street signs with ones that 00:33:32.829 --> 00:33:40.239 - are compatible with the city and reflective and much more visible and easy to read. They've had issues 00:33:40.239 --> 00:33:47.722 - with first responders, delivery drivers not being able to find their way in the neighborhood. They were 00:33:47.722 --> 00:33:52.542 - requesting $9,225. The recommended funding for that one is $3,500. 00:33:53.602 --> 00:34:00.904 - And then finally, the Spicewood Neighborhood Association requested funds for a native pollinator garden. 00:34:00.904 --> 00:34:08.136 - And they requested $2,350, and that was recommended for full funding. A 16-year-old in the neighborhood 00:34:08.136 --> 00:34:15.369 - is the one who presented that project, so we were all quite impressed with that. She's a new beekeeper, 00:34:15.369 --> 00:34:18.846 - so this would be very nice to have native plants. 00:34:19.394 --> 00:34:26.320 - So those are all the projects. Again, the total for this year is $30,000. And so I present it to you 00:34:26.320 --> 00:34:33.589 - and request that you approve the funds. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from commissioners 00:34:33.589 --> 00:34:40.652 - on resolution 26-30? I don't have any more questions. I got all my answers. One question that I should 00:34:40.652 --> 00:34:45.726 - give them. Some of these projects, of course, we weren't able to fulfill. 00:34:45.858 --> 00:34:52.262 - the matches they made. Will any of these projects fall off, or will they continue to be able to be done? 00:34:52.262 --> 00:34:58.482 - I have not heard whether or not they will. The general consensus was there were a number of them that 00:34:58.482 --> 00:35:04.825 - are HOAs, you may have noticed, that they have the ability to do special assessments or have funds that 00:35:04.825 --> 00:35:11.229 - they have on hand or reserve. So hopefully, those will go forward. If they're not able to do it, they'll 00:35:11.229 --> 00:35:15.742 - have to let us know, and we will just maybe say, hey, try again next year 00:35:15.874 --> 00:35:20.966 - more funding. If that happens, I don't want to do the 1F game, but if that's the case, would any of 00:35:20.966 --> 00:35:26.516 - that money be able to be reallocated to any of these other projects? Yes, I would say so. We could certainly 00:35:26.516 --> 00:35:31.608 - fully fund some of the others. The Bentley Court, because we've already, the thought was that we've 00:35:31.608 --> 00:35:36.955 - already invested a lot in this one from the first year, so we want to make sure that they can accomplish 00:35:36.955 --> 00:35:42.098 - that. We could bump that one up. Also, Prospect Hills, certainly Rose Hill Cemetery could always use 00:35:42.098 --> 00:35:45.662 - more money for Headstone, so that would be an easy one to reallocate. 00:35:46.050 --> 00:35:52.664 - Or some of the others who just didn't get as much, we could just give it to them. So yeah. Yeah. Yeah, 00:35:52.664 --> 00:35:59.149 - thank you. Angela, does the expectation for the neighborhood match amount remain the same regardless 00:35:59.149 --> 00:36:05.570 - of what level we fund at? Yeah, it has to be 10% minimum. That's all. It doesn't have to be as much 00:36:05.570 --> 00:36:12.184 - as what they, well, for some of them it'll be more if they go through the project and we haven't given 00:36:12.184 --> 00:36:14.046 - them what they've requested. 00:36:15.650 --> 00:36:22.170 - So the neighborhood match amounts are what we see here? The neighborhood match amounts are the amount 00:36:22.170 --> 00:36:28.881 - that they budgeted for with full funding. Yes. Yes, that's how that works. That was the original numbers 00:36:28.881 --> 00:36:35.337 - that they presented. So they'll either do smaller projects or invest more of their own dollars. Yes, 00:36:35.337 --> 00:36:41.985 - exactly. Yeah. Got it. Thank you. The spice wood, that's going to help the other gardens that are being 00:36:41.985 --> 00:36:44.478 - vented, because we've got pollinators. 00:36:44.866 --> 00:36:51.447 - can't go wrong. Absolutely. Absolutely. Angela, do you ever encounter neighborhoods that are raising 00:36:51.447 --> 00:36:58.027 - money elsewhere from beyond their own HOA or that are just seeking grant funds from some other grant 00:36:58.027 --> 00:37:04.673 - entity? Not too much. Bentley Court did talk about that to look for other places for funding, whether 00:37:04.673 --> 00:37:11.710 - from private businesses or I'm not sure exactly where they would, but that is something they did discuss as 00:37:12.258 --> 00:37:19.072 - a possibility if they didn't have full funding. But generally, neighborhoods, I think, just don't really 00:37:19.072 --> 00:37:25.627 - know where to start oftentimes, because this is a grassroots kind of project, and they're not really 00:37:25.627 --> 00:37:32.181 - all about fundraising. So I guess it would depend on the nature of the project and how big it is and 00:37:32.181 --> 00:37:38.735 - how invested they are in it. Yeah. Rose Hill is one that conceivably could find other sources, and I 00:37:38.735 --> 00:37:42.110 - think has in the past. I think the Monroe County is 00:37:42.658 --> 00:37:50.188 - Historical Society Center has provided funding for that. So that's a very long-term ongoing need. So. 00:37:50.188 --> 00:37:57.792 - Yeah, this is just the neighborhood, local neighborhood that's trying to help out. It's trying to help 00:37:57.792 --> 00:38:05.470 - out. Yeah, they certainly have lots of need there. No one's going to walk through Rose Hill. You should 00:38:05.470 --> 00:38:11.966 - go walk through because it has significant Monroe County and Bloomington history in it. 00:38:12.098 --> 00:38:18.723 - And the peonies are stunning right now. There's been a lot of time walking in that one, and as you look, 00:38:18.723 --> 00:38:24.591 - it gives you a good sense of where we came from, and we've got to maintain it. Thank you for 00:38:24.591 --> 00:38:30.900 - the presentation. Before I put this up for a vote, I'm just going to say that I am going to abstain 00:38:30.900 --> 00:38:37.273 - from this. I have an ownership interest at Sherwood Green, and so I'm not going to put myself in the 00:38:37.273 --> 00:38:41.374 - vote. But that said, I will accept a motion for resolution 26-30 00:38:41.506 --> 00:38:50.632 - I'll move approval resolution 26-30. I'll second. First and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. And 00:38:50.632 --> 00:38:59.757 - one abstention. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. OK. We are now opening the public hearing 00:38:59.757 --> 00:39:02.558 - for resolution 26-31, which is 00:39:02.690 --> 00:39:08.990 - A resolution modifying and confirming a declaratory resolution of the city of Bloomington Redevelopment 00:39:08.990 --> 00:39:15.472 - Commission designating and declaring a certain area as an economic development area, approving an economic 00:39:15.472 --> 00:39:21.954 - development plan for the said area, establishing a residential housing program in said area, and regarding 00:39:21.954 --> 00:39:28.072 - related matters in the summit district economic development area. Who would like to speak to that? I 00:39:28.072 --> 00:39:29.950 - would like to speak with that. 00:39:30.498 --> 00:39:39.748 - This has finally come full circle. Back in March, March 2nd, this commission approved and adopted resolution 00:39:39.748 --> 00:39:48.658 - 2617, which was the declaratory resolution that designated an area known as the Summit District Economic 00:39:48.658 --> 00:39:57.399 - Development Area as an economic development area pursuant to Indiana code, and also designating a part 00:39:57.399 --> 00:40:00.030 - of that as an allocation area. 00:40:00.354 --> 00:40:09.878 - That allocation area was Shasta Meadows as part of the Summit District. This is on the west side next 00:40:09.878 --> 00:40:19.215 - to Wimmer Road, and it is the first neighborhood of five in there to be developed. And since it was 00:40:19.215 --> 00:40:22.110 - to be developed residentially, 00:40:22.242 --> 00:40:32.766 - This would be considered a residential allocation area. So it would have what the statute calls a residential 00:40:32.766 --> 00:40:42.334 - housing development program. After being approved here, it went to the city of Bloomington advisory 00:40:42.786 --> 00:40:53.628 - Plan Commission, and on April 13th, 2026, it was approved by Resolution Z0206-04005. And they determined 00:40:53.628 --> 00:41:04.160 - that the declaratory resolution and plan did conform with the plan of the development for the city of 00:41:04.160 --> 00:41:05.502 - Bloomington. 00:41:05.602 --> 00:41:15.338 - and they designated central resolution as a written order of the planning commission approving 00:41:15.338 --> 00:41:25.587 - the declaratory resolution. And then on April 22nd of 2026, pursuant to code, the common council of 00:41:25.587 --> 00:41:31.326 - the city of Bloomington adopted resolution number 22-08 00:41:31.426 --> 00:41:52.749 - and approve the declaratory resolution, the plan, and the plan commission order. So then on May 20, 00:41:52.749 --> 00:42:01.278 - 2024, OK, this is why I went back down. 00:42:01.538 --> 00:42:09.799 - I'll put this in here to make sure that everybody understood the purpose of doing this TIF area. Back 00:42:09.799 --> 00:42:18.141 - on May 20th of 2024, the Common Council of the City of Bloomington, by ordinance 2020-407, created the 00:42:18.141 --> 00:42:26.078 - Summit District Planned Unit Development, whose boundaries coincide with the Summit District EDA. 00:42:26.178 --> 00:42:32.894 - And the PUD plan, as it was approved by common council, states that the summit district development, 00:42:32.894 --> 00:42:39.743 - quote, is necessarily dependent upon the city of Bloomington's support concerning utility capacity and 00:42:39.743 --> 00:42:46.525 - expansion, as well as developing funding sources, including tax incremental financing to support road 00:42:46.525 --> 00:42:49.118 - and related infrastructure completion. 00:42:51.554 --> 00:43:02.219 - Since the declaratory resolution was approved here on March 2nd, on March 4th, House Enrollment Act 00:43:02.219 --> 00:43:12.991 - number 1001 was passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor. And it made a change when 00:43:12.991 --> 00:43:20.030 - a determination of a residential TIF would occur when it expired. 00:43:20.130 --> 00:43:29.836 - The date that that law comes into effect would be July 1st of 2026. Also wanted to make sure that it 00:43:29.836 --> 00:43:39.541 - was noted that part of the Summit District economic development area is part of the consolidated TIF 00:43:39.541 --> 00:43:48.478 - at the very part. And when you create this TIF, it will be removed from the consolidated TIF 00:43:48.578 --> 00:44:01.350 - And this is a TIF in and of itself. The hearing was published for tonight. And we followed all of the 00:44:01.350 --> 00:44:14.123 - steps required to get to this point. So this is not only modifying the declaratory resolution because 00:44:14.123 --> 00:44:16.126 - of that change, 00:44:16.258 --> 00:44:25.889 - And what the modification is is related to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the declaratory resolution, which 00:44:25.889 --> 00:44:35.902 - strikes the end sentence of those and inserts this. The program shall expire on the earlier of 25 years. 00:44:36.034 --> 00:44:43.412 - after the date on which the first obligation is incurred to pay principal interest on bonds or lease 00:44:43.412 --> 00:44:50.864 - rentals on leases payable from tax increment revenues from the program or the date on which said bond 00:44:50.864 --> 00:44:58.242 - obligations or lease rentals are satisfied. So it's the earliest of those two dates is when it would 00:44:58.242 --> 00:45:01.310 - expire. So that is the difference between 00:45:01.762 --> 00:45:10.841 - the declaratory resolution as it stood and how it's being modified by the confirmatory resolution tonight. 00:45:10.841 --> 00:45:19.327 - So we'll have the public hearing where you'll hear public comment. You're free to discuss it before 00:45:19.327 --> 00:45:25.182 - you open public comment or open for public comment and then discuss. 00:45:25.314 --> 00:45:33.754 - And we would hope that you would take action tonight to approve this modifying and confirmatory resolution. 00:45:33.754 --> 00:45:41.881 - Thank you for that presentation. And we do have, when it comes to if you have questions, we have Justin 00:45:41.881 --> 00:45:50.320 - Chang from Reedy Financial is here tonight, as well as your staff. OK. So we'll open it first for questions 00:45:50.320 --> 00:45:54.462 - and comments from commissioners on resolution 26-31. 00:46:02.786 --> 00:46:15.643 - Will we determined or have an estimate as to what the entire TIF area will actually result? What will 00:46:15.643 --> 00:46:28.373 - the TIF funding be over the, either the, I guess the length, if it's bonded, then it would be for 25 00:46:28.373 --> 00:46:29.886 - years? Yes. 00:46:30.562 --> 00:46:45.270 - Community Financial has been working on a report on that. And so I could pull it up. I guess, would 00:46:45.270 --> 00:46:59.390 - you like to give some preliminary? There we go. Yeah, so for Shasta Meadows, we're applying it. 00:46:59.490 --> 00:47:07.994 - This is a few years of building out. We're projecting a three-year build out. So we'll start collecting 00:47:07.994 --> 00:47:16.170 - TIF revenues in 2029, starting at about $200,000 for Shasta Meadows, and reaching full construction 00:47:16.170 --> 00:47:24.428 - in 2032. So 2032 will be the first year that we receive the full year of TIF revenues, and that will 00:47:24.428 --> 00:47:25.982 - be about $700,000. 00:47:26.818 --> 00:47:34.437 - Like Dana mentioned, 25-year TIF life. We won't receive $700,000 for 25 years if we issue the bonds. 00:47:34.437 --> 00:47:41.830 - Let's say in 2027, we'll only get 25 years when we issue that bond. So something to keep in mind. 00:47:41.830 --> 00:47:49.600 - Thank you. The bond issue, as far as when we look for any of the infrastructure improvements and such, 00:47:49.600 --> 00:47:55.710 - the allocation time frame is not from here. It's from when the bonds are issued. 00:47:55.874 --> 00:48:02.208 - Yes, when they close on the closing date. When they close on the date, that is our 25 years that we 00:48:02.208 --> 00:48:08.796 - would maximize in regards to? Yes, the clock. The clock would tick at that point, not starting tonight? 00:48:08.796 --> 00:48:15.130 - No. OK. Just want to verify that. And then quick question for Dana in regards to the House Enrolled 00:48:15.130 --> 00:48:21.464 - Act 1001. What's the pro and con in regards to it? Because obviously, we need to have this in place 00:48:21.464 --> 00:48:23.998 - prior to July 1st. Well, we would wait. 00:48:24.098 --> 00:48:31.451 - It does say in here that this will become effective on July 1st. That way, it becomes effective when 00:48:31.451 --> 00:48:39.242 - this law becomes effective. Otherwise, right now, under the current law, it's 20 years. That's the change. 00:48:39.242 --> 00:48:46.595 - Yeah, so that's the change. Another change that they made that was drastic, next year, in the middle 00:48:46.595 --> 00:48:52.638 - of next year, it was supposed to go back to the old way of doing residential TIFs. 00:48:53.058 --> 00:49:00.376 - And they totally struck that part of the statute out. And so we're staying with the way the statute 00:49:00.376 --> 00:49:07.695 - reads now with adding this expiration term is the way it reads now. Could read something different. 00:49:07.695 --> 00:49:15.232 - So when we do it on July 1st, we're setting, we're set up where we can fund the infrastructure through 00:49:15.232 --> 00:49:19.038 - the TIF 25 years from the date of the bond closing. 00:49:19.170 --> 00:49:25.942 - And the number of the bond closing, we don't even know what the bond is at this particular time. We 00:49:25.942 --> 00:49:32.917 - do not know yet. We do not at that. That's still an unknown. We'll have to come back. Right. And we'll 00:49:32.917 --> 00:49:39.757 - be bringing that report to you in the near future. It just came out. And internally, we haven't even 00:49:39.757 --> 00:49:46.597 - had a chance to look through it and see what questions we have. But we will be bringing that to you. 00:49:46.597 --> 00:49:48.222 - And Andy actually does. 00:49:48.482 --> 00:49:55.872 - look out for all five neighborhoods and what the entire thing would look like. So we can expect that 00:49:55.872 --> 00:50:03.555 - within the next month or two. OK. And then with that, since we've already went and approved some dollars 00:50:03.555 --> 00:50:10.945 - in the previous resolutions to try to get the engineering and things going, are we moving forward in 00:50:10.945 --> 00:50:16.286 - regards to that even as we approve this? Yes. Or potentially approve it? 00:50:16.514 --> 00:50:23.713 - Yes, we're moving forward with getting agreements for the design of the infrastructure to bring back. 00:50:23.713 --> 00:50:31.052 - This may be a question that Kendall's gone. So how long does it take to actually get some of that taken 00:50:31.052 --> 00:50:38.180 - care of, looked at, so we can actually see if we can get something eroded or something? I don't know 00:50:38.180 --> 00:50:45.238 - the answer. I'm so sorry. No, I figured with Kendall gone. That's a question for him. We'll hit him 00:50:45.238 --> 00:50:46.014 - next time. 00:50:46.178 --> 00:50:52.403 - Yes, nine months, but I don't know. Okay. Well, I'm just, as we look at our housing shortage and the 00:50:52.403 --> 00:50:58.628 - things we're looking at, and we talk about these things, you know, from a personal standpoint, those 00:50:58.628 --> 00:51:04.791 - timelines to try to get our public infrastructure in. Yeah. And of course, the assessed value won't 00:51:04.791 --> 00:51:10.954 - go up until the built out and things like that. So it'll take time. So we'll, but one of the things 00:51:10.954 --> 00:51:12.926 - is that the bonds can pay back. 00:51:13.026 --> 00:51:22.697 - if necessary. So there's different ways that it can be structured. Plus, it looks like one of the other 00:51:22.697 --> 00:51:31.995 - neighborhoods may even get started as, well, this one's still in process. So, you know, we can look 00:51:31.995 --> 00:51:39.806 - at that as well. We decided doing only this residential TIF first because the other 00:51:40.322 --> 00:51:47.840 - A couple of the other areas have commercial areas, and it may be that we want to look at them differently 00:51:47.840 --> 00:51:54.933 - because of that and see what method might be best. And this change just happening in March is being 00:51:54.933 --> 00:52:02.593 - looked at to see how this really affects, because the timing has been a major change between the difference 00:52:02.593 --> 00:52:09.118 - between residential and commercial. Now that this has moved to 25 years, that kind of makes 00:52:09.954 --> 00:52:18.152 - They're not as different. So we've got to start looking at that a little harder, what the real difference 00:52:18.152 --> 00:52:26.117 - is. What the financial impact will be. Yeah. OK. Thank you. OK. There's no other questions or comments 00:52:26.117 --> 00:52:33.928 - from commissioners. We'll open it for public comment. Any public comment on resolution 26-31 as part 00:52:33.928 --> 00:52:39.806 - of the public hearing? Anything online? Seeing none, I will invite a motion 00:52:41.186 --> 00:52:50.592 - for approval. Roll approval of resolution 26-31. Second. First and a second, aye. I need to abstain 00:52:50.592 --> 00:52:59.999 - from this vote because I am an adjoining property on it. OK. Thank you. OK. So we have a move and a 00:52:59.999 --> 00:53:09.405 - second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All in favor and one abstention. Thank you. OK. We are now on to 00:53:09.405 --> 00:53:10.910 - other business. 00:53:11.362 --> 00:53:20.385 - Oh, sorry, close the public hearing. Yes, that is the conclusion of the public hearing. Thanks. Don't 00:53:20.385 --> 00:53:29.497 - want to open it and not close it. Okay, so we're now on to other businesses or any other business that 00:53:29.497 --> 00:53:38.432 - would be before the RDC this evening. Would you like for me to start? Sure. Okay. I can start screen 00:53:38.432 --> 00:53:41.086 - share. Okay. I have drafted a 00:53:41.634 --> 00:53:51.488 - or several of us have been working on a draft of a potential resolution. This is in regards to Hopewell 00:53:51.488 --> 00:54:00.963 - South and the PUD. As you know, the council has met several times on this already, and you've had a 00:54:00.963 --> 00:54:08.638 - work session with them. And so put together a resolution to try to see if we can 00:54:09.826 --> 00:54:18.306 - Make sure what you're OK with that they've passed and what you're not and what your thoughts are on 00:54:18.306 --> 00:54:27.125 - the things that are still up and being debated, because they meet in two days. And to get your feelings 00:54:27.125 --> 00:54:35.774 - would be important. We don't have to pass it as a resolution. We can look at each thing individually. 00:54:35.906 --> 00:54:43.429 - And you could vote on them or not vote on them or have a discussion. It's up to you how you'd want to 00:54:43.429 --> 00:54:51.320 - do it. I felt that this was the best way. One of the reasons is because there is that legal debate between 00:54:51.320 --> 00:54:59.137 - what is a reasonable condition and what is an amendment. Many of the things that they passed, I honestly, 00:54:59.137 --> 00:55:03.710 - my honest legal opinion, and I strongly feel, are amendments. 00:55:04.258 --> 00:55:13.600 - And the case law shows that the council cannot do an amendment unilaterally, that it has to be agreed 00:55:13.600 --> 00:55:23.034 - to by the petitioner. And by doing a resolution and at least giving acknowledgement or at least giving 00:55:23.034 --> 00:55:32.926 - acknowledgement that you're OK with doing it, the Misty Woods case shows clearly that that would be enough. 00:55:33.154 --> 00:55:45.089 - to acquiescence to the amendments for them to be valid. So I think this would help just keep any of, 00:55:45.089 --> 00:55:57.733 - by doing this, it makes whether it's a reasonable condition or an amendment irrelevant, because it doesn't 00:55:57.733 --> 00:56:01.278 - matter. You both agree on it. 00:56:01.474 --> 00:56:07.959 - kind of just trying to make it easy. I don't know if you can. Can you enlarge that document? 00:56:07.959 --> 00:56:15.211 - Enlarge that. Are there hard copies of this available? I know that we've got a copy. We've made several 00:56:15.211 --> 00:56:22.394 - changes since that went out. I thought the hard copies reflected the changes. Oh, you've printed a new 00:56:22.394 --> 00:56:29.297 - one? Mm-hmm. OK. So do these hard copies reflect the most recent changes? OK. Thank you very much. 00:56:29.297 --> 00:56:30.622 - Thank you. So the. 00:56:31.682 --> 00:56:44.821 - First part of the resolution is the normal whereas clauses that we talk about how Hopewell South came 00:56:44.821 --> 00:56:57.959 - along. So you have seen all of those before on the first page. On the second page, the second whereas 00:56:57.959 --> 00:57:01.566 - clause is where we pick up. 00:57:01.730 --> 00:57:09.463 - Because, well, the first one there is where you passed. By determination 25-152, the RDC determined 00:57:09.463 --> 00:57:17.351 - that rezoning Hopewell South blocks 8, 9, and 10 to a PUD would further the public's best interest in 00:57:17.351 --> 00:57:25.470 - redevelopment of Hopewell South. Then whereas the common council has voted and passed certain conditions 00:57:25.470 --> 00:57:31.038 - pending the council's overall approval or denial of Hopewell South PUD, 00:57:31.618 --> 00:57:41.656 - Then I talk about the legal issue there on what's classified as reasonable condition or an amendment. 00:57:41.656 --> 00:57:51.596 - And this would eliminate that debate. And I point out that there are some continuing conditions that 00:57:51.596 --> 00:58:00.158 - are being debated. And so put in some language that we can play with as we move along. 00:58:00.322 --> 00:58:11.205 - And the last whereas is just that you wish to express what your positions are on what's being pending 00:58:11.205 --> 00:58:22.301 - and what has been already passed. So the one you just reaffirm your support for the project is overall. 00:58:22.301 --> 00:58:28.062 - Number two is where it goes through what actually was 00:58:33.058 --> 00:58:48.462 - that I added to that that doesn't appear for some reason. I had added to number two, I'd added something 00:58:48.462 --> 00:58:57.118 - to it. It's important, so give me please give me a second. 00:59:08.546 --> 00:59:16.997 - want me to start going over the reasonable conditions while you look for number two? So several of the 00:59:16.997 --> 00:59:25.366 - items the city council has already voted on. And so some of those include items that really would not 00:59:25.366 --> 00:59:32.094 - be an amendment to the overall PUD. And so those are the things that I think he's 00:59:32.258 --> 00:59:38.238 - got here as accepting those items that have already been approved. Reasonable condition number one, 00:59:38.238 --> 00:59:44.277 - as permitted under state law, the allowed use table will be amended to reflect the project goals. We 00:59:44.277 --> 00:59:50.735 - did that early on after plan commission, so that seems like a moot point at this time. Reasonable condition 00:59:50.735 --> 00:59:56.774 - two, a rational phasing plan will be created. We did have a phasing plan in the PUD. We just further 00:59:56.774 --> 01:00:01.438 - clarified that again with an additional exhibit, but it was already in there. 01:00:01.602 --> 01:00:09.037 - a reasonable condition, eight. The PUD street standards and street sections will be updated to reflect 01:00:09.037 --> 01:00:16.400 - a six foot minimum sidewalk width for all streets except for Rogers streets and lanes. So that was an 01:00:16.400 --> 01:00:23.762 - increase to the size of the sidewalk, but it did not cost us any units. So it was something that they 01:00:23.762 --> 01:00:28.382 - had issued as a reasonable condition and did vote to pass that. 01:00:28.962 --> 01:00:34.633 - On reasonable condition nine, the sidewalks bisecting block nine in the east, west, and north, south 01:00:34.633 --> 01:00:40.247 - directions will be updated to reflect a minimum width of eight feet. These sidewalks shall be fully 01:00:40.247 --> 01:00:46.086 - within either the public right of way. The pedestrian and bicycle easement right of way dedication will 01:00:46.086 --> 01:00:49.118 - be increased as necessary to accommodate this change. 01:00:50.338 --> 01:00:57.082 - The one change that they had made at the council meeting was that this particular reasonable condition 01:00:57.082 --> 01:01:03.695 - would have taken out several accessible parking spaces. It wouldn't have cost us units, but it would 01:01:03.695 --> 01:01:10.702 - have cost us spaces. And so the author of the resolution was willing to modify it to say that the sidewalk 01:01:10.702 --> 01:01:17.708 - running north and south may be narrowed as necessary to accommodate the planned accessible parking spaces. 01:01:17.708 --> 01:01:19.934 - So we didn't lose anything there. 01:01:20.194 --> 01:01:27.042 - It will cost us more money, but we didn't lose anything there. Reasonable condition 10 be the PUD street 01:01:27.042 --> 01:01:33.564 - standards and street sections, including the Wiley Street and Jackson Creek Streets. Cross sections 01:01:33.564 --> 01:01:40.086 - will be updated as necessary to reflect a tree plot minimum width of five feet, located between the 01:01:40.086 --> 01:01:45.630 - sidewalk and drive lane for all portions of the right of way located within the PUD. 01:01:46.690 --> 01:01:53.778 - two, and block eight on the north side of Wiley Street, the sidewalk may be immediately adjacent to 01:01:53.778 --> 01:02:01.008 - the street for a portion of the block as necessary to accommodate the existing building if preserved. 01:02:01.008 --> 01:02:08.380 - So that speaks to the 714 South Rogers building and how if they were to widen the sidewalk in the right 01:02:08.380 --> 01:02:15.326 - of way, it would go into the actual building. So this is just jogging around that little bump out 01:02:16.322 --> 01:02:22.525 - The right-of-way dedication will be increased as necessary to accommodate these changes. And then front 01:02:22.525 --> 01:02:28.967 - stop backs along Wiley and Block 9 may be decreased as necessary to accommodate the additional right-of-way 01:02:28.967 --> 01:02:34.932 - dedication. For reasonable condition 12, the Rogers Street cross section will be updated to reflect 01:02:34.932 --> 01:02:41.374 - the design requirements of the transportation plan, including a five-foot tree plot and a 10-foot sidewalk. 01:02:41.602 --> 01:02:51.200 - We had put in the PUD a minimum of five feet, just with flexible language, because we really didn't 01:02:51.200 --> 01:03:01.854 - know what the situation was. So it's not going to cost us more money, but it doesn't affect the plan terribly. 01:03:02.466 --> 01:03:07.920 - that we feel like is okay. And block A, in the immediate proximity to the stairwell of the existing 01:03:07.920 --> 01:03:13.483 - building, the width of either the tree plot or sidewalk may be reduced to grading or design elements, 01:03:13.483 --> 01:03:19.155 - making it physically challenging to maintain the width specified in paragraph one. Reasonable condition 01:03:19.155 --> 01:03:24.991 - 14, petitioner will work with the city of Bloomington Engineering, Planning and Transportation departments 01:03:24.991 --> 01:03:28.318 - to design the lanes with a target speed of 10 miles an hour. 01:03:28.770 --> 01:03:35.868 - utilizing design elements intended to create a low speed and high comfort environment for vulnerable 01:03:35.868 --> 01:03:42.896 - road users. So that was a more recent addition. That's a change since we've met as a group with the 01:03:42.896 --> 01:03:50.205 - council. That is true. I believe Hopi was the council member that introduced that particular reasonable 01:03:50.205 --> 01:03:57.022 - condition. And they did, I believe, vote to adopt that. Now, those are the things that they have 01:03:58.466 --> 01:04:08.020 - voted on, agreed to, and we feel like are not a huge deal. Certain elements will certainly cost us more 01:04:08.020 --> 01:04:17.298 - money, but they are not costing us units. They're not a big amendment to the plan. So it seems to be 01:04:17.298 --> 01:04:26.485 - OK. Now, number three. Well, let's go back to the top. OK, sure. I'm not a fan of Google Docs. What 01:04:26.485 --> 01:04:28.414 - I put in there left. 01:04:28.930 --> 01:04:37.473 - try to revive it. So what it says, the conditions that the because wanted to make a point that in that 01:04:37.473 --> 01:04:45.933 - work session, we all understood that this was going to cost extra in design and in construction costs 01:04:45.933 --> 01:04:54.974 - to make these changes. So this is just acknowledging that the conditions that the Common Council have placed 01:04:55.458 --> 01:05:02.674 - on the Hopewell South PUD will cause additional costs in design and construction costs, especially those 01:05:02.674 --> 01:05:09.545 - related to the widening of sidewalks and right-of-ways. However, to move this critical neighborhood 01:05:09.545 --> 01:05:16.761 - development along for affordable housing for our residents, the RDC will accept the following conditions 01:05:16.761 --> 01:05:23.358 - placed on the Hopewell South PUD. It would have been less expensive to go with PUD as it stood, 01:05:24.354 --> 01:05:31.411 - These are things that the council would like to put in and, again, to negotiate. These are things that 01:05:31.411 --> 01:05:38.537 - you discussed and you would be willing to move forward with. If we could pause at that. I want to, just 01:05:38.537 --> 01:05:45.526 - before we move on to the rest of this, just pause for any questions or comments from commissioners on 01:05:45.526 --> 01:05:52.926 - this section, just because it's saying that RTC accepts this. I want to make sure that's actually the case. 01:06:00.418 --> 01:06:06.091 - My question in regards to it, we went through, you've just read some of the ones we all have an agreeance 01:06:06.091 --> 01:06:11.443 - on without a question. And while, yes, it may cost more, we've talked about that. Why put it in and 01:06:11.443 --> 01:06:16.901 - say, well, we'd love to do it cheaper? But these conditions create that. So if we're agreeing to them 01:06:16.901 --> 01:06:22.574 - in order to get our unit count up, keep our affordability what we can, and still be able to work together 01:06:22.574 --> 01:06:28.193 - for the benefit of the community to put that kind of in, we know it's going to cost more, and it's based 01:06:28.193 --> 01:06:30.334 - on the council creating that situation. 01:06:30.466 --> 01:06:37.791 - I mean, we brought the PUD up. So I don't feel comfortable saying, from my standpoint, saying as a member 01:06:37.791 --> 01:06:44.839 - that, well, it would have been cheaper if you guys hadn't put these conditions on. That said, I would 01:06:44.839 --> 01:06:52.371 - be interested in some transparency. Is there any cost analysis to compare what the additional infrastructure 01:06:52.371 --> 01:06:53.822 - upgrades would cost? 01:06:53.954 --> 01:07:00.462 - I feel like that's, even if it's not up for debate, I think for transparency purposes, it would be valid 01:07:00.462 --> 01:07:06.722 - to include somewhere. Sure. I think the sidewalk widening was a piece that I think Ali had clarified 01:07:06.722 --> 01:07:12.919 - early on, that it was an additional 20% worth of sidewalk concrete. So I don't have specific costs. 01:07:12.919 --> 01:07:19.241 - And I think that's one of the challenging things, is here we're debating affordability. We don't have 01:07:19.241 --> 01:07:22.526 - a cost yet. How can you commit to a number that it's 01:07:22.786 --> 01:07:30.271 - you have no idea to. So that's one of the challenges right now. That's also why we're saying, yes, we're 01:07:30.271 --> 01:07:37.614 - OK with it, in theory, but every little thing affects affordability in the long term. So it's not that 01:07:37.614 --> 01:07:44.742 - we're saying no. It's not that we're criticizing it. But it is accounting. If you're looking at the 01:07:44.742 --> 01:07:47.166 - balance sheet, it is a deduction. 01:07:50.434 --> 01:07:57.218 - And again, this is a draft, so it's your resolution, so you can modify it in any manner that you so 01:07:57.218 --> 01:08:04.001 - choose. I just look at that as kind of like, well, we were going to give you something else because 01:08:04.001 --> 01:08:10.921 - of it having to go through a PUD process. Well, it is a fact that what we brought was less expensive. 01:08:10.921 --> 01:08:18.179 - And that was the overall goal, to bring as many attainable, affordable units as possible and demonstrating 01:08:18.179 --> 01:08:20.350 - what might happen if we were to 01:08:20.898 --> 01:08:26.349 - change some of the things in the UDO, to address it in a different way, to demonstrate how we might 01:08:26.349 --> 01:08:31.801 - be able to bring more attainable ownership or units to Bloomington, period. So it is a piece of it. 01:08:31.801 --> 01:08:37.361 - And it's not meant to be inflammatory. I didn't author it, but. I'm not looking for inflammatory. I'm 01:08:37.361 --> 01:08:42.976 - just looking to take something else out that doesn't create anything that causes any additional thing. 01:08:42.976 --> 01:08:46.846 - Because we have to work together. Any additional what? Any additional. 01:08:47.714 --> 01:08:56.300 - push back in regards to it. We've got, we've got. And this is just reading it into the record to state 01:08:56.300 --> 01:09:04.720 - that these are additional costs, but we're agreed. And to be completely transparent, we're saying it 01:09:04.720 --> 01:09:13.307 - most likely will cost me. So if you want transparency, if you want to, if you want to maybe modify the 01:09:13.307 --> 01:09:14.974 - language will cause 01:09:15.138 --> 01:09:22.189 - Maybe you would soften that by saying, well, most likely cause, because we haven't done the other. There's 01:09:22.189 --> 01:09:28.910 - no question it will cause more. Well, then I don't know what the issue is. I think we leave it as is. 01:09:28.910 --> 01:09:35.763 - All right. OK. I think that's kind of. I thought it was placating somebody's concern. No, I understand. 01:09:35.763 --> 01:09:42.814 - Just a concern, because we're not through a PV process yet. Sure. Just in comments I had heard, and I did. 01:09:42.914 --> 01:09:49.866 - Again, it's your resolution. No. The parallel is if we were, and we are not, if we were accepting something 01:09:49.866 --> 01:09:56.561 - that reduced the number of units, we would be saying that. Right. We wouldn't say something most likely 01:09:56.561 --> 01:10:02.998 - to reduce it. Yeah. It's a very simple question. To me, this is a fair thing to do. Well, and to be 01:10:02.998 --> 01:10:10.014 - perfectly honest, the item that's left for discussion is affordability. And I think that it's very difficult 01:10:11.234 --> 01:10:17.060 - for everyone to understand that we don't know what the costs are. It's hard to commit. We've put very 01:10:17.060 --> 01:10:22.942 - loose language into the PUD about making sure that we're complying with the standards, but not pinning 01:10:22.942 --> 01:10:29.110 - it down yet because we don't have those exact costs, not because we're not trying to deliver affordability, 01:10:29.110 --> 01:10:34.993 - not because we're trying to target 120% of their median income, because we don't know yet. And in this 01:10:34.993 --> 01:10:36.478 - geopolitical environment, 01:10:36.578 --> 01:10:44.104 - Gas is almost $5 a gallon now. What do you think that's going to do to construction materials? Interest 01:10:44.104 --> 01:10:51.558 - rates as well. So we have a very challenging environment. I'll speak to that. I know I'm jumping ahead 01:10:51.558 --> 01:10:59.011 - in point five. The issue of affordability. One question I'm just curious about in terms of, let's say, 01:10:59.011 --> 01:11:05.886 - acknowledging that there's a higher cost of some of the infrastructure upgrades that are being 01:11:06.562 --> 01:11:13.198 - that council has approved. Are we essentially writing a blank check on that? Or is that something that 01:11:13.198 --> 01:11:19.640 - we have? Because as you know, we don't know the costs yet. And it's not a bottomless well of here's 01:11:19.640 --> 01:11:26.147 - more funding. So my question is, are there any kind of opportunities for revisiting along the way as 01:11:26.147 --> 01:11:32.783 - specific costs become clearer and more into focus so we can say, here's what we have. Here's what it's 01:11:32.783 --> 01:11:35.038 - going to cost. We need to revisit. 01:11:35.266 --> 01:11:41.231 - Because this is ideal, but there's realities that we may have to face up to later. Are you talking about 01:11:41.231 --> 01:11:47.083 - in relation to portability or just overall? The overall project, because obviously, the funds that are 01:11:47.083 --> 01:11:52.821 - available for the project may be some may be for infrastructure, some may be for other components of 01:11:52.821 --> 01:11:58.502 - Purple South. And I'm just trying to get a sense of the checkpoints to revisit as we understand the 01:11:58.502 --> 01:12:04.638 - costs and can compare it with available funds. Well, in this case, they moved the minimum from five to six. 01:12:05.538 --> 01:12:17.244 - There's no moving it back without amending the PUD. So in that particular thing, there's no going back. 01:12:17.244 --> 01:12:28.837 - So as detailed as this PUD is getting, engineering is getting very, and design people are getting very 01:12:28.837 --> 01:12:33.790 - limited on what flexibilities they do have. 01:12:34.562 --> 01:12:42.412 - So when it comes back with the design, there's not going to be very many options. Well, that's why I'm 01:12:42.412 --> 01:12:50.415 - looking at this resolution. Because this is the point of the RDC to make a statement on this. And again, 01:12:50.415 --> 01:12:58.417 - we just got this a few hours ago. And I understand the timing is because council's meeting on Wednesday. 01:12:58.417 --> 01:13:00.094 - But my point is that. 01:13:01.154 --> 01:13:07.316 - I would love this resolution to be an opportunity to at least make an observation along those lines 01:13:07.316 --> 01:13:13.540 - to note that costs are increasing with these upgrades. And while I think they certainly will benefit 01:13:13.540 --> 01:13:19.702 - quality of life again, to achieve the affordability has another budget line component and trying to 01:13:19.702 --> 01:13:25.864 - find some way to at least recognize that in this resolution so that again, when push comes to shove 01:13:25.864 --> 01:13:29.438 - with reality of budget affordability and available funds, 01:13:30.082 --> 01:13:36.492 - that at least we're on record as having noted that. Again, I'm just putting that out there because we 01:13:36.492 --> 01:13:42.776 - are getting boxed in at this point. And again, I really appreciate and admire what council has done 01:13:42.776 --> 01:13:49.123 - to get us to this point, but also recognizing the pros and cons of where we're going. So just trying 01:13:49.123 --> 01:13:55.596 - to see if we can, in somewhere, again, in here, have a statement to recognize that. And again, I don't 01:13:55.596 --> 01:13:59.806 - have a chance to wordsmith it because we're kind of under the time 01:14:00.290 --> 01:14:08.235 - I'm just expressing the overall concept. And I welcome other feedback on that. We did try to do some 01:14:08.235 --> 01:14:16.258 - wordsmithing on the affordability part later on, too. Yeah, but that won't take care of what I think. 01:14:16.258 --> 01:14:24.202 - So if there's something different that you would like to add or remove to this, I'd be happy to make 01:14:24.202 --> 01:14:29.630 - any modifications. I support the thought. I'm not sure how to do it. 01:14:30.146 --> 01:14:40.714 - But I can see that being a real issue, a possibility that we get down the road. But if I hear you correctly, 01:14:40.714 --> 01:14:50.893 - virtually anything that would be considered a significant cost overrun will end up being a PUD revision, 01:14:50.893 --> 01:14:59.134 - which would have to go through a long process with council approval. So we couldn't. 01:14:59.394 --> 01:15:12.148 - nothing would get changed without their knowledge, which is only fair because this is an agreement between 01:15:12.148 --> 01:15:24.067 - the two parties. But this is, boy, it really does tie us down and does not match the reality of the 01:15:24.067 --> 01:15:27.166 - world right now. So it's, 01:15:30.978 --> 01:15:37.323 - Will this come down to a phasing situation in regards to when we look at our affordability to answer 01:15:37.323 --> 01:15:43.730 - the question that Deborah's asking in regards to affordability based on the timeline you put together 01:15:43.730 --> 01:15:50.263 - where we put a phasing plan together? So to make sure we're on the same page from what the dollars are, 01:15:50.263 --> 01:15:56.797 - if it's phased out correctly, then we'll be able to have a timeline and a budgetary basis to know. It's 01:15:56.797 --> 01:16:00.126 - going to cost us more money to put in infrastructure 01:16:00.258 --> 01:16:08.107 - the horizontal in phases. It's such a small area that it need, and you've probably heard Kendall talk 01:16:08.107 --> 01:16:16.110 - about that previously. So I don't know that it would save us anything to phase out the different blocks 01:16:16.110 --> 01:16:23.190 - at this point. I mean, block eight is a separate issue, but between blocks nine and 10, all 01:16:23.190 --> 01:16:27.422 - of the infrastructure is going in in one phase to save 01:16:27.746 --> 01:16:33.713 - Right, yeah. The larger you can do, but to try to address accordingly so that we don't get ahead of 01:16:33.713 --> 01:16:39.262 - our skis in regards to the financial commitment. We'll know once the engineering comes back, 01:16:39.262 --> 01:16:45.228 - we get the bids, and we'll know if we're anywhere near. Because at this present moment, we're still 01:16:45.228 --> 01:16:51.195 - gathering everything and trying to get our project approved through the PED process. Well, correct. 01:16:51.195 --> 01:16:54.238 - But I mean, I think the other thing to think about 01:16:54.658 --> 01:17:00.253 - It's not just the horizontal costs. It's the vertical as well. We will not know what lumber is, 01:17:00.253 --> 01:17:05.789 - for instance, which went astronomically high during the COVID pandemic. So we just don't know. 01:17:05.789 --> 01:17:11.617 - We don't know. As our consultant said, the cheapest, the most affordable house you can build is the 01:17:11.617 --> 01:17:17.562 - one you built last year. That's correct. So that's where the time frame I'm trying to look at and ask 01:17:17.562 --> 01:17:21.758 - these questions in order to try to move this forward because, you know, 01:17:22.530 --> 01:17:32.461 - I think we move forward. I think the stop gap that we have is that if we find ourselves hitting the 01:17:32.461 --> 01:17:42.889 - wall, we just stop. And as much as everybody wants affordable housing to be built yesterday, if we can't 01:17:42.889 --> 01:17:50.238 - build it affordably or we can't do the infrastructure correctly, we stop. 01:17:50.434 --> 01:17:57.432 - We go back and we have to revisit this. And if that means redoing the PUD, so be it. But that's the 01:17:57.432 --> 01:18:04.571 - reality of the situation we're in. But I don't think we can prevent or put any language in here or do 01:18:04.571 --> 01:18:11.569 - anything that's gonna protect us from that reasonable possibility. We just have to move forward and 01:18:11.569 --> 01:18:14.718 - do the best we can do until we hit the wall. 01:18:16.098 --> 01:18:22.340 - I think you make a very good point. I mean, the more conditions that are added to this and the costs 01:18:22.340 --> 01:18:28.705 - that are added to this, we actually don't create more affordability. We stop it. Sorry. At this point, 01:18:28.705 --> 01:18:34.885 - we have the majority of the items identified that we've agreed with the council on that we will do. 01:18:34.885 --> 01:18:41.374 - The costs will come at a date once this is passed and we start moving forward, providing it gets passed. 01:18:44.226 --> 01:18:50.071 - I'm trying to think through. And I appreciate what John and Randy have said. And it may just be, yep, 01:18:50.071 --> 01:18:55.974 - and we're moving forward. And I will accept that if that's where we're going. I'm just trying to think 01:18:55.974 --> 01:19:01.819 - we're at a point in time right now where council has yet to revisit this on Wednesday. And I'm trying 01:19:01.819 --> 01:19:07.665 - to just think if there's anything that we can put forward that council might consider to provide some 01:19:07.665 --> 01:19:13.854 - kind of leniency. And I don't know, again, the lawyers maybe have to weigh in on what that would look like. 01:19:14.178 --> 01:19:20.573 - But something that says if when the costs come in, the project costs exceed, you know, because we don't 01:19:20.573 --> 01:19:26.846 - want the project to come to a complete stop. And I'm trying to just understand what loophole we might 01:19:26.846 --> 01:19:33.426 - be able to create so that we can accept these conditions if they do not substantially change the viability 01:19:33.426 --> 01:19:40.190 - of the project. But if that becomes an issue, we don't want it to say, well, we just have to stop now because 01:19:40.386 --> 01:19:46.570 - We've run out of money, and all this work that's been put into this project can't move forward now because 01:19:46.570 --> 01:19:52.581 - we've just hit bottom. So I'm trying to just figure out, or we have to revisit the PUD and take another 01:19:52.581 --> 01:19:58.766 - year and a half to do that. I'm just trying to think of a way that the timeline right now with RDC talking 01:19:58.766 --> 01:20:04.834 - now and council meeting on Wednesday, if there's anything. And again, I don't know if we can do it right 01:20:04.834 --> 01:20:07.262 - now at this public meeting. I don't know. 01:20:07.490 --> 01:20:15.087 - I'm just trying to see if there's an opportunity to look at how to keep the project moving in a way 01:20:15.087 --> 01:20:23.216 - that preserves the affordability, builds the housing, and may need some leniency in some of the additional 01:20:23.216 --> 01:20:30.889 - costs that are being encumbered right now. And again, council's adopted it. Again, I appreciate what 01:20:30.889 --> 01:20:37.118 - they've done with that. So are you saying that we, for example, would in some way 01:20:37.890 --> 01:20:44.387 - And we would have to go back, I realize, the process. But for example, reduce the size of the sidewalks, 01:20:44.387 --> 01:20:50.759 - if that turned out to be, I'm just trying to clarify. Yeah, I don't know if RDC wants to do it. I just 01:20:50.759 --> 01:20:57.008 - want to say, sidewalks may be up to six feet wide, right? And that way you've got, OK, when it comes 01:20:57.008 --> 01:21:03.319 - down to doing the numbers, we say, OK, six feet wide is what we're aiming for. But right now, we want 01:21:03.319 --> 01:21:04.990 - to make the numbers match. 01:21:05.122 --> 01:21:11.064 - we're going to have to do five feet, which I hope we don't have to. I would love them to be six feet. 01:21:11.064 --> 01:21:17.239 - But if we're looking at a 20% additional project cost and then having to go back to amend the PUD, again, 01:21:17.239 --> 01:21:23.355 - there's a lot of work, a lot of dedicated interests that have been invested in this, and I want to honor 01:21:23.355 --> 01:21:29.297 - that. But again, if we can have some kind of, again, if we can work with council where there might be 01:21:29.297 --> 01:21:32.734 - an opportunity to have that leniency built in to say up to 01:21:33.154 --> 01:21:39.952 - these ideal conditions then when the numbers come in we can be like great we can do it or hmm we need 01:21:39.952 --> 01:21:46.817 - to revisit that and we have it built into the current language we don't have to go back all around and 01:21:46.817 --> 01:21:53.748 - again i'm just trying to get a sense if that has any viability or feasibility with the current timeline 01:21:53.748 --> 01:21:57.214 - we're in right now and i'm okay if we go back to no 01:21:57.410 --> 01:22:04.650 - We can't, we just gotta move ahead, because I want this project to move ahead, but I'm just trying to 01:22:04.650 --> 01:22:11.962 - see if there's any leverage we can use in this moment. What we ended up doing here though, and I agree 01:22:11.962 --> 01:22:19.060 - with you, I'd love to have up to, there's five areas here I'd like to have up to, but what we ended 01:22:19.060 --> 01:22:25.662 - up doing is we just replicated what the council passed. Yeah, that's exactly what we passed. 01:22:25.794 --> 01:22:32.385 - We're really asking them to revoke. Or to revise. Or revise it. Well, which is an easier process, 01:22:32.385 --> 01:22:39.178 - isn't it, than going back to the PUD? Yeah. I mean, I'm not opposed to it. I didn't know if it was a 01:22:39.178 --> 01:22:45.904 - process that we can open up. So that they're going to agree to that. They may not. And if not, then 01:22:45.904 --> 01:22:52.764 - we're back where we are right now. But I think it's soft. Exactly. That's my point. I really think we 01:22:52.764 --> 01:22:54.782 - have a philosophical problem. 01:22:55.714 --> 01:23:02.192 - Well, yes. I mean, absolutely you do. But philosophically, is it affordability that's the priority? 01:23:02.192 --> 01:23:08.735 - Or is it the size of the sidewalk? I mean, that is the real challenge right now is we as a community 01:23:08.735 --> 01:23:15.213 - want all the bells and whistles, but we don't want to pay for it. And we are stuck paying the bills 01:23:15.213 --> 01:23:21.238 - and looking at the balance sheet. And so it's very easy to say, well, yeah, just pay for it. 01:23:21.238 --> 01:23:24.542 - You're the city. It doesn't really work like that. 01:23:25.090 --> 01:23:33.293 - By going through this process, we have put in full transparency the issues that occur in our community 01:23:33.293 --> 01:23:41.576 - for developing affordable housing based on what we have put forth in the past through our UDL. It needs 01:23:41.576 --> 01:23:49.858 - revision. This is one of the things we're trying to put forth. Having been involved in PUDs previously, 01:23:49.858 --> 01:23:54.398 - the chance of having that leniency and the say of, well, 01:23:54.530 --> 01:23:59.938 - You can do this, you can't do this. In order to move a project forward under a PUD, you have to come 01:23:59.938 --> 01:24:05.399 - to an agreement of what we can be done. Getting leniency on a PUD is extremely difficult because once 01:24:05.399 --> 01:24:10.914 - it's in there, it's its own ordinance. Well, that's why I'm asking you, at this point, we can have the 01:24:10.914 --> 01:24:15.358 - up to you. And I guess I'm looking at the lawyers, looking at other folks who have 01:24:15.522 --> 01:24:24.112 - additional experience on this just to try and figure out, is this viable? Is this an option? Can we 01:24:24.112 --> 01:24:32.787 - consider this? Or if it's a done deal, then we'll just go ahead and pass this. First, the sidewalks. 01:24:32.787 --> 01:24:41.721 - The PUD, as presented, had five foot minimum sidewalks. And so they went to six foot minimum sidewalks. 01:24:41.721 --> 01:24:44.126 - So what you're saying that, 01:24:44.770 --> 01:24:52.378 - you know, up to six basically puts it back to where it was. Well, maybe in a way that's more palatable. 01:24:52.378 --> 01:24:59.767 - Right. And, you know, I understand that that may, you know, seem like six of one half a dozen of the 01:24:59.767 --> 01:25:07.302 - other. But, you know, it inspires the imagination more to say up to six than a minimum of five. Right. 01:25:07.302 --> 01:25:12.350 - So I think that it could be that the RDC says that they would accept 01:25:13.410 --> 01:25:23.000 - a variation of that condition that they passed. I think that's fine. At this point, the RDC cannot add 01:25:23.000 --> 01:25:32.963 - something new to the PUD that's not already being discussed. Because you can't amend it after it's already 01:25:32.963 --> 01:25:39.294 - gone there. So you can only work with what they've been discussing. 01:25:39.842 --> 01:25:46.100 - So anything that you want to add like a separate condition that, hey, if any of this causes cost overruns 01:25:46.100 --> 01:25:52.298 - to where we can't afford it, then we can modify it as necessary. Something like that can't happen. Yeah, 01:25:52.298 --> 01:25:58.202 - I'm just only looking at the reasonable conditions that council has adopted that's under Section 2. 01:25:58.202 --> 01:26:04.342 - Tweaking those specifically. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm, again, I'm just, given that we started this 01:26:04.342 --> 01:26:06.526 - conversation with talking about the, 01:26:06.850 --> 01:26:15.437 - additional costs, right? And I'm just trying to say, OK, we're acknowledging there are additional costs. 01:26:15.437 --> 01:26:24.432 - We don't know how to actually attach a number to that yet. But trying to even use the current decision-making 01:26:24.432 --> 01:26:32.937 - process to leave some latitude to be able to make the project move forward, honestly. So would you want 01:26:32.937 --> 01:26:36.126 - that language to say that up to six is 01:26:37.378 --> 01:26:45.736 - as long as feasibly possible. So would you reject it if it stayed the way it was? Or would you say, 01:26:45.736 --> 01:26:54.261 - hey, this is really what we want. Please consider this and make this amendment to that condition. And 01:26:54.261 --> 01:26:58.942 - would you accept that condition if they didn't do that? 01:27:00.322 --> 01:27:06.868 - Again, I don't want to have a hard line on anything at this point. I want the project to move forward. 01:27:06.868 --> 01:27:13.287 - And putting a hard line saying, not going to accept whatever means that it comes to a stop again. So 01:27:13.287 --> 01:27:19.642 - I'm just speaking for myself, but I am interested to invite council to understand the impact of the 01:27:19.642 --> 01:27:26.124 - infrastructure upgrades and know that we are interested and would like to welcome that, but also need 01:27:26.124 --> 01:27:28.094 - some wiggle room to be able to 01:27:28.194 --> 01:27:34.103 - achieve the affordability and keep the project moving forward. That's the thing I'm anxious about is 01:27:34.103 --> 01:27:40.011 - that, yay, we sign off on this, we move it forward, and then the numbers come in. And we're like, we 01:27:40.011 --> 01:27:46.213 - can't afford it anymore because we don't know the numbers on that yet. So I'm trying to create the wiggle 01:27:46.213 --> 01:27:52.063 - room so we can keep the project and get it coming out of the ground. And I just don't know if we're 01:27:52.063 --> 01:27:56.158 - there yet because we have the open-ended questions. Well, so what if? 01:27:56.514 --> 01:28:02.876 - On number two here, it said something in time. I realize it's not exactly binding, but the RDC will 01:28:02.876 --> 01:28:09.493 - accept the following conditions placed provided that it does not cost us the affordability or some kind 01:28:09.493 --> 01:28:16.174 - of wordsmithing to that effect. Does that say that we have to reduce affordability? Correct. And I mean, 01:28:16.174 --> 01:28:22.727 - the one thing that we all need to be aware of is that we've committed to a certain percentage that are 01:28:22.727 --> 01:28:24.254 - permanently affordable. 01:28:24.962 --> 01:28:33.475 - What did these costs do? They drive up the costs of the other units as well. So then we're overall not 01:28:33.475 --> 01:28:41.989 - delivering as many units. So just challenging. But maybe some language like that. Yeah, no, that would 01:28:41.989 --> 01:28:50.254 - be great. And then again, there's an opportunity for council potentially on Wednesday to understand 01:28:50.254 --> 01:28:53.726 - this conversation and how this perhaps is 01:28:54.114 --> 01:29:01.182 - adapted this language as you suggested. And then potentially, again, have the opportunity to create 01:29:01.182 --> 01:29:08.816 - the wiggle room to keep the project moving forward. Should one of us be at the council meeting on Wednesday 01:29:08.816 --> 01:29:14.046 - and at least offer those viewpoints and public comments before they vote? 01:29:16.002 --> 01:29:24.695 - Do they remember your speech that you just gave us? I'll try and wordsmith it and make it shorter and 01:29:24.695 --> 01:29:33.388 - more succinct. That's the point. Yeah. Well, my thought was that this passed, that I would send it to 01:29:33.388 --> 01:29:41.910 - the council. The council attorney? The council attorney and further members, and so that they would 01:29:41.910 --> 01:29:43.870 - have it ahead of time. 01:29:44.642 --> 01:29:53.151 - Every time they come up with a reasonable condition that they're discussing, then the petitioner has 01:29:53.151 --> 01:30:02.080 - a chance to respond. And so I would respond to them. I'd just repeat that same thing over and over again. 01:30:02.080 --> 01:30:10.673 - Which means it would be good to have that language, as you suggested, in the resolution so that we've 01:30:10.673 --> 01:30:13.790 - made it as clear as we possibly can. 01:30:15.650 --> 01:30:21.468 - So then what I've just added is, however, to move this critical development along for affordable housing 01:30:21.468 --> 01:30:27.008 - for the residents, the RDC will accept the following conditions placed on the Hopewell South PUD by 01:30:27.008 --> 01:30:32.272 - the city of limited common council, provided that these conditions do not significantly impact 01:30:32.272 --> 01:30:38.201 - the affordability goals of the project. Please tell me if you want something different. That is definitely 01:30:38.201 --> 01:30:44.185 - the intention of what I've been talking about and interested in, again, others' responses to. But something 01:30:44.185 --> 01:30:45.182 - that acknowledges 01:30:45.538 --> 01:30:52.487 - that this is something that we don't know the full outcome yet, but we are anticipating is something 01:30:52.487 --> 01:30:59.848 - that we need to understand may come down the pipe. And again, hopefully this conversation can be continued 01:30:59.848 --> 01:31:06.728 - on council side on Wednesday to appreciate and understand that, and then perhaps have a counterpart 01:31:06.728 --> 01:31:09.342 - that they may be able to continue it. 01:31:15.010 --> 01:31:22.331 - the whole document to work with. So let's move on. I think that's a good change. Let's move on. These 01:31:22.331 --> 01:31:29.509 - reasonable conditions are just the ones that are part of that. I want to comment on the whole thing 01:31:29.509 --> 01:31:36.830 - just to make sure, given there's been contention from a legal standpoint over the period of time, and 01:31:36.830 --> 01:31:44.510 - then getting this to the council's attorney tomorrow for them to then digest for a Wednesday night meeting 01:31:46.178 --> 01:31:53.464 - It seems a little difficult to do because the first thing this says is, okay, you got to go through 01:31:53.464 --> 01:32:01.406 - it and giving the council adequate time because until this came up, my understanding was that this Wednesday 01:32:01.406 --> 01:32:08.984 - would hopefully be the last. Tomorrow is a city holiday as well. No, I'm sorry. I apologize. Wednesday. 01:32:08.984 --> 01:32:15.614 - Wednesday. So we got a city holiday. So we're essentially going to get this to the council 01:32:15.842 --> 01:32:22.374 - on Wednesday for them to vote on the PUD that night. There's nothing for them to vote on from this. 01:32:22.374 --> 01:32:29.101 - This is just information that where you guys stand, right? This is not an ordinance. No, I understand. 01:32:29.101 --> 01:32:35.829 - I understand. This is just our comments to the council. But if they were to be in a position to modify 01:32:35.829 --> 01:32:42.426 - something to say, okay, we understand the point that RDC is making on this and we're willing to take 01:32:42.426 --> 01:32:45.822 - what we've already accepted and voted on, but we're 01:32:46.306 --> 01:32:53.181 - Again, open to adjust it to create the wiggle room that we're looking for to get the project built so 01:32:53.181 --> 01:33:00.191 - that, again, best case scenario, it's meeting all these conditions in their full entirety. Wiggle room, 01:33:00.191 --> 01:33:07.133 - being able to tweak it if we need to to be able to keep the project moving and not just be in the hole 01:33:07.133 --> 01:33:14.008 - because the budget doesn't meet the reality. And I would agree that to Randy's comment, the timing is 01:33:14.008 --> 01:33:16.030 - not ideal, but it is optimal. 01:33:16.930 --> 01:33:23.593 - It's the best we could do given the timing and the constraints on this particular body. And the fact 01:33:23.593 --> 01:33:30.322 - that we have meeting schedules, too. So. Is the reality of the meeting schedules in the? Well, it is. 01:33:30.322 --> 01:33:36.986 - But at some point, we've got to say, OK, guys, just like when it was coordinated for the RDC and the 01:33:36.986 --> 01:33:43.913 - city council to sit down and go through it after we'd been through a couple painful meetings, that there 01:33:43.913 --> 01:33:45.694 - was discussion between the 01:33:45.794 --> 01:33:54.077 - attorneys on both ends. And I'd really like to get out of what's legal and go to what's right. Does 01:33:54.077 --> 01:34:02.691 - council have to, is this their last shot at voting on the PD? So they could choose to postpone it. They 01:34:02.691 --> 01:34:11.057 - can kick it down the road, but this next meeting could potentially, if everything was agreed between 01:34:11.057 --> 01:34:15.198 - the RDC and we did what we've talked about at the 01:34:15.618 --> 01:34:22.364 - If that was good, would this next meeting be the last meeting that the council would have to do? Not 01:34:22.364 --> 01:34:29.176 - necessarily. Not necessarily. So this week was the date that Carrie had mentioned, Mayor Thompson had 01:34:29.176 --> 01:34:35.922 - mentioned to the council she was hoping that we'd work together for the month of April and then come 01:34:35.922 --> 01:34:42.334 - to some resolution hopefully by this week. But we don't know. I mean, there's a lot to discuss. 01:34:42.498 --> 01:34:48.210 - I think we should probably move on. There's ways that they could look at it again. Yeah, it's a PUD. 01:34:48.210 --> 01:34:54.035 - I mean, you can always go back through the process if we run out of money. Because that's what happens 01:34:54.035 --> 01:34:59.860 - in the private world, is when you get a PUD approved, you may run out of money. Well, that's the other 01:34:59.860 --> 01:35:05.742 - thing. If this was a private developer, they wouldn't have been spending $300 an hour on their attorney 01:35:05.742 --> 01:35:06.590 - all this time. 01:35:06.754 --> 01:35:12.445 - And then guess what happens to those costs? They get baked into the project and passed on to the end 01:35:12.445 --> 01:35:18.080 - user. So it's not money growing on trees. This is real money. We're fortunate to be in the position 01:35:18.080 --> 01:35:23.996 - we are, from an affordability standpoint, of the soft costs that have to be put into this at the present 01:35:23.996 --> 01:35:29.687 - moment. The quicker we can get moved forward, the better off we're going to be from an affordability 01:35:29.687 --> 01:35:33.406 - standpoint. Dana, just briefly, can you go back to your question? 01:35:34.338 --> 01:35:41.703 - They could make it happen if they wanted to do it again. Right. OK. Dana, can you just quickly go back 01:35:41.703 --> 01:35:49.067 - to paragraph two, or section two, just the initial, because there was some language in there that was, 01:35:49.067 --> 01:35:56.432 - the conditions that the common council has placed on Hopewell South PUD will cause increases in design 01:35:56.432 --> 01:36:03.582 - and construction, or will increase design and construction costs, period. You want it to be period? 01:36:03.682 --> 01:36:10.898 - Or comma, then, especially related to. But yeah, there's too much going on in that sentence. Can we 01:36:10.898 --> 01:36:18.258 - tighten that up? Because it's confusing as red. Do you want to get rid of especially those related to 01:36:18.258 --> 01:36:25.691 - widening of sidewalks and right-of-way? Not necessarily. The conditions that the Common Council placed 01:36:25.691 --> 01:36:30.814 - on the Hopewell South PUD will increase design and construction costs. 01:36:40.034 --> 01:36:53.618 - Design and construction costs, get rid of the extra costs. Thank you. I just didn't want that to be 01:36:53.618 --> 01:37:03.806 - confusing once we got there. Are we ready to move on to item number three? 01:37:05.346 --> 01:37:11.441 - The common council on March 25, 2025 passed reasonable condition number six, which read, all buildings 01:37:11.441 --> 01:37:17.832 - must use either electricity or on-site renewable energy sources for all significant energy needs, including 01:37:17.832 --> 01:37:24.105 - for space heating, water heating, and cooking. The RDC rejects reasonable condition six as it is directly 01:37:24.105 --> 01:37:30.437 - prohibited by Indiana code. The RDC is not planning to install any utilities other than those specifically 01:37:30.437 --> 01:37:32.094 - shown in the Hopewell South 01:37:35.010 --> 01:37:44.466 - Can I ask, short and sweet, why do we need to put it in if it's state law? Because they passed it. Because 01:37:44.466 --> 01:37:53.304 - we have to respond. Got it. Thank you. I understand the council member that proposed it is planning 01:37:53.304 --> 01:38:02.142 - to ask for it to be stricken, but we just need to make sure it's covered. This was one of the items 01:38:02.142 --> 01:38:03.998 - that we talked about 01:38:04.130 --> 01:38:11.429 - pretty extensively in the work session about efficiency. So if you will remember, the original reasonable 01:38:11.429 --> 01:38:18.590 - condition was asking that all of the buildings be LEED silver. LEED silver is not a reasonable standard 01:38:18.590 --> 01:38:25.682 - for single-family residential. That's really more designed for multi-family residential. So one of the 01:38:25.682 --> 01:38:32.912 - items that we had discussed was about related to something called a HERS rating. So the RDC is committed 01:38:32.912 --> 01:38:34.014 - to implementing 01:38:34.178 --> 01:38:40.548 - reasonable cost-effective and practicable measures to provide as much energy efficiency for the benefit 01:38:40.548 --> 01:38:46.858 - of both the homeowners and the environment. Construction documents shall incorporate best practice air 01:38:46.858 --> 01:38:52.983 - sealing deck placement within condition space and high efficiency all-electric systems. In order to 01:38:52.983 --> 01:38:59.170 - achieve as much efficiency as possible, the RDC commits to conducting a plan review with a certified 01:38:59.170 --> 01:38:59.966 - energy rater 01:39:00.226 --> 01:39:08.144 - for each of the building plans in the plan catalog with a targeted home energy rating score of 65. 100 01:39:08.144 --> 01:39:16.293 - is generally known as the model of energy code in our HERS rating. So there's two pathways to efficiency. 01:39:16.293 --> 01:39:22.366 - I don't know if I need to get into this or not, but we're going for something. 01:39:22.562 --> 01:39:28.857 - that's called the prescriptive path. So they're looking at the total amount of volume within the home, 01:39:28.857 --> 01:39:35.091 - what the air exchanges are, how we might address efficiency. In smaller homes, it's harder to achieve 01:39:35.091 --> 01:39:41.203 - efficiency. This is a little crass, but the way that you can think about it is really, if we go any 01:39:41.203 --> 01:39:47.376 - lower than this, it's going to be incredibly difficult to accomplish. Small homes are the hardest to 01:39:47.376 --> 01:39:52.510 - deliver efficiency. So if a 500 pound person wanted to lose half their body weight, 01:39:52.866 --> 01:39:59.543 - That's possible. But if a 100 pound person wanted to lose half their body weight, it's not as possible. 01:39:59.543 --> 01:40:05.963 - With smaller homes, just opening the door would cause a significant air change. And so you would be 01:40:05.963 --> 01:40:12.062 - losing a significant portion of the air volume within the home. It's hard to make up for that. 01:40:12.610 --> 01:40:19.116 - On these small lots, there's not enough room to put in a geothermal system, nor would that help our 01:40:19.116 --> 01:40:25.687 - efficiency. The ROIs on those are not great, but they are the most efficient type of system. There's 01:40:25.687 --> 01:40:32.389 - limited duct work here. We would already be using what the model energy code calls for for insulation, 01:40:32.389 --> 01:40:35.902 - duct sealing, that kind of thing. So 65 is ambitious. 01:40:36.706 --> 01:40:45.100 - It's definitely better than what I would say most of the HIRS ratings that are out there. So it's definitely 01:40:45.100 --> 01:40:52.878 - accomplishing efficiency. I have been pushed by the author of this reasonable condition to lower it. 01:40:52.878 --> 01:41:00.886 - He wanted to get it down to 50. I'm telling you now that is not possible. And if it were, we would need 01:41:00.886 --> 01:41:06.046 - to sink a whole lot more money into it and be on a lot bigger lot. 01:41:07.426 --> 01:41:15.051 - again, trying to split the baby here. What about the multifamily units? What about them? Does that allow 01:41:15.051 --> 01:41:22.313 - for any of those to be able to utilize a more energy efficient portion? Possibly, but I don't think 01:41:22.313 --> 01:41:29.792 - it's going to weight it enough to drive it down to where he's looking for. And they're not really part 01:41:29.792 --> 01:41:37.054 - of this view, do they? We do have multifamily units. We do, but not. They're not big. I understand. 01:41:37.314 --> 01:41:46.103 - Trying to look at what considerations. I have a question about what the reasonable or whatever condition 01:41:46.103 --> 01:41:54.726 - is that there's nothing referenced here about the action the council took. Did they ask? They have not 01:41:54.726 --> 01:42:03.348 - taken action on it. So they are looking, though, for a commitment that would address both all electric 01:42:03.348 --> 01:42:06.110 - and efficiency at the same time. 01:42:06.530 --> 01:42:14.327 - which you can choose to do or choose not to do. But when we were discussing in the work session, this 01:42:14.327 --> 01:42:21.972 - is sort of the language that we landed on at that time. I do know that he would like that number to 01:42:21.972 --> 01:42:29.769 - change if at all possible, but I'm telling you. So could I suggest that at the end of that paragraph, 01:42:29.769 --> 01:42:36.190 - we add a sentence that says, achieving a score lower? Or this is the right wording. 01:42:36.322 --> 01:42:45.922 - will add significant cost to the project and significantly impact affordability if it is even achievable. 01:42:45.922 --> 01:42:54.979 - Yeah. I don't think it is even possible because of the size of the lots. There's nowhere to put the 01:42:54.979 --> 01:43:04.670 - geos. They're very limited duct work, very limited windows, even the most efficient. Even with more money. 01:43:04.930 --> 01:43:14.897 - It's not even spray foam. Yeah. And this is, you're getting into costs that throw way out to hit that. 01:43:14.897 --> 01:43:24.670 - And efficiency is still possible. Absolutely. It's just, it needs to be cost effective. It can't be. 01:43:24.802 --> 01:43:32.934 - The majority of the issues are related to the small homes and the amount of volume of air within the 01:43:32.934 --> 01:43:41.228 - home. When you're talking about efficiency, it's all about how much air is being leaked to the outside 01:43:41.228 --> 01:43:49.602 - of the building. It was discussed with Ali, the front lock, that the nice thing about this is that it's 01:43:49.602 --> 01:43:53.950 - using the plans and giving those plans to the raider. 01:43:54.466 --> 01:44:00.830 - It's not having to do it for each building and each unit and having additional charge to each unit. 01:44:00.830 --> 01:44:07.386 - And by doing it for each plan, that's going to keep the overall cost. It was about $6,500 or something 01:44:07.386 --> 01:44:14.259 - like that? Yeah, it's the difference between the performance path and the perspective path. The performance 01:44:14.259 --> 01:44:20.751 - path, they would be using a blower door on the home, a duct blaster, all kinds of stuff to see what's 01:44:20.751 --> 01:44:23.742 - going on with the home throughout the process. 01:44:23.874 --> 01:44:30.283 - The prescriptive path is very similar. It's looking at the same air exchange as the volume. It's using 01:44:30.283 --> 01:44:36.754 - calculations, but it certainly tells you what you need to know up front. Like, you will be putting this 01:44:36.754 --> 01:44:43.100 - R value in. You will be putting these double low-E windows in. You will be, you know, so it tells you 01:44:43.100 --> 01:44:49.322 - how to reach the efficiency. The other thing, too, is that we may end up having to reach the score. 01:44:49.322 --> 01:44:51.998 - We may end up having to put in a PTAC unit 01:44:52.930 --> 01:45:02.882 - which actually have a little bit shorter life than some of the HVAC units, like an electric heat pump 01:45:02.882 --> 01:45:12.639 - or whatnot. But those are a little bit easier to deliver efficiency in some of these smaller units. 01:45:12.639 --> 01:45:20.542 - Yes, sir. Well, speaking of which, you've said all the electric systems in four. 01:45:22.434 --> 01:45:30.897 - Does that contradict in any way what we said in number three? No, because this would be part of what 01:45:30.897 --> 01:45:39.612 - your commitment is in relation to the, it's part of the commitment that he's looking for. And actually, 01:45:39.612 --> 01:45:48.075 - I think I have it pulled up. And this is something you're committed to doing, as in this is what you 01:45:48.075 --> 01:45:51.678 - want to do, this is what you intend to do. 01:45:52.546 --> 01:46:03.927 - The council has talked about recording a commitment, and as it relates to number three, recording a 01:46:03.927 --> 01:46:15.307 - commitment to be all electric by a government entity, the RDC, to me is against the law just as bad 01:46:15.307 --> 01:46:19.518 - as making it a reasonable condition. 01:46:21.666 --> 01:46:29.925 - But so far, there's been no plans to install any other utility in there to provide for that, except 01:46:29.925 --> 01:46:38.184 - for electricity. Based on the IURC, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, and past experience, 01:46:38.184 --> 01:46:46.608 - please tell me if things have changed. We don't get a say which utilities wants to be put in. It's at 01:46:46.608 --> 01:46:51.646 - their expense. They get to put them in, and the home builder 01:46:51.906 --> 01:47:00.569 - can decide which utilities they want to utilize. But to the best of my knowledge, unless something has 01:47:00.569 --> 01:47:08.980 - changed, we as a body don't, and utilizing a public right of way, if that utility so chooses to put 01:47:08.980 --> 01:47:17.476 - it in, they can't. Whatever's a right of way is a right of way. So consequently. So should we strike 01:47:17.476 --> 01:47:19.326 - the all electric bit? 01:47:19.650 --> 01:47:27.996 - That's why I asked the question, if there's a gas line in the right-of-way and some builders choose 01:47:27.996 --> 01:47:36.509 - to use gas, are we now telling them they can't? Well, and truth be told, the most efficient system is 01:47:36.509 --> 01:47:45.022 - really high-efficiency furnace of an add-on heat pump. One operates below 40 degrees and one operates 01:47:45.314 --> 01:47:52.420 - Which is expensive, but we're very expensive. They are more expensive to put in, but as far as your 01:47:52.420 --> 01:47:59.525 - overall monthly costs, I don't think the author of this is looking at that. I think they're looking 01:47:59.525 --> 01:48:07.128 - at long-term carbon impact, that kind of thing. Which is real. Yeah. If we had storage, small neurological 01:48:07.128 --> 01:48:13.310 - nukes are great. So where are we on this one? We're simply stating our commitment here 01:48:14.690 --> 01:48:25.789 - Can we commit to all electric right now? So this means if they would, for number three, if they need 01:48:25.789 --> 01:48:36.778 - to strike, what they did. For four, what the RDC is saying is that if the council so chooses to put 01:48:36.778 --> 01:48:43.262 - on a condition that is substantially similar to this, that 01:48:43.810 --> 01:48:52.873 - It's something that they already see is good, but this is the kind of thing that you want to see. So 01:48:52.873 --> 01:49:02.025 - therefore, they know your position. So if they are looking at this item, energy efficiency, they know 01:49:02.025 --> 01:49:12.254 - that this is what you would agree to if they were looking in that for a condition for this. OK, I recognize that. 01:49:12.514 --> 01:49:19.824 - My question is just that one section or one point where we're saying all electric systems. Yeah. To 01:49:19.824 --> 01:49:27.208 - Randy's point, if there's gas available, are we telling builders that you should use it? That's all. 01:49:27.208 --> 01:49:35.176 - Right. No, we don't know that we can. We struck that out. Well, that goes back to my contradiction question. 01:49:35.176 --> 01:49:37.662 - How does four not contradict one? 01:49:38.114 --> 01:49:44.911 - Well, maybe it's that we just took it out. Yeah, we can take it out. But that's what he's expecting, 01:49:44.911 --> 01:49:51.641 - I can tell you that, because here's his reasonable condition. And quite frankly, we can deliver all 01:49:51.641 --> 01:49:58.506 - electric systems. We may have to have supplemental gas if somebody wants to put it in at a later date 01:49:58.506 --> 01:50:05.841 - or any other time. And the gas company may not want to go through the infrastructure cost. This is something 01:50:05.841 --> 01:50:08.062 - we haven't had discussions with. 01:50:08.258 --> 01:50:14.493 - And I think maybe you've already said this, so I'm sorry if this is a repeat, but in the lanes where 01:50:14.493 --> 01:50:21.036 - the infrastructure is going, it's not wide enough to put a gas line. So any gas line that would be coming 01:50:21.036 --> 01:50:27.518 - in would have to be on the periphery would be the gas. So maybe this is a non-issue. Sort of, but you're 01:50:27.518 --> 01:50:33.814 - not wrong. I mean, what stops somebody from putting a propane tank out there? Well, that's a lot. Not 01:50:33.814 --> 01:50:37.086 - that we would want them to do that. I'm just saying. 01:50:37.666 --> 01:50:46.896 - Hopefully that would be an HOA violation. Yeah. No kidding. But just saying. Unless we bury it. What 01:50:46.896 --> 01:50:56.582 - I'm saying that it's not in the plans is when they're out there putting in the infrastructure originally, 01:50:56.582 --> 01:51:03.710 - no gas is not a part of it. So if they want to come back later and put it in, 01:51:04.066 --> 01:51:11.905 - They're going to have to restore everything. It's up to the utility in that portion. I mean, just taking 01:51:11.905 --> 01:51:19.968 - into consideration the lots that we gave to Summit Hill, I tell you right, those are all going in electric. 01:51:19.968 --> 01:51:27.433 - There was no gas infrastructure put in at all. Right. And we're saying construction documents shall 01:51:27.433 --> 01:51:31.838 - incorporate all electric. That's what we're committing to. 01:51:32.386 --> 01:51:42.738 - Right, we're just saying that the plans are as are the plans, and it doesn't include. We're not anticipating 01:51:42.738 --> 01:51:52.804 - adding that into when we build it out. Can we look at this reasonable condition? And I know our language, 01:51:52.804 --> 01:52:02.206 - but can we just reaffirm that we do or do not agree with this? I mean, all homes shall be designed 01:52:02.626 --> 01:52:10.105 - used using pre-approved plans model to achieve energy performance equivalent to home energy rating systems 01:52:10.105 --> 01:52:17.094 - for 65 or better. Construction documents shall incorporate best practice air ceiling deck placement 01:52:17.094 --> 01:52:24.083 - within condition space and high efficiency all electric systems. Building inspections shall confirm 01:52:24.083 --> 01:52:31.422 - compliant installation to details. Isn't that pretty much what we said? Yeah. Yes. Just double checking. 01:52:33.058 --> 01:52:43.578 - Everything that they all elected. And are we putting it in or taking it out? I think we have to keep 01:52:43.578 --> 01:52:54.203 - it out. What's that? I think we have to keep it out. Take it out, OK. Because it's the state law. OK. 01:52:54.203 --> 01:53:01.598 - OK, so moving on. We can petition the state house to change their law. 01:53:02.146 --> 01:53:12.126 - Let's not do that tonight. And how much time will that take? I wonder if it would be easier. Just kidding. 01:53:12.126 --> 01:53:21.546 - The RDC reaffirms its commitment to making housing at Hopewell South PUD, if approved, as affordable 01:53:21.546 --> 01:53:30.686 - as can be obtained during the economic conditions at the given time and truly desires to maintain 01:53:30.914 --> 01:53:38.273 - affordability as far into the future as it's reasonably able to be achieved. Additionally, the RDC will 01:53:38.273 --> 01:53:45.491 - fervently strive to assist those at or below 100% AMIA as defined in the Hopewell South PUD plan. The 01:53:45.491 --> 01:53:52.639 - RDC reiterates its affordable housing commitment from said plan. The paragraph comes straight out of 01:53:52.639 --> 01:53:59.998 - the plan. Right. We all have to read it to us. OK. We're good. Sorry. My eyes water under these lights. 01:54:00.482 --> 01:54:08.522 - The Hopewell South PUD does not clearly state how the RDC intends to meet Tier 1. The RDC is committed 01:54:08.522 --> 01:54:16.405 - to an increase of 10% more permanently affordable dwelling units for homeowners under 120% AMI, thus 01:54:16.405 --> 01:54:24.367 - satisfying the approval criteria of the UDO. So that's straight out of the UDO. So that takes the 15% 01:54:24.367 --> 01:54:28.894 - that's in the PUD and explains how the PUD is going to be 01:54:29.058 --> 01:54:36.987 - meet the code requirement for the PUD is by using the other 10%. And so that's the 25%. So that's what 01:54:36.987 --> 01:54:44.839 - you just said, but I'll just assume that you know. The code requires to meet tier one, you have to do 01:54:44.839 --> 01:54:52.614 - one of a couple things. Most of them you can't do because of the type of project. This is one of the 01:54:52.614 --> 01:54:54.462 - only things you can do. 01:54:54.786 --> 01:55:02.041 - So what you should be doing is adding that 10%, so you'll do 25%. Yeah, because the new code says 25% 01:55:02.041 --> 01:55:09.652 - in the UDO. This was a timing issue, is my understanding, of when things were put forth. But affordability 01:55:09.652 --> 01:55:16.836 - language is also written more for apartments, not for home ownership. That is incredibly true. There 01:55:16.836 --> 01:55:23.166 - are numerous areas within the UDO that do not delineate single family from multi-family. 01:55:23.330 --> 01:55:31.840 - and I believe have really contributed to the type of developments that we see today. So the RDC would 01:55:31.840 --> 01:55:40.600 - willingly commit to increase the percentage of affordable dwelling units and make more units permanently 01:55:40.600 --> 01:55:49.694 - affordable at a lower AMI if it were possible. But given the current economic market and the unknown future, 01:55:50.050 --> 01:55:56.339 - the RDC cannot rightfully commit to something that may well be unattainable under current and nor future 01:55:56.339 --> 01:56:02.509 - circumstances. What the RDC can do and will do is state that the RDC's overarching purpose of creating 01:56:02.509 --> 01:56:08.679 - the Hopewell South PUD is to serve as many people and families as possible, providing truly affordable 01:56:08.679 --> 01:56:14.669 - homes in a neighborhood that they can be proud of, and having that affordability component last far 01:56:14.669 --> 01:56:18.622 - into the future for generations to come. One of the things that I 01:56:18.754 --> 01:56:26.280 - am suggesting to the council is really related to they want to pin us down at 50% right now. Very difficult 01:56:26.280 --> 01:56:33.527 - to do until we know the numbers. But if we could just simply go back to council and report periodically 01:56:33.527 --> 01:56:40.565 - on what the current conditions are and what the affordability we could actually achieve are, I think 01:56:40.565 --> 01:56:46.558 - that would be a better approach as opposed to just writing a blank check not knowing. 01:56:46.786 --> 01:56:57.373 - But if we could just work with them and report annually. And I greatly dislike Google, because I put 01:56:57.373 --> 01:57:08.378 - a paragraph in here, and it's gone, that stated that the RDC would- Yeah, I thought I wrote it the first 01:57:08.378 --> 01:57:16.030 - time. Yeah. Something to the effect that the RDC would willingly report. 01:57:17.378 --> 01:57:23.056 - You know, the reason why I can't remember the words that I used. I don't know, did you, Steve? So what 01:57:23.056 --> 01:57:28.734 - you're saying is basically it wants you to report it to the council to tell them where we're at? Yeah. 01:57:28.734 --> 01:57:34.356 - Is that what you're looking at? Yeah, if the RDC would agree to report it to the county council, it's 01:57:34.356 --> 01:57:40.034 - made them maximize its eligibility. You want to put that back in there? Yeah. Can you tell me what you 01:57:40.034 --> 01:57:45.822 - mean? The RDC agrees to report it? Except I would say on an annual basis, not so that they decide on it. 01:57:46.018 --> 01:57:56.073 - What's that? To report on an annual basis to the Common Council on the efforts made to maximize 01:57:56.073 --> 01:58:06.127 - affordability. Period. Yeah. Yeah. I know there was a lot of discussion about the details here, 01:58:06.127 --> 01:58:11.678 - but to me, you've already seen once this very thing. 01:58:12.386 --> 01:58:22.903 - wants this to be as affordable as possible, and wants it to last as long as possible. It's taking every 01:58:22.903 --> 01:58:33.118 - step they can to make that happen. And so the council's winning that same thing. So it's like it's a 01:58:33.118 --> 01:58:38.174 - shared vision. And I just would hope that the RDC 01:58:38.754 --> 01:58:47.153 - reiterating their dedication to this project, and that's what this project is, would be enough to satisfy 01:58:47.153 --> 01:58:55.314 - them that you're going to do what it takes, the best you can, to achieve the best results you possibly 01:58:55.314 --> 01:59:03.238 - can. You want to go way up above anything that you put in as minimums, but you can't commit to what 01:59:03.238 --> 01:59:07.358 - you don't know you can commit to as the only issue. 01:59:07.842 --> 01:59:15.139 - Well, I just think that the language in the PUD was written very flexibly. Like, we will meet the conditions 01:59:15.139 --> 01:59:22.302 - of the UDO, which is up to 120%, and we didn't pin it down further just to give ourselves some flexibility 01:59:22.302 --> 01:59:26.654 - on what the AMIs were achieving, not knowing what the costs are. 01:59:26.786 --> 01:59:33.467 - thinking that we would just, we'll meet the parameters, no problem. And then we'll deliver as many affordable 01:59:33.467 --> 01:59:39.905 - units as we possibly can, not just at 120%. So I think it's been misconstrued what that language actually 01:59:39.905 --> 01:59:45.979 - was in there for. It was for flexibility, not because we were shying away from affordability. We're 01:59:45.979 --> 01:59:52.113 - putting in here from a commitment standpoint in order to establish trust for the future. We've got a 01:59:52.113 --> 01:59:55.454 - lot more property over there. We have to do something. 01:59:56.866 --> 02:00:03.515 - OK, we're close, guys. Short-term rentals. Local governments may not unreasonably restrict short-term 02:00:03.515 --> 02:00:10.294 - rentals, however, and that's Indiana code. However, the RDC recognizes concerns with short-term rentals 02:00:10.294 --> 02:00:16.682 - and how that may negatively impact the affordability goals of people and families and the overall 02:00:16.682 --> 02:00:19.550 - neighborhood environment of Hopewell South. 02:00:19.778 --> 02:00:28.603 - The RDC believes that the Hopewell South Homeowners Association, mentioned in paragraph four above, 02:00:28.603 --> 02:00:37.781 - will be the appropriate tool to truly be able to set the guidelines and have those boundaries monitored 02:00:37.781 --> 02:00:46.782 - by homeowners themselves. Do you need to fix that because we took it out of work? So that a proposal? 02:00:46.946 --> 02:00:54.807 - There's not many ways that you can control short-term rentals, unfortunately. We would all love to be 02:00:54.807 --> 02:01:02.976 - able to regularly. So the RDC believes they hope the South Homeowners Association will be the appropriate 02:01:02.976 --> 02:01:11.069 - tool that you would be able to set up. So a private homeowners association can vote to approve covenants 02:01:11.069 --> 02:01:16.926 - and restrictions that would exclude short-term rentals. We can't as a body. 02:01:17.538 --> 02:01:25.883 - The city cannot. The homeowners association and your neighbors, through their governance and restrictions, 02:01:25.883 --> 02:01:33.916 - can't. Yeah. Yeah, but they draft and develop those documents. Right. It's not us. It's not us. In the 02:01:33.916 --> 02:01:41.870 - beginning, it will be. We can't drive that. Yes. So are you guys good with that, to the extent? Yeah. 02:01:41.870 --> 02:01:43.742 - Yeah. Deborah, are you? 02:01:46.562 --> 02:01:53.431 - I'm just curious. I appreciate that that's the role an HOA can play here. I'm just trying to understand 02:01:53.431 --> 02:02:00.233 - the bigger role of what an HOA will do in this neighborhood. And just if that's something that's being 02:02:00.233 --> 02:02:06.838 - committed to having an HOA in the neighborhood, just because that's another layer of administration 02:02:06.838 --> 02:02:13.706 - and organization that the homeowners will be responsible for that not every neighborhood, it's an extra 02:02:13.706 --> 02:02:16.414 - layer, especially if we're talking about 02:02:16.546 --> 02:02:23.803 - People who have affordable housing, that's great. They may have a lot of other things committing their 02:02:23.803 --> 02:02:31.201 - time to manage an HOA. So I'm just trying to understand at this stage, and this is a little bit separate 02:02:31.201 --> 02:02:38.316 - from short-term rentals. I don't need to talk about it now, but just that's what I'm thinking about, 02:02:38.316 --> 02:02:44.446 - trying to connect the dots. So in Ally's, in Flipknot's Excel sheet that included like 02:02:44.738 --> 02:02:52.962 - target pricing that was based on comps and your monthly payments and that kind of thing. She did include 02:02:52.962 --> 02:03:00.951 - an HOA fee just to get that established. There are two common buildings on the plan that are, I think 02:03:00.951 --> 02:03:08.862 - one is a bike storage. I mean, it's bike friendly neighborhoods. So things like that that would need 02:03:08.862 --> 02:03:14.110 - maintenance. So it was a nominal cost. It was certainly not a lot. 02:03:14.594 --> 02:03:21.210 - push that back onto the city. Mowing the lawn, also in the common area. It's just that there's one thing 02:03:21.210 --> 02:03:27.825 - about kind of overseeing a bike shed, another thing about looking up for short-term rentals in a minute. 02:03:27.825 --> 02:03:34.315 - Part of the covenants and restrictions. And that will be added to the private neighborhood to enforce. 02:03:34.315 --> 02:03:40.616 - Like covenants and restrictions are not enforced by them. And it's recorded, and it's part of their 02:03:40.616 --> 02:03:43.262 - deed. So they don't really have a choice. 02:03:43.714 --> 02:03:50.085 - Now, you're right. It may have to be policed, but it's not a question. There's multiple homeowners 02:03:50.085 --> 02:03:56.843 - associations that people don't even think about that exist. Like ours. We just have a party once a year. 02:03:56.843 --> 02:04:03.343 - OK. That's fine. That's not something that had been previously discussed in my experience, so I just 02:04:03.343 --> 02:04:10.036 - was wondering. I don't think we'd want to lose it. It's not a big role that is being played by any HOA, 02:04:10.036 --> 02:04:11.902 - but those two parking areas. 02:04:13.058 --> 02:04:21.419 - Well, there's some discussions with like CPU because there's storm water and things like that and gas 02:04:21.419 --> 02:04:30.026 - and different things and we, or not gas, grass, not gas and different things and how that might be done. 02:04:30.026 --> 02:04:38.305 - And so there's going to be discussions on how that's going to work out. Stuff that has to be managed 02:04:38.305 --> 02:04:41.502 - and paid for. And it could be that the 02:04:42.274 --> 02:04:51.200 - At least while the development's going on, maybe even the RDC is a member of it, because only some of 02:04:51.200 --> 02:05:00.039 - the lots. We will be. We will, because we'll have lots. So we can help. So we will be a participant, 02:05:00.039 --> 02:05:07.390 - probably, in drafting the CNRs. And we should learn from our past mistakes in that. 02:05:07.746 --> 02:05:14.316 - We need to create it, if we're creating it from the beginning and not wait until the end, that's what 02:05:14.316 --> 02:05:20.757 - we saw with Evergreen Village. Yeah, that was a disaster. Yeah, so see, and then what's really nice 02:05:20.757 --> 02:05:27.326 - is we've got a lot of experience that when we're drafting it, it's just not, hey, I've created my own 02:05:27.326 --> 02:05:32.286 - neighborhood for the first time. We've got the hand department being able to 02:05:32.802 --> 02:05:41.057 - These things have been problems. The RDC authorizes the Redevelopment Commission Executive Director 02:05:41.057 --> 02:05:49.394 - Hannah Killian-Hanson on her for her design need to represent this resolution in whole or in part in 02:05:49.394 --> 02:05:57.979 - physical form, electronic form, or orally as the circumstances warrant to the City of Wilmington Common 02:05:57.979 --> 02:06:01.694 - Council at any given time or place following 02:06:01.858 --> 02:06:09.360 - this resolution's adoption, including but not limited to at the Common Council's regular meeting to 02:06:09.360 --> 02:06:16.937 - be held on May 6, 2026 in the council chambers at Wilmington City Hall. Generally, I've been the one 02:06:16.937 --> 02:06:23.614 - at the meetings, so I am happy to relinquish this duty if one of you would rather do it. 02:06:25.890 --> 02:06:34.110 - For consistency, I appreciate it. I'm happy to join you at the meeting. I'm just saying, for consistency, 02:06:34.110 --> 02:06:42.330 - thank you for doing that. We'll send you flowers. I think seven needs to be in there, because I do recall 02:06:42.330 --> 02:06:50.085 - a council person or two asking whether or not this was your opinion, or did you have the support of 02:06:50.085 --> 02:06:53.342 - the RDC. So I think it's a good question. 02:06:53.634 --> 02:07:00.452 - Actually, at first I thought, why do we need that? And then I remembered the comments. Now I remember 02:07:00.452 --> 02:07:07.403 - why. But I don't know why number eight needs to be there. I don't know. I put it in everywhere because- 02:07:07.403 --> 02:07:14.288 - You love to just write it. I can try it. Want to take it off? No. It gives us a chance to do something 02:07:14.288 --> 02:07:20.638 - that we need to. I don't know. If it serves a purpose, I'm fine. But I don't know what it was. 02:07:22.690 --> 02:07:30.114 - OK. I think we're good to go. So we've got a final document that's been modified with the changes that 02:07:30.114 --> 02:07:37.609 - we've talked about tonight, correct? Yeah, it will be added to the minutes. We'll get it online as well 02:07:37.609 --> 02:07:44.168 - on an adjusted agenda, and then any members of the public that are interested in obtaining 02:07:44.168 --> 02:07:50.078 - public information. OK. And you'll need to get that to us tomorrow for signature. 02:07:51.714 --> 02:07:59.740 - Either Tammy or Christina will be docu-signing that over to you. I already sent one to you. Could you 02:07:59.740 --> 02:08:07.687 - put eight back in? Because sometimes there are things that may come up that it's a catch-all in case 02:08:07.687 --> 02:08:15.870 - something comes up. Margie and I discussed that. We're trying to get that into resolutions just to make 02:08:15.870 --> 02:08:20.670 - sure that something doesn't come up that we can't deal with. 02:08:21.794 --> 02:08:28.941 - OK. OK, so we have thoroughly discussed resolution number 62032. I will open it for public comment. 02:08:28.941 --> 02:08:36.159 - I realize it's not in the packet, but you've heard us discuss it. If you have questions or comments. 02:08:36.159 --> 02:08:43.520 - I'm sorry? It's not a public hearing. Well, it's a resolution that we're voting on. Is it not open for 02:08:43.520 --> 02:08:50.238 - public comment? If you wish to vote on it tonight, then yes. OK, well, I thought it was being 02:08:50.466 --> 02:08:56.329 - presented to council, so we either vote on it or it doesn't get presented to council, right? Okay, 02:08:56.329 --> 02:09:02.310 - so anyway, I mean, we can decide if we don't want to move it forward, but again, for the purposes of 02:09:02.310 --> 02:09:08.291 - a public meeting at which we're discussing something that the RDC would vote on, I was assuming that 02:09:08.291 --> 02:09:14.331 - it would be open to public comment, at least inviting that. Yes, if you intend to vote on it, you can 02:09:14.331 --> 02:09:18.654 - open it to public comment. And again, RDC members may decide that you're 02:09:18.754 --> 02:09:25.740 - We discussed it, but maybe it's not ready to move forward, but I'm just going through the steps here. 02:09:25.740 --> 02:09:32.863 - So any public comment, either in person or online on the resolution we just discussed, resolution 2632. 02:09:32.863 --> 02:09:39.917 - Not seeing any, I will invite a motion. Again, that's just presented before us. We've talked about the 02:09:39.917 --> 02:09:46.834 - sensitivity of it. If the RDC would like to move it forward, this is the opportunity to either offer 02:09:46.834 --> 02:09:48.478 - a motion second or not. 02:09:48.706 --> 02:09:57.655 - I'll offer a motion. I move that we approve resolution 26-32 as amended tonight. Second. We've got a 02:09:57.655 --> 02:10:07.313 - first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. I like this wordsmithing. I think everybody 02:10:07.313 --> 02:10:16.350 - did a great job with the election being tomorrow and only giving the council one day. It concerns me. 02:10:16.450 --> 02:10:23.067 - we might get pushed forward or farther on. Well, I think the one thing, though, is that this really 02:10:23.067 --> 02:10:30.016 - does give us the authorization to speak on your behalf if you're not there, because you're in agreement. 02:10:30.016 --> 02:10:33.854 - I agree with that. It's that if election wasn't tomorrow, 02:10:34.434 --> 02:10:43.049 - where the city staff is on. Well, and in terms of process, we've just voted. Right. So we're done. Yeah. 02:10:43.049 --> 02:10:51.417 - So we're done. Yep. OK. So my understanding is we have one more item of business tonight, and that is 02:10:51.417 --> 02:10:59.786 - a memo that's in proposed form for the RDC to consider that's regarding the proposed land swap. Well, 02:10:59.786 --> 02:11:03.806 - not directly. I mean, it's not directly related. 02:11:03.938 --> 02:11:12.770 - kind of an overall. It's a response to the, at least that's how it's phrased. Again, if there's another 02:11:12.770 --> 02:11:21.346 - way we want to frame it, that's the purpose of our discussion now. Thank you for the hard copy. So I 02:11:21.346 --> 02:11:29.923 - will offer to speak to this, at least as a start, just because my name's on it. But I will certainly 02:11:29.923 --> 02:11:33.150 - invite staff and other commissioners, 02:11:33.474 --> 02:11:42.544 - John West contributed to this as well. Anyway, the point of this memorandum is, again, it's addressed 02:11:42.544 --> 02:11:52.237 - to John Weickart, the chair of the Capital Improvement Board. It's labeled as from me on behalf as president 02:11:52.237 --> 02:11:59.262 - of this RDC. And the subject is an RDC response to the proposed property swap. 02:11:59.682 --> 02:12:06.579 - between College Square and the south parcels, the parcels to the south of the convention center. And 02:12:06.579 --> 02:12:13.885 - the goal of this memorandum, I could read the purpose, but I'll just say is that we, those are the members 02:12:13.885 --> 02:12:20.782 - of the commission that were present at the April 20th meeting verbally responded, but we felt that a 02:12:20.782 --> 02:12:25.630 - written response would be helpful to continue the conversation just to 02:12:26.146 --> 02:12:33.315 - clarify what the position is, what we're open to, what the role is, and that's why this memo exists. 02:12:33.315 --> 02:12:41.406 - So I will just read the purpose as listed in the memo and then stop and invite again staff or especially John who 02:12:41.602 --> 02:12:46.799 - shared comments that were the foundation for this memo. So this memo outlines the reasoning 02:12:46.799 --> 02:12:52.899 - and considerations that informed the unanimous decision by the City of Bloomington Redevelopment Commission 02:12:52.899 --> 02:12:58.660 - on April 20, 2026 to decline the Capital Improvement Board CIB's proposed property swap, evolving the 02:12:58.660 --> 02:13:04.365 - College Square property at West Fourth Street and South College Avenue, also known as the Bunger and 02:13:04.365 --> 02:13:10.014 - Robertson lot, and the four parcels at West Second and South College Avenue. Again, just the formal 02:13:10.114 --> 02:13:17.814 - statement of the purpose in here. I'm going to stop there because, again, there's lots of stuff in here. 02:13:17.814 --> 02:13:25.441 - I can read it word for word, and I will as appropriate so that at this public meeting it's clear what's 02:13:25.441 --> 02:13:33.142 - in here. But I'm just going to stop to invite either staff or especially, again, since John West started 02:13:33.142 --> 02:13:37.982 - this idea to comment or otherwise weigh in. I'll comment quickly. 02:13:40.514 --> 02:13:51.434 - I did initiate this and what really caused me to start this was out of a little bit of frustration from 02:13:51.434 --> 02:14:02.040 - what I perceive to be a disconnect with the public and with some of our elected officials as to what 02:14:02.040 --> 02:14:07.710 - the RDC really does and what is our responsibilities. 02:14:08.770 --> 02:14:18.612 - And after seeing some comments after our vote regarding the land swap, it was clear to me that there's 02:14:18.612 --> 02:14:28.455 - just a lot of misinformation. So the pieces that I really focused on was the statutory role of the RDC 02:14:28.455 --> 02:14:37.246 - and the 2025 priorities. Well, 2025 priorities, which is when this group, this RDC started, 02:14:37.954 --> 02:14:51.245 - those priorities are carried into 2026. That was kind of the impetus behind my comments. Some of this 02:14:51.245 --> 02:15:04.926 - other stuff is backup information, which I didn't draft. But I just felt like there had to be a document 02:15:05.634 --> 02:15:12.523 - maybe the public can rely on and look at and say, hey, OK, that's what the RDC does. Thank you. 02:15:12.523 --> 02:15:19.700 - Any other, again, comments from staff that you'd like to include just as part of this? I'm going to 02:15:19.700 --> 02:15:26.948 - ask the RDC what would be helpful. Obviously, you've got the written copy in front of you. I am also 02:15:26.948 --> 02:15:33.694 - welcome to advice in terms of the purpose of a public meeting. Again, there's six pages here. 02:15:33.954 --> 02:15:40.487 - Reading it all word for word may be a little much, but I'm happy to do it if it's appropriate and desired. 02:15:40.487 --> 02:15:46.592 - I can otherwise at least read the headers off. So again, public kind of knows the general framework 02:15:46.592 --> 02:15:52.881 - that we're talking about. But I'm open to guidance on the appropriate way to move forward on that from 02:15:52.881 --> 02:15:55.262 - either RDC or staff on how to do that. 02:16:00.354 --> 02:16:06.594 - or from the public to hear it, but I don't know how long word for word will take. And I'm happy to read 02:16:06.594 --> 02:16:12.654 - it. If you'd rather have somebody else do it, it's up to you. I'm happy to read it. This wasn't part 02:16:12.654 --> 02:16:18.714 - of our plan. No, it was not. All right, so. OK, well, I will read it then. And it might just take 10 02:16:18.714 --> 02:16:24.714 - minutes, so it's fine. So I read the purpose, and I read the front matter, which is in terms of how 02:16:24.714 --> 02:16:30.174 - it's addressed to the CIB. Second section is the background and statutory role of the RDC. 02:16:31.010 --> 02:16:36.737 - The redevelopment commissions, as authorized under the laws of the state of Indiana, are charged with 02:16:36.737 --> 02:16:42.633 - advancing community and economic development through strategic investment. The RDC fulfills this mission 02:16:42.633 --> 02:16:48.473 - by capturing incremental property tax revenue generated within designated tax increment financing, also 02:16:48.473 --> 02:16:53.582 - called TIF, districts in the city of Bloomington. These funds are reinvested into critical 02:16:53.582 --> 02:16:59.422 - public infrastructure, safety improvements, and site readiness efforts that catalyze private investment 02:16:59.682 --> 02:17:06.469 - support long-term economic growth, and strengthen existing neighborhoods. In doing so, the RDC enables 02:17:06.469 --> 02:17:13.190 - transformative projects that would not otherwise be feasible without targeted TIF support. The RDC is 02:17:13.190 --> 02:17:19.911 - not chartered to function as a commercial developer, building contractor, landlord, property manager, 02:17:19.911 --> 02:17:26.302 - or land bank. Those roles fall outside our statutory mandate and primarily operational capacity. 02:17:27.394 --> 02:17:34.250 - The 2025 priorities, which as John noted, was based on the current RDC composition moving into 2026. 02:17:34.250 --> 02:17:41.513 - But over the last two years, at the start of 2025, RDC established two primary objectives. One, to advance 02:17:41.513 --> 02:17:48.165 - inherited projects to move forward on Hopewell, the Mill Tech Park, and initiate work on Sudbury. 02:17:48.165 --> 02:17:55.021 - And two, manage the real estate portfolio. Sell or otherwise put to productive use RDC-owned parcels 02:17:55.021 --> 02:17:56.446 - that currently serve 02:17:56.610 --> 02:18:03.744 - no clear purpose. The RDC's existing workload is manageable and can be funded at the current TIF levels, 02:18:03.744 --> 02:18:11.014 - but the TIF fund is not a bottomless bank account. The next section, considerations regarding the proposed 02:18:11.014 --> 02:18:17.876 - swap. When the CIV proposed exchange in College Square for the four parcels at West Second and South 02:18:17.876 --> 02:18:25.214 - College Avenue, the RDC evaluated the proposal against both its financial position and its core objectives. 02:18:25.666 --> 02:18:32.541 - several factors weighed against acceptance. One, financial terms were unfavorable. The exchange did 02:18:32.541 --> 02:18:39.416 - not represent a sound financial opportunity for the RDC. The RDC fulfilled its statutory obligation 02:18:39.416 --> 02:18:46.498 - by obtaining two independent appraisals of College Square, which averaged $7.59 million. No comparable 02:18:46.498 --> 02:18:51.998 - appraisals, environmental assessments, or rent roll documentation were provided 02:18:52.098 --> 02:18:58.937 - for the four West 2nd Street parcels at the time of the swap proposal, making a sound financial comparison 02:18:58.937 --> 02:19:05.840 - impossible. Two, operational burden. The West 2nd Street buildings include contributing historic structures 02:19:05.840 --> 02:19:12.551 - that would require coordination with the Historic Preservation Commission and potential demolition delay 02:19:12.551 --> 02:19:19.390 - proceedings. Several buildings exhibit significant deferred maintenance, commercial tenants are departing, 02:19:19.746 --> 02:19:26.816 - and residential leases are not being renewed. The RDC has no staff capacity, management infrastructure, 02:19:26.816 --> 02:19:34.090 - nor statutory mandate to assume ongoing landlord responsibilities. Absent the capacity to actively manage, 02:19:34.090 --> 02:19:40.956 - create a plan, and reinvest in these properties, transferring such responsibilities to the RDC would 02:19:40.956 --> 02:19:48.026 - likely perpetuate or further exacerbate a pattern of deferred maintenance and building degradation that 02:19:48.026 --> 02:19:49.726 - tenants have experienced 02:19:50.018 --> 02:19:56.793 - under prior county ownership. Third, strategic misalignment. Accepting the parcels would have been a 02:19:56.793 --> 02:20:03.702 - distraction from the RDC's objectives as described above. Fourth, likely short-term outcome. Given the 02:20:03.702 --> 02:20:10.879 - above, any RDC ownership of the parcels would likely have been temporary, making acceptance an inefficient 02:20:10.879 --> 02:20:12.958 - use of RDC time and resources. 02:20:13.538 --> 02:20:20.361 - A 30-day moratorium would not have been sufficient time to complete appraisals and environmental reviews 02:20:20.361 --> 02:20:27.118 - for the southern parcels. Fifth, financial burden on limited resources. The four CIB parcels would need 02:20:27.118 --> 02:20:34.265 - to undergo due diligence, which has not been done to date. Assistance to renters whose leases will terminate, 02:20:34.265 --> 02:20:40.958 - securing and possible repair of structures, studies to determine the highest best use of the property, 02:20:41.346 --> 02:20:47.652 - possible site remediation or preparation and offering process. The RDC has committed itself to other 02:20:47.652 --> 02:20:54.396 - projects and cannot add this additional project and reasonably believes that all projects could be financed 02:20:54.396 --> 02:21:00.827 - appropriately. And this is some of the background, a note on the history of the four parcels. Both the 02:21:00.827 --> 02:21:07.133 - current custodian, the CIB, and the prior owners, Monroe County commissioners, originally designated 02:21:07.133 --> 02:21:10.942 - these parcels for convention center use or support services. 02:21:11.234 --> 02:21:18.170 - a purpose funded by innkeeper's tax revenue. When the swap was proposed to the RDC, that designated 02:21:18.170 --> 02:21:25.245 - use was set aside without explanation. The RDC believes the custodians of the innkeeper's tax deserve 02:21:25.245 --> 02:21:32.251 - transparency on how these assets are ultimately deployed. Next section, the public offering supports 02:21:32.251 --> 02:21:39.326 - convention center goals. The RDC's decision to move forward with a public offering for College Square 02:21:39.426 --> 02:21:46.546 - is not a rejection of the Convention Center's goal of securing a host hotel. To the contrary, the CIB 02:21:46.546 --> 02:21:53.945 - is expressly welcome to respond to the public offering on the same terms as any other party. The offering 02:21:53.945 --> 02:22:01.414 - language specifically contemplates hotel proposals, and any respondent proposing a hotel would be required 02:22:01.414 --> 02:22:09.022 - to obtain necessary CIB approvals as a condition of the offering, assuring alignment between the two bodies. 02:22:10.114 --> 02:22:17.164 - Moving forward with the offering actually accelerates the timeline for resolution, creating more options 02:22:17.164 --> 02:22:24.147 - rather than fewer. The RDC evaluates responses based on project quality and alignment with its economic 02:22:24.147 --> 02:22:31.331 - development objectives. A compelling hotel proposal that serves the convention center's needs will receive 02:22:31.331 --> 02:22:37.374 - serious consideration. Next section, the public offering lets the market determine value. 02:22:38.722 --> 02:22:45.657 - The RDC's decision to pursue a public offering is not only procedurally appropriate, but it is the only 02:22:45.657 --> 02:22:52.392 - method that allows the market to establish what College Square is actually worth. The appraisals set 02:22:52.392 --> 02:22:59.127 - a floor, not a ceiling. The two independent appraisals establish the minimum the RDC will accept for 02:22:59.127 --> 02:23:04.862 - College Square. A competitive process creates the conditions for the market to speak. 02:23:05.474 --> 02:23:12.183 - Any response that exceeds the floor would be a direct benefit to the community. In the event that the 02:23:12.183 --> 02:23:19.023 - offers are less, this is a true indication of the property's value for the type of economic development 02:23:19.023 --> 02:23:25.798 - requested. Limitations of appraised value relative to RDC policy and council direction. The appraisals 02:23:25.798 --> 02:23:32.638 - do not fully account for the RDC's policy objective to exclude student-oriented multifamily development 02:23:32.898 --> 02:23:39.054 - which typically represents the highest value use under an income-based valuation approach. As a result, 02:23:39.054 --> 02:23:45.268 - the valuations may overstate market assumptions that are not aligned with the RDC's intended development 02:23:45.268 --> 02:23:51.424 - outcomes. In May 2024, the city council transmitted a letter signed by eight of nine members expressing 02:23:51.424 --> 02:23:57.520 - a preference that the RDC recover the full acquisition cost of the parcels. While the council does not 02:23:57.520 --> 02:24:00.894 - have the statutory authority to impose this requirement, 02:24:01.314 --> 02:24:07.803 - The RDC has taken this guidance into consideration in the interest of intergovernmental cooperation. 02:24:07.803 --> 02:24:14.355 - Accordingly, failing to test the market and make a good-faith effort to achieve that outcome would be 02:24:14.355 --> 02:24:21.037 - inconsistent with the Council's stated direction. By contrast, a subsequent letter received in December 02:24:21.037 --> 02:24:25.662 - 2025 indicated support for a land swap from only three Council members, 02:24:25.986 --> 02:24:32.604 - reflecting a position that did not constitute a majority and therefore lacks the same level of collective 02:24:32.604 --> 02:24:38.909 - council endorsement. The proposed swap bypassed price discovery entirely. No market test was applied 02:24:38.909 --> 02:24:45.152 - to the West Second Street parcels and none was proposed. Accepting the exchange would have required 02:24:45.152 --> 02:24:51.707 - the RDC to assign value to those properties based on the CIB's framing rather than independent evidence. 02:24:51.707 --> 02:24:54.142 - The public offering corrects for that. 02:24:55.490 --> 02:25:02.648 - Transparency strengthens whatever outcome follows. If a hotel proposal ultimately prevails through open 02:25:02.648 --> 02:25:09.943 - competition, its legitimacy is greater than if it had been awarded through a bilateral exchange conducted 02:25:09.943 --> 02:25:16.825 - under time pressure. A competitive process protects all parties, including the CIB. Next section is 02:25:16.825 --> 02:25:20.542 - RDC support for the Convention Center and Host Hotel. 02:25:21.474 --> 02:25:27.754 - The RDC has been an active partner in the success of the Bloomington's Convention Center expansion. 02:25:27.754 --> 02:25:34.286 - The RDC has consistently demonstrated this commitment over the last two years in several concrete ways. 02:25:34.286 --> 02:25:40.755 - From 2024 to 2025, there was over a year of active negotiations where the City of Bloomington and Dora 02:25:40.755 --> 02:25:46.910 - Hospitality negotiated an agreement centered on the College Square site as a host hotel location. 02:25:47.682 --> 02:25:54.441 - The Hunden study notes that the average public subsidy for a headquarters hotel over the past 25 years 02:25:54.441 --> 02:26:01.134 - is approximately 33%, with some committees financing such projects entirely through public bonds, and 02:26:01.134 --> 02:26:07.762 - cautions that the city and the county should be prepared for this reality. Despite this, substantive 02:26:07.762 --> 02:26:14.718 - discussions regarding how to address the anticipated funding gap did not occur, and were largely presumed 02:26:14.718 --> 02:26:16.030 - to fall to the RDC. 02:26:16.610 --> 02:26:23.556 - While the cost of the land alone does not approach a 33% subsidy, the RDC nonetheless engaged in a good 02:26:23.556 --> 02:26:30.569 - faith efforts over an extended period to bridge that gap to the greatest extent possible. In April 2025, 02:26:30.569 --> 02:26:37.315 - the RDC approved $100,000 to approve a site analysis for the parcel, the College Square parcel, when 02:26:37.315 --> 02:26:43.326 - Dora Hospitality was evaluating the feasibility of building a host hotel on the property. 02:26:43.874 --> 02:26:50.945 - RDC retained ownership of that work product. In May 2025, the College Square is a construction asset. 02:26:50.945 --> 02:26:58.501 - The RDC allowed Weddle Brothers Construction to use the College Square property as a construction management 02:26:58.501 --> 02:27:05.086 - office throughout the Convention Center expansion project at no cost to the CIB. In June 2025, 02:27:05.442 --> 02:27:12.759 - At its June 2, 2025 meeting, the RDC authorized an additional $300,000 to support a potential agreement 02:27:12.759 --> 02:27:20.146 - with Dora Hospitality specifically to fund architectural drawings to determine what portion of the RDC's 02:27:20.146 --> 02:27:27.604 - real estate would be needed for the hotel, establish the proposed structure and design plans, and produce 02:27:27.604 --> 02:27:31.614 - renderings of the overall hotel concept. Taken together, 02:27:32.034 --> 02:27:39.580 - The RDC's April and June 2025 expenditure commitments represent $400,000 in pre-deal investment on behalf 02:27:39.580 --> 02:27:46.770 - of the hotel project, commitments that may be appropriately counted among the public incentives Dora 02:27:46.770 --> 02:27:53.889 - representative described as necessary to make the project financially viable when presenting to the 02:27:53.889 --> 02:28:01.150 - CIB in September 2024. In 2025 and 2026, there have been two independent appraisals of College Square 02:28:01.474 --> 02:28:09.421 - Consistent with its statutory obligations and its commitment to fiscal transparency, the RDC commissioned 02:28:09.421 --> 02:28:17.143 - two independent appraisals of College Square, one by first appraisal completed in March 2026 at a cost 02:28:17.143 --> 02:28:24.190 - of $5,000, and one by Michael C. Lady advisors completed in May 9, 2025 for a cost of $39.50. 02:28:24.738 --> 02:28:32.725 - The average of these two appraisals, $7.59 million, became the minimum offering price for the public 02:28:32.725 --> 02:28:40.634 - offering now underway. In November 2025, when the CIB set a December 17, 2025 deadline for concrete 02:28:40.634 --> 02:28:48.542 - progress on the hotel, the RDC provided an update at the CIB's November 2025 meeting. RDC executive 02:28:48.674 --> 02:28:55.115 - Director Anna Killian Hanson told CIB members directly that the RDC remained committed to supporting 02:28:55.115 --> 02:29:01.748 - the Convention Center hotel project. She also described the funding challenge candidly, noting, despite 02:29:01.748 --> 02:29:08.189 - offering a significant contribution, a very large funding gap does still exist. At the same meeting, 02:29:08.189 --> 02:29:14.758 - RDC member John West added that the commission had spent considerable time with city legal counsel and 02:29:14.758 --> 02:29:17.054 - the controller's office to identify 02:29:17.186 --> 02:29:24.776 - every available funding mechanism stating, we want this project to happen. We think the Bunger and Robertson 02:29:24.776 --> 02:29:32.018 - property is ideal for the hotel, but the funding is what it is. And on April 6, 2026, the Redevelopment 02:29:32.018 --> 02:29:39.399 - Commission approved the conveyance of three parcels to the CIB at no cost for Convention Center expansion 02:29:39.399 --> 02:29:44.830 - use. In conclusion, the RDC's unanimous vote regarding the proposed land swap 02:29:45.122 --> 02:29:51.826 - was not a vote against the Convention Center or the Coast Hotel. Rather, this vote reflects a clear-eyed 02:29:51.826 --> 02:29:58.403 - assessment of our statutory role, our current capacity, our financial constraints, and our obligations 02:29:58.403 --> 02:30:05.108 - to the community. The RDC remains committed to a transparent, competitive process that will make College 02:30:05.108 --> 02:30:11.812 - Square a transformative economic asset for downtown Bloomington. This approach ensures that any ultimate 02:30:11.812 --> 02:30:14.430 - development, whether hotel or otherwise, 02:30:14.882 --> 02:30:25.189 - reflects both community priorities and real market conditions, positioning the city for a more durable 02:30:25.189 --> 02:30:35.696 - and defensible result. Okay, so any comments or questions from commissioners on this proposed memorandum 02:30:35.696 --> 02:30:44.702 - to the CIB? Where does this get distributed other than the CIB? It's public now, kind of. 02:30:45.794 --> 02:30:53.854 - I imagine you could probably respond to the exact same group that sent us Mr. Whitehart's request for 02:30:53.854 --> 02:31:01.992 - the swap, which included the common council, the county commissioners, the mayor. Where do we get that 02:31:01.992 --> 02:31:10.368 - from the public to say? We most certainly can do whatever you'd like. We can add it to our meeting folder 02:31:10.368 --> 02:31:14.398 - online so that it can be accessed once you approve 02:31:15.010 --> 02:31:21.587 - adopted or issue it. I'll leave it up to you. I just want to make sure something we've read into as 02:31:21.587 --> 02:31:28.230 - a memorandum at the end is put out. And it absolutely will be part of the minutes too. I think legal 02:31:28.230 --> 02:31:34.938 - always says boards speak through their minutes. So it will definitely be part of that. I just want to 02:31:34.938 --> 02:31:42.107 - make sure this particular document itself of it is voted on is put out there so everybody has an opportunity 02:31:42.107 --> 02:31:44.606 - to look at it and see it. Absolutely. 02:31:45.698 --> 02:31:54.790 - That's the goal. It's the goal. Complete transparency. Yep. When does the CRD meet again? Do we know? 02:31:54.790 --> 02:32:04.239 - Well, usually it's... Jane, do you know when they meet? It's probably the second Wednesday of this month, 02:32:04.239 --> 02:32:13.509 - right? Yeah. It's always on the 1st. I think May 13th. The next Wednesday? A week from this one? A week 02:32:13.509 --> 02:32:14.846 - from this one? 02:32:19.106 --> 02:32:27.893 - Just just a comment so they can see it everybody in the public can see it and we've got you know people 02:32:27.893 --> 02:32:36.765 - in the public that actually from an affordability standpoint while it's not our property in any capacity 02:32:36.765 --> 02:32:45.890 - you know as redevelopment and my own personal opinion anything we can do to help maintain the affordability 02:32:45.890 --> 02:32:47.326 - of our community 02:32:47.970 --> 02:32:55.610 - for the residents is something we should always look at. And it's not our choice. That's not what this 02:32:55.610 --> 02:33:03.028 - is. This doesn't state that. I understand. That's just my opinion. On this, it's well-worked method 02:33:03.028 --> 02:33:10.595 - based upon our goals, objectives, and what the state law says. I think it's very thorough. Thank you. 02:33:10.595 --> 02:33:16.158 - Again, it was a collaborative effort, so I appreciate it. Appreciate that. 02:33:16.450 --> 02:33:23.420 - John initiated it, so I think I really am deeply grateful for that. Well done, John. You should lead 02:33:23.420 --> 02:33:30.527 - a meeting sometime. I would encourage the CIB to take into consideration the properties that have been 02:33:30.527 --> 02:33:37.773 - given by the redevelopment and by the county and take them into consideration for the affordable housing 02:33:37.773 --> 02:33:45.502 - individual. It's not our purview, but just encouragement. I think that we're still passed the bill in some way. 02:33:46.146 --> 02:33:54.572 - to preserve the home. I think this is well done. My one very minor comment is, can we recognize the 02:33:54.572 --> 02:34:03.083 - specific statutes for the state of Indiana? Can we reference them in the paragraph on background and 02:34:03.083 --> 02:34:11.846 - statutory role of the city? We'll get up a lawyer for that. IC 36-7-14 at sequence. And for the record, 02:34:11.846 --> 02:34:15.806 - I actually looked that up before I wrote that. 02:34:15.906 --> 02:34:25.020 - So if we change multiple sections within that, that's it. Yeah, I didn't know which part to use. That's 02:34:25.020 --> 02:34:34.133 - the chapter is 36-7-14, and then that sequence ET period, SEQ period. Well, you'll have to tell us that 02:34:34.133 --> 02:34:43.422 - again. Yeah. Remember the presentation we had from a law firm from Minneapolis that gave us all a binder? 02:34:43.554 --> 02:34:49.773 - Yes. That's where I got all this. OK. I used the binder. Excellent. I've got it on my shelf, too. I 02:34:49.773 --> 02:34:56.241 - guess that's the question. We can get the transparency. Yeah. Is it something that we need to add? That 02:34:56.241 --> 02:35:02.895 - is a question. Just add it as a footnote. Yeah. I'm sorry. I missed that piece. What was it? The reference 02:35:02.895 --> 02:35:09.176 - to the statue itself. Just to put it in the footnote? Just put it in the footnote. Perfect. I concur 02:35:09.176 --> 02:35:12.286 - with every reference to what you've already seen. 02:35:12.418 --> 02:35:21.330 - does, and everything is 100% accurate. So my question is, I know we have members of the public here 02:35:21.330 --> 02:35:30.421 - who are interested in this procurement topic. Again, I'm just trying to navigate what is a little bit 02:35:30.421 --> 02:35:40.670 - of a departure from the typical agenda items. I'm asking for consultation. I'd like to open it for public comment. 02:35:40.962 --> 02:35:49.138 - I think that's totally appropriate. We seem to have some folks that would like to speak to this. How 02:35:49.138 --> 02:35:57.394 - did they know it was going to be on the agenda? They didn't. Did you guys know? Don't worry about it. 02:35:57.394 --> 02:36:05.812 - We do our homework. We appreciate that. That's good. I think they said the last meeting that they would 02:36:05.812 --> 02:36:09.374 - be coming back very soon. Did you not? Yes. 02:36:09.634 --> 02:36:16.408 - OK, so we're open for public comment. And again, the public comment is about this land swap and the 02:36:16.408 --> 02:36:23.386 - memorandum as opposed to just general. Usually there's not like a general public comment part of this. 02:36:23.386 --> 02:36:30.364 - So just asking that you include your comments relevant to the memo. But if you'd like to speak, please 02:36:30.364 --> 02:36:36.190 - come up to the table. Should I say right here? Yes, and just state your name, please. 02:36:43.010 --> 02:36:51.043 - My name is Amber Core and I'm a representative of Homes for All here today to speak to you about the 02:36:51.043 --> 02:36:58.440 - Seminary Point Affordable Homes Project. We are here to ask this commission to keep the land 02:36:58.440 --> 02:37:06.791 - swap negotiations alive with the CIB. It is our understanding that the Indiana Redevelopment Commissions 02:37:06.791 --> 02:37:11.166 - in general have the full capacity to grant property to 02:37:11.330 --> 02:37:21.253 - community development corporations when certain property is deemed appropriate for providing low or 02:37:21.253 --> 02:37:32.069 - moderate income housing. These Indiana codes, which was actually just quoted by you, but there's a different 02:37:32.069 --> 02:37:39.710 - section, 36-7-14-22.2, sales or grant of real property to urban enterprises, 02:37:39.842 --> 02:37:48.086 - association, or community develop corporation procedure. These Indiana codes grant RDCs powers beyond 02:37:48.086 --> 02:37:56.330 - the standard property transfer process to offer land to CDCs for the purpose of developing affordable 02:37:56.330 --> 02:38:04.412 - housing. We interpret this Indiana code as a means of encouragement to redevelopment commissions to 02:38:04.412 --> 02:38:09.342 - find properties well suited for affordable housing projects. 02:38:09.986 --> 02:38:17.508 - projects just like Seminary Point, a property where super affordable apartments already exist. Homes 02:38:17.508 --> 02:38:25.327 - for All has finalized a partnership with a qualified community development corporation, which will serve 02:38:25.327 --> 02:38:33.222 - as our land grant recipient. We are also finalizing a formal proposal for Seminary Point with a five-year 02:38:33.222 --> 02:38:36.126 - development timeline and funding plan. 02:38:37.026 --> 02:38:44.152 - We are open to hearing all potential solutions the RDC may put forth on saving the seminary point block 02:38:44.152 --> 02:38:51.073 - from destruction and on preserving the super affordable apartments for the Bloomington residents who 02:38:51.073 --> 02:38:58.199 - call it home. Lastly, our specific ask for today, place the land swap negotiations with the CIB on your 02:38:58.199 --> 02:39:05.119 - agenda for the next meeting and add our formal presentation to your next meeting's agenda so that we 02:39:05.119 --> 02:39:06.558 - may share our vision 02:39:06.882 --> 02:39:15.082 - for Seminary Points. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else with public comments? Yes. I am Bryce Green. 02:39:15.082 --> 02:39:23.525 - I am a representative of DSA, Democratic Socialist, and in partnership with Homes for All, also on this 02:39:23.525 --> 02:39:32.293 - affordable housing project and Seminary Point. To the point of the memo, it seems to be written in response 02:39:32.293 --> 02:39:36.190 - to something that the activists were not asking 02:39:36.706 --> 02:39:46.606 - Like they were never asking for the RDC to become a developer, to become a landlord, become like a source 02:39:46.606 --> 02:39:56.225 - of finance. They were asking, as Amber mentioned, for the RDC to facilitate the transfer from the CIB, 02:39:56.225 --> 02:40:04.350 - which is currently bound by the rules of the innkeeper's tax, from the RDC to the RDC. 02:40:04.802 --> 02:40:12.726 - But that would not be a hot potato that the RDC would have. It would be then transferred to a community 02:40:12.726 --> 02:40:20.421 - land trust, which is perfectly within the statutory power of the RDC. And one of the hangups on this 02:40:20.421 --> 02:40:28.420 - seems to be this question of the relative value of Seminary Point and College Square. We've been talking 02:40:28.420 --> 02:40:33.982 - with numerous city council members, some already and some in the future, 02:40:34.370 --> 02:40:41.524 - about this question, and most of them that we've talked to, maybe not a majority yet, are totally in 02:40:41.524 --> 02:40:48.750 - favor of the land swap if this is for affordable housing, if this is to preserve these Seminary Point 02:40:48.750 --> 02:40:56.187 - apartments, which I must reiterate include 29 units that are super affordable. It seems to me that given 02:40:56.187 --> 02:41:01.854 - that we are all in a housing crisis and we all understand that, preserving that 02:41:02.146 --> 02:41:08.456 - Housing that can be used for our most vulnerable people should be a higher priority than, you know, 02:41:08.456 --> 02:41:14.892 - the Hopewell development, which is, you know, I'm not going to be able to afford a house at Hopewell. 02:41:14.892 --> 02:41:21.517 - I mean, it's not even on my radar. So, and we actually had a meeting with Mayor Thompson on Friday about 02:41:21.517 --> 02:41:22.590 - this very issue. 02:41:23.010 --> 02:41:29.103 - And she raised some of the same concerns that you all raised about the RDC being not a developer and 02:41:29.103 --> 02:41:35.618 - about the limited funds that the city has at its disposal. That's all understandable. But when we explained 02:41:35.618 --> 02:41:41.832 - that we actually have a plan for how to transfer this property from the RDC to a community land trust, 02:41:41.832 --> 02:41:48.106 - we've been talking with sources of financing. We've been talking about getting professional assessments 02:41:48.106 --> 02:41:52.510 - about what it would take to bring these buildings to a livable standard. 02:41:52.642 --> 02:42:00.693 - which buildings are not able to be brought up that way and what we should do about that. We have been 02:42:00.693 --> 02:42:08.822 - working on this. This isn't something that we are omitting. This is part of the plan that we hope that 02:42:08.822 --> 02:42:17.346 - you guys would help facilitate. So we're not asking for more of your time beyond being like an intermediary 02:42:17.346 --> 02:42:18.846 - in between the CIB 02:42:19.234 --> 02:42:27.205 - and people who are committed to and dedicated to preserving affordable housing. That's all we're asking 02:42:27.205 --> 02:42:35.024 - for. And our understanding of the law is that this is perfectly within the statutory authority of the 02:42:35.024 --> 02:42:42.765 - RDC. The only thing that we're working on trying to get a written acknowledgement of is for the city 02:42:42.765 --> 02:42:47.134 - council to say that they don't necessarily hold to their 02:42:47.746 --> 02:42:54.326 - requests that you recruit the full value of College Square if the property is going to be used as a 02:42:54.326 --> 02:43:00.972 - way to preserve affordable housing. Swapping it for Seminary Point and then giving Seminary Point to 02:43:00.972 --> 02:43:07.749 - a community land trust would meet that criteria. So these conversations are happening between the city 02:43:07.749 --> 02:43:14.461 - council amongst themselves and between us and the city council and also between us and the mayor, all 02:43:14.461 --> 02:43:16.830 - of whom said that they would prefer 02:43:17.122 --> 02:43:25.399 - this affordable housing to remain. I mean, I assume all of you guys would prefer that as well. So it's 02:43:25.399 --> 02:43:33.515 - really just a matter of reconciling all the concerns and positions. And on our end, it's a matter of 02:43:33.515 --> 02:43:41.872 - finalizing financing, securing all the inspections and assessments and quotes that we need. That's what 02:43:41.872 --> 02:43:44.926 - we're asking for. And the decision to 02:43:45.282 --> 02:43:53.405 - not put that 30-day moratorium on accepting offers. It makes sense from all of your perspective, but 02:43:53.405 --> 02:44:01.608 - it also is less incentive for the CIB, who is the current landlord at Seminary Point. They don't want 02:44:01.608 --> 02:44:09.811 - to be landlords, obviously. But they may have been open to extending the leases of the tenants and of 02:44:09.811 --> 02:44:11.902 - the commercial properties 02:44:12.098 --> 02:44:18.201 - If there was a chance or if there was a reasonable expectation that this isn't a long-term thing, that 02:44:18.201 --> 02:44:24.245 - they're not going to be stuck being a landlord for however many years, another 16 years, for example. 02:44:24.245 --> 02:44:30.349 - If there was a reasonable expectation that everybody in the room, including everybody out of the room, 02:44:30.349 --> 02:44:36.452 - the city council, the mayor, all of you guys, are working towards preserving this housing and spending 02:44:36.452 --> 02:44:38.526 - it off into community land trusts, 02:44:38.946 --> 02:44:46.583 - I assume they would have no problem with extending this lease a little bit longer just to ensure that 02:44:46.583 --> 02:44:54.145 - people aren't displaced in the bureaucratic mix-up and finagling of actually preserving the housing. 02:44:54.145 --> 02:45:01.857 - So that's basically what I wanted to say. I talked with many of the tenants who, or many of the people 02:45:01.857 --> 02:45:08.670 - who are working with the tenants who are concerned about the fact that they're going to be 02:45:08.898 --> 02:45:15.863 - They're going to be displaced. And all this talk about comparable housing, I mean, that's like utter 02:45:15.863 --> 02:45:22.759 - nonsense. I mean, I don't even have to explain to you why. We're not going to get $500 or $600 rent 02:45:22.759 --> 02:45:29.723 - downtown. But also, I mean, Jeff Santiks, I was talking to him just yesterday or a few days ago. And 02:45:29.723 --> 02:45:35.102 - he was talking about how he has to sign a new lease within a week and a half. 02:45:35.394 --> 02:45:41.673 - if he's going to be moving all of his stuff out of that location. All of this is unnecessary. 02:45:41.673 --> 02:45:48.686 - If the RDC says, yes, we're seriously considering this, if the CIB says, yes, we want this, then there's 02:45:48.686 --> 02:45:55.566 - really no reason for Jeff to leave, or any of the tenants, or Friendly Beasts, or anything. But that's 02:45:55.566 --> 02:46:02.846 - basically all I wanted to say. And I appreciate your time in letting me speak on this. Thank you. Thank you. 02:46:10.946 --> 02:46:18.545 - My name's Barry Herbers. Thank you for letting us do this sort of impromptu. I appreciate it. I just 02:46:18.545 --> 02:46:26.295 - wanted to speak to... Sorry. I've spent a good amount of time these last couple of weeks like knocking 02:46:26.295 --> 02:46:34.045 - doors in the place for the folks who are living there to get a chance to talk to them and I understand 02:46:34.045 --> 02:46:38.334 - and I no shade at all but it's very easy to refer to the 02:46:38.690 --> 02:46:46.208 - the CIB is not renewing the leases in the sort of passive voice, but when I talk to these people, it's 02:46:46.208 --> 02:46:53.581 - not as simple as like, oh, well, they're just moving to another similar place. I knocked on the door 02:46:53.581 --> 02:47:01.172 - the other day with one of our colleagues here, and I waited a moment, then I knocked again just to make 02:47:01.172 --> 02:47:07.742 - sure, and then a very, very, very sleepy-eyed young man who kind of reminded me of myself 02:47:07.874 --> 02:47:12.511 - um, opened the door and he basically, he, he, he was very, he was very tired because he works third 02:47:12.511 --> 02:47:17.334 - shift, he said, and at first he was really hesitant to talk. But then when we, we told him that we were 02:47:17.334 --> 02:47:22.017 - hoping to help the place out, he actually just started like just talking and talking and talking and 02:47:22.017 --> 02:47:26.423 - he, he, he like, he had so much to say. And the main thing was that he's, he's not, he didn't, 02:47:26.423 --> 02:47:31.106 - he went to the, um, he went to their open house, like the one, the county, the county recommended, I 02:47:31.106 --> 02:47:35.326 - know that's not you guys, that's not, not your fault and this is not your fault. But, and, 02:47:36.066 --> 02:47:41.647 - He said that, yeah, it was pointless. They had nothing in the same price range and remotely the same 02:47:41.647 --> 02:47:47.228 - area like they said they would. And now he's gonna move in with his mother because she's also having 02:47:47.228 --> 02:47:52.920 - trouble affording rent and they're gonna move out of downtown and that's the best that he can find for 02:47:52.920 --> 02:47:58.501 - himself and he's not sure what to do. I spoke with a family who I've had a lot of trouble getting in 02:47:58.501 --> 02:48:04.414 - contact with because they're so busy and often the wife is, the mother is pregnant with a second child and 02:48:04.930 --> 02:48:11.982 - They have... The husband is a recovering addict. He said I could speak about this as long as I didn't 02:48:11.982 --> 02:48:19.102 - mention the names. They're struggling to find any place to move to for their new kid. They have a dog. 02:48:19.102 --> 02:48:26.223 - They're not going to be able to stay in this town. I understand that it's not like you're going to see 02:48:26.223 --> 02:48:30.302 - the population decline or whatever, but we're pushing out. 02:48:30.434 --> 02:48:35.729 - an entire class of people, just the working class of people. And I know that's not your fault. 02:48:35.729 --> 02:48:41.302 - That's not, you didn't like instigate this, but you do have like an opportunity to help us to solve 02:48:41.302 --> 02:48:46.875 - this problem with the community land trusts and the financers we've been talking to. And it doesn't 02:48:46.875 --> 02:48:52.671 - take being a landlord. And I understand that you're using the best information you have. We're all just 02:48:52.671 --> 02:48:58.300 - trying to figure this out here. And I just, I really think you should consider doing it because it's 02:48:58.300 --> 02:48:59.582 - the right thing to do. 02:49:00.034 --> 02:49:08.608 - and I appreciate your time. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Gwen Zimmer. I appreciate you guys giving 02:49:08.608 --> 02:49:16.778 - us the opportunity to give public comment. I'd like to echo some of the same points from my friends. 02:49:16.778 --> 02:49:24.867 - I am also an advocate from Bloomington Homes for All. And I'd just like to reiterate that we do not 02:49:24.867 --> 02:49:27.294 - intend for the RDC to operate 02:49:27.490 --> 02:49:34.140 - as a landlord or to pump a bunch of capital, a bunch of money into to refurbish the buildings and to 02:49:34.140 --> 02:49:41.119 - give those buildings the deferred maintenance that they clearly need for them to stay affordable housing. 02:49:41.119 --> 02:49:47.703 - That's not our intention at all. I'd just like to reiterate that we have a formal relationship with 02:49:47.703 --> 02:49:53.694 - an existing community land trust that has formally with their board in a meeting agreed to 02:49:53.762 --> 02:50:00.575 - be willing to take on that property as a project to establish a cooperative living arrangement for the 02:50:00.575 --> 02:50:07.190 - tenants who want to stay, who don't have alternative plans already locked in, as well as new people 02:50:07.190 --> 02:50:14.004 - who we want to bring in and have that affordable housing as an opportunity for different people coming 02:50:14.004 --> 02:50:21.214 - in to the city or looking for better options for themselves. So I'd just like to reiterate those points that 02:50:21.282 --> 02:50:28.089 - You don't have to manage the land, be a landlord to help preserve this affordable housing. And I think 02:50:28.089 --> 02:50:35.160 - that's really important to note. And really the only disagreement on the City Council about the difference 02:50:35.160 --> 02:50:41.835 - in the values of the properties is that question, right? But like Bryce mentioned, there are several 02:50:41.835 --> 02:50:48.708 - counselors who are in favor of waiving their concerns about the price if it goes to affordable housing, 02:50:48.708 --> 02:50:50.558 - to preserving this housing. 02:50:50.690 --> 02:51:02.003 - So that's just all I'd like to say. Thank you for your time. I appreciate you guys. Thank you. Hey everyone. 02:51:02.003 --> 02:51:11.966 - My name is Matthew. I fully agree with what everyone else said and that is absolutely our plan. 02:51:12.066 --> 02:51:18.158 - We talked to John after the meeting, and we kind of told you a little bit about this. Again, our intention 02:51:18.158 --> 02:51:23.851 - is not to make you all a landlord. We know that that's not the role. So yeah, to continue to pursue 02:51:23.851 --> 02:51:29.602 - a land swap or an adjacent plan with the CIB to save Center Point, a place where affordable housing, 02:51:29.602 --> 02:51:35.295 - residents, and flourishing businesses commute in a very historic part of Bloomington. Maybe you all 02:51:35.295 --> 02:51:38.654 - know already, but at the City Council meeting, unprompted, 02:51:39.042 --> 02:51:45.561 - Unprompted, like nobody even mentioned this, but five of the city council members explicitly mentioned 02:51:45.561 --> 02:51:51.890 - how they're in favor of a land swap. And a couple of them even mentioned like a disappointment with 02:51:51.890 --> 02:51:58.789 - the decision that y'all made about that this is kind of referencing, sorry. And to like, and like explicitly 02:51:58.789 --> 02:52:05.435 - mentioned that the RDC should pursue negotiations with the CIB, should continue the conversation, should 02:52:05.435 --> 02:52:08.030 - be actively working to create a win-win. 02:52:08.514 --> 02:52:14.023 - And this land, and like we said, this land would never even have to touch the RDC's hands potentially, 02:52:14.023 --> 02:52:19.585 - right? There was a world where you could give the CIB the land or a portion of it and the CIB transfers 02:52:19.585 --> 02:52:24.987 - the land to the partner that we were talking about that has already agreed to, that they already are 02:52:24.987 --> 02:52:30.496 - managing affordable housing and they have already agreed to take over this land and that they're doing 02:52:30.496 --> 02:52:35.844 - so incredibly well already in Bloomington. So it's not like we're trying to reinvent the wheel with 02:52:35.844 --> 02:52:37.342 - something like this either. 02:52:37.442 --> 02:52:43.043 - Also, I just want to clarify, Homes for All, we want to be an active player, and I think we are already 02:52:43.043 --> 02:52:48.428 - into this situation that we're finding ourselves in. And I hope that you guys can kind of see us as 02:52:48.428 --> 02:52:54.244 - participants in this. Really, I've mentioned this prior, but we really have an incredible plan for Seminary 02:52:54.244 --> 02:52:59.575 - Point. We're pulling on evidence-based models from other cities that have used a multi-stakeholder 02:52:59.575 --> 02:53:05.822 - cooperative model, where both businesses and affordable housing residents have gotten successful financing and have 02:53:06.210 --> 02:53:11.631 - to create and build what has then become a hot spot in their town. Specifically in Traverse City in 02:53:11.631 --> 02:53:17.270 - Michigan is like one example of this, of having done this. We're actively meeting with city councilors, 02:53:17.270 --> 02:53:22.746 - city leaders, housing leaders, funders, financers, even with the mayor, like Bryce said. And there's 02:53:22.746 --> 02:53:28.926 - a lot of excitement about this plan, and I think a lot of them are honestly expecting that we will meet with you. 02:53:29.058 --> 02:53:34.346 - tell you about our plan, to show you kind of what we're thinking through. We have a presentation, we're 02:53:34.346 --> 02:53:39.431 - putting together a formal business plan right now. We're very serious about this. So yeah, we would 02:53:39.431 --> 02:53:44.720 - love to meet with any of y'all one-on-one or give a formal presentation to the RDC to kind of talk more 02:53:44.720 --> 02:53:46.398 - about what that could look like. 02:53:48.322 --> 02:53:54.153 - And the purpose of that is to hear your thoughts and concerns about the general situation, given now 02:53:54.153 --> 02:53:59.984 - the new knowledge maybe of helping maybe informing you all that our plan is not to just make you all 02:53:59.984 --> 02:54:05.757 - landlords, and then two, to show you the plan, get your thoughts and your feedback on the viability 02:54:05.757 --> 02:54:11.703 - of something like this, like us kind of looking at it as community partners. So yeah, all that to say, 02:54:11.703 --> 02:54:17.534 - yeah, let's kind of meet, work together, show you this plan, get involved to create a really big and 02:54:17.730 --> 02:54:27.162 - what one of the council members said, a brave take on what we can do for the city and as a win-win. 02:54:27.162 --> 02:54:34.142 - Thank you. Thank you. Anybody online who'd like to make a public comment? 02:54:36.290 --> 02:54:43.412 - Oh, any in person? Oh, thanks. Hi. My name is Sarah St. John Wolford. I work for Habitat and studied 02:54:43.412 --> 02:54:50.464 - construction at Ball State, and I'm also here with Homes for All. I just wanted to let you all know 02:54:50.464 --> 02:54:57.586 - that I am putting together numbers from reputable contractors in the area. The idea of we're working 02:54:57.586 --> 02:55:04.638 - on it, I just wanted to give you a time frame that I should have those within the next week or two. 02:55:05.762 --> 02:55:13.249 - I really see the passion that you all have for this. You spent the first two hours discussing Hopewell. 02:55:13.249 --> 02:55:20.808 - And you're still here three hours in. So I really appreciate you all for your time. But in talking about 02:55:20.808 --> 02:55:28.151 - Hopewell, a large thing that kept coming up was affordability. I think we can all agree that the most 02:55:28.151 --> 02:55:34.270 - expensive housing is a new construction. And that is incredibly obvious in Hopewell. 02:55:34.498 --> 02:55:41.981 - You know, Randy mentioned that the least expensive house is the one you built yesterday, and these were 02:55:41.981 --> 02:55:49.392 - built decades ago. And so although there is absolutely concern with deferred maintenance and problems, 02:55:49.392 --> 02:55:56.587 - a lot of the infrastructure that's already there makes this a really incredible opportunity to keep 02:55:56.587 --> 02:56:03.710 - affordable units in our community. Hopewell offers, I forget the exact numbers, but 90 plus units. 02:56:03.874 --> 02:56:11.440 - This is the opportunity to add to that number 21 additional units at a minimum and hopefully more like 02:56:11.440 --> 02:56:19.226 - 40. So you have the capability and possibility of increasing by almost 50% the numbers that we're talking 02:56:19.226 --> 02:56:25.470 - about with Hopewell. And as someone who works at Habitat, you know, that's two years 02:56:25.698 --> 02:56:33.662 - of house building for us in four years if we can hit that 40-unit number. So I just really encourage 02:56:33.662 --> 02:56:41.626 - you guys to keep an open mind and to continue to listen. And thank you all for your time. Thank you. 02:56:41.626 --> 02:56:49.906 - Thank you. Appreciate the public comment. I don't see anybody else in person. Seems like there's anybody 02:56:49.906 --> 02:56:52.350 - online. OK, just checking. OK. 02:56:52.866 --> 02:57:01.138 - Well, the item that we have before us is the memorandum. Certainly, the public comment is helpful to 02:57:01.138 --> 02:57:09.901 - understand the bigger picture. But beyond the specific legal citation that was described earlier, anything 02:57:09.901 --> 02:57:18.910 - further from commissioners at this stage before I'll ask if there would be a vote to forward this to the CIB? 02:57:22.402 --> 02:57:33.475 - Yes, please. Not changing the memo or anything, but I just want to make sure it's understood. In Indiana 02:57:33.475 --> 02:57:44.864 - code, the RDC has a very large leeway in how they develop property, how they exchange property. So whenever 02:57:44.864 --> 02:57:50.558 - you are bringing in those offers, you can gauge them. 02:57:50.690 --> 02:57:59.789 - We've mentioned this meeting after meeting. And you can gauge them in what, after the 30 days, the price 02:57:59.789 --> 02:58:08.454 - doesn't matter anymore. You look at them based on what those projects are, the value of them to the 02:58:08.454 --> 02:58:17.380 - community. So you're not necessarily weighing them just on price. So I just wanted to know that that's 02:58:17.380 --> 02:58:19.806 - a factor. And I'm not sure. 02:58:20.194 --> 02:58:27.721 - CIB would be willing to go with that project on their own without having to go through the RDC. Yeah, 02:58:27.721 --> 02:58:35.248 - that's certainly something that I hope that Homes for All is considering as well in terms of directly 02:58:35.248 --> 02:58:42.774 - approaching CIB about that. Can I respond to that briefly? The CIB has told us that they believe that 02:58:42.774 --> 02:58:49.342 - they are bound by the rules of the innkeeper's tax with which the county purchased land. 02:58:49.634 --> 02:58:57.473 - And they do not believe that they are able to relinquish that land for any purpose other than the tourism 02:58:57.473 --> 02:59:05.386 - language that's specified in the statute. You could argue that preserving friendly bees, local businesses, 02:59:05.386 --> 02:59:12.856 - along a popular corridor could contribute to tourism. But I tried to make that argument to them. And 02:59:12.856 --> 02:59:18.846 - they told me to, well, they said no. No, that's appreciated. And I'll just note. 02:59:19.170 --> 02:59:26.583 - I'm curious if CIB was able to negotiate a sale of the property that they have and if they used the 02:59:26.583 --> 02:59:34.292 - revenues from that sale for the purpose. Again, I don't know, I'm not the lawyer in the house. I'm just 02:59:34.292 --> 02:59:41.928 - saying that I think it would be plausible for the lawyers at least to weigh in on if CIB, as the owner 02:59:41.928 --> 02:59:49.118 - of the property, figures out what happens to it next and then use the revenues from that to then 02:59:49.218 --> 02:59:55.274 - put towards the college square. I'm just saying that that's. Anyway, again, I would hesitate to have 02:59:55.274 --> 03:00:01.271 - too much of a back and forth, but I appreciate your comments. But just that the CIB did not own the 03:00:01.271 --> 03:00:07.387 - property until a few weeks ago. And we still don't own that property. RDC does not own that property, 03:00:07.387 --> 03:00:13.804 - but bam. That's why we're advocating the land trust or the land. Yeah, I guess that's kind of my question, 03:00:13.804 --> 03:00:16.382 - sorry, just from a real estate standpoint. 03:00:16.642 --> 03:00:23.700 - Have you spoken to the CIB about making an offer to purchase? About making an offer? No, but the reason 03:00:23.700 --> 03:00:30.962 - that we didn't was because they said that they don't believe that they could keep that. They don't believe 03:00:30.962 --> 03:00:37.885 - they could sell it to us because it has nothing to do with the convention center. Well, I understand. 03:00:37.885 --> 03:00:44.944 - This could be a lawyer fight between them. I'm not a lawyer. But again, every second that we're talking 03:00:44.944 --> 03:00:45.758 - about this, 03:00:46.018 --> 03:00:53.157 - closer to the date. The innkeeper's tax was used to finance through the county, now the CIB, with the 03:00:53.157 --> 03:01:00.226 - understanding that it would be used for the convention center or convention center services. Nothing 03:01:00.226 --> 03:01:07.505 - says that that wouldn't apply to us if we stepped in tomorrow. So that doesn't go away. So I'm not sure 03:01:07.505 --> 03:01:10.654 - how we necessarily would solve that problem. 03:01:11.330 --> 03:01:20.370 - getting back to the memorandum, which is where we are with the memorandum, regardless of what, and this 03:01:20.370 --> 03:01:29.411 - is my opinion, regardless of what we might try to do, you folks have certainly stimulated some thought, 03:01:29.411 --> 03:01:38.103 - and you've brought up one piece of information that wasn't available to us last time you spoke, and 03:01:38.103 --> 03:01:40.798 - that's the CDC piece, if there 03:01:41.218 --> 03:01:52.199 - truly the end owner. But that doesn't change the fact that I think this memorandum has to go out. Because 03:01:52.199 --> 03:02:02.558 - at the end of the day, my intention when I started this was to talk about RDC's responsibilities in 03:02:02.558 --> 03:02:10.846 - everything we do in the community. It's gotten drafted as something specific to 03:02:11.362 --> 03:02:18.118 - the CIB's offer, and that's what stimulated all the conversation. But at the end of the day, I think 03:02:18.118 --> 03:02:25.075 - that there's a lot of important information that the community needs to know and some elected officials 03:02:25.075 --> 03:02:32.099 - need to know as to what we do, what we're all about, and what the money gets spent on. And so therefore, 03:02:32.099 --> 03:02:39.123 - I'd like to see the memorandum pushed forward. That does not mean that we can't have conversations about 03:02:39.123 --> 03:02:40.862 - other things, but it just 03:02:41.570 --> 03:02:48.795 - speaking just to this memorandum. Would you like to rephrase it as a motion? I'm just inviting you. 03:02:48.795 --> 03:02:56.164 - I'm sure there's somebody else that wants to speak up. So do I want to make that motion, or do I want 03:02:56.164 --> 03:03:03.605 - to wait until? Someone else to make the motion? No, somebody else to speak. OK. I do want to make sure 03:03:03.605 --> 03:03:10.974 - that all comments have been heard among RDC before we open up for the motion. That's why I wanted to. 03:03:11.490 --> 03:03:16.844 - My comment is directly to the Housing for All and the individuals and want to thank you for coming out 03:03:16.844 --> 03:03:22.199 - when you didn't even know what was being discussed. So since you're here and the transparency is going 03:03:22.199 --> 03:03:27.397 - to be, I applaud you for your efforts accordingly. We are in a little bit of a situation because we 03:03:27.397 --> 03:03:32.751 - don't own the property. The CIB owns it. And the best I could ask for anybody involved either with the 03:03:32.751 --> 03:03:37.534 - CIB or any of that nature is to be able to extend leases while there's time for discussion. 03:03:37.922 --> 03:03:45.146 - There are two RFPs that are out right now for the College Square property and also for the property 03:03:45.146 --> 03:03:52.371 - that you occupy in Seminary Point. Is that what we're calling? I want to verify that. And the other 03:03:52.371 --> 03:03:59.595 - parcels that were given by the RDC to the CIB for the host hotel or whatever they choose to do with 03:03:59.595 --> 03:04:05.086 - it. So the discussion at this present moment, we're happy to have dialogue. 03:04:05.282 --> 03:04:11.720 - to help redevelop the community and hit the affordable housing that we all want. And the advocacy that 03:04:11.720 --> 03:04:18.033 - you're providing helps get those discussions. But right now, there's two separate RFPs that are out, 03:04:18.033 --> 03:04:24.284 - and your official landlord would be the CIB. I would encourage you to ask for extensions while some 03:04:24.284 --> 03:04:30.660 - of those discussions have, because I'm hopeful that you're aware of when the deadlines for these RFPs 03:04:30.660 --> 03:04:34.910 - are, because there's two dates that don't coincide with each other. 03:04:35.650 --> 03:04:42.347 - So I would encourage you to continue to have dialogue. But the redevelopment at this present moment 03:04:42.347 --> 03:04:49.312 - is happy to have, or me personally, happy to have discussions, try to put things forward. But we really 03:04:49.312 --> 03:04:56.278 - have no control over it but trying to put forth through this memorandum what our position is based upon 03:04:56.278 --> 03:05:03.176 - what we're statutorily required to do. I do applaud you guys, though. Thank you. Absolutely. Any other 03:05:03.176 --> 03:05:05.118 - comments from commissioners? 03:05:05.314 --> 03:05:12.611 - I will just also extend my thanks to all of you. I learned a lot here tonight. I appreciate the work 03:05:12.611 --> 03:05:20.125 - you're doing. I think it's super important for Bloomington, and I hope we can find a path forward. Yes, 03:05:20.125 --> 03:05:27.423 - it's powerful to have advocates at the table, and it provides other paths towards considering how to 03:05:27.423 --> 03:05:34.142 - move forward. So that is invaluable. With that said, for the memorandum that's on the table, 03:05:34.466 --> 03:05:45.347 - literally as well as figuratively. I'm going to invite a motion to approve sending this memo to the 03:05:45.347 --> 03:05:56.228 - CIB. And? With the annotation as indicated, the legal citation. Yeah. And also other, are you going 03:05:56.228 --> 03:06:04.062 - to expand that? All right, I'll make the motion. I'll move that we, uh, 03:06:05.314 --> 03:06:13.965 - distribute this memorandum to the CIB as well as that laundry list of recipients that was... It will 03:06:13.965 --> 03:06:22.615 - be copied to others to... Exactly. Who were copied on the original transmission costs. Correct. I do 03:06:22.615 --> 03:06:27.326 - have a question about this though, or is, in the from, 03:06:27.426 --> 03:06:33.591 - Is it going to be from the entire committee? I mean, based upon the vote? Yeah, I would like it to be. 03:06:33.591 --> 03:06:39.756 - I think I was just mirroring the original annotation of the memo that we received with the request for 03:06:39.756 --> 03:06:45.921 - negotiations for the land stock, which was technically from Mr. Weikart, even though I believe the CIB 03:06:45.921 --> 03:06:51.966 - approved that. So whatever format is preferable is fine. Because again, that's why we're having this 03:06:52.130 --> 03:06:57.294 - approval tonight of the memo it's not literally just from me it's more just the formality of how it's 03:06:57.294 --> 03:07:02.560 - phrased and i'm open to tweaking that it doesn't matter it's more just again it was just mirroring what 03:07:02.560 --> 03:07:07.725 - was sent to us so so the members that vote to approve it would also have their name on it or would it 03:07:07.725 --> 03:07:12.889 - be collectively from the redevelopment whatever the commissioners would like to do that just needs to 03:07:12.889 --> 03:07:17.598 - be clarified in your vote just make it collective it's easier assuming it passes i would see 03:07:18.050 --> 03:07:25.572 - you on behalf of the RDC or something like that would be sufficient. Would you rather all of our names 03:07:25.572 --> 03:07:33.021 - were attached to it? I'm welcome to have your names attached. But again, I feel like, again, our vote 03:07:33.021 --> 03:07:40.470 - tonight is representing that. So whatever people want is fine. I don't have a- You just can't make it 03:07:40.470 --> 03:07:47.262 - collective. You could put approved 5-0 or whatever you want to do as well. That makes sense. 03:07:48.002 --> 03:07:55.385 - Just put the vote tally on. Just put the vote tally on. OK. OK, I made a motion. Did I get a second? 03:07:55.385 --> 03:08:02.841 - Second. OK, we have a first and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. 03:08:02.841 --> 03:08:10.370 - Thank you for your thoughtful discussion about the memorandum. We will get the final tweaks that we've 03:08:10.370 --> 03:08:16.510 - just discussed as amended into that and transmit it, both attach it to the minutes, 03:08:16.674 --> 03:08:25.861 - attached to the public packet from today and then send it out to the CIB. Can we attach it to the public 03:08:25.861 --> 03:08:35.048 - packet so people would have access to it immediately? Yeah, absolutely. Great, okay. I believe, is there 03:08:35.048 --> 03:08:42.398 - any other business for tonight? I move we adjourn. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.